A general thread to discuss Trump

[keano77]

Your words not mine Rendel. I merely cited electricity as an example.

You Rendel may, or may not, have got up this morning to an alarm on a clock radio, boiled a kettle, run a bath or showered, put the news on the telly, did some vacuuming, cooked some lunch, put washing in a washing machine, crockery in a dishwasher, worked on a laptop, charged a mobile or tablet etc etc. Nothing wrong with doing any of that, that's what we do in the First World.

But, think about it, your use of resources is probably more than a whole village in India who don't have electricity.

Now, India is modernising fast. 300m Indians who don't currently have access to electricity (Cited BBC today) will (hopefully) one day get it together with the white and brown goods, mobiles, laptops and tablets.

This is just one aspect of global warming, use of scarce resources etc. The Paris climate agreement will do little to address it. If Trump can negotiate a better agreement he will be doing the planet a favour.

[rendelharris]

keano77 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

If Trump can

> negotiate a better agreement he will be doing the

> planet a favour.

Yes, that's exactly what the great man is doing, withdrawing from a globally agreed programme to reduce carbon emissions in order to impose a better one. Not to allow US industry free rein to pollute to its heart's content without regard for the consequences. You seriously believe that's his motive? Get oop t'street lad.

[keano77]

I see you've conveniently overlooked the carbon emissions that provided your electricity today Rendel.

Not easy to be a sanctimonious green is it?

[rendelharris]

But very easy to be a foolish rightwing libertarian, clearly. Do you actually think that President Trump is going to put in place a better agreement than the Paris accord or not? Don't give me some old guff about whether I had a shower today or not, answer a grownup question.

By the way, in response to your nonsense above, I cycled and walked everywhere I needed to go today, I don't have a TV, I have a wind-up alarm clock, I use a broom not a vacuum cleaner, I don't have a dishwasher, I get my electricity (which I use sparingly) from the greenest supplier possible despite the fact that it's not the cheapest - don't judge everyone by your own standards. Of course, to you that's being sanctimonious - a cheap and stupid word used by people who don't like the idea that other people might make more effort to be environmentally sound than them. Ooh aren't I holier than thou - damn' right I am.

[Jenny1]

keano77 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> If Trump can

> negotiate a better agreement he will be doing the

> planet a favour.

But he won't though, will he? Why on earth would that be a priority for this administration?

Mike Pence (quoted by Fox News) 'For some reason, this issue of climate change has emerged as a paramount issue for the left - in this country and around the world'.

They have no interest in the issue at all. As far as they're concerned it's not even 'a thing'.

[keano77]

Steady Rendel, calm now, calm.

I admire your spartan lifestyle, which is of course the point here. If the First World really wants to reduce carbon emissions we need a drastic lifestyle change to allow the rest of the world to use the resources we've dominated so they can modernise and improve the lot of their populations. I fear though the West is not prepared to adopt 1950s-type lifestyles.

Trump's point is it's all very well letting China, India, Brazil etc burn fossil fuels to modernise but it can only do so if the West reduces its emissions and this is hindering the US economy. He was voted in to put America first and the Paris agreement is seen as unfair to the US.

To answer your question whether I think Trump will put in place a better agreement than the Paris Accord my answer is no. How can he? Group think has ganged up against him.

[rendelharris]

keano77 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> To answer your question whether I think Trump will

> put in place a better agreement than the Paris

> Accord my answer is no. How can he? Group think

> has ganged up against him.

So you seriously believe that the man who is on record as stating that he thinks man-made global climate change is a hoax made up by China really wants to do something about global carbon emissions, but he can't because of "group think", whatever that may be? Seriously?

[keano77]

I don't agree with him that it's a hoax. It's a very serious problem. The Paris agreement is a well intentioned step in the right direction but is not the solution.

[rendelharris]

keano77 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I don't agree with him that it's a hoax. It's a

> very serious problem. The Paris agreement is a

> well intentioned step in the right direction but

> is not the solution.

Glad to hear it. But the Paris accord is the only step in the right direction - however flawed it might be - the world's managed to currently agree on, and the Donald has pulled out of it, and he clearly has no intention of putting a better agreement in place, so I don't see how anyone can view it as anything but a retrogade step, can you? Glad to continue debating this tomorrow, for now goodnight and sleep well.

[malumbu]

Car occupancy is reducing. That is when we drive a car, there is less likely to be another person in it. Now there may be a good reason for that, I can't think of one. The only reason I can think of is that many people would rather drive on their own. I see enough of it - why are both of you driving to so and so event when you live next door to each other. "Oh the convenience so I can do x and y".

Not that we are a patch on the US in our selfish attitude and we can give a pat on our own backs in the metropolis, particularly the young, who are ditching cars or sharing ownership.

Anyway until we all take a responsible attitude we need big governments to do big government things like stay in the Paris accord, stay in the big EU club (what? we let the people decide? Which idiot was that?.... some things are too big to be decided by the people).

Light the fuse on howls about how anti-democracy I am.

Thought I'd take the heat of Rendel for a moment.

[Green Goose]

rendelharris Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>

> By the way, in response to your nonsense above, I

> cycled and walked everywhere I needed to go today,

> I don't have a TV, I have a wind-up alarm clock, I

> use a broom not a vacuum cleaner,

What about the car that you mentioned in a previous post? Or is it a magic carpet that is carbon-neutral?

[rendelharris]

Green Goose Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> rendelharris Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> >

> > By the way, in response to your nonsense above,

> I

> > cycled and walked everywhere I needed to go

> today,

> > I don't have a TV, I have a wind-up alarm clock,

> I

> > use a broom not a vacuum cleaner,

>

> What about the car that you mentioned in a

> previous post? Or is it a magic carpet that is

> carbon-neutral?

Not mine, it's my wife's (a Smart ForFour which does 70MPG and has auto stop-start, not quite a magic carpet but getting there) - I don't drive and ride in it once a week to help take her mother her shopping at weekends.

[uncleglen]

just goes to prove- if you can afford it you can be 'green' too

[rendelharris]

uncleglen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> just goes to prove- if you can afford it you can

> be 'green' too

It cost six grand second hand and she got a grand trade-in on our previous Smart we'd had for ten years - I do count myself very lucky but it's not exactly a new Porsche Carerra now is it?

[JohnL]

Trump hates Sadiq Khan but he jumped the gun with his tweet on Sunday.

[Jenny1]

Good Masha Gessen piece on how Trump's incompetence and the establishment of autocracy are two sides of the same coin.

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/06/02/opinion/sunday/trumps-incompetence-wont-save-our-democracy.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-right-region&region=opinion-c-col-right-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-right-region&_r=0&referer=https://t.co/AkmIjvkqft?amp=1

[JohnL]

Latest tweeting from the President

?Pathetic excuse by London mayor Sadiq Khan, who had to think fast on his ?no reason to be alarmed? statement. [Mainstream media] is working hard to sell it!?

[JoeLeg]

I honestly don't understand why the President of the United States gives any kind of a fuck about the Mayor of London, or Paris, or Tokyo or Vladivostock or anywhere else?

I lot of Trumps tweets can be seen as part of a larger political game, but this just seems retarded.

[Jenny1]

Even he knows that Sadiq Khan outclasses him by miles, and he can't bear it.

[JohnL]

Trump believes that originally Sadiq Khan said that we should "not be alarmed by terrorists" then retroactively changed it to "we should not be alarmed by more police on our streets" and every single mainstream media in the world also changed the quote to cover up for him.

rather than he (trump) misquoted.

(whistles and walks away quietly)

[Lordship 516]

keano77 Wrote:

> Not necessarily. It's generally accepted that the

> Paris Accord, while being the best international

> agreement we have so far, will do very little to

> solve climate change.

The Paris Accord is constructed as a precurser to an effective solution that will emanate from the PA over time. It seeks to align many different attitudes & circumstances so that future agreements can be negotiated within an agreed framework & flexible timetables. As such it is better that all the squabbling, ducking & diving that went before it as it will lead each country to set down defined criteria whereby they intend to operate.

> At the moment we have green technology subsidised

> by tax payers that doesn't work. Wind turbines

> that need to be turned off if it's too windy.

> Solar panels that cost more to produce and run

> than the energy they provide.

A lot of the product of wind turbines is unused or underused due to much of the power is being produced at nighttime [generated at night when demand is lowest]. This is currently being worked on by way of refining the costs & methodologies of storage [batteries & electricity to gas/hydrogen] that show some economic promise [timeshifting - produce @ 2.5P at night & sell @ 9.5p during the day - the differential more than pays for the storage] This will reduce the number of thermal generators during peak demand. Little by little it will get refined & CO2 reduced significently. Water can be split to raw hydrogen & oxygen at 40% of the stored power - It can be combined with CO2 to form CH4 [methane] in a virtuous circle, in both streams the surplus oxygen can be used to combust the hydrogen/methane leading to a 'sweeter' mix & less dioxins produced - it will come on stream within the next 5 years or so as the processes are refined & become more economic. The economics are already promising & the savings in CO2 significent.

Modern solar panels vary in their carbon footprint including the embodied energy of mining the materials & production.

For the UK this approximates to about 60grams/kWh of electricity produced & for southern Europe it approximates to 35 grams/kWh of electricity produced. This is 10 times lower than the output of fossil fuels [typically 500 grams/kWh in the UK & over 1000 grams/kWh for coal fired generators.

Maintenance of PV panels is minimal - mostly a bucket & sponge for cleaning & replacement of some minor electronics & rectifiers. Most PV panels for industrial use come with 20/30 year guarantees both for performance & breakdown.

The environmental payback for the UK is down to 2.5 years or thereabouts & the economic payback is currently down to about 5 years @ 900 kWh/M2/year. For southern Europe the equivalent is 1.5 years for environmental payback & about 3.5 years for economic payback.

Its best to interrogate the actualities of these technologies before you jump to criticize the efforts being made to date. It is a work in progress & has been better than doing nothing.

> It amuses me that Facebook and Apple are

> pretending to be outraged. Between them they have

> probably been responsible or more electricity

> consumption (in the West at least) manufacturing

> tablets and phones, constantly recharging them, to

> engage in social media.

Apple, Amazon & Facebook are at the forefront of reducing their footprints & also at the leading edge of energy storage not only for environmental reasons but for continued security of supply.

Greater reduction can be achieved by reducing demand mainly through increasing insulation but the conservative government abandoned the near Zero/Sustainability 6 requirements for new homes. This was a retrograde step lobbied for by Tory backing major developers so they could save a very small amount of money [about ?5,000 to ?10,000 per unit] that they want to go directly to their bottom line.

> Resist the knee-jerk reaction malumbu.

keano77 - Methinks that it is yourself that excels at the kneejerks..!

[keano77]

Very informative Lordship 516. I agree that all these technologies show promise and hopefully one day will be fit for purpose.

What you conveniently fail to mention is all this nascent technology is hugely subsidised by the tax payer. As it doesn't really work yet companies are not spending huge R&D in the field unless governments cough up because there's no profit in it.

An interesting post-US withdrawal from the Paris Agreement row on Newsnight cited figures from the International Energy Agency that current global subsidies are $150Bn a year and that the IEA estimates that over the next 25 years $3 Trillion will go in subsidies. (A counter argument here is those subsidies create green industries and jobs but it is still inefficient technology).

(Newsnight 31 May around 35 mins)

[robbin]

rendelharris Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> But very easy to be a foolish rightwing

> libertarian, clearly... Don't

> give me some old guff about whether I had a shower

> today or not, answer a grownup question.

>

> By the way, in response to your nonsense above, I

> cycled and walked everywhere I needed to go today,

> I don't have a TV, I have a wind-up alarm clock, I

> use a broom not a vacuum cleaner, I don't have a

> dishwasher, I get my electricity (which I use

> sparingly) from the greenest supplier possible

> despite the fact that it's not the cheapest... Of

> course, to you that's being sanctimonious - a

> cheap and stupid word used by people who don't

> like the idea that other people might make more

> effort to be environmentally sound than them. Ooh

> aren't I holier than thou - damn' right I am.

Ha! Now I'm beginning to understand why you seem so miserable the whole time Rendel. I'll make sure I'm extra nice to you in future! Chin up.

[rendelharris]

Well isn't that sweet of you. I can assure you I'm very happy though, I just get my happiness through beer, bicycles and blues rather than through excessive consumption (except of beer and bicycles).

[robbin]

That's good. Bicycles are the best pick me up. I'd go easy on the blues though.