There isn't a climate emergency. The change in terminology could have been predicted, though. Less so the change from global warming to climate change. Next the line is bound to be do this or go extinct.
To try to stop the climate changing is to be a Cnut. (In the monarchist sense.)
At least we have got to the stage where people accept it is happening, and will continue to do so.
All you have left is arguments over semantics.
The positive externalities of mitigation are worth it, even if they don't have a big impact on global emissions and the rate at which temperature increases.
Investment in adaptation is almost certainly worth it, particularly for flooding on the east coast and air conditioning in hospitals.
Yes. We need to invest in mitigation AND reduce CO2 output AND improve energy efficiency AND investigate carbon capture AND reduce methane output AND… We’re past simple solutions. We need all the solutions.
There are no solutions that will be acceptable in a democracy because people will not accept a mandated decline in living standard. Therefore there will be no solutions
How about the solutions that do not require a decline in living standards?
- More renewables in energy generation -> less dependence on (suddenly very expensive) gas from dodgy places - More efficient appliances -> lower costs of running those appliances - Better insulation -> warmer homes at lower heating cost (plus removal of cold patches with mould etc) - EVs -> better cars with lower running costs
Someone the other day mentioned LED lighting. Well, it's just better than incandescent, isn't it? Many more colour options, cooler running*, lasts longer, obsolescence of even worse stuff like flurorescent tubes...
*I once burned my foot on a halogen bulb in a bedside lamp when reading in bed turned into something more energetic
There isn't a climate emergency. The change in terminology could have been predicted, though. Less so the change from global warming to climate change. Next the line is bound to be do this or go extinct.
To try to stop the climate changing is to be a Cnut. (In the monarchist sense.)
At least we have got to the stage where people accept it is happening, and will continue to do so.
All you have left is arguments over semantics.
The positive externalities of mitigation are worth it, even if they don't have a big impact on global emissions and the rate at which temperature increases.
Investment in adaptation is almost certainly worth it, particularly for flooding on the east coast and air conditioning in hospitals.
Yes. We need to invest in mitigation AND reduce CO2 output AND improve energy efficiency AND investigate carbon capture AND reduce methane output AND… We’re past simple solutions. We need all the solutions.
There are no solutions that will be acceptable in a democracy because people will not accept a mandated decline in living standard. Therefore there will be no solutions
How about the solutions that do not require a decline in living standards?
- More renewables in energy generation -> less dependence on (suddenly very expensive) gas from dodgy places - More efficient appliances -> lower costs of running those appliances - Better insulation -> warmer homes at lower heating cost (plus removal of cold patches with mould etc) - EVs -> better cars with lower running costs
Someone the other day mentioned LED lighting. Well, it's just better than incandescent, isn't it? Many more colour options, cooler running*, lasts longer, obsolescence of even worse stuff like flurorescent tubes...
*I once burned my foot on a halogen bulb in a bedside lamp when reading in bed turned into something more energetic
What were you reading ??
probably 120 days of sodom I am told it can have that effect
Was, of course, a paper on the dangers of lazing around in bed, so I proceeded to do some squat thrusts, leading to the unfortunate hoof on halogen incident
“Krys focused on a cultural phenomenon called “uncertainty avoidance.” Cultures that are low on this scale tend to have social systems—courts, health-care systems, safety nets, and so forth—that are unstable. Therefore, people there view the future as unpredictable and uncontrollable.
Smiling is a sign of certainty and confidence, so when people in those countries smile, they might seem odd. Why would you smile when fate is an invisible wolf waiting to shred you? You might, in those “low-UA” countries, even be considered stupid for smiling.”
Why are Slavs so unsmiling? They don’t help themselves
The young women are beautiful but they either pout or scowl. Older women just scowl
And it’s not simply a Ukrainian thing. You see it across all of Eastern Europe. Russians are a bit jollier. Odd.
At the risk of being impolite, is this something you have observed them doing to other people or to you personally? You do have a distinct style which may not be appreciated by all.
No, it’s definitely a cultural thing
@Casino_Royale mentioned it a couple of days ago. He’s married to a Bulgarian and is right now in Bulgaria. And we are hardly the first to notice it
Think of Novak Djokovic
So the question is: why? Is it centuries of bloodshed, war and angst, or something else?
A history of bad teeth? Scowls are what you do when your teeth collapse.
There isn't a climate emergency. The change in terminology could have been predicted, though. Less so the change from global warming to climate change. Next the line is bound to be do this or go extinct.
To try to stop the climate changing is to be a Cnut. (In the monarchist sense.)
At least we have got to the stage where people accept it is happening, and will continue to do so.
All you have left is arguments over semantics.
The positive externalities of mitigation are worth it, even if they don't have a big impact on global emissions and the rate at which temperature increases.
Investment in adaptation is almost certainly worth it, particularly for flooding on the east coast and air conditioning in hospitals.
Yes. We need to invest in mitigation AND reduce CO2 output AND improve energy efficiency AND investigate carbon capture AND reduce methane output AND… We’re past simple solutions. We need all the solutions.
There are no solutions that will be acceptable in a democracy because people will not accept a mandated decline in living standard. Therefore there will be no solutions
How about the solutions that do not require a decline in living standards?
- More renewables in energy generation -> less dependence on (suddenly very expensive) gas from dodgy places - More efficient appliances -> lower costs of running those appliances - Better insulation -> warmer homes at lower heating cost (plus removal of cold patches with mould etc) - EVs -> better cars with lower running costs
Someone the other day mentioned LED lighting. Well, it's just better than incandescent, isn't it? Many more colour options, cooler running*, lasts longer, obsolescence of even worse stuff like flurorescent tubes...
*I once burned my foot on a halogen bulb in a bedside lamp when reading in bed turned into something more energetic
I am not against any of those but we both know the climate change zealots want more than that
They demand an end to personal transportation for one They demand we all go vegan for two
But climate change zealots are nowhere near power.
Neither of those two things are going to happen before the climate apocalypse* and then it's too late and pointless anyway.
*by which I mean they are election losers right up until the point where (if it ever happens) the effects of climate change are so severe that people, in general, would actually want these things
I should state at this point I am absolutely relaxed about climate change, purely because by the time it becomes critical I will be dead as will be my family. I doubt I am alone in that.
Which on the one hand means that the rhetoric can be ramped up and no one will be any the wiser, while on the other as you say no one *really* is invested.
It comes down to will no one think of the children which is always a tricky ask.
Like many my son and his wife have decided to be childfree. Given he they are in their 30's by the time he dies will likely be 2080 at the latest. What is being asked therefore is "think of other peoples children"
So over 2/3rd of Conservative members do believe climate change is caused by humans and almost 90% think it's real?
Margaret Thatcher first alerted the world to its dangers. Decades ago. Because she understood the science. All Conservatives revere her and should understand that. But she was practical too.
What we're seeing here is the consequences of allowing this issue to be entirely captured by the activist Left, which fuels polarisation.
You keep saying this as if the Left grabbed the territory and said, 'You can't have it, it's ours now.' Politics doesn't work like that. This is the Right saying, 'If the Left believe it, we have to believe the opposite.' and to Right commentators and media constantly beating the drum for anti-climate change views.
It's not Lefties being territorial and exclusive, it's Righties being polarized and gullible.
To put the question in terms that Righties and estranged Righties ought to be able to agree on:
What would Prime Maggie have done?
1. Acknowledge the issue. She understood the science, after all. 2. Dared to be unpopular. None of this "ooh but people won't vote for it" frit-wettery. 3. Turned it to her political advantage. Don't leave the issue to lefty greens, point out the environmental disasters of the communist bloc. "It is we who are the truly conservative party". Direct the free market to solve the issues profitably. Lots more nukes. Tradeable carbon permits, insulation futures, shares in solar panels. All a bit spivvy, but it would get the job done.
But also support the public sector as needed. Like she did with the BAS work on the ozone hole.
My mum, when she still had most of her marbles (at least outwardly) was a climate change denier. One of her debating points was that these things are overblown and just go away by themselves, choice example being the ozone layer "there was all that fuss and you don't hear about it now, do you?", or something like that.
I doubt she was alone. The trouble with successfully tackling something (like the Y2K issues) is that people believe that it was never an issue. If we do enough to avoid the worst of climate change, there will be many people making similar arguments, I'm sure.
Of course the ozone layer hole didn't go away by itself. There was international agreement to ban CFCs, and that a) stopped it getting worse and b) in the long.term, alloq d it to restore itswlf
So over 2/3rd of Conservative members do believe climate change is caused by humans and almost 90% think it's real?
Margaret Thatcher first alerted the world to its dangers. Decades ago. Because she understood the science. All Conservatives revere her and should understand that. But she was practical too.
What we're seeing here is the consequences of allowing this issue to be entirely captured by the activist Left, which fuels polarisation.
You keep saying this as if the Left grabbed the territory and said, 'You can't have it, it's ours now.' Politics doesn't work like that. This is the Right saying, 'If the Left believe it, we have to believe the opposite.' and to Right commentators and media constantly beating the drum for anti-climate change views.
It's not Lefties being territorial and exclusive, it's Righties being polarized and gullible.
If you read it properly you'd see it's actually a criticism of the Right.
There isn't a climate emergency. The change in terminology could have been predicted, though. Less so the change from global warming to climate change. Next the line is bound to be do this or go extinct.
To try to stop the climate changing is to be a Cnut. (In the monarchist sense.)
At least we have got to the stage where people accept it is happening, and will continue to do so.
All you have left is arguments over semantics.
The positive externalities of mitigation are worth it, even if they don't have a big impact on global emissions and the rate at which temperature increases.
Investment in adaptation is almost certainly worth it, particularly for flooding on the east coast and air conditioning in hospitals.
Yes. We need to invest in mitigation AND reduce CO2 output AND improve energy efficiency AND investigate carbon capture AND reduce methane output AND… We’re past simple solutions. We need all the solutions.
There are no solutions that will be acceptable in a democracy because people will not accept a mandated decline in living standard. Therefore there will be no solutions
How about the solutions that do not require a decline in living standards?
- More renewables in energy generation -> less dependence on (suddenly very expensive) gas from dodgy places - More efficient appliances -> lower costs of running those appliances - Better insulation -> warmer homes at lower heating cost (plus removal of cold patches with mould etc) - EVs -> better cars with lower running costs
Someone the other day mentioned LED lighting. Well, it's just better than incandescent, isn't it? Many more colour options, cooler running*, lasts longer, obsolescence of even worse stuff like flurorescent tubes...
*I once burned my foot on a halogen bulb in a bedside lamp when reading in bed turned into something more energetic
I am not against any of those but we both know the climate change zealots want more than that
They demand an end to personal transportation for one They demand we all go vegan for two
But climate change zealots are nowhere near power.
Neither of those two things are going to happen before the climate apocalypse* and then it's too late and pointless anyway.
*by which I mean they are election losers right up until the point where (if it ever happens) the effects of climate change are so severe that people, in general, would actually want these things
I should state at this point I am absolutely relaxed about climate change, purely because by the time it becomes critical I will be dead as will be my family. I doubt I am alone in that.
Which on the one hand means that the rhetoric can be ramped up and no one will be any the wiser, while on the other as you say no one *really* is invested.
It comes down to will no one think of the children which is always a tricky ask.
Like many my son and his wife have decided to be childfree. Given he they are in their 30's by the time he dies will likely be 2080 at the latest. What is being asked therefore is "think of other peoples children"
I expect things to be pretty shit by 2050
Living in the south west I expect climate change to be rather pleasant by 2050
There isn't a climate emergency. The change in terminology could have been predicted, though. Less so the change from global warming to climate change. Next the line is bound to be do this or go extinct.
To try to stop the climate changing is to be a Cnut. (In the monarchist sense.)
At least we have got to the stage where people accept it is happening, and will continue to do so.
All you have left is arguments over semantics.
The positive externalities of mitigation are worth it, even if they don't have a big impact on global emissions and the rate at which temperature increases.
Investment in adaptation is almost certainly worth it, particularly for flooding on the east coast and air conditioning in hospitals.
Yes. We need to invest in mitigation AND reduce CO2 output AND improve energy efficiency AND investigate carbon capture AND reduce methane output AND… We’re past simple solutions. We need all the solutions.
There are no solutions that will be acceptable in a democracy because people will not accept a mandated decline in living standard. Therefore there will be no solutions
How about the solutions that do not require a decline in living standards?
- More renewables in energy generation -> less dependence on (suddenly very expensive) gas from dodgy places - More efficient appliances -> lower costs of running those appliances - Better insulation -> warmer homes at lower heating cost (plus removal of cold patches with mould etc) - EVs -> better cars with lower running costs
Someone the other day mentioned LED lighting. Well, it's just better than incandescent, isn't it? Many more colour options, cooler running*, lasts longer, obsolescence of even worse stuff like flurorescent tubes...
*I once burned my foot on a halogen bulb in a bedside lamp when reading in bed turned into something more energetic
Why are Slavs so unsmiling? They don’t help themselves
The young women are beautiful but they either pout or scowl. Older women just scowl
And it’s not simply a Ukrainian thing. You see it across all of Eastern Europe. Russians are a bit jollier. Odd.
At the risk of being impolite, is this something you have observed them doing to other people or to you personally? You do have a distinct style which may not be appreciated by all.
No, it’s definitely a cultural thing
@Casino_Royale mentioned it a couple of days ago. He’s married to a Bulgarian and is right now in Bulgaria. And we are hardly the first to notice it
Think of Novak Djokovic
So the question is: why? Is it centuries of bloodshed, war and angst, or something else?
Yes, it's true.
Possibly developed under Communism. Self-control of your emotions was essential and you only showed them in private.
They can be very friendly, but you really have to get to know them first- they don't appear "inviting".
There isn't a climate emergency. The change in terminology could have been predicted, though. Less so the change from global warming to climate change. Next the line is bound to be do this or go extinct.
To try to stop the climate changing is to be a Cnut. (In the monarchist sense.)
At least we have got to the stage where people accept it is happening, and will continue to do so.
All you have left is arguments over semantics.
The positive externalities of mitigation are worth it, even if they don't have a big impact on global emissions and the rate at which temperature increases.
Investment in adaptation is almost certainly worth it, particularly for flooding on the east coast and air conditioning in hospitals.
Yes. We need to invest in mitigation AND reduce CO2 output AND improve energy efficiency AND investigate carbon capture AND reduce methane output AND… We’re past simple solutions. We need all the solutions.
There are no solutions that will be acceptable in a democracy because people will not accept a mandated decline in living standard. Therefore there will be no solutions
How about the solutions that do not require a decline in living standards?
- More renewables in energy generation -> less dependence on (suddenly very expensive) gas from dodgy places - More efficient appliances -> lower costs of running those appliances - Better insulation -> warmer homes at lower heating cost (plus removal of cold patches with mould etc) - EVs -> better cars with lower running costs
Someone the other day mentioned LED lighting. Well, it's just better than incandescent, isn't it? Many more colour options, cooler running*, lasts longer, obsolescence of even worse stuff like flurorescent tubes...
*I once burned my foot on a halogen bulb in a bedside lamp when reading in bed turned into something more energetic
Why are Slavs so unsmiling? They don’t help themselves
The young women are beautiful but they either pout or scowl. Older women just scowl
And it’s not simply a Ukrainian thing. You see it across all of Eastern Europe. Russians are a bit jollier. Odd.
At the risk of being impolite, is this something you have observed them doing to other people or to you personally? You do have a distinct style which may not be appreciated by all.
No, it’s definitely a cultural thing
@Casino_Royale mentioned it a couple of days ago. He’s married to a Bulgarian and is right now in Bulgaria. And we are hardly the first to notice it
Think of Novak Djokovic
So the question is: why? Is it centuries of bloodshed, war and angst, or something else?
Yes, it's true.
Possibly developed under Communism. Self-control of your emotions was essential and you only showed them in private.
They can be very friendly, but you really have to get to know them first- they don't appear "inviting".
Tbh it becomes quite wearing. Half a continent that only scowls
Cheer the fuck up. Approach the world with a friendly smile. Jeez
No wonder your name Slavs is derived from “slaves”. You’re too depressing. Get down in the cellar
So over 2/3rd of Conservative members do believe climate change is caused by humans and almost 90% think it's real?
Margaret Thatcher first alerted the world to its dangers. Decades ago. Because she understood the science. All Conservatives revere her and should understand that. But she was practical too.
What we're seeing here is the consequences of allowing this issue to be entirely captured by the activist Left, which fuels polarisation.
You keep saying this as if the Left grabbed the territory and said, 'You can't have it, it's ours now.' Politics doesn't work like that. This is the Right saying, 'If the Left believe it, we have to believe the opposite.' and to Right commentators and media constantly beating the drum for anti-climate change views.
It's not Lefties being territorial and exclusive, it's Righties being polarized and gullible.
To put the question in terms that Righties and estranged Righties ought to be able to agree on:
What would Prime Maggie have done?
1. Acknowledge the issue. She understood the science, after all. 2. Dared to be unpopular. None of this "ooh but people won't vote for it" frit-wettery. 3. Turned it to her political advantage. Don't leave the issue to lefty greens, point out the environmental disasters of the communist bloc. "It is we who are the truly conservative party". Direct the free market to solve the issues profitably. Lots more nukes. Tradeable carbon permits, insulation futures, shares in solar panels. All a bit spivvy, but it would get the job done.
But also support the public sector as needed. Like she did with the BAS work on the ozone hole.
My mum, when she still had most of her marbles (at least outwardly) was a climate change denier. One of her debating points was that these things are overblown and just go away by themselves, choice example being the ozone layer "there was all that fuss and you don't hear about it now, do you?", or something like that.
I doubt she was alone. The trouble with successfully tackling something (like the Y2K issues) is that people believe that it was never an issue. If we do enough to avoid the worst of climate change, there will be many people making similar arguments, I'm sure.
Of course the ozone layer hole didn't go away by itself. There was international agreement to ban CFCs, and that a) stopped it getting worse and b) in the long.term, alloq d it to restore itswlf
Exactly. Another example would have been Ukraine. If the West had done enough through pre-emptive action - no-fly zones, sanctions, delivering heavy weaponry etc - to deter Russia from invading, a large section of US opinion would have decided the whole thing was a big fuss about nothing.
Same will also be true about predictions of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan.
And in climate change land we already see this too. Emissions are rising less rapidly than in the worst case BAU scenarios from the 1990s. That’s because we’ve started to decarbonise earlier than feared. Global temperatures are also therefore rising less than in the BAU projections, and somewhere between those and the partial mitigation scenario. So guess what, sceptics loudly announce that we’re undershooting emissions and warming “forecasts”.
Why are Slavs so unsmiling? They don’t help themselves
The young women are beautiful but they either pout or scowl. Older women just scowl
And it’s not simply a Ukrainian thing. You see it across all of Eastern Europe. Russians are a bit jollier. Odd.
At the risk of being impolite, is this something you have observed them doing to other people or to you personally? You do have a distinct style which may not be appreciated by all.
No, it’s definitely a cultural thing
@Casino_Royale mentioned it a couple of days ago. He’s married to a Bulgarian and is right now in Bulgaria. And we are hardly the first to notice it
Think of Novak Djokovic
So the question is: why? Is it centuries of bloodshed, war and angst, or something else?
Yes, it's true.
Possibly developed under Communism. Self-control of your emotions was essential and you only showed them in private.
They can be very friendly, but you really have to get to know them first- they don't appear "inviting".
To be more serious a bit of googling says this is a centuries old thing. But communism surely made it worse
The Montenegrins are a notable exception. I’ve no idea why
I think this is why Slavic women aren’t as attractive as they “should” be. They are textbook beautiful. But they all look like they’ve just swallowed an unpleasantly vinegary pickle. It’s off putting
So over 2/3rd of Conservative members do believe climate change is caused by humans and almost 90% think it's real?
Margaret Thatcher first alerted the world to its dangers. Decades ago. Because she understood the science. All Conservatives revere her and should understand that. But she was practical too.
What we're seeing here is the consequences of allowing this issue to be entirely captured by the activist Left, which fuels polarisation.
You keep saying this as if the Left grabbed the territory and said, 'You can't have it, it's ours now.' Politics doesn't work like that. This is the Right saying, 'If the Left believe it, we have to believe the opposite.' and to Right commentators and media constantly beating the drum for anti-climate change views.
It's not Lefties being territorial and exclusive, it's Righties being polarized and gullible.
To put the question in terms that Righties and estranged Righties ought to be able to agree on:
What would Prime Maggie have done?
1. Acknowledge the issue. She understood the science, after all. 2. Dared to be unpopular. None of this "ooh but people won't vote for it" frit-wettery. 3. Turned it to her political advantage. Don't leave the issue to lefty greens, point out the environmental disasters of the communist bloc. "It is we who are the truly conservative party". Direct the free market to solve the issues profitably. Lots more nukes. Tradeable carbon permits, insulation futures, shares in solar panels. All a bit spivvy, but it would get the job done.
But also support the public sector as needed. Like she did with the BAS work on the ozone hole.
My mum, when she still had most of her marbles (at least outwardly) was a climate change denier. One of her debating points was that these things are overblown and just go away by themselves, choice example being the ozone layer "there was all that fuss and you don't hear about it now, do you?", or something like that.
I doubt she was alone. The trouble with successfully tackling something (like the Y2K issues) is that people believe that it was never an issue. If we do enough to avoid the worst of climate change, there will be many people making similar arguments, I'm sure.
Of course the ozone layer hole didn't go away by itself. There was international agreement to ban CFCs, and that a) stopped it getting worse and b) in the long.term, alloq d it to restore itswlf
Exactly. Another example would have been Ukraine. If the West had done enough through pre-emptiness action - no-fly zones, sanctions, delivering heavy weaponry etc - to deter Russia from invading, a large section of US opinion would have decided the whole thing was a big fuss about nothing.
Same will also be true about predictions of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan.
And in climate change world we already see this too. Emissions are rising less rapidly than in the worst case BAU scenarios from the 1990s. That’s because we’ve started to decarbonise earlier than feared. Global temperatures are also therefore rising less than in the BAU projections, and somewhere between those and the partial mitigation scenario. So guess what, sceptics loudly announce that we’re undershooting emissions and warming “forecasts”.
To be exact, the mitigations and increases in efficiency have cut the rate of increase of CO2 emissions (from assumed development of the world economy) to significantly below the worst case.
Smiliest nation? I suppose the Americans must be up there.
But the issue I have with this hypothesis about uncertainty over the future is that people in the Middle East seem to smile a lot, yet have on the whole pretty awful political governance or certainty in life. Perhaps certainty from religion?
Smiliest nation? I suppose the Americans must be up there.
But the issue I have with this hypothesis about uncertainty over the future is that people in the Middle East seem to smile a lot, yet have on the whole pretty awful political governance or certainty in life. Perhaps certainty from religion?
"Hello, my friend! My FRIEND! ..Where are you from?" etc.
There, I assume they are trying to sell or scam me, and I definitely smile less in those countries so I invite less of it.
So over 2/3rd of Conservative members do believe climate change is caused by humans and almost 90% think it's real?
Margaret Thatcher first alerted the world to its dangers. Decades ago. Because she understood the science. All Conservatives revere her and should understand that. But she was practical too.
What we're seeing here is the consequences of allowing this issue to be entirely captured by the activist Left, which fuels polarisation.
You keep saying this as if the Left grabbed the territory and said, 'You can't have it, it's ours now.' Politics doesn't work like that. This is the Right saying, 'If the Left believe it, we have to believe the opposite.' and to Right commentators and media constantly beating the drum for anti-climate change views.
It's not Lefties being territorial and exclusive, it's Righties being polarized and gullible.
To put the question in terms that Righties and estranged Righties ought to be able to agree on:
What would Prime Maggie have done?
1. Acknowledge the issue. She understood the science, after all. 2. Dared to be unpopular. None of this "ooh but people won't vote for it" frit-wettery. 3. Turned it to her political advantage. Don't leave the issue to lefty greens, point out the environmental disasters of the communist bloc. "It is we who are the truly conservative party". Direct the free market to solve the issues profitably. Lots more nukes. Tradeable carbon permits, insulation futures, shares in solar panels. All a bit spivvy, but it would get the job done.
It is silly to try and reanimate Mrs. T to serve our purposes. She was a complex human being - we cannot know what her response to the various pressures would have been, or whether that hypothetical response would have been right.
I tend to think that on this issue, the Germans have it about right. Nobody is more into efficiency than the Germans, which was already in their culture had the privations of the Nazi war effort not ingrained it even more deeply. They are enthusiastically green, but they don't have any truck with economical self-harm. They won't surrender their industries, both for self-preservation reasons, and because they're logical enough to realise that off-shoring jobs and industry to China is doing the planet no good at all.
This video is a video from a guy who does DCS videos (dogfighting games transposed to video with a narrative). The commentary is computer-generated by an AI set to mimic the actor Michael Ironside's voice. Have a listen, see if you can distinguish it from the real person.
Smiliest nation? I suppose the Americans must be up there.
But the issue I have with this hypothesis about uncertainty over the future is that people in the Middle East seem to smile a lot, yet have on the whole pretty awful political governance or certainty in life. Perhaps certainty from religion?
Yes. The Egyptians are rather smiley. And friendly. Yet their history…
Innate British cheeriness - “mustn’t grumble!” - *have a cup of tea and tell a joke* - becomes quite appealing after a few weeks here
So from February 2024 my mortgage is now going up to £370 per month… it’s absolutely crushing
Do you mean 'by' ? Unless you have a very small mortgage.
I do mean ‘by’
I think I'll not be in a disimilar position in mid 2025. If only it was going up "to" £370/mth
Your post and Gallowgate’s post convinces me the Tories are getting pounded like a dockside hooker at the next GE.
Mine is going up by £635/mth
My daughter has a £1.8m mortgage fixed at 2% until October. It's likely to roll over at 6%. That's an extra £72K a year or £6,000 a month. She thinking of letting out rooms - it's a six bedroom house, all ensuite, in Barnes.
So from February 2024 my mortgage is now going up to £370 per month… it’s absolutely crushing
Do you mean 'by' ? Unless you have a very small mortgage.
I do mean ‘by’
I think I'll not be in a disimilar position in mid 2025. If only it was going up "to" £370/mth
Your post and Gallowgate’s post convinces me the Tories are getting pounded like a dockside hooker at the next GE.
Mine is going up by £635/mth
My daughter has a £1.8m mortgage fixed at 2% until October. It's likely to roll over at 6%. That's an extra £72K a year or £6,000 a month. She thinking of letting out rooms - it's a six bedroom house, all ensuite, in Barnes.
Smiliest nation? I suppose the Americans must be up there.
But the issue I have with this hypothesis about uncertainty over the future is that people in the Middle East seem to smile a lot, yet have on the whole pretty awful political governance or certainty in life. Perhaps certainty from religion?
"Hello, my friend! My FRIEND! ..Where are you from?" etc.
There, I assume they are trying to sell or scam me, and I definitely smile less in those countries so I invite less of it.
But there are plenty of countries which are smiley and they AREN’T trying to scam you. Thailand. Lots of Africa. Mexico. Greece. Australia. Spain. Turkey. Italy. In fact most of the world is smilier than the Slavs. The Slavs are the exception
And it becomes painful. You approach a hotel reception desk and they greet you with a scowl, or at best a blank face of glum nothing. Your automatic reaction is 1 what have I done wrong or 2 shit, did her mum just die?
So from February 2024 my mortgage is now going up to £370 per month… it’s absolutely crushing
Do you mean 'by' ? Unless you have a very small mortgage.
I do mean ‘by’
I think I'll not be in a disimilar position in mid 2025. If only it was going up "to" £370/mth
Your post and Gallowgate’s post convinces me the Tories are getting pounded like a dockside hooker at the next GE.
Mine is going up by £635/mth
My daughter has a £1.8m mortgage fixed at 2% until October. It's likely to roll over at 6%. That's an extra £72K a year or £6,000 a month. She thinking of letting out rooms - it's a six bedroom house, all ensuite, in Barnes.
She could extend the term a bit to reduce the repayments.
There isn't a climate emergency. The change in terminology could have been predicted, though. Less so the change from global warming to climate change. Next the line is bound to be do this or go extinct.
To try to stop the climate changing is to be a Cnut. (In the monarchist sense.)
At least we have got to the stage where people accept it is happening, and will continue to do so.
All you have left is arguments over semantics.
The positive externalities of mitigation are worth it, even if they don't have a big impact on global emissions and the rate at which temperature increases.
Investment in adaptation is almost certainly worth it, particularly for flooding on the east coast and air conditioning in hospitals.
Yes. We need to invest in mitigation AND reduce CO2 output AND improve energy efficiency AND investigate carbon capture AND reduce methane output AND… We’re past simple solutions. We need all the solutions.
There are no solutions that will be acceptable in a democracy because people will not accept a mandated decline in living standard. Therefore there will be no solutions
How about the solutions that do not require a decline in living standards?
- More renewables in energy generation -> less dependence on (suddenly very expensive) gas from dodgy places - More efficient appliances -> lower costs of running those appliances - Better insulation -> warmer homes at lower heating cost (plus removal of cold patches with mould etc) - EVs -> better cars with lower running costs
Someone the other day mentioned LED lighting. Well, it's just better than incandescent, isn't it? Many more colour options, cooler running*, lasts longer, obsolescence of even worse stuff like flurorescent tubes...
*I once burned my foot on a halogen bulb in a bedside lamp when reading in bed turned into something more energetic
I am not against any of those but we both know the climate change zealots want more than that
They demand an end to personal transportation for one They demand we all go vegan for two
But climate change zealots are nowhere near power.
Neither of those two things are going to happen before the climate apocalypse* and then it's too late and pointless anyway.
*by which I mean they are election losers right up until the point where (if it ever happens) the effects of climate change are so severe that people, in general, would actually want these things
I should state at this point I am absolutely relaxed about climate change, purely because by the time it becomes critical I will be dead as will be my family. I doubt I am alone in that.
Which on the one hand means that the rhetoric can be ramped up and no one will be any the wiser, while on the other as you say no one *really* is invested.
It comes down to will no one think of the children which is always a tricky ask.
Like many my son and his wife have decided to be childfree. Given he they are in their 30's by the time he dies will likely be 2080 at the latest. What is being asked therefore is "think of other peoples children"
I expect things to be pretty shit by 2050
Living in the south west I expect climate change to be rather pleasant by 2050
So over 2/3rd of Conservative members do believe climate change is caused by humans and almost 90% think it's real?
Margaret Thatcher first alerted the world to its dangers. Decades ago. Because she understood the science. All Conservatives revere her and should understand that. But she was practical too.
What we're seeing here is the consequences of allowing this issue to be entirely captured by the activist Left, which fuels polarisation.
You keep saying this as if the Left grabbed the territory and said, 'You can't have it, it's ours now.' Politics doesn't work like that. This is the Right saying, 'If the Left believe it, we have to believe the opposite.' and to Right commentators and media constantly beating the drum for anti-climate change views.
It's not Lefties being territorial and exclusive, it's Righties being polarized and gullible.
To put the question in terms that Righties and estranged Righties ought to be able to agree on:
What would Prime Maggie have done?
1. Acknowledge the issue. She understood the science, after all. 2. Dared to be unpopular. None of this "ooh but people won't vote for it" frit-wettery. 3. Turned it to her political advantage. Don't leave the issue to lefty greens, point out the environmental disasters of the communist bloc. "It is we who are the truly conservative party". Direct the free market to solve the issues profitably. Lots more nukes. Tradeable carbon permits, insulation futures, shares in solar panels. All a bit spivvy, but it would get the job done.
It is silly to try and reanimate Mrs. T to serve our purposes. She was a complex human being - we cannot know what her response to the various pressures would have been, or whether that hypothetical response would have been right.
I tend to think that on this issue, the Germans have it about right. Nobody is more into efficiency than the Germans, which was already in their culture had the privations of the Nazi war effort not ingrained it even more deeply. They are enthusiastically green, but they don't have any truck with economical self-harm. They won't surrender their industries, both for self-preservation reasons, and because they're logical enough to realise that off-shoring jobs and industry to China is doing the planet no good at all.
But no one is suggesting we off-shore what remains of our industry.
In fact, there is an opportunity to become a world leader in a bunch of new industries.
So from February 2024 my mortgage is now going up to £370 per month… it’s absolutely crushing
Do you mean 'by' ? Unless you have a very small mortgage.
I do mean ‘by’
I think I'll not be in a disimilar position in mid 2025. If only it was going up "to" £370/mth
Your post and Gallowgate’s post convinces me the Tories are getting pounded like a dockside hooker at the next GE.
Mine is going up by £635/mth
My daughter has a £1.8m mortgage fixed at 2% until October. It's likely to roll over at 6%. That's an extra £72K a year or £6,000 a month. She thinking of letting out rooms - it's a six bedroom house, all ensuite, in Barnes.
Presumably that will need planning permission?
A HMO licence is required if all of the following apply: (Richmond council)
Some or all of the occupants share amenities such as bathrooms, toilets or cooking facilities
There isn't a climate emergency. The change in terminology could have been predicted, though. Less so the change from global warming to climate change. Next the line is bound to be do this or go extinct.
To try to stop the climate changing is to be a Cnut. (In the monarchist sense.)
At least we have got to the stage where people accept it is happening, and will continue to do so.
All you have left is arguments over semantics.
The positive externalities of mitigation are worth it, even if they don't have a big impact on global emissions and the rate at which temperature increases.
Investment in adaptation is almost certainly worth it, particularly for flooding on the east coast and air conditioning in hospitals.
Yes. We need to invest in mitigation AND reduce CO2 output AND improve energy efficiency AND investigate carbon capture AND reduce methane output AND… We’re past simple solutions. We need all the solutions.
There are no solutions that will be acceptable in a democracy because people will not accept a mandated decline in living standard. Therefore there will be no solutions
How about the solutions that do not require a decline in living standards?
- More renewables in energy generation -> less dependence on (suddenly very expensive) gas from dodgy places - More efficient appliances -> lower costs of running those appliances - Better insulation -> warmer homes at lower heating cost (plus removal of cold patches with mould etc) - EVs -> better cars with lower running costs
Someone the other day mentioned LED lighting. Well, it's just better than incandescent, isn't it? Many more colour options, cooler running*, lasts longer, obsolescence of even worse stuff like flurorescent tubes...
*I once burned my foot on a halogen bulb in a bedside lamp when reading in bed turned into something more energetic
I am not against any of those but we both know the climate change zealots want more than that
They demand an end to personal transportation for one They demand we all go vegan for two
But climate change zealots are nowhere near power.
Neither of those two things are going to happen before the climate apocalypse* and then it's too late and pointless anyway.
*by which I mean they are election losers right up until the point where (if it ever happens) the effects of climate change are so severe that people, in general, would actually want these things
I should state at this point I am absolutely relaxed about climate change, purely because by the time it becomes critical I will be dead as will be my family. I doubt I am alone in that.
Which on the one hand means that the rhetoric can be ramped up and no one will be any the wiser, while on the other as you say no one *really* is invested.
It comes down to will no one think of the children which is always a tricky ask.
Like many my son and his wife have decided to be childfree. Given he they are in their 30's by the time he dies will likely be 2080 at the latest. What is being asked therefore is "think of other peoples children"
There isn't a climate emergency. The change in terminology could have been predicted, though. Less so the change from global warming to climate change. Next the line is bound to be do this or go extinct.
To try to stop the climate changing is to be a Cnut. (In the monarchist sense.)
At least we have got to the stage where people accept it is happening, and will continue to do so.
All you have left is arguments over semantics.
The positive externalities of mitigation are worth it, even if they don't have a big impact on global emissions and the rate at which temperature increases.
Investment in adaptation is almost certainly worth it, particularly for flooding on the east coast and air conditioning in hospitals.
Yes. We need to invest in mitigation AND reduce CO2 output AND improve energy efficiency AND investigate carbon capture AND reduce methane output AND… We’re past simple solutions. We need all the solutions.
There are no solutions that will be acceptable in a democracy because people will not accept a mandated decline in living standard. Therefore there will be no solutions
How about the solutions that do not require a decline in living standards?
- More renewables in energy generation -> less dependence on (suddenly very expensive) gas from dodgy places - More efficient appliances -> lower costs of running those appliances - Better insulation -> warmer homes at lower heating cost (plus removal of cold patches with mould etc) - EVs -> better cars with lower running costs
Someone the other day mentioned LED lighting. Well, it's just better than incandescent, isn't it? Many more colour options, cooler running*, lasts longer, obsolescence of even worse stuff like flurorescent tubes...
*I once burned my foot on a halogen bulb in a bedside lamp when reading in bed turned into something more energetic
I am not against any of those but we both know the climate change zealots want more than that
They demand an end to personal transportation for one They demand we all go vegan for two
But climate change zealots are nowhere near power.
Neither of those two things are going to happen before the climate apocalypse* and then it's too late and pointless anyway.
*by which I mean they are election losers right up until the point where (if it ever happens) the effects of climate change are so severe that people, in general, would actually want these things
I should state at this point I am absolutely relaxed about climate change, purely because by the time it becomes critical I will be dead as will be my family. I doubt I am alone in that.
Which on the one hand means that the rhetoric can be ramped up and no one will be any the wiser, while on the other as you say no one *really* is invested.
It comes down to will no one think of the children which is always a tricky ask.
Like many my son and his wife have decided to be childfree. Given he they are in their 30's by the time he dies will likely be 2080 at the latest. What is being asked therefore is "think of other peoples children"
I expect things to be pretty shit by 2050
Give us some f'rinstances.
Hot summers wet winters fires everywhere
Oh no!!!
Sounds like a pretty normal year to me if I am honest
So over 2/3rd of Conservative members do believe climate change is caused by humans and almost 90% think it's real?
Margaret Thatcher first alerted the world to its dangers. Decades ago. Because she understood the science. All Conservatives revere her and should understand that. But she was practical too.
What we're seeing here is the consequences of allowing this issue to be entirely captured by the activist Left, which fuels polarisation.
You keep saying this as if the Left grabbed the territory and said, 'You can't have it, it's ours now.' Politics doesn't work like that. This is the Right saying, 'If the Left believe it, we have to believe the opposite.' and to Right commentators and media constantly beating the drum for anti-climate change views.
It's not Lefties being territorial and exclusive, it's Righties being polarized and gullible.
To put the question in terms that Righties and estranged Righties ought to be able to agree on:
What would Prime Maggie have done?
1. Acknowledge the issue. She understood the science, after all. 2. Dared to be unpopular. None of this "ooh but people won't vote for it" frit-wettery. 3. Turned it to her political advantage. Don't leave the issue to lefty greens, point out the environmental disasters of the communist bloc. "It is we who are the truly conservative party". Direct the free market to solve the issues profitably. Lots more nukes. Tradeable carbon permits, insulation futures, shares in solar panels. All a bit spivvy, but it would get the job done.
It is silly to try and reanimate Mrs. T to serve our purposes. She was a complex human being - we cannot know what her response to the various pressures would have been, or whether that hypothetical response would have been right.
I tend to think that on this issue, the Germans have it about right. Nobody is more into efficiency than the Germans, which was already in their culture had the privations of the Nazi war effort not ingrained it even more deeply. They are enthusiastically green, but they don't have any truck with economical self-harm. They won't surrender their industries, both for self-preservation reasons, and because they're logical enough to realise that off-shoring jobs and industry to China is doing the planet no good at all.
But no one is suggesting we off-shore what remains of our industry.
In fact, there is an opportunity to become a world leader in a bunch of new industries.
No, there really isn't. If we can spend our way to 'leadership' in the green industries of the future, there's nothing to stop others with more money spending their way into it. What we're actually doing is allowing foreign wealth funds to rinse British bill-payers via an elaborate system of green energy subsidies, which is the opposite of becoming a world leader in anything.
And a lot of people are suggesting just that. Starmer's party for a start, not granting any new oil licenses, yet happy to import oil and gas from America or KSA. That is off-shoring. It's worse for the planet's net carbon emissions AND worse for our economy. It is the height of recklessness and the loons expect plaudits for it. If the Germans had North Sea Oil, do you think for a second they would be stupid enough to adopt Starmer's policy on it?
Some final remarks after my extraordinary “deep dive” into this, and many years of observation*
1. The kids are as smiley and laugh-y as kids anywhere. So it must be something people pick up in adolescence. They learn NOT to smile
2. It must be tricky for them coming to the west - or anywhere - and working in hospitality (or other people-oriented business). In the west you need to smile. It is expected. It reassures. It is friendly. So I guess they must relearn what they learned not to do
There isn't a climate emergency. The change in terminology could have been predicted, though. Less so the change from global warming to climate change. Next the line is bound to be do this or go extinct.
To try to stop the climate changing is to be a Cnut. (In the monarchist sense.)
At least we have got to the stage where people accept it is happening, and will continue to do so.
All you have left is arguments over semantics.
The positive externalities of mitigation are worth it, even if they don't have a big impact on global emissions and the rate at which temperature increases.
Investment in adaptation is almost certainly worth it, particularly for flooding on the east coast and air conditioning in hospitals.
Yes. We need to invest in mitigation AND reduce CO2 output AND improve energy efficiency AND investigate carbon capture AND reduce methane output AND… We’re past simple solutions. We need all the solutions.
There are no solutions that will be acceptable in a democracy because people will not accept a mandated decline in living standard. Therefore there will be no solutions
How about the solutions that do not require a decline in living standards?
- More renewables in energy generation -> less dependence on (suddenly very expensive) gas from dodgy places - More efficient appliances -> lower costs of running those appliances - Better insulation -> warmer homes at lower heating cost (plus removal of cold patches with mould etc) - EVs -> better cars with lower running costs
Someone the other day mentioned LED lighting. Well, it's just better than incandescent, isn't it? Many more colour options, cooler running*, lasts longer, obsolescence of even worse stuff like flurorescent tubes...
*I once burned my foot on a halogen bulb in a bedside lamp when reading in bed turned into something more energetic
I am not against any of those but we both know the climate change zealots want more than that
They demand an end to personal transportation for one They demand we all go vegan for two
But climate change zealots are nowhere near power.
Neither of those two things are going to happen before the climate apocalypse* and then it's too late and pointless anyway.
*by which I mean they are election losers right up until the point where (if it ever happens) the effects of climate change are so severe that people, in general, would actually want these things
I should state at this point I am absolutely relaxed about climate change, purely because by the time it becomes critical I will be dead as will be my family. I doubt I am alone in that.
Which on the one hand means that the rhetoric can be ramped up and no one will be any the wiser, while on the other as you say no one *really* is invested.
It comes down to will no one think of the children which is always a tricky ask.
Like many my son and his wife have decided to be childfree. Given he they are in their 30's by the time he dies will likely be 2080 at the latest. What is being asked therefore is "think of other peoples children"
I expect things to be pretty shit by 2050
Give us some f'rinstances.
Hot summers wet winters fires everywhere
Oh no!!!
Sounds like a pretty normal year to me if I am honest
There isn't a climate emergency. The change in terminology could have been predicted, though. Less so the change from global warming to climate change. Next the line is bound to be do this or go extinct.
To try to stop the climate changing is to be a Cnut. (In the monarchist sense.)
At least we have got to the stage where people accept it is happening, and will continue to do so.
All you have left is arguments over semantics.
The positive externalities of mitigation are worth it, even if they don't have a big impact on global emissions and the rate at which temperature increases.
Investment in adaptation is almost certainly worth it, particularly for flooding on the east coast and air conditioning in hospitals.
Yes. We need to invest in mitigation AND reduce CO2 output AND improve energy efficiency AND investigate carbon capture AND reduce methane output AND… We’re past simple solutions. We need all the solutions.
There are no solutions that will be acceptable in a democracy because people will not accept a mandated decline in living standard. Therefore there will be no solutions
How about the solutions that do not require a decline in living standards?
- More renewables in energy generation -> less dependence on (suddenly very expensive) gas from dodgy places - More efficient appliances -> lower costs of running those appliances - Better insulation -> warmer homes at lower heating cost (plus removal of cold patches with mould etc) - EVs -> better cars with lower running costs
Someone the other day mentioned LED lighting. Well, it's just better than incandescent, isn't it? Many more colour options, cooler running*, lasts longer, obsolescence of even worse stuff like flurorescent tubes...
*I once burned my foot on a halogen bulb in a bedside lamp when reading in bed turned into something more energetic
I am not against any of those but we both know the climate change zealots want more than that
They demand an end to personal transportation for one They demand we all go vegan for two
But climate change zealots are nowhere near power.
Neither of those two things are going to happen before the climate apocalypse* and then it's too late and pointless anyway.
*by which I mean they are election losers right up until the point where (if it ever happens) the effects of climate change are so severe that people, in general, would actually want these things
I should state at this point I am absolutely relaxed about climate change, purely because by the time it becomes critical I will be dead as will be my family. I doubt I am alone in that.
Which on the one hand means that the rhetoric can be ramped up and no one will be any the wiser, while on the other as you say no one *really* is invested.
It comes down to will no one think of the children which is always a tricky ask.
Like many my son and his wife have decided to be childfree. Given he they are in their 30's by the time he dies will likely be 2080 at the latest. What is being asked therefore is "think of other peoples children"
Climate change is causing considerable problems NOW and these will get worse. We don’t need to wait until 2090.
So from February 2024 my mortgage is now going up to £370 per month… it’s absolutely crushing
Do you mean 'by' ? Unless you have a very small mortgage.
I do mean ‘by’
I think I'll not be in a disimilar position in mid 2025. If only it was going up "to" £370/mth
Your post and Gallowgate’s post convinces me the Tories are getting pounded like a dockside hooker at the next GE.
Mine is going up by £635/mth
My daughter has a £1.8m mortgage fixed at 2% until October. It's likely to roll over at 6%. That's an extra £72K a year or £6,000 a month. She thinking of letting out rooms - it's a six bedroom house, all ensuite, in Barnes.
There isn't a climate emergency. The change in terminology could have been predicted, though. Less so the change from global warming to climate change. Next the line is bound to be do this or go extinct.
To try to stop the climate changing is to be a Cnut. (In the monarchist sense.)
At least we have got to the stage where people accept it is happening, and will continue to do so.
All you have left is arguments over semantics.
The positive externalities of mitigation are worth it, even if they don't have a big impact on global emissions and the rate at which temperature increases.
Investment in adaptation is almost certainly worth it, particularly for flooding on the east coast and air conditioning in hospitals.
Yes. We need to invest in mitigation AND reduce CO2 output AND improve energy efficiency AND investigate carbon capture AND reduce methane output AND… We’re past simple solutions. We need all the solutions.
There are no solutions that will be acceptable in a democracy because people will not accept a mandated decline in living standard. Therefore there will be no solutions
How about the solutions that do not require a decline in living standards?
- More renewables in energy generation -> less dependence on (suddenly very expensive) gas from dodgy places - More efficient appliances -> lower costs of running those appliances - Better insulation -> warmer homes at lower heating cost (plus removal of cold patches with mould etc) - EVs -> better cars with lower running costs
Someone the other day mentioned LED lighting. Well, it's just better than incandescent, isn't it? Many more colour options, cooler running*, lasts longer, obsolescence of even worse stuff like flurorescent tubes...
*I once burned my foot on a halogen bulb in a bedside lamp when reading in bed turned into something more energetic
I am not against any of those but we both know the climate change zealots want more than that
They demand an end to personal transportation for one They demand we all go vegan for two
But climate change zealots are nowhere near power.
Neither of those two things are going to happen before the climate apocalypse* and then it's too late and pointless anyway.
*by which I mean they are election losers right up until the point where (if it ever happens) the effects of climate change are so severe that people, in general, would actually want these things
I should state at this point I am absolutely relaxed about climate change, purely because by the time it becomes critical I will be dead as will be my family. I doubt I am alone in that.
Which on the one hand means that the rhetoric can be ramped up and no one will be any the wiser, while on the other as you say no one *really* is invested.
It comes down to will no one think of the children which is always a tricky ask.
Like many my son and his wife have decided to be childfree. Given he they are in their 30's by the time he dies will likely be 2080 at the latest. What is being asked therefore is "think of other peoples children"
There isn't a climate emergency. The change in terminology could have been predicted, though. Less so the change from global warming to climate change. Next the line is bound to be do this or go extinct.
To try to stop the climate changing is to be a Cnut. (In the monarchist sense.)
At least we have got to the stage where people accept it is happening, and will continue to do so.
All you have left is arguments over semantics.
The positive externalities of mitigation are worth it, even if they don't have a big impact on global emissions and the rate at which temperature increases.
Investment in adaptation is almost certainly worth it, particularly for flooding on the east coast and air conditioning in hospitals.
Yes. We need to invest in mitigation AND reduce CO2 output AND improve energy efficiency AND investigate carbon capture AND reduce methane output AND… We’re past simple solutions. We need all the solutions.
There are no solutions that will be acceptable in a democracy because people will not accept a mandated decline in living standard. Therefore there will be no solutions
How about the solutions that do not require a decline in living standards?
- More renewables in energy generation -> less dependence on (suddenly very expensive) gas from dodgy places - More efficient appliances -> lower costs of running those appliances - Better insulation -> warmer homes at lower heating cost (plus removal of cold patches with mould etc) - EVs -> better cars with lower running costs
Someone the other day mentioned LED lighting. Well, it's just better than incandescent, isn't it? Many more colour options, cooler running*, lasts longer, obsolescence of even worse stuff like flurorescent tubes...
*I once burned my foot on a halogen bulb in a bedside lamp when reading in bed turned into something more energetic
I am not against any of those but we both know the climate change zealots want more than that
They demand an end to personal transportation for one They demand we all go vegan for two
But climate change zealots are nowhere near power.
Neither of those two things are going to happen before the climate apocalypse* and then it's too late and pointless anyway.
*by which I mean they are election losers right up until the point where (if it ever happens) the effects of climate change are so severe that people, in general, would actually want these things
I should state at this point I am absolutely relaxed about climate change, purely because by the time it becomes critical I will be dead as will be my family. I doubt I am alone in that.
Which on the one hand means that the rhetoric can be ramped up and no one will be any the wiser, while on the other as you say no one *really* is invested.
It comes down to will no one think of the children which is always a tricky ask.
Like many my son and his wife have decided to be childfree. Given he they are in their 30's by the time he dies will likely be 2080 at the latest. What is being asked therefore is "think of other peoples children"
I expect things to be pretty shit by 2050
Give us some f'rinstances.
Hot summers wet winters fires everywhere
Oh no!!!
Sounds like a pretty normal year to me if I am honest
So from February 2024 my mortgage is now going up to £370 per month… it’s absolutely crushing
Do you mean 'by' ? Unless you have a very small mortgage.
I do mean ‘by’
I think I'll not be in a disimilar position in mid 2025. If only it was going up "to" £370/mth
Your post and Gallowgate’s post convinces me the Tories are getting pounded like a dockside hooker at the next GE.
Mine is going up by £635/mth
My daughter has a £1.8m mortgage fixed at 2% until October. It's likely to roll over at 6%. That's an extra £72K a year or £6,000 a month. She thinking of letting out rooms - it's a six bedroom house, all ensuite, in Barnes.
Presumably that will need planning permission?
A HMO licence is required if all of the following apply: (Richmond council)
Some or all of the occupants share amenities such as bathrooms, toilets or cooking facilities
So, not if she sticks a microwave in every room
I don't think an HMO is required if the owner is living in the property....
Pandemic - Catastrophic, 5-25% chance over 5yrs (5% in 5yrs is a once a century event, so once in a couple of decades to a century
Large scale CBRN attack - Catastrophic, 1-5% (measured over 2 years for malicious events)
Failure of NETS (national grid): Catastrophic, 1-5% over 5 yrs
Conventional Infra attack, severe space weather, low temperatures and snow, emerging infectious disease, nuclear miscalculation between other states - Severe, 5-25%
Terrorist attacks on public spaces, tech failure of financial market infra, disaster in an Overseas Territory, article 5 invocation or similar - 25%+, Moderate
There isn't a climate emergency. The change in terminology could have been predicted, though. Less so the change from global warming to climate change. Next the line is bound to be do this or go extinct.
To try to stop the climate changing is to be a Cnut. (In the monarchist sense.)
At least we have got to the stage where people accept it is happening, and will continue to do so.
All you have left is arguments over semantics.
The positive externalities of mitigation are worth it, even if they don't have a big impact on global emissions and the rate at which temperature increases.
Investment in adaptation is almost certainly worth it, particularly for flooding on the east coast and air conditioning in hospitals.
Yes. We need to invest in mitigation AND reduce CO2 output AND improve energy efficiency AND investigate carbon capture AND reduce methane output AND… We’re past simple solutions. We need all the solutions.
There are no solutions that will be acceptable in a democracy because people will not accept a mandated decline in living standard. Therefore there will be no solutions
How about the solutions that do not require a decline in living standards?
- More renewables in energy generation -> less dependence on (suddenly very expensive) gas from dodgy places - More efficient appliances -> lower costs of running those appliances - Better insulation -> warmer homes at lower heating cost (plus removal of cold patches with mould etc) - EVs -> better cars with lower running costs
Someone the other day mentioned LED lighting. Well, it's just better than incandescent, isn't it? Many more colour options, cooler running*, lasts longer, obsolescence of even worse stuff like flurorescent tubes...
*I once burned my foot on a halogen bulb in a bedside lamp when reading in bed turned into something more energetic
I am not against any of those but we both know the climate change zealots want more than that
They demand an end to personal transportation for one They demand we all go vegan for two
But climate change zealots are nowhere near power.
Neither of those two things are going to happen before the climate apocalypse* and then it's too late and pointless anyway.
*by which I mean they are election losers right up until the point where (if it ever happens) the effects of climate change are so severe that people, in general, would actually want these things
I should state at this point I am absolutely relaxed about climate change, purely because by the time it becomes critical I will be dead as will be my family. I doubt I am alone in that.
Which on the one hand means that the rhetoric can be ramped up and no one will be any the wiser, while on the other as you say no one *really* is invested.
It comes down to will no one think of the children which is always a tricky ask.
Like many my son and his wife have decided to be childfree. Given he they are in their 30's by the time he dies will likely be 2080 at the latest. What is being asked therefore is "think of other peoples children"
Climate change is causing considerable problems NOW and these will get worse. We don’t need to wait until 2090.
But my point is not causing me any problems and unlikely to do so in my lifetime nor my sons. A lot of peoples kids now are going childless was the point I was making so we have little investment in the future. Virtually no one is invested in the survival of the human race. Only the survival of their family
There isn't a climate emergency. The change in terminology could have been predicted, though. Less so the change from global warming to climate change. Next the line is bound to be do this or go extinct.
To try to stop the climate changing is to be a Cnut. (In the monarchist sense.)
At least we have got to the stage where people accept it is happening, and will continue to do so.
All you have left is arguments over semantics.
The positive externalities of mitigation are worth it, even if they don't have a big impact on global emissions and the rate at which temperature increases.
Investment in adaptation is almost certainly worth it, particularly for flooding on the east coast and air conditioning in hospitals.
Yes. We need to invest in mitigation AND reduce CO2 output AND improve energy efficiency AND investigate carbon capture AND reduce methane output AND… We’re past simple solutions. We need all the solutions.
There are no solutions that will be acceptable in a democracy because people will not accept a mandated decline in living standard. Therefore there will be no solutions
How about the solutions that do not require a decline in living standards?
- More renewables in energy generation -> less dependence on (suddenly very expensive) gas from dodgy places - More efficient appliances -> lower costs of running those appliances - Better insulation -> warmer homes at lower heating cost (plus removal of cold patches with mould etc) - EVs -> better cars with lower running costs
Someone the other day mentioned LED lighting. Well, it's just better than incandescent, isn't it? Many more colour options, cooler running*, lasts longer, obsolescence of even worse stuff like flurorescent tubes...
*I once burned my foot on a halogen bulb in a bedside lamp when reading in bed turned into something more energetic
I am not against any of those but we both know the climate change zealots want more than that
They demand an end to personal transportation for one They demand we all go vegan for two
But climate change zealots are nowhere near power.
Neither of those two things are going to happen before the climate apocalypse* and then it's too late and pointless anyway.
*by which I mean they are election losers right up until the point where (if it ever happens) the effects of climate change are so severe that people, in general, would actually want these things
I should state at this point I am absolutely relaxed about climate change, purely because by the time it becomes critical I will be dead as will be my family. I doubt I am alone in that.
Which on the one hand means that the rhetoric can be ramped up and no one will be any the wiser, while on the other as you say no one *really* is invested.
It comes down to will no one think of the children which is always a tricky ask.
Like many my son and his wife have decided to be childfree. Given he they are in their 30's by the time he dies will likely be 2080 at the latest. What is being asked therefore is "think of other peoples children"
I expect things to be pretty shit by 2050
Give us some f'rinstances.
Hot summers wet winters fires everywhere
Oh no!!!
Sounds like a pretty normal year to me if I am honest
Ahem
So what problem is it causing in edinborough exactly?
There isn't a climate emergency. The change in terminology could have been predicted, though. Less so the change from global warming to climate change. Next the line is bound to be do this or go extinct.
To try to stop the climate changing is to be a Cnut. (In the monarchist sense.)
At least we have got to the stage where people accept it is happening, and will continue to do so.
All you have left is arguments over semantics.
The positive externalities of mitigation are worth it, even if they don't have a big impact on global emissions and the rate at which temperature increases.
Investment in adaptation is almost certainly worth it, particularly for flooding on the east coast and air conditioning in hospitals.
Yes. We need to invest in mitigation AND reduce CO2 output AND improve energy efficiency AND investigate carbon capture AND reduce methane output AND… We’re past simple solutions. We need all the solutions.
There are no solutions that will be acceptable in a democracy because people will not accept a mandated decline in living standard. Therefore there will be no solutions
How about the solutions that do not require a decline in living standards?
- More renewables in energy generation -> less dependence on (suddenly very expensive) gas from dodgy places - More efficient appliances -> lower costs of running those appliances - Better insulation -> warmer homes at lower heating cost (plus removal of cold patches with mould etc) - EVs -> better cars with lower running costs
Someone the other day mentioned LED lighting. Well, it's just better than incandescent, isn't it? Many more colour options, cooler running*, lasts longer, obsolescence of even worse stuff like flurorescent tubes...
*I once burned my foot on a halogen bulb in a bedside lamp when reading in bed turned into something more energetic
I am not against any of those but we both know the climate change zealots want more than that
They demand an end to personal transportation for one They demand we all go vegan for two
But climate change zealots are nowhere near power.
Neither of those two things are going to happen before the climate apocalypse* and then it's too late and pointless anyway.
*by which I mean they are election losers right up until the point where (if it ever happens) the effects of climate change are so severe that people, in general, would actually want these things
I should state at this point I am absolutely relaxed about climate change, purely because by the time it becomes critical I will be dead as will be my family. I doubt I am alone in that.
Which on the one hand means that the rhetoric can be ramped up and no one will be any the wiser, while on the other as you say no one *really* is invested.
It comes down to will no one think of the children which is always a tricky ask.
Like many my son and his wife have decided to be childfree. Given he they are in their 30's by the time he dies will likely be 2080 at the latest. What is being asked therefore is "think of other peoples children"
Climate change is causing considerable problems NOW and these will get worse. We don’t need to wait until 2090.
But my point is not causing me any problems and unlikely to do so in my lifetime nor my sons. A lot of peoples kids now are going childless was the point I was making so we have little investment in the future. Virtually no one is invested in the survival of the human race. Only the survival of their family
So you're just selfish?
I'd guess part of the reason people don't want kids is because they know there are so many people with your attitude.
There isn't a climate emergency. The change in terminology could have been predicted, though. Less so the change from global warming to climate change. Next the line is bound to be do this or go extinct.
To try to stop the climate changing is to be a Cnut. (In the monarchist sense.)
At least we have got to the stage where people accept it is happening, and will continue to do so.
All you have left is arguments over semantics.
The positive externalities of mitigation are worth it, even if they don't have a big impact on global emissions and the rate at which temperature increases.
Investment in adaptation is almost certainly worth it, particularly for flooding on the east coast and air conditioning in hospitals.
Yes. We need to invest in mitigation AND reduce CO2 output AND improve energy efficiency AND investigate carbon capture AND reduce methane output AND… We’re past simple solutions. We need all the solutions.
There are no solutions that will be acceptable in a democracy because people will not accept a mandated decline in living standard. Therefore there will be no solutions
How about the solutions that do not require a decline in living standards?
- More renewables in energy generation -> less dependence on (suddenly very expensive) gas from dodgy places - More efficient appliances -> lower costs of running those appliances - Better insulation -> warmer homes at lower heating cost (plus removal of cold patches with mould etc) - EVs -> better cars with lower running costs
Someone the other day mentioned LED lighting. Well, it's just better than incandescent, isn't it? Many more colour options, cooler running*, lasts longer, obsolescence of even worse stuff like flurorescent tubes...
*I once burned my foot on a halogen bulb in a bedside lamp when reading in bed turned into something more energetic
I am not against any of those but we both know the climate change zealots want more than that
They demand an end to personal transportation for one They demand we all go vegan for two
But climate change zealots are nowhere near power.
Neither of those two things are going to happen before the climate apocalypse* and then it's too late and pointless anyway.
*by which I mean they are election losers right up until the point where (if it ever happens) the effects of climate change are so severe that people, in general, would actually want these things
I should state at this point I am absolutely relaxed about climate change, purely because by the time it becomes critical I will be dead as will be my family. I doubt I am alone in that.
Which on the one hand means that the rhetoric can be ramped up and no one will be any the wiser, while on the other as you say no one *really* is invested.
It comes down to will no one think of the children which is always a tricky ask.
Like many my son and his wife have decided to be childfree. Given he they are in their 30's by the time he dies will likely be 2080 at the latest. What is being asked therefore is "think of other peoples children"
Climate change is causing considerable problems NOW and these will get worse. We don’t need to wait until 2090.
But my point is not causing me any problems and unlikely to do so in my lifetime nor my sons. A lot of peoples kids now are going childless was the point I was making so we have little investment in the future. Virtually no one is invested in the survival of the human race. Only the survival of their family
So you're just selfish?
I'd guess part of the reason people don't want kids is because they know there are so many people with your attitude.
No because I have a smaller carbon footprint than most green zealots like yourself, hell I probably have a smaller carbon footprint that greta thunberg. However I get fed up with idiots lecturing me I must do more. I did my bit and frankly if the world burns it is not my fault and I have no reason to care as I and mine will be dead and gone
There isn't a climate emergency. The change in terminology could have been predicted, though. Less so the change from global warming to climate change. Next the line is bound to be do this or go extinct.
To try to stop the climate changing is to be a Cnut. (In the monarchist sense.)
At least we have got to the stage where people accept it is happening, and will continue to do so.
All you have left is arguments over semantics.
The positive externalities of mitigation are worth it, even if they don't have a big impact on global emissions and the rate at which temperature increases.
Investment in adaptation is almost certainly worth it, particularly for flooding on the east coast and air conditioning in hospitals.
Yes. We need to invest in mitigation AND reduce CO2 output AND improve energy efficiency AND investigate carbon capture AND reduce methane output AND… We’re past simple solutions. We need all the solutions.
There are no solutions that will be acceptable in a democracy because people will not accept a mandated decline in living standard. Therefore there will be no solutions
How about the solutions that do not require a decline in living standards?
- More renewables in energy generation -> less dependence on (suddenly very expensive) gas from dodgy places - More efficient appliances -> lower costs of running those appliances - Better insulation -> warmer homes at lower heating cost (plus removal of cold patches with mould etc) - EVs -> better cars with lower running costs
Someone the other day mentioned LED lighting. Well, it's just better than incandescent, isn't it? Many more colour options, cooler running*, lasts longer, obsolescence of even worse stuff like flurorescent tubes...
*I once burned my foot on a halogen bulb in a bedside lamp when reading in bed turned into something more energetic
I am not against any of those but we both know the climate change zealots want more than that
They demand an end to personal transportation for one They demand we all go vegan for two
But climate change zealots are nowhere near power.
Neither of those two things are going to happen before the climate apocalypse* and then it's too late and pointless anyway.
*by which I mean they are election losers right up until the point where (if it ever happens) the effects of climate change are so severe that people, in general, would actually want these things
I should state at this point I am absolutely relaxed about climate change, purely because by the time it becomes critical I will be dead as will be my family. I doubt I am alone in that.
Which on the one hand means that the rhetoric can be ramped up and no one will be any the wiser, while on the other as you say no one *really* is invested.
It comes down to will no one think of the children which is always a tricky ask.
Like many my son and his wife have decided to be childfree. Given he they are in their 30's by the time he dies will likely be 2080 at the latest. What is being asked therefore is "think of other peoples children"
I expect things to be pretty shit by 2050
Give us some f'rinstances.
Hot summers wet winters fires everywhere
Oh no!!!
Sounds like a pretty normal year to me if I am honest
Ahem
So what problem is it causing in edinborough exactly?
Actually, due to the financial arrangements between SG and HMG, as long as England gets screwed harder than we do, our fiscal position improves.
All those additional spending consequentials as England tries to prevent itself from sinking/burning.
There isn't a climate emergency. The change in terminology could have been predicted, though. Less so the change from global warming to climate change. Next the line is bound to be do this or go extinct.
To try to stop the climate changing is to be a Cnut. (In the monarchist sense.)
At least we have got to the stage where people accept it is happening, and will continue to do so.
All you have left is arguments over semantics.
The positive externalities of mitigation are worth it, even if they don't have a big impact on global emissions and the rate at which temperature increases.
Investment in adaptation is almost certainly worth it, particularly for flooding on the east coast and air conditioning in hospitals.
Yes. We need to invest in mitigation AND reduce CO2 output AND improve energy efficiency AND investigate carbon capture AND reduce methane output AND… We’re past simple solutions. We need all the solutions.
There are no solutions that will be acceptable in a democracy because people will not accept a mandated decline in living standard. Therefore there will be no solutions
How about the solutions that do not require a decline in living standards?
- More renewables in energy generation -> less dependence on (suddenly very expensive) gas from dodgy places - More efficient appliances -> lower costs of running those appliances - Better insulation -> warmer homes at lower heating cost (plus removal of cold patches with mould etc) - EVs -> better cars with lower running costs
Someone the other day mentioned LED lighting. Well, it's just better than incandescent, isn't it? Many more colour options, cooler running*, lasts longer, obsolescence of even worse stuff like flurorescent tubes...
*I once burned my foot on a halogen bulb in a bedside lamp when reading in bed turned into something more energetic
I am not against any of those but we both know the climate change zealots want more than that
They demand an end to personal transportation for one They demand we all go vegan for two
But climate change zealots are nowhere near power.
Neither of those two things are going to happen before the climate apocalypse* and then it's too late and pointless anyway.
*by which I mean they are election losers right up until the point where (if it ever happens) the effects of climate change are so severe that people, in general, would actually want these things
I should state at this point I am absolutely relaxed about climate change, purely because by the time it becomes critical I will be dead as will be my family. I doubt I am alone in that.
Which on the one hand means that the rhetoric can be ramped up and no one will be any the wiser, while on the other as you say no one *really* is invested.
It comes down to will no one think of the children which is always a tricky ask.
Like many my son and his wife have decided to be childfree. Given he they are in their 30's by the time he dies will likely be 2080 at the latest. What is being asked therefore is "think of other peoples children"
I expect things to be pretty shit by 2050
Give us some f'rinstances.
Hot summers wet winters fires everywhere
Oh no!!!
Sounds like a pretty normal year to me if I am honest
Ahem
So what problem is it causing in edinborough exactly?
Actually, due to the financial arrangements between SG and HMG, as long as England gets screwed harder than we do, our fiscal position improves.
All those additional spending consequentials as England tries to prevent itself from sinking/burning.
Well till you either have a yes in indepence refs or we revoke the barnett which we absolutely should do
There isn't a climate emergency. The change in terminology could have been predicted, though. Less so the change from global warming to climate change. Next the line is bound to be do this or go extinct.
To try to stop the climate changing is to be a Cnut. (In the monarchist sense.)
At least we have got to the stage where people accept it is happening, and will continue to do so.
All you have left is arguments over semantics.
The positive externalities of mitigation are worth it, even if they don't have a big impact on global emissions and the rate at which temperature increases.
Investment in adaptation is almost certainly worth it, particularly for flooding on the east coast and air conditioning in hospitals.
Yes. We need to invest in mitigation AND reduce CO2 output AND improve energy efficiency AND investigate carbon capture AND reduce methane output AND… We’re past simple solutions. We need all the solutions.
There are no solutions that will be acceptable in a democracy because people will not accept a mandated decline in living standard. Therefore there will be no solutions
How about the solutions that do not require a decline in living standards?
- More renewables in energy generation -> less dependence on (suddenly very expensive) gas from dodgy places - More efficient appliances -> lower costs of running those appliances - Better insulation -> warmer homes at lower heating cost (plus removal of cold patches with mould etc) - EVs -> better cars with lower running costs
Someone the other day mentioned LED lighting. Well, it's just better than incandescent, isn't it? Many more colour options, cooler running*, lasts longer, obsolescence of even worse stuff like flurorescent tubes...
*I once burned my foot on a halogen bulb in a bedside lamp when reading in bed turned into something more energetic
I am not against any of those but we both know the climate change zealots want more than that
They demand an end to personal transportation for one They demand we all go vegan for two
But climate change zealots are nowhere near power.
Neither of those two things are going to happen before the climate apocalypse* and then it's too late and pointless anyway.
*by which I mean they are election losers right up until the point where (if it ever happens) the effects of climate change are so severe that people, in general, would actually want these things
I should state at this point I am absolutely relaxed about climate change, purely because by the time it becomes critical I will be dead as will be my family. I doubt I am alone in that.
Which on the one hand means that the rhetoric can be ramped up and no one will be any the wiser, while on the other as you say no one *really* is invested.
It comes down to will no one think of the children which is always a tricky ask.
Like many my son and his wife have decided to be childfree. Given he they are in their 30's by the time he dies will likely be 2080 at the latest. What is being asked therefore is "think of other peoples children"
I expect things to be pretty shit by 2050
Give us some f'rinstances.
Hot summers wet winters fires everywhere
Oh no!!!
Sounds like a pretty normal year to me if I am honest
Ahem
So what problem is it causing in edinborough exactly?
They're going to run out of colours! And unless we start being able to see in infra red, that means the whole right hand side of the chart will disappear.
As an American, what is an LTN? At first, I thought it was an abbreviation for Luton*, and thought "Luton, sure, who wouldn't be opposed?"
But then the more time went by, the more I saw LTN, and I thought, maybe it's not all about the small City in Bedfordshire.
* Especially as that is the code for the airport.
It is where an area off loads its traffic and pollution onto other area's. Usually bought in for richer areas and offloading the pollution to poorer areas
There isn't a climate emergency. The change in terminology could have been predicted, though. Less so the change from global warming to climate change. Next the line is bound to be do this or go extinct.
To try to stop the climate changing is to be a Cnut. (In the monarchist sense.)
At least we have got to the stage where people accept it is happening, and will continue to do so.
All you have left is arguments over semantics.
The positive externalities of mitigation are worth it, even if they don't have a big impact on global emissions and the rate at which temperature increases.
Investment in adaptation is almost certainly worth it, particularly for flooding on the east coast and air conditioning in hospitals.
Yes. We need to invest in mitigation AND reduce CO2 output AND improve energy efficiency AND investigate carbon capture AND reduce methane output AND… We’re past simple solutions. We need all the solutions.
There are no solutions that will be acceptable in a democracy because people will not accept a mandated decline in living standard. Therefore there will be no solutions
How about the solutions that do not require a decline in living standards?
- More renewables in energy generation -> less dependence on (suddenly very expensive) gas from dodgy places - More efficient appliances -> lower costs of running those appliances - Better insulation -> warmer homes at lower heating cost (plus removal of cold patches with mould etc) - EVs -> better cars with lower running costs
Someone the other day mentioned LED lighting. Well, it's just better than incandescent, isn't it? Many more colour options, cooler running*, lasts longer, obsolescence of even worse stuff like flurorescent tubes...
*I once burned my foot on a halogen bulb in a bedside lamp when reading in bed turned into something more energetic
I am not against any of those but we both know the climate change zealots want more than that
They demand an end to personal transportation for one They demand we all go vegan for two
But climate change zealots are nowhere near power.
Neither of those two things are going to happen before the climate apocalypse* and then it's too late and pointless anyway.
*by which I mean they are election losers right up until the point where (if it ever happens) the effects of climate change are so severe that people, in general, would actually want these things
I should state at this point I am absolutely relaxed about climate change, purely because by the time it becomes critical I will be dead as will be my family. I doubt I am alone in that.
Which on the one hand means that the rhetoric can be ramped up and no one will be any the wiser, while on the other as you say no one *really* is invested.
It comes down to will no one think of the children which is always a tricky ask.
Like many my son and his wife have decided to be childfree. Given he they are in their 30's by the time he dies will likely be 2080 at the latest. What is being asked therefore is "think of other peoples children"
I expect things to be pretty shit by 2050
Give us some f'rinstances.
Hot summers wet winters fires everywhere
Oh no!!!
Sounds like a pretty normal year to me if I am honest
Ahem
So what problem is it causing in edinborough exactly?
They're going to run out of colours! And unless we start being able to see in infra red, that means the whole right hand side of the chart will disappear.
The graph was pretty my question remains....what issues is it causing edinborough?
As an American, what is an LTN? At first, I thought it was an abbreviation for Luton*, and thought "Luton, sure, who wouldn't be opposed?"
But then the more time went by, the more I saw LTN, and I thought, maybe it's not all about the small City in Bedfordshire.
* Especially as that is the code for the airport.
It is where an area off loads its traffic and pollution onto other area's. Usually bought in for richer areas and offloading the pollution to poorer areas
Surely the solution is simple: the richer area pays the poorer area for the extra pollution.
Mr. Smithson - Judging by previous comments, I am not alone in hoping you will take a little time to explain why you think global warming is an "emergency", rather than a "problem".
Some years ago, when he was still a prince, your king was admirably specific, saying that the world had just 18 months to deal with climate change. In contrast, German Chancellor Merkel closed nuclear power plants, which are one of the best ways to mitigate climate change. (That closing also worsened "ordinary" air pollution, leading to hundreds of additional deaths in Germany and neighoring nations.)
I have been saying for years that, if you think global warming is a serious problem -- and can do arithmetic -- you will favor more nuclear power. That's not an unusual view in the US, now. It is held by George W. Bush, and by both of Obama's permanent energy secretaries. And, increasingly, by the voters.
Given her degree in quantum chemistry, I think it fair to conclude that Merkel can do arithmetic. Given her actions in closing those plants I think it fair to conclude that she does not think global warming is an emergency.
If you disagree with her, please emulate your monarch and give us a time estimate. Do we have 18 months to build nukes and renewables, and switch to electric vehicles, and so on, or how long?
So from February 2024 my mortgage is now going up to £370 per month… it’s absolutely crushing
Do you mean 'by' ? Unless you have a very small mortgage.
I do mean ‘by’
I think I'll not be in a disimilar position in mid 2025. If only it was going up "to" £370/mth
Your post and Gallowgate’s post convinces me the Tories are getting pounded like a dockside hooker at the next GE.
Mine is going up by £635/mth
My daughter has a £1.8m mortgage fixed at 2% until October. It's likely to roll over at 6%. That's an extra £72K a year or £6,000 a month. She thinking of letting out rooms - it's a six bedroom house, all ensuite, in Barnes.
Blimey! I feel uncomfortable with a £100k mortgage. What on earth does one do for a living to earn enough for a £1.8m mortgage? Banker or top barrister?
There isn't a climate emergency. The change in terminology could have been predicted, though. Less so the change from global warming to climate change. Next the line is bound to be do this or go extinct.
To try to stop the climate changing is to be a Cnut. (In the monarchist sense.)
At least we have got to the stage where people accept it is happening, and will continue to do so.
All you have left is arguments over semantics.
The positive externalities of mitigation are worth it, even if they don't have a big impact on global emissions and the rate at which temperature increases.
Investment in adaptation is almost certainly worth it, particularly for flooding on the east coast and air conditioning in hospitals.
Yes. We need to invest in mitigation AND reduce CO2 output AND improve energy efficiency AND investigate carbon capture AND reduce methane output AND… We’re past simple solutions. We need all the solutions.
There are no solutions that will be acceptable in a democracy because people will not accept a mandated decline in living standard. Therefore there will be no solutions
How about the solutions that do not require a decline in living standards?
- More renewables in energy generation -> less dependence on (suddenly very expensive) gas from dodgy places - More efficient appliances -> lower costs of running those appliances - Better insulation -> warmer homes at lower heating cost (plus removal of cold patches with mould etc) - EVs -> better cars with lower running costs
Someone the other day mentioned LED lighting. Well, it's just better than incandescent, isn't it? Many more colour options, cooler running*, lasts longer, obsolescence of even worse stuff like flurorescent tubes...
*I once burned my foot on a halogen bulb in a bedside lamp when reading in bed turned into something more energetic
I am not against any of those but we both know the climate change zealots want more than that
They demand an end to personal transportation for one They demand we all go vegan for two
But climate change zealots are nowhere near power.
Neither of those two things are going to happen before the climate apocalypse* and then it's too late and pointless anyway.
*by which I mean they are election losers right up until the point where (if it ever happens) the effects of climate change are so severe that people, in general, would actually want these things
I should state at this point I am absolutely relaxed about climate change, purely because by the time it becomes critical I will be dead as will be my family. I doubt I am alone in that.
Which on the one hand means that the rhetoric can be ramped up and no one will be any the wiser, while on the other as you say no one *really* is invested.
It comes down to will no one think of the children which is always a tricky ask.
Like many my son and his wife have decided to be childfree. Given he they are in their 30's by the time he dies will likely be 2080 at the latest. What is being asked therefore is "think of other peoples children"
I expect things to be pretty shit by 2050
Give us some f'rinstances.
Hot summers wet winters fires everywhere
Oh no!!!
Sounds like a pretty normal year to me if I am honest
Ahem
So what problem is it causing in edinborough exactly?
Actually, due to the financial arrangements between SG and HMG, as long as England gets screwed harder than we do, our fiscal position improves.
All those additional spending consequentials as England tries to prevent itself from sinking/burning.
Well till you either have a yes in indepence refs or we revoke the barnett which we absolutely should do
Too late - they announced the new fiscal framework today.
As an American, what is an LTN? At first, I thought it was an abbreviation for Luton*, and thought "Luton, sure, who wouldn't be opposed?"
But then the more time went by, the more I saw LTN, and I thought, maybe it's not all about the small City in Bedfordshire.
* Especially as that is the code for the airport.
It is where an area off loads its traffic and pollution onto other area's. Usually bought in for richer areas and offloading the pollution to poorer areas
Surely the solution is simple: the richer area pays the poorer area for the extra pollution.
Win, win.
Well that would help a little. There are studies suggesting ltn's dont increase traffic in other areas. Look into them because it suggests yes they do increase traffic in some areas but not others. When you average it out no they dont but it doesnt help the places seeing an extra 1800 cars a day that another area is being driven through less
As an American, what is an LTN? At first, I thought it was an abbreviation for Luton*, and thought "Luton, sure, who wouldn't be opposed?"
But then the more time went by, the more I saw LTN, and I thought, maybe it's not all about the small City in Bedfordshire.
* Especially as that is the code for the airport.
It is where an area off loads its traffic and pollution onto other area's. Usually bought in for richer areas and offloading the pollution to poorer areas
There isn't a climate emergency. The change in terminology could have been predicted, though. Less so the change from global warming to climate change. Next the line is bound to be do this or go extinct.
To try to stop the climate changing is to be a Cnut. (In the monarchist sense.)
At least we have got to the stage where people accept it is happening, and will continue to do so.
All you have left is arguments over semantics.
The positive externalities of mitigation are worth it, even if they don't have a big impact on global emissions and the rate at which temperature increases.
Investment in adaptation is almost certainly worth it, particularly for flooding on the east coast and air conditioning in hospitals.
Yes. We need to invest in mitigation AND reduce CO2 output AND improve energy efficiency AND investigate carbon capture AND reduce methane output AND… We’re past simple solutions. We need all the solutions.
There are no solutions that will be acceptable in a democracy because people will not accept a mandated decline in living standard. Therefore there will be no solutions
How about the solutions that do not require a decline in living standards?
- More renewables in energy generation -> less dependence on (suddenly very expensive) gas from dodgy places - More efficient appliances -> lower costs of running those appliances - Better insulation -> warmer homes at lower heating cost (plus removal of cold patches with mould etc) - EVs -> better cars with lower running costs
Someone the other day mentioned LED lighting. Well, it's just better than incandescent, isn't it? Many more colour options, cooler running*, lasts longer, obsolescence of even worse stuff like flurorescent tubes...
*I once burned my foot on a halogen bulb in a bedside lamp when reading in bed turned into something more energetic
I am not against any of those but we both know the climate change zealots want more than that
They demand an end to personal transportation for one They demand we all go vegan for two
But climate change zealots are nowhere near power.
Neither of those two things are going to happen before the climate apocalypse* and then it's too late and pointless anyway.
*by which I mean they are election losers right up until the point where (if it ever happens) the effects of climate change are so severe that people, in general, would actually want these things
I should state at this point I am absolutely relaxed about climate change, purely because by the time it becomes critical I will be dead as will be my family. I doubt I am alone in that.
Which on the one hand means that the rhetoric can be ramped up and no one will be any the wiser, while on the other as you say no one *really* is invested.
It comes down to will no one think of the children which is always a tricky ask.
Like many my son and his wife have decided to be childfree. Given he they are in their 30's by the time he dies will likely be 2080 at the latest. What is being asked therefore is "think of other peoples children"
I expect things to be pretty shit by 2050
Give us some f'rinstances.
Hot summers wet winters fires everywhere
Oh no!!!
Sounds like a pretty normal year to me if I am honest
Ahem
So what problem is it causing in edinborough exactly?
Actually, due to the financial arrangements between SG and HMG, as long as England gets screwed harder than we do, our fiscal position improves.
All those additional spending consequentials as England tries to prevent itself from sinking/burning.
Well till you either have a yes in indepence refs or we revoke the barnett which we absolutely should do
Too late - they announced the new fiscal framework today.
We need an independence for scotland referendum for the rest of the country. You are more likely to win that one
As an American, what is an LTN? At first, I thought it was an abbreviation for Luton*, and thought "Luton, sure, who wouldn't be opposed?"
But then the more time went by, the more I saw LTN, and I thought, maybe it's not all about the small City in Bedfordshire.
* Especially as that is the code for the airport.
It is where an area off loads its traffic and pollution onto other area's. Usually bought in for richer areas and offloading the pollution to poorer areas
Surely the solution is simple: the richer area pays the poorer area for the extra pollution.
Win, win.
Well that would help a little. There are studies suggesting ltn's dont increase traffic in other areas. Look into them because it suggests yes they do increase traffic in some areas but not others. When you average it out no they dont but it doesnt help the places seeing an extra 1800 cars a day that another area is being driven through less
As an American, what is an LTN? At first, I thought it was an abbreviation for Luton*, and thought "Luton, sure, who wouldn't be opposed?"
But then the more time went by, the more I saw LTN, and I thought, maybe it's not all about the small City in Bedfordshire.
* Especially as that is the code for the airport.
It is where an area off loads its traffic and pollution onto other area's. Usually bought in for richer areas and offloading the pollution to poorer areas
Stays the same on average....some areas experience an increase in traffic...some areas experience a decrease. I am sure the area's experiencing an increase in traffic and its pollution are mollified that some areas experience a decrease
So from February 2024 my mortgage is now going up to £370 per month… it’s absolutely crushing
Do you mean 'by' ? Unless you have a very small mortgage.
I do mean ‘by’
I think I'll not be in a disimilar position in mid 2025. If only it was going up "to" £370/mth
Your post and Gallowgate’s post convinces me the Tories are getting pounded like a dockside hooker at the next GE.
Mine is going up by £635/mth
My daughter has a £1.8m mortgage fixed at 2% until October. It's likely to roll over at 6%. That's an extra £72K a year or £6,000 a month. She thinking of letting out rooms - it's a six bedroom house, all ensuite, in Barnes.
Blimey! I feel uncomfortable with a £100k mortgage. What on earth does one do for a living to earn enough for a £1.8m mortgage? Banker or top barrister?
Based on the @Barnesian's numbers his daughter would have been paying something over £2000 a month, which allows you to rent an ordinary flat in a dreary part of London, not a six bedroom all ensuite mansion in Barnes.
As an American, what is an LTN? At first, I thought it was an abbreviation for Luton*, and thought "Luton, sure, who wouldn't be opposed?"
But then the more time went by, the more I saw LTN, and I thought, maybe it's not all about the small City in Bedfordshire.
* Especially as that is the code for the airport.
It is where an area off loads its traffic and pollution onto other area's. Usually bought in for richer areas and offloading the pollution to poorer areas
Surely the solution is simple: the richer area pays the poorer area for the extra pollution.
Win, win.
Well that would help a little. There are studies suggesting ltn's dont increase traffic in other areas. Look into them because it suggests yes they do increase traffic in some areas but not others. When you average it out no they dont but it doesnt help the places seeing an extra 1800 cars a day that another area is being driven through less
So from February 2024 my mortgage is now going up to £370 per month… it’s absolutely crushing
Do you mean 'by' ? Unless you have a very small mortgage.
I do mean ‘by’
I think I'll not be in a disimilar position in mid 2025. If only it was going up "to" £370/mth
Your post and Gallowgate’s post convinces me the Tories are getting pounded like a dockside hooker at the next GE.
Mine is going up by £635/mth
My daughter has a £1.8m mortgage fixed at 2% until October. It's likely to roll over at 6%. That's an extra £72K a year or £6,000 a month. She thinking of letting out rooms - it's a six bedroom house, all ensuite, in Barnes.
Presumably that will need planning permission?
A HMO licence is required if all of the following apply: (Richmond council)
Some or all of the occupants share amenities such as bathrooms, toilets or cooking facilities
So, not if she sticks a microwave in every room
The classic is a baby belling and a two plate hob - the minimum habitability requirements. These days I think a combi-microwave/oven replaces the belling. Don't think just a microwave is allowed to replace the oven. The tenant is expected to buy their own fridge.
There isn't a climate emergency. The change in terminology could have been predicted, though. Less so the change from global warming to climate change. Next the line is bound to be do this or go extinct.
To try to stop the climate changing is to be a Cnut. (In the monarchist sense.)
At least we have got to the stage where people accept it is happening, and will continue to do so.
All you have left is arguments over semantics.
The positive externalities of mitigation are worth it, even if they don't have a big impact on global emissions and the rate at which temperature increases.
Investment in adaptation is almost certainly worth it, particularly for flooding on the east coast and air conditioning in hospitals.
Yes. We need to invest in mitigation AND reduce CO2 output AND improve energy efficiency AND investigate carbon capture AND reduce methane output AND… We’re past simple solutions. We need all the solutions.
There are no solutions that will be acceptable in a democracy because people will not accept a mandated decline in living standard. Therefore there will be no solutions
Which is why Elon Musk insisted that the first Tesla be a sub 4 second car.
1) Build sports car Tesla Roadster 2) Use that money to build an affordable car Model S 3) Use that money to build an even more affordable car Model 3 4) While doing above, also provide zero emission electric power generation options
My bold, added in
Tesla are currently looking at the next price bracket down from the Model 3 - as are the other manufacturers.
EDIT: The point of the sub 4 second Roadster was to make electric cars desirable. Not hair shirts.
The Tesla Model 3 "from £42,000" you mean? Smacks of the "working man's Porsche", the 924.
It's about working down the ladder.
The first idea is to realise that you can build an electric car that isn't a hairshirt car. Instead of building to a cost - Build, refine, build for lower cost, refine.
This started with custom conversions, by high end auto shops - for $250K they would rebuild your ICE car as electric. See the Minis converted for the rubbish remake of the Italian Job.
The next stage was companies (such as Tesla) realising that you could reduce costs and improve the performance with a limited run. The original Roadster. This was a modified Lotus Elise chassis (in the end very modified), with a power train installed. Still a 6 figure car, but cheaper and better.
The Model S was a proper mass production car, but still expensive.
The Model 3 was about reducing that cost.
The next model on will be about a car that sells for 30K or less. This is what all the manufacturers are working on, now.
As the HPA guy said recently, we are at the stage where a used Tesla costs the same as a new Ford Focus (and the same for ICE luxury cars, of course).
So from February 2024 my mortgage is now going up to £370 per month… it’s absolutely crushing
Do you mean 'by' ? Unless you have a very small mortgage.
I do mean ‘by’
I think I'll not be in a disimilar position in mid 2025. If only it was going up "to" £370/mth
Your post and Gallowgate’s post convinces me the Tories are getting pounded like a dockside hooker at the next GE.
Mine is going up by £635/mth
My daughter has a £1.8m mortgage fixed at 2% until October. It's likely to roll over at 6%. That's an extra £72K a year or £6,000 a month. She thinking of letting out rooms - it's a six bedroom house, all ensuite, in Barnes.
Presumably that will need planning permission?
A HMO licence is required if all of the following apply: (Richmond council)
Some or all of the occupants share amenities such as bathrooms, toilets or cooking facilities
So, not if she sticks a microwave in every room
The classic is a baby belling and a two plate hob - the minimum habitability requirements. These days I think a combi-microwave/oven replaces the belling. Don't think just a microwave is allowed to replace the oven. The tenant is expected to buy their own fridge.
(all from memory only)
I dont see why I cook a lot I rarely use the the oven apart from doing a sunday roast. Most stuff I can do on a hob or microwave. And yes I don't cook just basic food
So from February 2024 my mortgage is now going up to £370 per month… it’s absolutely crushing
Do you mean 'by' ? Unless you have a very small mortgage.
I do mean ‘by’
I think I'll not be in a disimilar position in mid 2025. If only it was going up "to" £370/mth
Your post and Gallowgate’s post convinces me the Tories are getting pounded like a dockside hooker at the next GE.
Mine is going up by £635/mth
My daughter has a £1.8m mortgage fixed at 2% until October. It's likely to roll over at 6%. That's an extra £72K a year or £6,000 a month. She thinking of letting out rooms - it's a six bedroom house, all ensuite, in Barnes.
Presumably that will need planning permission?
A HMO licence is required if all of the following apply: (Richmond council)
Some or all of the occupants share amenities such as bathrooms, toilets or cooking facilities
So, not if she sticks a microwave in every room
The classic is a baby belling and a two plate hob - the minimum habitability requirements. These days I think a combi-microwave/oven replaces the belling. Don't think just a microwave is allowed to replace the oven. The tenant is expected to buy their own fridge.
(all from memory only)
Barnsian's daughter need only shell out £128 per room:
Mr. Smithson - Judging by previous comments, I am not alone in hoping you will take a little time to explain why you think global warming is an "emergency", rather than a "problem".
Some years ago, when he was still a prince, your king was admirably specific, saying that the world had just 18 months to deal with climate change. In contrast, German Chancellor Merkel closed nuclear power plants, which are one of the best ways to mitigate climate change. (That closing also worsened "ordinary" air pollution, leading to hundreds of additional deaths in Germany and neighoring nations.)
I have been saying for years that, if you think global warming is a serious problem -- and can do arithmetic -- you will favor more nuclear power. That's not an unusual view in the US, now. It is held by George W. Bush, and by both of Obama's permanent energy secretaries. And, increasingly, by the voters.
Given her degree in quantum chemistry, I think it fair to conclude that Merkel can do arithmetic. Given her actions in closing those plants I think it fair to conclude that she does not think global warming is an emergency.
If you disagree with her, please emulate your monarch and give us a time estimate. Do we have 18 months to build nukes and renewables, and switch to electric vehicles, and so on, or how long?
I assume that question is for Smithson, Snr rather than Smithson, Jr.
So from February 2024 my mortgage is now going up to £370 per month… it’s absolutely crushing
Do you mean 'by' ? Unless you have a very small mortgage.
I do mean ‘by’
I think I'll not be in a disimilar position in mid 2025. If only it was going up "to" £370/mth
Your post and Gallowgate’s post convinces me the Tories are getting pounded like a dockside hooker at the next GE.
Mine is going up by £635/mth
My daughter has a £1.8m mortgage fixed at 2% until October. It's likely to roll over at 6%. That's an extra £72K a year or £6,000 a month. She thinking of letting out rooms - it's a six bedroom house, all ensuite, in Barnes.
Presumably that will need planning permission?
A HMO licence is required if all of the following apply: (Richmond council)
Some or all of the occupants share amenities such as bathrooms, toilets or cooking facilities
So, not if she sticks a microwave in every room
The classic is a baby belling and a two plate hob - the minimum habitability requirements. These days I think a combi-microwave/oven replaces the belling. Don't think just a microwave is allowed to replace the oven. The tenant is expected to buy their own fridge.
(all from memory only)
Barnsian's daughter need only shell out £128 per room:
Why are Slavs so unsmiling? They don’t help themselves
The young women are beautiful but they either pout or scowl. Older women just scowl
And it’s not simply a Ukrainian thing. You see it across all of Eastern Europe. Russians are a bit jollier. Odd.
At the risk of being impolite, is this something you have observed them doing to other people or to you personally? You do have a distinct style which may not be appreciated by all.
No, it’s definitely a cultural thing
@Casino_Royale mentioned it a couple of days ago. He’s married to a Bulgarian and is right now in Bulgaria. And we are hardly the first to notice it
Think of Novak Djokovic
So the question is: why? Is it centuries of bloodshed, war and angst, or something else?
My wife is a rare smiler. But yes, it’s true that most don’t. A relic of the old communist times, when your business was kept to yourself, and no-one asked how you were doing or where were you going.
(If my things go according to plan, I’m about 36 hours from being in the same country as you).
There isn't a climate emergency. The change in terminology could have been predicted, though. Less so the change from global warming to climate change. Next the line is bound to be do this or go extinct.
To try to stop the climate changing is to be a Cnut. (In the monarchist sense.)
At least we have got to the stage where people accept it is happening, and will continue to do so.
All you have left is arguments over semantics.
The positive externalities of mitigation are worth it, even if they don't have a big impact on global emissions and the rate at which temperature increases.
Investment in adaptation is almost certainly worth it, particularly for flooding on the east coast and air conditioning in hospitals.
Yes. We need to invest in mitigation AND reduce CO2 output AND improve energy efficiency AND investigate carbon capture AND reduce methane output AND… We’re past simple solutions. We need all the solutions.
There are no solutions that will be acceptable in a democracy because people will not accept a mandated decline in living standard. Therefore there will be no solutions
How about the solutions that do not require a decline in living standards?
- More renewables in energy generation -> less dependence on (suddenly very expensive) gas from dodgy places - More efficient appliances -> lower costs of running those appliances - Better insulation -> warmer homes at lower heating cost (plus removal of cold patches with mould etc) - EVs -> better cars with lower running costs
Someone the other day mentioned LED lighting. Well, it's just better than incandescent, isn't it? Many more colour options, cooler running*, lasts longer, obsolescence of even worse stuff like flurorescent tubes...
*I once burned my foot on a halogen bulb in a bedside lamp when reading in bed turned into something more energetic
I am not against any of those but we both know the climate change zealots want more than that
They demand an end to personal transportation for one They demand we all go vegan for two
But climate change zealots are nowhere near power.
Neither of those two things are going to happen before the climate apocalypse* and then it's too late and pointless anyway.
*by which I mean they are election losers right up until the point where (if it ever happens) the effects of climate change are so severe that people, in general, would actually want these things
I should state at this point I am absolutely relaxed about climate change, purely because by the time it becomes critical I will be dead as will be my family. I doubt I am alone in that.
Which on the one hand means that the rhetoric can be ramped up and no one will be any the wiser, while on the other as you say no one *really* is invested.
It comes down to will no one think of the children which is always a tricky ask.
Like many my son and his wife have decided to be childfree. Given he they are in their 30's by the time he dies will likely be 2080 at the latest. What is being asked therefore is "think of other peoples children"
I expect things to be pretty shit by 2050
Give us some f'rinstances.
Hot summers wet winters fires everywhere
Oh no!!!
Sounds like a pretty normal year to me if I am honest
Ahem
Never trust a chart that lacks a scale.
Climate change is real, we have done what we can to mitigate it, and we need to encourage others to mitigate it too. Now we need to put our efforts into adaptation and ensuring others mitigate it.
Others will only mitigate it and follow our already excellent lead, if our standard of living and quality of life improves.
Hairshirt zealots are anti-mitigation because in wanting us to hurt ourselves/abandon proper private transportation, they are advocating policies the rest of the world won't copy. And the rest of the world are the ones causing the emissions.
There isn't a climate emergency. The change in terminology could have been predicted, though. Less so the change from global warming to climate change. Next the line is bound to be do this or go extinct.
To try to stop the climate changing is to be a Cnut. (In the monarchist sense.)
At least we have got to the stage where people accept it is happening, and will continue to do so.
All you have left is arguments over semantics.
The positive externalities of mitigation are worth it, even if they don't have a big impact on global emissions and the rate at which temperature increases.
Investment in adaptation is almost certainly worth it, particularly for flooding on the east coast and air conditioning in hospitals.
Yes. We need to invest in mitigation AND reduce CO2 output AND improve energy efficiency AND investigate carbon capture AND reduce methane output AND… We’re past simple solutions. We need all the solutions.
There are no solutions that will be acceptable in a democracy because people will not accept a mandated decline in living standard. Therefore there will be no solutions
Which is why Elon Musk insisted that the first Tesla be a sub 4 second car.
1) Build sports car Tesla Roadster 2) Use that money to build an affordable car Model S 3) Use that money to build an even more affordable car Model 3 4) While doing above, also provide zero emission electric power generation options
My bold, added in
Tesla are currently looking at the next price bracket down from the Model 3 - as are the other manufacturers.
EDIT: The point of the sub 4 second Roadster was to make electric cars desirable. Not hair shirts.
The Tesla Model 3 "from £42,000" you mean? Smacks of the "working man's Porsche", the 924.
It's about working down the ladder.
The first idea is to realise that you can build an electric car that isn't a hairshirt car. Instead of building to a cost - Build, refine, build for lower cost, refine.
This started with custom conversions, by high end auto shops - for $250K they would rebuild your ICE car as electric. See the Minis converted for the rubbish remake of the Italian Job.
The next stage was companies (such as Tesla) realising that you could reduce costs and improve the performance with a limited run. The original Roadster. This was a modified Lotus Elise chassis (in the end very modified), with a power train installed. Still a 6 figure car, but cheaper and better.
The Model S was a proper mass production car, but still expensive.
The Model 3 was about reducing that cost.
The next model on will be about a car that sells for 30K or less. This is what all the manufacturers are working on, now.
As the HPA guy said recently, we are at the stage where a used Tesla costs the same as a new Ford Focus (and the same for ICE luxury cars, of course).
Let's flip that around for a second. That means that there has been extraordinarily little depreciation on Tesla Model 3s.
People have bought Model 3s for about £50k (which includes £8k of VAT), so £42k pre-tax. And those same cars are selling for £30-35k five years later. That's depreciation of only £2-3k (pre-tax) per year.
That means that owning a Tesla Model 3 costs you less than an equivalent new petrol car, because your vehicle depreciates so much less over the period.
Mr. Smithson - Judging by previous comments, I am not alone in hoping you will take a little time to explain why you think global warming is an "emergency", rather than a "problem".
Some years ago, when he was still a prince, your king was admirably specific, saying that the world had just 18 months to deal with climate change. In contrast, German Chancellor Merkel closed nuclear power plants, which are one of the best ways to mitigate climate change. (That closing also worsened "ordinary" air pollution, leading to hundreds of additional deaths in Germany and neighoring nations.)
I have been saying for years that, if you think global warming is a serious problem -- and can do arithmetic -- you will favor more nuclear power. That's not an unusual view in the US, now. It is held by George W. Bush, and by both of Obama's permanent energy secretaries. And, increasingly, by the voters.
Given her degree in quantum chemistry, I think it fair to conclude that Merkel can do arithmetic. Given her actions in closing those plants I think it fair to conclude that she does not think global warming is an emergency.
If you disagree with her, please emulate your monarch and give us a time estimate. Do we have 18 months to build nukes and renewables, and switch to electric vehicles, and so on, or how long?
I assume that question is for Smithson, Snr rather than Smithson, Jr.
So from February 2024 my mortgage is now going up to £370 per month… it’s absolutely crushing
Do you mean 'by' ? Unless you have a very small mortgage.
I do mean ‘by’
I think I'll not be in a disimilar position in mid 2025. If only it was going up "to" £370/mth
Your post and Gallowgate’s post convinces me the Tories are getting pounded like a dockside hooker at the next GE.
Mine is going up by £635/mth
My daughter has a £1.8m mortgage fixed at 2% until October. It's likely to roll over at 6%. That's an extra £72K a year or £6,000 a month. She thinking of letting out rooms - it's a six bedroom house, all ensuite, in Barnes.
Although my working-class chippiness does blanch at the magnitude of this - £1.8million mortgage? 2%?? Not Fixed??? - you genuinely have my sympathies. £6K a month is not good. Can she actually cope? My usual response (you can let out one spare room to a lodger each month tax-free due to changes Osborne brought in) seems wildly inadequate.
There isn't a climate emergency. The change in terminology could have been predicted, though. Less so the change from global warming to climate change. Next the line is bound to be do this or go extinct.
To try to stop the climate changing is to be a Cnut. (In the monarchist sense.)
At least we have got to the stage where people accept it is happening, and will continue to do so.
All you have left is arguments over semantics.
The positive externalities of mitigation are worth it, even if they don't have a big impact on global emissions and the rate at which temperature increases.
Investment in adaptation is almost certainly worth it, particularly for flooding on the east coast and air conditioning in hospitals.
Yes. We need to invest in mitigation AND reduce CO2 output AND improve energy efficiency AND investigate carbon capture AND reduce methane output AND… We’re past simple solutions. We need all the solutions.
There are no solutions that will be acceptable in a democracy because people will not accept a mandated decline in living standard. Therefore there will be no solutions
Which is why Elon Musk insisted that the first Tesla be a sub 4 second car.
1) Build sports car Tesla Roadster 2) Use that money to build an affordable car Model S 3) Use that money to build an even more affordable car Model 3 4) While doing above, also provide zero emission electric power generation options
My bold, added in
Tesla are currently looking at the next price bracket down from the Model 3 - as are the other manufacturers.
EDIT: The point of the sub 4 second Roadster was to make electric cars desirable. Not hair shirts.
The Tesla Model 3 "from £42,000" you mean? Smacks of the "working man's Porsche", the 924.
It's about working down the ladder.
The first idea is to realise that you can build an electric car that isn't a hairshirt car. Instead of building to a cost - Build, refine, build for lower cost, refine.
This started with custom conversions, by high end auto shops - for $250K they would rebuild your ICE car as electric. See the Minis converted for the rubbish remake of the Italian Job.
The next stage was companies (such as Tesla) realising that you could reduce costs and improve the performance with a limited run. The original Roadster. This was a modified Lotus Elise chassis (in the end very modified), with a power train installed. Still a 6 figure car, but cheaper and better.
The Model S was a proper mass production car, but still expensive.
The Model 3 was about reducing that cost.
The next model on will be about a car that sells for 30K or less. This is what all the manufacturers are working on, now.
As the HPA guy said recently, we are at the stage where a used Tesla costs the same as a new Ford Focus (and the same for ICE luxury cars, of course).
Let's flip that around for a second. That means that there has been extraordinarily little depreciation on Tesla Model 3s.
People have bought Model 3s for about £50k (which includes £8k of VAT), so £42k pre-tax. And those same cars are selling for £30-35k five years later. That's depreciation of only £2-3k (pre-tax) per year.
That means that owning a Tesla Model 3 costs you less than an equivalent new petrol car, because your vehicle depreciates so much less over the period.
We're still in a time of supply scarcity. That will slowly change as new manufacturing plants come on stream.
There isn't a climate emergency. The change in terminology could have been predicted, though. Less so the change from global warming to climate change. Next the line is bound to be do this or go extinct.
To try to stop the climate changing is to be a Cnut. (In the monarchist sense.)
At least we have got to the stage where people accept it is happening, and will continue to do so.
All you have left is arguments over semantics.
The positive externalities of mitigation are worth it, even if they don't have a big impact on global emissions and the rate at which temperature increases.
Investment in adaptation is almost certainly worth it, particularly for flooding on the east coast and air conditioning in hospitals.
Yes. We need to invest in mitigation AND reduce CO2 output AND improve energy efficiency AND investigate carbon capture AND reduce methane output AND… We’re past simple solutions. We need all the solutions.
There are no solutions that will be acceptable in a democracy because people will not accept a mandated decline in living standard. Therefore there will be no solutions
Which is why Elon Musk insisted that the first Tesla be a sub 4 second car.
1) Build sports car Tesla Roadster 2) Use that money to build an affordable car Model S 3) Use that money to build an even more affordable car Model 3 4) While doing above, also provide zero emission electric power generation options
My bold, added in
Tesla are currently looking at the next price bracket down from the Model 3 - as are the other manufacturers.
EDIT: The point of the sub 4 second Roadster was to make electric cars desirable. Not hair shirts.
The Tesla Model 3 "from £42,000" you mean? Smacks of the "working man's Porsche", the 924.
It's about working down the ladder.
The first idea is to realise that you can build an electric car that isn't a hairshirt car. Instead of building to a cost - Build, refine, build for lower cost, refine.
This started with custom conversions, by high end auto shops - for $250K they would rebuild your ICE car as electric. See the Minis converted for the rubbish remake of the Italian Job.
The next stage was companies (such as Tesla) realising that you could reduce costs and improve the performance with a limited run. The original Roadster. This was a modified Lotus Elise chassis (in the end very modified), with a power train installed. Still a 6 figure car, but cheaper and better.
The Model S was a proper mass production car, but still expensive.
The Model 3 was about reducing that cost.
The next model on will be about a car that sells for 30K or less. This is what all the manufacturers are working on, now.
As the HPA guy said recently, we are at the stage where a used Tesla costs the same as a new Ford Focus (and the same for ICE luxury cars, of course).
Let's flip that around for a second. That means that there has been extraordinarily little depreciation on Tesla Model 3s.
People have bought Model 3s for about £50k (which includes £8k of VAT), so £42k pre-tax. And those same cars are selling for £30-35k five years later. That's depreciation of only £2-3k (pre-tax) per year.
That means that owning a Tesla Model 3 costs you less than an equivalent new petrol car, because your vehicle depreciates so much less over the period.
To flip that around, it means that they’re further away from ownership for a lot more people than might have been expected.
There isn't a climate emergency. The change in terminology could have been predicted, though. Less so the change from global warming to climate change. Next the line is bound to be do this or go extinct.
To try to stop the climate changing is to be a Cnut. (In the monarchist sense.)
At least we have got to the stage where people accept it is happening, and will continue to do so.
All you have left is arguments over semantics.
The positive externalities of mitigation are worth it, even if they don't have a big impact on global emissions and the rate at which temperature increases.
Investment in adaptation is almost certainly worth it, particularly for flooding on the east coast and air conditioning in hospitals.
Yes. We need to invest in mitigation AND reduce CO2 output AND improve energy efficiency AND investigate carbon capture AND reduce methane output AND… We’re past simple solutions. We need all the solutions.
There are no solutions that will be acceptable in a democracy because people will not accept a mandated decline in living standard. Therefore there will be no solutions
How about the solutions that do not require a decline in living standards?
- More renewables in energy generation -> less dependence on (suddenly very expensive) gas from dodgy places - More efficient appliances -> lower costs of running those appliances - Better insulation -> warmer homes at lower heating cost (plus removal of cold patches with mould etc) - EVs -> better cars with lower running costs
Someone the other day mentioned LED lighting. Well, it's just better than incandescent, isn't it? Many more colour options, cooler running*, lasts longer, obsolescence of even worse stuff like flurorescent tubes...
*I once burned my foot on a halogen bulb in a bedside lamp when reading in bed turned into something more energetic
I am not against any of those but we both know the climate change zealots want more than that
They demand an end to personal transportation for one They demand we all go vegan for two
But climate change zealots are nowhere near power.
Neither of those two things are going to happen before the climate apocalypse* and then it's too late and pointless anyway.
*by which I mean they are election losers right up until the point where (if it ever happens) the effects of climate change are so severe that people, in general, would actually want these things
I should state at this point I am absolutely relaxed about climate change, purely because by the time it becomes critical I will be dead as will be my family. I doubt I am alone in that.
Which on the one hand means that the rhetoric can be ramped up and no one will be any the wiser, while on the other as you say no one *really* is invested.
It comes down to will no one think of the children which is always a tricky ask.
Like many my son and his wife have decided to be childfree. Given he they are in their 30's by the time he dies will likely be 2080 at the latest. What is being asked therefore is "think of other peoples children"
I expect things to be pretty shit by 2050
Give us some f'rinstances.
Hot summers wet winters fires everywhere
Oh no!!!
Sounds like a pretty normal year to me if I am honest
Pandemic - Catastrophic, 5-25% chance over 5yrs (5% in 5yrs is a once a century event, so once in a couple of decades to a century
Large scale CBRN attack - Catastrophic, 1-5% (measured over 2 years for malicious events)
Failure of NETS (national grid): Catastrophic, 1-5% over 5 yrs
Conventional Infra attack, severe space weather, low temperatures and snow, emerging infectious disease, nuclear miscalculation between other states - Severe, 5-25%
Terrorist attacks on public spaces, tech failure of financial market infra, disaster in an Overseas Territory, article 5 invocation or similar - 25%+, Moderate
The 2038 election of President Piers Morgan needs to be somewhere up there as well imo.
This video is a video from a guy who does DCS videos (dogfighting games transposed to video with a narrative). The commentary is computer-generated by an AI set to mimic the actor Michael Ironside's voice. Have a listen, see if you can distinguish it from the real person.
Why are Slavs so unsmiling? They don’t help themselves
The young women are beautiful but they either pout or scowl. Older women just scowl
And it’s not simply a Ukrainian thing. You see it across all of Eastern Europe. Russians are a bit jollier. Odd.
At the risk of being impolite, is this something you have observed them doing to other people or to you personally? You do have a distinct style which may not be appreciated by all.
No, it’s definitely a cultural thing
@Casino_Royale mentioned it a couple of days ago. He’s married to a Bulgarian and is right now in Bulgaria. And we are hardly the first to notice it
Think of Novak Djokovic
So the question is: why? Is it centuries of bloodshed, war and angst, or something else?
My wife is a rare smiler. But yes, it’s true that most don’t. A relic of the old communist times, when your business was kept to yourself, and no-one asked how you were doing or where were you going.
(If my things go according to plan, I’m about 36 hours from being in the same country as you).
I recommend it heartily. It’s quite a thing to see a European nation in total war
For about an hour you might feel a touch voyeuristic, but then you realise that the locals REALLY want you here. Not so much for your custom (tho that is welcome) but for your presence. They want people to see - and bear witness
There isn't a climate emergency. The change in terminology could have been predicted, though. Less so the change from global warming to climate change. Next the line is bound to be do this or go extinct.
To try to stop the climate changing is to be a Cnut. (In the monarchist sense.)
At least we have got to the stage where people accept it is happening, and will continue to do so.
All you have left is arguments over semantics.
The positive externalities of mitigation are worth it, even if they don't have a big impact on global emissions and the rate at which temperature increases.
Investment in adaptation is almost certainly worth it, particularly for flooding on the east coast and air conditioning in hospitals.
Yes. We need to invest in mitigation AND reduce CO2 output AND improve energy efficiency AND investigate carbon capture AND reduce methane output AND… We’re past simple solutions. We need all the solutions.
There are no solutions that will be acceptable in a democracy because people will not accept a mandated decline in living standard. Therefore there will be no solutions
Which is why Elon Musk insisted that the first Tesla be a sub 4 second car.
1) Build sports car Tesla Roadster 2) Use that money to build an affordable car Model S 3) Use that money to build an even more affordable car Model 3 4) While doing above, also provide zero emission electric power generation options
My bold, added in
Tesla are currently looking at the next price bracket down from the Model 3 - as are the other manufacturers.
EDIT: The point of the sub 4 second Roadster was to make electric cars desirable. Not hair shirts.
The Tesla Model 3 "from £42,000" you mean? Smacks of the "working man's Porsche", the 924.
It's about working down the ladder.
The first idea is to realise that you can build an electric car that isn't a hairshirt car. Instead of building to a cost - Build, refine, build for lower cost, refine.
This started with custom conversions, by high end auto shops - for $250K they would rebuild your ICE car as electric. See the Minis converted for the rubbish remake of the Italian Job.
The next stage was companies (such as Tesla) realising that you could reduce costs and improve the performance with a limited run. The original Roadster. This was a modified Lotus Elise chassis (in the end very modified), with a power train installed. Still a 6 figure car, but cheaper and better.
The Model S was a proper mass production car, but still expensive.
The Model 3 was about reducing that cost.
The next model on will be about a car that sells for 30K or less. This is what all the manufacturers are working on, now.
As the HPA guy said recently, we are at the stage where a used Tesla costs the same as a new Ford Focus (and the same for ICE luxury cars, of course).
Let's flip that around for a second. That means that there has been extraordinarily little depreciation on Tesla Model 3s.
People have bought Model 3s for about £50k (which includes £8k of VAT), so £42k pre-tax. And those same cars are selling for £30-35k five years later. That's depreciation of only £2-3k (pre-tax) per year.
That means that owning a Tesla Model 3 costs you less than an equivalent new petrol car, because your vehicle depreciates so much less over the period.
To flip that around, it means that they’re further away from ownership for a lot more people than might have been expected.
This video is a video from a guy who does DCS videos (dogfighting games transposed to video with a narrative). The commentary is computer-generated by an AI set to mimic the actor Michael Ironside's voice. Have a listen, see if you can distinguish it from the real person.
The weird Austro-Slavic Alhambra that is late Victorian Chernivtsi University
It’s attractive but I’m not quite sure why it’s UNESCO World Heritage listed
If this is listed, why not half the colleges in Oxbridge?
The Brits don’t do very well in getting UNESCO listings. We underperform relative to our remarkable history. Probably doesn’t help that it’s run by the French (who have many more listings than us)
Slowly, inexorably, the British Conservative party morphs into the US Republican party.
If it is slowly it'd still take a very long time for that transformation. There are nutty Tories, but the Republicans, wow, it's on a level I cannot even comprehend.
At last their opponents are trying not to be complacent about things though. If Trump and Biden are tied in polling, given the dynamics of the Electoral College, it means that Trump will win. We cannot become complacent - Trump's support from the MAGA base will only increase as he faces his third indictment. politico.com/news/2023/08/01… https://nitter.net/ProjectLincoln/status/1686580081424998400#m
Pandemic - Catastrophic, 5-25% chance over 5yrs (5% in 5yrs is a once a century event, so once in a couple of decades to a century
Large scale CBRN attack - Catastrophic, 1-5% (measured over 2 years for malicious events)
Failure of NETS (national grid): Catastrophic, 1-5% over 5 yrs
Conventional Infra attack, severe space weather, low temperatures and snow, emerging infectious disease, nuclear miscalculation between other states - Severe, 5-25%
Terrorist attacks on public spaces, tech failure of financial market infra, disaster in an Overseas Territory, article 5 invocation or similar - 25%+, Moderate
There isn't a climate emergency. The change in terminology could have been predicted, though. Less so the change from global warming to climate change. Next the line is bound to be do this or go extinct.
To try to stop the climate changing is to be a Cnut. (In the monarchist sense.)
At least we have got to the stage where people accept it is happening, and will continue to do so.
All you have left is arguments over semantics.
The positive externalities of mitigation are worth it, even if they don't have a big impact on global emissions and the rate at which temperature increases.
Investment in adaptation is almost certainly worth it, particularly for flooding on the east coast and air conditioning in hospitals.
Yes. We need to invest in mitigation AND reduce CO2 output AND improve energy efficiency AND investigate carbon capture AND reduce methane output AND… We’re past simple solutions. We need all the solutions.
There are no solutions that will be acceptable in a democracy because people will not accept a mandated decline in living standard. Therefore there will be no solutions
Which is why Elon Musk insisted that the first Tesla be a sub 4 second car.
1) Build sports car Tesla Roadster 2) Use that money to build an affordable car Model S 3) Use that money to build an even more affordable car Model 3 4) While doing above, also provide zero emission electric power generation options
My bold, added in
Tesla are currently looking at the next price bracket down from the Model 3 - as are the other manufacturers.
EDIT: The point of the sub 4 second Roadster was to make electric cars desirable. Not hair shirts.
The Tesla Model 3 "from £42,000" you mean? Smacks of the "working man's Porsche", the 924.
It's about working down the ladder.
The first idea is to realise that you can build an electric car that isn't a hairshirt car. Instead of building to a cost - Build, refine, build for lower cost, refine.
This started with custom conversions, by high end auto shops - for $250K they would rebuild your ICE car as electric. See the Minis converted for the rubbish remake of the Italian Job.
The next stage was companies (such as Tesla) realising that you could reduce costs and improve the performance with a limited run. The original Roadster. This was a modified Lotus Elise chassis (in the end very modified), with a power train installed. Still a 6 figure car, but cheaper and better.
The Model S was a proper mass production car, but still expensive.
The Model 3 was about reducing that cost.
The next model on will be about a car that sells for 30K or less. This is what all the manufacturers are working on, now.
As the HPA guy said recently, we are at the stage where a used Tesla costs the same as a new Ford Focus (and the same for ICE luxury cars, of course).
Let's flip that around for a second. That means that there has been extraordinarily little depreciation on Tesla Model 3s.
People have bought Model 3s for about £50k (which includes £8k of VAT), so £42k pre-tax. And those same cars are selling for £30-35k five years later. That's depreciation of only £2-3k (pre-tax) per year.
That means that owning a Tesla Model 3 costs you less than an equivalent new petrol car, because your vehicle depreciates so much less over the period.
To flip that around, it means that they’re further away from ownership for a lot more people than might have been expected.
There isn't a climate emergency. The change in terminology could have been predicted, though. Less so the change from global warming to climate change. Next the line is bound to be do this or go extinct.
To try to stop the climate changing is to be a Cnut. (In the monarchist sense.)
At least we have got to the stage where people accept it is happening, and will continue to do so.
All you have left is arguments over semantics.
The positive externalities of mitigation are worth it, even if they don't have a big impact on global emissions and the rate at which temperature increases.
Investment in adaptation is almost certainly worth it, particularly for flooding on the east coast and air conditioning in hospitals.
Yes. We need to invest in mitigation AND reduce CO2 output AND improve energy efficiency AND investigate carbon capture AND reduce methane output AND… We’re past simple solutions. We need all the solutions.
There are no solutions that will be acceptable in a democracy because people will not accept a mandated decline in living standard. Therefore there will be no solutions
Which is why Elon Musk insisted that the first Tesla be a sub 4 second car.
1) Build sports car Tesla Roadster 2) Use that money to build an affordable car Model S 3) Use that money to build an even more affordable car Model 3 4) While doing above, also provide zero emission electric power generation options
My bold, added in
Tesla are currently looking at the next price bracket down from the Model 3 - as are the other manufacturers.
EDIT: The point of the sub 4 second Roadster was to make electric cars desirable. Not hair shirts.
The Tesla Model 3 "from £42,000" you mean? Smacks of the "working man's Porsche", the 924.
It's about working down the ladder.
The first idea is to realise that you can build an electric car that isn't a hairshirt car. Instead of building to a cost - Build, refine, build for lower cost, refine.
This started with custom conversions, by high end auto shops - for $250K they would rebuild your ICE car as electric. See the Minis converted for the rubbish remake of the Italian Job.
The next stage was companies (such as Tesla) realising that you could reduce costs and improve the performance with a limited run. The original Roadster. This was a modified Lotus Elise chassis (in the end very modified), with a power train installed. Still a 6 figure car, but cheaper and better.
The Model S was a proper mass production car, but still expensive.
The Model 3 was about reducing that cost.
The next model on will be about a car that sells for 30K or less. This is what all the manufacturers are working on, now.
As the HPA guy said recently, we are at the stage where a used Tesla costs the same as a new Ford Focus (and the same for ICE luxury cars, of course).
Let's flip that around for a second. That means that there has been extraordinarily little depreciation on Tesla Model 3s.
People have bought Model 3s for about £50k (which includes £8k of VAT), so £42k pre-tax. And those same cars are selling for £30-35k five years later. That's depreciation of only £2-3k (pre-tax) per year.
That means that owning a Tesla Model 3 costs you less than an equivalent new petrol car, because your vehicle depreciates so much less over the period.
To flip that around, it means that they’re further away from ownership for a lot more people than might have been expected.
Your cost of owning a car is depreciation + finance + maintenance*. That means a £42k Tesla Model 3 is cheaper than a £50 or £55k ICE.
I do realise that most people don't think that way, but that low depreciation is a massive boon to purchasers; it's like an additional subsidy.
* Plus fuel and tax - and of course, both of these are cheaper on the Tesla.
Surpised not to see insurance on your list.....for younger drivers it may be the biggest component.
On depreciation, the bottom end of the second hand market has been seeing increasing prices as cars age over that 3 year period, so not sure future owners should be basing decisions too much of what has happened recently.
There isn't a climate emergency. The change in terminology could have been predicted, though. Less so the change from global warming to climate change. Next the line is bound to be do this or go extinct.
To try to stop the climate changing is to be a Cnut. (In the monarchist sense.)
At least we have got to the stage where people accept it is happening, and will continue to do so.
All you have left is arguments over semantics.
The positive externalities of mitigation are worth it, even if they don't have a big impact on global emissions and the rate at which temperature increases.
Investment in adaptation is almost certainly worth it, particularly for flooding on the east coast and air conditioning in hospitals.
Yes. We need to invest in mitigation AND reduce CO2 output AND improve energy efficiency AND investigate carbon capture AND reduce methane output AND… We’re past simple solutions. We need all the solutions.
There are no solutions that will be acceptable in a democracy because people will not accept a mandated decline in living standard. Therefore there will be no solutions
Which is why Elon Musk insisted that the first Tesla be a sub 4 second car.
1) Build sports car Tesla Roadster 2) Use that money to build an affordable car Model S 3) Use that money to build an even more affordable car Model 3 4) While doing above, also provide zero emission electric power generation options
My bold, added in
Tesla are currently looking at the next price bracket down from the Model 3 - as are the other manufacturers.
EDIT: The point of the sub 4 second Roadster was to make electric cars desirable. Not hair shirts.
The Tesla Model 3 "from £42,000" you mean? Smacks of the "working man's Porsche", the 924.
It's about working down the ladder.
The first idea is to realise that you can build an electric car that isn't a hairshirt car. Instead of building to a cost - Build, refine, build for lower cost, refine.
This started with custom conversions, by high end auto shops - for $250K they would rebuild your ICE car as electric. See the Minis converted for the rubbish remake of the Italian Job.
The next stage was companies (such as Tesla) realising that you could reduce costs and improve the performance with a limited run. The original Roadster. This was a modified Lotus Elise chassis (in the end very modified), with a power train installed. Still a 6 figure car, but cheaper and better.
The Model S was a proper mass production car, but still expensive.
The Model 3 was about reducing that cost.
The next model on will be about a car that sells for 30K or less. This is what all the manufacturers are working on, now.
As the HPA guy said recently, we are at the stage where a used Tesla costs the same as a new Ford Focus (and the same for ICE luxury cars, of course).
Let's flip that around for a second. That means that there has been extraordinarily little depreciation on Tesla Model 3s.
People have bought Model 3s for about £50k (which includes £8k of VAT), so £42k pre-tax. And those same cars are selling for £30-35k five years later. That's depreciation of only £2-3k (pre-tax) per year.
That means that owning a Tesla Model 3 costs you less than an equivalent new petrol car, because your vehicle depreciates so much less over the period.
To flip that around, it means that they’re further away from ownership for a lot more people than might have been expected.
There isn't a climate emergency. The change in terminology could have been predicted, though. Less so the change from global warming to climate change. Next the line is bound to be do this or go extinct.
To try to stop the climate changing is to be a Cnut. (In the monarchist sense.)
At least we have got to the stage where people accept it is happening, and will continue to do so.
All you have left is arguments over semantics.
The positive externalities of mitigation are worth it, even if they don't have a big impact on global emissions and the rate at which temperature increases.
Investment in adaptation is almost certainly worth it, particularly for flooding on the east coast and air conditioning in hospitals.
Yes. We need to invest in mitigation AND reduce CO2 output AND improve energy efficiency AND investigate carbon capture AND reduce methane output AND… We’re past simple solutions. We need all the solutions.
There are no solutions that will be acceptable in a democracy because people will not accept a mandated decline in living standard. Therefore there will be no solutions
How about the solutions that do not require a decline in living standards?
- More renewables in energy generation -> less dependence on (suddenly very expensive) gas from dodgy places - More efficient appliances -> lower costs of running those appliances - Better insulation -> warmer homes at lower heating cost (plus removal of cold patches with mould etc) - EVs -> better cars with lower running costs
Someone the other day mentioned LED lighting. Well, it's just better than incandescent, isn't it? Many more colour options, cooler running*, lasts longer, obsolescence of even worse stuff like flurorescent tubes...
*I once burned my foot on a halogen bulb in a bedside lamp when reading in bed turned into something more energetic
I am not against any of those but we both know the climate change zealots want more than that
They demand an end to personal transportation for one They demand we all go vegan for two
But climate change zealots are nowhere near power.
Neither of those two things are going to happen before the climate apocalypse* and then it's too late and pointless anyway.
*by which I mean they are election losers right up until the point where (if it ever happens) the effects of climate change are so severe that people, in general, would actually want these things
I should state at this point I am absolutely relaxed about climate change, purely because by the time it becomes critical I will be dead as will be my family. I doubt I am alone in that.
Which on the one hand means that the rhetoric can be ramped up and no one will be any the wiser, while on the other as you say no one *really* is invested.
It comes down to will no one think of the children which is always a tricky ask.
Like many my son and his wife have decided to be childfree. Given he they are in their 30's by the time he dies will likely be 2080 at the latest. What is being asked therefore is "think of other peoples children"
I expect things to be pretty shit by 2050
Give us some f'rinstances.
Hot summers wet winters fires everywhere
Oh no!!!
Sounds like a pretty normal year to me if I am honest
Ahem
Never trust a chart that lacks a scale.
Climate change is real, we have done what we can to mitigate it, and we need to encourage others to mitigate it too. Now we need to put our efforts into adaptation and ensuring others mitigate it.
Others will only mitigate it and follow our already excellent lead, if our standard of living and quality of life improves.
Hairshirt zealots are anti-mitigation because in wanting us to hurt ourselves/abandon proper private transportation, they are advocating policies the rest of the world won't copy. And the rest of the world are the ones causing the emissions.
Anti-mitigation? What are you talking about?
Mitigation = reducing emissions Adaptation = getting ready Damage = what we don't manage to get ready for
So if you have £40k-odd then you are laughing because you can buy a Tesla Model 3 and depreciation is negligible.
I think this proves the point about you needing to be well off to start with to reap the undoubted benefits of all this new technology and also to stay green.
Meanwhile the family tootling around in a 10-yr old diesel car can only dream of paying 50 grand for a car.
My sympathies for @Barnesian’s daughter are limited, it must be said
If you’re gonna take on a £1.8 MILLION mortgage you need to be 1. Filthy rich in the first place and 2. Smart enough to work out that if interest rates change you’ll be in pain
This video is a video from a guy who does DCS videos (dogfighting games transposed to video with a narrative). The commentary is computer-generated by an AI set to mimic the actor Michael Ironside's voice. Have a listen, see if you can distinguish it from the real person.
Which is why writers and actors are currently on strike. They’re worried that film and TV producers are going to start doing the same.
Which seems like Luddism to me.
If the writers and actors can do a better job than automation, then they should be paid for it.
If automation and efficiency does a better job than people, then sorry but that's progress.
This is an industry that usually struggles to see the opportunities new technology presents. Home taping and video recorders were seen as a threat. Napster and downloads were seen as a threat. Just two examples that when embraced they became a revenue stream.
Comments
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/05/culture-and-smiling/483827/
An explanation:
“Krys focused on a cultural phenomenon called “uncertainty avoidance.” Cultures that are low on this scale tend to have social systems—courts, health-care systems, safety nets, and so forth—that are unstable. Therefore, people there view the future as unpredictable and uncontrollable.
Smiling is a sign of certainty and confidence, so when people in those countries smile, they might seem odd. Why would you smile when fate is an invisible wolf waiting to shred you? You might, in those “low-UA” countries, even be considered stupid for smiling.”
https://britsandrusskies.com/2016/07/23/3-reasons-why-eastern-europeans-dont-smile/
Possibly developed under Communism. Self-control of your emotions was essential and you only showed them in private.
They can be very friendly, but you really have to get to know them first- they don't appear "inviting".
Cheer the fuck up. Approach the world with a friendly smile. Jeez
No wonder your name Slavs is derived from
“slaves”. You’re too depressing. Get down in the cellar
Same will also be true about predictions of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan.
And in climate change land we already see this too. Emissions are rising less rapidly than in the worst case BAU scenarios from the 1990s. That’s because we’ve started to decarbonise earlier than feared. Global temperatures are also therefore rising less than in the BAU projections, and somewhere between those and the partial mitigation scenario. So guess what, sceptics loudly announce that we’re undershooting emissions and warming “forecasts”.
The Montenegrins are a notable exception. I’ve no idea why
I think this is why Slavic women aren’t as attractive as they “should” be. They are textbook beautiful. But they all look like they’ve just swallowed an unpleasantly vinegary pickle. It’s off putting
They probably think us weird, suspicious and crazy for smiling.
To us, it looks sulky, mean, rude and unattractive.
But the issue I have with this hypothesis about uncertainty over the future is that people in the Middle East seem to smile a lot, yet have on the whole pretty awful political governance or certainty in life. Perhaps certainty from religion?
There, I assume they are trying to sell or scam me, and I definitely smile less in those countries so I invite less of it.
I tend to think that on this issue, the Germans have it about right. Nobody is more into efficiency than the Germans, which was already in their culture had the privations of the Nazi war effort not ingrained it even more deeply. They are enthusiastically green, but they don't have any truck with economical self-harm. They won't surrender their industries, both for self-preservation reasons, and because they're logical enough to realise that off-shoring jobs and industry to China is doing the planet no good at all.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a0kbNDaenjk
Innate British cheeriness - “mustn’t grumble!” - *have a cup of tea and tell a joke* - becomes quite appealing after a few weeks here
And it becomes painful. You approach a hotel reception desk and they greet you with a scowl, or at best a blank face of glum nothing. Your automatic reaction is 1 what have I done wrong or 2 shit, did her mum just die?
It’s a drag
In fact, there is an opportunity to become a world leader in a bunch of new industries.
Some or all of the occupants share amenities such as bathrooms, toilets or cooking facilities
So, not if she sticks a microwave in every room
And a lot of people are suggesting just that. Starmer's party for a start, not granting any new oil licenses, yet happy to import oil and gas from America or KSA. That is off-shoring. It's worse for the planet's net carbon emissions AND worse for our economy. It is the height of recklessness and the loons expect plaudits for it. If the Germans had North Sea Oil, do you think for a second they would be stupid enough to adopt Starmer's policy on it?
1. The kids are as smiley and laugh-y as kids anywhere. So it must be something people pick up in adolescence. They learn NOT to smile
2. It must be tricky for them coming to the west - or anywhere - and working in hospitality (or other people-oriented business). In the west you need to smile. It is expected. It reassures. It is friendly. So I guess they must relearn what they learned not to do
*three weeks
• A senior Turkish parliamentarian said gov’t will punish Disney with licence cancellation, bandwidth reduction, ad ban
https://twitter.com/ragipsoylu/status/1687108802230059010
Pandemic - Catastrophic, 5-25% chance over 5yrs (5% in 5yrs is a once a century event, so once in a couple of decades to a century
Large scale CBRN attack - Catastrophic, 1-5% (measured over 2 years for malicious events)
Failure of NETS (national grid): Catastrophic, 1-5% over 5 yrs
Conventional Infra attack, severe space weather, low temperatures and snow, emerging infectious disease, nuclear miscalculation between other states - Severe, 5-25%
Terrorist attacks on public spaces, tech failure of financial market infra, disaster in an Overseas Territory, article 5 invocation or similar - 25%+, Moderate
I'd guess part of the reason people don't want kids is because they know there are so many people with your attitude.
All those additional spending consequentials as England tries to prevent itself from sinking/burning.
But then the more time went by, the more I saw LTN, and I thought, maybe it's not all about the small City in Bedfordshire.
* Especially as that is the code for the airport.
Win, win.
Some years ago, when he was still a prince, your king was admirably specific, saying that the world had just 18 months to deal with climate change. In contrast, German Chancellor Merkel closed nuclear power plants, which are one of the best ways to mitigate climate change. (That closing also worsened "ordinary" air pollution, leading to hundreds of additional deaths in Germany and neighoring nations.)
I have been saying for years that, if you think global warming is a serious problem -- and can do arithmetic -- you will favor more nuclear power. That's not an unusual view in the US, now. It is held by George W. Bush, and by both of Obama's permanent energy secretaries. And, increasingly, by the voters.
Given her degree in quantum chemistry, I think it fair to conclude that Merkel can do arithmetic. Given her actions in closing those plants I think it fair to conclude that she does not think global warming is an emergency.
If you disagree with her, please emulate your monarch and give us a time estimate. Do we have 18 months to build nukes and renewables, and switch to electric vehicles, and so on, or how long?
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jan/19/low-traffic-neighbourhoods-boundary-roads-london
Though I suspect fake as no 13 year old would be old enough to have been shown how a payphone works.
(all from memory only)
https://www.autotrader.co.uk/car-search?advertising-location=at_cars&include-delivery-option=on&make=Tesla&model=Model 3&postcode=Sw1a1aa&price-to=25000&sort=relevance
Getting there, but still priced out for many.
https://www.argos.co.uk/product/8935665
It's the sort of thing councillors enjoy debating, but I'd have thought that the average voter would share your bafflement.
(If my things go according to plan, I’m about 36 hours from being in the same country as you).
Climate change is real, we have done what we can to mitigate it, and we need to encourage others to mitigate it too. Now we need to put our efforts into adaptation and ensuring others mitigate it.
Others will only mitigate it and follow our already excellent lead, if our standard of living and quality of life improves.
Hairshirt zealots are anti-mitigation because in wanting us to hurt ourselves/abandon proper private transportation, they are advocating policies the rest of the world won't copy. And the rest of the world are the ones causing the emissions.
People have bought Model 3s for about £50k (which includes £8k of VAT), so £42k pre-tax. And those same cars are selling for £30-35k five years later. That's depreciation of only £2-3k (pre-tax) per year.
That means that owning a Tesla Model 3 costs you less than an equivalent new petrol car, because your vehicle depreciates so much less over the period.
That will slowly change as new manufacturing plants come on stream.
Cheapest new Model 3 is now £42k in the UK.
https://www.tesla.com/en_gb/model3/design#overview
The new one has actually got cheaper over time, and that’s now starting to be reflected in used values.
For about an hour you might feel a touch voyeuristic, but then you realise that the locals REALLY want you here. Not so much for your custom (tho that is welcome) but for your presence. They want people to see - and bear witness
I do realise that most people don't think that way, but that low depreciation is a massive boon to purchasers; it's like an additional subsidy.
* Plus fuel and tax - and of course, both of these are cheaper on the Tesla.
If the writers and actors can do a better job than automation, then they should be paid for it.
If automation and efficiency does a better job than people, then sorry but that's progress.
It’s attractive but I’m not quite sure why it’s UNESCO World Heritage listed
If this is listed, why not half the colleges in Oxbridge?
The Brits don’t do very well in getting UNESCO listings. We underperform relative to our remarkable history. Probably doesn’t help that it’s run by the French (who have many more listings than us)
This is silly as they really help with tourism
At last their opponents are trying not to be complacent about things though.
If Trump and Biden are tied in polling, given the dynamics of the Electoral College, it means that Trump will win. We cannot become complacent - Trump's support from the MAGA base will only increase as he faces his third indictment.
politico.com/news/2023/08/01…
https://nitter.net/ProjectLincoln/status/1686580081424998400#m
On depreciation, the bottom end of the second hand market has been seeing increasing prices as cars age over that 3 year period, so not sure future owners should be basing decisions too much of what has happened recently.
https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/cars/article-12160659/Used-electric-cars-nosedived-value-2023.html
Mitigation = reducing emissions
Adaptation = getting ready
Damage = what we don't manage to get ready for
I think this proves the point about you needing to be well off to start with to reap the undoubted benefits of all this new technology and also to stay green.
Meanwhile the family tootling around in a 10-yr old diesel car can only dream of paying 50 grand for a car.
If you’re gonna take on a £1.8 MILLION mortgage you need to be 1. Filthy rich in the first place and 2. Smart enough to work out that if interest rates change you’ll be in pain
did you hear about the turnip munchers?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-66383168