|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2019 21:27:25 GMT
I'm sure I read recently that renewable energy isn't the distant pipe dream that some seem to think it is, but every gain that has been made in that department has been pretty much wiped out by the sheer amount of power it takes to mine bitcoins, of ALL things.
|
|
18,845 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Apr 18, 2019 21:50:24 GMT
Posts removed. No need to get personal. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2019 23:02:31 GMT
It’s clear from how they fielded a man who couldn’t take a modicum of criticism from a recognised ‘difficult’ journalist (who was only putting to him what a lot of us think, which is his job) and chose to flee the studio. Adam Boulton may have been putting to that particular young man what a lot of people think but instead of putting it to him in a constructive way, he chose instead to just insult him. Being constructive is his job, insulting guests isn't. I think it says more about Adam Boulton and the people who support him though than it does about the protester. What a world this is becoming.
|
|
4,458 posts
|
Post by poster J on Apr 18, 2019 23:24:42 GMT
People are getting increasingly frustrated that Government shows no sign of realising what is important. And other people are getting increasingly frustrated that people don't realise that there are other things which have to be solved first before meaningful climate change legislation can be put in place and, more importantly, implemented and enforced. If we don't have a working political system or any idea whether EU standards are going to apply to us next month, never mind next year, then like it or not we aren't in a position to put in place what the disrupters are demanding. And that's without even considering the fact that the government is on holiday. That is why this protest is so ill-thought out and ineffectual, and why the organisers clearly have no clue about how to actually get the people they need to impact to engage. Without buy in from government and corporations they will never succeed, and all they have managed to do so far is alienate and irritate those groups, which is really not going to help.
|
|
|
Post by d'James on Apr 19, 2019 3:07:39 GMT
Wow. So much nimbyism here I can’t bear. There is disruption but it’s not that bad. People have been groomed to hate peaceful protest. (See above about peaceful arrest.)
People are wound up by the tabloids to things that don’t affect them and if they actually experienced the reality of it they’d find it wasn’t that bad.
They’ve warned people about any disruption and appropriate alternatives have been able to be made. There have been so many ifs thrown about by people (mostly unaffected) but nothing has come to pass. It has got a lot of attention, so well done them.
Can you imagine if the French Revolution had happened over here? ‘Yes, she said “Let them eat cake,” but at least I could have made my guillotine appointment on time.’
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 19, 2019 6:30:59 GMT
People are getting increasingly frustrated that Government shows no sign of realising what is important. And other people are getting increasingly frustrated that people don't realise that there are other things which have to be solved first before meaningful climate change legislation can be put in place and, more importantly, implemented and enforced. If we don't have a working political system or any idea whether EU standards are going to apply to us next month, never mind next year, then like it or not we aren't in a position to put in place what the disrupters are demanding. And that's without even considering the fact that the government is on holiday. That's all true of course. I mean, it's not like Government have had much time to sort out a lot of this stuff.
Oh.
|
|
4,458 posts
|
Post by poster J on Apr 19, 2019 8:53:03 GMT
And other people are getting increasingly frustrated that people don't realise that there are other things which have to be solved first before meaningful climate change legislation can be put in place and, more importantly, implemented and enforced. If we don't have a working political system or any idea whether EU standards are going to apply to us next month, never mind next year, then like it or not we aren't in a position to put in place what the disrupters are demanding. And that's without even considering the fact that the government is on holiday. That's all true of course. I mean, it's not like Government have had much time to sort out a lot of this stuff.
Oh.
Well obviously, but it doesn't change the fact that they haven't so they still need to sort it out before they can spend time on meaningful legislation to deal with other issues like climate change. Without the framework then nothing will get done, so timing is everything in a way the protesters seem not to understand. I've now made this point more than once and not received an answer or explanation as to how the protest is actually having any positive impact at all, so I think that rather says it all about the extent to which the timing and methods are ineffectual. I don't dispute the issues are important - they very much are - but the whole way this has been carried out is not and was never going to achieve what they are trying to do.
|
|
1,848 posts
|
Post by NeilVHughes on Apr 19, 2019 10:00:23 GMT
The biggest impact on Climate Change will come when we individualise the changes required such as
- reducing the use of plastic - buying clothes that last longer, the Primark wear and discard model is extremely wasteful - walk more, most city centres are relatively small areas, the furore over making Oxford Street pedestrian only is an example - the food we buy and how it is prepared - reducing the dependence on the car, cycling/walking more would not only reduce emissions but increase health. - .........
The Government is going as fast as we let them, plastic bag charge, electric cars only in 20 years, increased renewable energy, smart meters, increased investment in public transport, cycle lanes in cities, pedestrian only areas etc.
We are getting close to the tipping point where solar/wind will be efficient enough and the limited storage facilities (batteries)will be overcome and each house will become primarily self sufficient, will we pay the initial £thousands to transition as the payback will take decades.
These protesters are rightly highlighting the issue but the changes have to come from ourselves, using nudge theory as in seat belts and smoking it takes about 25 years for a Government to change values, seat belts a hindrance 60’s unthinkable in the 90’s, same with smoking, achieved with public information and drip feeding the message until we take it on board.
Using a similar scenario it will take 20/30 years for it to be unthinkable that we would not have a renewable source in each property and the driving of an gas guzzler will be considered the same as smoking in public and walking cycling becomes a primary transport method. (as we transition to centralised distribution, cities/towns can be redesigned as districts with social hubs within walking/cycling distance rather than shopping centres)
All these changes depend on us as individuals which the Government can only coerce not demand.
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Apr 19, 2019 10:13:09 GMT
I agree with much said there - but it will take much longer than 20/30 years to redesigned/redevelop towns and cities in the way you describe. Just the nature of town centre leases and the time lag in terms of development planning means that is a far longer term project.
I know it might seem trivial - but I would ban all outdoor heaters. It seems to me utterly ludicrous to heat up areas around pubs and cafes. It is massively inefficient use of resources and whilst the ban would only reduce energy consumption a minimal amount, it would be a step that could be taken that would send a signal about how we should use energy. Heating up a space outside a bar/pub so that smokers can stand there in comfort is utterly wrong.
|
|
|
Post by londonpostie on Apr 19, 2019 10:18:57 GMT
Go for it, just as long as you don't mess with three holiday flights a year entitlement.
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Apr 19, 2019 11:04:12 GMT
I definitely agree that lots of change needs to come from ourselves, but for what it's worth it's very unlikely that we're going to reach a point at which every home has own local generation. Certainly we're not going to reach a point at which every premises is self sufficient in the foreseeable future. Just in practical terms, the density of housing in cities means that it makes more sense in terms of space, efficiency and costs to have larger scale renewables rather than small-scale generation on every building (think, for instance, about the available physical space for PV or Solar Hot Water panels to be installed per household in blocks of flats compared with houses). The other issue is the stability of the grid: Already the mains is worried about premises selling excess electricity back to the grid. Further, as the grid becomes less carbon intensive (coal power stations > gas > renewables) then technologies that have been traditionally used other fuels are incentivised to switch to electricity (household heating and cars for instance).
Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting that small scale renewables isn't going to be an important part of the future, just that this can only be a part of the solution.
In terms of stuff like heating outdoors, it's absolutely true that this sort of thing is very wasteful. However, this is just a drop in the ocean and, if the aim is to have a substantial reduction in the energy we consume (and the emissions caused by that energy), then those little things can only ever be a small part of a much bigger picture. As David Mackay said about "every little helps", if everyone does a little, we achieve a little.
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Apr 19, 2019 11:25:11 GMT
The primary school right by where I live has installed a huge array of solar panels on their roof. This is a very sensible use of a public building. Because the school has limited operating hours each day and, of course, is closed for 12/13 weeks per year, it is reducing their carbon footprint significantly and also generating electricity that is being sold back to the grid - helping more widely.
That is a model that can be adopted by a whole range of public facilities.
In France, I have seen a number of supermarket car parks that have installed solar panels over their car parks. This produces energy for the store/grid and also provides shade for customers. I know we don't have quite the same sunshine levels as much of France - but again, it is using a space in a different way with multiple benefits.
|
|
5,593 posts
|
Post by lynette on Apr 19, 2019 11:48:59 GMT
The biggest impact on Climate Change will come when we individualise the changes required such as - reducing the use of plastic - buying clothes that last longer, the Primark wear and discard model is extremely wasteful - walk more, most city centres are relatively small areas, the furore over making Oxford Street pedestrian only is an example - the food we buy and how it is prepared - reducing the dependence on the car, cycling/walking more would not only reduce emissions but increase health. - ......... The Government is going as fast as we let them, plastic bag charge, electric cars only in 20 years, increased renewable energy, smart meters, increased investment in public transport, cycle lanes in cities, pedestrian only areas etc. We are getting close to the tipping point where solar/wind will be efficient enough and the limited storage facilities (batteries)will be overcome and each house will become primarily self sufficient, will we pay the initial £thousands to transition as the payback will take decades. These protesters are rightly highlighting the issue but the changes have to come from ourselves, using nudge theory as in seat belts and smoking it takes about 25 years for a Government to change values, seat belts a hindrance 60’s unthinkable in the 90’s, same with smoking, achieved with public information and drip feeding the message until we take it on board. Using a similar scenario it will take 20/30 years for it to be unthinkable that we would not have a renewable source in each property and the driving of an gas guzzler will be considered the same as smoking in public and walking cycling becomes a primary transport method. (as we transition to centralised distribution, cities/towns can be redesigned as districts with social hubs within walking/cycling distance rather than shopping centres) All these changes depend on us as individuals which the Government can only coerce not demand. What he says.
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Apr 19, 2019 14:48:23 GMT
Individuals only change behaviour in large numbers when it is led from above, to create that shift then government, councils, big business etc., need to be seen to lead At the moment they are seen to be, if not actively against the idea, then at least resistant or agnostic. Incentivisation and stricter penalties on each of these entities would be a good start. The general population would follow.
|
|
999 posts
|
Post by Backdrifter on Apr 19, 2019 17:18:59 GMT
I've now made this point more than once and not received an answer or explanation as to how the protest is actually having any positive impact at all, so I think that rather says it all about the extent to which the timing and methods are ineffectual. I don't dispute the issues are important - they very much are - but the whole way this has been carried out is not and was never going to achieve what they are trying to do. I hardly think an absence of tangible responses to you by some people on a theatre message board "says it all". Regardless of what the protestors thought they might achieve immediately or short term, they are helping to keep visible issues which, as you rightly said, are very important. Are there any specific public protests that have led directly to significant change in the short term? That's not meant as a combative question, it's just that the discussion has raised the question in my mind.
|
|
999 posts
|
Post by Backdrifter on Apr 19, 2019 17:22:50 GMT
Go for it, just as long as you don't mess with three holiday flights a year entitlement. You're very keen to remind us of this three holiday flights a year entitlement thing of yours. If you mention it again, that'll make it three mentions, which would have some symmetry to it. Then again, doesn't three flights mean they either remain at their destination, or started there in the first place?
|
|
4,458 posts
|
Post by poster J on Apr 19, 2019 17:25:30 GMT
I hardly think an absence of tangible responses to you by some people on a theatre message board "says it all". I wasn't talking just about this board, you made that assumption. I've discussed the same point with many friends, family and colleagues and none of us can come up with any explanation as to how the timing of this protest is in any way beneficial. They're not inconveniencing the very people they want attention from, so the short term positive impact in that respect is non-existent and without some sort of positive momentum in the short term at least the chances of any meaningful long term impact must be lessened. If they don't even have positive publicity with the general public in the short term, then the chances of them being remembered in a positive light and being a catalyst for change are less likely. They aren't managing to increase their numbers, indeed their numbers are falling, so that lessens the likelihood of longer term gains. Their real problem (aside from the terrible timing of their demonstration generally) is that they are struggling to get past the media focusing on examples of their hypocrisy - like Emma Thompson making a speech at Oxford Circus straight off a plane from Los Angeles. Obviously we can't avoid that sort of travel entirely, but it does create unfortunate headlines and social media ridicule rather than huge waves of support.
|
|
999 posts
|
Post by Backdrifter on Apr 19, 2019 17:29:27 GMT
I hardly think an absence of tangible responses to you by some people on a theatre message board "says it all". I wasn't talking just about this board, you made that assumption. I've discussed the same point with many friends, family and colleagues and none of us can come up with any explanation as to how the timing of this protest is in any way beneficial. They're not inconveniencing the very people they want attention from, so the short term positive impact in that respect is non-existent and without some sort of positive momentum in the short term at least the chances of any meaningful long term impact must be lessened. If they don't even have positive publicity with the general public in the short term, then the chances of them being remembered in a positive light and being a catalyst for change are less likely. They aren't managing to increase their numbers, indeed their numbers are falling, so that lessens the likelihood of longer term gains. Their real problem (aside from the terrible timing of their demonstration generally) is that they are struggling to get past the media focusing on examples of their hypocrisy - like Emma Thompson making a speech at Oxford Circus straight off a plane from Low Angeles. Obviously we can't avoid that sort of travel entirely, but it does create unfortunate headlines and social media ridicule rather than huge waves of support. Oh well, there it is.
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Apr 19, 2019 17:47:31 GMT
I've now made this point more than once and not received an answer or explanation as to how the protest is actually having any positive impact at all, so I think that rather says it all about the extent to which the timing and methods are ineffectual. I don't dispute the issues are important - they very much are - but the whole way this has been carried out is not and was never going to achieve what they are trying to do. I hardly think an absence of tangible responses to you by some people on a theatre message board "says it all". Regardless of what the protestors thought they might achieve immediately or short term, they are helping to keep visible issues which, as you rightly said, are very important. Are there any specific public protests that have led directly to significant change in the short term? That's not meant as a combative question, it's just that the discussion has raised the question in my mind. Various Eastern European countries had protest led revolutions in the late eighties, some were relatively bloodless such as in the old Czechoslovakia but, generally, blood needed to be spilled to have any effect. These were not only short term but have become long term. For those around at the time, it seemed that anything has become possible, so that what existed didn’t have to keep existing. Each of them, however peaceful, came about in an atmosphere where losing lives was a real possibility, though. Would protests without that level of danger have had any effect? It’s doubtful, revolutions aren’t won by having better arguments.
|
|
999 posts
|
Post by Backdrifter on May 7, 2019 22:37:33 GMT
Meanwhile, the IPBES report.
|
|
4,631 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on May 9, 2019 11:59:09 GMT
Although these people may come across as annoying tree huggers. There message is a pertinent one. Listen to one of the greatest man to walk the earth and that is David Attenborough.
In 2/3 generations we the humans have succeeded very well in putting the human race first and virtually destroying the planet through greed. I am not here to preach, but a good start and something I try to do is eliminate single use plastics and use of palm oils.
|
|
4,799 posts
|
Post by The Matthew on May 9, 2019 15:07:27 GMT
Their message is an important one but it's also one that everyone knows. They're not communicating anything: they're preaching to the choir, and the few people whose minds really do need to be changed — such as America's dismal approximation of a president — won't listen.
|
|
4,631 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on May 11, 2019 22:14:00 GMT
I am ambivalent to these protesters. They’re not communicating anything as their message is one that people do not want to deal with, the environment is an inconvenience, which leads to responsibility and costs more money. Everyone would agree that Trump is inward thinking, hence being nationalist, their narrative now is no one pushes America around, than being a strong voice in a worldwide community and being a powerful of change - the people on this board seem more outward. This planet was virtually all trees, apart from deserts and the artics, we used to have a plentiful amount of oil (an axis of evil,) we are looking at fracking for a future supply, which doesn’t appear to be great with drinking water catching fire and minor earthquakes.
However what America does shouldn’t stop us leading by example and calling an appalling lying president out. Whilst showing mutual respect to our American friends who are more outward in their views and opinions.
|
|