|
|
Post by sandypine on Nov 12, 2024 10:00:44 GMT
once agin you seek to muddy the discussion because ive highlighted your hypocrisy. Heating a home is a necessity. Flying to the canaries is a luxury. hypocrite of the highest order , and in general it's why many dont take green zealots seriously. Your on a dangerous road if you wish to define global pollution by only what's essential. Meat is not essential but has a huge carbon footprint, same with much vehicle travel and any entertainment. As I have said, Net zero is about looking at the biggest contributors and the best ways to reduce them with the minimum inconvenience. All aviation contributes only 2.5% of emissions. So arguments about hypocrisy used as an excuse not to deal with the big polluters doesn't wash. The meat CO2 emissions are a closed system in that they rerelease CO2 taken up by plants for reuse by plants to grow to feed meat. Fossil fuels release long stored CO2. No one has argued regards what is essential what people are most concerned about is that essential becomes OK for some people to use private jets and eat meat while others cannot fly at all and must subsist on Soylent Green. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Nov 12, 2024 10:02:57 GMT
How was I to know that, when your arguments are so unresearched. you made a claim about charging an EV takes less time to charge on average than filling a petrol or diesel , couldnt back it up when queried politely , and now claim my arguments are so unresearched? Lol. Lol. Im not stupid enough to waffle constantly about saving the planet , cause I care , while next minute stupidly informing the forum ive flew on a jolly to the canaries. I generally back up everything I post about , unlike you. No I did not. I said the amount of time I am involved in the process is less than filling up with petrol. I even explained how that was the case. It was in reply to Jonsky's claim he could fill his car in minutes. It takes a few seconds to plug my car in and go into my house. I put petrol in maybe once every two months. Over all time spent putting fuel in my car per year is less than you spend putting petrol in yours. You are stupid enough not to know what saving the planet means, even when its explained to you in the most simple terms. Indeed you actively avoid addressing those points, a sort of willful ignorance based on your need to put one over on me. |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Nov 12, 2024 10:04:52 GMT
you made a claim about charging an EV takes less time to charge on average than filling a petrol or diesel , couldnt back it up when queried politely , and now claim my arguments are so unresearched? Lol. Lol. Im not stupid enough to waffle constantly about saving the planet , cause I care , while next minute stupidly informing the forum ive flew on a jolly to the canaries. I generally back up everything I post about , unlike you. No I did not. I said the amount of time I am involved in the process is less than filling up with petrol. You dont have a full ev , so your comment is irrelevant to the discussion comparing ev to petrol/ diesel in terms of charging/filling. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Nov 12, 2024 10:05:22 GMT
Your on a dangerous road if you wish to define global pollution by only what's essential. Meat is not essential but has a huge carbon footprint, same with much vehicle travel and any entertainment. As I have said, Net zero is about looking at the biggest contributors and the best ways to reduce them with the minimum inconvenience. All aviation contributes only 2.5% of emissions. So arguments about hypocrisy used as an excuse not to deal with the big polluters doesn't wash. The meat CO2 emissions are a closed system in that they rerelease CO2 taken up by plants for reuse by plants to grow to feed meat. Fossil fuels release long stored CO2. No one has argued regards what is essential what people are most concerned about is that essential becomes OK for some people to use private jets and eat meat while others cannot fly at all and must subsist on Soylent Green. I tend to agree, though I thinks its more about the conversion from Co2 to Methane they are interested in tackling. Cows are very inefficient energy convertors only about 65% of their intake is digested properly. It why they eat constantly. I haven't read anywhere that people will be forced to eat only Soylent green. Indeed but for the fanatics on here, most everybody is looking at allowing our life style to remain as unchanged as possible while reducing Co2 emissions. They are even working on electric planes but the contribution from flight is so small it will not help much. The contribution from private jets is miniscule. That is if you're really interested in stopping AGW rather than looking for excuses not to. |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Nov 12, 2024 10:08:11 GMT
The meat CO2 emissions are a closed system in that they rerelease CO2 taken up by plants for reuse by plants to grow to feed meat. Fossil fuels release long stored CO2. No one has argued regards what is essential what people are most concerned about is that essential becomes OK for some people to use private jets and eat meat while others cannot fly at all and must subsist on Soylent Green. I tend to agree, though I thinks its more about the conversion from Co2 to Methane they are interested in tackling. Cows are very inefficient energy convertors only about 65% of their intake is digested properly. It why they eat constantly. ...and another useless word salad of a post that doesn't address the content of what sandy is saying. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Nov 12, 2024 10:09:29 GMT
you made a claim about charging an EV takes less time to charge on average than filling a petrol or diesel , couldnt back it up when queried politely , and now claim my arguments are so unresearched? Lol. Lol. Im not stupid enough to waffle constantly about saving the planet , cause I care , while next minute stupidly informing the forum ive flew on a jolly to the canaries. I generally back up everything I post about , unlike you. No I did not. I said the amount of time I am involved in the process is less than filling up with petrol. I even explained how that was the case. It was in reply to Jonsky's claim he could fill his car in minutes. It takes a few seconds to plug my car in and go into my house. I put petrol in maybe once every two months. Over all time spent putting fuel in my car per year is less than you spend putting petrol in yours. You are stupid enough not to know what saving the planet means, even when its explained to you in the most simple terms. Indeed you actively avoid addressing those points, a sort of willful ignorance based on your need to put one over on me. Most people know by now that 'saving the planet' is just a good wheeze to enforce on electorates stringent conditions of control. It is argued that collective action is all that will save the planet yet collective action is exactly what is not happening. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Nov 12, 2024 10:14:18 GMT
No I did not. I said the amount of time I am involved in the process is less than filling up with petrol. I even explained how that was the case. It was in reply to Jonsky's claim he could fill his car in minutes. It takes a few seconds to plug my car in and go into my house. I put petrol in maybe once every two months. Over all time spent putting fuel in my car per year is less than you spend putting petrol in yours. You are stupid enough not to know what saving the planet means, even when its explained to you in the most simple terms. Indeed you actively avoid addressing those points, a sort of willful ignorance based on your need to put one over on me. Most people know by now that 'saving the planet' is just a good wheeze to enforce on electorates stringent conditions of control. It is argued that collective action is all that will save the planet yet collective action is exactly what is not happening. If you say so, the polls disagree with you. But I'm sure you know better. www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/global-surveys-show-peoples-growing-concern-about-climate-change |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Nov 12, 2024 10:15:03 GMT
Off out now.
FYI. I wont be bothering Thomas anymore.
|
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on Nov 12, 2024 10:16:40 GMT
See didn't take long Thomas; he is preaching from his pulpit already. No content again. It must be bloody boring here when I go. Plenty of content aimed at your hypocrisy because it is laughable preaching to others because you think they are below you and you need to control their thoughts while yours are beside the point. Aroggance personified. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Nov 12, 2024 10:18:08 GMT
The meat CO2 emissions are a closed system in that they rerelease CO2 taken up by plants for reuse by plants to grow to feed meat. Fossil fuels release long stored CO2. No one has argued regards what is essential what people are most concerned about is that essential becomes OK for some people to use private jets and eat meat while others cannot fly at all and must subsist on Soylent Green. Cows are very inefficient energy convertors only about 65% of their intake is digested properly. It why they eat constantly. I guess trees are inefficient as well. Do you feel you have lost your bearings yet? |
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on Nov 12, 2024 10:22:18 GMT
I tend to agree, though I thinks its more about the conversion from Co2 to Methane they are interested in tackling. Cows are very inefficient energy convertors only about 65% of their intake is digested properly. It why they eat constantly. ...and another useless word salad of a post that doesn't address the content of what sandy is saying. Thomas has been dismissed from class,better stick him on the naughty chair as well. |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Nov 12, 2024 10:23:19 GMT
Off out now. FYI. I wont be bothering Thomas anymore. ok zany. I accept your surrender. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Nov 12, 2024 10:28:08 GMT
while im 99 % certain zany has sailed to Gran Canaria on a recycled plastic lid using solar and wind , I cant help having that 1% suspicion that he actually went on an easyJet airbus A320 , and that your suspicion is fully correct on his net zero hypocrisy. Look up the proportion of Co2 pollution that comes from flying compared to heating homes and offices or land vehicle usage. Then you might know why it sits low on the list of net zero issues Ill use that as an excuse for my wood burner . ” Look up the proportion of CO2 pollution that comes from wood burners compared to heating homes and offices or land vehicles usage ‘ Then you might know why I don’t give a shit when I chuck another log on the fire” Let them eat cake , I say 👍 |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Nov 12, 2024 10:33:23 GMT
No I did not. I said the amount of time I am involved in the process is less than filling up with petrol. You dont have a full ev , so your comment is irrelevant to the discussion comparing ev to petrol/ diesel in terms of charging/filling. It’s like a someone banging the drum for Veganism while admitting they eat ham sandwiches.” But only very thinly sliced ham”. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Nov 12, 2024 10:37:49 GMT
The meat CO2 emissions are a closed system in that they rerelease CO2 taken up by plants for reuse by plants to grow to feed meat. Fossil fuels release long stored CO2. No one has argued regards what is essential what people are most concerned about is that essential becomes OK for some people to use private jets and eat meat while others cannot fly at all and must subsist on Soylent Green. I tend to agree, though I thinks its more about the conversion from Co2 to Methane they are interested in tackling. Cows are very inefficient energy convertors only about 65% of their intake is digested properly. It why they eat constantly. I haven't read anywhere that people will be forced to eat only Soylent green. Indeed but for the fanatics on here, most everybody is looking at allowing our life style to remain as unchanged as possible while reducing Co2 emissions. They are even working on electric planes but the contribution from flight is so small it will not help much. The contribution from private jets is miniscule. That is if you're really interested in stopping AGW rather than looking for excuses not to. The methane breaks down quite quickly in the atmosphere in terms of decades but the production of methane is not stopped by removing animals from teh cycle, it is from the breakdown of vegetation all the meat industry does is shorten the cycle of the process which it has been doing for many years so nothing will be saved except possibly a small dip in methane for a few years which will rebound as wetlands, bogs and fields and biofuel production and increased grain production bring it all back up |
|
