What kind of father sacrifices his children in order, he thinks, to win an election

This may be of interest - from today's Guardian:

A billionaire global investor has led international condemnation of the UK’s new oil rush, saying he would pull his major investment from the country if the prime minister pursued “clickbait” fossil fuel policies.

The Australian iron ore entrepreneur Andrew Forrest, who also runs the Minderoo Foundation philanthropic organisation, threatened to move his investments out of the UK over Rishi Sunak’s swivel towards new oil and gas drilling.

Here's a link to the full article:

"A billionaire global investor has led international condemnation of the UK’s new oil rush, saying he would pull his major investment from the country if the prime minister pursued “clickbait” fossil fuel policies.

The Australian iron ore entrepreneur Andrew Forrest, who also runs the Minderoo Foundation philanthropic organisation, threatened to move his investments out of the UK over Rishi Sunak’s swivel towards new oil and gas drilling. "

Here's a link to the complete article

www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/aug/01/billionaire-investor-threatens-pull-out-uk-global-outcry-oil-rush-andrew-forrest

Northernlass

There was a time when sewage was chucked out into the streets. Then there were open sewers which fed into the Thames and cesspits in peoples' homes and gardens.

Then someone came up with the idea of an underground sewage system (the Romans had already thought of this centuries before) and in 1859 Joseph Bazalgette designed the sewage system for London. The work took 10 year from start to finish and included many pumping stations along the way so that the sewage was dumped into the Thames and taken away by the tide.

The last outbreak of cholera in London was in 1866 but that was in areas not yet connected to the sewage system.

In 1878 a pleasure steamer sank losing 650 lives, in an area where millions of gallons of sewage had been dumped.
Obviously that was a terrible tragedy that could not be allowed to happen again.

After several years of discussion and investigation it was decided that sewage should first go into tanks where the waste could be chemically treated and the liquid could be separated and shunted off into the Thames. The sludge was put into barges and dumped out at sea of more directly by long pipes. This practice continued well into the 20th century and was only largely prohibited in the 1990s. Unfortunately as we now know, some dumping was still allowed and advantage has been taken of those rules by the current water companies. But that's another story.

I have written this little history to show how things can change. A friend, who is anti wind power told me that in America there are dumps of the wings/blades from turbines that have been decommissioned. By the time the first generation solar panels are no longer used no doubt mankind will have thought of uses for them or how to recycle them. After all, tyres are recycled in many places to build earth houses.

Most of the work on sewage was during the governments of Gladstone and Disraeli, over a number of years. During the Victorian era many reforms which benefited a large part of the population were enacted. What is needed now is for a govt to enact reform for the present day. Whether the Labour Party has the guts to this is yet to be discovered.

4allweknow

Is it the LTN he is going to scrap or those stupid schemes whereby residents come out their drive and then have to go on a circular route about 5 miles longer than had they been allowed to drive directly to their destination. For oil and gas, we do import masses of both, some for production of electricity so why not produce our own, provide jobs. The carbon capture is already a feature in northern Scotland. Wonder how much natural resources are going to be needed for the production of electric car batteries, solar panels. Both have a limited lifespan, any ideas on how they will be disposed of en masse.

As I said in a previous post:

We really don't have a clue what we're doing

When I say we I mean the whole world, apart from a few scientists who are working hard to try to find solutions.

I’m all for fossil fuels.
I don’t think we will ever be totally reliant on green energy.
It’s just isn’t feasible for the vast majority of the population.

I can’t afford to replace my very reliable gas boiler or replace my diesel run car for an electric one.

Global warming will happen no matter what we do.
It might be delayed for a while longer, but it’s a natural occurrence. And as for ditching oil!
It’s never going to happen entirely.

Is it the LTN he is going to scrap or those stupid schemes whereby residents come out their drive and then have to go on a circular route about 5 miles longer than had they been allowed to drive directly to their destination. For oil and gas, we do import masses of both, some for production of electricity so why not produce our own, provide jobs. The carbon capture is already a feature in northern Scotland. Wonder how much natural resources are going to be needed for the production of electric car batteries, solar panels. Both have a limited lifespan, any ideas on how they will be disposed of en masse.

Perhaps Just Stop Oil were doing one of their slow marches and holding your bus up Plunger.

So the Mayor of London is bringing in ULEZ because air pollution from vehicles is killing people. But for £12.50 you can continue to kill people! It's a money making exercise. I use buses frequently rather than my car but they are unreliable. Just last week I waited 1hr 23mins for a bus that is supposed to run every 30mins. This was in a major British city. What if I needed to get to a hospital or dentist's appointment? My dentist charges for missed appointments ( not NHS as none available near me ) People cannot afford to be 90mins late for work, they would soon be sacked.

Cars can be recycled
www.scrapcarcomparison.co.uk/blog/what-does-my-scrap-car-become/

Northernlass

How many of us consider the embodied energy in the things we buy?

"Embodied energy, or “embedded energy,” is a concept that includes the energy required to extract raw materials from nature, plus the energy utilized in the manufacturing activities. Inevitably, all products and goods have inherent embodied energy. The closer a material is to its natural state at the time of use, the lower is its embodied energy. Sand and gravel, for example, have lower embodied energy as compared to copper wire."

- sciencedirect.com

This is why we're keeping our 2010 Prius for as long as we can.

So, the things we buy to be 'green' may not be so 'green' in the long run.

That’s what the article read years ago meant. I think.And why I bought a car thinking that it would last me a lifetime. My ex used to keep our cars going until the welding kit he kept in our garage could no longer cope with the rust. It was a sad day when our Morris 1000 Traveller got a red MOT certificate. I still have his number plate. It’s why I struggle to throw anything away knowing that it will end up in landfill. Our local recycling group takes in old chargers etc for recycling. I didn’t know that about Solar Power, though. That’s a bit of a blow. I’m having asbestos removed from my garage. I’ve been told that I have to remove my garage door. But I can’t find anyone who’ll remove it and put it back: only people that will sell me a new door.

Doodledog

Glorianny

It isn't just the health of children he is sacrificing and it isn't the energy needs of the British public he is focussing on.
Old people are badly affected by air pollution as well. And energy companies in the UK are not publicly owned, so the people who will benefit most from his actions are the already hugely profitable energy companies.
Not caring about the poor, the elderly and children, and passing legislation that will benefit the rich. It's still the Tory party isn't it.?

Are you suggesting that the sort of things that I, and others like me, are suggesting should be put in place first are signs that we don't care about the poor, the elderly or children, or is that just more unpleasantness?

The legislation that benefits the rich is the ability for those who can pay to continue to pollute. When China had a one-child policy it was easy for the rich to have more than one baby, whilst poor women had forced abortions if they couldn't pay the fines. That may be a very different circumstance, but the logic here is the same.

I was actually posting about the OP.
But as you asked
Why not subsidise public transport £150 million has been allocated www.intelligenttransport.com/transport-news/133545/uk-government-funding-protect-local-transport/
Why not plan new developments with schools and other facilities in them Government recommendations to LAs on development include school building www.gov.uk/government/publications/delivering-schools-to-support-housing-growth
And trees are being planted to prevent flooding www.gov.uk/government/news/hundreds-of-trees-planted-in-a-pilot-to-help-reduce-flood-risk

I'm simply pointing out that profit is the main aim of the energy and oil companies and also Rishi Sunak's ideal. And green energy has no attraction for them.

Northernlass

I think today's a down day for me: realising that we've well and truly f****d up our world

It's the filthy messes everywhere that are so depressing - land, rivers and seas. Illicit and prescription drugs are being found in marine life.

I've just heard today about huge blades from defunct wind turbines which have been dumped in the Australian rainforest.

We really don't have a clue what we're doing.

When I said that we need a decrease in population for the Earth to survive, I was told we need younger workers to pay our pensions.
Short-term gain, long-term pain.

I had a muse this morning and, even if humans don't survive global warming, some creatures will and some plants will thrive. As the Earth becomes reforested, more carbon dioxide will be absorbed, the Earth will cool and there could be another Ice Age.
Then something cataclysmic would have to occur to start the process all over again.

I sound like Hosea.

Doodledog

Not 18 year olds, probably, but a 7 year old diesel car doesn't seem ancient to me.

I agree. We have a pretty old one, too. But did diesel sales start dropping off once the particulate problem was highlighted?

And I do appreciate that it hit diesel van owners. though I think that a lot more vans are petrol these days. I shall have to see if I can find figures.

I have found figures for the number of registered cars on the road, annually post 2007, you can see the decided move towards lower emissions vehicles. But, of course, there's no indication of relative ages of the registered vehicles.

How many of us consider the embodied energy in the things we buy?

"Embodied energy, or “embedded energy,” is a concept that includes the energy required to extract raw materials from nature, plus the energy utilized in the manufacturing activities. Inevitably, all products and goods have inherent embodied energy. The closer a material is to its natural state at the time of use, the lower is its embodied energy. Sand and gravel, for example, have lower embodied energy as compared to copper wire."

- sciencedirect.com

This is why we're keeping our 2010 Prius for as long as we can.

So, the things we buy to be 'green' may not be so 'green' in the long run.

M0nica

Doodledog Someone with a 20 year old ULEZ compliant car is doing as much for the environment, if not more than someone who sells a 5 year old car to buy an electric car.

Absolutely. The whole thing is based on unsound principles.

orly

Absolutely over-the-top, irrational comment! Talk about melodramatic - "won't someone think of the children'

When Sunak was going for the PM job, he told Andrew Marr
"I have two young girls, 9 and 11. The one thing they do ask me about is: What are you doing about the environment, Daddy?"

I think today's a down day for me: realising that we've well and truly f****d up our world

Solar panels have their place. Their life span is 25-30 years. How many people know that they contain toxic chemicals and their disposal and/or recycling is problematic?

With few environmental journalists willing to report on much of anything other than the good news about renewables, it’s been left to environmental scientists and solar industry leaders to raise the alarm.

“I’ve been working in solar since 1976 and that’s part of my guilt,” the veteran solar developer told Solar Power World last year. “I’ve been involved with millions of solar panels going into the field, and now they’re getting old.”

The Trouble With Solar Waste

The International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) in 2016 estimated there was about 250,000 metric tonnes of solar panel waste in the world at the end of that year. IRENA projected that this amount could reach 78 million metric tonnes by 2050.

Solar panels often contain lead, cadmium, and other toxic chemicals that cannot be removed without breaking apart the entire panel. “Approximately 90% of most PV modules are made up of glass,” notes San Jose State environmental studies professor Dustin Mulvaney. “However, this glass often cannot be recycled as float glass due to impurities. Common problematic impurities in glass include plastics, lead, cadmium and antimony.”

Our car is 7 years old and it is fuelled by diesel to which is added a product called AdBlue which helps to reduce harmful emissions. Every car built since September 2015 uses this product. Whether it can be used in older diesels I don't know.

I thought the situation in outer London was worse than it actually is, note the percentage change in polluting vehicle ownership since 2020.
tfl.gov.uk/info-for/media/press-releases/2023/march/over-90-per-cent-of-cars-driving-in-outer-london-now-meet-the-ulez-standards

Has anyone seen the floods in Beijing?
I’ll leave it there 😉

Doodledog Someone with a 20 year old ULEZ compliant car is doing as much for the environment, if not more than someone who sells a 5 year old car to buy an electric car.

Agreed, Dinahmo. Maybe if they took a more intersectional approach to their policies and considered their likely impact on all sections of society we wouldn't be in the state we are in now.

Instead, as you say, they have pushed for an approach which alienates and disadvantage large numbers of people, and are now rolling back support just before a General Election, presumably in the hope of embarrassing rival parties into making U turns and appearing to be unreliable if they follow suit.

Does it matter to those in the UK what China and the US does regarding pollution? Obviously it affects global climates but it is homegrown pollution that is affecting peoples' health.

Doodledog All the things you mention in your last paragraph, if implemented, would provide work for thousands of people as well as helping to improve the atmosphere in the towns and cities. Unfortunately this costs money, which according to the govt. the country doesn't have, but which isn't true.

After WW2 the NHS was introduced, the school age was increased to 15 with the 1944 Education Act and there was a large building programme, providing decent housing for people. All these cost money, which was found and provided employment and helped to the reduction of the country's debt.

It seems to me, in some respects, that the govt just don't care about the ordinary working people who are the backbone of the country. They are more concerned with pushing through their idealogies. Most of htem won't care because they'll have bu....ed of to California. Where they might find it rather too hot and very polluted. All that smog in LA and the fumes from the forest fires!

Glorianny

It isn't just the health of children he is sacrificing and it isn't the energy needs of the British public he is focussing on.
Old people are badly affected by air pollution as well. And energy companies in the UK are not publicly owned, so the people who will benefit most from his actions are the already hugely profitable energy companies.
Not caring about the poor, the elderly and children, and passing legislation that will benefit the rich. It's still the Tory party isn't it.?

Are you suggesting that the sort of things that I, and others like me, are suggesting should be put in place first are signs that we don't care about the poor, the elderly or children, or is that just more unpleasantness?

The legislation that benefits the rich is the ability for those who can pay to continue to pollute. When China had a one-child policy it was easy for the rich to have more than one baby, whilst poor women had forced abortions if they couldn't pay the fines. That may be a very different circumstance, but the logic here is the same.