Food for thought - Climate Change

[dutchie01]

On 9/15/2023 at 9:43 PM, Malc1 said:

Does desalination require significant fossil fuel burning to achieve ? 
 

Malc 

It sure does. saudi arabia hit the news this month with issues about exactly that. Desalination plants run on fossil aka oil and consume big time apparently 15% of all oil they pump up. Plus toxic waste and harm to sealife but the catch 22 is as always what is the alternative? No water no life?

[Linas.P]

3 hours ago, Phil xxkr said:

Well if you and others knew what the security services were doing it wouldn't be very  secure would it? 🤔

I never said I want to know what they are doing, I am just questioning is they are working in the interest of "people" or against of it. I don't think it is controversial to suggest they should always worn in interest of people/citizens/country etc., yet times and times again security services across the world have been proven to have different goals and motivations. Not accusing anyone in particular, just saying I am not necessarily trusting of security interest having best interest all the time.

As well it seems to me that they could have already dealt with stop oil, extinction rebellion and other ecomentalists groups. That they haven't dealt with them yet, in itself suggest that something isn't right. And I don't even mean security services secretly infiltrating such groups, even things which are public and transparent are not done e.g. police fails to do anything meaningful about them. They do have power to arrest and charge every single on of the protesters with various crimes, loitering, public disorder, criminal damage etc. but they continuously fails to do it. So again I don't think it is controversial to question of "why not?"

[Bluemarlin]

On 9/16/2023 at 4:48 PM, Linas.P said:

So what period is relevant then? I think quite opposite, the period we should be looking at is somewhere between 300,000 and 3,000,000. It is IRRELEVANT to look at less than 300,000 years and that is kind of key of this whole thread - LACK OF PERSPECTIVE. If we look at any shorter period then we simply can't say we understand the boundaries of what is NORMAL.

Why this particular range? Why 300,000 years as the start? Because humans existed for at least 300,000 years, so we can discover what conditions are suitable for our existence, I am not sure it is controversial to say that the reason for climate protection is MAINLY our own survival. 

Why 3,000,000 years as end ... that is because that is the start of current ICE AGE. So this period of last 3,000,000 years defines the natural boundaries of current climate. 

All the societies created in last 12,000 years, or the ones that exist in known history of ~2,000 years are IRRELEVANT from perspective of climate, because we know climate processes takes at minimum 10s of thousands, but even 100s of thousands of years. I am not sure where my argument is getting lost, but regardless of our existences we are working with natural fluctuations of climate, if we create more Co2 or less Co2 is irrelevant, we still going to have +6C. It is not about acting or not acting, it is certainly not about reduction. Again even if we not going to stop with BEVs and we targeting ALL fossil fuel, it still makes no difference. How far you want to go before we have "1 child policy", maybe "0 child policy", maybe we should start outright executing every 3rd person alive? Where do we stop this action? And most importantly - even if we kill every human alive today we still going to have +6C, but maybe in 10,000 years instead of 5,000 years. This argument is idiotic in itself, because we saying we should stop living to protect the livelihood we have created, to protect our society, our cities, but with the goals as they are currently defined even total elimination of all humans does not get us there.

As well it is simply NOT TRUE that majority of carbon was always stored underground. For last 20,000 years that may be true, but it is not true for majority of current ice age. In fact exactly the reason why ice age started (or so they speculate) was huge and sudden emission of Co2, the theories goes it is was either caused by meteorite impact of by super volcano. 

Either way - what we know from period of humans existence that the hotter climate is actually better, the glaciation is what we want to avoid. And now to kind of destroy my own argument a little bit - run away greenhouse effect can cause glaciation as well, so there may be reason not to do it, but not because of risk of global warming, but because of risk of global cooling. However, what we know far a fact - we will survive either way, mush less technologically advanced ancestors of our survived just fine... and if it turns into glaciation, then perhaps my snowboarding gear will not be wasted.

You say that you not being inconvenienced, we that is alright, happy for you... but do you agree that I am being inconvenienced? And at the same time - why somebody can say it is fine to inconvenience me and people like me to achieve their stupid vision about climate which isn't even realistic. 

No - I am not grateful for ANYTHING at all for previous generations, BUT nor I blame them for what they did. I am happy to know they lived their lives happily and without stupid restrictions and the only thing I want to do is the same - live my life without arbitrary stupid restrictions and enjoy it, rather than being shackled by climate nonsense. If we circle back to previous analogy - I don't want to spit out what you have eaten, that is not the point, but at the same time it is a little bit hypocritical to tell me I should not eat as much, shouldn't even eat crumbs, because no food is left. 

In summary - I believe that human comfort, not survival... COMFORT is the most important thing, environment is secondary... environment will adapt to our comfortable living, and we will adapt to environment and that is fine. I cannot care less about animals going extinct when we still have cases of humans dying, just a matter of priorities. And all the rest is hygiene factors - sure we don't want to live around our own turds, we don't want to irradiate our food, we don't want to eat plastic waste, but that weather is few degrees hotter - so be it, it is actually nicer that way.

P.S. I know all that sounds very dismissive about the environment etc. But I actually do care about environment, I do work on reducing my own waste, but I do it in the way that matters, not in the way that generates headlines and fake buzz. I am quite confident my personal emissions are much lower than average person living in developed world. I don't buy cheap plastic things, I don't by disposable things, I don't even waste food, I drive 18 years old car which by this point is pretty much carbon neutral, I know that my car is 0.3% of human Co2 emissions, so I take an action on things that are 40% emissions, 30% emissions, not 0.3% emissions. And the reason I am angry is that I am being punished for not doing 0.3% despite already saving maybe more than 50% elsewhere. Yet retards that contribute more than me (not you and not anyone on this discussion) comes and lectures me about how virtuous they are in their 3 tons Tesla Model X disaster on the wheels. If anything I find "climate action" as distraction from real problems, I would probably even say it is conspiracy to control and to extract wealth from people.

As to what period is relevant, well that depends on what you want to achieve.

On the one hand you posit 300,000 years, merely because humans have existed that long, but later you say that human comfort is the most important thing, not survival. Sure, if we go back 300,000 years, we can see at what range humans can survive, but that totally ignores comfort. Our ancestors survived precisley because they weren't technologically advanced. Their survival wasn't based upon building a massive infrastructure largely for the purpose of comfort and convenience. What may have been survivable for nomadic tribesmen, is unlikely to maintain our current comfort levels, without the substantial cost of mitigating any climate changes.

Humans as a species may very well survive significant climate changes, but loss of habitable land leads to things like mass movements of people, and a limiting of the ability to produce food. This might mean that coastal cities would need to be relocated, or mass migrations into properous regions, on a scale that makes current immigration look like nothing. All of which carries a huge cost, and has a substantial impact on comfort levels. So, if survival is the only goal, then look back as far as you like, and determine that we need do nothing. However, if you want to maintain comfort, then you need to look much more recently, in order to determine the far narrower range that's required to maintian the comfort levels in the societies we've created today.

In short Linas, the environment is primary, as our comfort is much more at risk from environmental changes than our survival is.

As for animals going extinct, well in many cases they're a barometer for the health of the planet. They also have the potential for knock on effects. The loss of bees, for example, could quickly see us lose the ability to grow food, and thus starve to death. We don't live in isolation, we're part of an ecosytem, and both our comfort, and survival, are based on how that ecosytem is balanced. I'm also not sure what you mean by 1 child policies, or population reductions, as no-one is suggesting that. On the contrary, many countries are now seeing lower birth rates and are looking at how to increase them.

I do get what you're saying about not wanting to spit out what others have eaten, but the counter argument is that if our current use of fossil fuels leads to damage that will affect the lives and comfort of future generations, then you're condemning them to spit out what you've eaten. To be honest, I'm not sure what your gripe, as I haven't been told to eat less, or crumbs, because there's no food left. I accept that things like 20 mph speed limits are inconvenient, and certainly agree that they're unhelpful and ill thought out. However, on balance, people's comfort levels have improved substantially during even my lifetime. The reality though is that we all have to iive with what's been left by previous generations. The good we benefit from, and the bad we try to fix/change.

I think you'e in danger of promoting as much doom and gloom as the extreme climate evangelists.  The shift from fossil fuels will result in some cost and inconvenience in the short term, but the point is that it's balanced against the cost and inconvenience that will come from doing nothing. As you've said, a few degrees hotter won't kill everyone but, over a sustained period it will dramatically alter the environment, in such ways that would not only impact our comfort levels, but require adaptation that could far outweigh the financial and inconvenience costs of anything we're doing now.

So, I believe that what we're doing will lead to better things, whilst you believe the opposite. I'm speaking broadly of course,  and accept that there'll be a measurre of stupid decisions that fall under that umbrella. No one knows for certain either way and so, for now at least, we can both enjoy the luxury of our differing opinions.

[Linas.P]

1 hour ago, Bluemarlin said:

As to what period is relevant, well that depends on what you want to achieve.

On the one hand you posit 300,000 years, merely because humans have existed that long, but later you say that human comfort is the most important thing, not survival. Sure, if we go back 300,000 years, we can see at what range humans can survive, but that totally ignores comfort. Our ancestors survived precisley because they weren't technologically advanced. Their survival wasn't based upon building a massive infrastructure largely for the purpose of comfort and convenience. What may have been survivable for nomadic tribesmen, is unlikely to maintain our current comfort levels, without the substantial cost of mitigating any climate changes.

Humans as a species may very well survive significant climate changes, but loss of habitable land leads to things like mass movements of people, and a limiting of the ability to produce food. This might mean that coastal cities would need to be relocated, or mass migrations into properous regions, on a scale that makes current immigration look like nothing. All of which carries a huge cost, and has a substantial impact on comfort levels. So, if survival is the only goal, then look back as far as you like, and determine that we need do nothing. However, if you want to maintain comfort, then you need to look much more recently, in order to determine the far narrower range that's required to maintian the comfort levels in the societies we've created today.

In short Linas, the environment is primary, as our comfort is much more at risk from environmental changes than our survival is.

As for animals going extinct, well in many cases they're a barometer for the health of the planet. They also have the potential for knock on effects. The loss of bees, for example, could quickly see us lose the ability to grow food, and thus starve to death. We don't live in isolation, we're part of an ecosytem, and both our comfort, and survival, are based on how that ecosytem is balanced. I'm also not sure what you mean by 1 child policies, or population reductions, as no-one is suggesting that. On the contrary, many countries are now seeing lower birth rates and are looking at how to increase them.

I do get what you're saying about not wanting to spit out what others have eaten, but the counter argument is that if our current use of fossil fuels leads to damage that will affect the lives and comfort of future generations, then you're condemning them to spit out what you've eaten. To be honest, I'm not sure what your gripe, as I haven't been told to eat less, or crumbs, because there's no food left. I accept that things like 20 mph speed limits are inconvenient, and certainly agree that they're unhelpful and ill thought out. However, on balance, people's comfort levels have improved substantially during even my lifetime. The reality though is that we all have to iive with what's been left by previous generations. The good we benefit from, and the bad we try to fix/change.

I think you'e in danger of promoting as much doom and gloom as the extreme climate evangelists.  The shift from fossil fuels will result in some cost and inconvenience in the short term, but the point is that it's balanced against the cost and inconvenience that will come from doing nothing. As you've said, a few degrees hotter won't kill everyone but, over a sustained period it will dramatically alter the environment, in such ways that would not only impact our comfort levels, but require adaptation that could far outweigh the financial and inconvenience costs of anything we're doing now.

So, I believe that what we're doing will lead to better things, whilst you believe the opposite. I'm speaking broadly of course,  and accept that there'll be a measurre of stupid decisions that fall under that umbrella. No one knows for certain either way and so, for now at least, we can both enjoy the luxury of our differing opinions.

I disagree with you first point - I believe that now we have better chance to survive and be comfortable in any climate than we have ever been before. We are literally able to live in space and under water, something that was not possible even 100 years ago. Most importantly we can live anywhere on the planet in any climate COMFORTABLY. That is exactly what our ancestors could not do, hence they chosen warmer climate and settlements close to water source. This is not longer a requirement, we can genuinely live comfortably at 60C in desert and at -60C in arctic. So climate change is not only NOT risk for our survival, but it is not risk to our comfort either. Further - what is undesirable for our comfort is cooling down of the planet, not warming-up. It is believed that humans made biggest progress exactly at the interglacial periods (e.g. becoming bipedal, starting to use tools) and then were forced to migrate and migrated in glacial periods. So again - I just can't see logic in your argument here. 

Animals going extinct is not "one way street" either, I mean we can all decry death of Woolly Mammoth or Sabretooth, but instead we now have 100s of feline species and despite being endangered we have dozens of species of elephants... note one more thing - majority of species thrive in warmer climates. So if one day arctic becomes tropic it may be possible to increase the habitat for those species. Now sure elephants are endangered because of overhunting and that is what I call "hygiene" factor and what I believe we could deal with and should deal with. We don't need them for food, so it is entirely possible to protect those species. And as well how many species of elephants we really want? It is a fact that many species exists because of different adaptations, but some of them will inevitably going to go extinct because they chose wrong "path", but that is just natural, that is how natural selection and evolution works, variety of subspecies exists for the weakest to go extinct and for best adapted to carry out the gene forward. Human species have gone extinct as well, it is normal... as long as we don't literally and directly annihilate the species by overhunting it. This animal protection sound like "have a cake and eat it too argument" - you just can't keep all the species all the time. And bees going extinct that was debunked 1000 times, they are very useful little critters but they are not the only ones that pollinate, not only that there are again many species of bees and only some of them are at risk of extinction due to heat... so bee extinction caused hunger is myth.

That is why I given the analogy of people arriving at different times, it just seems you didn't understand my analogy or I perhaps had not explained it correctly... it seems that it is my generation which has to protect "the future generations", when previous generations have had comparably good time. So... no... we are not in this "together" if that is what you believe it is. At least not from this particular case of punishing people for driving person vehicles or eating meat perspective. This is literally the new thing for last 20-30 years and it is current generation that is suffering, not everyone together. Your generation been on the planet longer, you have experienced both improvement in life quality and now regression, therefore for you it may seem like one the balance of the things life got better. My generation only seen regression of quality of life. Again I am not blaming you for enjoying your life in 70s and 80s, I honestly happy that people were able to live freely and maybe a little carelessly, but my generation never had that opportunity. So that is my "gripe". Now sure - I know many people will say "we had our own issues", and that is both true and irrelevant. Why I am saying irrelevant - it is irrelevant for this topic where at least I am focusing on arbitrary goals that restrict people freedom on the basis of Co2 emissions. I am sure people been in the wars and were living in poverty in the past and as well there were periods of "plenty", but from perspective on restricting freedoms on Co2 emissions that was never the case as it is today.

And I can't enjoy luxury, because nowadays I am either priced out from most of it, or outright prohibited. Again I am honestly happy if you can enjoy luxury of your choice, but I can't enjoy luxury of my choice. 

[Phil xxkr]

48 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

I never said I want to know what they are doing, I am just questioning is they are working in the interest of "people" or against of it. I don't think it is controversial to suggest they should always worn in interest of people/citizens/country etc., yet times and times again security services across the world have been proven to have different goals and motivations. Not accusing anyone in particular, just saying I am not necessarily trusting of security interest having best interest all the time.

As well it seems to me that they could have already dealt with stop oil, extinction rebellion and other ecomentalists groups. That they haven't dealt with them yet, in itself suggest that something isn't right. And I don't even mean security services secretly infiltrating such groups, even things which are public and transparent are not done e.g. police fails to do anything meaningful about them. They do have power to arrest and charge every single on of the protesters with various crimes, loitering, public disorder, criminal damage etc. but they continuously fails to do it. So again I don't think it is controversial to question of "why not?"

And here I was thinking you wrote

"You are most likely right... the question is what those security services are doing." Because if you did it sounds like posing a question without wishing to know the answer? Without knowing your definition of security services as applicable to "across the world" I am sure it would cover those countries with no right to assemble, protest etc which this country has. And only recently the service in charge of protecting this particular realm publicly declared that they had foiled numerous plots, for which we all should say thank you 

[Boomer54]

13 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

I disagree with you first point - I believe that now we have better chance to survive and be comfortable in any climate than we have ever been before. We are literally able to live in space and under water, something that was not possible even 100 years ago. Most importantly we can live anywhere on the planet in any climate COMFORTABLY. That is exactly what our ancestors could not do, hence they chosen warmer climate and settlements close to water source. This is not longer a requirement, we can genuinely live comfortably at 60C in desert and at -60C in arctic. So climate change is not only NOT risk for our survival, but it is not risk to our comfort either. Further - what is undesirable for our comfort is cooling down of the planet, not warming-up. It is believed that humans made biggest progress exactly at the interglacial periods and then were forced to migrated and migrated in glacial periods. So again - I just can't see logic in your argument here. 

Animals going extinct is not "one way street" either, I mean we can all decry death of Woolly Mammoth or Sabretooth, but instead we now have 100s of feline species and despite being endangered we have dozens of species of elephants... note one more thing - majority of species thrive in warmer climates. So if one day arctic becomes tropic it may be possible to increase the habitat for those species. Now sure elephants are endangered because of overhunting and that is what I call "hygiene" factor and what I believe we could deal with and should deal with. We don't need them for food, so it is entirely possible to protect those species. And as well how many species of elephants we really want? It is a fact that many species exists because of different adaptations, but some of them will inevitably going to go extinct because they chose wrong "path", but that is just natural, that is how natural selection and evolution works, variety of subspecies exists for the weakest to go extinct and for best adapted to carry out the gene forward. Human species have gone extinct as well, it is normal... as long as we don't literally and directly annihilate the species by overhunting it. This animal protection sound like "have a cake and eat it too argument" - you just can keep all the species all the time. And bees going extinct that was debunked 1000 times, they are very useful little critters but they are not the only ones that pollinate, not only that there are again many species of bees and only some of them are at risk of extinction due to heat... so bee extinction caused hunger is myth.

That is why I given the analogy of people arriving at different times, it just seems you didn't understand my analogy or I perhaps had not explained it correctly... it seems that it is my generation which has to protect "the future generations", when previous generations have had comparably good time. So... no... we are not in this "together" if that is what you believe it is. At least not from this particular case of punishing people for driving person vehicles or eating meat perspective. This is literally the new thing for last 20-30 years and it is current generation that is suffering, not everyone together. Your generation been on the planet longer, you have experienced both improvement in life quality and now regression, therefore for you it may seem like one the balance of the things life got better. My generation only seen regression of quality of life. Again I am not blaming you for enjoying your life in 70s and 80s, I honestly happy that people were able to live freely and maybe a little carelessly, but my generation never had that opportunity. So that is my "gripe". Now sure - I know many people will say "we had our own issues", and that is both true and irrelevant. Why I am saying irrelevant - it is irrelevant for this topic where at least I am focusing on arbitrary goals that restrict people freedom on the basis of Co2 emissions. I am sure people been in the wars and were living in poverty in the past and as well there were periods of "plenty", but from perspective on restricting freedoms on Co2 emissions that was never the case as it is today.

And I can't enjoy luxury, because nowadays I am either priced out from most of it, or outright prohibited. Again I am honestly happy if you can enjoy luxury of your choice, but I can't enjoy luxury of my choice. 

You know I agree with quite a lot of the points you are trying to make ,but then you go and spoil it with the intergenerational stuff. When and if you get to 70 I hope you can look back at this and laugh to yourself about the things you didn't know then. Meanwhile I am right onboard with your comments regarding restrictions to the way you wish to live your life. I mean come on here, the Welsh guy is well intentioned , but de facto he is the very definition of 'thick as a brick'.

[Malc1]

Now then ……. Desalination Plants and the Arab oil at 90 US$ a barrel used to produce a pint of drinking water 

Any ideas on this anyone ….. is it reasonable ? well reasonable to let them use these fossil fuels to produce drinking water ….. how much a pint I wonder ? 
 

How dare they burn fossil fuels, destroying our planet,  for this ridiculous purpose ….. can’t they import Evian or summat 🤔
 

Linas, you might be able to do this calculation to see if it all stacks up to let them continue to use oil for this purpose ……. 
 

bit like this truly dopey “ approved “ £1.7bn, yes billion ….. to dig the road tunnel under Stonehenge ……. move it all I say ….. replicate it 500 yds to one side and forget about it all ….. save the Climate by not digging and producing whatever “ waste “ arises …… and all that fuel used by diggers etc 

STOP IT I SAY ….. save the planet,   Extinction Rebellion could be rebelling to make this Extinct stuff, Stonehenge more User Friendly ….. it’s all a bit of a “ dead duck “   A pile of old stones getting in the way of a good highway ….. well at least if they don’t do anything it keeps the traffic to 20mph or often less …… usually  

isn’t that what the “ do gooders  “ want ……. max 20mph everywhere ….. in Wales anyway …… just drop it down a bit to include the West Country too 

Climate Change …… just get the “ right things “ into perspective PLEASE 

Malc 

[Linas.P]

14 minutes ago, Phil xxkr said:

And here I was thinking you wrote

"You are most likely right... the question is what those security services are doing." Because if you did it sounds like posing a question without wishing to know the answer? Without knowing your definition of security services as applicable to "across the world" I am sure it would cover those countries with no right to assemble, protest etc which this country has. And only recently the service in charge of protecting this particular realm publicly declared that they had foiled numerous plots, for which we all should say thank you 

You correct - it was rhetorical. I just wanted to express my frustration with them in my opinion not doing enough. And maybe a little bit of conspiracy, then perhaps they don't want to do too much, because there is certain benefit for the government to let these protesters make certain points. Think about it - if one day without any prior warning government comes and bans all the cars then there would be riot by everyone. Yet when we have to deal with eco terrorists gluing themselves to things and throwing paint, then suddenly some restriction becomes almost acceptable.

7 minutes ago, Boomer54 said:

You know I agree with quite a lot of the points you are trying to make ,but then you go and spoil it with the intergenerational stuff. When and if you get to 70 I hope you can look back at this and laugh to yourself about the things you didn't know then. Meanwhile I am right onboard with your comments regarding restrictions to the way you wish to live your life. I mean come on here, the Welsh guy is well intentioned , but de facto he is the very definition of 'thick as a brick'.

It is sad that intergenerational stuff spoiled it for you. I specifically said - I don't blame previous generations for enjoying their lives, they have all the rights and they should have done it, so I am not the "how dare you" type. However it is undeniable that living throughout different periods different generations have different appreciation of certain things. As well just general place in your lifetime make a difference, what is important for young professional, is not important for pensioner, or for somebody at the end of their career. Things like housing - seems very important for young family is not really important for retired couple who have long paid back mortgage and probably are even detached the news and knowledge of the situation as it is today. Same with driving - I am sure when you were young you took liberties with speed (maybe I am wrong) and the car was very important part of social life or at very least very useful tool to get around and go to work etc. but probably by now you had all sorts of cars, been there did that and frankly maybe you not fussed anymore... so when there are draconical enforcement of not a single mile above the limit it probably isn't as much of the problem for older generation as it is for younger one now. I mean just look at possibility of having license at 17 years old... what a ffffing farce - sure you can have one, but you won't insure until you at least 25, unless you live in the sticks somewhere or parents pay for your insurance.

So again intergenerational stuff is just reality, I am not saying one generation is better than other, I certainly don't blame pervious or future generations, I am just saying that environmentalism is an issue of today which impacts all of us today, but due to being at certain point in their life this hurts the say 20-40 year olds the most. Doesn't mean it does not hurt older people or younger people, but it does not have as much of impact in my opinion. And as well I may be wrong, so I am certainly oversimplifying and overgeneralising, which is by the way intentional. 

I guess to simplify my point was that certain restrictions hurts different groups of people differently, depending at what stage in their live it is.  

[Boomer54]

14 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

You correct - it was rhetorical. I just wanted to express my frustration with them in my opinion not doing enough. And maybe a little bit of conspiracy, then perhaps they don't want to do too much, because there is certain benefit for the government to let these protesters make certain points. Think about it - if one day without any prior warning government comes and bans all the cars then there would be riot by everyone. Yet when we have to deal with eco terrorists gluing themselves to things and throwing paint, then suddenly some restriction becomes almost acceptable.

It is sad that intergenerational stuff spoiled it for you. I specifically said - I don't blame previous generations for enjoying their lives, they have all the rights and they should have done it, so I am not the "how dare you" type. However it is undeniable that living throughout different periods different generations have different appreciation of certain things. As well just general place in your lifetime make a difference, what is important for young professional, is not important for pensioner, or for somebody at the end of their career. Things like housing - seems very important for young family is not really important for retired couple who have long paid back mortgage and probably are even detached the news and knowledge of the situation as it is today. Same with driving - I am sure when you were young you took liberties with speed (maybe I am wrong) and the car was very important part of social life or at very least very useful tool to get around and go to work etc. but probably by now you had all sorts of cars, been there did that and frankly maybe you not fussed anymore... so when there are draconical enforcement of not a single mile above the limit it probably isn't as much of the problem for older generation as it is for younger one now. I mean just look at possibility of having license at 17 years old... what a ffffing farce - sure you can have one, but you won't insure until you at least 25, unless you live in the sticks somewhere or parents pay for your insurance.

So again intergenerational stuff is just reality, I am not saying one generation is better than other, I certainly don't blame pervious or future generations, I am just saying that environmentalism is an issue of today which impacts all of us today, but due to being at certain point in their life this hurts the say 20-40 year olds the most. Doesn't mean it does not hurt older people or younger people, but it does not have as much of impact in my opinion. And as well I may be wrong, so I am certainly oversimplifying and overgeneralising, which is by the way intentional. 

I guess to simplify my point was that certain restrictions hurts different groups of people differently, depending at what stage in their live it is.  

"So again intergenerational stuff is just reality". This is the heart of it really. Not a question of 'blame', but of what you think you know. You see at 70 I think you are probably going to understand that the things you think are 'reality' today are not. They are  in the main just one of many different perspectives that exist on virtually any issue. All those 'good' things you think we had that you don't are nothing more than a distortion of what you think you know about how we lived in the past. A past that you have not experienced for yourself ,but have only really heard about.

For example, was it a good thing for a lad to be up at 5.30 ,clogs on, up the hill onto the moor to cut some peat for the open fire that was the only sort of heat that we had. Or perhaps it was a good thing to scrape the ice off your bedroom windows ! That is ,the ice on the inside !. Or perhaps it was a good thing to go to bed with blankets which were always semi damp from the lack of heat. Or if you like your sugar finding it hard to get hold of. Don't get me wrong here there really was some fantastic stuff growing up back then, but there was some really crap stuff as well. Moreover, I am fairly confident the same can be said of today. So who had it, has it better ? Frankly , the only thing I am really sure of is we of different generations have had it 'different'.

[Linas.P]

11 minutes ago, Boomer54 said:

"So again intergenerational stuff is just reality". This is the heart of it really. Not a question of 'blame', but of what you think you know. You see at 70 I think you are probably going to understand that the things you think are 'reality' today are not. They are  in the main just one of many different perspectives that exist on virtually any issue. All those 'good' things you think we had that you don't are nothing more than a distortion of what you think you know about how we lived in the past. A past that you have not experienced for yourself ,but have only really heard about.

For example, was it a good thing for a lad to be up at 5.30 ,clogs on, up the hill onto the moor to cut some peat for the open fire that was the only sort of heat that we had. Or perhaps it was a good thing to scrape the ice off your bedroom windows ! That is ,the ice on the inside !. Or perhaps it was a good thing to go to bed with blankets which were always semi damp from the lack of heat. Or if you like your sugar finding it hard to get hold of. Don't get me wrong here there really was some fantastic stuff growing up back then, but there was some really crap stuff as well. Moreover, I am fairly confident the same can be said of today. So who had it, has it better ? Frankly , the only thing I am really sure of is we of different generations have had it 'different'.

I think you right to say that when I will be 70 years old I will laugh at my young self today - that is correct and will definitely happen. But that is not because I am wrong today, but because by the time I get to 70 my perception and opinion will fundamentally change. So me now and me at 70 years old are effectively two completely different people. 

Isn't your description of the past you lived in a distortion as well, could you say that everyone had to do those things, scrape ice from inside, cut peat for open fire that was the only sort of heat, damp blankets? I know some people certainly lived in exactly such conditions, one of them may be you, but did all people lived in those conditions? Was it actually "generational" thing or it was the reality of the certain person in certain time? We need to draw the line somewhere, because otherwise we are risking becoming chicle grandmother who had "to walk to the school barefooted in the snow, for 5 miles uphill... BOTH WAYS!".

As well, I am not complaining about myself personally, because that again would not be "generational" thing, myself as individual I may have failed at school, may have failed to get employment, I may be homeless living between two sheets of cardboard on the street, but that wouldn't be the general experience of my generation, right? Therefore when I am talking about this "intergenerational" difference I am trying to adjust for that and compared what would have been reasonable quality of life for the person with certain achievements, certain education, position, career now and then. Could I adjust for everything - no, do I have to generalise and oversimplify - yes, have I made mistakes - I am sure I did in some cases, if you think that I got something wrong in particular I am happy to discuss it and retract my statement if needed.

The quality of life certainly fluctuated throughout the history, but the data suggest it was steadily improving since the industrial revolution, which exception of war here and there, yet the same data suggest that for a first time in long time quality of life is becoming worse, particularly for last few generations. It is often quoted as "millennials being short changed" and quality of life of millennials is compared to that of so called "quiet generation" i.e. the one that lived in interwar period in and during the WW2. Just let that sink in - statistically millennials has it as bad as the generation which literally lived trough WW2, despite there being no major global war for most of the generation (which expectation of last few years where one seems to be starting).

And generations had it "different", I am not denying it - I am saying that my generation has to battle the Co2 linked scam quality of life regression. But it is for my generation battle with, because it impact the people who are building the life and who are building the capital the most, those who have lived their life, who have already built and who have capital to put on inheritance.. they are much less impacted. And and as well it needs to be narrowed down to particular discussion we having with Bill, where the question is "what luxuries don't you have"... and I have a list of thing which I can't do at the moment. So yes that is the difference and that is what I am having "different". 

I still agree that I am living better than people in 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s and probably 60s, but I am having about the same as people in 70s and statistically speaking worse than people in 80s, 90s and 00s, of my age status, wealth etc. As well, most of stereotypes and values currently are built on premise that each generation quality of life improves, but it is now widely accepted fact that this is no longer true for millennials in particular, for first time they specifically had it worse then their parents. Now in my particular case that isn't true, because my parents lived in little disaster called soviet union, but I don't live neither in soviet union, nor in countries that used to be soviet union, so I am expecting quality of life as my peers in the west, but even my peers in the west are statistically worse of than they parents were at the same age.

>>>>>>>

All this was just very long ways of saying - statistically my generation is worse off than generation before us and that is as well statistically unusual, because the trend for last 100 years was that each generation had their life quality improved compared to previous generation.

[Boomer54]

9 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

I think you right to say that when I will be 70 years old I will laugh at my young self today - that is correct and will definitely happen. But that is not because I am wrong today, but because by the time I get to 70 my perception and opinion will fundamentally change. So me now and me at 70 years old are effectively two completely different people. 

Isn't your description of the past you lived in a distortion as well, could you say that everyone had to do those things, scrape ice from inside, cut peat for open fire that was the only sort of heat, damp blankets? I know some people certainly lived in exactly such conditions, one of them may be you, but did all people lived in those conditions? Was it actually "generational" thing or it was the reality of the certain person in certain time? We need to draw the line somewhere, because otherwise we are risking becoming chicle grandmother who had "to walk to the school barefooted in the snow, for 5 miles uphill... BOTH WAYS!".

As well, I am not complaining about myself personally, because that again would not be "generational" thing, myself as individual I may have failed at school, may have failed to get employment, I may be homeless living between two sheets of cardboard on the street, but that wouldn't be the general experience of my generation, right? Therefore when I am talking about this "intergenerational" difference I am trying to adjust for that and compared what would have been reasonable quality of life for the person with certain achievements, certain education, position, career now and then. Could I adjust for everything - no, do I have to generalise and oversimplify - yes, have I made mistakes - I am sure I did in some cases, if you think that I got something wrong in particular I am happy to discuss it and retract my statement if needed.

The quality of life certainly fluctuated throughout the history, but the data suggest it was steadily improving since the industrial revolution, which exception of war here and there, yet the same data suggest that for a first time in long time quality of life is becoming worse, particularly for last few generations. It is often quoted as "millennials being short changed" and quality of life of millennials is compared to that of so called "quiet generation" i.e. the one that lived in interwar period in and during the WW2. Just let that sink in - statistically millennials has it as bad as the generation which literally lived trough WW2, despite there being no major global war for most of the generation (which expectation of last few years where one seems to be starting).

And generations had it "different", I am not denying it - I am saying that my generation has to battle the Co2 linked scam quality of life regression. But it is for my generation battle with, because it impact the people who are building the life and who are building the capital the most, those who have lived their life, who have already built and who have capital to put on inheritance.. they are much less impacted. And and as well it needs to be narrowed down to particular discussion we having with Bill, where the question is "what luxuries don't you have"... and I have a list of thing which I can't do at the moment. So yes that is the difference and that is what I am having "different". 

I still agree that I am living better than people in 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s and probably 60s, but I am having about the same as people in 70s and statistically speaking worse than people in 80s, 90s and 00s, of my age status, wealth etc. As well, most of stereotypes and values currently are built on premise that each generation quality of life improves, but it is now widely accepted fact that this is no longer true for millennials in particular, for first time they specifically had it worse then their parents. Now in my particular case that isn't true, because my parents lived in little disaster called soviet union, but I don't live neither in soviet union, nor in countries that used to be soviet union, so I am expecting quality of life as my peers in the west, but even my peers in the west are statistically worse of than they parents were at the same age.

>>>>>>>

All this was just very long ways of saying - statistically my generation is worse off than generation before us and that is as well statistically unusual, because the trend for last 100 years was that each generation had their life quality improved compared to previous generation.

 "to walk to the school barefooted in the snow, for 5 miles uphill... BOTH WAYS!".

What an exageration. I actually cycled 6 miles each way and only the last couple were uphill. Moreover I had shoes albeit they had been worn by two other people before me.

I think what you are trying to say is my story is parochial not reflective of society as a whole. Partially true, but probably only in so far as many other people had similar albeit different hardships to endure. Hoever, the underlying story is our times ,then and now, are just vastly different ,as opposed to better or worse.

[Linas.P]

As I mentioned - the long lasting expectation that things will get better from generation to the next, runs the perspective. And that is true for my generation. 

As such it is wrong to say things "didn't get better", but it is true that it got worse in this particular instance, so if I compare it with my parents generation, then my generation is worse off, but if I compare it with my grand parents generations then probably we are better off. 

Any by the way - that exageration actually holds true for my grandmother, expect of both ways mountain. She as well mentioned something along the lines of keeping feet worm in the morning by stepping into pile of cow poo. But she lived in ruzzian occupation so that kind of explains it. Irony of most ecomentalist being strongly socialist if not borderline communist should not be lost here. 

[Phil xxkr]

1 hour ago, Linas.P said:

As I mentioned - the long lasting expectation that things will get better from generation to the next, runs the perspective. And that is true for my generation. 

As such it is wrong to say things "didn't get better", but it is true that it got worse in this particular instance, so if I compare it with my parents generation, then my generation is worse off, but if I compare it with my grand parents generations then probably we are better off. 

Any by the way - that exageration actually holds true for my grandmother, expect of both ways mountain. She as well mentioned something along the lines of keeping feet worm in the morning by stepping into pile of cow poo. But she lived in ruzzian occupation so that kind of explains it. Irony of most ecomentalist being strongly socialist if not borderline communist should not be lost here. 

Agreed 👍

[VFR]

5 hours ago, Linas.P said:

I never said I want to know what they are doing, I am just questioning is they are working in the interest of "people" or against of it. I don't think it is controversial to suggest they should always worn in interest of people/citizens/country etc., yet times and times again security services across the world have been proven to have different goals and motivations. Not accusing anyone in particular, just saying I am not necessarily trusting of security interest having best interest all the time.

As well it seems to me that they could have already dealt with stop oil, extinction rebellion and other ecomentalists groups. That they haven't dealt with them yet, in itself suggest that something isn't right. And I don't even mean security services secretly infiltrating such groups, even things which are public and transparent are not done e.g. police fails to do anything meaningful about them. They do have power to arrest and charge every single on of the protesters with various crimes, loitering, public disorder, criminal damage etc. but they continuously fails to do it. So again I don't think it is controversial to question of "why not?"

Indeed why not !

Many are now waking up and starting to ask the same question as it as clear as night follows day that so many things are “being allowed” to go on unchallenged. 

[dutchie01]

3 hours ago, Boomer54 said:

"So again intergenerational stuff is just reality". This is the heart of it really. Not a question of 'blame', but of what you think you know. You see at 70 I think you are probably going to understand that the things you think are 'reality' today are not. They are  in the main just one of many different perspectives that exist on virtually any issue. All those 'good' things you think we had that you don't are nothing more than a distortion of what you think you know about how we lived in the past. A past that you have not experienced for yourself ,but have only really heard about.

For example, was it a good thing for a lad to be up at 5.30 ,clogs on, up the hill onto the moor to cut some peat for the open fire that was the only sort of heat that we had. Or perhaps it was a good thing to scrape the ice off your bedroom windows ! That is ,the ice on the inside !. Or perhaps it was a good thing to go to bed with blankets which were always semi damp from the lack of heat. Or if you like your sugar finding it hard to get hold of. Don't get me wrong here there really was some fantastic stuff growing up back then, but there was some really crap stuff as well. Moreover, I am fairly confident the same can be said of today. So who had it, has it better ? Frankly , the only thing I am really sure of is we of different generations have had it 'different'.

Ooh this brings back memories! I grew up in holland during the seventies but ice on the inside and damp blankets ere well known. I slept with my mothers wintercoat over the blanket. And remember the coal man? Came along once a week to deliver coal into to the coal shed. I vividly remember the fire brigade howling past for another fire. We sure came a long way also in improving the environment!

[VFR]

From what I know/have seen over the past decades (at least) and all IMO.

The GP’s have improved vastly & have in the past few years had need to use them in Staffordshire / Somerset / Devon and all of them are vastly better than what I recall from a few decades before I left the UK to live overseas..

Having spent donkey’s driving around London before leaving I came back for the 2012 Games in a driving role as was shocked at how things had changed (even worse now I know) as I spent to much time trying to take in all the street signs / furniture / restrictions / loony’s on 2 wheels etc etc from my primary role of driving. 

Many I know who live in London have simply sold any vehicles they had and now use TFL as it is much (much) quicker and cheaper as long as you stay within the zones and now no longer need to worry about the above. Coming in from the outside though is a different matter as it “may” be quicker but certainly not cheaper. 

 

Really should have been a Dentist or a Vet as that is clearly a licence to print money. 

Opticians have never been better though as a spectacle wearer for over 70 years you can buy good quality kit for little money and an eye test is around (i think) £15 but from what I know are very good now.

 

Our masters (at any level) though are almost untouchable and simply lie / cheat with impunity if it suits the agenda, the MSM will meanwhile will simply look the other way.

Trump tells the voters what they want to hear (and they believe him) so he beats the high priestess of lying with a landslide.

The MSM then spend the next 4 years constantly attacking him & making up this or that without a shred of evidence. 4 years later a clear idiot my any measure wins we are told by being the most loved in history when it was clear to anyone who cared to look that the opposite was the case.

Same kind of things happen in the UK

Cameron lets the voter decide, they do & ok he says we will see it through  

Next week he is gone & since that day we have a succession of so called leaders who no one voted for (0) and years later the voters have still jot got what they voted for.

 

So for me it is now pointless as those in charge simply do what they want, when they want & get the useful idiots to do their bidding by protesting the non issues to keep the peasantry occupied and looking elsewhere.

Any wonder why the peasantry are now saying sod it & pleasing themselves ?

 

[Boomer54]

18 hours ago, VFR said:

"Rishi Sunak will hold Downing Street press conference TODAY amid row over his 'green policy U-turn' - but Suella Braverman warns 'we are not going to save the planet by bankrupting British people'"

Heavens above, are there actually signs of intelligent life in Westminster at last, or have they just been reading this thread. 😁

 

 

[Malc1]

They have their spies everywhere and really really want us Ls400 etc owners to be able to run our cars forever and to enable Lexus to bring out another V8 petrol limo well after 2030 …… and then post 2035 too of course ( what’s my inside info eh ! ) 

Just so long as we overall as a Nation reach Net Zero by 2050 …… I might be Net Zero myself by then of course and being very good for the environment in “ pushing up daisies “ 🤣

Malc 

[Bluemarlin]

On 9/19/2023 at 2:41 PM, Linas.P said:

I disagree with you first point - I believe that now we have better chance to survive and be comfortable in any climate than we have ever been before. We are literally able to live in space and under water, something that was not possible even 100 years ago. Most importantly we can live anywhere on the planet in any climate COMFORTABLY. That is exactly what our ancestors could not do, hence they chosen warmer climate and settlements close to water source. This is not longer a requirement, we can genuinely live comfortably at 60C in desert and at -60C in arctic. So climate change is not only NOT risk for our survival, but it is not risk to our comfort either. Further - what is undesirable for our comfort is cooling down of the planet, not warming-up. It is believed that humans made biggest progress exactly at the interglacial periods (e.g. becoming bipedal, starting to use tools) and then were forced to migrate and migrated in glacial periods. So again - I just can't see logic in your argument here. 

Animals going extinct is not "one way street" either, I mean we can all decry death of Woolly Mammoth or Sabretooth, but instead we now have 100s of feline species and despite being endangered we have dozens of species of elephants... note one more thing - majority of species thrive in warmer climates. So if one day arctic becomes tropic it may be possible to increase the habitat for those species. Now sure elephants are endangered because of overhunting and that is what I call "hygiene" factor and what I believe we could deal with and should deal with. We don't need them for food, so it is entirely possible to protect those species. And as well how many species of elephants we really want? It is a fact that many species exists because of different adaptations, but some of them will inevitably going to go extinct because they chose wrong "path", but that is just natural, that is how natural selection and evolution works, variety of subspecies exists for the weakest to go extinct and for best adapted to carry out the gene forward. Human species have gone extinct as well, it is normal... as long as we don't literally and directly annihilate the species by overhunting it. This animal protection sound like "have a cake and eat it too argument" - you just can't keep all the species all the time. And bees going extinct that was debunked 1000 times, they are very useful little critters but they are not the only ones that pollinate, not only that there are again many species of bees and only some of them are at risk of extinction due to heat... so bee extinction caused hunger is myth.

That is why I given the analogy of people arriving at different times, it just seems you didn't understand my analogy or I perhaps had not explained it correctly... it seems that it is my generation which has to protect "the future generations", when previous generations have had comparably good time. So... no... we are not in this "together" if that is what you believe it is. At least not from this particular case of punishing people for driving person vehicles or eating meat perspective. This is literally the new thing for last 20-30 years and it is current generation that is suffering, not everyone together. Your generation been on the planet longer, you have experienced both improvement in life quality and now regression, therefore for you it may seem like one the balance of the things life got better. My generation only seen regression of quality of life. Again I am not blaming you for enjoying your life in 70s and 80s, I honestly happy that people were able to live freely and maybe a little carelessly, but my generation never had that opportunity. So that is my "gripe". Now sure - I know many people will say "we had our own issues", and that is both true and irrelevant. Why I am saying irrelevant - it is irrelevant for this topic where at least I am focusing on arbitrary goals that restrict people freedom on the basis of Co2 emissions. I am sure people been in the wars and were living in poverty in the past and as well there were periods of "plenty", but from perspective on restricting freedoms on Co2 emissions that was never the case as it is today.

And I can't enjoy luxury, because nowadays I am either priced out from most of it, or outright prohibited. Again I am honestly happy if you can enjoy luxury of your choice, but I can't enjoy luxury of my choice. 

Linas, I fear you're missing my point. Sure, we can live in space, or underwater, but at what cost?

I completely agree with you that we can both survive and maintain our comfort levels, should temperatures rise dramatically. What I'm saying though, is that to live in space, underwater, or even in the desert, whilst maintaining our current comfort levels, would require a level of cost, inconvenience and upheaval, on a far greater scale than that of doing what we can to try and maintain a climate that allows us to continue to live as we currently do.

Even if we can't do that forever, as natural forces may intervene, we can still slow the process, so that any possible upheaval can be delayed; allowing any required transition to be more economically bearable. So, what it seems you're saying is that you don't like the cost and inconvenience of tryng to mitigate climate change, but would happily accept the cost and inconvenience that would be required to adapt our societies to a changed climate? Unless you believe that the latter would be cost and inconvenience free, which I fear is at best a somewhat fanciful notion.

Nor am I saying that all animal species should survive. Some do, and some become extinct, that's the way of things; but when one species acts in such a way that is destructive to many others, it alters the balance, and has knock on effects. You say that we shouldn't directly annihilate a species by overhunting it, but then how is that any different to annihilating it by destroying its habitat. I get it, some species might be lost because of the actions of another that are necesssary for its survival. However, much of the destruction we cause isn't necessary for the survival of the human race, and is instead pursued for the profit and benefit of a few individuals and corporations.

We don't need to burn oil and gas to maintain our survival or comfort levels, it's simply more profitable. In part that's due to not only it's relative abundance, but also corruption. It's estimated that global corruption is at a scale that, if eliminated, we could afford to feed, house, clothe and educate everyone on the planet. That's a separate conversation though, so let's look at your observation about how humans made the most progress during interglacial periods. As a species we adapt well to change, and are at our most innovative when forced to deal with changes. For around 100 years the auto industry has steadfastly refused to seriously explore electric vehicles. Now however, when forced to change, they can suddenly produce them as if it were no problem at all. The transition has been so successful in fact, that many auto manufacturers are up in arms at the UK government's suggestion that they'll delay the ban on ICE vehicles for a further five years.

My point being, that the transition away from fossil fuels may not be as difficult or painful as some suggest, and may also put us on a path that leads to development and innovation that brings improvements in many other areas of life. So, like ice ages, and interglacial periods, the so called "climate crisis", whether real or manufactured, could equally be a catalyst to further evolutionary advancement of the species.

I guess we've taken the climate thing as far as we can. You feel that the best course is to carry on as we are and adapt to any changes, whilst I believe that it's more cost effective, and will provide long term benefits to take a different path. I doubt either of us will change, no matter how many times we bat arguments and counter arguments back and forth, so probably best to just agree to disagree at this point.

I still don't get what you mean by "punished". Inconvenienced perhaps, but not punished. Despite any generational difference, I still drive, as you do, and still eat meat, as you do. Driving might be somewhat more inconvenient than it was 30 years, but not so much that it bothers me, and certainly not that I feel punished. As for meat, I don't know where you shop, but it's cheaper and far more plentiful than I ever remember it, and so I'm not punished in the least for eating it. It's swings and roundabouts though. 30 years ago driving might have been a little easier, but then I had to drive to get anything I wanted, and to every meeting, no matter how pointless. Today I can have most things delivered, often faster than I could have got them myself, work from home, and conduct meetings via tele or video conference. Jeez, from what I understand, you're making upwards of six figures a year from an industry that didn't really exist when I was born. So yeah, you may have lost some things that I had, but have gained some too.

You also said in another post that when you're 70 you'll probably have a different perspective. Until then though, allow me to to suggest something that might give you a head start. Over time, one thing you'll learn, which many learn too late, is that your happiness comes from appreciating and enjoying the things you have, and not being upset because you don't have what you want, or feel you should have. One unfortunate thing about modern technology is that social media is filled with people who seem to thrive on making us all feel like the world is against us. Sure, it's not perfect, and there are those who exploit others, but there are those of us who are fortunate enough to be able to shield ourselves against the worst effects of it. So, when someone on a six figure salary, living in a relatively free and liberal country, feels that they're being punished, I question just how much of that might be down to the messages they're exposing themselves to, compared to the reality of their situation.   

Take a break from youtube (or whatever), eat meat, and enjoy the fruits of your relative prosperity for a while, and I suspect you'll improve your own comfort levels without any help from others. I say this with sincerity and kindness as, from experience, rabbit holes can can create as much dissatisfaction and discomfort in themselves, as they claim to be highlighting.

You're a young man Linas, with a lot to look forward to. So, by all means have a moan every now and then, but remember to spend most of your time enjoying life to its fullest.

Live long, and prosper 🙂

[Malc1]

Next time I visit the hospital for my cancer Consultants review ( this coming Friday )  I might just offer him/her a £tenner to supplement his ridiculously low salary of about £120k  🤑

They ***** me off hugely, being so stupidly underpaid compared to the rest of us in society ……   Your thoughts ?!?!

Malc 

[dutchie01]

Isnt the issue about the helping hands at the bed? The nurses, the cleaners, the caretakers? Hard work long hours irregular schedules, not enough staff so double shifts. And all for little money?

[Linas.P]

I don't think I am missing the point... if you look at my previous post again I have already specifically mentioned the pros. and cons. and trade-offs. And most important point you missing - THIS WILL HAPPEN ANYWAY! So we are being asked to make a sacrifice to slightly delay the inevitable change, because again most of people are missing the point that it is inevitable and secondly that it is not necessary for worse.

Yes some areas will become warmer, as well raising see level will make Sahara desert into shallow sea - there is loads of potential there, arctic will become tropical as well. So environment change will make some areas better for living and some areas worse... so overall it is not going to become worse or less comfortable to live on the planet, just the areas of comfortable life will change. But against that is natural and continuous process.

Another rarely appreciated fact - raising sea level will make overall area of land smaller, but looking topographically the coastline will become longer. Meaning the amount of land available to prime real estate will actually increase. This is joke - but we can take London for example, potentially it will be much better, because instead of being next to the stinky Thames it will surround a shallow sea lagoon. Again - talking about missing the point... the problem is that we are incorrectly told and made to believe that "climate change is something negative", that there are absolutelly no upsides etc. Whereas it is more of just different.

You made a lot of other good points which I would like to address, but I think our posts are becoming too long to read (I am very much at fault here)... so how about addressing them one by one. 

You said - 

2 hours ago, Bluemarlin said:

let's look at your observation about how humans made the most progress during interglacial periods. As a species we adapt well to change, and are at our most innovative when forced to deal with changes. For around 100 years the auto industry has steadfastly refused to seriously explore electric vehicles. Now however, when forced to change, they can suddenly produce them as if it were no problem at all. The transition has been so successful in fact, that many auto manufacturers are up in arms at the UK government's suggestion that they'll delay the ban on ICE vehicles for a further five years.

My point being, that the transition away from fossil fuels may not be as difficult or painful as some suggest, and may also put us on a path that leads to development and innovation that brings improvements in many other areas of life. So, like ice ages, and interglacial periods, the so called "climate crisis", whether real or manufactured, could equally be a catalyst to further evolutionary advancement of the species.

That is good argument, but the point is - we trying to prevent the climate CHANGE which could be a catalyst for innovation.

Basically we trying to force unnecessary invocation, to prevent change, to prevent ourselves from innovating... 

It could be argued this is "preventative" innovation, okey... but then we need to recognise the alternative, we can burn all the fossil fuel until it inevitably runs out, benefit as much as we can from affordable energy, develop our society as much as we can and then be forced to innovate the alternative fuel type, when we actually need it. 

So alternative view is that we prematurely limiting ourselves and not using opportunity cost we have... perhaps we can instead colonise other planets around us whilst we can instead of wasting time and resources preventing inevitable climate change? This is just opportunity cost in the end of the day. I am not saying slowing down climate change is necessary bad and colonising other planets is necessary good, they are just different alternatives. However, ecomentalists wants us to believe that there is no alternative but to prevent climate change (despite it being inevitable with our current technological limitations).

So I am just suggesting open-minded discussion, do we really have to do anything with climate, or maybe we can do something else? 

[Boomer54]

Rishi takes axe to Tory green plans warning current 2030 target would cost families £15,000: PM delays ban on gas boilers and petrol and diesel cars, scraps plans for seven bins per home and says there will be no extra tax on flights or meat

Hard to believe they have taken these steps. Could this possibly be a start to something new where common sense finally prevails over blind ideology.

[wharfhouse]

1 hour ago, Boomer54 said:

Rishi takes axe to Tory green plans warning current 2030 target would cost families £15,000: PM delays ban on gas boilers and petrol and diesel cars, scraps plans for seven bins per home and says there will be no extra tax on flights or meat

Hard to believe they have taken these steps. Could this possibly be a start to something new where common sense finally prevails over blind ideology.

Yes, can kicked clearly down the road - IMHO this is a sensible decision (along with the announcements about home boilers) - in principle I have no problem with zero emissions at the tail pipe (shouldn't just be BEVs but also hydrogen should be on the table too) but it should be LED by the technology being better than what exists today, price neutral, and not such a jarring change in usability as what BEVs are today. I am sure the technology will keep improving and one day the benefits of EV (whether Battery or hydrogen) will overtake ICEs and we will all be able to continue enjoying the same flexibility and immediacy that we have today. I'm sure another decade will see a lot of advancements and then the change will be driven by carrot and not stick.

[Malc1]

6 hours ago, dutchie01 said:

Isnt the issue about the helping hands at the bed? The nurses, the cleaners, the caretakers? Hard work long hours irregular schedules, not enough staff so double shifts. And all for little money?

I’ve heard that they have all settled and agreed …. Over one million of em so there’s no gripe with that faction at all 

overworked and probably not paid enough BUT there’s no sodding money tree  eh ! 
 

They all, I agree, work their butts off …. All 1.25mln NHS employees do so 

Nope it’s simply the Drs and the Consultants who think they’re totally underpaid and need support from all us other taxpayers that are clearly earning far more than them …… I don’t envy them at all, nor their pittance of salaries ….. jeez how can they possibly make ends meet one wonders 

I have a nephew Heart Consultant and believe me his family have an amazing quality of life ……. he’s certainly making ends meet ok …… big house, kids, new cars , holidays whatever and he thoroughly deserves all he grafts for …… and I don’t doubt for one minute that he’s grimacing at this Greed amongst his Fellows 

Nope, I’ll be thinking to somehow shame them, the Strikers that is, where I can ! 

Enough is Enough ….. Shame them for their Greed I say 

Malc