Jump to content

Global Warming. Ah, whatever . . .


oldbitterandgrumpy
 Share

Recommended Posts

Cop26 has come and gone. It’s been generally accepted that carbon emissions have to be drastically reduced. Apparently we have to take action now, no more procrastination.

 

So . . . how many of you would board a plane to Thailand or Florida, maybe The Maldives (or wherever the f**k the long haul flight took you), just so you could enjoy a week, maybe two weeks,  in the sun?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, oldbitterandgrumpy said:

 

Cop26 has come and gone. It’s been generally accepted that carbon emissions have to be drastically reduced. Apparently we have to take action now, no more procrastination.

 

So . . . how many of you would board a plane to Thailand or Florida, maybe The Maldives (or wherever the f**k the long haul flight took you), just so you could enjoy a week, maybe two weeks,  in the sun?

For 20 years, I have regenerated waste land in north Angus, and have spent many weekends planting trees at my own expense. 

Every year I gather hundreds of beech and Oak seeds, and grew them in a poly tunnel and plant a year later in the autumn. I buy birch trees online and use them as a shelter for the hardwoods.

One Tory toff yoon Cnut of a land owner, who rented shooting nearby had his gamekeeper destroy some of my plantings because he felt my activities frightened off his pheasants (which he massacres every winter). But I have thousands of trees planted outside that cnuts wanderings. 
Im doing my best. I get a benefit of cutting down dead / diseased elm trees to heat the house, and I put far more back in. We have our holidays in Oban every year, and our car is economical. I am trying, but the oil companies are too powerful. They could have had hydrogen cars back in the 1970s, but yer Shells, BPs and Chevrons etc wouldn’t allow it. Believe they had some scientists bumped off to protect their “interests”. Conspiracy or not? I’m opene minded.

Greed is the biggest problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is the preferred term not 'climate change'? I think the response is a zero-sum game. If the rest of the world cuts their emissions whilst, say China, refuses to, then China benefits from both the limited effects of climate change and economically, as she doesn't have to implement costly measures. The opposite is true for the rest of the world. 

So, whilst countries sign up to this, it will be interesting to see if they implement it. 

As for the growing population, referred to above, that's been understood for a long time. Our current capitalist model is predicated upon continued growth of GDP, and this is why there needs to be a GREAT RESET. Even if, what @AlbionSaint states is correct, and our superiors really do want us to eat insects and live in tiny apartments, etc - if the planet really is on a precipice, as claimed, then surely that couldn't be implemented quickly enough to save us? 

Tin foil hat time: could that be what the lockdowns were really about? That's not to say Covid isn't real, but would our superiors really care if we lost one percent of (arguably) some of the least productive people in society? Care enough to damage the economy? 

Anyone who knows the history of the Troubles will realise that the human cost wasn't what really brought the UK government to the negotiating table. It was the bombing of the Financial District...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Put simply, we're fucked no matter what we do. Why? Because, with our current slavish devotion to capitalism, the world will burn in a few decades, leading us (and a lot of other life forms) to extinction or close to it.

Between now and our demise as a species, however, the opportunities for profit are massive.

When the entire world's response to the pandemic has been trying to return to BAU as fast as possible - with no more than lipservice paid to alternative pracitises, it is obvious there is no hope of the cultural and economic change required to save the species and the planet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, G_&_T said:

Is the preferred term not 'climate change'? I think the response is a zero-sum game. If the rest of the world cuts their emissions whilst, say China, refuses to, then China benefits from both the limited effects of climate change and economically, as she doesn't have to implement costly measures. The opposite is true for the rest of the world. 

So, whilst countries sign up to this, it will be interesting to see if they implement it. 

As for the growing population, referred to above, that's been understood for a long time. Our current capitalist model is predicated upon continued growth of GDP, and this is why there needs to be a GREAT RESET. Even if, what @AlbionSaint states is correct, and our superiors really do want us to eat insects and live in tiny apartments, etc - if the planet really is on a precipice, as claimed, then surely that couldn't be implemented quickly enough to save us? 

Tin foil hat time: could that be what the lockdowns were really about? That's not to say Covid isn't real, but would our superiors really care if we lost one percent of (arguably) some of the least productive people in society? Care enough to damage the economy? 

Anyone who knows the history of the Troubles will realise that the human cost wasn't what really brought the UK government to the negotiating table. It was the bombing of the Financial District...

FFS is there any issue that crazed conspiracy theorists won't have a field day over? 🤣

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, AlbionSaint said:

How does taxing the rich reduce carbon emissions? You did understand the graph, didn't you?

 

1462885731_carbonemissions0001.png.4e3218cda4968ce1e266ccc6b2114053.png

 

Having children is by far the biggest contributor to global emissions. The resources they consume each and every year for ~80 years is FAR more significant than someone driving a big car or taking five holidays a year. If they eat bananas or avocados they're being transported from the other side of the world. Their TV, phone and other electronic devices use electricity, part of which is produced from fossil fuels; their clothes are usually manufactured in Asia and transported here; they too will want to take foreign holidays.

How does 'taxing the rich' offset the above, exactly?

 

Pretty easy, actually. Those on low incomes use just enough electricity to get by on. It's a big expense to them and as such they are rarely wasteful. 

The rich on the other hand typically own bigger properties that consume more energy, drive cars, and drive gas guzzlers. They take the foreign holidays. They don't have a financial pressure to reduce their emissions. Taking some of their wasteful habits might make them think again and reduce their emissions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I personally don’t believe the climate change warnings. I just think it’s an industry now which seeks to fund itself.

I believe in caring for the environment and the advancement of clean, green technology because it is the right, normal and sensible thing to do. 

I’ve planted hundreds of trees will go on to plant thousands. I’m getting rid of my oil boiler for an air source heat pump. I’m getting solar power. I don’t waste fuel. I recycle, even though I hate it. Haven’t been abroad in 8 years. 

But I don’t believe the whole “world on a precipice” stuff. I just don’t.

My son is 8 and was telling me yesterday how he’s sad that he’s missed the best of times and how the future is ruined because of humans and climate change. This is what he gets taught at school. 

Edited by Thorongil
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, AlbionSaint said:

How does taxing the rich reduce carbon emissions? You did understand the graph, didn't you?

 

1462885731_carbonemissions0001.png.4e3218cda4968ce1e266ccc6b2114053.png

 

Having children is by far the biggest contributor to global emissions. The resources they consume each and every year for ~80 years is FAR more significant than someone driving a big car or taking five holidays a year. If they eat bananas or avocados they're being transported from the other side of the world. Their TV, phone and other electronic devices use electricity, part of which is produced from fossil fuels; their clothes are usually manufactured in Asia and transported here; they too will want to take foreign holidays.

How does 'taxing the rich' offset the above, exactly?

 

Birth rates aren’t going to be sustained. The more people are educated and the faster their standards of living increase, the faster the birth rate drops. 

Education and standards of living should be the priority for governments around the world.

Birth rates are declining now, rapidly. What more do you want?

Edited by Thorongil
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My son is wrong. There plenty of hope for the future for this planet for around the next 4 billion years. Filling kids heads with these fears on top of COVID is just ridiculous. It’s no wonder CAMHS has a 3 year waiting list. 
 

And like I say, I just don’t believe it’s true. And if I’m wrong and it is true, humans will find a way to adapt and survive as they are already doing. 

My green credentials are as good if not better than the people peddling fear for a living. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm as gloomy for my grandniece and grandnephew's prospects nearly as much by the growth of tyrants and loss of faith in liberal democracy and science as I am by anthropogenic climate change. They're doomed I tell ya! Only hope is Greta taking over a World Government as we boomers die off imo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Ghengis Khan's belligerence is thought to have had an impact on the planet's temperature”

This stuff makes me laugh. I don’t say that to be disrespectful to you, but it does.

what is science? Science to me is the combustion engine, covid vaccines, putting a man on the moon, cancer treatments etc. 

The industry that claims to tell us what the temperature in Mongolia was 900 years ago or what the temperature was in Pangea when dinosaurs were stoating about is not science. It is a racket. The same people predict the weather in 50 years from now with certainly also, when meteorologists can’t predict tomorrow’s weather accurately. 

Absolute charlatans, but people love drama.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, welshbairn said:

I'm as gloomy for my grandniece and grandnephew's prospects nearly as much by the growth of tyrants and loss of faith in liberal democracy and science as I am by anthropogenic climate change. They're doomed I tell ya! Only hope is Greta taking over a World Government as we boomers die off imo.

Wee Greta would soon be putting people up against a wall and organising detention camps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyway, brilliant as that intervention was, I think our current political leaders and financial masters of the universe don't give 2 fucks about how things are going to be 2 or 3 generations down the line, even if they've picked up their great grandchildren and giggled with them. Current polls and profit is their only mindset.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Greed!

There's the Scottish fishing industry, a prominent trawler man, Jimmy Buchan.

He supported Brexit, which is weird because his market is now fekked. His nose is up the Tory Dowps, probably because he is a greedy fekker? He is extremely wealthy and is also thick.  He once complained that there used to be 400 boats working out of Fraserburgh and there's hardly any left, omitting the fact his factory vessels wiped out everyone else's livelihood. 

Just an example of what is happening in farming and every other industry in Scotland and beyond. Globalization, seems unstoppable. 

I've worked in Norway, its incredible how advanced their culture is over ours. There fishing is managed by 3 people, a fishing leader, a lawyer and a marine biologist, so all the interests are covered, ours is run by some Etonian, wtf!  Norwegian forestry is managed properly, they will cut down 3% of a forest per year, when they reach the end, the first part is ready to harvest. Here they butcher the whole forest.

There's a farmer I know  who powers his grain drier from wood chips, so every year they butcher a forest to power it, then they use a chipping machine, which uses more diesel than a grain drier to chip it, then they burn it, and he gets £2 back for every £1 he spends, meaning the poor cnuts like us pay for it, its another investor money making scheme that has gone wrong, its really fekking insane.

Scottish oilfields shouldn't be opened up, the revenue disappears into a black hole of offshore accounts via London and its 'investors'. Leave it where it is, the Scottish people dont get any benefit, apart from a few jobs and the crumbs off the table.

What a result against Denmark.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...