Toasty!

[lala]

Mar 25, 2016 14:46:36 GMT nobody said:

There's not a great deal that can be done, and if there was, I doubt if it would be.

As yet, you haven't come up with a viable, workable, practical solution.

You could at least have had the courage to say you'd curtail all immigration, close the Chunnel and bombard any mysterious ships in coastal waters.

I fail to see why at least seven of the suggestions I have made are impractical or unworkable. They just require a bit of effort on our part. Some of them are already happening. Bangladesh already has flood defences (maybe you should ask them what they made them from) and we're already investing more and more money in renewables.

Obviously I'm not the only one who considers these ideas practical and workable and viable. And necessary.

Given enough time, you might agree, that until the oil runs out, nothing will be done.

We're now putting far more investment, globally, in renewable power generations than into fossil fuel power stations. So I think you are wrong there.

We might be doing it too slowly, and only because we'd rather not have

Why you think you can beat "Mother Nature" only shows arrogance.

In part because we have to, other wise the future is going to be very unpleasant.

Mostly because we can beat Mother Nature when we put our minds to it. Most of the time, anyway. Look at Holland. It's doing okay for a country you consider inherently ridiculous. Look at people flying about the world in aeroplanes. Mother Nature didn't decide we should be able to do that. We did - and used Mother Nataure (or at least her clever son, Physics) to make it happen.

[nobody]

Mad, you are quite mad.

[lala]

Why? Because other people are investing billions in renewables? Or because Holland exists?

[nobody]

Because you are deluded if you think your ideas are anything other than pie in the sky.

[lala]

£200bn agrees with me.

And Holland.

[nobody]

£200 bn? A drop in a big bucket.

Holland? So?

[lala]

You have no idea how big the bucket is. £200 bn represents 2/3rds of the money, globally, put into new power generation. That 'drop' is filling the majority of the bucket.

Holland exists. Ergo, flood defences are not pie in the sky. Ol' Ma Nature can be defied.

[nobody]

Old ma Nature can be defied?

NowI know you're either

Mad


On a wind up.

Tsunami to you.

200bn.

Just a bit more than the bank bail out you are wittering about

[nobody]

Meanwhile Saudi Arabia are building a new city in the desert. Are they using manual labour, or have they opted for mechanisation?

World population is about 50% Chinese?

I hope they don't all want your lifestyle or we are in trouble ( if you're correct in the effects of fossils fuel)

[lala]

World population is about 1/6th Chinese.

Obviously they all want to enjoy the sort of lifestyle we do. that's why we've got to ensure it can be achieved sustainably. I'm not sure they will care too much if their electricity isn't generated by burning fossil fuels, though. I'm not sure they're that pedantic.

[nobody]

Like most people all over, they don't really care as long as they get their Telly, car, washing machine whatever, which is just one of the reasons your plan is flawed.

[Deleted]

Just a little note here, but It's prudent to at least attempt to understand that we are also 'nature'. This Us and Them mentality's probably half the cause of our current eco-problems. Naycher Is Us.

[lala]

Mar 26, 2016 7:43:49 GMT nobody said:

Like most people all over, they don't really care as long as they get their Telly, car, washing machine whatever, which is just one of the reasons your plan is flawed.

I'm not suggesting they don't get their telly, car, washing machine, whatever. Since they don't care where the electrons come from, as long as they get them, why is it a problem?

[nobody]

I thought it was your problem, lots of pollution manufacturing said items, some more when they come to use said items.

[lala]

Why is it my problem? I'm utterly insignificant. I don't even own a fossil fuel power station.

Though why I'm wasting my time with someone who thinks half the world's population is Chinese, I don't know.

[nobody]

Oh diddums, toys out the perambulator time.

[lala]

f**k knows what you think a perambulator is, given your woeful understanding of pretty much everything, as demonstrated on this thread.

Explain why it is my problem. I've indicated the problem is the way we generate the power. That's not a problem I can direct affect. Has to be done at a higher level than the individual.

[Deleted]

Be the change you want to see in the world.

Joan Roughgarden

[Deleted]

It may have to go this way...

But ask yourself seriously, 'could I really go without my day to day comforts and all the other crap that's killing the planet?'

It's all very well pontificating about it, but doing something's the answer. And I challenge anyone here to demonstrate what's being done to improve things that isn't destructive in some way or another. We can all blah blah technology this technology that but it's still polluting, right down to the colour coding of the transistors hidden inside your eco-sensitive widgets with which you plan to save the world.

[flatandy]

That argument is total hogwash.

Every human action is "destructive", if you want to be like that.

But it doesn't matter. We don't need to preserve the planet in stasis.

What is better is just to try and make sure it remains broadly habitable, with as few unnecessary deaths as possible, and as pleasant to live in as possible.

Which means: retain all the creature comforts and try to do that in ways that are as un-damaging as we can.