O/T net zero=net loss

Better inaction than the crackpot schemes Milliband has come up with.

I'd look at the here and now and look at the resources we have in the British Isles. If everything is going to cost money, maybe we should look at supply and demand, and use our resources to make some (money).

Looking at the advances in science, this finite resource or the ability to synthetically produce something like it, will exist for 100's of years. We have more oil reserves now that we did 70 years ago. Funny that.

Unless we are going to re-invent the first law of thermodynamics it will take energy to create synthetic alternatives to carbon fuels. That energy has to come from somewhere.

I don't know how much oil remains available, but I know that burning it increases the level of CO2 in the atmosphere. We really have to stop that.

It's not a nice place to be, but the party at which we burn carboniferous fuels whilst pretending that it comes without consequence is over. It's time to make an orderly change to a post carbon world.

Send the memo to China, USA, India and Russia.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KerrAvon

I don't think that 'the floods in Wales have been blamed for cutting all the trees down,that were absorbing the rainfall and replacing with hundreds of ugly windmills' by anyone serious. Do you have a source for that?

---

While I feel your question may be rhetorical, Kerr, I can state with certainty that there is no source for this statement. The floods in south Wales, which is where I live, are a result of poorly managed water catchments, from source to sea, and a consequential inability for those systems to adapt to increasing climate change induced events. They are nothing to do with turbines replacing trees.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KerrAvon

What exactly made you think the video was the ‘best’ speech. I thought the following:

It contained a ridiculous characterisation of climate change as being a ‘shortage of polar bears’. It is, of course, so much more. It has the capacity to render it harder or impossible to grow food in large swathes of the world, to render swathes of the world uninhabitable and to make extreme and destructive weather events far more common. Reducing it to a ‘shortage of polar bears’ in the comfort of the Oxford Union may act as a comfort blanket for people who don’t like unpalatable truths, but that won’t help.

Bear in mind that climate change also has the capacity to drive mass migration, including the irregular migration that is causing such consternation around the world (and, ironically, often to those who also preach climate change denial).

The video contained a ludicrous false dichotomy – that people have to choose between action on climate change and the survival of their children and having indoor toilets. The real choice is between action against climate change and the descent of the world into a place where the survival of children becomes far less certain. Bear in mind that many of the poorer countries in the world are places that are particularly vulnerable to the impact of climate change. Dead people don’t need toilets – indoor or otherwise.

The video does contain some grains of reality – that the richer counties in the world are going to have to assist the rest to make the necessary change and that technological solutions will play a part.

And, of course, the video ignores the elephant in the room, which is that oil and gas are finite resources (unless you have been hanging around some of the really weird parts of Twitter). We are going to have to decarbonise, so why not do it now and on our terms

If you really like rich kids making stupid arguments, may I recommend a subscription to The Spectator for Christmas.

---

Thank you, Kerr, for providing a sensible analysis of this. 👍🏼.

The climate has always changed and it will continue to do so regardless what us humans do!

We have a CO2 drought at the moment compared to years gone by.
CO2 as we all know is the gas of life. Without it we and everything else on the planet dies!

Don?t forget that only 20 years or so they said that huge parts of plans will be under water.

NASA keeps building on the coast line so I?m not too concerned if they?re not.

And don?t forget that scientist can get grant funding if they mention in their papers a negative effect to nature.

It another Industrial Revolution just like the last one based on mobile phones and technology.

That one has run it?s course so they have to con us to spend our money on something else or scare us that much that we?re all happy to let them tax is more!

It?s a con!

So supermarkets in Britain are going to sell milk produce by cows that have been fed bovaer 10!

This is a chemical additive tha is supposed to stop cows from farting and burping !

Look at the the warnings
https://x.com/wideawake_media/status...lcvxGrPcIOixGQ

https://www.fda.gov/media/178913/download

Here?s the data

Excited Arla members

https://x.com/arlafoodsuk/status/186...lcvxGrPcIOixGQ

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by frogmiller

So supermarkets in Britain are going to sell milk produce by cows that have been fed bovaer 10!

This is a chemical additive tha is supposed to stop cows from farting and burping !

Look at the the warnings
https://x.com/wideawake_media/status...lcvxGrPcIOixGQ

---

Many people will opt to shop elsewhere. If enough people take a stand they'll soon knock it in the head.