Climate Change: Let's Have a Fruitful Discussion

Jump to Last Post 1-50 of 86 discussions (1761 posts)
  1. profile image0
    savvydatingposted 2 years ago

    https://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/16218719.jpg
    Is climate change a threat to our existence? If so, how much time do we have left as a civilization? What is your opinion about Biden's policies on climate change? How much does the average person know about climate change policies and basic economics? Do you believe Al Gore? What are your thoughts regarding the IPCC and WHO? What do you think about solar panels and wind energy?

    1. wilderness profile image77
      wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      No, except possibly that a nuclear war could result.  But the climate change will not end life, or humanity, on the planet.

      Biden's policies are foolish in the extreme as he doesn't care what damage they do.  Better to stay right where we are, warming the planet, than to subside into the muck he is creating.

      Al Gore, as well as IPCC and WHO, are all liars.  Their "predictions", based on "science" never seem to come true.

      Solar panels and wind energy are a great addition to our energy needs.  They are NOT the answer to our needs, though - at this time that remains at nuclear and fossil fuels.  What we desperately need is fusion.

      1. profile image0
        savvydatingposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        For those who do not know, Fusion power mimics the sun, and can provide all the energy humanity needs. This is an area that requires R&D. We’re not there yet. The WHO has made a few honest statements. I’ll address that another time.
        I disagree with you about solar panels & wind energy. If they were effective, we would have seen the results by now. 
        I’ll go into more detail later on if the subject seems to interest potential consumers here.
        Thanks, wilderness.

        1. profile image0
          savvydatingposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          Correction: I agree that solar panels & wind energy are not the answer. I do not believe they are a great addition to our energy needs.

        2. Nathanville profile image85
          Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          Where you say:  “….about solar panels & wind energy. If they were effective, we would have seen the results by now.”

          If you look across the pond, at what’s happening in the EU and UK you will see the positive results of using solar panels and wind energy e.g. in the last 7 days 48.5% (almost half) of the electricity generated in the UK has come from wind power – see screen dump from the UK’s National Grid Live website below (and for better clarity, the enlargement of the critical figures below the main image)

          https://hubstatic.com/16230836_f1024.jpg

          https://hubstatic.com/16230837.jpg

          Transfers and Storage in the above chart is where for example over the last 7 days the UK has exported 8.6% of our electricity to France, and imported 3.5% from Norway (hydropower).

      2. Credence2 profile image82
        Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

        I not so much keen on much of your comment EXCEPT that solar and biomass in of itself won't begin to approach the actual demand for energy, AND what we desperately need is nuclear fusion developed as the ideal energy source. Let's hope the technology is brought on board sooner rather than later.

        1. profile image0
          savvydatingposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          We are in agreement somewhat. Hell has now frozen over.

          1. Credence2 profile image82
            Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

            Hasn't it, indeed.....

        2. Nathanville profile image85
          Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          Research into developing controlled fusion inside fusion reactors has been ongoing since the 1940s, but the technology is still in its development phase.

          In February of this the previous ‘world record’ of producing nuclear fusion power was smashed when enough energy was generated to boil just 60 kettles, which doubles the previous world record back in 1997.  This is great news but sadly it won't help in our battle to lessen the effects of climate change.

          There's huge uncertainty about when fusion power will be ready for commercialisation. One estimate suggests maybe 20 years. Then fusion would need to scale up, which would mean a delay of perhaps another few decades.

          And here's the problem: the need for carbon-free energy is urgent - and the UK government has pledged that all electricity in the UK must be zero emissions by 2035. That means nuclear, renewables and energy storage.

          In other words "Fusion is not a solution to get us to 2050 net zero. This is a solution to power society in the second half of this century."

          As regards solar and biomass, as you correctly stated “solar and biomass in of itself won't begin to approach the actual demand for energy”; but along with other forms of Green and Renewable Energy, including wind, tide and wave power, and hydropower, and new technologies into energy storage e.g. green hydrogen etc., then they do play an important role in the ‘low-carbon green energy mix’.  You only have to look at the progress being made across Europe to appreciate that e.g. in the last 7 days 52.2% of the electricity generated in the UK came from Renewable Energy – see chart below:-

          https://hubstatic.com/16231093.jpg

      3. Miebakagh57 profile image82
        Miebakagh57posted 2 years agoin reply to this

        I agree with widerness. But I'm to add that the laity understanding of climate changes in terms of science is poor or zero like that of Donald Trump!                                   Seriously, science predictions are like an assuption that need a verification. It'll take some decades for a clear cut answer. Critically, how many of us can still recalled Dalton Atomic Theory in our junior chemistry class? At the senior grade that's replaced with the Modern Atomic Theory. There many challenges like this one are in antiquity or history, for example, that the earth is flat and not circular.

        1. profile image0
          savvydatingposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          The predictions of Ecologist, Paul Ehrlich, were the most absurd. But he had the ear of Americans, much like politicians who engage in planet fear mongering today.

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image82
            Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            ... and use it for nefarious purposes.

            https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/nefarious

      4. gmwilliams profile image84
        gmwilliamsposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        +100000000000000.

    2. DrMark1961 profile image99
      DrMark1961posted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Yes, it is probably a real thing. It may even make parts of the earth uninhabitable for humans, although I doubt this, as humans will adapt. It will not affect a lot of other species and anyone that qoutes those fake numbers and dates that Al Gore and his ilk came up with is providing fuel to those that do not believe there are going to be changes.

      I have been a big fan of solar for almost 50 years but even I do not imagine that it is going to be enough. As wilderness points out, fusion would be the answer to a lot of our problems.

      1. Ken Burgess profile image72
        Ken Burgessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        In regards to Solar Energy, what works great is Solar Panels or a Solar Roof put on a home, large enough to meet the demands of daily use, with enough left over going to battery packs, which can supply the needs of the home during the night.

        Most homes of sufficient size can maintain themselves "grid free" with such a system in place, negating the need of outside energy sources.

        Larger systems, meant to sustain communities can also be created, an example of this is what Tesla has done for a community in Australia that could not meet its energy demands (some links):

        https://evannex.com/blogs/news/tesla-so … rgy-crisis

        https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-powerwa … owth-2020/

        Whether a home system, or a neighborhood system, these can supply the energy needs for some 12-25 years. As technology improves, the lifespan and durability of these systems improves as well.

        In regards to Climate Change

        This is a critical element moving forward for the WB, IMF, BIS control of the international monetary system.

        This is how people are going to be tracked, controlled, taxed, etc.

        The steady focus on Climate Change, Carbon Emissions etc. is so that the populace has been groomed to accept Carbon Tax.

        Once we have gone to digital wallets (this is set to occur in America in June/July of the coming year)... they can then begin tracking all we purchase, all we consume, and eventually will assign a Carbon Tax to it:

        https://finance.yahoo.com/news/fednow-p … 14075.html

        https://www.reuters.com/business/financ … 021-06-01/

        https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/ … nts-Report

        This Carbon Tax will become a new Credit Score, akin to China's Social Score.  What you are allowed to do, or not allowed to do, will be determined more and more by your Digital Wallet, Carbon Tax and Social Score.  These names of course may be varied over time.

        https://www.euractiv.com/section/econom … -in-davos/

        For an idea of what this will be like, one only has to look to China and its non-cash identity based system to get a glimpse of how it will work... and how a person can be totally de-personed if they do not conform.

        https://hubpages.com/politics/How-China … our-future

        But all the concerns over Climate Change are so much drama, it is not a real threat to humanity.  Humanity's biggest threat is its pollution.

        Humans are going to die off from plastic poisoning before climate change ever has a chance to claim us.  They don't talk at all about that catastrophe in the making, but the food chains in the oceans are going to fail because of it, the level of plastics in our bloodstreams is a significant cause of disease and death, and not just in humans.

        https://myethicalchoice.com/en/journal/ … an-health/


        https://hubstatic.com/16219351_f1024.jpg

        This is a small River

        https://hubstatic.com/16219358.jpg

        This was taken in an Ocean port

        1. profile image0
          savvydatingposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          Hmmm. I’ll read your articles and comment at a later date.

        2. wilderness profile image77
          wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          I would disagree, quite heavily, that roof top solar cells can not only take the home grid free, but free of other energy sources as well.

          I have twice had solar people look at my home.  Neither one could give me enough roof top cells to take me off the grid, and that was only for daytime.  It's not that my home is sheltered from the sun or too far north (I'm south of the 45th parallel); it's that I'm total electric.  No gas range, no gas hot water, no gas heat and no gas dryer.  No oil, either.
          ALL energy coming into the house is electric, and that even extends to gardening/lawn equipment as well as a plug in hybrid that hasn't had gasoline added since March.

          So I really doubt that "most" homes can, using roof top solar cells and even adding some in a small yard, become energy independent.  Not even with a giant, and expensive, battery bank.  A few, located in just the right areas and without a large family, probably.  Not much else.

          1. DrMark1961 profile image99
            DrMark1961posted 2 years agoin reply to this

            They work here, as they do in many parts of the world. (I know several farmers that want the grid but have never been connected since they are too far from the main line, similar to the US back before the 1930s.)The big difference is we have no heating needs like you do up in your part of the world, we do not run hot water all over the house like those in the US, Canada, and parts of Europe, nor do people here have dryers or many other electric appliances.

            1. wilderness profile image77
              wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              "The big difference is we have no heating needs like you do up in your part of the world, we do not run hot water all over the house like those in the US, Canada, and parts of Europe, nor do people here have dryers or many other electric appliances."

              And there you go.  Between not needing heat and not using hot water or other appliances it would about make the difference.  Do you have a high usage of air conditioning, or is your area pretty temperate most of the time?  Where I am varies from -30 degrees C to 45, which means goodly amounts of both AC and heat.

              1. DrMark1961 profile image99
                DrMark1961posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                I do not know anyone in my area that has AC (I only use it in my truck) but temps here are in the 20s (centigrade) almost year round. So no heating and not much cooling. (Mosquitoes are an issue year round though.)

                I could not imagine life in an area like Arizona or southern Florida without AC. I did not realize that Boise even reached those temperatures.

            2. profile image0
              savvydatingposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              Well, if this administration keeps doing what it is doing, no one here will be able to afford dryers or electric appliances…
              except those who forced the green agenda. They will continue to live like Al Gore & friends.

              1. DrMark1961 profile image99
                DrMark1961posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                The newly elected president here is a Biden follower and also will do his best to make sure that no one is able to afford dryers or electric appliances. After the election he stated that his plan when he takes office in January is to start 13 new ministries, all of which will be people who will live like Al Gore and his friends.

                1. profile image0
                  savvydatingposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  The whole thing is depressing and so unnecessary. Before Covid, the U.S. was humming along beautifully. Furthermore, we were recovering quickly after the worst of the pandemic was over.
                  Biden changed all that. We were energy-independent. Now we're begging Venezuela for its (dirty) oil.

                  Had Biden done nothing, the U.S. would be even wealthier today; we would have been on our way to a full recovery (except in the area of education) which the Democrats own, and he could have taken the credit for all the achievements of the previous administration.

                  Instead, he decided to return to the policies of Obama and put them on steroids. Not good for us. Not good for the world.

                  1. John Sebastian 1962 profile image88
                    John Sebastian 1962posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    "Before Covid, the U.S. was humming along beautifully." I agree. Perhaps more specifically, "Before the ridiculous, dogmatic, left-saturated leadership response to COVID, the U.S. was humming along beautifully."

          2. Ken Burgess profile image72
            Ken Burgessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            When was your evaluation done and what size were they suggesting?

            1. wilderness profile image77
              wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              One around 6-8 years ago, one this year.  Not sure of the size, but they were going to cover half the roof and build a "carport" for my RV for additional roof space.  Still not enough.

              I gave up completely, though, when I found out that the tax credits they are touting are non-refundable.  Only rich people get to use the tax base to install solar - the rest of us have to pay it all ourselves.

        3. profile image0
          savvydatingposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          I read the article about plastic. It struck me as rather alarmist. That being said, I do recycle and do not use plastic straws, primarily because I prefer to drink beverages without them. The pic is alarming, however it looks as though the plastic could be scooped up quite easily if someone would take the time to do it.
          Also, in poor nations, like the one you show here, people do not have proper waste containers or places to dump garbage.
          You do not see rivers like that in the U.S. But, shame on anyone here who just throws crap on the ground or in any mass of water. Here, we do not have any excuse for such careless and irresponsible behavior.

      2. profile image0
        savvydatingposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        Dr. Mark, My feeling is that solar is useful for the type of people who can live off the grid, for the most part. The average American, living in cities, cannot.
        However, I may be wrong.

        Furthermore, solar panels are expensive. The best panels cost about $37,000. They’re only partially useful if one has a new, solid roof, and upgraded appliances. Even then, it can take years to pay them off ( which means families end up paying way more each month).
        And god forbid the panels are installed by some fly by night company that promises free energy from the government. People who get scammed by these companies always end up paying 2 to 3 times as much for their energy bill than they did before.

        That being said, solar panels can be placed on the ground as another option. They may be useful for some, as they have been for you.

        1. DrMark1961 profile image99
          DrMark1961posted 2 years agoin reply to this

          I was thinking mostly of suburbs and rural as ´people living in apartments have to rely on a grid. The systems are terribly expensive, and every so often a new article will coming out that will tell us that in 10 years solar will be affordable. That has been the case for about 50 years now, and I am still waiting for that 10 years to roll along.

          We do not have heating costs where I live but even here it is still too early to try to get away from oil.

        2. Nathanville profile image85
          Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          Wow, is that right, is that how much it costs in the USA to have solar panels installed on a roof in America?

          I had solar panels and wall battery installed in our home a year ago and it only cost me less than $6,000 for the solar panels, and a similar amount for the wall battery.

          Last winter the solar panels and wall battery reduced our demand for electricity from the national grid by 50%, and during the summer we were almost self-sufficient.

          1. profile image0
            savvydatingposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            Yes. Solar panels are very expensive in the U.S.

          2. Ken Burgess profile image72
            Ken Burgessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            Without the tax incentives, in America a Solar system that is sized large enough to offset 90% or more of electricity consumed in a home costs over $30k.

            Adding a battery to that system adds another $10k.

            You are looking at $40k ... with rebates and incentives $30k.

            Sounds like a bad deal, I know, but if you factor in the cost of electricity doubling in the near future, it will save a lot of money long term.

            1. Nathanville profile image85
              Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              Wow, that is shocking. 

              That’s 2.5 times more than I paid (and I didn’t even get any government subsidies because they were scrapped in 2019, due to the falling prices of solar panels in the UK). 

              Yeah, when the solar panel industry was in its infancy in the UK, over 10 years ago, the sort of prices you have to pay now in the USA is comparable to how much it would have costed in the UK then.  But with the industry, infrastructure, supply chains now well established in the UK, and with mass production (economies of scale) the costs in real terms have fallen significantly in the UK over the past 10 years.

              The UK Government (Conservative) introduced government subsidies on solar panels in 2011, at a time when they were expensive (far too expensive for most people to afford).  But over the years the costs have fallen in real terms so that even without subsidies solar panels has become economically viable by 2016; so in 2019 the Government scrapped the subsidies, as solar panels are now affordable to the middle class families.

              Therefore, the price I paid is the full market price for purchase and installation; and I didn’t get any subsidies from the Government, but at that price it's an investment that is going to save me a small fortune on my electricity bill.

              1. Ken Burgess profile image72
                Ken Burgessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                I would like to think that would happen here in America.

                But there will likely be serious opposition to it, trying to delay it, just as there has been significant and ongoing efforts to slow the transition to EVs.

                Power companies have a lot of money.

                Oil companies have a lot of money.

                They fight at the state and federal level to have politicians slow or stop the transition to Solar Energy and EVs.

                They work to have new laws and regulations passed to make it illegal for people to install solar.

                Power Companies tried to have a Bill passed here in Florida that would have made it illegal to have a solar system on your property without the local Power Company's approval giving them control over the energy produced. 

                While campaigning to have this new law voted into reality during the election, they ran ads on radio, tv, and the internet saying it was PRO solar and would support the industry.

                It took great effort by true Solar enthusiasts and the small Solar Industry businesses in the State to get out their own ads and opinion pieces in local papers to inform people of the Bill's true intentions.

                It was almost passed, the people in Florida dodged a bullet, and with today's technology, systems such as Enphase Ensemble, you can power your home while disconnected from the grid, you control where the power goes (Battery or back to the Grid for credit), things that would not be possible if that law had passed.

                So while I would love to wait a couple of years and get it at a cheaper price to myself, I don't think we will see that collapse in prices this decade.  Maybe by 2030... not worth risking the wait to see, costs just as easily could go up,

                1. Nathanville profile image85
                  Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  Thanks for the feedback.  Your detailed explanation does mark a number of stark differences between our two nations:-

                  Yeah, the British oil and gas companies also have a lot of money, especially with the huge profits they are currently making because of the extortionately high price of natural gas due to the world shortage caused by the Ukrainian war.

                  That’s why the UK Government introduced a 25% windfall tax on them this summer, and increased it to 35% in yesterday’s annual budget.

                  Yea, British Power companies have a lot of money, because of the high price of electricity due to the shortage of natural gas e.g. the companies capitalising in the energy crisis. 

                  Thus, in yesterday’s Annual Budget the UK Government slapped a 45% windfall tax on the Power companies, to claw back some of that money to compensate the Utility Companies and Consumers who are suffering from the high prices.

                  As you may or may not know, a windfall tax is a once off, short term tax that’s over and above the normal taxes that companies pay; and it’s only used in exceptional circumstances e.g. when an industry is making insanely high profits from a national crisis.

                  However, although the Power and Oil/Gas companies have a lot of money in the UK they don’t have the ‘power’ or political clout that they do in the USA.

                  In the UK the Power companies are at the ‘beg and call’ of the National Grid.  The British Energy Supply System is a complex system devised and set up by Margaret Thatcher (Conservative Prime Minister) in the late 1980s. 

                  Prior to the 1980s power supply to the home was a nationalised industry e.g. State owned (Government) and State run; which in politics is Socialism not Capitalism.  So as part of privatising everything in the 1980s the Conservative Government Privatised the Energy Sector.

                  The system Margaret Thatcher set up in the 1980s was:-

                  •    The National Grid (private company) at the heart of the system

                  •    The Power companies who generate the electricity (all private companies).

                  •    The Utility companies (all private companies) who compete with each other to sell the electricity that they get via the National Grid to the householders.

                  The Utility companies buy the electricity they need via the National Grid, and in turn the National Grid buy the required electricity from the power companies as and when required e.g. buying the cheapest electricity available first (wind power), and only resulting to requesting coal-fired power stations to be fired-up (the most expensive) as a last resort; hence less than 1% of our electricity in the UK comes from coal, and the last remaining coal-fired power station is due to close in 2024.

                  In the UK, unlike the USA, the British Oil and Gas Companies know that their days as fossil fuel companies are numbered, because of the British Government’s commitment to Renewable Energy and achieving net zero carbon emissions by 2050.  Therefore, rather than fighting the Government the British Oil and Gas Companies are jumping on the ‘green’ bandwagon by diversifying into Renewable Energies e.g. by investing some of their profits into green projects.

                  For example SHELL Oil is installing electric charging points at all the petrol stations (gas stations) across the UK, and BP oil are investing in converting lampposts (streetlights) into EV charging points.  And SHELL Oil also investing in wind power e.g. by buying and paying for the installation of their own wind turbines.

                  As regards domestic solar panels, yes it’s great having control over where the power goes; on my system, not only can I dictate whether the surplus power from the roof goes to battery or to the Grid for credit, but I can also dictate if/when I buy power from the grid to recharge the battery e.g. in the UK electricity is plentiful and cheap in early hours of the morning (when there’s little demand) so that’s a good time to recharge wall batteries and EVs. 

                  Shell Oil subsidiary company (Limejump) trading 100% Renewable Energy with the National Grid:  https://youtu.be/Gd1Ub34T_gM

                2. peterstreep profile image82
                  peterstreepposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  In Spain, it was for a long time the same story. It was more expensive to have solar on your house, because of all the taxation, than to have ordinary electricity. And in some provinces simply forbidden.
                  This was all done through the influence of REPSOL, the Spanish oil company, on the government.

                  Today you can, but it is not promoted or made easy to generate solar energy in the city. (When you live in the countryside like me, and you have no other way to generate electricity, you were always allowed to have your own solar panels and batteries)

                  What's made easy is for big companies to make solar farms everywhere. They have given them more or less free reign. (and Europe is even on the brink of passing laws that make birds and nature more or less irrelevant in the discussion about where to place these farms)
                  So you have the same story over again. The energy market is given away to companies that will dominate the electricity prices.
                  The chance to control these prices by the government, which could be in handy during times of crisis is swindled. (In the Netherlands they regret, because of the Russian oil gas crisis, that they have privatized the electricity market. Now the government has to talk with 20+ companies to come to a price agreement...)
                  And of course, giving people the independency of electricity with their own solar on the roof should be avoided at all costs...

                  Hopefully, we will get a system like in Germany or the Netherlands where you can generate your own electricity through solar and if you generate more than you use you sell it to the grid, and if you need some you buy it from the grid. So you only need the panels and no batteries.
                  But I'm afraid this is a long way away...

                  But solar will never solve the energy problem and the climate crisis. As we still need diesel for trucks, ships, heavy machinery etc. And fuel for planes...Would be great to see planes on solar.....

                  In short, to make this place a better world I think we should buy products that need less energy to make and transport.
                  So, I think, one of the best things you can do is to buy local products. Food produced in your own province, products that are made in your own country.
                  And I think this should be promoted by law as well (shipment and import costs..The further away the higher the tax.)

                  1. Nathanville profile image85
                    Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    You raise some interesting point:

                    Like the Netherlands, in the late 1980s the UK Conservative Government privatised the electricity market; but interestingly the current Conservative Government is in the process of re-nationalising the National Grid e.g. it will be re-nationalised in 2024.

                    As regards “trucks, ships, planes and heavy machinery etc.” including public transport (buses/coaches and trains, and taxis) and private vehicles (cars); the UK Government is tackling all these to make them ‘greener’ as part of the UK’s Governments legal commitment to meet CO2 ‘net zero’ emission by 2050:-

                    All new fossil fuel vehicles, trucks, coaches, buses cars and taxis etc., will be banned in the UK from 2030 (in 8 years).

                    In 2009 the Labour (Socialist) Government launched a large scale electrification of the railways, which when the Conservatives came to power the following year they continued to support; so far just under 50% of the rail network in the UK has been electrified.

                    However, in 2020 the UK ran its first ‘prototype’ green hydrogen train, and since then, although electrification of the railways is continuing (at a much slower pace) the UK Government is now committed to focusing on developing ‘green hydrogen’ trains as it’s a cheaper and potentially quicker option.  To the best of my knowledge, the UK is just one of three countries developing ‘green hydrogen’ trains e.g. China, Germany and the UK.

                    The UK's first Green Hydrogen train: https://youtu.be/geATz4pdCSg

                    In this respect the Government policy is to remove all diesel trains from our network by 2040.

                    In addition to all new fossil fuel road vehicle being banned in the UK by 2030, as a move away from using fossil fuel vehicles in the UK:-

                    •    All London black taxis are now 100% electric.

                    •    All buses in Bristol are now run on clean renewable energy made from domestic food waste and sewage.

                    Bristol busses using domestic food waste and sewage for power: https://youtu.be/QV4VEprPfos

                    •    Several cities across Britain have now converted all their buses to use ‘green hydrogen’, especially in Scotland where ‘green hydrogen’ technologies are being developed.

                    •    And in Scotland, between Scottish islands, the world’s first ferry service using ‘green hydrogen’ is now operational.

                    World's first hydrogen-powered seagoing ferries: https://youtu.be/jsbObSYqVao

                    •    And increasingly ‘heavy machinery’ in the UK is converting to electric power, including several ‘steel works’.

                    The only area in the UK that is struggling to transition away from fossil fuels is the aviation industry, although R&D (Research & Development) into electric planes is taking place, the research is in its infancy; hence currently the UK aviation industry is turning to offset their CO2 emissions by paying for trees to be planted; planting trees equivalent to the percentage amount the industry is required to offset their CO2 emissions, as set by the UK Government e.g. currently they only need to offset a small percentage of their emissions, but each year that gradually increases, until 2050 when the Government will set the offset to be 100%.

                  2. Ken Burgess profile image72
                    Ken Burgessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    An update on my efforts to purchase a Solar System for my home.

                    The cost is roughly 30k, financed over many years it will amount to $198 a month and cover about 85% of what I consume.

                    Interestingly enough, I had to downsize the system I was going to have installed that would have created 104% of the electricity I consume.

                    There are laws, regulations, which categorize an electrical system that creates more than 11.75 KW into a different class.

                    Creating a system like I am having put into my home, which allows for the solar system to continue to power the home even when the grid is down, and allows the ability to bypass the grid should I choose, is frowned upon.

                    The power companies do not want us to be able to produce 100% or more of our electricity needs and be capable of bypassing the grid, even during a power outage or emergency situation.

                    They want us to be tied to the grid, for our excess power to go back to them, for pennies on the dollar, rather than to a battery back-up system.

                    In order to avoid certain regulations that require additional permits and inspections, as well as additional coverage that would add hundreds of dollars to my home insurance bill, yearly, I choose to install a smaller system that I can upgrade at a later date.

                    Sadly, as the power companies in America become more threatened by homes creating their own power and not needing to be reliant on the grid, there is likely going to be a massive effort to ensure that solar systems be required to be part of the grid and be controlled by the power companies, either that, or like the state of California has proposed, excessively tax those who own such solar systems to make it prohibitively expensive.

      3. Nathanville profile image85
        Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        DrMark, where you say "The Dutch guy living in Spain was commenting about this the other day. They are clearing forest in Spain to put in solar collection areas. Spain is in Europe." I'd be interested in seeing the article you refer to, and if it's from reliable source then I apologise.  Certainly, I should have perhaps said in countries like the UK, where our forests are now protected, and where we are planting trees to increase the size of our woodlands and forests.

        1. DrMark1961 profile image99
          DrMark1961posted 2 years agoin reply to this

          Peter describes what they are going through on the next page.

    3. abwilliams profile image75
      abwilliamsposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Hi Savvy, I have been flippant when it comes to this subject in the past, no doubt. I get so provoked by the way children have been used to spread the message/spread the word! It angers me that, for decades now, many children, in many locations, have grown up in fear of the earth heating or cooling or sinking out from under them.
      Due to so much bogus information circulating, which was brought into the classroom to make damn sure that the climate alarmists got through to them early on!
      I am not going to change my tune, for the sake of this discussion, I am obviously in the minority here.
      While the climate change alarmist focus on what could happen one hundred years from now, I am more concerned about the here and now and about the many minds which have  been messed with.

      I am of the mindset that, as we've always done, we continue to look for new alternatives, all while utilizing the God-given natural resources we already have at our disposal! Why must we be all in on solar panels or all in on windmills, etc....Why must the baby get thrown out with the bathwater?

      Al Gore is a greedy, smug, opportunist, who saw an opportunity to get rich and has! He has been making doomsday predictions, again, for decades, while jet setting the world...his predictions never come true and then he gets to say....because we were aware and prevented it, blah, blah, blah.
      B.S.!!!

      1. Ken Burgess profile image72
        Ken Burgessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        That was the purpose, to groom younger generations to believe this so that they will accept (even fight for) a Carbon Tax system.

        1. abwilliams profile image75
          abwilliamsposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          100%

      2. profile image0
        savvydatingposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        AB, I agree that it is not only useless, but morally wrong to “throw the baby out with the bath water.”
        We have plenty of time to find a green energy source that is cheaper than fossil fuels. China, India and Africa will never switch until that happens.

        We are not all going to die in 10 years if we don’t, but there will be thousands of deaths, most from cold deaths and lack of food if we force this current green energy agenda down the throats of Americans.
        If our GDP suffers, the rest of the world suffers, especially the poorer nations who rely on our wealth to supplement their food and water supply, not to mention their energy supply.

      3. peterstreep profile image82
        peterstreepposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        " all while utilizing the God-given natural resources we already have at our disposal!"
        So the earth and its resources are given to you/us?

        I think it's a huge philosophical mistake to think that humans are set apart from this world. There are no two parties. Humankind and the rest of the world... A ruling party, humans, and a subservient party (the world and its resources).
        You see us as owners of the world and having the right to do with this planet whatever we want. As God has given us this planet.

        But that's not so. We, humans, are part of the ecosystem. Everything we do has consequences. If you cut down a tree it has consequences.
        You can not simply take the resources of the world without consequences.
        But we did for years on end, and now we are starting to see, as little children, the consequences of our deeds.
        The planet is warming up. Haven't you noticed that every year more temperature records are being broken? Ask a farmer about his experiences in the field. He knows the consequences of changing seasons.
        There is more extreme weather, bird populations are going down because of the scarcity of habitat. (The tree you cut down).
        We are not talking about 100 years, we are talking about 20-30 years.
        You think it's scaremongering. No it's not. Do you think scientists are wrong? We are a long way past the question of if Climate Change is real. Scientists from all over the world, from all kinds of different backgrounds, come to the same conclusion. The Climate Crisis we are in is deadly serious. It's only the politicians and oil companies who don't want to take action as they are trained into thinking in economics and votes.
        If you ask : Is climate change a real threat for the world?
        Who do you believe AB Williams, scientists or politicians?

        1. abwilliams profile image75
          abwilliamsposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          I get it Peter, it's your religion, I'll not convince you with anything that I might add and you really aren't interested in the least!

          I will say this, doomsday predictions come and go and the wallets of both politicians and scientists get fatter.

          1. peterstreep profile image82
            peterstreepposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            Science is not a religion. You don't believe 1+1=2. It is a fact. And a fact the world is build on.
            A scientific  prediction is not a fashion or a believe. When science predicts something it is based upon measurement.
            When you drop a ball from a tower, you can predict when the ball will hit the ground and be absolutely spot on.
            You confuse scientific predictions with a Biblical prediction based upon faith. Predicting that the end is near because you personally believe God has forsaken you is not a valid prediction. And indeed those predictions come and go.

          2. Miebakagh57 profile image82
            Miebakagh57posted 2 years agoin reply to this

            Your answer proves you're a smart alec.  Congratulations!

        2. Nathanville profile image85
          Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          Yep, you’re spot on when you say “Ask a farmer about his experiences in the field.”

          I’m not a farmer but I do grow my own veg and fruits in our back garden, so that we are almost self-sufficient in vegetables all year round; and I have noticed a big difference in the growing seasons over the past 20 years.

          Prior to 2000 the growing season where I live didn’t start until mid-April, and ended by mid-September; whereas now the growing season starts mid-March and continues until mid-November – Hotter summers and milder winters.   It’s not all good news though; the change in climate confuses the trees and plants, and they’re either budding too soon (before the pollinating insects are out in force) or flowering too soon (going to seed) if I plant them at the usual time of year.  Our fuchsia (which we’ve had in our back garden for decades) is now in flower over 10 months of the year, whereas it used to only flower from Spring to Autumn (about 6 months of the year).

          There’s also been a dramatic decline in insect species in southern England; over the past 20 years flying insects have declined by 60% due to the warmer climate in Britain.

          Latest studies (in 2020) have shown that of the 2430 insect species in Britain (native to the UK, and many beneficial e.g. helps with pollination) 55 have already gone extinct due to a warming climate, and a further 286 (11%) have become endangered.  While in contrast there is a sharp rise in pest insects, normally native to France (warmer climate) as they migrate to Britain, which with its warming climate is more conducive to them; with the consequent that are having a negative impact of crop yields in British Agriculture. 

          Likewise, of the 725 aquatic insect species in Britain, 68 (9%) are now endangered, and 11 have already gone extinct.  And on the flip side, there are 30 native mosquitos that pose no threat, but since 2016 a number of invasive mosquitoes (that carry deadly diseases) which requires warmer climates to survive have been found in Kent, England (in small numbers); Kent being one of the warmest parts of England – but so far they haven’t established a foothold in Kent.

          Also, hundreds of fish and shellfish species native to Britain are now migrating northwards due to warming seas, adversely affecting the British fishing industry, and more exotic marine life never seen in British waters before (because our seas were to cold) e.g. 62 sightings of the Gigantic ‘killer’ jellyfish were seen on UK beaches this year, a species not seen in Britain before because in the past our seas were too cold.

          1. Miebakagh57 profile image82
            Miebakagh57posted 2 years agoin reply to this

            On my part of the world, one of my favourite fruits is the mango. I hadn't seen any mango tree yeild the sweet succulent fruits for the past 6 years in my state. Though the trees will yield flowers every month.                                     But we get mangos from North and East of thd country.                                     The only explanation for this is climate change or global warming. For example, fresh corn is suppose to go out of season along with mango May/June. But the corn is still being planted and harvested in November.

          2. peterstreep profile image82
            peterstreepposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            Yes, we eat our own vegies too. And eat depending on the season.  I just started a mushroom plot (stropharia), so hopefully in a couple of weeks we will have some mushrooms too.
            We do live on solar power, and it's a good feeling to be independent and self sufficient.
            The strange thing is that we are now fighting against a huge plan to make a solar park very close to us.
            It's complete madness. hundreds of thousands of almond and olive trees will be cut down to make way for solar panels. The company Renovalia is Italian, backed up by a Israely hedge fund. So the money generated by the energy won't go to Spain at all.
            Farmers are individually approached to rent out their land, not knowing the scale of the solar parks (3.000 hectares - about 4.500 soccerfields!).
            I've nothing against solar energy but why not on the roofs of factories or the roofs of houses. Why destroy good farmland and the fauna and flora that comes with it. abusing the land and the farmers who rent out get nothing out of it as they have to declare the rent as income (so it's taxed) and the land will be seen as industrial land and not agricultural so the tax will go up too.
            The only party who gain by this enormous project is Renovalia. It's a classic example of disaster capitalism. Misusing the renewable energy sources and subsidies for speculation.
            We're handing over allegations this week against the project.
            It's so sad, as we are all for solar power and it's a good development, but to see this energy sector being  just like the fossil fuel sector destroying the earth and it's eco system makes you sad.

            ---

            Yes I read that there was a decline of insects in Germany as well. And so a decline in the animals that eat insects like birds.
            Sometimes people think it's only the polar bear on the ice rock that is effected by the climate crisis. But it is so much more.
            It's painful to see how the Great Barrier Riff near Australia is dying. And there are so many small not so famous disasters happening connected to climate change.
            I read in the Guardian last year that more people died from air pollution than from COVID the last two years...But (with all respect to the COVID victims) you hardly hear about this. There is no daily list that counts the dead worldwide due to air pollution in the newspaper!!!

            1. DrMark1961 profile image99
              DrMark1961posted 2 years agoin reply to this

              Do you have a link to any local newspapers or other sources that discuss that solar park that is going to open in your area? Cutting down trees to make way for solar is sad and does not make any sense.

              1. peterstreep profile image82
                peterstreepposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                Yes, thank you Mark. We have email addresses from newspapers who already publicised a story about it. Which got an mediate response from the company Renovalia who did a paid add showing grassing sheep underneath the solar panels..., They even handed out free newspapers in the village when this add came out. To keep up the image that it is all green...
                So yes, they feel that it won't be an easy win.
                We are also in contact with local governments from the three villages affected. Some play innocent not knowing what is going on, há!
                It's a nasty business. As the plans are publicised but without telling anybody that they are publicized. And than you've got 30 working days from the first day of publication, to make aligations.
                Luckily a friend of ours is in the local governance and leaked the plans. Otherwise nobody would have known and we would have had the bulldozers  in our back gardens without notice.
                Some people will have fields full of solar panels' all around their house. And those fields will be fenced... It would be like living in a prison..
                The solar parks are divided in very small ones, to avoid scrutiny from the national government as they will be seen as small projects. But it's all the same company... It stinks on all sides...
                The company has also been active in Mexico and Chile, I read comparable stories from people over there on twitter...
                Sorry to bother you with this personal story, but as the threat was about climate change and this business is happening right now I thought it was something to add.

                1. Nathanville profile image85
                  Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  “Straight from the Horse’s Mouth”, far more reliable than just ‘hear say’; thanks for your personal account, which is most enlightening.  What is happening in your area is deplorable.

                  It would seem that ‘Planning Regulations’ are far more relaxed in Spain than in the UK.

                  In comparison, in the UK anyone applying for planning permission must, by law:-

                  •    Put up a site notice, and
                  •    Advertise in a local newspaper that circulates in the area.

                  If they don’t then they would invalidate their application, and would have to start the whole process all over again from scratch.

                  In the UK people are given 5 weeks to submit their objections and the whole planning process can typically take 5 months, with Appeals taking a further 5 months; and large controversial developments will always require a ‘Public Inquiry’ which can drag on for years.

                  Another major difference between Spain and Britain is that in Britain the main factors that will decide the outcome of a major Public Inquiry isn’t just the strength and validity of ‘Objections’ (relevant to Planning Regulations) but also Environmental issues.

                  For example, in Britain forests, designated AONBs (Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty), SSSI (Sites of Special Scientific Interest), Conservation Areas, Green Belt, National Parks, Wetland sites are all protected from development including development of windfarms and solar farms.

                  * One of the SSSI's (Sites of Special Scientific Interest) (protected land) in England:  https://youtu.be/uSUpnw4zgxs

                  So, in Britain, a company wishing to build a solar farm (or windfarm on land) are restricted to finding land that is NOT protected under law e.g. areas where development will have little or no negative environmental and wildlife impact.

                  Another example of where Regulations are tight in the UK is Australian’s Energy Company’s failed attempt to commercially frack in England:

                  •    In 2007 an Australian Energy Company (AJ Lucas) created a UK subsidiary Company called Cuadrilla which is 93% owned by the Australian Company, and 7% owned by the British employees of the local Company.

                  •    From 2011 Cradrilla performed a series of ‘test’ wells which established that there is far more oil and gas deep underground in England than there ever was in the North Sea of the coast of Scotland.

                  •    On the 15th October 2018 Cradrilla finally started to frack commercially in England, following years of delays due to strong local ‘objections’ (Public Enquires and Appeals in the Courts etc.)

                  •    However the UK Government (Conservative Government) banned fracking on the 2nd November 2019 because of the earthquakes that the fracking caused.  The Scottish Government (Socialist Government) banned fracking in Scotland in 2015.

                  •    On the 22nd September 2022 (two weeks after Liz Truss became Prime Minster she lifted the ban to allow fracking) – On the grounds of the current chronic shortage of natural gas in the Western World due to the was in Ukraine.

                  •    On the 26th October 2022 (a day after Rishi Sunak became Prime Minister) he re-imposed the fracking ban in England and Wales.  So that the oil and gas reserves that sit under England stay underground (untapped).

                  Yeah, the world desperately needs more Renewable Energy; but there is a right way and a wrong way to achieve it – and what’s happing where you live is most defiantly the ‘wrong way’.  There’s more than enough trees being lost in Brazil (deforestation), we don’t need to add to the problem. 

                  The UK currently has about 3 billion trees (1.42 million hectares), 13.2% of the UK’s land surface, comprising of 32 species of trees in our woodland and forests (of which 29 species are broadleaves). 

                  As part of the UK Government’s reforestation campaign to help combat global warming around 680,000 trees are planned to be planted in the UK over the 12 months.  It does fall short of the Government’s target, but it’s a step in the right direction.

                  I hope your fight against Renovalia is successful; I’d like to hear what the outcome is in due course.

                  1. Miebakagh57 profile image82
                    Miebakagh57posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    Very interesting indeed.

                  2. peterstreep profile image82
                    peterstreepposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    Hi Nathan, thanks for the response.
                    For planning permissions, you have to make it public in Spain as well. But it is not said that you have to make it public that you have made it public...
                    The plans are online. But only if you actively go looking for it. And if you don't know that anything is going on you won't go looking for it.
                    And there are notices about the project on the noticeboard in the town hall. But who reads those? When are you ever going to the town hall......
                    So the exposure is at a bare minimum. Something we definitely confront the local governments with.
                    For sure such tactics are used in other countries.
                    The law is one thing, the reality another...
                    Anyway. I will let you know how things develop and if we have any success.

                    The best thing against global warming is indeed to plant a tree.
                    That's a great campaign. I hope it will have a follow-up and become a yearly project. 680.000 trees a year would be good start.

                    We have such projects here as well, we plant trees together with the kids from school.

    4. CHRIS57 profile image61
      CHRIS57posted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Climate change is certainly a threat to the way of living, to the status quo of the western, developed world. Of course humans can adapt to almost everything so their existance as a species is not threatened.

      The narrative seems to be that climate change is initiated or contributed to by CO2 greenhouse gas emissions. And these emissions come mainly from burning fossile fuels to produce energy.

      Where is the initiative to save energy? Not by reducing industry and living but by getting more efficient.
      In this aspect the USA has a lot of potential. Why is it that per capita use of primary energy in the USA is twice as high as in the EU, UK or Japan or Korea? Even adjustment to PPP doesn´t change much in the overall energy inefficiency of the USA.

      Shouldn´t politics be measured on how this issue is tackled?

      1. profile image0
        savvydatingposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        The USA is quite vast compared to other countries. Many of us travel for a living. We need fuel to travel. Furthermore, because we are so large, we rely on large trucks to travel large distances to provide us with the food and goods we need to live.
        Some of us live in states where winters are long. Thus, we need energy to heat our homes. Did you know that people are more likely to die from cold deaths than heat deaths?
        In the UK, people experience about 33 cold deaths for every heat death. Long story short, the U.S. is not as contained as the small countries you mentioned.

        Nevertheless, we have the cleanest energy of any nation.

        In the past 10 years, the U.S. has achieved the greatest reduction in carbon dioxide than any other nation.
        We will continue to innovate, but forcing us to go to zero emissions in 10 years is folly. It will destroy our GDP, which in turn will have dire & deathly consequences, especially for the poor and middle classes.

        1. CHRIS57 profile image61
          CHRIS57posted 2 years agoin reply to this

          ...The USA is quite vast compared to other countries.

          So what, primary energy useage for transportation is some 28% in the USA while some 30% in Europe.
          Apparently the "vast plains" in the USA are not responsible for energy negligence and inefficiency. It covers all sectors of the economy, industry, households..

          CO2 output per capita is also almost double in the USA compared to peer developed economies, except Canada, which is a twin to the USA in energy hunger.

          Always be careful with absolute numbers, there are no peer developed countries on our planet that match the population and economic size of the USA.
          ...in the past 10 years, the U.S. has achieved the greatest reduction in carbon dioxide than any other nation...
          In relative terms this is just a joke.

          If you think you can keep to the current status, do so, just fine with me. The next decade will show if that was a wise decision, not necessarily because of global warming, but because of economic harm this will do to the US economy.

          On the other hand i am confident that American ingenuity and entrepreneurism will eventually follow suit.

          1. profile image0
            savvydatingposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            Much to unpack here, which I will do later. (I have little time to address much this weekend.)

            Nevertheless, I appreciate all the input and interesting information from all the participants in this forum, even if I disagree here and there.
            Until another time, then.

          2. profile image0
            savvydatingposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            Before I can address “economic harm” I must ask what you mean by current status?

        2. Nathanville profile image85
          Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          The USA “have the cleanest energy of any nation”; I don’t think so.  If you look at the CO2 emission per capita you will find that the USA is one of the biggest offenders, ranked 16th in the world, compared for example to China, ranked at 42 or the UK ranked at 59th.

          CO2 Emissions per capita (tons):-

          •    USA = 15.52
          •    China = 7.38
          •    UK = 5.55

          Per Capita, the USA twice as polluting than China and three times more polluting than the UK.  The world average is 4.79 tons of CO2 per year per person.

          https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emiss … er-capita/

          1. Miebakagh57 profile image82
            Miebakagh57posted 2 years agoin reply to this

            The Industrial Revolution started in Great Britain around 1750. But the silent thing many has overlooked is mass production of goods in factories reach its zenith in the USA.                                             While Great Britain had the 'steam engine', America explorer the crude oil in the form of petrol, a more higher grade of hydrocarbon than steam-driven by coal. It took years before other countries began to copy petroleum technology.                                      Petrol technology was American's secret for decades. And this account for her higher CO2 emissions into the atmospher. Long story short.

            1. Nathanville profile image85
              Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              Actually, coal is far more polluting than oil, but the CO2 emissions I quoted above are not historic, they are current levels of CO2 emissions.

              1. Miebakagh57 profile image82
                Miebakagh57posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                Agreed. Thank you.

        3. Nathanville profile image85
          Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          You are technically right; more people in the UK do die from the cold in the winter months than from the heat in the summer. 

          But on average over the past 20 years it’s not “33 cold deaths for every heat death”, it’s been about 10 time more cold deaths than heat deaths e.g. over the past 20 years the average cold deaths has been around 8,500 per year, while heat deaths averaged at 800 per year.

          However, this year, with the hottest heatwave in the UK on record, when temperatures exceeded 40c (105f) there were 3,271 recorded heat deaths in the UK (far in excess to average), making cold deaths over the past year just 2.6 times higher than heat deaths.

          So with global warming, deaths from the heat are becoming a far more serious issue in the UK.

      2. wilderness profile image77
        wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        "Why is it that per capita use of primary energy in the USA is twice as high as in the EU, UK or Japan or Korea?"

        There are many reasons, but the primary one may be wound up in that "primary energy" thing.  Just what is "primary energy" and how does it compare with (I assume) "secondary energy" sources?  Is the EU, or Japan/Korea, using a lot more gas that the US (per capita)?  Are they using more coal in the homes?  Or even wood, for heat/cooking?

        1. CHRIS57 profile image61
          CHRIS57posted 2 years agoin reply to this

          I think there are enough links on internet to find an explanation of what primary energy is. And definition applys to all countries on our little planet.

          If you have a badly insulated home you need more heating than a well insulated house would need. That is for winter time. Assuming you have an air condition in your house then in the summer you will need electricity to do the cooling. And again - badly insulated means more electricity.

          Comparing my experience from a double wide in winter in Michigan with my well insulated house in Northern Germany gives me enough personal data to verify and prove the statistics.

          Primary energy can only be counted if it is sold and payed for. So coal firing is also always a source for primary energy, unless you have a little coal mine in your back yard.

          When it comes to secondary energy = electricity then any thermal process (fossile or nuclear) requires some 200% of primary energy to produce 100% of electricity. The combustion engine in your car (if you have one) is doing much worse (only 20-30%), that is why you need a cooling water cycle to get rid of excess 70% primary heating energy in gasoline.

          Renewable energy on the other hand comes always with high efficiency. For example hydropower plants (like Hoover Dam) transform 80-90% of potential energy stored in the water level differential into electricity. This is why economies with high amount of renewables and with careful use of thermal energy (good insulation) use much less primary energy than those countries with a more negligent approach to this issue.

          1. profile image0
            savvydatingposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            Renewable energy does not come with high efficiency. The opposite is true. In the U.S. we have gotten away from renewable energy because fossil fuels are superior, more efficient and affordable.
            To go backward in time makes no sense. We can find other ways to tackle global warming, which frankly, can wait. We have time, as in centuries.

            Frankly, we need to turn the oil spigots back on while we do more R&D. There is no point in allowing this country to lose its wealth by turning off our vast oil supply. That is madness and serves no one.

            But I do agree that the U.S. has the capacity to come up with solutions, some of which have yet to be fully researched, such as creating algae on oceans to create an unlimited, safe fuel source, (possibly) and, of course, exploring nuclear energy.

            1. CHRIS57 profile image61
              CHRIS57posted 2 years agoin reply to this

              ...Renewable energy does not come with high efficiency. The opposite is true. ...

              I don´t know what you are talking about. Probably you mix efficiency with pricing. But even concerning cost renewables are competitive. My direct experience with running and selling electricity from midsize Solar systems gets me a decent break even of some 8 ct./kWh. This is the equivalent of 48 USD/barrel crude oil, if used to generate electricity.

              Current market price would have to be cut to 50% to reach this level. Average price of crude oil was well above 50 USD for the past 5 years, and that includes Corona downturn in 2020. So what are you talking about?

              I don´t know what break even price for shale or fracking oil is, but it better be below said 48 bucks per barrel to be competitive. Let me know.

              For wind turbines the break even is even lower at some 5 ct./kWh or 30 USD/barrel.

              It will become increasingly difficult in the future to win the bet on fossile fuels. Just saying..

              1. wilderness profile image77
                wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                "My direct experience with running and selling electricity from midsize Solar systems gets me a decent break even of some 8 ct./kWh."

                Is that before or after government subsidies?  Does it cost 8 ct/kWh to build and operate a solar system for, say, 10 years?  Paying taxes and all other fees just as every other energy producer does?

                Or is there massive govt. intervention to reach that 8ct in order to be competitive?  I know that's how it works in the US; without govt. rules, laws and subsidies solar would never go anywhere because it is just too expensive.

                1. CHRIS57 profile image61
                  CHRIS57posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  ..Is that before or after government subsidies?...

                  It is without subsidies and tax breaks.

                  The business case is quite simple: Investment per kWp installed power is some 800 USD. Harvest ist 1000 hours/year. This gets us 1000h x 0,08 ct/kWh = 80 USD/year. Leaves you with 10% earnings/year, not brilliant but decent, as i stated.

                  Though i have to add that in G. we have high tax deductions before even investing. So you can choose either to bring your hard earning money to the tax office or use it as equity in a solar investment. My personal favourite is 20% from tax breaks, 20% fresh money, 60% loan. Gives you initial payback on fresh money of 10% x 100% / 20% = 50% in the first year. Then you start the net present value game and the payback percentage goes down a little.

              2. profile image0
                savvydatingposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                I'll leave most of your comment to our mathematicians, but is not a 42-gallon barrel of oil the equivalent of what is needed to boil a cup of water?

                As for rebates, the government says we have them, but when it comes time to pay, the average consumer never seems to get them,

                Solar energy is expensive. Fossil fuels are not expensive. But, we do need to commit ourselves to research and development for other sources of fuel that are efficient and that work in winter, summer, and year-round for that matter.

                1. CHRIS57 profile image61
                  CHRIS57posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  I suggest you work yourself through these dry papers on discounted cost for energy.

                  https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/r … ergy-lcoe/

                  A good overview is page 7 of this pdf: https://www.lazard.com/media/450784/laz … vfinal.pdf

                  Renewables, wind, solar are much cheaper than fossiles. That is why the yearly add or replacement of electricity generation in the US is some 80% renewable. This whole renewable debate is not political, it is pure financial.

                  1. profile image0
                    savvydatingposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    These graphs are not useful for anyone who cannot afford solar. The initial cost of solar is not something the poor and lower-income people can afford. Subsidies are a tax on all people. Higher taxes hurt the poor throughout the world and even middle America. I realize Europeans are fine with paying high taxes for "free" stuff, but that does not translate into financial gain, despite what your graphs from the public company, Lazard, have attempted to indicate.
                    Progressives are making the sun and solar their god. This is not wise.
                    However, as I said in the beginning, there are some people in some regions for whom solar may be partially useful.

            2. Nathanville profile image85
              Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              ...”Renewable energy does not come with high efficiency” - The opposite is true. ...

              In the UK Renewable Energy became cheaper than fossil fuels in 2016, and over the past week 53.1% of the UK’s electricity has been generated from Renewables, compared to just 29.5% from fossil fuels – As shown in the image below taken from the UK’s National Grid Live website:-

              https://hubstatic.com/16230019.jpg

        2. Nathanville profile image85
          Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          Wilderness - Yep, absolutely, I fully agree with what you say about the vast majority of European members of NATO not paying their fair share. 

          Of the 30 NATO members, only 9 actually pay the required minimum 2%.

          Although they could afford it, none of the wealthy NATO members in Europe, except the UK, pay the minimum 2%, which is despicable and disgraceful, and inexcusable.

          Whereas 7 of the poorer European nations in NATO, who can ‘least afford’ to pay, actually pay more than the 2% minimum.

          Greece is one of the poorest countries in Europe, yet it pays a higher percentage of its GDP than any other NATO member, including the USA.

          The UK (the 6th wealthiest country in the world), apart from the USA, is the only wealthy NATO member who pays more than the 2% minimum; the UK currently pays 2.12% of its GDP, but because of the war in Ukraine the UK intends to increase that to 3%.  In fact, in money terms the USA is the only NATO member who pays more in defence than the UK.

          The 9 of the 30 NATO members who pay the minimum 2% or more of their GDP on Defence are:-

          •    Greece = 3.76%
          •    USA = 3.47%
          •    Poland = 2.42%
          •    Lithuania = 2.36%
          •    Estonia = 2.34%
          •    UK = 2.12%
          •    Latvia = 2.10%
          •    Croatia = 2.03%
          •    Slovak Republic = 2%

    5. Sharlee01 profile image84
      Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

      I don't as a rule get into discussions in regard to climate change. Due to my background in science ( which is limited) I have done enough research to know climate change is occurring, and it has progressed over the past couple of decades.  The majority of scientists agree we are seeing changes at a faster pace. 

      It is clear we need to make changes to try to slow the changes down, and scientists also agree this will be very hard. Naturally solar and wind will help, but in my view, not enough, and will cause pollutants of their own.

      Sort of a trade-off, that could in the long run for the planet.  I think the way that this administration is going about pushing the Green deal is doing more harm than good. America needs a very good constructive plan to usher in greener energy. And a plan that all will see the good in.

      So many social issues are involved, that are being ignored. So many energy options or combinations of energy options may not be considered.   I think we have many good options to go side by side with wind and solar,  for instance, nuclear, and fusion power, and work toward using far fewer fossa fuels.

      Moving toward cleaner energy will take time, and careful planning, in my view.  And w just need to weigh the trade-offs carefully. Poisoning our water, and soil could be a very bad trade-off.

      The social turmoil that could result from moving too fast could truely stymie all efforts.  Note I use the word could.

      This is a thread that provokes one to really sit back and think, in my view. Thanks for posting it Savvy.

      1. profile image0
        savvydatingposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        Hi Sharlee, From what I have read, solar panels & wind turbines combined account for 1.1 % of global energy. We still need fossil fuels because they are cheaper and more efficient than renewable sources.
        Moving to alternative energy sources will take time. I agree with you 100%.
        The good news is that we have time. Meanwhile, we would be better served to address more pressing issues, such as health and education for ourselves and poor nations. Poor nations cannot afford solar & wind power. They much prefer fossil fuel. Otherwise, they are left to use wood & dung, which are terrible pollutants, to heat their homes and cook their food.
        Greenpeace has tried providing small villages with solar micro-grids. They have failed spectacularly.

    6. tsmog profile image83
      tsmogposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      "Is climate change a threat to our existence?"
      My first thought was about as much as the rapture. In other words, they both are about truths regarding our existence and it comes down to beliefs.

      " If so, how much time do we have left as a civilization?"
      Civilization is not static. It is dynamic as well as being global thus one portion may diminish while another is not affected.

      "What is your opinion about Biden's policies on climate change?"
      From my understanding, though I have not done a deep dive, they are in alignment with global consensus guided by science. Other than that I have no opinion other than a cursory poking about.

      "How much does the average person know about climate change policies and basic economics?"
      Not much in my view other than osmosis fed by the media. Isn't that pretty much the same as any policy?

      "Do you believe Al Gore?"
      I haven't heard him speak about it nor read anything by him

      "What are your thoughts regarding the IPCC and WHO?"
      None at this time. I may look into it at a later time.

      "What do you think about solar panels and wind energy?"
      They are both a first step on the right path for renewable energy to meet our needs seeking to eliminate dependence on fossil fuels.

      1. profile image0
        savvydatingposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        Hello tsmog, You get an A for thoroughness. The important thing to know is that we will not die from climate change, unless we give up fossil fuels altogether. Solar and wind will not heat a cold house during the dead of a still winter night.

        Another interesting tidbit is that Enron developed a close relationship with politicians to promote action regarding global warming/climate change. I guarantee you, they didn’t do so out of benevolence.
        Climate change activism is big money. As long as politicians keep people fearful, the money keeps rolling in… but not for voters.

        If we keep on this trajectory of bad climate policy, as begun by the Obama presidency, the U.S. will suffer economically and this current lack of growth will continue into the future. This is a path that needs to be averted.

    7. gmwilliams profile image84
      gmwilliamsposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      There has been so-called climate change since time immemorial.   Climate change is here to stay.  Except for the various ice ages, climate change doesn't pose a threat- species have either adjusted to the change or became extinct.   There are more important issues to consider than climate change which is fluff.

      1. Miebakagh57 profile image82
        Miebakagh57posted 2 years agoin reply to this

        gmWilliam, what are those 'more  important issues to consider than the flufy climate changes'? Are these related to energy or weather phenomena being discussed here? Or are these just political or Americanism? Much thanks.

    8. Nathanville profile image85
      Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Taking each of your points in your opening statement in turn:-

      #1:  Is climate change a threat to our existence?

      Most defiantly yes - Within the past 20 years, and 10 years in particular, that has become increasingly apparent:

      •    This year alone Europe, the UK and the USA have all seen record breaking heatwaves, and wildfires, and the USA has seen the worst hurricanes on record.

      With the UK historically having a cold and damp climate, wildfires and heatwaves were a rare occurrence until 20 years ago e.g. prior to 2002 the last heatwave and drought in the UK was in 1976.  The UK’s ten hottest years on record have all occurred since 2002, with this year being the hottest heatwave ever when temperatures reached 40.3C (105f).

      Deadly Heatwave, Wildfires Raging Across Europe (Summer 2022): https://youtu.be/7xxixCZK69I

      Wildfires rip through the UK amid record-breaking heatwave: https://youtu.be/zQ4wEx9v7_I

      •    This year saw the worst devastation on record from floods and rising sea levels in many third world countries.

      And with global warming set to rise, it will only get worse.

      #2:  If so, how much time do we have left as a civilization?

      The latest estimate by scientist is 8 years before we reach tipping-point (point of no return) if drastic measures are not taken to reduce CO2 emission.

      #3:  What is your opinion about Biden's policies on climate change?

      Not being American I don’t have enough knowledge of American politics to comment.

      #4:  How much does the average person know about climate change policies and basic economics?

      Unfortunately, from what I see in these forums the average American person’s knowledge on climate change policies and basic economics is limited.  However, most Europeans do have a reasonable grasp of climate change policies, although few understand economics.  However, climate change is a topic that I’ve taken a keen interest in since 2012, and I do have a good understanding of economics e.g. qualified in the subject.

      #5:  Do you believe Al Gore?

      Not being American, I don’t know who Al Gore is.

      #6:  What are your thoughts regarding the IPCC and WHO?

      I have a lot of respect for both Organisations.

      #7:  What do you think about solar panels and wind energy?

      In many countries around the world, including China, the EU and UK they play an important part in the Energy Mix e.g. over the last 7 days 53.1% of the UK’s electricity was generated from Renewable Energy, with 49.5% of the electricity generated coming from just wind power.

      And last year I had solar panels and a wall battery fitted to our home, and even in the British climate, during the winter months (last year) half of our electricity came from our solar panels; and during the summer months we were virtually self-sufficient in the energy we used.

      So yes, solar panels and wind energy are very important.

      1. profile image0
        savvydatingposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        Not sure if I addressed this. Hard to keep up with the threads since I do not post everyday. For now, let me say that hurricanes are not the result of climate change. There is no scientific evidence for that at all.
        I am surprised that solar helped you during winter months. If that is the case, good on you for taking care of your family. As you mentioned, solar is way less expensive in the U.K.

        I do not believe that China, the polluter of the world, plays an important role in climate change (in any positive way) or that they should be lauded in any way. To give them credit for good is an abomination to all that is good and decent.
        Thank you for posting. Your comments have been interesting.

        1. Nathanville profile image85
          Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          Yes you did address this in another forum, and as you may remember, one of your colleges (who’s almost as sceptical about climate change as you) did provide a link that quite rightly point out that although hurricanes have not become more frequent because of climate change, they are becoming more destructive because of climate change; especially the ones that regularly hit the USA.

          The reasons that hurricanes are becoming more destructive due to climate change is very ‘basic’ physics that most kids learn at school (at least in British schools) e.g. it’s to do with temperature differentials:  It’s the temperature differentials around the globe that causes air currents, and the greater the differentials the stronger the air current (wind, gales, hurricanes) e.g. global warming.

          Anyway, you’re still ignoring the dramatic increase in heatwaves, drought, wildfires, melting ice caps and glaciers and rising sea levels, due to climate change.  As I pointed out above, before this century, the last time we had a heatwave in the UK was in 1976; since 2002 (in 20 years) we’ve now had 10 heatwaves, this year’s being the worst, with temperatures reaching 40.3c (105f), which for a country when prior to 2002 it never reaches even 30c (86f) is unprecedented.

          Likewise, up until a few years ago, wildfires in the UK were unheard of; whereas now, they’re becoming a common biannual occurrence.

          I don’t know why you should think solar panels aren’t effective in the UK over winter; these days solar panels don’t need direct sunlight to work, even on cloudy days they generate electricity, albeit not as much as when its sunny, but every bit helps. 

          Solar panels used to be as expensive in the UK as they are in the USA, but the UK has gotten over the initial cost stage of establishing the industry, infrastructure and supply chains – It’s now a well-established, and big, industry in the Europe, generating wealth of jobs in the industry, and contributing to the country’s economy (GDP).  So yes, solar energy is now cheap in the UK (economies of scale); and since 2016 cheaper than fossil across the EU and UK – which is why the UK Government stopped subsidies on solar energy in 2019 (the subsidies are no longer needed because Renewable Energy is now cheaper than fossil fuels across Europe, including in the UK).

          Where you say “I do not believe that China, the polluter of the world, plays an important role in climate change (in any positive way)”; FYI, the only reason China is the polluter is because they have the biggest population.  China’s population is 4.35 times bigger than the USA, yet China’s CO2 Emissions is only double.  The USA is the 2nd worst polluter in the world, not just because of its large population bus also because Americans contribute double the amount of CO2 emission per person than Chinese, and three times the amount of CO2 emissions per person than in Britain – So it’s nothing for Americans to be proud of.

          Yes, China should be lauded for their efforts:  In China Renewable Energy has been increasing steadily, from 17.66% of their energy mix (electricity) in 2008 to 27.32% in 2020; while in contrast Renewable Energy in the USA is just 12% (2021), way behind China’s and the Europe’s progress towards transitioning towards Renewable Energy.

          1. profile image0
            savvydatingposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            China should not be lauded.

            1. Nathanville profile image85
              Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              Why shouldn’t China be lauded for their efforts?

              1.    Per person, the USA generates twice as much CO2 than China, and three times more than the UK:  CO2 is the root cause of Climate Change – see data below.

              2.    Only 18% of the USA’s electricity comes from Renewable Energy, while 29.09% of China’s electricity is from Renewable Energy, and 38.6% of the UK’s electricity is from Renewable energy.  Renewable Energy helps to reduce CO2 emissions, yet the USA is putting far less effort into rolling out Renewable Energy than China – see data below.

              So, if any country shouldn’t be lauded, it’s the USA for its lack of effort to cut CO2 emissions. 

              •    CO2 Emissions per Capita (per person) in China is only 7.38 CO2 tons per year – half that of the USA.

              •    CO2 Emissions per Capita (per person) in the USA is a whopping 15.52 CO2 tons per year – Double that of China.

              •    CO2 Emissions per Capita (per person) in the UK is only 5.55 CO2 tons per year – A third that of the USA.

              In 2020 Renewable Energy accounted for 29.09% of China’s electricity energy mix.
              •    Hydropower = 17.3%
              •    Wind power = 5.5%
              •    Solar power = 3.1%
              •    Thermal energy = 2%
              •    Biomass = 1.5%
              •    Pumped hydro storage = 0.4%

              In 2021 Renewable Energy accounted for just 18% in the USA’s electricity energy mix.
              •    Wind power = 9.2%
              •    Hydropower = 6.3%
              •    Solar power = 2.8%
              •    Biomass = 1.3%
              •    Thermal energy = 0.4%

              In 2020 Renewable Energy accounted for 38.6% in the UK electricity energy mix. 
              •    Wind power = 24.8%
              •    Biomass = 6.5%
              •    Solar power = 4.4%
              •    Hydropower = 1.6%
              •    Pumped hydro storage = 1.3%

              So before criticising China, you should look at yourself (USA) first – “let him who is without sin cast the first stone”.

            2. DrMark1961 profile image99
              DrMark1961posted 2 years agoin reply to this

              Very good point. If China did not have a communist dictatorship we might have someone from that country able to share honest numbers. Those numbers he qouted are not true, and certainly do not take into account the millions of people burning coal in their fireplace to keep their homes warm. That is why they have so much pollution despite what the government claims.

              Someone from England, who is aware of the terrible pollution in London when everyone burnt coal at home, should realize that the regime in China is not to be lauded. The only reason that they can report lower numbers is that they are fake and invented by their dictatorial govenment.

              1. Nathanville profile image85
                Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                Actually, if you look at the data on the Internet, no one is denying that China burns a lot of coal, 62% of their electricity comes from coal, which is comparable to the USA where 63% of their electricity is from fossil fuels.  And China does have a chronic pollution problem, just as Britian did back in the 1970's and before (which I remember well). 

                The point I'm making is that just 10 years ago, 78% of their electricity came from coal, now it's down to 62% (in 10 years), and still decreasing as they continue to rollout Renewable Energy.

                China now operates almost 50% of the world's installed offshore wind, and China uses over 33% of the world’s solar panels in the world.

                The problem China faces is such a huge population 4.35 times larger than the population in the USA.

                1. DrMark1961 profile image99
                  DrMark1961posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  China should not be praised. As a rational person you should question any numbers coming out of a society that actively interferes with free speech.

                  1. Nathanville profile image85
                    Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    Yeah, I know where you're coming from, and valid points questioning data from a society that actively interferes with free speech.  But to be frank, most of the mainstream information on climate change published in the right-wing media in the USA (supporting the coal and oil industry) is riddled with false information (propaganda), and in my view less trustworthy than China.

                    I don't need to take just take the information published by China. Much of it is independently varied by other sources e.g. as mentioned below, Chris has first-hand knowledge from working there that the "numbers from China is no fake".

              2. CHRIS57 profile image61
                CHRIS57posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                There are always these  "killer" arguments on facts or numbers coming from non transparent, autocratic countries and thus not being trustworthy.

                My professional life took me many times to China. From being involved in planning the Three Gorges Project in the early 90ties to windfarming in recent years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Gorges_Dam

                Our Chinese headquarter was located in a twin tower office building in Shanghai. On smog days in 2013 we couldn´t see the opposite tower some 50 m away. These times are over. Never experiences this any more in the past 5 years.

                I had business in Beijing in 2014 during the APEC conference. We experienced blue skys which was very unusual. Authorities had shut down surrounding industries and this allowed for the sky to clear up.
                But most of the time back then the sun could only be seen through a curtain of yellow clouds, giving all photos (Tiananmin square or forbidden city..) a reddish colour. Again, if you look at recent postcards, this is no more.

                China is adding every year the hydropower output equivalent of 1 to 2 Hoover Dams to its grid.

                No media, personal experience, personally talking to people. The numbers from China are no fake.

              3. Miebakagh57 profile image82
                Miebakagh57posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                Terrible and awful. Even when the coronavirus 2019 pandemic, began to breakout, China, hide the correct figure.                                              No Communist Regime will ever disclosed to near trutti the accuracy of any issue.                                     Is it any wonder then that 'real' Donald  Trump, walk out on the  Unitdd Nations?

      2. Miebakagh57 profile image82
        Miebakagh57posted 2 years agoin reply to this

        Arthur, I'm repeating the reply to point #5. The first response stuck because my keyboard develop faults, and I've got it service.                                        'Do you believe Al Gore?' 'Being American(thd word's suppose to be British) I don't know who Al Gore is.'                                       The British and Americans are related for centuries before the  American war of Independence, and you should have a basic grasp or ABC of American current affairs.                                       FYI Al Gore, is a former  USA vice presidential candidate.

        1. Nathanville profile image85
          Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          Thanks, I just looked him up on Wikipedia to learn that he was vice president of the USA under President Bill Clinton, and that he was in Office from 1993 to 2001.

          But prior to Trump I had no interest in American politics e.g. it was not controversial in those days, and it had little effect of importance in British Current Affairs, and therefore of little interest to me.

          1. Miebakagh57 profile image82
            Miebakagh57posted 2 years agoin reply to this

            Okay, got it.

    9. peterstreep profile image82
      peterstreepposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      The Climate crisis we are in (not facing, and not climate change) can only be changed by changing economics.
      Today we have a growth model of economics. This is simply unsustainable. Resources have limits and are at odds with forever growing.
      There is an economic model that' getting more and more attention. And that's the doughnut model.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doughnut_(economic_model)
      Where economics is sustainable. and not based on growth.
      I don't know much about this, but it is clear that the economic system is the culprit.
      You can change all the fossil fuels for solar and wind energy, still as long as you don't change the way of living you/we will come to a point where all the energy resources will be spent.
      So energy and resources should be used in a way that they are recycled into the economic system and not simply used once and thrown away.

    10. CHRIS57 profile image61
      CHRIS57posted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Just to throw in a fairly new investigation on climate stability:

      https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adc9241

      In short: Climate/temperatures are affected by green house gases, especially CO2. Chemical processes by weathering of silicates seem to have a self regulatory impact on CO2 concentration, because CO2 reacts with silicates (stone..) and takes it out of the atmsphere.
      Scientists have searched for explanations why temperature control was already active (millions of years ago), long before photosynthesis (plant growth) could play a significant role to regulate CO2 concentration.

      If this academic work holds some merit, then this will change the big picture on climate.
      However it does not releave us from the immediate dangers for mankind in the coming decades and centuries.

      As some scientists were asked:
      "Will mankind survive?"
      Answer: "About half of our species."

    11. peterstreep profile image82
      peterstreepposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      It's good to see this discussion is still open as it's the most important topic of our generation.
      Climate change will lead to mass emigration and wars for resources, crop problems with fertilization, extinction of animals and plants, and change in air temperature and humidity.
      We're still fighting against the huge solar parks that are planned to be built here. Cutting down millions of almond and olive trees to put solar panels.
      The good farming ground is bought by Renovalia who approached each farmer individually with confidentiality contracts, so nobody knew about the scale of the solar park.
      The solar parks will not create new jobs as they will be built within a year with a lot of specialists coming not from the region and then everything will be automated for 30 years.
      Solar parks are speculation and just another way to dominate the energy market.
      The best way to use solar is to use all the roofs and abandoned industrial places.
      We live in a time in which huge changes have to be made. But I don't think politicians have the guts to make them as they are more concerned about votes than about making the world a better place.
      Powerful politicians denying climate change are a deadly danger for the future. Like denying smoking is deadly dangerous.

      1. Miebakagh57 profile image82
        Miebakagh57posted 2 years agoin reply to this

        Yes. I agree completely with you.

      2. Nathanville profile image85
        Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        Thanks for the update; and I also agree completely with you.

      3. DrMark1961 profile image99
        DrMark1961posted 2 years agoin reply to this

        Do you still have family in the Netherlands? If so, what is their reaction to the government slowing down farm production?

        1. peterstreep profile image82
          peterstreepposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          Yes, I still have family and friends in The Netherlands and visit them once a year.
          The problems with the farms and their CO2 problem is a problem 10+ years in the making. It's not a new problem, the only thing is that the government is pushed to take actions now because of European climate agreements. They did not take action for 10+ years as the farming industry is a powerful industry and they were afraid to do something. But stalling a problem is never a good thing.
          The farmers had years to make plans to change their farms and way of farming. And the smart ones did. But some people think that everything will always stay the same and are now indignant and angry about the sudden measurements.
          It looks as if the public opinion in The Netherlands is that they are tired of the farmer's protests as most people realize that the government has to do something about the climate crisis. And that farmers are crushing into a government building with a tractor and making blockades to stop getting products into the shops does not help to get the public on their side.
          The Dutch government was actually sued by the public as they found that the government had not done enough to stop the climate crisis.
          And the public won.
          Dutch supreme court upholds landmark ruling demanding climate action

          1. DrMark1961 profile image99
            DrMark1961posted 2 years agoin reply to this

            Thanks, it is good to hear from someone who actually knows of the situation. Journalists (on both sides of the aisle) warp the situation and it is hard for any of us to know what is happening from reading their diatribes.

            1. Miebakagh57 profile image82
              Miebakagh57posted 2 years agoin reply to this

              The Nethderland's Supreme Court judgement is a most vital historic landmark.                                            That human rights is part of the climate crisis to be protect is an understanding. Any government should know this, more than an individual. Thanks.

              1. DrMark1961 profile image99
                DrMark1961posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                So if the Nigerian supreme court decided to stop palm oil production because it leads to deforestation and global warming you would be okay with that? They could say "we are govenment and we know more than any individual" while leaving many Nigerians at a loss of a basic income and food.

                We recently elected a socialist president here in Brazil that said he plans on doing the same thing. Food prices for many are already very high.

                1. Miebakagh57 profile image82
                  Miebakagh57posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  Dr. Mark, I wouldn't agree with your first statement. Every. Nigerian will not.
                                          The thing is that planting of tree regularly is no longer being done by the government.                                    The present political dispensation, is worst than the Military Government, the later is bent on planting tree every day. Thanks again.

                  1. DrMark1961 profile image99
                    DrMark1961posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    I was using that as an example because palm oil plantations are being blamed on deforestation and thus global warming. You can choose any food that is commonly consumed in your area.

                    What if the government decided that production of that food was contributing to global warming and stopped or slowed down production? Do you think that would be a good thing for your country? Here it is beef, as Brazilians consume more beef than most countries in the world and the beef industry is often criticized for deforestation/climate change.

                  2. Nathanville profile image85
                    Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    Yep, absolutely  Miebakagh, good points and good examples.

                    For example, where you say - “If grassland is to be cleared for a building, attempts should be made to plant some evergreen trees around.” 

                    Since 1948 (post war Britain) It’s been the UK Government policy (regardless to which Government is in power) to support and promote ‘Urban Green Spaces’, with the goal that every citizen living in a city should be no more than a 10 minute walk away from green-land. 

                    So when cities and towns in Britain are re-developed, provision is always made to incorporate greenery, which includes planting trees; currently 30% of urban land in cities and towns in England is ‘Urban Green Space’.

                    I live in a city, yet when I look out of my home-office window, all I can see predominantly is just trees; see photo below.

                    Plus, even in the centre of Bristol (the city where I live), you don’t see a concreate jungle, you see buildings intermingled with trees, as this short aerial video below of the centre of Bristol shows.

                    The video below was filmed from Cabot Tower, which is just a 10 minute walk from the city centre, and in every video shot you’ll see plenty of trees intermingled with the buildings: https://youtu.be/pC9kiYALPME

                    Below:  View from my home-office window, which although I live in a city, is what I see when I’m sitting at my computer to take part in these forums.

                    https://hubstatic.com/16268798_f1024.jpg

                2. peterstreep profile image82
                  peterstreepposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  One of the obligations of a government is to protect it's citizens. Climate Change is a direct threat against the citizens. If a Government is not protecting the citizens (and in many countries they don't and only protect themselves.) Than yes a government can be taken to court.
                  If it means that one industry has to be changed for the best interest of the citizens of the country then a government should do so.


                  Food prices are world wide high Mark, here in Spain everything has rissen too (as the fuel prices has rissen and the grain prices. - so products related to fuel rise...ll products have to be transported)

                  1. DrMark1961 profile image99
                    DrMark1961posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    Governments need to decide which is the most imminent threat though. For instance, if half of your citizens are going to die in the next few years from starvation, that is a more significant issue than climate change.

                    Yes, I realize prices are high worldwide secondary to the goverment dispersal of funds during the pandemic. Stopping food production though is not going to help those prices go down.

    12. peterstreep profile image82
      peterstreepposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      https://hubstatic.com/16290610.jpg

      Unprecedented temperatures. It's clear that every year we get more extreme weather.
      The climate crisis is not something we can hide under the carpet. It's a harsh reality and we don't solve it with money. We only solve it with a mentality change. Starting with the awareness that it is a huge problem and not just a far away not my problem kind of thing.
      Have a lovely Christmas.

      1. profile image0
        savvydatingposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        Lots to be said on this subject. Merry Christmas, dear Peter. I hope you and yours enjoy every minute of this special day.

        1. Nathanville profile image85
          Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          Now, now; where you say “So, I disagree that the United States is as corrupt as Nigeria, or England for that matter.” 

          I agree that the USA is not as corrupt as Nigeria, but it’s a lot more corrupt than the UK; that should go without saying.

          Also, the USA does not have a monopoly on illegal migrants trying to cross your borders; 100’s of thousands try to enter the EU and the UK each year. 

          •    Over 308,000 illegal migrants into the EU in 2022.

          •    45,756 illegal migrants crossed the English Channel to UK in 2022:  https://youtu.be/hy4HO8xXv08

          1. wilderness profile image77
            wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            Oh, if we only had the pittance of illegal aliens entering our country.  Three quarters the population of the EU but 7 times the illegal crossings. 4.5X the population of the UK, but 45X the illegal aliens.  We get more every week than the UK gets in a year!

            Say, it's a little more expensive than Martha's Vineyard, but could we ship a few hundred thousand to London?  Or maybe Glasgow?

            1. Miebakagh57 profile image82
              Miebakagh57posted 2 years agoin reply to this

              wilderness, (you're unusually at it again) like  FatFredyCats. But I'm laughing it out loud!                                                    Okay, it'll take me some time to answer savvydating. Thanks.

            2. Nathanville profile image85
              Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              I’m not disputing the figures, I recognise that the USA have a lot of illegal migrants compared to the EU & UK; all I was doing was pointing out that the USA doesn’t have a monopoly on it, and contrary to what savvydating was suggesting, such large numbers of illegal migrants to the USA is no indication that the USA is a superior place to live in relation to the rest of the free democratic world.

              One consideration that is being ignored is the fact that illegal migrants to the USA are predominately people from poor countries in south America, who in order to get to the American border have a long and enduing trek north over land, and through Mexico.

              Whereas, illegal migrants to the EU & EK are predominantly from the Middle East and African nations, and who have a treacherous sea journey to reach Europe, and then a long and enduring trek north over land before reaching the EU border and subsequently North France if they want to get to the UK, and even then have to make the dangerous journey across the British Channel between France and England to reach Britain.

              Most illegal migrants to Australia are from Asian countries, and to get to Australia have to make a long and treacherous journey by sea.

              So where the illegal migrants come from and how they get to you are going to impact on numbers e.g. Europe is more difficult for illegal migrants from the Middle East and Africa to reach than the USA is for illegal migrants from South American countries.

              Yep, Britain, as tiny as it is might have only had 45,756 illegal migrants crossing the English Channel from France to the UK in 2022, but they are not the only refugees the UK took in over the past 12 months:-

              In 2022, the UK Government encouraged and accepted a total of 186,000 refugees as follows:-

              •    89,000 Ukrainians.
              •    76,000 from Hong Kong, and
              •    21,000 Afghans from Afghanistan. 

              And during the 2nd world war the UK took in 80,000 refugees from war torn Europe.

              Yep, where you say “….could we ship a few hundred thousand to London?”-

              Actually, in my personal opinion, I would welcome them; because of an ageing population, declining birth rate and Brexit we have a chronic labour shortage across all economic sectors in Britain, including in the NHS, bus drivers, lorry drivers, farm labourers and the leisure and tourist industries etc. 

              For example:- 

              •    In September 2022, the NHS had 133,446 vacancies; 9.7% of the total workforce. 

              •    A third of soft fruits are left to rot in the fields because there aren’t enough farm labourers to pick the fruit.

              •    Disruption to the supply chains and public transport because there aren’t enough drivers.

              Industry has bitterly complained to the UK Government, pleading with it to relax the tough immigration laws, but their pleas fall on deaf ears because the current UK Government is dominated by the ERG (a hard right-wing nationalist political group within the Conservative Party who are anti-European and anti-immigration); so the current Conservative Government’s anti-immigration policy is governed by ‘political ideology’ rather than economics.

              A completely different picture to post war Britain, when we had a similar chronic labour shortage; during that period, from 1953 to 1962 (when the Conservative were in power) over half a million migrants were imported into Britain to resolve the labour shortage problem; including 272,450 from the West Indies, 75,850 from India and 67,330 from Pakistan – This was known as the Windrush Generation.

              Windrush was the HMT Empire Windrush, a German passenger liner and cruise ship that the Germany military commandeered during the 2nd world war for a navy and troopship, which was subsequently seized by the British at the end of the war a ‘prize of war’.

              The Empire Windrush was the first ship used by the Labour Government in 1948 to bring back immigrants from the Caribbean to help rebuild Britain; hence the start of a mass migration to Britain known as the Windrush Generation.

              The Windrush generation https://youtu.be/DPxni9s-GQE

              1. profile image0
                savvydatingposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                Nathanville, Do you disagree with the article headlined,  "London as a corrupt financial capital"

                And while I hate to cut and paste endlessly, and avoid doing so like the plague, the article goes on to say:

                "The British are in no position to preach, according to the world-famous expert on the mafia and other forms of organized crime, Roberto S., the journalist, and author told his audience... that British financial institutions enabled what he called “criminal capitalism” to operate through the network of offshore banks, investment funds, and other holdings in British territories."

                ... his research showed that the City of London operated in a way that made possible the working of financial systems that eluded investigation, let alone taxation, and effectively made Britain the most corrupt country. He was quoted by the Guardian and Telegraph as saying:

                "If I asked what the most corrupt place on Earth is, you might say it’s Afghanistan, maybe Greece, Nigeria, or the south of Italy. I would say it is the UK. It’s not UK bureaucracy, police, or politics, but what is corrupt is the financial capital.99% of the owners of capital in London have their headquarters offshore."

                Bernie Madoff comes to mind. My understanding is that the greater majority of his investors were European.

                Anyhoo, this is a digression from the discussion of climate change.

                If you could refrain from cutting & pasting endless graphs and lists, and perhaps discuss one point with a paragraph or two of meaningful information, that might be a more productive way to have a more productive and fruitful discussion on climate change.  Thanks.

                1. abwilliams profile image75
                  abwilliamsposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  Savvy, I would love to have more one on one or group discussions/debates, but the majority seem to be all about cutting and pasting their rebuttals & one-upping the naysayers.
                  Since when did Vanity Fair become all the rage? It is utilized all of the time, no matter the subject. This is scary, not as scary as the climate alarmists, but scary enough!

                  1. profile image0
                    savvydatingposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    Spot on.
                    This forum is not supposed to be a game of “gotcha.” Best to use words sparingly. Throwing all manner of Internet material at the wall to see what sticks and what drowns out any thoughtful, yet dissenting voice is not useful, and certainly not fruitful.
                    Rather, it is an exercise in banality.

                2. Nathanville profile image85
                  Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  Yes I do disagree with the article headlined, "London as a corrupt financial capital"; and where’s the link – you provided no link to the article?

                  And FYI I do not ‘cut and paste’, I research and write in my own words from many sources, on topics that I have some knowledge and experience:  And where I don’t have that knowledge and experience I say so.

                  London is the financial capital of the world, yes; and yes for historical reasons there is ‘tax havens’ e.g. Jersey.  And yes, prior to the Ukrainian war London was famously used by the Russian Mafia to money launder.  Since then however, the British Government has cracked down on the Russian Mafia assets in London, and frozen them.

                  But as you’ve quoted in your ‘cut and paste’, it is clearly pointed out in black and white that the UK bureaucracy, police, and politics are NOT corrupt – A clear distinction that needs to be made; and that non-corruption does extend to the Bank of England, and the Stock Market.

                  One blaring error in the article you ‘cut and pasted’ is where it says “99% of the owners of capital in London have their headquarters offshore.":  That is a blatant exaggeration – If you fact check, it’s 38% of the FTSE 100 companies who uses tax havens, not the 99% claimed by Roberto Saviano.

                  Did you know that Roberto Saviano was sentenced for plagiarism on appeal in 2013, and in another plagiarism case in 2015, in his defence Roberto Saviano said “I'm not a journalist or a reporter, but, rather, a writer?

                  I think what may cause some misunderstanding between us on this matter is that you are probably not aware that the financial capital in London is located in ‘The City of London’ which is just one mile square in size and with a population of just 11,000 people, and which is separate and independent from a city called London which 670 square miles with a population of over 8 million people e.g. a city within a city.

                  This Video explains the financial city of London:  https://youtu.be/LrObZ_HZZUc

                  1. profile image0
                    savvydatingposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    https://theconversation.com/nigeria-a-c … tory-61120

                    I provided the above link to our Nigerian friend,  Mie… 57 about five days ago. Here it is again. The article was quoted by BBC and The Telegraph, as I recall.

                    Yes, you do cut and paste an enormous amount of material from the internet, with some of your own words interspersed in-between.

                    Do not blame me if you are constantly asking for links and notations from the internet. I just gave you that, briefly, yet still you complain.

                    If anyone looks throughout this forum, they will find that the majority of my words are my own and the majority of your responses are pages of cut & paste material from the Internet.

                    Anyway, the question is, why did the BBC quote Saviano? Perhaps they do not mind that he is a plagiarist, the same as they do not mind that Biden is a plagiarist. Or is there some other reason?
                    By the way, my research tells me that the United States has much cleaner air than England. That is significant, given the size of your tiny country. Even your beloved Wikipedia agrees.
                    I’ll let you find the link yourself since you are so very fond of them.

      2. Nathanville profile image85
        Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        Yep, the Polar vortex (climate change) over the USA seems to be getting worse each winter; with this Christmas being the worst on record. 

        https://www.newscientist.com/article/23 … in-the-us/

        1. tsmog profile image83
          tsmogposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          In contrast, living in the San Diego area of Southern California, yesterday for the Christmas family get-together it was 80ºF (27ºC). It remained warm through to late evening with an onshore breeze from the ocean. Nice!

          1. Miebakagh57 profile image82
            Miebakagh57posted 2 years agoin reply to this

            In my part of the world, the (Niger Delta), the temperature is still around 23*C.                                 But it's sunny, and warm at night. The cool breeze from the ocean is comforting in the day time. Merry Christmas everyone. And a happy  New Year!

            1. tsmog profile image83
              tsmogposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              Thanks! Enjoy!

              1. Miebakagh57 profile image82
                Miebakagh57posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                Tsmog, you're welcome.

          2. abwilliams profile image75
            abwilliamsposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            We have cold weather in Florida right now, but we have had cold weather before. We had snow flurries in '77, that was something different! Heard there were a few flurries on Christmas day in a couple areas.
            Sometimes we have cool weather, sometimes cold (to where we might hit the freezing mark) but most often, it's between warm and hot.
            It's a mixed bag; but that's the weather for you!

            1. peterstreep profile image82
              peterstreepposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              Extreme weather has become the norm. (cold or warm) and the climate is seriously disturbed, thanks to human activity (Industrialization)
              It is not normal weather behaviour. For tens of thousands of years, there was a moderate climate where homo sapiens could thrive. Not anymore. The climate is seriously wrong if you look at a weather time line. And the reason is the extensive use of fossil fuels. It is human-made.



              https://hubstatic.com/16293110.png



              https://hubstatic.com/16293111.png

            2. tsmog profile image83
              tsmogposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              Though it was like a summer day on Christmas for us and yesterday too, the mornings have been frigid. That plays with my sinuses. We're expecting rain for a about a week now and brrrr . . .

              1. Miebakagh57 profile image82
                Miebakagh57posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                Rains? That woutd be about the same as Nigeria, my country.                                    Normal rainfall is usually began in late March and early April. Climate crisis has altered the partner.

          3. Nathanville profile image85
            Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            Wow, good to hear you're enjoying some nice weather.  It' not too bad here in Bristol, England either; for this time of year.  At the moment 7am (not even dawn yet) it's already 5ºC (41ºF), and due to reach 11ºC (52ºF) by this afternoon.  Quite a contrast to how the weather used to be here before the 1990s, when each winter it would be around freezing point and snow each winter up to 6 inches deep - since the 1990's our winters in Bristol have become far warmer and wetter, and almost never any snow; the climate change is very noticeable here.

            1. tsmog profile image83
              tsmogposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              Yes, climate change has affected us too. In general, it is a lot warmer, and most significant is the drought we have been experiencing in the southwest. And, the wildfires too.

              Drought in the US Southwest is the worst in recorded history by LiveSciece
              https://www.livescience.com/united-stat … in-history

              A Closer Look: Temperature and Drought in the Southwest  by the U.S. EPA
              https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/southwest

              1. Nathanville profile image85
                Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                Yep, the same here; data just released shows that this year (2022) has been the highest average annual temperature in the UK since records began e.g. every single month in 2022 (except December) had an higher average monthly temperature on record since the record was last broken in 2014.

                And likewise, in England we’ve now get the most significant droughts, heatwaves, storms, floods and wildfires as regular events (almost annually now), when until just a couple of decades ago they were rare occurrences.  This year, which had the hottest heatwave on record, was also hit by numerous devastating wildfires across large swathes of England; whereas, 20 years ago England almost never had wildfires.

                The annual cost in the damage being caused by anthropogenic climate change must be running into the $billions.

                1. Miebakagh57 profile image82
                  Miebakagh57posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  Climate crises have significantly affected many countries of the world, including the poles.
                  The polar ice s are melting and thus increasing the volume of water in the seas, rivers, and certain lakes that has outlets to rivers.
                  What I learned some decades ago in my Geography class couldn't be true today.
                  Cold lands are getting warmer, and warm lands experienced cold. The circle will go on and on.
                  I'll not be surprised if Nigeria, my country, began to produced polar bears! You know what I mean.

                  1. Nathanville profile image85
                    Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    Yep; and it will only get worse.

    13. peterstreep profile image82
      peterstreepposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Is climate change a threat to our existence?
      Yes.


      https://hubstatic.com/16422644.jpg

      Scientists have delivered a “final warning” on the climate crisis, as rising greenhouse gas emissions push the world to the brink of irrevocable damage that only swift and drastic action can avert.

      The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), made up of the world’s leading climate scientists, set out the final part of its mammoth sixth assessment report on Monday.

      The comprehensive review of human knowledge of the climate crisis took hundreds of scientists eight years to compile and runs to thousands of pages, but boiled down to one message: act now, or it will be too late.

      The UN secretary general, António Guterres, said: “This report is a clarion call to massively fast-track climate efforts by every country and every sector and on every timeframe. Our world needs climate action on all fronts: everything, everywhere, all at once.”

      Source: Scientists deliver ‘final warning’ on climate crisis: act now or it’s too late

    14. peterstreep profile image82
      peterstreepposted 22 months agoin reply to this

      Globally, June 2023 was the warmest June since directly measured instrumental records began in 1850, breaking the record previously set in June 2022. In addition, this June exceeded the previous record by 0.18 °C (0.34 °F), a surprisingly large margin, well outside the margin of uncertainty.

      Sourse : June 2023 Temperature Update - Berkeley Earth


      https://hubstatic.com/16620357_f1024.jpg

      1. tsmog profile image83
        tsmogposted 22 months agoin reply to this

        Just to add something. Yesterday, 07/15/23, here about 30 miles north of San Diego, California it was 80ºF (26.6ºC) by noon. It got up to 102ºF (38.9ºC) by 2:30 pm or so. Oh yeah, we are 20 miles inland from the coast of the Pacific. It is supposedly a heat wave that will go away soon. The average temperature for July is 88ºF (31ºC) cooling down to 63ºF (17ºC) at night.

        1. peterstreep profile image82
          peterstreepposted 22 months agoin reply to this

          Yes, it's crazy and the influence of El Niño is just starting. Next year will be worse as the after-effect of this sea anomaly takes a bit and is not immediately felt...
          The sea temperature is of charge at the moment.
          This is the Mediterranean at the moment, but the Atlantic is crazy too.

          https://hubstatic.com/16620540_f1024.jpg

    15. Sharlee01 profile image84
      Sharlee01posted 22 months agoin reply to this

      Is climate change a threat to our existence?

      How much time do we have left as a civilization? The timeframe for the impact of climate change on human civilization is uncertain and depends on various factors, and which scientific study you want to believe.   Predicting an exact timeline is challenging for science.

      What is your opinion about Biden's policies on climate change?  President Biden has taken significant steps to address climate change, such as rejoining the Paris Agreement and implementing various policies to promote renewable energy, energy efficiency, and emissions reductions. His administration has set ambitious climate targets and aims to transition the United States towards a clean energy future. However, opinions on his policies may vary depending on individual perspectives and political leanings. As well as which scientific study a given individual leans towards. In my view, yes Biden has committed to combat climate change with many promises, and lots of money. However, I have seen few of his promises implemented thus far. Let's just say his plan, needs a better plan... He has put the cart before the horse.

      How much does the average person know about climate change policies and basic economics? The level of knowledge about climate change policies and basic economics varies widely among the general population. Some people may have a good understanding of the challenges posed by climate change and the policies being implemented to address it, while others might have limited awareness or even skepticism about the issue.

      Do I believe Al Gore?  Yes, Al Gore is a prominent advocate for addressing climate change and raising awareness of its impacts.  He talks the talk but does not walk the walk... Not one of his long-time predictions has come to fruition. In my view, he does do his homework but leans to the most extreme scientific studies. At this point, he represents himself as an odd angry man when he speaks At Davos John Carry and Gore (In my view) were off the hinges, and did not make much sense.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7pReLPjXgBs  Two guys that need to step back and let scientists do the predicting.

      What are your thoughts regarding the IPCC and WHO? The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are highly regarded international body that assesses scientific information related to climate change.   They take into account reports based on comprehensive evaluations of the latest scientific research and provide insights into the state of the climate.

      The World Health Organization (WHO) is a specialized agency of the United Nations, responsible for international public health.  My comment is negative about this organization. I will keep it to myself.

      What do you think about solar panels and wind energy? Solar panels and wind energy are essential components of the renewable energy mix. They offer some advantages as clean and sustainable energy sources: However, ultimately here in the USA, many forests are being chopped down to accommodate the battery-run farms. Trees scientifically have been proven to be out freeing to rid the earth of emissions. In my view, batteries and all that goes into manufacturing them here or around the world are a huge threat to our soil. Not sure if these big brains considered we need soil to produce what we eat. Food and water substrains life.   We can't even handle riding the planet of the battery we use at this point. It's laughable to think we could handle the tons and tons of batteries that would be needed to support Solar and wind power. And the poison chemicals that will be minded to build these solar and wind saviors --- That's a very ugly story --- But Biden has plans to let Africa worry about that...

      Here is what we are told ---  Wind energy involves using wind turbines to generate electricity. The wind is a renewable resource that produces no greenhouse gas emissions during electricity generation, making it an environmentally friendly alternative.

      But has anyone told of the poisoning of our soil and water? Maybe dig deep into that... But be ready for frustration Google is not friendly to that side of Wind and Solar.

      Another thought, one that flys over the heads of many ---   it's essential to address challenges that we have in regard to solar and wind ---  That would simply be Mother Nature, sun, and wind ... (the fact that these energy sources depend on weather conditions,  grid integration, and energy storage to maximize their potential as part of a sustainable energy transition.  Biden as I said puts the horse before the cart.   Our grid is old, and can't actually run as efficiently as it did 10 years ago. We have weather patterns that solar and wind could leave us high and dry for electricity.  We need more refined technology in regard to being able to utilize wind and solar. First how to save the earth from the poison of batteries.
       
      So, at this point, in my view, a lot more thought needs to go into the new craze of wind and solar. And we sure as hell need some bigger minds running the show.

      1. Nathanville profile image85
        Nathanvilleposted 22 months agoin reply to this

        An interesting read; and sure we need more R&D (research and Development); much of which is taking place in Britain here and now (especially in Scotland), and in other countries in Europe and around the world – We could certainly do with more commitment to R&D in America.

        However, we are also in a situation of a ‘ticking time bomb’, where we don’t have the luxury of time to contemplate the best solutions; the climate crisis is happening here and now, and the longer we take to combat the root causes of the problem (namely excess burning of fossil fuels) the worse the situation will get.   So we have to make the best of what we’ve got now to combat climate change, which for Britain is wind power (almost exclusively off shore, around the British cost where it’s almost always windy because of for example the Gulf Stream and westerly winds etc.  In Britain wind-power already accounts for half our electricity supply, and we are on course for there to be enough wind-power to meet the domestic needs for electricity by 2035.

        And yes, batteries have their environmental problems and issues.  In that respect R&D is taking place in Northern England to develop more environmentally friendly batteries; and for storage of surplus energy generated by our windfarms out at sea, Scotland is at an advanced stage of R&D for commercially upscaling Green Hydrogen e.g. using sea water to convert surplus wind-power to green hydrogen for storage, and then converting green hydrogen to electricity when needed, with the by-product being water.

        This was the stage Austria was at almost 10 years ago in its development of wind-power to Hydrogen as a means of storing surplus green energy (green battery).  https://youtu.be/my_EjR7zgu8

        The heatwave you’ve experienced in America this year is just a taster of what’s to come; we’ve had intensive and frequent heatwaves in Europe for over a decade now, and every year, or every other year previous record temperatures are being broken – Last year was the hottest year on record in Europe, and this year has become the hottest year on record in Europe.

        1. Sharlee01 profile image84
          Sharlee01posted 22 months agoin reply to this

          Question -- Are you not fearful about the amount of forest areas being cut to give room for wind farms? Science has well-proven trees that clean the air, and the ecco system will be badly disturbed here in the US removing forests for wind farms. 
          https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/20 … 0benefits.

          https://hubstatic.com/16633374.png
          This website is very informative.
          https://climateataglance.com/climate-at … heatwaves/

          Charts don't support some of what is being reported here in the USA in regard to heat waves.

          This is a very interesting article in regards to the USA problems that scientists feel could occur using wind power.
          https://scitechdaily.com/wind-farms-cau … _article=1

          1. profile image57
            Annegrayposted 22 months agoin reply to this

            Deleted

            1. Nathanville profile image85
              Nathanvilleposted 22 months agoin reply to this

              Duh, in Britain, the wind farms are not built on land, they are built out at sea, so no trees are cut down to make way for them; besides in responsible countries like the UK such things are Government regulated to prevent such harm being done to the environment e.g. in the UK you need planning permission from government to build wind or solar farms.

              Of course I’m concerned about the amount of forest cut down each year; but it’s only irresponsible countries, with relaxed planning permission laws, that allow such development without consideration to the Environment; beside most trees are not cut down for windfarms or solar farms – far more trees are cut down for private profit of the land that has nothing whatsoever to do with solar or windfarms in countries where the government have little or no regard for the environment; and you'll find that most European countries are a lot more responsible than that – So I suggest you re-check your sources.

              Besides, FYI; the UK Government has an ambitious polity to plant more trees, not cut them down.

              The UK currently has around 3 billion trees, and currently the UK Government scheme around 120 million new trees per year are being planted in the UK.

              1. Miebakagh57 profile image82
                Miebakagh57posted 22 months agoin reply to this

                This is very informative. I like the UK Government deals.

              2. Sharlee01 profile image84
                Sharlee01posted 22 months agoin reply to this

                We have had many reports in the US that Scotland is aggressively cutting down trees.
                https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/20 … -scotland/

                1. Miebakagh57 profile image82
                  Miebakagh57posted 22 months agoin reply to this

                  I think the 'compensatory planting elsewhere' scheme is a good idea.

                  For a million tree feel, three million or more to be plant could be a good responsibility. This will make people or companies to take good care of natural environments all the time.

                  Decades ago, during the Nigeria 'Operation Feed The Nation period', the Saharan Desert, was encroaching and scorching the Northern parts of Nigeria.

                  The then Nigeria's Federal Government of Military General Olusegun Obasanjo, launched the planting of many trees. That help prevent most of the countries of Northern Nigeria being turned into a desert region to date.

                  But that schema was not related to power sourcing. But it help anyway to prevent famine and hunger.

                2. profile image0
                  savvydatingposted 22 months agoin reply to this

                  16 million trees chopped down in Scotland. That is an obscene amount, and  so unnecessary when all is said and done.

                  1. Sharlee01 profile image84
                    Sharlee01posted 22 months agoin reply to this

                    Well, in my view Scotland was scarfed to benefit England from needing to chop away at their tress...

                    1. Nathanville profile image85
                      Nathanvilleposted 21 months agoin reply to this

                      Again, we are back to the ‘Devil is in the Details’:

                      Firstly, the 15.7 million trees that were cut down on Scotland since 2000 were all replaced with new trees as part of the planning consent; and in that same time period the Scottish Government has planted 500 million new trees in Scotland.

                      Secondly, Scotland is not part of England, Scotland is a separate country – And Scotland generates a surplus of Renewable Energy and benefits from selling some of its surplus Renewable Energy to England (Exporting it to England).  Scotland exports (sells) 32% of the Renewable Energy it produces to England e.g. a large chunk of its surplus energy.

                      The rest of the surplus Renewable Energy Scotland produces is converted to ‘Green Hydrogen’ which is used in various ways, including:-

                      •    To run all local government vehicles and public transport buses in the Scottish city of Aberdeen; and

                      •    Green Hydrogen made from surplus Scottish Renewable Energy is also used to power their ferry service between the Scottish islands and mainland Scotland.

                      So Renewable Energy is proving to be a very profitable business for the Scottish economy, creating wealth and jobs, and good investment opportunities.

                      Scotland: World's first hydrogen powered seagoing ferries https://youtu.be/p4fyk_7meZg

                      Aberdeen, Scotland's Hydrogen Strategy - Leading the UK in H2 https://youtu.be/XBJAM1epr5c

                  2. Nathanville profile image85
                    Nathanvilleposted 21 months agoin reply to this

                    Prima facie, for a left-wing socialist Government like the SNP (Scottish National Party), who have a reputation for being very pro-green, such action would appear to be disgraceful, and unforgivable.

                    However, the ‘Devil is in the Details’:

                    When you delve deeper, and look at the full facts, it’s not as shocking as it looks:

                    Yes, the Scottish SNP Government has allowed 15.7 million trees since the year 2000 to be cut down to make way for inland windfarms in Scotland.  BUT, part of the conditions imposed on the ‘planning consent’ for the windfarms was that the developers had to replace the trees they cut down with an equal number of new trees:  Thus maintaining the status quo.

                    In addition the ‘Coilltearachd agus Fearann Alba’ (Forestry and Land Scotland) (a Scottish Government Department) have planted more than 500 million trees since the year 2000.

                    1. profile image0
                      savvydatingposted 21 months agoin reply to this

                      Why are you repeating yourself? Do you use AI to automatically generate responses?

                3. Nathanville profile image85
                  Nathanvilleposted 21 months agoin reply to this

                  Prima facie, for a left-wing socialist Government like the SNP (Pàrtaidh Nàiseanta na h-AlbaScottish) (Scottish National Party), who have a reputation for being very pro-green, such action would appear to be disgraceful, and unforgivable.

                  However, the ‘Devil is in the Details’:

                  When you delve deeper, and look at the full facts, it’s not as shocking as it looks:

                  Yes, the Scottish SNP Government has allowed 15.7 million trees since the year 2000 to be cut down to make way for inland windfarms in Scotland.  But, part of the conditions imposed on the ‘planning consent’ for the windfarms was that the developers had to replace the trees they cut down with an equal number of new trees:  Thus maintaining the status quo.

                  In addition the ‘Coilltearachd agus Fearann Alba’ (Forestry and Land Scotland) (a Scottish Government Department) have planted more than 500 million trees since the year 2000.

                  I haven't replied earlier because I only got back from holiday last night.

              3. peterstreep profile image82
                peterstreepposted 22 months agoin reply to this

                Apperently Scotland is an incredibly irresponsable country.


                One of the European governments that boasts the most about its green commitment is the nationalist of Scotland. And one of its ministers has just learned that since 2000, the government, led by the separatists of the Scottish National Party (SNP) in the last 16 years, approved the logging of 15.7 million trees on 7,858 hectares of publicly owned land, namely Forestry and Land Scotland.


                Scottish official admits almost 16M trees that capture carbon have been CHOPPED DOWN for WIND FARMS

                1. CHRIS57 profile image61
                  CHRIS57posted 22 months agoin reply to this

                  I ran this Scotland issue through my usual fact-check scheme.
                  This is the output (in German):
                  ..
                  Um Platz für 21 Windkraftanlagen zu schaffen, soll Schottland „gerade“ 14 Millionen Bäume abgeholzt haben. Das ist falsch. Die Bäume wurden nicht kürzlich, sondern innerhalb von 20 Jahren gefällt. Mehr als 270 Millionen neue Bäume kamen in diesem Zeitraum dazu. ...
                  https://correctiv.org/faktencheck/2022/ … -gefaellt/

                  14 mill. trees were felled over the past 20 years to give room for windturbines. Within that period of time, some 270 mill. trees were planted.

                  1. Miebakagh57 profile image82
                    Miebakagh57posted 22 months agoin reply to this

                    If 270 million were divided by 14 million trees felled, then the result speaks well. That is, for every million trees felled, 19 million were planted.

                    This will show responsibility. A responsible government is a good government. Others will then like to tread in the path.

                  2. peterstreep profile image82
                    peterstreepposted 22 months agoin reply to this

                    I read the article (German is fine with me) and stand corrected.
                    And it's comparing the 14 million trees (not 16 million) which are planted over a 20-year time span.
                    With 272 million newly planted trees....
                    Here the article from the Herald:
                    14m trees have been cut down in Scotland to make way for wind farms

                    I agree Chris that these kind of "news" items are dangerous and can easily be misread and taken out of context.

                    1. CHRIS57 profile image61
                      CHRIS57posted 22 months agoin reply to this

                      It is always difficult with numbers. I am not sure were the numbers come from and allow myself to have doubts. That is for the 14 million and the 270 million trees.

                      Scotland has an area of 77900 squarekm. That means in english and american terms: 14 trees per acre, no matter downtown Glasgow or somewhere in the middle of nowhere.

                      And just imagine: I just generously assume a field consumption of 500 acres per windturbine. For 21 turbines that is ?? For for these 1.050 acres how many trees were cut down? 14 million?

                      And just imagine: 270 million trees in 20 years that is some 37.000 trees per day or 2,3 seconds for 1 newly planted tree. And that is 24/7.
                      I wonder how many tree nurseries have to involved in this undertaking.

                      I think someone messed up with the zeros and no journalist, fact-checker ever applied common sense to this.

                      Anyways, seems to be a perfect example of the word that supposedly Winston Churchill said." I only believe in statistics that I doctored myself"

                2. Nathanville profile image85
                  Nathanvilleposted 21 months agoin reply to this

                  Yep - prima facie, for a left-wing socialist Government like the SNP (Scottish National Party), who have a reputation for being very pro-green, such action would appear to be disgraceful, and unforgivable.

                  However, the ‘Devil is in the Details’:

                  When you delve deeper, and look at the full facts, it’s not as shocking as it looks:

                  Yes, the Scottish SNP Government has allowed 15.7 million trees since the year 2000 to be cut down to make way for inland windfarms in Scotland.  BUT, part of the conditions imposed on the ‘planning consent’ for the windfarms was that the developer had to replace the trees the cut down with an equal number of new trees:  Thus maintaining the status quo.

                  In addition the ‘Coilltearachd agus Fearann Alba’ (Forestry and Land Scotland) (a Scottish Government Department) have planted more than 500 million trees since the year 2000.

            2. Nathanville profile image85
              Nathanvilleposted 22 months agoin reply to this

              World’s largest offshore wind farm is currently under construction off the coast of England, and will be operational by 2026:  https://youtu.be/8bMc3viR3uE

        2. CHRIS57 profile image61
          CHRIS57posted 22 months agoin reply to this

          As i pointed out earlier in my comments, this climate change debate and its push for renewable energy is becoming more and more a financial treat. No politics needed.

          It simply makes sense to invest into renewables, either on your private home to foster off grid mentality and save money at the same time or to invest into large wind or solar farms.

          I don´t understand what chopping down trees has to do with batteries and renewables, especially not in not very populated areas of North America, at least compared to crowded Europe.

          Here in G. i am currently developing and investing into a 2MWp solar system on the open field with an east-west orientation of panels. New developments came up with bifacial panels that harvest energy from both sides of the panel. Put the panels upright to face east-west to harvest early in the morning and in the evening and you get a delicious business case and at the same time reduce then need for battery storage.

          If you want, then work yourself through this paper:
          https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a … a%3Dihub#!

          What Tim has descibed with the electricity pricing in southern California is valid for every region on our planet. Peak times are early in the morning and in the evening. If you can generate electricity at peak times you can sell at high prices, fairly simple i would say.

          The USA has the advantage of size, of multiple time zones. If sun is at full strength on the east coast, excess electricity could be sold to sleepy California in the morning and vice versa in the evening. But that would require high performance long distance electricity grids. Something like DC-electricity lines. https://www.emf-portal.org/en/cms/page/ … portal.org

          Technology for renewables is developing fast and creates efficient, very cost effective solutions. Just keep politics out of it. The market will decide and has already decided.

          1. peterstreep profile image82
            peterstreepposted 22 months agoin reply to this

            You need politics Chris.
            If you let the "free" market decide where to put panels then the only factor looked at is money and not the environment.
            About chopping down trees.
            In my area in Spain, near Valencia, the plan is to chop down 300.000 trees (almond,olive, carob) to make way for huge solar plants.
            This is a plan that we as a community have just submitted allegations to.

            Destroying ecosystems and habitats for eagles and many other wildlife. But not only that. Trees are the best way to fight climate change.
            To cut down trees to make way for solar panels does not make the solar panels renewable.
            You need politics to regulate where the solar parks are being built. On areas like abandoned mine quarries, or unused industrial estates. The best is simply on the roofs of houses car parks etc.
            This needs to be regulated by the government. If you ask the multinationals to do what they want they will not give a damn about the nature and the climate crisis, only about their shareholders.

            1. CHRIS57 profile image61
              CHRIS57posted 22 months agoin reply to this

              I don´t object to guidelines.
              If a guideline is: No chopping off trees, it is fine with me.
              If a guideline is: 200 m left and right of railroad tracks are free to set up solar systems, it is fine with me.

              Physical and technological restrictions in combination with financial (business case) restrictions already pose a downselect of potentional areas: You won´t find wind turbines in Mexico City, simply because air is too thin and efficiency is low. On the other hand offshore and coastline locations are perfect for windfarms.

              Solar panels in the Arctic are not a good idea. Sun is too low even in summer and nil in winter.

              Making renewables avaible on a non private scale will require infrastructure. And that infrastructure is not there yet. I would (i do ) buy stocks of companies that do eletric power infrastructure. And, excuse me, i don´t care if they are multinationals or not.

            2. Miebakagh57 profile image82
              Miebakagh57posted 22 months agoin reply to this

              Peter, I agreed with you completely. Politics is a in must in such issues.Government can't keep quite for investors to do what..

          2. Sharlee01 profile image84
            Sharlee01posted 22 months agoin reply to this

            I mentioned trees due to having a natural ability to help clean the air.
            https://onetreeplanted.org/blogs/storie … en%20down.

            I mentioned batteries for two reasons they are dirty to manufacture, and we are dependent on nations that mine poison minerals to supply us with the poison minerals we have laws against mining.

            I actually just jumped in to offer a rudimentary view and answer Savvys questions.

            The science is very technical in regard to solar and wind, as well as the pros and cons.  I will leave this one to the scientists.

            So, when adding solar to your home, is China not making your panels, and does the polluted atmosphere from manufacturing the panels stay over China? So, it would seem you are doing your part, but China is not. So how in the end will our atmosphere be cleaner? China will gear up production to sell worldwide and even become dirtier than it presently is.

            Panels will become cheaper, but will our atmosphere/ global warming get better or worse? I note that Germany is making solar panels, but having some problems. https://www.npr.org/2023/05/02/11732473 … ope%20did.

            1. CHRIS57 profile image61
              CHRIS57posted 22 months agoin reply to this

              I agree that photosynthesis takes CO2 out of the air, that applies to all plants and trees in particular. In fact with the rise of the CO2 level apparently forest growth in the northern hemisphere has increaded.

              In G. we have significant forest growth and in volumetric measures growths is 40% higher than what is removed from the forests (by commercial use, natural decay..). This may change to worse over the years to come, but i am not really concerned about what we do our forests in developed countries. This does not mean that local projects are good per se. Some may tamper with nature.  But statistics generally show another picture.

              Concerning China and solar panels: https://www.reuters.com/world/china/chi … 023-02-16/
              China is exporting roughly 30% of its production capacity, the majority is used domestically.

              My take is that 100% peak solar is equivalent to 15% hydropower. If China has set up 85 GWp solar in 2022, that is some 13 GW of hydropower or more than 6 Hoover Dams in solar alone. China has to solve its issues with pollution, but their are on a good path from my personal experience in China in the past 2 decades.

              From google maps: A small town in the north German plains. Roughly 7 MWp solar installed. Does it leave the impression of destroying nature?

              https://hubstatic.com/16633503_f1024.jpg

              1. Sharlee01 profile image84
                Sharlee01posted 22 months agoin reply to this

                I  brought up forest due to living in a Merto Detroit area. My home backs up against a very large protected park that has a huge forest. We have air quality checks frequently, and our Annual Average 23 AQI.  In Detriot, on any given day it is three times that value. So, I am a real tree advocate.

                I truely support new forms to promote clean energy, but I think we need a logical plan to bring it to fruition, and make sure it does not end up making things worse.

                In the 50s my aunt and her husband moved to Texas when so many were moving to make money off of liquid gold --- She became very wealthy overnight. But look where we have ended up.  This new green energy will make billionaires. But have we really investigated the what-ifs?

                1. CHRIS57 profile image61
                  CHRIS57posted 22 months agoin reply to this

                  Interesting, i had to look up the AQI in my city realtime : Currently 18 downtown and 17 in the surroundings.
                  Found this gimmick:
                  https://www.iqair.com/de/air-quality-map

                  1. Sharlee01 profile image84
                    Sharlee01posted 22 months agoin reply to this

                    Well, your air quality is very good. Thank you for the link, great find.

                    1. CHRIS57 profile image61
                      CHRIS57posted 22 months agoin reply to this

                      I used the link to look at China.

                      Except for Tibet and Inner Mongolia the situation looks fairly well. In general few dangerous or hazardous spots. At least not much difference to the US and Canada situation.

                      It appears that the impact of fires in Canada reach all the way down to New Jersey and beyond.

            2. tsmog profile image83
              tsmogposted 22 months agoin reply to this

              We'll have to ask Neil deGrasse Tyson. He'll know the answer.

              But in the interim linked is a good article about is solar panels worth it environmentally. Next is the conclusion:

              The Environmental Impact of Solar Panels
              Let’s take a closer look at the positive and negative impacts of solar energy by EcoWatch
              https://www.ecowatch.com/solar-environm … pacts.html

              We’ve discussed all the ways in which solar panels can be harmful to the environment, but let’s not forget that they’re still a far better option than non-renewable energy alternatives.

              Taking the carbon footprint of solar panels into account, one study still found that coal generates a footprint 18 times the size, while natural gas creates an emissions footprint 13 times the size of solar. It’s also worth repeating that solar energy produces zero emissions after production. For that reason alone, studies have revealed solar to be an essential solution to slowing climate change.

              But if solar continues to grow as the SEIA predicts it will, technology will also need to improve to minimize the effects that solar panel production will have on the environment, and proper solar panel recycling methods must be created.

              1. Sharlee01 profile image84
                Sharlee01posted 22 months agoin reply to this

                Lot's of pros and cons for sure.  Another problem is cost.   Makes me wonder how many Americans can afford to buy an EV, and install solar panels. Seems many can't even afford to purchase homes, and many live week to week.

                "As of January 2023, 60% of United States adults, including more than four in 10 high-income consumers, live paycheck to paycheck, down 4 percentage points from January 2022. This decrease suggests that spending cutbacks in the previous year have effectively improved some consumers' financial situations."

              2. CHRIS57 profile image61
                CHRIS57posted 22 months agoin reply to this

                Tim, your figures about carbon footprint do match, even on our side of the pond.

                We have to buy CO2 certificates in Europe if we produce energy.

                The certificates cost about 85 Euro/ton of CO2. Coal powered electricity produces some 800 kg/MWh of CO2. My solar electricity is charged with 50 kg/MWh or 1/16th of coal.

                CO2 certificates make electricity by coal 6 ct./kWh more expensive than solar. Of course the introduction of CO2 certificates is a direct intervention into the market.

    16. Readmikenow profile image84
      Readmikenowposted 2 years ago

      I once had to do an article about this.

      A scientist told me global warming has happened previously on the planet before there was industrialization.

      He predicted we will have another episode of global warming.
      There is nothing we can do about it.
      No matter what happens humans will find a way to adjust and adapt.

      That is what has happened before.

      After this round of global warming, it will happen again in the future.

      I thought that was worth thinking about.

      1. profile image0
        savvydatingposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        Interesting. I wonder when that happened?

      2. Miebakagh57 profile image82
        Miebakagh57posted 2 years agoin reply to this

        I'll do deep digging on that pre-Industrial Revolution.

    17. Aliswell profile image60
      Aliswellposted 2 years ago

      If it were possible for those of you whose emotional candy tends to be ..."political wet dreams", perhaps simply trying to formulate interest in several different, "real world", models (preferably nonpolitical), may help you have a better understanding of this.. present day, and future... world we think we can survive.^••^
      https://www.iea.org/reports/world-energy-outlook-2022
      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interna … rgy_Agency

      1. profile image0
        savvydatingposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        We do not to get to zero emissions by 2050. That would be expensive and foolhardy.

    18. abwilliams profile image75
      abwilliamsposted 2 years ago

      I think that just like with abortion, people get fixated on the wrong thing, but in the process of abortion, a once living human being, is killed/eliminated, once and for all!

      Climate alarmists get fixated on the wrong thing and in the process they interrupt the livelihoods of millions of people. People whose reality is right now, today, here and now; will I have affordable fuel to get to my job, in order to feed my family? Will there be enough energy produced, for me to warm my home this winter, so that my children won't freeze to death!?
      What of my elderly parents?

      While alarmists bad mouth what has always worked for them [elderly parents]for an entire lifetime, must they get with the program or else what?Die?
      There are consequences to every action and every reaction and I believe that these reactionary impulses to convince us that the sky is falling, which has been happening over and over and over, for decades, is the true danger going forward!
      Our energy independence here in the U.S. was short-lived, due to constant, scorched earth rhetoric and NOW, as a result, we are in dire straits.
      I am not about to pretend that lives won't be lost, all while some will remain atop their high horses, oblivious to what is really at stake, fixated on the wrong thing.

      1. Miebakagh57 profile image82
        Miebakagh57posted 2 years agoin reply to this

        It greatly perplex and alarmed me that America, should experienced such issues.                                                  At such bizzar 'winter' mouths, I though the government has to come in and help every citizen, as if it's a 'disaster' period.                                   It's a pity that at such an extreme and inhuman cold period, the government stands aloof? How come then. America is being spoken of as can feeding, educating, and clothing other countries of the world?                                       I know of the place America, play in the . WW 1 and 2, in bringging the war to an end. Why couldn't she help her people? Just asking.

        1. profile image0
          savvydatingposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          We do and we can, but we will do less so for ourselves and the rest of the world now that we have drastically cut the production of oil because Biden has decided to do so.

          It all goes back to GDP. The poorer we become, the less help we can give. That being said, it is immoral to stop oil production. At this juncture, we must have fossil fuels to thrive and survive.

          1. Fayetteville Faye profile image60
            Fayetteville Fayeposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            Fossil fuels are not in infinite supply. What do you suppose we do when we have depleted the world's resources??

            1. Ken Burgess profile image72
              Ken Burgessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              Better question, how do we make those resources last hundreds of years longer?

              Alternative means of energy, reduction of travel...

          2. Miebakagh57 profile image82
            Miebakagh57posted 2 years agoin reply to this

            Get rid of biden, and bring back Trump!

      2. profile image0
        savvydatingposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        AB... Climate change is manageable. It may be a problem, but it is nowhere near our biggest problem and it is certainly not the end of the world. Americans know how to adapt. We have the ingenuity to do so with a fraction of the money this administration is throwing at climate change policies.

        Solar panels and wind turbines are not the solutions. They do too little for way too much money. (That is an understatement) For the most part, new renewable energy edicts are supplying some companies with an unethical, yet politically correct way to dramatically increase their profits (at the expense of the average consumer) while simultaneously punishing other companies. This administration grants huge tax breaks to companies that willingly follow the green agenda.

        As you well know, we need to get our economy back in order while there is still time to mend our leaking ship. Destroying our GDP is not the way to do it.

        1. John Sebastian 1962 profile image88
          John Sebastian 1962posted 2 years agoin reply to this

          The issues are not climate change, pandemics, energy, recession or any of the others we hear about. The real issue is that there are nearly 8 billion human egos in the world. The energy being expended for all of us earthly humans to argue our views could power us into the next century, yes, hyperbole! But neither the alarmists nor the skeptics are suddenly going to see the "truth" and be able to convince the rest that it is the truth. Human progress is glacial and it always will be. But, just to make them happy, the solar people are coming tomorrow to fix our system, which has broken again.

          From my political viewpoint, when I listen to the great divider (Mr. Biden) calling for coal plants to be shuttered, I realize that we will be going nowhere good, fast. I used to believe that leadership was leadership, but now it seems to my terrified self that leadership is more like that asteroid that might hit our planet. When I think of Biden and his side of politics legislating the climate "crisis," I recall how they handled COVID. Public  money was flagrantly wasted and people's economic and emotional and educational lives were damaged for no reason! When a society has a crisis, society should allocate helpful resources to those in most danger and let the rest of society continue unimpeded!

          Climate change may or not be a problem. I am not anywhere close to having the intelligence to know. They call it blissful ignorance. That's me, with my tea, apparently destroying the planet one sip at a time. "Blissful ignorance" is a better "solution" to the climate crisis than the "greed" new deal alarmists could ever come up with.

          The best we can do is as individuals, to act carefully on reason as we see it, look in the mirror every now and again, be grateful for what we have and love thy neighbor even if they are on the other side of politics. Hatred is the real problem, not climate change.

    19. abwilliams profile image75
      abwilliamsposted 2 years ago

      Well stated Savvy!

    20. Kathryn L Hill profile image82
      Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago

      1. "Renewable energy does not come with high efficiency."

      2. "... fossil fuels are superior, more efficient and affordable. "

      3. "To go backward  ... makes no sense."

      4. "We can find other ways to tackle global warming, which frankly, can wait. We have time, as in centuries."

      5. "... we need to turn the oil spigots back on while we do more R&D."

      6. "There is no point in allowing this country to lose its wealth by turning off our vast oil supply. That is madness and serves no one."

      I agree with these points, savvydating. I highlight, here, what makes total sense.

      Thank you.

      1. profile image0
        savvydatingposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        Thanks, Kathryn.

      2. Miebakagh57 profile image82
        Miebakagh57posted 2 years agoin reply to this

        Kathryn. I likewise agree with the substance of these 6 points you've just quoted and listed.                                        They's no point in going back in real time and allowing the 'Wealth of (a) Nation' to be wasted.                                              But I've noted that 'carbon capture' still in it's infancy and development, is the tool to arrest CO2 transmission into the atmospher.                                    Until then we've got to use whatever we have. You input finds me well. Thanks.

    21. Kathryn L Hill profile image82
      Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago

      Solar power is unreliable due to clouds and weather. Wind power is generated by the turning of hundreds of turbines which continuously break. Maintenance is constant on these tall wind producers. The wind, the cold, the expansion, the contraction, the heaviness, the breaking down of bearings and other parts make wind power turbines hard to manage and ultimately produce too little energy for the effort and expense. Additionally, they kill the beautiful birds of the earth who fly into them. Electricity from the grid is also expensive and depends mostly on fossil fuels. Batteries Pollute. What to do with the old batteries, is still a question. China must rob the earth of rare earth elements to create batteries for electric cars. It is all is evil, as in the opposite of live.
      LIFE vs DEATH

      There's some fruit for ya.
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIAZGzAcR18

      1. profile image0
        savvydatingposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        There is that inconvenient truth about batteries… and the coal that is needed to produce them.

        1. profile image0
          savvydatingposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          Chris57,
          In the forefront of my mind is the amount of money (trillions) that this administration is dumping into climate change policies. Electric cars subsidies
          ( there’s that word again) will do very little to cut emissions efficiently. As you indicated, we must look at overall costs.

          The cost of retrofitting homes is twice as high as the benefits, according to the largest U.S. study of 40,000 homes that went green.
          I maintain that more R&D is needed to find other ways to respect people as well as our planet.

          1. profile image0
            savvydatingposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            Ken, Interesting breakdown of cost analysis. For those who can afford it, solar may ultimately pay for itself after several years. I do not disagree with that, but I do disagree that solar must be forced upon everyone at this time.
            Furthermore, the $2 trillion this administration is spending breaks down to $500 billion per year. That is costing us quite a lot in GDP & will continue with a downward trajectory, especially when we consider that we would achieve a reduction in temperature by only 0.33 degrees Fahrenheit for having implemented rather inefficient policies.

          2. CHRIS57 profile image61
            CHRIS57posted 2 years agoin reply to this

            Why do you talk about your home and solar panels?

            This is a professional, financial opportunity. While nobody denies that you can put those panels on your roof, it is more a matter for professional investors. People and organisations, companies who are willing to build and run large solar farms. And they do - as recent yearly investments into electricity generation indicate.

            Payback period for private home owners is way too long (even in Europe) to make it more than a hobby. But for large scale investments the payback period is between 8 and 15 years, depending on free market electricity cost.

            In other words: It is much cheaper to set up and run a solar or wind power system than to invest into a nuclear or fossile fuel powered plant, in relative terms, per MWh/year of production.

            1. profile image0
              savvydatingposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              Chris, There is no question that companies can make big money through an investment in solar and wind. Absolutely.
              I bring up solar panels on homes because the investment for home owners is costly and basically makes no difference for the environment. Hence, these investments defeat the purpose, which is to fight global warming. But if companies want to follow the money, solar and wind are the way to go. Just ask China. They’re chomping at the bit. Nothing would please them more than to make batteries for the world.

              1. Ken Burgess profile image72
                Ken Burgessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                The outlook on Solar Power that you have is an interesting one.

                I have reviewed 8 offers/quotes for systems to be put on my house this weekend.

                A solar system would essentially cost (without a battery back-up) between $165 - 225 a month.   And between $220 - 280 with a battery included.

                So lets stick to the non-battery system, as we are trying to make a case for affordability.

                Lets say it cost me $200 a month.  And it reduces my $295 a month bill down to $75.

                Doesn't that make it affordable?

                Lets take that a step further, in five years when the price of electricity has gone up to $400 a month, and it reduces my bill to $100 a month, isn't that system now saving me more money?

                And then in ten years, when the price of electricity has gone up more, and the price would be $550 dollars a month and I only have to pay $125 because that solar system is producing enough to mitigate the rest...

                Do you see my point?

                Solar systems, if sized correctly, can save a person a lot of money.

                The price of electricity will not remain stagnant, it will continue to go up.

                But the price of that Solar system WILL remain stagnant, a fixed price.

                The thought shouldn't be that Solar Power is too expensive...

                It should be how do I pay my electricity bills in 5 years if I don't get one installed to counter the escalating costs for energy.

                1. Miebakagh57 profile image82
                  Miebakagh57posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  Ken, this your painstaking analysis dissolves all the challenges that many face to instal a solar panel for home use.                                                   Like as I said I had discussed with Nathanville, Chriss57, and now you...that I'm planning to instal solar on my house likewise. But I'm studing the market that would provide energy for my fridge and freezers. Thanks.

                2. profile image0
                  savvydatingposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  I see your point, yet the fact remains that the average person, say making $60,000 to $70,000 per year in the United States is hard pressed to afford solar.
                  If you can afford it, more power to you. That’s awesome.
                  But, the middle class on down have a hard time with the payments and are often suckered into deals with nefarious companies.
                  And god forbid they end up leasing their panels instead of owning them.
                  The only reason we worship solar is because this administration has declared a war on fossil fuels, which, inconveniently remain a better, more affordable option for the middle class on down.

                  1. Ken Burgess profile image72
                    Ken Burgessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    My family is very "Middle Class" it takes a lot of work to stay ahead of rising costs and rising taxes to maintain that standard of living.

                    Almost 3 years ago now, we purchased an almost new Chevy Bolt, for $10k less MSRP... we actually traded in a Equinox that had just gone by the 50k mark, which expired its warranties, and like clockwork everything started to fail on it.

                    Rather than put thousands into it, we traded it in for the Bolt, an EV, because I could see Trump's defeat coming and I knew Biden being elected meant gas would double in price.

                    Biden became President and gas doubled in price... fortunately, we no longer pay for gas, or maintenance on a vehicle.  Batteries don't need maintenance and they are warrantied for 8 years or 100,000 miles.

                    We pay the same for that car we would pay for any gas powered car of similar make and age.   We just don't pay for gas.

                    A solar system is the same thing, what we pay for the Solar System, we would have to pay to the electric company for electricity.

                    But in a few years, when the cost of electricity goes up, that Solar System payment will remain the same, saving me hundreds of dollars each month.

                    These are the things we have to do to maintain our "Middle Class" lifestyle... we aren't hard pressed to make these purchases... we would be hard pressed if we kept wasting our money on gas, on the power company's electricity, when we don't have to.

              2. CHRIS57 profile image61
                CHRIS57posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                As i wrote, for home owners to put solar systems on the roof is more a matter of feeling good about CO2 output than collecting financial benefits.

                I am one of those people who are living from harvesting solar energy, without any subsidies. The CO2 rucksack for manufacturing solar systems is discounted to some 50 g/kWh CO2 over average lifetime of 18.000 kWh electricity production. This means you need the manufacturing related energy equivalent of 900 kg CO2/kWh for producing the panels and associated stuff.

                To receive 18.000 kWh from the grid, this will require some 7.200 kg of CO2 by simply burning fossiles in a power plant, no to mention manufacturing of the power plant. In comparison the lifetime CO2 footprint of a solar panel is roughly 10% of equivalent fossile electricity generation.

                So - yes - solar makes a difference for the environment, not only in my pocket.

                1. profile image0
                  savvydatingposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  Are you not from Europe? The average European does not use air conditioning, their refrigerators are the size of an end table, your homes are smaller. Thus, your energy needs are smaller (at least during summer months). But come winter, how will solar help you? Do you rely on the battery packs that Ken speaks of?
                  Yes, I digress, but still thought it worthwhile to insert this message.

                  1. CHRIS57 profile image61
                    CHRIS57posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    You are right. Average Europeans don´t use air conditions in their homes. But many are using heat pumps and these technical gimmicks follow the same physics as airconditions, but for heating purposes only.

                    In my home i have airconditions with dual use: heating in winter and cooling in summer. Combined with solar panels this reduces reliance on electricity or gas grids considerably.

                    Opens discussion for a new topic: Noise pollution. On my property and my neighbours property we have combined 6 heatpumps or airconditions running. There is a continuous humming in winter time. There is no free lunch.

                    Please don´t underestimate living conditions in Europe. You easily get above 3.000 sqft just to mention space and refridgerator discussion is void.

                    For excess needs of electricity or heat in winter? Not batteries but large grid storage of natural gas in underground caverns.

                    The whole discussion is not about not using natural gas at all but how to minimize the use of gas.

                    https://agsi.gie.eu/
                    Currently we have 100% filling of German reserve capacity. That is roughly enough for 90 days of consumption, or 3 months. It is a tight race for this winter. But then - last winter was much worse with only 71% filling at the same time. We didn´t freeze then and we will not do this winter.

                  2. Nathanville profile image85
                    Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    Correct, I don’t have air conditioning, which with the summers we’re now getting over the last 20 years (global warming) is a big problem in the summer.  To combat the hot summers that we now face in England I’ve installed ceiling fans in each bedroom (as it remains very hot overnight in the summer months these days) and we have a powerful floor standing fan for the living room – it’s not ideal but it better than nothing.

                    For the winter months we’ve recently installed a modern eco-friendly gas boiler for the central heating; it uses a third less of the natural gas that our old boiler used, and actually keeps the house warmer - far more efficient than our old gas boiler.

                    As regards refrigerators/freezers, we’re not an average European home as although we’ve only got one fridge, currently we’re now running four freezers, including a large chest freezer.  The reason we have so many freezers is that I grow our own vegetables and fruit, and come harvest time we freeze the surplus, which keeps up fully supplied with veg and fruits 12 months of the year.  We had three freezers, but we had a bumper crop of fruit this year, so we were given an old (spare) freezer from a relative.  Our intention is to grow less veg crops next year, to run down our stock and decommission two of the freezers; one we’ll keep for harvest time, and the other we’ve promised to pass onto a friend who’s looking for a 2nd freezer.

                    It’s not just that our energy needs are smaller (which they are), but it’s also the little things that saves on electricity and heating e.g. low energy lightbulbs, smart metering, energy efficient appliances, and good insulation to keep the heat in during the winter months –plus, it’s the fact that only a third of the electricity we use in the UK is generated from fossil fuels.

                    As previously mentioned, solar does make a difference (to us) over winter - in the winter months the solar panels still generates electricity, which reduces our dependency on electricity from the grid quite considerably; as does our wall battery.  Between the two, the solar panels and wall battery, they meet about 50% of our electricity needs, which cuts our electricity bill quite considerably.

                    To show how beneficial our solar panels and battery are; below are a couple of images of our usage just after we had them installed last year (a screen dump I took from my website account for my solar panels - my live updates for my solar panels and wall battery stored by GivEnergy on my personal website account); screen dump taken at 1:51pm on 13th November 2021, on a cloudy day (as shown by the icon top right of the image).  In the image at that time we were:-

                    •    Generating 1,236 W
                    •    Current usage was 763 W
                    •    Battery being recharged with the surplus 470 W

                    Two images below:  The 1st image showing the whole screen dump, and the 2nd image being a close up of the electricity being generated from our solar panels, and the surplus being used to recharge our wall battery for later use.

                    So, considering this was in November, on a cloudy day, don’t tell me that solar panels have little use in Britain during the winter months.

                    https://hubstatic.com/16232607_f1024.jpg

                    https://hubstatic.com/16232608.jpg

                    1. Miebakagh57 profile image82
                      Miebakagh57posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                      Congratulations for farming your vegetables and fruits!

    22. Miebakagh57 profile image82
      Miebakagh57posted 2 years ago

      @Nathanville: #5: Do you believe Al Gore?... Not being American, I don't know who Al Gore is'.

    23. Nathanville profile image85
      Nathanvilleposted 2 years ago

      Savvydating, one argument which either you or one of the other ‘climate change’ doubters have used in this forum is the argument that solar and wind are unreliable e.g. what happens when the sun doesn’t shine and the wind doesn’t blow.

      The answer is simple:  Building Resilience into the system.

      The approach the UK is using to build resilience into the system include:-

      •    Upgrading the National Grid to a ‘Smart Grid’, this has already been done in the UK.

      •    Building spare capacity into the system, this is being done as we speak, and should be largely completed by c2035.

      •    Storage of Surplus Electricity.

      •    The ability to import and export electricity with other European countries (or in the case of the USA, between States), this ability across Europe was largely completed with the last few years e.g. last week the UK exported a net total of 8.8% of our electricity to France, 1.7% to Belgium, 1.7% to the Netherlands (Total electricity exports = 12.2% of the UK’s total electricity for the week); and we imported 0.6% from the Republic of Ireland, and imported 3.7% from Norway (hydropower).

      Storage of Surplus Electricity
      The various forms of storage of surplus electricity currently available, and planed, in the UK includes:-

      •    Pumped hydro storage.
      •    Battery storage banks on the National Grid, and
      •    Green Hydrogen Battery Banks.

      Currently the UK has in excess of 25GWh of electricity storage with plans to double that to over 50GW by 2050.

      1.    As of the end of 2021, the capacity of pumped hydro was 25.8GWh, enough stored power to supply electricity to every home in the UK for about 1 hour 15 minutes per day (used when demand outstrips supply e.g. at peak times).  The biggest of the UK’s pumped hydro storage facility is ‘Electric Mountain’ in Wales.

      •    Britain's Largest Battery:  https://youtu.be/McByJeX2evM

      2.    Currently the UK has 1.6GWh of battery storage on the National Grid (with a further 2.8GWh under construction).  1.6GWh is enough power to meet the needs of 1.6 million homes for an hour e.g. about 12% of our energy needs for an hour; again its used when there’s a shortage of power, to fill the gap.

      •    Generating revenue from battery storage:  https://youtu.be/Rd-0eoIfKZE

      3.    Currently the UK has 5GW of Green Hydrogen Battery Banks under construction with plans to double that to 10GW by 2030.

      Green Hydrogen Battery Banks, which are operational in Scotland on a small scale (as proof of concept) is where, when we have surplus electricity, we use it to convert sea water into hydrogen and oxygen, and then store the hydrogen for when it's needed.  Then when there’s a shortage of electricity e.g. not so windy at sea, or at peak times when demand is high, the stored hydrogen is used to generate electricity, with the by-product being water.

      •    Overview of Green Hydrogen Development (Research and Development, and proof of concept - 3 years ago):   https://youtu.be/jsbObSYqVao

    24. abwilliams profile image75
      abwilliamsposted 2 years ago

      I never implied that science is a religion, I stated that climate change is your religion.
      When I was a teenager and this climate change "religion" was just getting started, there were startling pictures of a frozen tundra from one end of the earth to the other. We didn't stand a chance, we were doomed! By the time my kids  were teenagers, startling pictures of the earth on fire. Doomed!
      Now that they have kids of their own and someone wised up  {Father Al Gore perhaps} and now it's just plain ole' climate change,

      Okay, agreed, the climate (aka: the weather) does change, no argument from me.

      As the saying goes plutonium kills much faster than carbon and currently..... that's my chief concern for all inhabitants of this planet we share and we should ALL share in this chief concern.

      1. peterstreep profile image82
        peterstreepposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        Ahh, okay. to me the word religion means to believe in God or Gods.
        As Climate change is not something you believe in. It is a concept based on facts and not believe system.

        I think there's a difference in when we grew up and the kids that are now growing up.
        Climate Change (Now called Climate Crisis) was not yet in the public domain. You had the Club of Rome and Carl Sagan, James Lovelock and other scientists warning about where we would be heading but this was very marginal. The Bomb and cruise missiles was more of a topic.
        But what the scientists said 50 years ago was not seen as a threat by politicians who where more thinking about economic growth instead of planet reserve.
        Today though it's clear that Climate Crisis is not just a thing of the future but we are already in it. And now that Greta Thunberg is sharing scientific information on social media with the younger generation, the climate crisis has become more of a daily conversation.
        People talk about clean energy resources, being vegan, using recyclable products etc. Something two generations ago (ours), was not really an issue.
        We did not think about a plastic island in the Pacific or melting polar ice.
        It's clear the world has changed and the discussions in the public domain in the whole world is about climate change. From the farmer in Senegal to the bus driver in Hongkong.
        The question is not anymore is there a Climate Crisis.
        But the discussion is : How do we stop it.


        I don't worry about the Plutonium as that's not something I can do anything about. But I can make this planet a better place with small gestures like not using plastic bags (or reusing them as long as possible), not eating meat and buying local products for instance.

        1. profile image0
          savvydatingposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          Peter... There is so much of what you have said that is wrong and offensive to the poor.

          No one should have to do with less. Do you not realize what an insult that is.... of doing with so much less? How much less must the poorest of the poor have to endure because of the politics of climate change?

          There is so much to be said on this topic. Richer nations can help poor people become more self-sufficient and we have been improving the lives of the poor since the 1900s.

          Current climate change policies do nothing (at all) to help the poor.

          And Greta Thunberg?  No.

          1. DrMark1961 profile image99
            DrMark1961posted 2 years agoin reply to this

            Your words reminded me very much of Brazil, where we have over 60% of the land covered in forests and the people of England, who only have 10% of their land in forests since they built ships to travel around the world and enslave the natives, tell us that now we have to go hungry since to clear the land to grow crops is against their beliefs.

            Unless those "climate crisis" types are willing to make sure everyone in the Amazon is as wealthy as those in Europe, deforestation is not going to stop.

          2. peterstreep profile image82
            peterstreepposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            Hi, Savvydating,

            I read my comment again but I could not find anything about being offensive to the poor, nor that anyone should have less!
            Tell me what is wrong with what I said and more importantly, for what reasons.
            Because I have the feeling that you are reading things in my comment that I haven't said or meant.

            1. profile image0
              savvydatingposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              Peter, I apologize. You did not say anything about the poor. I should have used my words more carefully.
              What is uppermost in my mind is that the $2 Trillion this administration is spending on climate change policies is indeed making the United States a poorer country. The price of everything has risen here because Biden has declared war on fossil fuels and thus, energy companies.

              As an example, farmers need fuel for their tractors and equipment. Today, they are having a difficult time growing crops as a result of changes we are experiencing, one of which is the high cost of fuel.
              And sadly, for the first time, we now have to import more food than we export. This is devastating.
              I could go on about the misinformation about polar bears and other matters pertaining to global warming, but I’ll reserve that for another time.
              Thank you for posting. I do believe you have good intentions.

              1. wilderness profile image77
                wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                Part of the problem is that it is NEVER as simple as is indicated.

                As just one example, I saw where vast portions of Alaskan forest land, boreal forests that are instrumental in getting rid of CO2, are being turned into farmland.  Stupid?  Or very smart, providing more food to "grow" more people needing more energy?

              2. Nathanville profile image85
                Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                The “price of everything has risen” worldwide, not just in the USA; and the “price of everything has risen” firstly because of the disruption to the supply chains because of the pandemic, and now because of the war in Ukraine:  It has nothing to do with ‘climate change’ policies.

                The same goes for the high cost of fuel e.g. the war in Ukraine; it has nothing to do with ‘climate change’ policies.

                1. Ken Burgess profile image72
                  Ken Burgessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  Climate change policies, did someone say climate change policies:

                  https://www.state.gov/at-cop27-our-clim … te-action/

                  It's worth a perusal...

                  1. profile image0
                    savvydatingposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    Well, that’s a colossal  waste of money.

                  2. Miebakagh57 profile image82
                    Miebakagh57posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    Yes... But is it real? Wondering.

                    1. Kathryn L Hill profile image82
                      Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                      One guy at JPL came up with the theory and everyone else ran with it.
                      Al Gore was one of the first.

                2. profile image0
                  savvydatingposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  False. In the United States, war has been declared upon fossil fuels and energy companies. Thus, less oil can be produced.
                  The demand for oil is still needed, however… here and across the globe.

                  Just because you may be relatively comfortable in your small village does not mean the rest of the world, especially the poor, will be as comfortable.

                  It is better for nations to be rich than to be poor. To blame the downward trajectory of living standards on the pandemic, which is over, and the war in Ukraine is nothing more than a straw man argument.

                  The United States withstood the pandemic and was on an upward trajectory before Biden reversed nearly everything the previous administration had put in place. In short, we were energy independent. Now, we are begging Venezuela for their dirty oil.

                  We would be better served to put most of the 2 Trillion Biden is spending on climate change, on helping the world to become a better place through ensuring greater access to health, tackling  malnutrition, fighting tuberculosis and malaria, and providing opportunities for education to poor countries.

                  Climate change is not a crisis. Rather, it is a manageable problem.

                  1. Nathanville profile image85
                    Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    False:  Climate Change is not a manageable problem; it is a crisis because countries like the USA are in denial and not doing enough to divert the pending disaster facing us – in spite of the fact it’s happening now, the evidence is all around you of damage to the environment, land, property and deaths that climate change doing around the world – and it’s going to get a lot worse in our lifetime if we don’t take it seriously.

                    Yeah, the UK and the rest of the world withstood the pandemic too; but after two years we were left with disruption to supply chains worldwide, including the USA, that we were just recovering from when the war in Ukraine started.

                    You need to do some research into the facts rather than just listening to propaganda:

                    Fact:  The United States ranks 1st in the world for oil consumption, accounting for about 20.3% of the world's total consumption of 97,103,871 barrels per day.

                    Fact:  The United States produces 14,837,640 barrels per day of oil (as of 2016) ranking 1st in the world.  However, in spite of the huge volume of oil the USA produces each day it’s not enough to satisfy Americans demand for oil, so the USA does import 37% of its oil consumption to meet that demand.

                    If you look at the ‘data’ in the link below, the USA is now producing far more oil than it was at the start of the Ukrainian war:  https://tradingeconomics.com/united-sta … of%202008.

                    If you look at the timeline below, which goes back to the 1920s, you will see that the USA is now producing more oil than ever before, and almost 50% more oil than it was just 10 years ago.  Oil production in the USA reached a record high in 2019, and then production did start to fall back slightly but started to rise again at the start of the Ukrainian war and is currently increasing:  https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafH … s2&f=m

                    The problem in the USA is that you are too dependent on oil (a finite source), and although the USA produces over 20% of the world’s oil, it still not enough to meet American oil consumption, hence why you still have to import about a third of your oil.

                    So surly the answer, in rather than trying to increase oil production (which will further destroy the planet) reduce your dependency on oil by transitioning to Renewable Energy which is a limitless source of energy e.g. once the wind turbines and solar panels are built and installed the wind and sunshine is ‘free’ limitless energy, with no need to keep buying fuel to feed it and little or no maintenance during the lifetime of the turbines/panels.

                    The bottom line is; if the world is destroyed because of America’s desire to burn all the oil, it does not help the world to become a better place.

                    Two other links that provide valid data on USA oil production:

                    •    https://www.worldometers.info/oil/us-oil/
                    •    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum … ted_States

                  2. Nathanville profile image85
                    Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    Why continue to pay for expensive fossil fuels (oil) when Renewable Energy can be a cheaper energy source, as it now is in Europe.

                    In the UK Renewable Energy is now 9 times cheaper than natural gas.

                    1. profile image0
                      savvydatingposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                      Nathanville... That doesn't sound accurate. Nine times cheaper? Statistics can be skewed in favor of any party or entity.
                      My guess is that you are referring to the gas / electric bill one has after having invested in solar… in which case the energy bill goes down quite a lot.
                      I’ve already discussed the costs of placing efficient solar panels on homes in the U.S.
                      $37,000 for panels, $10,000 for a new roof, thousands more for energy efficient appliances. After we pay all of that, we can expect a lower bill, with or without panels.
                      For many, the payoff (of investing in panels) will not materialize for many, many years. Not everyone can afford to do that.

              3. peterstreep profile image82
                peterstreepposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                Hi Savvy, that's okay. Sorry for not replying earlier. Bit busy over here.
                I can't comment on Bidens Trillion package.
                But I don't think Biden is declaring war on fossil fuels. To be honest I don't think Biden has that much power.
                Simply fact is that the fossil fuel we have is not enough for the needs. So going for "Green Energy" is not simply an ideological point of view but a necessity to keep on growing. The "developed" world needs more and more energy, so now next to fossil fuels other methods of energy (Solar, Wind, nuclear, etc.) are explored.

                About the farmers. Well. If I was the president I would make a system so the farmers got $1 from every product sold for $1.25 in the shop. Because as it stands, farmers don't get anything for there produce. It's all the middleman that gets the money.
                (But well that's a different discussion)

                1. profile image0
                  savvydatingposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  Thanks Peter,
                  Good to hear from you. Farmers here are hurting. I imagine they might like your idea!

                2. Nathanville profile image85
                  Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  Yep, that was a big problem in the UK too until a few years ago e.g. that it’s “the middleman (supermarkets) that gets the money.”

                  The problem was that the supermarkets (large food store chains) dictate to the farmers the terms and conditions and the price they pay to the farmers; which was a mere pittance e.g. the supermarkets would only accept vegetables that was near perfect so that small and misshapen, or slightly discoloured vegetables, which was about a third of a farmers crop, would be rejected by the supermarkets, and much of it would just end up being ploughed back into the land.

                  However, things have improved quite considerably since the BBC ran a popular documentary series (first aired in 2015) called “War on Waste” that “Named and Shamed” the supermarkets into changing their ways; which they have since now done e.g. you can now buy the substandard vegetables in supermarkets (that would have previously been rejected by the supermarkets) under a range called “Wonky Vegetables”.

                  On a brighter note:  In the UK, the supermarkets (being large national chains) only do business with the large farms; leaving the small farm holdings to find their own outlets, so the small farms in Britain have thrived by finding local outlets e.g. the now popular ‘farm shops’ where you can buy local fresh organic produce at a reasonable price.

                  Below is follow up of the BBC’s Public Awareness Campaign (TV Series) that got the Supermarkets to relax their cosmetic standards on British grown produce: https://youtu.be/v8gw-CioloE

                  1. GA Anderson profile image86
                    GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    Since you and Peterstreep started these farmers vs. grocery stores and supermarkets tangent . . .

                    Peterstreep wants to give farmers a government-guaranteed 25% profit, and you criticize the supermarkets for being the middleman that makes the big money.

                    In the U.S., grocery stores and supermarkets average 1% - 3% net profit. Is that outrageous from the European perspective? Peterstreep would give farmers 25x that as profit if he were president.

                    To your wasted veggies point, I saw a show today about the U.S. farmer that 'invented' 'baby carrots.' He was a carrot farmer that had the problem you mention-stores wouldn't buy his misshapen carrots—which could be as much as 40% of his crop.

                    So he 'redesigned' a bean-cutting machine to chop his misshapen carrots into lengths that were processed into the now-famous "Baby carrots" market. In the U.S. more are sold than whole carrots.

                    The point is that the producer is responsible for the saleability of his product, not the folks in the chain that get that product into the consumer's hands.

                    GA

                    1. Miebakagh57 profile image82
                      Miebakagh57posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                      Well said. But other farmars should copy the  Baby Carrot Innovative.

                    2. Nathanville profile image85
                      Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                      Thanks for your feedback GA.

                      The profit margin of supermarkets in the UK is an easy one to answer; it’s 3% (similar to the USA) - although 3% of the $200 billion annual turnover of the supermarkets is a lot of money; compared to the $6 billion annual turnover in farming in the UK.

                      For clarity, I’m not suggesting that supermarkets should reduce their profit margin; all that is being suggested is that they lower their cosmetic standards so that farmers can sell less perfect crops to them (for less money than perfect crops of course) and that the supermarkets also sell the less than perfect crops (for less money of course) e.g. turnover; and that is what is happening now, thanks to the BBC’s ‘name and shame’ documentary series – So everyone is a winner.

                      However, determining the profit margins for UK farms is a lot more complex, and I haven’t been able to find a figure for that, but I did find other information from Government sites that may help?

                      Firstly, in the UK the size of farm has little to do with profitably, profitability is more dependent on the type of produce grown and on how successful that farm is in growing that produce; which I guess is largely down to ‘farm management’?

                      Although just 8% of UK farms (very large farms that own 33% of the total farm land) produce 57% of the total agricultural output:-

                      •    41% of farms (38,700 farms) are very small, 7% of total farm land in the UK, and produce just 2% of the total agricultural output.

                      •    30% of farms (28,200 farms) are small, 21% of the total farm land in the UK, and produce 11% of the total agricultural output.

                      •    12% of farms (10,800 farms) are medium size, 18% of the total farm land in the UK, and produce 12% of the total agricultural output.

                      •    9% of farms (8,600 farms) are large, 21% of the total farm land in the UK, and produce 18% of the total agricultural output. 

                      •    8% of farms (7,100 farms) are very large, 33% of the total farm land in the UK, and produce 57% of the total agricultural output.

                      But I guess what’s more relevant to this discussion is the “Average Farm Business Income (Net Profit) per farm at current prices (2022)”, which is dependent on Farm Type (as detailed below):   

                      •    Cereals = £120,100 ($142,112) average annual net profit per farm.
                      •    General Crops = £145,400 ($172,050) average annual net profit per farm.
                      •    Dairy = £140,200 ($168,263) average annual net profit per farm.
                      •    Grazing Livestock (Lowland) = £34,000 ($40,231) net profit per farm.
                      •    Grazing Livestock (LFA) (Less Favoured Areas) = £42,900 ($50,762) net profit per farm.
                      •    Specialist pigs = £11,800 ($13,962) net profit per farm.
                      •    Specialist poultry = £138,100 ($163,411) net profit per farm.
                      •    Mixed farming = £74,000 ($87,563) net profit per farm.
                      •    Horticulture = £60,600 ($70,997) net profit per farm.

                      The above data is only averages e.g. some farms do a lot better than the average, and some a lot worse.  And the data gives no clue to the profit margin.

                      However, from the above data I can be seen that while few farmers are going to be wealthy (a labour of love), it is possible to make a liveable wage for the farming family e.g. currently in the UK the official average wage is £41,866 ($49,539) which is more than enough to live comfortably in the UK e.g. middle class income.

                      Getting back to your constructive ideas; yes in the UK the smaller farms, too small to be of any interest to the supermarkets, have to be innovative in finding their own retails outlets for their produce, and they do the sort of things you suggest and more e.g. using produce that wouldn’t sell to make chutneys and jams, and other products etc.  And the successful small farms sell their produce at ‘farmers markets’ and ‘farm shops’, all of which have become popular with the public in recent years: 

                      Below the farmers shop in Manchester which has been hailed the best farmer shop in the UK:- https://youtu.be/ODDr9T7sFtU

                      But the large farms are tied in with contracts with the supermarkets and don’t seem to have the wiggle room to be innovative; although I’m sure with the right management some could do better than they do.  I’m guessing (just pure speculation) that the large farms put all their resources into growing crops for the supermarkets that after harvest they don’t have the spare resources (labour, cash to pay for labour, time etc.) to do much with the crops the supermarkets reject or the time to find alternate outlets; or otherwise, if it was that easy I’m sure the large farms would have already pursued such avenues?

                    3. peterstreep profile image82
                      peterstreepposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                      haha, well yes, it's one of those "If I was the president of the world" statements. The bottom line is that there's something wrong with the whole process. If a farmer gets for instance 6 cents for a kilo of oranges and you buy them in the supermarket for 1.50 then where is the 1.44 going?
                      And at the same time, the agricultural sector is heavily subsidized by governments. (one of the main reasons the EU was created was agriculture and coal if I remember correctly..) So what's going on?

                      It's crazy that when I buy tulips at the market in Amsterdam, those tulips grown in The Netherlands are packed in plastic in Africa. So the tulips are flown to Africa (can't remember the country) to put cellophane around them, flown back and sold in Amsterdam! Because the labour including the shipment costs is cheaper in Africa than doing it all locally.
                      Same with the assembly of a car. The car is made all over the world. And I think this complicated system of tax cuts, cheap labour etc. is not really in favour of making products local (and so reducing the CO2 of transportation)

                      And yes, the whole thing of the amount of waste food before it reaches the supermarket and what is thrown away is mind-boggling. Another sign that the system is somewhere rotten... (and could be improved enormously.)

                3. DrMark1961 profile image99
                  DrMark1961posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  Unfortunately I would like to get more for my crops and livestock but do not want the extra expenses and headaches. If I am selling my papayas, I may only get 25 cents a kilo here at the farm. The guy that comes and buys them (the middleman) is not making a huge profit. He is not like Amazon, Apple, Alphabet or Exxon. He pays for employees to haul the fruit, fuel for his trucks, maintenance, etc. (The nearest town with a store is about 20 kilometers from here.) The store then buys them but he does not make a huge profit either since he has to pay for rent, utilities, employees, etc.

                  Farmers could make more if they sold directly to the public. (I have seen people do this if they are close to town and want to host the public, like "pick your own" strawberry farms.) Most of us are not in a place where we can do that though. Hence we are stuck with the 25 cents a kilo, which seems ridiculously low until you look at the alternative.

                  1. peterstreep profile image82
                    peterstreepposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    Yes orange farmers over here have the same problem. You have to invest a lot, but don't get much of a return.
                    Some local farmer here changed tactics and is renting out trees individually to families/individuals. They adopt a tree. When the tree gives oranges they can come and pick the harvest of their own tree, or the farmer sends a box of oranges to them. Directly from farmer to customer. So the customer feels involved in the process.

                    1. DrMark1961 profile image99
                      DrMark1961posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                      That sounds like a great initiative.

          3. Nathanville profile image85
            Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            Peter said NOTHING that is wrong or offensive to the poor; from reading what he said, I don’t know where you get that idea from?

            Who says anyone has “to do with less”; producing electricity from Renewable Energy instead of fossil fuels doesn’t mean producing less electricity; and besides, since 2016 Renewable Energy has become cheaper than using fossil fuels in Europe, so in the long, once we’ve transitioned away from using fossil fuels, electricity will be more affordable for all (including the poor), there will be less pollution, and the lives of the poor will be improved.

          4. Nathanville profile image85
            Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            "And Greta Thunberg?  No." - On the contrary; I saw Greta Thunberg live when she organised a Climate Rally and March in Bristol, England (where I live) in March 2020 - we need more people like her to speak out for the future of the planet.

            Greta Thunberg Climate Rally and March in Bristol:  https://youtu.be/JIDlTPTu3M4

        2. Nathanville profile image85
          Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          Buying local produce is becoming more popular in the UK, for example:

          When we were on holiday in the Yorkshire Dales, England, one tourist visitor centre we stopped at get around 80% of their produce from 'local cottage industries' e.g. the housewives in the local villages doing all the baking for the visitor centre made from local produce grown on the farms in the area.

          And, when I spent three weeks in and NHS hospital in 2020 I was intrigued to discover that over 90% of the food they buy for their catering is locally sourced from local organic farms; and the hospital even has a roof garden where they grow all their own herbs for their catering.

          1. DrMark1961 profile image99
            DrMark1961posted 2 years agoin reply to this

            That seems like an obvious solution but very few people actually talk about it. It is too warm where I live to grow apples, pears, and peaches so guess what we do? We do without and grow other types of fruit. (I do buy wheat flour and potato chips though!)

            1. Nathanville profile image85
              Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              Well, I guess it’s something “very few people actually talk about” in Brazil; but Britain is not Brazil.

              In Britain it is topical, and people are keen to buy locally sourced organic food, which is one main reason why in recent years Britain’s ‘farm shops’ have become very popular and thriving.

              Obviously, it’s not exclusive to local produce; in Britain we do also buy tropical fruits like oranges and bananas.

              Take a look inside the farm shop cafe hailed best in the UK:  https://youtu.be/ODDr9T7sFtU

              What are the benefits of Farm Shops?  https://youtu.be/P1oUpm0lwh0

              HONESTY BOXES
              One thing that always amuses us when on holiday (vacation) in Rural England (the countryside) is the ‘Honesty Boxes’ you see on the roadside outside farm gates.  An Honesty Box is where the local farmer will put some of his popular produce e.g. eggs in a wooden display box on the roadside so that people passing can take what they want and leave the required amount of money in the container provided. 

              The amazing thing is that it works e.g. in rural Britain people are honest and will leave the money in the honesty box for the produce they take.  We find it a very handy service, because when we take a holiday in the countryside the holiday cottage we rent for the week is invariably miles away from any shops, so to be able to take some eggs from the honesty box, and pay for them, is very convenient.

              I can’t imagine honesty boxes working in most countries or even in urban areas in Britain; but they are very successful and popular in rural Britain – which I think is rather quaint.

              Selling with an Honesty Box (one farmer’s success story):  https://youtu.be/VUSdbJ9UMVI

            2. Nathanville profile image85
              Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              Well I guess it’s something “very few people actually talk about” in Brazil; but Britain is not Brazil.

              In Britain it is topical, and people are keen to buy locally sourced organic food; which is one main reason why in recent years Britain’s ‘farm shops’ have become very popular, and thriving.

              Obviously it’s not exclusive to local produce; in Britain we do also buy tropical fruits like oranges and bananas.

              Take a look inside the farm shop cafe hailed best in the UK:  https://youtu.be/ODDr9T7sFtU

              What are the benefits of Farm Shops?  https://youtu.be/P1oUpm0lwh0

              HONESTY BOXES
              One thing that always amuses us when on holiday (vacation) in Rural England (the countryside) is the ‘Honesty Boxes’ you see on the roadside outside farm gates.  An Honesty Box is where the local farmer will put some of his popular produce e.g. eggs in a wooden display box on the roadside so that people passing can take what they want and leave the required amount of money in the container provided. 

              The amazing thing is that it works e.g. in rural Britain people are honest and will leave the money in the honesty box for the produce they take.  We find it a very handy service, because when we take a holiday in the countryside the holiday cottage we rent for the week is invariably miles away from any shops, so to be able to take some eggs from the honesty box, and pay for them, is very convenient.

              I can’t imagine honesty boxes working in most countries or even in urban areas in Britain; but they are very successful and popular in rural Britain – which I think is rather quaint.

              Selling with an Honesty Box (one farmer’s success story):  https://youtu.be/VUSdbJ9UMVI

              1. DrMark1961 profile image99
                DrMark1961posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                I cannot imagine a Brazilian setting up one of those honesty boxes. Our newly elected president was released from prison by his buddies at the supreme court so that he could run again. Everyone realizes that he stole from the public coffers while president but the common argument was that he started more government programs for the poor. A congresswoman from his party is trying to pass the law already in San Francisco that allows anyone to steal up to $1000 from a grocery store as long as they are in need.

                There are those of us that would not steal even in an urban area. Honest people like that would not have a chance in a rural area here. Unfortunately stealing from your neighbors is now an acceptable thing here.

                1. Nathanville profile image85
                  Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  Thanks for the feedback, it's sad to hear, but no surprise.

                  1. Miebakagh57 profile image82
                    Miebakagh57posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    On such issues, a High Court in Nigeria, declare: 'Governors are thieves', and sent them to prison.                                    Surprisedly, certain such politician escaped the law and the country. But were catch and jailed abroad.                                      Critically, any Constitutional Amendments in Nigeria, were mostly done to steal from the National, Statd, or Local Governments.

    25. abwilliams profile image75
      abwilliamsposted 2 years ago

      Oh gosh, "climate crisis" seriously?! I missed the latest rename, but it does close up the out which "climate change" provided, so I get it.

      1. Miebakagh57 profile image82
        Miebakagh57posted 2 years agoin reply to this

        And don't forgdet to noted 'global warming' to your knowledge bank. Other related terms will be coin later. Much thanks.

    26. Nathanville profile image85
      Nathanvilleposted 2 years ago

      With a chronic worldwide shortage of natural gas due to the war in Ukraine, to mitigate the unlikely event of Britain facing blackouts this winter e.g. when if/when temperatures plummet to below freezing point leading to a sharp increase in demand for power, in partnership with the National Grid, earlier this week Octopus Energy asked for volunteers to participate in an experiment where they would be paid handsomely for voluntarily reducing their electricity usage for one hour between 5pm and 6pm (when I normally cook the evening meal).

      I volunteered and got paid $6.50 for not using $0.93 worth of electricity during that hour – So I’m looking forward the next ‘Saving Session’ this winter, when I can get paid more for not using electricity.

      Below is a screen dump of an email I got from Octopus Energy yesterday and a link to an article which gives further details:

      https://www.current-news.co.uk/news/oct … ng-session

      https://hubstatic.com/16239435.jpg

      1. profile image0
        savvydatingposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        Perhaps things are different in your part of the world, but to an American, “Octopus” sounds like a typical scam.

        1. Nathanville profile image85
          Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          I think your attitude is because you’re not au fait with the Utility Companies in the UK and how they operate.

          In the UK the energy sector was privatised in 1989 by the Conservative Government e.g. the State Owned Energy Sector was split into its component parts (National Grid and supply from the National Grid to the home) and privatised. 

          For supplying electricity and gas to the homes six ‘large’ private companies emerged, known as the ‘big six’; and although they were in competition with each other for customers their prime goal was ‘profit’ – so invariably, after privatisation the price of gas and electricity to domestic users more than doubled in just a few short years.

          However, in 2001 new Regulations were introduced to make it easier for small Utility Companies to break up the monopoly of the ‘big six’ e.g. prices being set by market forces rather than being controlled by six big companies.

          In 2015 my local government (Bristol City Council) a Socialist Government, launched a non-profit making Utility Company called ‘Bristol Energy’; I quite naturally switched suppliers from one of the big six to ‘Bristol Energy’ because being non-profit making its electricity and gas was a lot cheaper.

          Bristol Energy - How to stand up to the Big Six:  https://youtu.be/uoxY5jut28A

          In the same year (2015) Octopus Energy was also launched; and like Bristol Energy it has an ideology philosophy of supporting Renewable Energy and putting customer’s first e.g. putting people before profit.

          I switched to  Octopus Energy a year ago, when I had solar panels installed, because they a range of good tariffs to choose from, and they offer better tariffs for people with solar panels, wall batteries and EVs, than even Bristol Energy can offer.

          In fact Octopus Energy approach of ‘people before profit’ e.g. cheaper energy bills has attracted a lot of new costumers so that they are now (as of September 2021) the 4th largest Utility Company in the UK and still growing in customer numbers:  A real challenge to the ‘big six’.

          Introducing Octopus Energy https://youtu.be/AaejnbrejvY

          The Bottom Line:  Since switching to Octopus Energy I’ve saved a lot of money on energy bills.

          1. profile image0
            savvydatingposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            Very interesting information. You are correct in saying I did not know those things.

            1. Miebakagh57 profile image82
              Miebakagh57posted 2 years agoin reply to this

              It's good to noted these information from the horse mouth.

        2. Nathanville profile image85
          Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          I think your attitude is because you’re not au fait with the economics and ideology of the energy sector, and Government Regulations in the UK.

          It’s not a scam, and what you’re not privy to is the fact that the money Octopus Energy paid me for the electricity I didn’t use in that hour last week is NOT coming out of the pocket of Octopus Energy but being paid for by the National Grid (a private company), for commercial reasons.

          The factors to be aware of:

          •    As I’ve previously mentioned, because of the worldwide chronic shortage of natural gas (due to the war in Ukraine) currently in the UK the wholesale price of natural gas is 9 times more than the wholesale price of wind power.

          •    There is currently a worldwide chronic shortage of natural gas because of the war in Ukraine, giving rise to a slight risk that if/when temperatures plummet to below freezing this winter that there could be blackouts during peak demand time in the UK; especially if it coincides with it being less windy in the coasts around Britain.

          •    The UK Government have capped prices that Utility Companies can charge at their current levels, so to avoid the fiasco of Utility Companies going bankrupt (like over half of them did last winter) because they were paying more for electricity than they could charge their customers (because of the price cap) the UK Government has agreed to pay the excess costs to the Utility Companies this year (tax payers money).

          In general (a simplified explanation):  The way the system works is that the National Grid buys electricity from the Energy Producers at wholesale prices to meet demand; buying the cheapest electricity first e.g. wind power, and buying the most expensive last (to fill the gap) e.g. gas.

          The National Grid, a profit making private company, then sells the electricity they buy onto the Utility Companies, who in turn sell it onto their customers (domestic users) for a profit.

          However, with the price cap imposed by the Government, if the price of the electricity that Utility Companies buy from the National Grid is higher than the price cap then the Utility Companies end up selling the electricity to the domestic user at a loss – Hence the introduction of the Government picking up the tab so that Utility Companies don’t end up going bankrupt, like they did last year.

          So given the above factors; last month the National Grid came up with a scheme whereby they would be willing to pay Utility Companies ‘generously’ for not using electricity, when asked; and as an incentive to encourage users not to use electricity at those specified times on specified dates, the Utility Companies make the same offer to domestic users – a win-win.

          And it actually makes good commercial and economic sense e.g. by reducing demand on those specified dates/times it means that the National Grid don’t need to buy so much natural gas, saving them a huge sum of money because natural gas is 9 times more expensive than wind-power; and a large percentage of the money the National Grid saves by this approach is passed onto the Utility Companies, who can then pass those savings onto the users by rewarding those users who made a special effort to use less electricity when asked.  So it save’s everyone money, including the tax payers.  The only loser are the gas companies, as they don’t get a chance to sell so much gas; but then who cares about them, as they are the ones who are profiteering from the energy crisis anyway.

          The National Grid scheme has proved popular with all the big six Utility Companies, and Octopus Energy signing up to scheme.  And last week Octopus Energy, following a request from National Grid, did what was effectively a trial run to prove the concept e.g. that it works in practice.

          And it works in practice because over the last 10 years the National Grid has been transformed into a ‘Smart Grid’ e.g. my electricity and gas meter readings are automatically sent to my Utility Company every 30 minutes; making variable pricing on an half-hour bases possible – which benefits me as with Octopus Energy I’m on a tariff where I get cheap electricity from 12:30am to 4:30am every night (when there’s low demand and thus an abundance of electricity).

          In the above experiment, the calculation used to determine how much electricity I didn’t use during that how was based on the average of how much I used during that hour over the previous 20 days.

          Under the scheme this winter domestic users will generally get 24 hours’ notice of when they will get paid for not using electricity because the National Grid have become experts at predicting supply and demand 24 hours in advance e.g. by looking at recent trends in demand (including peak demand times) and getting the latest ‘accurate’ ‘short term’ weather forecasts from the UK Met Office, so they know how much sun and wind to expect over the next 24 hours.  With that information they then know on how many gas fired power stations need to be put on standby for the following day (which costs money).  The fewer gas-fired powered stations there are on standby, the less natural gas burnt, the better it is for the planet, and greater the financial savings for everyone.

    27. Nathanville profile image85
      Nathanvilleposted 2 years ago

      How aware are you of the severity of the destructive damage being done around the world right now by climate change? 

      •    Glaciers melting at alarming rate due to summer heatwaves, scientists warn: https://youtu.be/aQy-kWZQvno

      •    See what three degrees of global warming looks like:  https://youtu.be/uynhvHZUOOo

      •    Rising Ocean Temperatures are "Cooking" Coral Reefs | National Geographic:  https://youtu.be/mQ10xBl8XMQ

      1. profile image0
        savvydatingposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        These alarmist videos support and fund climate change activists. I do not find them impressive. Neither are many statistics useful in that they often leave out relevant information which could change one’s opinion altogether.

        The simple truth is: the quality of life is decreasing in the United States, not because of a war, (although partially) but because of bad policies and reckless spending.
        Perhaps you’d have to have been born an American, and a baby boomer, who reveres our Constitution, to understand.

        That being said, some baby boomers feel differently. I’ve met some who believe Bernie Sanders understands economics, despite his affinity for communist philosophies.

        1. Miebakagh57 profile image82
          Miebakagh57posted 2 years agoin reply to this

          Oh the quality of life is decreasing, especially among the urban communitis, and to a lesser extend the urban folks, that adopt to a sadentary or modern lifestyle.                                 It's not just the  USA. Its almost any country.                                        The best that can be done is to make certain changes. First, eating habit:add spices and herbs to your diets. Add to that micro-nutrients. The bush, road-side hedge, the sea, can provide you with tiny stuffs.                                    Two: do  some stretching exercises weekly.                                      Three, take 9 hours of sleep a day.

        2. Nathanville profile image85
          Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          Your response is no surprise to me; but:

          Two of the above videos that’ you’ve dismissed:

          •    FYI Glaciers are melting at an alarming rate – that is undeniable fact.
          •    FYI Rising Ocean Temperatures are killing the Coral Reefs – that is undeniable fact.

          So how can you be so dismissive of the facts?

          Besides, one of the videos above is by National Geographic, which is recognised as a respectable 'factual' publication.

          FYI (For Your Information) I am a baby boomer; so I know exactly what the climate in the UK and across Europe have been over the last 60 years – and I’ve seen, and experienced (first hand) a dramatic change in our climate in the last 20 years.  Since 2002 the UK has become significantly wetter and warming in the winter and much hotter and dryer in the summer months.

          You don’t find the videos impressive because you’re blind to the catastrophes, as a direct result of climate change that is happening across the whole world right now.  Ten years ago I was sceptical about climate change; but having witnessed its adverse effect first-hand here in the UK, and across Europe, there is no doubt that it is as serious as shown in the videos. 

          Over the coming years, as the climate changes negatively impacts on the USA to a greater and greater degree Americans will begin to wake up to the seriousness of climate change; but by that time it will be too late.

          Why are Americans so self-absorbed?  The problems you describe in the USA is NOT USA specific; they are problems facing all Industrialised Nations – As an outsider (from across the pond) using excuses like “bad policies and reckless spending” to attack a political party that you don’t agree with is just attempt to put the blame for all of Americas ills on the Democrats because you support Republicans; and is deflection from the real issues, which the whole world faces, not just the USA - We are all in the same boat and face the same domestic problems that you describe.

          As a baby boomer I remember well the summer of 1976, the only heatwave we had in the UK in my lifetime before or since; until 2002.  Since 2002 (20 years ago) we’ve had 10 devastating heatwaves in Britain, each one progressively getting worse than the last.

          As a baby boomer I remember all the snow we used to get in Bristol each winter, typically at least 6 inches or a foot for up to two weeks at a time; the worst being the winter of 1963 when we had 6 foot of snow that didn’t melt for months.  Since 1990 we’ve had virtually no snow in Bristol most winters (due to climate change); and on the handful of occasions when we have had  a little snow it’s been less than an inch and is usually melted with 24 to 48 hours.

          So you can’t tell me that it’s not climate change, and that climate change is not serious; because as a baby boomer I’ve witnessed the climate change, and the devastating effects it is having right now, with my own eyes - and it will only get worse.

          1. profile image0
            savvydatingposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            To be continued.

            For now, thanks to my friends here and across the  pond for all your passion and information.

            I’ll be checking in regularly, although my current focus for a few days will be on enjoying the wonderful Thanksgiving season, complete with the feast and family I will enjoy!

          2. profile image0
            savvydatingposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            "Why are Americans so self-absorbed?"

            First of all, Americans are your neighbors. You may want to look in the mirror to find the answer regarding "self-absorbed."

            "... to attack a political party that you don’t agree with is just attempt to put the blame for all of Americas ills on the Democrats because you support Republicans..."

            I misinterpreted one person and apologized, but I have not attacked anyone in this Climate Change forum, yet you have attacked me and made assumptions about me that are narrow-minded and inaccurate. Furthermore, I have listened to all you have said, graciously, and without attacking you. I would appreciate it if you would show me the same respect and consideration I have shown to you.

            Just because I do not agree with the popular sentiment of those like Greta Thunberg and Al Gore, does not make me wrong. Rather, it makes me a critical thinker.

            To quote Primo Levi:

            “Monsters exist, but they are too few in number to be truly dangerous. More dangerous are the common men, the functionaries ready to believe and to act without asking questions.”

            1. Nathanville profile image85
              Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              I’m sorry you feel that way, but the title of this forum is “Let’s have a fruitful discussion on Climate Change”; yet rather than engaging in meaningful discussions on the issues you’ve constantly be dismissive of anything and everything that threatens your belief.

              It’s not that I wish to attack anyone, but we are fighting for the survival of the planet, and mankind, because of the suffering that climate change is causing millions of people, right now, across the world; due to the excessive burning of fossil fuels.  Yet, Americans in general seem to be blind to this, or just don’t care.

              I used to be sceptical of climate change, just as you are now; but when the evidence of the harm that is happing across the world right now, and when climate change started to impact negatively on my life, I then changed my views. 

              If I seem aggressive it’s because this is the most serious matter facing mankind right now; and it’s frustrating that Americans can’t see the dangers we are facing.

              Until ordinary people in counties like America change their attitudes about Climate Change it’s going to get a lot worse; and without change (a more rapid move away from fossil fuel and towards Renewable Energy) by counties like the USA the whole world suffers. 

              Potentially, without urgent action by counties like the USA, the worst case scenario is a 6th ‘mass extension’; something I don’t want to face, and certainly don’t want to be responsible for – Do you? 

              You think you’re right, but if you are wrong, and the scientists are right; do you really want to take the chance of another mass extinction, or would you prefer to take action to try to mitigate against such a disaster?

              1. profile image0
                savvydatingposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                Nathanville,
                Let’s make a deal. You provide your convictions and I provide mine. And, as I have not criticized your country, even though I could… how about if you also make the decision not to criticize America. If you criticize my country, you criticize me.
                The United States is about 275 years old. Yet, we have created the strongest nation on the face of the earth.
                We are innovative and nearly always available to provide humanitarian help to the world, more than other nations.
                And yes, other countries do rely upon us for our wealth.

                We are not facing mass extinction due to climate change. We would, however, face mass extinction, in parts of the world, due to poverty.

                I can address your issues regarding hurricanes, etc. another time.
                As for now, I am enjoying my Thanksgiving holiday.
                I will only add, for now, that  we are aware of global warming issues.

                That is not to say our president has any idea of the harm he is doing by politicizing climate change.

                Thanks for your comment.

                1. Nathanville profile image85
                  Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  How do you know we are not facing mass extinction due to climate change?

                  1. Miebakagh57 profile image82
                    Miebakagh57posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    It probably will happen to the lesser spices. But human beings can be count as an excemption.                                   And unless it's famine,  mass suicide, or genocide, that's political as Hitler did to the Jews, or the Chinese during their cutural revolutions, mass extinction of humans on planet earth isn't likely as a result of climate change.                                  But I can bet if nuke bombs are going to be drop on every country of the world. Yet, some spices these days would still survived like the guy, when 'Big Boy' was dropped on Nagasaki, Japan.

                    1. Nathanville profile image85
                      Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                      That depends. 

                      If we can limit global warming to 1.5°C (2.7°F) above pre-industrial levels, which is looking increasingly unlikely, then we will divert mass extinction.

                      If global warming is allowed to rise to 2.7°C, which seems most likely at this time, then although mass extinction is not likely, it’s going to be hell on earth; albeit the wealthy nations faring better than poor nations.

                      However, in the event of global temperatures exceeding 5.2°C (9.36°F) then mass extension, including humans is highly likely.

                      Currently (as of 2022) the global temperature is around 1.21°C (2.18°F) above pre-industrial levels, with current speculation that we are most likely to reach 1.5°C (2.7°F) within about 8 years.

                      You can read more about this from the ‘Nature’ magazine publication, a reputable source that is peer reviewed.  https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-25019-2

                      But it’s not just mass extinction that we don’t want to risk, to divert Earth becoming an unbearable place to live should also want to avoid reaching what’s called ‘The Tipping Point’ e.g. a point at which certain (well defined) events happen, and become unstoppable, leading to catastrophic events affecting the livelihoods and lives of a large proportion of the Earth’s population. 

                      Current ‘school of thought’ is that 1.5°C (2.7°F) is the tipping point (of no return); which is why it’s the prime target in the Paris Agreement.

                      You can learn a little more about ‘The Tipping Point’ from this link:

                      https://earth.org/tipping-points-of-cli … hresholds.

                      As regards mass extensions:  If by burning excessive amounts of fossil fuels we were to bring on mass extension, it’s like to apply to us as any other animal and plant species on Earth.

                      So far there’s been 5 Mass Extinctions, the last a most famous one being 66 million years ago when an asteroid wiped out the dinosaurs.

                      However, it’s worth noting that 3 of the mass extinctions (listed below) were due to global warming:

                      1.    The Devonian mass extinction 374 million years ago  = 75% of all species on the Earth became extinct.

                      2.    The Permian mass extinction 250 million years ago = 95% of all species on Earth became extinct.

                      3.    The Triassic mass extinction 200 million years ago = 80% of all species on Earth became extinct.

                      Honestly, if mankind was foolish enough to burn all the fossil fuel we could get our hands on, as if there was no tomorrow; then mass extinction would be highly likely, and mass extinction from global warming (historically) means the extinction of between 75% and 95% of all life on Earth:  with such odds, what chance do you think humans would escape the mass extinction; no amount of technology is going to save us, and the eco system that we depend on for our survival.

    28. Nathanville profile image85
      Nathanvilleposted 2 years ago

      Although it's been in the pipeline for a while now; it's finally happening:

      On the news today:  1000 UK oil and gas rigs (200 a year) in the North Sea, off the coast of Scotland, are to be decommissioned over the next ten years, as the UK continues to transition away from fossil fuels and towards Renewable Energy.

      The video (a year old) puts the cost at £16 billion; but the actual costs of decommissioning is now closer to £25 billion.  https://youtu.be/Z0z3hMzsPMI

    29. Nathanville profile image85
      Nathanvilleposted 2 years ago

      Wow, I like to take the occasion peek at the National Grid Live to see what’s happening; and when I looked this morning at 9:20am 53.4% of the electricity being generated in Britain is from Renewable Energy: 

      •    51.6% from wind
      •    1.3% from hydropower, and
      •    0.6% from solar

      Currently, 12.8% of what we generated is being exported:

      •    7.8% exported to France
      •    2.8% exported to Belgium
      •    0.9% exported to Netherlands
      •    0.9% exported to Norway
      •    0.4% exported to the Republic of Ireland

      https://hubstatic.com/16243341_f1024.jpg

      https://hubstatic.com/16243346.jpg

      1. CHRIS57 profile image61
        CHRIS57posted 2 years agoin reply to this

        Arthur, quite impressive.

        I looked at German data on this cloudy day and found:
        46% renewable
        54% non renewable including nuclear

        If "flat" countries without almost any hydropower can achieve this, where is Hoover Dam in the USA positioning ?

        1. Nathanville profile image85
          Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          Good question.  In having a quick look, I couldn't find the specifics for the Hoover Dam itself; but in 2021 hydropower contributed 6.3% of the USA's overall electricity energy mix - which means that just over 33% of the total of Renewable Energy generated in the USA came from hydropower.

      2. CHRIS57 profile image61
        CHRIS57posted 2 years agoin reply to this

        Arthur, a second look at your figures makes me wonder.

        Why is electricity useage so low in the UK? In terms of per capita use, electric power requirement is only 550W/capita. Same number for Germany is 818W/capita and for the USA and Sweden (from what i could find) roughly 1800W/capita at 10 o´clock in the morning.

        Are you folks sitting at a campfire in the woods with industry shut down?
        Just kidding, but i am curious about an explanation.

        1. Nathanville profile image85
          Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          Another good question - and one for which I don’t have an answer to.

          There might be clues in these points below though?

          •    Currently, most of our heating comes from gas boilers, not electric; although that is to change dramatically over the next decade e.g. the sale of new gas boilers will be banned as from 2025 and the supply of natural gas to homes will be banned in 2035 e.g. the lifespan of a gas boiler is 10 years.

          •    We don’t have air conditioning in the UK, which I understand uses a lot of electricity.

          •    Currently few people in the UK have heat pumps, although the UK Government is pushing for heat pumps to become the main alternative heating system to gas boilers, as gas boilers are phased out.

          Other differences between the UK and the USA include:-

          •    In the UK people tend to have a combined washer/spin dryer for clothes which uses a lot less electricity than separate units; especially the type we use in Britain, which is different to the American clothes dryer in that the type in the UK don’t require an air-vent.

          How Combo Washer/Dryers Work:  https://youtu.be/iqchVamthh4

          •    In the UK you can only buy low wattage energy saving light bulbs e.g. typically about 10w or less e.g. the light build in our front porch (which is more than bright enough) is only 4W.  Although I guess this is the same across Europe, and presumably in the USA?

          Other than that we all have our own TVs, computers, array of white goods, and so on; so we all have the same level of mod cons that everyone else has in Europe and America.

          If I think of anything else I’ll add it to the list.

        2. Nathanville profile image85
          Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          One more thing to add to the list of 'energy saving' gadgets is the sudden popularity of 'air fryers' in the UK this year; because of the huge amounts of electricity saved compared to convention cooking methods.

          I've just spent the last three days researching them; and have decided on the model that best suits our needs (ticks all the boxes), only to find that due to popular demand they are out of stock across the whole of the UK.  So, we might have to wait a few months before we can get one - but the wait will be worth it.

          1. CHRIS57 profile image61
            CHRIS57posted 2 years agoin reply to this

            I made some observations on electricity use by our household cooking behavior during the Corona high tide, when restaurants were closed.
            There was virtually no change in electricity use in our household, and we are normally a very frequent contributor to local cuisine restaurants.

            So i doubt that this cooking gadget has much impact on electricity consumption. I think it is more a matter of industrial and commercial use.

            In Germany household electricity consumption is 26%. Another 26% is commercial services and the largest chunk is industry with 44%. The rest is traffic, transportation, e-mobility.

            As G. is a net exporter of products (20% plus of GDP), this directly reflects to industrial consumption of electricity. As far as i know, the UK is a net importer of products, your chunk of producing industry in GDP is possibly only half of G.s. If we go over the numbers and create a "normalized" value, then an adjusted value for Germany would be some 600W /capita. Could this be an explanation?

            Concerning gadgets like "air fryer". Isn´t this just a marketing hype? Same as we have in G. with the run for heatpumps to keep your house warm?
            Air-Water Heatpumps are only expensive, don´t do very much for CO2  reduction (at least with our electricity mix) and are prone to maintenance and repair issues (there are simply way too many moving parts in that system compared to a conventional condensing gas boiler.

            I looked at this for a while, then gas prices shot through the roof, electricity only rose gradually. So i ordered 2 cheap, close to standard reversible airconditioners (heating/cooling). Currently in winter days they eat roughly 6 kWh/day (Smart home monitoring). Our gas consumption is down by 22 kWh/day. Gives a thermodynamic efficiency of 3,7. Close to the SCOP value of 4,2 as advertised. https://www.renovablesverdes.com/en/seer-and-scop/

            Was it Churchill who said: "I only believe in the statistics that i faked myself"?
            Well, i try do my own maths. Keeps me from following every marketing hype.

            1. Nathanville profile image85
              Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              Yep, you’re right; industrial consumption of electricity in the UK will be a lot less than Germany’s e.g. in the 1980s the Conservative Government deliberately transitioned the UK away from being a manufacturing-based economy to a Service Industry based economy (banking and insurance etc.) so that now about 50% of Britain’s income (GDP) is Services.

              Likewise, I keep an eye on our electricity usage, which is a lot easier to do these days with ‘Smart Meters’ and itemised electricity bills.  And at the moment about 20% of our electricity usage in our household is cooking.

              My wife is partially disabled (bad back) so she gets disability allowance from the Government (Personal Independent Allowance and Mobility Allowance); and I get paid by the Government as her ‘Official Carer’ – effectively getting paid by the Government to be a ‘househusband’ e.g. I do all the cooking and housework.

              As I said above, I spent three days researching ‘air fryers’, and the initial research was a ‘number crunching’ exercise to work out how much electricity (if any) an air fryer would save, given what we cook and how we cook it e.g. like you “I try to do my own maths” rather than just rely on ‘marketing hype’.  The market hype claims that an ‘air fryer’ can save you up to 70% on electricity; when I did my own calculations that was nearer to 50% savings (given the way I cook food, and what I cook) - which is still a considerable saving e.g. it could cut our overall electricity bill by around 10%, which given the current price of electricity, and the fact that it will get higher next spring, will be a considerable saving.

              Last September the price of electricity was 17p per kWh, then in October 2021 it increased to 24p and after two further increases is now 34p per kWh, with a further 50% price increase in the pipeline for next April.

              As regards gas boilers, I replaced our old one (12 years old) when it died last year, for a new eco-friendly gas boiler, which being far more efficient has cut our gas usage by a third.  So, I don’t need to worry about that until the end of the decade; but when it does need replacing (in about 10 years), as new gas boilers are being banned from 2025, I will then have to look at the available alternatives e.g. heat pumps, and decide what the best options are at time?

              The air fryer model we’re after will (for us) save a lot of electricity because of its dual baskets that operate independently of each other e.g. allow everything to be cooked in one device all at the same time rather than using the microwave, hobs and oven to cook a full main meal.
              That’s one difference between us, is that we only eat out in a restaurant on special occasions e.g. celebrations, birthdays etc.  Most of the time I do all the cooking at home for our meals, which is when we use significantly more electricity, as shown in a screen dump of my electricity bill.

              Ninja Foodi MAX Dual Zone Air Fryer AF400UK UK Review!  https://youtu.be/WZXJrKxk5C8

              As solar panels would skew the data I’ve gone back and done a screen dump for a typical day in November last year (just prior to when we had our solar panels installed).  The itemised bill shows my energy usage in half hour (30 minutes) segments; and I’ve put red blobs against the two periods during the day when I was cooking e.g. lunchtime (between 12:30 and 1:30pm) and preparing our evening meal (between 4pm and 6pm).  The graph at the top of the screen dump shows these two spikes in electricity usage.

              https://hubstatic.com/16247251.jpg

              1. DrMark1961 profile image99
                DrMark1961posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                Good to see those numbers. Although our air fryer does not save any electricity it does keep us from using natural gas (almost everyone here cooks with natural gas) and since most electricity here is hydroelectric (about 80%) it does do a little for reduced fuel consumption.

                1. Nathanville profile image85
                  Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  Thanks, your comments are most enlightening. It's good to hear that most of your electricity in Brazil comes from hydroelectric power.  smile

                  Likewise, in the UK a lot of people do use natural gas for cooking, but just as many (like us) have electric cookers.

                  1. DrMark1961 profile image99
                    DrMark1961posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    We are fortunate to have so much water. Last year when we went through a drought in much of the country the electricity bill had a red flag on it and was more expensive, but that is now back to normal.

                    Hopefully we can eventually make most of the other 20% solar and wind power, but I cannot see getting away from home cooking with natural gas. I have been building and giving away solar ovens for about 40 years but in my community almost no one wants to use one. (As opposed to the Sahara, where most people I knew wanted one since the only source of cooking fuel took many hours to retrieve.)

                    1. Nathanville profile image85
                      Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                      Cool.  smile

                      Yes, you are fortunate in having so much water.  Over the past 12 months 1.3% of our electricity in the UK has come from hydroelectric power generated in Britain, and we've imported 1.1% of our electricity from Norway (hydroelectric power) - total 2.4%; but that pales into insignificance compared to the 80% you have in Brazil.

                      Solar ovens sound intriguing: Something I've never heard of before, so I've learnt something new - thanks.  Do you have any information on solar ovens; I'm interested purely from an academic viewpoint.

    30. Nathanville profile image85
      Nathanvilleposted 2 years ago

      Dramatic Increase in Storms due to Climate Change

      I accept that hurricanes are not more frequent, as quite rightly pointed out in this forum by Mark or Mike; but as stated in the link they provided, hurricanes are becoming increasingly more devastating due to Climate Change – which I would have thought would have been of concern to Americans?

      Notwithstanding the above, it is however undeniable that ‘Storms’ are becoming dramatically more frequent because of climate change. 

      Britain doesn’t get hurricanes generally, but we do get ‘Storms'.  Before the Industrial Revolution severe storms were very rare occurrences in Britain, typically once in a century.  By the time I was born severe storms were still uncommon, occurring about once in a generation, then becoming once a decade – But now, they are annual events, sometimes getting two major storms in Britain a year.

      Of the 16 major storms we’ve had in Britain since records began, 8 have been since 2000, with 6 being in the last 5 years.  So, there is no doubt that climate change is having a devastating effect on Britain’s climate.

      Britain’s worst storms on record:-

      1.    1607:  Bristol Channel Floods.  Over 2,000 people drown, and devastation to farmland and livestock.

      2.    1703:  The Storm in 1701 which battered the country for more than a week, and where up to about 15,000 people killed, and devastation to property in southern England.

      3.    1881: Eyemouth Disaster where 189 people were swept away by the sea and drowned in the village of Eyemouth in Scotland.

      4.    1891: The Great Blizzard, which for four days cut Cornwall and Devon off from the rest of Britain, 200 people and 6,000 farm animals died.

      5.    1953:  North Sea Flood, where 326 people drowned, 30,000 people were made homeless when 24,000 homes were destroyed.

      6.    1963:  The Big Freeze (which I remember well), which swept across the whole of the UK and lasted over three months; with the snow being 6ft deep in Bristol (where I live).

      7.    1987:  The Great Storm of 1987 (which I also remember well) e.g. clay tiles being flung from roofs onto the road as I was trying to get home from work!  Fortunately, only 18 people lost their lives in the storm, but it destroyed 15 million trees, and caused over $1.5 billion worth of damage to property and homes.  Thousands were without power for days, and roads and railway across the UK were blocked by wreckage from the storm.

      8.    1990:  Burns’ Day Storm, a hurricane hit Scotland, causing 47 deaths and widespread damage, including power loss and blocked roads and railways.

      9.    2000:  The Floods of 2000, the worst flood on record, leaving thousands without power, and 10,000 homes in 700 locations across Britain flooded; with damage costs of around $1.5 billion.

      10.    2013:  The Storms of 2013, causing widespread damage, falling trees, and power loss, and severe flooding across Britain, flooding thousands of homes.

      11.    2018:  The Beast from the East, when the air masses from the north pole shifted to settle over Britain for a few days in March; causing deaths with the blizzards causing widespread disruption to travel. 

      •    The Beast from the East https://youtu.be/NyzhbJCI8jc

      12.    2020: Storm Ciara in February, causing power loss to 20,000 homes, and widespread flooding and travel chaos across the country.

      •    Storm Ciara batters the UK https://youtu.be/IfSYavrD6lc

      13.    2020:  Storm Bella in December, hundreds of homes across England were flooded, and train services were suspended.

      •    Storm Bella batters Britain https://youtu.be/vhmAAyQeD7c

      14.    2021:  Storm Darcy in February, bringing heavy snowstorms across the country, especially in southeast England, causing disruption to transport and deaths.

      •    Storm Darcy brings heavy snow and winds to the UK https://youtu.be/7NnIRskzaEU

      15.    2021: Storm Arwen in November, thousands of trees destroyed, causing power loss to millions of homes, and at least three people were killed in the storm, and hundreds of grey seal pups along British coasts were killed by the storm.

      •    Storm Arwen: https://youtu.be/5jNUBKtKgnE

      16.    2022:  Storm Eunice in February, causing widespread disruption to travel.
      •    Storm Eunice https://youtu.be/ufSkO7Z_lIk

      1. CHRIS57 profile image61
        CHRIS57posted 2 years agoin reply to this

        Just look at statistics from insurance companies like Münchener Rück (Munich Re):
        Claims have increased some 400% over past 20 years. - and not because they are selling more contracts :-)

        1. Nathanville profile image85
          Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          Wow, that's a dramatic jump in insurance claims. 

          In the great storm of 1987, the number of insurance claims were so overwhelming that the day after the storm insurance companies made a 'public statement' that any claim under £1,000 ($1,200) would automatically be accepted and paid without delay and without question e.g. they just didn't have the Resorces to make their usual checks on claims for 'small claims'.

          I didn't have any damage to our house, fortunately; but severe damage was done to my grandmother's house, so I got a local builder to give me a written quote for just under the £1,000 to cover the repairs, and the following week the insurance company sent me the money.

      2. profile image0
        savvydatingposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        The UN’s climate scientists say, “There is no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency.” They also say that “storm activity has increased in the North Atlantic, but they do not find hurricane activity to be linked to human activity or influence.

        1. Miebakagh57 profile image82
          Miebakagh57posted 2 years agoin reply to this

          Are not those scientists being influenced by the Chinese Lording over the United Nations? Just wondering and asking. Thanks.

          1. Nathanville profile image85
            Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            No, they are not.

            1. Miebakagh57 profile image82
              Miebakagh57posted 2 years agoin reply to this

              Thank you, Arthur.

        2. Nathanville profile image85
          Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          I'm not talking about hurricanes, Mike or Mark has already supplied a link verifying that there is "no trends in cyclone frequency", but that very same link also stated that the cyclones are becoming "more destructive" - Likewise, the report you're quoting above confirms there is "no trends in cyclone frequency", but frequency is not the same as intensity e.g. the hurricanes you're getting in the USA are becoming more destructive.

          Yes "storm activity has increased in the North Atlantic" (due to climate changes", as you have quoted from the UN climate scientist) e.g. Storms hitting Britain.

          Did you know that the storms we get in the UK are predominately remnants of the high winds crossing the Atlantic from the USA, the Jet Stream; so, the worst the hurricanes in the USA, the worst the storms are in the UK.  And did you also know that hurricanes in the northern hemisphere are developing further north (closer to the USA) because of climate change, giving the perception of increased hurricanes.

          Atlantic jet stream changes to impact Irish weather patterns (due to climate change): https://youtu.be/QO8EJfcLQhU

          Jet Stream Reaching Dangerous Tipping Point (due to climate change): https://youtu.be/DLDg0TQtkVs

        3. CHRIS57 profile image61
          CHRIS57posted 2 years agoin reply to this

          About 40 years ago i attended a lecture from meteorolgists about climate conditions in our region.

          I still remember from that session that rainfall in our region (Northern Germany) was close to dry steppe of central Asia. The only reason why our country is so green (not as green as Ireland of course) is frequent moderate rainfalls in short intervals.

          This is changing. Short intervals are replaced by longer intervals between rainfalls. Underlying reason: Prolongation of jetstream meandering in the northern hemisphere. This jetstream ribbon is simply stretching out, resulting in smaller amplitudes and longer periods.

          I don´t judge why this is happening, but i understand that it is happening.

        4. Nathanville profile image85
          Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          I would like to see the link that you got your quote from.

          In doing my own research on what the UN actually says about hurricanes; straight from the horse’s mouth e.g. looking at the UN website itself, rather than reading it third hand from another source with the risk of making quotes out of contexts – I’ve found two interesting UN articles, with the first one published just two months ago (so it’s up to date).

          Link 1 - Quoting from the Report:

          •    “Climate change is expected to increase the proportion of major tropical cyclones worldwide, and to increase the heavy rainfall associated with these events.” 

          •    “Meanwhile, sea level rise and coastal development are also worsening the impact of coastal flooding.”


          https://news.un.org/en/story/2022/09/1128221

          Link 2 - Quoting from the Report: 

          •    “The climate crisis is here, and no continent, region or country is immune. Climate and weather-related disasters have increased six-fold over the past five decades.”

          •    “The United Nations estimates that current climate adaptation costs in developing world stand at $70 billion per year and are set to increase to as much as $300 billion a year by 2030 if action isn’t taken immediately.”


          https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/hur … t-reminder

          1. profile image0
            savvydatingposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            I do not rely on the UN for accurate information. Nevertheless, I thought I would provide you with a general quote. I do not have links. Rather, I read books.
            If you want to find a quote on tropical hurricanes, research GFDL/NASA 2019. They conclude, “The historical Atlantic hurricane frequency does not provide compelling evidence for a substantial greenhouse warming-induced long term increase.”

            For more information, visit the Copenhagen Consensus. They are a think  think tank composed of environmentalists, economists, and scientists.

            1. Nathanville profile image85
              Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              I don't need to find a quote on tropical hurricanes; you made the quote yet failed to provide a link to prove its an accurate quote (within context) - So I can't tell how reliable the source that you used is, and whether the quote you are making is 'taken-out-of-context' or not. 

              You say that GFDL/NASA conclude "The historical Atlantic hurricane frequency does not provide compelling evidence for a substantial greenhouse warming-induced long-term increase.” Yet you've provided no links to the articles, so I suspect it's another quote taken out-of-context e.g. all too often such quotes are taken 'out-of-context'.  A prime example being that it's been quoted in this forum that 'hurricanes are not more frequent because of global warming' yet it was failed to be mentioned that the article then went onto explain that hurricanes are becoming more destructive.  If you want the facts, you can't pick and choose just those bits that fits with your beliefs - you have to accept the 'whole', warts and all.

              In contrast to your claims, the information I've read from NASA contradicts your dismissal of climate change being a crisis - so I suspect that you are taking information 'out-of-context' (cherry picking).

              Besides, the information provided by the UN is accurate and up to date, and peer reviewed; and if you 'fact-check' every point made in those articles by the UN scientists - they are supported by the worldwide scientific community; something which I do understand well because of my scientific background.

              I suspect that you didn't even bother reading either of the links I gave above because you already have a closed mind on the subject?  And thus, unwilling to have a fruitful discussion on climate change?

              1. profile image0
                savvydatingposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                As I said, I read books. I have no reason to provide links from the internet as I do not get my information from the internet.
                It seems to me that all the “cherry picking” you accuse me of having is doubled in your case.
                I have an open mind, but not at the cost of wasting money and failing the poorest of the poor.

                Furthermore, I gave you a solid site from peer reviewed scientists for you to research on the internet…since that seems to be your preference.

                If you choose to ignore my reference regarding scientists from Copenhagen Consensus, and instead continue to cherry pick your own references from the internet, that is not my problem.
                You either want to look at relevant, peer reviewed evidence as it relates to economics, or you don’t.
                Thus far, you have shown that you do not.

                1. Nathanville profile image85
                  Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  Uh; yes you did suggest that I look at what NASA says on the subject of hurricanes, and I did as you suggested, and I provided a link to that NASA article; yet the NASA article says the opposite of what you claimed it said – so what on earth are you on about?

                  Reading books?  Who are they written by, and what political spin do the books that you read have; from your comments, I suspect the books are giving you a narrow one-sided view – certainly not a scientific one.

                  And For Your Information, the Copenhagen Consensus are NOT scientist, they are American economists who are NOT interested in the science.  The Copenhagen Consensus are not experts in climate change/global warming.  And sadly, countries like the USA not doing enough to mitigate the effects of climate change will adversely affect the poorest of the poor.

                  What does America do to help the poorest of the poor?

                  1. profile image0
                    savvydatingposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    If you don’t know that, I can’t help you.

                    1. Nathanville profile image85
                      Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                      Uh?  What does that mean “If you don’t know that, I can’t help you.”?

                      When I was at college I was taught how to ‘reference’ my ‘sources’ in ‘Reports’ and when I worked in the civil service it was a requirement for me to ‘reference my sources’ in Reports I wrote; if I didn’t my ‘Report’ would be ‘rejected’ by ‘higher management’’ – Without reference, any claim made is worthless.

                      Therefore, why don’t you at the very least reference your sources e.g. the book ‘Titles’ and ‘Authors’, quoting page number, paragraph number on the page, and sentence number in the paragraph:  Otherwise, the claims you make are just your words without any evidence to back it up!

                      Also, as I said above; you said that NASA backed up your claims, yet when I looked on the NASA website it said the opposite to what you claim: 

                      Here’s the NASA link again (which you suggested I should find) https://climate.nasa.gov/news/3184/a-fo … g-climate/

            2. Nathanville profile image85
              Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              OK:  you suggested I look for a quote about hurricanes on the NASA website: 

              Well here’s a quote from NASA, published 1st June 2022, and a link to that article by NASA so that you can read it for yourself:

              Due to global warming, global climate models predict hurricanes will likely cause more intense rainfall and have an increased coastal flood risk due to higher storm surge caused by rising seas. Additionally, the global frequency of storms may decrease or remain unchanged, but hurricanes that form are more likely to become intense.”

              And the link to that quote from NASA:  https://climate.nasa.gov/news/3184/a-fo … g-climate/

            3. Nathanville profile image85
              Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              The interesting thing about the Copenhagen Consensus is that they are not scientists; they are right-wing American economists who oppose the Kyoto Protocol.

              1. profile image0
                savvydatingposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                Right wing? Hardly.

                1. wilderness profile image77
                  wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  Can't speak as to their political affiliation, but when I looked at who was doing the thinking it was all economists and a handful of unidentified others.  They are neither environmentalists nor scientists; they are economists.  No economists is competent to address the science (if any) behind global warming or its results, except for economic results based on what scientists predict.

                  1. profile image0
                    savvydatingposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    This is what sucks about so-called conservatives.  They willingly throw their fellowmen, who believe in a strong economy, under the bus every single time.

                    (No wonder that Joe Biden managed to claim the presidency.)

                    “Conservatives” have no allegiance, unlike our “Progressive and socialist friends” who would allow the economy to collapse in a minute if they thought it would save the planet.

                    “Kill people, save the planet” is their motto.

                    Good luck with that,  as Democrats will steal every presidential election from here on out, due to their fake righteous indignation.

                    But, I digress.

                    Do I believe everything Bjorn Lomborg says?

                    No.

                    For one thing, he holds up the IPPC as the gold standard, which is highly questionable, in my opinion.

                    But, I have chosen to keep an open mind despite the fact that he has praised Biden and despises Trump. (How is that for “right-wing?)

                    Long story short, I am willing to recognize the work of economists who have valid information from scientists… even those who apply the Nordstrom effect, and have therefore admitted to overestimating the effect of “climate change” by about 25%.

              2. profile image0
                savvydatingposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                They are right to oppose the Kyoto Protocol. This is not something you can even begin to understand.

                1. Nathanville profile image85
                  Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  You asked for a “fruitful discussion” on climate change, so why not discuss what you mean by “They are right to oppose the Kyoto Protocol”, rather than just making bland meaningless statements.

                  I fully understand the Kyoto Protocol and what it means, it runs at the heart of curbing CO2 emissions to divert the worst effects of the climate change catastrophe that is upon us now; a necessary step if we want to mitigate against the damage and misery endangering the land, property and lives to millions of people that is happening all over the world right now; and which is only going to get much worse if we don’t hasten our transition away from fossil fuels to Renewable Energy.

                  The Kyoto Protocol was an international treaty that came into force in 2005 that commits countries to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, based on the scientific consensus that global warming is occurring and that human-made CO2 emissions are driving it.  192 countries (which is virtually the whole world) signed it.

                  1. Miebakagh57 profile image82
                    Miebakagh57posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    This information is well noted. Will research it later. Thanks.

                    1. profile image0
                      savvydatingposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                      Nathanville is wrong about the usefulness of the Kyoto protocol.
                      https://cei.org/opeds_articles/kyoto-pr … ong-wrong/

    31. DrMark1961 profile image99
      DrMark1961posted 2 years ago

      https://edition.cnn.com/us/live-news/nu … index.html

      Hopefully the climate change issue will soon become irrelevant and we can worry about overpopulation and the human destruction of the planet.

      1. Nathanville profile image85
        Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        Yep, its good news, but it’s not going to be any time soon, and certainly not soon enough to divert the climate change crisis. 

        It’s not ready for full scale production; we are still in the early phase of R&D (Research and Development).

        Scientists are quite clear that we need to act now to dramatically reduce carbon emissions by 2050; as regards nuclear fusion there are many more steps until this can be commercially viable.  Scientists and experts now need to figure out how to produce much more energy from nuclear fusion on a much larger scale.  At the same time, they need to figure out how to eventually reduce the cost of nuclear fusion so that it can be used commercially. 

        So it’s not going to be years, and certainly not before 2050 - but decades before building of full scale production can start; assuming that it can be made commercially viable.  And even then, if you’re familiar with how long it takes to build nuclear fission reactors (years), even if/when its commercially viable, it’s going to take years to build the plants at scale before they can become operational.

        1. DrMark1961 profile image99
          DrMark1961posted 2 years agoin reply to this

          Yes, there were a lot of people that said "I am not going to sell my horse and carriage just because of those new-fangled motored vehicles," You might be surprised, and it might happen a lot sooner than you think.

          1. Nathanville profile image85
            Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            It's a nice thought, but we are still at the early stage of R&D and realistically it's not something that will happen any time soon - even with the best will in the world we are still talking about decades, and even then it will only be developed if it does prove commercially viable at scale.

          2. Nathanville profile image85
            Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            Food for Thought
            If you read all the text in your link it makes it quite clear that it’s going to take decades to commercially scale it up; assuming that it can be made commercially viable; so it’s highly unlikely to be commercially viable before 2050 – Hence the importance to continue to pursue other means of reducing CO2 emissions in the meantime to curb global warming.

            Notwithstanding the above: 
            If nuclear fusion did prove to be an unlimited source of clean energy, just like wind, solar, wave, tidal, hydro and green-hydrogen; how do you think the oil and gas industries in the USA are going to respond?

            I can imagine that the USA oil and gas companies bitterly campaigning against the building of nuclear fusion power stations, and paying right-wing economists to make persuasive arguments to right-wing politicians in the USA to resist the use of nuclear fusion; and using propaganda to persuade the American public that oil and gas is better than fusion power?

          3. abwilliams profile image75
            abwilliamsposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            That's funny that you would mention "horse and carriage", I've introduced this idea in more than one conversation.
            If the climate alarmists really want PROGRESS...they must return to horse and buggy. Stagecoach if they have to travel a far distance!

            There will be some kinks to work out, such as getting their own trails, where they'll be out of everyone's way...and business!!
            Obviously, it will mean that the jetsetters; Hollywood, the elite politicians Al Gore, John Kerry and their many compadres, will give up their current lifestyles.

            Naturally, they'll keep preaching to the rest of us, but they will be leading by example, when they do.

            1. Nathanville profile image85
              Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              Transitioning from Fossil Fuels to Renewable Energy does not mean giving up all the mod cons (modern technology) and the comfortable life styles we've come to enjoy in the Industrialise nations - it means using green/clean energy to carry on with our high living standards.

              1. abwilliams profile image75
                abwilliamsposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                So you are not keen on my ideas?
                I am sure that John Kerry and Al Gore, Prince Charles, aren't either! They'll keep preaching, to do as they say, not as they do; because they are, of course, in a league of their own!
                However, they wouldn't put it quite that way.

                Hopefully, my point, will not be dismissed.

              2. Credence2 profile image82
                Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                Seasons Greetings, Arthur

                The concept of controlled nuclear fusion is an exiting one and the breakthrough of note. 

                However, this achievement is a Kitty Hawk moment when two men figured out how to get a heavier than air machine into controlled flight, but for fusion to go beyond invention into practical implementation it would need to become the equivalent of  787 Dreamliner. The scientists, politicians and the captains of industry need to be working in concert to get this technology to the place it needs to be sooner rather than later.

                On a side note, I wanted to get your feelings about rumblings of buyers remorse in England regarding Brexit.... whenever we can fit it in.

                1. Nathanville profile image85
                  Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  The latest opinion poll, dated 17th November 2022 shows a strong “buyer’s remorse” in England regarding Brexit:

                  In Summary:-

                  •    56% of the population think it was wrong for the UK to leave the EU.
                  •    32% of the population think it was right for the UK to leave the EU.

                  •    70% of those who voted for Brexit still think that it was the right decision.
                  •    19% of those who voted for Brexit now think that it was the wrong decision.

                  •    91% of those who voted to remain in the EU still think that leaving was the wrong decision.
                  •    5% of those who voted to remain in the EU now think that leaving was the right decision.

                  1. Credence2 profile image82
                    Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    Without hijacking the thread, briefly, what do you think? Is it Brexit working as it was intended?

                    1. Nathanville profile image85
                      Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                      No, Brexit is not working; contrary to what the Conservative Government would have you believe.

                      The effects of Brexit includes:-

                      •    Higher prices and shortages of food and goods due to the extra time, paperwork, legal documentation, and costs in importing goods from the EU e.g. delays at the ports as paperwork is checked, and the added cost of tariffs etc.  Plus control and restrictions on what can be imported and exported.

                      This summer:  Disruption continues in Dover as UK and France argue over who is to blame:  https://youtu.be/6SOFONH-4M0

                      •    For the reasons given above, exports from the UK to the EU have fallen by 16% because of Brexit.

                      •    Chronic Labour shortages:  hundreds of thousands of EU citizens left the UK because of Brexit, including nurses, bus drivers, lorry drivers, farm labourers and in the leisure and tourist industries and so on. 

                      For example, the NHS which employs 1.4 million currently have over 132,000 vacancies (almost 10% of the total work force); 46,000 of those vacancies are for nurses.  Half the vacancies are due to EU nationals who worked in the NHS leaving the UK after Brexit, including around 22,000 nurses.

                      In Bristol (where I live), we had a chronic shortage of bus drivers until Poland joined the EU, and then the Bristol bus company employed over 200 Polish bus drivers to fill the gap:  Since Brexit those drivers have returned to Poland, leaving Bristol with a shortage of bus drivers again.

                      The problem Britain faces is that it’s an ageing population with a low birth rate, so for our economy to function properly we are heavily dependent on immigrant workers; but immigration is contrary to the hard-right-wing political ethos of the current Conservative Government – so currently Government is ignoring pleas from industry to loosen its tight immigration laws.

                      •    The ‘Fishing Industry’ is struggling following Brexit.  The British Fishing Industry, voted heavily in favour of Brexit because they didn’t like the French fishing in British waters, even though that being part of the EU meant that the British could fish in French waters.

                      However, continental Europeans eat far more seafood per capita than British people, so before Brexit the British fishing industry was heavily dependent on exports to France; but post Brexit for legal and technical trade reasons it’s proving extremely difficult to export British fish to France.

                      •    Since Brexit about a third of soft fruits have been left to rot in the fields because British farmers can no longer get the seasonal workers from mainland Europe (EU).

                      •    As a result of Brexit a large number of financial institutions, including banks, transferred their operations from the UK (mainly London) to the EU; because under EU laws they have to be within the EU to carry out certain types of financial transitions that’s part of their bread and butter business.

                      •    Likewise, many car manufacturers in Britain, have now transferred their factories to the EU because most of the car-parts they use are imported from the EU, and with Brexit the tariffs they would have to pay on importing the parts, and the tariffs they would have to pay on exporting the finished car to sale in Europe now makes car manufacturing in Britain for the European market unprofitable.

                      These are just a few examples of the down-side of Brexit; mainly obscured by the Government because it uses the pandemic and the Ukraine war as an excuse to conveniently hide the true impact of Brexit.  But independent Government Departments like the ONS (Office of National Statistics) are good at unpicking the data separating out the various contributory factors to the issues; and with the ONS in the public domain it then gives reputable news media a reliable source to quote from when they periodically cover one or more aspects of Brexit.

                2. Nathanville profile image85
                  Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  For clarity Credence, where wilderness said  “How is it "equality" that one group (women) have a longer retirement, living off the pension, than the other (men)?  Is the female pension lowered to account for that, or is it just declared "equal" and set aside?”

                  My reply was:-

                  Prior the 1980s in the UK the retirement age of women was 60, and the retirement age of men was 65.  To comply with the EU’s equality laws e.g. so that both men and women retired at the same age the Conservative Government raised the retirement age of women to match the retirement age of men e.g. so that both men and women retired at 65, to ensure equality.  It wasn't done in one fell swoop, because that would then have broken other EU law of 'Legitimate Expectation', so the change was phased in over time.

                  The EU Law of the 'legitimate expectation doctrine' holds that "those who act in good faith on the basis of law as it is or seems to be should not be frustrated in their expectations"

                  1. Credence2 profile image82
                    Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    Arthur, as I told Wilderness, I don't believe that there is any sound basis for creating different retirement ages for each gender, as the same approach can be used for any disperity between groups as a way of reducing their benefits or raising their perspective retirement age. I have to support the move of Conservatives at least to the extent that they supported parity between the genders.

                    But, if I learned anything regarding American politics, it is that things that appear equal may not always be fair.

                    1. wilderness profile image77
                      wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                      That's probably because there is little to no "equality" in nature or politics.  We can strive for "fair", but without "equality" it's difficult/impossible to achieve.

                    2. Nathanville profile image85
                      Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                      Thanks for your feedback, it's good to see we're all on the same page smile

              3. CHRIS57 profile image61
                CHRIS57posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                Arthur, you are right.

                A little example: we can all agree that a washing machine consumes a significant chunk of household electricity. Modern washing machines can link up with the house net and read out whenever electricity is cheapest or greenest during the daytime.
                You fill up the machine, press start and the washer does nothing. It halts the washing process until either the grid or your rooftop solar system indicate the right timing.
                Same process, same convenience, same living standard - less energy use of expensive fossiles (at least expensive in Europe).

                1. abwilliams profile image75
                  abwilliamsposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  I do a lot of hand washing and I hang my clothes on a line to dry (weather permitting) I no longer have a washer and dryer.

                  1. abwilliams profile image75
                    abwilliamsposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    We are truly living off the land, via hunting, fishing and gardening, but occasionally, I do have to take my gas-powered jeep to the grocery store in town. I guess, if the climate alarmists are successful in taking that away from me, I will be fine, but will they ever be?

                    1. peterstreep profile image82
                      peterstreepposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                      That's good to hear. We do too.
                      We used to have a washing machine on solar but dumped it as we didn't use it much. As well modern washing machines have to much electronics and don't do well with generators.

                      So better to do the washing the old fashioned way in a bucket. Saves water and energy. (but off course if you have 10 kids it's a different story...)

                    2. Nathanville profile image85
                      Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                      Wow, it sounds as if you live off-grid?  I couldn’t do that, I enjoy my home comforts too much.

                      One American TV documentary series we enjoy watching is ‘Homestead Rescue’; do you watch that, and if so what’s your views on the programme?

                      With the exception of potatoes I do grow all our own vegetables in our back garden, enough to feed the family, with the surplus at harvest time being frozen so that we have enough to feed us 12 months of the year.

                      Very laudable that you do all your washing by hand - that wouldn’t suit us, sounds too much like hard work; not only do we have a washer/dryer and a dishwasher, but we also have a robot vacuum cleaner and robotic lawnmower as labour saving devices.

                2. wilderness profile image77
                  wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  No, a modern washing machine does not consume a significant chunk of the household energy bill.  Compared to a hot water tank, a clothes dryer, a range, an EV charger or even a toaster, it is minor.

                  Now the dryer is another matter...it is a large power consumer with it's 7,200 watt circuit as opposed to the 1800 watt circuit of a washing machine.

                  1. CHRIS57 profile image61
                    CHRIS57posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    It probably depends on the country you live in. In G.  the grid power suppliers assume that a household of 2 consumes less than 3.000 kWh per year. Same number for the USA is some 10.000 kWh (you find references on the internet).

                    The smart meters of our washing machine and our dryer (state of the art heat pump) are almost at par at some 200 kWh/year each. As the dryer heat pump extracts heat from our utility room i don´t know, how much more gas heating has to be invested for the heat pump dryer. But this already counting peas.

                    Having reduced consumption to this low level, it may explain why Europe is focusing on smart house technology to connect electricity consumption with electricity generation. The relative chunk of major household consumers is simply much bigger than in a US household.

                    I very much respect those who wash by hand and try to live off grid. This is a personal choice and probably not an option for most people on either side of the Atlantic. Not to speak of .. convenience and living conditions..

                    If we want to cut into CO2 production to (at least) feel better about saving our climate, we should ask ourselves how we can reduce energy and electricity consumption for all people and not only for anecdotal off-grid people.

                    1. wilderness profile image77
                      wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                      Somewhere your numbers are twisted beyond recognition.

                      My latest electric bill (a cold month, to be sure) shows a usage of 84.8 kWh per day.  Eight times what you say the average for the US is per year.  Something is wrong here - I'm rather proud of the figure as I have no other source of energy in the house, just electricity.

                      I like the heat pump dryer concept.  No loss of heat (it just goes back into the house when warm clothes are removed), unless you are putting hot air outside, as we do in the US.

                  2. Nathanville profile image85
                    Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    It’s enlightening reading your list of high consumption appliances; it highlights some interesting differences between the USA & UK.

                    1.    In the UK we don’t have separate washing machines and clothes dryers, we have them combined into one machine called a washer/dryer; and the dryers in the UK uses different technologies to the American dryers e.g. the dryers in the UK don’t need the air vent.

                    The power consumption of our washer/dryer is:-
                    •    Washing:  Up to 2.3 kW.
                    •    Drying:  Up to 1.9 kW.

                    How Combo Washer/Dryers Work:  https://youtu.be/iqchVamthh4

                    2.    In the UK we no longer have ‘hot water tanks’; in homes these days virtually everyone has a gas combi-boiler for hot water and heating; which is a lot more efficient, and uses a lot less energy than the old ‘hot water tanks’.

                    Combi Boilers Explained:  https://youtu.be/TAhMCVjK3dk

                    3.    Our cooker (range), 5 rings on the hob, a split grill (choice of just one side or both sides), and a double oven (triple glazed) has a maximum power consumption of 10 kW; and our electric shower is 9 kW.

                    4.    Our toaster is only 1.8 kW, compared to our kettle which is 3 kW, although our microwave is only 1 kW.

                    But as Chris says, we put our washing machine and dishwasher on timer so that they automatically come on after 12:30am when electricity is cheap in the UK; and by doing so it saves us a lot of money on our utility bill while not compromising on our modern life style.

                  3. Nathanville profile image85
                    Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    I think you miss understood the stamen wilderness, where you say:-

                    “How is it "equality" that one group (women) have a longer retirement, living off the pension, than the other (men)?  Is the female pension lowered to account for that, or is it just declared "equal" and set aside?”

                    Prior the 1980s in the UK the retirement age of women was 60, and the retirement age of men was 65.  To comply with the EU’s equality laws e.g. so that both men and women retired at the same age the Conservative Government raised the retirement age of women to match the retirement age of men e.g. so that both men and women retired at 65, to ensure equality.

                  4. Nathanville profile image85
                    Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    On re-reading your statement, I might have miss understood what you was trying to say e.g. that perhaps you are saying that it's not an equality in that women live longer than men?

                    Well, yeah, that is a valid point.  Out of interest what is the retirement age of men and women in the USA, is it the same or different?

                    1. wilderness profile image77
                      wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                      It is the same.  Which I support.  But that does not mean that the law has produced "equality" in the amount of payments (pension) to women vs men or in how long they get to enjoy their retirement.

                      This is realistic; consider the outcry about how unfair it would be to require women to work until the statistics show they get the same total pension or the same years of retirement.  Complete outrage over how "UNequal" the treatment would be to make it equal.

                3. Nathanville profile image85
                  Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  Right on; it's not just our washing machine, but also our dishwasher that we put on timer to come on in the early hours of the morning when electricity is cheap.

            2. DrMark1961 profile image99
              DrMark1961posted 2 years agoin reply to this

              That is a good point because at this point we have to ask ourselves is it more important to virtue signal and fly around in a private plane telling everyone you are for climate change or actually do something about it. All of those people that went to Egypt on their private jets are disgusting, and were just looking to make themselves appear holier-than-thou. I actually think they just wanted to go on a vacation and see the pyramids.

              Have they not heard of Zoom or Skype?

              1. abwilliams profile image75
                abwilliamsposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                Lol, agreed!
                They are much too infatuated and impressed with themselves and can't be expected to practice what they preach!

    32. Nathanville profile image85
      Nathanvilleposted 2 years ago

      World’s First Net Zero Transatlantic Flight Due to Take Place in 2023:

      https://www.theoldhamtimes.co.uk/news/n … ic-flight/

    33. Miebakagh57 profile image82
      Miebakagh57posted 2 years ago

      Have you people see a fog presently? D' you recalled what it's like in the past?                                 Seriously, it seems hot and cold air currents no longer meet in my part of the world.

    34. abwilliams profile image75
      abwilliamsposted 2 years ago

      Glasgow? All those WARM bodies? I think not in a million years.
      Side note, just saw a story about a Climate Activist Company in California, Make Sunsets. They are sending sulfur into the air.....in order to combat Climate Change.
      Even if I attempted to make stuff up, I could never top this.

      1. wilderness profile image77
        wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        Could be wrong, but I think sulfur is a great generator of acid rain.  So much for the cars of California.

      2. wilderness profile image77
        wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        Well, Edinburgh then?  Dublin?

    35. profile image60
      laugherposted 2 years ago

      I certainly don't think climate change will result in the end of all life on the planet. Thinking that is hubris. It very well might result in the end of humanity, though. The climax community resulting from climate change might well exclude humans and many other life forms, but it won't be the end of the planet. The planet will endure.

    36. Nathanville profile image85
      Nathanvilleposted 2 years ago

      As savvydating quite rightly pointed out a few days ago in this forum, air pollution (from car fumes) in some (but not all) major cities in Britain is unacceptably high; but that is changing and will cease to be an issue by 2030 e.g. the sale of all new fossil fuel vehicles are to be banned in Britain by 2030.

      •    New LEZ (Low Emission Zones) UK - Everything You Need To Know About the New Clean Air Zones:  https://youtu.be/0RxiUgTdNgE

      •    Bristol Clean Air Zone (where I live) and How the zone works:  https://youtu.be/tTAafp35wfI

      One such city that doesn’t have an air pollution problem from car fumes (and therefore no clean air-zone) is Exeter City; just 65 miles south of Bristol.

    37. Nathanville profile image85
      Nathanvilleposted 2 years ago

      Here’s an interesting one, a link about “the promise of batteries that come from trees” that was sent to me by my American friend in New York:  https://www.bbc.com/future/article/2022 … -from-wood

      We’ve since had some interesting discussions in an exchange of emails on the topic:

      •    My New York friend expressing concern that Brazilian farmers will take the opportunity to cut down more of their rain forest to grow pine trees as a raw material for the batteries, and the negative environmental and climate change damage it would do.

      •    While in contrast, I’ve tried to reassure him that firstly, all wood and wood products (and bi-products) sold in the EU & UK have to be certified that they are from ‘sustainable’ source, which would exclude purchasing from Brazil if the resource involved deforestation of the existing rain forest, and

      •    In the UK at least, cutting down existing mixed wood forests or woodland to plant pine trees would be prohibited; but a British farmer would be encouraged to create new woodlands on his land provided it was done as a sustainable source e.g. replanting new pine trees to replace those harvested for raw material.

      Maybe you have your own views on the article (link above)?

      1. peterstreep profile image82
        peterstreepposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        Although this looks fine. It is still promoting the consumption industry.
        Instead of focusing on electric cars, which are just as green as where the electricity is made off. And if the electricity the electric car is running on is made of coal, the electric car is not green!
        So instead of concentrating on electric cars what the media and governments are doing. They should concentrate on making public transport better and more accessible.
        We don't want another fancy product. Consumerism is simply killing this planet and we have to reduce it not accelerate it.
        Restructuring transport is one of the things a government can do. (Ups, I forgot, most countries have privatized transport.... And I don't know any country where the transport system became better by privatization, only worse.)
        Transport and energy costs will go up, so to be prepared as a country with a good public transport system is important I would think.

        1. Nathanville profile image85
          Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          Some interesting points:

          We’re not going to get people to give up ‘consumerism’; it’ll be a lot easier to encourage more people to eat less meat.

          I’m into consumerism as much as any Westerner e.g. the top range TV, computer and all mod-cons in the home, including our robotic vacuum cleaner and robotic lawnmower; but I’m also very much into recycling and upcycling e.g. salvaging wood and old furniture and recycling and upcycling it in my DIY projects. 

          I’m also a vegetarian.

          Yeah, electric cars are only as green as the electricity used to recharge the cars batteries; but in the UK only about a third of our electricity comes from fossil fuels, and on current trends (and Government Policy) almost 100% of our electricity for domestic homes will be from Renewable Energy by 2035; currently SHELL Oil (a leading UK Oil and Gas Company) are investing heavily in Renewable Energy, with plans that by about 2030 about a third of their business will be Renewable Energy, not oil, as explained in this short video:- https://youtu.be/BqJuaTuFv30

          And BP (British Pretorian), another leading British oil and gas company is following in SHELL’s footsteps.

          Absolutely, Public Transport run by the private sector is always far more expensive with an inferior service than when it’s a nationalised system (State owned and run); we’ve seen that in the UK when the Conservative Government privatised all public transport (except for in London) in 1993. 

          Somehow, London, which is a socialist government stronghold (local government), managed to defy the Conservative UK Government in the 1980s and kept control of ‘all’ public transport in London; consequently London has by far the best and cheapest ‘integrated’ public transport system in the country.

          How to use public transport in London today:  https://youtu.be/neeY46yBMVQ

          Although interestingly:  When the Conservatives privatised the railways in 1993 they split the business into two operations; the rail infrastructure (including tracks, signals and train stations), and the train operators.  The rail network (infrastructure) when bankrupt in 2001 and was subsequently taken back into public ownership (re-nationalised) by the Labour Government.

          As regards the private train operators, running the train service on franchise; it’s never worked e.g. prices keep skyrocketing (increasing above the rate of inflation) and the service deteriorating as private train operators syphon off profits for their shareholders, rather than re-investing in train stock.  So consequently in 2021 the Conservative Government finally conceded that ‘rail privatisation’ is a failure; and from that date have ceased to renew the franchises as they expire e.g. re-nationalisation of the rail network. 

          Before it was privatised by the Conservatives in 1993 the rail network was call ‘British Rail’; now that the Conservatives are re-nationalising the railway, they’re naming it ‘Great British Railways’.  Now back under Government Control all diesel trains will be phased out by 2040; replaced by a combination of electric trains and green hydrogen trains e.g. hydrogen made from Renewable Energy and sea water.

          HydroFLEX: The UK's first Hydrogen train:  https://youtu.be/geATz4pdCSg

          1. profile image0
            savvydatingposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            Why eat less meat? Does this have to do with the false flatulence argument being promoted by leftists?

            We can alter the diet of cows. Scientists are looking into feeding them a certain amount of seaweed... if it is flatulence you are concerned about.

            By the way, cows are not very flatulent, at all. But, they do belch.

            And, those in poor countries need meat and milk if they are to grow healthy children. That is a fact most vegetarians in somewhat wealthier countries have a hard time understanding due to ignorance and misunderstanding.

            1. Nathanville profile image85
              Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              To put it into perspective:  Farming animals is responsible for 14.5 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions and the production of red meat accounts for 41 per cent of those emissions e.g. production of red meat accounts for 5.9% of total global greenhouse gases.

              5.9% doesn’t sound a lot but it’s a case of ‘every little bit helps’ (a British saying being “look after the pennies and the £ will look after themselves”) e.g. if everyone does their ‘little’ bit to help save the environment then the culmination effect can be quite significant.

              No one is advocating that people should stop eating meat, but just to eat less.  The UK Government strategy is to encourage (on average) that people in Britain reduce their consumption of meat and dairy produce by 20% by 2030, and by 35% by 2050.

              And yes, you are absolutely right; most of the methane cows produce is from belching and not from flatulence. 

              And Yes, you are absolutely right; altering the diet of cows can reduce the amount of methane they reduce; which is why ‘organic’ meat and dairy farmers in the UK do just that e.g. by feeding them on a food supplement containing garlic and citrus extracts, which reduces the emissions of the cows methane by 30% (but it’s good to hear that other natural substances, such as seaweed, are also being researched):- https://youtu.be/b5Xei08eeNk

              Most “vegetarians in somewhat wealthier countries” do actually understand that in poorer countries people are dependent on whatever food they can get, which may well include meat and milk (beggars can’t be choosers); and it was very much like that in Victorian Britain, which I know well from my family history (genealogy) research.

              And for clarity, I'm a vegetarian, not a vegan, so I'm not advocating that we do away with all live stock.

              And where you say "And, those in poor countries need meat and milk if they are to grow healthy children."  Yeah, vegetarians drink milk and eat eggs too.

              In fact, vegetarianism has only become practical in Britain in just the last few decades; back in the 1970s, when I first became a vegetarian, there were few options for vegetarians – a very limited diet:  Whereas now, every supermarket (food store), and just about every café and restaurant in Britain offers a wide range of vegetarian and vegan options.

              On a side issue; another good reason for eating less meat is that it takes far less land to grow vegetables than to rear livestock.   For example, with the exception of potatoes, I grow enough vegetables in my back garden, on just 32 square yards of land (about 10% of our back garden), to feed a family of three for 12 months of the year.

              1. profile image0
                savvydatingposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                I understand that vegetarians drink milk and eat eggs. That is not the point, although it may be an interesting side note for those who are not familiar with the vegetarian diet.

                Despite your numbers, I do not see the point in eating less meat. I may be mistaken, but every little bit is not enough to "save the environment."

                My concern is that "Progressives" will outlaw meat for all except for the very rich who govern from their ivory towers.

                Leave the vegetarian cows alone. They are not harming our planet. They are helping people survive.

                1. Miebakagh57 profile image82
                  Miebakagh57posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  In mostly third world countries, eating beef and the likes is very common.                                          In my part of the world (the Wakirikenes) it's fish.                                                     These are cultural trends.                                      In the 1980's and early 1990's they had been attempts by certain oriental religions the Hara Krisna sect to introduce vegetarianism and vegan to my Nigeria. It fail. I've not locality meet a fellow who profess vegan or meatless diet.

                2. Nathanville profile image85
                  Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  Every bit of effort does help; it’s all about reducing your carbon footprint by as much as possible in any way possible e.g. eating less meat, buying local produce instead of products shipped halfway around the world, using your car less and public transport more often instead, planting a tree in your garden, using less paper e.g. using electron formats instead, turning your heating down by one degree etc.  On their own they make little difference; but the culminated effect is quite significant.

                  Any suggestion “that ‘Progressives’ will outlaw meat for all except for the very rich” is unfounded; no one is forcing or demanding that people don’t eat meat – It has to be a personal and voluntary decision.  To that end any public awareness campaigns run by the NHS and or UK Government always stress that it’s a personal choice; after all we do live in a free democratic society.

                  “Vegetarian cows”; it’s a term I’ve never heard of – Do you mean dairy cows?

                  No one is suggesting we drink less milk.  Yeah, we are advised to eat less butter, cheese and red meat for health reasons, but not less milk.  Milk is a good nutritious food.

                  And no one is suggesting that countries that are reliant on livestock should change their ways; all the advice is targeted at people like us in the wealthy countries, where we can make a difference by moderating our diet.

                  If you want to carry on eating lots of meat, that is your free choice, no one is going to disrespect you for it.  After all, when we host a BBQ in our back garden I do all the cooking on our BBQ and I have to cater for all dietary tastes from our friends we invite, so I quite happily barbecue a wide range of meat products as well as vegetarian products for me an others who don’t eat meat.  My only irk is that at times meat eaters have preferred to sample my vegetarian sausages and burgers, liked them and come back for more; so that I end up only have a couple of vegetarian sausages the whole evening:  But I don’t really mind. 

                  Interestingly, because other people have sampled my vegetarian sausages and burgers at our BBQs, two of our friends, who were previously ardent meat eaters, one has since become 100% vegetarian, and the other now eats less meat because he enjoys the Linda McCartney Vegetarian beef burgers so much.

                  Linda McCartney Vegetarian Mozzarella Burgers (Food Review by a meat eater): https://youtu.be/Bfa-783YfdM

                  So whether we eat less meat or not, we shouldn’t be fighting over it; it should be a personal choice.

                  An NHS ‘Eat Well Guide’ public awareness video:  https://youtu.be/8aWqZd9RScQ

                  NHS advice to mother’s video on whether it’s okay to bring up my child as a vegetarian? (from 6 months):  https://youtu.be/KSU_s5iagrU

                  1. DrMark1961 profile image99
                    DrMark1961posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    "Cow's milk has significantly higher impacts than the plant-based alternatives across all metrics. It causes around three times as much greenhouse gas emissions; uses around ten times as much land; two to twenty times as much freshwater; and creates much higher levels of eutrophication."
                    https://ourworldindata.org/environmental-impact-milks
                    There are people out there telling us to stop using milk too.

                    1. Nathanville profile image85
                      Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                      I totally agree with every word you say, it's savvydating who said in her comment above, to quote: 

                      "Leave the vegetarian cows alone. They are not harming our planet."

                      You say "There are people out there telling us to stop using milk too.":- are you one of those people?

                    2. Miebakagh57 profile image82
                      Miebakagh57posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                      Milk in any alternate form is not better than cow or any eatable animal milk.                                               The best thing about animal milk is that it contan all or almost all the essential nutrients (complete protein) the human body needs for growth and development.                                 Third world countries in Africa regularly drink milk when available. Children will prefer animal milk for soy or vegetable milk products.                                   Cassava, yam, taro, rice, and the likes are not 'poor' foods in Africa. The introduction  Western diet negates these. I daily drink pasterized cow's milk with my tea. And regularly eat cassava meals.                                   The eating of cassava is a cultural trend in Africa. I think  Europe, the West, and the Orientals are yet to come to terms with Nigerian delicacies from my part of the country? African salad, that is pqrepared with spices. These meals are so prepared to ward off a fever and relax the boby system.

    38. Sharlee01 profile image84
      Sharlee01posted 2 years ago

      U.K. Offshore Wind Turbines Blamed For Killing Family Of Whales
      Marine environmental experts blame offshore wind turbines for the deaths of three minke whales that washed up on British beaches.
      2020 -- https://stopthesethings.com/2020/02/05/ … -offshore-
      confusing-whales-seven-washed-died-month.html
      2017  ---  https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-w … windfarms/

      Climate and environment
      NJ governor: No pause in wind farm prep after 7th dead whale
      By WAYNE PARRY
      January 13, 2023
      https://apnews.com/article/new-jersey-a … ae717a3eee
      wind-turbine-noise-die-stranded-onshore/
      https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl … m-surveys-

      1. Nathanville profile image85
        Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        The "Stop These Things" website (your 1st link) is an anti-wind website promoting anecdotes and pseudoscience intended to cast doubt on the effectiveness of wind energy.  The creator and moderator of the website are unknown and unaccountable yet readily posts any unfounded, ill-informed attack, distortion or blatant lie directed at pro-wind individuals or groups.

        Your 2nd link is a fact-checker on the subject; and if you read it, it clearly debunks the claims made in your 1st link and last link.

        In your 3rd link, if you read the whole article, you will see that the whale deaths increased long before any offshore wind activity in New Jersey, and subject to a post mortem the most likely cause of death is probably where the wales have been hit by sea vessels?

        1. Sharlee01 profile image84
          Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

          I fully realize what is present in my links. My post was to encourage looking at what is being reported on both sides. I gave no real view. Just hope to give info.

          1. Nathanville profile image85
            Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            Thanks for the clarity.

    39. Nathanville profile image85
      Nathanvilleposted 2 years ago

      Savvydating, where you said to Miebakagh, I think in response to his comment “In a rich locality, don't you ever see the poor and hungry come in begging?”

      Your response was:  “We should be making countries richer. This nonsense about forcing people to do with less is beyond absurd.

      Our children deserve better.

      We must instead concentrate on raising the GDP of nations if we are to make more conscious choices about health, sanitation, and respecting the earth which, by the way, is far more powerful and self-sustaining than you can imagine.”


      In what Miebakagh said, I think he’s right, even in wealthy countries we have do have poor and hungry; since the pandemic, and now during the current ‘cost of living crisis’, food banks (which have been common in the USA for a long time) have sprung up in Britain, and become more common and more widespread over here.  So what do you think the answer is – for Governments in wealthy nations to give even more welfare to their citizens than they already are doing to those most in need?

      What nonsense about forcing people to do with less?  I don't see any nonsense with anyone forcing anyone to do with less!  In the wealthy countries the ultimate goal of any Government is to stimulate economic growth (raise the GDP); which will in the long run help to maintain and improve our living standards.

      However, burning more fossil fuels is ‘not’ respecting the earth; it’s damaging the earth.  And yes the earth’s eco-systems are quite resilient, but they are not as self-sustaining as you imagine. 

      Bedsides the costs to the wealthy nations for the damage to property and land from climate change is mounting; whereas investment in Renewable Energy as part of transitioning away from the use of fossil fuel does generate economic growth and create jobs, which does help to raise the GDP.

      Below is a link to an interesting article which my American friend from New York recently sent me; in particular paragraph 2 is ‘food for thought’, which reads, to quote:-

      Countries that are slow to decarbonise will suffer but early movers will profit; the study finds that renewables and freed-up investment will more than make up for the losses to the global economy.
      https://www.theguardian.com/environment … transition

      1. GA Anderson profile image86
        GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        It's just a friendly poke to add to a fun conversation Nathanville—nothing political or snarky, but you were my first thought . . .

        Cake should not be brought into the office, UK food agency chief says

        "Offices should rethink bringing cake into the workplace as it may pose the same harm to colleagues' health as passive smoking, according to Professor Susan Jebb, chairwoman of the U.K. Food Standards Agency."

        That's a telling headline but to be fair, it prompts an incorrect conclusion. The chairwoman was not speaking for the agency she chairs, but for her personal opinion. Or so the agency's official statement says.

        Com' mon bud, the head of the agency that makes(?) public food regulations doesn't want cake around because it is too tempting?

        GA

        1. Miebakagh57 profile image82
          Miebakagh57posted 2 years agoin reply to this

          I think this is more than a haux. Though it's fun.                                    Cake should not be brought into the office? But it's not alergic. Precious nice cake. It sounds really absurb.                                       How can the effect of tobacco be compare with cake? Obviously I don't see any.                                     I'm no longer working in an office. I retired from the civil service 7 years ago. Otherwise, I should bark a delicious cake, take it to the office, and share.

        2. Nathanville profile image85
          Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          You raise an interesting point; obesity in the UK is considered as harmful to the health of the nation as passive smoking, but as you point out, in spite of the views and any personal comments from the head of the UK Food Standards Agency, the Government isn’t about to bark on a policy to ban eating cake in the Office.

          However, in 2018 because statistics show that childhood obesity is one of the biggest health problems in the UK, with one in every 3 children in England leaving primary school overweight or living with obesity the UK Government made it Government policy to tackle the issue, and set ambitious Government targets to halve childhood obesity by 2030.

          And there are other measures at play in the UK in an attempt to protect children from obesity, as follows:-

          •    In 2006 Ofcom (Independent Government Regulator) introduced new restrictions on TV Advertising of food and drink to protect children:  The Regulatory objectives being to reduce significantly the exposure of children under 16 to the advertising of food and drink products that are high in fat, salt and sugar.

          •    In 2016 the rules imposed on TV adverts by Ofcom in 2006 were extended by the ASA (Advertising Standards Authority); the ASA is a self-regulatory body set-up and financed by the Advertising Industry itself.  In 2016 the ASA extended the Ofcom rules for TV to include all non-broadcast media, including print, cinema, online and social media.   At that time both the advertising and food and drink industries rallied behind the new rules banning the advertising of high fat, salt or sugar food or drink products in children’s media.

          •    In 2019 the Local Government in London, who owns and runs all public transport in London, banned Junk food advertising across the entire Transport for London as a new ground-breaking measure to help tackle child obesity in London.  Therefore, in London, Food and drink brands, restaurants, takeaways and delivery services can now only place adverts on public transport which promote their healthier products, rather than simply publicising their brands.

          •    In 2019 the ASA introduced new rules on the scheduling and placement of adverts to ensure that under 18’s exposure to advertisements for certain product categories, such as alcohol and gambling, are appropriately limited.

          •    In 2022 the ASA published its underlying principle for broadcast advertising e.g. TV adverts, that children must be protected from advertisements that could cause physical, mental or moral harm.  In the UK a child is deemed to be someone under 16.

          •    In 2023 the UK government are introducing new rules banning the advertising of so-called junk food online and on TV before the 9pm watershed from 2023 as part of its policy to tackle childhood obesity by 2030.

          The new measures announced by the UK Government for 2023 will ban advertising of products before 9pm, such as cakes, chocolate, ice cream, breakfast cereals, and pizza from being advertised during daylight hours when they are most likely to be seen by children.

          But some foods high in fat or sugar will be spared from the ban, including olive oil, honey, avocados, and Unilever’s Marmite spread.

          The move by the UK Government has been criticised by UK food industry body ‘The Food and Drink Federation’ (FDF) which said it is “disappointed” by the move.  However, health campaign groups such as ‘Action on Sugar’ and ‘Action on Salt’ welcomed the move.

          Sugar Tax
          As a related topic, following a campaign and lobbying of Parliament by campaign groups to introduce a sugar tax, to help fight obesity - the UK Government responded to the campaign by introducing a sugar tax on soft drinks in April 2018; which adversely affected the sales of products such as Coca-Cola in the UK.  The sugar tax resulted in over 50% of manufacturers reducing the sugar content of their drinks (so as to pay less tax), and since the introduction of the sugar tax, sales of soft drinks has fallen by 10% in the UK.

          I also noticed in the video on the link you gave that Mexico is introducing one of the toughest restrictions on smoking in the world, including the ban on smoking advertising.  I don’t know about the USA, but the UK banned advertising of cigarettes on TV in 1965, and banned all forms of tobacco advertising on any media in 2003; the current UK goal it to make the sale of tobacco in the UK illegal by 2030.

      2. Miebakagh57 profile image82
        Miebakagh57posted 2 years agoin reply to this

        Interesting indeed. Thank you, Arthur.

        1. profile image0
          savvydatingposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          You have said that we should eat less meat. That is doing without and makes zero difference to the planet.
          Democrats are telling us to set our thermostat at 66 degrees. That is doing without, especially for those living in states that have long, cold winters.
          Democrats are telling us that we may not have gas stoves. That is doing with less and makes no difference for the planet.

          Democrats are telling us we must buy electric cars. That is doing with less for people who cannot afford them. Not to mention, these vehicles require large batteries, which means we must fire up the coal plants, which is not good for the planet.

          Climate alarmists are always telling people to do with less. Even you have done so.
          So, don’t tell me you have no idea what I am talking about.
          Your tiny country could spend all of your money on going green, and it would not make one bit of difference to the planet.

          1. Miebakagh57 profile image82
            Miebakagh57posted 2 years agoin reply to this

            'You have said we should eat less meat'. Savvydating, who told you that? Where in the forum, or on my blog d' you read that? How d' you infer it? When it comes to meat, beef is my favourite.                                     Whatsoever the American Democrates are sayying is obviously they mindset.                                      Savvy, whatsoever Climate Alarmist are sayying that's also they mindset.                                   Seriously, I do realize they's a climate crisis that globally affect all countries of the world.                                                    By the way, who told you my country Nigeria, as you described it is 'tiny'? Nigeria, is the most populous country in Africa. Compare to the USA has a population of 280 million plus. Your country America has 380 milliom plus? FYI tiny countries on my part of the globe are Togo, Bukina Faso,  Gambia, and Senegal. Much thanks.

            1. profile image0
              savvydatingposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              I meant to address Nathanville.

              1. Miebakagh57 profile image82
                Miebakagh57posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                Come on savvydating, I don't ever consider Great Britain as a tiny country. Or you're thinking of Glasgow.                                    Thank you.

                1. Nathanville profile image85
                  Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  Miebakagh, in answer to your comments below.  In the British system the civil service is apolitical, and generally a job for life.  Being apolitical means that the civil service serves whichever government is in power, regardless to politics – and the British civil service are not there to serve the politics of the government, but rather ‘advise’ the government.

                  1. Miebakagh57 profile image82
                    Miebakagh57posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    Arthur, you're welcome. But in Nigeria, the politicians hardly took the advise of the civil servants. Thanks.

                    1. Nathanville profile image85
                      Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                      Yeah, since 2016 that has also happened far too often over here too; which all to often leads to the Government making matters worse e.g. damaging trade and the economy.  Although I think with our current Prime Minister, he has more sense and is far more likely to follow the advice of the civil service than our previous three Prime Ministers have done over the past six years.

                  2. profile image0
                    savvydatingposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    England is about the size of one U.S. state, such as Alabama, but England has more people.

                    1. Nathanville profile image85
                      Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                      So?  What's your point?

          2. Nathanville profile image85
            Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            I think you are over reacting, being too sensitive.

            No one is telling you that you have to do any of the things you reference in your opening paragraph; it’s just advice, and whether you take the advice is nothing more than a personal voluntary decision.

            •    Whether you eat less meat or not is a personal decision.  I’m a vegetarian so I don’t eat any meat anyway, but I know plenty of people who do eat meat, and some of them (surprisingly quite a few, but not all by any means) have chosen to voluntarily decided to eat less meat as a personal choice – and none of them are doing without, they enjoy what they eat, and what they eat is nutritional, and by eating less meat, is healthier for their diet anyway.  And although as a vegetarian I don’t eat any meat, I’m not doing without; I’m eating what I want to eat – a personal choice.

            •    Turning the thermostat down is a personal choice; you’re not being forced to turn the thermostat down – This year I’ve turned the thermostat down to save money on my fuel bill, but if the house gets really cold I’ll soon turn it up again – my personal choice.  So far I’ve only needed to turn the heating back up a couple of times this winter, which for the British weather is quite an achievement.

            •    I don’t know about the ‘gas stoves’, but I can’t imagine that your Government is telling you not to use ‘gas stoves’; I suspect it’s like the others you’ve cited e.g. just advisory, but the personal choice is yours.

            Electric cars:  FYI the sale of privately owned new fossil fuel cars will be banned by 2035 in the USA; and by 2030 in the UK.  So you’ve got another 12 years to worry about that in the USA, while we only have 7 years in the UK.

            Yeah, currently, electric cars are more expensive than fossil fuel cars to buy; but cheaper to run.  However, as we get closer to the cut-off point (7 years’ time in the UK) with mass production (economies of scale) the price of new electric cars will fall to more closely match current prices for fossil fuel cars – so when the time comes electric cars will be more affordable to people on lower income.

            You’re next point is valid to the point that the electric car is only as green as the electricity generated to re-charge it’s battery; which for the UK is quite ‘green’ e.g. already in the UK only around a third of the electricity generated comes from fossil fuels, and with 6 new offshore windfarms coming on-line next year, that will generate an additional 10% of our electricity, we’ll be one step closer to not burning fossil fuels.  In fact, on current trends, the UK is set to be virtually 100% non-fossil fuels for its energy needs by 2035; which is why the UK Government is set to ban the use of natural gas for heating by 2035.

            So by 2035, when most people in the UK will be using just electric cars, the electricity in the UK to recharge the car batteries will be virtually 100% free from fossil fuels.

            Climate alarmists do not tell people to do with less; I’m what you would call a ‘climate alarmist’, but it’s not a question of doing with less – it’s a question of enjoying the same standard of living, but in a green way e.g. by lowering your carbon footprint, such as buying from local sources rather than from halfway across the world, recycling what you can, eating less meat if you can, using less fossil fuels where you can, such as using public transport more often rather than your car, planting a tree etc. 

            How people decide to reduce their carbon footprint is their personal choice; but there are plenty of options that don’t require reducing your living standards.

            An offshore windfarm (to supply 5% of the UK’s electricity) that will open later this year (will be the largest offshore windfarm in the world):  https://youtu.be/SJnI-HDIXX4

            1. DrMark1961 profile image99
              DrMark1961posted 2 years agoin reply to this

              Cocerning the gas stoves:
              "Last month, 20 congressional Democrats asked the Consumer Product Safety Commission to consider tighter rules for gas stoves, which they say are used in over 40 million homes, arguing gas cooking appliances harm the climate by leaking Earth-warming methane and pose respiratory health issues by emitting particulate matter."
              https://www.forbes.com/sites/tylerroush … e352224e49
              Some states, like California and NY, have already banned gas stoves in new construction so it is not going to be a choice there. This is not an issue for me because we ONLY have gas stoves in Brazil, but I would not be surprised if our new socialist government finds a way to copy this.
              I do not knnow if this is going to be an issue in Europe at this time.

              1. Nathanville profile image85
                Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                Thanks for the info DrMark, most informative.

                So as I read it, the Federal Government wants to ban gas stoves in ‘new’ homes by around 2030, similar to proposals in New York and California; with New York wanting to ban gas stoves in new buildings by 2028 and the ban of all fossil-fuel powered heating equipment by 2030.

                So it’s a change that is not going to happen immediately, and at this point does not affect existing homes.

                Interestingly its gas stoves (in new homes) that is being targeted in the USA, but apart from New York, not gas heating; whereas in the UK it’s the reverse e.g. in the UK gas boilers for heating and hot water will be banned in new homes from 2025, and in all existing homes by 2035, but currently no UK Government policy to ban gas stoves (cookers) – although that may change as the UK Government is keen to cease the use of natural gas in domestic home by 2035.

                Although there is no immediate plans in the UK to ban gas stoves, if/when they do then so what; electric cookers is an obvious choice, we chose to switch from a gas cooker (stove) to an electric cooker years ago.

                As regards gas boilers, used for heating homes, and hot water, in the UK, the phasing out of gas boilers that use natural gas (methane gas) by 2035 does present some logistical challenges to the UK Government, challenges that the UK Government will need to resolve quite soon if they are to meet their own targets on this e.g. the main obvious alternative to heating homes in the UK are heat pumps, and currently the cost of installing heat pumps is too high for most householders; so the UK Government is either going to have to dig deep in its pockets to give generous grants to people when they need to replace their existing gas boilers or find alternative solutions, such as scaling up the commercial development of ‘green hydrogen’. 

                So it’s going to be an interesting few years, to see how the R&D (Research and Development) into green hydrogen (which is big business in the UK) and other alternatives, and which ‘green’ direction the UK Government finally goes, which is largely dependent on that R&D.

                Hydrogen - Scaling UP!  https://youtu.be/5CvjRQDTnHs
                Hydrogen: The future of energy?  https://youtu.be/Gv-y_KRK3VI

                1. profile image0
                  savvydatingposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  The point is that governments have no business banning gas stoves or anything else until they have come up with a better alternative for heating, not to mention a better alternative to solar power and wind farms which are marginally effective in the best of circumstances and ineffective in many circumstances. How is the killing of $500,000 birds in the U.S. due to wind farms a good thing? It is not.
                  How is wiping out our trees for wind farms a good thing? It is not.
                  Turbines and solar panels are not effective for the majority of the population, nor do they help the environment in any substantial way.

                  On another note, there’s is no increase, globally, in flooding. Even the UN agrees that flooding cannot be linked to climate change. In fact, flood magnitudes are decreasing.

                  The most important point is that if the U.S were to go to zero fossil fuels from today onward, we would only reduce temperature by O.33 degrees. Meanwhile, we will spend millions, if not a trillion or two for nothing.
                  Rather, we must explore fusion, fission and water splitting, at a much lower cost… and continue to enjoy our gas stoves.

                  1. Fayetteville Faye profile image60
                    Fayetteville Fayeposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    No one ever said they were going to ban gas stoves.... You never have any legitimate research or sources to back up anything you claim.  Wondering what is your educational background? What are your degrees?

                    1. DrMark1961 profile image99
                      DrMark1961posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                      New York is already banning gas stoves in new construction starting next year.

                      https://www.thecity.nyc/2023/1/13/23554 … at-to-know

                  2. Nathanville profile image85
                    Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    #1:    No government is going to ban anything without having suitable alternatives; which is why any such change is always phased in over time, to ensure a smooth transition; it’s why new homes are targeted and not existing homes e.g. the alternative ‘greener’ options can be installed into the new homes as they are being built, and before they are sold.

                    #2:    FYI solar power and wind farms are extremely effective and extremely cheap e.g. currently 58.1% of our electricity in Britain is coming from wind power (See screen dumps below).

                    And from the screen dumps below (from the British National Grid Live website), which I made from the website while writing this reply, not only shows that at this moment in time that almost 60% of our electricity in the UK is comping from Wind Power, but that we are also currently 11.5% of our electricity to France, while at the same time importing 3.6% of our electricity from Norway, which is hydropower (green renewable energy).

                    And over the next two years six more offshore wind farms go live which will generate enough electricity to supply 10% of homes on top of the Renewable Energy already being generated – meaning that within two years our dependency on fossil fuels in the UK will drop even further, to around just 20%.

                    #3:    FYI killing birds and other wildlife due to windfarms has already been debunked as ‘misinformation’, maliciously spread by anti-renewable sources; presumably people who have an invested interest in the fossil fuel industries?

                    #4:    Yep, we already know that the Spanish Government isn’t preventing investors from cutting down trees to make way for solar farms; which is despicable; but such action in the UK is unlawful and unnecessary.  In countries where Governments allow such improper behaviour then right-minded people should protest for more responsible behaviour from their government.

                    #5:     FYI the UK Government takes great care to protect the environment (I know that personally/first hand from when I worked in the Department of Transport e.g. getting planning permission to build new roads would take years, and when finally approved it wasn’t unusual for the modified plans (to get planning permission) skirted around environmentally sensitive areas, and or had to in-corporate wildlife corridors into the design to allow safe passage of newts or other protected species etc.  So I can assure you that neither the solar or windfarms built in the UK harms the environment.

                    This short video briefly explains the UK Government plans for the near future, at a cost of $2.1 billion to the tax payer, to hide an existing busy main road underground for two miles, specifically to protect the environment and wildlife:- https://youtu.be/SQP8Ed6n_Co

                    #6:    As regards for solar farms, yeah in countries like the UK, where we get less sunshine there use is marginal; but in countries like Spain, where they get a lot of sunshine, then they are definitely very effective in generating lots of cheap electricity.

                    Nevertheless, for the individual, getting solar panels fitted to their roof will substantially reduce their electricity bill because of all the free electricity the panels produce; we had solar panels and a wall battery fitted to our roof over a year ago, and slashed our electricity bill significantly e.g. during the summer months virtually all the electricity we use in our home comes from the sun’s energy vis the solar panels on our roof.

                    #7:    Where is your evidence that climate change isn’t responsible for an increase in severe flooding?  I can prove to the contrary; most countries around the world have suffered more severe and more frequent flooding in recent decades because of climate change; including the UK. 

                    Are you trying to tell me that all the extensive flooding’s that Britain is now regularly subjected to over the past 10 years, up to several times a year now, when previously floods were less common, is a figment of my imagination?

                    •    UK flooding: Can it get much worse?  https://youtu.be/iqENzFJEclA
                    •    UK storms destroy key railway line https://youtu.be/7vrXW-bPiDQ

                    #8:    No one is suggesting anyone goes to ‘zero fossil fuels from today onwards’; it’s a phased transition over many years to reach ‘net zero carbon emissions’ by 2050 – and FYI ‘net’ zero carbon emissions doesn’t necessarily meant zero fossil fuels:  The key word is “Net”, which can be achieved by, for example carbon offsets e.g. to plant the required number of trees to compensate for any fossil fuels that you have to burn.

                    And yeah, if we stopped burning fossil fuels today the current average global temperature wouldn’t fall for decades to come because it will take decades for the oceans and trees to absorb the surplus carbon gases that we been pumping into the atmosphere at an ever increasing rate for the past 200 years. 

                    But if we don’t stop burning fossil soon then the average global temperatures will continue to rise at an ever increasing rate, making the effects of climate change even more catastrophic e.g. even hotter and longer lasting heatwaves in the summer, even colder winters in northern USA, more devastating floods and storms getting even stronger, and a dramatic increase in wildfires across the world, including in Britain.

                    #9:    Yeah, it will cost $billions to transition to carbon net zero by 2050; but if it’s done the way its being done in Europe and the UK, ultimately, it’s not tax payer’s money; it’s investment by private industry, creating jobs and creating wealth:  Why do you think that SHELL (British Oil Company) is now investing heavily in Renewable Energy in the UK?

                    This video below explains why even oil companies, with any sense, are now investing heavily in Renewable Energy:  https://youtu.be/BqJuaTuFv30

                    #10:    Well yeah, fusion power would certainly be a game changer if and whenever it can be proven to be commercially viable, and if and when it can be scaled up; but that is not going to be for decades, by which time it will be too late if we don’t tackle climate change now, with the tools that we have now.

                    I don’t know why you mentioned fission power, that is already well established e.g. as I write this 15.6% of our electricity in the UK comes from nuclear power (fission power).  The problem with fission power is that it is far more expensive than Renewable Energies and far more dangerous when things go wrong.

                    And where you mention ‘water splitting’, I assume you mean the production of hydrogen?  The current problem with hydrogen is that like electric cars, it’s as green as the fuel used to make hydrogen e.g. hydrogen made using fossil fuels is called ‘blue hydrogen’, and ‘Grey hydrogen’, blue hydrogen being less dirty than grey hydrogen.  However, hydrogen made from Renewable energy is called ‘Green Hydrogen’.  And it’s the green hydrogen that the UK Government is keen to see ‘scaled up to be make commercially viable on a large scale.  If it can be sooner rather than later then it will play a major part in the UK becoming carbon net zero by 2050, but not only Renewable Energy required in order to make green hydrogen, but also, green energy by itself isn’t the whole answer, it’s just another part of the energy mix.

                    Below is the screen dump I took from the British National Grid Live website. 

                    1.  The first image is zoomed into how much of each type of electricity being generated in Britain as I was writing this post; for example it shows that almost 60% of our electricity was coming from wind power, and less than 30% from fossil fuels.

                    2.  The 2nd image shows how much electricity we were importing from and exporting to other countries:  Minus figures are exports, and the plus figures are imports.

                    3.  The 3rd image is a screen dump of the whole web page from the National Grid Live website that I took at 6:35 am this morning (when it was still dark).  I've just had another quick peek at the website (now its daylight), and already 6.4% of our electricity in Britain is now coming from solar power - So even in the UK solar power can make an important contribution to the energy mix.

                    https://hubstatic.com/16347404.jpg

                    https://hubstatic.com/16347405.jpg

                    https://hubstatic.com/16347406_f1024.jpg

                  3. Nathanville profile image85
                    Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    As regards floods:  You might be oblivious to the dramatic increase in flooding in Britain in recent years, but surely you’re not blind to the devastating, and unprecedented, flooding in Pakistan last year; but even if you are oblivious to the disastrous flooding in Pakistan last year –

                    Are you aware of the record breaking, and devastating, floods in New Zealand this week – 3 months rain in just a few hours.

                    Think of the $billions in cost to the governments (tax payers) and insurance companies that all these record breaking climate changing disasters are costing? 

                    Record flooding hit New Zealand's largest city, Auckland. Australia flood 2023  https://youtu.be/z8BqloO_pSI

                    1. profile image0
                      savvydatingposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                      I take it you do not trust the findings from the U.N.

                    2. profile image0
                      savvydatingposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                      We experience greater costs when flooding occurs because of decisions about where we live (and build).
                      Needless to say, homeowners should not live near the coast, but they do. Those who live in poor regions have no choice in the matter, when all is said and done.

                      The nature of storms is always changing.

    40. Miebakagh57 profile image82
      Miebakagh57posted 2 years ago

      Education has value of importance these days. Certification likewise had its uttmost importance. So is life-long-learning. I value practicality along with all these.                                               That said, a stark in whatsoever field who wants to start with any rudiment of knowledge base just to learn, or increase knowldge is to be encouraged.                                    Seriously, I've seen such get certified or not do well in life. Then continous learning should be add again and again. Thank you.

    41. Nathanville profile image85
      Nathanvilleposted 2 years ago

      Don’t Look Up

      I know someone else mentioned this film previously in this forum; but the more this forum discussion goes on the more apt the film seems!

      If you haven’t seen the film, then it’s very apt to this discussion:-

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_Look_Up

      https://youtu.be/RbIxYm3mKzI

      1. peterstreep profile image82
        peterstreepposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        Yes, it's a brilliant film. It sums up pretty much the mentality of many, not caring about the rest of the world or the next generation, only absorbed in their own little social media bubble. Focusing on detail and not seeing the big picture.

        1. Nathanville profile image85
          Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          Yep, absolutely smile

        2. profile image0
          savvydatingposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          The film is pure propaganda. Unfortunately, you describe yourself when you speak of those who live in a bubble.

          1. Nathanville profile image85
            Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            Yeah, the film is satire; however it does very accurately reflect the mentality of ‘climate change’ deniers.

          2. peterstreep profile image82
            peterstreepposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            Propaganda for what? Have you seen the film?

            1. profile image0
              savvydatingposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              I've seen the trailer. It is obvious that the film depicts those who are skeptical of pop-culture climate science as uncaring narcissists.  Ironically, Leonardo DiCaprio is one of the many narcissists in Hollywood. Not to mention, he has fallen for climate alarmism without question.

              1. peterstreep profile image82
                peterstreepposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                Ah, well yes, it's a satirical film showing us the social media culture. People who find making selfies more important than the destruction of the earth.
                Talkshows who are more obsessed about viewer numbers than the truth and reality. I think there is some truth in that.
                But propaganda is something else.

    42. Nathanville profile image85
      Nathanvilleposted 2 years ago

      Yep, absolutely Credence; you can’t reason with Conservatives in America on this issue; which is sad:  But ironically Conservatives in other countries around the world, like the UK for example, are fully engaged in combating climate change.

      So it would be interesting to know what distinguishes American Conservatives from European Conservatives when it comes to climate change?

      1. Credence2 profile image82
        Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

        American conservatives from your perspective are on steroids.

        The idea of private property and free enterprise are extended for them to believe that there should be no restraint on acquisition of natural resources or abuse of same in the pursuit of profit. They accuse environmentalists of being alarmists. But, without the advent of the EPA, they would be more than happy to pee in your water acquifer as they are not the ones drinking of it. The polluters are large corporations with deep pockets who without the laws would simply hold out and bankrupt their accusers.

        1. Nathanville profile image85
          Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          Thanks, that does explain a lot; but comes as no great surprise to me.

          Interestingly I have an American friend in New York who’s a typical white, middle class, Christian American; and not surprisingly, a Trump supporter when Trump first became President.  He first contacted me many years ago as part of his genealogy research; although he shares the same surname as my grandparents (a name that is not a common name) we’re not actually related – albeit, there is a tenuous link if you go back to the Vikings pre 10th century.

          Anyway, when we first started to communicate by email socially our relationship was very fiery because we could never agree on anything, and spent most of our time bitterly arguing with each other.    But to his credit, he’s not a typical introspective American Conservative, he’s very keen on world current affairs – and over the years his views have mellowed as he’s become to understand and appreciate life outside of America; it’s not just from his interaction with me, but he loves to read from ‘reliable’ sources what’s happening around the world e.g. he recently admitted to me that he no longer follows American news sources for his information because he now finds it too biased.

          So these days our relationship is far more friendly, and we only have the occasional spat when we don’t see eye to eye on certain topics – but usually these days we do find common ground to agree on, on most topics.

          1. Credence2 profile image82
            Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

            The problem is that the new conservatives of the Trump variety operate in the world with their eyes wide shut.

            If you can convince him, your friend, with refutable evidence one way or the other, he would be intellectually honest enough to consider it. Here, the Right is more interested in conspiracy theories than the truth. Unanimous support and loyalty in support of the lie is far more important.

            1. Nathanville profile image85
              Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              Yep, absolutely:  When I first started corresponding with my American friend he was very heavily hooked by the sort of conspiracy theories that you speak of; in fact he’s still sticky to one or two, most notably the conspiracy theory that the Rothschild family control all the world’s banks, including the Federal Reserve and the Bank of England.  And the one that really frustrates me is his inalienable belief that in the not too distant future governments will have to introduce ‘universal basic income’ because of his unmovable belief that not before too long most everyone’s jobs will be replace by robots.

              But apart from that, yeah, on many topics I have produced refutable evidence to prove a point, and to his credit he has been “intellectually honest enough to consider it” and modify his views on many topics. 

              He was a staunch Trump supporter back in 2016, but I’m not sure what his views are on Trump now; although I get the impression that he’s not as warming towards Trump as he was.

              1. Credence2 profile image82
                Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                It is a Rightwing attitude to place Jews at the center of international finance.

                But, you know, Arthur, that robot idea may not be far fetched. I am still amazed at the intricacies involved in self driving cars.

                A lot of conservatives here are not as warming to Trump only because his profile as a sure winner is not what it was....

                1. Nathanville profile image85
                  Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  I don’t know whether it’s right-wing attitudes that place Jews at the centre of international finance or not; I get the impression that it’s not and that it’s more to do with prejudice against Jews in general (antisemitism) e.g. Hitler’s attack on the Jews, and in the UK it’s the Labour Party (socialists) who struggle to keep antisemitism under control within the party.

                  On to your second point:  Yeah, I know that it is easy to imagine that we are being taken over by Robots (AI), and more so if you read the reports (from respectable sources) that highlights in China (and the rest of the world) where the whole workforce is being replaced by robots – But as I keep pointing out to my American friend, such reports are microeconomic view (focused), not the macro-economic view.  What I mean by that is that in spite of what such sensational reports might suggest, in reality the workers are not replaced, they are displaced e.g. the robots do the routine (monotonous/low paid) job, but it creates new higher paid jobs that didn’t’ exist before, and new industries that didn’t exist.  For example the robots have to be manufactured, programmed, and maintained; and that creates whole new industries with their associated supply chains.

                  Robots employed to work across all economic sectors is known as the 4th Industrial Revolutions; computers replacing jobs in the workplace in the early 1990s, wiping out whole swathes of job types such as the old typing pools, is known as the 3rd Industrial Revolution.

                  As with all the previous Industrial Revolutions, whole sectors of jobs were wiped out because machines replaced man, but the net result was, greater productivity, more affordable products to the masses, and a net increase in employment.  A prime example being the Luddite in 19th century England (textile workers) who feared they would lose their jobs because the loom could do the work of many weavers, putting hundreds of thousands of cottage industry weavers, making cloth by hand, out of business – but the power loom increased productivity and employment, and economic growth considerably.

                  Just a couple of links that might provide food for thought:-

                  https://ifr.org/robots-create-jobs

                  https://techcrunch.com/2016/05/13/robot … eate-them/

                2. profile image0
                  savvydatingposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  The Rothchild attitude is that of Europeans.

                  https://www.britannica.com/story/where- … -come-from

                  Your claim regarding any resentment toward Jews today is that of Progressives, who have a history of anti-Semitism. Just look at their history and today's progressives, Representatives Omar and Tlaib, both outspoken racists.

                  Anti-Semitism is also the view of the leaders of Black Lives Matter as well as the former Black Panthers, whose organization you said you would have joined had you been a little older.

                  So, don't lay anti-Semitism on Republicans or Right-wingers, as you like to call all conservatives. Republicans have always supported Israel. And before you go into your usual Trump rant, remember that he has Jewish grandchildren, and he has done more for the protection of Jews and Israel than any other president. Unlike Obama and his favorite racist pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright.
                  .
                  https://www.jns.org/opinion/the-progres … -the-jews/

                  That is your head space, not that of Republicans.

                  1. Credence2 profile image82
                    Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    Savvy, you should be savvy enough to know that there is a difference between Anti-semitism and being opposed to policies of the Israeli government, Netanyahu in particular. Also, it is well known that American Jews tend to favor Democrats over Republicans. If Democrats were the problem why do Jews overwhelming support Democrats? So, go sharpen your pen a bit and try again....

                    And, yes during the period of the 1960s, I would have joined the Panthers as the only organization "putting it to man" and the only one that had him truly intimidated. Since it is understood and appreciated that conciliation and subjugation can only be to tolerated for so long. It was what was waiting in the wings if the non-violent strategy failed to induce changes within this society.

                    The only difference between me and them is that I would have saved violent activity only for self defense and not initiate it. Much like the classic scene in the film in the "In the Heat of the Night" when the late Sidney Poitier's character slapped that bigoted white horticulturist across the chops in response to Portier's character having been slapped first by him. A self defining moment, may this great actor Rest In Peace.

                    I did not bring up Trump, but if you insist....

                    As for Trump, yeah, some of my best friends are white. That really doesn't  mean much anymore. People shroud their biases and bigotry behind a variety of disguises, and they can be quite elaborate, as keeping up the facade consumes much energy.

                    We have one house-negro (Kanye) sucking to Trumpism speaking anti-semitism, so be more exacting with your broad brush.

                    1. profile image0
                      savvydatingposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                      Well, at least you did not hide your anger at the white man. Your allegiance to the Marxist Progressive agenda runs deep.

                      You stated, " Also, it is well known that American Jews tend to favor Democrats over Republicans. If Democrats were the problem why do Jews overwhelming support Democrats?"

                      True statement. This is a question that has perplexed Republicans, who do all but stand on their heads for Israel and the Jewish people.

                      As far as I can tell and from what I have read and surmised, American Jews simply do not want to be caught wearing the yellow band around their arms anymore. They hate the stigma of racism and mistakenly believe that siding with Democrats, who pretend to care about Jews and the Black population, absolves them from the shame promulgated against them by the Nazis.
                      So strange given the fact that Hitler described the Jews as rats.
                      But, some old wounds never heal. Perhaps you have wounds that make you angry instead of sympathetic to Democrats and Republicans alike.

                      That may be why you are a Progressive, a whole different breed of "Democrat", and a destructive ideology that believes the end justifies the means, with or without violence, to create a more "perfect" world.

                      Marxism, which Progressives espouse. is a sick ideology and it is having a catastrophic effect on America, and especially our young, not to mention liberals in and out of churches who are vulnerable and exceptionally easy targets.

                      I don't know about Kanye, but I do know that Trump is not anti-Semitic. Obama, on the other hand, has always sided with the Palestinians and was exceptionally rude to Netanyahu during his term.

      2. peterstreep profile image82
        peterstreepposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        Th US is shooting itself in the foot with climate crisis denial in politics.
        In Europe, the discussion is not if the climate crisis is a fact or not. But the discussion is: How can we make money out of it and develop new technologies.
        As the harsh reality is that new green products are invented to sell on the market, and greenwashing is the economic bubble at the moment.
        Only a small percentage of people understand that it is the growth of the market that is the problem.
        We don't need more electric cars that drive on coal energy. It's just another fancy new product.
        The growth economy is bulldozing straight on and nobody is stopping this monster.
        People are still lulled into buying new electronic things every year. new ipads, mobiles, electric cars, clothing, kitchen machines etc.
        And the energy is not getting cleaner. Green energy is on top of what we use not instead off..
        The reason why Europe is suddenly going "green" is not out of ideological reasons but because of a war.
        As long as politicians don't change their mentality, and they won't as they have studied traditional growth economy models, this planet is going downwards fast.
        As an economic growth model is not feasible with limited resources. It's a fantasy against reality.

        1. Nathanville profile image85
          Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          I hear what you say petertreep, and I’m guilty as charged in being one of those consumerists e.g. this week I splashed out $830 on a new surround sound for our TV, and this summer I want replace our current PC with a high-end bespoke beast that will cost at least $5,000.  However I do have some redeeming features, for example:

          •    We now have solar panels and wall battery so we are virtually self-sufficient in green/clean solar energy during the summer months, and

          •    I’m very heavy into recycling, up-cycling and repurposing, and making do and mend to some extent, and

          •    I grow all our own vegetables (except potatoes) organically, to feed us 12 months of the year, and a modest selection of fruits, all in our back garden.

          •    And although my wife and son drive, I use public transport whenever I nip out to the city centre.

          •    I’m also a vegetarian.

          In the UK 3.3% of homes now have solar panels (Jan 2023); and over the last 12 months 4.6% of the UK’s electricity has come from solar energy.

          Speaking for the UK in specific, in spite of the increase demand for electricity as we transition away from fossil fuels, the energy we use is rapidly getting cleaner:-

          •    In 2012 coal accounted for 40% of the UK’s electricity, and Renewable Energy was less than 2%.  In contrast not only does coal account for less than 2% now (with the last coal-fired power station due to be closed down next year) and the total of fossil fuels now being just a third of our energy mix, but also over half the electricity in the UK now comes from Renewable Energy.

          •    The largest offshore windfarm in the world is set to go live in the UK later this year, and will produce 5% of the total electricity supply in the UK.

          •    Next year a further six offshore windfarms are due to go live in the UK, and between them will produce around 10% of the total electricity supply in the UK.

          •    On current trends, by 2035 virtually 100% of electricity produced in the UK for domestic homes will come from wind power.

          •    By 2030 the sale of new fossil fuel cars will be banned in the UK.

          •    The UK Government intends to cease the supply of natural gas to domestic homes by 2035; although the Government’s strategy on how that is to be achieved is still a bit hazy.

          •    The UK Government will ban the use of all diesel trains by 2035.

          One redeeming feature about the British people is that following the 2nd world war recycling, up-cycling repurposing, making do and mend and growing your own vegetables are traits that are now engrained into the psyche of the British people; so much so that they are all big business in Britain e.g. the popularity of DIY and garden centres.

          For example, because Hitler blockaded British waters during the 2nd world war, becoming self-reliant on growing grow our food during the war was part of our survival – And it’s something that has stuck in the British psyche ever since, to the extent that even today there are now around a quarter of a million allotments in England.  In England local governments have a legal obligation to ensure there are sufficient allotments to meet demand, and the size of each allotment plot is 250 square metres (300 square yards).  I don’t need an allotment because we’ve got a large back garden anyway; but in our previous house I rented an allotment from our local government for a modest fee.

          As regards electricity supply and demand in the UK not only is the domestic usage habits changing, with the encouragement from the National Grid, but the National Grid welcomes cars becoming 100% electric as an additional tool to help balance supply and demand without dramatically increasing supply.

          As far as the National Grid is concerned not only are electric cars another battery source for when demand is high, but it also a means to help flatten the daily peaks and troughs in demand:-

          In the UK, demand for electricity in the early hours of the morning is low so at that time of the day virtually all the available electricity is generated from wind power; and that happens to be when most people in the UK have their electric cars plugged in to recharge overnight – which helps to soak up surplus green/clean electricity.

          Conversely, in the UK, when demand for electricity is at its highest, which tends to be between 4pm and 7pm most people are coming home for work and plugging their electric cars in to be recharged overnight – giving the National Grid an opportunity to use the spare energy in those car batteries to help balance out supply and demand without the need to burn so much fossil fuels.

          In this respect, in the UK most people most of the time in the UK only predominately use their cars to travel to and from work, so many don’t generally need to recharge their car batteries during the day.

          To encourage people to recharge their car batteries overnight, and to encourage people to shift their use of electricity away from peak periods of demand, to a time when electricity in the UK is cheap and plentiful, and clean, electricity companies (Utility Companies) offer cheap/clean electricity during the early hours of the morning.

          For example, my electricity supplier (Octopus Energy) gives an 80% discount on the price of any electricity that I use from the National Grid between the hours of 12:30am and 4:30am.  Therefore, we put both our dishwasher and washing machine on timer to come on after 12:30am, and I’ve set our wall battery to be topped-up during that period.

          As regards recycling valuable resources:  The UK Government impose a penalty fee on local governments who still use landfill, the more local governments send to landfill the greater the penalty – as a way of encouraging  to recycle rather than landfill.  Needless to say the worst offenders in the UK are Conservative local governments.

          Where I live (Bristol) our local government is currently a Labour (socialist) and Green Party coalition, and they have “Zero Waste to Landfill” policy; so virtually all waste in Bristol is recycled e.g. in Bristol domestic food waste and the Bristol sewage are all used to generate green/clean Renewable Energy.

          Yeah, I release that many of our resources are limited; including copper and plastic, although other resources like iron and silicon is in plentiful supply.  But provided we put more effort into recycling (like Bristol, and many other local governments in Britain), and as long as we continue with R&D (Research and Development)  in developing alternative technologies that uses resources differently, and uses different resources, I feel that the decision on the use of resources is something that should be left to future generations.

        2. Nathanville profile image85
          Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          Further to my previous reply, I’m sure that from your comments you’re fully in favour of ‘make do and mend’, recycling, upcycling and repurposing etc., and as I previously explained these are qualities that because of the 2nd world war are now part of the British psyche; so much so that not only are DIY stores big business in the UK, but also TV shows covering these areas of interest are very popular on British TV.

          For example, the popular ‘Repair Shop’ and ‘Money for Nothing’ TV series on BBC TV:-

          1.    An extract from an episode of ‘The Repair Shop’ where the team of experts restore an old radio making a widower emotional in hearing it working again; a radio he and his wife had from when they were first married back in the 1950s:  https://youtu.be/ib5ZI6ghXKE

          2.    A full ‘Money for Nothing’ episode where three items are rescued from a dump, and repurposed to make money for the people who were going to through those items away:-

          •    Carpet offcuts repurposed as two footstools.
          •    Two old dining chairs revamped, and
          •    An old bicycle wheel repurposed into a wall clock.

          Money for Nothing:  https://youtu.be/FhjI3Z6mqcs

          Are the Spanish as avid recyclers as the British, repairing, revamping and repurposing the old to give them a new lease of life?

          1. Miebakagh57 profile image82
            Miebakagh57posted 2 years agoin reply to this

            Makes sense to me. Thank you.

          2. peterstreep profile image82
            peterstreepposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            The UK is one of the most capitalistic countries in Europe (followed by the Netherlands and Germany)
            To look at the BBC programming alone an incredibly huge percentage of the programs are about money. (The other half is food ;-)
            Cash in the Attic, Bargain Hunt, Money for Nothing (as you mentioned), Homes under the Hammer, The Apprentice, Dragon's Den, Top Gear, Dubai Hustle, etc...
            It is all about money and consumerism.

            Every country experienced WWII differently. The UK was never occupied which is a huge difference. The Netherlands was occupied, and Germans were literally knocking on the door taking Jews away. (My grandfather was Jewish but luckily survived the war). The jokes made about Hitler and the war (By Monty Python etc.) are unthinkable to do in the Netherlands.
            Spain was still under the fascist government of Franco till the '80. So they definitely know what it means to "make do and mend"...

            But all in all, you and I and some other people may live with a low carbon footprint. But the majority of the people don't.
            The richer a nation, the bigger the carbon footprint because of consumerism.
            95% (just saying a high percentage) of the people in rich countries are so used to buying new stuff. Recycling and upcycling are just a fraction of consumerism.
            The majority of people don't think about where a product is made and how much energy it has cost. They rather buy 10 cheap rechargers from Alibaba/Amazon, shipped all the way from China, instead of one made in their own country that's perhaps double the price.
            You can buy an avocado from Mexico for €0,80 - (don't pin me on the exact price, I do this by memory..) The price is ridiculously low. The shipment alone is one big carbon footprint. (and farmes get nothing for their products)
            But who cares and thinks about this? It was cheap and yummy!

            Buy local food is easy. To be a vegetarian is relatively easy too (just take care of your B12 and iron), but most people find it difficult to change their lives. Ask somebody who has eaten all his life beef to stop and he will protest and find excuses to justify his behavior. Even if you say that it is bad for your health, terrible for the cows, and a disaster for the world. They will still eat beef because the results of their actions are to abstract.

            1. Nathanville profile image85
              Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              Yeah, the UK is the 6th wealthiest country in the world per capita.

              Actually, the huge percentage of programming on the BBC is not money and food.  The BBC is under ‘Charter’ from the UK Government to provide a balanced mix of genre for all ages, catering for every ethnic group and region of the country etc.  The Charter is 41 pages long and the BBC Framework Agreement within the Charter is 72 pages long.

              Ofcom (an independent government body) ‘Regulates’ the BBC (under the Charter), and is one of its watchdogs.

              BARB (Broadcasters Audience Research Board), created in 1981, is a non-profit organisation jointly owned by the BBC, ITV, Channel 4, Channel 5, Sky and the Institute of Practitioners in Advertising, who electronically measure audience participation to compile detailed ratings for ‘all’ TV channels watched in the UK.

              Because ITV & C5 have franchises with the UK Government similar in content to the BBC & C4 Government Charters, the spread of genre across all these four main TV Channels is similar, so that they compete with each other for audience under the same genre rules e.g. both BBC and ITV always broadcast popular soap opera drama from 7pm to 7:30 each weekday night in competition with each other (prime time viewing).

              In fact, from live data gathered by BARB, the genre of TV programmes watched, by genre ranking on British TV, including the BBC is not primarily money and food, but is as follows:-
              •    Entertainment = 18.6%
              •    Drama = 16.3%
              •    Documentaries = 14.1%
              •    News = 10.5%
              •    Films = 8.5%
              •    Hobbies & Leisure = 8%
              •    Sport = 7.1%
              •    Current Affairs = 4.6%
              •    Children’s programmes = 4.1%
              •    Music = 0.8%
              •    Arts = 0.2%
              •    Religious = 0.1%

              The programmes you list, Cash in the Attic, Bargain Hunt, Money for Nothing, Homes under the Hammer, The Apprentice, Dragon's Den, Top Gear, Dubai Hustle, etc. and similar ilk TV programmes is just a fraction of the wide range of genre shown on the BBC.  Besides, programmes like Cash in the Attic, Bargain Hunt and Money for Nothing is NOT about disposing of the old to buy new (which would be wasteful consumerism), they are all about recycling the existing, and in the case of Money for Nothing, repurposing items that were destined for the skip.

              71.8% of the UK population regularly watch BBC, and globally the BBC has an audience of almost half a billion.

              I was interested in seeing what the ‘ratings’ were for the TV programmes you mentioned, but finding out is easier said than done because (unlike the USA) ratings take 2nd place to quality, so it’s a lot harder to find published data on ratings.  However, with a bit of research I did find the viewing figures for some of the TV programmes you mentioned, as detailed below, which should be read in context that the UK population is 67 million.

              •    The Apprentice = 7 million viewers
              •    Top Gear = 5.6 million viewers
              •    Dragons Den = 4.3 million viewers
              •    Bargain hunt = 3.1 million viewers
              •    Homes under the Hammer = 1.5 million viewers

              In comparison, the Eurovision Song Contest shown on BBC had 9.1 million viewers in the UK in May 2022; and Dr Who can have viewing figures of up to 10 million in the UK.

              Yep, I’m fully aware that mainland Europe’s suffering was far worse under the hands of Hitler than Britain’s; but nevertheless, Hitler  did try to starve us into submission, and he did destroy 2 million homes in England through his relentless bombing campaign; so such an experience did change the psyche of the British people.  So maybe it would be more correct to say it is now part of the European psyche.

              Actually, Europe (including the UK) is doing rather well with its carbon footprint, compared to other countries around the world, including the USA and China – See below

              Carbon Footprint in Tons of CO2 Per Capita per Year
              (Below, six countries for comparison, in order of worst offender first)

              •    USA = 15.52 tons.
              •    Germany = 9.44 tons.
              •    China = 7.38 tons.
              •    Italy = 5.9 tons.
              •    UK = 5.55 tons.
              •    Spain = 5.4 tons.
              •    France = 5.13 tons.

              The UK’s carbon footprint (per person) is comparable to any other European country, at about half that of China and a third less than the USA.

              Yeah, consumerism is one factor contributing to higher carbon footprint in wealthier nations, as does importing goods and food; but on the plus side, recycling and Renewable Energies help to reduce the carbon emissions considerably.

              You’d be surprised in how many people are conscious of their carbon footprint in the UK; yeah, a lot of people will buy new all too readily, and buy cheap products from China rather than more expensive goods from Europe, and although the UK currently produces about 60% of its food consumption, foods like bananas and oranges and coffee and tea can’t be grown in our climate.

              Nevertheless, there is a growing popularity in Britain to buy locally grown food, particularly organic grown food – A prime example are the popularity of farm shops in the UK, and the Bristol NHS hospital where I spent three week in 2021 sources over 80% of its food for catering from local farmers.

              Yes, there is always room for improvement, but you’d be surprised of the efforts the majority of British people make these days to “do their bit” to reduce their carbon footprint.

              Yeah, where you say “Ask somebody who has eaten all his life beef to stop and he will protest and find excuses to justify his behaviour.”  I agree with you in general, but as part of its policy to reach ‘net zero carbon emissions by 2050’ the UK Government has run a public awareness campaign encouraging people to eat less meat; and as part of its ‘healthy eating’ campaign the NHS are running similar public awareness programmes.

              But on the saying “from little acorn big oak trees grow” by being a vegetarian I have inadvertently changed to eating habits of two avid meat eaters:-

              1.    A friend who ate mostly large quantities of meat all his life inadvertently took one of my vegetarian sausages at a BBQ we had, not releasing that it wasn’t meat – And a couple of years later he’s become a 100% vegetarian.

              2.    Another friend of mine (who lives in Portsmouth); when I spent a few days with him to help him with a DIY project I made him buy me a couple of vegetarian beef burgers as a treat; and out of curiosity he had one; and since then he’s started to buy the vegetarian beef burgers for himself rather than real beef burgers – So people can change, through their own choice, as long as you don’t force them.

            2. gmwilliams profile image84
              gmwilliamsposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              I am eating less red meat & more vegetables because of my digestion.  When I eat less meat, I feel lighter so I reduce my meat intake to twice weekly.  There are so many vegetables to choose from that one never gets bored.  So a vegetarian diet is very cheap economically.

              1. Nathanville profile image85
                Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                Cool smile

              2. profile image0
                savvydatingposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                That's nice for your digestion, GM, but eating less meat will not affect the planet.

                My grandparents were vegetarians for religious reasons.

                I also understand that vegetarianism works for some, but not others.

                1. Nathanville profile image85
                  Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  Absolutely, vegetarianism works for some, but not others; but eating less meat isn’t being a vegetarian – most people could eat less meat if they wanted too, and certainly, eating less red meat would be healthier for you diet.

                  As regards the planet, if sufficient number of people did choose to eat less meat then it would most certainly help to reduce their carbon footprint further, which in turn is beneficial to the planet.

                  For comparison the UK is on par with Germany, where 10% of the population are now vegetarian; while the USA is on par with France, where 5% of the population are vegetarian. 

                  However, although not everyone are vegetarians, a lot of people in the UK are now eating less meat e.g. in the UK, Britain’s have cut meat eating by 17% over the past decade.

                  But ultimately, whether you choose to eat less meat or not is a personal choice.

                  1. profile image0
                    savvydatingposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    I think we all know that vegetarians do not eat meat. So, it goes without saying that those who eat less meat than they used to are also not vegetarian.

                    As I mentioned before, my grandparents were vegetarian and I respect that they grew their own vegetables and lived good and decent lives.

                    However, I cannot help but wonder if the Al Gore and Greta acolytes of this present age might condone the slaughter of every cow on earth…. (except in exclusive areas & for the consumption of the elite, of course) and claim it is for the good of the planet.

                    It would not surprise me at all. And the global warming crisis enthusiasts would cheer, even as the blood of cows soak the earth and poor children go without milk and meat.

                    Overly dramatic? Not really. Just look at the history of activists. It isn’t pretty. In fact, it is quite ruthless, always alarmist, and always political.

                    1. Miebakagh57 profile image82
                      Miebakagh57posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                      'In fact, it is quite ruthless, always alarmist, and always political'.                                   I agree completely. We should be very careful in streting the truth to the extreme. Make balance.                                       Every person has the right, the God given right to eat 'clean' meat. I mean cow, goat, sheep, fowl flesh to mention just four. These very persons also has the right to not to eat these meats. It's a matter of choice due to allergy, and other related factors.                                     Naturally, it was normal for every person to eat flesh. We're programmed that way, because our first ever meat apart from water is mothers' breast milk, which contained 70% water.                                            Why do mankind split hairs about such a simple issue, baffle me. Why do we make a religion out of such simple truths?                                                    I believe man was initially a vegetarian or a fruitarian. But flesh was added as a supplement.

                    2. Nathanville profile image85
                      Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                      Yes, it is over dramatic, unrealistic and hypocritical: 

                      You seem to claim that it would be inhumane if “every cow on earth was slaughtered (for the good of the planet)… and that the blood of cows would soak the earth while children go without milk and meat.

                      There is so much wrong with that line of thought:-

                      •    Firstly, over 300 million cows are slaughtered each year for food anyway:  So what’s the difference – from the cow’s perspective, whether they are being slaughtered for food or being slaughtered because we no longer want to eat them, there’s no difference – we are still slaughtering them either way.

                      •    Secondly, vegetarians eat just as much dairy products as meat eaters, so whether humans eat less meat or not, we still need just as many cows for their milk, cheese, butter and cream:  So there is no talk about poor children being deprived of milk.

                      •    Thirdly, no one is asking anyone to not eat meat; just an encouragement for people in general to eat less meat not just to help reduce our carbon footprint, but also for a healthier diet.

                      •    Fourthly, the encouragement to eat less meat is not aimed at poor countries; it’s aimed at the wealthy countries where eating less red meat would be healthier for our diets anyway.

                      And as I keep stressing, ultimately, whether you choose to eat less meat or not is a personal choice – so why be so antagonistic towards the concept of eating less meat for those that want to do their bit to reduce their carbon footprint?

    43. Nathanville profile image85
      Nathanvilleposted 2 years ago

      Miebakagh, picking up on your point where you say “Have you ever heard certified Meteorologist forecast rainfall, only to notice that the pending rains was carried away by a strong wind, and dispersed yonder into a vapour? I have. So, many lay persons in my communities took weather forecast by scientists as a hoax.”

      I take it from your comment that weather forecasts are not very accurate in your neck of the woods?

      The only time in modern history that the Met Office in the UK got it horribly wrong was the famous hurricane of 1987, which was not predicted even though it was only hours away – To the embarrassment of Michael Fish (the BBC weather forecaster at the time).

      However, the short term forecasts (within 4 days) for the UK are extremely accurate these days, and can be relied upon – In fact, it’s thanks to the accuracy of the UK’s Met Office forecasting that the National Grid are able to keep the lights on, especially this winter where it’s been very challenging to do so because of the chronic worldwide shortage of natural gas due to the war in Ukraine.

      In fact, the UK’s 4 day forecasts are now as accurate as their 1 day forecasts were 30 years ago, for example, now:

      •    80% of the UK Met Office maximum temperature forecasts are accurate to within 2 degrees Celsius.

      •    The UK Met Office is consistently one of the top two weather forecasters in the world.

      Here is the famous gaffe by Michael Fish in 1987 when he failed to predict the pending hurricane; the worst storm in Britain up to that point since records began:- https://youtu.be/Qi1a5Tbw77E

      And here is what the UK Met Office is like today:  https://youtu.be/tls9h2q7QlY

      1. Miebakagh57 profile image82
        Miebakagh57posted 2 years agoin reply to this

        Arthur, the forecast around the UK no doubt has a high degree of accuracy.                                 And when you say the grids are still functional with light transmission to homes, that's a confirmation of the forecast.                                       But here if the lights are on, and the rains began, power will be turn off immediately. The power company don't have the confidence in the Meteologist  foretelling the weather.

        1. Nathanville profile image85
          Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          That is awful.  I guess the difference is that the UK Met Office now has some of the world’s most powerful supercomputers to be able to analysis millions of bits of data every second of the day at a high granularity level in real time; whereas the Nigerian weather forecast service can’t afford such advanced technology?

          1. Miebakagh57 profile image82
            Miebakagh57posted 2 years agoin reply to this

            No doubt about that. If you go to any or all of the airports in Nigeria now, you will see many obselete devices. It's rare to see the latest weather and landing instruments.

            1. Nathanville profile image85
              Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              It must be frustrating; I can only hope that in time things will improve for Nigeria, and other countries like Nigeria!

    44. Nathanville profile image85
      Nathanvilleposted 2 years ago

      Savvydating; further to your recent post in this forum, where in reply to my comments, you say:-

      “The chart is crap. Not remotely realistic.” Followed by:

      “The chart is irrelevant because we cannot understand climate change within the span of 200 years or even 700 years. Rather, we must observe the trends over many thousands of years. It appears the earth is currently on a cooling trend according to ethical Paleoclimatologists. This is despite carbon dioxide. Arthur will tell you otherwise, but he is wrong.”

      Where is your evidence to support your claim that the chart is crap because you claim paleoclimatologists say so? 

      For your information the first chart (which you call crap), which covers half a million years of data, was actually produced by paleoclimatologists.

      FYI it’s not paleoclimatologists who said that the earth is currently on a cooling trend (the Milankovitch cycles), it was Astrophysics (which is the sphere I studied as an exam qualification at school).

      And if it wasn’t for the fact of anthropogenic climate change (global warming) then because of the Milankovitch cycles we would most probably be facing a cooling climate at this time; but we’re not - records show that since the start of the Industrial Revolution that the earth is actually warming, not cooling.  What the paleoclimatologist’s research actually shows is that over eons (going back millions of years) there is a link between greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and global temperatures.

      You’ve studied Paleoclimatology then, have you?  I don’t think so; otherwise we wouldn’t be having these arguments.  Whereas, with my scientific background, and my acute interest in climate change since 2012, of course I’ve made a study of paleoclimatology; it’s science played a crucial role in settling the debate on the current climate change/global warming crisis within the scientific community years ago.  The Paleoclimatologist’s evidence was the final key in getting general worldwide scientific consensus that anthropogenic climate change (global warming) is the real deal.

      The areas where Paleoclimatologist’s evidence has been invaluable in supporting anthropogenic climate change (global warming) include:-

      1.    The growth and size of tree rings on fallen trees (dendrochronology), going back thousands of years, which helps paleoclimatologists to understand the general temperature that occurred on Earth when the tree was alive.

      2.    The shells of deceased marine creatures, such as various species of diatoms and foraminifera, going back over half a billion years.  The shells contain chemicals from the time when the shell originally formed. These chemicals can be analysed to determine the water chemistry (indicating the level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere) and global temperatures at the time these organisms lived.

      3.    Scientists can also drill into ice sheets (dating back over a million years) and extract ice cores to analyse deposits trapped within the ice, such as pollen and gas.  This allows them to better understand atmospheric and climatic conditions that existed.

      Here below is some of my evidence (link) supporting the fact that paleoclimatologists do support anthropogenic climate change (global warming); to quote from it:-

      Paleoclimatology has also helped scientists study and understand how other environmental factors, such as continental drift, solar energy, greenhouses gases in the atmosphere, and the variation in Earth’s orbit have all affected the climate of Earth over time.  The science of paleoclimatology is vital to our understanding of climate on Earth. As scientists become increasingly aware of how climates have been influenced in the past, they can develop models that help predict how increased carbon dioxide levels and other changes might impact the climate of Earth in the future.

      Paleoclimatologists Perspective on Global Warming:  https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/products/pale … al-warming

    45. Miebakagh57 profile image82
      Miebakagh57posted 2 years ago

      We have digress from the thread again!

      1. gmwilliams profile image84
        gmwilliamsposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        Thank you.

        1. Miebakagh57 profile image82
          Miebakagh57posted 2 years agoin reply to this

          Yea, I live at the precinct of a water front, the Bonny River on the mangrove fringes of the  Niger Delta.                                      Oddly, for the past two days it's windy, dustly, dry, and sunny at 35* C. It's even extremely cool, some family members got feverishly sick. And it will continue to the weekend as it's extremely cool at the hour.                                           Oddly again, the rains arrived much earlier in January with heavy downpours in every week though the temperature was than 10*C.                                        Prior to all these,  they was heavy flooding od river banks over arid lands in a neighbouring Bayelsa State, which is just an hours drive from my Rivers State. My friend there had to flee, leaving home and properties behind.

          1. profile image0
            savvydatingposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            The weather is always changing. The activity of humans makes almost no difference.

            1. Miebakagh57 profile image82
              Miebakagh57posted 2 years agoin reply to this

              Savvy, while it makes no difference to you, others perceive the changes in a different light.

            2. Nathanville profile image85
              Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              Sorry, but the activity of humans is making a massive difference to climate change; simple physics, support by the scientific evidence, that burning fossil fuels on such a large scale pumps billions of tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere at a far faster rate than the trees and oceans can absorb the carbon dioxide - greenhouse gases that traps the sun's heat, causing global warming - e.g. a similar effect that glass has in a greenhouse.

              1. Miebakagh57 profile image82
                Miebakagh57posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                'Yes, Mr. Prime Minister'. I got the physics.

              2. Nathanville profile image85
                Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                Currently worldwide, 5.15 trillion gallons of greenhouse gases are emitted into the atmosphere each year by burning fossil fuels.

        2. profile image0
          savvydatingposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          No offense, but what do you care? It is not  as if you participated in the discussion of climate change.

    46. Miebakagh57 profile image82
      Miebakagh57posted 2 years ago

      Oh the Jews again? They're a unique race or people.

    47. abwilliams profile image75
      abwilliamsposted 2 years ago

      The E.P.A., here in the states, is attempting to play down a chemical spill caused by a train derailment in Ohio.
      Why do you suppose, this, of all things, is played down by the E.P.A.?
      What the heck is going on Savvy!?!
      I have a few thoughts.

      1. Miebakagh57 profile image82
        Miebakagh57posted 2 years agoin reply to this

        abwilliam, my friend, let's hear yours?

    48. abwilliams profile image75
      abwilliamsposted 2 years ago

      Miebakagh, I think this whole climate change hoax is all about CONTROL!! When the alarmists (EPA included, our current Administration included) make mountains out of molehills and dismiss/ignore something like this!!!
      There's definitely 'politics' involved, I think that if this train derailment had happened in Washington D.C. and not rural Ohio.....it would be newsworthy 24-7 to the powers that be!
      I don't trust my Government any longer, sad to say, leftist Progressives have royally screwed up this Country!!
      Any conservative which comes along to point this out, will be destroyed, as Trump was!
      We (the U.S.A.) were once a shining city on a hill, but we've allowed progressive politics/education/journalism, Marxist movements, ignorant activists, incompetent government, to take a pick axe to us. All while "We the People" have sat idly by, as if Gov controls us and not the other around!!!
      I could go on, but I will take it to an article, as I have often done.

      1. Nathanville profile image85
        Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        Climate change isn't a hoax; but what does a chemical spill has to do with climate change anyway - as awful as a chemical spill is?

        And don't forget that in other countries across the world, like the UK, right-wing conservative governments takes climate change seriously.

        1. abwilliams profile image75
          abwilliamsposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          Nat, the environment and what we peasants {not the jet-setting, holier-than-thou, climate crusaders} but rather us lowly human beings do and don't do... has nothing to do with climate change?!? Did I miss the retirement of that particular mantra?

          1. Nathanville profile image85
            Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            Actually, what we peasants do and don’t do has a lot to do with climate change.

            For Example:-

            CO2 emissions per ton per capita (per person) per year:

            •    USA = 17.6 tons
            •    China = 8.8 tons
            •    UK = 6.17 tons

            CO2 emissions per ton per car per year (average):-

            •    USA = 4.94 tons
            •    UK = 1.88 tons
            •    China = 0.59 tons

            As can be seen from above, the average American is responsible for almost three times the CO2 emissions than the average Brit; and almost a third of that is from driving their car.

            Electricity consumption per capita (per person) per year:-

            •    USA = 12,154 kWh.
            •    China = 5,885 kWh.
            •    UK = 4,496 kWh.

            Also, not only does the average American use more than double the electricity than the average Brit, but about 60% of the electricity produced in the USA is from fossil fuels; whereas in Britain only 30% of our electricity comes from fossil fuels.

            By British standards, I’m a heavy user of electricity; but having just checked my usage data, in the past 12 months I’ve only used 6,845 kWh, which is still just over half of the average American.

            Livestock contributes 14.5% of global emission of greenhouse gases:  Although no one is suggesting we should stop eating meat altogether, eating less meat will contribute towards lowering that percentage slightly – on the principle that every little bit helps.

            Likewise, importing goods and food from across the world rather than buying locally contributes about 12% to greenhouse gas emissions; so likewise, buying locally produced food (where possible) rather than importing food, all helps to reduce your carbon footprint a little more.

            I note from the tone of your comment that you blame air-travel for the vast amount of negative environment impact; but interestingly (and contrary to popular belief), air travel only contributes just 3.5% to greenhouse gas emissions – a lot less than what driving a car does.

            So as an individual there is a lot we peasants can do to reduce our carbon footprint, which has a cumulative effect when millions of individuals are all making an effort to reduce their carbon footprint; including carbon offsets e.g. by planting more trees.

            Arthur

            1. DrMark1961 profile image99
              DrMark1961posted 2 years agoin reply to this

              You state that not much of it was from air travel, but I will still like to see the carbon footprint of hypocritical people like Al Gore and Leonardo de Caprio. They are probably using far more energy and producing far more carbon wastes than any normal American, and yet they are the ones telling the rest of the world to stop using energy.

              1. abwilliams profile image75
                abwilliamsposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                Spot on.

                I don't keep charts and graphs at arm's length, but there was a document produced a few years back of Al Gore's many mansions, modes of transportation, lifestyle he's accustomed to, etc. and his "impression" is off the charts. Hypocrite!

              2. Nathanville profile image85
                Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                Apart from the fact that Al Gore is an unknown in Europe, so what if a few high profile individuals carbon footprint is high; that doesn’t alter the reality of anthropogenic global warming – that’s just a side issue which deflects from the main issues.

            2. abwilliams profile image75
              abwilliamsposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              But if the jet setting, holier-than-thou, climate change elitists would just stay home and mind their own beeswax, they could be the difference makers!?!

              No, we both know, that will never happen! Too profitable!!!

              Sorry, I don't come with insta-charts, just here to chat about it.

              P.S. Our Company plants trees for a living.

              1. Nathanville profile image85
                Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                Cool to hear that your Company plants trees for a living.

                No, the carbon footprint of a few high profile people is just a drop in the ocean, compared to the billions of us peasants in the industrialised countries: In the grand scheme of things, if they on their own lowered their carbon foot it would make no notable difference; but if we (the peasants) collectively lowered our carbon footprint, then the effect would be huge. 

                For people to take the attitude of “I’m not going to bother” because he isn’t bothering just seems to be a childish attitude!

                1. abwilliams profile image75
                  abwilliamsposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  If “childish attitude” is what you have gotten out of this back and forth, which started out with me questioning why a chemical spill in Ohio is being ignored, then I’ll not bother continuing in the effort to make my point, obviously, I’ve failed.
                  Later.

                  1. Miebakagh57 profile image82
                    Miebakagh57posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    Why should the authority ignore the spill? They should clear it off.

                  2. Nathanville profile image85
                    Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    I wasn’t saying that you have a childish attitude about questioning the chemical spill in Ohio; that is a serious question to ask.  I was just pointing out that to take the attitude of not bothering to try to reduce your carbon footprint because others don’t seem to be bothering seams a little childish. 

                    If I’ve offended you then I apologise.

                    However, the chemical spill in Ohio has nothing to do with the climate change crisis, is a point that I originally made.  Notwithstanding that, the Chemical Spill in Ohio has been comprehensively covered in the Brattish News Media, and here are some of the headlines:-

                    The Guardian (left-wing politics): 
                    •    Headline – ‘Trust the government’: EPA seeks to reassure Ohio resident near toxic spill

                    •    Sub headline - People in East Palestine demand answers from Norfolk Southern railroad, which skipped meeting due to staff safety concerns

                    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 … pa-meeting

                    BBC:
                    Headline - Ohio town reflects on chemical train derailment aftermath

                    The Independent (apolitical):
                    Headline - Ohio train derailment — updates: Whistleblower Erin Brockovich to visit East Palestine amid chemical fears

                    The Independent after explaining that Erin Brockovich is an activist then goes on to say; to quote:-
                    “Ms Brockovich announced her upcoming visit on Thursday via Twitter. The activist previously criticized the EPA and state lawmakers for telling people it was safe to return to their homes and at the same time, sending a legal notice to the rail operator over the threat of environmental contamination.”

                    The Independent also published a separate article on the subject:
                    Headline - Ohio train derailment ‘predicted’ by 2022 Netflix movie

                    And the headline in a recent New Scientist publication has the headline:  Ohio chemical spill: What could have caused the train to derail?

                    After browsing all the above articles, it’s clear to me that there is something wrong, and I can understand why you don’t trust the authorities in America.  If a similar accident happened in Britain the UK Government and the authorities would have reacted entirely differently, and although there would be questions and anger from local residents and general public (which is quite natural), and similarly questions raised by Parliament (who holds the Government to account); the peoples trust in the authorities and government wouldn’t be dented like it is in the USA.  Excluding natural disasters, the nearest catastrophe I can think of in Britain, to the Ohio chemical spill, e.g. where there were failings by both the Government and Building Contractors is the Grenfell Tower fire in 2017.

                    1. Nathanville profile image85
                      Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                      On reflection, I think a big difference between the USA and UK in respect to such disasters, is that in the UK the matter will be independently investigated and there will be 'Public Inquiries' that are open and transparent.

                2. DrMark1961 profile image99
                  DrMark1961posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  That "childish attitude" comment reminded me of an article I saw about some guy in the US that modified his truck so that it would spew out more black smoke and increase his carbon footprint. It looked like a childish attitude to me, but from his point of view I am sure it was a "F... the government" statement, or "F... Al Gore" and the rest of the politicians that are telling us to stop spewing more carbon while flying around in private jet.

                  edit: Since you mentioned that Al Gore was not known there, it would be like an EUer saying "F... Macron" or a Canadian saying "F... Trudeau"

                  1. Miebakagh57 profile image82
                    Miebakagh57posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    I found the act funny. But seriously, its a bad attitude.                                      Oddly, and to intentionally modify a vehicle just to emit 'black smoke' is no childish matter. A child if reprimind of the bad, and he/she persists gets a beating. Clearly, they was no law which says trucks or cars shouldn't emit 'black' smoke.

                    1. Nathanville profile image85
                      Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                      Actually, in the UK it is illegal for trucks or cars to emit ‘black’ smoke, and the penalties are quite steep.

                      Under the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations (Regulations 61(7) and 61A(3)) and the Road Traffic Act 1988 (Section 42) it is an offence to use on a road a vehicle which has been modified in such a way that it no longer complies with the air pollutant emissions standards it was designed to meet.  The maximum penalties are £1,000 ($1,200) for a car and £2,500 ($3,000) for a van, lorry or bus.

                      And under the Road Traffic Act 1988 (Section 75); it is an offence to alter a vehicle in such a way that the use of the vehicle on a road would be unlawful; and under this Section of the law the penalties are unlimited fines.

                      Actually, in the UK it is illegal for teachers, nursery workers or child care workers to smack children; and although it is unlawful for a parent to smack their child in England and Northern Ireland, except where this may amount to 'reasonable punishment'; parents smacking children became illegal in Scotland in 2020, and in Wales in 2022 – and a parent beating a child across the whole of the UK is a criminal offence that attracts a prison sentence, if a parent wounded their child with intent, unlawfully, maliciously and intentionally, or caused grievous bodily harm while beating them as excessive punishment, the maximum prison sentence is ‘life’.

                  2. Nathanville profile image85
                    Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    Yep smile

              2. Nathanville profile image85
                Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                One question I've been meaning to ask you (out of curiosity) is:-

                How many trees does your Company plant each year; what type(s) of trees, and for what purpose - Does your Company have a website that covers what they do?

      2. Miebakagh57 profile image82
        Miebakagh57posted 2 years agoin reply to this

        Okay ab I'll watch out for the read. Inbox me if you care.

        1. abwilliams profile image75
          abwilliamsposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          Thanks. smile

          1. Miebakagh57 profile image82
            Miebakagh57posted 2 years agoin reply to this

            abwilliam, just an adddedum or a side note, please.                                Climate change or climate hoax, like the 2019 pandemic can be controling. I blame the politician for distorting every information and any evidence that may be available.                                The issue is like  Trump not liking science and exercise. The only minus thing I see in him.                                  Decades ago, I'm in a biology and physics class. The Green House  Effect was clearly demostrated. My mind has not deviated from the experiment. ab, I'm afraid the politicians across your rivers has hijacked it to a polical end. Not so in my country, Nigeria.                                          Here are few effects of the 'hoax' in my state: mango tree failling to bear fruits in due time, few(er) sardines and tilapia in my rivers, and multipliction of harmful mosquitos. Have a nice weekend, ab.

    49. abwilliams profile image75
      abwilliamsposted 2 years ago

      Wow, not sure which one angers me more; climate crisis nonsense and the fact that so many keep buying the snake oil OR your way off base political ramblings.

      Those of us who had a problem with Barack Obama, had a problem with the fact that he hates the United States of America!!! His entire campaign was all about "fundamentally transforming" it...because he hates it! But, I will say this, there were people that voted for him simply because he's black and for no other reason.
      There are plenty of black conservatives that I can and have, gotten behind with my support.
      I was a big supporter of Herman Cain, God rest his soul! One of my favorite Senators is from my home state of South Carolina, Tim Scott. My favorite Supreme Court Justice is Clarence Thomas, but I also loved Justice Antonin Scalia...God rest his soul!
      Why?!?
      Because they are conservatives, they love this Country! They don't seek to destroy it and start over.
      They are consistent in their interpretation of our laws. They do not attempt to twist and bend the U.S. Constitution into what they want or need it to be.

      Obama trampled all over it with his Obamacare Mandate. He placed mandates and made threats against the American people, gave them ultimatums...such as; you will purchase this or else!!! He pitted groups of people against one another, he never had any  intentions of unity. He was the biggest divider that I can ever recall in office, in my lifetime!! He was horrible for the U.S., Biden is horrible for the U.S.!!

      We are way off topic, but I couldn't let it lie. Sorry Savvy!!

      1. Miebakagh57 profile image82
        Miebakagh57posted 2 years agoin reply to this

        After abwillam, who else want to settle another political topic?                                     For the record Barak Obama was hated in most African states.                                     Yesterday at 5.00 PM after voting for the Nigerian presidential, senatorial, and representatives, the sky began to low.                                             They was a dark cloud casting all over my part of the State. Soon they was a strong wind with higher temperature, the wind blowing and carrying much dust into the sky for some 45 minutes.                                             The people expect it to rain but not a drop from the sky. Throughout the month of January we had a weekly downpour in a regular partner. Hence, the expectation to rain.                                     They's actualy a climate crisis or changes in Nigeria, like any other nation. Why is that the  North East Trade Winds no longer blow across sub- Sahara Africa? 40 years ago that was a dynamic scenario in the  West African..

        1. Nathanville profile image85
          Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          Yep, likewise, Europe is in climate change crisis; the latest crisis being that  tomatoes, cucumbers, peppers and leeks are now being rationed by supermarkets in Britain because of a European wide shortage of these crops due to climate change; with other crops such as  carrots, cabbage, cauliflower and potatoes at risk of becoming in short supply this spring due to climate change.

          1. DrMark1961 profile image99
            DrMark1961posted 2 years agoin reply to this

            The fact that you import those groceries from some other countries like Morocco has nothing to do with climate change.

            1. Nathanville profile image85
              Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              Excuse me, two thirds of our vegetables, including tomatoes, cucumbers, peppers, leeks, carrots, cabbages, cauliflower and potatoes are grown in the UK; and FYI crop failure, largely because of the changing British climate, production of home grown vegetables have been hard hit this year e.g. almost 60% of the cucumbers grown in the UK have failed this year.  And besides, FYI countries like Morocco, Spain, Netherlands, France and Greece, where we do import the rest of our vegetables from are also suffering crop shortages due to changing climate – I should know, I live here in Europe, and the changing climate is making it increasingly challenging grown my own vegetable in my own back garden.  So yes, it has a lot to do with climate change, as Miekbakgh is also experiencing in Nigeria.

              In fact, FYI, most potatoes sold in Britain is grown in Britain.  FYI Britain is one of the largest producers of potatoes in the world.  In fact 25% of our potatoes are grown in Scotland; but due to a warming climate yields are down 20%.

              1. DrMark1961 profile image99
                DrMark1961posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                And although you claim 2/3, your stores are claiming that the reason they are not able to sell those vegetables is the weather in Morocco?

                1. Nathanville profile image85
                  Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  You're either taking quotes out of context, or your source is giving you an incomplete picture:  Do you have a link to your source?

                  1. DrMark1961 profile image99
                    DrMark1961posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    No, it is you that is taking things out of context. Every time there is a weather event you state that it is because of man-made climate change. Guess what? Even before humans polluted our environment there were vegetables lost to late frosts, crops lost to heavy rainfall and hail, etc,

                    1. Nathanville profile image85
                      Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                      Yeah, “Even before humans polluted our environment there were vegetables lost to late frosts, crops lost to heavy rainfall and hail, etc.”

                      But we are not talking about seasonal or yearly fluctuations in the weather; we are talking about long term trends in climate change caused by burning fossil fuels.

                      How it has impacted Britain, I’ve explained in some detail to wilderness below.

              2. Miebakagh57 profile image82
                Miebakagh57posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                I'm in complete agreemnt with you, Arthur. Climate changes are real phenomena. But some politicians has harness it as a tool of control.                                 Last year 2022 certain group of women in a local church call the Assemblies of God petitioned Nigerian President Buhari, to open the Nigerian boarders and allow the the importation vegetables which the country can hardly produce due to floods.                                       His refusal means the weekly rise of prices of available foodstuffs, which are hard to come by.

          2. Miebakagh57 profile image82
            Miebakagh57posted 2 years agoin reply to this

            Yea, around this time December to March, these stuff are plenty in  Nigeria. But they become 'expensive' due to the  Xmas and New Year holidays.                                    They're mostly seasonal but production in a green house took place at unconvetimal period if farmers can help it.                                          Also they're perishable goods, otherwise Nigeria will likely join the league of the exporting party.

            1. abwilliams profile image75
              abwilliamsposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              "Around this time December to March", sounds like a weather pattern.
              "Around this time", every year?
              For how long now, Miebakagh?
              I am curious.

              1. Miebakagh57 profile image82
                Miebakagh57posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                4 months: December, January, February, and March. Thanks abwilliam in helping me to be speciic.                                                I lost my train of thought because I was monitoring the Nigeria 2023 presidential election results from 12.00 AM (Saturday, 25  February) to the present hour. Thanks.

          3. wilderness profile image77
            wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            Are you confusing climate change with weather?  With snow in our wine country, I expect the price of grapes and wine to skyrocket, but it isn't from climate change.  It is from a freak snow storm - the kind of thing that happens once or twice a century and has done so for millennia. 

            Nor does it work (for me) to simply declare that any unusual weather patterns are is "climate change".  When you have had weather unsuitable for growing of tomatoes every year for a decade or three, then talk about climate change.  Not from a single year.

            1. Nathanville profile image85
              Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              Not talking about a single year; the climate has been changing significantly in Britian since the 1980s - I'm just about to serve tea (our evening meal) but I shall expand tomorrow.

              1. wilderness profile image77
                wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                And have you been unable to grow tomatoes since the 80's?  Your post does not seem to indicate that - instead it is just this year or two that has been a problem.

            2. Miebakagh57 profile image82
              Miebakagh57posted 2 years agoin reply to this

              wilddrness, I can understand these weather changes or disturbances.                                    They either mean less harm or more. But they very unusual.                                     If an exceeding rainfall in a specific day or two destroy an acre of growing corn  among other plots of corns, that couldn't be climate change. It's an unusual weather phenomena because among the acre or two of corn lands destroyed others are still flowering. This delimineation is hard for others to note and understand. Thanks.

            3. Nathanville profile image85
              Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              I am not talking about freak weather that happens once or twice a century; I am talking about a dramatic change in climate that has happened across Europe, and other parts of the world, over the past few decades.  And I am not talking about tomatoes specifically, I’m talking about the impact it has on growing crops in general.

              Specifically, in the UK (and in Bristol, where I live), speaking from personal experience, the changes in our climate, which I have experienced, and how it affects crops, includes the following:-

              SNOW
              Prior to 1990, in Bristol, we used to get typically 6 inches, sometimes a foot, of snow in Bristol virtually every winter, for at least a week or two, from January to March.  The worst snow storm being the “Big Freeze of 1963” (the coldest winter on record), which blanketed the whole of the UK from 12th December 1962 to 6th March 1963 (three months), where temperatures stayed below freezing point, and in Bristol we had 6ft snow drifts.

              From 1990, in Bristol, we’ve had hardly any snow, most years since 1990 it doesn’t snow at all in Bristol, and on the occasional winter when we do get any snow it’s usually just a sprinkling of less than ½ inch, and only lasts two or three days at most.

              WINTER’s
              Winters in the UK have been progressively getting warmer since the start of the Industrial Revolution. 

              From as far back as historic records go (AD 250) the Thames River in London used to freeze over for up to two months, up to a depth of 1 foot thick of ice most winters; and the ‘River Thames Frost Fairs’ (as referenced in some of Charles Dickens writings) e.g. stalls selling wares and goods and people ice skating in the river became a regular tradition.

              The last frost fair was 1814 (after the start of the Industrial Revolution), because since then the climate has started to warm, and the River Thames doesn’t freeze over anymore.

              In my lifetime, I’ve witnessed the cold harsh winters, with heavy frost from November until May that we used to get prior to the 1990s, to since the 1990s we now get very little or no frosts in Bristol, and our winters are much milder.

              DROUGHTS
              Droughts in Britain isn’t that common because our climate is generally wet all year round; however the years that we have had droughts since records began are:-

              •    1976
              •    1995
              •    1998
              •    2003
              •    2006
              •    2022

              Thus, 5 of the 6 droughts on record for Britain have all occurred within the last 30 years.

              HEATWAVES
              We’ve had 13 heatwaves in the UK since records began, of which 8 (almost two thirds) have been since 1990 (just over the past 30 years) as follows:-

              •    1808
              •    1906
              •    1911
              •    1955
              •    1976
              •    1990
              •    1995
              •    2003
              •    2013
              •    2018
              •    2019
              •    2021
              •    2022

              HOTTEST YEARS
              15 of the 16 hottest years in the UK since records began have all occurred since 1990 (over the last 30 years); and none of the ten coldest years have occurred since 1963.

              Below, the 15 hottest years on record in the UK:

              •    1976
              •    1990
              •    2002
              •    2003
              •    2004
              •    2005
              •    2006
              •    2007
              •    2011
              •    2014
              •    2015
              •    2017
              •    2018
              •    2019
              •    2020
              •    2022

              And 2022 (last year was the hottest year ever, since records began) when temperatures in Britain hit a record high of 40.3°C (104.5°C).

              FOOD
              Wine
              When I was young English wine was unheard of because we didn’t have the climate for it; but there’s been a revival of vineyards in southern England and Wales since the 1970s onwards, because of rising temperature making it possible to grow grapes of high quality.

              The Success of English Wine Making in Kent https://youtu.be/wiNlYDtuuB8

              Potatoes
              Potatoes do better in colder climates, which is why Britain is one of the world’s biggest producers of potatoes; with a high percentage of potatoes coming from Scotland being it’s a much colder climate than England – but with the warming climate potato production is adversely affected, which in recent years has increasingly meant price fluctuations (not to be confused with inflation) from year to year as the norm rather than the exception e.g. it’s becoming more common where we get more bad years (potato shortages) leading to higher prices that year.

              Roots, beans & Brassicas, and Tomatoes
              I grow my own vegetables in our back garden to feed the family 12 months of the year.  My own experience is that over the last 20 years growing vegetables has become more challenging because of the changing climate.

              The growing season has now extended in that prior to 2000 it was traditionally from mid-April to mid-September, whereas now it’s from mid-March until mid-October; but a longer growing season doesn’t mean bigger harvests – hotter dryer summers with increase risks of droughts and heatwaves reeks with crops e.g. with beans wilting in the heat and brassicas bolting (going to seed). 

              Prior to 2000, with crops well established before taking any holidays (vacations) with cooler summers and plenty of rain, I could safely leave the crops to the elements, and tender them on my return.  Whereas now, with a high probability of drought and heatwaves, by the time we get back from holiday the damage is done and they never fully recover to give the bumper crops that we used to get.  The same with our tomatoes – we grow tomatoes in an un-heated greenhouse, and prior to 2000 would harvest bumper crops from mid-July to mid-September; but now, although they continuing cropping until mid-November e.g. don’t get killed by the cold in autumn like they used to, while on holiday (vacation) the hot summers and heatwaves means that these days our tomatoes are dry and parched when we get back from vacation, and they never then fully recover, so our tomato harvest is much smaller than it used to be.

              Out experience in our back garden in growing veg is replicated by the experiences of farmers across Britain e.g. the droughts and heatwaves wreaking havoc to commercial growers.

        2. abwilliams profile image75
          abwilliamsposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          No doubt weather changes; always has, always will. Feast or famine, comes to mind when describing many things, especially the weather!
          When I was in school in the 70's, we were being shown the movie, "The Coming Ice Age". It was eerie and scary by design. But by the time my kids were in school, the poor infamous polar bear was wondering what happened to that coming ice age he had been hearing about?! We'll always remember him isolated and alone, until we saw the big picture that is - but, nevertheless it worked! Out with the ice age, the kids had to be convinced that instead, the earth was warming and that they and their parents were responsible for it. Many (climate activists have become wealthy in the process; as long as we do as they say and not as they do, this little arrangement works out just fine)
          Moving along down memory lane, after too many record low temps and snowfalls, they (climate activists) couldn't go back to ice age (been there-done that) soooo climate change it would be. Hmmm... change, the weather changes, is ever-changing....too common, too familiar, too correct!! So FOR NOW, we have climate crisis! "Crisis" should do the trick, keep the kids scared, controlled, staying on their Parents, etc. etc.
          It's a close race as to how many name changes there has been for the weather vs. weddings for J Lo

          1. Nathanville profile image85
            Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            Really?????

            The science is clear that it’s not just variations in weather patterns over time, its anthropogenic climate change caused by excess burning of fossil fuels e.g. basic science, burning fossil fuel releases greenhouse gases into the atmosphere; and they’re called greenhouse gases because they trap the sun’s heat (preventing it from escaping into outer space), causing the earth to warm – the same way that the glass in a greenhouse traps the suns heat, making it much hotter inside the greenhouse than outside.

            And the volume of the greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels is far in excess of what the trees and oceans can reabsorb – thus a warming climate:  Apart from the fact that suturing the oceans with excessive absorption of CO2 causes it to become more acid, which is bad news for marine life.

            It’s all basic science, and the scientific evidence is now overwhelming.

            1. abwilliams profile image75
              abwilliamsposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              Yes, really (.)

            2. profile image0
              savvydatingposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              Marine life is not suffering from acid in the oceans. That is a myth. Furthermore, oceans have many layers. If the bottom layer becomes warmer, it does not affect shellfish. Experiments have been done on shellfish. Scientists have pumped more co2 into their water source. Guess what happened? The fish got bigger. That’s it. Their shells did not fall off. They were perfectly fine and bigger than before.
              As for co2 on the earth, the only thing it does is make crops grow bigger and faster, same as with the fish.

              1. Nathanville profile image85
                Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                I don’t know where you get your information from, but it’s not from any reliable scientific source:

                FYI:

                1.    Ocean acidification, also called “osteoporosis of the sea.” can create conditions that eat away at the minerals used by oysters, clams, lobsters, shrimp, coral reefs, and other marine life to build their shells and skeletons e.g. it causes shells and skeletons made from calcium carbonate to dissolve.

                2.    Ocean acidification also leads to the growth of harmful algae.

                3.    Due to warming climate widespread changes have been observed, including damage to coral reefs and mangroves that support ocean life, and migration of species to higher latitudes and altitudes where the water could be cooler.

                4.    Climate change is also wreaking havoc with the food chain that seals, sea lions, whales and dolphins depend on.

                5.    Rising sea levels are also adversely affecting fish; for example fish that thrive in cooler waters, and thus used to be common in British waters, are now migrating further north, closer to the arctic circle.  And more tropical marine life, including jelly fish that used to be rare in British waters, are now becoming more common.

                So your claim, that fish get bigger and that their shells don’t fall off, is a false claim; if you believe otherwise, where is your evidence.

                As for CO2 having no other effect on the earth than making crops grow bigger and faster, is also a false claim.  Excessive CO2 in the atmosphere is reeking on the earth; and it’s not just what the science says; it’s happening here and now across the UK, Europe and most of the world. 

                I’m witness the effect of excess CO2 in the atmosphere in Britain where I live, with:

                •    15 of the 16 hottest years in the UK since records began all occurring in the past 30 years; with the hottest record temperature ever recorded being last year when temperatures in Britain hit a record high of 40.3°C (104.5°C).

                •    We’ve had 13 heatwaves in the UK since records began, of which 8 (almost two thirds) have been since 1990 (just over the past 30 years).

                •    Five of the six droughts we’ve had in Britain since records began have all been since 1995 (within the last 30 years).

                •    Where I live we used to get deep snow almost every winter, 6 inches to 1 ft. that would last a week or two prior to 1990; but since 1990 we get almost no snow, and if it does snow, it’s only a sprinkling of just ½ inch that lasts two or three days at most.

                •    In the last 30 years in Britain, our winters have become far more mild, and our summers far hotter, than they used to be.

                If you believe otherwise – where is your evidence?

    50. Nathanville profile image85
      Nathanvilleposted 2 years ago

      An excellent document published by the UK Conservative Government on the 23rd Oct 2014.

      https://www.gov.uk/guidance/climate-change-explained

      1. Miebakagh57 profile image82
        Miebakagh57posted 2 years agoin reply to this

        Arthur, thank you for the link. It's a read and a study.                                And besides I've not forget the 'green house effect' in my Chemistry, Biology, and Physics class.                                     Signficantly, climate changes or climate crisis do affect the weather at the Global level, not just  England or the UK.                                    Seriously, what person is there that has not take note that the iced or glacier Poles are melting? S(he)'s either dreaming or not facing reality.                                 Nevertheless, climate changes it should be noted differs from weather changes or fluctuations. But it usually results from climate crisis.

    51. Nathanville profile image85
      Nathanvilleposted 2 years ago

      Latest News – Published Today:

      The UK reached an historic point this winter, whereby not only is it now producing more electricity from Renewable Energy than from fossil fuels, but it produced enough electricity from Renewable Energy this winter to power every domestic home in the country.  For clarity that’s means domestic homes, and does not include power required for industry and transport; but nevertheless, it’s still a major milestone, and a major step in the right direction.

      To meet all of UK’s power requirements with just Renewables would mean quadrupling the number of wind turbines at an investment cost of just £50 billion ($60 billion); but with growing interest in investing in Renewables (especially from big investors like the British Oil Companies), because of its increasing profitability on returns, the UK is already on course to achieve that by around 2030.  Also, battery storage is ramping up faster than expected, boosting the UK’s energy security and leaving the UK less exposed to international gas markets, and over the coming years battery storage is set to grow 14-fold.

      Published Today (2nd March 2023):  https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/h … 92542.html

      (Published in 2020, but still very relevant)  https://www.exchangeutility.co.uk/news/ … er-the-uk/

      https://www.theregister.com/2022/11/24/ … y_storage/

    52. Nathanville profile image85
      Nathanvilleposted 2 years ago

      The ‘Hornsea 2’ offshore windfarm in the UK, which became operational in Aug 2022, located off the West Coast of England, at 1.3GW is currently the world’s largest offshore windfarm in the world; but that is dwarfed by the Gansu Windfarm in China, which at 20GW is the world’s largest on-land windfarm.

      Dogger Bank, located off the East Coast of England, at 3.6GW, is set to be the next world’s largest offshore windfarm when it becomes operational by 2026; between now and then, there are a further six offshore windfarms set to go live over the next two years, half of them going on-line later this year – So the future for UK’s energy security looks bright.

      Hornsea 2: how big is the world’s largest offshore wind farm?  https://youtu.be/PsJJc070WOs

      To put it into perspective, just one revolution (one turn) of one blade on just one turbine, produces enough electricity to supply a typical British home with all the electricity it needs for 24 hours.

    53. Miebakagh57 profile image82
      Miebakagh57posted 2 years ago

      We're again drifting away fhe theme of climate change. And we're focusing on and discussing montary economy.                                   However, today  3 March mark the real beginning of real rainfall on my part of my country.                                 Fortunately, the rains put out a building on fire, that nearly touch a nearby one-storey building. Welcome rain to Nigeria.

      1. profile image0
        savvydatingposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        Drifting away. True. I did ask Peter if he believes the world would end in 10 years or so (if we do not reach zero net carbon emissions within 10 years or so) Did not catch a response. Did you… or anyone?

        I ask because I’ve been researching car stuff all week and have only checked in a few times.

        1. Miebakagh57 profile image82
          Miebakagh57posted 2 years agoin reply to this

          Yea I knew that. I gave my response because you also directed the query at me.                                                    My answer was that let Apollonus the Jew believe the world is going to end in 10 years time. I hardly believe that. Thanks.

    54. Miebakagh57 profile image82
      Miebakagh57posted 2 years ago

      The Nigerian mentality here is nuetral. You pay for everything affecting you.                                      Nigerians, generally don't like paying taxes unless government agents monitor and check them.

      1. Nathanville profile image85
        Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        Thanks for the feedback, it's interesting to hear of the cultural mentality of different nations.

        1. Miebakagh57 profile image82
          Miebakagh57posted 2 years agoin reply to this

          Arthur, you're welcome.

    55. Miebakagh57 profile image82
      Miebakagh57posted 2 years ago

      The conservative laabour government!?                                     In Nigeria, government will remain dumb thought  the means, even if the citizens were not tax was available.                                       Some 6 years ago, one such scenario occured in my  Wakirike(Okrika London) town. The father of the baby was a young man and a carpenter. He took the child to a government hospital(2 years ago converted to a Teaching Hospital). The doctors can't treat him but reference to a clinic abroad that runs into over £1.5 millions.                                       The the father approach the governor but in vain.

    56. Miebakagh57 profile image82
      Miebakagh57posted 2 years ago

      Is the USA/UK&EU the only economic culture in the world?                                      Africa, Asia, and the Orient have economies.                                     Apart from their traditional economies of production, which is still signficant to the continent...it's similar to that every English people or Europeans pass through. They modern trends have roots with Europe, the USA, and lately China, which has the fastest growth rate.                                     Savvydating, it's raining cat and dog right now in my Rivers State. The rains have come to Nigeria. It's the raining season.

      1. profile image0
        savvydatingposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        Recently, we had hail and snow where I live, which is in the southern part of the USA.
        This is why the term global warming is a misnomer. Various regions have varying temperatures. Climate is always fluctuating, and this pattern has not changed since the Industrial Revolution, as climate alarmists claim. The earth continues its cyclical pattern. Up and down, up and down.
        However, the earth seems to be on a cooling period at this juncture. This will change in time, as it always does.

        1. Miebakagh57 profile image82
          Miebakagh57posted 2 years agoin reply to this

          Thank you...we're ever be observing the climate trends.

        2. gmwilliams profile image84
          gmwilliamsposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          What you have stated is correct & proven by history.  The term climate change is a misnomer.  Climates have always fluctuated since the beginning.  There have been countless ice ages. It has been extremely hot & cold.  I remember there used to be spring-recently, winter just went in a very short spring then summer.   Climates change, even escalate-that is part of nature.  I have been watching documentaries & reading books on weather & climate.  There are people who are making such a metaphoric mountain out of climate change.  Let's concentrate on issues such as out of control spending, exorbitantly high cost of living, crime, & homeless.  These are issues that should be concentrated on & remedied, not climate change.

          1. Nathanville profile image85
            Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            As I said to savvydating “the climate is always fluctuating, and this pattern has not changed since the Industrial Revolution; but climate fluctuation from year to year isn’t the issue, it’s the long term trend in the climate that is the issue e.g. the long term trend since the Industrial Revolution has been a steady increase in temperature over time, which corresponds with the increase of CO2 being pumped into the atmosphere from burning excessive amounts of fossil fuels – basic physics, and a now well understood science, back up with an increasing amount of scientific evidence from all areas of science.

        3. Nathanville profile image85
          Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          The earth is NOT “on a cooling period at this juncture”; the average net global temperature has been steadily increasing since the Industrial Revolution, and is continuing to increase – that is an undeniable scientific fact.

          Global warming does NOT mean that every region of the Earth gets hotter; Global warming means that the average net temperature of the Earth, as a whole, is getting hotter.

          Yes, you may be experiencing a cooler winter than normal at the moment in southern part of the USA, and in recent years New York suffers exceptionally severe winters because these days the Polar Vortex is often displaced, and pushed south, in the winter months because of the effects of climate change.

          However, two thirds of the USA had the hottest heatwave on record last year; and not only are the winters in southern England gone from harsh to mild (and a lot warmer) over the past 20 years, but also our summers have become significantly warmer than they used to be; so much so that for the first time in its history, in the last few decades southern England has been able to produce quality wine on a large commercial scale because of the milder weather that we get these days.

          Not only that, but also, Europe and the UK, over the last 20 years, now suffered heatwaves biannually, whereas prior to 2000 we’ve only ever had one heat wave (in 1976) since the last ice age; and last year’s heatwave across Europe and in the UK were the hottest ever on record – So don’t tell me that the earth is on a cooling period.

          Yeah, the “climate is always fluctuating, and this pattern has not changed since the Industrial Revolution”; but climate fluctuation from year to year isn’t the issue, it’s the long term trend in the climate that is the issue e.g. the long term trend since the Industrial Revolution has been a steady increase in temperature over time, which corresponds with the increase of CO2 being pumped into the atmosphere from burning excessive amounts of fossil fuels – basic physics, and a now well understood science, back up with an increasing amount of scientific evidence from all areas of science.

          1. profile image0
            savvydatingposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            I understand net temperature. I disagree that you can determine the temperature of the planet overall by only looking at only 150 years.
            In many cases, you seem to be talking about the weather, and in some cases you seem to merge co2 with pollution. Co2 is a carbon. It is not a pollutant. The planet thrives on co2. It does not thrive on pollution.
            Thus, when you say that the USA has polluted air and China has clean air, you are dead wrong. China has known for quite some time that nuclear energy can be an effective source of energy (to replace fossil fuels) but they do not care because they are making a fortune in battery sales and all things solar. They are more than happy to be the world’s dirty factory.
            I will soon be reading about Climategate. Will keep interested readers posted in time.

            1. Nathanville profile image85
              Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              Who says that scientists have only studied the planet’s temperature over just the past 150 years;  FYI Paleoclimatologists have studied the climate going back billions of years, and now have a detailed picture of the earth’s average temperature, climate and levels of CO2 in the atmosphere going back more than 500 million years.

              No, I am not talking just about the weather, I am talking about climate change and global warming e.g. the long term trend to a warming climate linked to the increase in greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere caused by burning excessive amounts of fossil fuels; and the adverse effect it’s having on the climate.

              CO2 is a pollutant when it’s adverse causing climate change and global warming.  Yes, CO2 is a carbon, and so is Carbon Monoxide (just one carbon atom to one Oxygen atom), and Carbon Monoxide is a deadly poisonous gas – about 7% of exhaust emission from a fossil fuel car is Carbon Monoxide, and in the USA about three quarters of carbon monoxide in most large cities is from car emission.

              Yeah, the planet does thrive on CO2, to a point; but too much CO2 in the atmosphere is harmful to the planet, not healthy – a fact that you don’t seem to be able to grasp!

              I’ve never said that the air in China is clean; they have pollution problems, just like any other Industrialised country in the world; but what I have said in the past is that ‘per head of population’ (per capita) the amount of pollution from greenhouse gases is far higher in the USA.

              Yeah, nuclear energy can be an effective source of energy to replace fossil fuels, and so is Renewable Energy; but the cost of nuclear power isn’t that much cheaper than fossil fuels, whereas in two thirds of the world Renewable Energy is now significantly cheaper than fossil fuels – also, building nuclear power stations isn’t a quick solution, it’s much quicker and cheaper to installing Renewable Energy.  And FYI over half of all the world’s windfarms, and a third of all the world’s solar farms are in China – So China is putting a lot of effort into its transition from fossil fuels to Renewable Energy. – The Three Gorges Dam (the world’s largest hydro-electric dam), is a prime example of China’s achievements.

              1. Miebakagh57 profile image82
                Miebakagh57posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                I agree completely with the last paragraph.
                Nevertheless, climate crisis including global warming is real.

              2. profile image0
                savvydatingposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                The Communist Party of China has no interest whatsoever in “saving the planet.” Their only motive for investing in any small amount of capital toward “global warming” has nothing to do with concern for the planet and has everything to do with playing the long game in order to become the dominant country in the world.

                There is nothing good about the Communist Party, and they should not be lauded for anything they do. Their motives are always contrary to freedom.

                Have you ever been to China? Sometimes you are lucky if you can see across the street. That should tell you something.

                Renewable energy is not cheaper for most of the population anywhere. Just because you live in a tiny country the size of one small U.S. state, and which does not require much travel, and which can live with tiny refrigerators and no air conditioning, does not mean you have figured out, or have greater knowledge over the cost effectiveness of climate policies for average households in the much of the world.

                1. Miebakagh57 profile image82
                  Miebakagh57posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  Just noted.

                2. Nathanville profile image85
                  Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  You are wrong on both your points; the fact is, over half the world’s windfarms and a third of the world’s solar farms are in China – That is a fact.  And the Three Gorges Dam is testimony to how serious China is on producing Renewable Energy.  If America put as much energy (effort) into Renewables as China does the world would be a much better place, and so would the USA, because of the employment and wealth that investment in Renewables generates e.g. if the USA took Renewables seriously, they could be a world leader in Renewable Energy technology, not China and Europe.

                  Three Gorges Dam: The World's Most Powerful Dam:  https://youtu.be/lsiN_AckQgE

                  No I haven’t been to China, but our close neighbours and friends (who we socialise with) live just two doors up from us, are Chinese; so I’ve learnt a lot about China’s culture from them, and from the husband’s brother when he visited them from China a few years ago.  Have you been to China, or anywhere else outside of the USA????

                  As regards your second point; it’s a fact that Renewable Energy became cheaper in two thirds of the world (including Europe and the UK) from 2016.  Having tiny roads, and small fridges and freezers (relative to the USA) and no air conditioning in the UK is a separate factor that doesn’t affect the cost of production of electricity; it just affects the level of usage per household.  Although we don’t have air-conditioning for the summer months in the UK, we do have expensive heating bills in the winter months.  And FYI, I’m not an average British family; in our family we actually have three freezers, including one large chest freezer.

                  Wind and solar still much cheaper than fossil fuels, even with inflation (In Australia):  https://youtu.be/VPG208FJ2W8 

                  The above video is about Australia, Australia is NOT a tiny country, in Australia they travel as much as Americans, they most defiantly are very dependent on air-conditioning, and like Americans, Australian’s have big houses and cars and fridges and freezers.

                3. Nathanville profile image85
                  Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  Yep, you’re right –we don’t have air conditioning in the UK; until recent times we didn’t need it because we never go hot summers:  But all that has changed over the past 20 years.

                  Since 2000 we now frequently get hot summers, increasingly getting hotter and hotter, with last year being the hottest at 40.3 °C (104.5 °F) – so these days without air-conditioning people in Britain swelter in their homes with no effective way of keeping cool.

                  For our part, 20 years ago, when our summers started to get warming we bought a handful of desk and floor fans, which 20 years ago were quite effective, but in recent years our summers have got so hot that they do little more than redistribute hot air.  So a couple of years ago we invested in a bit industrial fan that one of our friends has, and it’s brilliant.  The only problem it’s too powerful and too have in the same room as us; sounds like an aeroplane taking off – so on an evening we put it out in our conservatory and have the door between the conservatory and the living room open, and turn up the volume on the TV, so that we can hear the TV above the noise of the fan in the adjoining room.

                  And to resolve the problem in the bedrooms, too keep the bedrooms cooler overnight in the summer, I’ve fixed a big ceiling fan in our son’s bedroom and two large ceiling fans in our bedroom.

                4. CHRIS57 profile image61
                  CHRIS57posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  ... Have you ever been to China? Sometimes you are lucky if you can see across the street....

                  I think you are off track concerning China´s view on environmental issues.

                  Yes, i was in China. Many times, first involvement was with the Three Gorges project, last was teaching at Chinese universities (just before Corona).

                  Until some 10 years ago your statement about not seeing the other side of a street was almost true. But that has changed gradually and today this is mostly over.

                  China is adding hydropower at a rate of some 5 times Hoover Dam capacity per year. Huge efforts are put into reducing coal powered electricity generation, not to mention E-mobility.

                  We can blame China for a lot, but neglecting the Climate Change issue should not be on the blame list.

                  1. Miebakagh57 profile image82
                    Miebakagh57posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    Chriss57, I realized you've already said much on this your involvement about all this, and the gigantic  Three Gorge Dam project in China, in another forum. Thanks for the update.

                  2. profile image0
                    savvydatingposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    I have not been to China. My cousin and my brother have been. My cousin spent months there. My brother spent ten or twelve days. I do not believe they lied to me about the pollution there. It is a well known fact that China does not produce clean energy relative to the United States.
                    As I was driving down the street on my way to work last week, I marveled at the clean, white plume of smoke coming from a factory in my neck of the woods.

                    In China, the smoke would be dark.

                    I maintain that the Communist Party of China has zero interest in “saving the planet.” Their only interest is in manipulating the West and obtaining world domination.
                    Furthermore, if they have placed so much money into wind farms and solar, why is their air still dirty?

                    The greenhouse effect of global warming that many espouse is way too simplistic.
                    Co2 from fossil fuels only accounts for 10% of the picture. 90% comes from cloud and vapors.
                    In other words, the climate is not as vulnerable to man as climate alarmist claim.
                    Even in the event if a nuclear explosion, the earth would restore itself.
                    However, we must care for the earth in practical ways…

                    1. Nathanville profile image85
                      Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                      When did your brother and cousin spend time in China; things have changed a lot in China over the last 10 years.  Besides, it is not a well-known fact that China produces less clean energy relative to the USA; that is just American right-wing propaganda.  The facts show that per capita China produces less greenhouse gases than the USA, and FYI, although 65.4% of China’s electricity still comes from burning fossil fuels; the USA isn’t much better with 60.8% of its electricity coming from fossil fuels.  While in contrast only 40% of the UK’s electricity comes from burning fossil fuels.

                      If your claims that China has zero interest in transitioning from fossil fuels to Renewable Energy, then how do you explain that half the world’s wind turbines and a third of the world’s solar panels are installed in China?

                    2. Nathanville profile image85
                      Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                      Surly they must have taught you at school what clouds (and vapour) are, where they come from?

                      Clouds is water vapour, and are created when heat from the sun causes sea water to evaporate into the atmosphere – water vapour (clouds) is H2O, not CO2; water vapour (clouds) is not a greenhouse gas, CO2 and Methane (Natural Gas) are greenhouse gases.

                    3. Nathanville profile image85
                      Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                      Where you say:  “Furthermore, if they have placed so much money into wind farms and solar, why is their air still dirty?”

                      China produces twice as much greenhouse gases than the USA, but it has a population 4.25 times larger than the USA:  Therefore, per head of population, China actually produces half as much greenhouse gases than the USA.

                      And that’s the nub of the problem for China, with such a huge population; 4.25 time the size of the population in the USA, for every wind turbine installed in the USA, to have the same positive effect in reducing CO2 emissions China have to install 4.25 wind turbines; which means that China has had to put far more effort into what they have achieved in transitioning away from fossil fuels than the USA has to do to achieve the same goals.

                      You keep complaining that it would be harder for the USA to make the same achievements as the UK in becoming greener, because the USA is much bigger than the UK:  Weill the same argument applies to China vs USA, with the USA being the ‘small fry’ (tiny compared to China) in that instance.

                    4. CHRIS57 profile image61
                      CHRIS57posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                      .... maintain that the Communist Party of China has zero interest in “saving the planet.” ...

                      It is what every nation does or should do: protect their folks first. If that saves the planet - just fine.

                      And that is what the Chinese do, they protect their people. From my comprehension the Chinese well understand the importance of clean environment. The first phase of industrial development is over. The coastal areas are well developed, have high living standards and now people demand quality of life. Chinese administrations proactively understand and set conditions to improve environment. And because it is an autocratic system the administration can act swiftly and without much adoo.
                      Example: In major cities the registration of a combustion engine car was made more expensive than the car itself. But electric cars don´t face this hurdle. Result is that you see many more cars in the streets with green licence plates than in Europe. This anecdotaly already created a new trend to show wealth: Some all electric cars have regular licence plates just to show off that their owners can afford modern electric cars and at the same time don´t have to care for registration cost.

                      The road of China´s development is not at its end. Coastal areas are well developed, but rural inland regions still face poverty. To overcome poverty requires energy, electric power and that is why demand is still high and dirty coal fired power plants can not easily be replaced by green energy generation. But China is working on this and they do it fast. At least that is my experience.

              3. profile image0
                savvydatingposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                I never said scientists have only studied the planet over the last 150 years. That would be a ridiculous statement. Most of your graphs go back 150 years. This does not give us a comprehensive picture of climate.

                1. Nathanville profile image85
                  Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  Yep, that’s because the global warming due to rise in CO2 levels in the atmosphere has been most pronounced over the past 150 years (since mankind has started to burn excessive amounts of fossil fuels); but here below is a graph by NASA going back 800,000 years which show that the level of CO2 in the atmosphere was significantly lower until the past 150 years – and other data, by Paleoclimatologists, going back millennia also show the relationship between global temperatures and CO2 levels e.g. the 2nd graph below shows the link between global temperature and CO2 levels over the past 800,000 years.

                  https://hubstatic.com/16423924_f1024.jpg

                  https://hubstatic.com/16423925_f1024.jpg

        4. Nathanville profile image85
          Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          With regards to your perception that the earth is cooling and not warming, back up by your experience of colder winters in the USA; part of your misconception will be due to the weakening of the Polar Vortex, causing icy cold polar air to settle above the USA rather than the North Pole during winter:  This effect is explained in simple laypersons terms in this short video:  https://youtu.be/7MdVFAM-Bpc

    57. Miebakagh57 profile image82
      Miebakagh57posted 2 years ago

      savvydating, now you're answering my question to a limited extent.                                    And who's Dr. Jordan Paterson? Greta austism is the point I'm interested in.                                  You're welcome.smile

    58. abwilliams profile image75
      abwilliamsposted 2 years ago

      Excuse me as I amble in from the north 40, but I have this image of Peter propped up against his pitchfork, standing alongside the government, wagging his finger and giving hell to the farmers...and every other hard working bloke!!

      1. peterstreep profile image82
        peterstreepposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        haha, well the pitchfork and the tractor are the weapons used by the farmers.
        Hard working does not automatically mean you are morally right. A lot of fraudsters and scammers work their pants off.

        1. Miebakagh57 profile image82
          Miebakagh57posted 2 years agoin reply to this

          Ha ah ha! Hei eh hie!smile

          1. profile image0
            savvydatingposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            Amazing how much some love being a puppet for the sake of popularity.

            Pitiful.

        2. abwilliams profile image75
          abwilliamsposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          Oh so now pitchforks and tractors are "weapons"!?!

          Hardworking means that you keep your nose to the grindstone in order to provide for your family.

          The scam is this climate change nonsense which makes that task even more difficult for everyone who is just trying to make a living and make ends meet.
          All while many of these climate scammers, are laughing all the way to the bank.

          1. profile image0
            savvydatingposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            Nice to see you, AB.

    59. abwilliams profile image75
      abwilliamsposted 2 years ago

      I am so over this madness!!!

    60. abwilliams profile image75
      abwilliamsposted 2 years ago

      Okay, got it, you are a disciple.

      1. profile image0
        savvydatingposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        Cult-like susceptibility. If they only knew how much money these sheisters are raking in.
        People who have conversed with Greta say she is not learned and seems rather ignorant.
        https://nypost.com/2023/03/30/greta-thu … ebrity-is/

        1. abwilliams profile image75
          abwilliamsposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          I think you and I, are over-thinking it! smile

        2. Nathanville profile image85
          Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          Gee-whizz; and what is that meant to prove:  The New York Post is not only a right-wing conservative daily tabloid, that does biased reporting against anything that’s not in accord with American right-wing politics; but it has also been criticized since the beginning of Murdoch's ownership for sensationalism, blatant advocacy, and conservative bias.

          The New York Post commonly publishes news reports based entirely on reporting from other sources without independent corroboration e.g. it does not ‘fact check’ its sources.

          And in a 2004 survey conducted by Pace University, the Post was rated the least-credible major news outlet in New York, and the only news outlet to receive more responses calling it "not credible" than credible e.g. 44% not credible to 39% credible.

          Now if you found a similar article in a more credible newspaper e.g. a newspaper that actually bothered to fact check, then perhaps your arguments might be a little more persuasive.

    61. Nathanville profile image85
      Nathanvilleposted 2 years ago

      The UK Conservative Government has recently published it’s “Carbon Net Zero by 2050 Growth Plan”; 121 pages long, but makes for interesting reading e.g. between 1990 and 2021 the UK has cut its carbon emissions by 48%; while the USA has cut its carbon emissions by only 3%.

      https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u … h-plan.pdf

    62. Nathanville profile image85
      Nathanvilleposted 22 months ago

      Scott recently started a new forum “It is time to talk about climate again - while we still can.”; yet the usual bunch of climate change deniers on HubPages is conspicuous by their absence in that forum.

      Could that be, considering the devastating heatwave hitting the USA this summer, that it’s finally dawning on them that the climate change crisis is real?

    63. Readmikenow profile image84
      Readmikenowposted 22 months ago

      With people coming onto here and virtue signaling, I'm shocked that Global warming, climate change, etc. has yet to be resolved.

      I suppose this means some more virtue signaling is in order.

      It's done so well in the past.

      1. peterstreep profile image82
        peterstreepposted 22 months agoin reply to this

        If only that was the case.
        Sadly enough to resolve climate change we need more than a couple of households trying to reduce their carbon footprint.
        The people who do the most to prevent climate change are the poor people living in Africa actually, as they consume less.

        I didn't get the " It's done so well in the past" bit.

        1. CHRIS57 profile image61
          CHRIS57posted 22 months agoin reply to this

          ...The people who do the most to prevent climate change are the poor people living in Africa actually, as they consume less. ...

          In an idealistic world this would certainly be true.

          Realistically we have to work with numbers, that express climat change efforts in relation to GDP. Something like this: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PP.GD

          World GDP rose significantly from 23 to 85 Bill. USD in the past 30 years, but world population rose also by 47%.

          Only...

          The problem is that Africas population rose by more than 100%, more than doubled in the 30 years. Is the continent Africa really that innocent concerning CO2 output? Already a moral question, i know.

          1. peterstreep profile image82
            peterstreepposted 22 months agoin reply to this

            It's not the population number. It's how much a person consumes.

            In any given year, the average refrigerator or air conditioner in the US consumes much more energy than an average person in dozens of countries around the world consumes for all purposes over an entire year.

            Now, we do not only have a fridge, but an airconditioner, car, microwave, electric cooker, etc.
            That's a completely different carbon footprint than somebody who hardly owns anything.

            https://hubstatic.com/16626949.jpg

            1. CHRIS57 profile image61
              CHRIS57posted 22 months agoin reply to this

              I understand your point. But this would boil down to going back to archaic circumstances of the pre industrial time. Mankind can not go back up into the trees.

              Ghana electricity consumption per capita is 21 times less than that of my country Germany. But GDP of G. is 55 times larger. And GDP means something as useful as Computer-tomographs for example (My son is living in Erlangen, that is where this stuff is made).

              Someone in urgent need for a CT couldn´t care less for the good carbon footprint of Ghana. Their economy is not likely to come up with technology like this, with due respect to Ghana. Black Panther´s Wakanda is Marvels world, not real.

              Of course this doesn´t mean there is no room for improvement. Why is US and Canadian electricity consumption per capita 2 to 3 times higher than European peers. We are all in the same industrialized leage?

              African example is not the solution. Making less, owning less is no option.

              1. wilderness profile image77
                wildernessposted 22 months agoin reply to this

                "Why is US and Canadian electricity consumption per capita 2 to 3 times higher than European peers. We are all in the same industrialized leage?"

                An interesting question, and one I certainly do not know the answer to.  But some possibilities (and I repeat I don't know if any are true):

                A higher dependence in Europe on gas, whether natural gas, propane or other (such as oil).

                Larger homes, meaning more energy to both heat and cool them in the US.

                Larger family units in Europe, all living under one roof.  This reduces energy consumption per capita.

                Europeans do not hold as much in refrigerators and freezers as US people, choosing to shop daily or weekly rather than biweekly, monthly or even less.

                Entertainment devices such as multiple large screen TV's are not as popular in Europe.

                US homes use more hot water than European ones.

                Just some possibilities - I repeat that I have no idea if any are true.

                1. CHRIS57 profile image61
                  CHRIS57posted 22 months agoin reply to this

                  Don´t have an answer either.

                  Lets try a layperson approach:
                  First of all: In G. average private consumption of electricity is rougly 1.500 kWh per person and year. Leaves a lot of room for the 6.000 plus kWh for GDP.

                  What for are the other 3/4 used? Answer: for industrial production, for making stuff, for trading stuff, for the economy in general.

                  And here comes the nature of the economy into play. I would assess that forging steel, building a car, making stuff requires more energy (electricity) than serving a meal or selling a coat in a store. Lets make it 2 to 1: So 1/4 is used for service, 1/2 is used for production and remaining 1/4 is for private household consumption (the air condition, the fridge, ..)

                  The question should be: Why is the USA and Canada using so much electricity to keep economy going? Household consumption may be high, but not the big deal, me think.

                  1. wilderness profile image77
                    wildernessposted 22 months agoin reply to this

                    When I looked for consumption per capita I found only US residential consumption per capita.  But European figures appeared (appeared!) to total consumption per capita, not just residential.  Apples to oranges then.

                    The result was that I couldn't really decide if American people use more than European people, if American business uses more, or much of anything else.  All very confusing - hopefully whatever you found was more specific.

                    Not sure about that 1/4 of the total being residential, though.  I did find one site that said (US) residential was 39% of the total, not 25%.  Big difference, but as industry has fallen (everything outsourced and imported) I might not be such a surprise.

                    1. Nathanville profile image85
                      Nathanvilleposted 22 months agoin reply to this

                      Why the USA and Canada electricity consumption per capita is 2 to 3 times higher than European peers, is as you say, an interesting question, and certainly one that is difficult to answer.

                      Where you could only find USA residential consumption per capita, and just total consumption per capita in Europe, as you said “apples and oranges”; I delved a little deeper, starting with Wikipedia, which does attempt to level the playing field, and then searching further afield as a double check on the figures.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c … onsumption

                      According to Wikipedia, total annual consumption per capita per country:

                      •    USA = 12,154 kWh per year
                      •    Germany = 6,306
                      •    China = 5,885
                      •    Spain 5,131
                      •    UK = 4,496

                      I then focused on domestic use in the USA vs UK; looking at various sources:

                      •    According to those sources USA domestic electricity usage per capita per year range between 10,417 kWh & 11,700 kWh.

                      •    According to those sources UK domestic electricity usage per capita per year range between 3,900 kWh & 4,600 kWh.

                      I know that our family is a heavy consumer of electricity compared to the average/typical UK home e.g. we have 3 freezers, 3 TVs of which one is a 55 inch screen (and associated electrical equipment such as sound systems, cable TV boxes, and DVD players etc.), and lots of power hungry computer equipment, including back-up storage for my son’s business, and my new PC with a 1.2kw power source.

                      So out of interest I looked at our consumption in our house for 2022; which is as follows:-

                      6787.95 kWh; of which only 2988.43 kWh came from the national grid, because we have solar power on our roof.

                      And about half of what did came from the national grid was downloaded to our wall battery in the early hours of the morning when electricity is cheap; because at that time of night it all almost exclusively comes from wind-power.

                      And also, having solar panels on our roof, in 2022 we exported 676.68 kWh to the National Grid, for which we got paid.

                      I don’t know if any of this information helps?

              2. peterstreep profile image82
                peterstreepposted 22 months agoin reply to this

                --But this would boil down to going back to archaic circumstances of the pre industrial time. Mankind can not go back up into the trees. --

                No that's simplifying the point I think.

                The question is how to reduce energy consumption. Or to change the source of the energy. and to change the way it is given back.(carbon footprint)

                These are difficult questions. But if "we"(governments) do nothing the initiative will be given to the "climate", and indeed bringing us back to the trees (if they are still there)
                The climate crisis will break civilizations if it goes to far.(and we are not far off)
                Perhaps it's not a matter of giving up the fridge, but changing the fridge in a carbon-neutral device. Solar-powered or fusion-powered (although this is still a long way, except if trillions of dollars is put into it. People can do great things when they work together, as seen during the COVID crisis.)
                Still not everything can run on solar. Frighters, trucks, heavy machinery still needs diesel. And that's why it's so important to buy "local" (on your own continent) to reduce worldwide shipment.

                No, the Africa model will never be accepted.
                At the moment we live in a society that's based on a growth economy, like the old Roman Empire it can only exist when expanding..And if it can't expand anymore it will collapse.
                There is also an alternative doughnut economic model, where the money and products generated are given back. I don't know much about economic models and just heard about this one briefly, but it's clear that the one we have now does not sustain.
                But the economic system we have is so powerful and dominant that it is incredibly difficult to change. Banks are more powerful than governments at the moment (hence all the bailouts.), Companies can literally pay off the debt of many countries making many governments impotent.

                I don't know how to change this. The only thing this can change is perhaps a new religion that causes behavioral change or powerful international laws with consequences if it is not followed through.

                1. CHRIS57 profile image61
                  CHRIS57posted 22 months agoin reply to this

                  All i can say is that nature is a logarithmic animal while man is always thinking linear. In other words:
                  Climate reacts on changes (like CO2..) exponentially which humans have a hard time to comprehend, leaving all kinds of fears and projections of dystopian nightmares.

                  A little anecdote or riddle can possibly explain what i mean:
                  Situation: A lake is filling with water lilies. These water lilies double their size every day. After 20 days the lake is fully covered. Question: When is  the lake half covered by the lilies?

                  "double every day" represents the exponential behaviour
                  The quick answer: "after 10 days" is typical human thinking.
                  Correct answer: 19 days.

                  If nature grows exponentially, it will also fade away exponentially if conditions are set. Climate will normalize if CO2 output, you name it, is reduced.

                  In Europe we already have the situation in hot summers when electricity gets really expensive. Why? Because rivers run low on water and all thermal power stations (no matter nuclear of fossile fuel fired) require cooling water. No cooling water, no electricity, no CO2 emission. Market price for electricity will fix the issue if not intervened by governments.

                  I heard in the USA there is a similar problem with the Colorado hydropower dam lakes (prominently Lake Powell). I wonder what happens to Las Vegas if the Colorado turns into a small creek.

                  I am absolutely sure if electricity prices in the USA go through the roof, some smart Americans will come up with new ideas. And new ideas always create economic growths. No laws, no religion needed.

                  Just food for thought.

                  1. peterstreep profile image82
                    peterstreepposted 22 months agoin reply to this

                    Hi Chris, I just read that the warm gulf stream that keeps Europe warm is becoming unstable which predicts a really cold winter for Northern Europe.

                    I used to believe that technology would be the answer to the mess we are in. But it won't. It's a collective behavioral change that's needed. (That's why I said religion).

                    Economic growth is not realistic as resources are infinite. It's a model based on the fact that there are always resources, and this is a fallacy.
                    Economic growth is like the waterlily pond you mentioned, using resources exponentially. And by doing so destroying nature with such a force that it is unable to restore. (Great Barrier riff is an example, but also the rainforests.)
                    Some things won't grow back. And we're not even talking about plastics and forever chemicals.
                    No free market that will fix it.

                    If nothing is done on a drastic scale we simply ruin the civilization we live in. And I don't think we can wait for companies to start behaving more responsibly towards nature. The free market is always looking at money and is based on shareholders. They won't change. And governments are to scared as well.
                    If changes come it will come from the people, but a revolution is blood on the pole and not nice. Heads will role. It's sounds unthinkable, for our generation who hasn't experienced war, but it won't be the first in history.
                    If food crops fail and people can't pay their mortgages, more refugees are knocking on the door, things can quickly become grim.

                    You could say, that's a lot of if. True. But on the other hand the science models about the climate crisis are not ifs. It is backed up with tons of data. And at this point irresponsible not the listen to the science.
                    Only the science point towards a negative and grim outcome, something that we don't want to hear.
                    In general people want to ignore bad news, hopefully, it will disappear in time.

                    I guess the rich of Las Vegas move to the city dome that's built in Saudi Arabia right now.
                    Inside countries, you already see migrations because of the climate crisis.

                    Yes, water will be and already is a precious resource.

                    Sorry for the doom and gloom. But it's simply not a happy subject to talk about.

                    1. CHRIS57 profile image61
                      CHRIS57posted 22 months agoin reply to this

                      The current situation is risky, no doubt.
                      But if things change there will always be chances and people (call them greedy, call them smart) to exploit the chances.

                      In 1800 when agriculture was half of the economy it was probably a good idea to invest into this branch. In 1870 steam engine industry was striving. In 1910 transmission belts were needing for industrial production. In 1980 carburators were needed for car engines.

                      Nobody talks about any of these products today.

                      The next challenge is climate change. So what? Yes it is an issue. But it will be solved.

            2. Kathleen Cochran profile image72
              Kathleen Cochranposted 21 months agoin reply to this

              Also, are your appliances old or new. We replaced all the appliances in our kitchen a few years back, and the reduction in our electric bill was significant. Also got rid of an old freezer and extra refrigerator in our garage and that added to our savings.

              1. peterstreep profile image82
                peterstreepposted 21 months agoin reply to this

                Yes that definitely makes a difference. But I guess that in this study they took the average fridge.
                Still the bottom line is that the Western world has a far bigger carbon footprint on the world than the poorer nations. Which makes sense, if you don't have much money, you consume less.

                1. wilderness profile image77
                  wildernessposted 21 months agoin reply to this

                  That brings up a point I saw on a UTube - that nothing Britain can do will change global warming.  Britain is too small, the rest of the world too large, and in the near future it is the more backwards nations that will be the polluters, not Britain. 

                  It made too much sense.  As Africa, the far East, South America and some other nations modernize they will need large amounts of energy to do it, and unless the West supplies that energy (or the machines to produce it), it will be "dirty" and all the CO2 emissions laws we choose to make won't make a dent in it.

                  China is a good example - as it enters the "developed nation" designation it is on the back of coal fired generation plants, which it is building at a huge pace.

                  Wish I could find that video, but I can't.

                  1. Nathanville profile image85
                    Nathanvilleposted 21 months agoin reply to this

                    Yep, obviously there’s nothing Britain can do (on its own) that will change global warming; and nobody is suggesting it can.  To make a difference requires the joint effort of all major energy consuming counties around the world.  All that Britain is doing is just being one of the leading countries in the fight against climate change (leading by example).  And besides, not to make an effort just because the task seems impossible seems very defeatist to me.

                  2. peterstreep profile image82
                    peterstreepposted 21 months agoin reply to this

                    Yes, global warming has to be tackled on a world scale. Politicians from all countries have to make global laws/agreements.

                    But at the moment it's the rich west that consumes energy and products. Products made in low-wage countries.

                    But one of the big consumers of energy is computers, cloud services, mobile data, Bitcoin production, gaming services, Netflix, electronic transactions etc.
                    And people in Africa in general hardly use anything compared to us, and this is not going to change I think.

                    1. wilderness profile image77
                      wildernessposted 21 months agoin reply to this

                      "And people in Africa in general hardly use anything compared to us, and this is not going to change I think."

                      Here we disagree.  Just 20 years ago (during the period we knew of global warming) both China and India fell into that "hardly use anything" category.  Neither country fits there now, and Africa, South America, etc. are working hard to join the West in energy consumption.

        2. Readmikenow profile image84
          Readmikenowposted 22 months agoin reply to this

          I find the belief that humans could alter the climate something of science fiction.

          THEN you have people predicting the most horrible things and dire consequences if "we" don't change our ways. 

          It is a political football and nothing more. 

          Guess what?

          Predictions of the humans destroying the earth have been happening since the 1970s...and we're still all here.  It has been politicized to extremes and plays on the naïve and gullible just like the vaccine.

          It is a tool used by people who want to feel good about themselves and feel they are doing something with their life.  That is about the only purpose it serves. It also gives people a purpose who need one.  It also gives people with low self-esteem a sense of value and importance.  That is about all it does.

          18 Spectacularly Wrong Predictions Were Made Around the Time of the First Earth Day in 1970, Expect More This Year

           
          1. Harvard biologist George Wald estimated that “civilization will end within 15 or 30 years [by 1985 or 2000] unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”

          2. “We are in an environmental crisis that threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation,” wrote Washington University biologist Barry Commoner in the Earth Day issue of the scholarly journal Environment.

          3. The day after the first Earth Day, the New York Times editorial page warned, “Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction.”

          4. “Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make,” Paul Ehrlich confidently declared in the April 1970 issue of Mademoiselle. “The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years [by 1980].”

          5. “Most of the people who are going to die in the greatest cataclysm in the history of man have already been born,” wrote Paul Ehrlich in a 1969 essay titled “Eco-Catastrophe! “By…[1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.”

          6. Ehrlich sketched out his most alarmist scenario for the 1970 Earth Day issue of The Progressive, assuring readers that between 1980 and 1989, some 4 billion people, including 65 million Americans, would perish in the “Great Die-Off.”

          7. “It is already too late to avoid mass starvation,” declared Denis Hayes, the chief organizer for Earth Day, in the Spring 1970 issue of The Living Wilderness.

          8. Peter Gunter, a North Texas State University professor, wrote in 1970, “Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China, and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions….By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.”

          Note: The prediction of famine in South America is partly true, but only in Venezuela and only because of socialism, not for environmental reasons.

          9. In January 1970, Life reported, “Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….”

          10. Ecologist Kenneth Watt told Time that, “At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.”

          11. Barry Commoner predicted that decaying organic pollutants would use up all of the oxygen in America’s rivers, causing freshwater fish to suffocate.

          12. Paul Ehrlich chimed in, predicting in 1970 that “air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone.” Ehrlich sketched a scenario in which 200,000 Americans would die in 1973 during “smog disasters” in New York and Los Angeles.

          13. Paul Ehrlich warned in the May 1970 issue of Audubon that DDT and other chlorinated hydrocarbons “may have substantially reduced the life expectancy of people born since 1945.” Ehrlich warned that Americans born since 1946…now had a life expectancy of only 49 years, and he predicted that if current patterns continued this expectancy would reach 42 years by 1980 when it might level out. (Note: According to the most recent CDC report, life expectancy in the US is 78.6 years).

          14. Ecologist Kenneth Watt declared, “By the year 2000 if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate…that there won’t be any more crude oil. You’ll drive up to the pump and say, `Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say,`I am very sorry, there isn’t any.’”

          Note: Global oil production last year at about 95M barrels per day (bpd) was double the global oil output of 48M bpd around the time of the first Earth Day in 1970.

          15. Harrison Brown, a scientist at the National Academy of Sciences, published a chart in Scientific American that looked at metal reserves and estimated that humanity would totally run out of copper shortly after 2000. Lead, zinc, tin, gold, and silver would be gone before 1990.

          16. Sen. Gaylord Nelson wrote in Look, “Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.”

          17. In 1975, Paul Ehrlich predicted that “since more than nine-tenths of the original tropical rainforests will be removed in most areas within the next 30 years or so [by 2005], it is expected that half of the organisms in these areas will vanish with it.”

          18. Kenneth Watt warned about a pending Ice Age in a speech. “The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years,” he declared. “If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an Ice Age.”

          https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/18-spect … this-year/

          1. Nathanville profile image85
            Nathanvilleposted 22 months agoin reply to this

            Yep, we are all fully aware that many Americans are climate change denialists.

            Your source for your quotes is the AEI (American Enterprise Institute); an American centre-right think tank that aligns itself with conservatism and neo-conservatism, gets funding from American oil and gas Company, and is critical of the IPCC to the extent of trying to bride scientists to speak out against the IPCC.

            FYI in their article, they are promoting misinformation (I suspect deliberately for their own goals) - science doesn’t work that way.  Any scientist or scientific group can and do make person claims, but what matters isn’t what induvial scientists say but the consensus of the scientific community e.g. the ‘peer review’ process, which is quite exacting and specific.

            For a scientific theory made by an individual scientist to be accepted by the scientific community it has to fulfil the following 3 criteria:

            •    It makes falsifiable predictions with consistent accuracy across a broad area of scientific inquiry.

            •    It is well-supported by many independent strands of evidence, rather than a single foundation.

            •    It is consistent with pre-existing experimental results and at least as accurate in its predictions as are any pre-existing theories.

            How many of those 18 claims have been ‘peer reviewed’?

            Climate change has undergone extensive peer reviews and has been widely accepted by the scientific community as being real.

            1. Readmikenow profile image84
              Readmikenowposted 22 months agoin reply to this

              "climate change denialists."

              I may put this on a T-shirt and form a club.  I think some hats and keychains would also be great.

              Climate change radicals can come on to these forums and virtue signal.  Call people names who don't agree with them.  Have their fun.  It gives people with little or nothing in their lives a purpose and way to feel good about themselves.

              This subject is no longer about science but about politics. THAT is a fact.

              I'm on the side that believes humans can not do anything to change the earth in a big way.

              Climate change has happened before in the history of the world more than once. It is part of how the earth operates.

              So, climate activists, go have your fun, do your virtue signaling, throw up your studies and pound your chests.  Block traffic and be thankful you have this to fulfill your life.

              The rest of us will go about our daily routine safe in the knowledge that the earth is more powerful and stronger than humans can imagine.  Climate change has happened before, it's happening now and will happen in the future.  There is nothing humans can do to stop it or cause it.  So, we'll do like humans do.  We'll adapt, adjust and go forward.  It's how things work on this planet.

              Most of all we will ignore the latest generation of doomsday activists predicting the end of the world.  They have been doing this for decades.

              1. Nathanville profile image85
                Nathanvilleposted 22 months agoin reply to this

                Yep, in America it’s about politics; that is clearly evident – But for the rest of the world it’s about the science e.g. the right-wing in America is very anti-climate change policy for political reasons – because they want to protect their oil.  But in most of the rest of the world right-wing governments are just as supportive of climate-change policy as any other government; on this side of the pond politics has nothing to do with it.

                1. Readmikenow profile image84
                  Readmikenowposted 22 months agoin reply to this

                  "on this side of the pond politics has nothing to do with it"

                  Oh, that is a good one. I love that idea.  You keep believing that and may the force be with you.

                  EVERYTHING on your side of the pond is politics.  You may be blind to it, because you want to virtue signal so badly, but when politicians seize on a subject, it becomes political. 

                  Your friendly neighborhood "Climate Denialist"
                  I am making up T-shirts.

                  1. Nathanville profile image85
                    Nathanvilleposted 22 months agoin reply to this

                    How do you make that out?

                    The UK is the only country in the world where net zero carbon by 2050 is a legal requirement (rather than just a target).  A law passed by the UK Conservative Government in 2019, and a law that passed through Parliament in less than 48 hours because it had full support of ‘all’ political parties – normally it takes months or years to get legislation through Parliament.  So where’s the politics in that?

                    UK Conservative Government makes carbon net zero by 2050 a legal requirement: https://youtu.be/hj7v8e1uLyE

                    Being net zero carbon by law by 2050 means that climate activists can prosecute the UK Government in the courts if the UK Government shows any signs of failing to meet its own legal requirement; a threat that climate activists made publicly to the UK Conservative Government in March this year, if the Government’s “Carbon Net Zero by 2050 Growth Plan” (121 pages long - link below) due for publication later that month showed any signs of being watered down.  As it turned out the publication met with the climate change activist’s approval, so no court action.

                    https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u … h-plan.pdf

          2. peterstreep profile image82
            peterstreepposted 22 months agoin reply to this

            Yes, I can find a hundred more predictions that didn't come true.
            I can also give you a list of predictions that came true. It doesn't say much.
            But if we look back and look at the information gathered it is cristal clear for the science community that we have a climate crisis and that this was triggered by human behaviour.
            We are living now in the Anthropocene. Meaning that we as humans are so dominant that we change the way the climate and the eco system of the earth works.
            If scientists in 1000 years time would look back and dig into the ground, they will find microplastic everywhere in the soil.
            We changed and killed whole ecosystems by means of force. dried up lakes and cut down areas of trees the size of Belgium every year, more than 15 billion trees. (and trees don't grow that quickly)
            Humans do have the power to change the climate. Sadly so.
            Humans have always done so. Think about making bushfires to create fertile land, a generations-old practice. Or building a dam and changing the landscape and flora and fauna.
            Today however the scale of destroying the jungle and other habitats is so massive that there is no time for regrowth.
            The consequences are indeed weather changing. And you would perhaps think, if we can change it, can't we change it for the better?
            Perhaps. But so far it doesn't look like it, as the average global temperature is still rising.
            It's easier to break something than to fix it.

    64. aguasilver profile image75
      aguasilverposted 21 months ago

      Climate change is simply the latest ploy by the globalist elites to try and make folk pay more to live and to entrap them into voiceless submission to their planned Great Reset.

      Remember they intend to reduce the worlds population by two thirds, then ask yourself whether you will be in the 2.5 billion 'saved' or one of the five to six billion 'lost' because in the end that is the only two options that exist, living or dying, and eventually all come to death, the question is whether you aid and abet them or fight them.

      1. profile image0
        savvydatingposted 21 months agoin reply to this

        Their dreams are already being realized due to the preponderance of voters who believe anything their government and activists tell them to believe.
        The climate change hysteria is not rooted  in good, solid science. If only they knew how thoroughly they are being deceived.
        Once they have to suffer the effects of bad policies, maybe they’ll wake up. Unfortunately, it is the poor who will suffer first.

        1. Miebakagh57 profile image82
          Miebakagh57posted 21 months agoin reply to this

          'Unfortunately, it is the poor who will suffer first'.

          God forbiden that. Lack of knowledge is thee solution. Most will not take the pain to find out all that the government and policy makers are after.

          You know some feign ignorance for what they will get from their man in government circle.

          Unfortunately, this is what destroyed many good people.

        2. DrMark1961 profile image99
          DrMark1961posted 21 months agoin reply to this

          Yes, there is climate change. However, there is no proven causation, only a correlation between increased human industrialization and climate change. There does seem to be some hysteria, and I can only imagine the people getting upset over this are like those generations that have suffered ice ages and climate changes in the past: "Wow, this must be our fault. Maybe I will sacrifice one of my goats (or blow up a coal plant in Australia) to appease the gods of the climate."
          Should we get by with less and stop destroying our environment? Sure, I definitely believe in reusing and getting by with less. Do I think it is a good idea for a place like California to ban gas lawn mowers to save the climate? No, that is hysteria.
          I do not think it is going to be possible to have a logical discussion with people that have fallen for this new religion.

          1. profile image0
            savvydatingposted 21 months agoin reply to this

            I agree that there is a correlation regarding industry and some warming, but I am sure you know the warming is negligible, and is situated in large cities due to cement and lack of trees, etc, etc.

            It is obvious to you and I that the planet cannot be saved by humans doing this and giving up on that.

            I also believe that we must respect the planet. Chopping down mature trees and replacing them with machinery that requires inefficient batteries is no way to respect the earth. It is the opposite of respect.

            But, the environmentalists have learned how to blackmail corporations to do their bidding, and the government, mostly Democrat and Rhinos, are all too happy to run with it and profit with money and power.

            This is not something that those who have bought into this climate “religion” can understand.

            1. Nathanville profile image85
              Nathanvilleposted 21 months agoin reply to this

              Really?  Where you say “but I am sure you know the warming is negligible, and is situated in large cities due to cement and lack of trees, etc., etc.”

              Have you not been watching the news this summer? 

              Look at the heatwave that hit Europe this summer (the hottest summer on record) exceeding 48 °C (118 °F) not just in large cities, as you claim, but in Rural parts of Europe, where there is predominantly forests – Hence all the devastating wildfires – which surly you must have seen on the news?

              Growing wildfire causes evacuations on the Greek island of Rhodes https://youtu.be/9Vcs-mgeu4Q

          2. Nathanville profile image85
            Nathanvilleposted 21 months agoin reply to this

            Where you say: “Should we get by with less and stop destroying our environment? Sure, I definitely believe in reusing and getting by with less.”

            “Do I think it is a good idea for a place like California to ban gas lawn mowers to save the climate? No, that is hysteria.”

            I was surprised to learn that California is to ban the sale of new gas-powered leaf blowers and lawn mowers from 2024; compared to cars the impact on climate from using gas-powered leaf blowers and lawn mowers is negligible.  Fossil fuel cars, which are far more damaging to the climate, are not due to be restricted by California until 2035, when they will ban the sale of new fossil fuel cars.

            The UK Government is banning the sale of new fossil fuel cars in the UK from 2030, but at this point, in spite of calls by some Pressure Groups to also include petrol-powered gardening tools, the UK Government has shown no signs of going that far.

            Is such action hysteria?  In my view IMHO, no it’s not hysteria – you don’t see people panicking on the streets, and you don’t see Governments making rash decisions without a lot of considered thought and lengthy debate based on advice from their scientific advisors.  Government decisions are generally measured and planned out e.g. rather than making changes at a stroke, phasing in change over time.

            Besides, what is the issue with banning gas lawn mowers when electric mowers are just as cheap and effective?

            With respect to your first comment “reusing and getting by with less”; I’m certainly an advocate of reusing, I have a large stock of reclaimed and salvaged wood (and other materials) at the back of my workshop that I frequently use in DIY projects.

            I’m not so sure about the “getting by with less”; I am guilty of consumerism, I don’t buy for the sake of buying, and for many things I don’t buy new when I can recycle, repurpose or upcycle something old.  But when it comes to technology I do like the latest, most powerful and the best e.g. TV, sound system and computers etc., all of which are energy (electricity) guzzlers, but to compensate I do generate my own clean green electricity from the solar panels on our roof.

            If you want to look at something that is controversial in Britain, then the ULEZ (Ultra Low Emission Zone aka Clean Air Zone) in London is a good example.

            1. DrMark1961 profile image99
              DrMark1961posted 21 months agoin reply to this

              Governments make rash decisions without facts all the time. I am not sure if you are familiar with the USDA food pyramid, but it was basically a government induced program to teach people that excessive carbohydrates were good for them. It was promoted by a senator from the US and when scientists told him that there needed to be more studies on the best foods to reduce disease he said "There is no time to waste. We need to make this a law now." (Not an exact qoute. https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/wh … ns-thomas# is only one site among many that details why government issues damaging guidelines. It includes details since the time of Thomas Jefferson.)
              The rash of obesity that the world is suffering from all started with government intervention. I think there are going to be a lot of other policies that are being passed at the moment (like telling homeowners in California that they can no longer buy gas powered lawn mowers) that are just as bad and will prove just as harmful.

              1. tsmog profile image83
                tsmogposted 21 months agoin reply to this

                I have dietary restrictions due to my health. So, I found the referenced article interesting, though I skimmed stopping here and there to read further. Long article.

                Anyway, I read a good book a ways back titled: How to Lie with Statistics. Great Book by Darrell Huff I bear in mind all the time.

                Lessons on How to Lie with Statistics is an article that is kind of a shortcut of the book. Worth reading in my view.

                https://towardsdatascience.com/lessons- … 060c0d2f19

                1. DrMark1961 profile image99
                  DrMark1961posted 21 months agoin reply to this

                  As I write this I am listening to a Youtube video from Sten Ekberg where he talks about cholesterol and egg consuption; it starts out with comments about the 7 country study (which was originally 22 countries but the rest did not fit the idea that cholesterol was bad for your health) and Ansel Keyes, who taught us all how to use statistics to lie.

                  Have you seen https://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations ? It is a humorous look at how some things in this life are correlated but not actually related.

                2. DrMark1961 profile image99
                  DrMark1961posted 21 months agoin reply to this

                  Have you seen this? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4cXwq_MQaE The speaker is an MD from Tennessee that promotes a high protein/low carb diet for diabetes type 2; it is very different from the diet promoted by the diabetic association.

                  1. tsmog profile image83
                    tsmogposted 21 months agoin reply to this

                    Thanks for the video, Dr. Mark! Yes, you guessed right, I am diabetic. I will sit down later and play with food labels and research nutrition to discover if that will work for me while knowing I am a lazy guy when it comes to cooking and cleaning up. ha-ha

                    1. DrMark1961 profile image99
                      DrMark1961posted 21 months agoin reply to this

                      I certainly do not know if it works for everyone, but I can state that I have been an epileptic for more than 60 years. I switched to this diet and have not had a seizure in over 10 years now.

                      The ADA say there is no cure for type 2 diabetes mellitus but many people on these diets no longer have to take medications. Pretty amazing.

                      I am not into the cleaning up either! I cook my meat in an air fryer so no longer have to use seed oils and dirty so many pans.

              2. Nathanville profile image85
                Nathanvilleposted 21 months agoin reply to this

                You seem to be implying that the American political system is universal e.g. the same worldwide- but it’s not.  For example, the UK Government does not have absolute power to pass laws, to get laws passed the Government has to go through Parliament, and the Parliamentary procedure; by which time any rash decisions not based on facts will almost certainly be filtered out by Parliament.

                In the UK if the Government wants to be reasonably confident in getting its proposed laws passed by Parliament it has to publish those proposals in its ‘Election Manifesto’, because under the British Constitution (the Salisbury Convention) the House of Lords are obligated to pass any law that was in the Election Manifesto, but are free to block any proposed law that was not in the Government’s Election Manifesto.  So if the Government came up with a rash decision on the spur of the moment, as it wouldn’t have been in their Election Manifesto the House of Lords have the power to block it.

                In the UK Parliament, for a Bill to become law it has to pass the following stages:-

                1.    White Paper.
                2.    1st Reading in the House of Commons.
                3.    2nd Reading in the House of Commons.
                4.    Committee Stage.
                5.    Report Stage.
                6.    3rd Reading in the House of Commons.
                7.    1st Reading in the House of Lords.
                8.    2nd Reading in the House of Lords.
                9.    3rd Reading in the House of Lords.

                •    The White Paper is where the proposed Bill is published in the public domain and a consultation period is set, giving interested parties, affected parties and the general public an opportunity to comment on the proposed Bill.

                •    Following the consultation period (White Paper), the Bill is redrafted based on the comments received during the consultation period, and introduced in the House of Commons as the 1st Reading e.g. where the Bill is read out to MPs in the House of Commons, to give them time to study the Bill in detail and contemplate.

                •    The 2nd Reading is where MPs in the House of Commons debate the Bill and add Amendments to it.

                •    The Committee Stage is where typically 17 MPs from all political parties consider the Bill in fine detail, take evidence from the public, add further Amendments as appropriate, and then publish their Report on the Bill.

                •    The Committee’s Report is then debated by MPs in the House of Commons, along with any Amendments added at the Committee stage, and MPS in the House of Commons may during this debate add further Amendments.

                •    The 3rd Reading is where MPs in the House of Commons finally vote on each Amendment in turn, and then on the Bill itself with any Amendments that have passed.

                •    The Bill then goes to the House of Lords, where the whole process from the 1st Reading to 3rd Reading is repeated.  And if the House of Lords add any Amendments to the Bill it has to be passed back to the House of Commons for those Amendments to be voted on in the House of Commons before being returned to the House of Lords who if the Bill was part of the Governments Election manifesto are obliged to pass into law; but if the Bill wasn’t in the Government’s Election manifesto then the House of Lords are within their rights (under the Constitution) to kill the Bill.

                So consequently it normally takes months or even years for a Government to get proposed Legislation through Parliament into Law.

                How does a Bill become a Law?  https://youtu.be/1KFGt9M-j28

                “The rash of obesity that the world is suffering from” did not “all start with government intervention.”  The rash of obesity the wealthy countries in the world is suffering from is predominately due to over indulgence in unhealthy ‘fast food’/’junk food’.

                Besides, you can’t cite what happens in America and apply it to other countries to the same degree.  For example, in the UK any Government guidelines on diet are based on medical advice from the NHS; and it tends to be the NHS in the UK who runs extensive public awareness health campaigns, not the UK Government.

                Where the UK Government may intervene on health matters is generally as a result of ‘Pressure Groups’ demanding Government intervention; examples being:-

                1.    Many years back Pressure Groups lobbied the Government to introduce Legislation on food labelling so that by law all ingredients and the percentage of each ingredient is listed, along with its nutritional value – So appropriate legislation was introduced.

                2.    Another demand by Pressure Groups was for high levels of salt, fat and sugar to be clearly marked on food labels.  During the Government’s consultation period, the food industry voluntarily adopted the ‘traffic light’ system – so no Legislation was necessary.

                The Traffic light system is were low levels of salt, fat and sugar are marked ‘green’ on the food label, moderate levels marked ‘amber’ and high levels clearly marked ‘red’; so that shopper can see at a glance which foods are high in salt, fat and sugar – which for example, for people with high blood pressure or diabetes, they can see at a glance which foods to avoid.

                Label reading - traffic light system:  https://youtu.be/7O-W6n7F75A

                3.    Following Government Lobbying from Pressure Groups demanding that the Government introduce a sugar tax on soft drinks, in 2018 the Government did just that; a tax that hit sales of Coco-cola more than any other soft drink supplier in the UK because Coco-cola had one of the highest levels on sugar in their drinks.  Consequently, Coco-cola recently significantly lowered the sugar content of their drink in the UK in an attempt to increase their sales again.

                1. DrMark1961 profile image99
                  DrMark1961posted 21 months agoin reply to this

                  Take a look around your own city. https://rentechdigital.com/smartscraper … estaurants The UK is full of American fast food giants that are filling up their restaurants with people that are eating the Standard American diet. (SAD.) That diet was determined by the USDA, which was influenced by ag subsidies for corn growers and sugar producers, and SAD has been moving around the world ever since.

                  That is how government intervened to contribute to obesity. Why do you think high fructose corn syrup and sugar are so cheap for the cola and fast food sellers? If it is more expensive in one country than another, they just import it.

                  Fish and chips are not health foods but they are not as nearly as high in calories and sugar as the diets now sold in the multinational fast food restaurants of your country.

                  It is slightly different in some countries. France has done a lot to reduce the empty calories in fast food, and the UK program to reduce cola consumption is great. Mexico still sells the stuff but at least they put warning labels on it, like most countries did with cigarettes many years ago.

                  It is much worse here, as the Amercian fast food producers use Brazil and other countries without regulations to sell any trash not fit for Europe or the US.

                  1. Nathanville profile image85
                    Nathanvilleposted 21 months agoin reply to this

                    Yeah, 63 Fast food restaurants in Bristol - put into perspective that’s just 63 out of 975 food outlets in Bristol e.g. just 6.5% of food outlets in Bristol are fast food/junk food.

                    Full Data here:  https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/whats-on/ … ol-3674500

                    Also, two American’s eating in Bristol:  https://youtu.be/2mfUgU40hrI?t=275

                    As I said previously, the rash of obesity that the world is suffering from did not all start with American government intervention.   The rash of obesity the wealthy countries in the world is suffering from is predominately due to over indulgence in unhealthy ‘fast food’/’junk food’ from food outlets such as McDonalds.  McDonalds became international years before the American laws that you are referencing for SAD were introduced.  McDonalds became popular in the UK in 1974, the American SAD laws in America (according to your link) didn’t happen until after 1976; so I don’t see what influence those American laws has on Britain.

                    1. DrMark1961 profile image99
                      DrMark1961posted 21 months agoin reply to this

                      Do you really think McDonalds is serving the same food they did in 1974? Besides switching from tallow to seed oils to cook their chips, their sodas are now made with high fructose corn syrup as well as sugar.

                      So yes, the US food pyramid and the ag subsidies they give to corn growers do affect your economy, whether or not your lawmakers wish to acknowledge. Obesity is a goverment sponsored problem.

                      "Childhood obesity is increasing rapidly into the 2000s in England and these increases are more marked among children from lower socioeconomic strata. There is an urgent need for action to prevent further increase in obesity among children." https://adc.bmj.com/content/90/10/999
                      You have probably already read similar articles to this in the past but I thought it was an interesting piece.

     
    working

    This website uses cookies

    As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

    For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://corp.maven.io/privacy-policy

    Show Details
    Necessary
    HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
    LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
    Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
    AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
    HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
    HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
    Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
    CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
    Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
    Features
    Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
    Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
    Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
    Marketing
    Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
    Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
    Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
    Statistics
    Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
    ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
    Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
    ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)