PDA

View Full Version : European Leader of the Year


wornish
7th May 2019, 08:49 PM
Hic !

https://www.euronews.com/2019/05/03/european-leadership-awards-set-to-recognise-men-and-women-shaping-europe

Posted without comment.

pdk42
8th May 2019, 12:33 AM
And the point is?...

wornish
8th May 2019, 06:21 AM
It's just typical of the EU. The man who has achieved nothing wins the popularity contest amongst his fellow eurocrats.

Not allowed to talk politics on here so will say no more :)

Beagletorque
8th May 2019, 06:45 AM
Nice to see a bit of back slapping, makes a change from the back stabbing here in UK politics!

pdk42
8th May 2019, 07:53 AM
I suggest we stop this here. We'll only end up reinforcing our prejudices and falling out again.

Wally
8th May 2019, 07:58 AM
Nothing new to write home about. A simple case of: You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours.

Tram
8th May 2019, 08:17 AM
I remember Lilian Thuram playing for France, superb defender and a very important member of their 1998 World Cup winning side.
Also recall the current Liberian president George Weah being a rather good footballer too.

Jim Ford
8th May 2019, 08:54 AM
I don't see May on the list!

Perhaps there ought to be a 'European Leader Wooden Spoon' or a 'Cap with Bells and a Bladder on a Stick' award!

Jim

Naughty Nigel
8th May 2019, 01:59 PM
The Eurovision Song Contest takes place shortly. I cannot abide the show myself but the scores always provide an interesting commentary on international relations of the day.

Norway always used to be the country to score 'nil point' until we invaded Iraq when it became our turn. I wonder what our score will be this year? :rolleyes:

Graham_of_Rainham
8th May 2019, 02:04 PM
I keep asking the question about Greta Thunberg, and how she can reconcile having big dogs while campaigning for change to save the planet...

https://www.theverge.com/2017/8/4/16094674/cats-dogs-meat-diet-greenhouse-gases-climate-change

Naughty Nigel
8th May 2019, 02:14 PM
I keep asking the question about Greta Thunberg, and how she can reconcile having big dogs while campaigning for change to save the planet...

https://www.theverge.com/2017/8/4/16094674/cats-dogs-meat-diet-greenhouse-gases-climate-change

Is it any different to the showbiz luvvies who fly to climate change protests in their private Jets? :rolleyes:

TimP
8th May 2019, 05:25 PM
Is it any different to the showbiz luvvies who fly to climate change protests in their private Jets? :rolleyes:

I think the same should be said of the actual experts who do the same. I’d suspect the hidden costs of global warming are staggering.

drmarkf
8th May 2019, 09:32 PM
Some people seem to use climate change activists’ vulnerability to ad hominem attack as a reason for not doing anything about the issue. Convenient, but a time-limited comfort it seems to me.

Naughty Nigel
9th May 2019, 09:32 AM
Some people seem to use climate change activists’ vulnerability to ad hominem attack as a reason for not doing anything about the issue. Convenient, but a time-limited comfort it seems to me.

I strongly believe that we need to urgently address the problems of climate change, species destruction and environmental pollution. It is unfortunate that the behaviour of some activists is hypocritical at best, but that doesn't alter the fact that urgent action is needed.

Zuiko
9th May 2019, 10:23 AM
I suspect, if we are honest, that we are all more than a little hypocritical when it comes to combating climate change. We need to act fast but, equally important we need to learn exactly what it is we need to do and how we need to lead our lives. Even just a few years ago who would have thought owning a dog would damage the Planet? 40 years ago we believed that one of the greatest challenges of the future would be running out of fossil fuels and we never thought that we would have to abandon them for entirely different reasons. Sure, we had a nebulous concept of air pollution, but by switching from 4 star to unleaded petrol and Thatcher closing all the dark, satanic mills we thought we had that base covered.

But now we need to question everything. Do I really need the room light on to type this nonsense? is being on the computer to do this a good use of the electricity? But hey, I've just switched to a provider who supplies 100% renewable electricity so now I don't need to worry. Err, no - it all comes from the same grid so the power I use is no better or worse than my neighbour's. I've just got up to turn out that light; it's not much but it is a start.....

wornish
9th May 2019, 10:34 AM
I agree with what you say John. Rather than tax everyone to stop them damaging the climate, the Government needs to get the public behind it and make a positive case for changing behavior. Vanity projects like HS2 need to be stopped and the money used to develop an infrastructure that supports a green lifestyle.

We seem to be being blamed by some for the industrial revolution and causing all this mess in the first place. I fear whatever we do the UK can't fix this all alone - might make us feel better but we account for a very small proportion of all the world carbon emissions, or plastic use, etc. That does not mean we shouldn't try.

Zuiko
9th May 2019, 10:51 AM
I agree with what you say John. Rather than tax everyone to stop them damaging the climate, the Government needs to get the public behind it and make a positive case for changing behavior. Vanity projects like HS2 need to be stopped and the money used to develop an infrastructure that supports a green lifestyle.

We seem to be being blamed by some for the industrial revolution and causing all this mess in the first place. I fear whatever we do the UK can't fix this all alone - might make us feel better but we account for a very small proportion of all the world carbon emissions, or plastic use, etc. That does not mean we shouldn't try.

Absolutely Dave. It's true that we can't do it alone but it's possible that we could have a major impact by setting the right example. There are potential economic benefits too, if we take the lead in developing new eco-friendly technologies. At least we have to hope.

Keith-369
9th May 2019, 10:56 AM
But .... and this is just a thought .... if Britain went totally green tomorrow, just how much would it affect our planet?
We are such a small country in this great big world of ours and yet we seem to be the only ones who are going hell bent to solve the worlds problems on our own.
I'm not saying we should do nothing, of course, but it's going to take a lot more than just us to make any difference at all ...

Stands back and awaits the flack ;)

Naughty Nigel
9th May 2019, 11:02 AM
I suspect, if we are honest, that we are all more than a little hypocritical when it comes to combating climate change. We need to act fast but, equally important we need to learn exactly what it is we need to do and how we need to lead our lives. Even just a few years ago who would have thought owning a dog would damage the Planet? 40 years ago we believed that one of the greatest challenges of the future would be running out of fossil fuels and we never thought that we would have to abandon them for entirely different reasons. Sure, we had a nebulous concept of air pollution, but by switching from 4 star to unleaded petrol and Thatcher closing all the dark, satanic mills we thought we had that base covered.

But now we need to question everything. Do I really need the room light on to type this nonsense? is being on the computer to do this a good use of the electricity? But hey, I've just switched to a provider who supplies 100% renewable electricity so now I don't need to worry. Err, no - it all comes from the same grid so the power I use is no better or worse than my neighbour's. I've just got up to turn out that light; it's not much but it is a start.....

All very true John. Sadly most of our environmental efforts to date have either been kneejerk reactions to specific events or have focused on improving one particular aspect of the environment whilst ignoring the much greater cost of damage caused elsewhere.

Our own government's diktat that we should all switch to diesel cars to save the planet is one of the better known examples; however, it is less well known that the use of catalytic converters on petrol powered cars, mandated by the EU in 1993, not only increased the fuel consumption of those vehicles by about 25% but also resulted in a significant increase in the volume of CO2 pumped out into the atmosphere.

In truth we have been very successful in making our pollution cleaner, or simply moving that pollution somewhere where we don't see it, when we really need to find ways to avoid creating the pollution in the first place.

Making our manufactured goods last longer and not throwing away perfectly good machinery and electronics [just because we can] would be a good start.

Naughty Nigel
9th May 2019, 11:11 AM
But .... and this is just a thought .... if Britain went totally green tomorrow, just how much would it affect our planet?
We are such a small country in this great big world of ours and yet we seem to be the only ones who are going hell bent to solve the worlds problems on our own.
I'm not saying we should do nothing, of course, but it's going to take a lot more than just us to make any difference at all ...

Stands back and awaits the flack ;)

We can and we should live a cleaner and greener lifestyle. We can argue that Britain's contribution to climate change is miniscule and insignificant but the fact is that Britons are collectively some of the worst offenders in the world after the USA.

As a nation we are very innovative and resourceful so if we can bring new green technologies to market we will create a whole new world of export opportunities - until the bean counters give it to China.

Jax
9th May 2019, 11:38 AM
As a nation we are very innovative and resourceful so if we can bring new green technologies to market we will create a whole new world of export opportunities - until the bean counters give it to China.

We may indeed be innovative and resourceful but with very little manufacturing industry remaining we will prob have to have any inventions produced in Asia. The Chinese, Indians, Japanese or whoever will be very grateful for the business, offer a decent price then simply copy the product and sell it cheaper themselves.

Back to the drawing board !

Jax

Ricoh
9th May 2019, 11:54 AM
My vote goes to Guy Verhofstadt. Did you see him in action last night on BBC4, 'Brexit behind closed doors'. As an aside, I wonder if we're co-funding his wine bill, not the stuff he bottles himself, but the amount he consumes on 'EU company' business?

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/9024871/guy-verhofstadt-theresa-may-eu-documentary/

drmarkf
9th May 2019, 12:04 PM
I must say I am somewhat cheered by the way a lot of people have picked up now on the need to tackle it urgently, and the amount of agreement (including on this thread *chr ).

Green-wash is to be avoided, but the UK technology and research sectors do have a lot of relevant Intellectual Property that can earn us a good national living if only the current ancient and fossil-fuel invested administration will let us. We can lead internationally by example, and make money from it to pay our pensions, the NHS etc.

There is a huge amount of inertia though.

Anyone see Rupert Read's discussion when he was set against both the interviewer and that crusty old bloke in a suit? The whole theme was about how Extinction Rebellion had 'brought London to a grinding halt' and his very reasonably-put points about the impending catastrophe and how the cube root of f-all had been achieved over 20+ years of hot air, were basically dismissed:

Rupert Read's Ch5 interview discussing the Extinction Rebellion London Protests - YouTube

I had multiple meetings in central London on 3 days during the ER action, and criss-crossed the city on public transport with absolutely no impact on my travels whatsoever. Yes, a relatively few people were affected, and a very few quite seriously for a few days, but if you did a little research about where the disruption was the impact was zero, and the 'grinding halt' was just a propaganda-wash from the right wing press, who's readers lapped it up.

When the Thames Barrier gets breached then they'll know what a grinding halt is!

Naughty Nigel
9th May 2019, 12:12 PM
When the Thames Barrier gets breached then they'll know what a grinding halt is!

I have often thought that a massive hydro-electric dam across the Thames estuary would solve a lot of our problems, and would generate electricity too. ;)

Ricoh
9th May 2019, 12:26 PM
The cube root of 1 is 1, isn't it. For anyone being the unfortunate cube root, for instance missing an important job interview, the resulting impact could tend towards 1/0 !

Zuiko
9th May 2019, 02:25 PM
I have often thought that a massive hydro-electric dam across the Thames estuary would solve a lot of our problems, and would generate electricity too. ;)

Weren't they going to try this in the Bristol Channel, until the Government pulled the plug on the finance?

Naughty Nigel
9th May 2019, 03:11 PM
Weren't they going to try this in the Bristol Channel, until the Government pulled the plug on the finance?

Yes, I think there were plans for a hydro-electric barrage to take advantage of the huge tides there. I don't know whether cost was the main factor in cancelling the project but I do know there were concerns about the likely environmental impact and problems of silting which are affecting a smaller project in South Wales.

My plan is for a massive dam across the Thames estuary, reaching from the Essex Wolds in the north to the North Downs in the south. After all, the southerners have planted enough of their wind turbines up here. The fact that it could generate large amounts of green electricity make it even better. :D

Ricoh
9th May 2019, 04:47 PM
Weren't they going to try this in the Bristol Channel, until the Government pulled the plug on the finance?
What effect would it have on the environment, the ecosystem and the food chain. Has it been evaluated, and what would happen if it were replicated word-wide. Even playing with surface air currents must have an impact, especially if wind farms were to cover 3/4 of the earth surface, as it would need to be (read on).
I think it was Prof Brian Cox who said we cannot build enough wind, wave and hydro energy conversion systems to meet the energy needs of the burgeoning human race. Nuclear fusion is where we should be investing research.

Zuiko
9th May 2019, 06:25 PM
What effect would it have on the environment, the ecosystem and the food chain. Has it been evaluated, and what would happen if it were replicated word-wide. Even playing with surface air currents must have an impact, especially if wind farms were to cover 3/4 of the earth surface, as it would need to be (read on).
I think it was Prof Brian Cox who said we cannot build enough wind, wave and hydro energy conversion systems to meet the energy needs of the burgeoning human race. Nuclear fusion is where we should be investing research.

This is the frightening thing, we don't yet fully understand what unforeseen and unwanted effects may be caused by our activities to resolve the situation. We're on a very steep learning curve!

pdk42
9th May 2019, 08:03 PM
What effect would it have on the environment, the ecosystem and the food chain. Has it been evaluated, and what would happen if it were replicated word-wide. Even playing with surface air currents must have an impact, especially if wind farms were to cover 3/4 of the earth surface, as it would need to be (read on).
I think it was Prof Brian Cox who said we cannot build enough wind, wave and hydro energy conversion systems to meet the energy needs of the burgeoning human race. Nuclear fusion is where we should be investing research.

I seem to recall that there were extensive studies on the Severn Tidal Power project. There were serious downsides in many ways, including to marine life, wetlands, and much more. There was a big government report that went through the issues in some detail. Amongst other problems, the study identified:


• the scale and impact of a scheme would be unprecedented in an environmentally
designated area, and there is significant uncertainty on how the regulatory framework
would apply to it. The study has considered ways in which to reduce impacts on the
natural environment and also how to provide compensation for remaining impacts on
designated features. It is clear that the compensation requirement would be very
challenging, however defined, and require land change within the Severn estuary and
probably outside it also;

• a scheme would produce clearer, calmer waters but the extreme tidal nature of the
Severn estuary would be fundamentally altered. This means that some habitats
including saltmarsh and mudflat would be reduced in area, potentially reducing bird
populations of up to 30 species;

• fish are likely to be severely affected with local extinctions and population collapses
predicted for designated fish, including Atlantic salmon and twaite shad. This could
mean the loss of twaite shad as a breeding species in the UK as 3 of the 4 rivers where
it breeds run out into the Severn estuary;


You can find the full government report here:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/50064/1._Feasibility_Study_Conclusions_and_Summary_Repor t_-_15_Oct.pdf

As to nuclear fusion - it's had billions spent on it. For 50 years usable fusion power has been 10 years away - and it still is :) .

Naughty Nigel
9th May 2019, 08:06 PM
This is the frightening thing, we don't yet fully understand what unforeseen and unwanted effects may be caused by our activities to resolve the situation. We're on a very steep learning curve!

There is no point in just making pollution cleaner or less obvious, which is all we have been doing for the past 100 years, and is all we are planning to do now. (Electric cars anyone?) We need to be polluting less.

The uncomfortable truth is that we need to travel a lot less, manufacture a lot less and build things to last longer instead of sending everything to landfill before the credit card bill has been paid. Consumerism is killing our planet.

This will need a major readjustment to our lifestyles and expectations, but right now far too many people are working frantically to meet ridiculous production and delivery targets, making and ultimately buying stuff that will become obsolete before it is paid for. Why not build less, make it last longer and get paid a bit less? There is no point being a £billionaire on a dying planet.

Graham_of_Rainham
9th May 2019, 08:55 PM
A massive improvement can be made by changes to the food we eat.

http://science.time.com/2013/12/16/the-triple-whopper-environmental-impact-of-global-meat-production/

The carbon “paw print” of cats and dogs is massive.

Then there’s the planets maximum sustainability population, which a lot of people think we have already exceeded...

I doubt that it will be long before someone like Trump sets in motion ways to reduce the population. :eek:

Naughty Nigel
10th May 2019, 07:27 AM
Never mind cats and dogs. What is the carbon footprint of football I wonder?

Chelsea and Arsenal fans now face a long journey to the eastern edge of Europe for the Europa League final. (https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/48220247)

Zuiko
10th May 2019, 08:02 AM
For 50 years usable fusion power has been 10 years away - and it still is :) .


And no doubt the oil companies and oil producing nations will continue to keep it that way. :rolleyes:

Zuiko
10th May 2019, 08:05 AM
Never mind cats and dogs. What is the carbon footprint of football I wonder?

Chelsea and Arsenal fans now face a long journey to the eastern edge of Europe for the Europa League final. (https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/48220247)

The sensible thing would be to move the final to Wembley, but we all know that won't happen. :(

Zuiko
10th May 2019, 08:09 AM
There is no point in just making pollution cleaner or less obvious, which is all we have been doing for the past 100 years, and is all we are planning to do now. (Electric cars anyone?) We need to be polluting less.

The uncomfortable truth is that we need to travel a lot less, manufacture a lot less and build things to last longer instead of sending everything to landfill before the credit card bill has been paid. Consumerism is killing our planet.

This will need a major readjustment to our lifestyles and expectations, but right now far too many people are working frantically to meet ridiculous production and delivery targets, making and ultimately buying stuff that will become obsolete before it is paid for. Why not build less, make it last longer and get paid a bit less? There is no point being a £billionaire on a dying planet.

This, indeed, is the uncomfortable truth.

MJ224
10th May 2019, 09:06 AM
This, indeed, is the uncomfortable truth.

Yes, also agree with Nigel even with his dig at my electric car!! But which parliament will make this happen. Political (dare I say it) parties are in it for the short term, or micro-term (5 years). We seriously need a leader with a realistic vision of the future that Nigel maps out...….and is allowed or can MAKE it happen.

Chances of that happening is low to zero I reckon, until its too late....:(

drmarkf
10th May 2019, 09:47 AM
Never mind cats and dogs. What is the carbon footprint of football I wonder?

Chelsea and Arsenal fans now face a long journey to the eastern edge of Europe for the Europa League final. (https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/48220247)

Yes, of course if we were all to stop doing everything we each enjoy in life, we’ll all die a little every day. If we just banned everything we might exist longer, but my gawd it would certainly feel longer!

The key is to keep good transport but make it more energy efficient, and the same for good food etc. etc. and all the while keeping it possible for companies to make a living from all this.

It’s a narrow path we’ve got to walk and there aren’t a huge number of current examples of the large-scale human cooperation projects that give me cause for optimism. Anyone care to name any? I’m going to counter with the word ‘Brexit’ to the first one offered, of course :D

I’m actually a bit more optimistic than I was 5 years ago when there were some international agreements but little or no popular support, and it all felt ‘imposed’ by those famous ‘faceless bureaucrats’. Now at least some societies in the west have apparently finally woken up and maybe started kicking their politicians in the ballot box, but meanwhile the world’s CO2 concentration clicks inexorably upwards...

wornish
10th May 2019, 10:32 AM
Blimey, this thread has certainly developed quite a way from Juncker receiving an award.
I get the feeling that the majority here agree something has to be done, but our political systems are not up to it.

Naughty Nigel
10th May 2019, 10:43 AM
Yes, of course if we were all to stop doing everything we each enjoy in life, we’ll all die a little every day. If we just banned everything we might exist longer, but my gawd it would certainly feel longer!

The key is to keep good transport but make it more energy efficient, and the same for good food etc. etc. and all the while keeping it possible for companies to make a living from all this.



But there must be a balance between enjoying ourselves and killing the planet.

I don't follow football much but it seems two London teams are travelling to the far side of Europe to play a football match. Why? Is there not a football pitch somewhere in the UK they could use? Surely that would make more sense all round; not only saving the planet but allowing thousands more fans to enjoy the game at a reasonable cost.

Ricoh
10th May 2019, 11:00 AM
In all probability the venue is booked ahead of the semi-finals. Same with the Champion League, Liverpool v Spurs.

wornish
12th May 2019, 04:29 PM
What's the carbon footprint of the EU when it moves its meeting location from Brussels to Strasberg every few weeks.

Also whats the carbon footprint of the 30,000 corporate lobyists that work in Brussels.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/08/lobbyists-european-parliament-brussels-corporate