I'm not a prepper...but my son will be...
- Thread starter Angst
- Start date
-
Hey Guest, Early bird pricing on the Summer Moot (29th July - 10th August) available until April 6th, we'd love you to come. PLEASE CLICK HERE to early bird price and get more information.
Opinions aside on whether climate change is man made, a natural occurrence, or a combination of both, there is one thing that is pretty certain.
It isn't going to change any time soon, or ever.
You can have all the scientist screaming about their infallible methods, and all the conspiracy theorists screaming about how its all in the hands of the bankers and the oil co's.
It'll not make any difference.
We'll use every last drop of oil, fell trees till the ones left may as well not be there, and kill the soil with chemicals, while wasting a good part of the polluted food it produces.
Every time the scientists find another reason to stop using oil or chemicals, the populace will be burdened with higher and more convoluted taxes, and they'll all put their hands in their pockets and pay it, like the brainwashed servants that they are.
Get used to it........
It isn't going to change any time soon, or ever.
You can have all the scientist screaming about their infallible methods, and all the conspiracy theorists screaming about how its all in the hands of the bankers and the oil co's.
It'll not make any difference.
We'll use every last drop of oil, fell trees till the ones left may as well not be there, and kill the soil with chemicals, while wasting a good part of the polluted food it produces.
Every time the scientists find another reason to stop using oil or chemicals, the populace will be burdened with higher and more convoluted taxes, and they'll all put their hands in their pockets and pay it, like the brainwashed servants that they are.
Get used to it........
The Carbon (and note I did not limit my post to carbon, as your response does) is being introduced into the atmosphere from underground. The current atmosphere that supports life exists at all at all because these gases were taken out of the atmosphere and locked up underground creating our current atmosphrere.
That which is being added back in is changing our current atmosphere.
And changing that is a much bigger issue than Carbon and whether Carbon is or is not creating warming. Locking the conversation on in on warming or Climate Change is a bum steer, because then it just becomes what is causing warming.
Going back to the example and your counter..... if the fumes I am pumping into your greenhouse happen to come from burning oil that I got from underneath the green house, it will made not one jot of difference to it changing the balance of the air in there or the timescale of when that balance goes so far out you can't live in it.
In one of his programs Iain Stewart the Geologist mentioned that we are currently in the "Human Epoch" of Geology i.e. the major shaping force of the planet's conditions being Human beings. There is no reference to that on Wikipedia though.
You know what, that's the single most coherent statement of the whole debate and with that I can wholeheartedly agree!
um - are you including sunlight in your condition?
Because if you are, you might get a little problem with heat.
So when you have no science, no logically constructed arguments left to make, you resort to pathetic attempts at insults?
My view of climate change (since global warming is such a ridiculously inaccurate term) is that no-one disagrees with the fact that it is changing. It always has. Its whether it is wholly, partly or not at all anthropogenic in nature where the debate lies. Even if you do accept it as anthropogenic in nature, forcing Western countries to pay lots of green taxes or not use fossil fuels serves no useful purpose unless and until every country in the world agrees to do the same. At which point we will raise a lot of taxes (whilst still producing greenhouse gases). To make a significant difference this country would have to make a few changes. Starting with banning air travel and food importation both of which are absurdly polluting.
Any Takers?
Any Takers?
That's another thing you don't seem to understand. Respecting the right of someone to have an opinion is very different indeed to having to respect that opinion itself.
Depends on how long the switchover period is and what the preparation is. Clearly if imported food stopped we'd be eating each other in a matter of months.
Valid point, you're of course correct.. now your input with regards to the original post is?
But thats the point isn't it, we aren't actually changing anything significant - just levying taxes.
If there was some coherent plan to switch over to non carbon emitting vehicles and generation, well perhaps there would be a point in bleating on about climate change. But there isn't.
So all that happens is we penalise our businesses and residents and businesses in other countries who don't have to pay all these self defeating environmental taxes laugh and out compete British businesses.
I really don't want to hear any more about climate change unless its a plan to tackle it with some realistic chance of world wide adoption. If it isn't that, there is no point in penalising our own population.
I think we're more in agreement here than not. It's a much more complex issue. That's one of the reasons I have my doubts about the views of "97% of scientists." I believe it's more complex that they or any of us have the ability to understand, let alone predict. I'm not disputing their findings as such, but I am reserving judgement.
This is the "Wait and see" approach, also the "I'm not doing it because china isn't doing it". This is one of the wonders that comes from a communal resource, a tragedy of the commons.
To me, this isn't about doing it because everyone is doing it, or doing it because it is going to have giant impacts. I do it because it's the right thing to do. Like voting. I very much doubt my vote next thursday will have that much of an impact. But on Friday morning, when people ask "why on earth did Farage get elected?" I can stand straight and say "I tried".
How long can we as a population reserve judgement for? It's no good standing on the edge of the desert with an empty water bottle, covered in sun burn and say "Oh, the scientists were right".
The problem here is not a case of "hey the scientists may be wrong", it's "what if they are right?"
Food importation isn't actually as bad as it could be, it's the method of importation that is the issue. Flying green beans from Egypt to the UK is obscenely bad for the environment. Shipping a ship full of grain from Canada less of an issue. Especially as we can quite happily do this by sailing ship.
Air travel, you would be surprised how far you can get by rail. I have done UK to Crete by train, ditto UK to Lithuania...
I've not flown since 2004...
Glad I wasn't the only one who spotted that.
Tread softly, carry a big stick...
Julia
That's an overly simplified argument. Importing something like beans on a plane may produce less CO2 than growing them in the UK if you look at the whole picture. Beans grown in Kenya for example may use less chemical fertiliser and more manual labour than ones grown in the UK, and in fact have a lower carbon footprint than UK ones.
Ahh but manual labour can be worse. Its been proven that the food used to fuel a pedal cycle causes more CO2 to be released on a long journey than an internal combustion engine!
This is known as the "pointless empty gesture approach". By all means do it, but dp not attempt to impose empty gestures on others please.
This is because we seem to think that it is a good thing that we can get food items out of season. When you can buy strawberries at Christmas in the UK, something is wrong. Non seasonal food is just as bad as food flown in from abroad.
Ooh, as a keen cyclist this interests me. So I shall say: [citation needed]
I have no power of command over anybody on this earth. I would like for us to all perhaps be nice to each other and treat the planet with a bit more respect, I can't force anyone to do this tho.
Julia
Can't find it at the moment - usual silliness by lobbies on both sides come up on Google. The study I recall reading was good and unbiased (e.g. most pro cycle groups compare a bike with a car - ignoring the multiple occupancy possibility of a car). The study I read looked at things like food miles, energy expended and CO2 created in food growth (tractor diesel etc.) rather than just the CO2 produced by the cyclist exhaling. The point was made - with I think a measure of veracity - that its not about the CO2 produced by breathing but rather that made up in the "fuel" and a cyclists fuel is food. Producing food and moving it around is an inefficient fuel source compared to dino diesel and in fact consumes a large amount of fossil fuel.
It was an interesting study and put "whole life CO2" in a good context.
The point I was trying to make is UK grown food doesn't always mean less CO2, often food grown elsewhere, even seasonal, can produce less CO2 when you look at fertilisers, energy required to farm the crop as well as transport.
It doesn't stop me buying air-frieghted beans but it's not a scientificly based reason.
