Climate Change thread

[melthebell]

2 minutes ago, sibon said:

As a rough rule of thumb, you need five half lives to render something pretty harmless.

 

However, the waste from a nuclear power station is pretty small. It would be a good idea to build a few now, to give us time to sort out even cleaner alternatives.  Far better than fracking, for example.

Dont worry we are becoming self sufficiant in that regards, the chinese are going to build us some, and then probably be run by the big french energy company LOL

[Chekhov]

14 minutes ago, sibon said:

You didn’t answer my question.

Which members of SF have advocated nett zero? 

Go on, have a go. Just casting hit and run aspersions isn’t very nice. At least have the balls to back your claim up with something solid.

I have not got time to read through loads of posts to quote one but I have bandied words with people about Climate change, the bias in favour of it and how far we should be going to stop it more than once. Are you denying that ?

I assume from your tone you are not in favour of a nett zero target, well, as I said, that's refreshing to hear.

[melthebell]

2 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

I have not got time to read through loads of posts to quote one but I have bandied words with people about Climate change, the bias in favour of it and how far we should be going to stop it more than once. Are you denying that ?

I assume from your tone you are not in favour of a nett zero target, well, as I said, that's refreshing to hear.

The Government said net zero

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/net-zero-strategy

 

and the extremists that want it sooner, more, more more

[Chekhov]

29 minutes ago, melthebell said:

The Government said net zero

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/net-zero-strategy

and the extremists that want it sooner, more, more more

And the government have never given the people a choice over something that, make no mistake, will have a massive effect on their lives (in fact it is already doing now). Even worse, unless a referendum is given, there is nothing the people can do anyway because all three main parties (plus The Greens obviously) are in favour of this nett zero fantasy.

Don't get me wrong, I am in favour of doing what we can, e.g. more renewables (where relatively economic and practical, we have  a solar system on our house) but arbitrary targets "nett zero by 2050", and "no petrol or diesel cars for sale after 2030" - only 8 yeras away ! - is madness. And people who think we should be going even faster haven't got two brain cells to rub together.

Edited August 23, 2022 by Chekhov

[melthebell]

12 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

And the government have never given the people a choice over something that, make no mistake, will have a massive effect on their lives (in fact it is already doing now). Even worse, unless a referendum is given, there is nothing the people can do anyway because all three main parties (plus The Greens obviously) are in favour of this nett zero fantasy.

Don't get me wrong, I am in favour of doing what we can, e.g. more renewables (where relatively economic and practical, we have  a solar system on our house) but arbitrary targets "nett zero by 2050", and "no petrol or diesel cars for sale after 2030" - only 8 yeras away ! - is madness. And people who think we should be going even faster haven't got two brain cells to rub together.

and do they get a choice in climate change? do they get a choice in my fires and floods? do they get a choice in destroying their home planet? everybodys home planet?

[ads36]

1 hour ago, melthebell said:

Quote

Plutonium-239 has a half-life of 24,000 years

 

 

when you are burying things that stay active for 24.000 years youre soon going to run out of space? then we run into the age old moral issue of sending dodgy materials to other countries to bury our waste, which we already do, and shouldnt be doing.

something that has a half-life of 24,000 years - by definition - isn't very radioactive, and is easily contained / shielded

 

I wouldn't recommend it, but plutonium is more or less safe to handle.

 

 

1 hour ago, melthebell said:

[net zero...] the extremists that want it sooner, more, more more

the longer we leave it, the sooner and more we will need to do.

Edited August 23, 2022 by ads36

[Chekhov]

50 minutes ago, melthebell said:

and do they get a choice in climate change? do they get a choice in my fires and floods? do they get a choice in destroying their home planet? everybodys home planet?

Make your mind up, so you are in favour of the nett zero target ? 

Sibon "who is (apparently) never wrong" said nobody on here agreed with it.

 

8 minutes ago, ads36 said:

the longer we leave it, the sooner and more we will need to do.

Another one, Sibon said you didn't exist.

Edited August 23, 2022 by Chekhov

[ads36]

Quote

Another one, Sibon said you didn't exist.

 

Insulate old houses.

 

more nuclear power

 

protect our wild spaces (restore the peat bogs, allow trees to grow)

 

better and cheaper public transport

 

don't fly too often

 

buy less plastic tat.

 

There. my carbon-reduction manifesto. I'm clearly some kind of zealot.

 

 

Edited August 23, 2022 by ads36

[Guest sibon]

21 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

Make your mind up, so you are in favour of the nett zero target ? 

Sibon "who is (apparently) never wrong" said nobody on here agreed with it.

 

Another one, Sibon said you didn't exist.

I didn’t.

 

You might have some comprehension difficulties, but you really shouldn’t lie like this.

 

Maybe you could apologise and correct your “mistake”

[melthebell]

24 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

Make your mind up, so you are in favour of the nett zero target ? 

 

where did i say that?