[Politics] Schools 4 Climate Action - great turn out in Brighton

[Bold Seagull]

Without wishing to start a binfest, what leads you to believe that the planet is ****ed?

If we so much as made her sneeze we'd be flung halfway across the galaxy.

I don't really understand how everyone is so convinced the planet is ****ed? There is no question that we are doing damage to various ecosystems, and we should stop doing that, but saying that "the planet is ****ed" seems a bit alarmist to me, not to mention, why bother trying to solve the environmental problems we do have if that is the case?

The climate is changing for sure, but it's always changed, got warmer, got cooler, ice expands, ice retracts, warm ages, ice ages, all of that has happened in cycles since long before we set foot on the planet. It really bugs me that people seem to be saying that a) the climate is changing = we are destroying the planet, and b) the climate is changing = we need to stop the climate from changing.

If you need to cool down, or warm up, your body will adjust it's temperature. Should you try to prevent that? Maybe the earth needs to warm up or cool down. It would certainly be bad if we were causing the planets temperatures to change, but we can't be sure we are doing that. But it would be just as bad, surely, to try to intervene in the the planets natural climate cycles?

So simplistic a view when the evidence points to man made activities creating this change. And yes the earth has gone through cycles but also gone through mass extinctions - best not to cause one of those ourselves really.

 

[Stat Brother]

So simplistic a view when the evidence points to man made activities creating this change. And yes the earth has gone through cycles but also gone through mass extinctions - best not to cause one of those ourselves really.

Oi that's what I said!!

 

[Hampster Gull]

It’s the job of kids to be idealistic and kick back at their parents generation, good luck to them and their day bunking off school

 

[The Clamp]

You really are a nasty piece of work.

Quite a strong statement. Your personal insults aside, what part of my post do you take issue with?

Obviously you are perfectly entitled to make such a bold statement without actually knowing me or indeed without explanantion, that's the joy and I might say, stock-in-trade of the internet but if cold truths reduce you to such base behaviour you might wish to re-assess your relationship with the internet.

 

[Seagull27]

If you need to cool down, or warm up, your body will adjust it's temperature. Should you try to prevent that? Maybe the earth needs to warm up or cool down. It would certainly be bad if we were causing the planets temperatures to change, but we can't be sure we are doing that. But it would be just as bad, surely, to try to intervene in the the planets natural climate cycles?

If we entertain, for the moment, the idea that CO2 and temperature rises aren't linked. Then by reducing the amount of CO2 we emit, and possibly trying to capture some of it back from the atmosphere, by that logic we won't be affecting the planet's temperature. So I'm not sure what you're worried about.

We can prove that there has been a rise in the amount of atmospheric CO2 since the industrial revolution, and that the extra CO2 in the atmosphere came directly from the fossil fuels we burned (through carbon-13 isotope ratios), so regardless of whether it affects temperature we should probably do something about that, to stop ocean acidification for example.

Sent from my SM-J530F using Tapatalk

 

[Garage_Doors]

Quite a strong statement. Your personal insults aside, what part of my post do you take issue with?

Obviously you are perfectly entitled to make such a bold statement without actually knowing me or indeed without explanantion, that's the joy and I might say, stock-in-trade of the internet but if cold truths reduce you to such base behaviour you might wish to re-assess your relationship with the internet.

It based on you NSC persona following several of your posting over a period of time. It wasn't a snap judgement.
Your mightier than thou attitude towards other that don't follow your agenda.
Picking up on posters because you believe you have had a better education than others.
Therefore believing you know better, rather than explaining your position.
Your response to dingodan being a casing point.
You spelt explanation wrong.

 

[The Rivet]

Wow, is the worlds temperature cyclic? Well the evidence says yes. Are man made endeavours adding to the natural 'pendulum'? Well the answer I guess is Yes. So, come together deniers and extremists and come up with a sensible plan that works. Just stop byching!

 

[The Clamp]

It based on you NSC persona following several of your posting over a period of time. It wasn't a snap judgement.
Your mightier than thou attitude towards other that don't follow your agenda.
Picking up on posters because you believe you have had a better education than others.
Therefore believing you know better, rather than explaining your position.
Your response to dingodan being a casing point.
You spelt explanation wrong.

Clearly a typo.

Well, I think I can live with you thinking ill of me. I don't like everyone I come across on here and I don't expect everyone to like me. Such is life.

The only advice I can offer is not to get too upset by people you don't know on the internet and to read back through your work before you press POST. That first sentence of yours contains some painfully bad English. In fact the whole post is encumbered with errors.

"Mightier than thou"
"Casing point"

Just to highlight some of your worst offences against the written word.

Have a super week ahead.

TBTC

 

[dsr-burnley]

Wow, is the worlds temperature cyclic? Well the evidence says yes. Are man made endeavours adding to the natural 'pendulum'? Well the answer I guess is Yes. So, come together deniers and extremists and come up with a sensible plan that works. Just stop byching!

It's too late. Most models show global warming and/or climate change starting about 1930 or so. This was the point at which CO2 emissions topped a billion tonnes for the first time. Obviously there would be a lead time before the heating effect came in, but I have no idea how long.

Anyway, the Kyoto agreement was signed in 1997. This was when governments realised what was going on and started to panic. By this time we were up to six and a half billion tonnes.

Now, we're closing in on 10 billion tonnes, and (USA aside) no-one is showing any significant falls. As countries like China and India get richer, they want more fuel - imagine how much the cost of air conditioning for three billion people will be. And whatever their or our politicians may say, they aren't going to agree to remain poor so that we can remain rich.

So, if the tipping point was one billion tonnes, or six billion tonnes, then obviously we need to get well below that number to start to reverse the trend. It ain't going to happen.

 

[The Clamp]

It's too late. Most models show global warming and/or climate change starting about 1930 or so. This was the point at which CO2 emissions topped a billion tonnes for the first time. Obviously there would be a lead time before the heating effect came in, but I have no idea how long.

Anyway, the Kyoto agreement was signed in 1997. This was when governments realised what was going on and started to panic. By this time we were up to six and a half billion tonnes.

Now, we're closing in on 10 billion tonnes, and (USA aside) no-one is showing any significant falls. As countries like China and India get richer, they want more fuel - imagine how much the cost of air conditioning for three billion people will be. And whatever their or our politicians may say, they aren't going to agree to remain poor so that we can remain rich.

So, if the tipping point was one billion tonnes, or six billion tonnes, then obviously we need to get well below that number to start to reverse the trend. It ain't going to happen.

My point exactly. It’s a waste of time trying to reverse it. Better to put our resources into coming up with a sustainable management plan and ideas to adapt to the inevitable.

 

[Wellesley]

I think we should support these kids by turning off all heating in schools.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

I know very well how technology develops. You nees to fund it! Governments have not funded clean energy anywhere near enough.
Also, you blew your argument out of the water for continuing to use petrol cars over electric ones with your battery comment. 1. Range is not an issue anymore. 2. We can't use them as we don't know what to do with the batteries? But it is ok to use petrol even though we don't know what to do with the fumes? Hypocrytical or what. YOU seem part of the problem.

Oh Plooks, you really need to learn to read what is posted. Where did I say we shouldn't use electric cars ? I was pointing out that even these new 'clean' cars have an affect on the environment ..... battery disposal being one of them. And the journey length is still an issue mainly because there is no infrastructure to re-charge a car on long journeys and where there is there is still the challenge of how long it takes to re-charge.

As for funding, governments have spent billions ( as have bill payers via the green subsidies on bills ) on renewal tech. You could argue not enough but then the question is where should governments get extra money from. Here's an idea - let's have an energy charge - payable by everyone 18 or over - I asume you and your generation will be happy to pay it as I remember the student support for the Community Charge.

 

[Guinness Boy]

Oh Plooks, you really need to learn to read what is posted. Where did I say we shouldn't use electric cars ? I was pointing out that even these new 'clean' cars have an affect on the environment ..... battery disposal being one of them. And the journey length is still an issue mainly because there is no infrastructure to re-charge a car on long journeys and where there is there is still the challenge of how long it takes to re-charge.

As for funding, governments have spent billions ( as have bill payers via the green subsidies on bills ) on renewal tech. You could argue not enough but then the question is where should governments get extra money from. Here's an idea - let's have an energy charge - payable by everyone 18 or over - I asume you and your generation will be happy to pay it as I remember the student support for the Community Charge.

Another binary argument to score cheap points off someone who does, admittedly, often ask for it.

General changes in society, without banning anything, have seen an *improvement* in the prospects for fuel pollution in the Western world. Reps and commuters are now driving self charging hybrid Lexus instead of three litre BMWs getting 20 to the gallon - or at least some of them are. And this has been a societal change that we've all accepted without a green tax or all being forced to drive unsuitable electric cars. Essentially it's happend because companies like Lexus now have to listen to the environmental lobby in order to see a future for themselves.

In the same way, all of us pay for the upkeep of the enviornment right now. Council tax pays for recycling. Firms who are charged the Climate Change Levy may well pass it on (and we are also funding its admin and promtion via central taxes). Green deal also needs administrating. Then, privately, we pay more for organic veg, ethically sourced meat etc. We may well pay less for green, renewable energy. especially if you use one of the marvellous new apps like Hive to regulate your home that need to be supported by an up to date smart phone

I'm of the personal opinion that all taxation should be progressive. So, rather than threatening our resident 6th former with a tax that is never going to happen why don't you justify why high earning middle aged men who have spent far longer destroying the environment than today's school kids, shouldn't pay more to sort it out?

 

[beorhthelm]

Oh Plooks, you really need to learn to read what is posted. Where did I say we shouldn't use electric cars ? I was pointing out that even these new 'clean' cars have an affect on the environment ..... battery disposal being one of them. And the journey length is still an issue mainly because there is no infrastructure to re-charge a car on long journeys and where there is there is still the challenge of how long it takes to re-charge.

the trouble with all electric transportation is this power requirement, how we generate it and how we upgrade all domestic supply to cope with the increase use. no one seems to have provided an answer, waved away as not a real problem because 1% manage to use and accept the limitations. we need at least another large nuclear power station plus a lot of electric upgrades costing £10's Billions to make this work - its not impossible or even impractical, just not deliverable without major investment and planning.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

the trouble with all electric transportation is this power requirement, how we generate it and how we upgrade all domestic supply to cope with the increase use. no one seems to have provided an answer, waved away as not a real problem because 1% manage to use and accept the limitations. we need at least another large nuclear power station plus a lot of electric upgrades costing £10's Billions to make this work - its not impossible or even impractical, just not deliverable without major investment and planning.

Indeed ..... and exactly what I was trying to point out to our young 6th form friend. You can't just 'ban' petrol cars without a plan in place. That plan needs paying for .... but by whom ?

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Another binary argument to score cheap points off someone who does, admittedly, often ask for it.

General changes in society, without banning anything, have seen an *improvement* in the prospects for fuel pollution in the Western world. Reps and commuters are now driving self charging hybrid Lexus instead of three litre BMWs getting 20 to the gallon - or at least some of them are. And this has been a societal change that we've all accepted without a green tax or all being forced to drive unsuitable electric cars. Essentially it's happend because companies like Lexus now have to listen to the environmental lobby in order to see a future for themselves.

In the same way, all of us pay for the upkeep of the enviornment right now. Council tax pays for recycling. Firms who are charged the Climate Change Levy may well pass it on (and we are also funding its admin and promtion via central taxes). Green deal also needs administrating. Then, privately, we pay more for organic veg, ethically sourced meat etc. We may well pay less for green, renewable energy. especially if you use one of the marvellous new apps like Hive to regulate your home that need to be supported by an up to date smart phone

I'm of the personal opinion that all taxation should be progressive. So, rather than threatening our resident 6th former with a tax that is never going to happen why don't you justify why high earning middle aged men who have spent far longer destroying the environment than today's school kids, shouldn't pay more to sort it out?

So you're agreeing with me there has already been a huge amount of investment !

No problem with the tax being progressive just as long as it's paid by all that do 'something' to damage the environment such as use plastic. Old enough to vote means you're old enough to pay for the damage you do. I suspect Plooks doesn't wish to pay as he's yet to admit his generation are destroying the environment too.

 

[tigertim68]

Just been out training, the traffic was very quiet, it shows how many car journeys are made taking kids to school , so if these kids are really interested in saving the planet , walk to school

 

[CHAPPERS]

Indeed ..... and exactly what I was trying to point out to our young 6th form friend. You can't just 'ban' petrol cars without a plan in place. That plan needs paying for .... but by whom ?

The Brexit dividend?

 

[Guinness Boy]

So you're agreeing with me there has already been a huge amount of investment !

There has been a lot of investment. I wasn't for a minute agreeing with Plooks who seems to plough a fairly lonely furrow on here. But, going back to the point of the thread, the investment is partly as a reaction to public pressure via environmental groups, social media pressure (using tablets and smart phones) and protests. High visibility protests.

No problem with the tax being progressive just as long as it's paid by all that do 'something' to damage the environment such as use plastic. Old enough to vote means you're old enough to pay for the damage you do. I suspect Plooks doesn't wish to pay as he's yet to admit his generation are destroying the environment too.

That's fairly much where I am.

 

[The Clamp]

I really don’t see the value in blaming older generations. Yes, there did a lot of damage but what alternatives were available? The vast majority of regular people didn’t have the awareness we have today.

And the generation before me is certainly doing all it can to combat climate change. Young people are still contributing to climate change the world over.

Motorised transport in cities was seen as a clean and healthy alternative to all the horse muck and piss flowing through the streets. You can’t blame people for beliefs at the time.

I don’t think it’s a generational issue on the whole. There are those that profit from fossil fuels etc that will always rail against change, there are those that remain stubbornly ignorant and in denial and there are those that simply don’t care. It was ever thus.