Yeah, he's an idiot.
Climate Change | UN Report: Code Red for humanity
- Thread starter Buster15
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
As usual. A case of moving his lips before he engaged his brain. Something he is prone to do in order to try and make himself sound clever.
He's also a fecking liar and a hypocrite.
Oil and gas donors gave over £400k to Tories before North Sea decision
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...ve-over-400k-tories-before-north-sea-decision
Oil and gas donors gave over £400k to Tories before North Sea decision
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...ve-over-400k-tories-before-north-sea-decision
The UK certainly has been able to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions. Some as a result of a big move to wind power. But a significant amount of that is due to 'sub-contracting lots of its manufacturing to countries like China. As has been mentioned, that over seas manufacturing really ought to be counted against the country that has done that.
Yes indeed. And the foreign leaders attending COP 26 are I am sure quite aware of this. Macron included.
Yup which is why we're fecked I'm not optimistic at all. Biden may want to but I'm not sure the US has the political will to really meet their goals.
If i recall China is due to increase coal plants through to 2025 then they're targeting a reduction in their energy mix towards cleaner energy thereafter. Their emissions are due to plateau around the end of the decade, IF the US has met it's targets then China and the US per capita will be about equal in 2030.
In all liklihood that isn't enough so the simple question is who can sacrifice more between the two key blocks that emissions wise are roughly even, the low wage developing nations (China, India) or the developed nations (EU, Britain, US, Canada, Japan, Australia)?
It's fairly obvious who it should be and why most climate protest groups want radical action. Our targets sound quite aggressive but they're insufficient.
TBH this doesn't seem logical, what about all the coal-fired plants already operating, so they stop adding to them in 2025, are there plans to close any? What will they use to power the industrialization they need thereafter?
Right now China has the largest emissions of Co2, almost twice as much as the US, they are top of the league and have to make the biggest saving...and do it now!
If they do, then no country in the world (including the US) can argue against reducing their own emissions in a similar manner. If China wants to be the new world leader then this is the issue on which to make its claim. Would it not then become, almost at a stroke, the recognised world leader.
The US, EU, Japan, and India would never accept China as world leader no matter what it does on climate- that's a massive chunk of world GDP and population.
They would have no choice, actions speak louder than words. After this COP 26 is over and the roll out of "we must do this and we must do that" ... but actually very little will get done, is recognised, then finally the penny will drop within many countries/peoples, that words are simply that, words!
If China moves and sets the pace on this one issue then the reverberations will be massive, no politician anywhere will be able to keep dodging the bullet at home, or adopting the excuse 'that China's still polluting', so it doesn't matter what we do!
After all, if things continue as they are China will become the leading economy over the next fifty years anyway and then it wont be 'might is right' it will be Trade domination as the centre-piece of power. Maybe only India might be able to compete, Russia might also try to dominate on the old carbon based economy model, but the Western economies are already on the slide. The EU internal problems and demands will undermine and ultimate enfeeble the German economy and a new EU will have to emerge. The UK will survive, but at the margins. The US will do what it always does... 'a deal' ...with the Chinese and 'feck' the rest of you!
Last edited:
They're constantly closing older coal plants it's just they're building newer 'cleaner'ones as well (away from the SE and more north). They can't go renewable overnight despite their investments so they have a mix as the short term solution until they tail off.
It's very simplistic to look at a big number and not inspect the per capita basis to be honest. Americans should carry on guzzling and emitting twice as much each just because they're a smaller country than China?
Right now the developed block of countries i gave you have just as big a front print and way more per capita. The adjustment they need to make are easy compared to India and China leaving people in poverty.
Yes of course it is, but if you are waiting for everyone in the world to become even half knowledgeable on such matters and understand then the worst will have already happened.
On paper (and in reality) China is by far the largest emitter of C02, twice as much as the US. This is the headline news which everyone sees. Whether the Chinese have good reason or not makes no difference they have to make the biggest cut, and as the world and its peoples become more and more edgy about what is happening, then instantaneous solutions no matter how idiotic they are will come to the fore, social media will see to that.
If Corporal Jones (Dads army) was here he would be rushing about shouting ..."dont panic! dont panic!
It is important to remember that this is already the 26th COP, even though it started some 30 years ago, with nothing like the current profile.
And in reality, there is little likelihood of gaining the necessary committments to take us from +2.7C down to not greater than 1.5C.
The mood music now is about 'ratcheting' down. So gaining firm commitments by country to get us all on target towards below 2C.
And maybe the next COP will be able to underwrite 1.5C.
That would be the best possible outcome, short of a miracle in Glasgow.
The following link is an interesting article about Ammonia as a fuel source.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...QtwJ6BAgVEAE&usg=AOvVaw2o0ojVgtUiKhiPV5Lxm6Ou
And in reality, there is little likelihood of gaining the necessary committments to take us from +2.7C down to not greater than 1.5C.
The mood music now is about 'ratcheting' down. So gaining firm commitments by country to get us all on target towards below 2C.
And maybe the next COP will be able to underwrite 1.5C.
That would be the best possible outcome, short of a miracle in Glasgow.
The following link is an interesting article about Ammonia as a fuel source.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...QtwJ6BAgVEAE&usg=AOvVaw2o0ojVgtUiKhiPV5Lxm6Ou
The link without the Google referral is here:
https://www.science.org/content/art...ir-and-water-could-power-globe-without-carbon
https://www.science.org/content/art...ir-and-water-could-power-globe-without-carbon
By engaging with China on its terms I think the co2 debate needs to take into account outsourced co2 (china makes a product for a European audience but all he co2 of manufacture is attributed to China)... co2 on a per capita basis rather than just total numbers
China though far from perfect is doing a lot more than some nations and probably wants the terms of reference to be taking these things into account rather than to turn up and be demonised
https://vm.tiktok.com/ZM8HhydYn/
Isn't that because being a major world manufacturing centre, is exactly what China has set itself up to do, to capture that kind of trading? The emissions are under Chinese control, but I suppose they could refuse to take orders from Europe?
The point is China has not turned up at COP 26 at all!
(To be fair neither has Russia, I wonder what their excuse is?)
We are seemingly reaching the point where whatever the rights and wrongs, or whatever methods of 'bean counting' employed, everyone who produces C02 emissions needs to reduce them and those producing the most have to cut back the most.
OK, we know the devils in the detail, it always is, but the central issue is to significantly reduce C02 emissions across the world and to start doing it now!
Very stark graph, but i'm skeptical, since rich people everywhere fly a lot and that means a lot of emissions...
Another graph from the same piece
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-59165781
Much as the political leaders will never admit it and will spin it. And much against my sincere hopes, this is actually the reality.
Too much self interest.
Too much self serving.
Too much reluctance to do anything that is not close enough to business as usual.
Whatever people think and say about her, Greta is correct.
In terms of actually cutting global emissions, there is nothing that is being done to do that. Let alone slow down the relentless increase.
If Boris thinks that Glasgow will be his legacy. He will be proven wrong, yet again.
And in reality, it was always going to be that way.
Edit. It is now down to those businesses who are planning for their long term future.
And the public, most likely led screaming and kicking to change by the younger generation.
Because if they don't, it is not going to end happily.
Much as the political leaders will never admit it and will spin it. And much against my sincere hopes, this is actually the reality.
Too much self interest.
Too much self serving.
Too much reluctance to do anything that is not close enough to business as usual.
Whatever people think and say about her, Greta is correct.
In terms of actually cutting global emissions, there is nothing that is being done to do that. Let alone slow down the relentless increase.
If Boris thinks that Glasgow will be his legacy. He will be proven wrong, yet again.
And in reality, it was always going to be that way.
Edit. It is now down to those businesses who are planning for their long term future.
And the public, most likely led screaming and kicking to change by the younger generation.
Because if they don't, it is not going to end happily.
Last edited:
And in essence, he is correct.... apart from one thing. Man made climate change has absolutely nothing to do with mother nature.
She gave humanity a truly perfect and stunningly beautiful planet.
Everything in balance and a planet perfectly sustainable.
Humanity and its inherent greed, as well as its complete inability to control its numbers has changed and damaged our planet to such an extent that mother nature is now completely overwhelmed.
Mother nature can't give a single feck. Will wipe us out one way or another, will rebalance itself and biodiversity will flourish again with new forms of life. I am not sad at all on that regards. Species comes and goes with or without extinctions. The only think that worries me on the fecked up actions that we are doing is the legacy that we will leave to the next generations which includes my niece and nephews, kids and grandkids of my friends and maybe mine if i ever have them. The planet will be fine no matter what as long celullar life survives, and fortunately, climate change will not jeopardize this. We will be a tiny spec in the history of this planet and we will die as clever greedy monkeys.
Last edited:
My primary concern, like you is for my grandchildren and what lies ahead for their future.
And I do agree with most of your point.
Humanity will just be a passing phase for our planet. And most likely not a beneficial phase at that.
Not per capita though? Which is how we should compares countries. The US is over double China.
That is not the issue though is it? The emissions must stop, China must stop, everybody must stop, or the world is going to hell in a hand cart... or so they tell us. If its down to comparing who can 'magic' their figures the best.... then I am afraid the devil is already fashioning the hand cart!
Using per capita isn't magic'ing the numbers though, it's just the correct and sensible way to look at the problem
your post made it sound like China are mostly responsible for what needs to change, when in fact if every western country reduced emissions to the same per capita rate as China - we'd be smashing the most optimistic of targets
I understand what you are saying but this is not a 'piss*** contest'....or is it?
China is the largest emitter of C02 by a long way. Every country can make a case for doing less or not damaging their economy, etc. but are we not in the 'last chance saloon'; 'rearranging the desk chairs on the titanic'; 'snoozing and loosing'; 'one minute to midnight on the doomsday clock' etc?
C02 Emissions, or so Greta tells us have to be cut ...now!
Is she just a delusional young person (wont say child because she is now 18) or just doing an opposite impression to Corporal Jones, with a cry of "do panic, do panic"?
This surely is not about making China look good or for that matter the West look bad, it is what it is a major dilemma if not the major dilemma for the next half century... after that its about how does mankind escape this planet .... calling Capt Kirk and crew!
As said above, what it matters is emisions per capita and by relevant countries (population), US, Russia, Canada and Japan are way ahead than china. But not only that. A considerable portion of china's CO2 emisions are as a result of western consumerism of products fabricated in china.
And as the chinese get wealthier, they will have more CO2 emissions as well. Bigger houses, larger electricity and heat consumption, more cars, more consumption etc. I think when looking at the world situation, simply going beyond pr. capita is pretty important when you think about what can realistically make any real difference at all.
That you don't know becase china is the country that is investing the most in renewables. Also, the wealthier they get, the more manfacturing jobs they will lose and they will go to another country (already happening). On CO2 emissions, China will take a similar approach to Europe than US, that had been done a terrible job. specially being the wealthier and more technologically advanced country in the world
I'll bet you 10 quid that their CO2 emissions will go up.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/article/green-china
Last edited:
China's emissions are twice the US and well above everyone else's they have to cutback the most, and if necessary tell the west to manufacture its own goods. Per capita means nothing as far as emissions are concerned, the damage they do is not dependent on such matters its where they came from.
If China was serious about things and had a good case to make, they would have attended the COP26 event.
Have you looked at a map? Have you looked at the population of both countries? Or are you being deliberately dim?
China has over 4 times as many people as the USA. Yet their emissions aren't 4 times those of the USA. They are about 2.5 times. That's why 'by capita' is an important thing to consider. If the US cut back so that its per capita figure was the same as China, that'd be a huge difference, but as they have a culture where driving huge cars with shitty milage and eating the most meat in the world is seen as patriotic, I can't see that happening.
Not as much as perhaps your good self!
Every country in the world has got its good excuses, its trade offs, etc. the world has to cut emissions and China has to cut most because it produces the most, that is the only reason!
None of this is going to happen though. Not the US either. At least not enough to reach net zero.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-59199484
You have to ask why this was allowed to happen.
And given to objectives of COP26, why should the fossil fuels industries have any delegates in Glasgow at all?
Surly that would have sent the right message.
You have to ask why this was allowed to happen.
And given to objectives of COP26, why should the fossil fuels industries have any delegates in Glasgow at all?
Surly that would have sent the right message.
Sorry, but I don't think "Our population is four times yours" is an excuse. It's a simple mathematical truth.
This sums it up nicely.
Nothing whatsoever to do with population size, its to do with how much C02 is emitted and who is the biggest offended, and its China by a long way. If the Chinese don't cut their emissions (whatever their reasoning its immaterial to the outcome) then there is not much anyone else can do to save the planet hence its all down to the Chinese Government, whether they like it or not, or whether anybody else likes it or not, they hold the key to everything (No 42 according to 'hitch-hikers guide...).
Unfortunately they didn't even turn up at COP26, which gives us all the answers we need!
If China was serious about things then they'd partition into four independent countries. Then suddenly they'd be twice as good as the US on emissions even though nothing has changed, because that is how it works.
The Chinese Government would still be controlling the emissions!
It really has nothing to do with 'looking good' (as Boris will find out after COP26) and being absent from the decision making process is not how anything works.
Whether they like it or not the Chinese are on their own in belching out the most C02 S**t and they have to stop.
It would be four governments.
Scratch that, if they really wanted so solve climate change once and for all they'd make 100 countries, cutting their emissions by 99 % overnight.