For LOLs I just clicked onto 'Rachel Riley' on the 'trending' section on the dumpster-fire formerly known as Twitter.
The amount of hate towards her from the left is frankly worrying. I haven't investigated the allegations against her (*), but the froth-mouthed, spittle-flecked screeching against her kinda makes me feel that she's in the right.
(*) Partly because the mere fact of her existence seems to annoy them.
Mostly it's because she is Jewish, albeit Atheist.
She is vegan too, so something to offend the other headbangers...
That last bit has put me off.
Like finding out someone you really fancy is a smoker.
I'm sure she'll reconsider her dietary choices, if you let her know.
One day, yes.
This is a just a phase we are living through: like prohibition in the 1920s. It's a quasi-religious movement. As prohibition was to over-consumption of alcohol and its "evils", veganism is the same with animal products.
Because it's irrational, dogmatic and illogical it will eventually die out, as prohibition did, and everyone who was taken in by it will be embarrassed to admit they ever were one.
Much of what you say may be true, but the prediction that veganism will die out is unlikely given that various forms of vegetarianism have persisted throughout history.
I think vegetarianism is different, not least because they get some animal products in their diet through dairy and the like, and funnily enough I've never found them preachy or problematic.
For LOLs I just clicked onto 'Rachel Riley' on the 'trending' section on the dumpster-fire formerly known as Twitter.
The amount of hate towards her from the left is frankly worrying. I haven't investigated the allegations against her (*), but the froth-mouthed, spittle-flecked screeching against her kinda makes me feel that she's in the right.
(*) Partly because the mere fact of her existence seems to annoy them.
Mostly it's because she is Jewish, albeit Atheist.
She is vegan too, so something to offend the other headbangers...
That last bit has put me off.
Like finding out someone you really fancy is a smoker.
I'm sure she'll reconsider her dietary choices, if you let her know.
One day, yes.
This is a just a phase we are living through: like prohibition in the 1920s. It's a quasi-religious movement. As prohibition was to over-consumption of alcohol and its "evils", veganism is the same with animal products.
Because it's irrational, dogmatic and illogical it will eventually die out, as prohibition did, and everyone who was taken in by it will be embarrassed to admit they ever were one.
Much of what you say may be true, but the prediction that veganism will die out is unlikely given that various forms of vegetarianism have persisted throughout history.
I think we will look back at meat-eating in 100 years time like we now look back at the slave trade.
This is utterly magnificent from the Scottish government.
An inquiry into claims a government body unfairly awarded a £97 million ferry contract will not investigate allegations unearthed by the BBC that the procurement process was “rigged”.
The BBC released its documentary Disclosure: The Great Ferries Scandal last year, which presented evidence that the government-owned Caledonian Maritime Assets Limited (CMAL) broke procurement rules by awarding a contract without due process.
Addleshaw Goddard, CMAL’s legal firm, has appointed Barry Smith KC to lead an independent probe to ascertain whether the Ferguson Marine shipyard received preferential treatment.
Smith’s remit has been limited to only investigating whether criminal fraud occurred, which was not one of the original allegations made by the BBC documentary
I've been thinking about this. CMAL is wholly owned by the Scottish government. As is Fergusons after they were nationalised. So one Scottish government entity is investigating whether it was defrauded by what is now another part, or indeed the Scottish government itself so it can....err....sue?
Far be it from me to suggest money spent on the legal profession is a waste but other than creating the pretense that the allegations are being taken seriously, when they are in fact being ignored and some straw man is put up instead, what on earth is the point?
Well the government is led by Humza Yusuf, so pretending to take things seriously while sodding up everywhere is his normal modus operandi.
At least you got "Humza" right.
In a country full of Gaelic place names, we hardly have an excuse for getting the spelling wrong.
And Brythonic, and Pictish, not to mention some of the more eccentric Norman and Anglic.
For LOLs I just clicked onto 'Rachel Riley' on the 'trending' section on the dumpster-fire formerly known as Twitter.
The amount of hate towards her from the left is frankly worrying. I haven't investigated the allegations against her (*), but the froth-mouthed, spittle-flecked screeching against her kinda makes me feel that she's in the right.
(*) Partly because the mere fact of her existence seems to annoy them.
Mostly it's because she is Jewish, albeit Atheist.
She is vegan too, so something to offend the other headbangers...
That last bit has put me off.
Like finding out someone you really fancy is a smoker.
I'm sure she'll reconsider her dietary choices, if you let her know.
One day, yes.
This is a just a phase we are living through: like prohibition in the 1920s. It's a quasi-religious movement. As prohibition was to over-consumption of alcohol and its "evils", veganism is the same with animal products.
Because it's irrational, dogmatic and illogical it will eventually die out, as prohibition did, and everyone who was taken in by it will be embarrassed to admit they ever were one.
Much of what you say may be true, but the prediction that veganism will die out is unlikely given that various forms of vegetarianism have persisted throughout history.
I think it is much more likely, once they have produced vegetable products at a reasonable price that taste like meat, that it will become ubiquitous. And I say that as an unapologetic carnivore.
By the way, @Eabhal , that discussion yesterday about that regular cyclists demo in Edinburgh was very useful - I'd never been able to understand whjat the hell was happening when they nearly ran me over, and it is good to be reassured that I wasn't imagining it. Though it only removes the insanity one step out. And I can tell you they all ran through a red - wasn't a matter of the lights changing while the peloton (!) was proceeding over the junction. Bastards. Next time it's straight to B&Q website for a bulk bucket of carpet tacks. (Not really. But it is certainly the sentiment they provoked.)
I think your experience 20 (?) years ago would be very different to what it is now.
Plenty of cyclists run reds routinely, particularly delivery cyclists, and I don't like it either as it gives us a bad name. I get frustrated when people equate this to a car doing the same though given the likely outcomes of being hit by each.
Every vegan I've met or know has been super keen to ensure I don't alter my eating habits one iota if we are socialising over food and have wanted to cause as little fuss as possible.
I have no doubt there are militant vegans out there but has anyone on here actually met one.
For LOLs I just clicked onto 'Rachel Riley' on the 'trending' section on the dumpster-fire formerly known as Twitter.
The amount of hate towards her from the left is frankly worrying. I haven't investigated the allegations against her (*), but the froth-mouthed, spittle-flecked screeching against her kinda makes me feel that she's in the right.
(*) Partly because the mere fact of her existence seems to annoy them.
Mostly it's because she is Jewish, albeit Atheist.
She is vegan too, so something to offend the other headbangers...
That last bit has put me off.
Like finding out someone you really fancy is a smoker.
I'm sure she'll reconsider her dietary choices, if you let her know.
One day, yes.
This is a just a phase we are living through: like prohibition in the 1920s. It's a quasi-religious movement. As prohibition was to over-consumption of alcohol and its "evils", veganism is the same with animal products.
Because it's irrational, dogmatic and illogical it will eventually die out, as prohibition did, and everyone who was taken in by it will be embarrassed to admit they ever were one.
Much of what you say may be true, but the prediction that veganism will die out is unlikely given that various forms of vegetarianism have persisted throughout history.
I think we will look back at meat-eating in 100 years time like we now look back at the slave trade.
Bacon and sausage roll for me this morning.
In a hundred years? Most assuredly, folk will be posting on PB how eating venison but not bacon is part of the Woke plague rotting the soul of the West.
This is utterly magnificent from the Scottish government.
An inquiry into claims a government body unfairly awarded a £97 million ferry contract will not investigate allegations unearthed by the BBC that the procurement process was “rigged”.
The BBC released its documentary Disclosure: The Great Ferries Scandal last year, which presented evidence that the government-owned Caledonian Maritime Assets Limited (CMAL) broke procurement rules by awarding a contract without due process.
Addleshaw Goddard, CMAL’s legal firm, has appointed Barry Smith KC to lead an independent probe to ascertain whether the Ferguson Marine shipyard received preferential treatment.
Smith’s remit has been limited to only investigating whether criminal fraud occurred, which was not one of the original allegations made by the BBC documentary
I've been thinking about this. CMAL is wholly owned by the Scottish government. As is Fergusons after they were nationalised. So one Scottish government entity is investigating whether it was defrauded by what is now another part, or indeed the Scottish government itself so it can....err....sue?
Far be it from me to suggest money spent on the legal profession is a waste but other than creating the pretense that the allegations are being taken seriously, when they are in fact being ignored and some straw man is put up instead, what on earth is the point?
Isn't criminal fraud for the police anyway?.
I appreciate that's also another public entity but at least they have "operational independence".
Yes, it is indeed. As Barry Smith KC, part time AD, must surely appreciate. Having said that, maybe the Scottish government wanted to be vindicated on this non existent allegation before the end of time.
Just seems a bit pointless. I'm sure he's got better things to be doing.
For LOLs I just clicked onto 'Rachel Riley' on the 'trending' section on the dumpster-fire formerly known as Twitter.
The amount of hate towards her from the left is frankly worrying. I haven't investigated the allegations against her (*), but the froth-mouthed, spittle-flecked screeching against her kinda makes me feel that she's in the right.
(*) Partly because the mere fact of her existence seems to annoy them.
Mostly it's because she is Jewish, albeit Atheist.
She is vegan too, so something to offend the other headbangers...
That last bit has put me off.
Like finding out someone you really fancy is a smoker.
Why does it put you off?
I know / have known a fair few vegans. Some are the 'vegan police' style people who wear their suffering for their superpower on their sleeve. Most are perfectly ordinary people who do not want to put any inconvenience on anybody.
It's nothing like smoking. If someone smokes near me, it gets in my lungs even if they're ten feet away. Someone eating a nut roast at the seat next to me has zero effect on me.
Because they are preachy, whiny and annoying.
And they absolutely do inconvenience people. It means every time you hook up with them you can't cook or eat what you want and you've got to reduce your meals to the lowest common denominator so they can eat with you, which is antisocial.
So it absolutely has an effect on me.
Some are 'preachy, whiny and annoying', as I mentioned. Most are not.
People make other life choices from you: if you cannot deal with that, then that is your problem, not theirs.
Er, no. I was talking about what I found attractive and what put me on or off.
Their choices would cause problems for me and restrict my lifestyle and this would put me off.
The fact you might make a different choice is quite beside the point, unless you think the only acceptable choices in life are ones that you would make - which would be stunningly arrogant.
For LOLs I just clicked onto 'Rachel Riley' on the 'trending' section on the dumpster-fire formerly known as Twitter.
The amount of hate towards her from the left is frankly worrying. I haven't investigated the allegations against her (*), but the froth-mouthed, spittle-flecked screeching against her kinda makes me feel that she's in the right.
(*) Partly because the mere fact of her existence seems to annoy them.
Mostly it's because she is Jewish, albeit Atheist.
She is vegan too, so something to offend the other headbangers...
That last bit has put me off.
Like finding out someone you really fancy is a smoker.
I'm sure she'll reconsider her dietary choices, if you let her know.
One day, yes.
This is a just a phase we are living through: like prohibition in the 1920s. It's a quasi-religious movement. As prohibition was to over-consumption of alcohol and its "evils", veganism is the same with animal products.
Because it's irrational, dogmatic and illogical it will eventually die out, as prohibition did, and everyone who was taken in by it will be embarrassed to admit they ever were one.
Much of what you say may be true, but the prediction that veganism will die out is unlikely given that various forms of vegetarianism have persisted throughout history.
I think we will look back at meat-eating in 100 years time like we now look back at the slave trade.
Bacon and sausage roll for me this morning.
Bacon sandwiches this morning for the S family as we use up what’s in the fridge before departing the Derby Dales.
Going to pop into the recommended Scarthin books before we leave.
For LOLs I just clicked onto 'Rachel Riley' on the 'trending' section on the dumpster-fire formerly known as Twitter.
The amount of hate towards her from the left is frankly worrying. I haven't investigated the allegations against her (*), but the froth-mouthed, spittle-flecked screeching against her kinda makes me feel that she's in the right.
(*) Partly because the mere fact of her existence seems to annoy them.
Mostly it's because she is Jewish, albeit Atheist.
She is vegan too, so something to offend the other headbangers...
That last bit has put me off.
Like finding out someone you really fancy is a smoker.
For LOLs I just clicked onto 'Rachel Riley' on the 'trending' section on the dumpster-fire formerly known as Twitter.
The amount of hate towards her from the left is frankly worrying. I haven't investigated the allegations against her (*), but the froth-mouthed, spittle-flecked screeching against her kinda makes me feel that she's in the right.
(*) Partly because the mere fact of her existence seems to annoy them.
Mostly it's because she is Jewish, albeit Atheist.
She is vegan too, so something to offend the other headbangers...
That last bit has put me off.
Like finding out someone you really fancy is a smoker.
I'm sure she'll reconsider her dietary choices, if you let her know.
One day, yes.
This is a just a phase we are living through: like prohibition in the 1920s. It's a quasi-religious movement. As prohibition was to over-consumption of alcohol and its "evils", veganism is the same with animal products.
Because it's irrational, dogmatic and illogical it will eventually die out, as prohibition did, and everyone who was taken in by it will be embarrassed to admit they ever were one.
Much of what you say may be true, but the prediction that veganism will die out is unlikely given that various forms of vegetarianism have persisted throughout history.
I think we will look back at meat-eating in 100 years time like we now look back at the slave trade.
Bacon and sausage roll for me this morning.
No, that's absolute absurd and hyperbolic nonsense.
I think, by contrast, it will actually go into reverse as we come to realise how irrational and nonsensical it is.
For LOLs I just clicked onto 'Rachel Riley' on the 'trending' section on the dumpster-fire formerly known as Twitter.
The amount of hate towards her from the left is frankly worrying. I haven't investigated the allegations against her (*), but the froth-mouthed, spittle-flecked screeching against her kinda makes me feel that she's in the right.
(*) Partly because the mere fact of her existence seems to annoy them.
Mostly it's because she is Jewish, albeit Atheist.
She is vegan too, so something to offend the other headbangers...
That last bit has put me off.
Like finding out someone you really fancy is a smoker.
I'm sure she'll reconsider her dietary choices, if you let her know.
One day, yes.
This is a just a phase we are living through: like prohibition in the 1920s. It's a quasi-religious movement. As prohibition was to over-consumption of alcohol and its "evils", veganism is the same with animal products.
Because it's irrational, dogmatic and illogical it will eventually die out, as prohibition did, and everyone who was taken in by it will be embarrassed to admit they ever were one.
Much of what you say may be true, but the prediction that veganism will die out is unlikely given that various forms of vegetarianism have persisted throughout history.
Veganism is more like teetotalism than prohibition. A bit sanctimonious at times, but not forcing a lifestyle on others.
Teetotalism is going strong. Indeed we have a teetotal PM.
For LOLs I just clicked onto 'Rachel Riley' on the 'trending' section on the dumpster-fire formerly known as Twitter.
The amount of hate towards her from the left is frankly worrying. I haven't investigated the allegations against her (*), but the froth-mouthed, spittle-flecked screeching against her kinda makes me feel that she's in the right.
(*) Partly because the mere fact of her existence seems to annoy them.
Mostly it's because she is Jewish, albeit Atheist.
She is vegan too, so something to offend the other headbangers...
That last bit has put me off.
Like finding out someone you really fancy is a smoker.
Your remark puts me in mind of this classic burn:
You can think what you like.
I don't find vegans attractive and it would be a dealbreaker for me in a relationship.
It would be fair to say the comments (those that haven’t been deleted) are largely unsympathetic, mainly around how a failed in Sheffield parachuted in celebrity won’t oust the Greens:
For LOLs I just clicked onto 'Rachel Riley' on the 'trending' section on the dumpster-fire formerly known as Twitter.
The amount of hate towards her from the left is frankly worrying. I haven't investigated the allegations against her (*), but the froth-mouthed, spittle-flecked screeching against her kinda makes me feel that she's in the right.
(*) Partly because the mere fact of her existence seems to annoy them.
Mostly it's because she is Jewish, albeit Atheist.
She is vegan too, so something to offend the other headbangers...
That last bit has put me off.
Like finding out someone you really fancy is a smoker.
Why does it put you off?
I know / have known a fair few vegans. Some are the 'vegan police' style people who wear their suffering for their superpower on their sleeve. Most are perfectly ordinary people who do not want to put any inconvenience on anybody.
It's nothing like smoking. If someone smokes near me, it gets in my lungs even if they're ten feet away. Someone eating a nut roast at the seat next to me has zero effect on me.
Because they are preachy, whiny and annoying.
And they absolutely do inconvenience people. It means every time you hook up with them you can't cook or eat what you want and you've got to reduce your meals to the lowest common denominator so they can eat with you, which is antisocial.
So it absolutely has an effect on me.
Some are 'preachy, whiny and annoying', as I mentioned. Most are not.
People make other life choices from you: if you cannot deal with that, then that is your problem, not theirs.
Er, no. I was talking about what I found attractive and what put me on or off.
Their choices would cause problems for me and restrict my lifestyle and this would put me off.
The fact you might make a different choice is quite beside the point, unless you think the only acceptable choices in life are ones that you would make - which would be stunningly arrogant.
The problem with this is the standard young person going out on dates tends to be on the left, cares about the environment, perhaps vegetarian/vegan, does lots of cycling/running/climbing/hiking. And they choose partners with similar interests.
So if you can't fancy anyone like that, you're highly likely to end up in that large group of people (particularly men) who can't find a partner.
For LOLs I just clicked onto 'Rachel Riley' on the 'trending' section on the dumpster-fire formerly known as Twitter.
The amount of hate towards her from the left is frankly worrying. I haven't investigated the allegations against her (*), but the froth-mouthed, spittle-flecked screeching against her kinda makes me feel that she's in the right.
(*) Partly because the mere fact of her existence seems to annoy them.
Mostly it's because she is Jewish, albeit Atheist.
She is vegan too, so something to offend the other headbangers...
That last bit has put me off.
Like finding out someone you really fancy is a smoker.
I'm sure she'll reconsider her dietary choices, if you let her know.
One day, yes.
This is a just a phase we are living through: like prohibition in the 1920s. It's a quasi-religious movement. As prohibition was to over-consumption of alcohol and its "evils", veganism is the same with animal products.
Because it's irrational, dogmatic and illogical it will eventually die out, as prohibition did, and everyone who was taken in by it will be embarrassed to admit they ever were one.
Much of what you say may be true, but the prediction that veganism will die out is unlikely given that various forms of vegetarianism have persisted throughout history.
I think we will look back at meat-eating in 100 years time like we now look back at the slave trade.
Bacon and sausage roll for me this morning.
No, that's absolute absurd and hyperbolic nonsense.
I think, by contrast, it will actually go into reverse as we come to realise how irrational and nonsensical it is.
Every vegan I've met or know has been super keen to ensure I don't alter my eating habits one iota if we are socialising over food and have wanted to cause as little fuss as possible.
I have no doubt there are militant vegans out there but has anyone on here actually met one.
For LOLs I just clicked onto 'Rachel Riley' on the 'trending' section on the dumpster-fire formerly known as Twitter.
The amount of hate towards her from the left is frankly worrying. I haven't investigated the allegations against her (*), but the froth-mouthed, spittle-flecked screeching against her kinda makes me feel that she's in the right.
(*) Partly because the mere fact of her existence seems to annoy them.
Mostly it's because she is Jewish, albeit Atheist.
She is vegan too, so something to offend the other headbangers...
That last bit has put me off.
Like finding out someone you really fancy is a smoker.
Your remark puts me in mind of this classic burn:
You can think what you like.
I don't find vegans attractive and it would be a dealbreaker for me in a relationship.
It would be fair to say the comments (those that haven’t been deleted) are largely unsympathetic, mainly around how a failed in Sheffield parachuted in celebrity won’t oust the Greens:
For LOLs I just clicked onto 'Rachel Riley' on the 'trending' section on the dumpster-fire formerly known as Twitter.
The amount of hate towards her from the left is frankly worrying. I haven't investigated the allegations against her (*), but the froth-mouthed, spittle-flecked screeching against her kinda makes me feel that she's in the right.
(*) Partly because the mere fact of her existence seems to annoy them.
Mostly it's because she is Jewish, albeit Atheist.
She is vegan too, so something to offend the other headbangers...
That last bit has put me off.
Like finding out someone you really fancy is a smoker.
Why does it put you off?
I know / have known a fair few vegans. Some are the 'vegan police' style people who wear their suffering for their superpower on their sleeve. Most are perfectly ordinary people who do not want to put any inconvenience on anybody.
It's nothing like smoking. If someone smokes near me, it gets in my lungs even if they're ten feet away. Someone eating a nut roast at the seat next to me has zero effect on me.
Because they are preachy, whiny and annoying.
And they absolutely do inconvenience people. It means every time you hook up with them you can't cook or eat what you want and you've got to reduce your meals to the lowest common denominator so they can eat with you, which is antisocial.
So it absolutely has an effect on me.
Some are 'preachy, whiny and annoying', as I mentioned. Most are not.
People make other life choices from you: if you cannot deal with that, then that is your problem, not theirs.
Er, no. I was talking about what I found attractive and what put me on or off.
Their choices would cause problems for me and restrict my lifestyle and this would put me off.
The fact you might make a different choice is quite beside the point, unless you think the only acceptable choices in life are ones that you would make - which would be stunningly arrogant.
The problem with this is the standard young person going out on dates tends to be on the left, cares about the environment, perhaps vegetarian/vegan, does lots of cycling/running/climbing/hiking. And they choose partners with similar interests.
So if you can't fancy anyone like that, you're highly likely to end up in that large group of people (particularly men) who can't find a partner.
Which makes sense - survival of the fittest.
This is a but of a myth. I work with lots of young people at work and the vast majority eat meat. And they're far more rational and reasonable, and willing to listen, than perhaps you might give them credit for.
For LOLs I just clicked onto 'Rachel Riley' on the 'trending' section on the dumpster-fire formerly known as Twitter.
The amount of hate towards her from the left is frankly worrying. I haven't investigated the allegations against her (*), but the froth-mouthed, spittle-flecked screeching against her kinda makes me feel that she's in the right.
(*) Partly because the mere fact of her existence seems to annoy them.
Mostly it's because she is Jewish, albeit Atheist.
She is vegan too, so something to offend the other headbangers...
That last bit has put me off.
Like finding out someone you really fancy is a smoker.
Your remark puts me in mind of this classic burn:
You can think what you like.
I don't find vegans attractive and it would be a dealbreaker for me in a relationship.
It would be fair to say the comments (those that haven’t been deleted) are largely unsympathetic, mainly around how a failed in Sheffield parachuted in celebrity won’t oust the Greens:
This is utterly magnificent from the Scottish government.
An inquiry into claims a government body unfairly awarded a £97 million ferry contract will not investigate allegations unearthed by the BBC that the procurement process was “rigged”.
The BBC released its documentary Disclosure: The Great Ferries Scandal last year, which presented evidence that the government-owned Caledonian Maritime Assets Limited (CMAL) broke procurement rules by awarding a contract without due process.
Addleshaw Goddard, CMAL’s legal firm, has appointed Barry Smith KC to lead an independent probe to ascertain whether the Ferguson Marine shipyard received preferential treatment.
Smith’s remit has been limited to only investigating whether criminal fraud occurred, which was not one of the original allegations made by the BBC documentary
I've been thinking about this. CMAL is wholly owned by the Scottish government. As is Fergusons after they were nationalised. So one Scottish government entity is investigating whether it was defrauded by what is now another part, or indeed the Scottish government itself so it can....err....sue?
Far be it from me to suggest money spent on the legal profession is a waste but other than creating the pretense that the allegations are being taken seriously, when they are in fact being ignored and some straw man is put up instead, what on earth is the point?
Well the government is led by Humza Yusuf, so pretending to take things seriously while sodding up everywhere is his normal modus operandi.
At least you got "Humza" right.
In a country full of Gaelic place names, we hardly have an excuse for getting the spelling wrong.
For LOLs I just clicked onto 'Rachel Riley' on the 'trending' section on the dumpster-fire formerly known as Twitter.
The amount of hate towards her from the left is frankly worrying. I haven't investigated the allegations against her (*), but the froth-mouthed, spittle-flecked screeching against her kinda makes me feel that she's in the right.
(*) Partly because the mere fact of her existence seems to annoy them.
Mostly it's because she is Jewish, albeit Atheist.
She is vegan too, so something to offend the other headbangers...
That last bit has put me off.
Like finding out someone you really fancy is a smoker.
I'm sure she'll reconsider her dietary choices, if you let her know.
One day, yes.
This is a just a phase we are living through: like prohibition in the 1920s. It's a quasi-religious movement. As prohibition was to over-consumption of alcohol and its "evils", veganism is the same with animal products.
Because it's irrational, dogmatic and illogical it will eventually die out, as prohibition did, and everyone who was taken in by it will be embarrassed to admit they ever were one.
Much of what you say may be true, but the prediction that veganism will die out is unlikely given that various forms of vegetarianism have persisted throughout history.
Veganism is more like teetotalism than prohibition. A bit sanctimonious at times, but not forcing a lifestyle on others.
Teetotalism is going strong. Indeed we have a teetotal PM.
Humans have been eating animal products since the dawn of time, and indeed we've evolved to need some of them in our diet.
The issue today might be that there are too many of us and we're overconsuming them, but the answer to that isn't total abstinence. It's to eat a lower more moderate amount.
Vegans are simply a religious anti-reaction to this, and it does not follow through to a logical conclusion.
For LOLs I just clicked onto 'Rachel Riley' on the 'trending' section on the dumpster-fire formerly known as Twitter.
The amount of hate towards her from the left is frankly worrying. I haven't investigated the allegations against her (*), but the froth-mouthed, spittle-flecked screeching against her kinda makes me feel that she's in the right.
(*) Partly because the mere fact of her existence seems to annoy them.
Mostly it's because she is Jewish, albeit Atheist.
She is vegan too, so something to offend the other headbangers...
That last bit has put me off.
Like finding out someone you really fancy is a smoker.
I'm sure she'll reconsider her dietary choices, if you let her know.
One day, yes.
This is a just a phase we are living through: like prohibition in the 1920s. It's a quasi-religious movement. As prohibition was to over-consumption of alcohol and its "evils", veganism is the same with animal products.
Because it's irrational, dogmatic and illogical it will eventually die out, as prohibition did, and everyone who was taken in by it will be embarrassed to admit they ever were one.
Much of what you say may be true, but the prediction that veganism will die out is unlikely given that various forms of vegetarianism have persisted throughout history.
Veganism is more like teetotalism than prohibition. A bit sanctimonious at times, but not forcing a lifestyle on others.
Teetotalism is going strong. Indeed we have a teetotal PM.
although he’s getting lots of free boos at every event.
The few vegans I know love roast potatoes cooked in very hot sunflower oil. That solves the catering problem. Give them those, some mushrooms and a decent tomato sauce and you’re sorted. They’re not fussy, just grateful you’ve taken a bit of time to accommodate them.
For LOLs I just clicked onto 'Rachel Riley' on the 'trending' section on the dumpster-fire formerly known as Twitter.
The amount of hate towards her from the left is frankly worrying. I haven't investigated the allegations against her (*), but the froth-mouthed, spittle-flecked screeching against her kinda makes me feel that she's in the right.
(*) Partly because the mere fact of her existence seems to annoy them.
Mostly it's because she is Jewish, albeit Atheist.
She is vegan too, so something to offend the other headbangers...
That last bit has put me off.
Like finding out someone you really fancy is a smoker.
I'm sure she'll reconsider her dietary choices, if you let her know.
One day, yes.
This is a just a phase we are living through: like prohibition in the 1920s. It's a quasi-religious movement. As prohibition was to over-consumption of alcohol and its "evils", veganism is the same with animal products.
Because it's irrational, dogmatic and illogical it will eventually die out, as prohibition did, and everyone who was taken in by it will be embarrassed to admit they ever were one.
Much of what you say may be true, but the prediction that veganism will die out is unlikely given that various forms of vegetarianism have persisted throughout history.
Veganism is more like teetotalism than prohibition. A bit sanctimonious at times, but not forcing a lifestyle on others.
Teetotalism is going strong. Indeed we have a teetotal PM.
Humans have been eating animal products since the dawn of time, and indeed we've evolved to need some of them in our diet.
The issue today might be that there are too many of us and we're overconsuming them, but the answer to that isn't total abstinence. It's to eat a lower more moderate amount.
Vegans are simply a religious anti-reaction to this, and it does not follow through to a logical conclusion.
I only date people who scavenge for berries and hunt deer with their bare hands.
For LOLs I just clicked onto 'Rachel Riley' on the 'trending' section on the dumpster-fire formerly known as Twitter.
The amount of hate towards her from the left is frankly worrying. I haven't investigated the allegations against her (*), but the froth-mouthed, spittle-flecked screeching against her kinda makes me feel that she's in the right.
(*) Partly because the mere fact of her existence seems to annoy them.
Mostly it's because she is Jewish, albeit Atheist.
She is vegan too, so something to offend the other headbangers...
That last bit has put me off.
Like finding out someone you really fancy is a smoker.
Your remark puts me in mind of this classic burn:
You can think what you like.
I don't find vegans attractive and it would be a dealbreaker for me in a relationship.
What else was on the list?
Smoking.
As in smoking hot? Or just on fire? I can see the latter in fairness.
For LOLs I just clicked onto 'Rachel Riley' on the 'trending' section on the dumpster-fire formerly known as Twitter.
The amount of hate towards her from the left is frankly worrying. I haven't investigated the allegations against her (*), but the froth-mouthed, spittle-flecked screeching against her kinda makes me feel that she's in the right.
(*) Partly because the mere fact of her existence seems to annoy them.
Mostly it's because she is Jewish, albeit Atheist.
She is vegan too, so something to offend the other headbangers...
That last bit has put me off.
Like finding out someone you really fancy is a smoker.
I'm sure she'll reconsider her dietary choices, if you let her know.
One day, yes.
This is a just a phase we are living through: like prohibition in the 1920s. It's a quasi-religious movement. As prohibition was to over-consumption of alcohol and its "evils", veganism is the same with animal products.
Because it's irrational, dogmatic and illogical it will eventually die out, as prohibition did, and everyone who was taken in by it will be embarrassed to admit they ever were one.
Much of what you say may be true, but the prediction that veganism will die out is unlikely given that various forms of vegetarianism have persisted throughout history.
Veganism is more like teetotalism than prohibition. A bit sanctimonious at times, but not forcing a lifestyle on others.
Teetotalism is going strong. Indeed we have a teetotal PM.
although he’s getting lots of free boos at every event.
And liable to get smashed, though we may not like the hangover much either.
For LOLs I just clicked onto 'Rachel Riley' on the 'trending' section on the dumpster-fire formerly known as Twitter.
The amount of hate towards her from the left is frankly worrying. I haven't investigated the allegations against her (*), but the froth-mouthed, spittle-flecked screeching against her kinda makes me feel that she's in the right.
(*) Partly because the mere fact of her existence seems to annoy them.
Mostly it's because she is Jewish, albeit Atheist.
She is vegan too, so something to offend the other headbangers...
That last bit has put me off.
Like finding out someone you really fancy is a smoker.
I'm sure she'll reconsider her dietary choices, if you let her know.
One day, yes.
This is a just a phase we are living through: like prohibition in the 1920s. It's a quasi-religious movement. As prohibition was to over-consumption of alcohol and its "evils", veganism is the same with animal products.
Because it's irrational, dogmatic and illogical it will eventually die out, as prohibition did, and everyone who was taken in by it will be embarrassed to admit they ever were one.
Much of what you say may be true, but the prediction that veganism will die out is unlikely given that various forms of vegetarianism have persisted throughout history.
Veganism is more like teetotalism than prohibition. A bit sanctimonious at times, but not forcing a lifestyle on others.
Teetotalism is going strong. Indeed we have a teetotal PM.
Humans have been eating animal products since the dawn of time, and indeed we've evolved to need some of them in our diet.
The issue today might be that there are too many of us and we're overconsuming them, but the answer to that isn't total abstinence. It's to eat a lower more moderate amount.
Vegans are simply a religious anti-reaction to this, and it does not follow through to a logical conclusion.
I only date people who scavenge for berries and hunt deer with their bare hands.
Raquel Welch obviously had a big impact on the young Eabhal, I see.
For LOLs I just clicked onto 'Rachel Riley' on the 'trending' section on the dumpster-fire formerly known as Twitter.
The amount of hate towards her from the left is frankly worrying. I haven't investigated the allegations against her (*), but the froth-mouthed, spittle-flecked screeching against her kinda makes me feel that she's in the right.
(*) Partly because the mere fact of her existence seems to annoy them.
Mostly it's because she is Jewish, albeit Atheist.
She is vegan too, so something to offend the other headbangers...
That last bit has put me off.
Like finding out someone you really fancy is a smoker.
Your remark puts me in mind of this classic burn:
You can think what you like.
I don't find vegans attractive and it would be a dealbreaker for me in a relationship.
What else was on the list?
Smoking.
As in smoking hot? Or just on fire? I can see the latter in fairness.
Tom Baker once said he went out with a girl who smelled like a bonfire. Does that count?
(When asked if she was a witch he said, ‘she may have been a witch but phoof, she was a goer.’)
What if it's not possible to increase the standard of living of 8 billion people while reducing the global impact of humanity on the environment?
It is.
Don't underestimate human ingenuity. The one thing worse than Luddites is Malthusians.
How many more cars than today are we talking about? How many more flights? How much more meat will be consumed? How much more food will we have to take out of the oceans?
Thomas Malthus, is that you?
The past fifty years have seen an unprecedented increase in the number of people living developed world lifestyles. More people eat well. More people survive childbirth.
Politics excepted, the world has never been in better shape. We now have the technology to provide *all* of humanity's needs from renewable sources. We have battery technology. We can keep homes warm or cold.
We've even solved the problem of the world's population growing out of control.
In time, we'll solve the long-distance travel problem. And you know what: maybe it'll be more by hyperloop than by planes. And that's great! Whatever works. Maybe it'll be by fanprops. Maybe synthetic fuel. Maybe battery powered planes.
The challenges the world faces are not from real emergencies - absent places like Ukraine - but an unwillingness to listen to the concerns of, and empathize with, our fellow human beings.
Microbe in laboratory jar, population doubling every day, on day when jar is at 50% capacity:
The past fifty doublings have seen an unprecedented increase in the number of microbes living developed laboratory jar lifestyles.
Sure.
But here's the thing. We're not running out of resources!
In fact, quite the opposite. We're successfully moving away from burning shit to power our lives, and moving to capturing solar energy through wind turbines and panels. How insanely great is that?
We've already - in the UK - stopped burning coal. And the cost of solar and wind and batteries is only going in one direction. So we'll soon stop burning gas. And our petrol usage will shrink.
Why aren't people saying "this is amazing!"
Instead they are claiming things are worse, when they are obviously massively better than they have been.
It's weird because we have already fixed the problem. We just need to implement it against a little political opposition. It's lung cancer and smoking, round two.
Transport is the last big chunk of carbon emissions where we haven't made much progress, and we are already well on the way to electric cars, electric buses, trams, electrification of trains and - dare I say it - cycling for shorter journeys.
You're completely right for once, electric cars and electric buses and electric trains etc are the solution. Combined with clean electricity they are zero carbon, so they are the solution. The sole solution.
Cycling of course is fun, so throw that in the mix if you want to, for recreational purposes, but not as a relevant solution to the climate since it represents not even a significant percentage of transportation on any country in the planet, even after more than half a century of extremely heavily promoting it in the likes of the Netherlands its still an almost inconsequential sub-10% of km travelled. And we need to be making 100% of travel clean, not below 10% of travel.
But electric cars? Yes, they eliminate the climate problem in its entirety and eliminate any reason to be concerned about driving. Problem is solved, you are completely right. 👍
The one things that's not yet technologically solved is clean aviation. It will be over time. Its why we do not need to be cutting flights either, we need to be incentivising clean aviation technology in the same way as we incentivised clean automobile technology, until the solution for that exists too.
What if it's not possible to increase the standard of living of 8 billion people while reducing the global impact of humanity on the environment?
It is.
Don't underestimate human ingenuity. The one thing worse than Luddites is Malthusians.
How many more cars than today are we talking about? How many more flights? How much more meat will be consumed? How much more food will we have to take out of the oceans?
Thomas Malthus, is that you?
The past fifty years have seen an unprecedented increase in the number of people living developed world lifestyles. More people eat well. More people survive childbirth.
Politics excepted, the world has never been in better shape. We now have the technology to provide *all* of humanity's needs from renewable sources. We have battery technology. We can keep homes warm or cold.
We've even solved the problem of the world's population growing out of control.
In time, we'll solve the long-distance travel problem. And you know what: maybe it'll be more by hyperloop than by planes. And that's great! Whatever works. Maybe it'll be by fanprops. Maybe synthetic fuel. Maybe battery powered planes.
The challenges the world faces are not from real emergencies - absent places like Ukraine - but an unwillingness to listen to the concerns of, and empathize with, our fellow human beings.
Microbe in laboratory jar, population doubling every day, on day when jar is at 50% capacity:
The past fifty doublings have seen an unprecedented increase in the number of microbes living developed laboratory jar lifestyles.
Sure.
But here's the thing. We're not running out of resources!
In fact, quite the opposite. We're successfully moving away from burning shit to power our lives, and moving to capturing solar energy through wind turbines and panels. How insanely great is that?
We've already - in the UK - stopped burning coal. And the cost of solar and wind and batteries is only going in one direction. So we'll soon stop burning gas. And our petrol usage will shrink.
Why aren't people saying "this is amazing!"
Instead they are claiming things are worse, when they are obviously massively better than they have been.
It's weird because we have already fixed the problem. We just need to implement it against a little political opposition. It's lung cancer and smoking, round two.
Transport is the last big chunk of carbon emissions where we haven't made much progress, and we are already well on the way to electric cars, electric buses, trams, electrification of trains and - dare I say it - cycling for shorter journeys.
You're completely right for once, electric cars and electric buses and electric trains etc are the solution. Combined with clean electricity they are zero carbon, so they are the solution. The sole solution.
Cycling of course is fun, so throw that in the mix if you want to, for recreational purposes, but not as a relevant solution to the climate since it represents not even a significant percentage of transportation on any country in the planet, even after more than half a century of extremely heavily promoting it in the likes of the Netherlands its still an almost inconsequential sub-10% of km travelled. And we need to be making 100% of travel clean, not below 10% of travel.
But electric cars? Yes, they eliminate the climate problem in its entirety and eliminate any reason to be concerned about driving. Problem is solved, you are completely right. 👍
The one things that's not yet technologically solved is clean aviation. It will be over time. Its why we do not need to be cutting flights either, we need to be incentivising clean aviation technology in the same way as we incentivised clean automobile technology, until the solution for that exists too.
My argument for cycling is less about emissions and more about other problems like air pollution, road wear, and congestion though.
I think you suggested that people weren't scared of cycling in the UK? Here ya go:
Yes, and I respect your opinion even if I completely disagree with it. You aren't masquerading that cycling is the solution to climate change unlike other anti-car fanatics. That's why we can have an intelligent conversation with differing opinions because you aren't claiming something patently absurd as those who say cycling resolves the climate does.
As for your graph, it doesn't prove anything about "scared". If people choose to drive 2km because they want to, because they don't want to get wet, because they're lazy, because its convenient, because its easy, or any other reason - that is their choice. And in a free society, their choice should be respected.
Indeed the fact that the UK is well, well below the line suggests that choice, more than fear, is the reason.
Furthermore as I said, people are dishonest in polls, and virtue signal. This is well known. The percentage who claim they'll vote in polls is far more than the percentage who actually do. Given people are choosing not to ride a bike, as demonstrated by the fact the UK dot is well underneath the line of the chart, it is entirely reasonable to suppose that a significant proportion of people are saying "its too dangerous" as a more virtuous reason why they don't than "I'm too lazy".
Ahem; the numbers commuting by bike has increased markedly in the UK in the last quarter century. Now, it's still small in the general scale of things (and mostly concentrated in London), but it is definitely increasing.
Oh, absolutely, they have markedly increased on a proportionate like-for-like basis of cycling stats versus cycling stats.
They have not markedly increased as a percentage of total travel.
As far as total km* travelled, cycling has in the past quarter of a century risen from a low of less than 1% of total km travelled ... to a new high of less than 1% of total km travelled.
* or miles, using km for international comparison purposes.
Total km travelled is a poor measure, given the large proportion of journeys that are below 5 km.
We could have a massive increase in cycling journeys with very little impact on total kilometres.
That's why for me at least, it's not an emissions issue. It's a congestion and other stuff issue.
As far as the climate emissions is concerned, it is the only measure that matters.
Which is why yes, its not an emissions issue.
For me things like air pollution, noise pollution, pedestrian deaths, congestion are important too.
For me they matter too, I just differ on the proposed solutions.
Air & noise pollution - electric vehicles resolve these, just as much as emissions.
The idea electric vehicles cause air pollution is a lie spread by climate change denialists who want to preserve ICE technology. Electric cars are so quiet they have a deliberately added noise in order to maintain road safety, so you don't get the revving loud noises of ICE technology.
Pedestrian deaths need to be, and are, improved by better road safety awareness. Both for pedestrians and for drivers.
Congestion is a matter of population demand exceeding capacity. Increasing capacity fixes this.
If population growth occurs, demand goes up, so capacity supply needs to go up accordingly.
On congestion, I think this is where we get into aesthetics, and people should be honest about this.
By which I mean there’s a segment of society that would like British towns and cities to be more like some utopian vision of Northern Europe. Pedestrian streets, bikes, trams, svelte young townspeople pottering along the cycle lane with philosophy books in their baskets.
And there is another segment that dreams of a Britain more like Florida or Texas. Wide open freeways, people cruising in big wide sedans and pulling up at the barbecue joint for two pounds of ribs and a bud light.
These are aesthetic choices but they get dressed up in moral codes.
Apart from despising Bud Light and thinking a real beer is definitely better, yes you're right.
It is choice, not moral codes.
I am pro-choice. I respect others rights to make their choices, I just ask that they respect my choice to make mine.
For LOLs I just clicked onto 'Rachel Riley' on the 'trending' section on the dumpster-fire formerly known as Twitter.
The amount of hate towards her from the left is frankly worrying. I haven't investigated the allegations against her (*), but the froth-mouthed, spittle-flecked screeching against her kinda makes me feel that she's in the right.
(*) Partly because the mere fact of her existence seems to annoy them.
Mostly it's because she is Jewish, albeit Atheist.
She is vegan too, so something to offend the other headbangers...
That last bit has put me off.
Like finding out someone you really fancy is a smoker.
Your remark puts me in mind of this classic burn:
You can think what you like.
I don't find vegans attractive and it would be a dealbreaker for me in a relationship.
What else was on the list?
Smoking.
As in smoking hot? Or just on fire? I can see the latter in fairness.
Tom Baker once said he went out with a girl who smelled like a bonfire. Does that count?
(When asked if she was a witch he said, ‘she may have been a witch but phoof, she was a goer.’)
Reminds me of the old Popbitch story "Tom's putting it in now"
What if it's not possible to increase the standard of living of 8 billion people while reducing the global impact of humanity on the environment?
It is.
Don't underestimate human ingenuity. The one thing worse than Luddites is Malthusians.
How many more cars than today are we talking about? How many more flights? How much more meat will be consumed? How much more food will we have to take out of the oceans?
Thomas Malthus, is that you?
The past fifty years have seen an unprecedented increase in the number of people living developed world lifestyles. More people eat well. More people survive childbirth.
Politics excepted, the world has never been in better shape. We now have the technology to provide *all* of humanity's needs from renewable sources. We have battery technology. We can keep homes warm or cold.
We've even solved the problem of the world's population growing out of control.
In time, we'll solve the long-distance travel problem. And you know what: maybe it'll be more by hyperloop than by planes. And that's great! Whatever works. Maybe it'll be by fanprops. Maybe synthetic fuel. Maybe battery powered planes.
The challenges the world faces are not from real emergencies - absent places like Ukraine - but an unwillingness to listen to the concerns of, and empathize with, our fellow human beings.
Microbe in laboratory jar, population doubling every day, on day when jar is at 50% capacity:
The past fifty doublings have seen an unprecedented increase in the number of microbes living developed laboratory jar lifestyles.
Sure.
But here's the thing. We're not running out of resources!
In fact, quite the opposite. We're successfully moving away from burning shit to power our lives, and moving to capturing solar energy through wind turbines and panels. How insanely great is that?
We've already - in the UK - stopped burning coal. And the cost of solar and wind and batteries is only going in one direction. So we'll soon stop burning gas. And our petrol usage will shrink.
Why aren't people saying "this is amazing!"
Instead they are claiming things are worse, when they are obviously massively better than they have been.
It's weird because we have already fixed the problem. We just need to implement it against a little political opposition. It's lung cancer and smoking, round two.
Transport is the last big chunk of carbon emissions where we haven't made much progress, and we are already well on the way to electric cars, electric buses, trams, electrification of trains and - dare I say it - cycling for shorter journeys.
You're completely right for once, electric cars and electric buses and electric trains etc are the solution. Combined with clean electricity they are zero carbon, so they are the solution. The sole solution.
Cycling of course is fun, so throw that in the mix if you want to, for recreational purposes, but not as a relevant solution to the climate since it represents not even a significant percentage of transportation on any country in the planet, even after more than half a century of extremely heavily promoting it in the likes of the Netherlands its still an almost inconsequential sub-10% of km travelled. And we need to be making 100% of travel clean, not below 10% of travel.
But electric cars? Yes, they eliminate the climate problem in its entirety and eliminate any reason to be concerned about driving. Problem is solved, you are completely right. 👍
The one things that's not yet technologically solved is clean aviation. It will be over time. Its why we do not need to be cutting flights either, we need to be incentivising clean aviation technology in the same way as we incentivised clean automobile technology, until the solution for that exists too.
What if it's not possible to increase the standard of living of 8 billion people while reducing the global impact of humanity on the environment?
It is.
Don't underestimate human ingenuity. The one thing worse than Luddites is Malthusians.
How many more cars than today are we talking about? How many more flights? How much more meat will be consumed? How much more food will we have to take out of the oceans?
Thomas Malthus, is that you?
The past fifty years have seen an unprecedented increase in the number of people living developed world lifestyles. More people eat well. More people survive childbirth.
Politics excepted, the world has never been in better shape. We now have the technology to provide *all* of humanity's needs from renewable sources. We have battery technology. We can keep homes warm or cold.
We've even solved the problem of the world's population growing out of control.
In time, we'll solve the long-distance travel problem. And you know what: maybe it'll be more by hyperloop than by planes. And that's great! Whatever works. Maybe it'll be by fanprops. Maybe synthetic fuel. Maybe battery powered planes.
The challenges the world faces are not from real emergencies - absent places like Ukraine - but an unwillingness to listen to the concerns of, and empathize with, our fellow human beings.
Microbe in laboratory jar, population doubling every day, on day when jar is at 50% capacity:
The past fifty doublings have seen an unprecedented increase in the number of microbes living developed laboratory jar lifestyles.
Sure.
But here's the thing. We're not running out of resources!
In fact, quite the opposite. We're successfully moving away from burning shit to power our lives, and moving to capturing solar energy through wind turbines and panels. How insanely great is that?
We've already - in the UK - stopped burning coal. And the cost of solar and wind and batteries is only going in one direction. So we'll soon stop burning gas. And our petrol usage will shrink.
Why aren't people saying "this is amazing!"
Instead they are claiming things are worse, when they are obviously massively better than they have been.
It's weird because we have already fixed the problem. We just need to implement it against a little political opposition. It's lung cancer and smoking, round two.
Transport is the last big chunk of carbon emissions where we haven't made much progress, and we are already well on the way to electric cars, electric buses, trams, electrification of trains and - dare I say it - cycling for shorter journeys.
You're completely right for once, electric cars and electric buses and electric trains etc are the solution. Combined with clean electricity they are zero carbon, so they are the solution. The sole solution.
Cycling of course is fun, so throw that in the mix if you want to, for recreational purposes, but not as a relevant solution to the climate since it represents not even a significant percentage of transportation on any country in the planet, even after more than half a century of extremely heavily promoting it in the likes of the Netherlands its still an almost inconsequential sub-10% of km travelled. And we need to be making 100% of travel clean, not below 10% of travel.
But electric cars? Yes, they eliminate the climate problem in its entirety and eliminate any reason to be concerned about driving. Problem is solved, you are completely right. 👍
The one things that's not yet technologically solved is clean aviation. It will be over time. Its why we do not need to be cutting flights either, we need to be incentivising clean aviation technology in the same way as we incentivised clean automobile technology, until the solution for that exists too.
My argument for cycling is less about emissions and more about other problems like air pollution, road wear, and congestion though.
I think you suggested that people weren't scared of cycling in the UK? Here ya go:
Yes, and I respect your opinion even if I completely disagree with it. You aren't masquerading that cycling is the solution to climate change unlike other anti-car fanatics. That's why we can have an intelligent conversation with differing opinions because you aren't claiming something patently absurd as those who say cycling resolves the climate does.
As for your graph, it doesn't prove anything about "scared". If people choose to drive 2km because they want to, because they don't want to get wet, because they're lazy, because its convenient, because its easy, or any other reason - that is their choice. And in a free society, their choice should be respected.
Indeed the fact that the UK is well, well below the line suggests that choice, more than fear, is the reason.
Furthermore as I said, people are dishonest in polls, and virtue signal. This is well known. The percentage who claim they'll vote in polls is far more than the percentage who actually do. Given people are choosing not to ride a bike, as demonstrated by the fact the UK dot is well underneath the line of the chart, it is entirely reasonable to suppose that a significant proportion of people are saying "its too dangerous" as a more virtuous reason why they don't than "I'm too lazy".
Ahem; the numbers commuting by bike has increased markedly in the UK in the last quarter century. Now, it's still small in the general scale of things (and mostly concentrated in London), but it is definitely increasing.
Oh, absolutely, they have markedly increased on a proportionate like-for-like basis of cycling stats versus cycling stats.
They have not markedly increased as a percentage of total travel.
As far as total km* travelled, cycling has in the past quarter of a century risen from a low of less than 1% of total km travelled ... to a new high of less than 1% of total km travelled.
* or miles, using km for international comparison purposes.
Total km travelled is a poor measure, given the large proportion of journeys that are below 5 km.
We could have a massive increase in cycling journeys with very little impact on total kilometres.
That's why for me at least, it's not an emissions issue. It's a congestion and other stuff issue.
As far as the climate emissions is concerned, it is the only measure that matters.
Which is why yes, its not an emissions issue.
For me things like air pollution, noise pollution, pedestrian deaths, congestion are important too.
For me they matter too, I just differ on the proposed solutions.
Air & noise pollution - electric vehicles resolve these, just as much as emissions.
The idea electric vehicles cause air pollution is a lie spread by climate change denialists who want to preserve ICE technology. Electric cars are so quiet they have a deliberately added noise in order to maintain road safety, so you don't get the revving loud noises of ICE technology.
Pedestrian deaths need to be, and are, improved by better road safety awareness. Both for pedestrians and for drivers.
Congestion is a matter of population demand exceeding capacity. Increasing capacity fixes this.
If population growth occurs, demand goes up, so capacity supply needs to go up accordingly.
On congestion, I think this is where we get into aesthetics, and people should be honest about this.
By which I mean there’s a segment of society that would like British towns and cities to be more like some utopian vision of Northern Europe. Pedestrian streets, bikes, trams, svelte young townspeople pottering along the cycle lane with philosophy books in their baskets.
And there is another segment that dreams of a Britain more like Florida or Texas. Wide open freeways, people cruising in big wide sedans and pulling up at the barbecue joint for two pounds of ribs and a bud light.
These are aesthetic choices but they get dressed up in moral codes.
Apart from despising Bud Light and thinking a real beer is definitely better, yes you're right.
It is choice, not moral codes.
I am pro-choice. I respect others rights to make their choices, I just ask that they respect my choice to make mine.
For LOLs I just clicked onto 'Rachel Riley' on the 'trending' section on the dumpster-fire formerly known as Twitter.
The amount of hate towards her from the left is frankly worrying. I haven't investigated the allegations against her (*), but the froth-mouthed, spittle-flecked screeching against her kinda makes me feel that she's in the right.
(*) Partly because the mere fact of her existence seems to annoy them.
Mostly it's because she is Jewish, albeit Atheist.
She is vegan too, so something to offend the other headbangers...
That last bit has put me off.
Like finding out someone you really fancy is a smoker.
I'm sure she'll reconsider her dietary choices, if you let her know.
Would you like to try some meat probably not the best approach though.
Phoenix’s extreme heat withers saguaros, trademark cactus of desert landscape https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/aug/03/phoenix-extreme-heat-withers-saguaros-cactus ...As of Wednesday, there was no rain in the forecast for Phoenix anytime soon according to the National Weather Service. After two days of a slight drop, high temperatures reached 111F (43.9C) and are expected to be 110F or more for the next 10 days.
The Weather Service plans to issue an extreme heat warning Friday through Monday, when the highs will be between 111F (43.9C) and 117F (47.2C)...
It’s funny what love can do. My wife’s uncle was a ukip/Tory type. In late life he’s met a lady and fell in love. He is now a vegan and delivers Labour leaflets in his classic Bentley.
Dr. Foxy, it's somewhat different to being teetotal, though.
If you dine out with a teetotaller, they just don't order beer or wine. If you dine out with a vegan, you have to go somewhere with vegan food.
And that's only the start of it. If you live with a teetotaller, you just drink separate drinks. If you live with a vegan, you have to cook two separate meals every mealtime.
Well done Sadiq on making the scrappage scheme available to all Londoners. Funny how he has managed that as in the last couple of weeks regularly been told on here that would be impossible.
It’s funny what love can do. My wife’s uncle was a ukip/Tory type. In late life he’s met a lady and fell in love. He is now a vegan and delivers Labour leaflets in his classic Bentley.
"Oh, I would do anything for love I would do anything for love But I won't do that No, I won't do that.."
For LOLs I just clicked onto 'Rachel Riley' on the 'trending' section on the dumpster-fire formerly known as Twitter.
The amount of hate towards her from the left is frankly worrying. I haven't investigated the allegations against her (*), but the froth-mouthed, spittle-flecked screeching against her kinda makes me feel that she's in the right.
(*) Partly because the mere fact of her existence seems to annoy them.
Mostly it's because she is Jewish, albeit Atheist.
She is vegan too, so something to offend the other headbangers...
That last bit has put me off.
Like finding out someone you really fancy is a smoker.
Why does it put you off?
I know / have known a fair few vegans. Some are the 'vegan police' style people who wear their suffering for their superpower on their sleeve. Most are perfectly ordinary people who do not want to put any inconvenience on anybody.
It's nothing like smoking. If someone smokes near me, it gets in my lungs even if they're ten feet away. Someone eating a nut roast at the seat next to me has zero effect on me.
Because they are preachy, whiny and annoying.
And they absolutely do inconvenience people. It means every time you hook up with them you can't cook or eat what you want and you've got to reduce your meals to the lowest common denominator so they can eat with you, which is antisocial.
So it absolutely has an effect on me.
Some are 'preachy, whiny and annoying', as I mentioned. Most are not.
People make other life choices from you: if you cannot deal with that, then that is your problem, not theirs.
Er, no. I was talking about what I found attractive and what put me on or off.
Their choices would cause problems for me and restrict my lifestyle and this would put me off.
The fact you might make a different choice is quite beside the point, unless you think the only acceptable choices in life are ones that you would make - which would be stunningly arrogant.
But as I said, that's your issue, and your problem.
As an example: I don't like tattoos. For some reason, I just don't like them. They're a bit of a turn-off, and I have to try not to judge people who have them.
But the important point is this: I understand that's my issue, and my problem, and I try not to let that judgement affect the way I interact with people who have tattoos. Now if they start suggesting I get a tattoo, I'd laugh at them - because I don't like tattoos. But I won't treat them any differently because of their choice.
In fact, I recognise that some tattoos are cool: like the lady I met who got one star / dot added for every year she had been clear of cancer, on the anniversary of receiving the all-clear.
Most of all: I think your comparison of veganism with smoking to be utterly ridiculous and childish. Pathetic, in fact. Oh dear, you might occasionally have to change what you eat to cater for someone else. What an *awful* imposition. It's exactly the same as killing me with second-hand smoke.
What if it's not possible to increase the standard of living of 8 billion people while reducing the global impact of humanity on the environment?
It is.
Don't underestimate human ingenuity. The one thing worse than Luddites is Malthusians.
How many more cars than today are we talking about? How many more flights? How much more meat will be consumed? How much more food will we have to take out of the oceans?
Thomas Malthus, is that you?
The past fifty years have seen an unprecedented increase in the number of people living developed world lifestyles. More people eat well. More people survive childbirth.
Politics excepted, the world has never been in better shape. We now have the technology to provide *all* of humanity's needs from renewable sources. We have battery technology. We can keep homes warm or cold.
We've even solved the problem of the world's population growing out of control.
In time, we'll solve the long-distance travel problem. And you know what: maybe it'll be more by hyperloop than by planes. And that's great! Whatever works. Maybe it'll be by fanprops. Maybe synthetic fuel. Maybe battery powered planes.
The challenges the world faces are not from real emergencies - absent places like Ukraine - but an unwillingness to listen to the concerns of, and empathize with, our fellow human beings.
Microbe in laboratory jar, population doubling every day, on day when jar is at 50% capacity:
The past fifty doublings have seen an unprecedented increase in the number of microbes living developed laboratory jar lifestyles.
Sure.
But here's the thing. We're not running out of resources!
In fact, quite the opposite. We're successfully moving away from burning shit to power our lives, and moving to capturing solar energy through wind turbines and panels. How insanely great is that?
We've already - in the UK - stopped burning coal. And the cost of solar and wind and batteries is only going in one direction. So we'll soon stop burning gas. And our petrol usage will shrink.
Why aren't people saying "this is amazing!"
Instead they are claiming things are worse, when they are obviously massively better than they have been.
It's weird because we have already fixed the problem. We just need to implement it against a little political opposition. It's lung cancer and smoking, round two.
Transport is the last big chunk of carbon emissions where we haven't made much progress, and we are already well on the way to electric cars, electric buses, trams, electrification of trains and - dare I say it - cycling for shorter journeys.
You're completely right for once, electric cars and electric buses and electric trains etc are the solution. Combined with clean electricity they are zero carbon, so they are the solution. The sole solution.
Cycling of course is fun, so throw that in the mix if you want to, for recreational purposes, but not as a relevant solution to the climate since it represents not even a significant percentage of transportation on any country in the planet, even after more than half a century of extremely heavily promoting it in the likes of the Netherlands its still an almost inconsequential sub-10% of km travelled. And we need to be making 100% of travel clean, not below 10% of travel.
But electric cars? Yes, they eliminate the climate problem in its entirety and eliminate any reason to be concerned about driving. Problem is solved, you are completely right. 👍
The one things that's not yet technologically solved is clean aviation. It will be over time. Its why we do not need to be cutting flights either, we need to be incentivising clean aviation technology in the same way as we incentivised clean automobile technology, until the solution for that exists too.
What if it's not possible to increase the standard of living of 8 billion people while reducing the global impact of humanity on the environment?
It is.
Don't underestimate human ingenuity. The one thing worse than Luddites is Malthusians.
How many more cars than today are we talking about? How many more flights? How much more meat will be consumed? How much more food will we have to take out of the oceans?
Thomas Malthus, is that you?
The past fifty years have seen an unprecedented increase in the number of people living developed world lifestyles. More people eat well. More people survive childbirth.
Politics excepted, the world has never been in better shape. We now have the technology to provide *all* of humanity's needs from renewable sources. We have battery technology. We can keep homes warm or cold.
We've even solved the problem of the world's population growing out of control.
In time, we'll solve the long-distance travel problem. And you know what: maybe it'll be more by hyperloop than by planes. And that's great! Whatever works. Maybe it'll be by fanprops. Maybe synthetic fuel. Maybe battery powered planes.
The challenges the world faces are not from real emergencies - absent places like Ukraine - but an unwillingness to listen to the concerns of, and empathize with, our fellow human beings.
Microbe in laboratory jar, population doubling every day, on day when jar is at 50% capacity:
The past fifty doublings have seen an unprecedented increase in the number of microbes living developed laboratory jar lifestyles.
Sure.
But here's the thing. We're not running out of resources!
In fact, quite the opposite. We're successfully moving away from burning shit to power our lives, and moving to capturing solar energy through wind turbines and panels. How insanely great is that?
We've already - in the UK - stopped burning coal. And the cost of solar and wind and batteries is only going in one direction. So we'll soon stop burning gas. And our petrol usage will shrink.
Why aren't people saying "this is amazing!"
Instead they are claiming things are worse, when they are obviously massively better than they have been.
It's weird because we have already fixed the problem. We just need to implement it against a little political opposition. It's lung cancer and smoking, round two.
Transport is the last big chunk of carbon emissions where we haven't made much progress, and we are already well on the way to electric cars, electric buses, trams, electrification of trains and - dare I say it - cycling for shorter journeys.
You're completely right for once, electric cars and electric buses and electric trains etc are the solution. Combined with clean electricity they are zero carbon, so they are the solution. The sole solution.
Cycling of course is fun, so throw that in the mix if you want to, for recreational purposes, but not as a relevant solution to the climate since it represents not even a significant percentage of transportation on any country in the planet, even after more than half a century of extremely heavily promoting it in the likes of the Netherlands its still an almost inconsequential sub-10% of km travelled. And we need to be making 100% of travel clean, not below 10% of travel.
But electric cars? Yes, they eliminate the climate problem in its entirety and eliminate any reason to be concerned about driving. Problem is solved, you are completely right. 👍
The one things that's not yet technologically solved is clean aviation. It will be over time. Its why we do not need to be cutting flights either, we need to be incentivising clean aviation technology in the same way as we incentivised clean automobile technology, until the solution for that exists too.
My argument for cycling is less about emissions and more about other problems like air pollution, road wear, and congestion though.
I think you suggested that people weren't scared of cycling in the UK? Here ya go:
Yes, and I respect your opinion even if I completely disagree with it. You aren't masquerading that cycling is the solution to climate change unlike other anti-car fanatics. That's why we can have an intelligent conversation with differing opinions because you aren't claiming something patently absurd as those who say cycling resolves the climate does.
As for your graph, it doesn't prove anything about "scared". If people choose to drive 2km because they want to, because they don't want to get wet, because they're lazy, because its convenient, because its easy, or any other reason - that is their choice. And in a free society, their choice should be respected.
Indeed the fact that the UK is well, well below the line suggests that choice, more than fear, is the reason.
Furthermore as I said, people are dishonest in polls, and virtue signal. This is well known. The percentage who claim they'll vote in polls is far more than the percentage who actually do. Given people are choosing not to ride a bike, as demonstrated by the fact the UK dot is well underneath the line of the chart, it is entirely reasonable to suppose that a significant proportion of people are saying "its too dangerous" as a more virtuous reason why they don't than "I'm too lazy".
Ahem; the numbers commuting by bike has increased markedly in the UK in the last quarter century. Now, it's still small in the general scale of things (and mostly concentrated in London), but it is definitely increasing.
Oh, absolutely, they have markedly increased on a proportionate like-for-like basis of cycling stats versus cycling stats.
They have not markedly increased as a percentage of total travel.
As far as total km* travelled, cycling has in the past quarter of a century risen from a low of less than 1% of total km travelled ... to a new high of less than 1% of total km travelled.
* or miles, using km for international comparison purposes.
Total km travelled is a poor measure, given the large proportion of journeys that are below 5 km.
We could have a massive increase in cycling journeys with very little impact on total kilometres.
That's why for me at least, it's not an emissions issue. It's a congestion and other stuff issue.
As far as the climate emissions is concerned, it is the only measure that matters.
Which is why yes, its not an emissions issue.
For me things like air pollution, noise pollution, pedestrian deaths, congestion are important too.
For me they matter too, I just differ on the proposed solutions.
Air & noise pollution - electric vehicles resolve these, just as much as emissions.
The idea electric vehicles cause air pollution is a lie spread by climate change denialists who want to preserve ICE technology. Electric cars are so quiet they have a deliberately added noise in order to maintain road safety, so you don't get the revving loud noises of ICE technology.
Pedestrian deaths need to be, and are, improved by better road safety awareness. Both for pedestrians and for drivers.
Congestion is a matter of population demand exceeding capacity. Increasing capacity fixes this.
If population growth occurs, demand goes up, so capacity supply needs to go up accordingly.
On congestion, I think this is where we get into aesthetics, and people should be honest about this.
By which I mean there’s a segment of society that would like British towns and cities to be more like some utopian vision of Northern Europe. Pedestrian streets, bikes, trams, svelte young townspeople pottering along the cycle lane with philosophy books in their baskets.
And there is another segment that dreams of a Britain more like Florida or Texas. Wide open freeways, people cruising in big wide sedans and pulling up at the barbecue joint for two pounds of ribs and a bud light.
These are aesthetic choices but they get dressed up in moral codes.
One is possible, one is not (unless you want to knock down lots of buildings). 71% of all journeys are under 5 miles. The cost-effective thing is to get people either using public transport, walking, or cycling (in descending order).
For that you need decent public transport , ie mnot standing for anything up to several hours for your bus, who is going to walk 5 miles for a pint of milk , lots of people would not ever wish to be on a bike. Stop eating quinoa salads, dump teh sandals and get your head into the real world.
When my daughter was in her teens, she decided to become a vegetarian. There's a happy ending - the smell of frying bacon was enough to bring her back to sanity.
Dr. Foxy, it's somewhat different to being teetotal, though.
If you dine out with a teetotaller, they just don't order beer or wine. If you dine out with a vegan, you have to go somewhere with vegan food.
And that's only the start of it. If you live with a teetotaller, you just drink separate drinks. If you live with a vegan, you have to cook two separate meals every mealtime.
You don't have to. I don't have vegans in the family, and remain fond of meat, but I cook plenty of meals which could be eaten by vegans. Especially since I had to cut down on salt; unsalted butter just isn't worth bothering with.
FPT: Dr. Foxy said: "Countries need to be helped to skip the polluting phase of growth. Indeed many less developed counties are ideal for solar power."
I agree with that -- which is why I was so disturbed by the conclusions in this WaPo article: "About 4,000 solar mini-grids have been installed in India, of which 3,300 are government financed and owned, according to information collected early this year by Smart Power India, a subsidiary of the Rockefeller Foundation, and provided to The Washington Post. Only 5 percent of the government grids are operational, the group found. . . . A team of Dutch researchers reported in 2017 that in a sample of 29 solar systems in sub-Saharan Africa, only three were fully working. “The reasons cited for failure always point to the same challenges: an absence of local maintenance expertise and a lack of acceptance,” researchers said in an article published by the Conversation.
An Indian solar expert, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to share closed-door conversations, said that the Ugandan government is seeking international help because 80 percent of its 12,000 local solar connections in health-care centers are out of service. Journalistic reports from Nigeria depict a similar situation." source$: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/07/31/india-solar-energy/
I am enough of an optimist to believe these problems should be solved -- and can be in many less developed countries, but I think we -- and they -- are going to have to look harder at what happens before and after the installations.
If they sto[pped stealing all eth money sent for development and shooting each other they woudl eb in a lot better shape. Money has flooded in over last 50 years and nothing has changed. Why would even more money for crooks , despots, Wagner etc change anything.
Dr. Foxy, it's somewhat different to being teetotal, though.
If you dine out with a teetotaller, they just don't order beer or wine. If you dine out with a vegan, you have to go somewhere with vegan food.
No, not very different at all. Most restaurants have a vegan choice on the menu nowadays.
If you want a relationship with someone, then you need to be open to change, otherwise you are looking for a slave, not a partner.
Lots of restaurants have retreated from that in the past year, apparently, because too much faff and falling demand. I think you come out as non-binary these days instead.
When my daughter was in her teens, she decided to become a vegetarian. There's a happy ending - the smell of frying bacon was enough to bring her back to sanity.
I've been a vegetarian for nearly 32 years! No regrets!
Lib Dem 1321 Labour 771 Con 353 Green 79 TUSC 5 #WINNINGHERESKSFANSPLEASEEXPLAIN
Dudley used to be Brexit central, and everyone hates the LDs and won't vote for them according to @Pagan2
I'd be surprised if that part of it ever was Brexit Central. It is rather nice area surrounded by some lovely countryside. I knew it rather well a few years back.
Sadly the natural gas network is utterly unsuited for storing or transporting hydrogen. You would lose vast amounts of hydrogen in leaks and probably vast numbers of people in domestic explosions. It is not a viable alternative.
Agreed. Your point is not emphasised enough, and is certainly not understood enough.
I am biting my lip with frustration at the fact that we are jumping into options like heat pumps and hydrogen without any thoughts to the expense and logistics, even when those logistics have obvious difficulties and the expenses are obviously large.
Heat pumps, for those with well insulated homes, are usually pretty efficient. And they also cool in summer
What's your beef with them?
I went thru this at some length last time, so I'll give you the TL:DR
In general
i) they're too expensive
ii) they're not suitable in existing leasehold properties and/or flats, especially for those above the ground floor
iii) I don't like the element of compulsion
Other people advanced arguments saying they were inefficient/inadequate: I agree with those arguments but they do not constitute my beef.
We have heat pump units (combined heating/dehumidifying/ac) everywhere in Japan (and most of Asia) and they're mostly just bolted on after the fact. They're cheap and you can fit them basically anywhere. If the landlord doesn't want it when you move you can remove them when you go and put them in your next place, the only damage is a single, easily-filled hole in the wall.
I don't understand how the British manage to make it so difficult.
Most flats in England are leasehold. You don't own the house, you own the lease which gives you the right to live in the house but you must obey certain conditions which are set out in that lease. One of those conditions is "don't make structural additions or alterations". You don't own the walls and will have to ask permission to drill a hole thru the wall and bolt it to the outside. And no you can't fit them into the windows either, for the same reason.
As has become sadly, wearily, very, obvious, many people on PB are rich or very rich, and find it difficult to understand why you can't just do things. This is the third, fourth or fifth time I've had to explain that there are things you just can't do in flats, and no doubt there'll be a sixth.
During a fuel crises a Conservative MP was criticised for saying "But why can't people just store fuel in a jerry can in the garage", and people had to patiently explain to him that most people don't have a garage. I get the same vibes here.
The 1.8M mortgage issue yesterday highlighted your opinion perfectly, if not jetting away to their overseas properties etc they are on complaining about 1st world issues.
When my daughter was in her teens, she decided to become a vegetarian. There's a happy ending - the smell of frying bacon was enough to bring her back to sanity.
I've been a vegetarian for nearly 32 years! No regrets!
On a side note, and partially agreeing with @Casino_Royale ; veganism and vegetarianism is not for everyone. Mrs J was a vegetarian when I met her, and tried veganism. It did not bother me one bit. I loved her, and it was part of what made her her.
But she started having a certain medical issue. She tried eating fish, and that issue went away. She stopped eating fish, and it returned. She's now pescetarian: she has a can of tuna, or some salmon, twice a week. If she does not, she can be in pain. She doesn't particularly like eating fish, but it's a sensible compromise.
For LOLs I just clicked onto 'Rachel Riley' on the 'trending' section on the dumpster-fire formerly known as Twitter.
The amount of hate towards her from the left is frankly worrying. I haven't investigated the allegations against her (*), but the froth-mouthed, spittle-flecked screeching against her kinda makes me feel that she's in the right.
(*) Partly because the mere fact of her existence seems to annoy them.
Just had a look. Wow. It's probably important to be careful to say "some elements of the Left."
The current issue seems to be that she defended David Hirsch.
The underlying issue imo is that some elements of the 'Palestine Solidarity' type political stream can't admit that some of them tipped over into antisemitism, and are still fighting to defend their delusions.
Important to say that this is political not just party political - the Greens had similar issues which became public before Corbyn's problems. One name that used 'Israel are like Nazis' rhetoric was one Pippa Bartolotti, former high up in the Welsh Green Party.
Some of it is when the SWP disintegrated, and where the members and fellow-travellers went, after the Comrade Delta SWP rape scandal. IMO they tended to poison wherever they went.
They stick their heads up for the publicity and adulation then they should expect to attract the opposite as well.
When my daughter was in her teens, she decided to become a vegetarian. There's a happy ending - the smell of frying bacon was enough to bring her back to sanity.
Quite a few vegetarians, vegans, diabetics in my extended family, as well as allergies including nuts, oats and lactose. It really isn't that much of a problem with a bit of thought. At family functions we tend to do a buffet, and label things.
What if it's not possible to increase the standard of living of 8 billion people while reducing the global impact of humanity on the environment?
It is.
Don't underestimate human ingenuity. The one thing worse than Luddites is Malthusians.
How many more cars than today are we talking about? How many more flights? How much more meat will be consumed? How much more food will we have to take out of the oceans?
Thomas Malthus, is that you?
The past fifty years have seen an unprecedented increase in the number of people living developed world lifestyles. More people eat well. More people survive childbirth.
Politics excepted, the world has never been in better shape. We now have the technology to provide *all* of humanity's needs from renewable sources. We have battery technology. We can keep homes warm or cold.
We've even solved the problem of the world's population growing out of control.
In time, we'll solve the long-distance travel problem. And you know what: maybe it'll be more by hyperloop than by planes. And that's great! Whatever works. Maybe it'll be by fanprops. Maybe synthetic fuel. Maybe battery powered planes.
The challenges the world faces are not from real emergencies - absent places like Ukraine - but an unwillingness to listen to the concerns of, and empathize with, our fellow human beings.
Microbe in laboratory jar, population doubling every day, on day when jar is at 50% capacity:
The past fifty doublings have seen an unprecedented increase in the number of microbes living developed laboratory jar lifestyles.
Sure.
But here's the thing. We're not running out of resources!
In fact, quite the opposite. We're successfully moving away from burning shit to power our lives, and moving to capturing solar energy through wind turbines and panels. How insanely great is that?
We've already - in the UK - stopped burning coal. And the cost of solar and wind and batteries is only going in one direction. So we'll soon stop burning gas. And our petrol usage will shrink.
Why aren't people saying "this is amazing!"
Instead they are claiming things are worse, when they are obviously massively better than they have been.
It's weird because we have already fixed the problem. We just need to implement it against a little political opposition. It's lung cancer and smoking, round two.
Transport is the last big chunk of carbon emissions where we haven't made much progress, and we are already well on the way to electric cars, electric buses, trams, electrification of trains and - dare I say it - cycling for shorter journeys.
You're completely right for once, electric cars and electric buses and electric trains etc are the solution. Combined with clean electricity they are zero carbon, so they are the solution. The sole solution.
Cycling of course is fun, so throw that in the mix if you want to, for recreational purposes, but not as a relevant solution to the climate since it represents not even a significant percentage of transportation on any country in the planet, even after more than half a century of extremely heavily promoting it in the likes of the Netherlands its still an almost inconsequential sub-10% of km travelled. And we need to be making 100% of travel clean, not below 10% of travel.
But electric cars? Yes, they eliminate the climate problem in its entirety and eliminate any reason to be concerned about driving. Problem is solved, you are completely right. 👍
The one things that's not yet technologically solved is clean aviation. It will be over time. Its why we do not need to be cutting flights either, we need to be incentivising clean aviation technology in the same way as we incentivised clean automobile technology, until the solution for that exists too.
What if it's not possible to increase the standard of living of 8 billion people while reducing the global impact of humanity on the environment?
It is.
Don't underestimate human ingenuity. The one thing worse than Luddites is Malthusians.
How many more cars than today are we talking about? How many more flights? How much more meat will be consumed? How much more food will we have to take out of the oceans?
Thomas Malthus, is that you?
The past fifty years have seen an unprecedented increase in the number of people living developed world lifestyles. More people eat well. More people survive childbirth.
Politics excepted, the world has never been in better shape. We now have the technology to provide *all* of humanity's needs from renewable sources. We have battery technology. We can keep homes warm or cold.
We've even solved the problem of the world's population growing out of control.
In time, we'll solve the long-distance travel problem. And you know what: maybe it'll be more by hyperloop than by planes. And that's great! Whatever works. Maybe it'll be by fanprops. Maybe synthetic fuel. Maybe battery powered planes.
The challenges the world faces are not from real emergencies - absent places like Ukraine - but an unwillingness to listen to the concerns of, and empathize with, our fellow human beings.
Microbe in laboratory jar, population doubling every day, on day when jar is at 50% capacity:
The past fifty doublings have seen an unprecedented increase in the number of microbes living developed laboratory jar lifestyles.
Sure.
But here's the thing. We're not running out of resources!
In fact, quite the opposite. We're successfully moving away from burning shit to power our lives, and moving to capturing solar energy through wind turbines and panels. How insanely great is that?
We've already - in the UK - stopped burning coal. And the cost of solar and wind and batteries is only going in one direction. So we'll soon stop burning gas. And our petrol usage will shrink.
Why aren't people saying "this is amazing!"
Instead they are claiming things are worse, when they are obviously massively better than they have been.
It's weird because we have already fixed the problem. We just need to implement it against a little political opposition. It's lung cancer and smoking, round two.
Transport is the last big chunk of carbon emissions where we haven't made much progress, and we are already well on the way to electric cars, electric buses, trams, electrification of trains and - dare I say it - cycling for shorter journeys.
You're completely right for once, electric cars and electric buses and electric trains etc are the solution. Combined with clean electricity they are zero carbon, so they are the solution. The sole solution.
Cycling of course is fun, so throw that in the mix if you want to, for recreational purposes, but not as a relevant solution to the climate since it represents not even a significant percentage of transportation on any country in the planet, even after more than half a century of extremely heavily promoting it in the likes of the Netherlands its still an almost inconsequential sub-10% of km travelled. And we need to be making 100% of travel clean, not below 10% of travel.
But electric cars? Yes, they eliminate the climate problem in its entirety and eliminate any reason to be concerned about driving. Problem is solved, you are completely right. 👍
The one things that's not yet technologically solved is clean aviation. It will be over time. Its why we do not need to be cutting flights either, we need to be incentivising clean aviation technology in the same way as we incentivised clean automobile technology, until the solution for that exists too.
My argument for cycling is less about emissions and more about other problems like air pollution, road wear, and congestion though.
I think you suggested that people weren't scared of cycling in the UK? Here ya go:
Yes, and I respect your opinion even if I completely disagree with it. You aren't masquerading that cycling is the solution to climate change unlike other anti-car fanatics. That's why we can have an intelligent conversation with differing opinions because you aren't claiming something patently absurd as those who say cycling resolves the climate does.
As for your graph, it doesn't prove anything about "scared". If people choose to drive 2km because they want to, because they don't want to get wet, because they're lazy, because its convenient, because its easy, or any other reason - that is their choice. And in a free society, their choice should be respected.
Indeed the fact that the UK is well, well below the line suggests that choice, more than fear, is the reason.
Furthermore as I said, people are dishonest in polls, and virtue signal. This is well known. The percentage who claim they'll vote in polls is far more than the percentage who actually do. Given people are choosing not to ride a bike, as demonstrated by the fact the UK dot is well underneath the line of the chart, it is entirely reasonable to suppose that a significant proportion of people are saying "its too dangerous" as a more virtuous reason why they don't than "I'm too lazy".
Ahem; the numbers commuting by bike has increased markedly in the UK in the last quarter century. Now, it's still small in the general scale of things (and mostly concentrated in London), but it is definitely increasing.
Oh, absolutely, they have markedly increased on a proportionate like-for-like basis of cycling stats versus cycling stats.
They have not markedly increased as a percentage of total travel.
As far as total km* travelled, cycling has in the past quarter of a century risen from a low of less than 1% of total km travelled ... to a new high of less than 1% of total km travelled.
* or miles, using km for international comparison purposes.
Total km travelled is a poor measure, given the large proportion of journeys that are below 5 km.
We could have a massive increase in cycling journeys with very little impact on total kilometres.
That's why for me at least, it's not an emissions issue. It's a congestion and other stuff issue.
As far as the climate emissions is concerned, it is the only measure that matters.
Which is why yes, its not an emissions issue.
For me things like air pollution, noise pollution, pedestrian deaths, congestion are important too.
For me they matter too, I just differ on the proposed solutions.
Air & noise pollution - electric vehicles resolve these, just as much as emissions.
The idea electric vehicles cause air pollution is a lie spread by climate change denialists who want to preserve ICE technology. Electric cars are so quiet they have a deliberately added noise in order to maintain road safety, so you don't get the revving loud noises of ICE technology.
Pedestrian deaths need to be, and are, improved by better road safety awareness. Both for pedestrians and for drivers.
Congestion is a matter of population demand exceeding capacity. Increasing capacity fixes this.
If population growth occurs, demand goes up, so capacity supply needs to go up accordingly.
On congestion, I think this is where we get into aesthetics, and people should be honest about this.
By which I mean there’s a segment of society that would like British towns and cities to be more like some utopian vision of Northern Europe. Pedestrian streets, bikes, trams, svelte young townspeople pottering along the cycle lane with philosophy books in their baskets.
And there is another segment that dreams of a Britain more like Florida or Texas. Wide open freeways, people cruising in big wide sedans and pulling up at the barbecue joint for two pounds of ribs and a bud light.
These are aesthetic choices but they get dressed up in moral codes.
One is possible, one is not (unless you want to knock down lots of buildings). 71% of all journeys are under 5 miles. The cost-effective thing is to get people either using public transport, walking, or cycling (in descending order).
For that you need decent public transport , ie mnot standing for anything up to several hours for your bus, who is going to walk 5 miles for a pint of milk , lots of people would not ever wish to be on a bike. Stop eating quinoa salads, dump teh sandals and get your head into the real world.
I agree! Bus services are rubbish in this country (outside of Edinburgh), and the cost has gone up far more than motoring over the last 20 years.
I think particulates from tyres are an issue? Not an expert on this.
Tyres lose tiny particles of rubber as they wear. All tyres. Heavy vehicles wear tyres out the most. So a 44 tonne truck will make lots of tyre dust, and a 0.1 tonne bicycle very little. In between, a 7.5 tonne van is worse than a 2 tonne Range Rover, is worse than a 1.5 tonne EV, is worse than a 1 tonne petrol city car.
Particulates are graded by size. Tyre particles are of the size PM100. Diesel exhaust particulates are of the size PM10 down to PM2.5. For comparison, silt is PM20 to PM50 sand is PM50 to PM2000. PM10s are so small they stay floating in the air and you breathe them in. Go to Weymouth beach (where the sand is so fine it is almost silt) and on a dry, windy day, there is a slight haze of silt dust hovering over the beach. PM50s will float at shin level but quickly fall to the ground. PM100s from tyres don't float in the air, so you don't breathe them in.
People who quote EV tyre particulates are grasping at straws in the hope of not getting rid of petrol cars. They neglect that their 2 tonne Range Rover is worse than the electric hatchback they oppose, and that lorries are 20 times worse than their Range Rover.
This is utterly magnificent from the Scottish government.
An inquiry into claims a government body unfairly awarded a £97 million ferry contract will not investigate allegations unearthed by the BBC that the procurement process was “rigged”.
The BBC released its documentary Disclosure: The Great Ferries Scandal last year, which presented evidence that the government-owned Caledonian Maritime Assets Limited (CMAL) broke procurement rules by awarding a contract without due process.
Addleshaw Goddard, CMAL’s legal firm, has appointed Barry Smith KC to lead an independent probe to ascertain whether the Ferguson Marine shipyard received preferential treatment.
Smith’s remit has been limited to only investigating whether criminal fraud occurred, which was not one of the original allegations made by the BBC documentary
And the biggest beneficiaries of that would be Moscow and Beijing. For the Commonwealth is a key tool for keeping African, South Asian and Caribbean nations in the orbit of the West, Anglosphere and liberal democracy. Without it many Commonwealth nations would move into the realm of Russia and China.
In any case there is no need for the Commonwealth Games to be Olympics 2, they should be done cheaply on a budget and just be the friendly games they were set up to be
For LOLs I just clicked onto 'Rachel Riley' on the 'trending' section on the dumpster-fire formerly known as Twitter.
The amount of hate towards her from the left is frankly worrying. I haven't investigated the allegations against her (*), but the froth-mouthed, spittle-flecked screeching against her kinda makes me feel that she's in the right.
(*) Partly because the mere fact of her existence seems to annoy them.
Mostly it's because she is Jewish, albeit Atheist.
She is vegan too, so something to offend the other headbangers...
I'm supposed to know who Rachel Riley is, aren't I? Its so hard to keep up.
Usual nobody z lister trying to keep themselves in the public eye
I think particulates from tyres are an issue? Not an expert on this.
Tyres lose tiny particles of rubber as they wear. All tyres. Heavy vehicles wear tyres out the most. So a 44 tonne truck will make lots of tyre dust, and a 0.1 tonne bicycle very little. In between, a 7.5 tonne van is worse than a 2 tonne Range Rover, is worse than a 1.5 tonne EV, is worse than a 1 tonne petrol city car.
Particulates are graded by size. Tyre particles are of the size PM100. Diesel exhaust particulates are of the size PM10 down to PM2.5. For comparison, silt is PM20 to PM50 sand is PM50 to PM2000. PM10s are so small they stay floating in the air and you breathe them in. Go to Weymouth beach (where the sand is so fine it is almost silt) and on a dry, windy day, there is a slight haze of silt dust hovering over the beach. PM50s will float at shin level but quickly fall to the ground. PM100s from tyres don't float in the air, so you don't breathe them in.
People who quote EV tyre particulates are grasping at straws in the hope of not getting rid of petrol cars. They neglect that their 2 tonne Range Rover is worse than the electric hatchback they oppose, and that lorries are 20 times worse than their Range Rover.
It's a shame small hatchbacks are getting culled by manufacturers. Volvo are going stop making estates too.
For LOLs I just clicked onto 'Rachel Riley' on the 'trending' section on the dumpster-fire formerly known as Twitter.
The amount of hate towards her from the left is frankly worrying. I haven't investigated the allegations against her (*), but the froth-mouthed, spittle-flecked screeching against her kinda makes me feel that she's in the right.
(*) Partly because the mere fact of her existence seems to annoy them.
Mostly it's because she is Jewish, albeit Atheist.
She is vegan too, so something to offend the other headbangers...
That last bit has put me off.
Like finding out someone you really fancy is a smoker.
Why does it put you off?
I know / have known a fair few vegans. Some are the 'vegan police' style people who wear their suffering for their superpower on their sleeve. Most are perfectly ordinary people who do not want to put any inconvenience on anybody.
It's nothing like smoking. If someone smokes near me, it gets in my lungs even if they're ten feet away. Someone eating a nut roast at the seat next to me has zero effect on me.
Because they are preachy, whiny and annoying.
And they absolutely do inconvenience people. It means every time you hook up with them you can't cook or eat what you want and you've got to reduce your meals to the lowest common denominator so they can eat with you, which is antisocial.
So it absolutely has an effect on me.
Some are 'preachy, whiny and annoying', as I mentioned. Most are not.
People make other life choices from you: if you cannot deal with that, then that is your problem, not theirs.
Er, no. I was talking about what I found attractive and what put me on or off.
Their choices would cause problems for me and restrict my lifestyle and this would put me off.
The fact you might make a different choice is quite beside the point, unless you think the only acceptable choices in life are ones that you would make - which would be stunningly arrogant.
The problem with this is the standard young person going out on dates tends to be on the left, cares about the environment, perhaps vegetarian/vegan, does lots of cycling/running/climbing/hiking. And they choose partners with similar interests.
So if you can't fancy anyone like that, you're highly likely to end up in that large group of people (particularly men) who can't find a partner.
Which makes sense - survival of the fittest.
This is a but of a myth. I work with lots of young people at work and the vast majority eat meat.
For LOLs I just clicked onto 'Rachel Riley' on the 'trending' section on the dumpster-fire formerly known as Twitter.
The amount of hate towards her from the left is frankly worrying. I haven't investigated the allegations against her (*), but the froth-mouthed, spittle-flecked screeching against her kinda makes me feel that she's in the right.
(*) Partly because the mere fact of her existence seems to annoy them.
Mostly it's because she is Jewish, albeit Atheist.
She is vegan too, so something to offend the other headbangers...
That last bit has put me off.
Like finding out someone you really fancy is a smoker.
Why does it put you off?
I know / have known a fair few vegans. Some are the 'vegan police' style people who wear their suffering for their superpower on their sleeve. Most are perfectly ordinary people who do not want to put any inconvenience on anybody.
It's nothing like smoking. If someone smokes near me, it gets in my lungs even if they're ten feet away. Someone eating a nut roast at the seat next to me has zero effect on me.
Because they are preachy, whiny and annoying.
And they absolutely do inconvenience people. It means every time you hook up with them you can't cook or eat what you want and you've got to reduce your meals to the lowest common denominator so they can eat with you, which is antisocial.
So it absolutely has an effect on me.
Some are 'preachy, whiny and annoying', as I mentioned. Most are not.
People make other life choices from you: if you cannot deal with that, then that is your problem, not theirs.
Er, no. I was talking about what I found attractive and what put me on or off.
Their choices would cause problems for me and restrict my lifestyle and this would put me off.
The fact you might make a different choice is quite beside the point, unless you think the only acceptable choices in life are ones that you would make - which would be stunningly arrogant.
But as I said, that's your issue, and your problem.
As an example: I don't like tattoos. For some reason, I just don't like them. They're a bit of a turn-off, and I have to try not to judge people who have them.
But the important point is this: I understand that's my issue, and my problem, and I try not to let that judgement affect the way I interact with people who have tattoos. Now if they start suggesting I get a tattoo, I'd laugh at them - because I don't like tattoos. But I won't treat them any differently because of their choice.
In fact, I recognise that some tattoos are cool: like the lady I met who got one star / dot added for every year she had been clear of cancer, on the anniversary of receiving the all-clear.
Most of all: I think your comparison of veganism with smoking to be utterly ridiculous and childish. Pathetic, in fact. Oh dear, you might occasionally have to change what you eat to cater for someone else. What an *awful* imposition. It's exactly the same as killing me with second-hand smoke.
And the biggest beneficiaries of that would be Moscow and Beijing. For the Commonwealth is a key tool for keeping African, South Asian and Caribbean nations in the orbit of the West, Anglosphere and liberal democracy. Without it many Commonwealth nations would move into the realm of Russia and China.
In any case there is no need for the Commonwealth Games to be Olympics 2, they should be done cheaply on a budget and just be the friendly games they were set up to be
Paragraph 1. Too late. Particularly Chinese economic colonialism in Africa.
The few vegans I know love roast potatoes cooked in very hot sunflower oil. That solves the catering problem. Give them those, some mushrooms and a decent tomato sauce and you’re sorted. They’re not fussy, just grateful you’ve taken a bit of time to accommodate them.
Sadly the natural gas network is utterly unsuited for storing or transporting hydrogen. You would lose vast amounts of hydrogen in leaks and probably vast numbers of people in domestic explosions. It is not a viable alternative.
Agreed. Your point is not emphasised enough, and is certainly not understood enough.
I am biting my lip with frustration at the fact that we are jumping into options like heat pumps and hydrogen without any thoughts to the expense and logistics, even when those logistics have obvious difficulties and the expenses are obviously large.
Heat pumps, for those with well insulated homes, are usually pretty efficient. And they also cool in summer
What's your beef with them?
I went thru this at some length last time, so I'll give you the TL:DR
In general
i) they're too expensive
ii) they're not suitable in existing leasehold properties and/or flats, especially for those above the ground floor
iii) I don't like the element of compulsion
Other people advanced arguments saying they were inefficient/inadequate: I agree with those arguments but they do not constitute my beef.
We have heat pump units (combined heating/dehumidifying/ac) everywhere in Japan (and most of Asia) and they're mostly just bolted on after the fact. They're cheap and you can fit them basically anywhere. If the landlord doesn't want it when you move you can remove them when you go and put them in your next place, the only damage is a single, easily-filled hole in the wall.
I don't understand how the British manage to make it so difficult.
Most flats in England are leasehold. You don't own the house, you own the lease which gives you the right to live in the house but you must obey certain conditions which are set out in that lease. One of those conditions is "don't make structural additions or alterations". You don't own the walls and will have to ask permission to drill a hole thru the wall and bolt it to the outside. And no you can't fit them into the windows either, for the same reason.
As has become sadly, wearily, very, obvious, many people on PB are rich or very rich, and find it difficult to understand why you can't just do things. This is the third, fourth or fifth time I've had to explain that there are things you just can't do in flats, and no doubt there'll be a sixth.
During a fuel crises a Conservative MP was criticised for saying "But why can't people just store fuel in a jerry can in the garage", and people had to patiently explain to him that most people don't have a garage. I get the same vibes here.
Ummm:
I'm about to put an air conditioning unit in my flat in London. Most leaseholders are perfectly willing to let you make changes, so long as you pay for them.
Sure, you need to get permission, but you make it sound like that is impossible rather than (as most contracts say) "not to be unreasonably withheld".
Not many talking about penthouses overlooking the Thames though.
For LOLs I just clicked onto 'Rachel Riley' on the 'trending' section on the dumpster-fire formerly known as Twitter.
The amount of hate towards her from the left is frankly worrying. I haven't investigated the allegations against her (*), but the froth-mouthed, spittle-flecked screeching against her kinda makes me feel that she's in the right.
(*) Partly because the mere fact of her existence seems to annoy them.
Mostly it's because she is Jewish, albeit Atheist.
She is vegan too, so something to offend the other headbangers...
That last bit has put me off.
Like finding out someone you really fancy is a smoker.
Why does it put you off?
I know / have known a fair few vegans. Some are the 'vegan police' style people who wear their suffering for their superpower on their sleeve. Most are perfectly ordinary people who do not want to put any inconvenience on anybody.
It's nothing like smoking. If someone smokes near me, it gets in my lungs even if they're ten feet away. Someone eating a nut roast at the seat next to me has zero effect on me.
Because they are preachy, whiny and annoying.
And they absolutely do inconvenience people. It means every time you hook up with them you can't cook or eat what you want and you've got to reduce your meals to the lowest common denominator so they can eat with you, which is antisocial.
So it absolutely has an effect on me.
Some are 'preachy, whiny and annoying', as I mentioned. Most are not.
People make other life choices from you: if you cannot deal with that, then that is your problem, not theirs.
Er, no. I was talking about what I found attractive and what put me on or off.
Their choices would cause problems for me and restrict my lifestyle and this would put me off.
The fact you might make a different choice is quite beside the point, unless you think the only acceptable choices in life are ones that you would make - which would be stunningly arrogant.
The problem with this is the standard young person going out on dates tends to be on the left, cares about the environment, perhaps vegetarian/vegan, does lots of cycling/running/climbing/hiking. And they choose partners with similar interests.
So if you can't fancy anyone like that, you're highly likely to end up in that large group of people (particularly men) who can't find a partner.
Which makes sense - survival of the fittest.
This is a but of a myth. I work with lots of young people at work and the vast majority eat meat.
For LOLs I just clicked onto 'Rachel Riley' on the 'trending' section on the dumpster-fire formerly known as Twitter.
The amount of hate towards her from the left is frankly worrying. I haven't investigated the allegations against her (*), but the froth-mouthed, spittle-flecked screeching against her kinda makes me feel that she's in the right.
(*) Partly because the mere fact of her existence seems to annoy them.
Mostly it's because she is Jewish, albeit Atheist.
She is vegan too, so something to offend the other headbangers...
That last bit has put me off.
Like finding out someone you really fancy is a smoker.
Why does it put you off?
I know / have known a fair few vegans. Some are the 'vegan police' style people who wear their suffering for their superpower on their sleeve. Most are perfectly ordinary people who do not want to put any inconvenience on anybody.
It's nothing like smoking. If someone smokes near me, it gets in my lungs even if they're ten feet away. Someone eating a nut roast at the seat next to me has zero effect on me.
Because they are preachy, whiny and annoying.
And they absolutely do inconvenience people. It means every time you hook up with them you can't cook or eat what you want and you've got to reduce your meals to the lowest common denominator so they can eat with you, which is antisocial.
So it absolutely has an effect on me.
Some are 'preachy, whiny and annoying', as I mentioned. Most are not.
People make other life choices from you: if you cannot deal with that, then that is your problem, not theirs.
Er, no. I was talking about what I found attractive and what put me on or off.
Their choices would cause problems for me and restrict my lifestyle and this would put me off.
The fact you might make a different choice is quite beside the point, unless you think the only acceptable choices in life are ones that you would make - which would be stunningly arrogant.
But as I said, that's your issue, and your problem.
As an example: I don't like tattoos. For some reason, I just don't like them. They're a bit of a turn-off, and I have to try not to judge people who have them.
But the important point is this: I understand that's my issue, and my problem, and I try not to let that judgement affect the way I interact with people who have tattoos. Now if they start suggesting I get a tattoo, I'd laugh at them - because I don't like tattoos. But I won't treat them any differently because of their choice.
In fact, I recognise that some tattoos are cool: like the lady I met who got one star / dot added for every year she had been clear of cancer, on the anniversary of receiving the all-clear.
Most of all: I think your comparison of veganism with smoking to be utterly ridiculous and childish. Pathetic, in fact. Oh dear, you might occasionally have to change what you eat to cater for someone else. What an *awful* imposition. It's exactly the same as killing me with second-hand smoke.
Video said to be of the Olenegorsky Gornyak, a Russian Ropucha-class landing ship, listing heavily and under tow back to a naval base at Novorossiysk. The ship appears to have been attacked by a Ukrainian sea drone, and FPV video of the attack has been posted online, see below.
When my daughter was in her teens, she decided to become a vegetarian. There's a happy ending - the smell of frying bacon was enough to bring her back to sanity.
I work with a guy at work whose mother raised him as a vegetarian, until he reached the age of 17, stayed with his Uncle and ate a roast. His mother wasn't happy.
Sadly the natural gas network is utterly unsuited for storing or transporting hydrogen. You would lose vast amounts of hydrogen in leaks and probably vast numbers of people in domestic explosions. It is not a viable alternative.
Agreed. Your point is not emphasised enough, and is certainly not understood enough.
I am biting my lip with frustration at the fact that we are jumping into options like heat pumps and hydrogen without any thoughts to the expense and logistics, even when those logistics have obvious difficulties and the expenses are obviously large.
Heat pumps, for those with well insulated homes, are usually pretty efficient. And they also cool in summer
What's your beef with them?
I went thru this at some length last time, so I'll give you the TL:DR
In general
i) they're too expensive
ii) they're not suitable in existing leasehold properties and/or flats, especially for those above the ground floor
iii) I don't like the element of compulsion
Other people advanced arguments saying they were inefficient/inadequate: I agree with those arguments but they do not constitute my beef.
We have heat pump units (combined heating/dehumidifying/ac) everywhere in Japan (and most of Asia) and they're mostly just bolted on after the fact. They're cheap and you can fit them basically anywhere. If the landlord doesn't want it when you move you can remove them when you go and put them in your next place, the only damage is a single, easily-filled hole in the wall.
I don't understand how the British manage to make it so difficult.
Most flats in England are leasehold. You don't own the house, you own the lease which gives you the right to live in the house but you must obey certain conditions which are set out in that lease. One of those conditions is "don't make structural additions or alterations". You don't own the walls and will have to ask permission to drill a hole thru the wall and bolt it to the outside. And no you can't fit them into the windows either, for the same reason.
As has become sadly, wearily, very, obvious, many people on PB are rich or very rich, and find it difficult to understand why you can't just do things. This is the third, fourth or fifth time I've had to explain that there are things you just can't do in flats, and no doubt there'll be a sixth.
During a fuel crises a Conservative MP was criticised for saying "But why can't people just store fuel in a jerry can in the garage", and people had to patiently explain to him that most people don't have a garage. I get the same vibes here.
Well done Sadiq on making the scrappage scheme available to all Londoners. Funny how he has managed that as in the last couple of weeks regularly been told on here that would be impossible.
For LOLs I just clicked onto 'Rachel Riley' on the 'trending' section on the dumpster-fire formerly known as Twitter.
The amount of hate towards her from the left is frankly worrying. I haven't investigated the allegations against her (*), but the froth-mouthed, spittle-flecked screeching against her kinda makes me feel that she's in the right.
(*) Partly because the mere fact of her existence seems to annoy them.
Mostly it's because she is Jewish, albeit Atheist.
She is vegan too, so something to offend the other headbangers...
That last bit has put me off.
Like finding out someone you really fancy is a smoker.
Why does it put you off?
I know / have known a fair few vegans. Some are the 'vegan police' style people who wear their suffering for their superpower on their sleeve. Most are perfectly ordinary people who do not want to put any inconvenience on anybody.
It's nothing like smoking. If someone smokes near me, it gets in my lungs even if they're ten feet away. Someone eating a nut roast at the seat next to me has zero effect on me.
Because they are preachy, whiny and annoying.
And they absolutely do inconvenience people. It means every time you hook up with them you can't cook or eat what you want and you've got to reduce your meals to the lowest common denominator so they can eat with you, which is antisocial.
So it absolutely has an effect on me.
Some are 'preachy, whiny and annoying', as I mentioned. Most are not.
People make other life choices from you: if you cannot deal with that, then that is your problem, not theirs.
Er, no. I was talking about what I found attractive and what put me on or off.
Their choices would cause problems for me and restrict my lifestyle and this would put me off.
The fact you might make a different choice is quite beside the point, unless you think the only acceptable choices in life are ones that you would make - which would be stunningly arrogant.
But as I said, that's your issue, and your problem.
As an example: I don't like tattoos. For some reason, I just don't like them. They're a bit of a turn-off, and I have to try not to judge people who have them.
But the important point is this: I understand that's my issue, and my problem, and I try not to let that judgement affect the way I interact with people who have tattoos. Now if they start suggesting I get a tattoo, I'd laugh at them - because I don't like tattoos. But I won't treat them any differently because of their choice.
In fact, I recognise that some tattoos are cool: like the lady I met who got one star / dot added for every year she had been clear of cancer, on the anniversary of receiving the all-clear.
Most of all: I think your comparison of veganism with smoking to be utterly ridiculous and childish. Pathetic, in fact. Oh dear, you might occasionally have to change what you eat to cater for someone else. What an *awful* imposition. It's exactly the same as killing me with second-hand smoke.
When my daughter was in her teens, she decided to become a vegetarian. There's a happy ending - the smell of frying bacon was enough to bring her back to sanity.
I work with a guy at work whose mother raised him as a vegetarian, until he reached the age of 17, stayed with his Uncle and ate a roast. His mother wasn't happy.
When my daughter was in her teens, she decided to become a vegetarian. There's a happy ending - the smell of frying bacon was enough to bring her back to sanity.
Quite a few vegetarians, vegans, diabetics in my extended family, as well as allergies including nuts, oats and lactose. It really isn't that much of a problem with a bit of thought. At family functions we tend to do a buffet, and label things.
When you are living with a vegan you have to consider this stuff every day at home, as well as when you cater or go out for a meal. That's why it isn't for me.
I've also had - more than once - vegan meal choices being inflicted on me at work for "sustainability" or some other moralising, preaching BS, which has grated my goat.
FPT: Dr. Foxy said: "Countries need to be helped to skip the polluting phase of growth. Indeed many less developed counties are ideal for solar power."
I agree with that -- which is why I was so disturbed by the conclusions in this WaPo article: "About 4,000 solar mini-grids have been installed in India, of which 3,300 are government financed and owned, according to information collected early this year by Smart Power India, a subsidiary of the Rockefeller Foundation, and provided to The Washington Post. Only 5 percent of the government grids are operational, the group found. . . . A team of Dutch researchers reported in 2017 that in a sample of 29 solar systems in sub-Saharan Africa, only three were fully working. “The reasons cited for failure always point to the same challenges: an absence of local maintenance expertise and a lack of acceptance,” researchers said in an article published by the Conversation.
An Indian solar expert, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to share closed-door conversations, said that the Ugandan government is seeking international help because 80 percent of its 12,000 local solar connections in health-care centers are out of service. Journalistic reports from Nigeria depict a similar situation." source$: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/07/31/india-solar-energy/
I am enough of an optimist to believe these problems should be solved -- and can be in many less developed countries, but I think we -- and they -- are going to have to look harder at what happens before and after the installations.
Yes, equipment maintenance is a real problem in Africa, in part due to an electricity supply with unstable voltages, outages and surges. Partly that a lot of equipment is second hand or second rate when donated, as each countries aid programme favours its own manufactures, and partly expertise to fix, even if parts can be sourced.
The hospital that I have helped with in Malawi is a graveyard of high tech equipment, and if anything needs servicing the nearest agent often several thousand miles away.
I don't know how this reads across to solar powered networks, but it wouldn't surprise me if some similar problems applied.
It's something close to inevitable with such projects in the developing world. A long sad history of good intentions ending on the scrap heap.
Coming up with a better way to integrate them, so they actually take off is perhaps more valuable than the projects themselves.
It’s funny what love can do. My wife’s uncle was a ukip/Tory type. In late life he’s met a lady and fell in love. He is now a vegan and delivers Labour leaflets in his classic Bentley.
That makes him a shrewdie, not a socialist. Bet I know which way he votes when he gets in the booth!
Dr. Foxy, it's somewhat different to being teetotal, though.
If you dine out with a teetotaller, they just don't order beer or wine. If you dine out with a vegan, you have to go somewhere with vegan food.
And that's only the start of it. If you live with a teetotaller, you just drink separate drinks. If you live with a vegan, you have to cook two separate meals every mealtime.
Sunil's mum: "If you live with a vegetarian, you have to cook two separate meals every time!"
What if it's not possible to increase the standard of living of 8 billion people while reducing the global impact of humanity on the environment?
It is.
Don't underestimate human ingenuity. The one thing worse than Luddites is Malthusians.
How many more cars than today are we talking about? How many more flights? How much more meat will be consumed? How much more food will we have to take out of the oceans?
Thomas Malthus, is that you?
The past fifty years have seen an unprecedented increase in the number of people living developed world lifestyles. More people eat well. More people survive childbirth.
Politics excepted, the world has never been in better shape. We now have the technology to provide *all* of humanity's needs from renewable sources. We have battery technology. We can keep homes warm or cold.
We've even solved the problem of the world's population growing out of control.
In time, we'll solve the long-distance travel problem. And you know what: maybe it'll be more by hyperloop than by planes. And that's great! Whatever works. Maybe it'll be by fanprops. Maybe synthetic fuel. Maybe battery powered planes.
The challenges the world faces are not from real emergencies - absent places like Ukraine - but an unwillingness to listen to the concerns of, and empathize with, our fellow human beings.
Microbe in laboratory jar, population doubling every day, on day when jar is at 50% capacity:
The past fifty doublings have seen an unprecedented increase in the number of microbes living developed laboratory jar lifestyles.
Sure.
But here's the thing. We're not running out of resources!
In fact, quite the opposite. We're successfully moving away from burning shit to power our lives, and moving to capturing solar energy through wind turbines and panels. How insanely great is that?
We've already - in the UK - stopped burning coal. And the cost of solar and wind and batteries is only going in one direction. So we'll soon stop burning gas. And our petrol usage will shrink.
Why aren't people saying "this is amazing!"
Instead they are claiming things are worse, when they are obviously massively better than they have been.
It's weird because we have already fixed the problem. We just need to implement it against a little political opposition. It's lung cancer and smoking, round two.
Transport is the last big chunk of carbon emissions where we haven't made much progress, and we are already well on the way to electric cars, electric buses, trams, electrification of trains and - dare I say it - cycling for shorter journeys.
You're completely right for once, electric cars and electric buses and electric trains etc are the solution. Combined with clean electricity they are zero carbon, so they are the solution. The sole solution.
Cycling of course is fun, so throw that in the mix if you want to, for recreational purposes, but not as a relevant solution to the climate since it represents not even a significant percentage of transportation on any country in the planet, even after more than half a century of extremely heavily promoting it in the likes of the Netherlands its still an almost inconsequential sub-10% of km travelled. And we need to be making 100% of travel clean, not below 10% of travel.
But electric cars? Yes, they eliminate the climate problem in its entirety and eliminate any reason to be concerned about driving. Problem is solved, you are completely right. 👍
The one things that's not yet technologically solved is clean aviation. It will be over time. Its why we do not need to be cutting flights either, we need to be incentivising clean aviation technology in the same way as we incentivised clean automobile technology, until the solution for that exists too.
What if it's not possible to increase the standard of living of 8 billion people while reducing the global impact of humanity on the environment?
It is.
Don't underestimate human ingenuity. The one thing worse than Luddites is Malthusians.
How many more cars than today are we talking about? How many more flights? How much more meat will be consumed? How much more food will we have to take out of the oceans?
Thomas Malthus, is that you?
The past fifty years have seen an unprecedented increase in the number of people living developed world lifestyles. More people eat well. More people survive childbirth.
Politics excepted, the world has never been in better shape. We now have the technology to provide *all* of humanity's needs from renewable sources. We have battery technology. We can keep homes warm or cold.
We've even solved the problem of the world's population growing out of control.
In time, we'll solve the long-distance travel problem. And you know what: maybe it'll be more by hyperloop than by planes. And that's great! Whatever works. Maybe it'll be by fanprops. Maybe synthetic fuel. Maybe battery powered planes.
The challenges the world faces are not from real emergencies - absent places like Ukraine - but an unwillingness to listen to the concerns of, and empathize with, our fellow human beings.
Microbe in laboratory jar, population doubling every day, on day when jar is at 50% capacity:
The past fifty doublings have seen an unprecedented increase in the number of microbes living developed laboratory jar lifestyles.
Sure.
But here's the thing. We're not running out of resources!
In fact, quite the opposite. We're successfully moving away from burning shit to power our lives, and moving to capturing solar energy through wind turbines and panels. How insanely great is that?
We've already - in the UK - stopped burning coal. And the cost of solar and wind and batteries is only going in one direction. So we'll soon stop burning gas. And our petrol usage will shrink.
Why aren't people saying "this is amazing!"
Instead they are claiming things are worse, when they are obviously massively better than they have been.
It's weird because we have already fixed the problem. We just need to implement it against a little political opposition. It's lung cancer and smoking, round two.
Transport is the last big chunk of carbon emissions where we haven't made much progress, and we are already well on the way to electric cars, electric buses, trams, electrification of trains and - dare I say it - cycling for shorter journeys.
You're completely right for once, electric cars and electric buses and electric trains etc are the solution. Combined with clean electricity they are zero carbon, so they are the solution. The sole solution.
Cycling of course is fun, so throw that in the mix if you want to, for recreational purposes, but not as a relevant solution to the climate since it represents not even a significant percentage of transportation on any country in the planet, even after more than half a century of extremely heavily promoting it in the likes of the Netherlands its still an almost inconsequential sub-10% of km travelled. And we need to be making 100% of travel clean, not below 10% of travel.
But electric cars? Yes, they eliminate the climate problem in its entirety and eliminate any reason to be concerned about driving. Problem is solved, you are completely right. 👍
The one things that's not yet technologically solved is clean aviation. It will be over time. Its why we do not need to be cutting flights either, we need to be incentivising clean aviation technology in the same way as we incentivised clean automobile technology, until the solution for that exists too.
My argument for cycling is less about emissions and more about other problems like air pollution, road wear, and congestion though.
I think you suggested that people weren't scared of cycling in the UK? Here ya go:
Yes, and I respect your opinion even if I completely disagree with it. You aren't masquerading that cycling is the solution to climate change unlike other anti-car fanatics. That's why we can have an intelligent conversation with differing opinions because you aren't claiming something patently absurd as those who say cycling resolves the climate does.
As for your graph, it doesn't prove anything about "scared". If people choose to drive 2km because they want to, because they don't want to get wet, because they're lazy, because its convenient, because its easy, or any other reason - that is their choice. And in a free society, their choice should be respected.
Indeed the fact that the UK is well, well below the line suggests that choice, more than fear, is the reason.
Furthermore as I said, people are dishonest in polls, and virtue signal. This is well known. The percentage who claim they'll vote in polls is far more than the percentage who actually do. Given people are choosing not to ride a bike, as demonstrated by the fact the UK dot is well underneath the line of the chart, it is entirely reasonable to suppose that a significant proportion of people are saying "its too dangerous" as a more virtuous reason why they don't than "I'm too lazy".
Ahem; the numbers commuting by bike has increased markedly in the UK in the last quarter century. Now, it's still small in the general scale of things (and mostly concentrated in London), but it is definitely increasing.
Oh, absolutely, they have markedly increased on a proportionate like-for-like basis of cycling stats versus cycling stats.
They have not markedly increased as a percentage of total travel.
As far as total km* travelled, cycling has in the past quarter of a century risen from a low of less than 1% of total km travelled ... to a new high of less than 1% of total km travelled.
* or miles, using km for international comparison purposes.
Total km travelled is a poor measure, given the large proportion of journeys that are below 5 km.
We could have a massive increase in cycling journeys with very little impact on total kilometres.
That's why for me at least, it's not an emissions issue. It's a congestion and other stuff issue.
As far as the climate emissions is concerned, it is the only measure that matters.
Which is why yes, its not an emissions issue.
For me things like air pollution, noise pollution, pedestrian deaths, congestion are important too.
For me they matter too, I just differ on the proposed solutions.
Air & noise pollution - electric vehicles resolve these, just as much as emissions.
The idea electric vehicles cause air pollution is a lie spread by climate change denialists who want to preserve ICE technology. Electric cars are so quiet they have a deliberately added noise in order to maintain road safety, so you don't get the revving loud noises of ICE technology.
Pedestrian deaths need to be, and are, improved by better road safety awareness. Both for pedestrians and for drivers.
Congestion is a matter of population demand exceeding capacity. Increasing capacity fixes this.
If population growth occurs, demand goes up, so capacity supply needs to go up accordingly.
On congestion, I think this is where we get into aesthetics, and people should be honest about this.
By which I mean there’s a segment of society that would like British towns and cities to be more like some utopian vision of Northern Europe. Pedestrian streets, bikes, trams, svelte young townspeople pottering along the cycle lane with philosophy books in their baskets.
And there is another segment that dreams of a Britain more like Florida or Texas. Wide open freeways, people cruising in big wide sedans and pulling up at the barbecue joint for two pounds of ribs and a bud light.
These are aesthetic choices but they get dressed up in moral codes.
One is possible, one is not (unless you want to knock down lots of buildings). 71% of all journeys are under 5 miles. The cost-effective thing is to get people either using public transport, walking, or cycling (in descending order).
For that you need decent public transport , ie mnot standing for anything up to several hours for your bus, who is going to walk 5 miles for a pint of milk , lots of people would not ever wish to be on a bike. Stop eating quinoa salads, dump teh sandals and get your head into the real world.
I agree! Bus services are rubbish in this country (outside of Edinburgh), and the cost has gone up far more than motoring over the last 20 years.
Other thing is that there is no joined up thinking on transport , in other countries they have busses that go to stations and match up with train systems etc , not here. Rather than use smaller busses/minibusses theywould rather close a route down etc. The UK is just shit at any decent public services, due to being constantly run by competing Tory like parties, Blue or red.
What are the Olympic Games? If you said "sport" you have missed the purpose of the event - to make a shit ton of cash for a corrupt elite.
Lets scrap the thing and create a new Olympics. One where you don't need to financially destroy the host city / country to hold them.
It is far too bloated. Strip it back to track and field only.
Track and field already have big stage events each year - the Olympics is the big stage for a lot of lower profile sports.
The best way to save the Olympics/Commonwealth games is to stop the “City bid” and change it to country bids. Many more countries will have all the required facilities but very few have them near one city which currently favours big sports countries or countries such as Saudi or Qatar who will happily spend billions to build everything.
What if it's not possible to increase the standard of living of 8 billion people while reducing the global impact of humanity on the environment?
It is.
Don't underestimate human ingenuity. The one thing worse than Luddites is Malthusians.
How many more cars than today are we talking about? How many more flights? How much more meat will be consumed? How much more food will we have to take out of the oceans?
Thomas Malthus, is that you?
The past fifty years have seen an unprecedented increase in the number of people living developed world lifestyles. More people eat well. More people survive childbirth.
Politics excepted, the world has never been in better shape. We now have the technology to provide *all* of humanity's needs from renewable sources. We have battery technology. We can keep homes warm or cold.
We've even solved the problem of the world's population growing out of control.
In time, we'll solve the long-distance travel problem. And you know what: maybe it'll be more by hyperloop than by planes. And that's great! Whatever works. Maybe it'll be by fanprops. Maybe synthetic fuel. Maybe battery powered planes.
The challenges the world faces are not from real emergencies - absent places like Ukraine - but an unwillingness to listen to the concerns of, and empathize with, our fellow human beings.
Microbe in laboratory jar, population doubling every day, on day when jar is at 50% capacity:
The past fifty doublings have seen an unprecedented increase in the number of microbes living developed laboratory jar lifestyles.
Sure.
But here's the thing. We're not running out of resources!
In fact, quite the opposite. We're successfully moving away from burning shit to power our lives, and moving to capturing solar energy through wind turbines and panels. How insanely great is that?
We've already - in the UK - stopped burning coal. And the cost of solar and wind and batteries is only going in one direction. So we'll soon stop burning gas. And our petrol usage will shrink.
Why aren't people saying "this is amazing!"
Instead they are claiming things are worse, when they are obviously massively better than they have been.
It's weird because we have already fixed the problem. We just need to implement it against a little political opposition. It's lung cancer and smoking, round two.
Transport is the last big chunk of carbon emissions where we haven't made much progress, and we are already well on the way to electric cars, electric buses, trams, electrification of trains and - dare I say it - cycling for shorter journeys.
You're completely right for once, electric cars and electric buses and electric trains etc are the solution. Combined with clean electricity they are zero carbon, so they are the solution. The sole solution.
Cycling of course is fun, so throw that in the mix if you want to, for recreational purposes, but not as a relevant solution to the climate since it represents not even a significant percentage of transportation on any country in the planet, even after more than half a century of extremely heavily promoting it in the likes of the Netherlands its still an almost inconsequential sub-10% of km travelled. And we need to be making 100% of travel clean, not below 10% of travel.
But electric cars? Yes, they eliminate the climate problem in its entirety and eliminate any reason to be concerned about driving. Problem is solved, you are completely right. 👍
The one things that's not yet technologically solved is clean aviation. It will be over time. Its why we do not need to be cutting flights either, we need to be incentivising clean aviation technology in the same way as we incentivised clean automobile technology, until the solution for that exists too.
What if it's not possible to increase the standard of living of 8 billion people while reducing the global impact of humanity on the environment?
It is.
Don't underestimate human ingenuity. The one thing worse than Luddites is Malthusians.
How many more cars than today are we talking about? How many more flights? How much more meat will be consumed? How much more food will we have to take out of the oceans?
Thomas Malthus, is that you?
The past fifty years have seen an unprecedented increase in the number of people living developed world lifestyles. More people eat well. More people survive childbirth.
Politics excepted, the world has never been in better shape. We now have the technology to provide *all* of humanity's needs from renewable sources. We have battery technology. We can keep homes warm or cold.
We've even solved the problem of the world's population growing out of control.
In time, we'll solve the long-distance travel problem. And you know what: maybe it'll be more by hyperloop than by planes. And that's great! Whatever works. Maybe it'll be by fanprops. Maybe synthetic fuel. Maybe battery powered planes.
The challenges the world faces are not from real emergencies - absent places like Ukraine - but an unwillingness to listen to the concerns of, and empathize with, our fellow human beings.
Microbe in laboratory jar, population doubling every day, on day when jar is at 50% capacity:
The past fifty doublings have seen an unprecedented increase in the number of microbes living developed laboratory jar lifestyles.
Sure.
But here's the thing. We're not running out of resources!
In fact, quite the opposite. We're successfully moving away from burning shit to power our lives, and moving to capturing solar energy through wind turbines and panels. How insanely great is that?
We've already - in the UK - stopped burning coal. And the cost of solar and wind and batteries is only going in one direction. So we'll soon stop burning gas. And our petrol usage will shrink.
Why aren't people saying "this is amazing!"
Instead they are claiming things are worse, when they are obviously massively better than they have been.
It's weird because we have already fixed the problem. We just need to implement it against a little political opposition. It's lung cancer and smoking, round two.
Transport is the last big chunk of carbon emissions where we haven't made much progress, and we are already well on the way to electric cars, electric buses, trams, electrification of trains and - dare I say it - cycling for shorter journeys.
You're completely right for once, electric cars and electric buses and electric trains etc are the solution. Combined with clean electricity they are zero carbon, so they are the solution. The sole solution.
Cycling of course is fun, so throw that in the mix if you want to, for recreational purposes, but not as a relevant solution to the climate since it represents not even a significant percentage of transportation on any country in the planet, even after more than half a century of extremely heavily promoting it in the likes of the Netherlands its still an almost inconsequential sub-10% of km travelled. And we need to be making 100% of travel clean, not below 10% of travel.
But electric cars? Yes, they eliminate the climate problem in its entirety and eliminate any reason to be concerned about driving. Problem is solved, you are completely right. 👍
The one things that's not yet technologically solved is clean aviation. It will be over time. Its why we do not need to be cutting flights either, we need to be incentivising clean aviation technology in the same way as we incentivised clean automobile technology, until the solution for that exists too.
My argument for cycling is less about emissions and more about other problems like air pollution, road wear, and congestion though.
I think you suggested that people weren't scared of cycling in the UK? Here ya go:
Yes, and I respect your opinion even if I completely disagree with it. You aren't masquerading that cycling is the solution to climate change unlike other anti-car fanatics. That's why we can have an intelligent conversation with differing opinions because you aren't claiming something patently absurd as those who say cycling resolves the climate does.
As for your graph, it doesn't prove anything about "scared". If people choose to drive 2km because they want to, because they don't want to get wet, because they're lazy, because its convenient, because its easy, or any other reason - that is their choice. And in a free society, their choice should be respected.
Indeed the fact that the UK is well, well below the line suggests that choice, more than fear, is the reason.
Furthermore as I said, people are dishonest in polls, and virtue signal. This is well known. The percentage who claim they'll vote in polls is far more than the percentage who actually do. Given people are choosing not to ride a bike, as demonstrated by the fact the UK dot is well underneath the line of the chart, it is entirely reasonable to suppose that a significant proportion of people are saying "its too dangerous" as a more virtuous reason why they don't than "I'm too lazy".
Ahem; the numbers commuting by bike has increased markedly in the UK in the last quarter century. Now, it's still small in the general scale of things (and mostly concentrated in London), but it is definitely increasing.
Oh, absolutely, they have markedly increased on a proportionate like-for-like basis of cycling stats versus cycling stats.
They have not markedly increased as a percentage of total travel.
As far as total km* travelled, cycling has in the past quarter of a century risen from a low of less than 1% of total km travelled ... to a new high of less than 1% of total km travelled.
* or miles, using km for international comparison purposes.
Total km travelled is a poor measure, given the large proportion of journeys that are below 5 km.
We could have a massive increase in cycling journeys with very little impact on total kilometres.
That's why for me at least, it's not an emissions issue. It's a congestion and other stuff issue.
As far as the climate emissions is concerned, it is the only measure that matters.
Which is why yes, its not an emissions issue.
For me things like air pollution, noise pollution, pedestrian deaths, congestion are important too.
For me they matter too, I just differ on the proposed solutions.
Air & noise pollution - electric vehicles resolve these, just as much as emissions.
The idea electric vehicles cause air pollution is a lie spread by climate change denialists who want to preserve ICE technology. Electric cars are so quiet they have a deliberately added noise in order to maintain road safety, so you don't get the revving loud noises of ICE technology.
Pedestrian deaths need to be, and are, improved by better road safety awareness. Both for pedestrians and for drivers.
Congestion is a matter of population demand exceeding capacity. Increasing capacity fixes this.
If population growth occurs, demand goes up, so capacity supply needs to go up accordingly.
On congestion, I think this is where we get into aesthetics, and people should be honest about this.
By which I mean there’s a segment of society that would like British towns and cities to be more like some utopian vision of Northern Europe. Pedestrian streets, bikes, trams, svelte young townspeople pottering along the cycle lane with philosophy books in their baskets.
And there is another segment that dreams of a Britain more like Florida or Texas. Wide open freeways, people cruising in big wide sedans and pulling up at the barbecue joint for two pounds of ribs and a bud light.
These are aesthetic choices but they get dressed up in moral codes.
Apart from despising Bud Light and thinking a real beer is definitely better, yes you're right.
It is choice, not moral codes.
I am pro-choice. I respect others rights to make their choices, I just ask that they respect my choice to make mine.
What if it's not possible to increase the standard of living of 8 billion people while reducing the global impact of humanity on the environment?
It is.
Don't underestimate human ingenuity. The one thing worse than Luddites is Malthusians.
How many more cars than today are we talking about? How many more flights? How much more meat will be consumed? How much more food will we have to take out of the oceans?
Thomas Malthus, is that you?
The past fifty years have seen an unprecedented increase in the number of people living developed world lifestyles. More people eat well. More people survive childbirth.
Politics excepted, the world has never been in better shape. We now have the technology to provide *all* of humanity's needs from renewable sources. We have battery technology. We can keep homes warm or cold.
We've even solved the problem of the world's population growing out of control.
In time, we'll solve the long-distance travel problem. And you know what: maybe it'll be more by hyperloop than by planes. And that's great! Whatever works. Maybe it'll be by fanprops. Maybe synthetic fuel. Maybe battery powered planes.
The challenges the world faces are not from real emergencies - absent places like Ukraine - but an unwillingness to listen to the concerns of, and empathize with, our fellow human beings.
Microbe in laboratory jar, population doubling every day, on day when jar is at 50% capacity:
The past fifty doublings have seen an unprecedented increase in the number of microbes living developed laboratory jar lifestyles.
Sure.
But here's the thing. We're not running out of resources!
In fact, quite the opposite. We're successfully moving away from burning shit to power our lives, and moving to capturing solar energy through wind turbines and panels. How insanely great is that?
We've already - in the UK - stopped burning coal. And the cost of solar and wind and batteries is only going in one direction. So we'll soon stop burning gas. And our petrol usage will shrink.
Why aren't people saying "this is amazing!"
Instead they are claiming things are worse, when they are obviously massively better than they have been.
It's weird because we have already fixed the problem. We just need to implement it against a little political opposition. It's lung cancer and smoking, round two.
Transport is the last big chunk of carbon emissions where we haven't made much progress, and we are already well on the way to electric cars, electric buses, trams, electrification of trains and - dare I say it - cycling for shorter journeys.
You're completely right for once, electric cars and electric buses and electric trains etc are the solution. Combined with clean electricity they are zero carbon, so they are the solution. The sole solution.
Cycling of course is fun, so throw that in the mix if you want to, for recreational purposes, but not as a relevant solution to the climate since it represents not even a significant percentage of transportation on any country in the planet, even after more than half a century of extremely heavily promoting it in the likes of the Netherlands its still an almost inconsequential sub-10% of km travelled. And we need to be making 100% of travel clean, not below 10% of travel.
But electric cars? Yes, they eliminate the climate problem in its entirety and eliminate any reason to be concerned about driving. Problem is solved, you are completely right. 👍
The one things that's not yet technologically solved is clean aviation. It will be over time. Its why we do not need to be cutting flights either, we need to be incentivising clean aviation technology in the same way as we incentivised clean automobile technology, until the solution for that exists too.
What if it's not possible to increase the standard of living of 8 billion people while reducing the global impact of humanity on the environment?
It is.
Don't underestimate human ingenuity. The one thing worse than Luddites is Malthusians.
How many more cars than today are we talking about? How many more flights? How much more meat will be consumed? How much more food will we have to take out of the oceans?
Thomas Malthus, is that you?
The past fifty years have seen an unprecedented increase in the number of people living developed world lifestyles. More people eat well. More people survive childbirth.
Politics excepted, the world has never been in better shape. We now have the technology to provide *all* of humanity's needs from renewable sources. We have battery technology. We can keep homes warm or cold.
We've even solved the problem of the world's population growing out of control.
In time, we'll solve the long-distance travel problem. And you know what: maybe it'll be more by hyperloop than by planes. And that's great! Whatever works. Maybe it'll be by fanprops. Maybe synthetic fuel. Maybe battery powered planes.
The challenges the world faces are not from real emergencies - absent places like Ukraine - but an unwillingness to listen to the concerns of, and empathize with, our fellow human beings.
Microbe in laboratory jar, population doubling every day, on day when jar is at 50% capacity:
The past fifty doublings have seen an unprecedented increase in the number of microbes living developed laboratory jar lifestyles.
Sure.
But here's the thing. We're not running out of resources!
In fact, quite the opposite. We're successfully moving away from burning shit to power our lives, and moving to capturing solar energy through wind turbines and panels. How insanely great is that?
We've already - in the UK - stopped burning coal. And the cost of solar and wind and batteries is only going in one direction. So we'll soon stop burning gas. And our petrol usage will shrink.
Why aren't people saying "this is amazing!"
Instead they are claiming things are worse, when they are obviously massively better than they have been.
It's weird because we have already fixed the problem. We just need to implement it against a little political opposition. It's lung cancer and smoking, round two.
Transport is the last big chunk of carbon emissions where we haven't made much progress, and we are already well on the way to electric cars, electric buses, trams, electrification of trains and - dare I say it - cycling for shorter journeys.
You're completely right for once, electric cars and electric buses and electric trains etc are the solution. Combined with clean electricity they are zero carbon, so they are the solution. The sole solution.
Cycling of course is fun, so throw that in the mix if you want to, for recreational purposes, but not as a relevant solution to the climate since it represents not even a significant percentage of transportation on any country in the planet, even after more than half a century of extremely heavily promoting it in the likes of the Netherlands its still an almost inconsequential sub-10% of km travelled. And we need to be making 100% of travel clean, not below 10% of travel.
But electric cars? Yes, they eliminate the climate problem in its entirety and eliminate any reason to be concerned about driving. Problem is solved, you are completely right. 👍
The one things that's not yet technologically solved is clean aviation. It will be over time. Its why we do not need to be cutting flights either, we need to be incentivising clean aviation technology in the same way as we incentivised clean automobile technology, until the solution for that exists too.
My argument for cycling is less about emissions and more about other problems like air pollution, road wear, and congestion though.
I think you suggested that people weren't scared of cycling in the UK? Here ya go:
Yes, and I respect your opinion even if I completely disagree with it. You aren't masquerading that cycling is the solution to climate change unlike other anti-car fanatics. That's why we can have an intelligent conversation with differing opinions because you aren't claiming something patently absurd as those who say cycling resolves the climate does.
As for your graph, it doesn't prove anything about "scared". If people choose to drive 2km because they want to, because they don't want to get wet, because they're lazy, because its convenient, because its easy, or any other reason - that is their choice. And in a free society, their choice should be respected.
Indeed the fact that the UK is well, well below the line suggests that choice, more than fear, is the reason.
Furthermore as I said, people are dishonest in polls, and virtue signal. This is well known. The percentage who claim they'll vote in polls is far more than the percentage who actually do. Given people are choosing not to ride a bike, as demonstrated by the fact the UK dot is well underneath the line of the chart, it is entirely reasonable to suppose that a significant proportion of people are saying "its too dangerous" as a more virtuous reason why they don't than "I'm too lazy".
Ahem; the numbers commuting by bike has increased markedly in the UK in the last quarter century. Now, it's still small in the general scale of things (and mostly concentrated in London), but it is definitely increasing.
Oh, absolutely, they have markedly increased on a proportionate like-for-like basis of cycling stats versus cycling stats.
They have not markedly increased as a percentage of total travel.
As far as total km* travelled, cycling has in the past quarter of a century risen from a low of less than 1% of total km travelled ... to a new high of less than 1% of total km travelled.
* or miles, using km for international comparison purposes.
Total km travelled is a poor measure, given the large proportion of journeys that are below 5 km.
We could have a massive increase in cycling journeys with very little impact on total kilometres.
That's why for me at least, it's not an emissions issue. It's a congestion and other stuff issue.
As far as the climate emissions is concerned, it is the only measure that matters.
Which is why yes, its not an emissions issue.
For me things like air pollution, noise pollution, pedestrian deaths, congestion are important too.
For me they matter too, I just differ on the proposed solutions.
Air & noise pollution - electric vehicles resolve these, just as much as emissions.
The idea electric vehicles cause air pollution is a lie spread by climate change denialists who want to preserve ICE technology. Electric cars are so quiet they have a deliberately added noise in order to maintain road safety, so you don't get the revving loud noises of ICE technology.
Pedestrian deaths need to be, and are, improved by better road safety awareness. Both for pedestrians and for drivers.
Congestion is a matter of population demand exceeding capacity. Increasing capacity fixes this.
If population growth occurs, demand goes up, so capacity supply needs to go up accordingly.
On congestion, I think this is where we get into aesthetics, and people should be honest about this.
By which I mean there’s a segment of society that would like British towns and cities to be more like some utopian vision of Northern Europe. Pedestrian streets, bikes, trams, svelte young townspeople pottering along the cycle lane with philosophy books in their baskets.
And there is another segment that dreams of a Britain more like Florida or Texas. Wide open freeways, people cruising in big wide sedans and pulling up at the barbecue joint for two pounds of ribs and a bud light.
These are aesthetic choices but they get dressed up in moral codes.
One is possible, one is not (unless you want to knock down lots of buildings). 71% of all journeys are under 5 miles. The cost-effective thing is to get people either using public transport, walking, or cycling (in descending order).
For that you need decent public transport , ie mnot standing for anything up to several hours for your bus, who is going to walk 5 miles for a pint of milk , lots of people would not ever wish to be on a bike. Stop eating quinoa salads, dump teh sandals and get your head into the real world.
I agree! Bus services are rubbish in this country (outside of Edinburgh), and the cost has gone up far more than motoring over the last 20 years.
Other thing is that there is no joined up thinking on transport , in other countries they have busses that go to stations and match up with train systems etc , not here. Rather than use smaller busses/minibusses theywould rather close a route down etc. The UK is just shit at any decent public services, due to being constantly run by competing Tory like parties, Blue or red.
An example of this was the train to Oban that arrives 5 minutes after the ferry left.
Comments
Vegans are different.
Bacon and sausage roll for me this morning.
Plenty of cyclists run reds routinely, particularly delivery cyclists, and I don't like it either as it gives us a bad name. I get frustrated when people equate this to a car doing the same though given the likely outcomes of being hit by each.
I have no doubt there are militant vegans out there but has anyone on here actually met one.
Their choices would cause problems for me and restrict my lifestyle and this would put me off.
The fact you might make a different choice is quite beside the point, unless you think the only acceptable choices in life are ones that you would make - which would be stunningly arrogant.
Going to pop into the recommended Scarthin books before we leave.
Oh dear. How sad. Never mind.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLpCZ8g5uK8
I think, by contrast, it will actually go into reverse as we come to realise how irrational and nonsensical it is.
Teetotalism is going strong. Indeed we have a teetotal PM.
I don't find vegans attractive and it would be a dealbreaker for me in a relationship.
If you dine out with a teetotaller, they just don't order beer or wine. If you dine out with a vegan, you have to go somewhere with vegan food.
Marine drones attacked the Russian naval base in Novorossiysk (southern Russia) last night
All drones were destroyed, Russia's Defense Ministry reported.
https://twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1687337680462344192
https://www.theargus.co.uk/news/23699795.eddie-izzard-run-labour-mp-candidate-brighton/?
So if you can't fancy anyone like that, you're highly likely to end up in that large group of people (particularly men) who can't find a partner.
Which makes sense - survival of the fittest.
If you want a relationship with someone, then you need to be open to change, otherwise you are looking for a slave, not a partner.
Surely the future of the Commonwealth Games is now very much in doubt
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-66402140
I did of course mean ‘Humza Useless.’
I blame autocorrect.
The issue today might be that there are too many of us and we're overconsuming them, but the answer to that isn't total abstinence. It's to eat a lower more moderate amount.
Vegans are simply a religious anti-reaction to this, and it does not follow through to a logical conclusion.
I am sure Casino would get on with these people:
https://www.veganconservatives.org.uk/
(When asked if she was a witch he said, ‘she may have been a witch but phoof, she was a goer.’)
LD Gain in Dudley from LAB
Lib Dem 1321
Labour 771
Con 353
Green 79
TUSC 5
#WINNINGHERESKSFANSPLEASEEXPLAIN
Phoenix’s extreme heat withers saguaros, trademark cactus of desert landscape
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/aug/03/phoenix-extreme-heat-withers-saguaros-cactus
...As of Wednesday, there was no rain in the forecast for Phoenix anytime soon according to the National Weather Service. After two days of a slight drop, high temperatures reached 111F (43.9C) and are expected to be 110F or more for the next 10 days.
The Weather Service plans to issue an extreme heat warning Friday through Monday, when the highs will be between 111F (43.9C) and 117F (47.2C)...
The Commonwealth is headed the same way.
I would do anything for love
But I won't do that
No, I won't do that.."
As an example: I don't like tattoos. For some reason, I just don't like them. They're a bit of a turn-off, and I have to try not to judge people who have them.
But the important point is this: I understand that's my issue, and my problem, and I try not to let that judgement affect the way I interact with people who have tattoos. Now if they start suggesting I get a tattoo, I'd laugh at them - because I don't like tattoos. But I won't treat them any differently because of their choice.
In fact, I recognise that some tattoos are cool: like the lady I met who got one star / dot added for every year she had been clear of cancer, on the anniversary of receiving the all-clear.
Most of all: I think your comparison of veganism with smoking to be utterly ridiculous and childish. Pathetic, in fact. Oh dear, you might occasionally have to change what you eat to cater for someone else. What an *awful* imposition. It's exactly the same as killing me with second-hand smoke.
Not.
I don't have vegans in the family, and remain fond of meat, but I cook plenty of meals which could be eaten by vegans.
Especially since I had to cut down on salt; unsalted butter just isn't worth bothering with.
TUSC 5
Nobody wants to vote for your kind of socialism. OK, 5 people.
But she started having a certain medical issue. She tried eating fish, and that issue went away. She stopped eating fish, and it returned. She's now pescetarian: she has a can of tuna, or some salmon, twice a week. If she does not, she can be in pain. She doesn't particularly like eating fish, but it's a sensible compromise.
I don't think she's alone in this.
Lets scrap the thing and create a new Olympics. One where you don't need to financially destroy the host city / country to hold them.
Particulates are graded by size. Tyre particles are of the size PM100. Diesel exhaust particulates are of the size PM10 down to PM2.5. For comparison, silt is PM20 to PM50 sand is PM50 to PM2000. PM10s are so small they stay floating in the air and you breathe them in. Go to Weymouth beach (where the sand is so fine it is almost silt) and on a dry, windy day, there is a slight haze of silt dust hovering over the beach. PM50s will float at shin level but quickly fall to the ground. PM100s from tyres don't float in the air, so you don't breathe them in.
People who quote EV tyre particulates are grasping at straws in the hope of not getting rid of petrol cars. They neglect that their 2 tonne Range Rover is worse than the electric hatchback they oppose, and that lorries are 20 times worse than their Range Rover.
https://www.olimpickgames.co.uk/
In any case there is no need for the Commonwealth Games to be Olympics 2, they should be done cheaply on a budget and just be the friendly games they were set up to be
They w The only child on here is you.
Your posts show you up to be a real dickhead.
Paragraph 1. Too late. Particularly Chinese economic colonialism in Africa.
Paragraph 2. A permanent home in Birmingham?
Video said to be of the Olenegorsky Gornyak, a Russian Ropucha-class landing ship, listing heavily and under tow back to a naval base at Novorossiysk. The ship appears to have been attacked by a Ukrainian sea drone, and FPV video of the attack has been posted online, see below.
https://twitter.com/Euan_MacDonald/status/1687369392915402752?s=20
Bear Grylls has also seen the light:
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/bear-grylls-diet-vegan-carnivore-health-2ss8f0v8n
Passive smoking. And the risks of being tattooed.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1201971201900451
"Sunak to ban veganism in crackdown on woke"
I've also had - more than once - vegan meal choices being inflicted on me at work for "sustainability" or some other moralising, preaching BS, which has grated my goat.
Coming up with a better way to integrate them, so they actually take off is perhaps more valuable than the projects themselves.
The best way to save the Olympics/Commonwealth games is to stop the “City bid” and change it to country bids. Many more countries will have all the required facilities but very few have them near one city which currently favours big sports countries or countries such as Saudi or Qatar who will happily spend billions to build everything.
So we took the car.