Stop-Oil in London today.

[Jonjon79 13,340]

4 minutes ago, Ken's Deputy said:

f**k that - time for a Jewish stocktake on that car

 

[chartpolski 20,367]

Didn't some yank drive his Tesla into the desert and set fire to it rather than pay the extortionate price they wanted for a new battery ?

And these fuckers want to force us to buy electric cars, while quadrupling the price of electricity !

Cheers.

[Bosun11 537]

Whilst i'm all for the cause, the action really is shite...

As said, they are only targeting those who the cause really affects.

I think it was in the 90's were a bunch of French farmers cut the throats of the sheep they were transporting to market, on the roadside, to prove what was wrong with export duties.

Now, lets rewind to 2004, when Otis and a few friends stormed Parliment Chambers. Inspired as that was, 'some' of us who where darrn sarrf  in the big smoke at that same time were on the recieving end of some 'decent' batton rash...

Hey, it done 'feck all' for our cause, so what the fecks this gonna do...

[Nicepix 5,650]

Any sympathy with the cause evaporates when you realise they haven't considered the alternatives. For every oil protester there will be an anti-nuclear protestor and an anti-windfarm protestor. For every insulate tosser there will be people unwilling to pay higher taxes to impliment it.

I suspect that many of them are just picking a cause to make them believe that they are saving the planet without realising the implications.

[Born Hunter 17,622]

50 minutes ago, Nicepix said:

Any sympathy with the cause evaporates when you realise they haven't considered the alternatives. For every oil protester there will be an anti-nuclear protestor and an anti-windfarm protestor. For every insulate tosser there will be people unwilling to pay higher taxes to impliment it.

I suspect that many of them are just picking a cause to make them believe that they are saving the planet without realising the implications.

Realistically the alternative the oil & gas is a small modular nuclear reactor in every city/county. Everything shipped by sea would need to be done so by a nuclear powered container ship (there's only one currently) and I can't think of any realistic alternative for aircraft other than biofuel or carbon capture (energy density of the fuel becomes very significant in this application and I don't think we should be putting reactors on 747s). Starting that nuclear revolution is as much of a non starter as ending the hydrocarbon one. 

The real workable solution to reducing carbon emissions is going to be much more moderate and the green mob will never be happy with it.

Edited August 27, 2022 by Born Hunter
Correction

[WILF 44,182]

1 hour ago, Born Hunter said:

Realistically the alternative the oil & gas is a small modular nuclear reactor in every city/county. Everything shipped by sea would need to be done so by a nuclear powered container ship (there's only one currently) and I can't think of any realistic alternative for aircraft other than biofuel or carbon capture (energy density of the fuel becomes very significant in this application and I don't think we should be putting reactors on 747s). Starting that nuclear revolution is as much of a non starter as ending the hydrocarbon one. 

The real workable solution to reducing carbon emissions is going to be much more moderate and the green mob will never be happy with it.

Now that I totally agree with, deforestation and mono culture agriculture are a biggy……keep paving over the places that can support forests and plants is actually making climate change worse.

Nature is a brilliant mechanism, leave it alone and it will do the job.

[WILF 44,182]

Lads you don’t have to support “the cause”……you have to support your own having a go at the government who has betrayed the country in all sorts of ways and us with it…….

If that causes a bit of inconvenience to our lives then it’s well worth it.

Seeing British people stand up for things may energise other British people to stand up for other things……but not if those same British people are calling anyone who dares to stick their head above the parapet all the c**ts under the sun.

”Defeating” these people isn’t just defeating them, it’s defeating ourselves.

[Born Hunter 17,622]

15 minutes ago, WILF said:

Now that I totally agree with, deforestation and mono culture agriculture are a biggy……keep paving over the places that can support forests and plants is actually making climate change worse.

Nature is a brilliant mechanism, leave it alone and it will do the job.

On a personal and selfish level I'm much more concerned with us as a species polluting and destroying nature than I am of carbon emissions.

[WILF 44,182]

7 minutes ago, Born Hunter said:

On a personal and selfish level I'm much more concerned with us as a species polluting and destroying nature than I am of carbon emissions.

We are part of nature, our land can support the natural population.

But we are putting it under un-natural stresses and destroying it to accommodate those stresses. 

Edited August 27, 2022 by WILF

[Francie 6,362]

But why oh why are we reducing a nutrient (co2) that plants an trees need to grow?

If we reduce co2 plants an trees won't grow therefore reducing owegyn output?

What's the sense in that?

[WILF 44,182]

4 minutes ago, Francie said:

But why oh why are we reducing a nutrient (co2) that plants an trees need to grow?

If we reduce co2 plants an trees won't grow therefore reducing owegyn output?

What's the sense in that?

This is why it feels off mate, you have politicians telling us we are producing too much Co2 as they are busy cutting down a tree…..

[Francie 6,362]

So, to put it simply, humans are producing more carbon dioxide. This carbon dioxide is causing more plant growth, and a higher capacity to suck up carbon dioxide. This process is called the “carbon dioxide fertilisation effect” – a phenomenon when carbon emissions boost photosynthesis and, in turn, plant growth.

[Born Hunter 17,622]

34 minutes ago, Francie said:

But why oh why are we reducing a nutrient (co2) that plants an trees need to grow?

If we reduce co2 plants an trees won't grow therefore reducing owegyn output?

What's the sense in that?

Just because something is a nutrient doesn't mean that it only does good and therefore the more the better. Nitrogen is a plant nutrient and look what unlimited quantities of that does to river systems. Sugar is a nutrient for us, a look what unlimited sugar intake does to us.

Reducing CO2 won't stop plants growing. Reducing atmospheric CO2 to nothing would, but no one is suggesting we do that. 

[Francie 6,362]

20 minutes ago, Born Hunter said:

Just because something is a nutrient doesn't mean that it only does good and therefore the more the better. Nitrogen is a plant nutrient and look what unlimited quantities of that does to river systems. Sugar is a nutrient for us, a look what unlimited sugar intake does to us.

Reducing CO2 won't stop plants growing. Reducing atmospheric CO2 to nothing would, but no one is suggesting we do that. 

Yes but we're not talking about nitrogen in rivers,we're talking of co2 born.

What will higher co2 do to the envoirment?

An sugar is not a nutrient,its a carb,there is no essential carbs lol

[Francie 6,362]

Doesn't matter anyway,Ireland puts out next to nothing on the co2,miniscule actually compared to other countries.

In a common sense world if we wanted to lower something,we would start with the highest contributors,an who is that in this world,its all the hypocrites calling for us peasants to lower ares,but what about there's,its a farce.

Start from the top down not the bottom up.

Irish traditions are under severe attack from these hypocrites pushing there co2 agenda.

THEY CAN GO AN f**k THEMSELVES

#STARTFROMTHETOP