Giant Thundercunt Setting Us Up To Fail

Scouse

Giant Thundercunt
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
36,678

Boris Johnson said:
I passionately believe that we can do it by making commitments in four areas - coal, cars, cash and trees

Not oil & gas (and therefore blue hydrogen - which is likely worse than gas). Not farming the way we do - which might be the single biggest factor in biodiversity loss. Not energy efficiency. Just stopping coal (the tories haven't stopped the new coalmine in Cumbria).

The prime minister also said it was time to listen to the warnings of scientists. "Look at Covid if you want an example of gloomy scientists being proved right."
The gloomy scientists will be even more gloomy at this speech - because it's bullshit.


COP26 is coming up. My prediction is that it'll be lauded as a massive success - just like all of the other summits have been. But the devil will be in the detail (which will be incorrect with glaring gaps) and also in the execution - none of which has been done on the back of decades of summits of the same sort.
 

caLLous

I am a FH squatter
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
18,515
That speech reeks of "oh shit, we're hosting COP26 in a couple of months, I'd better make it look like we give a shit about climate change".

This coming from the man who admitted to subscribing to Piers Corbyn's views on the matter and barely any of the environmental pledges he made have actually come to fruition (and in some cases actions he's taken have actually caused regression).

It's all just words from him, absolutely zero substance or even intent - just whatever's going to work in his favour in the short-term.
 

Embattle

FH is my second home
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
13,483
It does get rather boring all the usual bluster and bravado, it lacks actual effort.
 

Scouse

Giant Thundercunt
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
36,678
It does get rather boring all the usual bluster and bravado, it lacks actual effort.
Agree. But it shouldn't be "boring" - it should anger people.

But the angry ones who do stuff about it - the extinction rebellion types - get shat on by the public even though what they're doing is peaceful protest.

I think Johnson gets away with a lot of shit because the public themselves don't really give a shit. Otherwise they'd be more supportive of people who take action. The public would understand that inconvenience in the name of putting pressure on the government to take actual action is not just acceptable but necessary - in the face of government inaction.
 

Embattle

FH is my second home
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
13,483
I'll disagree with you about XR and other groups who I tend to believe irritate as many as they convert, in essence they act as a polarizing force.

I don't think you need government to take all the action as individuals to a degree must take some responsibility.
 

Tom

I am a FH squatter
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
17,344
Individuals didn't stop the ozone layer being damaged. No amount of "I won't buy this hair spray" would ever fix that. Banning the chemicals responsible fixed it.

It's the same with simple stuff like central heating. Banning gas-fired central heating boilers on all newbuilds and insisting on more environmentally friendly heating systems is one thing that can be done quite easily.

And although I'd hate to be caught in one of their traffic jams, I applaud Insulate Britain for taking the stance they have and forcing a national debate on a very simple, inexpensive fix that could be started right now.
 

Scouse

Giant Thundercunt
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
36,678
I don't think you need government to take all the action as individuals to a degree must take some responsibility.
In the 90's I didn't continue with my chosen profession that I studied for (Environmental Management) or the PhD I was asked to go for because it became very clear and apparent that the only thing that has the capability to make the wide-ranging necessary changes is the very thing that has been sadly lacking - legislation at a local, national and supra-national level.

The ONLY thing.

Anything else - like all the bullshit we go through with our so-called waste "recycling" - is non-impactful, greenwashing, fiddle-around-the-edges pointless wank.

We need hard targets, legislation, funding and ACTION.
 

SilverHood

FH is my second home
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
2,300
The answer 20-30 years ago was pretty clear: Anything but fossil fuel. Today, I think there's only one choice left: Nuclear Power, lots of it. So much nuclear power that burning fossil fuel for electricity will be something for people far off the grid. With cheap electricity being plentiful, we can pursue strategies to replace fossil fuels in our daily lives: Cars, stoves, boilers, trucks, buses, trains, etc. In addition, energy intensive processes like desalination plants could be operated to refill the reservoirs and lakes that are rapidly disappearing.

A few countries will have the option of using hydro, solar, tidal or wind instead, and they should go for that instead.
 

BloodOmen

I am a FH squatter
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
18,110
Of course he'll do that.. where are the Tories going to get board seats if they get rid of all the big companies/slap them down :p duh
 

Scouse

Giant Thundercunt
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
36,678
The answer 20-30 years ago was pretty clear: Anything but fossil fuel. Today, I think there's only one choice left: Nuclear Power
Let me stop you there.

The answer 20-30 years ago the answer could have been Nuclear Power - because we would have had the time and expert manpower to be able to enhance our capability to ramp up delivery of new nuclear. But we've spent 30 years doing *fuck all* about climate change (longer really, we've known about it for 70 years, but lets say 30) - and in the meantime we've not developed the ability to build nuclear power stations quickly, and at scale.

We can build a few. Very very expensively. And because we need experienced people to be able to build nuclear power stations - and to get actual experience you need to be involved in actually building the damn things - then we can't just throw people at it. Because you'll be throwing retards at the problem, retards who don't know how to build the things.

Nuclear is no longer the solution in the timescales we need. Not because we don't need the electricity. Not because it's expensive (very very expensive). Not because it can't do the job (it can). But because we can't build enough of the fucking things in the time we need them to be built.

Full stop.
 

SilverHood

FH is my second home
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
2,300
Let me stop you there.

The answer 20-30 years ago the answer could have been Nuclear Power - because we would have had the time and expert manpower to be able to enhance our capability to ramp up delivery of new nuclear. But we've spent 30 years doing *fuck all* about climate change (longer really, we've known about it for 70 years, but lets say 30) - and in the meantime we've not developed the ability to build nuclear power stations quickly, and at scale.

We can build a few. Very very expensively. And because we need experienced people to be able to build nuclear power stations - and to get actual experience you need to be involved in actually building the damn things - then we can't just throw people at it. Because you'll be throwing retards at the problem, retards who don't know how to build the things.

Nuclear is no longer the solution in the timescales we need. Not because we don't need the electricity. Not because it's expensive (very very expensive). Not because it can't do the job (it can). But because we can't build enough of the fucking things in the time we need them to be built.

Full stop.

We'll never get the skills and ability to build them at scale unless we start building. We can plonk up windmills everywhere, but then what happens when there's no wind? We are missing a key piece of renewable energy infrastructure in the storage department. We can build that too, but might as well get started on some nuclear plants while we're at it. If we don't need the nuclear plants down the road, then we can mothball them later.

A major reason why it takes so long is because everything is built in a bespoke manner on site. The Koreans and Japanese built nuclear power plants in 46-50 months. Get some modular designs developed and approved for use, and the first few might be slow, but the later ones should be built quickly and reliably.

One thing always left out of any switch to renewable debate.... what happens in the developing world? Who pays for converting them to renewables? What happens when ISIS, Boko Haram, Al Qauida or Al-Shabab start sabotaging the windmills and solar panels out in the countryside? In countries without adequate security, a nuclear power station close to the capital that can be guarded by the army is going to be better than renewables for now. With reliable electricity, their transition to an industrialised developed country is going to be much easier. Or, are we going to tell them to not burn fossil fuels, but not offer a viable alternative?
 

Gwadien

Uneducated Northern Cretin
Joined
Jul 15, 2006
Messages
19,913
We'll never get the skills and ability to build them at scale unless we start building. We can plonk up windmills everywhere, but then what happens when there's no wind? We are missing a key piece of renewable energy infrastructure in the storage department. We can build that too, but might as well get started on some nuclear plants while we're at it. If we don't need the nuclear plants down the road, then we can mothball them later.

A major reason why it takes so long is because everything is built in a bespoke manner on site. The Koreans and Japanese built nuclear power plants in 46-50 months. Get some modular designs developed and approved for use, and the first few might be slow, but the later ones should be built quickly and reliably.

One thing always left out of any switch to renewable debate.... what happens in the developing world? Who pays for converting them to renewables? What happens when ISIS, Boko Haram, Al Qauida or Al-Shabab start sabotaging the windmills and solar panels out in the countryside? In countries without adequate security, a nuclear power station close to the capital that can be guarded by the army is going to be better than renewables for now. With reliable electricity, their transition to an industrialised developed country is going to be much easier. Or, are we going to tell them to not burn fossil fuels, but not offer a viable alternative?

Woa, surely you should be more afraid of ISIS, Boko Harm and Al-Qaeda attacking nuclear power stations? :D

I just think if we start plonking down nuclear power stations across the world, it's going to create so many issues with neighbours...

'We're invading because they're not doing nuclear properly and it might blow up and kill us too' seems like a very legitimate reason to invade.
 
Last edited:

Ormorof

FH is my second home
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
9,886

SilverHood

FH is my second home
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
2,300
Woa, surely you should be more afraid of ISIS, Boko Harm and Al-Qaeda attacking nuclear power stations? :D

I just think if we start plonking down nuclear power stations across the world, it's going to create so many issues with neighbours...

'We're invading because they're not doing nuclear properly and it might blow up and kill us too' seems like a very legitimate reason to invade.

An attack on a secured facility is very different from an attack on a fenced off remote site. Most of the terror attacks happens far out in the sticks. The ones in the cities tend to be hit and run attacks, or car bombs. Countries like Ghana, Nigeria, Kenya, Namibia, Angola and Morocco should be prime candidates for nuclear power, assuming it can be built reliably and without crazy cost overruns. The inability of generating weapons grade nuclear material is naturally a given. Couple the nuclear power with desalination plants, and you can start to regreen some desert areas too.
 

Scouse

Giant Thundercunt
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
36,678
prime candidates for nuclear power, assuming it can be built reliably and without crazy cost overruns.
Which we can't do.

Planet earth doesn't have the capability to build new nuclear at the required rate.

If we'd been training nuclear engineers and building teams for the past 30 years we would have. But we didn't. And we don't. End of.

Fixing this with new nuclear rebuild is a fantasy. Give up on it.
 

SilverHood

FH is my second home
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
2,300
We can't do it because we've never tried. What is the alternative? Blanket the deserts with solar power, the hills and near shore with wind mills? Just give up?
 

Scouse

Giant Thundercunt
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
36,678
We can't do it because we've never tried
No. We can't do it because we haven't got enough skilled people.

Try doing a software project that needs a million java developers but you've only got 1000, and 999,000 chicken farmers and see how far you get.

We can't do it because we can't fucking do it. It's a fucking fantasy.


We have the means to do it already. It's a mix of the limited nuclear we can build, massive increase in renewables (which are hella cheap and yes - carpetting deserts in solar (and people's houses) is absolutely a thing) and the completely unsexy energy efficiency things that nobody gives a shit about (alongside planting trees, reduction in meat, farming reform etc. etc).

The scientists have given us a roadmap. The engineers say they can do it. The politicians lack the fucking will because they're in the pockets of arseholes and fantastical thinking (such as the nuclear myth you're propagating) pervades their idiot minds.
 

MYstIC G

Official Licensed Lump of Coal™ Distributor
Staff member
Moderator
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
12,439
Be more worried about cash if I were you

If rich people start talking about bank notes etc it's only because they want to take more of them off you
 

Scouse

Giant Thundercunt
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
36,678
Be more worried about cash if I were you

If rich people start talking about bank notes etc it's only because they want to take more of them off you
Cash is about funding. Johnson's talking about renewable funding and developing world assistance - but he's resolutely not talking about removing the vast subsidies we continue to give coal and gas.
 

DaGaffer

Down With That Sorta Thing
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
18,493
I do find it rather ironic that the country everyone used to use an excuse to not do anything about climate change is probably the country that will end up doing the most to fix it. Command economies eh? Gotta love 'em.
 

Scouse

Giant Thundercunt
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
36,678
I do find it rather ironic that the country everyone used to use an excuse to not do anything about climate change is probably the country that will end up doing the most to fix it. Command economies eh? Gotta love 'em.
Nah. They've not got capacity to build in the timescales required either (assuming their experiment actually works).

At the same time they've made headlines saying they won't fund new coal in developimg nations any more (they were funding 95%) but are still brimging online new coal fired power stations domestically.

They're doing no better than us. Infact, they're doing worse (but on a different path).

Nuclear, as a solution (to the energy source part of the equation) can't deliver. China can probably train people more rapidly than us but still not in the timescales required (and at what quality initially).


And climate chamge isn't simply aboit energy source anyway. Systemic change isn't even being talked about.
 

DaGaffer

Down With That Sorta Thing
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
18,493
Nah. They've not got capacity to build in the timescales required either (assuming their experiment actually works).

At the same time they've made headlines saying they won't fund new coal in developimg nations any more (they were funding 95%) but are still brimging online new coal fired power stations domestically.

They're doing no better than us. Infact, they're doing worse (but on a different path).

Nuclear, as a solution (to the energy source part of the equation) can't deliver. China can probably train people more rapidly than us but still not in the timescales required (and at what quality initially).


And climate chamge isn't simply aboit energy source anyway. Systemic change isn't even being talked about.

If you sort out energy many other things fall into place. And like it or not, nuclear has to be part of the solution, and the Chinese have six different efforts going on at the same time while Europe talks about switching on a new gas pipeline from Russia. China's domestic coal plants are still a major problem but what we can also see is the China can pivot much faster than western nations can.
 

Scouse

Giant Thundercunt
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
36,678
If you sort out energy many other things fall into place. And like it or not, nuclear has to be part of the solution
Absolutely, and absolutely. And "not" (but totally accept it as I'm a pragmatist).

But it's the idea that new nuclear is going to make a material difference. And the answer is: no it isn't. Even if we press full steam ahead with it we can't bring enough of it online fast enough.

It's expensive (I give zero shits about cost, the rest of the planet does, but not me), it's got incredibly long lead times, it's got a poor record of being delivered on time or to any sort of budget even with those experienced in recent deployment.

Like it or not @DaGaffer, that's the reality with nuclear. It's not going to contribute to keeping warming to less than 1.5 degrees (which, frankly, we've likely blown already) or maybe even 2 degrees in any meaningful way. Because it can't.
 

Scouse

Giant Thundercunt
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
36,678
Say you've got a target to deliver X by the end of next year. X is important to the survival of the species and the time you deliver it is crucial.

  • You've got one project that can deliver ALL of X - but it's going to be five years late.
  • You've got thirty projects that can deliver 95% of X - and they can do it in a spread around the end of the year - some a few months early, some a few months late.

What you do is pull the trigger on all 31 projects. Survival of the species, right? But all we talk about is project 1 - the one that can't really help. When what we need to be talking about is the other 30.

The reason we talk about project one is because it's simple. And we like simple things. And as a species we tend to hang on to simple things - despite it being fucking idiotic.
 

Raven

Fuck the Tories!
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 27, 2003
Messages
44,792
Makes sense, but stopping people from getting to work is just going to make people think you're a dick, whatever it is you are protesting about. They are going after the wrong people, as usual.

Block HS2, not the M25/the docks.
 

Scouse

Giant Thundercunt
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
36,678
Makes sense, but stopping people from getting to work is just going to make people think you're a dick, whatever it is you are protesting about. They are going after the wrong people, as usual.

Block HS2, not the M25/the docks.
Nah. Nothing will change as long as the public can't be arsed showing solidarity.

It should be water off a ducks back for anyone who supports their aims.

Without hitting the economy in the pocket through disruption - which means people get inconvenienced - there is zero impetus for the government to change.

The marches against the iraq war should show you everythimg you need to know. The government took it on the chin because it was ignorable.

Current sporadic guerilla interupptions to the economy by multiple groups is something the government can't tolerate - so the government has started to legislate to (further) restrict our legal ability to protest.

And we have fucktons of people moaning about being unable to get to work???! What the fuck is up with this slave race of a country??!
 
Last edited:

Scouse

Giant Thundercunt
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
36,678
Love the disagree @Embattle. Are you able to show effective political protest that doesn't inconvenience anywhere that actually bore fruit?
 

Embattle

FH is my second home
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
13,483
Again no doubt some do but also no doubt some don't and generally do little more than irritate the majority and then take credit for things that were probably already under way, although a particular annoyance is when they get lead by people who come across as hypocrites.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom