Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. (Vol 5)
Discussion
Extinction Rebellion: what do they want - and is it realistic?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-479...
Extinction Rebellion's attempts to clog the heart of London and other cities across the UK have undoubtedly driven the issue of climate change up the news agenda.
But amid the die-ins - where protestors pretend to be dead - bridge swarmings and arrests, there hasn't been too much consideration of the group's actual plans to tackle rising temperatures.
As a solution to the "climate breakdown and ecological collapse that threaten our existence",
The government must, in their words, "tell the truth" about the scale of the crisis the world now faces.
Secondly, the UK must enact legally binding policies to reduce carbon emissions to net zero by 2025.
The third step is the formation of a Citizens' Assembly to "oversee the changes" that will be needed to achieve this goal.
Media captionExtinction Rebellion's fight against climate change is making headlines
Is zero emissions by 2025 realistic?..........continues
Quite bonkers. Back to the stone age
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-479...
Extinction Rebellion's attempts to clog the heart of London and other cities across the UK have undoubtedly driven the issue of climate change up the news agenda.
But amid the die-ins - where protestors pretend to be dead - bridge swarmings and arrests, there hasn't been too much consideration of the group's actual plans to tackle rising temperatures.
As a solution to the "climate breakdown and ecological collapse that threaten our existence",
The government must, in their words, "tell the truth" about the scale of the crisis the world now faces.
Secondly, the UK must enact legally binding policies to reduce carbon emissions to net zero by 2025.
The third step is the formation of a Citizens' Assembly to "oversee the changes" that will be needed to achieve this goal.
Media captionExtinction Rebellion's fight against climate change is making headlines
Is zero emissions by 2025 realistic?..........continues
Quite bonkers. Back to the stone age
robinessex said:
Extinction Rebellion: what do they want - and is it realistic?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-479...
Extinction Rebellion's attempts to clog the heart of London and other cities across the UK have undoubtedly driven the issue of climate change up the news agenda.
But amid the die-ins - where protestors pretend to be dead - bridge swarmings and arrests, there hasn't been too much consideration of the group's actual plans to tackle rising temperatures.
As a solution to the "climate breakdown and ecological collapse that threaten our existence",
The government must, in their words, "tell the truth" about the scale of the crisis the world now faces.
Secondly, the UK must enact legally binding policies to reduce carbon emissions to net zero by 2025.
The third step is the formation of a Citizens' Assembly to "oversee the changes" that will be needed to achieve this goal.
Media captionExtinction Rebellion's fight against climate change is making headlines
Is zero emissions by 2025 realistic?..........continues
Quite bonkers. Back to the stone age
97% of scientists agree with them though, apparently...https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-479...
Extinction Rebellion's attempts to clog the heart of London and other cities across the UK have undoubtedly driven the issue of climate change up the news agenda.
But amid the die-ins - where protestors pretend to be dead - bridge swarmings and arrests, there hasn't been too much consideration of the group's actual plans to tackle rising temperatures.
As a solution to the "climate breakdown and ecological collapse that threaten our existence",
The government must, in their words, "tell the truth" about the scale of the crisis the world now faces.
Secondly, the UK must enact legally binding policies to reduce carbon emissions to net zero by 2025.
The third step is the formation of a Citizens' Assembly to "oversee the changes" that will be needed to achieve this goal.
Media captionExtinction Rebellion's fight against climate change is making headlines
Is zero emissions by 2025 realistic?..........continues
Quite bonkers. Back to the stone age
motco said:
With Attenborough proclaiming that "...we're facing a catastrophic event and the climate change is happening and happening fast" I cannot help wondering what happened to 'The Pause'? 
Doesn't have the same ring to it as 'climate emergency'. The masses need to be saved from something. Diderot said:
motco said:
With Attenborough proclaiming that "...we're facing a catastrophic event and the climate change is happening and happening fast" I cannot help wondering what happened to 'The Pause'?
Doesn't have the same ring to it as 'climate emergency'. The masses need to be saved from something. 
robinessex said:
Is zero emissions by 2025 realistic?..........continues
Quite bonkers. Back to the stone age
Reading their demands, as you have reported them, I would say you don't understand the word "net" or are misrepresenting their views. They have not asking for zero emissions (as you have reported it). Achieving zero emissions is biologically impossible is the answer to your question. Sitting there, reading my reply, you yourself are emitting emissions.Quite bonkers. Back to the stone age
In a simple manner, net carbon emissions could be reduced by planting more trees, to increase the rate of converting oxidized carbon to reduced carbon. That can be eased somewhat by reducing your carbon emissions in the first place.
The principle goes back to James Lovelock's Gaia theory, expounded in a practical sense by the CLAW hypothesis.
MX5Biologist said:
Reading their demands, as you have reported them, I would say you don't understand the word "net" or are misrepresenting their views. They have not asking for zero emissions (as you have reported it). Achieving zero emissions is biologically impossible is the answer to your question. Sitting there, reading my reply, you yourself are emitting emissions.
In a simple manner, net carbon emissions could be reduced by planting more trees, to increase the rate of converting oxidized carbon to reduced carbon. That can be eased somewhat by reducing your carbon emissions in the first place.
The principle goes back to James Lovelock's Gaia theory, expounded in a practical sense by the CLAW hypothesis.
considering their spokesman in edinburgh didn't even know the name of the international organisation that provides the information on climate change, i have a hard time believing many of the protesters would know of what you state. In a simple manner, net carbon emissions could be reduced by planting more trees, to increase the rate of converting oxidized carbon to reduced carbon. That can be eased somewhat by reducing your carbon emissions in the first place.
The principle goes back to James Lovelock's Gaia theory, expounded in a practical sense by the CLAW hypothesis.
Hopefully, this will not be too controversial.
(1) There are more carbon sinks than trees alone in the carbon cycle.
(2) Lovelock appears to have had something of a Damascene moment latterly, and has a few choice words regarding the IPCC.
I'll leave it as a research exercise to follow up on the above, neither of which are my opinion.
(1) There are more carbon sinks than trees alone in the carbon cycle.
(2) Lovelock appears to have had something of a Damascene moment latterly, and has a few choice words regarding the IPCC.
I'll leave it as a research exercise to follow up on the above, neither of which are my opinion.
Vanden Saab said:
TTwiggy said:
I'm curious as to how these (lefty/crusty/student/hippy) protestors fit in with the narrative that it's all a huge global conspiracy to raise the tax take?
Useful idiots Then again when you're an agw disciple and there's nothing else to offer. bbeyond fallacies and hype. At least, also based on the above evidence, it wasn't full-frontal adhommery.
We need a thread on climate politics
turbobloke said:
Aye so no need for yet another airing (yawn) of the conspiracy strawman.
Then again when you're an agw disciple and there's nothing else to offer. bbeyond fallacies and hype. At least, also based on the above evidence, it wasn't full-frontal adhommery.
We need a thread on climate politics
But it has been stated, several times and by several posters on here, that one of the 'purposes' behind AGW is to raise more money through taxation. So how is that a strawman?Then again when you're an agw disciple and there's nothing else to offer. bbeyond fallacies and hype. At least, also based on the above evidence, it wasn't full-frontal adhommery.
We need a thread on climate politics
TTwiggy said:
turbobloke said:
Aye so no need for yet another airing (yawn) of the conspiracy strawman.
Then again when you're an agw disciple and there's nothing else to offer. bbeyond fallacies and hype. At least, also based on the above evidence, it wasn't full-frontal adhommery.
We need a thread on climate politics
But it has been stated, several times and by several posters on here, that one of the 'purposes' behind AGW is to raise more money through taxation. So how is that a strawman?Then again when you're an agw disciple and there's nothing else to offer. bbeyond fallacies and hype. At least, also based on the above evidence, it wasn't full-frontal adhommery.
We need a thread on climate politics
Vanden Saab said:
robinessex said:
Extinction Rebellion: what do they want - and is it realistic?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-479...
Extinction Rebellion's attempts to clog the heart of London and other cities across the UK have undoubtedly driven the issue of climate change up the news agenda.
But amid the die-ins - where protestors pretend to be dead - bridge swarmings and arrests, there hasn't been too much consideration of the group's actual plans to tackle rising temperatures.
As a solution to the "climate breakdown and ecological collapse that threaten our existence",
The government must, in their words, "tell the truth" about the scale of the crisis the world now faces.
Secondly, the UK must enact legally binding policies to reduce carbon emissions to net zero by 2025.
The third step is the formation of a Citizens' Assembly to "oversee the changes" that will be needed to achieve this goal.
Media captionExtinction Rebellion's fight against climate change is making headlines
Is zero emissions by 2025 realistic?..........continues
Quite bonkers. Back to the stone age
97% of scientists agree with them though, apparently...https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-479...
Extinction Rebellion's attempts to clog the heart of London and other cities across the UK have undoubtedly driven the issue of climate change up the news agenda.
But amid the die-ins - where protestors pretend to be dead - bridge swarmings and arrests, there hasn't been too much consideration of the group's actual plans to tackle rising temperatures.
As a solution to the "climate breakdown and ecological collapse that threaten our existence",
The government must, in their words, "tell the truth" about the scale of the crisis the world now faces.
Secondly, the UK must enact legally binding policies to reduce carbon emissions to net zero by 2025.
The third step is the formation of a Citizens' Assembly to "oversee the changes" that will be needed to achieve this goal.
Media captionExtinction Rebellion's fight against climate change is making headlines
Is zero emissions by 2025 realistic?..........continues
Quite bonkers. Back to the stone age
MX5Biologist said:
robinessex said:
Is zero emissions by 2025 realistic?..........continues
Quite bonkers. Back to the stone age
Reading their demands, as you have reported them, I would say you don't understand the word "net" or are misrepresenting their views. They have not asking for zero emissions (as you have reported it). Achieving zero emissions is biologically impossible is the answer to your question. Sitting there, reading my reply, you yourself are emitting emissions.Quite bonkers. Back to the stone age
In a simple manner, net carbon emissions could be reduced by planting more trees, to increase the rate of converting oxidized carbon to reduced carbon. That can be eased somewhat by reducing your carbon emissions in the first place.
The principle goes back to James Lovelock's Gaia theory, expounded in a practical sense by the CLAW hypothesis.
"Extinction Rebellion has three core demands:-
"It has three core demands: for the government to "tell the truth about climate change", reduce carbon emissions to zero by 2025, and create a citizens' assembly to oversee progress."
El stovey said:
Yes and TB repeatedly said the protests in Paris were evidence that France (and other countries) were turning away from the Paris agreement. Presumably he’ll see these protests as evidence that the UK public is widely supporting it?
I do not think you can draw that conclusion from what is happening in the two countries,in the UK we have had small environmental type protesting for years , nothing new,
in France the protest is widespread, my friend who has a house in Bourdeaux, said his neighbour, a quiet spoken couple in there 40s are out protesting most weekends, they see it as an attack on the people who live in the country side, who do not have easy access to public transport, higher fuel prices hit them harder, it's a way of life that is under attack by environmental policies.
Vanden Saab said:
97% of scientists agree with them though, apparently...
97% of scientists who derive their earnings from climate change studies. It's a self-perpetuating industry. They know that if they stop prattling on about cars killing polar bears or putting your immersion heater makes children in Nepal have no food, they'll have to get a proper job.I suggest they devote their apparently superior intellect to finding a cure for cancer instead of telling me that I'm bad because I like a rare steak and drive a Skoda.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff