Says it all when China, the world's biggest carbon emitter couldn't even be bothered to send President Xi Jinping.

We need to all work together on "Climate Change" or what's the point.

Quoted from promotion plaice

Says it all when China, the world's biggest carbon emitter couldn't even be bothered to send President Xi Jinping.

We need to all work together on "Climate Change" or what's the point.

Exactly absolute waste of time, only thing certain to come out of the meeting is the fact we will all be paying more taxes!

Unless the big polluters like China engage, little can be achieved. That’s not to say we shouldn’t try, but you’ve got to bring them to the table. Sadly the world is now reliant upon China for manufacturing and they know it!

Despite China’s behaviour I still expect them to meet any token climate target well before the US. Admittedly, China will probably achieve it by strapping solar panels to the back of every Uyghur.

China are more likely to start World War 3 than cut their emissions as they promise. Then the world will be fooked.

If China wants to meet climate targets it will achieve it. The populace will do as they are told. China already has the largest solar panel capacity in the world. China will have the technology, means and manufacturing capabilities to achieve their goals. China can make money out of this, whilst strengthening their geopolitical position.

Other countries are are a larger obstacle to change. The OPEC bloc and the USA are a much greater threat to the environment. Only Saudi Arabia and Indonesia have a higher percentage of climate change deniers than the Americans.

I am always shocked when I visit California - supposedly one of America’s most progressive and ‘green’ states - and it is so far behind many European countries in terms of environmental protection and sustainability, it is embarrassing.

Actually, I heard an analysis on the radio the other day which noted that the fact the Chinese had made a minor change to the wording of their commitment (such as it is at the moment) was a good sign. They don't apparently make empty promises in this regard, so minor changes actually mean something. It's the direct opposite to the way in which most other countries are operating where they make grand promises which they know they are unlikely to fulfil. Whether or not it will be nearly enough is a different matter. The Australians are the ones really taking the urine the most - grand claims for what they'll do which rely on technology which hasn't been invented and at the same time they are opening up coal mines and shipping gas to anyone who'll buy the stuff from them.

The only way to get to net zero is nuclear power - i.e. modern fission reactors - but it is only really a handful of countries (including China) who are seriously building and developing reactors. The chances of somebody suddenly cracking fusion power is miniscule and energy storage is still much too expensive to allow greater use of renewables.

For all the promises, we're taking baby steps and hoping for science to save us in a few decades rather than using the technologies we have now to really make a difference in time.

There’s an argument that once again, knowing the Chinese wouldn’t attend gives them west another opportunity to stir up anti China rhetoric without too many folk taking it too serious because ‘they’re thinking about then environment and China are not’…

Odd really isn’t it? Especially when you consider the amount of excrement we’ve sent over there to be burned, buried and gotten rid of…

China will undoubtedly do more than they’re ever given credit for, meanwhile, the USA will continue to ignore everything but try and police the world…

Quoted from Maringer

Actually, I heard an analysis on the radio the other day which noted that the fact the Chinese had made a minor change to the wording of their commitment (such as it is at the moment) was a good sign. They don't apparently make empty promises in this regard, so minor changes actually mean something. It's the direct opposite to the way in which most other countries are operating where they make grand promises which they know they are unlikely to fulfil. Whether or not it will be nearly enough is a different matter. The Australians are the ones really taking the urine the most - grand claims for what they'll do which rely on technology which hasn't been invented and at the same time they are opening up coal mines and shipping gas to anyone who'll buy the stuff from them.

The only way to get to net zero is nuclear power - i.e. modern fission reactors - but it is only really a handful of countries (including China) who are seriously building and developing reactors. The chances of somebody suddenly cracking fusion power is miniscule and energy storage is still much too expensive to allow greater use of renewables.

For all the promises, we're taking baby steps and hoping for science to save us in a few decades rather than using the technologies we have now to really make a difference in time.

Save us!! FFS

EMERGENCY Let’s all self isolate for 300 days a year? It’s the only way to bring down the carbon footprint and save the planet. We can stop this climate change phenomenon!

Well, we have outsourced our wind turbine industry to China (and Denmark), so we must have faith in them.

Shame really as we were leading the world in the development of the technology, and it could have provided many more skilled jobs, but you know, easier to let someone else do it and save the bother.

Quoted from Knut Anders Fosters Voles

If China wants to meet climate targets it will achieve it. The populace will do as they are told. China already has the largest solar panel capacity in the world. China will have the technology, means and manufacturing capabilities to achieve their goals. China can make money out of this, whilst strengthening their geopolitical position.

Other countries are are a larger obstacle to change. The OPEC bloc and the USA are a much greater threat to the environment. Only Saudi Arabia and Indonesia have a higher percentage of climate change deniers than the Americans.

I am always shocked when I visit California - supposedly one of America’s most progressive and ‘green’ states - and it is so far behind many European countries in terms of environmental protection and sustainability, it is embarrassing.

Do you always visit on a green aeroplane by any chance?

Quoted from GYinScuntland

Do you always visit on a green aeroplane by any chance?

Unfortunately not. The cheapest usually. Often via Frankfurt or Helsinki which adds even more to my carbon footprint.

I don’t travel long-haul regularly. Plus I don’t breathe out during the last ten minutes of a Town match so I’m virtually net carbon zero.

I’ve been on KLM flights from Humberside and seen people commuting to/from Amsterdam several times a week so, whilst I am part of the problem, I’m a scratch on an Aston Martin rather than a two-time football league relegation.

Quoted from ginnywings

Well, we have outsourced our wind turbine industry to China (and Denmark), so we must have faith in them.

Shame really as we were leading the world in the development of the technology, and it could have provided many more skilled jobs, but you know, easier to let someone else do it and save the bother.

Just another example of bone-headed failure from British politicians and business. One of many.

Back in the 1980s, BT was the world-leader on fibre-optic technology and even wanted to roll out fibre all the way across the country which would have set us up to become an internet powerhouse once the technology was developed a few years later. This was the days before the internet was a particular consideration, of course, but the engineers knew digitisation would provide great potential for expansion of technology in the future as compared to the old copper cables we had at the time. We still have them now.

Apparently, Maggie was the one who put a spanner in the works, not because of the expense, but because she thought it was 'anti-competitive':

https://www.techradar.com/uk/news/world-of-tech/how-the-uk-lost-the-broadband-race-in-1990-1224784

Much better to have a excrement, overpriced and below-par service operated by a selection of foreign companies than a high-specification natural monopoly run by the government, eh? For those who want to decry the performance of British Telecom as it was at the time, bear in mind that the digitisation provided by the roll-out of fibre would have allowed the service to improve massively and would have set us up to be leading lights in the field as the internet boomed during the 1990s.

Same goes for Nuclear power. We were the pioneers of nuclear power generation back in the 1950s but no longer have the expertise to develop or build reactors ourselves, so we're paying vast amounts for the French and Chinese to build (and then operate) them for us using parts fabricated in Germany and elsewhere - because we don't have the industrial capability to produce the necessary reactor casings and components. All sold off and shipped overseas decades ago.

Quoted from ginnywings

Well, we have outsourced our wind turbine industry to China (and Denmark), so we must have faith in them.

Shame really as we were leading the world in the development of the technology, and it could have provided many more skilled jobs, but you know, easier to let someone else do it and save the bother.

You mean subsidised skilled jobs 😉

To turn it on it’s head: Xi not attending means he’s actually contributed less carbon to the atmopshere this week than the other world leaders have. Leading by example.

So we’re now on COP26 anybody know what they achieved the last 25?

I’ve just travelled from Belfast to London and while sat having a brew, this absolute tw@t next to me, is sat on his phone. You know, the one where he makes sure everyone can hear him!

Anyway, said bloke works for a wind farm company and his phone conversation ends up with him saying to his mate *Gerald, that he’s travelling to London to get a direct flight to Glasgow! Now, excuse my ignorance around everything green, but, surely a direct flight to Scotland would’ve been a lot easier.

I thought, right, he may have time restraints, but no, it’s so he can go see his ex ‘nanny’ on the way back!

girl private





*name changed but you know the type

Quoted from WOZOFGRIMSBY

I’ve just travelled from Belfast to London and while sat having a brew, this absolute tw@t next to me, is sat on his phone. You know, the one where he makes sure everyone can hear him!

Anyway, said bloke works for a wind farm company and his phone conversation ends up with him saying to his mate *Gerald, that he’s travelling to London to get a direct flight to Glasgow! Now, excuse my ignorance around everything green, but, surely a direct flight to Scotland would’ve been a lot easier.

I thought, right, he may have time restraints, but no, it’s so he can go see his ex ‘nanny’ on the way back!

girl private





*name changed but you know the type

I don't get this.

Why are you calling him a c***?

Anybody can make whatever travel arrangements they like, whether it is to enable him to visit a friend or nanny or go and see their favourite football team.

There might be any number of circumstances that you weren't privy to.

He could make a thousand such flights and still be miles behind Greta Thunbeg in the carbon footprint stakes, or any of the hypocrites that have used private jets to lecture us from Glasgow.

Quoted from lew chaterleys lover

He could make a thousand such flights and still be miles behind Greta Thunbeg in the carbon footprint stakes

No, he very literally couldn't. A thousand flights would dwarf Grera Thunberg's carbon footprint by an enormous amount.

Domestic flights (that don't cross a sea) should be heavily taxed so as not to be an easy option, if not banned altogether. This is the government's responsibility, but you can also judge people on their choice of travel if it adversely impacts on emissions compared to easily available alternatives...

The fossil fuel lobby had over 500 people at the talks. By far the biggest group.

Meanwhile, the representatives of many of the poorer nations were unable to attend because of various obstacles placed in their path.

I see both the Grimsby and Cleethorpes MPs both voted to allow the continued use of our rivers and beaches to dump raw sewage again to save private companies money, who exactly are they representing? I think it would be difficult to find one other constituent who thinks this is right

Quoted from GYinScuntland

Do you always visit on a green aeroplane by any chance?

Quoted from Knut Anders Fosters Voles

Unfortunately not. The cheapest usually. Often via Frankfurt or Helsinki which adds even more to my carbon footprint.

.

National Geographic magazine front page last month was all on the electrical transport revolution. Some day electric fight will be here but not for many years especially long haul due to the challenge of creating a aircraft electrical battery that's light enough and economically viable .Encouragingly though short term electrical flights are currently being tested and there is hope at least within twenty years electrical airliners could become commonplace at least up to two hundred miles .