|
|
Post by zanygame on Feb 22, 2023 8:56:10 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. Oh God. Not another "We shouldn't do anything because we don't know the exact number" We should stop researching cancer treatment because no one can tell us how many people will get cancer in 20 years. Indeed we should stop treating cancer because we don't know how many people will get cancer next year. Its such a STUPID argument. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Feb 22, 2023 9:09:57 GMT
Oh God. Not another "We shouldn't do anything because we don't know the exact number You know that's a strawman. We shouldn't do things that put other high priorities in extreme peril on the basis of a theory that makes incorrect predictions. Turning this one priority up to eleven and fitting everything to it is idiotic. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Feb 22, 2023 9:14:11 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. Silly question as you well know. 1. Green energy is taking place and growing all around the world and has been for decades. 2. The air we breath in the UK is cleaner thanks to a growing extent to green energy. 3. Renewables are just that. Renewable. 4. The ability to produce green energy is growing and improving all the time. 5. Green energy provides thousands of jobs and wealth in the UK. 6. Its so much safer and healthier than sending men down the mines and belching smoke from coal or oil fired power stations. That is a massive plus for the UK. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2023 9:27:41 GMT
Oh God. Not another "We shouldn't do anything because we don't know the exact number You know that's a strawman. We shouldn't do things that put other high priorities in extreme peril on the basis of a theory that makes incorrect predictions. Turning this one priority up to eleven and fitting everything to it is idiotic. They're motivated by the politics of fear, so bound to do idiotic and irrational things.
|
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Feb 22, 2023 9:38:02 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. Whether or not carbon neutral is ever reached is NOT the question. The question is how much carbon produced poisons in the air can be reduced. The target of carbon neutral is just a target, and like all targets, even if the bulls eye is not hit there will be many improvements made. If there is no target then people will not be focusing on the improvements. Anyone who has seen videos showing the number cars, vans, wagons etc. on a single motorway in the States gets a starting point for the billions of vehicles that travel the motorways alone, around the world each year. All of which would be poisoning the atmosphere prior to using electric and other green methods of propulsion. IMO no government is likely to spend recklessly or in a manner that will destroy their economy in order to reach carbon neutral. They will just change the target to suit the reality. |
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Feb 22, 2023 10:45:09 GMT
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. It certainly does exist and on these very boards where there's a constant hounding of Brexit, you are one of the hounds. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Feb 22, 2023 11:44:31 GMT
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? Thats easy - windfall taxes destroy investment because they are unpredictable, arbitrary and imposed on a political whim. No cpmpany can make long term investment decisions with that uncertainty hanging over their head. I was suggesting this 2 years ago..  |
|
|
|
Post by patman post on Feb 22, 2023 13:31:58 GMT
Hopefully all the current anti Net Zero rhetoric is the last gasp of armchair critics.
The amount of carbon-reducing measures across the world — from renewable electric energy, through carbon zero transport, through green steel-making — seems to indicate that either most of the developed world has been duped into taking part in one giant delusion, or those who have an idea of the effect carbon has are working to solve the issue…
|
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Feb 22, 2023 14:47:13 GMT
Oh God. Not another "We shouldn't do anything because we don't know the exact number You know that's a strawman. We shouldn't do things that put other high priorities in extreme peril on the basis of a theory that makes incorrect predictions. Turning this one priority up to eleven and fitting everything to it is idiotic. If it puts high priority things in peril, how does it do that? If you just mean the cost, then the same applies to cancer treatment and a hundred other examples I could easily provide. We shouldn't extend the Essex sea defences because know one can accurately say how high the highest tide/ low pressure/strong wind will raise the sea level. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Feb 22, 2023 14:50:36 GMT
So China has to build new coal fired power stations to produce the goods you want for net zero, unbelievable insanity. If it was true. We buy goods from China because they make them cheaper. That was the case long before Net Zero and is to do with low wages not ECO warriors. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Feb 22, 2023 14:51:42 GMT
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? Err no. We are constantly told that higher tax in this country will drive companies to invest elsewhere. There are plenty of places in the world to drill for gas. Why would a company except punitive restrictions in the UK? So its not just unpredictable tax that puts companies off is it? I was suggesting this 2 years ago.. Well done, I'll sign your petition. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Feb 22, 2023 15:25:15 GMT
Err no. We are constantly told that higher tax in this country will drive companies to invest elsewhere. There are plenty of places in the world to drill for gas. Why would a company except punitive restrictions in the UK? So its not just unpredictable tax that puts companies off is it? That doesn't make a great deal of sense - the windfall taxes and changes to corporate taxation have already resulted in lost investment and jobs. |
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on Feb 22, 2023 15:40:36 GMT
So China has to build new coal fired power stations to produce the goods you want for net zero, unbelievable insanity. If it was true. We buy goods from China because they make them cheaper. That was the case long before Net Zero and is to do with low wages not ECO warriors. If brains were dynamite you lot wouldn't have enough to blow your warm woolly hats off. time.com/6090732/china-coal-power-plants-emissions/ |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Feb 22, 2023 15:42:02 GMT
You know that's a strawman. We shouldn't do things that put other high priorities in extreme peril on the basis of a theory that makes incorrect predictions. Turning this one priority up to eleven and fitting everything to it is idiotic. If it puts high priority things in peril, how does it do that? If you just mean the cost, then the same applies to cancer treatment and a hundred other examples I could easily provide. We shouldn't extend the Essex sea defences because know one can accurately say how high the highest tide/ low pressure/strong wind will raise the sea level. What on Earth is this foolishness? Everything you do comes at the expense of not doing something else. In the real world you can't do everything you might need to do (just in case). If what you are doing additionally dilutes your capacity to do anything, for instance, restricting your own use of tools, then that loss is compounded. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Feb 22, 2023 15:43:20 GMT
Err no. We are constantly told that higher tax in this country will drive companies to invest elsewhere. There are plenty of places in the world to drill for gas. Why would a company except punitive restrictions in the UK? So its not just unpredictable tax that puts companies off is it? That doesn't make a great deal of sense - the windfall taxes and changes to corporate taxation have already resulted in lost investment and jobs. So would restricting the price they can sell gas for. |
|
