Greta Thunberg

[SpringDon]

1 minute ago, oowee said:

75% ? 4 worlds down to 1. 

Erm, possibly. (Too clever for me, I’m afraid)

[oowee]

Just now, SpringDon said:

Erm, possibly. (Too clever for me, I’m afraid)

The UK population is said to use the resources of four worlds. To live sustainably we would have to reduce our consumption by 75%. Better than the States though at 12 times. 

[JohnfromUK]

3 minutes ago, oowee said:

particularly if it could be linked directly to a carbon use tax.

Tax is a universal 'solution' to everything.  Actually, it does little useful because the worst carbon users tend to be the wealthy - who simply moan a bit, pay the tax, and carry on as normal. 

IF there was to be a 'tax' - it needs to be carefully targeted at areas where savings are possible without hardship - and areas where it will be effective.

For example - taxing energy used in heating for the elderly simply frightens and penalises those who are already struggling to cope.  Taxing fuel (road type fuels) penalises those who live in the country - who have no real alternative to private transport.

Those who should be targeted to reduce are probably those with private planes, who do lots of air travel, have heated pools, saunas etc,. all of whom can afford to pay the tax.

If there was to be a tax I would like to see a system where there was a 'personal allowance' tax free and then you may more tax the further above this you go - a bit like income tax.  However - I don't see how this can be achieved.

We can start by banning one of my 'pet hates' - gas patio heaters!

[Rewulf]

5 minutes ago, SpringDon said:

And the sound bite “how dare you”? They are obviously very pleased with it but it makes no sense to me at all.

Its not designed to make sense, its designed to be emotive.
Then all reasoning can be safely set aside.

 

7 minutes ago, oowee said:

Personally like most people, I make small changes where its easy to do so and the rest I wait to be pushed. Carbon Capture Containment and Usage looks promising particularly if it could be linked directly to a carbon use tax.

How about making clean energy generation a priority ?
Nuclear, tidal farms , yes we have lots of wind and solar, how about more ?

How about making electric vehicles more affordable , why do they cost twice as much as a petrol/diesel ?
How about producing more of the food we eat here (once we are allowed to when we leave the EU) less transportation for foodstuffs , less pollution ?

Its alright promoting carbon taxes, people will just pay them , and demand more wages to compensate, saying standard of living is dropping.
Or, we will end up with a worse 'have and have not. scenario.

It always seems to me that the direct answer to a given problem these days , seems to take this prolonged circuitous route instead, why ?

Its all very well Greta pointing her finger at us, and whimpering on stage, but how did her and her posse get there ?
Do they have a neutral carbon footprint ?
Do they go to China, India, Brazil and point their little fingers at THEM ?

They need to stand in front of the mirror and point, they are not victims, they are net contributors...and hypocrites.

[Newbie to this]

25 minutes ago, oowee said:

Welcome to a place of climate change deniers and promoters of child troll's.

I don't deny climate change. I deny that humans have played a significant part or that we have a cat in hell's chance of doing anything about it. Especially with taxation!!!

[Raja Clavata]

29 minutes ago, oowee said:

Welcome to a place of climate change deniers and promoters of child troll's.

Indeed, everyone is entitled to their views on climate change but the thing that really sits uncomfortably with me is that on one hand you have some people saying she is being manipulated / abused and an element of the same people direct hatred at her, that's not very well evolved logic.

[Rewulf]

10 minutes ago, Newbie to this said:

I don't deny climate change. I deny that humans have played a significant part or that we have a cat in hell's chance of doing anything about it. Especially with taxation!!!

+1

Heres an interesting little factoid.
Greta Thunbergs great uncle Svante , decided 100 years ago that 15 million years ago, the earth was universally 7-9 degrees C hotter than now, and there was virtually NO ice on the surface, or at the poles.
He estimated that the sea level was 100 ft higher (30 metres) this was a direct result of CO2 in the atmosphere.
His calculation of CO2 and global temp is still used today.

Except today , the temperature increase of possibly 4 degrees C by the end of the century , puts the sea level up by 80 metres !!

Thats a lot of surface water we found from no where 😆

Edited September 24, 2019 by Rewulf

[Demonic69]

Did we cause the last "mini ice age" in the Middle Ages?

I think the left are too quick to conflate Global Warming, CO2 levels, greenhouse emissions, pollution, deforestation, extinction etc. It makes it one massive issue, instead of smaller issues that can actually be tackled individually. I do think we're having a negative effect on the planet, I'm just not sure to what extent we can affect something that has been occurring for millennia.

 

As has been said a few times over recent months, Science isn't based on consensus. It's based solely on facts, irrefutable and infallible. If even climate change scientists can't agree, then how are we meant to know what's right? There is a growing trend of younger budding-scientists turning to mainstream climate change theories, especially the courses taught in Universities now, that only lead them down one biased path. They're teaching an opinion, not facts, or even the ability and skills to do the research and make up your own mind.

 

[oowee]

30 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

Tax is a universal 'solution' to everything.  Actually, it does little useful because the worst carbon users tend to be the wealthy - who simply moan a bit, pay the tax, and carry on as normal. 

Tax would be just the start of the process as we ease ourselves into more radical action. 

IF there was to be a 'tax' - it needs to be carefully targeted at areas where savings are possible without hardship - and areas where it will be effective.

For example - taxing energy used in heating for the elderly simply frightens and penalises those who are already struggling to cope.  Taxing fuel (road type fuels) penalises those who live in the country - who have no real alternative to private transport.

We would have to rethink housing policy.

Those who should be targeted to reduce are probably those with private planes, who do lots of air travel, have heated pools, saunas etc,. all of whom can afford to pay the tax.

If there was to be a tax I would like to see a system where there was a 'personal allowance' tax free and then you may more tax the further above this you go - a bit like income tax.  However - I don't see how this can be achieved.

We can start by banning one of my 'pet hates' - gas patio heaters!

 

28 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

Its not designed to make sense, its designed to be emotive.
Then all reasoning can be safely set aside.

 

How about making clean energy generation a priority ?
Nuclear, tidal farms , yes we have lots of wind and solar, how about more ?

As a starter for ten we should. 

How about making electric vehicles more affordable , why do they cost twice as much as a petrol/diesel ?
How about producing more of the food we eat here (once we are allowed to when we leave the EU) less transportation for foodstuffs , less pollution ?

EV's are cheaper than petrol if you factor fuel costs. If we add in carbon capture costs then ev's are a bargain. 

Its alright promoting carbon taxes, people will just pay them , and demand more wages to compensate, saying standard of living is dropping.
Or, we will end up with a worse 'have and have not. scenario.

I think to achieve a sustainable future we will have to rethink the way we use the world. Living would change dramatically. 

It always seems to me that the direct answer to a given problem these days , seems to take this prolonged circuitous route instead, why ?

Its all very well Greta pointing her finger at us, and whimpering on stage, but how did her and her posse get there ?
Do they have a neutral carbon footprint ?
Do they go to China, India, Brazil and point their little fingers at THEM ?

They need to stand in front of the mirror and point, they are not victims, they are net contributors...and hypocrites.

 

[SpringDon]

7 minutes ago, oowee said:

EV's are cheaper than petrol if you factor fuel costs. If we add in carbon capture costs then ev's are a bargain

Are they? (Genuine question as I’m finding it hard to find out)

If the electricity comes from fossil fuels, burning efficiency and transmission losses bring the efficiency to that of an ic engine.

Renewables tend to more expensive per mwh. The subsidies and tax breaks at both ends of the delivery chain make the actual cost unclear.

Also most modern engines will last the life of the vehicle. This is not the case with the batteries of ev’s. And how can you quantify the resource depletion more extremely rare elements in ev manufacture.

[Rewulf]

23 minutes ago, Demonic69 said:

Did we cause the last "mini ice age" in the Middle Ages?

This , and the Maunder minimum 1100 years ago, sticks in the craw of climate alarmists.

They really struggle to explain such large temperature fluctuations (3-5 degrees C) being as there was NO industrialisation, and low population levels.
So by and large , they just simply ignore it, or...

You blame it on 'colonialism' https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-47063973

2 bases covered for the price of one, with absolutely no factual back up whatsoever 

29 minutes ago, Demonic69 said:

As has been said a few times over recent months, Science isn't based on consensus. It's based solely on facts, irrefutable and infallible. If even climate change scientists can't agree, then how are we meant to know what's right? There is a growing trend of younger budding-scientists turning to mainstream climate change theories, especially the courses taught in Universities now, that only lead them down one biased path. They're teaching an opinion, not facts, or even the ability and skills to do the research and make up your own mind.

Good point.

Its quite simple, research money is given to 'man made' climate change supporting projects.
Any thing casting doubt on the new religion, simply doesnt get supported.

[Raja Clavata]

7 minutes ago, SpringDon said:

Are they? (Genuine question as I’m finding it hard to find out)

If the electricity comes from fossil fuels, burning efficiency and transmission losses bring the efficiency to that of an ic engine.

Renewables tend to more expensive per mwh. The subsidies and tax breaks at both ends of the delivery chain make the actual cost unclear.

Also most modern engines will last the life of the vehicle. This is not the case with the batteries of ev’s. And how can you quantify the resource depletion more extremely rare elements in ev manufacture.

Valid points. It's increasingly looking likely that battery EVs are just part of the transition to fuel cell powered EVs, most probably hydrogen.

I was speaking to a guy who is working on the French channel wind-farm project recently and he reckoned that wind currently equates to £52 per MWh vs. £96 for nuclear (in the UK).

The issue with getting definitive data on EV costs is that it's evolving and, due to competition, the data is not readily published.

[Demonic69]

7 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

Valid points. It's increasingly looking likely that battery EVs are just part of the transition to fuel cell powered EVs, most probably hydrogen.

 

The problem with Hydrogen is that it needs a fair amount of electricity to harvest from water, (unless we strip it from hydrocarbons, defeating the point), and we're not sure of the long term effects of taking tons and tons of hydrogen out of the environment while it goes into storage ready to be sold to drivers. In theory we'd just leave a load of free oxygen in the atmosphere.

Plant-waste based extraction has potential, but releases CO2 and hasn't been tested at scale

[JRDS]

Definitely 666 on her head somewhere!

Edited September 24, 2019 by JRDS

[Raja Clavata]

2 minutes ago, Demonic69 said:

The problem with Hydrogen is that it needs a fair amount of electricity to harvest from water, (unless we strip it from hydrocarbons, defeating the point), and we're not sure of the long term effects of taking tons and tons of hydrogen out of the environment while it goes into storage ready to be sold to drivers. In theory we'd just leave a load of free oxygen in the atmosphere.

Agreed, not to mention other problems such as infrastructure to support the roll-out.

Plant-waste based extraction has potential, but releases CO2 and hasn't been tested at scale

It might well be something like this that tips the balance in favour of it. At the level I've been involved in all this there is no consensus reached yet on which technology will prevail.

 

[Danger-Mouse]

Well in today's secular society . . . Marx would probably approve.

[oowee]

47 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

Valid points. It's increasingly looking likely that battery EVs are just part of the transition to fuel cell powered EVs, most probably hydrogen.

I was speaking to a guy who is working on the French channel wind-farm project recently and he reckoned that wind currently equates to £52 per MWh vs. £96 for nuclear (in the UK).

The issue with getting definitive data on EV costs is that it's evolving and, due to competition, the data is not readily published.

That's certainly the way that Nissan and BMW had it in their future project plan (2009) with Hydrogen phase from 2040. 

Nuclear could be a large part of the answer if we were better educated about it. There is a small heat plant solution that puts a depleted radiation source underground within residential areas.  It can be used to provide endless heat (100 years) to power the homes its very cheap to do and as the unit is 20 feet under its very safe. We looked at it as part of eco home design but the move was towards passive standards. 

The EV subsidy was based upon the expected life span of the batteries within the car, based on the Nissan leaf trial's. It looks likely that the batteries will have a life span much greater than first thought (15 years instead of 9) and already BMW with the i3 have replacement cells available. The take up of vehicles has been slower than predicted. The growth of ULEZ in larger cities may change this. 

1 hour ago, SpringDon said:

Are they? (Genuine question as I’m finding it hard to find out)

If the electricity comes from fossil fuels, burning efficiency and transmission losses bring the efficiency to that of an ic engine.

Renewables tend to more expensive per mwh. The subsidies and tax breaks at both ends of the delivery chain make the actual cost unclear.

Also most modern engines will last the life of the vehicle. This is not the case with the batteries of ev’s. And how can you quantify the resource depletion more extremely rare elements in ev manufacture.

It's certainly not easy to get figures and when the original calculations were done for the subsidy, no account was taken of the cost of energy production. The biggest issue was trying to calculate the residual value of the vehicle after 5 years to determine depreciation costs. 

[Raja Clavata]

20 minutes ago, oowee said:

Nuclear could be a large part of the answer if we were better educated about it. There is a small heat plant solution that puts a depleted radiation source underground within residential areas.  It can be used to provide endless heat (100 years) to power the homes its very cheap to do and as the unit is 20 feet under its very safe. We looked at it as part of eco home design but the move was towards passive standards.  

What about SMRs - do you think they could fly or too much reluctance around where they would be sited?

[oowee]

44 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

What about SMRs - do you think they could fly or too much reluctance around where they would be sited?

When the depleted radiation source was looked at it was quickly ruled out due to the perceived public reaction to it. I have no doubt that things like SMR's could be part of the solution in an enlightened world but with all this stuff ' Not by me' 🙂 

[Rewulf]

16 minutes ago, oowee said:

When the depleted radiation source was looked at it was quickly ruled out due to the perceived public reaction to it. I have no doubt that things like SMR's could be part of the solution in an enlightened world but with all this stuff ' Not by me' 🙂 

Might help if the public were actually asked about it really.
A cheap passive heating solution ? Im sure the big fossil energy companies were thrilled by that, and didnt lobby against it at all 🤣

[Raja Clavata]

8 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

Might help if the public were actually asked about it really.

Didn't work out very well the last time they were asked 😛 

[Rewulf]

Just now, Raja Clavata said:

Didn't work out very well the last time they were asked 😛 

Do you mean Brexit ? Youve lost me ..

[Dave-G]

[TIGHTCHOKE]

3 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

Didn't work out very well the last time they were asked 😛 

It didn't work out very well because Parliament refused to do the bidding of the majority!

[Raja Clavata]

2 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

Do you mean Brexit ? Youve lost me ..

yes