|
|
Post by captainconfident on May 13, 2019 14:05:02 GMT
I like having people from all nations living around me. I've never met nicer people It's the grudgeful pasty whites with my ancestry that tend to lower the averages. Don't see it has much to do with climate change though, bar the excellent contribution of that insight by paul123. Not getting at you personally, cb25, I know a vast number share your opinions. |
|
cb25
Posts: 3,528 
Likes: 2,668
|
Post by cb25 on May 13, 2019 14:06:55 GMT
Not getting at you personally, cb25 , I know a vast number share your opinions. I didn't take it that way. Two things I would say about immigration i) even if all immigrants were white Christians, huge numbers cause problems ii) lots of people have problems with non-white non-Christian immigrants. Makes no difference if you/I are OK with it, there's still a societal problem.
We digress, thread is about climate change. I don't see the world (or even the UK) doing anything radical until the world is in a lot worse state than it is now. That's not based on science, just observation of human nature.
|
|
|
|
Post by captainconfident on May 13, 2019 14:13:57 GMT
Not getting at you personally, cb25 , I know a vast number share your opinions. I didn't take it that way. Two things I would say about immigration i) even if all immigrants were white Christians, huge numbers cause problems ii) lots of people have problems with non-white non-Christian immigrants. Makes no difference if you/I are OK with it, there's still a societal problem.
We digress, thread is about climate change. I don't see the world (or even the UK) doing anything radical until the world is in a lot worse state than it is now. That's not based on science, just observation of human nature.
Unfortunately with regards to the last statement, you are almost certainly right.
|
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on May 13, 2019 14:15:51 GMT
cb25 , you and others here just seem to use your scorn for people trying to do something as an excuse for not needing to take any action yourself. It isn't the virtue signalling actions of individuals like ER that will make a difference, it's the action that governments take.
---
While govts are prone to the production of large qtys of hot air, that doesn't itself contribute to climate change...
Clearly its false to say that individual choices and actions can't make a difference. What if everyone in the developed world cut their meat consumption by 50% and replaced it with plant based consumption ? (suitably eco friendly, not avocados please). And if people in the developing world where meat consumption is growing, capped it at a level lower than it would otherwise grow to e.g. in line with the above.
And swapped 20% of their internal combustion engine powered car journeys and replaced with walking/biking/public transport ?
Govt's can't force people to do any of those things. Except in dictatorships. Or by accident by overseeing disastrous economic conditions (e.g. Venezuela).
I hasten to add I am a relatively dyed in the wool meat lover, I don't have a beard, and am not wearing sandals.
|
|
|
|
Post by captainconfident on May 13, 2019 14:29:13 GMT
I was thinking about this problem in other terms. I've been noticing bigger and bigger Mercedes type vehicles on the roads recently, real Panzer sized things. And I was cursing the nature of the people who had bought them. But then I was thinking, people are people and does the fault not lie with Mercedes for making the things in the first place? If they wern't available then people wouldn't buy them.
I'm sure there are are a lot of ludicrous vanity objects that are not allowed for environmental reasons, but failed to think of any examples.
|
|
cb25
Posts: 3,528
Likes: 2,668
|
Post by cb25 on May 13, 2019 14:32:42 GMT
It isn't the virtue signalling actions of individuals like ER that will make a difference, it's the action that governments take.
---
While govts are prone to the production of large qtys of hot air, that doesn't itself contribute to climate change...
Clearly its false to say that individual choices and actions can't make a difference. What if everyone in the developed world cut their meat consumption by 50% and replaced it with plant based consumption ? (suitably eco friendly, not avocados please). And if people in the developing world where meat consumption is growing, capped it at a level lower than it would otherwise grow to e.g. in line with the above.
And swapped 20% of their internal combustion engine powered car journeys and replaced with walking/biking/public transport ?
Govt's can't force people to do any of those things. Except in dictatorships. Or by accident by overseeing disastrous economic conditions (e.g. Venezuela).
I hasten to add I am a relatively dyed in the wool meat lover, I don't have a beard, and am not wearing sandals.
Clearly the individual can take action, but I believe the government can have a big effect much quicker than waiting for lots of individual actions that add up to the same thing.
e.g. if I don't book myself on a particular flight to X on day Y, the flight will still go, maybe still 100% full, maybe with 1 empty seat (as I'm not there), but it will almost certainly go. That will only change if demand drops sufficiently to destination X that the provider decides it's no longer profitable and stops flying (we'll skip over the fact the slot will simply be sold to another airline). However, the government could - year on year - either demand n% drop in CO2 emissions from the airline industry OR double APT OR cancel n% of flights, then let the market place determine who flies where and at what cost.
Similarly, with cars (I drive but not huge mileage). I could drive a little less, but that's not going to make huge difference. Government could get off its backside and start delivering infrastructure for electric cars. That - and maybe a subsidy on initial cost - could really bump up usage of electric cars. Even if I could afford to switch to an electric car, I wouldn't currently due to lack of infrastructure. Was reading recently that one of BP/Shell (can't remember which) was working on 'rapid' rechargers, but they were still talking about 30mins!.
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,692
Likes: 3,018
|
Post by IFISAcava on May 13, 2019 14:34:04 GMT
Not getting at you personally, cb25 , I know a vast number share your opinions. I didn't take it that way. Two things I would say about immigration i) even if all immigrants were white Christians, huge numbers cause problems ii) lots of people have problems with non-white non-Christian immigrants. Makes no difference if you/I are OK with it, there's still a societal problem.
We digress, thread is about climate change. I don't see the world (or even the UK) doing anything radical until the world is in a lot worse state than it is now. That's not based on science, just observation of human nature.
Is this the right time to state that human nature may well be incompatible with the challenges ahead and that the species may not survive for this reason? Unless you are a religious fundamentalist, there is nothing special about humans that means they should always inhabit the Earth, and they may not be compatible with existing on the planet for even a million years (let alone the 200 million of the dinosaurs, or the billions for more basic creatures).
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 10,015
Likes: 5,144
Member is Online
|
Post by adrianc on May 13, 2019 14:57:24 GMT
i) even if all immigrants were white Christians, huge numbers cause problems The UK doesn't have "huge numbers" of migrants. For every one net migrant adding to the UK population - with the "intention" of staying "12 months or more" - over the year ending September 2018, there are 230 people living here. The people behind this "societal problem" are the ones who are quite simply both wrong and the actual cause of issues, and they should not be placated. Why should others be punished for their intolerance?
|
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on May 13, 2019 15:21:31 GMT
While govts are prone to the production of large qtys of hot air, that doesn't itself contribute to climate change...
Clearly its false to say that individual choices and actions can't make a difference. What if everyone in the developed world cut their meat consumption by 50% and replaced it with plant based consumption ? (suitably eco friendly, not avocados please). And if people in the developing world where meat consumption is growing, capped it at a level lower than it would otherwise grow to e.g. in line with the above.
And swapped 20% of their internal combustion engine powered car journeys and replaced with walking/biking/public transport ?
Govt's can't force people to do any of those things. Except in dictatorships. Or by accident by overseeing disastrous economic conditions (e.g. Venezuela).
I hasten to add I am a relatively dyed in the wool meat lover, I don't have a beard, and am not wearing sandals.
Clearly the individual can take action, but I believe the government can have a big effect much quicker than waiting for lots of individual actions that add up to the same thing.
e.g. if I don't book myself on a particular flight to X on day Y, the flight will still go, maybe still 100% full, maybe with 1 empty seat (as I'm not there), but it will almost certainly go. That will only change if demand drops sufficiently to destination X that the provider decides it's no longer profitable and stops flying (we'll skip over the fact the slot will simply be sold to another airline). However, the government could - year on year - either demand n% drop in CO2 emissions from the airline industry OR double APT OR cancel n% of flights, then let the market place determine who flies where and at what cost.
Similarly, with cars (I drive but not huge mileage). I could drive a little less, but that's not going to make huge difference. Government could get off its backside and start delivering infrastructure for electric cars. That - and maybe a subsidy on initial cost - could really bump up usage of electric cars. Even if I could afford to switch to an electric car, I wouldn't currently due to lack of infrastructure. Was reading recently that one of BP/Shell (can't remember which) was working on 'rapid' rechargers, but they were still talking about 30mins!.
I absolutely agree that Govt can HELP. And in a capitalist democracy that will mostly be about providing "price signals" through taxation of "bad" things (alternatively looked at, forcing the real cost of carbon use into prices through taxation or other schemes), and nudging investment decisions (or making them).
After all, that is what tax on fuel does (except of course that the "accelerator" on this became a decelarator due to public pressure).
But of course in a DEMOCRACY, govts can only really do what the people will tolerate. It can lead but only by a certain amount. And therefore there is a need for INDIVIDUALS to change mindset; and in doing so they can also lead ahead of govt.
Take meat consumption: can you imagine what the reaction of people was if you added in significant taxation to reflect the CO2 AND CH4 impacts of meat consumption and "nudge" people ? It would not only be v. difficult, but it would also take a long time: it would have to be gradually ratcheted up to be remotely acceptable. On the other hand, individuals - acting en masse - can make a difference virtually overnight .
And even with price signals through tax, its still individuals who choose how to prioritise their spending.
Your post actually contains an example of the limits of govt action. "working on 'rapid' rechargers, but they were still talking about 30mins!. " Govt can't change the technology. So if an individual is put off going electric because of that, the action they can take is to reduce their mileage.
And with your flight example: in the short term yes that plane will go. But the number of flights is not a fixed immutable resource, they are fungible, but just react in slower time. If total passenger demand dropped as the aggregate of individual decisions to fly less, then the number of flights airlines would schedule would drop. It would need to do so for airlines to maintain profitability. yes we have ridiculous situations in the past where airlines have flown empty planes simply to retain their airport slots during downturns, but that wouldn't be what happens in the long term.
|
|
cb25
Posts: 3,528
Likes: 2,668
|
Post by cb25 on May 13, 2019 15:27:11 GMT
bracknellboy and wrt 'signals' our Government proposes a third runway at Heathrow and has reduced the grant towards electric vehicles, whilst Mr Gove is working on restaurants serving smaller portions or giving out doggy bags for leftovers. We're screwed.
|
|
|
|
Post by captainconfident on May 13, 2019 15:29:37 GMT
Great post, Brackers. Last week I put down a deposit on a Peugeot e-208 www.peugeot.co.uk/showroom/new-208/e-208/Soon be goodbye to the Smart Roadster. But it was a lovely car. The new battery tech is quite practical enough now in these 2nd generation electric cars. I would have bought a Tesla Model 3 but it doesn't fit with my modest image! |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2019 16:21:50 GMT
My own view is that Governements were never very good at dealing with a catastrophe at this level, they just don't have the experience or the immagination. Individuals do have both of these skills plus the ability to act now. This problem is so big and so slow in happening that it will be solved by individuals changing their habits and voting to change the way governments have to act, not the other way around. One of my Uncles was in the small boat action to recover the UK army from Dunkerque. If he had left it to the Government........
For instance, the whole population could give up meat, tomorrow. But if we left it to a government we would have a royal comission and then some ideas from the supermarkets and finally a heavy handed law with food police and still people would be marching about the god-given-right to kill animals in 10 to 15 years time.
People are intelligent and wise enough to make sensible decisions without looking for leadership. They can lead themselves, all they need is education and facts.
I now only use a car once every 10 days, I prefer the bicycle. I can afford a Lambo, but why would I?
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,329
Likes: 11,549
|
Post by ilmoro on May 13, 2019 17:45:34 GMT
My own view is that Governements were never very good at dealing with a catastrophe at this level, they just don't have the experience or the immagination. Individuals do have both of these skills plus the ability to act now. This problem is so big and so slow in happening that it will be solved by individuals changing their habits and voting to change the way governments have to act, not the other way around. One of my Uncles was in the small boat action to recover the UK army from Dunkerque. If he had left it to the Government........
For instance, the whole population could give up meat, tomorrow. But if we left it to a government we would have a royal comission and then some ideas from the supermarkets and finally a heavy handed law with food police and still people would be marching about the god-given-right to kill animals in 10 to 15 years time.
People are intelligent and wise enough to make sensible decisions without looking for leadership. They can lead themselves, all they need is education and facts.
I now only use a car once every 10 days, I prefer the bicycle. I can afford a Lambo, but why would I?
Erm who do you think organised the 'small boats'? It wasnt just a load of people deciding to go for a trip to France, they were registered by the government, ordered to meeting points, in many cases requisitioned and crewed by the Navy, though a shortage of crews meant many civilians did go across, escorted by the Navy and organised on the other side to ferry troops to larger ships offshore.
The whole population could have given up plastic bags ages ago, but it was the government introducing a charge that was the catalyst for the massive reduction, and that was largely driven by the popular press ... same with micro-beads and shortly probably bottle return schemes.
Dont disagree that people can do it themselves but it usually requires some central influence ... govt, press, charity etc to get the mass population to move ...
|
|
|
|
Post by captainconfident on May 13, 2019 17:55:37 GMT
My own view is that Governements were never very good at dealing with a catastrophe at this level, they just don't have the experience or the immagination. Individuals do have both of these skills plus the ability to act now. This problem is so big and so slow in happening that it will be solved by individuals changing their habits and voting to change the way governments have to act, not the other way around. One of my Uncles was in the small boat action to recover the UK army from Dunkerque. If he had left it to the Government........
For instance, the whole population could give up meat, tomorrow. But if we left it to a government we would have a royal comission and then some ideas from the supermarkets and finally a heavy handed law with food police and still people would be marching about the god-given-right to kill animals in 10 to 15 years time.
People are intelligent and wise enough to make sensible decisions without looking for leadership. They can lead themselves, all they need is education and facts.
I now only use a car once every 10 days, I prefer the bicycle. I can afford a Lambo, but why would I?
I agree, but a universal carbon tax would be an easy concept for politicians to grasp and also to implement, and it would more fairly distribute the burden of the adjustments that need to be made. It would also better distribute resources. One problem at the moment is that internationally, the price of coal has collapsed making it the cheapest source of energy by far. If the carbon cost of burning coal was taken into account, it would reprice coal and redirect spending back to carbon free and hydrogen generation. Regarding the government and the Dunkirk evacuation, this occurred from 27th May to about 1st April 1940, but the admiralty (an arm of Government) completed an inventory of usable inshore craft on 14th May, such that when they were suddenly required, all the masters could be contacted in short order, be signed on as RN personnel and organised into groups for a pre-planned approach route. So in fact the little ships were not haphazard individual efforts, but a concerted effort minutely organised by an arm of government. So to overturn your argument, the haphazard efforts of individuals can and have been made organised and effective by the actions of HMG and should again in the future. EDIT ilmoro Sorry! Crossed with your post and have written exactly the same thing. And drawn the same conclusion. See what they say about great minds?
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,329
Likes: 11,549
|
Post by ilmoro on May 13, 2019 18:01:27 GMT
My own view is that Governements were never very good at dealing with a catastrophe at this level, they just don't have the experience or the immagination. Individuals do have both of these skills plus the ability to act now. This problem is so big and so slow in happening that it will be solved by individuals changing their habits and voting to change the way governments have to act, not the other way around. One of my Uncles was in the small boat action to recover the UK army from Dunkerque. If he had left it to the Government........
For instance, the whole population could give up meat, tomorrow. But if we left it to a government we would have a royal comission and then some ideas from the supermarkets and finally a heavy handed law with food police and still people would be marching about the god-given-right to kill animals in 10 to 15 years time.
People are intelligent and wise enough to make sensible decisions without looking for leadership. They can lead themselves, all they need is education and facts.
I now only use a car once every 10 days, I prefer the bicycle. I can afford a Lambo, but why would I?
Regarding the government and the Dunkirk evacuation, this occurred from 27th May to about 1st April 1940, but the admiralty (an arm of Government) completed an inventory of usable inshore craft on 14th May, such that when they were suddenly required, all the masters could be contacted in short order, be signed on as RN personnel and organised into groups for a pre-planned approach route. So in fact the little ships were not haphazard individual efforts, but a concerted effort minutely organised by an arm of government. Unless they were going in reverse, 27th May to 4th June 
|
|
