Steve
Hero Protagonist
Posts: 2,556
Member is Online
|
Post by Steve on Jun 3, 2024 8:11:20 GMT
1. agreed but the carbon capture levels are not on track to be anything other than trivial 2. but they're not really attempts at net zero are they 1, Who mentioned carbon capture? . . . OK then what was the difference you were referring to when you said 'net zero is not zero'
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Jun 3, 2024 18:42:32 GMT
The idea is to discourage wasteful use of gas to save the planet the poor people live on. Sure the very poor could be ring fenced but everyone needs to help and everyone needs to feel the pain of doing nothing. Yes, if you're poor you can't afford to care about anything but your next meal/bill. But that applies to very few people in this country. Here we go again. How many people in this country use both more than 7kwh of electricity a day and are shivering in the cold. I put it to you that they don't barely exist. That they are in fact strawmen. Unlike you I do not think expecting someone else to pay for everything is acceptable. That the very poor you talk of would be protected by my ideas and you are wrong in your opinions. You believe it needs to be sorted by someone else, its quite a common idea. But then there is no incentive. You pay the extra tax whether you change or not
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Jun 3, 2024 18:43:53 GMT
Another thought has occurred to me. Since tenants are not in a position to be able to fit heat pumps because they are not the owners of the property they are living in, and such decisions and the costs involved are in the purview of the landlord, perhaps tenants should be exempted from any gas bill levy? It is the landlord who needs to be persuaded of the desirability of fitting his properties with heat pumps. His tenants are powerless in the matter. But even if they had the landlord's authority to do so and could afford to do so at their own expense, no tenant would ever pay for such a thing whilst under permanent threat of two months notice That is a good idea.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2024 18:57:17 GMT
The idea is to discourage wasteful use of gas to save the planet the poor people live on. Sure the very poor could be ring fenced but everyone needs to help and everyone needs to feel the pain of doing nothing. Yes, if you're poor you can't afford to care about anything but your next meal/bill. But that applies to very few people in this country. Here we go again. How many people in this country use both more than 7kwh of electricity a day and are shivering in the cold. I put it to you that they don't barely exist. That they are in fact strawmen. Unlike you I do not think expecting someone else to pay for everything is acceptable. That the very poor you talk of would be protected by my ideas and you are wrong in your opinions. You believe it needs to be sorted by someone else, its quite a common idea. But then there is no incentive. You pay the extra tax whether you change or not To summarise, my objection is not about everyone having to pay towards solving the climate crisis deriving from a carbons emissions crisis. It is about a levy that is certain to hit the poor hardest to subsidise the costs of things that only the relatively better off are in a position to benefit from. Tenants cannot buy heat pumps. I am not opposed to subsidised heat pumps. I simply object to those struggling the most having to pay for it when they are not in a position to benefit from the subsidies themselves. And I know how bad actors will exploit that as an issue. Recognise that and suggest more fruitful alternatives and we may get somewhere.
|
|
Steve
Hero Protagonist
Posts: 2,556
Member is Online
|
Post by Steve on Jun 3, 2024 19:09:49 GMT
So if we were to tax home heating at a level to discourage it then we could adjust state pensions, income tax thresholds and benefit levels to protect affording a basic level of heating. But we know what would happen, some fools would still turn it all off and die of cold.
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Jun 3, 2024 19:12:42 GMT
1, Who mentioned carbon capture? . . . OK then what was the difference you were referring to when you said 'net zero is not zero' Sorry Steve, let me explain. Net zero does not mean NO human produced Co2, it just means that nature is absorbing as much as is being produced. So planting more trees is carbon capture and helps, but all plants increase their growth in the presence of higher Co2 concentrations, so nature is capable of handling a certain amount of human waste. Net zero simply means that. In and out match. Sorry if I sound patronising or I have misunderstood you, that is not my intention. So fitting heat pumps is a step towards net zero by reducing output so nature can cope with what's left.
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Jun 3, 2024 19:13:42 GMT
So if we were to tax home heating at a level to discourage it then we could adjust state pensions, income tax thresholds and benefit levels to protect affording a basic level of heating. But we know what would happen, some fools would still turn it all off and die of cold. Oh for a perfect world. Where no one could imagineer the worst.
|
|
Steve
Hero Protagonist
Posts: 2,556
Member is Online
|
Post by Steve on Jun 3, 2024 19:23:51 GMT
OK then what was the difference you were referring to when you said 'net zero is not zero' Sorry Steve, let me explain. Net zero does not mean NO human produced Co2, it just means that nature is absorbing as much as is being produced. So planting more trees is carbon capture and helps, but all plants increase their growth in the presence of higher Co2 concentrations, so nature is capable of handling a certain amount of human waste. Net zero simply means that. In and out match. Sorry if I sound patronising or I have misunderstood you, that is not my intention. So fitting heat pumps is a step towards net zero by reducing output so nature can cope with what's left. But plant life etc only net absorb CO2 while alive. And we are net reducing the amount of plant life mass. The increase we might see is huge masses of algae in the sea killing off the fish and other animal life there and generally making dependent societies untenable.
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Jun 3, 2024 19:35:58 GMT
Sorry Steve, let me explain. Net zero does not mean NO human produced Co2, it just means that nature is absorbing as much as is being produced. So planting more trees is carbon capture and helps, but all plants increase their growth in the presence of higher Co2 concentrations, so nature is capable of handling a certain amount of human waste. Net zero simply means that. In and out match. Sorry if I sound patronising or I have misunderstood you, that is not my intention. So fitting heat pumps is a step towards net zero by reducing output so nature can cope with what's left. But plant life etc only net absorb CO2 while alive. And we are net reducing the amount of plant life mass. The increase we might see is huge masses of algae in the sea killing off the fish and other animal life there and generally making dependent societies untenable. For the first time in a century we have planted more trees on the planet that we have cut down. www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/08/planet-earth-has-more-trees-than-it-did-35-years-ago/#:~:text=The%20research%20suggests%20an%20area,surface%20covered%20by%20new%20trees. And. The vast Sargasso sea is huge area of algae, but minute on an oceanic scale. We can accept a certain amount sea cover loss, but I agree we need to cut carbon. Hence net zero.
|
|
Steve
Hero Protagonist
Posts: 2,556
Member is Online
|
Post by Steve on Jun 3, 2024 19:40:05 GMT
A planted tree is so so much smaller in mass thana cut down tree. It is bio mass rather than numbers that matter
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Jun 3, 2024 20:00:35 GMT
A planted tree is so so much smaller in mass than a cut down tree. It is bio mass rather than numbers that matter Yes I know, even if I didn't I could probably have worked it out. Be depressed if you wish, I say we are doing something and that something is the West planting more trees than others are cutting down.
|
|
Steve
Hero Protagonist
Posts: 2,556
Member is Online
|
Post by Steve on Jun 3, 2024 20:13:55 GMT
I'm not so much depressed at the situation but the duplicity of governments on this.
Highly unlikely I'll live to see 2050 when we'll see governments postpone yet again that 2050 goal to 2150
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Jun 3, 2024 20:40:55 GMT
I'm not so much depressed at the situation but the duplicity of governments on this. Highly unlikely I'll live to see 2050 when we'll see governments postpone yet again that 2050 goal to 2150 That sounds depressed to me. I can't stand the Tories, but I have to acknowledge this.
|
|
|
Post by AvonCalling on Jun 14, 2024 15:41:08 GMT
Any idea why hydro isn't classed as renewable?
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Jun 16, 2024 18:57:51 GMT
Any idea why hydro isn't classed as renewable? The website is provided by a private individual, so the choice is hers. Arguably I guess because hydro and nuclear were already around. So needed to be separate from the growing renewables.
|
|