Climate Crisis: Are we doing enough?

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

Psamathe

Regular
I wonder how much damage Trump and his "drill baby drill" can actually achieve. He is acting politically over short term whereas oil companies will have to think longer term about significant investments and returns on those investments. And maybe they'll recognise there is more to making profits that getting a drilling licence. And in 4 years time moderately likely that renewables will be getting pushed meaning a declining market for their hydrocarbons, supply exceeding demard, etc. so long term returns on investment might just not warrant expansion.

I'm sure there will be some and that it will be worse than were there a more rational US President. But maybe (or hopefully) not as bad as Trump's rethoric might suggest.

Ian
 

matticus

Guru
I wonder how much damage Trump and his "drill baby drill" can actually achieve. He is acting politically over short term whereas oil companies will have to think longer term about significant investments and returns on those investments. And maybe they'll recognise there is more to making profits that getting a drilling licence. And in 4 years time moderately likely that renewables will be getting pushed meaning a declining market for their hydrocarbons, supply exceeding demard, etc. so long term returns on investment might just not warrant expansion.

I'm sure there will be some and that it will be worse than were there a more rational US President. But maybe (or hopefully) not as bad as Trump's rethoric might suggest.

Ian

Yes. It IS only 4 years, and although he is in a strong position (stronger than 8 years ago), there are still many millions of Americans - including many in government - who oppose his policies. He's nowhere near Putin's position, much as he'd like to be!
There is really no benefit to focusing on the downsides.
 

icowden

Squire
Yes. It IS only 4 years, and although he is in a strong position (stronger than 8 years ago), there are still many millions of Americans - including many in government - who oppose his policies. He's nowhere near Putin's position, much as he'd like to be!
There is really no benefit to focusing on the downsides.
True. However I think the concerns are less about what he can mess up in 4 years and more about how he can be manipulated into getting the wrong people in the right places which will have a far more lasting effect and help to create New Gilead (See the Supreme Court for details).
 
I don't get this focus on whether or not to turn the thermostat up. You should be warm enough when suitably dressed for the activity (so big jumper on if sitting around, less if active). It's far better to insulate your home reasonably well and replace any remaining dumb thermostats with smarter heating controls. Even if it doesn't make a meaningful difference to the state of the planet for the next generation, it should lower the ongoing running costs of your heating. Insulation and controls are sometimes the only upgrades with a decently fast payback.
So you are telling the people that already where forced to replace their diesel car earlier than planned after it was first sold to them ''as doing the right thing'' that they need to buy ''smart themostats'' ? Wonder if you also recommended wood pallets as ''green'' and ''sustainable'' heating source roughly 15-20 years ago? But don't get me wrong this is not personal, is about a certain mentality, those with their well of position telling others to be into all that green shoot, the hell do they care if you need to replace it in 15-20 years instead of the projected 30+? Hell do they care if what they said 15-20 years ago are now unveiled as farking lies. Hell 90% of what is now blocking roads for ''the climate'' will work for the oil industry in some capacity 10 years from now. Seen it all before.

And so do the poeple, hence the fact it's hard to get people to change. it not a populair change and they have been lied to over and over again.

That's not true if we are an early enough adopter to be making and selling a lot of the products and services needed to help others stop using fossil fuels. We know that the fossils will run out eventually so better we're among the experts than having to pay the experts later.
Dreams until your dreams come true right? We don't have mass production and or the laws to enslave people to do it cheaply so China or India will say thank you very much simply copy without paying and run off with the bulk of your projected early adopter income.


I'm pretty sure there are other non-fossil-fuelled transport options than cycling or walking! Also, not all fossil fuel transport is equally bad: there's a wide range of pollution per person there, with flying being among the worst (and private planes the worst).
Poluttion per person is BS measurement method, a person living remotely on a farm poluttes less then a person in a flat 80 stories high in London, even if they use the same amount if resources, because high rises change air dynamics and the ability's for nature to break things down.
But green lobbyist are not keen to point this out because they would attack one of the hands that feeds them.



Firstly, we need to stop pretending that all ecological choices are detrimental. Are you really going to enjoy a rail-connected holiday destination less than one that most people fly to?
Yes, flying might suck but it's done in a fe hours a train takes much longer and if you have someone in your party with a disability it sucks even more. For example because you have to worry that they don't fotget the wheelchair ramp at the destination or transfer place.

But the whole concept that the train is compareable to a plane is simply nonsense. (fear of heights and things like that aside) if you look at the time alone, if your sitting for 4-6 hrs in a train compared to 2-3 hrs for the same journey in a plane your going to feel better taking that plane as sitting still for so long is not comfortable.

But ultimately, it's probably going to get to the point where politicians feel they have no option other than to tax the harmful options more. There will be much whining and wailing when they do, but I suspect they might find a way to tax polluters who don't vote in their elections, so it sticks.
And that's exactly how the democrats in the US lost and why there is an increasing popularity for every populist political party the trumps etc. That's why EV have such a bad name they symbolize something for people and then populist link them and the circle is complete.
Not a smart move by any means in my view
 

icowden

Squire
So you are telling the people that already where forced to replace their diesel car earlier than planned after it was first sold to them ''as doing the right thing'' that they need to buy ''smart themostats'' ?
Well that's nobody. No-one was forced to replace their diesel earlier than planned. And yes, smart thermostats are actually quite smart, but again no-one is forcing anyone.

And that's exactly how the democrats in the US lost and why there is an increasing popularity for every populist political party the trumps etc. That's why EV have such a bad name they symbolize something for people and then populist link them and the circle is complete.
Not a smart move by any means in my view
So we should just wait until the planet collapses and becomes uninhabitable?
 

matticus

Guru
a train takes much longer and if you have someone in your party with a disability it sucks even more. For example because you have to worry that they don't fotget the wheelchair ramp at the destination or transfer place.
It's good to hear you're so concerned about disabled travellers!
Now, what do you think of this:


BBC journalist Frank Gardner forced to 'crawl along floor ...​

https://news.sky.com/story/lot-poli...long-floor-on-discriminatory-airline-13225734


1 Oct 2024 — A BBC News journalist had to "crawl along the floor" to use the toilet on a plane because the airline did not allow wheelchairs on to flights.
 
  • Hugs
Reactions: mjr
I think his point is that not everybody is in a position to make some of the choices asked of them. Sure, buy an ev car, but you pay a price premium, and not everyone has that option.

I'm guessing most of us on here have enjoyed decades of guilt free foreign holidays and car ownership. Are we now asking younger people who live on minimum wage and can only afford to use the bus for work and social trips to get the train to Spain rather than a 3hr flight? A better start would just be all of us consuming less and not buying stuff we don't need.
 
Well that's nobody. No-one was forced to replace their diesel earlier than planned. And yes, smart thermostats are actually quite smart, but again no-one is forcing anyone.
The Ulez charge is £12.50 A day, a Day and if you work 2 hob and thus are back at your car slightly after 12 you can pay for an other day. Even if you where a high profile manager earning a high figure that would be steep, but we both know people driving an old diesel that has been sold to them as a reliable choice to save the planet, aren't those managers, but more likely the cleaners and such. And thus they agreed legally they are not forced, technically they are.


So we should just wait until the planet collapses and becomes uninhabitable?
Like they said 20 years ago it would be today? If you look at all those green lobbyist they surround themselves with people that agree and that is the problem, and the problem, along with the fact that all those steps that we need to take to ''greenify'' separate from their actual proven effect, also benefit the rich and make the poorest poorer, i don't think that is fair.


It's good to hear you're so concerned about disabled travellers!
Now, what do you think of this:


BBC journalist Frank Gardner forced to 'crawl along floor ...​

https://news.sky.com/story/lot-poli...long-floor-on-discriminatory-airline-13225734


1 Oct 2024 — A BBC News journalist had to "crawl along the floor" to use the toilet on a plane because the airline did not allow wheelchairs on to flights.
What i think of that? I hope he can sue the hell out of them so that they will not only consider but invest in isle wheelchairs as a matter of company survival policy. But sadly i don't think that will be the case.
Considering Virgin damaged my wife's wheelchair i'm currently have *some* experience. Although not as humiliating as this person's experience was.
Aurora summed up my actual point pretty nicely.
 

BoldonLad

Old man on a bike. Not a member of a clique.
Location
South Tyneside
I think his point is that not everybody is in a position to make some of the choices asked of them. Sure, buy an ev car, but you pay a price premium, and not everyone has that option.

I'm guessing most of us on here have enjoyed decades of guilt free foreign holidays and car ownership. Are we now asking younger people who live on minimum wage and can only afford to use the bus for work and social trips to get the train to Spain rather than a 3hr flight? A better start would just be all of us consuming less and not buying stuff we don't need.

I think you would be right, in most of that, but...

Why, if we are talking of people on low income, the assumption that "we" did not have to economise in our younger years, I still remember the "pleasures" of travelling to Spanish Holiday resorts by BUS, to cut the cost of travel.

Do you have any supportive evidence as to the age profile of "minimum wage earners"?
 
  • Like
Reactions: mjr

icowden

Squire
The Ulez charge is £12.50 A day, a Day and if you work 2 hob and thus are back at your car slightly after 12 you can pay for an other day. Even if you where a high profile manager earning a high figure that would be steep, but we both know people driving an old diesel that has been sold to them as a reliable choice to save the planet, aren't those managers, but more likely the cleaners and such. And thus they agreed legally they are not forced, technically they are.
My heart bleeds. You can get a ULEZ compliant petrol car for less than 2K. I know of two cleaners, one drives a Honda Civic Type R and the other an expensive looking Mercedes. For the majority of work you don't need to drive into the ULEZ zone, you can get the train / bus / tube.

The only people who are (arguably) forced into a difficult situation are small tradesmen who need to carry a lot of tools but don't have the cash for a ULEZ compliant van.
 
I think you would be right, in most of that, but...

Why, if we are talking of people on low income, the assumption that "we" did not have to economise in our younger years, I still remember the "pleasures" of travelling to Spanish Holiday resorts by BUS, to cut the cost of travel.

Do you have any supportive evidence as to the age profile of "minimum wage earners"?
Yeah i did that to when i was younger, but that was not because i didn't have the money to save up for a plane ticket i preferred to save the money and have more to spend on holiday.
However if everyone who needed it could get social housing we wouldn't have this problem, but we don't so the only alternative is private which means people are spending a bigger part off their income on housing then the government says they should. Leading to big income disparity and things like just ''buy an new car'' or just buy smart meter'' a bit off in light of the daily situation of some people.

Then some other can say ''should we just let the planet rot'' i'm not saying that i'm just seeing that everyone who sell the message off ''we don't do the green thing'' gets lots of votes, so there is an clear issue, and i don't think laws and regulations are a good way forward.
 

the snail

Active Member
... i'm just seeing that everyone who sell the message off ''we don't do the green thing'' gets lots of votes, so there is an clear issue, and i don't think laws and regulations are a good way forward.

Well Sunak tried that, and it didn't seem to work, did it? If you can afford a new car, you can afford a new EV.
 
I think you would be right, in most of that, but...

Why, if we are talking of people on low income, the assumption that "we" did not have to economise in our younger years, I still remember the "pleasures" of travelling to Spanish Holiday resorts by BUS, to cut the cost of travel.
That was when the price difference was substantial though. If anything you can often fly more cheaply than go by bus to Spain now. I'd rather not go than do another trip across Europe on a bus tbh. At least you can't smoke on them anymore.

Do you have any supportive evidence as to the age profile of "minimum wage earners"?

There will be plenty of minimum wage earners in their 50's and 60's. I expect that like most oldies on here though, minimum wage earners or not, many will have had foreign holidays in the past. It's a bit easier to give up something you've already had the benefit of, I reckon.
 

BoldonLad

Old man on a bike. Not a member of a clique.
Location
South Tyneside
That was when the price difference was substantial though. If anything you can often fly more cheaply than go by bus to Spain now. I'd rather not go than do another trip across Europe on a bus tbh. At least you can't smoke on them anymore.



There will be plenty of minimum wage earners in their 50's and 60's. I expect that like most oldies on here though, minimum wage earners or not, many will have had foreign holidays in the past. It's a bit easier to give up something you've already had the benefit of, I reckon.

I am sure that most people would rather not do a bus trip to Spain, in preference to flying, but, I, perhaps mistakenly, thought the discussion was what people should do to save the planet.
 
Top Bottom