news & politics:discussion

[Neil]

34 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

read somewhere that hydrogen might not be the promised land everyone is hoping...

That seems to be where expert opinion is going. I reckon it'll have a place mostly for mobile usem a transportable fuel will have high value.

[Ozanne]

18 minutes ago, Crazyfool01 said:

@Ozanne what's a bad faith actor ? you keep mentioning it ive not a clue what you mean ? 

Essentially someone that isn’t being honest in their arguments and discussing  under false pretences.

[Ozanne]

13 minutes ago, Neil said:

Price of land maybe?

Possibly but you’d think other countries would have that issue too?

[Crazyfool01]

14 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

Essentially someone that isn’t being honest in their arguments and discussing  under false pretences.

so essentially for the context of this thread votes in a different manner than perceived ? or have I got that wrong ? 

[Nobody Interesting]

1 hour ago, lost said:

Can you quote the bit where you outlined the projects that made up 75% of spending I must of missed it.

I know reading is not your strong point but if you kindly go and read what I wrote you will see I addressed that - addressing something does not always mean doing exactly what is asked and can often be simply adding context to what was asked.

Sorry if that is too complicated for you.

[Nobody Interesting]

1 hour ago, steviewevie said:

read somewhere that hydrogen might not be the promised land everyone is hoping...

There are concerns as it is 'explosive', but so is natural gas and petrol.

The Olympic village in Japan was 100% powered by hydrogen and in Scandinavia, Japan and Australia large projects are ongoing using it - and so far totally safe.

There are, of course, places on the internet that say otherwise - in the same way that there are places on the internet that say tRump won in 2020.

[Nobody Interesting]

1 hour ago, Skip997 said:

Totally agree.

However it's a shame we didn't start doing this decades ago, because in my opinion it's way past too late.

Along with the above, in order to have a slim chance, we need to stop production of all unnecessary disposable crap ASAP (this is the one I never hear mentioned).

If we (being the wealthy world) act now (being the next 18 months) then is is not too late and we can reverse the decline in the climate to a certain extent. We can certainly stop it getting far worse.

All the other disposable crap we make and 'use' is what keeps countries in growth - so unless governments accept things cannot carry on like before that will never stop - people want nice shiny new things, all the fecking time.

[steviewevie]

1 minute ago, Nobody Interesting said:

There are concerns as it is 'explosive', but so is natural gas and petrol.

The Olympic village in Japan was 100% powered by hydrogen and in Scandinavia, Japan and Australia large projects are ongoing using it - and so far totally safe.

There are, of course, places on the internet that say otherwise - in the same way that there are places on the internet that say tRump won in 2020.

it was more concerns with how green it was producing the stuff.

[steviewevie]

3 minutes ago, Nobody Interesting said:

If we (being the wealthy world) act now (being the next 18 months) then is is not too late and we can reverse the decline in the climate to a certain extent. We can certainly stop it getting far worse.

All the other disposable crap we make and 'use' is what keeps countries in growth - so unless governments accept things cannot carry on like before that will never stop - people want nice shiny new things, all the fecking time.

well, next COP is in UAE...so let's see....

[Skip997]

1 minute ago, Nobody Interesting said:

If we (being the wealthy world) act now (being the next 18 months) then is is not too late and we can reverse the decline in the climate to a certain extent. We can certainly stop it getting far worse.

All the other disposable crap we make and 'use' is what keeps countries in growth - so unless governments accept things cannot carry on like before that will never stop - people want nice shiny new things, all the fecking time.

The old growth argument. This is actually the problem. Why do we need to keep "growing", it's not sustainable and will be what finishes us off.

Maybe if we act now we may have a chance, but that acting now involves massive "sacrifices" that people are reluctant to make and corporations will never make. Money and luxury are more important to too many people, esp those who could actually make a difference.

[Neil]

32 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

Possibly but you’d think other countries would have that issue too?

Don't think they do at UK prices.

Waiting for Barry to tell us all whats wrong with the Lucy whatshername inquiry 

[Nobody Interesting]

1 hour ago, Ozanne said:

You have those tune out the bad faith actors in here sadly, I think you know who they are.

I see you said you are Green, so I’m sorry if you’ve explained this before but why are you against HS2? From my basic understanding wouldn’t it help the environment having better/quicker public transport routes which encourage people to leave their cars at home more? I understand that to get HS2 you have to dig up countryside but I’m not sure how else we get there. 

HS2 is a huge white elephant.

Where it runs there are few plans to add other public transport to join it. It has prices allowed to be far higher than the normal railway and so will be used by those than can afford it. That will free up space on the other railway which will then free up space on the roads which will then get filled by people who think the roads are less busy - see M25 for proof of that.

Outside of where HS2 is due to run there is massive discontent as it is taking business away from that area and increasing the journies people have to make - mostly by car as there is no public transport network.

We need railways, we need buses, we need 'driverless cars' that can be used for commutes with collegues but we need it everywhere and not just one small line that will save a few people a little time and make no difference to 99.9% of the country.

Here are some links to some reading you might fancy:
https://www.greenparty.org.uk/news/2019/11/28/hs2-is-an-act-of-ecocide-green-party-call-for-end-to-devastating-£80-billion-project/

https://hs2.green/its-green-party-policy-to-oppose-hs2/

https://hillingdon.greenparty.org.uk/2020/12/28/hs2-why-greens-oppose/

[Nobody Interesting]

1 minute ago, Skip997 said:

The old growth argument. This is actually the problem. Why do we need to keep "growing", it's not sustainable and will be what finishes us off.

Maybe if we act now we may have a chance, but that acting now involves massive "sacrifices" that people are reluctant to make and corporations will never make. Money and luxury are more important to too many people, esp those who could actually make a difference.

Growth, GDP, as I am sure you know was never supposed to be used for what it is used for.

As for the rest I shall say what I say all too often now.

I am glad I am not young.

[Ozanne]

15 minutes ago, Crazyfool01 said:

so essentially for the context of this thread votes in a different manner than perceived ? or have I got that wrong ? 

Not really about votes but more so someone that is pretending to have one set of feelings whilst arguing.

[Neil]

1 minute ago, Skip997 said:

The old growth argument. This is actually the problem. Why do we need to keep "growing", it's not sustainable and will be what finishes us off.

Maybe if we act now we may have a chance, but that acting now involves massive "sacrifices" that people are reluctant to make and corporations will never make. Money and luxury are more important to too many people, esp those who could actually make a difference.

Growth allows us to alter the distribution of resources without feeling like anything has been cut.

[Nobody Interesting]

4 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

well, next COP is in UAE...so let's see....

see the small print...................

[Nobody Interesting]

6 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

it was more concerns with how green it was producing the stuff.

There are many ways to produce it. One of the easiest is to create it from water and then burning it has  aby-product of water.

It takes electricity to make from water and the arguement is that you need to burn gas to make electricity - which of course is only one way. Use green energy to make hydrogen from water.

There are already home stations in production that do exactly that and then it is used to fuel your car and heat your home.

[Nobody Interesting]

3 minutes ago, Neil said:

Growth allows us to alter the distribution of resources without feeling like anything has been cut.

That is one way of looking at it but rarely how it is done. More often growth is used as an excuse to borrow more and thus tax more.

[steviewevie]

10 minutes ago, Skip997 said:

The old growth argument. This is actually the problem. Why do we need to keep "growing", it's not sustainable and will be what finishes us off.

Maybe if we act now we may have a chance, but that acting now involves massive "sacrifices" that people are reluctant to make and corporations will never make. Money and luxury are more important to too many people, esp those who could actually make a difference.

back to that yummy doughnut

About Doughnut Economics | DEAL

[Nobody Interesting]

2 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

back to that yummy doughnut

About Doughnut Economics | DEAL

Which I still have to find the time to read about ha ha

[Neil]

9 minutes ago, Nobody Interesting said:

That is one way of looking at it but rarely how it is done. More often growth is used as an excuse to borrow more and thus tax more.

its a bit of a smoke and mirrors trick but when labour says 'growth' it means, more funding for some stuff without cuts to other stuff to fund it with.

 

Edited August 30, 2023 by Neil

[steviewevie]

33 minutes ago, Nobody Interesting said:

More often growth is used as an excuse to borrow more and thus tax more

how?

[steviewevie]

Labour rejecting growth.

Vote Labour.

[cellar]

1 hour ago, Crazyfool01 said:

@Ozanne what's a bad faith actor ? you keep mentioning it ive not a clue what you mean ? 

Bad faith acting is when someone argues for something that they don't actually believe in, usually to further some other agenda.

In the context of this thread, Ozanne uses it as a way of pretending that he doesn't believe that these people mean what they say, so he can avoid responding to them. Funnily enough, an example of bad faith in itself.

Also, @Nobody Interesting can you please stop peppering your replies to people with insults? It's really unnecessary the amount of times you've called people stupid today.

[Neil]

37 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

how?

growth will increase tax revenues which expands what govt can spend.