Climate Change: Let's Have a Fruitful Discussion
- savvydatingposted 2 years ago
0
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?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.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.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.
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)
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).
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.
We are in agreement somewhat. Hell has now frozen over.
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:-
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.
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.
... and use it for nefarious purposes.
https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/nefarious
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.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/
This is a small River
This was taken in an Ocean portHmmm. I’ll read your articles and comment at a later date.
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.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.
"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.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.
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.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.
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."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."
When was your evaluation done and what size were they suggesting?
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.
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.
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.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.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.Yes. Solar panels are very expensive in the U.S.
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.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.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,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_gMIn 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.)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%.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.Some interesting points Ken, thanks for the update.
I think we may have a slightly different viewpoint on the concept of ‘off-grid’, but that’s just a personal thing e.g. I wouldn’t want to go off-grid completely, because it provides additional energy security to be able to draw energy from the National Grid when needed; and besides, being able to sell any surplus to the grid does bring in a few extra pennies. But I can understand some people wanting to go off-grid entirely.
For clarity, in the UK Power Companies means the companies that ‘generate the electricity’; they don’t sell directly to the domestic user – it’s the Utility Companies who compete with each other to sell to the domestic user, via the National Grid (a private company). It’s the National Grid who buys from the ‘Power Companies’ on the basis of buying the cheapest first (which these days is Renewable) and buying the more expensive last (fossil fuels).
Yeah, the mind-set of what was the big six Utility Companies in the UK is similar to what you describe in America e.g. they are in it for the profit first, over and above the environment and the end-user.
However, there has been a transformation in the Energy Market in Britain over the past 10 years with many ideological Utility Companies springing up whose prime goal is to promote and provide ‘Renewable Energy’ and using their profits to invest in ‘Green Energy’ Projects.
For example, I switched from one of the big six to Bristol Energy about 5 years ago, Bristol Energy being a local non-profitmaking Utility Company set up by our Local (Labour) Government, specifically to promote Renewable Energy, and invest any money they make in ‘Green Energy’ Projects.
Bristol Energy - How to stand up to the Big Six: https://youtu.be/uoxY5jut28A
Then, when I had my solar panels installed last year I switched to Octopus Energy (who’s now as big as the former ‘big six’) because (like Bristol Energy), they don’t want to discourage people from having solar panels and batteries; they encourage it e.g. favourable tariffs – and any profits they make are invested in ‘Green Energy’ projects.
Introducing Octopus Energy: https://youtu.be/AaejnbrejvYArthur, I've swallow hook and sinker, these treatise specific Bristol and Octopus Energies, during our discussions on the Coronavirus Pandemic. This has prompted me to setting up a solar panel on my house. But the draw back is that the system in the market couldn't power-up my fridge and freezers. So, I'm still searching the market. One demerit of the system in Nigeria, is that any exccessive solar generated, is not tied to the grid like yours, to bring in the few pence and pounds. Still searching the market. Much thanks.
Sorry to hear that it's not so easy in Nigeria to get the suitable technology to meet your needs - I can imagine that it must be frustrating.
Ken, where you say: “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.”
Yeah, in the UK most Utility Companies do just pay pennies; Octopus Energy, who we switched to when we had our solar panels installed, is a little unique in that one of their ‘Export Tariffs’ (Octopus Outgoing) has the option to sell your surplus solar energy at ‘market prices’ e.g. paying you low rates when electricity is cheap because of surplus supply (in the early hours of the morning, which is irrelevant because the sun doesn’t shine then anyway) and paying you premium prices during periods of high demand (peak demand), when electricity is most expensive e.g. between 4pm and 7pm.
Likewise, if you opt for their Agile Tariff (for electricity you use), which works on a similar principle e.g. you pay the ‘market price’ (which changes every 30 minutes) rather than a fixed price, there are times when prices go negative on the open market that you actually get paid to use electricity e.g. periods when there is an abundance of surplus electricity – as explained in this short video below:-
Octopus Energy: Agile Tariff - Get Paid To Use Electricity! How It Works: https://youtu.be/bjcqGu0ib5wGreat to read your story Ken.
When we bought the house in the countryside, there was no mains. We had to install solar power to make it a home. We started with a system of around €7.000 16 years ago. Everything was far more expensive then. The most expensive and important bit were the batteries.
If you have good batteries they will last for 15-20 years. (if well maintained - I think nowadays they are even better). We bought the batteries with an upgrade in mind and added solar panels over the years.
I think that if you're on solar power you will change the way you consume electricity. (LED lights etc.) We always turn off the light in the rooms we do not use. No things are on standby. (only the fridge and the router)
And some things are better to be avoided. Like better to use a kettle for hot water instead of an electric heater. A hairdryer is a no-go. (We had a bed and breakfast for a while and some guests brought hairdryers with them, shutting down the electricity at one point..) and an electric heater or electric induction plate....No, better not.
We still need a generator in the winter if we have a cloudy week. So we put on the generator for a couple of hours to pump some energy into the batteries.
It's all a learning process. But we have it running and don't pay any electricity bills.
And it's also a good feeling to be independent.
Yes, it's definitely true that the independency of electricity is not what companies want. Just like (apparently) in the US, here in Spain governments made it difficult for individuals to go off-grid when living in a place where there is a grid. (by means of tax or laws or whatever reason.)
I hope you will find a good system. Nowadays you have lithium batteries that are great. (probably our choice for an upgrade).Very interesting stories, Ken and Peter.
Every country seems to have its own little obstacles against solar systems. And every individual has his own priorities.
Here in Germany we don´t have limits on the size of solar systems on your house, as long as you put them panels on your roof. As soon as you plant them in the backyard, you get into trouble.
And we don´t have any issue with grid power outages. Reason is simple. Already today thousands of home owners, wind turbines, professional solar systems, biogas systems are hooked up to the grid. We probably experience an outage once in a lifetime. You can´t find generators in your favourite hardware store, simply no need.
But then - if you have an electric car , you may generously charge the car with your own solar system. But you are not allowed to feed back into your home at nighttime. So no bidirectional charging.
Reason is simple: Having mobile batteries with no charging limitations would totally free up the electricity grid market. What if you drive your car to your employer and sell excess electricity to the company, then you bypass grid and the whole energy circus is corrupted. You could even charge your car somewhere with cheaper electricity and then use it in your home where grid prices may be higher. I think you get the point.
Concerning individual habits, i would risk a divorce if my wife couldn´t use a hair dryer any more. And our daughter´s family near by conveniently uses our state of the art heat pump dryer to cope with clean and dry clothes for a family of 6.
Anyways, interesting how priorities are set by individuals, families, grid suppliers, politics.
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.
Peter describes what they are going through on the next page.
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.!!!That was the purpose, to groom younger generations to believe this so that they will accept (even fight for) a Carbon Tax system.
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." 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?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.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.Your answer proves you're a smart alec. Congratulations!
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.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.
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!!!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.
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.“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.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.Likewise, for years we’ve had tree planting projects in Britain, including “planting trees together with kids from school.”
The current UK Government tree planting scheme was launched in 2019, and is a yearly project, with the intention of tripling the rate of tree planting by 2024.
As an added incentive landowners, including farmers, can earn money from tree planting by taking part in the UK’s ‘carbon offset’ scheme as part of the UK’s goal of reaching net zero CO2 emissions by 2050.
Under British Law ‘all’ UK industry are legally required to reach carbon ‘net zero’ by 2050, which is easier for some industries to achieve than others e.g. the difficulty of the aviation industry to reduce their levels of CO2 emissions. So to help such industries in meeting their legal requirement to meet carbon ‘net zero’ by 2050 they can opt to ‘carbon offset’ e.g. by paying for the planting of trees equivalent to the amount of CO2 they use; hence the farmers/landowners getting income from aviation industry for example to plant and maintain the trees.
The scheme is already creating more woodlands in cities and creating thousands of green jobs.Peters, your last 2 paragraphs sums up the solution for global warming. I'v been saying it elsewhere, and in this forum, that the planting of trees daily holds the key to reduced CO2 and incrase photosynthesis. Thank you.
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?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....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.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.Before I can address “economic harm” I must ask what you mean by current status?
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/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.
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.
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.
"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?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.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....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.."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...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.
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.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.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.Who is talking about any particular group of people?
Who is talking about subsidies?
The setting up of solar power or windpower is cheaper and gives a much better business case than fossile or nuclear power plants, from inital investment to the generation of electricity.
This is about cost of electricity production, not subsidised and not linked to any particular country. This cost evaluation is valid for the USA the same as for Europe or UK, or for China or for Madagaskar...
As i wrote earlier, people with money, entrepreneurs will find out soon and invest adequately. Actually this is already happening in the USA with some 70% of yearly newly invested electricity production is wind or solar already.
Fossile energy is on the downturn, no matter lobbied or not. And you don´t even need the buzz word "climate change" for this.Yes, many U.S companies are investing in renewable energy, primarily because of the huge tax breaks they get from this administration.
However, setting up renewable energy (solar panels) is not cheap in the United States for… your average consumer. We must first invest about $37,000 for panels, $10,000 minimum for a new roof to support panels, which are very heavy.
It is also highly recommended that we upgrade the refrigerator, dishwasher, washing machine & dryer for the solar panels to be cost effective. That is a great cost for your average family… which generally has greater efficiency with regular energy.
I do understand that fossil fuels are on the downturn. I also know that rushing all countries into renewable energies, which are not energy efficient at this time, is not a prudent choice.
Long story short. Solar panel will not save the environment.
More R&D is needed to find sources of energy that everyone can afford and which actually decrease carbon emission.
I certainly support more research and development.The tipping factor is the tax rebates.
They reduce the cost to mid-20s for a solar system.
If financed this brings the cost to about $200 dollars a month.
If a battery back up is added into the system that increases it another $10k.
This also increases the cost to about $250 dollars a month.
That battery however, can help allow for power to general outlets and refrigerators during an outage, and the solar panels will allow for power to the home as well, during an outage.
Having just gone through almost two days without power due to Nicole, it was a reminder of just how critical to daily life electricity is. We rely today on cell phones and refrigerators considerably. Light isn't such a bad thing either.
Also projecting out to the inevitable increase in our electric bill, and the devaluation of the dollar. Being able to lock in a set cost over the next 20 years for a Solar system, with a battery back-up, which is more reliable than a generator back-up system, will make it easier to pay the bills in the future.
So securing a system today for $250.00 a month, that may only reduce an electric bill of $290 dollars by $230 dollars may seem like an unwise financial decision.
But in five years, that system will reduce what would be a $500.00 electric bill by $400.00 in essence saving $150.00 a month, in addition to being able to provide power when there is none available from the grid.
As the cost of electricity goes up, a solar system will save its owner more money. If the system is good enough to almost eliminate the cost of power now, the savings will only be that much more substantial in the future.
Solar systems can save home owners a considerable amount of money, possibly more than they could afford to pay, for electricity, in the future.Solar power could be a more efficient energy system for the future. But not many can afford it. Sometime last year, I had a significant discussion of the system in lieu of electricity with CHRISS57, and Nathanville. I reasoned everyone should make their sound decision of going solar or staying put to electricity. But they's a limit to which every person can afford solar power. The poor and middle class can't go on solar. It's the high cost. Here in Nigeria, cost of electricity is very expensive because consumption is not computed by metering. You're billed an estimate to pay monthly. Nevertheless, solar power for home use is gradually making inroad in the country.
There never is an absolute, "no other choice" solution to issues and certainly not to energy supply.
But i am with my favourite and one of the last universally learned persons: Vilfredo Pareto https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vilfredo_Pareto
If you get 80% of success with 20% of effort, this should do the trick. Especially if you target 125%. Because then said 80% of the Pareto principle will get you 100% of your goal.
So go solar, go for windpower. Will not help during the night time, will be only 70 or 80%, but will save a lot of fossile CO2 in the air.
The real issue with renewables is storage. Because what is inherent in fossiles is lacking with on time production of renewable energy.Yes, I'm for the Pereto Principle also. That likewise isn't an absolute though it's an effective law with many merits. Everyone has 'choice' to go solar, electricity, or both, and other REnergy. Nevertheless, to make a long story short, the limiting factor is the cost.
...”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:-
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%
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.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.
"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.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.
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.
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.
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.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.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.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”.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.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.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.
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".No, Chris has anecdotal information from working there. He cannot confirm those numbers, only can tell you of his own experience. That is very valuable and it is great to hear but that does not mean that what they publish is true.
As far as the coal and oil industry, I think you are right on that point. However, I do not think that their lies and false propoganda justify China making up lies. Saying China should be lauded is just like saying that Exxon is here to save the environment.China doesn’t make up lies, in the way that you are implying; the evidence of what they are achieving is there for the whole word to see: It’s a fact that almost 50% of the world’s offshore wind turbines are in China, and it’s a fact that over 33% of the world’s solar farms are in China, which can be independently verified by international satellites.
Also, the Three Gorges Dam, the world’s largest dam (that dwarfs Americas Hoover Dam), producing large amounts of green (Renewable Energy) isn’t fiction; it’s a reality.
Three Gorges Dam in China: The World's Most Powerful Dam https://youtu.be/lsiN_AckQgE
You don’t like information provided by China. But what you may not be aware of is that a handful of European countries, including the UK, are world leaders in Wind power technology e.g. a lot of the technology for China’s push to building wind farms is lucrative business (exports) for European countries e.g. Hitachi Energy (a Switzerland high-tech Company) as demonstrated in this video: https://youtu.be/krAbky3pd-A
In 2019 the UK’s exports of wind energy products and services to China was worth £525 million ($630 million) a year; this is expected to grow to £2.6 billion ($3.2 billion) by 2030.
Currently, as at 2021, the UK imports of services from China are £2.5 billion ($3 billion) a year and we export £8.2 billion ($9.85 billion) of services to China.Even if some of the numbers from China are true, (which is doubtful) this goes back to the original point. This has nothing to do with imports from China, their exports, has nothing to do with the production of energy in Europe. They do not deserve to be lauded. They are the largest polluter on the planet.
In total numbers the USA as a nation is the largest CO2 polluter on our planet, if we accumulate historic emissions.
At current rate it will take another 25 years for China to reach the historic CO2 output of the USA.
https://ourworldindata.org/contributed-most-global-co2
Of course this is kind of academic, but if adjusted to population size, no country can beat the USA, not in historic terms, not in recent yearly output.
The historic accumulation of CO2 is what makes us industrialized and developed nations the main contributor, even if countries like India, China or Nigeria are no angels by now either.Nigeria's contributions to the CO2 emissions is only significant when crude oil, was discovered at Olo Biri, on the Niger Delta, fringes in 1956. This prompt 'gas flareing' 24/7 over the sorrounding Islands for at most 3 decades, and the refineing of crude oil, leads the consumption of kerosine, petrol, and diesel. Coal, mined significantly in Enugu, was fuel, for the locomotion engine. This was replaced with diesel in the 1980's. Therefore, historical emissions of CO2 from 1751 to 1966, in Nigeria, was 'zero'. Post inustrial discharge of CO2 was still insignificant, compare to industrialization. All this I garner from my history class. Many third world countries still has the opinion to using diessel, petrol, and natural gas.
Not sure why you are so hot on defending China, but the truth is that China produces more pollution than any other nation on earth. That includes carbon. Do you think they should be getting an award from the rest of the world because they are not polluting as much as they might?
At one point the UK was the largest polluter in the world and burned enough coal to pollute your enviromment. That has absolutely nothing to do with what is going on in China today. To say "if we accumulate historic emissions" is a method to defend the pollution going on from China as if it is okay.
So why do you think it is okay for China to destroy the environment but want to condemn the rest of the world? It is certainly not because China wants things any better in your part of the world.to make it simple:
The change for the better can be seen in China.
This distinguishes China from other countries like India...
Change for the better can be defined as : reduction of CO2 output normalized to GDP.According to those numbers qouted by Nathanville it will take China 25 years to produce enough pollution to equal what has taken the US over a hundred and fifty years to produce.
You will excuse me if I do not think that is change for the better.As i did the little maths about the 25 years, i might as well explain.
China produces currently some 11 billion tons of CO2/years.
The USA is at 5 billion tons plus.
That makes a difference of 6 billion tons per year. And 25 years multiplied with the difference is some 150 billion tons and that closes the historic CO2 gap between the USA and China.
Anyways, the assumption behind is that neither the USA nor China increase their CO2 ouptut. Only - China is working on this. The USA ???
No reason to bash China for doing something and to endorse the USA for doing almost nothing, me think.No reason to bash China? You just admitted that they produce well over twice as much carbon pollution each year than the US. Do you think China should be congratulated for that? What Tiktok are you watching?
You also realize they are producing more cars than any other country? Do you really think that amount of pollution is going to go down?
They are working on it.
Small example on how they pressure their CO2 policies:
In Shanghai and other cities the purchase of a car is not only associated with the price of a car but also with buying a car license, a license plate.
In some cases the licence plate is more costly than the new car itself.
To enforce green policies an all electric car gets its "green" license plate for free. Guess how many electric cars were seen in the streets, already 5 years ago.
Number of cars manufactured and put on the road doesn´t scare. How many of them are all electric already is more important.
They are only the largest polluter because they have the largest population; 4.35 larger than the USA population – yet their pollution is only double that of the USA: If the USA’s population was as large as China’s, then USA’s pollution would be double that of China.
It might interest you to know that our neighbours (and close friends of ours), two doors up from us, are Chinese; they emigrated from China so that they could have two children. Both husband and wife are scientists involved in research at university in Bristol. So, from socialising with them we’ve learnt a lot about China straight from the ‘horse’s mouth’ (first hand). They annually take a holiday (vacation) in China to visit family; and a few years ago I had the pleasure of meeting the husband’s brother from China, who visited here on Visa.
Also, the UK has become a popular tourist attraction to the Chinese, so it’s not unusual to meet Chinese on shopping trips as part of their holiday (vacation) tour of Britain.
An amusing video on the subject of the boom in Chinese tourism in the last 25 years: https://youtu.be/DdK94CpYgm8Very interestingly post indeed. If cheap green energy were fully available to both the USA and China, and to all countries...climate crisis would began to abate. The good news is that science and technology, back up by the government, is prompting us to the goal.
Except for political reasons, I am having a hard time why you think the Chinese should receive praise for spewing their pollution upon the world. Do you think a "tiny" country like India is producing as much waste as the Chinese?
Dr.Mark, I don't buy your thought of India, as a 'tiny' country. In sub- Sahara West Africa, tiny countries include . Bukinah Faso, Senegal, Mali, and Niger. The population of Nigeria and India respectively is 211.4 million and 1.3 billion(2021). So both Nigeria and the USA would be tiny countries compared to India. Yet, the CO2 emission of India, is insignificant compared to the USA. How d' you see the USA as a very tiny country? Much thanks.
I was being facetious. The population of India is about the same as the population of China now but they manage not to produce as much pollution as that country.
Nathanville has stated that we should be praising China becuase they are only producing over twice as much pollution as the US....The population of India is about the same as the population of China now but they manage not to produce as much pollution as that country. ...
Because India is poor.
India´s GDP is between 1/6 to 1/3 of China´s GDP per capita, depending on nominal or PPP figures. And to become rich, they need energy and if energy is coming from fossiles, they are on the same road as all of us on our planet.
Isn´t this discussion about efficiency of energy useage? I make a suggestion: To measure efficiency we may divide CO2 output per capita by something like the "Human Development Index" https://hdr.undp.org/data-center/human- … dicies/HDI
So - how much bad CO2 is needed to create how much well being of those people who are responsible for the CO2?
Now - even in Chad with worlds lowest HDI of 0,394 human species is able to survive. And in Switzerland (worlds highest HDI of 0,959) you can´t eat more cheese than anywhere else on our planet. So lets spread the HDI between these 2 extremes (HDI*: Chad = 0 and Switzerland = 1) and lets see what comes out.
India (1,93 to/cap./ 0,642) = 4,4 to/cap/HDI*
China (8,05 to/cap / 0,768) = 12,1 to/cap/HDI*
USA (14,86 to/cap / 0,921) = 15,9 to/cap/HDI*
Brazil (2,28 to/cap / 0,758) = 3,54 to/cap/HDI*
Germany (8,09 to/cap / 0,942) = 8,34 to/cap/HDI*
Brazil performs best in this academic game. Brazil utilizes the least energy to achive an adequate HDI. The USA is top of the wasters of energy.
But wait a minute. Can we really compare Brazil and India with a country like Germany where average annual temperature is 10 .. 15 °C lower than
near the equator? Do you need CO2 producing heatings in those countries.
Comparisons are more tricky - you are right.Dr Mark, now I get you. When SavvyDating said that China is not to be 'laud', I know certain of us have reservations. Chriss57 has landed business deals and experiences right there in China. Nathanville(Arthur) also has business dealings or is oriented with his Chinese friends. Therefore, both knew their onions. At the same time, they may placade their friends and or business. That said, I don't think they should buy into your thoughts, or insightful discourse. Thanks again.
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.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?
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.
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.
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.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."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.Thanks for the update; and I also agree completely with you.
Do you still have family in the Netherlands? If so, what is their reaction to the government slowing down farm production?
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 actionThanks, 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.
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.
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.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.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.I've read that elsdwhere, and also here in one of thd forum threads. I can hardly understand how beef production can contributed to the climate crisis. Clearing virgin forest to rear cattles, and other animals equates to planting palm oil tree. But they're also similar prouction of these man-made or natural. Critically, are we to get rid of any food production that contributed to the climate crisis? Planting millions of tree by governments is the answer. Thanks again.
What’s wrong with crop rotation and sustainable farming?
In the UK commercial organic farming is done on a crop rotation, typically three to four years, where I third or one quarter of the land is left fallow for a year so as to rebuild the nutrients in the soil naturally – A practice done across Europe for centuries, and which doesn’t require deforestation, as the same land is used over and over again.
Even wood sold in the UK must be certified that it’s from a sustainable source e.g. for every tree harvested, new trees are planted to replace it. Even the Christmas trees grown and harvested in Britain every December for people to have a real Christmas tree in their home to decorate for Christmas comes from sustainable forests e.g. for every Christmas tree cut down, new Christmas trees are planted for future harvesting.
Agroforestry on upland farms in the UK https://youtu.be/UNU7ZEpOK_kThe UK has not been able to feed itself since the 19th century. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6678806/ Why do you think crop rotation is enough to take care of the growing population of this world? Do you know there are over 8 billion people in this world?
If the UK were to take on 50% or Pakistan and Indias population, do you really think that crop rotation and organic farming would feed them?Appreciate your insights, Dr. Mark,
Not sure where the article on melanoma fits in.
Did you mean to supply another link?Yes, sorry about that. I was reading an article on the UK food production and working on a reply from a person whose dog has a melanoma on the foot.
Here is the correct link:
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyl … the-expertThank you for the correction. If the current back-yard-gardening was seriously carried out, Britain can feed herself and others. I've read 'Secret Intelligence in the 20th Century' that shows Britain's lack of food security up to pre-industrial times.
I definitely think it can be done if they were willing to forgo exotic foods. The point I was making though is that we have to decide if climate change is more important than food. Claiming that crop rotation is going to do it is incorrect.
DrMark, that link is about treating dog sickness compare with humans. I need a pointer to food production.
I added the correct link in a reply tô Savvy. Sorry.
Interesting opening paragraph in the Guardian (the link you provided), to quote: “The supply chain crisis has already forced supermarkets to use cardboard cut-outs to hide gaps on shelves.” Which at the time of publication was, and still is perfectly correct –But, the article was published in December 2021 (in the aftermath of the pandemic, and not long after Brexit):-
Prior to the pandemic we didn’t have food shortages; instead we had plenty of food waste e.g. about a third of the food sold in the UK was wasted, 70% of which was by householders throwing away food because it had passed its “Use by Date”. In recent months, to try to reduce food waste, supermarkets (food stores) have switched from putting “Use by Date” on food to “Best by Date” with a joint NHS (Government) and Food Industry awareness campaign to encourage people to use ‘common sense’ before throwing good food away e.g. to use a simple look, taste and smell test of food that’s past its ‘best by date’.
Defining the best before date for food (UK): https://youtu.be/RxHz1QioQMM
However, in the aftermath of the pandemic the UK (like most of the rest of the world) suffered chronic supply chain issues, which has adversely affected our food supplies; with the situation being made much worse also because of the supply chain issues due to Brexit e.g. most of our imported food comes from the EU – so a double whammy.
Yep, the UK produces 61% of its food, of which 11.2% is exported; and thus we import the rest, mostly from Europe:
Where the UK’s Food Comes From
• 53.9% grown in UK
• 27.8% imported from EU
• 4.4% imported from Africa
• 3.8% imported from South Africa
• 3.7% imported from North America
• 3.6% imported from Asia
• 1.9% imported from the rest of Europe outside of the EU
• 0.7% imported from Australia
Agriculture accounts for 6.8% of our GDP, and around 12% of employment in the UK.
However, Brazil is 35 times larger than UK with population that’s only 3 times larger. So with the UK being such a tiny island (35 times smaller than Brazil) with population just a third smaller than Brazil can produce over half the food we consume, using the agricultural techniques we use, then I think what we do in the UK is reasonable.
Yep, generally speaking the UK has not fed itself since the 19th century, but that’s not because it can’t, if you read the Guardian Article again you will see that it’s largely out of choice, mainly because importing food gives a greater dietary diversity (which is better for health), and partly because it’s often cheaper to buy imported food.
But the one exception, where Britain did become largely self-sufficient in food (out of necessity) was during the 2nd world war, when Germany blockaded shipping to Britain, forcing Britain to become reliant on its own food production – Hence the British ‘Dig for Victory’ food campaign during the 2nd world war.
Dig For Victory: https://youtu.be/35NpLveVZDg
Yep, I know the world is 8 billion; but Brazil doesn’t have to try to feed the world.
Besides Brazil’s population is dwarfed by the population of the EU, yet crop rotation and organic farming is common across Europe, including the EU and the EU is largely self-sufficient in food production.
I note in your comments further down the thread that you make the statement “we have to decide if climate change is more important than food.” The answer is that both are important, but there is no reason why they should be mutually exclusive of each other.It looks to me like you are skirting this issue again by blaming things on the supply chain, how much food is wasted, etc. The reason I added the link to that article is that it clearly states that even in the UK, where the soil is good and rainfall is adequate, there is not enough food to feed the population. In many areas it is much worse (Ethiopia, Sudan, Mali, Chad, etc.)
The UK only takes in about 200,000 immigrants per year but things would change drammatically if more immigration came from India, Pakiistan, or east Africa.
The issue of this thread is climate change. The question, and the whole point of that link, was that we have to decide if potential climate changes are more important than food security. You think there is no reason they should be mutually exclusive. I think the situation in the Netherlands proves you are wrong, although I admit it is difficult to find non-biased information on the subject. (Which is why I asked Peter his take on the subject.)
The president-elect here in Brazil promised to make food cheaper and stop global warming. I do not think that can be done unless you convince people to stop eating imported food, stop eating meat at every meal, and learn to subsist on what is grown locally.
DrMark: Nope, I am not blaming things on the supply chains and food waste; the opening sentence in the link you provided stated that the UK has a food shortage – for non-Brit readers I was just pointing out that food shortages is just a recent development because of the pandemic, the war in Ukraine and Brexit.
Food waste, yeah, if we didn’t waste so much food we wouldn’t need to import so much food; that’s common sense.
But getting to your main point, there is not enough ‘home-grown’ food in the UK to feed the nation not because we can’t grow enough ourselves, but because we don’t e.g. during the 2nd world war the UK did grow enough food to feed itself, because we had to – hence the UK Government’s ‘Dig for Victory’ campaign.
It doesn’t take much land for a family to feed itself on basic food e.g. I’ve set aside a small plot at the end of our back garden, measuring just 12ft by 20ft where I grow all our vegetables; and in that small plot of land I grow enough vegetables to feed a family of three for 12 months of the year – So we don’t buy vegetables except for potatoes.
Food production isn’t a major part of the UK’s economy, the ‘Service Sector’ is; and people don’t want to live on just a diet of British fruit and vegetables, they want to mix it with more exotic food that only grows in hotter climates; so there is no incentive for Britain to try to feed itself when it can import what it wants.
You can’t make a direct comparison between the UK and countries like Ethiopia, Sudan, Mali, Chad – Europe is better comparison; and in that respect the EU is virtually self-sufficient in feeding itself.
What does immigration have to do with it? If anything, we don’t get enough immigrants because the UK is an ageing population with a chronic labour shortage, the latter bought about by political ideology.
Yeah, the main question relevant this thread in this forum is as you say “we have to decide if potential climate changes are more important than food security.” And as I said “there is no reason they should be mutually exclusive.” – I didn’t say “they are mutually exclusive”, I said “they should be mutually exclusive”. The situation in Netherlands is an example of where it hasn’t worked, but there are plenty of examples in the UK for example where it can be made to work.
Yep, nothing better than out of the ‘horse’s mouth’ e.g. by asking Peter because it is all too often difficult to find non-biased information on a subject.
To fill in the gaps, I don’t know if any of this helps:-
• The Netherlands is the second largest exporter of agricultural produce in the world after the USA.
• The Netherlands has a strong agrarian and livestock sector, which produces significant agricultural exports.
• The protests were initially triggered in October 2019 by a government proposal to halve the country's livestock in an attempt to limit agricultural pollution in the Netherlands.
• The targets dictate that the Netherlands must halve emissions of nitrous oxide and ammonia by 2030.
• The Netherlands did not meet the EU’s 2020 emissions targets.
Taking the last point first; the UK met and exceeded the 2020 emission targets in 2016, and has already met its 2030 target.
The Netherlands issue is that its main form of agriculture is livestock, and it’s farming practices of rearing livestock gives rise to high levels of nitrous oxide and ammonia.
Two points from the above that spring to my mind:-
• Firstly, the UK Government is running a public awareness campaign to encourage people to eat less meat, because it’s better for the planet (climate change), and
• Secondly, in the UK farms that rear livestock are increasingly doing so in more environmentally friendly ways to help combat climate change.
Why Marshalls dairy farm going organic? https://youtu.be/GmRglRAP6QU
The British start-up that wants us to eat less meat https://youtu.be/Vv1l0Yxq94w
Yep, very valid points in the fight against climate change (global warming) in your last paragraph; to reiterate them again; to convince people (although I would say, to encourage people) to:-
• Stop eating imported food
• Stop eating meat at every meal, and
• Learn to subsist on what is grown locally.
Yep, locally produced food helps to reduce the carbon footprint; and although as a nation we import about 40% of our food, many organisations (large and small) source local produce for their catering; especially as its good PR to do so.
In the UK about 10% of the population are now either vegetarian or vegan; and in recent years, 31% of the UK population are now eating less meat.
One point you missed from the list, which is probably more important because it is the ‘lungs of the earth’, is the importance of reducing deforestation, and planting more trees...The Netherlands is the second largest exporter of agricultural produce in the world after the USA.
I was planning to bring that one up as an argument about efficiency and agriculture.
Many products in The Netherlands are grown without soil, only water and stacked. It's all high tec..As The Netherlands is a tiny country and every square meter has a high price and should be used to the max.
Sometimes I think the bigger the country, the less efficient and lax it is used.
Here in Spain I see so often piles of rubble on the countryside, simply dumped by somebody. In the Netherlands, no one would even think to do such a thing. Nature is a precious thing.
Of course every country is different in climate and resources but efficiency is something that can be applied in every country. Learn from each other.
As it's clear that now the world population is growing like crazy, efficiency is a key element for survival.
So to burn down forests so you will have fertile ground to plant crops is not the way to do it anymore.
Also more and more alternatives are worked on to replace meat. As meat is incredibly inefficient. You need lots of water and food (that needs land and water) to produce meat.
So food for though ;-)
Embrace what may be the most important green technology ever. It could save us all
But with every change (like quitting smoking) it has its resistance.Actually oceans are the lungs of the earth.
https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/ocean-oxygen.html
I think deforestation is more important because of the loss of species. I plant trees every week but I certainly cannot plant as many species here as those that are being lost.
As to your other point, immigration has a lot to do with this subject becaue even in a country with good rainfall and decent soil, like England, if more people immigrate to your country then more food is going to be need to be produced or imported.'the importance of deforestation and planting more trees'. If a grassland is to be cleared for a building, attemts should be made to plant some evergreen trees around. In case of a forest for agriculture (livestock), it's my reasoning that the number of trees felled including the younger growing plants, sh6uld be replant in double measure. 40 decades ago, when the fircely blazing Sahara Desert, was encroaching on Northdrn Nigeria, the Southern parts of the country, especially the. Middle Belt, suffer serve winter blitz. The Military Government of then General Olusegun Obansjo, began to plant hundreds of thousand trees. This greatly help in comcting the encroachment. The Desertencroachment is now past tence. The sought no longer experienced the cold Harmata.
Actually DrMark, we are both right. The oceans absorbs about 30% of CO2 emissions created by burning fossil fuels, and the trees of the world absorbs about another 30% of the CO2 emissions: We can’t do anything to increase the ocean size, but we can do a lot to increase the number of trees in the world.
It’s good to hear that you are regularly planting trees; every bit helps.
Immigration is essential to Britain; we have an ageing population with a lower birth rate, down from 2.5 when I left school to currently 1.56 per family and falling (which is not sustainable) e.g. a declining population. Consequently, because of Brexit, we now have a chronic labour shortage across all economic sectors in the UK e.g. over 80,000 vacant nursing jobs in the NHS, chronic shortage of farm labourers so that up to a third of soft fruits are left to rot in the fields, and a chronic shortage of drivers, further exasperating the already disrupted supply chains. In spite of pressuring being put on the current Government to relax its strict immigration policy, there is no sign of that being changed (without a change of Government) because (typical of hard-right-wing Governments) the current Government is guided by its political ideology rather than economics.
Nevertheless, if we had a change of Government, and immigration rules were relaxed so that job vacancies can be filled, an increase in population would mean more food required, but as Peter points out above (whether its imported or home grown) in this day and age food productivity can be increased without a negative impact on the planet.
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.
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)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.Of course, you don't want hungry people. That's asking for a revolt.
And no government wants that. (except if you have a country ruled by an elite class who don't give a damn about the citizens of the country..)
But that does not mean that you can't change the existing way of producing and distributing food with a smarter and more efficient one that will also benefit the climate.
Climate change is already affecting crops. Extreme weather is becoming more and more regular. And because of this, you will also have immigration and refugee problems. And war for resources (water)... Problems create new problems.
But the big mother of problems is the Climate Crisis. So if you help to make this one smaller, and so far the big governments (US, China, India, Brazil, Europe) are not doing what they should do but are still sticking their hands in the sand. (Oh yes, they talk nice about green deals and stuff, but the reality is that they still play by the old "growth economy" playbook that only will make things worse.)
What needs to be done is not more "green energy" on top of fossil fuel energy. But a substitution for fossil fuel (which I don't see happening as trucks still drive on diesel. Millions of products (like clothing) use fossil fuels to produce them.)
Buy local as we already discussed (but not just food but also products and clothing). Countries should make those products in their own countries instead of keeping a subsidy system of profiting from labour in faraway countries.
In the EU you see that the political thoughts are now more and more direction being independent of non-EU countries. The US has had this philosophy for years (America first is not a new thing). I'm sure Brazil is thinking in the same line. Is there something like a South-American organization that promotes better economic treaties between South American countries?
It's all incredibly complex. But from what I've read is that the bottom line is: Produce less and produce locally to skip the transport costs (and contamination).Did not read the entirety of Dr. Mark’s comment because I am having a hard time following all the threads.
But I take it that Dr. Mark is taking into account the cost/benefit analysis of climate change policy costs (which are massive) and how that interprets into economic costs for the mostly poor who simply need food (and fuel) to live, and who cannot afford to live under costly policy measures which are imposed upon them in the name of “global warming.”
So, I hope you are taking these issues into account.I’d like to know what makes you think that “climate change policy is massively costly”; on this side of the pond Renewable Energy has been cheaper than fossil fuel energy since 2016.
Also, on this side of the pond our governments do look after its poor.I do not think any of us know what the costs of climate change policy are going to be. It is certainly not going to be just the costs of renewable energy as opposed to fossil fuels. There is a lot more to it, and you are not going to be able to find a web site with some politician telling you the true costs. People have agendas, and each side is going to show numbers to back up their side.
This is why I am willing to look at the work of economists who recognize that climate change is one of many problems in the world, and who also believe we can tackle various problems through long-term innovation rather than short-term solutions based upon panic and political promises.
The following are two short videos that are worth viewing in my opinion.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4ZsD3fL4_0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqeuB084ySQGreen energy was pushed by governments in the past via subsidies, tax breaks .. This created a surge for green technology development and energy generation. So in the past the inherent belief of governments ( and of the people) was that green energy is costly per se and needs support. - and yes - it was costly.
Today the picture has changed. It is cheaper to make or buy green energy than conventional sources.
I have been in the business for decades and i enjoyed tax breaks and subsidies for comfortable business cases for generating renewable energy. Today it is no more necessary to have "artificial" incentives. Green energy has benefits for the producing side and for the consuming side. Green will prevail, for simple economic reasons.
But - imho we have one problem in G. For decades the incentives to foster green energy have been regulated by government. This is kind of in the genes of our government. Today we don´t need this any more, but governments keeps throwing regulations at us.
The result is f.e. in our little city of 200.000 people: 1.500 requests for Solar systems are pending because authorities can´t keep up with demand for approval. While i understand the technical necessity for approval to not overload the grid with too many generating sources too fast, this overregulation only hinders development. May be a typically German approach.
No questions about economics, finances. This topic is already void. People do heavily invest into green energy generation. From rooftop panels to large offshore wind. Whenever a wind park project is opened for investors, shares are booked within days. People do understand opportunities and act adequately. No studies or publications on overall economic cost necessary.I think the economics question is still very regionall. Here in Brazil most of our electricity is generated through hydroelectric sources and solar is too expensive if you look at it next to the monthly electric bill. (I have seen Wilderness comment on the same thing there in the US.)
If you do not regulate the energy and throw it into the open market the results will be catastrophic for the environment.
Also, as a government you throw away a mighty powerful tool. As the situation today is that fossil fuel companies dictate politics as they are in command of the resources.
To give away your resources as a government is giving away political power. That's stupid and will not benefit a country.
Today the Dutch government has to negotiated with 15+ different energy companies to come to a price agreement. That's not workable in a crisis like we have now. And the political tendency in the Netherlands is regret about the privatisation of energy (water, public transport, post etc).
It is far more democratic if the government has control over the energy resources. And even better the people. To buy personally your solar equipment and connect it to the grid (government owned).
This means more work for smaller companies and all that is connected to them (renovation of roofs etc). Which is far better for the economy than one or two companies dictating the market.
You may have pending requests because authorities can't keep up. But that's solvable. But I rather wait to get a solid approval than a sloppy one that destroys the environment. As the main objective of companies is to make money not to give a damn about the environment and biodiversity
Spain is a Wild West market at the moment, and surely you don't want that.
Actually they are talking in Europe right now to loosen the restrictions on Solar Parks.
It's in the small print of the laws about a price max on gas where they are talking. It is a law they try to sneak in where governments are obliged to approve or disapprove a proposal of a company within a month. In other words the governments wont give people anymore the opportunity to make allegations.
Also in the same proposal of the EU it is stated that countries with cheaper solar energy should help countries with more expensive solar energy in Europe. In other words what will happen is that Spain, Portugal and Italy will be used by Germany, The Netherlands like a colony to get cheap energy. The southern countries will be build full of solar parks to deliver energy to the industry in the north.
It is like Shell, BP, Standard Oil in the early 20th century, colonising and privatising new energy resources. Destroying whole habitats, villages and countries in the good of a view rich countries and grabbing political power in the mean time.
Solar power is great, but it is a great threat to the environment when it is used by private companies on a large scale. As thousands of trees are cut for solar farms, agricultural land is sacrificed and biodiversity is destroyed because of hedge fund speculation and investments.
Privatising the solar energy market is a bad idea. And good for Germany it is not doing so as here in Spain the results are disastrous.
Solar Energy is definitely not always green energy.
In the grand scheme, the UK still needs fossil fuel, particularly in light of the harsh winter predictions. Gas demand for Europe is up by 44% according to the WSJ.
Savvydating, what do economists know about the climate change crisis; you should be listening to the scientists if you want to know how serious the problem is!
Besides, Bjorn Lomborg, who’s featured in the two videos you provided, is neither a climate scientist nor an economist, and his published works on the environment and climate policy has not been peer-reviewed. His extensive and extensively documented works, which are aimed at a lay audience, are riddled with errors and misrepresentations; this Wikipedia article puts his works into prospective: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bj%C3%B8rn_Lomborg
And where you say “In the grand scheme, the UK still needs fossil fuel, particularly in light of the harsh winter predictions. Gas demand for Europe is up by 44% according to the WSJ.”:-
Duh: Of course we still need fossil fuels in the UK at this moment in time; the UK is in the middle of transitioning away from fossil fuels towards Renewable Energy – Something that cannot be done at a stoke, it will take time. But, we are making good progress in the UK, and by 2035 (just 12 years from now) 100% of the electricity supplied to domestic homes in the UK will be from offshore windfarms: There are already days this winter when over 50% of the electricity in the UK comes from offshore windfarms, as shown in the recent screen dump below.
I am kind of surprised at your comment since you have an economics background. What do you think economists do? They study the economic effects of an action upon the economy. Do you not think they are also able to read and learn about climate change, or do you think all economists are stupid and only able to understand numbers?
I am reminded of a statement of our outgoing president during the COVID lockdown. His economists were telling him that the lockdown was going to lead to inflation around the world and the poor people here would be eating garbage to get by. He was ignored. People ended up suffering for not working for over a year.
Sometimes economists do understand what is happening in the world.I had a feeling you’d look up Wikipedia. Their assessment is inaccurate according to what you wrote. Lomborg does have a PhD and he has written peer reviewed articles. He is highly respected. Furthermore, he consults with scientists and Nobel laureates. He also uses the IPCC as his model.
(It should be said that most conservatives view the IPCC as too liberal.)
If you are the scientist you claim to be, Wikipedia is the last place in the world where you would look for accurate information. Wikipedia is biased, and not in a good way.Nathanville has asked several times for you to numerate why you consider these climate change initiatives to be massively expensive. I have my own ideas, but did not want to assume to answer for you. (Fayetville Faye called me out for assuming I knew what she meant, rightly as I was wrong.)
Can you add a list as to why you think climate change is massively expensive?Yes. I’ll make time to compose a list within a day or two… should have time tomorrow.
From what I can gather, the UK has accepted the Stern Review, for the most part, on climate change, which frankly, is inconsistent and flawed. Ironically, for Nathanville, Stern is an economist, but not a very good one.
Professor Nordhaus, who is the most world-recognized climate economist in the world, has stated that the “social cost of CO2 is $2.50 per ton. Stern, on the other hand, believes that the cost is $85 per ton, which was a rate higher than the UK estimated at the time of the report.
Given Sterns’ alarmist predictions of global catastrophe, he suggested spending 1% of GDP ($450 billion) every single year to cut carbon emissions. (Today, he believes that figure is not high enough) Anyway, his estimates seem reasonable, except that even the UN has estimated that if we spend $75 billion on the world’s basic problems, such as clean drinking water, sanitation, basic health care, and education, we could make nations richer by 700% but only reduce growth by 2%.
The world cannot afford bad investments. Why spend $450 billion per year, when we can solve the world’s problems with far less money, while still setting aside a much lesser amount for research and development on how to create a product that is cheaper yet as effective as fossil fuels?
We could save so much money and make the world a better place.
What we need is targeted approaches to tackling the world’s problems without spending billions on false promises made by politicians (including Biden) whose sole motive is to keep the world scared and dependent.
Agriculture: Carbon dioxide is a fertilizer that boosts photosynthesis, which has boosted global greening. The point is that climate alarmists use models that fail to recognize adaption and carbon dioxide fertilization.
Tropical cyclones: Rather than becoming alarmed about storms and spending billions of dollars on climate change policies that make no difference, how about spending money wisely on better building codes? The reason why hurricanes are so expensive is that people live in areas where they have no business living. How often have you heard homeowners bemoan the fact that a hurricane destroyed their home…. Yet they cannot wait to rebuild their home in the very same spot where another hurricane will come along.
Polar bears: Polar bears survived the last interglacial period, and they will continue to survive. They can adapt to become brown bears. The number of polar bears has grown.
We should spend some money on climate research and development on developing sources of fuel that are cleaner and cheaper than fossil fuels. Otherwise, China, the polluter of the world, will never change course.
We can tackle climate issues, but we should tackle imminent problems first, which will grow GDP. Despite what alarmists say, we are not in danger of imminent demise. Humans are smart, adaptable, and capable of solving problems without increasing our debt and destroying GDP.
Really savvydating? Wikipedia is far from bias, it’s factual and objective; and the source information it uses is well referenced e.g. all the hundreds of reference links to reputable sources in small print at the bottom of each Wikipedia article; thus each statement made by Wikipedia is well sourced (so that you can check out the source material yourself on any point), which is more that can be said for most articles you read on the Internet.
Yeah, Bjorn Lomborg has a PhD; a PhD in ‘political science’ (the scientific study of politics), so he’s not a professionally qualified ‘Climate Scientist’ and he’s not a professionally qualified ‘economist’, he’s a professionally qualified expert on ‘politics’.
You say he’s written peer reviewed articles? I haven’t found any, what evidence do you have that his work is peer reviewed?
Gee Whizz, he uses the IPCC model; that doesn’t inspire any confidence in me:
• The IPCC reports have been criticised for being too Conservative (right-wing biased).
• The IPCC reports consistently underestimate the pace and impacts of global warming.
• The IPCC is not impartial but political influenced e.g. It is governments (not scientists) who take part in the review process of the reports, and there is a tendency for governments to abuse this role to influence the outcome of reports.
Nevertheless, in spite of its flaws, the IPCC reports are the benchmark for climate science; but that doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t be reliant on everything Bjorn Lomborg (remember he’s a political expert, not a climate scientist or economist). If you want to really want to know what’s going on in the world with respect to the climate crisis (which you obviously don’t) then you should be paying more attention to what the scientists are saying. Or at the very least, listen to the news of all the major climate change disasters that are occurring around the world right now, adversely affecting the lives and livelihood of millions of people – looking at Pakistan this year would be a good start:
2022 Pakistan floods: Acute malnutrition & diseases rising sharply https://youtu.be/jzmk409jXKIThe IPCC is government influenced, but it is not right wing. Will find articles by Bjorn…
Here's one of many peer-reviewed articles by Lomborg. They are not that difficult to find.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a … 2520304157I get through the abstract. It's a good read. Thanks for the link.
Thanks for a comprehensive reply savvydating, it’s refreshing to actually see you engaging in a fruitful discussion on climate change.
However, your focus is on the economic ‘costs’ with no regard to the ‘environmental’ ‘costs’ of doing too little too late; and it’s only one side of the equation e.g. just a cost analysis, not a ‘cost and benefit’ analysis of spending adequate money on climate change policies.
Stern Review, a 700 page report which discusses the “effect of global warming on the world economy”, conducted by economist Nicholas Stern on behalf of the UK Labour (Socialist) Government in 2008, although not the first economic report on climate change, is significant as being the largest and most widely known and discussed report of its kind.
Yeah, the report has had both negative and positive critical response; but that was just the starting point. Following that report in 2008, the Labour Government created the CCC (Climate Change Committee), an Independent Government Department e.g. a Government Department that is not answerable to the Government, but answerable to Parliament only.
The Statutory Role of the CCC is to advise the UK governments on emissions targets and to report to Parliament on progress made in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and preparing for and adapting to the impacts of climate change – which sounds like a sensible approach to me.
In fulfilling their role the CCC focus is to:-
• Provide independent advice on setting and meeting carbon budgets and preparing for climate change
• Monitor progress in reducing emissions and achieving carbon budgets and targets
• Conduct independent analysis into climate change science, economics and policy
• Engage with a wide range of organisations and individuals to share evidence and analysis
All of which seems sound and wise to me.
Yes, in 2007 Nicholas Stern did call for a 1% of GDP to be employed in global warming-related environmental measures; which is a lot less than the USA and other NATO countries spend on Defence e.g. the USA spends 3.52% of its GDP ($811 billion) on Defence; if 3.5% of USA GDP is $811 billion then that would make 1% $231 billion, so where did you get the $450 billion from (almost double) that you quoted?
In my view, if a Government can spend $800 billion a year on defence, it can afford to spend $200 billion a year on tackling climate change.
If you think 1% of GDP is too much, then I suggest how much of GDP in the USA is spent on other things, for example, in the USA, percentage of GDP spent on:-
• 21% of GDP spent on Healthcare
• 15% of GDP spent on Pensions and Social Security
• 13% of GDP spent on Education
• 12% of GDP spent on Welfare
One thing that strikes me, while look at these figures, is how much the USA Government spends on Healthcare, considering you don’t have free healthcare in the USA e.g. you have to pay for expensive medical insurance. In comparison, to the UK’s Government spending as percentage of GDP is:-
• 20% of GDP spent on Healthcare, which is no difference to the USA, in spite of the fact that in the UK healthcare is free at the point of use e.g. no health insurance to pay as the costs are paid for by the Government.
• 17% of GDP spent on Pensions
• 10% of GDP spent on Education
Who say (apart from you) that “Professor Nordhaus is the most world-recognized climate economist in the world”? I think a lot of experts would disagree with that statement!
You say “The world cannot afford bad investments.”, and then you go onto say “Why spend $450 billion per year, when we can solve the world’s problems with far less money, while still setting aside a much lesser amount for research and development on how to create a product that is cheaper yet as effective as fossil fuels?”
Firstly, who says it’s a bad investment; especially for example, when in the UK the oil and gas companies are making $billions on investing in off-shore windfarms. And the $450 billion cost you quote is more like 2% of the USA GDP, not the 1% advocated by Nicholas Stern.
And your suggesting of setting aside much less money on R&D (Research and Development) speaks volumes of dodging the issue and inviting disaster, and doing so it will take far longer to find solutions; and with the climate crisis, we don’t have the luxury of time.
Besides, R&D in the long run is good for businesses, good for a countries economy, good for employment and good for exports. It’s the countries like China and Scotland, and other European countries, that have spent a lot of money on R&D who are now repeating the rewards e.g. becoming world leaders in Green Technologies, creating a lot of wealth and employment, and export opportunities.
I don’t think you release how serious a crisis the climate change is, and your approach will not make the world a better place. FYI the UK does have a targeted approach to tacking climate change, and COP and the UN have targeted approaches to tackling the world’s problems; but it does take money.
But the question isn’t so much, can we afford to spend the money now, but rather can afford not to; and the answer to that is no – the longer we leave it the more expensive it becomes e.g. stopping a problem when its small is a lot easier and cheaper than letting the situation get worse, and then trying to stop the problem once it’s become a much bigger problem.
Hurricanes are an American problem, not a British problem (we don’t get hurricanes in Britain), so it’s up to America what it does about hurricanes. However, Britain does get storms, and because of climate change destructive storms have gone from being just a once a century pre-Industrial Britain, to once a decade in the 20th century, to yearly this century: And your suggesting of people not living in areas not prone to storm (when the whole of the UK is prone to destructive storms these days) and building houses that are storm proof isn’t feasible: To start with, there is nowhere for Brits to live to avoid the storms, and secondly the cost of making British homes storm proof would cost far, far more, than spending money to fight climate change.
Besides, your assertion that “spending billions of dollars on climate change policies will make no difference to the climate” is a very defeatist attitude; and not founded in science e.g. it’s the burning of excess amounts of fossil fuels that is causing climate change, so logic should tell you that if we burnt far less fossil fuels we would have far less impact on the climate.
Where you say: “Agriculture: Carbon dioxide is a fertilizer that boosts photosynthesis, which has boosted global greening. The point is that climate alarmists use models that fail to recognize adaption and carbon dioxide fertilization.”
Duh; we all know that plants breathe in carbon dioxide, which is why reducing deforestation, and planting more trees is so critical in fighting climate change; but what carbon dioxide plants breathe in isn’t enough to compensate for the amount of carbon dioxide being created by burning fossil fuels. The oceans absorbs about 30% of the carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels, and all the plants in the world also absorbs about 30% of the carbon dioxide being created by burning fossil fuels; leaving a deficit of over 30% - hence climate change/global warming.
And although our oceans absorb 30% of human-made carbon dioxide from the air (much like our forests do), this is causing the ocean to become more acidic, which corrodes coral skeletons.
Yep, polar bears: If you’ve been reading my comments on this forum, I’ve made little or no reference to polar bears. As regards to your comments, current opinion is divided, but a couple of web links worth reading are:-
• https://polarbearsinternational.org/pol … ts/status/
• https://www.arcticwwf.org/wildlife/pola … opulation/
However, it’s not just about polar bears; if you’ve read comments in this forum, I’ve previously pointed out that thousands of species (77 animal species) that have already become extinct due to climate change, and tens of thousands under threat from extinction; with the UK being no exception e.g. 41% of the UK species have declined since the 1970s due to global warming, and currently 9 animal species in the UK are under threat of becoming extinct.
One aspect to look at is the effect global warming is having on coral reefs; over the past three decades the world has lost half of its coral reefs, with the prospect that we could lose over 90% of our coral reefs by 2050 if we don't act urgently to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions.
https://www.wwf.org.uk/coral-reefs-and-climate-change
Where you say “We should spend some money on climate research and development on developing sources of fuel that are cleaner and cheaper than fossil fuels. Otherwise, China, the polluter of the world, will never change course.”
Firstly, China only produces the most pollution in the world because it has the largest population; whereas per person, rather than population size, the USA produces far more pollution than any other country in the world.
Secondly, halve the world’s wind turbines are installed in China and about a third of the world’s solar panels are installed in China; so China is making far effort to combat climate change than the USA.
Thirdly, the UK is a world leader in offshore wind turbine technology because we have spent money on climate research and development; creating jobs and wealth in the UK – economic opportunities that the USA has missed out on because it’s hasn’t spent the money on the research and development.
No you can’t tackle climate change issues if you don’t take it seriously; the clock is ticking - time is running out.
How are climate change policies detrimental to the GDP? FYI investing in climate change policies in the UK is actually good for economic growth; it’s creating investment in the UK, it’s creating profitable and commercially viable green-industries in the UK, it’s creating jobs in the UK – all of which is good for the economy, economic growth, and a growth in the GDP.
With regards to your comment -”Despite what alarmists say, we are not in danger of imminent demise.” – If you actually paid attention to what the climate scientists are saying on the subject (not economists) then you’d know how serious the climate change crisis really is. Also, if you actually see what’s going on around the world right now, including in Europe and the UK, you’d know first-hand the harm that climate change is doing to millions of people around the world.
Yes, humans are adaptable, but are we really that smart; if we were then there’d be no need for discussions like this one?
And besides the climate change policies adapted by the UK is NOT increasing our national debt; it’s generating wealth and jobs – and increasing our GDP in the process.
But rather than just look at costs quoted by economists, why not look at the actual ‘costs and benefits’ that’s playing out in the real world, and tell me why you think they are massively costly?
For example:
Looking at the UK’s 10 point-plan:-
#1: Advancing offshore wind is a profitable business that British oil and gas companies are heavily investing in: Creating jobs and wealth.
#2: Driving the growth of low carbon hydrogen. That’s at an advanced R&D phase, and is already attracting investment, and generating jobs and wealth.
#3: Delivering new and advanced nuclear power. Although more expensive than Renewable Energy, it’s no more expensive than fossil fuel energy, and it’s a tried and tested technology that many governments turn to for power anyway.
#4: Accelerating the shift to zero emission vehicles. It’s not the Government that’s paying the cost, it’s people who are having to make the switch to electric when their old car need replacing, and although currently electric cars are more expensive to buy, they are a lot cheaper to run than fossil fuel cars. And industry is happy because they still make and sale cars.
#5: 5: Green public transport, cycling and walking. On the roads, it’s the private and commercial bus companies who have to make the changes, at their own cost, and in Bristol, since our bus company has replaced all its diesel buses with green-gas buses it’s been able to reduce bus fares by 10% and still make a profit; so everyone benefits.
#6: ‘Jet zero’ and green ships. R&D in its early stages in Scotland for ships, but Scotland is already using ships that run on green-hydrogen, which is cheaper and cleaner than diesel. Planes is more challenging, but ‘carbon offset’ e.g. planting more trees, seems a good approach (good for the environment), and it’s the aviation industry that pays farmers to plant the trees (giving farmers an extra income), so it doesn’t add to the national debt because it’s doesn’t cost the government anything; and doesn’t affect the GDP either.
#7: Greener Buildings. Yep, that is one area where the Government may have to dig deep into its pocket; but didn’t you argue in favour of government spending on improving house build in the USA to better protect them against hurricanes – making buildings greener is no more costly than making houses hurricane proof.
#8: Investing in carbon capture, usage and storage: Doesn’t cost the government anything, as its private companies making the investment, and when they develop the technologies, the rewards for the companies investing in the R&D is reaping the financial benefits in being a leader in the technologies; it’s good for the environment, and good for the economy as it creates economic growth and jobs – and thus good for the GDP.
#9: Protecting our natural environment. The UK has been doing that since 1948 anyway, long before Climate Change was an issue; and it’s not the Government spending money, it’s about making sure that private companies don’t cut down trees to build wind or solar farms on land etc.
#10: Green finance and innovation. Is just a catch-all to all of the above 9 listed points e.g. not the Government spending money, but the Government encouraging Private Industry to invest in green technologies.
So from the above (UK’s 10-point plan) what is excessively costly?
To me the real life costs and benefits of the climate change policy in the UK is not costly; but the costs and benefits to the economic and environmental impact on the world if insufficient is done by the world to tackle climate change is going to be far higher if the world does too little too late."In my view, if a Government can spend $800 billion a year on defence, it can afford to spend $200 billion a year on tackling climate change."
The reasoning to come to this conclusion is a little foggy. If a country spends all it can afford to protect itself it automatically indicates that it has 25% of that figure sitting unused? Your view is that every country sets aside a quarter of it's defense expenditures for use on something else not yet defined?
That view really says something about the EU that has an extra 25% of defense spending sitting idle, but refuses to spend it because the US will pick up the tab.Arthur, you've written a very long post, which can beat a long article here. I hope Google Panda does not penalize you...lol!
Yes, it's a very long post. Interesting though. And it shows how complicated and far reaching the climate crisis is.
The climate crisis has far reaching consequences. From fertilization problems to extreme weather to water shortage to refugee problems to air pollution to extinction and reduced biodiversity to....
And perhaps because the problem is so huge politicians and people try to trivialize it.
Have you seen the movie "Don't look up".. It's great. It's on Netflix.
Thanks for the link savvydating to the Climate Change article by Bjorn Lomborg on the Science Direct website; in reading it I can see why you have been duped into believing that Climate Change is not a serious issue.
And if you insist on listening to Bjorn Lomborg alone, and not look around to see what is happening in the real world right now, and not pay more attention to what scientists are saying e.g. the NASA website; then I don’t think we can have a fruitful discussion on climate change because your mind is shut tight beyond anything that Bjorn Lomborg says.
However Science Direct, which is part of a Dutch publishing company called Elsevier, does not peer review the articles themselves. They accept articles which claim to be peer reviewed – and it’s not a fool proof system e.g. in 2013 an American Scientist (John Bohannon) in conjunction with ‘Science’ (a peer review journal) set up a ‘sting’ against Elsevier by publishing a bogus paper in the Science journal, which should have subsequently been rejected by any good peer-review system, but which was subsequently accepted for publication by Elsevier.
In 2009 it transpired in a court case in Australia that Elsevier had been paid to publish a fake article that had the appearance of being peer-reviewed in an academic journal, but was not.
Peer Review is the evaluation of work by one or more people with similar competencies as the producers of the work (peers). It functions as a form of self-regulation by qualified members of a profession within the relevant field. Peer review methods are used to maintain quality standards, improve performance, and provide credibility. In academia, scholarly peer review is often used to determine an academic paper's suitability for publication. And ScienceDirect is just a publishing company who are not scientists, and thus not qualified to peer review the work themselves.
And nowhere on the link that you provided can I find any reference to where and when the article by Bjorn Lomborg on Climate Change was peer reviewed. I’m not saying it wasn’t peer reviewed in some academic publication somewhere, but it certainly hasn’t been peer reviewed in any scientific publications.
Wow; thanks for the info on the Netherlands, and the link on ‘green technology’ on food production.
Yes, that’s the impression I get “….the bigger the country, the less efficient and lax it is used.” – And like the Netherlands, Britain “is a tiny country and every square meter has a high price and should be used to the max.” In that respect many laws were passed in post war Britain (in the late 1940s) designed to protect the countryside and promote green land, for example:-
• ‘Urban Green Space’ – where it’s government policy that everyone living in a city or town should be within 10 minutes walking distance of ‘green space’; consequently 30% of urban areas in England are ‘Urban Green Spaces’.
• The Green Belt – a large area of green land surrounding all cities and towns where development is prohibited; designed to prevent urban sprawl.
• Including the Green Belt, just over 37% of the land in England is protected against development by one or more environmentally protected designation, including SSSI (Site of Special Scientific Interest); AONB (Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty); National Parks; Special Areas of Conservation (protecting natural wildlife habitats); Special Protection Areas (protecting areas for birds); Ramsar Sites (wetlands of international importance); and Marine Conservation Zones.
In reading your link it reminds me of a micro-protein pie that Sainsburys (one of Britain’s supermarkets) sold in the 1980s; similar to a steak pie, but made by feeding microscopic organisms on waste products; so very popular with vegetarians at the time: effectively a for runner to Quorn.
With 10% of people in Britain now being vegetarian, and 31% of the British population eating less meat; Quorn has become very popular as a food source in the UK. Quorn was developed in England in 1985 and is made from mycoprotein (micro-fungus) that is high in protein, and high in nutrition, and a lot healthier than beef; and is environmentally friendly.
So yes, the link you provided is another example of what can be achieved.Do you know what the per capita consumption of Quorn is in the UK?
Good question. I don’t know what the per capita consumption of Quorn is in the UK, but some facts of interest are:-
• Quorn currently has 60% of the vegetarian/vegan market in the UK, although they are under stiff competition as other food producers are jumping on the ‘band wagon’ because vegetarian and vegan food is a popular and profitable market in the UK, and
• 1 in 4 people (25% of the population) in the UK now eat Quorn on a regular basis.Some TV Adverts, and a promo public awareness video, that helps to make Quorn a popular food source in the UK.
Helping The Planet One Bite at a Time with Quorn Crispy Nuggets | TV Advert 2021: https://youtu.be/DkI9M4F4P2w
Quorn Deli – So Tasty Why Choose The Alternative? | TV Ad 2022: https://youtu.be/JIzTgp-hJhY
What is Quorn? | Learn more about how Quorn is made: https://youtu.be/3wlprJOfNDA
The only thing I would add is that in the UK is that as from 2030 (just over 7 years from now) the sale of all new fossil fuel vehicles (petrol (gas) and diesel) including trucks will be banned; and from 2035 the use of diesel trains will be banned. Plus the UK Government banned fracking in 2019; the Scottish Government banned fracking in Scotland in 2015.
Yes, we have an organization in South America called MERCOSUL (the southern market), sort of like the EU but not nearly as effecient. The main reason they wanted it was to trade between SA countries and not China and the US.
I dont really think that is the answer because even when it is trade between different countries there is too much energy being used just to shift around the products. (To give you an example, the state I live in is the same size as France.) I think your last paragraph is what we have to live by: produce locally and skip the transport costs. Unfortunatley that is not happening.Yep, peterstreep, I've seen the movie "Don't look up".. on Netflix; and yep, very appropriate to this discussion.
DrMark, Yep, I know Renewable Energy isn’t the only aspect of Climate Change Policy, but as the climate change crisis is being caused by the excessive burning of fossil fuels, Renewable Energy is a major step towards combating climate change.
Yep, when searching for data on the web you need to be sure the source information is reliable; which with all the misinformation and propaganda on the web is easier said than done. In that respect I can’t speak for other countries, but information published on Government websites in the UK, such as the ONS (Office of National Statistics) is reliable because such Government Departments, run by the civil service, are Independent of the Government, and answerable only to Parliament.
Such Government Departments were set-up to be independent of the Government in the late 1980s specifically so that any unscrupulous Government could not hide or influence information for its own political gains. It means that such Government Departments do from time to time publish data, which the opposition political parties and the general public can readily access, that is embarrassing to the Government; but that’s a good thing, as it helps to hold the Government to account.
And, unlike some countries I could mention, the British civil service is apolitical; something I know first-hand as I was a civil servant myself, all my working life e.g. the British civil servant doesn’t have hidden agendas: And this can at times be a further embarrassment to the UK Government since the introduction of the ‘Freedom of Information Act’ in 2000, as it’s the civil service that the public write to when they want specific information that the Government itself would rather not answer.
Anyway, getting back to your main points:-
Firstly, it’s one thing to say “climate change policy is massively costly”, but without qualifying that claim e.g. by giving examples, then there is nothing that we can discuss.
Secondly - focusing on what I do know; the UK’s current ‘Climate Change Policy’, published in 2020, and called “The ten point plan for a green industrial revolution”:
The UK Government plan focuses on increasing ambition in the following 10 areas:
1. advancing offshore wind
2. driving the growth of low carbon hydrogen
3. delivering new and advanced nuclear power
4. accelerating the shift to zero emission vehicles
5. green public transport, cycling and walking
6. ‘jet zero’ and green ships
7. greener buildings
8. investing in carbon capture, usage and storage
9. protecting our natural environment
10. green finance and innovation
To mobilise the 10 point plan the UK Government is providing £12 billion investment, the private sector are providing about £36 billion in investment; and up to around 250,000 green jobs are being created.
Yes it will cost $100’s billions by 2050, but the question isn’t so much ‘can we afford it’ but rather ‘can we afford not to’. But the transition to a greener country will also create wealth and jobs, all of which are good for the economy.
One amusing thing that sets the UK apart from the rest of the world is that the UK is the only country in the world to make ‘carbon net zero’ by 2050 a legal requirement? This twist came about because Theresa May (Prime Minister until July 2019) didn’t trust Boris Johnson (a maverick) would be committed to fighting climate change; Boris Johnson being the person who took over from Theresa May as Prime Minister. So in her last week of ‘Office’ Theresa May introduced a ‘Bill’ in Parliament that would legally bind future governments to being committed to fighting climate change; and as that ‘Bill’ was popular with the opposition political parties and the House of Lords, it was passed by Parliament to become law within just a few days; which is quite impressive when most ‘bills’ take months or years to get through Parliament.
2019, UK Government makes ‘carbon net zero’ a legal requirement: https://youtu.be/hj7v8e1uLyEReally DrMark – seems a bit of a silly question to me?
Economists are not scientists, no more than bankers are bricklayers. Your banker may know how to build a brick wall, but you wouldn’t pay him to build you one – you would employ a professional brick layer.
Yeah, an economist might know something about climate change, but they are not experts in the field, and most likely don’t know any more than the average well educated person about climate change; and most certainly they are not qualified in the field of climate science.
If you want to know about climate change the best people to listen to is a professionally qualified climate scientist. Just as if you want to know about economics the best people to listen to are economists.If you want to know about the economic effects of climate change you DO NOT listen to scientists then, at least according to your logic. After all, they are just like bricklayers, and have no way of knowing what the possible ecomic effects might be.
Yep - and that is a discussion well worth having; but not in isolation: To put such a discussion into perspective people also have to fully understand the consequences of ignoring the scientist.
Okay, how about a new thread "Who knows more about the possible economic effects of climate change: economists or climate sceintists?"
I guess it's not either or.
When talking about the climate crisis, we talk about a whole range of things.
I can imagine that one of the problems is that scientists are so specializes today that they have little time to look around in other fields.
The economic model that's used all over the world is the economic model of growth. And economic growth is now on a head collision with finite resources and environmental disasters.
Hence other economic models are looked at more seriously.
One of the contenders is the doughnut model of economics. (so far as I heard as a laymen) where the economic system is in equilibrium. It's an sustainable economic system.
A quick read.
Wikipedia Doughnut (economic model)
Yep, and we could have a new thread "Who knows more about the looming crisis facing mankind due to climate change: economists or climate scientists?"
Dr Mark, I’ve now twice asked savvydating why she thinks “climate change policy is massively costly”, and as yet she hasn’t qualified her statement; all she’s done so far is to cite that economics is far more important than the adverse effects of climate change. And as I said, you can’t talk about the economics in isolation; you also need to fully understand the consequences of ignoring the scientists.
However, I shall kick things off by focusing more on the economics of the UK’s Government ‘10-point plan for a green Industrial Revolution’. In doing so I recognise that each county is different and will have to follow its own plan to reduce CO2 emissions, so the UK 10-point plan is only an illustration of what can be achieved, and the economics at play in achieving it.
As regards to the question of whether you should listen to the scientists or economists – No Government implementing a policy to combat climate change just listens to the scientists, they listen to both scientists and economists before making an informed decision.
The Economics of the UK’s Government 10-point plan for a green Industrial Revolution:
#1: Advancing offshore wind.
This is already commercially profitable, so much so that the Government withdrew government subsidies in 2019; British oil companies are investment in offshore wind and its creating thousands of new jobs (green jobs) in the industry: All of which is good for the environment and good for the economy – and as Renewable Energy became cheaper than fossil fuel in 2016, it will within a matter of years mean cheaper electricity for all; which is good for both the poor and for the economy.
British Shell Oil & Gas Company’s investment in Renewables: https://youtu.be/BqJuaTuFv30
#2: Driving the growth of low carbon hydrogen.
Scotland has become a world leader in the R&D (Research and Development) of Green Hydrogen; ferries between the Scottish Islands are now powered by Green Hydrogen, and Aberdeen city in Scotland have switched to running all its commercial vehicles and buses on green hydrogen instead of fossil fuel. The UK Government is keen to see Green Hydrogen commercially scaled up to a point whereby Green Hydrogen could replace natural gas for heating homes by 2035; we are a long way off from that yet, and it may not happen in time – although the Government is also pushing for the scaling up of Green Hydrogen so that all remaining diesel trains can be replaced by green-Hydrogen trains by 2035. But the economic benefits of Green Hydrogen is already being felt in Scotland e.g. investment opportunities for businesses and job creation in new green-industries; all of which is good for the environment and the economy.
Aberdeen (the oil capital of Europe) now turning its back on oil in favour of Green Hydrogen: https://youtu.be/zK0QzWj5tDo
#3: Delivering new and advanced nuclear power.
Personally, I don’t agree with nuclear power, but 60% of the British people do, so the Government has public support for this strategy. Setting aside the dangers in the event of a nuclear accident, nuclear power is classified as a ‘green-energy’ e.g. no CO2 emissions, and although more expensive than Renewable Energy is comparable in costs to fossil fuel; and nuclear power will help as a stop gap, replacing natural gas, until the UK is fully reliant on Renewable Energy.
#4: Accelerating the shift to zero emission vehicles.
In 2017 the UK Government announced that the sale of all new fossil fuel cars was going to be banned by 2040, then in 2020 the ban was lowered to 2035, and in 2021 it was lowered to 2030.
Yes it does mean that everyone will shortly be faced with buying a new electric car when they need to replace their existing fossil fuel car, and currently electric cars are more expensive; but the price of new cars is falling year on year (economies of scale), and electric cars are a lot cheaper to run than fossil fuel cars.
This video by Auto Trader (a pro-car organisation) sums it up: https://youtu.be/DGjFwZZpxS8
#5: Green public transport, cycling and walking
Lots of people in the UK cycle and walk anyway. And most road public transport is already green e.g. most bus companies (commercial private companies who survive by making a profit) have already replaced their old diesel buses with new buses that run on green-gas; examples being the buses in Aberdeen in a video above who now use green-hydrogen, and the buses in Bristol (where I live) who now run all their buses on fuel made from Bristol sewage and domestic food waste.
In fact, since the Bristol buses have been changed to run on green-gas the bus company has lowered its fairs by 10%; which is good for the travelling passenger.
As regards trains, the UK Government has electrified a substantial part of the rail network over the last ten years; but is now pinning its hopes on Scotland commercially upscaling the production of Green Hydrogen so that green hydrogen trains can be used on the rest of the rail network; green hydrogen trains being a cheaper and quicker option to decarbonise the rail network.
2020 UK hydrogen train ventures out onto the main line: https://youtu.be/OddzzRZGsLU
#6: ‘Jet zero’ and green ships.
Green ships; Scotland has already established ‘Proof of Concept’ by using Green-hydrogen to run its fairies between the Scottish Islands – so to go further means commercially scaling up the technology.
‘Jet Zero’ is an interesting one e.g. the R&D (Research & Development) into electric planes is in its early stages and at best may only be viable for light-weight commercial aircraft.
Therefore, for the aviation industry the only real option they have to meet their legal requirement to be carbon-net-zero by 2050 is to pay farmers money to plant the required number of trees on their land to create the a carbon offset equivalent to the amount of CO2 emissions produced by the aviation company. ‘Carbon Offset’ being good for the economy in that being paid to plant trees gives farmers an additional income, and it’s also good for environment.
#7: Greener Buildings.
This might be the most contentious of all in that millions of poorer families live in poorly insulated Victorian homes. Currently most homes in the UK are heated by natural gas over the winter months, and the UK Government plan to cease supplying natural gas to homes by 2035, with the intention that either green-hydrogen is commercially scaled up in time to replace natural gas for home heating, and or that everyone switches to alternative heating by 2035 e.g. pumped storage.
The problem is that pumped storage is currently very expensive to install, albeit once installed is cheap to run; which in the long term would bring down the cost of heating.
Therefore, to resolve the problem the government may well have to dig deep into its pocket to give financial help, particularly to the poor, to better insulate their homes and to make the switch to greener heating; the one thing the Government will not do is leave the poor without any heating.
#8: Investing in carbon capture, usage and storage
In the UK there is currently a lot of investment by commercial companies into R&D (Research & Development) for carbon capture, usage and storage; in economic terms, the reward being that for those commercial companies investing in the research is that they will be at the forefront in development becoming commercial (profitable), so that they can make a profit from it – which would lead to job creation and be good for the economy.
#9: Protecting our natural environment.
UK Governments have been doing this on a large scale since 1948, and continues to do so e.g. cutting down trees to build solar farms would be prohibited in the UK. The down side is that since 2015 the UK Government has also banned the building of on-shore windfarms, to the frustration of industry who are hankering to invest in on-shore windfarms.
#10: Green finance and innovation.
This last one ties in with all the other 9 points above e.g. the UK Government encouraging private industry to finance in green project, and in R&D for green projects. Not that industry needs much encouragement these days because green projects are proofing to be a very profitable and secure investment in the UK.
SUMMERY
So as you can see from the above, in economic terms, in context, there is nothing in the UK Government’s policy to tackle ‘climate change’ that is massively costly; most of it is commercially, viable, profitable, creating hundreds of thousands of jobs and not just good for the environment but also good for the economy. And in most cases, the changes are all beneficial to the poor.
The only real contentious part of the Government’s 10-point plan is the concept of potentially getting most people to switch from using natural gas for heating to installing heat pumps – But that’s a problem the Government is going to have to tackle over the next ten years if it wants to meet its own goals.
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.Lots to be said on this subject. Merry Christmas, dear Peter. I hope you and yours enjoy every minute of this special day.
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/hy4HO8xXv08Oh, 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?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.
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-GQENathanville, 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.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!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.
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_HZZUchttps://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.Thanks for the link. Yeah, ‘The Conversation’ website has a good reputation and a sophisticated fact-checking system, so it is often used by main stream news media; and the particular paragraph in the article that has got you excited was quoted in the Guardian (left-wing publication) and the Telegraph (right-wing publication); two respectable British newspapers, and thus would be no surprise if it was also quoted on the BBC news. But so what, the BBC, and British newspapers are only reporting on what was said, not making judgement on it e.g. the BBC and British newspapers frequently reported what Donald Trump said, regardless to whether what he was saying was true or not – they are doing their job, ‘reporting’, not ‘judging’ or ‘censuring’.
The paragraph in question, that has got you so excited, is, to quote:
“If I asked what the most corrupt place on Earth is.... I would say it is the UK. It’s not UK bureaucracy, police, or politics, but what is corrupt is the financial capital. Ninety per cent of the owners of capital in London have their headquarters offshore.”
As I said previously Roberto Saviano clearly states in his comment that the UK bureaucracy, police, and politics are NOT corrupt. He is saying that only the financial capital in London (1 square mile) is corrupt UK, citing that 90% of the financial institutions have their headquarters offshore (tax havens).
Firstly, he is exaggerating the facts, because if you fact check, it’s only 38% that uses tax havens.
Secondly, the question is, is it wrong for a Company to use tax havens to avoid paying so much tax to government? I would say probably yes, but there are a lot of Americans on these forums who would argue that businesses pay too much tax to governments; a subject of another debate perhaps.
And is using a tax haven, corruption? Some may think it’s morally wrong and that Companies should pay their due taxes in full to government, rather than using loopholes in the law to avoid paying so much tax; but in the UK it’s not illegal to use tax havens.
It’s new to me that I “cut and paste an enormous amount of material from the internet” that you claim; you know something that I don’t know? Just because I am a prolific writer, like my great-great grandfather, you can’t give me the credit for my own writing?
Why we’re on the subject, what about the corruption in American politics; American politicians are heavily financed for their election campaigns by big businesses, putting politicians in the pockets of big businesses that helped get them elected through the $billions donated to the election campaigns. Such funding is illegal in the UK, so that politicians in the UK are NOT indebted to their donors.
In the UK the strict limit a politician can spend on an election campaign is just £8,700 ($10,500), and a large political party spending is capped at £19.5 million ($23.7 million). In 2017 the UK Conservative Party was find £70,000 ($85,078) for trying to hide £275,813 ($335,223) worth of election campaign expenses in elections in 2014 & 2015 e.g. to make it appear that they didn’t overspend, which is an offence!
https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/ … n-expenses
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/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!
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!
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!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.
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 . . .
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.
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.
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/southwestYep, 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.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.My fear is that the Nigeria government, as one of the worst corrupt democracy in the world, wouldn't help her people in a humanitarian way. Governors, and Reprsntatives, who should spread democracy to the grass-roots are really mean, though they got they power from the people.
Agreed. But if the post-independence Nigerian government had consistently the British model, the corrupt state wouldn't thus felt. Presently, the Nigerian Federal Government, is comparabl to the United State government. Nigeria has a puppet federal government.
Speaking of the British model, do you believe that England is as corrupt as Nigeria… given their British model, as you say?
https://theconversation.com/nigeria-a-c … tory-61120
Furthermore, while nearly all Democrats in the U.S. Congress and the White House are corrupt (they enrich themselves while in Congress) I can say that this does not signify that every institution in the United States is corrupt.
Otherwise, you would NOT have millions of people crossing our borders illegally for the chance of a better life.
If we were as corrupt as Nigeria, no one would flock to the U.S. legally or illegally.
No one is flocking to Nigeria, after all.
People from other countries pay coyotes thousands of dollars, to include the transport of their small children for payment, (and a small sum of money) and whose children are then often exploited through sex trafficking and other means by drug cartels.
The United States still has freedom, even if we are currently hanging on to this privilege by a thread due to the corruption of Democrats and even some particularly stupid, rogue Republicans.
So, I disagree that the United States is as corrupt as Nigeria, or England for that matter.
But, we have seen better days, and it is possible that my strong nation is now in decline.Savvydating, well, well said. Did you ever noticed in my comment that I was talking of the Federal Government, and not peoples?
But you have gone too far. I don’t find any fault with that. We’re learning.
I know well about the London corruption issue, for I had a British education and leaning. The oil blocks of Nigeria, is no stranger to me. It became prominent with the Military Government of Military President, General Babangida, who shamelessly style himself the ‘Evil Genus’.
Rtd. General Buhari, now the current President of Nigeria, is not the only corrupt politician Nigeria had, while in power. He may be corrupt or he may not, depending on which school one is learning towards. Presently, there was as allegation of corruption against him I supporting a Presidential incumbent.
Buhari, was a servant, and so fall short of the Nicollo Machiavellian rules.
Here wa a man who before he became civilian president had only around 350,000 Nigeria Naira (now $1 is N450) in his banking account and some herds of cattle as a farmer. He publicly declared this asset when he was campaigning to be president 7 years ago. At the end of his first term, Buhari refused to publicly declared his assets again, saying that the Constitution of Nigeria did not required presidents to do so! But he knows better than this. He was ill advised. Being a public office holder, and a public servant, he should. They're rules in the Code of Conduct for public officers. He should read and noted well. Did he? That I don’t know. But ignorance of the law excused no one. As a military officer, and as Commander-in-chief of the Nigerian Army and Head of State, Buhari should know that. Period.
Now, the very opposite of Americans crossing over to Nigeria or other African countries for greener pastures, if that is practical, is security. The USA embassy has warned her citizens coming to Nigeria, of certain hot spot that endanger they person and to avoid sure, right? I don’t know about other countries.
Nevertheless, I agreed that corruption in always birthed by the government in power. I do had a grues against Ex-President Goodluck Jonathan of Nigeria. When he gave out money for the electrification of Nigeria, it went into private pockets sometimes.. But rtd. General Olusegun Obasanjo, would have had you to give account to the last penny. Otherwise, he wouldn’t give you another sum of money for any public project.
That said, yes, corruption in Government is very rampant all over the world. The Panama Papers is a proof of that.
Savvy, your comment is such that it has given rise to other issues that can be good for another thread, or discussion.
But sorry my post is coming late on my end side because I had an internet connection issue with my ISP. You’re always welcome.
Is climate change a threat to our existence?
Yes.
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 lateGlobally, 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
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.
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.
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.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.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.
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=1Duh, 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.This is very informative. I like the UK Government deals.
We have had many reports in the US that Scotland is aggressively cutting down trees.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/20 … -scotland/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.16 million trees chopped down in Scotland. That is an obscene amount, and so unnecessary when all is said and done.
Well, in my view Scotland was scarfed to benefit England from needing to chop away at their tress...
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"Replacing" a mature old growth tree with a new seedling, or even 10 or 20 seedlings, is not a replacement. The new tree, if it happens to survive (unlike those UK governement trees planted along your country´s roadways, which almost always die) will not be mature for 20 or 30 years, and not be reducing signficant amounts of carbon dioxide for many years after that.
That is the detail that the devils want to hide.Are you trying to score political points? E.g. look who’s talking – over 500 million trees are cut down in the Amazon rainforest each year; and few of those are ever replaced.
Besides – FYI, when tree planning (at least in the UK), the general practice is to plant 3 trees for everyone replaced on the basis that not all will survive to maturity – as you confirmed – the devil is in the details.
Also, FYI, the UK Government trees planted along our country roadways do not die (where did you get that misinformation). FYI, such trees are flourishing e.g. I’ve seen the landscape across Britain change dramatically over the past 30 years, since the Government has started its massive reforestation programme in Britain:-
Bristol is in a basin surrounding by hills. 30 years ago those hills were just fields; now they are mature woodland; likewise, all the trees planted within the city urban area itself have matured, so viewing Bristol from high ground, such as on Durham Downs (common land) you see the city buildings nestled in between the trees.
And, just last week, while on holiday, travelling on the motorway from Bristol to Portsmouth, I noted that much of the journey was driving through mature woodland, whereas 30 years ago it was just open fields.
So no, your description of Government planting trees failing to survive is false information.
Views of the Bristol City Centre from Cabot Tower, showing the wealth of trees in and around the city; Cabot Tower is less than a mile from the city centre: https://youtu.be/-exf7mWDl28?t=120No, no political points at all. I was talking about deforestation and if some slimy corporation is claiming that they are doing it to save the climate they are sadly mistaken.
Yes, what is going on in the rainforest each year is terrible, and no matter how much each of us plant it is not going to replace those old trees.Yeah, what’s happing in the rain forest in Brazil is horrific; and yes, the combined efforts of the rest of the world to plant trees are never going to make up for that lost – But not to make the effort is irresponsible.
When you say: “if some slimy corporation is claiming that they are doing it to save the climate they are sadly mistaken.” I assume you are describing the Scottish Government (SNP) and the UK Government as “slimy corporation”, and that you are saying that the UK and Scottish Governments policy of reforestation of Britain is an attempt to save the planet?
No, of course the Scottish and UK Government’s reforestation of Britain policy isn’t, on its own, going to save the planet; but at least Britain is being responsible in ‘doing it’s bit’ to help save the planet; but to be successful, it has to be a worldwide effort.I was referring to the corporations cutting down trees to make wind farms.
Nathanville… Britain can do nothing to “save the planet.” The planet does not need saving. The planet, along with many other planets will do what they do.
It is extremely arrogant for any government to believe they can save the earth. More precisely, it is greedy to use propaganda to convince their citizens that they know what is best and what is true.
They do not. And they know that.
I ascertain that you believe otherwise.
But at what point do you decide not to be a sheep; at what point do you decide to think for yourself? Sure, your nice civil servant job serves you well in your nicely appointed home.
Meanwhile, the rest of the world scrabbles for every little thing, even within your country.
The poorest of the poor must use wood and dung (great pollutants) to make their meals and heat their huts.
Do you have no understanding whatsoever, of what it means to be poor?
The only thing your UK policy climate policies have managed to do is to seal the coffin on the lives of those who would have, and could have benefited from cheap energy.You are right in assessing countries government arrogance on saving the planet.
You are wrong about cheap energy coming only from conventional sources.
By the way, "wood and dung" are considered renewable energy sources. CO2 absorption and output is balanced, no pollutants on a decade time scale.
However you are right about the poor. The whole climate change and save the planet discussion is only for the have´s and not for the havenot´s.
But that is how politics, influencing, propaganda works: Go and influence those groups of society that are accessable. Poor people tend to be not accessable, they don´t even go voting. And poor people look at the rich and follow. If you refer to "sheep" then the poor are the sheep.
Of course society is a much more complex matter, but in a nutshell this is what is happening. Those who use their head and think for themselves are mostly already in a privileged situation. You may think they run in the wrong direction, but you and all of us have to live with it.This reply comes late. Yes, wood and dung are considered “cheap renewable sources” but they are pollutants, ( cheap, and deadly) especially inside a small hut where small children reside, along with their parents and older relatives. It makes these families very sick.
Correct, Britain cannot save the planet (on its own); it requires a joint effort by the whole world – but its defeatist attitude to not even bother trying to do your bit just because it looks an impossible task. At least when the current climate change increasingly impacts on modern society in a negative way over the coming years and decades countries like Britain (and other countries in Europe and around the world) can hold our heads up with some pride in the knowledge that we at least tried our best to mitigate against the climate crisis.
Yeah, the planet will survive; but modern society, as we know it, is and will continue to take hard knocks from the negative effects of climate change; and by the time that climate change denialists come to realise that, it will be too late. The devastating heatwaves that hit America and Europe this summer (the worst ever, since records began) is just a taster of what’s to come; over the next decade or so such heatwaves will not be the exception, they will be the norm, and they will get worse.
We’ve had a number of mass extinctions on the Earth, some due to climate change, and yes, as you state the planet survived; but on more than one occasion most of life on the Earth was wiped out.
I don’t know why you say “UK policy climate policies ….. seal the coffin” in preventing “cheap energy”. FYI since 2016 Renewable Energy has become cheaper than fossil fuels in two thirds of the world”. To burn fossil fuels for energy means that the power companies have to constantly by more fossil fuels, whereas wind, sun, tidal, wave, hydro and thermal energy is there for the taking. That’s why, overnight from 12:30am to 4:30am, when demand for electricity in Britain is low, and there is consequently a surplus of wind power at that time of night I only pay $0.12 per kWh for the electricity I use – Now if that isn’t cheap electricity, I don’t know what is.But in the meantime:...
Sunak’s new oil and gas licences are ‘moral and economic madness’Yep, Rishi Sunak (UK Conservative Prime Minister) is, as one of his fellow Conservative MPs, Chris Skidmore MP, said on Monday of this week: “This decision is on the wrong side of history.”
Rishi Sunak, since he’s been Prime Minister, since last September, has on the whole been quite levelled headed on most matters concerning the economy and environmental issues; but with the next General Election less than 18 months away, and with the cost of living and fuel crises, he is panicking a bit, and as the General Election looms ever closer, beginning to make poor judgment in a number of areas.
Notwithstanding that compared to the USA, the UK is less obsessive about fossil fuels e.g. we closed our coal mining industry down in the 1980s (for political reasons) leaving 200 years supply of untapped coal underground, and although there is more gas and oil under land in England than there ever was in the North Sea, it was Rishi Sunak, who last year re-imposed the restrictions on fracking, making it impossible for fracking to be commercially viable in England.
Also, on a positive note, any new licences that Rishi Sunak does grant is not likely to deliver new supplies of oil and gas for many years, if ever; with a General Election looming, expansion of the UK oil fields is not likely to happen e.g. current indications strongly point to Labour winning the next General Election at the end of 2024, and Labour’s policy is to end new oil and gas licences, and to transition away from fossil fuels and towards renewables at an even greater pace than the Conservatives have managed to achieve.
In conclusion, nothing is perfect, you can pick holes in any ‘good intention’ plans, but the main thing is that UK, and other European countries, are making the effort; more so than the USA."but with the next General Election less than 18 months away, and with the cost of living and fuel crises, he is panicking a bit,..."
No, this is business, Nathan. Nothing to do with elections. This is monetizing his prime minister position through the company of his wife.
I don't think comparing your country with other countries. is of much use. Look at yourself instead of finger-pointing. Because otherwise, we will be here till hell's frozen over.
Closing the coal mining had nothing to do with saving the planet as you said it was political reasons. You have to look at the motives. Thatcher was definitely not saving the planet. She unleashed together with Ronald Reagan neo-liberalism on this world and that has been destructive as hell for our planet. I'm sure you as a socialist are aware of this. So the closing the mines was a bit of a wrong example.
Parties often do different things when they are in power than what they promise. It is difficult to say what Labour will do when in power. Perhaps if Corbyn was still in power yes, but not with Starmer, he's far more a centrist and can go any way...He would easily go ahead with the oil and gas licenses. (sorry I'm a bit cynical about this, I want to see it first before I believe it..)
The effort the UK and Europe are making is laughable with what actually should be done. They may do better than the US but it is far far away from what should be done.
This year we already reached the 1.5° C above average worldwide!! And there are no signs that this trend is going to stop. On the contrary, the heating up of the earth is going faster than a lot of predictions.
So yes, people start to get fed up with politicians talking but doing nothing. As Biden still gives permits for pipelines and Sunak grants new oil and gas licenses. Canada is still fracking although its country is on fire...
I have the feeling not much has changed. Consumerism is more massive than ever.
" In conclusion, nothing is perfect, you can pick holes in any ‘good intention’ plans.. " True. But you should not do cherry-picking either.Yep I know that all eyes are watching Rishi Sunak like a hawk because of his wife, Akshata Murty e.g. Akshata Murty, an Indian heiress, is the 222nd richest person in Britain with a net worth of £730 million ($930 million), making her wealthier than Prince Charles before he became King e.g. his net worth at that time (2022) being £653 million ($832 million).
She cause political embarrassment to Rishi Sunak when she made a claim for ‘non-domiciled status’; in simple terms ‘non-domiciled status’ is where for an annual fee of £30,000 ($38,000) a wealthy person living in Britain does not have to pay British tax on any wealth they hold outside of the UK provided they don’t transfer that wealth to the UK.
Her claim for ‘non-domiciled status’ was controversial, and the British newspapers (including British the right-wing press) had a field day in embarrassing Rishi Sunak over it; to a point that to calm the waters Akshata Murty voluntarily renounced the fiscal benefits from her non-domiciled status.
But to say that of the Prime Minister’s decision to grant 100 oil licences in the North Sea “This is monetizing the prime minister’s position through the company of his wife” is not factual e.g. Akshata Murty wealth has nothing to do with oil.
Akshata Murty, is an Indian heiress whose personal wealth comes from her share in her father’s business empire in India, and from her own career and investments in:-
• A Dutch clean technology firm.
• Fashion Industry.
• Investments in start-ups, early-stage, and emerging companies that have been deemed to have high growth potential or which have demonstrated high growth.
• A stake interest in two of Jamie Oliver's restaurant businesses.
• An American fast food restaurant in India.
Besides, if Rishi Sunak was truly interested in extracting every ounce of oil and gas from the ground he wouldn’t have made fracking impossible.
Yep, what you say about Margaret Thatcher closing the coal mines in Britain is spot on, she did it to destroy the coal mining union (the most powerful trade union in Britain at the time); but my point, which I perhaps didn’t express, is that coal is a natural resource (national asset) that any government since could have exploited e.g. by re-opening the mines – and I’m sure there are some countries where given the chance they would want to exploit such a natural resource.
Yep, I would much prefer Jeremy Corbyn to Keir Starmer; but Keir Starmer is the democratically elected leader of the Labour Party; yes Keir Starmer isn’t radical like Jeremy Corbyn, but it is Labour’s current political policy not to issue any new oil and gas licenses, and that I am sure will be part of the Election Manifesto come the next General Election.
I don’t know how it works in your country, but in the UK, due to the ‘Salisbury Convention’ (which became part of the British Constitution in 1948) the Election Manifestos (which are published 6 weeks before a General Election) do play an important part in British Politics e.g. the House of Lords is obliged to pass any Bill that is part of the Election Manifesto, but are free to block any Bill they wish that wasn’t part of the Election Manifesto.
Thus, when a Government comes to power its policies are based on its Election Manifesto, and although they don’t always achieve everything they set out in their Election Manifesto (for various reasons, often for reasons beyond their control), the Election Manifesto is a good guide to the direction a newly elected Government takes.
Yeah, Keir Starmer may not be as radical as Jeremy Corbyn was, but the Labour Party (like all political parties in the UK) is committed to the climate change policy; plus the fact that the UK is the only country in the world where carbon net zero is a legal requirement rather than just a target, a law that Theresa May rushed through Parliament in less than 48 hours during her last week in Office as Prime Minister.
Yep I know that by 2027 the global average temperature increase will pass the 1.5° C, and that “there are no signs that this trend is going to stop.”, and that the “heating up of the earth is going faster than a lot of predictions.”
But I wouldn’t say that “The effort the UK and Europe are making is laughable with what actually should be done”:-
• In 2012 (just over 10 years ago) 39% of electricity in the UK came from burning coal, and less than 2% came from Renewable Energy.
• Whereas now, virtually no coal is burnt, and over half of our electricity comes from Renewable Energy – See below, screen shots of today’s National Grid, showing electricity production in Britain, as at the time of me posting this reply.
And this summer 3 new large off-shore windfarms came on line (including the largest off-shore windfarm in the world), and several more large off-shore windfarms are due to go live over the next couple of years; with more in the pipeline for future years.
In my mind, the transition from fossil fuels to Renewable Energy in Britain over the last 10 years isn’t laughable, but quite remarkable. Yes, there is always room to do more, faster, but what Britain and other European countries in the past 10 years is an achievement.
Arthur
July 2023 already breached the 1.5⁰C. Which was expected in 2027. Things are going much faster.
.Scientific American
What the problem is Nathan, is that all the solar power and windmills in the world will not change the course of the climate crisis.
The problem is consumption. Buying stuff and throwing stuff away. As all this stuff has to be made and transported, used and processed when disposed of.
This has not changed. People are still buying tons of clothing, new mobiles, maintenance for their houses, storing food etc.
Then you've got the Bitcoin market that consumes mega loads of energy.
On top of that, you have the computer industry and the cloud services that cost tons of energy too!
This is only increasing. People use more and more data and cloud services for their mobiles every day.
In short, people consume more and more. And this problem is never mentioned let alone regulated by any country. Especially the wealthy countries promote consumption in every way. All countries strive for a growth economy and as long as this is the case we are driving at full speed straight into a wall.
So we can talk about so-called green energy and organic products etc. But that's neglectable on the whole picture.
And frankly, I don't know how this situation is going to change.You seem to be suggesting that we abandon the transition away from fossil fuels to Renewable Energy to create electricity and instead carrying on burning fossil fuels to the cows come home: That’s music to the ears of climate change denialist – How is that meant to help to save the planet?
Also, you seem to be advocating that we all (in the wealthy countries) sacrifice our high living standards by abandoning consumerism. The very idea that we in the industrialised nations will have to sacrifice our high standard of living due to government’s climate change policies is one of the key fears that climate change denialists on this forum regularly cite as one of the main reasons for not supporting such policies to save the planet.
Thanks for the update (link) on the 1.5⁰C; yes there is no doubt that the earth is heating up far faster than predications; which almost certainly means that over the coming decades the climate is going to get more and more hostile for humans before it gets better, and that there is nothing we can do now to stop it. All we can hope for now is to strive to limit the damage as much as possible – and the more we can do to curb our carbon footprint, which includes greater emphases in Renewable Energy, the less the devastation is going to be!
Yes, part of “the problem is consumption. Buying stuff and throwing stuff away” (the throwaway society) including “transportation” etc. But it’s not the whole problem, it’s just part of the problem; eating meat, heating homes, and burning fossil fuels for electricity and transport are all part of the problem.
But you can’t force or persuade people in the wealthy countries to make such big sacrifices and give up their lifestyle and standard of living; trying to do so will only make people more determined not to change. The best you can hope for is to encourage people to make changes voluntarily, and to encourage people to do their bit to help the planet e.g. encourage more people to become vegetarians, encourage people to invest in solar panels on their roofs, encourage people to use public transport rather than drive their private cars everywhere, and to buy electric cars, and to encourage people to find ways of reducing their carbon footprint.
I don’t know what it’s like where you live, but in Britain people are becoming more aware of the issues, and people are increasingly trying to do their bit to reduce their carbon footprint; without making the drastic sacrifices that you advocate.
As regards eating meet in the UK, there has been a steady trend towards vegetarians since the 1970s, and last time I checked about 10% of the British population were vegetarians. But the shift in attitudes in Britain away from eating meat has increased quite notably in the last couple of years since the Government has run a public awareness campaign on the damage that meat eating does to the climate.
Now, only 73% of Brits are meat eaters: 12% are Flexitarians, 6% Vegetarians, 3% Pescetarian and 2% Vegan - see the details here: https://yougov.co.uk/topics/society/art … -and-lifes
Where you say: “In short, people consume more and more. And this problem is never mentioned let alone regulated by any country. Especially the wealthy countries promote consumption in every way”. A lot of what you say is valid, certainly. And everything you refer to (and more) is all part of our ‘carbon footprint’.
I can’t speak for other countries, but in the UK, everything you refer to is part of the ‘carbon footprint’, and is something that the UK Government is monitoring e.g. the UK carbon footprint fell by estimated 13% in 2020 (see full Report): https://www.gov.uk/government/statistic … nd-to-2019
Also, as you should know, reaching carbon net zero by 2050 became law in the UK in 2019, and as such, not only has the UK Government got a legal obligation to reduce the UK’s carbon emission to net zero by 2050, but that law equally applies to all Businesses in the UK; and as such all set clear targets by the UK Government for reducing Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions over key timeframes and listing they planned projects to achieve carbon net zero by 2050, which can include the carbon offset scheme. For example this link is to how the Crown Commercial Service in the UK are aiming to achieve net zero emission by 2050: https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati … ion-policy
So it’s not just about Renewable Energy to reduce fossil fuels for generating electricity, that just part of the whole picture of ‘carbon footprint’, but like other aspects of our carbon footprint e.g. transport, heating, food production, it’s an important element.
We are not going to tackle climate change by just focusing on just one aspect of our carbon footprint e.g. consumerism; every bit that can be done, to reduce our carbon footprint, including Renewable Energy, all helps.You seem to be suggesting that we abandon the transition away from fossil fuels to Renewable Energy...
No not at all, I'm definitely not suggesting that we should stop the transition of fossil fuels toward renewable energy.
What I say is that at the moment renewables are just a small percentage of the world's energy.
And all ships and planes that transport all the goods rely on fossil fuels. All the heavy machinery for the industry relies on diesel.
This won't change. Not in the near future.
That's why the only way to make a sustainable world is to consume less. Buy less products. And this is incredibly difficult.
How do you buy a car that's made locally? All the parts of one car are made in different countries. The resources come from all over the world, transported in diesel-fueled ships.
If you think about that then, yes, renewable energy is just a small part.
And Yes, I'm completely in favor of Just Stop Oil. I support this movement, simply to kick those politicians in the ##ss as otherwise they won't do anything. And the clock is ticking.
To say, the problem is too big and renewables won't work. This is far too fatalistic for me. You have to be active and try to make this place a better world for the next generation. But politicians have to act quickly worldwide to keep the temperature under the 1.5° C increase.
But the reality is simply that too little is done to stop the energy consumption of the West. And so far it looks pretty grim.
As nothing is done there will be a collapse of the society as we know it. There are already millions of refugees on the road as they can't live in the areas where they grew up in as a result of the climate crisis.Just a quick response at this point as I will shortly be going out for the day; but I shall study you points (all of which are valid) in more detail and give a fuller response tomorrow:
But in the meantime; just some data for food for thought:
Global Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Sector:
• Industry = 29.4% (24.2% from Energy used e.g. burning fossil fuels)
• Agriculture = 20.1%
• Buildings (Energy used e.g. fossil fuels for heating and electricity) = 17.5% (Commercial = 6.6% & Residential = 10.9%)
• Transport (Energy used e.g. burning fossil fuels) = 16.2%
• Energy production = 13.6% (including burning of fossil fuels)
• Waste disposal = 3.2%
Total Energy used across all sectors e.g. burning fossil fuels = 73.2%
N.B. The above is based on 2016 data so it's far from up-to-date; but perhaps it should give some flavour of the scale of the problem and the issues?
Thanks, and also a quick note.
They forgot the Bitcoin transactions and the energy for data transport etc.( Powering Data storage buildings etc.)
Quick Google:
Bitcoin currently consumes around 160 terawatt-hours of electricity annually - more than the entire country of Argentina.Thanks for the info; I’ve heard of bitcoin, but bitcoin is something I know little about, and have little understanding of. Following your comments, I Googled the subject (as you suggested) and I did find one article which seems to explain it all in detail, which I have read (link below); but even after reading that article I am still confused on the subject – whether you can explain in laypersons terms?
But one thing that is clear from reading the article is that it’s just sheer craziness and madness, and doesn’t do humanity any good; but one thing that put a smile on my face (irony) is that the bitcoin mining has been banned in China, and that the USA is the epicentre of bitcoin mining!!!!
https://www.toptal.com/finance/blockcha … oin-miningThe amount of energy needed for Bitcoin is huge, and also the amount of electronic waste.
And Bitcoin is just one electronic currency, you have many more who are environmentally unfriendly.
Most articles about Cryptocurrency are written from the market perspective. You have to look for scientific articles that raise the energy costs and environmental issues (disasters) connected with Bitcoin.
Bitcoin is comparable with the Beef industry when you talk about the environmental damage it causes.
Wiki Environmental_effects_of_bitcoin
Bitcoin energy consumptionThanks for the info and links (very educational); it is shocking – and I am speechless.
Reading up on it from your links does make one feel that, with such foolishness at a time like this, mankind does deserve to ‘burn in hell on earth’ (figuratively speaking); although from all the heatwaves and wildfires around the world this year (just a taste of what’s to come) that quote could also be interpreted literally!Yes it is.
The more you know about the climate crisis the more depressing it becomes. Perhaps that's why people don't want to know the harsh reality.
On the other side. It makes you appreciate and understand how amazing life is and how precious and easily destroyed. As well as how privileged we are in the West.
I can imagine that now you're health is doing better you appreciate it too! As you never know what's around the corner.
Joost.Yep, that’s what I love about gardening; an appreciation of nature. And that’s why when on holiday (or day trips) we often visit nature parks and wildlife parks - and explore the British countryside, much of which is protected against development e.g. AONBs (Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty), Conservations Areas and SSSI (Sites of Special Scientific Interest) etc.
Stealth Camping At A Site Of Special Scientific Interest https://youtu.be/6QkuiU6wkh4
There are more than 4,000 SSSI’s in England, identified and protected by Natural England (Government).
Equating beef production, which produces food for human consumption, to something as selfish as Bitcoin is ridiculous. Beef production does not hurt the environment when it is done responsibly.
Saying they are comparable is like saying "solar is bad since wind farms kill birds."Meat accounts for nearly 60% of all greenhouse gases from food production, study finds
And there are lots of other articles about this subject.
Simply google:beef production environmental impactIt is very easy to manipulate data to prove that which is not true. Have you not read the rash of fake papers purporting "evidence" by people like the president of Stanford university in the US?
That Guardian link is so poor that it proves nothing. Of course they show a feedlot, which does produce a lot of water pollution. Why not post a link about all of the greenhouse gases produced by tractors to produce soybeans for vegans?
The main point here is that comparing beef production to Bitcoins in ridiculous. One provides food to humans on this planet (anyone that disagrees and believes those Guardian numbers can just stop eating beef) and one just allows more greedy people to get rich."That Guardian link is so poor that it proves nothing."
The Guardian is a newspaper with a very high standard and does check it's facts. If the facts are not correct you can bet that readers will attack the newspaper.
But I said as well to Google for yourself. So you will find much more articles from different sources that basically say the same. That the meat and dairy industry is terrible for the environment.
You can compare the Bitcoin industry with the meat industry just as you can compare the public transport industry with the clothing industry.
It is not about what a product is used for. It is about how harmful it is to the environment.Maybe about the only news source that provides more leftist slanted info than the Guardian is Google itself. They actively squash conservative media sites and practice active censorship of sites that do not support their agenda.
I still do not think your comparison has value. As I pointed out, your comparison is akin to saying that solar energy is a bad source of renewal energy because wind towers kill birds.
Therefore, following that logic, all renewal energy destroys the environment.I’ve been following the banter between you and Peter with interest.
I’ve known for some time that meat production (including dairy products) account for 57% of all food production greenhouse gas emissions; but I take a more pragmatic view e.g. not eating meat has to be a personal choice, you can’t force people to change their diet, you can only encourage people to change their eating habits to help the planet, and for health reasons – which is the approach the UK Government and the NHS is taking.
The UK government and NHS public awareness campaigns in recent years seem to be having a positive impact. When I checked just a few years ago about 90% of the British public regularly ate meat; but the most recent polls show a different picture:-
• Only 73% of Brits are now meat eaters
• 12% of Brits are now flexitarians
• 6% are vegetarian
• 3% are pescetarian
• 2% are vegan
As you may know, I am a vegetarian, and have been since the age of 13; dairy products being the third highest cause of greenhouse gas emissions, behind that of beef and rice.
Given that not everyone is going to stop eating meat, and even dairy products accounts for a high percentage of greenhouse gas emissions, there are ways of reducing those emissions, as is being done in the UK and a number of EU countries - the action being taken by beef and dairy farmers doesn’t eliminate the problems of greenhouse gas emissions, but it’s a small step in the right direction.
It’s not just Britain; the Republic of Ireland (and other members of the EU) takes the matter very seriously, as this short video indicates: How a beef and dairy farm’s carbon footprint is calculated and audited in the Republic of Ireland https://youtu.be/VAMzV1knxM4
And this is how it is done in the UK: https://youtu.be/-M3-NrSZmQs"Flexitarian" is a term that refers to people that are omnivores. They do not need a separate catergory than what you call "meat eaters" which is also a term vegans use when referring to omnivores, the normal condition for human beings on this planet. So actually your number shows that 88% of Brits are omnivores.
Those numbers on beef production and environmental impact are bogus. The researchers studied feedlots in the US and then extrapolated their results to the rest of the world. It does not work that way. Beef raised on grass and range, which is the case in most of the world, use water not fit for human consumption and utilize land unfit for crops to produce human food. They do not pollute the environment like those antibiotic-injected cattle concentrated into feedlots.
The dairy situation in Ireland is really sad and an example that conservatives are using to fight climate change extremism. Politicians in that country want to kill a good portion of the dairy aniamls there that are providing food to the Irish people. (Later they can start importing food from China and the US. They will still produce just as much pollution, or more since it has to be shipped around the world, but the politicians can claim that they are preventing climate change since their country will not be producing the carbon.)
That country cannot turn that cattle land into crops even if they wanted to. Ireland is a perfect example of a land dominated by landscape that is appropriate for livestock and not cropland.Yeah, flexitarians are omnivores, I didn’t say they weren’t; what I meant to say, and what I said in the text but not in the bullet points, is the number of Brits who regularly eat meat.
Where I said in my bullet points: “Only 73% of Brits are now meat eaters” I meant to say ‘Only 73% of Brits are now regular meat eaters.’
I don’t know if you know any flexitarians in Brazil; but the ones I know typically are either strict vegetarians 5 or 6 days a week and treat themselves to a couple of sausages once or twice a week, or they are strict vegetarians most of the time but can’t resist the smell of bacon, and if offered a bacon sarnie succumb to the temptation. So essentially flexitarians in Britain are more vegetarian than not.
Where you refer to Peter’s link to the Guardian Article and say “Those numbers on beef production and environmental impact are bogus. The researchers studied feedlots in the US and then extrapolated their results to the rest of the world.” the Guardian actually provided a link to the source reference – if you follow that link (copy of link below), and then study the source document you will find that did not extrapolated the results from the USA study to the rest of the world, but in actual fact have been gathering data worldwide since before 2008 e.g. as stated in the report:-
“Moreover, CH4 (methane) and N2O (Nitrous oxide) emissions from agricultural activities are provided globally by different datasets.
That report is detailed and comprehensive and well spruced and referenced – If you have the time it does make an interesting read - link below:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s43016- … ardian.com
But yes, I totally agree with you that cattle raised on grass and range produce significantly less methane that cattle feed on feedlots; just as cattle fed on grassland that is high in clover (as in the republic of Ireland, and Britain) produces even less methane.
I’m not quite sure of the relevance of “water not fit for human consumption”, in that water that’s not fit for human consumption (provided it’s not contaminated) can be used to grow crops just as easily as it can be used to water cattle. Besides, what part of the world are you refereeing to e.g. in Britain (as in the Republic of Ireland) we don’t have water used in agriculture that’s not fit for human consumption; apart from which (apart from predominately South England during droughts, we don’t have a water shortage in Britain.
Where you say “utilize land unfit for crops to produce human food.” most land used for livestock can be used to grow crops, even in Ireland; albeit, these days Milk and beef output, which accounts for over 61% of the Republic of Ireland’s agriculture, is its prime food production because Ireland does have very limited horticultural and grain production on account of its topography and climate. Nevertheless they can and do grow barley, wheat, and oats, and the Irish climate is particular suitable for potatoes and mushrooms.
In England, where the climate is a lot less hostile, land used for livestock can just as easily be used for crops.
I don’t know why you say the dairy situation in Ireland is really sad? Is you statement based on your reference to conservatives (presumably in the USA) using Ireland as an example to fight climate change extremism? If so, then I suspect those example are based on out-dated information e.g. the Milk Quota, which stifled dairy farms, was abolished in 2015, and since then the Milk industry in the Republic of Ireland has flourished, with prospect of a bright future.In Britain and Ireland cattle drink from ponds, which are not able to be used to produce plants unless you take a pump and attach it to a truck and drive it around to the crops. That would produce a lot more pollution than anything that cattle are supposedly producing. Around the world cattle drink from ponds.
Your comment about most land used for cattle being okay for crops is really iincorrect. If you go to southern Ireland you can still see the scars on the hillsides from when they were eroded from plant production during the English occupation of that land. I have not spent much time in the UK but the hillsides of much of Scotland are also built for grazing, not crops.
Here is a link about the Irish plan to murder dairy cows to appease the climate change crowd. https://cowboystatedaily.com/2023/06/02 … erds-next/ If you do not like that link there are many others from the Irish Times and other sources.
This proposal is from 2023 and is not outdated. It has nothing to do with the milk qouta. When I lived in Ireland I knew many farmers that only had 10 cows or less, so a proposal like that is going after the working people that can least afford it.Off topic . . . I read the article on Diabetes for pups Dr. Mark. Thanks for giving attention to my questions. I found it to be very informative and answered my questions. One important point I gathered is more research is needed.
Regarding testing their glucose, today, for humans is the Continuous Glucose Monitoring now available. It is relatively new. It is affixed to the body and then uses a handheld monitor or smartphone for readings. I am considering one. It would be nice if they come up with one for pets. You mentioned that in your article.
I like that they do have an A1C type of test for pups. I depend on my quarterly one to keep me on track and make changes if necessary. Also, the Serum fructosamine test seems to do the trick too.
As with your previous article, the diet/nutrition part was thorough. I still can't get over you can feed pups chicken bones per the way you share. I remember my dad lecturing me about that as a kid.
Again, thanks!!! I hope you get plenty of traffic from it. I plan on sharing it at FB tomorrow morning.My suggested diet does not fit the standard protocol but it will help your friends dogs feel a lot better. I still hear the chicken bone thing a lot but what most people do not know are those birds we buy in the store are soft and not even two months old. Much different than an old layer hen that has been killed after 2 years of procuing eggs for us.
Anyway if you have any other questions on this or other issues just shoot the question off to Pethelpful and I will be glad to help if I can. I will keep my eyes open and when that continuous glucose monitor is available for cats and dogs will add an update to that article.Interesting discussion indeed @tsmog, and @ DrMark, as by-passing the comment system button, that's disfunctional for years. I saw the read likewise, and wonder animals specific dogs go diabetic. Thanks, DrMark, for sharing.
Thanks for the link, most enlightening; but it is only a proposal and under debate (consultation period); the Irish farmers are saying it should be ‘voluntary’ – so we’ll have to wait and see what transpires: But to put it in perspective, in 2022 there were 7.4 million cattle in the Republic of Ireland, so a reduction of 200,000 over three years (as being proposed) is a small reduction of just 2.7%.
Getting onto your other two points:-
1. Whether land used for livestock could be suitable for growing crops.
I my previous post I did acknowledge that livestock is Irelands “prime food production because Ireland does have very limited horticultural and grain production on account of its topography and climate.” which to a large extent is true for Scotland too – so I don’t think we are in total disagreement.
But, that limitation doesn't apply in England. The point I was trying to make is that it’s not as simple as all or nothing; there are a limited range of crops, such as potatoes, that are suited for the Irish and Scottish climate e.g. more than 75% of British potatoes are grown in Scotland.
2. British cattle do NOT “drink from ponds, which are not able to be used to produce plants……”
In Britain:
• 70% of the water used on farms comes from the ‘mains supply’ (drinking water)
• 18% of the water used on farms comes from bore holes, and
• 12% of the water used on farms comes from rivers, streams and springs.
The link below gives further details:
https://ahdb.org.uk/water-supply-proble … tock-farmsThose English water usage figures are interesting, much different than much of the world I have seen.
As I have mentioned,, I have never lived in England so appreciate your comments on the countryside there. Like the midwest US, that is good cropland, farmers choose not to raise cattle since they can make more profit from crops than they can with cattle.
Potatoes are not a good example of a crop that can be used on livestock range however as most are grown in fields, unlike the steep hillsides in the highlands of Scotland or southern Ireland. At least in Ireland, those fields that do produce that starch are in the Shannon valley and other croplands of a similar type.
Yes, I remember that the Irish cattle slaughter is only a proposal at this point. I hope for the sake of so many small dairymen there that it does not go through.I said I would review my notes on the economic situation as set forth by US Bank.
What they have stated is that the European Bank's Central shift to restrictive policies will dampen "economic prospects."
This means that high energy prices, along with higher food prices are eroding consumer confidence in Europe. Die-hard climate disciples are, however, willing to ignore this deterioration if they are personally doing okay.
I find in my own country that the price of everything has gone up significantly. While the war in Europe plays a part, the truth is that the war on energy has played a more significant role. It takes ships and trucks to transport food and goods. These ships and trucks cannot rely on electric vehicles to get to their destination without an enormous cost.
In the United States, more electric cars equals more pollution. This is not something one considers in Europe because the UK is the size of a dot compared to the rest of the world, including India, Russia, and China, countries that have no interest at all in reducing carbon emissions.
Air travel is another boogieman of the far Left. But what they fail to see is that air travel allows medical professionals and the expertise of other emergency personnel to enter countries that might not otherwise be served by the medical community, and by those who can supply clean water and other humanitarian relief.
Malaria is still a problem today though it need not be. Toxin controls proposed by Rachel Carson have devastated the lives of millions of people around the globe who have died from malaria to the cost of 200 billion by the late 1990s. How is that sound economics?
In the UK, one hears of 5 million new jobs being created through green energy, even as advisors warn that 10 million jobs could be at risk. This is not sound economics.
The US debt has increased to 32 Trillion dollars, and much of that money is allocated to climate change. This is hurting Americans. And given our trajectory, the prices of food and goods will increase each year. As the United States goes, so goes the rest of the world.
The EU has promised a greater cut in emissions than other countries, but that will cost EU citizens 1.5 trillion over the next three decades. A very expensive way to achieve almost nothing, meaning less than 1% less warming even if we were to achieve net zero, which is impossible and unnecessary.
We would be better served to use sound economics to increase our wealth, not decrease it for the sake of climate fear.
Today, the Biden administration is going after our farmland. How is that a sound economic decision? It isn't. It only means that fewer people will have enough food and that US farmers will lose their livelihood. This is already happening to the Dutch farmers.
Contrary to popular opinion, the climate agenda has nothing to do with sound science and everything to do with controlling the populace, enriching the elites and wealthy corporations. Sadly, it is also about depopulating the undesirables from the planet, to a degree. This is what I find most sinister.
Many in the West and the UK do not have a handle on how badly people around the globe will suffer if bad politicians and lobbyists have their way.Yes, the climate crisis effects the way we live as it is a global phenomonon. And as we live in a world economy its effects are wide spread.
More and more people can't live anymore in the countries they were born in. Because of drought, heat, drink water shortage... And so the have to move. There's already a huge immigration going on. Every year more and more refugees look for a better place to live.
The same global problem goes with food. You see what the war in Ukraine has done to the grain (and related products) suply in the world.
The fosil fuel resources are a problem. Not only do they effect hugely the climate but also they are finite.
The western economy is based on growth. But this is not realistic as resources are finite. And so there comes apoint that this growth economy will tumble down. To prevent this the economic model has to be changed. But I have yet to see a world leader who is willing or able to do so.
As in the end it is the companies who have the power.
If I remember correctly it was Ronald Reagan who said "The debt is big enough to take care of itself” ...
The United States lives on its debt. That's not something new.
It lives on the "live now pay later" idea. But there comes a time you have to pay back.
The energy of transport is a huge problem. Interestingly the idea of electric cars started with electric trucks and buses before the idea was brought to cars.
And in many countries buses are electric.
I think governments around the world should promote more public transport. Build proper railroad networks and bus routes. Instead of promoting everyone to have an electric car.
---Contrary to popular opinion, the climate agenda has nothing to do with sound science and everything to do with controlling the populace, enriching the elites and wealthy corporations. Sadly, it is also about depopulating the undesirables from the planet, to a degree. This is what I find most sinister.---
I don't know what the popular opinion is. But yes, the climate crisis will hit the poorest of society first. It is classic disaster capitalism.
At the moment oil companies are cashing in as never before. Keeping the lie awake that the climate crisis is a hoax. Exactly the same tactics the tobacco companies did to stop believing people that smoking was bad for your health.
What scientists are warning about is not popular among politicians as it goes against the growth economy. And all big companies are lobbying like crazy to put a brake on climate crisis rules and regulations.
What the science tells us is brutal. And the uncomfortable truth as All Gore years ago coined is not a popular idea. Exactly because it's uncomfortable. But this was years ago. uncomfortable truth has become deadly truth.
What is sinister is that the climate crisis will make a brutal world to live in for the 99%. The top 1% richest of the world will probably survive somewhere in New Zeeland. But the have not's like us will suffer greatly. It's not about race or gender this thing. It's about having billions or not having billions of dollars."What is sinister is that the climate crisis will make a brutal world to live in for the 99%. The top 1% richest of the world will probably survive somewhere in New Zeeland. But the have not's like us will suffer greatly. It's not about race or gender this thing. It's about having billions or not having billions of dollars."
The plutocrats and oligarchs (1%) believe that they would survive in a world rendered uninhabitable to the other 99 percent? It may take a little longer but they too will reap the result of the proverbial bird that fouls its own nest. It is fitting justice that they, too, will receive for their greed and poor judgement. No one can indefinitely insulate themselves from the biosphere of this planet, no matter how much money they have. But, they will try.
Over time, will it become The Eloy versus the Murlocks?
Most of the information you give in your lengthy reply is totally inaccurate; I’ll not point out the inaccuracies paragraph by paragraph or otherwise you will accuse me of making lengthy replies.
Instead I’ll just pick on one point you make which is totally false information.
You said: “In the UK, …. 5 million new jobs being created through green energy, even as advisors warn that 10 million jobs could be at risk. This is not sound economics.”
Excuse me; the UK is but a small country, as you so often take pride in pointing out – Our total workforce in the UK is only 32.93 million, so to suggest that a third of them (10 million) work for the fossil fuel sector by any stretch of the imagination wouldn’t be physically possible.
FYI, currently, only 36,000 people in the UK work in the fossil fuel sector; and many have skills that are sought after in the Renewable Sector.
Likewise, with a UK working population of just 32.93 million, I find it hard to imagine that 5 million (15%) of the UK workforce would end up working in the Renewable Energy Sector.
The actually number of people in the UK currently working in the Renewable Energy Sector is around 250,000 jobs; with up to another half million likely to be created over the coming years - Therefore it does make good economic sense.
Therefore, when you make bold statements I wish you would check the validity of them, and not keep spouting inaccurate information as if it was true; or if you are convinced your data is true then provide the evidence to prove your point.Picking up on just a couple of points - where you say”
“In the United States, more electric cars equals more pollution. This is not something one considers in Europe because the UK is the size of a dot compared to the rest of the world,…..”
How do you figure that more electric cars equals more pollution than cars burning gasoline. Cars running on gasoline pollute the planet from the exhaust fumes, an electric car doesn’t.
The UK is not Europe; the UK is just a part of Europe, just like New York is just a part of the USA. So are you suggesting that environmental impact in Europe is insignificant because Europe is but a dot compared to the USA and the rest of the world? FYI, the population of the EU is 50% bigger than the population of the USA - and the GDP of the EU isn’t that much less than the GDP of the USA.
Arthur, an article that discusses the impetus behind climate change denial, at least here in Florida.
But the propaganda starts in grade school, remarkable, isn't it?
https://news.yahoo.com/videos-denying-c … 31644.htmlThank you, credence, for the link. Certain politicians are not agreeing to climate changes, or crisis.
Thanks for the link Credence; the indoctrination at such a young age - that is just dreadful.
If you say that Google is left-wing slanted then I guess you're eating left-wing chicken soup.
"your comparison is akin to saying that solar energy is a bad source of renewal energy because wind towers kill birds."
comparison is not the same thing as because
Comparison is comparing two apples and two pears are two of a fruit, I can compare their calories, their shape, their colour, their taste, their size etc. although they are completely different fruit.
"because" is a cause/effect The apple fell from the tree because of gravity.
This is a totally different concept.
I haven’t replied sooner because I was preoccupied with seeing my NHS Hospital Consultant yesterday, and I wanted to carefully study and think about all your valid points in details before giving any response. All the tests I had when I saw my NHS Doctor last week all came back giving me a clean bill of health; so when I saw my NHS Hospital Consultant yesterday, as I have now made a full and sustained recovery from my illness a couple of years ago, he was able to discharge me from his hospital care – Yippee (no more hospital appointment). But it was an interesting appointment in that with him, my NHS Hospital Consultant had a medical consultant from the Egyptian healthcare who’d come to Britain to get an inside view on how the NHS functions.
Getting back on topic:
Yep, as many quite rightly keep pointing out in this forum, as Britain is only responsible for 1% of the global carbon emissions, any efforts Britain makes to reduce its carbon emission will (other than lead by example, and innovate) will have little effect on the climate.
It’s not a problem any single country can solve, it has to be a worldwide effort; but that doesn’t mean that individual counties should just give up trying, or not bother at all. The more that individuals and governments do to combat climate change the better; it all contributes to a worldwide joint effort.
CO2 Emissions by Country (Just some examples):
• China = 29.18% - Highest in the world.
• USA = 14.02% - 2nd highest in the world.
• Germany = 2.17% - 6th highest in the world.
• Australia = 1.16% - 14th highest in the world.
• UK = 1.03% and – 17th highest in the world.
• Spain = 0.7% - 24th highest in the world.
I’ve read through your comments several times; and there is very little I can add, other than perhaps the R&D (Research & Development) and progress being made in a number of countries around the world, including in Britain – which in themselves are a long way from solving the problems you highlight, but if nothing else, are a step in the right direction:
Examples being:-
• As regards ship: ferries between islands in Scotland are now powered by green hydrogen, not diesel.
• Buses in major cities across Britain as now predominately powered by green gas and not diesel; as are an increasing number of local government Lorries.
• Planes are a tricky one; although there is R&D into electric planes, albeit at a very early stage, so we’re not likely to see anything on a commercial scale in the foreseeable future.
• Sale of new fossil fuel cars is due to be banned in the UK in 2030.
• In the UK Natural Gas Boilers (heating in domestic homes) are being phased out now, and the sale of new boilers will be banned by 2035; with the UK government aiming to cease supplying natural gas to domestic homes by the mid-2040s.
• Trains is a major form of transport in the UK for both passengers and goods; it’s something the UK Government has been working hard to electrify since 2012; with 71% of UK trains, since 2022, now be electric. But electrifying the whole train network is an expensive and slow process, so the UK Government is keen to replace much of the remaining diesel trains with green hydrogen train as an easier, quicker and cheaper option – And to put the pressure on, all diesel trains are set to be banned in the UK by 2040.
Britain is now one of 10 countries with green hydrogen trains.
So yes, efforts we make as individual may not have much impact by themselves; but the accumulative effects will perhaps go a little way towards mitigation against climate change – but as a world, the efforts are probably too little, too late – But no reason to give up trying.
Likewise, Renewable Energy is only part of the solution; consumerism, transport, meat eating, and as you pointed out, Bitcoin mining etc., all contribute towards climate change e.g. our carbon footprint. And thus, all need to be tackled to minimise our carbon footprint as far as is acceptable by society.
I wouldn’t go as far as saying “nothing is being done”; many countries, including Britain, have and are making a lot of effort to reduce our carbon footprint, and transition from fossil fuels to Renewable Energy; but in the light of the report published last week (link below), it may well be too little, too late – and it seems that sooner rather than later many in wealthy countries will get a rude awakening (when it’s too late).
https://www.newscientist.com/article/23 … -heats-up/
And yes I’m fully aware of, as you say “There are already millions of refugees on the road as they can't live in the areas where they grew up in as a result of the climate crisis.”; but there are some on this forum that choose to be ignorant of that fact!
This looks like an interesting and fun tool (just ignore the offset options), any thoughts?
https://www.carbonfootprint.com/calculator.aspx
ArthurInteresting tool.
I can do and twist and try but i always end up above 11 tons of CO2 per year.
The tool seems to be a little inconsistent, because for living it asks for household size but for everything else it is per person.
Accumulated car travel distance is household related, at least to a significant percentage. Like our household of 2, 2 cars, 1 car doing the heavy lifting while the small electric car is more for convenience and not having to use the bike while raining. It is a more than 10 to 1 ratio for the gas guzzler, but combined distance has to be divided by 2 me think.
Actually our household behavior perfectly well displays the implications of green politics. Green and supposedly low CO2 is mostly for the well situated people. Driving an electric car to substitute the inconvenience of waitung for the bus or riding your bicycle turns any CO2 reduction balance upside down.
Of couse an electric car produces less CO2 over its lifecycle if compared to a combustion engine car. But are lifecycles comparable? Observing our road traffic my personal 10:1 ratio is probably a little exaggerated. But even at 70:30 (70% combustion engine car household use and 30% electric car use) the statistical CO2 balance advantage for e-mobility is questionable.
This is the status of today. But situation changes. In a few years electric cars will have range, will utilize less CO2 in production and will get more affordable as happens to every new and helpful technology. Airbags, ABS braking were first intruduced in luxury cars. Today every subcompact has these features.Wow, 11 tons of CO2 per year. I’ve given it a couple of tries, with different variants on a theme; I get between around 6 & 7.8 tons of CO2 per year.
Yeah, it’s not a precision tool, it does seem to be a little inconsistent as you observed; I think it gives you a rough guide rather than an accurate guide – which for some might be useful?Either I am doing the calculator wrong or I almost have no carbon footprint. My result is 0.17 metric tons of CO2 for the month of July 2023. (2.07 annually if each month was the same) The average for U.S. is 15.24 metric tons. Is that annual? Consider July I used minimal A/C. Also, my natural gas therm during winter is higher and electricity is less. Maybe, if I dug deep I would use my annual costs. I may do that later.
My . . .
Electricity was 388 kwhr
Natural Gas was 7 therms
Car = 40 miles per month
Secondary stuff = $548
So, what do you think, did I do it wrong? Otherwise, I see no way I can lower my carbon footprint at this time.
Edit: I was not really sure what they meant with all the secondary stuff. Like for TV it is bought and paid for, so entered zero.Yeah, it would be useful if there was a help menu with it e.g. to answer questions, especially all the secondary stuff.
But certainly, from the information you’ve given above, I would say that your carbon footprint is going to be extremely low anyway.
The 2.07 tons of CO2 you quoted for yourself is only 3 to 4 times less than the figures I got for myself, so considering that you do live in a mobile home with low electricity and gas usage, and you don’t drive much, then I would think the 2 tons annual you quoted would seem reasonable – and something to be proud of.I just did it using my actual annual costs for 2022 where I did a lot of driving because of medical appointments. And, I included more items in the secondary section. It arrived at 3.05 metric tons for the year or 0.25 / mth. For July 2023, it was 0.17, so the difference is 0.08 higher / mth.
Just looked at the info section. Wow!! It stated average US 15.24 tons vs. Europe at 6.8 tons and worldwide is 4.79 tons. hmmm . . .
Edit:
I looked at CO2 Emissions (Metric Tons per capita for 2020) for countries by The World Bank. It lists countries and at the bottom gives other statistics too. It gave me pause while thinking of things like poor nations vs rich nations, contrast/compare weather, and which nations are dependent on vehicles and aircraft.
Oh no! Forgot to leave the link. Here it is.
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PCYeah, it does give pause for thought – but even your revised personal carbon footprint figure is very respectable IMHO.
Thanks for the link to the worldbank, it certainly does show the stark difference between rich and poor counties.
According to the worldbank the USA is listed as 9th from the top, countries like Australia and Canada have higher carbon footprints per capita. I’ve listed just a few from the worldbank list, in order from high to low – but for anybody interested, it’s certainly worth have a peak at your link.
• Australia = 14.8
• Canada = 13.6
• USA = 13 (9th highest)
• China = 7.8
• Germany = 7.3
• EU = 5.5
• UK = 4.6
• Spain = 4.3
• Brazil = 1.9
• Nigeria = 0.5
With reference to your initial question about how to fill in the form for ‘secondary stuff’ like the TV: On reflection I think it only applies to new purchases over the past year e.g. the additional carbon footprint for any TV you already have will be covered by the electricity it uses, which is covered in your electric usage elsewhere on the form. Whereas if you buy something new during the year that will attract an additional carbon footprint associated with the manufacture and transportation (supply chain) of that TV from the factory, to the shop, and finally delivery to your home.
"Secondary" alone made up for 7 tons of CO2. I took numbers from my bank account analysis. There is a degree of uncertainty, because i don´t track my wife´s account that thoroughly.
Anyways, seems that the 7 or 8 tons have to be divided by 2, and then i come up with a total of 7-8 tons of CO2 per year.
The tool is very inconsistent and allows for high error margins.
If i had used this tool 6 years ago, my business travel routine would have spoiled the show completely. My flights were equivalent to 4 times the equator per year, and that in business (65 tons of CO2 per year only for flying).Different subject. What is the average temperature in England or the UK, if you prefer, this week. When I looked it up, I found that it has been about 68 F, / 20 Celsius. Is that your idea of a heatwave? Where I live that is fall weather, the mildest temperature imaginable.
Duh, do you not watch world events in the news – obviously not?
The heatwave in Europe this year, which exceeded 48 °C (118 °F), was in a heat dome over mainland Europe south of the Jet Stream; Britain this year was outside of that heat dome, on the north side of the Jet Stream, so the hottest temperature in Britain this year only reached 30 °C (86 °F).
To understand the above statement you need to understand what ‘Heat Domes’ and ‘Jet Streams’ are.
Last year (2022) Britain was south of the Jet Stream during the summer months, and thus inside the heat dome that hit Europe last summer; so last year temperatures in Britain reached 40.3 °C (104.5 °F)
UK sees hottest day on record, and wildfires near London (2022 heatwave): https://youtu.be/p_Ap2JQsFtE
Britain does not have heatwaves every year, but in the last 20 years heatwaves in Britain have become more frequent and hotter: Heatwaves in Britain prior to 1976 were rare, just 4 in two centuries. Whereas, since 1976 we’ve had 10 heatwaves, of which 7 have been in the last 20 years, and 6 of those within the last 10 years:
UK Heatwaves since 1976:
• 1976 = 35.9°C (96.6°F)
• 1990 = 37.1°C (98.8°F)
• 1995 = 35.2°C (95.4°F)
• 2003 = 38.5°C (101.3°F)
• 2013 = 34.1°C (93.4°F)
• 2018 = 35.3°C (95.5°F)
• 2019 = 38.7°C (101.7°F)
• 2020 = 37.8°C (100°F)
• 2021 = 32.2 °C (90.0 °F)
• 2022 = 40.3°C (104.5°F)Not so in my country, Nigeria, where I live presently.
The temperature is around 27C. But it's the rainy season. At the time it soared up and goes down, due to weather vagaries.
But Nigerians are much more to do with fossil fuel than any energy outlet available.
Green renewable energy, is not from Nigeria, now. It'll take time in the future.
From my database, when Great Britain shut down her coal mines, Nigeria, was harnessing the coals for other purposes, until the steam locomotion or engine arrived. Presently, Nigeria is still In using some steam engines to drive her trains, from China.
How much Co2 that is emitted from that, I don't have the statistics. The Federal Government of Nigeria, which operates the trains has not published anything relating to that.
All in all, the total Co2 emitted from companies, households, and what one may add is very minor.Interesting.
So, in your country, it’s about 80F on a bad day, this summer. Also not a crisis by any stretch of the imagination.FYI, if you check, you will find out that August is Nigeria's coldest month of the year - Nigeria's hottest month is April. So what is the relevance in picking Nigeria's coldest month as an example of how hot it doesn't get in Nigeria?
As we live on one planet, questions like this on local and momentary situations is not appropriate.
In my region in G. (fairly comparable to the UK) June was very dry and hot, while July was rainy and cold. So - is July worth more than June to judge on climate change?The question is highly appropriate. 68F is not a crisis, so why does everyone from the UK keep talking about a massive heat wave?
That strikes me as nonsensical.It’s very relevant: In June this year we only had temperatures up to 86 °F (30°C) in Britain; but in the heatwave that hit Britain last year it reached 104.5°F (40.3°C) – the 5th heatwave 5 years in a row.
Are you telling me that 104.5°F is not hot?
Watch this video below and tell me that the UK doesn’t suffer from massive heatwaves these days:-
UK sees hottest day on record, and wildfires near London (2022 heatwave): https://youtu.be/p_Ap2JQsFtEFires do cause heat. The question is, what caused the fires. California, for example, has a fire problem because the environmentalists demanded that dry brush not be removed for the benefit of certain animal species. Meanwhile, the forest burns, destroying everything in its path, including animals.
Stupid.
The UK is currently experiencing mild temperatures.
I checked.
Relax.The UK is currently experiencing mild temperatures, yes; but that doesn’t alter the fact that, that over the past 20 years we’ve now get extreme heat most every summer – whereas prior to 2003 we hardly ever had summer temperatures above 90.0°F, and certainly never above 100°F.
So although we didn’t get a heatwave in Britain this summer the probability of another heatwave hitting Britain within the next year or two is very high. So why should I relax?
As regards the cause of the wildfires we had in Britain last year: Did you know that heatwaves makes the ground tinder dry?
That’s why (because of the sheer heat making the ground tinder dry) many devastating wildfires have swept across Europe and Canada, and other parts of the world this year – the latest being in Hawaii yesterday.
This Week: At least 36 killed on Maui as fires burn through Hawaii and thousands race to escape https://youtu.be/6T9pc0SFcRE
And it wasn’t just one wildfire in Britain last year; there were hundreds of wildfires in Britain from July to September last year. In recent years more than 20,000 hectares of land (50,000 acres/ 77 square miles of land have been lost due to wildfires in the UK in recent years.
UK Heatwave 2022 causes dozens of wildfires across Britain: https://youtu.be/yhBP1eMRJro"Two astronomers have taken a new look at 240 studies of the world's climate and offered a challenge to global warming doom-mongers. Britain was probably warmer for Robin Hood and Richard Lionheart 1,000 years ago, they say."
https://www.theguardian.com/science/200 … s.researchYep, the report was published in 2003; at that time we’d only had three well dispersed heatwaves, one in 1976, one in 1990 and one in 1995, and none of those reached 100°F (38°C); and at that time British summers in the intervening years where much cooler, although noticeable warmer from the 1980’s but nowhere as hot as they are most years in the past 20 years.
So put in simple terms, the report is out dated.
Ahhhh 68F, it reached 100F yesterday on our property in Central Florida! I felt it, I was gardening in it!
But, that has happened in August, in Florida, in the South...many times before. We call it "Summer"! It was 81F on the east coast of Florida, while I was there last week. That 81F ocean breeze was heavenly. If only I could get my hubby to live on the coast!
Right? 68F is perfect weather.
It’s been 98 to 101F where I live, but starting to cool off this month. When I was little, back in the 60’s, I lived in the Mohave Valley. My brother and I would play outside in 105F. We thought nothing of it because we were having too much fun exploring the desert.
My understanding is that back during the Dust Bowl, the temperature reached 131F in June or July.
And it had nothing to do with carbon emissions.You understand correctly!
It was the same for us in the south. We were outside all day long, if there wasn't a pool or a lake to jump into, we'd be spraying the garden hose at one another!
Good times, great memories!No of course the 105°F you had back in the 1960’s where you lived as a kid has nothing to do with carbon emissions (climate change); that is naturally a hot part of the world (local climate) and the full effects of global warming weren’t felt in those days – It’s only in the past 40 years (since the 1980’s) that the effects of global warming is being felt across the world. Back in the 1960s we constantly had cold winters and cool summers e.g. the big freeze of 63; but in the last 20 years all that has changed, our summers are generally much hotter, and our winters more mild.
Are we talking about climate change or local heat wave or cold wave?
Almost 40 years ago i listened to a lecture of a meteorologist about our local climate. The guy said that our average rainfall was just about the same as in continental steppes of Kasachstan or Midwestern prairies. But we are living in all shades of green, not grey.
The reason why it was always green in our place was simply because we had rain within short intervals, even if it was only a little rain.
This is changing now. Intervals get longer, we now have long periodes of drought, then followed by heavy rain floodings.
There is no use pounding on 68F. Is probably the wet and strong rain period.
It is much more of an issue that intervals get longer and nature is not well prepared to adapt. In other words: climate changes faster than vegetation can react and grow drought resistant plants/trees. And "sponge" capacity of the soil is not able to cope with heavy rains either, leading to periodic floodings.
Air can take up more water with rising temperatures. 1° C temperature rise is eqivalent to 5-6 mm of rain (almost 1/4 inch). So if average temperatures rise, then there is more water, more humidity in the air. And this humidity is missing on the ground, causing drought. And then, if temperatures drop, this storage of water is released, causing heavy rains...
No rocket science, no conspiracies, simple physics. And physics don´t care if it is man made or by nature. Climate change is happening. Nature can´t react fast enough, but man has to adapt and does adapt: by technology in developed countries, by migration away from hot regions in 3rd world and developing countries.One problem I see is that climate change politicians are using this issue to try and influence votes. It is a local heat wave, and Hillary Clinton tells everyone it is Trumps fault and if they do not like the heat to vote Democrat;
As you point out, there is a lot more going on that just local heat waves and regional cool weather.Yeah, it’s become political in America, but that doesn’t mean that it’s political in countries around the world e.g. all political parties in the UK support climate change policies. So when it comes to elections (votes) in the UK, as all political parties are on the same side when it comes to climate change, it’s not a voting issue.
No, it is not political in Europe but it is very political here in south America. Our new socialist president promised to end Amazon deforestation and climate change and gained many votes because of that stance. Deforestation in the early part of this year has been higher than at any time since his previous term, much higher than during Bolsanaro´s term of office.
Yep, all eyes on this side of the pond are on the deforestation problem in the Amazon.
What is the time frame you speak of? More specifically, how long are these intervals?
And how in the world are people supposed to migrate away from hot regions?
Who is going to give them the money? And why should they leave when they could experience comfort, and in some cases an alleviation from poverty, comparatively speaking.
What they need (speaking of those you say should move) is for charitable people and goodwill entities to provide them with some cheap, clean, fossil fuel energy, or a goat, and certainly safe drinking water, at the very least.
Green energy is not kind to people or the planet. It simply isn’t.
As an aside, our friend, Nathanville, can spill all the word “vomit” (a term used for anyone who uses too many words to distract from the truth), and endless, biased graphs he wants. (I was told he writes for the Socialist government)
Anyway, it will make no difference to the planet, because the planet is not influenced by humans, some of whom are arrogant enough to believe they can control the climate.
That being said, I was raised to be a good steward of the earth. I know that, having been influenced by devout SDA grandparents, that we must put back into the earth what we take out. That is what we must do. We must also have common sense.
Getting rid of cows and driving electric cars will cause more harm than good. (I’ve already posted a link about electric cars.)
Or… do the population bomb conspirators continue to think that the poor take up too much space? As someone (perhaps you) mentioned, they don’t vote, so…
What I find rather disingenuous, to say the least, is that all of you “on the other side of the pond” keep whining about hot temperatures, knowing all the while that you have experienced mild temperatures this summer.
Not okay.Where you say “What I find rather disingenuous, to say the least, is that all of you “on the other side of the pond” keep whining about hot temperatures, knowing all the while that you have experienced mild temperatures this summer.” Where do you get that false statement from?
Haven’t you watched any news this summer’s European heatwave with temperatures up to 48 °C (118 °F); causing over 60,000 heat related deaths, and wildfires. So how do you call that mild summer temperatures.
As you don’t seem to watch the news, this video will give some insight:
2023: Europe struggles under record-breaking heat wave https://youtu.be/n3c1heM7Ys0..What is the time frame you speak of? More specifically, how long are these intervals?...
When i was a kid, we had rain at least once per week. And that in summer. Winter had always lowest rain/snowfall of the year.
This is changing. Now we have periods of 4 to 8 weeks. May and June this year were dry and sunny. July and August are rainy with many thunderstorms.
Last year July until September were dry, almost 3 months. In August/September 2022 this had direct impact on electricity prices. Thermal power plants require cooling water. If rivers run low, then no cooling, no electricity, thus resulting in high electricity prices.
Concerning temperatures: I have some experience with living in multiple locations on our planet. It is a difference enduring 110F in Arizona or some 80F in my place. Air humidity plays the trick. Not really complaining, it is simply different.
It is not about the temperature and climate itself, it is about its change.Appreciate your reply, Chris.
The climate is ever changing.
According to some in the UK, the last 40 years (of temperature) seems to be, in your minds, quite significant.
Why so? Surely you do not believe climate can be measured in 40 years, given the age of our planet?
Or do you believe that 40 years of heat or cold or perfect temperature, all around the globe, is all that is required for one to assume the planet is heating to the brink of extinction?FYI - It’s not just about the last 40 years in isolation; according to Paleoclimatologists it’s about the last 40 years in relation to the last 800,000 years.
According to the Paleoclimatologists the current climatic warming is occurring much more rapidly than past warming events; by up to at least 20 times faster, and it’s the speed of change that is damaging to eco systems and mankind e.g. too fast for us and nature to adapt.
One false claim you often make is that the wealthy countries burning fossil fuels is good for those living in poor countries, and that Renewable Energy is harmful to people living in poor countries; but according to the Paleoclimatologists, the result of burning fossil fuels on the scale that we currently burn fossil fuels is changing the climate at such a rapid pace that not only will ecosystems be affected, but the very poor that you claim you want to help will be adversely affected by manmade climate change - To Quote from the Paleoclimatologists:
“Hardest hit will be those living in low-lying coastal areas, and residents of poorer countries who do not have the resources to adapt to changes in temperature extremes and water resources.”
And the above statement by Paleoclimatologists is not just prediction; if you’ve been watching the news of world events the last couple of years, you will know that people in poor countries are already suffering from these climate change effects.
This document by Paleoclimatologists provides a detailed picture:
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/featu … /page1.phpWell, I hope your government pays you well to promote propaganda. NASA is one of the worst offenders, when it comes to twisting data to suit their agenda.
Every point in that article blatantly ignores much needed context.
We all know you are a loyal disciple of the Climate cult. Activism is your god, and a very destructive one. Once your personal standard of living decreases significantly, due to all the things you have to cut back on because your government has adopted useless UN climate dictates, then maybe your eyes will be opened. But I doubt it.Your only defence is to rubbish the evidence (evidence supported by the vast majority of scientists around the world) and to make personal attacks.
Where you say "Well, I hope your government pays you well to promote propaganda."; firstly my government is a right-wing conservative government, which isn't my politics; secondly, it's not propaganda, the scientific evidence is now overwhelming.
Besides, your last argument is unfounded and just scaremongering; my standard of living isn’t decreasing, and neither am I having to cut back on anything, due to the UK’s own Climate Change policies: If you are going to make such (false) allegations, then give examples to back up your argument.
How is my standard of living decreasing due to the UK’s Conservative Climate Change Policy?
What do I have to cut back on due to the UK’s Conservative Climate Change Policy?
On the contrary, people all around the world are already suffering the consequences of manmade climate change; and it’s going to get worst in the years to come – this year e.g. Hawaii is just a taster of what’s to come.
Contrary to your person insults: The reason I support my own Conservative Government Climate Change Policy is because I now know from the scientific community that the Climate Change crisis is real.
Prior to 2012 I was sceptical about the claims, but the scientific evidence is overwhelming – But unfortunately, by the time that climate change denialists realise that it’s real; it will be too late to do anything about it.It’s strange that every scientist and every scientific organisation in the world that supports manmade climate change (which is the vast majority of the scientific community) you dismiss out of hand.
Who are people to believe, what the scientific community is saying, or what you are saying?
You say that “Every point in that article blatantly ignores much needed context” – explain; what context is ignored by the scientists – let’s have a fruitful discussion, rather than you just dismissing out of hand everything you disagree with, and making personal attacks on people who disagree with you.This is terrible. I hope savvydating, make a good turn around to her 'fruitful discussion'. Wondering if a robot, is now doing all her postings.
It is not strange.
If scientists do not sign off on the climate change narrative proposed by the IPCC, they do not get grant money to study their area of specialization. Not one penny. If they dare to counter the prescribed narrative, they lose their jobs.
Even scientists have mortgages and families, so of course they will agree…
Otherwise, they are throwing their education away.
I realize that you have no idea just how much the study of climate has been corrupted, but it has been nevertheless.
And every specific point I’ve made you have dismissed with talking points from biased charts and heavily manipulated data.
As an aside, I also realize that you believe Greta Thunberg actually knows what she is talking about and that her family is not motivated by greed. So, some people are more amenable to certain information. That’s life.
I think of all the people in the world who will have to do with significantly less because of the greed of a handful of politicians, activists in academia, and the dictates of the UN.
As for your asking me to address the massive amount of false data that is in that report, sorry, I don’t have all day.
How about if you pick or one or two subjects at a time, like our friends Chris and Peter so kindly do, if you are truly that interested in a “fruitful” discussion?
As it is, I do not appreciate how you are using this forum. Your massive posting is out of line, and it is not fruitful when endless amounts of charts and links and lists monopolize the entire discussion.
That is not the purpose of forums, and I wish you would stop taking advantage in this manner. It simply isn’t appropriate.
I ask again that you try to be fair. That is the only way to have fruitful conversations.The key to your beliefs on climate change hinges on the scientist being wrong; so it’s no surprise that you try to discredit the scientist. However you can’t fool me, I happen to know exactly how scientists are funded; and you claim in your opening paragraphs is deliberate untrue misinformation – If you think otherwise, then where is your evidence, or are we just expected to take your word for it?
It seems to me that you try to discredit the charts and graphs, just as you try to discredit the scientist who produced them, because they are contrary to your beliefs – Yet we are expected to take your word that the scientists and the charts and graphs they produce are wrong, without any credible evidence from you to back up your claims?
Greta Thunberg is only repeating what the scientists are saying; but then again, you don’t believe the scientist, so of course you’re going to try to discredit anyone who repeats what the scientists are saying.
The only reason some of my posts are long and comprehensive is because I’m responding in details to every point you make, and it is a complex subject; but if you can’t handle complex issues, and can only deal with issues in bitesize, then I shall try to keep my comments to just two or three points in future posts – But in return, I ask that you actually answer my questions and not keep side stepping them – For Example:-
In your recent post you stated that:
1. My standard of living will be decreasing due to the UK’s Conservative Climate Change Policy?, and
2. I will have to cut back on things due to the UK’s Conservative Climate Change Policy?
At the time I disputed your claim, and asked:
1. How is my standard of living decreasing due to the UK’s Conservative Climate Change Policy?
2. What do I have to cut back on due to the UK’s Conservative Climate Change Policy?
I’m still waiting for your answer.You do not need to insult me anymore than I need to insult you. My point is that this forum is not the Nathanville climate show.
The bite size questions you seem to disdain promote healthy discussion. Furthermore, if you read this forum from page 1 on, you will see that I have given pertinent information, including the names of two scientists who are highly respected by their peers. They are the men I get most of my information from, the exception being Bjorn, who is a social scientist and an environmentalist.
As for links, I am not a proponent of them because I know full well how unreliable search engines can be.
I will look at your brief questions later. And thank you for making the attempt at being brief. I appreciate it.Nathanville… Propaganda does not work for me. I understand that a few of your friends, and even Mie.. 57 who wants to be popular, may be impressed with your word play.
But, know beyond a shadow of a doubt that I have never used the words, “UK’s Conservative Climate Policy” in regard to questions I have asked regarding your beliefs about “climate change.”
So, if want an answer from me, please rephrase your question without putting words into my mouth.
If you are being paid to write for the Socialist agenda here, please find another space. This is not the place.
HP has rules. I ask you again to please follow them.No, you have never used the words ““UK’s Conservative Climate Policy”
What you actually said, two days ago was (word for word quote):
• “Well, I hope your government pays you well to promote propaganda.”
• “Once your personal standard of living decreases significantly, due to all the things you have to cut back on because your government has adopted useless UN climate dictates, then maybe your eyes will be opened. But I doubt it.”
And now you are saying, to quote “If you are being paid to write for the Socialist agenda here….”
FYI (For Your Information):-
1. It’s not our left-win socialist parties (Labour and or Green Parties) agenda that I am supporting, it’s our current right-wing Conservative agenda on climate change policy that I am supporting; and any suggestion that I get paid by the Conservative Government for supporting them is ludicrous.
That’s why I used the term ‘UK’s Conservative Climate Policy’, because you seem to be confused as to which political party is currently pursing climate change policy in the UK.
So getting back to my simple request: Where you said
“Once your personal standard of living decreases significantly, due to all the things you have to cut back on because your government has adopted useless UN climate dictates” e.g. the UK’s Conservative Government Climate Change Policy.
So it seems to me that you are quite clearly stating that you think that my standard of living will decrease significantly, due to the Climate Change Policy by my government – Therefore I think it’s reasonable for me to ask, how will my standard of living decrease significantly, due to my government’s climate change policy?
Likewise, where you say that my “personal standard of living decreases significantly, due to all the things you have to cut back on because your government has adopted useless UN climate dictates” – I think it’s reasonable for me to ask, ‘What things will I have to cut back on’ due to my government’s climate change policy.
It seems to me that you’ve made bland statements without any supporting evidence to support your claim; so as you’ve made the allegations I think it’s reasonable to ask you to answer these questions in support of your allegations.It is reasonable to ask. The reason I haven’t answered many of your questions is because I don’t generally read your posts. Thus, I don’t see your questions.
But I will answer this one after I have reviewed my notes on a U.S. Bank article I read and another book. As I have mentioned before, I almost never rely on links. I find them too unreliable.
Savvydating, what in my post tell you that I want to be popular? What put that into you head, my friend? All I can infer is that you're trying to gyp me. But why? Obviously, you moved out from the Roman Catholic into the Seventh Day Advertising. Does not science hold any sphere in these two organizations? I just think you're just being a woman in the circumstance. So if I have to gathered all the climate scientists in the world before you, would you agree to anyone making a statement on the climate crisis? I'm wondering, my friend. Thanks.
Sorry, its just that you seem to agree with both sides at once, and you do not always seem consistent. But, perhaps I am not understanding your English.
I respect the SDA’s. No need for you to make fun of them, Mie…57.Savvy, one of my next door neighbour was a SDA. I couldn't make 'fun' of them, nor your organization. But what make you think that? All I do know is that you're a woman. And you're not getting my English? Woman, you're good to go!
Little things remind us that climate is changing. And this is happening within my lifetime, which admittedly is significantly more than 40 years.
When i met my wife, i remember making long ice-scating excursions on our canals and lakes. Last time i was on the ice was many years ago with my grandchildren in an indoor arena.
My sister used to do ice sailing, had a DN class ice boat. https://www.dniceboat.org/dn-class-info/
She had long sold the racer. No frozen lakes, canals, rivers any more.
We used to change car tires from summer to winter and back. Don´t do this any more. Guess why?
It is not necessarily that it gets hot in summer. It is more that it doesn´t get cold in winter.
For those being used to 90F in summer, a rise to 92F is no big deal. For those being used that it gets below 32F in winter 2°F rise will make a big difference.
All this anecdotal personal experience does not say that it won´t get really cold or hot sometime in the future. But the general trend can not be neglected.Interesting anecdotes about your growing up years and beyond.
My understanding is that if we are to understand trends in climate, we must look at the long view, as in every 10,000 years, at the very least.Yep, precisely, and that 's what Paleoclimatologists do; and the evidence from Paleoclimatologists clearly shows that today's climate change is manmade, and is a threat to eco systems and mankind.
Isn´t this 10.000 year thing an excuse for not doing nothing? Same as the UK or Germany contributing only little to world CO2 emissions?
The changes that i notice suggest a much faster pace of change. This may lead to fear and anxiety for many and sometimes to irrational behavior.
For me the rapid change is more an indicator that change can be reversed, also rapidly. May cause an overshoot of the control parameters for some period of time, but will do in the future.
So my conclusion: We have to allow to play on the keyboard of nature. Lets say: press the key named CO2-reduction and find out results. May be some more keys have to pressed, some more parameters need to be tackled. It does not help locking the piano of nature away. We are not deaf, are we? An climate change is not adagio, it is allegro irato.The 100,000 mark is not an excuse. It is a measurable trend.
As for the changes you have noticed in your life, they are only a small snapshot.
The reality is that, for example, hurricanes in the US have been slightly declining since 1900.
Wildfires, if one looks at satellite imagery, has shown a dramatic decline for the past 25 years. But if you go by the news or your feelings, you wouldn’t know that.
Another thing, before the 1920’s, about 500,000 people died each year from climate. In the ensuing years, the average number of deaths began declining dramatically. In 2010, the average number of deaths dropped to 18,000. In 2022, the number dropped to 11,000.
But if you watch the news, you would believe another thing entirely.
Then there is the question of sea levels. If they were to rise, people would obviously do something about it, such as building dikes like the Dutch have done in Holland.
And frankly, if it were to become much hotter for the long term, which I doubt, the UK might actually consider investing in air conditioning.
For more information on deaths from climate, see the International Disaster Database.Picking up on just one point: Where do you get your figures from?
For example, you clearly state that the number of people who died from climate in “2022, the number dropped to 11,000.” whereas in fact, across Europe alone, the death toll in the heatwave in 2022 was over 61,000.Bjorn, the environmentalist, wrote an article and may have found the numbers on the International Database I referenced before.
61,000? That’s massive. Where did you get that figure?Those numbers are what the MSM in Europe are claiming from heat. According to Dr. John Campbell and others in the UK, however, that huge number of excess deaths are related to myocarditis.
Myocarditis, as you probably already know, is sometimes secondary to COVID vaccines, especially after the second booster. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/c … ditis.html That link goes to the incidence in young people. I remember a time when you never heard of young men having heart attacks.
I remember some warnings on this issue.
https://www.bbc.com/portuguese/brasil-55939354 This article is about our former president, Bolsanaro, telling people to be cautious of this vaccine. The BBC and other MSM sources attacked him for being cautious, and complained that he was the first poltical leader that discouraged vaccines. (Not all vaccines, just the COVID vaccine that was rushed through production and was not even effective in preventing the disease.)As i wrote before, don´t use heat wave related deaths for any pro´s and con´s of this discussion.
I searched for the 60.000 deaths in Europe, found some reference in the media, but what was really telling was the bulletin of the RKI (Robert Koch Institute) the equivalent to the CDC in Germany. Highest number was 8000 in 2018, since then having lowered to some 4000 per year. Before 2018 average heat wave related deaths was some 1500 to 2000.
The bulletin also stated the error of uncertainty and that error range was almost as high as the yearly number itself. I conclude from this that any number from any nation and any time is not really worth taking into consideration, especially if taken from 1920 as stated somewhere.
Lets forget about these numbers. They reflect whatever you want to have proven.Just like during COVID, when the governments reported over a third of deaths were because of COVID even when they were something else, most of the excess deaths now are going to be chalked up to climate change. That is what now fits their scenario.
True.
Just saw the detailed explanation you wrote earlier. My brother has studied this “death from the shot” phenomenon extensively. He also mentioned the prevalence of blood clots. Will review your information. Thanks.These videos are kind of "dry" but he presents some interesting data without being judgemental, as Youtube would not allow it.
https://www.youtube.com/@Campbellteaching
If your brother is not already aware of this guy he would be interested.
Apart from the fact that it was splashed over all news media last year, including American news media, the information is freely available from multiple reliable sources including Nature Journal, the NPR and ONS etc.
In fact the official figures for heat related death tolls during the heatwave in Europe in 2022 is 62,862, 61,672 of those deaths occurring between 30th May & 4th September; of which 3,271 were in the UK.
In fact, this year is a repeat of last year e.g. over 60,000 people died in Europe from heat-related causes during this summer’s heatwave (2023) in mainland Europe: Again, the information is available from multiple sources, but his article from the British Red Cross makes interesting reading. https://www.redcross.org.uk/stories/dis … twave-2023
...As for the changes you have noticed in your life, they are only a small snapshot....
Is that so?
I am no fan of internet links, but it is worth while to look at insurance figures. Fairly unbiased and inflation adjusted.
https://www.munichre.com/en/risks/natur … sters.html
To use human deaths as an indicator is kind of misleading. Where is inflation adjustment, or to be more specific: where is human death count AC usage adjusted? Not to mention progress in medicine, in accessibility to medical treatment, in desaster alert systems.
Coastal protection efforts in the Netherland, Belgium, Germany are in part because of long term climate change after the last glacial ice age and a slow lowering of the European tectonic continental plate.
The speed of rise is quite significant:
Some 10.000 years ago: 1 m (3 ft) / 100 years
Some 2.000 years ago: 0,3 m (1 ft) / 100 years.
Today: back to almost 1 m (3 ft) / 100 years.
So our sea level is rising 1 inch every 3 years. Us and the Dutch are used to it. The Netherlands started their coastal protect program some 4 centuries ago when the sea level was a pole vault higher. Today much of the Netherlands is below sea level and still in good shape. An example of what humans can achieve with organisation and technology and collective will. I do not dispute this.
Climate change is not new. The speed is new.Savvydating, give me a link as per your last paragraphe.
Go to a search bar and type in International Disaster Database.
Sorry, but telling people to look on the International Disaster Database is a red herein, as only academic organization, universities, non-profit research institution and international public organization have access to and are authorised to use the information.
EM-DAT access is indeed restricted. The starting page gives a broad overview of what has happened on our planet. That overview is so unspecific that not much can be taken for arguments.
I suggest to look at insurance data. In most developed countries, natural disasters are subject to insurance policies. And insurances better know what risks to expect and how to cover risks financially. Me think publically available insurance data holds more information than research databases.@Nathanville, and @Chriss57, you both are correct. Certain members or institutes, or universities of the database ask you login with password. I was a registered of nature.com/ and so I easily go in there. Those sites with open access, admission I foraged. I admired Britains Fire Brigdaire, and the Red Cross, in Europe, helping out in grassland and forest fires. Let our friend savvydating hear.
Those sites I visited concentrated more on Europe than elsewhere. Perhaps, if I login as a register member of another database, I would have had more entry to other academic or professional sites. Critically, would those websites take on African disaster occurence, since the database is 'international'? In Nigeria, flood disasters occured during the rains, and the highest risk area is a State Bayelsa, in the south of the country. Most fire misfortunes took place in the north where grasslands, savannas, and forest a-plenty. It's the Harmatta, from the dry sand-domed Sahara, that prepared the ground for so called 'Harmattan Fire'.
As I said, the database was referenced by Bjorn, who wrote an article that included a chart from that site. So, I did not know if it was available to the public when Mie asked for a link, even though I have stated repeatedly that I rarely use links.
It is really tiresome to correct all the wrong all the false narratives you assign me.
It would be nice if you and Mie would read more carefully.
Likewise, on a personal level I welcome the climate change in Britain e.g. I suffer from ‘cold intolerance’, a medical condition; so I find the warmer winters and hotter summers most welcome – albeit, when it tops 40C (104F) it’s it bit too much, even for me.
Certainly there are benefits to the climate change in Britain, for example:
• Burning less natural gas in the winter months for heating due to warmer winters.
• Increased frequency of stormy weather from the Jet Stream and Westley Winds can be good for the offshore windfarms, and
• Periods of heatwaves are good for the solar energy etc.
• The warmer climate also benefits some crops - for example vineyards have become common place in England over the past 40 years, whereas prior to the 1980s Britain was too cold for vineyards to be successful; but on the flip side, it’s not so good for other crops e.g. potatoes.
Although warmer winters’ means less heating required over winter, on the flip side, British homes are built to keep the warmth in, not to keep cool, so during heatwaves the British do suffer in their own homes, at night as well as during the day.
The downside of the now frequent droughts and heatwaves in Britain includes:
• Some water authorities, especially in the South East of England, now regularly impose ‘hose pipe’ banns during the summer months to conserve drinking water; which means people can’t easily water their gardens.
• During the heatwaves the grass dies, become tinder dry, and become a fire hazard; and then the bare soil turns to dust; I saw my first dust devil during the heatwave in 2018, when we were on holiday in Kent, and attended a ‘War and Peace’ Event in Kent – the grass was brown and the soil was dust, and several times during the day (between events) a light breeze would whip up the dust into dust devils.
I didn’t capture any on camera, because they were short lived, but this short video I took of one of the displays shows how dry and dusty it was; when normally in Britain the grass is normally green and lush, and the soil wet. https://youtu.be/HL2gWEGc3zo
And this footage I took in Bristol during last year’s heatwave show how dead and tinder dry the grass was, something which until recent years you never saw in Britain: https://youtu.be/OudpSgnzddM?t=252
But of course, it’s not all about me; it’s about those who suffer from the effects of climate change, such as:-
• The 50+ homes destroyed in England by wildfires during the heatwave in 2022.
• The 2,800 people in Britain who died from the heat during the heatwave in 2022.
• And around the world, in both wealthy and poor countries, the increased death and destruction to property, land, lives and livelihoods caused by climate change.
Yep, the tool is very inconsistent and allows for high error margins; although I found it a useful exercise in that it helped to give me some crude idea on my carbon footprint, and it does highlight things like consumerism as a factor in carbon emissions.
Poor people in Sudan and elsewhere have no use for wind farms. They need fossil fuels to cook their meals and heat their water, etc.
Those with median incomes have no idea of the suffering of the poorest of the poor.
The earth may warm about 1 degree as time goes on, but that is nothing. The environmentalists have been warning everyone that death is at our doorstep since the 1960’s. First it was the population bomb, then it was the ice age. According to Al Gore, New York City should have been flooded decades ago.
Co2 is not harmful. We need it for our agriculture.
Even the UN stated that the earth is not in a crisis.
Just because the U.S. and England has had a warm summer does not mean the entire planet is warming.
Politicians can and do exert control over people by scaring them. Corporations are all too happy to accept the tax cuts and ill gotten gains from creating products which are only useful for a small populace of the world, when all is said and done.
And the cutting down of trees for profit? That is beyond obscene.What has Sudan got to do with Britain and other countries around the world that have chosen to transition away from fossil fuels to Renewable Energy?
Your 2nd paragraph is where your lack of knowledge and understanding of science lets you down:
FYOU the world as a whole has warmed by around 1.3C since the pre-industrial period (1850-1900) in the Berkeley Earth dataset, and land areas have warmed a much larger amount than the sea e.g. the average global land temperature has risen on average by 1.8C.
And, as confirmed earlier this year, there is now a 66% chance of average global temperatures reaching 1.5C by 2027.
In your 3rd paragraph, where you say “Just because the U.S. and England has had a warm summer does not mean the entire planet is warming.”; not only are you trying to dumb-down the issue, but your whole statement is totally inaccurate:
To start with, it’s not that the “USA and England has had a warm summer”; the USA had a devastating heatwave this year, but it was not England who had the heatwave this summer, it was the vast bulk of Europe had heatwaves this summer – with devastating results: Did you not see the News?????
FYI it’s not ‘just a warm summer this year’; Britain and Europe have been suffering heatwave after heatwave, increasingly over the last 20 years, and those heatwaves have been increasingly getting worse and worse. Last year Britain had its worst heatwave on record, which resulted in dozens of serious wildfires that threatened lives and destroyed property; which for Britain is up to now unique, as Britain has historically always been too wet for such serious wild wildfires – Did you not see the News last year????
And FYI, the Heatwaves that hit Europe last year (which at that time was the hottest heatwave on record) caused the death of over 61,000 people.
According to the latest data, the heatwave in Europe this year (which is now the hottest heatwave on record – far hotter than last year) has killed over 60,000 people, mostly in Italy, Greece, Spain and Portugal. Again, have you not been watching the News?????
Yeah, yeah, yeah, quoting and misquoting from the environmentalists in an attempt to rubbish the current climate crisis; but conveniently not accurately quoting from the scientific community:
Yeah, I was aware of concerns of the ‘population explosion’ back in the 1970’s, but the scientific community didn’t then, and don’t now, see it as a crisis.
Yeah, I know all about the ‘ice age’ prediction; and if it wasn’t for global warming due to humans burning excessive amounts of fossil fuels then yes we would most likely be heading towards an ice age at this time.
Duh - where you say “Co2 is not harmful. We need it for our agriculture.” Yeah, plants need CO2 as much as we need Oxygen; what does that statement have to do with the Global Warming issue??? Yeah, the planet needs CO2, just as it needs Oxygen, but too much of either is deadly.
Where you say “Politicians can and do exert control over people by scaring them”; that’ nonsense, at least on this side of the pond. In Britain, when it comes to climate change, the politicians are led by the science.
Where you say: “Corporations are all too happy to accept the tax cuts and ill-gotten gains from creating products which are only useful for a small populace of the world, when all is said and done.” What do you mean by that statement: FYI Last autumn the British Conservative Government slapped a ‘windfall’ tax on the British Oil Companies, so currently the British Oil Companies are paying a total of 75% tax on profit; I don’t call that tax cuts.
And what do you mean by “cutting down of trees for profit”; cutting down trees for windfarms is prohibited by the UK Conservative Government in England and Wales, it’s only in Scotland that the socialist government has permitted trees to be cut down to make way for windfarms, and they’ve only allowed it on the bases that new trees are planted to make up the lost.
If you think that cutting down trees is, as you say “beyond obscene”, are you suggesting that trees are actually important in ‘carbon capture’, which is important for fighting climate change? And if so, then how is burn oil not harmful to the climate when we know that burning oil pumps huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere.
Finally, where you say "Even the UN stated that the earth is not in a crisis."; what report does that claim come from; where's your evidence to back up your statement; where's the link to the document stating that the UN says the earth is not in a crisis????Arthur, you're rightly on course. Of course, climate change is a problem all over the world. It's not just the UK, Europe, and the USA.
My friend, savvyingdating may be right in saying that Sudan needs fossil oil to cook foods.
Yes, that equally applies to Nigeria, my country.
We're still using crude oil. But gas, electricity are also a must. Likewise is caol.The news and hard science have nothing in common with one another.
Your endless posts are too long. Using a bunch of words does not make you seem more credible.Well I suggest you study the hard science then.
I'm in Nigeria, my country.
And, I know what affects us when it comes to climate change and energy consumption.
I've done some research on renewable energy in my country, and...Nigeria is in no position at the moment for a policy about abandoning fossil fuels.
Solar energy was used as electricity. Europeans and Americans may harness all the new technologies.
But I'm not sure why you may misunderstand me.Savvydating, my friend, have you read my post yet? Do you know that solar energy can be used in Nigeria, in place of electricity?
Wood is even being used by some persons that found it hard to buy even a litre of kerosine.
I'm expecting your friendly feedback. Thank you.
The thing is that, as in America, fuel is very costly nowadays.
I hope you can understand now.Fuel is more costly currently because Biden has declared war on fossil fuel energy.
However, in the long run, it is cheaper than expensive batteries.I mentioned in the beginning stages of this forum that solar is useful for some.
I addressed the cost of fuel briefly, as well. Thanks, Mie…57.I saw an article yesterday where the Australian PM said that if you are unable to pay your electicity bills (the Australians are blowing up their coal plants and switching to green, which is driving up the costs of their electricity even though the government told everyone that their bills would go down) you could install solar panels on your roof.
Does that make sense? You do not have the money to pay your bills but you can afford to install solar panels on your roof?
Meanwhile the Chinese build new coal plants all the time. Two go online every week. https://edition.cnn.com/2023/02/27/ener … index.htmlMakes zero sense.
Read the article. Interesting. It’s funny that the UN thinks renewed talks with China might possibly make a difference. China is the major supplier of lithium for the world. There is no way they will give up on the money their coal plants are producing. Xi Jinping is playing the long game in order to achieve wealth.
And electric cars, due to lithium, produce more co2 emissions than regular gas cars.
Such a waste of money for consumers.
https://www.industryweek.com/technology … -footprintWhere does one find the Ask portion that tsmog speaks of on your site? Couldn’t find it. FYI: I sent a fan mail thanking you, on my son’s behalf, who has a sweet cat.
The Ask a Vet is a separate section on the top of the Pethelpful homepage.
https://pethelpful.com/ask-a-vet/
Sorry. I was referring to Nathanville, whose posts are too long, too repetitive and too biased. Not to mention, his AI generated statistics are faulty.
"Your endless posts are too long. Using a bunch of words does not make you seem more credible."
Back at you.
Yep, as you said “climate change is a problem all over the world.”
And yes, of course, at this time oil is an essential part of the economy for countries like Sudan and Nigeria; and it is still an essential part of the ‘energy mix’ for most countries around the world, including the UK.
But the point that savvyingdating doesn’t seem to grasp is that it’s within the power and grasp of developed countries like the EU, UK and USA, and Australia etc. to transition away from dependence on oil; and most these countries are doing so at varying rates; some faster than others.Your last paragraph is okay with me.
Savvydating my friend, being a woman, seems to know. But at most times, she'll just back away feign at such issues.
So, I'm trying to get her understanding in the matter.Nations can “transition away” from fossil fuels, but there is no need to do so.
Transitioning away is going backward in time, not forward. Despite Nathanville’s rosy picture of England, their economy is suffering.
When I first began this post, U.S. Bank wrote an article about the economic demise of the UK…
The problem with civil servants, even within my country, is that they get used to all the kickbacks they receive from the federal government. I know this because many in my own family, who are civil servants, swear by the Democratic Party.
… going off on a tangent, a bit, but these people work half a day, at most, get paid for full time, get regular raises, and they see nothing wrong with that… and how it steals money from the average wage earner in terms of taxes.
Big government loves climate change hysteria. It fits into their goal of keeping government big, and people small. It is amazing what the average person will give up on (such as autonomy and freedom) just to get some freebies here and there.
This attitude enables those with a defeatist mindset to believe that only the government can take care of them. Thus, they become modern day serfs.
For a better understanding of climate and the planet, read Climate: The Counter Consensus, by Dr. Robert M. Carter.Miebakagh might disagree with you about your comments about civil servants; did you know that Miebakagh was a civil servant in Nigeria – I don’t know what his experiences are, but my understanding from comments he’s made in the past, and from what I’ve read, is that he’s had problems with his civil service pension.
Also, what you describe about the civil service in the USA does not apply to the civil service in Britain:-
Firstly, in the UK we do not get “kickbacks” from the Government, in the UK that is illegal (a criminal offence) that comes under the category of ‘bribery and corruption’.
Secondly, civil service pay in the UK has always (since the 1980s) been significantly lower than pay for comparable jobs in the ‘private sector’, and the annual wage rises in the civil service in the UK are almost always below the rate of inflation.
The only good thing about the civil service is that it has always provided greater job security, and in the past a good pension.
Transitioning away from fossil fuels is not “going backward in time”. In Britain, Renewable Energy is significantly cheaper than electricity generated from fossil fuels (that is a fact), and that is a fact that I benefit from because during the hours of 12:30am to 4:30am, when wind power is plentiful and demand for electricity is low, I get cheap electricity at just $0.12 per kWh, which is why I put my dishwasher and washing machine on timer to come on during that period, and why I top up our wall battery at that time to provide me with cheap electricity during the day.
No I don’t paint a rosy picture of England per se, I just point out the achievements Britain is making in transitioning away from fossil fuels towards Renewable Energy:-
Yes, Britain does have a cost of living crisis and have had a fuel crisis for the last two winters, due to Brexit, the pandemic and the Ukrainian war – A crisis experienced by most all industrialised countries around the world, including the USA. But matters have been made worse in Britain due to Brexit, a self-inflicted wound by our own Government, which we have to live with; but it has nothing to do with Renewable Energy - on the contrary, the fuel crisis was because Britain is still too reliant on natural gas, but in that respect we’ve fared better than other European countries because unlike other countries virtually none of our natural gas came from Russia – And in actual fact during the energy crisis across Europe 5% of the electricity generated in Brittan has been exported to mainland Europe, most to France, to help them out during the crisis.
What has Government climate change policy got to do with Government Control of the people; that sounds like propaganda to me: Please elaborate? E.g. the fact that the majority of my electricity comes from Renewable Energy doesn’t affect my autonomy or freedom, so I don’t understand why you think it should?
Saw your question about the UN statement. I read it in one of my books. Will try to find it, along with a reference, and post it once I do.
Around 2018, leaders from around the world declared that we must keep temperature rises below 2.7F, and CNN told us we have 12 years to live. This measure was the result of the Paris climate change conference 3 years earlier. So, world leaders then asked the UN’s “climate scientists” to tell us how to achieve this limit.
The scientists delivered what they thought was a “policy relevant” not a “policy prescriptive” information. They “obligingly” said that the 2.7 goal was feasible, but would require “far reaching” changes in all of society. The media took that as evidence that we must make drastic changes in every aspect of society, even though the UN scientists never meant their statements to be taken as prescriptive.
Rather, they were merely answering a question in the most obliging manner possible.
The media, and now, even the UN, as a body has since run with this misrepresentation. But the scientists never meant that the world was ending…or that we needed to make drastic changes.
This is crucial. According to the media, we will all die from Co2 emissions unless we get to net zero emissions, which is impossible. If we were to do so, the world would die of starvation, and not from a hot planet.
Speaking of which, it is impossible to measure a planet’s temperature over a few decades or a few years. One would need at least 100,000 years to determine a slight trend, and millions of years to determine more severe planetary trends.
Still digging through references, and trying to find the one I mentioned before. Not a simple tasks as these books have chapters full of references.
That is not to say that anything would change your mind. Maybe it’s a European socialist thing.I can’t imagine CNN telling people they only have 12 years to live, that’s a crackpot statement; are you sure you didn’t miss hear what was said?
Yes, back in 2018 the 1.5C 2.7 goal was feasible, but would require “far reaching” changes in all of society.
The American media may have “took that as evidence that we must make drastic changes in every aspect of society”; but that’s not how it was conveyed in the UK; a more realistic and pragmatic message was given by the British News Media.
Correct, “The scientists never said the world was ending”, and neither did the British New Media make such a statement either; but the scientific community is quite clear that do need to make drastic changes.
What media is say “we will all die from Co2 emissions unless we get to net zero emissions”, certainly not the British New Media – Do you have links that you can share with us to such crazy statements.
FYI it is possible to scientifically measure the planet’s temperature over many millions of years, which has been done by many strands of scientific research, so the scientists do have a clear picture of planetary trends for as long as there has been life on the planet – I can post plenty of links from reputable sources if you want to see the evidence.
FYI I used to be sceptical about manmade climate change (prior to 2012), but never a denialist, just sceptical; but once the evidence became overwhelming I did change my mind, and I can now see that what is being claimed about the climate change crisis is real, and is happing right now, and is going to get a lot worse before it gets better.
Where you say: “I was referring to the corporations cutting down trees to make wind farms.”
What you previously said was “I was talking about deforestation and if some slimy corporation is claiming that they are doing it to save the climate…..”
What you refer to as “slimy corporation cutting down trees to make wind farms” is for the record is a public and private sector consortium made up of:-
• Scottish Forestry Commission (Independent Government Department responsible for developing, maintaining and managing the forests and woodlands in Scotland.
• The Scottish Government.
• The appropriate Local Government.
• And an assortment of other public and private bodies
In the case of the 15.7 million trees cut down in Scotland over the last 20 years to make way for windfarms, 13.9 million of those trees have been on land owned and managed by the Scottish Forestry Commission; therefore, although the developers of the windfarms have had to pay for the cost of replacing those trees, as part of the planning consent, it’s the Scottish Forestry Commission (an Independent Government Department) who have managed the replanting of the trees (on their land) to ensure that it has been done correctly and responsibly.
Delving into the fine details: Over the past 20 years Scotland have cut down the 15.7 million trees to make way for 21 windfarms, 6 of which have been built in the counties of Argyll and Bute. Honing in on just Argyll and Bute, all 6 windfarms were built on land belonging to the Forestry Commission (independent Government Department) and the consortium that have cut down the trees in those counties to make way for the 6 windfarms built in that part of Scotland include (but not exclusive to) following bodies:-
• Argyll and Bute Council (local government).
• The Scottish Government
• Highlands and Islands Enterprise (Independent Government Department responsible for promoting private commercial enterprise in Scotland)
• Marine Scotland (Independent Government Department responsible for protecting the eco system and environment at sea, in Scottish waters)
• Scottish Power Renewables (Private Energy Company that supplies electricity to the home)
• Scottish and Southern Energy (Private Energy Company that supplies electricity to the home)
• The Crown Estate Scotland (Land owned by the King)
• Scottish Natural Heritage (Independent Government Department, responsible for maintaining the natural heritage (environment) of Scotland.
• Skills Development Scotland (Independent Government Department, responsible for helping and supporting businesses with their goals and growth).
Accepting that there is a temporary reduction in carbon capture over a 30 year period, from cutting down the 15.7 million trees, until the new trees planted to replace them, which is about 30 years; the one factor, which has been overlooked in this forum is that those trees have been replace by windfarms that produces clean green electricity from wind – electricity which is no longer being produced by burning fossil fuels: So the net gain in not burning fossil fuels does more than offset the loss of carbon capture from the lost trees; and as an added bonus those new trees, planted to replace the trees cut down, reach maturity in 30 years and are once again playing their role in carbon capture.
As quoted by a conservation charity (environmental activists) in Scotland – “both wind farms and trees are key to reducing carbon levels”.
As mentioned above, the vast bulk of the trees cut down and replaced are on land owned by the Scottish Forestry Commission (Independent Government Department), and quoting from them on the matter, they stated “Renewable energy and forests are key to Scotland’s contribution to mitigating climate change and Scottish Forestry Commission is successfully managing both elements.”
And to put it into perspective, the 15.7 million trees that was cut down to make way for windfarms in Scotland is less than 1% of the total of forests in Scotland.
Going back to your “slimy corporation” slur; who the developers are, who operates and who owns the windfarms in Scotland is wide and varied, 8 of the windfarms were developed, and are owned and operated by ‘community windpower’ e.g. the local community; many others are owned and run by Utility Companies (Energy Providers who sell electricity to the home), and a few are operated by oil companies who are diversifying into the Renewable Energy sector – The link below provides a comprehensive list.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_o … m#ScotlandIf the corporations are private or owned by the government they are the same.
Uh? Since when has a democratically elected government, elected by the people for the people, to serve the people been synonymous to a private business who’s prime goal is to make as much profit as possible for their shareholders?
"Governments also struggle to effectively monitor state-owned enterprises. Many lack the capacity to do so. Poor transparency in public banks’ and enterprises’ activities remains an obstacle to accountability and oversight. This can lead to a buildup of large and hidden debts with governments having to bail them out, sometimes costing taxpayers more than 10 percent of GDP."
https://www.imf.org/en/Blogs/Articles/2 … f-covid-19
If you think that a state owned electricity company is going to do things for you since you voted you are sadly mistaken. They are working for their own interests, not yours.
You can find many more examples if you seach for this subject.Thanks for the link, a very interesting read.
However, if you analysis what is stated in the report in fine detail, rather than just honing in on the negative you will see a more balanced picture to the one you painted in your comments.
For examples:
1. The Report does not say that ‘all’ State-Owned Enterprises struggling and adding to the burden on government finances, it says ‘some’.
2. And yes, the Report does say “At their worst, they need large bailouts from taxpayers and hinder economic growth.”, but the Report also says “At their best, they can help countries achieve economic and social goals.”
And the Report goes on to say which version (1 or 2 above) you get boils down to good governance and accountability.
3. The Report does not say that “State-owned enterprises are falling short in ‘all’ countries; it clearly states that “State-owned enterprises are falling short in many developing countries”. The UK is not a developing country.
Yes the Report does say “Governments also struggle to effectively monitor state-owned enterprises.” But it does say “Many lack the capacity to do so”, it doesn’t say ‘all’ lack the capacity to do so.
And it does also say “Poor transparency remains an obstacle to accountability and oversight”
In the context of the above points, the Report infers that “state-owned enterprises are less productive than private firms by one-third, on average” in developing countries; then it goes on to say that productivity in State-owned “Enterprises in countries with perceived lower corruption is more than three times higher than those in countries where corruption is seen as severe” e.g. on a par with the private sector.
Also, the Report concludes with a list of four main recommendations from the IMF for how countries can improve the performance of state-owned enterprises; many of which is already done by many developed countries anyway; and the Report does give examples of developed who already does these things anyway, to ensure their State-owned Enterprises are value for money.
And in the last paragraph of the Report the IMF statement is - “Well-governed and financially healthy state-owned enterprises can help combat crises and promote development goals.”
LOOKING AT THE UK SPECIFICALLY, IN THE CONTEXT OF STATE-OWEN ENTERPRISES:
By the definition given in the IMF Report, in the UK ‘Independent Government Bodies/Departments’ (which I’ve frequently referenced in my comments in this and other forums) are not State-owned Enterprises; they are an arm of the Government. The only difference between an ‘Independent Government Department’ and a ‘Government Department’ is that the Government has direct control over the latter but not of the former; ‘Independent Government Departments’ are not answerable to the Government, they are answerable only to Parliament. Such departments are kept at arm’s length from the Government for a very good reason e.g. it prevents an unscrupulous Government from influencing or manipulating that Government Department for its own political purposes. That’s why the Electoral Commission and the ONS (Office of National Statistics) and the National Archives are all ‘Independent Government Departments’.
Yes the UK did have State Owned Heavy Industry, such as car manufacturing, Steel, and aeroplanes back in the 1970s, and your given picture of what the IMF says certainly applied to those industries; but they were all privatised in the 1980s.
FYI, the only State-owned Bank in the UK is what was the old ‘Post Office Bank’ (Now called National Savings & Investment); and that’s small fry compared to the rest of the banking system.
Also, all the other State-owned Enterprises, as defined by the IMF Report, such as water, sewage, gas, electricity and transport etc. were all privatised by Margaret Thatcher (then Conservative Prime Minister) in the 1980s; and as soon as they were privatised the cost to the consumer shot up significantly e.g. by about a third, as the newly formed private companies put up prices to cream-off profits for their shareholders. One of the few exceptions being London Transport which has remained State owned and controlled by the London local government; and to this day London Transport is the most integrated, most efficient and the cheapest transport system in the UK.
The Railway system is an interesting one: British Rail was nationalised (bought under State Ownership) by the Labour Government (socialists) in 1948, it was privatised by the Conservative Government in 1993. As part of the privatisation process British Rail was split into two business types; the railways, signals and train stations as one business, and the train operators as separate private businesses on franchise.
The rail track company went bankrupt in 2002 and was subsequently re-nationalised (bought under State Control and Ownership).
However, while the train service was cheap and efficient when it was a nationalised company, since privatisation the service has deteriorated and ticket costs sky-rocketed as private train operators keep putting up prices (above the rate of inflation) to cream off profits for their shareholders.
Consequently, with over 68% of the British Public wanting the train service to be re-nationalised, in 2021 the Conservative Government made an embarrassing U-turn on their philosophy of privatisation in preference to nationalisation by announcing their decision to renationalise the train service e.g. by taking the train service back into public ownership as each franchise expires; a process that has already started. And the Conservative Government has named the new Nationalised Industry ‘Great British Railways’.
Another U-turn by the Conservative Government is their decision announced in 2022 to re-nationalise the National Grid by 2024, so that the Government will have greater control over its legal commitment to make the UK carbon net neutral by 2050.
One of the key criticisms in the IMF Report (aimed mainly at developing countries) is the lack of ‘Transparency’ in State-owned Enterprises. FYI, ‘Transparency’ became a key element of the ‘Freedom of Information Act 2000’ passed by the Labour (socialist) Government in 2000. Consequently, any government, opposition political parties, activist groups and the general public all have access to detailed info on the running and policy, spending, finance and budget etc. of all public bodies in the UK, giving the necessary transparency.
ELECTRICITY COMPANY
Where you say: “If you think that a state-owned electricity company is going to do things for you since you voted you are sadly mistaken. They are working for their own interests, not yours.”
To start with, all the electricity companies were privatised by Margaret Thatcher (then Conservative Prime Minister) in the 1980s. So we don’t have any state-owned electricity companies in the UK.
Before I go further, to clarify (in simplistic terms) the system in the UK, in case it’s different in Brazil:-
1: The Producers of Electricity e.g. oil/gas companies, windfarm, solar farms etc. Produce the electricity which they sale to the National Grid.
2: The National Grid buy the electricity from the Producers, distribute the electricity to where it’s needed and Sale it to the Suppliers (Utility Companies).
3: The Utility Companies buy the electricity from the National Grid and supply it to the domestic homes & businesses.
4: The consumer pays the Utility Companies for the electricity they use.
From the time of being privatised in the 1980s until within the last 10 years there was only six big Utility Companies (what you call electricity company), all of them hiked their prices and ripped off the customer, making electricity very expensive. Consequently, the Conservative Government imposed a ‘price-cap’ on the Utility Companies (electricity Companies) in 2019 to stop the Utility Companies from ripping off the customer (home owners).
Also, within the last 10 years lots of small utility (electricity) companies, many with more ethical policies, started to compete with the big six, including non-profit making co-operatives, and a handful of small local community co-operatives created and run by the local residents themselves.
One such non-profit making co-operative was Bristol Energy (where I live) created by the Bristol Local Government (Labour/socialist local government) in 2015. I naturally switched from one of the big six to Bristol Energy as they were not creaming off profits for shareholders, and thus their electricity was a lot cheaper – it cut my electricity bill quite significantly.
The fly in the ointment was the winter following the pandemic when due to a world shortage of natural gas energy prices sky rocketed and with the Government cap on energy prices, utility companies were running at a lost that winter, and over two thirds of the companies went bankrupt.
Therefore, this winter, due to the worldwide chronic shortage of natural gas, so as not to repeat the same mistake, this time the Conservative Government bailed out the utility companies, to keep them afloat, and to cover a large chunk of the cost the Conservative Government imposed a windfall tax on the British oil/gas companies who were profiteering from the hyped price of natural gas on the world market.
The Utility Company I am with now is Octopus Energy. Octopus Energy is a private utility company (electricity company), there to make a profit for its investors; but the corner stone of its philosophy is an ethical one, where it’s aim is to invest in Renewable Energy and to provide electricity as cheaply as possible to its costumers (home owners).
By moving to Octopus Energy, my electricity is even cheaper than it was when I was with Bristol Energy. The tariff I’m on with Octopus Energy gives me very cheap electricity from 12:30am to 4:30am – at a time when demand for electricity is low, and when (because of our windfarms) supply is high - thus I pay just $0.12 per kWh during those hours, which is why I put my dishwasher and washing machine on timer for that time; and it when I topped up my wall battery, which then even in the winter months provides me with cheap electricity until at least the early afternoon.
A close friend of mine recently transferred to Octopus Energy from one of the big six (on my recommendation), and immediately it cut his electricity bill by a third. He doesn’t have solar panels like I do, so he’s opted for a different tariff on Octopus Energy. The tariff he’s opted for is based on wholesale market prices, and changed every 30 minutes; with Octopus Energy emailing their customers on that tariff the full pricing for the following day by 4pm each afternoon.
Just a few weeks ago my friend phoned me all excited because the price of electricity for him was set to go negative at 2am the following morning, to the tune of $0.36 per kWh – So as he was going to be paid $0.36 per kWh he’d put his washing machine of time to earn money for using electricity.
The reason that electricity prices sometimes go negative during the early hours of the morning in the UK is that supply of Renewable Energy (wind power) far outstrips demand, and it’s cheaper for the energy producers (the windfarm operators) to pay the National Grid to use the surplus electricity than it is to temporarily shut off the windfarms. And in turn the National Grid then pays the utility companies to make use of that surplus electricity. Of course the big six utility companies just pocket the profits, but Octopus Energy pass on a large chunk of that profit to its consumers.
So your statement about the electricity company that I use is inaccurate on several levels; firstly, it (Octopus Energy) is not State-owned, it’s a private company making a profit for its investors; and secondly, Octopus Energy philosophy is to provide cheap Renewable Energy to its customers, which is exactly what it does – So the cost of electricity to me, since I’ve switched to Octopus Energy is around a third less of what it was when I was with one of the big six electricity (utility) companies.
Introducing Octopus Energy https://youtu.be/AaejnbrejvYI have no idea on how your electricity companies are set up. You were the one defending the deforestation by telling us how the governement was elected by the people and only wanted to do what was best for the people.
So basically you are saying that the electricity company is private, (which is why I called them just another slimy corporation) when you stepped in and said that governement was replanting the trees? I guess that means a private company is doing the deforestation to make the wind farms and then the government comes along and plants trees to try and make up for the damage they are doing to the environment?I think it’s one of those situation where if it was possible for us to have a social chat with a pint in a pub we would clarify any miscommunication and misunderstandings amicably.
Yeah, I don’t expect you to know how electricity companies are set up in the UK; but keeping it very simple, in the UK there are three separate businesses sectors:-
1. The Generation of Electricity e.g. Windfarm business.
2. The Distributer e.g. the National Grid Company.
3. The Supplier e.g. the Utility Company that supplies the electricity from the National Grid to the Home.
As regards Generation, electricity can only be generated after the power source e.g. windfarm has been built; and again it’s not necessarily the same Company/Business that builds the windfarm as the Company who operates it once its built; the various stages from planning to operation, in simple terms are:-
1. The Investors.
2. The Developers.
3. The Operator.
The investors will buy or rent the land, pay the costs of the planning consent, and pay the developers (Companies who specialise in building windfarms) to build the windfarm, and then often lease the running of the windfarm to Companies who have the experience in operating windfarms.
So the investor, developer and operator are not necessarily one and the same, but they all make profit from the scheme, as does the land owner.
So getting back to your point:
Yes it may well be a private company (private investors) get the developer to cut the trees down, but in the case of the trees in question (in Scotland) the vast majority of land belongs to the Scottish Forestry Commission (Government), and it is the Forestry Commission (who has the experience and knowledge) who replant the trees, ensuring that the re-planting is done properly: But the investors pay for the cost of replanting the trees.
For clarity: I don’t defend deforestation per se; and certainly laws in England are a lot different in England than in Scotland in this regard e.g. having worked for 5 years in Planning Appeals, when I was a civil servant, I have personal experience on how extremely difficult it is to get planning permission in England to cut trees down for development.
However, in my view, in respect of the 15.7 million trees cut down in Scotland over a 20 year period to make way for 21 windfarms, the whole matter has been dealt with in a responsible and reasonable manner, and those trees that were cut down have been replaced responsibly.
I thought you might be willing to see another perspective. https://news.sky.com/story/half-a-milli … s-12836768
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/0 … ied-three/Where you have successes you always have failures; nobody said it would all be easy or smooth running – But it does need to be put into perspective e.g. one big failure on tree planting on the A14 Road, from which lessons has been learnt, and which is being rectified; compared to the other great successes elsewhere, such as on the M4 Motorway.
I don’t use the A14 (major road), but I do use the M4 (motorway) regularly. The following video is all about the M4, and if you ignore the voice and just focus on the image you will see from start to finish of the video, which covers the full length of the M4 from London to Wales, trees, trees, and more trees, lot of trees – which 30 years ago you wouldn’t have seen: So that is one of many successes in tree planting in Britain, which demonstrates what can and is being achieved.
Secrets of The Motorway - M4 https://youtu.be/KiuH4SA9bWc
Indeed i found some information (German only) on how much a 1 year old tree is worth compared to a grown tree of 25 to 30 years in terms of CO2 reduction: roughly between 0,5% and 1%.
So you would need some 100 to 200 newly planted trees to replace the performance of an adult tree. Planting 3 for 1 doesn´t do much, i would think, at least for the next 5 to 10 years.
But may be nature helps itself, if man doesn´t intervene and harvest and cut down trees and ...
Recent satellite images of the Ukraine war frontline show a green belt. For famers it is too dangerous in the fields. Nature is on its own and does remarkable things, even with hostile humans around.
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.
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.
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 FARMSI 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.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.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.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"Where you say:-
"I wonder how many tree nurseries have to involved in this undertaking."
In part answer to your question, there are 62 private commercial forest nurseries in the UK. That doesn't include the respective government departments for forestry in each country in Britain, who also have their own forest nurseries e.g. e.g. Coilltearachd agus Fearann Alba (Forestry and Land Scotland), Forestry England and Coedwig Genedlaethol i Gymru (National Forest for Wales).
For example, just the Forestry England alone grows 7 million new trees every year - So tree growing and planting is big business in the UK.Arthur,
if it was just for the fun of challenging numbers, i would forget about the issue. But with respect to tree growing and nurseries i happen to live within bicycle distance from Europe´s largest tree growing business with some 300 nurseries in the area:
https://www.ammerland-touristik.de/park … landschaft
Largest private nursery in the EU:
https://www.bruns.de/en/home-en/
All of these nurseries combined don´t get close to the millions of trees yearly that are suggested by the media for Scotland. Never ever those millions.
There is a difference between spilling acorns around and calling that planting new trees or nursing, transporting and planting trees with roots and growth guarantee.Interesting points, and thanks for the links -
Yep, following your feedback I studied both the Scottish Government and UK Government websites; and yeah, according to the Scottish Government, they are claiming that they are planting 25 million trees a year, and looking at the UK Government website, they are not disputing the figures.
For comparison, the UK Government is claiming that around 4 million new trees are planted in England each year.
Yep, I can see your points in your last two paragraphs, and your last paragraph strikes a chord with the strategy adopted by the Scottish Governments; namely 'natural regeneration' (akin to spilling acorns around and leaving it to nature), quoting from their website:
“Most of the trees that we establish are grown in nurseries and planted out as saplings. But, a significant and increasing number are grown naturally from seed in the forest. This is a process we call 'natural regeneration'. In 2021, we're establishing 5 trees for every person in Scotland, around 25 million in total.Some interesting facts about the level of woodlands and forests of England over time (the link below gives details back to 10,000 BC).
• In 1086 15% of England was woodland.
• By 1350 10% of England was woodland.
• By 1870 5% of England was woodland.
• In 2001 8.4% of England was woodland.
• In 2023 10% of England is woodland.
https://www.conservationhandbooks.com/w … n-britain/
For the whole of the UK, currently the average is 13% of woodland; and by country within UK:
• 8% of Northern Ireland is woodland.
• 10% of England is woodland.
• 15% of Wales is woodland.
• 18% of Scotland is woodland.
None of the figures are anything to be proud of because of all the counties in Europe and America, the UK currently has one of the lowest percentage of woodland to land ratio; so we do have a lot of catching up to get anywhere near the level of forests and woodlands in countries like France and Germany.
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.
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
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.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.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.Peter, I agreed with you completely. Politics is a in must in such issues.Government can't keep quite for investors to do what..
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.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?
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?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-mapWell, your air quality is very good. Thank you for the link, great find.
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.
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.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."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.
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.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_AgencyI 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.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.
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.Fossil fuels are not in infinite supply. What do you suppose we do when we have depleted the world's resources??
Better question, how do we make those resources last hundreds of years longer?
Alternative means of energy, reduction of travel...
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.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.
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.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.
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=CIAZGzAcR18There is that inconvenient truth about batteries… and the coal that is needed to produce them.
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.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.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.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.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.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.
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.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.
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.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.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.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.
Congratulations for farming your vegetables and fruits!
It’s not so much farming; it’s more of utilising our back garden productively.
The images below show:-
1st photo shows the veg plot at the end of the garden and on the right hand side fruit bushes of Japanese wineberries, loganberries, red raspberries (early cropping spring/summer), yellow raspberries (late cropping summer/autumn), and blueberries.
In the veg plot itself we grow a wide variety of roots, brassicas and beans, and new potatoes.
And in the greenhouse (not shown in the photo) we grow tomatoes and marrows.
2nd & 3rd photos show our mini orchard at the end of the lawn where we grow apples, pears, plums and cherries (3rd photos showing the cherries).
4th photo shows the main sheds at the end of the garden – the right hand shed being my workshop, and the adjoining left hand shed being my wife’s food and drink store.
5th photo is an inside view of my wife’s food store, where on the right you can see two of our freezers (partial view of a big chest freezer on the far right).
The brick sheds in the photo I built myself, brick by brick, over 20 years ago.
It’s not so much farming; it’s more of utilising our back garden productively.
The images below show:-
1st photo shows the veg plot at the end of the garden and on the right hand side fruit bushes of Japanese wineberries, loganberries, red raspberries (early cropping spring/summer), yellow raspberries (late cropping summer/autumn), and blueberries.
In the veg plot itself we grow a wide variety of roots, brassicas and beans, and new potatoes.
And in the greenhouse (not shown in the photo) we grow tomatoes and marrows.
2 & 3 photos show our mini-orchard at the end of the lawn where we grow apples, pears, plums and cherries (3rd photos showing the cherries).
4th photo shows the main sheds at the end of the garden – the right hand shed being my workshop, and the adjoining left hand shed being my wife’s food and drink store.
5th photo is an inside view of my wife’s food store, where on the right you can see two of our freezers (partial view of a big chest freezer on the far right).Also, I grow all our crops organically e.g. no chemical fertilisers and no chemical weed or pest control; all grown naturally - working with nature.
That's wonderful, as you're in tandem with mother nature. I noted that the Brits are not used to fertilizers. Organic farming even on commercial basis is what the world need.
Yeah, organic farming is big business in Europe. Interestingly, I was talking on this very same topic by email with my American friend just yesterday, and in doing so came across three informative videos that he found interesting:-
• Farm Pioneering Organics in Croatia https://youtu.be/aRxymTETvXk
• Organic farming without using pesticides in the UK https://youtu.be/VjCOHSE3830
• Understanding Organic Farming https://youtu.be/o-_eqQwKrg8Thank you so far. Organic health is much better. More so, the health risks (on a positive note) is becoming more pronounced than ever. Boys and girls at age 8 growing pubic hair, or girls growing breasts that don't recede, but grows on.
I AM all for organic gardening and produce my own food this way but it is not commercially viable. Organic food production is labor intensive and Farmers just cannot make a profit because of the expenses. Most consumers are not willing tô pau organic premiums. (Even I am not willing to pay for organic flour or sugar, about the only foods I buy, and I have to use Roundup tô control weeds in my sheep pasture since even if I wanted I could not pay people to weed by hand.)
I guess what you describe is the situation in Brazil, which from what I understand is a similar picture in the USA, and probably Canada as well?
However, across the EU and in the UK Organic farming is big business, and profitable, and popular with consumers. Yeah, years ago organic food was a lot more expensive in the shops, but over the years, as it's become more profitable, with modern 'organic' farming techniques bringing down costs and increasing productivity, and with greater competitive completion, organic food is no longer significantly more expensive, and readily available not just in supermarkets, and greengrocers, but also the farm shops which have become more prominent and popular in Britain in recent years.
Fascinating. So appreciate the pictures. I have said from the beginning that solar is useful for some, particularly those like yourself and Dr. Mark who have the wherewithal to grow their own, and who can live off the grid... to a certain extent.
Not all Americans have that much land or the willingness to grow fruits and vegetables... and store them. Nor do we care to live without our air conditioning and heat. For the most part, we spend quite a lot of time working at jobs outside of our homes. Some of us travel four to eight hours a day for our jobs. It's an American thing... working, something we seem to do best. We need our fuel to travel and I do not think that is a bad thing.
While solar is useful, it will not save the planet. That's a simple fact. We still need more R & D (as I've said before) to find other sources of energy that will not break the backs of the poor.
And frankly, the planet takes care of itself quite well. That being said, we should all try to be responsible stewards, just as you do. For example, instead of destroying trees for windmill farms, we should be growing them.
Thank you again for sharing your beautiful pictures.Thanks for your feedback.
GROWING YOUR OWN VEGETABLES
We are lucky in that we do have a large back garden by British standards (30ft wide by 100ft long), which does allow us to be almost self-sufficient in home grown vegetables; the average urban garden is half the size.
However, growing your own vegetables in Britain is a popular British pastime; a side effect of the 2nd world war e.g. because of food shortages in the 2nd world war Brits had to grow their own vegetables, and after the war it became a hobby that’s stuck through the generations.
In fact, the British desire to grow your own vegetables is so entrenched that for people with small gardens, allotments are very popular.
In Britain the origin of the modern allotment began in the 1600s under the ‘Enclosure Acts’ e.g. the Government taking common land (that belonged to everyone) and enclosing it with hedges and giving the land to private owners to farm.
The UK Government subsequently introduced the Allotments Act of 1887, which made it a legal requirement for Local Governments to provide allotments where there is demand; and that is the law that stands today e.g. if local residence demand allotments, the local government has a legal obligation to find the land to provide allotments to meet local demand.
Currently there are around 330,000 allotments in England, 12,000 in Bristol (where I live).
Allotments are a large plot of land available from our local government to grow vegetables, for a nominal rent; typically, an allotment is about 300 square yards.
When we were living in our previous house, we had a much smaller garden, so I rented an allotment from our local government for just $10 a year.
WORK/LIFE BALANCE
I’m retired, but yeah, Brits work as well (just like everyone else); but most people live within an hour’s travel of work, or work from home. But one big difference is that in Europe we have a sophisticated integrated public transport system that most people use to get to work (leaving their car at home) which saves significantly on fuel costs, which is good.
AIR CONDITIONING AND HEATING
We don’t have air conditioning in the UK because in the past we didn’t need it e.g. until 20 years ago our summers were always cool and often wet e.g. summer temperatures not much above 20c (68f).
But in the last 20 years (because of Global Warming) we’ve have 10 heat waves with record breaking temperatures of up to 43c (105f); so most defiantly air conditioning would be an asset in Britain now.
As regards heating: Yeah, we Brits do not care to live without out heating; up until the 1980s it was coal fires in the homes, then everyone switched to gas central heating (which is less polluting), and now people are beginning to switch to heat pumps (which is even cleaner on the environment) – and the switch to heat pumps (or other clean alternatives) will be swift because the UK Government is banning new gas boilers from 2025.
SOLAR PANELS
Where you say “While solar is useful, it will not save the planet. That's a simple fact. We still need more R & D (as I've said before) to find other sources of energy that will not break the backs of the poor.”
Quite frankly, we DO NOT have the time for more R&D, if we don’t act now, it will be too late to stop Global Warming from being catastrophic.
Besides, on their own, solar panels will not save the planet; BUT, as part of the Energy Mix, solar panels along with other forms of Renewable Energy are capable of saving the planet, without breaking the backs of the poor e.g. Renewable Energy in Europe is NOW a lot cheaper than Fossil Fuels, and a lot cleaner – so what’s the problem?
THE PLANET
Where you say: [i[]“And frankly, the planet takes care of itself quite well. That being said, we should all try to be responsible stewards, just as you do. For example, instead of destroying trees for windmill farms, we should be growing them.”[/i]
No, the planet cannot take care of itself. Granted, nature is quite resilient, but in nature there are what’s known as ‘tipping points’ (points of no return) that can lead to ‘mass extinctions.
For as long as there has been life on Earth, there have been 5 Mass Extinctions, as follows:-
1. The Ordovician-Silurian mass extinction 443 million years ago, wiped out approx. 85% of all species on Earth: Caused by an Ice Age.
2. The Devonian mass extinction 374 million years ago killed about 75% of all species on the Earth: Caused by Global Warming.
3. The Permian mass extinction 250 million years ago eradicated over 95% of all species on Earth: Caused by an asteroid.
4. The Triassic mass extinction 200 million years ago wiped out about 80% of all species on Earth: Caused by Global Warming.
5. The Cretaceous mass extinction 66 million years ago killed 78% of all species on Earth, including the dinosaurs: Caused by an asteroid.
DESTROYING TREES FOR WINDMILL FARMS?
Destroying trees for windmill farms – where’s that done, certainly not in Europe because that would be counterproductive e.g. tree absorb CO2 and therefore in Britain we are planting more trees, not destroying them.
In Europe inland windfarms and solar farms are built on open land, where its generally windy (often high ground) and does less environmental damage to the land than building a conventional fossil fuel power station, or nuclear power station.
Besides in the UK most of our windfarms (which now can provide almost half our electricity in the UK) are not built on land but built out at sea. On the 2nd November (two weeks ago) the UK’s windfarms generated a record breaking 20.9GW of electricity between 12 noon and 12:30pm, enough electricity to power every home in the UK.
Below is a short video of the ‘World’s Largest Offshore Windfarm’ which generates enough electricity for 10% of Britain’s homes. This is just one of 43 offshore windfarms around the coast of Britain; with another 3 offshore windfarms currently under construction, and another 9 with planning consent, to meet the UK’s Government’s target of generating 100% of the electricity used in homes to come from wind power by 2035.
• Largest Offshore Windfarm in the World: https://youtu.be/Z1TQCf_e1yo
AFFORDABILITY
Where you say “We still need more R & D (as I've said before) to find other sources of energy that will not break the backs of the poor.”
• It may not be so in the USA, but in Europe Renewable Energy has been cheaper than fossil fuels since 2016.
• It may not be so in the USA, but the cost of solar panels has dropped in real terms in the UK in recent years making it affordable to at least the middle classes.
As Renewable Energy is now cheaper than fossil fuels in Europe, then I don’t see what the problem is. Obviously Renewable Energy is still more expensive in the USA, but that’s your country's fault for not investing in it in the first place, when China and Europe were doing so. And now all the major jobs, expertise and equipment is in the hands of China and Europe because we’ve put the investment into developing the Renewable Energy systems, so now we in Europe along with China can reap the reward by exporting our skills and systems to places like the USA., creating jobs and wealth in Europe in the process."where’s that done, certainly not in Europe because that would be counterproductive"
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.The issue with cutting down forests opens the can for another topic:
How to put the CO2 toothpaste back into the tube?
Destroying forests does not only take out a considerable amount of photo synthesis (we all learned in school), but is does also remove what we call "Humus" in German, "living" topsoil that is responsible for storing large quantities of CO2.
Actually that topsoil is what gradually turns into peat, then from peat to lignite, from lignite to coal ...Topsoil is the first process step to store solar energy. If that is taken away, washed away, the CO2 recycling process is hindered, to say the least.
It is not only "evil" industry that holds its share of CO2 emissions and climate change. Simple goodwill agriculture with intensive water drainage contributes equally, because it takes moisture out of the topsoil and restrains CO2 storage.The question of photosynthesis restoration and carbon capture, is the daily or weekly planting of trees. Whether trees are being felt or not, they should be plant daily. And this should be joint government and private partnership. As human beings, we do harvest greens for breakfast or snacks. This can argue for both photosynthesis depletion and carbon increment in the atmospher.
@Nathanville: #5: Do you believe Al Gore?... Not being American, I don't know who Al Gore is'.
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/jsbObSYqVaoI 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.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.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.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.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.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.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?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.Climate change policies, did someone say climate change policies:
https://www.state.gov/at-cop27-our-clim … te-action/
It's worth a perusal...One guy at JPL came up with the theory and everyone else ran with it.
Al Gore was one of the first.https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/featu … elle_3.php
He was a member of NASA.Thank you, my Kathryn. You're very forthcoming. While I'm admiring the Bushs', Rover Revelle, sounds a dark horse to me.
Rather like a dog? Al Gore former USA VP can't be trusted, correct?
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.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_StatesWhy 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.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.It is accurate:-
No I am not talking about the benefits of fitting solar panels to your roof, that’s a different topic; I’m talking about the wholesale price of natural gas vs wind-power in the UK.
Firstly: Renewable Energy became cheaper than fossil fuels in two thirds of the world in 2016, including in the EU & UK (but not in the USA).
Secondly: Extraction of natural gas was scaled back during the pandemic, because of a drop in demand, and once the pandemic was over there was a chronic worldwide shortage of natural gas as demand rose again – causing the wholesale of natural gas on the world market to skyrocket.
Then as prices started to fall back slightly, war broke out in Ukraine forcing another chronic shortage of natural gas in the West, causing the wholesale price of natural gas to sky rocket again.
Prior to the pandemic the wholesale price of natural gas on the world market was around $50 per therm; currently it’s over $300 per therm – see charts below.
Thirdly: The price of electricity in the UK generated from wind-power has recently fallen again because now that it is the cheapest form of electricity, that’s very profitable to investors, it’s attracting a substantial growth investment as more investors jump on the ‘band wagon’ – See link below.
In the UK the average wholesale price for electricity generated from gas power is currently £446 ($527) per MWh, while the average price for electricity generated from the UK windfarms is £48 ($57) per MWh.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/offshore … Ze9bP7CaWE
1st chart below: Wholesale price of natural gas in March 2020 (before the pandemic) = $0.27 per therm.
2nd chart below: Wholesale price of natural gas September 2022 (latest figure) = £3.11 per therm.
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)Thanks Peter,
Good to hear from you. Farmers here are hurting. I imagine they might like your idea!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-CioloESince 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.
GAWell said. But other farmars should copy the Baby Carrot Innovative.
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?Your numbers tell the 'why' story: 17% of your farm operations produce 75% of your ag output.
That's probably similar to the U.S. The reason large grocery outlets can sell cheaper is simply the economics of scale. And the reason they have "cosmetic" standards is because they aren't charities—consumers don't buy the ugly stuff. (as your earlier wasted food stats show.)
My only point was that large groceries and supermarkets aren't villainous middlemen stealing profits from farmers. They operate on less of a markup than most businesses.
GAI largely agree with you; except that the ‘ugly stuff’ has proven popular with British consumers e.g. marked as ‘wonky vegetables’ or ‘wonky fruit’ as appropriate in the supermarkets and sold slightly cheaper than the supermarket's cosmetically beautiful range. The issue wasn’t that consumers wouldn’t buy the ugly fruit (if priced right) but that, prior to the issue being highlighted by the BBC, the supermarkets assumed that it wouldn’t sell, without bothering to do consumer research or pilot schemes.
And from a British perspective, it’s not just the ability to be able to buy slightly cheaper vegetables, but also that the British public are generally very pro-environmentalists by nature e.g. why organic food is also popular in UK supermarkets, even though the price is slightly higher than non-organic produce.
In this video a farmer who grows organic vegetables for Waitrose (one of the big supermarkets in the UK): https://youtu.be/TS62N8Z8a2E
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.)Where is the "$1.44" going? Your tulip story answers that question. It's in bits and pieces in the hands of the 'middlemen' between the tulip grower and your point of purchase.
GA
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.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.I like these 'great initiatives'. Directly getting supplies from farms is much better than the '500 miles radius' from the market. The best thing I like about fruits is when they're unripen or semi-ripe state. The fruits are much nutrient dense than can imagine.
It always sounds good, doesn't it? The problem is that without cost savings of size, the price goes up. Then it goes up again as quantity falls. And again as transportation costs rise.
Most asurely, yes. Take mango as an example. They're seasonal products. The more they're scarced, the more expensive they become. Eventually, they ceased selling because they're not...ever green.
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."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
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.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!)
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/VUSdbJ9UMVIWell 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/VUSdbJ9UMVII 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.Thanks for the feedback, it's sad to hear, but no surprise.
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.
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.
And don't forgdet to noted 'global warming' to your knowledge bank. Other related terms will be coin later. Much thanks.
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
Perhaps things are different in your part of the world, but to an American, “Octopus” sounds like a typical scam.
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.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.
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/mQ10xBl8XMQThese 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.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.
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.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!"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.”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?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.How do you know we are not facing mass extinction due to climate change?
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.
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.Good points The link is a delightful study. Buj it's a pity that humankind would likely destroy its self with man.made co2. Thanks.
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/Z0z3hMzsPMIWow, 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
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 ?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.
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.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.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.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.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.
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.
Thanks, your comments are most enlightening. It's good to hear that most of your electricity in Brazil comes from hydroelectric power.
Likewise, in the UK a lot of people do use natural gas for cooking, but just as many (like us) have electric cookers.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.)Cool.
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.
I dont have access to my photos at the moment but this is an example of the way life is for women that have to collect cooking fuel. In the village I lived in Morocco the women would usually leave in the morning a few days a week and would have to go further and further each year to find enough wood to cook. They were very happy to have a solar oven since it does not require fuel and will not burn food. It does take a long time though, unlike gas or electricity, so it is not like you can come home for lunch and cook something to eat at the moment.
This link is similar to the ovens I built when I lived in Africa. https://www.homesciencetools.com/articl … n-project/ They are very cheap but if it rains they get ruined. They do not work here since rain is so unpredicatable so I now have to build them out of wood. I am not sure they would work with the cloud cover you guys have but you can put your lunch inside in the morning, leave it all day, and then take it out later. If it is not hot enough for your taste you might have to heat it on the stove but with enough time it will cook eggs, cook vegetables, etc.Wow, thanks - very impressive. The link was very useful –thanks.
As you said, it wouldn’t work so well in Britain, especially over the winter months; but I can see the advantages for remote communities that get a lot of sun e.g. Africa.
I'm keenly interested too about the solar oven. Let's hope Dr. Mark disclose materias, and gives us instructions for making one.
When I lived in the Sahara I made them very similar to that link https://www.homesciencetools.com/articl … n-project/
Now that I am in the tropics I have to make them out of marine plywood, The same principle, like a cooler lined with aluminum foil but with a foil reflector and a glass plate to catch the sun. I am not sure what it is like in your area of Nigeria but you probably have as much sun as I do here in Bahia so they work well if you are willing to allow more time for food to cook. (Nothing ever burns if you leave it on too long so it is not like you have to watch it while cooking.)
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_lIkJust 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 :-)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.
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.
Are not those scientists being influenced by the Chinese Lording over the United Nations? Just wondering and asking. Thanks.
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/DLDg0TQtkVsAbout 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.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-reminderI 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.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?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.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?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/
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/The interesting thing about the Copenhagen Consensus is that they are not scientists; they are right-wing American economists who oppose the Kyoto Protocol.
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.
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%.
They are right to oppose the Kyoto Protocol. This is not something you can even begin to understand.
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.This information is well noted. Will research it later. Thanks.
Nathanville is wrong about the usefulness of the Kyoto protocol.
https://cei.org/opeds_articles/kyoto-pr … ong-wrong/That's your opinion: Because you fail to recognise how serious climate change, caused by burning fossil fuels, really is; and the devastating impact it's having on millions of people around the world right now.
I'm still digging on the challenge. The Kyoto Protocol, is a serious topic, but full of many obstacles to make it a success. Now transisted to the Paris Agreement, and still developing, the world waits to see how the CO2 and GHG's can fulfill the set standard of reduction. Given the co-operation of the signatory 196 countries, especially the developed countries, the harm climate changes render will reduce. But it's sad to note that the Kyoto Protocol meet some failure with little success right on inception.
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.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.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.
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.
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?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.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.
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.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.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.Without hijacking the thread, briefly, what do you think? Is it Brexit working as it was intended?
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.Good to note the Brexit down side on the Britain's side. Thanks, Arthur, thanks.
It is also possible that Brexit is working, but of course an internationalist and a socialist would not admit that people of a country should have the right to elect local people.
https://www.briefingsforbritain.co.uk/b … s-working/Duh; ‘Briefings for Britain’ (your link) is an extreme hard-right-wing website that is anti EU and anti-immigration.
Of the 5 point the right-wing ‘Briefing for Britain’ publications made:-
#1: Democracy?
It’s made no difference to democracy for the British people, except that the British people can no longer elect politicians to represent them in the EU Parliament.
All it’s done is given more power to the centralist Government in London to disregard human rights and labour laws, and to become more draconian e.g. UK citizens can no longer challenge the British Government in the European court.
#2: Re-establishing arrangements in Northern Ireland which support the Belfast Good Friday Agreement?
On the contrary Brexit threatens the Good Friday Agreement, and peace in Northerner Ireland. The 1998 Peace Treaty which ended 30 years of civil war in Northern Ireland was signed by Sinn Fein (the political wing of the IRA), and the UK Government.
The 1998 Peace Treaty setup ‘power sharing’ in Northern Ireland between Sinn Fein and DUP (Democratic Unionist Party); DUP being the political wing of the terrorist groups who fought the IRA.
Sinn Fein, a hard-left wing, pro EU and anti-British political party, whose prime goal is the reunification of Ireland; DUP, a hard-right wing, anti EU and pro-British political party is anti-reunification and wants Northern Ireland to remain within the UK.
Under the 1998 Peace Treaty, as part of the power sharing government in Northern Ireland there is the option to hold a referendum on the re-unification of Ireland, if/when Sinn Fein can win enough votes in their election to force it through their Parliament against the wished of the DUP.
The problem with Brexit is that with the UK no longer being part of the EU (two separate countries) there has to be border between the two countries.
The problem with Northern Ireland is that the border cannot be between southern Ireland (Republic of Ireland) and Northern Ireland because it would break the 1998 Peace Treaty, which would galvanise the IRA to take up arms again (another civil war).
Therefore, as a compromise, the border has been placed down the middle of the sea between the Island of Ireland and mainland Britain; which has upset the DUP; hence why DUP is refusing to sit in the Northern Ireland Parliament until the matter is resolved? And under the Power Sharing Agreement in the 1998 Peace Treaty, the Northern Ireland Parliament cannot sit without both sides agreeing to sit in their Parliament: Therefore, currently there is No Parliament in Northern Ireland, which means that currently Northern Ireland is being managed by the UK Government, not the Northern Ireland Government.
#3: Economic growth?
That's why the UK is the only G7 member (apart from Germany) who is in recession?
Yep, I love the propaganda in the ‘Briefing for Britain’ publication. The two screen dumps below, from the UK Parliament website, tells a different story; remembering that Parliament is not the Government, so what Parliament publishes tends to be more trustworthy than what the Government publishes.
#4: Brexit is not a thing in itself but a necessary gateway to a project of national renewal.
Really? The current UK Government makes mistakes as often as they get things right e.g. their so called ‘levelling up’ policy has been a total fiasco. If you lived here you’d see that such sentimental statements are nothing more than political propaganda.
#5: Does the EU want Brexit to work?
Really? The EU didn’t ask for Brexit, so why should they bend over backwards to treat Britain any different to any other foreign country that’s not part of the EU?
The British Government is complaining that the EU has put up border controls and customs controls etc., making it harder for British Exporters; but what does Britain expect, Britain is being treated no different to any other foreign importer.
POLITICS AND DEMOCRACY
Where you say “but of course an internationalist and a socialist would not admit that people of a country should have the right to elect local people.”
Before Brexit people of the UK had the right to elect local people, in local and national Government Elections; nothing has changed in that respect – So it seems a nonsensical question?
Besides, as regards the Brexit vote, the nation was split 50/50; and it wasn’t just politics, other factors came into play e.g. age, education and where you lived etc., as shown in the opinion polls (link below):
For example:
• 61% of Conservative voters voted to leave the EU.
• 65% of Labour (Socialist) voters voted to remain in the EU.
• 71% of voters under the age of 25 voted to remain in the EU.
• 64% of voters over the age of 65 voted to leave the EU.
• 70% of voters with a poor education voted to leave the EU.
• 68% of voters with a good education (Degree) voted to remain in the EU.
Not shown in that particular poll, other divisions include:-
• Over two thirds living in cities voted to remain in the EU, while over two thirds living in rural communities voted to leave the EU.
• The majority in England and Wales voted to leave the EU, while the majority in Northern Ireland voted to Remain in the EU; and the overwhelming majority of people in Scotland also voted to remain in the EU.
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/ar … tain-voted
It is funny how socialists always claim they are pro-democratic until they lose. “to ensure that decisions about the laws in force in Britain are taken in Britain, that decisions about international commitments are made with the consent of the UK Government, and that British institutions are sovereign within the UK.”
It does make a difference when your country is moving away from internationist control, whether or not you are willing to accept it.
You obviously don't understand what the EU is, it's not international control as you claim, it's a birth of a new nation - And FYI there are many EU State Governments who are right wing capitalists and who are pro-EU, so its not just a socialist thing. If that was not the case then the EU wouldn't be as strong as a nation (country) as it is.
The chart below show the wide political spectrum of the EU from hard-left to hard-right.
No, you do not understand that it is not a new nation, it is a league of nations. I am sorry that you are not able to understand that, but I am certainly not surprised.
So what do you call the USA then, a league of nations?
The US is a nation. It is not the EU. Are you really not aware of the difference?
What is the difference?
The EU has:-
• An EU Government
• An EU Parliament
• An EU Civil Service
• EU Laws
• An EU Court to enforce the laws
• An EU Budget
• EU Elections
• 27 Member States, soon to be 29, and increasing to 30 when Ukraine joins; possibly 31 if Scotland gets its way to leave the UK and join the EU.
Did not the American States join to form a Union, which was once under threat by the American civil war?
There’s a lot more similarities between the USA and EU than you think.
And what about the UK (United Kingdom); did you know that the UK is not one country, but a union of four separate nations (countries), bound together by Treaties.The EU is a political system. It is made up of independent countries. France does not recognize the king of Spain, nor do the Greeks want to follow the directives set out in Paris.
This is such a basic point that only an internationalist woulld ignore it.
https://carleton.ca/ces/eulearning/poli … t-a-state/
OK, you’re formulating your opinions from an academic website in Canada, and have no personal experience whatsoever of actually living in the EU.
There are flaws in the Canadian web link, for example:-
On the website, it states “….the EU relies on its member states to enforce the regulations and policies made by the EU”.
That is not entirely true; the EU uses the EU Court (which was not mentioned in the web link) to enforce EU laws; which takes precedent over national laws of EU Member States.
Ask the British Government who were found guilty of breaking EU laws on a number of occasions in the 1980s. For example in the 1980s:-
• The EU forced the UK Government to change its laws on State Pension age to comply with EU equality laws e.g. so that both men and women retired at the same age.
• The EU forced the UK Government to stop pumping raw sewage straight into the sea.
Plus, when the UK was a part of the EU anyone who lost their case in the UK’s Supreme Court could appeal to the EU’s Court and potentially have the UK's Supreme Court’s decision overturned by the EU Court – which has happened on quite a number of times over the decades.
Correct, France does not recognise the King of Spain, no more than the Governor in New York is recognised by the Governor of Texas.
Where you say: “nor do the Greeks want to follow the directives set out in Paris”. Yeah, there are times when one or other of the Member States may grumble about laws passed by the EU, which by the way isn’t in Paris, it’s in Strasbourg. But then again numerous States in the USA don’t want to follow laws passed by the Federal Government in Washington D.C.
Also the EU has Europol (the EU’s equivalent to Interpol); and Frontex (EU Border and Coast Guard Agency); Eurocops and the EU Battlegroup; and although there isn’t currently an EU Army, there is keen interest and support from within the EU for the creation; but at the moment NATO is in opposition of such a proposal, so currently there is little progress is being made to create an EU Army.
There is a lot about the EU that you don’t know, and which you are not going to learn from just reading articles on the Internet.
Also, the website link you gave states “In this way, the European Union is much more decentralized than a typical state: instead of having all power concentrated on one single authority, power in the EU is spread to other parties, such as the individual nation states.”
Really, are you suggesting that in the USA “all power is concentrated on one single authority”; I thought that power in the USA is spread to other parties e.g. individual States.
If Americans thought that “all power was concentrated on one single authority in Washington DC (The Federal Government) rather than individual States being allowed to make and enforce their own laws, then I think you’d have Americans up in arms."• The EU forced the UK Government to change its laws on State Pension age to comply with EU equality laws e.g. so that both men and women retired at the same age."
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?What is that based upon? Is it the tendency for women to live longer than men?
Exactly. If men and women have the same mandated age of retirement then women have a longer retired period of their lives.
While I agree with the concept, it cannot possible be considered "equality". Not surprising; men and women are not identical and therefore not "equal".I dunno, Wilderness, we have a universal standard for civil service employees retirement, minimum at age 55. While women have a tendency to live longer does not guarantee that they will. I guess the example you put forth questioning the equality of retirement benefits based on gender is not a good one in my opinion.
We can say that whites statistically live longer than blacks in America, should I dock their benefits in accordance with that?The answer, of course, is "No". But that has nothing to do with claiming that the sexes (or races) are the same when they so obviously are not.
(Blacks do not have as long a life, statistically. But what about blacks that are 65 years old - what is their life expectancy? Is the difference in life expectancy caused by something genetic or the loss of so many young black lives from violence?)Continuing on your point, why don't men have longer lives statistically?
Is it risky behaviors associated with lives of men relative to women or is it really something genetic?https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17324494/
I see this forum has gone off in various directions. That’s fine. The original was getting us nowhere.
Anyhoo, according to this research, men are more prone to cardiovascular disease genetically, and due to smoking ( I would have guessed stress) whereas women are protected somewhat by the menstrual cycle.
This link has a number of health/longevity related topics.Thanks for that clarification, I have heard that. Behaviors can and do make a difference. My point is that those diffences in average gender life expectancy are not etched in stone and should not translate into women having to be older to qualify for pension or retirement benefits relative to men.
Agreed.
In general, women’s pensions are lower, but not because of unequal pay. Rather, it is because women tend to work less years than men. Also, many women, who are mothers may opt to work part-time. Thus, their pension is usually lower once they retire.
This is why I dislike statistics that show women make less pay. The truth is that their income is less because they work less, in general. There are still women in the U.S. who have the option of staying home to raise the children. It is a lifestyle decision.
Savvy, thanks a lot for the link. I've bookmark it for further studies. Like as you said the forum or thread has been hijacked...yes, that's the way a conversation moves to break monotony. Now it's geting more interesting. But we'll soon get to the main thread. Savvy, I'm black and I've pass 66 years. Last week, 2 persons a man and woman 107 and 102 rerspectively were buried. They're black like me in the same community. I live on the fringes of the Niger Delta. It's getting warm and warmer here due to climate changes.
107 years is amazing! The average life expectancy for men here is age 83, I believe.
The Seventh Day Adventist’s, particularly in Loma Linda, California tend to live into their 90’s and beyond. This is because they practice a very healthy lifestyle.
The EU also wanted a more transparent Tax system. Directly after this proposal, the UK wanted a Brexit (or better said, companies in the UK and the father of the prime minister of the UK David Cameron who avoided tax through tax havens - See Panama Papers)
There suddenly a whole program to let people believe that Brexit was a good thing. Using nationalism and fear for immigrants as a motivation. ("We want our country back")
But as always you have to follow the money.
Brexit was beneficial for a couple of big industries. For example, the sugar industry didn't like the EU regulations.
Brexit has only been profitable for a small number of individuals and companies. But as a whole it does not serve the people.
And perhaps before talking about equality in pension the EU and all other countries should first talk about equality in payment. As up today many women are paid less for the same job as men are paid. There is still a lot of gender discrimination and machismo.In my country Nigeria, both men and women, who have the same equal qualifications, take the same pay, and the same condition of service, without gender discrimination. A working woman when pregnant, and due to delivery, and is sent on maternity leave, still receive the same equal pay as the men. Does not the International Labour laws apply to Britain, or all the EU member states? Thanks.
Officially yes, unofficially no. In an ordinary job like a postman, of course they will earn the same. But if you compare for example the woman working for the television and the man than it is noticeable that man earn more.
Also most power positions, CEO etc. are still occupied by man.
As James Brown said "It's a man's world...."
And as a rule people of power don't want to share.Really? Do women actually earn less in the EU for the same job as men? Because that is down to less than a 1% difference in the US.
Activists would have us believe otherwise (claiming women only make some 80% of what men do) but that is because they don't compare apples to apples, concerning themselves only with average pay of all jobs.From Harvard University: https://fee.org/articles/harvard-study- … and-women/
Hillsdale College, in their imprimis, published an article as well, but I can't find it. One thing that stuck in my mind from that article was that 4 of 5 college fields paying the lowest were occupied by women, 4 or 5 college fields paying the most were occupied by men. Women studied teaching, men studied engineering (simplified, and from memory). It goes further, though - consider male and female nurses. Male nurses tend to gravitate to big cities, women to small communities. Male nurses to ER's and specialty surgery, females to floor nurses. What pays the most should be obvious. We also find most elementary teachers are female while more males are found in secondary and college teaching. Guess which pays more?
I've seen enough, beyond the Harvard article, to be convinced this is balderdash - the difference (that 80% figure) is because of women's choices, not some innate discrimination. Pay particular attention to the last few paragraphs in the link, about the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority and why women earn less there with identical salaries.Nice article, Wilderness. Who am I to argue with Harvard Economists?
Your point is well taken and well received. Thus far, you have convinced me that the points made in the Harvard studies make sense.Yeah, it's that kind of thing that convinced me as well. The imprimis article was more of the same, with specific examples of what was making the difference.
Bottom line is that those progressive activists are lying through their teeth, trying to get people to believe that a lie is true with careful choice of words that give a false impression as to what is being discussed.Just saw this article after I made my comment on pay and pension. Good article. Much more comprehensive than my comment.
DrMark, your assertion that the EU is just a league of nations doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.
The League of Nations, the forerunner of the UN, founded in 1920 but ceased operations in 1946, proved ineffective because it required a unanimous vote of all Council members to enact a resolution; hence, conclusive and effective action was difficult, if not impossible. It was also slow in coming to its decisions, as certain ones required the unanimous consent of the entire Assembly. This problem mainly stemmed from the fact that the primary members of the League of Nations were not willing to accept the possibility of their fate being decided by other countries and (by enforcing unanimous voting) had effectively given themselves veto power.
In contrast:
• FYI for most EU laws to be passed only a qualified majority is required by both the Executive and the Legislature e.g. 55% in both Houses.
• Constitutional changes to the EU laws require a two thirds majority.
• It’s only Foreign Affairs and Defence where the EU vote has to be unanimous e.g. where a Member State has the power of veto.
The other difference, as I’ve already mentioned is that EU laws are enforceable on EU Member States by the EU Court.
CITIZENSHIP – A league of nations doesn’t have citizenship, but the EU does have citizenship.
Another aspect that I didn’t see mentioned in that Canadian web link that you gave, is EU citizenship.
As an EU citizen you can freely move between Member States, and live and work in any Member State of your choice (no borders), no different to driving from New York to Texas to live and or work.
As part of the Brexit Agreement, any Brit living and working in any other EU State prior to Brexit could apply for EU citizenship, and likewise, any EU citizen living and or working in Britain prior to Brexit had the right to apply for UK citizenship – this arrangement applied to over 5 million citizens in the EU and UK.
After Brexit I lost my EU citizenship, but my wife and son were fortunate enough to retain their EU citizenship because my wife’s father was born in Northern Ireland. As part of the Northern Ireland Peace Treaty in 1998, anyone born in Northern Ireland (before Brexit) automatically has dual nationality with the Republic of Ireland (an EU Member), and under the 1998 Peace Treaty any children and grandchildren of anyone born in Northern Ireland has an automatic right to apply for citizenship in the Republic of Ireland. So with Brexit looming both my wife and son applied for their citizenship with the Republic of Ireland, giving them both dual EU & UK nationality for life.Yes, Brexit is a sad thing.
In so many ways. It's another classic example of a decision not made for the good of the people in general but to benefit a small elite percentage.
Or in other words. A class war.
I'm sad to see the UK go. As the EU was besides an economical system a system of solidarity. Sharing each other's knowledge and culture.
But well, we had this discussion before.
So far, on the question of what has the UK gained by Brexit there are no clear answers, only vague promises.
On the other hand, there are plenty of examples to show what the UK lost on the financial ground, on influence in the world ground, on a day-to-day basis.
But well, it's done. The lower and working class has lost and the 1% has had a major victory.
And speaking of wars. The ecological war that's going on right now is still one to fight for as it is also connected with the power of resources (like drinking water and energy) and so the eco war is connected again with the war of classes.
"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."
----------
While it not as dire as it is in Great Britain, aging populations are going to have affect on our on economy as it is a problem faced by most developed nations, today. I hear that Italy is amongst the most severe.
We all can only survive and prosper based on cooperation rather than contention, that is today's reality. For every advantage Brexit offers two
Disadvantages takes its place.
I don't believe many you really believe that your national identity is threatened which is basically the complaint I hear coming from the Right, supporting Brexit. What are the chances that this Brexit situation in Britain can be reversed?Yep, spot on, on every point you make.
And yep, very true, in spite of what the Right would have you believe, the British people did not believe their national identity was threatened by being part of the EU e.g. the French, German, Italian etc., all have thier own national identity; just as a New Yorker or a Texian have their own distinctive identities.
Yeah, I'm sure its only a matter of time before the Brexit situation can be reversed, but its going to take a generation or two - the long game.
The Liberal Party's prime goal is to get a 2nd referendum e.g. next time we have a hung Parliament in a General Election, where no political party wins overall control either the Liberal Party and or the SNP (Scottish National Party) will hold the balance of power - that is, there support will be needed in order for one of the main parties (Conservative or Labour) to form a government; and as part of giving that support the Liberal Party and or the SNP (who are also pro EU) will demand a 2nd Referendum.
The other scenario is that Scotland gets its wish of gaining Independence from England, and subsequently joins the EU; which is what it's is currently fighting for. Also, Sinn Fein's prime object is to get a Referendum on the reunification of Ireland, which if they won would mean Northern Ireland leaving England to join the EU.
In that scenario, with England losing Scotland and or Northern Ireland, it would become very isolated (more so than it is now), putting more pressure on it to seek to re-join the EU.
If and when either or all of the above scenarios happen, and if subsequently England applies to re-join the EU, it then has to persuade all EU member States to support its application e.g. it's application could be veto by just one Member State - So good luck to that e.g. the UK would have to do a lot of ass licking to get back in favour with the Union!
But all in good time.
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"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.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.
That is right, equality when one compares one with another is illusive and as far as I am concerned, undefined. So, to expect equality to all under the auspices of the law is a reasonable compromise. We need to strive for fair even when ideal, absolute equality, is beyond reach.
Thanks for your feedback, it's good to see we're all on the same page
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).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.
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?
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...)To me the fact that you wash clothes that way indicates you care about your role in climate change, as opposed to someone like Leonardo de Caprio who says he cares but has a "carbon footprint" the size of a city.
Well, it's part being practical living off the grid with solar energy. But that said when we lived in Amsterdam we hadn't a washing machine either and we went to the laundrette. Many flats in Amsterdam are small and there was simply no room in the first flat we lived. There are many laundrettes so that's no problem.
So I'm used to do without. We collect the excess water from the shower in a bucket and use it for a small wash....So there you go...
Changing from a city life into a country side life was a steep learning curve. From mains elec. to solar. Because you need to become conscious about water and energy use. What actually a good thing is.
Yes, The more money you have the bigger the carbon footprint. But you have the possibility to do projects to lower it. But sadly enough the awareness isn't there most of the time.
I don't know what Leonardo de Caprio does with his money, but it's difficult to level out a high society lifestyle, carbon footprint wise..
I've got a good friend who has loads of money, living in London, and he does more or less every day a wash with the washing machine, just for one or two things! Weird. Problem is if you have money you have the tendency to buy more stuff and throw stuff away easier.
So far for the consumption prosperity....
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.
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.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.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.The 10,000 kWh that Chris quoted for the USA is 27 kWh per day (10,000 divided by 365).
I know that I use a lot more electricity than most Brits; but even so, over the past 12 months I’ve used 6,728 kWh (a daily average of just over 18 kWh). So if you are correct in saying that you use 84.8 kWh per day (your latest bill) then that is an awful lot of electricity?wilderness, you use electricity for heating. Of course that gives higher numbers. Just subtract heating associated energy and you end up at lower values that are more aligned with statistics. Besides that: your overall figures are quite impressive, impressively low.
However there is an issue with using electricity for heating. That is CO2 output. You can either burn fossile fuels, natural gas directly or you can use it to generate electricity. But if you burn fuel in a power station the efficiency is only 40..50%. So you literally burn twice as much fossiles for electricity than burning it directly in your house. Thus double and more of CO2 output for electric heating with current grid energy mix.
France uses a lot of electric heating in private homes. But they have moderate winter temperatures and lots of nuclear power. Different picture.
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.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.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?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.Thanks for your feedback; I fully agree with you
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.
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?Lol, agreed!
They are much too infatuated and impressed with themselves and can't be expected to practice what they preach!
World’s First Net Zero Transatlantic Flight Due to Take Place in 2023:
https://www.theoldhamtimes.co.uk/news/n … ic-flight/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.
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.Could be wrong, but I think sulfur is a great generator of acid rain. So much for the cars of California.
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.
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.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)?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.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/geATz4pdCSgWhy 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.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.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.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.
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"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.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?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.
Yep, nutritionally wise; nothing beats cows milk.
I liked milk as a child, but use it sparingly as an adult. Likewise with beef. Half my family was raised vegetarian. My point is that taking away meat and milk is not a useful endeavor. And if you think the government will never outlaw meat for “environmental” reasons, you are mistaken. Every day, the government intrudes upon our freedoms. Nothing about that ever comes to any lasting good.
I am adamant that governments will NOT outlaw meat for ‘environmental reasons’; yes, smoking in public was banned across the world for public health reasons, and the current UK Government policy is to completely ban the sale of tobacco by 2030!
However, banning smoking and banning meat are two different things; and certainly Americans do seem to be paranoid about governments intruding upon your freedoms, but that is an American social cultural phenomenon. Social cultural views and attitudes in Europe is different, giving a different perspective on the situation e.g. yes governments (particularly right-wing governments) on this side of the pond do sometimes try to intrude upon our freedoms, and when they go too far that public push back.
It’s nothing new; the struggle between the rulers and the peasants has been going in Europe for over a thousand years e.g. the peasant’s revolt in England in 1381; and in the process of the fight back from the people has been that over the centuries people have won civil liberties.
The signing of the Magna Carta by the King of England in 1215 (the foundation of modern civil liberties) was as a revolt from the barons when the King’s demands were too great.
Thank you. As an exercise and jogging enthusiaste, milk keeps my musco-skeletal system in good working condition. I never will experience osteoporosis in my life. So are persons who drink diary milk regularly and into workout routines.
I regularly drink milk, but I am a bit lazy when it comes to exercise; so the only exercise I really get is just from daily activities like gardening, DIY and housework etc.
That's better than a sedentary lifesytle. Tomorrow at 5.00AM I'm off to the thread mill road working. Keep to yours..Thank you.
As I have said before, children in poor countries need milk and meat. They do not have the variety of foods that children in wealthier countries have. It’s that simple.
Furthermore, I am grateful for the milk I had as a child and even now, on occasion.I don't disagree with you; I fully agree that children in poor countries need milk and meat - And nobody is proposing that that should change.
What are 'poor' countries? Like as I also said before western civilization try to displaced the cultural diets of their colonies. In his ABC of Nutrition, Proffesor Stewart a nutritionalist has researched the eating pattern of some tribal group in Africa. The poor peoples the erudite scholar gathered eat more than 10 varieties of foods daily. You westerner failed in that he said. Read the informational and factual book if you can lay hand on it. Thanks.
Thanks for the feedback; yeah, certainly the modern western diet (junk food) is very unhealthy - We could learn a lot from the nutritional diets of tribal groups in Africa and around the world in those poor countries where famine and starvation isn't an issue.
One example that comes to mind is that insects is a highly nutritional source of food, high in protein, that forms a major part of the diet in some Asian countries; but I doubt there are many Westerners who would be able to stomach eating insects.
Taste Test of all the Bugs at a Thailand Market. https://youtu.be/jy5pBI8WvK8I've tried grasshoppers. Too dry, too crunchy. Perhaps earthworms or caterpillars would be better.
In the East of Nigeria, my country, the Ibo's are very fond of the caterpillar, and treat the animal as a delicacy. The price is princely, in season, or out of season.
In my part of the world, right there in my neighbourhood, are a group of peoples called the Ogonis, eating tiger ants. Certain termites when they come out from their moulds during the rains are my meat. Spicied with chili and herbs, these delicacies are common in the South of Nigeria. But I'm not at ease eating the grasshopper or John the Baptist's bread, which Dr Mark, likewise found inconvenient. In the Bible, in the book of Leventicus, certain insects are to be eaten because they're healthy and nutritious.
What is Professor Stewart’s first name? The poorest of the poor are dying in very poor regions throughout the world due to lack of nutrition. That is a sad reality.
I am glad that you are not among the most unfortunate. No one here has claimed that you are.Savvydating, here's the Proffesor's full names as it appear on his book:. ABC of Nutrition, by A. Stewart Trustwell, BMJ Books, London.
Seriously, and fyi Prof Trustwell pioneer the teaching of Nutrition Science to medical students. In a rich locality, don't you ever see the poor and hungry come in begging? We can't help it. They're got used to it. Thanks.I see it is a textbook for students. Thank you.
This does not negate the fact that children are dying from malnutrition, especially in very poor regions.Yes 'in very poor regions'? Even in 'advanced economies'. Agreed? Thanks.
What the hell. Please do not tell me you are happy to eat tiger ants.
This discussion has become ridiculous.
Even M 57 seems to have sold his soul. Delicacies are one thing. Sound nutrition for the all of mankind is another thing.
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.OMG! M57 sold his soul to eating tiger ants? Never! Read my comment again to get me. Savvy? Don't you westerners ever eat any delicacies? 'This nonsense about forcing people to do with less' or eating tiger ants? No. No one is forcing anyone. It's a cultural trend. They take in more for good nutrion to bellyful. Delicacies are like a snack or second courses. Government in third world countries are trying they best to raise the GDP amidts inflation, poverty, and so on. Yes, this discussion has digress, but not hijacked. Thank you.
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-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?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.
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 … transitionIt'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?
GAI 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.
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.
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.'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.
Come on savvydating, I don't ever consider Great Britain as a tiny country. Or you're thinking of Glasgow. Thank you.
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.
Arthur, you're welcome. But in Nigeria, the politicians hardly took the advise of the civil servants. Thanks.
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.
England is about the size of one U.S. state, such as Alabama, but England has more people.
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-HDIXX4Cocerning 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.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_KRK3VIThe 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.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?
New York is already banning gas stoves in new construction starting next year.
https://www.thecity.nyc/2023/1/13/23554 … at-to-knowGovernor Hochul’s office said the governor “has been clear that we have to take bold steps on climate to protect the health and safety of our children, and 30 percent of state greenhouse gas emissions come from buildings. The equipment phase out proposal would not apply to gas stoves. Both proposals include regulatory processes to examine which exemptions are appropriate"
This is a proposal that has to pass legislature and I'm sure there will be lots of debate and citizen input before anything happens.
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/01/1 … s-00077751You want to know about my educational background?
That’s funny..Actually, it is never appropriate to judge someone by their educational level. Only elitists, with no understanding of the world, would even think to ask that question or deem it appropriate in any way.
And sadly, the only reason they do so is because of their own ignorance.You're the only one who said anything about judgment..
It depends on what you are judging them about.
I don't want a truck driver writing history books for my school kids....
it is not ignorant to recognize that education has value.What a sad statement.
I am disappointed and a little surprised that you agree with a wannabe elitist.
What a shame, but oddly predictable when all is said and done.What is an elitist? The opposite of a populist?
When it comes to science you have to listen to specialists. And they are indeed elite. Everybody can have an opinion, but it doesn't mean a thing if you can not back it up with facts.
Science is not an opinion. Science does not care if you like the result or not. 2+2 will still equal 4 even if you prefer the number 7.
And so is it with the Climate Crisis, it is a fact if we like it or not.Disagree. There have been too many forecasts/dates/deadlines of pending gloom and doom of things to come...but they never come to fruition! There's a reason we've gone from calling it global cooling to global warming to climate change to climate crisis. Eventually the climate alarmists/activists will come to their senses and just call it "the weather".
They is a reason why certain persons fail to understand weather predictions. Rainfall or any weather scenario, is a dynamic instead of being statics. Like as in social sciences, the pharase, 'pariba paribus' or all things being equal, is not usually or frequently applied. That made weather prediction sometimes a nonesense. Rain that is about to fall, at times has been deflect to another place instead of the original location by a strong air current. So people in my community has taken weather forecast as a poke!
Peter, I really like you, but Greta Thunberg is not a specialist. She has no idea what she is talking about.
An elitist is someone with multiple degrees, and usually a PhD, who thinks they have the wherewithal to dictate to others what is good for them.
In reality, their knowledge is highly specialized; they live in a world of ideas, and they only have a modicum of knowledge outside their narrow field of study.
If you are interested in reading a book about elitists I speak of, I recommend “The Vision of the Anointed” by Thomas Sowell."Vision of the Anointed?" Dr Sowell is a renown and experienced Social Scientist and historian. Even though he is a conservative, he is not a Trump syncophant. I am curious as to what he has to say about all of this.
https://web.archive.org/web/20091127095 … _17443658/
I read this pretty this pretty thorough book review and disagree with Dr. Sowell's analysis.I would say that Mr. George deems himself a member of the anointed.
I disagree with Mr. George. He is an idealist. His hint that big ideas and big government can solve most problems in society is highly unrealistic and is not based on thorough research. We can make the world better and richer, but not through social programs.
No, Great Thunberg is not a specialist.
But what she is saying over and over again is: "Listen to the scientists." She is not saying: "Listen to me." or listen to a politician.
She knows what she is talking about as she is talking with scientists on a daily basis about this subject. Over the years she has learned more about the dangers of climate change than we have. As she is busy with it day in day out. Talking with lots of different scientists working in the field.
If I have a problem with my car I go to an "elitist", a professional who has learned about cars.
Same with asking questions about the climate crisis, I go to a specialist who studied this, not to a politician or TV show host.
I think in our world, people like Leonardo Da Vinci who was a homo universalis, having extensive knowledge about everything, does not exist anymore. When you study today, you specialize. This has its advantages but also its drawbacks. Indeed sometimes people who specialize don't see the overall picture anymore.The problem with Greta is that she was raised by a domineering mother who taught her early in life to be afraid of dying at a young age due to climate change. This mother also knew she could use her child to make money.
Little Greta grew into a young girl, a teenager, and now a young woman who has received praise from older elitists who praise her vision even though Greta had no idea what she was talking about.
Thus, young Greta, who was highly impressionable because of her age and because of her autism, came to believe she must be quite extraordinary.
But, she is not. She is simply someone who has learned to parrot words from activists in a dramatic fashion, and as a result, she and her mother have made quite a lot of money.
Did you know that she stages her photos, even going so far as to pretend she is being carried off by police and pretending said police have dumped her luggage anywhere, leaving her with no place to go? Meanwhile, she has a first-class ticket awaiting her next destination.
The poor girl is a fake and I hate to see what happens to her psyche when she has to come to the reckoning that she is rather ordinary and has been used.
But, maybe she never will due to her lack of self-awareness. Her story is rather sad, and the more so because people promote her, and naïve "sycophants" (your word, not mine) believe her.Savvydating, forgive me for asking this question. Did you know Greta Thunberg and her parent from childhood, or is your narrative the outcome of your research? If I'm not right in subscribing to the former, then a book?, a link, or what you may provide for me to dig further? This personality Greta, of late sounds green to me especially during the pandemic. I though her pathway was the medical...thank you.
'A' plus. But should he hold a certificate in history, that's no status bar to write a story about history for kids. Seriously, I would valua it more in the form of folklore, or oral tradition, more like 'Alice Adventure in Wonderland and Through the Look Glass' This book written by Lewis Carol, a math enthusiast, had some history. What qualify Carol to write the book? He was fond of story telling for kids.
Perhaps, but Lewis Carroll was not writing scholarly textbooks. Those adept with a pen can write a short story, but it takes education to write scholarly treatises on nuclear physics.
Agreed. But Tycho Brahem was into Astronomy. He don't usual have the scholarly education in astronomy. Yet, he's reputed to be the best at his time. Scholarly education is great. But it shouldn't be made the yardstick.
While it is not "the" yardstick it is certainly an important one. Tycho Brahe, while not being formally trained spent years studying his topic, he did not speak "off the cuff" or in complete ignorance when it came to astronomy.
#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.
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_pSII take it you do not trust the findings from the U.N.
Sorry, but you haven't provided the link to back-up your claim.
I read it in a book. What is this obsession with links? Most links are meaningless in that they are so biased to the Left.
However, if I can find a notation, I will provide.A link for you:
https://www.usgs.gov/special-topics/wat … year-floodYou say the findings are from the UN; yet you say you got the information from a book, but you don’t say what book?
So how do I know the quote in the book is accurate and factual and hasn’t been taken out of context?
The whole point of links is that they back-up your claims; otherwise, without the links as proof you could make any false claim.
The link you did provide below is about the concept of the statistical 100-year flood; the article has nothing whatsoever to do with climate change. It’s an American Government paper talking about how misinterpretation of terminology often leads to confusion about flood recurrence intervals.Okay. I almost never ask for links. If I am interested enough, I will research on my own. I can give you a list of books, but I am sure you would never read them.
Also, Hubpages specifically requests that we not start a forum for the “sole purpose of promoting links.”
So, I hope you will use less links and try not to dump so many graphs. Thanks.Promoting a link verses providing it to support a position or a statement beyond your just saying so are two different things, Savvy....
Perhaps HP does not know the difference. I get air messages from HP when two different people post links.
Savvydating? Are you here being a smart alec, or knowledgeable?
You used to be nicer. Have you not heard of air messages?
Nope. What's it? Though I've come across it in this forum a day or two ago. Much thanks.
I understand. If that's his way, so be it. It is the graphs dumps that are annoying.
Yet, I do get air messages from HP regarding links. I never got them before this forum.
Yep, absolutely, as Credence says “promoting a link verses providing it to support a position or a statement beyond your just saying so are two different things”
Further to my previous reply to where you said:-
“…. I almost never ask for links. If I am interested enough, I will research on my own….”
Were you not taught to source reference your work at college?
At college we were taught how to source reference properly, and if we didn’t we would lose marks on our assignments.
And when I did ‘Report Writing’ in the civil service I had to source reference all my ‘Findings’; and if I didn’t do it thoroughly enough, or properly, then my senior management would just simply reject my Official Report.
Without proper source referencing anyone can say anything, regardless to whether it’s true of not.
If I was to say the moon was made out of cheese, you would want proof wouldn’t you; you wouldn’t just take my word for it?Yes, in college we must source references. (Never from Wikipedia, by the way) and I respect your points and your passion. However, I do not believe that every statement on a forum has to be backed up with a link or a reference.
For example, your links are from liberal sites. That does not make them more credible to me, but it may make them interesting. You might think similarly of any link of mine that is remotely conservative.
Rather than finding the kink in the armor, would it not be better to express ideas and convictions based upon the personal research you find interesting without demanding that another change their method of exchanging ideas just to suit your own?
If you use forums solely to discredit another, then what is the fun or the point? This forum should be a place to learn from both sides of the aisle.
I have found some of your points interesting.I wouldn't believe it in the first place, just as I do not believe the world will end in 12 years due to climate change. It's called common sense.
How long ago was it when Al Gore said New York would be underwater? He lied, knowing full well he lied and the IPCC backed him every step of the way.
Did you know that scientists today will not get any grant money if they provide any counter-consensus regarding climate change? Did you know they can be wrongly fired for providing the truth based on facts?
This has been going on for decades and the IPCC is a big part of the problem.
I'll let you research that on your own even as I know your liberal sources will never provide you with the truth.
I have family members who were in the civil service their entire lives and who believe the liberal government could do no wrong. They were not independent thinkers, nor are they to this day.
Taking your two above posts together:-
If you read the recent HP post you’ll know that HP didn’t say not to use Wikipedia as a reference source, but they did point out that Wikipedia articles are themselves well referenced, and that it would be preferable to use the appropriate sources from Wikipedia e.g. the root source that Wikipedia uses.
Correct, not every statement on a forum has to be backed up with a link or reference; but when disputing misinformation, without providing proof, it’s your word against mine.
Where you say my “links are from liberal sites”; that in itself is misinformation. FYI the ‘National Grid Live’ website is NOT a liberal site – The National Grid in the UK is a private, independent, profit making company, It has nothing to do with politics: Also, the links I’ve made to UK Government websites are not liberal sites – I assume you do release the UK Government is a right-wing Conservative Government. Other links I’ve used include the National Geographic and NASA etc., none of which are liberal sites.
And what about the Cisco link I recently gave you: Cisco is not a liberal site; Cisco is an American-based multinational digital communications technology conglomerate corporation headquartered in California.
And for your information I trust articles written by the British newspapers ‘The Telegraph’ and ‘The Times’; both of which are right-wing conservative newspaper – I trust them because they take pride in fact-checking what they publish.
FYI, outside of the USA, Climate Change/Global Warming/Renewable Energy etc. are NOT political. Outside of the USA, other countries around the world of all political persuasions, including right-wing Conservative governments all accept the Climate Change crisis, and are all committed to transitioning from fossil fuels to Renewable Energy.
The UK Government is a right-wing Conservative Government, yet it’s highly committed to transitioning from fossil fuels to Renewable Energy.
Yeah, I’d be more than happy to express my ideas and conviction based upon my personal research; which is exactly what I do e.g. I’ve been studying Climate Change/Global Warming since 2012 – but the problem is that you are unwilling to accept anything that is contrary to your belief, even when I do present proof that climate change is a crisis and that Renewable Energy is far cheaper than fossil fuels, and that investment in renewable energy technologies is creating jobs and wealth, and economic growth in European countries because Europe is embracing the new technologies.
Besides if you write an HP article on topics such as this it will not be selected for a niche site if it does not contain relevant links to source references from reputable websites (including Wikipedia); to back up your claims. I know from personal experience, because that was the requirements for a number of my articles that have been selected for HP’s niche sites.
COMMON SENSE – YEAH:
• It’s a well-established fact that burning fossil fuels emits greenhouse gases into the atmosphere which causes climate change and global warming.
• It’s a well-established fact that because of the sheer volume of greenhouse emitted into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels that the trees and oceans can’t re-absorb it all back into the earth, which consequently causes climate change and global warming.
So why not use common sense to acknowledge these well-established facts; rather than keep denying the facts.
Al Gore? Sorry, but he’s an American politician (not of world fame) so I have little knowledge or interest in him.
Science has been one of my fortes since my school days, so I know fully well how the scientific community works e.g. the fundamental importance of the peer review process, and how it operates and functions, and how it affects funding for research - and I suspect that you don’t have a clue on the peer review mechanism and process. So you can’t pull the wool over my eyes with your false allegations; if anything I would suspect that from the books you read that you have been feed propaganda.
Besides, the R&D (Research & Development) into Green Technologies in Europe and the UK has nothing to do with the IPCC; much of the funding for the research comes from investment by private, profit making, commercial companies, who have an invested interest in making the research commercially viable and scalable so that they can make profit from it; creating jobs, wealth and economic growth.
What are you suggesting in your last paragraph, that I am not an independent thinker because I was a civil servant: That suggestion is so wrong on so many levels:
• Firstly, in the UK the civil service is apolitical.
• Secondly, as a civil servant I served under right-wing Conservative Governments for just as many years as I served under left-wind Socialist Governments.
• Thirdly my job had nothing to do with my personal beliefs or personal life.Well, no one will accuse you of being overly gracious. My brother has written four peer-reviewed books on statistics and economics. He has taught me about the peer-review process, so I am quite familiar with it.
And no offense to you, but he would laugh at your statistics.
As for civil servants, I do not believe they are all incapable of free-thinking, including you, nor do I believe that about Credence.
The last true conservative leader you had was Margaret Thatcher. Your UK conservative government is currently similar to our Democratic Party when it comes to climate policies, although your government may have put more money into R&D sooner than we have.
As for your beliefs about global warming, I am not even remotely convinced, in part because your scientists only take into account what has been happening for the last 150 years or so.
Would your head blow up if you discovered that the planet is currently on a cooling trend? Could that possibly be? I wonder what an ethical paleo-climatologist would say?'Would your head blow up if you discover that the planet was currently on a cooling trend?' Savvydating, it's being felt in my part of the globe. And its not a constant but varible. I think many are getting used to the fact.
Peer reviewing a book on statistics and economics, or any other academic subject, is not the same as the scientific peer review process. I have college qualifications in both statistics and economics, and I used both in my job in the civil service. In fact, when I did Report writing in the civil service it was always peer reviewed by my line management and senior management; and if I didn’t do a good job in presenting my findings and conclusions, back-up with source references, then my ‘Recommendation’ in my report wouldn’t see the light of day.
The peer review process in the scientific community is entirely different, and acceptance of any scientific theory hinges on the following three criteria:-
• It makes falsifiable predictions with consistent accuracy across a broad area of scientific inquiry (such as mechanics).
• 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.
Where you say “As for civil servants, I do not believe they are all incapable of free-thinking, including you, nor do I believe that about Credence.” – then why in your previous post did you say “I have family members who were in the civil service their entire lives and who believe the liberal government could do no wrong. They were not independent thinkers, nor are they to this day.”
You infer that the current Conservative Government is really a liberal government because it supports ‘climate change’ policies: Again, you are trying to make ‘climate change’ political, whereas outside of the USA it is NOT political. Besides, did you know that in spite of the fact that Britain has 200 years of untapped coal reserves in the ground that in the 1980s Margaret Thatcher actually closed down the coal mines in Britain!
Yes, our Government in the UK, and governments across the full political spectrum across the whole of Europe have invested in R&D sooner than the USA; which is why the UK and the EU are world leaders in green technologies, and why across Europe and in the UK its creating a huge job market and great wealth, and is contributing towards economic growth and the growth in the GDP.
Your penultimate paragraph demonstrates how little you know about how science works.
Yeah, I do know, and as far back as the 1970s I was fully aware of the fact that if it wasn’t for the current ‘anthropogenic climate change’ that the earth would by now heading back towards another ice age. As I said previously, science has been one of my forte since school, in my last two years at school I studied both Newtonian Physics and Astronomy for my school exam qualifications.
For your information the reason the celestial influence on climate change is caused by three changes in the Earth’s orbit around the Sun:
• Eccentricity,
• Axial tilt, and
• Precession
Collectively these three elements are called the 'Milankovitch cycles'.
But the fact is that because of the Industrial Revolution we are now burning fossil fuels on such a massive scale that we are creating far more greenhouse gases than can be absorbed by the trees and oceans – which causes Global Warming. And the effect of global warming caused by ‘anthropogenic climate change’ far outweighs the cooling effects caused by the 'Milankovitch cycles.I'm a civil servant likewise,but a 'retired Chief Administrative Officer'.The rank is so high that it take at least two promotions ranks(Assistant Director and Deputy Director)to become a Director. I don't know how 'free thinking' in the America, British, European civil service is currently. But in my country Nigeria, the civil service is found under the British. In January 1970 after the Nigeria civil war, the country began to transist to indigeneous decrees or laws made by the military government. So the old 'Marching Order' get reform to local condition The Administrative Officers Class Cadre become the policy initiators of the service. In all administration and management, they're the free thinkers. I'm here talking about the 'core' service. But they can't interven in the thinking of a doctor or engineer.
" And the effect of global warming caused by ‘anthropogenic climate change’ far outweighs the cooling effects caused by the 'Milankovitch cycles."
You don't know that. We cannot know that at this time. The study of global warming over such a small fraction of time is not sufficient to know how the earth will react to anthropogenic activity. To believe otherwise defies true science. The science is not settled.
I mentioned that some of my family members are not free-thinkers (who happen to be civil servants) because they believe CNN provides them with the gospel truth. They believe the current hype about anything.
When it comes to global warming, you seem to have bought into the popular science, hook, line, and sinker. However, you are not afraid to read The Telegraph which shows me that you may think independently on other matters, but not climate change.
I do believe, however, that you are a prolific writer, like your grandfather, and that you received a pretty good education. But, that's rather beside the point.
Your mind is set whereas as I look at different hypotheses. If I were not a free thinker, I would not have read any of Bjorn Lomborg's books, which seem to uphold scientists and various government entities which I question wholeheartedly.Savvy my friend, I don't believe CNN and the other mainstream propaganda mddia outfits. Nor do I swallow line, hook, and sinker the popular science about global warming. I'm science nerd, if you care to know. Savvy, I'm ever studing the effects of global warming on my part of the world, and noting current trends across my ponds. Some local but stark and illiterated folks in my community knows this. Why shouldn't I? Critically, when most of my natural studies some 30 years seems obselete, why shouldn't I update naturaky? No sane scientific minded person will not update. Yves? You seem to have the gist of talking. Congratulations! And let's stay friends ever.
Excuse me; we do know how the earth is reacting to anthropogenic activity; for example:-
• The correlation between the dramatic increase levels of greenhouse and global net average temperatures since the start of the Industrial Revolution is very striking.
• And in recent decades various studies of variations of atmosphere contents over time and corresponding climate changes going back eons e.g. by examining air trapped in ice cores in glacier sheets (time capsule); all support that anthropogenic activity is impacting on the world’s climate.
The two graphs at the bottom speaks volumes.
Notwithstanding whether CNN is a good news source or not (that is a subject for another debate); I don’t get CNN in Britain, and FYI I do not believe any current hype about anything – believe it or not I am sceptical by nature (as any scientifically minded person is), and I take time analysing the facts before I formulate an opinion on any subject e.g. prior to 2012 I too was sceptical about climate change.
I haven’t “bought into the popular science, hook, line and sinker”; I understand science, which is something that you don’t.
If I was sceptical about climate change before 2012 because I didn’t have enough understanding of the subject at that time; and now that I’ve studied the subject scientifically, I’m no longer sceptical, then how can my mind be set – I don’t take anything for gospel, I always evaluate the subject matter with a scientific mind to formulate my own opinion.
Whereas, in spite of what you say; you refuse to accept any concrete evidence that threatens your beliefs – which is why I guess you don’t like links and graphs to be shown in this forum, that proves the reality of climate change, because you seem to want to stifle that evidence.
These charts below clearly show the relationship between greenhouse gases and global temperatures.
The first chart shows the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere over the last half a million years,
In the second chart the black line is the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere over time since 1880, and the yellow line shows the average mean net global temperature over the same time period.
Arthur, you can't reason with conservatives here anymore than you can expect a grizzly bear to use a toilet.
Conservatives are part and parcel of 19th Century thinking; cut down every tree, slaughter bison and whales until extinction. Development without regard to the fact that the Earth and its resources are not infinite and that only a fool fouls its own nest. The first graph depicts a sharp change from a pattern maintained over eons of time. Changes that would concern any sane individual.
The Planet Venus is an example of high levels of atmospheric Carbon dioxide and how it contributes to temperatures on its surface that would melt lead. Only simpletons would assume that because it was warmer in town last year than this year, then global warming must be a hoax. The Earth's fragile ecosystem which includes atmospheric dynamics and meteorology may be at a delicate balance and we as a species may be advised not to push it too far. The effects of rising greenhouse gas is new according to chart and I dont want to chance the consequences because of the incessant greed of a few, now that we are aware today of the potential risks, as we were not 150 years ago.
I don't have to be a scientist to take note of what is obvious..."But who wants to be foretold the weather? It is bad enough when it comes, without our having the misery of knowing about it beforehand."
Jerome K. Jerome
Three Men In a Boat 1889Case in point, AB, a Nineteenth century quote from a Nineteenth century man employing Nineteenth century reasoning......
A good case indeed. It's realistic...and still applicale today anywhere in the world. During the dry seasons or summers here in Nigeria, no one ever expect the rains before they due time. Surprisely, but funny and sadly enough, we do see unexpected 'convention rains' that are very rare. Some of us educated ones wonder if the Met see this coming. Has any over the seas there experienced this sort of challenge? Many thanks.
Very aptly putted by Jerome K Jerome. No one ever knows when and where the rain is coming. Have you ever heard certified Meteologists 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 learnt many basic things about the ciimate change and weather forecasting, and how that help or debased man and his environment. Oddly, a prediction of rainfall by a voodoo priest in my locality is sure to get many ears instead a government Met Officer.
"Only simpletons would assume that because it was warmer in town last year than this year, then global warming must be a hoax."
What about those that decided that because it was warmer in town this year than last year, then global warming must be factual, with all life dying within 10 years. Are they simpletons, too?They are "simpletons", too, Wilderness. The science and statistics need to be properly evaluated, the chart provided by Arthur clearly show a trend that many would like to relegate to irrelevance, but I believe needs to be questioned as to the cause and possible effects on our environment now and into the future.
How do you know?
But, I will ask Arthur about the source of the chart...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.
Furthermore, every time you insult Republicans, you are only insulting yourself..I want to be fair but evidence has to come from your side. Are you a climatologist or meteorologist? Ethical paleoclimatolgists? Is there anything documented that you might share for our enlightenment? You would not expect anything less if you were on the other side of this debate, now would you?
Oh by the way, I am not Republican, so, I can't insult myself......Is Nathan a paleo climatologist? Is his beloved Greta a paleo climatologist?
Even Nathan has admitted the earth is on a cooling trend.
Have you thought about doing climate research outside of your “Progressive” politics?
But why would any Progressive do that?
Instead you bow to the feet of racist progressives like Franklin Roosevelt and Margaret Sanger. And you think yourself clever for mocking Republicans who fought for equal rights and dare to question the banality of popular opinion.
How sad for you.I asked you to support your position with something other than your mere opinion. What does FDR or Margaret Sanger have to do with it?
I question anyone who asserts without being willing to provide proof..... that applies across the board from Trump to you, Savvy
So, I now have to believe that NASA must have an agenda that is "deep state" or is it just a basic stubbornness and anti-intellectual attitude of the standard Trump variety conservative?
https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/17/do-scie … te-change/
So, I am in a quandary, do I believe Savvy or do I believe NASA with all its expert scientists and engineers?Credence, use your scientific mind if you ever get one. Some here don't, as they're art minded. Credence2, did you read the link you produce and analysed the issue? So you don't know who to 'believe'? The name 'savvy' (Yves) is more of an artist here. And I don't see that wrong here. Each according to they formed opinion. Whatever NASA, Climatdologist, or a Meteolorogist said on global climate change is for the good of humanity.
Savvydating? What did I said in my last comment...in the last paragraphe...in the last sentense to you?
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.Why should I not live near a coart? I live at the precinct of a water front. My house is safe from flooding although some areas are not that stable.
You can answer that question yourself. Why is your home safe? Is it because your government has safety measures in place for flooding… or it because you just think your home is safe?
That is the point. Rather than blaming climate change on catastrophic events, how about adapting to the needs and/or desires of human beings who insist on living in flood zones.
Personally, I would choose to live in areas that are not likely to be flooded.
Excuse me, an increasing number of areas in Britain, and elsewhere in the world, that are nowhere near the coast, and which hasn’t experienced floods in the past, are now experiencing flooding.
The reason we get more floods in Britain is simply because of a dramatic increase in heavy rainfall, causing flood flooding; hence we now get floods more frequently and more severe than we used to in Britain.
And the reason we get more floods is because of climate change e.g. many of the villages and towns that now get devastating floods are not new development; they are villages and towns that have existed for centuries and millennia, and that in the past didn’t flood.
• Accurate flood records in the UK began in 1862; and since then, six of the ten wettest years have occurred since 1998.
• The UK is now 9% wetter than it was prior to 1990.
• On current trends, severe flooding in the UK is expected to increase by around 25% over the next few decades.
The reason that climate change is causing more flooding in some parts of the world is basic science, as follows:-
Hotter air can hold more moisture, so warmer air draws up extra moisture from the oceans. This results in clouds containing a greater number of larger rain droplets, and thus why showers in summer are often heavier than in winter. As the climate continues to warm, the effect of global warming will increase, and heavy rainfall events are expected to become more common.
The reason this affects the UK in particular is because of the ‘Jet stream’; a jet of air high in the atmosphere that traverses the Atlantic Ocean from North America to the UK.
Where you might be misunderstanding what you’ve claim to have read about the UN, is that changes in rainfall patterns will vary across the world. Consequently, latitudes close to the poles and tropical oceans are seeing an increase in overall rainfall. However, large parts of subtropical regions are experiencing a decrease in rainfall, leading to drier conditions – Hence globally there is little overall increase in flooding, but regionally e.g. as in the UK, there is a dramatic increase in flooding.
This document provides a lot of valid information on the topic:-
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/c … and-floodsDid not find your site credible. Too biased, but thanks.
Yes it is credible, its the UK Met Office (Metrological Office). The Met Office (a government body) credibility is based on the fact that they have to be as accurate as possible in predicting short, medium and long term weather forecasts for the UK - For Government, for Industry and for Induvial citizens wanting to plan the daily lives and holidays.
Inaccurate weather forecasts costs the Government, and Industry money, and costs lives - So yes the Met Office is a credible and trusted organisation, because of its consistent accuracy in its forecasts.
FYI the Met Office is consistently one of the top two most accurate weather forecasters in the world.
What is the Met Office? https://youtu.be/tls9h2q7QlYI can believe their forecasts are very good, but I do not believe the European government when it comes to climate change. The Met office is a government agency, and they are too alarmist. Their efforts will come to nil in the grand scheme of things.
(where cooling the planet is concerned)
Furthermore, all these policies will cost your government a fortune as it is costing the U.S.
Get your facts right: The Met Office has nothing to do with the European Government; it’s part of the UK Government (Government Agency).
To say that the Met Office is too alarmist just because it’s a Government Agency is utter twaddle – I don’t know where you get that idea from. If you are trying to compare it with American Government Agencies, then don’t; FYI in the UK such Government Bodies are kept at arm’s length from the Government, they are independent from Government and only answerable to Parliament.
Besides, the Met Office is not too alarmist; there work is independent of Government influence, reliable; there is no political bias or hidden agenda in what they do.
It seems to me that any organisation that doesn’t say what you want to hear, you find any excuse to try to discredit.
And besides, your claim that “all these policies will cost my government a fortune” is a misunderstanding of the situation. It’s not costing our government a fortune in the way you think:-
Exactly what are the costs and Benefits of moving towards carbon net zero by 2050?
FYI, the cost to the Government is relatively small for the most part because most of what needs to be done is commercially viable, and thus profitable to investors; which creates jobs and wealth, and economic growth.
The USA benefited big time in world domination in electronics because of the creation of Silicon Valley in the 1970’s; leaving Europe largely out in the cold, and even today the USA leads over Europe in technology.
Likewise, China and Europe are set to dominate the world in Renewable Energy Technologies, leaving the USA out in the cold – because China and Europe recognise that Renewable Energy Technologies is the future.
At the moment the biggest investor in Renewable Energy Technologies in the UK is the British Oil Giant, SHELL Oil. SHELL Oil wants a third of their investments and profits to come from Renewable Energies by the end of the decade (2030).
So if SHELL Oil is investing so heavy in offshore windfarms, how is that costing the UK Government money?
Likewise, with the infrastructure e.g. a network of public charging points for electric cars that’s going to be needed by 2030, when new fossil fuel cars are banned in the UK – It’s not the UK Government paying for it: At the moment, two of the largest investors in public charging points for electric cars are British Shell Oil, and BP (another major British Oil company).
This video may help to explain: https://youtu.be/BqJuaTuFv30
Besides Renewable Energy is now far cheaper than Fossil Fuels in two thirds of the world, including in Europe, so switching to Renewable Energy makes good economic sense.Notwithstanding my previous reply above; where you say:
“I can believe their forecasts are very good, but I do not believe the European government when it comes to climate change. The Met office is a government agency, and they are too alarmist. Their efforts will come to nil in the grand scheme of things.”
It’s not just the observations and work being done by the Met Office; I’ve personality witnessed a dramatic change in the British climate since the 1980’s and especially over the past 20 years, where the change has been more dramatic e.g. the dramatic increase in the devastating floods, storms, heatwaves and wildfires in Britain in the past 20 years – and it’s not a figment of my imagination, it’s happening right here, right now – and it’s getting worse. And the cost of all the damage caused by the climate change in Britain is costing the UK Government and Insurance Companies ever increasing sums of money.
And what about Pakistan: Last year one third of Pakistan was under water for weeks following the deadliest floods that they’ve ever seen. https://youtu.be/CrXg9lOVNj8Well if the USA had got its act together and invested in the R&D (Research and Development) in Renewable Energies in the first place, then perhaps it would just be China and Europe dominating the Renewable Energy Technologies market.
China is not making money off of climate alarmism; that is just propaganda that you are perpetuating.
In fact it’s not just China that is dominating the Renewable Energy Technology Market, it’s Europe too; because Europe (like China) has invested in the R&D for Renewable Energy; creating jobs and wealth – large profits for the investors and economic growth e.g. the UK is a world leader in offshore windfarm technology, and earning lots of money from exporting that technology around the world, including lucrative exports to China.
Get your facts right: It’s NOT the Met Office spokesperson who is saying that Renewable Energy is cheaper than Fossil Fuels; the price of energy has nothing to do with the Met Office.
It’s a well-known, and well established fact that since 2016 Renewable Energy has been cheaper in two thirds of the world (including in the EU & UK) than fossil fuels; and I personally benefit from that fact because we put our dishwasher and washing machine on timer to come on in the early hours of the morning when electricity is far cheaper; electricity which at that time of night is 100% Renewable Energy because of low demand at that time of night.
Also, the National Grid in Britain is not a Government Body, it’s a private, profit making’ business; and to maximise profit, and to keep prices down for home owners, the National Grid buys the cheapest available electricity first, and the most expensive as a last resort; which is why the National Grid uses whatever wind and solar power there is before instructing the gas-powered stations to fire-up.
Currently wholesale (market) prices in the UK:-
• Wind power is £37.35 ($45.02) per MWh
• Natural Gas is £75 ($90.41) per MWh
As you can see above, wind power wholesale price is currently half the price of natural gas in the UK.Further to your statement above (and my previous reply to it) where you said “The Met office is a government agency, and they are too alarmist. Their efforts will come to nil in the grand scheme of things.”
The accuracy and reliability of the UK’s Met (Meteorological) Office in short, medium and long term forecasting is vital to the UK’s National Grid’s ability to plan ahead and keep the lights on in our homes e.g. we do not get black-outs or any of the brown-outs that you get in the USA.
In the UK the National Grid (which is a private commercial, profit making) company) has to balance demand for electricity with supply; and not only does the National Grid have to plan years into the future, to ensure its infrastructure is up to the job, but these days, with its primary source of power being wind (and sun to some extent) it’s vital that the National Grid know how sunny and windy it’s going to be 24 hours ahead so that the National Grid can put back up systems (such as gas-fired power stations) on standby and be ready to supply extra power at a short notice. If the Met Office gets its weather predictions horribly wrong then we either don’t have enough power the following day (black-outs) or it costs the National Grid money paying for burning natural gas when it’s not needed.
This short video below explains all in laypersons terms (and it’s not a liberal website, it’s the UK National Grid, which is a private commercial, profit making company); and also if you did watch the video (which somehow I doubt that you will because you don’t want to know what is actually happing in the rest of world outside of the UK) then the video also explains why Renewable Energy is good for not just the British economy, but also for the consumer e.g. free and cheap electricity to home owners from Renewable Energy when it’s available.
UK National Grid Green Energy Success Story: https://youtu.be/ONp8dismI-Q
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.
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/RbIxYm3mKzIYes, 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.
The film is pure propaganda. Unfortunately, you describe yourself when you speak of those who live in a bubble.
Yeah, the film is satire; however it does very accurately reflect the mentality of ‘climate change’ deniers.
Propaganda for what? Have you seen the film?
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.
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.
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?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.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.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.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.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....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/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.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.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.The white man from a historical standpoint deserves that anger. It has nothing to do with Marxism, you hit me, I am going to hit you back. Self defense is an age old concept, check it out sometime.
Jews have a unique sensitivity to exclusion, intolerance and all sorts of unpleasant things. They are certainly smart enough not to associated with the party that displays so much more of the traits that they have learne to hate the most. (Republicans). The Jews are smart enough to know whose side they are on and why, just as my folks do.
You are one with many hackneyed theories. I am more than content to vote the rightwing clowns out and discredit them at every opportunity. It will be "your side" that resorts to violence and the gun. I want to goad you guys to that point where everybody will see that Righty is out of line. A coward is a coward, brandishing a firearm does not change that.
The only thing worse than Marxism is Fascism, and that is synonymous with today's Trumpian Right. Most of us will do our own thinking, I don't need my Governor telling me what I can read.
No, Netanyahu in his acceptance and the Republicans were rude by inviting a head of state to speak without informing the President.
So, say what you want, Savvy, Republicans and Rightwingers today, suck.... yes, I am a breed of Democrat that is tired of BS from the Right and we have differences with those establishment democrats that are determined to sell out to accomodate them.Yes, Progressives are Marxists and Marxists are both Socialists and Communists, just like the Socialist Nazi Party.
Jewish organizations, not to mention, the FBI, have recognized the Black Panther party as communists who promote anti-Semistism and social segregation based upon race.
Republicans support Jews and Israel today, yesterday and always, unlike the Marxist and Progressive Black Lives Matter who stole millions from their supporters and who’s leaders admit to having antisemitic views.
So, don’t preach to me about Jews. My Party is not anti-Semitic.
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.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.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?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.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.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.
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.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.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.'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.
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?I would ask that you try not to make so many assumptions about me. It is impossible for me to be antagonistic towards those who are vegetarian for health or religious reasons, given my background.
As for the carbon narrative espoused by yourself and your beloved Greta… who is the equivalent of a young Al Gore, I don’t buy it.
Climate activists in government do not care about the planet. They care about power and control. And they have done a fine job on you, truth be told.
Anyway, my concern has to do with the cancel culture of the radical left. This may be beyond your understanding as you live in a Socialist country.
Perhaps Socialists across the pond are fine with canceling people, cows, or any other thing that interferes with the current climate alarmism narrative. As you said, what difference does it make if all cows are slaughtered?
The Progressives in America feel the same. What difference does it make if we cancel anyone or anything that interferes with our political agenda?
They should simply be eliminated.
And they are.
The Nazi’s felt the same way, as do all good Communists.Deleted
Yep, I know that you said that your grandparents were vegetarians, which you say respect; and you go onto qualifying that by saying you respect for health or religious reasons; but you don’t seem to respect the desire of those wishing to eat less meat, let alone be a vegetarian, for environmental reasons?
Yeah, I know that you don’t buy the carbon narrative; you’ve made it plainly clear throughout the whole of this forum that you’re an ‘anthropogenic climate change’ denialist.
Climate change activists in government do care about the planet; they are not interested in power and control – well at least on this side of the pond anyway: If you believe what you say then as Charles says above “Try and fill out your arguments or positions with more substantiation in fact rather than hyperbolic view.”
Caroline Lucas MP (elected politician in Parliament, UK), leader of the Green Party, is well respected by the public; in the 2019 General Election she got 57.2% of the votes in her constituency (seat), Labour got 22.8% and the Conservatives 17.5% of the votes.
In this short video below, Caroline Lucas is the woman on the left of the screen at the start of the video; this video is off when the leaders of all the political parties in Parliament (except the Conservatives) had a pre-meeting with Greta Thunberg (three years ago), just prior to Greta Thunberg giving her 12 minute speech to all MPs (politicians) in the House of Commons: https://youtu.be/1iAL2zk3DUE
Greta Thunberg met with warm welcome from MPs in Parliament: https://youtu.be/oZJbFZe0EC4
Within weeks of Greta Thunberg’s 12 minute speech in Parliament our then Conservative Prime Minister (Theresa May), with the overwhelming support of both the House of Commons and the House of Lords, passed a law making the UK the only country in the world where it’s a legal requirement (rather than just a target) for the UK to be carbon net neutral by 2050: https://youtu.be/hj7v8e1uLyE
What “cancel culture of the radical left”? I can’t comment without you giving me any “substantiation of fact”.
And for your information the UK isn’t a Socialist Country at this time in moment; we have a hard-right-wing Conservative (capitalist) Government in power for now – although that might change in the next General Election in a couple of years!
To say “Perhaps Socialists across the pond are fine with cancelling people, cows, or any other thing that interferes with the current climate alarmism narrative” is a false statement:
• Firstly, not all countries in the EU and UK are socialists; we do have right-wing conservative/capitalist governments on this side of the pond too.
• Across the world (outside of the USA) right-wing governments support climate change policies just as much as left wing governments: Outside of the USA the subject of climate change is NOT political.
• No one is advocating “cancelling people or cows….. that interferes with the current climate alarmism narrative” – All that is being asked is for people to eat less meat as a small but significant contribution to reduce our carbon footprint: It’s not a big ask.
You’ve taken my statement out of context, I did not just say “what difference does it make if all cows are slaughtered”; you previously inferred that if we stopped eating meat that “every cow on earth would be slaughtered …. and that the blood of cows would soak the earth”. I was just pointing out that we already slaughter over 300 million cows a year for food: So the bloodshed is already there e.g. as you put it “the blood of cows (already) soaks the earth” anyway. So what is the difference whether we slaughter the cows for food or slaughter them because we no longer want them for food? The bloodshed in the same either way; in fact there’s less bloodshed in the latter, because if we stopped eating red meat we would only need to slaughter the surplus cows just the once, rather than annually to keep the supply of red meat flowing.Hi Savvydating, what do you mean by "Cancel Culture." I have the feeling it's just a hyped-up word used in the media. A word that says everything and at the same time nothing.
A word that is a lovely alliteration but nothing more.
When I hear the phrase Cancel Culture I have to think about austerity (cutting funding for public services..something mainly done by the right-wing parties in Europe.)
The UK is not a socialist country for a long time. It has had a conservative government for the last 12 years!
The last time The Netherlands had a socialist government was from 1998-2002, so that's a whopping 20 years ago!
But perhaps we have a different linguistic and cultural idea about what we mean by Socialist. As McCarhy equaled being socialist together with being a criminal.
I think there are hardly any communist parties left in Europe.
When I moved from The Netherlands to Spain I was surprised to see that communism was still alive there. In the northern countries of Europe, there are hardly any communist political parties. Socialist yes, but no communist parties.
If I'm correct, the only European countries today with a socialist government are Portugal and Spain.Americans do not often understand that "socialism" has a different connotation here than in Europe. Your most conservative governments in Europe are considered socialist by American standards, particularly from the perspective of the Right wing.
Yes, it makes communication sometimes difficult. I can imagine McCarthy and his "witch hunt" to communists and the cold war has made a deep impact on the American psyche. Using the word communist as a swear word, a dirty word, is equal to pinpointing someone as a criminal. And the same with socialists.
It strips the word of its real meaning, making intellectual conversations related to socialism difficult.
The same is happening with the word feminism.
Also the word Nazi and fascist are used not with the true meaning but as loose labels to smear someone.
Language is weaponized..
As the intent of using the words properly is undermined.
Just by coincidence or other algorithm magic, I got this interesting well explained youtube about Socialism video on my feed.
SOCIALISM: An In-Depth ExplanationThanks for the video, it appears quite well done and I am going to watch.
In America, the term Communist/Marxist is no more significant than any expletive in the lexicon.
In America, It has been conveniently used by a group of people to define those resistant to the "status quo". It could be easily employed by those considered "woke" today. It involved race relations, the economy, workers rights, etc.
Communism and Socialism as defined are well outside the reality of the true nature of the American economy. Socialism speaks of the major means of production owned by the state. That is certainly not true in the United States. They are just words reactionaries throw around to resist change and denigrate opponents.
Socialism is an economic system, not a political one. But there are many that want to link National Socialism, Hitler's Reich, with Socialism in general. Hitler and NAZIs are fascists, that is political definition, and that word is most well accommodated today by the American Right.
Yes, during the 1950s, Joseph McCarthy wreaked havoc, with this communist scare. Civil Rights activists were accused of Communist sympathies. The country from Hollywood celebrities on down were blacklisted based on an a ill-defined definition. The reality is that those so defined were found wanting by resisting the status quo and being "woke" about matters at the time.
I will say that Russia was a manufactured enemy for a need to have one, perpetuating the military-industrial complex, warned about by Dwight Eisenhower in 1961. The "free world" was one that supported America's political and economic world view, yet we certainly supported tyrannical behavior in unaligned nations when it was to our political and economic advantage. This in my opinion.
So, you are right, it is a difficult topic because Europeans and Americans speak past one another.It's a matter of gradations.
It's easy to categorize in "the left" or "the right" and to see the world in absolutes. But that's not how it works in the real world.
I think even within the two parties in America you have a different point of view. Not all Democrats are like Ocasio-Cortez or Sanders and not all Republicans are extremely right-wing like Trump.
Trump was in my opinion a reaction to a black president. Something that racist and white religious America with Federation roots couldn't accept. And the alternative was a woman also something the US was not ready for yet.
Off course it's a bit more complicated, but on a gut level, and lots of people vote with their guts, it's that simple.
With socialism, you have it in many flavours. From Stalinism to social democratic parties. The same for capitalism. From Pinochet to Jeff Bezos.
Systems change over time and almost evolve, adapting to social structures.
The American Economy, like the European economy, is based on capitalism. (And I think almost every country in the world is capitalistic except a couple.) Capitalism is only mixed with the rest of the politics and traditions of a country that has grown over the centuries.
America came on top as an aggressive capitalist country together with the UK. (with the thanks of Reagan and Thacher in the `'80..) But it was already long before that.
It would be interesting to know what happened in the time of Marx around 1850 in the United States. (That's more or less the time of the civil war isn't it...) interesting to know the connection between modern ideas and philosophies and the ideas that grew in the US, to become a new nation.
Still, capitalism and slavery go hand in hand. And does so the Federation and what it represents and how it is linked with extreme right-wing and racism. Capitalism and racism are also a close couple..
I can imagine that Russia was seen as an enemy as it was a nightmare for corporate enterprises who owned back then the politics as well.
I don't think the system in Russia worked as it was a dictatorship (and still is, only a capitalistic one) but so were all the far right-wing dictatorships in South America that were made and supported by the US and US companies.
Even within European countries ideas about politics and what is left and what is right are different. And this idea is also different. The ideas of a the socialist party today would be called rightwing in the '70-'80.
All the politics have moved up to the right the last 40 years. With populism saying things in public that you would have called fascist and racist 40 years ago. And socialist parties openly supporting corporations and helping them to get tax deals.
Personally, I think a lot of socialist parties in Europe are dead. Socialism as an ideology has to change. The new ideology people, young people, believe in is the green wave. Ecology. The problems of the climate crisis are far more threatening and concerning than labor rights and wages.
To come back to the thread....We digress for a while. But that goodness let's move to the thread-climate criss. And I hope we stay put this time around.
The source of the crisis from the American view is what I try explain. This is a complicated issue with many facets.
Capitalism can only find the principle of conservation as an impediment to ever more profit.
Religious dogma have a few on the Right believing that the Earth can exist in the face of unlimited abuse.
That is the heart of the topic and my opinion.Capitalism produces at least as much in the way of public projects as other forms of society, and when a company or person donates a park, library, museum or other project there is the added benefit that a Socialistic government has not simply taken the resources from people whether they wanted to give or not.
As wilderness likewise explain above, capitalism in America took or has many facet. Explaining climate crisis or changes in terms of American capitalism can be dually complicate to others and outsiders due to the political environment. Do other countries of the world has the same political background and settings as America? Do their production system and economy compare? That is why I realise it shoud be best we adhere to the topical thread.
Trump was in my opinion a reaction to a black president. Something that racist and white religious America with Federation roots couldn't accept. And the alternative was a woman also something the US was not ready for yet.
Definitely.Per your last sentence, I recalled I post a thread to that efeect. I also recalled I suggested a lady Condeledzza Rice as a potential presiddntial candidate. But a fella me think it's wildderness...said no just to protect her public image. But a lady I recalled well Kathryn H reason the women are not that strong as the men but should confirm to they traditional role as wives. I disagree. In the Orient, Europe, Africa, and Asia, women has rise as Heads of States. Forgive me savvydating as I have hijack your thread in responding.
That’s fine to digress a bit Mie…57. The same goes for AB.
Peter Streep is wrong about conservatives, but for different reasons than Credence, who has admitted to having racist views given his support of the Black Panther Party, which was labeled as a terrorist organization by the FBI and CIA as far back as the 70’s.
Furthermore, Republicans are not racist. We fought to end slavery. It was the Democrats who fought to keep slavery and who keep minorities on a short leash today by promoting hate of the other and promising them free social programs to secure votes, and which cost quite a lot of money in taxes.
Also, white supremacy is not the biggest threat in America. Such people are labeled as fringe and pariahs by both the right and left. The group that is most endangered are the Jewish people.
Peter, the problem we had with Obama is that he was a divider, not a uniter, same as Joe Biden.
As for cancel culture, it is a methodology promoted by the Left. News stations and social media giants repress news stories that Americans need to know about. For example, most Americans do not know that the FBI lied about a Trump/ Russia collusion. Nor do they know how compromised the Biden family is to foreign entities, especially China. They do not know that the Biden’s have made millions off of China, Russia, and the Ukraine. They do not know that this information is documented in Hunter Biden’s laptop, which Hunter initially claimed he knew nothing about. Today, Hunter’s lawyers have admitted that the tell-all laptop, complete with a money trail, is indeed Hunter Biden’s.
Nor do they know that conservative voices are silenced every day. Twitter banned many conservative voices before Elon Musk opened up the dialogue between those with views other than that of Democrats.
But to get back to climate. Do you believe the world will become unsustainable in 10 years or so? Seems to me that activists have been warning people that the world will end in 10 years ever since the 70’s. Somehow, they manage to keep moving the timeline forward without consequences. What is your timeline, Peter?savvydating, are you not addressing me directly? Why not ask me the last question instead of PeterS....? Thanks for much of the additional information you've provided. Yea, for the earth to be unsustainable for the next 10 years, let Appolonus the Jew believe it.
Mie…57, I addressed three people in one sitting: You, AB, and Peter.
It is best to address one person at a time, which I almost always do. This time I didn’t. Hope you can overlook that.Savvy, I did that once with our beloved Paula and it took her at least one week to forgive me....sometimes we must condense, it's nothing personal!
Speaking of our beautiful Paula, have you heard from her? I emailed her quite a time ago and heard nothing. I wonder about her heart health, and have no idea what is going on.
You can always email me thru HP, unless you are uncomfortable with that.
On the other hand, it may be perfectly reasonable to let us know here.
The important thing is to respect our dear friend, Paula.
Thanks, AB.I haven't heard from her lately, I used to get an email from her now and then. I just sent her an email. Will let you know when I hear back.
Yea they was one here that if you offend you have offend. It's a dark red line.
Interesting point about Democrats being different, and as you say, it is not all monolithic.
Unlike Republicans, Bernie Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez are not prominent representatives of the party. With the Republicans their extreme wing has a prominent place within the party. Support of Donald Trump and the extreme right is a litmus test for the vast majority of Republicans. I don't see Bernie Sanders or O.C having an influence on the base of the Democratic party that comes anywhere near close.
Why was there a need to "react" in response to a black president? I continue to ask myself this question. What was the reason the resentment was remarkable as to its depth and how wide spread it was. How is it that a coarse, two bit, tv star could displace so many conventional GOP candidates in 2016? Their "guts" were their deepest inclinations and fears that they would not want to acknowledge in the open air, if any one would dare to ask. Why the attitude about a woman as the Chief Executive? Europe has had female Prime Ministers, Chancellors for some time. There is a misogyny here that goes along with racism in the mix.
In America, capitalism and capitalists hold the society hostage, I don't see these "captains of industry" having the same power and influence within your societies, that is the difference.
After speaking with Arthur, I got the impression that even the English version of Capitalism is subdued compared to that of the United States.
1850? Slavery was an expression of an unrestrained greed so often associated with Capitalism run amok. The planters in the South and those in the North that took raw materials and made garment products were more concerned about wealth, philosophies aside. The Founding Fathers spoke of lofty concepts, but their economics associated with their holding slaves reveal that the ideal and reality are oftentimes far apart, particularely if acknowledging them proved inconvenient to the "bottom line".
Capitalism in practice, need not be racist by definition. It is just a system that required an underdog and even though its proponents would have you believe that "you could do it, too", more often than not it just perpetuated privilege and inequity.
Why this thing against Russia? It was an extrodinary ally during WWII, its participation was nothing less than heroic. They certainly helped to
turn the tide against the Germans sooner rather than later. Yes, Stalin was a tyrant, but how many tyrants have we cozied up to for economic and political advantage since WWII?
Since 1917, Soviet Revolution, America has been intimidated by "Bolsheviks" as a threat to capitalism and the status quo. We would have preferred that the Czar and his autocratic ways would remain for no other reason than to avoid an ideology like Communism from acquiring an audience.
The concept of Communism was not to be taken seriously, as it could never work, simply being contrary to human nature. The issues were more political, supporting fascist and authoritarian regimes under Soviet auspices rather than our own. Such is the "Cold War".
You have the same problem we have, the Right, moving into front and center in American politics. Trump has been the impetus, opening up a Pandora's box and releasing a Medusa type creature on our society. White Supremacists have been responsible for more extremist violence now than ever before within recent times. We have people who now credibly speak of censoring, burning books who are supposedly in the mainstream.
But, as you see, the other troubling thread that is associated with the Right is anti-intellectualism. Even the most Conservative governments and people in Europe acknowledge the science associated with climate change. American conservatism is in denial of this for reasons that are hardly scientific. Conservatism here is vastly different from anything that you could know in Europe. We are comparing apples with handgranades and it is easy to understand why you need an interpreter. Green Wave? You can't get right wing Americans to acknowledge that there is a need for one.Thank you for your reply. It reflected many thoughts I had as well.
I learned at school that the rise of Hitler had two basic causes. One, the grievance and anger of the lost WW1 and two, the poor economic state Germany was in.
The first perhaps. But the second has shown cracks in the reasoning.
In 2002 there were elections in The Netherlands. A rich country. The Netherlands was economically doing well.
Strangely enough, a new extreme right-wing party (populist party) was on the brink of winning the elections. But 9 days before the election the head of the political party Pim Fortuyn (LPF) was shot in the head.
Basically, Fortuyn's politics was to blame everything on the foreigners and the ruling socialist government. A classic populist story.
He was a great demagog and would have won the elections and become president.
After his murder, the famous tolerance of The Netherlands was thrown out of the window. The poison preached, painting the Marocan community black had taken root.
For me and my wife personally, it was a reason to move to Spain (not knowing anything about the political situation there....)
But my eyes were opened. Extreme rightwing and racist thoughts are not connected with a poor economic state!
You only need to control and play the news outlets. You only need one man or woman with the capacity to play the news. The Netherlands had their Trump, and still, 20 years later two political parties (there are about 16 in the Netherlands) are extreme right wing with the same combination of hatred towards minorities, playing the victim and nationalism that classic fascist parties have.
You are right that Trump has opened Pandora's Box and its disease has been airborne and landed in the Europe too.
Trump was an inspiration for many extremist rightwing groups and Bannon was gluing these parties from different countries together.
Spain has its fascist party FOX as well, making use of the "old values" of Franco.
We do have our own populism in Europe, it's just another flavour and wares a different tie. In the UK there is still a class war on and BREXIT the break with Europe was organized by the elite and must be seen in this light.
---"Green Wave? You can't get right wing Americans to acknowledge that there is a need for one".--
I understand that. I do have hope for the younger generation, as they have to fight for their future. Although I see many youngsters dumb behind the computer playing Fortnight or TikToking...instead of waking up. I guess that was the drugs Orwell was talking about in A Brave New World...That is not what Orwell was talking about. He was referring to the plight of unsuspecting people who come to believe in Communism. We are seeing Communism manifesting in the United States... from the Progressive Left.
The Progressive Left does its utmost to divide the races, attack religion, and target our youth.
They have, as Peter Hitchens said, A Rage Against God. (You might consider reading the book)
This is what Credence has to say, "I want to goad you guys to that point where everybody will see that Righty is out of line. A coward is a coward, brandishing a firearm does not change that."
Yet the Black Panthers brandish firearms and target people for political reasons. Republicans and Democrats in America believe in their right to bear arms, but do not go around killing people for political reasons.
Why would you agree with the philosophy of Progressives/Marxists?
Perhaps it is you who needs to wake up, Peter. China, the Communist Party, which is intent on World domination could not care less about your green footprint or anybody else's.Savvy, the name progressive is such a misnomer. The name should be changed to leftist. Leftists in America aim to destroy our great nation one way or another whether it is through inflation, crime, &/or other dysfunctions. America has gotten much worse under Obama & Biden. Biden is letting illegals in which is taxing our social systems. Enough is enough. Biden like Obama is concentrating on inane social policies instead of concentrating on important issues like inflation & crime.
Savvy, New York City crime rate has skyrocketed. It is at 1970s level. You read about people being mugged & pushed on the tracks. Eric Adams is a joke. I didn't vote for him like I didn't vote for Biden. The leftists are turning America into a giant cesspool. Climates always fluctuate. Let's concentrate on the more important issues such as inflation & cime. Also cut out needless social programs. Oh yes, the educational system needs to be cleaned up-take the nonsense out & introduce solid methods so that our children can compete. The Democratic Party has gone so far left it isn't even funny anymore.Leftist Progressive covers it quite sufficiently, don’t you think?
Progressives usually believe in improvement for the best while Leftist believe in improvement just for improvement sake. Leftists are more extreme in my view. The Democrats are now Leftists.
I agree that the Left is destroying America.
The reason they use terms like “Progressive” is because it sounds good.
The path Obama and Biden have put us on is unsustainable. And you are correct, it isn’t funny. We are facing the fall of our nation, unless many miracles happen.
Things are looking very, very bad. And that is exactly what Progressives want.Sadly, so called progressives a/k/a leftists anticipate the fall of America. They could care less about the out of control governmental spending. They contend that it is the job of the government to take care of people.
Sorry you're right. I was referring to Aldous Huxley, not George Orwell.
I have never heard anybody from the progressive left saying they wanted back Rosa Parks back on the last row of the bus. Nor separate benches for blacks and whites in the park, nor separate toilets etc.
If Barak Obama wanted this he had the opportunity to make laws to make the division between the black and white community bigger. I'm not aware that he did so. But perhaps Obama was not really progressive.
Do the Black Panthers still exist?
You combine Progressives with Marxists. They have completely different political ideas. Have you compared both manifests?
The YouTube videos I've seen from Peter Hitchens. He is a well-educated man who can back up everything he says with a fountain of research. He is incredibly knowledgeable about the history of religions and religious texts.
China is not a Communist country. Only in name.
There are living 400 billionairs in China profiting on the backs of poor slave labours. Just as in a proper capitalistic country with a super free market.
So far the US doesn't care either about my green footprint.
Yes, the rabid right, fascism needs to just identify a scapegoat, someone to point to and blame for all of “our nations ills. Instead of focusing on the real perpetrators, Rightwinger thought always directs you to suspect your neighbor, first The ugliness about racism is the idea of resentment, it is not that someone is taking from you more than that someone has more than they are supposed to, whether it is merited or not. The right fuels the fire by implying that the “other” threatens to take something that belongs to you, it need not be rational and it never is.
And I agree with you, the right is always transparent. It does not matter whether it is here or in the Netherlands, they all sing from the same choir book uttering the same tiresome refrain.
Everything was going fine in the Netherlands, why the need for Rightwing fanaticism? They stir up hatred previously unknown, they now focus on the Moroccan community?
Yes, we had Steve Bannon, a modern day Von Ribbentrop, a Trump appointed emissary of reaction stirring up attitudes and resentment long dormant within your societies until now. Muckraking along the very bottom of the barrel of the politics and culture of Europe in general.
We all like to think that we have moved beyond all this, but it is obvious the world over that it lies in wait like the latest strain of COVID. The resentment thing in America is wide spread which made it possible for a race baiter like Donald Trump to be taken seriously. Look at the unwarranted attacks on Theresa May and the Mayor of London while Trump was in office.
As for the youth and the future, it remains to be seen. With the focus on nationalism, militarism and the carrot of wealth beyond avarice being held before them, to see beyond short sighted interests would be miraculous.
I should add “Fahrenheit 451” to your reading list …….."Everything was going fine in the Netherlands, why the need for Rightwing fanaticism? "
That's the million-dollar question.
I don't know. Perhaps because people are afraid to lose what they have. The extreme right uses fear. The topic of blaming the Moroccans and the fear of foreigners was the highest in the populated areas that hardly had any foreigners. The support for extreme right-wing parties was far less in the mixed-race neighborhoods of the cities.
Isn't it the same in the US? That the right-wing support is based in the less populated areas of the country?
It's fear that is used and not reality. Strangely, the foreigners you know suddenly aren't that dangerous and strange anymore. They are suddenly "one of us.." (except for when you're truly a redneck)
But religion is the great divider. Religion is discriminatory by default. It's at the core of all major religions. You are either with us or against us!!
And in the Netherlands, which is a highly religious country (although you wouldn't suspect it), the most religious people live in the inland of the country and the villages traditionally living off the sea.
Fear for the other is a powerful weapon, and it's used in politics and religion. Dehumanizing the other group. Jews were not pictured in the newspapers as human in Nazi Germany, but as Untermenschen. It's easier to kill someone if you don't see them as human. Or the black community which is all too often associated with criminality, gang wars, apes, losers, and not being educated. The same happens with women. They are not allowed to have a position of power or influence. They are allowed to be sexy influencers on Instagram and this is promoted. But hardly any attention will be given to the women who have interesting scientific knowledge and stories to share.
We still have a long way to go to give everybody equal chances in society. It's still a white male dominated culture in the west.
I haven't read the book Fahrenheid 441. But I remember the film, where everybody was a book learned by heart, as books were forbidden.
It made a deep impression on me.Peter, here is a link to a Wikipedia article about the "Black Panthers" that is balanced and includes the good with the bad. It is a bit lengthy, but comprehensive. I will let you be the judge.
While most of these men are dead now, as a college student during the mid 1970s, I was part of the audience for many of these fellows that were on the university lecture circuit.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Panther_Party
So, you have to ask, what makes these people who have no reason now fear for what they have merely because there are Moroccans in their midst? It is part of the "zero sum" attitude as I pointed out in article written over 10 years ago.
https://hubpages.com/politics/One-Progr … ica-Part-I
Yes, it is true that greater support for rightwing, Republican points of view are found in the nation's rural areas. Conservatives are by nature intimidated by change, the older, elderly Anglos that inhabit these areas are a case in point.
Religion here is a divider, and hypocritical and phony as well. The Religious Right, Protestant and Catholic Denominations are far less interested in scripture and doctrine than political power to have their values prevail over the desires of others. Donald Trump is the last person that would be an exemplary model for any TRUE Christian. But, look who they all cling to... in America, it is religiousity.
Intelligence and civility neutralizes fear and ignorance, the latter being the natural order of the day for right wing oriented groups regardless of where they are found.
The dehumanizations process is at the upper level of bigots and bigotry used to control, by dividing and conquer. Benefitting the few to detriment of many. Racism has been just another tool in the Capitalist tool box to divert the attention of labor away from the true sources of their exploitation. As far back as it goes, this has been the case in one form or another.
Misogyny is closely linked with religious fanatics. They now want their schools to be supported by tax payer dollars while discriminating, requiring women to wear skirts, while only men wear trousers. The explanation? Women are a weaker vessel that should be approached with delicacy. So, now we go backwards regarding concepts of women's rights?
The struggle in America should be that everyone should be allowed participation and that power and responsibility be shared. Getting to that point makes many of the stalwarts uncomfortable, but I am not concerned. That is my mantra and my raison d'etre.
Fahrenheit 451 may well go beyond the realm of science fiction as its theme is currently being promoted by the Rightwing in contemporary American society.
Peter,
The very last sentences spoken by the narrator in the video you provided is a pretty close understanding for me of how elements of Socialism can exist in a Capitalist system providing a check against the excesses of either one, without the influence of the other.
On a side note, it Is a pretty dumb assessment to assume that political parties do not change allegiances and alliances over almost 160 years. The Republican Party is not the same as it was in 1866, and neither were the Democrats. Conservatives here parrot this stuff like your typical "Chatty Cathy" doll, with a pre-recorded, pat answer every time you pull the string. The Republican Party is not the same now as it was even 60 years ago, let alone 160. In the face of that reality, what they supported so long ago, has nothing to do with what they have become today.It's clear that both systems, communism, and capitalism don't work when gone unchecked.
Yes, I agree that the best option is if both philosophies are used. The bigger the middle class, the better a country works. And you don't grow a middle class by making rich people poorer, but by making poor people richer.
This is against the everyone for themselves philosophy that's promoted by capitalism. It's a simplistic dogma that simply does not work, but is promoted as an excuse not to help your fellow man. Keeping the devide between the super-rich and the poor.
And the so-called trickle-down theory is a myth created by the top of the pyramid scam.
You are right, politics and the general worldview are not the same as 100 years ago or even 50, they change constantly. Normally slow but sometimes very fast like in times of war, revolution, or stress.
The general worldview is changing now because of the Climate Crisis stress. And so is politics. Where this is leading us I don't know.Capitalism is necessary as we all, with few exceptions, are required to be productive. The "safety net" is just that, and not a hammock.
Second, Capitalism provides the incentive to do something, do more and do it better.
Socialism is as presented as a check on liberal thought that everyone can do what it is that they want as long as others are not harmed. Well, structure needs to be in place to insure that those with luck, privilege and wealth are not taking advantage of others.
The "every man for himself" attitude does not work in the modern world. In America, Capitalism needs to be tempered with some socialist elements.No, the incentive to do something has nothing to do with capitalism. It's in the human nature itself to do things.
It is another myth that people on benefits are lazy. It's an unfounded stigma.
Unhappy people are not unhappy because the have not much money, but because they do feel not appreciated, not useful. Most people rather work for almost nothing than to sit at home without work. And this is exploited by a capitalist system with the lowest possible minimum wage.
But you won't build a country with a large middle class in such a way.
I would say, get rid of unemployment benefits and give everybody a basic income. You will get a bigger middle class, a more healthy society and less poverty and all the problems that are attached to it."It's in the human nature itself to do things."
You're right - if we do nothing we get bored and unhappy. But we can do things like watch TV, join gangs, nap, putter in the garden (to no real effect), do arts and crafts at home, knit or crochet, etc. The world is chock full of things to do that produce nothing that others want or need.
Or people can work on an assembly line in the factory, on a set schedule. Or clean plugged toilets. Or restore electric lines in a blinding snowstorm. Or stand behind a cash register for 8 hours, feeling the brain cells die every minute. Or rake newly paved roads, going home every day stinking to high heaven. Or sit behind a desk while the boss harangues them for not making enough coffee and increases the work load.
The point is that a great many people are perfectly happy doing the first set of interesting, fun things. And most people would rather do that first set than the second set, not concerning themselves with producing what the country needs.
So when you pay everyone to do nothing (basic income) at the expense of others you are not only robbing others of their earned income but providing an excuse and a method for them to NOT contribute to the needs of society. It is a utopian pipe dream to think that everyone, or even a large percentage, of people would rather do work they don't like than find something they DO like whether it contributes to society of not. Consider how many people with real, inherited wealth - the "aristocracy" of a nation - actually perform useful labor of any kind. They don't need to and they don't."The world is chock full of things to do that produce nothing that others want or need."
Who is deciding what we need? (Do we need idiot influencers who make millions on TikTok?...Some say they are great and not idiots..)
Puttering in the garden and doing arts and crafts are incredibly healthy and make people happy. And is that not the most important thing in life? To be happy?
Most people want to do purposeful things in their lives. That's what makes them happy. They want to feel respected and useful.
A lot of people who retire die quickly because they have lost their purpose in life. (Grandchildren often become a purpose, to pass on the knowledge.)
So I don't think there are many people who are happy watching tele the whole day. Most will feel an emptiness but don't have the means to fill it. Work is for many a purpose in life.
If you pay everybody a basic income you invest in people. Some investments will turn out a disappointment, but most will flourish. And not at the expense of others. If you give everybody a basic income, you will get one too. If you have work or not.
And the totality of society will have a much higher output. As people will spend more, get better educated, eat better food etc. (perhaps not great for a carbon footprint...)
You have always people who will be content with a couch. But most people want to improve their lives. And a basic income can make that difference.
It can make a difference in working at the Mcdonald's or improving your life and working as an electrician (because you get the time to invest in education to become one.)
Of course, you can stay at the Mcdonald's with the extra basic income but that's a free choice.
Do you really think that the aristocracy simply sits on a couch and watches tele all day? No, they are busy with planning schemes not to pay taxes on their money that's sitting idle in a bank account somewhere....;-)
If everyone gets a basic income the government must borrow money to fund it. Where does the money come from when the debt ratio closes the door to 'borrowing'
GAHi GA,
If people have more money, they will spend more money.
Money in circulation is good. What's worse is all those millions in the bank accounts sitting there doing nothing.
A $5 bill spend a hundred times over is better than $500 dollars in the bank. As a hundred people have done something in exchange for the $5.
But that's just a thought of a guy who has no grade in economics whatsoever...:-)
JGI knew I was starting a tangent, but this is an interesting subject that can leave out partisan perspectives and still have solid disagreement.
As a note, I am familiar with most of the pro arguments, i.e. your example, and have enjoyed discussions on the fiat economy side's rationalizations.
However, I haven't heard a realistic answer to the questions I posed to you. Where does the money come from?
If everyone gets a universal basic income there will never (risky, I know) be enough tax income to fund the program. Meaning every check will be borrowed money. Money that we never (we haven't as yet) pay back, we just use tax revenues to pay the interest on the borrowed money.
*Of course, all of this is my opinion, I'm not an expert or even particular;y knowledgeable about the economic intricacies.
Sooner or later, and I say sooner, the interest on the borrowing will exceed tax revenue—even with the expected production increases. The world's capital lenders aren't motivated by altruism, that door will be closed.
What then, how do you think a basic income can be funded for the long term?
GAJust print money.....That's what the US does all the time to bail out huge corps...;-)
If you give everybody a $1 dollar basic income. And lets say 80% is able to make from that $1 $10 dollars. Because it's easier to make more money if you have money.. (get better education, do a course to get a new job, better food means fewer health problems etc.)
So a universal income will create more chances to earn more money.
You will end up with 80%x$10=$800 dollars in society and as a government, you're only spending $100 (100%x$1). That's a huge win. This $800 dollars will be taxed on and it is used to pay others for jobs, buying stuff, education etc.
The government will not lose money, it will gain money.
It's not altruism, it's investment.
(if you're very pessimistic and only 10% is turning $1 to $10 you still win as in the meantime the whole social structure has leveled up and you have a larger middle class)You remind me of one of my maternal first cousins. She spouts the same thing. Don't you realize that the US is overspending money & that the US is in MASSIVE DEBT? C'mon now. What the US needs is to CURB spending. Don't spend unless necessary.
"I am not worried about the deficit. It is big enough to take care of itself."
Ronald ReaganIt ISN'T. US debt is INCREASING. If the US doesn't curb its debt, America will face socioeconomic catastrophes of unprecedented proportions.
Yep. the US debt is increasing for a long time. And Reagan was fine with it...I think he was led by the nose by Milton Friedman.
Or maybe his astrology adviser gave him this answer.
Either way. Yes the US has to do something about its debts.
But it's simply a question of spending your money.
To me, the spending on the military seems incredibly excessive. You could easily use a percentage of the money for other things.
But of cause, you can also ask Jeff Besos and Amazon and the like to pay their taxes!!Pay their taxes? Their taxes are what the government determines they are (the tax codes), right?
Their tax liabilities are highly scrutinized, right?
So how are they not paying their taxes?
GA
Yes, and so goes the US so goes the world. The enormous amounts of cash being poured into the US economy due to this administration's legislation have caused inflation that has seeped into most countries.
In my view, The more that is added, the worse the problem will become.
Shooting from the hip, I don't think your example works. It is unrealistic to think 80% of folks will turn the $1 into a 900% profit. To make your example easier to compare to a realistic UBI let's use close-to-real-world numbers: $1000 instead of $1 and use a population of 100 million. (easy math)
The government will spend $100 billion monthly and $1.2 trillion yearly. Using the USA as a model, total government tax income would be around $1.6 trillion per year ($4,71T /3), before the proposed UBI benefit increases.
Consider how many folks will spend that $1000 on basic necessities. (food and utilities) Food sellers (grocery stores) typically achieve a 1 -2% profit and utilities are usually regulated to the point of achieving a 9-10% profit margin. USA fast-food outlets average a 5-8% profit margin.
For simplicity, let's use an average of 5% profit margin and a 4-step trek from producer to consumer. (raw source (growers, miners), makers (factories, refiners, etc.), distributors (the middlemen that get the product to the seller), and then the seller.
The original $1000 will generate an additional 20% of taxable income. Being generous, tax that additional 20% at the highest personal bracket, 35% +/- and government tax income will increase by $70 per recipient. Times 100M and government tax revenues increase by only $84 billion per year.
Meaning the government must borrow the shortfall, $1.16 trillion, every year.
The proposed productivity due to increased financial security (your 900% profit projection) is unrealistic. Production output increases will add to the tax number of $84 billion, but not to the tune of $1.16 trillion.
Caveat: I don't stand by the specific accuracy of the numbers, but I think they are conceptually accurate enough for this simplistic explanation.
So, where does the money come from when the debt ratio increases to a point where no one will buy the debt?
GAIf people have more money to spend. They will invest more. They will buy better food (fewer health problems, less money for government to pay on health-related issues)
In other words, it's not just a simple tax equation. But also the government spends less on problems related to poverty (crime, petty theft, drugs, stress, illiteracy etc)
When the general well-being of people levels up a government had to spend less on "maintenance".
I’ve given a fuller answer to peterstreep above, but in essence, money is not a fixed amount; it grows and shrinks as the economy grows and shrinks; like a balloon inflating and deflating. So although I don’t support the idea of universal basic income per se, theoretically, a lot of what peterstreep says is economically sound in principle.
Yep, you're right, the argued principle does work—in theory, but history has shown (remember, this is an opinion and ideological leanings) that the theory doesn't pan out.
As mentioned, this argument can be clean, as in real-world vs proposed world; 'did' vs 'should have or would' world. Most easily explained with a reference to Hayek and Keynes. I'm sure we both know the degree and quality, and durability of the scholarly study and debate of this argument.
There have been previous forum discussions on this topic that became fairly involved, at least to the point they made me look around enough to understand the basic tenants of both concepts.
The logic of the benefits of government injection is sound in theory but my reasoning is that it is not an enduring theory. Real-life facts, current and historical, show that funding sources are always exhausted by increased demand. History shows that MMT fails, and our last four years show it continuing to fail. (adding trillions of debt in years instead of decades) Your theory's answer is to inject more money via MMT rationalizations.
I'm with Hayek and history on this one.
GAKeynes is often held up as the flag bearer of vigorous government intervention in the markets, while Hayek is regarded as the champion of laissez-faire capitalism; so as an American I can fully understand your strong preference for the latter.
For clarity, it’s not my “theory's answer is to inject more money via MMT rationalizations.” MMT (Modern Monetary Theory) is quite distinctive from Keynesian Theory, and opposing in its approach e.g. MMT is heavily reliant on fiscal policy, while Keynesian is heavily reliant on monetary policy.
Yeah, in economics, real life and theory doesn’t match up that well; and invariably there are often two sides to the argument e.g. trickle down (favoured by Conservative Governments) and trickle up (preferred by Socialist Governments). So often there isn’t a right or wrong, there are just different political views as to which economic theory is most suitable.
In the real world, to get things right takes a Government to be adaptive (less politically dogmatic) and willing to listen to and take advice from its economic advisors and reputable international bodies such as the IMF. A prime example was crashing of the Greece and Irish (Republic of Ireland) economies during the financial crisis of 2008; both countries were the worst economically hit in Europe - the IMF advised austerity, Ireland (a liberal government) took that advice and within a few short years had the strongest economic growth in Europe, while Greece (a socialist government) tried to spend its way out of recession, which only made matters worse.
The British Governments (regardless to politics) tend to rely more on momentary policy rather than fiscal policy, although British Governments tend to leave it to market forces e.g. heavily reliant on the Bank of England to adjust ‘Interest’ rates to control ‘inflation’, the British Government (as you know doubt know is far from laissez-faire capitalism e.g. it does heavily ‘Regulate’ in the economy, but not so much in the ‘financial markets’.
It’s too simplistic to say this economic theory works and that one doesn’t; in the real world, how successful an economic theory is, and who it benefits, is heavily dependent on many variables e.g. there’s a right time, and wrong time, for when a particular political policy, based on economic theory, may or may not be successful.
In the UK, an example of success being: The UK Conservative Government following elements of Keynesian economics for the past ten years, helping to create employment and economic growth e.g. heavy government investment in infrastructure such as building new railways and hospitals etc.
While conversely, an example of failure being: Liz Truss (our last Prime Minister), a staunch conservative capitalist, spectacularly crashed the UK economy within days of comping to power by slashing the tax on the super-rich (fiscal policy), aka trickledown economics; needless to say the Conservative Party kicked her out of Office within six weeks, and replaced her with a Prime Minister who immediately reversed her policies; raising the tax back up on the super-rich, and in doing so stabilised international confidence in the economy, allowing the value of government bonds and the British currency to recover.
That brings me to another interesting point on economics. On how well or badly an economic theory works in the real world can hinge on ‘confidence’ e.g. confidence of the International Financial Markets, affecting the value of government bonds and the value of the currency against other currencies; and consumer confidence, whether the general public has enough confidence to spend in the shops – lack of consumer confidence can lead to a slump in demand, unemployment and recession etc., reducing Government Revenue (less tax to collect because fewer people are working), and increase Government Spending (as more people become dependent on Welfare Benefits).The "your theory" simply meant the Keynesian perspective, not your personal theory.
Your point: "So often there isn’t a right or wrong, there are just different political views as to which economic theory is most suitable." is why these types of discussions can be reasonably argued without the shade of political 'dogma.'
MMT and Keynes are different theories, but I think they are inseparably connected. Kenyes' seems to require intervention that can only be done in a fiat currency economy. Modern governments do not have the financial resources they would need to follow Keynesian policies in an asset-backed currency (the old Gold Standard currency) economy. They couldn't 'just print more money.'
Fiscal and monetary policies may also be two distinct things that are inseparably connected. Consider a comparison of our governments. You seem to have a more defined separation of the two policies, whereas, in my opinion, ours are almost one.
Then consider the most pressing financial concerns of each. Regardless of the issue, whether it is your NHI insolvency and labor strikes, or our SS and Medicaid insolvencies the root seems to always be a lack of government financial resources. Two different governing styles have the same root problem.
The 'why" question seems basic and obvious. Because they are spending more money than they have, or can realistically (it's my ball so I'll interpret what realistic is ;-) ) expect to have.
Hayek's theories don't advocate doing that, Keynes' does. Hayek's theories seem to be the ones used in both of our early industrial-era governments, and we both rose to be prosperous leading 1st-world nations.
When did that economic prosperity begin to change? I think it was when we each achieved world security as a nation and turned to our security as a people — when we started SS or you started NHI, and all of the other citizen-support programs that followed. In those early days, things worked because supply was greater than demand: more SS contributions than disbursements, ample staff-to-need ratio, etc. As our populations grew that changed. Our governments began to need more money than we had.
Once more, only Keynes bases policies on that action. It was those policies that advocated government money infusions. Keynesians are betting on the come' (what might or should be) Hayek isn't betting, he's holding to what 'is.'
Keynesians are projecting and expecting robotic statistically-predictable results to justify their actions. History seems to show that to be wrong. Humans' reactions aren't robotic so the predicted results won't be so predictable.
In the end, you are right, it isn't one theory or the other, our governments' policies should include parts of each. A few parts from Keynes and the rest from Hayek.
GAYeah, you generally summed it up in your ultimate paragraph; a sensible government using a blend of different economic theories – which is often referred to as a ‘financial toolkit’ e.g. governments will generally use both fiscal and money policy to try to manage the economy. For the brief period Liz Truss was Prime Minister the Bank of England publically criticised the UK Government because it’s fiscal policy was working at odds with the monetary policy e.g. the UK Government undermining what the Bank of England was doing – For the Bank of England to publically criticise the Government in the News Media had been unheard of until then.
Where you say, with regards to fiscal and monetary policies: “You seem to have a more defined separation of the two policies, whereas, in my opinion, ours are almost one.” Yes, in 1997 the Labour (socialist) Government gave the Bank of England operational independence over monetary policy, so yes the two policies are separated in the UK e.g. the UK Government is responsible for fiscal policy and the Bank of England is responsible for monetary policy. The reason for the split was so that in the UK monetary policy can be based on economics and not politics e.g. apolitical.
With regards to your valid point, where governments “are spending more money than they have, or can realistically expect to have” – as you pointed out above, these days currency is not backed by gold, they tend to be fiat currency; and thus (as I previously stated) the money supply can grow and shrink, like a balloon inflating and deflating – So it’s not just a simple case of saying that governments can’t spend money because they don’t have it, because with the right economic policies to stimulate growth government economic policy can stimulate the growth of money to pay for public expenditure –they do it all the time, but if they get it wrong then it can push the ‘national debt’ up too high.
Economists believe that a ratio of 77% of debt to GDP is the threshold point beyond which countries experience an exponential fall in economic growth; the EU’s criteria is that government debt to GDP should be below 60%. The UK’s debt to GDP is currently 80.7%, while the USA’s debt to GDP is 107%.
So in a nutshell, as long at the national debt to GDP is below 77% then that countries government has latitude to follow any economic policy it likes, including Keynesian economics if it so wishes; but if the debt to GDP is above 77% then a government would most likely be considering austerity measures to try to bring down the debt.
The Money Multiplier: https://youtu.be/93_Va7I7Lgg
Did you know that Bristol (the city in England, where I live) has its own currency: https://youtu.be/hXU4MOSSXc8
Where you ask “When did our economic prosperity begin to change” in the USA and UK, and you cited the introduction of the NHS (National Health Service) in the UK; which was in 1948, and then go on to explain that in those days it worked out because supply was greater than demand, but these days our government needs more and more money to pay for the service.
Yeah, sure modern equipment and advances in medicine does mean the NHS can cure more people, and modern equipment, such as scanners etc. isn’t cheap; but the NHS was given birth by the Labour (socialist) Government using Keynesian economics in the aftermath of the 2nd world war, when Britain was on the verge of bankruptcy – and was only able to survive, and rebuild, by heavy borrowing from the USA; and in time, once we revered we went on to become the 5th wealthiest country in the world – now down to 6th place since Brexit.
So if it wasn’t for Keynesian economics we would never have had the NHS in the UK.
For someone who has no grade in economics, you are spot on; what you describe is classical ‘Quantity Theory of Money’ as taught in economics e.g. if a government injects $5 into the economy and over the course of the year that $5 is spent 10 times over, the economy grows by 5 x 10 to $50; and assuming the $5 is taxed at 10% each time there’s a transition, within a year the government gets $5 back in taxes from the original $5 injection into the economy – of course this is only a simplistic example, and thus not an accurate reflection on a real economy – but the principle is there, as explained in this short video:- https://youtu.be/q59tZKP0HME
Then why are certain capitalisjt countries without unemployment benefits that poor?
If a country does not have an unemployment benefit unemployed people have no money to spend. No money to spend means no money to run the economy. You need people to have money to run an economy.
Okay let's take my country Nigeria, as an example. It's a small-scale capitalist economy. Seriously, and critically, she has no 'unemployment benefit' in her socio-economic schemes. Those retired received pension benefits and spend money. Beggars even receive insignificant token and spend. But these are not unemployment beneeits, correct? Then how come the economy in the face of huge unemployment still runs?
I am a little confused. Nigeria's economy is ranked the 31st largest in the world and the largest in the African continent. That does not sound like a small-scale capitalist economy.
Thank you. I was thinking about more or less the same reply. Nigeria is not a small insignificant country.
Agreed. I've modified the question to a media class if that is suitable. How d'you see it then? Thanks
The conversation is about how to get a big middle class. I think, the more middle-class people you have, the more stable and prosperous a country is.
The more a divide between rich and poor, the more unstable and more under stress a country is.
So the question is, how to get a bigger middle class?
To tax the super-rich more and to give the poor aid. To say it simple.
But this does not work if you give the poor a dollar here or there. It has to be structural. So poor people have the "breathing space" to level up. By getting an education for a better job or the opportunity to move into a house and not live with their parents until the age of 30. etc.
If you do not provide this structure problems will rise.
One of the tools is to give benefits to the unemployed. If you don't do this, the unemployed have to live with their families. Which gives stress to the families.
Also criminality will grow as people need food. If you don't have a job and you don't have a family who can support you, what do you do to survive?
So giving benefits to the unemployed has advantages. Less stress on families, less criminality, and so it's cheaper for a nation in the long run to have a bigger middle class. More educated and independent people with small families.Thank you. In a sense I see the advantages outweight the disadvantages.
Tsmog, okay, it's a big or media capitalist economy. Though not one of the best 10. Why then is the economy running without being fueled with these unemployment benefits? Thanks.
Yours is an interesting perspective, Peter.
I have to agree with much that Wilderness says in this case and believe me, that does not happen very often.
As An individual, yes I want to do things. But, Life is quite short, the things I would want to do would not have anything to do with compensatory labor. Evolving beyond crude desires for the mere accumulations of material goods or garish displays of wealth, I would want to circumnavigate the globe, increasing education and broadening life exposure and experiences. I certainly would not want to stare at a computer screen for 8 hours, clean toilets or dig ditches. I am only compelled to do such things in order to earn enough to live.
So it is in the human nature to do things, but not necessarily the things that sustain you from an economic standpoint. Most people I knew worked and did what they did for economic sustenance. If they won the lottery, they would immediately retire.
In my retirement, it is composed of a three legged stool, My health, my time and my money.
The very economic nature of the United States and its value system would sink the idea of a universal minimum basic income before it could ever be seriously considered. Taxes would have to rise as a result of such an idea, capitalists would howl.
While money does not guarantee happiness, it certainly can contribute to it. I don't consider myself or even those receiving supplemental benefits as lazy. It is only fair that we each must work to sustain ourselves, acquiring goods and services produced from the effort of others. Exceptions are allowed for under circumstances beyond an individual's control.
I have no problem with preferring to stay at home rather than subject myself to sweat shop environments and stressful working conditions outside.While I wouldn’t fully support the concept of ‘universal basic income’ per se, there is certainly scope form of basic income e.g. the legal minimum wage as in the UK, and other forms of social and welfare benefits that is so common across Europe.
But my main point is that in my experience in Europe, is that what peterstreep is saying essentially right e.g. I’ve known plenty of people who need to feel that they are contributing to society; nurses being a prime example whereby the British Conservative Government exploit the desire for nurses to care for people, by keeping their wages low. Nurses don’t work for the money; they work because it’s their vocation.
And I’ve know people who been unemployed, who can’t find work, and ended up doing charity work instead (for nothing), because of their need to feel useful in society.
One thing that I find, in Europe, is that people are not generally lazy, most people do want to work and fill useful in society; and many are willing to work for low wages to fill useful, rather than be idle.
Maybe it’s just a European thing???Hello, Arthur
In America, your life is disaterous without money. The desire of your nurses to serve regardless of compensation is exploited by the capitalist elements within your own society, as an excuse not to fairly pay them. It is hard to take an altruistic view of your life and profession when you cannot be paid enough to survive. We had a nurses strike, a crisis,here in America a few years ago. We don't have the safety nets to allow a citizen to avoid the most grinding forms of poverty, that would protect your "Angels" from the very worse.
A Star Trek movie "First Contact" made an interesting point. In Picard's efforts to defend his ship against the Borg, having to go back in time to the mid 21st Century, he picked up a woman. He explains to her in their tour of the Enterprise the changes, both technological and social between her time and his, she asks, " how much does this ship cost"?
He said that the economics of the future were quite different, people worked for the betterment of themselves and humanity. In a world of pattern replicators, the old time ideas of working to avoid material want were simply no longer relevant.
So, yes, it is much more of a "European thing" than what is the case in America, currently.Yep, I and my son are fans of Star Trek; we have all the DVD/Blu-ray box sets of all the Series, including the original, Next Generation, Deep Space Nine, Voyager and Enterprise; so I know the movie well that you refer to – a great film.
Yep, it’s abundantly clear that in the USA it’s all about money, money, money, and taxes, taxes and taxes; whereas in the UK, provided people have enough income to pay their bills and have a few luxuries money isn’t a big issue – and in the UK opinion poll after opinion polls shows that the vast majority of voters have no issue in pay a little extra tax if it’s in a good cause e.g. to finance the NHS.
I think the main difference in attitude between our two great nations is that in Britain do have a feeling of financial security in that they know that if they fall on hard times the State will provide – so people are less obsessive about money in Britain than in the USA.
Whether attitudes in America will every change????
Wait, wait, I gotta jump in. The determination that the government is keeping wages low to exploit nurses reads as a really biased one. Isn't it possible that the reason for low wages is the lack of money to increase them?
A fix requires either cutting other budgets or raising taxes. If Britons are willing to pay more I would think every politician would be on board with an increase, they would look like problem-solvers.
A quick headlines scan indicates many (most?) Brits aren't okay with more tax increases, meaning the 'fix' that is left is cutting other budgets. Which ones are big enough to yield the numbers needed to pay the increased wages?
GAWhat sources did you get your information from, where you say “A quick headlines scan indicates many (most?) Brits aren't okay with more tax increases”, do you have links; I’m only asking because that is contrary to reality??????
1. Last summer several opinion polls showed that around 70% of voters (64% of Conservative voters) believe that the very wealthy should be taxed more.
2. Published in the Financial Times (a British right-wing, conservative/capitalist supporting newspaper), based on recent research:-
• 52% of respondents said the government should increase taxes and spend more on health, education and social benefits.
• The majority of Britons are pro increasing taxes and welfare spending, while nearly half support the redistribution of income to benefit the less well off.
• The survey found that 49% of people think the government should redistribute income from the better-off to those with less means.
• Over 66% believe ordinary working people do not get their fair share of the nation’s wealth e.g. in favour of redistribution of wealth.
https://www.ft.com/content/bc07381f-fa7 … 6d640cb90e
3. Published in the Guardian (a left-wing newspaper, who’s target audience is the upper working class and middle class), was a similar picture, and according to the survey (a different survey to that published in the Financial Times); Only 22% of voters said that taxes should be reduced and less spent on public services.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 … ll-reveals
4. According to the YouGov opinion poll (one of the most respected opinion polls in the UK) 66% of voters say that the NHS should be funded from taxes, while only 7% advocate private health insurance.
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/tr … -be-funded
5. In the 2019 General Election, taxation was only an issue with just 4% of voters.
So the reality is that the vast majority of people favour increasing taxes to fund the NHS, that isn’t the issue – The issue is politics.
The Liberal Democrats, who got 11.5% share of the vote in the 2019 General Election (their vote squeezed because they are in the middle political) Election Manifesto to increase income tax by 1% to pay for Health and Education; and based on the politics of the NHS over the decades, that is probably all the funding the NHS needs. Last year the NHS cost £153 billion ($184 billion) (7% of GDP); so in the grand scheme of things it’s not unsurmountable.
The problem isn’t the finance, it’s the politics.
The NHS created by the Labour (socialist) Government in 1948 is pure socialism; and as such is loathed by the Conservative Party; so much so that ever since Margaret Thatcher (Conservative Prime Minister) in the 1980s the Conservative Party has consistently tried to abolish the NHS (through the back door) and undermine it – but have been unsuccessful because the NHS is highly popular with conservative voters, just as much as its popular with all voters, and as such, for a Conservative Government to be seen dismantling the NHS, it would be political suicide.
Margaret Thatcher tried to abolish the NHS in the early 1980s, and replace it with an American style health service; but she was stopped by her own Party; because her fellow Conservative MPs (politicians) knew it would have been political suicide. And as part of ‘damage limitation’, and win back votes, the Conservative Party Election Slogan in the late 1980s was “The NHS is Safe in Our Hands”.
To win votes in the 2019 General Election, one of Boris Johnson’s key Election Pledges was that if the Conservative won they would build 40 new NHS hospitals; the reality is that they’ve only 10, and not the 40 they promised – but 10 is better than nothing.
The reality is, is that when Labour is in power, the NHS gets properly funded; but when the Conservatives are in power, they begrudgingly fund the NHS to appease the voters.
So in the UK, because the NHS is State owned and State funded, and because it’s pure socialism (which doesn’t sit well with any right-wing Conservative Government), in spite of the fact that the NHS is highly respected and supported by Conservative voters; the NHS is a political football in British Politics – which is why it is always one of the prime issues in General Elections.
In the 2019 General Election; apart from Brexit, the main issues as percentage of voters were as follows:-
• NHS = 40%
• Crime = 28%
• Environment = 25%
• Economy = 25%
• Immigration = 22%
• Education = 14%
• Housing = 14%
• Welfare benefits = 9%
• Defence and security = 8%
• Pensions = 5%
• Family and childcare = 4%
• Tax = 4%
• Transport = 2%
So as you can see, in the last General Election the NHS was the prime issue for 40% of voters, and tax was an important issue for just 4% of voters.I don't have links for my claim. It was simply my perception from past political headlines. If it is wrong, as your stats appear to show, then it is wrong. You would know better than I.
In your comment, 'tax the rich' and wealth 'redistribution' seem to dominate the support that Brits don't have a problem with tax increases. Without the "rich" and 'redistribution' conditioners of acceptance, does the average British worker support increases in their taxes?
Maybe my view is skewed by my perception of American politics, but here, politicians would be giddy over public support for tax increases because it gives them more money to spend without having to fight for it. The fight is usually over what the taxation is for, and usually, the target is non-consensus programs.
I understand your point about the importance of NHS in your voters' minds, are British politicians different in that they won't push for a needed tax increase when the public is for it?
GAYep, I have the same problem; living on the other side of the pond it is impossible to get a true picture of American life, culture and politics just from news and social media – and thus I learn more about America from corresponding with my friend in New York, and from these forums than any other source.
Yeah, ever since the 1980s (if not before) opinion poll after opinion poll shows that the average Brit has no problem with their own taxes being raised by 1% or 2% if it’s for a good reason e.g. the NHS; which is why the Liberal Democrats long standing policy (in their Election Manifestos) of increasing taxes by 1% or 2% to finance Education and Health doesn’t lose them votes.
With regards to your last point “are British politicians different in that they won't push for a needed tax increase when the public is for it?” – It boils down to political ideology e.g. lowering taxes and cutting services is part of the Conservative political ideology, so the thought of raising taxes to pay for services goes against the grain of Conservatism.
Sounds to me like Brits are generally in favor of making someone else pay more taxes, but not themselves. This is not uncommon; most people, including Americans, want somebody else to pay for what they want but don't want to pay for.
Your statement is only true to a point; yes, most Brits do feel that the super-rich should pay higher taxes; but opinion poll after opinion poll also shows that most Brits would be content to pay 1% or 2% more in taxes if it was for a good reason e.g. to help fund the NHS.
The cultural mentality of Brits is radically different to the cultural mentality of Americans; which makes these debates more interesting, as we learn more about each other cultures.
One distinct difference is that since the 2nd world war Britain has become a country where the voting public periodically put a socialist party (Labour) in power; something that never could happen in the USA. As you can imagine, in a country where the voters will quite happily put a socialist government in power, it makes it challenging for any Conservative party to appease the voters with their Conservative political ideology.
Talking about taxes; I had my tax bill yesterday for next year – and as from April, for the next 12 months I’ll be paying a grand total of $12 a month in income tax; and considering that my pensions leave me with thousands of dollars a year more than needed to live comfortably with a high standard of living, and considering that all my healthcare and bus travels are 100% free, that seems a modest sum to pay in tax. And come December I’ll also get my $12 Christmas bonus from the Government for being a pensioner so I’ll effectively be paying no tax for the month of December, as the Christmas bonus cancels out the tax for that month (both being the same amount).
The Christmas Bonus Payment Explained: https://youtu.be/h0NK8yZMcV4
Further to my previous reply; it’s not so much about the money, but more about the politics: Points to consider:-
• 67% of Pensioners vote Conservative, compared to just 21% of voters under the age of 25; therefore, without the support from people on State Pension there is no way the Conservative Party could win a General Election.
• There are 12.5 million people in the UK on State Pension.
• The cost of State Pension to the UK Government from this April will be £178.5 billion ($215 billion); about 8% of GDP.
• The NHS employs about 1.4 million people.
• The NHS costs £153 billion ($184 billion); 7% of GDP.
• Since 2010 (when the Conservatives came to power) NHS wages have fallen 20% in real terms.
• Currently the UK Government is offering the NHS a 3.5% pay rise, while inflation last year was 10.1%.
• Since 2010 State Pensions have increased in real terms because of the Triple Lock e.g. the UK Conservative Government increases the State Pension each year by whichever is the highest of the following three criteria; inflation, average wage increases if higher, or 2.5% if higher.
• This year the UK Government is increasing the State Pension by 10.1%, in line with inflation.
Interestingly, the NHS pay dispute in Scotland and Wales is almost over because the Scottish (socialist) Government has offered the NHS in Scotland a pay package worth up to 20%; while the Welsh (socialist) Government has offered the NHS in Wales a pay package worth 7.6%.
It’s just in England where strike action (industrial action) is still taking place, but with strong public support for the NHS strikes, as high as 59% in December, the UK Government’s resolve to resist a realistic pay rise is weakening e.g. three of the NHS unions in England have temporality suspended their strike action in response to the UK Government agreeing to further negotiations on pay.Well, there you go, new money is found. Where is it coming from?
GAApparently, this simple question cannot simply be answered....
Again, we are back to economic theories: The basic economic concept that economic growth generates increased Revenue for Government, and that recessions increases Government Expenditure etc. etc. etc.
For example, increasing NHS pay to keep up with inflation injects additional money into the pockets of NHS workers, who being on a low wage will tend to spend it (in the economy) rather than save it; and that extra money, as it works its way through the economy will be spent and re-spent many times over, helping to stimulate economic growth, and create jobs, each time generating taxes for the Government, so that typically within 18 months to two years, the Government will get most of that money back anyway. If it didn’t work out that way, then considering that average wages in the UK was just £380 in the 1950s, and now its £33,000 then the UK National Debt would be astronomical, and the UK would be bankrupt – but that’s not the case, the UK’s national debt to GDP is only 80.7%, just slightly above the maximum recommend by most economists.
Given that the signs are positive that as the UK recovers from the knocks of the pandemic, Brexit and the war in Ukraine, that our national debt to GDP will fall, especially considering that over the next two years six major offshore windfarms are due to go live, further reducing you UK’s dependency on fossil fuels. Therefore, within a few years the economics in the UK is set to look at lot rosier, albeit probably too late to benefit the current Conservative Government in the next General Election in less than two years, meaning that the Conservative Government could be facing a humiliating defeat at the next General Election. But whichever political party wins the next General Election, the national debt should be significantly reduced, below the 77% debt to GDP marker, leaving the next UK Government with more freedom to increase public expenditure without having to raise taxes e.g. by borrowing while still aiming to keep the borrowing debt below 77% of GDP.
I think the key isn’t absolute money value, but relative money value e.g. what is the value of money in real terms. If prices go up (inflation) and wages go up to keep in line with inflation, the status quo is maintained; the important issue in economics isn’t inflation itself, but the rate of inflation of 2% during a period of economic growth is generally considered healthy by most economists (slow and steady); what is considered harmful to economies is rapid change e.g. high inflation, hyperinflation, stagnation/recession or deflation.Your reference to the Keynesian economic theory of what will happen implied the answer to the question is that no new money was found and no purposeful exploitation was done, the government will simply borrow more money with confidence that the predicted extrapolations will be true.
I see no dispute with the explanation about the expansion and contraction that all economies go through due to government involvement. Nor that degrees of such intervention are generally good for the economy. The dispute is with those degrees. The scale and perceived over-justification of the need is what are disputed.
Once more, shooting from the hip, if the NHS is in the dire straits your news and public media say it is, it appears the 1 -2% Labour tax increases, which are okay with folks, haven't been enough. A stronger rate increase has been and is needed.
Almost rhetorically. I wonder if it's something like folks being okay with copays, as in, a 20% contribution (the accepted 1-2%) is accepted but the bigger 80% cost is expected to be paid by somebody else?
GAYour last paragraph makes you sound very much like an extreme hard-right-wing British Conservative. Your comment is very much what a few extreme hard-right-wing Conservatives said in public just last month, but they got quickly shot down by their fellow Conservative politicians because the Conservative party is already facing the prospect of a humiliating defeat at the next General Election in just over 18 months’ time if they can’t improve their ratings in the polls; and such comments by hardliners is unhelpful to the Conservative party.
The latest opinion poll, taken on 28th Feb, puts Labour on 46%, which would guarantee an overwhelming majority in Parliament; and the Conservatives on just 23%, which would give them the worst Election result in modern history – and would put the Liberal Democrats in a good position to become the official opposition party to Labour in future General Elections.
I don’t think we see eye to eye on your first paragraph. In economics money isn’t a static value, it expands and contracts with the economy e.g. economic growth/recession; and $1 injected into the economy can quickly grow into $5 or $10 as it’s spent over and over again (growth in money) e.g. the multiplier effect. So creating new money isn’t just as simple as taxes and borrowing; feed the economy and money will grow, just like feeding a plant and it grows.
As regards your second paragraph; the UK national debt to GDP ratio is only 80.1%, so we must be doing something right e.g. we are not spending beyond our means. While the USA’s national debt to GDP ratio is a whopping 107%, indicating that borrowing in the USA is far too high – So what’s causing the difference – why is the USA’s national debt to GDP ratio so much higher than the UK’s?
As regards your third paragraph (NHS): Yes, the NHS is currently in dire straits, and it has nothing to do with Labour tax increases of 1-2% - Labour have not been in power since 2010; since 2010 the Conservatives have been in power, and over that time they have consistently underfunded the NHS (as Conservative Governments do in the UK).
When Labour are in power they fund the NHS and other services predominately by borrowing rather than putting up taxes, but generally they keep the national debt to GDP ratio below the 77% mark; except during the world’s financial crisis of 2008, when the Labour Government got caught with its pants down, and borrowed heavily to get Britain out of a crisis, leaving the Conservatives with a heavy debt burden when they came to power in 2010 – which was bought under control with 5 years of austerity policies.
As regards the NHS itself, apart from underfunding from the Conservatives since 2010, the NHS was doing quite well until the aftermath of the pandemic e.g. the NHS has become adept to running an efficient service on a low budget.
And to the credit of the Conservative Government, during the pandemic they did prevent the NHS from being overwhelmed with having to deal with tens of thousands of covid patients needing hospital treatment (over and above the NHS’s normal healthcare service) by building 7 covid hospitals (called Nightingale Hospitals) within just a few weeks from the start of the pandemic. It cost the Government a total of £530 million ($638 million) to build the 7 covid hospitals, the largest of which had 4,000 beds for covid patients.
Inside NHS Nightingale - the world's biggest critical care facility https://youtu.be/vNfjvAJu5mc
The NHS was beginning to recover from the impact of covid when from last summer it was hit by Industrial action (strikes) caused by wage demands due to the hyper-inflation last year of 10.1%.
Yes, the Government is going to have to increase it’s spending on the NHS next year, in monetary terms; and no it’s not going to come from raising the tax rate, and no it’s not going to come from borrowing more – the Government has already made that clear.
Exactly how the NHS will be funded with extra funds in monetary terms will be made clear in the Spring Budget on 15th March (in 10 days’ time).
But, a subtle point which I’m not sure you’ve noted that in reality, what’s important isn’t the cost in monetary terms, but the cost in real terms e.g. with inflation at over 10% the value of money decreases by 10%, so increasing spending by 10% means there is no increase in spending in ‘Real Terms’ e.g. it keeps the status quo.
In economics you need to look at the 'relative' rather than 'absolute'.I've gotten myself in the weeds on this one. I think my mistake was using specific British examples, e.g. NHS and Brit's attitudes on taxes, expected government responsibilities, and almost anything else. Or, it could be because I don't know what I'm talking about. Even though, at my starting point, I think I do.
You noted a couple of points that might help me add some context. You noted that your debt ratio was lower than ours and that ours was too high due to excessive spending. I agree, with the problem and the reason. That is my motive for criticizing the Keynesian policies that allowed it.
'You guys' et al., seem to be confident in them. Our debt-ratio problem is worse, but as you noted, yours is not good and not going in the right direction. Neither of our governments could have gotten into this situation without adopting Keynesian-based policies. Of course, there are defining details, but they will attach to that basic 'trunk of the tree'.
If that's not a fair perspective, then I should stop here because I probably don't know what I'm talking about. Everything has a base and if the base isn't understood the details never can be.
If it is . . .
The implication of your closer caused a pause. I thought I was considering the relative and the absolute. I see the 'relative' as being represented by the monetary extrapolation example you offered: the $1 gaining the value of $5, or more, as it passes through financial chains to reach an ending equitable taxable value (the 'hard' numbers of financial details and the 'soft' numbers of societal benefit are in that final number) that is one of progress. The fact of economic (monetary) expansion and contraction is a logical one.
If that isn't at least 'in the ballpark', then my perception of 'absolute' doesn't have a chance because it completes the path to my original point. So I really will stop here.
GAIMHO I think your grasp of economics at a basic level is rather good, and to that extent it’s been a pleasure in exchanging thoughts with each other.
I think the main problem might be a communication problem e.g. British English vs American English, and in not fully appreciating the cultural difference between our two great nations – leading to misunderstandings?
As regards the NHS, I didn’t take any of your comments as criticism of the NHS, I just took it as part of a healthy debate from which we both can learn more about each other’s cultures; and I’m certainly learning more about American culture from these discussions.
Your assessment of national debt seems a fair assessment; the only thing I would add is that prior to the pandemic, Brexit and the war in Ukraine the national debt in the UK was quite healthy – so it’s not a problem caused by Keynesian economics per se, but more because of worldwide circumstances beyond the control of any national government e.g. the UK Government had to pump $10s of billions into the economy to get the UK over the pandemic crisis, and now $10s of billions more due to the cost of living crisis and fuel crisis in the UK due to the war in Ukraine: All additional, and necessary, Government expenditure that no one could have predicted just a few years ago.
So the point I’m trying to make is that the UK Government now has the unamiable task of getting the national debt back under control, which it will do in time – and then, and only then, will the next Government be in a better position to follow whatever economic theories it’s economic advisors advice within the framework of that’s government’s political ethos.
As regards relative and absolute; in itself e.g. if inflation remained at 0% during the period, I would regard the initial $1 gaining value to say $5 over 12 months, as it passes through the financial chains as an absolute e.g. the $1 ends up being $5 a fivefold increase in money supply in real terms. Whereas, adding the effect of inflation during that time period e.g. 10% inflation, although the monetary value of the initial $1 will be $5 at the end of the period (a year) the $5 will only be worth $4.50 in real terms because of inflation.
As an added note; economists generally work on the principle that any initial change to the money supply e.g. increasing/decreasing tax, or increasing/decreasing benefits etc. will take on average between 18 months and 2 years to work its way through the system. So when Government are planning tax cuts or increasing benefits as a way to boost economic growth, they have to work in terms of it taking up to two years for the full effect of their initial injection of money into the economy.
Another example of ‘relative’ vs ‘absolute’ is the national debt. It’s no good just saying the national debt is far too high because it’s $x – the debt has to be viewed in conjunction with the GDP to see how big the debt is relative to GDP for it to have any meaning. In effect a national debt isn’t that different to people using their credit cards – providing you use your credit card sensibly and keep your credit card debt to a level that you can afford to repay back in monthly instalments without your total expenditure (including your credit card repayment) exceeding your monthly income, then you are living within your means. In that sense, most economists feel that in keeping the debt to GDP ratio to below 77% that a country is living within its means.
I’ve found these discussions educational, and I hope we are a little closer to understanding each other, in spite of our language and cultural differences.Well, If I got close on one, I'll try the other. With a little housekeeping first.
I understand the 'absolute' you describe, and I see it as the other half of Keynesian mechanics. I understand the relationship of the relative value (the 'soft' number of a moving inflation index?) to the absolute value, the 'hard' static number of cash (value) infused.
But, the "absolute" behind my comments was a different one. Since I already thought relative and absolute were components of a sum (a determination of results) I was talking about them as the results: Relative being the proposed or predicted results based on the basis of the theory, and Absolute being the actual documented results of the application.
That Absolute does encompass more than a few years of maturation time. In the US it's typically in ten-year cycles.
My bias (remember, I warned you with my original Keynes and Hayek mention) made me think that was obvious. Maybe we have been talking about different things. I think the inferences were there. You should have picked up on that. I'm blaming you. ;-)
Past discussions, (years of them here) have gone deep into the details of each of your explanatory examples. For me, all ended at the same place. Your responses affirmed my confidence that I at least have a grasp of the idea.
Just for kicks, look at the door that opens. If we can say we agree that both Keynes and Hayek-type policy actions should be in a government's 'tool kit,' and, if we can say we agree that it was the misuse of or over-reliance on Keynesian economics (including the extreme external circumstances you mentioned - they being part of the 'relative' aspect of the theory) to support the actions that have our nations in this spot, then we can find the 'who' to blame for it.
Too many 'if's for you? If not, then look at the door that opens. One more 'if'? Is it possible to agree that, in general, and broadly labeled, Liberals are Keynesian and Conservatives are Hayek -ian(???)?
My perception is that's a fair assumption. One I think you would agree with. And there's the door . . .right back to my original point: it's the Liberals' fault. It was Keynesian-driven policies that got us here, and it wasn't Conservatives pushing them.
Hell, I nearly fell out of my chair laughing when that thought popped in.
GAAs regards absolute vs relative for example, yes I agree that we may have been talking about different things; it’s one of those discussion where we would make better progress, and gain a better understanding of each other’s views, if it was conducted as a face to face social chat over a pint of beer in a pub, or a coffee in front of the TV etc. Perhaps a good example of the value of face to face social chit-chat is that our family ‘best’ (closest) friend is a Priest and I’m an atheist; yet in spite of our philosophical differences, through many relaxed social friendly chats we’ve come to respect each other’s views, even if we don’t agree with them. I’ve had a few social discussions with his Arch Bishop (Catholic) and learnt some fascinating things in the process, for example his Arch Bishop strongly believes in the immaculate (virgin) birth, but doesn’t believe the rising from the dead of the messiah should be taken literally; and in return, as a result of my long discussions with our best friend’s Arch Bishop, the Arch Bishop took it upon himself to read up on Quantum physics, and to my surprise grasped a good fundamental understanding of the basics of Quantum physics quite quickly; so face to face contact is certainly superior to ‘cold’ communion through social media.
Yep, the 10 year cycle you reference, is standard practice, and part of a larger ‘planning tool’; when I was a civil servant our Department would produce a set of Government Reports for Transport, for Planning and Budget, of 1 year, 3 years, 5 years and 10 years projection – all of which would be assessed and updated yearly.
Yep, I think we are in agreement that Keynes and Hayek (other economic theories) should be in a government’s toolkit; and generally they are.
And yes, in the past there have been times when governments have been over reliant on Keynesian economics, leading to ‘boom and bust’; in fact that’s the problem that China’s economy is facing right now with its housing programme.
But for clarity: Although Keynes is often held up as the flag bearer of vigorous government intervention in the markets, while Hayek is regarded as the champion of laissez-faire capitalism, to try to blame Keynesian economics for all the woes currently facing all governments around the world is a little unjust in my opinion. It doesn’t matter what governments was in power, or their political leaning, or what economic policies they were following, the worldwide pandemic in 2020 & 2021, and the ongoing Ukrainian war from 2022 have caused economic havoc to all – and realistically nothing would have cushioned any government from the economic damaged caused by these two worldwide crises.
Besides, as I previously said, prior to the pandemic the UK Government (Conservative) had managed to get the UK’s national debt to a respectable level, after five years of austerity from 2010 to 2015; and coincidently, in c2016 the UK final made its final debt repayment on the national debt from the 2nd world war e.g. huge loans by America to bail out the UK in the aftermath of the 2nd world war, at a time when Britain was on the verge of bankruptcy’; and at the time the then Labour (socialist) Government used a large chunk of that loan to build the welfare system we have today, and launch the NHS – both long lasting benefits, which the Brits cherish to this day.
As regards your question - “Is it possible to agree that, in general, and broadly labelled, Liberals are Keynesian and Conservatives are Hayekian?”
I guess broadly, and in general, yet: I’m hesitant to say an absolute yes, because of the difference in the political spectrum between the UK & USA. To elaborate; in the UK, yes our Conservative Party does lean more towards Hayekian economics to a point e.g. they believe in ‘Privatisation’ and hate the concept of nationalisation, but are far more apt to Regulate Industry e.g. for Health and Safety, working conditions, completion rules etc., than their American counterpart (Republican Party).
While in the UK the Labour (Socialist) Party is far more ready to use Keynesian economics, and have a greater preference to nationalisation rather than privatisation of ‘essential services’.
But the Liberal Democrats in the UK (more akin to you Democratic Party) share views and politics from the soft left of the Conservative political ideology to the soft right of the Labour ideology; so when it comes to economics, they are literally in the middle (centre) in all respects e.g. willing to support Hayekian economics just as much as Keynesian economics.
One final factor, which I think should be taken into account in these discussions; is that in American politics there’s a tendency to put money before people; whereas in British politics (regardless to which political party is in power) there is a greater tendency to put people before money!Most of your context points make sense to me. I think we're generally on the same page—even with the differences in our political systems.
I know that some of my 'maneuvering' to get to that 'open door' was a stretch, e.g. including the compounded externalities like the pile-on of the pandemic and the war, as parts of the "relative" aspects of Keynesian thought. But . . .
It was just for kicks. When I spotted the opening the fun of going there was irresistible.
GaYep
– I’m sure we’ll revisit this subject again in due course; with our differing social, political and cultural values between the UK/EU & USA there’s plenty of scope for discussion. And perhaps through these discussions we’ll gain a greater understanding and respect for each other’s cultures!Further to our discussion, news headlines in the UK today seem quite relevant! Video of the report shown on TV News Today: https://youtu.be/DnZBWW7Jqy0
The news article is a result of a UK ‘Think Tank’ (Centre for Progressive Policy). The Think Tank is funded by Lord David Sainsbury (great grandchild of John James Sainsbury, who founded the Sainsbury Supermarket (food chain store) in 1869). Sainsbury being the 2nd largest food store in the UK. Lord Sainsbury was Chairman of Sainsbury until 1997; and a Labour MP in the House of Commons until he was made a life peer in the House of Lords in 1997.
A lot of what’s in the above video touches on a lot of what we have been discussing.The issue of your link is relative to our discussion. It is also multi-faceted—it illustrates not only a possible Keynesian-appropriate issue but also the reality of an unavoidable cultural shift that is a dilemma for conservative traditions, a la a women working or staying home.
It deserves a thread of its own so 'Climate change' can get back on topic.
GABut we're still regressing. And I hope savvydating wouldn't take any offence for hijacking her thread to such an ewxtend? Yea, the rains here in my State is getting less. The night's cool. I'll sleep cool likewise.
Hi Mie…57,
Well, at least this gives me more time to read my latest book on climate.
I agree, and perhaps I will raise a new forum covering this, so that you can put in your two pennies worth; but perhaps not for a few days, as I’m currently busy doing a few small DIY jobs in our shower room.
OK, I had a few minutes spare, so just time to start a new forum, as you suggested.
With respect to the NHS, as you know the NHS is universal free healthcare to all in the UK, State owned and State funded. That doesn’t mean that it offers just a basic healthcare service, quite the reverse, it offers a comprehensive service – and cost of treatment isn’t a prime factor e.g. last year the NHS gave new gene therapy treatment (developed in England) to save the life of a baby, at a cost of £1.79 million ($2.15 million) per patient – the most expensive drug in the world; albeit the NHS negotiated a generous discount on the price; as it often does with pharmaceutical companies.
The question is; would your medical insurance in America cover the cost of such an expensive drug to save the lives of babies born in the USA?
https://www.theguardian.com/society/202 … g-from-nhs
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atidarsagene_autotemcelYou will see my response about 'getting in the weeds'. I wasn't intending to criticize specifics, such as NHS.
GA
I read the rate of inflation is 4% in England.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 … rew-bailey
In another article from US Bank, I read that the UK is headed towards a serious economic downturn in 2023.
Furthermore, in the U.S., we do cover healthcare for the poor. But, those who are middle class or wealthy must pay for healthcare. In essence, the middle classes and the wealthy pay for the poor.You read that wrong; it’s not inflation that’s at 4% in the UK, it’s the interest rate that’s 4% - Inflation in the UK last year was 10.1%.
Yeah, due to the cost of living crisis and fuel crisis caused by a culmination of the pandemic, Brexit and the war in Ukraine the UK is close to dipping into recession; we just narrowly missed recession last month by a whisker.
And 2024 may not be much better, which would be bad news for the Conservative Government, because that’s when the next General Election is due; and if the Government doesn’t pull a few rabbits out of the hat by then they face a certain humiliating defeat – with Labour (a socialist party) becoming the next Government in the UK.
Yep, I know that you do cover healthcare for the poor, to a fashion; but I doubt that it’s little more than a basic healthcare service? Whereas in the UK universal healthcare is free to all regardless to their wealth, so that even millionaires and billionaires in the UK get the same universal healthcare service as someone who’s unemployed.
The UK conservative(labour) goverment, is a very responsible government. A government like no other government..
For a minute there you sounded like a [C]onservative.
For a second I might sound like a [L]iberal agreeing with you.
How the hell could that happen?
GA"CONservative? Let's not get carried away, GA.
I am a reasonable fellow, I am well aware that at the end of the day, someone has to pay for the soup.
I think that we can agree that excess Socialism may not be the answer in America. There are already many Socialist elements as part of the American economy.
What divides Right and Left is the disagreement as to the extent of incursion of socialist ideas into a capitalist economy. I tend to be less intimidated with the mix than those on the Right.
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/tls9h2q7QlYArthur, 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.
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?
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.
It must be frustrating; I can only hope that in time things will improve for Nigeria, and other countries like Nigeria!
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-warmingYea, 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.
The weather is always changing. The activity of humans makes almost no difference.
Savvy, while it makes no difference to you, others perceive the changes in a different light.
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.
'Yes, Mr. Prime Minister'. I got the physics.
Currently worldwide, 5.15 trillion gallons of greenhouse gases are emitted into the atmosphere each year by burning fossil fuels.
No offense, but what do you care? It is not as if you participated in the discussion of climate change.
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.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.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.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?
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.
ArthurYou 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.
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!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.
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.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!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.Why should the authority ignore the spill? They should clear it off.
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.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.
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"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.
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’.Thank you that they was such a law for England, Wales, and the UK.
I am sure it is illegal where he lived too, but that is part of the point of "F... the Government" protests.
Quite possibly: According to Google the practice, which seems more prevalent in the USA than in Europe, is called ‘Rolling Coal’ in the USA. Although, apparently only about six States in the USA enforce the laws (States laws) e.g. Maine, Utah, New Jersey, Maryland, Colorado and Connecticut e.g. Texas has decommissioned its smoking vehicle program. According to the web Connecticut and with a maximum fine of £1,000 and or 30 days prison, and Illinois with a maximum penalty of $5,000 seem to be two of the toughest States on enforcement of the law, while in Maine, the maximum penalty is only £100.
Obviously, it would be good to hear from any American who lives there to verify and clarify the above, and add some substance to what I can gleam from the Web.I think it was someone from the southern US that did that, but I am sure there are more than one out there.
I lived in Chicago years ago and back then we had to have our cars smog tested every year. Even if there was no smoke the emissions were pretty strict and you could not renew your license plate if the vehicle failed the test. (I do not remember any fines but then again that may be something more recent.)I live in Idaho and am required to have a smog test yearly. If I don't pass it they will yank my plates/registration.
Yeah, we have similar annual car tests in the UK, it’s called an MOT, and it doesn’t just check the cars smog, there are a total of 20 parts of the car that are checked. The MOT test (or simply MOT) is an annual test of vehicle safety, roadworthiness aspects and exhaust emissions.
And of course, if there is any major defects the car fails the MOT and can’t be licensed to drive again unless/until the faults are rectified.
Car parts tested in an MOT include:-
1. Body, vehicle structure and general items e.g. that it’s free from excessive corrosion or damage and that there are no sharp edges likely to cause injury.
2. Fuel system
3. Exhaust emissions
4. Exhaust system
5. Seatbelts
6. Seats
7. Doors
8. Mirrors
9. Load security e.g. to check that the boot or tailgate can be closed properly.
10. Brakes
11. Tyres and wheels
12. Registration plates (number plate) e.g. condition, secure attachment, colour, and that characters correctly formed and spaced.
13. Lights
14. Bonnet
15. Wipers and washers
16. Windscreen
17. Horn
18. Steering and suspension
19. Electrical
20. Vehicle Identification number (VIN); separate to the registration number plate e.g. the serial number of the vehicle that’s unique to that vehicle, and easily identifies if a vehicle has been ‘ringed’(cloned). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VIN_cloning
From 2003 until 2015 a vehicle identity check was made on all cars at the MOT, but in those 12 years only 38 ringed cars were discovered e.g. cloning is only a minor problem in the UK. Therefore, since 2015 the MOT only checks that the VIN is on the car, and hasn’t been t tampered with.
What is involved in a MOT test (3 minute video): https://youtu.be/OzZx7pHPfXACloning is a big problem here. I think we have that many cases in even small towns. And, since a car costs about the same as a house, the people that are hurt by that are those that can least afford it.
Dr Mark. In the UK these days’ cars are a lot cheaper than houses, and I guess a lot more affordable; although still not cheap.
It doesn’t surprise me that cloning is a big problem in Brazil, like it is in the USA. Although I am quite surprised that it’s not prevalent in the UK, especially considering that when I worked in the annual car tax office for a few years, one of my work colleagues was prosecuted for being an ‘insider’ in a ‘crime syndicate ring’ e.g. she would falsify the log books for stolen cars so that they could be cloned, and then appear authentic in the official records. Being a first offence, she got off lightly with just a suspended sentence, and having lost her civil service job after being prosecuted she was lucky in being able to walk into another job – as animal veterinary assistant (which has a reasonable living wage).
But I guess that the systems and checks we have in the UK make it very difficult to clone cars and get away with it; so little incentive for the real criminal – which might explain why the practice of cloning isn’t prevalent in the UK.
Yes, Glasgow, is part of the UK Dominion. The law is applicable there. Other British dominions and colonies or former subjects can be affect. For instance, Nigeria traffic laws were adopted from the British. If a vehicle is not 'road worthy' it's taken off the roads by the Minitry of Works & Transport. But this is now less common. Because in arresting the offening party, you've shot the toe of his/her political 'godfather'. Such is Nigeria these days.
Yeah, in the UK we have annual tests of cars, as detailed in my reply to Mark above; and yeah, if the car fails it's test it can't be driven again unless/until any major defects are repaired.
Arthur, thank you. I read your response to DrMark. You're welcome.
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?
Okay ab I'll watch out for the read. Inbox me if you care.
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.
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!!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..
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.
The fact that you import those groceries from some other countries like Morocco has nothing to do with climate change.
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%.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?
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?
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,
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.
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.
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.
"Around this time December to March", sounds like a weather pattern.
"Around this time", every year?
For how long now, Miebakagh?
I am curious.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.
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.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.
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.
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.
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.
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 LoReally?????
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.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.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?
An excellent document published by the UK Conservative Government on the 23rd Oct 2014.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/climate-change-explainedArthur, 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.
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/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.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.
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.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.
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.
Thanks for the feedback, it's interesting to hear of the cultural mentality of different nations.
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.
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.
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.Thank you...we're ever be observing the climate trends.
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.
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.
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.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.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.I agree completely with the last paragraph.
Nevertheless, climate crisis including global warming is real.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.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.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.... 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.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.
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…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?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.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.On a slightly different note: China’s alternative in nuclear use is 5.1%. The United States is 11.9%.
Nuclear should be the way of the future.Yeah, the percentage of nuclear in the energy mix in the USA is double that of China; but 29.8% of China’s electricity comes from Renewable Energy; only 19.8% of the USA’s electricity is from Renewable Energy.
Why should nuclear be the way of the future?
Nuclear power plants are expensive to build (far more expensive that installing windfarms and solar farms), nuclear power stations only have a short life before they have to be decommissioned (far shorter than windfarms), and in the event of an accident such as Fukushima and Chernobyl, the contamination from the radioactive fallout is devastating to the local area.
Yes, nuclear has its place; but Renewable Energy is the way of the future; it’s clean, safe, cheap and long lasting e.g. once you’ve paid for the installation of a wind turbine, the running costs are minimal because the wind is FREE; you don’t have to keep buying expensive fuel to keep feeding it.
A typical nuclear power plant produces up to 30 tons of spent fuel per year; high level radioactive waste that has to be stored somewhere for thousands of years; to date the world has produce around 390,000 tonnes of nuclear waste. The refuelling cycle of the core in nuclear power (the rods) is 18 months, with a third being replaced every six months at a cost of $40 million every six months – Whereas for wind turbines the wind is FREE, wind doesn’t cost anything, and the use of wind doesn’t leaves any highly radioactive waste that takes thousands of years to become safe.The wind doesn’t always blow. Those huge, massive batteries give out. Where do you store them? How much lithium ie coal supply do you need to make more of them? The world’s coal supply will not last forever and it is the dirtiest form of fossil fuel. So, in order to make lithium for massive batteries, China has to keep the black smoke from their factories running at full strength. And they don’t mind. The Chinese people have been trained to wear masks for decades.
After all, the Chinese understand, “It’s only business, folks.”
I’ll check your numbers regarding electricity in China vs USA. Frankly, I am not impressed with the idea that electricity is better than gas.
I am still learning about nuclear energy. The point is that it will always be available and it is clean.WIND POWER
You state “The wind doesn’t always blow”:
It’s more dynamic than that, for example:-
Wind isn’t and shouldn’t be the single source of energy; it’s part of the energy mix, which ideally should be 100% Clean/Green Energy, of which Renewable Energy should be a major part. In the case of the UK almost half our electivity now comes from wind power (and we don’t have blackouts or brownouts in the UK because of the lack of wind. And by 2035 that wind power supply will be almost doubled, producing enough electricity to feed every home in Britain.
This is why the UK National Grid is ready for Electric Cars: https://youtu.be/HMIHAJfhJOU?t=30
You place wind turbines where you can almost guarantee a constant supply of wind; a well tried and tested technologies – Europeans were dependent on wind power (windmills) for centuries across Europe, including Britain, to mill flour for example.
In the case of the UK, most of our wind turbines are placed out at sea, all around the British Isles, where it is ALWAYS windy – if you’ve ever been on a boat trip off the British coast you’d know what I mean.
What does very is the strength of the wind; and knowing what the strength of the wind is going to be 24 hours in advance is critical in the National Grid in planning ahead to balance the power supply with demand – And for that purpose the Met Office (British Metrological Office), using some of the most powerful computers in the world, give the National Grid accurate weather forecasts for the UK, 24 hours in advance.
The current situation in the UK is that demand for electricity plummets during the early hours of the morning; so much so that there is always a large surplus of wind power - which is why electricity is very cheap overnight, and that’s why we put our washing machine and dishwasher in timer to come on after 12:30am in the morning – because at that time of night we only get charged 25% of the day rate for electricity (so it saves us a lot of money).
Also, during the early hours of the morning when there is ample surplus of wind power the National Grid stores a lot of that surplus energy for use during the day, when demand for electricity is much higher. Yes, increasingly, the National Grid is using banks of lithium batteries to store the surplus electricity; but lithium batteries isn’t the only storage battery used by the National Grid – Electric Mountain, in Wales, place a major role (pumped-storage); Electric Mountain, recharged every night using surplus wind-power as the energy source, plays a major role in bridging the gap between supply and demand during periods of high demand – And Electric Mountain (hydro-power) can come on line (full power) in just 20 seconds, and provide huge amounts of electricity (on demand) for up to 5 hours in any 24 hour period.
Britain's Largest Battery: https://youtu.be/McByJeX2evM
LITHIUM BATTERIES
1. You state “Those huge, massive batteries give out. Where do you store them?”
We have a wall battery as part of our solar panels on our roof e.g. the solar panels capture daylight during the day, and any surplus we don’t use is stored in our large lithium wall battery to give us power overnight – The battery we have comes with a 10 year warranty – The point is, battery technology is improving all the time, so they are proving to be very reliable.
Besides, there is currently in the UK, and elsewhere, a lot of R&D (Research & Development) into cleaner and more sustainable alternatives to lithium; for example the National Grid in Britain are increasingly adding more banks of batteries, most are lithium, but the National Grid is also running trials on some of the other (non-lithium) batteries that are currently in R&D.
I don’t see storage as a problem, battery banks don’t take up any more land than the power stations that would have to be built if batteries weren’t used on the National Grid. Australia currently has the largest battery bank in the world on part of its electricity grid system.
2. You state “How much lithium ie coal supply do you need to make more of them? The world’s coal supply will not last forever and it is the dirtiest form of fossil fuel. So, in order to make lithium for massive batteries, China has to keep the black smoke from their factories running at full strength.”
Yeah, the world’s coal supply will not last forever (if countries like the USA, China and Australia) keep mining it at its current rate. The UK has 200 years supply of coal left in the ground, and the UK closed its coal mining industries in the 1980s for political reasons. But neither will natural gas or oil last forever; all fossil fuels have a finite reserve in the ground, which will eventually run out if oil producing countries, like the USA and the Middle East, continue to extract oil and gas at its current rate.
Yes, coal is the dirtiest form of fossil fuel, but it might surprise you that natural gas and oil isn’t that much cleaner:-
• Burning coal produces 211.87 lbs of CO2 per million Btu.
• Burning Oil produces 155.77 lbs of CO2 per million Btu, about a three quarters that of coal, and
• Natural Gas produces 116.65 lbs of Co2 per million Btu, about half that of coal.
About 45% of the world’s CO2 released in the atmosphere is from coal, about 35% from oil and about 20% from natural gas.
Where you say: “So, in order to make lithium for massive batteries, China has to keep the black smoke from their factories running at full strength.”
I get the impression that you think ‘all’ the world’s lithium batteries are made in China. Did you know that it’s only 77% of the world’s lithium batteries that are made in China; FYI 10% of the lithium batteries are made in the EU & UK; and the EU & UK are stepping up production to become almost self-sufficient in the manufacture of lithium batteries by 2040 – The UK is currently building 10 factories to make lithium batteries in the UK, with production meeting half of our demand by 2030, and becoming almost self-sufficient by 2040; and simultaneously, the UK is stepping up production of recycling old lithium batteries.
Yes, China uses coal to manufacture lithium batteries, but over the lifetime of the battery, the carbon footprint is still a lot lower than the carbon footprint of using oil as a fuel for cars. For example the CO2 emissions for manufacturing a car battery is from about 2.5, which is about how much CO2 is emitted into the atmosphere for a typical fossil fuel (gasoline) car driving just 2,500 miles (just over 200 miles a week, or less than 50 miles a week, for a year). You can do the maths to release that over its lifetime the carbon footprint of a fossil fuel car is going to be much higher than the carbon footprint of an electric car, recharged using Renewable Energy.
Besides, although China uses coal to manufacture lithium batteries, Europe and Britain don’t; we currently use natural gas – but increasingly heavy industry in the UK is moving away from natural gas and becoming more heavily reliant on electricity for its manufacturing processes e.g. the Steel manufacturers in Britain now use electricity for producing steel instead of coal.
Yeah, China does have air pollution problems (just like any other industrialised country in the world), caused by a rapid transition from an agricultural based economy to an industrial based economy in just a few short decades. However, has Chris explained, China does take pollution seriously, and has reduced the level of pollution in the cities by around 40% over the past 10 years – and is now just the 25th most polluted country in the world, which is good progress.
150 years ago, when Britain was going through the same phase of rapid industrialisation, our cities and towns in Britain were just as polluted e.g. the famous London smog during the time of ‘Jack the Ripper’.
The Great Smog of London in 1952: https://youtu.be/xajjmbJrfEM
Even as a kid, back in the 1960s I remember the smog that stilled plagued Britain at that time. It’s why parts of middle England (the Midlands) are called the ‘black country’, because of the high levels of air pollution from burning coal that made everything black.
The Black Country: https://youtu.be/ZeYSWIQqUDw
Where you say “After all, the Chinese understand, “It’s only business, folks.” Then why doesn’t the USA get off its laurels and start producing the batteries itself, like the EU & UK are doing, rather than just moaning about it.
I know that as you say, you’re “not impressed with the idea that electricity (renewable energy) is better than gas.” – In spite of the fact that renewable energy is cheaper and cleaner than natural gas.
Yeah, nuclear energy (fusion), as you say “will always be available and it is clean.” – except when there is a nuclear accident (as has happened twice so far), and it’s clean except for all the tons of high level radioactive waste that has to be securely sealed for eons to prevent environmental radiation contamination in the atmosphere (to be carried by the wind), land to contaminate the food, or water (to contaminate drinking water).
Not withstanding the issues and cost with nuclear fusion, nuclear fusion is part of the current and planned energy mix in many countries around the world, including the UK - the key point being 'part of the energy mix' - You couldn't or wouldn't want to rely 100% on nuclear fusion for all your electricity; it's part of the energy mix, which ideally should include just clean/green and Renewable Energy, without any dependency on fossil fuels.The UK has some major advantages when it comes to wind power. First is that the entire country is well within transmission range of an offshore wind farm, and you're right - the wind always blows there. Most of the US is 1500 km or more from the sea and every km adds to I^2R losses.
Second is the amount of rainfall and terrain that makes pumping a viable storage alternative. Most of the US is far too flat for such a project and what isn't is remote and doesn't get much water to replace evaporation losses.Yep, valid points; that’s why each country needs to focus on what forms of Renewable Energy best suits itself; for example in the UK it’s wind, in Norway it’s water, in Spain it’s sun. But even so, there is always a scope for a mix e.g. in the UK, in spite of our northerly climate 4.6% of our electricity comes from the sun – It doesn’t sound much, but that’s 4.6% less fossil fuel (it all adds up, so every bit helps).
What you describe for the USA is in many ways akin to the issues for China; yet China has become adept to building lots of large scale on-land windfarms and solar farms, and transporting that power thousands of km.
Also, UK isn’t isolated; we share electricity with our neighbours, Belgium, France, Ireland, Netherlands and Norway e.g. importing hydro-power from Norway when we need it, and in return exporting electricity to France when we have a surplus and they need more power.
It’s all part of the pan-European grid for electricity; where every European’s national grid is connected to all the other national grids of its neighbouring country; so that for example if Spain doesn’t have enough solar energy to meet demand and Britain has a surplus of wind power, then electricity can be exported from Britain to Spain – and vice versa e.g. it’s common for us to import electricity from Norway and then to export it straight to France, where it’s needed.
Over the past 12 months our net Imports and Exports of Electricity has been as follows:-
Net Imports (as percentage of UK’s total electricity generated) to UK from:
• Belgium = 0.1%
• Ireland = 0.1%
• Netherlands = 0.6%
• Norway (hydro-power) = 1.2%
Net Exports from the UK:
• France = 3.3%You say China ONLY produces 77% of the world's lithium batteries. That is a massive amount!
"• Burning coal produces 211.87 lbs of CO2 per million Btu.
• Burning Oil produces 155.77 lbs of CO2 per million Btu, about a three quarters of that of coal, and
• Natural Gas produces 116.65 lbs of Co2 per million Btu, about half that of coal."
I am also astonished that you do not believe there is much difference, according to your own words, 116.65 Co2 produced from gas is not much different from 211.87 produced from coal. A 100% difference is quite significant.
At any rate, I am not worried about Co2. The earth is not one-dimensional. The models' popular science espouses cannot measure the counter effects (absorption) of Co2 that happen naturally as a result of water and clouds. What your models' claim is is that Co2 is always increased (is linear) But greenhouse gasses do not behave in a linear manner, but rather, in what scientists refer to as a logarithmic process.
This means Co2 is not increasing at the rate the IPCC claims. Rather, the warming is negligible and is not harmful to the planet or humans due to counter effects of the earth.Yeah, 77% is a massive amount, but it’s not 100%, and that percentage will fall as other countries make more of their own batteries – Why isn’t the USA following Europe’s lead, and making more of its own batteries rather than sitting on its laurels.
Yeah, we all know that natural gas is a lot cleaner than coal, but nevertheless, natural gas isn’t a clean fuel; natural gas still produces huge amounts of CO2 – and therefore we shouldn’t just be trying to reduce our dependency on coal, but on all forms of fossil fuels, including natural gas.
• Contrary to what you say, the scientists can a do measure the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, and how it changes overtime – that is simple to do.
• And scientists can calculate how much CO2 is released into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels; that’s relatively easy to do.
• And scientists know how much CO2 trees absorb, and they know how many trees are in the world; just as they know how much CO2 the sea absorbs; so it’s all basic mathematics – verifiable by actual readings of the atmosphere, and oceans.
We are not talking about just the IPCC, we are talking about all fields of science, and scientific research; including the research and data produced by NASA and the paleoclimatologists. What you don’t seem to understand is that Global Warming doesn’t mean a uniform 24/7 365 day a year universal even rise in temperature across the whole planet; it means that certain places at certain times of the year get a lot, and I mean a lot, hotter.
If what you say was true then why has Europe faced almost bi-annual heatwaves over the last 20 years; with almost every heatwave being hotter than the last – last year’s being the hottest when temperatures in the UK reached 40.3 °C (104.5 °F); up until 20 years ago, temperatures in the UK never exceeded 30°C (86°F) – THIS IS WHAT GLOBAL WARMING MEANS – This is the reality that is happening for real, and it’s happening now.What I said is that your models cannot measure water vapor and clouds. I said nothing about measuring Co2 from greenhouse gases.
What has water vapour and clouds got to do with it?
Water vapor is a greenhouse gas. It is not mere H20 as you suggested a few days ago.
78% of (estimated) warming comes from water vapor. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas because it combines Water Vapor, along with nitrous oxides, methane and ozone.
Only 20% of warming comes from carbon dioxide. As for clouds, they absorb Co2 and work to counter the effects of warming.
As I said before, we cannot measure Co2 in a linear fashion. The earth, which has been around for billions of years, simply does not work that way due the the logarithmic effect I spoke of a couple of days ago.
Thus, an “increase” in carbon dioxide, due to the Industrial Age, does not prove a high correlation with warmer temperature because only 10% of the 20% I mentioned is a result of our current industrial production of Co2, which has occurred within the past 150 years.
This small amount (10%) in no way proves a correlation to especially warming temperatures. That is not to say that greenhouse gasses do not cause warming. They do.
Long story short, even if we did every single thing possible to attain net zero emissions, we will have made a difference in earth’s temperature by approximately 0.001%, roughly speaking.
I am not going to change my life any more than Al Gore, Biden, or Obama have changed their lives. They use gas, electricity, eat meat, and do as they please. If other people want to be relegated to serfdom, and do with less, that is their prerogative. I know better.
However, one thing sets me apart from the elitists, I understand what it means to be a good steward of the earth, having been raised in that tradition.
The elitists who tell others how to live have no idea.Wrong, water vapour is NOT a greenhouse gas – where did you get such a misguided idea from?
Your claims that 78% of warming comes from water vapour, and that only 20% from carbon dioxide is utterly wrong: If you believe otherwise, where is your evidence?
I do know what the logarithmic effect is, do you? If you want to get technical, rather than keep it simple; then here’s a more technical run down on how the logarithmic effect of adding CO2 to the atmosphere affects climate change, including global warming:-
Scientists agree that the greenhouse effect is logarithmic, which means that as we add more CO2 to the atmosphere although it still has an effect, the effect of the additional CO2 is to a lesser degree than the effect of CO2 previously added e.g. instead of being a curve going up (compound effect), it’s more of a straight line going up – but the greenhouse effect still increases.
That’s why scientists are confident that if we don't take steps to reduce our emissions, global warming won't just get worse, it will speed up – as it is doing, and as is evidenced in the real world.
This is real data from paleoclimatologists of what the ‘logarithmic effect’ actually looks like in the real world:
In the last million years, CO2 levels have cycled between about 180 and 280 ppm during cycles about 100,000 years long. Because this happened in the steep part of the curve, a change of only 100 ppm (together with the Milankovich cycles) was enough to move the world in and out of the ice ages.
Even though humans have increased the CO2 concentration by over 140 ppm already, this extra 140 ppm has a smaller effect than the 100 ppm that was added naturally before.
Now, if we take a close look at today’s world, with the logarithm effect of CO2 on temperature, creating essentially a straight line upwards, rather than an exponential curve, 560ppm would increase global temperature by 1.5°C (that is basic science/mathematics); that rise in CO2 to 560ppm (parts per million) in the atmosphere would take us well beyond the Paris target of 1.5°C, so it’s accepted that 280-560ppm range is key; we would be unwise to let CO2 in our atmosphere go beyond 560ppm. But human CO2 emissions are increasing exponentially—fast enough that when scientist plot atmospheric CO2 with a logarithmic scale, it still curves up slightly, even over the last 30 years.
Exponential growth appears as a straight line on a logarithmic chart; an upward curve (which is what scientist sees when they plot the data) means that CO2 in the atmosphere is actually increasing faster than exponential growth. So if human emissions keep increasing as they have then global warming will also speed up; which is what we are experiencing in Europe, and other parts of the world.
IN SUMMERY
Scientists, using the logarithmic effect on temperature of CO2 in the atmosphere agree that anything over 560ppm (parts per million) of CO2 in the atmosphere would be catastrophic to the planet, and mankind.
• 10,000 years ago CO2 in the atmosphere was 280ppm.
• 1850s, CO2 in the atmosphere was 280ppm.
• May 2013 CO2 in the atmosphere was 400ppm (an increase of 120ppm in over 150 years).
• 2018 CO2 in the atmosphere was 410ppm (an increase of 10ppm in just 5 years).
• May 2022 CO2 was 421ppm (an increase of 11ppm in just 4 years).
You are wrong; temperatures have increased by up to 1.2 °C since 1850, and increasingly dramatically since the 1970’s; which coincidence with the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution; as explained above – If you believe otherwise, where is your evidence?
Likewise, I’m not a “relegated serfdom”, I use gas and electricity as I please, and being a vegetarian is a personal choice which is for reasons other than climate change issues; the only difference is that I support ‘Renewable Energy’ and you don’t – and I know the harm burning fossil fuels does to the planet while you are in ‘denial’ of climate change.
Being conscious of my ‘carbon footprint’ means that I can make small changes to reduce my carbon footprint, with impairing on my life style (and every little effort helps); whereas you don’t care about the damage that burning fossil fuels is doing to the planet.You should be thankful that the temperature response to increasing CO2 concentration is logarithmic; otherwise, we would be frying by now (just like Venus). Nevertheless, increases in greenhouse gases do cause a rise in global temperature (basic physics), of which CO2 contributes 80% to global warming (the other greenhouse gases contributing 20%: This is known as ‘Radiative Forcing”. The actual mathematical formula being “The radiative forcing caused by a doubling of atmospheric CO2 levels (from the pre-industrial 280 ppm) is approximately 3.7 watts per square meter (W/m2).
If you want to see the raw data itself, then it’s here:- https://gml.noaa.gov/aggi/aggi.htmlOf course I am thankful that the earth’s temperature response to Co2 is logarithmic.
The point is that it has always been logarithmic, and will always be. This means that 150 years of Co2 from fossil fuels contributes only 10% of warming, which is negligible.
We are currently in an interglacial period (with pockets of cooling) and we will one day be in a glacial period (when the earth will be much colder).
In any event…
How foolish is it to spend trillions of dollars on climate policies which make, practically speaking, no difference to the warming or cooling of the planet?
The money the UK insists on using to combat “climate change” would be better used to help poorer nations have clean water, sanitation, and perhaps small gas stoves… so that they no longer have to use wood and dung (major pollutants) to cook their food.
Are you aware of what is happening in the Netherlands today? Do you know that farmers, who have farmed quite well for centuries, are being targeted by their government for no good reason, and that the government is attempting to take their land, all in the name of “climate change?”
Does that not disturb you in any way? Do you not see the Communist movement working within this seemingly “benevolent” government?
Or are you so enamored with the benefits civil servants receive in the UK, (not to mention the U.S.) that you would willingly turn a blind eye to the nefarious nature of Communism and how it is destroying families and countries around the world, not excluding neighboring countries to the UK?Your statement “150 years of Co2 from fossil fuels contributes only 10% of warming, which is negligible.” is wrong: Where is your evidence for your false claim.
150 years of CO2 from fossil fuels has already increased average global temperatures by 1.1°C. If the current warming rate continues, the world would reach human-induced global warming of 1.5°C by around 2040: The rate global warming is actually increasing e.g. it’s getting hotter quicker. If annual emissions increase more slowly and begin to decline significantly by 2050, the latest scientific models project temperatures would still rise by least 2.4°C minimum and potentially 5.9°C by 2100.
The current 1.1°C global average rise in temperature may seem negligible to you, but it’s already having a devastating effect around the world; and that isn’t just theory, its reality.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, we are in an interglacial period, and if it wasn’t for anthropogenic climate change we would be experiencing the cooling now; but we are not, the ice caps are melting, and large swathes of the earth are being hit by record breaking heatwaves, almost yearly now - The effects of burning fossil fuels is far outweighing the effects from the Milankovitch cycles.
Uh? Who says that climate change policies make no difference to the warming or cooling of the planet? Where is your evidence? Apart from which, what about the $billions it costs the USA in climate change damage e.g. climate-fuelled disasters cost the USA $165 billion in 2022.
Now, now, now - The money that is being used to combat ‘climate change’ in the UK at the moment is predominately from British oil and gas companies investing their profits in the future e.g. British oil and gas companies heavily investing in Renewable Energy, creating wealth and employment in Britain. Are you telling me that the British Oil and Gas Companies should donate their profits to the poor countries, rather than invest those profits in something else (Renewable Energy) that is proving to be very profitable for them.
British Shell Oil Investment in Renewable Energy https://youtu.be/BqJuaTuFv30
Besides, it’s the poor countries that are being worst hit by climate change; so limiting climate change will be of great benefit to the poor countries.
I wish you would get your facts right when you make bold statements. FYI the Dutch government is not attempting to take the farmers land; the Dutch farmer’s protests were triggered in 2019 by a government proposal to halve the country's livestock in an attempt to limit agricultural pollution in the Netherlands. Yeah, I agree it’s heavy handed, and such heavy handed tactics are NOT used in Britain. However, since then the Dutch farmer’s protests have now combined several action groups to encompass larger goals, including:-
• Less government regulation for farmers,
• More air time for pro-farmer sentiments, and
• More policy to punish Shell and Tata Steel for their part in the emission crisis.
And what has communism to do with the Dutch Government; your statement suggesting that the Dutch Government is being influenced by communism is nothing more than right-wing American propaganda: There is not a grain of truth in your statement, the Dutch Government is ‘liberal’; and in fact communism does not exist in politics in any of the EU countries, not the UK.
Now, now, why the personal attacks using American right-wing propaganda, falsely claiming that the UK and Europe is controlled by communism? The only countries where you find communism are Russian, China, North Korea and Vietnam etc.Well Arthur, I warned you.
Pretty exasperating, isn't it?Yep, hitting your head against a brick wall would be easier; which reminds me, in one of the Government Offices I worked in the boss had stuck a sponge on the wall, at head height, so that people could hit their head against the brick wall without hurting themselves!!!
“Liberal” government does not necessarily translate into that which is fair.
Far Left Liberals are Progressives, which is the most dangerous form of government in the United States and abroad.
Progressives are Marxists. Marxists are Communists. Both have a longstanding history of destructive ideologies.
Furthermore, I would appreciate it if you would refrain from putting words into my mouth. I never said the UK is controlled by communism. That is what you assumed.
But, I will say that the UK was influenced, back in1988, to adopt climate policies from the U.S., which they either knew to be false or chose not to research.
Thus, the rise of Al Gore, who was wrong on every single point pertaining to “climate” and remains wrong to this day.
Keep in mind, your beloved Greta has met with Al Gore, and she has been properly used by climate alarmists. This is a girl who has had very little education, who is autistic, and who is highly susceptible…
Make no mistake, I do not rely upon any narrative to form my opinions. Rather, I have a knack for dismissing, ie; putting aside popular opinion while I find credible science to support truth.
This is why I read books and listen to podcasts from the most highly educated individuals in any given field.
Professors Carter and Lindzen have educational degrees in all major disciplines of planet science, of which there are three, to my understanding.
Back to the Dutch farmers, from what I have learned, the government is doing all they can to confiscate their land.
Anyone who believes the government is within their right to obliterate the centuries of knowledge these farmers have, may be living in some sort of non-reality.
I am reminded of the book, Animal Farm.
“Some pigs are equal, but some are more equal than others.” (paraphrase)savvydating, did you know the girl Greta and her mother personally? The descriptions you on the dual in another post, and a poit here begs for the question a second time. Thank you.
Silly question. But, you might score points with socialists.
You are better than that, or so I thought.savvydating, not silly but a good question indeed. I'm not here seeking fun from dim-wits(not you). The way you described the girl Greta, and as a young lady implies you have knowledge or rather very famiiar with the family. (S)savvydating, did you garner the austin facts about Greta in autobios you read or who told you? You're a very educated woman under both the Roman Catholic and the Sevdeth Day Advertist, and you should know before hand that such questions shall arise.
I really like you.I learned of the information regarding her background from Dr. Jordan Peterson, who has studied the phenomena of her autism coupled with her somewhat overbearing mother who convinced Greta to fear climate.
My understanding is that the family has gained quite a bit of wealth from Greta’s notoriety. (Dr. Peterson did not discuss the wealth, however.)
Dr. Peterson is a psychologist, and is one of the leading thinkers of our time.
Also, thank you for the compliment. My apologies if I misunderstood.Yeah, Greta is has autism, so what? FYI many autistic people are highly intelligent; far more intelligent than you or I will ever be.
I was not attacking her intelligence as you and Credence have attacked mine.
You miss the point as usual. I was referring to her autism as a spectrum disorder that causes differences in the brain, which also such individuals sensitive to stimuli within the family in unique ways.No attacks on your intelligence, but criticism of how you reason your point and the lack of support that you provide for your positions you take.
You need to compelling proof to convince most of us to accept the views of handful of those saying the climate change is bunk verses the overwhelming number of esteemed scientists that say otherwise.
For instance what makes Carter and Lindzen a more credible authority than all of the other scientists in this field? How are you qualified to make that determination?First of all, I do not need to qualify myself to you.
You are free to read through all 47 pages of the data I have provided. It is no surprise to me that you choose to disagree with me now, even though you originally agreed with me on page 1 of this forum.
As for Professors Lindzen and Carter, their vast knowledge is well documented, whereas many of the "scientists" from Nathanville's group are given credit for having written "papers on Facebook and Twitter.We agreed initially about the need to develop clean nonfossil energy sources.
I don't agree about the assessment on climate change as its opponents tend to be politically motivated and who are in bed with corporate powers designed to trash the planet to whatever extent necessary to acquire greater profits.
In all fairness I will actually read what you have provided with a discerning eye.
This has been a large thread, can you provide the link?
Any major revelations, I will let you know. But in any case, to each, his or her own, Savvy.Thus far, you have not shed any light whatsoever on the subject of climate except to agree with me on one occasion. After 47 pages of discussion, I am not particularly interested in any sudden "revelations" you might decide to share at this late juncture.
Truthfully, I am over your veiled insults toward me and all conservative women who disagree with you. I do not find your constant sarcasm charming. But, at least you gave a few men here some chuckles.
What has that got to do with it; all that Greta Thunberg (who is very intelligent, and who does understand the science) is doing is highlighting in great detail what the scientific community is saying.
And for clarity, neither Credence nor I are attacking your intelligence; we’re just pointing out that you don’t understand the science – So what makes you think that your opinion carries more weight than that of Greta Thunberg’s opinion.
Now you are talking utter nonsense; did you not read the reply by peterstreep? As he stated above “The Netherlands is one of the most democratic countries in Europe. And has a right-wing government for the last 20 years” Current the Government in the Netherlands is a coalition of a right-wing party (VVD), a Christian party (CDA), which is right of centre, and a centre party (D'66) e.g. in the middle of left and right politically, ruling the country.
No, Far Left Liberals are not the most dangerous form of government in the United States and abroad – that is just pure right-wing political propaganda, and has no foundation in reality.
NO: Progressives are NOT Marxists - that is just pure right-wing political propaganda, and has no foundation in reality.
Yes, Marxists are Communists, and they do have a longstanding history of destructive ideologies. However Liberals and Socialists are not Marxists; that is just pure right-wing political propaganda, and has no foundation in reality. It just shows how LITTLE you know about Liberalism and Socialism; Socialism in Europe is NOTHING LIKE Communion – They are two completely different politics.
I did not put words into your mouth; you stated, to quote “…..Do you not see the Communist movement working within this seemingly “benevolent” government... Or are you so enamoured with the benefits civil servants receive in the UK…. that you would willingly turn a blind eye to the nefarious nature of Communism and how it is destroying families and countries around the world, not excluding neighbouring countries to the UK?”
What on earth are you on about when you say “But, I will say that the UK was influenced, back in1988, to adopt climate policies from the U.S., which they either knew to be false or chose not to research.” 1988 was COP 4, Buenos Aires, Argentina, and all that agreed to was “a two-year action plan for advancing the ambitious agenda outlined in the historic Kyoto Protocol.”
The Kyoto Protocol was an international treaty which extended the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change that commits state parties to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, based on the scientific consensus that global warming is occurring and that human-made CO₂ emissions are driving it.
Al Gore has nothing whatsoever to do with European politics, so I don’t know why you keep trying to elevate his importance on the world stage????
There you go again, attacking anyone who has opposing views to you? Yeah, Greta Thunberg isn’t a scientist, but she is reiterating the consensus of the scientific community around the world. You’re no scientist, but you think you know better than them????
You say that you “put aside popular opinion while I find credible science to support truth.”; yet, time and time again I keep asking “where is your evidence” to support your claims, and as yet you haven’t been able to produce a shred of credible scientific evidence to support your claims.
Yep, you “read books and listen to podcasts from the most highly educated individuals in any given field.” - except that of science; the one field that really matters in this issue.
Yeah, both Robert M. Carter and Richard Lindzen are climate change denialists; but they do not represent the views of the vast majority of scientists – theirs is just a minority view: Duh, in any subject (field) you will always find the exception, the few that disagree with the majority - so completely ignoring, and dismiss, the general consensus of the scientific community, and listing to just a few with a minority view is a very dangerous stance to take.
As regards the Dutch farmers, as peterstreep explained above; you source information on the subject is totally WRONG, so your penultimate paragraph and last paragraph are both invalid statements.Using less, including less oil which needs to be produced, pakaged, and shipped, is one of the reasons that I started using an air fryer, but I remember you commenting on using this item in the past to use less energy and reduce your carbon footprint.
This is a big issue here in Brazil as foods are always fried with natural gas, whereas the air fryer uses electricity, which is mostly produced with hydroelectic.
Anyway, I thought you would find this interesting:
https://youtu.be/tqcuskaReugYep, you remember right, the main reason we bought an air-fryer is precisely so that we use less energy (saving money on our electricity bill), and reducing our carbon footprint (an added bonus).
Thanks for the video, I watched it from start to finish with great interest, and learnt some info and tips by doing so: So a Big Thanks.
One of the main foods we regularly use it for is chips (potato fries); and as shown in the video, there’s 53% less saturated fats in air-fried chips compared to deep fried chips; which is a lot healthier. However, acrylamide levels are much higher in air-fried food.
But, as pointed out in the video, there is no ‘bench mark’ for what levels of acrylamide would be considered safe, and what levels might be unsafe; because there haven’t (as yet) been enough scientific studies done to give a clear picture. But as also pointed out in the video, low levels of acrylamide has always naturally occurring in food anyway. It’s just a question of what level is safe, and at what level it may be considered less safe – yet to be determined by research.
However, as stressed in the video, acrylamide levels in air-fried food can be controlled, and as air-fried food is healthier because of its significantly reduced fats levels; there shouldn’t be any great concern if it’s used sensibly.
In that respect, there were some useful tips for reducing the levels of acrylamide in air-fried chips (potato fries); namely:-
• Soaking the potatoes before cooking will remove a lot of the starch, starch being one of the main ingredients that leads to Acrylamide forming. That’s something I’ve always done any, even when we deep fried our chips; and interestingly, that’s the recommendation in the manual that came with our air-fryer.
• Air frying the chips at a lower temperature e.g. 180C or lower, and for a shorter period. That’s something I can experiment with, as currently I was frying them at 200C. Although, I have found by trial and error that I get much better result in cooking other foods in the air-fryer 10C to 20C lower than the recommendations on the food package e.g. the temperature for baking in an oven. Plus, the model of air-fryer we have does also have a ‘baking’ mode (a much gentler cooking mode, which will produce less acrylamide); and by trial and error I’ve already discovered that certain foods do cook better in the air-fryer on the ‘baking’ mode.
So thanks again for sharing a most informative video.
Arthur, taking a theme from another Sci-Fi saga.
Once you have laid your charges, time to move away from the "deathstar".Yep, good advice, and tempting; but my stubborn nature makes that a little difficult!!!
Yeah, I know.
It is most difficult to reason with the school of "because I said so".
This is the danger of an impeding anti-intellectualism taking hold in America, today.
Did someone put something in the water?Yep - Perhaps one day reason will prevail??? But then again, 'pigs might fly' - although humans learnt to fly (Wright Brothers); so there's hope yet!!!
Arthur, credence, I'm enjoying the fun.
@credence:yesterday I visited your HubPages profile. I had a serious and critical read as to why Black Americans voted overwhelmly for any Democrate Party candidate. I was reading my 'feed' and a thread 10 years ago raised the question. And your response with its pointer sent me to land on the article. Credence, as a student of West African history inclusive of the United States, I read the book: 'Lincoln Free the Slaves', by I. Fekete. Yes, that's the first or pointer of blacks voting for the GOP. But as the ex-African slaves were gyped and dehumanized further by the Rep, good that their vote for the Dem. What a great read you wrote. Well done.Thanks for reading, based on the article, it is easier to see why AfricanAmerican support for Democrats came to be.
Truth is rarely consensus.
It is easy for many to believe popular narratives while dismissing the need to dig deeper.
Scientists, who have the capacity to understand climate, come from many disciplines. Among them is meteorology, atmospheric chemistry, atmospheric physics and computer modeling, for starters.
The second (not in that order) group comprises geologists who understand climate processes.
Thirdly, these persons/scientists must also have some proficiency in engineering, and most definitely in mathematics, and statistics.
Without understanding all three disciplines, the scientist is not capable of measuring (global) climate.
Furthermore, Professor Carter is a paleontologist who has conducted 40 years of research to climate. He is well versed in all three disciplines I just mentioned.
No one can deny his credentials. Not even you. (understatement)
As for Dr. Lindzen, he is a physicist with a deep understanding of our planet and all three disciplines as well.
As for Al Gore, I bring up his name because the UK, under the auspices of the IPCC, allowed him to bring his politics into the UK in 1988. He has zero understanding of science.
Al Gore has been wrong about every single thing pertaining to climate. He has also met with Greta, of whom he approves.What is all this nonsense about Al Gore bringing his politics into the UK in 1988; Al Gore has nothing what so ever in the climate change policy making decision by Government in the UK. You seem to be trying to make out that since 1988 the UK Government bases their climate change policies on what Al Gore says: For your information the UK does not take their advice from Al Gore; to say so is utter dribble. The UK’s decisions are based on the main consensus of the scientific community around the world.
Your problem is (i) your lack in understanding of science, and (ii) that you are listening to a minority view; you only listen to those who say what you want to hear.
FYI: Science moves forward by general consensus; it’s what makes science reliable, for example:-
When a scientist has a hypothesis they first have to develop that hypothesis into a theory. For a hypothesis to be a valid theory it requires the following three criteria:-
• It makes falsifiable predictions with consistent accuracy across a broad area of scientific inquiry (such as mechanics).
• 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.
The first criteria is where consensus by the vast majority of scientist is essential e.g. a theory (such as manmade climate change) has to include falsifiable predictions, which means in layman’s terms other scientists around the world’s prime objective is to try to prove the ‘new theory’ wrong. However, if the predications prove to hold up by independent scrutiny by other scientists; it has to do so with consistent accuracy across a broad area of scientific inquiry e.g. each scientist in their field of research consistently get the same results time and time again, as predicted by the theory. It’s when that happens that the scientific community begins to accept the theory as being valid.
On to the second point, the theory e.g. man-made climate change, has to be well-supported by many independent strands of evidence, rather than a single foundation – As is the case with man-made climate change; and for that to happen you don’t need a single scientist qualified in many different fields of expertise (as you claim); independent research by many scientists, all working in their own fields of expertise, and all getting similar results, is a far more robust, as each is an expert in their field; and many of those scientists have decades of experience.
Accepting the view of the ‘many’ rather than the ‘few’ e.g. mainstream consensus, in science, is a far more reliable route to take e.g. it prevents crackpot scientists and scientists with unsubstantiated (false) views from steering science down a false path – Through scientific ‘peer review’ process, the days of alchemy (pseudoscience) is over.You have been rather condescending. I do not appreciate it. I am not stupid.
Furthermore, you place way too much stock on "peer review." It is not the end all you seem to think it is. Real scientists know this. Peer review does not necessarily establish all the facts.
Most people are enamored with peer review. They needn't be, frankly.I am not condescending, nor calling you stupid; I’m just point out that you don’t understand the science, and that you dismiss out of hand anything that is contrary to what you want to believe.
FYI peer review is the essential mechanism that ensures that science stays on the correct path of progress.
If a lone scientist can’t convince his fellow colleges that he is on the right track it’s a good indication that the lone scientist is wrong – If he is right, then he needs to prove it through peer review to gain acceptance by the wider scientific community – that is just common sense.
Taking a bizarre example: If a scientist believed the earth was flat, he might get lots of followers to believe him by publishing books, and making lots of money in the process from his book sales; but he would have a hard time in convincing other scientist through peer review that he was right: Whereas, if a scientist believed the earth was round he would stand a far better chance of gaining support from other scientists, through peer review.
As for your hockey stick graph, scientists familiar with statistics have found that the graph is inaccurate in that the warming claimed for the northern hemisphere was not the same for the southern hemisphere... which had no trace of warming.
The error was in combing physical measurements of temperature with INFERRED pre-historic temperature values calculated from measurements of tree rings.
Scientists have reaffirmed that the hockey stick curve is at odds with traditional and current studies of temperature change.
Not to mention, warming cannot happen that dramatically in such a short space of time. It is impossible. The graph is exaggerated.As for my hockey stick graph - it’s not my hockey stick graph; the graph I posted in this forum is the one done by NASA – So are you telling me that NASA is wrong and that you are right?
Your claim that the hockey stick graph is inaccurate because the southern hemisphere is not warming is wrong. If you believe otherwise, where is your evidence to support your claim???
FYI the southern hemisphere is being affected by climate change – So where is your evidence to say it’s not?
Where do you get your information from – where is your evidence; where you claim that there is an error in combing current temperature with pre-historic temperatures calculated just from measurements of tree rings. Who says that pre-historic temperatures are calculated just from measurements of tree rings – Where is your evidence?
FYI Paleoclimatologists don’t just use tree rings to understand prehistoric climate, they also study rocks, sediments, boreholes, ice sheets, tree rings, corals, shells, and microfossils.
You say “Scientists have reaffirmed that the hockey stick curve is at odds with traditional and current studies of temperature change”, in spite of the fact that the hockey stick graph is supported by the vast majority of scientists, and the one I posted is from NASA: So where is your evidence that “scientists say that the hockey stick curve is at odd with traditional and current studies”?
Excuse me, where you say “Not to mention, warming cannot happen that dramatically in such a short space of time. It is impossible. The graph is exaggerated.” You have an eye-witness here; I’ve seen a dramatic increase in temperature in Britain and Europe over the past 20 years; prior to the 1990s, with the one exception of 1976, we never had summers that got much hotter than 20°c (68°f); and now we get summer temperatures above 30°c (86°f) virtually every year since the year of 2000 – and last year was the hottest on record, when it reached 40.3°C (104.5°f) – So don’t tell me that the graph is exaggerated; it’s reflecting what we are witnessing year on year.
And likewise, our winters are far warmer now than they were 30 years ago. Up until the 1990s we almost always had snow in Bristol most winters of anything up to a 1ft deep; since then we almost never get snow in Bristol, and on the rare winter when we do, it’s never more than an inch deep. So don’t tell me it’s not getting hotter – because we are physically experiencing the warming climate year on year.
Below is a link to the top 1,000 climate scientists; their individual and combined knowledge and experience, and qualifications far outweigh that of your two idols, Professor Carter & Dr Lindzen: https://www.reuters.com/investigates/sp … ists-list/
They come from a variety of backgrounds, some in communications. How does that make one knowledgeable in all the disciples I mentioned before? It doesn't. Professors Carter and Lindzen outweigh your scientists in every field that matters, if one is to understand climate. There is no comparison.
If you'll notice, your "scientists" are extremely well funded. Independent scientists are not. They are refused grants which is why they must research and write books on their own. Billions of dollars have been poured into keeping climate alarmism alive. Independent scientists do not get one penny of that money, though they should. Researching one narrative is not useful or scientific.
Even you should know that.That’s where you don’t understand how the scientific community works, and why it works that way? You don’t have to a ‘jack of all trades’ in all disciplines to contribute to the advancement of science; as long as you can make a major contribution in your field of expertise, others in the scientific community (often working together as teams) will piece the bits of the puzzle together.
The reason that your two heroes don’t get funding is because their work is flawed.
To get funding a scientist has to publish a detailed review of their work in a peer review magazine (such as New Scientist) along with the data results and comprehensive details on how they achieved those results. Other scientist around the world will scrutinise their work with a fine toothcomb, looking for flaws, and will discredit it if they find any fault with it e.g. after years of research involving teaching the famous chimp, named Washoe, ASL (American Sign Language), the scientists research, along with their findings and methodology in their tests, were published for peer review; but failed peer review because the scientist made the mistake of doing just blind tests, and not double blind tests; which in the eyes of the rest of the scientific community invalided the results – As a result the funding for further research dried up.
Researching one narrative is very useful, and essential, in science. A primary example was the study into whether taking vitamin tablets do help to improve health or not. Initially, experiments were carried out on juvenile inmates in America, and the results overwhelmingly showed that taking vitamin tablets does indeed help to improve health. After publishing their results in a peer review magazine other scientists tried to repeat the experiment, and got different results; some appearing to support the original claim, and other not – for example a similar trial carried out with school children in Northern England showed that taking vitamin tablets made no difference whatsoever to the health of the children.
It was only after another research team scrutinised all the different studies that the correct answer was found; namely that if you have a poor diet, like the American juvenile inmates then the vitamin tablets does improve your health – but if you already have a well-balanced diet, like the school children in Northern England, then taking vitamin tablets makes no difference whatsoever.Thank you for proving, once and for all, that you have no idea what you are talking about.
It’s easy to see how the Nazi’s were so easily influenced. They had no idea how to reason.Wow. This is so personal. The user you're responding to seems to meticulously support his positions.
Cutting and pasting false data, while simultaneously attacking the intelligence and credibility of those he disagrees with is in no way “meticulous” unless you are referring to his adherence to meticulously bullying those who have reason, based upon truth and history.
If you want to have a real opinion, begin reading this forum from page one.
Otherwise, you are only blowing smoke.That's your opinion, which is false; I present evidence to support what I say; you don't, in spite of the fact that I've requested valid evidence from you time and time again to support your claims - But as you haven't produced any.
You seem to want people to believe you just on your say so?
Yep, I know; She keeps making outlandish claims in support of climate change denialists, but never produces any evidence to support her claims; even though I keep requesting her to do so time and time again.
???? And what do you know about science - virtually nothing e.g. your concept that somehow clouds are responsible for 90% of climate change is one of the most bizarre reasoning I've heard; and in spite of me requesting you to produce evidence to support your claims - you haven't as yet produced one shred of evidence - you seem to expect people to believe what you say on your say so?
At least I do have exam qualifications in several fields of science, Astronomy, physics and human biology: So I do have a far better grasp on, and better understanding of science than you'll ever have.
Far Left Liberals are Progressives, which is the most dangerous form of government in the United States and abroad.
Progressives are Marxists. Marxists are Communists. Both have a longstanding history of destructive ideologies.
**************
This is like saying:
Far Right wing Liberals are Conservatives.
Conservatives are National Socialists - National Socialists are Fascists.
Ergo : Conservatives are Fascists!
Somewhere something went wrong in the translation, don't you think?
***************
Back to the Dutch farmers, from what I have learned, the government is doing all they can to confiscate their land.
The Dutch government buying land from farmers (not confiscating) is the last resort a government can do. I just read a couple of Dutch newspapers. And it was a plan made by the government to buy up farmland but it was leaked to one of the biggest newspapers in The Netherlands (NRC).
As said. The nitrogen problem is an old problem. And the government, because it was afraid of the farmer's unions, never really made proper laws to regulate it. Manny laws that were made the last 20 years were weak and often used to get subsidies from the government on false reasons.
Now that the EU is strongly urging the Netherlands to solve the nitrogen problem the Dutch government suddenly comes with strong measures. The farmers who always tried to avoid this problem or deny it are protesting.Peter, the plight of the farmers in the Netherlands is real; they have been targeted by their government under the guise of a nitrogen crisis, which does not exist.
These competent farmers have tried repeatedly to negotiate with the government, and they have done absolutely nothing wrong. However, they will surely lose their land under the guise of "progress" unless they dare to stand firm against government tyranny.Savydating the climate crisis is a real and huge problem. The nitrogen crisis is a huge problem. (not only in the Netherlands)
If you think it's just an accident that every year again temperature records are broken.
Since satellite measurements started 40 years ago, about half of the sea ice area in the Arctic has been lost.
1 million animal and plant species are now threatened with extinction.
floating plastic islands twice the size of Texas in the pacific.
7 million premature deaths annually are caused by air pollution.
70-90% of all coral reefs will disappear over the next 20 years because of high ocean temperatures, ocean acidification, and pollution.
2,400 trees are cut down each minute.
and the list goes on.
If you think it's accidental then you are terrible at math.
The Climate Crisis is real and it is man-made. And it won't go away if you close your eyes.
And so the governments are obliged to take action to protect its citizens. for now and for future generations.I understand your concern, Peter, but I pray that you will consider that many who follow the broad path have been duped.
The world is not on the verge of extinction because of fossil fuels. Rather, we are heading into increased poverty due to climate policies. Even UNICEF has determined that the poor have been affected by Leftists policies by somewhere between 10 and 25%.What climate policies, specifically, are leading the U.S. toward increased poverty?
I take it you are a CNN devotee. If you honestly have no idea, try researching
the Keystone Pipeline, for starters.The keystone pipeline has lead to poverty??
I referenced the world. The USA is feeling the pinch, but not nearly as much as the poorest of the poor throughout the world.
So, please do not put words into my mouth.COLTONLARSEN isn't putting words in your mouth; you claimed earlier in this forum (and not for the first time) that climate policies is leading towards increased poverty: Yet, in spite requests, you've never explained yourself, nor given any evidence to support your claims.
People might be more inclined to believe you if you produced credible evidence, rather than just keep deflecting the issue by insults when people disagree with you.
You state “UNICEF has determined that the poor have been affected by Leftists policies by somewhere between 10 and 25%.” – Where is your evidence to support that claim?????
What makes you say “that many who follow the broad path have been duped” Have you got any evidence to back up that claim; or are you expecting people to believe you just on your say so????
FYI, every point Peterstreep made is valid; you haven’t made any attempt to prove otherwise; to reiterate the full list posted by Peterstreep is as follows:-
1. Every year again temperature records are broken.
2. Since satellite measurements started 40 years ago, about half of the sea ice area in the Arctic has been lost.
3. 1 million animal and plant species are now threatened with extinction.
4. Floating plastic islands twice the size of Texas in the pacific.
5. 7 million premature deaths annually are caused by air pollution.
6. 70-90% of all coral reefs will disappear over the next 20 years because of high ocean temperatures, ocean acidification, and pollution.
7. 2,400 trees are cut down each minute.All this data is misleading, if not outright false. I still pray you will learn to use reason instead of raw emotion to come at the truth.
All this data. What data are you referring too? All is a very broad word.
If you refer to all the data collected by The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Then you have to come up with hard facts to prove that they are wrong.
Do you have the knowledge to counter-argue these specialists with years of study and experience?
Why do you not believe them?
Studying the chart and I don't see the drop or an indicator around the mid/late 1970's of the predicted, "Coming Ice Age"!
The light purple, indicating 'Little Ice Age' should be much broader.
Savvy has expressed sincere concern about the plight of these farmers and you respond with yet another graph/chart, which isn't even accurate!
Come on man.
https://youtu.be/1kGB5MMIAVAJust another chart...
I simply want to get it right that the Climate Crisis is deeply concerning and a huge worldwide life threatening problem. That's why I showed the graph.
One of the reasons why the temperature rises is connected with too much Nitrogen.
The Situation in the Netherlands is already 20+ odd years old. The Farmers had plenty of time to adjust themselves. All professions have to adapt to new situations and developments.
The Nitrogen problem of the farmers in the Netherlands is a serious problem (And not only in the Netherlands in the US too!)
Governments have the obligation to protect their citizens now and in the future.
Therefore they have to act (which they hardly do..) to stop the temperature rising on earth.
So yes, the farmers have to change their way of farming.
Your video is from 1978. a bit old.....
We are living in 2023.Peter, the farmers have already tackled the issue of nitrogen in the fertilizer, quite successfully. These farmers are exceptionally sophisticated when it comes to their trade.
Furthermore, if 50% of farmers lose their land to the government, this will create a food supply shortage. In addition the Netherlands will no longer be the 2nd greatest exporter of food.
There is nothing good about this play for power that the government has imposed.
Finally, trucks are not weapons. That is the media talking. These farmers absolutely do not want to protest. They just want to be left alone to be expert farmers and provide for their families, not to mention the citizens of their country.And you’re an expert on Netherlands politics and social life are you, and Peter isn’t? I don’t think so – I think Peter, who lives in that neck of the woods, as a far better understanding of what’s actually happening there than you do. Your source of information on the subject is flawed e.g. American political propaganda!!!
Did you stay tuned in long enough to hear the dramatic doomsday music at the end, all by design, to scare the young folks to death….yes it was wayyyy back in 1978 and the same scare tactics were being applied…wayyyy back then!
Only in America, we had no scare tactics in Britain when we had our 'Big Freeze' back in 1963 - It was just all just reported on rationally.
The Big Freeze (1963) UK: https://youtu.be/DalYSIRU4rQ
1963 Thames big freeze UK: https://youtu.be/rl8KG2-2r90At least we can agree on what they are..."scare tactics".
In America, the video you showed for the American big freeze in the 1970s was scare tactics; but in the UK it wasn't scared tactics when we had our big freeze in the 1960s.
And climate change isn't scare tactics now; not in Europe in any case; it's just factual reporting.
The difference between 1978 and now is 45 years of scientific research.
With the conclusion.
1. Yes Climate Crisis is real
2. It's human-made.
The first line of the report by the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), made up of the world’s leading climate scientists.)
The report was given last month to the United Nations.
Approved Summary for Policymakers IPCC AR6 SYR
A.1
Human activities, principally through emissions of greenhouse gases, have unequivocally caused global warming, with global surface temperature reaching 1.1°C above 1850–1900 in 2011–2020.
Global greenhouse gas emissions have continued to increase, with unequal historical and ongoing contributions arising from unsustainable energy use, land use and land-use change, lifestyles and patterns of consumption and production across regions, between and within countries, and among individuals.
You can read more of the report here:
IPCC Report Summary for PolicymakersExactly, more years to figure out how to continue to scare this generation and future generations and keep the money flowing.
So you don't believe the scientists who studied this?
What, just like the oil companies in countries like the USA and the Middle East keep the money flowing by prompting the continued burning of fossil fuels.
FYI, the oil companies in the UK have taken a different tact; the British oil companies like SHELL and BP are now investing heavily in Renewable Energy. https://youtu.be/BqJuaTuFv30Fine, invest away, but let's not destroy the opportunity for utilizing our God-given, natural resources, in the process.
But it's the excess use of our natural resources (fossil fuels) that's damaging the plant.
utilizing our God-given, natural resources....
Here lies the whole problem.
The earth is not by definition our property. This is a fundamental philosophical mistake.
As by making the difference between us human beings and nature we fail to see how connected we are with nature. By ownership this bond is broken between man and the land.
The steward of the earth philosophy gives a card blanch to misuse the earth, to mine and to pollute, to cut rainforests, and to drill oil. Without moral consequences. As nature is seen as something outside mankind. And what's outside can easily be abused and destroyed.
To say that mankind is the steward of the earth puts men outside the ecosystem. And this is simply not true. Humans are part of the ecosystem, and at the moment we destroy this ecosystem.
But if you don't acknowledge that you are part of it, you feel that you can do whatever you want without consequences.
Hence it's impossible that the climate crisis exists, as you have to put yourself into this ecosystem, which you don't acknowledge with the "Steward philosophy".
Think about this one.Wow that's a mouthful, is this from Greta's book?
You can identify as an earthworm if you so choose, I will continue to utilize our God-given natural resources and I will give thanks.AB, I could not help but to notice your reference to Biblical Scripture. I did read that God will “destroy those who are destroying the earth.”—Revelation 11:18
I did read in Genesis, God's provisions for man's dominion and stewardship of the Earth. The resources of the Earth, while vast, are not infinite.
Stewardship implies care and not abuse. Is ignoring and perpetuating man made environmental degredation of this planet considered part and parcel of "the destruction"?Well, I am good all the way around Cred. Thanks for caring.
Stewardship also implies ownership and hierarchy.
It is by definition connected to capitalism.
The three main religions Christianity, Judaism and Islam all base their philosophy on this hierarchy and the implicit ownership of the earth.
Yep in line with the Milankovitch cycles, which includes the shape of Earth's orbit, known as eccentricity; the angle Earth's axis is tilted with respect to Earth's orbital plane, known as obliquity; and the direction Earth's axis of rotation is pointed, known as precession; if it wasn’t for global warming caused by excessive burning of fossil fuels then we would be facing another ice age now.
That science is well known, I was fully aware of it back in the 1970s; you had your worst winter on record in 1978, and we had our worst winter on record in Britain in 1963.
But what was not known then by the scientific community was the dramatic effect that excessive burning of fossil fuel, since the start of the industrial revolution, is having on the earth’s climate.
As regard Peterstreep’s graph, the reason you don’t see the light purple, indicating the ‘Little Ice Age’ extending to the 1970s is because it ended in 1850. FYI information the Little Ice Age lasted from 1303 to 1850; prior to the 1850s the Thames River in London used to freeze over every winter with ice a foot thick, and Londoners use to ice skate on the Thames River, as portrayed in novels by Charles Dickens. But, apart from the deep freeze in Britain in 1963, the Thames River hasn’t frozen over since 1814; primarily due to global warming caused by excessive burning of fossil fuels since that start of the industrial revolution; FYI, the industrial revolution started in 1760.
'The money the Uk insists on using to combat 'climate change' would be better used to help poorer nations to have clean water, sanitation, and small gas stoves...'
savvydating, well spoken.
*Yes, temperature reaction to the earth is still logarithmic, and can be variable.
Yes, Nigeria, is currently experiencing the glacier effects. This is seen by those wearing warm clothes even in the blazing sun. It was not so 10 years ago.
*But the USA or the UK, or other Western countries spending trillion to combat climate policies is no other people business.
*Currently, gas, kerosine stoves, and electric cookers is what is being used to prepared meals.
*Mangrove woods is demand by the Hausa moslem men who used to prepare steak or 'suya'.
*Are they no poor people in the UK? Let the trillion pounds be spent among them.
*During the Covid19 pandamic lockdown, billions were donated by well meaning Nigerians to the Government to help the poor and middle classes.
*These monies along with essential foodstuff, are yeIn the Netherlands the government is not taking land of the farmers. I don't know where you heard this, but that's not true. False news.
The problem in the Netherlands exists for over a 15 years. The farmers were warned 20 to 15 years ago that they had to farm differently. But they decided to neglect the evidence of climate change and the warnings of the government and decided not to act.
Now, all of a sudden they are angry at the government that they have to change. But the farmers knew years before that there was a problem but thought it would magically go away. It doesn't
The climate crisis does not go away by itself, only gets worse.
Communism in the Netherlands!!!
The Netherlands is one of the most democratic countries in Europe.
And has a right-wing government for the last 20 years!
And in contrary to the US you have more than 2 parties to choose from.
(18 to be precise who have one or more seats in parliament)
The Netherlands always had a coalition government. Never a 1 party government.
It does have a labour party and a socialist party. But at the moment it's the Rightwing party (VVD), Christian party (CDA) and a center party (D'66) that are ruling the country.
So no, a communist party and certainly not a communist government exists in the Netherlands.Peterstreep, you're the only one from the Netherland that I do notdd here. I was expecting you jump in to clarified two things here; the challenges facing your farmers(and of course I know that I know that you've educated me well about the farmers question), and the type of government your country operates. That I've hear from the horse mouth again is enough. Thanks.
Thanks Miebakagh57,
It's a difficult discussion. As the farmers in The Netherlands are an important voters group. And they have a powerful union. That's one of the reasons the government of The Netherlands has stalled this problem for years and years and has not done much. They did not want to make the farmers angry and lose votes.
But now the time is running out and the government of The Netherlands has to implement laws they should have done 20 years ago.
And so, yes, the farmers knew for years that stricter rules about farming would come. Some clever farmers have prepared themselves and are okay. But a lot of farmers didn't think far ahead and stuck their heads in the sand, not wanting to change, and are now suddenly angry.Change what? These farmers have been producing for centuries.
You can produce in a million ways. And the Dutch are famous for their high-tech and innovative ways of farming and agriculture.
If the Dutch farmers had farmed the same way as 100 years ago, the Dutch wouldn't be the second largest exporter of agricultural goods in the world after the US! Keep in mind that The Netherlands is not much bigger than let's say Maryland.
Change what?
Change in the way that you produce less Nitrogen.
Change is not a bad thing, if we didn't change we would still be living in the stone age.
And well, for a communist country, as you say, The Netherlands is a pretty rich country and with plenty of freedom.
The Netherlands has a 8.78 on the Human Freedom Score.
US has a score of 8.73
UK has a score of 8.75
https://worldpopulationreview.com/count … by-country
Yep I know that with distance there is loss through ‘Resistance’; I did do a year of ‘electrical engineering’ as a day release course from school, so I do have a basic understanding in your above reference to ‘Resistance’.
FYI – If you didn’t already know:-
The world’s longest subsea interconnector in the world is the link between Britain and Norway, which became operational on the 1st October 2021. It’s 450 miles long and carries 1,400 MW at 525,000 volts DC.
98% of the electricity produced in Norway is from hydropower, so it’s a good source of energy for the UK to be linked into.
To minimise loss through 'Resistance' power is sent great distances at high voltage DC. The UK Offshore windfarms generally transmit the power under the seabed to shore at 400,000 volts DC; and the UK National Grid transmits electricity around its network at 400,000 volts DC, which is then stepped down to 230 volts at distribution points across Britain to feed the domestic homes and factories etc.
And interestingly various European countries have and are exporting (Export Revenue) it’s technological skills (labour) and manufactured parts etc. to China, who, with the help of European Companies are modelling their National Grid on the pan-European- wide electricity grid.Arthur, thank you for this infortion. It's worthy of note.
"Why should nuclear be the way of the future?"
Because "nuclear" includes fusion; clean, efficient, cheap fuel and massive amounts of energy.Yep, fusion power looks promising; but it's still in its early phase of R&D (Research and Development). we are decades away from being able to scale it up and make it commercial viable - waiting for the development of fusion power does not solve the climate crisis.
The only truly safe nuclear energy is that generated by fusion the availability of such as you mentioned is still well into the future.
We are indeed in the stages of R&D, but it's getting closer all the time. Personally I do not see more than10-15 years before we crack the problem. We've already produced a steady state fusion producing more energy that it cost to start it, and that was the major problem. The rest is mere engineering.
At least 25 years; expert opinion don't reckon that it will be commercially available at scale until after 2050 - And I'm inclined to believe the experts.
We have a similar problem with 'green hydrogen' in the UK; which the UK Government was hoping could be used to replace domestic natural gas by 2035 - Scotland are at an advanced stage of R&D, and proven that it is commercially viable - but the problem now is scaling it up to a commercial level, and there is serious doubts that can be done quickly, quite possibly we are looking at a good 20 years, not the 10 years that the UK Government would like.
.... 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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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!!
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.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.
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/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.
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.pdfScott 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?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.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....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.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.
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."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.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.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.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?Why not? It may be helpful. But when the
same comparison is extended to a third world country, the data is enviable.
America, Europe, and Asia consumed more electricity than Africa, per
residential or per nation.
The fact is that America, Europe, and Asia, are very technological advanced.Yeah, as you indicate, it is the Industrialised countries and developing industrialised countries who are the root cause of the climate change crisis.
Arthur, the numbers you took from wiki are for the economy in total, that is household, industry, services, everything.
That is where my previous assertions are coming from. It also explains the difference between the UK and Germany. While i think that private household consumption is fairly similar in both our countries (no reliance on air condition), the industrial output base is very different. Share of making stuff is almost double in G. compared to the UK. I associated roughly half of the electricity consumption of G.´s economy to industry, to making stuff. If that share is much smaller, then this will have impact on the overall electricity consumption.
With a little math we get an explanation for the difference in numbers between countries published in wikipedia. But again doesn´t explain the USA/Canada consumption.
My home analytics for the past year gave me 5.220 kWh/a for 3 people.
But that already included our AC, that used 1.100 kWh/a for heating. Our well insulated house doesn´t need AC cooling in summer, as long as we don´t have tropical nights (min. ambient temp. above 20°C at night). Analytics also gave some 360 kWh/a for the washing machine and another 120 kWh/a for the dryer (including the extra loads from our daughter´s family living close by :-)) I also monitored kitchen electricity during Corona lockdown (no restaurant dining) and compared to after Corona times: no significant changes. Kitchen, cooking electricity consumption seems to be overrated.
But an other driver for electricity consumption could be hot water. In G. typical houses have combined heating and hot water generation by natural gas burners. Hot water requires roughly 600 to 1.000 kWh/a/person of energy. If that is done electrically, that adds.Likewise, we have a combi-boiler that uses natural gas for hot water and heating; but we use virtually no natural gas during the summer months because our shower is an electric shower, and both our dishwasher and washing machine/dryer uses electricity to heat up cold water from the mains; which is why we put of them on timer to come on after 12:30am when electricity is cheap.
We replaced our Combi-boiler just a couple of years ago (when our old one died), and the new one is eco-energy one that is far more efficient and uses far less natural gas than our old one; so we’re using far less gas for heating during the winter months than we used to – further helped by our winters being far more mild than they used to be.
With respect to domestic gas boilers in the UK; the UK Government are banning all new installations from 2025, and natural gas to domestic homes to be banned by 2035.
As regards usage of electricity in the kitchen; my experience is difference to yours:
My electricity usage, generation, imports, storage and export in my home is constantly monitored and up-dated on my website account about every minutes; which allows me to analyse our electricity usage in great detail – Below, a screen dump of one of the graphs on my website account showing my yesterday’s electricity; the two spikes being where people were using the electric shower.
Prior to Christmas, there would always also be a spike late afternoon/early evening, when I did the cooking for our evening meal, because at that time I predominately used an electric cooker (hobs, grill and fan oven).
But since we’ve had the air-fryer for Christmas, our usage of electricity at that time of day has dropped significantly – no more big spikes in the graph, like it used to be when we used the oven all the time.
Our air-fryer cooks most of what we used to use the oven for, but at a lower temperature and a lot quicker e.g. a quiche that used to take 30 minutes at 180C in our fan oven, now takes only 15 minutes at 160C in the air-fryer, using the baking setting. And my Linda McCartney Vegetarian Sausages, which used to take up to 20 miniatures in the oven, now only takes 4 minutes in the air-fryer. And it should be no great surprise that our air-fryer uses a lot of less electricity than a fan oven, simply because it little more than a miniature fan oven e.g. less air-volume to heat up when cooking, therefore less energy required. The other thing I like about our air-fryer is that it has the ‘bake’ option e.g. to cook without the fan, which is ideal for baking the quiche, vegetarian pies etc.
Below, zoomed in for better clarity:
I think we have a fairly clear picture of the European electricity consumption, be it the UK, the EU or some countries in particular. But the USA is a different animal:
I found this link:
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/ele … ricity.php
US residential consumption is 38% of the 12.000 kWh/a = 4.460 kWh/person/a
That number in itself is 3 times of typical European private consumption.
Questions:
Is electricity too cheap in the USA? (i pay some 35 ct./kWh in G., in the USA on average roughly 50%?)
Is equipment too old? A new AC is almost twice as energy efficient as a 30 year old model.
All this doesn´t make financial sense to me. If USA consumer uses 3 times the electricity than we do in G. with half the cost, then the monthly pay is still 150% or more of European household budgets. Why?
If prices are much lower in the USA this may result in little incentive to invest into modern, efficient equipment.
An average US household of 2 people pays some 1.550 USD per year for electricity. Same household in G. pays some 1.100 USD per year. With the difference Europeans can easily buy new equipment every year and modernize, while Americans stick to old stuff (a little provocative).The link made for interesting reading, and yep, I think you’ve got very valid points there.
What we currently pay for electricity in the UK isn’t that different to what you quote for Germany.
At the moment I pay $0.39 per kWh for any electricity I use from the grid from 4:30am to 12:30am; and just $0.12 per kWh for electricity we use from the grid from 12:30am to 4:30am.
A friend of ours is on a different tariff, based on wholesale prices, where they on average pay about $0.36 per kWh; but it’s a variable tariff that changes every 30 minutes in line with market prices; and which sometimes go negative. People on that tariff get an email listing the prices for the following day so that they have the opportunity to shift their usage to make the biggest savings.
The biggest savings to be made on that tariff is in the early hours of the morning when most people are asleep, and much of industry not working overnight e.g. a surplus of wind-power at that time of night; especially when its exceptionally windy out at sea.
A close friend of ours phoned me a few weeks back, all excited because prices were going negative to the tune of -$0.36 at 2am that night, so he put his washing machine to come on at 2pm for that night so that he would be paid $0.36 for every kWh he used during that period.
I have been toying with switching to that tariff myself, but haven’t done so yet because on my current tariff I am guaranteed in getting cheap electricity at just $0.12 per kWh for 4 hours from 12:30 to 4:30, which is when we top up our wall battery, and when we put our dish washer and washing machine on timer to come on during that time period.Probably all know the Pareto-principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle
Get 80% of succes with 20% effort, the last 20% of success then require 80% efforts.
Me think in Europe we are already closing in on the 80% range of energy saving. So the hard part is to go even further.
For the North American continent it should be fairly easy adopt the mechanisms that lead Europe to the energy savings. It is not even a matter of belief or not belief (in climate change). It is firstly a matter of saving money, of relieving the household budget. And i always thought Americans were very thrifty and cost conscious. Am i wrong?Yep, I get the impression from American responses on these forums, and elsewhere, that many Americans don’t consider the potential financial savings from investing in green energy; their views seem to be very blinkered and short sighted by American politics?
There may be more than politics involved in many conservative Americans' resistance to renewable energy. Considering that 'conservative' folks (as a grouping) aren't usually city folks. They are usually, primarily (a perception, not a declaration), blue-collar workers.
Fossil fuel industries (the 'dirty' ones) are a major job market for blue-collar workers. Maybe economic fears are the real motivators behind the appearance of politically driven resistance. *shrug
GAYep, a very valid point indeed.
There are two thoughts that come to mind from your comment:-
• The Luddites, and
• The British coal mining industry.
LUDDITES
As you may know from your history lessons in school, if American schools cover this topic, The Luddites were textiles workers in Northern England who between 1811 & 1816 took to destroying the looms in textile mills because the looms were putting them out of work e.g. the looms were destroying their jobs and destroying their livelihood – But as we know from history, the loom quickly revolutionised the textile industry leading to a growth in jobs and wealth.
History of Great Britain's Textile Industry Technophobes https://youtu.be/AvY6vLFTnME
BRITISH COAL MINING INDUSTRY
As you may be aware, in the UK the coal mining industry was a nationalised industry e.g. State owned and State controlled.
And you may also be aware that in the 1980’s Margaret Thatcher (then Conservative Prime Minister) closed down the coal mining industry for political reasons e.g. she hated trade unions, and the coal miners were the most powerful trade union in Britain at the time who could, and during the 1970s did, hold the country to ransom and bring governments to their knees.
The devastation of the Government closing the coal mines was far reaching, not only did it put hundreds of thousands of coalminers out of work at a stroke, but it also caused business in the supply chains to fail, putting millions out of work, and plunging Britain into a decade of recession – at that time it was common place to see ex-coal miners, who had lost their jobs and homes, begging on the streets.
So your last comment does resonate with me.
However, on a positive side, as the article below explains, abandoned coalmines across Britain are being repurposed to fuel the green revolution, helping to reduce our carbon emission, create massive employment opportunities in the green industry and wealth for Britain.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment … revolutionThe Luddites example is probably a universal one. In the US we use the 'buggy-whip factory' as an analogy for displaced industries.
The coal miners example looks like a complicated one. Rhetorically, was it simply political in the sense of party control, or was it political in the sense of stopping the tail of the dog (the unions) from controlling the body (the people of the nation) and head (the people's government) of the dog? Was the shock of amputation the only cure, or could the lesser pain of repeated debridement work? 'I dunno'
But it is a good example of the point: economics is a powerful political driver.
GAYes, the coal miner’s example is a complicated one; and that’s probably an understatement.
Ever since before the creation of the National Grid in 1933, right up until 2012, the primary source of fuel for electricity in Britain was coal; which up until the 1980s was British coal. Therefore it’s no surprise that by the 1970s coal miners had become the most powerful trade union in Britain.
During the 1970s the coal miners had toppled three governments, including two Labour (socialist) governments; during that period power cuts (blackouts) were commonplace and frequent events, as coal miners blocked coal supplies to the power stations during disputes – Regular power cuts was a way of life at that time.
So after coming to power, Margaret Thatcher, who hated socialism and trade unions, became obsessed with destroying the coal mining union by destroying the coal mining industry at any cost – which led to the most bitter, most violent, and most long lasting industrial action in British history, a long bitter strike that lasted a year.
One of the most violent battles between thousands of miners and 5,000 police during the strike was the ‘Battle of Orgreave’ https://youtu.be/d2jH53e6_jQ
It was the latter: “political in the sense of stopping the tail of the dog (the unions) from controlling the body (the people of the nation) and head (the people's government) of the dog?”
https://youtu.be/CXokFusfPsM
Now whether “the shock of amputation the only cure” or not is questionable; Margaret Thatcher’s approach of destroying the economy to destroy the mining union was very much a case of “cure worse than the disease”. The miners’ union might have caused regular disruption to industry when it flexed its muscles, but it didn’t cause mass unemployment; whereas Margaret Thatcher’s cure did cause mass unemployment.
Having defeated the miners in the 1984 strike, to redress the balance of power between unions and government at a time when the miners’ union was at its weakest (on its knees) would have been a good time for the Government to take a softer approach that wasn’t going to destroy British Industry as collateral damage - But that wasn’t Thatcher’s way!
The only reason the miners lasted for a year on strike, without any income, was because of the sympathy and generosity of the public. One such true story, which has since been made into a film, authentically portraying the events, even down to the characters in the film being real people (some of whom are alive to this day), was where the LGBT community collected donations from the public for the miners’ strike and donated that money, along with food and cloths, and even a van, to a mining community in Wales.
After the miner’s strike had ended in defeat, in gratitude and with pride, the miners led the annual Pride March through London.
An official Trailer of that film:- https://youtu.be/kZfFvsKDuUU
More info about the film: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pride_(2014_film)
That's an interesting thought GA.
We have basically 4 parties in Spain at the moment. ( a bit more but lets keep it simple.)
The PP (Partido Popular) which is comparable with average Republicans
The PSOE which is comparable with LAbour (UK) or Democrats
VOX - Trump Republicans
SUMAR - AOC Democrats
And regarding to solar farms both VOX and SUMAR are against these for different reasons.
VOX because they are for preserving agriculture and the land, the old traditional ways. As land is expropriated, they defend the farmer and his way of living.
SUMAR as they are against the destruction of agriculture, cutting trees, biodiversity, and the produced energy does not go directly to the people.
Both FOX and SUMAR are for solar panels on the roofs.
The PP and PSOE both are in favour of the internationals and hedge funds who are realizing the solar farms.
So here both parties on the edge of the spectrum find each other.
And yes, solar energy is a big time political area.
The jobs created by the construction of solar farms is minimal. 1 year of building and then everything is automated. This compared to the farmers having a job for years on the same plot of land.
Still, solar farms have the image of helping the climate crisis. But this is questionable.
Here is my Time of Use rates for electricity in San Diego County with San Diego Gas & Electric. We are supposed to have the highest rate in the country.
12 am to 6 am = SuperOff Peak = $0.24
6 am to 10 am = Off Peak = $0.40
10 am to 2 pm = Super Off Peak = $0.24
2 pm to 4 pm = Off Peak = $0.40
4 pm to 9 pm = On Peak = $0.72
9 pm to 12 am = Off Peak = $0.40
But, that is if usage is < 130% of the baseline they have allotted. The rates go up if over baseline.
On Peak = $0.83
Off Peak = $0.52
Super Off Peak = $0.36
SGE & E Time of Use Plans (TOU)
https://www.sdge.com/residential/pricin … henmattersVery interesting info from the San Diego area. I knew that electricity pricing varies from state to state but did not expect these prices.
Do you run a solar system on your roof?
Currently investment is roughly 1.000 USD per kWp for a home system. A system can harvest and save typically half of some 1100 hours multiplied with daytime off peak cost of 30 ct./kWh = 165 USD per year. That is 16,5% return on investment, probably more. If you add battery storage (as Arthur has) then more investment but also higher peak savings.
Again, a matter of business case, nothing else.Chris, I live in a mobile home, so my roof won't support panels or so the solar companies say. I couldn't afford the installation anyway. I just do silly things like from 4 pm to 9 pm the On-Peak hours turn off the Air Conditioning and run a fan. I normally keep my A/C thermostat set at 85ºF (29.4ºC). It will reach 90+ºF (32º+C) for that On-Peak period. The fan works great as it points directly at me sitting in my lounge chair falling asleep to the TV.
Wow, from what you say it would seem that electricity in San Diego is no cheaper than in Europe?
I couldn’t access the website from your link as this side of the pond ‘Access is Denied’ on; at least to the UK?It’s not unusual: I do a lot of corresponding by email with an American in New York, and we often send each other links; but occasionally some of the links I send are blocked in the USA and vice versa e.g. some of the BBC videos on YouTube are blocked in America because of licensing issues and my American contact, who’s has a keen interest in music, takes an interest in the annual Eurovision Song Contest, but again there’s a lot of restrictions on what he can view in America because of licencing issues.
--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.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.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.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.
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.
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.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.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.
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."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.
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/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."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.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.
"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.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
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.
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.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.'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.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.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.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
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.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.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- … 060c0d2f19As 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.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.
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
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.Sad to hear about epilepsy, yet maybe like me with my health issues blessings were discovered. I am glad the diet helped you immensely!
I have a Dr. Mark question that I have not seen pass through my notifications email. I have two close friends whose pups are/were diabetic. Both took injections I suppose of insulin. One did pass away, yet I don't know if that was directly related to it or not.
Anyway, how about an article on diet for diabetic dogs? Maybe share how to read the ingredients as one element and go into a proper homemade diet. Would that work as an article?
Edit: Thanks for the air fryer recommendation. I will check Amazon and I will have to measure where I can put too. I live in a mobile home and no space or cupboard space for storage too. But, it sounds like it will work right now.I have a lot of countertop space but my Amazon parrots are into electric cords (it only takes them a few seconds to destroy one) so I have to keep mine on top of my microwave, out of reach of the parrots.
I have a q and a column on pethelpful. If you can submit that question there I think many others would be interested in that info. I have an article there on processed dog food https://pethelpful.com/ask-a-vet/dry-food-bad-for-dogs that has some tips on dietary changes for dogs suffering from health conditions.
Commercial dry dog food is ultra-processed and is similar to serving your dog a diet of McDonalds every day for their whole life. Did you see that film about Spurlock´s health decline after one month of super-sizing it at McDonalds? Imagine eating all of your meals there for a whole lifetime---that is what most people are doing to their pets without even realizing how wrong it is.I'm about to go off and do Mon errands and chores. I will post the Q at your Q & A. I will read that article and will send the link to a friend in Sweden too. Matter of fact I will save the address for it in a folder on my PC for future use.
I checked Amazon and was pleased they have small air fryers. They must have had single people in mind. I had in mind the big ones that are on TV commercials. It looks more doable now.
Plus, I always get Amazon gift cards for X-mas, so there is a means. That will give me time to formulate meals while bearing in mind my freezer size. Everything is a puzzle these days giving me fun, fun, fun
Just a quick note I read the recommended article and the referenced cancer one as well. Very informative and answered a lot of questions for me. I forwarded to a friend in Sweden.
I submitted the diabetes questions at the ask Dr. Mark feature. I may have gone overboard, yet I am curious of them. I also signed up for the newsletter.
Note: Apologies to Savvy for going off topic.
Tsmog. I plan to look at your link on statistics. Thanks!
Cool! The book is about an hour to read and is available on Amazon. That article opens the mind and gives one pause. I read the book way back when I started doing data mining and creating reports.
It helped me to present more 'accurate' reports and graphs to the owner and upper management where I worked. There were many occasions they weren't happy that their idea didn't prove out as they hoped. Awkward!
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.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.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.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.You said it yourself in your previous post “It is much worse here (in Brazil), as the American fast food producers use Brazil and other countries without regulations to sell any trash not fit for Europe or the US.”
FYI fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is not commonly used in the UK, more common is cane sugar. In fact the recipe for Coke (including the McDonalds Coke) in the UK is not corn sugar but cane sugar. The European recipe is closer to the original Coke formula because the artificial ingredients in American Coke are banned in Europe (and in the UK). Therefore, sugars used in soft drinks in the UK are generally cane sugar, not high fructose corn syrup.
Also, if you look at the oil used in the UK by McDonalds for frying its chips, it’s not canola oil as in the USA, in the UK McDonalds uses sunflower and rapeseed oil.
The differences in ingredients in food in the UK and USA are due firstly to Regulations e.g. there are over 1,000 food ingredients used in the USA that are banned in the EU & UK; and secondly the local market e.g. we don’t produce corn syrup in the UK, but we do grow sunflower and rapeseed.
Yep, I am fully aware of the current childhood obesity problem in the UK; that’s why the UK Government and the NHS have taken(and are taking) various measures to combat the problem; including the sugar tax on soft drinks and banning junk food adverts on TV before the watershed e.g. before 9pm, and public awareness campaigns etc.
The UK Government Plan of Action to Combat Childhood Obesity: https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati … for-action
NHS Weight Loss Advert: https://youtu.be/7kyGboMpKME
NHS Eat-well Guide (Public Awareness Campaign): https://youtu.be/8aWqZd9RScQCanola oil and rapeseed are from the same plant. In north America they ue the term canola as the term rape was not a good marketing word. I think the only difference is the Canadian product is a GMO to resist insects.
If cane sugar is cheaper in one market because of subsidies it will be imported. It is not produced in Europe as your environment does not support it. It is not any healthier than high fructose corn syrup, and it is subsidized in the same way. Corn syrup is subsidized to keep Amercans fat and cane sugar is subsidized to keep Europeans fat.
That 9 pm law sounds great. I wish our president was more interested in that instead of imposing the bivalent COVID vaccine on everyone. Everytime we take my granddaughter to the supermarket she points out snacks and sweets that she wants since she saw the commercial on TV.Thanks for the clarification (I’ve learnt something new) – However, FYI GMO foods are banned in the EU and UK.
Yep, I didn’t say that one type of sugar is necessarily any healthier than another; I was merely pointing out that ingredients in American food are often different to ingredients in European/UK food.
Other differences in food ingredients between the USA, EU and UK include:
1. Chocolate: In the EU, by law, chocolate has to contain a minimum of 25% cocoa bean; in the UK it’s a minimum of 20% cocoa bean, and in the USA it’s a minimum of 10% cocoa bean.
2. Baked Beans: Baked beans in the EU are made from Haricot beans grown in Europe; baked beans sold in the UK are from Haricot beans grown and canned in the USA; however, to cater for the different market tastes, the American Baked beans producers add less sugar in the Baked beans they export to the UK than the Baked beans they sell in the USA. Conversely, the Baked beans sold in the EU has even less sugar, making them more suitable as a vegetable for meat and two veg for example; whereas in the UK the Baked beans have just enough sugar to make them a popular and tasty British meal called ‘Baked beans on toast’ (too little or too much sugar and the Baked beans on toast wouldn’t work as a tasty meal).
3. Flavourings, colourings and preservatives: In the UK, unlike the USA, food generally has natural flavourings, colourings and preservatives rather than artificial flavourings, colourings and preservatives; for two main reasons. Firstly, a lot of the artificial flavourings, colourings and preservatives used in American food is banned in the UK and EU, and secondly, by customer choice e.g. when presented with two similar products the British public will tend to choose the product that uses natural flavourings, colourings and preservatives rather than artificial flavourings, colourings and preservatives – Therefore, food producers wanting to increase sales will promote the fact that their food product only contains natural flavourings, colourings and preservatives.
Of course, using natural flavourings, colourings and preservatives, rather than artificial, does affect the taste and shelf life on products; which if you watch Americans on YouTube trying British food, the feedback is mixed e.g. some positive and some negative.
Americans Try British Food for the First Time https://youtu.be/ZLGy0SA20Xk
Related Discussions
- 101
None of the Apocalyptic predictions for the Climate Have Come True
by Readmikenow 5 years ago
According to the Washington Examiner, None of the Apocalyptic predictions about the climate and the environment have come true. These are predictions that are recent and some that are decades old.Why are they always wrong?“Modern doomsayers have been predicting climate and environmental...
- 107
Many Many Little Tiny People (and Cows) are Causing Global Warming.
by Kathryn L Hill 3 years ago
The earth is so huge. And people are so small. Are we really contributing to the build-up of C02 in the upper atmosphere(s) by:1. Burning fossil fuels, 2. Cutting down forests 3. Farming livestock.https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2021/ … l-warming/"Fossil fuels produce large quantities...
- 136
Do You Believe Humans Caused the Climate Change?
by emievil 15 years ago
I came upon this news that a study showed majority of the Americans do not believe humans caused global warming / climate change. Any idea if this is true? What about the rest of the world, what do we believe?This is the website - http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 … -activity.
- 129
49% of American believe climate change is a hoax or "aren't sure"
by Sychophantastic 10 years ago
These are results of a public policy poll:Q1 Do you believe global warming is a hoax, ornot?Do ................................................................... 37%Do not ............................................................. 51%Not sure...
- 52
Mars Also Undergoing Climate Change as Ice Age Retreats, Study Shows
by Kenna McHugh 5 years ago
The Sun actually has something to do with the Climate Changehttps://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2016 … ge-retrea/
- 32
is this new info. on climate change...?
by SparklingJewel 8 years ago
from the patriotpost:::a new study out of England, where scientists are relying not on computer-generated models of the Earth, but the real thing.Wolfgang Knorr of the University of Bristol's Department of Earth Sciences has found that in the past 160 years the Earth's absorption of carbon dioxide...