|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Jul 24, 2023 14:09:04 GMT
What governments around the world should be doing is putting pressure on Brazil and other rainforest countries to replant the forests, or face global sanctions and also issue sanctions against the highest polluters, like China. sanctions as everyone know do not and never have worked.
on top of that , as you can see with russia at this very minute , global sanctions and world condemnation really just boils down to the wst , while the global south and east carry on regardless of what the west says.
There is no world wide consensus on most topics , and where the world does reach some measure of consensus , national and regional interests always take precedence.
Good luck arguing with brazil they have to plant more trees to save the west.
The west can no longer preach to these guys. The reason is for decades the West has impeded their industrial development and hoovered up all the resources they have for the West's global industrial needs. At that time it was a case of take a bad deal or take no deal at all. Now things are different because these countries have had the brains to club together and work out a common survival strategy. At some point the US finances may force closure of some of their 800 worldwide military bases accounting for 50% of US government discretionary spending. It's difficult to know how they can get out of this problem. I mean once markets smell structural weaknesses they can be rather brutal. |
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Jul 24, 2023 14:12:15 GMT
Ah, I get it, I pointed the finger at the dictatorship in China and all the pollution they put out compared to our country.
And you like that dictatorship.
I stand by my comments.
Sanctions against heavy polluters.
See how they like economic collapse.
|
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Jul 24, 2023 15:02:25 GMT
Ah, I get it, I pointed the finger at the dictatorship in China and all the pollution they put out compared to our country. And you like that dictatorship. I stand by my comments. Sanctions against heavy polluters. See how they like economic collapse. vinny. Now im not clued up about the world of trade and economics like , you , but perhaps you can help here. If sanctions for example dont work against little third world backwaters like Iran , how do they work against theworlds potential number one economic superpower that is china?
|
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Jul 24, 2023 18:07:58 GMT
OK, man did not invent fire, man learned to start fires and use them. In any case, Sweden seem to have abandoned the idea that all electricity production can come from renewables. They are going to base their power production on nuclear plants, supplemented by renewables. Perhaps this is the way the Tories can spin the changes away from unreliable renewables. It would be interesting to know how many intelligent people actually support "Net Zero", which as a policy, seems to be doomed. I think that it's patently obvious to anyone with an ounce of intelligence that net-zero is a non-starter. |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Jul 24, 2023 18:12:40 GMT
Once the basic system is in place it will be relatively uncontroversial to erect walls etc It will also be relatively uncontroversial to slit politicians throats. From my forays into social media it would appear that the proles are waking up and violence is not far away. Khan & Co would be wise to read the writing on the wall. |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Jul 24, 2023 18:29:24 GMT
its not a question of allow vinny. Its a question of need in terms of governments policy of needing an ever growing workforce coming online to pay for the ever growing elderly retiring.
Eventually this ponzi scheme is going to run out of babies and migrants.
Short termists in government dont care , its a can that is constantly kicked down the road across the west and a problem for future governments to grapple with. Hence , the continued mass migration under both labour and tory governments....
I heard an interesting take - the current notion of a pension emerged in the twentieth century, in a period of extreme technological growth (30s, 40s,50s,60s). However, our societies have, in real terms, performed pretty poorly since the seventies. The growth stopped and slowed and the old notion of a pension isn't affordable without creating a gigantic population based Ponzi scheme. We went from supporting ourselves with innovation to supporting ourselves with an unsustainable population based accounting trick. I think once you realise you are in a cul de sac or hole, you should stop driving or digging. Kind of. But the issue of pensions is twofold: 1) There is no investment fund and pensions are paid out of taxes so that you need more paying in than there are drawing pensions. Benefits are an even bigger issue whereby people who've never contributed are allowed to benefit. 2) Public sector pensions have often been used to excuse poor wages by deferring wages until retirement (which is all occupational pensions are anyway). So it's not pensions per se that are the problem so much as the misuse of them. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Jul 28, 2023 15:56:24 GMT
Sir Tony Blair has warned against asking the public to do a “huge amount” to tackle climate change, saying Britain’s net zero efforts cannot solve global warming alone. The former Labour prime minister stressed that climate change was the “single biggest global challenge” and said “Britain should play its part” in tackling it. However, he pointed out that what the UK could achieve would be dwarfed by the impact of actions by countries such as China. His cautious note comes as Labour and the Conservatives publicly debate how quickly to embrace the transition to net zero after the surprise Tory by-election win in Uxbridge last week. Labour’s failure to take Boris Johnson’s old seat was blamed on a voter backlash against Ulez. www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/07/27/spare-public-huge-burden-of-net-zero-says-tony-blair/Even Blair seems to be going cool on net zero. Maybe he can see that net zero is not an election winner. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2023 17:07:28 GMT
Climate change budgetIs 11.6 billion enough for us to pay? It's about £173 per man woman and child in the UK. Some would say it is well worth it to save humanity. Others might think different. If we spend that money what will the global average temperature be in 2050?
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Jul 28, 2023 17:11:10 GMT
Climate change budgetIs 11.6 billion enough for us to pay? It's about £173 per man woman and child in the UK. Some would say it is well worth it to save humanity. Others might think different. If we spend that money what will the global average temperature be in 2050? To be honest, we could spend twice that, ten times that, and it would make not a jot of difference to anything on a global level. We are simply too small to make a difference. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2023 18:54:19 GMT
Even Tony Blair is questioning the race to net zero. So both sides of the Westminster party are getting their heads together over the pointlessness and cost.
Jamie Jenkins on Twitter:
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Jul 28, 2023 19:04:29 GMT
Something similar was mentioned on GB News this afternoon. Essentially, if the Chinese aren't on board, and clearly they're not, then net zero is absolutely pointless. All it will do is make us poorer.
At this point someone usually jumps in and says - 'but China are world leaders in green energy' (lol)
China burns more coal than any country on earth, they have more coal power stations than any country on earth, and they have committed to cut the number of new build coal power stations to two a month until 2030. China is committed to coal.
|
|
|
|
Post by patman post on Jul 28, 2023 20:12:00 GMT
Something similar was mentioned on GB News this afternoon. Essentially, if the Chinese aren't on board, and clearly they're not, then net zero is absolutely pointless. All it will do is make us poorer. At this point someone usually jumps in and says - 'but China are world leaders in green energy' (lol) China burns more coal than any country on earth, they have more coal power stations than any country on earth, and they have committed to cut the number of new build coal power stations to two a month until 2030. China is committed to coal. Advanced civilised countries have abolished the death penalty and, thus, have the moral right to preach at those countries’ administrations who still use it as a system of power. How is pollution as a killer and driver of population movement that different in importance…? |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Jul 28, 2023 20:27:00 GMT
Something similar was mentioned on GB News this afternoon. Essentially, if the Chinese aren't on board, and clearly they're not, then net zero is absolutely pointless. All it will do is make us poorer. At this point someone usually jumps in and says - 'but China are world leaders in green energy' (lol) China burns more coal than any country on earth, they have more coal power stations than any country on earth, and they have committed to cut the number of new build coal power stations to two a month until 2030. China is committed to coal. Advanced civilised countries have abolished the death penalty and, thus, have the moral right to preach at those countries’ administrations who still use it as a system of power. How is pollution as a killer and driver of population movement that different in importance…? You are obviously of the opinion that the largest economy in the world is not an advanced civilised country. |
|
|
|
Post by patman post on Jul 28, 2023 20:33:51 GMT
Advanced civilised countries have abolished the death penalty and, thus, have the moral right to preach at those countries’ administrations who still use it as a system of power. How is pollution as a killer and driver of population movement that different in importance…? You are obviously of the opinion that the largest economy in the world is not an advanced civilised country. I’m surprised you had enough nous to work that out… |
|
|
|
Post by Montegriffo on Jul 28, 2023 20:41:28 GMT
OK, man did not invent fire, man learned to start fires and use them. Depends how you define man. There is evidence to show Homoerectus made use of fire up to 2 million years ago. Long before Homosapiens first appeared some 270,000 years ago. That's just what we have archaeological evidence for. It likely goes back much further. |
|
