# Climate code red



## stefanovic (Aug 9, 2021)

As in the news today.
So what are you doing to save planet?

Do we need to build more golf courses?

The role of golf courses in carbon sequestration - European Institute of Golf Course Architects (eigca.org)


----------



## Imurg (Aug 9, 2021)

The Planet is fine..it's been through this several times and it really doesn't give a damn.
It's been here for billions of years and will be here for a few billion more..


----------



## pauljames87 (Aug 9, 2021)

Imurg said:



			The Planet is fine..it's been through this several times and it really doesn't give a damn.
It's been here for billions of years and will be here for a few billion more..
		
Click to expand...

Just won't be so habitable for us humans to live on

Just some small acts by us will help 

Cutting down on meat eaten is one. I tried veggie for 2 weeks , enjoyed it so much we reducing our meat intake


----------



## Miller (Aug 9, 2021)

Imurg said:



			The Planet is fine..it's been through this several times and it really doesn't give a damn.
It's been here for billions of years and will be here for a few billion more..
		
Click to expand...

Is that a Bryson Dechambeau quote?


----------



## BiMGuy (Aug 9, 2021)

stefanovic said:



			As in the news today.
So what are you doing to save planet?

Do we need to build more golf courses?

The role of golf courses in carbon sequestration - European Institute of Golf Course Architects (eigca.org)

Click to expand...

The number of humans inhabiting this rock is the problem. And that is where the solution will lie. And is the thing no one wants to address. 

As mentioned. The planet will be absolutely fine. Its just a matter of how much suffering we inflict on our own, and other species. 

In a few million years, humans will be long forgotten and most evidence of our existence will be gone.


----------



## Imurg (Aug 9, 2021)

Miller said:



			Is that a Bryson Dechambeau quote?
		
Click to expand...

Its just reality.
We don't need to save the planet..we need to save everything that lives on it...


----------



## stefanovic (Aug 9, 2021)

BiMGuy said:



			The number of humans inhabiting this rock is the problem. And that is where the solution will lie. And is the thing no one wants to address.
		
Click to expand...

James Lovelock told you so with his Gaia theory, and he wasn't the first.
50 years ago a book called The Population Bomb (Ehrlich) argued that there are far too many of us living as we do.
Did we listen? No. Instead the global population increased by about 3 billion and we live even more like there is no tomorrow.




			The planet will be absolutely fine.
		
Click to expand...

We should remember our planet is elderly and in orbit around a middle aged star which varies its output of heat.




			In a few million years, humans will be long forgotten and most evidence of our existence will be gone.
		
Click to expand...

Unless we find a way to escape to a parallel world.


----------



## IanM (Aug 9, 2021)

I don't have sufficient expertise to comment properly on Climate Change, but regardless of where you stand, being "conscious of how you treat the environment and natural resources" surely just makes good sense?


----------



## Kellfire (Aug 9, 2021)

I can’t wait to see the Facebook and YouTube videos debunking this report. Tinfoil hats at the ready.


----------



## Miller (Aug 9, 2021)




----------



## Hobbit (Aug 9, 2021)

*yawn*

Govts will change global warming, not us. Industry, where many spend the majority of the day, is the main culprit but why are we brainwashed to make a change that doesn’t even come close to what industry could do.

Neccessity will force change, legislated by govts.


----------



## SocketRocket (Aug 9, 2021)

BiMGuy said:



			The number of humans inhabiting this rock is the problem. And that is where the solution will lie. And is the thing no one wants to address. 

As mentioned. The planet will be absolutely fine. Its just a matter of how much suffering we inflict on our own, and other species. 

In a few million years, humans will be long forgotten and most evidence of our existence will be gone.
		
Click to expand...

I agree, there are few global problems that wouldn't be improved by a big reduction in Homo Sapiens.


----------



## Hobbit (Aug 9, 2021)

SocketRocket said:



			I agree, there are few global problems that wouldn't be improved by a big reduction in Homo Sapiens.
		
Click to expand...

Maybe we need a pandemic…?


----------



## SocketRocket (Aug 9, 2021)

Hobbit said:



			Maybe we need a pandemic…?
		
Click to expand...

Great idea 😄. Or, maybe Blade Runner.


----------



## DaveR (Aug 9, 2021)

Free condoms for all.


----------



## Swinglowandslow (Aug 10, 2021)

BiMGuy said:



			The number of humans inhabiting this rock is the problem. And that is where the solution will lie. And is the thing no one wants to address. 

As mentioned. The planet will be absolutely fine. Its just a matter of how much suffering we inflict on our own, and other species. 

In a few million years, humans will be long forgotten and most evidence of our existence will be gone.
		
Click to expand...

Like Mars, you mean?


----------



## stefanovic (Aug 10, 2021)

IanM said:



			I don't have sufficient expertise to comment properly on Climate Change, but regardless of where you stand, being "conscious of how you treat the environment and natural resources" surely just makes good sense?
		
Click to expand...

Trees represent nearly all the biomass of our planet and we think they are there for our exploitation, as favoured by all political and religious parties.
This idea is completely wrong. Politicians as custodians of our planet - don't make me laugh.
Trees are there for an ecological purpose to help ensure our survival. They suck carbon out of the atmosphere from CO2 and then expel its oxygen. They cool the planet as opposed to man made structures which warm the planet. Cities are always warmer than the surrounding countryside.
It's true that trees are not the only carbon sinks. The oceans also play a big part.

An even more inconvenient truth is global population and for some reason it's never discussed in the media.
Covid itself would not have flourished had numbers been much less. The link between Covid and climate change.

An awkward truth lies still beyond. It is not Darwinian to vaccinate against a virus. It merely stores up an even bigger problem for the future.
The reason we are here today is because evolution is based upon unimaginable cruelty and suffering from the past.
It is believed that 99% of species from the past are now extinct. By our actions we are accelerating towards the demise of ourselves.


----------



## sweaty sock (Aug 10, 2021)

Angsty.

Might be just the problem we need to help us work together as a species....


----------



## bluewolf (Aug 10, 2021)

Hobbit said:



			*yawn*

Govts will change global warming, not us. Industry, where many spend the majority of the day, is the main culprit but why are we brainwashed to make a change that doesn’t even come close to what industry could do.

Neccessity will force change, legislated by govts.
		
Click to expand...

Completely agree. 

However, Industry won’t change until governments globally demand it. Governments won’t demand it until there is consensus enough among the general population that change is required. And one thing the pandemic has apparently taught us is that it is incredibly difficult to achieve a general consensus, even when the truth is widely available…..😬


----------



## harpo_72 (Aug 10, 2021)

bluewolf said:



			Completely agree.

However, Industry won’t change until governments globally demand it. Governments won’t demand it until there is consensus enough among the general population that change is required. And one thing the pandemic has apparently taught us is that it is incredibly difficult to achieve a general consensus, even when the truth is widely available…..😬
		
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting a population makes a choice? Surely it’s the media moguls who choose to share their opinions… 
Just enjoy life eat more veggies grow some trees and refuse to commute to pointless offices..


----------



## bluewolf (Aug 10, 2021)

harpo_72 said:



			Are you suggesting a population makes a choice? Surely it’s the media moguls who choose to share their opinions…
Just enjoy life eat more veggies grow some trees and refuse to commute to pointless offices..
		
Click to expand...

Radical I know. 
Truth be told, looking around, I have zero faith that enough will be done until it’s too late. The people most insulated from the effects of Climate Change are the ones who have to make the biggest change. The people with the most influence have the means to avoid the worst repercussions.

Not going to happen is it?


----------



## SocketRocket (Aug 10, 2021)

bluewolf said:



			Radical I know.
Truth be told, looking around, I have zero faith that enough will be done until it’s too late. The people most insulated from the effects of Climate Change are the ones who have to make the biggest change. The people with the most influence have the means to avoid the worst repercussions.

Not going to happen is it?
		
Click to expand...

Surely the people who are contributing the most to creating climate change are the people who need to make the biggest change, the people most insulated from its affects are not necessarily the ones able to make a significant difference.  The major issue is how to get a World wide joined up plan of action that all are committed to, especially the countries with huge populations.

Probably not going to happen.


----------



## Jamesbrown (Aug 10, 2021)

I believe the Earth will cool and warm either way has it has done a long long time before humans infected the planet. 
Tomorrow the Yellowstone super volcano could explode and cool the Earth requiring us to to start knocking coal out to warm us up. 
Own it, save up for air conditioning for your children.


----------



## Bunkermagnet (Aug 10, 2021)

I don't understand how us doing "our little bit" is going to alter things all the time the World sends it's production to a country opening almost 1 new coal powered power station every day. We are abdicating our real repsonsibility to other countries, then expecting them to do and change what we say.
If we wanted to make real changes, we would repatriate all production of goods we used to build back to us so WE can control how they are built and the energy used to build them. Its said we are all going to have to pay more , so it wont be a shock then when we restart to build what we need in our country for that 10p extra.


----------



## clubchamp98 (Aug 10, 2021)

Miller said:



View attachment 37944

Click to expand...

What about the women’s undies.?


----------



## clubchamp98 (Aug 10, 2021)

Can’t see it changing anytime soon .
Most countries can’t agree a trade deal in under 7 yrs.there just isn’t the will.
As for a consensus of the people ! Just look at Brexit there’s no chance.


----------



## Foxholer (Aug 10, 2021)

It's time to accept that our cfurrent approach is killing the planet! There's plenty of scope/potential for the capitalist oriented folk - who drive the world economies - to establish proper methods to neutralise the rape of our planet!


----------



## Foxholer (Aug 10, 2021)

Imurg said:



			The Planet is fine..it's been through this several times and it really doesn't give a damn.
It's been here for billions of years and will be here for a few billion more..
		
Click to expand...

Deluded! It's certainly NOT fine!
And that report simply confirms what hes been known for the the las 10-20 years! Madkind's rape of the planet will/is destroy it!


----------



## harpo_72 (Aug 10, 2021)

bluewolf said:



			Radical I know.
Truth be told, looking around, I have zero faith that enough will be done until it’s too late. The people most insulated from the effects of Climate Change are the ones who have to make the biggest change. The people with the most influence have the means to avoid the worst repercussions.

Not going to happen is it?
		
Click to expand...

No, it’s not because people don’t want to do “cold turkey” they have got too comfortable. The system is about keeping a certain class and they are the ones burning the hydrocarbons.
I still can’t understand why packaging has not been sorted out, in the car industry whether your ready or not the law is passed and your meeting it … why is there a delay on packaging?
Also why has someone not thought about taxing office owners, asking them to justify why they need their employees to create a huge carbon footprint every day?
Sustainability is a buzz word, Bill Gates, Apple, IBM et al are completely responsible for huge amounts of land fill ( ironically typing this on an iPad 🤦‍♂️) the point is they made stuff useless with perpetual updates, yet they did not make it repairable… but is there any legislation coming in? Nah not really it’s just hot air and fashion ..


----------



## backwoodsman (Aug 11, 2021)

Foxholer said:



			Deluded! It's certainly NOT fine!
And that report simply confirms what hes been known for the the las 10-20 years! Madkind's rape of the planet will/is destroy it!
		
Click to expand...

I think you missed his point??


----------



## bluewolf (Aug 11, 2021)

harpo_72 said:



			No, it’s not because people don’t want to do “cold turkey” they have got too comfortable. The system is about keeping a certain class and they are the ones burning the hydrocarbons.
I still can’t understand why packaging has not been sorted out, in the car industry whether your ready or not the law is passed and your meeting it … why is there a delay on packaging?
Also why has someone not thought about taxing office owners, asking them to justify why they need their employees to create a huge carbon footprint every day?
Sustainability is a buzz word, Bill Gates, Apple, IBM et al are completely responsible for huge amounts of land fill ( ironically typing this on an iPad 🤦‍♂️) the point is they made stuff useless with perpetual updates, yet they did not make it repairable… but is there any legislation coming in? Nah not really it’s just hot air and fashion ..
		
Click to expand...

Because the people profiting most are the ones who have the means to control the flow of information, and how Politicians respond to that information.


----------



## Hobbit (Aug 11, 2021)

bluewolf said:



			Because the people profiting most are the ones who have the means to control the flow of information, and how Politicians respond to that information.
		
Click to expand...

“They’re behind you!” 

Fairly sure it’s been mainstream news for as long as I can remember. Politicians decide what can be built where, and they decide on the legislation that curtails pollution. They have better access to science, and more time to read it. Perhaps the finger should be pointed at those that turn a blind eye to the dangers?

How many big businesses are owned by an individual and how many are shareholder owned and driven by CEO’s chasing profit before social responsibility?

I remember London pea soupers, Teesside smogs and numerous rivers that you couldn’t swim in. I remember the photos of 2 children that swam in the Tees below Middlesbrough, 1968, and the chemical burns that covered their bodies. There’s salmon and seals in the Tees now.

Political will can change things. But to suggest people are hoodwinked by the flow of information is simple, plain rubbish.


----------



## harpo_72 (Aug 11, 2021)

bluewolf said:



			Because the people profiting most are the ones who have the means to control the flow of information, and how Politicians respond to that information.
		
Click to expand...

That pretty much sums it up, in the end our political system is a toothless dog. We are all just persuaded by these media outlets .. best to stick to golf and play with a freedom to choose within the constraints of the course . 
You may enjoy the film “the way I see it” on Amazon. It is insight of Obama as a person and to a minor extent Reagan and the general degradation of politicians and really questions can we recover that and retake our system or is it destroyed


----------



## Kellfire (Aug 11, 2021)

Hobbit said:



			“They’re behind you!”

Fairly sure it’s been mainstream news for as long as I can remember. Politicians decide what can be built where, and they decide on the legislation that curtails pollution. They have better access to science, and more time to read it. Perhaps the finger should be pointed at those that turn a blind eye to the dangers?

How many big businesses are owned by an individual and how many are shareholder owned and driven by CEO’s chasing profit before social responsibility?

I remember London pea soupers, Teesside smogs and numerous rivers that you couldn’t swim in. I remember the photos of 2 children that swam in the Tees below Middlesbrough, 1968, and the chemical burns that covered their bodies. There’s salmon and seals in the Tees now.

Political will can change things. But to suggest people are hoodwinked by the flow of information is simple, plain rubbish.
		
Click to expand...

I think you overestimate the cognitive abilities and/or the will of the general public to know the truth about things that impact their lives.


----------



## Hobbit (Aug 11, 2021)

Kellfire said:



			I think you overestimate the cognitive abilities and/or the will of the general public to know the truth about things that impact their lives.
		
Click to expand...

I think you are naive applying a single mindset to the general public. Some care, some don’t And some areńt bright enough nor care.


----------



## bluewolf (Aug 11, 2021)

Hobbit said:



			“They’re behind you!”

Fairly sure it’s been mainstream news for as long as I can remember. Politicians decide what can be built where, and they decide on the legislation that curtails pollution. They have better access to science, and more time to read it. Perhaps the finger should be pointed at those that turn a blind eye to the dangers?

How many big businesses are owned by an individual and how many are shareholder owned and driven by CEO’s chasing profit before social responsibility?

I remember London pea soupers, Teesside smogs and numerous rivers that you couldn’t swim in. I remember the photos of 2 children that swam in the Tees below Middlesbrough, 1968, and the chemical burns that covered their bodies. There’s salmon and seals in the Tees now.

Political will can change things. But to suggest people are hoodwinked by the flow of information is simple, plain rubbish.
		
Click to expand...

So you believe that people aren’t hoodwinked by the targeted flow of information by certain outlets?

You know I respect your opinions Brian so I’ll just say that I strongly disagree and leave it there….


----------



## Hobbit (Aug 11, 2021)

bluewolf said:



			So you believe that people aren’t hoodwinked by the targeted flow of information by certain outlets?

You know I respect your opinions Brian so I’ll just say that I strongly disagree and leave it there….
		
Click to expand...

I believe some are, but not the majority. I also believe the majority of those don’t care.


----------



## Kellfire (Aug 11, 2021)

Hobbit said:



			I believe some are, but not the majority. I also believe the majority of those don’t care.
		
Click to expand...

I believe the majority don’t have a clue that the Daily Mail and the tabloids lie to them constantly.


----------



## bluewolf (Aug 11, 2021)

Hobbit said:



			I believe some are, but not the majority. I also believe the majority of those don’t care.
		
Click to expand...

I believe that it only needs a minority to believe the lies. The targeted disinformation is designed to turn the issue into a debate. We shouldn’t be debating the issue, we should be working together to fix it.


----------



## IanM (Aug 11, 2021)

bluewolf said:



			I believe that it only needs a minority to believe the lies. The targeted disinformation is designed to turn the issue into a debate. We shouldn’t be debating the issue, we should be working together to fix it.
		
Click to expand...

Is this is Covid Thread or Climate Change??  (if you see what I mean)      That's the way of the world now..... everything seems to be reported negatively or in adversarial language.


----------



## SocketRocket (Aug 11, 2021)

Kellfire said:



			I think you overestimate the cognitive abilities and/or the will of the general public to know the truth about things that impact their lives.
		
Click to expand...

It's good that we have clever people like you to point out how stupid we are 🙄


----------



## Kellfire (Aug 11, 2021)

SocketRocket said:



			It's good that we have clever people like you to point out how stupid we are 🙄
		
Click to expand...

I can’t help that you feel offended by being told that you trust incorrect or distorted news reports.


----------



## harpo_72 (Aug 11, 2021)

Hobbit said:



			I believe some are, but not the majority. I also believe the majority of those don’t care.
		
Click to expand...

Perhaps because the majority don’t understand that they should care.. perhaps the issues lie in the method of communication.. I always listen to my wife under certain conditions otherwise my attention is elsewhere 🤣😳


----------



## harpo_72 (Aug 11, 2021)

Kellfire said:



			I can’t help that you feel offended by being told that you trust incorrect or distorted news reports.
		
Click to expand...

There lies the issue, journalists don’t deal in facts their editors want to sell news and somewhere down the line the facts and the truth are missed, buried or ignored… then we end up with sides as opposed to informed discussion.
Better stop here as it’s becoming a political thread and I have kind of got that rolling.


----------



## SocketRocket (Aug 11, 2021)

bluewolf said:



			I believe that it only needs a minority to believe the lies. The targeted disinformation is designed to turn the issue into a debate. We shouldn’t be debating the issue, we should be working together to fix it.
		
Click to expand...

Where is this World conspiracy that's feeding us this disinformation?   The BBC, ITV, Attenborough, News Papers etc have been telling us about how Global Warming and now Climate change is affecting weather patterns for many decades.  OK, some think it's disinformation and many aren't interested, many feel they are not in a position to do anything much about it, it's not disinformation as the information is out there for anyone to see.   The issue is what will politicians be prepared to do about it, this is no different to the oncoming energy crisis.

Most people are clever enough to understand the subject.


----------



## SocketRocket (Aug 11, 2021)

Kellfire said:



			I can’t help that you feel offended by being told that you trust incorrect or distorted news reports.
		
Click to expand...

How did you draw that conclusion from my post 🙄.     Suggesting you know what news I trust is misinformative and arrogant.


----------



## Kellfire (Aug 11, 2021)

SocketRocket said:



			How did you draw that conclusion from my post 🙄.     Suggesting you know what news I trust is misinformative and arrogant.
		
Click to expand...

It was a generalised “you”.


----------



## Foxholer (Aug 11, 2021)

harpo_72 said:



			Are you suggesting a population makes a choice? ...
		
Click to expand...

The massive increase in the non-oil-based-fueled cars is an example of how a transition can (be made to) happen. Campaigns that spell out the damage the internal combustion engine causes, incentives to find alternative - including grants for research, targetted variable taxation and other charges - plus variable taxation/other charges all create customer pressure for manufacturers to change! So yes...a population can/does make a choice!
It is, however, up to governments to develop and direct most of the campaigns, incentives etc that 'convert' the population!


----------



## Foxholer (Aug 11, 2021)

Kellfire said:



			I believe the majority don’t have a clue that *the Daily Mail and the tabloids* lie to them constantly.
		
Click to expand...

You repeat yourself!


----------



## harpo_72 (Aug 11, 2021)

Foxholer said:



			The massive increase in the non-oil-based-fueled cars is an example of how a transition can (be made to) happen. Campaigns that spell out the damage the internal combustion engine causes, incentives to find alternative - including grants for research, targetted variable taxation and other charges - plus variable taxation/other charges all create customer pressure for manufacturers to change! So yes...a population can/does make a choice!
It is, however, up to governments to develop and direct most of the campaigns, incentives etc that 'convert' the population!
		
Click to expand...

This has only come to fruition with the media bringing pressure. In the end had you or I chosen to make a decision on this as an individual, you or I would be on our own living the “good life” the point is 2-3/10 people doing it is not enough. It has to be 10 out of 10 … no half measures. Then this is where it all falls apart because there are changes required.. some very fortunate people will they think lose out.


----------



## Foxholer (Aug 11, 2021)

Kellfire said:



			It was a generalised “you”.
		
Click to expand...

Perhaps you should have used the word 'if' as opposed to 'that'.


----------



## harpo_72 (Aug 11, 2021)

Wish everyone would just grow a tree and stop arguing about it all .. oh and stop commuting to work, stop getting on jet planes for your holidays, cut down on the red meat and reduce your own methane production…


----------



## Foxholer (Aug 11, 2021)

harpo_72 said:



			This has only come to fruition with the media bringing pressure. In the end had you or I chosen to make a decision on this as an individual, you or I would be on our own living the “good life” the point is 2-3/10 people doing it is not enough. *It has to be 10 out of 10 … no half measures*. Then this is where it all falls apart because there are changes required.. some very fortunate people will they think lose out.
		
Click to expand...

I don't believe it does - but certainly more than currently.
And the main poluter is still 'industry', so that area has to change, either by its own choice, by consumer resistance, or by legislation!
Oh and it has to be 'balanced' too, so that ALL countries agree and act! That's the toughest ask, as the major polluters are also the largest economies!


----------



## Kellfire (Aug 11, 2021)

Foxholer said:



			Perhaps you should have used the word 'if' as opposed to 'that'.
		
Click to expand...

Perhaps you should be less angry on the internet.


----------



## patricks148 (Aug 11, 2021)

Foxholer said:



			Perhaps you should have used the word 'if' as opposed to 'that'.
		
Click to expand...

Please don't try and flame posts and advise people of grammar or spelling.


----------



## harpo_72 (Aug 11, 2021)

Foxholer said:



			I don't believe it does - but certainly more than currently.
And the main poluter is still 'industry', so that area has to change, either by its own choice, by consumer resistance, or by legislation!
Oh and it has to be 'balanced' too, so that ALL countries agree and act! That's the toughest ask, as the major polluters are also the largest economies!
		
Click to expand...

Yes there have been some interesting excuses for not signing up to environmental agreements.. the one I like is “we have not had as long as you to create a mess so we won’t sign.. “ 
10 out of 10 is required or there will be equality issues and then we will have cast levels etc ..


----------



## oxymoron (Aug 11, 2021)

Its ok to point the finger at the motorist and industry but , again using the car as an example , we just do not have the infrastructure to just suddenly (i.e. in a short space of time )
to switch to electric cars . Charging will be a drain on our grid and this will need thought and investment , as in another thread how are terraced streets and tower blocks going
to charge them? Where is the power coming from ? We seriously need to look at nuclear if we want to do this .
Industry will be slow to change ,and in some cases can not change as an example some of our machines have 20Mw motors we need a secure reliable power source ,unless you are willing to
gamble on your supply of medical gases for example .


----------



## clubchamp98 (Aug 11, 2021)

oxymoron said:



			Its ok to point the finger at the motorist and industry but , again using the car as an example , we just do not have the infrastructure to just suddenly (i.e. in a short space of time )
to switch to electric cars . Charging will be a drain on our grid and this will need thought and investment , as in another thread how are terraced streets and tower blocks going
to charge them? Where is the power coming from ? We seriously need to look at nuclear if we want to do this .
Industry will be slow to change ,and in some cases can not change as an example some of our machines have 20Mw motors we need a secure reliable power source ,unless you are willing to
gamble on your supply of medical gases for example .
		
Click to expand...

Agree .
One simple thing they could have done is cycleways that actually go to where people work.
Most just don’t go anywhere ,( by me anyway). And they are run by charity.
Can you imagine the amount of roadworks to instal an electric grid for cars in every street.


----------



## bluewolf (Aug 11, 2021)

SocketRocket said:



			Where is this World conspiracy that's feeding us this disinformation?   The BBC, ITV, Attenborough, News Papers etc have been telling us about how Global Warming and now Climate change is affecting weather patterns for many decades.  OK, some think it's disinformation and many aren't interested, many feel they are not in a position to do anything much about it, it's not disinformation as the information is out there for anyone to see.   The issue is what will politicians be prepared to do about it, this is no different to the oncoming energy crisis.

Most people are clever enough to understand the subject.
		
Click to expand...

It’s not a conspiracy as such. It’s vested interests opaquely funding media outlets that peddle disinformation as a way of diluting the discussion.
It’s been done before with the smoking lobby. It’s been widely reported on regarding the Oil and Gas industry.
All they need to do is persuade a small amount that the science is debatable. Then we spend the next 10 years discussing whether Climate Change is real rather than what needs to be done….

Oh, and FWIW, the solution to the car industry isn’t just electric cars. It’s stopping people using a car at all. WFH, trains, buses etc are the actual solution.


----------



## sweaty sock (Aug 11, 2021)

My view,

I need more information.  And, i need it spoon-fed.

Im onboard, politicians, David Attenborough, the world news have convinced me.  We have a problem.

Whats the solution.

Anyone who says, seperate your rubbish and try and reuse plastic bags, will lose any sympathy as clearly, thats no where  near enough.

Do we need to stop burning fossil fuel?  Are wooden products now a thing of the past?

What are 10 out of 10 of us signing up to?


----------



## clubchamp98 (Aug 11, 2021)

bluewolf said:



			It’s not a conspiracy as such. It’s vested interests opaquely funding media outlets that peddle disinformation as a way of diluting the discussion.
It’s been done before with the smoking lobby. It’s been widely reported on regarding the Oil and Gas industry.
All they need to do is persuade a small amount that the science is debatable. Then we spend the next 10 years discussing whether Climate Change is real rather than what needs to be done….

Oh, and FWIW, the solution to the car industry isn’t just electric cars. It’s stopping people using a car at all. WFH, trains, buses etc are the actual solution.
		
Click to expand...

I think the COVID pandemic has put a nail in the coffin of public transport.
Anyone who can afford a car will still have one.


----------



## SocketRocket (Aug 11, 2021)

bluewolf said:



			It’s not a conspiracy as such. It’s vested interests opaquely funding media outlets that peddle disinformation as a way of diluting the discussion.
It’s been done before with the smoking lobby. It’s been widely reported on regarding the Oil and Gas industry.
All they need to do is persuade a small amount that the science is debatable. Then we spend the next 10 years discussing whether Climate Change is real rather than what needs to be done….

Oh, and FWIW, the solution to the car industry isn’t just electric cars. It’s stopping people using a car at all. WFH, trains, buses etc are the actual solution.
		
Click to expand...

I didn't comment on the car industry.


----------



## funkycoldmedina (Aug 11, 2021)

bluewolf said:



			It’s not a conspiracy as such. It’s vested interests opaquely funding media outlets that peddle disinformation as a way of diluting the discussion.
It’s been done before with the smoking lobby. It’s been widely reported on regarding the Oil and Gas industry.
All they need to do is persuade a small amount that the science is debatable. Then we spend the next 10 years discussing whether Climate Change is real rather than what needs to be done….

Oh, and FWIW, the solution to the car industry isn’t just electric cars. It’s stopping people using a car at all. WFH, trains, buses etc are the actual solution.
		
Click to expand...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000l7q1
This is a great series of podcasts on just that very subject. The blueprint was started by a US PR firm for tobacco and has been rolled out ever since.


----------



## bluewolf (Aug 11, 2021)

SocketRocket said:



			I didn't comment on the car industry.
		
Click to expand...

It was a general comment as part of the wider discussion


----------



## Foxholer (Aug 11, 2021)

bluewolf said:



			...
Oh, and FWIW, the solution to the car industry isn’t just electric cars. It’s stopping people using a car at all. WFH, trains, buses etc are the actual solution.
		
Click to expand...

The practicality of cars is such that complete elimination of them is 99.9999% impossible! Making them considerably less harmful to the environment can  certainly be done though. And making them electric is not the 'final' solution as a considerable amount of the electricity production is from environmentally harmful methods. BMW tried to produce Hydrogen fueled vehicles (where 'waste/exhaust' is water), but never succeeded sufficiently for them be commercially viable. I believe it's still an option though.


----------



## Crumplezone (Aug 11, 2021)

SocketRocket said:



			I agree, there are few global problems that wouldn't be improved by a big reduction in Homo Sapiens.
		
Click to expand...

Reducing birth rates seems like by far the simplest and cheapest solution to massively reducing excessive global consumption. For some reason though, we don't seem to be allowed to talk about it. Even though it would be easily achievable without forcing anyone to do anything. Better education and improved access to contraception would be an excellent start.


----------



## bluewolf (Aug 11, 2021)

Crumplezone said:



			Reducing birth rates seems like by far the simplest and cheapest solution to massively reducing excessive global consumption. For some reason though, we don't seem to be allowed to talk about it. Even though it would be easily achievable without forcing anyone to do anything. Better education and improved access to contraception would be an excellent start.
		
Click to expand...

Because significantly reducing populations, both locally and globally would most likely result in either a never ending worldwide recession, and/or possibly the collapse of most financial institutions globally.


----------



## BiMGuy (Aug 11, 2021)

bluewolf said:



			Because significantly reducing populations, both locally and globally would most likely result in either a never ending worldwide recession, and/or possibly the collapse of most financial institutions globally.
		
Click to expand...

Ah well. Best carry on as we are then.


----------



## bluewolf (Aug 11, 2021)

BiMGuy said:



			Ah well. Best carry on as we are then.
		
Click to expand...

That’s the decision that some will make, yes.


----------



## Foxholer (Aug 11, 2021)

stefanovic said:



			Trees represent nearly all the biomass of our planet...
		
Click to expand...

Well, about 80%; certainly 'most' but a bit of an exaggeration, imo, to say 'nearly all'. FWIW, bacteria are the next largest category.


stefanovic said:



			This idea is completely wrong. Politicians as custodians of our planet - don't make me laugh.
		
Click to expand...

Totally agree - and that's the reason why making progress on 'protecting the environment' is so tediously slow!


stefanovic said:



			Trees are there for an ecological purpose to help ensure our survival.
		
Click to expand...

That's probably simply badly worded but, taken as written, their 'purpose' isn't to help endure our survival (that would mean they were specifically crerated to do so)..it's the fact that they do what they do that allows us to survive!


stefanovic said:



_An even more inconvenient truth is global population_ and for some reason it's never discussed in the media.
		
Click to expand...

_Agreed_ - though it has certainly been 'discussed'; simply not so actively.


stefanovic said:



			Covid itself would not have flourished had numbers been much less.
The link between Covid and climate change.
		
Click to expand...

There have been pandemics when numbers were much less. Not all 'global' simply because our ability to travel/transport has increased so much!
I'm not aware of any link between (the existence or spread of) Covid and climate change. Though apparently climate change has (pretty understandably) slowed during the pandemic.


stefanovic said:



			An awkward truth lies still beyond. It is not Darwinian to vaccinate against a virus. It merely stores up an even bigger problem for the future.
The reason we are here today is because evolution is based upon unimaginable cruelty and suffering from the past.
		
Click to expand...

H'mm. I disagree with most of this rant!


stefanovic said:



			It is believed that 99% of species from the past are now extinct. By our actions we are accelerating towards the demise of ourselves.
		
Click to expand...

 But I totally agree with this!
The sooner politicians also agree and find a way to stop/reverse it the better! It really does have to start with their acceptance of the problem!


----------



## SocketRocket (Aug 11, 2021)

bluewolf said:



			Because significantly reducing populations, both locally and globally would most likely result in either a never ending worldwide recession, and/or possibly the collapse of most financial institutions globally.
		
Click to expand...

I think you base that assumption on demand remaining high and production low. If the population is smaller then demand should also be lower thus creating fiscal equilibrium.


----------



## bluewolf (Aug 11, 2021)

SocketRocket said:



			I think you base that assumption on demand remaining high and production low. If the population is smaller then demand should also be lower thus creating fiscal equilibrium.
		
Click to expand...

It’s not a supply/demand equation (IMO). It’s a function of a system that requires an ever increasing amount of debt to maintain itself. It’ll fall over long before any equilibrium is reached.


----------



## SocketRocket (Aug 11, 2021)

bluewolf said:



			It’s not a supply/demand equation (IMO). It’s a function of a system that requires an ever increasing amount of debt to maintain itself. It’ll fall over long before any equilibrium is reached.
		
Click to expand...

It can't fall over, what ever happens then market forces will apply.  It's very much a demand and supply system.   I can't understand how you fail to accept a country with a smaller population can't function well, many small populations manage very well, it's the huge populations that use poverty to prop up their economies.


----------



## Hobbit (Aug 11, 2021)

SocketRocket said:



			It can't fall over, what ever happens then market forces will apply.  It's very much a demand and supply system.   I can't understand how you fail to accept a country with a smaller population can't function well, many small populations manage very well, it's the huge populations that use poverty to prop up their economies.
		
Click to expand...

If a debt is X, requiring Y to service the debt and Y becomes Y - W how is the debt serviced?

Debt repayments can be rescheduled, and QE applied but if every country is doing the same the banks will suffer.


----------



## patricks148 (Aug 11, 2021)

Guys let's not let this one go the same way as some of the political threads agree to disagree and move on, excepting some have a different opinion.


----------



## SocketRocket (Aug 11, 2021)

Hobbit said:



			If a debt is X, requiring Y to service the debt and Y becomes Y - W how is the debt serviced?

Debt repayments can be rescheduled, and QE applied but if every country is doing the same the banks will suffer.
		
Click to expand...

I don't believe anyone has suggested debts don't need servicing, debt is a means to make money from people wanting to borrow, its scalable.   Why would a smaller population make any difference.


----------



## SocketRocket (Aug 11, 2021)

patricks148 said:



			Guys let's not let this one go the same way as some of the political threads agree to disagree and move on, excepting some have a different opinion.
		
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting the subject shouldn't be debated, surely that's what a Forum exists for as long as the discussion is civilised.


----------



## patricks148 (Aug 11, 2021)

SocketRocket said:



			Are you suggesting the subject shouldn't be debated, surely that's what a Forum exists for as long as the discussion is civilised.
		
Click to expand...

I'm suggesting you keep it civil and except that you won't always agree with others rather than it decend in to bickering.


----------



## bluewolf (Aug 11, 2021)

SocketRocket said:



			It can't fall over, what ever happens then market forces will apply.  It's very much a demand and supply system.   I can't understand how you fail to accept a country with a smaller population can't function well, many small populations manage very well, it's the huge populations that use poverty to prop up their economies.
		
Click to expand...

Smaller populations can manage perfectly fine. Unless they were once significantly larger populations. You’re not making a reasonable comparison. You’re attempting to compare a smaller population to another, larger one. The comparison should be a smaller population to itself 20 years earlier when it was significantly larger.

Your description of a manageable, scalable economy also presupposes that the start point is under control and stable. I think it would be incredibly generous to consider most Western economies as stable over the last 20 years. If we take the EU as an example, then it would take an act of almost world record cognitive dissonance from some quarters to claim that the EU was a stable economy whilst simultaneously being so unstable as to require an immediate distancing from it by the UK (Apologies to the Mods for referencing the B word). 

As per Patrick’s request, I’ll refrain from continuing down this pathway. It was fun though 👍


----------



## Hobbit (Aug 11, 2021)

SocketRocket said:



			I don't believe anyone has suggested debts don't need servicing, debt is a means to make money from people wanting to borrow, its scalable.   Why would a smaller population make any difference.
		
Click to expand...

Smaller population = less tax revenue. And govts don’t sell a product. Recession sees more people needing support, and from less people paying tax. Businesses can scale back but social services would need more.


----------



## Foxholer (Aug 11, 2021)

SocketRocket said:



			I don't believe anyone has suggested debts don't need servicing, debt is a means to make money from people wanting to borrow, its scalable.   *Why would a smaller population make any difference*.
		
Click to expand...

Smaller population infers fewer people wanting to borrow or wanting to borrow less as fewer people to provide goods/services to. So profit is likely to be smaller - which would not go down very well with investors. Just compare profits of companies (banks particularly) in countries with small populations vs countries with large populations!


----------



## SocketRocket (Aug 11, 2021)

Hobbit said:



			Smaller population = less tax revenue. And govts don’t sell a product. Recession sees more people needing support, and from less people paying tax. Businesses can scale back but social services would need more.
		
Click to expand...

Why can't Social services scale back to serve a smaller population.
Smaller population = Lower demand for services.   This was a hypothetical discussion around smaller populations verses large ones.  The point I was making was that smaller populations diminish world resources less and as such are better for the environment.   Large populations are the powerhouses for carbon emissions, of course we can't wave a magic wand and suddenly vanish half the world's population but there is no doubt in my mind that overpopulation is what has to change, fiddling with the deckchairs won't work as the bows already underwater.


----------



## SocketRocket (Aug 11, 2021)

Foxholer said:



			Smaller population infers fewer people wanting to borrow or wanting to borrow less as fewer people to provide goods/services to. So profit is likely to be smaller - which would not go down very well with investors. Just compare profits of companies (banks particularly) in countries with small populations vs countries with large populations!
		
Click to expand...

Were talking of what's killing the planet here. If there's any chance of saving it it's not going to be by making big profits, quite the contrary.     Would doubling the world's population make us all better off financially or ecologically?


----------



## bluewolf (Aug 11, 2021)

I think we all agree that the World population has to shrink. It’s the ramifications of doing it that is under discussion.
FWIW, this is exactly where the underlying theory of Marxism comes into its own 😉


----------



## SocketRocket (Aug 11, 2021)

bluewolf said:



			I think we all agree that the World population has to shrink. It’s the ramifications of doing it that is under discussion.
FWIW, this is exactly where the underlying theory of Marxism comes into its own 😉
		
Click to expand...

 I thought it was the state controlling the means of production.


----------



## bluewolf (Aug 11, 2021)

SocketRocket said:



			I thought it was the state controlling the means of production.
		
Click to expand...

Long time since I’ve looked at it, but my takeaway was that the end result of any functioning society was a form of communism.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Aug 11, 2021)

48.8 deg C in Sicily today (and that will have been in the shade) - an all time record high for Europe.  Not supposed to be this hot in Europe.  Plus serious wild fires in southern France and many parts of Greece and Turkey.  Not good.


----------



## stefanovic (Aug 12, 2021)

48 degrees is like a furnace. I've been in 42, and that was almost unbearable even in the shade.
Future holiday destinations might not be the Med.
Iceland, Greenland might actually be more attractive.


----------



## BiMGuy (Aug 12, 2021)

stefanovic said:



			48 degrees is like a furnace. I've been in 42, and that was almost unbearable even in the shade.
Future holiday destinations might not be the Med.
Iceland, Greenland might actually be more attractive.
		
Click to expand...

That is certainly very warm. But a furnace is 1000 degrees C.


----------



## stefanovic (Aug 12, 2021)

I was using a metaphor.


----------



## Hobbit (Aug 12, 2021)

BiMGuy said:



			That is certainly very warm. But a furnace is 1000 degrees C.
		
Click to expand...

Hair.
Use.
For the splitting of.


----------



## IainP (Aug 12, 2021)

I know we should look at trends and not isolated events but I was fascinated by the heat, triggering a pressure change, which caused tidal flooding etc.

https://m.murciatoday.com/rare-mediterranean-tsunami-hits-guardamar-and-santa-pola_1630695-a.html

https://news-logics.com/alicante-hi...wave-in-the-sahara-and-the-british-face-47-c/

(2nd link esp for GB72 😁)


----------



## SocketRocket (Aug 12, 2021)

IainP said:



			I know we should look at trends and not isolated events but I was fascinated by the heat, triggering a pressure change, which caused tidal flooding etc.

https://m.murciatoday.com/rare-mediterranean-tsunami-hits-guardamar-and-santa-pola_1630695-a.html

https://news-logics.com/alicante-hi...wave-in-the-sahara-and-the-british-face-47-c/

(2nd link esp for GB72 😁)
		
Click to expand...

"According to the Climatology department of the University of Alicante, this phenomenon typically occurs in the Balearic Islands, but it has been known to happen in the Costa Blanca before"


----------



## Swinglowandslow (Aug 12, 2021)

stefanovic said:



			Trees represent nearly all the biomass of our planet and we think they are there for our exploitation, as favoured by all political and religious parties.
This idea is completely wrong. Politicians as custodians of our planet - don't make me laugh.
Trees are there for an ecological purpose to help ensure our survival. They suck carbon out of the atmosphere from CO2 and then expel its oxygen. They cool the planet as opposed to man made structures which warm the planet. Cities are always warmer than the surrounding countryside.
It's true that trees are not the only carbon sinks. The oceans also play a big part.

An even more inconvenient truth is global population and for some reason it's never discussed in the media.
Covid itself would not have flourished had numbers been much less. The link between Covid and climate change.

An awkward truth lies still beyond. It is not Darwinian to vaccinate against a virus. It merely stores up an even bigger problem for the future.
The reason we are here today is because evolution is based upon unimaginable cruelty and suffering from the past.
It is believed that 99% of species from the past are now extinct. By our actions we are accelerating towards the demise of ourselves.
		
Click to expand...

You are right about trees.
I have said for the last 20 yrs or more that things will get so bad that there will be giant mirrors ( or similar) put into orbit so that the rain forests ( what remains of them🙄) receive
daylight for almost 24 hrs per day.
(When it is dark, the carbon dioxide/oxygen exchange is reversed.)


----------



## stefanovic (Aug 13, 2021)

Great wall of trees across Africa.

Growing the Great Green Wall | Tree Aid

But will there be enough rain to sustain them??


----------



## Beezerk (Aug 13, 2021)

stefanovic said:



			Great wall of trees across Africa.

Growing the Great Green Wall | Tree Aid

But will there be enough rain to sustain them??
		
Click to expand...

You'd sort of hope they'd have thought of that before planting the trees 😆


----------



## Crumplezone (Aug 13, 2021)

bluewolf said:



			Because significantly reducing populations, both locally and globally would most likely result in either a never ending worldwide recession, and/or possibly the collapse of most financial institutions globally.
		
Click to expand...

The alternative seems to be spending countless billions on other extremely expensive and often contrived measures to reduce emissions and compensate for the effects of climate change. I don't think any economic arguments against reducing population growth hold any water whatsoever. Also money and wealth is a completely arbitrary concept and can be redefined at any time if there is a will. Unfortunately most governments are in the pockets of corporations and wealthy individuals who depend on the supply of cheap labour from people continuing to breed at the same rate.  Even groups such as Extinction Rebellion, who some consider extreme, completely ignore the obvious fact that it's people who consume and pollute and no matter how much an individual changes their lifestyle, benefits to the environment are tiny compared to simply not having a child.


----------



## cliveb (Aug 13, 2021)

Any attempt to deal with the issue needs to address some basic truths:
1. You're not going to stop people breeding.
2. You're not going to stop people in the developing world wanting the kind of stuff we have in the first world.
Both of these issues inevitably mean that energy use will increase. The only way to prevent that is to engineer a collapse of civilisation, because you're not going to change human nature.

3. The world is run by huge corporations for profit. Governments can't change that unless you revert to totalitarian states.

So: the world will need more energy, and the companies providing it are run for profit, with little regard to the future consequences.
Nothing will change until renewables are cheaper than fossil fuels (getting there), and we find an efficient way to store energy (a work in progress).
When that happens, the profit motive will effect the required change.
Let's hope it comes before there is a complete climate catastrophe.


----------



## SocketRocket (Aug 13, 2021)

cliveb said:



			Any attempt to deal with the issue needs to address some basic truths:
1. You're not going to stop people breeding.
2. You're not going to stop people in the developing world wanting the kind of stuff we have in the first world.
Both of these issues inevitably mean that energy use will increase. The only way to prevent that is to engineer a collapse of civilisation, because you're not going to change human nature.

3. The world is run by huge corporations for profit. Governments can't change that unless you revert to totalitarian states.

So: the world will need more energy, and the companies providing it are run for profit, with little regard to the future consequences.
Nothing will change until renewables are cheaper than fossil fuels (getting there), and we find an efficient way to store energy (a work in progress).
When that happens, the profit motive will effect the required change.
Let's hope it comes before there is a complete climate catastrophe.
		
Click to expand...

People may decide to have less children if they are incentivised,


----------



## Crumplezone (Aug 14, 2021)

cliveb said:



			Any attempt to deal with the issue needs to address some basic truths:
1. You're not going to stop people breeding.
		
Click to expand...

There would seem to be huge scope to improve sex education and access to contraception to reduce birth rates. Even in so called developed countries like the UK and USA. Providing financial incentives to have fewer children is a tricky one as it could unfairly target poor families. As the current 2 child benefit cap in the UK that exists specifically for that reason. Many people can now see the environmental impact of an ever increasing population and are choosing to have fewer children. However many, including environmental activists such as Extinction Rebellion as I mentioned, seem to be completely blind to it. More widespread awareness of this would have a big impact too I think.


----------



## bobmac (Aug 14, 2021)

cliveb said:



			Nothing will change until renewables are cheaper than fossil fuels (*getting there*), and we find an efficient way to store energy (a work in progress).
When that happens, the profit motive will effect the required change.
Let's hope it comes before there is a complete climate catastrophe.
		
Click to expand...


_''The world’s best solar power schemes now offer the “cheapest…electricity in history” with the technology cheaper than coal and gas in most major countries.''
https://www.carbonbrief.org/solar-is-now-cheapest-electricity-in-history-confirms-iea_


----------



## stefanovic (Aug 14, 2021)

cliveb said:



			You're not going to stop people breeding.
		
Click to expand...

Science is a big player in helping people live longer to fuel the population explosion.
Incredibly, science is anti-Darwinian.
It also helps develop technology to fell trees far more efficiently.
In the last few thousand years we have lost 3 trillion trees from this planet.




			You're not going to stop people in the developing world wanting the kind of stuff we have in the first world.
		
Click to expand...

I don't blame them. 
Politicians, theologians, industrialists claim that planet Earth is for our exploitation as stewards of this planet. 
They could not be more wrong.




			Both of these issues inevitably mean that energy use will increase. The only way to prevent that is to engineer a collapse of civilisation, because you're not going to change human nature.
		
Click to expand...

We should stop thinking about economic growth, and start thinking how we can actually shrink the economy.
I can only see a happier world if we do.




			The world is run by huge corporations for profit. Governments can't change that unless you revert to totalitarian states.
		
Click to expand...

We need a new world order, with a central government for all mankind.
But that is wishful thinking.




			So: the world will need more energy, and the companies providing it are run for profit, with little regard to the future consequences.
Nothing will change until renewables are cheaper than fossil fuels (getting there), and we find an efficient way to store energy (a work in progress).
When that happens, the profit motive will effect the required change.
Let's hope it comes before there is a complete climate catastrophe.
		
Click to expand...

There is a price to be paid for everything.
Like a smoker who realises too late that his addiction has caused severe health problems.


----------



## cliveb (Aug 14, 2021)

Crumplezone said:



			There would seem to be huge scope to improve sex education and access to contraception to reduce birth rates.
		
Click to expand...

The biggest impact on birth rates would be from the emancipation of women to choose how many children they have. Luckily this is beginning to happen in Asia. Hans Rosling presented a very interesting lecture on the future of population growth in which he predicted world population would peak around 10-11 billion.



bobmac said:



_''The world’s best solar power schemes now offer the “cheapest…electricity in history” with the technology cheaper than coal and gas in most major countries.''
https://www.carbonbrief.org/solar-is-now-cheapest-electricity-in-history-confirms-iea_

Click to expand...

Well, yes, that's why I said we're getting there. The fact that solar is now cheaper than fossil fuels in some places doesn't mean it's yet a feasible full-scale global replacement. If it was genuinely cheaper, don't you think China would have stopped building coal-fired power stations?
And we still have the problem of how to store the excess energy from renewables. I can't see how batteries can do the job on a large scale, unless there's a radical breakthrough that eliminates the need for rare elements in their construction. Lithium might be the third most abundant element in the universe, but there's not very much of it on planet Earth.

I'm personally a big believer in green hydrogen. It can be converted to and from ammonia for ease of storage and transport.
Replacing natural gas with hydrogen for domestic heating seems a better option than the air source heat pumps that some are pushing (and which are inappropriate for most of the UK's current housing stock).
Hydrogen fuel cell based cars would eliminate range anxiety - although of course getting it distributed to filling stations might be a challenge. I sometimes wonder if the push for pure electric cars is a short-sighted stopgap, a bit like the low energy fluorescent bulbs we had for a few years before the obviously better LEDs became ubiquitous.


----------



## bobmac (Aug 14, 2021)

There are over 1.4bn people in China and they need a lot of energy which can't be provided by renewables alone but things are changing.

_''China is also the world’s most prolific producer of wind energy, with the capacity to make more than twice as much as the second-largest generator, the United States. And it has about one-third of the world’s solar-generation capacity, building more systems last year than any other country.''_

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02464-5

As for Hydrogen, it's just too expensive and it's about 10 years behind Evs as far as production and infrastructure. You mention eliminating range anxiety which it will, as long as you live close to one of the dozen or so chargers in the Uk
100km in a Hydrogen car ... £11.40
100km in a diesel car.......... £6.72
100km in an EV ................. £2.79

As I've said many times, we're not there yet and EVs aren't suitable for everyone but you only have to watch the car adverts on TV to see what the manufactures are pushing.

It's also interesting how you saw ''_cheaper than coal and gas in *most major countries.*''_  but wrote ''solar is now cheaper than fossil fuels in *some places*''


----------



## SocketRocket (Aug 14, 2021)

bobmac said:



			There are over 1.4bn people in China and they need a lot of energy which can't be provided by renewables alone but things are changing.

_''China is also the world’s most prolific producer of wind energy, with the capacity to make more than twice as much as the second-largest generator, the United States. And it has about one-third of the world’s solar-generation capacity, building more systems last year than any other country.''_

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02464-5

As for Hydrogen, it's just too expensive and it's about 10 years behind Evs as far as production and infrastructure. You mention eliminating range anxiety which it will, as long as you live close to one of the dozen or so chargers in the Uk
100km in a Hydrogen car ... £11.40
100km in a diesel car.......... £6.72
100km in an EV ................. £2.79

As I've said many times, we're not there yet and EVs aren't suitable for everyone but you only have to watch the car adverts on TV to see what the manufactures are pushing.

It's also interesting how you saw ''_cheaper than coal and gas in *most major countries.*''_  but wrote ''solar is now cheaper than fossil fuels in *some places*''
		
Click to expand...

I don't believe the efficiency of EVs is the important factor, it how to provide enough clean energy and infrastructure to support them on mass.  There may only be a small number of hydrogen chargers in the UK but it's not a massive task to create them in large numbers, existing fuel stations could be easily converted.  The main advantage is that you can simply pull up, top up and go just like petrol or diesel.  The stumping block right now seems to be extracting the hydrogen from things it's stuck to which probably can't be any harder than trying to create the charging and electricity generation for existing EVs


----------



## bobmac (Aug 14, 2021)

SocketRocket said:



			I don't believe the efficiency of EVs is the important factor, it how to provide enough clean energy and infrastructure to support them on mass.
		
Click to expand...

There's not going to be a massive increase of EVs overnight.

_''The UK’s national grid will be able to cope with the mass adoption of EVs by 2030, even with the public charging network also growing exponentially by then.''
https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/electric-cars/uk-national-grid-can-handle-ev-surge-experts-say_



SocketRocket said:



			There may only be a small number of hydrogen chargers in the UK but it's not a massive task to create them in large numbers, existing fuel stations could be easily converted.
		
Click to expand...

Can I refuel my hydrogen car at home, or at the golf club, or at work or at Lidls? And would you pay £2.60 per litre for it. Assuming you can afford the car in the first place (which start around £65,995)



SocketRocket said:



			The main advantage is that you can simply pull up, top up and go just like petrol or diesel.
		
Click to expand...

If you can find one.



SocketRocket said:



			The stumping block right now seems to be extracting the hydrogen from things it's stuck to which probably can't be any harder than trying to create the charging and electricity generation for existing EVs
		
Click to expand...

I've already got electricity at home

https://www.anthropocenemagazine.or...drogen-fuel-from-seawater/page/5/?el_dbe_page


----------



## cliveb (Aug 14, 2021)

bobmac said:



			There are over 1.4bn people in China and they need a lot of energy which can't be provided by renewables alone but things are changing.
		
Click to expand...

Agreed 100%

If you recall, I said renewables are "getting there" and you responded with a link to a paper that states solar is cheaper than coal - which I took to mean that you believe we are already there. The simple fact that the country doing possibly the most to move into renewables is still having to build coal-fired power stations to meet demand suggests to me that we aren't there yet.



bobmac said:



			As for Hydrogen, it's just too expensive and it's about 10 years behind Evs as far as production and infrastructure. You mention eliminating range anxiety which it will, as long as you live close to one of the dozen or so chargers in the Uk
100km in a Hydrogen car ... £11.40
100km in a diesel car.......... £6.72
100km in an EV ................. £2.79
		
Click to expand...

Bob, you're arguing the case from the way things are today. Yes, using hydrogen isn't feasible right now, and in fact at the moment nearly all of it is produced using an environmentally disastrous process that emits huge quantities of CO2.

But the solution to the impending climate catastrophe has to be a long term one. Going entirely electric isn't appropriate in all situations. I'm suggesting that green hydrogen (perhaps converted into ammonia for the purposes of storage and transportation) might be a sensible approach for the energy requirements of some sectors, such as long-range transport and domestic heating.


----------



## Bunkermagnet (Aug 14, 2021)

Perhaps it's just me, but why does it seem the whole cliamte fight soley aimed at the car?
How about we start to examine our desire to replace everything electrical every 2 or 3 years, throwing things away because its "cheaper by comparison".
Lets stop buying the cheapest junk clothes that last only last 2 minutes, lets "make do and mend" as was the way years ago, or is that sort of thing not fitting in with the car bashing currently endemic everywhere.
Concentrating on the car  and the drive for EV is not going to solve the problem or bring more people into a better way forward. There needs to be a complete rethink and approach by society in regards to the throw away mentality.
Anyway, I'm sure many will disagree as the car is the whole reason for the climate problem.


----------



## bobmac (Aug 14, 2021)

cliveb said:



			But the solution to the impending climate catastrophe has to be a long term one. Going entirely electric isn't appropriate in all situations. I'm suggesting that green hydrogen (perhaps converted into ammonia for the purposes of storage and transportation) might be a sensible approach for the energy requirements of some sectors, such as long-range transport and domestic heating.
		
Click to expand...

I agree, hydrogen may be used in larger modes of transport (tankers, ferries, trucks etc) but if the people who love the Internal combustion wont take up an EV which is cheaper to run, there's little to no chance they will want a more expensive solution.
Maybe in 20 years or so, we might see both Ev and Hydrogen vehicles existing together like petrol and diesel do now.
That way, the battery technology can continue to improve which would do wonders for ipad, laptop and moby capacity.
Can you imagine your electric trolley with a sodium-ion battery, charging in minutes and lasting weeks?


----------



## chellie (Aug 14, 2021)

Bunkermagnet said:



			Perhaps it's just me, but why does it seem the whole cliamte fight soley aimed at the car?
How about we start to examine our desire to replace everything electrical every 2 or 3 years, throwing things away because its "cheaper by comparison".
Lets stop buying the cheapest junk clothes that last only last 2 minutes, lets "make do and mend" as was the way years ago, or is that sort of thing not fitting in with the car bashing currently endemic everywhere.
Concentrating on the car  and the drive for EV is not going to solve the problem or bring more people into a better way forward. There needs to be a complete rethink and approach by society in regards to the throw away mentality.
Anyway, I'm sure many will disagree as the car is the whole reason for the climate problem.
		
Click to expand...

Don't forget to add to that anyone who eats meat or consumes dairy products.


----------



## SocketRocket (Aug 15, 2021)

bobmac said:



			There's not going to be a massive increase of EVs overnight.

_''The UK’s national grid will be able to cope with the mass adoption of EVs by 2030, even with the public charging network also growing exponentially by then.''
https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/electric-cars/uk-national-grid-can-handle-ev-surge-experts-say_



Can I refuel my hydrogen car at home, or at the golf club, or at work or at Lidls? And would you pay £2.60 per litre for it. Assuming you can afford the car in the first place (which start around £65,995)



If you can find one.



I've already got electricity at home

https://www.anthropocenemagazine.or...drogen-fuel-from-seawater/page/5/?el_dbe_page

Click to expand...

Your argument against hydrogen electric cars is based on current infrastructure which is not realistic.  Should Hydrogen become plentiful then creating filling stations would be a fairly simple project, also the price per litre would reduce substantially with availability.   The big advantage would be you could use your hydrogen EV in exactly the same way as you use your petrol car.


----------



## bobmac (Aug 15, 2021)

SocketRocket said:



			Your argument against hydrogen electric cars is based on current infrastructure which is not realistic.  Should Hydrogen become plentiful then creating filling stations would be a fairly simple project, also the price per litre would reduce substantially with availability.   The big advantage would be you could use your hydrogen EV in exactly the same way as you use your petrol car.
		
Click to expand...

So while you are building the facilities to create the massive amount of hydrogen needed and buying lorries equipped to transport the pressurised hydrogen and digging big holes in garage forecourts to store the pressurised hydrogen and waiting for the prices to fall for the hydrogen and the cars, what will be happening in the advancement of the EV battery technology and charging infrastructure?
And what will happen to those people who already have EVs and charge at home for pennies?
I'll tell you one thing, powering my electric trolley or my mobile phone by going to the hydrogen station is not going to work.

There are currently over 35,000 car fires in the UK with a technology that is over 100 years old.
How safe are you going to feel with a tank full of hydrogen sitting under your back seat


----------



## SocketRocket (Aug 15, 2021)

bobmac said:



			So while you are building the facilities to create the massive amount of hydrogen needed and buying lorries equipped to transport the pressurised hydrogen and digging big holes in garage forecourts to store the pressurised hydrogen and waiting for the prices to fall for the hydrogen and the cars, what will be happening in the advancement of the EV battery technology and charging infrastructure?
And what will happen to those people who already have EVs and charge at home for pennies?
I'll tell you one thing, powering my electric trolley or my mobile phone by going to the hydrogen station is not going to work.

There are currently over 35,000 car fires in the UK with a technology that is over 100 years old.
How safe are you going to feel with a tank full of hydrogen sitting under your back seat
		
Click to expand...

There's room for both technologies and while you suggest EVs are a game in progress that is evolving you suggest Hydrogen won't work unless it's brought in over night.  People have been driving with LPG tanks for decades without real problems.  Your comment about mobile phones and electric trollies is silly Bob and you know it, we don't run our mobile phones or electric trollies with petrol, so what's the difference.


----------



## bobmac (Aug 15, 2021)

SocketRocket said:



			There's room for both technologies and while you suggest EVs are a game in progress that is evolving you suggest Hydrogen won't work unless it's brought in over night.  People have been driving with LPG tanks for decades without real problems.  Your comment about mobile phones and electric trollies is silly Bob and you know it, we don't run our mobile phones or electric trollies with petrol, so what's the difference.
		
Click to expand...

I didn't suggest that hydrogen should be brought in over night, I was suggesting hydrogen would be playing catchup but about 10 years behind. And who knows how long charging times will come down to in the next 10 years.

And if hydrogen did replace batteries in cars, battery development would probably grind to a halt, meaning no improvements to the current Lithium batteries mined by children used in your trolley.

My biggest problem with hydrogen is you need electricity to produce the hydrogen to produce electricity.
So you use the cheapest cleanest electricity you can find (renewable) which is then used to produce the hydrogen which is stored, transported and delivered to your £65,000 car which generates electricity in the car to power the motor.

Why create a middle man which only increases the cost and CO2*, not to mention storage, transportation and delivery, just put the clean, cheap, safe renewable electricity straight into the car, often while you're at home asleep, at work or shopping.

*  There are two major ways to produce hydrogen today, by steam reformation or by electrolysis. In steam reformation methane is used together with water in order to produce hydrogen and CO2. More than 90 % of the hydrogen produced in the world today is made from fossil input.

https://www.uib.no/en/energy/102468/large-scale-production-hydrogen


----------



## Crumplezone (Aug 15, 2021)

chellie said:



			Don't forget to add to that anyone who eats meat or consumes dairy products.
		
Click to expand...

Not many people seem to be aware of the vast, industrial food growing operations in many parts of the world. They use huge amounts of energy and produce masses of waste plastic. 'Plant based' isn't as good for the environment as many think.


----------



## stefanovic (Aug 15, 2021)

It's astonishing that our addiction to food as promoted by big corporations as well as in books and on TV is a massive factor here.
There is also a big industry in dieting, but commercial diets are never effective.
We are encouraged to eat but healthier people do not eat more.
At one time the rich were fat and the poor were thin, but this has gone into reverse.
Then there's deforestation in the Amazon for cattle farming.


----------



## SocketRocket (Aug 15, 2021)

stefanovic said:



			It's astonishing that our addiction to food as promoted by big corporations as well as in books and on TV is a massive factor here.
There is also a big industry in dieting, but commercial diets are never effective.
We are encouraged to eat but healthier people do not eat more.
At one time the rich were fat and the poor were thin, but this has gone into reverse.
Then there's deforestation in the Amazon for cattle farming.
		
Click to expand...

I thought deforestation was to grow things like palm oil.


----------



## SocketRocket (Aug 15, 2021)

bobmac said:



			I didn't suggest that hydrogen should be brought in over night, I was suggesting hydrogen would be playing catchup but about 10 years behind. And who knows how long charging times will come down to in the next 10 years.

And if hydrogen did replace batteries in cars, battery development would probably grind to a halt, meaning no improvements to the current Lithium batteries mined by children used in your trolley.

My biggest problem with hydrogen is you need electricity to produce the hydrogen to produce electricity.
So you use the cheapest cleanest electricity you can find (renewable) which is then used to produce the hydrogen which is stored, transported and delivered to your £65,000 car which generates electricity in the car to power the motor.

Why create a middle man which only increases the cost and CO2*, not to mention storage, transportation and delivery, just put the clean, cheap, safe renewable electricity straight into the car, often while you're at home asleep, at work or shopping.

*  There are two major ways to produce hydrogen today, by steam reformation or by electrolysis. In steam reformation methane is used together with water in order to produce hydrogen and CO2. More than 90 % of the hydrogen produced in the world today is made from fossil input.

https://www.uib.no/en/energy/102468/large-scale-production-hydrogen

Click to expand...

You're doing it again. You talk about time allowing improved battery development but fail to accept that this time could also develop improved ways of creating and distributing hydrogen.  You also suggest hydrogen powered cars will remain very expensive because they are now, can't you accept their would be economies of scale that would reduce production costs.

As I suggested, there is room for multiple technologies, I would suggest it's not a choice but a necessity.


----------



## bobmac (Aug 15, 2021)

SocketRocket said:



			You're doing it again. You talk about time allowing improved battery development but fail to accept that this time could also develop improved ways of creating and distributing hydrogen.  You also suggest hydrogen powered cars will remain very expensive because they are now, can't you accept their would be economies of scale that would reduce production costs.

As I suggested, there is room for multiple technologies, I would suggest it's not a choice but a necessity.
		
Click to expand...

I'm obviously not typing in English.
I'm out


----------



## Cherry13 (Aug 15, 2021)

Crumplezone said:



			There would seem to be huge scope to improve sex education and access to contraception to reduce birth rates. Even in so called developed countries like the UK and USA. Providing financial incentives to have fewer children is a tricky one as it could unfairly target poor families. As the current 2 child benefit cap in the UK that exists specifically for that reason. Many people can now see the environmental impact of an ever increasing population and are choosing to have fewer children. However many, including environmental activists such as Extinction Rebellion as I mentioned, seem to be completely blind to it. More widespread awareness of this would have a big impact too I think.
		
Click to expand...

Sex education, contraception and better general education for young girls (in particular) in developing countries is really important. But one of the most effective ways to slow down population growth is to tackle and reduce infant mortality rate.  
All of the countries with negative population growth have an infant mortality rate of less than 1%, those with hugely growing populations have infant mortality rates of 9/10%. 

I don’t have the answer for how you achieve it, but seems like something that could be achieved. 

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/child-mortality-vs-population-growth


----------



## Swinglowandslow (Aug 15, 2021)

bobmac said:



			I agree, hydrogen may be used in larger modes of transport (tankers, ferries, trucks etc) but if the people who love the Internal combustion wont take up an EV which is cheaper to run, there's little to no chance they will want a more expensive solution.
Maybe in 20 years or so, we might see both Ev and Hydrogen vehicles existing together like petrol and diesel do now.
That way, the battery technology can continue to improve which would do wonders for ipad, laptop and moby capacity.
Can you imagine your electric trolley with a sodium-ion battery, charging in minutes and lasting weeks?
		
Click to expand...





Your last sentence is interesting. I have long been of the opinion that Governments, et all know something regarding battery technology that most people don't.
There is a reason they are so quick to push EV in the face of apparent insurmountable barriers to massive take up of such vehicles.
Sure, the climate change reports ( and extreme weather events) are big motivators, but I think extraordinary technology on the horizon is known to the powers that be that will make EVs just as available to use as IC vehicles are now. And I mean within as little as 5 years, or even less.
I would not be surprised to be able to take my ev into a converted petrol station and fully recharge my car battery within 5 to 10 minutes -That, or take the small battery indoors to charge up from the domestic supply.
Technology is moving at an astounding rate, and there is no better incentive than the now accepted inevitable climate Armageddon if we don't act now , and drastically.


----------



## stefanovic (Aug 15, 2021)

SocketRocket said:



			I thought deforestation was to grow things like palm oil.
		
Click to expand...

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...deforestation-driven-global-greed-meat-brazil

Palm oil plantations have replaced ancient jungle in places like Malaysia and Indonesia.
Once rich biodiversity gone forever and all to satisfy consumer greed.


----------



## SocketRocket (Aug 15, 2021)

bobmac said:



			I'm obviously not typing in English.
I'm out
		
Click to expand...

I don't fully agree with your viewpoint and I'm giving some alternative possibilities, no need to throw the toys out.


----------



## SocketRocket (Aug 15, 2021)

Swinglowandslow said:



			Your last sentence is interesting. I have long been of the opinion that Governments, et all know something regarding battery technology that most people don't.
There is a reason they are so quick to push EV in the face of apparent insurmountable barriers to massive take up of such vehicles.
Sure, the climate change reports ( and extreme weather events) are big motivators, but I think extraordinary technology on the horizon is known to the powers that be that will make EVs just as available to use as IC vehicles are now. And I mean within as little as 5 years, or even less.
I would not be surprised to be able to take my ev into a converted petrol station and fully recharge my car battery within 5 to 10 minutes -That, or take the small battery indoors to charge up from the domestic supply.
Technology is moving at an astounding rate, and there is no better incentive than the now accepted inevitable climate Armageddon if we don't act now , and drastically.
		
Click to expand...

Was my quote there a typo?  🙂


----------



## Swinglowandslow (Aug 16, 2021)

SocketRocket said:



			Was my quote there a typo?  🙂
		
Click to expand...

Sorry, yes. Didn't see it there until just now. It must have snuck in😁


----------

