Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Climate Emergency
Comments
-
Just in case anybody has climate skeptic in their orbit.
Look at the Sea Ice (Esp Artic ) as mapped by NASA.
Get them to explain the loss of sea ice.
Truly worrying.
https://nsidc.org/sea-ice-today
3 -
Atmospheric CO₂ has increased by roughly 50% since the start of the Industrial Revolution, rising from about 280 ppm in the mid‑18th century to 422–431 ppm today.Redskin said:
And what is the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere?ME14addick said:
A very small part I understand, but the main driver is an increase in greenhouse gases. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has gone up by 50% since the Industrial RevolutionDansk_Red said:I read an interesting article which quoted the that the UK & Spanish Met Offices stating that part of the cause of the excess heat is down to cleaner air.
.
This rise is extremely rapid compared with natural historical changes. Ice‑core records show that past CO₂ increases of similar magnitude took thousands of years, whereas the modern increase happened in just ~275 years, with most of the acceleration occurring after 1950.CO₂ is the most abundant long‑lived greenhouse gas.
The current concentration is the highest in at least 800,000 years (based on ice‑core data).
The rate of increase over the past 60 years is about 100× faster than natural post‑ice‑age rises.
5 -
Right whose given up their car and foreign holidays.....2
-
I do drive an aging petrol car, as I can't afford to buy a new car but my mileage is low. I holiday in the UK but try to be as 'green' as much as I can.Chippycafc said:Right whose given up their car and foreign holidays.....
What I do want to see is a recognition that we are all in a crisis, instead of constant denial of the science. I don't have children or grandchildren, but I do want my nieces, nephews and their children to live in a world where everyone cares about the damage that we humans are doing to nature, the planet and ourselves.
Eveything that climate scientists predicted is now happening. We need Governments all over the world to work together for the greater good, instead of billionaires and big corporations putting out mis/disinformation and ignoring very basic science. I learnt about the Carbon Cycle and how greenhouse gases warm the planet when I was at school. The science on that has not changed and is supported by data.9 -
I drive a hybrid but go on shit loads of holidays abroad.1
-
Whose (sp) missed the entire point....Chippycafc said:Right whose given up their car and foreign holidays.....6 -
Foreign holidays yes, but for other reasons., Car no, but it's a small low emissions one I hope not to have to replace. Haven't gone vegetarian, but I did cut down, on drinking spirits, during the week.Chippycafc said:Right whose given up their car and foreign holidays.....
1 -
Holiday in the UK! It's hot enough and good for the the local economy. No airport hassles, (taxi connections, car parking, flight delays, queuing for everything) It's GB£ with no forex transactions to worry about. English speaking if you aren't multilingual. Favourite foods you're familiar with. Lots of cultural things to do and see, if you like that sort of thing.Chippycafc said:Right whose given up their car and foreign holidays.....
That's my pitch for holidays here over 😉4 -
A quick glance at the 'Holidays 2027' thread suggests your pleas are falling on many deaf ears. I'm not advocating that people stop flying or driving altogether, but I am dismayed by friends and relatives happy to fly tons every year regardless of the environmental impactswordfish said:
Holiday in the UK! It's hot enough and good for the the local economy. No airport hassles, (taxi connections, car parking, flight delays, queuing for everything) It's GB£ with no forex transactions to worry about. English speaking if you aren't multilingual. Favourite foods you're familiar with. Lots of cultural things to do and see, if you like that sort of thing.Chippycafc said:Right whose given up their car and foreign holidays.....
That's my pitch for holidays here over 😉2 -
Well this won't last long in Kent, with the government trying to turn Kent into a housing estate and solar farm centre; along with effectively abolishing green belt.Raith_C_Chattonell said:Wildebeast in the Serengeti? Nope cows in Ashford Kent.
1 -
Sponsored links:
-
Agree. And one of the reasons is that a lot of media, particularly the BCC, have always shut down anti climate change argument. I find myself in the bracket, probably like a lot, mostly enviromental, but whenever I express disagreement with what I call "extreme green" views I get abused as a climate change denier. That has happened here as well as elsewhere. There are some very arrogant people on all sides of this argument who don't want to debate.Addick_and_Chips said:I don't want to start a political debate on here as we all know how that goes.....
But is anyone else concerned that we are into our 5th heatwave of the year, which will lead to further food and water shortages?
I care deeply for the environment and have been worried for years about where we are heading. I find it staggering that it's not being discussed more in the media at the moment.2 -
Somebody who might be able to help solve the problem. Or should have got some clown on £20k pa just to keep the likes of you happy. Wake up to the real world.ME14addick said:
They've just paid their Chief Exec a £1million signing on bonus.usetobunkin said:
Thames Water will pay shareholders dividends before they invest in much needed infrastructureBigRedEvil said:I really hope we fast track building more resorvoirs to store water during the winter months. It's going to be needed in the future3 -
Interesting figures. The other aspect is the other side of the coin; ie far less trees and plants absorbing CO2. Anybody know if there is data available to quantify this?ME14addick said:
Atmospheric CO₂ has increased by roughly 50% since the start of the Industrial Revolution, rising from about 280 ppm in the mid‑18th century to 422–431 ppm today.Redskin said:
And what is the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere?ME14addick said:
A very small part I understand, but the main driver is an increase in greenhouse gases. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has gone up by 50% since the Industrial RevolutionDansk_Red said:I read an interesting article which quoted the that the UK & Spanish Met Offices stating that part of the cause of the excess heat is down to cleaner air.
.
This rise is extremely rapid compared with natural historical changes. Ice‑core records show that past CO₂ increases of similar magnitude took thousands of years, whereas the modern increase happened in just ~275 years, with most of the acceleration occurring after 1950.CO₂ is the most abundant long‑lived greenhouse gas.
The current concentration is the highest in at least 800,000 years (based on ice‑core data).
The rate of increase over the past 60 years is about 100× faster than natural post‑ice‑age rises.
1 -
Want to challenge 2 parts of this really.redman said:
Agree. And one of the reasons is that a lot of media, particularly the BCC, have always shut down anti climate change argument. I find myself in the bracket, probably like a lot, mostly enviromental, but whenever I express disagreement with what I call "extreme green" views I get abused as a climate change denier. That has happened here as well as elsewhere. There are some very arrogant people on all sides of this argument who don't want to debate.Addick_and_Chips said:I don't want to start a political debate on here as we all know how that goes.....
But is anyone else concerned that we are into our 5th heatwave of the year, which will lead to further food and water shortages?
I care deeply for the environment and have been worried for years about where we are heading. I find it staggering that it's not being discussed more in the media at the moment.
What do you mean by "extreme green views"? As someone very immersed in this issue the only thing I have ever seen is the widely discredited eco-facist ideas of population reduction as the only way to avoid climate breakdown. But no one who suggests that is taken seriously.
Secondly your claim that the BBC "shuts down anti climate change arguments". I actually think its the opposite and various studies have shown this to be true. The BBC has rules about balanced panels, interviews and discussions on the news. A while back they genuinely had a NASA scientist, an astronaut and a bloke who YouTubes about the earth being flat. Similarly when there was a breakthrough in vaccine technology they had a scientist who worked on the research and an anti-vax Facebook mum. Its exactly the same with climate change the panel will be one scientist who has dedicated their life to studying the climate, some fossil fuel industry stooge who claims "climate change is not real, or if it is real its not caused by us, and if it is its too late anyway" and some politician who is paid by the fossil fuel industry and who uses things like net zero as a wedge issue.The constant platforming of these un-evidenced un-scientific "ideas" in the name of "balance" is the problem.The very act of putting these people on the same panel as each other legitimises those ideas in the eyes of those who lack critical thought. It makes them appear as though they are equally valid. When they are not.If they were to be truly balanced then in the case of climate change it would be for every 97 scientists we have on to talk about climate change we have 3 "I did my own research" types who don't believe it. And yet we have entire "news" (legally not news) channels paid for by the fossil fuel industry telling us it doesn't exist, or if it does it doesn't matter.8 -
David Attenborough regularly referrs to data on wild spaces as a proportion of earth which I guess would give a decent proxy of this.redman said:
Interesting figures. The other aspect is the other side of the coin; ie far less trees and plants absorbing CO2. Anybody know if there is data available to quantify this?ME14addick said:
Atmospheric CO₂ has increased by roughly 50% since the start of the Industrial Revolution, rising from about 280 ppm in the mid‑18th century to 422–431 ppm today.Redskin said:
And what is the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere?ME14addick said:
A very small part I understand, but the main driver is an increase in greenhouse gases. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has gone up by 50% since the Industrial RevolutionDansk_Red said:I read an interesting article which quoted the that the UK & Spanish Met Offices stating that part of the cause of the excess heat is down to cleaner air.
.
This rise is extremely rapid compared with natural historical changes. Ice‑core records show that past CO₂ increases of similar magnitude took thousands of years, whereas the modern increase happened in just ~275 years, with most of the acceleration occurring after 1950.CO₂ is the most abundant long‑lived greenhouse gas.
The current concentration is the highest in at least 800,000 years (based on ice‑core data).
The rate of increase over the past 60 years is about 100× faster than natural post‑ice‑age rises.
Its equally scary and of course all linked.3 -
Can you spell out the main points of the "anti climate change argument"?redman said:
Agree. And one of the reasons is that a lot of media, particularly the BCC, have always shut down anti climate change argument. I find myself in the bracket, probably like a lot, mostly enviromental, but whenever I express disagreement with what I call "extreme green" views I get abused as a climate change denier. That has happened here as well as elsewhere. There are some very arrogant people on all sides of this argument who don't want to debate.Addick_and_Chips said:I don't want to start a political debate on here as we all know how that goes.....
But is anyone else concerned that we are into our 5th heatwave of the year, which will lead to further food and water shortages?
I care deeply for the environment and have been worried for years about where we are heading. I find it staggering that it's not being discussed more in the media at the moment.5 -
There is absolutely no reason to pay anyone a £1 million signing on bonus when the company is bankrupt and has been cheating its customers for decades. There would have been lots of people just as qualified willing to take on the job for the salary alone. A golden handshake for anyone associated with Thames Water is beyond a joke. Sooner the whole industry is back in public ownership the better.redman said:
Somebody who might be able to help solve the problem. Or should have got some clown on £20k pa just to keep the likes of you happy. Wake up to the real world.ME14addick said:
They've just paid their Chief Exec a £1million signing on bonus.usetobunkin said:
Thames Water will pay shareholders dividends before they invest in much needed infrastructureBigRedEvil said:I really hope we fast track building more resorvoirs to store water during the winter months. It's going to be needed in the future14 -
You obviously think better than the people who appointed him and will be responsible to. Out of interest have you ever run a business?ShootersHillGuru said:
There is absolutely no reason to pay anyone a £1 million signing on bonus when the company is bankrupt and has been cheating its customers for decades. There would have been lots of people just as qualified willing to take on the job for the salary alone. A golden handshake for anyone associated with Thames Water is beyond a joke. Sooner the whole industry is back in public ownership the better.redman said:
Somebody who might be able to help solve the problem. Or should have got some clown on £20k pa just to keep the likes of you happy. Wake up to the real world.ME14addick said:
They've just paid their Chief Exec a £1million signing on bonus.usetobunkin said:
Thames Water will pay shareholders dividends before they invest in much needed infrastructureBigRedEvil said:I really hope we fast track building more resorvoirs to store water during the winter months. It's going to be needed in the future7 -
I am very willing to hear other views as long as it can be backed up by evidence. I am quite active on other social media platforms and often see views from the other side of the argument. They can almost always be refuted with proper evidence.redman said:
Agree. And one of the reasons is that a lot of media, particularly the BCC, have always shut down anti climate change argument. I find myself in the bracket, probably like a lot, mostly environmental, but whenever I express disagreement with what I call "extreme green" views I get abused as a climate change denier. That has happened here as well as elsewhere. There are some very arrogant people on all sides of this argument who don't want to debate.Addick_and_Chips said:I don't want to start a political debate on here as we all know how that goes.....
But is anyone else concerned that we are into our 5th heatwave of the year, which will lead to further food and water shortages?
I care deeply for the environment and have been worried for years about where we are heading. I find it staggering that it's not being discussed more in the media at the moment.
I think the most important thing that needs to be discussed far more, is that oil companies have known that burning fossil fuels could damage the climate since at least the late 1950s, and by 1968 they had internal scientific reports stating the risks with high confidence.
By 1959, industry scientists and executives already understood that CO₂ emissions from fossil fuels could alter the climate. By 1968, an internal report for the American Petroleum Institute concluded that significant temperature changes were “almost certain” if fossil fuel use continued.
When they realised it might damage their ability to make the massive profits that they do, they first started to hide the research, deliberately exaggerated doubt about climate science, even after their own researchers confirmed the risks. Companies financed think tanks, PR firms, and front groups to spread misleading narratives. Investigations show coordinated efforts to cast doubt on climate models, question CO2's role and portray scientists as alarmist. Unfortunately this strategy has worked and far too many people are ready to believe their narrative.What they knew, and when
1954 API research — The American Petroleum Institute funded studies on air pollution, showing early awareness of environmental impacts.
1959 Shell analysis — A Shell scientist wrote that burning fossil fuels released billions of tons of CO₂ annually and “might conceivably change the climate.” This is one of the earliest explicit acknowledgments of climate risk.
1968 API-commissioned Stanford Research Institute report — Scientists Elmer Robinson and R.C. Robbins warned that continued fossil fuel use would make “significant temperature changes almost certain by the year 2000” and that environmental damage could be “severe.” This was a private industry briefing, not shared with the public.
1970s–1980s internal modelling — Although not in the search results above, multiple independent investigations (e.g., Exxon’s internal memos) show that by the late 1970s oil companies were running sophisticated climate models predicting warming consistent with modern IPCC projections.
How companies responded
1960s–1980s: Internal research acknowledged climate risks; public messaging often cast doubt or downplayed certainty.
Late 1980s: Public concern grew; companies began organized campaigns to question climate science.
Late 1990s–2000s: Companies shifted to acknowledging climate change publicly, promoting market-based solutions rather than reducing fossil fuel production.
https://academic.oup.com/book/61469/chapter/534850086?utm_source=copilot.com&login=false
https://commonhome.georgetown.edu/topics/climateenergy/defense-denial-and-disinformation-uncovering-the-oil-industrys-early-knowledge-of-climate-change/?utm_source=copilot.com
4 -
This is the whole point, which you seem to be reinforcing. You don't need to have 97 scientists to convince on climate change. We know (or most of us do) the reality. So straight away you think everybody who makes a single point against any of the remedies has to be struck down. For instance I am far from convinced that this massive move to solar panels on prime agricultural land has been properly analysed. Full account taken of what happens to it at the end of it's life (max 25 years). Mostly currently planned for landfill? It's not recylable. The full impact of it having to be manufacture, often by very un-enviromental means and of course transported. The impact of having to import the extra food (some by plane) which cannot be produced locally. Any debate on anything like this is constantly shut down. Any reports are all done by people with a vested interest.cantersaddick said:
Want to challenge 2 parts of this really.redman said:
Agree. And one of the reasons is that a lot of media, particularly the BCC, have always shut down anti climate change argument. I find myself in the bracket, probably like a lot, mostly enviromental, but whenever I express disagreement with what I call "extreme green" views I get abused as a climate change denier. That has happened here as well as elsewhere. There are some very arrogant people on all sides of this argument who don't want to debate.Addick_and_Chips said:I don't want to start a political debate on here as we all know how that goes.....
But is anyone else concerned that we are into our 5th heatwave of the year, which will lead to further food and water shortages?
I care deeply for the environment and have been worried for years about where we are heading. I find it staggering that it's not being discussed more in the media at the moment.
What do you mean by "extreme green views"? As someone very immersed in this issue the only thing I have ever seen is the widely discredited eco-facist ideas of population reduction as the only way to avoid climate breakdown. But no one who suggests that is taken seriously.
Secondly your claim that the BBC "shuts down anti climate change arguments". I actually think its the opposite and various studies have shown this to be true. The BBC has rules about balanced panels, interviews and discussions on the news. A while back they genuinely had a NASA scientist, an astronaut and a bloke who YouTubes about the earth being flat. Similarly when there was a breakthrough in vaccine technology they had a scientist who worked on the research and an anti-vax Facebook mum. Its exactly the same with climate change the panel will be one scientist who has dedicated their life to studying the climate, some fossil fuel industry stooge who claims "climate change is not real, or if it is real its not caused by us, and if it is its too late anyway" and some politician who is paid by the fossil fuel industry and who uses things like net zero as a wedge issue.The constant platforming of these un-evidenced un-scientific "ideas" in the name of "balance" is the problem.The very act of putting these people on the same panel as each other legitimises those ideas in the eyes of those who lack critical thought. It makes them appear as though they are equally valid. When they are not.If they were to be truly balanced then in the case of climate change it would be for every 97 scientists we have on to talk about climate change we have 3 "I did my own research" types who don't believe it. And yet we have entire "news" (legally not news) channels paid for by the fossil fuel industry telling us it doesn't exist, or if it does it doesn't matter.
Your comment about BBC being balanc3ed is farcical. They have been hauled over the coals on several issues recently about the lack of it.1 -
Sponsored links:
-
You obviously missed the point of my post. It's the nuances of it that get me. We produce less than 1% of the world's CO2 but reducing ours and moving it to China and India is considered OK, where they are still building coal fired generators. Should we be ruing our economy when the world super powers do far less? Is me not going holiday really going to save the planet.Chizz said:
Can you spell out the main points of the "anti climate change argument"?redman said:
Agree. And one of the reasons is that a lot of media, particularly the BCC, have always shut down anti climate change argument. I find myself in the bracket, probably like a lot, mostly enviromental, but whenever I express disagreement with what I call "extreme green" views I get abused as a climate change denier. That has happened here as well as elsewhere. There are some very arrogant people on all sides of this argument who don't want to debate.Addick_and_Chips said:I don't want to start a political debate on here as we all know how that goes.....
But is anyone else concerned that we are into our 5th heatwave of the year, which will lead to further food and water shortages?
I care deeply for the environment and have been worried for years about where we are heading. I find it staggering that it's not being discussed more in the media at the moment.1 -
Yes there is data available and having fewer trees does have an impact on the climate. Forests, plants, and soils currently absorb about 30% of all human CO₂ emissions, but deforestation is rapidly weakening this natural carbon sink.redman said:
Interesting figures. The other aspect is the other side of the coin; ie far less trees and plants absorbing CO2. Anybody know if there is data available to quantify this?ME14addick said:
Atmospheric CO₂ has increased by roughly 50% since the start of the Industrial Revolution, rising from about 280 ppm in the mid‑18th century to 422–431 ppm today.Redskin said:
And what is the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere?ME14addick said:
A very small part I understand, but the main driver is an increase in greenhouse gases. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has gone up by 50% since the Industrial RevolutionDansk_Red said:I read an interesting article which quoted the that the UK & Spanish Met Offices stating that part of the cause of the excess heat is down to cleaner air.
.
This rise is extremely rapid compared with natural historical changes. Ice‑core records show that past CO₂ increases of similar magnitude took thousands of years, whereas the modern increase happened in just ~275 years, with most of the acceleration occurring after 1950.CO₂ is the most abundant long‑lived greenhouse gas.
The current concentration is the highest in at least 800,000 years (based on ice‑core data).
The rate of increase over the past 60 years is about 100× faster than natural post‑ice‑age rises.
It's easy to find data. I use Copilot and the following question produced some figures, try doing as search yourself and it will give links to the sources: is this true: far less trees and plants absorbing CO2 having an effect on climate change. Is there is data available to quantify this?How much CO₂ do forests normally absorb?
Global forests absorb ~2 billion metric tons of carbon per year (≈7.3 billion tons CO₂).Forests, plants, and soils together absorb ~30% of all human CO₂ emissions.A single mature tree absorbs ~48 pounds (22 kg) of CO₂ per year.
How much forest are we losing?The world has lost ~10 million hectares of tropical forest per year over the last two decades. Fires now account for 44% of tree-cover loss (2023–2024), up from ~25% historically. Humans have cleared up to half of Earth’s forests over the past 8,000 years.
How does reduced tree cover affect climate change?
Two major effects:1. Less CO₂ absorption. When forests are removed, the planet loses part of its natural carbon sink. Deforestation and forest degradation cause ~11% of global CO₂ emissions — more than all transport combined.Since 1850, ~30% of all CO₂ emissions have come from deforestation.2. Stored carbon is released
- Cutting or burning trees releases the carbon stored in trunks,branches,roots soils (which often store more carbon than the trees themselves). Some regions (e.g., parts of the Amazon) have already flipped from carbon sink → carbon source.
- Cutting or burning trees releases the carbon stored in trunks,branches,roots soils (which often store more carbon than the trees themselves). Some regions (e.g., parts of the Amazon) have already flipped from carbon sink → carbon source.
1 -
redman said:
This is the whole point, which you seem to be reinforcing. You don't need to have 97 scientists to convince on climate change. We know (or most of us do) the reality. So straight away you think everybody who makes a single point against any of the remedies has to be struck down. For instance I am far from convinced that this massive move to solar panels on prime agricultural land has been properly analysed. Full account taken of what happens to it at the end of it's life (max 25 years). Mostly currently planned for landfill? It's not recylable. The full impact of it having to be manufacture, often by very un-enviromental means and of course transported. The impact of having to import the extra food (some by plane) which cannot be produced locally. Any debate on anything like this is constantly shut down. Any reports are all done by people with a vested interest.cantersaddick said:
Want to challenge 2 parts of this really.redman said:
Agree. And one of the reasons is that a lot of media, particularly the BCC, have always shut down anti climate change argument. I find myself in the bracket, probably like a lot, mostly enviromental, but whenever I express disagreement with what I call "extreme green" views I get abused as a climate change denier. That has happened here as well as elsewhere. There are some very arrogant people on all sides of this argument who don't want to debate.Addick_and_Chips said:I don't want to start a political debate on here as we all know how that goes.....
But is anyone else concerned that we are into our 5th heatwave of the year, which will lead to further food and water shortages?
I care deeply for the environment and have been worried for years about where we are heading. I find it staggering that it's not being discussed more in the media at the moment.
What do you mean by "extreme green views"? As someone very immersed in this issue the only thing I have ever seen is the widely discredited eco-facist ideas of population reduction as the only way to avoid climate breakdown. But no one who suggests that is taken seriously.
Secondly your claim that the BBC "shuts down anti climate change arguments". I actually think its the opposite and various studies have shown this to be true. The BBC has rules about balanced panels, interviews and discussions on the news. A while back they genuinely had a NASA scientist, an astronaut and a bloke who YouTubes about the earth being flat. Similarly when there was a breakthrough in vaccine technology they had a scientist who worked on the research and an anti-vax Facebook mum. Its exactly the same with climate change the panel will be one scientist who has dedicated their life to studying the climate, some fossil fuel industry stooge who claims "climate change is not real, or if it is real its not caused by us, and if it is its too late anyway" and some politician who is paid by the fossil fuel industry and who uses things like net zero as a wedge issue.The constant platforming of these un-evidenced un-scientific "ideas" in the name of "balance" is the problem.The very act of putting these people on the same panel as each other legitimises those ideas in the eyes of those who lack critical thought. It makes them appear as though they are equally valid. When they are not.If they were to be truly balanced then in the case of climate change it would be for every 97 scientists we have on to talk about climate change we have 3 "I did my own research" types who don't believe it. And yet we have entire "news" (legally not news) channels paid for by the fossil fuel industry telling us it doesn't exist, or if it does it doesn't matter.
Your comment about BBC being balanc3ed is farcical. They have been hauled over the coals on several issues recently about the lack of it.Solar is generally environmentally beneficial: manufacturing panels is carbon-intensive, particularly in China, but lifecycle emissions are still far below fossil-fuel generation. Panels typically repay their manufacturing emissions in months, not decades.- Panels are recyclable: the claim that they "aren't recyclable" is incorrect. Recycling is technically difficult and large volumes of end-of-life panels will become a genuine waste-management issue, but UK regulations require recovery/recycling.
- 25 years isn't necessarily the end: panels generally last 25–30+ years, and UK planning policy allows solar projects to operate for around 40 years, with panel replacement possible.
- Food production is the strongest legitimate concern: agricultural land has an opportunity cost. Losing highly productive Grade 1/2 or horticultural land is much more significant than using poor-quality grazing land. Some solar sites can also continue to support grazing and biodiversity. Planning authorities take this in to account.
- Food imports shouldn't automatically be attributed to solar: if agricultural output is displaced, some may be replaced elsewhere in the UK rather than imported. Where imports do increase, their production and transport emissions should be counted.
- Transport is relatively minor: shipping panels contributes to their footprint, but is only a small proportion of their overall lifecycle emissions.
- The biggest overlooked issue is intermittency: solar produces electricity mainly during daylight and requires grid reinforcement, storage, demand management and/or other generation. Those system costs should be included.
The strongest case for solar is energy security: it produces electricity without imported fuel and has very low operating costs.The strongest case against particular solar farms is land use: putting solar on highly productive agricultural land may be inferior to using rooftops, brownfield sites or lower-grade land.Bottom line: the evidence does not support "solar farms are environmentally bad," but neither does it justify treating all solar sites as equally beneficial. A proper appraisal should compare the lifetime carbon and energy benefits against the specific site's agricultural, food-security, biodiversity, grid, storage and end-of-life costs.5 -
All part of the narrative by those with a vested interest in continuing to extract fossil fuels.redman said:
You obviously missed the point of my post. It's the nuances of it that get me. We produce less than 1% of the world's CO2 but reducing ours and moving it to China and India is considered OK, where they are still building coal fired generators. Should we be ruing our economy when the world super powers do far less? Is me not going holiday really going to save the planet.Chizz said:
Can you spell out the main points of the "anti climate change argument"?redman said:
Agree. And one of the reasons is that a lot of media, particularly the BCC, have always shut down anti climate change argument. I find myself in the bracket, probably like a lot, mostly enviromental, but whenever I express disagreement with what I call "extreme green" views I get abused as a climate change denier. That has happened here as well as elsewhere. There are some very arrogant people on all sides of this argument who don't want to debate.Addick_and_Chips said:I don't want to start a political debate on here as we all know how that goes.....
But is anyone else concerned that we are into our 5th heatwave of the year, which will lead to further food and water shortages?
I care deeply for the environment and have been worried for years about where we are heading. I find it staggering that it's not being discussed more in the media at the moment.
The UK’s 1% share of global CO₂ is small because we’ve already cut emissions by more than half. That’s proof climate policy works, not a reason to stop. Emissions aren’t “moved” to China or India by UK action — they’re produced there because we import the goods they manufacture. China and India are transitioning too, just from a much larger industrial base. Climate action doesn’t ruin economies; it modernises them. Your holiday alone won’t save the planet — but national policy absolutely does make a measurable difference.Should we be ruining our economy?” — the evidence says climate policy does not ruin economies
The UK’s coal phase‑out, offshore wind expansion, and energy‑efficiency policies have:
reduced emissions
stabilised electricity supply
lowered long‑term energy costs
created new industries and jobs
Multiple studies show that countries with strong climate policies grow just as fast or faster than those without them.
The idea that climate action “ruins the economy” is a political talking point, not an evidence‑based conclusion.
1 -
I can go on x and see as many people vehemently saying the BBC is biased one way as do the other, and it's the most highly regulated news broadcaster I'm aware of. By being hauled over the coals, do you mean had accusations levelled against it, and as we're talking climate change, what has it been found, not alleged, to have been unbalanced in its coverage of?redman said:
This is the whole point, which you seem to be reinforcing. You don't need to have 97 scientists to convince on climate change. We know (or most of us do) the reality. So straight away you think everybody who makes a single point against any of the remedies has to be struck down. For instance I am far from convinced that this massive move to solar panels on prime agricultural land has been properly analysed. Full account taken of what happens to it at the end of it's life (max 25 years). Mostly currently planned for landfill? It's not recylable. The full impact of it having to be manufacture, often by very un-enviromental means and of course transported. The impact of having to import the extra food (some by plane) which cannot be produced locally. Any debate on anything like this is constantly shut down. Any reports are all done by people with a vested interest.cantersaddick said:
Want to challenge 2 parts of this really.redman said:
Agree. And one of the reasons is that a lot of media, particularly the BCC, have always shut down anti climate change argument. I find myself in the bracket, probably like a lot, mostly enviromental, but whenever I express disagreement with what I call "extreme green" views I get abused as a climate change denier. That has happened here as well as elsewhere. There are some very arrogant people on all sides of this argument who don't want to debate.Addick_and_Chips said:I don't want to start a political debate on here as we all know how that goes.....
But is anyone else concerned that we are into our 5th heatwave of the year, which will lead to further food and water shortages?
I care deeply for the environment and have been worried for years about where we are heading. I find it staggering that it's not being discussed more in the media at the moment.
What do you mean by "extreme green views"? As someone very immersed in this issue the only thing I have ever seen is the widely discredited eco-facist ideas of population reduction as the only way to avoid climate breakdown. But no one who suggests that is taken seriously.
Secondly your claim that the BBC "shuts down anti climate change arguments". I actually think its the opposite and various studies have shown this to be true. The BBC has rules about balanced panels, interviews and discussions on the news. A while back they genuinely had a NASA scientist, an astronaut and a bloke who YouTubes about the earth being flat. Similarly when there was a breakthrough in vaccine technology they had a scientist who worked on the research and an anti-vax Facebook mum. Its exactly the same with climate change the panel will be one scientist who has dedicated their life to studying the climate, some fossil fuel industry stooge who claims "climate change is not real, or if it is real its not caused by us, and if it is its too late anyway" and some politician who is paid by the fossil fuel industry and who uses things like net zero as a wedge issue.The constant platforming of these un-evidenced un-scientific "ideas" in the name of "balance" is the problem.The very act of putting these people on the same panel as each other legitimises those ideas in the eyes of those who lack critical thought. It makes them appear as though they are equally valid. When they are not.If they were to be truly balanced then in the case of climate change it would be for every 97 scientists we have on to talk about climate change we have 3 "I did my own research" types who don't believe it. And yet we have entire "news" (legally not news) channels paid for by the fossil fuel industry telling us it doesn't exist, or if it does it doesn't matter.
Your comment about BBC being balanc3ed is farcical. They have been hauled over the coals on several issues recently about the lack of it.7 -
redman said:
This is the whole point, which you seem to be reinforcing. You don't need to have 97 scientists to convince on climate change. We know (or most of us do) the reality. So straight away you think everybody who makes a single point against any of the remedies has to be struck down. For instance I am far from convinced that this massive move to solar panels on prime agricultural land has been properly analysed. Full account taken of what happens to it at the end of it's life (max 25 years). Mostly currently planned for landfill? It's not recylable. The full impact of it having to be manufacture, often by very un-enviromental means and of course transported. The impact of having to import the extra food (some by plane) which cannot be produced locally. Any debate on anything like this is constantly shut down. Any reports are all done by people with a vested interest.cantersaddick said:
Want to challenge 2 parts of this really.redman said:
Agree. And one of the reasons is that a lot of media, particularly the BCC, have always shut down anti climate change argument. I find myself in the bracket, probably like a lot, mostly enviromental, but whenever I express disagreement with what I call "extreme green" views I get abused as a climate change denier. That has happened here as well as elsewhere. There are some very arrogant people on all sides of this argument who don't want to debate.Addick_and_Chips said:I don't want to start a political debate on here as we all know how that goes.....
But is anyone else concerned that we are into our 5th heatwave of the year, which will lead to further food and water shortages?
I care deeply for the environment and have been worried for years about where we are heading. I find it staggering that it's not being discussed more in the media at the moment.
What do you mean by "extreme green views"? As someone very immersed in this issue the only thing I have ever seen is the widely discredited eco-facist ideas of population reduction as the only way to avoid climate breakdown. But no one who suggests that is taken seriously.
Secondly your claim that the BBC "shuts down anti climate change arguments". I actually think its the opposite and various studies have shown this to be true. The BBC has rules about balanced panels, interviews and discussions on the news. A while back they genuinely had a NASA scientist, an astronaut and a bloke who YouTubes about the earth being flat. Similarly when there was a breakthrough in vaccine technology they had a scientist who worked on the research and an anti-vax Facebook mum. Its exactly the same with climate change the panel will be one scientist who has dedicated their life to studying the climate, some fossil fuel industry stooge who claims "climate change is not real, or if it is real its not caused by us, and if it is its too late anyway" and some politician who is paid by the fossil fuel industry and who uses things like net zero as a wedge issue.The constant platforming of these un-evidenced un-scientific "ideas" in the name of "balance" is the problem.The very act of putting these people on the same panel as each other legitimises those ideas in the eyes of those who lack critical thought. It makes them appear as though they are equally valid. When they are not.If they were to be truly balanced then in the case of climate change it would be for every 97 scientists we have on to talk about climate change we have 3 "I did my own research" types who don't believe it. And yet we have entire "news" (legally not news) channels paid for by the fossil fuel industry telling us it doesn't exist, or if it does it doesn't matter.
Your comment about BBC being balanc3ed is farcical. They have been hauled over the coals on several issues recently about the lack of it.About 0.1% of all UK land is currently covered by ground‑mounted solar panels, according to the UK government’s most recent estimate (September 2024).
How much land is actually covered?
21,200 hectares (≈ 52,000 acres) of UK land hosts ground‑mounted solar PV. This is the official government figure based on capacity data and median land‑use per MW.
Independent satellite‑based research from Lancaster University finds a very similar range: 15,580–17,364 hectares, representing 0.06–0.07% of UK land.
These two datasets use different methods (government modelling vs. direct satellite digitisation), but both converge on the same conclusion: solar farms occupy well under 1% of UK land—closer to one‑tenth of one percent.
How might this change?
Lancaster University modelling suggests that even under the most ambitious future scenario, solar might reach 0.72% of UK land by 2050. More typical deployment pathways keep land use around 0.22–0.39%.
This is because:, solar panels continue to become more efficient. A growing share of new capacity is rooftop or industrial‑site solar. Planning constraints limit where large solar farms can be built.
0 -
I take your point about the solar panels on agricultural land btw and think rooves are a better place for them.Chizz said:redman said:
This is the whole point, which you seem to be reinforcing. You don't need to have 97 scientists to convince on climate change. We know (or most of us do) the reality. So straight away you think everybody who makes a single point against any of the remedies has to be struck down. For instance I am far from convinced that this massive move to solar panels on prime agricultural land has been properly analysed. Full account taken of what happens to it at the end of it's life (max 25 years). Mostly currently planned for landfill? It's not recylable. The full impact of it having to be manufacture, often by very un-enviromental means and of course transported. The impact of having to import the extra food (some by plane) which cannot be produced locally. Any debate on anything like this is constantly shut down. Any reports are all done by people with a vested interest.cantersaddick said:
Want to challenge 2 parts of this really.redman said:
Agree. And one of the reasons is that a lot of media, particularly the BCC, have always shut down anti climate change argument. I find myself in the bracket, probably like a lot, mostly enviromental, but whenever I express disagreement with what I call "extreme green" views I get abused as a climate change denier. That has happened here as well as elsewhere. There are some very arrogant people on all sides of this argument who don't want to debate.Addick_and_Chips said:I don't want to start a political debate on here as we all know how that goes.....
But is anyone else concerned that we are into our 5th heatwave of the year, which will lead to further food and water shortages?
I care deeply for the environment and have been worried for years about where we are heading. I find it staggering that it's not being discussed more in the media at the moment.
What do you mean by "extreme green views"? As someone very immersed in this issue the only thing I have ever seen is the widely discredited eco-facist ideas of population reduction as the only way to avoid climate breakdown. But no one who suggests that is taken seriously.
Secondly your claim that the BBC "shuts down anti climate change arguments". I actually think its the opposite and various studies have shown this to be true. The BBC has rules about balanced panels, interviews and discussions on the news. A while back they genuinely had a NASA scientist, an astronaut and a bloke who YouTubes about the earth being flat. Similarly when there was a breakthrough in vaccine technology they had a scientist who worked on the research and an anti-vax Facebook mum. Its exactly the same with climate change the panel will be one scientist who has dedicated their life to studying the climate, some fossil fuel industry stooge who claims "climate change is not real, or if it is real its not caused by us, and if it is its too late anyway" and some politician who is paid by the fossil fuel industry and who uses things like net zero as a wedge issue.The constant platforming of these un-evidenced un-scientific "ideas" in the name of "balance" is the problem.The very act of putting these people on the same panel as each other legitimises those ideas in the eyes of those who lack critical thought. It makes them appear as though they are equally valid. When they are not.If they were to be truly balanced then in the case of climate change it would be for every 97 scientists we have on to talk about climate change we have 3 "I did my own research" types who don't believe it. And yet we have entire "news" (legally not news) channels paid for by the fossil fuel industry telling us it doesn't exist, or if it does it doesn't matter.
Your comment about BBC being balanc3ed is farcical. They have been hauled over the coals on several issues recently about the lack of it.Solar is generally environmentally beneficial: manufacturing panels is carbon-intensive, particularly in China, but lifecycle emissions are still far below fossil-fuel generation. Panels typically repay their manufacturing emissions in months, not decades.- Panels are recyclable: the claim that they "aren't recyclable" is incorrect. Recycling is technically difficult and large volumes of end-of-life panels will become a genuine waste-management issue, but UK regulations require recovery/recycling.
- 25 years isn't necessarily the end: panels generally last 25–30+ years, and UK planning policy allows solar projects to operate for around 40 years, with panel replacement possible.
- Food production is the strongest legitimate concern: agricultural land has an opportunity cost. Losing highly productive Grade 1/2 or horticultural land is much more significant than using poor-quality grazing land. Some solar sites can also continue to support grazing and biodiversity. Planning authorities take this in to account.
- Food imports shouldn't automatically be attributed to solar: if agricultural output is displaced, some may be replaced elsewhere in the UK rather than imported. Where imports do increase, their production and transport emissions should be counted.
- Transport is relatively minor: shipping panels contributes to their footprint, but is only a small proportion of their overall lifecycle emissions.
- The biggest overlooked issue is intermittency: solar produces electricity mainly during daylight and requires grid reinforcement, storage, demand management and/or other generation. Those system costs should be included.
The strongest case for solar is energy security: it produces electricity without imported fuel and has very low operating costs.The strongest case against particular solar farms is land use: putting solar on highly productive agricultural land may be inferior to using rooftops, brownfield sites or lower-grade land.Bottom line: the evidence does not support "solar farms are environmentally bad," but neither does it justify treating all solar sites as equally beneficial. A proper appraisal should compare the lifetime carbon and energy benefits against the specific site's agricultural, food-security, biodiversity, grid, storage and end-of-life costs.2 -
Lot of AI use on a thread about how our environment is being systematically destroyed.16
-
When a company is heavily in debt it is not a good look to give a signing on bonus of such magnitude. I'm sure there are plenty of people who could do just as good job on far less. Water should never have been privatised and the results of that are only too evident now.redman said:
Somebody who might be able to help solve the problem. Or should have got some clown on £20k pa just to keep the likes of you happy. Wake up to the real world.ME14addick said:
They've just paid their Chief Exec a £1million signing on bonus.usetobunkin said:
Thames Water will pay shareholders dividends before they invest in much needed infrastructureBigRedEvil said:I really hope we fast track building more resorvoirs to store water during the winter months. It's going to be needed in the future1 -
I actually think you just prooved my point. Prooving that you choose to believe the missinformation spouted by these people rather than think critically.redman said:
This is the whole point, which you seem to be reinforcing. You don't need to have 97 scientists to convince on climate change. We know (or most of us do) the reality. So straight away you think everybody who makes a single point against any of the remedies has to be struck down. For instance I am far from convinced that this massive move to solar panels on prime agricultural land has been properly analysed. Full account taken of what happens to it at the end of it's life (max 25 years). Mostly currently planned for landfill? It's not recylable. The full impact of it having to be manufacture, often by very un-enviromental means and of course transported. The impact of having to import the extra food (some by plane) which cannot be produced locally. Any debate on anything like this is constantly shut down. Any reports are all done by people with a vested interest.cantersaddick said:
Want to challenge 2 parts of this really.redman said:
Agree. And one of the reasons is that a lot of media, particularly the BCC, have always shut down anti climate change argument. I find myself in the bracket, probably like a lot, mostly enviromental, but whenever I express disagreement with what I call "extreme green" views I get abused as a climate change denier. That has happened here as well as elsewhere. There are some very arrogant people on all sides of this argument who don't want to debate.Addick_and_Chips said:I don't want to start a political debate on here as we all know how that goes.....
But is anyone else concerned that we are into our 5th heatwave of the year, which will lead to further food and water shortages?
I care deeply for the environment and have been worried for years about where we are heading. I find it staggering that it's not being discussed more in the media at the moment.
What do you mean by "extreme green views"? As someone very immersed in this issue the only thing I have ever seen is the widely discredited eco-facist ideas of population reduction as the only way to avoid climate breakdown. But no one who suggests that is taken seriously.
Secondly your claim that the BBC "shuts down anti climate change arguments". I actually think its the opposite and various studies have shown this to be true. The BBC has rules about balanced panels, interviews and discussions on the news. A while back they genuinely had a NASA scientist, an astronaut and a bloke who YouTubes about the earth being flat. Similarly when there was a breakthrough in vaccine technology they had a scientist who worked on the research and an anti-vax Facebook mum. Its exactly the same with climate change the panel will be one scientist who has dedicated their life to studying the climate, some fossil fuel industry stooge who claims "climate change is not real, or if it is real its not caused by us, and if it is its too late anyway" and some politician who is paid by the fossil fuel industry and who uses things like net zero as a wedge issue.The constant platforming of these un-evidenced un-scientific "ideas" in the name of "balance" is the problem.The very act of putting these people on the same panel as each other legitimises those ideas in the eyes of those who lack critical thought. It makes them appear as though they are equally valid. When they are not.If they were to be truly balanced then in the case of climate change it would be for every 97 scientists we have on to talk about climate change we have 3 "I did my own research" types who don't believe it. And yet we have entire "news" (legally not news) channels paid for by the fossil fuel industry telling us it doesn't exist, or if it does it doesn't matter.
Your comment about BBC being balanc3ed is farcical. They have been hauled over the coals on several issues recently about the lack of it.You're right that healthy debate shouldn't be shut down - only when the arguments are factually incorrect. So lets put your clains to the test, because on several of these specific points the evidence simply doesn't hold up.
Firstly "Prime agricultural land" and food production
You and I had this exact conversation on a previous thread but I'll do you the curtesy of repeating it as seems it didnt go in.This isn't really up for debate anymore — it's regulated. Under the updated National Policy Statement EN-3 (2024), developers must prove that lower-quality land can't accommodate a project before they're allowed to use Best and Most Versatile (grade 1–3a) farmland, and any scheme over 20 hectares affecting that land has to go through Natural England consultation.
Nearly a quarter of solar farm applications are already being refused, with food production and landscape impact cited as the main reasons. On top of that, most large solar farms are dual-use by design: many developments now combine generation with sheep grazing or pollinator habitat, and this is increasingly a planning expectation rather than a bonus. The UK's largest agrivoltaic site, a 30MW project in Cambridgeshire, has been grazing sheep since 2024 as part of the site's operation since it opened. And on scale: even hitting government targets to quadruple solar capacity would take up roughly 0.5% of UK land — less than golf courses currently occupy.
"max 25-year" lifespan
Wrong again. This figure if quoted is the warranty period, not the lifespan. Real-world degradation data tells a different story: field studies show efficiency typically drops by only 6-8% after 25 years, not the steep cliff people assume, and manufacturers now routinely guarantee well above 80% of original output after 30 or even 40 years. So the "max 25 years" framing understates real panel life by a decade or more.https://www.greenmatch.co.uk/blog/2017/10/the-opportunities-of-solar-panel-recycling
https://www.sunsave.energy/solar-panels-advice/maintenance/recycling
Landfill / "not recyclable"
This is just factually wrong. Under the WEEE Regulations, solar panels are classed as electrical waste and cannot legally be sent to landfill in the UK. On recyclability, advanced separation techniques now achieve up to 98% recovery rates for critical materials, with thermal decomposition recovering 95% of glass and 85% of silicon. The UK is actually building a competitive edge here: firms like Solar Recycling Solutions and Waste Experts (via its ROSI partnership) already recover up to 95% of the silver, silicon and glass inside every panel, at purity high enough to go straight back into solar manufacturing. Industry estimates put UK panel waste at around 30,000 tonnes over the next decade, a genuine and growing recycling sector, not a landfill problem.https://solarrecyclingsolutions.co.uk/solar-panel-recycling/
https://wasteexperts.co.uk/products-services/solar-panel-recycling
Manufacturing and transport emissions
Again this sunds like a valid point on the surface but as soon as you dig into it a little bit it simply doesnt hold up to scrutiny. It's already factored into the life-cycle assessments used by regulators and researchers, not being ignored. It's the standard metric solar is judged against (carbon payback for UK-sited panels is typically 1–3 years out of a 30–40 year life). If you think a specific study underweights manufacturing impact, that's a fair thing to interrogate but it's an argument for better analysis, not for dismissing solar's net benefit.Imported food replacing UK production
Given the planning protections above, this is largely a hypothetical rather than what's actually happening, solar is being pushed toward lower-grade and brownfield land precisely to avoid this trade-off, and grazing continues on much of the land that does go to solar.None of this means every solar project is well-sited or that concerns about specific developments are illegitimate plenty get refused for good reason. But "not recyclable," "max 25 years," and "prime farmland lost for good" aren't accurate descriptions of current UK policy or the technology as it now stands.
In summary - a series of hypothetical arguments that are either factually incorrect or already fully taken into account in the decision making. Hence prooving that the people spouting these arugments should be subject to more challenge not less.
4
