House buying. Are you aware of planned changes to energy ratings? Not 100% sure on this but iirc any house that’s under a C rating must be brought up to that standard before it can be sold.
Also, Rishi has mentioned today that not everyone will be obligated to get a heat pump. No idea what the catch is.
Good luck with your hunting.
Money talks.
The ESG fiat carbon credit scam is imploding.
Thanks. All the listings show an estimated energy efficiency rating, and a potential rating, and most of the ones I’ve looked at with any care are a D. So at the moment that’s clearly not an impediment to a sale. I treat the graphs with some scepticism as the proud owner of several woolly jumpers 
I’ve worked out that before the inspection we could all apply a very large pack of thick bubble wrap to bring most of us up to scratch - perhaps literally. 
This would of course be an art insulation!
cheers
Pass it forward. Anything that beats the system is worth a sacrifice so someone else can do the same.
From elsewhere on the tubes;
That is the deal. If you replaced every car and truck in Britian ( 2% of the world’s vehicles ) it would take ALL of the current copper production. Nothing left over for houses computers tvs iphones washers dryers etc. It would take at least 50 years to replace all the world’s vehicles again with nothing else being made. And that is without ANY improvement to the necessary electrical infrastructure. It can’t be done, they know it can’t be done. It is a power move to deprive you of your freedom-mobile. They are doing everything now to make cars expensive as they can to price people out of the market. By the way, bribem climate czar John Kerry has 6 houses, 12 cars, 2 yachts, a private jet and a partridge in a pear tree.
You can’t escape anything if you’re still eating the lotus flowers
Hey @LocalYokel
Have you come across a chat called Simon Michaux? Definitely worth reading up on what he’s doing. He’s one of the very few people out there trying to carefully add up what minerals we’ll need to shift to a “renewable” energy future. Maps pretty closely to your point about copper.
It’s not pretty
Here’s a video I watched last year, but there’s plenty of his analysis out there worth reading through.
Hi @admin, thanks for the link - a very informative discussion.
It seems to come down to :
renewables in the form of solar and wind can’t possibly replace the current energy sources because of lack of raw materials - I think SM said we only have enough to build one generation of these appliances so we are looking at the decline in their replacement starting in ~2030. Also, nuclear seems a non-starter as it will tail out by the end of the century.
we need to re-order our societies into applying energy to priorities like:
food - largely growing organic and producing our own,
heat - with whatever systems are available and presumably most efficient,
and maintaining and developing our education and technological levels.
Fossil fuels will still be a core method of providing energy for some time to come, implicitly SM is hinting that either energy and raw material scarcity trumps all discussions about climate change and either we simplify our lifestyles to match available energy or populations will fall naturally or population controls will become necessary to reduce our energy usage in step with energy availability.
The population issue is a difficult one - it can rapidly move into eugenics as I think envisioned by WEF - the shift to lower birth rates by the Chinese method turned into a disastrous policy and soon ended, but control is coming through all sorts of methods not least of which are programmable CBDCs.
cheers
Hi folks just to close off my posts on this thread I thought I’d point to someone who has been squeezed out of the public arena : John Clauser Physics Nobel Laureate 2022. He addressed a conference in July this year in Korea and was immediatey deplatformed from a scheduled address at the IMF a few weeks later - I guess this was because of the fact that he openly stated in public that he does not believe there is any basis for climate alarmism and that CO2 impact on world temperatures is almost negligible compared with the impact that clouds have.
" News
‘The popular narrative about climate change reflects a dangerous corruption of science that threatens the world’s economy and the well-being of billions of people,’ Dr. John Clauser has said.
Thu Jul 13, 2023 - 12:14 pm EDT
(LifeSiteNews) — A Nobel Prize-winning physicist has criticized alarmist climate predictions and said that he does not believe that there is a “climate crisis.”
During his speech at the “Quantum Korea 2023” event, Dr. John Clauser said, “I don’t believe there is a climate crisis,” according to a report by Seoul Economic Daily that has been translated into English by the CO2 Coalition.
Clauser added that “key processes are exaggerated and misunderstood by approximately 200 times” and accused the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) of spreading misinformation.
In his keynote speech addressed to young Korean scientists and students, Clauser said that “Misinformation is being spread by those with political and opportunistic motives.”
“Even chatbots like ChatGPT can be better at lying than humans,” he said, adding that “distinguishing truth from falsehood is a challenging task for both humans and computers.”
“In an era of rapid advancement in AI technology, the role of scientists as judges is necessary,” he said, urging scientists to fulfill their role by verifying information and educating the public about it.
Clauser won the Nobel Prize in Physics in 2022, alongside two other scientists, for his work in the field of quantum mechanics. In May 2023, the renowned physicist joined the board of directors of the CO2 Coalition, a scientific organization that highlights the benefits of CO2 for the environment and criticizes alarmist climate models.
Dr. William Happer, chairman of the CO2 Coalition’s board of directors, said that Clauser’s “studies of the science of climate provide strong evidence that there is no climate crisis and that increasing CO2 concentrations will benefit the world.”
Commenting on climate alarmism, Clauser has said that “The popular narrative about climate change reflects a dangerous corruption of science that threatens the world’s economy and the well-being of billions of people.”
“Misguided climate science has metastasized into massive shock-journalistic pseudoscience,” he continued. “In turn, the pseudoscience has become a scapegoat for a wide variety of other unrelated ills. It has been promoted and extended by similarly misguided business marketing agents, politicians, journalists, government agencies, and environmentalists. In my opinion, there is no real climate crisis.”
“There is, however, a very real problem with providing a decent standard of living to the world’s large population and an associated energy crisis. The latter is being unnecessarily exacerbated by what, in my opinion, is incorrect climate science.”
The renowned physicist has criticized President Joe Biden’s climate policies and the fact that the 2021 Nobel Prize was awarded for work done on computer models predicting “climate change.” Clauser has criticized the faulty models used by the IPCC and others that he stresses ignore important factors.
Clauser has developed climate models that emphasize the impact of cumulus clouds reflecting sunlight, which cover around half of the Earth on average. These clouds reflect around 90% of the sunlight back into space. Sunlight that reaches the earth in areas without clouds evaporates seawater which, in turn, produces cumulus clouds.
“It produces clouds at an increasingly abundant rate when the cloud-cover fraction is too small and the temperature is too high and vice versa when the fraction is too large,” [according]
(
) to the CO2 Coalition.
These clouds, therefore, act as “a very powerful input-power thermostat” that stabilizes the earth’s surface temperature.
Temperature changes caused by the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are “nearly two orders of magnitude smaller” than the impact of the cumulus clouds, rendering it negligible by comparison, Clauser argues."
“It should be noted that reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and National Academy of Sciences repeatedly concede that the effects of clouds do indeed represent the greatest uncertainty in their climate predictions,” the CO2 Coalition writes. “But these organizations have made little progress in dealing with these deficiencies.”
I did search for Clauser on 5filters but found no mention of his name.
cheers
Clouds… eeek. In fact that whole water cycle schtick: it can’t be good for us.
We can’t have voices of this caliber drowned-out of the debate.
You got a blue one?