UKC

Hello,

I heard the lead scientist from SEPA (Scottish Environmental Protection Agency,) talk about climate change today, the stuff he was saying about the forecast for Scotland is pretty interesting, see here; http://www.sepa.org.uk/environment/climate-change/the-effects-of-climate-ch...

Looks like winter climbing may become a thing of the past, "From 1961 to 2011 there was a reduction of 21 days in the number of days of frost (both air and ground frost) annually." Anyone else looking at the future with a bit of apprehension?

In reply to jonnie3430:
Yes, I'm very apprehensive about what might happen due to climate change.

In reply to jonnie3430:

You can be there'll be a load of ice climbing petrol heads who'll fly overseas if conditions aren't great in the UK, too.

There's a lot of self interested short termism thinking myopic twits about.

In reply to Timmd:



Given the amount of fossil fuel usage around the world, even if the entire UK gave them up today it would have no impact on what's going to happen. Population growth and water shortage will also make things interesting.

In reply to jonnie3430:
That old chestnut, with the things 'other' people are doing, what 'I' do is insignificant.

Did you know China is making the biggest shift to renewable energy which has ever happened?

They're going all out at making reductions in fossil fuel emissions.

(They've a shocking human rights reckon still, though...)

In reply to Timmd:


I think it's too late. If/ when Bangladesh has big issues it may stir some action, but until then...


Aye, but not all others are.

In reply to Timmd:



These two things are not entirely independent. It's relatively easy to implement huge nationwide infrastructure projects (urbanisation, hydroelectric schemes) if you have an authoritarian government that doesn't worry about planning permission, local impacts etc.

And also a government that's not forced by the media and our own general short-termism into populist but harmful policies of inaction

In reply to jonnie3430:

You can only change your own behavior. Don't worry about what other people are doing. You are either part of the problem or part of the solution.

In reply to Phil1919:


But I don't see a solution, just a problem that is getting worse. And I don't think changing everybody's behaviour now would have a great impact anyway, it would just mitigate the effects.

In reply to Phil1919:


Change comes from within. It takes a village to raise a child. Many hands make light work.

In reply to jonnie3430:


That's not true. For that to actually happen would require technological, social and economic changes that would ripple out as surely as the waves of industrialisation did in the 19th century.

jk

In reply to jonnie3430:

I think you have more important things to worry about in regards to climate change than the demise of scottish winter climbing... 4 of the last 5 years have been some of the best winter seasons since the 80's, and therefore the best that many of us can remember! yes shit is getting warmer but there are many reasons to believe that our winters may get even better as a result.

yes its too late to reverse anthropogenic climate change, but mitigating it shouldnt be seen as a lost cause. reducing our consumption isnt just about minimising the increase in atmospheric CO2, but about slowing our destruction of the planet in general.

In reply to jonnie3430:

There's actually a train of logic that suggests that due to increasing amounts of freshwater entering the North Atlantic as a result of melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet, the Gulf Stream (which supplies warm water to our neck of the woods) could shift or even collapse. The result being a colder climate for Britain.

I don't think it's a hypothesis we ought to test though...

In reply to Trevers:


As I understand it current theory is reducing the importance of the gulf stream for this with it being recognised that about half of the UKs exceptional warmth comes from atmospheric Rossby waves? Perhaps someone who knows more will correct me... Also I don't know how climate shifts will affect them...?

In reply to Trevers:



I also understand that this stormy winter in the north Atlantic with exceptionally high wave surges has had an impact on the North Atlantic Drift causing a surface displacement of warmer with colder water. Partly the reason for this unsettled cold May .The message seems to be - don't expect summer to earrive just yet.

In reply to Turdus torquatus: > "Change comes from within. It takes a village to raise a child. Many hands make light work." <

youtube.com/watch?v=eGblsNXkJog&

In reply to jonnie3430:

But you can't change everyone's behaviour, just your own........and then you start to reap the rewards. Others may follow.

In reply to Phil1919:


Anyone who thinks the necessary changes are going to come about as a result of individuals changing their behaviour hasn't grasped the scale of the problem. The necessary changes will only come when there are viable low-carbon energy sources, and that's not going to happen by individual actions - that has to come from governments and from the energy companies.
Trying to say that changing your own behaviour is an adequate response simply gets governments and energy companies off the hook, by displacing responsibility.

In reply to wintertree:


I don't know about that actually. There are various feedbacks, some negative, some positive, and right now there's no knowing which will dominate in any given scenario. The science of climate change is complex, to say the least.

For an example, look up Heinrich Events, which occurred during past ice ages. These were the result of massive calvings of icebergs from the Laurentide (North American) ice sheet. It's thought that the injection of freshwater into the North Atlantic caused wide spread climatic cooling following several of these events. So it's a similiar effect, but a slightly different trigger mechanism (large separate events instead of a gradual release)

In reply to tony:



You're correct, but I do think people can collectively influence things. For example, by making a personal choice to only use your car where necessary, instead of as the default choice. Or by petitioning organisations to divest from fossil fuels (the Guardian has been championing this idea recently).

That site also states:

We are the hydrometric authority for Scotland and we monitor rainfall and river flow at hundreds of sites across the country.

Scotland has become much wetter since 1961, with the average annual precipitation rate up by 27%.

Winter precipitation (total rainfall and snowfall) has risen in the north and west by 51% and 45%, and high flow frequencies in western rivers have increased.

Scotland already had a reputation as a wet, rainy location of ruined holidays! Now I feel justified in my endless complaining over the rain.

In reply to tony:

I've certainly grasped the scale of the problem.

So just carry on as normal then.......

How will governments get to make changes that are needed if we as individuals just carry on as normal and vote them back in with the same mandate? Of course we want others to change as well, but how can we expect them to change if we won't change.

How can we expect other countries to reduce polluting if we don't....

...... and then of course with change comes quality of living.

In reply to tony:


Completely agree.

Just to add though, anyone who thinks that throwing out plastic bottles rather than recycling, or leaving lights on when not in use (for example), is 100% selfish or 100% ignorant. Even if the world was completely doomed, there is nothing at all that would make things like this acceptable:

http://coastalcare.org/wp-content/images/issues/pollution/plastic/Boat-sea-...

In reply to Phil1919:


Governments must lead, not follow, in this situation. Governments everywhere know what to do, and they have to make it happen - waiting to be led by their population isn't good enough.


Completely agree with that, on a global scale. We've been among the major beneficiaries of cheap fossil fuels and the resultant emissions. We have to take a lead, and be seen to be taking a lead, but we don't do that if it's just a small subsection of the population who opt to take the bus or bike to work while everyone else carries on as usual. Government has to make it so that business as usual is not the best option.
Globally, there are things happening. For example, the EU Large Combustion Plant Directive is effectively putting coal-fired power stations out of action - these are the worst for carbon emissions, and the carbon savings from this far outweigh the combined efforts of well-meaning individuals.

In reply to NottsRich:


I thought the UK's idea of recycling was to throw it in hedgerows?

Folk have become too accustomed to having one bin for everything, emptied every week, they consider any level of recycling a chore, not a necessity.

In reply to tony:


tax, fines and penalties... money is the only incentive guaranteed to work. But also a culture bred into the very youngest, ie the day they start school or nursery.

In reply to moffatross:



Excellent. Now I know where the Mighty Boosh nicked it from.

In reply to tony:

'Governments must lead, not follow, in this situation. Governments everywhere know what to do, and they have to make it happen - waiting to be led by their population isn't good enough'.


The government has just been voted in by a group of people who don't want change and aren't particularly interested in combating climate change. So the government isn't going to take the lead. That wasn't their mandate.

Most of us know what is needed. We are just waiting for others to change rather than ourselves.

In reply to Phil1919:

The Conservative manifesto actually has a decent amount about climate change. It supports the need for emissions to be held to a 2 degree ceiling, it supports the last Government's Climate Change act which included carbon emissions targets. If you consider that the manifesto is a statement of the mandate they've been elected on, then they do have a mandate.


I don't believe most people do know what is needed. I think for most people this is someone else's problem, or that it can be solved by recycling a few bags and building a few wind turbines. It's governments which have to change the shape of the energy markets, and which have to give the tax breaks to the research and development into renewables and low-carbon energy, instead of to the fossil fuel companies. You and I can't change the direction that BP and Shell are going in - they need to be pushed in the right direction by having their business model turned upside-down by different economics.

In reply to tony:

Its funny how they say they want to keep emissions below 2 degrees ceiling and then reduce taxes on north sea oil extraction to try and get every last drop out to balance the books. From my understanding, there is very little action they plan to take to stop emissions increasing.

When you say, most people think its someone else's problem, thats exactly my point. Most of us are happy with the status quo. We are in a groove. We are comfortable. Especially those who voted conservative, hence especially the conservative government.

I think if we met we would find we have a lot of common ground.

In reply to tony:

I think this is key, and my worry about the future is that the governments won't change until there is a cast iron example of the need. Temperature increase and rainfall change hasn't done it, so what is required? The only thing I see, unfortunately is a disaster on such a scale that it cannot be ignored, but even then it will be to late to prevent a few more due to the massive scale of the issue!

In reply to jonnie3430:

Like some others I can't see us reducing the temperature of the earth. Its too big and we're too small.

But the governments love it. They can simply tax anything remotely connected with climate change and reap the rewards.

In reply to Dave Perry:


Wouldn't the same argument preclude us being able to raise the temperature?...

In reply to Phil1919:

I agree, it's not a party political thing at all, and that most people are 'conservative' by nature. I support & vote SNP, which is by far the most left-leaning party with any significant representation in government, but despair at their head in the sand populist approach to nuclear power. The Universe is made of energy, and exploiting the stuff should be a priority for our species, but instead we've fallen into a regime which fosters guilt, and encourages reduction on the basis of conservative, ageing hippy values, exploited as ever (by capitalists who'll exploit anything) by making us work harder for exactly the same amount of stuff. A truly principled capitalist approach would be to tax the use of carbon as a fuel out of existence and let science, technology, engineering and industry come up with a solution. I suspect tidal power, and fission generation would then have a remarkable and effective blooming, and that efficient fusion generation would arrive sooner than that ever remote 25-50 years away.

In reply to jonnie3430:
The majority of the human race probably hasn't heard of climate change and the majority of those who have really either don't care enough or don't know what to do about it.

Do you drive a car?
Light fires, use central heating, burn coal, buy things which have travelled. Bought anything recently marked; 'made in China', made in Indonesia, Made in Bangladesh, - well, actually made anywhere that involved using oil to get it to you?

If the government was genuinely concerned they would not be taxing it but activily doing something about it. Don't forget they tax it to collect revenue - like cigarettes - not to prevent people smoking.

Doing 'your bit' isn't really enough, or going to work. Its a bit like trying to save a sinking ship by putting a small patch on a great big hole. Nice feel good factor, but the ships still going to sink.

In reply to Dave Perry:
I would think the majority of the human race HAS heard about climate change.

Doing your bit is ALL you can do. How can you do anymore!?

The government is a reflection of us. WE need to change. Describing the benefits of changing our ways as 'feel good factor' is a rather shallow description of the benefits we can get from letting go of so many of our bad habits.

In reply to Dave Perry:



I don't get it - why would governments love taxing people for rewards? Tax money is much harder to embezzle than changing laws to benefit companies you/your-friends own and getting money from that (see the FIFA scandal for an example - rather than embezzle what money FIFA has, they chose 'rulings' for their friends and did it for almost a whole decade before getting caught).

In reply to Phil1919:

Really?????

I wonder whether the millions of people who live in, say India have ever heard of it?. Or the many, many more millions who live in rural China. Then there's those that live in places like Nepal, Bolivia, Chad, Nigeria, and other under developed african countries. Then there's all the people who don't have all the access to modern media in other remote, poor countries.

In all those developing countries where the majority of the millions who populate those countries, even if they've heard of it, are far more interested in earning their daily crust, often literally, to be even bothered, 'to do their bit'.

There are enough climate change sceptics in modern developed countries, mostly in temperate europe, so I guess if you live in, or near the tropics I doubt whether climate change' ("The ice caps are melting fast") , is even a topic of conversation.

In reply to Dave Perry:

Yes, I think most people would have come across it. Lets agree to differ on that.

What is your point though? Do you mean, its not worth changing from our damaging ways because it won't make any difference? We will have to differ on that one as well then.

In reply to Phil1919:

According to Unesco, 17% of the world population cannot read. (122,000,000) and another 775,000,000 lack minimum literacy skills.

Somehow I doubt these people listen to serious radio debates whilst they struggle to keep any food on the table.

My point is, that the majority of this planet have either not heard of climate change or are so busy trying to stay alive and provide for their very basic needs they really don't care, or if they do, they are not in any position to do anything about it.

Anyway perhaps you could tell us whether you drive a car, buy food or goods from abroad, or use coals or petroleum based products?? .

In reply to Dave: then UNESCO need to learn basic numeracy as that means another 107% of the worlds population lack minimum literacy, and you've learnt a lesson in dumping out stats withoutt thinking whether they make sense.

Also, while they may not know all the details I think you are wrong - people do know and have heard about climate change. People do have tv, radio. I really don't understand your post - they are also on the frontline in many places, and extreme weather, drought and flooding will not be easily ignored, nor improve their lives.

In reply to Dave Perry:

So because millions or billions of uneducated illiterate people don't know or understand the climate is changing, or the need to conserve natural resources, the educated people who do see and grasp the problem are not required to act on this knowledge and we should continue our wasteful ways??

In reply to Dave Perry:

The point about climate change for many people is that they don't need to write or read to understand that fundamental changes are happening within their lifetime. Climate change is changing their world. Perma frost melting so that their houses are shifting, glaciers that are melting so that their drinking water is compromised, sea levels rising so that their islands are becoming overcome etc, etc. Many of them are left wondering why those of us who CAN read and write and have the benefit of science to back these observations up aren't a bit more worried. I would imagine that those who live within sight of Kilimanjaro for example connect the rising line of snow with a warming world.

The Stern report encouraged me to decarbonise my lifestyle. If you get out there you will find there are a number of people who don't drive, grow their own stuff, don't fly, travel slowly etc. I understand your point about being hypocritical though. That takes me back to the point that lots of us recognise the need to change, but would rather other people made the changes and let us just carry on with our comfortable lifestyle.

In reply to Phil1919:
"The Stern report ............That takes me back to the point that lots of us recognise the need to change, but would rather other people made the changes and let us just carry on with our comfortable lifestyle".

Clint, that just about sums up my point. Lots of talk from lots of western people but little action. Twice I've asked on here whether people drive, go abroad on holiday, consume goods from other countries, use oil, gas or coal and other non renewables or do anything other than pay lip service to climate change. No one has answered yet.

In reply to Dave Perry:

You get a holier than thou response if you do. There were 1700 people who voted green in Westmorland at the election. I think you can take it that a number of those don't have cars, don't fly etc. There were 8,000 who voted conservative, I think you can take it that a number of those have big gas guzzlers, fly to Spain for half term, demand more parking in town. There will be a range of behaviours, and all sorts of scenarios surely. Voting patterns give us a guide? It seems we both agree that there is lots of talk little action, but there is some.

We sold our car 15 months ago, and it liberated us from traffic jams, motorway driving, costs, space in garage. Not everyone can do this, but surely everyone can cut down on their mileage.......if they want to.

In reply to Dave Perry:

I drive a small pretty new Octavia, it is about as green as it gets for transport other then shanks pony. Don't burn any fossil fuels at home, only renewable woods and electric from eco sources, we grow a fair proportion of our own food, various meats and hope to expand this further with a new 50m2 greenhouse this summer. Our house is now so well insulated our winter to summer energy bills barely change.

So, within all practical limits we are doing what we can. We have no refuse collection due to our remoteness and must recycle everything, our non recyclable waste is less than the equiv. Of a carrier bag per week for a family of4. I'd say we are fairly green. We have some solar too and I'm looking at wind to become almost completely off grid.

Foreign trips, back to UK once or twice per year is the max.

In reply to jonnie3430: as he said - I do what I practically can to reduce consumption and waste.

The argument that you have to have zero emissions or it's not worth it, and you're a hypocrite to comment is just lazy and stupid

In reply to Dave Perry:


I do! Everybody does, except for a few holier than thou fools that think they'll make a difference! The scale of what we have done is not understood, the damage it will cause to the environment and billions of people is not understood! There is no stopping the water scarcity that will occur, nor the flooding.

In reply to jonnie3430:

The best way for us to tackle climate change would be for everyone in the developed world to live a lifestyle of the average person in Bangladesh or an indigenous Amazonian tribe, climate change would no longer be an issue, but we would have a lot more nastier issues to worry about.

The reality is that the society and lifestyle we have become accustomed to is not compatible with tackling climate change. It is not future population growth which is the killer, but more people on the planet obtaining a first world lifestyle and level of energy consumption. Global Energy use is forecasted to increase by 50% in the next 20 years, no amount of new renewables or Nuclear power is going to combat this, the 2 degree target is impossible to meet. For us to tackle climate change adequately will require a total change in civilisation as we know it just now, no more focus on economic growth at a global or local level, and we will all have to give up the lifestyles we are accustomed to. I think it is too drastic to implement, so it is much more likely that future generations will have to suffer the consequences of climate change and likely collapse in civilisation rather than us doing anything about it in our life times, though we may try in 20-30 years time, but it will be too late.

In reply to daftdazza:

But least when our kids are old, order has been restored to the world after collapse etc.. our kids will recall us at least attempting to lessen our impact, rather than totally ignore the foreseeable problems ahead.

In reply to summo:

Your sentiments are fine but you can teach your children all you want about climate change and think that they'll thank us in the future, but this in my view is a bit like we're in a sinking titanic and like daftdazza points out in the previous post we'll still sink. Putting a postage stamp over a massive hole simply won't work as there are not enough people in the world who are willing or able to do anything.

In reply to Dave Perry:

On my coach yesterday coming up to Manchester, my side of the motorway was running nicely. The other side was full of people in luxury cars in a log jam, looking pretty fed up, stationary . How often are they faced with that? There are good reasons to change our lifestyles on top of reducing emissions.

In reply to Phil1919:


It seems to me to be one of the great tragedies of modern 'civilisation', that this weird situation came to be seen as not only normal, but desirable (status = large cars for each member of the family).

In reply to Dave Perry:

60 million, or even nearly 1 billion sticky plasters from the people in the west who have the funds and the technology to actually do something meaningful could make a massive difference. Sadly too many people, are too selfish.

In reply to jonnie3430:

Now I'm depressed.......(:[

In reply to summo:

They don't know what they are missing!

In reply to summo:
I don't think it is fair to label people as selfish.

We are lucky to be living in one of the wealthiest countries on earth, but unfortunately their is still a huge growing level of inequality here.
You can't expect people to make the personal sacrifices to live more sustainable when they have more pressing issues. A lot of people have debt worries, struggle to feed their families, heat there homes, buy their first home, the concept of tackling climate change is so distant and Ailen to people. The environment was a minor issue during the election, climate change is effectively of the radar. Parts of the east end of Glasgow have a life expectancy of 55, its hard enough to educate people on healthy eating and change social habits, it would seem like an impossiblty to expect these people to become vegetarians and eat organic produce for the sake of the environment. And this is the problem across the western world, we have amazing wealth but it is not equal spread, with a significant proportion of its citizens struggling to make ends meet and get back.

This reduces climate change and sustainability to a middle class problem, for those with the education and wealth to make changes to ease their own guilty conscious. Unfortunately for a issue like climate change only big steps will make big differences. So to make a difference we really need global agreements which will significantly reduce emissions, instead of insisting ball countries should lower their emissions by a certain amount we need a global tax on carbon consumption so the developed world pays the most to get of climate change and it will change attitudes to waste. The uk could become carbon free in terms of electricity production but without a tax on consumption this would be pointless, as we are basically exporting our carbon emissiom to China who make all our goods.

So we need a global carbon tax which will get more severe as time goes on, we need a move away from car transportation to public transport, governments must start implementing congestion charging in all big towns and cities, we can't change to electrical cars as it will be impossible to meet growing world energy needs with nuclear and renewable never mind provide clean electricity for cars.

I could go on and on, but to summaries we can't expect people to change their habbits without government nudging them in the right direction.

In reply to daftdazza:

.....but the governments are elected by the people.

In reply to Phil1919:

Exactly, so we rely on green lobbying to put pressure on governments to act. Global we achieved very little at climate conference over the years, I hope we go into Paris in December learning the lessons from Kyoto, but sadly I think any agreement wont go anyway near far enough, but I would love to be proved wrong.

For things to change in Britain we really need proportional representation so their is more chance of greens being involved in government. But at the same time greens let themselves down during this election by focusing more on normal politics rather than green issues. And proportional representation will be of the agenda for a long time to come with the near impossibility of labour being able to win outright in 2020, but if they went into that election with a manifesto pledge for PR they might pick up more votes.

In reply to Phil1919:


I think you're wrong. And I think the majority of people who've heard about it don't give a f*ck about it.

In reply to daftdazza:
yeah, it doesn't cover it all, selfish, greedy, shortsighted, lazy, materialistic... perhaps better fits most or different peoples excuses for not making an effort.


Perhaps if people insulated their homes better, then heating would be less expensive.
Having lived in Glasgow for a few years, the life expectancy is pretty much linked to too much drinking, smoking, no exercise and poor diet. Improving some of these will help their health and the planet.


Simply not true, there are no big steps, only millions of little ones. Better recycling, less packaging, shopping more locally, walking more, driving less, changing what we eat a little.... none are major leaps in their own right. What is missing is the mindset or desire.


Or a change in culture, a few million people could easily work from home and wouldn't need to go to an office, if the UK had a better internet set up and employers had less hang ups about not seeing their staff sitting there.


Yes, sadly that what the population needs is a big stick, because a carrot is not working, because they are too selfish, lazy.....

In reply to aln:

Well you could certainly be forgiven for thinking that given the direction things are still going.

In reply to summo:

I still don't agree, the majority of people don't tackle climate change on a individual level due to lack of affordability and failure in policy of the Green party getting it on the agenda as a election issue.

I live in a rented single glazing flat, there are loads of similar flats in Glasgow, government grants for double glazing would be a start.

Even If 10% of those currently in the developed world made the steps you made it would not stop the end result of run away global climate change if no adequate international action was taken to combat climate change.

To lessen our impact further we need to live in timber made homes, from local sustainablely sourced wood, wear no clothes. Be vegetarian or vegan eating only local sourced produce. Don't drive or travel abroad, and live of the grid with no electricity, with only a log fire for heating.

In reply to jonnie3430:

I have said many times, the best way to combat climate change is reduce our levels of procreation! Fewer people = fewer emissions. Yes, reducing the birth rate would hurt us economically in the future when we have no one to pay tax when we are trying to live on a pension, but it really would make a difference if we reduced the birth rate.

Obviously along side this, reducing car journeys, recycling more etc would all help. I don't use the car within our town, I cycle everywhere, but public transport around here is not really feasible to get to anywhere I need to get to outside of town so getting rid of the car totally is not possible. Of course, even public transport is not totally green, it still produces emissions.

In reply to daftdazza:
Why should the government give a double glazing grant to people who probably spend their 'spare' funds on cars, booze, tabs, gadgets, holidays... Perhaps making double glazing and proper insulation an immediate and mandatory measure for ALL rented accommodation with a 2 year Amnesty to get it in place?

Any measure prevents or slows a runaway to some degree and other countries will follow the lead. You are using other people lifestyle as an excuse for yours.

I agree on the wood houses, I live in one, the UK has a bricks or cement obsession.

Rather than wood stoves, centralised boilers for all housing. Putting individual boilers in each house hasn't been done in the nordics for decades. Or whole town systems where a plant provides electricity and hot water for all houses, businesses...

In reply to girlymonkey:

Scrap child benefit altogether, use the money to provide free, organic quality meals for all school kids. That way the kids benefit directly.

Governments can unlink themselves from any religion that either encourages large families or are against contraception.

To solve the problems we face, there needs to be creeping change towards it, every year it is ignored the tougher the pain and choices in the future.

In reply to summo:
The thing is, the governments want population growth. This is on the BBC today about Germany's falling birth rate, and it makes it sound like this is a big problem. "The latest birth rate figures comes despite efforts by Mrs Merkel's government to invest in childcare support." We need to accept that times will be tough economically if we drop the birth rate, but if we don't take the hit financially then times will be tough later on when the planet is severely overcrowded and the effects of climate change are being felt.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-32929962

In reply to girlymonkey:

I agree they do, perhaps like for like, 2 for 2, so its static, is the best we can hope for.

I'll probably offend some folk, but I'm quite hardline.. I see no reason why ivf should exist, freezing of this and that either... The world is over flowing and I see no reason why money and science is being wasted compounding other problems, not to mention the kids who need adopting or fostering. The hurdles prospective adopters jump through is staggering, but none of that criteria is even considered before funding ivf etc.. madness.
I will await a flaming!

In reply to summo:


Because that's what government does.
I just signed up to a business development scheme where I get 3k worth of funding but I have to use it for consultants who will tell me how to grow my business.
I know how to grow my business and could put the 3k towards better things like upgrading my IT infrastructure and online presence (the first 2 things the consultant told me to do).

In reply to Dax H:

That's what consultants do! Tell you what you already know, with flowery words and written in a pretty looking folder.

In reply to summo:




I agree with you entirely.

In reply to summo:


I don't think child benefit needs to be scrapped completely. Something more along the lines of full rate for the first child, half rate for the second and nothing beyond that. There should be absolutely no incentive for more children. In this day and age, I feel anyone in the western world contributing towards natural population growth (caveats about having triplets) is being selfish (another post that is going to piss people off).

In reply to Trevers:

Are you saying that the ex mate of mine who has 12 kids is being selfish, possibly more so because he or his bird don't work and never have?

In reply to summo:




The Internet will have to go as well to stop self important windbags banging on how selfish people are because the went on holiday to Blackpool.

In reply to Trevers:

I would rather see the money going direct to desired person, skipping people in the middle who may skim a little. Not to mention helping kids eat better anyway..

In reply to John Simpson:

Nothing wrong with Blackpool, I presume they are replacing bulbs with led ones?

In reply to Dax H:


Well that sounds completely reasonable :P

In reply to summo:



Whilst I'm very pleased for you, the majority of the population in the developed, let alone third world, don't have the money to invest in that level of self sufficiency. You'd be hard pressed to get a 50m2 greenhouse on the balcony of your third floor flat in Glasgow. Plus if we all switched to woodburners there'd be no room to grow any food, ( not a problem if you're wealthy enough to have acres of private woodland and a few 50m2 greenhouses on the ranch).

Don't get me wrong, we're similar in a lot of ways. I live in a nice detached in rural Cumbria with a woodburner, allotment, chickens, a lurcher and often wonder if 9mm hardened steel shot or rifled slugs would be the ideal shotgun load for home defence in the event the communist government wants to put an extra 1p on my income tax so the untermenschen can have subsidised double glazing in their 1 bedroomed tenement flat. Where I win is that we don't have kids, so I can spend the next 30 years having a giant bonfire of coal and car tyres every night and still have less of an environmental impact in the long term than you

In reply to Ridge:

Plenty people would have more room to grow stuff if they hadn't paved over their gardens to accommodate the 2,3,4 cars their household owns? Cause and effect?

Woodburners are not the answer for urban areas, communable heating systems running on renewable bio mass is the solution there.

In reply to Ridge:

Well said, I was slated for living in a cold single glazed tenement because I can't afford to buy my own insulated flat. Even though I have never owned a car, don't have kids, have few electrical products or material possession, and eat as little meat as possible. I am quite confident my own carbon footprint is less than summo.

In reply to daftdazza:
Slated, hardly. I suggested that landlords should all be forced to insulate and glaze, that's in your favour. Carbon footprint? Who knows, our annual trip back to the UK is probably the killer despite all the offsetting we do elsewhere.
Having lived in a single glazed third floor flat at the top end of Victoria road I know exactly what its like there.

In reply to daftdazza:
Iwas just about to say Proportional Representation is required when you said it. Totally agree.

In reply to jonnie3430:

There was an interesting article in the Sunday Times by Steve Hilton, explaining that the environmental movement's obsession with climate change is blinding us to the greater threat to our planet's future - the destruction of habitats and species.

Cheer up.

In reply to Dave Perry:



Its not a worry as far as the planet is concerned. It's a worry for whoever has to live with the mess the generations up until the present day have left.

Rats and cockroaches will be fine. And probably pigeons.

In reply to Dave Perry:


aren't they interlinked and can't be treated in isolation? Deforestation, large scale open cast mining, urban sprawl, mono-culture farming and so forth. Oceans habitats are changing as a direct result of rising sea levels and increased temperatures too, so it's not just confined to land.

But, nature will live on, species will die, others will evolve... the question will be to what extent are we around.

In reply to Dave Perry:


I have noticed plenty of campaigning about habitats and species. Sadly though they tend to be ignored as well. Climate change probably gets a slightly better reception since some money can be made out of that.

In reply to jonnie3430:

Is anyone willing to have a serious debate about the ongoing classified geo-engineering program that can be seen in our skies most weeks, or is it still too far out for this forum? so the usual characters will shout woo woo tinfoil nutjob a lizard stole my girlfriend and replaced her with a mind controlled cyborg barbie doll?

In reply to John Simpson:


If you can back it up with serious proven evidence and hard science?

Not just links to other conspiracy theorist sites etc..

In reply to summo:



If you lived in Russia a popular viewpoint is the BBC is a wing of MI6 or put another way a propaganda or conspiracy site. However that isn't strictly true, like all media outlets they report so much of the truth whilst reporting a state agenda. The truth therefore lies in between the woven deception from all sides. If you cannot understand this, and if you cannot see that the geo-engineering which is currently taking place is more than standard plane emissions, all you'll do is pay lip service to the particular state you affiliate the most with.

In reply to jonnie3430:

Wondering if anyone has been listening the The Guardian's podcast series:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ng-interactive/2015/mar/16/the-bigge...

It's worth a listen, and gets better beyond the first episode. It keeps away from the science of it which is fairly indisputable (at least in the sense that it's anthropomorphic, unprecedented and bad) and instead looks at the economics and politics, the players with stakes in the issue, the issue of responsibility and hypocrisy and the problem from a journalistic point of view. It deals with the size of the task of tackling it and it deals a lot with issues people have expressed on this thread. Gets more interesting as it goes along.