Climate Change

[Whitey Grandad]

2 minutes ago, OldNick said:

Point is it all educated guesses but if anybody who preaches about global warming gets on an aircraft for a vacation then they should think again before telling others what to do

How your flight emits as much CO2 as many people do in a year | Environment | The Guardian

Or anyone who is an extensive user of the internet, especially social media.

[CB Fry]

Great posts Sydney Saint. 

[hypochondriac]

19 minutes ago, sydney_saint said:

Hmm I disagree about the fronts for government. I work with a number of very large companies such as H&M on climate change strategies and they are doing their own thing really. If anything trying to lobby governments for more support rather than the other way around. Truth is, so many companies are simply too big and transnational to be bound to any singular government.

The short term approach though is sadly true and you are bang on. It is classic tragedy of the commons. Why should I do something if no other country is? And then we all get fucked because of that approach.

Reality is whether we do something now, or just focus on adaptation, it is gonna come at a price. We are already seeing cotton prices rise for example. Part of that is driven by demand, and part of it is changing weather in countries such as India and Pakistan which is impacting output. This is only getting worse. So we can't escape costs.

But there are also benefits to use green tech that just don't get talked about enough. For example it was long suggested that solar and wind were super expensive and we shouldn't touch them. Well the levelised cost of energy (which is generally one of the fairest way of determining cheapest energy per kwh), shows that wind and solar have massively reduced in price. This is from a UK report last year for new energy added

With further learning and scale, renewables are gonna keep dropping in price. So that is undoubtedly better for us. Where the UK has messed up in my opinion is that it should/could still take a leadership position. It should have been a leader in innovation and production in wind energy and sell it around the world. Sure, it costs more in short term, but it is an investment that would pay off. 

If you look at something like circularity, that is another one that requires a fair amount of up front investment. But would pay off long run. Products use raw materials that go to many countries before it gets to us. It would make more sense to develop the systems to recycle and reuse materials with only small amount of raw material to top up, especially as raw resources are likely to go up in price.

So I personally don't see green tech as something that cripples us, but can be something that can make things cheaper and better.

Well like I said I really am not an expert on the climate and you appear to know a lot more than me. I'd be pretty surprised if the likes of coal companies in China aren't controlled by the government though. Undoubtedly there's opportunities with green technology but I think some aspects are going to be a really tough sell for the average lower to middle class westerners who can't afford unreliable heat pumps for houses, electric cars and expensive carbon taxes tacked onto holiday costs, particularly when loads of countries won't be doing any of these things. 

[sydney_saint]

5 minutes ago, OldNick said:

Point is it all educated guesses but if anybody who preaches about global warming gets on an aircraft for a vacation then they should think again before telling others what to do

How your flight emits as much CO2 as many people do in a year | Environment | The Guardian

As educated guess is Saints taking a punt on an 18 year old like Livramento. Decades of research is science. There is a mile of difference.

I also don't get your other point. No one is saying that you are not allowed to fly ever again? If they are saying it, then sure it is utter hypocrisy. But we do need to look at how we consume, what resources we use, and reduce it. 

Thing is, for years people have accused environmentalists of 'taking us back to the caves'. Now when we are saying you are allowed nice things they are like 'you hypocrites'.

Frequent flyers should absolutely be banned. Alok Sharma should have been sacked on the spot. 

But a flight every couple of years is fine. It's not a case of 'you better be perfect otherwise I am doing fuck all'. We don't need to be perfect. But we do need changes

 

 

[sydney_saint]

3 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Well like I said I really am not an expert on the climate and you appear to know a lot more than me. I'd be pretty surprised if the likes of coal companies in China aren't controlled by the government though. Undoubtedly there's opportunities with green technology but I think some aspects are going to be a really tough sell for the average lower to middle class westerners who can't afford unreliable heat pumps for houses, electric cars and expensive carbon taxes tacked onto holiday costs, particularly when loads of countries won't be doing any of these things. 

That's absolutely fair and I totally agree. I and many others do not want the costs past on to lower income families. It is completely unfair. If you look at at an organisation like Fuel Poverty Action who are around at every climate event - they are pushing for a green future whilst protecting those in fuel poverty.

To make this unaffordable to households is a political choice, not one that is inherent with a green future. There are lots of ways to prevent that from happening such as green levies on major profitable companies to subsidise lower income households, or legisilation that freezes the rate of price increases. It definitely isn't one or the other. 

[scally]

54 minutes ago, sydney_saint said:

Hmm I disagree about the fronts for government. I work with a number of very large companies such as H&M on climate change strategies and they are doing their own thing really. If anything trying to lobby governments for more support rather than the other way around. Truth is, so many companies are simply too big and transnational to be bound to any singular government.

The short term approach though is sadly true and you are bang on. It is classic tragedy of the commons. Why should I do something if no other country is? And then we all get fucked because of that approach.

Reality is whether we do something now, or just focus on adaptation, it is gonna come at a price. We are already seeing cotton prices rise for example. Part of that is driven by demand, and part of it is changing weather in countries such as India and Pakistan which is impacting output. This is only getting worse. So we can't escape costs.

But there are also benefits to use green tech that just don't get talked about enough. For example it was long suggested that solar and wind were super expensive and we shouldn't touch them. Well the levelised cost of energy (which is generally one of the fairest way of determining cheapest energy per kwh), shows that wind and solar have massively reduced in price. This is from a UK report last year for new energy added

With further learning and scale, renewables are gonna keep dropping in price. So that is undoubtedly better for us. Where the UK has messed up in my opinion is that it should/could still take a leadership position. It should have been a leader in innovation and production in wind energy and sell it around the world. Sure, it costs more in short term, but it is an investment that would pay off. 

If you look at something like circularity, that is another one that requires a fair amount of up front investment. But would pay off long run. Products use raw materials that go to many countries before it gets to us. It would make more sense to develop the systems to recycle and reuse materials with only small amount of raw material to top up, especially as raw resources are likely to go up in price.

So I personally don't see green tech as something that cripples us, but can be something that can make things cheaper and better.

Watch Planet of the Humans or read Apocalypse Never, wind and solar are not that green. Where are we going to put all these wind and solar farms? Also how much subsidies do they get?

[scally]

2 hours ago, sydney_saint said:

If your claims are correct. And that climate change can be proven to overstated. Why isn't the multi trillion dollar Oil and Gas industry running with it? Why aren't they walking up to the next COP with their dicks out saying we have demonstrated proof that your claims are absolutely incorrect? 

Pretty much everybody who I've ever debated with about climate change has said anybody who doesn't agree with the world coming to an end anytime soon is paid for by the oil companies. There is no debate on climate change, if there was then we'd get to see both sides of the argument

[sydney_saint]

2 minutes ago, scally said:

Watch Planet of the Humans or read Apocalypse Never, wind and solar are not that green. Where are we going to put all these wind and solar farms? Also how much subsidies do they get?

Lol this is the equivalent of you going up to Ralph and saying this is a football, those are goalposts. Yes I know how they are produced. Without wanting to rude, I daresay working in the industry for over a decade possibly gives me more insight into renewables than watching a 90 minute show by Michael Moore. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[scally]

3 minutes ago, sydney_saint said:

Lol this is the equivalent of you going up to Ralph and saying this is a football, those are goalposts. Yes I know how they are produced. Without wanting to rude, I daresay working in the industry for over a decade possibly gives me more insight into renewables than watching a 90 minute show by Michael Moore. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

So are you a climate scientist or an engineer? Michael Moore has been an envoromentalist all his life, why would he make a documentary like that unless he'd done his research and believed it 100%. How much land would we need to use to produce enough energy to fuel a country the size of America?

[sydney_saint]

2 minutes ago, scally said:

Pretty much everybody who I've ever debated with about climate change has said anybody who doesn't agree with the world coming to an end anytime soon is paid for by the oil companies. There is no debate on climate change, if there was then we'd get to see both sides of the argument

There absolutely are debate in climate change. Loads in fact. Come to a climate conference- it is full of the shit. What are our best emissions reduction pathways? Should offsets be used? What role do we allow market factors and what role do we use legislation? Are companies or their suppliers responsible for their emissions? How do we decouple economic growth from emissions? I can keep going with the various debates that are happening

What we don't have anymore is the debate you want. Which is, is it happening? And the reason is - because there is tonnes of evidence it is- and no evidence to disprove it. I asked you twice now and you keep ignoring it. But if there was evidence that it wasn't happening, or not happening to the extent that you think- why aren't the oil and gas industry all over it?

What you are wanting is like two gasmen coming to fix my boiler. I could go up to them and try and start a debate that it isn't broken. They tell me it is. They then try to talk to each other about the best way of fixing my boiler. I keep peppering them away telling them it isn't broken, they assure me it is, and demonstrate it isn't working. I ignore them and keep asking question about whether it is working so eventually they turn around and ignore me cos I ain't listening to them and it is wasting their time and the boiler needs fixing. 

I can argue all I like it isn't broken. Fact is- it is. 

[scally]

2 minutes ago, sydney_saint said:

There absolutely are debate in climate change. Loads in fact. Come to a climate conference- it is full of the shit. What are our best emissions reduction pathways? Should offsets be used? What role do we allow market factors and what role do we use legislation? Are companies or their suppliers responsible for their emissions? How do we decouple economic growth from emissions? I can keep going with the various debates that are happening

What we don't have anymore is the debate you want. Which is, is it happening? And the reason is - because there is tonnes of evidence it is- and no evidence to disprove it. I asked you twice now and you keep ignoring it. But if there was evidence that it wasn't happening, or not happening to the extent that you think- why aren't the oil and gas industry all over it?

What you are wanting is like two gasmen coming to fix my boiler. I could go up to them and try and start a debate that it isn't broken. They tell me it is. They then try to talk to each other about the best way of fixing my boiler. I keep peppering them away telling them it isn't broken, they assure me it is, and demonstrate it isn't working. I ignore them and keep asking question about whether it is working so eventually they turn around and ignore me cos I ain't listening to them and it is wasting their time and the boiler needs fixing. 

I can argue all I like it isn't broken. Fact is- it is. 

There is no debate, people who all have the same view at a climate conference is not debate. So what is the ideal average temperature of the earth and why did the earth cool between 1940 and 1975?

[Sheaf Saint]

6 minutes ago, scally said:

There is no debate, people who all have the same view at a climate conference is not debate. 

That's because there doesn't need to be that debate anymore. The climate is warming, and human activity is overwhelmingly responsible. You need to accept that and move on.

6 minutes ago, scally said:

So what is the ideal average temperature of the earth and why did the earth cool between 1940 and 1975?

I've answered that question for you before Scally, and presented you with various links to explain it, but you have obviously just completely ignored that.

Sydney-Saint - I have very much enjoyed reading your posts on this, but do yourself a big favour and give up. This guy is not worth wasting any more of your time on. No matter how much credible evidence you provide he will just never take it on board accept that his 'sources' could be wrong.

[sydney_saint]

27 minutes ago, scally said:

So are you a climate scientist or an engineer? Michael Moore has been an envoromentalist all his life, why would he make a documentary like that unless he'd done his research and believed it 100%. How much land would we need to use to produce enough energy to fuel a country the size of America?

More climate scientist. My first job was working in the field. I then worked for several years for a company that has been referenced in this thread  to develop their renewable energy platform - helping to establish bodies such as the science based target initative and RE100. So understanding renewable energy production and working with engineers was a huge part of that job. I also worked with The World Bank and Shell (!) on developing climate pricing scenarios. I now work with major fashion companies on their climate change roadmaps and implementations, including big ones where the realtity of climate change has really pissed them off like H&M, Burberry, Gucci and Nike. So I've worked across many part of the industry and spoken to so many people.

To answer your questions in once place. On the climate conferences all agreeing with each other...well... you couldn't be more wrong. The whole things are one big debate. You go into any room and there is a fucking debate going on. Over so many reasons. 

I've answered many of your questions. So answer my two to see whether this is even worth continuing or whether you will just ignore everything and believe that you are right and that thousands of climate scientists, governments, policy makers, major companies and the oil and gas industry are all wrong. 

1. What evidence do you require to understand the current climate change situation. You want a debate, but that can only be if there is a point where you can accept evidence

2. If you were right, why aren't the oil and gas industry screaming about it?

Edited 1 September, 2021 by sydney_saint

[scally]

3 minutes ago, Sheaf Saint said:

That's because there doesn't need to be that debate anymore. The climate is warming, and human activity is overwhelmingly responsible. You need to accept that and move on.

I've answered that question for you before Scally, and presented you with various links to explain it, but you have obviously just completely ignored that.

Sydney-Saint - I have very much enjoyed reading your posts on this, but do yourself a big favour and give up. This guy is not worth wasting any more of your time on. No matter how much credible evidence you provide he will just never take it on board accept that his 'sources' could be wrong.

You lost the argument as soon as you said there doesn't need to be debate anymore. Some thing as complex as the climate is never going to be a settled debate.

[CB Fry]

I applause patience of those writing such considered and detailed replies to this contrary, I've-seen-something-on-Facebook idiot.

But it looks like he now has claimed to have won the argument so fair play to him, congratulations 👏 👏 👏 👏 

[Sheaf Saint]

2 hours ago, scally said:

You lost the argument as soon as you said there doesn't need to be debate anymore. Some thing as complex as the climate is never going to be a settled debate.

You have no idea what real debate means, because you're incapable of actually listening and absorbing anything that contradicts what you want to believe. 

Real debate means presenting evidence-based arguments and acknowledging when counter evidence negates your arguments.

There is no further debate to be had about whether or not human emissions are causing climate change, because the evidence in favour of that argument is irrefutable.

You've probably heard the 97% figure in relation to the consensus of climate studies supporting anthropogenic warming. Well a group of researchers tried to replicate the results of a selection of the 3% of studies that reject it, and guess what? Turns out that they were all flawed...

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00704-015-1597-5

We need to accept it as fact, in the same way we accept that the Earth is not flat, so that the whole world can get on with the real debate which is: what should we do about it? Whether it's investing in mitigation or adaptation measures, or a combination of both, that's where the real uncertainty lies.

Edited 1 September, 2021 by Sheaf Saint

[OldNick]

17 hours ago, sydney_saint said:

As educated guess is Saints taking a punt on an 18 year old like Livramento. Decades of research is science. There is a mile of difference.

I also don't get your other point. No one is saying that you are not allowed to fly ever again? If they are saying it, then sure it is utter hypocrisy. But we do need to look at how we consume, what resources we use, and reduce it. 

Thing is, for years people have accused environmentalists of 'taking us back to the caves'. Now when we are saying you are allowed nice things they are like 'you hypocrites'.

Frequent flyers should absolutely be banned. Alok Sharma should have been sacked on the spot. 

But a flight every couple of years is fine. It's not a case of 'you better be perfect otherwise I am doing fuck all'. We don't need to be perfect. But we do need changes

 

 

To really make a difference surely popping off on a vacation on a jet is something that could be sacrificed, that is if you really mean what people say about making a difference.

We have a 'climate emergency' apparently, therefore all unwarranted air travel should be stopped, as this is a major contributor to carbon emissions.

Personal responsibility, not asking others to make the sacrifice but 'its ok for me as Im not the problem' 

I do as much as I can and recycle as much as possible, my business is a very green industry. Imo a lot of the preachers are 'do as I say not as I do'

I get to hear from entitled middle class kids shouting about saving the world but think nothing of jumping on a plane for a weekend.

A client of mine was queuing up in a tyre battery supplier and the client in front didnt want to buy a new battery for a car and the technician said , 'easy just turn off your stop start on your car, it will save you buying a new battery' The person decided to do that, with that, my client said to them both 'that's selfish, you are happy to ruin the environment with car fumes etc etc to save you buying a battery' When he happily retold me this I said to him 'I dont want to insult you but do you not fly off to Spain with your extended family 3 or 4 times a year,?' He didnt reply, we are still on good terms thankfully.

The oil industry are constantly being attacked but we heavily rely on petro chemicals for industry, domestic use as well as pharma, how do we sort that as well?

 

[OldNick]

Ps Im not saying there isnt anything going on with the climate but some things are out of our hands.

As for believing in scientists etc , I can recall a few things in my life that professors have spouted and been wrong.

When I was about 10 a professor (Chemistry?) from Southampton University ( would have been about 1970-75) told me and my father that we had found all the elements there were ever to be found. My father questioned this and he was slapped down by the academic. Since then many have been found.

About a decade ago Southampton Uni had a world press conference telling the world they had found a world climate gamechanger , it was something to do with producing energy. I cant recall exactly what it was, but within a short period it was debunked as they had missed something quite simple in the calculations.

Add to this something similar, multi millions of pounds were spent sending a probe to a planet and it didnt make it as they had calculated fuel in gallons instead of litres or vice versa.

Now in these cases you had very bright /brightest people who missed simple things in their modelling that made massive miscalculations.

So I am sceptical of some of these models and scientists always being right. 

As for the Conferences, I suggest it is full of like minded people who believe, Jehova Witnesses have big events and they all believe everything that is said.

The fact is the worlds climate is changing, in the last 50 years the worlds population has doubled hence our emissions will have done the same or more, we have to deal with that as much as anything else in my opinion.

 

 

[aintforever]

2 hours ago, OldNick said:

To really make a difference surely popping off on a vacation on a jet is something that could be sacrificed, that is if you really mean what people say about making a difference.

We have a 'climate emergency' apparently, therefore all unwarranted air travel should be stopped, as this is a major contributor to carbon emissions.

Personal responsibility, not asking others to make the sacrifice but 'its ok for me as Im not the problem' 

I do as much as I can and recycle as much as possible, my business is a very green industry. Imo a lot of the preachers are 'do as I say not as I do'

I get to hear from entitled middle class kids shouting about saving the world but think nothing of jumping on a plane for a weekend.

A client of mine was queuing up in a tyre battery supplier and the client in front didnt want to buy a new battery for a car and the technician said , 'easy just turn off your stop start on your car, it will save you buying a new battery' The person decided to do that, with that, my client said to them both 'that's selfish, you are happy to ruin the environment with car fumes etc etc to save you buying a battery' When he happily retold me this I said to him 'I dont want to insult you but do you not fly off to Spain with your extended family 3 or 4 times a year,?' He didnt reply, we are still on good terms thankfully.

The oil industry are constantly being attacked but we heavily rely on petro chemicals for industry, domestic use as well as pharma, how do we sort that as well?

 

But everyone is a hypocrite to some extent, by your rationale nobody would ever be able to discuss ways to combat climate change because they would be a 'preacher'.

Also, yes scientists are sometimes wrong but ignoring science because some might be wrong is just retarded. You might as well smoke 50 fags a day because they might be wrong about that causing cancer. Don't bother getting vaccinated either because they might be wrong too.  

 

[Whitey Grandad]

2 hours ago, OldNick said:

About a decade ago Southampton Uni had a world press conference telling the world they had found a world climate gamechanger , it was something to do with producing energy. I cant recall exactly what it was, but within a short period it was debunked as they had missed something quite simple in the calculations.

Wasn't that 'cold fusion'?

[OldNick]

26 minutes ago, aintforever said:

But everyone is a hypocrite to some extent, by your rationale nobody would ever be able to discuss ways to combat climate change because they would be a 'preacher'.

Also, yes scientists are sometimes wrong but ignoring science because some might be wrong is just retarded. You might as well smoke 50 fags a day because they might be wrong about that causing cancer. Don't bother getting vaccinated either because they might be wrong too.  

 

Retarded is a pretty sad word to put.

Yes everybody is a hypocrite very much including myself. 

Im not saying they are all wrong but they are not all right 

[OldNick]

1 minute ago, Whitey Grandad said:

Wasn't that 'cold fusion'?

It was an amazing leap if it had worked

[badgerx16]

3 hours ago, OldNick said:

.

When I was about 10 a professor (Chemistry?) from Southampton University ( would have been about 1970-75) told me and my father that we had found all the elements there were ever to be found. My father questioned this and he was slapped down by the academic. Since then many have been found..

 

 

They haven't been discovered, they havd been manufactured in laboratories and particle accelerators; they do not occur in nature and for many only a handful of atoms have ever been created, and are also highly unstable - degenerating into more 'traditional' elements.

Edited 2 September, 2021 by badgerx16

[Lighthouse]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-58543603
 

I don’t get this. If you’re trying to get people to be environmentally conscious, why do stuff that makes you widely hated by the rest society.

[whelk]

41 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-58543603
 

I don’t get this. If you’re trying to get people to be environmentally conscious, why do stuff that makes you widely hated by the rest society.

Too pampered. If their kids would go hungry cos they couldn’t earn a wage due to disruption they would have a different approach. Will be people sho can’t visit dying relatives etc. As you say does fuck all for gaining sympathy for their cause

[aintforever]

1 hour ago, Lighthouse said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-58543603
 

I don’t get this. If you’re trying to get people to be environmentally conscious, why do stuff that makes you widely hated by the rest society.

To raise the profile of the issue I suppose, campaigns of civil disobedience are not a new thing. I guess the suffragette's did some unpopular stuff at the time but women still ended up getting the vote.

Edited 13 September, 2021 by aintforever

[Whitey Grandad]

50 minutes ago, whelk said:

Too pampered. If their kids would go hungry cos they couldn’t earn a wage due to disruption they would have a different approach. Will be people sho can’t visit dying relatives etc. As you say does fuck all for gaining sympathy for their cause

Hose them down with diluted Covid vaccine or failing that, battery acid.

[Lighthouse]

39 minutes ago, aintforever said:

To raise the profile of the issue I suppose, campaigns of civil disobedience are not a new thing. I guess the suffragette's did some unpopular stuff at the time but women still ended up getting the vote.

I get that but it’s not as if there are laws requiring us to pollute, produce carbon or have poor insulation. If anything, the rises in energy prices are going to make it imperative for people to be as efficient as possible, regardless of whether they care about environmental issues.

22 minutes ago, Whitey Grandad said:

Hose them down with diluted Covid vaccine or failing that, battery acid.

I’m not sure there’s much crossover between anti-vax and climate protestors. One is predominately left wing and the other right wing.

[aintforever]

8 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

I get that but it’s not as if there are laws requiring us to pollute, produce carbon or have poor insulation. If anything, the rises in energy prices are going to make it imperative for people to be as efficient as possible, regardless of whether they care about environmental issues.

They are not trying to change laws, just get the government to do something about housing insulation.

[trousers]

1 hour ago, aintforever said:

To raise the profile of the issue I suppose, campaigns of civil disobedience are not a new thing. I guess the suffragette's did some unpopular stuff at the time but women still ended up getting the vote.

Not always a good outcome then...

[Sheaf Saint]

1 hour ago, Lighthouse said:

I’m not sure there’s much crossover between anti-vax and climate protestors. One is predominately left wing and the other right wing.

I'd say the two things are almost mutually exclusive. To be anti-vax is to be a science-denier, while the entire climate protest movement is centred around acknowledging the science behind it.

[Sheaf Saint]

3 hours ago, Lighthouse said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-58543603
 

I don’t get this. If you’re trying to get people to be environmentally conscious, why do stuff that makes you widely hated by the rest society.

To get people to take notice enough that they want to discuss it on an internet forum I guess

[badgerx16]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-58600723

"Scientists recently confirmed that to avoid the worst impacts of hotter conditions, global carbon emissions needed to be cut by 45% by 2030"

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-58600583

"Meat processors are in talks with the government over a shortage of carbon dioxide that could hit meat production"

[buctootim]

On 13/09/2021 at 15:51, Sheaf Saint said:

To get people to take notice enough that they want to discuss it on an internet forum I guess

Insulation  is such a no brainer. It saves huge amounts of money, makes your home much more comfortable ( in that the temperature is more steady and consistent throughout the house), reduced imports and also the installation is quite labour intensive so it’s job creating.

Fuck knows why any government wouldn’t really push it. Far more win win and cheaper than other moves like heat pumps which are expensive and actually fairly marginal as you need electricity to pump the water around and power the heat exchangers  

Edited 18 September, 2021 by buctootim

[badgerx16]

25 minutes ago, buctootim said:

Insulation  is such a no brainer. It saves huge amounts of money, makes your home much more comfortable ( in that the temperature is more steady and consistent throughout the house), reduced imports and also the installation is quite labour intensive so it’s job creating.

Fuck knows why any government wouldn’t really push it. Far more win win and cheaper than other moves like heat pumps which are expensive and actually fairly marginal as you need electricity to pump the water around and power the heat exchangers  

They tried with the Green Homes scheme, but like almost all plans from the shower in power it was badly planned and ineptly managed, so it was scrapped earlier this year.

We tried to apply for one of the vouchers but didn't qualify because our house isn't listed at the Land Registry, so the people running the scheme said that they could not verify that we owned the house. Apart from the fact we have all our old mortgage papers, are in possession of the property deeds, ( copies of all this was requested and submitted with the application), and registration at the registry has only been compulsory for houses built since the 1970s, ( ours was built in 1936), unless we paid for the registration the application could not be processed. It took 4 months for them to inform us of the issue regarding the LR, by which time they had pulled the plug on the whole scheme.

Not only that, but firms doing the installations found that actually getting the relevant documentation released by the Government department was nigh on impossible, and as for getting the money for redeemed vouchers - tough.

Edited 18 September, 2021 by badgerx16

[Whitey Grandad]

3 hours ago, buctootim said:

Insulation  is such a no brainer. It saves huge amounts of money, makes your home much more comfortable ( in that the temperature is more steady and consistent throughout the house), reduced imports and also the installation is quite labour intensive so it’s job creating.

Fuck knows why any government wouldn’t really push it. Far more win win and cheaper than other moves like heat pumps which are expensive and actually fairly marginal as you need electricity to pump the water around and power the heat exchangers  

Insulation- like Grenfell?

[whelk]

Good on ‘em. Twats blocking ambulances. Some pyscho will run over one of them soon.

 

 

[spyinthesky]

On 13/09/2021 at 15:49, Sheaf Saint said:

I'd say the two things are almost mutually exclusive. To be anti-vax is to be a science-denier, while the entire climate protest movement is centred around acknowledging the science behind it.

Fair comment.
However what I would like to know is how my life will be affected by the requirements to get to net zero eg the costs involved and the inconvenience.
For example not so long ago I was told driving a diesel car was the best option, now its not.
People were told that cavity wall insulation was the way forward and there were Govt incentives to progress this.
Now there are cases where it has been incorrectly installed or it has been deemed inappropriate.
One of my neighbours had roof insulation sprayed on the inside of his roof.
It has cost him 1,000's to replace it as the roof began to sweat.
And, of course, there is the cladding issue.
Are Heat Pumps/Hydrogen Boilers/Electric Cars really the way forward?

[Sheaf Saint]

15 hours ago, spyinthesky said:

Fair comment.
However what I would like to know is how my life will be affected by the requirements to get to net zero eg the costs involved and the inconvenience.
For example not so long ago I was told driving a diesel car was the best option, now its not.
People were told that cavity wall insulation was the way forward and there were Govt incentives to progress this.
Now there are cases where it has been incorrectly installed or it has been deemed inappropriate.
One of my neighbours had roof insulation sprayed on the inside of his roof.
It has cost him 1,000's to replace it as the roof began to sweat.
And, of course, there is the cladding issue.
Are Heat Pumps/Hydrogen Boilers/Electric Cars really the way forward?

CO2 emissions from diesel engines are lower than from equivalent sized petrol ones, that's true. Around 20-25 years ago, there was a huge marketing campaign to get people to switch to diesel because you could get more miles per gallon and more gallons to the pound, so they were much more economical. And when manufacturers started making family cars with diesel engines that didn't sound like a rusty old tractor, people duly obliged and there was a massive spike in sales. Of course, with rising demand came an inevitable rise in prices, so it wasn't long before the cost per litre benefit of diesels all but disappeared.

Unfortunately, what they forgot to tell everyone is that diesels are worse for the environment in other ways, thanks to the much higher emissions of other pollutants like NOx and particulate matter. So although we've seen a slower increase in CO2 emissions than if diesel engines were still reserved for vans, lorries and tractors (the rate of increase in the sheer number of cars on the road means there was never a drop), we've also seen a marked drop in air quality. The refining process of diesel is also more energy-intensive than petrol, which leads to higher emissions from production, so the actual saving in terms of the amount of CO2 dumped into the atmosphere is negligible.

Electric cars really are the way forward in emissions terms. Of course, there are concerns about the availability of materials needed to make the batteries, and the overall carbon cost of manufacturing them. But the latter also applies to petrol and diesel cars, so over the lifespan of an electric car there is a significant GHG emission saving. The range and charge time on new models is getting better every year, so they are much more practicable now than they were even 5 years ago.

Ultimately, if we want to hit the target of net zero emissions, we all need to take personal responsibility to use less energy in our lives. Collectively, we also need to invest in much better public transport to reduce the number of cars on the roads, and in better national infrastructure. And we also need to reduce unnecessary consumerism and waste. Unfortunately, none of this is compatible with a neoliberal economic system that prioritises corporate profits above all else and demands infinite growth, compelling us to constantly buy more, consume more and waste more.

In a nutshell, we're fucked.

Edited 5 October, 2021 by Sheaf Saint

[Patrick Bateman]

On 04/10/2021 at 23:12, Sheaf Saint said:

CO2 emissions from diesel engines are lower than from equivalent sized petrol ones, that's true. Around 20-25 years ago, there was a huge marketing campaign to get people to switch to diesel because you could get more miles per gallon and more gallons to the pound, so they were much more economical. And when manufacturers started making family cars with diesel engines that didn't sound like a rusty old tractor, people duly obliged and there was a massive spike in sales. Of course, with rising demand came an inevitable rise in prices, so it wasn't long before the cost per litre benefit of diesels all but disappeared.

Unfortunately, what they forgot to tell everyone is that diesels are worse for the environment in other ways, thanks to the much higher emissions of other pollutants like NOx and particulate matter. So although we've seen a slower increase in CO2 emissions than if diesel engines were still reserved for vans, lorries and tractors (the rate of increase in the sheer number of cars on the road means there was never a drop), we've also seen a marked drop in air quality. The refining process of diesel is also more energy-intensive than petrol, which leads to higher emissions from production, so the actual saving in terms of the amount of CO2 dumped into the atmosphere is negligible.

Electric cars really are the way forward in emissions terms. Of course, there are concerns about the availability of materials needed to make the batteries, and the overall carbon cost of manufacturing them. But the latter also applies to petrol and diesel cars, so over the lifespan of an electric car there is a significant GHG emission saving. The range and charge time on new models is getting better every year, so they are much more practicable now than they were even 5 years ago.

Ultimately, if we want to hit the target of net zero emissions, we all need to take personal responsibility to use less energy in our lives. Collectively, we also need to invest in much better public transport to reduce the number of cars on the roads, and in better national infrastructure. And we also need to reduce unnecessary consumerism and waste. Unfortunately, none of this is compatible with a neoliberal economic system that prioritises corporate profits above all else and demands infinite growth, compelling us to constantly buy more, consume more and waste more.

In a nutshell, we're fucked.

Agree with all of this, except the point on electric cars.  The actual way forward is to drive less!  Cycle, walk, public transport (which needs to be better and also more green as well), but drive less.  Personally I've driven about 3000 miles in a year, not just because of lockdown, but many reasons - walking more being one.

There are many things people can do; plant trees, ban fake turf and have real grass, stop the obsession with cheap throwaway clothing and buy quality that lasts, repair said clothing like used to happen, don't buy a new mobile every year, stop the obsession with loads of make up fake tans and injecting crap, stop making fans of Everton and Manchester City (for example) travel to London for a cup final, play it up north, stop bloody flying around the world so much, drive less, eat less and eat what you buy stop throwing it away.

Generally the theme is "less".  We do need to be less consumerist and repair what we have.  Just my view anyway and what I'm doing - now.  Yes, like everyone I've been part of the problem, but it's not too late to make a change. 

[Picard]

Has anyone calculated how much more CO2  all the closed air spaces will produce?

Any other effects on climate change because of this war?

[badgerx16]

32 minutes ago, Picard said:

Has anyone calculated how much more CO2  all the closed air spaces will produce?

Any other effects on climate change because of this war?

Blown up gas and oil facilities, burning tanks.

[Weston Super Saint]

This is beyond paraody surely?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-61596817

Quote

The UK's first city mayor to declare a climate crisis has been questioned for flying nine hours to attend a conference to urge leaders to cut CO2.

He delivered a 14 minute talk on how 'City Mayors' can influence carbon policy, which he could have done virtually.  His office claims he had a 'full diary of networking events' so it wasn't a waste of CO2.

The only problem is, the city has had a referendum and voted him out of his office and scrapped the mayoral system.  He's the same crackpot that proposed a £4bn underground for the city 

[AlexLaw76]

We are now within the last 2 weeks of our civilisation.  And we end it all with relegation, ffs.....

The threat is THIS real

[badgerx16]

Watched a video last night of Moggy on GBeebies saying that we should ignore net-zero and continue to use gas as much as possible because reliance on electricity for all our future energy needs is a risk. This is because of the potential for the more violent adverse weather due to CC to bring down power lines and disrupt transmission infrastructure, thereby cutting off electricity supplies - whilst gas is transmitted under the ground and is therefore resistant to the impact of storms.

Edited 11 June, 2023 by badgerx16

[AlexLaw76]

1 minute ago, badgerx16 said:

Watched a video last night of Moggy on GBeebies saying that we should ignore net-zero and continue to use gas because reliance on electricity for all our future energy needs is a risk. This is due to the potential for the more violent adverse weather due to CC to bring down power lines and thereby cut off electricity supplies - whilst gas is transmitted under the ground and is therefore resistant to the impact of storms.

less than 2 weeks to go.....enjoy it mate

[Sheaf Saint]

10 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

less than 2 weeks to go.....enjoy it mate

That's not actually what GT's tweet says though is it. 

Try reading it again.

[AlexLaw76]

5 minutes ago, Sheaf Saint said:

That's not actually what GT's tweet says though is it. 

Try reading it again.

then 2 weeks before it is too late for all of us

[badgerx16]

32 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

less than 2 weeks to go.....enjoy it mate

It only mentions 'humanity', nothing about badgers.

And to be honest, it doesn't actually give the doomsday timetable for humanity's demise - maybe nuclear war, or even the sun going supernova, will beat CC to it.

Edited 11 June, 2023 by badgerx16

[Whitey Grandad]

37 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

Watched a video last night of Moggy on GBeebies saying that we should ignore net-zero and continue to use gas as much as possible because reliance on electricity for all our future energy needs is a risk. This is because of the potential for the more violent adverse weather due to CC to bring down power lines and disrupt transmission infrastructure, thereby cutting off electricity supplies - whilst gas is transmitted under the ground and is therefore resistant to the impact of storms.

As opposed to gas transmitted under the sea through pipelines.