Are in Manchester today

Might pop down at lunchtime 

Wonder if they’ll take their plastic bottles home with them?

58 minutes ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

Just had a quick gander Malc. Seems he was a bit of a naughty boy.

 My concerns over China was highlighted in the BBC series about the place. Shocking behaviour by them.

It might seem so, but if you read the appeal evidence that the tapes had been edited, etc, you might at least give him some credence. The aftermath (apart from his fall from grace) was that his Chinese deputy went home with the fruits of world leading research, and his team was broken up and basically moved into other areas. Or maybe the Chinese just moved into a world lead in genetics anyway?

2 hours ago, MalcolmW said:

It might seem so, but if you read the appeal evidence that the tapes had been edited, etc, you might at least give him some credence. The aftermath (apart from his fall from grace) was that his Chinese deputy went home with the fruits of world leading research, and his team was broken up and basically moved into other areas. Or maybe the Chinese just moved into a world lead in genetics anyway?

To be honest, from the report I read, I didn't see anything about a Chinese deputy.

Anyway, are you suggesting he may have been stitched up, and perhaps didn't fiddle with the child? Some conspiracy that.

Getting back to the point, the documentary I saw explained that through economies of scale etc, China can now produce solar power at a lower unit cost than by coal.

A great advancement indeed, but given the suggestion they nicked others' research, you can see why the American authorities have hardened attitudes over recent times.

 

5 minutes ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

To be honest, from the report I read, I didn't see anything about a Chinese deputy.

Anyway, are you suggesting he may have been stitched up, and perhaps didn't fiddle with the child? Some conspiracy that.

Getting back to the point, the documentary I saw explained that through economies of scale etc, China can now produce solar power at a lower unit cost than by coal.

A great advancement indeed, but given the suggestion they nicked others' research, you can see why the American authorities have hardened attitudes over recent times.

 

His deputy was Chinese. Her daughter was the subject of the allegations (he had been coaching in various sports such as taekwondo and karate). The daughter had a breakdown and made allegations. His apology (for pushing her too hard) was edited to appear to be confessing to something quite different and very serious. 

So he went from finishing second in a Man of the Year (to the Pope) to getting a 14 year sentence. At no point did he concede, even though it would have brought his release forward (he was released either this year or last).

3 minutes ago, MalcolmW said:

His deputy was Chinese. Her daughter was the subject of the allegations (he had been coaching in various sports such as taekwondo and karate). The daughter had a breakdown and made allegations. His apology (for pushing her too hard) was edited to appear to be confessing to something quite different and very serious. 

So he went from finishing second in a Man of the Year (to the Pope) to getting a 14 year sentence. At no point did he concede, even though it would have brought his release forward (he was released either this year or last).

Ah, get it now. It talked about his deputy, but didn't go into detail about disappearing with information.

Sounds a bad do all round.

Interesting new approach by the UN at the climate summit. 

https://www.ft.com/content/1902158a-d994-11e9-8f9b-77216ebe1f17

Japan, Australia, US, Brazil, Saudi Arabia and South Africa all blocked from speaking. Although China and India have been allowed in. All seems a bit chaotic to me. But if we can get half of those countries on side within the next five years then the others will have nowhere left to hide. The tide is turning for the likes of Trump and Bolsanaro. Inaction on this is one thing, but the politicians who actively made things worse will join the monsters of history. 

Greta got a bit shouty.

Why have Australia not been allowed to speak?

17 minutes ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

Greta got a bit shouty.

Why have Australia not been allowed to speak?

Aren't they pushing coal big time at the moment?

Either that or the UN have realised our resident whopper lives there.

16 minutes ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

Greta got a bit shouty.

Why have Australia not been allowed to speak?

It's worth noting that she only got initial publicity in the week before her family's book on how to live with (her) Aspergers came out, largely because her mother is famous in Sweden.

I'm not saying she wrong, but she is obsessional to an unhealthy degree. It's all very well sailing to NY but her entire support team flew, so an extra one would have not mattered at all.

You're on form today Malc.

To be fair, if she does get some positive changes in the UN etc then so be it. Wish her well.

She did get very shouty and it was a bit cringy to watch.

Though she has been clear that she wasn't sailing there because of her carbon footprint. It was more to make a point and raise the issue around flying. I woud say it worked. The aviation industry completely avoided any scrutiny or targetting in the Paris Agreement. 

How the fuck is she getting back? 

10 minutes ago, London Wanderer said:

She did get very shouty and it was a bit cringy to watch.

Though she has been clear that she wasn't sailing there because of her carbon footprint. It was more to make a point and raise the issue around flying. I woud say it worked. The aviation industry completely avoided any scrutiny or targetting in the Paris Agreement. 

How the fuck is she getting back? 

Not the point really is it? One person isn't going to change anything. Our entire culture needs an overhaul. She's already done more for the planet in 1 year than any of us will do in our entire lives. 

As Thom Yorke said on Desert Island Discs the other day - the required change needs to come from governments, not individuals. 

Unfortunately, it's not gonna happen until its too late.

Edited September 23, 20196 yr by Cheese

1 hour ago, Cheese said:

Not the point really is it? One person isn't going to change anything. Our entire culture needs an overhaul. She's already done more for the planet in 1 year than any of us will do in our entire lives. 

As Thom Yorke said on Desert Island Discs the other day - the required change needs to come from governments, not individuals. 

Unfortunately, it's not gonna happen until its too late.

It won't change whilst polluting industries with a vested interest in the status quo are by default the biggest lobby groups and influencers for Governments. That's how it works - make a fortune selling e.g. fossil fuels which will put you in the strongest position to make political "donations" to keep the gravy train running. I heard years ago that the market leaders in fossil fuels were buying up emerging green fuel technologies just to put them on the shelf so they'd never see the light of day. Difficult for small companies and inventors to fund further development of great ideas and equally difficult for them to turn down several million not to pursue those ideas. That's capitalism though - once you're ahead in the game you're in the best position to kill off the competition to protect your position - which is why progress is so slow.

13 hours ago, London Wanderer said:

For me, the debate on this thread should be around whether that kind of protest works, or whether it alienates people? Not about whether or not we should fucking taser them. Luckily, most people have stuck to the rational debate. If this kind of disruption angers you, then justice should be found in the courts, not violence. 

I read all of it but will concentrate on this bit. Seems we generally agree about the thrust - just disagree (probably) about works v alienation. Definitely alienates me and, from the fact you have taken part, the opposite seems to be the case with yourself.

You probably need to google 'sledgehammer wit' if you want to dissect the water cannon/taser comments.

Courts!!!??? Enemies of the people 

12 hours ago, Hoppy510 said:

It won't change whilst polluting industries with a vested interest in the status quo are by default the biggest lobby groups and influencers for Governments. That's how it works - make a fortune selling e.g. fossil fuels which will put you in the strongest position to make political "donations" to keep the gravy train running. I heard years ago that the market leaders in fossil fuels were buying up emerging green fuel technologies just to put them on the shelf so they'd never see the light of day. Difficult for small companies and inventors to fund further development of great ideas and equally difficult for them to turn down several million not to pursue those ideas. That's capitalism though - once you're ahead in the game you're in the best position to kill off the competition to protect your position - which is why progress is so slow.

Certainly some truth in that. But that's why individuals can make a difference. By making a conscious decision not to buy a certain "thing" unless it's produced with the environment in mind, then the companies will be forced to act.

As I posted earlier, Amazon have set their stall out. Others will follow.

If parliament was to suddenly put through quite swinging changes in support of the environment, then individuals have to abide by them and not moan. They can also help achieve this by proper lobbying of MPs to make them confident in making new legislation.

15 hours ago, Cheese said:

Not the point really is it? One person isn't going to change anything. Our entire culture needs an overhaul. She's already done more for the planet in 1 year than any of us will do in our entire lives. 

As Thom Yorke said on Desert Island Discs the other day - the required change needs to come from governments, not individuals. 

Unfortunately, it's not gonna happen until its too late.

I've been saying exactly this in my previous posts on this thread. Couldn't agree with you more Cheese. Which is why I support a peaceful climate justice movement to pressure governments into this change. I think it's probably too late, but I haven't given up hope just yet. Each 00.01 degrees of warming we prevent saves millions of lives. 

I have the utmost respect for what Greta has done and the people she has inspired. Of course it doesn't make a difference if she flies back considering what she has achieved, I was just curious. But no doubt some middle aged bloke will pipe up and criticise her. Some people don't like to be made to question their own life choices, so rather than address the issue rationally, they choose to get involved in childish playground bullying. You even see it on this thread. It's much easier to call someone a workshy wanker than it is to face up to the fact we won't have food on our plates in 30 years. 

1 hour ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

Certainly some truth in that. But that's why individuals can make a difference. By making a conscious decision not to buy a certain "thing" unless it's produced with the environment in mind, then the companies will be forced to act.

As I posted earlier, Amazon have set their stall out. Others will follow.

If parliament was to suddenly put through quite swinging changes in support of the environment, then individuals have to abide by them and not moan. They can also help achieve this by proper lobbying of MPs to make them confident in making new legislation.

This kind of campaign would have saved us 30 years ago but it won't be enough now. Of course we need mass education on this. I'm a primary teacher 3 days a week and on my days off I do workshops in schools on exactly the kind of change you've been talking about. I also encourage schools to take on projects around what they can do to make their school carbon neutral. Spreading the message of change is important, but if we only rely on people making conscious decisions not to buy certain things then we are screwed. I'm not dismissing what your saying, just stating that there is not the time. 

As I said before, no business should be putting anything before the consumer that isn't carbon neutral and is zero waste. Give all businesses a 10 year deadline to meet this with reduction targets within that period. Educate consumers in the meantime. We also need to engage the public and civil service in a massive project of rewilding and restoration. Sounds like tree hugger talk I know, but scientists have said reducing emissions to net zero will not be enough and trees are currently the most effective form of carbon capture technology we have. 

I highly reccommed this video mate- It is a year long NASA timelapse of C02 emissions (the red clouds). Look at what happens to those emissions in the Northern Hemispere during the summer months when the trees and plants are in full bloom. 

We need a trillion more to give us a chance! Get the army on it! 

The alternatives to not addressing these issues now are truly horrific and the UK will certainly not be immune.

13 hours ago, bolty58 said:

I read all of it but will concentrate on this bit. Seems we generally agree about the thrust - just disagree (probably) about works v alienation. Definitely alienates me and, from the fact you have taken part, the opposite seems to be the case with yourself.

You probably need to google 'sledgehammer wit' if you want to dissect the water cannon/taser comments.

Courts!!!??? Enemies of the people 

I appreciate you reading it Bolty ad I'm glad we agree on the thrust. I only went to a meeting and on a climate strike march. I haven't made my mind up on the Extincion Rebellion 'works vs alienation' thing. Though I'm not going to deny, it clearly alienates a significant amount of people. Most of what I do on this is in schools and I think I'll be sticking to that. I come from this from an ecological point, not a political one, and I really hope that nomatter anyones political leanings on this thread that they pressure their local MPs to treat this with the seriousness it deserves. Because they are currently failing us all on this. 

You would think that about the courts after today mate

I'll look up the sledgehammer wit.

 

15 minutes ago, London Wanderer said:

I'll look up the sledgehammer wit.

I wouldn't bother mate.

It's just Bolty being Bolty. 

He normally dresses up such bellendish behaviour as a fishing trip or a typo.

Sledgehammer wit is a new one.

You'll soon get used to it.

This blog sums up some of the frustrations I feel pretty nearly. And you know I live a good analogy.

https://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/climate-change-is-accelerating/

1 hour ago, London Wanderer said:

This kind of campaign would have saved us 30 years ago but it won't be enough now. Of course we need mass education on this. I'm a primary teacher 3 days a week and on my days off I do workshops in schools on exactly the kind of change you've been talking about. I also encourage schools to take on projects around what they can do to make their school carbon neutral. Spreading the message of change is important, but if we only rely on people making conscious decisions not to buy certain things then we are screwed. I'm not dismissing what your saying, just stating that there is not the time. 

As I said before, no business should be putting anything before the consumer that isn't carbon neutral and is zero waste. Give all businesses a 10 year deadline to meet this with reduction targets within that period. Educate consumers in the meantime. We also need to engage the public and civil service in a massive project of rewilding and restoration. Sounds like tree hugger talk I know, but scientists have said reducing emissions to net zero will not be enough and trees are currently the most effective form of carbon capture technology we have. 

I highly reccommed this video mate- It is a year long NASA timelapse of C02 emissions (the red clouds). Look at what happens to those emissions in the Northern Hemispere during the summer months when the trees and plants are in full bloom. 

We need a trillion more to give us a chance! Get the army on it! 

The alternatives to not addressing these issues now are truly horrific and the UK will certainly not be immune.

Again I don't disagree with a lot.

You did mention a ten year education plan to go alongside legislation for companies.

Fine: that's what I also stated above, because if you try doing it purely on legislation, with the changes to living styles which will ensue, there may well be backlash against parties. If a party doesn't get elected it can't introduce policies.

Now if parliament as a whole were to agree on a very long term approach, with acknowledged changes to how we are going to have to live, with an agreement to stick with it and only seek to enhance it as necessary, then ok. Take party politics out of it. This would have to be heavily science led.

If that means less choice of food on our tables, restrictions on flying/co2 emissions from our lives/transport/homes then so be it.

That's where I perceive difficulties; are enough people willing to engage adequately?

Only time will tell I suppose.

As for the tree planting; I've been trumpeting the provision of more woodlands and Greenspace for ages.

There are ideas for a great northern forest for example.

Don't forget rewetting peat bogs; they lock away even more.

You're right about needing a negative co2 target; not just net zero.

The documentary I mentioned above showed new techniques in addition to photosynthesis that use co2 from atmosphere/emissions. It's not too late, so long as they're given adequate priority.

5 hours ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

Again I don't disagree with a lot.

You did mention a ten year education plan to go alongside legislation for companies.

Fine: that's what I also stated above, because if you try doing it purely on legislation, with the changes to living styles which will ensue, there may well be backlash against parties. If a party doesn't get elected it can't introduce policies.

Now if parliament as a whole were to agree on a very long term approach, with acknowledged changes to how we are going to have to live, with an agreement to stick with it and only seek to enhance it as necessary, then ok. Take party politics out of it. This would have to be heavily science led.

If that means less choice of food on our tables, restrictions on flying/co2 emissions from our lives/transport/homes then so be it.

That's where I perceive difficulties; are enough people willing to engage adequately?

Only time will tell I suppose.

As for the tree planting; I've been trumpeting the provision of more woodlands and Greenspace for ages.

There are ideas for a great northern forest for example.

Don't forget rewetting peat bogs; they lock away even more.

You're right about needing a negative co2 target; not just net zero.

The documentary I mentioned above showed new techniques in addition to photosynthesis that use co2 from atmosphere/emissions. It's not too late, so long as they're given adequate priority.

That's one of the biggest challenges and why the education side is so important. It's going to take monumental effort. But when people really understand the consequences of not agreeing to the changes, they may reluctantly hop on board. People will always stay apathetic on some things but we don't need everybody to get shit done. 

I think you make a good point about parties risking facing backlash if they haven't got people on board. I just hope that there can be laws in place within the next five years that bind politicians and industry to our targets. Then all parties are on a level playing field. 

I'll have a look at the documentary when I get chance. 

The whole rewilding thing can definitely be one of the plus sides to improving folks health, well-being and communities. 

Edited September 24, 20196 yr by London Wanderer

being a "Keynesian Enviromentalist" (ie, i'll be dead before it all happens) is the revenge the Boomer Generation didnt expect. 

the taking the piss out of this girl is an example of that. 

 

10 hours ago, London Wanderer said:

I've been saying exactly this in my previous posts on this thread. Couldn't agree with you more Cheese. Which is why I support a peaceful climate justice movement to pressure governments into this change. I think it's probably too late, but I haven't given up hope just yet. Each 00.01 degrees of warming we prevent saves millions of lives. 

I have the utmost respect for what Greta has done and the people she has inspired. Of course it doesn't make a difference if she flies back considering what she has achieved, I was just curious. But no doubt some middle aged bloke will pipe up and criticise her. Some people don't like to be made to question their own life choices, so rather than address the issue rationally, they choose to get involved in childish playground bullying. You even see it on this thread. It's much easier to call someone a workshy wanker than it is to face up to the fact we won't have food on our plates in 30 years. 

See, it's this kind of hysterical nonsense than 'alienates'.

How could you possibly know this/ prove it/ guarantee it?

Simply alarmist bullshit and you know it.

9 hours ago, London Wanderer said:

I appreciate you reading it Bolty ad I'm glad we agree on the thrust. I only went to a meeting and on a climate strike march. I haven't made my mind up on the Extincion Rebellion 'works vs alienation' thing. Though I'm not going to deny, it clearly alienates a significant amount of people. Most of what I do on this is in schools and I think I'll be sticking to that. I come from this from an ecological point, not a political one, and I really hope that nomatter anyones political leanings on this thread that they pressure their local MPs to treat this with the seriousness it deserves. Because they are currently failing us all on this. 

You would think that about the courts after today mate

I'll look up the sledgehammer wit.

 

Fair enough pal. No politics, purely ecological then you have my qualified support.

How is Greta getting home?

She's going to wobble single-handedly back over the Atlantic in one of those big blue barrels, the type that were sometimes sawn in half to use to shit effect as 'sledges' in snowy times (by poor children)...She's going to don a used jonnybag on her noggin as sowester (and for sustenance) and use a stale baguette as a paddle (and for sustenance)...

 

 

 

Is a sowester the hat or the coat? I can't remember, I meant the hat though.