It's what these crazy people want though.... It's the only way that the lunatics at the Venus project can get their system of socialism to work. It's for the few not the many and we know from their CEO, the few are the rich elite.
Greta Thunberg
- Thread starter rubberduck
- Start date
-
- Tags
- doom goblin
It's what these crazy people want though.... It's the only way that the lunatics at the Venus project can get their system of socialism to work. It's for the few not the many and we know from their CEO, the few are the rich elite.
There may be plenty of expensive and technologically advanced means to generate energy currently but you ignore multiple issues here.
Many do not involve low/zero fossil fuel far from it
Nuclear power stations mean proliferation of the key components of nuclear bombs in a lot of current designs
We use massive amounts of fossil fuels for intensive farming. Try ditching that and people will starve
Just in the UK
and abroad
and its not just about the direct energy use on farms and in production/ distribution.
Pesticides and nitrogen fertilisers, necessary for feeding the world currently, are reliant on fossil fuels
There just aren't good alternatives to replace fossil fuels in agriculture en masse at the moment
And just because there is potentially technological solutions doesn't mean they can be employed in ways that are accessible to any more than a small fraction of the worlds population.
There are billions of people who are not going to have their development slowed down, stopped or reversed because we tell them they can't burn fossil fuels like we did for decades to get to where we are.
Last edited:
That is one of the countless reasons that we won't fix this problem. The other rather large one is that many, many people don't even believe man-made climate change is real. It seems to be scientific consensus that it is real, but the common man is not convinced, yet.
And if any government decided to really get tough on fossil fuels, I suspect the electorate would boot them out at the nearest opportunity.
Many people are at best apathetic, and at worst fully opposed to efforts to cut emissions. Until and unless the seas start boiling and fire rains down from the sky, people on the whole just aren't that bothered about our emissions or carbon footprint or whatever. Even if people were dying like flies on the other side of the world, many wouldn't care until it hit closer to home.
We are humans, and we largely don't care. About anything, really. Except that next iPhone that I've just seen on TV. It has 21 cameras, now?!
The good thing is that the fossil fuels will be depleted anyways, and the Earth will clean itself with or without our assistance.
@Caracus2k
You are wrong. We need a green economy where the fossil fuels are removed from all the processes.
And it is possible. Will take time but will happen.
@Caracus2k
You are wrong. We need a green economy where the fossil fuels are removed from all the processes.
And it is possible. Will take time but will happen.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 28,904
Ah so they're planning to replace the coke with hydrogen then use arc furnaces later to remelt and alloy would be a really nice touch to use captured carbon later for the alloying phase.
Ping to use a hell of a lot more electricity though we really need to be investing in something like nuclear for the big base load from things like this soon.
Contentious Climate Debate: Should Rich Nations Pay for Damage Done? (msn.com)
"Scientists have sharpened their analytical tools in the four years since Irma and now are able to quickly establish direct links between extreme weather and warming temperatures. If they did a study that attributed the supercharged storm’s power to climate change, who should pay the bill? Antigua and Barbuda, with fewer than 100,000 citizens, has contributed a minuscule portion of the greenhouse gases that are heating the planet. Yet developing nations often bear the brunt of climate impact.
That’s why activists are pushing the world leaders gathering for COP26 talks in Glasgow, Scotland, to prioritize what climate diplomats call “loss and damage.” It’s a polite way to describe the difficult process of getting rich nations, with responsibility for the vast majority of historic carbon emissions, to compensate poorer countries wrecked by storms, floods, droughts and fires."
"Scientists have sharpened their analytical tools in the four years since Irma and now are able to quickly establish direct links between extreme weather and warming temperatures. If they did a study that attributed the supercharged storm’s power to climate change, who should pay the bill? Antigua and Barbuda, with fewer than 100,000 citizens, has contributed a minuscule portion of the greenhouse gases that are heating the planet. Yet developing nations often bear the brunt of climate impact.
That’s why activists are pushing the world leaders gathering for COP26 talks in Glasgow, Scotland, to prioritize what climate diplomats call “loss and damage.” It’s a polite way to describe the difficult process of getting rich nations, with responsibility for the vast majority of historic carbon emissions, to compensate poorer countries wrecked by storms, floods, droughts and fires."
Very good descriptive article on the global warming and its consequences at The climate disaster is here – this is what the future looks like | Environment | The Guardian
Greta Thunberg | Facebook
Greta Thunberg | Facebook
Eight years, 20 policies: how Australia’s leaders have fumbled and dithered on climate (msn.com)
2013-14 – Direct(ish) action
2017 – ‘This is coal’
2017 – Clean energy target overhaul
2017-18 – National energy guarantee (1, 2 and 3)
2018 – RET wind-down (and the policy for no policy)
2018-19 – Default energy prices and big sticks
2018-20 – Coal is still king. Sort of
2019-21 – Nuclear power could be king. Maybe
2019 – No need to make changes
2019 – $1bn for hydro, gas and batteries
2020-21 – Gas-led recovery
2020-21 – Technology roadmap
2021 – Glasgow is a go
2013-14 – Direct(ish) action
2017 – ‘This is coal’
2017 – Clean energy target overhaul
2017-18 – National energy guarantee (1, 2 and 3)
2018 – RET wind-down (and the policy for no policy)
2018-19 – Default energy prices and big sticks
2018-20 – Coal is still king. Sort of
2019-21 – Nuclear power could be king. Maybe
2019 – No need to make changes
2019 – $1bn for hydro, gas and batteries
2020-21 – Gas-led recovery
2020-21 – Technology roadmap
2021 – Glasgow is a go
BBC so called leak https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-58982445
you need to show me some details of the timing (could be 5 years old) and context of these leak documents if you want me to believe this.
PS. COP is where Boris is presenting a political manifesto ? Keir's not committing/signing to implement his net-zero is he ? so how come the Queen (may) bless this event.
you need to show me some details of the timing (could be 5 years old) and context of these leak documents if you want me to believe this.
PS. COP is where Boris is presenting a political manifesto ? Keir's not committing/signing to implement his net-zero is he ? so how come the Queen (may) bless this event.
Having lived through the 1970's I'm waiting for the "Oops we miscalculated" admission. Still waiting for the next ice age predicted then. I'm all for pollution reduction and sensible measures taken at a realistic pace but those least able to afford it are going to suffer badly if our leaders aren't careful. When the masses are suffering history tells us it doesn't go well...
lol, boomers are so fun.
Soldato
What is it about having lived through the 70's that means you know better than global consensus on climate change?
Putting blinkers on and adopting total inaction has got them so far, right?
You know what the scientists thought back then? That they were right too. The climate is changing and I'd bet a lot that nothing we do will change that one bit
I presume that future ice ages are now off the cards? There used to be hippos living near me, a very long time ago, and I wouldn't be surprised it that happens again in the distant future. We aren't changing the orbit /tilt of the planet, techtonic plate movements, volcanism or the output of the sun. If there weren't very large corporations, interests and politicians making money off this I'd be a little less sceptical. Time will tell...What are you even saying?You know what the scientists thought back then? That they were right too. The climate is changing and I'd bet a lot that nothing we do will change that one bit
You know what the scientists thought back then? That they were right too. The climate is changing and I'd bet a lot that nothing we do will change that one bit
Eh? You've got that the wrong way, those are the people making money out of the status quo, they are the ones resisting change at all costs.
I used to work in the pharmaceutical industry, they were very heavily regulated. Why was that? Because the executives and scientists were complicit in massive fraud leading to terrible consequences like thalidomide. I used to audit laboratories and I'm all too aware of errors and deliberate fraud that is committed, hence I don't put scientists on a pedestal. Do a bit of digging, there is money being lost changing the status quo but much more to be made by creating whole new industries. I suspect part of the motivation is the issue with the stock markets, more mergers, fewer large companies and less opportunity for growth. The whole of the world's economy is built on the growth of the stock markets, where would we be without consumerism and the masses working hard to buy new stuff? The world couldn't continue if we all stopped buying stuff and had cheap, easy lifestyles with more leisure time. The West's model is failing hence all the money printing.