+ Visit Notts. County FC Mad for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results
Page 1 of 9 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 89

Thread: O/T:- Climate Change

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    22,808

    O/T:- Climate Change

    New thread for Climate Change debate.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    May 2023
    Posts
    158
    Quote Originally Posted by slack_pie View Post

    It's the 'whatever actions' part that worries me. What if governments announce sweeping changes to our way of life? What if we're no longer allowed to use personal cars, or if certain products are rationed or banned (like meat, for example). What if you have to ask for permission to fly somewhere? What if non-compliance means you don't get access to basic public services? Where's the line?

    These are all good questions and valid concerns. How the burden of trying to leave within our means is shared is a difficult question, and if we're not very careful, the richest who've benefited most from unsustainable practices will continue largely as before, and the burden will fall on the poorest, both within each country and globally. We do need to eat less meat, and we do need to fly less.

    But there's loads we can do on those issues before we even need to think about bans and compulsions... we don't need everyone to go vegan, we need people to try to eat less and better meat. More chicken, less beef. Small changes. Veggie food is miles better than it used to be. I eat less meat than I used to. Small changes. We can reduce the environmental cost of flying through more and better rail travel, and reduce unnecessary business travel for meetings that can now take place remotely.

    These are issues that need to be discussed, debated, and decided. But if we don't take more action, climate change and the knock-on effects of climate change will simply impose sweeping changes to our way of life, and has started to do so already. It would be a mistake to think that we can just decide that such decisions are too difficult to take or to face, and that if we ignore it, it'll all just go away.

    If it's a totalitarian government people are worried about, it's not obvious to me why that's more likely in a country that tries to prepare for and mitigate climate change compared to one that just ignores it and has to face worse consequences unprepared. People are right to feat totalitarian governments, but people should also fear anarchy... societal breakdown, failed states, chaos... whether in this country or in others. We've already seen the price of failed states.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    6,056
    Quote Originally Posted by Newish Pie View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by slack_pie View Post

    It's the 'whatever actions' part that worries me. What if governments announce sweeping changes to our way of life? What if we're no longer allowed to use personal cars, or if certain products are rationed or banned (like meat, for example). What if you have to ask for permission to fly somewhere? What if non-compliance means you don't get access to basic public services? Where's the line?

    These are all good questions and valid concerns. How the burden of trying to leave within our means is shared is a difficult question, and if we're not very careful, the richest who've benefited most from unsustainable practices will continue largely as before, and the burden will fall on the poorest, both within each country and globally. We do need to eat less meat, and we do need to fly less.

    But there's loads we can do on those issues before we even need to think about bans and compulsions... we don't need everyone to go vegan, we need people to try to eat less and better meat. More chicken, less beef. Small changes. Veggie food is miles better than it used to be. I eat less meat than I used to. Small changes. We can reduce the environmental cost of flying through more and better rail travel, and reduce unnecessary business travel for meetings that can now take place remotely.

    These are issues that need to be discussed, debated, and decided. But if we don't take more action, climate change and the knock-on effects of climate change will simply impose sweeping changes to our way of life, and has started to do so already. It would be a mistake to think that we can just decide that such decisions are too difficult to take or to face, and that if we ignore it, it'll all just go away.

    If it's a totalitarian government people are worried about, it's not obvious to me why that's more likely in a country that tries to prepare for and mitigate climate change compared to one that just ignores it and has to face worse consequences unprepared. People are right to feat totalitarian governments, but people should also fear anarchy... societal breakdown, failed states, chaos... whether in this country or in others. We've already seen the price of failed states.
    Simple answer, scrap all net zero.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    2,813
    ... government realise they can't carry on with the climate change con. Climate is changing, but not due to CO2 levels. Atmosphere is made up of Oxygen 20.95 %; Nitrogen 78.08 %; Argon 0.93 % and CO2 0.04%. Any additional CO2 is insignificant. The science lobby have had their fingers in the till for long enough. The change is due to effects of the sun, something we can do f-all about.

  5. #5
    I blame Thatcher.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    May 2023
    Posts
    158
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBlackHorse View Post
    ... government realise they can't carry on with the climate change con. Climate is changing, but not due to CO2 levels. Atmosphere is made up of Oxygen 20.95 %; Nitrogen 78.08 %; Argon 0.93 % and CO2 0.04%. Any additional CO2 is insignificant. The science lobby have had their fingers in the till for long enough. The change is due to effects of the sun, something we can do f-all about.
    The overwhelming scientific consensus is that climate change is real and that it's caused by human actions. These conclusions have been reached not as a matter of faith, but by using the same scientific method that's underpinned every aspect of human progress and development.

    The idea that it's just scientists with their "fingers in the till" is just a conspiracy theory. Or wishful thinking.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2021
    Posts
    664
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBlackHorse View Post
    Climate is changing, but not due to CO2 levels. Atmosphere is made up of Oxygen 20.95 %; Nitrogen 78.08 %; Argon 0.93 % and CO2 0.04%. Any additional CO2 is insignificant.
    CO2 is at over 400 parts per million. Phosgene gas can be deadly at 2ppm.

    Climate always changes. It is changing much faster because of CO2 levels. Science is about as certain as it's possible to be that this is the case.

    As the IPCC says with my emphasis:

    "Human activities, principally through emissions of greenhouse gases, have unequivocally caused global warming, with global surface temperature reaching 1.1C above 1850-1900 in 2011-2020."

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    33,981
    Quote Originally Posted by JoePass View Post
    Simple answer, scrap all net zero.
    When it comes to being simple, nobody beats you.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    7,483
    All well and good but who knew you could get two points for a draw in the EFL Trophy?

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    1,134
    Quote Originally Posted by Newish Pie View Post
    The overwhelming scientific consensus is that climate change is real and that it's caused by human actions. These conclusions have been reached not as a matter of faith, but by using the same scientific method that's underpinned every aspect of human progress and development.

    The idea that it's just scientists with their "fingers in the till" is just a conspiracy theory. Or wishful thinking.
    Or fiddling while Rome burns, which was also bad for CO2 emissions. I wonder what the impact of producing all that soya stuff is Vs. meat? The reason Rishi is doing this is blatantly obvious and nothing to do with seeing the light - he misguidedly thinks that because ULEV is unpopular in London and saved a Tory arse in a bye election the same will hold true for the rest of the country and save his arse. I think he is wrong.

Page 1 of 9 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •