Intoscience

Ceramic manufacturing, but the whole sector includes many other manufacturing companies that use gas & electric fired kiln furnaces.

Ok fair enough, I'll concede I cannot speak for all nations and all companies. But in the sector I work the government are putting pressure on the companies to be net zero by 2050 and now with the announcement of the UN by 2040. The initial expectation was 2030, but the government realised that this was totally unrealistic so backed off somewhat. The reality is that most are not going to achieve the 2040 mark so what does this mean? No one really has any answer. So this is what is sort of eating at me on this subject. The climate change experts and scientific community on this subject are saying that the world will suffer devastating consequences if carbon reduction is not achieved. So if this is the case (which I have conceded to accept) then if it's is not achieved soon governments will surely have no other choice but to enforce action. So rather than being an initiative it will become a mandate. Fine, if this needs to be done then we will have to accept it. However, with out support there will be economic consequences, which without support people will not achieve the deadline. So in my humble opinion to achieve the deadline there requires significant investment in aiding people to achieve their part. Whether that be welfare, financial or technological, depends on each individual needs. If carbon emission reduction is not achieved to such a level that the consequences are not avoided then the world will have to re adjust to accommodate for the environmental changes. This is what life does and has done during its entire history on this planet. This however doesn't mean we should just sit back and see what happens. I feel the approach should be 2 fold. First off do all we can to reduce the impact and improve sustainability. Second prepare the those environments for which will be most effected. Both are going to be difficult to accomplish and very expensive. Neither I feel are going to be 100% successful, but mitigation so to lower the risk is a goal which is realistic, and should be at the very least aimed for.

To be fair to you, I was thinking the same when mistermack mentioned the dust. Even though I'm not convinced by the photo. We shouldn't presume that (if these objects turned out to be ET) they would use a propulsion system that we are familiar with, and then therefore what we would expect to see the effects of. +1 This is a good attitude to take! One doesn't have to believe in alien visitations to be interested and intrigued by UAP's and other unexplained phenomenon. It really kills my pig when every single anomaly is dismissed to be fake or just assumed as some natural occurrence. Lets just dismiss that which can be and remain open minded for that which cannot yet be explained. After all, life wouldn't be exciting and rather boring, if we chose to shut off our minds to possibilities.

+1 for the post. I think you are correct, when I was younger I pointed the finger at my parents and grandparents for their failings that had consequences for my generation and my children... I'm not in disagreement with Greta's motivation, the world does need to sit up and listen and take action if climate change is down to human intervention (I will conceded to this as fact since I'm not an authority on the science so will listen to those that are). I just feel that finger pointing tactics that have an almost bullying tone is not that constructive unless you are pointing in the right direction. For me to act more than I currently do I need to feel that my action is supported and at the very least equaled to by those that cause the most damage and those that have the resource to make a difference. For those that are much less fortunate than me who live cap in hand just to survive may feel they need a little more understanding and a lot more support. For the company I work for , they will not achieve carbon net zero unless they gain some financial help and able to implement innovative technology. The reality is that the company will go bust trying and 480 people will lose their jobs. This is a trend that is common among many companies I speak to within our sector.

I'm not arguing this, I'm in agreement that all should do their part. I'am arguing however that those who contribute the most to poisoning the planet should contribute the most to fixing the issue. If the big players reduced their emissions by 50% say, this will have a far greater impact than the small players doing 100%. I agree both should be aiming for 100%. But if the big players act fast, investing heavily in reduction now, then there will be less pressure on the smaller player and it may even bide a little time for those who currently haven't the resources to go all out. In my humble mind, if there is going to be finger pointing then it should be firstly aimed at those causing the most damage. I was thinking back to when I was a kid. I come from a relatively poor area, in fact its been pretty much one of the poorest areas, according to the stats, in my country for as long as I can remember. I remember all things my parents did to save money, and most of this then would nowadays be points towards reducing carbon emissions. We had one B&W tv (which was a massive luxury), we had one bath a week the water shared by all. My mother repaired all our clothes and shoes, the majority of which were hand me downs from friends and family and then between siblings. My father grew most of the veg in the back garden or allotment. Milk was delivered by electric vehicle in glass bottles which were collected next time for wash & reuse. All tin cans, jars, and food containers were utilised for storage and/or other uses and if not would be set aside for the local rag-bone man to collect for scrap. In an evening we all sat in one room so not to use lights and heating in other rooms of the house, where we watched tv (what ever my father wanted on, though there were only 3 channels anyway). My mother walked to the shops, used her own bags, she walked to work and I was left to take care of my siblings. The refuse vehicles came only once a month for waste collection, not much was thrown away back then! Yes industry was booming, but we lived a simple life, where everything possible was recycled and nothing was excessively used or wasted, where our carbon footprint was far lower than it is these days. So when Greta Thunberg points a finger at previous generations she should take a look in the mirror and accept that we are all accountable to a degree, some more than others. There should also be a little respect towards the previous generations who fought wars, built modern society, for her to enjoy the luxuries that she takes for granted.

This is the crux of the issue, and what many people like Konstantin kisin are trying to point out. Pointing a finger and demanding action where there is no resource to do so is a bullying tactic. This is a global issue all should be involved. Fixing the main issue should be a collaboration from the ground floor up. Each nation's individual status, contribution, hurdles, issues, considerations, focussed on and addressed accordingly. Sometimes a helping hand can go along way. Reducing carbon emissions to a balanced level, where the emission of greenhouse gases matches the removal of such from the global atmosphere.

I agree and this would be a poor approach.

That's not true, the expectation is that all companies, corporations and people are to individually reduce their carbon emissions to net zero. Nations with fewer people, companies, corporations resources have the same individual duty as nations with more. Yet the collaborative impact per nation differs between each nation based on their annual output towards the total global emissions. If the people, each individually or by collaboration, in a country that produces 5% of the total global emissions reduces their contribution by 100% then that's 5% less towards the total. Compared to a country that contributes 25%, they would only need to reduce their emissions by 20% to achieve a similar overall impact. Everyone should do their part, I agree. I'm just saying that the impact of doing so between nations is significantly different. therefore to make headway towards net zero, focus should be on the highest contributors. Those causing the most damage should be investing the most in fixing it. And if they haven't the resource to do so then they should be supported by those that have. All have a part to play, all will have an impact on success, some more than others.

It's so easy to create very convincing hoaxes, even with good pictures and video evidence, so anything short of a landing on the White House lawn will not suffice. The reality is that until we have a physical object within our possession with full public awareness the likelihood of anything being taken seriously as ET is almost zero. And even then, much like the moon landing doubters, and flat earthers, there will always be those skeptics or conspiracy theorists with doubt or in denial. As I stated in my previous post, I feel it's a shame that such a stigma has been created around Aliens. The reality being that the universe is a vast place full of countless planets so there is good reason to make a plausible case for the possibility of ET intelligence. On the flip, the difficulty comes from the fact that our current understanding of physics and our current level and forecasted level of technology doesn't really allow for interstellar space travel with any meaningful practical, or economical application. Thus along with other factors, like the odds of simultaneous existence, low detection thresholds.... complete with the vast majority of the sightings depicted being somewhat similar to humans, having the ability to travel across vast distances but then crashing on this planet, or easily detectable. The assumption of human motivation, interest in exploration... All makes the likelihood of ET coming to visit seem somewhat absurd and most definitely very unlikely for most reasonably minded people. We assume we know enough about physics to dismiss any practical application for travelling interstellar distances, we assume that GR is the underlining model (rightly so because all the current evidence and data suggest this) of space-time. However, I do feel we should remain open minded on these matters, but also make no assumptions either way.

Fine, lets just go with the 4.6% or what ever the accurate figure is. My point still stands Exactly and the higher emitters (the more wealthy) should be the most active. You should pay for what you use! In addition and my whole point was that a blanket policy rolled out to the entire globe of net zero is not going to be achievable by many nations. A small change for a high emitting nation is going to be more beneficial than a big change from a lower emitting nation. So if you are correct and the lower emitting nations are not as wealthy in general as the higher ones then the impact to try and get to net zero is going to be greater on the less wealthy for less benefit. So scare mongering the entire world with the notion you must get to net zero or we are all doomed seems a tad unfair towards the lower carbon producing nations. Target the higher more wealthy nations, support the lower less wealthy nations, work together for humanity as a whole and set realistic targets focussing on productive ways to achieve them. He may have a personal agenda, I don't care much for that. But many of the points he raises are true, MigL pointed this out, extreme left wing activists are covering the ears, saying yeah yeah blah blah blah... whatever. Then suggesting we get rid of cars, stop eating meat, scrap technology... the irony being that the vast majority of these people continue to live high energy using, technological, comfortable life styles, with mobile phones and gas guzzling vehicles, plane rides, fast food and luxury a plenty, everything they need or desire at their feet. While other poverty stricken nations are full of people struggling to find food, shelter, fresh water, medicine... But are now being shouted at to reduce their carbon footprint or we are all doomed.

Nope, its like driving a coach with a full tank and expecting you to empty it before the cliff with no way of doing so.

Carbon emissions. look at the high contributors and ask why it's so high, and what, if anything they can do to reduce it. If they can't, then ask why/ and then investigate what can be done to help them to achieve it. Scaring the little piggy who lives in a straw house that he needs to knock it down and build a brick one before mister wolf comes is not really helpful, especially so if little piggy hasn't the resource to build a new house. What would help is supporting him with the resource/to find the resource and offering him shelter while he does so. I agree totally, We are joining with other companies working in collaboration to achieve NetZero. But it isn't enough, some funding is available, but each level of funding has to be matched by the companies and it's for innovation only, not for implementation! Let alone the hurdles we face to meet the funding requirements. Like I said R&D is massively under funded at this level. Yet the government is expecting individual companies to do their personal bit! The big players are expecting the small players to contribute at their level. this is non attainable and just down right naughty. Then the government uses scaremongering tactics in an attempt to bring people inline. How about they offer a helping hand instead?

There is a stigma around aliens being a consideration for UAP sightings, some may say rightly so since there is no evidence to support the claims. Many hoax's and poor quality imaginary adds to this. I think its almost a shame, that "mud sticks" per say. My honest opinion I don't think any of the "other" is likely to be ET. But i'm open to the possibility. So i don't think it should ever be ignored. Show me the evidence!

My point is focus should be towards those which contribute the most. A blanket initiative is not only unfair but also not productive. If the UK reduces its contribution to zero then the total emissions will be 4% less, very difficult to achieve. A country that produces significantly more towards total global emissions may only need to reduce their total by say a 50% factor to make a much larger difference, something that maybe much easier to achieve. This doesn't mean that we shouldn't try, I'm a fan of energy saving initiatives. I promote and drive this in my company. But I'm against scaremongering propaganda tactics which may have a massive impact on the small person in the group. Sharks? Is that what you call people who's opinion you don't agree with? There are always 2 sides to every story the trick is to find a common ground.

Solar cell efficiency may have increased and cost per watt dropped. But its not a practical application that can be implemented for many sectors, and in many cases only reduces power consumption by a very small margin for a high investment. For our company to reduce our overall electrical power assumption from the national grid by 10% requires over 600 solar cell panels. These at full capacity will offer 10% of the total power requirements for our manufacturing process. The site cannot accommodate this system. we even enquired about renting an adjacent unused field to accommodate the panels but planning permission was refused. There are lots of initiatives that in principle maybe options but many in practical terms just aren't viable and/or you run in to road blocks which hinder opportunities such as planning or environmental protection legislation... I'm in agreement with you on this one. I find it very disturbing when the company owners propagate and seemingly support carbon reduction but don't advocate changing themselves. Our company owner is an avid activist who chairs many of the working groups for climate change. Yet she continues to jet set around the world, have numerous homes, takes a large salary and I'm sure her dividends. But In my position I get to see our finances and honestly regardless of her salary (which to be fair is quite modest compared to other company directors of similar size/turn overs) would make little difference to the investment required enable our company to reach net zero. the financial impact is already happening and is not going away. Talking to the financial director, she has high concerns and the current models suggest the company will fold within the next 3 years unless something radical happens. Just to be clear the total financial crisis is not solely down to investment in carbon net zero. there are many factors, some which I won't go into because it will just spark more adverse reaction. But it is a major factor that isn't going away and as yet there is no solution.

There seems to be differing reports out there on the exact figure. Most offering somewhere between 1%- 4%.

Interestingly the company I work for is desperately struggling to meet carbon reduction targets due to lack of finances. The government is making it very difficult to get funding for initiatives. I sit on many discussion boards within my industry and the trend is the same, even though we are all collaborating to try and road map a solution. Every single company will fail to meet the targets for 2050 or collapse trying to do so, so the 2040 is out of the question unless there is some radical improvement in cheap and accessible clean energy. So I'd say its more than just industry propaganda. I'm actually experiencing the consequences of this unrealistic ideology, people are and will lose jobs, companies are failing. That's just not true, I have spent the last 5 years investigating renewable energy for the company I work for. The investment is high, the payback is low and takes a long period of time. That's assuming its practical to implement, regulate and maintain. The truth?? are you kidding me. There has been back and forth on this issue for 50 years. The UK carbon emissions represent around 1% of the total global emissions. It's estimated that the current carbon emission reduction in total since 1990 is around 30%+ which is good. But what affect has this had on total global emissions? Nope, R&D investment in manufacturing is desperately under funded. Higher efficiencies experienced by manufacturers is being negated and the savings far out weighed by the investment in trying to achieve net zero.

A recent news alert from the UN is now pushing for carbon net zero to be brought forward from 2050 to 2040. Is this achievable, and is it going to solve the climate change issue if successful? There seems to be a lot of debate among scientists around this. I'm not sure the authorities approach of scare tactics (seemingly supported and dramatized by the media) is fair. The vast majority of people and certainly many poorer nations are being scared into taking action towards a goal which they cannot achieve, stating that if its not reached we are all doomed. People like Greta Thunberg - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greta_Thunberg in my humble opinion don't help matters. She recently deleted a twitter message she posted back in 2018 where she stated that in 5 years time we will be all wiped out if we don't act now. No one (who has any reasonable sense) can argue that the climate is not changing. The evidence is there across the globe. If human generated carbon is a major factor in the acceleration of this, then sure it needs addressing. How, well I have no clue cause it seems that to achieve this with any real success, we would either have to heavily invest in cleaner energy technology very quickly, to a point where it is effect, cheap and easy to roll out. Or we radically reduce emissions such that it slows down the climate change. The problem with the second option is that no one can afford it and industry across the globe would collapse. So for me there are a few points that require focus. More in depth investigation to find irrefutable evidence that human carbon emissions is the key factor in climate change. Heavy investment in clean cheap accessible energy generation. Investment towards third world countries who emit high carbon emissions to help reduce this. Sensible achievable carbon reduction initiatives that are achievable by most without any major impact. Less scare mongering, tactics and more focus on educating people.

They should take them seriously. Whether they are of alien origin remains to be seen, but regardless. Anything that is unidentified and especially so if it appears to be of some technology, then it needs investigating at the highest level, with the most qualified persons working on it.

Why are you citing that I ever stated "thinking like us" You are misunderstanding me. Why would they/it have to have motivation in any way that resembles ours? the only one I can think of is the same for all "life" - Survival Survival It's not even about liking or disliking ants, you missed the point of the analogy. It doesn't have to be about whether we pissed them off or not. Its whether they value or notice us enough to care whether we exist or not.

This is where self awareness may play a role. It doesn't have to, to still pose a threat. We don't think like ants, but we may pose a threat to them wittingly or unwittingly so.

Self-awareness is important, also is the ability to consider values. If G.A.I becomes self learning then what ever we initially program into will be futile. A self-aware self learning entity, that is potentially smarter and more powerful than we are is a very concerning threat to humanity. This is what I meant by post humanity. If a smarter more advanced entity doesn't value human life then it will either do 1 of 3 things. 1. It will unwittingly eradicate human existence. 2. It will wittingly eradicate human existence. 3. It will just ignore human existence. If it does value human life then it may do 1 of 2 things. 1. It will ignore human existence. 2. It will aid in the survival of human existence.

It's not about, awareness. It's about the possibility of human extinction and what if any remnants of our existence survives and maybe even continues to prosper. Lets say for example we are successful in producing some form of G.A.I that is aware, or at least has the capability of consideration and replication/reproduction.. If we are never successful in leaving our planet and colonising others then we are inevitably going to become extinct. Unless we find a way of saving our planet, from the sun's inflation or preventing large meteorite strikes, then I see no alternative other than to move from Earth. All this assuming in the meantime we don't destruct ourselves or outgrow our resources or die from infection...

Yes, I'm rather fond of this idea, for a couple of reasons. It appears though not conclusive that we - a technological life form are a rare possibly anomaly amongst life in general. certainly looking at evolution on the Earth we are the latecomers and the odd ones out. The age of the universe though old from our perspective is still very young compared to its own life span. The universe could still be very much in its infancy in which case we could be very early to the party. So its most plausible that there is only one and we are it. Going with the A.I theme I feel this is a topic to be a more serious and mostly likely near future scenario to consider. Aliens, well if they are out there, how advanced are they, how far away are they, and what period of time do they/have existed in.

I have no problem dismissing ideas that are shown to be impossible. I have no problem filtering through ideas that maybe plausible but unlikely. For example FTL, our current understanding of physics shows FTL to be impossible. So based on this I would most likely dismiss anything that directly implies FTL. However there are ideas to find loop holes around this that maybe plausible given some high energy circumstances such as wormholes, space time curving, parallel timelines etc... all fanciful yes, granted, but not impossible. Ok, so why is the discussion of A.I advanced intelligence dismissible as being sci-fi? Why is the discussion of Alien intelligence dismissible as being sci-fi? Just to be clear when I state sci-fi in this context I mean - impossible fantasy - not what is currently unproven but plausible.