You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Giving a shit and being able to do something about it are different things.
I don't understand how cryptocurrencies are meant to work when they become increasingly scarce? How is this not going to funnel power and wealth into the hands of the early adopters? Isn't this the gold standard all over again, but worse?
This thread has gone really bad from what was probably a good intention. Step back and be nice?
It's hard to be nice when faced with such collosal idiocy.
The thread started with good intentions but barely got going before the fascism and eugenics enthusiasts came wriggling out the woodwork after a couple of pages of folk missing the critical "simple" part of the brief.
As with all simple solutions to complex problems in life it inevitably ended in a complete dumpster fire, the results of which you now gaze upon.
The funny bit is I actually have real academic qualifications in this stuff but nobody here is remotely interested in actual objective opinions so I just amuse myself by posting memes and occasionally pointing out the glaring hypocrisy of folk that like to shout loudest about how other people are destroying the planet.
And be under no illusions, crypto is an environmental catastrophe, a data centre is a data centre. Devoting runtime to pointless operations beyond a notional gain is just ****ing retarded and the epitome of sticking two fingers up to the environment.
@squirellking The thread was probably started with good intentions by someone that isn’t you? Perhaps persist using your qualifications for good instead of your amusement?
The funny bit is I actually have real academic qualifications in this stuff but nobody here is remotely interested in actual objective opinions
I have academic qualifications in this stuff. And as I've shown, I've real-world job-associated work in related subjects too. And to top it, I've shown that there's very little left I can do to reduce my footprint - producing all my own energy for 9 months of the year, producing all my own meat, planting orchards as part of a regenerative silvopasture system. Didn't have kids for environmental reasons. And it was easy.
You're not after "objective" opinions. I've agreed with you on bitcoin and evidenced ethereum's footprint - which has the potential to be a massive energy-reduction programme for the whole planet. Hell, if we just replaced paypal with it we'd be making a 27 times energy saving - but it could potentially replace the whole banking system.
Pushing your academic chops when you can't assess or refuse to address basic evidence when it's been provided to you (and have provided none of your own) seems misguided at best, but I reckon it's disingenuous.
You're just an angry man on the internet who doesn't like the unavoidable actual solutions - so are raging against them in any non-evidence-based way you can.
Stop selling shower gel and shampoo in plastic bottles. Refilling bottles by a shampoo pump in shops etc!
Get rid of your fake lawn and grow some food. More room for nature and cut down on food transport.
Or just kill people as we are the problem.
nobody here is remotely interested in actual objective opinions
I am, very much so.
refuse to address basic evidence when it’s been provided to you
Did I miss this?
Hell, if we just replaced paypal with it we’d be making a 27 times energy saving – but it could potentially replace the whole banking system.
Hmm, so - how do we mine Ethereum? When you say a 'transaction' takes 27 times less energy, how is that calculated? Is the cost of mining included in that? If Ethereum is easy to mine how come it's got value? Surely the difficulty of mining is the only thing that gives these things their value?
How is the PayPal transaction cost calculated? Does it include for example all the energy cost of the marketing emails and the building costs of the people who work in the marketing and so on? If people want everyone to use Ethereum, then there will need to be a similar marketing effort right?
How are non-rechargeable batteries legal?
Seems an obvious easy one to go for imho
You’re just an angry man on the internet who doesn’t like the unavoidable actual solutions – so are raging against them in any non-evidence-based way you can.
Thats really not so.
The basic issue is that there are no simple solutions ( or simple to implement ones) that have the level of impact required
In the last 30 years since climate change became obvious the situation has actually got worse.
Developing countries whan the standard of living we have in the west and thus will produce far more pollution
The only solutions that will actually have the level of impact required are just not acceptable to large parts of the worlds population. Developing nations will not accept they cannot have western lifestyles. Developed nations will not accept that their lifestyles need to change dramatically
We are at the tipping point now. Its basically too late.
a data centre is a data centre. Devoting runtime to pointless operations beyond a notional gain is just * ***** and the epitome of sticking two fingers up to the environment.
i agree, however, when someone is making millions off the back of it, it’s easy to understand that they might not actually care.
Everyone needs to care, or we’re forked.
Be the change you want to see.
Don’t wanna see single use plastics in shops? Stop buying em.
Don’t wanna see so many cars on the road? Stop driving em.
Are you comparing all scope emissions from crypto mining to PayPal and traditional banks or just Scopes 1 & 2? It seems like you’re including just the latter for crypto but all for the former. Apologies if this isn’t the case. Also have you taken scale in to account in your calculations? PayPal is one of the most common payment methods used widely throughout the world. Crypto, not so much. If you scaled Crypto to the same level as PayPal how would it fair in terms of emissions?
I’m loving how you’re accusing others of being angry when you’re the only person in this thread to have typed anything in all caps and used too many exclamation marks. Classic sign of impotent rage.
Don’t wanna see so many cars on the road? Stop driving em.
Easier said than done though isn't it?
Most of us have limited control over our lives.
Another vote for insulation. Why spunk billions on trashing the economy when you could spend a fraction of that and help millions get through this winter?
Ban on single-use plastics, or a hefty deposit scheme at the very least.
Easier said than done though isn’t it?
Most of us have limited control over our lives.
You have much more than you accept. the issue is you will not accept solutions that compromise your lifestyle. So you say things are impossible when actually you mean they are unacceptable to you
I’ve stated before that I agree with you in principle TJ but you’re over simplifying things. I’ll use my work place as an example. We have people in low skilled rolls working 12 hour shifts. Some of these people come from fair afield. Their only viable choice of transport is car sharing. Public transport timetables don’t run within the hours needed.
I’ll be taking to our local government’s transport division about this in the coming weeks. Also looking at the possibility of showers on site to encourage cycling. It’s not a simple solution though so not in the original spirit of the thread the OP started. Just like cutting population level’s overnight to reach an arbitrary minimum 3 5 billion.
You have much more than you accept. the issue is you will not accept solutions that compromise your lifestyle. So you say things are impossible when actually you mean they are unacceptable to you
perhaps, instead of the prefix ‘you’ it might have been better to say ‘many people’
Then, rather than getting people’s back up, a more meaningful discussion can be had?
Ban on single-use plastics, or a hefty deposit scheme at the very least.
or ban production of them or make it prohibitively expensive to do so. Plastic tax was a decent start but isn’t enough. EPR regs are also good but are becoming quite unwieldy to the point where the experts are having to double check whether some things fall within compliance parameters.
There is no meaningful discussion to be had on this topic as we can see from this thread because most folk simply will not accept the lifestyle changes needed. But yes your point stands
Capitalism and democracy are both acting against efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emmissions
Yes.. but HOW??? Everyone who’s thought about this knows there needs to be major changes – it’s so easy to say. But how to actually do it? That’s what I am concerned about.
Perhaps start by saying WHY we need major change .. and limit the message. ONE THING !! Not saving whales or any other messages just climate change. (Assuming you believe this is by far and above the most important thing)
In the real world people have made changes ... they try and protect the poor turtles by removing plastic crush washers and they chuck some of their rubbish in recycling and they bought some washing powder and consumer electronics with "Eco" in the name implying to most consumers it's good for reducing/reversing climate change.
At a bigger scale they just built a 40 story tower block from concrete and steel but planted a tree in the forecourt so it's now an ECO building and had ZERO CO2 because the borough don't make concrete or steel.
They changed their diesel to petrol because that's global warming right? It's more ECO/GREEN and saves turtles in the Indian Ocean??
Perhaps the best thing we could do is define climate misinformation and claims to be illegal and slap on custodial sentences?
Ban the words GREEN and ECO completely from advertising and public organisations and only allow verifiable CLIMATE CHANGE any misleading "Eco" policy pretending to be good for slowing or reversing climate change get them out of the way with prison sentences.
You have much more than you accept. the issue is you will not accept solutions that compromise your lifestyle. So you say things are impossible when actually you mean they are unacceptable to you
When have I been saying things are impossible? I'm not really talking about myself. My argument is as follows:
People will not make huge changes to significantly deprive themselves, because as you say they don't want to. Therefore it requires legislation to inhibit our lifestyles. This leads to three issues:
1. We live in a democracy, so it's really difficult to enact legislation that most people really don't like.
2. Suddenly slashing our consumption will cause huge problems, as large numbers of people are employed in the production and trade of the things being consumed. These people will need other jobs, somehow, but ones that don't require producing things.
3. People want enriched lives filled with positive experiences. If we don't have the means to enrich our lives, what do we do? Is it right that our lives all become worse? How much are we prepared to lose? I mean, going to Cornwall for two weeks in the summer instead of Malaga - sure. It's not a big problem. But never travelling outside your own region? Never seeing another country and culture? Is that a net positive?
Issues 1 and 2 are the key ones that need to be solved. Don't just berate people for not making changes - address these two problems at a population level. And 3 is more of a philosophical one.
There is no meaningful discussion to be had on this topic as we can see from this thread because most folk simply will not accept the lifestyle changes needed.
We're trying to have it. So let's talk about my point 3.
How much should we be prepared to lose from our lifestyles?
For issue one I’d try and show people what will happen if the legislation isn’t implemented. Try and hammer home that the alternatives will be worse. It won’t be easy but until we try we won’t know.
On the second point I think looking at reuse and repair as industries could be a good start. Teach people how to repair and open repair shops. It’s already happening on a small scale in some areas. These are just crap ideas off the top of my head but better than “well we’re all ****ed so let’s do nothing”
The third is tricky. You could just make flights very expensive, but that just means the ones who rack up air miles already will likely continue to do so. Making the chance to experience other cultures first hand the preserve of the ultra rich.
How much should we be prepared to lose from our lifestyles?
A lot. I would do this with punative energy taxation ( ramped up over a decade or two and with perhaps a basic level of energy use available to all cheaply) Thats carbon taxing on everything.
So imagine all your energy costs are 5 times as high. Now imagine the impact on your lifestyle. Imagine that energy intensive goods like consumer electronics cost 5 times as much. Imagine locally produced food becomes cheaper and imported food much more expensive. Imagine meat is 5 times the price.
Imagine petrol at £10 a litre. You are not going to use your car much at all.
These are the sorts of levels of change needed. Now imagine a democratic government trying to get elected on this manifesto
You have much more than you accept. the issue is you will not accept solutions that compromise your lifestyle.
You keep using this word, what you're actually talking about sacrifice. We're long past the point of compromise.
I could have compromised 22 years ago and stayed in a dead end job within easy cycle commuting distance of my shitty tiny house with shitty addict neighbours and regular visits from police, fire and ambulance. I'd probably have lost my job 5 times over by now (aerospace sector really isn't doing that well these days) and taken other shitty dead end jobs in the locale. Probably would have been burgled a couple of times by now as well, there were 3 attempts in the 4 years i was there. And there aren't any nice areas, with affordable houses, unless i had been born 15-20 years earlier than i actually was.
Now i'd either have to sacrifice living in a nice place or having a well paid interesting job and sending my kids to a decent school.
Infact, i'd probably have to sacrifice all three, because they are all inextricably linked. It's how they (capitailists) keep us under some semblance of control.
Call it sacrifice or call it compromise. It still applies. Without radical solutions the planet will become virtually uninhabitable in your childrens lifetimes. We must use less energy each - a lot less
The basic problem is as Mert explains - people will not accept the massive changes needed.
These are the sorts of levels of change needed. Now imagine a democratic government trying to get elected on this manifesto
What about people in manual, low paid work. How do you propose they get to work with petrol at £10 litre? A lot of industrial estates in my neck of the woods are in relatively affluent areas. People are traveling from long distance to get to work on long or staggered shifts where public transport isn’t an option. Jobless figures would be huge and that would cause a new set of issues. How would you deal with these?
The basic problem is as Mert explains – people will not accept the massive changes needed.
But they have to be realistic surely? Killing a large percentage of the world population, not feasible or a good idea.
Making everything exorbitantly expensive, has some merit, but those already living in poverty?
By ramping this up over decades allowing time for society changes as the energy costs bite as a general solution.
As for the specifics of that situation? Changes in work patterns, paying folk more, employer to provide mass transport ie buses or maybe the employer will have to relocate or go bust
Whats that phrase about omelettes and eggs?
We either accept the massive dislocation in order to implement a much lower energy lifestyle or we deal with the massive dislocations years later from global warming. Thats our choice as a planet
But they have to be realistic surely?
Yes indeed. But realistic also means that they will have a significant effect on greenhouse gas emissions. Because without that we are looking at mass starvation ie people dying by the billion. this is the scale of the problem
I fully understand the scale and urgency of the problem. What you’re proposing will just cause a separate set of issues. Mass unemployment and an economy in a worse condition than the current one. That will bring with it its own set of climate related issues.
Enployers paying folk more and providing mass transportation. As a retired NHS worker you should know this will not work in 99.9% of situations 😊
Molgrips
We’re trying to have it. So let’s talk about my point 3.
How much should we be prepared to lose from our lifestyles?
What for ?
I bought some bamboo socks what else do you want and why?
So imagine all your energy costs are 5 times as high. Now imagine the impact on your lifestyle. Imagine that energy intensive goods like consumer electronics cost 5 times as much. Imagine locally produced food becomes cheaper and imported food much more expensive. Imagine meat is 5 times the price.
Imagine petrol at £10 a litre. You are not going to use your car much at all.
Ok so this is a much better discussion.
I agree about the energy taxation and usage, but I think you also need a system of tax credits, as some people depend more on energy than others. For example, the poor person living in a Welsh village in an old house will be penalised much more than a professional person WFH in a middle class new build that came with solar panels.
How about we ramp up carbon tax via import duties based on that country's carbon output, and the shipping miles? That would be an interesting one.
Could it be means tested similar to benefits but taking current energy usage in to account? So means plus education
tjagain
We must use less energy each – a lot less
The basic problem is as Mert explains – people will not accept the massive changes needed.
Who are these people won't accept the changes?
Millions swapped their diesel cars for petrol because that's more eco so must have lower CO2 emissions right?
Millions make longer journeys because driving through cities produces more CO2 than a 100 mile detour gpoing around right?
I got some bamboo socks so some panda is going hungry but hey must be better for climate change to ship bamboo from China than wear synthetic socks.
I stuck my 100kg of packaging in the recycling ... I mean it's being recycled right and the more we recycle the better - well I chucked the big car battery in their as well that was 35kg by itself?
I stopped using plastic crush washers .. it leaks toxic oil over the trails and my forks only last 6mo but hey.. that pretty much reversed global warming right?
I just built a 37 story concrete tower block but its called "Eco tower" and I planted a tree in the forecourt...
I have up given whale meat and campaign against nuclear power because both these are the main causes of global warming right?
What else do you want people to do?
Maybe we need to concentrate on things that actually make a difference to climate change not some "eco warrior" philosophy
You can give everyone a personal energy budget ( half average personal use?) at low cost and then make any usage over this at a very high cost
Molgrips - in your scenario tho the pensioner will be in total using less energy per person I bet. Yes their heating may be more but their other energy use will be less.
funkmaster - this massive dislocation is coming anyway. We either deal with it in a controlled manner now or let global warming mean its uncontrolled
this is the key. We cannot carry on as we are or even in a similar manner. We have to have radical change. As radical as the industrial revolution changed society
Late to this but really the thread title is pretty silly. There are no simple to implement solutions. We need root and branch economic and political reform to move to a sustainable economic model which is based on renewables and living within the planet's means. That means an end to global capitalism as it currently exists. All this 'what can we do that is easy' stuff simply distracts us from the core problem.
Now this is a much more positive debate. A personal energy budget sounds good. Are we talking a sensible kWh allowance at low rate, ramped up once threshold is met? Do we do this regardless of energy source, renewable versus fossil?
You can give everyone a personal energy budget ( half average personal use?) at low cost and then make any usage over this at a very high cost
But that just means that rich folks (who do most of the polluting) will carry on using more energy surely?
funkmaster. Yes pretty much
Nickc - depends how big the ramp up is. If it starts costing them the equivalent of £1000 a litre to drive their car because they have used double their personal energy budget already?
There's a twitter acct that uses publicly available information to track celebrities/billionaires private aircraft use. He revealed that recently Elon Musk used his personal jet to fly about 6 miles - it would have taken him about the same time to travel in one his Teslas. These folks are already spending £1000/litre to travel.
How much should we be prepared to lose from our lifestyles?
A lot. I would do this with punative energy taxation ( ramped up over a decade or two and with perhaps a basic level of energy use available to all cheaply) Thats carbon taxing on everything.
No thanks. I dont want to do that. How will that benefit me or those I care about. I dont know anyone who will still be alive in 100 years which is the blink of an eye in climate change terms.
And here is lies the heart of the problem. No one who can make a change will be alive when the consequences of not making that change hit. I know changes are happening now but no one cares. Look at what happened recently with the flooding in Bangladesh, no one really cared. No one really cared when New Orleans disappeared underwater for weeks. Sure there was a short term reaction to help the people but no real change of substance.
I think trying to price people out of energy use is a non-starter. The very rich are already happily paying a privacy/exclusivity/availability/space tax that they can well afford. I think the only way is make the impact of all the activity as less energy consuming as possible
chrismac - in your childrens lifetimes? Depending how old you are it could be in yours. 50 years until the collapse happens is my guess. Its already starting now. Next couple of years we will know more.
This is a real safety bug bear of mine, everyone has their main beam on in 30mph zones making visibility worse of everyone at night when side lights are all you need.
If [checks notes] "cars using headlights at night" is your biggest problem, you might need glasses. Putting everyone on sidelights makes things MORE dangerous, because it only takes one lamp to fail and that half of the car is now in darkness. Not only that, reflective clothing requires a projected beam from the car (ie headlight) and won't work properly off the glow-worm that is a sidelight.
My suggestion: anyone found sitting in their car eating lunch / making business phone calls / sleeping etc with the engine running is immediately burned in a public incinerator. Energy recovered goes to providing communal hot water to the local area.
Molgrips – in your scenario tho the pensioner will be in total using less energy per person I bet. Yes their heating may be more but their other energy use will be less.
I didn't mention pensioners. My point is that rural economies depend on travel much more than urban ones do. If you live in a village of 1,000 people chances are you won't find work in the village. So you need to drive. Public transport isn't even feasible in those locations and driving is probably the best way to get around. So people who live there might need more tax credits. Otherwise you risk the countryside becoming a rich person's playground rather than a real living place - which is of course already happening to an extent.
Don't get me wrong - this kind of thing is needed but it has to be competently planned. It's not enough just to whack fuel duty up without doing anything else.
. If you live in a village of 1,000 people chances are you won’t find work in the village. So you need to drive.
So you either need to work from home, move work to the village, move people to where work is or provide a low carbon form of travel for them. You don't "need to drive"
Again - the solutions all need massive changes in society.
Just reminding the thread that we've Thanos'd the shit out of our animal life. 70% dead in the last 50 years. - Way in excess of a fantasy character clicking his fingers.
Why aren't we rioting in the streets demanding change?
Oh yes. We don't really give a shit.
My point is that rural economies depend on travel much more than urban ones do. If you live in a village of 1,000 people chances are you won’t find work in the village. So you need to drive. Public transport isn’t even feasible in those locations and driving is probably the best way to get around. So people who live there might need more tax credits. Otherwise you risk the countryside becoming a rich person’s playground rather than a real living place – which is of course already happening to an extent.
Allow housebuilding and infrastructure in the green belt. We need affordable housing more than we need pretty countryside. New genuinely affordable housing, specifically council housing that people can rent securely for life and put down roots and become invested in their environment. It could be built with decent insulation, gardens to grow food and solar power... will never happen though, everyone wants to be a property mogul. Keep shoe-horning more and more people into a finite number of housing stock just so people can feel good about their rising house prices. Then wonder why nobody gives a ****.
Just reminding the thread that we’ve Thanos’d the shit out of our animal life. 70% dead in the last 50 years. – Way in excess of a fantasy character clicking his fingers.
really? I must’ve missed the other five times you posted this. Who is ‘we’ in your scenario? Some of us do give a shit and are working to try and change the minds of others but not being a bit of a **** about it. Don’t forget in your child’s analogy that he did half of life in the universe. We’re not quite there yet.
Just reminding the thread that we’ve Thanos’d the shit out of our animal life. 70% dead in the last 50 years. – Way in excess of a fantasy character clicking his fingers.
Why aren’t we rioting in the streets demanding change?
Oh yes. We don’t really give a shit.
Maybe because there are way more important issues like climate change?
Maybe because there are way more important issues like climate change?
Protecting wildlife and wildlife habitats is integral to combating climate change. They're not either/or decisions, you have to do both. Monbiot has done loads of stuff about re-wilding and how it is a fundamental part of the climate change response.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/apr/03/natural-world-climate-catastrophe-rewilding
Don’t forget in your child’s analogy that he did half of life in the universe. We’re not quite there yet
Do you know something everyone else doesn't?
Great timing by the guardian
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/oct/27/climate-crisis-un-pathway-1-5-c
Failure to cut carbon emissions means ‘rapid transformation of societies’ is only option to limit impacts, report says
"We had our chance to make incremental changes, but that time is over. Only a root-and-branch transformation of our economies and societies can save us from accelerating climate disaster."
Do you know something everyone else doesn’t?
still got all the humans and bacteria plus other microscopic life forms and the rest is an unknown so just playing it safe 😉
Wowzers.
Maybe because there are way more important issues like climate change?
If you don't understand how climate change and ecological devestation are both intimately and irrevocably linked, that the same problems are causal for both and the solutions to both are largely the same solutions, and further if you're not alarmed by the astonishing rate of biosphere decline at least equally to the (related) warming of the planet problem - and understand that this is an existential issue for life on the planet as we know it - then you lack the capacity for any meaningful contribution in the debate.
Of course, you can give your opinion, but it's like an anti-vaxxers opinion on cellular biology. Pointless to listen to.
@tjagain has shown a real grasp of the issue, and a grasp of why we're not making it. The George Monibot video @dazh posted is the shortest, simplest version of the argument.
Are we willing to completely change the fundamentals of everything we do, in short order, despite the fact that we know it'll hurt millions of people?
If the answer to that is no (which it is) then we're wasting our breath.
Late to this but really the thread title is pretty silly. There are no simple to implement solutions. We need root and branch economic and political reform to move to a sustainable economic model which is based on renewables and living within the planet’s means. That means an end to global capitalism as it currently exists. All this ‘what can we do that is easy’ stuff simply distracts us from the core problem.
This.
So you either need to work from home, move work to the village, move people to where work is or provide a low carbon form of travel for them. You don’t “need to drive”
Aye so the guy working at the hydro/water plant up a glen?
I get made redundant and need to find work elsewhere, what about my wife and family?
How about learning how to wash the dishes without constantly running the hot water before criticising people for trying to make a living. It's not as easy as you think and tbh it's now beyond tedious. You are not the blueprint for humanity, hate to break it to you.
You’re just an angry man on the internet who doesn’t like the unavoidable actual solutions – so are raging against them in any non-evidence-based way you can.
LMAO, says the sociopath advocating mass death. Like I said before, be the change you want and lead by example.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/oct/27/climate-crisis-un-pathway-1-5-c
There is “no credible pathway to 1.5C in place”, the UN’s environment agency has said, and the failure to reduce carbon emissions means the only way to limit the worst impacts of the climate crisis is a “rapid transformation of societies”.
...
LMAO, says the sociopath advocating mass death. Like I said before, be the change you want and lead by example.
I'm not advocating mass death. You clearly can't read. I clearly argued for a 1 child limit - and massive tax on anyone who has more than one - so you're still free to pump out annoying whiners if you like. That would make a massive difference to human population in just 50 years.
As for being the change I want and leading by example - as posted multiple times: been there, done that.
What have you done?
No more uplifts. 😮
. If you live in a village of 1,000 people chances are you won’t find work in the village. So you need to drive.
So you either need to work from home, move work to the village, move people to where work is or provide a low carbon form of travel for them. You don’t “need to drive”
Again – the solutions all need massive changes in society
From a carbon perspective how long will it take for the reduced travel to and from work to offset the carbon consumed creating the low carbon form of travel? How many miles have to be driven until you get to the volume of carbon emitted before this is more than the carbon required to manufacture the low carbon transport and operate it until you get to that point?
It’s like all the nonsense around electric cars at the moment. If you have a 5 year old diesel or petrol car that works fine how long do you have to carry on driving it to offset the pollution and carbon emissions of building and running an EV before it has produced less pollution? A 5 year old car already exists so the pollution and carbon used making it has already been emitted so it starts from zero as of today
chrismac – in your childrens lifetimes? Depending how old you are it could be in yours. 50 years until the collapse happens is my guess. Its already starting now. Next couple of years we will know more.
No. I dont have any and its unlikely to be in my lifetime
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/oct/27/shell-doubles-its-profits-to-95bn
Shell has paid zero windfall tax in the UK despite making record global profits of nearly $30bn (£26bn) so far this year after exploiting a tax break brought in by Rishi Sunak
[Shell] said it had not paid the levy and did not expect to throughout 2022, ... in part because of heaving spending on drilling more oil in the North Sea
Well done Rishi.
We're not, as a society, doing even the very simple basics - i.e. not drilling for MORE oil. Still subsidising the oil, coal and gas industry to the tune of billions - whilst in the UK we've removed all effective subsidy for renewables.
Renewables are so cheap, they don't technically need subsidy. But we're still subsidising the fuel sources that are killing us.
If you have a 5 year old diesel or petrol car that works fine how long do you have to carry on driving it to offset the pollution and carbon emissions of building and running an EV before it has produced less pollution?
A long long time because EVs do not reduce pollution significantly.
EVs are not a part of the solution Reducing the amount of people miles driven is part of the solution
So you either need to work from home, move work to the village, move people to where work
Right. So moving costs money, doesn't it? If you lose your job and need a new one, how do you move if you can't afford it? Ah but your partner still works locally, do they need to find a new job? Yes? But finding new work isn't very easy, so the chances of finding one can be quite slim. And you know, you're poor country folk so you don't have a lot of savings.
is or provide a low carbon form of travel for them
Oh.. hmm.. that sounds a bit like a technological solution to me. You can't really lay on public transport because the numbers are so low, and the destinations so diverse you'd have empty busses. So hey, let's downsize to cars. But wait, that's driving. You can't pay someone to take you to work every day, really, because the economics of paying a load of people to drive you around at 8am don't stack up because the drivers also need paying. So this is beginning to sound a lot like driving. But wait - one person per car is pretty inefficient, so let's see if we can match up people who want to go to the same places or along the same routes. That way cars could satisfy multiple journey requirements. Sounds good.
So now after 10 pages I've finally got you to understand the thing that I posted on page 2. Maybe instead of just shouting people down you should listen and discuss a bit more?
EVs are not a part of the solution Reducing the amount of people miles driven is part of the solution
Reducing miles driven (by people and goods) is absolutely part of the solution, but we still need some miles to be driven. And they need to be in EVs, because they most definitely do reduce emissions quite a bit. These are but two parts to the solution, there are many others.
If you have a 5 year old diesel or petrol car that works fine how long do you have to carry on driving it to offset the pollution and carbon emissions of building and running an EV before it has produced less pollution?
Loads of calculations on the internet covering this. There is a sunk carbon cost in manufacturing, and a running carbon cost. Depending on how many miles are driven the lower running cost outweighs the manufacturing cost in as little as three years, depending on which study you use. And of course where your car was built.
So now after 10 pages I’ve finally got you to understand the thing that I posted on page 2
Nope. I still fundamentally disagree with you and its not me that does not understand
you cannot prevent global warming without massive changes to society. thats the bit you have to ccept and you will not.
Its you that is not listening.
But wait – one person per car is pretty inefficient, so let’s see if we can match up people who want to go to the same places or along the same routes. That way cars could satisfy multiple journey requirements. Sounds good.
In theory. In the real world nobody wants to share their space and it takes away the spontaneity of jumping in the car to go and do something.
job
work
partner still works
We're getting to the crux of the issue here - that awful four letter word: WORK. Why is everyone running around like headless chickens working all the time? Oh yeah, to pay for shit they don't need and rent/mortgages. The whole system needs binning and starting again.
There is “no credible pathway to 1.5C in place”, the UN’s environment agency has said, and the failure to reduce carbon emissions means the only way to limit the worst impacts of the climate crisis is a “rapid transformation of societies”.
The whole system needs binning and starting again.
Nope. I still fundamentally disagree with you and its not me that does not understand
you cannot prevent global warming without massive changes to society
I am in favour of massive change to society. We both agree on this.
What I am asking is HOW we make those changes. That is the bit you are not engaging on.
Why is everyone running around like headless chickens working all the time? Oh yeah, to pay for shit they don’t need
Hmm yes but also to pay for things we do need.
A lot of people criticising the capitalist system, but I have to say that finding an alternative is not going to be easy.
A lot of people criticising the capitalist system, but I have to say that finding an alternative is not going to be easy.
Absolutely. Totally agree, which is why we end up back at -
We're doomed
No amount of yoghurt pot sorting is going to fix it.
you cannot prevent global warming without massive changes to society. thats the bit you have to ccept and you will not.
The world, let alone UK population is not going accept never going on foreign holidays again, nor are they going to accept giving up private transport just like they're not going to accept eugenics nor everyone being shot in the head and fed into a biomass plant upon their retirement day.
You can argue all you want for these things to happen, get all het up and on blood pressure meds about these changes not happening but it will come to nothing and all you're arguing will be a pointless and counter-productive waste of time.
Instead why not work on what IS possible and what can be within your sphere of influence. For one example - Heating homes (ignoring insulation for now) - it's inefficient to have a block of flats with 16 individual gas combo boilers per stair and 10 stairs per tenement block. What is more efficient - district heating through a heat pump and there is work underway bringing that forward. TJ, if Im not mistaken you live in a Leith Tenement - this is something you could actually be petitioning for and helping make happen.
Again does you tenement block have its roof bedecked with PV panels? No? Then go make it happen.
Be the person driving the change, don't spend your time whining that others aren't doing enough.
Protecting wildlife and wildlife habitats is integral to combating climate change. They’re not either/or decisions, you have to do both. Monbiot has done loads of stuff about re-wilding and how it is a fundamental part of the climate change response.
George Monbiot
We don’t want natural climate solutions to be used as a substitute for the rapid and comprehensive decarbonisation of our economies.
On the whole I think telling people we have to reintroduce wolves and bears isn't going to go down well or make much difference
More importantly after decades of contradictory information and being misled unless we focus on climate change and move attention away from fringe groups who have been pushing "green"/"eco" for decades and the bandwagon companies that are selling "green"/"eco" greenwash we can forget getting the masses onside until its WAY WAY too late.
TJ, if Im not mistaken you live in a Leith Tenement – this is something you could actually be petitioning for and helping make happen.
Again does you tenement block have its roof bedecked with PV panels? No? Then go make it happen.
Unfortunately because of the specifics of my building neither is possible under current laws / building arrangements
There's some bison 🦬 wandering around Kent now so we'll need some wolves 🐺 to eat them.
The world, let alone UK population is not going accept never going on foreign holidays again, nor are they going to accept giving up private transport
They will be forced to as the biosphere collapse occurs. its either we do this in a controlled manner now or its done as a result of the oncoming catastrophe
So you either need to work from home, move work to the village, move people to where work is or provide a low carbon form of travel for them. You don’t “need to drive”
Again – the solutions all need massive changes in society.
The problem with what you're saying is that you're providing the end result, but without any kind of credible plan to get there it's not in any way a "solution", it's a pipedream. How do you realistically propose to get to this point?
I have said many times. convert the economy to carbon taxation and over a generation ramp it up. Make the polluter pay.
If you have a 5 year old diesel or petrol car that works fine how long do you have to carry on driving it to offset the pollution and carbon emissions of building and running an EV before it has produced less pollution?
Loads of calculations on the internet covering this. There is a sunk carbon cost in manufacturing, and a running carbon cost. Depending on how many miles are driven the lower running cost outweighs the manufacturing cost in as little as three years, depending on which study you use. And of course where your car was built.
Only you just pretty much ignored pollution with the exception of CO2.
(and how the electricity for the EV is generated)
Not that disagree about what's important but we now have a genuine climate emergency and the general public see it as the rest of the "green" bollox they've been fed for the last decades. A tragic boy who cried wolf on a monumental scale.
its either we do this in a controlled manner now or its done as a result of the oncoming catastrophe
Good point. I don't know why people think they will be able to jump on a cheap flight to the costas in a post climate collapse society. They'll be too busy hunting small mammals, collecting water and trying to grow vegetables to feed their families.
Make the polluter pay.
I'm not convinced that this is a good strategy. The biggest individual polluters (the rich) are already willing to pay more for their lifestyle of Flights in 1st or private jets, larger houses, larger cars. They can afford it and are willing to pay for it. I think we have to concentrate of ameliorating the effects of the way we live rather than wholesale change of the way we live, it's the only way that will be acceptable in a democratic society.
its either we do this in a controlled manner now or its done as a result of the oncoming catastrophe
It'll probably cause the opposite intended action. People will want to fly more whilst they still can. We'll take 'oncoming catastrophe' please over slight compromise any day of the week. I WORK hard all week why shouldn't I have four holidays abroad per year, I DESERVE IT, and anyway I wash my yoghurt pots, you should take action against the man next door who doesn't recycle... etc etc.
I think we have to concentrate of ameliorating the effects of the way we live rather than wholesale change of the way we live, it’s the only way that will be acceptable in a democratic society.
unfortunately following that path means the biosphere collapse going to happen. thats a recipe for runaway global warming. Once the collapse occurs there is no ameliorating anything significantly - we are talking billions dying of starvation