Current Affairs Environmental Stuff

[Chewbacca]

You can’t get Ubers where I live at mid-day on a Monday. You just about manage on a weekend when you’re in the centre and they’re coming back from Leeds

Why should I have to order a taxi any time I want to do something? I can just get in my car and drive. I also needed picking up today as I went under general anaesthetic. My dad had to come up to the ward to escort me down. He used my car to come and get me

bloody hell, I also bought my car four years ago, it’s a 2017 1ltr seat, not a diesel-guzzling mustang lol

This post has been fact checked and found to be erroneous. There is no such vehicle as a diesel guzzling Mustang.

 

[BlueToff]

This post has been fact checked and found to be erroneous. There is no such vehicle as a diesel guzzling Mustang.

whatever cars guzzle diesel then, chewy I'm not a motorhead lol

 

[NilSatisOptimum]

Should have laid down on a motorway junction this lot, little point in the traditional protest, who knew.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-58513166?at_medium=RSS&at_campaign=KARANGA

 

[orchard]

Fossil fuel companies are suing governments across the world for more than $18bn (£13bn) after action against climate change has threatened their profits, according to research conducted by campaign group Global Justice Now and provided exclusively to Sky News.

Five energy companies, including British companies Rockhopper and Ascent, are using a legal process that allows commercial entities to sue governments under international laws governing trade agreements and treaties.


These corporate arbitration courts operate outside of a country's domestic legal system.

According to Global Justice Now, which has collated publicly available information, five of the largest lawsuits under way are being brought by TC Energy, RWE, Uniper, Rockhopper and Ascent Resources.

 

[dublinbluenose]

Fossil fuel companies are suing governments across the world for more than $18bn (£13bn) after action against climate change has threatened their profits, according to research conducted by campaign group Global Justice Now and provided exclusively to Sky News.

Five energy companies, including British companies Rockhopper and Ascent, are using a legal process that allows commercial entities to sue governments under international laws governing trade agreements and treaties.


These corporate arbitration courts operate outside of a country's domestic legal system.

According to Global Justice Now, which has collated publicly available information, five of the largest lawsuits under way are being brought by TC Energy, RWE, Uniper, Rockhopper and Ascent Resources.

CETA legislation currently being brought in by the Canada/EU trade deal will make it even easier for corporations to sue governments if governments introduce policies that may have a negative impact on their business.

 

[orchard]

CETA legislation currently being brought in by the Canada/EU trade deal will make it even easier for corporations to sue governments if governments introduce policies that may have a negative impact on their business.

Then the good guys counter-sue for damage done, clean-up and unethical acts after they became aware of the issue, amirite???

 

[orchard]

CETA legislation currently being brought in by the Canada/EU trade deal will make it even easier for corporations to sue governments if governments introduce policies that may have a negative impact on their business.

Then the good guys counter-sue for damage done, clean-up and unethical acts after they became aware of the issue, amirite???

 

[Tubey]

You could have gotten an Uber. No need to actually own a car, is there? You could make about 1,000 of your journeys to the hospital in a shared car for the average price of a new car and that's without the petrol, insurance, road tax, etc.

There's little that a human exclusively 'needs'. You don't need a kettle/coffee machine because you don't need a cup of tea/coffee - after all, every cup harms the planet, so by your logic we should go without, or an entire street should share a kettle.

Meanwhile, back in the real world, people do 'need' to own cars for a myriad of circumstances. For example, a journey by car to work or one that would otherwise add three or four hours commute time every day by taking six buses/trains. Sure, it's still possible, but it isn't plausible.

It's all a nonsense anyway. Personal 'carbon footprints' are worthless as a consideration, because personal impact is negligible - little known fact that the term 'carbon footprint' was actually a BP marketing stunt to place blame on consumers rather than oil businesses for the environmental impact.

There's no getting away from the fact the issues can't be addressed by sitting on a motorway and annoying private citizens in the UK.



This is the elephant in the room - emissions by country. China and India specifically negate everything and anything we do. The developing world is the issue. And as developed nations who have went through an industrial era, we can't sit back and say "right, we're pulling up the drawbridge, you can't do what we did". These country rely on fossil fuel emissions for their economy, it is what it is, and we're 100 years away from that changing to any substantial degree.

So at some point there has to come an element of realism about the situation we're in - climate change can't be stopped; the effects of it can merely be mitigated. To keep on pretending otherwise is a form of mass psychological denial. It's like trying to stop a hurricane happening instead of spending that time putting together better defences against it.

 

[orchard]

There's little that a human exclusively 'needs'. You don't need a kettle/coffee machine because you don't need a cup of tea/coffee - after all, every cup harms the planet, so by your logic we should go without, or an entire street should share a kettle.

Meanwhile, back in the real world, people do 'need' to own cars for a myriad of circumstances. For example, a journey by car to work or one that would otherwise add three or four hours commute time every day by taking six buses/trains. Sure, it's still possible, but it isn't plausible.

It's all a nonsense anyway. Personal 'carbon footprints' are worthless as a consideration, because personal impact is negligible - little known fact that the term 'carbon footprint' was actually a BP marketing stunt to place blame on consumers rather than oil businesses for the environmental impact.

There's no getting away from the fact the issues can't be addressed by sitting on a motorway and annoying private citizens in the UK.

View attachment 139513

This is the elephant in the room - emissions by country. China and India specifically negate everything and anything we do. The developing world is the issue. And as developed nations who have went through an industrial era, we can't sit back and say "right, we're pulling up the drawbridge, you can't do what we did". These country rely on fossil fuel emissions for their economy, it is what it is, and we're 100 years away from that changing to any substantial degree.

So at some point there has to come an element of realism about the situation we're in - climate change can't be stopped; the effects of it can merely be mitigated. To keep on pretending otherwise is a form of mass psychological denial. It's like trying to stop a hurricane happening instead of spending that time putting together better defences against it.

It's like hoping and praying we'll be ready for a hurricane, yet in the meantime making that hurricane an uber-typhoon whilst blaming Chyna.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

There's little that a human exclusively 'needs'. You don't need a kettle/coffee machine because you don't need a cup of tea/coffee - after all, every cup harms the planet, so by your logic we should go without, or an entire street should share a kettle.

Meanwhile, back in the real world, people do 'need' to own cars for a myriad of circumstances. For example, a journey by car to work or one that would otherwise add three or four hours commute time every day by taking six buses/trains. Sure, it's still possible, but it isn't plausible.

It's all a nonsense anyway. Personal 'carbon footprints' are worthless as a consideration, because personal impact is negligible - little known fact that the term 'carbon footprint' was actually a BP marketing stunt to place blame on consumers rather than oil businesses for the environmental impact.

There's no getting away from the fact the issues can't be addressed by sitting on a motorway and annoying private citizens in the UK.

View attachment 139513

This is the elephant in the room - emissions by country. China and India specifically negate everything and anything we do. The developing world is the issue. And as developed nations who have went through an industrial era, we can't sit back and say "right, we're pulling up the drawbridge, you can't do what we did". These country rely on fossil fuel emissions for their economy, it is what it is, and we're 100 years away from that changing to any substantial degree.

So at some point there has to come an element of realism about the situation we're in - climate change can't be stopped; the effects of it can merely be mitigated. To keep on pretending otherwise is a form of mass psychological denial. It's like trying to stop a hurricane happening instead of spending that time putting together better defences against it.

We use a thermos kettle at home so one boil in the morning lasts several hours. It's also perhaps worth remembering that the average car spends at least 95% of its life going nowhere in a parking space. So the idea that we can't come up with a better and more eco-friendly model than everyone "having" to own a vehicle that they barely use is nonsense. I mean entire "as a service" business models have built up around the very concept that we don't utilize what we own very much so it's better to rent it. It's hardly rocket science.

 

[orchard]

We use a thermos kettle at home so one boil in the morning lasts several hours. It's also perhaps worth remembering that the average car spends at least 95% of its life going nowhere in a parking space. So the idea that we can't come up with a better and more eco-friendly model than everyone "having" to own a vehicle that they barely use is nonsense. I mean entire "as a service" business models have built up around the very concept that we don't utilize what we own very much so it's better to rent it. It's hardly rocket science.

In a muddled way, he has a point regarding how much change an individual can effect, the changes required are pretty much systemic and require governmental intervention. But ignoring externalised carbon and using that pie chart has got to be intentional sophistry.

 

[Tubey]

It's like hoping and praying we'll be ready for a hurricane, yet in the meantime making that hurricane an uber-typhoon whilst blaming Chyna.

Loads of climate activists roll their eyes at 'blaming China' - because they don't have an answer to it.

Everyone in the UK could switch to Bruce's thermos kettle tomorrow forevermore and it'd be negated by China inside a month.

This is just reality I'm afraid. We're not "making that hurricane" any worse, because we're 1% of global emissions.

The geopolitical reality is that nothing we do individually is going to make a blind bit of difference. It's time to acknowledge that instead of sitting on motorways in rush hour.

The solution is to create conditions in risk areas to mitigate damage, and that to me looks like a form of reparations to developing nations to erect flood defences etc. etc. - there's no point wasting money on lowering our emissions; you may as well send that money to where it will have the greatest effect.

 

[orchard]

Loads of climate activists roll their eyes at 'blaming China' - because they don't have an answer to it.

Everyone in the UK could switch to Bruce's thermos kettle tomorrow forevermore and it'd be negated by China inside a month.

This is just reality I'm afraid. We're not "making that hurricane" any worse, because we're 1% of global emissions.

The geopolitical reality is that nothing we do individually is going to make a blind bit of difference. It's time to acknowledge that instead of sitting on motorways in rush hour.

The solution is to create conditions in risk areas to mitigate damage, and that to me looks like a form of reparations to developing nations to erect flood defences etc. etc. - there's no point wasting money on lowering our emissions; you may as well send that money to where it will have the greatest effect.

We're not though, that's just an 'accounting' trick, those emissions are caused by creating consumable junk for us and many other countries. Sharing Bruce's vacuum flask and not buying a cheapo (planned obsolescence) kettle manufactured in China would lower Chynas carbon footprint as well as ours.

You're worried about flood defences in developing nations ? How many metres above sea level is most of Liverpool ?

 

[Tubey]

We're not though, that's just an 'accounting' trick, those emissions are caused by creating consumable junk for us and many other countries. Sharing Bruce's vacuum flask and not buying a cheapo (planned obsolescence) kettle manufactured in China would lower Chynas carbon footprint as well as ours.

You're worried about flood defences in developing nations ? How many metres above sea level is most of Liverpool ?

Developed nations are in a position to react quickly; developing nations are not. The UK is susceptible to climate change like every other nation, but nowhere near to the degree others are. There needs to be an honest discussion and assessment about where is likely to be hit hardest and where isn't, and focus placed on those areas.

What you are suggesting is a utopian economic model where everyone buys based on the 'carbon footprint' of each purchase. It's impossible due to financial disparity.

China's growth is due to supply and demand. If current demand changed, China would change it's strategy to supply - but ultimately, they'd be supplying based on cost efficiency. Very few are going to buy a kettle for £500 when a £50 kettle does ostensibly the same job.

Again, the 'blame' here isn't on the consumer, because they're just doing what every consumer has done since the dawn of time; look for value, with everyones perception of value being different based on income. Try telling a single mum on benefits with two kids that she's a monster for getting her kid Chinese knock-off play'doh for Christmas at 10% of the price of the 'real' thing, even if it pollutes 100x more to make - why should her kids go without it? It's the same principle.

The solution is technological innovation, bringing 'cleaner, more efficient' products into the hands of consumers at the same price as the older ones - for example, see the success of LED bulbs replacing halogen.

But that takes time we don't have. The general 'top down' onus is on cutting emissions, meaning any new technologies being pursued for 20 years down the line are being based on that remit - so that will happen organically. But in terms of immediate action, there's nothing we can do to prevent climate change; we can only mitigate against the damage it will definitely cause.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

I think when that lady said "oh god" she was speaking for us all