It's unlikely you actually believe that.
It is if course not true.
If there was anything in the article you think you could disprove, feel free to try.
The UK government didn’t want you to see this report
- Thread starter Odds
- Start date
It's unlikely you actually believe that.
It is if course not true.
If there was anything in the article you think you could disprove, feel free to try.
- Joined
- 18 Apr 2022
- Messages
- 5,239
- Reaction score
- 648
- Country
Where are they doing that?
Got any numbers, details of developments, etc?
Would Sir like some facts to go with his opinions?
How about
Less Than 0.1% of UK Land is Used for Solar
According to Solar Energy UK, if the UK were to reach its 70 GW solar target by 2035:
- It would require approximately 0.3% of UK land, which is less than the land currently used for golf courses.
- Existing solar farms occupy just 0.08% of land, compared to 70% for agriculture and 8% for urban development.
And
between 15,580 and 17,364 hectares of land is occupied by ground-mounted solar farms, around 0.06% to 0.07% of the total UK land area. The calculation is slightly lower than previous estimates that had total UK solar farm land use at 0.08%. The additional range of the researchers’ estimate takes into account remaining projects that are registered on the Government’s Renewable Energy Planning Database but do not appear within recent satellite imagery.
If you'd like to put that 15,580 -17,364 ha into perspective, the UK's 5 largest airports total about 3,000 ha, not including all the roads and railways we build to get people to them
Or how about these -
Solar to occupy no more than 0.6% of UK farmland by 2030
The UK Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) said in response to a recent Freedom of Information (FoI) request that even if all future solar projects under its solar roadmap were ground-mounted, they would occupy no more than 0.4% of the United Kingdom’s total land area.
www.pv-magazine.com
Got any links to more details on that?
.Critical ecosystems that support major global food production areas and impact global climate, water and weather cycles are the most important for UK national security. Severe degradation or collapse of these would highly likely result in water insecurity, severely reduced crop yields, a global reduction in arable land, fisheries collapse, changes to global weather patterns, release of trapped carbon exacerbating climate change, novel zoonotic diseases and loss of pharmaceutical resources. The Amazon rainforest, Congo rainforest, boreal forests, the Himalayas and South East Asia’s coral reefs and mangroves are particularly significant for the UK.
Nobody is suggesting we plant trees 'everywhere'.
All countries are exposed to the risks of ecosystem collapse within and beyond their borders. Some will be exposed sooner than others and are likely to act to secure their interests, particularly water and food security.
I'm just a concerned citizen watching the world ignore warnings time after time, and seeing the results of this wilful ignorance accumulate social problems beyond the scope of national governments to contain. So many people are still prepared to ignore climate change as a reason for the global migrations that are at an all-time high.
The costs of adapting to new technology and an increase in population is far greater than the tax return the government can make upon the work force: approximately 75% of the UK population aged 16 to 64 is in employment, representing a workforce of over 34 million people. Although the employment rate has remained stable around 74.9% to 75.1%; about 21.5% of working-age adults are classified as economically inactive.
The right would say the number of people on benefits must be cut and taxes lowered to boost the economy, while the left argue that tax must be raised and social issues such as poverty and homelessness must be addressed in order to increase productivity. Which is the correct answer?
Of course, the climate is in perpetual flux, according to where you live and your economic status but hiding your head in the sand won't save you from the rising tide of opinion that we should've been doing more about this issue, yesterday, not waiting for a tomorrow that never comes under successive governments who target environmental issues as their first choice to save money when budget reviews are due.
Fun Fact# 81: The average size of monitored wildlife populations declined by 73% between 1970-2020. Populations of vertebrate species have declined by an average of 68% since 1970. Freshwater ecosystem species populations have shown the largest losses, falling 84% in the same period.
1. I was on the subject of environment, not unemployment.
2. WTF are you on about???
Deforestation isn't happening in the UK.
Reforestation is. Perfectly good agricultural land is being taken from food production and covered in trees. Most aren't even suitable for use as timber in the future, they're just eco-jewellery.
All paid for by subsidies funded by taxpayers to farmers. You pay them money and your food increases in price and/or more food gets imported via ships running on oil.
But you probably already knew this and are just stating selective facts to support your agenda.
You implied the government was wasting tax payers money and i mentioned those stats as a way of demonstrating successive administrations have had differing views on how to deal with them - this affects the amount of green levies that can be maintained to deal with environmental issues. The first thing this labour government did was break their manifesto promise of increasing the budget for dealing with those issues, and raising taxes in ways to affect those who can afford to pay a higher subsidy. Where have those taxes gone? Dealing with illegal migration, would be my guess, in reaction to fartrage blowing a foghorn about them. Why are more coming to these shores? Climate change in their country is one of those reasons, highlighting what the report says about global climate change.
You can't just look at the affects of these changes, you must consider ways to address the causes.
Utter rubbish, based on absolutely nothing.
They're here because we give them free stuff and money when they arrive.
It's based on the report your government tried to hide.
No, taxes have increased because businesses are leaving the UK.
Tax the rich!
That's their policy.
In practice this takes away tax revenue that must be recovered by overtaxing the working people.
If businesses, especially big ones were paying 10% tax, they would come here from other countries instead of leaving.
10% of a giant company equates to many hundred of thousands working people taxes.
You might disagree with the morality of this, but in practice it would make sense to attract businesses rather than pushing them away.
And this without considering the number of people they employ and pay taxes...
But this thread is about destroying ecosystems, let's get back on the subject.
There's no need to disprove nonsense, it just is.
It's all unfounded, so it's invalid to ask anyone to prove that something imaginary doesn't exist. Prove that it does exist.
There are fairies at the bottom of my garden. Unless you can prove that they don't exist then you'll have to agree with me. See? Your logic makes absolutely no sense.
2019 The UK is a net contributor to the EU budget. In other words, it contributes more to the EU budget than it receives back from it.
Yes they were by the conservatives and continually are being by labour time for someone else to have a go.
What's the matter suddenly lost your ability to use google
Council houses to be built for asylum seekers in new scheme Dec 2025
The Government pilot would aim to allow councils to buy more properties – including in new housing
New council houses to be built for asylum seekers in push to end use of hotels
Asylum seekers will be housed in newly built council houses as part of a push to end the use of asylum hotels and private landlords.
Around 200 local authorities have indicated interest in the Government pilot scheme that would fund the building of new properties to make room for asylum seekers. Five councils - Brighton and Hove, Hackney, Peterborough, Thanet, and Powys - have confirmed they are keen to take part in the scheme.
Absolutely, but at one point it was the opposite...
That's what communities do. Help out poorer regions in order that they then become more prosperous.
But as for contributions, the UK's was approximately £8.5bn per annum...
Dwarfed by the £90bn+ loss per annum since brexit!
And you think that 'someone else' would be any different?
Is it the person who got the UK into this mess in the first place?
Dream on!
