• Welcome to DOSBODS

     

    DOSBODS is free of any advertising.

    Ads are annoying, and - increasingly - advertising companies limit free speech online. DOSBODS Forums are completely free to use. Please create a free account to be able to access all the features of the DOSBODS community. It only takes 20 seconds!

     

Sign in to follow this  
JackieO

Britain Signs £1 Trillion ‘Net Zero’ Carbon Suicide Note

Recommended Posts

Treasons parting shot

Quote

Treason May’s lame-duck government has gone ahead and signed the £1 trillion suicide note committing the UK to ‘Net Zero’ decarbonisation by 2050.

Do any of the incompetent, virtue-signalling pillocks — both on the Government and Opposition benches — who signed this piece of magical unicorn fairytale tosh have any idea what £1 trillion looks like?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Forget May

It's Net zero

(The following is copied from a post I just made on the "Next PM" thread)

I got wound up by an interview on Talk Radio yesterday by the radio host who one minute went from being bullish on the benefits of Brexit and bemoaning those who declared the sky would fall in, to the next segment where he sounded like a remainer by being defeatist about the Governments 2050 net zero Carbon target saying that the world was going to end and the sky would fall in. I wondered how someone could flip from optimistic to pessimistic so quickly. Why not take the 2050 net zero target as a great challenge to get our energy supply carbon free and, if we achieve that, what a great place Britain will be when it becomes unreliant upon fossil fuel imports. 

Let's be positive and have a bit of confidence in oursleves for a fekking change. And let's trample all over the dilatory and the defeatest.

Edited by Hopeful

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like so many things in the UK, the best thing I can suggest is to discuss how we can profit (see DBs posts about renewables) from this rather than moaning about it. While I do believe we should limit CO2 emissions and more importantly air quality and pollution, it must be done in a sensible and cost effective manner.

I've given up 'doing the right thing' for the country, its become increasingly a free for all, grab what you can, while you can for both individuals and business. I stay well within the law, but will do what I can to minimise what I give to the government in taxes. I no longer feel like I am part of a great country. At a local level, things can be very good in terms of society but at a national level not so good.

Ultimately, we will all be masters of our own demise, this behaviour is not what makes a great society and civilisation. Increasingly, the socialists will have to use technology and force to control the population.

Perhaps I am being a bit negative, I hope that one day we will get some leaders who can unite the country and bring us back from the current identity driven and divisive politics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Frank Hovis said:

Back to the stone age we go.

With peak oil ( I think you are an advocate?) we'll be going back to the stone age if we don't do this, surely?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Hopeful said:

Forget May

It's Net zero

(The following is copied form a post I just made on the "Next PM" thread)

I got wound up by an interview on Talk Radio yesterday by the radio host who one minute went from being bullish on the benefist of Brexit and bemoning those who declared the sky would fall in, to the next segment where the sounded like a remainer by being defeatist about the Governments 2050 net zero Carbon target saying that the world was going to end and the sky would fall in. I wondered how someone could flip from optimistic to pessimistic so quickly. Why not take the 2050 net zero target as a great challenge to get our energy supply carbon free, and if we achieve that, what a great place Britain will be, unreliant upon fossil fuel imports. 

Let's be positive and have a bt of confidence in oursleves for a fekking change. And let's trample all over the dilatory and the defeatest.

Yes I can't see a single reason why this shouldn't be possible, 2050 is 30 years away, technologies are improving all the time. The reasons for doing it, well, that's for debate - for me it's energy independence, others may say global warming, whatever.

The diminishing oil reserves may be needed for other stuff, stopping burning it seems like a good idea too.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, null; said:

Like so many things in the UK, the best thing I can suggest is to discuss how we can profit (see DBs posts about renewables) from this rather than moaning about it. While I do believe we should limit CO2 emissions and more importantly air quality and pollution, it must be done in a sensible and cost effective manner.

I've given up 'doing the right thing' for the country, its become increasingly a free for all, grab what you can, while you can for both individuals and business. I stay well within the law, but will do what I can to minimise what I give to the government in taxes. I no longer feel like I am part of a great country. At a local level, things can be very good in terms of society but at a national level not so good.

Ultimately, we will all be masters of our own demise, this behaviour is not what makes a great society and civilisation. Increasingly, the socialists will have to use technology and force to control the population.

Perhaps I am being a bit negative, I hope that one day we will get some leaders who can unite the country and bring us back from the current identity driven and divisive politics.

Too late for that. Demographics points to one direction only.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, swiss_democracy_for_all said:

Yes I can't see a single reason why this shouldn't be possible, 2050 is 30 years away, technologies are improving all the time. The reasons for doing it, well, that's for debate - for me it's energy independence, others may say global warming, whatever.

The diminishing oil reserves may be needed for other stuff, stopping burning it seems like a good idea too.

 

IMO the biggest thing we need to conserve petrochemicals for is food supply, agriculture and fisheries.

Edited by Hopeful

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, swiss_democracy_for_all said:

Yes I can't see a single reason why this shouldn't be possible, 2050 is 30 years away, technologies are improving all the time. The reasons for doing it, well, that's for debate - for me it's energy independence, others may say global warming, whatever.

The diminishing oil reserves may be needed for other stuff, stopping burning it seems like a good idea too.

 

Look at how much the UK electricity generation has changed over the last ten years. It will get harder as the levels of renewables increases but significant progress has been made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a feeling that it is on the way to happening anyway.  I think they should speed things up massively, as at the moment we've got increasing economic risk from having our economy hammered by an oil price spike.

But I would like it if they'd make a list of 'things that should be done', just so that people have an actual understanding of impact.  I suspect that for most people the answer in their heads is limited to fewer plastic straws and driving electric cars.  

There should be no doubt that there will be an impact on 'leisure travel' and the system should intrinsically cope with the concept of offshoring carbon -- there's no value in doing stuff that just moves emissions overseas.  Also, in order to fully meet this goal we need all products and services to have a 'carbon price' which includes the full-life carbon cost of the product/service, including sourcing, using and disposing of the product/service.  (this carbon price could then drive some sort of incentive/disincentive taxation system).

I'd also insist that population is on the list -- sheer numbers of people eating and pooing is a fundamental problem.  We have to have people (!), so this then boils down to 'which government policies have the effect of driving up the population?' -- which probably means controlling immigration and welfare incentives to have children (CTC/WTC/etc).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, null; said:

Look at how much the UK electricity generation has changed over the last ten years. It will get harder as the levels of renewables increases but significant progress has been made.

There are game-changing energy storage solutions that are in the process of moving into the mainstream, these are going to make it possible. A couple of different ones storing energy as heat using molten silicon look more than promising.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/natalieparletta/2019/04/03/new-thermal-battery-could-be-a-game-changer-for-storing-renewable-energy/#2c760edd4f95

 

The UK has been bloody slack though IMO in not developing the Severn estuary in one way or another, mainly because corrupt politicos couldn't think of a way to bleed money off it. The money that went to the banks in 2008 should have gone into this and other infrastructure projects IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The amusing thing is there is a reasonable chance that by 2050 we could be noticeably moving towards a cooling world stage.

Calls to pump out as much CO2 as possible would be plastered all over 13 year olds digital placards on their latest free day off school protesting event. xD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, A_P said:

TRIG - The Renewables Infrastructure Group :D

The two big wind farm and renewable  investment trusts in the FTSE 250 ( TRIG and UKW) have held a lot of would be new funding back because of investor fear over Jeremy Corbyn and McStalin.. Basically they want to take back control of these assets at or below nav. Any new investment in wind farms means investors stumping up the cash at a nav premium. Last one UKW 1.33 sub ipo against a nav of about 1.24

Nice to know Corbyn is doing his bit for global warming, which he would seek to accelerate by turning third worlders into UK consumers.

Edited by crashmonitor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Only a fraction of the £1 trillion will be spent as world doom arrives in 11years time.

May wants to be able to say she's not to blame as the catastrophe emerges in 11years time.

It's also poison pill expenditure for the UK (and her successor/successors) after independence being forced to borrow and tax to spend funds on such a narrow sector.  Her best pals the bankers will be rubbing their hands with glee as well of course.

Edited by twocents

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, snaga said:

isn't this really a stimulus policy by another name?

I suppose it's better than starting a war.

Cant they just build windmills with printed money?

Surely thats the way forward. Win Win. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Green Devil said:

Cant they just build windmills with printed money?

Surely thats the way forward. Win Win. 

Already happening. Nice business, if you can get it.

Actually NOTHING is zero carbon, and I think to admit it is a good thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Hopeful said:

Forget May

It's Net zero

(The following is copied from a post I just made on the "Next PM" thread)

I got wound up by an interview on Talk Radio yesterday by the radio host who one minute went from being bullish on the benefits of Brexit and bemoaning those who declared the sky would fall in, to the next segment where he sounded like a remainer by being defeatist about the Governments 2050 net zero Carbon target saying that the world was going to end and the sky would fall in. I wondered how someone could flip from optimistic to pessimistic so quickly. Why not take the 2050 net zero target as a great challenge to get our energy supply carbon free and, if we achieve that, what a great place Britain will be when it becomes unreliant upon fossil fuel imports. 

Let's be positive and have a bit of confidence in oursleves for a fekking change. And let's trample all over the dilatory and the defeatest.

Does "net zero" mean essentially "overall zero" - meaning we will just be offsetting our carbon footprint by planting loads of trees (or rather, paying a company to plant loads of trees, that doesn't actually plant half as many as it says, and pockets the rest).

Edited by spunko

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.