Climate Change - record World temp. rises in Feb.

Some councils are doing practical things like planting trees in areas that'll be at risk of flooding. Bigger changes will obviously require national governments. One thing we could do is hurry up with new nuclear power plants whilst we await renewable energy to power more and more.

One good thing is we're increasingly using less coal whilst wind and solar energy is becoming much, much more efficient.

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by Damien

Some councils are doing practical things like planting trees in areas that'll be at risk of flooding. Bigger changes will obviously require national governments. One thing we could do is hurry up with new nuclear power plants whilst we await renewable energy to power more and more.

One good thing is we're increasingly using less coal whilst wind and solar energy is becoming much, much more efficient.

And we're fracking to release even more greenhouse gases....

Originally Posted by Mr K

And we're fracking to release even more greenhouse gases....

Gas is the easiest way to get coal permanently out of the energy mix. Using it results in a net reduction in CO2 emissions and a lot else besides. And shale gas represents an opportunity to improve domestic supply and therefore national energy security.

There is no way we can move exclusively to renewables at the pace favoured by the tofu-munching geography lecturers of Greenpeace. As I said above, pressure groups can blow as hard as they like, governments don’t have the luxury of enacting daydreams.

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by Chris

Gas is the easiest way to get coal permanently out of the energy mix. Using it results in a net reduction in CO2 emissions and a lot else besides. And shale gas represents an opportunity to improve domestic supply and therefore national energy security.

There is no way we can move exclusively to renewables at the pace favoured by the tofu-munching geography lecturers of Greenpeace. As I said above, pressure groups can blow as hard as they like, governments don’t have the luxury of enacting daydreams.

It's Govts that will need to deal with the increasing Climate Change events in future. They need to think a bit more long term than the next election.
P..s I don't like tofu.

Originally Posted by Mr K

It's Govts that will need to deal with the increasing Climate Change events in future. They need to think a bit more long term than the next election.
P..s I don't like tofu.

But you don’t deny being a geography lecturer ... Government is thinking long term. There are costs of action as well as inaction.

[GrimUpNorth]

Originally Posted by Chris

But you don’t deny being a geography lecturer ... Government is thinking long term. There are costs of action as well as inaction.

Someone's got to be the first to act, sitting there looking worried like Ken Barlow and stroking your chin or putting down what others are suggesting or trying might make you feel clever and superior but it really helps nobody. It's not just tofu munching geography teachers that care, quite a lot of us normal people do too.

Originally Posted by GrimUpNorth

Someone's got to be the first to act, sitting there looking worried like Ken Barlow and stroking your chin or putting down what others are suggesting or trying might make you feel clever and superior but it really helps nobody. It's not just tofu munching geography teachers that care, quite a lot of us normal people do too.

Have you ever tried tofu? It’s gross. Eschewing it is both clever and superior.

Also ... please don’t make the basic internet debate error of assuming you know what somebody cares about just because you’ve seen them criticising something.

My point, so far as I had one, is that caring is doing, not making virtue signalling gestures. Declaring a climate emergency is a gesture, nothing more.

[Carth]

Doesn't matter how many trees we plant in the UK, it won't replace those lost worldwide every week.

I could car share to work every day for a year and still not put a dent in the emissions from a bunch of MP's flying across Europe to an Environmental meeting.

We could all stop eating beef/pork/lamb/chicken . . . and then spend millions on high emission equipment needed to plough & sow the fields, and then harvest the vegetables required to feed everyone.

. . . or we could invest in floating farms/villages for when the floods come

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by Chris

But you don’t deny being a geography lecturer ... Government is thinking long term. There are costs of action as well as inaction.

The costs of inaction are disasterous and probably irreversible. The costs of action we all need to shoulder. This Govt. doesn't think beyond next week atm, sidetracked by crap like Brexit and it's own survival, which are insignificant irrelevances in comparison.

( yes, I would dearly love to be a Geography teacher complete with the lovely courduroy jacket and elbow pads )

---------- Post added at 17:25 ---------- Previous post was at 17:20 ----------

Originally Posted by Carth

Doesn't matter how many trees we plant in the UK, it won't replace those lost worldwide every week.

I could car share to work every day for a year and still not put a dent in the emissions from a bunch of MP's flying across Europe to an Environmental meeting.

We could all stop eating beef/pork/lamb/chicken . . . and then spend millions on high emission equipment needed to plough & sow the fields, and then harvest the vegetables required to feed everyone.

. . . or we could invest in floating farms/villages for when the floods come

Or we just treat it as a joke, and leave for the next generation to deal with. Except we'll be past the tipping point by then, and there's nothing they'll be able to do.

Yes its needs to be Global action. Trump is an issue but he'll soon be gone. We could take the lead and make the World respect and follow us again. It has to start somewhere.

[GrimUpNorth]

Originally Posted by Chris

Have you ever tried tofu? It’s gross. Eschewing it is both clever and superior.

Also ... please don’t make the basic internet debate error of assuming you know what somebody cares about just because you’ve seen them criticising something.

My point, so far as I had one, is that caring is doing, not making virtue signalling gestures. Declaring a climate emergency is a gesture, nothing more.

I eat tofu now and again as Mrs G is vegetarian.

Instead of criticising maybe try supporting.

Declaring a climate emergency signals that the elected members of Leeds City Council recognise there is an issue. The declaration is the start of a change in policies/practices and direction so a bit more than a gesture, but yes in the whole scheme of things anything done will only make a very small impact but if every local authority follows - remember even the mightiest river starts from a few drops of rain.

Originally Posted by GrimUpNorth

I eat tofu now and again as Mrs G is vegetarian.

Instead of criticising maybe try supporting.

Declaring a climate emergency signals that the elected members of Leeds City Council recognise there is an issue. The declaration is the start of a change in policies/practices and direction so a bit more than a gesture, but yes in the whole scheme of things anything done will only make a very small impact but if every local authority follows - remember even the mightiest river starts from a few drops of rain.

Signals. Thank you.

It is entirely possible for Leeds CC to use whatever powers it has to be more environmentally friendly without signalling. It chooses however to signal. It's good PR.

You also ably demonstrate another reason I dislike virtue signalling. What is it you think I should support instead of criticising? Taking measures to reduce my environmental impact, or signing up to both the terminology and methods of a particular pressure group? The two are not the same, but a plain reading of your last couple of posts suggests you are muddying the distinction, whether consciously or not.

No, I will not support the concept of 'climate emergency'; I choose instead to just get on and do what needs to be done. I don't need a pat on the back and I don't need to feel validated by having people think I'm a righteous eco-warrior.

I will however make this one-time-only concession to the fashion for virtue signalling: This post was typed using electricity generated entirely by renewable sources, in a house heated on biomass, with fingers washed in water heated exclusively by solar energy.

Mic drop.

[GrimUpNorth]

Originally Posted by Chris

Signals. Thank you.

It is entirely possible for Leeds CC to use whatever powers it has to be more environmentally friendly without signalling. It chooses however to signal. It's good PR.

You also ably demonstrate another reason I dislike virtue signalling. What is it you think I should support instead of criticising? Taking measures to reduce my environmental impact, or signing up to both the terminology and methods of a particular pressure group? The two are not the same, but a plain reading of your last couple of posts suggests you are muddying the distinction, whether consciously or not.

No, I will not support the concept of 'climate emergency'; I choose instead to just get on and do what needs to be done. I don't need a pat on the back and I don't need to feel validated by having people think I'm a righteous eco-warrior.

I will however make this one-time-only concession to the fashion for virtue signalling: This post was typed using electricity generated entirely by renewable sources, in a house heated on biomass, with fingers washed in water heated exclusively by solar energy.

Mic drop.

And by signalling what you are doing might just might encourage others to up their game too. Let me be the first to congratulate your environmental credentials and pat you on the back for doing your bit

Frrrrrrp

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Mr K

The costs of inaction are disasterous and probably irreversible. The costs of action we all need to shoulder. This Govt. doesn't think beyond next week atm, sidetracked by crap like Brexit and it's own survival, which are insignificant irrelevances in comparison.

( yes, I would dearly love to be a Geography teacher complete with the lovely courduroy jacket and elbow pads )

You just suck it all up, don't you, Mr K?

We have already established that both carbon and temperatures have been higher than they are now in the past. So how come it was not irreversible then and yet it is irreversible now?

Don't just repeat what the climate extremists are saying - think before you make your pronouncements.

[richard s]

The only way to save this planet is for the human race to disappear.