- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
How can the Elites of Europe get away controlling every body elses future?
What, I am suggesting, is that there is no effective democracy.
It does not matter what the electorate want or think, they will not get it.Michael, from your earlier comment:
– “war Hawks who are also all in for Net Zero”
That doesn’t seem to quite cover it, e.g. the three pundits on the video I critiqued are war hawks against net zero. There are plenty of these, such as Kemi Badenoch and about half her party.
I can think of two reasons war hawks would support net zero, or claim to.
One is to look like they’re doing something and actually care about humanity’s future. As the Wikipedia page about climate change opinion polling shows, the vast majority of the public do want action. So this reason is just standard political posturing to garner votes.
The other is that fossil fuels are rapidly depleting, so by getting the public off fossil fuels and onto electricity, they save fossil fuel to fight wars with.
Remember that Exxon’s own scientists worked out emissions and global warming in the mid 1970s, and it was proven in 1988 when stratospheric cooling was measured. The politicians only really acknowledged the problem nearly three decades later at Paris in 2016. That looks decidedly reluctant to me. If net zero really was such a good wheeze to fleece the public, they could have started in the 1990s.
From above:
– “How can the Elites of Europe get away controlling every body elses future?”
Money. Big, big money, and corporate power. They buy politicians on all sides, e.g. with donations to multiple political parties, so it doesn’t matter which get the most votes. Then, they secretly offer politicians that have been elected lucrative jobs after leaving office, so long as they do as they’re told. No way you can prove it.
– “What, I am suggesting, is that there is no effective democracy.”
Indeed; see above. We need to change the political structure itself, because this one has been comprehensively hacked.
In our quest for Net Zero the Earth is being relentlessly plundered.
Several container ships have gone down after catching on fire, some of these were transporting Chinese EV.
It does not matter if an EV is the initiator of the conflagration, or just a near-by, tightly packed vehicle, once those Lithium packs go off, in such confined space, there is no stopping the inevitable.
To the bottom of the sea, pollution on steroids.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_wYRdwvfQoMichael, the quest for net zero is a quest to sustain an inherently unsustainable way of life. It’s not like fossil fuels don’t plunder the Earth, its people and all life. The Western wars on Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya, and the covert NATO war on Syria, were all launched and pursued on false pretexts; lies, to put it bluntly. In every case, the real motivation was Western commercial control and exploitation of, primarily, oil reserves, along with whatever else happened to be there. And the 2014 US backed coup in Ukraine which led to the current war there was to weaken and overextend Russia (link available on request), yet another country with major fossil fuel production. The warmongers have repeatedly stated that their objective in Ukraine is regime change in Russia.
Genuine question here; why do you keep pinning the blame on net zero, when net zero is clearly just part of the real, much larger, and far more comprehensive problem?
Yves at NakedCapitalism comments on a Financial Times piece entitled “Financial Times on Coming Climate-Change-Driven Meltdown in Real Estate: Gradually, Then Suddenly?” The premise is that insurance companies are acting as a kind of canary in a coalmine. Currently, it’s getting almost impossible to get insurance for houses in Florida due to insurance companies not wishing to take on such a high riks due to climate change and its effect on the hurricane season. Many companies will simply not issue insurance, some have gone bankrupt and any that are still issuing insurance do so at a huge price premium. You cannot get a mortgage without house insurance and this will kill the mortgage market in Florida leading to a property market collapse leading to bank failures etc etc. Climate change has consequences and the insurance companies with all their actuarial risk assessment won’t insure against it. That is scary.
A piece from Karlof on his substack detailing the frankly staggering pace of solar and wind generation capacity in China. China isn’t doing this because of net zero. It is a strategic move that will guarantee them power generation free from fossil fuels and reliance on FF imported from other countries whilst at the same time reducing pollution etc. China is not deindustrialising, in fact, quite the opposite. How come China can roll out renewable energy generation capacity without killing off their steel and cement plants? Their cars are now competing globally with the previous incumbants who were too slow to innovate.
Naked Capitalism link is:
https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2025/06/financial-times-on-coming-climate-change-driven-meltdown-in-real-estate-gradually-then-suddenly.html
Sorry I messed it up.Clark, a relative has just bought a German petrol plug-in hybrid monster car, weighing in at over two tons, it can drive on battery only mode for twenty five miles.
These people vote Labour and think they are doing their bit for the Planet.
Almost nobody will vote to be poorer.
If the Lithium mine was at the bottom of their garden, they might feel more hesitant at over using the dwindling resources of the Earth.
Advertising/rampant consumerism is rife among the haves.
Look at the idiot Bezos
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5ylk5nznkyo
One of the richest people on the planet, his wealth is based on rampant consumerism, he spends like money is water, he convinces others to spend like money is water. Buy, Buy, Buy.
Why not be happy with less?Clark, I think Net Zero is mostly a money making scheme for the wealthy, for corporations.
Imagine how much money is to be made from off-shore winds farms = billions.
On the Isle of Sky they are going to dismember the present wind farm, it is 18 years old, so they can emplace a bigger wind farm.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cly1813yd0goon shore wind farms are supposed to last between twenty five to thirty years.
This wind farm has only done half its life.
All this renewable stuff, seems to need constant replacementMichael – ” I think Net Zero is mostly a money making scheme for the wealthy…”
Yes, but this applies to everything, so why keep singling out net zero?
No way are the dangers of climate change a hoax. A hoax can’t melt away half the Arctic sea ice and destabilise the West Antarctic Thwaites Glacier. When the Arctic sea ice has gone (and its heading for zero in about a decade or two) the Gulf Stream loses the cold end of the convection system driving it so it’ll probably weaken and die, plunging north west Europe (i.e. us) into a localised ice age.
Then there’s ocean acidification – yes I know what Patrick Moore says, but it isn’t his field and he’s virtually on his own. This attacks the base of the global food chain.
Emissions are damned dangerous, and it’s easy to throw them up there but almost impossible to take them down again, like putting sugar in tea. Ocean acidification is likewise uncorrectable. Plants can remove the CO2 portion of atmospheric emissions, but even the immense greening we’re seeing isn’t doing so nearly fast enough – and that should ring alarm bells, surely?
– “Why not be happy with less?”
I thoroughly agree. The problem is making the wealthy make do with less. This is what they mean when the media they own or control tells us that a “green agenda” is a threat to freedom. Yes; their freedom to spend obscene amounts of money, consume obscene quantities of resources, and effectively enslave the majority of humanity.
I see Extinction Rebellion were out in Venice protesting Bezos’ bash. Good for them.
Michael, see, I don’t think your associates you mentioned who “happily jet off on holiday to the Caribbean” are oblivious due to cognitive dissonance. I think they only get two to four weeks holiday a year, and they correctly reason that their two flights a year are quick and cheap, and a drop in the ocean compared with Bezos and co. If they had two months off and train fairs were as cheap as flights, they might take trains across the Eurasian mainland or something. If airships were available, they might visit the Caribbean on those; much nicer than sitting in a stuffy aluminium tube for six hours non-stop getting crap food and jet lag. Both provide a much more leisurely view. But such changes need governments to bring them about, and democracy is screwed.
We’ve all been set against each other by “carbon footprints”, so that the small differences between people who know each other personally displace from our minds the enormous differences between typical folks and the unreasonably wealthy. But it was BP who paid a quarter billion or something to promote the carbon footprint. A divisive PR master-stroke.
but even the immense greening we’re seeing isn’t doing so nearly fast enough.
I have had a thought about that.
The green parts of a tree are about 1% of the absorbed Carbon.
99% is in the woody parts. Before you get the woody parts, you get the green parts.
The green parts, shed and possibly become top soil.
Perhaps the bounty of extra CO2 needs a few decades, before the carbon sequestration, really takes a grip?If CO2 is such a “bounty” Michael why would feedback mechanisms exist to counter it?
Zoom out Michael and consider a bigger vista.Michael – “a few decades…”
???!!! We’ll be completely fucked by then!
Look, here is the “Keeling curve”, the measured CO2 concentration at Mauna Loa, Hawaii. If you don’t like that one, there are others, and they look very similar. You can even buy your own CO2 monitor, they don’t cost much, and with a bit of ingenuity you could check its calibration yourself, it’s not that hard. Look how the graph gets steeper and steeper:
scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/graphics_gallery/mauna_loa_record/
Remember, this rise is not undoable!!! What do you suggest we do “in a few decades” if your considered opinion turns out to be less reliable than that of the countless scientists who’ve studied this?
And the higher the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, the faster it dissolves into the oceans, where it forms an acid that progressively neutralises the ocean’s natural alkalinity. Tree growth can’t possibly correct that, can it?
Look, if you hadn’t swallowed the line that scientists are all in a conspiracy to raise everyone’s tax bills (including their own!), you’d know some real climate science. Bad media is making you misspend your time. Science isn’t about debate, no one debates Newton’s laws, yet bridges and buildings built on those principles remain standing. Science is about what’s testable.
Grief. Do you tell your mechanic not to bother topping the engine oil or antifreeze, because it’s all a conspiracy and debate has been shut down? What do you think scientists do all day? Where do you think “proper” science is done? Because there must be some or we couldn’t keep getting new gadgets, unless technology is being gifted to us by extraterrestrials.
The elite have done a right good job on you mate. They get richer and richer, while you blame – scientists!
“Tree growth can’t possibly correct that, can it?”
There should be more Carbon stored in the top soils than in all land based life.
However, if you want an all electric future, you will need, ever more open cast mines.
These open cast mines are devoid of top soil, they are also devoid of trees, I expect so lizards and ants live on the walls. if you clear fell a tropical forest, say to graze cattle, there will be very little top soil, the top soil will not be being replenished properly.
If you build more airports, more concrete runways, those areas will no longer hold active Carbon. You will have created man-made-deserts, well done Rachel.
If you build an extra one and a half million homes in the next for years in Britain, those infrastructures will preclude
Carbon-soil-sequestration.
I would like to suggest that the degradation of the surface of the Earth, has more to do with the warming, than pensioners huddled around their gas/wood/coal firesMichael – “I would like to suggest…”
It isn’t a matter of debate. It’s a matter of evidence.
You can check the radiative properties of CO2 in your own kitchen, with two bottles, two thermometers, a CO2 source such as a soda syphon cartridge, and a lamp. You can check that the warming of Earth’s surface is caused primarily by emissions by understanding stratospheric cooling, which was settled, yes settled just like Newton’s laws are settled, in 1988. This is planetary atmospheric science, which correctly predicts the surface temperatures of Mars, Venus and the moon, as well as Earth’s.
You really may as well be claiming that the Earth is flat.
Pensioners who get frozen to death is a political matter about poverty. You can’t just make up climate science to suit your politics. But why do you want pensioners to have too little money anyway? Why won’t you support politics that takes some of Bezos’ money and gives it to pensioners?
Or is that too woke?
Why does nobody seem to differentiate between Carbon (C) and Carbon Dioxide (CO2) captured in soil or seawater. There is a difference between the two.
Can nobody be bothered to separate the two, or is simply because too few people actually realise that there is a difference…_Digger, why don’t you just explain the difference for us?
Quote Nature
“The carbon sequestration potential of open-ocean pelagic ecosystems is vastly under-reported compared to coastal vegetation ‘blue carbon’ systems. Here we show that just a single pelagic harvested species, Antarctic krill, sequesters a similar amount of carbon through its sinking faecal pellets as marshes, mangroves and seagrass. Due to their massive population biomass, fast-sinking faecal pellets and the modest depths that pellets need to reach to achieve sequestration (mean is 381 m), Antarctic krill faecal pellets sequester 20 MtC per productive season (spring to early Autumn).”
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-52135-6@ DiggerUK
yes, I have wondered why they only talk of Carbon dioxide.Calcium carbonate is a chemical compound with the chemical formula CaCO₃. It is a common substance found in rocks as the minerals calcite and aragonite, most notably in chalk and limestone, eggshells, gastropod shells, shellfish skeletons and pearls.
Maybe most of the Oxygen, doesn’t gas off.
If some critters live beneath the photic zone, there must be some Oxygen in the seas, if not you would not have complex life.
Deep down, there are a few living things, now they probably, mostly move slowly to save energy and Oxygen.
There must be chemical reactions that release Oxygen, at deep levels.@ Digger UK
in that example I have quoted of Krill shit ( Nature) they are talking about Carbon sequestration,
not Carbon dioxide.United Kingdom Energy businesses going down the tubes.
Prax Lindsey Oil Refinery Limited, Lincolnshire.
Prax Group, which is led by chairman and chief executive Sanjeev Kumar Soosaipillai, purchased Lindsey Oil Refinery from French company Total in 2021.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c2k11xze2jyoGovernment have their fingers in their ears.
Sharon Graham, Unite’s general secretary, said: “The Lindsey oil refinery is strategically important and the government must intervene immediately to protect workers and fuel supplies.
Unite has constantly warned the government that its policies have placed the oil industry on a cliff edge.
It has failed to act and instead put its fingers in its ears.”
