Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Climate Emergency
Comments
-
Back on topic and apologies for steering it sideways.AI OverviewThe latest climate change news includes record-breaking temperatures, rising sea levels, and melting ice sheets.Temperature2023 was the warmest year on record, 1.35°C higher than the pre-industrial average The past decade has seen the 10 warmest years on record
- 2024 was the warmest year on record, with an average temperature 1.47°C higher than the pre-industrial average
Sea level rise- Glaciers and ice sheets are melting faster than ever, causing sea levels to rise
- Almost two-thirds of cities with populations over five million are at risk of sea level rise
Ocean acidification- Oceans absorb carbon dioxide from the air, making them less alkaline
- This process, called ocean acidification, can harm marine organisms like coral and plankton
Paris Agreement2024 was the first year to average more than 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels- The Paris Agreement calls for limiting global warming to "well below" 2°C, and ideally to 1.5°C
0 -
One of my schools projects (65years ago) was to draw a map of Great Britain if sea levels rose by 50ft due to Artic ice melting, so someone saw it as a problem back then. Always regret losing all my school stuff during various moves. The top of the west stand at the valley may just about be visable 😀 😃0
-
GulpShootersHillGuru said:
Feel free to be annoyed. It’s your right.cafcnick1992 said:
Comments like this annoy me - designed to belittle people for daring to have an alternate opinion.ShootersHillGuru said:Gulp4 -
Here’s another one for you to gulp on.
How about using London deep tube network as a means of harvesting heat energy for everything above it?
How about walkways that harvest energy from those walking on it?
I am on a roll now.0 -
I’m not aware of those possibilities but if they could fly why not. It’s going to need thinking outside the box. 👍R0TW said:Here’s another one for you to gulp on.
How about using London deep tube network as a means of harvesting heat energy for everything above it?
How about walkways that harvest energy from those walking on it?
I am on a roll now.0 -
Both ludicrous suggestions because of the miniscule energy harvested in comparison with the effort and costs needed to generate it. Same reason every time a cyclist is demonstrated generating watts on a static bike it's suggested that this is somehow harvested and that they can 'power their house'. The amount of machinery and energy involved in converting that energy into a usable form usually outweighs the energy expended to create it.R0TW said:Here’s another one for you to gulp on.
How about using London deep tube network as a means of harvesting heat energy for everything above it?
How about walkways that harvest energy from those walking on it?
I am on a roll now.2 -
Ok, oh wise one.
The recent developments at stations like Bank and Elizabeth Line couldn’t have utilised a location that never drops below 17 degrees to benefit the constructions above? Why do heat pumps have bores deep into the ground, in order to dramatically improve efficiency. Don’t crossover this and your daily cycle.
The whole irony being that LU spend an absolute fortune trying to cool the underground network.
Stand near a vent shaft at ground level and you can feel the heat dissipated from trains moving through tunnels beneath.
This should have been a mandatory requirement of big business who subsidised the EL construction by having a free run of constructing what they wanted above.2 -
Neither of these suggestions are ludicrous. But they're both marginally profitable and would take decades to pay back the investment.Leroy Ambrose said:
Both ludicrous suggestions because of the miniscule energy harvested in comparison with the effort and costs needed to generate it. Same reason every time a cyclist is demonstrated generating watts on a static bike it's suggested that this is somehow harvested and that they can 'power their house'. The amount of machinery and energy involved in converting that energy into a usable form usually outweighs the energy expended to create it.R0TW said:Here’s another one for you to gulp on.
How about using London deep tube network as a means of harvesting heat energy for everything above it?
How about walkways that harvest energy from those walking on it?
I am on a roll now.
Underground heat recovery systems have been successfully deployed in Boise, Idaho and Drammen, in Norway. London already has an example in the Northern Line, in Islington. Piezoelectric Energy Harvesting in Pedestrian Walkways ("walkways that harvest energy from those walking on it") have been deployed in Toulouse, Masdar City, UAE and, again in London, in high footfall areas at the Olympic Park in 2012.2 -
The thing is, when you have/had a blank canvas, they would have been more profitable than trying to retrofit, which as you rightly comment, would take decades to recover.
2 - Sponsored links:
-
Regarding heat pumps, I think they will become more efficient as engineering improves.
I remember when LED lighting first appeared on the scene, everyone thought it was great.
It was actually very poor with light level rendering, glare etc being appalling.
You had manufacturers quoting mean time failures of 50k hours, yet the products were less than 6 months old.
If you take a look around LU premises you can see early examples (Green Park) and what is currently installed on the EL.
No comparison.
Likewise, I think in the next 10 years, ASHP will be the go to domestic energy source for hot water/heating.
Unfortunately, not just yet.
I guess the same will apply to energy storage (batteries).
So in short, stamping out of fossil fuel at this moment in time is not the solution IMO.
At present Neasden Depot is undergoing a major upheaval with the use of electricity replacing gas.
The upgrade of power supplies and cost of solar is mind blowing.3 -
I wouldn't want to see any ideas completely abandoned because they seem 'ludicrous' now. Most of the technology we have now would have been thought of as ludicrous at some point in the past. Much of it, not very long ago at all. Ideas that currently seem too difficult and/or too expensive at the moment may prove to be winners in the future, so it's important that we don't forget them completely even if they aren't currently our priorities.
That said, we don't have time to wait on the climate issue. It's therefore important that there is major investment in workable solutions right now, even if the technology will be cheaper in ten years time. Ultimately, if there aren't any early adopters prepared to pay premium rates, there won't be the development into these products and the prices won't drop. Someone's got to bite the bullet before we all get shot.4 -
Having read the last 500 posts
I'm still of the opinion
Palace are c***s2 -
They're ludicrous given existing alternatives are far, far more beneficial, and would take a fraction of the costs and effort to implement. Money would be better spent diverted to existing technology than to something that would take aeons to show any really, tangible benefit - it's fiddling while Rome burns.Chizz said:
Neither of these suggestions are ludicrous. But they're both marginally profitable and would take decades to pay back the investment.Leroy Ambrose said:
Both ludicrous suggestions because of the miniscule energy harvested in comparison with the effort and costs needed to generate it. Same reason every time a cyclist is demonstrated generating watts on a static bike it's suggested that this is somehow harvested and that they can 'power their house'. The amount of machinery and energy involved in converting that energy into a usable form usually outweighs the energy expended to create it.R0TW said:Here’s another one for you to gulp on.
How about using London deep tube network as a means of harvesting heat energy for everything above it?
How about walkways that harvest energy from those walking on it?
I am on a roll now.
Underground heat recovery systems have been successfully deployed in Boise, Idaho and Drammen, in Norway. London already has an example in the Northern Line, in Islington. Piezoelectric Energy Harvesting in Pedestrian Walkways ("walkways that harvest energy from those walking on it") have been deployed in Toulouse, Masdar City, UAE and, again in London, in high footfall areas at the Olympic Park in 2012.0 -
What has any of that got to do with retrofitting heat pump technology to the underground and using it in a widespread manner, or using the minute amount of heat generated from people on walkways for any meaningful purpose?R0TW said:Ok, oh wise one.
The recent developments at stations like Bank and Elizabeth Line couldn’t have utilised a location that never drops below 17 degrees to benefit the constructions above? Why do heat pumps have bores deep into the ground, in order to dramatically improve efficiency. Don’t crossover this and your daily cycle.
The whole irony being that LU spend an absolute fortune trying to cool the underground network.
Stand near a vent shaft at ground level and you can feel the heat dissipated from trains moving through tunnels beneath.
This should have been a mandatory requirement of big business who subsidised the EL construction by having a free run of constructing what they wanted above.
2 -
All corporate BS in the first place and likely won’t really change anything but in the news nonetheless;
https://www.cityam.com/barclays-and-natwest-drop-climate-targets-from-executive-bonuses/?utm_source=CityAM&utm_campaign=b36764289e-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2025_02_17_09_32_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_-4c08cce64b-586795468
0 -
To be honest it’s exactly what you’d expect to see on a right wing website.Chippycafc said:5 -
1. “Net Zero doesn’t go hand-in-hand with growth”
Reality: There is strong evidence that green investments can drive economic growth. Studies from organisations like the International Energy Agency (IEA) and the OBR suggest that transitioning to renewable energy can create jobs, boost innovation and enhance long-term economic stability.The Tony Blair Institute did not argue that Net Zero would harm growth, but rather suggested the transition should be better managed for efficiency.
2. “Miliband admits his policies will drive up energy bills”Context matters: Energy prices are influenced by many factors, including fossil fuel market volatility. Renewables, once established, provide cheaper electricity than fossil fuels. The UK’s current high energy bills are largely due to gas price spikes - not green policies.Short-term costs may rise due to investment in infrastructure, but the long-term benefits include lower bills and energy independence from volatile global markets.
3. “Rachel Reeves faces pressure to raise taxes”Misleading framing: Fiscal pressures exist regardless of Net Zero policies. Any government will face funding challenges, but green investment is often self-sustaining and can stimulate economic activity, increasing tax revenues in the long run.
4. “Only 14% of energy executives now believe Net Zero by 2050 is achievable”Cherry-picked statistic: The survey reflects industry sentiment, not scientific feasibility. Many energy executives have vested interests in fossil fuels, so their skepticism isn't surprising. The UK Climate Change Committee and other independent bodies still maintain Net Zero is achievable with the right policies.
5. “Labour shutting down shale gas wells ‘plays into Putin’s hands’”False equivalence: UK shale gas reserves are limited and unlikely to make a meaningful dent in energy prices or independence. Even the Conservative government acknowledged this before banning fracking.Europe reducing Russian gas dependency involves investing in renewables and energy efficiency - precisely what Net Zero aims to do.
6. “Starmer should be in Ukraine discussing Net Zero’s consequences”Red herring: This is an attempt to conflate separate issues. The UK’s Net Zero policies have nothing to do with Russia’s ongoing invasion of Ukraine. On the contrary, transitioning away from fossil fuels weakens Putin’s leverage over Europe.
ConclusionThis argument misrepresents evidence and ignores the broader economic benefits of Net Zero. While the transition requires investment, it ultimately leads to cheaper energy, greater energy security, and economic growth. The alternative - continued reliance on fossil fuels - poses far greater risks to both the economy and national security.
I guess Guido Fawkes knows the intellectual capacity of its readers well enough to ensure they won't question the latest guff it posts.6 -
I thought measures implemented so far don't go far enough fast enough to hit Net Zero, hence doubts. I may be wrong about that, but even if not, that's no reason to defer our efforts, as your arguments make clear.Chizz said:1. “Net Zero doesn’t go hand-in-hand with growth”
Reality: There is strong evidence that green investments can drive economic growth. Studies from organisations like the International Energy Agency (IEA) and the OBR suggest that transitioning to renewable energy can create jobs, boost innovation and enhance long-term economic stability.The Tony Blair Institute did not argue that Net Zero would harm growth, but rather suggested the transition should be better managed for efficiency.
2. “Miliband admits his policies will drive up energy bills”Context matters: Energy prices are influenced by many factors, including fossil fuel market volatility. Renewables, once established, provide cheaper electricity than fossil fuels. The UK’s current high energy bills are largely due to gas price spikes - not green policies.Short-term costs may rise due to investment in infrastructure, but the long-term benefits include lower bills and energy independence from volatile global markets.
3. “Rachel Reeves faces pressure to raise taxes”Misleading framing: Fiscal pressures exist regardless of Net Zero policies. Any government will face funding challenges, but green investment is often self-sustaining and can stimulate economic activity, increasing tax revenues in the long run.
4. “Only 14% of energy executives now believe Net Zero by 2050 is achievable”Cherry-picked statistic: The survey reflects industry sentiment, not scientific feasibility. Many energy executives have vested interests in fossil fuels, so their skepticism isn't surprising. The UK Climate Change Committee and other independent bodies still maintain Net Zero is achievable with the right policies.
5. “Labour shutting down shale gas wells ‘plays into Putin’s hands’”False equivalence: UK shale gas reserves are limited and unlikely to make a meaningful dent in energy prices or independence. Even the Conservative government acknowledged this before banning fracking.Europe reducing Russian gas dependency involves investing in renewables and energy efficiency - precisely what Net Zero aims to do.
6. “Starmer should be in Ukraine discussing Net Zero’s consequences”Red herring: This is an attempt to conflate separate issues. The UK’s Net Zero policies have nothing to do with Russia’s ongoing invasion of Ukraine. On the contrary, transitioning away from fossil fuels weakens Putin’s leverage over Europe.
ConclusionThis argument misrepresents evidence and ignores the broader economic benefits of Net Zero. While the transition requires investment, it ultimately leads to cheaper energy, greater energy security, and economic growth. The alternative - continued reliance on fossil fuels - poses far greater risks to both the economy and national security.
I guess Guido Fawkes knows the intellectual capacity of its readers well enough to ensure they won't question the latest guff it posts.
0 - Sponsored links:
-
You guess right Guido know that a lot more than those that think they do on here.4
-
My new grandson would understand more than that clown that got voted in, in July. Miliband i mean...Useless idiot. Doesnt say much about those who put him in either.ShootersHillGuru said:
To be honest it’s exactly what you’d expect to see on a right wing website.Chippycafc said:2 -
A slight issue here is if renewables were anywhere near as efficient as fossil fuels (they are not due to front end costs and reliability issues) we wouldn't need targets. The idea that green energy is a massive opportunity for businesses and jobs is a bit over blown, too - lots of green energy companies are not profitable and require subsidies to survive, paid for by the tax payer. This is partly why our bills are so high in the UK. This is generally not good for an economy.ShootersHillGuru said:There is no legitimate argument for not progressively moving away from fossil fuels. None. If there is an argument at all it’s about the speed needed to make the transition as painless and realistic as possible. Green energy is a massive opportunity for businesses and for jobs. It’s going to happen regardless so having targets and government resources put into green initiatives makes sense on every level. People like Tice are in the pay of the fossil fuel lobby. The amount of “old” money and investment tied up in fossil fuels scares the life out of the uber wealthy and until they can move their investments away from that into greener money spinners we’ll see the man made climate change denials continue by those in the pay of the fossil fuel industry. We saw exactly the same tactics used by the tobacco industry which was sickening. That’s until they could switch their customers to the third world. I read earlier that Rupert Lowe that shite of a Reform MP has had solar panels fitted to his farmhouse despite his party and him spouting that green is more expensive. Everything you need to know right there.
The idea that old money and investments are 'tied up' in fossil fuels is also an exaggeration - people invest in fossil fuel companies because they are profitable, relatively cheap, and pay good dividends. Nothing more than that. If Vestas' share price hadn't dropped 40% this year (and wasn't an inherently risky investment) more people would invest in it. Should the latter be in a typical UK saver's pension pot?
'Greener money spinners'? Please name some companies. In particular - please name a company or two that would fit into a typical UK pension pot instead of a Shell or a BP.
Green energy is currently more expensive - that is a fact - due to the front end costs and reliability issues. We pay for it in our bills. These costs will come down, eventually, as technology improves, but we are not there yet. Another question raised is how much of the earth's resources should we deplete installing green tech now (wind, solar, batteries) when it might be replaced (and made redundant) in a decade's time (by SMRs, hydrogen etc)?
I don't think it's about denial - it's about efficiency, cost and the burden to the UK taxpayer and finding the right balance.
3 -
In the short term, we're going to have to hope that Trump really does follow through with this threat to flood the world with cheap gas.
We've had successive governments promoting net zero and its been overwhelmingly miserable experience for the average UK citizen.8 -
felix_31 said:
A slight issue here is if renewables were anywhere near as efficient as fossil fuels (they are not due to front end costs and reliability issues) we wouldn't need targets. The idea that green energy is a massive opportunity for businesses and jobs is a bit over blown, too - lots of green energy companies are not profitable and require subsidies to survive, paid for by the tax payer. This is partly why our bills are so high in the UK. This is generally not good for an economy.ShootersHillGuru said:There is no legitimate argument for not progressively moving away from fossil fuels. None. If there is an argument at all it’s about the speed needed to make the transition as painless and realistic as possible. Green energy is a massive opportunity for businesses and for jobs. It’s going to happen regardless so having targets and government resources put into green initiatives makes sense on every level. People like Tice are in the pay of the fossil fuel lobby. The amount of “old” money and investment tied up in fossil fuels scares the life out of the uber wealthy and until they can move their investments away from that into greener money spinners we’ll see the man made climate change denials continue by those in the pay of the fossil fuel industry. We saw exactly the same tactics used by the tobacco industry which was sickening. That’s until they could switch their customers to the third world. I read earlier that Rupert Lowe that shite of a Reform MP has had solar panels fitted to his farmhouse despite his party and him spouting that green is more expensive. Everything you need to know right there.
The idea that old money and investments are 'tied up' in fossil fuels is also an exaggeration - people invest in fossil fuel companies because they are profitable, relatively cheap, and pay good dividends. Nothing more than that. If Vestas' share price hadn't dropped 40% this year (and wasn't an inherently risky investment) more people would invest in it. Should the latter be in a typical UK saver's pension pot?
'Greener money spinners'? Please name some companies. In particular - please name a company or two that would fit into a typical UK pension pot instead of a Shell or a BP.
Green energy is currently more expensive - that is a fact - due to the front end costs and reliability issues. We pay for it in our bills. These costs will come down, eventually, as technology improves, but we are not there yet. Another question raised is how much of the earth's resources should we deplete installing green tech now (wind, solar, batteries) when it might be replaced (and made redundant) in a decade's time (by SMRs, hydrogen etc)?
I don't think it's about denial - it's about efficiency, cost and the burden to the UK taxpayer and finding the right balance.The efficiency of an energy source depends on cost, reliability and sustainability. Fossil fuels benefited from decades of subsidies and infrastructure investment, making them dominant. Renewables are already competing on cost and overtaking fossil fuels in some areas.Here's some real world data: In the UK, wind and solar are now the cheapest sources of electricity. Offshore wind costs around £44/MWh, compared to £85/MWh for new gas plants. (Source gov.uk)While wind and solar are intermittent, advances in battery storage, smart grids, and a mix of energy sources (e.g., hydro, nuclear) solve the problem of intermittent or unreliable power. The UK’s electricity system is already handling high levels of renewable energy - wind power alone provided over 30% of UK electricity in 2023.While it's true that some companies struggle, so do fossil fuel companies - UK oil and gas firms receive billions in tax breaks and subsidies (Source: IEA) Renewables are becoming profitable without subsidies. For example, in 2023, Dogger Bank Wind Farm (the UK’s biggest wind farm) required no government subsidies through Contracts for Difference (CfD). It's going to produce the electricity required to power 4.5 million homes in the UK, with no subsidies.
Green subsidies are not making energy bills high. It's misleading framing: The UK’s high energy bills are due to gas prices, not green subsidies. The energy crisis in 2022 was driven by **fossil fuel price spikes**, not renewables.Fact: renewables reduce costs over time. The UK’s renewable industry has already lowered wholesale electricity prices by replacing expensive gas power.The green sector is one of the fastest-growing job creators. The UK’s renewable industry employs more than 250,000 people, and the global transition is expected to create millions of jobs (Source: IRENA, 2023). Green investment attracts private funding and reduces energy imports, making the economy more resilient.
If you want to replace Shell or BP in a pension fund with companies in the renewables sector, there are a lot to choose from. You might want to consider Ørsted, SSE plc, National Grid, Iberdrola, Vestas Wind Systems, NextEra Energy, Brookfield Renewable Partners, as well as others like Ormat Technologies, Enel Green Power, and Ørsted's partner companies in offshore wind, which all show strong growth potential and commitment to sustainability. Personally, I would choose 6.3% dividend yield from Brookfield over 4.29% from Shell or 5.61% from BP any day.3 -
12 -
Weve had successive governments delaying, pushing back and underfunding net zero commitments. Its been a miserable experience in general for UK citizens but blaming it on too much net zero takes some serious mental gymnastics.cafcnick1992 said:In the short term, we're going to have to hope that Trump really does follow through with this threat to flood the world with cheap gas.
We've had successive governments promoting net zero and its been overwhelmingly miserable experience for the average UK citizen.9 -
Why is it always those calling for efficiency and allowing free markets to do their thing that actually have no understanding of markets. Demand drives research which drives innovation which drives technology. It is perfectly economically viable to subsidise technological breakthroughs in the early days in order to stimulate that process. There absolutely is massive scope for a green led economic boom and this would be a real boom that benefits all parts of the economy and society not just the historically wealthy. Unfortunately in the UK we have too many people who are anti green or anti progress and so we have cut and pulled back all of these things. It looks like China will now crack sold state batteries and so we will forever be paying for them instead of UK companies (and government owning a small share). China is on course to hit net zero before Europe. They are investing heavily not for green ambitions but for the growth it will bring. We will look back on this period and say that the anti green lobby cost us a generation of growth.felix_31 said:
A slight issue here is if renewables were anywhere near as efficient as fossil fuels (they are not due to front end costs and reliability issues) we wouldn't need targets. The idea that green energy is a massive opportunity for businesses and jobs is a bit over blown, too - lots of green energy companies are not profitable and require subsidies to survive, paid for by the tax payer. This is partly why our bills are so high in the UK. This is generally not good for an economy.ShootersHillGuru said:There is no legitimate argument for not progressively moving away from fossil fuels. None. If there is an argument at all it’s about the speed needed to make the transition as painless and realistic as possible. Green energy is a massive opportunity for businesses and for jobs. It’s going to happen regardless so having targets and government resources put into green initiatives makes sense on every level. People like Tice are in the pay of the fossil fuel lobby. The amount of “old” money and investment tied up in fossil fuels scares the life out of the uber wealthy and until they can move their investments away from that into greener money spinners we’ll see the man made climate change denials continue by those in the pay of the fossil fuel industry. We saw exactly the same tactics used by the tobacco industry which was sickening. That’s until they could switch their customers to the third world. I read earlier that Rupert Lowe that shite of a Reform MP has had solar panels fitted to his farmhouse despite his party and him spouting that green is more expensive. Everything you need to know right there.
The idea that old money and investments are 'tied up' in fossil fuels is also an exaggeration - people invest in fossil fuel companies because they are profitable, relatively cheap, and pay good dividends. Nothing more than that. If Vestas' share price hadn't dropped 40% this year (and wasn't an inherently risky investment) more people would invest in it. Should the latter be in a typical UK saver's pension pot?
'Greener money spinners'? Please name some companies. In particular - please name a company or two that would fit into a typical UK pension pot instead of a Shell or a BP.
Green energy is currently more expensive - that is a fact - due to the front end costs and reliability issues. We pay for it in our bills. These costs will come down, eventually, as technology improves, but we are not there yet. Another question raised is how much of the earth's resources should we deplete installing green tech now (wind, solar, batteries) when it might be replaced (and made redundant) in a decade's time (by SMRs, hydrogen etc)?
I don't think it's about denial - it's about efficiency, cost and the burden to the UK taxpayer and finding the right balance.
Lots and lots just wrong with the above. just 2 points I'll pick up on - no one is pretending the technology is where it needs to be but as above it will only get there by use and by investment (and that's why I bang on so much about UK govt cutting research into battery technology).
The bit in bold is objectively not true. Even in your warped comparison where you are including front end costs of renewables but not the front end costs of speculatively drilling for gas/oil in the hope that one in 100 drills will actually result in a viable vein of fuel the cost is still significantly lower (between 75% and 80% lower). See below links that set this out.
https://www.imperial.ac.uk/grantham/publications/background-briefings/how-cost-effective-is-a-renewables-dominated-electricity-system-in-comparison-to-one-based-on-fossil-fuels/
https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-uk-renewables-still-cheaper-than-gas-despite-auction-setback-for-offshore-wind/4 -
cantersaddick said:
Why is it always those calling for efficiency and allowing free markets to do their thing that actually have no understanding of markets. Demand drives research which drives innovation which drives technology. It is perfectly economically viable to subsidise technological breakthroughs in the early days in order to stimulate that process. There absolutely is massive scope for a green led economic boom and this would be a real boom that benefits all parts of the economy and society not just the historically wealthy. Unfortunately in the UK we have too many people who are anti green or anti progress and so we have cut and pulled back all of these things. It looks like China will now crack sold state batteries and so we will forever be paying for them instead of UK companies (and government owning a small share). China is on course to hit net zero before Europe. They are investing heavily not for green ambitions but for the growth it will bring. We will look back on this period and say that the anti green lobby cost us a generation of growth.felix_31 said:
A slight issue here is if renewables were anywhere near as efficient as fossil fuels (they are not due to front end costs and reliability issues) we wouldn't need targets. The idea that green energy is a massive opportunity for businesses and jobs is a bit over blown, too - lots of green energy companies are not profitable and require subsidies to survive, paid for by the tax payer. This is partly why our bills are so high in the UK. This is generally not good for an economy.ShootersHillGuru said:There is no legitimate argument for not progressively moving away from fossil fuels. None. If there is an argument at all it’s about the speed needed to make the transition as painless and realistic as possible. Green energy is a massive opportunity for businesses and for jobs. It’s going to happen regardless so having targets and government resources put into green initiatives makes sense on every level. People like Tice are in the pay of the fossil fuel lobby. The amount of “old” money and investment tied up in fossil fuels scares the life out of the uber wealthy and until they can move their investments away from that into greener money spinners we’ll see the man made climate change denials continue by those in the pay of the fossil fuel industry. We saw exactly the same tactics used by the tobacco industry which was sickening. That’s until they could switch their customers to the third world. I read earlier that Rupert Lowe that shite of a Reform MP has had solar panels fitted to his farmhouse despite his party and him spouting that green is more expensive. Everything you need to know right there.
The idea that old money and investments are 'tied up' in fossil fuels is also an exaggeration - people invest in fossil fuel companies because they are profitable, relatively cheap, and pay good dividends. Nothing more than that. If Vestas' share price hadn't dropped 40% this year (and wasn't an inherently risky investment) more people would invest in it. Should the latter be in a typical UK saver's pension pot?
'Greener money spinners'? Please name some companies. In particular - please name a company or two that would fit into a typical UK pension pot instead of a Shell or a BP.
Green energy is currently more expensive - that is a fact - due to the front end costs and reliability issues. We pay for it in our bills. These costs will come down, eventually, as technology improves, but we are not there yet. Another question raised is how much of the earth's resources should we deplete installing green tech now (wind, solar, batteries) when it might be replaced (and made redundant) in a decade's time (by SMRs, hydrogen etc)?
I don't think it's about denial - it's about efficiency, cost and the burden to the UK taxpayer and finding the right balance.
Lots and lots just wrong with the above. just 2 points I'll pick up on - no one is pretending the technology is where it needs to be but as above it will only get there by use and by investment (and that's why I bang on so much about UK govt cutting research into battery technology).
The bit in bold is objectively not true. Even in your warped comparison where you are including front end costs of renewables but not the front end costs of speculatively drilling for gas/oil in the hope that one in 100 drills will actually result in a viable vein of fuel the cost is still significantly lower (between 75% and 80% lower). See below links that set this out.
https://www.imperial.ac.uk/grantham/publications/background-briefings/how-cost-effective-is-a-renewables-dominated-electricity-system-in-comparison-to-one-based-on-fossil-fuels/
https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-uk-renewables-still-cheaper-than-gas-despite-auction-setback-for-offshore-wind/
Come on Canters - what the f*ck do ICL know compared to Guido?5 -
Just in case anyone thinks that we shouldn't proceed with our aims for net zero "because it's too expensive", it should be pointed out that the UK government has given £20bn more in support to fossil fuel producers than those of renewables since 2015. (Source: here) Kinda debunks a lot of myth around the "cost" of renewables to the taxpayer.6
