Saving the planet?

[Pound Coin]

This is a statement of the obvious.

My point is that nothing we can do will alter those facts. Instead of all this daft rhetoric about turning back the change in the climate, we need to spend our time and resources on identifying where the changes will cause real problems and altering either the immediate environment if we can or moving people away from the affected areas if we cannot.


It is. That's why we need to concentrate on helping those who are directly affected instead of all this "extinction rebellion" nonsense.

There's an American saying: "You can't fight city hall" which applies here. Where you can't effect change, you can only move away from it. We should be attempting to both make the changes that would help those who can't do it for themselves and helping people to move away, where it is not practical to make those changes.

However, to do this requires committing real resources on a huge scale, something that the world's kleptocracies refuse to consider.

What you appear to be saying is that if you have a fire in your house (possibly because you stored matches and flammable materials there), you just accept it is on fire and put on a fire proof suit. Rather than removing the matches, flammable material, and looking after your house in the first place.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

What you appear to be saying is that if you have a fire in your house (possibly because you stored matches and flammable materials there), you just accept it is on fire and put on a fire proof suit. Rather than removing the matches, flammable material, and looking after your house in the first place.

That is the sort of utterly foolish response which shows that you are simply attempting to argue for the sake of arguing. Goodbye and good riddance.

 

[wyx087]

Where you can't effect change, you can only move away from it.

But we (as human race) can lessen the speed it worsens, we can affect it greatly.

This also needs committing real resources on a huge scale.

 

[Pound Coin]

Sea levels rising faster than ever before, almost certainly as a result of climate change.

Climate change: UK sea level rise speeding up - Met Office

The Met Office's annual look at our climate says higher temperatures are the new normal.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Pound Coin]

And another sad story

UK heatwave: Weather forecasters report unprecedented trolling

Meteorologists from the BBC and elsewhere faced abuse as they reported on the UK's record heat.

www.bbc.co.uk

What is happening is what was predicted as the effects of man unleashing so much CO2 so quickly. A big issue is that it is happening much faster than forecast.

 

[Craig1912]

Was doing some research on this and came across

Dr. Patrick Moore

ecosense.me

twitter link. https://BANNED/ecosensenow?s=11&t=2FjVUaJe3B0kaSoH5ug1zg

one if the founders of Greenpeace and has some interesting views. Just thought I’d post for an alternative view.

 

[Pound Coin]

Quite a few alternative views to his tweet on there. Quite a few people suggesting it is not a satellite phot, but a topographical one.

Then there is this takedown of him...

Not the first time he's done this. He is either one of the most dishonest people you will ever know or one of the least intelligent. Both is an option.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

Just thought I’d post for an alternative view.

...and kudos to you for doing so.

There are too many keyboard warriors who claim the right to free speech - but only for themselves.

 

[Craig1912]

Quite a few alternative views to his tweet on there. Quite a few people suggesting it is not a satellite phot, but a topographical one.

Then there is this takedown of him...

Try reading some of the other tweets/ articles too. As I said, I posted to give an alternative view and just because it doesn’t fit with you viewpoint doesn’t mean it doesn’t have some merit.

 

[Rob 80386]

Fossil fuels will run out,

We already know how to make synthetic oil / bio-fuel from plants, we just need to do more of it instead of pumping it from the ground.
We have nuclear fission and combine that with steam turbines to generate electricity, again we need to do more of it instead of burning coal to achieve the same thing.

Nuclear fusion is what we need to master as an advanced civilisation.
Interstellar space travel is the next logical step in our evolution.

 

[Pound Coin]

Try reading some of the other tweets/ articles too. As I said, I posted to give an alternative view and just because it doesn’t fit with you viewpoint doesn’t mean it doesn’t have some merit.

I did read some of the other tweets.

I think if someone is posting topographic images and saying they show that Amazonian deforestation is not an issue - that isn't an "alternative view", that is dishonest.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

I posted to give an alternative view and just because it doesn’t fit with you viewpoint doesn’t mean it doesn’t have some merit.

Sad but inevitable,

As I noted above: free speech for them, silence for the rest of us - all in the best traditions of loseb Besarionis dze Jughashvili (fondly known to his victims people as Joseph Stalin)

 

[sphexx]

Fossil fuels will run out,

We already know how to make synthetic oil / bio-fuel from plants, we just need to do more of it instead of pumping it from the ground.

Biofuels unfortunately are not a miracle answer since they require land to grow them at the expense of food crops or forest and so on.

We have nuclear fission and combine that with steam turbines to generate electricity, again we need to do more of it instead of burning coal to achieve the same thing.

Fission is ‘good’ but so far has always been too expensive.

Nuclear fusion is what we need to master as an advanced civilisation.
Interstellar space travel is the next logical step in our evolution.

Fusion is good but may never work.

I do wonder about all the heat from fission & fusion if we were using that exclusively and how it relates to the amount received from the Sun?

 

[Pound Coin]

Sad but inevitable,

As I noted above: free speech for them, silence for the rest of us - all in the best traditions of loseb Besarionis dze Jughashvili (fondly known to his victims people as Joseph Stalin)

I note you don't appear to have a view on the Twitter thread that was being discussed. What do you think about topographic images being posted as something else?

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

Fusion is good but may never work.

They've known how to make it go bang since 1952 but I think the longest they've been able to sustain a "stable" reaction is the 17 minutes claimed for the Experimental Advanced Superconducting Tokamak test in China: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_Advanced_Superconducting_Tokamak

 

[Craig1912]

Sad but inevitable,

As I noted above: free speech for them, silence for the rest of us - all in the best traditions of loseb Besarionis dze Jughashvili (fondly known to his victims people as Joseph Stalin)

I know, will never go looking for a alternative view and go out of the way to discredit anything that doesn’t fit their view. There is nothing we as a country can do to alter climate change. Any reduction in CO2 we make, will pop up elsewhere in the world. We have a horrendous winter ahead for millions of our poorer population and we are making and, have made the situation worse to try hit a ridiculous net zero target. What do we do when the wind doesn’t blow? What do we do when the sun doesn’t shine? There currently isn’t a viable alternative to gas and nuclear power and these should be developed to enable us to be self sufficient.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

....and, have made the situation worse to try hit a ridiculous net zero target. What do we do when the wind doesn’t blow? What do we do when the sun doesn’t shine? There currently isn’t a viable alternative to gas and nuclear power .

Agreed.

There is one viable alternatives but the ecomaniacs have successfully lied that out of the question: tidal power. There have been tidal power solutions around for decades but the same people who are against coal, gas and nuclear are against that as well, 'cause it'll harm the birds and the fish.

Sihwa Lake in South Korea shows what's possible: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sihwa_Lake_Tidal_Power_Station and here we have superb sites, like the Severn, which could produce many times the output. But big power stations that could produce low cost energy is anathema to the ecomaniacs and therefor the solutions are rejected.

 

[Pound Coin]

the ecomaniacs

I wonder if you mean those people that believe that human activities on the planet shouldn’t greatly affect other species and the ecosystem?

Or do you mean something else?

 

[Pixbarmy]

As long as the world is run by people whose primary interest is making money, we will see a continuance of man ruining the very planet that he/she lives on. The Exxon/Mobil organization is a prime example of using power and wealth to stifle the truth about what is actually damaging our planet. We need to invest in insulation rather than just wasting our money heating the sky, via our homes, offices and workplaces. If we have a 70mph speed limit, why are we building vehicles that will do almost 200 mph??? Because the fuel companies want to sell fuel!

 

[cambsno]

As long as the world is run by people whose primary interest is making money, we will see a continuance of man ruining the very planet that he/she lives on. The Exxon/Mobil organization is a prime example of using power and wealth to stifle the truth about what is actually damaging our planet. We need to invest in insulation rather than just wasting our money heating the sky, via our homes, offices and workplaces. If we have a 70mph speed limit, why are we building vehicles that will do almost 200 mph??? Because the fuel companies want to sell fuel!

Insulation is great but all new buildings have it and even though mine is well insulated I still need heating!!

Just because a car can go 200 doesn’t mean you can’t drive everywhere at 55, although the pollution caused by such cars is virtually zero as they are low in number.

 

[Pound Coin]

As long as the world is run by people whose primary interest is making money, we will see a continuance of man ruining the very planet that he/she lives on. The Exxon/Mobil organization is a prime example of using power and wealth to stifle the truth about what is actually damaging our planet. We need to invest in insulation rather than just wasting our money heating the sky, via our homes, offices and workplaces. If we have a 70mph speed limit, why are we building vehicles that will do almost 200 mph??? Because the fuel companies want to sell fuel!

Well, this is apposite.

As I have said before, this is out of the playbook that the smoking industry used. Sadly, we aren’t just talking about the health of middle aged smokers, but about the health of life on earth.

Misinformation is a powerful drug. Why wouldn’t anyone wish to continue with their lifestyle as it is…

 

[wyx087]

There's a BBC documentary coming that talks about
"The BBC2 three-parter highlights the role of the oil and gas majors in spreading disinformation about fossil fuels"

Big Oil v The World review — forensic documentary examines climate change’s culprits

The BBC2 three-parter highlights the role of the oil and gas majors in spreading disinformation about fossil fuels

www.ft.com

Guess its content will be similar to this exhaustively researched and documented book:

Merchants of Doubt - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Human made climate change doubt fabricated by the giant industry to secure their future profit. Exactly same playbook as the tobacco industry.

Fossil fuel industry sure have a lot of money to fund those things. Recent article reveals average profit of those companies over last 50 years:

Revealed: oil sector’s ‘staggering’ $3bn-a-day profits for last 50 years | Fossil fuels | The Guardian

Vast sums provide power to ‘buy every politician’ and delay action on climate crisis, says expert

amp.theguardian.com

 

[cambsno]

There's a BBC documentary coming that talks about
"The BBC2 three-parter highlights the role of the oil and gas majors in spreading disinformation about fossil fuels"

Big Oil v The World review — forensic documentary examines climate change’s culprits

The BBC2 three-parter highlights the role of the oil and gas majors in spreading disinformation about fossil fuels

www.ft.com

Guess its content will be similar to this exhaustively researched and documented book:

Merchants of Doubt - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Human made climate change doubt fabricated by the giant industry to secure their future profit. Exactly same playbook as the tobacco industry.

Fossil fuel industry sure have a lot of money to fund those things. Recent article reveals average profit of those companies over last 50 years:

Revealed: oil sector’s ‘staggering’ $3bn-a-day profits for last 50 years | Fossil fuels | The Guardian

Vast sums provide power to ‘buy every politician’ and delay action on climate crisis, says expert

amp.theguardian.com

Does it matter to the average user though? I would like an electric car but not affordable / good value IMO (or was last time I looked) so that needs to be addressed first.

 

[Pound Coin]

Does it matter to the average user though? I would like an electric car but not affordable / good value IMO (or was last time I.looked) so that needs to be addressed first.

Well, propaganda from the fossil fuel industry has made the average user think there is no problem. Sadly, when the average user finds out what is actually happening, it will be too late.

Hint: electric vehicles, and air conditioning for hot conditions aren’t actually the answer.

 

[cambsno]

Well, propaganda from the fossil fuel industry has made the average user think there is no problem. Sadly, when the average user finds out what is actually happening, it will be too late.

Hint: electric vehicles, and air conditioning for hot conditions aren’t actually the answer.

We know there is a problem, its a lack of feasible alternatives thats the issue. The average user cannot influence how energy is created, they can only influence the car they drive and a few other small things.

 

[Pound Coin]

We know there is a problem, its a lack of feasible alternatives thats the issue. The average user cannot influence how energy is created, they can only influence the car they drive and a few other small things.

The average user can absolutely influence how energy is generated.

However, they do need to have proper information. Government and the industry isn’t great at providing that.

Using the word ‘alternative’ is an interesting one, as it assumes we will be able to carry on doing what we are doing now. We probably won’t be able to, unless we can remove CO2 from the atmosphere, and get Fusion working on an appropriate scale.

Electric vehicles are new deckchairs on the fore deck of the Titanic.

 

[LCPete]

Not my words but copied from an extinction rebellion page author D. McCarthy asked people to share
I wouldn’t normally post something like this but he has summarised nicely what is happening with government policy on climate change



IF YOU CARE ABOUT CLIMATE DESTRUCTION - THEN I PLEAD WITH YOU TO READ THIS ARTICLE - WHICH I FEEL IS THE MOST IMPORTANT ONE I HAVE WRITTEN IN 30 YEARS OF ECOLOGICAL ACTIVISM and then please RT, as I could get no publication to print it.

IT GOES TO THE CORE OF WHO IS REALLY BLOCKING UK GOVERNMENTAL ACTION ON CLIMATE CRISIS

"IT IS THE MEDIA STUPID!

Who makes the key decisions on whether the UK government tackles the unfolding climate crisis now engulfing our civilisation?

With the UK supposedly being a liberal democracy, it should be the elected government led by the prime minister. But is it?

In extraordinary evidence given to the Science & Technology Parliamentary Select Committee in an oral hearing in May 2021, Dominic Cummings, former chief adviser to Boris Johnson, claimed that in the prime minister’s office, the culture of governing was essentially a press-answering service, where everything is dedicated to the media.

He said the prime minister was 1,000 times more obsessed with the media, in a way that undermined his job.

So influential are the papers’ editors that in the mornings:
“He just gets up, reads the papers, says, “Right, what are they doing today?” and then cannons around.”

This rings true with previous accounts of how Major and Blair were subject to pressure, bullying and instructions from Rupert Murdoch and has huge implications for how climate decisions are made in the UK’s government.

The most consequential climate policy-making paper issued recently by Johnson’s government in relation to the climate emergency was the Energy Security Strategy, issued on the 7th of April. (1)

This covered proposals for North Sea oil and gas, on-shore and offshore wind, nuclear power and fracking, following the invasion of Ukraine.

In the light of Cummings testimony, I decided to look at which energy approaches that polling indicated the public supported, which approaches the Sun, Mail and Telegraph advocated and which of these the government then backed in the energy strategy.

Polls consistently show overwhelming public support for on and offshore wind, solar and insulation/energy efficiency.

Over three in five (63%) British adults support the UK government redirecting spending allocated to North Sea oil & gas extraction to renewable energy technologies such as wind/solar/storage and low carbon industries such as energy efficiency. (2)

The government’s own 2021 Public Attitudes Tracker showed 87% support for renewable energy, with only a tiny 1% opposing it. Onshore wind specifically had 80% support, with only 4% opposing.

By a majority of two to one, the public opposed fracking for natural gas. (3)

In a YouGov poll, 49% of people put investment in renewables at their top priority for government investment, compared to just 7% for nuclear power. (4)

In an ECIU survey about the 2022 energy price crisis, 51% saw renewables and insulation as the best way to reduce reliance on gas.

This compared to only 9% backing expansion of North Sea oil and gas exploration and 8% backing fracking, as the best long-term solutions. (5)

But what were the media oligarch tabloids advocating in the weeks prior to the launch of Johnson’s energy strategy?

In just the two weeks prior to the launch, research commissioned by the Climate Media Coalition from the journalist Elizabeth Mizon, identified 15 articles in the Telegraph, Sun, Express and Mail which variously supported North Sea oil and gas expansion, opposed onshore wind-turbines and advocated for the revival of fossil-fuel fracking on the mainland UK and expansion of nuclear power. (6)

The billionaire Barclay owned Telegraph declared we should not save petrol by driving at lower speeds in response to Putin’s invasion, but rather drill for more oil in the North Sea. (7)


A Daily Mail (whose editor-in-chief is Paul Dacre and who has virulently led opposition to climate action in the UK for decades) headline warned: “Rural Landowners Fear Push for Green Energy”.

It had a windfarm opponent saying that allowing onshore wind would upset “a very large number of voters” and an editorial declared that “Onshore wind turbines cause enormous damage to the countryside.” (8)

It urged the government to ignore “the shrieking eco-lobby” (i.e., a large majority of the UK public) and instead advocated for a return to fracking, more nuclear power and new oilfields. (9)

Another Mail headline ran “Energy woes can be tackled by extracting 'every last drop' of oil from the North Sea.” (10)

Rupert Murdoch’s Sun ran repeated articles advocating fracking, which the government had halted following earthquakes triggered by test wells.

The Telegraph carried a truly bizarre report warning that more onshore wind could “make us more reliant on gas,” whilst the same article called for more UK gas production and new gas power stations! (11)

It is crucial to note that the options backed by the public: solar, wind and home-insulation, all reduce costs for consumers, whereas those backed by the tabloid articles, are either more expensive than renewables or make no difference whatsoever to electricity and gas bills.

So, what did Johnson’s government include in the energy strategy after the blizzard of media pressure?

It backed almost exactly the agenda backed by the 3 media oligarchs (Murdoch/Barclay/Dacre):

• Expansion of nuclear power,
• Maximising new North Sea fossil fuels,
• Continued de facto ban on onshore wind,
• Reopened the possibility of fracking and
• No new major insulation programme to reduce energy bills for
poorer people.

The only major policy adopted by the government that had wide public support was the expansion of offshore wind. But this was a policy which the tabloids had not energetically opposed and to a certain extent supported!

This research backs the allegations made by Cummings.

It is these newspaper editors (and the 3 right-wing media owners who appoint them) who are the key decision makers in relation to the UK’s dismal governmental record on climate action.

This has profound implications for the climate movement’s targeting.

What is the point of lobbying the government or targeting it with disruptive protests, if it is these editors and their 3 billionaire oligarch bosses, who are the key decision makers?

With the terrifying news that the Arctic is now heating at a rate of +2.7C per decade (!!), wildfires engulfing forests, droughts devasting crops and the horror of the UK passing 40C (!) for the first time in human history, the climate movement cannot afford wasting another day focusing on the wrong targets. (12)

# It's The Media Stupid ! "

Love n courage
Donnachadh x

www.TheProstituteState.co.uk
@DonnachadhMc

Notes:

1. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/british-energy-security-strategy

2. https://home.38degrees.org.uk/2022/04/04/new-poll-results-huge-public-support-for-onshore-wind/
https://www.icmunlimited.com/our-work/uplift-north-sea-oil-and-gas-extraction-poll/

3. https://assets.publishing.service.g..._Energy_Infrastructure_and_Energy_Sources.pdf

4. https://www.renewableuk.com/news/56...top-of-Governments-plans-for-green-growth.htm

5. https://eciu.net/insights/2022/brit...sis-are-profiteering-russia-and-global-demand

6. http://climatemediacoalition.org/

7. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/03/18/dont-cut-speed-limits-beat-putin-just-drill-oil/

8. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...ng-rules-set-relaxed-wake-Ukraine-crisis.html

9. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...NT-Opportunity-missed-vital-energy-reset.html

10. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...NT-Opportunity-missed-vital-energy-reset.html

11. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politic...ould-blow-britain-towards-using/?fr=operanews

12. https://www.independent.co.uk/clima...ming-faster-global-average-rate-b2102375.html

 

[wyx087]

We know there is a problem, its a lack of feasible alternatives thats the issue. The average user cannot influence how energy is created, they can only influence the car they drive and a few other small things.

This is the root of the problem.
Change is needed but government and investors still pour money into fossil fuel industry like it's all okay to continue on their merry way. The status quo of using fossil fuel is considered normal and others are "alternatives".

Those money really need to go into pushing new technology such as heat pumps from early adopter stage into mainstream. Start by insulating housing stock, it's such a simple, yet extremely effective thing to do. Followed by proper grants for solar PV, home battery and heat pump installs that make them viable and affordable for everyone. They shouldn't be seen as alternatives.

On a bigger scale, stop funding fossil fuel exploration is a start. Creating great nationwide public transport is easy change as technology are all readily available. De-carbonise the grid by funding more renewables and adding large scale storage solutions.

We are currently heading down a delicate balance between a recession and hyper-inflation. I personally don't agree with printing money method of government assistance as it pushes us toward hyper-inflation. The tested and proven way of helping during recession whilst not adding to inflation is for government to fund infrastructures. I think current best value invertment is seasonal storage on the national grid (like pumped hydro).

 

[Nod]

they can only influence the car they drive and a few other small things.

One of the best ways to reduce the impact is to prevent the small things...

 

[cambsno]

This is the root of the problem.
Change is needed but government and investors still pour money into fossil fuel industry like it's all okay to continue on their merry way. The status quo of using fossil fuel is considered normal and others are "alternatives".

Those money really need to go into pushing new technology such as heat pumps from early adopter stage into mainstream. Start by insulating housing stock, it's such a simple, yet extremely effective thing to do. Followed by proper grants for solar PV, home battery and heat pump installs that make them viable and affordable for everyone. They shouldn't be seen as alternatives.

On a bigger scale, stop funding fossil fuel exploration is a start. Creating great nationwide public transport is easy change as technology are all readily available. De-carbonise the grid by funding more renewables and adding large scale storage solutions.

We are currently heading down a delicate balance between a recession and hyper-inflation. I personally don't agree with printing money method of government assistance as it pushes us toward hyper-inflation. The tested and proven way of helping during recession whilst not adding to inflation is for government to fund infrastructures. I think current best value invertment is seasonal storage on the national grid (like pumped hydro).

This is it - IF (and I am not doubting it) climate change is an issue then the government should fund stuff that will make a difference, like heat pumps or solar panels at no or very small cost (i.e. 2 year payback).

I do disagree with the public transport area to a degree, for those that do not live in towns. It is not practical or feasible to have public transport as an option for many. And cars are needed by most for day to day life.

Thinking back to when we needed to take kids to school in the past, we needed to drive there (half a mile) on our way to work, getting public transport would mean us leaving earlier and school not open then. Same with pickup. Wife used to leave work at 3 and get to school at 325, 5 mins before pickup. I could have got a bus to work, as I worked in town. Now though she works on 2 developments (old airfields) so IF she could use buses it would probably take at least 1 change and triple the journey time at least. That is probably similar in villages all over the country. To create a better public transport system the rail needs to be nationalised and made affordable. Bus services too. The bus from here to town is £4 each way for a 7 or 8 mile journey, if there is more than 1 of you then loads cheaper to drive.

Thing is people overall are selfish and I include myself in this. If a government did do radical things on this which make it difficult or expensive to live your life they would be out at the next election and these policies quickly overturned by the new lot.

 

[cambsno]

One of the best ways to reduce the impact is to prevent the small things...

But those small things are expensive and not an option for most. I dont have 6.5k or whatever it is for home solar panels or the funds for a heat source pump.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

The people who are so obsessed with climate change appear not to live in crowded blocks of flats or to have a 50 mile commute.

 

[wyx087]

I don't want to turn this into another car thread. But our reliance on cars is result of many years of fossil fuel + car industry driven policy and infrastructure funding. Life can be different and just as easy without owning a car if many things are run differently and climate change wasn't put into doubt in the 70/80's.

The people who are so obsessed with climate change appear not to live in crowded blocks of flats or to have a 50 mile commute.

It's always easy to paint climate change as something only concerns the wealthy. Because "we are struggling and can't afford fancy solar panels".

But truth of the matter is that the poor are always the hardest hit whenever there is any inbalance in the world. Example from just last few years: heat wave, rising fuel prices, rising cost of food, pandemic and being on furlough,

So it is in everyone's best interest to get cleaner cheaper energy, In the long term, we'll see less heat waves, fuel and food prices are no longer held hostage by geopolitial price gouging.

 

[Nod]

But those small things are expensive and not an option for most. I dont have 6.5k or whatever it is for home solar panels or the funds for a heat source pump.

By small things, I meant children.

 

[Craig1912]

So it is in everyone's best interest to get cleaner cheaper energy, In the long term, we'll see less heat waves, fuel and food prices are no longer held hostage by geopolitial price gouging.

Don’t think anyone disagrees with this but at the moment there doesn’t seem to be an easy answer. Electric cars certainly aren’t and neither are installing £10k heat pumps into existing housing stock. Until we can generate a huge amount of clean electricity tinkering at the edges is pointless when in the gobal scheme of things it makes no difference. All we are doing is shifting our CO2 to China and the Far East where they are building more coal fired power stations than ever.

 

[wyx087]

Don’t think anyone disagrees with this but at the moment there doesn’t seem to be an easy answer. Electric cars certainly aren’t and neither are installing £10k heat pumps into existing housing stock. Until we can generate a huge amount of clean electricity tinkering at the edges is pointless when in the gobal scheme of things it makes no difference. All we are doing is shifting our CO2 to China and the Far East where they are building more coal fired power stations than ever.

I get what you are saying and it looks bleak.

But that doesn't mean we, as a society, can just give up and return to the status quo. That seems to be the newest message in mass media funded by fossil fuel industries. It's too difficult so we'll keep doing what we do and worry about capturing those carbons in the future.

EV's are not the answer as a transport system, more because private car ownership model doesn't work on a large scale, it only benefits the more well-off. But it's 100% suitable direct replacement for private cars in the world we live today. It doesn't produce as much localised pollution and its lifetime CO2 emission is far less than comparable cars.

Heat pumps are still at early adopter stages and missing the final push into mainstream. What can we do now? Government help insulate the whole housing stock so that everyone can spend less on heating bills (or less impacted by rising costs). Then when the time is right, switch to heat pump will be a lot easier.

We can adopt as much as those as possible. Even though some percentage of its energy still comes from fossil fuel, this percentage is always decreasing. The same EV/heatpump next year will emit less CO2 thanks to the grid slowly getting greener. Same cannot be said about ICE cars or gas boilers. This adoption cannot wait and be expected to happen overnight, so some people buy early and some wait, this is all okay as long as this topic is kept at forefront and considered before every purchase.

 

[cambsno]

I don't want to turn this into another car thread. But our reliance on cars is result of many years of fossil fuel + car industry driven policy and infrastructure funding. Life can be different and just as easy without owning a car if many things are run differently and climate change wasn't put into doubt in the 70/80's.


It's always easy to paint climate change as something only concerns the wealthy. Because "we are struggling and can't afford fancy solar panels".

But truth of the matter is that the poor are always the hardest hit whenever there is any inbalance in the world. Example from just last few years: heat wave, rising fuel prices, rising cost of food, pandemic and being on furlough,

So it is in everyone's best interest to get cleaner cheaper energy, In the long term, we'll see less heat waves, fuel and food prices are no longer held hostage by geopolitial price gouging.

But my post earlier highlights the NEED of a car if not in a town or city. Life can certainly NOT be just as easy where I live (and this is similar to millions of people across the country).

I could use my car less, fair point, but not do without it. Thinking about the last 10 years for me & wife in a 2 car house:

1. Getting to & from work - sometimes possible without a car but expensive and not the most reliable and could take a bit longer or 3 or 4 times longer - Also linked to school run
2. Kid clubs - karate, football, cricket etc...
3. Seeing friends and family in nearby villages (yes, we can and do bike in summer sometimes)
4. Doing part time photography work
5. Shopping (could do online but dont like it)
6. Needing to transport big things (tip, buying house stuff, not a regular thing granted)
7. UK holidays, try getting to and around Cornwall with no car
8. Day trips - cricket in Leeds, trips to beach, airshows
9. General out and about stuff - going to football last night, 15 min drive & 5 min walk, bus would have been an hour & 20mins?

Sure my life is not too different to millions of others so yes, a car is NEEDED and public transport cannot replace it. Aside from food shopping public transport is expensive/slow/does not exist

We have looked at going to 1 car to save money but while there is often a car sat outside house, there are too many times we need 2. It would need a massive lifestyle change for many.

And for your last statement, try telling that to the average person, we would all like cheaper energy but not at any cost - and despite rising food prices, they are still 'cheap' compared to previous generations.

 

[sphexx]

The people who are so obsessed with climate change appear not to live in crowded blocks of flats or to have a 50 mile commute.

Those people in crowded blocks of flats will be among the first to suffer .

 

[sphexx]

Thinking back to when we needed to take kids to school in the past, we needed to drive there (half a mile)

Are you saying the home to school distance was ½ a mile and you drove there?

 

[cambsno]

Are you saying the home to school distance was ½ a mile and you drove there?

Yes, because it was on the way to/from work.

Leave house at 830, drop at school, drive to work for 9 - on way back leave work at 3 arrive at 325, pick up at 330. If one of us was to walk to school and walk back we would be late for work or pick up (i.e. back home after 840 then at work after 9). Plus there were some after school activities like swimming so had to leave straight from school to get there in time.