Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Orsino

  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 pay?', I reckon there are two primary groups. Firstly those (like the Federation of German Industries) who see de-carbonisation as an investment in innovation and energy efficiency. Secondly, those who do not wish to adapt their lifestyles for whatever reason - like the dwindling number who still wish to smoke cigarettes, or drive their car into central London, or collect arm-fulls of plastic bags. Ultimately, no one's stopping them unless their activity directly impacts others. They'll pay, and subsidise the rest of us. Their choice.
  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 living. The bicycle alone saves me about £800 a year and was bought with a government cycle-to-work subsidy. The environmental benefit is most often a secondary concern. I see it as similar to my decision to give up smoking - something the government encouraged rather than forced me to do, and which I saw as in my own best interests. Each individual is going to have different options and choices. Yes, I have to pay 5p for a plastic bag a handful of times a year. But, no one is forcing me to buy an electric car. No one is forcing me to install a ground heat pump. No one is forcing me to become vegan. No one is forcing me to eat worms and insects. And no one is forcing you to either.
  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 bin bags to put your rubbish in. Has it occurred to you that such intransigence is exactly why Extinction Rebellion exists in the first place? Incidentally my council provide recycling bags free of charge, including compostable bags for food waste. You should write to your local authority if they are failing to provide the same to you.
  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 car; it's what comes out the exhaust that matters - and we all have to cope with that in the form of pollution. If electric cars do not make economic sense then people are not going to buy them. More taxes? Well I'm not fond of paying more tax either, but if they are carefully designed to change behaviour rather than grab extra revenue then I'm all in favour. The plastic bag 'tax' has reduced use by 85% by charging just 5p.
  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. That said, the report makes it clear that dramatic reductions in emissions can be achieved not only with very little pain for consumers but actually with net economic benefits. The bigger the economic benefit the faster the change, so it's a win-win in that respect. This is more about investment than cost. And in an age when the UK government seem to spend billions on all sorts of reckless projects, this in contrast would be very worthwhile, both economically and environmentally.
  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 push the boundaries of foreseeable technological feasibility and current social acceptance.' They study says there could be 'game changers' in terms of technology, such as carbon capture. Extinction Rebellion would equally argue that there should be game changers in terms of social acceptance. Let's hope so on both counts. Regarding the cost: "Cost-effective attainment of the climate paths, from today’s perspective and compared against a scenario without additional focus on emission reductions, would require an overall additional investment of €1.5 trillion to 2.3 trillion by 2050, including about €530 billion to continue existing efforts in the current policies path. This corresponds to average additional annual investments of around 1.2 to 1.8 percent of Germany’s gross domestic product (GDP) through 2050. The additional direct costs after deduction of energy savings would amount to around €470 billion to 960 billion by 2050 (roughly €15 billion to 30 billion per year). Thereof, approximately €240 billion would need to be spent on existing efforts." I don't know where your €7.6 trillion estimate comes from, and that may relate to a total decarbonisation of the German economy. This BDI study was conducted by the Boston Consulting Group. “We are talking about investment, not additional cost,” explained BCG Managing Director Philipp Gerbert. He said the study does not take into account the cost of inaction on climate change, such as adaptation costs. “Even without the external costs of climate change, we arrive at a slightly positive effect on the economy – that’s sensationally good news,” Now of course this is a study, albeit from very credible sources. It does not address total decarbonisation. If we were to increase the rate and extent of decarbonisation I'm sure costs would increase significantly. But that's where the debate needs to be and changing 'current social acceptance' to the urgency of the issue is an important element of that - in fact it would no doubt make industry's job a lot easier.
  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.
  15. Oh yes, your 'fact' of tens of thousands of scientists at thousands of academic institutions around the world conspiring secretly together to falsify the data on man made climate change and obscure the truth, which only self-declared 'idiot trolls' like yourself know? Politifake.org - which sounds exactly the kind of place I'd expect you to get your swivel-eyed theories - doesn't even seem to exist. And the cFact.org article you cite is written by a lawyer and professional poker player. Face it, you're a busted flush.
  16. By all means actually read the article, written by someone with masters degrees in environmental science from Yale University and Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. And then click on the links within that article to the individual papers, such as Holocene Thinning of the Greenland Ice Sheet by Vinther et al of the Centre for Ice and Climate at the University of Copenhagen - and then perhaps click on the 30 studies referenced by that one paper, such as Rasmussen's A New Greenland Ice Core Chronology for the Last Glacial Termination and Marcott et al A Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11,300 Years. You were the one who brought up the Greenland Ice Sheet Project. The project is funded by Denmark, Switzerland and the US, so you could at least read their own findings. All these professional scientists, from all these institutions, drilling cores in the Greenland ice cap, collecting data, analyzing the results, publishing their findings, challenging each other's conclusions, all this combined scientific knowledge - versus some random posters on the House Price Crash website forum.
  17. "This modern temperature reconstruction, combined with observational records over the past century, shows that current temperatures in Greenland are warmer than any period in the past 2,000 years. That said, they are likely still cooler than during the early part of the current geological epoch – the Holocene – which started around 11,000 years ago. However, warming is expected to continue in the future as human actions continue to emit greenhouse gases, primarily from the combustion of fossil fuels. Climate models project that if emissions continue, by 2050, Greenland temperatures will exceed anything seen since the last interglacial period, around 125,000 years ago." https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-what-greenland-ice-cores-say-about-past-and-present-climate-change
  18. We have Antarctic ice core data on the composition of the atmosphere currently going back 800,000 years. The data available to science is far greater than modern temperature readings.
  19. You can't dispute the data so you dispute the scientists. You can't dispute the scientists so you dispute the organisations that fund the research. You can't dispute the research so you dispute the activists. You can't dispute the activists so you witter on about racism. Truly you are the bottom of the barrel.
  20. Some unaccredited guy on Youtube is just the 21st Century equivalent of a bloke in the pub. Do I believe them over the global scientific consensus? Nope. I'm inclined to believe the Copernicus Climate Change Service (EU), the National Snow and Ice Data Center (US) The World Meteorological Organization (UN) and the French Weather Service quoted in that Gizmodo article.
  21. The fact that XR have been described as both Marxist and wealthy Middle Class on the same page suggests to me that they are neither and both. Despite the best efforts to pigeon-hole the climate crisis into some narrow political ideology the reality is that it is an international movement that involves a very broad spectrum of people - just as one would expect from a serious issue that affects us all.
  22. The world's population is likely to peak in around 2070 at around 12 billion. Just how high the global population goes depends on the deceleration in the birth rate in developing economies - particularly sub-Saharan Africa. The decline in birth rates is very strongly linked to economic development, healthcare and female education. Aid to fund basic healthcare and education can only go so far. Our collective interests to help those developing economies advance as quickly as possible. It's a simple and well established globalisation mechanism - The developing economy benefits from access to wealthy markets and increased domestic prosperity. The developed economy benefits from cheaper goods and increased demand from a new export market. There are potential downsides - which is why it often takes a decade to negotiate these trade deals - but we do not keep ourselves prosperous by keeping other people poor, and we are not going to modify the behaviour of countries struggling out of poverty by refusing to trade with them. There are other policy that has come even close is China's One Child Policy, Pol Pot's Year Zero and Hitler's Final Solution, but I think they fail the 'reasonable' test by quite some margin.
  23. We buy the stuff produced by those polluting factories in China. They ship it over here and, until fairly recently, we used to ship it back again when we'd finished with it to be stuck in a Chinese landfill. Still, the UK has made progress, particularly on renewable energy production. Personally I think globalisation is essential to solve the crisis. The living standards of poor nations needs to be rapidly increased, particularly in Sub Saharan Africa, to slow the growth in global population. That is best achieved by trade and so import tariffs should not be used in a way that would stymie this.
  24. I also think it would be fantastic for everyone if XR was unnecessary. Far better for politicians globally to listen to the science and take appropriate and proportional action. Instead we have Trump promoting coal mining and doubting the damaging impact of CFCs on the ozone layer. He lies to people who don't know the facts. He uses their fear and self-interest to manipulate them. He does it because he cares only about their votes in the next election and not about their children's futures in the next century. To the UK's credit we have all but eliminated coal power stations when once we were the Dirty Man of Europe. I believe it was that famous Marxist Margret Thatcher who started the process - because what makes sustainable environmental sense makes economic sense too. Many regarded her as unreasonable in the manner and speed with which she did it but what 'reasonable' meant in the minds of many of her critics was to do absolutely nothing.
  • 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.