Compared to Russia (and former Soviet satellite states), China, India, and the US, our contribution to world pollution is "sod all". Unfortunately part of what I have fought and lost mates for, is the freedom of these eco-fuckwits to protest and give the government excuses to raise taxes to offset the pollution that pales into insignificance alongside the pollution being generated by people elsewhere that are not signed up to some bullshit treaty. It is tantamount to the government signing us up to persecute ourselves while the rest of the world just does what they want.
And what a huge issue that is... as far as I can tell, Russian policy is to adapt to change if it happens and try to profiteer from climate change. It’s such a big country that costal areas and traditional arable areas that may lose out could be absorbed by the thawing of the frozen wastes, allowing them to become farmland. They are one of the biggest exporters of fossil fuels, and so stand to lose out on that revenue. Because there appears to be no clear-undisputed diagnosis (probably deliberately so) there is no clear-undisputed global response... hell, we couldn’t organise Brexit to time, what chance would a global approach have anyway?
I would tell the protesters to go to Russia and China, and that we will fall into line with whatever they convince the Russians and Chinese to do in regards to cleaning up their energy production.... The protesters in London would just go "ah... perhaps not, then!" because their convictions are only strong when they are up against people who won't put them down hard. Look at that monumental hypocrite Emma Thompson for starters. Flew in from the US to preach about climate change to the protesters. Didn't talk to anyone who would put up a reasoned argument, just stirred up the rabid extremists and went away again (no doubt flying back to the US leaving a nice wide carbon trail behind her...)
I have spent much of my career at the forefront of this science. Climate change is happening, and the predicted heat increase does indeed appear to be man made (industrial revolution). The issue, is that it's our problem. It's academic (pun intended) to argue as to whether humans are responsible or not—should the planet be "covered completely in ice, as the cycles of last 800,000 years show" doesn't really bother the planet... but it would bother us. Big time. Climate change is not being overstated, just like the hole in the Ozone layer, or acid rain, wasn't. The issue is that our economies rely on burning shit, producing more energy, more CO2. Our motorbikes make fuck all difference. The economies of US, China, and Europe are dependent on burning coal and fossil fuels, and that needs to change on a global scale in order to have a better handle on things. Fact of the matter, is that unless a problem is staring us right in the face, we are superbly gifted in ignoring it. Generations to come will find a way to survive, I am sure, but the world will be a very different place in 100 years... but it was always going to be. I personally am more concerned with plastic in the oceans and landfill. That really pisses me off. I also rarely eat meat now, mostly as I want animals to have good lives, so the meat I eat isn't ALDI lasagne or hotdogs or McDonalds. Nor do I buy battery chickened eggs. Little things like that make more of a difference than my riding a 650 instead of my 1050
Not sure if your analogy is pointed or not... Saville is only not a threat because he died, not because of some decisive action against a known creep.
Late night food for thought. Attenborough and other "scientists" made some worthy programmes but failed to say anything about the tens of thousands of pounds they were paid and they used ships,helicopters planes etc,without mentioning the pollution they were creating in doing so again "Do as I say ,not as I do". Will they pay back a few thousand pounds or stay on the "no tax system"?
Lots of negative assertions here. Can we have the hard facts on which these assertions are based please ?
I wont give you my opinion just share with you a jolly work jape. Whilst working at my last job an earnest and worthy individual was made "Environmental champion" for said location of a multi-national company. He was going around spouting worthy recycling stratagems etcetera when he approached me. Just for the entertainment and devilment, when he approached me, i said to him "So N***, what if I dont subscribe to the current paradigm that climate change is inevitable and is not merely a debateable subject and it is almost impossible to prove that man is ultimately responsible". He replied, "i've been on training courses, I know what I'm talking about" So I said, "with all due respect I know a bit more about it than you" His reply, "What makes you think you know more about it than me?" Successfully reeled in, the coupe de grace was duly delivered in front of an agog office audience and resulted in him never speaking to me again.... "N*** i dont think i know more than you, a masters degree in applied meterology and climatology says I do" Him "you dont have that" Me "Yes I do, courtesy of the University of Birmingham, care to check?" KABOOM!
There’s loads of reasons for climate change as folks point out - and has been happening many times over the millennia - 15000 years ago we got cut off from France and I’m fairly certain the sea level didn’t rise because cave men were driving gas guzzling 4x4s. The point I make is that fossil fuels have trapped carbon that was originally in the atmosphere... think about it, ALL the carbon in oils/coal was once wafting about in the atmosphere 100’s of millions of years ago and I believe there was a greater diversity of flora/Forna back then. I think it logical to assume that we could burn every last drop of oil and the earth wouldn’t spin off it’s axis and crash into the sun. There is other reasons not to use fossil fuels though. It’s a waste to burn such a slowly renewable fuel rather than use it for other purposes. It’s used EVERYWHERE! Plastics, medicines, all sorts. Plus there is the socio-political issue of energy security - we can’t depend on supplies from Russia and Middle East forever. Chaos would ensue if we couldn’t get energy- renewables reduce that dependency. A bigger environmental issue is the planners allowing vast swathes of housing to be built across the country side. What was once fields and woodlands when I were a lad is now all uniform housing estates with cute names like ‘summer meadows’... presumably named to remind us of what was once there!
The definition ‘built on’ is key. The statistics sometimes don’t include gardens, parks, open spaces in cities, verges, reservoirs as built on / urban land but as natural land. Thus takes the built upon land from 2% (appx) to nearer 20% if you include ‘urban’ areas. The other aspect is that the urbanisation is not uniform - not much going on in the Scottish highlands but 7 new estates being built in my village alone near Guildford - and no more infrastructure to support the thousands of new homes. With many more estates being built across the county and south of England - a massive infill exercise - Horsham and Crawley will soon collide and they were once miles apart... The other point is what is an acceptable level? People can prove anything with statistics. Sorry I’m being a NIMBY but the traffic getting into Guildford is shocking already. It will be grid lock once all the extra people move in. The traffic was one reason I got back into biking. Oh rather shot myself in the foot with that argument. Let’s rapidly move on I genuinely just don’t think we can keep population growth... Need some drastic action - what was that film... Logan’s Run...
Unfortunately for the people that come after us, climate change in it's truest 'big picture' sense is just too broad, all encompassing and long-term for most of us to conceive. A planet's climate change happens over millions of years and we are here for such a short time, how can we - Man - comprehend ? I am more concerned about air pollution. That is something man-made, short term and easily resolvable. It is caused by transportation in all it's forms burning fossil fuels and will be hugely improved over the next 5 - 10 yrs imo. At least that is a timescale I can cope with ..........................
Can the next person to use the time machine to visit Raquel Welch please take an air sample whilst they’re there?
If I'm visiting Raquel Welch 30-40 yrs in the past, I'm not sure that taking air samples will be uppermost in my mind, tbh. Or as a Yorkie pal of mine says "she's worth a shove".........................
If I read between the lines I suspect he falls in the ‘sceptical’ camp. We know we are polluting but the scientific certainty some claim is itself plain unscientific. It is a bit like a set of accounts. People tend to think of them as ‘accurate’ (or fiddled!) but in truth they are a statement of opinion. People owe a business money. Who knows how many will pay up or default? Accuracy comes with hindsight. In the same vein, politicians and campaigners lie legalistically. The fragrant Nicola was just sounding off about another referendum but, curiously, she referred to Scotland as always being ‘a European nation’ - which of course it always will be while it remains on the same tectonic plate...... but it sounds vaguely EU. Climate claims need to be grouped by ‘should’, ‘would’ and ‘could’. There are precious few ‘will’ - just check out Al Gore’s daft prophecies and elastic language.
