Wild fires in BC Canada.

[deema]

@Jacob. Simply, ALL COUNTRIES should be aiming for Zero emissions by the agreed date irrespective of their population or existing levels of CO2 emissions. The onus though should be on the largest polluters to make the largest reduction faster than the smaller polluters, that’s just simple reasoning.

Now, if we are saying you can not bother if your CO2 per capita is small compared to another country, we will find, which is what we have now that our contribution is worth sweat FA

 

[Jacob]

@Jacob. Simply, ALL COUNTRIES should be aiming for Zero emissions by the agreed date irrespective of their population or existing levels of CO2 emissions. The omits though should be in the largest polluters to make the largest reduction faster than the smaller polluters, that’s just simple reasoning.

Yes obviously. but the usual argument coming from your side is that it's all their fault and what we do as a small country is irrelevant. You can't have it both ways.

 

[Jacob]

Reread his comment Jacob, you'll notice he didn't say per capita, he was speaking about the overall emissions.

Cleaner air is a noble cause but to suggest the UK by itself can make any dent on global emissions is laughable.

Nobody suggests anything of the sort.

..... Do you really think countries like the above are going to prioritize emissions over commercial output of their nations? ....

They are going to have to one way or another and it makes no difference to our own obligations. China is likely to get ahead on this as they have invested a lot in sustainable energy.

 

[deema]

Yes obviously. but the usual argument coming from your side is that it's all their fault and what we do as a small country is irrelevant. You can't have it both ways.

Well, actually I can. If the large polluting nations don’t do anything, which they really aren’t in terms of moving to net zero then anything little old Blighty does is irrelevant. If ‘poor‘ country’s with a few billion people are causing most of the CO2 emissions, beating up our economy, causing heat poverty, pushing us in to a recession is all for nothing. The green brigade can beat their chests, huff and puff as much as they like, lie under lorries, stop internal combustion engines, pop up more windmills than we have trees and still enjoy the global effects of the climate warming.

From your other post, the great and mighty China; when exactly are they planning to get to net zero? In 2060……long after the planet has warmed up nicely. What about India, when are they looking to get to net zero? Well, they are going to keep stocking up the atmosphere until at least 2070. Thats 30 and 40 years after Blighty. Let’s consider the mighty US of A, they are thinking about getting there by 2050, twenty years after Blighty, and they have a nice big clock to tell them when they should be getting there….

Africa, well they are too busy fighting each other, dealing with starvation, disease, infant mortality and a hole host of other issues, so it’s not on their radar, and they will end up with the biggest population and become the supremo CO2 producers. So I think we can count them out, but they still want cash for the CO2 problems that will affect their countries such as increased desertificatio, a bit more land under the seas etc from the West.

 

[Jacob]

Well, actually I can. If the large polluting nations don’t do anything, which they really aren’t in terms of moving to net zero then anything little old Blighty does is irrelevant. If ‘poor‘ country’s with a few billion people are causing most of the CO2 emissions, beating up our economy, causing heat poverty, pushing us in to a recession is all for nothing. The green brigade can beat their chests, huff and puff as much as they like, lie under lorries, stop internal combustion engines, pop up more windmills than we have trees and still enjoy the global effects of the climate warming.

From your other post, the great and mighty China; when exactly are they planning to get to net zero? In 2060……long after the planet has warmed up nicely. What about India, when are they looking to get to net zero? Well, they are going to keep stocking up the atmosphere until at least 2070. Thats 30 and 40 years after Blighty. Let’s consider the mighty US of A, they are thinking about getting there by 2050, twenty years after Blighty, and they have a nice big clock to tell them when they should be getting there….

Africa, well they are too busy fighting each other, dealing with starvation, disease, infant mortality and a hole host of other issues, so it’s not on their radar, and they will end up with the biggest population and become the supremo CO2 producers. So I think we can count them out, but they still want cash for the CO2 problems that will affect their countries such as increased desertificatio, a bit more land under the seas etc from the West.

Yes it's everybody else's fault. Make a note for the book.
What do you think of Sunak's granting of coal and oil licences? This could make a chapter!

 

[deema]

Yes it's everybody else's fault. Make a note for the book.

I know, why let facts get in the way of your ‘I think it so it must be true’ approach. Look, feel happy with your single glazing, use your computer and contribute to the mega watts being used by the data centres around the world, continue to heat your home, run a gas guzzling car and feel better for whining about something you and the rest of us in the UK can do dam all to stop. Don’t worry, we will be soon a third world country after bankrupting ourselves pursuing a dream, so we will be justified in also moving the net zero target to sometime never.

 

[Jacob]

I know, why let facts get in the way of your ‘I think it so it must be true’ approach. Look, feel happy with your single glazing, use your computer and contribute to the mega watts being used by the data centres around the world, continue to heat your home, run a gas guzzling car and feel better for whining about something you and the rest of us in the UK can do dam all to stop. Don’t worry, we will be soon a third world country after bankrupting ourselves pursuing a dream, so we will be justified in also moving the net zero target to sometime never.

What do you think of Sunak's granting of coal and oil licences?

 

[deema]

What do you think of Sunak's granting of coal and oil licences?

Sensible. Whilst the world needs coal and oil, and that includes the UK it’s far better to produce it here reducing the CO2 footprint from having to ship it from half way around the world. If we can ever do without it, then ban / stop production.

 

[niemeyjt]

Maybe we should all vote with our wallets. Let's avoid buying tools produced in India and PRC using high CO2 energy.

Let's boycott Milwaulkee, Bridge City, Ryobi, Green Bosch, etc etc.

OK? Thought not.

 

[Jacob]

Sensible. Whilst the world needs coal and oil,

But the world needs to stop using coal and oil and it's very long overdue.
You have missed the point again. Null pointes but good for the book!
Do you think it is sensible for other nations also to carry on using coal and oil? If not why not?
Or to put it another way: which do you think is the greatest need, to carry on using coal and oil or to stop?

 

[Jacob]

Maybe we should all vote with our wallets. Let's avoid buying tools produced in India and PRC using high CO2 energy.

Let's boycott Milwaulkee, Bridge City, Ryobi, Green Bosch, etc etc.

OK? Thought not.

Better to stop buying American tools where CO2 per capita is amongst world's highest.
https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-per-capita/

 

[deema]

@Jacob, now you’ve got it!

 

[John Brown]

Believe me Deema, when I say I share your cynicism, but in truth we are a rich country that has done more than most over the years to create the climate crisis and should be doing more to ease it.

I'm pretty sure that if we taxed the rich in a much more fair manner than currently, we could solve the problems in this country that you mention and still be easily able to help third world countries catch up. There should not be poverty in a country like ours, fairer wealth distribution is the key, global as well as national, but alas, I don't see that happening any time soon.

 

[danst96]

But the world needs to stop using coal and oil and it's very long overdue.
You have missed the point again. Null pointes but good for the book!
Do you think it is sensible for other nations also to carry on using coal and oil? If not why not?
Or to put it another way: which do you think is the greatest need, to carry on using coal and oil or to stop?

What's your suggestion for not using oil and coal?

This is what gets me the most in these arguments, there's never any support for what the alternative to oil and coal will be, specifically oil.

It's a daft argument and losing our cool on some woodwork forum achieves nothing.

 

[Jacob]

What's your suggestion for not using oil and coal?

This is what gets me the most in these arguments, there's never any support for what the alternative to oil and coal will be, specifically oil.

It's a daft argument and losing our cool on some woodwork forum achieves nothing.

You haven't heard the expression "sustainable energy"? It's central to the whole issue and is massively researched and invested in.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainable_energy

 

[DrPhill]

When people wish to blame 'poor' countries for emmissions, I think that they have not read this report: Carbon inequality in 2030

 

[danst96]

You haven't heard the expression "sustainable energy"? It's central to the whole issue and is massively researched and invested in.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainable_energy

I'm not talking about energy, I'm talking about the 1000's of items you and I use on a daily basis which started off as oil. Including all of your "sustainable" energy products.

 

[deema]

When people wish to blame 'poor' countries for emmissions, I think that they have not read this report: Carbon inequality in 2030

That’s back to per capita arguments. I’m a hairy buttocks engineer, I’m not into semantics, just hard facts. If you create the stuff, you deal with it. So if your country creates the largest amount of CO2, then if it’s important to the world, deal with your sh*t.
If we use the per capita argument then places like Iceland and Taiwan need to sharpen their acts up far before old Blighty as they have over twice as much CO2 / person than the UK. But, considering their population is tiny it doesn’t matter a dam. But what the heck, one freezes and the other deals with high heat, so perhaps we should suggest the Icelanders turn off their heating and freeze to death? Or the Taiwanese allow a huge number of they’re elderly and young to die due to them not being able to cope with the heat after turning off the air conditioning? You might notice the high CO2 per head of populations are all in the colder or hotter regions if the world.

 

[Jacob]

I'm not talking about energy, I'm talking about the 1000's of items you and I use on a daily basis which started off as oil. Including all of your "sustainable" energy products.

All part of the problem under consideration. No doubt big changes on the way, e.g. radical changes in personal transport just a detail... etc

 

[Jacob]

That’s back to per capita arguments. I’m a hairy buttocks engineer, I’m not into semantics, just hard facts. If you create the stuff, you deal with it. So if your country creates the largest amount of CO2, then if it’s important to the world, deal with your sh*t.
If we use the per capita argument then places like Iceland and Taiwan need to sharpen their acts up far before old Blighty as they have over twice as much CO2 / person than the UK. But, considering their population is tiny it doesn’t matter a dam. But what the heck, one freezes and the other deals with high heat, so perhaps we should suggest the Icelanders turn off their heating and freeze to death? Or the Taiwanese allow a huge number of they’re elderly and young to die due to them not being able to cope with the heat after turning off the air conditioning? You might notice the high CO2 per head of populations are all in the colder or hotter regions if the world.

You still haven't got it.
You can't demand that e.g. China reduces its per capita consumption whilst that of USA etc stays high. We are all in it together. One world.