|
Net Zero
Sept 21, 2023 17:24:58 GMT
via mobile
Post by cousinlou on Sept 21, 2023 17:24:58 GMT
There is a point to what Toby says though.
It’s a tough issue to crack but surely anyone can see the point of countries/people that got left behind in the 20th centurythat feel it’s their turn now?
It’s like talking to your kids about trying to eat less meat.
‘ it’s easy to say for you after having eaten meat for the bigger part of your life!”
|
|
|
Post by tory on Sept 21, 2023 20:15:55 GMT
I just don't see how Western countries can sit there and say "nope, you can't do what we did because we say so".
|
|
|
Net Zero
Sept 21, 2023 20:23:12 GMT
via mobile
Post by oh oooh on Sept 21, 2023 20:23:12 GMT
It's a fair point.
We're FUCKED
|
|
|
Net Zero
Sept 21, 2023 21:36:26 GMT
via mobile
Post by DarknessFish on Sept 21, 2023 21:36:26 GMT
Because it leads down an economic and industrial cul de sac, dependant on finite resources and an exploitable cheap workforce. Much better for China to argue for better terms for financial support in 'eco' interests, while taking a lead in renewable and more long-term renewable tech, waving the CO2 flag as a threat. Which is something I think they already understand, to be fair.
We're fucked anyway. We're shit on their shoes. With a PM arguing about mythical bin counts.
|
|
|
Post by tory on Sept 22, 2023 6:31:36 GMT
|
|
|
Net Zero
Sept 22, 2023 19:21:55 GMT
via mobile
Post by Reactionary Rage on Sept 22, 2023 19:21:55 GMT
It strikes me as vaguely utopian and like all utopian ideas it’s silly and impractical. Predictably it seems to appeal most to those who are susceptible to that kind of thinking.
Pursuing it would be an act of huge economic self harm and with China and India doing their thing it would be moot anyway so it makes even less sense.
I’m glad Sunak is moving away from it.
|
|
|
Post by Stacy Heydon on Sept 23, 2023 7:29:13 GMT
It strikes me as vaguely utopian and like all utopian ideas it’s silly and impractical. Predictably it seems to appeal most to those who are susceptible to that kind of thinking. Pursuing it would be an act of huge economic self harm and with China and India doing their thing it would be moot anyway so it makes even less sense. I’m glad Sunak is moving away from it. It's not a "utopian idea", it is a strategy driven by what the science tells us on fossil fuels. Sunak has made his move purely out of desperate self interest, that he puts his own political career above the future of the planet tells you all you need to know about the moral vacuum he inhabits. He is unfit for public office. The problem as I see it is that you can divide a lot of people in two categories. Those that are in denial and have put their head in the sand and are hoping it'll all just go away ( within this you have a sub-set of people actively opposing the idea more through a love of swimming against the tide). Then you have a category of people who recognise the problem, but have no faith in the politicians to do anything and feel things are a bit hopeless. I'm probably in that category myself.
|
|
|
Post by oh oooh on Sept 23, 2023 7:50:01 GMT
Predictably it seems to appeal most to those who are susceptible to that kind of thinking. The kind of thinking that wants the planet to survive?
|
|
|
Net Zero
Sept 23, 2023 9:31:26 GMT
via mobile
Post by adamcoan on Sept 23, 2023 9:31:26 GMT
Surely, whether you belive this is just a natural cycle or entirely man made, taking measures not to add to the problem and, taking positive steps to make us less and less reliant on fossil fuels is still a good thing.
I mean, covid was for many ,like pulling back the curtain on a new world.
|
|
|
Post by Stacy Heydon on Sept 23, 2023 9:44:40 GMT
The Chris Packham documentary is worth a watch ( I'd like to hear Toby's thoughts on it and hope he doesn't just reject watching it because it's not made by a Spectator journalist). It's not so much a documentary about climate change. He says, and I agree, that that debate is already settled, that it is a reality. It's a documentary about what we do about it when the political response is so inadequate. www.channel4.com/programmes/chris-packham-is-it-time-to-break-the-law?.none.none.popular||
|
|
|
Net Zero
Sept 23, 2023 12:07:26 GMT
via mobile
Post by tory on Sept 23, 2023 12:07:26 GMT
We can't do anything about climate change. All we do, realistically, is adapt. The idea that humans can somehow roll back the effects of climate change, which will happen regardless of our own impact on the world, is somewhat tragicomic in all honesty. As has been shown, throughout history the sea levels and other events have happened regardless of our impact. We are due a Carrington level solar event next July apparently; that should be interesting.
|
|
|
Post by Stacy Heydon on Sept 23, 2023 12:22:46 GMT
We can't do anything about climate change. All we do, realistically, is adapt. The idea that humans can somehow roll back the effects of climate change, which will happen regardless of our own impact on the world, is somewhat tragicomic in all honesty. As has been shown, throughout history the sea levels and other events have happened regardless of our impact. We are due a Carrington level solar event next July apparently; that should be interesting. Mainstream science is pretty unified in seeing a direct correlation between what we do with regard to emissions and climate change. Yet you want to pretend they're unrelated. That seems incredibly arrogant to me. The evidence is overwhelming. It shouldn't even be a discussion.
|
|
|
Net Zero
Sept 23, 2023 12:35:49 GMT
via mobile
Post by tory on Sept 23, 2023 12:35:49 GMT
I don't see any unification apart from the acceptance that climate change is a continual thing. There are many dissenters and what is 'mainstream' science?
As I posted above, the Western countries have been declining in CO2 emissions for over 50 years. How you get China and India to slow down their desire to reach a western standard of living is the big question in this debate, because there's no point us doing it if certain others carry on regardless.
|
|
|
Post by Stacy Heydon on Sept 23, 2023 12:39:12 GMT
I don't see any unification apart from the acceptance that climate change is a continual thing. There are many dissenters and what is 'mainstream' science? As I posted above, the Western countries have been declining in CO2 emissions for over 50 years. How you get China and India to slow down their desire to reach a western standard of living is the big question in this debate, because there's no point us doing it if certain others carry on regardless. Why is it a big question if you don't accept there is a huge link between the effects of our industrial production and climate change? You can't have it both ways.
|
|
|
Post by Stacy Heydon on Sept 23, 2023 12:42:40 GMT
|
|