Liz Truss has told King Charles not to go to the COP27 meeting next month

Is she Camilla?
Telling Charles to ignore La Truss and do his duty to the world?

Given his years of environmental campaigning he must be pretty cheesed off.

Up the Revolution

I use her quite a lot Prentice

so that is the head banging girl, this is good, I would like that to use sometimes.
Yes, I can imagine it would have been good PR indeed, he has been before when he was a Prince.I would like to know why the Palace thought it may be doubtful to go so asked advice and why the said advice was given, so that we need speculate no more.

Can you imagine how it would have looked if the new and well-respected King of such an important country ( cough ) had done what he has always done and come to a huge international conference to champion the response to the biggest threat facing humanity? Because that's what it is. To ask people to step up and do their part? There are thousands of people at COP, they don't all go there to make commitments. They go for PR, which is something the King is a past master at.

volver

That's so wrong. Where's my headbanging girl? It does not have to come from political figures. Where does Attenborough fit in this? Is he political?

The King doesn't need to give assurances about how the UK will spend money on this problem, but he should be there to help keep attention on something that is not political, but will cause us until issues across the globe in the future.

All that soft power that the RF are meant to have - this is an ideal opportunity to use it. But it doesn't suit Truss's vision of the future, so - stay at home Charlie.

Headbanging girl Volver who is this, your granddaughter perhaps?
I do realise that the King can still have and keep his own opinions, but perhaps politicians from other countries would seek to use him somehow?There must be good reasons for the advice not to go.Or could it be for security reasons, now that he is the King? Mr Attenborough can do and say far more I think from his position of private citizen but also well known and liked for his green credentials. Perhaps we will find out more about this matter, as everything is leaked now.

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/oct/01/king-charles-abandons-plans-to-attend-cop27-following-liz-trusss-advice

Doodledog

A GE would be good, and even better if the new PM brought in laws to limit the powers of the government, and make clear the limits of their reach into the fabric of our democratic system.

I don't want to derail the thread, but it's a safe bet that we will have a new government soonish. How much of the damage the Tories have done to democracy can realistically be reversed when that happens? Have we become less democratic for all time, or can things be rolled back?

Oh, do derail it Doodledog. The comment in the title was denied in the middle of yesterday. It's old spiteful gossip not new spiteful gossip.

until untold

That's so wrong. Where's my headbanging girl? It does not have to come from political figures. Where does Attenborough fit in this? Is he political?

The King doesn't need to give assurances about how the UK will spend money on this problem, but he should be there to help keep attention on something that is not political, but will cause us until issues across the globe in the future.

All that soft power that the RF are meant to have - this is an ideal opportunity to use it. But it doesn't suit Truss's vision of the future, so - stay at home Charlie.

It is reported that the Palace sought the opinion of the government on this matter, and that he was advised not to go.
I think he really knew that he could not carry on as before once he became the King.
He cannot give any assurances on matters to do with climate change on what the UK will do or needs to do.
It does not matter, there are plenty of people who can do this for him, but it has to come from political figures.

Whatever valid points Epstein may make about the phasing out of fossil fuels they are entirely negated by the position that the climate change that is happening is "manageable".

Hurricane Ian? European heat waves? Forest fires in Europe and Australia? What's his view? That it's just collateral damage and we need to suck it up?

I agree, anno. I don’t know if Epstein does too. His argument is not about not eliminating fossil fuels ever, it’s saying that eliminating them by 2050 is unrealistic given the current state of world energy needs and the manageable climate change that is happening.

The UK may not have perpetual sunshine nor does the wind constantly turn the turbines as often or as long as some may have expected, but in this country we are in a prime position to exploit the potential of wave and tidal power. Better get on with it!

Geothermal only happens in a few places. Iceland is hardly typical of most of the world.

I don't think you know what geothermal is.

education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/geothermal-energy

Tidal and wave technology (hydro too) also depend on fossil fuels to get built and be maintained... because we haven't invested enough in renewables to replace the fossil fuels industries' yet. Electricity is electricity, whether it's generated by fossil fuels or twirling turbines. Or the hot, hot Earth....

volver

Just to say - renewables does not equal solar and wind.

Renewables = solar, wind, hydro, geothermal, wave, tidal....

Yes, indeed, but many environmentalists are against hydro.

Geothermal only happens in a few places. Iceland is hardly typical of most of the world.

Tidal and wave technology (hydro too) also depend on fossil fuels to get built and be maintained.

I don't have a lot of respect for people who dismiss a book they haven't read. However, I don't expect to convince die-hard fossil fuel haters. My suggestion is for people like me who used to be terrified about climate change but now see a more nuanced picture.

The current energy crisis is not all Putin's fault. European countries in particular have made silly decisions before lookng at the whole picture. Look at Germany's dependence on Russsian gas instead of securing its own energy production. Daft.

Just to say - renewables does not equal solar and wind.

Renewables = solar, wind, hydro, geothermal, wave, tidal....

no getting around the fact that renewables, so far, are not as reliable as fossil fuels nor that they depend on fossil fuelled machines to make the concrete and steel they need and to mine for the rare earth minerals they need also.

That may well be the most short sighted and uneducated comment about renewables it's possible to make, but not unexpected. Please don't get me started on nuclear. I've ranted on at length about renewables and nuclear on GN so I won't do it again.

Sorry to hear about your daughter Baggs

Sorry for the diversion Alie2Oxon

Have read a few pages and it's good but it's rather out of date. A lot has happened since 2015 when it was published and yet, for example, people in Texas and California which it speaks of as good examples of states using renewable power electricity (10.6% and 25% repsectively) have suffered a lot of power cuts since because they did not also have fossil fueled back-up for when the wind didn't blow or the sun didn't shine.

I'll carry on reading for balance but there's no getting around the fact that renewables, so far, are not as reliable as fossil fuels nor that they depend on fossil fueled machines to make the concrete and steel they need and to mine for the rare earth minerals they need also.

I've yet to be convinced so-called renewables can replace fossil fuels for quite a while to come (which is what Epstein argues), especially as the people who argue for the elimination of fossil fuels also argue against nuclear power which could, in due course, replace fossil fuels.

Right now my eldest daughter is awaiting surgery for a brain tumour. I'm extremely glad that hospitals don't rely on unreliable renewable energy and that fossil fuels have contributed (made possible, even) the modern surgical technology and equipment that treatment of conditions like hers absolutely needs.

Thanks, V.

Maybe it comes from people who have actually worked on climate change?

Here's one: www.eba-net.org/assets/1/6/24-327-353-Freeman_FINAL_%5b11.10%5d.pdf

Please could you point me to the refutations you mention.

On the last thread, a few weeks ago, that you brought Epstein up on, Baggs

Whitewavemark2

volver

Whitewavemark2

Room for all opinions on GN

Not climate change denial though. That's not an opinion, it's a delusion.

No I know, but Epstein has been brought up before and his denial refuted, so I ignored it.

Please could you point me to the refutations you mention.

He doesn't deny climate change so I'm rather at a loss to understand where that comes from – not from anyone who has read his books anyway.

WWM2, Alie2Oxon ??

volver

Whitewavemark2

Room for all opinions on GN

Not climate change denial though. That's not an opinion, it's a delusion.

No I know, but Epstein has been brought up before and his denial refuted, so I ignored it.