Discussion in 'General Chat' started by karkus30, Feb 27, 2013.
Someone suggested posting this here might gain a few signatures.
So because no one else has managed to cut emissions as much as the UK we should just stop doing it as, whats the point?
Thats the argument to not cut back on emissions?
Sorry but, im out.
i have to agree. its not just about global warming etc. i want my son to breath better air. i dont want him to live in conditions like china where the air is toxic.
OP i can see your point. even if the UK vanished from the earth it wouldnt make a dent in global emissions and at a time of austerity its hard to accept so much tax money is being spent on cutting co2.
I don't need a debate. Sign it or not.
That's the idea of a forum - if you start a thread you can expect people to debate and challenge ideas. You can't just start a thread and demand that nobody debates or talks about it - if you want it so nobody can debate I can close the thread for you, but it will only fall down the pages where it wont be seen any more.
A debate is required to be honest, I wouldn't sign something based on a single sided argument. I can't trust it.
I'm unsure so I wouldn't sign it, haven't even read it.
However, I imagine that there is some mileage in what is being said. The UK is busting a gut to meet emission targets that a lot of countries are ignorring.
And even if we were to cut our emissions by 100% it doesn't even make a dent in the worldwide problem.
So should we stop - no.
So we compromise - possibly.
An example if that the UK is going to decommission two working coal fired power stations. Yes they aren't great for the environment but they have years of service left in them and getting rid of them will cost direct money, will increase unemployment and make us more dependent on energy imports.
I wouldn't be surprised that if someone did a proper carbon count, the cost of continuing them could be less than the cost fo decommissioning and providing for alternatives.
And this is at a time, when the UK economy is struggling and countries like China and India are building a lot more coal fired power stations than we are getting rid of.
So, I'd say that more considered thought needs to be done - I don't think there is a yes\no answer - I think a measured compromise is needed.
i agree with this
We are competing in the world economy and adding to that burden by paying more for our energy to fund a green initiative is almost the last nail in our coffin.
Why not tax imported goods from non-green economies to fund our green initiatives and maybe level the playing field a little.
Isn't some of the decommisioning of coal stations due to the large costs involved in adding an FGD plant to them. I remember when Drax was fitted up, one hell of a project and a massive cost but the overall result was of course that emissions were reduced and by products could be sold.
When people are saying they want to breathe clean air :-/ its about the Co2 emissions and not something other than that.
Currently the UK is looking to independently look to reduce its Co2 emissions by 90% at a time when Germany has begun to build new coal fired power stations. For those that think Co2 is some type of pollution like Carbon Monoxide or Sulphur Dioxide, its not. Its a normal, natural constituent of the atmosphere and is necessary for both plant growth and to prevent us all freezing to death.
The science of man made warming is not proved, hasn't performed to the only model the scientists have which has been confirmed by those scientists. In other words its beginning to look far less likely that we are actually adding significantly, if at all to climate change.
Climate change is a fact, we know the climate changes we don't know if we are adding to it. Climate change is natural.
The current bill has meant an average increase in energy bills of £100 per annum and this will double shortly. It destroys our industries competitiveness making our manufactured products and services more expensive. It will result in a reduction in jobs and UK wealth.
The Kyoto agreement has not been replaced. It expired this year and no countries are interested in renewing it.
There are vested interests in green industries and several such as Tim Yeo are benefitting directly from the subsidies that the public are having to pay.
Current renewables make more money for the land owner than anything else. Windmills produce less the 4 % of electricity. They are variable producers which cannot operate in either high wind or low wind conditions. They are also short lived, meaning that some may not even last 15 years before needing to be replaced in part or whole.
It encourages nuclear power which is even more heavily subsidised and which still has problems with waste and is very costly to build and operate. We talk about peak oil, but the same applies to uranium.
It discourages gas and stops coal powered fire stations. We have plenty of opportunity for cheaper Gas by fracking and our extensive coal fields could produce gas by gasification. We will not be able to use any of that. We will be forced to rely on renewables and the expense and danger of nuclear that other countries have now stopped using.
The argument has always been 'we should do something rather than nothing to reduce C02 emissions because we might regret it some time in the future'. The problem is that it is no longer the time for that consideration. Its a fact that we are in a recession and it doesn't look like we are going to get back to what people thought were the good times. There are people going to food banks and old people scared to switch on their heating in winter. The UK needs to have a competitive industry and higher energy costs.
Are we really in a position to have the luxury of fiddling around with windmills and expensive nuclear fuel, to ignore our natural resources, to hamstring our industries, to push people into fuel poverty all for the sake that we 'might' be adding to global climate change which may or may not appear at some future date ? When we have soaring public debt, a massive deficit that we are unable to pay, falling output and rising prices which will result to cuts in public services. Do we really think this is the time to gamble our futures on the minor additional production of a harmless gas that is responsible for propagating all plant life on Earth and keeping us warm in the cold of space ?
It was the attitude of that poster. There was no debate. He clearly said he was 'out' . I take that to mean he didn't want to debate it. I didn't say he needed to.
Looks to me like the start of a debate, challenging the proposed idea and questioning the reasons behind the request of repeal. He did say he was out but there was also a bit more to the post than that as he raises some valid questions
I take 'out' as 'out'. In other words, I'm not prepared to discuss it anymore. It would have been pointless answering someone who clearly had made their mind up. Just setting the record straight.
Anyway, onwards and upwards.
Actually, that's by no means obvious.
The UK imports only about 4% of its electricity (from France and Holland); the rest must be generated domestically.
Decommissioning old stations and replacing them with new (gas, nuclear, wind) would create more manufacturing and construction jobs than it would displace operating jobs. When they are up and running they would probably require fewer people to run them, but that would be true of refurbished plants also.
Dependency on imports is a timing and capacity issue; there's no intrinsic reason to assume that the direct impoprtation of electricity would increase. More (domestic shale) gas and wind plants would reduce coal imports; imported nuclear fuel is, I think, much cheaper than coal.
Very true. There is no need for us to be scared of importing power. We do have a penchant for self sufficiency at any cost and creating jobs regardless of the commercial value.
Whilst that is probably true, it's not quite what I meant.
I meant that building new stations will not obviously worsen UK unemployment, nor increase the cost or amount of imported energy of any kind.
And if we did build new power stations, you can almost guarantee that they would be build by foreign companies. And be hugely delayed and massively over-budget.
Germany is building Coal Fired power stations fitted with the filters that we wouldn't (because of cost) back in the 80's when we switched, despite the warnings over rising costs, and pressure on domestic use, to gas. Germany has strict Green policies, far in excess of ours, so that line was a scare tactic no more, no less.
We don't know that man is contributing to global warming, but we do know the current levels are out of sync with past warming events due to the rapidity of the warming and the changes to the polar regions, and deserts. It's getting warm, and fast, and we need to do something about it.
Without govt investment there would be no renewable energy sources. Simple as. The private sector is simply not interested in investing in them, as non renewable sources are far more lucrative. Trusting to market forces therefore just means you use up finite resources faster, with nothing in place at all to replace them. Business has shown itself to be happy to dodo species, resources, land, as long as there is a profit they will carry on regardless of 'what's best'.
Relying on the free market to produce a greener energy sector is like ****** in the wind.
We are indeed in dire economic times, and during all recessions such considerations as a greener energy sector and green business have been put on the backburner. To our cost. it's inevitable that this will happen again, unless govt does something about it.
For them, it's cost vs doing nothing. Govt has finally worked out that the costs are rising and will get worse as time goes on, hence 'do nothing' is no longer an option.
this is a given. we seem to be the only country to not want our own nationals to work on the projects. same with railways... lets buy german everything
delays and budget problems are often caused by the useless governments we have had these last few decades (and probably longer)
Blah blah blah rubbish. I'm sincerely sorry if you believe that human activity is not adversely affecting the global climate but you're misinformed.
As far as I know, we didn't all "freeze to death" before the industrial revolution. Human activity isn't just digging up all the fossil fuels that have been building up over the past and then chucking the entire lot into the atmosphere over 200 years. It's also clearing huge swathes of rainforests and sticking methane producing livestock in their place. And so on.
So no, I won't sign the petition for the excellent reasons given earlier.
I'm happy to agree with all of your post, except this.
We DO know man is contributing to global warming. We are increasing the amount of CO2 in circulation. That is warming the atmosphere. It's elementary physics.
What we yet don't know for sure is how fast the temperature will rise, nor its effects on climate and environment. We do know that we won't like them.
In the short term, filtered coal plants and a switch to gas will help cut the emissions of a lot of greenhouse gases, but not CO2 by very much. Solar, wind and tidal will help, but only so far, and they too will have environmental impacts which people at present are choosing to ignore.
The ONLY long-term solution is nuclear; everything else is simply a stop-gap playing for time. It doesn't matter what the state of the current economy is, it is vital that we start now to build many more nuclear plants, AND more efficient gas and coal plants, because we can't wait. We should have started 25 years ago. If that means energy prices have to rise to pay for it, then so be it. Government policy must be aimed at mitigating the costs to consumers, rather than not incurring them in the first place.
If it is elementary why is there yet a single climate model that has been able to accurately see where we are now from where we were when the models where produced? Every time an event fails to appear some new bit of our eco system that was not recognised is found and excuses the previous prediction. So our knowledge grows and things are different from expected.
This is not to different from a simplistic view of diet and exercise, just go to the gym a few hours and you'll work off the fat. If your doing the wrong exercise or eating the wrong food you'll not get the results you expect, or simply calories in vs calories out.
Not necessarily, things will be different if temperatures rise or fall, but they always have and humans are extremely adaptable. Other animals of the world may be less lucky, but I don't think any of our records of past events contain information of 'flash' events, they are rather more long term.
Always thought this was either short sighted or ironic myself, the greater damage done by trying to (blindly) save the future.
So what? That only exposes the shortcomings of the model, not the underlying basic principles. There are many processes in nature and human behaviour which we know for sure exist, but which we are not yet able to predict accurately. Earthquakes and mob psychology, for example. See chaos theory, which has made much clearer the difficulties involved.
We do know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas which contributes to the thermal stability of the atmosphere. We also know that if the amount of CO2 increases, that stability will shift to a new, higher, temperature level. That is elementary. What is not elementary is the complexity of how that stability will be reached and how it will level out. Hence the difficulties in getting a good model.
Another problem is timescales. It's very easy, but highly erroneous, to confuse climate and weather. Climate is average weather. Even 20 years is not enough to calibrate climate models properly. Any shift in climate caused by an increase in the energy of the system will be marked by periods of chaotic instability which no model could predict.
We do know that CO2 is increasing. We do know that that will increase the temperature. We do know that the increase will be marked by instability and what's called excursions: sudden spikes of abnormal activity. We don't know how it will level out; we don't know how bad the period of adjustment will be. There are signs (by no means yet proven) that recent weather events represent such excursions, because they seem to be getting more frequent and extreme.
That's really what I meant when I said we won't like it: perhaps when it settles down we'll have beach holidays on the Shetlands Riviera, and we'll import wheat from the great Siberian Prairies. Not everywhere will simply be hotter, either. Maybe monsoons will cause the Gibson to bloom. We don't know, but I really don't think we should accordingly do nothing.
Iran's 'Plan B' for a nuclear bomb - Telegraph
I'd be seriously concerned that the planet might have more pressing problems than climate.
Swathes of rainforest and animal production are vastly different from UK power station emissions. As far as I know we have no rain forests. The economics of animal production in rain free, arid environments is an interesting issue though.
I'm misinformed by who? I see plenty of propaganda but very little evidence.
Before the industrial revolution we burnt far more wood, are you suggesting we should go back to cutting down our parkland and burning it ? We already know the high cost of sustainable electricity production and I wonder what will do without any gas in the pipes ?
You see, you need to think it through. Yes we can produce electricity with windmills, but it is sporadic. We can build nuclear power stations which are always way above budget, take twice as long as they are supposed to and have a potentially lethal by product and process. But what are the millions of homes and process plants going to do without gas to power them ? Will we need trillions of watts of new power, massive grid systems and nuclear power stations to produce this new energy ? Gas will be phased out completely with our new regulations. We will be totally reliant on imports, nuclear, windmills and a tiny amount of hydro electric.
Its that balance and the lack of thought which will have us back to pre industrial revolution times if we aren't careful. Remember we got here by king coal driving everything.
The thrust of my argument isn't really about the scientific aspects of AGW, its about the costs vs the unknowable future. There is such a thing as cutting off your nose to spite your face. Just like gambling, you have to know when the risks outweigh the reward.
Do we though? We know that in a greenhouse an increase in CO2 increases the temperature, is the earth as simply a greenhouse?
A gross simplification that is at the very heart of of the belief. We have seen extreme weather, have we seen anything significant in temperature change i.e. Climate change? As of yet nothing conclusive.
This argument is the very tools of my sceptical, viewing the evidence it doesn't seem to add up to end of the world as per doom-sayers.
I'm saying I'm not convinced though, if evidence to back up the theory is provided I'll change my views, until then its simply a belief and I choose to stay agnostic.
A view on the climate change bill can be held entirely away from the environmental issue, the bill is maybe not fit for purpose even for those that that feel CO2 is a world ending problem.
Thats why we are developing other technologies, tidal, wave, hydro electric, solar, hydrogen production from alge farms etc etc.
Im not sure I agree that nuclear plants are 'always' above budget or take longer than they should. Yes they take longer to build and yest they are more expensive up front but after that the operating costs are peanuts compared to a coal plant.
And yes, nuclear waste is dangerous, which is why it is locked up and stored under ground.
Coal plant waste is also dangerous but thats pumped into the atmosphere so who cares?
What the millions of homes could do is cut down on their energy consumption, reducing the demand required from power plants, reducing the requirement for new plants.
Why will gas be phased out? if it is then why is the UK government introducing tax breaks for the oil and gas industry to re-develop brown fields to bring them back into production?
Hell, I make a living breathing new life into gas wells in the UK and Europe. Gas is not and will not die for a long time.
The only thing which I can see being construed as a 'stop' to gas is the governments reluctance to go for frac-ing for tight shale gas but fracing has been done in the past and it will be done again. We simply have too much shale gas to ignore it!
We got where we are with engineering and scientific break through, whos to say we wont reach another level by looking at another source of energy other than coal?
Separate names with a comma.