Off Topic Climate change/ pollution

That is a MASSIVE assumption, based on minimal evidence, especially when full cost benefit calculations are included.

As for fossil fuel use, forcing an end to it without a credible, working alternative is pure self harm, and definitely detrimental to current and future generations.

As just one example, the declaration of the phasing out of ICE vehicles meant manufacturers reduced and some even ended research. It means that by 2030, many cars are running on decades old technology, when manufacturers were well on track to produce some very green vehicles.

On an additional note, it's also worth pointing out that figures for renewable energy production, pretty much only relates to the grid, which is a small percentage of over all energy use. Such manipulation of information should cause a critical thinker to look into why they do that.

 

That touches on something I've never got. Why not allow / encourage continual improvement of ICE vehicles whilst gradually developing alternative technologies that, if truly better, would gradually win out anyway. The approach being taken, based on what's is highly questionable data and logic seems bizarre to me and can't help make many of us suspicious and cynical about what is really driving (excuse the pun) these changes.
On top of that, the Western world is playing straight into China's hands. Are we really that stupid? We must be a laughing stock to them. And where's the outpouring of outrage given their human rights record; all silent, odd that.

 

You are talking about a group of people that try to make out that the diesel issue was brought about by VW getting caught. That is total bollocks. They knew the issues pretty much from the start, as many, many people flagged it up when it was initially proposed to push for diesel. Even the testing protocol was flagged as inadequate, with issues like the unrealistic drive cycles for the test, which were impossible to replicate in the real world.

It's worth noting that the push for diesel, and all the hype about cleaner emissions etc, was more because gas was being used instead of the fuel in power stations, so they had gallons of the stuff to get rid off. It was never about the environment. Have a look at other parts of the world and consider why the issue was mainly limited to Europe.

 

It's worth considering that the grid is struggling with this 20%, yet the claim from some is they can accommodate the additional load from transport. They still haven't explained how they intend to fill the void of the lost fuel revenue.

This is from a couple of years ago, so it may have changed slightly.

The UK energy market is dominated by the use of oil and gas, together responsible for around 80% of total energy consumed.

Oil is predominantly used in transport, while gas is mainly used as a source of heat. A smaller proportion of the UK’s gas use is in electricity generation. Almost all coal use is in power stations, but these units are set to be retired by 2024 at the latest. The contribution of coal to the UK’s energy consumption has fallen by more than 10 percentage points in a decade.

Electricity accounts for nearly 20% of UK’s total energy use, a figure which is largely stable over time.


https://eciu.net/analysis/briefings/uk-energy-policies-and-prices/uk-energy-and-emissions

 

The windfarms and the UHV sea cables are supposed to cover the shortfall.

 

Even the grid companies aren't claiming that. Quite the opposite. I think you're mixing electricity production with energy. It would need a four fold increase at least.

The transmission system is what's struggling, so adding more power would actually make it worse. They also cannot find enough land (or sea) to site the number of turbines and panels to take up that gap.

I think this nicely highlights the lack of strategic thinking with the whole issue, and the expensive flaw in reducing a technology before a replacement is available.

It really looks like the found a 'solution' then tried to create problems to justify it. It makes no sense the other way around, either from a societal, economic or health perspective.

 

I guess because the extraction of the fuel is bad for the environment, as well as the usage. Plus it's finite and places the energy security of Europe in the unstable hands of Russia, the Middle East and the US.

I don't enough about the push for diesel in Europe two decades ago to have a strong opinion.

It's a difficult one with China, isn't it. At the end of the day, we're a global interlinked economy. China can't survive without the US and Europe, and now, we can't survive without china. If human rights are a strong issue for you, buying oil from Saudi Arabia is equally as difficult.

There's no easy answer. But I'm more surprised about the negativity towards the future.. **** it, let's keep using more and more single use plastics and polluting the air because I don't believe in the alternative. For me, it's worth a try and opportunities are there to be embraced.

 

Agree.

 

You keep on trying to describe it as negativity, when that is a total red herring. Your own position is far, far more negative, and your 'solutions' are liable to bring in more problems than we already face.

I do wonder what it is they're actually trying to achieve, because it doesn't appear to be greener, cleaner sustainable energy.

 

Correct - there is no easy answer. All I see are trade offs, the yang to the ying.

 

It's Yin.

 

Whose he play for

 

Same as Woo.

 

That is kind of my point. Throughout people have been calling it 'energy' but only referring to electricity generation, which is only a fifth of the actual energy used in the UK.

I don't think encouraging that misdirection is accidental.

 

Tell ****ing China, India and the USA that, the UK is killing itself on climate taxes and the minuscule difference we make means **** all to the World.

 

The Big Yin used to play for The Humblebums with Gerry Rafferty. Don't think the latter was related to Ron Rafferty, ex Grimsby and Hull City player of the early to mid '60s ?

 

Climate taxes and plastic refuse are two separate issues, aren't they. You could be against punitive climate taxes, but still not want to landfill unnecessary plastic rubbish in your local area.

Everything one person does is miniscule compared to a world population of 7 billion. It shouldn't stop us from doing it.

 

The USA, China and India have over 3 billion population, so nearly half the World cares not a **** for the planet, how will us in the UK make any difference whatsoever?