talkFORUM

subsub wrote:

Roy Twing wrote:

subsub wrote:

Roy Twing wrote:A snippet from an excellent article in Hitchen's column today, which I must must say in all modesty, is a rather better-written version of my main point regarding the insanity of the climate change protesters, and like Hitchens, - I would ask again if someone could explain the logic of destroying our economy whilst the 'developing' world thrives?:

"We recently closed and demolished Didcot ‘A’ coal-fired power station, an efficient, reasonably modern plant with a generating capacity of about 1.44 gigawatts. Why? Why not at least mothball it? But no such caution is allowed in the great cause of cutting CO2 emissions.

Look at the facts: an enormous 259 gigawatts (180 Didcots) of new coal-fired capacity are under development in China. That’s on top of the 993 gigawatts of coal-burning capacity China already possesses (690 Didcots).

The UK’s whole electrical generation capacity, in all forms of power, is 85 gigawatts (59 Didcots). If we gave up using electricity entirely, it would make no difference at all to the impact of Chinese coal burning on the atmosphere.

None. Not any. Zero. If we completely abolish all our fossil-fuel generation, including gas, it would likewise not matter in the slightest – except to us, our economy and our standard of living.

China’s planned increase, yes, increase, in coal power is three times the size of our whole electricity-generation industry – wind, nuclear gas, and all. India is also increasing coal generation and last March reached a coal capacity of 200 gigawatts (139 Didcots)."

The only 'argument' I've heard so far from the eco-warrior brigade, is a rather meek "well we have to start somewhere", or the similar but more patronising "we need to lead by example".

Great logic.
Other people are fucking up the environment, so let's do the same.
Yeah, let's all leave litter lying around because someone else does it

Read the article, take a deep breath, engage brain, and try again.

- I've read the snippet you provided - that contains all the pertinent info, presumably? (unless you left out something more important)
- you didn't provide a link to the article (and I'm damned if I'm going to increase the Mail's online readership)
- My point makes sense. Hitchens is saying that it doesn't matter what we do in the UK given what bigger countries do. I say that that is flawed logic, and I gave you an example – just because other people throw litter out of their cars doesn't mean that I should do the same.

Hitchens did go into a little more detail, but it was his analogy that I hoped might make you reconsider the 'logic' of the argument, - he wrote:
"We are like a thirsty man refusing to drink from a tap because of a water shortage, while his local water company leaves hundreds of leaks unrepaired, allowing thousands of gallons to drain away each hour. This is a futile, self-harming gesture. And these demonstrators, ignorant and engorged with self-righteous rage, demand more futility.", - but actually to follow your litter analogy, - it's like wading knee deep in McDonalds boxes on the way to work, and deciding to turn around and look for a litter bin, meanwhile, those who dropped the litter beat you to the job.
You are now out of pocket compared to the litterers, and still knee deep in litter.
It is this 'self-harming' whilst other countries laugh all the way to the bank that is my main argument against these eco warriors.

Roy Twing wrote:

subsub wrote:

Roy Twing wrote:

subsub wrote:

Roy Twing wrote:A snippet from an excellent article in Hitchen's column today, which I must must say in all modesty, is a rather better-written version of my main point regarding the insanity of the climate change protesters, and like Hitchens, - I would ask again if someone could explain the logic of destroying our economy whilst the 'developing' world thrives?:

"We recently closed and demolished Didcot ‘A’ coal-fired power station, an efficient, reasonably modern plant with a generating capacity of about 1.44 gigawatts. Why? Why not at least mothball it? But no such caution is allowed in the great cause of cutting CO2 emissions.

Look at the facts: an enormous 259 gigawatts (180 Didcots) of new coal-fired capacity are under development in China. That’s on top of the 993 gigawatts of coal-burning capacity China already possesses (690 Didcots).

The UK’s whole electrical generation capacity, in all forms of power, is 85 gigawatts (59 Didcots). If we gave up using electricity entirely, it would make no difference at all to the impact of Chinese coal burning on the atmosphere.

None. Not any. Zero. If we completely abolish all our fossil-fuel generation, including gas, it would likewise not matter in the slightest – except to us, our economy and our standard of living.

China’s planned increase, yes, increase, in coal power is three times the size of our whole electricity-generation industry – wind, nuclear gas, and all. India is also increasing coal generation and last March reached a coal capacity of 200 gigawatts (139 Didcots)."

The only 'argument' I've heard so far from the eco-warrior brigade, is a rather meek "well we have to start somewhere", or the similar but more patronising "we need to lead by example".

Great logic.
Other people are fucking up the environment, so let's do the same.
Yeah, let's all leave litter lying around because someone else does it

Read the article, take a deep breath, engage brain, and try again.

- I've read the snippet you provided - that contains all the pertinent info, presumably? (unless you left out something more important)
- you didn't provide a link to the article (and I'm damned if I'm going to increase the Mail's online readership)
- My point makes sense. Hitchens is saying that it doesn't matter what we do in the UK given what bigger countries do. I say that that is flawed logic, and I gave you an example – just because other people throw litter out of their cars doesn't mean that I should do the same.

Hitchens did go into a little more detail, but it was his analogy that I hoped might make you reconsider the 'logic' of the argument, - he wrote:
"We are like a thirsty man refusing to drink from a tap because of a water shortage, while his local water company leaves hundreds of leaks unrepaired, allowing thousands of gallons to drain away each hour. This is a futile, self-harming gesture. And these demonstrators, ignorant and engorged with self-righteous rage, demand more futility.", - but actually to follow your litter analogy, - it's like wading knee deep in McDonalds boxes on the way to work, and deciding to turn around and look for a litter bin, meanwhile, those who dropped the litter beat you to the job.
You are now out of pocket compared to the litterers, and still knee deep in litter.
It is this 'self-harming' whilst other countries laugh all the way to the bank that is my main argument against these eco warriors.

But it's a point of principle, though.
Just because other countries do bad things doesn't mean we should follow suit.

subsub wrote:

Roy Twing wrote:

subsub wrote:

Roy Twing wrote:

subsub wrote:

Roy Twing wrote:A snippet from an excellent article in Hitchen's column today, which I must must say in all modesty, is a rather better-written version of my main point regarding the insanity of the climate change protesters, and like Hitchens, - I would ask again if someone could explain the logic of destroying our economy whilst the 'developing' world thrives?:

"We recently closed and demolished Didcot ‘A’ coal-fired power station, an efficient, reasonably modern plant with a generating capacity of about 1.44 gigawatts. Why? Why not at least mothball it? But no such caution is allowed in the great cause of cutting CO2 emissions.

Look at the facts: an enormous 259 gigawatts (180 Didcots) of new coal-fired capacity are under development in China. That’s on top of the 993 gigawatts of coal-burning capacity China already possesses (690 Didcots).

The UK’s whole electrical generation capacity, in all forms of power, is 85 gigawatts (59 Didcots). If we gave up using electricity entirely, it would make no difference at all to the impact of Chinese coal burning on the atmosphere.

None. Not any. Zero. If we completely abolish all our fossil-fuel generation, including gas, it would likewise not matter in the slightest – except to us, our economy and our standard of living.

China’s planned increase, yes, increase, in coal power is three times the size of our whole electricity-generation industry – wind, nuclear gas, and all. India is also increasing coal generation and last March reached a coal capacity of 200 gigawatts (139 Didcots)."

The only 'argument' I've heard so far from the eco-warrior brigade, is a rather meek "well we have to start somewhere", or the similar but more patronising "we need to lead by example".

Great logic.
Other people are fucking up the environment, so let's do the same.
Yeah, let's all leave litter lying around because someone else does it

Read the article, take a deep breath, engage brain, and try again.

- I've read the snippet you provided - that contains all the pertinent info, presumably? (unless you left out something more important)
- you didn't provide a link to the article (and I'm damned if I'm going to increase the Mail's online readership)
- My point makes sense. Hitchens is saying that it doesn't matter what we do in the UK given what bigger countries do. I say that that is flawed logic, and I gave you an example – just because other people throw litter out of their cars doesn't mean that I should do the same.

Hitchens did go into a little more detail, but it was his analogy that I hoped might make you reconsider the 'logic' of the argument, - he wrote:
"We are like a thirsty man refusing to drink from a tap because of a water shortage, while his local water company leaves hundreds of leaks unrepaired, allowing thousands of gallons to drain away each hour. This is a futile, self-harming gesture. And these demonstrators, ignorant and engorged with self-righteous rage, demand more futility.", - but actually to follow your litter analogy, - it's like wading knee deep in McDonalds boxes on the way to work, and deciding to turn around and look for a litter bin, meanwhile, those who dropped the litter beat you to the job.
You are now out of pocket compared to the litterers, and still knee deep in litter.
It is this 'self-harming' whilst other countries laugh all the way to the bank that is my main argument against these eco warriors.

But it's a point of principle, though.
Just because other countries do bad things doesn't mean we should follow suit.

It's not following suit though, - it's the opposite, just like the naive soldier who volunteers for a dangerous mission, expecting others to follow, - the others know better and are quite happy to him give an extra little nudge to see him on his way.

Analogies aside though, as Hitchens also mentioned, - this issue is either a global one or it's not, - if it really is global, then there really has to be some genuine global movement towards reducing emissions, and despite half-hearted pledges from china and the like, emissions are actually increasing - surely you can see that it's madness if we close a 'didcot A' (to use hitchens' example), whilst china opens 150 of them (to their advantage and our loss)?

subsub wrote:Just because other countries do bad things doesn't mean we should follow suit.

Air pollution in the UK means we all live, on average, 18 months less.

We're witnessing a biomass collapse. Over the last 30 years, Germany has seen a 70% decrease in things living in the country. The UK is seeing similar trends, the Germans are just better at measuring it.

Cells in your body are all mutating solely based on exposure to pollutants in your environment.

Your food is nutritionally less dense and the environment it's grown or raised in less sustainable.

Your taxes subsidise all of the above.

On the other hand something something something China.

Give peas a chance!

There are some marvellous puns in the comments

Vespa wrote:

subsub wrote:Just because other countries do bad things doesn't mean we should follow suit.

Air pollution in the UK means we all live, on average, 18 months less.

We're witnessing a biomass collapse. Over the last 30 years, Germany has seen a 70% decrease in things living in the country. The UK is seeing similar trends, the Germans are just better at measuring it.

Cells in your body are all mutating solely based on exposure to pollutants in your environment.

Your food is nutritionally less dense and the environment it's grown or raised in less sustainable.

Your taxes subsidise all of the above.

On the other hand something something something China.

Just to be clear - is this thread about GLOBAL climate issues, or local pollution?

Oh, and I dread to ask, but where did that "we all live, on average, 18 months less" stat come from?

Roy Twing wrote:

Vespa wrote:

subsub wrote:Just because other countries do bad things doesn't mean we should follow suit.

Air pollution in the UK means we all live, on average, 18 months less.

We're witnessing a biomass collapse. Over the last 30 years, Germany has seen a 70% decrease in things living in the country. The UK is seeing similar trends, the Germans are just better at measuring it.

Cells in your body are all mutating solely based on exposure to pollutants in your environment.

Your food is nutritionally less dense and the environment it's grown or raised in less sustainable.

Your taxes subsidise all of the above.

On the other hand something something something China.

Just to be clear - is this thread about GLOBAL climate issues, or local pollution?

Oh, and I dread to ask, but where did that "we all live, on average, 18 months less" stat come from?

Well it's linked, and the 18 months is a conservative, Global Air says it's nearer 20.

In fact living in London poses the same risk as living in nuclear fallout zone (British Safety Researchers).

The lungs were designed to take in oxygen not a filthy toxic mixture.

Monello wrote:

Roy Twing wrote:

Vespa wrote:

subsub wrote:Just because other countries do bad things doesn't mean we should follow suit.

Air pollution in the UK means we all live, on average, 18 months less.

We're witnessing a biomass collapse. Over the last 30 years, Germany has seen a 70% decrease in things living in the country. The UK is seeing similar trends, the Germans are just better at measuring it.

Cells in your body are all mutating solely based on exposure to pollutants in your environment.

Your food is nutritionally less dense and the environment it's grown or raised in less sustainable.

Your taxes subsidise all of the above.

On the other hand something something something China.

Just to be clear - is this thread about GLOBAL climate issues, or local pollution?

Oh, and I dread to ask, but where did that "we all live, on average, 18 months less" stat come from?

Well it's linked, and the 18 months is a conservative, Global Air says it's nearer 20.

In fact living in London poses the same risk as living in nuclear fallout zone (British Safety Researchers).

The lungs were designed to take in oxygen not a filthy toxic mixture.

It is indeed all linked. Here is a table from a report measuring how much longer you'd live if you weren't exposed to common toxins floating about in the air.

If it were discovered Apple coated their phones with something that made you live 20 days fewer people would be cheering the protestors. Just goes to show you how submissive we are as a population that industry has convinced us dying early is a price worth paying for their profits.

On the other hand something something something China.

Vespa wrote:

Monello wrote:

Roy Twing wrote:

Vespa wrote:

subsub wrote:Just because other countries do bad things doesn't mean we should follow suit.

Air pollution in the UK means we all live, on average, 18 months less.

We're witnessing a biomass collapse. Over the last 30 years, Germany has seen a 70% decrease in things living in the country. The UK is seeing similar trends, the Germans are just better at measuring it.

Cells in your body are all mutating solely based on exposure to pollutants in your environment.

Your food is nutritionally less dense and the environment it's grown or raised in less sustainable.

Your taxes subsidise all of the above.

On the other hand something something something China.

Just to be clear - is this thread about GLOBAL climate issues, or local pollution?

Oh, and I dread to ask, but where did that "we all live, on average, 18 months less" stat come from?

Well it's linked, and the 18 months is a conservative, Global Air says it's nearer 20.

In fact living in London poses the same risk as living in nuclear fallout zone (British Safety Researchers).

The lungs were designed to take in oxygen not a filthy toxic mixture.

It is indeed all linked. Here is a table from a report measuring how much longer you'd live if you weren't exposed to common toxins floating about in the air.

If it were discovered Apple coated their phones with something that made you live 20 days fewer people would be cheering the protestors. Just goes to show you how submissive we are as a population that industry has convinced us dying early is a price worth paying for their profits.

On the other hand something something something China.

Oh dear oh dear - so how has all that pollution shortened our life expectancy in, say the last 100 years or so?

On the other hand, in China, and since your post a couple of hours ago, they have chugged out a couple of million tonnes of CO2 MORE than we have in the UK (literally, - unlike some 'stats' and pointing no fingers ).

What do you think WE should do, Roy? Sanction the throwing of litter onto the street, bringing wholesale fossil fuels, industrialised plastics, leaded fuel? What policy changes would you suggest?

kancutlawns wrote:What do you think WE should do, Roy? Sanction the throwing of litter onto the street, bringing wholesale fossil fuels, industrialised plastics, leaded fuel? What policy changes would you suggest?

I know, right?
The message would appear to be that other countries don't care so to hell with it all and forget any kind of green policies.
Madness.

i think, to start with, we should actually listen to experts such as greta thunberg

subsub wrote:

kancutlawns wrote:What do you think WE should do, Roy? Sanction the throwing of litter onto the street, bringing wholesale fossil fuels, industrialised plastics, leaded fuel? What policy changes would you suggest?

I know, right?
The message would appear to be that other countries don't care so to hell with it all and forget any kind of green policies.
Madness.

It’s just like saying that there’s wholesale child marriage, sweat shops, child soldiers, phosphorous bombs and rampant malaria in other countries so we should discard public investment, the rule of law, technological development and ethical policy here because of it. Utter senselessness.

kancutlawns wrote:What do you think WE should do, Roy? Sanction the throwing of litter onto the street, bringing wholesale fossil fuels, industrialised plastics, leaded fuel? What policy changes would you suggest?

Actually, - I'm in favour of doing all we can with regard to 'local' pollution (that is, anything that can improve air quality in the UK, and cities in particular), on a local level - (the litter analogy wasn't meant to be taken litterally) if this improves the climate globally, well and good.
My point on this thread relates to the absurd 'attacks' on industries and the like, that affect the climate on a global scale, unless action is being taken on a global scale ie, - overall and fair reductions in CO2 that don't simply shovel the 'mess' somewhere else.

We’re agreed on your first paragraph. Regarding your second, I know very little about what China is doing productively or harmfully with C02 emissions.