keitha
Member of DD Central
2024, hopefully the year I get out of P2P
Posts: 3,875
Likes: 2,313
|
Post by keitha on Sept 19, 2023 11:57:24 GMT
1% is not trivial, if you think it is then I'll happily let you give me a trivial amount of the value your assets ( 1% ).
we as I've said before need to be a leader not a follower, we need to get to net zero ASAP, but without greenwashing such as hydrogen made using electricity generated using fossil fuels.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 9,009 
Likes: 4,821
|
Post by adrianc on Sept 19, 2023 13:58:05 GMT
Given the unknown number of illegals here, the overstayers The "overstayers" are here illegally - but, by "illegals", I suspect you mean people here completely legally while awaiting the outcome of their asylum claims. But that's another thread.
|
|
|
|
Post by bernythedolt on Sept 19, 2023 14:38:01 GMT
No, I mean that completely indeterminate number who've snuck in under the radar illegally.
|
|
|
|
Post by bernythedolt on Sept 19, 2023 14:47:51 GMT
That amount being "as little as possible" would be nice, wouldn't it?I mean, if your next door neighbour threw all his rubbish around the place, you wouldn't use that as justification to chuck some of your own around - so long as it wasn't as much. Spot on.
Part of the problem is that polution is often associated with industrialisation. The phase that China and India are going through now is probably similar to the industrial revolution in Europe a couple of hundred years ago.
So let's excuse these late-comers to the party and all die out together in a blaze of indignant virtuous self-righteousness? The trouble is the science is far better advanced now, we know the cause of the problem and how to address it. We knew no better at the start of industrialisation.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 9,009
Likes: 4,821
|
Post by adrianc on Sept 19, 2023 15:04:20 GMT
No, I mean that completely indeterminate number who've snuck in under the radar illegally. Yeh, you do know they don't really exist in any real numbers, right? I suspect you're getting confused with the much-demonised "small boats" arrivals, who (in the real world, not fevered Express-land) are promptly applying for asylum, thereby here legally until such time as the Home Office extract digit from rectum and process claims.
|
|
|
|
Post by bernythedolt on Sept 19, 2023 15:10:02 GMT
1% is not trivial, if you think it is then I'll happily let you give me a trivial amount of the value your assets ( 1% ).  Well, it is to this particular mathematician! In statistics, the most common level used to accept or refute the null hypothesis is 95% (where you have a 5% chance of being wrong). A really strong test uses the 99% significance level, where the 1% chance of being wrong is considered so trivially small that your trial is widely accepted as a valid finding. Trivial: adjective, synonymous with immaterial, incidental, inconsequential, minor, negligible and insignificant. (Seriously.... am I really getting into an argument over whether 1% is considered significant? I need a word with myself... ).
|
|
|
|
Post by bernythedolt on Sept 19, 2023 15:20:16 GMT
No, I mean that completely indeterminate number who've snuck in under the radar illegally. Yeh, you do know they don't really exist in any real numbers, right? I suspect you're getting confused with the much-demonised "small boats" arrivals, who (in the real world, not fevered Express-land) are promptly applying for asylum, thereby here legally until such time as the Home Office extract digit from rectum and process claims. No confusion here. One estimate puts the illegal number at 1.2 million. www.migrationwatchuk.org/news/2023/02/09/detected-illegal-immigration-of-at-least-135000-since-january-2018Whatever the true number, the official record for the population of the UK is likely to be an underestimate was my point.
|
|
|
|
Post by Badly Drawn Stickman on Sept 19, 2023 15:33:09 GMT
Yeh, you do know they don't really exist in any real numbers, right? I suspect you're getting confused with the much-demonised "small boats" arrivals, who (in the real world, not fevered Express-land) are promptly applying for asylum, thereby here legally until such time as the Home Office extract digit from rectum and process claims. No confusion here. One estimate puts the illegal number at 1.2 million. www.migrationwatchuk.org/news/2023/02/09/detected-illegal-immigration-of-at-least-135000-since-january-2018Whatever the true number, the official record for the population of the UK is likely to be an underestimate was my point. Insulation wise then... I am assuming bernythedolt wants them outside the wall and adrianc is fine with them inside his, I guess suggesting burying them in the cavity is not considered appropriate?
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 9,009
Likes: 4,821
|
Post by adrianc on Sept 19, 2023 15:38:37 GMT
From that same article, published by an anti-migration body... "over 90% of those who enter by boat and lorry then go on to claim asylum"
|
|
michaelc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,891
Likes: 2,767
Member is Online
|
Post by michaelc on Sept 19, 2023 15:51:19 GMT
Also if you are here without valid permission, what are you going to do? You definitely can't claim benefits and it is getting very difficult to work cash-in-hand no questions asked. Even such things as a driving licence and insurance would be a pain. In short, you couldn't really live any meaningful life.
It also irks me the use of the term "illegal" as using the verb "to be" suggests this is an inherent attribute of the person that they can't change. We don't use such terms for the like of serial baby killer Lucy Letby. Why isn't she an "illegal" - after all she will for the rest of her life be treated as someone who has broken the law thus surely she would be a more fitting candidate for the term ?
|
|
|
|
Post by bernythedolt on Sept 19, 2023 16:01:48 GMT
Nevertheless, the US has been steadily reducing its fossil CO 2 emissions since 2005. It's worth looking at which countries are causing the problem, which are doing something positive and which aren't. 67% of the world's fossil CO 2 emissions comes from just six big polluters:- - 27% from the US, EU and Japan, each of whom has been steadily reducing their per-capita output in recent years. - 40% comes from just three countries, China, Russia and India. These three have been steadily increasing per-capita over the same timescale, and show no sign of abating. The UK's contribution of 1% is utterly trivial. Until those three get on board, whatever we do in the UK will remain utterly trivial. EDIT: PS. The UK isn't far short of 1% of the world's population. I would have thought that a fair system was one where everyone was entitled to polute by the same amount. Agreed - good luck getting China and Russia to bring down their already overweight per-capita share. World's average value per-capita 4.9; China 7.7; Russia 12.3. Hmmm... some poetic licence there. I don't think anybody is suggesting that rather disingenuous interpretation. What I said was three of the worst offenders are at least trying to do something positive about it, while three continue to insist on rowing in the wrong direction. Now the problem has been highlighted, each country's starting point is largely irrelevant, it's the direction you row from that point on which matters. China and Russia are already polluting higher per-capita than the EU, and are increasing year on year, whereas the EU is decreasing. You'd categorise China/Russia as the good guys?
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 9,009
Likes: 4,821
|
Post by adrianc on Sept 19, 2023 16:31:24 GMT
China and Russia are already polluting higher per-capita than the EU 2021 - China - 7.44t CO2e per capita EU - 7.77t OECD - 10.5t 1990 - China - approx 3t EU - 11.6t OECD - 13t Now, I repeat - let's consider the state of China's economic development in 1990 vs 2021... 1990 - 67% of China's population were in <$1.90/day (2011 purchasing power parity) extreme poverty, 90% <$3.20, 98.5% <$5.50. By 2019, that'd fallen to 0.1%, 1.7% and 15.8%. We've saved ~4t/per capita over that period, with no hit to living standards. They've increased ~3.5t/per capita, but have taken many, MANY people out of extreme poverty in the process. I'd say that was a reasonable compromise to make, so long as we ALL continue to try to improve further. Those of us who are fortunate enough to be able to reduce without much impact should try hardest and do most to help compensate for those who are trying to balance that with lifting populations out of misery and poverty and hunger, shouldn't we?
|
|
|
|
Post by bernythedolt on Sept 19, 2023 16:32:48 GMT
Also if you are here without valid permission, what are you going to do? You definitely can't claim benefits and it is getting very difficult to work cash-in-hand no questions asked. Even such things as a driving licence and insurance would be a pain. In short, you couldn't really live any meaningful life. It also irks me the use of the term "illegal" as using the verb "to be" suggests this is an inherent attribute of the person that they can't change. We don't use such terms for the like of serial baby killer Lucy Letby. Why isn't she an "illegal" - after all she will for the rest of her life be treated as someone who has broken the law thus surely she would be a more fitting candidate for the term ? What would be your preferred descriptor for one who enters the country by illegal means? I'm always happy to be educated. They're certainly not all "asylum seekers", so that's ruled out.
|
|
|
|
Post by bernythedolt on Sept 19, 2023 16:50:37 GMT
China and Russia are already polluting higher per-capita than the EU 2021 - China - 7.44t CO2e per capita EU - 7.77t OECD - 10.5t 1990 - China - approx 3t EU - 11.6t OECD - 13t Now, I repeat - let's consider the state of China's economic development in 1990 vs 2021... 1990 - 67% of China's population were in <$1.90/day (2011 purchasing power parity) extreme poverty, 90% <$3.20, 98.5% <$5.50. By 2019, that'd fallen to 0.1%, 1.7% and 15.8%. We've saved ~4t/per capita over that period, with no hit to living standards. They've increased ~3.5t/per capita, but have taken many, MANY people out of extreme poverty in the process. I'd say that was a reasonable compromise to make, so long as we ALL continue to try to improve further. Those of us who are fortunate enough to be able to reduce without much impact should try hardest and do most to help compensate for those who are trying to balance that with lifting populations out of misery and poverty and hunger, shouldn't we? It's a laudable aim and who wouldn't support that, but we must have a mind to the climate crisis throughout - and China is far and away the worst contributor to that. Two minor points - China's increase was 4.4t rather than your ~3.5 above, and I acknowledge my figures were dated, being from 2017 in the table I linked to. Your words "without much impact" are salient. There are many who feel strongly that the changes planned in the UK, no more ICE cars, no more gas boilers, must have a heat pump, reduced speed limits, etc, etc are having or going to have a significant impact on their lives. And very significant for those in flats or houses with no ready means of charging an EV. And all for what purpose? To reduce our already trivial contribution to the global problem.
|
|
|
|
Post by bernythedolt on Sept 19, 2023 17:13:05 GMT
China and Russia are already polluting higher per-capita than the EU 2021 - China - 7.44t CO2e per capita EU - 7.77t OECD - 10.5t 1990 - China - approx 3t EU - 11.6t OECD - 13t Figures dependent on source. This resource for 2021 quotes EU (27) as 6t, EU(28) as 6t, Europe (whole) as 7t and China 8t per-capita. China has indeed outstripped Europe now.
|
|
Well, it is to this particular mathematician! In statistics, the most common level used to accept or refute the null hypothesis is 95% (where you have a 5% chance of being wrong). A really strong test uses the 99% significance level, where the 1% chance of being wrong is considered so trivially small that your trial is widely accepted as a valid finding. 
