The Politics of 'Climate-change'

[Living In Hope]

The Labour Party always do the right thing .

I do not classify impoverishing Britain and its citizens with environmental policies which damage us economically as doing the right thing. With the USA, China, India and Russia all uninterested in fighting climate change, we cannot stop it, so the right thing in my book is to ensure that we are economically robust enough to protect Britons against the adverse impacts of climate change. Of course we can aim to be thought leaders, but we need to operate in the real world where our influence on these nations is minimal to zero. China produces c33% of the world's CO2 emissions, the UK less than 1%.

But I am sure the eco-warriors of Britain will be congratulating one another as the country achieves net zero whilst falling into abject poverty and having no resources to counter flooding and heatwaves.

 

[Spindle]

I have actually. It may be a minor issue to some but to many it is somewhat a bigger issue

Why is it a bigger issue? You either work in the oil industry or you are an ideologist, and that latter of sucking off the oil execs for the sake of it makes you no different from the lefty mentalists.

The oil industry played an absolute blinder when they made oil a left wing right wing issue. Both sides bought in, total morons because it's NOTHING to do with any of it.

Imagine if the same vested interests were in CFCs. We'd 100% all be dying of skin cancers and going blind.

 

[Spindle]

And, ffs, we rely on oil and it means we support Islam financially.


*Of course you could be a nuke guy, I dunno, that's even more subsidy 😉

 

[Spindle]

I do not classify impoverishing Britain and its citizens with environmental policies which damage us economically as doing the right thing. With the USA, China, India and Russia all uninterested in fighting climate change, we cannot stop it, so the right thing in my book is to ensure that we are economically robust enough to protect Britons against the adverse impacts of climate change. Of course we can aim to be thought leaders, but we need to operate in the real world where our influence on these nations is minimal to zero. China produces c33% of the world's CO2 emissions, the UK less than 1%.

But I am sure the eco-warriors of Britain will be congratulating one another as the country achieves net zero whilst falling into abject poverty and having no resources to counter flooding and heatwaves.

This is idiotic, sorry but it absolutely is.

First, China KNOW the danger and they are absolute world leaders in conversion. They have also planted nearly 80 BILLION trees over the past 40 years as environmental protection. Second with China, WHO do they make stuff for exactly? Do you think they need all of that power for domestic products? You can literally blame that power consumption on western demand, but let's not.

The USA are transferring energy from fossil fuels, their investment profiles for green is rocketing but dropping for fossil fuels. They have shut down half of their coal plants in a decade.

India are a poor country per head. Modi has to improve lives of his people and part of that is power generation. He has loads of cheap coal. What he didn't have was a AAA S&P rating so to borrow to invest in power is way way more expensive that coal. The cause is western. However they have pushed hard on this and now over half of their capacity is renewables - that is WELL AHEAD of the Paris target.

Russia. They are a pariah state without any interest given that their economy and personal wealth relies on exports.



You remind me of the Vichy french.

 

[Living In Hope]

This is idiotic, sorry but it absolutely is.

First, China KNOW the danger and they are absolute world leaders in conversion. They have also planted nearly 80 BILLION trees over the past 40 years as environmental protection. Second with China, WHO do they make stuff for exactly? Do you think they need all of that power for domestic products? You can literally blame that power consumption on western demand, but let's not.

The USA are transferring energy from fossil fuels, their investment profiles for green is rocketing but dropping for fossil fuels. They have shut down half of their coal plants in a decade.

India are a poor country per head. Modi has to improve lives of his people and part of that is power generation. He has loads of cheap coal. What he didn't have was a AAA S&P rating so to borrow to invest in power is way way more expensive that coal. The cause is western. However they have pushed hard on this and now over half of their capacity is renewables - that is WELL AHEAD of the Paris target.

Russia. They are a pariah state without any interest given that their economy and personal wealth relies on exports.

View attachment 3714

You remind me of the Vichy french.

What a bizarre response.

The fact is that China builds more new coal plants than the rest of the world combined, and coal delivers over half of its energy needs. Factually it is responsible for 1/3rd of the world's emissions, but that's okay because it plants trees. Its priority is economic dominance, and that is what drives its policies and its involvement in renewables.

The USA is similarly driven by economic interest, and its current president, the most powerful man in the world, is a staunch advocate of "drill baby drill". In other words the leadership is driving support for fossil fuels. Surprisingly only responsible for 12% of the world's emissions.

Modi "has to improve the lives of his people and...has loads of cheap coal" (economic interest perhaps ?). The 3rd highest producer of emissions in the world, with Russia 4th (together 13%). I make no comment on what Modi's priorities ought to be, but Indian emissions continue to grow, and your comment about coal to me simply supports my view. Expect increasing emissions not reducing ones from both of these.

So we can of course try to influence, but reducing our 0.8% makes no difference. Participating in a genuine global consensus for climate action could do, but there isn't one.

Of course it is easier to insult than discuss respectfully - sadly that is a sign of our times, but can you please explain to me what on earth the Vichy French have to do with this ?