Global Warming

[Demitri_C]

11 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

You mean apart from reducing congestion and car usage in general?

Wow thats really going to help the country if you can still drive around isnt it? 

If they really want to help ban 4x4s making better public transport links make more environmental friendly cars taht are affordable for people this will do nothing. 

 

[Stevo985]

4 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

Wow thats really going to help the country if you can still drive around isnt it? 

 

You can still drive around, but far less people will. It encourages people to use public transport, or walk. So yes it will reduce car use, and the cars that are used aren't sat in traffic for hours pumping out pollution

4 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

 

If they really want to help ban 4x4s making better public transport links

 

It's literally doing this

Edited December 5, 2022 by Stevo985

[Rds1983]

To be fair, having been to Oxfordshire, not letting those weirdos leave there might not be a bad idea. 

[MakemineVanilla]

I just see the whole Global Warming thing as the manifestation of yet another crisis of capitalism, where the financial sector foresee a crisis of demand and need another sector in the world economy to offer lucrative opportunities.

It also explains the desperation of western countries to increase their population.

I think Marxist professor David Harvey explains it brilliantly in the video below, starting 4 mins 50sec

 

Edited December 5, 2022 by MakemineVanilla

[HKP90]

1 hour ago, MakemineVanilla said:

I just see the whole Global Warming thing as the manifestation of yet another crisis of capitalism, where the financial sector foresee a crisis of demand and need another sector in the world economy to offer lucrative opportunities.

It also explains the desperation of western countries to increase their population.

I think Marxist professor David Harvey explains it brilliantly in the video below, starting 4 mins 50sec

 

In what way? Are you suggesting that the green economy is simply a function of capitalism needing a new opportunity? Because as an environmental scientist, I gotta say that while there are opportunities here, the climate change crisis is an existential threat to all life, human or not, capitalist or otherwise. 

[Demitri_C]

3 hours ago, Stevo985 said:

You can still drive around, but far less people will. It encourages people to use public transport, or walk. So yes it will reduce car use, and the cars that are used aren't sat in traffic for hours pumping out pollution

It's literally doing this

I havent been Oxfordshire so i cant comment on

a) how good it is b) how accessible it is to get around with and without public transport c) uber usage

Id imagine if it was where i lived where you cant get a bus or train for minimum 20 minute walk you have no choice but to drive esp of your a single parent with kids to drop off.

I still think that cars are not the major problem the biggest problem is aeroplanes,  some business's  the polluting the air with their fumes things like this

Also whats the point of us doing it if other countries are not doing anything? Its not gonna make much of a difference to the planet if like 20 countries are doing it out of 100s. Alot of this is to get money out of people. Congestion charge, ulez LTNS. All money makers

We are all gonna go down together when the earth's toast

 

Edited December 5, 2022 by Demitri_C

[HKP90]

33 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

I havent been Oxfordshire so i cant comment on

a) how good it is b) how accessible it is to get around with and without public transport c) uber usage

Id imagine if it was where i lived where you cant get a bus or train for minimum 20 minute walk you have no choice but to drive esp of your a single parent with kids to drop off.

I still think that cars are not the major problem the biggest problem is aeroplanes,  some business's  the polluting the air with their fumes things like this

Also whats the point of us doing it if other countries are not doing anything? Its not gonna make much of a difference to the planet if like 20 countries are doing it out of 100s. Alot of this is to get money out of people. Congestion charge, ulez LTNS. All money makers

We are all gonna go down together when the earth's toast

 

We should all just give up and die then, yeah?

[limpid]

56 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

I still think that cars are not the major problem the biggest problem is aeroplanes,  some business's  the polluting the air with their fumes things like this

We can't deal with the issue one thing at a time. We need to deal with all of it simultaneously. Cargo ships are worse than planes. We need to reduce everything which runs on fossil fuels, not just the worst things.

[robby b]

Just now, limpid said:

We can't deal with the issue one thing at a time. We need to deal with all of it simultaneously. Cargo ships are worse than planes. We need to reduce everything which runs on fossil fuels, not just the worst things.

Yeah, including having lots of children, which is why the bare-faced liar Elon Musk, father of 10 (ten) children, pissed me off a lot the other day, with his ridiculous, patronising claim that this is not an issue.

[Demitri_C]

1 hour ago, HKP90 said:

We should all just give up and die then, yeah?

Did i say that ? Well if no one else is doing it you think its going to make a difference? Answer that as that was my original point.

You need ro get everyone on board and if you ahve been watching the news and the big conferences where all the countries are going there has been very little progress. If ut had then the planet wouldnt be getting warmer

42 minutes ago, limpid said:

We can't deal with the issue one thing at a time. We need to deal with all of it simultaneously. Cargo ships are worse than planes. We need to reduce everything which runs on fossil fuels, not just the worst things.

Yeah i agree about cargo ships thats a big problem

[HKP90]

1 minute ago, Demitri_C said:

Did i say that ? Well if no one else is doing it you think its going to make a difference? Answer that as that was my original point.

You need ro get everyone on board and if you ahve been watching the news and the big conferences where all the countries are going there has been very little progress. If ut had then the planet wouldnt be getting warmer

Yeah i agree about cargo ships thats a big problem

Your premise is crabbed. The onus is on us, as the biggest emitters to lead here. The US, the EU (for this purpose I will include us in that bloc), and China are the biggest emitters, and have achieved and maintained our/their development status through decades of fossil fuel use. All of those countries have signed up to Paris, and all have a pathway to net zero. Is it fast enough, no, definitely not, but you can't just absolve our responsibility because 'no one else is doing it'. It's like you going outside and taking a massive shit on the pavement and then saying 'well no one else is cleaning it up, why should I'. Plus the emitters mentioned above make up around 75% of emissions. If they got to net zero and none of the remaining countries did a thing, there would still be a 75% reduction in emissions. 

Hopefully steps have been taken at the last COP to agree reparations to smaller, or less developed nations with respect to our historic use of fossil fuels. This goes back to the old Environmental Management paradox which has always existed. Can we as developed nations stand on the shoulders of development achieved by the use of fossil fuels, yet deny other less developed nations the same opportunities because we know now the jig is up. Again hopefully those steps will address that somewhat. So in short, yeah, everything we do will also in theory be reciprocated by developing nations who are currently dependant on fossil fuels for development. In addition, we should and will be working with those nations to develop green industries. There is a big opportunity for investors in green tech to get up the development ladder. Everyone should be aiming to achieve net zero, and some are further ahead than others, but as far as I am aware, no countries, not least the three biggest emitters (US, China and the EU) are doing 'nothing'. 

And to address another point you made. If we hit net zero today, you couldn't look outside and see temperatures stabilise. It will take decades for anything we see now to make any difference to global temperatures. If you are using the fact that the earth is warming as an indication on current progress, you would be wrong. 

Am I hopeful that we will avoid catastrophe, well... I'm not dancing for joy, but it's not entirely hopeless. It will be if we just say f**k it let's do nothing.   

[OutByEaster?]

Personally, I think we've probably already passed the point at which we can do something about this that will mean life will continue in the way we know - the powers of the banks and fossil fuel lobby are just too strong.

But jeez, even from that starting point I'm not in favour of just giving up on it.

 

[one_ian_taylor]

3 hours ago, OutByEaster? said:

Personally, I think we've probably already passed the point at which we can do something about this that will mean life will continue in the way we know - the powers of the banks and fossil fuel lobby are just too strong.

But jeez, even from that starting point I'm not in favour of just giving up on it.

 

Exactly,  if we don't,  the consequences will be even more far reaching. However, there  are plenty of people in  banks that  are far more committed to serious action than our useless craven government

[OutByEaster?]

18 minutes ago, one_ian_taylor said:

Exactly,  if we don't,  the consequences will be even more far reaching. However, there  are plenty of people in  banks that  are far more committed to serious action than our useless craven government

Government is our only protection from banks - the fact that they are as you rightly say useless and craven is a reflection of the degree to which financiers and lobbyists control them. We'll kill the planet before we'll risk a bad quarter.

 

[one_ian_taylor]

8 hours ago, OutByEaster? said:

Government is our only protection from banks - the fact that they are as you rightly say useless and craven is a reflection of the degree to which financiers and lobbyists control them. We'll kill the planet before we'll risk a bad quarter.

 

While the industry as a whole is rotten, I'd  say it depends on the bank/ banker. In my work (energy and climate change related), I come across plenty of bankers that are much more committed to doing something and frustrated with lack of progress from government, and it goes beyond meaningless CSR gestures.  It's  the same with industry - plenty of people/companies that recognise the long-term risks. Partly out of self interest - the impact of climate change on order books, investments,  supply chains and a need for alternative investment opportunities - but also partly out of a genuine desire to fix the problems. And we need more of it - while it's totally reasonable  to feel a more than a little disgusted that the industry(ies) that have caused the problem and profited handsomely also stand to profit from fixing it, we can't realistically do much without private finance. To get the UK's housing stick5 to net zero will cost around £300bn at a low estimate, and there  are sensible reasons to think it could be double that. That won't  all come from government  and general taxation. 

[OutByEaster?]

It's not the individuals, they're people doing a good job within a system. It's a system that believes in permanent, ongoing growth that's the problem. It's directly in opposition to how we'll need to think in order to save ourselves. We need to get to a point where profit isn't the yardstick by which we judge everything and understand that saving the planet and liberal capitalism aren't compatible aims.

It's why we have absolutely no chance of succeeding.

 

[HKP90]

1 hour ago, OutByEaster? said:

It's not the individuals, they're people doing a good job within a system. It's a system that believes in permanent, ongoing growth that's the problem. It's directly in opposition to how we'll need to think in order to save ourselves. We need to get to a point where profit isn't the yardstick by which we judge everything and understand that saving the planet and liberal capitalism aren't compatible aims.

It's why we have absolutely no chance of succeeding.

 

The key for me is the point where we are relying on carbon capture and storage to remediate the problem. At that point the finances will become untenable, since no-one will pay money to build and run those plants which have no monetary value to their output.

Green energy is actually a no brainer. Imagine building a machine that provides you with a product (electricity) you can sell, but in which all your raw materials are handed to you free of charge. Commercially, people building coal fired stations are chumps. 

[MakemineVanilla]

20 hours ago, Demitri_C said:

Congestion charge, ulez LTNS. All money makers

 

The rolling out of ULEZ to the whole of London (2023), will mean the scrappage of thousands of vehicles, which will make owning a vehicle unaffordable for a lot of people.

As is now the norm, the residents were asked whether they wanted ULEZ extended into their districts, and they voted no, but Khan ignored the result.

Taxis will be exempt, so the taxi business is about to get a huge boost -  surely a major step towards the promised 'own nothing and be happy' social order?

 

 

 

 

[Demitri_C]

1 hour ago, MakemineVanilla said:

The rolling out of ULEZ to the whole of London (2023), will mean the scrappage of thousands of vehicles, which will make owning a vehicle unaffordable for a lot of people.

As is now the norm, the residents were asked whether they wanted ULEZ extended into their districts, and they voted no, but Khan ignored the result.

Taxis will be exempt, so the taxi business is about to get a huge boost -  surely a major step towards the promised 'own nothing and be happy' social order?

 

 

 

 

Exactly. People saying they are in favour of it thats all good but when they start rolling out all over the country to places that dont have them then lets talk again.

The thing with the cars is at the moment its older cars but do you think its stops there? They will slowly reduce the age so for example its 10 now then be 8 then 5 and so on. Who can afford to get a new car every 5 years?  Its a pile of shit by khan and those in government who are in favor of it. I know khans mr popular on here but he is a **** awful mayor in my opinion. 

Anyway rant over sorry to turn this into another khan hate post.

But yeah its nit helping environment its just making the poor poorer. I bet its the poor/middle class that have the oldest vehicles not the rich so doesnt impact them obviously 

[Xann]

This war is a`wet dream for an industry that's f**king your children over.