|
|
Post by patman post on Dec 4, 2022 18:06:14 GMT
Offsetting and carbon trading cost money. But they're obviously only temporary. When they become too expensive compared with changing to low carbon and low polluting energy and technology, the impetus will be to move and reduced costs.
Thus, we'll lessen the use of finite and polluting fuels, and expand the use of cleaner and renewable energy sources.
Hence, my belief that cutting back on polluting fuels is good for health, makes the environment more pleasant, and develops new employment and wealth creation opportunities...
|
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Dec 4, 2022 21:59:48 GMT
Offsetting and carbon trading cost money. But they're obviously only temporary. When they become too expensive compared with changing to low carbon and low polluting energy and technology, the impetus will be to move and reduced costs. Thus, we'll lessen the use of finite and polluting fuels, and expand the use of cleaner and renewable energy sources. Hence, my belief that cutting back on polluting fuels is good for health, makes the environment more pleasant, and develops new employment and wealth creation opportunities... Offsetting is arrant nonsense in terms of saving the planet. Cutting back is not teh problem it is how that cutback manifests itself. Currently the aim seems to be the hoi polloi will be cold, go nowhere and generally live in the dark while the self defined great and the good will carry on as normal. It is the call for self sacrifice amongst the many whilst the few bend the rules and make them up as they go along. You will not be able to buy an internal combustion engine car within the decade but the private jets will still fly, the palaces, government houses and the workplaces of the policy makers will be warm and bright yet travel for the many will become a thing of the past as electric cars will never take up the slack. We all rolled over for Covid and we all want to save the planet but what is happening now is not the way to swing over those who hesitate and the rolling over days are fast disappearing as they continually shaft us day after day, week after week and year after year. Things will not end well. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Dec 4, 2022 22:23:53 GMT
Offsetting and carbon trading cost money. But they're obviously only temporary. When they become too expensive compared with changing to low carbon and low polluting energy and technology, the impetus will be to move and reduced costs. Thus, we'll lessen the use of finite and polluting fuels, and expand the use of cleaner and renewable energy sources. Hence, my belief that cutting back on polluting fuels is good for health, makes the environment more pleasant, and develops new employment and wealth creation opportunities... Offsetting is arrant nonsense in terms of saving the planet. Cutting back is not teh problem it is how that cutback manifests itself. Currently the aim seems to be the hoi polloi will be cold, go nowhere and generally live in the dark while the self defined great and the good will carry on as normal. It is the call for self sacrifice amongst the many whilst the few bend the rules and make them up as they go along. You will not be able to buy an internal combustion engine car within the decade but the private jets will still fly, the palaces, government houses and the workplaces of the policy makers will be warm and bright yet travel for the many will become a thing of the past as electric cars will never take up the slack. We all rolled over for Covid and we all want to save the planet but what is happening now is not the way to swing over those who hesitate and the rolling over days are fast disappearing as they continually shaft us day after day, week after week and year after year. Things will not end well. Indeed - you never see them freezing in Westminster while they are implementing energy policies designed to make the working man unable to afford to heat their home. |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Dec 5, 2022 9:26:58 GMT
Seems to me a no-brainer that cutting back on the use of finite and polluting fuels, and expanding the use of cleaner and renewable energy sources. It's good for health, makes the environment more pleasant, and develops new employment and wealth creation opportunities... But we're not in a position where we can cut back significantly on fossil fuels. Surely you can see that - especially now that we're in an energy crisis. People have warned that disposing of gas storage and cutting our oil production would reduce our energy self-sufficiency and that's exactly what has happened. We've also closed our coal mines. Yet we are not self-sufficient in renewable energy and currently have no way of storing it - and won't be able to do that for the foreseeable future. So we're buying in fossil fuels from round the world which has a far greater carbon footprint than producing our own and is far more expensive. And because our energy is now so expensive - even before the energy crisis we were paying far more for energy than virtually any other country - we have effectively also shut down our industries that are energy intensive, like our steel industry. And our fledgling industries like British Volt (Li-ion batteries) haven't a hope of being competitive because their energy costs too much and battery production uses colossal amounts of energy. Meanwhile countries like China just carry on building new coal fired and gas fired power stations and undercutting us. Where's the sense in that? We could shut the whole UK down tomorrow and it wouldn't make the slightest difference to the weather. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Dec 5, 2022 9:46:58 GMT
Seems to me a no-brainer that cutting back on the use of finite and polluting fuels, and expanding the use of cleaner and renewable energy sources. It's good for health, makes the environment more pleasant, and develops new employment and wealth creation opportunities... But we're not in a position where we can cut back significantly on fossil fuels. Surely you can see that - especially now that we're in an energy crisis. People have warned that disposing of gas storage and cutting our oil production would reduce our energy self-sufficiency and that's exactly what has happened. We've also closed our coal mines. Yet we are not self-sufficient in renewable energy and currently have no way of storing it - and won't be able to do that for the foreseeable future. So we're buying in fossil fuels from round the world which has a far greater carbon footprint than producing our own and is far more expensive. And because our energy is now so expensive - even before the energy crisis we were paying far more for energy than virtually any other country - we have effectively also shut down our industries that are energy intensive, like our steel industry. And our fledgling industries like British Volt (Li-ion batteries) haven't a hope of being competitive because their energy costs too much and battery production uses colossal amounts of energy. Meanwhile countries like China just carry on building new coal fired and gas fired power stations and undercutting us. Where's the sense in that? We could shut the whole UK down tomorrow and it wouldn't make the slightest difference to the weather. Great post. Net-zero will not only ruin our economy and force people into fuel poverty but will also be a huge boost for the Chinese who don't give a damn about net-zero. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Dec 5, 2022 11:52:05 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by patman post on Dec 5, 2022 14:20:19 GMT
Citing VW on anything to do with clean energy after its record of clean engine fraud, stretches credibility — and in this instance it does seem to be using the bleeding obvious bandwagon to push for ignoring harm, to retain profits. Might well be employing the same advisers as the old tobacco industry. Is there any serious consensus that fossil fuel consumption can be stopped suddenly and immediately? Or is anyone claiming that building renewables industries will come without investment, research and hard work…? |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Dec 5, 2022 14:28:20 GMT
One intriguing narrative inconsistency is that third world immigration into the west, despite the issue being a no brainer environmentally and entirely under our control, continues and accelerates.
Not sure how anyone would square the circle with that issue.
|
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Dec 5, 2022 14:42:02 GMT
One intriguing narrative inconsistency is that third world immigration into the west, despite the issue being a no brainer environmentally and entirely under our control, continues and accelerates. Not sure how anyone would square the circle with that issue. They can't and they won't and obviously will call you racist for even mentioning it. Each new entrant will be entitled to have a carbon footprint as big as each person in the West. If that is not how they look at it and they are trying to reduce the overall carbon footprint of the country per capita then each new entrant will reduce the allowance for those already here. Either way in terms of meeting the needs of the emergency immigration at any level is a no-no. |
|
|
|
Post by patman post on Dec 5, 2022 19:49:03 GMT
One intriguing narrative inconsistency is that third world immigration into the west, despite the issue being a no brainer environmentally and entirely under our control, continues and accelerates. Not sure how anyone would square the circle with that issue. They can't and they won't and obviously will call you racist for even mentioning it. Each new entrant will be entitled to have a carbon footprint as big as each person in the West. If that is not how they look at it and they are trying to reduce the overall carbon footprint of the country per capita then each new entrant will reduce the allowance for those already here. Either way in terms of meeting the needs of the emergency immigration at any level is a no-no. Glad you could make some sense of Maggie’s post… |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Dec 5, 2022 19:52:03 GMT
As you said, Sandy -
They can't and they won't
|
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Dec 6, 2022 8:40:08 GMT
Patman Post: "Is there any serious consensus that fossil fuel consumption can be stopped suddenly and immediately? Or is anyone claiming that building renewables industries will come without investment, research and hard work…?"
There's been plenty of investment and research into renewables. The trouble is it still remains unviable. The only renewables that we have (on any scale) are wind and solar and they're both intermittent and unreliable. And the energy they generate can't be stored - except in batteries which is prohibitively expensive and also dirty. So most of the energy generated has to be discarded. The energy is also very expensive. The CFD contracts that the govt has agreed basically mean that the energy cost is the same as that of the most costly conventional fuel. So it's a total disaster.
There are ways that could be possibly used for storage of electricity. For example excess renewable energy could be used to generate hydrogen which can be stored and either used in HFC cars or other purposes - though combusting hydrogen generates very large amounts of NOX so we need to be careful not to repeat the diesel disaster. But this would need a coordinated govt policy and I've seen absolutely sign that they're thinking on these lines.
|
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Dec 6, 2022 12:02:43 GMT
. . .There are ways that could be possibly used for storage of electricity. For example excess renewable energy could be used to generate hydrogen which can be stored and either used in HFC cars or other purposes - though combusting hydrogen generates very large amounts of NOX so we need to be careful not to repeat the diesel disaster. But this would need a coordinated govt policy and I've seen absolutely sign that they're thinking on these lines. Wasn't aware of that thanks. Seems the default high flame temperature means you can have efficient Hydrogen engines in cars or low NOx Hydrogen engines but not both. And that's on top of the whole inefficiency of the make then burn Hydrogen cycle. And seems using it in jet engines is very bad NOx wise. Fuel Cells? Anything please but a future based on range anxiety pure electric cars. |
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Dec 23, 2022 9:05:42 GMT
Citing VW on anything to do with clean energy after its record of clean engine fraud, stretches credibility — and in this instance it does seem to be using the bleeding obvious bandwagon to push for ignoring harm, to retain profits. Might well be employing the same advisers as the old tobacco industry. Is there any serious consensus that fossil fuel consumption can be stopped suddenly and immediately? Or is anyone claiming that building renewables industries will come without investment, research and hard work…? Well, you ask is there a serious consensus ? No, there is no consensus as that implies agreement. However in eight years time you won’t be allowed to buy a petrol car and the Green Party Fascists and Greta are already taking steps to deny all the use of the roads, through the abuse of EU adoption of the idea that decent public transport and town planning should obviate the need for anyone to go anywhere that cannot be reached within a mile of their home. Go look at what Oxford and Canterbury are piloting, and then read the actual documentation lauded by (but I think not actually originated by) the EU regarding 15 minute neighbourhoods. |
|
|
|
Post by patman post on Dec 23, 2022 16:10:39 GMT
It seems unlikely that a relatively small contingent of Greens has been able to force the whole of the Western world, and its political sympathisers and business combines, to jettison ready income sources to invest in non- and minimal polluting products just to keep on the right side of a aspergic Scandi dwarf and her followers…
|
|
