National News Extinction "Rebellion"

OK, OK. I will pledge here and now not to replace one of my cars when its PCP expires (unless they offer me a cracking new deal, obviously). I will also continue to boycott Primani and it's 'wear once and dispose of' clothing range AND I might even turn the heating off next summer, for a while.

That's quite a commitment. What are YOU planning to do to avert this so-called climate crisis?

Now you ask........
1. I walk to work, 2.3 miles each way.
2. I only use my 2.4ltr 4x4 gas guzzler at weekends.
3. Getting the train to Newcastle (see above).
4. Cutting down to one holiday involving flight.
5. Got a "Hive" and smart meter at home.
6. Home composting and a veg plot.
7. Don`t buy cheap clothes, buy decent stuff that lasts.
8. Do a lot of giving away things when we upgrade/replace.
9. Mrs EY has just cracked 3,000 miles on her electric bike, her car use is reduced by the same distance.
10. We don`t buy avocadoes. ?
 
Last edited:
Now you ask........
1. I walk to work, 2.3 miles each way.
2. I only use my 2.4ltr 4x4 gas guzzler at weekends.
3. Getting the train to Newcastle (see above).
4. Cutting down to one holiday involving flight.
5. Got a "Hive" and smart meter at home.
6. Home composting and a veg plot.
7. Don`t buy cheap clothes, buy decent stuff that lasts.
8. Do a lot of giving away things when we upgrade/replace.
9. Mrs EY has just cracked 3,000 miles on her electric bike, her car use is reduced by the same distance.
10. We don`t buy avocado`s. ?
You do, however, use apostrophes where they aren't needed, which is the biggest cause of greenhouse emissions today ?
 
You do, however, use apostrophes where they aren't needed, which is the biggest cause of greenhouse emissions today ?


Won't somebody think of the photons* and electrons?!


*alhough apostrophes could be net photon positive I suppose
 
Won't somebody think of the photons* and electrons?!


*alhough apostrophes could be net photon positive I suppose

There is something called digiwaste (iirc) where going online using computers/laptops is more wasteful energy wise compared to using a Smartphone apparently. The person on a news programme claiming (haven't a clue if accurate) this reckoned that 1% of global energy use was for the interweb and all that entails.
 
That’s simply not true - your point was that bush fires are everyday business in Australia and so invoking climate change is hysterical, on the way throwing in (quickly discredited) references to arson and some as yet unsubstantiated references to changing Australian fire control policy.

You obviously don’t like it when people disagree with you and don’t roll over to your views. You then think people are ”having a dig” at you if they disagree when you post something contentious. If you don’t want that, then don’t post contentious things.

I’m quite good at accepting differences of opinion, but not very good at all at accepting differences of fact. Maybe that’s where the “science boy” in me kicks in.

I’ll read and digest the additional links you posted but refrain from commenting on them to avoid the interpretation that anything I disagree with is in order to have a go at you.
Absolute rubbish! Utter piffle and nonsense.

I am happy for people to disagree with me, happy to talk the point out as I have done with TonyW for many months and nary a bad work is spoken between either of us - we are on different political poles. Your hard-on for my posts is wearing when you then do the same thing you accuse me of.
 
How is that ironic?
Bees and insects are the great pollinators of our world, without them we have a big problem, outside of genetical engineering our food, to grow food and also ensure the eco-system of insects and the animal species that rely on them as food is maintained.

It's the perverse nature of how some identify the virtue of almond milk being good for the environment, without the wider knowledge of the impact that virtue has on the environment. We need to protect and grow our bee population globally, not use them as one and done pollinators on products such as Almond Milk. This is why we need more thought and nuance into the climate and our wider eco-system debate.

This is not a personal point at anyone here before they get the pen out for the letter to Points of View or the Guardian. (y)
 
Yes, it's surprising that people don't protest against these elites.

Glad you raised that point.......

And a bit of Scotland becomes "free".........

"It will be held at the Scottish Event Campus (SEC) but other venues across the city will also host functions and meetings for heads of state and other dignitaries.

The SEC will be handed over to the UN for the duration of the conference.

Known as the "blue zone", it will become international territory, subject to international law."

Best make sure they give it back. ?
 
Bees and insects are the great pollinators of our world, without them we have a big problem, outside of genetical engineering our food, to grow food and also ensure the eco-system of insects and the animal species that rely on them as food is maintained.

It's the perverse nature of how some identify the virtue of almond milk being good for the environment, without the wider knowledge of the impact that virtue has on the environment. We need to protect and grow our bee population globally, not use them as one and done pollinators on products such as Almond Milk. This is why we need more thought and nuance into the climate and our wider eco-system debate.

This is not a personal point at anyone here before they get the pen out for the letter to Points of View or the Guardian. (y)


Oh. I wasn't aware that some people thought they were saving the planet when they were drinking almond milk.

Agree about the bees. We do however need to properly embrace GM if the population continues to grow, we've been doing it for thousands of years anyway. Good luck to anyone who wants to get an adult discussion on the latter going though.
 
Some info on the legal ramifications of GM: http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2015/the-patent-landscape-of-genetically-modified-organisms/

It isn't (necessarily) the tech that's the problem...
And how do you stop these crops cross-fertilising with non-GM?

Well quite, this is precisely why grown-up conversation is needed.

Assuming that world population continues to grow, and further assuming that people don't want to give up their iPods and avocados, I don't see an alternative.

GM suffers from the same hysteria as nuclear power at times.

And I say this as someone who is very actively involved in conservation and who is passionate about the environment.
 
Well quite, this is precisely why grown-up conversation is needed.

.

GM suffers from the same hysteria as nuclear power at times.

And I say this as someone who is very actively involved in conservation and who is passionate about the environment.

Industrial farming seed (let alone GM) leads to patent issues that have deleterious effects on farmers but also (tend) to rely on fertiliser and pesticides (not good for the environment at all) plus they create monocultures which are proving rather risky.

As a similarly minded individual I'm really unconvinced they are a sustainable way forward. There's a lot of interest in multi-grain farming for example. How to do this at volume is probably a political issue, sadly...
 
Last edited:
Rightly or wrongly it seems to me that the rapidly rising world population is the elephant in the room. I noticed this program is on next week and might be worth watching for those interested in environmental issues and sustainability.




Chris Packham: 7.7 Billion People and Counting
Horizon2020

According to the UN, it is predicted that the human population could reach ten billion people by the year 2050. For broadcaster and naturalist Chris Packham, who has dedicated his life to championing the natural world, the subject of our growing population and the impact it is having on our planet is one of the most vital – and often overlooked – topics of discussion in an era of increasing environmental awareness.
Chris is worried that a world of ten billion may simply be too many people for the earth to sustain, given the impact 7.7 billion humans are already having. Travelling around the globe in search of answers to difficult and sometimes controversial questions, Chris investigates why our population is growing so rapidly, what impact it is having on the natural world, and whether there is anything that can be done.
 
Absolute rubbish! Utter piffle and nonsense.

OK. I submit. You win. Does that make it better? Meanwhile, the Earth's climate is still going to hell in a handbasket due to human activity regardless of the sensibilities of people on football forums.

I can't decide whether it all needs a more or less nuanced and thoughtful approach.

not all bad weather/disasters = climate change and it's obtuse to think that as there is more nuance to be had.

we need more thought and nuance into the climate and our wider eco-system debate.
 
However, you, me and everyone else seems "less willing" to give up their luxuries to make that happen "NOW". That`s the reality.
Meanwhile the 26th annual UN Conference of the Parties takes place in Glasgow, 30,000 delegates, 200 world leaders lasting for 2 weeks............ what`s the carbon footprint of that trade fair over the 26 years and what has it achieved?
Consumerism in a nutshell.
Your observations about consumerism are absolutely true, and almost everyone is a hypocrite to one extent or another. It is difficult for individuals, corporations and countries to choose to give up luxuries. It's like giving up smoking - I did that years ago and it was surprisingly difficult even though I new exactly what the long term consequences were.

The problem with that is that it means that the market cannot address the problem, and only collective approaches.

Does that mean we are condemned to the global equivalent of lung cancer with some existential passive smoking, unless we adopt non-free market interventions? Things like taxation, restrictive laws, international treaties etc. These measures are not politically acceptable to the current vogue for populism. Are we just screwed?
 
Your observations about consumerism are absolutely true, and almost everyone is a hypocrite to one extent or another. It is difficult for individuals, corporations and countries to choose to give up luxuries. It's like giving up smoking - I did that years ago and it was surprisingly difficult even though I new exactly what the long term consequences were.

The problem with that is that it means that the market cannot address the problem, and only collective approaches.

Does that mean we are condemned to the global equivalent of lung cancer with some existential passive smoking, unless we adopt non-free market interventions? Things like taxation, restrictive laws, international treaties etc. These measures are not politically acceptable to the current vogue for populism. Are we just screwed?

That`s all it can be. Much like smoking a variant of taxation for something we can`t, or don`t want too, avoid.
When we pay for it it tends to make us think.
I`m no fan of Cwis Packham but he`s right its also the volume of population, many of which will have a huge impact on the planet.
 
That`s all it can be. Much like smoking a variant of taxation for something we can`t, or don`t want too, avoid.
When we pay for it it tends to make us think.
I`m no fan of Cwis Packham but he`s right its also the volume of population, many of which will have a huge impact on the planet.
If we want to save the planet, we need to have a proper conversation about population in a manner that removes the prospect or talk of overt control/quotas, but instead around respectful use of contraception and how we are able to resource the growth, among other things too.

The news from China around single use plastics today is great news:

This is the sort of change that will do a lot for all of us.
 
And now the next trade show global conference is underway in Davos, Greta is there too.
Its been running since 1971 as an NGO.
The meeting brings together some 3,000 business leaders, international political leaders, economists, celebrities and journalists for up to five days to discuss global issues, across 500 public and private sessions.
The organization also convenes some six to eight regional meetings each year in locations across Africa, East Asia, Latin America, and India and holds two further annual meetings in China and the UAE.

No carbon footprint there then eh??? Have they not heard of Skype? And why the feck do you need "celebrities" there?? ??
 
And now the next trade show global conference is underway in Davos, Greta is there too.
Its been running since 1971 as an NGO.
The meeting brings together some 3,000 business leaders, international political leaders, economists, celebrities and journalists for up to five days to discuss global issues, across 500 public and private sessions.
The organization also convenes some six to eight regional meetings each year in locations across Africa, East Asia, Latin America, and India and holds two further annual meetings in China and the UAE.

No carbon footprint there then eh??? Have they not heard of Skype? And why the feck do you need "celebrities" there?? ??
Feels like a jolly boys outing for the rich and famous rather than anything productive or meaningful in the long term. How dare they!
 
Back
Top Bottom