|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2023 21:31:32 GMT
Shouldn't there be a ban on excessive breathing? Respiration produces huge amounts of CO2. Vigorous exercise which is clearly a selfish activity is the root cause. I suggest that climate change is being triggered by releasing massive amounts of fossil fueled CO2 not tiny amounts from a mere 7 billion mammals called humans. Mountains compared to hillocks. So roughly 37 billion tonnes a year compared to 2+ billion tonnes a year. The focus should continue to be fossil fuel.
|
|
keitha
Member of DD Central
2024, hopefully the year I get out of P2P
Posts: 4,594
Likes: 2,624
Member is Online
|
Post by keitha on Feb 3, 2023 22:14:05 GMT
Unfortunately I witness a complete lack of recycling or reuse mainly from young folk. I have relatives staying just now, the waste all goes into landfill bin leaving me to extract plastic bottles etc. Dissapointing not all are Gretas. my experience is that a lot of youngsters drink lots of shop bought Coffee and never have their own cup. also tend to eat a lot of takeaways. But I also find that people who smoke tend to recycle less, but that may just be coincidence not general. I feel that recycling has reduced here in BG since the council decided we had to separate to more flows. of course stricter rules on contamination may also have an impact, for example we are supposed to remove grease stained patches from pizza boxes and windows from envelopes, IMHO this has lead to envelopes and pizza boxes being chucked in landfill
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2023 8:41:23 GMT
It is also worth mentioning that human breath CO2 in only recycled Carbon molecules just going around and around in the food chain. Fossil fuel CO2 is what it says on the tin, the Carbon has been stored for millennia out of sight and mind and is now entering the cycle leading to human driven Climate Change and is a real attack both on our civilisation and other parts of the natural world which is not able to adapt as evolution is a slow process not a fast one. I hope that clears up any confusion.
|
|
pikestaff
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,187 
Likes: 1,546
|
Post by pikestaff on Feb 4, 2023 9:25:05 GMT
The legislation will be utterly ineffective, because councils lack the resources to police it. Sadly. www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/feb/03/councils-say-they-lack-funds-to-enforce-stricter-limits-on-wood-burnersI'd rather domestic wood burners were banned outright, but if society decides to tolerate the somewhat less polluting ones (a bit like saying cigarettes are OK if they are low tar) there needs to be a way to encourage the installed base to be updated. I'd use a mixture of carrot (small grant) and stick (make it illegal to sell or rent a property without a certificate of compliance, which could be included with the EPC).
my bold. What you on about? banned? cigarettes? illegal? .... if you haven't noticed there have been a wide ranging change in legislation and law with regards to log burners over recent years brought in by defra, hetas and ecodesign 2022.. i like burning wood. I assume you don't drive a range rover? .... just saying. Of course I've noticed. The legislation is inadequate because: (1) Even the wood burners which pass the latest rules produce obscene amounts of PM2.5 particulates. www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/oct/09/eco-wood-stoves-emit-pollution-hgv-ecodesign(2) It does nothing about the installed base. (3) Councils lack the resources to enforce it. Point (1) is why I'd rather they were banned, but I know that's not going to happen in the short term. Points (2) and (3) are why, as I said, there needs to be a way to encourage the installed base to be updated. You like burning wood. So do I. I don't do it, because particulates kill. www.blf.org.uk/taskforce/data-tracker/air-quality/pm25I drive an EV. Previously I drove a diesel (not an SUV). I paid extra to have a particulate filter fitted (they were then an optional extra). I thought that was good enough, but I know better now.
|
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Feb 4, 2023 13:17:49 GMT
Shouldn't there be a ban on excessive breathing? Respiration produces huge amounts of CO2. Vigorous exercise which is clearly a selfish activity is the root cause. I think for certain people that should be true.
|
|
|
|
Post by bernythedolt on Feb 4, 2023 22:57:47 GMT
Nah, you drive too fast on the motorway and cause a pile up stopping the road they don't come looking for more victims who were held up to increase the charges. Most of these people are not anarchists they are scared people who want a future for their children.
anarchists don't forwarn the police that they were going to close the M25, that is what happened
You're right, the IRA eventually came around to forewarning the police too. I retract that these people are anarchists: they are eco-terrorists. "Eco-terrorists are willing to inflict emotional and physical distress on their victims if they believe it will further their environmental goals".
I cannot support illegality and what these people did was illegal and deliberately so.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2023 8:37:52 GMT
Eco-terrorists,
Interesting. Hard to imagine the emotional trauma that a can of tomato soup on a plastic screen in front of a van Gough must do to the observer or the PTSD that sitting in a car in a queue must cause to a driver.
But probably nothing like that received by the victims of the IRA or ISIS men charging across London bridge with knives tapped to their hands.
So I call your analogy BS
In terms of not liking illegal things, I have a little more empathy. Since most of those prosecuted are getting off (under the old laws) they were not doing anything illegal. On the other hand twitter is full of videos of cars being driven on pavements and citizens dragging protesters out if the way. These acts are also "illegal" but no prosecutions. Why, comes to mind.
The new laws are more draconian and offer real concerns about civil liberties. Other laws, that attacked civil liberties, have been removed, such as the laws against homosexuels. Not all law is good law.
I suspect your prejudice is getting in the way of good thinking.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2023 9:22:40 GMT
Your miss-use of the term eco-terrorism is also interesting and is often carried out legally but to cause great suffering.
For instance the Soviet Union decided to turn a river around using low grade nukes to water land coming into production. In doing so they have reduced the Caspian sea to a quarter of its natural size and destroyed whole livelihoods along its banks.
Another good example is our own BP, which, completely openly and under legislation drilled into the Gulf of Mexico and then made a mistake destroying a whole load of animals through out the Gulf (horribly, bringing distress to those who were unable to save them) and again devestating livelihoods.
So legality is not the issue, it is not a cover-all, it just means the fines are lower or non-existant where crimes occur.
I find there are four types of people on climate change
1) deniers (ignorance of prejudice it doesn't matter, it is not happening)
2) I understand the science and I would do something but the worst of it will not hit until I'm dead so I don't care and I don't really love my descendants even though I say I do
3) I understand the science and I do a few things to make me feel better (see 2) which means I'm a good person but... meh
4) I understand the science and I live my life as close as possible to net zero while lobbying to support change
Which one are you?
|
|
agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,049
Likes: 4,438
Member is Online
|
Post by agent69 on Feb 5, 2023 9:33:10 GMT
Your miss-use of the term eco-terrorism is also interesting and is often carried out legally but to cause great suffering.
For instance the Soviet Union decided to turn a river around using low grade nukes to water land coming into production. In doing so they have reduced the Caspian sea to a quarter of its natural size and destroyed whole livelihoods along its banks.
Another good example is our own BP, which, completely openly and under legislation drilled into the Gulf of Mexico and then made a mistake destroying a whole load of animals through out the Gulf (horribly, bringing distress to those who were unable to save them) and again devestating livelihoods.
So legality is not the issue, it is not a cover-all, it just means the fines are lower or non-existant where crimes occur.
I find there are four types of people on climate change
1) deniers (ignorance of prejudice it doesn't matter, it is not happening)
2) I understand the science and I would do something but the worst of it will not hit until I'm dead so I don't care and I don't really love my descendants even though I say I do
3) I understand the science and I do a few things to make me feel better (see 2) which means I'm a good person but... meh
4) I understand the science and I live my life as close as possible to net zero while lobbying to support change
Which one are you?
I'm in group 5 - I understand the science but believe that any change I make (or even the country for that matter) will have minimal impact because the problem is in developing third world countries whos emissions are going through the roof.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2023 10:16:37 GMT
5)
ah you confuse 1st world pollution as some sort of right
while 3rd world pollution as some sort of crime
I like it.
I agree let's add a 5.
I still think this is not joined up thinking but I like the chutzpa and we should face it, blaming other people is always easier than looking in the mirror.
Indonesia and India are the real worries now for coal
On a similar note, if we just stopped buying so much stuff from them it might slow down their accelerating pollution. I often note the average number of items in a western person's house as being 30,000. Scoffing aside, go have a count you may be amazed.
|
|
|
|
Post by bernythedolt on Feb 5, 2023 11:14:08 GMT
Eco-terrorism. There are several reports of people missing flights, funerals, serious medical appointments, job interviews, late picking up children, sacked from their job, etc, etc, as well as emergency services being held up.
If anyone fails to see the infliction of emotional distress there, they may wish to address their own prejudices rather than call BS.
It did cross my mind whether the police call for victims' stories is to pin the higher charge of eco-terrorism over simple eco-activism.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2023 13:00:38 GMT
no, I still call BS
Lots of people seriously upset by Shell and BP still drilling more holes
We will not win this crisis just by offering the same labels to different crimes, we have to step up and recognise there is one group out of control and it is the fossil fuel consumers, in much the same way when a company pollutes a neighbour it is the company that gets sued not the neighbour.
See also sewage companies flooding river with poo or famers letting nitrogen run off into rivers, it is the eco-destroyers who have to pay. While blaming the victim is a Republican norm in the US I did not expect to see it here.
confused about the difference between terrorism and fear for ones children's future is bordering on needing help
|
|
|
|
Post by bernythedolt on Feb 5, 2023 13:23:06 GMT
It's an emotive subject and I shan't be rude or push you any further on it.
To me they are eco-terrorists as defined by Wikipedia.
You have your opinion, I have mine.
|
|
|
|
Post by Badly Drawn Stickman on Feb 5, 2023 15:15:41 GMT
It's an emotive subject and I shan't be rude or push you any further on it. To me they are eco-terrorists as defined by Wikipedia. You have your opinion, I have mine. I'm sorry but when the future of the Planet hangs in the balance and only two random guys on a forum can solve the problem, walking away is simply not an option. Might I suggest while he works feverishly with his script writers to post a 'withering' riposte, you get your game face on ready for the long haul....
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2023 15:19:11 GMT
nah, I gave up on him some months back, just feeding the troll
|
|
