A reminder that significant portions of Britons are so stupid they should be denied the vote and not allowed out of the house without adult supervision – politicalbetting.com
Wildcats are set to be reintroduced to English woodlands for the first time in 200 years. We previously found that 46% of Britons would be in support of their reintroductionhttps://t.co/wrJz9FYkRU pic.twitter.com/kIILZjCzCV
"“This is the most distrustful, awful environment I’ve ever worked in, in government. Almost nobody tells the truth is what I’ve worked out over the last 36 hours.
“And, you know, I don’t think anyone really can get on their high horse about trust and ethics and all the rest of it in politics, because as far as I’m concerned, most of it is a bit of a cesspit.”" says Captain Mercer. Remember that he resigned / was fired for insisting that Liar honour his pledge to army veterans.
I suspect the people that are really keen on reintroducing bears to the UK don't live in the kind of places that bears do.
Do we really have the vast connected areas of wilderness that could sustain a bear population? The USA truly is a place of vast uninhabited wilderness.
Climate Change is real but much of the hairshirt harebrained nonsense advocated in the name of climate change is not right or justified.
The longterm solution to Climate Change like the longterm solution to Covid19 is science and technology - not staying at home not doing anything and not have any development.
To defeat Covid19 we don't need to stay locked down together, we need to get vaccines and roll them out, then we need to live with it and move on.
To defeat Climate Change we don't need to cut our consumption or moderate our behaviour, we need to get clean technologies and roll them out, then we need to live with it and move on.
Clean energy etc is the vaccine against Climate Change. But the hairshirt "Greens" want us to stop flying, stop driving, stop building roads, stop building trains (!), stop doing anything. No we need to build roads and get on with our lives, but ensure we're using clean vehicles on those roads.
I mostly agree though I'd claim human ingenuity as the correct terminology. Human ingenuity created the problem, human ingenuity will solve it.
We need to change our consumption model rather than the level of consumption. De-carbonising the economy will be a big step - in energy generation we are already making huge advances and anything that can further this should be encouraged.
I'm not sure about "building new roads" - a co-ordinated energy efficient transport policy does mean more public transport especially trains (including trams and light rail). It also means recognising the future of work as less commuting and business travel.
The "elephant in the room" is while I can see most of Europe and even (in time) the USA taking up this new economic model, what of China, India and the rest? We can't afford to sit smugly by and claim we're all right because we aren't. The impact of climate change will be felt by all however "green" individual nations and indeed regions may be.
"Co-ordinated energy efficient" transport policy is precisely what is wrong with the discussion.
We don't need "co-ordination". Nor ultimately should we be going for "energy efficient" beyond that which is budget-friendly.
We don't need to stop consuming energy. We need to consume clean energy.
Energy is good, energy is not bad. Energy allows us to do stuff. Doing stuff is good not bad generally.
Climate change will be dealt with properly and economically when we can consume as much energy as we want, guilt-free. Because we're consuming clean energy.
The reality is we're already approaching that fact. Most of our electricity now comes from zero carbon sources. Our cars are switching to electricity. We don't need to stop or reduce our consumption, we need to ensure we are running as much consumption as we can in a clean manner. Once its clean, it doesn't matter how much energy we consume.
A change of mindset is needed - and only that will get the likes of China and the rest on board. They couldn't care less about stopping consumption etc, that's not in their interests. But if we can consume whatever we please in a clean and affordable manner - they have no reason not to copy that. Clean and affordable is in their interests too.
The only thing that matters is getting things clean and affordable - not preventing them. If your solution is "don't build roads" or "fly less" you have the wrong solution.
Been thinking about this Agnelli quote about Brexit. The man is an incompetent, greedy buffoon, but he does have the germ of a point. Hear me out. When Super League was announced, the reaction in Spain and Italy was pretty much the same as here. Most fans furiously opposed. But the reaction was a shrug of frustration. Nowt we can do against global, rapacious capital. But Brexit (and the pandemic too) has shown summat CAN be done. A furious minority of the population presented a vote hungry government with a one yard tap in to the empty net of the international oligarchy. Brexit showed there are plenty of electoral rewards to be gained from slamming it in the net. A government which can leave the EU, close pubs, house all the homeless over the weekend and nationalise transport can do WTF it wants. And very quickly. Not sure this will always play to the government's advantage, but, am sure they wouldn't have gone in studs up at the rebel 6 with such speed and relish pre-Brexit either.
I think there’s a lot in this. The Government, (and the electorate) have seen things done this year at real pace. See also vaccines and testing.
We don’t know where this will end up, but it must be quite scary for small state Thatcherite types, because politics is going interventionist, and it’s being led that way by a Tory party that more in touch with its view from the 50s and the 20s (depending on the issue) than from the 80s and 90s.
I certainly think it’s an opportunity for Labour. Drop the “woke” crap and focus on things like “we ended homelessness overnight, let’s do that all the time”, “let’s think big on climate change” and “let’s support the unemployed better the rest of the time too”.
The point about climate change is the real worry.
If you view COVID as an authoritarian trial run, then it's easy to see restrictions or directives being applied to, for example, movement of people for work (commuting, parking), air travel (domestic and international, business and leisure), diet (veganism, obesity), home heating ... indeed all of these are being actively trailed this week.
Politicians will use "new normal" post COVID to force a lot of these changes on us IMHO.
Climate change is a busy body's best friend. There will be no end of hectoring and nudging to make you do as you should. It will ramp up as the hysteria ramps up.
Climate change and Covid-19 have this in common with each other and with everything else, that they are what they are, whether you like it or not. People used to attack attacks on cigarette smoking with this busybody's paradise, nanny state gone mad sort of shtick, until it eventually sunk in that lung cancer and emphysema also are what they are.
"they are what they are"
It isnt some declared statement of fact that cant be questioned. They do have a lot in common in the sense that there are those using the situation to push for a society theyve always dreamed of, often based on models that are more about the modellers assumptions than anything else.
The idea that we can reduce carbon to such an extent and it not have massive costs is my contention. This stuff aint free.
We can, so long as the way we do so is smart.
If we try to do so by listening to the policies of the "Greens" or "XR" or "Greenpeace" etc we would be devastated.
If we do so as we are, by using clean technologies to replace dirty ones, then that works.
We've already reduced our emission by over 40% from 1990 levels. In the same time we've increased the size of our economy by over 70% in real terms. That is a remarkable transformation that is continuing year on year yet if you listen to the extreme left you'd think we hadn't done anything yet.
From moving electricity generation from coal to natural gas...
Yes. And then from natural gas to wind etc ...
That is the solution. Not stopping doing things, but doing them cleaner. Once we have clean electricity there's no reason not to use as much electricity as we can afford. The idea we need to stop consuming the stuff was entirely the wrong mindset and has become almost religious in some people's zeal - consuming less of it makes sense on economic grounds in the long term, not environmental.
"“This is the most distrustful, awful environment I’ve ever worked in, in government. Almost nobody tells the truth is what I’ve worked out over the last 36 hours.
“And, you know, I don’t think anyone really can get on their high horse about trust and ethics and all the rest of it in politics, because as far as I’m concerned, most of it is a bit of a cesspit.”" says Captain Mercer. Remember that he resigned / was fired for insisting that Liar honour his pledge to army veterans.
Did he not know he was in the Conservative party? *crying with laughter emoji*
"“This is the most distrustful, awful environment I’ve ever worked in, in government. Almost nobody tells the truth is what I’ve worked out over the last 36 hours.
“And, you know, I don’t think anyone really can get on their high horse about trust and ethics and all the rest of it in politics, because as far as I’m concerned, most of it is a bit of a cesspit.”" says Captain Mercer. Remember that he resigned / was fired for insisting that Liar honour his pledge to army veterans.
Did he not know he was in the Conservative party? *crying with laughter emoji*
Personally think Johnny Mercer is very likely a twit on the make.
Does anyone disagree, or actually know the guy personally as to be able to comment based on first-hand experience?
Oh, come on. This is a classic and well-known psychology "trick" to get stupid answers. You ask people a list of things they're expected to say yes to and then one that's an obvious no, and people miss it because they're in the mindset that "re-introducing animals is a good thing, right?"
The key takeaways here are 1) bias is alive and well (duh) and 2) bears are the animal people would least like to be reintroduced into the UK (also duh).
Oh, and people like birds for some reason. And beavers. No comment.
I don't get the hate for pineapple on pizza. Is it's very existence so appalling? Its not as if it's being force fed to you On topic nothing ever surprises me with regards to polls. Let's be honest though the British public are not known for their consistent logic.
Oh, come on. This is a classic and well-known psychology "trick" to get stupid answers. You ask people a list of things they're expected to say yes to and then one that's an obvious no, and people miss it because they're in the mindset that "re-introducing animals is a good thing, right?"
The key takeaways here are 1) bias is alive and well (duh) and 2) bears are the animal people would least like to be reintroduced into the UK (also duh).
Oh, and people like birds for some reason. And beavers. No comment.
I suspect the people that are really keen on reintroducing bears to the UK don't live in the kind of places that bears do.
Do we really have the vast connected areas of wilderness that could sustain a bear population? The USA truly is a place of vast uninhabited wilderness.
Bison is the one that got me. No modern bison have lived in the UK. Only an extinct species, maybe. And even that not for 6,000 years, half the time that humans have inhabited these shores.
There is no reasonable case to be made for introducing bison to the UK as a wild species.
Oh, come on. This is a classic and well-known psychology "trick" to get stupid answers. You ask people a list of things they're expected to say yes to and then one that's an obvious no, and people miss it because they're in the mindset that "re-introducing animals is a good thing, right?"
The key takeaways here are 1) bias is alive and well (duh) and 2) bears are the animal people would least like to be reintroduced into the UK (also duh).
Oh, and people like birds for some reason. And beavers. No comment.
Long story short the solution to Climate Change is the old fact in Mathematics that any number multiplied by 0 = 0.
To get to net Zero we need our energy to be 0 emissions. Once our energy is at 0 emissions, it is irrelevant how much of it we consume.
0.5X * 0 = 0 X * 0 = 0 2X * 0 = 0
The extremists that have hijacked much of the climate debate in the name of being "Green" want us to reduce consumption, control X, rather than simply change the technology so that X is irrelevant. Once we have clean energy there's no harm in us doubling, tripling or more our energy consumption - so long as its economically productive to do so.
Oh, come on. This is a classic and well-known psychology "trick" to get stupid answers. You ask people a list of things they're expected to say yes to and then one that's an obvious no, and people miss it because they're in the mindset that "re-introducing animals is a good thing, right?"
The key takeaways here are 1) bias is alive and well (duh) and 2) bears are the animal people would least like to be reintroduced into the UK (also duh).
Oh, and people like birds for some reason. And beavers. No comment.
I love beavers and cougars.
What about the birds?
Was under the impression, that TSE is president of the British section of the Audubon Society . . .
Johnny Mercer, former defence minister, tells @tnewtondunn that ''almost nobody tells the truth'' in this government and that it's the "most distrustful, awful environment I've ever worked in government".
Long story short the solution to Climate Change is the old fact in Mathematics that any number multiplied by 0 = 0.
To get to net Zero we need our energy to be 0 emissions. Once our energy is at 0 emissions, it is irrelevant how much of it we consume.
0.5X * 0 = 0 X * 0 = 0 2X * 0 = 0
The extremists that have hijacked much of the climate debate in the name of being "Green" want us to reduce consumption, control X, rather than simply change the technology so that X is irrelevant. Once we have clean energy there's no harm in us doubling, tripling or more our energy consumption - so long as its economically productive to do so.
Which is fine if you’re Iceland.
Sadly, we are not Iceland.
“Net-0” is gonna be an impossible goal, but it’s not really in anyone’s interests to say that, so we all go along with the charade.
Johnny Mercer, former defence minister, tells @tnewtondunn that ''almost nobody tells the truth'' in this government and that it's the "most distrustful, awful environment I've ever worked in government".
PM & etc were certainly ill-advised to put him in the govt in the first place.
Johnny Mercer, former defence minister, tells @tnewtondunn that ''almost nobody tells the truth'' in this government and that it's the "most distrustful, awful environment I've ever worked in government".
The only surprising part of that is that he appears surprised.
Long story short the solution to Climate Change is the old fact in Mathematics that any number multiplied by 0 = 0.
To get to net Zero we need our energy to be 0 emissions. Once our energy is at 0 emissions, it is irrelevant how much of it we consume.
0.5X * 0 = 0 X * 0 = 0 2X * 0 = 0
The extremists that have hijacked much of the climate debate in the name of being "Green" want us to reduce consumption, control X, rather than simply change the technology so that X is irrelevant. Once we have clean energy there's no harm in us doubling, tripling or more our energy consumption - so long as its economically productive to do so.
Which is fine if you’re Iceland.
Sadly, we are not Iceland.
“Net-0” is gonna be an impossible goal, but it’s not really in anyone’s interests to say that, so we all go along with the charade.
Why?
The point is if you multiply by 0, any answer becomes automatically 0 by definition.
So it doesn't matter if you're Iceland, or the UK, or Scotland, or China - either way it remains 0. So long as one side of the equation is 0, whatever you multiply by it is 0 too.
0 carbon electricity is entirely possible. Once you have that, everything that you power by electricity is not consuming any carbon.
I saw Shipley's finest during PMQs today, wibbling on about a bypass. The thing is, when he gets onto his hobbyhorse of Shipley and Keighley breaking away from Bradford council, I agree with him.
There I said it. I agree with Philip Davies. Oh the shame.
Johnny Mercer, former defence minister, tells @tnewtondunn that ''almost nobody tells the truth'' in this government and that it's the "most distrustful, awful environment I've ever worked in government".
PM & etc were certainly ill-advised to put him in the govt in the first place.
Agreed. Hunt would have been a much better choice.
...just like all those other countries with wolves and bears.
I'm in the 25%. But you probably all knew that already.
Same here but habitat creation comes first. We have no wild areas in the UK. Trees for Life is the only project that I am aware of which seeks to remedy this. Create the habitat, reduce human footprint and only then introduce the animal and plant species which we should never have lost in the first place.
From Trees for Life website:
"Trees for Life recognised that the Caledonian Forest is more than trees, but an intricate web of life, that should include the full range of wildlife that originally grew there. This includes large predators such as wolf and lynx, forest grazers such as wild cattle and special plants such as twinflower. The charity has returned red squirrels to forests in the North West Highlands where the animal had not lived for over 50 years and it has sought to bring back beavers to rivers and lochs that are its natural home. This is because without the full web of life that make up the forest, it cannot thrive and grow naturally.
Trees for Life is now working to ensure the Caledonian Forest grows from the last patches of the original wild forest that remain so it can grow again in large areas of Scotland. The charity is also seeking to ensure the wild forest can grow at a scale that enables rewilding to happen so nature can look after itself, especially around Glen Affric and Glenmoriston where it has worked for many years."
Johnny Mercer, former defence minister, tells @tnewtondunn that ''almost nobody tells the truth'' in this government and that it's the "most distrustful, awful environment I've ever worked in government".
PM & etc were certainly ill-advised to put him in the govt in the first place.
Agreed. Hunt would have been a much better choice.
Oh sorry, did you mean Mercer not Johnson?
In less than 2 years Johnson has manged to get Brexit done, sort out a trade deal, defeat a Covid pandemic and save football.
Johnny Mercer, former defence minister, tells @tnewtondunn that ''almost nobody tells the truth'' in this government and that it's the "most distrustful, awful environment I've ever worked in government".
PM & etc were certainly ill-advised to put him in the govt in the first place.
Agreed. Hunt would have been a much better choice.
Oh sorry, did you mean Mercer not Johnson?
In less than 2 years Johnson has manged to get Brexit done, sort out a trade deal, defeat a Covid pandemic and save football.
"Co-ordinated energy efficient" transport policy is precisely what is wrong with the discussion.
We don't need "co-ordination". Nor ultimately should we be going for "energy efficient" beyond that which is budget-friendly.
We don't need to stop consuming energy. We need to consume clean energy.
Energy is good, energy is not bad. Energy allows us to do stuff. Doing stuff is good not bad generally.
Climate change will be dealt with properly and economically when we can consume as much energy as we want, guilt-free. Because we're consuming clean energy.
The reality is we're already approaching that fact. Most of our electricity now comes from zero carbon sources. Our cars are switching to electricity. We don't need to stop or reduce our consumption, we need to ensure we are running as much consumption as we can in a clean manner. Once its clean, it doesn't matter how much energy we consume.
A change of mindset is needed - and only that will get the likes of China and the rest on board. They couldn't care less about stopping consumption etc, that's not in their interests. But if we can consume whatever we please in a clean and affordable manner - they have no reason not to copy that. Clean and affordable is in their interests too.
The only thing that matters is getting things clean and affordable - not preventing them. If your solution is "don't build roads" or "fly less" you have the wrong solution.
Sitting in a "clean" traffic jam, while better for the environment, is still just as unproductive and unsatisfactory as sitting in a polluting traffic jam. The notion of "less" may be anathema but less travelling, less commuting and less time lost to traffic jams may not be a universally bad thing.
The disappointing aversion to "hairshirt" Green politics is the epitome of throwing the baby out with the bathwater, Challenging some of the consumption-based aspects of how we live and looking at alternatives isn't to be dismissed. By all means, let's have ingenuity and technology front and centre but let's also challenge some of our own shibboleths.
The other side is the fact the devices we use to empower our modern world are all too often produced from resources dug out of the earth. The rare earths for example, which are in our phones and computers, mean parts of Greenland become desolate wastelands. We may consider that a price worth paying but what about the people directly affected?
"Green" is so much more than pollution or air quality - it's like stating the housing problem can only be solved by building a lot more houses or that leaving the EU is simply about the right to decide our own laws. It ignores the complexities and the inter-relationships and the nuances which make these issues and their resolution so much more interesting and challenging.
Long story short the solution to Climate Change is the old fact in Mathematics that any number multiplied by 0 = 0.
To get to net Zero we need our energy to be 0 emissions. Once our energy is at 0 emissions, it is irrelevant how much of it we consume.
0.5X * 0 = 0 X * 0 = 0 2X * 0 = 0
The extremists that have hijacked much of the climate debate in the name of being "Green" want us to reduce consumption, control X, rather than simply change the technology so that X is irrelevant. Once we have clean energy there's no harm in us doubling, tripling or more our energy consumption - so long as its economically productive to do so.
Which is fine if you’re Iceland.
Sadly, we are not Iceland.
“Net-0” is gonna be an impossible goal, but it’s not really in anyone’s interests to say that, so we all go along with the charade.
We can have as much Direct Air Capture as we need to offset positive CO2 emissions from other sectors. It would cost a load and be very inefficient, but technically it is doable. Everything else is a better and cheaper solution, so it sets a ceiling.
For the avoidance of doubt, I think that DAC is a load of bollocks.
Johnny Mercer, former defence minister, tells @tnewtondunn that ''almost nobody tells the truth'' in this government and that it's the "most distrustful, awful environment I've ever worked in government".
PM & etc were certainly ill-advised to put him in the govt in the first place.
Agreed. Hunt would have been a much better choice.
Oh sorry, did you mean Mercer not Johnson?
In less than 2 years Johnson has manged to get Brexit done, sort out a trade deal, defeat a Covid pandemic and save football.
What would Hunt have done?
Not put a border down the Irish Sea?
Everything has a price. Saving footy and the rest of it is worth a little Irish Sea border.
Bears, maybe not, as there isn't really the habitat.
Wolves? Why not? There's definitely places in Scotland where they could survive. They are probably less dangerous than your neighbour's Pit Bull. They would keep the deer on the move and we'd end up with more trees.
Wildcats? We could do with saving the ones we have. There are probably fewer remaining now than there are Siberian tigers and very few people seem to care. Give Tiddles the snip!
Beavers? Get on with it. Not that they aren't already spreading across Scotland, the Tay catchment in particular.
Yes, I have a vote.
PS I have encountered bears whilst camping in the NW Cascades. As long as you take suitable precautions, and don't catch them by surprise, it isn't really that dangerous. The main problems happen when they start thinking people = food, so you cook out of your tent, keep anything smelly in a canister and hoist it into a tree overnight.
Not intentionally. But I was going 50mph, it was prevaricating in the middle of the road, I couldn't swerve to avoid it (oncoming traffic) and nor could I do an emergency stop with cars behind me - so I sounded the horn repeatedly hoping it might move.
Oh, come on. This is a classic and well-known psychology "trick" to get stupid answers. You ask people a list of things they're expected to say yes to and then one that's an obvious no, and people miss it because they're in the mindset that "re-introducing animals is a good thing, right?"
The key takeaways here are 1) bias is alive and well (duh) and 2) bears are the animal people would least like to be reintroduced into the UK (also duh).
Oh, and people like birds for some reason. And beavers. No comment.
"Co-ordinated energy efficient" transport policy is precisely what is wrong with the discussion.
We don't need "co-ordination". Nor ultimately should we be going for "energy efficient" beyond that which is budget-friendly.
We don't need to stop consuming energy. We need to consume clean energy.
Energy is good, energy is not bad. Energy allows us to do stuff. Doing stuff is good not bad generally.
Climate change will be dealt with properly and economically when we can consume as much energy as we want, guilt-free. Because we're consuming clean energy.
The reality is we're already approaching that fact. Most of our electricity now comes from zero carbon sources. Our cars are switching to electricity. We don't need to stop or reduce our consumption, we need to ensure we are running as much consumption as we can in a clean manner. Once its clean, it doesn't matter how much energy we consume.
A change of mindset is needed - and only that will get the likes of China and the rest on board. They couldn't care less about stopping consumption etc, that's not in their interests. But if we can consume whatever we please in a clean and affordable manner - they have no reason not to copy that. Clean and affordable is in their interests too.
The only thing that matters is getting things clean and affordable - not preventing them. If your solution is "don't build roads" or "fly less" you have the wrong solution.
Sitting in a "clean" traffic jam, while better for the environment, is still just as unproductive and unsatisfactory as sitting in a polluting traffic jam. The notion of "less" may be anathema but less travelling, less commuting and less time lost to traffic jams may not be a universally bad thing.
The disappointing aversion to "hairshirt" Green politics is the epitome of throwing the baby out with the bathwater, Challenging some of the consumption-based aspects of how we live and looking at alternatives isn't to be dismissed. By all means, let's have ingenuity and technology front and centre but let's also challenge some of our own shibboleths.
The other side is the fact the devices we use to empower our modern world are all too often produced from resources dug out of the earth. The rare earths for example, which are in our phones and computers, mean parts of Greenland become desolate wastelands. We may consider that a price worth paying but what about the people directly affected?
"Green" is so much more than pollution or air quality - it's like stating the housing problem can only be solved by building a lot more houses or that leaving the EU is simply about the right to decide our own laws. It ignores the complexities and the inter-relationships and the nuances which make these issues and their resolution so much more interesting and challenging.
It depends why you're doing these things.
If less travelling is being done because you don't need or want to travel then so be it.
If less travelling is being done because although you want to travel you're being heavily taxed or prevented from doing so by a lack on infrastructure (because roads haven't been upgraded or built) that's a bad thing.
The housing problem can only be solved by building a lot more houses. That is true.
Leaving the EU was primarily about the right to decide our own laws. That is true.
The complexities sometimes are wrong. If people don't want to travel then they won't travel because they don't want to, not because they want to save the planet. Telling people they're not allowed to travel even if they want to, because doing so is destroying the planet - that is what is "hairshirt" and is destined to fail
The one valid point is rare earth materials. The solution to them is the same: human ingenuity. We need to find a non-rare alternative.
note - reckon this is first time that the Methow Valley News has been cited on PB!
BTW, it's pronounced "Met-tawh" and is a lovely location, on the east side of the Cascade Mountains in Okanogan County, which is sparsely populated but the size of the state of Connecticut.
Not intentionally. But I was going 50mph, it was prevaricating in the middle of the road, I couldn't swerve to avoid it (oncoming traffic) and nor could I do an emergency stop with cars behind me - so I sounded the horn repeatedly hoping it might move.
It didn't.
Hey, Jolyon, how did you hack Casino Royale’s account?
note - reckon this is first time that the Methow Valley News has been cited on PB!
BTW, it's pronounced "Met-tawh" and is a lovely location, on the east side of the Cascade Mountains in Okanogan County, which is sparsely populated but the size of the state of Connecticut.
I once went cross-country skiing for a week in the Methow. Aren't there wolves there now? I do remember seeing cougar prints in the snow, too.
Bears, maybe not, as there isn't really the habitat.
Wolves? Why not? There's definitely places in Scotland where they could survive. They are probably less dangerous than your neighbour's Pit Bull. They would keep the deer on the move and we'd end up with more trees.
Wildcats? We could do with saving the ones we have. There are probably fewer remaining now than there are Siberian tigers and very few people seem to care. Give Tiddles the snip!
Beavers? Get on with it. Not that they aren't already spreading across Scotland, the Tay catchment in particular.
Yes, I have a vote.
PS I have encountered bears whilst camping in the NW Cascades. As long as you take suitable precautions, and don't catch them by surprise, it isn't really that dangerous. The main problems happen when they start thinking people = food, so you cook out of your tent, keep anything smelly in a canister and hoist it into a tree overnight.
Many years ago I went to Washington State and I was told not to pee outdoors as that attract bears.
My issue was that if I saw a bear I would be peeing non stop, which would attract lots of bears.
Not intentionally. But I was going 50mph, it was prevaricating in the middle of the road, I couldn't swerve to avoid it (oncoming traffic) and nor could I do an emergency stop with cars behind me - so I sounded the horn repeatedly hoping it might move.
Not intentionally. But I was going 50mph, it was prevaricating in the middle of the road, I couldn't swerve to avoid it (oncoming traffic) and nor could I do an emergency stop with cars behind me - so I sounded the horn repeatedly hoping it might move.
Not intentionally. But I was going 50mph, it was prevaricating in the middle of the road, I couldn't swerve to avoid it (oncoming traffic) and nor could I do an emergency stop with cars behind me - so I sounded the horn repeatedly hoping it might move.
It didn't.
I hope you didn’t pick it up to eat it.
All roadkill belongs to the Queen
All roadkill? Round here, that seems to be a little deer.
...just like all those other countries with wolves and bears.
I'm in the 25%. But you probably all knew that already.
Same here but habitat creation comes first. We have no wild areas in the UK. Trees for Life is the only project that I am aware of which seeks to remedy this. Create the habitat, reduce human footprint and only then introduce the animal and plant species which we should never have lost in the first place.
From Trees for Life website:
"Trees for Life recognised that the Caledonian Forest is more than trees, but an intricate web of life, that should include the full range of wildlife that originally grew there. This includes large predators such as wolf and lynx, forest grazers such as wild cattle and special plants such as twinflower. The charity has returned red squirrels to forests in the North West Highlands where the animal had not lived for over 50 years and it has sought to bring back beavers to rivers and lochs that are its natural home. This is because without the full web of life that make up the forest, it cannot thrive and grow naturally.
Trees for Life is now working to ensure the Caledonian Forest grows from the last patches of the original wild forest that remain so it can grow again in large areas of Scotland. The charity is also seeking to ensure the wild forest can grow at a scale that enables rewilding to happen so nature can look after itself, especially around Glen Affric and Glenmoriston where it has worked for many years."
The best example of regeneration I've seen is in Glen Feshie, Speyside. The Danish owner (Povlsen of Asos fame) has had all the deer culled and pines are shooting up everywhere. There is a huge difference from how it looked in the 1990s. He's doing the same with other Scottish estates and is showing the government agencies and conservationists (NTS, "NatureScot") how it is done.
Wolves would eliminate the need for the helicopter gunships.
Climate Change is real but much of the hairshirt harebrained nonsense advocated in the name of climate change is not right or justified.
The longterm solution to Climate Change like the longterm solution to Covid19 is science and technology - not staying at home not doing anything and not have any development.
To defeat Covid19 we don't need to stay locked down together, we need to get vaccines and roll them out, then we need to live with it and move on.
To defeat Climate Change we don't need to cut our consumption or moderate our behaviour, we need to get clean technologies and roll them out, then we need to live with it and move on.
Clean energy etc is the vaccine against Climate Change. But the hairshirt "Greens" want us to stop flying, stop driving, stop building roads, stop building trains (!), stop doing anything. No we need to build roads and get on with our lives, but ensure we're using clean vehicles on those roads.
I mostly agree though I'd claim human ingenuity as the correct terminology. Human ingenuity created the problem, human ingenuity will solve it.
We need to change our consumption model rather than the level of consumption. De-carbonising the economy will be a big step - in energy generation we are already making huge advances and anything that can further this should be encouraged.
I'm not sure about "building new roads" - a co-ordinated energy efficient transport policy does mean more public transport especially trains (including trams and light rail). It also means recognising the future of work as less commuting and business travel.
The "elephant in the room" is while I can see most of Europe and even (in time) the USA taking up this new economic model, what of China, India and the rest? We can't afford to sit smugly by and claim we're all right because we aren't. The impact of climate change will be felt by all however "green" individual nations and indeed regions may be.
"Co-ordinated energy efficient" transport policy is precisely what is wrong with the discussion.
We don't need "co-ordination". Nor ultimately should we be going for "energy efficient" beyond that which is budget-friendly.
We don't need to stop consuming energy. We need to consume clean energy.
Energy is good, energy is not bad. Energy allows us to do stuff. Doing stuff is good not bad generally.
Climate change will be dealt with properly and economically when we can consume as much energy as we want, guilt-free. Because we're consuming clean energy.
The reality is we're already approaching that fact. Most of our electricity now comes from zero carbon sources. Our cars are switching to electricity. We don't need to stop or reduce our consumption, we need to ensure we are running as much consumption as we can in a clean manner. Once its clean, it doesn't matter how much energy we consume.
A change of mindset is needed - and only that will get the likes of China and the rest on board. They couldn't care less about stopping consumption etc, that's not in their interests. But if we can consume whatever we please in a clean and affordable manner - they have no reason not to copy that. Clean and affordable is in their interests too.
The only thing that matters is getting things clean and affordable - not preventing them. If your solution is "don't build roads" or "fly less" you have the wrong solution.
Energy efficiency is some of the cheapest power you can generate.
note - reckon this is first time that the Methow Valley News has been cited on PB!
BTW, it's pronounced "Met-tawh" and is a lovely location, on the east side of the Cascade Mountains in Okanogan County, which is sparsely populated but the size of the state of Connecticut.
I once went cross-country skiing for a week in the Methow. Aren't there wolves there now? I do remember seeing cougar prints in the snow, too.
Think you are correct about the wolves.
BTW, the Methow Valley is the only part of Okanogan County that consistently votes Democratic, other than a few Latino & Native precincts.
Also BTW, Washington's Okanogan County is just south of British Columbia's Okanagan region (note spelling difference) which is has much larger population due to it's lakes AND because it is Canada's premier wine region. Also has the only desert in the Great White North (not counting downtown Saskatoon on a Wednesday night).
Climate Change is real but much of the hairshirt harebrained nonsense advocated in the name of climate change is not right or justified.
The longterm solution to Climate Change like the longterm solution to Covid19 is science and technology - not staying at home not doing anything and not have any development.
To defeat Covid19 we don't need to stay locked down together, we need to get vaccines and roll them out, then we need to live with it and move on.
To defeat Climate Change we don't need to cut our consumption or moderate our behaviour, we need to get clean technologies and roll them out, then we need to live with it and move on.
Clean energy etc is the vaccine against Climate Change. But the hairshirt "Greens" want us to stop flying, stop driving, stop building roads, stop building trains (!), stop doing anything. No we need to build roads and get on with our lives, but ensure we're using clean vehicles on those roads.
I mostly agree though I'd claim human ingenuity as the correct terminology. Human ingenuity created the problem, human ingenuity will solve it.
We need to change our consumption model rather than the level of consumption. De-carbonising the economy will be a big step - in energy generation we are already making huge advances and anything that can further this should be encouraged.
I'm not sure about "building new roads" - a co-ordinated energy efficient transport policy does mean more public transport especially trains (including trams and light rail). It also means recognising the future of work as less commuting and business travel.
The "elephant in the room" is while I can see most of Europe and even (in time) the USA taking up this new economic model, what of China, India and the rest? We can't afford to sit smugly by and claim we're all right because we aren't. The impact of climate change will be felt by all however "green" individual nations and indeed regions may be.
"Co-ordinated energy efficient" transport policy is precisely what is wrong with the discussion.
We don't need "co-ordination". Nor ultimately should we be going for "energy efficient" beyond that which is budget-friendly.
We don't need to stop consuming energy. We need to consume clean energy.
Energy is good, energy is not bad. Energy allows us to do stuff. Doing stuff is good not bad generally.
Climate change will be dealt with properly and economically when we can consume as much energy as we want, guilt-free. Because we're consuming clean energy.
The reality is we're already approaching that fact. Most of our electricity now comes from zero carbon sources. Our cars are switching to electricity. We don't need to stop or reduce our consumption, we need to ensure we are running as much consumption as we can in a clean manner. Once its clean, it doesn't matter how much energy we consume.
A change of mindset is needed - and only that will get the likes of China and the rest on board. They couldn't care less about stopping consumption etc, that's not in their interests. But if we can consume whatever we please in a clean and affordable manner - they have no reason not to copy that. Clean and affordable is in their interests too.
The only thing that matters is getting things clean and affordable - not preventing them. If your solution is "don't build roads" or "fly less" you have the wrong solution.
Energy efficiency is some of the cheapest power you can generate.
Of course. But that is about economics, not the environment.
Hence why I said once we have zero-carbon energy we should go for budget-friendly energy efficiency. If the cost of energy efficiency is considerably more than the cost of the energy, then that's when we're being counterproductive.
Not intentionally. But I was going 50mph, it was prevaricating in the middle of the road, I couldn't swerve to avoid it (oncoming traffic) and nor could I do an emergency stop with cars behind me - so I sounded the horn repeatedly hoping it might move.
Not intentionally. But I was going 50mph, it was prevaricating in the middle of the road, I couldn't swerve to avoid it (oncoming traffic) and nor could I do an emergency stop with cars behind me - so I sounded the horn repeatedly hoping it might move.
It didn't.
I hope you didn’t pick it up to eat it.
All roadkill belongs to the Queen
So the proper thing for CR to do, would be to rake up the remains, put them in a box, and post them (COD) to Her Majesty?
Not intentionally. But I was going 50mph, it was prevaricating in the middle of the road, I couldn't swerve to avoid it (oncoming traffic) and nor could I do an emergency stop with cars behind me - so I sounded the horn repeatedly hoping it might move.
It didn't.
Hey, Jolyon, how did you hack Casino Royale’s account?
Not intentionally. But I was going 50mph, it was prevaricating in the middle of the road, I couldn't swerve to avoid it (oncoming traffic) and nor could I do an emergency stop with cars behind me - so I sounded the horn repeatedly hoping it might move.
Not intentionally. But I was going 50mph, it was prevaricating in the middle of the road, I couldn't swerve to avoid it (oncoming traffic) and nor could I do an emergency stop with cars behind me - so I sounded the horn repeatedly hoping it might move.
It didn't.
I hope you didn’t pick it up to eat it.
All roadkill belongs to the Queen
I thought it was allowed as long as you weren't the one that killed it?
note - reckon this is first time that the Methow Valley News has been cited on PB!
BTW, it's pronounced "Met-tawh" and is a lovely location, on the east side of the Cascade Mountains in Okanogan County, which is sparsely populated but the size of the state of Connecticut.
I once went cross-country skiing for a week in the Methow. Aren't there wolves there now? I do remember seeing cougar prints in the snow, too.
Think you are correct about the wolves.
BTW, the Methow Valley is the only part of Okanogan County that consistently votes Democratic, other than a few Latino & Native precincts.
Also BTW, Washington's Okanogan County is just south of British Columbia's Okanagan region (note spelling difference) which is has much larger population due to it's lakes AND because it is Canada's premier wine region. Also has the only desert in the Great White North (not counting downtown Saskatoon on a Wednesday night).
That's a surprise - it seemed like the sort of place that would be solid Republican. I liked it, although Winthrop was a bit OTT.
Not intentionally. But I was going 50mph, it was prevaricating in the middle of the road, I couldn't swerve to avoid it (oncoming traffic) and nor could I do an emergency stop with cars behind me - so I sounded the horn repeatedly hoping it might move.
It didn't.
I hope you didn’t pick it up to eat it.
All roadkill belongs to the Queen
I thought it was allowed as long as you didn't kill it yourself?
note - reckon this is first time that the Methow Valley News has been cited on PB!
BTW, it's pronounced "Met-tawh" and is a lovely location, on the east side of the Cascade Mountains in Okanogan County, which is sparsely populated but the size of the state of Connecticut.
I once went cross-country skiing for a week in the Methow. Aren't there wolves there now? I do remember seeing cougar prints in the snow, too.
Think you are correct about the wolves.
BTW, the Methow Valley is the only part of Okanogan County that consistently votes Democratic, other than a few Latino & Native precincts.
Also BTW, Washington's Okanogan County is just south of British Columbia's Okanagan region (note spelling difference) which is has much larger population due to it's lakes AND because it is Canada's premier wine region. Also has the only desert in the Great White North (not counting downtown Saskatoon on a Wednesday night).
That's a surprise - it seemed like the sort of place that would be solid Republican. I liked it, although Winthrop was a bit OTT.
Methow Valley attracts plenty of enviros and other outdoor enthusiasts from Seattle & environs, some of whom decided to move out there. That's what's been driving the Democratic vote locally. Rest of the county is staunchly GOP, except for small minority of Indians (on Colville Reservation) and Latinos.
Decades ago I read a short science fiction story (can't remember by whom) about an alien reconnaissance ship landing somewhere in Canada or Alaska and immediately encountering a Grizzly just out of hibernation whereupon they recommended that Earth be quarantined.
But I might add that Homo "Sapiens" is by far the most dangerous species on Earth.
...just like all those other countries with wolves and bears.
I'm in the 25%. But you probably all knew that already.
Same here but habitat creation comes first. We have no wild areas in the UK. Trees for Life is the only project that I am aware of which seeks to remedy this. Create the habitat, reduce human footprint and only then introduce the animal and plant species which we should never have lost in the first place.
From Trees for Life website:
"Trees for Life recognised that the Caledonian Forest is more than trees, but an intricate web of life, that should include the full range of wildlife that originally grew there. This includes large predators such as wolf and lynx, forest grazers such as wild cattle and special plants such as twinflower. The charity has returned red squirrels to forests in the North West Highlands where the animal had not lived for over 50 years and it has sought to bring back beavers to rivers and lochs that are its natural home. This is because without the full web of life that make up the forest, it cannot thrive and grow naturally.
Trees for Life is now working to ensure the Caledonian Forest grows from the last patches of the original wild forest that remain so it can grow again in large areas of Scotland. The charity is also seeking to ensure the wild forest can grow at a scale that enables rewilding to happen so nature can look after itself, especially around Glen Affric and Glenmoriston where it has worked for many years."
The best example of regeneration I've seen is in Glen Feshie, Speyside. The Danish owner (Povlsen of Asos fame) has had all the deer culled and pines are shooting up everywhere. There is a huge difference from how it looked in the 1990s. He's doing the same with other Scottish estates and is showing the government agencies and conservationists (NTS, "NatureScot") how it is done.
Wolves would eliminate the need for the helicopter gunships.
SNH as was was doing reafforestation on Rum NNR back in the late 1970s - already a huge improvement when I revisited ca 1990 - so I am a tad sceptical about claims of that ilk (showing the agencies ...). Not least because deer and forest clearance were identified as problems long, long ago (Fraser Darling).
Not intentionally. But I was going 50mph, it was prevaricating in the middle of the road, I couldn't swerve to avoid it (oncoming traffic) and nor could I do an emergency stop with cars behind me - so I sounded the horn repeatedly hoping it might move.
Not intentionally. But I was going 50mph, it was prevaricating in the middle of the road, I couldn't swerve to avoid it (oncoming traffic) and nor could I do an emergency stop with cars behind me - so I sounded the horn repeatedly hoping it might move.
Not intentionally. But I was going 50mph, it was prevaricating in the middle of the road, I couldn't swerve to avoid it (oncoming traffic) and nor could I do an emergency stop with cars behind me - so I sounded the horn repeatedly hoping it might move.
Not intentionally. But I was going 50mph, it was prevaricating in the middle of the road, I couldn't swerve to avoid it (oncoming traffic) and nor could I do an emergency stop with cars behind me - so I sounded the horn repeatedly hoping it might move.
It didn't.
They are the dumbest birds out there.
Not their fault. They are dumped in huge numbers into unknown environments. Indigenous pheasants, where they exist, are as sensible as any other bird.
There is a West Wing episode where CJ is lobbied by environmentalists. Number of Americans killed by wolves last year? 0. Number killed trying to retrieve change from vending machines? 4.
Comments
Er, the polling question refers to reintroducing animal species "into the UK".
Which last time I looked (still) includes the Scottish Highlands and a few other areas with some significant wilderness?
Think the notion that people who want to see a native species reintroduced are ipso facto nuts, is itself ipso facto nuts.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/apr/21/ex-minister-johnny-mercer-says-almost-nobody-tells-truth-in-johnsons-government
"“This is the most distrustful, awful environment I’ve ever worked in, in government. Almost nobody tells the truth is what I’ve worked out over the last 36 hours.
“And, you know, I don’t think anyone really can get on their high horse about trust and ethics and all the rest of it in politics, because as far as I’m concerned, most of it is a bit of a cesspit.”" says Captain Mercer. Remember that he resigned / was fired for insisting that Liar honour his pledge to army veterans.
We don't need "co-ordination". Nor ultimately should we be going for "energy efficient" beyond that which is budget-friendly.
We don't need to stop consuming energy. We need to consume clean energy.
Energy is good, energy is not bad. Energy allows us to do stuff. Doing stuff is good not bad generally.
Climate change will be dealt with properly and economically when we can consume as much energy as we want, guilt-free. Because we're consuming clean energy.
The reality is we're already approaching that fact. Most of our electricity now comes from zero carbon sources. Our cars are switching to electricity. We don't need to stop or reduce our consumption, we need to ensure we are running as much consumption as we can in a clean manner. Once its clean, it doesn't matter how much energy we consume.
A change of mindset is needed - and only that will get the likes of China and the rest on board. They couldn't care less about stopping consumption etc, that's not in their interests. But if we can consume whatever we please in a clean and affordable manner - they have no reason not to copy that. Clean and affordable is in their interests too.
The only thing that matters is getting things clean and affordable - not preventing them. If your solution is "don't build roads" or "fly less" you have the wrong solution.
That is the solution. Not stopping doing things, but doing them cleaner. Once we have clean electricity there's no reason not to use as much electricity as we can afford. The idea we need to stop consuming the stuff was entirely the wrong mindset and has become almost religious in some people's zeal - consuming less of it makes sense on economic grounds in the long term, not environmental.
You're sure of a big surprise.....
FUCK ME - BEARS!!!!
Does anyone disagree, or actually know the guy personally as to be able to comment based on first-hand experience?
The key takeaways here are 1) bias is alive and well (duh) and 2) bears are the animal people would least like to be reintroduced into the UK (also duh).
Oh, and people like birds for some reason. And beavers. No comment.
There is no reasonable case to be made for introducing bison to the UK as a wild species.
To get to net Zero we need our energy to be 0 emissions. Once our energy is at 0 emissions, it is irrelevant how much of it we consume.
0.5X * 0 = 0
X * 0 = 0
2X * 0 = 0
The extremists that have hijacked much of the climate debate in the name of being "Green" want us to reduce consumption, control X, rather than simply change the technology so that X is irrelevant. Once we have clean energy there's no harm in us doubling, tripling or more our energy consumption - so long as its economically productive to do so.
Humans were the apex predator for foxes... now we are not.
Prior to their elimination, bears and wolves were intermediate predators... reintroduction will help solve the urban fox problem
...just like all those other countries with wolves and bears.
I'm in the 25%. But you probably all knew that already.
Johnny Mercer, former defence minister, tells @tnewtondunn that ''almost nobody tells the truth'' in this government and that it's the "most distrustful, awful environment I've ever worked in government".
On grounds that he's a bear-lover that is!
Sadly, we are not Iceland.
“Net-0” is gonna be an impossible goal, but it’s not really in anyone’s interests to say that, so we all go along with the charade.
The point is if you multiply by 0, any answer becomes automatically 0 by definition.
So it doesn't matter if you're Iceland, or the UK, or Scotland, or China - either way it remains 0. So long as one side of the equation is 0, whatever you multiply by it is 0 too.
0 carbon electricity is entirely possible. Once you have that, everything that you power by electricity is not consuming any carbon.
There I said it. I agree with Philip Davies. Oh the shame.
Oh sorry, did you mean Mercer not Johnson?
From Trees for Life website:
"Trees for Life recognised that the Caledonian Forest is more than trees, but an intricate web of life, that should include the full range of wildlife that originally grew there. This includes large predators such as wolf and lynx, forest grazers such as wild cattle and special plants such as twinflower. The charity has returned red squirrels to forests in the North West Highlands where the animal had not lived for over 50 years and it has sought to bring back beavers to rivers and lochs that are its natural home. This is because without the full web of life that make up the forest, it cannot thrive and grow naturally.
Trees for Life is now working to ensure the Caledonian Forest grows from the last patches of the original wild forest that remain so it can grow again in large areas of Scotland. The charity is also seeking to ensure the wild forest can grow at a scale that enables rewilding to happen so nature can look after itself, especially around Glen Affric and Glenmoriston where it has worked for many years."
You know the song about the old lady who swallowed a fly?
What would Hunt have done?
And anyway, Beavers have already been reintroduced. Didn't know about the Wildcats though.
"Dear Prime Minister,
I'm afraid there are no pick-er-nic baskets left.
Sorry and good luck!"
The disappointing aversion to "hairshirt" Green politics is the epitome of throwing the baby out with the bathwater, Challenging some of the consumption-based aspects of how we live and looking at alternatives isn't to be dismissed. By all means, let's have ingenuity and technology front and centre but let's also challenge some of our own shibboleths.
The other side is the fact the devices we use to empower our modern world are all too often produced from resources dug out of the earth. The rare earths for example, which are in our phones and computers, mean parts of Greenland become desolate wastelands. We may consider that a price worth paying but what about the people directly affected?
"Green" is so much more than pollution or air quality - it's like stating the housing problem can only be solved by building a lot more houses or that leaving the EU is simply about the right to decide our own laws. It ignores the complexities and the inter-relationships and the nuances which make these issues and their resolution so much more interesting and challenging.
For the avoidance of doubt, I think that DAC is a load of bollocks.
Wolves? Why not? There's definitely places in Scotland where they could survive. They are probably less dangerous than your neighbour's Pit Bull. They would keep the deer on the move and we'd end up with more trees.
Wildcats? We could do with saving the ones we have. There are probably fewer remaining now than there are Siberian tigers and very few people seem to care. Give Tiddles the snip!
Beavers? Get on with it. Not that they aren't already spreading across Scotland, the Tay catchment in particular.
Yes, I have a vote.
PS I have encountered bears whilst camping in the NW Cascades. As long as you take suitable precautions, and don't catch them by surprise, it isn't really that dangerous. The main problems happen when they start thinking people = food, so you cook out of your tent, keep anything smelly in a canister and hoist it into a tree overnight.
"In the half-century up to 2002, there were eight fatal attacks in Europe and Russia, three in North America"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf_attack
There have been 67 fatal bear attacks in North America since 1900:
https://wiseaboutbears.org/about-us/bear-attacks-2/#:~:text=*Black bears have killed 67,murdered are 60,000 times greater.
So considerably safer than wasps.
Not intentionally. But I was going 50mph, it was prevaricating in the middle of the road, I couldn't swerve to avoid it (oncoming traffic) and nor could I do an emergency stop with cars behind me - so I sounded the horn repeatedly hoping it might move.
It didn't.
If less travelling is being done because you don't need or want to travel then so be it.
If less travelling is being done because although you want to travel you're being heavily taxed or prevented from doing so by a lack on infrastructure (because roads haven't been upgraded or built) that's a bad thing.
The housing problem can only be solved by building a lot more houses. That is true.
Leaving the EU was primarily about the right to decide our own laws. That is true.
The complexities sometimes are wrong. If people don't want to travel then they won't travel because they don't want to, not because they want to save the planet. Telling people they're not allowed to travel even if they want to, because doing so is destroying the planet - that is what is "hairshirt" and is destined to fail
The one valid point is rare earth materials. The solution to them is the same: human ingenuity. We need to find a non-rare alternative.
Methow Valley News - State agency approves new hound hunting rules
https://methowvalleynews.com/2021/02/10/state-agency-approves-new-hound-hunting-rules/#:~:text=Washington voters outlawed the use,covered in the 1996 law.
note - reckon this is first time that the Methow Valley News has been cited on PB!
BTW, it's pronounced "Met-tawh" and is a lovely location, on the east side of the Cascade Mountains in Okanogan County, which is sparsely populated but the size of the state of Connecticut.
My issue was that if I saw a bear I would be peeing non stop, which would attract lots of bears.
All roadkill belongs to the Queen
Goodnight.
Wolves would eliminate the need for the helicopter gunships.
BTW, the Methow Valley is the only part of Okanogan County that consistently votes Democratic, other than a few Latino & Native precincts.
Also BTW, Washington's Okanogan County is just south of British Columbia's Okanagan region (note spelling difference) which is has much larger population due to it's lakes AND because it is Canada's premier wine region. Also has the only desert in the Great White North (not counting downtown Saskatoon on a Wednesday night).
Hence why I said once we have zero-carbon energy we should go for budget-friendly energy efficiency. If the cost of energy efficiency is considerably more than the cost of the energy, then that's when we're being counterproductive.
https://twitter.com/jfaetheyy/status/1382597737133248517?s=21
What a splendid birthday pheasant!
Although if anyone wants to go the other way and have bears in crocs playing Super League football, PLEASE BE MY GUEST
Lynxes are solitary predators - fairly sensible choice compared with wolf packs (problem is territory size with the latter).
But I might add that Homo "Sapiens" is by far the most dangerous species on Earth.
But good to see it done whoever.
Boris Johnson rejected advice from cab sec to change phone number after concerns were raised about extent to which he was being contacted
Simon Case is said to have recommended move last year amid concern over number of people contacting PM
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/4250abf8-a2d9-11eb-b457-728758ee7665?shareToken=b1f13e354e880b339d784cd09b90efcc
Number of Americans killed by wolves last year? 0.
Number killed trying to retrieve change from vending machines? 4.