Current Affairs Environmental Stuff

[Bruce Wayne]

It doesn't 'overlook' that; it's actually stating that. Because emissions are the 'hot topic' with new innovation, everything coming down the pipeline will have that in mind. You've just gave several examples of that, and this didn't happen because some middle-class wastes of space sat on a motorway. Rather it was a logical response to a given situation.

It's like how energy saving lightbulbs were, at first, not viable. We didn't say to the poor "you can't afford them, screw you, stop using normal lightbulbs for 10 years to save the planet" - instead the adjustment was steady and 'nudged along'. Same with halogen bulbs which have just been banned for sale in the UK - done steadily, done when LED is comparable in initial outlay and much more cost effective in the long run - we didn't throw the baby out with the bathwater as soon as the tech became available.

Well the huge investment in solar and wind energy was done to a great extent because the green party joined the government in Germany in the 1990s. Our political system makes that practically impossible here (and even more so in the United States), so people take different approaches.

Regarding your second paragraph, you've given off the impression throughout this thread that people who are the "early adopters" of green products are wasting their time because it's just a few people peeing into the wind of Chinese pollution. Now you're saying you've been saying all along that those people are great because they help to deliver the changes that will ultimately trickle down to the masses. Which is it?

 

[Tubey]

Well the huge investment in solar and wind energy was done to a great extent because the green party joined the government in Germany in the 1990s. Our political system makes that practically impossible here (and even more so in the United States), so people take different approaches.

Regarding your second paragraph, you've given off the impression throughout this thread that people who are the "early adopters" of green products are wasting their time because it's just a few people peeing into the wind of Chinese pollution. Now you're saying you've been saying all along that those people are great because they help to deliver the changes that will ultimately trickle down to the masses. Which is it?

What??? When did I say that?

There has to be early adopters of any technology to push it forward, and obviously that comes at a high price point. We wouldn't have home PCs at the stage they are now if early adopters didn't take on IBMs, or VR without Oculus and so on, this is common sense.

You seem to confuse what I'm saying in terms of the solution being 'top down', not individual, and that it's going to take time - 50+ years - for implementation to the mainstream.

So to answer your question, it's the latter; I've never said anything but the latter.

 

[orchard]

It does kinda overlook the fact that with the majority of innovations, the early market tends to be those who really care for something and are willing to pay a higher price to service that need. It then tends to crossover into the mainstream with economies of scale making things more affordable to the masses.

Sometimes this process can be nudged along, as we've seen with solar power, where government subsidies helped the industry hugely during the stage in which the technology wasn't very competitive in terms of price per kwh. Now solar, and wind for that matter, are not only the best sources of energy for the climate but they're the most competitive on price too, which is why countries have been increasingly able to function on purely renewable energy for extended periods recently.

I don't think the model's quite that simplistic, it generally means a significant loss of quality and planned obsolescence as a product trickles down to mass consumption.

Even with solar, wind and tidal energy (with questionable eroi), our use of fossil fuels is still increasing.

The IPPC have consistently underestimated our current trajectory and yet paint a fairly bleak picture in their current reports, and that's without factoring in the feedback loops that are being triggered right now.

I'm not surprised by people's reluctance to change, and that's without taking systemic hurdles into consideration, but the way things may be going, they'll have less and less choice in the matter.

 

[grandjoeblue]

Still defending them?

Only just caught up on this. So dangerous. I also seen that a women who had a stroke ended up with life changing injuries due to their actions. Its absolutely disgusting. They should be charged with lengthy sentences as reckless action like this isn't the answer. There could easily have been a pile up on that motorway with multiple deaths.

 

[Tubey]

@Bruce Wayne @orchard

By sheer coincidence, this pops up today and sums up EXACTLY what I was saying.



Really worth a watch as it clarifies the reality of the situation.

 

[orchard]

 

[Zezti]

Idiots like this do so much damage to the credibility of people who genuinely want change, in the right way.

 

[orchard]

@Bruce Wayne @orchard

By sheer coincidence, this pops up today and sums up EXACTLY what I was saying.



Really worth a watch as it clarifies the reality of the situation.

Not really. It's a hyper-rationalised position, similar to yours, that effectively ignores the real consequences of the continuation of systemic consumerism. It's only just warming up, with several feedback loops already baked in. Just look at the US currently, hasn't really invested in infrastructure much, and quite a bit needs completely rebuilding. It's one thing drafting the army in to help rebuild post-Katrina, but there are multiple rebuilds required from this year alone, with primary manufacturers in Texas yet to get back online from the cold spell they had several months ago, nevermind subsequent drought, fire, hurricane and staple crop loss. Meanwhile heads of their industry allegedly buy New Zealand residency and build bunkers. If true, how much faith do they have in the narrative described above? There's a fair chance that Rocky and Bullwinkle won't be coming to the rescue at the eleventh hour. Best to slow down now in my opinion fwiw.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

@Bruce Wayne @orchard

By sheer coincidence, this pops up today and sums up EXACTLY what I was saying.



Really worth a watch as it clarifies the reality of the situation.

I don't think anyone is in any doubt about the need for systemic change. I mean a widespread adoption of the kind of cement Cemec produce would be far more impactful than anything I do as an individual. Does that mean I should say "sod it" and not do what I personally can do? I was speaking today to a Swedish solar entrepreneur, and despite solar being the cheapest form of energy available to us today, it still remains a relative minority in a world in which we're shitting ourselves because gas might be in short supply. Is the market working or does it need to be prodded in a more sustainable direction? They're working with various tech companies to have solar powered data centers, for instance, but is that enough on its own or should governments force Bitcoin miners to use and pay for dedicated renewable sources for their antics?

 

[orchard]

Idiots like this do so much damage to the credibility of people who genuinely want change, in the right way.

Anno, that Richard's always been a cockwomble.

 

[Tubey]

I don't think anyone is in any doubt about the need for systemic change. I mean a widespread adoption of the kind of cement Cemec produce would be far more impactful than anything I do as an individual. Does that mean I should say "sod it" and not do what I personally can do? I was speaking today to a Swedish solar entrepreneur, and despite solar being the cheapest form of energy available to us today, it still remains a relative minority in a world in which we're shitting ourselves because gas might be in short supply. Is the market working or does it need to be prodded in a more sustainable direction? They're working with various tech companies to have solar powered data centers, for instance, but is that enough on its own or should governments force Bitcoin miners to use and pay for dedicated renewable sources for their antics?

No, you certainly can do you.

The part you seem to miss though is the vast, overwhelming majority of people aren't you and aren't talking to Swedish solar entrepreneurs today. So your reality isn't reflective of actual reality.

The reality is the world isn't going to shift to doing what you do on a daily basis anytime soon. As such, it's not a solution - indeed, it's a hindrance, as you're placing blame and onus on individuals when it shouldn't be (as stated in that video, BP's greatest marketing campaign was inventing the 'carbon footprint' - and their greatest opponents use it without realising it's exactly what BP wanted.)

As said before, the solution is top down, not ground up. The market is supposed to meet demand, not the other way around. As in if the market won't make that thermos kettle viable for the masses, it's up to them to do so - it's not up to the consumer to bite their tongue and swallow it.

So to come back to your question - again, yes, you can certainly do what you personally do, but the hard truth is what you personally do will make (almost quite literally) no difference whatsoever. It's not nice to say but, in my eyes, it's imperative we recognise that reality so that we can have proper discussions about this and start meeting the challenges head on instead of pretending we can stop it.

As for whether the market needs prodding, it already is. But again, reality here - it's not going to change to the extent needed in time to meet the 'climate emergency', so we have to prod it with a bit of realism attached.

 

[Tramps_mate]

Nuclear power. We need lots and lots of nuclear power...

 

[dublinbluenose]

Dont worry Johnson has it sorted



Reminiscent of Churchill's fight them on the beaches

 

[gonetomorrow]

Dont worry Johnson has it sorted



Reminiscent of Churchill's fight them on the beaches

Churchill would have been so proud!
Honestly, Johnson and his ilk don't give a flying one about the environment. When they get together they make jokes about sandal-wearing tree huggers. And they know that the UK voter doesn't care much either frankly.
All that green talk is so dull and earnest isn't it?

 

[dublinbluenose]

Churchill would have been so proud!
Honestly, Johnson and his ilk don't give a flying one about the environment. When they get together they make jokes about sandal-wearing tree huggers. And they know that the UK voter doesn't care much either frankly.
All that green talk is so dull and earnest isn't it?

He'd get the decommissioned coal stations firing again this winter if he could.