Wild fires in BC Canada.

[Jacob]

Which bits of tech would you consider to have low carbon footprint?

Good question.
Google. Lots of info out there.
Knowledge itself for a start. And ICT itself possibly, according to this https://www.ericsson.com/en/reports...-quick-guide-to-your-digital-carbon-footprint
Efficient electricity generation from green sources. Insulation. etc.
Transport has tremendous scope for energy reduction but I guess personal EVs will be a flash in the pan.
Food production - approaching zero meat etc.
The whole debate would be more interesting if more attention was directed at what we could do do rather than what we have to give up.

 

[John Brown]

Which bits of tech would you consider to have low carbon footprint?

I remember reading a while back, that smartphones, whilst appearing to be fairly high carbon, actually replace 32 other items, so end up being low(er) carbon.
Not saying I necessarily agree, or that I've made my own investigation, but it's food for thought.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

Some very basic misunderstanding of British Constitution here.
Whether or not they are supportive, the public will be the casualty of climate change if the right things are not done soon enough.
Why is the word "mandated" always being slipped into these arguments?
MPs are "mandated" to act on our behalf in our best interests, not merely to follow a predetermined programme, even less to follow public opinion. If that was the case we wouldn't need them anyway the civil service could just hold plebiscites. There'd be a lot of them if you wanted to replace Parliament, like several general elections a day throughout the year! That'd be fun!
Governments should act on expert opinion, not by opinion of the mob - that's what gave us the brexit fiasco!

.

The role of an MP is defined on the Parliament web site - the UK public elects Members of Parliament (MPs) to represent their interests and concerns in the House of Commons.

The voting public in the UK have an opportunity to remove or re-elect the majority party at least every five years. Failure to recognise their interests and concerns and act accordingly simply means they will lose power.

That the changes being made are in the best interests of limiting climate change (irrespective of the quality of the arguments) is completely academic. There may be only three ways in which radical action to limit climate change will prevail:

• if all parties are unanimous in their policy in which case it matters not who gets elected
• if the "climate activists" stage a coup = the loss of democracy
• if the public want radical action

Brexit is an example of parliament and democracy in action. The public voted for the party committed to "getting Brexit done". They delivered - albeit a flawed solution. The democratic process now makes it likely the Tories will shortly become the opposition.

Following public opinion is fundamental to the actions of politicians holding power. That we appoint them to act for up to five years at time rather than vote on every issue should lend some stability to policy.

 

[Agent_zed]

You shall be asked to hand in your computers, mobile phones, cars, heated and insulated homes and modern conveniences at the entrance to your cave prior to beginning your hunter gatherer life.

All the best

Alternatively many will lose modern conviences like running water,irrigation and shipping as things like glaciers disappear and no longer provide summer melt water.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-66950328
But at least some of us can take a selfie in front of the dead rivers with our iphone 50's or whatever they are up to at that point, so everyone can agree that something should have been done decades earlier.

 

[Jacob]

The role of an MP is defined on the Parliament web site - the UK public elects Members of Parliament (MPs) to represent their interests and concerns in the House of Commons.

Yes you've got it! Representatives, not delegates.

The voting public in the UK have an opportunity to remove or re-elect the majority party at least every five years. Failure to recognise their interests and concerns and act accordingly simply means they will lose power.

Hmm, more or less but people tend to have faith even after many years of failure - just think of the tory party!

That the changes being made are in the best interests of limiting climate change (irrespective of the quality of the arguments) is completely academic. There may be only three ways in which radical action to limit climate change will prevail:

• if all parties are unanimous in their policy in which case it matters not who gets elected

That is the situation developing - there is an emerging consensus with variations. But CC is not the only issue.

• if the "climate activists" stage a coup = the loss of democracy

Utterly improbable - the arguments have moved on as per the point above, and still moving. Plenty for activists to do in the way of publicising and pressurising. I don't think a coup was ever on the cards!

• if the public want radical action

They do on the whole. Quite how radical is another question, but climate change and the need for action is now accepted.

Brexit is an example of parliament and democracy in action. The public voted for the party committed to "getting Brexit done". They delivered - albeit a flawed solution. The democratic process now makes it likely the Tories will shortly become the opposition.

Yes. But they were under no obligation to accept a dud deal and could have rejected the whole idea. A good example of mob rule for the sake of winning elections and an abject failure in terms of MPs responsibilities.

Following public opinion is fundamental to the actions of politicians holding power.

Leading public opinion is better and is what one hopes for from "leaders".

That we appoint them to act for up to five years at time rather than vote on every issue should lend some stability to policy.

Yes.

 

[NickDReed]

Good question.
Google. Lots of info out there.
Knowledge itself for a start. And ICT itself possibly, according to this https://www.ericsson.com/en/reports...-quick-guide-to-your-digital-carbon-footprint
Efficient electricity generation from green sources. Insulation. etc.
Transport has tremendous scope for energy reduction but I guess personal EVs will be a flash in the pan.
Food production - approaching zero meat etc.
The whole debate would be more interesting if more attention was directed at what we could do do rather than what we have to give up.

I'm unsure what you mean by "knowledge itself". If you're saying that "knowledge" has a low carbon footprint I'm even more confused.

Creating the ability to produce electricity via natural phenomena (renewable) is not in itself "green" solar panels, wind turbines etc are carbon heavy to produce, and provide electricity intermittently. Are you suggesting the globe does not need a reliable power grid? Renewable power production is costly, are you suggesting less wealthy nations do not produce power using fossil fuels?

Electric vehicles, particularly batteries are hugely polluting and the rare earth minerals required in the production of nearly all "tech" are mined in extraordinarily dirty, polluting and subversive conditions. Not to discuss how you discard these things once they become unfit for purpose.

Suggesting that a species that have evolved as an omnivore should not eat meat is impractical not to mention authoritarian, one might even say "right wing". If you are suggesting that "we" as an island nation do not important any foods and eat predominantly vegetables then I'm all ear as to how you think that will work. If the suggestion is that highly processed vegetarian replacements for meat are a solution then I would like to know how you believe that would be either low carbon or healthy.

I would encourage you, and anyone with an ideologically driven perspective on climate to listen to the link I shared. In no way do I refute that humans have had an impact on carbon emissions, nor that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. However, blindly believing that humans are going to be responsible for a change in climate that will ultimately lead to mass deaths is no less fear mongering than any other tactic used to keep the masses in check.

Since 1800 the average temperature has risen, have human beings thrived in that time?

 

[Jacob]

I'm unsure what you mean by "knowledge itself". If you're saying that "knowledge" has a low carbon footprint I'm even more confused.

We will have scientific and technical knowledge unavailable in the 18C and it is one huge part of technology which we won't have to discard.

Creating the ability to produce electricity via natural phenomena (renewable) is not in itself "green" solar panels, wind turbines etc are carbon heavy to produce, and provide electricity intermittently.

But a hugely reduced carbon footprint and approaching zero as the energy needed to produce these things is also sustainable

Are you suggesting the globe does not need a reliable power grid? Renewable power production is costly, are you suggesting less wealthy nations do not produce power using fossil fuels?

Nope. Not suggesting either of those things

Electric vehicles, particularly batteries are hugely polluting and the rare earth minerals required in the production of nearly all "tech" are mined in extraordinarily dirty, polluting and subversive conditions. Not to discuss how you discard these things once they become unfit for purpose.

I think battery powered personal vehicles have no future, for the reasons you mention, but also because electric transportation without hi-tech batteries is a well established technology- rail, tram, trolley etc

Suggesting that a species that have evolved as an omnivore should not eat meet is impractical not to mention authoritarian, one might even say "right wing".

Nothing authoritarian about it if it becomes unavailable and/or too expensive to produce

If you are suggesting that "we" as an island nation do not important any foods and eat predominantly vegetables then I'm all ear as to how you think that will work.

Perfectly feasible, much cheaper and much healthier

If the suggestion is that highly processed vegetarian replacements for meat are a solution then I would like to know how you believe that would be either low carbon or healthy.

Not my suggestion

I would encourage you, and anyone with an ideologically driven perspective on climate

Ideology has nothing to do with it. We are faced with inescapable facts.

to listen to the link I shared. In no way do I refute that humans have had an impact on carbon emissions, nor that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. However, blindly believing that humans are going to be responsible for a change in climate that will ultimately lead to mass deaths is not less fear mongering

Not if it is real cause for alarm and a spur to action.

than any other tactic used to keep the masses in check.

The fossil fuel companies have more interest in closing down the CC debate - they are the ones you should fear and the ones responsible for it. They have known about it for some time and have covered this up. Revealed: Exxon made ‘breathtakingly’ accurate climate predictions in 1970s and 80s.

Since 1800 the average temperature has risen, have human beings thrived in that time?

Yes thrived fantastically, thanks to science, technology and fossil fuel more than anything. But the party is over.

Any more questions? But do try subdue that slightly supercilious tone you use, it's a bit, er - unimpressive! You aren't very good at it.

 

[NickDReed]

Any more questions? But do try subdue that slightly supercilious tone you use, it's a bit, er - unimpressive! You aren't very good at it.

If questioning your point of view is supercilious Jacob, do you ever consider how you espousing your 'inescapable facts' is perceived?

And then deciding who is or isn't 'good at it'........some might say a supercilious comment?

 

[Jacob]

If questioning your point of view is supercilious Jacob, do you ever consider how you espousing your 'inescapable facts' is perceived?

Not my inescapable facts they are available for everybody to see and widely distributed.

 

[NickDReed]

Not my inescapable facts they are available for everybody to see and widely distributed.

Nothing has ever been widely distributed as fact and turned out not to be quite true before...

 

[Jacob]

Nothing has ever been widely distributed as fact and turned out not to be quite true before...

Any examples spring to mind?

Meanwhile it's happening all around the globe as we speak, from pole to pole.
Unless it's an international, massively well-funded and coordinated effort by teams of crazed arsonists.
Interesting how sceptics are still in denial when it's as plain as the nose on your face,. Though they tend to have moved on from downright disbelief to a sort of resigned acceptance with belief that nothing can be done. Getting there, little by little?

 

[RogerS]

Actually I did, perhaps you didn’t…
In your original message you said you wife was “done”, so speeding. In your message before this you said she was below the limit and speeded because of the van and that the van was at the limit. If the van was at the limit why did your wife exceed the limit?
Totally inconsistent narrative to excuse your wife from speeding. She was speeding and she was caught. The fact there was a speed check there indicates in itself that it is a prime spot to milk the motorist with a “tax”. See what I did there?

Oh FFS...what part of the sentence "In her rear mirror she sees White Man in a Van hammering along behind her and realises that unless she shoves her foot down (and break the speed limit) that he is going to be left high and dry and likely have a head-on collision with oncoming traffic." do you have difficulty in understanding ?

I'm out. You clearly don't like anyone pulling holes in one of your pet theories.

 

[RogerS]

......The recent opening up of new oil fields in the North Sea being a good example, with the majority of the British public being against it, along with the scientific community, .....

Sources please.

 

[NickDReed]

Any examples spring to mind?

Several, I'm sure you're aware of plenty too.

Personally I have become increasingly sceptical the more I learn from a wider range of sources. I'd imagine the likes of me are a growing section of society.

 

[paulrbarnard]

Oh FFS...what part of the sentence "In her rear mirror she sees White Man in a Van hammering along behind her and realises that unless she shoves her foot down (and break the speed limit) that he is going to be left high and dry and likely have a head-on collision with oncoming traffic." do you have difficulty in understanding ?

I'm out. You clearly don't like anyone pulling holes in one of your pet theories.

I think that’s a two way street. Cross reference my replies and you will see the discrepancies in what you say. In this final one you are now saying the van was hammering along. So excessive speed was the primary cause of the situation which was my entire point.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

Any more questions? But do try subdue that slightly supercilious tone you use, it's a bit, er - unimpressive! You aren't very good at it.

Certainly not as good as you.

 

[Cobbs]

Sources please.

https://www.globalwitness.org/en/pr...''The public are clear,,not more oil and gas.

 

[Agent_zed]

Creating the ability to produce electricity via natural phenomena (renewable) is not in itself "green" solar panels, wind turbines etc are carbon heavy to produce, and provide electricity intermittently. Are you suggesting the globe does not need a reliable power grid?

It is significantly more 'green' to produce things like solar panels as the energy produced over their lifetime is vastly different to the energy required to produce them. Once you have renewable energy you can then produce more solar panels/wind turbines etc with that energy even further reducing its footprint. According to this Wind energy frequently asked questions (FAQ)| EWEA over a wind generators lifetime it will produce 80x more energy than it required to make it (including disposal and maintanance) Wind energy frequently asked questions (FAQ)| EWEA 'Wind energy has the lowest ‘lifecycle emissions’ of all energy production technologies.'

Whilst reliable energy is a necessity let's not forget that other energy sources are not infallible. Take the Texas power outage a few years ago that certain people were quick to blame on wind turbines icing up. What they failed to tell you was that the gas turbines had also shut down.

A quick search gives returns this article which shows gas turbines fail and possibly took down the wind turbines
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...amed-one-Britains-worst-power-cuts-years.htmlHe said: 'The first generator to disconnect was a gas fired plant at Little Barford at 16:58. Two minutes later Hornsea Offshore wind farm seems to have disconnected. This might be linked to disturbance caused by first generator failing; might not. We will need to wait for National Grid's full technical investigation to get to bottom of that.'

Also lets look at the definition of reliable. Is it reliable to depend on foreign powers that may or maynot decide to sell you oil and gas. It certainly wasn't reliable to rely on Russian exports. Is it reliable to base your energy on a resource that is finite? It will become more expensive over time.

If you rely on nuclear you still have to rely on other countries supplying urainium to power it.

Certainly last winter it was more reliable to have Wind, Solar and hydro in the system than not.

Outside of the UK you may also find it far more reliable to have self contained solar/wind systems for remote regions. A lot cheaper to have a wind turbine providing power for the village than having to tanker in oil/gas every 12months at whatever cost assuming they can even get to you.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

https://www.globalwitness.org/en/pr...''The public are clear,,not more oil and gas.

I notice that polls like this don't tell us the actual wording of the questions asked (and often where they were asked). Would you like nice clean energy? Yes, of course, bring it on. Would you like an extra £20 a week on your electricity bill? No way! Surveys often word the questions to get the required answer. I have yet to speak to one single person who disagrees with our opening new oilfields, I could easily do a survey to prove the opposite.

I'm just reading "Very Bad People", about the origins of Global Witness, and didn't realise that it has become political.

 

[Cobbs]

I notice that polls like this don't tell us the actual wording of the questions asked (and often where they were asked). Would you like nice clean energy? Yes, of course, bring it on. Would you like an extra £20 a week on your electricity bill? No way! Surveys often word the questions to get the required answer. I have yet to speak to one single person who disagrees with our opening new oilfields, I could easily do a survey to prove the opposite.

I'm just reading "Very Bad People", about the origins of Global Witness, and didn't realise that it has become political.

Global witness didn't do the survey - they were quoting a survey done by yougov.

You are speaking to me now, even if it is through the medium of the internet and I have stated how opposed I am to new oilfields, so that's that argument shot down in flames!