Climate Emergency

cantersaddick said:

cafcnick1992 said:

ME14addick said:

cafcnick1992 said:

arthur said:

cafcnick1992 said:

arthur said:

cafcnick1992 said:

Well Friday reminded me how ridiculous this race to net zero is.

My first energy bill back in the UK came through for last month - £120. And that's with us trying to be careful with how often we turn the central heating on.

My energy bills in Vancouver used to be roughly $140 (~£80) every 3 months.

What is it about "net zero" that you think is making your bills so high?  are there any other contributing factors other than net zero?

I thought that the price we pay for electricity is set by the price of gas. I had a quick look and there are emission levies put on burning fossil fuels to try and phase out their use. But those costs are passed back to the consumer. It seems to me that whilst the levies have good intentions that there isnt really any insentive for that energy company to actually change anything.

The fact that the capacity of renewables is insufficient to meet our energy needs, yet we felt it was appropriate to decommission our last coal power plant last year that could have temporarily filled that gap.

do you agree that the world needs to move our electricity supply to renewables?  That has to be gradual, it is impossible to do that in one go.
Also, we havent missed a coal power plant at all.  Gas is sufficient and currently perfect for bridging the gaps when required. 

Yes I think if we can sustain ourselves on renewable energy then everyone wins. 

But as you say, it has to be gradual to prevent people being plunged into energy poverty. It also has to be gradual in order to convince people that we're doing the right thing. The reason people are turning against net zero is that it's made us much poorer very quickly.

The transition has been far too fast.

We're poorer because we let the big energy producers get rich, rather than our country benefit. If we had set up a sovereign wealth fund for the benefit of the UK instead of privatising our energy, we wouldn't be seeing the huge bills we have now. We could have used that wealth to invest in renewable/sustainable energy.

That's a cool story, but doesn't explain why energy is dirt cheap in the US, yet expensive here. Their energy is also privatised.

Its not a story its what happened. as per my above post:

"We had situations where large energy companies during the energy crisis were taking advantage and blatantly profiteering. It's usual in a situation where costs are going up for profits to go up, but they should go up proportionally. In the UK energy costs to companies went up by 20-30% but their profits in the same period rose across the board by more than 100%. Those profits were pre crisis already determined to be meeting the economic definition of excess profits so it can't be argued they were needed. This is a failure of regulation and the costs are carried by the consumer."

I dont know the US system particularly but I would imagine that they are less reliant on the Russian/would price of oil and gas due to geography and their own oil fields. So felt the shock of the Ukraine war less than Europe did. They also have a completely different tax system.

Leroy Ambrose said:

cafcnick1992 said:

Chizz said:

cafcnick1992 said:

AndyG said:

Chizz said:

cafcnick1992 said:

Well Friday reminded me how ridiculous this race to net zero is.

My first energy bill back in the UK came through for last month - £120. And that's with us trying to be careful with how often we turn the central heating on.

My energy bills in Vancouver used to be roughly $140 (~£80) every 3 months.

How do the two properties compare?

Obviously the comparison of properties is relevant mate but without doubt we are being ripped off here on energy prices. I have a 3 bed, 2 bath detached house with a swimming pool in Spain and my electricity bill is never over 70 euros pm. Considering Europe we’re supposed to be hit hard by Putin actions they aren’t doing too bad. 

It's a fair question (the property here is bigger), but we had air conditioning running for 70% of the day, everyday for about 6 months in Vancouver and our energy bills were so small you didn't really notice the money leaving your account.

The fact that in 2025 I have to sometimes sit in a cold house in the UK with a jumper on is unacceptable. Living standards are going down here.

I imagine your heating bill will be lower in the Summer, as long as you don't have to resort to aircon.  But, really, what's wrong with putting a pullover on?  It's a climate crisis: I think most people should be prepared to put a jumper on in January. 

Because other countries which pollute considerably more than us aren't making their citizens sit in cold houses as an act of virtue signalling like we do?

I think you don't underatand WHY those countries pollute. Hint: It's because we consume what they produce... 

Chizz said:

queensland_addick said:

Chizz said:

Mismanaged climate disasters are bolstering far-right parties that channel public anger at political leaders while denying human-driven climate change. In Spain, the far-right Vox party gained traction after the October floods in Valencia, which killed over 220 people and exposed governmental shortcomings. The conservative regional government was criticised for failing to warn residents of flood risks, while the Socialist-led national government faced backlash for its slow response. Public anger overshadowed discussions on the role of climate change, which scientists link to record Mediterranean temperatures driving extreme rainfall. 

Vox capitalised on these failures, promoting grassroots aid efforts and criticising the authorities. Its national support grew from 10.5% to 13.8% post-floods, despite controversial decisions like cancelling a proposed emergency unit and appointing a former bullfighter to a key cultural role. Spanish Transport Minister Óscar Puente highlighted the emotional nature of disaster reactions, which often neglect climate change’s underlying role.

Historical parallels exist; far-right groups exploited Germany’s 2021 floods to spread misinformation. Puente stressed the need for long-term infrastructure adaptation and significant investment to address climate realities. Spain has allocated €16.6 billion for flood recovery, but widespread criticism persists, reflecting the challenges of managing disasters in a warming world.

Also, I don't think @bobmunro would claim to be the first person to use the name Queerie. I think it may have been someone with a chip on his shoulder. 

Vox is a far-right political party in Spain known for its nationalist, populist and conservative stances. It frequently criticises immigration policies, promotes traditional Spanish cultural values and opposes regional autonomy movements. The party is sceptical of man-made climate change, often questioning scientific consensus and downplaying its significance. Vox has resisted climate-focused policies, such as emergency preparedness initiatives and attributes environmental disasters more to governmental mismanagement than to climate change. This approach aligns with their broader agenda of challenging mainstream political narratives and capitalising on public discontent with traditional parties.

I think you forgot "Quote from the Financial times" !

Rather than trying to pretend that you get all this stuff from the top of your head 🤣

To anyone that thought I was pretending I get all this stuff from the top of my head, I apologise.  (Except for Queerie, who seems to be the only one who imagines I made such a claim).  

For everyone else, here's a link to the Financial Times. The article highlights the challenges of implementing climate policies amidst public discontent. Populist movements thrive on the perception that the poor bear the brunt of economic shifts. Decarbonisation requires massive societal changes, affecting low earners disproportionately. To succeed, governments must offer substantial support to vulnerable groups, avoiding further inequality-fueled backlash.

Chizz said:

Between 1980 and 2024, the U.S. sustained 403 weather and climate disasters, each causing over $1 billion in damages, cumulatively exceeding $2.475 trillion.  (National Centers for Environmental Information). 

In 2024, the U.S. experienced economic losses totalling $217.8 billion from natural disasters, marking an 85.3% increase from the previous year and representing the highest annual total since 2017. AP News 

The California Wildfires this month have caused damage estimated at $30 billion. (Wells Fargo and Goldman Sachs). 

A 2023 report by the U.S. Congress Joint Economic Committee estimated that wildfires cost the U.S. economy between $394 billion and $893 billion annually.  

Implementing all commitments needed to adhere to the Paris Agreement: $100–$167 billion per year (depending on assumptions and time frames); $3 trillion overall. (NERA Economic Consulting). 

Total cost of missing targets: $6 trillion by the end of the century (Nature) 

swordfish said:

ME14addick said:

@swordfish I have just finished watching Rachel's Farm and what an uplifting watch it was. Thank you for recommending it.

It was a lesson in how important biodiversity is to mitigating Climate Change. 

I know that Kent Wildlife Trust were working with farmers to better manage the soil and prevent leaching into waterways. Hopefully more farmers will use regeneration methods  in the future.

I can't take the credit for that. It was another sword, @swords_alive but I'll also be watching it later.

Dansk_Red said:

Dansk_Red said:

arthur said:

Dansk_Red said:

Chizz said:

Dansk_Red said:

Could someone explain how the national grid can supply electricity to to one energy supplier who advertises on TV that their electricity  is from 100% renewable sources, when renewables cannot meet the demand do they turn off supplies to their customers?  It all comes down to same wires, so say I change my supplier how does  National Grid route rewneable only energy to my house and not to the house next door who supplier does not advertise that the source of their electricity is from 100% renewable. There is only one mains cable that connects all the 50 houses in my street.

The National Grid operates like a giant pool or reservoir that all electricity producers (renewable or not) feed into. All consumers draw electricity from this same pool. Once electricity enters the grid, it is indistinguishable in terms of its source - whether it came from a wind turbine, a solar panel or a coal-fired power plant.
When an energy supplier advertises that their electricity is from "100% renewable sources," they are not delivering separate renewable electrons directly to your house. Instead, they participate in a system called Renewable Energy Guarantees of Origin (REGOs). Here's how it works:

• Renewable energy generators, like wind farms and solar plants, receive REGOs for the electricity they produce.
• Suppliers can purchase these REGOs to match the amount of electricity they sell to their customers.
• By buying enough REGOs to cover the electricity used by their customers, the supplier can claim that the electricity they supply is 100% renewable. 

If renewable sources cannot meet total demand at a given time, the grid uses other sources (like gas or nuclear) to fill the gap. However, suppliers that claim to provide 100% renewable energy have already purchased sufficient REGOs to match their customers' usage over a year, even if the actual physical electricity at any moment includes contributions from non-renewable sources.
Electricity doesn't flow in a way that allows separation by source to individual homes. It's not like a pipeline where you can direct specific water sources to specific taps. Instead, electrons flow through the grid based on demand and physical principles of electricity. The 100% renewable claim is about balancing the overall supply with purchases of renewable energy certificates, not about delivering a separate stream of green electricity to your home.
Switching to a renewable supplier supports the broader transition to green energy because:

1. It increases demand for renewable energy certificates like REGOs.
2. This incentivises further investment in renewable generation.
3. Over time, it contributes to a larger proportion of renewables in the grid.

In summary, electricity from renewable sources and fossil fuels mixes in the grid. Suppliers offering "100% renewable" electricity ensure that, over time, their customers’ demand is matched by an equivalent amount of renewable generation. This system helps drive the growth of renewable energy on a national and global scale. 

A simpler way to look at it is like this.  I buy organic milk from Tesco.  Tesco sells lots of milk, including organic.  The fact I buy organic milk doesn't stop Tesco from selling non-organic milk.  But if more and more customers of Tesco buy only organic milk, the total proportion of organic milk Tesco sells will increase.  Tesco is like the National Grid.  the producer of the organic milk I buy is the equivalent of the renewables energy supplier. 

Thanks, just as I thought it misleading the consumers.  

By that that reasoning, do you think that if you pay British Gas for your electricity, that they are sending you their own electrons directly to you, while your neighbour who's energy is supplied by EDF has a completely different set of electrons?

I dont think its misleading. It's just the way it works and a small amount of research gives reasonable explanatio. 

That is not what I am saying. When a suppler claims that it electricity come from 100% renewable sources why should I not believe that be the case, without having to do research on the Internet. I accept that Tesco's organic milk is what it says on the packing without going to the Internet to find out if it actually does.   

Chizz said:

Current Situation: Emissions from Connecting Flights

Currently, many UK passengers flying long-haul must first take a short-haul flight to a European hub (e.g., Amsterdam Schiphol, Paris Charles de Gaulle, Frankfurt) before continuing their journey. These connecting flights introduce additional fuel consumption, emissions, and inefficiencies due to: 

- Extra takeoff and landing cycles, which are fuel-intensive

- Longer overall distances traveled, adding unnecessary CO₂ emissions

- Potential layover delays, increasing aircraft ground operations and airport emissions

A short-haul flight from Heathrow to Amsterdam (Schiphol) emits approximately 80-100 kg CO₂ per passenger (for a Boeing 737-800/A320).  

A long-haul flight from Schiphol to New York (JFK) emits around 1.5-2.0 tonnes CO₂ per passenger on a Boeing 787 or A350.

Adding those together:

- With a connection (LHR → AMS → JFK):  100 kg CO₂ (LHR-AMS) + 1,800 kg CO₂ (AMS-JFK) = 1.9 tonnes CO₂ per passenger

- With a direct Heathrow-JFK flight:  1.7 tonnes CO₂ per passenger  

This suggests a potential saving of 200 kg CO₂ per passenger by avoiding the connection.

Estimating GHG Savings from Heathrow’s Third Runway 

Heathrow’s third runway is expected to allow an increase in direct long-haul routes, which should reduce the number of passengers transiting via European hubs. 

Estimated Passenger Shift

- The UK Department for Transport estimated that a third runway would add 260,000 additional flights per year (mostly long-haul).

- If even 10 million passengers per year switch from indirect to direct flights, and each avoids 200 kg CO₂ per trip, that results in:

  10,000,000 x 200kg CO₂ = 2 million tonnes CO₂ saved annually 

That’s a significant emissions saving, equivalent to taking nearly 1 million cars off the road (assuming ~2 tonnes CO₂ per car per year).

Will Heathrow’s Third Runway Still Increase Overall Emissions?

Even with these savings, it’s worth noting that a third runway increases total capacity, meaning:

- More flights overall (including new short-haul feeder routes)

- More aviation emissions, as total air traffic grows

- Indirect emissions from airport expansion and increased ground transport

However, compared to a scenario where Heathrow remains constrained and passengers continue flying via Europe, the third runway could be the lesser evil in terms of per-passenger emissions efficiency.

- Increasing long-haul capacity at Heathrow could reduce per-passenger emissions by cutting unnecessary short-haul connections to European hubs. 

- Potential savings: ~2 million tonnes CO₂ per year**, if enough passengers switch to direct long-haul routes.  

- However, **total aviation emissions will still rise**, since more flights will operate overall.  

If emissions reduction is the primary goal, Heathrow’s third runway alone isn’t the silver bullet, but it can contribute to a more efficient aviation network by reducing indirect flight emissions. As well as completing the third runway as soon as possible, the government should stipulate that its use is confined to the latest generations of fuel efficient aircraft (e.g. Boeing 787, Airbus A350) which are about 25% more fuel-efficient than older models. 

ME14addick said:

Chizz said:

Current Situation: Emissions from Connecting Flights

Currently, many UK passengers flying long-haul must first take a short-haul flight to a European hub (e.g., Amsterdam Schiphol, Paris Charles de Gaulle, Frankfurt) before continuing their journey. These connecting flights introduce additional fuel consumption, emissions, and inefficiencies due to: 

- Extra takeoff and landing cycles, which are fuel-intensive

- Longer overall distances traveled, adding unnecessary CO₂ emissions

- Potential layover delays, increasing aircraft ground operations and airport emissions

A short-haul flight from Heathrow to Amsterdam (Schiphol) emits approximately 80-100 kg CO₂ per passenger (for a Boeing 737-800/A320).  

A long-haul flight from Schiphol to New York (JFK) emits around 1.5-2.0 tonnes CO₂ per passenger on a Boeing 787 or A350.

Adding those together:

- With a connection (LHR → AMS → JFK):  100 kg CO₂ (LHR-AMS) + 1,800 kg CO₂ (AMS-JFK) = 1.9 tonnes CO₂ per passenger

- With a direct Heathrow-JFK flight:  1.7 tonnes CO₂ per passenger  

This suggests a potential saving of 200 kg CO₂ per passenger by avoiding the connection.

Estimating GHG Savings from Heathrow’s Third Runway 

Heathrow’s third runway is expected to allow an increase in direct long-haul routes, which should reduce the number of passengers transiting via European hubs. 

Estimated Passenger Shift

- The UK Department for Transport estimated that a third runway would add 260,000 additional flights per year (mostly long-haul).

- If even 10 million passengers per year switch from indirect to direct flights, and each avoids 200 kg CO₂ per trip, that results in:

  10,000,000 x 200kg CO₂ = 2 million tonnes CO₂ saved annually 

That’s a significant emissions saving, equivalent to taking nearly 1 million cars off the road (assuming ~2 tonnes CO₂ per car per year).

Will Heathrow’s Third Runway Still Increase Overall Emissions?

Even with these savings, it’s worth noting that a third runway increases total capacity, meaning:

- More flights overall (including new short-haul feeder routes)

- More aviation emissions, as total air traffic grows

- Indirect emissions from airport expansion and increased ground transport

However, compared to a scenario where Heathrow remains constrained and passengers continue flying via Europe, the third runway could be the lesser evil in terms of per-passenger emissions efficiency.

- Increasing long-haul capacity at Heathrow could reduce per-passenger emissions by cutting unnecessary short-haul connections to European hubs. 

- Potential savings: ~2 million tonnes CO₂ per year**, if enough passengers switch to direct long-haul routes.  

- However, **total aviation emissions will still rise**, since more flights will operate overall.  

If emissions reduction is the primary goal, Heathrow’s third runway alone isn’t the silver bullet, but it can contribute to a more efficient aviation network by reducing indirect flight emissions. As well as completing the third runway as soon as possible, the government should stipulate that its use is confined to the latest generations of fuel efficient aircraft (e.g. Boeing 787, Airbus A350) which are about 25% more fuel-efficient than older models. 

It misses the point, instead of expanding air travel, it should be reduced.

Stig said:

I remember some time ago hearing a programme on Radio 4 about two different but related problems to do with road traffic. Why is it that certain roads never seem to be free of congestion despite major widening programmes and why is it that you can never get a parking space near a hospital even after they've had multi-story car parks built their grounds?*. The conclusion to both of these seemed to be that there's a two-way relationship between supply and demand. Planners increase capacity to meet current (and anticipated) demand, but in doing so they stimulate further demand, leading to a reintroduction of the original problem, only on a bigger scale.  I can't help but wonder if the exact same processes work for supply and demand regarding airport capacity. I guess we will find out if we live long enough. 

*This was several years ago, when people could actually go to hospitals.