|
|
Post by elystokie on Jul 12, 2024 8:16:53 GMT
That's what they said 10 years ago. A solution needs to be found as we know the way it's done currently is not sustainable. I'm surprised we still have fossil fuels left tbh. The middle east will be holding us to ransom. I’m open minded on the idea but I have to say I’m yet to hear a realistic alternative to fossil fuels or even a explanation that makes me understand how it happens Well, you know that plant that causes you much mirth?  Seeing as you're being 'open minded'  If Harry Anslinger and his wealthy cronies hadn't gaslit the Western World 80 odd years ago we (and more importantly the environment) could be in a different, better place. All motor vehicles, as Henry Ford initially intended, could have been made from a composite of hemp and resins that are far lighter and stronger than steel with the added benefit of not rusting. We could have still been in a much better place if, instead of ridiculing Jack Herer in the 70s, 80s and 90s, people had listened to him when he tried to expose the gaslighting. Even if we'd just built the cars from hemp and run them on fossil fuels we'd have obviously used far less of the stuff and chucked far less shit into the sky. There's faint hope, probably too little too late, but if it catches on quicker than I think it will it's a definite maybe. greencamp.com/hemp-car/“Using this type of fuel literally reduces CO2 out of the atmosphere. So the more you drive, the more benefit you make to the environment. A car made from hemp, running on hemp gasoline made this way would have a lifetime carbon footprint of more than negative 100 tons of CO2,” he explained. In conclusion, Dietzen said, EVs have a lifetime carbon footprint of 12 tons of CO2, current gasoline cars of 72 tons of CO2, but hemp made and hemp fueled (via pyrolysis) car would have a lifetime carbon footprint of -100 tons or more." and "“As Jack Herer once famously said in his best selling book The Emperor Wears No Clothes, ‘I don’t know if hemp is going to save the planet, but it’s the only thing that can!’“ Dietzen concluded on a hopeful note." |
|
|
|
Post by Foster on Jul 12, 2024 8:32:00 GMT
Can't be bothered debating this tbh mate. It's been done to death. Everyone knows about climate change, renewable energy, etc. There's nothing needed to convince people either way. You're either for the environment or not. I’d like to think most people are for the environment but I want to know what, as a general population, we can do to make an almost immediate tangible difference whilst the professionals go about developing alternatives to a point where the world can completely do without fossil fuels. I’m not arguing by the way, I just don’t know but I’m hoping someone with a more fact based opinion can tell me the key areas where changes don’t have significant negative impacts on peoples lives. Yeah, but again, the 'negative impact' is on it's way regardless. It's best to already ready take some of the brunt of it and change to a more eco friendly lifestyle. It's not exactly too negative either is it? At least if you make changes then you can live in good consciousness knowing that you've at least made the effort and done your part. I'm happy to give up some of lifes luxuries (as that is what they are) if it benefits the planet. |
|
|
|
Post by thehartshillbadger on Jul 12, 2024 8:32:21 GMT
I’m open minded on the idea but I have to say I’m yet to hear a realistic alternative to fossil fuels or even a explanation that makes me understand how it happens Well, you know that plant that causes you much mirth? Seeing as you're being 'open minded' If Harry Anslinger and his wealthy cronies hadn't gaslit the Western World 80 odd years ago we (and more importantly the environment) could be in a different, better place. All motor vehicles, as Henry Ford initially intended, could have been made from a composite of hemp and resins that are far lighter and stronger than steel with the added benefit of not rusting. We could have still been in a much better place if, instead of ridiculing Jack Herer in the 70s, 80s and 90s, people had listened to him when he tried to expose the gaslighting. Even if we'd just built the cars from hemp and run them on fossil fuels we'd have obviously used far less of the stuff and chucked far less shit into the sky. There's faint hope, probably too little too late, but if it catches on quicker than I think it will it's a definite maybe. greencamp.com/hemp-car/“Using this type of fuel literally reduces CO2 out of the atmosphere. So the more you drive, the more benefit you make to the environment. A car made from hemp, running on hemp gasoline made this way would have a lifetime carbon footprint of more than negative 100 tons of CO2,” he explained. In conclusion, Dietzen said, EVs have a lifetime carbon footprint of 12 tons of CO2, current gasoline cars of 72 tons of CO2, but hemp made and hemp fueled (via pyrolysis) car would have a lifetime carbon footprint of -100 tons or more." and "“As Jack Herer once famously said in his best selling book The Emperor Wears No Clothes, ‘I don’t know if hemp is going to save the planet, but it’s the only thing that can!’“ Dietzen concluded on a hopeful note." Huh?😉 |
|
|
|
Post by elystokie on Jul 12, 2024 8:38:41 GMT
Well, you know that plant that causes you much mirth? Seeing as you're being 'open minded' If Harry Anslinger and his wealthy cronies hadn't gaslit the Western World 80 odd years ago we (and more importantly the environment) could be in a different, better place. All motor vehicles, as Henry Ford initially intended, could have been made from a composite of hemp and resins that are far lighter and stronger than steel with the added benefit of not rusting. We could have still been in a much better place if, instead of ridiculing Jack Herer in the 70s, 80s and 90s, people had listened to him when he tried to expose the gaslighting. Even if we'd just built the cars from hemp and run them on fossil fuels we'd have obviously used far less of the stuff and chucked far less shit into the sky. There's faint hope, probably too little too late, but if it catches on quicker than I think it will it's a definite maybe. greencamp.com/hemp-car/“Using this type of fuel literally reduces CO2 out of the atmosphere. So the more you drive, the more benefit you make to the environment. A car made from hemp, running on hemp gasoline made this way would have a lifetime carbon footprint of more than negative 100 tons of CO2,” he explained. In conclusion, Dietzen said, EVs have a lifetime carbon footprint of 12 tons of CO2, current gasoline cars of 72 tons of CO2, but hemp made and hemp fueled (via pyrolysis) car would have a lifetime carbon footprint of -100 tons or more." and "“As Jack Herer once famously said in his best selling book The Emperor Wears No Clothes, ‘I don’t know if hemp is going to save the planet, but it’s the only thing that can!’“ Dietzen concluded on a hopeful note." Huh?😉 You'll get there, eventually |
|
|
|
Post by Foster on Jul 12, 2024 8:50:40 GMT
So where do “we” begin with that? What can me or you do to help? You can spend shit loads on your house to make it "eco" friendly and in the grand scheme of things it will do bugger all unless everyone in the world has to do the same thing!If everyone thought that way nothing would ever get done.  |
|
|
|
Post by mickeythemaestro on Jul 12, 2024 9:06:19 GMT
You can spend shit loads on your house to make it "eco" friendly and in the grand scheme of things it will do bugger all unless everyone in the world has to do the same thing!If everyone thought that way nothing would ever get done. Its more a practicality issue. I mean you've got half the planet striving to join the 1st world with all the comfort and trimmings. And they are doing it adopting the means the 1st world did it with over decades and decades. Who are we to tell them yeah but nah, sorry lads we've worked out its really shitty for the planet so stay in your huts... The first world has a huge responsibility to come up with the innovation to resolve the issue. And I believe they will in time.. I also think the west needs to be very careful making policy announcements telling Putin Jinping and the N Korean nutter that we are going to severely weaken ourselves militarily with overburdening energy policies. |
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Jul 12, 2024 9:36:18 GMT
If everyone thought that way nothing would ever get done. Its more a practicality issue. I mean you've got half the planet striving to join the 1st world with all the comfort and trimmings. And they are doing it adopting the means the 1st world did it with over decades and decades. Who are we to tell them yeah but nah, sorry lads we've worked out its really shitty for the planet so stay in your huts... The first world has a huge responsibility to come up with the innovation to resolve the issue. And I believe they will in time.. I also think the west needs to be very careful making policy announcements telling Putin Jinping and the N Korean nutter that we are going to severely weaken ourselves militarily with overburdening energy policies. I guess the argument there is that unless the developing world tries to join the 1st world in a way that reduces or limits the damage that will be done by doing it the 'old way' (ie burning fossil fuels) then they, in particular, are likely to suffer the worst of the consequences of climate change. There's a lot of misinformation out there about what's going on in the developing world and incorrect assumptions that China, India etc simply don't give a shit about renewables and sustainable development. That's just not the case. China, in particular, is in the vanguard of sustainable development and renewable energy generation, way out in front in fact. It's also still one of the biggest polluters (although not per head of population) and you have to hope that the progress on renewables slowly allows for them to wind down the polluting emissions. I think it will. I'm not really worried about the military side of things, especially not in relation to spending on other departments instead of defence. If Kim Jong un or Putin fancy unleashing a few nukes our way they're going to do so regardless of whether we spend 2% or 2.5% of GDP on defence spending. And will be annihilated in response, as will any country that goes down that route. And the whole world will probably suffer. That's the reality of nuclear war, it's very unlikely to be a limited and contained exchange. |
|
|
|
Post by mickeythemaestro on Jul 12, 2024 9:48:16 GMT
Its more a practicality issue. I mean you've got half the planet striving to join the 1st world with all the comfort and trimmings. And they are doing it adopting the means the 1st world did it with over decades and decades. Who are we to tell them yeah but nah, sorry lads we've worked out its really shitty for the planet so stay in your huts... The first world has a huge responsibility to come up with the innovation to resolve the issue. And I believe they will in time.. I also think the west needs to be very careful making policy announcements telling Putin Jinping and the N Korean nutter that we are going to severely weaken ourselves militarily with overburdening energy policies. I guess the argument there is that unless the developing world tries to join the 1st world in a way that reduces or limits the damage that will be done by doing it the 'old way' (ie burning fossil fuels) then they, in particular, are likely to suffer the worst of the consequences of climate change. There's a lot of misinformation out there about what's going on in the developing world and incorrect assumptions that China, India etc simply don't give a shit about renewables and sustainable development. That's just not the case. China, in particular, is in the vanguard of sustainable development and renewable energy generation, way out in front in fact. It's also still one of the biggest polluters (although not per head of population) and you have to hope that the progress on renewables slowly allows for them to wind down the polluting emissions. I think it will. I'm not really worried about the military side of things, especially not in relation to spending on other departments instead of defence. If Kim Jong un or Putin fancy unleashing a few nukes our way they're going to do so regardless of whether we spend 2% or 2.5% of GDP on defence spending. And will be annihilated in response, as will any country that goes down that route. And the whole world will probably suffer. That's the reality of nuclear war, it's very unlikely to be a limited and contained exchange. Agree with what you say. Just difficult to see how we convince people when there is an easier cheaper way now. Its hard enough convincing us in the West with our lovely warm radiators and cooling AC units. Militarily I was thinking more about domestic energy strategy in the short to medium term. The middle east and Russia have a lot of control of fossil fuel supply and can cause havoc to western economies messing with that supply. That I'm afraid needs to be at the forefront of current and medium term policies or else we leave ourselves very exposed.. |
|
|
|
Post by metalhead on Jul 12, 2024 18:36:36 GMT
The UK. We can't force others to play by the rules. Excuse my ignorance, what are others doing in comparison to the U.K.? Ah well, might as well join them eh? |
|
|
|
Post by thehartshillbadger on Jul 12, 2024 18:38:32 GMT
Excuse my ignorance, what are others doing in comparison to the U.K.? Ah well, might as well join them eh? It was a simple question you can’t provide an answer to, no need to be funny about it. Not everyone is as well versed in environmental impacts on the planet as you are. |
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Jul 12, 2024 18:59:38 GMT
Ah well, might as well join them eh? It was a simple question you can’t provide an answer to, no need to be funny about it. Not everyone is as well versed in environmental impacts on the planet as you are. Badge I think you make a good point. We've simply exported our " carbon footprint " abroad, largely to China and probably made things worse , given the transport costs of everything " made in China"..... but as long as the statistics look good, who really cares? As a more urgent priority we need to deal with the things we CAN do locally such as looking after the rivers and land use, every bit of it. |
|
|
|
Post by raythesailor on Jul 12, 2024 19:14:50 GMT
Interesting whilst watching Wimbledon I have become intrigued by watching the security guys.
Very well dressed and unobtrusive quietly appearing during breaks in play and then disappearing into the crowd.
A sad reflection when you are wondering are some idiots going to make a meaningless gesture instead of concentrating on the tennis.
|
|
|
|
Post by thehartshillbadger on Jul 12, 2024 19:19:18 GMT
Interesting whilst watching Wimbledon I have become intrigued by watching the security guys. Very well dressed and unobtrusive quietly appearing during breaks in play and then disappearing into the crowd. A sad reflection when you are wondering are some idiots going to make a meaningless gesture instead of concentrating on the tennis. Ticket prices must have been too expensive for mummy and daddy this year. Maybe they’ll treat them to the final |
|
|
|
Post by metalhead on Jul 13, 2024 7:27:24 GMT
Ah well, might as well join them eh? It was a simple question you can’t provide an answer to, no need to be funny about it. Not everyone is as well versed in environmental impacts on the planet as you are. The answer is that some countries are doing more than others. European countries seem to be making commitments and trying to stick to them. China and the US seem to be the big players in not giving a fuck. I think we should endeavour to do everything we can though. Otherwise our kids are going to inherit an absolute disaster. |
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Jul 13, 2024 8:22:12 GMT
To say China doesn't give a shit is not correct. Probably picked up from lazy rightwing press journalism designed to turn British people against net zero and all things environmental. www.reuters.com/sustainability/climate-energy/numbers-behind-chinas-renewable-energy-boom-2023-11-15/This gives a good picture of where China is. Clearly not a paragon of green energy virtue (they use a lot of coal) but with over half their energy coming from renewables, they're not the big bad wolf the Mail, Express et al would have you believe in order to suit their own agenda that seeks to persuade people that none of this "eco-stuff" is worth doing. |
|
|
|
Post by crouchpotato1 on Jul 13, 2024 10:24:41 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by metalhead on Jul 16, 2024 6:48:50 GMT
To say China doesn't give a shit is not correct. Probably picked up from lazy rightwing press journalism designed to turn British people against net zero and all things environmental. www.reuters.com/sustainability/climate-energy/numbers-behind-chinas-renewable-energy-boom-2023-11-15/This gives a good picture of where China is. Clearly not a paragon of green energy virtue (they use a lot of coal) but with over half their energy coming from renewables, they're not the big bad wolf the Mail, Express et al would have you believe in order to suit their own agenda that seeks to persuade people that none of this "eco-stuff" is worth doing. But they are still pumping waaaaay more shit into the air than most European countries put together. Plus they manufacture products at huge huge volumes, often using non-renewable plastics and manufacturing processes. These products are sometimes impossible to destroy without resorting to burning or landfill. It's fair to say that their target market is Western nations and in many cases, it's simply supply and demand. Demand has driven prices so low that such a market has thrived but what we really should be doing is encouraging a little less consumerism. |
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Jul 18, 2024 15:21:40 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by prestwichpotter on Jul 18, 2024 15:25:30 GMT
A ridiculous sentence......... |
|
|
|
Post by mickeythemaestro on Jul 18, 2024 15:27:22 GMT
4 years for all and 5 for the main instigator. Didnt think they'd get that long to be fair. Bet they are gutted. Min 2 years in the slammer is no joke. Ooof. |
|
|
|
Post by prestwichpotter on Jul 18, 2024 15:32:08 GMT
4 years for all and 5 for the main instigator. Didnt think they'd get that long to be fair. Bet they are gutted. Min 2 years in the slammer is no joke. Ooof. They'll end up in a Category D open prison at a massive expense to the tax payer. Meanwhile in other courts up and down the land today, rapists, child groomers and violent offenders were sentenced to less than the protestors........ |
|
|
|
Post by crouchpotato1 on Jul 18, 2024 15:33:08 GMT
Brilliant and let’s hope a few more of these tossers follow suit in the coming months |
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Jul 18, 2024 15:42:47 GMT
To say China doesn't give a shit is not correct. Probably picked up from lazy rightwing press journalism designed to turn British people against net zero and all things environmental. www.reuters.com/sustainability/climate-energy/numbers-behind-chinas-renewable-energy-boom-2023-11-15/This gives a good picture of where China is. Clearly not a paragon of green energy virtue (they use a lot of coal) but with over half their energy coming from renewables, they're not the big bad wolf the Mail, Express et al would have you believe in order to suit their own agenda that seeks to persuade people that none of this "eco-stuff" is worth doing. But they are still pumping waaaaay more shit into the air than most European countries put together. Plus they manufacture products at huge huge volumes, often using non-renewable plastics and manufacturing processes. These products are sometimes impossible to destroy without resorting to burning or landfill. It's fair to say that their target market is Western nations and in many cases, it's simply supply and demand. Demand has driven prices so low that such a market has thrived but what we really should be doing is encouraging a little less consumerism. That's it, if people didn't buy a load of shit they didn't need, or did some research and get it from a more environmentally looking company, China wouldn't need to manufacture all the shit and use coal powered power stations for it. |
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Jul 18, 2024 15:46:07 GMT
4 years for all and 5 for the main instigator. Didnt think they'd get that long to be fair. Bet they are gutted. Min 2 years in the slammer is no joke. Ooof. Labour have probably halved it already ... |
|
|
|
Post by mickeythemaestro on Jul 18, 2024 15:52:56 GMT
4 years for all and 5 for the main instigator. Didnt think they'd get that long to be fair. Bet they are gutted. Min 2 years in the slammer is no joke. Ooof. Labour have probably halved it already ... Best get building some prisons because I think we've only got a few hundred spare cells left 😆 |
|
|
|
Post by mickeythemaestro on Jul 18, 2024 15:56:13 GMT
4 years for all and 5 for the main instigator. Didnt think they'd get that long to be fair. Bet they are gutted. Min 2 years in the slammer is no joke. Ooof. They'll end up in a Category D open prison at a massive expense to the tax payer. Meanwhile in other courts up and down the land today, rapists, child groomers and violent offenders were sentenced to less than the protestors........ Aye, in comparison to other heinous offences it does seem harsh. Maybe a shorter shock of 6 months in Belmarsh or Wakefield would be the way to go. I mean a message does need to be sent or they'll literally keep causing mayhem. Tricky one all round.. |
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Jul 18, 2024 17:51:11 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by colderpotter on Jul 18, 2024 17:56:05 GMT
I read it as "ducks" every time this thread is resurrected.
|
|
|
|
Post by thehartshillbadger on Jul 18, 2024 17:56:34 GMT
It’s about time these idiots were made an example of |
|
|
|
Post by knype on Jul 18, 2024 17:57:49 GMT
A ridiculous sentence......... It's fantastic sentencing. May make them think twice before they endanger others next time |
|
