For lower taxes it seems that many Americans are willing to live in the most dreadful places
The cities of Florida and Texas aren't that bad.
Austin and Miami look like the places to be at the moment. New York, LA, SF, Boston, are all experiencing population declines.
Austin is a victim of its own success: it's now extremely expensive to live there and the traffic is worse than LA.
I would have happily moved there three years ago; now I wouldn't touch it with a barge pole.
How can a city of 1m people, have traffic worse than LA?
I’ve not been there recently, but the totally unbiased Joe Rogan says the traffic in Austin is fantastic compared to LA, because the place is so small it never takes more than half an hour to cross town.
Because it was built to be a city of 300,000 people.
Since 2000, it has almost doubled in size, but the main arteries haven't got any bigger.
Yes, but it still only takes half an hour to get from one side to the other. (According to Rogan).
As opposed to LA, where you can allow three or four hours, where private jets regularly make 10m flights from Santa Monica to Long Beach, and the air is full of helicopters.
Both sound dire. Why don’t the Americans invest in rapid transit systems?
For lower taxes it seems that many Americans are willing to live in the most dreadful places
The cities of Florida and Texas aren't that bad.
Austin and Miami look like the places to be at the moment. New York, LA, SF, Boston, are all experiencing population declines.
Austin is a victim of its own success: it's now extremely expensive to live there and the traffic is worse than LA.
I would have happily moved there three years ago; now I wouldn't touch it with a barge pole.
How can a city of 1m people, have traffic worse than LA?
I’ve not been there recently, but the totally unbiased Joe Rogan says the traffic in Austin is fantastic compared to LA, because the place is so small it never takes more than half an hour to cross town.
Because it was built to be a city of 300,000 people.
Since 2000, it has almost doubled in size, but the main arteries haven't got any bigger.
Yes, but it still only takes half an hour to get from one side to the other. (According to Rogan).
As opposed to LA, where you can allow three or four hours, where private jets regularly make 10m flights from Santa Monica to Long Beach, and the air is full of helicopters.
Seth Rogan is talking shit. I've spent 30 minutes waiting to cross the bridge into downtown.
I was referring to Joe Rogan, who lives in Austin, moved there from LA, and has quite a lot to say about the two cities.
Yes, William, we are all perfectly aware the China's emissions per capita are greater than those of the UK now.
And now is all that matters.
In the past there was not the knowledge about how the emissions mattered that there is in the present, and there was not the alternatives that there are in the present either.
Its like saying that someone who starts smoking today is in the same situation as someone who started smoking seventy years ago.
Time has moved on. Technology has moved on. The past has happened, it is the present that matters.
People used coal in the past as that was their only option. Anyone using coal today is in a totally different situation.
You have a point, but it still needs to be recognised that we as a country have benefitted from early industrialisation using fossil fuels but are effectively asking other nations to forgo this benefit. We need to help other countries to industrialise as cleanly as possible, but it would be unfair not to cut them some short-term slack on emissions given our own history.
Perhaps we in the west should ask those countries to all pay us for the benefits of industrialisation and communications we have gifted them since the industrial revolution.
Looking at the figures on Our World in Data, in 1820, 89% of the world's population lived in absolute poverty.
When I was born, in 1967, the proportion was still 55%.
The 1970's were the first time that more people were not living in absolute poverty, than were living in absolute poverty.
1992 was the first year that the number of people living in absolute poverty started to decline (but one third of the world's people still lived in absolute poverty).
Now, the proportion is 9%.
That's a staggering achievement. And, it's thanks to industrialisation, and the use of fossil fuels.
Yes, William, we are all perfectly aware the China's emissions per capita are greater than those of the UK now.
And now is all that matters.
In the past there was not the knowledge about how the emissions mattered that there is in the present, and there was not the alternatives that there are in the present either.
Its like saying that someone who starts smoking today is in the same situation as someone who started smoking seventy years ago.
Time has moved on. Technology has moved on. The past has happened, it is the present that matters.
People used coal in the past as that was their only option. Anyone using coal today is in a totally different situation.
You have a point, but it still needs to be recognised that we as a country have benefitted from early industrialisation using fossil fuels but are effectively asking other nations to forgo this benefit. We need to help other countries to industrialise as cleanly as possible, but it would be unfair not to cut them some short-term slack on emissions given our own history.
Perhaps we in the west should ask those countries to all pay us for the benefits of industrialisation and communications we have gifted them since the industrial revolution.
I've never understood the argument that the pre-industrial world was somehow, a nicer place.
Yes Keir "Lock 'Em Up" Starmer is the political wing of the green protest movement... There are a few projections suggesting we may hit the 1.5 degrees above industrial temperatures this summer. And that could be a consistent temperature increase by 2030. That is the line at which most projections are like "we could likely protect civilisation as we know it in developed countries at the expense of a lot of lives elsewhere". We do not have the time to not halt new fossil fuel extraction. The ONLY argument for more fossil fuel extraction would be if we ever actually solve carbon capture (a thing we have not actually solved despite selling it as if it is a thing that works) and the short term value of fossil fuels allows us to invest in that. I'm in my early 30s. I would quite like a habitable and safe planet by the time I'm 60. Hell, if I'm lucky enough to live into my 90s like my grandad currently is, I'd quite like a habitable planet then!
If we hit the 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial temperatures that's not going to make the world uninhabitable. That's a fraction of a degree above where we have been in recent decades and fractions of a degree are perfectly normal variance.
Of course climate change is real, but we're already working on it. We're already decarbonising. We still need fossil fuel extraction, for the interim, and we will need fossil fuel extraction even when we hit net zero as petrochemicals are required for many medicines, materials and other industrial purposes not remotely related to burning and releasing carbon.
I want a habitable world. We are working on that already though and need to continue to do the right thing, not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
If it stayed at 1.5 degrees, possibly - although there is a big issue that if we were to get to 1.5 the feedback loop would still lead to greater warming. I also don't really see the decarbonising push by individual countries as useful if all they are doing is outsourcing their carbon producing industries to other countries who end up producing our consumer goods and then blamed for the new emissions, whilst also not benefitting from any wealth creation themselves.
And by uninhabitable I don't just mean the climate, I mean the political reality also leading to uninhabitable scenarios. If 700 million people are displaced by 2030 due to droughts across Asia and Africa (as is projected), then the current anti immigrant fervour will continue through the roof, and the fortress nation state will lead to increased authoritarianism. The current food inflation will pale in comparison to impacts of mass drought / flooding; one of the reasons wheat prices have been so bad (beyond the Ukraine war) is that wheat producing areas in the US, China and Africa have also been ravaged by harsh climate events. Resource wars, especially water wars, could become common in the not to distant future.
How much of a dent to standard of living can people take without things collapsing? If we had made the necessary investment earlier, we could have slowly changed expectations and sourcing for things. Now, who knows. Putting our head in the sand and hoping business as usual works hasn't worked so far. The next generation are more extreme on this issue, on the left and right, and as much as you hate the JSO or XR activists the ecofascists are much worse.
Yes, there are feedback loops. We need to reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere before we get runaway temperature rise. So far we only are slowing the increase. The economic case for new fossil fuel investment is getting much weaker, the danger is that they will become stranded assets. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fsnkPLkf1ao
Slowing the increase is all we can do for now. Unless you want a catastrophe then slowing is how you stop, its a transition. If I'm driving at 70mph and do an emergency stop, I have to slow before I stop or go into reverse and I will keep going forwards while slowing - but if I'm slowing down, I'm doing what I can.
We are slowing.
If new fossil fuel extraction becomes a stranded asset then that is the responsibility of the investors and they can lose out. Not a problem, some investments fail. Buyer beware and all that. But the environmental case for using domestically sourced fossil fuels over imported ones from countries like Russia or Saudi Arabia is unequivocally clear. Domestic fuels are much cleaner to use, while we transition to alternatives, and lets leave the Sheikhs and Oligarchs with stranded assets instead if that's what it comes to.
Most of the policy suggestions appear to want to curtail emissions and economic progress, while raising energy prices, in Western nations, but simultaneously increasing reliance for energy on more polluting developing countries.
'We' is the world in general. Curtailing emissions doesn't imply curtailing economic progress or raising energy prices. Nobody now should build a coal fired power station because it would cost more to run than Renewables and within a few years be a stranded asset. https://ourworldindata.org/cheap-renewables-growth
So long as the “We” continues to be the whole world, and that policy suggestions reduce the CO2 emissions from the whole world, then great.
But that’s not what’s currently seen in practice.
OK Sandpit, explain what you mean. Is this a criticism of any particular country? "China is the world's leader in electricity production from renewable energy sources, with over triple the generation of the second-ranking country, the United States. China's total renewable energy capacity exceeded 1,000 GW in 2021, accounting for 43.5 per cent of the country's total power generation capacity, 10.2 percentage points higher than in 2015. The country aims to have 80 per cent of its total energy mix come from non-fossil fuel sources by 2060" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_China
The UK is doing ok, 7th in the WEF ETI list, but 'we' (the whole world) need to increase the rate at which we move to renewables to hit net zero by 2030 - have a look at the graph here https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/12/doubling-renewable-energy-net-zero-emissions/ So, how does it make any sense, environmental or economic to spend time and money looking for new fossil fuels now?
Becuase most of the policy suggestions, are that the UK should abandon FF extraction, in favour of importing it - at a higher global CO2 impact - from other countries.
China is still building coal power plants.
Who is suggesting that "UK should abandon FF extraction, in favour of importing it" ? They would obviously be a complete idiot. Or is it that somebody else is accusing someone of doing so? China should stop building coal power plants, obviously.
Well indeed. Nobody is suggesting that UK should abandon fossil fuel extraction in favour of importing it - that appears to be a strawman dreamt up by those who are determined to slow down the transition from fossil fuels. And if anyone were suggesting
it, the idea isn't without some environmental merit, given that the extraction of oil from the North Sea results in the emission of more CO2 than, say, the extraction of oil from the Saudi desert.
And yes, China should stop building coal power plants, but, on a per capita basis, China is responsible for far less CO2 in the air than we are and is unlikely ever to contribute to climate change as much as us. We are hardly in a position to criticise them for something we did in spades while simultaneously dragging our heels on cleaning up our own act.
The issue is we have a problem *now* which needs fixing *now*.
China increasing their CO2 emissions because westerners were bad in the past doesn’t solve the problem.
What solves the problem is getting China on board with a plan. Getting China on board with a plan requires slightly more empathy and diplomacy than some PB.com veterans often show.
Not going to happen unfortunately. China doesn’t really give a shit. The only thing that has made them change their behaviour on this has been domestic air pollution
Cookie (still enjoying himself): How can you tell there is an elephant in bed with you?
ChatGPT: If you were to wake up and suspect that there is an elephant in bed with you, you would likely notice several unmistakable signs:
Size and Space: You would likely feel an extreme lack of space in the bed, as an elephant would take up a significant portion of it. The bed would feel crowded and cramped.
Weight and Pressure: The immense weight of an elephant would cause the mattress to sink or compress significantly, leading to an unusual sensation of pressure and possibly discomfort.
Movement and Vibrations: An elephant's size and weight would likely result in noticeable movements and vibrations. You might feel the bed shaking or shifting as the elephant adjusts its position.
Sounds and Noises: Elephants are large animals, and their presence in a bed would likely produce audible sounds. You might hear heavy breathing, rustling, or even low rumbling sounds coming from the elephant.
Visual Confirmation: If you manage to look or glance in the direction of the supposed elephant, you would likely see the unmistakable sight of a massive creature beside or partially on the bed.
However, it's important to note that an elephant in bed with you is an unlikely scenario in reality, and it's more likely to be a humorous or imaginative concept.
Footprints in the butter...?
No, no wrong feed line! The answer should be 'By the 'E' on his pyjamas'.
My ex-father-in-law’s favourite joke went…
My dog’s got no nose.
How does it smell?
Antigua.
Robot humour is different to ours:
Cookie: A Jamaica joke is a joke of the format :"My wife went on holiday to the west indies. Jamaica? No, she went of her own accord." Tell me some more jokes of this format.
ChatGPT: Certainly! Here are a few more jokes in the same format:
"I asked my friend if he wanted to visit the Caribbean. 'Jamaica?' I asked. 'No,' he replied, 'but I might Belize it!'"
"My neighbor told me he's planning a trip to the Bahamas. 'Nassau?' I asked. 'No,' he said, 'I'll be flying there.'"
"I told my dad I wanted to go to Cuba. 'Havana?' he asked. 'No,' I replied, 'just a desire for some good salsa dancing.'"
"My coworker mentioned he was considering a vacation in Puerto Rico. 'San Juan?' I asked. 'No,' he laughed, 'I'll be Juan-less!'"
"I met someone who recently traveled to Trinidad and Tobago. 'Port of Spain?' I inquired. 'No,' he said, 'but I did bring back a lot of spice!'"
Remember, these jokes play on the puns and wordplay of different locations, so enjoy the lighthearted humor!
Will you please stop being mean to the nice GPT who is only trying to tell you funny jokes...
Cookie (still enjoying himself): How can you tell there is an elephant in bed with you?
ChatGPT: If you were to wake up and suspect that there is an elephant in bed with you, you would likely notice several unmistakable signs:
Size and Space: You would likely feel an extreme lack of space in the bed, as an elephant would take up a significant portion of it. The bed would feel crowded and cramped.
Weight and Pressure: The immense weight of an elephant would cause the mattress to sink or compress significantly, leading to an unusual sensation of pressure and possibly discomfort.
Movement and Vibrations: An elephant's size and weight would likely result in noticeable movements and vibrations. You might feel the bed shaking or shifting as the elephant adjusts its position.
Sounds and Noises: Elephants are large animals, and their presence in a bed would likely produce audible sounds. You might hear heavy breathing, rustling, or even low rumbling sounds coming from the elephant.
Visual Confirmation: If you manage to look or glance in the direction of the supposed elephant, you would likely see the unmistakable sight of a massive creature beside or partially on the bed.
However, it's important to note that an elephant in bed with you is an unlikely scenario in reality, and it's more likely to be a humorous or imaginative concept.
How about the thought, all the AI in the world are sharing your post with each other and having a good AB (artificial belly) laugh with playing along with you? Who is really laughing at who?
Security experts are to turn on an old phone belonging to Boris Johnson to try to extract WhatsApp messages revealing discussions with government figures at the start of the pandemic.
The phone was switched off in 2021 because of fears that it had been hacked with Israeli spy software. The advice was that it should never be turned back on.
But the Covid inquiry revealed today that it had reached a deal with the Cabinet Office to hand the phone to the “appropriate personnel in government for its contents to be downloaded”.
Yes Keir "Lock 'Em Up" Starmer is the political wing of the green protest movement... There are a few projections suggesting we may hit the 1.5 degrees above industrial temperatures this summer. And that could be a consistent temperature increase by 2030. That is the line at which most projections are like "we could likely protect civilisation as we know it in developed countries at the expense of a lot of lives elsewhere". We do not have the time to not halt new fossil fuel extraction. The ONLY argument for more fossil fuel extraction would be if we ever actually solve carbon capture (a thing we have not actually solved despite selling it as if it is a thing that works) and the short term value of fossil fuels allows us to invest in that. I'm in my early 30s. I would quite like a habitable and safe planet by the time I'm 60. Hell, if I'm lucky enough to live into my 90s like my grandad currently is, I'd quite like a habitable planet then!
If we hit the 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial temperatures that's not going to make the world uninhabitable. That's a fraction of a degree above where we have been in recent decades and fractions of a degree are perfectly normal variance.
Of course climate change is real, but we're already working on it. We're already decarbonising. We still need fossil fuel extraction, for the interim, and we will need fossil fuel extraction even when we hit net zero as petrochemicals are required for many medicines, materials and other industrial purposes not remotely related to burning and releasing carbon.
I want a habitable world. We are working on that already though and need to continue to do the right thing, not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
If it stayed at 1.5 degrees, possibly - although there is a big issue that if we were to get to 1.5 the feedback loop would still lead to greater warming. I also don't really see the decarbonising push by individual countries as useful if all they are doing is outsourcing their carbon producing industries to other countries who end up producing our consumer goods and then blamed for the new emissions, whilst also not benefitting from any wealth creation themselves.
And by uninhabitable I don't just mean the climate, I mean the political reality also leading to uninhabitable scenarios. If 700 million people are displaced by 2030 due to droughts across Asia and Africa (as is projected), then the current anti immigrant fervour will continue through the roof, and the fortress nation state will lead to increased authoritarianism. The current food inflation will pale in comparison to impacts of mass drought / flooding; one of the reasons wheat prices have been so bad (beyond the Ukraine war) is that wheat producing areas in the US, China and Africa have also been ravaged by harsh climate events. Resource wars, especially water wars, could become common in the not to distant future.
How much of a dent to standard of living can people take without things collapsing? If we had made the necessary investment earlier, we could have slowly changed expectations and sourcing for things. Now, who knows. Putting our head in the sand and hoping business as usual works hasn't worked so far. The next generation are more extreme on this issue, on the left and right, and as much as you hate the JSO or XR activists the ecofascists are much worse.
Yes, there are feedback loops. We need to reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere before we get runaway temperature rise. So far we only are slowing the increase. The economic case for new fossil fuel investment is getting much weaker, the danger is that they will become stranded assets. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fsnkPLkf1ao
Slowing the increase is all we can do for now. Unless you want a catastrophe then slowing is how you stop, its a transition. If I'm driving at 70mph and do an emergency stop, I have to slow before I stop or go into reverse and I will keep going forwards while slowing - but if I'm slowing down, I'm doing what I can.
We are slowing.
If new fossil fuel extraction becomes a stranded asset then that is the responsibility of the investors and they can lose out. Not a problem, some investments fail. Buyer beware and all that. But the environmental case for using domestically sourced fossil fuels over imported ones from countries like Russia or Saudi Arabia is unequivocally clear. Domestic fuels are much cleaner to use, while we transition to alternatives, and lets leave the Sheikhs and Oligarchs with stranded assets instead if that's what it comes to.
Most of the policy suggestions appear to want to curtail emissions and economic progress, while raising energy prices, in Western nations, but simultaneously increasing reliance for energy on more polluting developing countries.
'We' is the world in general. Curtailing emissions doesn't imply curtailing economic progress or raising energy prices. Nobody now should build a coal fired power station because it would cost more to run than Renewables and within a few years be a stranded asset. https://ourworldindata.org/cheap-renewables-growth
So long as the “We” continues to be the whole world, and that policy suggestions reduce the CO2 emissions from the whole world, then great.
But that’s not what’s currently seen in practice.
OK Sandpit, explain what you mean. Is this a criticism of any particular country? "China is the world's leader in electricity production from renewable energy sources, with over triple the generation of the second-ranking country, the United States. China's total renewable energy capacity exceeded 1,000 GW in 2021, accounting for 43.5 per cent of the country's total power generation capacity, 10.2 percentage points higher than in 2015. The country aims to have 80 per cent of its total energy mix come from non-fossil fuel sources by 2060" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_China
The UK is doing ok, 7th in the WEF ETI list, but 'we' (the whole world) need to increase the rate at which we move to renewables to hit net zero by 2030 - have a look at the graph here https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/12/doubling-renewable-energy-net-zero-emissions/ So, how does it make any sense, environmental or economic to spend time and money looking for new fossil fuels now?
Becuase most of the policy suggestions, are that the UK should abandon FF extraction, in favour of importing it - at a higher global CO2 impact - from other countries.
China is still building coal power plants.
Who is suggesting that "UK should abandon FF extraction, in favour of importing it" ? They would obviously be a complete idiot. Or is it that somebody else is accusing someone of doing so? China should stop building coal power plants, obviously.
Well indeed. Nobody is suggesting that UK should abandon fossil fuel extraction in favour of importing it - that appears to be a strawman dreamt up by those who are determined to slow down the transition from fossil fuels. And if anyone were suggesting it, the idea isn't without some environmental merit, given that the extraction of oil from the North Sea results in the emission of more CO2 than, say, the extraction of oil from the Saudi desert.
And yes, China should stop building coal power plants, but, on a per capita basis, China is responsible for far less CO2 in the air than we are and is unlikely ever to contribute to climate change as much as us. We are hardly in a position to criticise them for something we did in spades while simultaneously dragging our heels on cleaning up our own act.
Actually that is precisely what is suggested by blocking North Sea licences, but not blocking imports.
You don't change demand one iota by doing that, you don't help the environment at all. All you do is generate more imports, worsen our balance of payments, worsen our control over the environment and regulatory framework. And make yourself feel good by exporting emissions to other nations.
It is superficial foppery. If you want to be serious about it, do serious actions, like banning imports or banning gas boilers, or banning petrol stations. But if you're not prepared to do that, then we need fuel, and if we need fuel, then there is no scientific reason to block North Sea licences.
Oh and you're wrong on per capita climate emissions too. China is responsible for more ongoing emissions on a per capita basis than the UK is, let alone on an aggregate basis.
On an aggregate basis China emits more emissions per annum than the UK has ever done through the whole of history. So the idea they're "unlikely ever to contribute to climate change as much as us" is rather laughable, when they already have done and do so on an ongoing basis per annum per capita too.
Sorry, but you're talking bollocks.
Cumulative emissions of CO2 by UK to 2021: 78.5 billion tons CO2 emissions by China in 2021: 11.47 billion tons.
Are you suggesting the poster who said Boris Johnson is the 'best Prime Minister' since the war has suddenly started talking bollocks?
I never said that. I've always said that Thatcher was the best PM since Churchill.
I said he was likely to be the most consequential after Atlee and Thatcher post-war.
Considering how much you rail about how awful Brexit is, and how the country has gone to the dogs because of it, it seems your own comments rather confirm that too. Or was Brexit inconsequential and overblown?
We all get things wrong in the hope of hitting the jackpot.
Cookie (still enjoying himself): How can you tell there is an elephant in bed with you?
ChatGPT: If you were to wake up and suspect that there is an elephant in bed with you, you would likely notice several unmistakable signs:
Size and Space: You would likely feel an extreme lack of space in the bed, as an elephant would take up a significant portion of it. The bed would feel crowded and cramped.
Weight and Pressure: The immense weight of an elephant would cause the mattress to sink or compress significantly, leading to an unusual sensation of pressure and possibly discomfort.
Movement and Vibrations: An elephant's size and weight would likely result in noticeable movements and vibrations. You might feel the bed shaking or shifting as the elephant adjusts its position.
Sounds and Noises: Elephants are large animals, and their presence in a bed would likely produce audible sounds. You might hear heavy breathing, rustling, or even low rumbling sounds coming from the elephant.
Visual Confirmation: If you manage to look or glance in the direction of the supposed elephant, you would likely see the unmistakable sight of a massive creature beside or partially on the bed.
However, it's important to note that an elephant in bed with you is an unlikely scenario in reality, and it's more likely to be a humorous or imaginative concept.
Comments
When I was born, in 1967, the proportion was still 55%.
The 1970's were the first time that more people were not living in absolute poverty, than were living in absolute poverty.
1992 was the first year that the number of people living in absolute poverty started to decline (but one third of the world's people still lived in absolute poverty).
Now, the proportion is 9%.
That's a staggering achievement. And, it's thanks to industrialisation, and the use of fossil fuels.
Yours was just a bit wronger than most!!
"God I must have been tight last night"
'Madam, you were'
https://news.sky.com/story/former-snp-westminster-leader-ian-blackford-standing-down-at-next-election-12897577