SIGN UP

Promising To Slash Carbon Emissions, Is It Realistic?

Avatar Image
dave50 | 18:40 Thu 22nd Apr 2021 | News
27 Answers
As long as it doesn't increase cost of living by increasing taxes and car ownership and flights don't become the preserve of the rich then I don't mind. I'm not prepared to reduce my standard of living for a pipe dream.

Answers

21 to 27 of 27rss feed

First Previous 1 2

Avatar Image
The Chinese authorities have stated that they should be allowed to "catch up" with their development before being forced to cut emissions. Since half of all the coal mined in the world is burnt in China (and it seems will either continue at that level or increase) I don't see why people in the UK should be subject to trashing their homes (and their bank balances)...
14:17 Fri 23rd Apr 2021
"don't see why people in the UK should be subject to trashing their homes (and their bank balances) to install expensive and inefficient heating systems. "

Because regardless of how convenient it is the world economy is simply going to have to use more sustainable energy as this century goes on... it's in our interests to do that early.
sustainable energy mmm like what, wind is not enough or tidal
or roof panels, think of all the factories and other business premises
let lone private houses, nuclear is the only way, and all those battery powered cars are going to need recharging, oh and the trains and lorries.., worlds over populated thats the problem.
Indeed. It is not convenient. In fact it will probably be quite painful... but past generations did not take this problem seriously enough despite decades of warning, so here we are... We passed up the chance for incremental change so we are now stuck with sudden change... oops.

Fewer people won't make a difference if those keep producing greenhouse gases and consuming resources beyond our means. That is the root cause.
fewer people use less resources
Not necessarily.
//Because regardless of how convenient it is the world economy is simply going to have to use more sustainable energy as this century goes on//

I think you'll find that to be a very hard sell. People don't mind fannying about with light bulbs and vacuum cleaners but when they are told they have to destroy large parts of their homes and pay for the privilege of installing an inefficient noisy heating system to replace a perfectly suitable one, politicians may find they have a fight on their hands.

A huge percentage of UK housing stock is totally unsuitable for heat pump installations, either air or ground. They either do not have the required space to fit one and/or they lack suitable insulation to cope with the lower temperatures that the devices provide (and cannot have it provided). And that's before you consider the nation's lack of electricity supply.

For many, if not most people, it's not a matter of mere "inconvenience". It's a matter of practical and financial impossibility. The task of government is to facilitate their citizens' lives, not to make them either freeze, go bankrupt or both.
It's not a matter of selling it or not new judge... I do not think you understand the problem. We currently produce enough greenhouse gases to cause significant global heating over the next few decades - significant enough to devastate large swathes of human civilization. The survival instinct comes before convenience - we will simply have to change because our civilization will be catastrophically damaged if we do not. Whether or not speople find it inconvenient is neither here nor there. We had decades to do it the easy way, so the hard way it will be. It is simply impossible for us not to adapt to a greener economy.

21 to 27 of 27rss feed

First Previous 1 2

Do you know the answer?

Promising To Slash Carbon Emissions, Is It Realistic?

Answer Question >>

Related Questions

Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.