Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

Solarchaser

When I quote musk as god, then your bluster can be seen as a retort, since I never have and likely never will, your statement there has as much gravitas as a maga hat.

What is it with these right wing loonies trying to convince everyone to stick their heads in the sand, and because people with a brain dont so it, they resort to the most childish of jibes.

I'm sure you can find a "fossil fuels are great" forum where you can get with your own kind and reminisce about the good old days when you could take a lung full of fresh smog in the morning....

Martyn1981

Solarchaser wrote: »

What is it with these right wing loonies trying to convince everyone to stick their heads in the sand, and because people with a brain dont so it, they resort to the most childish of jibes.

Money and status quo, that's what's with them. They don't want to lose either. They don't care what the net loss is, over the long term, only the short term benefits to themselves.

Edit - I missed out the big one. If it's the actual politicians saying it, then that's typically because they can pick up loads of votes from anyone in denial and angry, or scared. Telling someone everything is fine, don't worry, those sciencey people are just religious zealots, is such a relief you get a load of cheap votes.

I find it utterly disgusting, instead of doing what's best for these people, some will instead take advantage.

Regarding some posters on here, and ignoring any diet-deniers, I would suggest we have a somewhat vulnerable fantasist, who should respect the basis of the G&E board, and not troll us, even if he completely disagrees with our choices.

JKenH

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/sep/28/uk-needs-billions-a-year-to-meet-2050-climate-targets?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

NigeWick

JKenH wrote: »

The UK will need investment worth billions of pounds every year to remove enough greenhouse gases from the air to meet its 2050 climate targets,

Better value than the even more £Billions to move people from low lying areas and buy in more food from abroad.

GreatApe

NigeWick wrote: »

Better value than the even more £Billions to move people from low lying areas and buy in more food from abroad.

Importing food is cheap
Base ingredients cost about 20p for 2,000 calories
Sugar rice wheat corn etc and most foods are made up of base foods
Importing one iPhone is like importing ten years of food

Regarding the cost to move people
People move themselves the average person moves once every 22 years
When they move they can move to a suitable property

But of course we can move whole homes if needed
The cost of which will be negligible as droids take over

JKenH

Solarchaser wrote: »

Why is it the far right just want to stick their head in the sand and say science will fix it....

Hi, I have a thought about that but please bear with me first with another related observation.

I think the term far right is used far too widely just as far left is. They are used pejoratively as part of the present trend in all arenas to polarise debate. They conjure up images of Nazls and Communists, when I am sure none of us on here fall into either category. There are those at the extremes of the FF industry who can reasonably be labelled as right wing as they seek to sustain their business model and equally there are those on the left who support AGW for ideological reasons. However, there are some AGW sceptics (now relabelled as deniers) who would not traditionally regard themselves as right wing. And there are of course plenty on the right who do believe in AGW. I suspect a lot of people want to be able to talk about AGW without being labelled right or left and all the implied bias that entails.

Now to my main point. It is sad that the AGW debate has become polarised along political lines and one wonders why that has happened when (I am looking at the UK specifically) all the mainstream parties are promoting green policies.

Perhaps it goes back to a comment I made a few days ago that people who have right wing views tend to be optimists and those on the left pessimists. This perhaps is why those on the right are less worried about AGW and those on the left worry more about it. The optimists believe that maybe it isn’t quite as bad as the AGW scientists make out and anyway science and technology can sort the problem while the the pessimists fear the worst and can’t believe in some technology they can’t yet see. The view of the optimists may arguably now be the correct one (i.e. it will all work out fine in the end) as look at the pace at which we have progressed in the last 20 years with solar panel, wind turbine technology, electric vehicles etc and there is every likelihood that this will accelerate with even newer technologies ( as GA espouses) - BUT - this development would not have started and gained momentum had it not been driven by the fear of the pessimists.

Hopefully now that RE technology has momentum it will be carried forwards by economics without the need for deeply divided politics.

How one sees the future will depend on one’s outlook and being optimistic that with the technological progress we are making we will get through this doesn’t make one a denier - just an optimist. Just bear in mind that to an optimist the hand wringing of a pessimist seems just as illogical.

Having written all that I can see how it can only make sense to an optimist so I am not expecting many people to agree with me but I thought it was worth a shout. 😀

Solarchaser

Good and fair points Ken.

You quoted me saying far right.... it was a direct response to the troll saying about lefties.
I was simply replying in kind.

You have mentioned about polarising, you count yourself as right wing, which is probably why you quoted me and not great troll, since he was the one who first mentioned a side, I.e. lefties.

I do agree about right being... well i wouldn't say optimistic, I'd say more belligerent, much less likely to listen to opposing views, and much quicker to rubbish facts, see trumps America and the "alternative facts".
Both sides can definitely suffer from confirmation bias, but the left are more likely to review their views earlier, while the right carry on regardless of in this case, the mountain of evidence to the contrary.

Since it's all political now, the same can be said for those still supporting no deal Brexit, even though there is a mountain of evidence that it will be bad for everyone except the super rich.
And while those on the left try to mitigate the effects... those on the right call them cry babies

GreatApe

NigeWick wrote: »

Better value than the even more £Billions to move people from low lying areas and buy in more food from abroad.

Importing food is cheap
Base ingredients cost about 20p for 2,000 calories
Sugar rice wheat corn etc and most foods are made up of base foods
Importing one iPhone is like importing ten years of food

Regarding the cost to move people
People move themselves the average person moves once every 22 years
When they move they can move to a suitable property

But of course we can move whole homes if needed
The cost of which will be negligible as droids take over

GreatApe

Solarchaser wrote: »

Good and fair points Ken.

You quoted me saying far right.... it was a direct response to the troll saying about lefties.
I was simply replying in kind.

You have mentioned about polarising, you count yourself as right wing, which is probably why you quoted me and not great troll, since he was the one who first mentioned a side, I.e. lefties.

I do agree about right being... well i wouldn't say optimistic, I'd say more belligerent, much less likely to listen to opposing views, and much quicker to rubbish facts, see trumps America and the "alternative facts".
Both sides can definitely suffer from confirmation bias, but the left are more likely to review their views earlier, while the right carry on regardless of in this case, the mountain of evidence to the contrary.

Since it's all political now, the same can be said for those still supporting no deal Brexit, even though there is a mountain of evidence that it will be bad for everyone except the super rich.
And while those on the left try to mitigate the effects... those on the right call them cry babies

Stop being a cry baby

The main difference I can see between left and right is
Right believes in self reliance and the family unit and sorting !!!! out themselves where possible
The left think in collectivist action as the solution to more or less everything from transport to health to housing to hunger to jobs to education no individual responsibility the state will so it all...

So far the world has seemed to fund a balance which seems to be about 85% self reliance 15% collectivism as per the ratio of state workers to private sector workers.

With regard to global warming the right think don't worry we will sort everything out
The left watermelons try to use it as yet another excuse to pretend free market capatilism isn't working and the solution to global heating is more state control and a move away from free market capatilism. No Thanks

GreatApe

Of course another big difference between the right and left is the right tend to accept economics are important and would like to address the problems with economic means

The left tend to believe in the currency of 'will power' all you need is 'political will' you have a problem it's just not enough political will to address it. Hunger depression poverty global warming obesity all arise because of a lack of political will.

To the right this is insulting to humanity itself like humanity wants poverty death and diseases
Plenty of left wing government have been in power and with all the will in the world they were unable to usher in the utopia...

And of course to the left the statement that resources are finite and economics matter is insulting because their unlimited will power is all the currency they need to solve anything and everything

There will never be a convergence of the two
At least for the last fifty years the right have won the economic arguments
Because as lovely as will power is, there have been enough experiments and tests to show will power alone doesn't feed the poor and cure the sick