Climate Change thread

[butlers]

But but, he promised to erase the national debt in the 2016 election

[trastrick]

Politico

 

Al Gore gears up to sell Biden's climate law

 

"From where Gore sits, the billions in clean energy spending and tax credits signed into law in August have obvious upsides for job creation. But American consumers are still being sold on the benefits of the federal largesse.

 

To that end, Gore says he hopes to fill an information void.

 

The Climate Reality Project, Gore’s advocacy group, is launching “virtual training” in April. Consumers can sign up to learn about the climate law’s green goodies, including electric vehicle subsidies, heat pump rebates and money for farmers. Live broadcasts, he said, will feature Democratic New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy; Biden administration officials such as Brenda Mallory, chair of the White House’s Council on Environmental Quality; and climate advocates".

 

https://www.politico.com/newsletters/power-switch/2023/02/24/al-gore-gears-up-to-sell-bidens-climate-law-00082767

 

A  society benefiting "partnership" of government  and private enterprise, or more crony capitalism to further enrich the partisan supporters of Biden's Democrats? 

 

You decide!

 

Edited February 26, 2023 by trastrick

[Magilla]

2 hours ago, trastrick said:

Politico

 

Al Gore gears up to sell Biden's climate law

 

https://www.politico.com/newsletters/power-switch/2023/02/24/al-gore-gears-up-to-sell-bidens-climate-law-00082767

 

A  society benefiting "partnership" of government  and private enterprise, or more crony capitalism to further enrich the partisan supporters of Biden's Democrats? 

Big winners from Biden's climate law: Republicans who voted against it:

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/01/23/red-states-are-winning-big-from-dems-climate-law-00078420

"two-thirds of green-energy projects announced since it became law are going to Republican-held congressional districts"

 

Clearly, not the latter...

 

 

Quote

You decide!

It's embarrassing you can be so consistently and woefully ill-informed...

 

...does that count?

 

 

 

Edited February 26, 2023 by Magilla

[Chekhov]

On 23/02/2023 at 17:41, Magilla said:

No need, they're all the same... they are your personal opinion, not established fact or indeed a consensus view...

 

...which is why they fell at the most basic hurdle, time and again, over in the Covid thread.

 

Am still interested in how many tree's you've eaten today?

>>which is why they fell at the most basic hurdle, time and again, over in the Covid thread.<<

 

Methinks you are confusing me with someone else.....

 

>>No need, they're all the same... they are your personal opinion, not established fact or indeed a consensus view...<<

 

If you cannot see the parallels between the way we are being treated over Nett Zero with how we were treated over Covid that just proves there are none so blind.

I note you have not provided a rebuttal, rational or otherwise, for any of these parallels. After all it's much easier to just come out with your avoidance swerve  :

 

We have a load of "experts", most of whom (certainly those on the MSM and those listened to by the government) telling us how bad things could be (implication will be). 

Exactly the same as what happened during Covid.

 

Scientists are by their very nature over cautious.

Exactly the same as what happened during Covid.

 

The scientists are not really that bothered about the effects of their recommended policies on the economy, and even less bothered about the effects on people's personal freedoms.

Exactly the same as what happened during Covid.

 

We have a government saying "we will be led by the science" so they can abdicate responsibility for making any serious decisions (even though the science is not certain, particularly as to the long term effects of rising CO2 concentrations and how much we can do about it).

Exactly the same as what happened during Covid.

 

We have all of the MSM talking like climate change is a certainty and that Nett Zero is required with the implied assumption it will work, They also imply that anyone who disagrees with it is an unthinking crank.

Exactly the same as what happened during Covid.

 

All major political parties have more or less the same policy on Nett Zero, there is no option to vote against it.

Exactly the same as what happened during Covid.

 

They, the government and the MSM as well as the scientists, more or less ignore the massive cost (social as well as financial) of their nett zero policy. It's a case of whatever it costs, it does not matter, we will do it : TINA (there is no alternative).

Exactly the same as what happened during Covid.

Edited February 26, 2023 by Chekhov

[Chekhov]

On 23/02/2023 at 17:45, El Cid said:

>>Chekhov said : 

We have a load of "experts", most of whom (certainly those on the MSM and those listened to by the government) telling us how bad things could be (the implication being how bad things will be). 

Exactly the same as what happened during Covid.<<

 

The effects is COVID has been massive. Government debt, early retirement meaning a worker shortage etc. That is with a good vaccine, you think it would be better or the same without a vaccine?

You are talking about the results of the Covid suppression policy there, not the results of the Covid virus itself. And, on that basis, I agree with you.

 

I am arguing that the Nett Zero policy will certainly be very damaging to society and the economy, but I am less certain about exactly how damaging the increasing CO2 levels will be. It seems to me that, in this country at least, the Nett Zero policy is likely to be more damaging to our society than any effects of rising CO2 levels.

That said I am in favour of proportionate and practical / realistic responses (e.g. we have solar panels on our roof) which we know will work and will not **** society and the economy, nor require people to radically alter their lives against their will and with no democratic mandate to do so.

[El Cid]

22 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

 

I am arguing that the Nett Zero policy will certainly be very damaging to society and the economy, but I am less certain about exactly how damaging the increasing CO2 levels will be.

If the Greens were ruling the country with a large majority, maybe, but the Conservatives don't really believe in net-zero.

It's just like Sunak has promised to stop the dinghies and reduce immigration, not a real promise.

[Chekhov]

16 hours ago, El Cid said:

If the Greens were ruling the country with a large majority, maybe, but the Conservatives don't really believe in net-zero.

It's just like Sunak has promised to stop the dinghies and reduce immigration, not a real promise.

I thought the ban on the sale of internal combustion cars from 2030 was already in law. And the one about no more new gas boilers ? Even if those targets are not met, and personally I do not see how they can be, the the dislocation to the automotive industry (and its customers, teh Great British public) will still be massive.

Edited February 27, 2023 by Chekhov

[El Cid]

1 hour ago, Chekhov said:

I thought the ban on the sale of internal combustion cars from 2030 was already in law. And the one about no more new gas boilers ? Even if those targets are not met, and personally I do not see how they can be, the the dislocation to the automotive industry (and its customers, teh Great British public) will still be massive.

My car has done over 100,000 miles, I may change, but it will last until I am 70.

I do think buying a lower milage car will be a good investment, my car is worth more now, than when I bought it three years ago.

[Padders]

I think I've got an idea to save the planet......

But first of all lets look at the facts!

I run a car, I've also got a fondness for sunken light bulbs in every alcove, research tells me that Power Stations and Transport produce the most Carbon Dioxide...

Also, Aerosols that, in the short term at least, help keep the planet as cool as a deodorant models armpits...

So whose told me this, some half crazed nitwit in the pub?

NO!

It comes from an organisation called Greenpeace, which is run and funded, as for as I can tell, by the usual array of free range communists and fair trade hippies..

I do find some of the facts rather intriguing, Methane, which pours from a cows bottom on an industrial scale every few minutes is 21 times more powerful as a greenhouse gas than Carbon Dioxide. And as a result, farmed animals are doing much more damage to the climate than all the worlds transport and power stations put together...

 

What's more, demand for beef means more and more of the Worlds forests are being chopped down, and more and more pressure is being put on our water supplies.

Plainly, then, Greenpeace is encouraging us to go into the countryside at the first opportunity and lay waste to anything with more than one stomach.

So what there actually saying is that you can keep your car and your walk in fridge, but you've got to stop eating meat..

In fact, you've got to stop eating all forms of animal products, no more milk, no more cheese, and if it can be proven that Bees fart, no more honey either..You've got to become a Vegan!

 

Now, of course, if you don't like the taste of meat, then it's perfectly reasonable to become a vegetablist, it's why people who don't like Keir Starmer vote Conservative, But becoming a Vegan?

Short of being paraded on the internet while wearing a fluffy pink tu-tu, I can think of nothing I'd like less.

Eating a plate of food that contains no animal product of any kind marks you down as a squirrel..Eating only vegetables is like deciding to talk using only consonants. You need vowels or you make no sense!

 

Of course, I like cauliflower and leeks in particular, but these are an accompaniment to food, useful only for filling up the plate and absorbing the gravy. The idea of eating only a cauliflower, without even so much as a cheese sauce, fills me with dread..

Lets imagine that the World abandoned it's appetite for sausage rolls, joints of beef, and meat-infused Mars Bars...

What effect would this have on the countryside?

Where now you find fields full of grazing cows and truffling pigs, there would be what exactly?

Hardcore vegetablists like to imagine that the land would be returned to the indigenous species, that you could go for walk without a farmer shooting your dog, and that you'd see all manner of pretty flowers and lots of jolly new creatures, Wolves, for instance..

In fact, if animal farmers were driven away, the land would be divided up in two ways, some would be given over to the growing of potatoes--the ugliest crop in Christendom-- and the rest would be bought by rock stars, and the ridiculous gaggle of ramblers in their noisy clothes and stupid hats would get short shrift,

Within about three weeks Britain would look like Saskatchewan.

So what we have to do to save the planet, preserve the countryside, and keep on eating meat, is to work out a way that animals can be made to produce less Methane..

I can only assume that if you trap the gas inside the cow, one of the drawbacks is that it might explode..Nasty..

Now we all know that the activity of our bowels is governed by our diet, we know, for instance, that if we are meeting friends in a small windowless room it's best not to lunch on brussel sprouts and baked beans.

 

So if we know--and we do--diet can be used to regulate the amount of Methane coming out of the body, then surely it is not beyond the wit of man to change the diet of farmyard animals..

At the moment, largely, cows eat grass and silage, and as we've seen, this is melting the ice caps and killing us all, so they need a new foodstuff: Something that is rich in iron, calcium and natural goodness..

So here's my idea to save the planet,

Why don't we just feed them with Vegetarians?

[Chekhov]

DOGMA part 1

 

The Times - 27 Feb 23 (p20)

Ministers warned of electric car policy fiasco

A mandate on how many electric cars manufacturers  must sell each year was a key pledge by the government........The step was regarded as vital to deliver on the pledge to ban the sale of new petrol and diesel cars in 2030.

 

Of course it is slipping, because so much of this Nett Zero Dogma is just that. It is pie in the sky nonsense, certainly for any political party wanting power, and the ONS have confirmed that (R4 Today programme tonight).

 

DOGMA part 2 

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-64788106
Green flights not in easy reach, warn scientists

You may be hoping that guilt-free flying is just around the corner, but scientists warn it is still a long way off.

Plans for climate-friendly flying rest on creating greener jet fuels that have less impact on the environment.

Switching to sustainable fuel is also key to the government's aim to reach "jet zero" flying by 2050.

But the Royal Society concludes there is currently no single, clear alternative to traditional fuel.

 

The **** really has yet to hit the fan at all.......