Gotta love Extinction Rebellion

[Archied]

8 hours ago, Highgate said:

I don't think I'm ignoring the logic, it's just I don't really think that it's logic at all. If we followed your reasoning then all countries, bar the 7 largest emitters, may as well do nothing until the major players gave gone green. That's ignoring nearly 40% of global CO2 emissions, more if you calculate by consumption. 

Why? What possible benefit would there be in that strategy? Especially when you consider all the other health, political and economic benefits there are for countries to go green. Why not just get everyone to do their bit? 

The UK's population is less than 1% of the world's population, a medium sized country and therefore relatively insignificant on a global scale. Of course the international impact of the UK further reducing it's GHG emissions will be small on the world stage (small  but not zero as you imply), that's just a given, nobody would reasonably expect anything different. But where does does the illogical notion come from that because the UK's positive actions would only have a minimal impact that it therefore may as well do nothing at all? I can't get my head around that assertion. Is it some sort of Imperial Hangover Syndrome, because the UK's impact is now relatively minor, when faced with a worldwide climate crisis, it may as well just sit back and do nothing at all? Apologies if that is wide of the mark, but I just find it bizarre that anyone would suggest the 'may as well do nothing' viewpoint at this stage.

As for your other point, it depends on your definition of rosy I suppose. Progress has been made certainly, although not as much as often claimed. A lot more remains to be done, and their remain please of avenues for well targeted effective protest for those who care enough to undertake it.

I get your view on unilateral net zero for the U.K. not being ignored because it doesn’t have any impact with other main polluters not doing the same but your also not factoring in the negative impact to the people of the U.K. v climate impact ,( a bit like lockdowns ) our current policies and targets that other countries are rowing back on or just not setting in the first place will have massive financial and political cost to the U.K. and it’s citizens, impacting the economy and as a result , health , education, employment quality of life , our standing globally ect ect ect , 

this is where this stuff falls short , nobody really wants to do a proper balance sheet of the effects and as a result we are seeing and will see more and more the polarisation of people to the extent that people in the middle are ignored and switch off and we are left with the just go back to the Stone Age mob or everything is fine no need to worry about anything lot🤷🏻‍♂️

[Highgate]

7 hours ago, Archied said:

I get your view on unilateral net zero for the U.K. not being ignored because it doesn’t have any impact with other main polluters not doing the same but your also not factoring in the negative impact to the people of the U.K. v climate impact ,( a bit like lockdowns ) our current policies and targets that other countries are rowing back on or just not setting in the first place will have massive financial and political cost to the U.K. and it’s citizens, impacting the economy and as a result , health , education, employment quality of life , our standing globally ect ect ect , 

this is where this stuff falls short , nobody really wants to do a proper balance sheet of the effects and as a result we are seeing and will see more and more the polarisation of people to the extent that people in the middle are ignored and switch off and we are left with the just go back to the Stone Age mob or everything is fine no need to worry about anything lot🤷🏻‍♂️

It's a difficult balance sheet to prepare as you not only have to estimate the cost of the green transition (which will be large no doubt), but also you would have to try and estimate the cost of doing nothing. (Allowing for an international response which is out of the UK's control). Then you would estimate the benefits of the transition (financial- from no fossil fuel imports, economic self sufficiency, health, climatic, other environmental etc.) and compare them to the benefits of doing nothing (can't see many of those to be honest). Basically it's a cost-benefit analysis for the Green transition and also for the status quo, aswell as intermediate paths probably. 

You have raised concerns before, I believe, that any such technological  transition will be used to make the rich richer and the poor poorer. I think that's a valid concern given what we know about human nature. However, given that the current situation is one of rampant profiteering by fossil fuel companies, which are already subsidised by taxpayers £billions annually, I'd ask how can the situation really get any worse than it already is. In fact with good governance (major doubts over that obviously), there is a real opportunity that the transition to renewable energy could create a more equitable system for all concerned.

[Stive Pesley]

58 minutes ago, Highgate said:

It's a difficult balance sheet to prepare as you not only have to estimate the cost of the green transition (which will be large no doubt), but also you would have to try and estimate the cost of doing nothing. (Allowing for an international response which is out of the UK's control). Then you would estimate the benefits of the transition (financial- from no fossil fuel imports, economic self sufficiency, health, climatic, other environmental etc.) and compare them to the benefits of doing nothing (can't see many of those to be honest). Basically it's a cost-benefit analysis for the Green transition and also for the status quo, aswell as intermediate paths probably. 

You have raised concerns before, I believe, that any such technological  transition will be used to make the rich richer and the poor poorer. I think that's a valid concern given what we know about human nature. However, given that the current situation is one of rampant profiteering by fossil fuel companies, which are already subsidised by taxpayers £billions annually, I'd ask how can the situation really get any worse than it already is. In fact with good governance (major doubts over that obviously), there is a real opportunity that the transition to renewable energy could create a more equitable system for all concerned.

Agreed - at the end of the day - everything is subject to market forces, and there is no scenario where we transition to fossil-fuel alternatives that doesn't involve *someone* getting rich. After all, we transitioned to fossil fuels from animal power and burning dung and a lot of people got VERY rich. Should we still be slinging Dobbin's business on the fire instead? In that respect it always strikes me as a weird stance to take. Almost as if there are vested interests in making people sceptical of moving away from fossil fuels...

Anyway - the good news is that the direction of travel towards emissions-free energy is going the right way - just not fast enough. And market forces WILL prevail as the prices get lower and it becomes a no-brainer for people to switch to the alternatives. Anything that anyone does to accelerate progress  is to be encouraged

 

Edited July 21, 2023 by Stive Pesley

[Archied]

1 hour ago, Highgate said:

It's a difficult balance sheet to prepare as you not only have to estimate the cost of the green transition (which will be large no doubt), but also you would have to try and estimate the cost of doing nothing. (Allowing for an international response which is out of the UK's control). Then you would estimate the benefits of the transition (financial- from no fossil fuel imports, economic self sufficiency, health, climatic, other environmental etc.) and compare them to the benefits of doing nothing (can't see many of those to be honest). Basically it's a cost-benefit analysis for the Green transition and also for the status quo, aswell as intermediate paths probably. 

You have raised concerns before, I believe, that any such technological  transition will be used to make the rich richer and the poor poorer. I think that's a valid concern given what we know about human nature. However, given that the current situation is one of rampant profiteering by fossil fuel companies, which are already subsidised by taxpayers £billions annually, I'd ask how can the situation really get any worse than it already is. In fact with good governance (major doubts over that obviously), there is a real opportunity that the transition to renewable energy could create a more equitable system for all concerned.

Very early on you make my point by stating the cost of DOING NOTHING, I’ve never once advocated doing nothing or that there a no issues, my argument as with most things is the extremes , the CRISIS, the FEAR , we obviously differ in this area and really need to take into account the lives of those living now and the short term future generations, this is not being done 

[Highgate]

29 minutes ago, Archied said:

Very early on you make my point by stating the cost of DOING NOTHING, I’ve never once advocated doing nothing or that there a no issues, my argument as with most things is the extremes , the CRISIS, the FEAR , we obviously differ in this area and really need to take into account the lives of those living now and the short term future generations, this is not being done 

I accept that you haven't suggested doing nothing. My point is that the 'change nothing' scenario would be a natural starting point when attempting to produce the cost/benefit analyses of the various future policies. Net Zero in a rapid time frame being the other end of the scale.

[Archied]

12 minutes ago, Highgate said:

I accept that you haven't suggested doing nothing. My point is that the 'change nothing' scenario would be a natural starting point when attempting to produce the cost/benefit analyses of the various future policies. Net Zero in a rapid time frame being the other end of the scale.

Yep we do need a starting point , proper debate and proper cost v cost evaluation because if for one minute the more extreme opinions are correct then we very much can’t afford to be charging down blind alley s that produce more carbon and more take make throw away with stuff like mass produced and forced on the public electric cars that may be far far from the answer , same with stuff like heat pumps , there’s masses of carbon and plastics in wind turbines and solar panels , insulation like celotex will turn out problematic too ,

sensible costed out stuff I’m on board with madness like the recent diesel fiasco is no good

[Andrew3000]

[Archied]

8 hours ago, Andrew3000 said:

Phew ,,,,,, I see another topic has been closed ( interest rates ) and I never posted a word on it , was beginning to get paranoid and think it was anything I gave a view on was shut down😂😂😂😂😂

Edited July 22, 2023 by Archied

[Bob The Badger]

On 20/07/2023 at 20:33, Ghost of Clough said:

The natural variation  is still there, and has played a big part in the change in global climate. As you can see from this graph, there's a periodic increase in CO2 on average every 100k years, so you could argue we were about due for another sharp increase. This has a clear impact on global temperature and sea level as a result.

The general argument I see is along the lines if, since there's a natural variation, it doesn't matter what we do, it'll still happen and naturally reset.

The scary part you can see in this graph is the CO2 levels continuing to increase, with us now reaching a variation double that of anything seen in over 400k years - a period which stretches back further than humans on earth.

It really is a "what next scenario". CO2 levels currently match those from 3 million years ago, with only a small increase required to match levels from 15 million years ago 

Where has the chart come from? Do you have a link?

[Bob The Badger]

On 19/07/2023 at 16:24, Carl Sagan said:

The bizarre error of logic of Extinction Rebellion and Just Stop Oil and the other cultists is to imagine what we do in the UK can make any difference at all. For instance, coal power generation (the dirtiest carbon fuel) is 2% in the UK and will be fully phased out next year. By contrast, it's around 35% in Germany and projected to rise to 40% there by the end of the decade. UK emissions, because we have decarbonized so very successfully, are minuscule.

Really, the only countries that will make a difference to the global climate are America, China and India. But with a possible second tier of nations of Russia, Germany, Japan and I think Iran.

Anyone in Europe who wants to protest should hop on a train to Germany and chain themselves to German coal mines. Doing it here just exposes these people as professional protesters in search of a cause, who don't actually care what that cause is so long as it's antiestablishment.

I thought Germany had ramped up exclusively because of the war in Ukraine, as they relied so heavily on gas from Russia.

I think they are a poor example because they are increasing renewables, they're just in an impossible situation, and we're not.

https://www.e3g.org/news/germany-on-track-to-exit-coal/

[Archied]

11 minutes ago, Bob The Badger said:

Where has the chart come from? Do you have a link?

Shartsareus.com 😂😂

[Archied]

1 minute ago, Bob The Badger said:

I thought Germany had ramped up exclusively because of the war in Ukraine, as they relied so heavily on gas from Russia.

I think they are a poor example because they are increasing renewables, they're just in an impossible situation, and we're not.

https://www.e3g.org/news/germany-on-track-to-exit-coal/

Not yet

[Ghost of Clough]

18 minutes ago, Bob The Badger said:

Where has the chart come from? Do you have a link?

I cant remember where I got that exact graph from, but here's a very similar one:

https://johnenglander.net/chart-of-420000-year-history-temperature-co2-sea-level/

FYI, here's a graph showing historic levels of CO2:

We're currently at about 424ppm, increasing by 4ppm per year.

[Stive Pesley]

A good video from a UN climate scientist, who like Archie is deeply sceptical about net zero, but who seems utterly convinced that we're in big trouble

[Archied]

2 hours ago, Stive Pesley said:

A good video from a UN climate scientist, who like Archie is deeply sceptical about net zero, but who seems utterly convinced that we're in big trouble

Will watch when I have chance then because as most can probably tell I’m seriously concerned about where we are headed in terms the answers / policies being pushed and the motivation behind them , that may be because I was into green policies 35 years ago that really made sense , I believe when you scratch the surface of these policies they crumble and probably are at best no better than where we are or worse , we import wood pellets from round the world to burn amongst other stuff that just seems crazy to me

[Highgate]

50 minutes ago, Archied said:

We import wood pellets from round the world to burn amongst other stuff that just seems crazy to me

Well I think you are spot on here. It's nothing more than a hoax or a scam. Biomass produced around 13% of the UK's electricity in 2021 and the largest proportion of that was from imported wood pellets. It's done because it can be classified as carbon neutral and therefore can help make the UK's CO2/ghg footprint look better than it really is. But actually the practice is, as you pointed out, a really bad idea. In reality imported wood pellets are definitely not carbon neutral for obvious reasons.

[Archied]

2 hours ago, Highgate said:

Well I think you are spot on here. It's nothing more than a hoax or a scam. Biomass produced around 13% of the UK's electricity in 2021 and the largest proportion of that was from imported wood pellets. It's done because it can be classified as carbon neutral and therefore can help make the UK's CO2/ghg footprint look better than it really is. But actually the practice is, as you pointed out, a really bad idea. In reality imported wood pellets are definitely not carbon neutral for obvious reasons.

You see I’m the same with electric cars coupled with how we produce the electric needed to run them all along with homes , hospitals , schools ect ect ect apart from the other drawbacks in terms of they’re carbon footprint and raw materials for batteries not being any less polluting to get and as finite as fossil fuels , they have a place no doubt but not in the way it’s being sold , I also have similar concerns AT THIS POINT with renewable energy ,

I am all for getting as clean and sustainable as possible as quickly as we can but it really has to be done properly and for the right reasons ,with the greatest will in the world just stop oil and extinction reb ect are cloud cuckoo land and if they’re demands we’re carried out we would have chaos and disaster 🤷🏻‍♂️

Edited July 22, 2023 by Archied

[Carl Sagan]

On 20/07/2023 at 23:08, Highgate said:

But where does does the illogical notion come from that because the UK's positive actions would only have a minimal impact that it therefore may as well do nothing at all? I can't get my head around that assertion. Is it some sort of Imperial Hangover Syndrome, because the UK's impact is now relatively minor, when faced with a worldwide climate crisis, it may as well just sit back and do nothing at all? Apologies if that is wide of the mark, but I just find it bizarre that anyone would suggest the 'may as well do nothing' viewpoint at this stage.

Thinking about this, if you want the UK to press ahead for the accelerated Net Zero of XR or JSO by 2030, or simply stick with the already agressive deadline of 2050, what is your pathway to either option? When the difference it will make to the global climate is negligible, how much pain are you going to impose on the British people?

Already we've banned gas boilers in new builds (from 2025) and are doing the utterly bizarre thing of shifting to hydrogen boilers, accepting a tenfold risk of explosion (and bigger explosions) as a result. And we see from trying to use hydrogen as a rocket fuel, just how impossible it is to stop it leaking everywhere.

If 2030, you're going to meet with the climate protestors demands, you have to ban flights for everyone in the UK. Except perhaps the wonderful climate warriors like Prince Harry or Gary Linekar or Emma Thompson who should still be allowed to fly the world first class or in private jets because it's "for work" or "for security" and they're not hypocrites at all. Are you advocating a massive expansion in nuclear power immediately? Or, instead, perhaps you're going with the rather neat idea of space-based solar power (but that won't be ready until 2050 either). As my old (sadly late) mate David Mackay lays out here (as one of the most powerful physicist advocates for renewables), they simply do not have the energy density to supply an advanced economy, even if you covered the entire country in biofuel crops, or solar panels or wind farms. 

Or do you want to to slash energy usage and degrowth the economy, so we can no longer afford to keep any services running?

If you want to signal the UK's virtue by acting even more than we have already done, what are the specifics you're advocating?

[Carl Sagan]

On 22/07/2023 at 08:27, Bob The Badger said:

I thought Germany had ramped up exclusively because of the war in Ukraine, as they relied so heavily on gas from Russia.

I think they are a poor example because they are increasing renewables, they're just in an impossible situation, and we're not.

https://www.e3g.org/news/germany-on-track-to-exit-coal/

There are always wars. Any country can use them as an excuse to create new coal mines and ramp up their coal usage. We could say the same, but we're not. Germany had 17 fully operational nuclear power stations with zero carbon emissions but, under intense pressure form the environmental lobby, has closed them all to use massively more coal power instead. 

[Bob The Badger]

21 minutes ago, Carl Sagan said:

There are always wars. Any country can use them as an excuse to create new coal mines and ramp up their coal usage. We could say the same, but we're not. Germany had 17 fully operational nuclear power stations with zero carbon emissions but, under intense pressure form the environmental lobby, has closed them all to use massively more coal power instead. 

Any excuse? Are you kidding me?

They lost over half of their imported gas (55%) that they had to make up. No other country came close. They imported almost 3 times that of the next country (Italy) by volume. And more than four times that of Turkey the next country.

By comparison, we imported about 4% of ours from Russia. 

So no, we couldn't make the same excuse without it sounding utterly preposterous.