Seems to me that the aspirational society based on clean power generation and electric vehicular mobility will remain in its technological and practical infancy for some time to come.

Indeed.. .

Bill Gates, in his admirably informative book on addressing our alleged part in accelerating climate change, How to Avoid a Climate Disaster (2021), although he writes that:

“There is no scenario in which we keep adding carbon to the atmosphere and the world stops getting hotter…” (p18);

also writes that there is no realistic path to the above-mentioned aspirational society which involves abandoning fossil fuels completely—or all our other activities that emit greenhouse gases (p19).

Therefore, seems to me that realistically—and barring some of the abrupt ‘game-changing’ innovations that Bill speculates over, we are talking about a longer-run transitioning scenario than some activists currently salivate over (by 2030/50 seeming to be favourites).

Yet.. .

For instance, the UK Government, in, to me, typical gullible/cynically opportunist politician mode, has already written time-scheduled ‘net zero’ targets into law—as if making them legally binding will somehow ‘magic’ them into fruition.

Also, according to its own website, will implement “…the most ambitious regulatory framework for the transition to electric vehicles in the world…80% of new cars manufactured to be electric by 2030…100% by 2035.”

That’s just six and eleven years from now?????

Good luck with that one.

However.. .

Electric vehicles, with current technology batteries for powering the motor (which is relatively small) are large, heavy, and expensive—representing a large part of the overall cost; and the charging infrastructure for broad ownership, is just not there as of now.

But of course, with ‘normal’ technological development over a realistic period of more than a few short years… .

Because, seems to me, to ‘get there’ we need to.. .

Get renewable generated power down to the consistently lower cost of that presently generated using fossil fuels (as Bill Gates advocates); while also enabling renewables to provide society’s needed consistent and reliable power base load still currently provided by fossil and nuclear fuel.

Get electric vehicle costs in line with present fossil fuel vehicles.

Then we’ve got a route to widespread adoption.

Catch a Grip.

Answer—when unduly influenced by emotion leading to unchecked rowdiness possibly leading to violence.

I say…let’s have none of that; totally unnecessary I say.

General example—the baying mob for ‘this’ or ‘that’.

Specifics—in ‘solidarity’ and ‘support’ for such as transgenderism or the current plight of the ordinary Palestinians in Gaza.

For…seems to me.. .

Besides genuine protesters, these mass gatherings have among them, elements of rent-a-mob just taking things too far and agitating for agitating’s sake; perhaps high points in their otherwise barren lives.

Sad.

Mass protest? Absolutely if that’s your thing but.. .

Leyt’s keep it orderly and civil—no matter what the issue.

Let’s conduct ourselves in a manner such that passers-by don’t feel intimidated; such that people watching media coverage do not conclude that there are unruly mobs out there who could turn up at their door with unfriendly intent.

Orderly protest seems to me to be really simple, and further, just bound to be more effective at influencing protests’ targets to actually DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT in line with protesters’ visions.

For, seems to me.. .

Scant attention will be paid to the yellings—and maybe worse—of idiots.

Catch a Grip.

Since I envisage that, at a point soon, via this website, offering some business services (primarily based on my being ‘good with words’—if I do say so myself—my grounding in Social Science, and of course, my Catch a Grip perspective) I’ll begin also posting, what seems to me, sensible business advice that I’ve picked up ‘along the way’; so. already trading or aspiring business folks and side hustlers may like to take note.

Will also.. .

Re-design/develop the site to be more user-friendly.

Indeed.. .

Many commentators agree that, especially with new and developing technology, it has never been easier for a wider spectrum of folks to start in business.

So presently.. .

I’m seriously reading a text that has actually sat in my ‘business bookcase’ for years, attracting only passing attention.

But now, on ‘getting down to’ seriously reading it, I’m finding it seriously level-headed; so I’ll now share with you, a basic business point that I’m taking from Steinmetz and Brooks’ 2006 How to Sell at Margins Higher than Your Competitors:

never compete solely on price—you’ll go broke!

Seems that…slightly ‘putting the cart before the horse’.. .

When you sell things (products/services) the money that you take in minus the cost of producing those products/services, is your Gross Margin (Gross Profit here in the UK).

Broadly, your Gross Margin finances your business, while, if you lower your price, you automatically lower your Gross Margin; thus…you have less money to finance your business; thus…you’ll eventually go broke—and so will your price competitors.

Those with the least money to lose (probably ‘newbies’ in the market, seems to me) will go broke first—but eventually, ALL of you will.

Simple…even I can understand it.

Thus, seems to me…with a nod to Steinmetz and Brooks..

Instead, offer quality products/services—defined as the right stuff to specific customers for specific purposes—and on those criteria, justify your price.

But don’t just start lowering your price in the face of price competitors or you’re simply racing them to the point of going broke.

As we say here in Scotland:

“Gonnae no’ dae that!”

Catch a Grip.

Unfortunately afflicted people who are dangerously mentally ill and who may be roaming our streets, are perceived by we members of the public, as the bogeymen…the demons ‘out to get us’ if they are not securely supervised by those tasked with that job.

A currently prominent case-in-point.

Right now, here in the UK, a big news story that continues to fuel debate, is about an un-medicated paranoid schizophrenic man roaming the streets until he stabbed three people to death and tried to murder a few more by driving a large van at them before he was forcibly taken into custody by the police

And a concerning history—but still free to roam.

This individual has previously been ‘sectioned’ (detained under the Mental Health Act) FOUR TIMES; also has a history of discontinuing his medication and threatening, even violent behaviour when again released back into the community—probably why he was, apparently, hearing voices urging him to kill others; and the hospital Trust supposedly caring for him—had lost contact with him, their seemingly lame excuse being:

“Attempts were made to contact the patient but received no response.”

Does that seem to be trying hard enough to track a mentally ill person with a known propensity for threatening behaviour and possibly violence?

Not to me. Try again…but of course, they won’t.

Familiar pattern?

Seems to me.. .

That institutions concerned with caring for, and tracking of such individuals have a priority task of being able to contact them quickly if concerns are raised about their behaviour; but of course, no system is perfect and for a host of possible reasons, contact may be lost—but this should be temporary, especially given today’s assistive technology.

Catch a Grip.

Firstly, though I support the right of any country to defend itself—seems to me, anybody will—I do think that the way Israel is ’up front’ going about this—especially given the history of the Jewish people—represents a massive ‘own goal’ for them in terms of their country’s international standing.

Then there is the long-term proposed solution to the long-festering Israeli-Palestinian conflict—a 2-State solution.

But.. .

This was moved to the forefront during Donald Trump’s recent Presidency: under Mr. Trump, America recognised Jerusalem as Israel’s Capital—even moving the American embassy from Tel Aviv to there.

Problem with that is..and has always been… Palestinians recognise Jerusalem as their Capital too?

Thus, seems to me, that the 2-State ‘solution’ to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is, and has always been, a non-goer. But it is still being ‘pushed’, most notably, by America; while Mr. Netanyahu, Israel’s President, has very recently stated that he might consider some versions of this.

Thus, seems to me.. .

The continuing recipe for no solution.. And the need for the ‘high heid yins’, both in this region of conflict, and closely involved with it, to Catch a Grip and work earnestly towards a feasible-for-both-sides 1-STATE SOLUTION wherein Palestinians and Israelis can truly live side-by-side.

THE game-changer for drug addiction is to stop being an addict; stop ‘doing ‘ addiction. (Toward REALLY curbing drug deaths…; The myth of sugar addiction.. . )

Time was when those prescribed substitute meds for opioid addiction only had the option of attending ‘the chemist’ daily and taking part in the ritual of supervised consumption—methadone, then buprenorphine was an added choice, each with its pros and cons for use.

And remember, these meds were hailed as the ‘game-changers’ of their day, reducing opioid addicts’ need to ‘fix’ from up to several times a day to 1 daily dose of substitute (of known purity and effect—another harm reduction advantage).

And of course, above-cited meds are still used by many now.

And now, additionally, extended-release (for instance, weekly, monthly—even six-monthly) ‘depot’ formulations are on offer, which can be injected or implanted; and they’re hailed by many as today’s ‘game-changers’.

However.. .

Even though these extended-release meds are a recent on-stream offer, such monitoring data as we have, suggests that not all rehab clients favour them. Some still prefer the ‘old stuff’; value the daily structuration of not only obtaining their meds, but accessing other support services as needed.

Indeed, data suggests an approximate 50/50 split between those preferring short- or long-acting rehab meds.

And who knows what’s next.

But…the status quo.

Past and current, ‘game-changers’ have been developed within ‘treatment’; and future ones probably will follow the track record and stay within ‘treatment’ too; and for harm reductionists generally I get the sense that within-treatment ‘game-changers’ are the extent of things..

But…seems to me, that’s exactly the problem.

Readers of this blog will have an idea of what I think about ‘treatment’. (The propagated myth of ‘treatment’)

But nothing in principle wrong with seeking ‘treatment’ if you think that you need such support; but my view, which I think is supported by research, is that you shouldn’t need it forever if you begin to proactively take control of your life. (Whatever you want…)

Has always seemed to me that many in the addiction ‘treatment’ field assume never-ending ‘treatment’ for clients—this following from the long-time observation that clients seem to relapse to addiction if they leave ‘treatment; thus, ever-more ‘game-changers’ within ‘treatment’.

But what about actively supporting clients (not patients) to eventually leave ‘treatment’ behind?

Let’s have at least equal focus on that game-changer.

Catch a Grip.

Catch a Grip and actually think about the sensationalised outpourings predicting climate change Armageddon.

Is it really so?

Is the world really—literally—burning?

Or just metaphorically?

Is the science (about impending man-made climate catastrophe) really settled?

My response to this last question is to point out that the scientific endeavour is inherently adversarial and therefore never really settled but rather, always subject to revision in light of new robust evidence.

Catch a Grip…we can’t Just Stop Oil’.

Why?

Because the reliable 24/7 all year round power required by developed and developing global economies is still dependent on fossil (and nuclear) fuel; and with present technology, renewables just don’t have that reliability (while of course, we are hopeful that this will change as technology develops…but we’re not there yet).

The world isn’t burning, and we’re not all going to die.

While, yes, man-made or ‘anthropomorphic’ greenhouse gas emissions are, arguably, strongly hypothesised as a significant—but not the only—contributor to climate change driving an increasing intensity of events such as wildfires and storms.

The debate.

Seems to me that the ‘what’s causing climate change?’ debate is tortuously muddled—and unnecessarily so—because vociferous actors on both sides of the argument, ‘for’ and ‘against’ man-made cause, are not exactly transparent (by simple oversight AND design) in putting their opinions forward for systematic scrutiny.

For instance, one argument against man-made climate change is that there were much warmer periods in Earth’s far-off past, before man’s activity was around.

So can science account for this while discounting such cause as working to drive climate change now and robustly put current cause on man’s doorstep?

If so, then I’m happy to go along with the ‘scientific consensus’ of human activity—especially industrial—being the main driver of present climate change.

See…it’s easy…just go with the science—-as long as that science is properly carried out, with no interference from non-scientists such as vote-seeking politicians (and also that the scientists themselves are not working to a pet agenda).

So what can we realistically do?

Well, what we mustn’t do is penury current working economies in pursuit of, for instance, covering every nook and cranny on Earth with current generation renewable technology (such as wind turbines and solar panels) which is still too unreliable to provide the 24/7 all year round power which the world needs.

And by the way, where do you think that the vast subsidies already given to kick-start renewables came from in the first place?

From presently working economies founded on reliable 24/7, relatively cheap, all-year-round power from fossil (and nuclear) fuel.

Indeed.. .

Even Bill Gates, in his book How to Avoid a Climate Disaster, posits that power from renewables needs to be at least as cheap as that from fossil fuel in order to get us weaned off the latter; he also informs us that presently, overall human activity, emits an average 51 Billion tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere each year.

Now that’s a vast amount of those gases; seems to me that even though our planet and its atmosphere is also relatively vast, such an amount of human-driven emissions just has to have some kind of effect on it.

But how much so?

Some say all (the delusional climate activists, I think), some say none (the delusional climate change deniers), and yet others, somewhere in-between (the realists who will actually do the world most good by implementing sensible policies within the resources of current working economies).

For let us remember, climate change is only ONE of the challenges facing mankind, and arguably, not the most important one.

Required terms of sensible debate.

First…nobody gets initially canceled simply because we think that we might not agree with them; however, some arguments may, in the course of debate, be judged as scientifically wanting.

Seems to me, that’s the way to do it; invite all with a contribution to make, into the party; then see what arguments survive scientific scrutiny.

Thus, we can come to have a fair idea about the scale of man-made contribution to climate change with its hypothesised association with more intense adverse events such as floods and storms…and therefore, how we might best address this challenge.

Catch a Grip…don’t go all ‘Armageddon’ on us; because we need clear, cool thinking…not panic towards ill-conceived climate change policies that, arguably, would be more disastrous in terms of overall good for the world population (especially the poor) than severe adverse weather events.

Delusional versus realistic.

Delusion:

Massively CO²/hot air-spewing, virtue-signaling climate conferences where activists and gullible/cynically self-serving world leaders knowingly (I think) make unachievable commitments toward addressing the touted ‘Armageddonic’ consequences of climate change which everybody at these events seems to be buying into.

Realism:

When those world leaders get back home and reality kicks in—along with reeling back on their hot air ‘commitments’; here in the UK, the Prime Minister Rishie Sunak is essentially implying that the short-term/hard target ‘Green’ agenda is too much too soon, given our economic resources and societal need for reliable, 24/7 all year round power—which at the moment, renewables cannot provide; and I suspect that such reality-checks are beginning to take place all over the world.

Thus, barring ‘game changer’ technological innovation, we need to slow down and do our ‘green work’ within the reliable fossil/nuclear power foundation that we have.

So ‘going completely green’ is, realistically, in the longer-term future (minimum 50 years of tapering-off fossil fuel use according to some commentators).

So Catch a Grip and ‘go green’ in a gradual, practical manner—addressing climate change as just one of the challenges facing us.

Now that’s, seems to me, un-delusional.

Realist suggestion.

Check out well-researched realist publications about addressing climate change, such as Bjorn Lomborg’s; e. g. The Skeptical Environmentalist—Cool It—False Alarm.

..Then.. .

Dare you to come back at me with your ‘mental health breakdown’ over worrying about absolutely certain Armageddon-level climate change consequences.

Pull yourself together and Catch a Grip.