The Political Thread

[von Boom]

We've had our chance and the sooner the slate gets wiped clean the sooner the cockroaches can make a start.

Ants. It'll be the ants.

[Old Tankie]

Well said, Prof!    

Of course, you're right, TB, but while our little islands only contribute 2% to global warming and we've got China apparently building a new coal-fired power station virtually every month, I don't see why me and you should be paying green taxes now; sort out the big polluters first and then I'll be happy to pay my bit.

I know there are problems currently with climate change, I've read James Lovelock!!  But to be honest, in this part of the world, at the moment, I'm more concerned with what my grandchildren are going to do for a job and how they're going to be able to afford housing, rather than whether they're going to fry or freeze!!

[COMMANDO FORCES]

If our effect on the world's climate was so catastrophic, then why are we pussy footing about. I happily recycle into our multitude of bins only for the council, or whoever, to sometimes place it all in landfill, as has been known.
Many years ago we took our newspapers to some dodgy bloke with his scales and he paid us for the weight, same as milk bottle tops. The Lowcocks pop man collected our empty bottles and you had a percentage taken off your next purchase.

Why don't all new builds have fully energy efficient items fitted as standard. Solar panels, wind turbines, triple glazing, thermal heating, etc..

So long as the dickheads in charge try to ruin this country while many others do what they want, brilliant! As has been said earlier, we can have the moral high ground but China, India, Pakistan, Brazil, Russia, the US, etc... Must be pissing themselves, as they watch us implode but at least we are 100% saving the planet.

[Jim_Campbell]

See how far ahead the Tories where when they helped to close those polluting mines. All hail Maggie and her Green policies

I appreciate that you're just trying to bait the 'lefties' but you know that about 40% of our electricity still comes from burning coal, right? It's just that we now import it from Eastern Europe and South America, where they can dig it up at a much lower cost by paying less attention to minor concerns like worker safety and environmental impact. Hurrah for the free market!

Most of the generating capacity switched away from coal was switched to gas, contributing in no small measure to the depletion of the North Sea gas reserves, leaving us at the mercy of the in-no-way-capricious Russian suppliers.

Meanwhile, the apparent saviour in our energy crisis is fracking, being handed a massive tax break to extract hydrocarbons from the ground in the way that contaminates ground water, depletes local water reserves and causes earth tremors.

And yet we live on an island made of fucking coal. Were it not for the political baggage attached to coal mining, the Powers-that-Be would be all over new technologies like this.

None of the political parties have anything resembling a coherent energy policy, but arguing that other countries aren't bothering so why should we is in argument for doing nothing in almost all circumstances. Sometimes you have to try to do the right thing because it's the right thing and in hope that others may follow.

Cheers

Jim

[TordelBack]

Sometimes you have to try to do the right thing because it's the right thing and in hope that others may follow.

The goth's not for turning.

[Recrewt]

Ha! Well, we have just spent several pages arguing debating over climate change and CO2 emissions so I can just imagine the reaction to opening up more coal mines in the UK.  I do agree though that there are reserves there ready and waiting but unfortunately cost is key.  If it is cheaper to import coal than extract our own then why bother?

And it is hard to argue against it - the cost of setting up a new coal mine in the UK compared to what the energy companies expect to pay for it does not equal a big profit.  And as for worker safety, a lot of the mines in places like Russia are open cast where one guy sits in a big machine like a jcb and scoops up coal and puts it in the back of a dumper truck.  Compare this to the UK's often deep mines with thin seems and you can see which might be better for the workers.  Mining in the UK is dirty and dangerous work - if you don't get gassed, drowned or crushed then you usually end up with something more stealthy like lung cancer. 

So what do you do?  Buggered if I know!  It would be nice to have a sensible debate from our leader's that recognises whilst we should try to be as environmentally clean as we can, there is no fuel source that currently delivers that.  In fact, wouldn't it be nice to have some cross-party agreements about the future of fuel in the UK?  This could lead to agreements over finding more efficient ways to use gas/coal in short term and perhaps finally sort out the Nuclear waste issue for the long term. 

[Jim_Campbell]

Ha! Well, we have just spent several pages arguing debating over climate change and CO2 emissions so I can just imagine the reaction to opening up more coal mines in the UK.

Did you read the article I linked to? It's a method of liberating energy from coal with zero CO2 emissions.

If it is cheaper to import coal than extract our own then why bother?

I believe that energy security, like food security, should be subject to a more sensible policy than just 'let the market decide'. It doesn't take a huge leap of imagination —global pandemic of some kind, say?— to conjure a scenario where countries start significantly restricting the flow of goods and people across their borders yet, in such a scenario, we're basically fucked.

Cheers

Jim

[TordelBack]

It would be nice to have a sensible debate from our leader's that recognises whilst we should try to be as environmentally clean as we can, there is no fuel source that currently delivers that.

This is only one issue.  Power consumption is if anything a bigger one, and one that is readily tackle-able without massive infrastructural investment or technological breakthroughs: just stop using planes on a whim if you're rich, reduce car journeys where possible if you're not, insulate properly, drop the heating several notches/raise the aircon temp and turn off the damn X-Box when you go to bed etc.  However, this involves the consumer accepting a change to their precious lifestyle.  The richest 20% of the planet's population consumes 75% of total global energy production. Or to put it another way, most of the world's energy consumption is based around luxury or convenience.

If that could be reduced things would change far more significantly than jockeying about with nuclear versus fossil etc.  This however is essentially deflationary, and it'll be a cold day in the Caymans before the rich endorse it or lead by example: that kind of move, reducing energy consumption, can only come from the people, and only through awareness and enlightened self-interest.

Take 2 minutes to watch the genius of Hans Rosling explain it better than I ever could: http://jeremyjschmidt.com/2013/10/24/hans-rosling-inequality-and-the-unjust-use-of-energy/

[Recrewt]

Ha! Well, we have just spent several pages arguing debating over climate change and CO2 emissions so I can just imagine the reaction to opening up more coal mines in the UK.

Did you read the article I linked to? It's a method of liberating energy from coal with zero CO2 emissions.

Yes, well I scan read it Sir - is there going to be a test?   Interesting stuff but this method still consumes coal doesn't it so we will need to mine some and there will be CO2 emmissions from creating and setting up a new coal mine. 

If it is cheaper to import coal than extract our own then why bother?

I believe that energy security, like food security, should be subject to a more sensible policy than just 'let the market decide'. It doesn't take a huge leap of imagination —global pandemic of some kind, say?— to conjure a scenario where countries start significantly restricting the flow of goods and people across their borders yet, in such a scenario, we're basically fucked.

Whilst I agree we should not just let the market decide - that's a bit doom and gloom view of things isn't it?  We do have coal mines running in the UK and there are also stockpiles of coal we have imported.  More likeley, we will have the new Nuclear power plants or will indeed open up new coal mines to use those reserves?

[Mikey]

If our effect on the world's climate was so catastrophic, then why are we pussy footing about...

...Why don't all new builds have fully energy efficient items fitted as standard. Solar panels, wind turbines, triple glazing, thermal heating, etc..

So long as the dickheads in charge try to ruin this country while many others do what they want, brilliant! As has been said earlier, we can have the moral high ground but China, India, Pakistan, Brazil, Russia, the US, etc... Must be pissing themselves, as they watch us implode but at least we are 100% saving the planet.

Yep - why indeed. Never mind the 'recycling' can be going to landfills or breakers yards in some of the countries you mention, where no one is giving a shit about the pollution or effects on workers. You're dead right there's a moral (or ethical?) dimension to it too. I don't think people in what I suppose you could call post industrial societies could deny other countries the opportunity to supply electricity and other modern conveniences to a largely dirt poor population. And at the same time I think it's right to take the lead on alternatives if the opportunity is there. Surely the expertise that could be developed in renewable or cleaner forms of energy gives you a) a skill base and b) products, that you can sell both of later on to the new members of the club?

Meh, give it all a few million years and it'll be all 'how do we melt the fuckin ice now?'

M.

[JamesC]

It would be nice to have a sensible debate from our leader's that recognises whilst we should try to be as environmentally clean as we can, there is no fuel source that currently delivers that.

This is only one issue.  Power consumption is if anything a bigger one, and one that is readily tackle-able without massive infrastructural investment or technological breakthroughs: just stop using planes on a whim if you're rich, reduce car journeys where possible if you're not, insulate properly, drop the heating several notches/raise the aircon temp and turn off the damn X-Box when you go to bed etc.  However, this involves the consumer accepting a change to their precious lifestyle.  The richest 20% of the planet's population consumes 75% of total global energy production. Or to put it another way, most of the world's energy consumption is based around luxury or convenience.

If that could be reduced things would change far more significantly than jockeying about with nuclear versus fossil etc.  This however is essentially deflationary, and it'll be a cold day in the Caymans before the rich endorse it or lead by example: that kind of move, reducing energy consumption, can only come from the people, and only through awareness and enlightened self-interest.

Take 2 minutes to watch the genius of Hans Rosling explain it better than I ever could: http://jeremyjschmidt.com/2013/10/24/hans-rosling-inequality-and-the-unjust-use-of-energy/

While this is all quite correct it's very easy to criticise 'the rich' if you aren't one of them.

If you ask most people what they'd do if they won the lottery they'd say 'buy a big house, a fast car and go on lots of exotic holidays'.
If you're rich you want to enjoy it. It's pretty much the carrot that drives a capitalist society.

I'm not trying to say that there's no burden of responsibility on the rich, just that it's hard to point the finger at the real culprits.
For example - what's the point of a Ferrari? Should we judge the rich for buying them or should we just expect the company to stop making them - or to start making electric ones?

[Mikey]

Electric Ferarri is a great name for a band...or a porn star.

M.

[JamesC]

If our effect on the world's climate was so catastrophic, then why are we pussy footing about. I happily recycle into our multitude of bins only for the council, or whoever, to sometimes place it all in landfill, as has been known.
Many years ago we took our newspapers to some dodgy bloke with his scales and he paid us for the weight, same as milk bottle tops. The Lowcocks pop man collected our empty bottles and you had a percentage taken off your next purchase.

Why don't all new builds have fully energy efficient items fitted as standard. Solar panels, wind turbines, triple glazing, thermal heating, etc..

So long as the dickheads in charge try to ruin this country while many others do what they want, brilliant! As has been said earlier, we can have the moral high ground but China, India, Pakistan, Brazil, Russia, the US, etc... Must be pissing themselves, as they watch us implode but at least we are 100% saving the planet.

I find it hard to believe that there hasn't been some sort of campaign to re-instate the milkman (probably with tax breaks to make it viable). The milk gets delivered from a local dairy, by electric vehicle, in a reusable bottle. Brilliant.

They should start distributing beer in reusable bottles again too (when I worked in a bar the only bottles that went back to be re-used were Holsten Pills, Mann's and Schweppes mixers. I don't think even they get reused any more).

[Jim_Campbell]

Interesting stuff but this method still consumes coal doesn't it so we will need to mine some and there will be CO2 emmissions from creating and setting up a new coal mine.

One of the maddening things about the climate change discussion is the insistence on counting all CO₂ emissions as if they're equal.

If I grow a tree, then cut it down and burn it for fuel, that's broadly carbon neutral, since I'm only releasing the carbon the tree sequestered from the atmosphere in the process of growing. If I dig up a half a tonne of coal and burn that then I'm adding CO₂ into the atmosphere that hadn't been there for many millions of years. It's changing the balance of carbon in the atmosphere that's the problem, not the blanket process of doing stuff that liberates CO₂ into the atmosphere.

Cheers

Jim

[Recrewt]

Interesting stuff but this method still consumes coal doesn't it so we will need to mine some and there will be CO2 emmissions from creating and setting up a new coal mine.

One of the maddening things about the climate change discussion is the insistence on counting all CO₂ emissions as if they're equal.

Quite.  The almost fanatical view of restricting any CO2 emmissions is daft and hampers serious discussions about how we tackle the problem and move forward.

Almost everything we do creates CO2.  In fact, I'm emmitting CO2 myself as I type this message!