Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Orsino

Members
  • Content Count

    2,040
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Orsino

  • Rank
    HPC Veteran

Profile Information

  • Location
    x

Recent Profile Visitors

1,211 profile views
  1. Even Extinction Rebellion is not seeking zero carbon, but net zero greenhouse gas emissions, not least because it is impossible to be 'zero carbon' when carbon in an intrinsic part of all life on Earth. Whoever posed the question how much people were 'willing to spend on making their home and their lifestyle carbon-zero' clearly doesn't understand basic science, or even the concept of balancing inputs and outputs - although you could say the same about pretty much anyone still arguing against the global scientific consensus of man-made climate change. But to answer the question 'who will
  2. As a tenant, my landlord's costs of business are of zero interest to me.
  3. There's a reason why scientists call it Climate Change and not Weather Change.
  4. I rent so am not in a position to modify my home, but I would happily move to a more energy efficient property. I would consider using an energy supplier that promotes renewable energy. I eat less meat than I used to, primarily for economic and health reasons. I do take fewer flights at the moment and would be more inclined to consider if a flight was necessary and worthwhile. I long ago got rid of my car as cycling is a more practical, healthy and economic way for me to get around London. All of these choices SAVE me money and in many cases have a very positive impact on my standard of l
  5. To be honest Kzb, that's not really the point. Extinction Rebellion is an activist movement who seek to change social attitudes and urge a stronger political response to the climate crisis highlighted by the world's scientific community. None of us could possibly know what you could or should personally do as part of what needs to be a co-ordinated global response. None of us has a clue how much it would cost to make your home more energy efficient. You'll have to decide for yourself. But it seems you don't even want to occasionally pay 5p for a plastic bag and resent having to buy your own bi
  6. What has it achieved? Well I've already given you the figure. A 5p charge on plastic bags has reduced use by 85%. That's about 6 billion fewer bags per year, or a reduction per person from 140 bags a year to 25. As you don't live in the UK you may not have notice how successful this policy has been. Of course you are still allowed to use plastic bags if you wish for a tiny fee. You are the first person I've encountered who doesn't think the current flexible but effective policy isn't a huge success.
  7. True, but in the light of the proposed deal yesterday, I just think those that voted Brexit in Northern Ireland are a particularly stark illustration of how this whole process has been conducted by cynical politicians. What they were told and what they voted for are very very different from what they are being given by politicians claiming to represent the 'will of the people'.
  8. That would seem to me to be absolutely spot on. I think this latest deal shows clearly that the people of Northern Ireland who voted Brexit had absolutely no idea what they were voting for. Now their vote has been counted the people who spun them a load of guff about the benefits of Brexit have negotiated a deal they would never ever had agreed to.
  9. Just a thought - did the 350,000 people in Northern Ireland who voted for Brexit know what they were voting for? Did they envisage a situation where they would be partly governed by EU laws over which they had no say? Did they envisage a situation in which there would be some form of customers barrier between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK? Did the foresee the Unionist veto being removed in the Assembly? They must be feeling well and truly shafted.
  10. What do you mean converting your home to being carbon neutral? How is your home producing carbon at the moment? If you've got one of those big oil tanks (some friends of mine have those in the countryside) then I appreciate that would be costly to convert. Mind you, like Agas, I understand they're also very costly to run anyway. We're primarily going to meet these targets by dealing with towns and cities, not the minority of people who live in more remote locations. How would you have to cope with electric cars? No one is being compelled to buy one. Who cares what's under the bonnet of a
  11. Well I suppose in the classic sense that people tend to over-estimate the changes in the short term and under-estimate the changes in the long term, we will hopefully make far greater progress by 2050, but not as much as we would like or expect by 2030. As an activist organisation I'm not surprised to see XR advocating optimistic targets. The 80% by 2050 was once seen as optimistic too. The difference between what is desirable and what is achievable is fundamental but, as always, the sooner we take concerted action the less the overall pain will be. And it must be a concerted global effort.
  12. The decarbonisation of the German economy is not something I usually study KZB, but your posts made me track down this interesting report by the Federation of German Industries (BDI) into that very subject. https://english.bdi.eu/media/presse/presse/downloads/20180308_Climate_Paths_for_Germany_ExecutiveSummary_FINAL.pdf In essence, the are in favour of the policies of decarbonisation. A 61% reduction compared to 1990 levels by 2050 is achievable by continuing current policies. An 80% reduction is seen as feasible provided as significant stepping up of efforts. A 95% reduction 'would
  13. You mean like your link to an article about climate written by a poker player? Yeah, I read that. It's clearly nonsense. I also tried to look up your reference to Politifakes.org but they don't seem to exist. Maybe this is to be expected of a self-declared 'idiot troll'. Regardless, you have zero science to back up your laughable views on climate change.
  14. There is no science on whichever 'side' of the debate you think you fall on, which is why you cite articles written by poker players, not scientists.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.