|
|
Post by zanygame on Feb 21, 2023 20:38:10 GMT
Only the dictators controlling the worlds fossil fuels pushed them back up. Which was precisely my point. If we were more like the US and were self sufficient in energy production we wouldn't have seen prices rise as much, as we would not be dependent on foreign dictators. However we are not self sufficient due to not being allowed to access our own energy reserves in the drive to become Net Zero - apparently it's better for climate change if we import gas from halfway around the world rather than use what is under our feet. That's a bit disingenuous or naïve. Unless the government prevented gas companies drilling in the UK from selling on the open market then they would and the price hikes would be the same. Are you in favour of a nationalised gas industry? |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Feb 21, 2023 21:04:24 GMT
Only the dictators controlling the worlds fossil fuels pushed them back up. Which was precisely my point. If we were more like the US and were self sufficient in energy production we wouldn't have seen prices rise as much, as we would not be dependent on foreign dictators. However we are not self sufficient due to not being allowed to access our own energy reserves in the drive to become Net Zero - apparently it's better for climate change if we import gas from halfway around the world rather than use what is under our feet. But it was not the desire to be green that stopped us drilling for our own gas. It was cheaper gas from Norway. We could easily have drilled for our own gas while still aiming for net zero. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Feb 21, 2023 22:25:32 GMT
Which was precisely my point. If we were more like the US and were self sufficient in energy production we wouldn't have seen prices rise as much, as we would not be dependent on foreign dictators. However we are not self sufficient due to not being allowed to access our own energy reserves in the drive to become Net Zero - apparently it's better for climate change if we import gas from halfway around the world rather than use what is under our feet. That's a bit disingenuous or naïve. Unless the government prevented gas companies drilling in the UK from selling on the open market then they would and the price hikes would be the same. Are you in favour of a nationalised gas industry? The government control the extraction licences and could put any conditions they like in the contracts. Also if its so easy why dont US companies sell all their extraction resources on the open market rather than at lower prices in their domestic market - especially as all of them are private companies?. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Feb 21, 2023 22:30:27 GMT
Which was precisely my point. If we were more like the US and were self sufficient in energy production we wouldn't have seen prices rise as much, as we would not be dependent on foreign dictators. However we are not self sufficient due to not being allowed to access our own energy reserves in the drive to become Net Zero - apparently it's better for climate change if we import gas from halfway around the world rather than use what is under our feet. But it was not the desire to be green that stopped us drilling for our own gas. It was cheaper gas from Norway. We could easily have drilled for our own gas while still aiming for net zero.
How? - the government are refusing to issue new extraction licences due to Net Zero. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Feb 22, 2023 1:46:08 GMT
A net zero Uk will do as much for global warming as a pacifist UK would do for global warfare . The ban the bomb , unilateral disarmament loonies have merely found another religious sect to follow Net zero is the future, although just how far into the future I don't know, but because it is commonsense to look after our one and only planet it will be done. For the life of me I fail to understand people like you. Please explain to me how a tiny country like the UK (0.8% of the worlds population) can make any difference on a global level. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Feb 22, 2023 6:51:58 GMT
That's a bit disingenuous or naïve. Unless the government prevented gas companies drilling in the UK from selling on the open market then they would and the price hikes would be the same. Are you in favour of a nationalised gas industry? The government control the extraction licences and could put any conditions they like in the contracts. Also if its so easy why dont US companies sell all their extraction resources on the open market rather than at lower prices in their domestic market - especially as all of them are private companies?. I would support the idea of a nationalised gas industry or one with the conditions you imply. I am surprised you do. Many Tory supporters are opposed to the windfall taxes on the basis that they discourage future investment. Would not the conditions you describe have the same effect? Telling BP that any gas they extract in British waters has to go to Britain first at a below market price?  |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Feb 22, 2023 7:02:04 GMT
But it was not the desire to be green that stopped us drilling for our own gas. It was cheaper gas from Norway. We could easily have drilled for our own gas while still aiming for net zero.
How? - the government are refusing to issue new extraction licences due to Net Zero. I do not believe this, do you? This is fracking not North sea extraction. The concerns about fracking are not just about greenhouse gasses, they are local as you know. Further, the process of extracting gas by fracking will takes decades to come into use and many feel that by that time we will not need those supplies. Certainly when fracking first became an issue 'net zero' was not even a consideration and back then is when it would have helped. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Feb 22, 2023 7:15:53 GMT
Net zero is the future, although just how far into the future I don't know, but because it is commonsense to look after our one and only planet it will be done. For the life of me I fail to understand people like you. Please explain to me how a tiny country like the UK (0.8% of the worlds population) can make any difference on a global level. Because every small country needs to do the same to make a difference. We produce 1.03% of greenhouse gasses directly from our 0.8% population. But far more importantly we in the West drive the demand for greenhouse production in China where we have our goods made. Its a complicated equation, but basically if we demand electric cars and low energy appliances then China produces electric cars and low energy appliances and the rest of the world buys electric cars and low energy appliances. If we show you can produce your energy efficiently from wind and solar and develop turbines and panels that do so, then other countries will accept those proven systems. Sadly a portion of the population is not interested in the future, but only wants its cake today and because of this the government has had to put in place things to force the issue (such as maximum power usage of hoovers, LED light bulbs etc) |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Feb 22, 2023 7:43:15 GMT
The government control the extraction licences and could put any conditions they like in the contracts. Also if its so easy why dont US companies sell all their extraction resources on the open market rather than at lower prices in their domestic market - especially as all of them are private companies?. I would support the idea of a nationalised gas industry or one with the conditions you imply. I am surprised you do. Many Tory supporters are opposed to the windfall taxes on the basis that they discourage future investment. Would not the conditions you describe have the same effect? Telling BP that any gas they extract in British waters has to go to Britain first at a below market price? Why would it need to be nationalised?. As far as conditions on extraction go they are no different to the conditions placed on construction by housebuilders (must contribute to a surgery/community centre, build a connecting road, etc etc) If you put out an extraction contract where the gas could only be sold to UK customers at a fixed profit margin then the extraction companies could make a commercial decision on whether they wished to take part. Some companies would go for it simply for the guaranteed long term stable profits. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Feb 22, 2023 7:46:19 GMT
For the life of me I fail to understand people like you. Please explain to me how a tiny country like the UK (0.8% of the worlds population) can make any difference on a global level. Because every small country needs to do the same to make a difference. We produce 1.03% of greenhouse gasses directly from our 0.8% population. But far more importantly we in the West drive the demand for greenhouse production in China where we have our goods made. Its a complicated equation, but basically if we demand electric cars and low energy appliances then China produces electric cars and low energy appliances and the rest of the world buys electric cars and low energy appliances. If we show you can produce your energy efficiently from wind and solar and develop turbines and panels that do so, then other countries will accept those proven systems. Sadly a portion of the population is not interested in the future, but only wants its cake today and because of this the government has had to put in place things to force the issue (such as maximum power usage of hoovers, LED light bulbs etc) So you blame the consumer for renewables not being efficient or cost effective.. |
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on Feb 22, 2023 8:03:27 GMT
So China has to build new coal fired power stations to produce the goods you want for net zero, unbelievable insanity.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Feb 22, 2023 8:13:07 GMT
Interesting exchange on the costs of Net zero..
Pity non of our politicians cannot ask straightforward questions - although I suppose the chances of getting a straightforward answer are pretty slim.
|
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Feb 22, 2023 8:50:29 GMT
I would support the idea of a nationalised gas industry or one with the conditions you imply. I am surprised you do. Many Tory supporters are opposed to the windfall taxes on the basis that they discourage future investment. Would not the conditions you describe have the same effect? Telling BP that any gas they extract in British waters has to go to Britain first at a below market price? Why would it need to be nationalised?. As far as conditions on extraction go they are no different to the conditions placed on construction by housebuilders (must contribute to a surgery/community centre, build a connecting road, etc etc) If you put out an extraction contract where the gas could only be sold to UK customers at a fixed profit margin then the extraction companies could make a commercial decision on whether they wished to take part. Some companies would go for it simply for the guaranteed long term stable profits. I suggest both nationalise and conditions, either work IMO. How come windfall taxes from a war will push BP to invest outside the UK and yet controls on what you can charge for that gas do not? Frankly if you want to control the market the government could have easily have signed a contract with BP 10 years ago to sell us gas at a fixed price for 20 years, but then that would have needed us to predict the Ukraine war. The Retrospectoscope is a wonderful machine but it doesn't actually exist. So talking about what we should have done in the past before we new about the war is unfair. Had you been suggesting this idea even 2 years ago, you would have been labelled a leftie signing away our rights to government control. There would have been an outcry that we were paying above global gas prices. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Feb 22, 2023 8:52:08 GMT
Because every small country needs to do the same to make a difference. We produce 1.03% of greenhouse gasses directly from our 0.8% population. But far more importantly we in the West drive the demand for greenhouse production in China where we have our goods made. Its a complicated equation, but basically if we demand electric cars and low energy appliances then China produces electric cars and low energy appliances and the rest of the world buys electric cars and low energy appliances. If we show you can produce your energy efficiently from wind and solar and develop turbines and panels that do so, then other countries will accept those proven systems. Sadly a portion of the population is not interested in the future, but only wants its cake today and because of this the government has had to put in place things to force the issue (such as maximum power usage of hoovers, LED light bulbs etc) So you blame the consumer for renewables not being efficient or cost effective.. If that's what you got from my words, I know I will fail to explain it to you. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Feb 22, 2023 8:55:44 GMT
That's a bit disingenuous or naïve. Unless the government prevented gas companies drilling in the UK from selling on the open market then they would and the price hikes would be the same. Are you in favour of a nationalised gas industry? The government control the extraction licences and could put any conditions they like in the contracts. Also if its so easy why dont US companies sell all their extraction resources on the open market rather than at lower prices in their domestic market - especially as all of them are private companies?. The government have a lot of control of environment issues on gas production and OFGEM has its primary duty is to protect the interests of consumers, where possible by promoting competition. But I'm not aware of gas production limits on the privately owned gas companies, or on who they sell their gas to. Are you? |
|
