Climate change and the impending apocalypse

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wookie70

I'm probably a man of a certain age. Too old to worry about pumping these days. The sea grass and other innovations are fantastic but my fear is they will be used to show we can continue to destroy and invent our way out of it. My view is the world needs to slow down dramatically and innovate to reduce climate change. That will never happen when all politicians seem to want is growth and when very little is discussed beyond a single political cycle. Money and lobbying drives political decision making and that influence has now started to dictate what the electorate vote for too. Climate change will continue to be kicked into the long sea grass and the direction of travel will continue until the point that green technology can generate more wealth for those that pull the levers. At that point it will probably be too late. Unfortunately, all the traits and qualities that most people would consider make good humans don't get you into positions that take decisions. All the traits that we hate are abundant in those that decide our fate and none of them look beyond what effect climate change will have on them and what profit is to be made in the meantime.

---

I think there is a huge issue trying to take people on this journey. With the catastrophising narrative the danger is that it will be seen as no point (with references to China, India and the US) doing much more damage than us. But the no growth solution is likely to be very unpopular. In Europe I think that is likely to lead to right wing populist governments. It won't be done in China because the whole edifice is built on growth and economic reward. The CCP has delivered growth and extreme reward for some Chinise. If that collapses what then? I'm my view lots of little initiatives are more likely to get traction.

It's not governments or big businesses that will drive the change needed, it's the public, and it's already happening.

Practically every business, from the smallest cafes to big pharma or oil and gas, mention their green credentials nowadays, and the move away from fossil fuels and plastics for example are accelerating all the time.

The investment and innovation is happening on huge scales, but it will of course take time to see meaningful results.

Tesla is one example of a company trying to do so. Having the vision for every car on the planet to be electric is amazing and we need more of that kind of thinking to get to where we want.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by archie

I think there is a huge issue trying to take people on this journey. With the catastrophising narrative the danger is that it will be seen as no point (with references to China, India and the US) doing much more damage than us. But the no growth solution is likely to be very unpopular. In Europe I think that is likely to lead to right wing populist governments. It won't be done in China because the whole edifice is built on growth and economic reward. The CCP has delivered growth and extreme reward for some Chinise. If that collapses what then? I'm my view lots of little initiatives are more likely to get traction.

---

Do you mean lots of little initiatives like the deposit recycling scheme that get destroyed by political whataboutery and businesses dragging their feet against change?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg

Do you mean lots of little initiatives like the deposit recycling scheme that get destroyed by political whataboutery and businesses dragging their feet against change?

---

https://twitter.com/edconwaysky/stat...dxJXScFNwz8V4A

There are powerful forces willing to help opposition to this scheme.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg

Do you mean lots of little initiatives like the deposit recycling scheme that get destroyed by political whataboutery and businesses dragging their feet against change?

---

But this highlights why it is so important to get it right from the start.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by archie

But this highlights why it is so important to get it right from the start.

---

I would argue we just need to start and improve as we go. Procrastinating until we have something perfect is not going to do the job. IMO.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg

Do you mean lots of little initiatives like the deposit recycling scheme that get destroyed by political whataboutery and businesses dragging their feet against change?

---

Just to add, if you don't take people with you then all of it is doomed to fail. The deposit scheme is trivial in the face of what some argue needs to be done. Some are calling for restrictions on flights and travel, ending meat consumption, reversing consumption and growth. All of that will have direct impacts. These will generate huge controversy. If it isn't done right then what might we see. Anti-restriction populist movements? Authoritarian implementation of policies? None of these are good outcomes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by archie

But this highlights why it is so important to get it right from the start.

---

No, it highlights the difficulty of trying to implement change when the money men and political agenda can profit from keeping the status quo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg

No, it highlights the difficulty of trying to implement change when the money men and political agenda can profit from keeping the status quo.

---

So you don't think it's important to get it right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by archie

Just to add, if you don't take people with you then all of it is doomed to fail. The deposit scheme is trivial in the face of what some argue needs to be done. Some are calling for restrictions on flights and travel, ending meat consumption, reversing consumption and growth. All of that will have direct impacts. These will generate huge controversy. If it isn't done right then what might we see. Anti-restriction populist movements? Authoritarian implementation of policies? None of these are good outcomes.

---

We’ve near enough perfected making controversy out of nothing in this country, so that part is inevitable regardless of how things are done.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by archie

So you don't think it's important to get it right?

---

No, I think it's important to get things like this up and running so we can make it right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by archie

Just to add, if you don't take people with you then all of it is doomed to fail. The deposit scheme is trivial in the face of what some argue needs to be done. Some are calling for restrictions on flights and travel, ending meat consumption, reversing consumption and growth. All of that will have direct impacts. These will generate huge controversy. If it isn't done right then what might we see. Anti-restriction populist movements? Authoritarian implementation of policies? None of these are good outcomes.

---

The only way to stop the crisis is an approach that is simply never going to happen. It would involve a huge % of earths population giving up large parts of the lifestyle we have become accustomed to including the things mentioned above as well as the way we buy our food (buying local and in season foods rather than plastic wrapped fruit and veg from the other side of the world) and clothes (a few good times that we make last decades rather than cheap quality that we replace in no time due to wear and tear or changes in fashion), dealing with our homes being much colder in winter, and completely removing our reliance as a society on cars.

Almost none of us in the west (myself included) are willing to do that, mainly because we correctly feel that enough others won’t don’t the same, so we would be decreasing our own quality of life for absolutely zero benefit in the grand scheme of things.

That’s before you factor in the majority of the world who have a quality of life much lower than our own for whom living an eco friendly lifestyle is in direct contract with their attempts to survive / improve their varying levels of poverty.

It’s a battle we are never truly going to take seriously until the consequences of not taking action affect our life’s there and then more than the cost of the actions taken.

It’s a sad reality but things are only going to keep getting worse for the rest of our lives.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paul1642

The only way to stop the crisis is an approach that is simply never going to happen. It would involve a huge % of earths population giving up large parts of the lifestyle we have become accustomed to including the things mentioned above as well as the way we buy our food (buying local and in season foods rather than plastic wrapped fruit and veg from the other side of the world) and clothes (a few good times that we make last decades rather than cheap quality that we replace in no time due to wear and tear or changes in fashion), dealing with our homes being much colder in winter, and completely removing our reliance as a society on cars.

Almost none of us in the west (myself included) are willing to do that, mainly because we correctly feel that enough others won’t don’t the same, so we would be decreasing our own quality of life for absolutely zero benefit in the grand scheme of things.

That’s before you factor in the majority of the world who have a quality of life much lower than our own for whom living an eco friendly lifestyle is in direct contract with their attempts to survive / improve their varying levels of poverty.

It’s a battle we are never truly going to take seriously until the consequences of not taking action affect our life’s there and then more than the cost of the actions taken.

It’s a sad reality but things are only going to keep getting worse for the rest of our lives.

---

Due to entitlement and/or manipulation. People have been conned into their current lifestyle. Basing their self-worth to society on their registration plate so they're happy to lease a car for the rest of their life swapping every 3 years, happy to take an i-phone on constant credit for the rest of their life switching every 18-24 months, needing to "freshen up" their wardrobe every spring/summer and autumn/winter 'cos everyone from Prada to Primark says so. And don't get me started on the people who have been ripping up soil and grasses in their gardens and replacing it with some plastic astroturf - and been conned into thinking it actually looks good.

Regarding the other part in bold I'm not sure how any of that decreases the quality of someones life?

PS regarding the exotically grown veg, that is still less damaging to the planet than home-reared beef. The air-miles in food production is a tiny fraction of its impact on climate change. Regenesis by George Monbiot covers food production very well. Its a very interesting read for anyone interested in this type of thing.

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...tion-rebellion

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by archie

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...tion-rebellion

---

I think the final sentence was the most salient point in that article.

“The debate is not between those who want to take ‘moderate’ or ‘radical’ action,” she told me. “It’s between those who are standing by doing nothing at all, and those who are doing something. That’s where the line is drawn.”

The rest of it ignores the elephant, which is that the Government has now made peaceful protest illegal and the courts are being encouraged to hand out chunky long sentences and are doing so. That’s why tactics have to change.

Onshore wind is more than twice as cheap as gas, but building new turbines on land in England is effectively banned.

Sign the petition today👇
britainremade.co.uk/windpetition

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns

Onshore wind is more than twice as cheap as gas, but building new turbines on land in England is effectively banned.

Sign the petition today[emoji116]
britainremade.co.uk/windpetition

---

What is really annoying is that no matter how many turbines we put up in Scotland, electricity is prices at the gas price.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

What is really annoying is that no matter how many turbines we put up in Scotland, electricity is prices at the gas price.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

The prices are linked because gas turbines are used to generate electricity. What would you propose?

Here's the current generation mix. https://grid.iamkate.com/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by archie

The prices are linked because gas turbines are used to generate electricity. What would you propose?

---

I would suggest that the electricity supplied by turbine is charged to the consumer accordingly.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

I would suggest that the electricity supplied by turbine is charged to the consumer accordingly.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

How?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by archie

Here's the current generation mix. https://grid.iamkate.com/

---

If people hadn't campaigned against nuclear power for 30 years, 60% of our energy today might not be from burning gas and coal

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by archie

How?

---

I think it’s arguable that if you signed up to be with a green energy supplier (Bulb were for example) then you should have been protected from the rise in gas prices.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jones28

I think it’s arguable that if you signed up to be with a green energy supplier (Bulb were for example) then you should have been protected from the rise in gas prices.

---

Bulb maybe not a good example ha. We are all paying in our standing charge to bail out their customers due to them going bust, £6.5 billion

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jones28

I think it’s arguable that if you signed up to be with a green energy supplier (Bulb were for example) then you should have been protected from the rise in gas prices.

---

Firstly, when you sign up to a green energy supplier you don't necessarily get green energy to your house. But you do buy inputs that go into the grid. It's a good thing to do. But if renewables aren't producing by your logic your supply should be turned off. That makes no sense. And in any event, once it's in the grid it can't be disaggregated. If that was the case no one would ever sign on to a green energy provider.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7

Bulb maybe not a good example ha. We are all paying in our standing charge to bail out their customers due to them going bust, £6.5 billion

---

That may be an argument that it's too easy for supply companies to enter the market.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by archie

Firstly, when you sign up to a green energy supplier you don't necessarily get green energy to your house. But you do buy inputs that go into the grid. It's a good thing to do. But if renewables aren't producing by your logic your supply should be turned off. That makes no sense. And in any event, once it's in the grid it can't be disaggregated. If that was the case no one would ever sign on to a green energy provider.

---

It's not an argument I can even be bothered trying to start, because there's no magical solution. But I do think there should be a mechanism by which you get, say, a level of protection. It maybe shouldn't preclude you from all energy price increases, because there will be times you need to pull non-renewable energy from the grid. It should offer some sort of buffer however, because for maybe 40% or 50% of the year the energy the company you pay pay your money to is renewable.

There's no perfect solution. I don't think there will ever be one that doesn't involve nuclear and extensive use of renewables like tidal, with mechanisms in place to be able to use any excess power generated to do things like produce hydrogen for example.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jones28

It's not an argument I can even be bothered trying to start, because there's no magical solution. But I do think there should be a mechanism by which you get, say, a level of protection. It maybe shouldn't preclude you from all energy price increases, because there will be times you need to pull non-renewable energy from the grid. It should offer some sort of buffer however, because for maybe 40% or 50% of the year the energy the company you pay pay your money to is renewable.

There's no perfect solution. I don't think there will ever be one that doesn't involve nuclear and extensive use of renewables like tidal, with mechanisms in place to be able to use any excess power generated to do things like produce hydrogen for example.

---

The idea's not a bad one and, once we crack energy storage, we will be much more likely to have consistent renewable supply. I do think we will need alternatives, but hopefully that's a diminishing proportion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jones28

I think it’s arguable that if you signed up to be with a green energy supplier (Bulb were for example) then you should have been protected from the rise in gas prices.

---

100% renewable!! But they went down because they had to pay extra for the gas premium price.

The government paid hundreds of millions last year to companies to switch off wind turbines as the infrastructure can’t cope with the electricity produced. That’s shameful.

They need the power down south but the cables linking Scotland with the populist centres aren’t big enough.

Good programme about power production with that Guy Martin available on C4 on demand