Robspur12
Nick Barmby
Population is really the problem - the biggest by far.
This absolutely. Asking people to limit the number of children they have seems to be political taboo. Yet having 2 or less kids would stabilise the population.
Population is really the problem - the biggest by far.
Educating women and eradicating religion would go a long way to doing that without any authoritarian control.This absolutely. Asking people to limit the number of children they have seems to be political taboo. Yet having 2 or less kids would stabilise the population.
I am so tired of people trying to wage this "passage of time" garbage (nothing personal at you, more at anyone who actually does this). I have been saying forever that in the 38 years I have been actively traveling the world regularly, I have seen temperatures drastically shift in certain cities over the decades by (in some cases) as much as 20 degrees in certain seasons. My fear is we have crossed a deadly rubicon...
No NOT "thousands of years" you can clearly, CLEARLY see that the major damage has occurred over the last four decades, with the 90s and early 2000s absolutely devastating. I will agree that there is no switch to reverse this brick.
I am so tired of people trying to wage this "passage of time" garbage (nothing personal at you, more at anyone who actually does this). I have been saying forever that in the 38 years I have been actively traveling the world regularly, I have seen temperatures drastically shift in certain cities over the decades by (in some cases) as much as 20 degrees in certain seasons. My fear is we have crossed a deadly rubicon...
I shot this 8 miles up the road from me last Wednesday. No photoshop. Yes, it looks like a Star Wars or Blade Runner 2049 set. But it wasn't. It was simply lunchtime near Pacifica.
View attachment 9305 View attachment 9306
I think you've misread the attitudes of most.
I can only speak for myself and those I've discussed this with but I think an attitude of "I will change my behaviour when the alternative is at least as good and at least as cheap" is a prevailing one.
If people put as much effort into improving alternatives as they do into trying to pressure those who don't conform to their neo-puritan world view, we'd probably have solved this by now.
Is the independent Japan deal better than the UK-Japan deal under the EU? I saw briefly its reported as going beyond what we were achieving previously and allows us to drill down on specific areas of trade with relevance to both partied
Haha
Mate
Do you get it?
Sent with love not hate.
I think you've misread the attitudes of most.
I can only speak for myself and those I've discussed this with but I think an attitude of "I will change my behaviour when the alternative is at least as good and at least as cheap" is a prevailing one.
If people put as much effort into improving alternatives as they do into trying to pressure those who don't conform to their neo-puritan world view, we'd probably have solved this by now.
No idea, but the BBC (LEFTIST) Trade Correspondent (she probably voted to Remain anyway right):
But ultimately, this deal largely mirrors the agreement which already exists between the EU and Japan. And with trade with Japan accounting for just 2% of the UK's total, the expected boost to GDP of 0.07% over the long term is a tiny fraction of what might be lost from leaving the EU.
And there is good reason for Japan cooperating to ensure this deal was secured in record time. It stands to get the lions share, 80%, of the total estimated £15bn boost to trade for both countries.
Even then, the talks haven't been as speedy or straightforward as initially hoped - which may not bode well for negotiations elsewhere.
No idea, but like i said before, the whole world knows we need to sign up to trade deals, so how is any Trade Deal going to benefit the UK more than the other party? We could sign the greatest and best trade deal with Country X, in the end, the best we would get would be 49:51 of the deal.
Educating women and eradicating religion would go a long way to doing that without any authoritarian control.
Of course they're not.You have hit the major problem on many fronts with that sentence. Are people prepared to pay a few quid more to see factory workers get better pay? Are people prepared to pay more money for pasture raised chickens? Are people prepared to if not totally cut out red meat, to at least scale it way, way back? I think you have hit the epicenter of the human side of it. The corporate side with regards to emissions and what not is another story altogether...
Flying, driving, in-season food all year round, goods shipped around the globe, not eating rabbit food, air conditioning, lighting, I'm sure the list is longer than that if I stop to think.Flying is the big one. Otherwise, what are the other environmental compromises that are significant stopping you from changing your behaviour?
But my point was about attitude. If everyone was more positive, and put pressure on governments, development of technologies would accelerate. There needs to be leadership from governments - which has to come from people's collective attitude.
Nuclear power is not cost-effective anymore. There are cheaper renewable alternatives. Certainly, there is no need to decommission existing plants, they supply carbon-free power now, but building new ones makes no sense financially or for the environment. Thinky types know this.Flying, driving, in-season food all year round, goods shipped around the globe, not eating rabbit food, air conditioning, lighting, I'm sure the list is longer than that if I stop to think.
Some of those issues are solved with the use of nuclear power, but many of the people campaigning for us to stop burning fossil fuels are the same ones campaigning against nuclear power. Mainly because they don't tend to be the thinky types.
I've yet to see a workable alternative that can generate power on a windless night.Nuclear power is not cost-effective anymore. There are cheaper renewable alternatives. Certainly, there is no need to decommission existing plants, they supply carbon-free power now, but building new ones makes no sense financially or for the environment. Thinky types know this.
Tidal is not at the races yet. Better to keep the nuclear power stations for now.I've yet to see a workable alternative that can generate power on a windless night.
Tidal power looks promising but it's got a way to go yet and (last time I checked) is less cost effective than nuclear.
Nuclear power is fission. The reason steam is generated is that it's (currently) the most efficient way to create a spinning motion (turbine), which is required to generate electricity.What I find funny is nuclear power is effectively a steam engine right? The reactor just heats water, and power is generated from the steam.
What about fission?
Sitting on my porcelain throne using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app