Connect with like-minded education professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.
Don't forget to look at the how to guide.
Discussion in 'Personal' started by emerald52, Jan 23, 2020.
Get your info from an expert like Prof. Kevin Anderson, not New Statesmen. They might not be purposefully deceiving us, but the writer is incorrect according to world experts on the subject.
'It excludes the embodied carbon in imports. AND it does not properly include international aviation and shipping. The government just says: “For now, therefore, we will continue to leave headroom for emissions from international aviation and shipping in carbon budgets…”'
Why not append a list of your approved sources? It would save so much time.
UK claims exclude emissions from international aviation, shipping and imports.
It refers to the UK's "territorial emissions" - that is a measure of what happens within the country's borders, including things such as heating and powering homes, transport, domestic industry and agriculture.
On this measure, the UK's estimated overall carbon footprint in 2016 was about 10% lower than in 1997 when it first published these figures.
So, yes, when counted correctly, the reduction is only 10%. Remarkably, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) produces figures on "consumption emissions" - a measure of emissions based on everything the UK uses, including imports. These are not used as official figures though.
Amazing, but true.
I give people the benefit of the doubt when it comes to them being able to work out if the New Statesmen parroting government nonsense is more reliable than world-leading experts in the field of carbon budgets.
Silly of me. This is TES. Where complete novices know everything.
Yet they cannot see and/or understand scientific fraud when it is right in front of them!
I didn't lecture you, and funny thing is I'm feeling bullied by you but didn't think it worth starting an argument about it. All this from you because I asked a simple question, whether you thought 2 was a large family? What is your response? I'm lecturing you, I'm the same as Prince Charles (apparently a very bad thing), and I'm bullying you. Others can see what I posted and make up their own mind how ridiculous that is, but if you believe I have bullied you why aren't you reporting me to mods and let them decide?
Would you like to answer my straightforward question about family size?
Posters often disagree with me, sometimes robustly, but only you are so rude to me. I shan't bother responding to your posts in future. There, you've won.
Some posters are missing the point which is...
Its not about making excuses. Either you care or not. Just say 'I'm not bothered about the planet' if you can't be a rsed to travel to work on a bus just because it takes an hour instead of 15 minutes.
At the moment of course a bus will take longer. You may have to walk to a stop and may get wet and cold. Heaven forbid.
But if you care you will do it. Public transport will improve in time as many people are beginning to care.
I have just listened to You and Yours where they were talking about the Cycle to Work scheme where the allowance has been upgraded from up to £1.000 for a bike under the scheme to unlimited cost. You can buy an electric bike or any to suit your needs. I know a man who uses his arms to 'pedal'. Inspiring.
Hopefully even more companies will join!
Its heartwarming to hear of such a positive move and is worth bearing in mind that planet saving strategies usually go hand in hand with maintaining good health mentally and physically.
So come on folks - do something worthwhile.
Chicken or egg? I meant what comes first - bad health through too much sitting or good health by walking and riding a bike? Maybe your health would now be good if you'd walked and rode a bike instead of sitting and driving all the time.
Please note this is not my opinion but comes from medical evidence especially all the TV shows on at the moment particularly the Trust Me series led by yes - DOCTORS and intensive research.
I like your post but stole your opener.
I think one way to encourage natural population reduction would be to alter the taxation system. The more kids you have, the more tax you pay.
So one child, no change in tax. You get taxed at the regular 20%.
Second child, you go to 25% ... 3rd child, 30%... 4th child 35%
You get an income tax breakdown like this:
So a childless/one child parent earning £40,000 [obviously both parents would be subject to this] would earn £4000 more than the parent of four children. This would seem to be a fair response to the choice of parents to have 2+children. Allowances would be made for twins/triplets etc. And the taxation system would only be introduced for births 9 months into the future. Extra revenue raised would be ring fenced for reforestation, electric vehicle subsidies and other decarbonisation methods.
EDIT: Thinking about it, you could have a 15% rate for childless people as they've taken the most responisble action in relation to their carbon output.
Ghastly and patronising. Just as a point of information, I did not learn to drive until I was 42. If anything, the amount of walking I had to do will have contributed to the deterioration of my cartilages. And the other mobility issue is bursitis, which is nothing to do with exercise or the lack of it.
Anyway, don't let me keep you from polishing your halo.
PS Do you have any children?
The only thing I see it encouraging is rioting in the streets. And the people with the most kids may not actually be working so it makes no difference to them.
Well we'd have more money to lock people up ... and if they aren't working then other methods could be used...
I'm just putting it forward as one possible tool. A certainly a lot more humane than China.
Cap child benefit at two children, one of my neighbours has seven, they are starting to enter their late teens, there are 4 or 5 cars on their driveway most of the time that come and go every day.
How do you think that would that pan out in Africa, India and China?
UK birth rate is below replacement level and has been for a long time. In terms of the threat we face from climate change, it's not particularly relevant.
Emissions need to come down quickly to give us a slim chance of meeting a 2.0 deg target. However, at 2 degrees, life will not be very pleasant for millions and millions of people.
So you are saying that if the population of UK was halved then there would be no impact on climate change.
i did think that i had seen predictions that the population is still rising - data must be wrong.
When do you think the population of the UK will be halved?
We've got a few years to avoid catastrophic consequences. Are you going to half it anytime soon?
Abut population rising. It gets tiresome pointing it out but the dynamics of our own species confuse people horribly. It is perfectly possible for population to be rising while birth rate is falling. People are living longer... You may have noticed that despite the global birth rate having fallen everywhere for 60+ years, population is still growing, albeit at an ever slowing rate.
But you didn't answer my question, you claimed that population size is not relevant to warming - it clearly is.