|
|
Post by sandypine on Sept 10, 2023 13:58:28 GMT
We are below China, and many other countries in per capita emissions yet we are still expected to do more. We have done our bit to our eternal cost based on some pretty dodgy science and some base assumptions and wobbly stats and models. You appear to completely miss the single obvious point which is that mankind should be doing their best to 'go green'. That not all countries can go completely green at this point in time is irrelevant, that most, perhaps all countries, are increasingly going green is the right thing to do in terms of looking after the planet and our future health, along with in terms of doing what we can, or what countries feel that they can do to reduce mankind's exacerbation of climate change. I tend to agree, however what is lacking is honesty and integrity by those who push for a green agenda and those who put in place policies to implement that agenda. If one wants to take the public with them overt lying is not the way to do it, it weakens the case when it is exposed as such. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Sept 10, 2023 14:04:36 GMT
Most people seem to think it is too rapid and too harsh. That is borne out as far as many people are concerned by the overt propaganda being disseminated to the public and of course how it is down to everyone else to meet carbon control and not the 'elite' no matter how you define them. You just made that up out of thin air in the hope it might be true. Well it isn't Published just lust last month docs.cdn.yougov.com/li3arml6jo/TheTimes_NetZero_230726.pdf'Currently the Government is aiming to reduce Britain's carbon emissions to Net Zero by 2050. Do you support or oppose this aim?
Total Support: 71%
Total Oppose 20%'
Yes people support the aim but then once the polices that would bring about that aim are implemented that support tails off quite rapidly as even the basics in your poll suggest. If one gets down to the nitty gritty and say do you support being colder the next 25 winters so that net zero can be met in 2050, one would see support plummet and realistically that is the type of thing that is being brought about. I support the aim of stopping all rape, I do not support the locking up of all women as a means to achieve that aim. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Sept 10, 2023 14:15:16 GMT
Most people seem to think it is too rapid and too harsh. That is borne out as far as many people are concerned by the overt propaganda being disseminated to the public and of course how it is down to everyone else to meet carbon control and not the 'elite' no matter how you define them. Who excludes the "elite"? The moan these days appears to be that we should be using more coal, that would be bad for human health and bad for the planet and would need the opening of new coal mines and new coal powered power stations. An expensive dive into the wrong direction. IMO green energy will gradually become cheaper as improved generators come on the scene along with new ideas. I bet todays Wind powered generators are more efficient than those of 20 years ago. The elite exclude themselves by their actions. Bill Gates being a very good example. I have a wind turbine and it is much better than ones I assessed 20 years ago. However it will not meet my needs even in conjunction with the solar panels I have. The eternal problem is sufficient storage during the glut and it is storage that is the problem along with transmission. Once again though things being 'bad for human health' are based on what is largely unproven and coupled with many lies. Humans can tolerate certain levels of many things and a few coal fired power stations in the UK would not be deleterious on that health. |
|
