Cover story on The Times today

[Park Life 71]

Making solar panels for instance creates some of the most dangerous toxic by-products known to man.

Edited October 28, 2009 by Park Life

[My Kids Support Chelsea!! 0]

When staying at the premier inn by team valley this weekend, my wife perused the menu and pointed out to me that the restaurant had only one vegi meal on it. And quite bloody right too I said.

 

I can't stand all the bleating about the poor little fluffy animals and the like. I love Meat. I love Fish. It tastes nice. Would you tell a lion not to savage a zebra? No, you wouldn't. I'm a carnivore , that's the way God (if he exsists - but that's another arguement) made me. Who am I to argue? (no, you're an omnivore, that's how god made you. If god exists he didn't think that EVERYy meal should come with half a kilo of meat)

 

Even worse is all this environmental nonsense. The climate of this planet has been constantly changing for millions of years. It gets hot and it cools down. The water rises and falls. Earthquakes, Volcanoes, Tsunami and Hurricanes have always happened. IMO the evidence for man having an effect on the planet is sketchy at best. I could go further and say that to think that less than 200 years of industrialisation has overturned the previous hundreds of millions of years where nature ruled supreme is, well, a little arrogant on the part of man.

 

I recommend you read this. It's fascinating. If it's too in depth, the over view is:

 

"Science has established that it is

very likely

that ever increasing levels of carbon dioxide emissions from energy plants, other industry, cars, and airplanes along with deforestation

are the crucial factors

that have caused global average temperature increases over recent decades."

The Royal society probably know more on the matter than us lay people, so I tend to trust their informed opinion.

 

And as for recycling, it's just a way of getting money out of you. They introduce it so they can fine you for not doing it. I don't recycle. I've never been fined. Who gets fined?Something like 80% of the recycling we do in the UK is sent to be 'disposed of' overseas source?. A big fat con.

 

There are far more worrying things at the minute that should be concerning the population of this country. Like the breakdown of the family unit, the rise of the feral child and progress of ridiculous pieces of legislation like the Health & Safety Act and the Human Rights Act. Jesus Wept

 

Oh well, can't please everyone can you.

 

If you live round my way, which I assume you don't, if you don't put your recycling out (or if you put it in the wrong container) you are liable to be fined by the local council, and yes I know people who have actually been fined. It's happening in a lot of boroughs. Easy money.

 

Before the Olympics last year there were many pieces of investigative journalism which looked into the shipping of western 'recycling' to dumps in China. Farmers who previously earned a couple of quid a month were earning hundreds a week by going through the rubbish and pulling out all the plastics and electricals which they could sell on to the maufacturing companies. Here's a few articles I found in about one second on google.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2004/sep...vironment.china

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews...cheap-fuel.html

 

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Sky-News-.../20080641246242

 

Personally I'm not too fussed what one group of scientists say. Another group will offer a different conclusion. I conclude that, in general, the group will reach the conclusion that the people who are paying for the study want them to reach. Call me cynical if you like.

 

Finally, I might well be an Omnivore but there is very little of the Omni going on. I don't eat a great deal of veg and pretty much everything I eat is meat based.

[Andrew 4774]

aye we get fined if we don't recycle enough of our rubbish

[Park Life 71]

Climate change is made up and will gain pace now it is a recognised market energiser for remaking all those things we already have but more expensive.

[Happy Face 29]

Oh well, can't please everyone can you. No but you can agree with the facts.

 

If you live round my way, which I assume you don't, if you don't put your recycling out (or if you put it in the wrong container) you are liable to be fined by the local council, and yes I know people who have actually been fined. It's happening in a lot of boroughs. Easy money. If it does exist it's something I'd welcome as long as it sees a corresponding increase in spending on research into sustainable energy. Japan spends almost 4.0% GDP; Korea spends more than 3.2%; and China is catching up fast, spending over 1.4% of its GDP on R&D. The UK government has set a target for GDP spend on research of 2.5% by 2014. If solar panels are too toxic, we need research funding more than ever

 

Before the Olympics last year there were many pieces of investigative journalism which looked into the shipping of western 'recycling' to dumps in China. Farmers who previously earned a couple of quid a month were earning hundreds a week by going through the rubbish and pulling out all the plastics and electricals which they could sell on to the maufacturing companies I saw that too. Not sure of your point though. If we're producing all this waste. And no-one in this country is willing to sit with a pair of pliers pulling the metal out of chipboards for a pittance, who should do it? Where should it go? How should it be disposed of?. Here's a few articles I found in about one second on google.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2004/sep...vironment.china

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews...cheap-fuel.html

 

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Sky-News-.../20080641246242

 

Personally I'm not too fussed what one group of scientists say. Another group will offer a different conclusion. I conclude that, in general, the group will reach the conclusion that the people who are paying for the study want them to reach. Call me cynical if you like. That's not cynical. It's misinformed. You should read Bad Science. With all the shit that gets reported as science I don't blame anyone for dismissing science entirely. But this is the Royal society. The National Science academy. The national science academies of the G8 nations and Brazil, China and India, three of the largest emitters of greenhouse gases in the developing world, have signed a statement on the global response to climate change. They're all in agreement. Petrol companies might get some dissenting research done, but other scientists NEVER agree with them once they get a chance to review. But the damage is already done by the initial widely reported claims.

 

Finally, I might well be an Omnivore but there is very little of the Omni going on. I don't eat a great deal of veg and pretty much everything I eat is meat based. So having used the argument that meat eating is what god intended, you're now defying god and dismissing the argument. We can agree on that like. Gods will should never enter into a debate.

[trophyshy 7083]

Your recycling fines are because of EU directives on landfill. If you don't recycle it will cost your Local Authority a fortune in landfill taxes. This will either mean less social workers or more council tax. Suck up the tiny bit of responsibility for the way you live, perhaps?

 

I believe governments should have the balls to stop the wasteful use of packaging however we are not there (as has been previously noted they are ultimately in bed with industry) and you must agree we can't just keep burying all our rubbish forever?

[Happy Face 29]

Climate change is made up and will gain pace now it is a recognised market energiser for remaking all those things we already have but more expensive.

 

I'll take you seriously if you admit tower 7 wasn't demolished.

[Happy Face 29]

Had a read on that site

 

The scale of the negative effects of climate change is often overstated and there is no need for urgent action. (Just so it's clear to those glancing, this is posed as one of the main misleading arguments that they go on to debunk (see below). Wouldn't want people thinking this was one of the points they make.)

 

What does the science say?

 

Under one of its mid-range estimates(*), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - the world's leading authority on climate change - has projected a global average temperature increase this century of 2 to 3 ºC. This would mean that the Earth will experience a larger climate change than it has experienced for at least 10,000 years. The impact and pace of this change would be difficult for many people and ecosystems to adapt to.

 

In the short term, some parts of the world could initially benefit from climate change. For example, more northerly regions of the world may experience longer growing seasons for crops and crop yields may increase because increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would have a fertilizing effect on plants.

 

However the IPCC has pointed out that as climate change progresses it is likely that negative effects would begin to dominate almost everywhere. Increasing temperatures are likely, for example, to increase the frequency and severity of weather events such as heat waves, storms and flooding.

 

Furthermore there are real concerns that, in the long term, rising levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere could set in motion large-scale and potentially abrupt changes in our planet's natural systems and some of these could be irreversible. Increasing temperatures could, for example, lead to the melting of large ice sheets with major consequences for low lying areas throughout the world.

 

And the impacts of climate change will fall disproportionately upon developing countries and the poor those who can least afford to adapt. Thus a changing climate will exacerbate inequalities in, for example, health and access to adequate food and clean water. This is the Key. The wealthy have nothing to lose so are happy to maintain the status quo....unless profit can be derived from the change.

Edited October 28, 2009 by Happy Face

[Park Life 71]

Climate change is made up and will gain pace now it is a recognised market energiser for remaking all those things we already have but more expensive.

 

I'll take you seriously if you admit tower 7 wasn't demolished.

 

Ridiculismus.

[The Fish 10876]

Why do the layman right wing-types decry the obvious notion that man's pollution has had a massive effect on climate change? I get why the Oil Barons poopoo the idea, but you're average conservative voter has nothing to gain by dismissing the blatant and terrifying...

[trophyshy 7083]

terrifying if you have faith in the scientific community tbh.

[Kitman 2207]

terrifying if you have faith in the scientific community tbh.

 

Joking aside, show me something terrifying a scientist says is going to happen that will bother the average joe in the street. (a nice northern hemisphere street )

 

Scientist: "Gerraloadofthis, baby!"

 

* Opens raincoat *

[Park Life 71]

Some parts of the ice shelf are melting so fucking what??!!

[trophyshy 7083]

http://en.cop15.dk/files/pdf/compendium2009.pdf

[Park Life 71]

Some parts of the ice shelf are melting so fucking what??!!

 

Think of the diesel ships will save not having to circumnavigate the ice shelf.

 

Warmer weather less heating fuel.

[Kitman 2207]

It seems common sense to me that human beings ought to modify their behaviour to reduce the effects of pollution and development on the planet. The question is how quickly do we need to do this, and who will pay? Emission reduction schemes proposed in NZ and Australia have been watered down in the face of lobbying from industry and farmers. That's before the costs have been passed on to consumers and inevitable political backlash ensues.

[Park Life 71]

It seems common sense to me that human beings ought to modify their behaviour to reduce the effects of pollution and development on the planet. The question is how quickly do we need to do this, and who will pay? Emission reduction schemes proposed in NZ and Australia have been watered down in the face of lobbying from industry and farmers. That's before the costs have been passed on to consumers and inevitable political backlash ensues.

 

They need to tell China before they dream up more taxes for us.

[Kitman 2207]

It seems common sense to me that human beings ought to modify their behaviour to reduce the effects of pollution and development on the planet. The question is how quickly do we need to do this, and who will pay? Emission reduction schemes proposed in NZ and Australia have been watered down in the face of lobbying from industry and farmers. That's before the costs have been passed on to consumers and inevitable political backlash ensues.

 

They need to tell China before they dream up more taxes for us.

 

Bingo. If you took places like China, India, Brazil, former Soviet republics and the USA out of the equation, I reckon the rest of us would need to do very little. Of course that's not going to go down very well with those countries. Britain did its best pollutin' before the 1980s, Mrs Thatcher was a green visionary.

[trophyshy 7083]

China is commited to developing more renewable energy than anywhere else and has a truly impressive programme - http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-...na-clean-energy

 

By acting ourselves we can encourage and assist others, our political impact, and that of Europe should not be underestimated. A defeatist attitude brings its own results. We can help developing nations leapfrog to new technologies. You can bitch and moan about industries and conspiracy theories all you like but this is happening and if you don't think we should be trying to do something, well, that's disappointing. I would prefer if you took this seriously as I think it is the most serious topic of all, but you probably just think I am a nutcase, you're entitled to that.

 

Read the whole scientific compendium in my previous post. Maybe we can do fuck all but if you have an interest you should extend your knowledge beyond the average Sun reading Joe Public who thinks it's just another taxation strategy, just a pile of shite, the latest trick. Science was recognising this 15+ years ago, government has taken a decade to get on board, Joe 'where's my steak and cheap truck' Public will no doubt take another 10 years. The comments on here renew my belief that policy and intervention are the only hope for change as people simply either don't buy it or are too selfish to act responsibly having lived in such decadent times. I have to recycyle, they're making me recycle! Boo fucking hoo.

 

This agenda is mind bending, once the Carbon Reduction Commitment Energy Efficiency Scheme is fully established and carbon a capped tradeable then you will be a stone's throw from carbon and therefore energy policing. National Indicator 186 is going to become a very real concern for all and we are going to witness radical transformation in energy usage in our lifetimes. We have been living cheaply and crudely and we cannot get away with it any more. All new infrastructure will be carbon zero, all existing infrastructure will either be retrofitted or possibly mothballed due to the cost of retrofitting. We are going to witness serious rationalisation of the public estate. We are all going to have to tighten our belts. You can stick your head in the sand but fortunately thousands and thousands of concerned and capable do-gooders are working to improve our chances of sustainable development in the face of potential huge change. Even if the change doesn't come, isn't it about time we started managing our resources more appropriately?

 

Do you really think Kyoto and Copenhagen are just a bit of a jolly? Do you think people in all nations all over the world are just making all this shit up? SERIOUSLY?

Edited October 29, 2009 by trophyshy

[trophyshy 7083]

http://en.cop15.dk/files/pdf/compendium2009.pdf

 

 

Got as far as the Foreword (which really should make the case)

 

"we will see catastrophic consequences including rising sea levels, droughts and famines"

 

Been there , done that

 

"New scientific evidence suggests important tipping points may have already been passed leading to irreversible changes"

 

Shit, too late

 

Bla de Bla de Bla

 

Well you've got me there CT. Damn.

[Park Life 71]

China is commited to developing more renewable energy than anywhere else and has a truly impressive programme - http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-...na-clean-energy

 

By acting ourselves we can encourage and assist others, our political impact, and that of Europe should not be underestimated. A defeatist attitude brings its own results. We can help developing nations leapfrog to new technologies. You can bitch and moan about industries and conspiracy theories all you like but this is happening and if you don't think we should be trying to do something, well, that's disappointing. I would prefer if you took this seriously as I think it is the most serious topic of all, but you probably just think I am a nutcase, you're entitled to that.

 

Read the whole scientific compendium in my previous post. Maybe we can do fuck all but if you have an interest you should extend your knowledge beyond the average Sun reading Joe Public who thinks it's just another taxation strategy, just a pile of shite, the latest trick. Science was recognising this 15+ years ago, government has taken a decade to get on board, Joe 'where's my steak and cheap truck' Public will no doubt take another 10 years. The comments on here renew my belief that policy and intervention are the only hope for change as people simply either don't buy it or are too selfish to act responsibly having lived in such decadent times. I have to recycyle, they're making me recycle! Boo fucking hoo.

 

This agenda is mind bending, once the Carbon Reduction Commitment Energy Efficiency Scheme is fully established and carbon a capped tradeable then you will be a stone's throw from carbon and therefore energy policing. National Indicator 186 is going to become a very real concern for all and we are going to witness radical transformation in energy usage in our lifetimes. We have been living cheaply and crudely and we cannot get away with it any more. All new infrastructure will be carbon zero, all existing infrastructure will either be retrofitted or possibly mothballed due to the cost of retrofitting. We are going to witness serious rationalisation of the public estate. We are all going to have to tighten our belts. You can stick your head in the sand but fortunately thousands and thousands of concerned and capable do-gooders are working to improve our chances of sustainable development in the face of potential huge change. Even if the change doesn't come, isn't it about time we started managing our resources more appropriately?

 

Do you really think Kyoto and Copenhagen are just a bit of a jolly? Do you think people in all nations all over the world are just making all this shit up? SERIOUSLY?

 

It's been hotter before, before man did anything.

 

Eat less meat is a joke.

 

China opens one new coal powered station a month.

[Happy Face 29]

By the way, if you don't already download Melvyn Bragg's In Our Time podcasts, I strongly recommend last weeks which was on the geological formation of Britain and has a lot of discussion on natural climate change...

 

Around six hundred million years ago, the island that we now call Britain was in two parts, far to the south of the Equator. Scotland – and north-western Ireland – were part of a continent (Laurentia) that also included what is now North America. To the south-east, near the Antarctic Circle, meanwhile, you would have found Southern Ireland, England and Wales. They formed a mini-continent (Avalonia) with what is now Newfoundland.

 

Over the course of hundreds of millions of years, as they inched their way north, the two parts came together, first as part of a vast unitary continent (Pangaea), later as a promontory on the edge of Europe, and eventually, as sea levels rose, as an island.

 

The story of how Britain came to be where it is now, in its current shape – from the separation of North America and Europe to the carving out of the English Channel - is still being uncovered today.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/inourt..._20091022.shtml

 

They stipulate that these natural changes over hundreds of millions of years have no bearing on the arguments for or against a man made effect on climate change. It's just a fascinating show that made me feel incredibly insignificant...as I am.

 

 

They've got the whole back catalogue online now too

 

Of the few I've heard over the last year I particularly recommend the The Vacuum of Space if you like that kind of thing.

[Happy Face 29]

The Truth Is Always Out There

 

 

The British National Party is this nation’s only true Green party which has policies that will actually save the environment.

 

Unlike the fake “Greens” who are merely a front for the far left of the Labour regime, the BNP is the only party to recognise that overpopulation – whose primary driver is immigration, as revealed by the government’s own figures – is the cause of the destruction of our environment.

 

Thanks Nick

 

 

We'll save the planet by sending the buggers back.

[Meenzer 15561]

The Truth Is Always Out There

 

 

The British National Party is this nation’s only true Green party which has policies that will actually save the environment.

 

Unlike the fake “Greens” who are merely a front for the far left of the Labour regime, the BNP is the only party to recognise that overpopulation – whose primary driver is immigration, as revealed by the government’s own figures – is the cause of the destruction of our environment.

 

Thanks Nick

 

 

We'll save the planet by sending the buggers back.

 

....to Neptune!

[trophyshy 7083]

So if it is all bollocks then, what should we do about sustainable development?

 

Should we improve our use of resources for its own ends? Will you play a little more to know that energy won't run out and you can always have your choice of food?

 

Anyone see any sense in any of this thinking or are you essentially anarchists?

 

Incidentally everyone knows population is THE problem, but telling people not to fuck is even more of a joke than telling them to cut down on meat.

 

Some creative solutions would be refreshing.