Climate apartheid.

[Workingman]

This is the new buzzphrase in the climate change, global warming argument and it comes from, another, UN report.

It goes that the poorest of the poor will suffer the most if we do not act. They are the 50% of us who only produce 10% of the crap we throw in the oceans, rivers, on the land and into the atmosphere.

I have news for the report writers. A lot of the poorest 50% will get on fine, eventually, because they already know how to get by on next to nothing. It is the 50% of us who produce the 90% of the crap who will really suffer.

A few of us might survive in lagers or in purpose built citadels for a while, but eventually nature and wars for resources will take their course.

We are at the tipping point and I am not optimistic that we are prepared for the changes needed.

[Suff]

Nobody has really prepared us. So myopia rules unless you actually have an interest.

[Suff]

Also a term which is often shied away from by the press is Greenwashing. Something Germany can stand front and centre for doing because they listened to the Greens and shut down their nuclear power stations...

I was looking at the gridwatch data for the UK back into 2016. It makes very interesting reading as, back then, we were very unbalanced in our renewables. Today Solar is much more balanced with wind, allowing for much more coal reductions. However, without Nuclear we'd still be really bad as gas is still some 40% to 50% of our energy.

However if we look at France, Nuclear is 70%, hydro is 15% and solar is 10%....

There is a message there somewhere. Lost in the political mire.

[Workingman]

I am one of those strange ones who is actually glad that the whole focus has shifted away from climate X to looking at things more holistically, including the impossible growth of the global economy and population.

My interest in all this goes back to the days of my early teens and the Schweppes bottle protest, the Torrey Canyon disaster and the emergence of Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth... as well as CND.

The problem I always had with the last three was their constant equating of nuclear weapons with nuclear power - both of which I have always supported - to the detriment of environmental concerns.

It has taken a while to reconnect climate and environment, but without seriously including the economy and population my fear is that it is too little too late.

[Suff]

It has taken a while to reconnect climate and environment, but without seriously including the economy and population my fear is that it is too little too late.

The problem is when you include "Green" issues such as recycling and pollution, etc, the knee jerk reaction almost always trends to more CO2. It's already too late but do you really want to be rushing around throwing fuel on the fire to make political bragging points? Which is what I see as the Greens/etc doing.

Let's face it. Plastic bags, rubbish, all that stuff, it won't be a problem when 6bn humans are dead. The world will get on just fine (even better), without us.

When some German Greens get the Nuclear power stations shut down, you do have to wonder whether they have their own population control solution in mind.... Because the best population control going is to just let CO2 continue to rise. It's guaranteed.