Gotta love Extinction Rebellion

[Archied]

39 minutes ago, Highgate said:

Well, first of all it's a bit ironic that you are demanding an answer to your questions, immediately after refusing to answer the question I posed you.  It would be understandable I think if I were to just answer 'go research it if you are serious' or something to that effect, just as you did. 

But in the spirit of at least attempting a meaningful dialogue, I'll first point out the difference in the graph I posted and the one your are requesting. The one I posted relates to the past, measured quantities of one single variable, atmospheric CO2.  What you are requesting pertains to a hypothetical future, and that's complicated to say the least.  The CO2 that the UK has already emitted will continue to contribute to warming for some time, that is already locked-in as they say. Therefore predicting exactly how much of a contribution the UK going net zero by 2050, and over what time scale that contribution would take effect, would be tricky even for an experienced climate modeler and their software.  So you won't be getting any graph here.

As I'm sure you know very well, the contribution of one moderately sized country (the UK in this case), if everyone else were to do nothing would be tiny.  I'm guessing it would certainly be less than a 0.1C reduction in global temperature over time, compared to business as usual.  As everyone agrees, this has to be a global effort for us to achieve anything. The contributions of any solitary country with the possible exception of China or the US, will be almost negligible. To use that fact, as a excuse for inaction would be dreadful mistake in my opinion.  

Other effects of achieving net zero are also beneficial.  In all honesty it's a good idea without the spectre of global warming (although because of it, the situation is far more urgent).  Think of air quality...how many lives would eliminating the burning of fossil fuels save each year?  Just look at your national or global figures for deaths due to air pollution and particulates if you remain unconvinced on that point.  Then there is the fact that you would have a energy security (no more depending on Russia, Saudi Arabia and Iran for your energy needs) as well as a robust domestic energy production industry at home, creating jobs and wealth and not exporting them.  

Yes, the cost will be big, but the benefits will be wide-ranging and life preserving. 

Thanks for your honest reply , you state less than 0.1 degrees , I’ve seen figures far far less than even that but let’s go with around that you quote , so for me and I’m sure the majority of people in this country that really does not warrant the drastic measures being taken by government and the even more drastic measures being demanded by the extremists , the pain v gain just does not add up,

very happy to support a more balanced achievable progression that is not rushed , poorly thought out full impact wise, causes death and suffering in the now and pollution problems for the future ,

I really see no point jumping from the frying pan into the fire whilst the usual suspects get richer , 

Edited November 6, 2022 by Archied

[GboroRam]

51 minutes ago, Archied said:

Thanks for your honest reply , you state less than 0.1 degrees , I’ve seen figures far far less than even that but let’s go with around that you quote , so for me and I’m sure the majority of people in this country that really does not warrant the drastic measures being taken by government and the even more drastic measures being demanded by the extremists , the pain v gain just does not add up,

very happy to support a more balanced achievable progression that is not rushed , poorly thought out full impact wise, causes death and suffering in the now and pollution problems for the future ,

I really see no point jumping from the frying pan into the fire whilst the usual suspects get richer , 

But what about the benefits of not being beholden to Saudi Arabia for oil, Russia for gas etc? You talk about the cost of moving away from fossil fuels being drastic. Looking at the pumps and at heating costs, it's pretty drastic now. 

The status quo can't remain for long. Oil and gas are finite and are running out. External forces are pushing costs up. It pollutes and contributes to global warming. 

There's no benefit I can see from not preparing to move towards more renewable energy. I've got hopes that the latest developments in the tokamak field will bring limitless green energy, because we're screwed without it. Even if it delivers the promises, its not straightforward even then. 

[Archied]

1 hour ago, GboroRam said:

But what about the benefits of not being beholden to Saudi Arabia for oil, Russia for gas etc? You talk about the cost of moving away from fossil fuels being drastic. Looking at the pumps and at heating costs, it's pretty drastic now. 

The status quo can't remain for long. Oil and gas are finite and are running out. External forces are pushing costs up. It pollutes and contributes to global warming. 

There's no benefit I can see from not preparing to move towards more renewable energy. I've got hopes that the latest developments in the tokamak field will bring limitless green energy, because we're screwed without it. Even if it delivers the promises, its not straightforward even then. 

Now I’m in a position to debate with you and there won’t be too much disagreement, probably just around how we get there and the fact that we also have to consider the , immediate short term , medium term and long term ,

I’ve kept half an eye on how much coal we import ( ex miner) and gas ,the figures are astounding when we have those things under our feet and the extra pollution in shipping coal from Austria and Russia must be massive , we have China manufacturing most of the wind farm equipment along with most stuff we consume, we have if figures I read are correct 35% of our energy at present comming from renewables ,,, where’s the money going why are the public not seeing cheaper energy ? Why are wind farm owners allowed to sell at cost rate of gas produced electricity, why are they allowed scams that let them double charge ( research it) , we must also remember that the minerals we are building on in terms of cars and energy storage batteries are not recyclable and also finite ,

if the climate 5 mins to midnight crisis is correct then the U.K. can do nothing on its own and the truth is we are buggered ,it’s a planet wide issue,

It’s  gonna take time and massive investment to move us to the Britain you describe , that won’t happen if we headlong crash our economy , we have to burn fossil fuels for the short to mid term as far as I can see to get to/ afford the long term goals , using our own is better for the environment and gives us independence 

we will get nowhere if those on the never change side of the argument and those on the totally unworkable La la land side drown every bugger else out,

I support fracking , oil production and coal extraction in this country and the short term burning of thes fossil fuels if as a means to finance not needing them any more , I don’t support it a blind let’s burn them forever ??‍♂️

 

Edited November 6, 2022 by Archied

[Archied]

1 hour ago, GboroRam said:

But what about the benefits of not being beholden to Saudi Arabia for oil, Russia for gas etc? You talk about the cost of moving away from fossil fuels being drastic. Looking at the pumps and at heating costs, it's pretty drastic now. 

The status quo can't remain for long. Oil and gas are finite and are running out. External forces are pushing costs up. It pollutes and contributes to global warming. 

There's no benefit I can see from not preparing to move towards more renewable energy. I've got hopes that the latest developments in the tokamak field will bring limitless green energy, because we're screwed without it. Even if it delivers the promises, its not straightforward even then. 

Not seen tokamak mentioned before ,will investigate 

[GboroRam]

8 hours ago, Archied said:

Now I’m in a position to debate with you and there won’t be too much disagreement, probably just around how we get there and the fact that we also have to consider the , immediate short term , medium term and long term ,

I’ve kept half an eye on how much coal we import ( ex miner) and gas ,the figures are astounding when we have those things under our feet and the extra pollution in shipping coal from Austria and Russia must be massive , we have China manufacturing most of the wind farm equipment along with most stuff we consume, we have if figures I read are correct 35% of our energy at present comming from renewables ,,, where’s the money going why are the public not seeing cheaper energy ? Why are wind farm owners allowed to sell at cost rate of gas produced electricity, why are they allowed scams that let them double charge ( research it) , we must also remember that the minerals we are building on in terms of cars and energy storage batteries are not recyclable and also finite ,

if the climate 5 mins to midnight crisis is correct then the U.K. can do nothing on its own and the truth is we are buggered ,it’s a planet wide issue,

It’s  gonna take time and massive investment to move us to the Britain you describe , that won’t happen if we headlong crash our economy , we have to burn fossil fuels for the short to mid term as far as I can see to get to/ afford the long term goals , using our own is better for the environment and gives us independence 

we will get nowhere if those on the never change side of the argument and those on the totally unworkable La la land side drown every bugger else out,

I support fracking , oil production and coal extraction in this country and the short term burning of thes fossil fuels if as a means to finance not needing them any more , I don’t support it a blind let’s burn them forever ??‍♂️

 

But isn't that exactly the same position we were in about 30 years ago? I remember being at school when we were talking about the need to move away from coal and gas and oil (my father was also a coal miner so I know it well)?

What's changed in the 30+ years since? Well we closed down the coal mines, but not because of that - and went all in on importing our resources. 

There's been a bit of progress, but not enough considering how much time we've had. Electric cars are starting to become popular, but 2 years ago we hardly had any. There's a few windmills in the sea here and there, but that's mainly it. A lot of households still rely on gas for heating and cooking. 

That's why ER are so vocal. Decades of little or no progress, and people are saying we need to rely on fossil fuels because of the cost of changing, when we should have been doing much more for such a long time. The issue doesn't get addressed unless someone forces it. 

The stupid thing is, tesla has shown that it is possible to build a business around green energy and it can be profitable. There's a market for this, its not some costly pointless exercise. Its improving our environment, it has potential to put costs within our control - and that's entirely separate from the climate change issue. 

[Archied]

36 minutes ago, GboroRam said:

But isn't that exactly the same position we were in about 30 years ago? I remember being at school when we were talking about the need to move away from coal and gas and oil (my father was also a coal miner so I know it well)?

What's changed in the 30+ years since? Well we closed down the coal mines, but not because of that - and went all in on importing our resources. 

There's been a bit of progress, but not enough considering how much time we've had. Electric cars are starting to become popular, but 2 years ago we hardly had any. There's a few windmills in the sea here and there, but that's mainly it. A lot of households still rely on gas for heating and cooking. 

That's why ER are so vocal. Decades of little or no progress, and people are saying we need to rely on fossil fuels because of the cost of changing, when we should have been doing much more for such a long time. The issue doesn't get addressed unless someone forces it. 

The stupid thing is, tesla has shown that it is possible to build a business around green energy and it can be profitable. There's a market for this, its not some costly pointless exercise. Its improving our environment, it has potential to put costs within our control - and that's entirely separate from the climate change issue. 

Overall, 82.2% of all current and pending UK offshore wind capacity is foreign-owned; after foreign state-ownership, multinational and private equity companies dominate this sector. Wealth generated from our common resources is accumulating steadily, but not for our common benefit.

 

im on board for change and if the current extremists were actually calling for the right kind of well thought out change then I would back them ( though not they’re methods ) 

the truth is we are still burning fossil fuels and will need to for some time to come ,for me there is no point in screaming just stop now as it can’t and won’t happen ,the U.K. can’t affect global climate change but we can break away from the herd but it’s gonna take a bit of movement from both sides of the argument in the short term , im gonna be labelled a commy but energy and energy policy for the future needs to be nationalised and I don’t know how you do it but somehow independent of and not at the mercy of constantly changing governments and yes I know labour propose something along those lines but then go and spoil it by talking up totaly la la timescales even shorter than what is set now,

cop 27 will break the records of carbon footprint of the last one as happens year on year ,,,,, duck cop 20, 30, 40 whatever, it’s a load of rubbish ( see I agree with thunberg in places ) and concentrate on getting the U.K. on the right track ,

It’s  gonna take proper politicians with proper regulation and long term vision and short term some hard unpalatable stuff will have to be swallowed by the ext reb and just stop types but the truth is sometimes you do have to go backwards to go forward 

see now you’ve got me perhaps living in la la land , the kind of green thinking I got disheartened and gave up on years ago , I lost faith in those at the top to serve anything other than money and those at the extreme end of the scale to do anything other than give them a get out with they’re brand of madness,

I would hope that those on here who brand me this and that denier would now after the last few days debate understand how I arrived at my current position on this debate even if they don’t agree

Edited November 7, 2022 by Archied

[Crewton]

Britain led the way in industrialisation, which produced many benefits to both the country and the rest of the world, but did so without any restraint in respect of the damaging environmental effects until very late in the 20th century. Our impact now is small in respect of global emissions, but many people believe it's only right that we show a lead in moving to a net-zero position, not least those in countries where climate change will have (and in some cases is already having) disastrous consequences. It's in our own interest too, because unchecked, the effect of climate change in the hottest and poorest areas of the planet will eventually land on our doorstep. 

[Archied]

5 minutes ago, Crewton said:

Britain led the way in industrialisation, which produced many benefits to both the country and the rest of the world, but did so without any restraint in respect of the damaging environmental effects until very late in the 20th century. Our impact now is small in respect of global emissions, but many people believe it's only right that we show a lead in moving to a net-zero position, not least those in countries where climate change will have (and in some cases is already having) disastrous consequences. It's in our own interest too, because unchecked, the effect of climate change in the hottest and poorest areas of the planet will eventually land on our doorstep. 

Seems we agree on the end game for Britain and my argument/ debate is about Britain as we have little to zero control over what others do

where we disagree is why we need to be doing it , how we get there, in what workable timescale and without causing misery poverty and deaths in the now or bankrupting our country making it impossible to get there,

I do actually take the time to investigate and think about stuff , I’m not some unpleasant WUM who thinks it’s clever to wind people up about things they are passionate about

[Highgate]

3 hours ago, Archied said:

 

im gonna be labelled a commy but energy and energy policy for the future needs to be nationalised and I don’t know how you do it but somehow independent of and not at the mercy of constantly changing governments and yes I know labour propose something along those lines but then go and spoil it by talking up totaly la la timescales even shorter than what is set now,

 

I think that's a good point. Interestingly the world leader in wind power generation and wind turbine manufacture, Denmark has a policy that wind farms are at least partially community owned. The vast majority of windfarms in Denmark, both onshore and off, are run like  cooperatives, giving local people a financial stake in their local windfarm.  As a result, wind power seems to be hugely popular in Denmark and the whole industry has prospered. 

[Archied]

1 hour ago, Highgate said:

I think that's a good point. Interestingly the world leader in wind power generation and wind turbine manufacture, Denmark has a policy that wind farms are at least partially community owned. The vast majority of windfarms in Denmark, both onshore and off, are run like  cooperatives, giving local people a financial stake in their local windfarm.  As a result, wind power seems to be hugely popular in Denmark and the whole industry has prospered. 

Now you open up another area I find annoying and laughable in equal measure , the amount of people who want renewables for the country but not near them thank you very much ( same with fracking on the other side ) , and this obsession with planning , not building and or buildings must be in keeping with the area , sorry but the style and way we built in the past is not energy efficient either during build or after built you can only build for now but in keeping at vast expense and time consuming,

a lot of people are going to have to look very hard at whether they’re stated claims to care about the planet and other people is at odds with how they actually react and behave when it calls for them to make sacrifices 

[Day]

 

[Highgate]

1 hour ago, Archied said:

Now you open up another area I find annoying and laughable in equal measure , the amount of people who want renewables for the country but not near them thank you very much ( same with fracking on the other side ) , and this obsession with planning , not building and or buildings must be in keeping with the area , sorry but the style and way we built in the past is not energy efficient either during build or after built you can only build for now but in keeping at vast expense and time consuming,

a lot of people are going to have to look very hard at whether they’re stated claims to care about the planet and other people is at odds with how they actually react and behave when it calls for them to make sacrifices 

Yeah the NIMBY mentality is a problem for all sorts of developments I suppose, not least renewables, particularly wind turbines. Again taking Denmark as the example, when a community is financially invested in wind turbine project, the number of complaints drops dramatically, for obvious reasons. 

I think building energy efficient homes now will save everyone energy and money in the future, so I don't disagree with building regulations in that regard at least.

Leaving the science underpinning global warming aside for a moment (which I'm sure you've noticed I think is pretty much settled), I think you raise valid concerns about the nature of the transition from fossil fuels to green energy.  It is a big challenge and there are many obstacles to be overcome.  There is a danger, as I think you've pointed out, that we could simply replace the big profiteering fossil fuel utility companies with big profiteering green energy utility companies, leaving most of the population consistently overcharged and without any financial benefit whatsoever.  But given that there will be a transition from fossil fuels to green at some stage or another, that will provide an opportunity for significant restructuring and change, which if done sensibly, could leave the average citizen with a financial stake in their own domestic energy production.  There is no shame in basically copying the Danish model. If Denmark can do it successfully then so can the UK or any country.

[Archied]

47 minutes ago, Highgate said:

Yeah the NIMBY mentality is a problem for all sorts of developments I suppose, not least renewables, particularly wind turbines. Again taking Denmark as the example, when a community is financially invested in wind turbine project, the number of complaints drops dramatically, for obvious reasons. 

I think building energy efficient homes now will save everyone energy and money in the future, so I don't disagree with building regulations in that regard at least.

Leaving the science underpinning global warming aside for a moment (which I'm sure you've noticed I think is pretty much settled), I think you raise valid concerns about the nature of the transition from fossil fuels to green energy.  It is a big challenge and there are many obstacles to be overcome.  There is a danger, as I think you've pointed out, that we could simply replace the big profiteering fossil fuel utility companies with big profiteering green energy utility companies, leaving most of the population consistently overcharged and without any financial benefit whatsoever.  But given that there will be a transition from fossil fuels to green at some stage or another, that will provide an opportunity for significant restructuring and change, which if done sensibly, could leave the average citizen with a financial stake in their own domestic energy production.  There is no shame in basically copying the Danish model. If Denmark can do it successfully then so can the UK or any country.

I’m happy to leave the settled science bit alone not least for the fact that chosen science and scientists have been used as a weapon on the masses over the last few years and seems to be the new go to to tell people shut up there’s no debate but the truth is there is debate regards the degree we have changed things and can change them back but hey that’s where we differ in opinion, for me it’s counter productive to present the case for the U.K. going net zero ( properly not pretend and in a realistic way and timescale) under that banner, people in the U.K. will as I do look at the answer to that trillion dollar question I asked and reject it ,even fight it hard , plus in my view it’s causing mental and emotional harm to others too

it has to be sold/ promoted in a positive manner that enthuses people , becomes something they want to get behind , something that is being done to make the U.K. a better , cleaner , fairer , stable place to live and it has to have a liveable transition, with the tag line/ bonus others will follow success 

of course the problem is big business and slimy politicians have they’re snouts at the trough 

Edited November 7, 2022 by Archied

[Highgate]

3 minutes ago, Archied said:

it has to be sold/ promoted in a positive manner that enthuses people , becomes something they want to get behind , something that is being done to make the U.K. a better , cleaner , fairer , stable place to live and it has to have a liveable transition, with the tag line/ bonus others will follow success 

of course the problem is big business and slimy politicians have they’re snouts at the trough 

Well at least we agree on the objectives ?

Edited November 7, 2022 by Highgate

[Archied]

10 minutes ago, Archied said:

I’m happy to leave the settled science bit alone not least for the fact that chosen science and scientists have been used as a weapon on the masses over the last few years and seems to be the new go to to tell people shut up there’s no debate but the truth is there is debate regards the degree we have changed things and can change them back but hey that’s where we differ in opinion, for me it’s counter productive to present the case for the U.K. going net zero ( properly not pretend and in a realistic way and timescale) under that banner, people in the U.K. will as I do look at the answer to that trillion dollar question I asked and reject it ,even fight it hard , plus in my view it’s causing mental and emotional harm to others too

it has to be sold/ promoted in a positive manner that enthuses people , becomes something they want to get behind , something that is being done to make the U.K. a better , cleaner , fairer , stable place to live and it has to have a liveable transition, with the tag line/ bonus others will follow success 

of course the problem is big business and slimy politicians have they’re snouts at the trough 

I saw a young girl interviewed on the M25 today in a right state , I would much rather see  our young be fighting for something they believe in full of enthusiasm and hope not on the edge mentally and emotionally full of anxiety and looking about 10 minutes from having a breakdown and ending it all 

[Crewton]

2 hours ago, Archied said:

I saw a young girl interviewed on the M25 today in a right state , I would much rather see  our young be fighting for something they believe in full of enthusiasm and hope not on the edge mentally and emotionally full of anxiety and looking about 10 minutes from having a breakdown and ending it all 

I doubt they're going to find much comfort in your apparent preferred option of kicking the can down the road but giving it a lick of green paint. If they could see positive steps being taken, I'm sure they'd feel less anxious and more enthused and hopeful for the future. The current government, unfortunately though, is sending out very mixed messages and actions are going in the opposite direction to words. That's not going to bring them any solace either. 

[Ghost of Clough]

On 06/11/2022 at 14:36, Highgate said:

I don't know exactly how skeptical you are of science, but I'll assume that you understand and agree that GHGs in the atmosphere warm up the planet. I mean that is established well beyond any reasonable doubt and the effect can be demonstrated by any competent school science teacher so I don't see how there is any room for debate on that point.  

Given that that is the case and given that what is depicted in the graph below is also the case, then the extrapolation isn't too difficult.  I've not mentioned politics at all as it has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on whether anthropogenic climate change is true or false.  Only science can tell us that. 

 

Just to paint a more complete picture...

[Carl Sagan]

Here's Roger Hallam, co-founder of Extinction Rebellion and "the brains" behind Just Stop Oil:

[content warning - he's an absolute nutter so he's talking yesterday about some very grotesque sexual acts, but for those who don't understand how wacko these people are, it seems important to show them]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Highgate]

1 hour ago, Ghost of Clough said:

Just to paint a more complete picture...

True...and of course you could go even further back if you wished. 

That's a wonderful graph actually, and it so clearly depicts the nature of the problem we find ourselves in today.  If you look at all those time periods where atmospheric CO2 levels are higher than current levels, those were times with higher global temperatures and higher sea-levels, exactly what we are trying to avoid now.  In fact you can see that the polar ice caps only exist at all when the CO2 levels are relatively low.  If they were to disappear entirely that would result in  a 70 metre sea level rise, flooding every coastal city on the planet (thankfully we do still have some time before that worst case scenario could happen).

The rapid drop in CO2 levels in the Carboniferous is particularly interesting.  That's when our planet's vast coal deposits were buried deep underground by geological process. CO2 in the atmosphere became incorporated in to plants in the enormous forests that were then flourishing. Over time some of that carbon was, under huge pressures converted into coal and removed from atmospheric circulation forever (or what should have been forever). Some of the other precipitous falls in CO2 that can be seen on the graph, such as in the Permian and the late Cretaceous match up with the periods that the oil fields were being formed and also drawing carbon out of the atmosphere. It's these processes that we have started to reverse since the industrial revolution, releasing all that carbon back into the atmosphere at an accelerated rate.  

Just think of the timescales depicted on that graph....the Carboniferous Period itself is nearly 60,000,000 years long. And yet we've managed to make a noticeable difference in atmospheric CO2 levels in the relative blink of an eye (raising it from the blue life on the graph to red line on the graph in less than two centuries) and by 100ppm in the last 60 years alone.  That's an unprecedented rate of change.  

[Gone]

And we’re going to potentially pay £11B of British tax payers hard earned money to repatriate countries effected by eligible climate change, disgrace.