I read in the last couple of days that 7 motorway service stations will be supplied with containers full of batteries as the Nat Grid cannot cope with the demand of fast chargers. These will probably be the same sort that are supporting solar farms. Another ugly blot on the landscape that the consumer is seeing no benefit for. Bills going up 20% or more from April and no subsidy

In 1800 there were ~1bn of us on the planet. There are now ~8bn.

Advances in science and technology since that time has allowed the vastly increased population to individually be even more destructive of the environment.

It is estimated that we are consuming 1.8 times the earths capacity to regenerate. It is plausible that as China, India and Africa aspiring to (say) European standards will increase demand to 4x earth capacity.

Arguing about which is higher priority - ICE vs EV, microplastics, sewage in rivers, sea level rise, climate change etc - is truly futile. They all need to be addressed urgently.

Some folk may like to put head in sand or believe they have no obligation towards future generations. But a failure to act will not be pretty.

Please provide the reports proving the contention about us cosnuming X times the regenerative capcity of the Earth. I would like to review it. Ironic how the proponents of green tech are wanting us to use many rare Earth materials that are often mined by very unethical and polluting means to achieve their new utopia.

The problem is that many who advocate 'radical change' don't want to be affected by that change, which is why carbon /social credit systems are targeted at the less well off who cannot afford to change to so-called 'envirnomentally-friendly' alternatives (including food) and they are now being pushed to 'do without'.

Meanwhile, no restrictions on private jets, how materials and components for tech or cars, etc is sourced so the great and good can continue to go on their lavish holidays, trips to 'conferences', have loads of cars etc and continue to eat proper meat whilst the Proles revert back to serfdom, eating ze bugz and/or starve / die of disease.

Maybe a new pandemic (bird flu?) jab can be 'invented' to 'reduce' the population of the world if the 'current measures' of impoverishing, starving and killing us don't work (quickly enough)?

Of course, the affluent middle classes will not be affected that much at first, and I suspect many of them who advocate for these changes (virtue-signalling at the same time) will know they'll be cold in their graves by the time their lot will be hit.

In 1800 there were ~1bn of us on the planet. There are now ~8bn.

Advances in science and technology since that time has allowed the vastly increased population to individually be even more destructive of the environment.

It is estimated that we are consuming 1.8 times the earths capacity to regenerate. It is plausible that as China, India and Africa aspiring to (say) European standards will increase demand to 4x earth capacity.

Arguing about which is higher priority - ICE vs EV, microplastics, sewage in rivers, sea level rise, climate change etc - is truly futile. They all need to be addressed urgently.

Some folk may like to put head in sand or believe they have no obligation towards future generations. But a failure to act will not be pretty.

Please provide the reports proving the contention about us cosnuming X times the regenerative capcity of the Earth.

You can't start demanding people post facts for you to check when you refuse to do so yourself.

You can't, but here it is anyway. Before anyone starts with the whole "you can't trust Wikipedia" thing, that's why there are references given; so you can look into the detail.

In 1800 there were ~1bn of us on the planet. There are now ~8bn.

Advances in science and technology since that time has allowed the vastly increased population to individually be even more destructive of the environment.

It is estimated that we are consuming 1.8 times the earths capacity to regenerate. It is plausible that as China, India and Africa aspiring to (say) European standards will increase demand to 4x earth capacity.

Arguing about which is higher priority - ICE vs EV, microplastics, sewage in rivers, sea level rise, climate change etc - is truly futile. They all need to be addressed urgently.

Some folk may like to put head in sand or believe they have no obligation towards future generations. But a failure to act will not be pretty.

Please provide the reports proving the contention about us cosnuming X times the regenerative capcity of the Earth.

You can't start demanding people post facts for you to check when you refuse to do so yourself.

I have done a lot, but those facts just get called rubbish by those like yourself, often not even reading / watching the information. You can hardly call yourself honourable by doing exactly the 'dishonest' thing you regularly accuse me of, can you.

To me, that sounds like rank hypocrisy, gaslighting and straw-manning yet again. Not really a surprise though.

<< I have done a lot, but those facts just get called rubbish by those like yourself, often not even reading / watching the information. You can hardly call yourself honourable by doing exactly the 'dishonest' thing you regularly accuse me of, can you. >>

Andy, you are always telling us about providing facts, but it seems to me that your method is rather selective, making me wonder whether the two of us share the same meaning of the word 'fact'. To me, scientifically trained, a fact is something agreed and reproducible, not just something I have read in whatever daily paper or TV programme I have chosen to take in ?

Most other stuff belongs under the heading Opinion.

Perhaps you should look up the word 'hypocrite before responding in such a way. Or 'gaslighting' and 'straw man argument'.

I am also scientifically trained -as an engineer, which is a practical scientist. Many scientists, especially these days, seem to be far more concerned about signalling the politicial virtues (e.g. on gender and race) than demonstrating verifiable facts.

The problem is that just because a lot of people agree about a theory or opinion, that does not make it a fact. 'Settled science' is using a political term, which means it is a compromise position based on what different people can get out of proposing something, not a hard fact such as E = mc2.

Climate science is on such 'settled' opinion. Given that someone else on your side of the debate mentioned Galileo, I would remind you that for a long time, many other 'scientists' had formed a'settled opinion' on the nature of the solar system because they preferred not to be in prison or worse because the Catholic Church (and via the Inquisition) basically told them not to, just like certain figures in politics and with significant influence (but who aren't scientists or in that field) do the same these days with COVID, climate change, etc.

Rather than threatening people with prison, their professional status / careers and thus livelihoods and/or celebrity are instead. Or they are effectively or actually bribed (proven) to stay on one side of the debate.

Please provide the reports proving the contention about us cosnuming X times the regenerative capcity of the Earth. I would like to review it.

How many Earths do we need? - BBC News

Hardly 'science' - just opinions and theories that aren't proven in any way. The piece even criticises the premice itself.

Ecological footprint - Wikipedia

Huge amount of other evidence if you bother to search.

Unfortnately:

a) Wikipedia isn't the bastion of impartiality it once was (10+ years ago). Much of it is now 'gatekept' by lefists and etsablishment people who don't allow opposing viewpoints or questions to be raised about subjects that 'question the supposedly 'settled' (it isn't) narrative;

b) Like with the COVID 'projections' and climate 'science', much of this uses guesswork based on assumptions that cannot yet be proven, and thus is why it is politicised to push the net zero agenda via cherry-picking information to use.

I strongly suspect that you haven't 'bothered' to look into it in any detail yourself, given you rarely can defend your arguments when push comes to shove.

Meanwhile, no restrictions on private jets

There are ~2000 private jets in the UK which includes those used for charter and company work. There are ~2.3m commercial flights and ~300m passengers in the UK each year. The environmental impact of package holidays far exceeds that from private jet use.

And? They all count to the total. In fact, a private jet releases more CO2 and other pollutants into the environment than a reasonably well patronised flight in a standard commercial airliner, rather like comparing people using cars and trains to commute.

By your argument, small vehicles whould be exempt from any enviropnmental changes but big ones subject to restrictions on usage, never mind the CO2 emissions per user.

Lovely how the (champagne?) socialists are now actively advocating to leave the poor, downtrodden uber-rich alone so they can jet-set all over the world whilst the conservative advocates for the working class man and woman.

Of course, the affluent middle classes will not be affected that much at first, and I suspect many of them who advocate for these changes (virtue-signalling at the same time) will know they'll be cold in their graves by the time their lot will be hit.

It is a fair observation that the affluent will find it easier to absorb the changes needed. Catastrophes aside, most over the age of 60 will not live to see the worst impacts of inaction - although their children and grand children will.

Without the relatively affluent displaying some sense of social responsibility, no action would likely be forthcoming until far too late. They pay a premium price for technologies and development that those following later benefit from.

I'm waiting for you and those others here calling for all this to make that 'big personal sacrifice' by dumping your cars, foreign holidays (including caravanning), real meat and dairy products and doing exactly as the greenies want - living in the pod, eating ze bugz and lab-grown artificial meat, staying in your zone of the 15-minute city and working from home.

No socialising out and about - too much CO2 produced, and don't forget, no complaining, as that will reduce your available carbon credits meaning you'll have to go hungry for a few days.

If you want to see it all as a conspiracy, that's your call. Aside from moral and ethical considerations, the affluent need others to service their needs - care home workers, coffee shops, plumbers, electricians, cleaners, delivery drivers, farm workers etc.

I thought that's what you wanted all those lovely cheap immigrants for:

youtu.be/y24VBzlAU_g

Unfortunately the bloke servicing your heat pump cannot visit for a month because they've used up all their carbon credits. Please note that you are not allowed to cut down any trees in your back garden or local woods to burn to keep warm. Merry Non-binary person born 200 years ago!

Ta-ta.

I hope you appreciate satire.

There is so much pollution going into the environment that sooner or later there will be a tipping point. Just on the point of microplastics, the UK beaches are littered with the stuff in measurable quantities in the sand. This means that is in the seas and gradually building up in creatures that live here and so it can enter the food chain.

The same to a probable lesser extent on land but with so much food being packed in plastic we are bound to consume it.

No one would think of eating a plastic milk bottle or plastic bag where the particles are dissolving or rubbing off.

Cucumbers encased in plastic. The cucumber is consumed over a matter of days, then the discarded plastic lasts for how many years. That makes sense. The labels on certain kinds of packaging - 'not currently recycled'. I must have been reading the same labels for a couple of decades. And still no solution. No pressure to create a solution. This is one area where the old ways were far better.