Of course none of us would claim to be absolutely perfect in the way we live our lives, but for most of us, that remains a matter between us and our conscience, and hopefully, most of us would consider any planned public pronouncements with that in mind.
Sorry, but in line with my opening post, I do sense certain double standards in play here.
Anyway, let’s just agree to differ on that one, and move on?
Of course there are double standards. I doubt anyone would dispute that. The point is whether or not you believe in the issue and whether you want those who can to give it maximum publicity.
I note with interest the several posts above regarding the negative aesthetics of solar panels.
I do understand the sentiment but surely their benefits outweigh the aesthetic blight to some. Also, I can’t help thinking of humourous analogies.
Rejecting a life-belt thrown to one on the grounds of its colour whilst taking a third gulp of salty seawater is in my mind. 
I’ve no flown in the last 12 months, I do drive, but keep that to a minimum and CO2 emission was a consideration in my choice of car.
It’s not that end of the cow that’s the problem, most of the methane come from the front end!
Appreciate you may not be talking about electric vehicles, but I’d love to have an electric car, but living in an old Victorian terraced house with no drive/good rear lane access I have no idea how I’d recharge one unless there was a lightweight removable battery that I could charge indoors that would give me the 30 miles or so I drive each day. Perhaps some form of hybrid vehicle. For most people very environmentally friendly vehicles are an aspiration only.
Indeed, my house also has no road access. Until a reliable public EV recharging system is implemented, then for the journey I do have to make I’m going to have to rely on an IC engine.
My house is listed (and >300 years old), the aesthetics are protected in law!
Hence my statement “aesthetic blight to some”.
Anyway, it was only light hearted…hence my statement “humourous”
Sorry Annalogg, I believe we may have a slight misunderstanding…
My reply was about my individual house (the exception that proves [in the sense of ‘tests’] the rule?) and not meant as a critical comment on your post.
Ok, I see. No problem. I was just trying to lighten the mood a little on the thread that’s all.
BTW , I know how tricky listed building consent can be for anything these days. Perhaps with good reason of course 
It will be a (very) sad day indeed when we ditch the concept of asthetics in the face of a dreary, boring, monotonous, environmentally-friendly life. Even our cave-dwelling, hunter-gathering ancesters, seem to enjoy a party now and again.
And I do wonder how much (human) methane was generated in the construction of Stonehenge and its subsequent party-gatherings from all over the UK.
I don’t feel at all guilty, in any way whatsoever, about driving my diesel SUV to/from work 5 days a week, flying something like 800 hours a year, visiting half my family in Canada two or three times a year, relaxing on a cruise ship for a week or two each year or…
…and when some semi-famous woman flies across the atlantic to tell us all that we should stop flying etc etc…well it’s just piss-taking !
Excellent first post! Keep at it.
Thanks Peter, I observe and think a lot about things before commenting.
Another little nugget to consider is the horrendous environmental issues of current Electric Vehicles- the lithium ion batteries are very polluting, actually processing precious raw materials to produce the lithium is a toxic procedure. The recycling of the dead/defunct batteries big future environmental issue. Let’s consider this: could it be more environmentally friendly to continue with enhanced/modified internal combustion engines running on hydrogen? Byproducts of the combustion process energy, heat, water! No CO, NOx or particulates! Only issue is production, but so is lithium and batteries. Food for thought
I agree, the issues with batteries are problematic. Hydrogen power could yet take a while to develop and commercialise, and perhaps later we’ll figure out gravity.
Meanwhile, lots than can be done. I’d like to see more rail vs truck transport, more natural or man-made fibres in clothing, and as others above have said, less one-use packaging and all futile unless we reverse population growth.
90 hours of coal-free power generation in the U.K.
Longest such period since the beginning of the industrial revolution.
Nice headline. The detail is where the Devil lies.
Interesting article that puts the protest in context, i.e. outsourcing of production to developing countries and the effect of BRIC countries increased prosperity.
A Carbon tariff is proposed, which is more demanding for corporations than the existing emissions trading systems - https://www.ft.com/content/68b29860-61fe-11e9-a27a-fdd51850994c
Nigel, I find this whole “environment” argument very frustrating.
It’s both important and not fully understood.
We really don’t know whether the internationally agreed actions and timescales aimed at preventing climate change are futile or not. But achieving even those actions and timescales seems unlikely.
Individual actions and even national actions will be inadequate, other than as catalysts for international action. I don’t see the necessary international commitment.
Others have illustrated the conflicting evidence of transferring from oil powered cars to lithium batteries re-charged by renewable energy. This is just one tiny part of the whole equation. There are many other elements in the equation and we really don’t know the significance of most of these elements, nor do we seem to care. We just pick and exploit attention grabbing headlines.
I blame both scientists and politicians. Scientists for not putting things into context. Politicians for using headlines to draw attention to themselves.
When I see more evidence and more international action, I will contribute proportionally.
I already do contribute a little, thanks to Mrs D. We eat less meat and more vegetables, travel to central London by train rather than by car and turned the central heating down another notch this last winter. But I don’t believe it has made one jot of a difference. In the grand scheme of things , it’s pathetic and IMHO, pointless. But it does entitle me to claim some moral high ground. And I think that summarises where we all really are at.
Nigel, looks like you might have deleted a post to which I was responding.
Your post seemed straightforward.
That doesn’t work. We need to elect governments that will enact the best policies.