And this ain’t it:
Globally, an individual from the wealthiest 1 percent of the population consumes 175 times as much carbon as someone from the poorest 10 percent
Presumably eating the charcoal briquette rather than cooking with it is what causes the poverty.
“70 percent of voters on average in contested marginal seats across the North and Midlands considered climate important to how they voted,”
Seriously?
the bastard child of evil consumption with wicked carbon- duh du durrr— behold “carbon consumption”
The climate emergency is an existential and deepening threat.
The very first sentence is entirely false so it is reasonable to assume that everything that follows is utter bollocks.
Of course, If those voters really believed that the ‘Climate Crisis’ was such a big issue, requiring radical policies that just must be implemented now before it’s too late (again), those voters would have voted for a party advocating just such radical policies wouldn’t they?
UK General election 2019 – Green Party 2.7%. Expressed versus revealed preference as you’ve mentioned Tim.
p.s. In the States, Pew Research carries out an annual survey on the subjects citizens care most about. Climate Change is 17th out of 18 this year (down from 16th last year).
A while back, The Sunday Times ran an article about living off grid. Those featured were somewhat smug about their lives, cooking on an open fire and not being connected to mains drainage. How ironic, therefore, that the best thing we can do to help the world’s poorest, is to help them not to cook on an open fire, and connect them to clean sanitation.
Beyond the Red Wall are rumblings of a new revolt, utterly unanticipated by No 10 and overlooked by a liberal media still shell-shocked by the election. With its drive to “green” the economy at any cost, the Tory party has seemingly decided to celebrate its populist landslide by bogging down the country in zero-carbon paternalism. And so we career towards another People vs Establishment conflict that could be more explosive even than that sparked by the referendum.
It is becoming disturbingly apparent that the Government prizes green targets over “unleashing” Britain’s potential. The cast-iron case for a road-building revolution, for example, clangs a little too harshly against the hollowness of eco-politan sensibilities. Whitehall is genuinely convinced that Red Wall utopia is cycling to work from a rabbit hutch on the outskirts of Birmingham. They find the idea that people might actually aspire to drive to their downtown office from their semi-detached in Dudley, and at the weekends cruise, sunroof down, to the Bullring for shopping, completely ghastly.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/03/05/political-storm-green-targets-will-even-bigger-brexit/
‘Globally, an individual from the wealthiest 1 percent of the population consumes 175 times as much carbon as someone from the poorest 10 percent’
Crystal clear then that their goal is not to help ‘the poorest 10 percent,’ but to crush the ‘wealthiest 1 percent.’
They are vile. They breed envy. And will exploit the poor to gain political advantage.
‘… the poorest 10 percent…’
That would be about 6billion burning wood and animal dung, composed of carbon compounds and releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide plus other noxious compounds plus carbon aka soot. These emissions cannot be measured or even guessed at. It has an evident negative effect on air-quality and causes a high occurrence of respiratory diseases including cancers and deaths therefrom.
The amount of carbon dioxide produced by the richest 90% is unknown because it is also impossible to measure. So it is estimated from fossil fuel sales, ‘typical’ emissions from engines and power stations and assigned, supposed emissions from other activities.
Just like the rest of the climatevirus panic epidemic it is all made up.
CO2 emissions from plant-based sources are given zero rating for greenhouse effect because this is offset by new plant growth, but there is a multiple decades long lag between emission and absorption. The ‘climate’ cannot tell the difference between CO2 molecules from different sources nor is their greenhouse effect deferred because they will later be captured from the atmosphere. In any case 50% of CO2 emissions from fossil fuels are captured from the atmosphere within 12 months.
So the greenhouse effect from the 10% poorest is significant but ignored because it cannot be measured. It could be there would be lower emissions if they could replace wood and dung fires with electricity from fossil fuels, and certainly it would bring about a significant improvement in health and quality of life.
John B – those soot particles probably help with the albedo effect though.
“That would be about 6billion burning wood and animal dung”
I’ve told you a million times not to exaggerate. It’s more like 2 billion.
“composed of carbon compounds and releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide plus other noxious compounds plus carbon aka soot”
Vast?
Humans are pip-squeaks in the vast atmosphere of things.
Bernie G.
“70 percent of voters on average in contested marginal seats across the North and Midlands considered climate important to how they voted,”
Seriously?
It’s important to me, I won’t vote for anyone who falls for the the climate catastrophe crap.
‘Consumes’ infers it’s used and gone: bollocks, the carbon is recycled and reused – ain’t that what greenies want?
History says it’s not a profound danger
The History of Climate Cycles (and the Woolly Rhino) Explained
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUdtcx-6OBE
Guess what, Man not to blame. Woolly Rhino’s industrial revolution yet to be discovered
@DocBud March 8, 2020 at 11:33 am & March 8, 2020 at 12:01 pm
@John B March 8, 2020 at 1:47 pm
@Gamecock March 8, 2020 at 3:08 pm
Correct
The political storm over green targets will be even bigger than Brexit; Sherelle Jacobs, 5 March 2020 6:00am
Full article
Podcast
https://cf-particle-html.eip.telegraph.co.uk/a21940ae-0e59-40ff-8a26-b1c2436bf745.html
@Richard
Quotes:
A mess, fix is:
– Not italicised
– Not line/para breaks removed
Please make it so
Bernie G. said:
“ ’70 percent of voters on average in contested marginal seats across the North and Midlands considered climate important to how they voted’ Seriously?”
Aye, they deliberately chose the party that was spouting the least eco-crap.
Important in choosing how to vote, yes. But clearly not in the way the greenies want it to mean.
The ‘carbon free breakthrough’ took place 70 odd years ago with the development of nuclear power. We all know what the greenies think of that. It’d be like pointing out to them that the simplest off-the-shelf carbon free energy storage is a dam.