Emma Thompson deserves all the stick she's getting. She's no better than the Brexit backers who live on the Costas and in French mansions, and the Tories who hang out with white supremacists while condemning Jeremy Corbyn for anti-Semitism.
Or the centrists who moderately bomb the Middle East
Not sure how many centrists do that. But if they say they are opposed to it but then do it clearly they deserve stick.
If we’re going to avoid the worst consequences of climate change, we’ll need an energy revolution. Specifically, we need to replace our dirty, fossil fuel-based grids and dirty, fossil fuel-powered vehicles with clean, carbon-free grids, and electric vehicles that charge off them. But there’s a big problem.
Making that future a reality will, among other things, require a lot of batteries: batteries to charge our electric cars; batteries to store solar power collected while the sun’s up and wind power harnessed when it’s gusty out. And as a new report by researchers at the University of Technology Sydney warns, that’s likely to drive demand for the metals used to build green batteries—as well as wind turbines and solar panels—through the roof.
In other words the clean tech boom is, at least in the short term, likely to fuel a mining boom.
All seems very plausible. Many years ago I was told about a study that suggested from digging the components up to scrap page, a Toyota Prius had a bigger carbon footprint than a Land Rover Discovery. It seems plausible. I also remember that when Brown introduced that silly scrappage scheme ten years ago a number of environmental groups were opposed because to be most environmentally efficient the cars should be running for 18 years not ten.
You're denigrating this guy because of what he drives, in effect saying that he is not allowed to have 'eco' opinions because he drives a diesel. You're forgetting that we were told by the government that diesels were better for the environment because they emit less CO2. It's perfectly true that electric cars are expensive at the moment. In any case this sort of argument is spurious because only governments can make the changes necessary to combat the worst effects of Climate Change and to put in place the tax laws and incentives that will help the rest of us fight climate change in our individual ways.
Yes. We are absolutely saying that. Ecowarriors who claim that we must make drastic changes to our behaviour to save the planet, while driving themselves everywhere and jetting off for lots of foreign holidays, are stupid twats and loathsome hypocrites who are not worth listening to, even when they are correct.
When they move to an unheated hermitage, grow their own food and either walk or take trains, then we can take them seriously. But this lot are just a bunch of pompous and not very intelligent attention seekers with neither common courtesy or brain cells. Ignore.
If we’re going to avoid the worst consequences of climate change, we’ll need an energy revolution. Specifically, we need to replace our dirty, fossil fuel-based grids and dirty, fossil fuel-powered vehicles with clean, carbon-free grids, and electric vehicles that charge off them. But there’s a big problem.
Making that future a reality will, among other things, require a lot of batteries: batteries to charge our electric cars; batteries to store solar power collected while the sun’s up and wind power harnessed when it’s gusty out. And as a new report by researchers at the University of Technology Sydney warns, that’s likely to drive demand for the metals used to build green batteries—as well as wind turbines and solar panels—through the roof.
In other words the clean tech boom is, at least in the short term, likely to fuel a mining boom.
Not to mention the massive increase in electricity generation that will be required if we are to keep those electric cars charged up - even on dark and still winter’s days weeks. It’s not happening without either nuclear or fossil fuel power stations.
Globalisation is basically filth. It speeds life up to an unnatural pace, destroying the environment in more ways than one
"Many years ago I was told about a study that suggested from digging the components up to scrap page, a Toyota Prius had a bigger carbon footprint than a Land Rover Discovery. It seems plausible"
Yes, I remember that. It is both the nasty components that go into it (much of which can't be recycled at end of life) and also all that extra weight for the batteries means that the car is massively inefficient in petrol mode.
You are better off just driving a modern small petrol car that these days are incredibly good on MPG.
Theres no chance that ticket will be mocked as Biden Buttplug
Trump’s insults are usually crushing because they pick out a weakness of the candidate and amplify it (Lying Ted, Little Mario, Pochahontos etc).
“Buttplug” would just be crass and insulting and I don’t think it would stick / be effective as a name
Precocious Pete?
Trump wouldn't be able to spell it.
I doubt he'll wade in yet. Buttigieg still isn't a name that has a lot of traction outside avid politics fans, and his good polling series may well fizzle out anyway. Having a go now would only tend to boost awareness, whereas slinging punches at better known figures galvanises Trump's base against the people who remain his most likely opponents.
I also think in some respects Trump is more aware than people think. He knows he's a bloke in his 70s, and that having an opponent of a similar age, who's been around the block and people are already a bit bored of, would tend to be best for him. So he's fairly happy to play the game of talking about Biden, Sanders and Warren as the main players in town.
It will be interesting to see whether Democrats also see this as the campaign wears on. I can't help but think the last VP and last nomination runner-up are up there on name recognition. The logic of fielding an old fart to beat an old turd just doesn't make any sense at all when things come into focus - energy, dynamism, optimism are what will win this.
The Labour tweet makes me feel sick. Not the bread bit, but the whole stinking hypocrisy of sending this out while buckets of cases of anti-semitism get filed under 'do nothing'.
The Labour tweet makes me feel sick. Not the bread bit, but the whole stinking hypocrisy of sending this out while buckets of cases of anti-semitism get filed under 'do nothing'.
It will be worse if in a few months this lot are in charge of the country.
If we’re going to avoid the worst consequences of climate change, we’ll need an energy revolution. Specifically, we need to replace our dirty, fossil fuel-based grids and dirty, fossil fuel-powered vehicles with clean, carbon-free grids, and electric vehicles that charge off them. But there’s a big problem.
Making that future a reality will, among other things, require a lot of batteries: batteries to charge our electric cars; batteries to store solar power collected while the sun’s up and wind power harnessed when it’s gusty out. And as a new report by researchers at the University of Technology Sydney warns, that’s likely to drive demand for the metals used to build green batteries—as well as wind turbines and solar panels—through the roof.
In other words the clean tech boom is, at least in the short term, likely to fuel a mining boom.
Not to mention the massive increase in electricity generation that will be required if we are to keep those electric cars charged up - even on dark and still winter’s days weeks. It’s not happening without either nuclear or fossil fuel power stations.
On the other hand, the graph on percentage times shows that for a country the size of the UK, there will be of the order of a month per year made up in periods of a day or so at a time when the power ouput from a wind power system will fall to below 5% of the mean power ouput. As a result, it will be necessary to have a sufficient margin of spare power capacity from other sources to compensate for the power from the turbine system falling virtually to nothing.
If we’re going to avoid the worst consequences of climate change, we’ll need an energy revolution. Specifically, we need to replace our dirty, fossil fuel-based grids and dirty, fossil fuel-powered vehicles with clean, carbon-free grids, and electric vehicles that charge off them. But there’s a big problem.
In other words the clean tech boom is, at least in the short term, likely to fuel a mining boom.
All seems very plausible. Many years ago I was told about a study that suggested from digging the components up to scrap page, a Toyota Prius had a bigger carbon footprint than a Land Rover Discovery. It seems plausible. I also remember that when Brown introduced that silly scrappage scheme ten years ago a number of environmental groups were opposed because to be most environmentally efficient the cars should be running for 18 years not ten.
You're denigrating this guy because of what he drives, in effect saying that he is not allowed to have 'eco' opinions because he drives a diesel. You're forgetting that we were told by the government that diesels were better for the environment because they emit less CO2. It's perfectly true that electric cars are expensive at the moment. In any case this sort of argument is spurious because only governments can make the changes necessary to combat the worst effects of Climate Change and to put in place the tax laws and incentives that will help the rest of us fight climate change in our individual ways.
Yes. We are absolutely saying that. Ecowarriors who claim that we must make drastic changes to our behaviour to save the planet, while driving themselves everywhere and jetting off for lots of foreign holidays, are stupid twats and loathsome hypocrites who are not worth listening to, even when they are correct.
When they move to an unheated hermitage, grow their own food and either walk or take trains, then we can take them seriously. But this lot are just a bunch of pompous and not very intelligent attention seekers with neither common courtesy or brain cells. Ignore.
Doesn't "the plane would have anyway flown without me" excuse also apply to all those other people flying for work or to go on holiday with their families? The carbon effect is the same even if the reason for the flight is different. So if you're trying to reduce your carbon effect you limit your flights and that applies just as much to Emma T as anyone else.
Basically the argument is, if someone else is benefiting from energy consumption, you get a free pass. I don't see any problem with this logic...
If you fly a lot the airlines will put on more flights and vice versa, so the macro effect is there even though that particular plane would have flown anyway.
Indeed, that someone with a BSc can't comprehend something that simple doesn't say much for further education.
I these protests might actually do more harm than good. Certainly Thompson flying in from the States will have thoroughly annoyed many people and will reduce the guilt factor for those jetting of to the Costas for their summer holidays.
Seems a lot of people are talking about climate and protests though.
Media are picking it up as well e.g. Front headline of DM website. Two economics articles on climate and energy in Telegraph.
"Many years ago I was told about a study that suggested from digging the components up to scrap page, a Toyota Prius had a bigger carbon footprint than a Land Rover Discovery. It seems plausible"
Yes, I remember that. It is both the nasty components that go into it (much of which can't be recycled at end of life) and also all that extra weight for the batteries means that the car is massively inefficient in petrol mode.
You are better off just driving a modern small petrol car that these days are incredibly good on MPG.
Don't forget as well, electrical cars are only 'green' if the power used is generated by renewables. And even on the windiest, warmest days when all the rivers are full, I don't think we can top half of generation from renewable sources. So much might come from nuclear (OK, no greenhouse gases but hardly environmentally friendly) or gas. And as gas generation isn't a terribly efficient way of creating power compared to an oil fuel engine, they might well be using more carbon to drive themselves than petrol engines do.
"Many years ago I was told about a study that suggested from digging the components up to scrap page, a Toyota Prius had a bigger carbon footprint than a Land Rover Discovery. It seems plausible"
Yes, I remember that. It is both the nasty components that go into it (much of which can't be recycled at end of life) and also all that extra weight for the batteries means that the car is massively inefficient in petrol mode.
You are better off just driving a modern small petrol car that these days are incredibly good on MPG.
Don't forget as well, electrical cars are only 'green' if the power used is generated by renewables. And even on the windiest, warmest days when all the rivers are full, I don't think we can top half of generation from renewable sources. So much might come from nuclear (OK, no greenhouse gases but hardly environmentally friendly) or gas. And as gas generation isn't a terribly efficient way of creating power compared to an oil fuel engine, they might well be using more carbon to drive themselves than petrol engines do.
If we’re going to avoid the worst consequences of climate change, we’ll need an energy revolution. Specifically, we need to replace our dirty, fossil fuel-based grids and dirty, fossil fuel-powered vehicles with clean, carbon-free grids, and electric vehicles that charge off them. But there’s a big problem.
In other words the clean tech boom is, at least in the short term, likely to fuel a mining boom.
All seems very plausible. Many years ago I was told about a study that suggested from digging the components up to scrap page, a Toyota Prius had a bigger carbon footprint than a Land Rover Discovery. It seems plausible. I also remember that when Brown introduced that silly scrappage scheme ten years ago a number of environmental groups were opposed because to be most environmentally efficient the cars should be running for 18 years not ten.
You're denigrating this guy because of what he drives, in effect saying that he is not allowed to have 'eco' opinions because he drives a diesel. You're forgetting that we were told by the government that diesels were better for the environment because they emit less CO2. It's perfectly true that electric cars are expensive at the moment. In any case this sort of argument is spurious because only governments can make the changes necessary to combat the worst effects of Climate Change and to put in place the tax laws and incentives that will help the rest of us fight climate change in our individual ways.
Yes. We are absolutely saying that. Ecowarriors who claim that we must make drastic changes to our behaviour to save the planet, while driving themselves everywhere and jetting off for lots of foreign holidays, are stupid twats and loathsome hypocrites who are not worth listening to, even when they are correct.
When they move to an unheated hermitage, grow their own food and either walk or take trains, then we can take them seriously. But this lot are just a bunch of pompous and not very intelligent attention seekers with neither common courtesy or brain cells. Ignore.
The thing is that if you live as a hermit you'll have zero effect on combating climate change. You must admit that people are talking about it now. I would rather people were talking about Attenborough's programme, but there we are. You might like this ;-)
But we're not, are we? We're talking about what a bunch of rude, lazy, hypocritical and stupid wankers these people are. So they will, justly, be ignored. Or laughed at. Or quite plausibly, if they continue like this, beaten up.
If they were at least trying to put their philosophies into practice, people might pay attention.
If we’re going to avoid the worst consequences of climate change, we’ll need an energy revolution. Specifically, we need to replace our dirty, fossil fuel-based grids and dirty, fossil fuel-powered vehicles with clean, carbon-free grids, and electric vehicles that charge off them. But there’s a big problem.
In other words the clean tech boom is, at least in the short term, likely to fuel a mining boom.
You're denigrating this guy because of what he drives, in effect saying that he is not allowed to have 'eco' opinions because he drives a diesel. You're forgetting that we were told by the government that diesels were better for the environment because they emit less CO2. It's perfectly true that electric cars are expensive at the moment. In any case this sort of argument is spurious because only governments can make the changes necessary to combat the worst effects of Climate Change and to put in place the tax laws and incentives that will help the rest of us fight climate change in our individual ways.
Yes. We are absolutely saying that. Ecowarriors who claim that we must make drastic changes to our behaviour to save the planet, while driving themselves everywhere and jetting off for lots of foreign holidays, are stupid twats and loathsome hypocrites who are not worth listening to, even when they are correct.
When they move to an unheated hermitage, grow their own food and either walk or take trains, then we can take them seriously. But this lot are just a bunch of pompous and not very intelligent attention seekers with neither common courtesy or brain cells. Ignore.
The thing is that if you live as a hermit you'll have zero effect on combating climate change. You must admit that people are talking about it now. I would rather people were talking about Attenborough's programme, but there we are. You might like this ;-)
But we're not, are we? We're talking about what a bunch of rude, lazy, hypocritical and stupid wankers these people are. So they will, justly, be ignored. Or laughed at. Or quite plausibly, if they continue like this, beaten up.
If they were at least trying to put their philosophies into practice, people might pay attention.
It's not always the case that no publicity is bad publicity.
"Many years ago I was told about a study that suggested from digging the components up to scrap page, a Toyota Prius had a bigger carbon footprint than a Land Rover Discovery. It seems plausible"
Yes, I remember that. It is both the nasty components that go into it (much of which can't be recycled at end of life) and also all that extra weight for the batteries means that the car is massively inefficient in petrol mode.
You are better off just driving a modern small petrol car that these days are incredibly good on MPG.
Don't forget as well, electrical cars are only 'green' if the power used is generated by renewables. And even on the windiest, warmest days when all the rivers are full, I don't think we can top half of generation from renewable sources. So much might come from nuclear (OK, no greenhouse gases but hardly environmentally friendly) or gas. And as gas generation isn't a terribly efficient way of creating power compared to an oil fuel engine, they might well be using more carbon to drive themselves than petrol engines do.
I'm sure you've got some positive ideas on how to tackle the subject.
"Many years ago I was told about a study that suggested from digging the components up to scrap page, a Toyota Prius had a bigger carbon footprint than a Land Rover Discovery. It seems plausible"
Yes, I remember that. It is both the nasty components that go into it (much of which can't be recycled at end of life) and also all that extra weight for the batteries means that the car is massively inefficient in petrol mode.
You are better off just driving a modern small petrol car that these days are incredibly good on MPG.
Don't forget as well, electrical cars are only 'green' if the power used is generated by renewables. And even on the windiest, warmest days when all the rivers are full, I don't think we can top half of generation from renewable sources. So much might come from nuclear (OK, no greenhouse gases but hardly environmentally friendly) or gas. And as gas generation isn't a terribly efficient way of creating power compared to an oil fuel engine, they might well be using more carbon to drive themselves than petrol engines do.
The tides are reasonably reliable...
And I still cannot believe the government green lighted Hinckley and blocked Swansea. Of all the dumb decisions May has made, that must be the dumbest.
"Many years ago I was told about a study that suggested from digging the components up to scrap page, a Toyota Prius had a bigger carbon footprint than a Land Rover Discovery. It seems plausible"
Yes, I remember that. It is both the nasty components that go into it (much of which can't be recycled at end of life) and also all that extra weight for the batteries means that the car is massively inefficient in petrol mode.
You are better off just driving a modern small petrol car that these days are incredibly good on MPG.
Don't forget as well, electrical cars are only 'green' if the power used is generated by renewables. And even on the windiest, warmest days when all the rivers are full, I don't think we can top half of generation from renewable sources. So much might come from nuclear (OK, no greenhouse gases but hardly environmentally friendly) or gas. And as gas generation isn't a terribly efficient way of creating power compared to an oil fuel engine, they might well be using more carbon to drive themselves than petrol engines do.
The tides are reasonably reliable...
And I still cannot believe the government green lighted Hinckley and blocked Swansea. Of all the dumb decisions May has made, that must be the dumbest.
Agreed, but don't forget the ending of the solar feed in tariff.
"Many years ago I was told about a study that suggested from digging the components up to scrap page, a Toyota Prius had a bigger carbon footprint than a Land Rover Discovery. It seems plausible"
Yes, I remember that. It is both the nasty components that go into it (much of which can't be recycled at end of life) and also all that extra weight for the batteries means that the car is massively inefficient in petrol mode.
You are better off just driving a modern small petrol car that these days are incredibly good on MPG.
Don't forget as well, electrical cars are only 'green' if the power used is generated by renewables. And even on the windiest, warmest days when all the rivers are full, I don't think we can top half of generation from renewable sources. So much might come from nuclear (OK, no greenhouse gases but hardly environmentally friendly) or gas. And as gas generation isn't a terribly efficient way of creating power compared to an oil fuel engine, they might well be using more carbon to drive themselves than petrol engines do.
The tides are reasonably reliable...
And I still cannot believe the government green lighted Hinckley and blocked Swansea. Of all the dumb decisions May has made, that must be the dumbest.
Agreed, but don't forget the ending of the solar feed in tariff.
Speaking as a man with eight solar panels, I'm not.
"Many years ago I was told about a study that suggested from digging the components up to scrap page, a Toyota Prius had a bigger carbon footprint than a Land Rover Discovery. It seems plausible"
Yes, I remember that. It is both the nasty components that go into it (much of which can't be recycled at end of life) and also all that extra weight for the batteries means that the car is massively inefficient in petrol mode.
You are better off just driving a modern small petrol car that these days are incredibly good on MPG.
Don't forget as well, electrical cars are only 'green' if the power used is generated by renewables. And even on the windiest, warmest days when all the rivers are full, I don't think we can top half of generation from renewable sources. So much might come from nuclear (OK, no greenhouse gases but hardly environmentally friendly) or gas. And as gas generation isn't a terribly efficient way of creating power compared to an oil fuel engine, they might well be using more carbon to drive themselves than petrol engines do.
I'm sure you've got some positive ideas on how to tackle the subject.
There are a number of different ways. It depends on what we are willing to pay and what changes to our lifestyle we are willing to make. To be blunt, tidal power seems the obvious way for us to go, mixed with wind and hydro. Solar panels are not really helpful. They just don't produce enough power. But at the moment that's been blocked.
But I would certainly not be in favour of using electrical cars ahead of small engined petrol cars if the latter are greener.
That does of course raise other questions about finite supplies of oil as well. But then, as noted above, electrical vehicles are limited by the rarity of lithium, nickel and cobalt.
Yes. The problem is that the word is both accidentally and deliberately used by various sides to mean different things. To some it merely means that Jewish people have a right to self-determination, and despite the injustices that occurred in 1947 when Palestinians were displaced, Israelis surely have a right to live in safety 70 years later. To others it means a historic mission to occupy the Biblical area, specifically including the whole of Jerusalem and the whole of the West Bank.
People who are hostile to zionism generally (but not always) are talking about the latter - being opposed to expansion and colonisation is not seen as being against Jewish people. People who say anti-zionism equals anti-semitism generally (but not always) are talking about the former. It's best to avoid the term because of this minefield, but one can't unsay things said in a different context 10-20 years ago. One should probably give the benefit of any doubt to anyone who used to say they were anti-zionist, but nowadays it's unwise, and if repeatedly used without explanation it's something to challenge.
Even when used correctly it makes the user (unless they are Jewish or Palestinian) sound a little bit obsessive, just a little too interested.
So play it safe. Go with "Aggressive Israeli expansionism and oppression of the Palestinian people".
Some are no doubt hypocrites, but but others may well be eco saints. That is the problem of a decentralised activist movement. Anyone can join.
I do not agree with their methods but salute their commitment to make the government take the issue seriously. Brexit is the cuckoo that has forced other important issues out of the nest.
I don't know if you saw this more nuanced critique of their methods:
The Labour tweet makes me feel sick. Not the bread bit, but the whole stinking hypocrisy of sending this out while buckets of cases of anti-semitism get filed under 'do nothing'.
It will be worse if in a few months this lot are in charge of the country.
The pollution causing climate change is a result of the global capitalist economic system, which was built on the legacy of colonialism. Children in British schools are not taught about the horrors perpetuated by the British empire and this is a horrible canker sitting at the heart of British culture.
Since the rest of it had been similarly patronising and incoherent bollocks, and was presumably just as wrong, I gave up. A typical apologia by somebody who doesn't have a clue what they're talking about.
It was especially amusing to note them citing Erica Chenoweth and overlooking the obvious point of her work (which is not, contra the Wikipedia article, universally acclaimed) - that such campaigns as this one with limited support using quasi-violent methods do not generally work.
Some are no doubt hypocrites, but but others may well be eco saints. That is the problem of a decentralised activist movement. Anyone can join.
I do not agree with their methods but salute their commitment to make the government take the issue seriously. Brexit is the cuckoo that has forced other important issues out of the nest.
I don't know if you saw this more nuanced critique of their methods:
My main objection to the article is that I think capitalism is a good thing. Capitalism gives us a standard of living that previous generations could not have contemplated. Rising prosperity also means that society is no longer dog eat dog. I don't need to plunder or enslave you, in order to improve my standard of living.
So, I'm not interested in trying to overthrow capitalism, either in order to improve the environment (it won't) or to improve society (it would make society poorer and crueller).
"Many years ago I was told about a study that suggested from digging the components up to scrap page, a Toyota Prius had a bigger carbon footprint than a Land Rover Discovery. It seems plausible"
Yes, I remember that. It is both the nasty components that go into it (much of which can't be recycled at end of life) and also all that extra weight for the batteries means that the car is massively inefficient in petrol mode.
You are better off just driving a modern small petrol car that these days are incredibly good on MPG.
Don't forget as well, electrical cars are only 'green' if the power used is generated by renewables. And even on the windiest, warmest days when all the rivers are full, I don't think we can top half of generation from renewable sources. So much might come from nuclear (OK, no greenhouse gases but hardly environmentally friendly) or gas. And as gas generation isn't a terribly efficient way of creating power compared to an oil fuel engine, they might well be using more carbon to drive themselves than petrol engines do.
I'm sure you've got some positive ideas on how to tackle the subject.
There are a number of different ways. It depends on what we are willing to pay and what changes to our lifestyle we are willing to make. To be blunt, tidal power seems the obvious way for us to go, mixed with wind and hydro. Solar panels are not really helpful. They just don't produce enough power. But at the moment that's been blocked.
But I would certainly not be in favour of using electrical cars ahead of small engined petrol cars if the latter are greener.
That does of course raise other questions about finite supplies of oil as well. But then, as noted above, electrical vehicles are limited by the rarity of lithium, nickel and cobalt.
I was very disappointed when the Swansea tidal lagoon was cancelled. I think that you might be interested in this discussion of whether electric cars are 'green' - it uses the term 'shades of green'. http://shrinkthatfootprint.com/electric-cars-green
"Many years ago I was told about a study that suggested from digging the components up to scrap page, a Toyota Prius had a bigger carbon footprint than a Land Rover Discovery. It seems plausible"
Yes, I remember that. It is both the nasty components that go into it (much of which can't be recycled at end of life) and also all that extra weight for the batteries means that the car is massively inefficient in petrol mode.
You are better off just driving a modern small petrol car that these days are incredibly good on MPG.
Don't forget as well, electrical cars are only 'green' if the power used is generated by renewables. And even on the windiest, warmest days when all the rivers are full, I don't think we can top half of generation from renewable sources. So much might come from nuclear (OK, no greenhouse gases but hardly environmentally friendly) or gas. And as gas generation isn't a terribly efficient way of creating power compared to an oil fuel engine, they might well be using more carbon to drive themselves than petrol engines do.
I'm sure you've got some positive ideas on how to tackle the subject.
There are a number of different ways. It depends on what we are willing to pay and what changes to our lifestyle we are willing to make. To be blunt, tidal power seems the obvious way for us to go, mixed with wind and hydro. Solar panels are not really helpful. They just don't produce enough power. But at the moment that's been blocked.
But I would certainly not be in favour of using electrical cars ahead of small engined petrol cars if the latter are greener.
That does of course raise other questions about finite supplies of oil as well. But then, as noted above, electrical vehicles are limited by the rarity of lithium, nickel and cobalt.
I was very disappointed when the Swansea tidal lagoon was cancelled. I think that you might be interested in this discussion of whether electric cars are 'green' - it uses the term 'shades of green'. http://shrinkthatfootprint.com/electric-cars-green
I have yet to hear a coherent argument as to why the Swansea scheme was cancelled.
"Many years ago I was told about a study that suggested from digging the components up to scrap page, a Toyota Prius had a bigger carbon footprint than a Land Rover Discovery. It seems plausible"
Yes, I remember that. It is both the nasty components that go into it (much of which can't be recycled at end of life) and also all that extra weight for the batteries means that the car is massively inefficient in petrol mode.
You are better off just driving a modern small petrol car that these days are incredibly good on MPG.
Don't forget as well, electrical cars are only 'green' if the power used is generated by renewables. And even on the windiest, warmest days when all the rivers are full, I don't think we can top half of generation from renewable sources. So much might come from nuclear (OK, no greenhouse gases but hardly environmentally friendly) or gas. And as gas generation isn't a terribly efficient way of creating power compared to an oil fuel engine, they might well be using more carbon to drive themselves than petrol engines do.
I'm sure you've got some positive ideas on how to tackle the subject.
There are a number of different ways. It depends on what we are willing to pay and what changes to our lifestyle we are willing to make. To be blunt, tidal power seems the obvious way for us to go, mixed with wind and hydro. Solar panels are not really helpful. They just don't produce enough power. But at the moment that's been blocked.
But I would certainly not be in favour of using electrical cars ahead of small engined petrol cars if the latter are greener.
That does of course raise other questions about finite supplies of oil as well. But then, as noted above, electrical vehicles are limited by the rarity of lithium, nickel and cobalt.
I was very disappointed when the Swansea tidal lagoon was cancelled. I think that you might be interested in this discussion of whether electric cars are 'green' - it uses the term 'shades of green'. http://shrinkthatfootprint.com/electric-cars-green
Interesting, they note that for Paraguay, "virtually all the emissions are from vehicle manufacturing, as the power is incredibly low carbon."
The pollution causing climate change is a result of the global capitalist economic system, which was built on the legacy of colonialism. Children in British schools are not taught about the horrors perpetuated by the British empire and this is a horrible canker sitting at the heart of British culture.
Since the rest of it had been similarly patronising and incoherent bollocks, and was presumably just as wrong, I gave up. A typical apologia by somebody who doesn't have a clue what they're talking about.
It was especially amusing to note them citing Erica Chenoweth and overlooking the obvious point of her work (which is not, contra the Wikipedia article, universally acclaimed) - that such campaigns as this one with limited support using quasi-violent methods do not generally work.
What does 'quasi-violent' mean? Peaceful but annoying?
"Many years ago I was told about a study that suggested from digging the components up to scrap page, a Toyota Prius had a bigger carbon footprint than a Land Rover Discovery. It seems plausible"
Yes, I remember that. It is both the nasty components that go into it (much of which can't be recycled at end of life) and also all that extra weight for the batteries means that the car is massively inefficient in petrol mode.
You are better off just driving a modern small petrol car that these days are incredibly good on MPG.
Don't forget as well, electrical cars are only 'green' if the power used is generated by renewables. And even on the windiest, warmest days when all the rivers are full, I don't think we can top half of generation from renewable sources. So much might come from nuclear (OK, no greenhouse gases but hardly environmentally friendly) or gas. And as gas generation isn't a terribly efficient way of creating power compared to an oil fuel engine, they might well be using more carbon to drive themselves than petrol engines do.
I'm sure you've got some positive ideas on how to tackle the subject.
There are a number of different ways. It depends on what we are willing to pay and what changes to our lifestyle we are willing to make. To be blunt, tidal power seems the obvious way for us to go, mixed with wind and hydro. Solar panels are not really helpful. They just don't produce enough power. But at the moment that's been blocked.
But I would certainly not be in favour of using electrical cars ahead of small engined petrol cars if the latter are greener.
That does of course raise other questions about finite supplies of oil as well. But then, as noted above, electrical vehicles are limited by the rarity of lithium, nickel and cobalt.
I was very disappointed when the Swansea tidal lagoon was cancelled. I think that you might be interested in this discussion of whether electric cars are 'green' - it uses the term 'shades of green'. http://shrinkthatfootprint.com/electric-cars-green
Interesting, they note that for Paraguay, "virtually all the emissions are from vehicle manufacturing, as the power is incredibly low carbon."
How come Paraguay is so low carbon?
As the Iguacu Falls are on their eastern border: hydroelectric?
If we’re going to avoid the worst consequences of climate change, we’ll need an energy revolution. Specifically, we need to replace our dirty, fossil fuel-based grids and dirty, fossil fuel-powered vehicles with clean, carbon-free grids, and electric vehicles that charge off them. But there’s a big problem.
Making that future a reality will, among other things, require a lot of batteries: batteries to charge our electric cars; batteries to store solar power collected while the sun’s up and wind power harnessed when it’s gusty out. And as a new report by researchers at the University of Technology Sydney warns, that’s likely to drive demand for the metals used to build green batteries—as well as wind turbines and solar panels—through the roof.
In other words the clean tech boom is, at least in the short term, likely to fuel a mining boom.
And what do we do when we run out of those metals? There's not an infinitely large supply. It might be more cost-effective to just live with the consequences of climate change.
"Many years ago I was told about a study that suggested from digging the components up to scrap page, a Toyota Prius had a bigger carbon footprint than a Land Rover Discovery. It seems plausible"
Yes, I remember that. It is both the nasty components that go into it (much of which can't be recycled at end of life) and also all that extra weight for the batteries means that the car is massively inefficient in petrol mode.
You are better off just driving a modern small petrol car that these days are incredibly good on MPG.
Don't forget as well, electrical cars are only 'green' if the power used is generated by renewables. And even on the windiest, warmest days when all the rivers are full, I don't think we can top half of generation from renewable sources. So much might come from nuclear (OK, no greenhouse gases but hardly environmentally friendly) or gas. And as gas generation isn't a terribly efficient way of creating power compared to an oil fuel engine, they might well be using more carbon to drive themselves than petrol engines do.
I'm sure you've got some positive ideas on how to tackle the subject.
There are a number of different ways. It depends on what we are willing to pay and what changes to our lifestyle we are willing to make. To be blunt, tidal power seems the obvious way for us to go, mixed with wind and hydro. Solar panels are not really helpful. They just don't produce enough power. But at the moment that's been blocked.
But I would certainly not be in favour of using electrical cars ahead of small engined petrol cars if the latter are greener.
That does of course raise other questions about finite supplies of oil as well. But then, as noted above, electrical vehicles are limited by the rarity of lithium, nickel and cobalt.
I was very disappointed when the Swansea tidal lagoon was cancelled. I think that you might be interested in this discussion of whether electric cars are 'green' - it uses the term 'shades of green'. http://shrinkthatfootprint.com/electric-cars-green
Interesting, they note that for Paraguay, "virtually all the emissions are from vehicle manufacturing, as the power is incredibly low carbon."
The pollution causing climate change is a result of the global capitalist economic system, which was built on the legacy of colonialism. Children in British schools are not taught about the horrors perpetuated by the British empire and this is a horrible canker sitting at the heart of British culture.
Since the rest of it had been similarly patronising and incoherent bollocks, and was presumably just as wrong, I gave up. A typical apologia by somebody who doesn't have a clue what they're talking about.
It was especially amusing to note them citing Erica Chenoweth and overlooking the obvious point of her work (which is not, contra the Wikipedia article, universally acclaimed) - that such campaigns as this one with limited support using quasi-violent methods do not generally work.
What does 'quasi-violent' mean? Peaceful but annoying?
In this case, violence against property rather than people, although it can mean highly disruptive and/or aggressive. I'd say this qualifies. Certainly they might be compared to Gandhi - who ultimately got part what he wanted, (because he was in the right and his opponents were in the wrong) but was not the most important reason why it happened when and how it did.
@Benpointer there is no coherent argument as to why Swansea was cancelled, which is why you haven't heard one. Officially it was because the price guarantee required was too high. Unofficially the likeliest answer seems to be that it would have rendered the new generation of nuclear uneconomic, but that had already been promised.
Anyway, I have to go. I wish everyone a green, peaceful and happy Easter, and highly recommend Cyclefree's 'rant' about gardens for anyone who wants to talk about ecology.
If we’re going to avoid the worst consequences of climate change, we’ll need an energy revolution. Specifically, we need to replace our dirty, fossil fuel-based grids and dirty, fossil fuel-powered vehicles with clean, carbon-free grids, and electric vehicles that charge off them. But there’s a big problem.
Making that future a reality will, among other things, require a lot of batteries: batteries to charge our electric cars; batteries to store solar power collected while the sun’s up and wind power harnessed when it’s gusty out. And as a new report by researchers at the University of Technology Sydney warns, that’s likely to drive demand for the metals used to build green batteries—as well as wind turbines and solar panels—through the roof.
In other words the clean tech boom is, at least in the short term, likely to fuel a mining boom.
And what do we do when we run out of those metals? There's not an infinitely large supply. It might be more cost-effective to just live with the consequences of climate change.
Increasing incomes makes it far easier to tackle environmental problems, rather than trying to tackle environmental problems by preventing incomes from increasing.
A gay man winning over the key swing states , good luck with that .
Good luck with fundamentalist christians voting for a serial liar and adulterer, something literally against the ten commandments, except that is what happened. It can be dangerous to place your bets on the basis of your prejudice about voters' prejudices.
I don't think even hardline evangelicals are that bothered by a bit of botty action these days.
For all your US statistical porn action (probably nsfw).
If we’re going to avoid the worst consequences of climate change, we’ll need an energy revolution. Specifically, we need to replace our dirty, fossil fuel-based grids and dirty, fossil fuel-powered vehicles with clean, carbon-free grids, and electric vehicles that charge off them. But there’s a big problem.
Making that future a reality will, among other things, require a lot of batteries: batteries to charge our electric cars; batteries to store solar power collected while the sun’s up and wind power harnessed when it’s gusty out. And as a new report by researchers at the University of Technology Sydney warns, that’s likely to drive demand for the metals used to build green batteries—as well as wind turbines and solar panels—through the roof.
In other words the clean tech boom is, at least in the short term, likely to fuel a mining boom.
And what do we do when we run out of those metals? There's not an infinitely large supply. It might be more cost-effective to just live with the consequences of climate change.
Increasing incomes makes it far easier to tackle environmental problems, rather than trying to tackle environmental problems by preventing incomes from increasing.
Why do opponents of climate change economics generally attack the science rather than the economics?
If we’re going to avoid the worst consequences of climate change, we’ll need an energy revolution. Specifically, we need to replace our dirty, fossil fuel-based grids and dirty, fossil fuel-powered vehicles with clean, carbon-free grids, and electric vehicles that charge off them. But there’s a big problem.
Making that future a reality will, among other things, require a lot of batteries: batteries to charge our electric cars; batteries to store solar power collected while the sun’s up and wind power harnessed when it’s gusty out. And as a new report by researchers at the University of Technology Sydney warns, that’s likely to drive demand for the metals used to build green batteries—as well as wind turbines and solar panels—through the roof.
In other words the clean tech boom is, at least in the short term, likely to fuel a mining boom.
And what do we do when we run out of those metals? There's not an infinitely large supply. It might be more cost-effective to just live with the consequences of climate change.
Increasing incomes makes it far easier to tackle environmental problems, rather than trying to tackle environmental problems by preventing incomes from increasing.
Why do opponents of climate change economics generally attack the science rather than the economics?
Probably because they distrust the motives of their opponents. They are right to do so, but you are right, they'd be on better ground attacking the economics.
If we’re going to avoid the worst consequences of climate change, we’ll need an energy revolution. Specifically, we need to replace our dirty, fossil fuel-based grids and dirty, fossil fuel-powered vehicles with clean, carbon-free grids, and electric vehicles that charge off them. But there’s a big problem.
Making that future a reality will, among other things, require a lot of batteries: batteries to charge our electric cars; batteries to store solar power collected while the sun’s up and wind power harnessed when it’s gusty out. And as a new report by researchers at the University of Technology Sydney warns, that’s likely to drive demand for the metals used to build green batteries—as well as wind turbines and solar panels—through the roof.
In other words the clean tech boom is, at least in the short term, likely to fuel a mining boom.
And what do we do when we run out of those metals? There's not an infinitely large supply. It might be more cost-effective to just live with the consequences of climate change.
The point being is that our posterity may not be able to live with the consequences at all, at any price. We risk an existential threat to our species.
If we’re going to avoid the worst consequences of climate change, we’ll need an energy revolution. Specifically, we need to replace our dirty, fossil fuel-based grids and dirty, fossil fuel-powered vehicles with clean, carbon-free grids, and electric vehicles that charge off them. But there’s a big problem.
Making that future a reality will, among other things, require a lot of batteries: batteries to charge our electric cars; batteries to store solar power collected while the sun’s up and wind power harnessed when it’s gusty out. And as a new report by researchers at the University of Technology Sydney warns, that’s likely to drive demand for the metals used to build green batteries—as well as wind turbines and solar panels—through the roof.
In other words the clean tech boom is, at least in the short term, likely to fuel a mining boom.
If we’re going to avoid the worst consequences of climate change, we’ll need an energy revolution. Specifically, we need to replace our dirty, fossil fuel-based grids and dirty, fossil fuel-powered vehicles with clean, carbon-free grids, and electric vehicles that charge off them. But there’s a big problem.
Making that future a reality will, among other things, require a lot of batteries: batteries to charge our electric cars; batteries to store solar power collected while the sun’s up and wind power harnessed when it’s gusty out. And as a new report by researchers at the University of Technology Sydney warns, that’s likely to drive demand for the metals used to build green batteries—as well as wind turbines and solar panels—through the roof.
In other words the clean tech boom is, at least in the short term, likely to fuel a mining boom.
And what do we do when we run out of those metals? There's not an infinitely large supply. It might be more cost-effective to just live with the consequences of climate change.
The point being is that our posterity may not be able to live with the consequences at all, at any price. We risk an existential threat to our species.
Global warming will lead to the extinction of humans? That’s a bit alarmist, isn’t it?
If we’re going to avoid the worst consequences of climate change, we’ll need an energy revolution. Specifically, we need to replace our dirty, fossil fuel-based grids and dirty, fossil fuel-powered vehicles with clean, carbon-free grids, and electric vehicles that charge off them. But there’s a big problem.
Making that future a reality will, among other things, require a lot of batteries: batteries to charge our electric cars; batteries to store solar power collected while the sun’s up and wind power harnessed when it’s gusty out. And as a new report by researchers at the University of Technology Sydney warns, that’s likely to drive demand for the metals used to build green batteries—as well as wind turbines and solar panels—through the roof.
In other words the clean tech boom is, at least in the short term, likely to fuel a mining boom.
And what do we do when we run out of those metals? There's not an infinitely large supply. It might be more cost-effective to just live with the consequences of climate change.
The point being is that our posterity may not be able to live with the consequences at all, at any price. We risk an existential threat to our species.
Global warming will lead to the extinction of humans? That’s a bit alarmist, isn’t it?
Sounds more like bollox to me, only solution is to reduce the number of people on the planet. Plagues, pestilence and culls required. At some point it will be dog eat dog for food and water if we keep breeding so many stupid people.
If we’re going to avoid the worst consequences of climate change, we’ll need an energy revolution. Specifically, we need to replace our dirty, fossil fuel-based grids and dirty, fossil fuel-powered vehicles with clean, carbon-free grids, and electric vehicles that charge off them. But there’s a big problem.
Making that future a reality will, among other things, require a lot of batteries: batteries to charge our electric cars; batteries to store solar power collected while the sun’s up and wind power harnessed when it’s gusty out. And as a new report by researchers at the University of Technology Sydney warns, that’s likely to drive demand for the metals used to build green batteries—as well as wind turbines and solar panels—through the roof.
In other words the clean tech boom is, at least in the short term, likely to fuel a mining boom.
And what do we do when we run out of those metals? There's not an infinitely large supply. It might be more cost-effective to just live with the consequences of climate change.
We won’t run out of them. Proven reserves underestimate salvation is available; recycling of course; alternate chemistries for batteries (in the near term, vanadium will probably replace cobalt in cathodes, for example); perovskites for solar panels etc. And it will almost certainly not be more cost effective to live with climate change.
A gay man winning over the key swing states , good luck with that .
Good luck with fundamentalist christians voting for a serial liar and adulterer, something literally against the ten commandments, except that is what happened. It can be dangerous to place your bets on the basis of your prejudice about voters' prejudices.
I don't think even hardline evangelicals are that bothered by a bit of botty action these days.
For all your US statistical porn action (probably nsfw).
OK, there's always a problem with stats like this. Pornhub et al users are not representative of the wider population, and you cant jump from "the biggest term searched for by pornhub users in California is "lesbian"" to "people in California are into lesbian porn". Also some of the stats aren't really useful: the most rapidly gaining search term by users in Washington State is "hentai", and the usefulness of this is...um? One should invest in tentacle futures? Pantie stocks?
(Don't google it btw)
However I did like the terms that states searched for more often in comparison with other states. It's almost applicable and you can really use it to reinforce your prejudices: "Hey, Confederate states! So you search for "black girl white guy" more often than Union states, huh? Yeah, we gotcha guys! Uh, huh..."
But i would have preferred numbers as well are graphics. I've spoken of "the tyranny of percentages" frequently, and I would have liked absolute numbers as well as relative ones.
They really need to move on...We know Trump and the truth are often distant relations and that Trump has no issue fighting dirty and it isn't a real surprise that when offered dirt on an opponent he was more than happy with the situation (and the fake outrage from the Democrats, who I am sure where sends umpteen gloating emails /IMs a second when the dodgy dossier came out about Trump).
But they aren't going to change anybodies minds continuing to chase this, rather than fight Trump on the numerous other issues.
A gay man winning over the key swing states , good luck with that .
Good luck with fundamentalist christians voting for a serial liar and adulterer, something literally against the ten commandments, except that is what happened. It can be dangerous to place your bets on the basis of your prejudice about voters' prejudices.
I don't think even hardline evangelicals are that bothered by a bit of botty action these days.
For all your US statistical porn action (probably nsfw).
OK, there's always a problem with stats like this. Pornhub et al users are not representative of the wider population, and you cant jump from "the biggest term searched for by pornhub users in California is "lesbian"" to "people in California are into lesbian porn". Also some of the stats aren't really useful: the most rapidly gaining search term by users in Washington State is "hentai", and the usefulness of this is...um? One should invest in tentacle futures? Pantie stocks?
(Don't google it btw)
However I did like the terms that states searched for more often in comparison with other states. It's almost applicable and you can really use it to reinforce your prejudices: "Hey, Confederate states! So you search for "black girl white guy" more often than Union states, huh? Yeah, we gotcha guys! Uh, huh..."
But i would have preferred numbers as well are graphics. I've spoken of "the tyranny of percentages" frequently, and I would have liked absolute numbers as well as relative ones.
If we’re going to avoid the worst consequences of climate change, we’ll need an energy revolution. Specifically, we need to replace our dirty, fossil fuel-based grids and dirty, fossil fuel-powered vehicles with clean, carbon-free grids, and electric vehicles that charge off them. But there’s a big problem.
Making that future a reality will, among other things, require a lot of batteries: batteries to charge our electric cars; batteries to store solar power collected while the sun’s up and wind power harnessed when it’s gusty out. And as a new report by researchers at the University of Technology Sydney warns, that’s likely to drive demand for the metals used to build green batteries—as well as wind turbines and solar panels—through the roof.
In other words the clean tech boom is, at least in the short term, likely to fuel a mining boom.
And what do we do when we run out of those metals? There's not an infinitely large supply. It might be more cost-effective to just live with the consequences of climate change.
The point being is that our posterity may not be able to live with the consequences at all, at any price. We risk an existential threat to our species.
Nahh
(Sorry. To preclude a lenghty and unfulfilling debate, I think predictions of many people dying in future climate disasters should be placed in context of the realities of many people dying in present climate disasters. Floods, storms, earthquakes etc kill a shit-ton of people right now. The planet is much bigger than humanity)
A gay man winning over the key swing states , good luck with that .
Good luck with fundamentalist christians voting for a serial liar and adulterer, something literally against the ten commandments, except that is what happened. It can be dangerous to place your bets on the basis of your prejudice about voters' prejudices.
I don't think even hardline evangelicals are that bothered by a bit of botty action these days.
For all your US statistical porn action (probably nsfw).
OK, there's always a problem with stats like this. Pornhub et al users are not representative of the wider population, and you cant jump from "the biggest term searched for by pornhub users in California is "lesbian"" to "people in California are into lesbian porn". Also some of the stats aren't really useful: the most rapidly gaining search term by users in Washington State is "hentai", and the usefulness of this is...um? One should invest in tentacle futures? Pantie stocks?
(Don't google it btw)
However I did like the terms that states searched for more often in comparison with other states. It's almost applicable and you can really use it to reinforce your prejudices: "Hey, Confederate states! So you search for "black girl white guy" more often than Union states, huh? Yeah, we gotcha guys! Uh, huh..."
But i would have preferred numbers as well are graphics. I've spoken of "the tyranny of percentages" frequently, and I would have liked absolute numbers as well as relative ones.
What does Hentai even mean
I think it roughly translates as someone who does unspeakable things with turnips.
They really need to move on...We know Trump and the truth are often distant relations and that Trump has no issue fighting dirty and it isn't a real surprise that when offered dirt on an opponent he was more than happy with the situation (and the fake outrage from the Democrats, who I am sure where sends umpteen gloating emails /IMs a second when the dodgy dossier came out about Trump).
But they aren't going to change anybodies minds continuing to chase this, rather than fight Trump on the numerous other issues.
Desperately searching for that smoking gun. Perhaps they should get on with governing?
"Many years ago I was told about a study that suggested from digging the components up to scrap page, a Toyota Prius had a bigger carbon footprint than a Land Rover Discovery. It seems plausible"
Yes, I remember that. It is both the nasty components that go into it (much of which can't be recycled at end of life) and also all that extra weight for the batteries means that the car is massively inefficient in petrol mode.
You are better off just driving a modern small petrol car that these days are incredibly good on MPG.
Don't forget as well, electrical cars are only 'green' if the power used is generated by renewables. And even on the windiest, warmest days when all the rivers are full, I don't think we can top half of generation from renewable sources. So much might come from nuclear (OK, no greenhouse gases but hardly environmentally friendly) or gas. And as gas generation isn't a terribly efficient way of creating power compared to an oil fuel engine, they might well be using more carbon to drive themselves than petrol engines do.
The tides are reasonably reliable...
And I still cannot believe the government green lighted Hinckley and blocked Swansea. Of all the dumb decisions May has made, that must be the dumbest.
Wow, now there's a serious hurdle to get over. But yes. Stupid.
A gay man winning over the key swing states , good luck with that .
Good luck with fundamentalist christians voting for a serial liar and adulterer, something literally against the ten commandments, except that is what happened. It can be dangerous to place your bets on the basis of your prejudice about voters' prejudices.
I don't think even hardline evangelicals are that bothered by a bit of botty action these days.
For all your US statistical porn action (probably nsfw).
OK, there's always a problem with stats like this. Pornhub et al users are not representative of the wider population, and you cant jump from "the biggest term searched for by pornhub users in California is "lesbian"" to "people in California are into lesbian porn". Also some of the stats aren't really useful: the most rapidly gaining search term by users in Washington State is "hentai", and the usefulness of this is...um? One should invest in tentacle futures? Pantie stocks?
(Don't google it btw)
However I did like the terms that states searched for more often in comparison with other states. It's almost applicable and you can really use it to reinforce your prejudices: "Hey, Confederate states! So you search for "black girl white guy" more often than Union states, huh? Yeah, we gotcha guys! Uh, huh..."
But i would have preferred numbers as well are graphics. I've spoken of "the tyranny of percentages" frequently, and I would have liked absolute numbers as well as relative ones.
What does Hentai even mean
I'm surprised that brother/sister isn't more popular in the Deep South.
A gay man winning over the key swing states , good luck with that .
Good luck with fundamentalist christians voting for a serial liar and adulterer, something literally against the ten commandments, except that is what happened. It can be dangerous to place your bets on the basis of your prejudice about voters' prejudices.
I don't think even hardline evangelicals are that bothered by a bit of botty action these days.
For all your US statistical porn action (probably nsfw).
OK, there's always a problem with stats like this. Pornhub et al users are not representative of the wider population, and you cant jump from "the biggest term searched for by pornhub users in California is "lesbian"" to "people in California are into lesbian porn". Also some of the stats aren't really useful: the most rapidly gaining search term by users in Washington State is "hentai", and the usefulness of this is...um? One should invest in tentacle futures? Pantie stocks?
(Don't google it btw)
However I did like the terms that states searched for more often in comparison with other states. It's almost applicable and you can really use it to reinforce your prejudices: "Hey, Confederate states! So you search for "black girl white guy" more often than Union states, huh? Yeah, we gotcha guys! Uh, huh..."
But i would have preferred numbers as well are graphics. I've spoken of "the tyranny of percentages" frequently, and I would have liked absolute numbers as well as relative ones.
What does Hentai even mean
I don't know. The difficulty with analysing grey-area phenomena (things that are not against the law but socially disdained such as prostitution, pornography and - yes - gambling[1]) is that terms are not fixed in meaning and can mean different things to different groups, who may also use them as shibboleths. The best I can come up with is "pornography associated with anime characters or themes", but I'm sure somebody more knowledegable will laugh at me for that.
[1] One of the reasons why I had an argument with Nick about the restriction of FOBTs is that wealthy English people restricting the gambling of the working class whilst enabling their own is a class struggle theme in England since the Norman invasion.
Reports, completely unverifiable, that Conservative postal vote has collapsed. Icarus is standing in Misterton ward for Harborough council. Conservatives proposing 2,750 new homes on farmland in the ward - not very popular!
It never is, except people then complain that housing is unaffordable.
Exactly, in my experience LDs are the biggest NIMBYs around when it comes to new housing
A gay man winning over the key swing states , good luck with that .
Good luck with fundamentalist christians voting for a serial liar and adulterer, something literally against the ten commandments, except that is what happened. It can be dangerous to place your bets on the basis of your prejudice about voters' prejudices.
I don't think even hardline evangelicals are that bothered by a bit of botty action these days.
For all your US statistical porn action (probably nsfw).
OK, there's always a problem with stats like this. Pornhub et al users are not representative of the wider population, and you cant jump from "the biggest term searched for by pornhub users in California is "lesbian"" to "people in California are into lesbian porn". Also some of the stats aren't really useful: the most rapidly gaining search term by users in Washington State is "hentai", and the usefulness of this is...um? One should invest in tentacle futures? Pantie stocks?
(Don't google it btw)
However I did like the terms that states searched for more often in comparison with other states. It's almost applicable and you can really use it to reinforce your prejudices: "Hey, Confederate states! So you search for "black girl white guy" more often than Union states, huh? Yeah, we gotcha guys! Uh, huh..."
But i would have preferred numbers as well are graphics. I've spoken of "the tyranny of percentages" frequently, and I would have liked absolute numbers as well as relative ones.
What does Hentai even mean
I think it roughly translates as someone who does unspeakable things with turnips.
It means we are all going to be plagued by porn ads once the Google and Facebook tracking cookies and AI get to work on this thread.
A gay man winning over the key swing states , good luck with that .
Good luck with fundamentalist christians voting for a serial liar and adulterer, something literally against the ten commandments, except that is what happened. It can be dangerous to place your bets on the basis of your prejudice about voters' prejudices.
I don't think even hardline evangelicals are that bothered by a bit of botty action these days.
For all your US statistical porn action (probably nsfw).
OK, there's always a problem with stats like this. Pornhub et al users are not representative of the wider population, and you cant jump from "the biggest term searched for by pornhub users in California is "lesbian"" to "people in California are into lesbian porn". Also some of the stats aren't really useful: the most rapidly gaining search term by users in Washington State is "hentai", and the usefulness of this is...um? One should invest in tentacle futures? Pantie stocks?
(Don't google it btw)
However I did like the terms that states searched for more often in comparison with other states. It's almost applicable and you can really use it to reinforce your prejudices: "Hey, Confederate states! So you search for "black girl white guy" more often than Union states, huh? Yeah, we gotcha guys! Uh, huh..."
But i would have preferred numbers as well are graphics. I've spoken of "the tyranny of percentages" frequently, and I would have liked absolute numbers as well as relative ones.
What does Hentai even mean
I'm surprised that brother/sister isn't more popular in the Deep South.
Porn has to be a fantasy.
Why would Southerners fantasise about something that happens to them everyday?
A gay man winning over the key swing states , good luck with that .
Good luck with fundamentalist christians voting for a serial liar and adulterer, something literally against the ten commandments, except that is what happened. It can be dangerous to place your bets on the basis of your prejudice about voters' prejudices.
I don't think even hardline evangelicals are that bothered by a bit of botty action these days.
For all your US statistical porn action (probably nsfw).
OK, there's always a problem with stats like this. Pornhub et al users are not representative of the wider population, and you cant jump from "the biggest term searched for by pornhub users in California is "lesbian"" to "people in California are into lesbian porn". Also some of the stats aren't really useful: the most rapidly gaining search term by users in Washington State is "hentai", and the usefulness of this is...um? One should invest in tentacle futures? Pantie stocks?
(Don't google it btw)
However I did like the terms that states searched for more often in comparison with other states. It's almost applicable and you can really use it to reinforce your prejudices: "Hey, Confederate states! So you search for "black girl white guy" more often than Union states, huh? Yeah, we gotcha guys! Uh, huh..."
But i would have preferred numbers as well are graphics. I've spoken of "the tyranny of percentages" frequently, and I would have liked absolute numbers as well as relative ones.
What does Hentai even mean
I'm surprised that brother/sister isn't more popular in the Deep South.
I assume one only needs pornography if the images are not freely available in the immediate neighbourhoood. Which oddly reminds me of "survivorship bias"...
Cycling through a local churchyard and saw this, so sad.
I was prevented from entering my local Waitrose this morning by a column of people following someone carrying a wooden cross round the village.
This is not the #Brexit I voted for...
If you voted for Brexit Scott, you've had us all fooled for months.
My son and a pal suggested at school that there should be a cull of all the Christians to reduce over population. They were warned by their teacher that any such suggestion in an exam paper (Nat 5s next month) would be reported.
If we’re going to avoid the worst consequences of climate change, we’ll need an energy revolution. Specifically, we need to replace our dirty, fossil fuel-based grids and dirty, fossil fuel-powered vehicles with clean, carbon-free grids, and electric vehicles that charge off them. But there’s a big problem.
Making that future a reality will, among other things, require a lot of batteries: batteries to charge our electric cars; batteries to store solar power collected while the sun’s up and wind power harnessed when it’s gusty out. And as a new report by researchers at the University of Technology Sydney warns, that’s likely to drive demand for the metals used to build green batteries—as well as wind turbines and solar panels—through the roof.
In other words the clean tech boom is, at least in the short term, likely to fuel a mining boom.
And what do we do when we run out of those metals? There's not an infinitely large supply. It might be more cost-effective to just live with the consequences of climate change.
Increasing incomes makes it far easier to tackle environmental problems, rather than trying to tackle environmental problems by preventing incomes from increasing.
A gay man winning over the key swing states , good luck with that .
Good luck with fundamentalist christians voting for a serial liar and adulterer, something literally against the ten commandments, except that is what happened. It can be dangerous to place your bets on the basis of your prejudice about voters' prejudices.
I don't think even hardline evangelicals are that bothered by a bit of botty action these days.
For all your US statistical porn action (probably nsfw).
OK, there's always a problem with stats like this. Pornhub et al users are not representative of the wider population, and you cant jump from "the biggest term searched for by pornhub users in California is "lesbian"" to "people in California are into lesbian porn". Also some of the stats aren't really useful: the most rapidly gaining search term by users in Washington State is "hentai", and the usefulness of this is...um? One should invest in tentacle futures? Pantie stocks?
(Don't google it btw)
However I did like the terms that states searched for more often in comparison with other states. It's almost applicable and you can really use it to reinforce your prejudices: "Hey, Confederate states! So you search for "black girl white guy" more often than Union states, huh? Yeah, we gotcha guys! Uh, huh..."
But i would have preferred numbers as well are graphics. I've spoken of "the tyranny of percentages" frequently, and I would have liked absolute numbers as well as relative ones.
What does Hentai even mean
I'm surprised that brother/sister isn't more popular in the Deep South.
Porn has to be a fantasy.
Is the number one term in Yeovil "technological solutions"?
A gay man winning over the key swing states , good luck with that .
Good luck with fundamentalist christians voting for a serial liar and adulterer, something literally against the ten commandments, except that is what happened. It can be dangerous to place your bets on the basis of your prejudice about voters' prejudices.
I don't think even hardline evangelicals are that bothered by a bit of botty action these days.
For all your US statistical porn action (probably nsfw).
OK, there's always a problem with stats like this. Pornhub et al users are not representative of the wider population, and you cant jump from "the biggest term searched for by pornhub users in California is "lesbian"" to "people in California are into lesbian porn". Also some of the stats aren't really useful: the most rapidly gaining search term by users in Washington State is "hentai", and the usefulness of this is...um? One should invest in tentacle futures? Pantie stocks?
(Don't google it btw)
However I did like the terms that states searched for more often in comparison with other states. It's almost applicable and you can really use it to reinforce your prejudices: "Hey, Confederate states! So you search for "black girl white guy" more often than Union states, huh? Yeah, we gotcha guys! Uh, huh..."
But i would have preferred numbers as well are graphics. I've spoken of "the tyranny of percentages" frequently, and I would have liked absolute numbers as well as relative ones.
What does Hentai even mean
I'm surprised that brother/sister isn't more popular in the Deep South.
Deleted on the basis half the world got there first.
A gay man winning over the key swing states , good luck with that .
Good luck with fundamentalist christians voting for a serial liar and adulterer, something literally against the ten commandments, except that is what happened. It can be dangerous to place your bets on the basis of your prejudice about voters' prejudices.
I don't think even hardline evangelicals are that bothered by a bit of botty action these days.
For all your US statistical porn action (probably nsfw).
OK, there's always a problem with stats like this. Pornhub et al users are not representative of the wider population, and you cant jump from "the biggest term searched for by pornhub users in California is "lesbian"" to "people in California are into lesbian porn". Also some of the stats aren't really useful: the most rapidly gaining search term by users in Washington State is "hentai", and the usefulness of this is...um? One should invest in tentacle futures? Pantie stocks?
(Don't google it btw)
However I did like the terms that states searched for more often in comparison with other states. It's almost applicable and you can really use it to reinforce your prejudices: "Hey, Confederate states! So you search for "black girl white guy" more often than Union states, huh? Yeah, we gotcha guys! Uh, huh..."
But i would have preferred numbers as well are graphics. I've spoken of "the tyranny of percentages" frequently, and I would have liked absolute numbers as well as relative ones.
What does Hentai even mean
I'm surprised that brother/sister isn't more popular in the Deep South.
Porn has to be a fantasy.
Is the number one term in Yeovil "technological solutions"?
@rottenborough - South America is exceptionally blessed when it comes to renewable energy and water. In Brazil, they don’t bother with wind or solar in a significant way because hydropower is so abundant, and they have a population of over 200 million.
@DavidL and @ydoethur - there are plenty of reasons why the Swansea tidal scheme was a disaster waiting to happen. See here, and the other articles linked within:
Right now gridwatch is estimating that we are getting more than 27% of our power from solar and less than 10% from wind. I know its a nice day and all but it is incredible how quickly our solar capacity has increased. It seems a lot less intrusive than all these wind turbines all over the place too.
A gay man winning over the key swing states , good luck with that .
Good luck with fundamentalist christians voting for a serial liar and adulterer, something literally against the ten commandments, except that is what happened. It can be dangerous to place your bets on the basis of your prejudice about voters' prejudices.
I don't think even hardline evangelicals are that bothered by a bit of botty action these days.
For all your US statistical porn action (probably nsfw).
OK, there's always a problem with stats like this. Pornhub et al users are not representative of the wider population, and you cant jump from "the biggest term searched for by pornhub users in California is "lesbian"" to "people in California are into lesbian porn". Also some of the stats aren't really useful: the most rapidly gaining search term by users in Washington State is "hentai", and the usefulness of this is...um? One should invest in tentacle futures? Pantie stocks?
(Don't google it btw)
However I did like the terms that states searched for more often in comparison with other states. It's almost applicable and you can really use it to reinforce your prejudices: "Hey, Confederate states! So you search for "black girl white guy" more often than Union states, huh? Yeah, we gotcha guys! Uh, huh..."
But i would have preferred numbers as well are graphics. I've spoken of "the tyranny of percentages" frequently, and I would have liked absolute numbers as well as relative ones.
What does Hentai even mean
I'm surprised that brother/sister isn't more popular in the Deep South.
Porn has to be a fantasy.
Is the number one term in Yeovil "technological solutions"?
Some are no doubt hypocrites, but but others may well be eco saints. That is the problem of a decentralised activist movement. Anyone can join.
I do not agree with their methods but salute their commitment to make the government take the issue seriously. Brexit is the cuckoo that has forced other important issues out of the nest.
I don't know if you saw this more nuanced critique of their methods:
It really doesn't matter whether the cause has merit or not. Demos designed to make the world a better place have the spin off of making us a more caring people and more likely to face off the dark and ugly forces of Trump and his ilk. The 50th Anniversary of of te Summer of Love seems an appropriate time.
Some are no doubt hypocrites, but but others may well be eco saints. That is the problem of a decentralised activist movement. Anyone can join.
I do not agree with their methods but salute their commitment to make the government take the issue seriously. Brexit is the cuckoo that has forced other important issues out of the nest.
I don't know if you saw this more nuanced critique of their methods:
It really doesn't matter whether the cause has merit or not. Demos designed to make the world a better place have the spin off of making us a more caring people and more likely to face off the dark and ugly forces of Trump and his ilk. The 50th Anniversary of of te Summer of Love seems an appropriate time.
That was either '67 or' 87 wasn't it?
Personally I think human extinction unlikely even with 6 degree temperature rises by the end of the century, though there would be multiple extinctions of other less adaptible species. Civilisational and cultural collapse is very possible though, with multiple failed states across the globe.
I am not sure Rio Tinto is the best investment to exploit the boom in electric vehicles and renewables. I favour Antofagasta and S32. Consumerist Capitalism is part of the problem, but astute capitalists will make good money out of the solution too.
Comments
When they move to an unheated hermitage, grow their own food and either walk or take trains, then we can take them seriously. But this lot are just a bunch of pompous and not very intelligent attention seekers with neither common courtesy or brain cells. Ignore.
Yes, I remember that. It is both the nasty components that go into it (much of which can't be recycled at end of life) and also all that extra weight for the batteries means that the car is massively inefficient in petrol mode.
You are better off just driving a modern small petrol car that these days are incredibly good on MPG.
I doubt he'll wade in yet. Buttigieg still isn't a name that has a lot of traction outside avid politics fans, and his good polling series may well fizzle out anyway. Having a go now would only tend to boost awareness, whereas slinging punches at better known figures galvanises Trump's base against the people who remain his most likely opponents.
I also think in some respects Trump is more aware than people think. He knows he's a bloke in his 70s, and that having an opponent of a similar age, who's been around the block and people are already a bit bored of, would tend to be best for him. So he's fairly happy to play the game of talking about Biden, Sanders and Warren as the main players in town.
It will be interesting to see whether Democrats also see this as the campaign wears on. I can't help but think the last VP and last nomination runner-up are up there on name recognition. The logic of fielding an old fart to beat an old turd just doesn't make any sense at all when things come into focus - energy, dynamism, optimism are what will win this.
On the other hand, the graph on percentage times shows that for a country the size of the UK, there will be of the order of a month per year made up in periods of a day or so at a time when the power ouput from a wind power system will fall to below 5% of the mean power ouput. As a result, it will be necessary to have a sufficient margin of spare power capacity from other sources to compensate for the power from the turbine system falling virtually to nothing.
You might like this ;-)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obFNcN0Zc7k&fbclid=IwAR23bBUFYXOrHcfB54kb3OQLVJbj1W7sCxGoiKSp7mYO-x2QMVkAgnpA5k8
Media are picking it up as well e.g. Front headline of DM website. Two economics articles on climate and energy in Telegraph.
Job done?
HitlerPassover".If they were at least trying to put their philosophies into practice, people might pay attention.
Swansea was still the dumbest decision.
But I would certainly not be in favour of using electrical cars ahead of small engined petrol cars if the latter are greener.
That does of course raise other questions about finite supplies of oil as well. But then, as noted above, electrical vehicles are limited by the rarity of lithium, nickel and cobalt.
So play it safe. Go with "Aggressive Israeli expansionism and oppression of the Palestinian people".
Bit of a mouthful, yes, but what are mouths for?
Some are no doubt hypocrites, but but others may well be eco saints. That is the problem of a decentralised activist movement. Anyone can join.
I do not agree with their methods but salute their commitment to make the government take the issue seriously. Brexit is the cuckoo that has forced other important issues out of the nest.
I don't know if you saw this more nuanced critique of their methods:
https://twitter.com/foxinsoxuk/status/1118938914386059264
Cycling through a local churchyard and saw this, so sad.
The pollution causing climate change is a result of the global capitalist economic system, which was built on the legacy of colonialism. Children in British schools are not taught about the horrors perpetuated by the British empire and this is a horrible canker sitting at the heart of British culture.
Since the rest of it had been similarly patronising and incoherent bollocks, and was presumably just as wrong, I gave up. A typical apologia by somebody who doesn't have a clue what they're talking about.
It was especially amusing to note them citing Erica Chenoweth and overlooking the obvious point of her work (which is not, contra the Wikipedia article, universally acclaimed) - that such campaigns as this one with limited support using quasi-violent methods do not generally work.
So, I'm not interested in trying to overthrow capitalism, either in order to improve the environment (it won't) or to improve society (it would make society poorer and crueller).
I think that you might be interested in this discussion of whether electric cars are 'green' - it uses the term 'shades of green'. http://shrinkthatfootprint.com/electric-cars-green
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D4eN-JxXsAIAlCn.jpg
How come Paraguay is so low carbon?
The will of the people.
Peaceful but annoying?
Googles "Seven Dirty Words"
"Seven Dirty Words", by George Carlin
Oh...
Though it doesn't look misty tbf.
Maybe TSEs tip that the Tories will get less than 10% is not so wide of the mark....
@Benpointer there is no coherent argument as to why Swansea was cancelled, which is why you haven't heard one. Officially it was because the price guarantee required was too high. Unofficially the likeliest answer seems to be that it would have rendered the new generation of nuclear uneconomic, but that had already been promised.
Anyway, I have to go. I wish everyone a green, peaceful and happy Easter, and highly recommend Cyclefree's 'rant' about gardens for anyone who wants to talk about ecology.
Certainly cruel death is rather integral to the story, but resurrection and redemption is rather the point of it.
Not my cup of tea, as I find a lot of the iconography of it rather sado-masochistic, but I understand why other Christians see it differently.
Proven reserves underestimate salvation is available; recycling of course; alternate chemistries for batteries (in the near term, vanadium will probably replace cobalt in cathodes, for example); perovskites for solar panels etc.
And it will almost certainly not be more cost effective to live with climate change.
OK, there's always a problem with stats like this. Pornhub et al users are not representative of the wider population, and you cant jump from "the biggest term searched for by pornhub users in California is "lesbian"" to "people in California are into lesbian porn". Also some of the stats aren't really useful: the most rapidly gaining search term by users in Washington State is "hentai", and the usefulness of this is...um? One should invest in tentacle futures? Pantie stocks?
(Don't google it btw)
However I did like the terms that states searched for more often in comparison with other states. It's almost applicable and you can really use it to reinforce your prejudices: "Hey, Confederate states! So you search for "black girl white guy" more often than Union states, huh? Yeah, we gotcha guys! Uh, huh..."
But i would have preferred numbers as well are graphics. I've spoken of "the tyranny of percentages" frequently, and I would have liked absolute numbers as well as relative ones.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/apr/19/mueller-report-democrats-investigate-subpoena
They really need to move on...We know Trump and the truth are often distant relations and that Trump has no issue fighting dirty and it isn't a real surprise that when offered dirt on an opponent he was more than happy with the situation (and the fake outrage from the Democrats, who I am sure where sends umpteen gloating emails /IMs a second when the dodgy dossier came out about Trump).
But they aren't going to change anybodies minds continuing to chase this, rather than fight Trump on the numerous other issues.
(Sorry. To preclude a lenghty and unfulfilling debate, I think predictions of many people dying in future climate disasters should be placed in context of the realities of many people dying in present climate disasters. Floods, storms, earthquakes etc kill a shit-ton of people right now. The planet is much bigger than humanity)
This is not the #Brexit I voted for...
[1] One of the reasons why I had an argument with Nick about the restriction of FOBTs is that wealthy English people restricting the gambling of the working class whilst enabling their own is a class struggle theme in England since the Norman invasion.
Why would Southerners fantasise about something that happens to them everyday?
So I am told.
My son and a pal suggested at school that there should be a cull of all the Christians to reduce over population. They were warned by their teacher that any such suggestion in an exam paper (Nat 5s next month) would be reported.
@DavidL and @ydoethur - there are plenty of reasons why the Swansea tidal scheme was a disaster waiting to happen. See here, and the other articles linked within:
http://euanmearns.com/rip-the-swansea-bay-tidal-lagoon/
On that note, I hope everyone has a glorious Easter weekend!
But Swansea was a no brainer, it really was.
"Her Romp With Centaurs" and "The Mare That Mounts the World" are definitely NSFW.
[runs and hides under table]
Personally I think human extinction unlikely even with 6 degree temperature rises by the end of the century, though there would be multiple extinctions of other less adaptible species. Civilisational and cultural collapse is very possible though, with multiple failed states across the globe.
I am not sure Rio Tinto is the best investment to exploit the boom in electric vehicles and renewables. I favour Antofagasta and S32. Consumerist Capitalism is part of the problem, but astute capitalists will make good money out of the solution too.