Food for thought - Climate Change

[Malc1]

10 minutes ago, Boomer54 said:

it always concerns me if there is just one person in a democratic society who appears to paint Putin and his actions as anything other than what they are, criminal.

India, the largest democracy in the world, strangely won't condemn Putin as criminal ...........  G20 has just shown that today .  BUT it's not endorsing him either ......  indeed India has been very reliant on Russia for a very long time to provide it with weapons to counter balance the Xi Empire stretch into India territory .......  notwithstanding Xi is now very very close buddy with Putin ........... and Xi will doubtless explore how China will be taking over the minerals etc withing the depths of Russia and there'll be absolutely bugger all Putin's regime can do about that too at the end of that very very long day .........

Ah politics and warmongering and protectionism and OIL OIL OIL ( and coal too )  .  and now rare minerals too for all sorts of national security issues ( for China ) ..  the wings of Communism and Dictatorship will be spreading ere over all t'world . ........ again and again and again  ...  and there's really bugger all we can do to even think that our comparative feeble UK efforts to curb bad Climate Change will make one jot of difference methinks

Malc

[VFR]

43 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

There is saying for a reason - "what is too good to be true..."

Clearly there was a catch, he was happy to supply gas as long as Europe was happy to accept unprovoked invasions to the countries bordering his regime, genocide and all other usual ruzzists past times, like ra*pe, summary killings, sending people to Siberia to die (sadly we 10,000 years before it has turned into tropical place) etc.

So I really cannot see your point here - Europe, especially few countries like Germany were short-sighted and were financing their own demise. 

I see that Russiaphobia is strong in you.

[Malc1]

4 minutes ago, VFR said:

Russiaphobia

strong in most rational thinking people I would anticipate UNTIL that is the real Putin is found to have been terminated and the reasonable rational sensible madmen take over the Ruskie lunatic asylum ......  and sanity returns to the world as we know it

Malc

[Linas.P]

1 minute ago, VFR said:

I see that Russiaphobia is strong in you.

Is there any reason it shouldn't be? 

What is your experience with ruzzists which makes you have different opinion? As for me - they just killed half of my countrymen and contorted the country itself for better part of 200 years... and I am not even Ukrainian. As well I would like to make clear distinction between Russian people and their regime, or people who supports the war, they are not the same thing. So it is not russiaphobia and more off just seeing the things the way they are. I do not care what nationality are people who target and maime civilians and then throw them in mass graves, I just recognise them for who they are - criminals.

The above questions does NOT require answering, because that is different topic altogether. However, there is no discussion about war crimes (they are factual) regardless of what you think about regime in ruzzia. 

[VFR]

7 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

Is there any reason it shouldn't be? 

What is your experience with ruzzists which makes you have different opinion? As for me - they just killed half of my countrymen and contorted the country itself for better part of 200 years... and I am not even Ukrainian. As well I would like to make clear distinction between Russian people and their regime, or people who supports the war, they are not the same thing. So it is not russiaphobia and more off just seeing the things the way they are. I do not care what nationality are people who target and maime civilians and then throw them in mass graves, I just recognise them for who they are - criminals.

The above questions does NOT require answering, because that is different topic altogether. However, there is no discussion about war crimes (they are factual) regardless of what you think about regime in ruzzia. 

So they have not killed half of your countrymen as you are not Ukraine.

No your other post clearly was an Russia hate effort.

For sure anyone who targets civilians should answer for those actions.

 

The MSM (which is clear that most on here read) only tells us what the Russians do & will never headline what the Ukraines do wrong. Just like that missile we all saw the other day hitting that street & were instantly told it was from the Russian side, a little research and you will find out it came from the Ukraine side (yet again)

 

We can start wars & regime change as much as we like (the West that is) but we are the good guys so thats allowed. 

Just like the US engineered regime change in Ukraine and then allowed the man from central casting to become president and oversee his troops spend the next years shelling and killing other Ukraine civilians in the Dombass (16.000 it is estimated) but we will not mention that of course.

Bombed back to the Stone Age in Iraq / Libya / Etc Etc yet when Putin says AFTER repeated warnings to stop killing Russian speaking Ukrainians and implement the Minsk agreement we (well you) are surprised that they intervened.

 

Tip stop reading the daily Beano & Dandy behind the bike shed and look elsewhere for the facts as to what is really going on.

[dutchie01]

VFR, the facts are that Russian military invaded a country almost 2 years ago and since then deployed WW2 tactics i.e. bombing the hell out of everything, destroying entire cities with artillery, murdering civilians and basically did a WW2 German Nazi terror campaign.

The war would be over the moment the Russians would withdraw their troops.

There is no other way to interpret the facts.

Decades ago i served in the infantry to prevent exactly such an invasion from then the Soviet Union. When this collapsed tensions disappeared and inevitably the western military shrunk, money was going elsewhere. 

When the tanks rolled across the Ukrainian border i was angry, mad and disappojnted at Russia, the western world and myself, How on earth could we be so naive? I traveled a lot in Russia visiting the big cities like Moscow and st Pet. and always people told me that one day Russia would surprise the west.

 Well that day did come. A dictator is bringing the country into Isolation, the USA spend some 6% of their annual Defence Budget to destroy half of the Russian army and Russians are seen as the new fascists.

No bike shed needed to see what is going on. unless of course it is funded by Moscow

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Malc1]

There’s a very very simple solution to ending the war and peace reign supreme 

Russia withdraws to its borders NOW and stops aggression ……. the solution is simple  

Hundreds of thousands  more lives will not be lost and Climate Change will not be exacerbated by the release of chemicals and explosives and destruction of essential infrastructure to keep the elements where they need to be  e.g. dams and nuclear power stations 

Malc

[Linas.P]

2 hours ago, VFR said:

So they have not killed half of your countrymen as you are not Ukraine.

No your other post clearly was an Russia hate effort.

For sure anyone who targets civilians should answer for those actions.

 

The MSM (which is clear that most on here read) only tells us what the Russians do & will never headline what the Ukraines do wrong. Just like that missile we all saw the other day hitting that street & were instantly told it was from the Russian side, a little research and you will find out it came from the Ukraine side (yet again)

 

We can start wars & regime change as much as we like (the West that is) but we are the good guys so thats allowed. 

Just like the US engineered regime change in Ukraine and then allowed the man from central casting to become president and oversee his troops spend the next years shelling and killing other Ukraine civilians in the Dombass (16.000 it is estimated) but we will not mention that of course.

Bombed back to the Stone Age in Iraq / Libya / Etc Etc yet when Putin says AFTER repeated warnings to stop killing Russian speaking Ukrainians and implement the Minsk agreement we (well you) are surprised that they intervened.

 

Tip stop reading the daily Beano & Dandy behind the bike shed and look elsewhere for the facts as to what is really going on.

ohhh man you deluded... I am ashamed for you quite honestly... No repairing that thought - when ruzzian propaganda destroys the brain it is terminal. Quite sad that reasonable discussion is not possible with people like this.

Population in my country dropped by 50% in WW2, highest per capita decline of any country during WW2. More importantly majority of people didn't die from war, they died from being sent into Siberia and or simply executed for being educated, or owning land, or business... that was enough to be sentenced to death or exile... and death. From people exiled 88% died, that is more than in nazi extermination camps (85%). So I am just going to ignore the fact you simply are not educated in history and you didn't know that ruzzians killed more people in the peace time than nazis killed in the WW2, including 6 million Ukrainians in Holodomor, which is about the same number as people who died in Holocaust.

Oh an by the way - in the west (including UK) it is widely accepted that WW2 was started by nazis invading Poland, except that is NOT true. WW2 started when nazis and soviets invaded Poland TOGETHER! Tell me which part of this statement is not true - certain molotov and ribbentrop agreed to divide Eastern Europe, as nazis were invading Poland, soviets were invading westwards via Baltics and they met somewhere in the middle of the Poland. Ohhh and just for good measure soviets summary executed 22,000 Polish officers, just because... So you never dare again defending the soviets. And what is ruzzian republic? They are just soviets by different name. They had all the chances given to them to change, but they proven once again in 1994, 1999 (Chechnya), 2008 (Georgia) and 2014, 2022 (Ukraine)... that they are good old animals and soviets.

These are just facts... ruzzia is imperialist state with the goal of restoring ruzzian empire. Who said that? putka himself.

What missile? one of thousands of ruzzians missile that hitting Ukrainian cities everyday. Anyone who dies in territory of Ukraine since 2014 from actions of fighting are the fault of ruzzians. Sure - Ukrainian missiles will kill some people in counter-offensive, it is war zone, but all those deaths without exception are fault of ruzzia. It is like saying - we shouldn't have done D-Day, because that killed some French civilians... ohhh yes it did, collateral damage is just part of war, but responsibility is for those who started the war. 

The rest of your post is filled with propaganda directly from kremlin. Minsk II agreement cannot be implemented because ruzzia continuously violated it, in agreement it stated that Ukraine should have control of the boarder as long as it allows self-governance of Donetsk and Luhansk (sort of Federalisation), but ruzzia never allowed Ukraine to take back control of the boarders, just pumped the eastern part of Ukraine with weapons and mercenaries... who said that? putka himself said that in 2022, confirming that all "little green man" were ruzzian regulars and mercenaries. So don't you dare saying it is western propaganda (which by the way exists), because this is what putka bragged about himself. As well Minsk II said that heavy weapons should be moved away from the front line and ruzzia continued shelling Ukraine all the time.

Regarding "killing of ruzzian speakers in eastern Ukraine", this is very common and easily debunked lie. OHCHR/OSCE stats (which is independent international body reporting to UN security Council, so including ruzzia, was observing casefire under Minsk II) proves that quite easily - 38 People total have died in 2021 on both sides, majority from mines, or unexploded ordinance. So your argument is self-defeating, because you saying ruzzia wanted to protect people of Donbas, so they have launched all out war which killed tens of thousands of people, instead of simply leaving the occupied territories?! How does that make sense?! So they have occupied part of other country and that occupation LED to low intensity conflict which lead to deaths, it is still ruzzian fault regardless.

US engineered regime change is idiotic claim - even if we accept that there was some interference in Maidan in 2014 (which is conspiracy at best), you still cannot deny that Ukraine had not ONE, but TWO completely free and independent elections recognised worldwide (including ruzzia) where they have elected their government. So this argument could be somewhat used for month or two in 2014, but it becomes completely invalid by the end of 2014. It is certainly no longer an excuse in 2022.

"Whataboutism" fallacy doesn't work either. Sure you can criticise US policy in Iraq or Libya. Fine. I am not big fan of it either, but that gives NO RIGHT for ruzzia to invade anyone. Two wrongs doesn't make one right. Sure - maybe you can say US are hypocrites for criticizing ruzzia if you want, but that still don't make any difference in the invasion. It is 100% ruzzians fault and it is criminal at every level.

Saying that this is somehow "russiaphobia" is like saying that that British people had "germanphobia" in WW2. I don't think it is true, even if lines are sometimes blurred, one thing is to hate certain nationality and completely different is objectively hate regime controlling the country and call out their war crimes and crimes against humanity. I am sure people hated nazis (don't you?), but that does not mean they had "germanphobia".

Going forward - I just set certain somebody as "ignored" and hopefully we can get back to the topic. Please...

 

[Malc1]

Linas …… I’m impressed with your clarity of thought 

Russian invaders moving back to within Russia borders will immediately stop their war ……. Stop invading Ukraine will result in Peace and then we can all reflect on the sadness of the hundreds of thousands of young soldiers dying at the behest of the Kremlin, Putin and the Oligarchs supporting and still continuing to support that evil regime that I’m sure the “ ordinary “ citizens of Russia wish to be rid of 

Malc 

[VFR]

Oh dear Linas you are clearly poisoned by what happened in the USSR decades ago and as such will simply ignore anything that does not fit in with your view (not uncommon)

 

 

Malc1 I take it you know that well over a year ago little nazi zelenski was going to agree with the ceasefire that had been worked out in Turkey until Uncle Sam sent the village idiot Johnson over to Kiev to let him know that this would not be acceptable so carry on the conflict until we tell you otherwise.

 

Guys you really need to read up about this conflict.

[Linas.P]

22 minutes ago, VFR said:

Guys you really need to read up about this conflict.

Preferably, not from ruzzian propaganda pamphlets or directly from bot factory script! 

I assume you were one of these people in 1940s? 

I am just saying what you saying isn't anything new... just treasonous... 

Imagine if they had their way in WW2... 

[Malc1]

VFR hi ……… there’s little your modern and fresh perspective on the Soviet and WW2 actions and outcomes then can teach some of us who have personally felt the impact of absolute fear and reality of being overrun and slaughtered by such people as occupy the Kremlin and Putin and the controlling money men, the oligarchs 

Putin the puppet will live and demand the blind obedience and destruction of the youth of the Russian nation in pursuit of Absolute and mad control, whatever the human cost 

And the fear in our hearts( mine anyway ) that Ukraine will simply not be the final destination for absorption into Russia and all that evil currently represents 

And in that process Xi is able to simply take huge advantage of his ABSOLUTE power too and absorb whatever he wishes across all of Russia and whenever he now wishes to do so 

Of course the Russian population at large want peace and their dead troops back ….. ‘O0,000s of their own youth slaughtered on the path of mad Oligarch reach to control the world 

PEACE is there to be had by simply removing to the Old Borders and leaving the rest of the world alone …… I suspect there’s fat chance of that all the while there’s troop fodder to be fed by the Kremlin into the blind madness of THEIR own self-destruction 

 

REMEMBER please, there’s an ageing generation of “ free “ people who have experienced this Russian Power mindset and evil 

Malc 

[Lexus Owners Club]

Can we please get back onto the original subject matter as this post has degenerated like so many before which have been locked and hidden within the forums. 
Please stick to the topic as per the title.  Thank you

[Malc1]

2 hours ago, Lexus Owners Club said:

Can we please get back onto the original subject matter as this post has degenerated like so many before which have been locked and hidden within the forums. 
Please stick to the topic as per the title.  Thank you

For sure  👍

Malc

[Cotswold Pete]

Back to the topic, I would add that wars drive innovation (about the only benefit of wars), so the rapid - or more rapid move away from Ruzzia oil, or in the future Saudi (not reknowned for real adherence to Human Rights) oil means the likely hood of tech that brings us greener benefits is accelerated for the general public in the long run.

The LED was developed in the Malverns to allow MoD to not have to pay USA for their TV tech to be able to monitor tanks on the battle field, so after many decades we now benefit by having low energy TVs and lights compared to the old Cathode ray tubes and incandescent bulbs.

Using less energy is always a good thing, as even if one were not concenred about climate change, you would be saving a few ££ on the bills, meaning you could afford to shop at Waitrose rather than Poundland

[Malc1]

4 minutes ago, Cotswold Pete said:

to shop at Waitrose rather than Poundland

such elitism  🤣

Malc

[Linas.P]

51 minutes ago, Cotswold Pete said:

Using less energy is always a good thing, as even if one were not concenred about climate change, you would be saving a few ££ on the bills

Although, it needs to be noted that most of energy cost are either taxes or excess profits... Fuel actually costs like 70p/L at the moment, and much less in times of peace. If not for OPEC cartel I think prices as low as 20p/L would be possible.

The electricity, heating etc. is only high because of decades of failed policy on building up the capacity (compare it for example with France and how cheap the energy is there, compared to UK or Germany, despite all being similarly sized economies, populations, wealthy nations). Where is shortage there is profit and there is clear conflict of interests when it comes to building capacity anywhere - housing is one good example, roads is another good example, railroads is third one and energy infrastructure follow the same route. We failed to build enough houses, what happens then? House prices, pardon the pun, are trough the roof! Failed to build road network sufficient for 20th century, nevermind 21st, traffic is horrible... and what is solution? Let's prices driver out of the roads, because somehow it is drivers fault, despite government raising cool £30Bn+ every year! Same story for trains - when trains were frequent enough, fast enough etc. the tickets were cheap, now when there is shortage suddenly train to the airport costs more then the flight abroad! And same with energy...

I have recently seen the article of France rail executive complaining that they can't compete with cheap flights because apparently they have to pay taxes whereas Airlines don't have to... which I thought is odd, because flights are highly taxed - recently booked the holidays and from £1300 flight tickets for two £856 were taxes, meaning the flight themselves were just over £400. How about radical theory - railroad is failing, not because of high taxes, but because of inherent lack of competition. And flights are cheap, because it is inherently competitive market that basically anyone can enter. 

I found this lovely graph... which to large degree puts massive question mark about "human caused climate catastrophe":

Yes sure - compared to "pre-industrial" level of 280ppm we have gone up to ~400ppm, but it is very very far from 2000ppm that can clearly support diverse life on this planet. As well we can see that CO2 concentration in atmosphere does not corelate with temperature... well I guess it does, but baseline is not 0C.

[Bluemarlin]

On 9/9/2023 at 3:51 PM, Linas.P said:

That is fine, but then why brainwash people about "climate emergency" when there is none?

Energy independence is good enough goal on itself, it is strategic goal as well, so why bother with distraction? I guess my argument is - treat people like adults and give them real reasons, instead of trying to deliver energy independence under false pretence of climate change. And what about opportunity costs? How can we even decide what opportunities we have when we being lied to? Why not ask question - "do you want to spend A. 10 years and £ 1 Trillion on nuclear fusion which will mean unlimited clean energy and energy independence for all, B. 10 years and £ 1 Trillion on Mars settlement, which will mean preserving human life in case of catastrophe on earth, or C. 10 years £ 1 Trillion on getting to 'net zero' emissions, which will severely worsen your quality of life, but will make pink-haired Karen ecomentalist happier". 

We we are talking about CO2 levels, again it all comes down to same questions - "since when". Current, ~400ppm CO2 level in atmosphere is quite low and even burning all fossil fuels won't be enough to get us to 2000ppm which was once the norm on this planet. Note as well - when the CO2 level was very high, the earth looked jungle like with giant plants growing everywhere. The higher is atmospheric CO2 the quicker the plants and trees grow and the bigger they grow, so it is kind of self-mitigating (as long as we don't cut those trees down). Oceans can't absorb more CO2, hence why we have increasing level of atmospheric CO2 since 1950s when it is theorised the maximum level of ocean absorption was exceeded. In short - there is no risk of ocean acidification past certain point and that is before we even consider the constant melting of ice in the poles which are diluting the water anyway.

Now what is true... some animals and plants will go extinct due to changes, others will survive... again that just adds to 99%+ of all species that have gone extinct. I just don't really understand the problem here - is human caused extinction any worse than extinction caused by something else? a meteorite strike? What if humans one day will be capable of deflecting meteorite that would otherwise end life on earth, would that allow us to live comfortably and consider that we prevented enough extinction to cause a little bit of it ourselves.

This is by the way not an attack on anyone in particular, I am just trying to establish where is the red line for our morale?! What level of extinction is good enough, what level of pollution is good enough, what level of emissions and climate change is acceptable? Because every human alive creates emissions, pollution and potentially climate change, and when we have 8.1 billion of us, it is simply impossible to avoid it. So one ultimate line could be that we do not care, live comfortable live, drive 9.2L V10 lifted pick-up trucks, burn coal for everything, flatten all the forests, and throw our plastic waste directly into ocean, or simply burn it in the middle of the street and other ultimate line is that we have to do Seppuku to ourselves and don't live at all, because no human caused climate change is incompatible with our life altogether.

I think it is quite clear that compromise is needed between those two ultimate options, so what is required for humans to live? Do we need comfortable clothing, rich diet, internet connection and modern electronics? Do we need personal vehicles, freedom to travel and air conditioned homes with heated swimming pool? I reckon we do, especially heated swimming pool, and preferably helipad as well. I think we should be able to live very comfortable life, every 8.1 or 12 billion of us. Because the life where one can't eat meat, or where one can't drive in their safe, clean and comfortable car to work is not worth living. There are things which we can get rid off thought - fast fashion, excess packaging, polluting the rivers/oceans with plastic, cheap import toys, electronics from china that fail within week and becomes landfill, climate protesters throwing paint, damaging property and their non-sensical signs, other inefficiencies like insufficient road infrastructure created traffic jams and causing extra pollution. We can certainly do some trimming down, but it should not include anything that meaningfully restricts our comfort, unless somebody wants to do it voluntarily. What I mean - I don't mind people being hippies, living in the forest off grid and eating their own *******, as long as they don't expect me to join them... and if our comfortable existence means that 1 out of 2500 species of flea will go extinct so be it... in fact I do not care if any particular animal would go extinct (just to be clear they all not going to be extinct), I like dolphins, I love all big cats and it would be sad if they would go, but if the choice is between them and heated pool... then heated pool it is. I reckon we can sacrifice 20% of ~8 million species of life there is and there will still be plenty left, and more new ones to come. I can certainly sleep well knowing we have 1 million less species of insects. Again this is question of where we draw the line? Remember the meteorite? Well that bugger drawn the line on ~75% species destroyed some 66 million years ago... and that was just one of many such events. So if we assume that we can protect planet from meteorite strike, could we say we have moral right to enjoy our lives as long as extinction we causing is below say 50% (although we most likely not yet capable of diverting 9 miles wide asteroid)?! An by the way - human extinction due to climate change is impossible, so we talking only about extinction of other species.

So question is - where is this moral line and who is to decide? Should the pink haired, retarded just stop oil ecoterrorist have a say? Or should we simply set the upper limit of destruction one could cause (let's say things like burning tyres and pouring used engine oil into the rivers begin banned, or overhunting of endangered species) and leave the rest for people to individually and voluntarily to decide for themselves (like whenever they have kids, or heated pool, or both - simple matter is, having kids is probably more detrimental for climate than heated pools)? I an fact I think we had enough environment protection since early 2000s, current policies are already overreach and overreaction. So if we just go back to say 2010, make sure that we enforce existing restrictions we should be good... no? 

I agree with you that the argument would be better framed in terms of energy independence than climate change. However,  whatever the stated aim, any such goal is best achieved by having the most backing.  Most people these days seem to be onboard with environmental concerns and, unlike you 🙂 take a somewhat more emotional view regarding sacrificing animal species in favour of heated pools.

In truth, there is a lack of logic on both sides. On the one hand, some people will support almost anything, as long it's dressed up being environmentally friendly. Equally though, if I offered a product that promised to deliver half price energy, with absolutely no down side, then there will be others who attacked it if I described it as "green", or "endorsed by Greta".

I am aware that many arguments are put forth claiming that the dangers of CO2 are overstated. However, I'm reminded of the similar arguments put forward years ago, about how smoking tobacco was perfectly safe, and that the science was both overblown and inaccurate. In both cases there were substantial financial interests behind maintaining the status quo.

It's  entirely possible that a transition away from fossil fuels could provide us with not only energy independence, but also cheaper energy, whilst preserving the environment and animal species. The fact that the latter is presented as the goal, with the former a potential side effect, is merely a matter of presentation, as it could just as easily have been presented the other way round. It's simply a matter of reading the room, and presently the room leans in favour of environmental  concerns.

Either way, the investment, research and innovation required to explore those possibilties would not occur at a sufficient level without legislative motivation and disincentives aimed at fossil fuels. Without those, complacency would keep us on the easy path of burning oil and gas which, apart from any environmental concerns, is becoming an increasingly expensive way to do things, and one in which we seem to have little control over either supply or pricing.

We're an inventice species, with an amazing talent for problem solving. Sometimes though we need a kick up the arse, and the lid being put on the box, in order to think outside of it. I'm an optimist, and for the first time in my lifetime I can see a real drive, in terms of both the financial investment, and genuine desire to seek alternatives to fossil fuels. Factor in todays new and emerging technologies, like AI and quantum computing, and I'm hopeful that we'll see new and exciting developments that will bring a host of benefits. Perhaps even a situation where you can heat your pool even more cheaply, without losing a single big cat 🙂

So yes, the presentation may not be ideal, but the goal is still worthwhile.

[Bluemarlin]

On 9/9/2023 at 4:33 PM, Malc1 said:

I think it's about time we, the UK befriended a sensible huge democratic nation like Brazil  .  to encourage BP et all to assist them in nurturing development of their enormous oil and gas reserves in their ocean areas .  and stretch that down to OUR UK areas similarly around our Falklands .  then see the price, cost, value of these energy elements collapse for sure .  why give all the money to Putin and Saudi the USA whatever  ............  and with it bring benevolence and education in the sensible use of these fuels for the benefit of mankind, oh, and us too of course

Malc

I too once believed that if we had suffcient oil reserves of our own then it would mean cheaper fuel, if not for mankind, then at least for us.

Sadly though, like other countries, we'd manipulate the supply in order to maintain prices.  The cost to us wouldn't be based on any abundance, or our ownership of it, but on what price the suppliers think the market will bear.

[Malc1]

14 minutes ago, Bluemarlin said:

I too once believed that if we had suffcient oil reserves of our own then it would mean cheaper fuel, if not for mankind, then at least for us.

Sadly though, like other countries, we'd manipulate the supply in order to maintain prices.  The cost to us wouldn't be based on any abundance, or our ownership of it, but on what price the suppliers think the market will bear.

……. and of course the politics of it all …… 

now then …… is tidal power a good Greener source for improving /  lessening the “ bad “  climate change ? 
 

UK has a huge comparative coastline per capita surely ?

Malc 

[Linas.P]

I am concerned that presenting it as climate change argument distracts us from finding right solutions and risks making outrights wrong decisions. 

In short - I believe that to make right decision, one has to have clear facts in front of them.

Likewise I would question how realistic is below:

5 minutes ago, Bluemarlin said:

if I offered a product that promised to deliver half price energy, with absolutely no down side

So far the products offered have huge downside, but it is downplayed with moral-virtue or avoiding "climate catastrophe". 

Basically, if we would correctly believe that that there is no actual "climate catastrophe" coming and environment protection is matter of comfort and luxury, then I am sure we would be much less willing to sacrifice other comforts and luxuries in our lives. The statement that people are supporting "environment protection" in my experience is only true as long as they don't have to make personal sacrifices. However, they are currently duped into believing that supporting "environment policy" will not have negative impact on their quality of life, but it will.

Secondly, I think people are more willing to sacrifice depending on how serious is alternative, if we believe the "climate catastrophe" is imminent and life threatening then I may even give away the heated swimming pool. 

Let's use this analogy - if somebody says "we will cut-off your hand, because you have very bad case of of burning, beyond saving and not doing so will result in your death" I am sure our answer to that would be very different if we are told "we will cut-off your hand to feed little bloodthirsty flesh eating monster girl from Sweden called Greta". Sacrifices should be worth it!

Yes, some people are "pro-anti-climate change", because they are lied to and they don't understand real risks... imagine what this girl is willing to sacrifice if she believes there are 6 years of life on earth left:

 

[Bluemarlin]

23 hours ago, Linas.P said:

I am concerned that presenting it as climate change argument distracts us from finding right solutions and risks making outrights wrong decisions. 

In short - I believe that to make right decision, one has to have clear facts in front of them.

Likewise I would question how realistic is below:

So far the products offered have huge downside, but it is downplayed with moral-virtue or avoiding "climate catastrophe". 

Basically, if we would correctly believe that that there is no actual "climate catastrophe" coming and environment protection is matter of comfort and luxury, then I am sure we would be much less willing to sacrifice other comforts and luxuries in our lives. The statement that people are supporting "environment protection" in my experience is only true as long as they don't have to make personal sacrifices. However, they are currently duped into believing that supporting "environment policy" will not have negative impact on their quality of life, but it will.

Secondly, I think people are more willing to sacrifice depending on how serious is alternative, if we believe the "climate catastrophe" is imminent and life threatening then I may even give away the heated swimming pool. 

Let's use this analogy - if somebody says "we will cut-off your hand, because you have very bad case of of burning, beyond saving and not doing so will result in your death" I am sure our answer to that would be very different if we are told "we will cut-off your hand to feed little bloodthirsty flesh eating monster girl from Sweden called Greta". Sacrifices should be worth it!

 

In many ways I agree with you Linas, as I too would prefer clear facts, but what are they?

We may not be representative of the majority though. Studies have shown that as much as 90% of decisions are based on emotion. That's why people are so easily taken in by "alternative facts",  as they can use them in an attempt to logically justify their emotional choices.

Many scientists and environmentalists say that "climate catastrophe" is a fact, whilst others dispute it. The reality is that both sides present what they claim to be "facts" so people can pick which facts they want to believe, according their own emotional preference.

To be fair, there's as much scare mongering from the other side too. For example, the notion of having to sacrifice comfort and luxury, or reduce one's quality of life, are far from facts. Politcally, economically, and technologically, no one is striving for that. Instead the aim is to find ways of maintaining (and possibly improving) quality of life, without the downsides that come from fossil fuels. So to me the, "climate catastrophe" is no different to the "quality of life catastrophe", as both are just designed to scare and influence people. And before you say it, yes I'm sure you can give me anectodal examples of quality of life changes but, given that they can be matched by anecdotal examples of climate driven catastropnes, it would serve no purpose.

If and when I'm compelled to substantially alter my quality of life, then I might see things differently, but I suspect that what will change is how that quality might be delivered, rather than the substance of it.

Cold hard facts would be great for you and I Linas, but it seems that emotionally driven rhetoric is what moves and motivates most people.

[Linas.P]

9 minutes ago, Bluemarlin said:

Many scientists and environmentalists say that "climate catastrophe" is a fact, whilst others dispute it.

To be fair, there's as much scare mongering from the other side too. For example, the notion of having to sacrifice comfort and luxury, or reduce one's quality of life, are far from facts.

Politcally, economically, and technologically, no one is striving for that. Instead the aim is to find ways of maintaining (and possibly improving) quality of life, without the downsides that come from fossil fuels.

If and when I'm compelled to substantially alter my quality of life, then I might see things differently, but I suspect that what will change is how that quality might be delivered, rather than the substance of it.

Cold hard facts would be great for you and I Linas, but it seems that emotionally driven rhetoric is what moves and motivates most people.

First of all, I would like to separate these two groups clearly. Ecomentalists are not experts in anything, they are activists, they are pressure groups, they are lobbies - in short, they neither know the facts, nor they care about facts, their job is not to know the facts, but to persuade or recently FORCE other to take an action.

Secondly, Scientists do not agree that there is climate "catastrophe/emergency", but they generally agree that there is "climate change". There may be few outliers, but even the most pessimistic predictions are that it will take thousands and tens of thousands of years for meaningful change to happen. There is still a lot of debate and science itself is not clear and conclusive. So scientists may say things like "2C increase in temperature based on our models would mean these things". One of things often mentioned - melting of ice, other thing is extinction of some species (sometimes it is as well referred as destruction of habitat, but it is not necessary same as extinction), or increase in the level of oceans. Without context this is very hard to say whenever that is bad or not bad, for example extinction of species sounds bad on the surface, but if we consider that new species constantly appear and other species constantly goes extinct, then this is likely just normal. Same for sea level and ice melting - it may seem like undesirable thing, but context is easily lost, why it was normal for earth to have no ice 20,000 years ago, for temperature to be 6C higher and for seal level to be much higher, but now suddenly it is not okey. It is simply based on misconception that climate should be stable and remain the same, but historic evidence is showing that last ~6000 years of near constant climate is in itself unusual and outlier, a lucky coincidence and that we simply need to learn to live in changing climate. It goes back to my previous point - people make wrong conclusions because they lack perspective. They don't asks "since when" this temperature is "record", they don't understand that is completely normal for ALL the ice to melt, for sea level to rise, for animals to go extinct.

Third thing, there is no conclusive evidence that "climate change" is caused by human activity, so just to be clear climate change is real, temperature is rising, humans are emitting excess Co2, these are facts. BUT it is still theory that climate change is either caused or even impacted by this activity. I am not saying it is not, I am not saying that it is, I am just saying - this has not been proven. It is one of many hypothesis. There are some inconclusive evidence to suggest it maybe the cause, but not sufficient to say it for a fact. Most important evidence against it - Co2 level for a fact (this is not speculation, it is a fact) was higher in the past, temperature was higher in the past, sea level was higher in the past, earth was free of ice in the past and there was no human activity. So why was it? And if it is not human activity that caused it in the past, then why now it is ONLY human activity that is causing it? Clearly we need to do a lot more research to answer these questions. But the problems is that activists are taking hypothesis, or they taking partial conclusions from research and treating them as facts. And by the way some of those things may be facts, but in the subject where 10,000 things can impact the conclusion looking only at 3 of them isn't conclusive. So it is not enough to say "temperature is rising for last 150 years FACT" to prove humans are causing it, yet it is fact, but just one of thousands of facts.

As for "quality of life catastrophe", this is as well dependant on perspective. For example as I said - not being able to eat meat, or not being able to drive is end of life for me, literally not worth living. Quite seriously, so much that I am considering where I should go-to live next, because in UK it is getting to the point where I am uncomfortable, because my ability to drive is increasingly restricted, government and all the institutions are hostile towards drivers and I consider it absolutelly unacceptable. Heated pool is exageration and a joke, but driving isn't. And although so far I could afford it (so it comes to the point of money), it is not outright banned, but it is behind pay wall and I am still increasingly aggravated by extortionate duties, road taxes, parking charges etc. And it is becoming notably worse every day, there is increasingly aggressive rules against the drivers, bans on driving in certain areas, destruction of necessary infrastructure (lanes being converted in to cycling lanes, bus lanes, pavements, flower, benches), LTNs/15minute cities etc. So it is not some sort of scam or scare mongering, it is happening, same as air is warming-up is a fact, the quality of my life is decreasing with each passing day is also a fact. As I mentioned recently I paid like 65% of holiday costs just in taxes on flights, good for me I can afford it, but we may came to point where people won't be able to afford holidays just because of how extortionary they are taxed for sake of "climate catastrophe" fallacy, or you may have to take 8 hours train and 10 hours boat instead of 1h 20 min flight, which is huge degradation of quality of life and just generally regressive. And we as well have factual upcoming bans, to ICE engines which will be significant destruction of quality of life, as EVs simply do not offer same level of quality and they are much more expensive to own overall. So again I would not say it is "catastrophe", but it is continuous degradation and it has possibility of becoming catastrophe - for example in 2045 we may come to point where there are rolling black-outs and our "smart-meters" will block us from charging the cars considering it "not a priority need". I think evidence is clearly there - in UK we have now 15 "clean air" zones with massive detrimental effect, anyone who has petrol car older than 17 years, or diesel older than 8 years cannot drive them any longer if they happen to be near these stupid zones. And whereas at the face value it seems reasonable and I happen to have compliant car... there are literally hundreds of cars that I consider desirable, future classic or outright classic that have to either pay £12.50 A DAY, even just to be parked or else government suggest they should be scrapped. 

Please elaborate on the point of how this will "improve" our quality of life as I just can't see it. Nothing now prevents me from eating heathy diet, or exercising and generally doing everything to have good physical health, I don't need to be forced to use public transport, cycle or most likely walk, nor I need to be grass-fed to avoid being obese. I don't need to be banned from doing things I like to live better, this just assumes we are treated like animals or adult kids as if we can't figure-out for ourselves what is right for us. 

And I actually do not agree that "Politcally, economically, and technologically, no one is striving for that [i.e ruining our lives]". I think ban on ICE is either extremely negligent or short-sighted thing, or it is deliberate policy to take our cars and therefore freedom away. Sure "never assume malice when incompetence suffice", but it seems like malice here... our politicians may be incompetent to announce such policy, but it is likely that whomever lobbied for it did it maliciously knowing that we not going to have parking places, chargers, network capacity nor even electricity generation to charged BEVs... and only alternative is not to drive AT ALL. Remember scarcity = profit, make driving and owning the car, and charging difficult and suddenly you have captive market.

Finally, if all these restrictions would be result of genuine emergency, then even I would support it, but they are not - the yare just an empty attack on lifestyle which is deemed undesirable and unnecessary. And I think the battle here was already lost like 30 years ago when we have allowed grass eating communists to have an idea and even dear saying it out load that driving is dangerous and undesirable. Now we live in the society where people no longer even questions this notion, for them driving is not freedom, not convenience, not necessity, it is just dirty and dangerous thing which needs to be reduced or better eradicated. And once something is accepted as unnecessary, then suddenly it is alright to say it is undesirable, and when it is undesirable, then we can move to the point of calling it dangerous... and finally we can have a policy of stamping it out altogether. This is kind of similar reason why americans are fighting so much for their gun rights, often irrationally... but that is because they are afraid this will be taken away from them, so they fighting the even the most basic notion of saying "owning guns is unnecessary", because they don't fight now, then later the question will be come whenever it is undesirable, then whenever it is dangerous altogether and outright ban in the end. Obviously in UK we have long lost this option of having guns and defending ourselves, but now we going in the same direction on cars. I have even seen some communists on Guardian promoting the idea that home ownership is undesirable and suggested looking at Singapore model (just as note all houses in Singapore are 99 years lease, nobody owns anything, state owns it). How dystopian we want to get before we start fighting for our rights?

[GMB]

And so it goes..... We all bleat on about how badly done to we all are. What can we do about it? Nothing. The dictators and tyrants run the world, even in our own country. Our next proposed government will not commit to a decision - " We don't know the budget, so go figure - triple lock - don't know, don't care say labour.. What can we do? The only answer is to live outside the system. Do not declare income, do not pay tax. But this is now impossible as we are all monitored to the n th degree.

Basically we are all up the creek without a paddle.. 1984 anyone?

We just wait and see who hits the N button first.  I think this dawned on me in 1964 and has not improved since. Kennedy was right.

Please remind me not to make comments after drinking burgundy ( bourgogne to our amis français )

[Linas.P]

52 minutes ago, GMB said:

We all bleat on about how badly done to we all are. What can we do about it?

That is why I am contemplating on leaving, the only problem is that within Europe there isn't much better choice. Recent pandemic kind of blown my bubble a little bit when they were talking about force vaccinating people. Have nothing against vaccine, but it can't be administered against the persons will, not to mention list of problems related to this particular case. Must be said - UK was one of the most reasonable countries in this aspect, no "freedom" passes etc. but driving situation in UK is becoming unbearable. 

I was thinking maybe Portugal/North Spain... or Slovenia/Slovakia/Croatia sort of place. Like I still want to live in developed world where rule of law still applies, but where government is not too invasive into personal live, nor where government has clear agenda... Now they are talking about penalties for 1 mile over the speed limit and make driving accidents comparable to attempted murder... just ridiculous what lobby groups are trying to achieve.