The irony is that for 38 years the Scots sang songs about Maradona and wore Argentina shirts and it’s an Argie ref who stiffs them for a stonewall penalty. Absolute theatre last night 😂😂😂 #EURo2024
I don't think it was stonewall penalty. I wanted it given, but objectively speaking it wasn't a terrible decision not to give it.
I do think there was a question off offside on the Hungary goal, but honestly that only made a difference to them, not us. A draw wasn't enough. Good luck to Hungary. We were 4th best in the group overall, so there's no use moaning about the result.
Agreed, Farooq.
Neither defender nor attacker were attempting to play the ball. The pair of them just fell over in a messy heap.
My conflict coordinates are 75% Palestine, 80.56% Ukraine. I don't think that's wrong, but I'm not certain about the value of this test. I tried to answer questions in the abstract, but it was very obvious which questions related to what Israeli/Palestinian/Russian/Ukrainian claims.
Indeed, I thought similar. I agree with where I ended up and will use my image of the day on it, but not sure how meaningful it is.
Fun test though, thank you TimS for sharing it.
"Your conflict coordinates are 30.56% Israel, 58.34% Ukraine."
From the data in the lead, the drift of the uninspired from Labour to Green and others may knock their majority back a little, although I suspect much of it is happening in Labour held seats.
The interchange between Labour and LibDem in both directions bodes well for knocking the Tories back, assuming the voters know what they are doing.
Peter Hitchens: "Yes, it was a lawless putsch. My inch-by-inch and line-by-line examination of the illegal overthrow of Ukraine's legitimate President in 2014 (swiftly condoned, to their lasting shame, by the Western democracies)". [Plus link to an article he wrote on the subject in April 23
Peter Hitchens confirms once again he's as thick as pigshit, thanks for the reminder.
Climate change denier too. Moron status confirmed.
Another issue where the three main parties and their fellow travellers have the same view, view anyone who dissents as a cretin and then wonder why people like Meloni, Le Pen and Farage start getting lots of votes and decide it is because they are thick and bigoted, in much the same way a Georgian Aristocrat regarded the peasants.
Anthropogenic climate change is happening - that is a fact. The main issue is how to tackle the issue. The neoliberals want to allow big business to thrive whilst also paying lip service to the idea of being environmentally friendly, so they move taxes onto consumers rather than producers of CO2 - the petrol hikes that many rural Europeans so despise because it makes rural living more expensive is a good example of this. The right / far right want to pretend climate change isn't happening and move on to a scarcity model of politics - there isn't enough left for the Volk, so we must kick out the foreigner (and the dissenters who aren't really people like us anyway). The left propose the only viable alternative - investment in renewable energy and a reduced reliance on fossil fuels. This will mean huge phase shifts (reduced plastic use, reduced usage of hydrocarbon based fertilisers, etc), but at least the left are willing to say what the problem is (excess production and consumption for the benefit of capital) and where to get the resources to tackle the issue (those who already hoard capital) without having to scapegoat immigrants.
There is another option and that's to value sustainability and ecological impact beside profit as a business motive. It's no good making money if you're destroying the world. Supporting businesses which are ecologically sustainable and seek to mitigate the impact of climate change would be sensible options for a more business-oriented Government and if that means companies who refuse to be sustainable go to the wall so be it.
There is a fine line but Govenrment can also be about influencing public behaviour and educating people as to what is happening, why it is happening and the consequences especially for those parts of the world where the impacts are more keenly and immediately felt.
We too face issues from rising sea levels and a climate with more frequent extremes of weather and that means sensible thinking on houses including not building housing developments on flood plains.
The problem with capitalistic growth is that it is ideologically wedded not only to profit, but ever growing profit, which demand ever more extraction and squeezing of labour, along with increasingly trying to foist externalities onto public coffers (or ignoring them completely) makes it really difficult. Already we have right wingers and big businesses saying there is too much green tape and regulation etc. We also know that consumption and CO2 production is skewwed heavily towards the extremely wealthy - both globally and within individual nations. The answer, more equitable distribution of resources and an overall decrease in consumption reliant on fossil fuels, doesn't really square with the continuation of the profit motive as it currently exists.
You don't believe in net zero, do you?
If we have net zero, why do we need "equitable distribution of resources" for climate reasons, considering we can scale up or down consumption/production and anything times zero equals zero.
If we don't have net zero, how do we stop climate change?
If you were serious about tackling climate change, you wouldn't believe any of the garbage you're spouting.
I mean, I don't think globally we're going to get to net zero because many of the people saying we will are hoping carbon capture works better than it currently does - atm efficiency is too low to depend on it. So to get to net zero it will not just be countries sequestering any carbon output to equal zero (as the tech to sequester is currently not good enough), it will require a reduction in emissions. Reduction in emissions will require a reduction in production and consumption. If the logic of growth for the average worker is "you get a smaller slice, but we'll grow the pie", the logic of static growth or even degrowth for the average worker should be "you get a bigger slice, but we're slowly shrinking the pie". That will have to come via wealth redistribution - those who have a huge amount will have to give up their hoarded resources for the benefits of those who have less or none.
So you don't give a fuck about the planet and want to trash the environment and keep emitting pollution then.
Pissing about with marginal reductions in "the size of the pie" will do bugger all to reduce emissions, since we'll still have billions of people making emissions globally and the rest of the world has no desire to shrink their size of the pie - quite rightly too.
Only investing in clean technology gets us to net zero and that requires no change in pie size. And clean technologies can be adopted by the rest of the planet too.
It doesn't take much scraping the green away to reveal the nasty anti-growth agenda beneath. Carbon capture needn't even be about 'storage technology' - it can be done by dressing UK fields with basalt, to the tune of 45% of Britain's overall net zero target, and the level of carbon uptake can be verified easily by testing of soils. Terrifying for the likes of 148grss because it doesn't involve the forced decimation of the economy, which is their actual goal.
It also remineralises the soil and makes it far more fertile.
I used SEER rockdust on my allotment and it was very effective.
Funny thing is they smear me as a climate denier but I grow my own veg travel mostly by public transport and drive very little (had the car since new the thick end of two decades ago and will keep it till it packs up (the greenest way possible of driving due to the carbon cost of construction and disposal). Probably one of the greenest here in terms of what I actually do.
If they actually believed what they say then the COP and WEF summits would be held by videoconference.
What they really mean is that they want a subsistence existence stuck in 15 minute cities for most so that there is unspoiled Lebensraum for them and they can air condition their mansions and fly their private jets without the earth running out of resources any time soon. Oil isn't infinite. Lets not let the plebs waste it, what?
If you don’t want to sound like a stark raving conspiracy theorist, perhaps drop the bit about the WEF and… well, the conspiracy theory bit.
Thing is there is a bit of a point about scientists sounding alarm bells about global travel and then all meeting up after travelling thousands of miles, usually by air. Now you and I both know that international conferences are vastly better for information exchange, project seeding etc than teams/zoom meetings etc. But it is all too easy for the lay person to look at that and think that if it were really serious* then the scientists would lead by example.
*It is.
It is shocking that it took COVID-19 to teach us how much we can use online calls for our international collaborations, and the vast majority of collaboration is now done online. (Most meetings I have with colleagues at the same university as me I do on Teams, rather than getting us all to meet up.)
However, I don't think that's an excuse for MisterBedfordshire or anyone else to believe or push batshit crazy conspiracy theories.
Well that's a fair point. I have to say I have a meeting invite for a small group of us for next month thats via Teams, and I am annoyed at it not being in person. But I think over the summer a lot of Uni staff like to sit in the gardenwork from home, and making it Teams works for that. I agree re it taking covid to get to the point of online meetings. It all seemed so space age in Dr Who - The Caves of Androzani...
Very pro Ukraine and somewhat pro Palestine in my case. Which I guess is about right, even though I think it's complicated and the questions somewhat simplistic.
That's where I was too. Roughly WSW on the compass.
I came out as slightly pro-Ukraine, and very pro-Palestine, which suggests it's not a very good test.
The problem was that agree/disagree is not a good answer to any of the questions.
The irony is that for 38 years the Scots sang songs about Maradona and wore Argentina shirts and it’s an Argie ref who stiffs them for a stonewall penalty. Absolute theatre last night 😂😂😂 #EURo2024
I don't think it was stonewall penalty. I wanted it given, but objectively speaking it wasn't a terrible decision not to give it.
I do think there was a question off offside on the Hungary goal, but honestly that only made a difference to them, not us. A draw wasn't enough. Good luck to Hungary. We were 4th best in the group overall, so there's no use moaning about the result.
Agreed, Farooq.
Neither defender nor attacker were attempting to play the ball. The pair of them just fell over in a messy heap.
If you want a true grievance it needs to not be a marginal call. Maradona's handball was so obvious my 14 year old self genuinely believed that FIFA would take action...
Peter Hitchens: "Yes, it was a lawless putsch. My inch-by-inch and line-by-line examination of the illegal overthrow of Ukraine's legitimate President in 2014 (swiftly condoned, to their lasting shame, by the Western democracies)". [Plus link to an article he wrote on the subject in April 23
Peter Hitchens confirms once again he's as thick as pigshit, thanks for the reminder.
Climate change denier too. Moron status confirmed.
Another issue where the three main parties and their fellow travellers have the same view, view anyone who dissents as a cretin and then wonder why people like Meloni, Le Pen and Farage start getting lots of votes and decide it is because they are thick and bigoted, in much the same way a Georgian Aristocrat regarded the peasants.
Anthropogenic climate change is happening - that is a fact. The main issue is how to tackle the issue. The neoliberals want to allow big business to thrive whilst also paying lip service to the idea of being environmentally friendly, so they move taxes onto consumers rather than producers of CO2 - the petrol hikes that many rural Europeans so despise because it makes rural living more expensive is a good example of this. The right / far right want to pretend climate change isn't happening and move on to a scarcity model of politics - there isn't enough left for the Volk, so we must kick out the foreigner (and the dissenters who aren't really people like us anyway). The left propose the only viable alternative - investment in renewable energy and a reduced reliance on fossil fuels. This will mean huge phase shifts (reduced plastic use, reduced usage of hydrocarbon based fertilisers, etc), but at least the left are willing to say what the problem is (excess production and consumption for the benefit of capital) and where to get the resources to tackle the issue (those who already hoard capital) without having to scapegoat immigrants.
There is another option and that's to value sustainability and ecological impact beside profit as a business motive. It's no good making money if you're destroying the world. Supporting businesses which are ecologically sustainable and seek to mitigate the impact of climate change would be sensible options for a more business-oriented Government and if that means companies who refuse to be sustainable go to the wall so be it.
There is a fine line but Govenrment can also be about influencing public behaviour and educating people as to what is happening, why it is happening and the consequences especially for those parts of the world where the impacts are more keenly and immediately felt.
We too face issues from rising sea levels and a climate with more frequent extremes of weather and that means sensible thinking on houses including not building housing developments on flood plains.
The problem with capitalistic growth is that it is ideologically wedded not only to profit, but ever growing profit, which demand ever more extraction and squeezing of labour, along with increasingly trying to foist externalities onto public coffers (or ignoring them completely) makes it really difficult. Already we have right wingers and big businesses saying there is too much green tape and regulation etc. We also know that consumption and CO2 production is skewwed heavily towards the extremely wealthy - both globally and within individual nations. The answer, more equitable distribution of resources and an overall decrease in consumption reliant on fossil fuels, doesn't really square with the continuation of the profit motive as it currently exists.
You don't believe in net zero, do you?
If we have net zero, why do we need "equitable distribution of resources" for climate reasons, considering we can scale up or down consumption/production and anything times zero equals zero.
If we don't have net zero, how do we stop climate change?
If you were serious about tackling climate change, you wouldn't believe any of the garbage you're spouting.
I mean, I don't think globally we're going to get to net zero because many of the people saying we will are hoping carbon capture works better than it currently does - atm efficiency is too low to depend on it. So to get to net zero it will not just be countries sequestering any carbon output to equal zero (as the tech to sequester is currently not good enough), it will require a reduction in emissions. Reduction in emissions will require a reduction in production and consumption. If the logic of growth for the average worker is "you get a smaller slice, but we'll grow the pie", the logic of static growth or even degrowth for the average worker should be "you get a bigger slice, but we're slowly shrinking the pie". That will have to come via wealth redistribution - those who have a huge amount will have to give up their hoarded resources for the benefits of those who have less or none.
So you don't give a fuck about the planet and want to trash the environment and keep emitting pollution then.
Pissing about with marginal reductions in "the size of the pie" will do bugger all to reduce emissions, since we'll still have billions of people making emissions globally and the rest of the world has no desire to shrink their size of the pie - quite rightly too.
Only investing in clean technology gets us to net zero and that requires no change in pie size. And clean technologies can be adopted by the rest of the planet too.
It doesn't take much scraping the green away to reveal the nasty anti-growth agenda beneath. Carbon capture needn't even be about 'storage technology' - it can be done by dressing UK fields with basalt, to the tune of 45% of Britain's overall net zero target, and the level of carbon uptake can be verified easily by testing of soils. Terrifying for the likes of 148grss because it doesn't involve the forced decimation of the economy, which is their actual goal.
It also remineralises the soil and makes it far more fertile.
I used SEER rockdust on my allotment and it was very effective.
Funny thing is they smear me as a climate denier but I grow my own veg travel mostly by public transport and drive very little (had the car since new the thick end of two decades ago and will keep it till it packs up (the greenest way possible of driving due to the carbon cost of construction and disposal). Probably one of the greenest here in terms of what I actually do.
If they actually believed what they say then the COP and WEF summits would be held by videoconference.
What they really mean is that they want a subsistence existence stuck in 15 minute cities for most so that there is unspoiled Lebensraum for them and they can air condition their mansions and fly their private jets without the earth running out of resources any time soon. Oil isn't infinite. Lets not let the plebs waste it, what?
If you don’t want to sound like a stark raving conspiracy theorist, perhaps drop the bit about the WEF and… well, the conspiracy theory bit.
Thing is there is a bit of a point about scientists sounding alarm bells about global travel and then all meeting up after travelling thousands of miles, usually by air. Now you and I both know that international conferences are vastly better for information exchange, project seeding etc than teams/zoom meetings etc. But it is all too easy for the lay person to look at that and think that if it were really serious* then the scientists would lead by example.
*It is.
Its not just international conferences that are vastly better in person, so is almost everything else people fly for too.
Which is why cutting flights is not a credible suggestion and is not going to happen. If it won't happen for these conferences, it won't happen anywhere else either.
What is a credible suggestion is developing net zero clean technologies for flights. Which will take longer to implement than say net zero clean technologies for cars, but should still happen ultimately.
It's not either/or. We can cut some flights, and should, and we should also be developing and implementing clean technologies.
The problem is so great that doing one of the things won't be enough. We need to do all of the things!
I disagree. The problem is so great we need to be doing clean technologies.
Cutting a few flights does piss all. If 99% of flights still take off, then reducing the flights by 1% does bugger all.
OTOH ensuring the flights that take off emit 10% less in one step, and then emit nothing eventually, transitions us to clean flights without cutting anything.
The latter is a serious, credible, scientific way to address the problem.
It would be if it was possible to achieve it with the laws of physics as we understand it.
Just the initial 10% involves switching to burning oil crops (as with E5 and E10 petrol) so reducing arable land needed for food and putting food prices up with particular impact on the global south, most of whom don't get to fly anywhere - ever.
NB. On the Letby retrial. I was fairly neutral on the whole “Letby is innocent” thing, leaning pretty strongly towards a “there was a long court case & the jury saw all the evidence & got to make their judgement” position but this kind of thing is making me question that:
Obviously this is a pro-Letby Twitter account, but seriously? The evidence in the original trial /reversed/ the entry & exit of every single person involved? So key witnesses in the original trial claimed “very strong recollections” of things that the entry / exit records suggest simply didn’t happen?
WTF were the police doing?
TBH I don't feel like I want to be trusting internet detectives on this stuff. Not saying the coppers or CPS themselves have got it right.
The irony is that for 38 years the Scots sang songs about Maradona and wore Argentina shirts and it’s an Argie ref who stiffs them for a stonewall penalty. Absolute theatre last night 😂😂😂 #EURo2024
I don't think it was stonewall penalty. I wanted it given, but objectively speaking it wasn't a terrible decision not to give it.
I do think there was a question off offside on the Hungary goal, but honestly that only made a difference to them, not us. A draw wasn't enough. Good luck to Hungary. We were 4th best in the group overall, so there's no use moaning about the result.
It was a very poor decision not to have a look at VAR. (In the view of this football ignoramus.)
The decision was absolutely correct. I just rewatched it and Armstrong puts his leg across, slowing down to initiate contact. He actually doesn't get the contact he was looking for until his foot went down. I've changed my mind: the Scotland player should have been booked.
Peter Hitchens: "Yes, it was a lawless putsch. My inch-by-inch and line-by-line examination of the illegal overthrow of Ukraine's legitimate President in 2014 (swiftly condoned, to their lasting shame, by the Western democracies)". [Plus link to an article he wrote on the subject in April 23
Peter Hitchens confirms once again he's as thick as pigshit, thanks for the reminder.
Climate change denier too. Moron status confirmed.
Another issue where the three main parties and their fellow travellers have the same view, view anyone who dissents as a cretin and then wonder why people like Meloni, Le Pen and Farage start getting lots of votes and decide it is because they are thick and bigoted, in much the same way a Georgian Aristocrat regarded the peasants.
Anthropogenic climate change is happening - that is a fact. The main issue is how to tackle the issue. The neoliberals want to allow big business to thrive whilst also paying lip service to the idea of being environmentally friendly, so they move taxes onto consumers rather than producers of CO2 - the petrol hikes that many rural Europeans so despise because it makes rural living more expensive is a good example of this. The right / far right want to pretend climate change isn't happening and move on to a scarcity model of politics - there isn't enough left for the Volk, so we must kick out the foreigner (and the dissenters who aren't really people like us anyway). The left propose the only viable alternative - investment in renewable energy and a reduced reliance on fossil fuels. This will mean huge phase shifts (reduced plastic use, reduced usage of hydrocarbon based fertilisers, etc), but at least the left are willing to say what the problem is (excess production and consumption for the benefit of capital) and where to get the resources to tackle the issue (those who already hoard capital) without having to scapegoat immigrants.
There is another option and that's to value sustainability and ecological impact beside profit as a business motive. It's no good making money if you're destroying the world. Supporting businesses which are ecologically sustainable and seek to mitigate the impact of climate change would be sensible options for a more business-oriented Government and if that means companies who refuse to be sustainable go to the wall so be it.
There is a fine line but Govenrment can also be about influencing public behaviour and educating people as to what is happening, why it is happening and the consequences especially for those parts of the world where the impacts are more keenly and immediately felt.
We too face issues from rising sea levels and a climate with more frequent extremes of weather and that means sensible thinking on houses including not building housing developments on flood plains.
The problem with capitalistic growth is that it is ideologically wedded not only to profit, but ever growing profit, which demand ever more extraction and squeezing of labour, along with increasingly trying to foist externalities onto public coffers (or ignoring them completely) makes it really difficult. Already we have right wingers and big businesses saying there is too much green tape and regulation etc. We also know that consumption and CO2 production is skewwed heavily towards the extremely wealthy - both globally and within individual nations. The answer, more equitable distribution of resources and an overall decrease in consumption reliant on fossil fuels, doesn't really square with the continuation of the profit motive as it currently exists.
You don't believe in net zero, do you?
If we have net zero, why do we need "equitable distribution of resources" for climate reasons, considering we can scale up or down consumption/production and anything times zero equals zero.
If we don't have net zero, how do we stop climate change?
If you were serious about tackling climate change, you wouldn't believe any of the garbage you're spouting.
I mean, I don't think globally we're going to get to net zero because many of the people saying we will are hoping carbon capture works better than it currently does - atm efficiency is too low to depend on it. So to get to net zero it will not just be countries sequestering any carbon output to equal zero (as the tech to sequester is currently not good enough), it will require a reduction in emissions. Reduction in emissions will require a reduction in production and consumption. If the logic of growth for the average worker is "you get a smaller slice, but we'll grow the pie", the logic of static growth or even degrowth for the average worker should be "you get a bigger slice, but we're slowly shrinking the pie". That will have to come via wealth redistribution - those who have a huge amount will have to give up their hoarded resources for the benefits of those who have less or none.
So you don't give a fuck about the planet and want to trash the environment and keep emitting pollution then.
Pissing about with marginal reductions in "the size of the pie" will do bugger all to reduce emissions, since we'll still have billions of people making emissions globally and the rest of the world has no desire to shrink their size of the pie - quite rightly too.
Only investing in clean technology gets us to net zero and that requires no change in pie size. And clean technologies can be adopted by the rest of the planet too.
It doesn't take much scraping the green away to reveal the nasty anti-growth agenda beneath. Carbon capture needn't even be about 'storage technology' - it can be done by dressing UK fields with basalt, to the tune of 45% of Britain's overall net zero target, and the level of carbon uptake can be verified easily by testing of soils. Terrifying for the likes of 148grss because it doesn't involve the forced decimation of the economy, which is their actual goal.
It also remineralises the soil and makes it far more fertile.
I used SEER rockdust on my allotment and it was very effective.
Funny thing is they smear me as a climate denier but I grow my own veg travel mostly by public transport and drive very little (had the car since new the thick end of two decades ago and will keep it till it packs up (the greenest way possible of driving due to the carbon cost of construction and disposal). Probably one of the greenest here in terms of what I actually do.
If they actually believed what they say then the COP and WEF summits would be held by videoconference.
What they really mean is that they want a subsistence existence stuck in 15 minute cities for most so that there is unspoiled Lebensraum for them and they can air condition their mansions and fly their private jets without the earth running out of resources any time soon. Oil isn't infinite. Lets not let the plebs waste it, what?
If you don’t want to sound like a stark raving conspiracy theorist, perhaps drop the bit about the WEF and… well, the conspiracy theory bit.
Thing is there is a bit of a point about scientists sounding alarm bells about global travel and then all meeting up after travelling thousands of miles, usually by air. Now you and I both know that international conferences are vastly better for information exchange, project seeding etc than teams/zoom meetings etc. But it is all too easy for the lay person to look at that and think that if it were really serious* then the scientists would lead by example.
*It is.
Its not just international conferences that are vastly better in person, so is almost everything else people fly for too.
Which is why cutting flights is not a credible suggestion and is not going to happen. If it won't happen for these conferences, it won't happen anywhere else either.
What is a credible suggestion is developing net zero clean technologies for flights. Which will take longer to implement than say net zero clean technologies for cars, but should still happen ultimately.
It's not either/or. We can cut some flights, and should, and we should also be developing and implementing clean technologies.
The problem is so great that doing one of the things won't be enough. We need to do all of the things!
I disagree. The problem is so great we need to be doing clean technologies.
Cutting a few flights does piss all. If 99% of flights still take off, then reducing the flights by 1% does bugger all.
OTOH ensuring the flights that take off emit 10% less in one step, and then emit nothing eventually, transitions us to clean flights without cutting anything.
The latter is a serious, credible, scientific way to address the problem.
It would be if it was possible to achieve it with the laws of physics as we understand it.
Just the initial 10% involves switching to burning oil crops (as with E5 and E10 petrol) so reducing arable land needed for food and putting food prices up with particular impact on the global south, most of whom don't get to fly anywhere - ever.
There are other ways. Colleagues here are working on growing bio oils in algae. No need to agricultural land.
Very pro Ukraine and somewhat pro Palestine in my case. Which I guess is about right, even though I think it's complicated and the questions somewhat simplistic.
Eg "should a country be allowed to attack and occupy another country except in self defence?"
That's a No, is your first thought, but if you take it literally it's a Depends. It depends if you can do anything about it. If you can't it's a Yes.
There's quite a few questions like that and I took the literal approach. This is perhaps one of the reasons my result doesn't really indicate what side I most sympathise with in these current conflicts.
» show previous quotes Cheltenham is awash with Lib Dem posters, a few Tory and seen no Labour posters. Also many leaflets, letters etc from the yellow perils. Labour clearly focusing on Gloucester
Thanks Mac. Can you please keep posting your reports.
There's an abundance of LD diamonds in Winchcombe, and even more in Bishop Cleeve, which is their stronghold in Tewkesbury constituency. Seen one Labour poster in our High Street, and that's it. Have now had leaflets from every candidate except the Labour lady. Apparently she skipped a radio hustings programme last week. Unfortunately the bookies seem to have cottoned on now to her being a bit of a no-show and the bet which I so proudly trumpeted on here is no longer such good value, but at least I can feel that I have not led our brethren astray.
Best guess is that Laurence Robertson holds on by a couple of thousand so his odds of 4/9 are probably about right.
» show previous quotes Cheltenham is awash with Lib Dem posters, a few Tory and seen no Labour posters. Also many leaflets, letters etc from the yellow perils. Labour clearly focusing on Gloucester
Thanks Mac. Can you please keep posting your reports.
There's an abundance of LD diamonds in Winchcombe, and even more in Bishop Cleeve, which is their stronghold in Tewkesbury constituency. Seen one Labour poster in our High Street, and that's it. Have now had leaflets from every candidate except the Labour lady. Apparently she skipped a radio hustings programme last week. Unfortunately the bookies seem to have cottoned on now to her being a bit of a no-show and the bet which I so proudly trumpeted on here is no longer such good value, but at least I can feel that I have not led our brethren astray.
Best guess is that Laurence Robertson holds on by a couple of thousand so his odds of 4/9 are probably about right.
Just to add I live in Gloucester but have been in Cheltenham a lot. There are a number of Lib Dem posters in the Gloucester and Cheltenham wards which are in Tewkesbury constituency (haven't been to Prestbury which is more Conservative. There are, I think , nine Lib Dem councillors. one independent and one green in the five wards in Gloucester and Cheltenham which are now in Tewkesbury constituency. I think the Conservatives have an outside chance of beating Labour in Gloucester, purely because the "sitting" Tory is a good constituency MP, Alex Chalk is almost certainly toast and I agree that Robertson is just favourite in Tewkesbury. I may be wrong but he does not seem to have been a great constituency MP. Safe seat syndrome?
You don't hear much about Laurence Robertson here. I've heard say he's lazy, but otherwise he seems to be a fairly low-profile backbencher. He did however rip into Boris over Covid. He also imbibed of much hospitality at the Cheltenham Festival, but that's probably a plus point around here.
He's 33rd in the list of Con safe seats, and 85th target for the LDs. Those numbers probably overestimate his chances but even so I expect him to scrape home.
Ironic that Cheltenham racecourse is in Tewkesbury constituency and I think most of the course is in Tewkesbury Borough
It's a peculiarly shaped constituency. We are five miles north of Cheltenham but that's over Cleeve Hill so you'd need a couple of hours to walk it. Although we have a Cheltenham postcode we rarely go there. We like Tewkesbury but it is very different culturally and geographically from the rest of the consituency.
“While only 4% of Labour’s vote has moved to the Lib Dems, the figure surges to 18% in CON-held seats where the Lib Dems got more than 20% last time around. Likewise, Lib Dem to Labour transfers climb to 26% in Conservative-held seats where Labour got more than 20% in 2019”
Peter Hitchens: "Yes, it was a lawless putsch. My inch-by-inch and line-by-line examination of the illegal overthrow of Ukraine's legitimate President in 2014 (swiftly condoned, to their lasting shame, by the Western democracies)". [Plus link to an article he wrote on the subject in April 23
Peter Hitchens confirms once again he's as thick as pigshit, thanks for the reminder.
Climate change denier too. Moron status confirmed.
Another issue where the three main parties and their fellow travellers have the same view, view anyone who dissents as a cretin and then wonder why people like Meloni, Le Pen and Farage start getting lots of votes and decide it is because they are thick and bigoted, in much the same way a Georgian Aristocrat regarded the peasants.
Anthropogenic climate change is happening - that is a fact. The main issue is how to tackle the issue. The neoliberals want to allow big business to thrive whilst also paying lip service to the idea of being environmentally friendly, so they move taxes onto consumers rather than producers of CO2 - the petrol hikes that many rural Europeans so despise because it makes rural living more expensive is a good example of this. The right / far right want to pretend climate change isn't happening and move on to a scarcity model of politics - there isn't enough left for the Volk, so we must kick out the foreigner (and the dissenters who aren't really people like us anyway). The left propose the only viable alternative - investment in renewable energy and a reduced reliance on fossil fuels. This will mean huge phase shifts (reduced plastic use, reduced usage of hydrocarbon based fertilisers, etc), but at least the left are willing to say what the problem is (excess production and consumption for the benefit of capital) and where to get the resources to tackle the issue (those who already hoard capital) without having to scapegoat immigrants.
There is another option and that's to value sustainability and ecological impact beside profit as a business motive. It's no good making money if you're destroying the world. Supporting businesses which are ecologically sustainable and seek to mitigate the impact of climate change would be sensible options for a more business-oriented Government and if that means companies who refuse to be sustainable go to the wall so be it.
There is a fine line but Govenrment can also be about influencing public behaviour and educating people as to what is happening, why it is happening and the consequences especially for those parts of the world where the impacts are more keenly and immediately felt.
We too face issues from rising sea levels and a climate with more frequent extremes of weather and that means sensible thinking on houses including not building housing developments on flood plains.
The problem with capitalistic growth is that it is ideologically wedded not only to profit, but ever growing profit, which demand ever more extraction and squeezing of labour, along with increasingly trying to foist externalities onto public coffers (or ignoring them completely) makes it really difficult. Already we have right wingers and big businesses saying there is too much green tape and regulation etc. We also know that consumption and CO2 production is skewwed heavily towards the extremely wealthy - both globally and within individual nations. The answer, more equitable distribution of resources and an overall decrease in consumption reliant on fossil fuels, doesn't really square with the continuation of the profit motive as it currently exists.
You don't believe in net zero, do you?
If we have net zero, why do we need "equitable distribution of resources" for climate reasons, considering we can scale up or down consumption/production and anything times zero equals zero.
If we don't have net zero, how do we stop climate change?
If you were serious about tackling climate change, you wouldn't believe any of the garbage you're spouting.
I mean, I don't think globally we're going to get to net zero because many of the people saying we will are hoping carbon capture works better than it currently does - atm efficiency is too low to depend on it. So to get to net zero it will not just be countries sequestering any carbon output to equal zero (as the tech to sequester is currently not good enough), it will require a reduction in emissions. Reduction in emissions will require a reduction in production and consumption. If the logic of growth for the average worker is "you get a smaller slice, but we'll grow the pie", the logic of static growth or even degrowth for the average worker should be "you get a bigger slice, but we're slowly shrinking the pie". That will have to come via wealth redistribution - those who have a huge amount will have to give up their hoarded resources for the benefits of those who have less or none.
So you don't give a fuck about the planet and want to trash the environment and keep emitting pollution then.
Pissing about with marginal reductions in "the size of the pie" will do bugger all to reduce emissions, since we'll still have billions of people making emissions globally and the rest of the world has no desire to shrink their size of the pie - quite rightly too.
Only investing in clean technology gets us to net zero and that requires no change in pie size. And clean technologies can be adopted by the rest of the planet too.
It doesn't take much scraping the green away to reveal the nasty anti-growth agenda beneath. Carbon capture needn't even be about 'storage technology' - it can be done by dressing UK fields with basalt, to the tune of 45% of Britain's overall net zero target, and the level of carbon uptake can be verified easily by testing of soils. Terrifying for the likes of 148grss because it doesn't involve the forced decimation of the economy, which is their actual goal.
It also remineralises the soil and makes it far more fertile.
I used SEER rockdust on my allotment and it was very effective.
Funny thing is they smear me as a climate denier but I grow my own veg travel mostly by public transport and drive very little (had the car since new the thick end of two decades ago and will keep it till it packs up (the greenest way possible of driving due to the carbon cost of construction and disposal). Probably one of the greenest here in terms of what I actually do.
If they actually believed what they say then the COP and WEF summits would be held by videoconference.
What they really mean is that they want a subsistence existence stuck in 15 minute cities for most so that there is unspoiled Lebensraum for them and they can air condition their mansions and fly their private jets without the earth running out of resources any time soon. Oil isn't infinite. Lets not let the plebs waste it, what?
If you don’t want to sound like a stark raving conspiracy theorist, perhaps drop the bit about the WEF and… well, the conspiracy theory bit.
Thing is there is a bit of a point about scientists sounding alarm bells about global travel and then all meeting up after travelling thousands of miles, usually by air. Now you and I both know that international conferences are vastly better for information exchange, project seeding etc than teams/zoom meetings etc. But it is all too easy for the lay person to look at that and think that if it were really serious* then the scientists would lead by example.
*It is.
Its not just international conferences that are vastly better in person, so is almost everything else people fly for too.
Which is why cutting flights is not a credible suggestion and is not going to happen. If it won't happen for these conferences, it won't happen anywhere else either.
What is a credible suggestion is developing net zero clean technologies for flights. Which will take longer to implement than say net zero clean technologies for cars, but should still happen ultimately.
It's not either/or. We can cut some flights, and should, and we should also be developing and implementing clean technologies.
The problem is so great that doing one of the things won't be enough. We need to do all of the things!
I disagree. The problem is so great we need to be doing clean technologies.
Cutting a few flights does piss all. If 99% of flights still take off, then reducing the flights by 1% does bugger all.
OTOH ensuring the flights that take off emit 10% less in one step, and then emit nothing eventually, transitions us to clean flights without cutting anything.
The latter is a serious, credible, scientific way to address the problem.
It would be if it was possible to achieve it with the laws of physics as we understand it.
Just the initial 10% involves switching to burning oil crops (as with E5 and E10 petrol) so reducing arable land needed for food and putting food prices up with particular impact on the global south, most of whom don't get to fly anywhere - ever.
No it doesn't.
Long term for the past fifty years there has been a compound 1.3% reduction in fuel burn per passenger km per annum and this has been continuing in recent years.
New planes are routinely using better technologies and are more fuel efficient than old ones.
A modern Airbus is much more fuel efficient than an old 747 was.
My conflict coordinates are 75% Palestine, 80.56% Ukraine. I don't think that's wrong, but I'm not certain about the value of this test. I tried to answer questions in the abstract, but it was very obvious which questions related to what Israeli/Palestinian/Russian/Ukrainian claims.
Indeed, I thought similar. I agree with where I ended up and will use my image of the day on it, but not sure how meaningful it is.
Fun test though, thank you TimS for sharing it.
I've come out as completely neutral on Russia / Ukraine and halfway into the Palestinian half of the field. That is way out
Trouble with general principles is that, for example, yes, some of the things Russia say they are doing can in some circumstances be legitimate, except for the fact they are talking total rubbish, and answering for the general principle doesn't say whether you believe that principle applies in a given circumstance.
I'm interested in which answers to which questions are supposed to suggest which direction? Like the question on "ancient and ancestral" history to the land - what do we mean by ancient and ancestral? I would say that Palestinians have that connection to the land - it is ancient and ancestral, with people alive today who can point to grandparents who lived in what is now considered Israel and whose family likely have been in that area for hundreds of years - whereas most of the the Jewish diaspora had not been in that land for thousands of years and so the idea that Israel is somehow a link to something "ancient and ancestral" is a political fabrication. And on the flip side, Putin's history of Ukraine as "Russia" is ideologically minded, but not completely false - I think there is an argument to be made that their is some clear lineage between the people of Ukraine and the people of (at least Western Russia) living in the land that is now Ukraine. But I don't think that gives modern day Russia a territorial claim on modern day Ukraine.
Jolly good luck with the idea of delinking the Jewish diaspora community from the land mass currently called Israel. I think at best that is a work in progress. And historically, Kiev has a better claim to Moscow than Moscow has to Kiev/Kyiv.
The point in Israel/Palestine is that both peoples have a historic connection to the land, but for various reasons of history, ideology and safety can't live together in one state. Partition - as has happened in numerous other places where larger imperial states collapsed into smaller nations - then becomes essential. But has been outright rejected time after time by the Palestinian/Arab side, meanwhile Israeli settlers and politicians who indulge them have made any partition settlement now either difficult or impossible due to being hopelessly iniquitous.
Ukraine isn't about that, it's about a man's desire to subjugate a population and recreate a former Empire and suck people who had broken away - and didn't want to go back, even many who are culturally Russian speakers.
The (imperfect) comparator on the Israel/Palestine issue would be the wilder Hamas and other fundamentalist's aims of destroying Israel in the service of recreating the caliphate.
Peter Hitchens: "Yes, it was a lawless putsch. My inch-by-inch and line-by-line examination of the illegal overthrow of Ukraine's legitimate President in 2014 (swiftly condoned, to their lasting shame, by the Western democracies)". [Plus link to an article he wrote on the subject in April 23
Peter Hitchens confirms once again he's as thick as pigshit, thanks for the reminder.
Climate change denier too. Moron status confirmed.
Another issue where the three main parties and their fellow travellers have the same view, view anyone who dissents as a cretin and then wonder why people like Meloni, Le Pen and Farage start getting lots of votes and decide it is because they are thick and bigoted, in much the same way a Georgian Aristocrat regarded the peasants.
Anthropogenic climate change is happening - that is a fact. The main issue is how to tackle the issue. The neoliberals want to allow big business to thrive whilst also paying lip service to the idea of being environmentally friendly, so they move taxes onto consumers rather than producers of CO2 - the petrol hikes that many rural Europeans so despise because it makes rural living more expensive is a good example of this. The right / far right want to pretend climate change isn't happening and move on to a scarcity model of politics - there isn't enough left for the Volk, so we must kick out the foreigner (and the dissenters who aren't really people like us anyway). The left propose the only viable alternative - investment in renewable energy and a reduced reliance on fossil fuels. This will mean huge phase shifts (reduced plastic use, reduced usage of hydrocarbon based fertilisers, etc), but at least the left are willing to say what the problem is (excess production and consumption for the benefit of capital) and where to get the resources to tackle the issue (those who already hoard capital) without having to scapegoat immigrants.
There is another option and that's to value sustainability and ecological impact beside profit as a business motive. It's no good making money if you're destroying the world. Supporting businesses which are ecologically sustainable and seek to mitigate the impact of climate change would be sensible options for a more business-oriented Government and if that means companies who refuse to be sustainable go to the wall so be it.
There is a fine line but Govenrment can also be about influencing public behaviour and educating people as to what is happening, why it is happening and the consequences especially for those parts of the world where the impacts are more keenly and immediately felt.
We too face issues from rising sea levels and a climate with more frequent extremes of weather and that means sensible thinking on houses including not building housing developments on flood plains.
The problem with capitalistic growth is that it is ideologically wedded not only to profit, but ever growing profit, which demand ever more extraction and squeezing of labour, along with increasingly trying to foist externalities onto public coffers (or ignoring them completely) makes it really difficult. Already we have right wingers and big businesses saying there is too much green tape and regulation etc. We also know that consumption and CO2 production is skewwed heavily towards the extremely wealthy - both globally and within individual nations. The answer, more equitable distribution of resources and an overall decrease in consumption reliant on fossil fuels, doesn't really square with the continuation of the profit motive as it currently exists.
You don't believe in net zero, do you?
If we have net zero, why do we need "equitable distribution of resources" for climate reasons, considering we can scale up or down consumption/production and anything times zero equals zero.
If we don't have net zero, how do we stop climate change?
If you were serious about tackling climate change, you wouldn't believe any of the garbage you're spouting.
I mean, I don't think globally we're going to get to net zero because many of the people saying we will are hoping carbon capture works better than it currently does - atm efficiency is too low to depend on it. So to get to net zero it will not just be countries sequestering any carbon output to equal zero (as the tech to sequester is currently not good enough), it will require a reduction in emissions. Reduction in emissions will require a reduction in production and consumption. If the logic of growth for the average worker is "you get a smaller slice, but we'll grow the pie", the logic of static growth or even degrowth for the average worker should be "you get a bigger slice, but we're slowly shrinking the pie". That will have to come via wealth redistribution - those who have a huge amount will have to give up their hoarded resources for the benefits of those who have less or none.
So you don't give a fuck about the planet and want to trash the environment and keep emitting pollution then.
Pissing about with marginal reductions in "the size of the pie" will do bugger all to reduce emissions, since we'll still have billions of people making emissions globally and the rest of the world has no desire to shrink their size of the pie - quite rightly too.
Only investing in clean technology gets us to net zero and that requires no change in pie size. And clean technologies can be adopted by the rest of the planet too.
It doesn't take much scraping the green away to reveal the nasty anti-growth agenda beneath. Carbon capture needn't even be about 'storage technology' - it can be done by dressing UK fields with basalt, to the tune of 45% of Britain's overall net zero target, and the level of carbon uptake can be verified easily by testing of soils. Terrifying for the likes of 148grss because it doesn't involve the forced decimation of the economy, which is their actual goal.
It also remineralises the soil and makes it far more fertile.
I used SEER rockdust on my allotment and it was very effective.
Funny thing is they smear me as a climate denier but I grow my own veg travel mostly by public transport and drive very little (had the car since new the thick end of two decades ago and will keep it till it packs up (the greenest way possible of driving due to the carbon cost of construction and disposal). Probably one of the greenest here in terms of what I actually do.
If they actually believed what they say then the COP and WEF summits would be held by videoconference.
What they really mean is that they want a subsistence existence stuck in 15 minute cities for most so that there is unspoiled Lebensraum for them and they can air condition their mansions and fly their private jets without the earth running out of resources any time soon. Oil isn't infinite. Lets not let the plebs waste it, what?
I, too, am very green. Instead of burning lots of calories staying warm, I insulate my uppermost extremity by donning a cylindrical structure of thin metal that reflects back infrared emitted from my scalp.
It also reflects... external... electromagnetic waves...
I hope you earth it then otherwise you are wasting your time. PS don't wear it during thunderstorms.
We very rarely get thunderstorms in Aberdeenshire. Sure the "climate" "scientists" say that it's due "to" prevailing winds, latitude, and the lack of warm, moist air. But I know it because we're too near Lossiemouth. And it's well known that nowhere on "Earth" does more chemtrails than Lossiemouth.
Peter Hitchens: "Yes, it was a lawless putsch. My inch-by-inch and line-by-line examination of the illegal overthrow of Ukraine's legitimate President in 2014 (swiftly condoned, to their lasting shame, by the Western democracies)". [Plus link to an article he wrote on the subject in April 23
Peter Hitchens confirms once again he's as thick as pigshit, thanks for the reminder.
Climate change denier too. Moron status confirmed.
Another issue where the three main parties and their fellow travellers have the same view, view anyone who dissents as a cretin and then wonder why people like Meloni, Le Pen and Farage start getting lots of votes and decide it is because they are thick and bigoted, in much the same way a Georgian Aristocrat regarded the peasants.
Anthropogenic climate change is happening - that is a fact. The main issue is how to tackle the issue. The neoliberals want to allow big business to thrive whilst also paying lip service to the idea of being environmentally friendly, so they move taxes onto consumers rather than producers of CO2 - the petrol hikes that many rural Europeans so despise because it makes rural living more expensive is a good example of this. The right / far right want to pretend climate change isn't happening and move on to a scarcity model of politics - there isn't enough left for the Volk, so we must kick out the foreigner (and the dissenters who aren't really people like us anyway). The left propose the only viable alternative - investment in renewable energy and a reduced reliance on fossil fuels. This will mean huge phase shifts (reduced plastic use, reduced usage of hydrocarbon based fertilisers, etc), but at least the left are willing to say what the problem is (excess production and consumption for the benefit of capital) and where to get the resources to tackle the issue (those who already hoard capital) without having to scapegoat immigrants.
There is another option and that's to value sustainability and ecological impact beside profit as a business motive. It's no good making money if you're destroying the world. Supporting businesses which are ecologically sustainable and seek to mitigate the impact of climate change would be sensible options for a more business-oriented Government and if that means companies who refuse to be sustainable go to the wall so be it.
There is a fine line but Govenrment can also be about influencing public behaviour and educating people as to what is happening, why it is happening and the consequences especially for those parts of the world where the impacts are more keenly and immediately felt.
We too face issues from rising sea levels and a climate with more frequent extremes of weather and that means sensible thinking on houses including not building housing developments on flood plains.
The problem with capitalistic growth is that it is ideologically wedded not only to profit, but ever growing profit, which demand ever more extraction and squeezing of labour, along with increasingly trying to foist externalities onto public coffers (or ignoring them completely) makes it really difficult. Already we have right wingers and big businesses saying there is too much green tape and regulation etc. We also know that consumption and CO2 production is skewwed heavily towards the extremely wealthy - both globally and within individual nations. The answer, more equitable distribution of resources and an overall decrease in consumption reliant on fossil fuels, doesn't really square with the continuation of the profit motive as it currently exists.
You don't believe in net zero, do you?
If we have net zero, why do we need "equitable distribution of resources" for climate reasons, considering we can scale up or down consumption/production and anything times zero equals zero.
If we don't have net zero, how do we stop climate change?
If you were serious about tackling climate change, you wouldn't believe any of the garbage you're spouting.
I mean, I don't think globally we're going to get to net zero because many of the people saying we will are hoping carbon capture works better than it currently does - atm efficiency is too low to depend on it. So to get to net zero it will not just be countries sequestering any carbon output to equal zero (as the tech to sequester is currently not good enough), it will require a reduction in emissions. Reduction in emissions will require a reduction in production and consumption. If the logic of growth for the average worker is "you get a smaller slice, but we'll grow the pie", the logic of static growth or even degrowth for the average worker should be "you get a bigger slice, but we're slowly shrinking the pie". That will have to come via wealth redistribution - those who have a huge amount will have to give up their hoarded resources for the benefits of those who have less or none.
So you don't give a fuck about the planet and want to trash the environment and keep emitting pollution then.
Pissing about with marginal reductions in "the size of the pie" will do bugger all to reduce emissions, since we'll still have billions of people making emissions globally and the rest of the world has no desire to shrink their size of the pie - quite rightly too.
Only investing in clean technology gets us to net zero and that requires no change in pie size. And clean technologies can be adopted by the rest of the planet too.
It doesn't take much scraping the green away to reveal the nasty anti-growth agenda beneath. Carbon capture needn't even be about 'storage technology' - it can be done by dressing UK fields with basalt, to the tune of 45% of Britain's overall net zero target, and the level of carbon uptake can be verified easily by testing of soils. Terrifying for the likes of 148grss because it doesn't involve the forced decimation of the economy, which is their actual goal.
It also remineralises the soil and makes it far more fertile.
I used SEER rockdust on my allotment and it was very effective.
Funny thing is they smear me as a climate denier but I grow my own veg travel mostly by public transport and drive very little (had the car since new the thick end of two decades ago and will keep it till it packs up (the greenest way possible of driving due to the carbon cost of construction and disposal). Probably one of the greenest here in terms of what I actually do.
If they actually believed what they say then the COP and WEF summits would be held by videoconference.
What they really mean is that they want a subsistence existence stuck in 15 minute cities for most so that there is unspoiled Lebensraum for them and they can air condition their mansions and fly their private jets without the earth running out of resources any time soon. Oil isn't infinite. Lets not let the plebs waste it, what?
If you don’t want to sound like a stark raving conspiracy theorist, perhaps drop the bit about the WEF and… well, the conspiracy theory bit.
Thing is there is a bit of a point about scientists sounding alarm bells about global travel and then all meeting up after travelling thousands of miles, usually by air. Now you and I both know that international conferences are vastly better for information exchange, project seeding etc than teams/zoom meetings etc. But it is all too easy for the lay person to look at that and think that if it were really serious* then the scientists would lead by example.
*It is.
Its not just international conferences that are vastly better in person, so is almost everything else people fly for too.
Which is why cutting flights is not a credible suggestion and is not going to happen. If it won't happen for these conferences, it won't happen anywhere else either.
What is a credible suggestion is developing net zero clean technologies for flights. Which will take longer to implement than say net zero clean technologies for cars, but should still happen ultimately.
It's not either/or. We can cut some flights, and should, and we should also be developing and implementing clean technologies.
The problem is so great that doing one of the things won't be enough. We need to do all of the things!
I disagree. The problem is so great we need to be doing clean technologies.
Cutting a few flights does piss all. If 99% of flights still take off, then reducing the flights by 1% does bugger all.
OTOH ensuring the flights that take off emit 10% less in one step, and then emit nothing eventually, transitions us to clean flights without cutting anything.
The latter is a serious, credible, scientific way to address the problem.
It would be if it was possible to achieve it with the laws of physics as we understand it.
Just the initial 10% involves switching to burning oil crops (as with E5 and E10 petrol) so reducing arable land needed for food and putting food prices up with particular impact on the global south, most of whom don't get to fly anywhere - ever.
No it doesn't.
Long term for the past fifty years there has been a compound 1.3% reduction in fuel burn per passenger km per annum and this has been continuing in recent years.
New planes are routinely using better technologies and are more fuel efficient than old ones.
A modern Airbus is much more fuel efficient than an old 747 was.
But we are approaching the limit of what can be achieved, Driving up efficiency increases economy but there is a limit.
The irony is that for 38 years the Scots sang songs about Maradona and wore Argentina shirts and it’s an Argie ref who stiffs them for a stonewall penalty. Absolute theatre last night 😂😂😂 #EURo2024
I don't think it was stonewall penalty. I wanted it given, but objectively speaking it wasn't a terrible decision not to give it.
I do think there was a question off offside on the Hungary goal, but honestly that only made a difference to them, not us. A draw wasn't enough. Good luck to Hungary. We were 4th best in the group overall, so there's no use moaning about the result.
It was a very poor decision not to have a look at VAR. (In the view of this football ignoramus.)
The decision was absolutely correct. I just rewatched it and Armstrong puts his leg across, slowing down to initiate contact. He actually doesn't get the contact he was looking for until his foot went down. I've changed my mind: the Scotland player should have been booked.
I agree but artfully creating the contact is considered smart play from the striker in the modern game. It's a grey area. Not a slam dunk - or "stonewaller" sorry - but lots of refs would have given it. So, unlucky but not in a "we was robbed" way would be my verdict.
Peter Hitchens: "Yes, it was a lawless putsch. My inch-by-inch and line-by-line examination of the illegal overthrow of Ukraine's legitimate President in 2014 (swiftly condoned, to their lasting shame, by the Western democracies)". [Plus link to an article he wrote on the subject in April 23
Peter Hitchens confirms once again he's as thick as pigshit, thanks for the reminder.
Climate change denier too. Moron status confirmed.
Another issue where the three main parties and their fellow travellers have the same view, view anyone who dissents as a cretin and then wonder why people like Meloni, Le Pen and Farage start getting lots of votes and decide it is because they are thick and bigoted, in much the same way a Georgian Aristocrat regarded the peasants.
Anthropogenic climate change is happening - that is a fact. The main issue is how to tackle the issue. The neoliberals want to allow big business to thrive whilst also paying lip service to the idea of being environmentally friendly, so they move taxes onto consumers rather than producers of CO2 - the petrol hikes that many rural Europeans so despise because it makes rural living more expensive is a good example of this. The right / far right want to pretend climate change isn't happening and move on to a scarcity model of politics - there isn't enough left for the Volk, so we must kick out the foreigner (and the dissenters who aren't really people like us anyway). The left propose the only viable alternative - investment in renewable energy and a reduced reliance on fossil fuels. This will mean huge phase shifts (reduced plastic use, reduced usage of hydrocarbon based fertilisers, etc), but at least the left are willing to say what the problem is (excess production and consumption for the benefit of capital) and where to get the resources to tackle the issue (those who already hoard capital) without having to scapegoat immigrants.
There is another option and that's to value sustainability and ecological impact beside profit as a business motive. It's no good making money if you're destroying the world. Supporting businesses which are ecologically sustainable and seek to mitigate the impact of climate change would be sensible options for a more business-oriented Government and if that means companies who refuse to be sustainable go to the wall so be it.
There is a fine line but Govenrment can also be about influencing public behaviour and educating people as to what is happening, why it is happening and the consequences especially for those parts of the world where the impacts are more keenly and immediately felt.
We too face issues from rising sea levels and a climate with more frequent extremes of weather and that means sensible thinking on houses including not building housing developments on flood plains.
The problem with capitalistic growth is that it is ideologically wedded not only to profit, but ever growing profit, which demand ever more extraction and squeezing of labour, along with increasingly trying to foist externalities onto public coffers (or ignoring them completely) makes it really difficult. Already we have right wingers and big businesses saying there is too much green tape and regulation etc. We also know that consumption and CO2 production is skewwed heavily towards the extremely wealthy - both globally and within individual nations. The answer, more equitable distribution of resources and an overall decrease in consumption reliant on fossil fuels, doesn't really square with the continuation of the profit motive as it currently exists.
You don't believe in net zero, do you?
If we have net zero, why do we need "equitable distribution of resources" for climate reasons, considering we can scale up or down consumption/production and anything times zero equals zero.
If we don't have net zero, how do we stop climate change?
If you were serious about tackling climate change, you wouldn't believe any of the garbage you're spouting.
I mean, I don't think globally we're going to get to net zero because many of the people saying we will are hoping carbon capture works better than it currently does - atm efficiency is too low to depend on it. So to get to net zero it will not just be countries sequestering any carbon output to equal zero (as the tech to sequester is currently not good enough), it will require a reduction in emissions. Reduction in emissions will require a reduction in production and consumption. If the logic of growth for the average worker is "you get a smaller slice, but we'll grow the pie", the logic of static growth or even degrowth for the average worker should be "you get a bigger slice, but we're slowly shrinking the pie". That will have to come via wealth redistribution - those who have a huge amount will have to give up their hoarded resources for the benefits of those who have less or none.
So you don't give a fuck about the planet and want to trash the environment and keep emitting pollution then.
Pissing about with marginal reductions in "the size of the pie" will do bugger all to reduce emissions, since we'll still have billions of people making emissions globally and the rest of the world has no desire to shrink their size of the pie - quite rightly too.
Only investing in clean technology gets us to net zero and that requires no change in pie size. And clean technologies can be adopted by the rest of the planet too.
It doesn't take much scraping the green away to reveal the nasty anti-growth agenda beneath. Carbon capture needn't even be about 'storage technology' - it can be done by dressing UK fields with basalt, to the tune of 45% of Britain's overall net zero target, and the level of carbon uptake can be verified easily by testing of soils. Terrifying for the likes of 148grss because it doesn't involve the forced decimation of the economy, which is their actual goal.
It also remineralises the soil and makes it far more fertile.
I used SEER rockdust on my allotment and it was very effective.
Funny thing is they smear me as a climate denier but I grow my own veg travel mostly by public transport and drive very little (had the car since new the thick end of two decades ago and will keep it till it packs up (the greenest way possible of driving due to the carbon cost of construction and disposal). Probably one of the greenest here in terms of what I actually do.
If they actually believed what they say then the COP and WEF summits would be held by videoconference.
What they really mean is that they want a subsistence existence stuck in 15 minute cities for most so that there is unspoiled Lebensraum for them and they can air condition their mansions and fly their private jets without the earth running out of resources any time soon. Oil isn't infinite. Lets not let the plebs waste it, what?
I, too, am very green. Instead of burning lots of calories staying warm, I insulate my uppermost extremity by donning a cylindrical structure of thin metal that reflects back infrared emitted from my scalp.
It also reflects... external... electromagnetic waves...
Surely you'd be better letting the microwaves through to get an extra bit of heating?
Doesn't it absorb RF energy and downgrade it to warmth anyway?
Some of it, given that tin foil isn't a perfect conductor.
NB. On the Letby retrial. I was fairly neutral on the whole “Letby is innocent” thing, leaning pretty strongly towards a “there was a long court case & the jury saw all the evidence & got to make their judgement” position but this kind of thing is making me question that:
Obviously this is a pro-Letby Twitter account, but seriously? The evidence in the original trial /reversed/ the entry & exit of every single person involved? So key witnesses in the original trial claimed “very strong recollections” of things that the entry / exit records suggest simply didn’t happen?
WTF were the police doing?
I wouldn't go as far as saying Letby is innocent. Ultimately you have to take a call on these things on the evidence in front of you. But I have a nagging uncomfortable feeling about just how safe this conviction is.
Moreover, it was agreed by everyone that someone was killing babies. If it wasn't Letby, the real killer is still out there.
The irony is that for 38 years the Scots sang songs about Maradona and wore Argentina shirts and it’s an Argie ref who stiffs them for a stonewall penalty. Absolute theatre last night 😂😂😂 #EURo2024
I don't think it was stonewall penalty. I wanted it given, but objectively speaking it wasn't a terrible decision not to give it.
I do think there was a question off offside on the Hungary goal, but honestly that only made a difference to them, not us. A draw wasn't enough. Good luck to Hungary. We were 4th best in the group overall, so there's no use moaning about the result.
It was a very poor decision not to have a look at VAR. (In the view of this football ignoramus.)
The decision was absolutely correct. I just rewatched it and Armstrong puts his leg across, slowing down to initiate contact. He actually doesn't get the contact he was looking for until his foot went down. I've changed my mind: the Scotland player should have been booked.
I don't agree with that at all and it makes no sense in the situation as he was ahead of the Hungarian player, in a good position. You do get players looking for a foul, but not really in that position - it's generally edge of the box and going nowhere. I think it probably should've been a penalty.
One of those things though. You'd need to be a fairly one-eyed Scotland fan to feel a major injustice was done across the three matches - they didn't create enough to earn their passage out of the group.
Peter Hitchens: "Yes, it was a lawless putsch. My inch-by-inch and line-by-line examination of the illegal overthrow of Ukraine's legitimate President in 2014 (swiftly condoned, to their lasting shame, by the Western democracies)". [Plus link to an article he wrote on the subject in April 23
Peter Hitchens confirms once again he's as thick as pigshit, thanks for the reminder.
Climate change denier too. Moron status confirmed.
Another issue where the three main parties and their fellow travellers have the same view, view anyone who dissents as a cretin and then wonder why people like Meloni, Le Pen and Farage start getting lots of votes and decide it is because they are thick and bigoted, in much the same way a Georgian Aristocrat regarded the peasants.
Anthropogenic climate change is happening - that is a fact. The main issue is how to tackle the issue. The neoliberals want to allow big business to thrive whilst also paying lip service to the idea of being environmentally friendly, so they move taxes onto consumers rather than producers of CO2 - the petrol hikes that many rural Europeans so despise because it makes rural living more expensive is a good example of this. The right / far right want to pretend climate change isn't happening and move on to a scarcity model of politics - there isn't enough left for the Volk, so we must kick out the foreigner (and the dissenters who aren't really people like us anyway). The left propose the only viable alternative - investment in renewable energy and a reduced reliance on fossil fuels. This will mean huge phase shifts (reduced plastic use, reduced usage of hydrocarbon based fertilisers, etc), but at least the left are willing to say what the problem is (excess production and consumption for the benefit of capital) and where to get the resources to tackle the issue (those who already hoard capital) without having to scapegoat immigrants.
There is another option and that's to value sustainability and ecological impact beside profit as a business motive. It's no good making money if you're destroying the world. Supporting businesses which are ecologically sustainable and seek to mitigate the impact of climate change would be sensible options for a more business-oriented Government and if that means companies who refuse to be sustainable go to the wall so be it.
There is a fine line but Govenrment can also be about influencing public behaviour and educating people as to what is happening, why it is happening and the consequences especially for those parts of the world where the impacts are more keenly and immediately felt.
We too face issues from rising sea levels and a climate with more frequent extremes of weather and that means sensible thinking on houses including not building housing developments on flood plains.
The problem with capitalistic growth is that it is ideologically wedded not only to profit, but ever growing profit, which demand ever more extraction and squeezing of labour, along with increasingly trying to foist externalities onto public coffers (or ignoring them completely) makes it really difficult. Already we have right wingers and big businesses saying there is too much green tape and regulation etc. We also know that consumption and CO2 production is skewwed heavily towards the extremely wealthy - both globally and within individual nations. The answer, more equitable distribution of resources and an overall decrease in consumption reliant on fossil fuels, doesn't really square with the continuation of the profit motive as it currently exists.
You don't believe in net zero, do you?
If we have net zero, why do we need "equitable distribution of resources" for climate reasons, considering we can scale up or down consumption/production and anything times zero equals zero.
If we don't have net zero, how do we stop climate change?
If you were serious about tackling climate change, you wouldn't believe any of the garbage you're spouting.
I mean, I don't think globally we're going to get to net zero because many of the people saying we will are hoping carbon capture works better than it currently does - atm efficiency is too low to depend on it. So to get to net zero it will not just be countries sequestering any carbon output to equal zero (as the tech to sequester is currently not good enough), it will require a reduction in emissions. Reduction in emissions will require a reduction in production and consumption. If the logic of growth for the average worker is "you get a smaller slice, but we'll grow the pie", the logic of static growth or even degrowth for the average worker should be "you get a bigger slice, but we're slowly shrinking the pie". That will have to come via wealth redistribution - those who have a huge amount will have to give up their hoarded resources for the benefits of those who have less or none.
So you don't give a fuck about the planet and want to trash the environment and keep emitting pollution then.
Pissing about with marginal reductions in "the size of the pie" will do bugger all to reduce emissions, since we'll still have billions of people making emissions globally and the rest of the world has no desire to shrink their size of the pie - quite rightly too.
Only investing in clean technology gets us to net zero and that requires no change in pie size. And clean technologies can be adopted by the rest of the planet too.
It doesn't take much scraping the green away to reveal the nasty anti-growth agenda beneath. Carbon capture needn't even be about 'storage technology' - it can be done by dressing UK fields with basalt, to the tune of 45% of Britain's overall net zero target, and the level of carbon uptake can be verified easily by testing of soils. Terrifying for the likes of 148grss because it doesn't involve the forced decimation of the economy, which is their actual goal.
It also remineralises the soil and makes it far more fertile.
I used SEER rockdust on my allotment and it was very effective.
Funny thing is they smear me as a climate denier but I grow my own veg travel mostly by public transport and drive very little (had the car since new the thick end of two decades ago and will keep it till it packs up (the greenest way possible of driving due to the carbon cost of construction and disposal). Probably one of the greenest here in terms of what I actually do.
If they actually believed what they say then the COP and WEF summits would be held by videoconference.
What they really mean is that they want a subsistence existence stuck in 15 minute cities for most so that there is unspoiled Lebensraum for them and they can air condition their mansions and fly their private jets without the earth running out of resources any time soon. Oil isn't infinite. Lets not let the plebs waste it, what?
If you don’t want to sound like a stark raving conspiracy theorist, perhaps drop the bit about the WEF and… well, the conspiracy theory bit.
Thing is there is a bit of a point about scientists sounding alarm bells about global travel and then all meeting up after travelling thousands of miles, usually by air. Now you and I both know that international conferences are vastly better for information exchange, project seeding etc than teams/zoom meetings etc. But it is all too easy for the lay person to look at that and think that if it were really serious* then the scientists would lead by example.
*It is.
Its not just international conferences that are vastly better in person, so is almost everything else people fly for too.
Which is why cutting flights is not a credible suggestion and is not going to happen. If it won't happen for these conferences, it won't happen anywhere else either.
What is a credible suggestion is developing net zero clean technologies for flights. Which will take longer to implement than say net zero clean technologies for cars, but should still happen ultimately.
It's not either/or. We can cut some flights, and should, and we should also be developing and implementing clean technologies.
The problem is so great that doing one of the things won't be enough. We need to do all of the things!
I disagree. The problem is so great we need to be doing clean technologies.
Cutting a few flights does piss all. If 99% of flights still take off, then reducing the flights by 1% does bugger all.
OTOH ensuring the flights that take off emit 10% less in one step, and then emit nothing eventually, transitions us to clean flights without cutting anything.
The latter is a serious, credible, scientific way to address the problem.
It would be if it was possible to achieve it with the laws of physics as we understand it.
Just the initial 10% involves switching to burning oil crops (as with E5 and E10 petrol) so reducing arable land needed for food and putting food prices up with particular impact on the global south, most of whom don't get to fly anywhere - ever.
There are other ways. Colleagues here are working on growing bio oils in algae. No need to agricultural land.
Yet. Yet.
I'm all for things like bio oils in algae. If so much money hadn't been spaffed away to spivs pushing wind turbines when there is not yet the technology to store what they generate, we might be further down that road.
Peter Hitchens: "Yes, it was a lawless putsch. My inch-by-inch and line-by-line examination of the illegal overthrow of Ukraine's legitimate President in 2014 (swiftly condoned, to their lasting shame, by the Western democracies)". [Plus link to an article he wrote on the subject in April 23
Peter Hitchens confirms once again he's as thick as pigshit, thanks for the reminder.
Climate change denier too. Moron status confirmed.
Another issue where the three main parties and their fellow travellers have the same view, view anyone who dissents as a cretin and then wonder why people like Meloni, Le Pen and Farage start getting lots of votes and decide it is because they are thick and bigoted, in much the same way a Georgian Aristocrat regarded the peasants.
Anthropogenic climate change is happening - that is a fact. The main issue is how to tackle the issue. The neoliberals want to allow big business to thrive whilst also paying lip service to the idea of being environmentally friendly, so they move taxes onto consumers rather than producers of CO2 - the petrol hikes that many rural Europeans so despise because it makes rural living more expensive is a good example of this. The right / far right want to pretend climate change isn't happening and move on to a scarcity model of politics - there isn't enough left for the Volk, so we must kick out the foreigner (and the dissenters who aren't really people like us anyway). The left propose the only viable alternative - investment in renewable energy and a reduced reliance on fossil fuels. This will mean huge phase shifts (reduced plastic use, reduced usage of hydrocarbon based fertilisers, etc), but at least the left are willing to say what the problem is (excess production and consumption for the benefit of capital) and where to get the resources to tackle the issue (those who already hoard capital) without having to scapegoat immigrants.
There is another option and that's to value sustainability and ecological impact beside profit as a business motive. It's no good making money if you're destroying the world. Supporting businesses which are ecologically sustainable and seek to mitigate the impact of climate change would be sensible options for a more business-oriented Government and if that means companies who refuse to be sustainable go to the wall so be it.
There is a fine line but Govenrment can also be about influencing public behaviour and educating people as to what is happening, why it is happening and the consequences especially for those parts of the world where the impacts are more keenly and immediately felt.
We too face issues from rising sea levels and a climate with more frequent extremes of weather and that means sensible thinking on houses including not building housing developments on flood plains.
The problem with capitalistic growth is that it is ideologically wedded not only to profit, but ever growing profit, which demand ever more extraction and squeezing of labour, along with increasingly trying to foist externalities onto public coffers (or ignoring them completely) makes it really difficult. Already we have right wingers and big businesses saying there is too much green tape and regulation etc. We also know that consumption and CO2 production is skewwed heavily towards the extremely wealthy - both globally and within individual nations. The answer, more equitable distribution of resources and an overall decrease in consumption reliant on fossil fuels, doesn't really square with the continuation of the profit motive as it currently exists.
You don't believe in net zero, do you?
If we have net zero, why do we need "equitable distribution of resources" for climate reasons, considering we can scale up or down consumption/production and anything times zero equals zero.
If we don't have net zero, how do we stop climate change?
If you were serious about tackling climate change, you wouldn't believe any of the garbage you're spouting.
I mean, I don't think globally we're going to get to net zero because many of the people saying we will are hoping carbon capture works better than it currently does - atm efficiency is too low to depend on it. So to get to net zero it will not just be countries sequestering any carbon output to equal zero (as the tech to sequester is currently not good enough), it will require a reduction in emissions. Reduction in emissions will require a reduction in production and consumption. If the logic of growth for the average worker is "you get a smaller slice, but we'll grow the pie", the logic of static growth or even degrowth for the average worker should be "you get a bigger slice, but we're slowly shrinking the pie". That will have to come via wealth redistribution - those who have a huge amount will have to give up their hoarded resources for the benefits of those who have less or none.
So you don't give a fuck about the planet and want to trash the environment and keep emitting pollution then.
Pissing about with marginal reductions in "the size of the pie" will do bugger all to reduce emissions, since we'll still have billions of people making emissions globally and the rest of the world has no desire to shrink their size of the pie - quite rightly too.
Only investing in clean technology gets us to net zero and that requires no change in pie size. And clean technologies can be adopted by the rest of the planet too.
It doesn't take much scraping the green away to reveal the nasty anti-growth agenda beneath. Carbon capture needn't even be about 'storage technology' - it can be done by dressing UK fields with basalt, to the tune of 45% of Britain's overall net zero target, and the level of carbon uptake can be verified easily by testing of soils. Terrifying for the likes of 148grss because it doesn't involve the forced decimation of the economy, which is their actual goal.
It also remineralises the soil and makes it far more fertile.
I used SEER rockdust on my allotment and it was very effective.
Funny thing is they smear me as a climate denier but I grow my own veg travel mostly by public transport and drive very little (had the car since new the thick end of two decades ago and will keep it till it packs up (the greenest way possible of driving due to the carbon cost of construction and disposal). Probably one of the greenest here in terms of what I actually do.
If they actually believed what they say then the COP and WEF summits would be held by videoconference.
What they really mean is that they want a subsistence existence stuck in 15 minute cities for most so that there is unspoiled Lebensraum for them and they can air condition their mansions and fly their private jets without the earth running out of resources any time soon. Oil isn't infinite. Lets not let the plebs waste it, what?
If you don’t want to sound like a stark raving conspiracy theorist, perhaps drop the bit about the WEF and… well, the conspiracy theory bit.
Thing is there is a bit of a point about scientists sounding alarm bells about global travel and then all meeting up after travelling thousands of miles, usually by air. Now you and I both know that international conferences are vastly better for information exchange, project seeding etc than teams/zoom meetings etc. But it is all too easy for the lay person to look at that and think that if it were really serious* then the scientists would lead by example.
*It is.
Its not just international conferences that are vastly better in person, so is almost everything else people fly for too.
Which is why cutting flights is not a credible suggestion and is not going to happen. If it won't happen for these conferences, it won't happen anywhere else either.
What is a credible suggestion is developing net zero clean technologies for flights. Which will take longer to implement than say net zero clean technologies for cars, but should still happen ultimately.
It's not either/or. We can cut some flights, and should, and we should also be developing and implementing clean technologies.
The problem is so great that doing one of the things won't be enough. We need to do all of the things!
I disagree. The problem is so great we need to be doing clean technologies.
Cutting a few flights does piss all. If 99% of flights still take off, then reducing the flights by 1% does bugger all.
OTOH ensuring the flights that take off emit 10% less in one step, and then emit nothing eventually, transitions us to clean flights without cutting anything.
The latter is a serious, credible, scientific way to address the problem.
It would be if it was possible to achieve it with the laws of physics as we understand it.
Just the initial 10% involves switching to burning oil crops (as with E5 and E10 petrol) so reducing arable land needed for food and putting food prices up with particular impact on the global south, most of whom don't get to fly anywhere - ever.
No it doesn't.
Long term for the past fifty years there has been a compound 1.3% reduction in fuel burn per passenger km per annum and this has been continuing in recent years.
New planes are routinely using better technologies and are more fuel efficient than old ones.
A modern Airbus is much more fuel efficient than an old 747 was.
But we are approaching the limit of what can be achieved, Driving up efficiency increases economy but there is a limit.
Why is there a limit?
We are continuously iterating better technology and there is no end in sight for that.
Longer term there are plausible zero (net) carbon options for aviation but they're not here yet, but shorter term there absolutely is ways to continue to iterate better efficiency. We've not hit the wall yet.
Peter Hitchens: "Yes, it was a lawless putsch. My inch-by-inch and line-by-line examination of the illegal overthrow of Ukraine's legitimate President in 2014 (swiftly condoned, to their lasting shame, by the Western democracies)". [Plus link to an article he wrote on the subject in April 23
Peter Hitchens confirms once again he's as thick as pigshit, thanks for the reminder.
Climate change denier too. Moron status confirmed.
Another issue where the three main parties and their fellow travellers have the same view, view anyone who dissents as a cretin and then wonder why people like Meloni, Le Pen and Farage start getting lots of votes and decide it is because they are thick and bigoted, in much the same way a Georgian Aristocrat regarded the peasants.
Anthropogenic climate change is happening - that is a fact. The main issue is how to tackle the issue. The neoliberals want to allow big business to thrive whilst also paying lip service to the idea of being environmentally friendly, so they move taxes onto consumers rather than producers of CO2 - the petrol hikes that many rural Europeans so despise because it makes rural living more expensive is a good example of this. The right / far right want to pretend climate change isn't happening and move on to a scarcity model of politics - there isn't enough left for the Volk, so we must kick out the foreigner (and the dissenters who aren't really people like us anyway). The left propose the only viable alternative - investment in renewable energy and a reduced reliance on fossil fuels. This will mean huge phase shifts (reduced plastic use, reduced usage of hydrocarbon based fertilisers, etc), but at least the left are willing to say what the problem is (excess production and consumption for the benefit of capital) and where to get the resources to tackle the issue (those who already hoard capital) without having to scapegoat immigrants.
There is another option and that's to value sustainability and ecological impact beside profit as a business motive. It's no good making money if you're destroying the world. Supporting businesses which are ecologically sustainable and seek to mitigate the impact of climate change would be sensible options for a more business-oriented Government and if that means companies who refuse to be sustainable go to the wall so be it.
There is a fine line but Govenrment can also be about influencing public behaviour and educating people as to what is happening, why it is happening and the consequences especially for those parts of the world where the impacts are more keenly and immediately felt.
We too face issues from rising sea levels and a climate with more frequent extremes of weather and that means sensible thinking on houses including not building housing developments on flood plains.
The problem with capitalistic growth is that it is ideologically wedded not only to profit, but ever growing profit, which demand ever more extraction and squeezing of labour, along with increasingly trying to foist externalities onto public coffers (or ignoring them completely) makes it really difficult. Already we have right wingers and big businesses saying there is too much green tape and regulation etc. We also know that consumption and CO2 production is skewwed heavily towards the extremely wealthy - both globally and within individual nations. The answer, more equitable distribution of resources and an overall decrease in consumption reliant on fossil fuels, doesn't really square with the continuation of the profit motive as it currently exists.
You don't believe in net zero, do you?
If we have net zero, why do we need "equitable distribution of resources" for climate reasons, considering we can scale up or down consumption/production and anything times zero equals zero.
If we don't have net zero, how do we stop climate change?
If you were serious about tackling climate change, you wouldn't believe any of the garbage you're spouting.
I mean, I don't think globally we're going to get to net zero because many of the people saying we will are hoping carbon capture works better than it currently does - atm efficiency is too low to depend on it. So to get to net zero it will not just be countries sequestering any carbon output to equal zero (as the tech to sequester is currently not good enough), it will require a reduction in emissions. Reduction in emissions will require a reduction in production and consumption. If the logic of growth for the average worker is "you get a smaller slice, but we'll grow the pie", the logic of static growth or even degrowth for the average worker should be "you get a bigger slice, but we're slowly shrinking the pie". That will have to come via wealth redistribution - those who have a huge amount will have to give up their hoarded resources for the benefits of those who have less or none.
So you don't give a fuck about the planet and want to trash the environment and keep emitting pollution then.
Pissing about with marginal reductions in "the size of the pie" will do bugger all to reduce emissions, since we'll still have billions of people making emissions globally and the rest of the world has no desire to shrink their size of the pie - quite rightly too.
Only investing in clean technology gets us to net zero and that requires no change in pie size. And clean technologies can be adopted by the rest of the planet too.
It doesn't take much scraping the green away to reveal the nasty anti-growth agenda beneath. Carbon capture needn't even be about 'storage technology' - it can be done by dressing UK fields with basalt, to the tune of 45% of Britain's overall net zero target, and the level of carbon uptake can be verified easily by testing of soils. Terrifying for the likes of 148grss because it doesn't involve the forced decimation of the economy, which is their actual goal.
It also remineralises the soil and makes it far more fertile.
I used SEER rockdust on my allotment and it was very effective.
Funny thing is they smear me as a climate denier but I grow my own veg travel mostly by public transport and drive very little (had the car since new the thick end of two decades ago and will keep it till it packs up (the greenest way possible of driving due to the carbon cost of construction and disposal). Probably one of the greenest here in terms of what I actually do.
If they actually believed what they say then the COP and WEF summits would be held by videoconference.
What they really mean is that they want a subsistence existence stuck in 15 minute cities for most so that there is unspoiled Lebensraum for them and they can air condition their mansions and fly their private jets without the earth running out of resources any time soon. Oil isn't infinite. Lets not let the plebs waste it, what?
If you don’t want to sound like a stark raving conspiracy theorist, perhaps drop the bit about the WEF and… well, the conspiracy theory bit.
Thing is there is a bit of a point about scientists sounding alarm bells about global travel and then all meeting up after travelling thousands of miles, usually by air. Now you and I both know that international conferences are vastly better for information exchange, project seeding etc than teams/zoom meetings etc. But it is all too easy for the lay person to look at that and think that if it were really serious* then the scientists would lead by example.
*It is.
Its not just international conferences that are vastly better in person, so is almost everything else people fly for too.
Which is why cutting flights is not a credible suggestion and is not going to happen. If it won't happen for these conferences, it won't happen anywhere else either.
What is a credible suggestion is developing net zero clean technologies for flights. Which will take longer to implement than say net zero clean technologies for cars, but should still happen ultimately.
It's not either/or. We can cut some flights, and should, and we should also be developing and implementing clean technologies.
The problem is so great that doing one of the things won't be enough. We need to do all of the things!
I disagree. The problem is so great we need to be doing clean technologies.
Cutting a few flights does piss all. If 99% of flights still take off, then reducing the flights by 1% does bugger all.
OTOH ensuring the flights that take off emit 10% less in one step, and then emit nothing eventually, transitions us to clean flights without cutting anything.
The latter is a serious, credible, scientific way to address the problem.
It would be if it was possible to achieve it with the laws of physics as we understand it.
Just the initial 10% involves switching to burning oil crops (as with E5 and E10 petrol) so reducing arable land needed for food and putting food prices up with particular impact on the global south, most of whom don't get to fly anywhere - ever.
There are other ways. Colleagues here are working on growing bio oils in algae. No need to agricultural land.
Yet. Yet.
I'm all for things like bio oils in algae. If so much money hadn't been spaffed away to spivs pushing wind turbines when there is not yet the technology to store what they generate, we might be further down that road.
There absolutely is the technology to store what they generate, its just not completely rolled out yet.
Within a decade it will be though. It will be on my driveway.
Labour 42% (–) Reform UK 19% (–) Conservative 18% (–) Lib Dem 12% (+1) Green 6% (+1) SNP 3% (–) Other 2% (+1)
BAXTERED
LAB 501 LIB DEMS 60 CONS 38 REFUK 5 GRN 2
We all expect the polls to narrow, and yet, we’ve seen this is enough different polls now to make me think that Labour 500+ seats at 13.5 is overpriced.
I’m not saying it will happen - I expect something more like 430 for Labour - but 500+ doesn’t feel a 13.5 shot. With enough tactical voting efficiency, Labour don’t really need *that* many stars to align for it.
The irony is that for 38 years the Scots sang songs about Maradona and wore Argentina shirts and it’s an Argie ref who stiffs them for a stonewall penalty. Absolute theatre last night 😂😂😂 #EURo2024
I don't think it was stonewall penalty. I wanted it given, but objectively speaking it wasn't a terrible decision not to give it.
I do think there was a question off offside on the Hungary goal, but honestly that only made a difference to them, not us. A draw wasn't enough. Good luck to Hungary. We were 4th best in the group overall, so there's no use moaning about the result.
It was a very poor decision not to have a look at VAR. (In the view of this football ignoramus.)
The decision was absolutely correct. I just rewatched it and Armstrong puts his leg across, slowing down to initiate contact. He actually doesn't get the contact he was looking for until his foot went down. I've changed my mind: the Scotland player should have been booked.
I don't agree with that at all and it makes no sense in the situation as he was ahead of the Hungarian player, in a good position. You do get players looking for a foul, but not really in that position - it's generally edge of the box and going nowhere. I think it probably should've been a penalty.
One of those things though. You'd need to be a fairly one-eyed Scotland fan to feel a major injustice was done across the three matches - they didn't create enough to earn their passage out of the group.
"Why didn't he just shoot instead" is a great question. Sadly, there's a long pattern of bad choices to point at. Maybe in that split second he thought the ball was getting away from him too much and he had more of a chance winning the penalty. I think the Scotland players were looking tired by that point. But who knows?
Peter Hitchens: "Yes, it was a lawless putsch. My inch-by-inch and line-by-line examination of the illegal overthrow of Ukraine's legitimate President in 2014 (swiftly condoned, to their lasting shame, by the Western democracies)". [Plus link to an article he wrote on the subject in April 23
Peter Hitchens confirms once again he's as thick as pigshit, thanks for the reminder.
Climate change denier too. Moron status confirmed.
Another issue where the three main parties and their fellow travellers have the same view, view anyone who dissents as a cretin and then wonder why people like Meloni, Le Pen and Farage start getting lots of votes and decide it is because they are thick and bigoted, in much the same way a Georgian Aristocrat regarded the peasants.
Anthropogenic climate change is happening - that is a fact. The main issue is how to tackle the issue. The neoliberals want to allow big business to thrive whilst also paying lip service to the idea of being environmentally friendly, so they move taxes onto consumers rather than producers of CO2 - the petrol hikes that many rural Europeans so despise because it makes rural living more expensive is a good example of this. The right / far right want to pretend climate change isn't happening and move on to a scarcity model of politics - there isn't enough left for the Volk, so we must kick out the foreigner (and the dissenters who aren't really people like us anyway). The left propose the only viable alternative - investment in renewable energy and a reduced reliance on fossil fuels. This will mean huge phase shifts (reduced plastic use, reduced usage of hydrocarbon based fertilisers, etc), but at least the left are willing to say what the problem is (excess production and consumption for the benefit of capital) and where to get the resources to tackle the issue (those who already hoard capital) without having to scapegoat immigrants.
There is another option and that's to value sustainability and ecological impact beside profit as a business motive. It's no good making money if you're destroying the world. Supporting businesses which are ecologically sustainable and seek to mitigate the impact of climate change would be sensible options for a more business-oriented Government and if that means companies who refuse to be sustainable go to the wall so be it.
There is a fine line but Govenrment can also be about influencing public behaviour and educating people as to what is happening, why it is happening and the consequences especially for those parts of the world where the impacts are more keenly and immediately felt.
We too face issues from rising sea levels and a climate with more frequent extremes of weather and that means sensible thinking on houses including not building housing developments on flood plains.
The problem with capitalistic growth is that it is ideologically wedded not only to profit, but ever growing profit, which demand ever more extraction and squeezing of labour, along with increasingly trying to foist externalities onto public coffers (or ignoring them completely) makes it really difficult. Already we have right wingers and big businesses saying there is too much green tape and regulation etc. We also know that consumption and CO2 production is skewwed heavily towards the extremely wealthy - both globally and within individual nations. The answer, more equitable distribution of resources and an overall decrease in consumption reliant on fossil fuels, doesn't really square with the continuation of the profit motive as it currently exists.
You don't believe in net zero, do you?
If we have net zero, why do we need "equitable distribution of resources" for climate reasons, considering we can scale up or down consumption/production and anything times zero equals zero.
If we don't have net zero, how do we stop climate change?
If you were serious about tackling climate change, you wouldn't believe any of the garbage you're spouting.
I mean, I don't think globally we're going to get to net zero because many of the people saying we will are hoping carbon capture works better than it currently does - atm efficiency is too low to depend on it. So to get to net zero it will not just be countries sequestering any carbon output to equal zero (as the tech to sequester is currently not good enough), it will require a reduction in emissions. Reduction in emissions will require a reduction in production and consumption. If the logic of growth for the average worker is "you get a smaller slice, but we'll grow the pie", the logic of static growth or even degrowth for the average worker should be "you get a bigger slice, but we're slowly shrinking the pie". That will have to come via wealth redistribution - those who have a huge amount will have to give up their hoarded resources for the benefits of those who have less or none.
So you don't give a fuck about the planet and want to trash the environment and keep emitting pollution then.
Pissing about with marginal reductions in "the size of the pie" will do bugger all to reduce emissions, since we'll still have billions of people making emissions globally and the rest of the world has no desire to shrink their size of the pie - quite rightly too.
Only investing in clean technology gets us to net zero and that requires no change in pie size. And clean technologies can be adopted by the rest of the planet too.
It doesn't take much scraping the green away to reveal the nasty anti-growth agenda beneath. Carbon capture needn't even be about 'storage technology' - it can be done by dressing UK fields with basalt, to the tune of 45% of Britain's overall net zero target, and the level of carbon uptake can be verified easily by testing of soils. Terrifying for the likes of 148grss because it doesn't involve the forced decimation of the economy, which is their actual goal.
It also remineralises the soil and makes it far more fertile.
I used SEER rockdust on my allotment and it was very effective.
Funny thing is they smear me as a climate denier but I grow my own veg travel mostly by public transport and drive very little (had the car since new the thick end of two decades ago and will keep it till it packs up (the greenest way possible of driving due to the carbon cost of construction and disposal). Probably one of the greenest here in terms of what I actually do.
If they actually believed what they say then the COP and WEF summits would be held by videoconference.
What they really mean is that they want a subsistence existence stuck in 15 minute cities for most so that there is unspoiled Lebensraum for them and they can air condition their mansions and fly their private jets without the earth running out of resources any time soon. Oil isn't infinite. Lets not let the plebs waste it, what?
I, too, am very green. Instead of burning lots of calories staying warm, I insulate my uppermost extremity by donning a cylindrical structure of thin metal that reflects back infrared emitted from my scalp.
It also reflects... external... electromagnetic waves...
I hope you earth it then otherwise you are wasting your time. PS don't wear it during thunderstorms.
We very rarely get thunderstorms in Aberdeenshire. Sure the "climate" "scientists" say that it's due "to" prevailing winds, latitude, and the lack of warm, moist air. But I know it because we're too near Lossiemouth. And it's well known that nowhere on "Earth" does more chemtrails than Lossiemouth.
You are just taking the piss because you know you are right and think climate dissent however thoughtful and principled is beneath contempt.
Then you look on in horror as Farage is still ahead of the Tories despite "putingate" and can't understand why (why being that millions don't agree with you and resent being thought of as thick, ignorant, deplorables) but they don't move in your circles (or keep their traps shut if they do) so they don't exist, surely?
The fieldwork of the Redfield and Wilton poll covers both the Tory betting drama and Farages BBC interview . Perhaps there was some churn but it ended up a wash .
Given postal votes have been going out for a while the Tories will be very worried that the popularity of Reform with older voters who are more likely to vote by post means it’s already over for them in loads of seats .
28% of 2019 Tories voting for Reform, despite fieldwork spanning Putingate?
Wow.
Yes the media and the tories threw everything at this and nothing stuck. Peoples minds are made up and likely many reform voters secretly agreed with Farage. Clearly Farage aims to change the debate on Ukraine.
Peter Hitchens: "Yes, it was a lawless putsch. My inch-by-inch and line-by-line examination of the illegal overthrow of Ukraine's legitimate President in 2014 (swiftly condoned, to their lasting shame, by the Western democracies)". [Plus link to an article he wrote on the subject in April 23
Peter Hitchens confirms once again he's as thick as pigshit, thanks for the reminder.
Climate change denier too. Moron status confirmed.
Another issue where the three main parties and their fellow travellers have the same view, view anyone who dissents as a cretin and then wonder why people like Meloni, Le Pen and Farage start getting lots of votes and decide it is because they are thick and bigoted, in much the same way a Georgian Aristocrat regarded the peasants.
Anthropogenic climate change is happening - that is a fact. The main issue is how to tackle the issue. The neoliberals want to allow big business to thrive whilst also paying lip service to the idea of being environmentally friendly, so they move taxes onto consumers rather than producers of CO2 - the petrol hikes that many rural Europeans so despise because it makes rural living more expensive is a good example of this. The right / far right want to pretend climate change isn't happening and move on to a scarcity model of politics - there isn't enough left for the Volk, so we must kick out the foreigner (and the dissenters who aren't really people like us anyway). The left propose the only viable alternative - investment in renewable energy and a reduced reliance on fossil fuels. This will mean huge phase shifts (reduced plastic use, reduced usage of hydrocarbon based fertilisers, etc), but at least the left are willing to say what the problem is (excess production and consumption for the benefit of capital) and where to get the resources to tackle the issue (those who already hoard capital) without having to scapegoat immigrants.
There is another option and that's to value sustainability and ecological impact beside profit as a business motive. It's no good making money if you're destroying the world. Supporting businesses which are ecologically sustainable and seek to mitigate the impact of climate change would be sensible options for a more business-oriented Government and if that means companies who refuse to be sustainable go to the wall so be it.
There is a fine line but Govenrment can also be about influencing public behaviour and educating people as to what is happening, why it is happening and the consequences especially for those parts of the world where the impacts are more keenly and immediately felt.
We too face issues from rising sea levels and a climate with more frequent extremes of weather and that means sensible thinking on houses including not building housing developments on flood plains.
The problem with capitalistic growth is that it is ideologically wedded not only to profit, but ever growing profit, which demand ever more extraction and squeezing of labour, along with increasingly trying to foist externalities onto public coffers (or ignoring them completely) makes it really difficult. Already we have right wingers and big businesses saying there is too much green tape and regulation etc. We also know that consumption and CO2 production is skewwed heavily towards the extremely wealthy - both globally and within individual nations. The answer, more equitable distribution of resources and an overall decrease in consumption reliant on fossil fuels, doesn't really square with the continuation of the profit motive as it currently exists.
You don't believe in net zero, do you?
If we have net zero, why do we need "equitable distribution of resources" for climate reasons, considering we can scale up or down consumption/production and anything times zero equals zero.
If we don't have net zero, how do we stop climate change?
If you were serious about tackling climate change, you wouldn't believe any of the garbage you're spouting.
I mean, I don't think globally we're going to get to net zero because many of the people saying we will are hoping carbon capture works better than it currently does - atm efficiency is too low to depend on it. So to get to net zero it will not just be countries sequestering any carbon output to equal zero (as the tech to sequester is currently not good enough), it will require a reduction in emissions. Reduction in emissions will require a reduction in production and consumption. If the logic of growth for the average worker is "you get a smaller slice, but we'll grow the pie", the logic of static growth or even degrowth for the average worker should be "you get a bigger slice, but we're slowly shrinking the pie". That will have to come via wealth redistribution - those who have a huge amount will have to give up their hoarded resources for the benefits of those who have less or none.
So you don't give a fuck about the planet and want to trash the environment and keep emitting pollution then.
Pissing about with marginal reductions in "the size of the pie" will do bugger all to reduce emissions, since we'll still have billions of people making emissions globally and the rest of the world has no desire to shrink their size of the pie - quite rightly too.
Only investing in clean technology gets us to net zero and that requires no change in pie size. And clean technologies can be adopted by the rest of the planet too.
It doesn't take much scraping the green away to reveal the nasty anti-growth agenda beneath. Carbon capture needn't even be about 'storage technology' - it can be done by dressing UK fields with basalt, to the tune of 45% of Britain's overall net zero target, and the level of carbon uptake can be verified easily by testing of soils. Terrifying for the likes of 148grss because it doesn't involve the forced decimation of the economy, which is their actual goal.
It also remineralises the soil and makes it far more fertile.
I used SEER rockdust on my allotment and it was very effective.
Funny thing is they smear me as a climate denier but I grow my own veg travel mostly by public transport and drive very little (had the car since new the thick end of two decades ago and will keep it till it packs up (the greenest way possible of driving due to the carbon cost of construction and disposal). Probably one of the greenest here in terms of what I actually do.
If they actually believed what they say then the COP and WEF summits would be held by videoconference.
What they really mean is that they want a subsistence existence stuck in 15 minute cities for most so that there is unspoiled Lebensraum for them and they can air condition their mansions and fly their private jets without the earth running out of resources any time soon. Oil isn't infinite. Lets not let the plebs waste it, what?
If you don’t want to sound like a stark raving conspiracy theorist, perhaps drop the bit about the WEF and… well, the conspiracy theory bit.
Thing is there is a bit of a point about scientists sounding alarm bells about global travel and then all meeting up after travelling thousands of miles, usually by air. Now you and I both know that international conferences are vastly better for information exchange, project seeding etc than teams/zoom meetings etc. But it is all too easy for the lay person to look at that and think that if it were really serious* then the scientists would lead by example.
*It is.
Its not just international conferences that are vastly better in person, so is almost everything else people fly for too.
Which is why cutting flights is not a credible suggestion and is not going to happen. If it won't happen for these conferences, it won't happen anywhere else either.
What is a credible suggestion is developing net zero clean technologies for flights. Which will take longer to implement than say net zero clean technologies for cars, but should still happen ultimately.
It's not either/or. We can cut some flights, and should, and we should also be developing and implementing clean technologies.
The problem is so great that doing one of the things won't be enough. We need to do all of the things!
I disagree. The problem is so great we need to be doing clean technologies.
Cutting a few flights does piss all. If 99% of flights still take off, then reducing the flights by 1% does bugger all.
OTOH ensuring the flights that take off emit 10% less in one step, and then emit nothing eventually, transitions us to clean flights without cutting anything.
The latter is a serious, credible, scientific way to address the problem.
It would be if it was possible to achieve it with the laws of physics as we understand it.
Just the initial 10% involves switching to burning oil crops (as with E5 and E10 petrol) so reducing arable land needed for food and putting food prices up with particular impact on the global south, most of whom don't get to fly anywhere - ever.
No it doesn't.
Long term for the past fifty years there has been a compound 1.3% reduction in fuel burn per passenger km per annum and this has been continuing in recent years.
New planes are routinely using better technologies and are more fuel efficient than old ones.
A modern Airbus is much more fuel efficient than an old 747 was.
But we are approaching the limit of what can be achieved, Driving up efficiency increases economy but there is a limit.
Why is there a limit?
We are continuously iterating better technology and there is no end in sight for that.
Longer term there are plausible zero (net) carbon options for aviation but they're not here yet, but shorter term there absolutely is ways to continue to iterate better efficiency. We've not hit the wall yet.
Oh dear. Even if aeroplanes were able to turn fuel to propulsion with 100% efficiency(which they never will) they are still going to burn a vast amount of oil.
28% of 2019 Tories voting for Reform, despite fieldwork spanning Putingate?
Wow.
Yes the media and the tories threw everything at this and nothing stuck. Peoples minds are made up and likely many reform voters secretly agreed with Farage. Clearly Farage aims to change the debate on Ukraine.
How's the weather in Moscow?
Reform getting fewer MPs than Plaid Cymru, and fewer votes than Nick Clegg's Lib Dems in 2010, is not going to change anything when it comes to Ukraine.
NB. On the Letby retrial. I was fairly neutral on the whole “Letby is innocent” thing, leaning pretty strongly towards a “there was a long court case & the jury saw all the evidence & got to make their judgement” position but this kind of thing is making me question that:
Obviously this is a pro-Letby Twitter account, but seriously? The evidence in the original trial /reversed/ the entry & exit of every single person involved? So key witnesses in the original trial claimed “very strong recollections” of things that the entry / exit records suggest simply didn’t happen?
WTF were the police doing?
I wouldn't go as far as saying Letby is innocent. Ultimately you have to take a call on these things on the evidence in front of you. But I have a nagging uncomfortable feeling about just how safe this conviction is.
Moreover, it was agreed by everyone that someone was killing babies. If it wasn't Letby, the real killer is still out there.
THis makes interesting reading, to put it mildly. It raises important issues - notably possible cherrypicking of data. But I have not been following the case in detail.
Edit: Sure, this critique may not be valid. But after the statistical fallacy in the double cot death trial I have never been too sure about lawyers or judges coping with statistics.
28% of 2019 Tories voting for Reform, despite fieldwork spanning Putingate?
Wow.
Yes the media and the tories threw everything at this and nothing stuck. Peoples minds are made up and likely many reform voters secretly agreed with Farage. Clearly Farage aims to change the debate on Ukraine.
Yes, and I wonder who has paid him to try to change the debate?
Because the reality is very different from the fiction he is seeding.
28% of 2019 Tories voting for Reform, despite fieldwork spanning Putingate?
Wow.
Yes the media and the tories threw everything at this and nothing stuck. Peoples minds are made up and likely many reform voters secretly agreed with Farage. Clearly Farage aims to change the debate on Ukraine.
Shared a car with a couple of Reform voters last night. Both thought NF was right.
Peter Hitchens: "Yes, it was a lawless putsch. My inch-by-inch and line-by-line examination of the illegal overthrow of Ukraine's legitimate President in 2014 (swiftly condoned, to their lasting shame, by the Western democracies)". [Plus link to an article he wrote on the subject in April 23
Peter Hitchens confirms once again he's as thick as pigshit, thanks for the reminder.
Climate change denier too. Moron status confirmed.
Another issue where the three main parties and their fellow travellers have the same view, view anyone who dissents as a cretin and then wonder why people like Meloni, Le Pen and Farage start getting lots of votes and decide it is because they are thick and bigoted, in much the same way a Georgian Aristocrat regarded the peasants.
Anthropogenic climate change is happening - that is a fact. The main issue is how to tackle the issue. The neoliberals want to allow big business to thrive whilst also paying lip service to the idea of being environmentally friendly, so they move taxes onto consumers rather than producers of CO2 - the petrol hikes that many rural Europeans so despise because it makes rural living more expensive is a good example of this. The right / far right want to pretend climate change isn't happening and move on to a scarcity model of politics - there isn't enough left for the Volk, so we must kick out the foreigner (and the dissenters who aren't really people like us anyway). The left propose the only viable alternative - investment in renewable energy and a reduced reliance on fossil fuels. This will mean huge phase shifts (reduced plastic use, reduced usage of hydrocarbon based fertilisers, etc), but at least the left are willing to say what the problem is (excess production and consumption for the benefit of capital) and where to get the resources to tackle the issue (those who already hoard capital) without having to scapegoat immigrants.
There is another option and that's to value sustainability and ecological impact beside profit as a business motive. It's no good making money if you're destroying the world. Supporting businesses which are ecologically sustainable and seek to mitigate the impact of climate change would be sensible options for a more business-oriented Government and if that means companies who refuse to be sustainable go to the wall so be it.
There is a fine line but Govenrment can also be about influencing public behaviour and educating people as to what is happening, why it is happening and the consequences especially for those parts of the world where the impacts are more keenly and immediately felt.
We too face issues from rising sea levels and a climate with more frequent extremes of weather and that means sensible thinking on houses including not building housing developments on flood plains.
The problem with capitalistic growth is that it is ideologically wedded not only to profit, but ever growing profit, which demand ever more extraction and squeezing of labour, along with increasingly trying to foist externalities onto public coffers (or ignoring them completely) makes it really difficult. Already we have right wingers and big businesses saying there is too much green tape and regulation etc. We also know that consumption and CO2 production is skewwed heavily towards the extremely wealthy - both globally and within individual nations. The answer, more equitable distribution of resources and an overall decrease in consumption reliant on fossil fuels, doesn't really square with the continuation of the profit motive as it currently exists.
You don't believe in net zero, do you?
If we have net zero, why do we need "equitable distribution of resources" for climate reasons, considering we can scale up or down consumption/production and anything times zero equals zero.
If we don't have net zero, how do we stop climate change?
If you were serious about tackling climate change, you wouldn't believe any of the garbage you're spouting.
I mean, I don't think globally we're going to get to net zero because many of the people saying we will are hoping carbon capture works better than it currently does - atm efficiency is too low to depend on it. So to get to net zero it will not just be countries sequestering any carbon output to equal zero (as the tech to sequester is currently not good enough), it will require a reduction in emissions. Reduction in emissions will require a reduction in production and consumption. If the logic of growth for the average worker is "you get a smaller slice, but we'll grow the pie", the logic of static growth or even degrowth for the average worker should be "you get a bigger slice, but we're slowly shrinking the pie". That will have to come via wealth redistribution - those who have a huge amount will have to give up their hoarded resources for the benefits of those who have less or none.
So you don't give a fuck about the planet and want to trash the environment and keep emitting pollution then.
Pissing about with marginal reductions in "the size of the pie" will do bugger all to reduce emissions, since we'll still have billions of people making emissions globally and the rest of the world has no desire to shrink their size of the pie - quite rightly too.
Only investing in clean technology gets us to net zero and that requires no change in pie size. And clean technologies can be adopted by the rest of the planet too.
It doesn't take much scraping the green away to reveal the nasty anti-growth agenda beneath. Carbon capture needn't even be about 'storage technology' - it can be done by dressing UK fields with basalt, to the tune of 45% of Britain's overall net zero target, and the level of carbon uptake can be verified easily by testing of soils. Terrifying for the likes of 148grss because it doesn't involve the forced decimation of the economy, which is their actual goal.
It also remineralises the soil and makes it far more fertile.
I used SEER rockdust on my allotment and it was very effective.
Funny thing is they smear me as a climate denier but I grow my own veg travel mostly by public transport and drive very little (had the car since new the thick end of two decades ago and will keep it till it packs up (the greenest way possible of driving due to the carbon cost of construction and disposal). Probably one of the greenest here in terms of what I actually do.
If they actually believed what they say then the COP and WEF summits would be held by videoconference.
What they really mean is that they want a subsistence existence stuck in 15 minute cities for most so that there is unspoiled Lebensraum for them and they can air condition their mansions and fly their private jets without the earth running out of resources any time soon. Oil isn't infinite. Lets not let the plebs waste it, what?
If you don’t want to sound like a stark raving conspiracy theorist, perhaps drop the bit about the WEF and… well, the conspiracy theory bit.
Thing is there is a bit of a point about scientists sounding alarm bells about global travel and then all meeting up after travelling thousands of miles, usually by air. Now you and I both know that international conferences are vastly better for information exchange, project seeding etc than teams/zoom meetings etc. But it is all too easy for the lay person to look at that and think that if it were really serious* then the scientists would lead by example.
*It is.
Its not just international conferences that are vastly better in person, so is almost everything else people fly for too.
Which is why cutting flights is not a credible suggestion and is not going to happen. If it won't happen for these conferences, it won't happen anywhere else either.
What is a credible suggestion is developing net zero clean technologies for flights. Which will take longer to implement than say net zero clean technologies for cars, but should still happen ultimately.
It's not either/or. We can cut some flights, and should, and we should also be developing and implementing clean technologies.
The problem is so great that doing one of the things won't be enough. We need to do all of the things!
I disagree. The problem is so great we need to be doing clean technologies.
Cutting a few flights does piss all. If 99% of flights still take off, then reducing the flights by 1% does bugger all.
OTOH ensuring the flights that take off emit 10% less in one step, and then emit nothing eventually, transitions us to clean flights without cutting anything.
The latter is a serious, credible, scientific way to address the problem.
It would be if it was possible to achieve it with the laws of physics as we understand it.
Just the initial 10% involves switching to burning oil crops (as with E5 and E10 petrol) so reducing arable land needed for food and putting food prices up with particular impact on the global south, most of whom don't get to fly anywhere - ever.
There are other ways. Colleagues here are working on growing bio oils in algae. No need to agricultural land.
Yet. Yet.
I'm all for things like bio oils in algae. If so much money hadn't been spaffed away to spivs pushing wind turbines when there is not yet the technology to store what they generate, we might be further down that road.
There absolutely is the technology to store what they generate, its just not completely rolled out yet.
Within a decade it will be though. It will be on my driveway.
From what I recall, nowhere near enough energy storage in cars for that. Or in all transportation.
Here in Lewisham we got the usual one-off dump of leaflets today via the postman. So in total we have
Vicky Foxcroft (Labour). Slick, standardised and professionally produced Labour leaflet. Little tick-box questionnaire about what we'd like Labour to do in the constituency. 8/10 for the leaflet, only 4/10 for actually being visible or active between elections.
Two from Jean Branch (Lib Dem). Why 2 leaflets, Jean? This is Lewisham North, Labour rosette on donkey territory. Spend your time helping Bobby Dean in Carshalton & Wallington. OK, reasonably personal leaflets but message isn't clear. 6/10
Wrong leaflet from Reform (Marian Newton, Lewisham W and W Dulwich. Should be Edward Powell Lewisham North). Slick turquoise one pager with Nigel and Richard. Stop the boats etc. I'll begrudgingly have to give this 8/10 but with a 2 point deduction to 6 for getting the constituency wrong
[Big] John [Owls] Lloyd (Alliance for green socialism). Quaintly homemade vibe. Classic old trot photo, looking miserable. "John considers Starmer to be as bad as the Tories. The same right wing policies at home....failure to condemn Israeli war crimes in Palestine". SKS fans please explain.
Gwenton Dennis (Workers Party of GB). Another one going to the wrong constituency - he's Lewisham West & West Dulwich too. Maybe the royal mail messed it up. Similar content to John Lloyd but much slicker production values. No mention here of the traditionalist themes Galloway used in Rochdale. Rather touching dedication and picture of candidate's late mum and sister on the back. 7/10
No Green (surprising, must be on the way) or Conservative leaflets yet.
Peter Hitchens: "Yes, it was a lawless putsch. My inch-by-inch and line-by-line examination of the illegal overthrow of Ukraine's legitimate President in 2014 (swiftly condoned, to their lasting shame, by the Western democracies)". [Plus link to an article he wrote on the subject in April 23
Peter Hitchens confirms once again he's as thick as pigshit, thanks for the reminder.
Climate change denier too. Moron status confirmed.
Another issue where the three main parties and their fellow travellers have the same view, view anyone who dissents as a cretin and then wonder why people like Meloni, Le Pen and Farage start getting lots of votes and decide it is because they are thick and bigoted, in much the same way a Georgian Aristocrat regarded the peasants.
Anthropogenic climate change is happening - that is a fact. The main issue is how to tackle the issue. The neoliberals want to allow big business to thrive whilst also paying lip service to the idea of being environmentally friendly, so they move taxes onto consumers rather than producers of CO2 - the petrol hikes that many rural Europeans so despise because it makes rural living more expensive is a good example of this. The right / far right want to pretend climate change isn't happening and move on to a scarcity model of politics - there isn't enough left for the Volk, so we must kick out the foreigner (and the dissenters who aren't really people like us anyway). The left propose the only viable alternative - investment in renewable energy and a reduced reliance on fossil fuels. This will mean huge phase shifts (reduced plastic use, reduced usage of hydrocarbon based fertilisers, etc), but at least the left are willing to say what the problem is (excess production and consumption for the benefit of capital) and where to get the resources to tackle the issue (those who already hoard capital) without having to scapegoat immigrants.
There is another option and that's to value sustainability and ecological impact beside profit as a business motive. It's no good making money if you're destroying the world. Supporting businesses which are ecologically sustainable and seek to mitigate the impact of climate change would be sensible options for a more business-oriented Government and if that means companies who refuse to be sustainable go to the wall so be it.
There is a fine line but Govenrment can also be about influencing public behaviour and educating people as to what is happening, why it is happening and the consequences especially for those parts of the world where the impacts are more keenly and immediately felt.
We too face issues from rising sea levels and a climate with more frequent extremes of weather and that means sensible thinking on houses including not building housing developments on flood plains.
The problem with capitalistic growth is that it is ideologically wedded not only to profit, but ever growing profit, which demand ever more extraction and squeezing of labour, along with increasingly trying to foist externalities onto public coffers (or ignoring them completely) makes it really difficult. Already we have right wingers and big businesses saying there is too much green tape and regulation etc. We also know that consumption and CO2 production is skewwed heavily towards the extremely wealthy - both globally and within individual nations. The answer, more equitable distribution of resources and an overall decrease in consumption reliant on fossil fuels, doesn't really square with the continuation of the profit motive as it currently exists.
You don't believe in net zero, do you?
If we have net zero, why do we need "equitable distribution of resources" for climate reasons, considering we can scale up or down consumption/production and anything times zero equals zero.
If we don't have net zero, how do we stop climate change?
If you were serious about tackling climate change, you wouldn't believe any of the garbage you're spouting.
I mean, I don't think globally we're going to get to net zero because many of the people saying we will are hoping carbon capture works better than it currently does - atm efficiency is too low to depend on it. So to get to net zero it will not just be countries sequestering any carbon output to equal zero (as the tech to sequester is currently not good enough), it will require a reduction in emissions. Reduction in emissions will require a reduction in production and consumption. If the logic of growth for the average worker is "you get a smaller slice, but we'll grow the pie", the logic of static growth or even degrowth for the average worker should be "you get a bigger slice, but we're slowly shrinking the pie". That will have to come via wealth redistribution - those who have a huge amount will have to give up their hoarded resources for the benefits of those who have less or none.
So you don't give a fuck about the planet and want to trash the environment and keep emitting pollution then.
Pissing about with marginal reductions in "the size of the pie" will do bugger all to reduce emissions, since we'll still have billions of people making emissions globally and the rest of the world has no desire to shrink their size of the pie - quite rightly too.
Only investing in clean technology gets us to net zero and that requires no change in pie size. And clean technologies can be adopted by the rest of the planet too.
It doesn't take much scraping the green away to reveal the nasty anti-growth agenda beneath. Carbon capture needn't even be about 'storage technology' - it can be done by dressing UK fields with basalt, to the tune of 45% of Britain's overall net zero target, and the level of carbon uptake can be verified easily by testing of soils. Terrifying for the likes of 148grss because it doesn't involve the forced decimation of the economy, which is their actual goal.
It also remineralises the soil and makes it far more fertile.
I used SEER rockdust on my allotment and it was very effective.
Funny thing is they smear me as a climate denier but I grow my own veg travel mostly by public transport and drive very little (had the car since new the thick end of two decades ago and will keep it till it packs up (the greenest way possible of driving due to the carbon cost of construction and disposal). Probably one of the greenest here in terms of what I actually do.
If they actually believed what they say then the COP and WEF summits would be held by videoconference.
What they really mean is that they want a subsistence existence stuck in 15 minute cities for most so that there is unspoiled Lebensraum for them and they can air condition their mansions and fly their private jets without the earth running out of resources any time soon. Oil isn't infinite. Lets not let the plebs waste it, what?
I, too, am very green. Instead of burning lots of calories staying warm, I insulate my uppermost extremity by donning a cylindrical structure of thin metal that reflects back infrared emitted from my scalp.
It also reflects... external... electromagnetic waves...
I hope you earth it then otherwise you are wasting your time. PS don't wear it during thunderstorms.
We very rarely get thunderstorms in Aberdeenshire. Sure the "climate" "scientists" say that it's due "to" prevailing winds, latitude, and the lack of warm, moist air. But I know it because we're too near Lossiemouth. And it's well known that nowhere on "Earth" does more chemtrails than Lossiemouth.
You are just taking the piss because you know you are right and think climate dissent however thoughtful and principled is beneath contempt.
Then you look on in horror as Farage is still ahead of the Tories despite "putingate" and can't understand why (why being that millions don't agree with you and resent being thought of as thick, ignorant, deplorables) but they don't move in your circles (or keep their traps shut if they do) so they don't exist, surely?
That's really not fair.
At no point have I ever implied climate "dissent" is thoughtful and principled.
Nick Robinson did something similar, a couple of times last week, when politicians being interviewed tried to tell him what questions he should be asking them.
Peter Hitchens: "Yes, it was a lawless putsch. My inch-by-inch and line-by-line examination of the illegal overthrow of Ukraine's legitimate President in 2014 (swiftly condoned, to their lasting shame, by the Western democracies)". [Plus link to an article he wrote on the subject in April 23
Peter Hitchens confirms once again he's as thick as pigshit, thanks for the reminder.
Climate change denier too. Moron status confirmed.
Another issue where the three main parties and their fellow travellers have the same view, view anyone who dissents as a cretin and then wonder why people like Meloni, Le Pen and Farage start getting lots of votes and decide it is because they are thick and bigoted, in much the same way a Georgian Aristocrat regarded the peasants.
Anthropogenic climate change is happening - that is a fact. The main issue is how to tackle the issue. The neoliberals want to allow big business to thrive whilst also paying lip service to the idea of being environmentally friendly, so they move taxes onto consumers rather than producers of CO2 - the petrol hikes that many rural Europeans so despise because it makes rural living more expensive is a good example of this. The right / far right want to pretend climate change isn't happening and move on to a scarcity model of politics - there isn't enough left for the Volk, so we must kick out the foreigner (and the dissenters who aren't really people like us anyway). The left propose the only viable alternative - investment in renewable energy and a reduced reliance on fossil fuels. This will mean huge phase shifts (reduced plastic use, reduced usage of hydrocarbon based fertilisers, etc), but at least the left are willing to say what the problem is (excess production and consumption for the benefit of capital) and where to get the resources to tackle the issue (those who already hoard capital) without having to scapegoat immigrants.
There is another option and that's to value sustainability and ecological impact beside profit as a business motive. It's no good making money if you're destroying the world. Supporting businesses which are ecologically sustainable and seek to mitigate the impact of climate change would be sensible options for a more business-oriented Government and if that means companies who refuse to be sustainable go to the wall so be it.
There is a fine line but Govenrment can also be about influencing public behaviour and educating people as to what is happening, why it is happening and the consequences especially for those parts of the world where the impacts are more keenly and immediately felt.
We too face issues from rising sea levels and a climate with more frequent extremes of weather and that means sensible thinking on houses including not building housing developments on flood plains.
The problem with capitalistic growth is that it is ideologically wedded not only to profit, but ever growing profit, which demand ever more extraction and squeezing of labour, along with increasingly trying to foist externalities onto public coffers (or ignoring them completely) makes it really difficult. Already we have right wingers and big businesses saying there is too much green tape and regulation etc. We also know that consumption and CO2 production is skewwed heavily towards the extremely wealthy - both globally and within individual nations. The answer, more equitable distribution of resources and an overall decrease in consumption reliant on fossil fuels, doesn't really square with the continuation of the profit motive as it currently exists.
You don't believe in net zero, do you?
If we have net zero, why do we need "equitable distribution of resources" for climate reasons, considering we can scale up or down consumption/production and anything times zero equals zero.
If we don't have net zero, how do we stop climate change?
If you were serious about tackling climate change, you wouldn't believe any of the garbage you're spouting.
I mean, I don't think globally we're going to get to net zero because many of the people saying we will are hoping carbon capture works better than it currently does - atm efficiency is too low to depend on it. So to get to net zero it will not just be countries sequestering any carbon output to equal zero (as the tech to sequester is currently not good enough), it will require a reduction in emissions. Reduction in emissions will require a reduction in production and consumption. If the logic of growth for the average worker is "you get a smaller slice, but we'll grow the pie", the logic of static growth or even degrowth for the average worker should be "you get a bigger slice, but we're slowly shrinking the pie". That will have to come via wealth redistribution - those who have a huge amount will have to give up their hoarded resources for the benefits of those who have less or none.
So you don't give a fuck about the planet and want to trash the environment and keep emitting pollution then.
Pissing about with marginal reductions in "the size of the pie" will do bugger all to reduce emissions, since we'll still have billions of people making emissions globally and the rest of the world has no desire to shrink their size of the pie - quite rightly too.
Only investing in clean technology gets us to net zero and that requires no change in pie size. And clean technologies can be adopted by the rest of the planet too.
It doesn't take much scraping the green away to reveal the nasty anti-growth agenda beneath. Carbon capture needn't even be about 'storage technology' - it can be done by dressing UK fields with basalt, to the tune of 45% of Britain's overall net zero target, and the level of carbon uptake can be verified easily by testing of soils. Terrifying for the likes of 148grss because it doesn't involve the forced decimation of the economy, which is their actual goal.
It also remineralises the soil and makes it far more fertile.
I used SEER rockdust on my allotment and it was very effective.
Funny thing is they smear me as a climate denier but I grow my own veg travel mostly by public transport and drive very little (had the car since new the thick end of two decades ago and will keep it till it packs up (the greenest way possible of driving due to the carbon cost of construction and disposal). Probably one of the greenest here in terms of what I actually do.
If they actually believed what they say then the COP and WEF summits would be held by videoconference.
What they really mean is that they want a subsistence existence stuck in 15 minute cities for most so that there is unspoiled Lebensraum for them and they can air condition their mansions and fly their private jets without the earth running out of resources any time soon. Oil isn't infinite. Lets not let the plebs waste it, what?
If you don’t want to sound like a stark raving conspiracy theorist, perhaps drop the bit about the WEF and… well, the conspiracy theory bit.
Thing is there is a bit of a point about scientists sounding alarm bells about global travel and then all meeting up after travelling thousands of miles, usually by air. Now you and I both know that international conferences are vastly better for information exchange, project seeding etc than teams/zoom meetings etc. But it is all too easy for the lay person to look at that and think that if it were really serious* then the scientists would lead by example.
*It is.
It is shocking that it took COVID-19 to teach us how much we can use online calls for our international collaborations, and the vast majority of collaboration is now done online. (Most meetings I have with colleagues at the same university as me I do on Teams, rather than getting us all to meet up.)
However, I don't think that's an excuse for MisterBedfordshire or anyone else to believe or push batshit crazy conspiracy theories.
Since when is the rich wanting the pie for themselves and the crumbs for the plebs a batshit crazy conspiracy theory?
Its been the norm throughout most of recorded history
It becomes a conspiracy theory when you start assuming the conspiring.
Everyone wants more for themselves. That is simple human nature.
As it happened I paid a large sum of money to give my kids the singles vaccines instead of MMR.
Wasn't going to take the risk of shoving three live but attenuated viruses into an infant when that risk is not as low as reasonably practicable on the grounds that they can be separately injected six weeks apart.
Labour 42% (–) Reform UK 19% (–) Conservative 18% (–) Lib Dem 12% (+1) Green 6% (+1) SNP 3% (–) Other 2% (+1)
BAXTERED
LAB 501 LIB DEMS 60 CONS 38 REFUK 5 GRN 2
Absolutely disastrous for the conservatives given it includes faragegate. No impact whatsoever on polling.
As we've seen here, Putingate isn't necessarily causing defectors to Farage to rethink their decision. What it might do is put off those who still have to cross the river. So the ceiling has moved down a bit, but that doesn't matter yet.
Peter Hitchens: "Yes, it was a lawless putsch. My inch-by-inch and line-by-line examination of the illegal overthrow of Ukraine's legitimate President in 2014 (swiftly condoned, to their lasting shame, by the Western democracies)". [Plus link to an article he wrote on the subject in April 23
Peter Hitchens confirms once again he's as thick as pigshit, thanks for the reminder.
Climate change denier too. Moron status confirmed.
Another issue where the three main parties and their fellow travellers have the same view, view anyone who dissents as a cretin and then wonder why people like Meloni, Le Pen and Farage start getting lots of votes and decide it is because they are thick and bigoted, in much the same way a Georgian Aristocrat regarded the peasants.
Anthropogenic climate change is happening - that is a fact. The main issue is how to tackle the issue. The neoliberals want to allow big business to thrive whilst also paying lip service to the idea of being environmentally friendly, so they move taxes onto consumers rather than producers of CO2 - the petrol hikes that many rural Europeans so despise because it makes rural living more expensive is a good example of this. The right / far right want to pretend climate change isn't happening and move on to a scarcity model of politics - there isn't enough left for the Volk, so we must kick out the foreigner (and the dissenters who aren't really people like us anyway). The left propose the only viable alternative - investment in renewable energy and a reduced reliance on fossil fuels. This will mean huge phase shifts (reduced plastic use, reduced usage of hydrocarbon based fertilisers, etc), but at least the left are willing to say what the problem is (excess production and consumption for the benefit of capital) and where to get the resources to tackle the issue (those who already hoard capital) without having to scapegoat immigrants.
There is another option and that's to value sustainability and ecological impact beside profit as a business motive. It's no good making money if you're destroying the world. Supporting businesses which are ecologically sustainable and seek to mitigate the impact of climate change would be sensible options for a more business-oriented Government and if that means companies who refuse to be sustainable go to the wall so be it.
There is a fine line but Govenrment can also be about influencing public behaviour and educating people as to what is happening, why it is happening and the consequences especially for those parts of the world where the impacts are more keenly and immediately felt.
We too face issues from rising sea levels and a climate with more frequent extremes of weather and that means sensible thinking on houses including not building housing developments on flood plains.
The problem with capitalistic growth is that it is ideologically wedded not only to profit, but ever growing profit, which demand ever more extraction and squeezing of labour, along with increasingly trying to foist externalities onto public coffers (or ignoring them completely) makes it really difficult. Already we have right wingers and big businesses saying there is too much green tape and regulation etc. We also know that consumption and CO2 production is skewwed heavily towards the extremely wealthy - both globally and within individual nations. The answer, more equitable distribution of resources and an overall decrease in consumption reliant on fossil fuels, doesn't really square with the continuation of the profit motive as it currently exists.
You don't believe in net zero, do you?
If we have net zero, why do we need "equitable distribution of resources" for climate reasons, considering we can scale up or down consumption/production and anything times zero equals zero.
If we don't have net zero, how do we stop climate change?
If you were serious about tackling climate change, you wouldn't believe any of the garbage you're spouting.
I mean, I don't think globally we're going to get to net zero because many of the people saying we will are hoping carbon capture works better than it currently does - atm efficiency is too low to depend on it. So to get to net zero it will not just be countries sequestering any carbon output to equal zero (as the tech to sequester is currently not good enough), it will require a reduction in emissions. Reduction in emissions will require a reduction in production and consumption. If the logic of growth for the average worker is "you get a smaller slice, but we'll grow the pie", the logic of static growth or even degrowth for the average worker should be "you get a bigger slice, but we're slowly shrinking the pie". That will have to come via wealth redistribution - those who have a huge amount will have to give up their hoarded resources for the benefits of those who have less or none.
So you don't give a fuck about the planet and want to trash the environment and keep emitting pollution then.
Pissing about with marginal reductions in "the size of the pie" will do bugger all to reduce emissions, since we'll still have billions of people making emissions globally and the rest of the world has no desire to shrink their size of the pie - quite rightly too.
Only investing in clean technology gets us to net zero and that requires no change in pie size. And clean technologies can be adopted by the rest of the planet too.
It doesn't take much scraping the green away to reveal the nasty anti-growth agenda beneath. Carbon capture needn't even be about 'storage technology' - it can be done by dressing UK fields with basalt, to the tune of 45% of Britain's overall net zero target, and the level of carbon uptake can be verified easily by testing of soils. Terrifying for the likes of 148grss because it doesn't involve the forced decimation of the economy, which is their actual goal.
It also remineralises the soil and makes it far more fertile.
I used SEER rockdust on my allotment and it was very effective.
Funny thing is they smear me as a climate denier but I grow my own veg travel mostly by public transport and drive very little (had the car since new the thick end of two decades ago and will keep it till it packs up (the greenest way possible of driving due to the carbon cost of construction and disposal). Probably one of the greenest here in terms of what I actually do.
If they actually believed what they say then the COP and WEF summits would be held by videoconference.
What they really mean is that they want a subsistence existence stuck in 15 minute cities for most so that there is unspoiled Lebensraum for them and they can air condition their mansions and fly their private jets without the earth running out of resources any time soon. Oil isn't infinite. Lets not let the plebs waste it, what?
I, too, am very green. Instead of burning lots of calories staying warm, I insulate my uppermost extremity by donning a cylindrical structure of thin metal that reflects back infrared emitted from my scalp.
It also reflects... external... electromagnetic waves...
I hope you earth it then otherwise you are wasting your time. PS don't wear it during thunderstorms.
We very rarely get thunderstorms in Aberdeenshire. Sure the "climate" "scientists" say that it's due "to" prevailing winds, latitude, and the lack of warm, moist air. But I know it because we're too near Lossiemouth. And it's well known that nowhere on "Earth" does more chemtrails than Lossiemouth.
You are just taking the piss because you know you are right and think climate dissent however thoughtful and principled is beneath contempt.
Then you look on in horror as Farage is still ahead of the Tories despite "putingate" and can't understand why (why being that millions don't agree with you and resent being thought of as thick, ignorant, deplorables) but they don't move in your circles (or keep their traps shut if they do) so they don't exist, surely?
That's really not fair.
At no point have I ever implied climate "dissent" is thoughtful and principled.
Dont forget the news hit on a warm sunny weekend. The average Reform voter was probably pissed all weekend and never noticed the Farage news lol.
Hard to work out what a Labour government and a LibDem official opposition would do to political discourse. Optimistic me says it would end the influence of the Tory press and lead to much more grown-up policy-making. The pessimist in me says it would result in social media-led carnage on the streets as the right goes extra-Parliamentary.
Peter Hitchens: "Yes, it was a lawless putsch. My inch-by-inch and line-by-line examination of the illegal overthrow of Ukraine's legitimate President in 2014 (swiftly condoned, to their lasting shame, by the Western democracies)". [Plus link to an article he wrote on the subject in April 23
Peter Hitchens confirms once again he's as thick as pigshit, thanks for the reminder.
Climate change denier too. Moron status confirmed.
Another issue where the three main parties and their fellow travellers have the same view, view anyone who dissents as a cretin and then wonder why people like Meloni, Le Pen and Farage start getting lots of votes and decide it is because they are thick and bigoted, in much the same way a Georgian Aristocrat regarded the peasants.
Anthropogenic climate change is happening - that is a fact. The main issue is how to tackle the issue. The neoliberals want to allow big business to thrive whilst also paying lip service to the idea of being environmentally friendly, so they move taxes onto consumers rather than producers of CO2 - the petrol hikes that many rural Europeans so despise because it makes rural living more expensive is a good example of this. The right / far right want to pretend climate change isn't happening and move on to a scarcity model of politics - there isn't enough left for the Volk, so we must kick out the foreigner (and the dissenters who aren't really people like us anyway). The left propose the only viable alternative - investment in renewable energy and a reduced reliance on fossil fuels. This will mean huge phase shifts (reduced plastic use, reduced usage of hydrocarbon based fertilisers, etc), but at least the left are willing to say what the problem is (excess production and consumption for the benefit of capital) and where to get the resources to tackle the issue (those who already hoard capital) without having to scapegoat immigrants.
There is another option and that's to value sustainability and ecological impact beside profit as a business motive. It's no good making money if you're destroying the world. Supporting businesses which are ecologically sustainable and seek to mitigate the impact of climate change would be sensible options for a more business-oriented Government and if that means companies who refuse to be sustainable go to the wall so be it.
There is a fine line but Govenrment can also be about influencing public behaviour and educating people as to what is happening, why it is happening and the consequences especially for those parts of the world where the impacts are more keenly and immediately felt.
We too face issues from rising sea levels and a climate with more frequent extremes of weather and that means sensible thinking on houses including not building housing developments on flood plains.
The problem with capitalistic growth is that it is ideologically wedded not only to profit, but ever growing profit, which demand ever more extraction and squeezing of labour, along with increasingly trying to foist externalities onto public coffers (or ignoring them completely) makes it really difficult. Already we have right wingers and big businesses saying there is too much green tape and regulation etc. We also know that consumption and CO2 production is skewwed heavily towards the extremely wealthy - both globally and within individual nations. The answer, more equitable distribution of resources and an overall decrease in consumption reliant on fossil fuels, doesn't really square with the continuation of the profit motive as it currently exists.
You don't believe in net zero, do you?
If we have net zero, why do we need "equitable distribution of resources" for climate reasons, considering we can scale up or down consumption/production and anything times zero equals zero.
If we don't have net zero, how do we stop climate change?
If you were serious about tackling climate change, you wouldn't believe any of the garbage you're spouting.
I mean, I don't think globally we're going to get to net zero because many of the people saying we will are hoping carbon capture works better than it currently does - atm efficiency is too low to depend on it. So to get to net zero it will not just be countries sequestering any carbon output to equal zero (as the tech to sequester is currently not good enough), it will require a reduction in emissions. Reduction in emissions will require a reduction in production and consumption. If the logic of growth for the average worker is "you get a smaller slice, but we'll grow the pie", the logic of static growth or even degrowth for the average worker should be "you get a bigger slice, but we're slowly shrinking the pie". That will have to come via wealth redistribution - those who have a huge amount will have to give up their hoarded resources for the benefits of those who have less or none.
So you don't give a fuck about the planet and want to trash the environment and keep emitting pollution then.
Pissing about with marginal reductions in "the size of the pie" will do bugger all to reduce emissions, since we'll still have billions of people making emissions globally and the rest of the world has no desire to shrink their size of the pie - quite rightly too.
Only investing in clean technology gets us to net zero and that requires no change in pie size. And clean technologies can be adopted by the rest of the planet too.
It doesn't take much scraping the green away to reveal the nasty anti-growth agenda beneath. Carbon capture needn't even be about 'storage technology' - it can be done by dressing UK fields with basalt, to the tune of 45% of Britain's overall net zero target, and the level of carbon uptake can be verified easily by testing of soils. Terrifying for the likes of 148grss because it doesn't involve the forced decimation of the economy, which is their actual goal.
It also remineralises the soil and makes it far more fertile.
I used SEER rockdust on my allotment and it was very effective.
Funny thing is they smear me as a climate denier but I grow my own veg travel mostly by public transport and drive very little (had the car since new the thick end of two decades ago and will keep it till it packs up (the greenest way possible of driving due to the carbon cost of construction and disposal). Probably one of the greenest here in terms of what I actually do.
If they actually believed what they say then the COP and WEF summits would be held by videoconference.
What they really mean is that they want a subsistence existence stuck in 15 minute cities for most so that there is unspoiled Lebensraum for them and they can air condition their mansions and fly their private jets without the earth running out of resources any time soon. Oil isn't infinite. Lets not let the plebs waste it, what?
If you don’t want to sound like a stark raving conspiracy theorist, perhaps drop the bit about the WEF and… well, the conspiracy theory bit.
Thing is there is a bit of a point about scientists sounding alarm bells about global travel and then all meeting up after travelling thousands of miles, usually by air. Now you and I both know that international conferences are vastly better for information exchange, project seeding etc than teams/zoom meetings etc. But it is all too easy for the lay person to look at that and think that if it were really serious* then the scientists would lead by example.
*It is.
Its not just international conferences that are vastly better in person, so is almost everything else people fly for too.
Which is why cutting flights is not a credible suggestion and is not going to happen. If it won't happen for these conferences, it won't happen anywhere else either.
What is a credible suggestion is developing net zero clean technologies for flights. Which will take longer to implement than say net zero clean technologies for cars, but should still happen ultimately.
It's not either/or. We can cut some flights, and should, and we should also be developing and implementing clean technologies.
The problem is so great that doing one of the things won't be enough. We need to do all of the things!
I disagree. The problem is so great we need to be doing clean technologies.
Cutting a few flights does piss all. If 99% of flights still take off, then reducing the flights by 1% does bugger all.
OTOH ensuring the flights that take off emit 10% less in one step, and then emit nothing eventually, transitions us to clean flights without cutting anything.
The latter is a serious, credible, scientific way to address the problem.
It would be if it was possible to achieve it with the laws of physics as we understand it.
Just the initial 10% involves switching to burning oil crops (as with E5 and E10 petrol) so reducing arable land needed for food and putting food prices up with particular impact on the global south, most of whom don't get to fly anywhere - ever.
No it doesn't.
Long term for the past fifty years there has been a compound 1.3% reduction in fuel burn per passenger km per annum and this has been continuing in recent years.
New planes are routinely using better technologies and are more fuel efficient than old ones.
A modern Airbus is much more fuel efficient than an old 747 was.
But we are approaching the limit of what can be achieved, Driving up efficiency increases economy but there is a limit.
Why is there a limit?
We are continuously iterating better technology and there is no end in sight for that.
Longer term there are plausible zero (net) carbon options for aviation but they're not here yet, but shorter term there absolutely is ways to continue to iterate better efficiency. We've not hit the wall yet.
Oh dear. Even if aeroplanes were able to turn fuel to propulsion with 100% efficiency(which they never will) they are still going to burn a vast amount of oil.
There are all sorts of net zero options out there that aren't developed yet, but could be.
The RAF has flown a jet using synthetic gasoline made from used cooking oil, which is an interesting option, for instance.
There are in fact many alternatives being researched and my money is on humanity doing what it always does and that's finding a scientific solution.
There is moral hazard in moving towards a Free Palestine as a consequence of what Hamas did on Oct 7th. I can see that point. However you don't need to go the other way and move further away from a Free Palestine in order to avoid the moral hazard. That risks rewarding Netanyahu's barbaric actions. So, no, I'm not with Jordan Bardella on this one.
Peter Hitchens: "Yes, it was a lawless putsch. My inch-by-inch and line-by-line examination of the illegal overthrow of Ukraine's legitimate President in 2014 (swiftly condoned, to their lasting shame, by the Western democracies)". [Plus link to an article he wrote on the subject in April 23
Peter Hitchens confirms once again he's as thick as pigshit, thanks for the reminder.
Climate change denier too. Moron status confirmed.
Another issue where the three main parties and their fellow travellers have the same view, view anyone who dissents as a cretin and then wonder why people like Meloni, Le Pen and Farage start getting lots of votes and decide it is because they are thick and bigoted, in much the same way a Georgian Aristocrat regarded the peasants.
Anthropogenic climate change is happening - that is a fact. The main issue is how to tackle the issue. The neoliberals want to allow big business to thrive whilst also paying lip service to the idea of being environmentally friendly, so they move taxes onto consumers rather than producers of CO2 - the petrol hikes that many rural Europeans so despise because it makes rural living more expensive is a good example of this. The right / far right want to pretend climate change isn't happening and move on to a scarcity model of politics - there isn't enough left for the Volk, so we must kick out the foreigner (and the dissenters who aren't really people like us anyway). The left propose the only viable alternative - investment in renewable energy and a reduced reliance on fossil fuels. This will mean huge phase shifts (reduced plastic use, reduced usage of hydrocarbon based fertilisers, etc), but at least the left are willing to say what the problem is (excess production and consumption for the benefit of capital) and where to get the resources to tackle the issue (those who already hoard capital) without having to scapegoat immigrants.
There is another option and that's to value sustainability and ecological impact beside profit as a business motive. It's no good making money if you're destroying the world. Supporting businesses which are ecologically sustainable and seek to mitigate the impact of climate change would be sensible options for a more business-oriented Government and if that means companies who refuse to be sustainable go to the wall so be it.
There is a fine line but Govenrment can also be about influencing public behaviour and educating people as to what is happening, why it is happening and the consequences especially for those parts of the world where the impacts are more keenly and immediately felt.
We too face issues from rising sea levels and a climate with more frequent extremes of weather and that means sensible thinking on houses including not building housing developments on flood plains.
The problem with capitalistic growth is that it is ideologically wedded not only to profit, but ever growing profit, which demand ever more extraction and squeezing of labour, along with increasingly trying to foist externalities onto public coffers (or ignoring them completely) makes it really difficult. Already we have right wingers and big businesses saying there is too much green tape and regulation etc. We also know that consumption and CO2 production is skewwed heavily towards the extremely wealthy - both globally and within individual nations. The answer, more equitable distribution of resources and an overall decrease in consumption reliant on fossil fuels, doesn't really square with the continuation of the profit motive as it currently exists.
You don't believe in net zero, do you?
If we have net zero, why do we need "equitable distribution of resources" for climate reasons, considering we can scale up or down consumption/production and anything times zero equals zero.
If we don't have net zero, how do we stop climate change?
If you were serious about tackling climate change, you wouldn't believe any of the garbage you're spouting.
I mean, I don't think globally we're going to get to net zero because many of the people saying we will are hoping carbon capture works better than it currently does - atm efficiency is too low to depend on it. So to get to net zero it will not just be countries sequestering any carbon output to equal zero (as the tech to sequester is currently not good enough), it will require a reduction in emissions. Reduction in emissions will require a reduction in production and consumption. If the logic of growth for the average worker is "you get a smaller slice, but we'll grow the pie", the logic of static growth or even degrowth for the average worker should be "you get a bigger slice, but we're slowly shrinking the pie". That will have to come via wealth redistribution - those who have a huge amount will have to give up their hoarded resources for the benefits of those who have less or none.
So you don't give a fuck about the planet and want to trash the environment and keep emitting pollution then.
Pissing about with marginal reductions in "the size of the pie" will do bugger all to reduce emissions, since we'll still have billions of people making emissions globally and the rest of the world has no desire to shrink their size of the pie - quite rightly too.
Only investing in clean technology gets us to net zero and that requires no change in pie size. And clean technologies can be adopted by the rest of the planet too.
It doesn't take much scraping the green away to reveal the nasty anti-growth agenda beneath. Carbon capture needn't even be about 'storage technology' - it can be done by dressing UK fields with basalt, to the tune of 45% of Britain's overall net zero target, and the level of carbon uptake can be verified easily by testing of soils. Terrifying for the likes of 148grss because it doesn't involve the forced decimation of the economy, which is their actual goal.
It also remineralises the soil and makes it far more fertile.
I used SEER rockdust on my allotment and it was very effective.
Funny thing is they smear me as a climate denier but I grow my own veg travel mostly by public transport and drive very little (had the car since new the thick end of two decades ago and will keep it till it packs up (the greenest way possible of driving due to the carbon cost of construction and disposal). Probably one of the greenest here in terms of what I actually do.
If they actually believed what they say then the COP and WEF summits would be held by videoconference.
What they really mean is that they want a subsistence existence stuck in 15 minute cities for most so that there is unspoiled Lebensraum for them and they can air condition their mansions and fly their private jets without the earth running out of resources any time soon. Oil isn't infinite. Lets not let the plebs waste it, what?
I, too, am very green. Instead of burning lots of calories staying warm, I insulate my uppermost extremity by donning a cylindrical structure of thin metal that reflects back infrared emitted from my scalp.
It also reflects... external... electromagnetic waves...
I hope you earth it then otherwise you are wasting your time. PS don't wear it during thunderstorms.
We very rarely get thunderstorms in Aberdeenshire. Sure the "climate" "scientists" say that it's due "to" prevailing winds, latitude, and the lack of warm, moist air. But I know it because we're too near Lossiemouth. And it's well known that nowhere on "Earth" does more chemtrails than Lossiemouth.
You are just taking the piss because you know you are right and think climate dissent however thoughtful and principled is beneath contempt.
Then you look on in horror as Farage is still ahead of the Tories despite "putingate" and can't understand why (why being that millions don't agree with you and resent being thought of as thick, ignorant, deplorables) but they don't move in your circles (or keep their traps shut if they do) so they don't exist, surely?
That's really not fair.
At no point have I ever implied climate "dissent" is thoughtful and principled.
Dont forget the news hit on a warm sunny weekend. The average Reform voter was probably pissed all weekend and never noticed the Farage news lol.
From what I've seen a lot of Reform's vote comes from BA pilots.
Peter Hitchens: "Yes, it was a lawless putsch. My inch-by-inch and line-by-line examination of the illegal overthrow of Ukraine's legitimate President in 2014 (swiftly condoned, to their lasting shame, by the Western democracies)". [Plus link to an article he wrote on the subject in April 23
Peter Hitchens confirms once again he's as thick as pigshit, thanks for the reminder.
Climate change denier too. Moron status confirmed.
Another issue where the three main parties and their fellow travellers have the same view, view anyone who dissents as a cretin and then wonder why people like Meloni, Le Pen and Farage start getting lots of votes and decide it is because they are thick and bigoted, in much the same way a Georgian Aristocrat regarded the peasants.
Anthropogenic climate change is happening - that is a fact. The main issue is how to tackle the issue. The neoliberals want to allow big business to thrive whilst also paying lip service to the idea of being environmentally friendly, so they move taxes onto consumers rather than producers of CO2 - the petrol hikes that many rural Europeans so despise because it makes rural living more expensive is a good example of this. The right / far right want to pretend climate change isn't happening and move on to a scarcity model of politics - there isn't enough left for the Volk, so we must kick out the foreigner (and the dissenters who aren't really people like us anyway). The left propose the only viable alternative - investment in renewable energy and a reduced reliance on fossil fuels. This will mean huge phase shifts (reduced plastic use, reduced usage of hydrocarbon based fertilisers, etc), but at least the left are willing to say what the problem is (excess production and consumption for the benefit of capital) and where to get the resources to tackle the issue (those who already hoard capital) without having to scapegoat immigrants.
There is another option and that's to value sustainability and ecological impact beside profit as a business motive. It's no good making money if you're destroying the world. Supporting businesses which are ecologically sustainable and seek to mitigate the impact of climate change would be sensible options for a more business-oriented Government and if that means companies who refuse to be sustainable go to the wall so be it.
There is a fine line but Govenrment can also be about influencing public behaviour and educating people as to what is happening, why it is happening and the consequences especially for those parts of the world where the impacts are more keenly and immediately felt.
We too face issues from rising sea levels and a climate with more frequent extremes of weather and that means sensible thinking on houses including not building housing developments on flood plains.
The problem with capitalistic growth is that it is ideologically wedded not only to profit, but ever growing profit, which demand ever more extraction and squeezing of labour, along with increasingly trying to foist externalities onto public coffers (or ignoring them completely) makes it really difficult. Already we have right wingers and big businesses saying there is too much green tape and regulation etc. We also know that consumption and CO2 production is skewwed heavily towards the extremely wealthy - both globally and within individual nations. The answer, more equitable distribution of resources and an overall decrease in consumption reliant on fossil fuels, doesn't really square with the continuation of the profit motive as it currently exists.
You don't believe in net zero, do you?
If we have net zero, why do we need "equitable distribution of resources" for climate reasons, considering we can scale up or down consumption/production and anything times zero equals zero.
If we don't have net zero, how do we stop climate change?
If you were serious about tackling climate change, you wouldn't believe any of the garbage you're spouting.
I mean, I don't think globally we're going to get to net zero because many of the people saying we will are hoping carbon capture works better than it currently does - atm efficiency is too low to depend on it. So to get to net zero it will not just be countries sequestering any carbon output to equal zero (as the tech to sequester is currently not good enough), it will require a reduction in emissions. Reduction in emissions will require a reduction in production and consumption. If the logic of growth for the average worker is "you get a smaller slice, but we'll grow the pie", the logic of static growth or even degrowth for the average worker should be "you get a bigger slice, but we're slowly shrinking the pie". That will have to come via wealth redistribution - those who have a huge amount will have to give up their hoarded resources for the benefits of those who have less or none.
So you don't give a fuck about the planet and want to trash the environment and keep emitting pollution then.
Pissing about with marginal reductions in "the size of the pie" will do bugger all to reduce emissions, since we'll still have billions of people making emissions globally and the rest of the world has no desire to shrink their size of the pie - quite rightly too.
Only investing in clean technology gets us to net zero and that requires no change in pie size. And clean technologies can be adopted by the rest of the planet too.
It doesn't take much scraping the green away to reveal the nasty anti-growth agenda beneath. Carbon capture needn't even be about 'storage technology' - it can be done by dressing UK fields with basalt, to the tune of 45% of Britain's overall net zero target, and the level of carbon uptake can be verified easily by testing of soils. Terrifying for the likes of 148grss because it doesn't involve the forced decimation of the economy, which is their actual goal.
It also remineralises the soil and makes it far more fertile.
I used SEER rockdust on my allotment and it was very effective.
Funny thing is they smear me as a climate denier but I grow my own veg travel mostly by public transport and drive very little (had the car since new the thick end of two decades ago and will keep it till it packs up (the greenest way possible of driving due to the carbon cost of construction and disposal). Probably one of the greenest here in terms of what I actually do.
If they actually believed what they say then the COP and WEF summits would be held by videoconference.
What they really mean is that they want a subsistence existence stuck in 15 minute cities for most so that there is unspoiled Lebensraum for them and they can air condition their mansions and fly their private jets without the earth running out of resources any time soon. Oil isn't infinite. Lets not let the plebs waste it, what?
I, too, am very green. Instead of burning lots of calories staying warm, I insulate my uppermost extremity by donning a cylindrical structure of thin metal that reflects back infrared emitted from my scalp.
It also reflects... external... electromagnetic waves...
I hope you earth it then otherwise you are wasting your time. PS don't wear it during thunderstorms.
We very rarely get thunderstorms in Aberdeenshire. Sure the "climate" "scientists" say that it's due "to" prevailing winds, latitude, and the lack of warm, moist air. But I know it because we're too near Lossiemouth. And it's well known that nowhere on "Earth" does more chemtrails than Lossiemouth.
You are just taking the piss because you know you are right and think climate dissent however thoughtful and principled is beneath contempt.
Then you look on in horror as Farage is still ahead of the Tories despite "putingate" and can't understand why (why being that millions don't agree with you and resent being thought of as thick, ignorant, deplorables) but they don't move in your circles (or keep their traps shut if they do) so they don't exist, surely?
That's really not fair.
At no point have I ever implied climate "dissent" is thoughtful and principled.
Dont forget the news hit on a warm sunny weekend. The average Reform voter was probably pissed all weekend and never noticed the Farage news lol.
From what I've seen a lot of Reform's vote comes from BA pilots.
Peter Hitchens: "Yes, it was a lawless putsch. My inch-by-inch and line-by-line examination of the illegal overthrow of Ukraine's legitimate President in 2014 (swiftly condoned, to their lasting shame, by the Western democracies)". [Plus link to an article he wrote on the subject in April 23
Peter Hitchens confirms once again he's as thick as pigshit, thanks for the reminder.
Climate change denier too. Moron status confirmed.
Another issue where the three main parties and their fellow travellers have the same view, view anyone who dissents as a cretin and then wonder why people like Meloni, Le Pen and Farage start getting lots of votes and decide it is because they are thick and bigoted, in much the same way a Georgian Aristocrat regarded the peasants.
Anthropogenic climate change is happening - that is a fact. The main issue is how to tackle the issue. The neoliberals want to allow big business to thrive whilst also paying lip service to the idea of being environmentally friendly, so they move taxes onto consumers rather than producers of CO2 - the petrol hikes that many rural Europeans so despise because it makes rural living more expensive is a good example of this. The right / far right want to pretend climate change isn't happening and move on to a scarcity model of politics - there isn't enough left for the Volk, so we must kick out the foreigner (and the dissenters who aren't really people like us anyway). The left propose the only viable alternative - investment in renewable energy and a reduced reliance on fossil fuels. This will mean huge phase shifts (reduced plastic use, reduced usage of hydrocarbon based fertilisers, etc), but at least the left are willing to say what the problem is (excess production and consumption for the benefit of capital) and where to get the resources to tackle the issue (those who already hoard capital) without having to scapegoat immigrants.
There is another option and that's to value sustainability and ecological impact beside profit as a business motive. It's no good making money if you're destroying the world. Supporting businesses which are ecologically sustainable and seek to mitigate the impact of climate change would be sensible options for a more business-oriented Government and if that means companies who refuse to be sustainable go to the wall so be it.
There is a fine line but Govenrment can also be about influencing public behaviour and educating people as to what is happening, why it is happening and the consequences especially for those parts of the world where the impacts are more keenly and immediately felt.
We too face issues from rising sea levels and a climate with more frequent extremes of weather and that means sensible thinking on houses including not building housing developments on flood plains.
The problem with capitalistic growth is that it is ideologically wedded not only to profit, but ever growing profit, which demand ever more extraction and squeezing of labour, along with increasingly trying to foist externalities onto public coffers (or ignoring them completely) makes it really difficult. Already we have right wingers and big businesses saying there is too much green tape and regulation etc. We also know that consumption and CO2 production is skewwed heavily towards the extremely wealthy - both globally and within individual nations. The answer, more equitable distribution of resources and an overall decrease in consumption reliant on fossil fuels, doesn't really square with the continuation of the profit motive as it currently exists.
You don't believe in net zero, do you?
If we have net zero, why do we need "equitable distribution of resources" for climate reasons, considering we can scale up or down consumption/production and anything times zero equals zero.
If we don't have net zero, how do we stop climate change?
If you were serious about tackling climate change, you wouldn't believe any of the garbage you're spouting.
I mean, I don't think globally we're going to get to net zero because many of the people saying we will are hoping carbon capture works better than it currently does - atm efficiency is too low to depend on it. So to get to net zero it will not just be countries sequestering any carbon output to equal zero (as the tech to sequester is currently not good enough), it will require a reduction in emissions. Reduction in emissions will require a reduction in production and consumption. If the logic of growth for the average worker is "you get a smaller slice, but we'll grow the pie", the logic of static growth or even degrowth for the average worker should be "you get a bigger slice, but we're slowly shrinking the pie". That will have to come via wealth redistribution - those who have a huge amount will have to give up their hoarded resources for the benefits of those who have less or none.
So you don't give a fuck about the planet and want to trash the environment and keep emitting pollution then.
Pissing about with marginal reductions in "the size of the pie" will do bugger all to reduce emissions, since we'll still have billions of people making emissions globally and the rest of the world has no desire to shrink their size of the pie - quite rightly too.
Only investing in clean technology gets us to net zero and that requires no change in pie size. And clean technologies can be adopted by the rest of the planet too.
It doesn't take much scraping the green away to reveal the nasty anti-growth agenda beneath. Carbon capture needn't even be about 'storage technology' - it can be done by dressing UK fields with basalt, to the tune of 45% of Britain's overall net zero target, and the level of carbon uptake can be verified easily by testing of soils. Terrifying for the likes of 148grss because it doesn't involve the forced decimation of the economy, which is their actual goal.
It also remineralises the soil and makes it far more fertile.
I used SEER rockdust on my allotment and it was very effective.
Funny thing is they smear me as a climate denier but I grow my own veg travel mostly by public transport and drive very little (had the car since new the thick end of two decades ago and will keep it till it packs up (the greenest way possible of driving due to the carbon cost of construction and disposal). Probably one of the greenest here in terms of what I actually do.
If they actually believed what they say then the COP and WEF summits would be held by videoconference.
What they really mean is that they want a subsistence existence stuck in 15 minute cities for most so that there is unspoiled Lebensraum for them and they can air condition their mansions and fly their private jets without the earth running out of resources any time soon. Oil isn't infinite. Lets not let the plebs waste it, what?
If you don’t want to sound like a stark raving conspiracy theorist, perhaps drop the bit about the WEF and… well, the conspiracy theory bit.
Thing is there is a bit of a point about scientists sounding alarm bells about global travel and then all meeting up after travelling thousands of miles, usually by air. Now you and I both know that international conferences are vastly better for information exchange, project seeding etc than teams/zoom meetings etc. But it is all too easy for the lay person to look at that and think that if it were really serious* then the scientists would lead by example.
*It is.
Its not just international conferences that are vastly better in person, so is almost everything else people fly for too.
Which is why cutting flights is not a credible suggestion and is not going to happen. If it won't happen for these conferences, it won't happen anywhere else either.
What is a credible suggestion is developing net zero clean technologies for flights. Which will take longer to implement than say net zero clean technologies for cars, but should still happen ultimately.
It's not either/or. We can cut some flights, and should, and we should also be developing and implementing clean technologies.
The problem is so great that doing one of the things won't be enough. We need to do all of the things!
I disagree. The problem is so great we need to be doing clean technologies.
Cutting a few flights does piss all. If 99% of flights still take off, then reducing the flights by 1% does bugger all.
OTOH ensuring the flights that take off emit 10% less in one step, and then emit nothing eventually, transitions us to clean flights without cutting anything.
The latter is a serious, credible, scientific way to address the problem.
It would be if it was possible to achieve it with the laws of physics as we understand it.
Just the initial 10% involves switching to burning oil crops (as with E5 and E10 petrol) so reducing arable land needed for food and putting food prices up with particular impact on the global south, most of whom don't get to fly anywhere - ever.
There are other ways. Colleagues here are working on growing bio oils in algae. No need to agricultural land.
Yet. Yet.
I'm all for things like bio oils in algae. If so much money hadn't been spaffed away to spivs pushing wind turbines when there is not yet the technology to store what they generate, we might be further down that road.
There absolutely is the technology to store what they generate, its just not completely rolled out yet.
Within a decade it will be though. It will be on my driveway.
From what I recall, nowhere near enough energy storage in cars for that. Or in all transportation.
And it means that, if it was possible, when we get a long period of freezing fog in a still windless winter high pressure system you will have to stop people disconnecting their charged cars and recharging non charged cars under pain of power cuts (ie ban driving).
As it happened I paid a large sum of money to give my kids the singles vaccines instead of MMR.
Wasn't going to take the risk of shoving three live but attenuated viruses into an infant when that risk is not as low as reasonably practicable on the grounds that they can be separately injected six weeks apart.
I wasn't actually referring to you, I was referring to our new Grandpa Simpson visitor, in, hat off, hat on, out again before 6pm (8pm MSK).
But since the candle was lit and you, all mothlike, fluttered along... welcome!
Peter Hitchens: "Yes, it was a lawless putsch. My inch-by-inch and line-by-line examination of the illegal overthrow of Ukraine's legitimate President in 2014 (swiftly condoned, to their lasting shame, by the Western democracies)". [Plus link to an article he wrote on the subject in April 23
Peter Hitchens confirms once again he's as thick as pigshit, thanks for the reminder.
Climate change denier too. Moron status confirmed.
Another issue where the three main parties and their fellow travellers have the same view, view anyone who dissents as a cretin and then wonder why people like Meloni, Le Pen and Farage start getting lots of votes and decide it is because they are thick and bigoted, in much the same way a Georgian Aristocrat regarded the peasants.
Anthropogenic climate change is happening - that is a fact. The main issue is how to tackle the issue. The neoliberals want to allow big business to thrive whilst also paying lip service to the idea of being environmentally friendly, so they move taxes onto consumers rather than producers of CO2 - the petrol hikes that many rural Europeans so despise because it makes rural living more expensive is a good example of this. The right / far right want to pretend climate change isn't happening and move on to a scarcity model of politics - there isn't enough left for the Volk, so we must kick out the foreigner (and the dissenters who aren't really people like us anyway). The left propose the only viable alternative - investment in renewable energy and a reduced reliance on fossil fuels. This will mean huge phase shifts (reduced plastic use, reduced usage of hydrocarbon based fertilisers, etc), but at least the left are willing to say what the problem is (excess production and consumption for the benefit of capital) and where to get the resources to tackle the issue (those who already hoard capital) without having to scapegoat immigrants.
There is another option and that's to value sustainability and ecological impact beside profit as a business motive. It's no good making money if you're destroying the world. Supporting businesses which are ecologically sustainable and seek to mitigate the impact of climate change would be sensible options for a more business-oriented Government and if that means companies who refuse to be sustainable go to the wall so be it.
There is a fine line but Govenrment can also be about influencing public behaviour and educating people as to what is happening, why it is happening and the consequences especially for those parts of the world where the impacts are more keenly and immediately felt.
We too face issues from rising sea levels and a climate with more frequent extremes of weather and that means sensible thinking on houses including not building housing developments on flood plains.
The problem with capitalistic growth is that it is ideologically wedded not only to profit, but ever growing profit, which demand ever more extraction and squeezing of labour, along with increasingly trying to foist externalities onto public coffers (or ignoring them completely) makes it really difficult. Already we have right wingers and big businesses saying there is too much green tape and regulation etc. We also know that consumption and CO2 production is skewwed heavily towards the extremely wealthy - both globally and within individual nations. The answer, more equitable distribution of resources and an overall decrease in consumption reliant on fossil fuels, doesn't really square with the continuation of the profit motive as it currently exists.
You don't believe in net zero, do you?
If we have net zero, why do we need "equitable distribution of resources" for climate reasons, considering we can scale up or down consumption/production and anything times zero equals zero.
If we don't have net zero, how do we stop climate change?
If you were serious about tackling climate change, you wouldn't believe any of the garbage you're spouting.
I mean, I don't think globally we're going to get to net zero because many of the people saying we will are hoping carbon capture works better than it currently does - atm efficiency is too low to depend on it. So to get to net zero it will not just be countries sequestering any carbon output to equal zero (as the tech to sequester is currently not good enough), it will require a reduction in emissions. Reduction in emissions will require a reduction in production and consumption. If the logic of growth for the average worker is "you get a smaller slice, but we'll grow the pie", the logic of static growth or even degrowth for the average worker should be "you get a bigger slice, but we're slowly shrinking the pie". That will have to come via wealth redistribution - those who have a huge amount will have to give up their hoarded resources for the benefits of those who have less or none.
So you don't give a fuck about the planet and want to trash the environment and keep emitting pollution then.
Pissing about with marginal reductions in "the size of the pie" will do bugger all to reduce emissions, since we'll still have billions of people making emissions globally and the rest of the world has no desire to shrink their size of the pie - quite rightly too.
Only investing in clean technology gets us to net zero and that requires no change in pie size. And clean technologies can be adopted by the rest of the planet too.
It doesn't take much scraping the green away to reveal the nasty anti-growth agenda beneath. Carbon capture needn't even be about 'storage technology' - it can be done by dressing UK fields with basalt, to the tune of 45% of Britain's overall net zero target, and the level of carbon uptake can be verified easily by testing of soils. Terrifying for the likes of 148grss because it doesn't involve the forced decimation of the economy, which is their actual goal.
It also remineralises the soil and makes it far more fertile.
I used SEER rockdust on my allotment and it was very effective.
Funny thing is they smear me as a climate denier but I grow my own veg travel mostly by public transport and drive very little (had the car since new the thick end of two decades ago and will keep it till it packs up (the greenest way possible of driving due to the carbon cost of construction and disposal). Probably one of the greenest here in terms of what I actually do.
If they actually believed what they say then the COP and WEF summits would be held by videoconference.
What they really mean is that they want a subsistence existence stuck in 15 minute cities for most so that there is unspoiled Lebensraum for them and they can air condition their mansions and fly their private jets without the earth running out of resources any time soon. Oil isn't infinite. Lets not let the plebs waste it, what?
If you don’t want to sound like a stark raving conspiracy theorist, perhaps drop the bit about the WEF and… well, the conspiracy theory bit.
Thing is there is a bit of a point about scientists sounding alarm bells about global travel and then all meeting up after travelling thousands of miles, usually by air. Now you and I both know that international conferences are vastly better for information exchange, project seeding etc than teams/zoom meetings etc. But it is all too easy for the lay person to look at that and think that if it were really serious* then the scientists would lead by example.
*It is.
Its not just international conferences that are vastly better in person, so is almost everything else people fly for too.
Which is why cutting flights is not a credible suggestion and is not going to happen. If it won't happen for these conferences, it won't happen anywhere else either.
What is a credible suggestion is developing net zero clean technologies for flights. Which will take longer to implement than say net zero clean technologies for cars, but should still happen ultimately.
It's not either/or. We can cut some flights, and should, and we should also be developing and implementing clean technologies.
The problem is so great that doing one of the things won't be enough. We need to do all of the things!
I disagree. The problem is so great we need to be doing clean technologies.
Cutting a few flights does piss all. If 99% of flights still take off, then reducing the flights by 1% does bugger all.
OTOH ensuring the flights that take off emit 10% less in one step, and then emit nothing eventually, transitions us to clean flights without cutting anything.
The latter is a serious, credible, scientific way to address the problem.
It would be if it was possible to achieve it with the laws of physics as we understand it.
Just the initial 10% involves switching to burning oil crops (as with E5 and E10 petrol) so reducing arable land needed for food and putting food prices up with particular impact on the global south, most of whom don't get to fly anywhere - ever.
There are other ways. Colleagues here are working on growing bio oils in algae. No need to agricultural land.
Yet. Yet.
I'm all for things like bio oils in algae. If so much money hadn't been spaffed away to spivs pushing wind turbines when there is not yet the technology to store what they generate, we might be further down that road.
There absolutely is the technology to store what they generate, its just not completely rolled out yet.
Within a decade it will be though. It will be on my driveway.
From what I recall, nowhere near enough energy storage in cars for that. Or in all transportation.
We typically use about 35GW of electricity nationwide.
33 million cars on the road. Assume an average of 80 kWh battery in each.
Equals 2,640 GWh. Or just over 3 days worth of 100% of our electricity.
Unless I've screwed up my maths, in which case I'm sure somebody on pedanticbetting will spot it.
Hard to work out what a Labour government and a LibDem official opposition would do to political discourse. Optimistic me says it would end the influence of the Tory press and lead to much more grown-up policy-making. The pessimist in me says it would result in social media-led carnage on the streets as the right goes extra-Parliamentary.
Well clearly after what the mail threw at Farage this weekend we can say its influence is pretty much over. You are right though if the Tories are destroyed you have an opening for Tommy Robinson types to stir things up.
Labour 42% (–) Reform UK 19% (–) Conservative 18% (–) Lib Dem 12% (+1) Green 6% (+1) SNP 3% (–) Other 2% (+1)
BAXTERED
LAB 501 LIB DEMS 60 CONS 38 REFUK 5 GRN 2
Absolutely disastrous for the conservatives given it includes faragegate. No impact whatsoever on polling.
As we've seen here, Putingate isn't necessarily causing defectors to Farage to rethink their decision. What it might do is put off those who still have to cross the river. So the ceiling has moved down a bit, but that doesn't matter yet.
Millions of people are voting for the nearest option to what they would like. Probably most of us would like 2 or 3 parties having a moderate stance generally and an informed IFS style discussion about debt, deficit, tax and spend and priorities - and lots more. That isn't available. I am strongly opposed to Reform, but if I were a right wing tub thumping sort, they would be the nearest thing since Truss is not available. Same with me. I'm a One Nation Tory. I don't think Labour are great, I think they are the nearest option to centrist liberal general decency.
🆕 @Moreincommon_ voting intention. Small changes but our highest Reform score yet. While Labour tick back up & lead by 16 🔴 LAB 41% (+2) 🔵 CON 25% (-) 🟠 LIB DEM 10% (-1) 🟣 REF UK 15% (+1) 🟢 GRN 5% (-) 🟡 SNP 2%(-1) Dates: 21-23/6 N: 2046 Tables: moreincommon.org.uk/our-work/votin… https://x.com/LukeTryl/status/1805274012135702821?s=19
Peter Hitchens: "Yes, it was a lawless putsch. My inch-by-inch and line-by-line examination of the illegal overthrow of Ukraine's legitimate President in 2014 (swiftly condoned, to their lasting shame, by the Western democracies)". [Plus link to an article he wrote on the subject in April 23
Peter Hitchens confirms once again he's as thick as pigshit, thanks for the reminder.
Climate change denier too. Moron status confirmed.
Another issue where the three main parties and their fellow travellers have the same view, view anyone who dissents as a cretin and then wonder why people like Meloni, Le Pen and Farage start getting lots of votes and decide it is because they are thick and bigoted, in much the same way a Georgian Aristocrat regarded the peasants.
Anthropogenic climate change is happening - that is a fact. The main issue is how to tackle the issue. The neoliberals want to allow big business to thrive whilst also paying lip service to the idea of being environmentally friendly, so they move taxes onto consumers rather than producers of CO2 - the petrol hikes that many rural Europeans so despise because it makes rural living more expensive is a good example of this. The right / far right want to pretend climate change isn't happening and move on to a scarcity model of politics - there isn't enough left for the Volk, so we must kick out the foreigner (and the dissenters who aren't really people like us anyway). The left propose the only viable alternative - investment in renewable energy and a reduced reliance on fossil fuels. This will mean huge phase shifts (reduced plastic use, reduced usage of hydrocarbon based fertilisers, etc), but at least the left are willing to say what the problem is (excess production and consumption for the benefit of capital) and where to get the resources to tackle the issue (those who already hoard capital) without having to scapegoat immigrants.
There is another option and that's to value sustainability and ecological impact beside profit as a business motive. It's no good making money if you're destroying the world. Supporting businesses which are ecologically sustainable and seek to mitigate the impact of climate change would be sensible options for a more business-oriented Government and if that means companies who refuse to be sustainable go to the wall so be it.
There is a fine line but Govenrment can also be about influencing public behaviour and educating people as to what is happening, why it is happening and the consequences especially for those parts of the world where the impacts are more keenly and immediately felt.
We too face issues from rising sea levels and a climate with more frequent extremes of weather and that means sensible thinking on houses including not building housing developments on flood plains.
The problem with capitalistic growth is that it is ideologically wedded not only to profit, but ever growing profit, which demand ever more extraction and squeezing of labour, along with increasingly trying to foist externalities onto public coffers (or ignoring them completely) makes it really difficult. Already we have right wingers and big businesses saying there is too much green tape and regulation etc. We also know that consumption and CO2 production is skewwed heavily towards the extremely wealthy - both globally and within individual nations. The answer, more equitable distribution of resources and an overall decrease in consumption reliant on fossil fuels, doesn't really square with the continuation of the profit motive as it currently exists.
You don't believe in net zero, do you?
If we have net zero, why do we need "equitable distribution of resources" for climate reasons, considering we can scale up or down consumption/production and anything times zero equals zero.
If we don't have net zero, how do we stop climate change?
If you were serious about tackling climate change, you wouldn't believe any of the garbage you're spouting.
I mean, I don't think globally we're going to get to net zero because many of the people saying we will are hoping carbon capture works better than it currently does - atm efficiency is too low to depend on it. So to get to net zero it will not just be countries sequestering any carbon output to equal zero (as the tech to sequester is currently not good enough), it will require a reduction in emissions. Reduction in emissions will require a reduction in production and consumption. If the logic of growth for the average worker is "you get a smaller slice, but we'll grow the pie", the logic of static growth or even degrowth for the average worker should be "you get a bigger slice, but we're slowly shrinking the pie". That will have to come via wealth redistribution - those who have a huge amount will have to give up their hoarded resources for the benefits of those who have less or none.
So you don't give a fuck about the planet and want to trash the environment and keep emitting pollution then.
Pissing about with marginal reductions in "the size of the pie" will do bugger all to reduce emissions, since we'll still have billions of people making emissions globally and the rest of the world has no desire to shrink their size of the pie - quite rightly too.
Only investing in clean technology gets us to net zero and that requires no change in pie size. And clean technologies can be adopted by the rest of the planet too.
It doesn't take much scraping the green away to reveal the nasty anti-growth agenda beneath. Carbon capture needn't even be about 'storage technology' - it can be done by dressing UK fields with basalt, to the tune of 45% of Britain's overall net zero target, and the level of carbon uptake can be verified easily by testing of soils. Terrifying for the likes of 148grss because it doesn't involve the forced decimation of the economy, which is their actual goal.
It also remineralises the soil and makes it far more fertile.
I used SEER rockdust on my allotment and it was very effective.
Funny thing is they smear me as a climate denier but I grow my own veg travel mostly by public transport and drive very little (had the car since new the thick end of two decades ago and will keep it till it packs up (the greenest way possible of driving due to the carbon cost of construction and disposal). Probably one of the greenest here in terms of what I actually do.
If they actually believed what they say then the COP and WEF summits would be held by videoconference.
What they really mean is that they want a subsistence existence stuck in 15 minute cities for most so that there is unspoiled Lebensraum for them and they can air condition their mansions and fly their private jets without the earth running out of resources any time soon. Oil isn't infinite. Lets not let the plebs waste it, what?
If you don’t want to sound like a stark raving conspiracy theorist, perhaps drop the bit about the WEF and… well, the conspiracy theory bit.
Thing is there is a bit of a point about scientists sounding alarm bells about global travel and then all meeting up after travelling thousands of miles, usually by air. Now you and I both know that international conferences are vastly better for information exchange, project seeding etc than teams/zoom meetings etc. But it is all too easy for the lay person to look at that and think that if it were really serious* then the scientists would lead by example.
*It is.
Its not just international conferences that are vastly better in person, so is almost everything else people fly for too.
Which is why cutting flights is not a credible suggestion and is not going to happen. If it won't happen for these conferences, it won't happen anywhere else either.
What is a credible suggestion is developing net zero clean technologies for flights. Which will take longer to implement than say net zero clean technologies for cars, but should still happen ultimately.
It's not either/or. We can cut some flights, and should, and we should also be developing and implementing clean technologies.
The problem is so great that doing one of the things won't be enough. We need to do all of the things!
I disagree. The problem is so great we need to be doing clean technologies.
Cutting a few flights does piss all. If 99% of flights still take off, then reducing the flights by 1% does bugger all.
OTOH ensuring the flights that take off emit 10% less in one step, and then emit nothing eventually, transitions us to clean flights without cutting anything.
The latter is a serious, credible, scientific way to address the problem.
It would be if it was possible to achieve it with the laws of physics as we understand it.
Just the initial 10% involves switching to burning oil crops (as with E5 and E10 petrol) so reducing arable land needed for food and putting food prices up with particular impact on the global south, most of whom don't get to fly anywhere - ever.
No it doesn't.
Long term for the past fifty years there has been a compound 1.3% reduction in fuel burn per passenger km per annum and this has been continuing in recent years.
New planes are routinely using better technologies and are more fuel efficient than old ones.
A modern Airbus is much more fuel efficient than an old 747 was.
But we are approaching the limit of what can be achieved, Driving up efficiency increases economy but there is a limit.
Why is there a limit?
We are continuously iterating better technology and there is no end in sight for that.
Longer term there are plausible zero (net) carbon options for aviation but they're not here yet, but shorter term there absolutely is ways to continue to iterate better efficiency. We've not hit the wall yet.
Oh dear. Even if aeroplanes were able to turn fuel to propulsion with 100% efficiency(which they never will) they are still going to burn a vast amount of oil.
There are all sorts of net zero options out there that aren't developed yet, but could be.
The RAF has flown a jet using synthetic gasoline made from used cooking oil, which is an interesting option, for instance.
There are in fact many alternatives being researched and my money is on humanity doing what it always does and that's finding a scientific solution.
A jet using gasoline?!
Kerosene presumably? A Tristar? Say 100 tonnes per long range flight. But the UK's chippies use about 100 kT a year. That'd be accounted for by 5 RAF jets' flying programmes, reasonably intensive, of 200 flights/year each.
[Fermi piano tuner levels of accuracy: but probably right ballpark.]
Peter Hitchens: "Yes, it was a lawless putsch. My inch-by-inch and line-by-line examination of the illegal overthrow of Ukraine's legitimate President in 2014 (swiftly condoned, to their lasting shame, by the Western democracies)". [Plus link to an article he wrote on the subject in April 23
Peter Hitchens confirms once again he's as thick as pigshit, thanks for the reminder.
Climate change denier too. Moron status confirmed.
Another issue where the three main parties and their fellow travellers have the same view, view anyone who dissents as a cretin and then wonder why people like Meloni, Le Pen and Farage start getting lots of votes and decide it is because they are thick and bigoted, in much the same way a Georgian Aristocrat regarded the peasants.
Anthropogenic climate change is happening - that is a fact. The main issue is how to tackle the issue. The neoliberals want to allow big business to thrive whilst also paying lip service to the idea of being environmentally friendly, so they move taxes onto consumers rather than producers of CO2 - the petrol hikes that many rural Europeans so despise because it makes rural living more expensive is a good example of this. The right / far right want to pretend climate change isn't happening and move on to a scarcity model of politics - there isn't enough left for the Volk, so we must kick out the foreigner (and the dissenters who aren't really people like us anyway). The left propose the only viable alternative - investment in renewable energy and a reduced reliance on fossil fuels. This will mean huge phase shifts (reduced plastic use, reduced usage of hydrocarbon based fertilisers, etc), but at least the left are willing to say what the problem is (excess production and consumption for the benefit of capital) and where to get the resources to tackle the issue (those who already hoard capital) without having to scapegoat immigrants.
There is another option and that's to value sustainability and ecological impact beside profit as a business motive. It's no good making money if you're destroying the world. Supporting businesses which are ecologically sustainable and seek to mitigate the impact of climate change would be sensible options for a more business-oriented Government and if that means companies who refuse to be sustainable go to the wall so be it.
There is a fine line but Govenrment can also be about influencing public behaviour and educating people as to what is happening, why it is happening and the consequences especially for those parts of the world where the impacts are more keenly and immediately felt.
We too face issues from rising sea levels and a climate with more frequent extremes of weather and that means sensible thinking on houses including not building housing developments on flood plains.
The problem with capitalistic growth is that it is ideologically wedded not only to profit, but ever growing profit, which demand ever more extraction and squeezing of labour, along with increasingly trying to foist externalities onto public coffers (or ignoring them completely) makes it really difficult. Already we have right wingers and big businesses saying there is too much green tape and regulation etc. We also know that consumption and CO2 production is skewwed heavily towards the extremely wealthy - both globally and within individual nations. The answer, more equitable distribution of resources and an overall decrease in consumption reliant on fossil fuels, doesn't really square with the continuation of the profit motive as it currently exists.
You don't believe in net zero, do you?
If we have net zero, why do we need "equitable distribution of resources" for climate reasons, considering we can scale up or down consumption/production and anything times zero equals zero.
If we don't have net zero, how do we stop climate change?
If you were serious about tackling climate change, you wouldn't believe any of the garbage you're spouting.
I mean, I don't think globally we're going to get to net zero because many of the people saying we will are hoping carbon capture works better than it currently does - atm efficiency is too low to depend on it. So to get to net zero it will not just be countries sequestering any carbon output to equal zero (as the tech to sequester is currently not good enough), it will require a reduction in emissions. Reduction in emissions will require a reduction in production and consumption. If the logic of growth for the average worker is "you get a smaller slice, but we'll grow the pie", the logic of static growth or even degrowth for the average worker should be "you get a bigger slice, but we're slowly shrinking the pie". That will have to come via wealth redistribution - those who have a huge amount will have to give up their hoarded resources for the benefits of those who have less or none.
So you don't give a fuck about the planet and want to trash the environment and keep emitting pollution then.
Pissing about with marginal reductions in "the size of the pie" will do bugger all to reduce emissions, since we'll still have billions of people making emissions globally and the rest of the world has no desire to shrink their size of the pie - quite rightly too.
Only investing in clean technology gets us to net zero and that requires no change in pie size. And clean technologies can be adopted by the rest of the planet too.
It doesn't take much scraping the green away to reveal the nasty anti-growth agenda beneath. Carbon capture needn't even be about 'storage technology' - it can be done by dressing UK fields with basalt, to the tune of 45% of Britain's overall net zero target, and the level of carbon uptake can be verified easily by testing of soils. Terrifying for the likes of 148grss because it doesn't involve the forced decimation of the economy, which is their actual goal.
It also remineralises the soil and makes it far more fertile.
I used SEER rockdust on my allotment and it was very effective.
Funny thing is they smear me as a climate denier but I grow my own veg travel mostly by public transport and drive very little (had the car since new the thick end of two decades ago and will keep it till it packs up (the greenest way possible of driving due to the carbon cost of construction and disposal). Probably one of the greenest here in terms of what I actually do.
If they actually believed what they say then the COP and WEF summits would be held by videoconference.
What they really mean is that they want a subsistence existence stuck in 15 minute cities for most so that there is unspoiled Lebensraum for them and they can air condition their mansions and fly their private jets without the earth running out of resources any time soon. Oil isn't infinite. Lets not let the plebs waste it, what?
If you don’t want to sound like a stark raving conspiracy theorist, perhaps drop the bit about the WEF and… well, the conspiracy theory bit.
Thing is there is a bit of a point about scientists sounding alarm bells about global travel and then all meeting up after travelling thousands of miles, usually by air. Now you and I both know that international conferences are vastly better for information exchange, project seeding etc than teams/zoom meetings etc. But it is all too easy for the lay person to look at that and think that if it were really serious* then the scientists would lead by example.
*It is.
Its not just international conferences that are vastly better in person, so is almost everything else people fly for too.
Which is why cutting flights is not a credible suggestion and is not going to happen. If it won't happen for these conferences, it won't happen anywhere else either.
What is a credible suggestion is developing net zero clean technologies for flights. Which will take longer to implement than say net zero clean technologies for cars, but should still happen ultimately.
It's not either/or. We can cut some flights, and should, and we should also be developing and implementing clean technologies.
The problem is so great that doing one of the things won't be enough. We need to do all of the things!
I disagree. The problem is so great we need to be doing clean technologies.
Cutting a few flights does piss all. If 99% of flights still take off, then reducing the flights by 1% does bugger all.
OTOH ensuring the flights that take off emit 10% less in one step, and then emit nothing eventually, transitions us to clean flights without cutting anything.
The latter is a serious, credible, scientific way to address the problem.
It would be if it was possible to achieve it with the laws of physics as we understand it.
Just the initial 10% involves switching to burning oil crops (as with E5 and E10 petrol) so reducing arable land needed for food and putting food prices up with particular impact on the global south, most of whom don't get to fly anywhere - ever.
No it doesn't.
Long term for the past fifty years there has been a compound 1.3% reduction in fuel burn per passenger km per annum and this has been continuing in recent years.
New planes are routinely using better technologies and are more fuel efficient than old ones.
A modern Airbus is much more fuel efficient than an old 747 was.
But we are approaching the limit of what can be achieved, Driving up efficiency increases economy but there is a limit.
Why is there a limit?
We are continuously iterating better technology and there is no end in sight for that.
Longer term there are plausible zero (net) carbon options for aviation but they're not here yet, but shorter term there absolutely is ways to continue to iterate better efficiency. We've not hit the wall yet.
Oh dear. Even if aeroplanes were able to turn fuel to propulsion with 100% efficiency(which they never will) they are still going to burn a vast amount of oil.
There are all sorts of net zero options out there that aren't developed yet, but could be.
The RAF has flown a jet using synthetic gasoline made from used cooking oil, which is an interesting option, for instance.
There are in fact many alternatives being researched and my money is on humanity doing what it always does and that's finding a scientific solution.
They will have to sooner or later as the stuff will run out or we will be screwed.
I'm just not entirely sure that there is a solution, in which case we are screwed.
However most of what is going on at the moment is displacement activity, enriching spivs and makig politi. Michael Moore wasn't far off in Planet of The Humans.
Peter Hitchens: "Yes, it was a lawless putsch. My inch-by-inch and line-by-line examination of the illegal overthrow of Ukraine's legitimate President in 2014 (swiftly condoned, to their lasting shame, by the Western democracies)". [Plus link to an article he wrote on the subject in April 23
Peter Hitchens confirms once again he's as thick as pigshit, thanks for the reminder.
Climate change denier too. Moron status confirmed.
Another issue where the three main parties and their fellow travellers have the same view, view anyone who dissents as a cretin and then wonder why people like Meloni, Le Pen and Farage start getting lots of votes and decide it is because they are thick and bigoted, in much the same way a Georgian Aristocrat regarded the peasants.
Anthropogenic climate change is happening - that is a fact. The main issue is how to tackle the issue. The neoliberals want to allow big business to thrive whilst also paying lip service to the idea of being environmentally friendly, so they move taxes onto consumers rather than producers of CO2 - the petrol hikes that many rural Europeans so despise because it makes rural living more expensive is a good example of this. The right / far right want to pretend climate change isn't happening and move on to a scarcity model of politics - there isn't enough left for the Volk, so we must kick out the foreigner (and the dissenters who aren't really people like us anyway). The left propose the only viable alternative - investment in renewable energy and a reduced reliance on fossil fuels. This will mean huge phase shifts (reduced plastic use, reduced usage of hydrocarbon based fertilisers, etc), but at least the left are willing to say what the problem is (excess production and consumption for the benefit of capital) and where to get the resources to tackle the issue (those who already hoard capital) without having to scapegoat immigrants.
There is another option and that's to value sustainability and ecological impact beside profit as a business motive. It's no good making money if you're destroying the world. Supporting businesses which are ecologically sustainable and seek to mitigate the impact of climate change would be sensible options for a more business-oriented Government and if that means companies who refuse to be sustainable go to the wall so be it.
There is a fine line but Govenrment can also be about influencing public behaviour and educating people as to what is happening, why it is happening and the consequences especially for those parts of the world where the impacts are more keenly and immediately felt.
We too face issues from rising sea levels and a climate with more frequent extremes of weather and that means sensible thinking on houses including not building housing developments on flood plains.
The problem with capitalistic growth is that it is ideologically wedded not only to profit, but ever growing profit, which demand ever more extraction and squeezing of labour, along with increasingly trying to foist externalities onto public coffers (or ignoring them completely) makes it really difficult. Already we have right wingers and big businesses saying there is too much green tape and regulation etc. We also know that consumption and CO2 production is skewwed heavily towards the extremely wealthy - both globally and within individual nations. The answer, more equitable distribution of resources and an overall decrease in consumption reliant on fossil fuels, doesn't really square with the continuation of the profit motive as it currently exists.
You don't believe in net zero, do you?
If we have net zero, why do we need "equitable distribution of resources" for climate reasons, considering we can scale up or down consumption/production and anything times zero equals zero.
If we don't have net zero, how do we stop climate change?
If you were serious about tackling climate change, you wouldn't believe any of the garbage you're spouting.
I mean, I don't think globally we're going to get to net zero because many of the people saying we will are hoping carbon capture works better than it currently does - atm efficiency is too low to depend on it. So to get to net zero it will not just be countries sequestering any carbon output to equal zero (as the tech to sequester is currently not good enough), it will require a reduction in emissions. Reduction in emissions will require a reduction in production and consumption. If the logic of growth for the average worker is "you get a smaller slice, but we'll grow the pie", the logic of static growth or even degrowth for the average worker should be "you get a bigger slice, but we're slowly shrinking the pie". That will have to come via wealth redistribution - those who have a huge amount will have to give up their hoarded resources for the benefits of those who have less or none.
So you don't give a fuck about the planet and want to trash the environment and keep emitting pollution then.
Pissing about with marginal reductions in "the size of the pie" will do bugger all to reduce emissions, since we'll still have billions of people making emissions globally and the rest of the world has no desire to shrink their size of the pie - quite rightly too.
Only investing in clean technology gets us to net zero and that requires no change in pie size. And clean technologies can be adopted by the rest of the planet too.
It doesn't take much scraping the green away to reveal the nasty anti-growth agenda beneath. Carbon capture needn't even be about 'storage technology' - it can be done by dressing UK fields with basalt, to the tune of 45% of Britain's overall net zero target, and the level of carbon uptake can be verified easily by testing of soils. Terrifying for the likes of 148grss because it doesn't involve the forced decimation of the economy, which is their actual goal.
It also remineralises the soil and makes it far more fertile.
I used SEER rockdust on my allotment and it was very effective.
Funny thing is they smear me as a climate denier but I grow my own veg travel mostly by public transport and drive very little (had the car since new the thick end of two decades ago and will keep it till it packs up (the greenest way possible of driving due to the carbon cost of construction and disposal). Probably one of the greenest here in terms of what I actually do.
If they actually believed what they say then the COP and WEF summits would be held by videoconference.
What they really mean is that they want a subsistence existence stuck in 15 minute cities for most so that there is unspoiled Lebensraum for them and they can air condition their mansions and fly their private jets without the earth running out of resources any time soon. Oil isn't infinite. Lets not let the plebs waste it, what?
If you don’t want to sound like a stark raving conspiracy theorist, perhaps drop the bit about the WEF and… well, the conspiracy theory bit.
Thing is there is a bit of a point about scientists sounding alarm bells about global travel and then all meeting up after travelling thousands of miles, usually by air. Now you and I both know that international conferences are vastly better for information exchange, project seeding etc than teams/zoom meetings etc. But it is all too easy for the lay person to look at that and think that if it were really serious* then the scientists would lead by example.
*It is.
Its not just international conferences that are vastly better in person, so is almost everything else people fly for too.
Which is why cutting flights is not a credible suggestion and is not going to happen. If it won't happen for these conferences, it won't happen anywhere else either.
What is a credible suggestion is developing net zero clean technologies for flights. Which will take longer to implement than say net zero clean technologies for cars, but should still happen ultimately.
It's not either/or. We can cut some flights, and should, and we should also be developing and implementing clean technologies.
The problem is so great that doing one of the things won't be enough. We need to do all of the things!
I disagree. The problem is so great we need to be doing clean technologies.
Cutting a few flights does piss all. If 99% of flights still take off, then reducing the flights by 1% does bugger all.
OTOH ensuring the flights that take off emit 10% less in one step, and then emit nothing eventually, transitions us to clean flights without cutting anything.
The latter is a serious, credible, scientific way to address the problem.
It would be if it was possible to achieve it with the laws of physics as we understand it.
Just the initial 10% involves switching to burning oil crops (as with E5 and E10 petrol) so reducing arable land needed for food and putting food prices up with particular impact on the global south, most of whom don't get to fly anywhere - ever.
There are other ways. Colleagues here are working on growing bio oils in algae. No need to agricultural land.
Yet. Yet.
I'm all for things like bio oils in algae. If so much money hadn't been spaffed away to spivs pushing wind turbines when there is not yet the technology to store what they generate, we might be further down that road.
There absolutely is the technology to store what they generate, its just not completely rolled out yet.
Within a decade it will be though. It will be on my driveway.
From what I recall, nowhere near enough energy storage in cars for that. Or in all transportation.
We typically use about 35GW of electricity nationwide.
33 million cars on the road. Assume an average of 80 kWh battery in each.
Equals 2,640 GWh. Or just over 3 days worth of 100% of our electricity.
Unless I've screwed up my maths, in which case I'm sure somebody on pedanticbetting will spot it.
Your assumption is that you'll use all of each battery for storage. More likely you'd get a discount on your leccy by agreeing to lease the 60-80% point of your battery to the energy companies for them to use. So you're looking at more like 18 hours.
That doesn't consider second order effects like an increase in rooftop solar/battery for EV charging for example. I'm actually surprised none of the big boys have offered a solar charging package as an add-on for a car purchase. Buy a Merc EQE and get 20% off a home charger/battery/solar array installation sort of thing.
I'm trying hard not to look at any of these because I'm in the middle of doing my own seat forecasts and I don't want to be too closely influenced by another attempt.
🆕 @Moreincommon_ voting intention. Small changes but our highest Reform score yet. While Labour tick back up & lead by 16 🔴 LAB 41% (+2) 🔵 CON 25% (-) 🟠 LIB DEM 10% (-1) 🟣 REF UK 15% (+1) 🟢 GRN 5% (-) 🟡 SNP 2%(-1) Dates: 21-23/6 N: 2046 Tables: moreincommon.org.uk/our-work/votin… https://x.com/LukeTryl/status/1805274012135702821?s=19
Peter Hitchens: "Yes, it was a lawless putsch. My inch-by-inch and line-by-line examination of the illegal overthrow of Ukraine's legitimate President in 2014 (swiftly condoned, to their lasting shame, by the Western democracies)". [Plus link to an article he wrote on the subject in April 23
Peter Hitchens confirms once again he's as thick as pigshit, thanks for the reminder.
Climate change denier too. Moron status confirmed.
Another issue where the three main parties and their fellow travellers have the same view, view anyone who dissents as a cretin and then wonder why people like Meloni, Le Pen and Farage start getting lots of votes and decide it is because they are thick and bigoted, in much the same way a Georgian Aristocrat regarded the peasants.
Anthropogenic climate change is happening - that is a fact. The main issue is how to tackle the issue. The neoliberals want to allow big business to thrive whilst also paying lip service to the idea of being environmentally friendly, so they move taxes onto consumers rather than producers of CO2 - the petrol hikes that many rural Europeans so despise because it makes rural living more expensive is a good example of this. The right / far right want to pretend climate change isn't happening and move on to a scarcity model of politics - there isn't enough left for the Volk, so we must kick out the foreigner (and the dissenters who aren't really people like us anyway). The left propose the only viable alternative - investment in renewable energy and a reduced reliance on fossil fuels. This will mean huge phase shifts (reduced plastic use, reduced usage of hydrocarbon based fertilisers, etc), but at least the left are willing to say what the problem is (excess production and consumption for the benefit of capital) and where to get the resources to tackle the issue (those who already hoard capital) without having to scapegoat immigrants.
There is another option and that's to value sustainability and ecological impact beside profit as a business motive. It's no good making money if you're destroying the world. Supporting businesses which are ecologically sustainable and seek to mitigate the impact of climate change would be sensible options for a more business-oriented Government and if that means companies who refuse to be sustainable go to the wall so be it.
There is a fine line but Govenrment can also be about influencing public behaviour and educating people as to what is happening, why it is happening and the consequences especially for those parts of the world where the impacts are more keenly and immediately felt.
We too face issues from rising sea levels and a climate with more frequent extremes of weather and that means sensible thinking on houses including not building housing developments on flood plains.
The problem with capitalistic growth is that it is ideologically wedded not only to profit, but ever growing profit, which demand ever more extraction and squeezing of labour, along with increasingly trying to foist externalities onto public coffers (or ignoring them completely) makes it really difficult. Already we have right wingers and big businesses saying there is too much green tape and regulation etc. We also know that consumption and CO2 production is skewwed heavily towards the extremely wealthy - both globally and within individual nations. The answer, more equitable distribution of resources and an overall decrease in consumption reliant on fossil fuels, doesn't really square with the continuation of the profit motive as it currently exists.
You don't believe in net zero, do you?
If we have net zero, why do we need "equitable distribution of resources" for climate reasons, considering we can scale up or down consumption/production and anything times zero equals zero.
If we don't have net zero, how do we stop climate change?
If you were serious about tackling climate change, you wouldn't believe any of the garbage you're spouting.
I mean, I don't think globally we're going to get to net zero because many of the people saying we will are hoping carbon capture works better than it currently does - atm efficiency is too low to depend on it. So to get to net zero it will not just be countries sequestering any carbon output to equal zero (as the tech to sequester is currently not good enough), it will require a reduction in emissions. Reduction in emissions will require a reduction in production and consumption. If the logic of growth for the average worker is "you get a smaller slice, but we'll grow the pie", the logic of static growth or even degrowth for the average worker should be "you get a bigger slice, but we're slowly shrinking the pie". That will have to come via wealth redistribution - those who have a huge amount will have to give up their hoarded resources for the benefits of those who have less or none.
So you don't give a fuck about the planet and want to trash the environment and keep emitting pollution then.
Pissing about with marginal reductions in "the size of the pie" will do bugger all to reduce emissions, since we'll still have billions of people making emissions globally and the rest of the world has no desire to shrink their size of the pie - quite rightly too.
Only investing in clean technology gets us to net zero and that requires no change in pie size. And clean technologies can be adopted by the rest of the planet too.
It doesn't take much scraping the green away to reveal the nasty anti-growth agenda beneath. Carbon capture needn't even be about 'storage technology' - it can be done by dressing UK fields with basalt, to the tune of 45% of Britain's overall net zero target, and the level of carbon uptake can be verified easily by testing of soils. Terrifying for the likes of 148grss because it doesn't involve the forced decimation of the economy, which is their actual goal.
It also remineralises the soil and makes it far more fertile.
I used SEER rockdust on my allotment and it was very effective.
Funny thing is they smear me as a climate denier but I grow my own veg travel mostly by public transport and drive very little (had the car since new the thick end of two decades ago and will keep it till it packs up (the greenest way possible of driving due to the carbon cost of construction and disposal). Probably one of the greenest here in terms of what I actually do.
If they actually believed what they say then the COP and WEF summits would be held by videoconference.
What they really mean is that they want a subsistence existence stuck in 15 minute cities for most so that there is unspoiled Lebensraum for them and they can air condition their mansions and fly their private jets without the earth running out of resources any time soon. Oil isn't infinite. Lets not let the plebs waste it, what?
If you don’t want to sound like a stark raving conspiracy theorist, perhaps drop the bit about the WEF and… well, the conspiracy theory bit.
Thing is there is a bit of a point about scientists sounding alarm bells about global travel and then all meeting up after travelling thousands of miles, usually by air. Now you and I both know that international conferences are vastly better for information exchange, project seeding etc than teams/zoom meetings etc. But it is all too easy for the lay person to look at that and think that if it were really serious* then the scientists would lead by example.
*It is.
Its not just international conferences that are vastly better in person, so is almost everything else people fly for too.
Which is why cutting flights is not a credible suggestion and is not going to happen. If it won't happen for these conferences, it won't happen anywhere else either.
What is a credible suggestion is developing net zero clean technologies for flights. Which will take longer to implement than say net zero clean technologies for cars, but should still happen ultimately.
It's not either/or. We can cut some flights, and should, and we should also be developing and implementing clean technologies.
The problem is so great that doing one of the things won't be enough. We need to do all of the things!
I disagree. The problem is so great we need to be doing clean technologies.
Cutting a few flights does piss all. If 99% of flights still take off, then reducing the flights by 1% does bugger all.
OTOH ensuring the flights that take off emit 10% less in one step, and then emit nothing eventually, transitions us to clean flights without cutting anything.
The latter is a serious, credible, scientific way to address the problem.
It would be if it was possible to achieve it with the laws of physics as we understand it.
Just the initial 10% involves switching to burning oil crops (as with E5 and E10 petrol) so reducing arable land needed for food and putting food prices up with particular impact on the global south, most of whom don't get to fly anywhere - ever.
No it doesn't.
Long term for the past fifty years there has been a compound 1.3% reduction in fuel burn per passenger km per annum and this has been continuing in recent years.
New planes are routinely using better technologies and are more fuel efficient than old ones.
A modern Airbus is much more fuel efficient than an old 747 was.
But we are approaching the limit of what can be achieved, Driving up efficiency increases economy but there is a limit.
Why is there a limit?
We are continuously iterating better technology and there is no end in sight for that.
Longer term there are plausible zero (net) carbon options for aviation but they're not here yet, but shorter term there absolutely is ways to continue to iterate better efficiency. We've not hit the wall yet.
Oh dear. Even if aeroplanes were able to turn fuel to propulsion with 100% efficiency(which they never will) they are still going to burn a vast amount of oil.
There are all sorts of net zero options out there that aren't developed yet, but could be.
The RAF has flown a jet using synthetic gasoline made from used cooking oil, which is an interesting option, for instance.
There are in fact many alternatives being researched and my money is on humanity doing what it always does and that's finding a scientific solution.
A jet using gasoline?!
Kerosene presumably? A Tristar? Say 100 tonnes per long range flight. But the UK's chippies use about 100 kT a year. That'd be accounted for by 5 RAF jets' flying programmes, reasonably intensive, of 200 flights/year each.
[Fermi piano tuner levels of accuracy: but probably right ballpark.]
Peter Hitchens: "Yes, it was a lawless putsch. My inch-by-inch and line-by-line examination of the illegal overthrow of Ukraine's legitimate President in 2014 (swiftly condoned, to their lasting shame, by the Western democracies)". [Plus link to an article he wrote on the subject in April 23
Peter Hitchens confirms once again he's as thick as pigshit, thanks for the reminder.
Climate change denier too. Moron status confirmed.
Another issue where the three main parties and their fellow travellers have the same view, view anyone who dissents as a cretin and then wonder why people like Meloni, Le Pen and Farage start getting lots of votes and decide it is because they are thick and bigoted, in much the same way a Georgian Aristocrat regarded the peasants.
Anthropogenic climate change is happening - that is a fact. The main issue is how to tackle the issue. The neoliberals want to allow big business to thrive whilst also paying lip service to the idea of being environmentally friendly, so they move taxes onto consumers rather than producers of CO2 - the petrol hikes that many rural Europeans so despise because it makes rural living more expensive is a good example of this. The right / far right want to pretend climate change isn't happening and move on to a scarcity model of politics - there isn't enough left for the Volk, so we must kick out the foreigner (and the dissenters who aren't really people like us anyway). The left propose the only viable alternative - investment in renewable energy and a reduced reliance on fossil fuels. This will mean huge phase shifts (reduced plastic use, reduced usage of hydrocarbon based fertilisers, etc), but at least the left are willing to say what the problem is (excess production and consumption for the benefit of capital) and where to get the resources to tackle the issue (those who already hoard capital) without having to scapegoat immigrants.
There is another option and that's to value sustainability and ecological impact beside profit as a business motive. It's no good making money if you're destroying the world. Supporting businesses which are ecologically sustainable and seek to mitigate the impact of climate change would be sensible options for a more business-oriented Government and if that means companies who refuse to be sustainable go to the wall so be it.
There is a fine line but Govenrment can also be about influencing public behaviour and educating people as to what is happening, why it is happening and the consequences especially for those parts of the world where the impacts are more keenly and immediately felt.
We too face issues from rising sea levels and a climate with more frequent extremes of weather and that means sensible thinking on houses including not building housing developments on flood plains.
The problem with capitalistic growth is that it is ideologically wedded not only to profit, but ever growing profit, which demand ever more extraction and squeezing of labour, along with increasingly trying to foist externalities onto public coffers (or ignoring them completely) makes it really difficult. Already we have right wingers and big businesses saying there is too much green tape and regulation etc. We also know that consumption and CO2 production is skewwed heavily towards the extremely wealthy - both globally and within individual nations. The answer, more equitable distribution of resources and an overall decrease in consumption reliant on fossil fuels, doesn't really square with the continuation of the profit motive as it currently exists.
You don't believe in net zero, do you?
If we have net zero, why do we need "equitable distribution of resources" for climate reasons, considering we can scale up or down consumption/production and anything times zero equals zero.
If we don't have net zero, how do we stop climate change?
If you were serious about tackling climate change, you wouldn't believe any of the garbage you're spouting.
I mean, I don't think globally we're going to get to net zero because many of the people saying we will are hoping carbon capture works better than it currently does - atm efficiency is too low to depend on it. So to get to net zero it will not just be countries sequestering any carbon output to equal zero (as the tech to sequester is currently not good enough), it will require a reduction in emissions. Reduction in emissions will require a reduction in production and consumption. If the logic of growth for the average worker is "you get a smaller slice, but we'll grow the pie", the logic of static growth or even degrowth for the average worker should be "you get a bigger slice, but we're slowly shrinking the pie". That will have to come via wealth redistribution - those who have a huge amount will have to give up their hoarded resources for the benefits of those who have less or none.
So you don't give a fuck about the planet and want to trash the environment and keep emitting pollution then.
Pissing about with marginal reductions in "the size of the pie" will do bugger all to reduce emissions, since we'll still have billions of people making emissions globally and the rest of the world has no desire to shrink their size of the pie - quite rightly too.
Only investing in clean technology gets us to net zero and that requires no change in pie size. And clean technologies can be adopted by the rest of the planet too.
It doesn't take much scraping the green away to reveal the nasty anti-growth agenda beneath. Carbon capture needn't even be about 'storage technology' - it can be done by dressing UK fields with basalt, to the tune of 45% of Britain's overall net zero target, and the level of carbon uptake can be verified easily by testing of soils. Terrifying for the likes of 148grss because it doesn't involve the forced decimation of the economy, which is their actual goal.
It also remineralises the soil and makes it far more fertile.
I used SEER rockdust on my allotment and it was very effective.
Funny thing is they smear me as a climate denier but I grow my own veg travel mostly by public transport and drive very little (had the car since new the thick end of two decades ago and will keep it till it packs up (the greenest way possible of driving due to the carbon cost of construction and disposal). Probably one of the greenest here in terms of what I actually do.
If they actually believed what they say then the COP and WEF summits would be held by videoconference.
What they really mean is that they want a subsistence existence stuck in 15 minute cities for most so that there is unspoiled Lebensraum for them and they can air condition their mansions and fly their private jets without the earth running out of resources any time soon. Oil isn't infinite. Lets not let the plebs waste it, what?
If you don’t want to sound like a stark raving conspiracy theorist, perhaps drop the bit about the WEF and… well, the conspiracy theory bit.
Thing is there is a bit of a point about scientists sounding alarm bells about global travel and then all meeting up after travelling thousands of miles, usually by air. Now you and I both know that international conferences are vastly better for information exchange, project seeding etc than teams/zoom meetings etc. But it is all too easy for the lay person to look at that and think that if it were really serious* then the scientists would lead by example.
*It is.
Its not just international conferences that are vastly better in person, so is almost everything else people fly for too.
Which is why cutting flights is not a credible suggestion and is not going to happen. If it won't happen for these conferences, it won't happen anywhere else either.
What is a credible suggestion is developing net zero clean technologies for flights. Which will take longer to implement than say net zero clean technologies for cars, but should still happen ultimately.
It's not either/or. We can cut some flights, and should, and we should also be developing and implementing clean technologies.
The problem is so great that doing one of the things won't be enough. We need to do all of the things!
I disagree. The problem is so great we need to be doing clean technologies.
Cutting a few flights does piss all. If 99% of flights still take off, then reducing the flights by 1% does bugger all.
OTOH ensuring the flights that take off emit 10% less in one step, and then emit nothing eventually, transitions us to clean flights without cutting anything.
The latter is a serious, credible, scientific way to address the problem.
It would be if it was possible to achieve it with the laws of physics as we understand it.
Just the initial 10% involves switching to burning oil crops (as with E5 and E10 petrol) so reducing arable land needed for food and putting food prices up with particular impact on the global south, most of whom don't get to fly anywhere - ever.
There are other ways. Colleagues here are working on growing bio oils in algae. No need to agricultural land.
Yet. Yet.
I'm all for things like bio oils in algae. If so much money hadn't been spaffed away to spivs pushing wind turbines when there is not yet the technology to store what they generate, we might be further down that road.
There absolutely is the technology to store what they generate, its just not completely rolled out yet.
Within a decade it will be though. It will be on my driveway.
From what I recall, nowhere near enough energy storage in cars for that. Or in all transportation.
We typically use about 35GW of electricity nationwide.
33 million cars on the road. Assume an average of 80 kWh battery in each.
Equals 2,640 GWh. Or just over 3 days worth of 100% of our electricity.
Unless I've screwed up my maths, in which case I'm sure somebody on pedanticbetting will spot it.
Except moving to electric will also increase electricity demand; e.g. for those cars, and heating replacing gas boilers, etc, etc.
🆕 @Moreincommon_ voting intention. Small changes but our highest Reform score yet. While Labour tick back up & lead by 16 🔴 LAB 41% (+2) 🔵 CON 25% (-) 🟠 LIB DEM 10% (-1) 🟣 REF UK 15% (+1) 🟢 GRN 5% (-) 🟡 SNP 2%(-1) Dates: 21-23/6 N: 2046 Tables: moreincommon.org.uk/our-work/votin… https://x.com/LukeTryl/status/1805274012135702821?s=19
Clearly Farages comments arent hurting Reform. Quite a lot of people agree with him and I suppose if he changes the one sided conversation on Ukraine in the Uk with public support that may make our leaders decisions regarding extra support to ukraine more difficult.
🆕 @Moreincommon_ voting intention. Small changes but our highest Reform score yet. While Labour tick back up & lead by 16 🔴 LAB 41% (+2) 🔵 CON 25% (-) 🟠 LIB DEM 10% (-1) 🟣 REF UK 15% (+1) 🟢 GRN 5% (-) 🟡 SNP 2%(-1) Dates: 21-23/6 N: 2046 Tables: moreincommon.org.uk/our-work/votin… https://x.com/LukeTryl/status/1805274012135702821?s=19
🆕 @Moreincommon_ voting intention. Small changes but our highest Reform score yet. While Labour tick back up & lead by 16 🔴 LAB 41% (+2) 🔵 CON 25% (-) 🟠 LIB DEM 10% (-1) 🟣 REF UK 15% (+1) 🟢 GRN 5% (-) 🟡 SNP 2%(-1) Dates: 21-23/6 N: 2046 Tables: moreincommon.org.uk/our-work/votin… https://x.com/LukeTryl/status/1805274012135702821?s=19
Reform up despite Putingate.
The Tory vote share seems to have been stuck on 25% for weeks . At this point I think no 10 would accept that 25% on polling day with open arms .
🆕 @Moreincommon_ voting intention. Small changes but our highest Reform score yet. While Labour tick back up & lead by 16 🔴 LAB 41% (+2) 🔵 CON 25% (-) 🟠 LIB DEM 10% (-1) 🟣 REF UK 15% (+1) 🟢 GRN 5% (-) 🟡 SNP 2%(-1) Dates: 21-23/6 N: 2046 Tables: moreincommon.org.uk/our-work/votin… https://x.com/LukeTryl/status/1805274012135702821?s=19
That's it. Seen enough. Nothing is changing. What you see is what you get.
You can pick any pollster you like now and you get a landslide of varying degrees of size, but landslide it is.
🆕 @Moreincommon_ voting intention. Small changes but our highest Reform score yet. While Labour tick back up & lead by 16 🔴 LAB 41% (+2) 🔵 CON 25% (-) 🟠 LIB DEM 10% (-1) 🟣 REF UK 15% (+1) 🟢 GRN 5% (-) 🟡 SNP 2%(-1) Dates: 21-23/6 N: 2046 Tables: moreincommon.org.uk/our-work/votin… https://x.com/LukeTryl/status/1805274012135702821?s=19
Looks like we might be into the static churn phase. Not much movement outside MOE and not much in the way of set-pieces to shift it. Unless we're counting the bore-off on Thursday. I think someone would have to drop-trou and cakc themselves live on stage to make an impact there.
Peter Hitchens: "Yes, it was a lawless putsch. My inch-by-inch and line-by-line examination of the illegal overthrow of Ukraine's legitimate President in 2014 (swiftly condoned, to their lasting shame, by the Western democracies)". [Plus link to an article he wrote on the subject in April 23
Peter Hitchens confirms once again he's as thick as pigshit, thanks for the reminder.
Climate change denier too. Moron status confirmed.
Another issue where the three main parties and their fellow travellers have the same view, view anyone who dissents as a cretin and then wonder why people like Meloni, Le Pen and Farage start getting lots of votes and decide it is because they are thick and bigoted, in much the same way a Georgian Aristocrat regarded the peasants.
Anthropogenic climate change is happening - that is a fact. The main issue is how to tackle the issue. The neoliberals want to allow big business to thrive whilst also paying lip service to the idea of being environmentally friendly, so they move taxes onto consumers rather than producers of CO2 - the petrol hikes that many rural Europeans so despise because it makes rural living more expensive is a good example of this. The right / far right want to pretend climate change isn't happening and move on to a scarcity model of politics - there isn't enough left for the Volk, so we must kick out the foreigner (and the dissenters who aren't really people like us anyway). The left propose the only viable alternative - investment in renewable energy and a reduced reliance on fossil fuels. This will mean huge phase shifts (reduced plastic use, reduced usage of hydrocarbon based fertilisers, etc), but at least the left are willing to say what the problem is (excess production and consumption for the benefit of capital) and where to get the resources to tackle the issue (those who already hoard capital) without having to scapegoat immigrants.
There is another option and that's to value sustainability and ecological impact beside profit as a business motive. It's no good making money if you're destroying the world. Supporting businesses which are ecologically sustainable and seek to mitigate the impact of climate change would be sensible options for a more business-oriented Government and if that means companies who refuse to be sustainable go to the wall so be it.
There is a fine line but Govenrment can also be about influencing public behaviour and educating people as to what is happening, why it is happening and the consequences especially for those parts of the world where the impacts are more keenly and immediately felt.
We too face issues from rising sea levels and a climate with more frequent extremes of weather and that means sensible thinking on houses including not building housing developments on flood plains.
The problem with capitalistic growth is that it is ideologically wedded not only to profit, but ever growing profit, which demand ever more extraction and squeezing of labour, along with increasingly trying to foist externalities onto public coffers (or ignoring them completely) makes it really difficult. Already we have right wingers and big businesses saying there is too much green tape and regulation etc. We also know that consumption and CO2 production is skewwed heavily towards the extremely wealthy - both globally and within individual nations. The answer, more equitable distribution of resources and an overall decrease in consumption reliant on fossil fuels, doesn't really square with the continuation of the profit motive as it currently exists.
You don't believe in net zero, do you?
If we have net zero, why do we need "equitable distribution of resources" for climate reasons, considering we can scale up or down consumption/production and anything times zero equals zero.
If we don't have net zero, how do we stop climate change?
If you were serious about tackling climate change, you wouldn't believe any of the garbage you're spouting.
I mean, I don't think globally we're going to get to net zero because many of the people saying we will are hoping carbon capture works better than it currently does - atm efficiency is too low to depend on it. So to get to net zero it will not just be countries sequestering any carbon output to equal zero (as the tech to sequester is currently not good enough), it will require a reduction in emissions. Reduction in emissions will require a reduction in production and consumption. If the logic of growth for the average worker is "you get a smaller slice, but we'll grow the pie", the logic of static growth or even degrowth for the average worker should be "you get a bigger slice, but we're slowly shrinking the pie". That will have to come via wealth redistribution - those who have a huge amount will have to give up their hoarded resources for the benefits of those who have less or none.
So you don't give a fuck about the planet and want to trash the environment and keep emitting pollution then.
Pissing about with marginal reductions in "the size of the pie" will do bugger all to reduce emissions, since we'll still have billions of people making emissions globally and the rest of the world has no desire to shrink their size of the pie - quite rightly too.
Only investing in clean technology gets us to net zero and that requires no change in pie size. And clean technologies can be adopted by the rest of the planet too.
It doesn't take much scraping the green away to reveal the nasty anti-growth agenda beneath. Carbon capture needn't even be about 'storage technology' - it can be done by dressing UK fields with basalt, to the tune of 45% of Britain's overall net zero target, and the level of carbon uptake can be verified easily by testing of soils. Terrifying for the likes of 148grss because it doesn't involve the forced decimation of the economy, which is their actual goal.
It also remineralises the soil and makes it far more fertile.
I used SEER rockdust on my allotment and it was very effective.
Funny thing is they smear me as a climate denier but I grow my own veg travel mostly by public transport and drive very little (had the car since new the thick end of two decades ago and will keep it till it packs up (the greenest way possible of driving due to the carbon cost of construction and disposal). Probably one of the greenest here in terms of what I actually do.
If they actually believed what they say then the COP and WEF summits would be held by videoconference.
What they really mean is that they want a subsistence existence stuck in 15 minute cities for most so that there is unspoiled Lebensraum for them and they can air condition their mansions and fly their private jets without the earth running out of resources any time soon. Oil isn't infinite. Lets not let the plebs waste it, what?
If you don’t want to sound like a stark raving conspiracy theorist, perhaps drop the bit about the WEF and… well, the conspiracy theory bit.
Thing is there is a bit of a point about scientists sounding alarm bells about global travel and then all meeting up after travelling thousands of miles, usually by air. Now you and I both know that international conferences are vastly better for information exchange, project seeding etc than teams/zoom meetings etc. But it is all too easy for the lay person to look at that and think that if it were really serious* then the scientists would lead by example.
*It is.
Its not just international conferences that are vastly better in person, so is almost everything else people fly for too.
Which is why cutting flights is not a credible suggestion and is not going to happen. If it won't happen for these conferences, it won't happen anywhere else either.
What is a credible suggestion is developing net zero clean technologies for flights. Which will take longer to implement than say net zero clean technologies for cars, but should still happen ultimately.
It's not either/or. We can cut some flights, and should, and we should also be developing and implementing clean technologies.
The problem is so great that doing one of the things won't be enough. We need to do all of the things!
I disagree. The problem is so great we need to be doing clean technologies.
Cutting a few flights does piss all. If 99% of flights still take off, then reducing the flights by 1% does bugger all.
OTOH ensuring the flights that take off emit 10% less in one step, and then emit nothing eventually, transitions us to clean flights without cutting anything.
The latter is a serious, credible, scientific way to address the problem.
It would be if it was possible to achieve it with the laws of physics as we understand it.
Just the initial 10% involves switching to burning oil crops (as with E5 and E10 petrol) so reducing arable land needed for food and putting food prices up with particular impact on the global south, most of whom don't get to fly anywhere - ever.
There are other ways. Colleagues here are working on growing bio oils in algae. No need to agricultural land.
Yet. Yet.
I'm all for things like bio oils in algae. If so much money hadn't been spaffed away to spivs pushing wind turbines when there is not yet the technology to store what they generate, we might be further down that road.
There absolutely is the technology to store what they generate, its just not completely rolled out yet.
Within a decade it will be though. It will be on my driveway.
From what I recall, nowhere near enough energy storage in cars for that. Or in all transportation.
We typically use about 35GW of electricity nationwide.
33 million cars on the road. Assume an average of 80 kWh battery in each.
Equals 2,640 GWh. Or just over 3 days worth of 100% of our electricity.
Unless I've screwed up my maths, in which case I'm sure somebody on pedanticbetting will spot it.
Which is very little use if we get over a week of high pressure windless weather and cloudy skies in winter as we do from time to time.
And even then you have to ban people from driving their cars as you need to loot their batteries to keep the grid running.
And thats before we get into losses from getting from 12V dc in someones car to 400kw in the grid.
Labour 42% (–) Reform UK 19% (–) Conservative 18% (–) Lib Dem 12% (+1) Green 6% (+1) SNP 3% (–) Other 2% (+1)
BAXTERED
LAB 501 LIB DEMS 60 CONS 38 REFUK 5 GRN 2
We all expect the polls to narrow, and yet, we’ve seen this is enough different polls now to make me think that Labour 500+ seats at 13.5 is overpriced.
I’m not saying it will happen - I expect something more like 430 for Labour - but 500+ doesn’t feel a 13.5 shot. With enough tactical voting efficiency, Labour don’t really need *that* many stars to align for it.
There is a consistent and thread of polls which Baxter to a Tory wipeout - 30-60 seats, Labour towards 500. If it happens we can't say there was no evidence and we weren't warned. I certainly don't think it can't happen.
Think of it locally. Every seat the Tories win is one where more people think the Tories are first choice than think so about one of the others. I don't know anyone who in their heart thinks the Tories are good enough to be first choice. There may be a few who think they are the worst apart from all the others, but that's as far as it seems to go when it comes to passionate conviction. So maybe 30 seats it will be!
Peter Hitchens: "Yes, it was a lawless putsch. My inch-by-inch and line-by-line examination of the illegal overthrow of Ukraine's legitimate President in 2014 (swiftly condoned, to their lasting shame, by the Western democracies)". [Plus link to an article he wrote on the subject in April 23
Peter Hitchens confirms once again he's as thick as pigshit, thanks for the reminder.
Climate change denier too. Moron status confirmed.
Another issue where the three main parties and their fellow travellers have the same view, view anyone who dissents as a cretin and then wonder why people like Meloni, Le Pen and Farage start getting lots of votes and decide it is because they are thick and bigoted, in much the same way a Georgian Aristocrat regarded the peasants.
Anthropogenic climate change is happening - that is a fact. The main issue is how to tackle the issue. The neoliberals want to allow big business to thrive whilst also paying lip service to the idea of being environmentally friendly, so they move taxes onto consumers rather than producers of CO2 - the petrol hikes that many rural Europeans so despise because it makes rural living more expensive is a good example of this. The right / far right want to pretend climate change isn't happening and move on to a scarcity model of politics - there isn't enough left for the Volk, so we must kick out the foreigner (and the dissenters who aren't really people like us anyway). The left propose the only viable alternative - investment in renewable energy and a reduced reliance on fossil fuels. This will mean huge phase shifts (reduced plastic use, reduced usage of hydrocarbon based fertilisers, etc), but at least the left are willing to say what the problem is (excess production and consumption for the benefit of capital) and where to get the resources to tackle the issue (those who already hoard capital) without having to scapegoat immigrants.
There is another option and that's to value sustainability and ecological impact beside profit as a business motive. It's no good making money if you're destroying the world. Supporting businesses which are ecologically sustainable and seek to mitigate the impact of climate change would be sensible options for a more business-oriented Government and if that means companies who refuse to be sustainable go to the wall so be it.
There is a fine line but Govenrment can also be about influencing public behaviour and educating people as to what is happening, why it is happening and the consequences especially for those parts of the world where the impacts are more keenly and immediately felt.
We too face issues from rising sea levels and a climate with more frequent extremes of weather and that means sensible thinking on houses including not building housing developments on flood plains.
The problem with capitalistic growth is that it is ideologically wedded not only to profit, but ever growing profit, which demand ever more extraction and squeezing of labour, along with increasingly trying to foist externalities onto public coffers (or ignoring them completely) makes it really difficult. Already we have right wingers and big businesses saying there is too much green tape and regulation etc. We also know that consumption and CO2 production is skewwed heavily towards the extremely wealthy - both globally and within individual nations. The answer, more equitable distribution of resources and an overall decrease in consumption reliant on fossil fuels, doesn't really square with the continuation of the profit motive as it currently exists.
You don't believe in net zero, do you?
If we have net zero, why do we need "equitable distribution of resources" for climate reasons, considering we can scale up or down consumption/production and anything times zero equals zero.
If we don't have net zero, how do we stop climate change?
If you were serious about tackling climate change, you wouldn't believe any of the garbage you're spouting.
I mean, I don't think globally we're going to get to net zero because many of the people saying we will are hoping carbon capture works better than it currently does - atm efficiency is too low to depend on it. So to get to net zero it will not just be countries sequestering any carbon output to equal zero (as the tech to sequester is currently not good enough), it will require a reduction in emissions. Reduction in emissions will require a reduction in production and consumption. If the logic of growth for the average worker is "you get a smaller slice, but we'll grow the pie", the logic of static growth or even degrowth for the average worker should be "you get a bigger slice, but we're slowly shrinking the pie". That will have to come via wealth redistribution - those who have a huge amount will have to give up their hoarded resources for the benefits of those who have less or none.
So you don't give a fuck about the planet and want to trash the environment and keep emitting pollution then.
Pissing about with marginal reductions in "the size of the pie" will do bugger all to reduce emissions, since we'll still have billions of people making emissions globally and the rest of the world has no desire to shrink their size of the pie - quite rightly too.
Only investing in clean technology gets us to net zero and that requires no change in pie size. And clean technologies can be adopted by the rest of the planet too.
It doesn't take much scraping the green away to reveal the nasty anti-growth agenda beneath. Carbon capture needn't even be about 'storage technology' - it can be done by dressing UK fields with basalt, to the tune of 45% of Britain's overall net zero target, and the level of carbon uptake can be verified easily by testing of soils. Terrifying for the likes of 148grss because it doesn't involve the forced decimation of the economy, which is their actual goal.
It also remineralises the soil and makes it far more fertile.
I used SEER rockdust on my allotment and it was very effective.
Funny thing is they smear me as a climate denier but I grow my own veg travel mostly by public transport and drive very little (had the car since new the thick end of two decades ago and will keep it till it packs up (the greenest way possible of driving due to the carbon cost of construction and disposal). Probably one of the greenest here in terms of what I actually do.
If they actually believed what they say then the COP and WEF summits would be held by videoconference.
What they really mean is that they want a subsistence existence stuck in 15 minute cities for most so that there is unspoiled Lebensraum for them and they can air condition their mansions and fly their private jets without the earth running out of resources any time soon. Oil isn't infinite. Lets not let the plebs waste it, what?
If you don’t want to sound like a stark raving conspiracy theorist, perhaps drop the bit about the WEF and… well, the conspiracy theory bit.
Thing is there is a bit of a point about scientists sounding alarm bells about global travel and then all meeting up after travelling thousands of miles, usually by air. Now you and I both know that international conferences are vastly better for information exchange, project seeding etc than teams/zoom meetings etc. But it is all too easy for the lay person to look at that and think that if it were really serious* then the scientists would lead by example.
*It is.
Its not just international conferences that are vastly better in person, so is almost everything else people fly for too.
Which is why cutting flights is not a credible suggestion and is not going to happen. If it won't happen for these conferences, it won't happen anywhere else either.
What is a credible suggestion is developing net zero clean technologies for flights. Which will take longer to implement than say net zero clean technologies for cars, but should still happen ultimately.
It's not either/or. We can cut some flights, and should, and we should also be developing and implementing clean technologies.
The problem is so great that doing one of the things won't be enough. We need to do all of the things!
I disagree. The problem is so great we need to be doing clean technologies.
Cutting a few flights does piss all. If 99% of flights still take off, then reducing the flights by 1% does bugger all.
OTOH ensuring the flights that take off emit 10% less in one step, and then emit nothing eventually, transitions us to clean flights without cutting anything.
The latter is a serious, credible, scientific way to address the problem.
It would be if it was possible to achieve it with the laws of physics as we understand it.
Just the initial 10% involves switching to burning oil crops (as with E5 and E10 petrol) so reducing arable land needed for food and putting food prices up with particular impact on the global south, most of whom don't get to fly anywhere - ever.
There are other ways. Colleagues here are working on growing bio oils in algae. No need to agricultural land.
Yet. Yet.
I'm all for things like bio oils in algae. If so much money hadn't been spaffed away to spivs pushing wind turbines when there is not yet the technology to store what they generate, we might be further down that road.
There absolutely is the technology to store what they generate, its just not completely rolled out yet.
Within a decade it will be though. It will be on my driveway.
From what I recall, nowhere near enough energy storage in cars for that. Or in all transportation.
We typically use about 35GW of electricity nationwide.
33 million cars on the road. Assume an average of 80 kWh battery in each.
Equals 2,640 GWh. Or just over 3 days worth of 100% of our electricity.
Unless I've screwed up my maths, in which case I'm sure somebody on pedanticbetting will spot it.
Except moving to electric will also increase electricity demand; e.g. for those cars, and heating replacing gas boilers, etc, etc.
And as noted earlier, Tory MPs camapigning against the new interconnector networks.
🆕 @Moreincommon_ voting intention. Small changes but our highest Reform score yet. While Labour tick back up & lead by 16 🔴 LAB 41% (+2) 🔵 CON 25% (-) 🟠 LIB DEM 10% (-1) 🟣 REF UK 15% (+1) 🟢 GRN 5% (-) 🟡 SNP 2%(-1) Dates: 21-23/6 N: 2046 Tables: moreincommon.org.uk/our-work/votin… https://x.com/LukeTryl/status/1805274012135702821?s=19
Clearly Farages comments arent hurting Reform. Quite a lot of people agree with him and I suppose if he changes the one sided conversation on Ukraine in the Uk with public support that may make our leaders decisions regarding extra support to ukraine more difficult.
Can you hear Kalinka playing somewhere? I'm sure I can.
🆕 @Moreincommon_ voting intention. Small changes but our highest Reform score yet. While Labour tick back up & lead by 16 🔴 LAB 41% (+2) 🔵 CON 25% (-) 🟠 LIB DEM 10% (-1) 🟣 REF UK 15% (+1) 🟢 GRN 5% (-) 🟡 SNP 2%(-1) Dates: 21-23/6 N: 2046 Tables: moreincommon.org.uk/our-work/votin… https://x.com/LukeTryl/status/1805274012135702821?s=19
Clearly Farages comments arent hurting Reform. Quite a lot of people agree with him and I suppose if he changes the one sided conversation on Ukraine in the Uk with public support that may make our leaders decisions regarding extra support to ukraine more difficult.
It's probably not so much that people agree with his Putin comments as that they're more concerned with issues like migration, woke-ness, etc.
🆕 @Moreincommon_ voting intention. Small changes but our highest Reform score yet. While Labour tick back up & lead by 16 🔴 LAB 41% (+2) 🔵 CON 25% (-) 🟠 LIB DEM 10% (-1) 🟣 REF UK 15% (+1) 🟢 GRN 5% (-) 🟡 SNP 2%(-1) Dates: 21-23/6 N: 2046 Tables: moreincommon.org.uk/our-work/votin… https://x.com/LukeTryl/status/1805274012135702821?s=19
Comments
Neither defender nor attacker were attempting to play the ball. The pair of them just fell over in a messy heap.
"Your conflict coordinates are 30.56% Israel, 58.34% Ukraine."
The interchange between Labour and LibDem in both directions bodes well for knocking the Tories back, assuming the voters know what they are doing.
sit in the gardenwork from home, and making it Teams works for that.I agree re it taking covid to get to the point of online meetings. It all seemed so space age in Dr Who - The Caves of Androzani...
The problem was that agree/disagree is not a good answer to any of the questions.
Just the initial 10% involves switching to burning oil crops (as with E5 and E10 petrol) so reducing arable land needed for food and putting food prices up with particular impact on the global south, most of whom don't get to fly anywhere - ever.
💥 EXCLUSIVE: Our first MRP poll of the campaign suggests Labour are on course for a 250-seat majority.
Probabilistic seat counts:
Labour: 450
Conservative: 110
Liberal Democrats: 50
SNP: 16
Plaid Cymru: 2
Reform UK: 1
Green: 1
https://x.com/focaldataHQ/status/1805265098803450304
https://x.com/bfmtv/status/1805186384698720481
I've changed my mind: the Scotland player should have been booked.
That's a No, is your first thought, but if you take it literally it's a Depends. It depends if you can do anything about it. If you can't it's a Yes.
There's quite a few questions like that and I took the literal approach. This is perhaps one of the reasons my result doesn't really indicate what side I most sympathise with in these current conflicts.
https://x.com/patrickjfl/status/1805266413701235154?s=46
Look at that tactical voting efficiency!
Long term for the past fifty years there has been a compound 1.3% reduction in fuel burn per passenger km per annum and this has been continuing in recent years.
New planes are routinely using better technologies and are more fuel efficient than old ones.
A modern Airbus is much more fuel efficient than an old 747 was.
Labour leads Reform by 23%.
Joint-highest Reform %.
Joint-lowest Conservative %.
🇬🇧 Westminster VI (21-24 June):
Labour 42% (–)
Reform UK 19% (–)
Conservative 18% (–)
Lib Dem 12% (+1)
Green 6% (+1)
SNP 3% (–)
Other 2% (+1)
Changes +/- 19-20 June
https://x.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1805269652861231157
Ukraine isn't about that, it's about a man's desire to subjugate a population and recreate a former Empire and suck people who had broken away - and didn't want to go back, even many who are culturally Russian speakers.
The (imperfect) comparator on the Israel/Palestine issue would be the wilder Hamas and other fundamentalist's aims of destroying Israel in the service of recreating the caliphate.
Joint-highest Reform %.
Joint-lowest Conservative %.
🇬🇧 Westminster VI (21-24 June):
Labour 42% (–)
Reform UK 19% (–)
Conservative 18% (–)
Lib Dem 12% (+1)
Green 6% (+1)
SNP 3% (–)
Other 2% (+1)
Changes +/- 19-20 June
redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/latest-gb-voti…
https://x.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1805269652861231157?s=19
Redfield and Wilton
Labour leads Reform by 23%.
Joint-highest Reform %.
Joint-lowest Conservative %.
🇬🇧 Westminster VI (21-24 June):
Labour 42% (–)
Reform UK 19% (–)
Conservative 18% (–)
Lib Dem 12% (+1)
Green 6% (+1)
SNP 3% (–)
Other 2% (+1)
BAXTERED
LAB 501
LIB DEMS 60
CONS 38
REFUK 5
GRN 2
How do they expect us punters to make a living if they just keep pulling the same numbers out of the hat?
I think the majority would be reflected though.
One of those things though. You'd need to be a fairly one-eyed Scotland fan to feel a major injustice was done across the three matches - they didn't create enough to earn their passage out of the group.
I'm all for things like bio oils in algae. If so much money hadn't been spaffed away to spivs pushing wind turbines when there is not yet the technology to store what they generate, we might be further down that road.
We are continuously iterating better technology and there is no end in sight for that.
Longer term there are plausible zero (net) carbon options for aviation but they're not here yet, but shorter term there absolutely is ways to continue to iterate better efficiency. We've not hit the wall yet.
Lowest % of 2019 Conservatives EVER to say they will vote Conservative again.
Westminster VI, 2019 Conservatives (21-24 June):
Conservative 35% (-2)
Reform 28% (–)
Labour 19% (-1)
Other 8% (+1)
Don't Know 9% (+1)
Changes +/- 19-20 June
https://x.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1805271013518721200
Within a decade it will be though. It will be on my driveway.
I’m not saying it will happen - I expect something more like 430 for Labour - but 500+ doesn’t feel a 13.5 shot. With enough tactical voting efficiency, Labour don’t really need *that* many stars to align for it.
Wow.
Then you look on in horror as Farage is still ahead of the Tories despite "putingate" and can't understand why (why being that millions don't agree with you and resent being thought of as thick, ignorant, deplorables) but they don't move in your circles (or keep their traps shut if they do) so they don't exist, surely?
Given postal votes have been going out for a while the Tories will be very worried that the popularity of Reform with older voters who are more likely to vote by post means it’s already over for them in loads of seats .
Reform getting fewer MPs than Plaid Cymru, and fewer votes than Nick Clegg's Lib Dems in 2010, is not going to change anything when it comes to Ukraine.
https://www.scienceontrial.com/post/shifting-the-data
Edit: Sure, this critique may not be valid. But after the statistical fallacy in the double cot death trial I have never been too sure about lawyers or judges coping with statistics.
Because the reality is very different from the fiction he is seeding.
At no point have I ever implied climate "dissent" is thoughtful and principled.
https://x.com/MollyJongFast/status/1805218746585215201
Nick Robinson did something similar, a couple of times last week, when politicians being interviewed tried to tell him what questions he should be asking them.
Wasn't going to take the risk of shoving three live but attenuated viruses into an infant when that risk is not as low as reasonably practicable on the grounds that they can be separately injected six weeks apart.
The RAF has flown a jet using synthetic gasoline made from used cooking oil, which is an interesting option, for instance.
There are in fact many alternatives being researched and my money is on humanity doing what it always does and that's finding a scientific solution.
Is it Saturday lunchtime already?
But I think the betting business is going to be pretty bad for the Tories.
But since the candle was lit and you, all mothlike, fluttered along... welcome!
33 million cars on the road. Assume an average of 80 kWh battery in each.
Equals 2,640 GWh. Or just over 3 days worth of 100% of our electricity.
Unless I've screwed up my maths, in which case I'm sure somebody on pedanticbetting will spot it.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1G7Ey3ZcEMWbosicrLKtp6LqiCh2KUUBc/edit?gid=491918608#gid=491918608
This is the real "eyes emoji" bit for me. The Tory vote falling so steeply they might have to run another one next week.
🔴 LAB 41% (+2)
🔵 CON 25% (-)
🟠 LIB DEM 10% (-1)
🟣 REF UK 15% (+1)
🟢 GRN 5% (-)
🟡 SNP 2%(-1)
Dates: 21-23/6 N: 2046 Tables: moreincommon.org.uk/our-work/votin…
https://x.com/LukeTryl/status/1805274012135702821?s=19
for those who trivialise Russian equipment losses, here's a video that apparently shows a trip along just one road:
https://x.com/Tendar/status/1804835250054275243
Kerosene presumably? A Tristar? Say 100 tonnes per long range flight. But the UK's chippies use about 100 kT a year. That'd be accounted for by 5 RAF jets' flying programmes, reasonably intensive, of 200 flights/year each.
[Fermi piano tuner levels of accuracy: but probably right ballpark.]
I'm just not entirely sure that there is a solution, in which case we are screwed.
However most of what is going on at the moment is displacement activity, enriching spivs and makig politi. Michael Moore wasn't far off in Planet of The Humans.
That doesn't consider second order effects like an increase in rooftop solar/battery for EV charging for example. I'm actually surprised none of the big boys have offered a solar charging package as an add-on for a car purchase. Buy a Merc EQE and get 20% off a home charger/battery/solar array installation sort of thing.
You can pick any pollster you like now and you get a landslide of varying degrees of size, but landslide it is.
I'm closing my book.
And even then you have to ban people from driving their cars as you need to loot their batteries to keep the grid running.
And thats before we get into losses from getting from 12V dc in someones car to 400kw in the grid.
Think of it locally. Every seat the Tories win is one where more people think the Tories are first choice than think so about one of the others. I don't know anyone who in their heart thinks the Tories are good enough to be first choice. There may be a few who think they are the worst apart from all the others, but that's as far as it seems to go when it comes to passionate conviction. So maybe 30 seats it will be!
In Focaldata MRP, Tories only hold 60 seats by >5%
Labour hold 410 by >5%