In the interest of balance it was the Daily Mail of all papers that broke the story.Normal rules do not apply..
Cop26 president Alok Sharma flew to 30 countries in 7 months
Minister responsible for climate conference travelled mainly during winter and spring and did not isolatewww.theguardian.com
Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk
In the interest of balance it was the Daily Mail of all papers that broke the story.
Climate minister Alok Sharma jetted to 30 nations in last seven months
Climate Tsar Alok Sharma has travelled tens of thousands of miles across the globe over the past seven months to prepare the ground for the COP26 global environment summit this autumn.www.google.co.uk
You’re right regarding personal responsibility and on a personal note I’ve taken responsibility for that. Turned veggie/very nearly vegan, we’re now a one car house, cut back loads on air travel even before Covid, try to purchase responsibly in terms of materials, air miles etc. Any gain basically regardless of how small.Just a distraction from the real issues, which is consumption, be it of meat, plastics and electronics. Unless you are taking a personal responsibility for what you do yourself then moral outrage at this sort of thing is hypocrisy - and Tony, I'm not having a go at you, it's just a general statement aimed at us all.
Just a distraction from the real issues, which is consumption, be it of meat, plastics and electronics. Unless you are taking a personal responsibility for what you do yourself then moral outrage at this sort of thing is hypocrisy - and Tony, I'm not having a go at you, it's just a general statement aimed at us all.
We didn’t stop the hole in the ozone layer by asking people nicely to buy better fridges. Sometimes the invisible hand is asleep at the wheel.
Plus for me that story is as much about different covid travels rules for Sharma from the rest of us. No quarantining, etc. As it is about the hypocrisy of all the air miles he has done under the guise of climate change.
Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk
The only way the government can really affect things is either by carrot or stick....mainly stick and that unfortunately usually impacts the poorest in society. There’s some big decisions to be made, one relates to nuclear energy, not the ideal but eco activists have got to accept in the short/medium term it appears the least worst option so has to be considered. I’m still also wondering what the fall out will be from the push to electric vehicles. Ultimately we need reduce car usage full stop.
I agree with Dubed. In the west we’ve become a throw away society, consumption and waste is disgraceful but I do think mindsets are changing and improving...I just hope it’s quick enough for future generations.
The east/developing nations is the tough one. It’s almost unfair to stop them developing through cheap power/energy but if they continue with new coal power stations etc, what we do pales into insignificance to some extent. Not to say we shouldn’t try to do everything possible but I don’t think it will have enough of an affect
Well it’s a policy choice to allow it to hit the poorest hardest. But what’s never mentioned here is the cost of inaction. We’ve wasted decades with this sort of argument already and the cost of action now is many multiples of what it would’ve been in the 90s.
This is the sort of thing govenrment borrowing is made for TBH. Mostly one off infrastructure costs.
We could’ve insulated millions of homes and brought in standards to bring new homes up to scratch. We could’ve gone nuclear or wind in the time we’ve had. None of that had to cost the poorest a penny and if anything would reduce their bills. I’ve got mates on the breadline with uninsulated homes that they have to choose which rooms to heat over the winter. So I find the idea that making their home warmer would hurt them a little rich TBQH.
This isn’t going away, the cost argument is blown apart when you look at the costs that will come and are already coming. It’s just ideology putting off the inevitable.
As for China and India, we’ll this is where being a first world nation with a big economy comes into play and leading by example. Pre Brexit soft power and diplomacy were one of our strengths.
I’ll be blunt I’m getting a little tired of the same nonsense arguments being wheeled out to defend inaction. We know what to do, just crack on with it. This government is waffling about dishwashers while they effectively banned on shore wind for years and decimated funding for heating and insulation initiatives.
The idea that all we have to do is change the entire economy and human nature is one put about to delay action even more. I have no time for it.
Inknow you have an ideological reason to think the state can’t do anything. But it’s nonsense and this is far more important that petty political ideologies.
Not sure how you read that I’ve got ideological reasons why the state can’t do anything when I’ve said that we should do as much as possible ?! I’d hope we can and will lead the way on the global scene but I am also realistic to know that unless there is significant changes elsewhere in the world it will unfortunately make minimal difference (Brexit is irrelevant, we still have soft power influence and can lead by example but nicely shoehorned in)
I’ve also said the individual needs to do as much as possible (what they can afford to do). Our ‘ideologies’ probably aren’t that different, I just probably lean a bit more towards people and businesses taking more personal responsibility than rely on the government to tell me/us what to do. I barely drive now, I pay a premium to offset all my energy usage and I eat a fraction of the meat I use to, however, I also appreciate many aren’t in the same personal or financial position to do some or all of these
Ps I agree on and offshore wind farms should 100% be encouraged. There has been plenty of heating and insulation initiatives over the years though.
Just happened on to this .
Bit of history.
Yeah will be checking them out myself.I love that band. Got a new album out
Taliban sweeping through Afghanistan... who could have predicted this
Pakistan need dealing with too , sorry I'm not a war monger but the taliban problem is made a million times worse because of Pakistani influence , sanction themPoor fuckers. Just been abandoned
Pakistan need dealing with too , sorry I'm not a war monger but the taliban problem is made a million times worse because of Pakistani influence , sanction them
And I agree , left them up shit Creek without a paddle
You could phase out meat eating in a reasonable timescale and that would have a big impact and anyone caring for the environment could refuse to eat it
Eating Less Meat Essential to Curb Climate Change, Says Report - Our World
The livestock industry emits more GHG emissions than transport but fear of consumer backlash is preventing action on meat eating, says a Chatham House report.ourworld.unu.edu
Typical hands off delaying tactic.
By far the biggest emissions in the U.K. in 2019 (not as you’ve posted projections for the whole world in 2014) are transport, energy, business and residential in that order. Agriculture is fifth largest at 10% of emissions and only half of that is methane emissions from cattle.
This isn’t a debate. We know what to do: decarbonise transport, which requires infrastructure investment and subsidies (govt action), decarbonise energy (govt action), reduce heating needs in business and residential properties (needs subsidies - govt action), decarbonise industry (also give regulations and subsidies).
Meat eating, recycling and rinsing plates before dishwashing is the new climate denial. Government just needs to pull their finger out their arse and do what they’ve been avoiding for decades.
Typical hands off delaying tactic.
By far the biggest emissions in the U.K. in 2019 (not as you’ve posted projections for the whole world in 2014) are transport, energy, business and residential in that order. Agriculture is fifth largest at 10% of emissions and only half of that is methane emissions from cattle.
This isn’t a debate. We know what to do: decarbonise transport, which requires infrastructure investment and subsidies (govt action), decarbonise energy (govt action), reduce heating needs in business and residential properties (needs subsidies - govt action), decarbonise industry (also give regulations and subsidies).
Meat eating, recycling and rinsing plates before dishwashing is the new climate denial. Government just needs to pull their finger out their arse and do what they’ve been avoiding for decades.
I knew you'd bite on this you always do. Actually it is a debate - you don't decide the debate
Is eating meat bad for the environment? | FutureLearn
We take a look at how global meat production is bad for the environment. Find out why we eat meat and how it impacts the planet.www.futurelearn.com
I knew you'd bite on this you always do. Actually it is a debate - you don't decide the debate
Is eating meat bad for the environment? | FutureLearn
We take a look at how global meat production is bad for the environment. Find out why we eat meat and how it impacts the planet.www.futurelearn.com
is it really ‘biting’ when it’s an important issue that many people are passionate about? Perhaps ‘replying’ would be more accurate
It’s not a debate. We’ve had thirty years of debate that’s gone like this:
“decarbonise”
“no it’s not real”
“decarbonise”
“no it’s not humans”
“decarbonise”
“no it’s expensive”
“decarbonise”
“no it’s the Chinese”
“decarbonise”
“no we need to change all of human nature and the entire food economy instead”
Bored now of the silly games. The anti change people like yourself have lost the right to participate in the debate because you have been being twats for a generation. Time to sit down and let the rest of us crack on.
is it really ‘biting’ when it’s an important issue that many people are passionate about? Perhaps ‘replying’ would be more accurate
Everything’s a joke to Grendel because if he took something seriously he’d get hurt when he’s inevitably proven wrong.
if there was a ‘round of applause’ emoji I’d use that here
No he said "it isn't a debate" - I am amazed his mega brain has enough time on his hands really to grace us with his presence on here -- he must have a top job in a major Global organisation - after all he knows more than every expert on the subject
Eat less meat: UN climate-change report calls for change to human diet
The report on global land use and agriculture comes amid accelerating deforestation in the Amazon.www.nature.com
your use of heavy sarcasm, sneering and trying to look down at people who don’t agree with you on this doesn’t exactly help drive the debate forward though does it. I’m no scientist but if you’re genuinely trying to say that climate change is not a serious issue then I don’t know what to say really.
Ironic as you are backing someone who says meat eating and deforestation consequences are not an issue we need to talk about - well it seems he controls the debate so refuses to
Typical hands off delaying tactic.
By far the biggest emissions in the U.K. in 2019 (not as you’ve posted projections for the whole world in 2014) are transport, energy, business and residential in that order. Agriculture is fifth largest at 10% of emissions and only half of that is methane emissions from cattle.
This isn’t a debate. We know what to do: decarbonise transport, which requires infrastructure investment and subsidies (govt action), decarbonise energy (govt action), reduce heating needs in business and residential properties (needs subsidies - govt action), decarbonise industry (also give regulations and subsidies).
Meat eating, recycling and rinsing plates before dishwashing is the new climate denial. Government just needs to pull their finger out their arse and do what they’ve been avoiding for decades.
I’m actually just saying that climate change is real, and your approach in setting out to belittle & mock people with a different view to you is weird. But I guess it’s a football forum ultimately so who cares.
Just been a report on 5live and they had some professor on and he was basically saying decarbonisation and electric vehicles weren't the way.
He suggested carbon recycling and synthetic fuels.
His line went though but before he could elaborate too much was quite interesting 5hough but let's be honest, we won't do anything meaningful.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?