RobinBHM
Established Member
What you mean is: you don’t like your tropes questioned.
Cop 29
- Thread starter Chris152
- Start date
Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:
Amplidyne
Established Member
What you mean is that we don't agree, and we will never agree.
Never mind "tropes" you don't like the truth.
And that is that basically, that there's nothing to choose between any of what we end up stuck with.
RobinBHM
Established Member
RobinBHM
Established Member
Please do not equate your opinions with facts, you don’t agree with me because you don’t believe in facts only opinions
You believe the all politicians left and right are the same, they all take the same money from fossil fuels.
All politicians are not the same, the Labour Party are not deeply involved with billionaire funded lobby groups nor do they take large amounts of money directly from fossil fuels.
Reform party: get funding from fossil fuels
Conservative Party: get funding from fossil fuels
Trump MAGA party: gets funding from fossil fuels
Institute of Economic Affairs: gets funding from fossil fuels
Matthew Elliott, key advisor to Boris Johnson: deeply involved with Koch foundation whose wealth is created from fossil fuels
GBnews owner gets money from fossil fuels.
Some members of ERG like Steve Baker: get funding from fossil fuels.
If you want links and quotes I can provide them for everything above
Phil Pascoe
Established Member
only by exporting it to China, India ...
Amplidyne
Established Member
And please don't you equate your "facts" with anything other than what you want to believe.
And that's
"Labour good. Everything else bad."
You're welcome to that idea. It's not true, whatever "proof" might be offered.
RobinBHM
Established Member
which of the following are merely “what I want to believe”, rather than fact
Reform party: get funding from fossil fuels
Conservative Party: get funding from fossil fuels
Trump MAGA party: gets funding from fossil fuels
Institute of Economic Affairs: gets funding from fossil fuels
Matthew Elliott, key advisor to Boris Johnson: deeply involved with Koch foundation whose wealth is created from fossil fuels
GBnews owner gets money from fossil fuels
No, Labour have taken large donations from big corporates which means they could be influenced, I’m not happy about that.
But your claim that both Labour and R/W are funded equally by fossil fuels is simply not true.
RobinBHM
Established Member
Not true
Amplidyne
Established Member
Being as you think you're always correct, trait I've only seen with those who support the left, I'll leave you to it.
Goodbye.
And in the grand scheme of things that makes little difference to the global numbers, it is the big producers that need to make big cuts to make a real difference.
RobinBHM
Established Member
China is doing that
China has achieved stunning growth in its installed renewable capacity over the last two decades, far outpacing the rest of the world.
Clean energy contributed a record 11.4tn yuan ($1.6tn) to China's economy in 2023
The race is on to develop green technology, if the U.K. doesn’t push forward it will get left behind.
U.K. has 1 giga factory being built, EU is in the process of building 45 giga factories.
Hypnotic Chimera
Directional Consultant Extraordinaire
That is what COP does. It brings the major players together in order to try to hash out an agreeable outcome for all parties. You can't do anything as a single nation. And you can't just tell one nation to buck up their ideas. It's a Team Game that we all have flesh in. Everybody needs to give up something. The detail of what everyone is prepared to give up, and in exchange for something else, is the entire premise of COP.
Eg. Some nations pretty much get all of their excessive wealth from fossil fuel. They stand to lose everything if fossil fuel is phased out entirely. The COP tries to hash out what the exchange might be to "compensate" for that loss. And vice versa.
Sure, it isn't ideal. But don't let perfection be the enemy of good.
That sounds like a 'COP' out to me
If you refute those claims then provide proof showing them to be wrong. Flouncing off with a goodbye kind of states that you were wrong, or you have no factual proof to back up your own argument
I'd think the key potential for COP is to maintain awareness and pressure, and to identify opportunities. Not just for China to sweep in and take the lead in yet another global affair, but for the likes of the UK whose economy could benefit considerably from developing new, less damaging technologies.
RobinBHM
Established Member
You are most welcome to provide evidence to support your argument
Right wing parties do get more fossil fuel funding in fact almost all of it, here is some evidence to Support that
Tories Have Received £8.4 Million from Fossil Fuel Interests, Polluters, and Climate Deniers Since 2019 Election
“Outrageous” findings show that the Conservative Party “is clearly in bed with the fossil fuel lobby”, say MPs and campaigners.“DeSmog reviewed the donations to every major Westminster party since 12 December 2019 and found that the Conservative Party and its MPs had received 80 times more polluting cash than the Liberal Democrats (£132,600), and 160 times more than Labour (£41,600). The anti-net zero party Reform UK has received more than £2 million in polluting donations since December 2019, accounting for more than 90 percent of its funding. ”
https://www.desmog.com/2024/05/23/c...olluters-climate-deniers-since-2019-election/
selectortone
Still waking up not dead in the morning
Oh well, we might just as well give up then.
ey_tony
Established Member
The following list of 10 countries between them contribute a total 68.8% of world Co2...
China, USA, India, Russia, Japan, Indonesia, Iran, Germany, South Korea & lastly Saudi Arabia.
The UK in contrast contributes 0.88% or #17 in the world pollution table.
I am a strong believer in cutting down on atmospheric and biospheric pollution for obvious reasons but I'm also a realist and pragmatist and not delusional like most militant Friends of the Green Freaks who simply don't comprehend what they're actually asking people to do and give up.
We have our resident JSO lunatics causing chaos but if we actually just stopped oil as they would have us do, the UK's economy would tank in a matter of weeks and even if we stitched off UK PLC tonight, it would be unlikely that the results of this extreme action would actually be measurable in the grand scheme of things in 12 months time.
I'm not saying they're wrong but we as a nation can't simply destroy our economy or get left behind in order to virtue signal to the rest of the world and set us up as an example unless our competitors act likewise. It's completely irrational irrespective of which side of the fence one sits.
The UK simply can't unilaterally save the planet with it's silly net zero aspirations, all that will accomplish is to harm the British economy and create a huge drop in living standards.
There is a plan to ban installation of gas in new properties from 2025. Fair enough I can understand why but I recently had to replace my aging gas boiler and the cost of replacing that with such as a heat pump was effectively prohibitive and from an economic POV where my funds are concerned and my brief attempts at research showed they would be simply unsuitable for the UK unless the costs of production and electricity needed to run heat pumps drops dramatically so for that reason I believe we are still a long way from implementing such laws which will harm our economy and ultimately the people of this country.
The whole issue of net zero needs a responsible re-think unless it's in synchronisation with the rest of the world otherwise we are just going to hamstring our own economy going forward and we already have enough issues without adding yet more.
China, USA, India, Russia, Japan, Indonesia, Iran, Germany, South Korea & lastly Saudi Arabia.
The UK in contrast contributes 0.88% or #17 in the world pollution table.
I am a strong believer in cutting down on atmospheric and biospheric pollution for obvious reasons but I'm also a realist and pragmatist and not delusional like most militant Friends of the Green Freaks who simply don't comprehend what they're actually asking people to do and give up.
We have our resident JSO lunatics causing chaos but if we actually just stopped oil as they would have us do, the UK's economy would tank in a matter of weeks and even if we stitched off UK PLC tonight, it would be unlikely that the results of this extreme action would actually be measurable in the grand scheme of things in 12 months time.
I'm not saying they're wrong but we as a nation can't simply destroy our economy or get left behind in order to virtue signal to the rest of the world and set us up as an example unless our competitors act likewise. It's completely irrational irrespective of which side of the fence one sits.
The UK simply can't unilaterally save the planet with it's silly net zero aspirations, all that will accomplish is to harm the British economy and create a huge drop in living standards.
There is a plan to ban installation of gas in new properties from 2025. Fair enough I can understand why but I recently had to replace my aging gas boiler and the cost of replacing that with such as a heat pump was effectively prohibitive and from an economic POV where my funds are concerned and my brief attempts at research showed they would be simply unsuitable for the UK unless the costs of production and electricity needed to run heat pumps drops dramatically so for that reason I believe we are still a long way from implementing such laws which will harm our economy and ultimately the people of this country.
The whole issue of net zero needs a responsible re-think unless it's in synchronisation with the rest of the world otherwise we are just going to hamstring our own economy going forward and we already have enough issues without adding yet more.
RobinBHM
Established Member
I know some us want to think back to these days…but life changes
RobinBHM
Established Member
That’s why we need to increase renewables and electricity storage.
Renewables are cheaper than gas or nuclear.
And the old argument about intermittency is not true, battery storage is growing exponentially
ey_tony
Established Member
There's a huge difference between what is needed and what is available NOW!
You simply don't discard the current solutions unless the alternatives are available in sufficient quantities and economically viable, none of which currently meets those criteria so as not to disproportionately and negatively affect our economy and wellbeing of the people of this nation.
Before any further commitments are made to this net zero virtue signalling, the first thing to do is ensure that there is an abundance of clean and cheap renewable energy to power the alternatives otherwise they won't be affordable.
Similar threads
