|
|
Post by mickeythemaestro on Nov 13, 2024 9:40:22 GMT
I don't think you've got much of a problem convincing most people to do it. Its just the fanatical speed with which they seem to be wanting to do it. Amd people are concerned that in the shorter term its going to leave us even more exposed. And this current govt seem to be insisting the UK are going to be canaries in the mine for it all to show the world or the WEF or whatever other BS quango that we are the good boys. The world ain't ending in the next 5 or 10 or 20 years nor are we going to pass a point of no return in 2 years or 10 years. The scare tactics have not served these people well and their failed predictions prove it. More sensible conversations should have taken place and more sustainable solutions put in place that everyone can afford and live with. In my opinion oggy.... We give shit hole countries billions of pounds to sort themselves out so they don’t come to the U.K. Sounds sensible🙄 Yeah and half the 11.5bn we are giving away will end up disappearing into certain peoples pockets. I mean very recently the world climate fund has accidentally lost 41bn in funds. Big money in this climate issue, low accountability on allocation of said funds and some very slippy operators seemingly with hands on the levers. I ain't saying its all a scam at all. But there's an awful lot of scammers getting themselves involved for a piece of the pie. That's where the alarm and pressure is coming from. Like a feeding frenzy akin to the American gold rush... |
|
|
|
Post by scfcbiancorossi on Nov 13, 2024 9:58:27 GMT
It is strange that many of the people that moan about immigration are also against overseas aid and trying to do anything about climate change. It is like they have no ability to think things through. Bangladesh becomes uninhabitable. What happens to those 175million people? They go elsewhere. Rinse and repeat for all places at risk. Also, it doesn’t take a genius to work out that the reason energy bills are so high and will continue rising is because fossil fuels used to create energy are owned by fewer and fewer nations/companies. We don’t own many or have access to that much. So it makes economic sense to wean ourselves off it. Who did best out of the spike in energy costs? The French. Why? They are not reliant on overseas fossil fuels. We need to harness our natural advantages: wind and tides. It creates jobs and reduces energy costs for consumers. Plus it is good for the planet. Also nuclear investment is needed. Yeah because Bangladesh hasn't been uninhabitable, fucked with endless flooding and in dire poverty for 100 years. The UK reducing their significant global carbon footprint of 0.00000001% is going to make all the difference. Net zero - A total and utter scam. |
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Nov 13, 2024 9:59:25 GMT
It is strange that many of the people that moan about immigration are also against overseas aid and trying to do anything about climate change. It is like they have no ability to think things through. Bangladesh becomes uninhabitable. What happens to those 175million people? They go elsewhere. Rinse and repeat for all places at risk. Also, it doesn’t take a genius to work out that the reason energy bills are so high and will continue rising is because fossil fuels used to create energy are owned by fewer and fewer nations/companies. We don’t own many or have access to that much. So it makes economic sense to wean ourselves off it. Who did best out of the spike in energy costs? The French. Why? They are not reliant on overseas fossil fuels. We need to harness our natural advantages: wind and tides. It creates jobs and reduces energy costs for consumers. Plus it is good for the planet. Also nuclear investment is needed. I don't think you've got much of a problem convincing most people to do it. Its just the fanatical speed with which they seem to be wanting to do it. Amd people are concerned that in the shorter term its going to leave us even more exposed. And this current govt seem to be insisting the UK are going to be canaries in the mine for it all to show the world or the WEF or whatever other BS quango that we are the good boys. The world ain't ending in the next 5 or 10 or 20 years nor are we going to pass a point of no return in 2 years or 10 years. The scare tactics have not served these people well and their failed predictions prove it. More sensible conversations should have taken place and more sustainable solutions put in place that everyone can afford and live with. In my opinion oggy.... I think everyone sensible would agree with what you say there. And there is no evidence that isn’t the plan. I guess there is a balance. Let’s say we do nothing much to invest in greener self sufficient energy over the next 10 years. By then, energy bills will likely be at least double but may be triple or quadruple what they are now. Would that money be better spent investing in long term sustainable green energy which means energy prices would be much lower in the future? Either way, we have to pay, and the first option means ever higher prices whereas the second option has the potential for much lower prices, and has the added benefit of being good for the planet. So my opinion is that Labour are doing the right thing by trying to create a green energy company. I think the tricky bits are polluting cars and heat pumps and things like that. How do we manage that shift? I think the best way to do that is to put costs on the businesses producing them rather than on consumers. Shift regulation slowly over time. But also we need to end this nonsense of changing cars every couple of years and mobile phones every 2 years. Surely that is terrible for the planet? We need to not think about “saving the planet” because that is beyond us as a nation. We are irrelevant towards that. Instead, we need to make shifts in society towards being greener. Green energy is a no brainer. Single use plastics another. Paper straws etc. Education should focus on reusing and repairing things, rather than binning and buying another. How many shitty plastic toys does a child need? Companies should build things to last - Miele products last 20 or 30 years. Much better than having 4 shit Chinese tumble dryers in the same period. |
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Nov 13, 2024 10:03:26 GMT
It is strange that many of the people that moan about immigration are also against overseas aid and trying to do anything about climate change. It is like they have no ability to think things through. Bangladesh becomes uninhabitable. What happens to those 175million people? They go elsewhere. Rinse and repeat for all places at risk. Also, it doesn’t take a genius to work out that the reason energy bills are so high and will continue rising is because fossil fuels used to create energy are owned by fewer and fewer nations/companies. We don’t own many or have access to that much. So it makes economic sense to wean ourselves off it. Who did best out of the spike in energy costs? The French. Why? They are not reliant on overseas fossil fuels. We need to harness our natural advantages: wind and tides. It creates jobs and reduces energy costs for consumers. Plus it is good for the planet. Also nuclear investment is needed. Yeah because Bangladesh hasn't been uninhabitable, fucked with endless flooding and in dire poverty for 100 years. The UK reducing their significant global carbon footprint of 0.00000001% is going to make all the difference. Net zero - A total and utter scam. Bangladesh has not been uninhabitable for 100 years. 175million people live there. A large chunk of them will need somewhere else to live in the next 10 years if we do nothing, as will hundreds of millions of others from around the world. What is your plan to deal with that? Presumably you’ll not complain when energy prices continue rising so our biggest outgoing by far is energy in a few years? You wouldn’t want to have cheaper energy which we are self sufficient in producing? You don’t want lower bills? |
|
|
|
Post by scfcbiancorossi on Nov 13, 2024 10:10:47 GMT
Yeah because Bangladesh hasn't been uninhabitable, fucked with endless flooding and in dire poverty for 100 years. The UK reducing their significant global carbon footprint of 0.00000001% is going to make all the difference. Net zero - A total and utter scam. Bangladesh has not been uninhabitable for 100 years. 175million people live there. A large chunk of them will need somewhere else to live in the next 10 years if we do nothing, as will hundreds of millions of others from around the world. What is your plan to deal with that? Presumably you’ll not complain when energy prices continue rising so our biggest outgoing by far is energy in a few years? You wouldn’t want to have cheaper energy which we are self sufficient in producing? You don’t want lower bills? What makes you think the UK hitting net zero will help Bangladesh in any meaningful way? Aside from making Brits poorer and simultaneously increasing your bills significantly, what will it achieve? I have absolutely zero interest in having a "plan" to deal with the changing climate because humans are not going to be able to stop fluctuations in the climate. What I do have an interest in is protecting endangered species, protecting the world's forests and ensuring green belts thrive. Which is exactly what supporting "Green" initiatives used to be about before corrupt politicians jumped aboard the net zero gravy train and fooling people like you into thinking you could make a difference to our ever changing climate. |
|
|
|
Post by mickeythemaestro on Nov 13, 2024 10:14:02 GMT
I don't think you've got much of a problem convincing most people to do it. Its just the fanatical speed with which they seem to be wanting to do it. Amd people are concerned that in the shorter term its going to leave us even more exposed. And this current govt seem to be insisting the UK are going to be canaries in the mine for it all to show the world or the WEF or whatever other BS quango that we are the good boys. The world ain't ending in the next 5 or 10 or 20 years nor are we going to pass a point of no return in 2 years or 10 years. The scare tactics have not served these people well and their failed predictions prove it. More sensible conversations should have taken place and more sustainable solutions put in place that everyone can afford and live with. In my opinion oggy.... I think everyone sensible would agree with what you say there. And there is no evidence that isn’t the plan. I guess there is a balance. Let’s say we do nothing much to invest in greener self sufficient energy over the next 10 years. By then, energy bills will likely be at least double but may be triple or quadruple what they are now. Would that money be better spent investing in long term sustainable green energy which means energy prices would be much lower in the future? Either way, we have to pay, and the first option means ever higher prices whereas the second option has the potential for much lower prices, and has the added benefit of being good for the planet. So my opinion is that Labour are doing the right thing by trying to create a green energy company. I think the tricky bits are polluting cars and heat pumps and things like that. How do we manage that shift? I think the best way to do that is to put costs on the businesses producing them rather than on consumers. Shift regulation slowly over time. But also we need to end this nonsense of changing cars every couple of years and mobile phones every 2 years. Surely that is terrible for the planet? We need to not think about “saving the planet” because that is beyond us as a nation. We are irrelevant towards that. Instead, we need to make shifts in society towards being greener. Green energy is a no brainer. Single use plastics another. Paper straws etc. Education should focus on reusing and repairing things, rather than binning and buying another. How many shitty plastic toys does a child need? Companies should build things to last - Miele products last 20 or 30 years. Much better than having 4 shit Chinese tumble dryers in the same period. The messaging at both extremes has been poor and its left everyone in the middle arguing. And the grifters slip in to make hay on whichever side they can. They don't care which side. And many ultra rich will be hedging bets both sides which keeps the arguement going. Everyone knows the direction of travel that's required. A workable timeline needs to be agreed. All our electorate see is times as currently tough, taxes are rising, living standards dropping and we've got starmer and milliband dropping their keks on our behalf over at cop29 saying we're prepared to make it even tougher for the UK in the very short term to do our 0.5% bit. Its a tough sell that oggy. And it seems a lot of people don't like whats for sale.. I agree with a lot of your post though. |
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Nov 13, 2024 10:38:38 GMT
Bangladesh has not been uninhabitable for 100 years. 175million people live there. A large chunk of them will need somewhere else to live in the next 10 years if we do nothing, as will hundreds of millions of others from around the world. What is your plan to deal with that? Presumably you’ll not complain when energy prices continue rising so our biggest outgoing by far is energy in a few years? You wouldn’t want to have cheaper energy which we are self sufficient in producing? You don’t want lower bills? What makes you think the UK hitting net zero will help Bangladesh in any meaningful way? Aside from making Brits poorer and simultaneously increasing your bills significantly, what will it achieve? I have absolutely zero interest in having a "plan" to deal with the changing climate because humans are not going to be able to stop fluctuations in the climate. What I do have an interest in is protecting endangered species, protecting the world's forests and ensuring green belts thrive. Which is exactly what supporting "Green" initiatives used to be about before corrupt politicians jumped aboard the net zero gravy train and fooling people like you into thinking you could make a difference to our ever changing climate. As I said to Micky, we need to not think about saving the planet. We need to just gradually become greener. We can only control ourselves and not others. If our energy is cheap and everyone else’s much more expensive in 10 years, we will be followed by everyone else in trying to be self sufficient. France are a good example with their nuclear strategy. It pays dividends for their citizens. A race to the bottom approach is a terrible idea. Just because recycling a bottle won’t save the world, does that mean I shouldn’t recycle the bottle? Whether you like it or not, climate change will result in mass migration of the likes we have never seen before. What is your plan for that? Do nothing? Don’t try and become greener and potentially mitigate some of it by bringing others along with us? Or do we just say fuck the planet, the animals, the seas, our children and continue as we are, and hope it goes away? Surely the sensible solution is to be greener and adopt green energy and be more self sufficient and stop consuming so aggressively? It has lots of economic benefits, they are just longer term, but doing it and proving it works (see France and energy, or reduced air pollution and improved health and reduced cost on NHS) must be sensible? Are you against the concept of being greener, or just the fact that a tiny minority become obsessive idiots and glue themselves to roads and chuck paint at things? If the latter, that is not a reason not to be greener. |
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Nov 13, 2024 10:42:28 GMT
I think everyone sensible would agree with what you say there. And there is no evidence that isn’t the plan. I guess there is a balance. Let’s say we do nothing much to invest in greener self sufficient energy over the next 10 years. By then, energy bills will likely be at least double but may be triple or quadruple what they are now. Would that money be better spent investing in long term sustainable green energy which means energy prices would be much lower in the future? Either way, we have to pay, and the first option means ever higher prices whereas the second option has the potential for much lower prices, and has the added benefit of being good for the planet. So my opinion is that Labour are doing the right thing by trying to create a green energy company. I think the tricky bits are polluting cars and heat pumps and things like that. How do we manage that shift? I think the best way to do that is to put costs on the businesses producing them rather than on consumers. Shift regulation slowly over time. But also we need to end this nonsense of changing cars every couple of years and mobile phones every 2 years. Surely that is terrible for the planet? We need to not think about “saving the planet” because that is beyond us as a nation. We are irrelevant towards that. Instead, we need to make shifts in society towards being greener. Green energy is a no brainer. Single use plastics another. Paper straws etc. Education should focus on reusing and repairing things, rather than binning and buying another. How many shitty plastic toys does a child need? Companies should build things to last - Miele products last 20 or 30 years. Much better than having 4 shit Chinese tumble dryers in the same period. The messaging at both extremes has been poor and its left everyone in the middle arguing. And the grifters slip in to make hay on whichever side they can. They don't care which side. And many ultra rich will be hedging bets both sides which keeps the arguement going. Everyone knows the direction of travel that's required. A workable timeline needs to be agreed. All our electorate see is times as currently tough, taxes are rising, living standards dropping and we've got starmer and milliband dropping their keks on our behalf over at cop29 saying we're prepared to make it even tougher for the UK in the very short term to do our 0.5% bit. Its a tough sell that oggy. And it seems a lot of people don't like whats for sale.. I agree with a lot of your post though. It is a tough sell. But that doesn’t make it wrong. Grifters will always grift, whatever we do. |
|
|
|
Post by mickeythemaestro on Nov 13, 2024 11:08:42 GMT
The messaging at both extremes has been poor and its left everyone in the middle arguing. And the grifters slip in to make hay on whichever side they can. They don't care which side. And many ultra rich will be hedging bets both sides which keeps the arguement going. Everyone knows the direction of travel that's required. A workable timeline needs to be agreed. All our electorate see is times as currently tough, taxes are rising, living standards dropping and we've got starmer and milliband dropping their keks on our behalf over at cop29 saying we're prepared to make it even tougher for the UK in the very short term to do our 0.5% bit. Its a tough sell that oggy. And it seems a lot of people don't like whats for sale.. I agree with a lot of your post though. It is a tough sell. But that doesn’t make it wrong. Grifters will always grift, whatever we do. I agree about people always grifting but when it comes from funds that we are supposed to believe are set up by the good people out of the kindness of their virtuous hearts it makes people stop and think. What's happened to the missing 41bn? And is that in actual fact the tip of the iceberg? And what happens to our 11.5bn when its sent to mostly corrupt developing nations whose leaders scam the crap out of their own population. It creates poor optics. Our govt tell us we need to take a billion in tax from our farmers so we can give money abroad which may or may not get stolen and I'll be generous and say wasted/stolen. Your average punter is going to think let the farmers have their tax breaks that the ideologues don't think are fair for the sake of a billion quid. Food self sufficiency and security is far more important to us than chucking a billion quid over there. As I say its a tough sell and the optics poor.. |
|
|
|
Post by thisisouryear on Nov 13, 2024 11:15:07 GMT
Bangladesh has not been uninhabitable for 100 years. 175million people live there. A large chunk of them will need somewhere else to live in the next 10 years if we do nothing, as will hundreds of millions of others from around the world. What is your plan to deal with that? Presumably you’ll not complain when energy prices continue rising so our biggest outgoing by far is energy in a few years? You wouldn’t want to have cheaper energy which we are self sufficient in producing? You don’t want lower bills? What makes you think the UK hitting net zero will help Bangladesh in any meaningful way? Aside from making Brits poorer and simultaneously increasing your bills significantly, what will it achieve? I have absolutely zero interest in having a "plan" to deal with the changing climate because humans are not going to be able to stop fluctuations in the climate. What I do have an interest in is protecting endangered species, protecting the world's forests and ensuring green belts thrive. Which is exactly what supporting "Green" initiatives used to be about before corrupt politicians jumped aboard the net zero gravy train and fooling people like you into thinking you could make a difference to our ever changing climate. The change needed will come from new technology which we should be leaders in. Investing heavily in new technology will be what makes the world greener and what our main focus should be on |
|
|
|
Post by musik on Nov 13, 2024 11:27:26 GMT
I have absolutely zero interest in having a "plan" to deal with the changing climate because humans are not going to be able to stop fluctuations in the climate. What I do have an interest in is protecting endangered species, protecting the world's forests and ensuring green belts thrive. Which is exactly what supporting "Green" initiatives used to be about before corrupt politicians jumped aboard the net zero gravy train and fooling people like you into thinking you could make a difference to our ever changing climate. As I understand it we agree on a lot of things on this message board Rossi, but when it comes to the environment we might differ a bit. Fact is there are fluctuations in the climate yes, now like it always have been and will be in the future. But as I understand it the trend is now negative, meaning the fluctuations are still there but around a line pointing downwards. This will cost to deal with, but places in Asia and Africa where they dump shit right into the ocean is what affects the environment and the global heath the most. I think most countries in the western world already do their part to a large extent. So the focus should be directed. Amazingly noone speaks about the real problem though, which is the population growth. It doesn't matter how much we change our habits in line with all the new environmental rules and laws now and in the future, if we aren't ready to stop a growing population. Mark my words Rossi, if you think it's bad now 😂, they haven't even begun with the restrictions race .... Some people even want to stop the Olympics. We will definitely see shorter halves in football. According to some conspiracy theorists that's why they now count to 11 in table tennis instead of 21. Personally I'm not an extreme person at any end of the environment spectrum, I just want a fact based neutral view on this. I don't think there is any so called "agenda". If you by the word mean some sort of cunning á la Baldrick plan, in disguise for a real hidden purpose. |
|
|
|
Post by mickeythemaestro on Nov 13, 2024 11:30:31 GMT
What makes you think the UK hitting net zero will help Bangladesh in any meaningful way? Aside from making Brits poorer and simultaneously increasing your bills significantly, what will it achieve? I have absolutely zero interest in having a "plan" to deal with the changing climate because humans are not going to be able to stop fluctuations in the climate. What I do have an interest in is protecting endangered species, protecting the world's forests and ensuring green belts thrive. Which is exactly what supporting "Green" initiatives used to be about before corrupt politicians jumped aboard the net zero gravy train and fooling people like you into thinking you could make a difference to our ever changing climate. The change needed will come from new technology which we should be leaders in. Investing heavily in new technology will be what makes the world greener and what our main focus should be on You're right about new technology. And from what I am aware most of the dire climate predictions don't allow for any breakthrough technology advancements. Understandably I guess from a research point of view. But its all part of what people are seeing as the horror climate stories. A balance and sensible timeline needs to be achieved to get most people on board. The baiting from either side needs to be quietened down so we can create sustainable plans that don't bankrupt an already struggling nation whose population are feeling poorer than ever. And with all the geopolitical stuff going on around the world people are rightly concerned about our energy security. I know I am anyway. Just my opinion though.. |
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Nov 13, 2024 11:54:40 GMT
It is a tough sell. But that doesn’t make it wrong. Grifters will always grift, whatever we do. I agree about people always grifting but when it comes from funds that we are supposed to believe are set up by the good people out of the kindness of their virtuous hearts it makes people stop and think. What's happened to the missing 41bn? And is that in actual fact the tip of the iceberg? And what happens to our 11.5bn when its sent to mostly corrupt developing nations whose leaders scam the crap out of their own population. It creates poor optics. Our govt tell us we need to take a billion in tax from our farmers so we can give money abroad which may or may not get stolen and I'll be generous and say wasted/stolen. Your average punter is going to think let the farmers have their tax breaks that the ideologues don't think are fair for the sake of a billion quid. Food self sufficiency and security is far more important to us than chucking a billion quid over there. As I say its a tough sell and the optics poor.. Isn’t your average punter going to say let’s use the tax raised from multi millionaire farmers to improve schools and the NHS etc? |
|
|
|
Post by mickeythemaestro on Nov 13, 2024 12:01:51 GMT
I agree about people always grifting but when it comes from funds that we are supposed to believe are set up by the good people out of the kindness of their virtuous hearts it makes people stop and think. What's happened to the missing 41bn? And is that in actual fact the tip of the iceberg? And what happens to our 11.5bn when its sent to mostly corrupt developing nations whose leaders scam the crap out of their own population. It creates poor optics. Our govt tell us we need to take a billion in tax from our farmers so we can give money abroad which may or may not get stolen and I'll be generous and say wasted/stolen. Your average punter is going to think let the farmers have their tax breaks that the ideologues don't think are fair for the sake of a billion quid. Food self sufficiency and security is far more important to us than chucking a billion quid over there. As I say its a tough sell and the optics poor.. Isn’t your average punter going to say let’s use the tax raised from multi millionaire farmers to improve schools and the NHS etc? Some will of course you're right. But taking a billion or so off farmers to throw into the NHS abyss to some people is a waste of time and of course money. Education probably less so maybe. Its all about priorities. A lot will lean toward food security rather than watching the NHS or some climate fund potentially squander most it. We will have different opinions on this so not worth going down that rabbit hole. I'm just looking at it from a very basic point of view. |
|
|
|
Post by iancransonsknees on Nov 13, 2024 15:22:20 GMT
I don't understand why people want cleaner air, we have survived on dirty air for years. It might reduce a few illnesses and diseases and destroy a few more eco systems but fuck that oil and gas are a gift from god and they smell nice too. Fuck the planet, let it burn ,setting%20of%20the%20foamed%20material. What do you think the insulations specified on lots of construction are manufactured from? Mineral wools are available but don't suit every job given their propensity to fail in high moisture environments. Enhanced EPS and similar suffers this but comes at more than a financial cost. www.yourhome.gov.au/materials/embodied-energy#:~:text=of%20your%20home.-,Understanding%20embodied%20energy,during%20construction%2C%20repairs%20or%20renovations. This Aussie website explains it far better than I can. Can somebody explain why the evangelist Ed Milliband is qualified to spend billions of our taxes on chasing this dream? I'll give you my example. 2 bed 1930s semi, double glazing, condensing combi boiler, CWI - that's about it. My gas & electric bill is £77 per month (you all know how much of that is made up of standing charge too), that's with 2 people working from home for half the week. Why am I going to invest thousands into solar heat and/or hot water systems, and a heat pump? It makes absolutely no sense. Particularly when you're sending money to other parts of the world before investing in this countries infrastructure to deliver the pipe dream being foisted on us. If I were to go down any route, it'd be solar plus battery storage, just to get off grid - and that'd be with a view to charging a vehicle under my 'own' steam. Show me somebody flogging a green energy miracle, net zero achieving product and I'll show you a carpet bagger. I've been in and around this stuff long enough to understand that there's a lot of very rich people, businesses and even savvy small traders who are going to rinse this for everything they're worth. I'm angrier about that than Milliband's general insouciance that it's not a massive risk or waste of money and his fillibustering whenever questioned about it. He runs Starmer close for being chief cunt. |
|
|
|
Post by iancransonsknees on Nov 13, 2024 15:32:40 GMT
I don't think you've got much of a problem convincing most people to do it. Its just the fanatical speed with which they seem to be wanting to do it. Amd people are concerned that in the shorter term its going to leave us even more exposed. And this current govt seem to be insisting the UK are going to be canaries in the mine for it all to show the world or the WEF or whatever other BS quango that we are the good boys. The world ain't ending in the next 5 or 10 or 20 years nor are we going to pass a point of no return in 2 years or 10 years. The scare tactics have not served these people well and their failed predictions prove it. More sensible conversations should have taken place and more sustainable solutions put in place that everyone can afford and live with. In my opinion oggy.... I think everyone sensible would agree with what you say there. And there is no evidence that isn’t the plan. I guess there is a balance. Let’s say we do nothing much to invest in greener self sufficient energy over the next 10 years. By then, energy bills will likely be at least double but may be triple or quadruple what they are now. Would that money be better spent investing in long term sustainable green energy which means energy prices would be much lower in the future? Either way, we have to pay, and the first option means ever higher prices whereas the second option has the potential for much lower prices, and has the added benefit of being good for the planet. So my opinion is that Labour are doing the right thing by trying to create a green energy company. I think the tricky bits are polluting cars and heat pumps and things like that. How do we manage that shift? I think the best way to do that is to put costs on the businesses producing them rather than on consumers. Shift regulation slowly over time. But also we need to end this nonsense of changing cars every couple of years and mobile phones every 2 years. Surely that is terrible for the planet? We need to not think about “saving the planet” because that is beyond us as a nation. We are irrelevant towards that. Instead, we need to make shifts in society towards being greener. Green energy is a no brainer. Single use plastics another. Paper straws etc. Education should focus on reusing and repairing things, rather than binning and buying another. How many shitty plastic toys does a child need? Companies should build things to last - Miele products last 20 or 30 years. Much better than having 4 shit Chinese tumble dryers in the same period. Hallelujah! Sing it brother. Twenty years ago I climbed to the top of a landfill site, just to the rear of a Sainsbury's in Cannock, for the first time. It blew me away that I was walking around on a mound of shit we'd just thrown away. I said at the time we should take all 8-10 year olds to those places as part of a school trip to try and brainwash them into understanding how ridiculous that was. Ending rampant consumerism would and re-shoring industries back to this country would go some way to helping reduce this. I go out of my way to buy either products manufactured in this country, or anywhere other than China, Bangladesh etc, I'm fully pretty pay more if they're not. I've been stood at checkouts before now, looked at the made in label and hung stuff back on the sales rack because of that. There's a massive education piece needed around this with regard to sustainability, the environment and modern slavery. |
|
|
|
Post by iancransonsknees on Nov 13, 2024 15:34:11 GMT
The change needed will come from new technology which we should be leaders in. Investing heavily in new technology will be what makes the world greener and what our main focus should be on You're right about new technology. And from what I am aware most of the dire climate predictions don't allow for any breakthrough technology advancements. Understandably I guess from a research point of view. But its all part of what people are seeing as the horror climate stories. A balance and sensible timeline needs to be achieved to get most people on board. The baiting from either side needs to be quietened down so we can create sustainable plans that don't bankrupt an already struggling nation whose population are feeling poorer than ever. And with all the geopolitical stuff going on around the world people are rightly concerned about our energy security. I know I am anyway. Just my opinion though.. When we've been leaders in new technology, politicians have just sold it off and lost that advantage anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Nov 13, 2024 15:40:11 GMT
I think everyone sensible would agree with what you say there. And there is no evidence that isn’t the plan. I guess there is a balance. Let’s say we do nothing much to invest in greener self sufficient energy over the next 10 years. By then, energy bills will likely be at least double but may be triple or quadruple what they are now. Would that money be better spent investing in long term sustainable green energy which means energy prices would be much lower in the future? Either way, we have to pay, and the first option means ever higher prices whereas the second option has the potential for much lower prices, and has the added benefit of being good for the planet. So my opinion is that Labour are doing the right thing by trying to create a green energy company. I think the tricky bits are polluting cars and heat pumps and things like that. How do we manage that shift? I think the best way to do that is to put costs on the businesses producing them rather than on consumers. Shift regulation slowly over time. But also we need to end this nonsense of changing cars every couple of years and mobile phones every 2 years. Surely that is terrible for the planet? We need to not think about “saving the planet” because that is beyond us as a nation. We are irrelevant towards that. Instead, we need to make shifts in society towards being greener. Green energy is a no brainer. Single use plastics another. Paper straws etc. Education should focus on reusing and repairing things, rather than binning and buying another. How many shitty plastic toys does a child need? Companies should build things to last - Miele products last 20 or 30 years. Much better than having 4 shit Chinese tumble dryers in the same period. Hallelujah! Sing it brother. Twenty years ago I climbed to the top of a landfill site, just to the rear of a Sainsbury's in Cannock, for the first time. It blew me away that I was walking around on a mound of shit we'd just thrown away. I said at the time we should take all 8-10 year olds to those places as part of a school trip to try and brainwash them into understanding how ridiculous that was. Ending rampant consumerism would and re-shoring industries back to this country would go some way to helping reduce this. I go out of my way to buy either products manufactured in this country, or anywhere other than China, Bangladesh etc, I'm fully pretty pay more if they're not. I've been stood at checkouts before now, looked at the made in label and hung stuff back on the sales rack because of that. There's a massive education piece needed around this with regard to sustainability, the environment and modern slavery. I noticed today that grapes are now all from Brazil or Peru, rather than Spain or Italy. I won’t buy them until they are more locally sourced again next year (i’m not sure local Tunstall grown grapes are a thing yet - perhaps climate change will change that!) |
|
|
|
Post by iancransonsknees on Nov 13, 2024 15:43:53 GMT
Hallelujah! Sing it brother. Twenty years ago I climbed to the top of a landfill site, just to the rear of a Sainsbury's in Cannock, for the first time. It blew me away that I was walking around on a mound of shit we'd just thrown away. I said at the time we should take all 8-10 year olds to those places as part of a school trip to try and brainwash them into understanding how ridiculous that was. Ending rampant consumerism would and re-shoring industries back to this country would go some way to helping reduce this. I go out of my way to buy either products manufactured in this country, or anywhere other than China, Bangladesh etc, I'm fully pretty pay more if they're not. I've been stood at checkouts before now, looked at the made in label and hung stuff back on the sales rack because of that. There's a massive education piece needed around this with regard to sustainability, the environment and modern slavery. I noticed today that grapes are now all from Brazil or Peru, rather than Spain or Italy. I won’t buy them until they are more locally sourced again next year (i’m not sure local Tunstall grown grapes are a thing yet - perhaps climate change will change that!) Exactly that. Strawberries from Britain, if not Staffordshire. If you can't find that they're not worth buying. I'll buy European imports at a push but other than that tailor what I want to eat around the seasons. We did it for thousands of years, it's no hardship, and I'm not saying don't treat yourself just be aware of food miles etc. Again schools near massive responsibility around this at a young age, rather then testing infants FFS. |
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Nov 13, 2024 15:52:03 GMT
I noticed today that grapes are now all from Brazil or Peru, rather than Spain or Italy. I won’t buy them until they are more locally sourced again next year (i’m not sure local Tunstall grown grapes are a thing yet - perhaps climate change will change that!) Exactly that. Strawberries from Britain, if not Staffordshire. If you can't find that they're not worth buying. I'll buy European imports at a push but other than that tailor what I want to eat around the seasons. We did it for thousands of years, it's no hardship, and I'm not saying don't treat yourself just be aware of food miles etc. Again schools near massive responsibility around this at a young age, rather then testing infants FFS. And don’t get me started on the environmental shitshow that is Christmas with kids! The amount of crap people get them. Or in party bags after kids parties! All made in China. I was at a fireworks display the other night in Barnes, SW London (full of £4M houses and where everyone tries to look as environmentally and socially conscious as possible. You know the types.) All the parents drinking their mulled wine from recycled paper cups, and eating their crepe from a paper plate, as they buy massive plastic fluorescently lit “Jedi” swords and glow sticks for their kids, all broken within 30 minutes and chucked on the floor/bonfire after. Fucking hypocrites! |
|
|
|
Post by iancransonsknees on Nov 13, 2024 15:56:18 GMT
Exactly that. Strawberries from Britain, if not Staffordshire. If you can't find that they're not worth buying. I'll buy European imports at a push but other than that tailor what I want to eat around the seasons. We did it for thousands of years, it's no hardship, and I'm not saying don't treat yourself just be aware of food miles etc. Again schools near massive responsibility around this at a young age, rather then testing infants FFS. And don’t get me started on the environmental shitshow that is Christmas with kids! The amount of crap people get them. Or in party bags after kids parties! All made in China. I was at a fireworks display the other night in Barnes, SW London (full of £4M houses and where everyone tries to look as environmentally and socially conscious as possible. You know the types.) All the parents drinking their mulled wine from recycled paper cups, and eating their crepe from a paper plate, as they buy massive plastic fluorescently lit “Jedi” swords and glow sticks for their kids, all broken within 30 minutes and chucked on the floor/bonfire after. Fucking hypocrites! Single use vapes. Fuck it, bring back fags to save the environment. Tobacco probably absorbs more CO2 than the people it kills produce. |
|
|
|
Post by scfcbiancorossi on Nov 13, 2024 18:10:02 GMT
I have absolutely zero interest in having a "plan" to deal with the changing climate because humans are not going to be able to stop fluctuations in the climate. What I do have an interest in is protecting endangered species, protecting the world's forests and ensuring green belts thrive. Which is exactly what supporting "Green" initiatives used to be about before corrupt politicians jumped aboard the net zero gravy train and fooling people like you into thinking you could make a difference to our ever changing climate. As I understand it we agree on a lot of things on this message board Rossi, but when it comes to the environment we might differ a bit. Fact is there are fluctuations in the climate yes, now like it always have been and will be in the future. But as I understand it the trend is now negative, meaning the fluctuations are still there but around a line pointing downwards. This will cost to deal with, but places in Asia and Africa where they dump shit right into the ocean is what affects the environment and the global heath the most. I think most countries in the western world already do their part to a large extent. So the focus should be directed. Amazingly noone speaks about the real problem though, which is the population growth. It doesn't matter how much we change our habits in line with all the new environmental rules and laws now and in the future, if we aren't ready to stop a growing population. Mark my words Rossi, if you think it's bad now 😂, they haven't even begun with the restrictions race .... Some people even want to stop the Olympics. We will definitely see shorter halves in football. According to some conspiracy theorists that's why they now count to 11 in table tennis instead of 21. Personally I'm not an extreme person at any end of the environment spectrum, I just want a fact based neutral view on this. I don't think there is any so called "agenda". If you by the word mean some sort of cunning á la Baldrick plan, in disguise for a real hidden purpose. We do agree on lots mate and completely healthy for us to disagree at times too ☺️ I think that's a fair post and I completely agree with you on population growth. But as soon as you go there the liberal (illiberal) mob come flying out the blocks and want your head on a stick. I posted the other day (as Oggy knows) that in this day and age having more than 4 kids is completely unnecessary and I stand by that 1000%. It's frankly reckless. |
|
|
|
Post by thisisouryear on Nov 13, 2024 18:12:13 GMT
I don't understand why people want cleaner air, we have survived on dirty air for years. It might reduce a few illnesses and diseases and destroy a few more eco systems but fuck that oil and gas are a gift from god and they smell nice too. Fuck the planet, let it burn ,setting%20of%20the%20foamed%20material. What do you think the insulations specified on lots of construction are manufactured from? Mineral wools are available but don't suit every job given their propensity to fail in high moisture environments. Enhanced EPS and similar suffers this but comes at more than a financial cost. www.yourhome.gov.au/materials/embodied-energy#:~:text=of%20your%20home.-,Understanding%20embodied%20energy,during%20construction%2C%20repairs%20or%20renovations. This Aussie website explains it far better than I can. Can somebody explain why the evangelist Ed Milliband is qualified to spend billions of our taxes on chasing this dream? I'll give you my example. 2 bed 1930s semi, double glazing, condensing combi boiler, CWI - that's about it. My gas & electric bill is £77 per month (you all know how much of that is made up of standing charge too), that's with 2 people working from home for half the week. Why am I going to invest thousands into solar heat and/or hot water systems, and a heat pump? It makes absolutely no sense. Particularly when you're sending money to other parts of the world before investing in this countries infrastructure to deliver the pipe dream being foisted on us. If I were to go down any route, it'd be solar plus battery storage, just to get off grid - and that'd be with a view to charging a vehicle under my 'own' steam. Show me somebody flogging a green energy miracle, net zero achieving product and I'll show you a carpet bagger. I've been in and around this stuff long enough to understand that there's a lot of very rich people, businesses and even savvy small traders who are going to rinse this for everything they're worth. I'm angrier about that than Milliband's general insouciance that it's not a massive risk or waste of money and his fillibustering whenever questioned about it. He runs Starmer close for being chief cunt. The more the technology evolves the cheaper it will hopefully get for many household materials. At the minute a lot of greener products are way too expensive to even consider for a normal person. I wouldn't pay the prices either as financially it makes no sense. If I had money to burn I might consider it but I don't. Energy is where a big difference could be made but the energy companies aren't going to want to sell something they can make cheap at a low price where they make less profit. If we can find a way to create cheaper energy it will have to be owned by the government so it will need government spending to do the research. Once energy can be made cheaply then prices of a lot of things should come down. |
|
|
|
Post by superjw on Nov 13, 2024 18:44:27 GMT
I see a lot of thoughts that us being more green with energy will equate to lower energy bills - does anyone truely believe that? It’s the UK remember, I don’t see any world in which energy companies will reduce their costs to consumers, profit chasers after all. We already have a good renewable mix on energy, absolutely no impact to prices and we continue to pay some of the highest prices. It’s a fallacy and will never happen.
Unfortunately the decisions of the generations before me put us on the back foot with blocking nuclear. We could be like France, but we ruined that - catastrophic decision making.
As has already been said, people know what’s needed - but the unrealistic selling of our souls from the government to achieve net zero so aggressively will make an already terrible economic outlook for the population worse. Having to get poorer for this is the hard sell many won’t (and actually aren’t able to) accept.
|
|
|
|
Post by thehartshillbadger on Nov 13, 2024 18:45:15 GMT
I see a lot of thoughts that us being more green with energy will equate to lower energy bills - does anyone truely believe that? It’s the UK remember, I don’t see any world in which energy companies will reduce their costs to consumers, profit chasers after all. We already have a good renewable mix on energy, absolutely no impact to prices. It’s a fallacy and will never happen. Unfortunately the decisions of the generations before me put us on the back foot with blocking nuclear. We could be like France, but we ruined that - catastrophic decision making. As has already been said, people know what’s needed - but the unrealistic selling of our souls from the government to achieve net zero so aggressively will make an already terrible economic outlook for the population worse. Having to get poorer for this is the hard sell many won’t (and actually aren’t able to) accept. Spot on |
|
|
|
Post by iancransonsknees on Nov 13, 2024 18:51:28 GMT
I see a lot of thoughts that us being more green with energy will equate to lower energy bills - does anyone truely believe that? It’s the UK remember, I don’t see any world in which energy companies will reduce their costs to consumers, profit chasers after all. We already have a good renewable mix on energy, absolutely no impact to prices and we continue to pay some of the highest prices. It’s a fallacy and will never happen. Unfortunately the decisions of the generations before me put us on the back foot with blocking nuclear. We could be like France, but we ruined that - catastrophic decision making. As has already been said, people know what’s needed - but the unrealistic selling of our souls from the government to achieve net zero so aggressively will make an already terrible economic outlook for the population worse. Having to get poorer for this is the hard sell many won’t (and actually aren’t able to) accept. The politicians are in place to prevent exactly this happening. They know who'll keep them after they're voted out. |
|
|
|
Post by iancransonsknees on Nov 13, 2024 19:55:18 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by iancransonsknees on Nov 13, 2024 20:07:56 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by foghornsgleghorn on Nov 13, 2024 21:14:14 GMT
I see a lot of thoughts that us being more green with energy will equate to lower energy bills - does anyone truely believe that? It’s the UK remember, I don’t see any world in which energy companies will reduce their costs to consumers, profit chasers after all. We already have a good renewable mix on energy, absolutely no impact to prices and we continue to pay some of the highest prices. It’s a fallacy and will never happen. Unfortunately the decisions of the generations before me put us on the back foot with blocking nuclear. We could be like France, but we ruined that - catastrophic decision making. As has already been said, people know what’s needed - but the unrealistic selling of our souls from the government to achieve net zero so aggressively will make an already terrible economic outlook for the population worse. Having to get poorer for this is the hard sell many won’t (and actually aren’t able to) accept. Worth a read www.energy-uk.org.uk/insights/electricity-generation/#:~:text=Solar%20Photovoltaic,much%20as%2060%25%20since%202010. The alternative to renewables? Over 80% of gas reserves in Russia- what could possibly go wrong? Oil in the Middle East- no trouble out there is there? China???????? The US? A bunch of nutjobs just elected who want a trade war Agree there should have been more investment in nuclear in recent decades but that would hardly have brought bills down. Meanwhile the cost of the changing climate is increasing- the floods, the flood protection, the failing harvests etc ....... how many cars destroyed in Valencia? Can't imagine insurance premiums going in any direction but up. |
|
|
|
Post by adri2008 on Nov 13, 2024 22:28:25 GMT
As has already been said, people know what’s needed - but the unrealistic selling of our souls from the government to achieve net zero so aggressively will make an already terrible economic outlook for the population worse. Having to get poorer for this is the hard sell many won’t (and actually aren’t able to) accept. Opens the door to a populist government in 2029. People dont mind doing their part but not if it means being financially crippled in return, particularly as the UK contributes a very small percent of global emissions. |
|
