What's new
PNE-Online
Welcome to PNE-Online. Why not register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox! You can also join up as a forum Patron to help support in the running costs of the forum.

Extinction Rebellion, the return of the great unwashed.

Extinction Rebellion

  • Genuine people concerned solely with the future of our planet?

  • An Anti-Capitalist movement using the fear of children to drive their agenda?

  • A bunch of arseholes whose tactics are driving away people who could otherwise support them?

  • All of the above


Results are only viewable after voting.

outreacher

Respect Nature
Patron
Facebook done it! Not sure how, they flog your data don't they. Deleted my account now.
I doubt Greenpeace would steal your data. Now Facebook, a different kettle of fish, they already have everything they need from you, they already stole your info, sold it, and have set you up with trackers and cookies, for the rest of your life.
 

noelpne

Forum Patron
Patron
I very occasionally give to charity. (Ok, this is a confession🙄) .A one-off coin thing. The constant 'badgering" by chuggers is to
establish, maintain & enlarge revenue streams.
Thatcher absolutely loved the principal of charities, because it absolves the State's responsibility to care for 'Undeserving' ( in her eyes & the others with eyes like hers) & 'unfashionable' groups of People , Property or Wildlife.
 

outreacher

Respect Nature
Patron
I very occasionally give to charity. (Ok, this is a confession🙄) .A one-off coin thing. The constant 'badgering" by chuggers is to
establish, maintain & enlarge revenue streams.
Thatcher absolutely loved the principal of charities, because it absolves the State's responsibility to care for 'Undeserving' ( in her eyes & the others with eyes like hers) & 'unfashionable' groups of People , Property or Wildlife.
Chuggers get about 50% of the sign-up, or contribution, admin costs and wages probably about another 45%, nelly the elephant gets the rest, minus expenses.
 

nigelscamelcoat

Advisor to the Owner
From a reader's letter to the G today.

"Will King Charles follow the lead of Patagonia owner’s $3bn giveaway?"

Insert whichever laughing emoji suits.
Of course he should. If he care about the environment as much as he claims. Plus if he is serious about shrinking the monarchy this is exactly what he should be doing.
Full letter below-

"How the transfer of power will happen now that King Charles III has to stand down from his business interests in the Duchy of Cornwall empire is not yet clear.

But given the King’s longstanding interest in all things ecological, including climate change, wouldn’t it be ethically rewarding if he followed the lead of Yvon Chouinard, the founder of the Patagonia outdoor apparel company (Yvon Chouinard – the ‘existential dirtbag’ who founded and gifted Patagonia, 15 September)?


Chouinard has pledged to transfer ownership of the company, valued at around $3bn, to a tailored trust and non-profit organisation committed to ploughing all of its profits into combating climate change and protecting undeveloped land around the world. This kind of benevolent capitalism is surely a model for future corporations that at present largely benefit owners, CEOs and shareholders.

As we move to a renewables-based economy, our model of capitalism must surely follow. Will our King, with all his green credentials, agree with this more radical but inevitable shift in economic thinking to meet the demands of the environment and work for the planet’s profit?"
Prof Alan Bleakley
Sennen, Cornwall
 

outreacher

Respect Nature
Patron
This is the most ridiculous plan I have ever heard for tackling climate change. They can't be serious?

https://news.sky.com/story/scientis...ying-sulphur-dioxide-into-atmosphere-12697769

Scientists have outlined a controversial plan to refreeze the North and South Poles, and dial down the global thermostat.
They say high-flying jets could spray microscopic aerosol particles into the atmosphere to reflect sunlight and cool the melting icecaps.

Around 175,000 flights a year would be needed, releasing millions of tonnes of carbon dioxide.
But a former UK chief scientist backed the plans, telling Sky News that polar warming is now critical - and refreezing the ice could hold back the rise in global sea levels.
The new study was led by Wake Smith from Yale University in the United States.

He warned the plan would treat an important symptom of climate change, not the cause.
"It's aspirin, not penicillin. It's not a substitute for decarbonisation," he said.
 

Regardless

Forum Patron
Patron
This is the most ridiculous plan I have ever heard for tackling climate change. They can't be serious?

https://news.sky.com/story/scientis...ying-sulphur-dioxide-into-atmosphere-12697769
What do you object to outy? The idea of atmospheric solar shading is, in principle, a very good one. The use of aeroplanes seems a bit crazy- but people have been fannying about with other ideas - if this is ready to go, it’s got to be worth a serious look.

I don’t know the fundamental reason why the balloon-release idea (instead of using planes) was scrapped (as per the article).

A couple of years ago, somewhere on this forum, I remember highlighting an article about proposals for ships that can create salt crystals from seawater and get them up into the air to do the same sort of job. I recall it stated that that was just needing (big) funding to launch it. But don’t know what happened since.
 

outreacher

Respect Nature
Patron
What do you object to outy? The idea of atmospheric solar shading is, in principle, a very good one. The use of aeroplanes seems a bit crazy- but people have been fannying about with other ideas - if this is ready to go, it’s got to be worth a serious look.

I don’t know the fundamental reason why the balloon-release idea (instead of using planes) was scrapped (as per the article).

A couple of years ago, somewhere on this forum, I remember highlighting an article about proposals for ships that can create salt crystals from seawater and get them up into the air to do the same sort of job. I recall it stated that that was just needing (big) funding to launch it. But don’t know what happened since.
The melting is down to heating of the sea and the atmosphere. The only way to tackle it is to stop drilling, chopping down rain forests, and prevention. The article states it's a sticking plaster solution. The damage is done and continues to be done.

There are lots of articles about it now, from different sources, the costs are prohibitive, who is going to pay for it. It isn't the solution, the changing climate and temperatures are rising faster than predicted in 2015. How much would it cost to insulate everyone's home, the costs don't compare. If usage continues as it is, without simple measures such as insulation, then it's pointless., in my opinion. A couple of articles below from 2017/20. Just appears to be last gasp drastic measures, while the causes continue and are increasing, with ever more fracking, drilling and deforestation.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...rctic-before-ice-goes-for-good-climate-change

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200923-could-geoengineering-save-the-arctic-sea-ice
 

outreacher

Respect Nature
Patron
Edit for above:

To implement this, the costs of the project should be footed by the countries who pollute the most, on a sliding scale, percentage based.

  1. China, with more than 10,065 million tons of CO2 released.
  2. United States, with 5,416 million tons of CO2
  3. India, with 2,654 million tons of CO2
  4. Russia, with 1,711 million tons of CO2
  5. Japan, 1,162 million tons of CO2
  6. Germany, 759 million tons of CO2
  7. Iran, 720 million tons of CO2
  8. South Korea, 659 million tons of CO2
  9. Saudi Arabia, 621 million tons of CO2
  10. Indonesia, 615 million tons of CO2
 

Regardless

Forum Patron
Patron
The melting is down to heating of the sea and the atmosphere. The only way to tackle it is to stop drilling, chopping down rain forests, and prevention. The article states it's a sticking plaster solution. The damage is done and continues to be done.

There are lots of articles about it now, from different sources, the costs are prohibitive, who is going to pay for it. It isn't the solution, the changing climate and temperatures are rising faster than predicted in 2015. How much would it cost to insulate everyone's home, the costs don't compare. If usage continues as it is, without simple measures such as insulation, then it's pointless., in my opinion. A couple of articles below from 2017/20. Just appears to be last gasp drastic measures, while the causes continue and are increasing, with ever more fracking, drilling and deforestation.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...rctic-before-ice-goes-for-good-climate-change

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200923-could-geoengineering-save-the-arctic-sea-ice

Of course it would be treating a symptom rather than a cause and I agree about energy efficiency measures- but if it’s seawater and atmosphere that’s melting the ice, surely solar shading would help stop the dark ocean and the atmosphere from picking up a proportion of heat?

Clearly, preference #1 is for world politicians to agree on tackling the root causes. And I see the danger in giving politicians a “get-out” by applying this sticking plaster. But it’s a high risk gamble to ignore the opportunity to stop heat from being absorbed by the earth. IMO, certainly not the most ridiculous suggestion ever!
 

Regardless

Forum Patron
Patron
Edit for above:

To implement this, the costs of the project should be footed by the countries who pollute the most, on a sliding scale, percentage based.

  1. China, with more than 10,065 million tons of CO2 released.
  2. United States, with 5,416 million tons of CO2
  3. India, with 2,654 million tons of CO2
  4. Russia, with 1,711 million tons of CO2
  5. Japan, 1,162 million tons of CO2
  6. Germany, 759 million tons of CO2
  7. Iran, 720 million tons of CO2
  8. South Korea, 659 million tons of CO2
  9. Saudi Arabia, 621 million tons of CO2
  10. Indonesia, 615 million tons of CO2
Thank goodness we burnt off all our coal in the last two centuries- and contracted out all out manufacturing. That’ll save us a fortune;)
 

Sepp Blatter

Ursula Fanboy
Patron
This is the most ridiculous plan I have ever heard for tackling climate change. They can't be serious?

https://news.sky.com/story/scientis...ying-sulphur-dioxide-into-atmosphere-12697769
Looks like one of those projects that would work in theory but is completely impractical in the real world. Reminds me of a plan they devised years ago - the middle of the Pacific Ocean (and others) is a desert because there isn't enough iron for algae and phytoplankton to grow. The idea was to ship out loads of iron to fertilise these areas.

It was impractical, would have a very limited effect, and risked causing unforeseen consequences elsewhere.
 
Top