Talk Morgan Forums Community The Malvern Arms Electric Cars

Perhaps we could glue a couple of cows to the road next to the protesters. They'd soon move once they'd encountered the emissions...
(Tongue firmly in cheek )

Acid Rain .... can't remember the last time that was a headline 🙂 ... it was the environmental flavour of the month for a while (as was 'we're doomed to another Ice Age' when I was a kid )..... Norway's forests increase in size by thousands of acres a year (and did through the 'Acid Rain' period) .... the Norweigans put the blame for the issue on their domestic industry and slapped a carbon tax on it.

Think I mentioned it before, but our problem is that these issues are so complex we rarely get our science direct from scientists .... most of it comes filtered through ignorant and sensationalist media outlets ... looking for sales and clicks.

No idea what the solution is ... the sheer volume and complexity of the raw scientific outout makes any attempt by the general public to be informed from the source doomed from the start.

K

Yes, a synthetic compound that reduces the production of methane is a step forward without question for domesticated livestock. There is the wider issue as to whether long term the current practice of raising livestock for meat protein is sustainable. I'm no vegetarian, I love my meat, but increasingly I reduce the amount of meat I eat .

Whilst methane is relatively short lived at approximately 100 years, many of the harmful carbon emissions remain in the atmosphere for nearly a millennia, we are still suffering the cumulative effects of the pollution the UK and others generated from the time of the Industrial Revolution.

Yes the media has an agenda, as do industrial lobby groups to promote their continuing existence and advancement. Its a sad old world when one has to question the independence of any scientific research, and are there any special interests groups funding it, It wasn't that long ago I read that the hole in the ozone over Australia had closed, and a recent article suggested it was wider than ever...........

Adopting a Texas style bonnet mounted horns does have an appeal.

Agreed ....as a society we've got used to eating too much meat .... we didn't have meat every day when I was growing up .... and over the last 4 or 5 years I've gone back to that (originally to postpone my age-related weight gain ... works well 🙂) .... one thing I'd like to see would be the banning of all the fast food outlets that have sprung up everywhere .... they're the main corporate driver of deforrestation and also drive the rubbish tsunami we see in our own hedgerows ... would help the health of the nation as well ... wishful thinking I suspect .... I wonder how many of the kids chanting along with Greta in Glasgow yesterday stopped for a 'Maccy D' on the way home with not a trace of irony 😁

K

This has all been covered by movies - Logans Run film control population the other end of the scale is Soylent Green and even the environment covered to a degree in the Highlander sequel

Currently we need to lose an extra 100 million per year (on top of current deaths) for the world population to simply tread water.

Human based emissions are based on Humans - more humans = more emissions (a few nations doing their best efforts won't make much difference more than setting an example) that is the core thing that needs addressing - I noticed all these experts and leaders seem to willfully avoid that, industrial economies want to increase there falling predicted populations to keep the cash rolling in.

Let the population increase ad infinitum and no matter how efficient a footprint each human becomes eventually the inevitable will come to slap them in the face, even if energy was cleaned up over night transport cleaned up over night populations will be competing for resources, food, water and space

With the disunited nations of this planet I can't see this problem going away.

I am not being doom and gloom waily waily woe is me, I'll be long gone.

For those that will be still here to face these potential issues then I hope pragmatism rears it's head in the worlds leaders.

We certainly seem to be hoist with a petard of our own selfishness, don't we? The rich countries rely on a constant ever-increasing stream of cheap labour to provide them with the food and consumer goods on which they are increasingly dependent. The poor countries are prevented from developing by a lack of investment and educational resources - and we know it's education and healthcare which are the dominant factors in reducing birthrates. So their populations grow, but when they try to come to the west and improve their lives we pull up the drawbridge to protect our privileged existence.

Meanwhile, our excessive consumption is destroying the planet's ability to support the population growth to which we seem to be addicted. We breed and consume faster than our environment's capacity to sustain us just like all other species do, but unlike other species we are equipped with the ability to understand and be aware of the effect we're having. And yet we do nothing about it, instead glorifying the excess as being some kind of badge of honour. Bizarre and depressing.

Greed or self indulgence, we have three vehicles as many on here do but only need one although all can conveniently be justified of course and that is why this problem won't go away as everybody has a convenient mindset.

We were promised riches if we studied hard and worked long hours and that's just what we did and reaped the rewards.

Enforced rationalising of our fleets is on the horizon now but we had it good and I feel fortunate to have enjoyed the golden years of the V8 and ICE in general.

Our area has always been hot on the recycling and we do all we can in that area but the current situation demands so much more and unless it's faced our children and grandchildren will be deprived in the worst possible way.

We haven't flown for over ten years out of choice and it will stay that way.

So lets have some proper examples to follow - 400 private jets flying into GLA for the conference is NOT the way to lead...

Richard,

Whilst I agree with your sentiments on the 400 jets, it pales into insignificance if it brought together world leaders to a face to face meeting that agreed to stem the deforestation of 85% of the world. Could that have been achieved without the 'publicity stunt' of COP26, I serious doubt it. As individual country leaders can sell their country's commitments to their constituents as part of a shared global package of change and pain, rather than a country led imitative which may fail when only subjected to domestic pressure. India agreeing to be carbon neutral by 2070, is staggering (I did smile it gave them another 20 years of dirty industry competitive advantage over other countries) I just hope they do something about the open sewer of the Ganges

I had beef in a bag every Tuesday. Does that count as meat?

I've not heard the ozone hole mentioned recently, till the post above, but I did read, about a year ago, that it has never been possible to establish a hole in the ozone layer as there isn't an ozone layer as such at all. It was a scientific paper basically reporting that the actual science had been thoroughly misreported as usual.
I'm not saying I believed it...how can I know? But it is yet another nail in the coffin of faith in what we are fed as scientific research. How can we tell?

For instance, and please don't misunderstand me, I'm not one of the sinful by modern opinion "deniers". But there's ample evidence that GB was alot warmer in the past and ample evidence that the universe varies our climate to it's own rules. Ample evidence that average world temperatures were never reliably taken until 1976. And so on. Perhaps we need to expand our definition of religion really, with everyone these days claiming they have none whilst believing all sorts of stuff in the name of science.

I have a friend who did his doctorate on how whenever (and the evidence was without exception) the scientific claims from a study were taken back to the scientists who actually did the study, it was never accurate and quite often totally misleading. "We never claimed that" was the most frequent response.

The one I do really not understand is our reliance on computer modelling. Any model at all is never the real thing. The one common thing about predictions is that they are never 100% correct.

Nick