General Election - December 12th, 2019

[Saddleworth2]

We need to find a way of taking the excess co2 out of the atmosphere. I feel that’s the only viable solution.

Mate, that is it in a nutshell. You can do that in two ways, by restricting ‘greenhouse’ gases - there are differing views on how quickly should be done. And by mitigating them, increasing carbon ‘drains’, for example the rainforest is a ‘drain’ that is getting smaller because of deforestation. The various parties all have targets for attaining carbon zero. I think the most aggressive is 2030 and the least 2050. The NASA science I referenced says...

The planet's average surface temperature has risen about 1.62 degrees Fahrenheit (0.9 degrees Celsius) since the late 19th century, a change driven largely by increased carbon dioxide and other human-made emissions into the atmosphere.4 Most of the warming occurred in the past 35 years, with the five warmest years on record taking place since 2010. Not only was 2016 the warmest year on record, but eight of the 12 months that make up the year — from January through September, with the exception of June — were the warmest on record for those respective months.
The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have decreased in mass. Data from NASA's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment show Greenland lost an average of 286 billion tons of ice per year between 1993 and 2016, while Antarctica lost about 127 billion tons of ice per year during the same time period. The rate of Antarctica ice mass loss has tripled in the last decade.

Global sea level has risen by about 8 inches since reliable record keeping began in 1880. It is projected to rise another 1 to 4 feet by 2100. This is the result of added water from melting land ice and the expansion of seawater as it warms.

In the next several decades, storm surges and high tides could combine with sea level rise and land subsidence to further increase flooding in many regions. Sea level rise will continue past 2100 because the oceans take a very long time to respond to warmer conditions at the Earth’s surface. Ocean waters will therefore continue to warm and sea level will continue to rise for many centuries at rates equal to or higher than those of the current century.

There are various studies that show the consequences of sea level rises on human habitation and it is likely that rising sea levels will cause the migration of many millions. Poor Venice!

 

[BlueAnorak]

Russians behind last weeks Corbyn/NHS leaks?

Going to be good watching a few of the usual on here explain that one away lol

It will be interesting to note the IP address that uploaded the document to Reddit and to then work out how Capita Egress document encryption at rest used by many government departments was sidestepped.
https://www.egress.com/

 

[Chippy_boy]

"Moved on" but a system replicated by MANY civil countries.

What a clown you are!

You're still in the 1960's. So who's the clown.

 

[Metal Biker]

Mate, that is it in a nutshell. You can do that in two ways, by restricting ‘greenhouse’ gases - there are differing views on how quickly should be done. And by mitigating them, increasing carbon ‘drains’, for example the rainforest is a ‘drain’ that is getting smaller because of deforestation. The various parties all have targets for attaining carbon zero. I think the most aggressive is 2030 and the least 2050. The NASA science I referenced says...

The planet's average surface temperature has risen about 1.62 degrees Fahrenheit (0.9 degrees Celsius) since the late 19th century, a change driven largely by increased carbon dioxide and other human-made emissions into the atmosphere.4 Most of the warming occurred in the past 35 years, with the five warmest years on record taking place since 2010. Not only was 2016 the warmest year on record, but eight of the 12 months that make up the year — from January through September, with the exception of June — were the warmest on record for those respective months.
The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have decreased in mass. Data from NASA's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment show Greenland lost an average of 286 billion tons of ice per year between 1993 and 2016, while Antarctica lost about 127 billion tons of ice per year during the same time period. The rate of Antarctica ice mass loss has tripled in the last decade.

Global sea level has risen by about 8 inches since reliable record keeping began in 1880. It is projected to rise another 1 to 4 feet by 2100. This is the result of added water from melting land ice and the expansion of seawater as it warms.

In the next several decades, storm surges and high tides could combine with sea level rise and land subsidence to further increase flooding in many regions. Sea level rise will continue past 2100 because the oceans take a very long time to respond to warmer conditions at the Earth’s surface. Ocean waters will therefore continue to warm and sea level will continue to rise for many centuries at rates equal to or higher than those of the current century.

There are various studies that show the consequences of sea level rises on human habitation and it is likely that rising sea levels will cause the migration of many millions. Poor Venice!

Caveat: Venice isn't sinking because of rising tides. It's not helping obviously, but Venice has been disappearing primarily due to the sodden foundations the city was built on. It's literally sinking into the mud and nobody knows how to stop it. Climate change or no, Venice is doomed and has been for a long time.

 

[Saddleworth2]

Any attempts to do anything won't be seen or felt for decades and the UK is doing better than others in that regard. It's an important issue, granted, but not an immediate issue which would cause any significant changes, not for at least three terms in office.

So expect the weather to continue to get worse as it has done for at least 10 more years. Unless yyou can convince the Chinese, Indians and Americans to play ball, whoever wins this election in 2019 isn't affecting diddly dick on the issue of the climate.

Yeah, I’m aware of the view that there is nothing we can do globally although the U.K. were the first country in the world who’s parliament declared a Climate emergency so I’m not sure that waiting ‘three terms of office’ is a particularly good idea. My view is we have a historic responsibility to be at the forefront of the efforts so who leads us a government is very important imo.

 

[Chippy_boy]

Mate, that is it in a nutshell. You can do that in two ways, by restricting ‘greenhouse’ gases - there are differing views on how quickly should be done. And by mitigating them, increasing carbon ‘drains’, for example the rainforest is a ‘drain’ that is getting smaller because of deforestation. The various parties all have targets for attaining carbon zero. I think the most aggressive is 2030 and the least 2050. The NASA science I referenced says...

The planet's average surface temperature has risen about 1.62 degrees Fahrenheit (0.9 degrees Celsius) since the late 19th century, a change driven largely by increased carbon dioxide and other human-made emissions into the atmosphere.4 Most of the warming occurred in the past 35 years, with the five warmest years on record taking place since 2010. Not only was 2016 the warmest year on record, but eight of the 12 months that make up the year — from January through September, with the exception of June — were the warmest on record for those respective months.
The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have decreased in mass. Data from NASA's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment show Greenland lost an average of 286 billion tons of ice per year between 1993 and 2016, while Antarctica lost about 127 billion tons of ice per year during the same time period. The rate of Antarctica ice mass loss has tripled in the last decade.

Global sea level has risen by about 8 inches since reliable record keeping began in 1880. It is projected to rise another 1 to 4 feet by 2100. This is the result of added water from melting land ice and the expansion of seawater as it warms.

In the next several decades, storm surges and high tides could combine with sea level rise and land subsidence to further increase flooding in many regions. Sea level rise will continue past 2100 because the oceans take a very long time to respond to warmer conditions at the Earth’s surface. Ocean waters will therefore continue to warm and sea level will continue to rise for many centuries at rates equal to or higher than those of the current century.

There are various studies that show the consequences of sea level rises on human habitation and it is likely that rising sea levels will cause the migration of many millions. Poor Venice!

1 to 4 feet in 80 years doesn't sound like we'll all be dead by 2030 though does it. As the stupid hysterical idiots would have you believe. Deranged women moaning about their children not having a future at all. What, are they expecting their children to live to be 170? In 80 years time, they might have to move from East Anglia. How on EARTH will we cope???

In all of this, some sense of proportion is needed, and there is none of that being banded around by the hysterics. We need a proportionate response, which is what most western governments are committed to. Not a return to knitting our own clothes and pulling ploughs by oxen.

 

[journolud]

If you for a second think the only cost to the tax payer has been £2200 x 39 then in my opinion you would be in for a huge shock.

True, the cost of the court case, investigation, etc etc but it is still a small amount in reality to repatriate these bodies. Very hard hearted not to consider making a contribution.

 

[Saddleworth2]

I've said all along its for governments globally to sort it out if it is such a present and clear danger to the planet many claim it to be.

That includes China and India, not just us here.

I do my bit, recycle, cycle most journeys local now, bus and train within and hour if with the wife and kids and the car comes out when it has to. I pay extra like we all do on my bills to go to greener energy, i have smart meters, smart thermostats, fully insulated, double glazing etc and we have even cut down on out meat intake.

Cant and wont do anymore than that whilst i look around and much of the pollution is being done by countries and people very much left alone by the protesters who in my humble opinion are the ones behaving like Nazis on the subject, pissing people off and turning many away from listening to their arguments.

It also boils my piss to listen to politicians suddenly giving a fuck about it all and pretending its the number one issue when we know most couldn't give a fuck and will only see it as an opportunity to raise tax whilst doing very fucking little about it.

I’m not going to argue with any of that. I too am very cynical about governments attempts. Up until now it feels very like lip service. Looks like you already do more than most on a personal basis. At the end of the day though, we will all start to pay for this crisis. Slowly at first but increasingly this century. Flood defences, dealing with increased global migration not to mention the continued extinction of much of the wildlife that makes the British countryside so unique.

 

[BlueAnorak]

Are you telling me that the Cons haven't been toying with the idea of privatisation, when for YEARS they denied such a thing?

And it, ironically, crops up now!!

Serriously who really gives a shit so long as healthcare is free at the point of use?

 

[Metal Biker]

Yeah, I’m aware of the view that there is nothing we can do globally although the U.K. were the first country in the world who’s parliament declared a Climate emergency so I’m not sure that waiting ‘three terms of office’ is a particularly good idea. My view is we have a historic responsibility to be at the forefront of the efforts so who leads us a government is very important imo.

You've misunderstood. It's not about waiting; the new Government could implement new drastic climate change combatative measures (no oil, remove ALL petrol powered cars, banning flights etc) and we wouldn't begin to see any effective changes for over a decade.

The simple fact remains that climate change is going to be an extensive, exhausting and time consuming battle. These elections are about local, present issues which need sorting before we even begin tackling climate change together.

 

[blueinsa]

True, the cost of the court case, investigation, etc etc but it is still a small amount in reality to repatriate these bodies. Very hard hearted not to consider making a contribution.

We have repatriated the bodies.

Its the Vietnamese government that has asked the families for money.

 

[journolud]

We have repatriated the bodies.

Its the Vietnamese government that has asked the families for money.

To cover the costs of repatriation. Maybe we’ve discounted the storage fees

 

[Saddleworth2]

1 to 4 feet in 80 years doesn't sound like we'll all be dead by 2030 though does it. As the stupid hysterical idiots would have you believe. Deranged women moaning about their children not having a future at all. What, are they expecting their children to live to be 170? In 80 years time, they might have to move from East Anglia. How on EARTH will we cope???

In all of this, some sense of proportion is needed, and there is none of that being banded around by the hysterics. We need a proportionate response, which is what most western governments are committed to. Not a return to knitting our own clothes and pulling ploughs by oxen.

I agree with that. Proportionate is right. From what I understand though, climate change is like a supertanker. It takes a long time to change direction. Small changes would have worked 30 years ago but as each year now goes by, more and more drastic action is required to mitigate the worst case scenarios which are not pretty. Carbon zero by 2030 will take an almighty change in aviation, transport and industry on a global basis and let’s face it, that ain’t going to be popular for any government. I don’t think we will get even a proportionate response. Just more tinkering.

 

[blueparrot]

Serriously who really gives a shit so long as healthcare is free at the point of use?

The cost of providing that free healthcare is proportional to the quality of that care. Not arguing one way or the other but free at the point of use isn’t the story, if the money spent is going to shareholders rather than providing better health care.

 

[Chippy_boy]

You've misunderstood. It's not about waiting; the new Government could implement new drastic climate change combatative measures (no oil, remove ALL petrol powered cars, banning flights etc) and we wouldn't begin to see any effective changes for over a decade.

Sorry mate, but I need to correct you here.

We could do all of those things and we would not see any change AT ALL, for many, many decades, IF EVER. It would be a 100.0% absolute, complete and utter waste of time, money and effort. For no gain whatsoever, nil, none, nada.

But far, far worse, it would divert significant funds away from genuine good causes. We could solve ALL homelessness, for example, easily by diverting just a fraction of this sort of government spending and effort. Doing more than we are doing already is the biggest con, the biggest waste of time ever to be foisted on an electorate. Simply done by politicians who at best, know no better and are just after our votes.

 

[urban genie]

I'm saying its government policy not to pay for repatriation.

The bodies have been repatriated though and I'm certain that has all been done with no upfront costs to anyone but the British taxpayer and that news that the families involved are having to take out loans will be because its the Vietnamese gov that is asking them to repay because we have probably landed them with the bill.

Done see what else we can or could have done for those poor people involved?

Lets be honest it was brought up to paint the Tories as some sort of uncaring monsters, nothing else.

It was brought up because ot is shockingly poor form that both the UK and vietnams governments cannot just send these people home and foot the bill between them

If people read that as an attack on the tories then they obviously subconsciously realise the tories are a heartless bunch

 

[Saddleworth2]

You've misunderstood. It's not about waiting; the new Government could implement new drastic climate change combatative measures (no oil, remove ALL petrol powered cars, banning flights etc) and we wouldn't begin to see any effective changes for over a decade.

The simple fact remains that climate change is going to be an extensive, exhausting and time consuming battle. These elections are about local, present issues which need sorting before we even begin tackling climate change together.

I agreed with everything you said until the last sentence. It needs some serious action now in parallel with addressing all the other ills that infect this great nation. I understand it takes a long period of time to see any benefit from the changes but a hard and long journey needs the first serious steps now.

 

[BlueAnorak]

The electoral system we have has directly caused the utter fucking abortion that is our politics today.

Do you think it’s working well?

No - but....
The ability to eject a government is the most important aspect of the first past the post system and must not be lost.

Personally I'd have 500 constituancy MPs and 100 regional MPs elected by PR. You can still get rid of the government that way.

More important is ditching the House of Lords and replacing it with a 300 member senate with 100 members elected by party list from the vote % at each election.

This way you get Majority rule and Minority rights.

 

[Chippy_boy]

I agree with that. Proportionate is right. From what I understand though, climate change is like a supertanker. It takes a long time to change direction. Small changes would have worked 30 years ago but as each year now goes by, more and more drastic action is required to mitigate the worst case scenarios which are not pretty. Carbon zero by 2030 will take an almighty change in aviation, transport and industry on a global basis and let’s face it, that ain’t going to be popular for any government. I don’t think we will get even a proportionate response. Just more tinkering.

Utterly pointless exercise however whilst China and the US alone, continue to output 43x what we do. Much more research needed into carbon capture, and more political pressure on the worst offenders. Wearing a hair-shirt on our own, is in no-ones best interest.

 

[Ban-jani]

1 to 4 feet in 80 years doesn't sound like we'll all be dead by 2030 though does it. As the stupid hysterical idiots would have you believe. Deranged women moaning about their children not having a future at all. What, are they expecting their children to live to be 170? In 80 years time, they might have to move from East Anglia. How on EARTH will we cope???

In all of this, some sense of proportion is needed, and there is none of that being banded around by the hysterics. We need a proportionate response, which is what most western governments are committed to. Not a return to knitting our own clothes and pulling ploughs by oxen.

Sea level rise isn’t the main concern in my opinion as we’ll be a type B/2 civilisation by 2100 and parts of our country will be artificial over the sea.

I think the main concern is areas around the equator becoming uninhabitable but they can migrate if needed.

I’ve come to the conclusion that we won’t stop emissions as a planet, even if the UK does get to zero emissions, which will be incredibly hard, even in 30 years.

We need to work on tech to take carbon out of the atmosphere and the UN should take budget from every nation to do so and set up an independent science team.

The hysteria is massively blown out of proportion though, I do now think that.