Planet Rugby Forum

hermie wrote:

Nolanator wrote:

Farva wrote:

Anonymous. wrote:All this talk about finding this that and the other solution is bollox. Ever since the industrial revolution we have been f**king this planet for human habitation. Maybe previous generations knew the score. I know this generation certainly knows It's f**king the planet and there will be no magic solution found. There is no money in finding a solution that lets us keep doing what we want and prevent global warming.

Disagree. I think we can achieve zero carbon emission energy production by utilising storage and solar / wind generation, and then utilise EVs such that there are zero emissions from vehicles too. I think these are already, or will become so soon, cost effective solutions.
I also think deforestation can be managed through revegetation regimes.
That covers the major forms of carbon emissions. Livestock account for around 18% and cement manufacture account for around 5% of greenhouse gas emissions and I think they will be tough to bring down.

Air transport is the biggie that won't find a "green" solution.

A carbon tax is the only thing that will work for that one. Price people out of unnecessary aircraft journeys.

I dont think you can kill off air travel and it will be difficult to replace jet fuel with an alternative. However, high speed trains etc offer an alternative to domestic travel or travel around continents. So it can be decreased. And it only makes up a few percent of total emissions overall.

I dont think you can kill off air travel and it will be difficult to replace jet fuel with an alternative. However, high speed trains etc offer an alternative to domestic travel or travel around continents. So it can be decreased. And it only makes up a few percent of total emissions overall

High speed train in the UK coming it at 184 million a mile.

And yet many countries manage to afford it and have it thrive.

Farva wrote:And yet many countries manage to afford it and have it thrive.

And how many jets have been replaced ?

bimboman wrote:

Farva wrote:And yet many countries manage to afford it and have it thrive.

And how many jets have been replaced ?

One would assume enough to cater for all of the passengers that ride them?

Farva wrote:

bimboman wrote:

Farva wrote:And yet many countries manage to afford it and have it thrive.

And how many jets have been replaced ?

One would assume enough to cater for all of the passengers that ride them?

Shall we even bother listing the growth of jet travel on the last 20 years?

bimboman wrote:

Farva wrote:

bimboman wrote:

Farva wrote:And yet many countries manage to afford it and have it thrive.

And how many jets have been replaced ?

One would assume enough to cater for all of the passengers that ride them?

Shall we even bother listing the growth of jet travel on the last 20 years?

Yes. Which you manage through a carbon tax that pulls back the low cost carriers and then business travel is catered for on high speed trains

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2DqCxzszK4

A funny/infuriating look at it

bimboman wrote:

Turbogoat wrote:

bimboman wrote:What carbon restriction did Obama manage in 8 years ?

It's quite likely that Obama himself would have liked to achieve more, but there were a few hurdles that may have slipped under your radar:
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/18/us/p ... rules.html
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/ap/ar ... -plan.html
https://www.yahoo.com/news/house-passes ... nance.html
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... ower-plan/
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/10/us/p ... tions.html
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... epublicans
https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... imate-deal

So not much then.

Ah. I should've checked who I was replying to.

etherman wrote:I see Scottish Power are selling the gas powered plants in order to go 100% renewable. But are also flogging their hydro plants which is a bit of a head scratcher.

It's a national disgrace that Scotland can do so much with offshore wind but Ireland can't.

Farva wrote:

Heymans wrote:

Farva wrote:

Anonymous. wrote:All this talk about finding this that and the other solution is bollox. Ever since the industrial revolution we have been f**king this planet for human habitation. Maybe previous generations knew the score. I know this generation certainly knows It's f**king the planet and there will be no magic solution found. There is no money in finding a solution that lets us keep doing what we want and prevent global warming.

Disagree. I think we can achieve zero carbon emission energy production by utilising storage and solar / wind generation, and then utilise EVs such that there are zero emissions from vehicles too. I think these are already, or will become so soon, cost effective solutions.
I also think deforestation can be managed through revegetation regimes.
That covers the major forms of carbon emissions. Livestock account for around 18% and cement manufacture account for around 5% of greenhouse gas emissions and I think they will be tough to bring down.

Wow. What an absolutely retarded post. Remarkable.

Perhaps a response explaining why as opposed to just a dismissive post.
Or maybe you cant add anything?

Do you really believe you'll be able to replace all the cars in the world with electric vehicles ? Where is the power gonna come from? Wind? And what about the emissions related to building all these cars, nuclear reactors etc?

"Technology will saves us" is essentially the gist of your messgae, and thats the big problem. Technology wil not save us because this isn't a technological problem, its a social/economical problem. Human activity is inherently pollutive and so is energy use. There is no green energy and there is no green growth. Growth = pollution and CO2 emissions.

As long as growth is the operative word of our civilisation, there is no hope. What we need is fewer people, less energy use, less consumption, less everything. Fewer buildings, fewer cars, fewer TVs, fewer smartphones, fewer computers, etc etc.
Anything else is "magical thiking" bullshit.

Heymans wrote:

Farva wrote:

Heymans wrote:

Farva wrote:

Anonymous. wrote:All this talk about finding this that and the other solution is bollox. Ever since the industrial revolution we have been f**king this planet for human habitation. Maybe previous generations knew the score. I know this generation certainly knows It's f**king the planet and there will be no magic solution found. There is no money in finding a solution that lets us keep doing what we want and prevent global warming.

Disagree. I think we can achieve zero carbon emission energy production by utilising storage and solar / wind generation, and then utilise EVs such that there are zero emissions from vehicles too. I think these are already, or will become so soon, cost effective solutions.
I also think deforestation can be managed through revegetation regimes.
That covers the major forms of carbon emissions. Livestock account for around 18% and cement manufacture account for around 5% of greenhouse gas emissions and I think they will be tough to bring down.

Wow. What an absolutely retarded post. Remarkable.

Perhaps a response explaining why as opposed to just a dismissive post.
Or maybe you cant add anything?

Do you really believe you'll be able to replace all the cars in the world with electric vehicles ? Where is the power gonna come from? Wind? And what about the emissions related to building all these cars, nuclear reactors etc?

"Technology will saves us" is essentially the gist of your messgae, and thats the big problem. Technology wil not save us because this isn't a technological problem, its a social/economical problem. Human activity is inherently pollutive and so is energy use. There is no green energy and there is no green growth. Growth = pollution and CO2 emissions.

As long as growth is the operative word of our civilisation, there is no hope. What we need is fewer people, less energy use, less consumption, less everything. Fewer buildings, fewer cars, fewer TVs, fewer smartphones, fewer computers, etc etc.
Anything else is "magical thiking" bullshit.

Don't need to be able to eliminate CO2 emissions. Massively reduce, yes, eliminate, no. So take all the easy stuff first - domestic electricity, car journeys under 100 miles, large slabs of industrial production. Then work from there.

hermie wrote:

etherman wrote:I see Scottish Power are selling the gas powered plants in order to go 100% renewable. But are also flogging their hydro plants which is a bit of a head scratcher.

It's a national disgrace that Scotland can do so much with offshore wind but Ireland can't.

Scotland is only just getting some real projects in offshore wind, Ireland could easily catch up but the gov here is hopeless on energy and even more hopeless around offshore wind, will be lucky if we see anything more than a token project in the next decade

Turbogoat wrote:

bimboman wrote:

Turbogoat wrote:

bimboman wrote:What carbon restriction did Obama manage in 8 years ?

It's quite likely that Obama himself would have liked to achieve more, but there were a few hurdles that may have slipped under your radar:
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/18/us/p ... rules.html
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/ap/ar ... -plan.html
https://www.yahoo.com/news/house-passes ... nance.html
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... ower-plan/
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/10/us/p ... tions.html
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... epublicans
https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... imate-deal

So not much then.

Ah. I should've checked who I was replying to.

You could have answered the actual question as well. All these options.

bimboman wrote: You could have answered the actual question as well. All these options.

Swings and roundabouts.

Yes, through a Malthusian crisis of flood famine and subsequent war.