Lots of hot air

[Rorschach]

It's a rapidly approaching major emergency and the worst outcomes could be far worse than war.

Give me a call when that happens.

 

[rafezetter]

Like I say you don't get it. So don't worry, I won't argue with you about it. Just accept I have a differing opinion to yours, it's truly not that hard. I have no problem with your opinion I just politely disagree and shan't argue with you over it any further.

Sorry Danst, but are you saying that this has been and will continue to be visited upon us by God? Why would God take the "slow death" approach when he has other far more efficient options at his disposal - and why would God decide that the way to solve this problem is to kill off the entire planet with pollution - doesn't sound like a very intelligent, carefully considered, plan to me; if humans are the problem, why not just inflict a plague upon us, no I mean a REAL plague, or another global (though that part was never actually specified) flood.

"God loves all his children" (but he'll slowly poison them to death over a period of a century or two, and killing, most of the flora and fauna with it, redering the planet a wasteland)

"The meek - sorry, cockroaches - will inherit the earth (or what's left of it)."

You remind me of that joke about the blind faith guy who drowns saying "god will save me" when God said "I send you a man, a boat AND a helicopter... what more do you want?"

And if I was God, I'd be quite angry that you are blaming his magnificence for our ****** stupidity.

If you think this is God's will and we can (or should) do nothing about it, then YOU are part of the problem.

 

[Jacob]

.......Most of the floods we see on TV are due to changes in river management, value of real estate being newsworthy and a lack of drainage maintenance

Most of the floods we see on TV are down to exceptional rainfall. Error - Cookies Turned Off

I just think people will adapt and will continue to adapt

Yes these Germans will probably be quite pleased to have an excuse to whip out and by new EVs!

 

[RobinBHM]

True but would you accept a political regime such as Russian/China/Cuba where you have little control even over your smallest liberties.

Realistically it won't happen and that's why it will all come to a head sooner rather than later.

The world economic forum has recognised capitalism can’t solve climate change. The have been talking about the great reset, which unfortunately has been taken up by the nutter conspiracists.


We already have wide ranging environmental controls, I don’t think it needs to be all state control.

The state can manipulate rules and pricing and let capitalists innovate…..look at the price of renewables…cost of wind Kwh is rapidly dropping and will be well below fossil fuels before long.

 

[Trainee neophyte]

How do you think a farmer would get on if he said to Tesco "Im going to have to put my prices up"

What a fabulous idea - a farmer could set the price of his product based on his costs, plus a small markup. It will never catch on, though.

Once enough farmers are bankrupt and Bill Gates has bought all their land, the pricing structure may change. Got to love that free market

 

[Rorschach]

What a fabulous idea - a farmer could set the price of his product based on his costs, plus a small markup. It will never catch on, though.

Once enough farmers are bankrupt and Bill Gates has bought all their land, the pricing structure may change. Got to love that free market

He would probably like an organisation for food set up like British Wool, because that works great for the farmers..........

 

[danst96]

Sorry Danst, but are you saying that this has been and will continue to be visited upon us by God? Why would God take the "slow death" approach when he has other far more efficient options at his disposal - and why would God decide that the way to solve this problem is to kill off the entire planet with pollution - doesn't sound like a very intelligent, carefully considered, plan to me; if humans are the problem, why not just inflict a plague upon us, no I mean a REAL plague, or another global (though that part was never actually specified) flood.

"God loves all his children" (but he'll slowly poison them to death over a period of a century or two, and killing, most of the flora and fauna with it, redering the planet a wasteland)

"The meek - sorry, cockroaches - will inherit the earth (or what's left of it)."

You remind me of that joke about the blind faith guy who drowns saying "god will save me" when God said "I send you a man, a boat AND a helicopter... what more do you want?"

And if I was God, I'd be quite angry that you are blaming his magnificence for our ****** stupidity.

If you think this is God's will and we can (or should) do nothing about it, then YOU are part of the problem.

I think you answered your own question. As for that "joke" it makes no sense since if the person went to heaven after refusing all other things, then he was saved?? The irony of the ignorant. Anyway im not here to preach, like i said before, i have my belief, you are entitled to your own and as much as we like to trash each other for believing something different it really isnt that bad.

You are 100% correct though it is mans stupidity and greed we are in this mess. The earth and resources was created to be used by man but not abused to the extent it has been.

 

[Rorschach]

You are 100% correct though it is mans stupidity and greed we are in this mess. The earth and resources was created to be used by man but not abused to the extent it has been.

Wouldn't an all knowing creator, know that we would do this though?

 

[Jameshow]

It's not an attitude just a statement of fact. The latest climatic reports from various different sources show we have indeed passed the point of no return. Peoples inane self centred arguments against EVs show how short sighted and narrow minded people can be and generally are when they have to be the ones to actually do something and put in some effort. As to why I get up in the morning, well until very recently I had to get up in order to take around 40 tablets each morning around 6am. Now I am down to just 2 and can have a bit of a lie in until 7am as it now only takes a minute and a mouthful of milk rather than an hour and a pint.

For me I know I am only going to be around long enough to not be really affected nor see the effects of full on change. So, I now get to be the selfish one and not give a flying monkies about what's coming and get to join in with the rest of the ostriches and do what the hell I want. So yes I have a nice new positive attitude as now I get to not give a dung anymore. I have just ordered 2CWT of good old fashioned coal for the stove this winter and a cord of wood. I will be able to mix it together and no one will be any the wiser once it's dark; oh and I have just bought an nice old wreck of a 3LV6 Diesel Crafter to turn into a permanent camper, so I can travel around and see all of natures beauty before either I die or it does. Also changed the spec on the new house build from COB to good old concrete as thats the dirtiest material I can find to build with. Also looking to buy good prime agricultural land 10 acres should do that I can take out of production and have just as a nice piece of Astroturf.

Please do post pics of the crafter as a fellow self builder!

Cheers James

 

[Terry - Somerset]

There are several ways to change behaviours to achieve reduced consumption of fossil fuels. If you think all is OK so why bother - don't waste time reading the rest of this post.

Legislation limiting consumption - eg: gas central heating boilers, EV and ICE banned from 2030. This can work if alternative technologies allow a fairly smooth transition. Measures need to be easily enforcable. Will not change all behaviours.

Allow the market to decide when/if it actually becomes a problem - the less able will be driven into poverty or worse. Wealthy and educated will survive relatively unscathed. Risk of chaos and societal meltdown, needs active police or military enforcement.

Possible solution - tax carbon consumption, not income. Will make consumers rethink their own spending and priorites. Assume a very average income of £30k pa, £1000 domestic energy and 12000 miles pa in a small car. Other VAT etc unchanged:

• current total tax bill is income tax £3500, NI £2450, VAT on household energy £50, VAT and duty on fuel £900 = total £6900
• reduce income tax rate fom 20% to 10%. Increase personal allowance to £15k. Halve national insurance, increase VAT on domestic energy to 100%, increase fuel duty and VAT to £2700 = total £6700.

Detail needs refinement - eg: tax imported goods on their embedded energy. Individual groups may get vocal about different elements - low paid and domestic energy costs, trades needing vans/transport etc. Changes to be phased over say 10 years as a consistent policy.

The main message is that without burdening people with more tax (generally) their behaviours would change markedly. Suddenly home insulation and efficiency would be important and worth investment. Small cars and less driving for non-essential purposes would preferred.

Those staying ahead of the environmental game would benefit with more disposable income and a tax regime encouraging "green" activities. Those who don't care or won't change will be penalised - tough isn't it!!

 

[Jacob]

There are several ways to change behaviours to achieve reduced consumption of fossil fuels. If you think all is OK so why bother - don't waste time reading the rest of this post.

Legislation limiting consumption - eg: gas central heating boilers, EV and ICE banned from 2030. This can work if alternative technologies allow a fairly smooth transition. Measures need to be easily enforcable. Will not change all behaviours.

Allow the market to decide when/if it actually becomes a problem - the less able will be driven into poverty or worse. Wealthy and educated will survive relatively unscathed. Risk of chaos and societal meltdown, needs active police or military enforcement.

Possible solution - tax carbon consumption, not income. Will make consumers rethink their own spending and priorites. Assume a very average income of £30k pa, £1000 domestic energy and 12000 miles pa in a small car. Other VAT etc unchanged:

• current total tax bill is income tax £3500, NI £2450, VAT on household energy £50, VAT and duty on fuel £900 = total £6900
• reduce income tax rate fom 20% to 10%. Increase personal allowance to £15k. Halve national insurance, increase VAT on domestic energy to 100%, increase fuel duty and VAT to £2700 = total £6700.

Detail needs refinement - eg: tax imported goods on their embedded energy. Individual groups may get vocal about different elements - low paid and domestic energy costs, trades needing vans/transport etc. Changes to be phased over say 10 years as a consistent policy.

The main message is that without burdening people with more tax (generally) their behaviours would change markedly. Suddenly home insulation and efficiency would be important and worth investment. Small cars and less driving for non-essential purposes would preferred.

Those staying ahead of the environmental game would benefit with more disposable income and a tax regime encouraging "green" activities. Those who don't care or won't change will be penalised - tough isn't it!!

There's all manner of possible schemes but the elephant in the room is that wealth redistribution downwards (for a change) looks inevitable, person to person, or nation to nation. This is because a large part of the world population already live one pay-check / benefit hand-out / emergency relief measure, from destitution, if not already destitute. There would have to be a very thorough safety net at low income levels and for welfare and special needs.
Rationing was another wartime measure which seemed to work?

 

[Jacob]

..... i have my belief, you are entitled to your own ...

Not sure about that. "Beliefs" are all very well if they are inconsequential but if they become material to the way people live in a community then obligations take precedence over entitlements.

 

[Spectric]

Believing that nothing workable is feasible can be a legitimate opinion. If you are over 60 and care not for future generations it is a reasonable point of view. Just be honest about it!

I would say over fifty, been around long enough to understand society and witness the downhill changes.

Just like this pandemic, to address climate change requires global co-operation and for everyone to pull in the same direction, so being honest what is the chance of that, too many people with conflicting interest and not willing to accept change. We could resolve the issues that are causing climate change, that is not really that hard but getting people to accept this is the big challenge.

 

[Valhalla]

The UK and other wealthy countries may be able to largely ignore climate change. We have the resources and skill base to mitigate and/or adapt to most impacts.

Really??

Most countries in the world rely on imports and exports of food, goods, fuel and many other commodities. If exporting countries begin to suffer from climate change and can no longer provide these exports which then has a knock-on effect- we have seen this through the covid nightmare. Some countries may be able to handle shortages, but not for a sustained period. The UK is most definitely not self-sufficient..... so ignoring climate change would be extremely naive

 

[Valhalla]

you are asking for a permanent dictatorial top-down governmen

We've already got one of those........

 

[Valhalla]

It involves skipping around the net trying to find contrary views and then presenting them as the truth, preferably with a bit of conspiracy theory thrown in.

Sounds like the House of Commons if you ask me......

 

[Valhalla]

Ummm this forum is most definitely not anywhere near a cross section of society.

Of course it is - if you take the power set of all cross-sections of society (which by definition is formed of groups) then this group would be in that power set

 

[Valhalla]

You simply cannot compare something like climate change to a war.

Well - it depends on your viewpoint

If you look at if from the point of climate change devasting countries and communities in the same way war does, you can draw a comparison with the number of dead, the loss of industry, property, family etc etc

 

[bansobaby]

I think you answered your own question. As for that "joke" it makes no sense since if the person went to heaven after refusing all other things, then he was saved?? The irony of the ignorant. Anyway im not here to preach, like i said before, i have my belief, you are entitled to your own and as much as we like to trash each other for believing something different it really isnt that bad.

You are 100% correct though it is mans stupidity and greed we are in this mess. The earth and resources was created to be used by man but not abused to the extent it has been.

I beg to differ, in respect of the Earth and it’s resources being created for man alone. An awful amount of sentient beings other than **** sapiens would call this planet their home…

 

[Terry - Somerset]

Wars and rationing are not a good analogue for the climate change challenge.

WW2 was a case of an immediate and real threat. National full and immediate cooperation was the only realistic defence.

Covid had some of these characteristics - immediate, threatening and sufficient to get substantial compliance with lockdown measures - a largely cooperative response.

Climate change is a long tem threat. If no action is taken to limit emissions or take action to mitigate for 10-20 years it will make no difference to the next 10-20 years. We could not put heads in the sand facing an imminent Nazi invasion threat, but we can with climate change.

The response to climate change need not be immediate, but actions today do need to be part of a coherent strategy and plan running for the next 20 years.

If we wait until the threat becomes unavoidable, it will be too late for cooperative action. Those who can will build walls to keep the rabble out.