|
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2019 11:36:36 GMT
Investing in tabacco is fine BTW, not a major green house gas and if stupid people want to kill themselves in slow disgusting ways I don't care (small c), unless they smoke themin England where my NHS pays for them. The vast majority of Fundsmith's tobacco money is not invested in selling death to the British. Thanks Terry, he really doesn't care (big c). the people who died from second hand tobacco smoke may care (very big c) and the likes of Amadeus his biggest holding an infrastructure group working with airports,airlines,car rental companies etc on booking systems and support does not exactly scream green friendly due to the business they work with.And i am sure Microsoft factories or their office's don't put out much in the way of emissions which proves how hard it is to avoid Nearly every fund and in turn probably the vast majority of people(some in pensions without knowing) are invested in Amazon,Netflix,Google so how much emissions per delivery or energy used in streaming a film or doing an online search and all 3 will be used by most of the protesters. And that's part of the problem yes we can change the world but not in 5 years without switching the lights off for good and living in a cave. i am fine that someone in the public eye like an actor or actress wants to use their fame to highlight issues last week.But this week will they be on a Hollywood film set using vast numbers of trucks to move equipment,probably a limo for the top stars and hundreds of cars for the rest of cast and staff,trailers to use for resting etc during the day and enough energy on lighting etc to power a small town.And then at the end of the day they will be on a chat show talking about emissions in a tv studio using even more energy & having been driven there and i'm guessing not in a green energy car.And probably most of them have more then One home and all of which will be heated and maintained all year even when there not living there I agree with every other concern about Fundsmith (I've talked to Terry about it) but I just wanted to push back on the tobacco thing ;-)
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 10,014 
Likes: 5,142
|
Post by adrianc on May 1, 2019 11:39:14 GMT
There are a number of measures, the easy one is what CO2 is generated in the country. The harder ones include all international transport ending in a country and the CO2 embodied in the goods imported into the country. When you add the second two there are some real opportunites. That would again seem to come back to China (though I'm not saying the EU doesn't have any role to play) Quite the opposite. It'd put a lot of the Chinese emissions where they really belong - on the consumer countries. If you outsource manufacturing, should you outsource the side-effects of that manufacturing, too?
|
|
cb25
Posts: 3,528
Likes: 2,668
|
Post by cb25 on May 1, 2019 11:55:33 GMT
That would again seem to come back to China (though I'm not saying the EU doesn't have any role to play) Quite the opposite. It'd put a lot of the Chinese emissions where they really belong - on the consumer countries. If you outsource manufacturing, should you outsource the side-effects of that manufacturing, too? From one of my earlier posts:
Interesting document here - assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/794557/Consumption_emissions_April19.pdf
Shows that 'imbedded' CO2 production has risen, i.e. CO2 production in country of origin of imported goods (e.g. we buy Chinese goods, they produce the CO2, we get the benefits of the goods, they get shamed as a CO2 producer). Goes with the UK economy moving from manufacturing to services.
---
So it appears that Chinese emissions are already counted (at least some of the time) when we're the consumer country.
Doesn't matter where you count Chinese emissions, Chinese manufacturing needs to be much greener.
|
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on May 1, 2019 11:55:58 GMT
Lot of EU data here (shows EU third largest greenhouse gas emitter 2012, UK looks to be second after Germany) and here (UK third behind Germany and France in 2016). Article from second link (written 2018) says "Early estimates however, show that greenhouse gas emissions in the EU increased in 2017", more here
quite, that was my point. The fact that DE is only one in top ten worldwide doesn't mean it would be insignificant since the scope is EU.
|
|
cb25
Posts: 3,528
Likes: 2,668
|
Post by cb25 on May 1, 2019 11:57:50 GMT
Lot of EU data here (shows EU third largest greenhouse gas emitter 2012, UK looks to be second after Germany) and here (UK third behind Germany and France in 2016). Article from second link (written 2018) says "Early estimates however, show that greenhouse gas emissions in the EU increased in 2017", more here
quite, that was my point. The fact that DE is only one in top ten worldwide doesn't mean it would be insignificant since the scope is EU. re your earlier point "but surely this comment is a bit sloppy, even possibly deliberately misleading ?" - I plead guilty to 'sloppy' (posting too fast) but not guilty to 'deliberately misleading' (I had/have no intent to mislead)
|
|
agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,043
Likes: 4,437
|
Post by agent69 on May 1, 2019 12:01:12 GMT
Saudi oil minister "we didn't leave the stone age 'cause we ran out of stone" Some might query whether the Saudis have left the stone age.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 10,014
Likes: 5,142
|
Post by adrianc on May 1, 2019 12:05:14 GMT
Doesn't matter where you count Chinese emissions, Chinese manufacturing needs to be much greener. Or people just need to buy a LOT less unnecessary, disposable tat.
|
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on May 1, 2019 12:12:05 GMT
Quite the opposite. It'd put a lot of the Chinese emissions where they really belong - on the consumer countries. If you outsource manufacturing, should you outsource the side-effects of that manufacturing, too? ......
So it appears that Chinese emissions are already counted (at least some of the time) when we're the consumer country.
Doesn't matter where you count Chinese emissions, Chinese manufacturing needs to be much greener.
on the first point. From what i was rading the other day (and no I can't recall where) most of the official figures used do not used include outsourced/imported. Edit: actually now I remember where it was discussed. It was a fact check on that 16 yr old girl with pigtails (sorry can't remember her name) stating that the UK govt claims on reduction were 'fake'.
On the second point. The whole chinese economy needs to be greener. But they are making substantive moves in doing so. Even if it was a democracy it would be doing so. People start off concerned about having enough to eat day to day, then general health, then wealth, and then their overally quality of life including environment. No city dwelling chinese person wants to live in smog. This is natural evolution of human concerns as you move up the economic ladder.
China is treading the path developed economies have, but actually doing it much faster - as the technology is already there, and can be done cost effectively enough to do it at lower levels of economic wealth. But that change also can't be overnight.
Don't forget: the developed western world has ridden to where it is on the back of the fossil fuel economy: simply because of history and time, its the western world that has done most to induce climate change, and gained the most from it (advanced their economies to where they are). Its hardly an unreasonable ask that they should therefore also be at the leading edge /leading the way emissions reduction strategies.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 10,014
Likes: 5,142
|
Post by adrianc on May 1, 2019 12:17:37 GMT
Edit: actually now I remember where it was discussed. It was a fact check on that 16 yr old girl with pigtails (sorry can't remember her name) stating that the UK govt claims on reduction were 'fake'. Greta Thunberg www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-48025650 (or similar) <nods, points back to page 6> 3 billion Chinese & Indians with a western lifestyle aspirations. Climate change will only go one way. Even if everyone in the UK takes a blue pill. Until population control in every country is imposed nothing is going to change. It's not as simple as "Chinese and Indians". But, yes, why shouldn't the developing world - all of it - aspire to what the developed world already has? Is the majority of the world's population, people you hand-wave away as "Chinese and Indians", any less deserving of a particular quality of life than you are, just because you happened to get lucky in where you were born? Many millions of lives have been lifted above the daily struggle to simply remain alive, through both food and medicine, while modern technology's made it so much easier to see how others live. The rising population isn't because of rising birth rates, it's because of falling mortality. Isn't that a good thing? Of course a reduction in birth rates is going to lag behind in the short- to medium-term. The world clearly can't support the entire population living at "Western" levels. So, yes, those of us who are consuming WAY above our proportion need to cut down, if the average isn't going to rise markedly just because those at the other end of the range are moving near the middle. It's simple selfishness to suggest anything else, isn't it?
|
|
travolta
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,506
Likes: 1,214
|
Post by travolta on May 1, 2019 17:11:48 GMT
That is such tosh. Factor in the transient and tourist population non existent in previous centuries.
|
|
Godanubis
Member of DD Central
Anubis is known as the god of death and is the oldest and most popular of ancient Egyptian deities.
Posts: 2,011
Likes: 1,013
|
Post by Godanubis on May 1, 2019 20:01:40 GMT
That is such tosh. Factor in the transient and tourist population non existent in previous centuries.  My favourite elder states person summing things up succinctly. One large volcanic eruption adds hundreds of years of greenhouse gasses in an instant. Cut population growth solves all the problems if human needs for food heat etc. are curtailed so are greenhouse gas emissions.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2019 21:48:21 GMT
Factually incorrect. Man made CO2 dwarfs volcanic greenhouse gases. But the Mail keeps publishing that opinion.
|
|
scc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 214
Likes: 163
|
Post by scc on May 2, 2019 4:55:23 GMT
"Your suggestion that the people in this group are left leaning is not supported by evidence" - OK if you were there and you got a different impression fair enough. Many of the people I saw were calling for an overthrow to capitalism as part of the solution and were holding Socialist Workers banners. I accept that people may have come from a diverse background and held different political views. I suspect most were left leaning though, but if I am wrong I apologise. Just on this point, the Socialist Worker's modus operandi is to turn up at practically any demo and start handing out placards. I'm not sure they are terribly representative of either the movement or a particularly relevant force either. But your wider point is true, people who attend environmental protests tend to be left leaning or at least those who wear their party affiliation on their sleeves (I suspect there are many closet Tories personally). As a lifelong anarchist, it's terribly frustrating to have it assumed by many environmentalists I have any political affiliation, as well as go through the same dull conversations about voting assumptions/party politics/tribal opinion holding etc. That said, as far as I can tell right leaning politicians haven't done themselves many favours recently. Gove makes some useful noises from time to time, but that's about it sadly. Cameron turned out to be a bit of busted flush having shown a lot of interest before becoming PM. Aligning with fracking, approving airport expansion etc isn't great either. Like Trump, I suspect environment = left concern means they simply don't hear the arguments in their particular bubble and the average politician's understanding of science tends to be poor. And that's a real shame as Thatcher was one of the earliest to sound the alarm about climate change and there is a huge crossover between Daily Mail readers and supporters of environmental organisations (hardly surprising given its wide readership, particularly among older women IIRC). I'd love to see right leaning environmental groups emerge (certainly there are plenty of businesses and other capitalists who are supportive of action).
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 10,014
Likes: 5,142
|
Post by adrianc on May 2, 2019 7:13:39 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on May 2, 2019 7:31:41 GMT
"Your suggestion that the people in this group are left leaning is not supported by evidence" - OK if you were there and you got a different impression fair enough. Many of the people I saw were calling for an overthrow to capitalism as part of the solution and were holding Socialist Workers banners. I accept that people may have come from a diverse background and held different political views. I suspect most were left leaning though, but if I am wrong I apologise. Just on this point, the Socialist Worker's modus operandi is to turn up at practically any demo and start handing out placards. I'm not sure they are terribly representative of either the movement or a particularly relevant force either. <snip> and the average politician's understanding of science tends to be poor. And that's a real shame as Thatcher was one of the earliest to sound the alarm about climate change and there is a huge crossover between Daily Mail readers and supporters of environmental organisations (hardly surprising given its wide readership, particularly among older women IIRC).
Of course the two are hardly unrelated, given that MT was an Oxford science graduate, and chemist by career before entering full time politics. She was both able to critically assess / analyse / understand information presented to her , understand the science and trust in the scientific ethos and approaches which produce that information. And you are correct, it is said she "got it", and did so much earlier than others.
Maybe: what I'd really like to see is more "right wing" - for which read free market - influence on ideas on how to tackle the problem injected into the existing groups so that there can be an acceptance of different approaches and potentially coalesce around those most likely to work [which isn't going to be "we all have to go back to neolithic lifestyles"] If that is going to require organisations/pressure groups separate from the more traditionally identified then so be it. You are perhaps right though: if formalised pressure groups such as a "FTSE 100 CxOs for climate change action" emerged, it would make it significantly harder for politicians such as the "orange one" to claim its all a nonsense conspiracy.
|
|
