Gotta love Extinction Rebellion

[Highgate]

6 hours ago, Carl Sagan said:

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?

It's not up to me to clarify how to reach the targets proposed by JSO or XR.  I don't even agree with some of their actions, let them defend their own proposals. I'm not sure how plausible they would be.  Nor am I a policy maker and I have little interest in detailing how the UK government should meet it's own 2050 targets.  I'm sure they have attempted to explain their plans in some policy paper or whatever, although I'm not sure how clear it could be, given how quickly the situation develops and technology changes. I don't really favour setting such targets anyway, they often serve more as a slogan and may be nothing more than an an attempt to kick the whole climate crisis can down the road for someone else to deal with. 

What I am against is this notion than the UK should do little or nothing while China and the US sort themselves out first. That's illogical and counterproductive in the extreme in my view. On the contrary I believe the UK should be doing everything it can possibly can to hasten the conversion to the green economy and doing it as quickly as feasible. Allowing for one understandable red line, not to make those living in poverty's situation worse, or push more people towards the poverty line in the effort to reach a sustainable economy.  That's the job of the UK government, whomever they may be, and it's the responsibility of the UK public to make sure that those in government start to prioritize the climate and environment by voting accordingly. However, I will admit that the UK electorate is hampered here by the FPTP electoral system, which is a system not fit for purpose in a modern democracy, as it operates to prevent a change in the status quo. Flexibility and change are precisely the attributes that a healthy democracy is supposed to embrace. 

As regards climate policy there is a whole host of things that the UK can do, and continue to do.  Stop subsidizing fossil fuels, put a wealth tax on the profiteering fossil fuel and utility companies, that are making such record profits at a time crisis.  Implement a wealth tax on the super wealthy.  Use this money, to subsidize an electric transport system, making it so much easier for everybody's next car to be an electric one.  Continue building renewable energy power generation facilities, such as solar and offshore wind, build grid scale energy storage, exploring micro hydro and nuclear options, build grid interconnectivity with neighbouring countries and so on. As well as ambitions plans such as the xLinks project connecting the UK an enormous renewable energy resource in Morocco. 

https://xlinks.co/morocco-uk-power-project/

Also, by encouraging a more climate friendly diet a significant CO2 reduction could be achieved, (by taxing high foods with a high CO2 footprint and subsidizing foods with a low CO2 footprints). Furthermore and needless to say really, energy wastage can be reduced all over the economy, without impacting the economy negatively. There are a lot of the things the UK government could be getting on with regarding reducing their GHG emissions.  

There is little point posting a TED talk from more than 10 years ago when talking about the future of renewables and their contribution to the Green Economy. The field is moving so fast and technology is being developed so rapidly, that no matter how knowledgeable a person was on the subject in 2012, their views are simply out of date now.  How were they to know that by now solar power would more efficient and be 70% cheaper than it was then, making it the cheapest energy source on the planet. Or to predict the development of grid scale battery storage for renewables, or the growth of interconnected national grids, or the possibilities for solid state batteries for electric vehicles etc... 

I have no interest in the opinions of Harry Winsdor or Emma Thompson on this subject, or any subject really, but one point worth mentioning is that the 'net' zero that all these people are talking about doesn't necessarily mean zero CO2 emissions. Emissions can be offset by planting trees, both in the UK and elsewhere and potentially by various carbon sequestration practices and technologies in the future.

There does seem to be a somewhat complacent and self-congratulatory tone creeping into your attitude towards the UK's GHG emissions reduction of recent decades. I think this is somewhat unwarranted, given that it's largely due to the coalmines being closed for financial reasons, manufacturing migrating abroad to find lower labour costs and the deliberate mislabeling of imported biomass as carbon neutral. That's not to say that the renewables introduced by the UK haven't been making a positive impact, they certainly have, but there is so much more that needs to be done and now is the time to start doing it, instead of waiting for China to do something first. You talk about the pain incurred by people as the costs of the Green Transition mount up, but you make no mention of the many hardships that will be felt all around the world (if smaller countries were to follow your advice and do little or nothing) as our global climate becomes increasingly inhospitable year after year.  

 

 

[maxjam]

4 minutes ago, Highgate said:

I have no interest in the opinions of Harry Winsdor or Emma Thompson on this subject, or any subject really, but one point worth mentioning is that the 'net' zero that all these people are talking about doesn't necessarily mean zero CO2 emissions. Emissions can be offset by planting trees, both in the UK and elsewhere and potentially by various carbon sequestration practices and technologies in the future.

So the rich get to jet around the world in their private jets cos they can afford it, whilst the average Joe gets stung for his £12.50 Ulez fee daily, contained to his 15 minute city scratching his head how he can now travel to work to try and find the extra £15k for the new heat pump he's gotta have installed?

Is private jet fuel still tax free?  Perhaps the elite could stop acting like the utter hypocrites they start paying their fair share before we cripple the working classes further with enormous debt and livelihood restrictions.

Sorry but I'm also past caring now... I still do my bit, I do the right thing where possible but the wall to wall climate armageddon coverage is just too much - especially when most of it is done for profit.

 

[Highgate]

4 minutes ago, maxjam said:

So the rich get to jet around the world in their private jets cos they can afford it, whilst the average Joe gets stung for his £12.50 Ulez fee daily, contained to his 15 minute city scratching his head how he can now travel to work to try and find the extra £15k for the new heat pump he's gotta have installed?

Is private jet fuel still tax free?  Perhaps the elite could stop acting like the utter hypocrites they start paying their fair share before we cripple the working classes further with enormous debt and livelihood restrictions.

Sorry but I'm also past caring now... I still do my bit, I do the right thing where possible but the wall to wall climate armageddon coverage is just too much - especially when most of it is done for profit.

 

Not what I'm talking about all.  I'm talking about a country's emissions can be offset if they are also engaging in reforestation, which will draw CO2 out of the atmosphere.  This will be necessary to allow countries become carbon neutral even while still emitting some CO2 from homes or industry.  My fault for not making this clear. 

I find the practice of ostensibly 'eco-aware' rich people using private planes obviously hypocritical if the journey isn't an essential one.  But also I find that the topic is regularly used by those who just want to discredit the whole Green/Sustainability movement and who wish that the whole Climate Change debate would just disappear. 

[Archied]

8 hours ago, Highgate said:

Not what I'm talking about all.  I'm talking about a country's emissions can be offset if they are also engaging in reforestation, which will draw CO2 out of the atmosphere.  This will be necessary to allow countries become carbon neutral even while still emitting some CO2 from homes or industry.  My fault for not making this clear. 

I find the practice of ostensibly 'eco-aware' rich people using private planes obviously hypocritical if the journey isn't an essential one.  But also I find that the topic is regularly used by those who just want to discredit the whole Green/Sustainability movement and who wish that the whole Climate Change debate would just disappear. 

Like everything these days there’s a push to be one side or the other from eco loons ext reb ect and hypocrites who do the opposite of what they want to enforce on others, to those who see no problem and say do nothing , my theory is that the old divide and rule tactic is working the best it ever has in our history, from brexit onwards ,through covid now climate change , so called culture wars , it’s stunning the degree to which people take camps and hate on the other side ,

my stance on U.K. net zero targets and policy is fairly clear , I believe the motives are all wrong , even starmer is now selling it as this fantastic opportunity for economic growth 😂, if the more alarmist predictions are right then we really can’t afford to be running down blind alleys that put us deeper in the poo but fill the pockets of the few whilst scalping the many and I believe fear and anxiety are being used to get people to happily Que up to be scalped 

[TimRam]

In a nutshell, we cannot afford net zero yet it's being pushed as a select few probably have investments in the "solutions". Even the adverts for electric vehicles push expensive suvs.

[Archied]

2 hours ago, TimRam said:

In a nutshell, we cannot afford net zero yet it's being pushed as a select few probably have investments in the "solutions". Even the adverts for electric vehicles push expensive suvs.

Electric cars at this point are great if they are seen as a part of the solution reducing as we go but full on ban fossil fuel cars and everything electric is just not workable or even that much better when you account for all the take make throw away and carbon footprint that entails plus the materials are finite too , same with lots of stuff being pushed / forced as the answer , same with renewable energy like wind and solar ,

I get the thing of not going along with not doing anything because we produce so little of the worlds carbon but IF the extremes of we have next to no years to the point of no return are true then actually there is no point uk doing this pretty much alone ,, so much of what is being put out by both sides makes no sense

[jono]

13 hours ago, Highgate said:

It's not up to me to clarify how to reach the targets proposed by JSO or XR.  I don't even agree with some of their actions, let them defend their own proposals. I'm not sure how plausible they would be.  Nor am I a policy maker and I have little interest in detailing how the UK government should meet it's own 2050 targets.  I'm sure they have attempted to explain their plans in some policy paper or whatever, although I'm not sure how clear it could be, given how quickly the situation develops and technology changes. I don't really favour setting such targets anyway, they often serve more as a slogan and may be nothing more than an an attempt to kick the whole climate crisis can down the road for someone else to deal with. 

What I am against is this notion than the UK should do little or nothing while China and the US sort themselves out first. That's illogical and counterproductive in the extreme in my view. On the contrary I believe the UK should be doing everything it can possibly can to hasten the conversion to the green economy and doing it as quickly as feasible. Allowing for one understandable red line, not to make those living in poverty's situation worse, or push more people towards the poverty line in the effort to reach a sustainable economy.  That's the job of the UK government, whomever they may be, and it's the responsibility of the UK public to make sure that those in government start to prioritize the climate and environment by voting accordingly. However, I will admit that the UK electorate is hampered here by the FPTP electoral system, which is a system not fit for purpose in a modern democracy, as it operates to prevent a change in the status quo. Flexibility and change are precisely the attributes that a healthy democracy is supposed to embrace. 

As regards climate policy there is a whole host of things that the UK can do, and continue to do.  Stop subsidizing fossil fuels, put a wealth tax on the profiteering fossil fuel and utility companies, that are making such record profits at a time crisis.  Implement a wealth tax on the super wealthy.  Use this money, to subsidize an electric transport system, making it so much easier for everybody's next car to be an electric one.  Continue building renewable energy power generation facilities, such as solar and offshore wind, build grid scale energy storage, exploring micro hydro and nuclear options, build grid interconnectivity with neighbouring countries and so on. As well as ambitions plans such as the xLinks project connecting the UK an enormous renewable energy resource in Morocco. 

https://xlinks.co/morocco-uk-power-project/

Also, by encouraging a more climate friendly diet a significant CO2 reduction could be achieved, (by taxing high foods with a high CO2 footprint and subsidizing foods with a low CO2 footprints). Furthermore and needless to say really, energy wastage can be reduced all over the economy, without impacting the economy negatively. There are a lot of the things the UK government could be getting on with regarding reducing their GHG emissions.  

There is little point posting a TED talk from more than 10 years ago when talking about the future of renewables and their contribution to the Green Economy. The field is moving so fast and technology is being developed so rapidly, that no matter how knowledgeable a person was on the subject in 2012, their views are simply out of date now.  How were they to know that by now solar power would more efficient and be 70% cheaper than it was then, making it the cheapest energy source on the planet. Or to predict the development of grid scale battery storage for renewables, or the growth of interconnected national grids, or the possibilities for solid state batteries for electric vehicles etc... 

I have no interest in the opinions of Harry Winsdor or Emma Thompson on this subject, or any subject really, but one point worth mentioning is that the 'net' zero that all these people are talking about doesn't necessarily mean zero CO2 emissions. Emissions can be offset by planting trees, both in the UK and elsewhere and potentially by various carbon sequestration practices and technologies in the future.

There does seem to be a somewhat complacent and self-congratulatory tone creeping into your attitude towards the UK's GHG emissions reduction of recent decades. I think this is somewhat unwarranted, given that it's largely due to the coalmines being closed for financial reasons, manufacturing migrating abroad to find lower labour costs and the deliberate mislabeling of imported biomass as carbon neutral. That's not to say that the renewables introduced by the UK haven't been making a positive impact, they certainly have, but there is so much more that needs to be done and now is the time to start doing it, instead of waiting for China to do something first. You talk about the pain incurred by people as the costs of the Green Transition mount up, but you make no mention of the many hardships that will be felt all around the world (if smaller countries were to follow your advice and do little or nothing) as our global climate becomes increasingly inhospitable year after year.  

 

 

All very laudable but you talk about vast infrastructure projects as if you could pop round to IKEA and put them together over the weekend. 
I am dubious about taxing energy companies excessively. That looks at it the wrong way round .. the point should really be that they should - by law - be reinvesting those profits in building the very infrastructure you suggest. What’s gone wrong with utility companies is this : utilities should provide low yield but very safe investment. Letting them be private is absolutely fine but the regulations and laws around what they do do with profits have been insufficient. Letting them split retail and production apart is destabilising. 

[maxjam]

14 minutes ago, jono said:

All very laudable but you talk about vast infrastructure projects as if you could pop round to IKEA and put them together over the weekend. 
I am dubious about taxing energy companies excessively. That looks at it the wrong way round .. the point should really be that they should - by law - be reinvesting those profits in building the very infrastructure you suggest. What’s gone wrong with utility companies is this : utilities should provide low yield but very safe investment. Letting them be private is absolutely fine but the regulations and laws around what they do do with profits have been insufficient. Letting them split retail and production apart is destabilising. 

Exactly, you can't keep loading cost and restrictions on the working classes whilst the elites swan around in their private jets and yachts telling us we must do more.  I'm all for doing something about the climate but the constant hypocrisy and armageddon coverage just turns me off, furthermore it will make people vote against green policies. 

Taxing profits so the costs aren't passed onto the consumer would be a good place to start.  Taxing elites their fair share would be another.

https://time.com/6277202/private-jet-carbon-climate-tax/

[jono]

4 minutes ago, maxjam said:

Exactly, you can't keep loading cost and restrictions on the working classes whilst the elites swan around in their private jets and yachts telling us we must do more.  I'm all for doing something about the climate but the constant hypocrisy and armageddon coverage just turns me off, furthermore it will make people vote against green policies. 

Taxing profits so the costs aren't passed onto the consumer would be a good place to start.  Taxing elites their fair share would be another.

https://time.com/6277202/private-jet-carbon-climate-tax/

With utility companies the equations are all wrong. First off, as a safe haven for pension funds utilities should be providing steady income dividend from modest but secure profits .. I mean steady .. not spectacular. These companies do genuinely need to make money, the dividends from this activity really does pay ordinary peoples pensions. The excesses they get because they are in a secure marketplace that should be being spent keeping our infrastructure up to date, not paying “performance bonuses to CEO’s or Fund managers” on the back of windfall profits. We need strong wealthy utility companies because they have to invest in mega projects that cost gazillions and take time. It’s about balance. The last 30 years have seen a very poor balance. How many many reservoirs have been built ? And wind farms aside, how many efficient power stations have been built ? Or indeed gas storage facilities ? Or cable networks for EV’s .

 

[Ghost of Clough]

13 minutes ago, jono said:

With utility companies the equations are all wrong. First off, as a safe haven for pension funds utilities should be providing steady income dividend from modest but secure profits .. I mean steady .. not spectacular. These companies do genuinely need to make money, the dividends from this activity really does pay ordinary peoples pensions. The excesses they get because they are in a secure marketplace that should be being spent keeping our infrastructure up to date, not paying “performance bonuses to CEO’s or Fund managers” on the back of windfall profits. We need strong wealthy utility companies because they have to invest in mega projects that cost gazillions and take time. It’s about balance. The last 30 years have seen a very poor balance. How many many reservoirs have been built ? And wind farms aside, how many efficient power stations have been built ? Or indeed gas storage facilities ? Or cable networks for EV’s .

 

Since the start of 2010, the following power stations have been opened:
Battery storage - 1 (49 MW capacity)
Biomass - 7 (464 MW capacity)
CCGT - 6 (6883 MW capacity)
Gas - 1 (21 MW capacity)
Hydro - 4 (0.24 MW capacity)
Waste - 2 (119 MW capacity)
Wave - 1 (20 MW capacity)

Three nuclear plants are due to open around 2030, adding 8600 MW of capacity (adding to the current 47371 MW capacity - an 18.2% increase). These are due to be 3 of the 4 biggest power stations ever in the UK. An additional station, of equal size has been proposed but is yet to progress beyond the proposal stage.

[jono]

32 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

Since the start of 2010, the following power stations have been opened:
Battery storage - 1 (49 MW capacity)
Biomass - 7 (464 MW capacity)
CCGT - 6 (6883 MW capacity)
Gas - 1 (21 MW capacity)
Hydro - 4 (0.24 MW capacity)
Waste - 2 (119 MW capacity)
Wave - 1 (20 MW capacity)

Three nuclear plants are due to open around 2030, adding 8600 MW of capacity (adding to the current 47371 MW capacity - an 18.2% increase). These are due to be 3 of the 4 biggest power stations ever in the UK. An additional station, of equal size has been proposed but is yet to progress beyond the proposal stage.

I am presuming ccgt are gas turbines with a steam turbine running off reclaimed waste heat from the turbines ? I.e traditional proven tech ? It is interesting to see that represents vastly the greatest chunk and is “biomass” using methane to fuel the turbine ? Or is that wood chips replacing coal ? 
and then I wonder what has been decommissioned at the same time ? 

[jono]

16 hours ago, Highgate said:

Not what I'm talking about all.  I'm talking about a country's emissions can be offset if they are also engaging in reforestation, which will draw CO2 out of the atmosphere.  This will be necessary to allow countries become carbon neutral even while still emitting some CO2 from homes or industry.  My fault for not making this clear. 

I find the practice of ostensibly 'eco-aware' rich people using private planes obviously hypocritical if the journey isn't an essential one.  But also I find that the topic is regularly used by those who just want to discredit the whole Green/Sustainability movement and who wish that the whole Climate Change debate would just disappear. 

I know we need to do something but every nation is greenwashing. China may well be leading the way in some mass plans but it has opened more new coal fired power stations in the last 10 years than the whole world put together. Waiting for China is laughable. They are doing what we did 150/200 years ago. Building an empire, getting cheap natural resources from Africa etc etc.  it is what happens always. It won’t improve while the population increases faster than our individual emissions fall. Given that population has tripled in 60 years we are on an uphill course no matter what we do ! 
 

[Archied]

Quit good this topic now , I reckon most of the posters on here sitting round the table together , with the backing of some scientists could do a far far better job of the clowns we’ve had from both con and labour over the last 50 years 🤷‍♂️

[Ghost of Clough]

53 minutes ago, jono said:

I am presuming ccgt are gas turbines with a steam turbine running off reclaimed waste heat from the turbines ? I.e traditional proven tech ? It is interesting to see that represents vastly the greatest chunk and is “biomass” using methane to fuel the turbine ? Or is that wood chips replacing coal ? 
and then I wonder what has been decommissioned at the same time ? 

In the same period of time, we have closed power stations with a combined capacity of 25259 MW.

CCGT - 2 (2104 MW)
Coal - 6 (9938 MW)
Coal + Biomass - 2 (4098 MW)
Coil + Oil + Biofuel - 2 (3131 MW)
Nuclear - 3 (2350 MW)
Oil - 3 (3638 MW)

Despite those being the capacity figures, those older stations rarely got anywhere near the stated figures.

Whilst we've lost 25 GW of official capacity in that period and dropped to 47 GW now, peak UK electricity demand over the last year was only 38 GW (December), averaging out at 30 GW. 10 years ago, the average consumption was 20% higher and it's been a steady decline since.

[jono]

44 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

In the same period of time, we have closed power stations with a combined capacity of 25259 MW.

CCGT - 2 (2104 MW)
Coal - 6 (9938 MW)
Coal + Biomass - 2 (4098 MW)
Coil + Oil + Biofuel - 2 (3131 MW)
Nuclear - 3 (2350 MW)
Oil - 3 (3638 MW)

Despite those being the capacity figures, those older stations rarely got anywhere near the stated figures.

Whilst we've lost 25 GW of official capacity in that period and dropped to 47 GW now, peak UK electricity demand over the last year was only 38 GW (December), averaging out at 30 GW. 10 years ago, the average consumption was 20% higher and it's been a steady decline since.

Vast increase in use of LED lighting and the biggy is we don’t melt or forge metal in any quantity anymore. I don’t know what compuer servers use or indeed how many large scale ones are UK based. ? 
 

[Highgate]

8 hours ago, Archied said:

Like everything these days there’s a push to be one side or the other from eco loons ext reb ect and hypocrites who do the opposite of what they want to enforce on others, to those who see no problem and say do nothing , my theory is that the old divide and rule tactic is working the best it ever has in our history, from brexit onwards ,through covid now climate change , so called culture wars , it’s stunning the degree to which people take camps and hate on the other side ,

my stance on U.K. net zero targets and policy is fairly clear , I believe the motives are all wrong , even starmer is now selling it as this fantastic opportunity for economic growth 😂, if the more alarmist predictions are right then we really can’t afford to be running down blind alleys that put us deeper in the poo but fill the pockets of the few whilst scalping the many and I believe fear and anxiety are being used to get people to happily Que up to be scalped 

I hear your concerns, but the situation as it stands is that we are already being scalped by the fossil fuels companies...and while we allow them to do so the side effect is that they are changing the planet's climate for the worse and polluting our air.  Why don't we, as societies, try a different approach entirely.  Because the one we have is broken and getting worse while we procrastinate. 

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/big-oil-doubles-profits-blockbuster-2022-2023-02-08/

[Highgate]

4 hours ago, jono said:

All very laudable but you talk about vast infrastructure projects as if you could pop round to IKEA and put them together over the weekend. 
I am dubious about taxing energy companies excessively. That looks at it the wrong way round .. the point should really be that they should - by law - be reinvesting those profits in building the very infrastructure you suggest. What’s gone wrong with utility companies is this : utilities should provide low yield but very safe investment. Letting them be private is absolutely fine but the regulations and laws around what they do do with profits have been insufficient. Letting them split retail and production apart is destabilising. 

Clearly you've never seen me try to assemble anything from IKEA!!

Tax them and build the renewable projects ourselves or force them by law to use the majority of their insane profits to do the same.... either way works fine by me, whichever method is quicker and more effective really. I can see them objecting to both proposals to be honest.  As long as these projects get built and the fossil fuels companies aren't simply allowed to get ludicrously rich off their current profiteering, while most of us struggle to pay our energy bills.  

 

1 hour ago, jono said:

I know we need to do something but every nation is greenwashing. China may well be leading the way in some mass plans but it has opened more new coal fired power stations in the last 10 years than the whole world put together. Waiting for China is laughable. They are doing what we did 150/200 years ago. Building an empire, getting cheap natural resources from Africa etc etc.  it is what happens always. It won’t improve while the population increases faster than our individual emissions fall. Given that population has tripled in 60 years we are on an uphill course no matter what we do ! 
 

Every nation is greenwashing, very true. But I think the recent 50+°C weather in China might encourage them to focus even more on building their renewable energy capacity as quickly as possible.  The fact that they are authoritarian dictatorship may actually help in this case. 

The global population will peak at less than 11 billion before the end of the century and then start to fall, according to the demographic models. So there is going to lot of pressure on the planet in the next few decades, but some light at the end of the tunnel after that.  So yeah, anyway you look at it now it's an uphill struggle, it would good start if everyone would agree to join the effort, rather sitting back and letting others do the work.  We really shouldn't have wasted the last few decades debating whether climate change was real or not and allowing the fossil fuel companies to sow so much doubt. 

 

[jono]

30 minutes ago, Highgate said:

Clearly you've never seen me try to assemble anything from IKEA!!

Tax them and build the renewable projects ourselves or force them by law to use the majority of their insane profits to do the same.... either way works fine by me, whichever method is quicker and more effective really. I can see them objecting to both proposals to be honest.  As long as these projects get built and the fossil fuels companies aren't simply allowed to get ludicrously rich off their current profiteering, while most of us struggle to pay our energy bills.  

 

Every nation is greenwashing, very true. But I think the recent 50+°C weather in China might encourage them to focus even more on building their renewable energy capacity as quickly as possible.  The fact that they are authoritarian dictatorship may actually help in this case. 

The global population will peak at less than 11 billion before the end of the century and then start to fall, according to the demographic models. So there is going to lot of pressure on the planet in the next few decades, but some light at the end of the tunnel after that.  So yeah, anyway you look at it now it's an uphill struggle, it would good start if everyone would agree to join the effort, rather sitting back and letting others do the work.  We really shouldn't have wasted the last few decades debating whether climate change was real or not and allowing the fossil fuel companies to sow so much doubt. 

 

I truly hope the population peak happens before we water and food wars. You can really see it happening. 
I have mixed feelings about climate change. It’s happening, it’s real and with the current climate change, human activity is the main driver. Yet looking at a bigger picture the climate has always changed. The earth at times has been much warmer and sea levels much higher. The problem is we don’t want it to change because our insignificant populace needs it to be stable to ensure our survival .. it’s kind of a selfish driver when you look at it like that. 
 

I don’t know what we “emitted” 60 years ago but with a population 3 x that even if we all reduced our emissions by 70% (amazing effort chaps ) we would be where we were when I was born .. but we haven’t. Urghhh it’s horrible. But we simply can’t be honestly unwashed super green in 20 years (unless people freeze to death, accept a lower standard of living and consume overwhelmingly less.) 

Long term I genuinely hope human ingenuity will find solutions, solar energy, thorium reactors, plastics with self destruct DNA. In the short term however, the lights need to be on. European legislation and its instigation/policing is far in advance or anywhere in the world. Instead of moaning about a North Sea oil licence designed to give us short term energy security, Protesters might be better employed complaining about pollution and policies in Africa, India, the US or China. 
That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t keep trying. For me the biggest thing we could do is build the Severn barrage .. that would be really green .. 10% or more of our entire electricity needs could be met if that is done properly. Reliably safely and green. Sadly (and you make a good point about dictatorships) our leaders of every stripe want short term wins and stopped thinking big a long time ago. 

[Archied]

1 hour ago, Highgate said:

I hear your concerns, but the situation as it stands is that we are already being scalped by the fossil fuels companies...and while we allow them to do so the side effect is that they are changing the planet's climate for the worse and polluting our air.  Why don't we, as societies, try a different approach entirely.  Because the one we have is broken and getting worse while we procrastinate. 

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/big-oil-doubles-profits-blockbuster-2022-2023-02-08/

That’s my point , I’m not saying we don’t get scalped by fossil fuel system we have now , im saying that I’m far from sure what is being forced is any better but it’s a massive scalping to switch over all this stuff with a massive additional carbon footprint to throw away cars , boilers ect ect ect , my van for instance probably worth about 8 k before it plummets because of ulez ,, scrapage scheme 2k , against £ 50k min for electric van which is being charged with fossil fuel produced electric at what cost ? Or buy a van 6 months younger than mine which pollutes ever so slightly less than mine and will cost much more , have done probably 80 to 100 k miles ( mine done 26k well looked after and know the history as bought new to see me to retirement) or buy new poss 22K plus the vat plus the cost to buy roof racks , door ladder , inside decking and shelving which I will probably find ulez moves the goalpost s in a few more years and put me back to square one ,

let’s be honest to make any real change it’s going to come down to less human consumption and waste coupled with a mix of renewables and tech advances over time , these rushed badly thought out policies and demands of ext reb jso ect ect are far more likely to see the kind of dramatic breakdown of our societies these people predict as a result of climate change 

you only have to look around to see very quickly that this reduction in consumption rather than switch ( greenwash ) the place of production is not what those pushing this stuff are interested in , a bit like with covid , when you realise those peddling fear aren’t actually fearful themselves or at least not fearful enough to be automatically doing what the want to scare others into doing then your view changes a little🤷🏻‍♂️

Edited July 27, 2023 by Archied

[Archied]

31 minutes ago, jono said:

I truly hope the population peak happens before we water and food wars. You can really see it happening. 
I have mixed feelings about climate change. It’s happening, it’s real and with the current climate change, human activity is the main driver. Yet looking at a bigger picture the climate has always changed. The earth at times has been much warmer and sea levels much higher. The problem is we don’t want it to change because our insignificant populace needs it to be stable to ensure our survival .. it’s kind of a selfish driver when you look at it like that. 
 

I don’t know what we “emitted” 60 years ago but with a population 3 x that even if we all reduced our emissions by 70% (amazing effort chaps ) we would be where we were when I was born .. but we haven’t. Urghhh it’s horrible. But we simply can’t be honestly unwashed super green in 20 years (unless people freeze to death, accept a lower standard of living and consume overwhelmingly less.) 

Long term I genuinely hope human ingenuity will find solutions, solar energy, thorium reactors, plastics with self destruct DNA. In the short term however, the lights need to be on. European legislation and its instigation/policing is far in advance or anywhere in the world. Instead of moaning about a North Sea oil licence designed to give us short term energy security, Protesters might be better employed complaining about pollution and policies in Africa, India, the US or China. 
That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t keep trying. For me the biggest thing we could do is build the Severn barrage .. that would be really green .. 10% or more of our entire electricity needs could be met if that is done properly. Reliably safely and green. Sadly (and you make a good point about dictatorships) our leaders of every stripe want short term wins and stopped thinking big a long time ago. 

Quality post 👏