Net zero emissions

Danllan

Member
Location
Sir Gar / Carms
Really ? Something MUST be done ?

Haven't enough people lost their jobs, livelihoods, homes and families in the West so a few already rich people can get richer ?

How about those who are advocating "Something being done" - specifically Rich Londoners and Globalists - get off their fat backsides and spend their money on doing "Something" rather than building massive cellars with swimming pools, cinemas and sex dungeons ?

Whilst the Rich make money out of "Climate Change" the poor face getting their power turned off via Smart Meters and having to pay the most expensive energy bills of all in society.

London stinks .. it's rotten to the core.
Well done, that's the anti-London bit done perfectly, entirely correct from start to finish. But it changes nothing; there's still too much waste and pollution the way things are. So... give us a plausible, rational and workable solution.
 

Scribus

Member
Location
Central Atlantic
Really ? Something MUST be done ?

Haven't enough people lost their jobs, livelihoods, homes and families in the West so a few already rich people can get richer ?

How about those who are advocating "Something being done" - specifically Rich Londoners and Globalists - get off their fat backsides and spend their money on doing "Something" rather than building massive cellars with swimming pools, cinemas and sex dungeons ?

Whilst the Rich make money out of "Climate Change" the poor face getting their power turned off via Smart Meters and having to pay the most expensive energy bills of all in society.

London stinks .. it's rotten to the core.


https://order-order.com/2019/06/12/...pound-climate-change-plan-no-proper-costings/

Not content with just banning porn and plastic straws, Theresa May has decided to add a £1 trillion – that’s £1,000,000,000,000 – economic black hole to her “legacy” with her new policy to force the UK to have ‘net zero’ emissions by 2050. Philip Hammond has already warned that the cost “is likely to be well in excess of a trillion pounds”. Blows the row over tax cuts into insignificance…

The problem is that no-one has any idea how much it is actually going to cost. The Climate Change Committee (CCC), chaired by scandal-ridden Lord Deben, has put out a figure of £50 billion every year. BEIS’ preliminary estimate puts the cost a full 40% higher at £70 billion per year – these are just back of the envelope calculations. The Treasury wants to do a formal review of the costs but this will take months, not days. The fact that an outgoing Prime Minister is trying to bind the country with a commitment this vast without even doing a proper costing first is the height of irresponsibility…

Worse, a huge proportion of the costs won’t fall on the Treasury itself but directly on ordinary people. The plan laid out by the CCC relies heavily on expensive changes in consumer behaviour. Energy bills will rise, drivers will be expected to switch to more expensive green cars. This is fine for people like John Gummer who’ve had their snouts in the trough for years. For a pensioner struggling to get through the winter or someone who depends on a van to run their small business, these changes will be very costly indeed…

Businesses will also bear a huge part of the cost – it will effectively spell the death knell for serious manufacturing in the UK. Businesses will simply move their factories, emissions – and jobs – overseas at an even greater rate. May’s Government has already done a great job helping to drive car manufacturing out of the country with their ban on new petrol cars from 2040. May’s latest genius idea should finish the job…

Follow the money, as always.
 
Well done, that's the anti-London bit done perfectly, entirely correct from start to finish. But it changes nothing; there's still too much waste and pollution the way things are. So... give us a plausible, rational and workable solution.


I just don't get it.

How can anyone have a sane discussion about waste when we all know over the past few decades the government has been paid by tax payers to recycle and deal with waste .. and it's ended up in the Oceans and being burnt in far away lands ?

The first step is a realisation that we are being lied to.

When that's cleared up as to how and why .. we can then move forward.

Offshore wind energy is 2x more expensive as onshore .. but Lord Deben - John Gummer - got ££££s to create Offshore windfarms rather than the general public being allowed to create their own power.
 

Danllan

Member
Location
Sir Gar / Carms
I just don't get it.

How can anyone have a sane discussion about waste when we all know over the past few decades the government has been paid by tax payers to recycle and deal with waste .. and it's ended up in the Oceans and being burnt in far away lands ?

The first step is a realisation that we are being lied to.

When that's cleared up as to how and why .. we can then move forward.

Offshore wind energy is 2x more expensive as onshore .. but Lord Deben - John Gummer - got ££££s to create Offshore windfarms rather than the general public being allowed to create their own power.
Well, then forget a discussion and set out a manifesto. Clearly there can and will be no actual progress if one of the two key players - these being the people and the government - is not participating, but it would be good to know the details of an infallible plan that will work, if both pull their weight. (y)
 

Pond digger

Never Forgotten
Honorary Member
Location
East Yorkshire
China has every reprehensible tool of coercion at its its disposal, the willingness to use them and a stated desire to reduce CO2 emissions, yet after a brief plateau they appear to be creeping up once more. Doesn't hold out much hope to a supposedly democratic west.
Optimistic as ever.:ROFLMAO:

I do agree though.:(
 

Danllan

Member
Location
Sir Gar / Carms
China has every reprehensible tool of coercion at its its disposal, the willingness to use them and a stated desire to reduce CO2 emissions, yet after a brief plateau they appear to be creeping up once more. Doesn't hold out much hope to a supposedly democratic west.
Yes, but... China has an overarching aim to become the global economic power and everything else is secondary to that.
 

DrWazzock

Member
Arable Farmer
Location
Lincolnshire
Everybody could take small measures that would make a big difference.

Careful and considerate use of transport and resources is the overarching requirement.

But every planning and organisational policy goes against this.

From closure of local abbatoirs to "parental choice" in education and schooling, long distance travel is built into every part of life.

A lot of the blame lies with corporations and government. We always managed with brown paper bags in town for fruit and veg, until somebody decided we needed tomatoes from Tunisia.

If the government was serious about the environment it would ban plastic packaging of food.
 

Henarar

Member
Livestock Farmer
Location
Somerset
Well done, that's the anti-London bit done perfectly, entirely correct from start to finish. But it changes nothing; there's still too much waste and pollution the way things are. So... give us a plausible, rational and workable solution.
Yep but it's no good to just simply export it is it
The UK just as well cause some pollution as simply paying for pollution as we are now
 
Yes, but... China has an overarching aim to become the global economic power and everything else is secondary to that.


Quite .. so all this pussy footing about by the UK Elite is window dressing.

I don't buy it .. if enough don't buy it then those that instigated it will lose power.

Case in point: Work in progress.
 

Danllan

Member
Location
Sir Gar / Carms
Everybody could take small measures that would make a big difference.

Careful and considerate use of transport and resources is the overarching requirement.

But every planning and organisational policy goes against this.

From closure of local abbatoirs to "parental choice" in education and schooling, long distance travel is built into every part of life.

A lot of the blame lies with corporations and government. We always managed with brown paper bags in town for fruit and veg, until somebody decided we needed tomatoes from Tunisia.

If the government was serious about the environment it would ban plastic packaging of food.
Entirely correct. The only bug*er is that, as has been pointed out elsewhere, no matter what local difference we make (and it all helps, particularly in re' plastics), if China and the US aren't committed to cleaning up then, globally, it's about as useful as pis*sing in the Sahara.. :(

Yep but it's no good to just simply export it is it
The UK just as well cause some pollution as simply paying for pollution as we are now

Or, even better, don't export it by solving the problem here. (y) And that isn't intended to be 'smart', but the genuine solution; 'reduce, reuse & recycle' is a now a cliché, but add on 'remove' and it does make sense.

Quite .. so all this pussy footing about by the UK Elite is window dressing.

I don't buy it .. if enough don't buy it then those that instigated it will lose power.

Case in point: Work in progress.

Yet it has to start somewhere...
 

czechmate

Member
Mixed Farmer
Entirely correct. The only bug*er is that, as has been pointed out elsewhere, no matter what local difference we make (and it all helps, particularly in re' plastics), if China and the US aren't committed to cleaning up then, globally, it's about as useful as pis*sing in the Sahara.. :(



Or, even better, don't export it by solving the problem here. (y) And that isn't intended to be 'smart', but the genuine solution; 'reduce, reuse & recycle' is a now a cliché, but add on 'remove' and it does make sense.



Yet it has to start somewhere...


You can maybe see on this thread who has kids?
 

Henarar

Member
Livestock Farmer
Location
Somerset
Entirely correct. The only bug*er is that, as has been pointed out elsewhere, no matter what local difference we make (and it all helps, particularly in re' plastics), if China and the US aren't committed to cleaning up then, globally, it's about as useful as pis*sing in the Sahara.. :(



Or, even better, don't export it by solving the problem here. (y) And that isn't intended to be 'smart', but the genuine solution; 'reduce, reuse & recycle' is a now a cliché, but add on 'remove' and it does make sense.



Yet it has to start somewhere...
They continue to export the problem though that is the problem
What if when the uk is net zero we said that there was to be no imports from countries that are not, now that would be interesting
 

Foxhollow

Member
Location
Bury St Edmunds
I accept there is an issue and that we as a developed nation and a historical legacy of pollution we have to have a strategy for going forward. However the target of net zero carbon emissions by 2050 is in my eyes unobtainable. We have 30 years in which to totally refurbish the current housing stock to suit the new way we will have to heat our homes. If I read the press statement correctly there will be no more internal combustion engines which will include finding value for money solutions to take all ICE cars, van lorries off the road, replace every ship. What about planes if we say zero emissions surely that includes jet engines.
When it is individuals who will have to pay I do not believe it is achievable. Just look at todays housing market the majority of people have minimum equity in their houses and are mortgaged up to the hilt and then we will ask them to put in a new heating system and all the associated works that will go with that.
Reading the document made me laugh when it said that the way for reducing the use of natural gas as a heating medium for house will be to use hydrogen. So in a 30 year period they want all homes to have been transferred to hydrogen when this technology has not been proven in terms of cost, safety in the home and ability to manufacture hydrogen in a zero emission way. I really do not think these policy makers have truly grasped how long it takes to develop, design, build and put into commercial production any large scale project and that is even without the planning aspects across the entire country.
Just look at the broadband rollout we still cannot cover the country with superfast broadband and that has a viable business case and is "only putting into place additional poles and wires" across the country. We still cannot develop a power generating strategy and implementation programme taking into account todays technology and current demands never mind future demands in 30 years.
 

Exfarmer

Member
Location
Bury St Edmunds
It is very easy for some posters who blame government and the super rich, for all the sins known to mankind.
However it is taxpayers and their nimby attitude which has meant in the UK we have not got anything done in the UK for the last 50 years.
You are right sending our waste to China is ridiculous if only because we are paying them to take it and it could be a valuable energy resource, except not in my back yard let it be disposed of 10,000 miles away fine rather than burnt in our local power station, as that will cause global warming Doh!
Eat food in season, but it is not the government , nor the super rich forcing us to go to our local supermarket and bring home tasteless chilean strawberries for Christmas dinner, that is You, I and Joe public who insist that they must have these tasty morsels or we will go to the supermarket down the road for the same, and while we are here please can our veg come washed, chopped and wrapped in plastic even though we know it will keep for b'all time as a result, and most likely will end up in the bin.
You want extreme liberal ( in a conservative sense) values and complain about the result, you cannot have it both ways, either nanny state dictates as in Cuba your weekly allowance and be thankful for what you get, or we have this free for all so beloved by JRM and his cohort.
We will have to find a way to reduce the increasing levels of CO2 by some means, we cannot keep increasing, without nature kicking back somehow.
 

Danllan

Member
Location
Sir Gar / Carms
You can maybe see on this thread who has kids?

Maybe, but I'm pretty sure that I'd have been writing the same thing even before I had mine. And, rather worryingly, there are a hell of a lot of people with children who still couldn't care less... :banghead:

They continue to export the problem though that is the problem
What if when the uk is net zero we said that there was to be no imports from countries that are not, now that would be interesting

Interesting it would be, but extraordinarily unlikely - remember the US and China... However, change the word 'countries' to 'companies' and it could well be a good thing and see some decent change take place.
 
Reading the document made me laugh when it said that the way for reducing the use of natural gas as a heating medium for house will be to use hydrogen. So in a 30 year period they want all homes to have been transferred to hydrogen when this technology has not been proven in terms of cost, safety in the home and ability to manufacture hydrogen in a zero emission way.


It's not possible to "Manufacture" Hydrogen in a zero emissions way .. Hydrogen is an extremely volatile gas which is unable to be stored without leaking - due to the atoms being smaller than any other - and because Hydrogen is the lightest gas .. when leaked it leaves the Earth's atmosphere at about 2,000 mph into Space.

Probably the most stupid fuel possible to use enmasse.
 

Danllan

Member
Location
Sir Gar / Carms
Yes .. in China & India.

The UK just needs to concentrate on jailing those who have charged members of the public for "Recycling" and other "Environmental" measures but instead delivered MORE pollution.

Great, except for the obvious fact it's wrong. If others don't do it first, then China - I note you have not mentioned the US...? - will have been gifted the rather brilliant come back of 'But you don't...'

It's not possible to "Manufacture" Hydrogen in a zero emissions way .. Hydrogen is an extremely volatile gas which is unable to be stored without leaking - due to the atoms being smaller than any other - and because Hydrogen is the lightest gas .. when leaked it leaves the Earth's atmosphere at about 2,000 mph into Space.

Probably the most stupid fuel possible to use en masse.

Hydrogen can be stored elementally, but it is far easier to store in compound form - my guess is that this will be the way forward until technology makes better materials and methods viable. Water is an obvious one and there are many others more appropriate to end-use. But I think it right to note: a) fuel cell derived hydrogen fuel would only be stored for a very short period, often for near-immediate use; and b) that the best shroud to contain hydrogen is thought, by many, to be more hydrogen (concentric flask storage). Effectively reducing escape to zero, since the outermost flask 'leaks' directly to combustion.

Not sure you're right about the speed of atmospheric escape:

https://physics.stackexchange.com/q...ydrogen-gas-exist-in-earths-atmosphere/302760
 

Scribus

Member
Location
Central Atlantic
Yes, but... China has an overarching aim to become the global economic power and everything else is secondary to that.

So what would you consider an appropriate level of coercion in the supposedly free and democratic west and what strength of evidence would you require to justify any measures you would be comfortable with?
 

SFI - What % were you taking out of production?

  • 0 %

    Votes: 79 42.0%
  • Up to 25%

    Votes: 66 35.1%
  • 25-50%

    Votes: 30 16.0%
  • 50-75%

    Votes: 3 1.6%
  • 75-100%

    Votes: 3 1.6%
  • 100% I’ve had enough of farming!

    Votes: 7 3.7%

Red Tractor drops launch of green farming scheme amid anger from farmers

  • 1,291
  • 1
As reported in Independent


quote: “Red Tractor has confirmed it is dropping plans to launch its green farming assurance standard in April“

read the TFF thread here: https://thefarmingforum.co.uk/index.php?threads/gfc-was-to-go-ahead-now-not-going-ahead.405234/
Top