Climate Emergency - Why has it taken so long..............

[TheGunnShow 5,940]

42 minutes ago, KernowCanary said:

I have, she should go back to school and get her grades, she’s also really annoying and seems to have anger problems.

I know autistic people and they don’t get all angry like the way she does at all when something upsets them, unlike her. She’s just over the top and hysteric.

She probably has "anger problems" as politicians the world over aren't acting like they have much of a clue. If reasoned discussion explaining the issues doesn't work, other methods need to be used.

[nevermind, neoliberalism has had it 159]

15 hours ago, The Real Buh said:

Get rid of your dreadlocks mate they stink

I have no dreadlocks and am still employable. But your bald head needs waxing...

[nevermind, neoliberalism has had it 159]

Laura Kuensberg this morning....She said that '/no other country has a well prepared plan as we have '?? what plan is that Laura, more fine words, a coal mine and plenty of more fracking tests, banks still investing billions in fossile fuel extraction and idiots in power who don't want to see, hear or speak, who want to ignore that we are in a climate emergency.

I bet that NCC and their power addicted cllrs 'have not got a single plan/policies on how to deal with any of our future problems.

This is the sort of twaddle people come out with when they have no responsibility towards their children's future.

While I'm at it, what is NCFC doing to get their fans into the stadium without traveling in thousands of cars, paying £ 6 to our ignorant NCC for the privilege of parking in a now extended car park? What are footbal clubs doing to encourage fans to use public transport and or lay on buses for those fans who have season tickets? they know their address and what town they come from.

Time to cut NCC's spendthrift and scheming to pollute.

Edited November 2, 2021 by nevermind, neoliberalism has had it

[1902 1,167]

9 hours ago, Rock The Boat said:

As economic well-being increases, so family sizes decrease. If you want to decrease the population the answer is economic development rather than sending people back to live in caves and grow their own food. Loads of social well-being indicators improve as economic well-being improves. Even indicators such as awareness of the environment improve when incomes increase. So the answer is to encourage rising incomes in countries such as India and China and as a result the populations of those countries will demand cleaner environments.

China already has a declining population so to suggest that their population needs to fall is ridiculous, they have population growth which is lower than ours.

On the other point perhaps it's possible to have a prosperous society which also defends the environment but as it stands, prosperity equals emissions. Per capita Indian and Chinese emissions are miles lower than the USA for exactly this reason.

[nevermind, neoliberalism has had it 159]

prosperity is wedded to increasing debt creation. Now that China will not be involved in our nuclear affairs, according to minister Kwasi, the suggestion is that we all pay with a !£ levy /month to pay for, not invest, into Sizewell C.

The result will be that we enrich bankers, very likely overrun the project by a figure of billions, to get it finished. After that we will be told that we have to accept expensive nuclear power and pay for more bankers profits.

No thanks, there are alternatives, and despite planning authorities refusing to allow widespread greener practices in building houses, generating our own electricity and other innovative measures that do not cost the earth, change is inevitable.

[horsefly 4,301]

9 hours ago, Rock The Boat said:

As economic well-being increases, so family sizes decrease. If you want to decrease the population the answer is economic development rather than sending people back to live in caves and grow their own food. Loads of social well-being indicators improve as economic well-being improves. Even indicators such as awareness of the environment improve when incomes increase. So the answer is to encourage rising incomes in countries such as India and China and as a result the populations of those countries will demand cleaner environments.

 

15 minutes ago, 1902 said:

China already has a declining population so to suggest that their population needs to fall is ridiculous, they have population growth which is lower than ours.

On the other point perhaps it's possible to have a prosperous society which also defends the environment but as it stands, prosperity equals emissions. Per capita Indian and Chinese emissions are miles lower than the USA for exactly this reason.

As 1902 points out, RTB's claim is total tosh. Australia has the highest carbon pollution rate per capita of any country in the world and the economic well being of its citizens far exceeds that of China and India etc.  The evidence is clear from this (and indeed all the other developed nations) that improving the "economic well being" of more impoverished people does not lessen but increases the individual's contribution to global warming. The whole bloody point of COP26 is to deal with the FACT that developed nations have caused massive environmental destruction on the road to their developed status, and to seek to prevent developing nations compounding that destruction beyond the planet's ability to sustain a habitable environment. The reality couldn't be clearer, reckless trust in the idea that a free-market exploitation of the world's resources will magically produce solutions to global warming is beyond foolish, it would indeed be criminally neglegent. Only the truly ignorant could look at the evidence and think the answer is to let market forces dictate our response to this crisis. The time has arrived in which political judgement and action must supercede obeisance to economic dogma. It is imperative that future development MUST be environmentally sustainable to avoid the worst consequences of global warming; and the only way of achieving that outcome is to recognise that unregulated free-market capitalism is now unviable. Only time will tell if there is a form of capitalism able to work within a framework of political imperatives required to avert a climate catastrophe that would otherwise usher in its demise if it fails to adapt to the new reality. 

[TheGunnShow 5,940]

Yep, China's one-sprog policy caught up quite a bit there. Definitely think people forget that one. In fact, Indian birth rates aren't far over replacement levels now as they've been falling at a proper pace for some time.

Our economy is a proper Ponzi scheme when you think about it. Which explains why so many people completely wet their pants about childfree living and spout uninformed tosh about "maternal instincts" or "Western civilisation" as apparently if people refuse to have kids it crashes economies.

Maybe if that many people don't want kids, the civilisation in question doesn't deserve to survive?

[Creative Midfielder 1,996]

3 hours ago, nevermind, neoliberalism has had it said:

Laura Kuensberg this morning....She said that '/no other country has a well prepared plan as we have '?? what plan is that Laura, more fine words, a coal mine and plenty of more fracking tests, banks still investing billions in fossile fuel extraction and idiots in power who don't want to see, hear or speak, who want to ignore that we are in a climate emergency.

There was a lot of talk a couple of weeks ago about her quitting - the sooner the better as far as I'm concerned.

She has always been pretty poor IMO, so much so that I gave us reading anything from her a good while ago, but if she is coming out with twaddle like that then she is getting even worse. Maybe she'll follow in Allegra Stratton's footsteps - Laura has always been a far more effective 'Press Secretary' for the Tory party than Allegra  or her successor who also appears to be completely invisible - far better to let Laura do the talking for them 🙄

 

[The Real Buh 3,444]

5 hours ago, nevermind, neoliberalism has had it said:

I have no dreadlocks and am still employable. But your bald head needs waxing...

Mate, I can smell your dreadlocks from here. It’s obvious.

[SwindonCanary 455]

[Herman 9,779]

Richard Tice is one of the biggest conmen going. Shyster. 

[Creative Midfielder 1,996]

13 hours ago, Herman said:

Richard Tice is one of the biggest conmen going. Shyster. 

I think he is perhaps getting a little confused and mixing up COP 26 with Davos. 😀

A grasp of the facts has never really been his or Farage's strong point - must admit I'd forgotten all about them, what is their pension fund, sorry company masquerading as a political party called nowadays?

[Rock The Boat 1,332]

On 02/11/2021 at 11:40, 1902 said:

China already has a declining population so to suggest that their population needs to fall is ridiculous, they have population growth which is lower than ours.

On the other point perhaps it's possible to have a prosperous society which also defends the environment but as it stands, prosperity equals emissions. Per capita Indian and Chinese emissions are miles lower than the USA for exactly this reason.

Per capita - agreed. But in absolute terms - and climate cares more about absolute than the statistical niceties of per capita - India and China are by far the worst polluters. 

Chinese population has been falling because the one-child policy reduced number of births. Since that policy is now ended, it is predicted that the population will begin to increase. See the chart.

The UK indigenous population growth is static but net immigration results in an increasing population and the immigrants give birth at a higher rate than the indigenous population. As the immigrant population increases their income, their birth rates will fall.

So what I said maybe counter-intuitive - that increased incomes lead to falling population plus a population more environmentally aware - it is factually correct that economic growth in heavily polluting countries will see more pressure within those countries to tackle pollution, just as it occurred in the West over the past generation.

[1902 1,167]

2 minutes ago, Rock The Boat said:

Per capita - agreed. But in absolute terms - and climate cares more about absolute than the statistical niceties of per capita - India and China are by far the worst polluters. 

Chinese population has been falling because the one-child policy reduced number of births. Since that policy is now ended, it is predicted that the population will begin to increase. See the chart.

The UK indigenous population growth is static but net immigration results in an increasing population and the immigrants give birth at a higher rate than the indigenous population. As the immigrant population increases their income, their birth rates will fall.

So what I said maybe counter-intuitive - that increased incomes lead to falling population plus a population more environmentally aware - it is factually correct that economic growth in heavily polluting countries will see more pressure within those countries to tackle pollution, just as it occurred in the West over the past generation.

Well per capita is far more relevant than national borders to this discussion, if it's about how to create a sustainable society than the real debate is who are disproportionate polluters, that's westerners.

The Chinese population won't grow. There is literally no demographic indicator to suggest this. The one child policy slightly reduced the birth rate but it was already decreasing. Find me a single study that suggests that the Chinese population will grow in the next 100 years. Your own graph shows that, 2.1 is the replacement rate for a population and China is at 1.7.

"The UK indigenous population growth is static but net immigration results in an increasing population and the immigrants give birth at a higher rate than the indigenous population. As the immigrant population increases their income, their birth rates will fall."

This part is irrelevant, the UK population is rising, doesn't matter whether those people are immigrants or not. They will also be polluters by virtue of living in our economic system. 

[horsefly 4,301]

18 minutes ago, Rock The Boat said:

So what I said maybe counter-intuitive - that increased incomes lead to falling population plus a population more environmentally aware - it is factually correct that economic growth in heavily polluting countries will see more pressure within those countries to tackle pollution, just as it occurred in the West over the past generation.

Exactly the same non sequitur repeated yet again. The only relevant evidence is that the countries that have modernised the most are identical with the countries that pollute the most per capita. It doesn't take a genius to work out that as countries like China and India progressively modernise the level of pollution per capita in those countries will increase. Individuals with new found wealth will avail themselves of precisely the same consumer "luxuries" with which Westerners caused the current environmental crisis. There is absolutely NO evidence at all that ," it is factually correct that economic growth in heavily polluting countries will see more pressure within those countries to tackle pollution". Indeed, quite the opposite, economic growth creates demand for products and services that cause global warming. That's precisely why the modernised countries are so worried about the progress of the modernising countries; they know full well (in retrospect) exactly the environmental cost and consequences of that process of modernisation.

The pressure to tackle pollution arises from the scientific evidence and subsequent political activism; it has **** all to do with some coincidental spin-off from free-market capitalism. 

[The Real Buh 3,444]

>believing this solves anything

Cringe

[horsefly 4,301]

Making pathetic jibes at those who have the courage to risk imprisonment to fight for a noble cause

Vomit inducing!

[The Real Buh 3,444]

9 hours ago, horsefly said:

Making pathetic jibes at those who have the courage to risk imprisonment to fight for a noble cause

Vomit inducing!

>Courage
 

Cringey, unwashed, jobless, insane morons. Not surprised you are amongst there ranks.

get a job, swamp creature. 

[nevermind, neoliberalism has had it 159]

On 04/11/2021 at 06:58, The Real Buh said:

>believing this solves anything

Cringe

my god, all these smelly dreadlocks, or are they the people that pay BUUUh's pension? now or in future?

 

[The Real Buh 3,444]

11 hours ago, nevermind, neoliberalism has had it said:

my god, all these smelly dreadlocks, or are they the people that pay BUUUh's pension? now or in future?

 

Who do you think should be the new notwich city manager “nevermind, neoliberalism has had it” ?

[Herman 9,779]

11 hours ago, nevermind, neoliberalism has had it said:

my god, all these smelly dreadlocks, or are they the people that pay BUUUh's pension? now or in future?

 

Buh, paid by the Tufton Street ghouls??

[Indy 3,301]

There’s so many new green projects, clean up projects and young minds actually doing things rather than using anarchic mechanisms. I hate to say it but modern society doesn’t know just how non green they are. Every piece of clothing they put on has a massive carbon impact, the hydrocarbon process produces materials for loads of products commonly used.

To ditch all these in one go would lead to massive consumer step changes which wouldn’t actually be welcomed by these so called anti government protestors. I hate to think of Greta’s carbon use over the years to protest her annoying way.

There’s loads of things we need to do ourselves to start with and educate our own families, change our own usages and apply less pressure on our local carbon usage.

Nuclear is an area which is certainly moved forwards in massive ways to become safer and streamlined to generate large output, the new mini Rolls Royce power stations are cheaper per kW and can be built in less time,it’s certainly a greener build than traditional larger power stations.

As we move away from our need of hydrcarbons, there’s huge moves to hydrogen for commercial fuels and electric for domestic energy.

BUT the biggest issue is and always will be the growth in population in 50 years has doubled from 3.5 billion to 7.8 billion, this has meant an acceleration in deforestation to farm and products demanded by the new growing population. Until we accept tat we have maxed out the globe and start to cut this back then we’ll never stop over pressuring the global resources. We’re at the brink and the time to change was1970, change in an ageing population who live so long means we need to revise our way of living in the future. Working longer, demanding less consumer goods, travel greener and stop having more than a couple kids! No family needs more than two kids!

Without hydrocarbons the world as we know and all need would collapse to chaos, but with it we’re accelerating the death of our planet, catch 22.

The sensible way forward is certainly being looked at by lots of great people, engineers, scientists and people who are actively doing something about the climate, others just add to the pressure and pollution by thinking they need to protest in ways which are detrimental to the cause but worse to the environment.

I’m pleased to have moved into green way as much as I can, my next project is looking at solar panels installation, but the current companies offering this service are trying to rent then to me, to buy and install is damn expensive compared to other countries. My cousin has had them installed in Germany for a third of the cost I’m  being quoted here. Profits first in the UK.

There’s no easy fix, but there’s certainly a hope that governments will buy into change, but you all need to buy into too.

Edited November 9, 2021 by Indy

[Creative Midfielder 1,996]

Here's a rather unusual but hopefully positive turn of events https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/jan/14/leading-uk-fracking-firm-taken-over-by-green-energy-group

[Rock The Boat 1,332]

On 03/11/2021 at 18:39, 1902 said:

Well per capita is far more relevant than national borders to this discussion, if it's about how to create a sustainable society than the real debate is who are disproportionate polluters, that's westerners.

The Chinese population won't grow. There is literally no demographic indicator to suggest this. The one child policy slightly reduced the birth rate but it was already decreasing. Find me a single study that suggests that the Chinese population will grow in the next 100 years. Your own graph shows that, 2.1 is the replacement rate for a population and China is at 1.7.

"The UK indigenous population growth is static but net immigration results in an increasing population and the immigrants give birth at a higher rate than the indigenous population. As the immigrant population increases their income, their birth rates will fall."

This part is irrelevant, the UK population is rising, doesn't matter whether those people are immigrants or not. They will also be polluters by virtue of living in our economic system. 

The Chinese population won't grow

Probably not, but their economic output will increase and GDP per capita will rise. And when that happens the population of China, now freed from economic hardship will turn their attention to matters such as pollution and the environment. When they are poor, they have no voice. as their income rises so does their ability to have influence upon their government and leaders. Therefore, it is through economic growth that you set up the conditions for improving the quality of life. The same thing will happen in India. It happened to us in the West if you wish to study economic history. The demands for less pollution and a cleaner environment didn't spring from out of nowhere in the west. They arose from an educated and articulate middle-class no longer bound up in poverty as most of the population would have been 150 years ago and earlier.

And per capita is very obviously related to borders.

[1902 1,167]

8 hours ago, Rock The Boat said:

The Chinese population won't grow

Probably not, but their economic output will increase and GDP per capita will rise. And when that happens the population of China, now freed from economic hardship will turn their attention to matters such as pollution and the environment. When they are poor, they have no voice. as their income rises so does their ability to have influence upon their government and leaders. Therefore, it is through economic growth that you set up the conditions for improving the quality of life. The same thing will happen in India. It happened to us in the West if you wish to study economic history. The demands for less pollution and a cleaner environment didn't spring from out of nowhere in the west. They arose from an educated and articulate middle-class no longer bound up in poverty as most of the population would have been 150 years ago and earlier.

And per capita is very obviously related to borders.

That educated middle class may well be more interested in campaigning for environmental protection, however the environmental damage it will do will be higher regardless because maintaining the lifestyle of the global middle classes necessitates higher consumption. 

Your theory is one thing, the evidence does not support your assertion that freer, prosperous societies are responsible for less emissions.

Additionally, middle classes have often demanded more liberal societies as their incomes have grown. There is no guarantee that this trend will continue into the future or will be the Chinese experience.

Technology, political theory, propaganda and methods of punishment and reward are not what they were even 20 years ago. China is trying new methods of stemming any such demands and we can't assume that it won't be successful in doing that.

Ultimately, the west is per capita the largest source of emissions, we are therefore more responsible for this situation than China. We can't shift that blame onto the them because it's politically and socially easier than having a reform of regulation and taxation to discourage overconsumption.

[nevermind, neoliberalism has had it 159]

I agree with 1902 on this as the figures are now shoeing that China, despite of its repressive measures during the pandemic, has managed to increase its economic output to an annual 30%, mainly due to the demand in the west.

But it has also taken precautionary measures on very important global economic demands. It has encouraged its population to save resources and stock up on food, it has taken measures on vital agricultural chemicals and fertilizers announcing to cover China's needs first. It has also announced that it has food stocks to last for a year.

We have to realise that the shift of economic power is slipping away from those who are currently trying desperately to cause trouble in eastern Europe, the middle east and middle Asia, who have armed Ukrainian fascists and have secret hit squads that arer disrupting regimes like that in Kazakhstan. 

The latter is blessed with gas, oil, precious metals and 40% of the globe's uranium deposits, a magnet for many states that have an expansionary curve, rather than curbing relentless global growth and energy expenditure and replacing it with sustainable policies.

Those who work for large corporations such as RAND and are involved in the expansion of the military industrial sector have been working to a blueprint to destabilise countries and expand NATO, they do not want to live sustainably but rule global affairs by force whilst profiting from it.

Nuland and her apparent sister in arms Truss are both of the same hue. Good, well researched article here from Thierry Meyssan

https://www.voltairenet.org/article215271.html

[Well b back 3,216]

Another bit of unusual weather coming America’s way

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-60177979

 

[The Real Buh 3,444]

29 minutes ago, Well b back said:

Another bit of unusual weather coming America’s way

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-60177979

 

Yeah, the east coast of the USA has never had lots of snowfall…

Climate change is very real and must be tackled but linking it to every storm and every meteorological event weakens the point and emboldens sceptics and just generally makes people look silly.

weather exists, will always exist. All the teslas in the world won’t change that.

[Creative Midfielder 1,996]

Seems an appropriate time to give this thread a bit of a bump 😀

[littleyellowbirdie 2,551]

On 16/01/2022 at 13:27, nevermind, neoliberalism has had it said:

I agree with 1902 on this as the figures are now shoeing that China, despite of its repressive measures during the pandemic, has managed to increase its economic output to an annual 30%, mainly due to the demand in the west.

But it has also taken precautionary measures on very important global economic demands. It has encouraged its population to save resources and stock up on food, it has taken measures on vital agricultural chemicals and fertilizers announcing to cover China's needs first. It has also announced that it has food stocks to last for a year.

We have to realise that the shift of economic power is slipping away from those who are currently trying desperately to cause trouble in eastern Europe, the middle east and middle Asia, who have armed Ukrainian fascists and have secret hit squads that arer disrupting regimes like that in Kazakhstan. 

The latter is blessed with gas, oil, precious metals and 40% of the globe's uranium deposits, a magnet for many states that have an expansionary curve, rather than curbing relentless global growth and energy expenditure and replacing it with sustainable policies.

Those who work for large corporations such as RAND and are involved in the expansion of the military industrial sector have been working to a blueprint to destabilise countries and expand NATO, they do not want to live sustainably but rule global affairs by force whilst profiting from it.

Nuland and her apparent sister in arms Truss are both of the same hue. Good, well researched article here from Thierry Meyssan

https://www.voltairenet.org/article215271.html

China's military spending  was about 7.5% of its GDP in 2021 compared to about 3.5% for the US, and less than 2% for most other NATO members. In light of that, can you elaborate on what you mean by the expansion of the 'military industrial sector'. Maybe you were talking about China?

You're right that Russia's influence does seem to be waning, in spite of its trouble-making in Eastern Europe that is creation huge environmental damage and famine. 

Anyway, back to the main topic: the reason that it has taken too long to do anything is a combination of the problem being too abstract, a tendency for short-termism in democratic politics, coupled with commercial interests invested in deterring action to avoid disruption to their commercial activities. Generally, I think it's too late to actively fix it and it will simply be fixed naturally by a collapse in human population, probably a lot of people suffering in the process and a fair number of living species, animal and plant, becoming extinct in the process.

Edited August 25, 2022 by littleyellowbirdie