It would make sense if the Climate Change Adaptation Fund increases foreign relations since it would hardly affect the people of the UK but would heavily affect developing countries. I think that would be pretty balanced (If it made conservatives and patriots more angry)
1 Like
Well the implication is that this is actually stuff that adapts to the effect, rather than prevents it. So its for flood defences, or better insulation in countries that expect more cold, or subsidies for more aircon in countries that will get too hot.
Its for stuff that helps the local population adapt to climate change, rather than prevent it. If anything, it should upset other countries, as its money spent looking after one country rather than preventing the problem for all 
1 Like
Could we have something about prevention too? One thing about climate change is that the sooner you spend the more money (in ways that are effective at least) to fix it right now, the cheaper it’ll be to maintain in the long run. It could be a policy that costs a crap ton at first, but, if you manage to keep it going for a good while, and if your foreign relations are very high (which might mean other countries are with you on this), it’ll ease all kinds of climate related issues more or less permanently (unless it’s cancelled) and will get cheaper over time.
I mean as far as I know there currently is the Tree planting, the Adaption Fund, and Carbon Tax and -Capturing? And that’s about it?
Tree planting and Tax may both be preventative measures. There gotta be other things that might be done, right?
1 Like
There is a whole ton of measures to reduce CO2, but currently only those two policies to actually absorb it after the event. We have green energy subsidies, micro gen grants, EV subsidies, emissions limits, smart meters, carbon tax, banning highmpg cars, airline fuel tax, frequent flyer tax and a bunch more.
2 Likes
Right, I suppose there’s more than I could think of right away.
Maybe I was too slow to implement literally all of those but I only ended up being able to completely get rid of climate change effects after doing all that stuff plus State Water Company plus Climate Change Adaption Fund. Namely water shortage remains a problem, and that surely is in part a climate effect.
I guess the other way of dealing with that would be to generally reduce farmers…
Climate change caused by mankind is a myth also no amount of taxation or regulation will change what the sun or tectonic forces impose upon climate change
Unless you think NASA are lying for some reason, this is proven to be false:
No. The Sun can influence the Earth’s climate, but it isn’t responsible for the warming trend we’ve seen over the past few decades. The Sun is a giver of life; it helps keep the planet warm enough for us to survive. We know subtle changes in the Earth’s orbit around the Sun are responsible for the comings and goings of the ice ages. But the warming we’ve seen over the last few decades is too rapid to be linked to changes in Earth’s orbit, and too large to be caused by solar activity.
1 Like
FWIW plant based diets also reduce water consumption, and mitigate the water shortage situation, because a non-meat diet involves less water usage
heh, indeed. In fact, the differences are quite drastic. Even just eliminating beef consumption and going with chicken instead would be a huge improvement.
Or how about crickets! If you really want meat, hard to beat insect based diets!
Pretty sure I already did everything I could to boost plant based diets though.
Although I then also went ahead and funded synthetic meat research which might counter some of that. (Except, just checked, it doesn’t. Maybe something to add?)
Though synthetic meat would presumably allow less water reliance, as more or less all of the necessary nutrients go into the meat and not inedible stuff or stuff that’s edible but people tend to avoid regardless…
1 Like
yup, good point, synthetic meat needs to reduce water too…