Ban on airtravel

[plum60]

Yes me too and I know that when the Tories are in we have growth, excepting the war years and pandemics, my shares grow faster. When my shares grow, it indicates to me that the economy is doing alright. This isn't about loving or hating a party, it's knowing when you're better off.

Shareholders take the profits though not the community. I remember when my dad said the factory next door was moving all it's production to Hungary where labour was cheaper and they could produce the construction vehicles/equipment for less money. But he pointed out that the objects themselves never get reduced in price for the consumer only the profits go up and the shareholders split it between themselves with a much smaller amount going in tax to central gov. Lost jobs lost industry but happy shareholders isn't better for community the nhs etc etc.
Uk people should have some civic education at school like mainland European countries if you ask me which might create a nation that thinks properly that respects and likes each-other a bit more than I keep noticing these days.

 

[Keith Cocker]

But this is something we should have kept our noses out of, there is no reason why the west needs to put it's head on the block for Ukraine knowing that the risk of escalation is just ramping up. Basically Nato has just been pouring fuel on the fire, had it kept out it would be over and we would not be facing the worst financial crisis for many decades that will drag on for some time. Now we are putting Putin into a corner, if faced with bad odds due to Nato weapons what do you think he will do. Just say ok and withdraw, hit Ukraine with something that will stop them in their tracks or deliver a substantial warning to Nato?

Wrong, wrong and wrong on every count.

 

[Scruples]

Interesting opinion but not without flaws. It is because some companies issue shares to to raise money for their businesses. Those businesses can then, with good management and few unforeseen interruptions, expand and employ more people who, in time, can save and prosper and, who knows, they too can invest in the economy.

It is not I that see the world in black and white; it never is, but there is a link between the less well-off and left, as there is a link between well-off and the right. As more people in the middle are seeing the benefits of home ownership and better wages they are moving towards the right and it's why Labour has struggled to gain public support.
Modern 'relative poverty' is a more modern concept than it was in the post-war days. Then, we were really poor, thin, under-privileged with little prospects but, in some ways, happier because we weren't being told, continuously, that we were poor.

 

[Scruples]

Shareholders take the profits though not the community. I remember when my dad said the factory next door was moving all it's production to Hungary where labour was cheaper and they could produce the construction vehicles/equipment for less money. But he pointed out that the objects themselves never get reduced in price for the consumer only the profits go up and the shareholders split it between themselves with a much smaller amount going in tax to central gov. Lost jobs lost industry but happy shareholders isn't better for community the nhs etc etc.
Uk people should have some civic education at school like mainland European countries if you ask me which might create a nation that thinks properly that respects and likes each-other a bit more than I keep noticing these days.

Shareholders get a return on their investment. The companies get funding from the shareholders to enable them to make profits and grow. The communities benefit by having more employment and jobs which allow people to earn money to pay taxes which benefit the country.
Lost jobs, lost industires and happy shareholders is almoat an oxymoron.
In the 70s, I studied basic politics in a high school in Cornwall. I learned a lot about the Parliamentary processes and the reason why it's dangerous to ignore what's happening in the country and the world at large. We also did Community Service in homes around the school. Experience is invaluable, good and bad.

 

[Spectric]

Wrong, wrong and wrong on every count.

Why? It is the basis of survival where you don't risk the lives of say forty people in a lifeboat just trying to get four more in. It comes down to simple analysis where you have to weigh up the worst possible outcome and decide if that would be acceptable as a result of your actions and in this case it is no. What we are saying is that it would be acceptable to wipe out billions trying to save a few million, in fact the very worse case could be extinction for all so you are saying this is an acceptable gamble!

 

[IZZY]

Ban air travel in the UK? Ha ha! They may be talking about local flights "within" the UK, but even then there will always be flights for government officials, royalty and those with "loadsa money". Reducing air travel in general is an excellent idea. The idea that you can travel thousands of miles in a few hours for a few quid is totally unsustainable with our current technology (ie fossil fuel based). People of this era have grown up with the idea that they can flit off on holiday anywhere, anytime and as often as they like for peanuts as though it is some kind of fundamental right. Well, they do so at the cost of landing their (and everyone else's) children and grandchildren with huge environmental problems. Does that attitude strike anyone as selfish? Or is it just me?

To say nothing about spreading disease's etc.

 

[Jonm]

Spoken like a true lefty. Without wealth there is no growth and fewer jobs with lower wages. Wealth doesn't increase on its own. It needs investment and speculation. Investment in business, technology and people. People taking risks in new ideas and inventions. Without wealth there would be less tax revenue and the economy would weaker for it. It's always easy to attack the rich but it takes a lot more effort to get rich too.

I think you need to read carefully what limey lurker actually said not what you think he said.

The ONLY thing this particular Tory Government is "pro", is their personal wealth, and if they can increase their wealth by destroying Great Bitain, then it's "Good-bye Britain!".

He is talking about the governments personal wealth nothing about general wealth and the value of your shares.

 

[Robbo60]

As would I if any PM in the last 30 years told me.

I do it with weather forecasters

 

[AlanY]

The ONLY thing this particular Tory Government is "pro", is their personal wealth, and if they can increase their wealth by destroying Great Bitain, then it's "Good-bye Britain!".

I wonder if people have missed the fact that ALL modern politicians - and particularly Party Leaders - seem to have a managed to accumulate great wealth. The Kinnocks became very rich (how? They did ferk all!), Tony Blair became a multi-millionaire (as did his wife through being a 'top' HRA lawyer - an Act that her husband introduced and which is the bane of our society now). Blair also ensured that his wife's profession was exempted from IR35, meaning she does not even pay a fair tax on her 'earnings'. Odd that, for a 'socialist' party leader, eh? Nicola Sturgeon has somehow managed to accumulate between '£2 million and £5 million' in personal wealth from just 14 years on a First Ministers salary. How? Jeremy Corbyn is a millionaire on an MP's salary and he has never done a damned thing in his decades of protesting!

The point being, politicians looking to get rich is not a Tory phenomenon. And it is not new.

 

[Auldfart2010]

Aaand, we're back to politics again.

 

[Yorkieguy]

The 'Absolute Zero' paper is just so simplistic and naïve, that really, the authors should be laughed off the face of the planet. I ought not to dignify it by taking the bait, but here are just three snippets:

Here is what they are saying will happen in the decade from 2020 to 2030:

QUOTE:

Living well:

The activities we most enjoy, according to the UK’s comprehensive time-use survey, are sports, social-life, eating, hobbies, games, computing, reading, tv, music, radio, volunteering (and sleeping!) We can all do more of these without any impact on emissions.

UNQUOTE.

Nonsense. All those activities have an impact of emissions. Consider hobbies – purchase of equipment, tools, materials, use of electricity for power tools. All of that involves sourcing materials, manufacturing, packaging, transportation.

Quite apart from that, a recent report said that on average, in the UK people spend upwards of six hours a day not actually engaging in any of the listed activities quoted above, but on social media - not even mentioned in the report, (which ironically - as a sedentary activity - does reduce emissions, apart from generating lots of hot air).

QUOTE:

Development of petrol/diesel engines ends; Any new vehicle introduced from now on must be compatible with Absolute Zero.

UNQUOTE.

2030 is just seven years away – the blink of an eye.

It’s nonsense to say that new vehicles (which - if petrol/diesel cars cease production will be electric vehicles), must be compatible with Absolute Zero. What is never mentioned is the environmental ‘footprint’ of electric cars compared to petrol cars. Mining and refining lithium and cobalt for batteries, (from countries that aren’t exactly friendly, and are many thousands of miles away), then energy used in recycling batteries when they’re past their best.

In an electric car, the energy storage is in a huge heavy battery with a limited life-span, which takes a lot of energy to produce, and to recycle. In a petrol car, the energy storage is in a petrol tank, which takes little energy to produce or to re-cycle and will last the life of the car.

QUOTE:

National consumption of beef and lamb drops by 50%, along with reduction in frozen ready meals and air-freighted food imports.

UNQUOTE.

Well, here we are, with no significant reduction in any of those things in the last two years, and 2030 just seven years to go to 2030.

Ho hum.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

Quite apart from that, a recent report said that on average, in the UK people spend upwards of six hours a day not actually engaging in any of the listed activities quoted above, but on social media - not even mentioned in the report, (which ironically - as a sedentary activity - does reduce emissions, apart from generating lots of hot air).

Apparently worldwide computer and internet use causes 3.5% of the world's atmospheric pollution as opposed to the UK's 1%.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

I couldn't get that quote to work properly for some reason.

 

[Blackswanwood]

Why? It is the basis of survival where you don't risk the lives of say forty people in a lifeboat just trying to get four more in. It comes down to simple analysis where you have to weigh up the worst possible outcome and decide if that would be acceptable as a result of your actions and in this case it is no. What we are saying is that it would be acceptable to wipe out billions trying to save a few million, in fact the very worse case could be extinction for all so are you saying this is an acceptable gamble!

Your example of a lifeboat isn’t in my opinion really comparable to the decision to support a country that is trying to defend itself against blatant aggression.

 

[Jacob]

Well, here we are, with no significant reduction in any of those things in the last two years, and 2030 just seven years to go to 2030.

Ho hum.

Ho hum - exactly.
Things are changing very quickly. One consistent thing about many of the climate change observations is that they say things are changing faster than forecast. Probably because they are being over cautious about the climate change sceptic lobby, who have held things back and still are doing.
I reckon we have 5 years before things go very s**t shaped. Change seems to be irreversible. It will hit us too, but in different ways to places already on climate margin. e.g. 2 weeks of failed "just in time' deliveries would be difficult, 2 months would be a catastrophe.
PS I also think the big emphasis on electric vehicles is very short sighted - just boys hoping to hang on to their toys. Party's nearly over!

 

[johna.clements]

Ho hum - exactly.
Things are changing very quickly. One consistent thing about many of the climate change observations is that they say things are changing faster than forecast. Probably because they are being over cautious about the climate change sceptic lobby, who have held things back and still are doing.
I reckon we have 5 years before things go very s**t shaped. Change seems to be irreversible. It will hit us too, but in different ways to places already on climate margin. e.g. 2 weeks of failed "just in time' deliveries would be difficult, 2 months would be a catastrophe.

Things aren't suddenly going to go to pot it is most likely to be like the lobster in the pot.

In the UK we will likely get more heavy rain, storms etc to some people will be flooded and everybody will pay more insurance and tax.
Some plants will die off because of the hotter summers and new pests, changing the countryside like dutch elm.
There will be more wars abroad so more tax for our military and more refugees.
etc

Each thing is not big for everyone but they will slowly add up, slowly boiled.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

Out of interest I refer folk to the Met Office:

Climate extremes

Many extremes for temperature, wind gust, rainfall, sunshine hours go back decades. Sunshine hours monthly record is held by Eastbourne in July 1911!

This is not to suggest we should be complacent about climate change - what humanity is doing is unsustainable for a whole range of reasons.

The UK is fortunate in having a temperate climate - changes are unlikely to be quickly catastrophic. It is also relatively wealthy - adaptation is a plausible response to moderate speed of change.

Note - the world and society almost completely shut down at the start of Covid, and has been seriously compromised for two years. Yet the UK remained generally fed and watered. Shortages were an annoyance but hardly survival critical - toilet rolls, computer chips etc.

Those making sweeping generalisations based on very selective data - not just the UK but globally should understand that many events are cyclical, perhaps related to El Nino. Simple interpretation of short term trends (eg: drought in Africa, heatwaves in Asia etc) is flawed.

 

[Jacob]

Out of interest I refer folk to the Met Office:

Climate extremes

Many extremes for temperature, wind gust, rainfall, sunshine hours go back decades. Sunshine hours monthly record is held by Eastbourne in July 1911!

This is not to suggest we should be complacent about climate change - what humanity is doing is unsustainable for a whole range of reasons.

The UK is fortunate in having a temperate climate - changes are unlikely to be quickly catastrophic. It is also relatively wealthy - adaptation is a plausible response to moderate speed of change.

Note - the world and society almost completely shut down at the start of Covid, and has been seriously compromised for two years. Yet the UK remained generally fed and watered. Shortages were an annoyance but hardly survival critical - toilet rolls, computer chips etc.

Those making sweeping generalisations based on very selective data - not just the UK but globally should understand that many events are cyclical, perhaps related to El Nino. Simple interpretation of short term trends (eg: drought in Africa, heatwaves in Asia etc) is flawed.

There you go - a classic piece of climate change scepticism! Flawed is the word!
Normal "climate extremes" are not the same as "climate change", which is bringing about abnormal climate extremes.
Even if our UK climate remains temperate (which it isn't doing - it's hotting up) we will be hit by secondary effects - fossil fuel usage, global food supplies etc etc.
The science isn't about "simple interpretation of short term trends" in fact is looking at evidence in the very long term, though geological time - ice core studies being just one.
Anyway you are looking at the wrong Met office page Terry. Understanding climate change

 

[johna.clements]

Out of interest I refer folk to the Met Office:

Climate extremes

Many extremes for temperature, wind gust, rainfall, sunshine hours go back decades. Sunshine hours monthly record is held by Eastbourne in July 1911!

This is not to suggest we should be complacent about climate change - what humanity is doing is unsustainable for a whole range of reasons.

The UK is fortunate in having a temperate climate - changes are unlikely to be quickly catastrophic. It is also relatively wealthy - adaptation is a plausible response to moderate speed of change.

Note - the world and society almost completely shut down at the start of Covid, and has been seriously compromised for two years. Yet the UK remained generally fed and watered. Shortages were an annoyance but hardly survival critical - toilet rolls, computer chips etc.

Those making sweeping generalisations based on very selective data - not just the UK but globally should understand that many events are cyclical, perhaps related to El Nino. Simple interpretation of short term trends (eg: drought in Africa, heatwaves in Asia etc) is flawed.

The thing about extremes of weather is that they are distributed on a bell type graph. In the long run the extremes will happen by chance. When you shift the bell curve to the right, by putting more heat into the system the chances of events change. The odds of some events happening go up so they may now take place every forty years on average rather than a hundred.

According to the Met office site that you linked of the twelve months in a year the highest recorded temperatures in England have occurred in five of those months since 2000. I have not looked at the other figures.

Sunshine hours are not directly related to the temperature. Where I live we seem to be getting a lot less crisp sunny days in January, dull overcast seems to becoming the norm.

 

[Keith Cocker]

Why? It is the basis of survival where you don't risk the lives of say forty people in a lifeboat just trying to get four more in. It comes down to simple analysis where you have to weigh up the worst possible outcome and decide if that would be acceptable as a result of your actions and in this case it is no. What we are saying is that it would be acceptable to wipe out billions trying to save a few million, in fact the very worse case could be extinction for all so you are saying this is an acceptable gamble!

This isn't comparable in my view. The invasion of Ukraine by Russia was an unprovoked and unjustified invasion of a sovereign territory. It was an act of aggression with severely damaging consequences for Ukraine. the Russian forces have been guilty of appalling acts. At a pragmatic level allowing Putin to get away with this puts a whole range of European countries from Finland to Moldavia at risk. We cannot allow him to get away with this otherwise the stability of Europe and the freedom of millions of people will be threatened. Its is already having a huge impact on the world economy, on food supplies, fuel costs and prices generally. The west should not appease Putin or shy away from this situation. We should be pouring resources into Ukraine to support them in every way possible. Not to do so is a much greater risk.