Climate Emergency

cantersaddick

redlanered said:

All this talk is about what 'the UK', 'China', i.e governments are doing.  But there are things individuals can do to help, and some of the trends in the rich and middle-income world (more cruises, flights, data usage, crypto) are not helping.  Ultimately,  do enough people really care enough?

Consumerism and excessive consumption is absolutely an issue. But to try and frame it around the individual is to be taken in by big oil/gas propaganda. The whole reason they came up with the idea of a carbon footprint was to detract away from their part in it and put it on individuals. 

It absolutely has to be led by governments. To give an example France has introduced laws to remove fast fashion which is a massive cause of things being sent to landfill. That's gonna have far more of an impact than people choosing not to buy shein individually.

I have spoken on this thread and others about the role small actions and individuals decisions can play in influencing both governments and markets. And those actions are absolutely needed. But the aim is to influence governments and markets not to save the world on your own. Small changes are Important but can only go so far.

redlanered

ME14addick said:

redlanered said:

All this talk is about what 'the UK', 'China', i.e governments are doing.  But there are things individuals can do to help, and some of the trends in the rich and middle-income world (more cruises, flights, data usage, crypto) are not helping.  Ultimately,  do enough people really care enough?

When we have social media awash with mis/disinformation, and far too many calling man made climate change a scam, there will always be people using that as a reason not to do anything. They will wish they had decided to care enough when they themselves are impacted. 

But plenty of people simply want to have 4 flight holidays a year, and find an excuse.

ME14addick

redlanered said:

ME14addick said:

redlanered said:

All this talk is about what 'the UK', 'China', i.e governments are doing.  But there are things individuals can do to help, and some of the trends in the rich and middle-income world (more cruises, flights, data usage, crypto) are not helping.  Ultimately,  do enough people really care enough?

When we have social media awash with mis/disinformation, and far too many calling man made climate change a scam, there will always be people using that as a reason not to do anything. They will wish they had decided to care enough when they themselves are impacted. 

But plenty of people simply want to have 4 flight holidays a year, and find an excuse.

I agree, there is definitely  a case for taxing flying far more and spending the money raised on green energy. Make the polluters pay.

Stig

ME14addick said:

Stu_of_Kunming said:

ME14addick said:

cantersaddick said:

ME14addick said:

Stu_of_Kunming said:

ME14addick said:

Stig said:

Last year it was stated that COP wasn't fit for purpose. This year it seems worse as there's less consensus about the need for collective action and more 'drill baby, drill'.  Meanwhile, here in Essex (and I suspect many other places in the UK) we're running low on water in November!


Hanningfield Reservoir, Thursday 8th November. 

With big polluters like the USA, China & India refusing to attend COP 30, the world is in a very bad way.

Ignorance must really be bliss. 

Unless you've heard differently, I believe the leaders of those countries are not attending. 

I think he was maybe challenging the idea of China being a big polluter. They are making massive strides in renewables and green tech. Their grid is likely to be decarbonised by end of 2027 before any European country. They have developed the first solid state batteries which will genuinely revolutionise renewable energy. They have made massive strides with EV's - in cities I think it's half of all vehicles on the road are EV (not half of new vehicles sold). They're even developing mad new technology like solar on satellites and wirelessly beaming the energy down to earth! 

I'm not gonna pretend they don't have issues, there are still a lot of factories using coal but that number is falling every day due to good government policy. And its pretty hard to attribute those emissions to China when the factories are only there to serve the excessive consumerism of the west.

I would still have liked the biggest polluters to have had a seat at the COP table. The most worrying of all though is the action/inaction of the United States and the amount if mis/disinformation out there.

Those seats will be dominated by lobbyists from the oil and gas companies, COP is basically a joke at this point, look at where it’s being hosted fgs, hardly setting a good example. 

To lump China, one of the modest proactive green countries on the plant with America is just insanity. 

If the leaders of countries like China and the USA attended COP, perhaps it would not be a joke. In that respect they can be lumped together.

Perhaps it would be even worse. We need a mechanism where people/governments who are committed to tackling climate change can exchange ideas with others who will actually try to implement them and where meaningful targets can be agreed that participants' nations actively work towards. Whether COP can ever truly be that mechanism is open to question, but I don't think filling it with bad actors* who want to work against such aims is going to improve things.

*I'm not referring to China here, but the US has withdrawn from the Paris agreement, the Gulf States are banging out oil, whilst Brazil has been ripping up rainforest.

msomerton

Even if global warming causes the extinction of many species even us, it will not mean the end of life on this planet. Evolution will still carry on, as it has done after many previous mass extinction.
Life will probably cease to exist about one billion years into the future.

EugenesAxe

Down here recently there was a climate emergency protest, there was also a counter protest (I know) and among the banners was one that said “I just want to fly and eat meat” wish I’d got a photo of it.

Huskaris

msomerton said:

Even if global warming causes the extinction of many species even us, it will not mean the end of life on this planet. Evolution will still carry on, as it has done after many previous mass extinction.
Life will probably cease to exist about one billion years into the future.

I read an article yesterday saying that the world will be inherited by the octopus should mankind be wiped out. Good to know!

Leroy Ambrose

Huskaris said:

msomerton said:

Even if global warming causes the extinction of many species even us, it will not mean the end of life on this planet. Evolution will still carry on, as it has done after many previous mass extinction.
Life will probably cease to exist about one billion years into the future.

I read an article yesterday saying that the world will be inherited by the octopus should mankind be wiped out. Good to know!

Not a chance. Lifespan too short for them to ever evolve into anything advanced. There's potential for cephalods to evolve from rudimentary intelligence to something more complex, but they have to get over that hump first, and they've had 300 million years to do that with no success.

Same reason cockroaches can't ever succeed as a dominant species - basic biology is against them.

cantersaddick

ME14addick said:

redlanered said:

ME14addick said:

redlanered said:

All this talk is about what 'the UK', 'China', i.e governments are doing.  But there are things individuals can do to help, and some of the trends in the rich and middle-income world (more cruises, flights, data usage, crypto) are not helping.  Ultimately,  do enough people really care enough?

When we have social media awash with mis/disinformation, and far too many calling man made climate change a scam, there will always be people using that as a reason not to do anything. They will wish they had decided to care enough when they themselves are impacted. 

But plenty of people simply want to have 4 flight holidays a year, and find an excuse.

I agree, there is definitely  a case for taxing flying far more and spending the money raised on green energy. Make the polluters pay.

Start by taxing jet fuel the same as we do car fuel. Currently not taxed at all. 

I'd also allow 1 short haul and 1 long haul trip per person per year at a standard tax rate on them. Then for every trip beyond that I would double the tax rates. Business trips would all be subject to the higher tax - use MS teams, at this point its just an excuse for a jolly.

I'd also remove all subsidies and tax breaks for oil and gas companies, take the green subsidies off the standing charge and pay them from general taxation (from the savings from not subsidising drilling for oil) immediately bringing down bills. 

All cash raised to go on green investment. 

Stig

Leroy Ambrose said:

Huskaris said:

msomerton said:

Even if global warming causes the extinction of many species even us, it will not mean the end of life on this planet. Evolution will still carry on, as it has done after many previous mass extinction.
Life will probably cease to exist about one billion years into the future.

I read an article yesterday saying that the world will be inherited by the octopus should mankind be wiped out. Good to know!

Not a chance. Lifespan too short for them to ever evolve into anything advanced. There's potential for cephalods to evolve from rudimentary intelligence to something more complex, but they have to get over that hump first, and they've had 300 million years to do that with no success.

Same reason cockroaches can't ever succeed as a dominant species - basic biology is against them.

It's a very human perspective to imagine that success is about intelligence or dominance. Success is about existing. 

DiscoCAFC

swordfish said:

https://news.sky.com/story/is-net-zero-dead-13463809

Whilst we aim to achieve net zero China the biggest manufacture in the world is building extra power stations and factories and we’re buying extra goods off them. You see the amount of goods we own which state ‘Made in China’

We’re not achieving net zero, we are exporting it over to China. Until every single Country works to stop Global Warming it is never going to be achievable. It’s costing the Country billions and we need to take manufacturing back to the UK to save money. 

EugenesAxe

It will never happen because people like making money too much, which will continue right up until the last resource is drained out of the planet and it’s left empty and dead, and the descendants of those responsible take of in their rocket to Mars.

Leroy Ambrose

Stig said:

Leroy Ambrose said:

Huskaris said:

msomerton said:

Even if global warming causes the extinction of many species even us, it will not mean the end of life on this planet. Evolution will still carry on, as it has done after many previous mass extinction.
Life will probably cease to exist about one billion years into the future.

I read an article yesterday saying that the world will be inherited by the octopus should mankind be wiped out. Good to know!

Not a chance. Lifespan too short for them to ever evolve into anything advanced. There's potential for cephalods to evolve from rudimentary intelligence to something more complex, but they have to get over that hump first, and they've had 300 million years to do that with no success.

Same reason cockroaches can't ever succeed as a dominant species - basic biology is against them.

It's a very human perspective to imagine that success is about intelligence or dominance. Success is about existing. 

'The world will be inherited by' doesn't mean 'will continue to exist alongside other species in the same way they have for 300 millions years' pal

cantersaddick

EugenesAxe said:

It will never happen because people like making money too much, which will continue right up until the last resource is drained out of the planet and it’s left empty and dead, and the descendants of those responsible take of in their rocket to Mars.

I feel like this a lot but I also have hope that we can fundamentally change that economic system that you describe. It's eating more and more people alive. It will sooner or later go too far and change will come. We can build a better world. I'm sure of it.

ME14addick

Climate change is happening right now and the effects will be felt by people who are living now. The children of today will be facing a very different world from the one I grew up in. 

The Philippines facing a second very destructive typhoon in a matter of days, with a million people being evacuated. Jamaica devastated after the worst hurricane for many years. People need to wake up to the fact that it's happening now not millions of years into the future. 

EugenesAxe

cantersaddick said:

EugenesAxe said:

It will never happen because people like making money too much, which will continue right up until the last resource is drained out of the planet and it’s left empty and dead, and the descendants of those responsible take of in their rocket to Mars.

I feel like this a lot but I also have hope that we can fundamentally change that economic system that you describe. It's eating more and more people alive. It will sooner or later go too far and change will come. We can build a better world. I'm sure of it.

Yeah and I agree, I just hope the rate at which people collectively change is quicker than our demise, which realistically is what we are living through the beginnings of now. People are realising and changing is happening but the problem is that currently in western society there is a current trend of right wing politics that aim to divide and conquer. Kill things, hate anything different, consume everything and the rest of the world is being coerced into chasing their money. I can’t believe so many countries have been played!

cantersaddick

EugenesAxe said:

cantersaddick said:

EugenesAxe said:

It will never happen because people like making money too much, which will continue right up until the last resource is drained out of the planet and it’s left empty and dead, and the descendants of those responsible take of in their rocket to Mars.

I feel like this a lot but I also have hope that we can fundamentally change that economic system that you describe. It's eating more and more people alive. It will sooner or later go too far and change will come. We can build a better world. I'm sure of it.

Yeah and I agree, I just hope the rate at which people collectively change is quicker than our demise, which realistically is what we are living through the beginnings of now. People are realising and changing is happening but the problem is that currently in western society there is a current trend of right wing politics that aim to divide and conquer. Kill things, hate anything different, consume everything and the rest of the world is being coerced into chasing their money. I can’t believe so many countries have been played!

Without wishing to go down routes discouraged on here. Look up 'extinction burst' it's a term I recently discovered but is what I believe is happening with the rise of the far right. A desperate last ditch attempt for a failing system to cling on to power. I think it will only speed up its ultimate demise and the birth of a new system an better, fairer world.

EugenesAxe

Will look at that.

swordfish

EugenesAxe said:

Down here recently there was a climate emergency protest, there was also a counter protest (I know) and among the banners was one that said “I just want to fly and eat meat” wish I’d got a photo of it.

Probably held up by a current COP30 attendee who flew half way round the world to be in the Amazon Rainforest and has been tucking into some Brazilian beef 😉

Chaz Hill

ME14addick said:

Climate change is happening right now and the effects will be felt by people who are living now. The children of today will be facing a very different world from the one I grew up in. 

The Philippines facing a second very destructive typhoon in a matter of days, with a million people being evacuated. Jamaica devastated after the worst hurricane for many years. People need to wake up to the fact that it's happening now not millions of years into the future. 

A typhoon having a direct hit on Mar-a-Lago might help. 

Chizz

cantersaddick said:

ME14addick said:

redlanered said:

ME14addick said:

redlanered said:

All this talk is about what 'the UK', 'China', i.e governments are doing.  But there are things individuals can do to help, and some of the trends in the rich and middle-income world (more cruises, flights, data usage, crypto) are not helping.  Ultimately,  do enough people really care enough?

When we have social media awash with mis/disinformation, and far too many calling man made climate change a scam, there will always be people using that as a reason not to do anything. They will wish they had decided to care enough when they themselves are impacted. 

But plenty of people simply want to have 4 flight holidays a year, and find an excuse.

I agree, there is definitely  a case for taxing flying far more and spending the money raised on green energy. Make the polluters pay.

Start by taxing jet fuel the same as we do car fuel. Currently not taxed at all. 

I'd also allow 1 short haul and 1 long haul trip per person per year at a standard tax rate on them. Then for every trip beyond that I would double the tax rates. Business trips would all be subject to the higher tax - use MS teams, at this point its just an excuse for a jolly.

I'd also remove all subsidies and tax breaks for oil and gas companies, take the green subsidies off the standing charge and pay them from general taxation (from the savings from not subsidising drilling for oil) immediately bringing down bills. 

All cash raised to go on green investment. 

There's some interesting suggestions here. However, there are some unintended consequences.  

"Allowing" (crikey, that's a strong word!) just one short-haul and one long-haul trip per person per year would have a wrecking effect on the leisure industry, especially in those areas of high tourism that are also the most at risk of climate change.  Leisure flights are price sensitive, so parts of the world that rely most heavily on tourist dollars would be quickly crippled.  (This would, naturally, accelerate migration away from those areas, bringing forward the most-expensive short-term symptom of climate change for the west).  

Taxing business trips is less likely to reduce the numbers of flights than taxing leisure trips.  Crucial face-to-face business would still take place, but there would be a downstream inflationary cost, passed to consumers.  So, while the effects of migration would be exacerbated by leisure travel being restricted, the cost of living crisis would be exacerbated by another new tax on business travel.  

Jet fuel is taxed.  Business travellers pay that tax as part of their fare.  In addition, they pay Air Passenger Duty, Airport Improvement Charges, Security/TSA fees, Fuel surcharges (often levied on Sustainable Aviation Fuel) and VAT/GST.  Adding another tax won't have a dramatic reduction effect on business flights, it will simply mean many consumer prices will increase.  

MS Teams is great.  But there's a saying - popularised during the early post-Covid months - that "the first sale I lose because my competitor turned up in person will be the last time I try to sell on Zoom".  Teams can work for some meetings. But if Teams was the answer, Microsoft wouldn't have spent $134.8 million on business travel last year.  

Can you imagine a world without international sport? Humanitarian aid?  Journalism? Transplant surgery? Trade fairs? Government diplomacy? Movies? Research? Engineering? Finance and banking? The defence industry?  All of these industries - and many, many more - rely to the highest imaginable extent on the widespread availability of fast, efficient, reliable international flights.  That availability is put at real risk if government policy were aimed at reducing the consumption of flights.  

Here's one example of an industry that relies on the availability of business travel.  It's an industry worth today $1.84bn.  And it's expected to grow to almost £60bn by 2034.  That's an astonishing, rapid growth, (estimate CAGR 45%).  It's exactly the sort of industry that government money should be used to invest in - and to reap returns from.  But it would be crippled if taxes on business travel were used as a sledgehammer to reduce the total number of flights.  The industry?  Sustainable Aviation Fuel.  Reduce business - and leisure - travel, and we will throw away the benefits that SAF can deliver.  The most vicious of circles.  

The way to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions from flights is not to have fewer flights, but to have better, reliable, greener technology at every stage of every trip, from home to destination and back again.  Electric vehicles, greener train and, yes, where necessary, flights, powered by SAF.    

ME14addick

Chaz Hill said:

ME14addick said:

Climate change is happening right now and the effects will be felt by people who are living now. The children of today will be facing a very different world from the one I grew up in. 

The Philippines facing a second very destructive typhoon in a matter of days, with a million people being evacuated. Jamaica devastated after the worst hurricane for many years. People need to wake up to the fact that it's happening now not millions of years into the future. 

A typhoon having a direct hit on Mar-a-Lago might help. 

Not wishing to be picky, it would be a hurricane not a typhoon, but I agree, it might open his eyes.  No doubt it would blamed on somebody else.

SuedeAdidas

Chaz Hill said:

ME14addick said:

Climate change is happening right now and the effects will be felt by people who are living now. The children of today will be facing a very different world from the one I grew up in. 

The Philippines facing a second very destructive typhoon in a matter of days, with a million people being evacuated. Jamaica devastated after the worst hurricane for many years. People need to wake up to the fact that it's happening now not millions of years into the future. 

A typhoon having a direct hit on Mar-a-Lago might help. 

They’d find his syrup in the middle of the Great Pacific Garbage Patch. 

cantersaddick

Chizz said:

cantersaddick said:

ME14addick said:

redlanered said:

ME14addick said:

redlanered said:

All this talk is about what 'the UK', 'China', i.e governments are doing.  But there are things individuals can do to help, and some of the trends in the rich and middle-income world (more cruises, flights, data usage, crypto) are not helping.  Ultimately,  do enough people really care enough?

When we have social media awash with mis/disinformation, and far too many calling man made climate change a scam, there will always be people using that as a reason not to do anything. They will wish they had decided to care enough when they themselves are impacted. 

But plenty of people simply want to have 4 flight holidays a year, and find an excuse.

I agree, there is definitely  a case for taxing flying far more and spending the money raised on green energy. Make the polluters pay.

Start by taxing jet fuel the same as we do car fuel. Currently not taxed at all. 

I'd also allow 1 short haul and 1 long haul trip per person per year at a standard tax rate on them. Then for every trip beyond that I would double the tax rates. Business trips would all be subject to the higher tax - use MS teams, at this point its just an excuse for a jolly.

I'd also remove all subsidies and tax breaks for oil and gas companies, take the green subsidies off the standing charge and pay them from general taxation (from the savings from not subsidising drilling for oil) immediately bringing down bills. 

All cash raised to go on green investment. 

There's some interesting suggestions here. However, there are some unintended consequences.  

"Allowing" (crikey, that's a strong word!) just one short-haul and one long-haul trip per person per year would have a wrecking effect on the leisure industry, especially in those areas of high tourism that are also the most at risk of climate change.  Leisure flights are price sensitive, so parts of the world that rely most heavily on tourist dollars would be quickly crippled.  (This would, naturally, accelerate migration away from those areas, bringing forward the most-expensive short-term symptom of climate change for the west).  

Taxing business trips is less likely to reduce the numbers of flights than taxing leisure trips.  Crucial face-to-face business would still take place, but there would be a downstream inflationary cost, passed to consumers.  So, while the effects of migration would be exacerbated by leisure travel being restricted, the cost of living crisis would be exacerbated by another new tax on business travel.  

Jet fuel is taxed.  Business travellers pay that tax as part of their fare.  In addition, they pay Air Passenger Duty, Airport Improvement Charges, Security/TSA fees, Fuel surcharges (often levied on Sustainable Aviation Fuel) and VAT/GST.  Adding another tax won't have a dramatic reduction effect on business flights, it will simply mean many consumer prices will increase.  

MS Teams is great.  But there's a saying - popularised during the early post-Covid months - that "the first sale I lose because my competitor turned up in person will be the last time I try to sell on Zoom".  Teams can work for some meetings. But if Teams was the answer, Microsoft wouldn't have spent $134.8 million on business travel last year.  

Can you imagine a world without international sport? Humanitarian aid?  Journalism? Transplant surgery? Trade fairs? Government diplomacy? Movies? Research? Engineering? Finance and banking? The defence industry?  All of these industries - and many, many more - rely to the highest imaginable extent on the widespread availability of fast, efficient, reliable international flights.  That availability is put at real risk if government policy were aimed at reducing the consumption of flights.  

Here's one example of an industry that relies on the availability of business travel.  It's an industry worth today $1.84bn.  And it's expected to grow to almost £60bn by 2034.  That's an astonishing, rapid growth, (estimate CAGR 45%).  It's exactly the sort of industry that government money should be used to invest in - and to reap returns from.  But it would be crippled if taxes on business travel were used as a sledgehammer to reduce the total number of flights.  The industry?  Sustainable Aviation Fuel.  Reduce business - and leisure - travel, and we will throw away the benefits that SAF can deliver.  The most vicious of circles.  

The way to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions from flights is not to have fewer flights, but to have better, reliable, greener technology at every stage of every trip, from home to destination and back again.  Electric vehicles, greener train and, yes, where necessary, flights, powered by SAF.    

Allow in the same sense as the tax free allowance. Fair bit of slippery slope fallacy in this response. I don't anticipate the tax to be precipitously high to have that much of an impact on volumes but instead to raise money for investment in cleaner alternatives as I said in the post.

Chizz

cantersaddick said:

Chizz said:

cantersaddick said:

ME14addick said:

redlanered said:

ME14addick said:

redlanered said:

All this talk is about what 'the UK', 'China', i.e governments are doing.  But there are things individuals can do to help, and some of the trends in the rich and middle-income world (more cruises, flights, data usage, crypto) are not helping.  Ultimately,  do enough people really care enough?

When we have social media awash with mis/disinformation, and far too many calling man made climate change a scam, there will always be people using that as a reason not to do anything. They will wish they had decided to care enough when they themselves are impacted. 

But plenty of people simply want to have 4 flight holidays a year, and find an excuse.

I agree, there is definitely  a case for taxing flying far more and spending the money raised on green energy. Make the polluters pay.

Start by taxing jet fuel the same as we do car fuel. Currently not taxed at all. 

I'd also allow 1 short haul and 1 long haul trip per person per year at a standard tax rate on them. Then for every trip beyond that I would double the tax rates. Business trips would all be subject to the higher tax - use MS teams, at this point its just an excuse for a jolly.

I'd also remove all subsidies and tax breaks for oil and gas companies, take the green subsidies off the standing charge and pay them from general taxation (from the savings from not subsidising drilling for oil) immediately bringing down bills. 

All cash raised to go on green investment. 

There's some interesting suggestions here. However, there are some unintended consequences.  

"Allowing" (crikey, that's a strong word!) just one short-haul and one long-haul trip per person per year would have a wrecking effect on the leisure industry, especially in those areas of high tourism that are also the most at risk of climate change.  Leisure flights are price sensitive, so parts of the world that rely most heavily on tourist dollars would be quickly crippled.  (This would, naturally, accelerate migration away from those areas, bringing forward the most-expensive short-term symptom of climate change for the west).  

Taxing business trips is less likely to reduce the numbers of flights than taxing leisure trips.  Crucial face-to-face business would still take place, but there would be a downstream inflationary cost, passed to consumers.  So, while the effects of migration would be exacerbated by leisure travel being restricted, the cost of living crisis would be exacerbated by another new tax on business travel.  

Jet fuel is taxed.  Business travellers pay that tax as part of their fare.  In addition, they pay Air Passenger Duty, Airport Improvement Charges, Security/TSA fees, Fuel surcharges (often levied on Sustainable Aviation Fuel) and VAT/GST.  Adding another tax won't have a dramatic reduction effect on business flights, it will simply mean many consumer prices will increase.  

MS Teams is great.  But there's a saying - popularised during the early post-Covid months - that "the first sale I lose because my competitor turned up in person will be the last time I try to sell on Zoom".  Teams can work for some meetings. But if Teams was the answer, Microsoft wouldn't have spent $134.8 million on business travel last year.  

Can you imagine a world without international sport? Humanitarian aid?  Journalism? Transplant surgery? Trade fairs? Government diplomacy? Movies? Research? Engineering? Finance and banking? The defence industry?  All of these industries - and many, many more - rely to the highest imaginable extent on the widespread availability of fast, efficient, reliable international flights.  That availability is put at real risk if government policy were aimed at reducing the consumption of flights.  

Here's one example of an industry that relies on the availability of business travel.  It's an industry worth today $1.84bn.  And it's expected to grow to almost £60bn by 2034.  That's an astonishing, rapid growth, (estimate CAGR 45%).  It's exactly the sort of industry that government money should be used to invest in - and to reap returns from.  But it would be crippled if taxes on business travel were used as a sledgehammer to reduce the total number of flights.  The industry?  Sustainable Aviation Fuel.  Reduce business - and leisure - travel, and we will throw away the benefits that SAF can deliver.  The most vicious of circles.  

The way to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions from flights is not to have fewer flights, but to have better, reliable, greener technology at every stage of every trip, from home to destination and back again.  Electric vehicles, greener train and, yes, where necessary, flights, powered by SAF.    

Allow in the same sense as the tax free allowance. Fair bit of slippery slope fallacy in this response. I don't anticipate the tax to be precipitously high to have that much of an impact on volumes but instead to raise money for investment in cleaner alternatives as I said in the post.

You should either apply tax in order to affect behaviour, or to generate revenues to invest.  If the intention were the latter, then I wouldn't have a problem with it. 

Chaz Hill

ME14addick said:

Chaz Hill said:

ME14addick said:

Climate change is happening right now and the effects will be felt by people who are living now. The children of today will be facing a very different world from the one I grew up in. 

The Philippines facing a second very destructive typhoon in a matter of days, with a million people being evacuated. Jamaica devastated after the worst hurricane for many years. People need to wake up to the fact that it's happening now not millions of years into the future. 

A typhoon having a direct hit on Mar-a-Lago might help. 

Not wishing to be picky, it would be a hurricane not a typhoon, but I agree, it might open his eyes.  No doubt it would blamed on somebody else.

I stand corrected And even then he would get his ‘admirers’ to chip in and pay for a rebuild of the tasteless dump.

EugenesAxe

ME14addick said:

Chaz Hill said:

ME14addick said:

Climate change is happening right now and the effects will be felt by people who are living now. The children of today will be facing a very different world from the one I grew up in. 

The Philippines facing a second very destructive typhoon in a matter of days, with a million people being evacuated. Jamaica devastated after the worst hurricane for many years. People need to wake up to the fact that it's happening now not millions of years into the future. 

A typhoon having a direct hit on Mar-a-Lago might help. 

Not wishing to be picky, it would be a hurricane not a typhoon, but I agree, it might open his eyes.  No doubt it would blamed on somebody else.

The BBC

ken_shabby

Stig said:

Leroy Ambrose said:

Huskaris said:

msomerton said:

Even if global warming causes the extinction of many species even us, it will not mean the end of life on this planet. Evolution will still carry on, as it has done after many previous mass extinction.
Life will probably cease to exist about one billion years into the future.

I read an article yesterday saying that the world will be inherited by the octopus should mankind be wiped out. Good to know!

Not a chance. Lifespan too short for them to ever evolve into anything advanced. There's potential for cephalods to evolve from rudimentary intelligence to something more complex, but they have to get over that hump first, and they've had 300 million years to do that with no success.

Same reason cockroaches can't ever succeed as a dominant species - basic biology is against them.

It's a very human perspective to imagine that success is about intelligence or dominance. Success is about existing. 

The dinosaurs were the top of the tree for millions of years but they weren't renowned for their intelligence, craftsmanship or civilization. Having a larger brain is a bit of a one off on this planet - most species who got to the top of the tree were just apex predators or very adaptable.

Chippycafc

Talking of dinosaurs, when are we going to get Eds 300 quid benefit he's been promising us for the last 16 months.  Blew away with the typhoon I guess with all the other promises. 

ME14addick

Chippycafc said:

Talking of dinosaurs, when are we going to get Eds 300 quid benefit he's been promising us for the last 16 months.  Blew away with the typhoon I guess with all the other promises. 

The promise was to cut energy bills by £300 by 2030