The problem in relation to the World is that there is still a fair bit of fossil fuel available under the ground and that is worth money. A lot of money. If there wasn't, we would be looking for green technologies faster. I think electric cars are a fudge as there are environmental costs to produce them and a lot of the electricity we use to power them isn't green. We should be putting more resources into looking at cheap carbon friendly ways to extract hydrogen to power trucks and cars. Do that and we don't have to make massive infrastructure changes.
What opponents of hydrogen will say is that it isn't easy to extract and is costly too. But scientists are looking at ways to do this cheaply and the reason they are is because it is possible.
If one of the major parties said ‘we’re going to get tough over the climate crisis, and (for example):
Fight for global travel restrictions (and impose tough ones at home - fewer flights etc), Improve emission reduction targets, globally and at home, Tax polluting businesses, Spend far more on carbon capture, Plant far more trees, Discourage the eating of beef by making it more expensive, Spend far more on alternative energy sources (tidal power, wind etc., Heavily subsidise insulation of homes, Make building industry build genuinely ‘green’ homes, Build far more reservoirs than we have over the last three decades, Raise corporation tax and impose a windfall wealth/assets tax, to pay for everything’ ….would you vote for them?
I personally think it’s the only chance we have. Relying on people’s goodwill to act individually and voluntarily is very noble, but won’t work. We need to go on a war footing to have a chance. PS The list of actions above is just off the top of my head. I’m no expert.
If one of the major parties said ‘we’re going to get tough over the climate crisis, and (for example):
Fight for global travel restrictions (and impose tough ones at home - fewer flights etc), Improve emission reduction targets, globally and at home, Tax polluting businesses, Spend far more on carbon capture, Plant far more trees, Discourage the eating of beef by making it more expensive, Spend far more on alternative energy sources (tidal power, wind etc., Heavily subsidise insulation of homes, Make building industry build genuinely ‘green’ homes, Build far more reservoirs than we have over the last three decades, Raise corporation tax and impose a windfall wealth/assets tax, to pay for everything’ ….would you vote for them?
I personally think it’s the only chance we have. Relying on people’s goodwill to act individually and voluntarily is very noble, but won’t work. We need to go on a war footing to have a chance. PS The list of actions above is just off the top of my head. I’m no expert.
I would, although probably not the wealth tax bit, you snuck that one in!
For me, as long as EVERY penny raised through taxation on the "naughty" side ie petrol, beef etc is pumped back in to subsidies for positive energy things, I'm happy.
One thing that green policies must not be is a net revenue raiser, and although I might be wrong, I feel like that's how things are right now (I could be completely wrong).
If one of the major parties said ‘we’re going to get tough over the climate crisis, and (for example):
Fight for global travel restrictions (and impose tough ones at home - fewer flights etc), Improve emission reduction targets, globally and at home, Tax polluting businesses, Spend far more on carbon capture, Plant far more trees, Discourage the eating of beef by making it more expensive, Spend far more on alternative energy sources (tidal power, wind etc., Heavily subsidise insulation of homes, Make building industry build genuinely ‘green’ homes, Build far more reservoirs than we have over the last three decades, Raise corporation tax and impose a windfall wealth/assets tax, to pay for everything’ ….would you vote for them?
I personally think it’s the only chance we have. Relying on people’s goodwill to act individually and voluntarily is very noble, but won’t work. We need to go on a war footing to have a chance. PS The list of actions above is just off the top of my head. I’m no expert.
You could like for ‘yes’, lol for ‘no’.
It can't be a simple yes or no.
There are things on your list that no sensible person would say no to as they are deliverable without massively impacting economic development (and lets be clear there is no case for economic regression).
yes to trees, carbon capture, no to taxation and reduction of personal freedom.
The world has changed, and much of the wealth is no longer derived from income but asserts, and those with the assets (I see myself as one of them, on the lowest end of the scale) pay zero tax on them, or lower rates of tax.
All of these green policies could be funded by a one off wealth tax. You can’t keep putting up other taxes as the Tories have done. Aren’t we paying the highest taxes in history, or something like that? PS I listened to a very interesting News Agents podcast about it yesterday. I didn’t fully understand it, but seemed to make some sense, nonetheless, in particular how it didn’t used to be like this. There are so many more hugely wealthy people around these days (I’m certainly not one of them!) and they don’t contribute anything like as much as we think they do.
These are the people Truss would like to give tax breaks to. The opponents of her policies (basically souped up trickle down economics) say that the money they save won’t be spent, it’s just invested in more assets like property, stocks & shares and art etc. Reduce income tax for lower and middle earners and they actually spend more, boosting the economy.
I think we do have to act as if we are the only country in the World as we can always point to countries not doing their bit and use it as an excuse for us not to. Having said that, when we import things from other countries, say China for example, we should look at the environmental costs of those products. Otherwise, we are simply exporting our polution.
Hopefully enough major investors in the U.K. follow Ford’s lead and kick up a fuss about the Tory party plans to row back on their commitments. I’m sure Ford’s motivations aren’t entirely pure (possibly they are thinking bollocks, we’ve just committed a ton of money betting on EV that we might not have had to) but pressure is pressure.
Hopefully enough major investors in the U.K. follow Ford’s lead and kick up a fuss about the Tory party plans to row back on their commitments. I’m sure Ford’s motivations aren’t entirely pure (possibly they are thinking bollocks, we’ve just committed a ton of money betting on EV that we might not have had to) but pressure is pressure.
Having worked for the mighty blue oval for quite a few years I'm always a little sceptical when they tell the public about their investments. Masters of spin.
Be helpful to see a timeline graph with world population growth, CO2 emissions, and average temperature of the planet.
As advanced economies we look for exponential growth to satisfy our lifestyle demands, increasing demand for energy.
Even if renewable energy were introduced at no cost wherever possible in the world, I doubt it could provide enough capacity to cope with ever increasing world demand, unless we are prepared to go back to basics and live simple lives.
Some have suggested we need a population cull to curb demand. I agree that it would slow down the rate of climate change, but not halt it as I suspect we're beyond the tipping point already, or soon will be. It's non reversible during the geologically short time frame in which humans will continue to ravage the planet.
Pretty shitty reading this thread as someone in their 20s. I find older generations are quick enough to slag of my generation but not got the balls to own up to what their generations have done to our planet.
Pretty shitty reading this thread as someone in their 20s. I find older generations are quick enough to slag of my generation but not got the balls to own up to what their generations have done to our planet.
Or for people with kids, find the attitude of fuck the young snowflakes, just utterly perverse
Ford have binned quite a few models in view of going all electric whilst other manufacturers still offer their ranges with various options. No wonder they are kicking up a fuss.
For us as everyday members of public it sometimes feels pointless doing anything as those in power are largely uninterested in anything over the next election cycle or shareholders report.
my view is that we do as much as we can and push our leaders to make the long term decisions needed.
we now have solar panels - financially it makes sense over a 10 year period but morally we took the view that if we can afford it then we should do it. we have an electric vehicle we have cut massively our single use plastic products (we use shampoo bars for instance and refillable cleaning products).
These changes are more expensive but the one way the price of these things reduces is if more people use them so we feel it is our duty to do it.
our carbon footprint is quite low compared to many of our neighbours - however it is still massive compared to the vast majority of the earth’s population.
The best thing that could happen to UK environmental policy is proportional representation as it will ensure a significant Green Party presence in government.
Given the climate events of this year I truly hoped this would make it the point where globally we actually do something real to improve things. Sadly Sunak the midget millionaire made clear yesterday that he doesn’t give a crap.
Pretty shitty reading this thread as someone in their 20s. I find older generations are quick enough to slag of my generation but not got the balls to own up to what their generations have done to our planet.
don't go on the social housing thread, for your own sanity.
If one of the major parties said ‘we’re going to get tough over the climate crisis, and (for example):
Fight for global travel restrictions (and impose tough ones at home - fewer flights etc), Improve emission reduction targets, globally and at home, Tax polluting businesses, Spend far more on carbon capture, Plant far more trees, Discourage the eating of beef by making it more expensive, Spend far more on alternative energy sources (tidal power, wind etc., Heavily subsidise insulation of homes, Make building industry build genuinely ‘green’ homes, Build far more reservoirs than we have over the last three decades, Raise corporation tax and impose a windfall wealth/assets tax, to pay for everything’ ….would you vote for them?
I personally think it’s the only chance we have. Relying on people’s goodwill to act individually and voluntarily is very noble, but won’t work. We need to go on a war footing to have a chance. PS The list of actions above is just off the top of my head. I’m no expert.
You could like for ‘yes’, lol for ‘no’.
Some of them i think would work better with subsidies, rather than restricting things like flights, which is quite a blunt instrument. Encouraging hydrogen fuel for planes and lab grown meat instead of making beef more expensive (that will simply drive some parts of the country into the ground) would be more my thing. I think a moonshot national tidal energy company would be a fantastic statement of intent and something that we can be proud of as uniquely british, not just about net zero but also to the rest of the world. Britain was always known as a country of pioneers - let's get back to that.
Pretty shitty reading this thread as someone in their 20s. I find older generations are quick enough to slag of my generation but not got the balls to own up to what their generations have done to our planet.
don't go on the social housing thread, for your own sanity.
Chris Packham: Is it time to break the law, airs tonight on Channel 4 at 9pm.
Today's Daily Mirror describes it as 'a sit up and listen film that is essential viewing'.
I have a message for Richard Madeley. Watch the film before you take on your holier than though judgement position and a message to ITV. Is this idiot the worst presenter in history? Why do you employ him? Whatever the subject his questions are way to long, explainging HIS view on a subject in detail then the question ends with do you agree with that? It is excrutiating to watch.
Pretty shitty reading this thread as someone in their 20s. I find older generations are quick enough to slag of my generation but not got the balls to own up to what their generations have done to our planet.
Playing the blame game never solves anything and it certainly won't solve this.
I have actually apologized in person to my nephews and nieces for my generations wilful negligence in tackling it having ignored the warnings of the last, well most of my lifetime at least and I'm over 60 now, but I don't tell them I think it's too late.
Maybe at this year's COP summit someone will have the balls to stand up and admit it. I doubt it. After jetting in, they'll say the hour is late, CO2 emissions are still rising, more must be done, but won't offer more money to the countries exploited in the past who can ill afford the technology, will no doubt enjoy the hospitality, maybe sample a vegetarian option if available, then pat themselves on the back, say we're making progress, relax some targets which are proving too hard to meet, then bugger off until next year.
Pretty shitty reading this thread as someone in their 20s. I find older generations are quick enough to slag of my generation but not got the balls to own up to what their generations have done to our planet.
A sweeping statement which paints a whole generation with the same brush- but got to agree.
One thing to actually be semi proud of our country for is our attitude to being green. We are one of the lowest polluters per capita in the developed world. Today is a massive slap in the face.
Also seeing as I've seen China and India take a lot of the blame, it's worth noting that (there are other factors at play for sure) China pollutes half as much CO2 per person of the US and India is 1/7th of the US. China is also the world leader in electric vehicles. It's easy to pass the blame onto others and undoubtedly every country can do better but the pollution per person in Canada, US and Australia is outrageous. All polluting 3x as much per person than the UK
Chris Packham: Is it time to break the law, airs tonight on Channel 4 at 9pm.
Today's Daily Mirror describes it as 'a sit up and listen film that is essential viewing'.
I have a message for Richard Madeley. Watch the film before you take on your holier than though judgement position and a message to ITV. Is this idiot the worst presenter in history? Why do you employ him? Whatever the subject his questions are way too long, explainging HIS view on a subject in detail then the question ends with do you agree with that? It is excrutiating to watch.
One thing to actually be semi proud of our country for is our attitude to being green. We are one of the lowest polluters per capita in the developed world. Today is a massive slap in the face.
Also seeing as I've seen China and India take a lot of the blame, it's worth noting that (there are other factors at play for sure) China pollutes half as much CO2 per person of the US and India is 1/7th of the US. China is also the world leader in electric vehicles. It's easy to pass the blame onto others and undoubtedly every country can do better but the pollution per person in Canada, US and Australia is outrageous. All polluting 3x as much per person than the UK
probably because of the huge populations and massive wealth disparity in both china and india (100s of millions in both living on nothing). I've been to china and the US and you can't tell me the air in china isn't much more heavily polluted.
If one of the major parties said ‘we’re going to get tough over the climate crisis, and (for example):
Fight for global travel restrictions (and impose tough ones at home - fewer flights etc), Improve emission reduction targets, globally and at home, Tax polluting businesses, Spend far more on carbon capture, Plant far more trees, Discourage the eating of beef by making it more expensive, Spend far more on alternative energy sources (tidal power, wind etc., Heavily subsidise insulation of homes, Make building industry build genuinely ‘green’ homes, Build far more reservoirs than we have over the last three decades, Raise corporation tax and impose a windfall wealth/assets tax, to pay for everything’ ….would you vote for them?
I personally think it’s the only chance we have. Relying on people’s goodwill to act individually and voluntarily is very noble, but won’t work. We need to go on a war footing to have a chance. PS The list of actions above is just off the top of my head. I’m no expert.
If one of the major parties said ‘we’re going to get tough over the climate crisis, and (for example):
Fight for global travel restrictions (and impose tough ones at home - fewer flights etc), Improve emission reduction targets, globally and at home, Tax polluting businesses, Spend far more on carbon capture, Plant far more trees, Discourage the eating of beef by making it more expensive, Spend far more on alternative energy sources (tidal power, wind etc., Heavily subsidise insulation of homes, Make building industry build genuinely ‘green’ homes, Build far more reservoirs than we have over the last three decades, Raise corporation tax and impose a windfall wealth/assets tax, to pay for everything’ ….would you vote for them?
I personally think it’s the only chance we have. Relying on people’s goodwill to act individually and voluntarily is very noble, but won’t work. We need to go on a war footing to have a chance. PS The list of actions above is just off the top of my head. I’m no expert.
You could like for ‘yes’, lol for ‘no’.
Some of them i think would work better with subsidies, rather than restricting things like flights, which is quite a blunt instrument. Encouraging hydrogen fuel for planes and lab grown meat instead of making beef more expensive (that will simply drive some parts of the country into the ground) would be more my thing. I think a moonshot national tidal energy company would be a fantastic statement of intent and something that we can be proud of as uniquely british, not just about net zero but also to the rest of the world. Britain was always known as a country of pioneers - let's get back to that.
I like the optimism but we as a nation have a habit of screwing up the good ideas. I think our government has just signalled our intentions despite stating in the past they would stick by them. The lab grown meat, I think will never leave the lab unless a cheap upscaling can be devised. It might be better just to try to change peoples habits and reduce the amount of animal products in our lives.
One thing to actually be semi proud of our country for is our attitude to being green. We are one of the lowest polluters per capita in the developed world. Today is a massive slap in the face.
Also seeing as I've seen China and India take a lot of the blame, it's worth noting that (there are other factors at play for sure) China pollutes half as much CO2 per person of the US and India is 1/7th of the US. China is also the world leader in electric vehicles. It's easy to pass the blame onto others and undoubtedly every country can do better but the pollution per person in Canada, US and Australia is outrageous. All polluting 3x as much per person than the UK
probably because of the huge populations and massive wealth disparity in both china and india (100s of millions in both living on nothing). I've been to china and the US and you can't tell me the air in china isn't much more heavily polluted.
Agreed many factors at play, so not a fair comparison. It really depends what part of China. The air quality in Beijing is horrendous but other provinces have really clean air. The CCP is horrendous but at least they pushing for a greener future and taking action, whilst the US could re elect a climate denier in the coming years.
In the 70s, my dad bought a gas conversion kit whilst we were on holiday in Italy and fitted it to his Hillman Avenger. It had a switch he fitted under the dashboard where you simply switch from petrol to gas. The guidance was that you start the car in petrol then switch. The car ran perfectly. The gas range wasn't so high but worked well for city driving and even then was cheaper than petrol. Although I think he did it because he liked the challenge, he enjoyed fixing televisions and washing machines. Anything mechanical. My point is, if he could do this in the 70s, I think exsisting petrol cars can be converted to Hydrogen today and some initial online checks suggest this is the case. There are two areas we could be going down in terms of research, extracting the hydrogen in a cheap green scalable way and looking how internal combustion engines can be converted.
One thing to actually be semi proud of our country for is our attitude to being green. We are one of the lowest polluters per capita in the developed world. Today is a massive slap in the face.
Also seeing as I've seen China and India take a lot of the blame, it's worth noting that (there are other factors at play for sure) China pollutes half as much CO2 per person of the US and India is 1/7th of the US. China is also the world leader in electric vehicles. It's easy to pass the blame onto others and undoubtedly every country can do better but the pollution per person in Canada, US and Australia is outrageous. All polluting 3x as much per person than the UK
probably because of the huge populations and massive wealth disparity in both china and india (100s of millions in both living on nothing). I've been to china and the US and you can't tell me the air in china isn't much more heavily polluted.
I’ve spent most of my adult life here and can say exactly that.
I’ve also seen a huge change in outlooks from Joe public, government drives to clean the air and huge subsidies for green products.
Comments
What opponents of hydrogen will say is that it isn't easy to extract and is costly too. But scientists are looking at ways to do this cheaply and the reason they are is because it is possible.
Fight for global travel restrictions (and impose tough ones at home - fewer flights etc),
Improve emission reduction targets, globally and at home,
Tax polluting businesses,
Spend far more on carbon capture,
Plant far more trees,
Discourage the eating of beef by making it more expensive,
Spend far more on alternative energy sources (tidal power, wind etc.,
Heavily subsidise insulation of homes,
Make building industry build genuinely ‘green’ homes,
Build far more reservoirs than we have over the last three decades,
Raise corporation tax and impose a windfall wealth/assets tax, to pay for everything’
….would you vote for them?
I personally think it’s the only chance we have. Relying on people’s goodwill to act individually and voluntarily is very noble, but won’t work. We need to go on a war footing to have a chance.
PS The list of actions above is just off the top of my head. I’m no expert.
For me, as long as EVERY penny raised through taxation on the "naughty" side ie petrol, beef etc is pumped back in to subsidies for positive energy things, I'm happy.
One thing that green policies must not be is a net revenue raiser, and although I might be wrong, I feel like that's how things are right now (I could be completely wrong).
Too much stick not enough carrot in my opinion.
There are things on your list that no sensible person would say no to as they are deliverable without massively impacting economic development (and lets be clear there is no case for economic regression).
yes to trees, carbon capture, no to taxation and reduction of personal freedom.
PS I listened to a very interesting News Agents podcast about it yesterday. I didn’t fully understand it, but seemed to make some sense, nonetheless, in particular how it didn’t used to be like this. There are so many more hugely wealthy people around these days (I’m certainly not one of them!) and they don’t contribute anything like as much as we think they do.
Reduce income tax for lower and middle earners and they actually spend more, boosting the economy.
Masters of spin.
As advanced economies we look for exponential growth to satisfy our lifestyle demands, increasing demand for energy.
Even if renewable energy were introduced at no cost wherever possible in the world, I doubt it could provide enough capacity to cope with ever increasing world demand, unless we are prepared to go back to basics and live simple lives.
Some have suggested we need a population cull to curb demand. I agree that it would slow down the rate of climate change, but not halt it as I suspect we're beyond the tipping point already, or soon will be. It's non reversible during the geologically short time frame in which humans will continue to ravage the planet.
Anyway, who you gonna cull?
Today's Daily Mirror describes it as 'a sit up and listen film that is essential viewing'.
my view is that we do as much as we can and push our leaders to make the long term decisions needed.
we now have solar panels - financially it makes sense over a 10 year period but morally we took the view that if we can afford it then we should do it.
we have an electric vehicle
we have cut massively our single use plastic products (we use shampoo bars for instance and refillable cleaning products).
our carbon footprint is quite low compared to many of our neighbours - however it is still massive compared to the vast majority of the earth’s population.
I have actually apologized in person to my nephews and nieces for my generations wilful negligence in tackling it having ignored the warnings of the last, well most of my lifetime at least and I'm over 60 now, but I don't tell them I think it's too late.
Maybe at this year's COP summit someone will have the balls to stand up and admit it. I doubt it. After jetting in, they'll say the hour is late, CO2 emissions are still rising, more must be done, but won't offer more money to the countries exploited in the past who can ill afford the technology, will no doubt enjoy the hospitality, maybe sample a vegetarian option if available, then pat themselves on the back, say we're making progress, relax some targets which are proving too hard to meet, then bugger off until next year.
Also seeing as I've seen China and India take a lot of the blame, it's worth noting that (there are other factors at play for sure) China pollutes half as much CO2 per person of the US and India is 1/7th of the US. China is also the world leader in electric vehicles. It's easy to pass the blame onto others and undoubtedly every country can do better but the pollution per person in Canada, US and Australia is outrageous. All polluting 3x as much per person than the UK
The lab grown meat, I think will never leave the lab unless a cheap upscaling can be devised. It might be better just to try to change peoples habits and reduce the amount of animal products in our lives.