Just Stop Oil protester punched and kicked

MolteniArcore said:
What I have enjoyed this week is all the gammons moaning about GP protesting at Sunday’s house when they have been calling for JSO to target politicians and not the public! They really just like to moan about any protest, not just because it is unconvincing Joe Bloggs getting to work. They are a funny breed.
Click to expand...
Tbf they seem happy about the anti ULEZ protest that happened yesterday. Clean air not high on their priorities.
 
The Chinese figure in interesting - they emitted little carbon 30 years ago and now have 80% caught us up, In ten years time they were be polluting more than us per person. Their chief power source is coal and will llikely be for a good number of years as their coal fired stations are relatively new. They like coal because they produce a lot of their own coal.
 
Redwurzel said:
The Chinese figure in interesting - they emitted little carbon 30 years ago and now have 80% caught us up, In ten years time they were be polluting more than us per person. Their chief power source is coal and will llikely be for a good number of years as their coal fired stations are relatively new. They like coal because they produce a lot of their own coal.
Click to expand...

and what do they do? make mainly absolute crap for the first world
 
Redwurzel said:
The Chinese figure in interesting - they emitted little carbon 30 years ago and now have 80% caught us up, In ten years time they were be polluting more than us per person. Their chief power source is coal and will llikely be for a good number of years as their coal fired stations are relatively new. They like coal because they produce a lot of their own coal.
Click to expand...
They're allowed to develop, every country is. We can't really criticise them for using coal when we did the same for centuries. It's the fastest available ready-made energy they had available, for a cheap cost.

They are however building and using a hell of a lot of renewables as even to them, it's cheaper than coal. The don't tie themselves up in red tape either, so will roll them out far faster than us, and for far less cost.

afcb_acklam said:
and what do they do? make mainly absolute crap for the first world
Click to expand...
This is a good point, a lot of China's requirements for energy are industry (and people to work in them), and their industries are manufacturing and exporting, they're effectively the worlds machine shop. China will be taking a lot of the CO2 hit for products the ROW wants.

They don't just sell crap though, those days are kind of done. The "made in china" line doesn't mean what it once did. Their manufacturing quality is as high as anywhere else in the world, where the customer wants it to be. If people want them to make cheap crap, they will, but equally if people to want them to make slightly more expensive top-quality products, they will. They will just be driven by the market/ demand.
 
Andy_W said:
They're allowed to develop, every country is. We can't really criticise them for using coal when we did the same for centuries. It's the fastest available ready-made energy they had available, for a cheap cost.

They are however building and using a hell of a lot of renewables as even to them, it's cheaper than coal. The don't tie themselves up in red tape either, so will roll them out far faster than us, and for far less cost.


This is a good point, a lot of China's requirements for energy are industry (and people to work in them), and their industries are manufacturing and exporting, they're effectively the worlds machine shop. China will be taking a lot of the CO2 hit for products the ROW wants.

They don't just sell crap though, those days are kind of done. The "made in china" line doesn't mean what it once did. Their manufacturing quality is as high as anywhere else in the world, where the customer wants it to be. If people want them to make cheap crap, they will, but equally if people to want them to make slightly more expensive top-quality products, they will. They will just be driven by the market/ demand.
Click to expand...
We find the negative perception of 'Made in China' is still strong. Our customers want reassuring that our products are not from there.
Except for silk. They are happy for that. Probably because China almost has a monopoly on silk.
 
Andy_W said:
Yeah the nuke thing or something similar is a daft desperate semi-solution to a problem that doesn't need to exist.

The problem seems to be coming though, it's just a case of how big that problem is. To reverse engineer that is going to take some seriously drastic options, which would not be anywhere near as bad if we accelerated our good options now.
Click to expand...
There is a current & serious argument for shipping to throw up plumes of salt water into the atmosphere to seed clouds, cooling the ocean & planet.
Apparently until 2020 shipping fuel contained lots of sulphur & the smoke created sulphurous clouds that shaded the ocean under the shipping routes. The correlation of the parts of the sea achieving record surface temperatures & the now sulphur smoke free shipping routes is remarkable.
 
Will_Graham said:
We find the negative perception of 'Made in China' is still strong. Our customers want reassuring that our products are not from there.
Click to expand...
It's mad, they use the exact same machines we do here, and the same software programs etc.

Give them a specification and they can make it, same as anything though, if you want to pay less you will get a lesser product.

Thing is they can make something to Spec A, for less than half our purchase price, for something manufactured over here, including the shipping, largely as they have more raw materials, cheaper materials, cheaper rent, cheap labour etc. But people will still want spec B and spec C products making from there too, which they can aslo do far cheaper than here and any other developed nation. Like anywhere though, their cost will go up as they develop more as people will want to be paid more and expect better conditions.
 
newusername said:
There is a current & serious argument for shipping to throw up plumes of salt water into the atmosphere to seed clouds, cooling the ocean & planet.
Apparently until 2020 shipping fuel contained lots of sulphur & the smoke created sulphurous clouds that shaded the ocean under the shipping routes. The correlation of the parts of the sea achieving record surface temperatures & the now sulphur smoke free shipping routes is remarkable.
Click to expand...
I think I seen something about that the other day, think it might have been the same program/ video but I wasn't giving it my full attention. Can you remember what it was?

I think I understand it the same way, something like shipping has actually been artificially keeping the planet cooler as they used sulfur in the fuels? The sulpher was bad, but it had the weird effect of blocking out some of the suns rays? Since they have to now use low sulpher fuels it's just the CO2 getting out, and no sulpher to block the rays. The old CO2 is still there too though, pluss the added stuff, so it's like taking the sun shade off the greenhouse. Crazy. It's mad that we've been geoengineering the planet to actually stay a bit cooler, and we didn't even know we were doing it. Not sure how reliable what they were saying was though? I think on the same program they mentioned some other things on there which were low quality, or they made poor assumptions of linear growth in renewables, rather than exponential.

The sulpher had to go though, but maybe they can add something to the fuel with a clocking effect which isn't as bad for the environment? Obviously can't add salt or water to the fule, but there may be something else they could use. Or like you say, just use big pumps and spray something into the air, like seawater etc, obviously will take additional energy to do that though, and it's not a long term fix, unless we just kept on doing it forever.
 
Andy_W said:
I think I seen something about that the other day, think it might have been the same program/ video but I wasn't giving it my full attention. Can you remember what it was?

I think I understand it the same way, something like shipping has actually been artificially keeping the planet cooler as they used sulfur in the fuels? The sulpher was bad, but it had the weird effect of blocking out some of the suns rays? Since they have to now use low sulpher fuels it's just the CO2 getting out, and no sulpher to block the rays. The old CO2 is still there too though, pluss the added stuff, so it's like taking the sun shade off the greenhouse. Crazy. It's mad that we've been geoengineering the planet to actually stay a bit cooler, and we didn't even know we were doing it. Not sure how reliable what they were saying was though? I think on the same program they mentioned some other things on there which were low quality, or they made poor assumptions of linear growth in renewables, rather than exponential.

The sulpher had to go though, but maybe they can add something to the fuel with a clocking effect which isn't as bad for the environment? Obviously can't add salt or water to the fule, but there may be something else they could use. Or like you say, just use big pumps and spray something into the air, like seawater etc, obviously will take additional energy to do that though, and it's not a long term fix, unless we just kept on doing it forever.
Click to expand...
Sulphur doesn't block the rays, it creates bright cloud structures which reflect the sunlight. It was in dirty diesel which is illegal in most places.

There was a fairly large bit of research done around this that also looked at how much C02 emmissions went down around the world. C02, not a lot, 5%, if I recall the paperr corrrectly.
 
Laughing said:
Sulphur doesn't block the rays, it creates bright cloud structures which reflect the sunlight. It was in dirty diesel which is illegal in most places.

There was a fairly large bit of research done around this that also looked at how much C02 emmissions went down around the world. C02, not a lot, 5%, if I recall the paperr corrrectly.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I wasn't really listening when it was on, but all I knew was the sulphur bit was leading to less sun hitting the deck, but how you explain it makes sense.

What, you mean the CO2 came down as the sulpher was cut out, just effectively making the fuel cleaner overall?

A 5% cut is massive, if it's of all emissions.
 
I've just had a thought here, we could use the long-haul jets to seed things into the higher atmosphere, as part of the fuel maybe, to help form clouds or just block out the sun.

There's a big problem with this though, you would have all the chemtrail conspiracy nuts thinking they were right :LOL: Doing this wouldn't prove them right though of course.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top