[Moonfly]

This is what my logic tells me:

There is only so much oil in the earth (enough to last till 2050 aparently, so why the price increase of oil) and unless all the governements of the world tell the oil companies to turn the pumps of its going to keep getting burned. If we lower our carbon footprints, use less resources we simply subject the earth to longer more sustained exposure. If we go silly and burn it all up by next week, sure the earth will suffer but nature can start recovering quicker. Simple as that and I fail to see where all this debate comes in.

Fact of the matter is, I think our government just uses this as an excuse to put its hand in our wallets. I mean where does the conjestion charge go, because it doesnt get spent on meathods of reducing conjestion. Same with road tax and fuel duty, its just a cover story to get more money back in the governement purse. The only reason the price of oil is going up is because of the wars fighting over it, and the public perception its running out created by the governments. Even the head of shell oil said they're not running out yet, not to mention these companies make profits in the bilions anyway.

Global warming, again unless the pumps are turned off we cant stop our contribution towards it so why should I care. Give me an alternative of force me to find use one by turning the pumps of or shut up about it. Some scientists even concede that the earth will warm up anyway because our sun is still young and growing. It gets bigger so we get closer to it and get warmer, simple, the end.

The only stratagy type element I can see in the governments actions is that they are looking into the future and making changes now so when we do run out of oil its not a big deal because we'll have spent from now until 2050 or whenever adapting in advance, but then I'd just prefer they say that, at least I'd have some respect and confidence in them then.

If someone can give a better argument or say something that I'm missing then fair play, but in all honesty thats how I see things, I dont see why I should be that bothered about it and I'm sick of the government using it as an excuse to take more and more money off me.

[johntheexpat]

Funnily enough, its not about you. It's about the future.

[Moonfly]

Originally Posted by johntheexpat

Funnily enough, its not about you. It's about the future.

Exactly my point, if the pumps dont get turned off then I cant ACTUALLY do anything about the future, and reducing my carbon footprint now means it wil only take longer to get those oil pumps turned off.

Thanks for your thoughtfull input all the same. Youv'e convinced me of nothing.

[Gadgetcity]

I'm not going to get into an ecological or environmental debate.

What I would suggest is that lowering your carbon footprint often saves you money. Whilst you don't "need" to save money, it would surely count on the positive side of the debate.

[johntheexpat]

Originally Posted by Moonfly

The only stratagy type element I can see in the governments actions is that they are looking into the future and making changes now so when we do run out of oil its not a big deal because we'll have spent from now until 2050 or whenever adapting in advance, but then I'd just prefer they say that, at least I'd have some respect and confidence in them then.

Oil isn't going to run out. When the current wells run dry, there will be others (further offshore as near Brazil), there will be oil form oil shale (most of the worlds oil hasn't been touched yet because its in oil shale which is harder to process-for every two barrels produced from oil shale, one will go to winning the next two barrels and one will go to the refinery for you and me, so basically double the consumption if you want oil from oil shale), oil will come from coal or gas (both proven technology, oil from coal by the Germans during the war and the South Africans during apartheid), oil from gas as per Shell and its V-Power diesel fuel. Then there will be coal to replace some uses (heating and power generation) and coal to produce hydrogen for our cars. Then there will be gas (methane) from clathrates (billions and billions of tonnes of it) which haven't even been touched as a resource yet.
So, fossil fuel is abundant and oil isn't going to run out.
And when we get used to using alternatives to oil, you can bet your bottom dollar that energy from fossil fuels won't be terribly expensive.

[andykn]

Originally Posted by Moonfly

This is what my logic tells me:

There is only so much oil in the earth (enough to last till 2050 aparently, so why the price increase of oil) and unless all the governements of the world tell the oil companies to turn the pumps of its going to keep getting burned. If we lower our carbon footprints, use less resources we simply subject the earth to longer more sustained exposure. If we go silly and burn it all up by next week, sure the earth will suffer but nature can start recovering quicker. Simple as that and I fail to see where all this debate comes in.

Fact of the matter is, I think our government just uses this as an excuse to put its hand in our wallets.

This "magic wand" assertion continually amazes me every time people use it.

It has been used many times, but peoiple never feel the need to back it up with any evidence at all, no matter how many times challenged on the point.

Can you quantify any significant environmental tax that is any higher now in real terms than when the Tories were in power?

I mean where does the conjestion charge go, because it doesnt get spent on meathods of reducing conjestion.

Wrong. It goes on investment in public transport. London bus fares went down last year. Congestion in Central London has risen slower than the rest of the UK.

Same with road tax and fuel duty, its just a cover story to get more money back in the governement purse.

I don't think either have risen in real terms since the tories left power.

The only reason the price of oil is going up is because of the wars fighting over it, and the public perception its running out created by the governments.

Even the head of shell oil said they're not running out yet, not to mention these companies make profits in the bilions anyway.

Nope. It's all supply and demand. Oil wells can't be drilled overnight. Demand has risen because of the increasing industrialisation and wealth of India and China, as well as domestic demand having steadily risen over the term of the labour govt due to the ever increasing prosperity we are seeing.

[CGizzi]

[QUOTE=andykn;7203254
Nope. It's all supply and demand. Oil wells can't be drilled overnight. Demand has risen because of the increasing industrialisation and wealth of India and China, as well as domestic demand having steadily risen over the term of the labour govt due to the ever increasing prosperity we are seeing.[/QUOTE]

Oil is today the major reason for war. Why else have 2 super powers fought over Afganistan ( USSR & America ) I doubt is the poppy fields. Middle East, before the Oil boom they were all still living in tents ( no offence implied ) now were either stockpiling our friends up with billions of $ worth of hardware to "protect their assets" or were invading them to grab the oil for ourselves.

America has plenty of Oil but its basically holding onto it for as long as possible until the price of it goes up so high its not worth buying it in, then they can export theirs at a higher price.
In the UK too weve plenty of fossil fuels, weve only shut down all our mines for example as they "arnt ecconomical" at pressent, as were buying cheaper coal & gas from abroad, the seccond prices pass a certian figure our industry will flourish again.

To be honest I agree with the 1st poster, hes right. Were gonig to end up using it all, Ive never heard anyone say were not otherwise why does everyone say "weve only got 40 years left" or whatever, weather we get 100miles per gallon on 1 is irespective, were using all the oil & the emmissions will end up in the enviroment.

Lets be honest were not in a stagnent enviroment anyway, the world changes, weve had Ice Ages hotter periods than now & so on, what makes us think that we can stop the world from evolving? Yes things may die out etc. etc. buy if the theory of natural selection works, the fittest are surviving & something else will soon take the place of the extinct animal or plant.

How many people will buy hydrogen cars thinking they are "zero emission?" I ask how is the Hydrogen produced.... Electric cars... again wheres the power coming from.... & these hybrid cars, how much energy/leathal chemicals go into production of the batteries, I wounder what the real cost in terms of carbon are on these cars? to me a 30year old landrover is probably the greenest car around. How long do we expect these modern cars to last, whats the carbon cost on them over the term of the car, Ive not worked it out but Id bet the landy is a better bet, plus stick veg oil in and its almost carbon neutral as long as the oil is produced locally?

[961]

Well, I can't

I know if the price goes up, someone will find more

As for my carbon footprint, well, forgive me, it sort of thinks, well, I've stood in something

[andykn]

Originally Posted by CGizzi

Oil is today the major reason for war. Why else have 2 super powers fought over Afganistan ( USSR & America ) I doubt is the poppy fields. Middle East, before the Oil boom they were all still living in tents ( no offence implied ) now were either stockpiling our friends up with billions of $ worth of hardware to "protect their assets" or were invading them to grab the oil for ourselves.

I wasn't aware Afghanistan had significant quantities of Oil.

America has plenty of Oil but its basically holding onto it for as long as possible until the price of it goes up so high its not worth buying it in, then they can export theirs at a higher price.
In the UK too weve plenty of fossil fuels, weve only shut down all our mines for example as they "arnt ecconomical" at pressent, as were buying cheaper coal & gas from abroad, the seccond prices pass a certian figure our industry will flourish again.

To be honest I agree with the 1st poster, hes right. Were gonig to end up using it all, Ive never heard anyone say were not otherwise why does everyone say "weve only got 40 years left" or whatever, weather we get 100miles per gallon on 1 is irespective, were using all the oil & the emmissions will end up in the enviroment.

Lets be honest were not in a stagnent enviroment anyway, the world changes, weve had Ice Ages hotter periods than now & so on, what makes us think that we can stop the world from evolving? Yes things may die out etc. etc. buy if the theory of natural selection works, the fittest are surviving & something else will soon take the place of the extinct animal or plant.

Irrelevant.

The concern is the damage to our economies that a change to the climate that normally takes millenia takingplace in decades.

We can't stop the world from evolving but to accelerate it from millennia to decades is foolish.

[Corey USA]

Originally Posted by andykn

I wasn't aware Afghanistan had significant quantities of Oil.

Irrelevant.

The concern is the damage to our economies that a change to the climate that normally takes millenia takingplace in decades.

We can't stop the world from evolving but to accelerate it from millennia to decades is foolish.

other reason we won't drill for the oil is either its under urban areas or in nature sensitive areas. Their is a couple of million people here in the USA who keep signing petitions to keep the damb oil companies out. Also they are dirtier types of oil like sand shawl which is extremely damaging to extract from the ground, look at Canada's oil shawl removal it turned into an environmental disaster.

[Corey USA]

Originally Posted by Moonfly

This is what my logic tells me:

There is only so much oil in the earth (enough to last till 2050 aparently, so why the price increase of oil) and unless all the governements of the world tell the oil companies to turn the pumps of its going to keep getting burned. If we lower our carbon footprints, use less resources we simply subject the earth to longer more sustained exposure. If we go silly and burn it all up by next week, sure the earth will suffer but nature can start recovering quicker. Simple as that and I fail to see where all this debate comes in.

Fact of the matter is, I think our government just uses this as an excuse to put its hand in our wallets. I mean where does the conjestion charge go, because it doesnt get spent on meathods of reducing conjestion. Same with road tax and fuel duty, its just a cover story to get more money back in the governement purse. The only reason the price of oil is going up is because of the wars fighting over it, and the public perception its running out created by the governments. Even the head of shell oil said they're not running out yet, not to mention these companies make profits in the bilions anyway.

Global warming, again unless the pumps are turned off we cant stop our contribution towards it so why should I care. Give me an alternative of force me to find use one by turning the pumps of or shut up about it. Some scientists even concede that the earth will warm up anyway because our sun is still young and growing. It gets bigger so we get closer to it and get warmer, simple, the end.

The only stratagy type element I can see in the governments actions is that they are looking into the future and making changes now so when we do run out of oil its not a big deal because we'll have spent from now until 2050 or whenever adapting in advance, but then I'd just prefer they say that, at least I'd have some respect and confidence in them then.

If someone can give a better argument or say something that I'm missing then fair play, but in all honesty thats how I see things, I dont see why I should be that bothered about it and I'm sick of the government using it as an excuse to take more and more money off me.

It will take earth millions of years to lock the co2 away permanently in fossil fuel form. But their is a catch its the growth and decay of forests that locks it. If we cut down all the forests then earth cant recover fast enough Look at Australia's history humans cause a tropical continent to go mostly desert. About 50,000 years ago. read leak for further info.

http://forests.org/archive/spacific/ausdeser.htm

[RandomLee]

Originally Posted by andykn

I wasn't aware Afghanistan had significant quantities of Oil.

No, it's because they want to build an oil / gas pipeline through Afghanistan, not actually drill for oil there.

Other than that, I dont want to get involved in the actual debate.

Have fun

[evilgenius]

Check out the Non-energy crisis on youtube. Apparently Alaska has oil deposits the size of Saudi Arabia and gas deposits as large as anyone.

I kinda believe this, also I watched on DiscoveryChannel that the US has coal oil, as much as saudi arabia in crude but its expensive to extract.

[johntheexpat]

Originally Posted by evilgenius

Check out the Non-energy crisis on youtube. Apparently Alaska has oil deposits the size of Saudi Arabia and gas deposits as large as anyone.

I kinda believe this, also I watched on DiscoveryChannel that the US has coal oil, as much as saudi arabia in crude but its expensive to extract.

As per post #5, oil isn't going to run out. That's not the problem.

[andykn]

Originally Posted by RandomLee

No, it's because they want to build an oil / gas pipeline through Afghanistan, not actually drill for oil there.

Other than that, I dont want to get involved in the actual debate.

Have fun

Sounds a bit conspiracy nutter to me, it would surely be cheaper to reroute or use tankers than start a whole war over it.

[Moonfly]

Originally Posted by andykn

This "magic wand" assertion continually amazes me every time people use it.

It has been used many times, but peoiple never feel the need to back it up with any evidence at all, no matter how many times challenged on the point.

Can you quantify any significant environmental tax that is any higher now in real terms than when the Tories were in power?
Nope, only that infation is increasing everything except our wages, and introducing things like conjestion charging on top of the tax we already pay is just the government using the green issue as an excuse to "tax" us more without actually saying its a tax, hence my poor attitude towards them

Wrong. It goes on investment in public transport. London bus fares went down last year. Congestion in Central London has risen slower than the rest of the UK.
I don't think either have risen in real terms since the tories left power.
My point is the charge shouldnt be there at all, if they think replacing cars with buses is the aswer then ban all cars and put enough buses out ther and force us to use them, creating jobs and reducing conjestion (which I dont think it would that much to be honest), but no they wont do that and actually "DO" something about it, they just want the money out your wallet.


Nope. It's all supply and demand. Oil wells can't be drilled overnight. Demand has risen because of the increasing industrialisation and wealth of India and China, as well as domestic demand having steadily risen over the term of the labour govt due to the ever increasing prosperity we are seeing.

I dont really care about how long it takes to drill a well, these companies profit in the billions every year, and thats clear profit. They can afford to drill these wells especially given the obvious returns. Supply is stil meeting demand and prices shouldnt rise till demand excedds supply, which it wont.

I dont get why your banging on about the tories either, my points are against governement in general and not the Labour party. Which ever way you look at it, my "magic wand" is only making my wallet lighter.

[Moonfly]

Originally Posted by andykn

The concern is the damage to our economies that a change to the climate that normally takes millenia takingplace in decades.

We can't stop the world from evolving but to accelerate it from millennia to decades is foolish.

This is something else I dont know whether to beleive or not. According to some scientists the world goes through stages of warming and cooling anyway and our emmissions dont make that much difference. If all fossil fuel burning stopped tomorrow, there are those that say the world would still be warming up anyway. Maybe its true, maybe it isnt, nobody actually knows and thats a real undeniable fact. Either way, unless the pumps turn off it doesnt matter what I do anyway the the point is moot, and me giving back even more of my hard earned to the government isnt suddenly going to drop the world by a couple of degrees.

By the way, we had the coldest march since records began last year, explain that if you can.

[Moonfly]

Originally Posted by Corey USA

It will take earth millions of years to lock the co2 away permanently in fossil fuel form. But their is a catch its the growth and decay of forests that locks it. If we cut down all the forests then earth cant recover fast enough Look at Australia's history humans cause a tropical continent to go mostly desert. About 50,000 years ago. read leak for further info.

http://forests.org/archive/spacific/ausdeser.htm

Again this is out of my control, but I can honestly say Ive never burnt a tree down. This one is down the the companies that cut trees, and governments to enforces law that make them have sustainable forests. If the price of paper goes up then that is what I would call a fair charge. Higher income tax to pay for a war, two new aircraft carriers, two new nuclear subs, restock of 200 nukes and 200 typhoons isnt what I would call fighting the green cause. This is blatant bull smidt and syaing one thing but doing another. I bet that kit alone creates enough emmissions to give any eco warrior a headache. By the way, how do those guys get around the world for holidays and that if they dont use planes etc?

[Gadgetcity]

Originally Posted by Moonfly

By the way, we had the coldest march since records began last year, explain that if you can.

http://www.physorg.com 18th April 2008:

Planet Earth continues to run a fever. Last month was the warmest March on record over land surfaces of the world

You have to take the planet as a whole. One worry is the change in Ocean currents. For example, if we heat the Atlantic enough, the ocean currents may shift causing the Gulf Stream to cease reaching the UK.
So planet average = hotter
UK winters = colder, the opposite of what you might expect from 'Global warming'

You can't pick and choose facts and figures - you have to look at the whole picture.

You are right though. NOBODY knows what will actually happen. It is a lot of best guesses and some media hype to confuse things. If a big volcano pops or are large asteriod hits then the Earth would be much cooler for years. You never know what the future holds.

The thing you have to ask yourself is do you want to try and do the right thing. If you do then you then have to decide what the "right thing" is. I'm not in any position to lecture on what the "right thing" is but I think that by asking questions the way you have been doing has to be a good start.

Good luck in your quest to decide whether you should reduce your personal carbon footprint.

[johntheexpat]

Originally Posted by Moonfly

By the way, we had the coldest march since records began last year, explain that if you can.

A challenge like that will always trigger the response that the phrase we should be looking at is not Global Warming, but Climate Change. The Globe will warm, the climate will change. So, the fact that the climate in March was 'the coldest since records began' may indicate the onset of climate change. Or it may not.

[andykn]

Originally Posted by Moonfly

I dont get why your banging on about the tories either, my points are against governement in general and not the Labour party. Which ever way you look at it, my "magic wand" is only making my wallet lighter.

You are getting dreadfully confused over lots of different issues and lumping them under one "green" banner.

The congestion charge does what it says on the tin. It is to arrest the rise of traffic congestion in central London and all the money raised goes to improving public transport. If it is removed fropm your wallet you should save more in time thasn it costs you in money.

If your income hasn't risen with inflation then get a proper job. If you look at the figures for real increases in take home pay over the last few years you will ssee that you are very unlucky.

All the "green" taxes we currently have are to do with pollution and congestion, not Climate Change. Why you even talk about them on a forum about reducing your carbon footprint is beyond me.

[johntheexpat]

Originally Posted by Moonfly

Again this is out of my control, but I can honestly say Ive never burnt a tree down. This one is down the the companies that cut trees, .....

Why do they cut down trees? For you and me to benefit from furniture, paper, charcoal for barbecue's, or perhaps to replant with crops to feed cattle so we can have cheap meat, or so they can replant with 'more useful' trees like palms for biofuels? Perhaps they deforest huge areas for roads and airports, so that we can go to visit the disappearing rainforests?
You've never burnt down a tree, but they are being burnt/cut whatever on your behalf and my behalf and we just watch.

[RandomLee]

Originally Posted by andykn

Sounds a bit conspiracy nutter to me, it would surely be cheaper to reroute or use tankers than start a whole war over it.

Haha, well if you want to know more I suggest you to look into it.

Despite what my forum signature might suggest, I'm not into conspiracies

[Sonic67]

Originally Posted by CGizzi

Oil is today the major reason for war. Why else have 2 super powers fought over Afganistan ( USSR & America )

Russia likes to protect its borders as it wasn't that long ago that they lost more people in the Second World War than all the deaths put together in the First World War. the Afghanistan Government was pro Soviet but when it was collapsing they sent in troops to prop it up. America sent in military aid so Russia could have it's own Vietnam. The Government collapsed and the Taliban took over.

Osama upset that Gulf states didn't ask for his help to liberate Kuwait was angry at Saudi Arabia for non muslim troops being stationed there and angry at the US as well. He had some people fly planes into buildings on September 11th and the Taliban continued to shelter him so in went the US and UK.

Wars are fought for lots of reasons. Oil is one of them but not the reason every time.

[Moonfly]

Originally Posted by johntheexpat

Why do they cut down trees? For you and me to benefit from furniture, paper, charcoal for barbecue's, or perhaps to replant with crops to feed cattle so we can have cheap meat, or so they can replant with 'more useful' trees like palms for biofuels? Perhaps they deforest huge areas for roads and airports, so that we can go to visit the disappearing rainforests?
You've never burnt down a tree, but they are being burnt/cut whatever on your behalf and my behalf and we just watch.

You obviously didnt read the rest of my post

[Moonfly]

Originally Posted by andykn

You are getting dreadfully confused over lots of different issues and lumping them under one "green" banner.

The congestion charge does what it says on the tin. It is to arrest the rise of traffic congestion in central London and all the money raised goes to improving public transport. If it is removed fropm your wallet you should save more in time thasn it costs you in money.

If your income hasn't risen with inflation then get a proper job. If you look at the figures for real increases in take home pay over the last few years you will ssee that you are very unlucky.

All the "green" taxes we currently have are to do with pollution and congestion, not Climate Change. Why you even talk about them on a forum about reducing your carbon footprint is beyond me.

OK, so I'm now confused and dont have a proper job, thanks for that input. What I'm lumping together is that these issues arent really proven, yet the government keeps slamming us with bills for them, and Im not convinced the cash solves the issue, it just makes my poorer. They shouldnt need the conjestion charge to improve transpot, if its good enough people will use it and revenue will increase. Council taxes already increase every year well beyond inflation anyways.

I'm sorry but your arguments do nothing other than make you sound like a politician and targeting me with personal remarks doesnt exactly convince me either. I'll just go get a proper job now......excuse me.

[andykn]

Originally Posted by Moonfly

OK, so I'm now confused and dont have a proper job, thanks for that input. What I'm lumping together is that these issues arent really proven, yet the government keeps slamming us with bills for them, and Im not convinced the cash solves the issue, it just makes my poorer. They shouldnt need the conjestion charge to improve transpot, if its good enough people will use it and revenue will increase. Council taxes already increase every year well beyond inflation anyways.

I'm sorry but your arguments do nothing other than make you sound like a politician and targeting me with personal remarks doesnt exactly convince me either. I'll just go get a proper job now......excuse me.

Well you don't seem to understand that Climate Change, Congestion and Pollution are three separate issues. We only have taxes on motoring for two of them, Coingestion and Pollution, not Climate Change yet.

If you think congestion is not proven...

Your economic model of public transport is wrong, it almost always needs subsidy however good it is.

As for your job, you were the one complaining that inflation hadn't increased your wages - if you look at the survey of take home pay you'll find almost everyone else's has. I would have thought it was useful to find out that most jobs would give you a better deal, rather thaqn dismissing it.

[Moonfly]

I understand them all just fine thanks, what I'm asking is why I should reduce my carbon footprint. Ive alraedy given my arguments as to why I dont beleive the government stance on the issue and Ive pointed out how they use it to take money off us, non of which yopu've manages to counter properly.

If you think wages are increasing inline with inflation, the cost of oil and food bills then I think your even more blind than the people in the government that produce those so called figures. I never said conjestion wasnt proven, just that they use it and the green issue to slip yet more tax on us and if you cant see that then I give up. They dont act on the issues, they leave that to the major companies to do in their own time, they only apply taxes that in reality dont fix the issues the government uses as an excuse to charge them.

I'm sorry, but you havent given me anything crdible to change my view, you only seem to suck up what parliment wants you too to justify yet more tax.

[andykn]

Originally Posted by Moonfly

I understand them all just fine thanks, what I'm asking is why I should reduce my carbon footprint. Ive alraedy given my arguments as to why I dont beleive the government stance on the issue

Its not the Govt's stance - it's the stance of the world's scientists.

and Ive pointed out how they use it to take money off us,

No, you've asserted that they use it to take money off us but you've only pointed to pollution and congestion taxes, not to any climate change taxes.

non of which yopu've manages to counter properly.

If you think wages are increasing inline with inflation, the cost of oil and food bills then I think your even more blind than the people in the government that produce those so called figures.

You didn't look at the take home pay index then. If you had, you'd have seen that take home pay has risen in real terms over the course of New Labour. You were the one complaining that yours hadn't - I was just trying to help by pointing out that you could do better.

I never said conjestion wasnt proven,

Originally Posted by Moonfly

What I'm lumping together is that these issues arent really proven

just that they use it and the green issue to slip yet more tax on us and if you cant see that then I give up. They dont act on the issues, they leave that to the major companies to do in their own time, they only apply taxes that in reality dont fix the issues the government uses as an excuse to charge them.

The London congestion charge has worked - congestion in central London has risen less than the rest of the UK. That's why the Tory Boris won't repeal it.

It will almost certainly work in Manchester too.

I'm sorry, but you havent given me anything crdible to change my view, you only seem to suck up what parliment wants you too to justify yet more tax.

I prefer motoring tax and greater subsidies for public transport to congestion and fewer alternatives and am happy to "suck up" to whoever will give me that.

[McPhee]

Originally Posted by Moonfly

I dont get why your banging on about the tories either, my points are against governement in general and not the Labour party. Which ever way you look at it, my "magic wand" is only making my wallet lighter.

You do realise that the government's pockets are OUR pockets, right? The money we pay in tax is used to run the country, so everything we see getting more expensive (food, fuel etc.) is also mirrored in the cost of running this country. Tax is increasing because costs are increasing. There's also the ever increasing demand on the government to 'improve' the country, costing more money.

Here's a hint, if you want to pay less tax then stop moaning about schools not being good enough, hospitals being crappy etc.