O/T Frack me

[rolymiller]

Here's the idea

http://envirocivil.com/environment/h...ve-the-planet/

[rolymiller]

I think the key is to reward people who act in an environmentally friendly way and punish those who don't e.g. Through the tax system etc. If you recycle you should get some sort of perk. Another way you could do it is by allocating carbon footprint to individuals and businesses and rewarding or punishing those who don't stay within them. Probably not easy to do granted but if things becomethat serious we would have to find a way to do it. I do think that th e way people live on this planet is going to change dramatically in the next 50 years or so. It may even start before I pop me own clogs. I amintrugued myself as to what is going to happen to solve the problems and a bit gutted i won't witness it. Of course it could be nowt is done and the human species is d oomed. As the song says these are the good times - well for some - it could be all downhill steeply from he re.

[KerrAvon]

Don't disagree that everyone has to do their bit kerr. Some scientists are suggesting the only way we can sort the problems out is for human beings to live a more minimalist lifestyle. How would that sit with the wealthy do you think? How would that sit with you? Would you be willing to live that sort of lifestyle ? It would i effect mean we would be more equal economically. A sort of environmental socialism may be the only answer. I would argue if that is true socialism has always been the answer!

Of course we would need to live a more minimalist lifestyle to avoid catastrophic climate change. That's the point I was making when I referred to your 'one decent holiday a year' assertion and pointing out that many people will vote for beef and Benidorm. Are you a meat eater perchance?

I should think the majority of the wealthy would view a reduction or change to their current lifestyles in much the same way
as the majority of the none wealthy. They wouldn't like it and would put on the same blinkers that gf is wearing.

Socialism certainly leads to more minimalist lifestyles - ask the Venezuelans. The only other Socialist angle is that I suspect that more minimalist lifestyles would have to be imposed upon people by increasingly less democratic governments in much the way that Socialist governments tend to become more autocratic as they impose their theology and diktats upon the reluctant people that they govern.

[rolymiller]

Let's face it we all could consume less me included. I could live happily without beef and Benidorm and
a lot of other things. I live a fairly minimalistic lifestyle now but I accept i could do better. Some won't though e.g. Gfire who would accuse you of being fascist if you raised his taxes for not conforming to environmental policies. It wouldn't be easy to do because there are more gfires on this planet.

What a challenge for the human race. Let's hope there are still some bril!iant minds appearing on earth now. This is the generation to sort it and good luck to em.

[rolymiller]

In a way we may all have have to knuckle down and accept the unacceptable it would be the equivalent of forcing down unpalatable medicine to cure our ailment. In a sense polit ical arguments would become irrelevant it would just be a case of follow the rules or we are all doomed. The problem is though that some would still see it as a political issue. It could be that we just end up all kicking the crap out of eAch other as we sail over the waterf all! A sad andpathetic end for the human race and maybe inevitable.

Im a cheery guy aren't i?😀 let's hope i have got this all wrong and gfire for inches right.

[great_fire]

You're overestimating the effect that we can have on the planet.

It's egotistical really.

World kept turning before us and it will after us.

[rolymiller]

It will gfire but maybe without humans. If we c ock it up as a race maybe we don't deserve to be here. Think the surviving species will be much better off without us.

[millmoormagic]

I think that you are thick, but don't have the self awareness to realise it.

I am very sorry for saying that, but you insisted and maybe it was time for someone to tell you.

Haha, still chuckling here, don't be sorry fella, you've been consistently wound up the same thicko ��

[John2]

Iceland is a completely different kettle of fish. They have geothermal energy in abundance. It's a good thing they aren't trying to run their country on solar.

I hope you didn't think I was trying to infer solar will make us like Iceland, I was trying to demonstrate that a surplus of energy can result in very different use cases becoming viable, nothing more.

[zouch]

One of the tricks of climate change skeptics is to create confusion. The same things politicians do when trying to object to a truth. EG Putin, Bassir al assad (chemical warfare) etc etc there is enough plausibiity in the counter points to to sow the seed of doubt.
The science on CC is sound and compelling (see what Prof Brian Cox has to say on climate change)

The correlation between `CO2 and climate change is tracked in all previous Climate changes. The energy usage from the industrial revolution is the difference this time. The amount of CO2 (man made) as a result of Industrial revolution and the graphs show that this is off the scale. Ergo the unmistakable conclusion is that the rate of change is man made and has never been seen before in any climate change.

The issue here is that the solution is unpalatable and those offering the strongest defence to do nothing have vested interest, IE fossil fuel organisations (who incidentally are funding the deniers) Politicians cant make the solutions popular and risk losing votes (eg brexit) so when the world needs leadership politicians are more concerned about their own interests.

Changing to solar and wind is absolutely part of the answer but there needs to be an infrastructure to support renewables which at this moment is not there. We will require significant investment but the technology is close to matching the problem - it needs significant scaling up though. See what TESLA have done in Australia to combat their energy supply issues. It can be done.
i fear telling people to live a minimalist lifestyle wont work despite the logic, its like saying dont drink alcohol because it is bad for you.
Building zero carbon lifestyle changes will work far better. Not owning stuff but but buying services like transport and clothes ensures better carbon management and an end of life outcome yet it doesn't compromise our lifestyle choices. buying materials with only organic chemicals will mean that as they are disposed of and rot down they provide a net positive to the planet. The more you use the more benefit the planet get. driving a car that cleans the air as you drive means that the more you drive the better the planet gets

One further point world population is set to increase from 7.5Bn to 9.1bn by 2050. Most of which will be high users of energy.
we have 12 years to turn this around minus the two days we have been debating this on MM