An opinion on Climate Change Reactions

[Nomoss]

[exile]

Interesting and in part I can agree with him but at times his logic leaves some large holes.

For example:
Net zero by 2050 will not reverse climate change. Correct.
Therefore we should not do it. wrong.
If we do not work to reduce the amounts of green house gases created by our actions the increase in temperatures will keep on going. That is why net zero targets are being set. Reducing CO2 may be a later step and all other things being equal should cause a reversal - should we decide that is the way to go.

The Just stop oil nonsense however I do agree with. Leaving aside energy and transport use of oil products. Vast amounts of our normal life centre around oil products or products that rely on solvents that come from oil. He focuses on fertiliser but there are many other products.
These products include:
medicines
Pretty much all consumer electrical goods
plastics - I know they have a bad press, but do we want electrical insulation of our household wiring to revert to cotton thread, soaked in shellac.
Laminates - flooring, worktops, furniture etc.
Insulation
Industrial packaging (as opposed to consumer packaging where most people have their objections). Industrial packaging has been estimated to improve the level of food wastage by 50%. Prior to plastic packaging just over 50% of all crops spoiled before they could be consumed - water, pests, fungii. It is now estimated that just over 75% get consumed

The list goes on and on.

His Polar bear example that shooting has reversed a critical decline in numbers may be right. It does not mean that they are not threated if global temperatures rise.

His suggestion that wind and sun power are flawed because they cannot be relied upon 24/7/365 is right. That is why you need a range of power sources into the future including wind and solar, just as in the past we had a range - oil, gas, coal, hydro, nuclear because they too can have interrupted supply. To suggest that we need 3 months electrical storage in case the wind does not blow and the sun does not shine seems excessive. Outside of the arctic circles for the sun to not shine for 3 months looks to me to be a major anomaly. Similarly if the wind does not blow for 3 full months then you have badly sited your wind farm.

[Hotrodder]

You mention some good points but I would like to add.............
getting people to worry about climate change has led to a lot of money being made to little effect. There is no way (the west alone) will ever make the lifestyle changes needed to ever achieve net zero. Whether it is oil products or other chemicals won't matter.

[exile]

You are right that the west alone will never achieve the target.

China is often sited as a bad actor by having and still building coal fired power stations.
What is overlooked is that China already has more solar power installed than the rest of the world put together. Wind is somewhat behind but is very significant. China also has plans to continue new construction up to 2030 to more than triple its renewable generation over the decade.

Meanwhile the UK is bumbling along arguing whether it should install pylons, whether and where it should site battery storage, whether wind farms should be allowed on land, and whether solar farms should be allowed on prime farming land*.

And while France is encouraging us all to install solar panels on our rooves, EDF are making the sale of excess power so uneconomic as top act as a strong deterrent.


India, the other bad actor still has a lot of catching up to do. I think it will given time.


* Objectors need a strong dose of economic reality. If land owners of such prime land think they will make (much) more money from electricity than crops, it says a lot about food prices being too cheap. So will we pay more for our food? Yeah right; just after the first squadron of flying pigs lands on Mars.

[beejay]

And while France is encouraging us all to install solar panels on our rooves, EDF are making the sale of excess power so uneconomic as top act as a strong deterrent./quote]

roofs or rooves?

[exile]

rooves
I was brung up to do non standard plurals proper.

[Nomoss]

rooves
I was brung up to do non standard plurals proper.

Bravo

sited or cited?

[Polly]

I disliked reading that rooves is the correct plural, have always believed and taught that plural of roof is roofs. I checked it out online and came up with:

https://petition.parliament.uk/archived ... ons/268579

“Rejected petition
Change the plural of 'roof' from 'roofs' to 'rooves'.

'Rooves' sounds much better and would be consistent with other plurals such as hoof/hooves and wolf/wolves.

This petition was rejected

Why was this petition rejected?

It’s about something that the UK Government or Parliament is not directly responsible for.

The UK Government or Parliament is not responsible for setting the "official spelling" of words.

We only reject petitions that don’t meet the petition standards.”

[exile]

Rooves - good enough for Milton and Chaucer, so I will stick with it.

English nouns ending in "f" or "fe" normally take a "v" in various forms when in the plural:
Leaf Leaves
Half Halves
Thief Thieves
Knife Knives

[Polly]

But there are others that don’t follow that rule:

Singular Form Plural Form
roof roofs
proof proofs
chief chiefs
belief beliefs
sheriff sheriffs