On Mon, 14 Oct 2019 10:26:36 -0700 (PDT), Trailer Trash
wrote:

On Monday, October 14, 2019 at 6:05:35 PM UTC+2, Norman Lynagh wrote:
The Queen's Speech today set out proposals for 26 Bills. Not one of
them appears to mention climate change despite the fact that it is
probably the most important single issue faced by the country and the
world in the coming years. I'm not impressed.

Did they mention cancers? Nuclear power? Building a telescope on the
Moon? Further empowering Hollywood to restrict our ability to back-up
our DVD's? Any of a million other things which they may add into the
business of the next parliamentary lifetime?

Not having it on the front page does not indicate whether it is on
Page Three or not.


--

No space before the "--". That way, real news-reader clients won't
copy your signature in replies. Google will continue to do whatever it
does, of course.

"dash dash space carriage-return/newline".



Norman Lynagh
Tideswell, Derbyshire
303m a.s.l.
https://peakdistrictweather.org
twitter: @TideswellWeathr

You must be aware that UK produces only about 2% of CO2 emissions.
Without agreeing or disagreeing whether man made global warming
is a fact surely, whatever UK does, will not make the slightest
difference.

Reducing UKland's contribution to zero would most certainly make a
difference ... of 2%. [Assuming your figures are accurate.]

While that may not be enormous, it is still useful and the example
set by doing it *may* trigger the consciences - poor, vestigial,
shrunken and unused things though they be - of the USAliens and
others. Yes, I know how unlikely that is but it is *possible*.

Indeed, it may be possible for UKland to plant more trees, breed more
coastal waters phytoplankton, cover its roads and buildings with
mosses and lichens and do other things to sequester carbon [spray
carbonates onto the chalk cliffs to make them thicker and thus safer,
breed bugs, bug-eating birds, bird-eating critters and critter-eating
dragons to live in the woods and fill the phytoplankton-filled inshore
waters with fishes and other organic things, for examples] [we are as
individuals and collectively already sequestrating carbon as plastics
so that's a nice thing. All we need do is increase that by a very
large factor.] so our contribution drops to *less* than zero; possibly
many lots less than zero. Maybe even sufficiently less than zero to
offset some of the larger contributors.

Ye Olde Britain used to have large forests, just after the mile-thick
sheets of ice retreated back to just south of Glasgow and Emmbra. It
would not take long to begin to rebuild those.

I realise that politically such a notion is a non-starter and about
as likely as dropping B.S.T., regularising the date of Easter, banning
Party Political Broadcasts permanently and the annual aural assault of
Christmas music in public buildings until the twentieth of December
but it is *possible*, in the same sense as building a city in Eros or
dropping all D.R.M. would be.

In a different vein, there may be a "Catastrophe Mathematics" style
situation where even a 2% contribution may mean the difference between
tipping over a hump and not, so decreasing UKland's output *might*
prevent the extinction by Cytheraformation of the planet. That's about
as likely as a virtuous politician becoming P.M. but it, too, is
"possible" and is yet another reason for us doing something as opposed
to **** all.

Ask China and India to cut down emissions and you could be in business.

That has been tried. It doesn't work well. One might as well ask them
to reduce their populations; that would have a similar level of
success.

It may be noted that few, if any, Queen's Speeches have referenced
proposals to reduce the UKland population which many see as far more
important than our individual impact on the planet.

Were the global human population never more than a hundred million or
so, A.G.W. should not be an issue, there would not be Great Garbage
Gyres and the rainforests would probably not be on the verge of
extinction as even the fattest of USAliens would then not need so many
burgers as they now do. One can only eat so many ten-pound steaks per
day, no matter how assiduously one works at it - even if puréed - as
the human gullet is limited in cross-section. Fewer humans, fewer
cows, less grassland that was once rainforest, more rainforest. It's
an appealing, if simplistic model.

In addition, each of those people would be *vastly* richer than we
are as individuals.

Until the innovation pool dried up.

J.