Off Topic Climate change/ pollution

Law of unintended consequences?
So now we can see a new crisis coming, the 'methane crisis'? Great.
Which will have a knock on effect to ...... (insert the next crisis).
Surely humans would be better off just letting nature do what it does whilst we gradually move away from polluting and stripping our planet of it's nature? Surely the biggest focus should be on things like stopping (and actually reversing) the deforestation of the Amazon & other forests, stopping pollution of our rivers & oceans, etc. Instead of spending (wasting) trillions on repatriations that will mostly get spunked, on stupid carbon trading, on ending fossil fuel usage in such short time, etc etc, surely it would be better spent on supporting the reforestation etc. preserving and rebuilding nature, whilst letting technological advances take us on a gradual more natural evolution?

 

It would be, if that's what I said. Fortunately, I didn't.

 

A sensible solution would be to start making sure that planners and building regulations incorporated aspects to take into account the future changes in climate.

 

It's all down to the cows, their farting and belching is where the methane comes from (according to some experts) just because there used to be loads more ruminents roaming the planet before the industrial revolution has nothing to do with it. As is always the case, follow the noney.

 

Agree with the last sentence (it's nearly always about the money), but the first sentence is utter nonsense.
Loads of articles out there, here's just a couple. It's not just the insane number & growth of 'livestock' (what a horrible, inhumane term) but the horrendous impact of modern farming methods on the planet (land usage, deforestation, pollution, water depletion, chemicals, etc). Cattle, pigs, poultry, etc, and then there's also fish ...
https://www.truthordrought.com/wild-ruminants-myths
https://mercyforanimals.org/blog/there-are-more-than-1.5-billion-cows-on-the/
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019...laughtered,people, according to the Economist.

 

I see your opinion is well entrenched, I won't waste my time and clutter the forum showing the other side of the coin.

 

All of this is dead easy to solve, someone just needs to bomb the **** out of Davos at some point this week. Problem solved!

 

To save the planet China,the USA and India have to sort their own emissions out. Until then we are basically pissing into the wind.

 

Which totally proves that it’s more about money than it is about reducing carbon. As Balkan rightly said, follow the money.

 

Going green not so good for these poor folk

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...ic-Republic-Congo-power-Apple-Tesla-more.html

 

Despicable! Horrific conditions and slave labour!

 

It's been known for years, or at least I thought it had. But it's just ignored by 99.9% because it doesn't fit the narrative.

 

meanwhile charles flies in a helicopter to a meeting about climate change

 

He’s not the only one to pull stunts like that though.

 

What an absolutely ****ed up world we live in!!

 

And in another beyond belief story here come the wood burning stoves. Being old enough to remember council houses that had open coal burning fires which were subsequently outlawed with clean air legislation, it was unimaginable to a lay person like myself how burning wood could be seen as a good thing.

Woodburning stove could leave you with a £300 penalty or criminal record under new regulations | Daily Mail Online

 

I smile at the rebranding of hydrogen, as it was the main constituent of towns gas, which was decried as filthy when we replaced it with natural gas, yet hydrogen is now being produced in pretty much the same way, and is being proposed as either a full alternative, or to be added to natural gas, effectively diluting it, but no doubt costing more.

 

Hydrogen isn't the nasty component of town gas, but is more explosive than methane, eg Hindenburg and R101.

 

Oh the humanity.



The views expressed in my posts are not necessarily mine.

 

More people were killed when the R101 crashed than were killed in the Hindenburg disaster.