Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 31, 2021 9:53:55 GMT 1
Exactly, this process does not give a f*** about our financial systems, it cannot be negotiated with, it will not sign up to a timescale for our convenience... Oh well, that's the way thr climate crumbles. We humans will do what we can, be innovative, it's served us well this far. The number of people on the planet and where they live might have to change, but there will be a way. We probably already had a stay of execution when scientists invented the nuclear bomb and we were heading for apocalypse. Strange mixture of fatalism and magical thinking.
|
|
|
Post by staffordshrew on Oct 31, 2021 10:08:27 GMT 1
Oh well, that's the way thr climate crumbles. We humans will do what we can, be innovative, it's served us well this far. The number of people on the planet and where they live might have to change, but there will be a way. We probably already had a stay of execution when scientists invented the nuclear bomb and we were heading for apocalypse. Strange mixture of fatalism and magical thinking. The same as we can expect as the outcome of the climate summit?
|
|
|
Post by stuttgartershrew on Oct 31, 2021 15:27:23 GMT 1
I think the majority of people are concerned with the future of the planet and would be willing to make some sort of changes if they felt would it would make a difference but for me, that is the problem. Maybe I'm too cynical but people will ask does it make a difference if I change my lightbulbs or boiler, recycle more, become a vegetarian etc. when emissions are so high elsewhere (UK accounts for 1% of the world emissions, China & the US account for 43% combined) Additionally, people will question being lectured by the government and celebrities on doing their bit, when many of them are hypocrites in their own lifestyles. This COP26 is a great example of that, a 25k people travelling from across the globe to discuss climate change, the irony of that is staggering (and that's before we even mention the fact its during a pandemic). Something does need to change, how we get everyone to do that is the big question I do wonder though whether it gets a little bit lost in the debate that things have changed and continue to or? Perhaps not at the speed many would like but progress is being made isn't it? Looking to the UK's co2 emissions, for example. But I think you make a very good point because whilst I'm sure an awful lot of people want to make a difference they are aware of the impact anything that happens within the UK will have on the global efforts to reduce emissions. And it is a good question on how you get people to do that. How do you get people on board when in the great scheme of things the impact will be minimal and when you might then be asking people to change the way they live, for better or for worse, for richer or poorer. You do really need to have the message right. And whether that is the case at the moment, no idea. But I agree with you in that I don't think it helps to see officials and celebrities about the place telling everyone else they need to do this, that or the other. And I do wonder what the alarmist and hysterical language you hear from some, from the the likes of XR and IB say, has in helping the cause.
|
|
|
Post by zenfootball2 on Oct 31, 2021 15:48:40 GMT 1
I think the majority of people are concerned with the future of the planet and would be willing to make some sort of changes if they felt would it would make a difference but for me, that is the problem. Maybe I'm too cynical but people will ask does it make a difference if I change my lightbulbs or boiler, recycle more, become a vegetarian etc. when emissions are so high elsewhere (UK accounts for 1% of the world emissions, China & the US account for 43% combined) Additionally, people will question being lectured by the government and celebrities on doing their bit, when many of them are hypocrites in their own lifestyles. This COP26 is a great example of that, a 25k people travelling from across the globe to discuss climate change, the irony of that is staggering (and that's before we even mention the fact its during a pandemic). Something does need to change, how we get everyone to do that is the big question I do wonder though whether it gets a little bit lost in the debate that things have changed and continue to or? Perhaps not at the speed many would like but progress is being made isn't it? Looking to the UK's co2 emissions, for example. But I think you make a very good point because whilst I'm sure an awful lot of people want to make a difference they are aware of the impact anything that happens within the UK will have on the global efforts to reduce emissions. And it is a good question on how you get people to do that. How do you get people on board when in the great scheme of things the impact will be minimal and when you might then be asking people to change the way they live, for better or for worse, for richer or poorer. You do really need to have the message right. And whether that is the case at the moment, no idea. But I agree with you in that I don't think it helps to see officials and celebrities about the place telling everyone else they need to do this, that or the other. And I do wonder what the alarmist and hysterical language you hear from some, from the the likes of XR and IB say, has in helping the cause. very true ; there is also a level of double standers when gordon brown became PM he had a clear plan to enable the uk to be carbon zero ,we then get david cameroon in powere and he scr@ps all the schemes. it would also help to have somthing like a green council were you can find out all the information you need in one site ,there was recently a green door event in shrewsburt were some very kind and generous people who had completed various energy saving improvments opened there houses for the afternoon. the bulk of houses in the uk would be unsuitable for heat pumps do to the poor build quality, a more sensible plan would be to impose legislation that all new houses need to be up to passive house standerds . the goverment have stoped feed in tariffs for solar powere which is very short sited as now what incentive is there to install solar panels which depends on the size of a roof for a house but the avergae cost is £6,000 .
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 31, 2021 16:33:37 GMT 1
There’s other stuff though. Imagine how many solar panels would fit on top of the stands at the meadow. Initially cost a bit but would I imagine pay back quite quickly considering how little the club actually use and how much they’d get for selling the excess back to the national grid. Same goes for all the roofs of stores and warehouses in places like meole and battlefield parks. It’s a bit like smoking cessation, short term costs for long term real benefits both finincially and environmentally.
|
|
|
Post by servernaside on Oct 31, 2021 17:22:53 GMT 1
The hype and hysteria over climate change reminds me of the days when men used to walk around with sandwich-boards (remember those?) stating that "The End is Nigh".
As far as as I know, this was never the case.
|
|
|
Post by zenfootball2 on Oct 31, 2021 17:36:51 GMT 1
There’s other stuff though. Imagine how many solar panels would fit on top of the stands at the meadow. Initially cost a bit but would I imagine pay back quite quickly considering how little the club actually use and how much they’d get for selling the excess back to the national grid. Same goes for all the roofs of stores and warehouses in places like meole and battlefield parks. It’s a bit like smoking cessation, short term costs for long term real benefits both finincially and environmentally. the koreans and china are fitting them on a floting system on there water reservoirs as well, and this devlopment will cost £16 billion www.energyvoice.com/renewables-energy-transition/solar/352090/xlinks-morocco-uk-interconnectors/Facilities will cover around 1,500 square km, according to the Xlinks plan. This will be able to generate 3.6 GW of energy in the Guelmim-Oued Noun region. In addition to the solar and wind facilities, the plan will have a 20 GWh/5 GW battery. This will allow it to continue exporting electricity as a “near constant” source of power. Xlinks executive chair Sir Dave Lewis said the plan would use proven technology to deliver power to more than 7 million British homes this decade.
|
|
|
Post by staffordshrew on Nov 1, 2021 10:26:23 GMT 1
Trying to stop us doing things isn't really going to work, what is going to work is innovation, with a lirrle help from the politicians,
For example, JCB have just signed a contract with mining mogul Andrew Forrest to take 10% of his "Green Hydrogen" to power the Hydrogen diggers and machinery they are developing. Green Hydrogen does not release the polutents that making Hydrogen from Natural gas does - it's like a storage battery for wind and solar power - when there is enough wind and solar it powers the making of Hydrogen.
These guys are in it to make money, that is where the innovation is going to come from, not Greta and the stop things protesters.
There will be other technologies developed, but, taking Green Hydrogen as an example, we could continue to drive around, but in Green Hydrogen guzzling trucks, cars, even SUVs, while also reducing our reliance on imported energy, all with clean emmissions. All the politicians need to do is enable it to happen - let the inovators get on with it and tweak things to use whatever green technologies come along.
But the key thing they could be doing right now is exactly what the protesters say they want - Insulate Britain - insulate the world!
|
|
|
Post by servernaside on Nov 1, 2021 11:33:38 GMT 1
The thing which drives global warming to the greatest extent is the ever increasing size of the world's human population, both in terms of energy use, food production, deforestation etc etc.
Does this ever appear on the agenda of climate change conferences?
I think we all know the answer to that.
|
|
|
Post by staffordshrew on Nov 1, 2021 11:46:45 GMT 1
The thing which drives global warming to the greatest extent is the ever increasing size of the world's human population, both in terms of energy use, food production, deforestation etc etc. Does this ever appear on the agenda of climate change conferences? I think we all know the answer to that. Euthanasia? World War 3? The disolution of the Catholic church? Huge mountains of used condoms released into our rivers with the sewage? Changing the rules on social housing and benefits so if you have kids you lose the house and benefits reduce? A new Covid variant? Two bricks. or even a surgical procedure? Continuing to allow people to drive over 20mph? Free motorbikes for everyone? Reverse the seatbeslts and helmets laws? Abolish "Health and Safety"? Maybe a combination of all those?
|
|
|
Post by Worthingshrew on Nov 1, 2021 12:32:31 GMT 1
The right to have children is enshrined in UN Declaration of Human Rights - Article 16.
|
|
|
Post by staffordshrew on Nov 1, 2021 12:43:09 GMT 1
The right to have children is enshrined in UN Declaration of Human Rights - Article 16. At the moment...
|
|
|
Post by staffordshrew on Nov 1, 2021 12:50:54 GMT 1
Rumours that some of the climate protesters who couldn't get to Glasgow because of the trees on the West Coast Mainline yesterday WENT BY PLANE.
|
|
|
Post by servernaside on Nov 1, 2021 13:58:34 GMT 1
The thing which drives global warming to the greatest extent is the ever increasing size of the world's human population, both in terms of energy use, food production, deforestation etc etc. Does this ever appear on the agenda of climate change conferences? I think we all know the answer to that. Euthanasia? World War 3? The disolution of the Catholic church? Huge mountains of used condoms released into our rivers with the sewage? Changing the rules on social housing and benefits so if you have kids you lose the house and benefits reduce? A new Covid variant? Two bricks. or even a surgical procedure? Continuing to allow people to drive over 20mph? Free motorbikes for everyone? Reverse the seatbeslts and helmets laws? Abolish "Health and Safety"? Maybe a combination of all those? You are right of course. Most of the measures / procedures you have outlined would not be generally acceptable. We are however repeatedly being told that we are drinking in the 'Last Chance Saloon" and that if we don't change our behaviour immediately then we face sure and certain disaster. If things are so bad, then surely the relentless rise in human population cannot be ignored. If this remains the 'elephant in the room' that no-one wishes to discuss, then perhaps the 'climate crisis' is not so serious after all.
|
|
|
Post by shrewder on Nov 1, 2021 17:02:24 GMT 1
Euthanasia? World War 3? The disolution of the Catholic church? Huge mountains of used condoms released into our rivers with the sewage? Changing the rules on social housing and benefits so if you have kids you lose the house and benefits reduce? A new Covid variant? Two bricks. or even a surgical procedure? Continuing to allow people to drive over 20mph? Free motorbikes for everyone? Reverse the seatbeslts and helmets laws? Abolish "Health and Safety"? Maybe a combination of all those? You are right of course. Most of the measures / procedures you have outlined would not be generally acceptable. We are however repeatedly being told that we are drinking in the 'Last Chance Saloon" and that if we don't change our behaviour immediately then we face sure and certain disaster. If things are so bad, then surely the relentless rise in human population cannot be ignored. If this remains the 'elephant in the room' that no-one wishes to discuss, then perhaps the 'climate crisis' is not so serious after all. Exactly. I raised the issue of population growth further up the thread. Personally believe that any measures that are taken to slow down temperature increase will be totally overwhelmed by the effect of population growth on the climate. Whilst I am happy to do my bit, unfortunately I think we are all going to part of a massive exercise of rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. No one in authority dares raise the issue ad it is unsolvable.
|
|
|
Post by zenfootball2 on Nov 2, 2021 13:50:27 GMT 1
we had these confrences since 1995 and what exactly have they acheived ? from what i can see beyound tinkering around the edges very little.
|
|
|
Post by venceremos on Nov 2, 2021 15:40:38 GMT 1
The bbc and other media outlets who are supposed to offer balanced reporting, have only rammed global warming down our throats, nothing on the news from the thousands of scientists who have proof that global warming is not happening/harming the planet. The BBC isn't supposed to offer balanced reporting, it's supposed to offer impartial reporting, which is entirely different. The idea that balance is required is what gave us the ludicrous position of the very unscientific and unqualified ex-Chancellor, Nigel Lawson, arguing against climate science on the BBC with people who'd researched the subject for years. If the overwhelming scientific evidence is that global heating is happening and that human activity is a contributory factor to it, then any reputable media organisation is bound to report that. Your assertion that there are thousands of scientists with proof that this isn't happening is an odd one. On what do you base that statement? Cornell University has just published its updated survey of all peer-reviewed scientific papers on the subject published in the last decade or so. The survey reported last week that 99.9% of those papers considered human activity is contributing to global heating. It went on to comment that such a level of scientific certainty is comparable to that on the subjects of evolution and tectonic plates. In other words, there's no serious doubt. Perhaps you don't believe in evolution or tectonic plates either, or perhaps you believe the views of any old 'scientist' writing non-peer reviewed stuff on the internet or for money from some fossil fuel business, is of equal weight to those that have been peer reviewed and in accordance with proper scientific method. I know which I'd trust and, thankfully, the overwhelming consensus has reached the same conclusion.
|
|
|
Post by venceremos on Nov 2, 2021 15:42:13 GMT 1
The hype and hysteria over climate change reminds me of the days when men used to walk around with sandwich-boards (remember those?) stating that "The End is Nigh". As far as as I know, this was never the case. I don't think they were scientists.
|
|
|
Post by servernaside on Nov 2, 2021 15:45:04 GMT 1
Retro fitting of any new heating systems will always be problematic, but It would seem that the simplest way forward would be to change building regs for all new builds - domestic and commercial, to require heat pumps and/or solar panels. When you think of the vast acreage of roofing which covers our new retail and business parks and yes stadia, surely it would be logical to insist on further planning approval being contingent at least upon the installation of solar panels.
|
|
|
Post by venceremos on Nov 2, 2021 15:53:36 GMT 1
You are right of course. Most of the measures / procedures you have outlined would not be generally acceptable. We are however repeatedly being told that we are drinking in the 'Last Chance Saloon" and that if we don't change our behaviour immediately then we face sure and certain disaster. If things are so bad, then surely the relentless rise in human population cannot be ignored. If this remains the 'elephant in the room' that no-one wishes to discuss, then perhaps the 'climate crisis' is not so serious after all. Exactly. I raised the issue of population growth further up the thread. Personally believe that any measures that are taken to slow down temperature increase will be totally overwhelmed by the effect of population growth on the climate. Whilst I am happy to do my bit, unfortunately I think we are all going to part of a massive exercise of rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. No one in authority dares raise the issue ad it is unsolvable. Perhaps because the future isn't as certain as you suggest. The rate of population growth has halved in my lifetime, to its current 1.05%. As people move out of poverty, healthcare improves and child mortality rates reduce, so the perceived need to have more children tends to fall. There's no reason to be fatalistic about it because it might level out or increase slowly enough to be absorbed. Finding sustainable ways of living is the more critical issue.
|
|
|
Post by servernaside on Nov 2, 2021 15:58:29 GMT 1
The bbc and other media outlets who are supposed to offer balanced reporting, have only rammed global warming down our throats, nothing on the news from the thousands of scientists who have proof that global warming is not happening/harming the planet. The BBC isn't supposed to offer balanced reporting, it's supposed to offer impartial reporting, which is entirely different. The idea that balance is required is what gave us the ludicrous position of the very unscientific and unqualified ex-Chancellor, Nigel Lawson, arguing against climate science on the BBC with people who'd researched the subject for years. If the overwhelming scientific evidence is that global heating is happening and that human activity is a contributory factor to it, then any reputable media organisation is bound to report that. Your assertion that there are thousands of scientists with proof that this isn't happening is an odd one. On what do you base that statement? Cornell University has just published its updated survey of all peer-reviewed scientific papers on the subject published in the last decade or so. The survey reported last week that 99.9% of those papers considered human activity is contributing to global heating. It went on to comment that such a level of scientific certainty is comparable to that on the subjects of evolution and tectonic plates. In other words, there's no serious doubt. Perhaps you don't believe in evolution or tectonic plates either, or perhaps you believe the views of any old 'scientist' writing non-peer reviewed stuff on the internet or for money from some fossil fuel business, is of equal weight to those that have been peer reviewed and in accordance with proper scientific method. I know which I'd trust and, thankfully, the overwhelming consensus has reached the same conclusion. There are many options to view alternate climate theories from scientists on the internet.
|
|
|
Post by servernaside on Nov 2, 2021 16:01:51 GMT 1
Exactly. I raised the issue of population growth further up the thread. Personally believe that any measures that are taken to slow down temperature increase will be totally overwhelmed by the effect of population growth on the climate. Whilst I am happy to do my bit, unfortunately I think we are all going to part of a massive exercise of rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. No one in authority dares raise the issue ad it is unsolvable. Perhaps because the future isn't as certain as you suggest. The rate of population growth has halved in my lifetime, to its current 1.05%. As people move out of poverty, healthcare improves and child mortality rates reduce, so the perceived need to have more children tends to fall. There's no reason to be fatalistic about it because it might level out or increase slowly enough to be absorbed. Finding sustainable ways of living is the more critical issue. The UN predicts that the world's population will grow from 7.7 billion in 2019 to 10.9 billion by the end of this century. Not much levelling out there.
|
|
|
Post by martinshrew on Nov 2, 2021 16:22:05 GMT 1
I personally don't think building firms should be allowed to build houses that aren't fully insulated and that have solar panels (not north facing either). And the cost shouldn't be added to the new build, there should be some kind of fund/grant covering it.
It's absolute nonsense that it's not already the minimum every new build should have is a very eco friendly combi boiler, heavy insulation & solar panels. I hardly think that's a radical idea.
|
|
|
Post by sheltonsalopian on Nov 2, 2021 16:53:10 GMT 1
Retro fitting of any new heating systems will always be problematic, but It would seem that the simplest way forward would be to change building regs for all new builds - domestic and commercial, to require heat pumps and/or solar panels. When you think of the vast acreage of roofing which covers our new retail and business parks and yes stadia, surely it would be logical to insist on further planning approval being contingent at least upon the installation of solar panels. The world must be coming to an end because I completely agree with one of your posts!
|
|
|
Post by shrewder on Nov 2, 2021 16:55:17 GMT 1
Exactly. I raised the issue of population growth further up the thread. Personally believe that any measures that are taken to slow down temperature increase will be totally overwhelmed by the effect of population growth on the climate. Whilst I am happy to do my bit, unfortunately I think we are all going to part of a massive exercise of rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. No one in authority dares raise the issue ad it is unsolvable. Perhaps because the future isn't as certain as you suggest. The rate of population growth has halved in my lifetime, to its current 1.05%. As people move out of poverty, healthcare improves and child mortality rates reduce, so the perceived need to have more children tends to fall. There's no reason to be fatalistic about it because it might level out or increase slowly enough to be absorbed. Finding sustainable ways of living is the more critical issue. Who knows but in 1971 world population was 3.7 billion and it is now 7.9 billion.
|
|
|
Post by zenfootball2 on Nov 2, 2021 17:05:23 GMT 1
The bbc and other media outlets who are supposed to offer balanced reporting, have only rammed global warming down our throats, nothing on the news from the thousands of scientists who have proof that global warming is not happening/harming the planet. The BBC isn't supposed to offer balanced reporting, it's supposed to offer impartial reporting, which is entirely different. The idea that balance is required is what gave us the ludicrous position of the very unscientific and unqualified ex-Chancellor, Nigel Lawson, arguing against climate science on the BBC with people who'd researched the subject for years. If the overwhelming scientific evidence is that global heating is happening and that human activity is a contributory factor to it, then any reputable media organisation is bound to report that. Your assertion that there are thousands of scientists with proof that this isn't happening is an odd one. On what do you base that statement? Cornell University has just published its updated survey of all peer-reviewed scientific papers on the subject published in the last decade or so. The survey reported last week that 99.9% of those papers considered human activity is contributing to global heating. It went on to comment that such a level of scientific certainty is comparable to that on the subjects of evolution and tectonic plates. In other words, there's no serious doubt. Perhaps you don't believe in evolution or tectonic plates either, or perhaps you believe the views of any old 'scientist' writing non-peer reviewed stuff on the internet or for money from some fossil fuel business, is of equal weight to those that have been peer reviewed and in accordance with proper scientific method. I know which I'd trust and, thankfully, the overwhelming consensus has reached the same conclusion.
|
|
|
Post by venceremos on Nov 3, 2021 1:11:03 GMT 1
The BBC isn't supposed to offer balanced reporting, it's supposed to offer impartial reporting, which is entirely different. The idea that balance is required is what gave us the ludicrous position of the very unscientific and unqualified ex-Chancellor, Nigel Lawson, arguing against climate science on the BBC with people who'd researched the subject for years. If the overwhelming scientific evidence is that global heating is happening and that human activity is a contributory factor to it, then any reputable media organisation is bound to report that. Your assertion that there are thousands of scientists with proof that this isn't happening is an odd one. On what do you base that statement? Cornell University has just published its updated survey of all peer-reviewed scientific papers on the subject published in the last decade or so. The survey reported last week that 99.9% of those papers considered human activity is contributing to global heating. It went on to comment that such a level of scientific certainty is comparable to that on the subjects of evolution and tectonic plates. In other words, there's no serious doubt. Perhaps you don't believe in evolution or tectonic plates either, or perhaps you believe the views of any old 'scientist' writing non-peer reviewed stuff on the internet or for money from some fossil fuel business, is of equal weight to those that have been peer reviewed and in accordance with proper scientific method. I know which I'd trust and, thankfully, the overwhelming consensus has reached the same conclusion. There are many options to view alternate climate theories from scientists on the internet. There have been 28 climate sceptic, peer reviewed scientific papers published in the past decade or more, according to Cornell University. That's just 28 out of thousands. The 'options' on the internet are not peer reviewed scientific papers. That makes them of little or no value. That's not my opinion, that's what any serious scientist would tell you. Peer review is a crucial part of science. If you don't have that, you don't have scientific credibility. Forget your alternative theories, this isn't Woolworths pick & mix. The scientists have spoken and, to quote the Cornell survey, it's "game over" for any validity attaching to denial of human contribution to global heating. But, as I said, perhaps you don't believe in evolution either. The point is, you have no credible scientific basis for that belief.
|
|
|
Post by venceremos on Nov 3, 2021 1:14:02 GMT 1
Perhaps because the future isn't as certain as you suggest. The rate of population growth has halved in my lifetime, to its current 1.05%. As people move out of poverty, healthcare improves and child mortality rates reduce, so the perceived need to have more children tends to fall. There's no reason to be fatalistic about it because it might level out or increase slowly enough to be absorbed. Finding sustainable ways of living is the more critical issue. The UN predicts that the world's population will grow from 7.7 billion in 2019 to 10.9 billion by the end of this century. Not much levelling out there. They may be right. Then again, there are other predictions that show less growth. And, who knows, 10.9 billion could be sustainable in 2100 if we haven't destroyed ourselves before then.
|
|
|
Post by servernaside on Nov 3, 2021 10:25:26 GMT 1
The UN predicts that the world's population will grow from 7.7 billion in 2019 to 10.9 billion by the end of this century. Not much levelling out there. They may be right. Then again, there are other predictions that show less growth. And, who knows, 10.9 billion could be sustainable in 2100 if we haven't destroyed ourselves before then. The thing about the 'science' is that historical data on global warming is based upon very recent statistics on temperature. It is estimated that our planet is around 4.5 billion years old. We have been collecting temperature date for a mere 150 years. Other than geological data, we don't really have a clue how the planet may have alternately cooled and warmed over the previous 4.499 billion years, only theories. When you next drive along the A 458 to Much Wenlock and wind your way up Wedlock Edge, consider for a moment that this was at one time a coral reef in a tropical sea. Then let me know if you think that Earth's temperature has mysteriously stayed constant throughout the existence of our planet and has only recently warmed.
|
|
|
Post by staffordshrew on Nov 3, 2021 11:14:04 GMT 1
They may be right. Then again, there are other predictions that show less growth. And, who knows, 10.9 billion could be sustainable in 2100 if we haven't destroyed ourselves before then. The thing about the 'science' is that historical data on global warming is based upon very recent statistics on temperature. It is estimated that our planet is around 4.5 billion years old. We have been collecting temperature date for a mere 150 years. Other than geological data, we don't really have a clue how the planet may have alternately cooled and warmed over the previous 4.499 billion years, only theories. When you next drive along the A 458 to Much Wenlock and wind your way up Wedlock Edge, consider for a moment that this was at one time a coral reef in a tropical sea. Then let me know if you think that Earth's temperature has mysteriously stayed constant throughout the existence of our planet and has only recently warmed. And exactly how much a bunch of feeble humans can do about it. Apart from just doing our best with innovation. Within the industrial Revolution we have gone from plumes of smoke over Ironbridge and, in Bilston ,"air you could cut wth a knife".
We should do our best, politicians should enable green innovators to make money, but we shouldn't go all sackcloth and ashes.
For example. a good thing to try to bring South Africa out of a coal mining economy, but not so good to limit oil and gas exploration when we need oil for so many other things than just travel and heating. Let the scientists come up with levels of oil we need to produce all the other things it does, like plastics and road surfaces and how much petrol, diesel, etc. rhat would produce, almost as a "by-product". We must be careful not to waste the world's resources and to innovate for cleaner use.
|
|