Impressed £67.5 billion... nope... 117.4 billion, and rising.

Job

The Carl Pilkington of Freddyshouse
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
21,591

caLLous

I am a FH squatter
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
16,908
Never mind the article, did you even get to the end of the headline?
 

Job

The Carl Pilkington of Freddyshouse
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
21,591
I have skipped through it.

Lots of truths, but a lot of scary music and hard to context claims.
Its like the opposite of Inconvenient Truth.

Certainly so much of biomass being full trees is concerning ..mixed with everyone supporting alternatives going very quiet about it.
Of course Michael Moore is mr environmentalist..so its going to be hard to ignore.
 

Job

The Carl Pilkington of Freddyshouse
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
21,591
Yeah..that facebook review is good, but the hard truths still remain that solar and wind arent going to take over anything without a huge quantam leap in storage.

Ive always seen Moore as the Jeremy Kyle of film makers, the shocking thing is who hes turned on.
The right are having a day in the fields.
 

Scouse

Job-worshipper and all round follower of cunts.
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
28,872
I don't understand that @Embattle? If we stop producing we stop producing. (Unless there's a measurement lag).

It's either in the atmosphere or not. If all emissions sources were immediately shut down then the raise would stop.
 
Last edited:

Scouse

Job-worshipper and all round follower of cunts.
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
28,872
*increase temperatures.
Yeah. Temperature increases have a lag. Same way it takes a while for your bed to warm up under a duvet.
 

Scouse

Job-worshipper and all round follower of cunts.
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
28,872
I'd guessed right about who'd facepalmed you @Embattle. :)

@Bodhi - seriously - two questions:

1) what's your objection in principle to the above argument?

2) What do you think we should be doing instead?
 

Embattle

I am a FH squatter
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
10,066
To me it seems quite a logical argument, we will get there in the end any way but it would be nice to see a ramp up in investment.
 

Scouse

Job-worshipper and all round follower of cunts.
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
28,872
Aye. I also think it's a sensible move. What, with permafires burning in the arctic circle now :(

(That article is from last year, but the snow over winter, and subsequent melt, wasn't enough to put the fire out and it's raging again this year - lookup "zombie fire arctic"...).

What's funny is, just like coronavirus, as the scientist says: "these are all the things we have been predicting for decades".

I guess, like coronavirus, it'll be the scientists' fault for not giving a proper warning. I presume the IPCC will get de-funded by the next Trump, a bit like the WHO - even though they've been saying "look out! this is really fucking serious" for a long long time - and scientists have been on about it since the end of the second world war.
 

Job

The Carl Pilkington of Freddyshouse
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
21,591
Its not really an accomplishment any more than the UK probably had the lowest amount of Sierra 1.6ls on the road this year
 

Scouse

Job-worshipper and all round follower of cunts.
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
28,872
Concerning that we get 1% of our 'leccy from biomass.

But the rest of it is good news story.
 

Scouse

Job-worshipper and all round follower of cunts.
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
28,872
Tiny amount of cash to try to develop a technology that keeps promising is going to be cheaper and easier all the time, but never is.
 

Bodhi

Once agreed with Scouse and a LibDem at same time
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
8,249
I'd guessed right about who'd facepalmed you @Embattle. :)

@Bodhi - seriously - two questions:

1) what's your objection in principle to the above argument?

2) What do you think we should be doing instead?
Ignoring the fact it's an incredibly one sided puff piece from the Renewable Energy lobby, it's not really that intelligent to try and kick start a recovery by making electricity more expensive and applying carbon taxes to everything we make. You'd either have to be a particular kind of stupid, or have a vested interest for that to make sense.

The middle-class bien pensants who love this kind of stuff will probably cope - people on the breadline, not so much.

Personally I'd be looking at nuclear instead - carbon free, reliable, safe. That article you posted shows the secret to keeping costs down (build the same kind of reactor multiple times) - back it up with Gas and we have relaible, cheap energy - perfect for encouraging companies to move manufacturing from China back to the UK.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top Bottom