• Please be advised there is a potential issue with DD collections, which may result in an excessive amount being taken. Please read the stickied thread in Fortean Times Magazine > General Discussion, Subs etc

Not As Environmentally Friendly As Promised

ramonmercado

CyberPunk
Joined
Aug 19, 2003
Messages
55,134
Location
Eblana
Not all large rural properties are stately homes.

Low-income households and large rural properties are “significantly more vulnerable” to climate-related hikes to their energy bills in the future, the Central Bank has said.

In a piece of research published on Thursday, the Central Bank examined how policy related to climate change could affect households and the potential impact of long-run energy price rises on mortgaged households.

The Central Bank said: “Increasing global temperatures in the coming decades will lead to more frequent and intense weather-related damages to communities, ecosystems and economic assets (‘physical risks’).”
It said while this long-term damage could be reduced through rapid climate action, the policies that underpin this climate action, what it terms a “significant technological and behavioural net-zero transformation”, could have a disproportionate effect on some households and businesses.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-41046692.html
 

Trevp666

It was like that when I got here.........honest!!!
Joined
May 29, 2009
Messages
9,917
Location
Welwyn Garden City (but oddly, not an actual city)
Possibly a repost.

1673951909354.png
 

maximus otter

Recovering policeman
Joined
Aug 9, 2001
Messages
11,534

How Al Gore has made $330m with climate alarmism


Warning the world that it is on the brink of disaster has been lucrative for Al Gore.

His wild prediction at Davos that Earth faces 'rain bombs' and 'boiling oceans' is just his latest in decades of climate alarmism.

At the same time, the former VP has been at the forefront of green technology investment that has seen his wealth balloon to an estimated $330 million.

Gore set up Generation Investment Management with former Goldman Sachs Managing Director and close friend David W. Blood.

The mission statement of the investment firm, where Gore collects $2 million in a monthly salary, is to back companies that are making strides towards going green. The firm is worth around $36 billion.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...armism-Former-VP-fortune-losing-George-W.html

maximus otter
 

maximus otter

Recovering policeman
Joined
Aug 9, 2001
Messages
11,534

The Recycling Religion


For decades, we’ve been told: recycle!

Recycling paper (or cardboard) does save trees. Recycling aluminum does save energy. But that’s about it.

The ugly truth is that many “recyclables” sent to recycling plants are never recycled. The worst is plastic.

Even Greenpeace now says, “Plastic recycling is a dead-end street.”

Science writer John Tierney says “Recycling is an industry that uses increasingly expensive labor to produce materials that are worth less and less.”

It would be smarter to just dump our garbage in landfills.

People think landfills are horrible polluters. But they’re not. Regulations (occasionally, government regulations are actually useful) make sure today’s landfills have protective barriers so they don’t leak.

Eventually, landfills are turned into good things: ski hills, parks and golf courses.

But aren’t we running out of landfill space? For years, alarmist media said we were. But that’s not true.

Landfills have plenty of room. In fact, America has more space than we will ever need.

“If you think of the United States as a football field,” says Tierney, “all the garbage that we will generate in the next 1,000 years would fit inside a tiny fraction of the one-inch line.”

Putting garbage in landfills is often much cheaper than recycling. My town would save $340 million a year if it just stopped recycling.

But they won’t, “because people demand it,” says Tierney. “It’s a sacrament of the green religion.”

Worse, some recycling is pointless, or harmful.

“If you rinse a plastic bottle in hot water,” Tierney points out, “the net result is more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than if you threw it in the garbage.”

https://www.johnstossel.com/the-recycling-religion-plastic-green-garbage/

gaspode
 

Mythopoeika

I am a meat popsicle
Joined
Sep 18, 2001
Messages
48,857
Location
Inside a starship, watching puny humans from afar

How Al Gore has made $330m with climate alarmism


Warning the world that it is on the brink of disaster has been lucrative for Al Gore.

His wild prediction at Davos that Earth faces 'rain bombs' and 'boiling oceans' is just his latest in decades of climate alarmism.

At the same time, the former VP has been at the forefront of green technology investment that has seen his wealth balloon to an estimated $330 million.

Gore set up Generation Investment Management with former Goldman Sachs Managing Director and close friend David W. Blood.

The mission statement of the investment firm, where Gore collects $2 million in a monthly salary, is to back companies that are making strides towards going green. The firm is worth around $36 billion.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...armism-Former-VP-fortune-losing-George-W.html

maximus otter
The truth is now coming out. How inconvenient.
 

MorningAngel

Justified & Ancient
Joined
May 14, 2015
Messages
2,239

The Recycling Religion


For decades, we’ve been told: recycle!

Recycling paper (or cardboard) does save trees. Recycling aluminum does save energy. But that’s about it.

The ugly truth is that many “recyclables” sent to recycling plants are never recycled. The worst is plastic.

Even Greenpeace now says, “Plastic recycling is a dead-end street.”

Science writer John Tierney says “Recycling is an industry that uses increasingly expensive labor to produce materials that are worth less and less.”

It would be smarter to just dump our garbage in landfills.

People think landfills are horrible polluters. But they’re not. Regulations (occasionally, government regulations are actually useful) make sure today’s landfills have protective barriers so they don’t leak.

Eventually, landfills are turned into good things: ski hills, parks and golf courses.

But aren’t we running out of landfill space? For years, alarmist media said we were. But that’s not true.

Landfills have plenty of room. In fact, America has more space than we will ever need.

“If you think of the United States as a football field,” says Tierney, “all the garbage that we will generate in the next 1,000 years would fit inside a tiny fraction of the one-inch line.”

Putting garbage in landfills is often much cheaper than recycling. My town would save $340 million a year if it just stopped recycling.

But they won’t, “because people demand it,” says Tierney. “It’s a sacrament of the green religion.”

Worse, some recycling is pointless, or harmful.

“If you rinse a plastic bottle in hot water,” Tierney points out, “the net result is more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than if you threw it in the garbage.”

https://www.johnstossel.com/the-recycling-religion-plastic-green-garbage/

gaspode
I can’t say I’m awfully convinced and what about countries not as massive as America?
 

maximus otter

Recovering policeman
Joined
Aug 9, 2001
Messages
11,534
I can’t say I’m awfully convinced and what about countries not as massive as America?

From memory, l believe that the only reason that landfill was restricted in the UK was that the Netherlands didn’t have the huge number of old mines/pits/ workings we have, therefore - to maintain a level playing field (vague pun not intended) - the EU blanket-restricted the practice.

Also from memory, Penn and Teller did an episode of their Bullshit! telly programme on landfill vs. recycling. They found that all of the waste that would be produced in the USA for the next century, would make a pile 2 miles by 2 miles by (IIRC) ten feet high. A pinprick on a pinprick.

Landfill is cheap, easy and feasible here in the UK. We don’t do it because…?

maximus otter
 

Mythopoeika

I am a meat popsicle
Joined
Sep 18, 2001
Messages
48,857
Location
Inside a starship, watching puny humans from afar
Landfill is cheap, easy and feasible here in the UK. We don’t do it because…?
Probably because of EU rules that are still in place.

I do think that it is reprehensible that we don't even try to recycle plastics. The tech exists to do it.
 

Trevp666

It was like that when I got here.........honest!!!
Joined
May 29, 2009
Messages
9,917
Location
Welwyn Garden City (but oddly, not an actual city)

Trevp666

It was like that when I got here.........honest!!!
Joined
May 29, 2009
Messages
9,917
Location
Welwyn Garden City (but oddly, not an actual city)
Nah. Just bung everything into a plasma converter. Then use the 'slag' that is left over as a building material.
 

Cochise

Priest of the cult of the Dog with the Broken Paw
Joined
Jun 17, 2011
Messages
8,016
Surely the argument isn't 'recycling is rubbish, let's have more landfill again'. It should be 'how can we improve recycling?'.
Landfill isn't really a problem in the UK. In fact we've had far more problems here since they've stopped it, because instead of infilling old quarries a short distance away we are trucking stuff all over the world for energy intensive 'recycling' .

Although I may be biased because the rats living in the local landfill decided to invade my house about two years after they stopped dumping, presumably it took them that long to consume everything in the dump.
 

Beresford

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Mar 22, 2020
Messages
530
Location
Alloway's Auld Haunted Kirk
Landfill isn't really a problem in the UK. In fact we've had far more problems here since they've stopped it, because instead of infilling old quarries a short distance away we are trucking stuff all over the world for energy intensive 'recycling' .

Although I may be biased because the rats living in the local landfill decided to invade my house about two years after they stopped dumping, presumably it took them that long to consume everything in the dump.
Still plenty of landfill in operation. There are a few sites near me, one of which is particularly large. Don't think I'd want to live near it, and certainly not downwind.
 

Trevp666

It was like that when I got here.........honest!!!
Joined
May 29, 2009
Messages
9,917
Location
Welwyn Garden City (but oddly, not an actual city)
For certain plastics that don't break down with age, turning them into bricks might actually work.
Lego already is and does, I mean bricks that is.
You know what I mean.
 

Mythopoeika

I am a meat popsicle
Joined
Sep 18, 2001
Messages
48,857
Location
Inside a starship, watching puny humans from afar
A car dealer's take on electric cars vs old ICE cars:

 

Stormkhan

Disturbingly familiar
Joined
May 28, 2003
Messages
5,158
Probably because of EU rules that are still in place.

I do think that it is reprehensible that we don't even try to recycle plastics. The tech exists to do it.
Since Brexit took place, the EU rules aren't effective in the UK. The only laws left are UK laws, passed through parliament.

As far as recycling plastics, I use a fabric shopping bag made with recycled plastic; you can get lawn edging * garden decoration made from recycled plastics. In fact, there's plenty of things that you can recycle plastics into. The issue, as far as I can tell, is the cost of processing and re-construction.
 

Floyd1

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Apr 2, 2019
Messages
4,681

Cochise

Priest of the cult of the Dog with the Broken Paw
Joined
Jun 17, 2011
Messages
8,016
Since Brexit took place, the EU rules aren't effective in the UK. The only laws left are UK laws, passed through parliament.

As far as recycling plastics, I use a fabric shopping bag made with recycled plastic; you can get lawn edging * garden decoration made from recycled plastics. In fact, there's plenty of things that you can recycle plastics into. The issue, as far as I can tell, is the cost of processing and re-construction.

As I may have mentioned up thread, I have a recycled plastic full Mexican style poncho that doubles as a blanket and, despite feeling fleecy, is waterproof. You'd never know it was any sort of plastic, recycled or otherwise, unless you were told.

The only snag is that it is also rather flammable, judging by the warning label. I've not worn it near any bonfires.

And again, what was the energy cost?
 

Trevp666

It was like that when I got here.........honest!!!
Joined
May 29, 2009
Messages
9,917
Location
Welwyn Garden City (but oddly, not an actual city)
Since Brexit took place, the EU rules aren't effective in the UK.
Incorrect.
The "WASTE (MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS) (EU EXIT) REGULATIONS - 2019" is part of what is termed 'Retained EU Law' and is still in application with regards to all recycling and waste disposal, as per previous (and still existing) EU legislation.
It will be most likely mirrored with whatever UK law is drafted to replace it when the 'Retained EU Law' in all areas is removed from UK legislation, currently planned IIRC to be completed by the end of 2024.

There are some parts of the EU law that has NOT been retained because it already exists/existed as part of UK law anyway.
(And I'm only posting this as an informative piece about the applicable laws, not in any way politically.)

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2019/9780111181614/pdfs/ukdsiem_9780111181614_en.pdf
 

maximus otter

Recovering policeman
Joined
Aug 9, 2001
Messages
11,534

Motorway 60mph speed limits remain - despite no evidence that they work


Air pollution speed limits that force motorists to drive at 60mph should end, campaigners have said, after it emerged they have lasted twice as long as originally proposed without producing evidence they work.

Drivers on stretches of the M1, the M6, the M5 and the M602, have been limited to a top speed of 60mph in a bid to ascertain if driving more slowly helps reduce emissions.

But the restrictions, which were only supposed to last between 12 and 15 months, have now been running for more than two years, despite no evidence to show they are effective.

There are even questions over whether the increased congestion caused by the new speed limit may have actually increased pollution.

https://vnexplorer.net/motorway-60m...pite-no-evidence-that-they-work-s7360802.html

maximus otter
 

MorningAngel

Justified & Ancient
Joined
May 14, 2015
Messages
2,239

Motorway 60mph speed limits remain - despite no evidence that they work


Air pollution speed limits that force motorists to drive at 60mph should end, campaigners have said, after it emerged they have lasted twice as long as originally proposed without producing evidence they work.

Drivers on stretches of the M1, the M6, the M5 and the M602, have been limited to a top speed of 60mph in a bid to ascertain if driving more slowly helps reduce emissions.

But the restrictions, which were only supposed to last between 12 and 15 months, have now been running for more than two years, despite no evidence to show they are effective.

There are even questions over whether the increased congestion caused by the new speed limit may have actually increased pollution.

https://vnexplorer.net/motorway-60m...pite-no-evidence-that-they-work-s7360802.html

maximus otter
But were people driving at that speed anyway? A lot of people drive faster than 70 on normal motorways.
 

Trevp666

It was like that when I got here.........honest!!!
Joined
May 29, 2009
Messages
9,917
Location
Welwyn Garden City (but oddly, not an actual city)
I expect it is a fallacious argument that a lower speed means less pollution - it most likely takes exactly the same amount of energy to move a given mass over a given distance, regardless of the speed at which it happens, so the amount of pollution emitted would be roughly equal, allowing for stuff like 'drag' and 'friction'.
It is most likely yet another example of the general public having their freedoms impinged upon by a small group of eco-zealots without there being any science to back up their claims.
 

Mythopoeika

I am a meat popsicle
Joined
Sep 18, 2001
Messages
48,857
Location
Inside a starship, watching puny humans from afar
I expect it is a fallacious argument that a lower speed means less pollution - it most likely takes exactly the same amount of energy to move a given mass over a given distance, regardless of the speed at which it happens, so the amount of pollution emitted would be roughly equal, allowing for stuff like 'drag' and 'friction'.
It is most likely yet another example of the general public having their freedoms impinged upon by a small group of eco-zealots without there being any science to back up their claims.
Lower speeds are supposed to burn less fuel, but I'm thinking that the pollution levels will be broadly the same. There is probably not a huge measurable difference in emission levels.
 

maximus otter

Recovering policeman
Joined
Aug 9, 2001
Messages
11,534

Relying on wind power means Britons must get used to cutting energy use, says National Grid


Households will be paid to cut their electricity use at certain times more often in future as Britain relies on wind power as part of the push to net zero, National Grid has signalled.

Craig Dyke, head of national control at the electricity system operator, said it “strongly believes” in consumers becoming more flexible about when they use electricity as the energy system is overhauled.

It comes as households are paid to reduce electricity usage between 5pm and 6pm tonight as National Grid deploys its new scheme to help avert blackouts for the first time outside of testing.

Asked if similar schemes could become a “feature of British life” and be used regularly, Mr Dyke told the BBC “It’s something we strongly believe in.”

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/busines...grid-wind-power-cut-electricity-use-discount/

maximus otter
 
Last edited:
Top