2112 Posted December 10, 2021 Share Posted December 10, 2021 3 hours ago, Raffles said: Quite. The world is burning but stu is happy because he might get a better tan on his flabby arse. https://www.change.org/p/isle-of-man-government-no-fossil-fuel-extraction-fight-climate-change Just looked at this so called ‘petition’ which was launched 3 years ago. I’m afraid it is really struggling and shows how the Manx public aren’t that geared up to the ‘climate change revolutionaries’ and all the left wing green Marxist shite attached to it. People care more for trees being destroyed as it was Government which was in concert to destroy the trees. If the organisers of this petition couldn’t get the goal of signatures, when Daffy & co we’re having mini tantrums and shouting no no no, then there is no real chance of genuinely bringing people on board. People will change their habits if persuaded without being lectured or bullied and legislated against. No doubt I will be criticised here …………..awaiting name calling etc. 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2112 Posted December 10, 2021 Share Posted December 10, 2021 2 hours ago, Happier diner said: Energy storage is a rapidly advancing technology. For example you can pump water uphill into a reservoir in times of excess and release via hydro electric at times of need - That would be incredibly expensive as we do not have the infrastructure or the height. Also pumps are only about 80% efficient and hydros less so. Its not a great idea for us We also have a bidirectional interconnector. That is at the limit of its capacity Yes and something that the middle chattering classes, the Guardianistas and Daffy can afford. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted December 10, 2021 Share Posted December 10, 2021 My position: 1. Don't know if climate change is man name or can be reversed, but the continued use of fossil fuels is not sustainable not least from the environmental impact of extraction and pollution, but also because they are finite. Anyone remember peak oil? 2. Waste of any description is just bad, re-using finite resources makes sense. 3. Man should impact the natural world as little as possible, everything on the planet deserves to be allowed to co-exist without threat from human activity. We have already exploited the natural world and it is time to limit that and to re-use as much of the natural resource extracted as possible. What we do need to continue to extract should be done so ethically, and I include farming in that. 4. Food subsidies should be considered very carefully. It does not make sense that it costs more to raise a cow for slaughter than it will earn wthout them or that it is cheaper to buy lamb from the other side of the world than reared on the side of Snaefell. Subsidies should be used to encourage more ethical and sustainable production, and we in the developed world need to understand the real value and cost of the food we eat. I agree with 2112, these things won't be achieved overnight and persuasion rather than haranguing will win the day. It needs to be planned and transitional, but IMHO, it needs to happen. Ready for the backlash, but I didn't even mention the real problem and that is an ever growing human population. Fire away. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Mexico Posted December 10, 2021 Share Posted December 10, 2021 35 minutes ago, 2112 said: No doubt I will be criticised here …………..awaiting name calling etc. 32 minutes ago, 2112 said: Yes and something that the middle chattering classes, the Guardianistas and Daffy can afford. Yes, someone calling you names would be terrible. 2 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2112 Posted December 10, 2021 Share Posted December 10, 2021 5 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said: Yes, someone calling you names would be terrible. I can take it and criticism, doesn’t bother me. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hissingsid Posted December 10, 2021 Author Share Posted December 10, 2021 If the people really supported the Green Party I think they would have some representation in our Parliament. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2112 Posted December 10, 2021 Share Posted December 10, 2021 56 minutes ago, hissingsid said: If the people really supported the Green Party I think they would have some representation in our Parliament. What i think you will find is on the doorstep, whilst canvassing for votes, candidates were probably given positive feedback, in some cases lionised on IOMNP Facebook. However when it comes to voting, serious thought is given (in most cases) to who is given that vote. The voters spoke in the election and we should respect that view. What I find positively annoying is the stance taken by some MHKs who are merely thinking about their own views as opposed to what’s good for the island. Every decision these politicos make will have consequences whether we like it or not. These consequences may involve costs which will be passed on to the consumer. It’s well and good when you have a nice salary, or have Daddy who will support you with wrapping paper, broken biscuits and Christmas cards. MHKs can afford the electric costs, the gas costs and some can easily afford solar panels and heat pumps etc. Lots can’t - but they will bear some form of costs. Demonising the GMP and making out that if they are against their climate change plans, they are regarded as ‘deniers’ and also ‘evil people’ is also nasty and socially divisive. This is evident if you see some of the posters on IOMNP Facebook who I would say make some unsavoury comments. Im not denying climate change, but it’s doubtful that the IOMs contribution will make a difference in the grand scheme. It’s a way of left leaning middle class chattering classes to absolve their own conscience, a get out of jail free card. If these loudmouth politicos practiced what they preach then maybe, I would have more respect and b) perhaps they would encourage others to adopt a more climate/environment awareness. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A fool and his money..... Posted December 10, 2021 Share Posted December 10, 2021 (edited) 2 hours ago, Gladys said: My position: 1. Don't know if climate change is man name or can be reversed, but the continued use of fossil fuels is not sustainable not least from the environmental impact of extraction and pollution, but also because they are finite. Anyone remember peak oil? 2. Waste of any description is just bad, re-using finite resources makes sense. 3. Man should impact the natural world as little as possible, everything on the planet deserves to be allowed to co-exist without threat from human activity. We have already exploited the natural world and it is time to limit that and to re-use as much of the natural resource extracted as possible. What we do need to continue to extract should be done so ethically, and I include farming in that. 4. Food subsidies should be considered very carefully. It does not make sense that it costs more to raise a cow for slaughter than it will earn wthout them or that it is cheaper to buy lamb from the other side of the world than reared on the side of Snaefell. Subsidies should be used to encourage more ethical and sustainable production, and we in the developed world need to understand the real value and cost of the food we eat. I agree with 2112, these things won't be achieved overnight and persuasion rather than haranguing will win the day. It needs to be planned and transitional, but IMHO, it needs to happen. Ready for the backlash, but I didn't even mention the real problem and that is an ever growing human population. Fire away. No backlash from me, you talk a lot of sense. In regards your first point. Climate change is very much man-made and is very much not reversible. Enough is known about the history of our planet to be entirely certain on both counts. ETA Should probably say, not reversible in any timescale that is meaningful to our species. Edited December 10, 2021 by A fool and his money..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finlo Posted December 10, 2021 Share Posted December 10, 2021 11 minutes ago, A fool and his money..... said: No backlash from me, you talk a lot of sense. In regards your first point. Climate change is very much man-made and is very much not reversible. Enough is known about the history of our planet to be entirely certain on both counts. If it's non reversible why are they proposing to bankrupt us trying? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A fool and his money..... Posted December 10, 2021 Share Posted December 10, 2021 18 hours ago, Gladys said: Moral fortitude ain't going to boil the kettle, chum. This is an opportunity to have the funds, and breathing space, to put in place alternatives. If the gas was turned off tomorrow, what would you do? I am really interested in how you think people would cope or, more particularly, how you would. If the gas were turned off tomorrow how would you cope? Renewables need investment and infrastructure to implement, gas is no different. It isn't going to extract itself from the ground. If you're worried about the gas being turned off tomorrow then you're a good few years too late I'm afraid. Funny how energy security suddenly becomes a pressing consideration when someone is going to make some money out of solving it. We've been at the mercy of international mineral supply for generations. When it comes to the new natural resources we have an abundance ourselves. It blows a hoolie for 3 seasons of the year and we have long hours of daylight for the other one because of our latitude. Not to mention our tidal range and lengthy coastline, favourable topography and most of all our proximity to any of above we decide to use. We should be world leaders in renewables not debating whether to enter the fossil fuel industry well over a century too late. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Non-Believer Posted December 10, 2021 Share Posted December 10, 2021 10 minutes ago, finlo said: If it's non reversible why are they proposing to bankrupt us trying? Punishment for doing it.... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A fool and his money..... Posted December 10, 2021 Share Posted December 10, 2021 11 minutes ago, finlo said: If it's non reversible why are they proposing to bankrupt us trying? Who's they? I'm not aware of anyone proposing that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finlo Posted December 10, 2021 Share Posted December 10, 2021 5 minutes ago, A fool and his money..... said: Who's they? I'm not aware of anyone proposing that. Trying to ram heat pumps and the cost of running them down our throats for starters. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A fool and his money..... Posted December 10, 2021 Share Posted December 10, 2021 16 minutes ago, finlo said: Trying to ram heat pumps and the cost of running them down our throats for starters. Yes but they're trying to slow climate change, not reverse it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lagman Posted December 11, 2021 Share Posted December 11, 2021 9 hours ago, A fool and his money..... said: Yes but they're trying to slow climate change, not reverse it. Good luck - https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/jun/30/five-asian-countries-80-percent-new-coal-power-investment "China, India, Indonesia, Japan and Vietnam plan to build more than 600 coal power units" Only white people fall for these things. Reminder - the UK effects less than 1% percent of the environment, the IOM doesn't even register on any scale. 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.