Climate change and the impending apocalypse

[The Modfather]

nae need IMO. the entire point of protest is to cause relatively harmless inconvenience and spectacle in some way.

i'm not for a moment arguing that this was an effective protest, but there really isn't much else that hasn't been tried. this sets a dangerous precedent IMO.

I see what you’re saying but there’s also a danger of this protest setting a precedent as well. How long before we see the Grand National, Ryder Cup, football etc having to be stopped/cancelled in a similar stunt? Protest and cause a delay by all means, but when you’re causing events to be unable to be re-started I’m with Barry Hearn on this.

[neil7908]

I see what you’re saying but there’s also a danger of this protest setting a precedent as well. How long before we see the Grand National, Ryder Cup, football etc having to be stopped/cancelled in a similar stunt? Protest and cause a delay by all means, but when you’re causing events to be unable to be re-started I’m with Barry Hearn on this.

I struggle with this one.

I'm very sympathetic to their cause but I don't think targeting random events like the snooker, London underground, roads holding up ambulances etc is the right approach and I can understand why someone like Hearn would take action.

I fear that in the cases above protesters are doing their cause more harm than good.

[AgentDaleCooper]

I see what you’re saying but there’s also a danger of this protest setting a precedent as well. How long before we see the Grand National, Ryder Cup, football etc having to be stopped/cancelled in a similar stunt? Protest and cause a delay by all means, but when you’re causing events to be unable to be re-started I’m with Barry Hearn on this.

look at the relative consequences though - one is an inconvenience, perhaps a serious one, but the other is a de-facto censorship. Protest is never going to be perfect, nor is it always going to be effective, but if you effectively ban it in certain cases based on inconvenience, you're opening the door for that to be applied to all sorts of situations, businesses suing for lost profits etc, which could have colossal consequences.

[grunt]

Shell shareholders meeting this morning

https://twitter.com/broseph_stalin/status/1660944998781599744?s=20

[Ozyhibby]

https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1660981178675998720?s=46&t=3pb_w_qndxJXScFNwz8V4A

Good move by the french.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CropleyWasGod]

https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1660981178675998720?s=46&t=3pb_w_qndxJXScFNwz8V4A

Good move by the french.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It is, but of course they have a much better high-speed rail service than we do. I can't think of anywhere in the UK with rail links less than 2.5 hours that also have air links.

[grunt]

It is, but of course they have a much better high-speed rail service than we do. I can't think of anywhere in the UK with rail links less than 2.5 hours that also have air links.
Yes but interesting to contrast with the UK where in the last budget the Tory Government cut APD tax on short haul flights.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/mar/12/revealed-uk-airline-industrys-push-for-ultra-low-prices-on-domestic-flights

[Stairway 2 7]

The Government are going to advertise to stop people wishcycling. Putting things like take away boxes and juice cartons in the recycling when they aren't recyclable

https://archive.ph/xui1p

[tamig]

The Government are going to advertise to stop people wishcycling. Putting things like take away boxes and juice cartons in the recycling when they aren't recyclable

https://archive.ph/xui1p

I’m big on recycling myself and am fully aware of what shouldn’t go in the recycling bins but appreciate that a lot of folk aren’t. Think this is a pretty good initiative personally.

[Hibrandenburg]

The Government are going to advertise to stop people wishcycling. Putting things like take away boxes and juice cartons in the recycling when they aren't recyclable

https://archive.ph/xui1p

That's a strange one for me to hear as over here both these articles get recycled.

[tamig]

That's a strange one for me to hear as over here both these articles get recycled.

Its possible to recycle that stuff but requires cleaning and decontaminating. I’d imagine over there things are done properly and not on the cheap so a bigger variety of items can be recycled.

[Ozyhibby]

https://youtu.be/sCSkNiyYv8g

Interesting video on why cities are moving away from cars.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Gatecrasher]

Anyone else think there has been a severe lack of rain this winter and it looks like we're in for an extremely dry June. Considering last year it was a dry summer, it's not looking good.

[wookie70]

Anyone else think there has been a severe lack of rain this winter and it looks like we're in for an extremely dry June. Considering last year it was a dry summer, it's not looking good.
Was it not one of the wettest Springs

[Jones28]

Anyone else think there has been a severe lack of rain this winter and it looks like we're in for an extremely dry June. Considering last year it was a dry summer, it's not looking good.

Looks like we’re due some rain next weekend, just in time for the proclaimers in kelso!

[nonshinyfinish]

That's a strange one for me to hear as over here both these articles get recycled.


Its possible to recycle that stuff but requires cleaning and decontaminating. I’d imagine over there things are done properly and not on the cheap so a bigger variety of items can be recycled.

I think part of the problem is that it varies across the country depending on which recycling company particular councils use. I regularly see examples where the recycling information on supermarket packaging directly contradicts my local council's information – I assume the supermarket labelling for a given item is correct for the majority of the country, but will sometimes be wrong locally in certain places. It's not surprising that people get confused.

[Ozyhibby]

https://twitter.com/glennbbc/status/1666443579550494723?s=46&t=3pb_w_qndxJXScFNwz8V4A

No recycling for Scotland. Shame.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Just Alf]

https://twitter.com/glennbbc/status/1666443579550494723?s=46&t=3pb_w_qndxJXScFNwz8V4A

No recycling for Scotland. Shame.


Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkWhat's particularly annoying is that all 4 nations agreed to include glass... even including a working party in NI...

When Scotland voted the legislation through, including glass, the Conservatives were in favour of it.

The only.outlier is England seems to have changed their mind so that seems to trump everything

[Moulin Yarns]

What's particularly annoying is that all 4 nations agreed to include glass... even including a working party in NI...

When Scotland voted the legislation through, including glass, the Conservatives were in favour of it.

The only.outlier is England seems to have changed their mind so that seems to trump everything

I would have loved it had lorna slater and Humza Yousaf made a joint statement saying Scotland was going ahead with the dsr as agreed by the Scottish Parliament and see what happens.

[cabbageandribs1875]

Caroline Lucus standing down at next election, she's been a very good politician Caroline Lucas says she is leaving parliament to devote more time to fighting ‘accelerating’ threats to planet – UK politics live (msn.com) (https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/other/caroline-lucas-says-she-is-leaving-parliament-to-devote-more-time-to-fighting-accelerating-threats-to-planet-uk-politics-live/ar-AA1ch7uu)

[Ozyhibby]

I would have loved it had lorna slater and Humza Yousaf made a joint statement saying Scotland was going ahead with the dsr as agreed by the Scottish Parliament and see what happens.

We can’t break the law. And the law states that Westminster has veto on anything the Scottish Parliament passes. We are not there yet but we are heading to a point where the parliament becomes pointless and all power is taken back to Westminster.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[overdrive]

The Government are going to advertise to stop people wishcycling. Putting things like take away boxes and juice cartons in the recycling when they aren't recyclable

https://archive.ph/xui1p

Good, I can point my wife towards that, though I’m not sure what good it will do her. I’m fed up of finding stuff in the recycling that she’s put there that shouldn’t be there. Even though I remind her, I find the same things again and again. Same with stuff in the compost bin. No cooked foods or labels etc and then I see she’s put them in there. “It’s too difficult to remember and then separate stuff” is her retort.

The messaging will be difficult though as I think different councils have different policies on what can and can’t be recycled in their area.

[Ozyhibby]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-65844025?xtor=AL-72-%5Bpartner%5D-%5Bbbc.news.twitter%5D-%5Bheadline%5D-%5Bnews%5D-%5Bbizdev%5D-%5Bisapi%5D&at_campaign=Social_Flow&at_format=link&at_link_id=4E53336E-0617-11EE-A69C-42E0D772BE90&at_campaign_type=owned&at_link_origin=BBCPolitics&at_medium=social&at_ptr_name=twitter&at_bbc_team=editorial&at_link_type=web_link

Didn’t see this coming. I’ve always thought I would love an artificial lawn but my wife is dead against. So we still have grass.[emoji849]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

https://twitter.com/jrc1921/status/1667081948496371712?s=46&t=3pb_w_qndxJXScFNwz8V4A

Yet another Starmer u-turn. Going green gets a downgrade. By the time the manifesto comes out, will we be able to tell difference from Johnson’s 2019 manifesto?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[danhibees1875]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-65844025?xtor=AL-72-%5Bpartner%5D-%5Bbbc.news.twitter%5D-%5Bheadline%5D-%5Bnews%5D-%5Bbizdev%5D-%5Bisapi%5D&at_campaign=Social_Flow&at_format=link&at_link_id=4E53336E-0617-11EE-A69C-42E0D772BE90&at_campaign_type=owned&at_link_origin=BBCPolitics&at_medium=social&at_ptr_name=twitter&at_bbc_team=editorial&at_link_type=web_link

Didn’t see this coming. I’ve always thought I would love an artificial lawn but my wife is dead against. So we still have grass.[emoji849]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This crops up on my twitter often, usually people moaning about how bad they look (they don't look bad, but it suits their narrative to say so).

I find it hard to believe that relatively small areas have that big an impact, and they're not exactly massively popular either. I have proper grass and have no immediate desire to change that but my parents have artifical as they weren't able to keep up with the maintenance of lawn whilst seeking to keep a tidy and useable area (not the wild flower, uncut meadow that's often cited as the best use of the space).

I don't think banning it is a proportional response to the issue.

[cabbageandribs1875]

you can check here if your car is ok for any LEZ areas in Scotland https://www.lowemissionzones.scot/vehicle-registration-checker

[wookie70]

https://twitter.com/jrc1921/status/1667081948496371712?s=46&t=3pb_w_qndxJXScFNwz8V4A

Yet another Starmer u-turn. Going green gets a downgrade. By the time the manifesto comes out, will we be able to tell difference from Johnson’s 2019 manifesto?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Might be a couple of extra Union Jacks on the cover.

What is the point in UK democracy when all that happens is you get a chance to vote for the Labour Party under the guise of the previous Tory administration or vote for an even further right Tory party. The direction of travel is further to the right regardless it is just how many pauses there are before we get to full Nazi. Mind you we are approaching the point there is nothing left to steal or privatise so they will be wanting a left leaning government with massive investment plans to take control so their mates companies can benefit even more.

[Ozyhibby]

https://twitter.com/greenpeaceuk/status/1678314784138117120?s=46&t=3pb_w_qndxJXScFNwz8V4A


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Haymaker]

7 inches of rain in 3 hours in West Point, NY yesterday. Search Twitter for the photos. Crazy.


Sent from my SM-A426U1 using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1679957604683120640?s=46&t=3pb_w_qndxJXScFNwz8V4A

UK investment in clean energy falling.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

https://twitter.com/bbcnewsnight/status/1679980773183504384?s=46&t=3pb_w_qndxJXScFNwz8V4A

This is incredible. Ukraine put up more windmills than the UK in the last year.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Pretty Boy]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-66225205

I'm sure this was mentioned earlier on this thread.

Looks like the early results are promising.

[Ozyhibby]

https://news.stv.tv/east-central/football-club-tycoon-dale-vince-launches-worlds-first-electric-airline-with-flights-from-edinburgh

More good news. I think.[emoji51][emoji23]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[AgentDaleCooper]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-66229065

The last line is alarming - our aims are now to have a planet that's 'liveable' for 'many'

[Ozyhibby]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-66229065

The last line is alarming - our aims are now to have a planet that's 'liveable' for 'many'

https://twitter.com/ashcowburn/status/1682692063546966017?s=46&t=3pb_w_qndxJXScFNwz8V4A

I wouldn’t count on Labour taking the tough decisions.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Hibrandenburg]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-66229065

The last line is alarming - our aims are now to have a planet that's 'liveable' for 'many'


People should be forced to learn chess at an early age. It seems like a high proportion of mankind in incapable of thinking four steps ahead.

[ballengeich]

https://twitter.com/ashcowburn/status/1682692063546966017?s=46&t=3pb_w_qndxJXScFNwz8V4A

I wouldn’t count on Labour taking the tough decisions.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Don't count on any significant political operator anywhere in the world taking tough decisions. All are committed to growing GDP and the Uxbridge bye-election shows that people put their short-term financial interests above longer-term environmental considerations.

The mainstream view is that if we simply replace carbon based energy by something else then we can go back to having an ever-growing population each using more resources every year. We're not doing the replacement anywhere fast enough and even if we were it seems to me to ignore all the other effects homo sapiens is having on the world.

[Stairway 2 7]

Should have went nuclear 20 years ago when lib dems blew it. The greens opposing nuclear so we will burn gas to make up the shortfall. Its not just us Germany decommissioning it's nuclear plants and increasing burning gas and coal to cover it. Look at the fuel prices explosion in Germany and uk then look at France with its nuclear power

There's 30 deaths per terawatt of coal burnt due to accidents and pollution, zero from nuclear. Then obviously tiny emissions. In France's new plants 98% of the nuclear waste will be low lever and safe in a few decades, only 2% of the waste will need stored.

We should be in the position we don't need nuclear waste in 50 years when battery storage improves. In the meantime we'll keep burning fossil fuels.

[Ozyhibby]

Should have went nuclear 20 years ago when lib dems blew it. The greens opposing nuclear so we will burn gas to make up the shortfall. Its not just us Germany decommissioning it's nuclear plants and increasing burning gas and coal to cover it. Look at the fuel prices explosion in Germany and uk then look at France with its nuclear power

There's 30 deaths per terawatt of coal burnt due to accidents and pollution, zero from nuclear. Then obviously tiny emissions. In France's new plants 98% of the nuclear waste will be low lever and safe in a few decades, only 2% of the waste will need stored.

We should be in the position we don't need nuclear waste in 50 years when battery storage improves. In the meantime we'll keep burning fossil fuels.

Nuclear is a no brainer on every metric except cost. The SG should end its opposition to nuclear power and judge each case on its merits.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Moulin Yarns]

Should have went nuclear 20 years ago when lib dems blew it. The greens opposing nuclear so we will burn gas to make up the shortfall. Its not just us Germany decommissioning it's nuclear plants and increasing burning gas and coal to cover it. Look at the fuel prices explosion in Germany and uk then look at France with its nuclear power

There's 30 deaths per terawatt of coal burnt due to accidents and pollution, zero from nuclear. Then obviously tiny emissions. In France's new plants 98% of the nuclear waste will be low lever and safe in a few decades, only 2% of the waste will need stored.

We should be in the position we don't need nuclear waste in 50 years when battery storage improves. In the meantime we'll keep burning fossil fuels.

Factcheck: deaths due to nuclear accidents. Just chernobyl caused 30 direct deaths and potentially thousands more.

The worst nuclear accident to date is the Chernobyl disaster which occurred in 1986 in Ukraine. The accident killed approximately 30 people directly[23] and damaged approximately $7 billion of property.[citation needed] A study published in 2005 by the World Health Organization estimates that there may eventually be up to 4,000 additional cancer deaths related to the accident among those exposed to significant radiation levels.[24] Radioactive fallout from the accident was concentrated in areas of Belarus, Ukraine and Russia. Other studies have estimated as many as over a million eventual cancer deaths from Chernobyl.[25][26] Estimates of eventual deaths from cancer are highly contested.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

Factcheck: deaths due to nuclear accidents. Just chernobyl caused 30 direct deaths and potentially thousands more.

The worst nuclear accident to date is the Chernobyl disaster which occurred in 1986 in Ukraine. The accident killed approximately 30 people directly[23] and damaged approximately $7 billion of property.[citation needed] A study published in 2005 by the World Health Organization estimates that there may eventually be up to 4,000 additional cancer deaths related to the accident among those exposed to significant radiation levels.[24] Radioactive fallout from the accident was concentrated in areas of Belarus, Ukraine and Russia. Other studies have estimated as many as over a million eventual cancer deaths from Chernobyl.[25][26] Estimates of eventual deaths from cancer are highly contested.

Yep. Nuclear energy is "safe" until it isn't. And when it isn't, the effects are catastrophic. Scotland neither requires nuclear or coal to meet it's energy requirements. The only reason we still use coal is because the lion share of the energy generated through renewable's is sent to other parts of the UK on the shared grid. If we simply had our own grid, we'd meet our energy requirements multiple times over from renewable's alone.

[Stairway 2 7]

Factcheck: deaths due to nuclear accidents. Just chernobyl caused 30 direct deaths and potentially thousands more.

The worst nuclear accident to date is the Chernobyl disaster which occurred in 1986 in Ukraine. The accident killed approximately 30 people directly[23] and damaged approximately $7 billion of property.[citation needed] A study published in 2005 by the World Health Organization estimates that there may eventually be up to 4,000 additional cancer deaths related to the accident among those exposed to significant radiation levels.[24] Radioactive fallout from the accident was concentrated in areas of Belarus, Ukraine and Russia. Other studies have estimated as many as over a million eventual cancer deaths from Chernobyl.[25][26] Estimates of eventual deaths from cancer are highly contested.

Year I was born but my figures are from the world health organisation today. Per year 30 deaths from accidents and pollution per terawatt hour of coal. 44,000 twh lasts year from coal so 1,300,000 deaths attributed to it in one year. Nuclear isn't actually 0 it 0.02.

[Stairway 2 7]

Yep. Nuclear energy is "safe" until it isn't. And when it isn't, the effects are catastrophic. Scotland neither requires nuclear or coal to meet it's energy requirements. The only reason we still use coal is because the lion share of the energy generated through renewable's is sent to other parts of the UK on the shared grid. If we simply had our own grid, we'd meet our energy requirements multiple times over from renewable's alone.

Big pile of made up facts here 😆.

Scotland produces about 50% of its energy consumption from renewables. Some days when the wind is low and its cloudy it can be as low as 5% of the energy through renewables.

Once we master storage we will be OK. Well except for heating our homes and all petrol vehicles, that might take 50 years to change on its own.

[Stairway 2 7]

Nuclear is a no brainer on every metric except cost. The SG should end its opposition to nuclear power and judge each case on its merits.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think the new rolls Royce factories look great. We would only need 1 and could decommission as soon as we possibly could.

It's isn't that nuclear is perfect its that we are literally burning the planet instead

[Ozyhibby]

Yep. Nuclear energy is "safe" until it isn't. And when it isn't, the effects are catastrophic. Scotland neither requires nuclear or coal to meet it's energy requirements. The only reason we still use coal is because the lion share of the energy generated through renewable's is sent to other parts of the UK on the shared grid. If we simply had our own grid, we'd meet our energy requirements multiple times over from renewable's alone.

That’s not correct. We don’t have storage for all the energy we produce and there are times when we don’t produce enough and import. None of that is a bad thing although more storage would be good. Being part of larger grids is not a bad thing, even after independence.

Nuclear energy is very very safe. I’m not saying Scotland needs it because it’s very expensive and we have so many other cheaper alternatives but for lots of countries it should be part of the long term solution.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Moulin Yarns]

Year I was born but my figures are from the world health organisation today. Per year 30 deaths from accidents and pollution per terawatt hour of coal. 44,000 twh lasts year from coal so 1,300,000 deaths attributed to it in one year. Nuclear isn't actually 0 it 0.02.

I assume these are deaths directly attributed to the pollution but the longer term effects of radiation mean the actual number of deaths due to radiation is difficult to enumerate.

And that's not taking into account the environmental damage. Soil and water courses polluted for decades if not centuries.

[Kato]

I assume these are deaths directly attributed to the pollution but the longer term effects of radiation mean the actual number of deaths due to radiation is difficult to enumerate.

And that's not taking into account the environmental damage. Soil and water courses polluted for decades if not centuries.Uranium mining isn't exactly risk free either.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

Uranium mining isn't exactly risk free either.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

No mining is.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[lapsedhibee]

We should be in the position we don't need nuclear waste in 50 years


Nuclear energy is very very safe.

How safe is the waste? :dunno:

[Ozyhibby]

I assume these are deaths directly attributed to the pollution but the longer term effects of radiation mean the actual number of deaths due to radiation is difficult to enumerate.

And that's not taking into account the environmental damage. Soil and water courses polluted for decades if not centuries.

There is a whole wiki page on the death toll from Chernobyl.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_due_to_the_Chernobyl_disaster#:~:text=There %20is%20consensus%20that%20a,of%20later%20radiatio n%20induced%20cancer.

Given the size of the disaster and the fact that it would be very difficult (almost impossible) for it to happen again, even the upper estimates bring it in a lot safer than other fuels.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Stairway 2 7]

I assume these are deaths directly attributed to the pollution but the longer term effects of radiation mean the actual number of deaths due to radiation is difficult to enumerate.

And that's not taking into account the environmental damage. Soil and water courses polluted for decades if not centuries.

Your mad if you think they are higher than the millions per year dying from coal and gas plus the heating up of the planet. Your talking about a disaster that happened almost 40 years ago from a plant built 60 years ago, neglected by the Soviets. Comparing it to new plants is like saying a Ford cortina is surely just as safe as a Tesla.

No soil and water is polluted in modern plants only 2% of waste needs deep storage which is done safely at a few sites. Its needs must, its an either or for some countries nuclear or heating up the planet. We are permanently destroying large areas of South America mining for the production of electric car batteries are the greens fighting that. No because its a problem we shift away from our country and also again needs must the planet is heating uncontrollably

[Ozyhibby]

How safe is the waste? :dunno:

It needs buried for a very long time. The Finns seem to have the solution.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Kato]

No mining is.


Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkSo mining uranium should be included in the impact of nuclear power

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[Stairway 2 7]

How safe is the waste? :dunno:

Very safe nowadays. Vast majority processed and the small amount left over stored. Some waste from industry like arsenic and heavy mercury are eternally dangerous. We store much more dangerous substances like ricen and cyanide with less checks

All the long term nuclear waste the uk has ever made would fit in a half dozen shipping containers. The amount made each year getting less each year.

There's an environmental group replanet pushing us to try use nuclear waste as fuel, but its early days and little investment, governments would rather use fossils and pass the buck to the future

https://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Extract-energy-from-used-nuclear-fuel,-says-enviro

[Stairway 2 7]

So mining uranium should be included in the impact of nuclear power

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

Yes the same as mining for batteries a necessary evil. Its just infinitely better than burning fossil fuels

[Stairway 2 7]

It should be said Scotland is really at the forefront of the change to net zero and renewable's. I've said it before Scotland really could be a green energy powerhouse in the future

[Smartie]

No part of this argument is helped by fudging the facts.

There are pros and cons to all energy sources - renewables great, currently the technology isn't there re storage. Fossil fuels are finite, release side pollutants but can be stored, are convenient and we have existing infrastructure. Nuclear ISN'T clean - it creates hellish waste that continues to be radioactive for near enough forever and takes a fair bit of disposal, creates bucketloads of energy but you can't just plug a nuclear reactor into your car and go.

Common sense for me is to have a blend of all, accepting negatives of all whilst the technology for storage with renewables is established. We can argue all day long about the proportions of each.

I've been coming round to the way of thinking that only using much less in a world of finite resource is a genuinely sustainable way to go, yet we as a global population remain obsessed with growth. There's no way the rich and the powerful will agree to using less when they've "worked so hard" to earn the right to be as wasteful as they are though. You could argue that everyone who lives in "prosperous" countries like ours fall into this bracket.

[Ozyhibby]

No part of this argument is helped by fudging the facts.

There are pros and cons to all energy sources - renewables great, currently the technology isn't there re storage. Fossil fuels are finite, release side pollutants but can be stored, are convenient and we have existing infrastructure. Nuclear ISN'T clean - it creates hellish waste that continues to be radioactive for near enough forever and takes a fair bit of disposal, creates bucketloads of energy but you can't just plug a nuclear reactor into your car and go.

Common sense for me is to have a blend of all, accepting negatives of all whilst the technology for storage with renewables is established. We can argue all day long about the proportions of each.

I've been coming round to the way of thinking that only using much less in a world of finite resource is a genuinely sustainable way to go, yet we as a global population remain obsessed with growth. There's no way the rich and the powerful will agree to using less when they've "worked so hard" to earn the right to be as wasteful as they are though. You could argue that everyone who lives in "prosperous" countries like ours fall into this bracket.

Nuclear power produces electricity. You can literally plug that into your car.

I totally disagree that the only solution is to do less. And that kind of thinking stops real progress from happening.
By going green I think we can grow our economy and prosper.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TrumpIsAPeado]

Nuclear power produces electricity. You can literally plug that into your car.

How do you get the electricity produced from nuclear energy into your car? What exactly are you plugging in to the car?

[RyeSloan]

How do you get the electricity produced from nuclear energy into your car? What exactly are you plugging in to the car?

Urmm the plug?

As for mining for the metals required for EV batteries it’s worth remembering that these batteries are actually highly recyclable and already rates of recovery of the contents are above 60% and is expected to rise to upper 90’s over time.

Interestingly the US has recently put in some powerful incentives to encourage EV battery recycling which is prompting a mini gold rush in that area. Ultimately a very significant portion of EV batteries will contain recycled metals from ‘spent’ batteries…moving towards a closed loop process.

The EU is also bringing mandates for recycled content in EV batteries as well as looking to encourage more ‘in EU’ recycling (currently most of what is salvaged is shipped off to China).

[TrumpIsAPeado]

Urmm the plug?

In that case. Why not simply "plug in" the electricity produced from renewable's?

[Stairway 2 7]

In that case. Why not simply "plug in" the electricity produced from renewable's?

Because on some days we only produce 10% of our electricity needs. The shortfall is made up from burning gas and coal. Storage technology is decades away.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

Because on some days we only produce 10% of our electricity needs. The shortfall is made up from burning gas and coal. Storage technology is decades away.

That's not the issue of storage though. Just as you can't efficiently store renewable energy in a battery and plug it into your car, you can't simply store nuclear energy in a battery and plug it into your car either.

[Stairway 2 7]

There's a cool website from the national frid that shows uks energy make up right now. Be cool if Scotland did similar. Ours would be more renewable but similar although on some days renewables would be much lower

https://grid.iamkate.com/

17.0% fossil fuels
Coal 0.8%
Gas 16.2%

43.8% renewables
Solar 6.6%
Wind 36.9%
Hydroelectric 0.3%

19.4% other sources
Nuclear 15.9%
Biomass 3.5%

19.8% interconnectors
Belgium 3.3%
France 11.4%
Ireland −3.5%
Netherlands 3.6%
Norway 5.1%

0.0% storage
Pumped storage 0.0%
Battery storage 0%—

[Stairway 2 7]

That's not the issue of storage though. Just as you can't efficiently store renewable energy in a battery and plug it into your car, you can't simply store nuclear energy in a battery and plug it into your car either.

But it's a constant output we'd use it or sell it to Europe. The same can't be said for renewables.

The issue literally is storage on some days we produce more than 100% of our electricity needs from renewable's, we sell the extra rather than storing.

In our lowest day only 5% of our needs was from renewable's so we imported energy and burnt more gas and coal to keep the lights on. You need a number or sources

[Moulin Yarns]

There's a cool website from the national frid that shows uks energy make up right now. Be cool if Scotland did similar. Ours would be more renewable but similar although on some days renewables would be much lower

https://grid.iamkate.com/

17.0% fossil fuels
Coal 0.8%
Gas 16.2%

43.8% renewables
Solar 6.6%
Wind 36.9%
Hydroelectric 0.3%

19.4% other sources
Nuclear 15.9%
Biomass 3.5%

19.8% interconnectors
Belgium 3.3%
France 11.4%
Ireland −3.5%
Netherlands 3.6%
Norway 5.1%

0.0% storage
Pumped storage 0.0%
Battery storage 0%—

In a country that has an abundance of water, both in watercourses and lochs, we really should be producing more hydro power. There is a run of river hydro scheme running past my house ( about 50m away) but even old fashioned water wheels could be generating electricity 24/7 365 days a year.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

But it's a constant output we'd use it or sell it to Europe. The same can't be said for renewables.

The issue literally is storage on some days we produce more than 100% of our electricity needs from renewable's, we sell the extra rather than storing.

In our lowest day only 5% of our needs was from renewable's so we imported energy and burnt more gas and coal to keep the lights on. You need a number or sources

That's all well and good. But it doesn't change that fact that you can't simply store a nuclear charged battery in a vehicle or any other appliance. The common misconception is that batteries contain electricity. But they don't. If that was the case, then it wouldn't matter if the electricity was originally generated from nuclear, renewables or coal, as electricity is electricity regardless of how it's produced. Instead, the batteries contain a method of generating electricity when power needs to be drawn from the battery. The battery itself is not a container for electricity, it contains the reaction required to produce it. You certainly wouldn't want a nuclear reaction going on in your car.

[RyeSloan]

That's all well and good. But it doesn't change that fact that you can't simply store a nuclear charged battery in a vehicle or any other appliance. The common misconception is that batteries contain electricity. But they don't. If that was the case, then it wouldn't matter if the electricity was originally generated from nuclear, renewables or coal, as electricity is electricity regardless of how it's produced. Instead, the batteries contain a method of generating electricity when power needs to be drawn from the battery. The battery itself is not a container for electricity, it contains the reaction required to produce it. You certainly wouldn't want a nuclear reaction going on in your car.

I’m not sure what your argument here is. I’m pretty sure most people are capable of understanding the chemistry of how a battery works.

Just as most people are capable of understanding that charging a car using electricity that has been generated via nuclear or renewables is therefore charging your car without there having been the need to burn fossil fuels.

Also there has been a few comments re grid level storage for renewables being ‘years away’..to some degree that’s true but only to some degree. The increase in operational storage over the last 5 years is substantial but nothing like what’s already in the works. Here’s a very good summary of the scale of what’s being put in place:

https://www.solarpowerportal.co.uk/blogs/record_800mwh_of_utility_scale_storage_added_in_20 22_according_to_solar_med#:~:text=UK%20energy%20st orage%20deployment%20had,annual%20installed%20capa city%20of%20617MWh.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

I’m not sure what your argument here is. I’m pretty sure most people are capable of understanding the chemistry of how a battery works.

Being capable of understanding isn't the same as understanding. Most people simply don't think about how these things work because they don't really need to. This can cause people to arrive at common misconceptions. I'm not really making an argument. I was simply correcting a point about electricity being stored in a battery from nuclear energy.

[Stairway 2 7]

That's all well and good. But it doesn't change that fact that you can't simply store a nuclear charged battery in a vehicle or any other appliance. The common misconception is that batteries contain electricity. But they don't. If that was the case, then it wouldn't matter if the electricity was originally generated from nuclear, renewables or coal, as electricity is electricity regardless of how it's produced. Instead, the batteries contain a method of generating electricity when power needs to be drawn from the battery. The battery itself is not a container for electricity, it contains the reaction required to produce it. You certainly wouldn't want a nuclear reaction going on in your car.

This is wild stuff. The electricity generated from nuclear power comes from steam turning turbines that creates electricity. That is then sent to the grid to power homes and yes cars. The electricity isn't nuclear

[AgentDaleCooper]

That's all well and good. But it doesn't change that fact that you can't simply store a nuclear charged battery in a vehicle or any other appliance. The common misconception is that batteries contain electricity. But they don't. If that was the case, then it wouldn't matter if the electricity was originally generated from nuclear, renewables or coal, as electricity is electricity regardless of how it's produced. Instead, the batteries contain a method of generating electricity when power needs to be drawn from the battery. The battery itself is not a container for electricity, it contains the reaction required to produce it. You certainly wouldn't want a nuclear reaction going on in your car.

Pretty sure that's incorrect

[RyeSloan]

Being capable of understanding isn't the same as understanding. Most people simply don't think about how these things work because they don't really need to. This can cause people to arrive at common misconceptions. I'm not really making an argument. I was simply correcting a point about electricity being stored in a battery from nuclear energy.

But to charge a battery you need electricity. The technicalities of storage / discharge is neither here nor there to the point you were addressing.

Quite simply the point was that if the electricity used to charge the EV had been produced by a nuclear plant then then there would have been no fossil fuels burnt in that process. You seemed to suggest that point needed corrected when it’s rather unclear as to why you thought that.

No one was saying using electricity from a nuclear plant meant you ended up with a nuclear powered car!

[Ozyhibby]

No one was saying using electricity from a nuclear plant meant you ended up with a nuclear powered car!

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20230722/7a58ebeeee8a29e5d0aafaf92721678e.jpg

That could lead to all sort of trouble.[emoji6]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[RyeSloan]

In a country that has an abundance of water, both in watercourses and lochs, we really should be producing more hydro power. There is a run of river hydro scheme running past my house ( about 50m away) but even old fashioned water wheels could be generating electricity 24/7 365 days a year.

Problem with big Hydro is (oddly) the environmental impact. You need somewhere to store the water and creating that can have significant impact on the existing environment.

Run of river has similar problems with the marine life etc but as these are normally much smaller installations they can have more local solutions.

The problem with run of river tho is that as they are smaller you would need a hell of a lot of them to make a significant contribution. They also all need substantial connections to get their power to the masses.

So while hydro makes sense and on the surface is green and renewable it’s not without its own issues (which is probably why we have not seen much major hydro development in the U.K. for many years…the planning issues are substantial).

For me the most obvious solution is nuclear for base load and offshore wind and onshore solar (with the appropriate storage) covering off the renewables.

I’d bin the suspect ‘green’ biomass of the likes of Drax (not to be confused with the near closed loop bio generators…these tho are like run of river are very difficult to scale to any meaningful level but very good for syngas and thus decarbonising gas use) and have a very small number of stand by gas peakers.

Coupled with ever more efficient and greater capacity interconnectors with the continent and the Nordic’s it’s pretty much job done…dunno what all the fuss is about really [emoji1787]

[Moulin Yarns]

Problem with big Hydro is (oddly) the environmental impact. You need somewhere to store the water and creating that can have significant impact on the existing environment.

Run of river has similar problems with the marine life etc but as these are normally much smaller installations they can have more local solutions.

The problem with run of river tho is that as they are smaller you would need a hell of a lot of them to make a significant contribution. They also all need substantial connections to get their power to the masses.

So while hydro makes sense and on the surface is green and renewable it’s not without its own issues (which is probably why we have not seen much major hydro development in the U.K. for many years…the planning issues are substantial).

For me the most obvious solution is nuclear for base load and offshore wind and onshore solar (with the appropriate storage) covering off the renewables.

I’d bin the suspect ‘green’ biomass of the likes of Drax (not to be confused with the near closed loop bio generators…these tho are like run of river are very difficult to scale to any meaningful level but very good for syngas and thus decarbonising gas use) and have a very small number of stand by gas peakers.

Coupled with ever more efficient and greater capacity interconnectors with the continent and the Nordic’s it’s pretty much job done…dunno what all the fuss is about really [emoji1787]

Aye but what about water wheels every half mile down the Water of Leith? 😉


On the hydro storage, I believe that Loch Faskally is to be drained for repairs to pitlochry dam. Looking forward to seeing it.

[Ozyhibby]

https://www.independent.co.uk/tech/solar-panel-electricity-rain-china-b2379404.html


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

https://twitter.com/ianhall_cu/status/1682776683630174209?s=46&t=3pb_w_qndxJXScFNwz8V4A


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

It’s Labour who will be introducing the Ulez in Edinburgh next year. Do you think Starmer might step in and tell them to can it? It’s going to be right in the run up to the election.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

https://twitter.com/hank_chief/status/1683011670224805888?s=46&t=3pb_w_qndxJXScFNwz8V4A


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Stairway 2 7]

https://twitter.com/hank_chief/status/1683011670224805888?s=46&t=3pb_w_qndxJXScFNwz8V4A


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Surely caught on camera ha, weirdos out there

[Ozyhibby]

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20230723/ac49819c0b213d7349add43330612821.jpg

Two stories side by side.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

https://twitter.com/nick_oldridge/status/1683067843275890689?s=46&t=3pb_w_qndxJXScFNwz8V4A

Grim.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Stairway 2 7]

Brits fleeing danger in small boats in rhodes. Thankfully Suella and Rishi aren't helping stop those boats

[Pretty Boy]

I had the TV on early this morning before work. I rarely watch breakfast TV on but both the BBC and Sky had correspondents on the ground in Spain (to report on the heatwave) and Greece (to report on wildfires).

Obviously coverage of such events is important but do we need to be flying reporters and other associated crew on to the scene when there is ample footage available from local media? I know the flights will be flying anyway but flights are scheduled to meet demand and forecast future demand and the only way we will see a reduction in planes in the air is if that demand reduces. In the days of remote communication there really is no need for people to be flying to business meetings, flying to report on events that don't really need someone there in front of a camera and so on. It's something that has become totally normalised yet a reduction in such frivolous air travel would play a huge part in meaning we can all still have our summer holidays in years to come.

[Jones28]

They reckon we could see temperatures of 48 degrees in Sardinia today.

[Trinity Hibee]

They reckon we could see temperatures of 48 degrees in Sardinia today.

Saw that palermo could feel like 46 today. Crazy temps. Wouldn’t be able to do anything outside in that heat

[Ozyhibby]

https://twitter.com/mikehudema/status/1683316607504752641?s=46&t=3pb_w_qndxJXScFNwz8V4A

Some good things happening.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/nov/07/why-scientists-are-using-the-word-scary-over-the-climate-crisis?CMP=share_btn_tw

And something more terrifying.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Sylar]

They reckon we could see temperatures of 48 degrees in Sardinia today.

Spoke to a colleague of mine today who's back home in Sardinia visiting family. The thermometer in the garden (localised measurement, so wouldn't couldn't as an official record) was reading 51C at 1pm.

These temperatures (Europe, SW USA, North Africa, China...) are utterly unthinkable.

[Ozyhibby]

Tories thinking of scrapping plan to ban petrol cars by 2030.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[AgentDaleCooper]

Tories thinking of scrapping plan to ban petrol cars by 2030.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The awful thing is that's probably a vote winner to a lot of people

[neil7908]

Maybe just having a bad morning but I think we're doomed. Not in an actual end of the world way but there is zero chance we keep to 1.5c. None.

At this rate, we'll hit 2c or even 2.5c.

And the stuff we are seeing now is just the beginning. Life is going to get an awful lot harder for everyone across the world. It already feels like the last 10-15 years have been a huge struggle. I see little comfort in the next 15 being anything other than much worse.

[Pretty Boy]

Tories thinking of scrapping plan to ban petrol cars by 2030.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think that decision was unofficially made quite some time ago.

We have nowhere close to the infrastructure to support a full move to electric starting in 2030 and there seems no rush to build it either. Announcing it officially is just a formality now.

[Pretty Boy]

I was watching a report this morning about the clean up of the Seine in Paris. The river has been off limits to the public for the purposes of swimming, bathing etc. for the best part of a century due to the level of pollution. There has been work ongoing for almost 30 years to clean it up but this was accelerated with the Olympics due to take place there next year and the desire to have the open water swimming event in the Seine. It's been a huge success. There was a point between the 60s and 80s when there were only 3 species of fish left in the river, today there are dozens along with jellyfish, sponges, marine insects and so on. The water consistently tests comfortably within the recommended safe levels for swimming and bathing. An underground run off reservoir is nearing completion to store and deal with run off and prevent further contamination with sewage. On a local level it shows what can be done when there is focus, a desire and a plan.

Globally a similar focus was seen when the Montreal Protocol was signed to deal with the hole in the ozone layer. Recent studies suggest recovery continues and we are on course to see a return to pre-1980s condition by 2040 worldwide and the mid 2060s in Antarctica. It's not perfect of course but it was a solution that saw 198 countries or territories worldwide come together to cooperate and tackle a problem.

Obviously we are talking about a problem on a far bigger scale but I do wonder if the current situation in Europe and the southern USA will be focusing a few minds. It's a sad fact but when problems primarily impact the developing world then they get far less focus than when they impact more affluent nations. I saw an interesting graphic on Channel 4 News late last night that showed that much of Europe is actually currently experiencing temperatures that are average or even below average for the time of year, including large chunks of northern and western Spain, France, northern Italy and much of central and northern Europe. That's not a suggestion that this is isolated or 'just weather'; if anything the extreme (relatively) localised nature of what we were seeing should be every bit as concerning. There really should be a focussing of minds as the increasingly unpredictable events we are seeing should be leaving decision makers questioning whether we will be next.

[AFKA5814_Hibs]

Sad to see the fire's in Rhodes. Spent 7 months working there in my youth, also went back for my honeymoon and in more recent years went with the family on holiday where we were based in Kiotari, one of the worst hit areas. My favourite place on the island is beautiful village of Lindos, which is that same affected area.

Hope they can get the fires under control soon. Gotta feel sorry for all the locals who have had their homes and businesses destroyed. Will also have a huge impact on the island's tourism for years to come.

[Smartie]

I was watching a report this morning about the clean up of the Seine in Paris. The river has been off limits to the public for the purposes of swimming, bathing etc. for the best part of a century due to the level of pollution. There has been work ongoing for almost 30 years to clean it up but this was accelerated with the Olympics due to take place there next year and the desire to have the open water swimming event in the Seine. It's been a huge success. There was a point between the 60s and 80s when there were only 3 species of fish left in the river, today there are dozens along with jellyfish, sponges, marine insects and so on. The water consistently tests comfortably within the recommended safe levels for swimming and bathing. An underground run off reservoir is nearing completion to store and deal with run off and prevent further contamination with sewage. On a local level it shows what can be done when there is focus, a desire and a plan.

Globally a similar focus was seen when the Montreal Protocol was signed to deal with the hole in the ozone layer. Recent studies suggest recovery continues and we are on course to see a return to pre-1980s condition by 2040 worldwide and the mid 2060s in Antarctica. It's not perfect of course but it was a solution that saw 198 countries or territories worldwide come together to cooperate and tackle a problem.

Obviously we are talking about a problem on a far bigger scale but I do wonder if the current situation in Europe and the southern USA will be focusing a few minds. It's a sad fact but when problems primarily impact the developing world then they get far less focus than when they impact more affluent nations. I saw an interesting graphic on Channel 4 News late last night that showed that much of Europe is actually currently experiencing temperatures that are average or even below average for the time of year, including large chunks of northern and western Spain, France, northern Italy and much of central and northern Europe. That's not a suggestion that this is isolated or 'just weather'; if anything the extreme (relatively) localised nature of what we were seeing should be every bit as concerning. There really should be a focussing of minds as the increasingly unpredictable events we are seeing should be leaving decision makers questioning whether we will be next.

This sort of thing is why it is so sad to see such a lack of desire from some people to do their part to help. It is always pretty mind-blowing to see what can actually be achieved when there is a common problem and a desire to fix it.

The growth in climate change denial and the tie in with the right is deeply concerning, especially amongst a cohort of people who are intelligent enough to know better but just too ignorant to care.

More should probably be done to highlight the excellent examples you have highlighted in order to help puncture one of the biggest arguments - that of the sense of futility.

[Ozyhibby]

https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/net-zero-pledges-government-new-gas-boiler-ban-landlords-michael-gove-confirms-2502600

Govt watering down new gas boiler regulations.[emoji35]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[The_Exile]

There's no chance of keeping under 1.5 C now, it will very likely be closer to 2.5 C and then at that point we're still not entirely sure as to what will happen to the various ecosystems we rely on. It'll be survival of the fittest at some point. Learn to grow your own food is one tip I would highly recommend everybody follows.

Yet we will still go out there and vote for political parties that won't do enough. Everything seems pointless really when the world is goverened by idiots that we all vote for. How many people will see these fires and think "thank god that's not us" and then go vote for Tories, Labour, SNP etc? And how many will see almost the entire Northern Hemisphere on fire and think "Green vote from now on, I know my way of life will change but I need to do it"? I'd give good odds on the ratio being about 10,000 : 1 in favour of the former.

Humanity is just intelligent enough to be catastrophically dangerous.

[Hibrandenburg]

There's no chance of keeping under 1.5 C now, it will very likely be closer to 2.5 C and then at that point we're still not entirely sure as to what will happen to the various ecosystems we rely on. It'll be survival of the fittest at some point. Learn to grow your own food is one tip I would highly recommend everybody follows.

Yet we will still go out there and vote for political parties that won't do enough. Everything seems pointless really when the world is goverened by idiots that we all vote for. How many people will see these fires and think "thank god that's not us" and then go vote for Tories, Labour, SNP etc? And how many will see almost the entire Northern Hemisphere on fire and think "Green vote from now on, I know my way of life will change but I need to do it"? I'd give good odds on the ratio being about 10,000 : 1 in favour of the former.

Humanity is just intelligent enough to be catastrophically dangerous.

It's not just the natural disasters that will engulf us. Climate change will force people to move and the diminishing basic resources like food and water will cause war and famine. IMO there's no stopping it now, even if technically it's still possible, ideologically it's way too late.

[Ozyhibby]

It's not just the natural disasters that will engulf us. Climate change will force people to move and the diminishing basic resources like food and water will cause war and famine. IMO there's no stopping it now, even if technically it's still possible, ideologically it's way too late.

The mass movement of people north will be more than we can cope with.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[lapsedhibee]

The mass movement of people north will be more than we can cope with.


Vote now to become part of Orkney in preparation.

[Moulin Yarns]

The mass movement of people north will be more than we can cope with.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

We need immigration to help with the Scottish economy!

We can't cope with all those people heading north because of climate change!

[neil7908]

The mass movement of people north will be more than we can cope with.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And Northern countries will have plenty of problems. Heat waves and dry spells of our own. Heavy rain causing flooding. Long and severe cold spells.

[Ozyhibby]

We need immigration to help with the Scottish economy!

We can't cope with all those people heading north because of climate change!

Both things can be true at once unfortunately. Politically we haven’t accepted either yet.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[grunt]

https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/996559


Gloomy climate calculation: Scientists predict a collapse of the Atlantic ocean current to happen mid-century


Important ocean currents that redistribute heat, cold and precipitation between the tropics and the northernmost parts of the Atlantic region will shut down around the year 2060 if current greenhouse gas emissions persist

[AgentDaleCooper]

IMO, one of the things that we need to do is stop complaining when folk like 'just stop oil' protest - whether they do it or not, whether it's constructive or not, the main problem is simply the fact that nothing is being done about climate change, and engaging in discussion about whether some hippies are making things better or worse only contributes to making things worse.

it's looking more and more like we'll need to go into full world-war level societal mobilisation in order to sort the problem out in time for the vast majority of humans to be able to survive on the planet.

[Glory Lurker]

IMO, one of the things that we need to do is stop complaining when folk like 'just stop oil' protest - whether they do it or not, whether it's constructive or not, the main problem is simply the fact that nothing is being done about climate change, and engaging in discussion about whether some hippies are making things better or worse only contributes to making things worse.

it's looking more and more like we'll need to go into full world-war level societal mobilisation in order to sort the problem out in time for the vast majority of humans to be able to survive on the planet.

Agree.

[nonshinyfinish]

IMO, one of the things that we need to do is stop complaining when folk like 'just stop oil' protest - whether they do it or not, whether it's constructive or not, the main problem is simply the fact that nothing is being done about climate change, and engaging in discussion about whether some hippies are making things better or worse only contributes to making things worse.

it's looking more and more like we'll need to go into full world-war level societal mobilisation in order to sort the problem out in time for the vast majority of humans to be able to survive on the planet.This is bang on.

[danhibees1875]

IMO, one of the things that we need to do is stop complaining when folk like 'just stop oil' protest - whether they do it or not, whether it's constructive or not, the main problem is simply the fact that nothing is being done about climate change, and engaging in discussion about whether some hippies are making things better or worse only contributes to making things worse.

it's looking more and more like we'll need to go into full world-war level societal mobilisation in order to sort the problem out in time for the vast majority of humans to be able to survive on the planet.

I'd disagree that "nothing is being done" about climate change.

Perhaps, or even probably or definitely, not enough. But it seems to me like a fair bit is actually being done. My company are investing significantly with a very ambitious target of being net zero by 2030 - in line with Edinburgh Council plans, derived from government plans. Companies generally seem to be doing similar and those that aren't/won't will likely find themselves at the wrong side of public opinion and seeing those results in their sales.

As for JSO, I'm in favour of their cause but I'm just not sure I fully agree with their methods. Disrupting normal people going about their normal day doesn't sit right with me. Disrupting events I can better understand, particularly if they're overly carbon intensive. JSO overall get a positive green tick from me so long as they're only annoying Londoners. :greengrin

[Stairway 2 7]

Uk has cut quicker than the rest of the g7 in the 30 years, its dropped since that graph to 50 so almost halved in 30 years. Some nations like china, US, Canada and Australia have hardly changed. We are now lower than the rest per capita too.

Much much more need done by us if we've to be net zero in 25 years, although I'm confident Scotland will be before England due to political will and action
27051

[lapsedhibee]

I'm confident Scotland will be before England due to political will and action


If permitted.

[Kato]

Uk has cut quicker than the rest of the g7 in the 30 years, its dropped since that graph to 50 so almost halved in 30 years. Some nations like china, US, Canada and Australia have hardly changed. We are now lower than the rest per capita too.

Much much more need done by us if we've to be net zero in 25 years, although I'm confident Scotland will be before England due to political will and action
27051Helps if you outsource your manufacturing. Uks figure would be higher if the footprint for imports were included.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[Pretty Boy]

I'd disagree that "nothing is being done" about climate change.

Perhaps, or even probably or definitely, not enough. But it seems to me like a fair bit is actually being done. My company are investing significantly with a very ambitious target of being net zero by 2030 - in line with Edinburgh Council plans, derived from government plans. Companies generally seem to be doing similar and those that aren't/won't will likely find themselves at the wrong side of public opinion and seeing those results in their sales.

As for JSO, I'm in favour of their cause but I'm just not sure I fully agree with their methods. Disrupting normal people going about their normal day doesn't sit right with me. Disrupting events I can better understand, particularly if they're overly carbon intensive. JSO overall get a positive green tick from me so long as they're only annoying Londoners. :greengrin

When it comes to JSO I'm torn.

On the one hand I agree with their arguments and don't really object to their methods either. Others do though and it's such an important cause that they really have to take the public with them. If they have public opinion turn against them (or allow it to be manipulated against them) then they risk that same public opinion also turning against their cause. Too much energy is currently spent discussing their methods rather than their argument and, rightly or wrongly, that isn't changing imminently.

I posted a link a fair few pages back on this thread now to comments by one of the founders of the Green Party in the UK, Michael Benfield. He said the battle for environmental survival as it stood was lost. The article and Benfield himself came in for a bit of stick on here but I think he had a point. His argument wasn't we just give up and abandon our children and grandchildren to oblivion. Rather he said the green movement has succeeded in educating the public and indeed the scientific community. Man made climate change is widely accepted as the fact it is and there is general consensus there has to be change. Where the battle has been lost is politically and forcing mainstream parties to propose the radical changes needed and take the public with them in voting for it. I think it's an inarguable fact that battle has been lost as it stands and the full time whistle has already blown on the 1.5 degrees target. His argument is we are now in an age of mitigation and laying the foundations for future reversal.

I worry that JSO provide a soft target for climate change sceptics and disaster capitalists to rally against. Easy to brand them as 'professional protestors' or 'lunatics' and there are cheap laughs to be had from 'giving them a taste of their own medicine' by interrupting their own function the other day. As I say I support their aims and don't personally object to their methods, however we need public opinion to shift enough that real meaningful change becomes the political mainstream and I'm not sure they are driving that change in any meaningful way currently.

[Stairway 2 7]

Helps if you outsource your manufacturing. Uks figure would be higher if the footprint for imports were included.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk
We're a net importer of co2 but it's tiny compared to our drop in co2

We also produce 1.9% of the world's goods but are 0.9% of the world population. China is 28% US 16%

[Stairway 2 7]

If permitted.

It's devolved and we're doing well. What we haven't done well is sell our renewable rights and profits for pennies to co2 monsters like Shell and bp

[lapsedhibee]

It's devolved
For now.

[Stairway 2 7]

The elephant in the room is transport. Mainly the middle class that can afford to switch to electric cars. How do we get people who are struggling into electric. Also with millions living in flats we need to massively increase charging facilities. People moaning about cyclists should maybe look at the med

https://twitter.com/TransformScot/status/1683822620649697280
@TransformScot
Transport is the largest overall source of emissions in Scotland — responsible for 36% of all greenhouse gas emissions.

And...

...there has been next to no progress in reducing climate emissions from the sector over the past 3 decades

[RyeSloan]

The elephant in the room is transport. Mainly the middle class that can afford to switch to electric cars. How do we get people who are struggling into electric. Also with millions living in flats we need to massively increase charging facilities. People moaning about cyclists should maybe look at the med

https://twitter.com/TransformScot/status/1683822620649697280
@TransformScot
Transport is the largest overall source of emissions in Scotland — responsible for 36% of all greenhouse gas emissions.

And...

...there has been next to no progress in reducing climate emissions from the sector over the past 3 decades

All those old ferries belching bunker oil fumes…[emoji12][emoji12]

[AgentDaleCooper]

I'd disagree that "nothing is being done" about climate change.

Perhaps, or even probably or definitely, not enough. But it seems to me like a fair bit is actually being done. My company are investing significantly with a very ambitious target of being net zero by 2030 - in line with Edinburgh Council plans, derived from government plans. Companies generally seem to be doing similar and those that aren't/won't will likely find themselves at the wrong side of public opinion and seeing those results in their sales.

As for JSO, I'm in favour of their cause but I'm just not sure I fully agree with their methods. Disrupting normal people going about their normal day doesn't sit right with me. Disrupting events I can better understand, particularly if they're overly carbon intensive. JSO overall get a positive green tick from me so long as they're only annoying Londoners. :greengrin

I'm sort of the same, but I just think that it's getting to the point now that approving/disapproving of them/their methods is verging on moot and even getting into that discussion only serves to distract from the colossal task at hand.

[Ozyhibby]

The elephant in the room is transport. Mainly the middle class that can afford to switch to electric cars. How do we get people who are struggling into electric. Also with millions living in flats we need to massively increase charging facilities. People moaning about cyclists should maybe look at the med

https://twitter.com/TransformScot/status/1683822620649697280
@TransformScot
Transport is the largest overall source of emissions in Scotland — responsible for 36% of all greenhouse gas emissions.

And...

...there has been next to no progress in reducing climate emissions from the sector over the past 3 decades

I think transport is easier to solve though than heating. Already we are fast moving to electric vehicles. Replacing gas for heating though is very difficult to do but must be done.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Stairway 2 7]

I think transport is easier to solve though than heating. Already we are fast moving to electric vehicles. Replacing gas for heating though is very difficult to do but must be done.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It can only come with the government putting the money in themselves. New builds and new cars are relatively easy. How do you say to people that can barely pay there mortgage that they need to pay 20k for a new car or heat pump, or do we just put everyone into long term debt.

I read 41 million cars in the uk and 800k are electric. With only 14% of new cars electric we are miles off.

[Paul1642]

Yet we will still go out there and vote for political parties that won't do enough. Everything seems pointless really when the world is goverened by idiots that we all vote for. How many people will see these fires and think "thank god that's not us" and then go vote for Tories, Labour, SNP etc? And how many will see almost the entire Northern Hemisphere on fire and think "Green vote from now on, I know my way of life will change but I need to do it"? I'd give good odds on the ratio being about 10,000 : 1 in favour of the former.

Humanity is just intelligent enough to be catastrophically dangerous.

The problem is that the Scottish Greens have taken a strong stance on Independence that 50% of the population don’t agree with, as well as numerous other non environmental issues that don’t appeal to the masses such as the gender nonsense that played a part in Sturgeons downfall. The Uk Green Party are the same. I admit to not knowing if European or worldwide green party’s are the same way.

Give me a party who are actually just a pro environment party with either nothing else intent on entering a coalition or one with more moderate views and they will have my vote without a second thought. The current lot never will and I view my self as being very pro environmental action from the Gov.

[Paul1642]

It can only come with the government putting the money in themselves. New builds and new cars are relatively easy. How do you say to people that can barely pay there mortgage that they need to pay 20k for a new car or heat pump, or do we just put everyone into long term debt.

I read 41 million cars in the uk and 800k are electric. With only 14% of new cars electric we are miles off.

This. We can advocate electric cars all we want but most people simply can’t afford an electric car. I can’t afford a new car of any engine type, only ever second hand. Unless electric cars ever filter into the used car market at affordable prices with plenty mileage left in the battery then the majority are never going to own them. I would much rather have an electric car but when it’s time to replace my current one in a few years time it’s almost certain to be petrol again for me for financial reasons.

Same goes for heat pumps. When my gas boiler eventually needs replaced unless a heat pump is remotely in the same price bracket as a gas one it will be gas again for me.

Just to top it off I can’t justify the cost of solar panels on my roof either.

I suspect all of the above applies to the majority of the population. None do this will change for me until I’m mortgage free in many years time.

[Smartie]

Is there not an argument to be made for walking before we run ie getting people out of older, more polluting vehicles and into more modern and better petrol engines before making the jump to electric?

Whilst the technology is where it is and the cars are as expensive as they are it feels like too big a step right now, when at least a step in the right direction is available?

[Ozyhibby]

Is there not an argument to be made for walking before we run ie getting people out of older, more polluting vehicles and into more modern and better petrol engines before making the jump to electric?

Whilst the technology is where it is and the cars are as expensive as they are it feels like too big a step right now, when at least a step in the right direction is available?

Over the life of the car, they are probably just as cheap. One thing we need to start doing is keeping our cars longer. Replacing every 3 years is madness.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20230726/0dff2571a0fb5632ba474bbca39689f8.jpg
It’s all just a laugh for Tories.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Paul1642]

Over the life of the car, they are probably just as cheap. One thing we need to start doing is keeping our cars longer. Replacing every 3 years is madness.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This is how the market works though. The 3 year old car doesn’t get scraped, it gets sold to someone who keeps a newish car but can’t afford new. They then sell their 6-9 year old car to someone currently driving something potentially on its last legs which quite possibly then gets scrapped.

[danhibees1875]

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20230726/0dff2571a0fb5632ba474bbca39689f8.jpg
It’s all just a laugh for Tories.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I would imagine jokes like that are party apolitical.

*looks at the rain out the window in mid-July...*

[danhibees1875]

When it comes to JSO I'm torn.

On the one hand I agree with their arguments and don't really object to their methods either. Others do though and it's such an important cause that they really have to take the public with them. If they have public opinion turn against them (or allow it to be manipulated against them) then they risk that same public opinion also turning against their cause. Too much energy is currently spent discussing their methods rather than their argument and, rightly or wrongly, that isn't changing imminently.

I posted a link a fair few pages back on this thread now to comments by one of the founders of the Green Party in the UK, Michael Benfield. He said the battle for environmental survival as it stood was lost. The article and Benfield himself came in for a bit of stick on here but I think he had a point. His argument wasn't we just give up and abandon our children and grandchildren to oblivion. Rather he said the green movement has succeeded in educating the public and indeed the scientific community. Man made climate change is widely accepted as the fact it is and there is general consensus there has to be change. Where the battle has been lost is politically and forcing mainstream parties to propose the radical changes needed and take the public with them in voting for it. I think it's an inarguable fact that battle has been lost as it stands and the full time whistle has already blown on the 1.5 degrees target. His argument is we are now in an age of mitigation and laying the foundations for future reversal.

I worry that JSO provide a soft target for climate change sceptics and disaster capitalists to rally against. Easy to brand them as 'professional protestors' or 'lunatics' and there are cheap laughs to be had from 'giving them a taste of their own medicine' by interrupting their own function the other day. As I say I support their aims and don't personally object to their methods, however we need public opinion to shift enough that real meaningful change becomes the political mainstream and I'm not sure they are driving that change in any meaningful way currently.

I'd agree with that, but equally I see their point that disruption isn't disruption without the disruption. It's a bit of a rock and a hard place for them...

You're right that too much energy is on their antics rather than their cause. I guess without those rogue antics there would be even less about their cause... although I do think that climate is at the fore of public consciousness now.

[JeMeSouviens]

I think transport is easier to solve though than heating. Already we are fast moving to electric vehicles. Replacing gas for heating though is very difficult to do but must be done.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not nearly fast enough. The infrastructure is behind the current demand and I don't see any sign of the work being done to get it anywhere near where it needs to be. I will be beyond gobsmacked if the 2030 ban on new ice vehicles isn't delayed several years.

[JeMeSouviens]

I'd agree with that, but equally I see their point that disruption isn't disruption without the disruption. It's a bit of a rock and a hard place for them...

You're right that too much energy is on their antics rather than their cause. I guess without those rogue antics there would be even less about their cause... although I do think that climate is at the fore of public consciousness now.

I think their hearts are in the right place but the tactics are likely counterproductive. What's happening in Italy and Greece is far more likely to have the right impact. Then again we watched Italy bear the brunt of the start of covid and sat on our hands. :rolleyes:

[Pretty Boy]

This is how the market works though. The 3 year old car doesn’t get scraped, it gets sold to someone who keeps a newish car but can’t afford new. They then sell their 6-9 year old car to someone currently driving something potentially on its last legs which quite possibly then gets scrapped.

It also has to be considered that replacing a working and serviceable ICE car with an electric one isn't a particularly green choice in the short term as it currently stands.

I have posted before that I looked into buying a Nissan Leaf a few years back and in their own literature they made it clear that until you had driven 74000 miles it was less environmentally friendly than an ICE car. My current 14 plate petrol car has only done 72000!

Of course that information is somewhat out of date now and was based on a worldwide average so was arguably never truly accurate in Scotland or the likes of France and other countries in which fossil fuels play a very small role in electricity production. It's also difficult to neatly wrap up the carbon footprint of lithium mining (that's before we mention some of the working conditions), sourcing of other raw materials and production against those of an ICE car but the latest data does show a positive shift in favour of electric vehicles across their lifetime. That still doesn't mean everyone should just abandon their petrol or diesel car tomorrow though.

Arguably a better solution, but one which is also less palatable and thus more difficult to sell, is breaking the mindset that a private car is an essential and escalating an aggressive push to get people onto public transport, minimising short and single private journeys in a car and encouraging car pooling and shared ownership. We are some way off that though and I'm always of the opinion that perfect shouldn't be the enemy of good and electric cars and encouraging people to keep their own cars longer to drive down manufacturing is a decent compromise.

[Jones28]

When it comes to JSO I'm torn.

On the one hand I agree with their arguments and don't really object to their methods either. Others do though and it's such an important cause that they really have to take the public with them. If they have public opinion turn against them (or allow it to be manipulated against them) then they risk that same public opinion also turning against their cause. Too much energy is currently spent discussing their methods rather than their argument and, rightly or wrongly, that isn't changing imminently.

I posted a link a fair few pages back on this thread now to comments by one of the founders of the Green Party in the UK, Michael Benfield. He said the battle for environmental survival as it stood was lost. The article and Benfield himself came in for a bit of stick on here but I think he had a point. His argument wasn't we just give up and abandon our children and grandchildren to oblivion. Rather he said the green movement has succeeded in educating the public and indeed the scientific community. Man made climate change is widely accepted as the fact it is and there is general consensus there has to be change. Where the battle has been lost is politically and forcing mainstream parties to propose the radical changes needed and take the public with them in voting for it. I think it's an inarguable fact that battle has been lost as it stands and the full time whistle has already blown on the 1.5 degrees target. His argument is we are now in an age of mitigation and laying the foundations for future reversal.

I worry that JSO provide a soft target for climate change sceptics and disaster capitalists to rally against. Easy to brand them as 'professional protestors' or 'lunatics' and there are cheap laughs to be had from 'giving them a taste of their own medicine' by interrupting their own function the other day. As I say I support their aims and don't personally object to their methods, however we need public opinion to shift enough that real meaningful change becomes the political mainstream and I'm not sure they are driving that change in any meaningful way currently.

I genuinely think this is a lost cause. Not enough people care, too many people think "I can't make a difference as an individual" "What about China/India" "It'll be nice having warmer summers" "Electric cars still need electricity, where's that coming from" etc etc.

[Jones28]

The elephant in the room is transport. Mainly the middle class that can afford to switch to electric cars. How do we get people who are struggling into electric. Also with millions living in flats we need to massively increase charging facilities. People moaning about cyclists should maybe look at the med

https://twitter.com/TransformScot/status/1683822620649697280
@TransformScot
Transport is the largest overall source of emissions in Scotland — responsible for 36% of all greenhouse gas emissions.

And...

...there has been next to no progress in reducing climate emissions from the sector over the past 3 decades

Make public transport free/very very cheap.

£2 for a bus ticket in Edinburgh? **** that, I'll drive the 2 miles I need to travel.

[lapsedhibee]

Make public transport free

Yep

[Pretty Boy]

Make public transport free/very very cheap.

£2 for a bus ticket in Edinburgh? **** that, I'll drive the 2 miles I need to travel.

Free, fully integrated and in public ownership.

Public transport is an essential service and should be run by the public sector for the public good, not for profit.

We have this mad situation currently whereby private train companies are receiving huge subsidies to run their franchises; subsidies that, even adjusted for inflation, dwarf the entire budget of British Rail. Imagine what a nationalised railway could look like with that kind of money thrown at it without having to pay dividends, bonuses and the like.

[Paul1642]

Make public transport free/very very cheap.

£2 for a bus ticket in Edinburgh? **** that, I'll drive the 2 miles I need to travel.

Try walking (not aimed at you personally). I know not everyone can due to medical, health, age and sometimes weather or carrying bulky or heavy equipment / shopping but as a society if we got out of the mindset that we need to drive or take public transport for what would be not much more than a half hour walk then we would all be helping the environment as well as saving a little bit money and most importantly do wonders for our own personal heath.

At certain times of day on certain routes it hardly takes any longer. I can cycle my 5 mile commute in 20 minutes and I am by no means a very good cyclist or have a fancy bike. Even with low traffic I can’t drive this in much under 15 minutes. The only bit which adds some time is needing a shower on arrival at work and at home however this saves me needing a shower at home in the morning I suppose.

I can also run this in 40 mins each way which means I need to do much less running outwith my commute and therefore my free time is probably increased.

I think as a society we for some reason feel like a mile to two is driving or bus distance when most people with good heath can easily walk this or build up to walking this easy enough. Trips to foreign countries show just how good and safe the pavements are in Scotland for walking and we should take advantage of this.

As for your initial point I completely agree that free public transport would be a great think with the exception of discouraging short walks.

[Stairway 2 7]

With Yousaf apparently having a meeting with **** bug Brian Souter last month, I can't see privatisation never mind free fares.

£62 a month for Lothian buses isn't too bad, although it's hundreds of pounds a month on some scotrail routes. Germany has the right idea with cheap transport

[danhibees1875]

Make public transport free/very very cheap.

£2 for a bus ticket in Edinburgh? **** that, I'll drive the 2 miles I need to travel.

I think £2 is great value. Edinburgh bus service is one of the things which makes this city so brilliant.

Whether I get the bus depends on where I'm going/why though. It's great for work, but I'd not bother with the hassle for the shops.

[lapsedhibee]

As for your initial point I completely agree that free public transport would be a great think with the exception of discouraging short walks.

Hire a clippy to make sure that everyone able-bodied stays on for at least four stops.

[Jones28]

Try walking (not aimed at you personally). I know not everyone can due to medical, health, age and sometimes weather or carrying bulky or heavy equipment / shopping but as a society if we got out of the mindset that we need to drive or take public transport for what would be not much more than a half hour walk then we would all be helping the environment as well as saving a little bit money and most importantly do wonders for our own personal heath.

At certain times of day on certain routes it hardly takes any longer. I can cycle my 5 mile commute in 20 minutes and I am by no means a very good cyclist or have a fancy bike. Even with low traffic I can’t drive this in much under 15 minutes. The only bit which adds some time is needing a shower on arrival at work and at home however this saves me needing a shower at home in the morning I suppose.

I can also run this in 40 mins each way which means I need to do much less running outwith my commute and therefore my free time is probably increased.

I think as a society we for some reason feel like a mile to two is driving or bus distance when most people with good heath can easily walk this or build up to walking this easy enough. Trips to foreign countries show just how good and safe the pavements are in Scotland for walking and we should take advantage of this.

As for your initial point I completely agree that free public transport would be a great think with the exception of discouraging short walks.

I do think more people need to see walking as part of daily life. The health benefits of walking a 30/40 minute commute each day are immense.

I live in South Lanarkshire with nothing apart from a park and pub in walkable distance.

In towns it's totally different and I do think their needs to be a mindset change for lots of people who could walk to a shop etc. 15 minute cities are the devils work according to some folk but they sound like a dream come true to me!

[Jones28]

I think £2 is great value. Edinburgh bus service is one of the things which makes this city so brilliant.

Whether I get the bus depends on where I'm going/why though. It's great for work, but I'd not bother with the hassle for the shops.

£2 is great value to go from say Ocean Terminal to the Corn Exchange.

When I lived in the city the busses were starting to creep up and up, I think by the time I left it was £1.20 for an adult ticket.

My old football commute was walkable in hindsight but ticket prices made it much more attractive to get the bus.

[Allant1981]

If the train fare was cheaper I would definitely take the train into work each day rather than the car but at approx £15 per day for the train(will be a wee bit cheaper with a season pass) it's just to expensive. Same with electric cars, I don't have a drive at my house so no idea how I would charge my car each night

[Jones28]

With Yousaf apparently having a meeting with **** bug Brian Souter last month, I can't see privatisation never mind free fares.

£62 a month for Lothian buses isn't too bad, although it's hundreds of pounds a month on some scotrail routes. Germany has the right idea with cheap transport

Rail prices are outrageous. An open return to Aberdeen is £80, half a tank of diesel would cost me less than half of that ticket price and I could carry 4 other people with me.

[Smartie]

£2 is great value to go from say Ocean Terminal to the Corn Exchange.

When I lived in the city the busses were starting to creep up and up, I think by the time I left it was £1.20 for an adult ticket.

My old football commute was walkable in hindsight but ticket prices made it much more attractive to get the bus.

I'm loving my £3.80 return on the tram from near Ocean Terminal to the West End when I go to work (3 days per week, WFH on other days).

When you add that up a month and compare it to the costs of buying, running and parking a car it really is the financially sensible choice and not a cost that I think most folk could really grumble too much about.

I'd walk more but I don't like arriving at work sweaty and it's a sweaty trudge up the hill however you do it. And then if you've bought a return ticket, it makes it harder to want to walk home although it can be a lovely walk home on a nice evening.

[Jones28]

I'm loving my £3.80 return on the tram from near Ocean Terminal to the West End when I go to work (3 days per week, WFH on other days).

When you add that up a month and compare it to the costs of buying, running and parking a car it really is the financially sensible choice and not a cost that I think most folk could really grumble too much about.

I'd walk more but I don't like arriving at work sweaty and it's a sweaty trudge up the hill however you do it. And then if you've bought a return ticket, it makes it harder to want to walk home although it can be a lovely walk home on a nice evening.

That makes a lot of sense for that money.

The walk home would be down hill no? :greengrin

If I lived in the city I don't think I'd have a car - or maybe we'd have one between my wife and I...its a pain in the arse and I'm about to spend £500 getting the ******* thing fixed.

[Jones28]

If the train fare was cheaper I would definitely take the train into work each day rather than the car but at approx £15 per day for the train(will be a wee bit cheaper with a season pass) it's just to expensive. Same with electric cars, I don't have a drive at my house so no idea how I would charge my car each night

It shouldn't be a wee bit cheaper, it should be so much cheaper that you'd be mad not to have a season pass.

[Ozyhibby]

I do about 10k a year in the car but have set a target this year of doing only 8k. Been getting the bus a lot recently and once you get back in the habit it doesn’t feel like a chore.
I would be in favour of the council bringing in a congestion charge if the pay off was making the buses and trams free. That would certainly change the calculations for a few people.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Stairway 2 7]

I do about 10k a year in the car but have set a target this year of doing only 8k. Been getting the bus a lot recently and once you get back in the habit it doesn’t feel like a chore.
I would be in favour of the council bringing in a congestion charge if the pay off was making the buses and trams free. That would certainly change the calculations for a few people.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That seems a really good idea actually

[Paul1642]

That seems a really good idea actually

It is. We probably will introduce a congestion charge eventually but unfortunately public transport will not become free as a result. I would be hugely surprised if it did.

[RyeSloan]

I wonder how much of the transport emissions is private cars…we are always told people only use their cars 1% of the time they own it or whatever so to me it’s commercial transport that might be the easier / better area of focus.

Hydrogen is never happening for the family saloon but surely is not beyond the wit of man to introduce for all the trucks pounding up and down set routes and times on the motorway network. I’ve seen some tentative moves there but I think a lot more could be done much quicker.

Same goes for domestic heating, trying to force people into expensive and dubiously effective heat pumps seems a nearly unattainable outcome but assessing business energy use and driving efficiency there seems to be a win win for all involved.

There is already big moves afoot there in terms of forcing commercial property to be a certain EPC rating (C min by 2025 I think) which is driving large, mainly private, investment…more of that type of thing can have big impacts.

But the fact remains the ‘easy’ stuff has been done with most of the progress in CO2 reduction coming from energy and the move to renewables.

So the harder stuff now needs to be addressed but has to be done so in a fair and equitable manner without focussing on the wrong areas that will bring limited benefits but huge potential costs.

[Ozyhibby]

I wonder how much of the transport emissions is private cars…we are always told people only use their cars 1% of the time they own it or whatever so to me it’s commercial transport that might be the easier / better area of focus.

Hydrogen is never happening for the family saloon but surely is not beyond the wit of man to introduce for all the trucks pounding up and down set routes and times on the motorway network. I’ve seen some tentative moves there but I think a lot more could be done much quicker.

Same goes for domestic heating, trying to force people into expensive and dubiously effective heat pumps seems a nearly unattainable outcome but assessing business energy use and driving efficiency there seems to be a win win for all involved.

There is already big moves afoot there in terms of forcing commercial property to be a certain EPC rating (C min by 2025 I think) which is driving large, mainly private, investment…more of that type of thing can have big impacts.

But the fact remains the ‘easy’ stuff has been done with most of the progress in CO2 reduction coming from energy and the move to renewables.

So the harder stuff now needs to be addressed but has to be done so in a fair and equitable manner without focussing on the wrong areas that will bring limited benefits but huge potential costs.

I think private cars driving in cities is right up there among causes of pollution.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Allant1981]

It shouldn't be a wee bit cheaper, it should be so much cheaper that you'd be mad not to have a season pass.

I totally agree, sure when I checked it works out £16 per week cheaper, which sounds ok but in reality not that great when it then costs me £13 per week less in fuel than the train saving, and that's what matters most at the minute

[Jones28]

I totally agree, sure when I checked it works out £16 per week cheaper, which sounds ok but in reality not that great when it then costs me £13 per week less in fuel than the train saving, and that's what matters most at the minute

My dad used to commute to Glasgow for work and when he enquired about a season ticket it was based on him travelling 5 days a week for the whole term of the ticket. So if he took holidays, worked from home or didn't travel to Glasgow for work he'd be out of pocket.

It shouldn't be like this.

[s.a.m]

My dad used to commute to Glasgow for work and when he enquired about a season ticket it was based on him travelling 5 days a week for the whole term of the ticket. So if he took holidays, worked from home or didn't travel to Glasgow for work he'd be out of pocket.

It shouldn't be like this.

I had the exact same problem as your dad when I commuted to Dundee in the 90s; season ticket would have worked out as quite a lot more than paying daily. I had to do it by train because I don't drive, but the train cost would have been a massive disincentive if I'd had that option.

[Smartie]

Having decent stuff like the Edinburgh trams and buses really shows up the grotesquely overpriced and piss poor train service in Scotland (and the rest of the UK) for what it really is.

It would be my regular choice of mode of transport for many journeys but there are no end of reasons why I make other choices.

There's no way the Scottish rail service attracts people out of cars, even if high parking / possible congestion charges attempt to push people out of them.

[JeMeSouviens]

I wonder how much of the transport emissions is private cars…we are always told people only use their cars 1% of the time they own it or whatever so to me it’s commercial transport that might be the easier / better area of focus.

Hydrogen is never happening for the family saloon but surely is not beyond the wit of man to introduce for all the trucks pounding up and down set routes and times on the motorway network. I’ve seen some tentative moves there but I think a lot more could be done much quicker.

Same goes for domestic heating, trying to force people into expensive and dubiously effective heat pumps seems a nearly unattainable outcome but assessing business energy use and driving efficiency there seems to be a win win for all involved.

There is already big moves afoot there in terms of forcing commercial property to be a certain EPC rating (C min by 2025 I think) which is driving large, mainly private, investment…more of that type of thing can have big impacts.

But the fact remains the ‘easy’ stuff has been done with most of the progress in CO2 reduction coming from energy and the move to renewables.

So the harder stuff now needs to be addressed but has to be done so in a fair and equitable manner without focussing on the wrong areas that will bring limited benefits but huge potential costs.

52% of transportation emissions according to this (and those were roughly a quarter of all emissions, so an 1/8 of all UK emissions).

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1233533/transport-ghg-emissions-sources-united-kingdom-uk/

[RyeSloan]

52% of transportation emissions according to this (and those were roughly a quarter of all emissions, so an 1/8 of all UK emissions).

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1233533/transport-ghg-emissions-sources-united-kingdom-uk/

Interesting, quite a chunk then.

So EV’s it is…but then we are back into the ‘tailpipe emissions’ v overall impact of scrapping an already built car v a new EV v how much public transport can actually replace private transport.

Ach I give up [emoji1787]

[CropleyWasGod]

I'd agree with that, but equally I see their point that disruption isn't disruption without the disruption. It's a bit of a rock and a hard place for them...

You're right that too much energy is on their antics rather than their cause. I guess without those rogue antics there would be even less about their cause... although I do think that climate is at the fore of public consciousness now.

I've probably said this before, so apologies for repeating myself.

So much of social change in the last century or more has come about after "disruption". The Suffragettes, Rosa Parks, the Stonewall Riots are just a few off the top of my head. At the time, they would have been seen as "nutjobs" or "extremists", whereas now (through the lens of history), they are lauded as heroes and heroines.

In that light, I'm comfortable with "rogue antics".

[Jones28]

We need to go to a system where mass transit is promoted and is free at the point of use and taxation funded, but could be a sign-up scheme where you can opt out but pay to use.

Secondly there needs to be massive out-of-town parking opportunities with high speed links to the major hubs.

Thirdly there needs to be a re-opening of small train stations in rural areas. The west coast mainline is spitting distance from my house but the nearest access point is a car journey away at Carstairs Junction, with one train at 0730 most mornings, one around tea time and then a couple of late services at the weekend.

Make the train a viable option for people to actively discourage them using their cars.

I also think working from home is something that should be championed. My commute is usually 300 miles in the car a week but I now WFH 3 days a week, saves me 180 miles of driving a week.

[Jones28]

I had the exact same problem as your dad when I commuted to Dundee in the 90s; season ticket would have worked out as quite a lot more than paying daily. I had to do it by train because I don't drive, but the train cost would have been a massive disincentive if I'd had that option.

It beggars belief. You have to wonder who makes these decisions.

[Smartie]

I've probably said this before, so apologies for repeating myself.

So much of social change in the last century or more has come about after "disruption". The Suffragettes, Rosa Parks, the Stonewall Riots are just a few off the top of my head. At the time, they would have been seen as "nutjobs" or "extremists", whereas now (through the lens of history), they are lauded as heroes and heroines.

In that light, I'm comfortable with "rogue antics".

I'm comfortable with "rogue antics".

In view of stuff like that by-election last week that ended up cementing a core of voters together behind the Tories on the subject of ULEZ, I just worry that their actions might have the opposite effects to the ones they desire - cementing voters against green issues in general.

TBH I'm torn and undecided on it because I don't really know how else the message gets across. People having to continually suffer disappointing holidays, flooded houses etc probably, until the penny drops but unless it affects any of the "I'm alright Jack" brigade directly I think it'll be a long journey.

[Stairway 2 7]

We need to go to a system where mass transit is promoted and is free at the point of use and taxation funded, but could be a sign-up scheme where you can opt out but pay to use.

Secondly there needs to be massive out-of-town parking opportunities with high speed links to the major hubs.

Thirdly there needs to be a re-opening of small train stations in rural areas. The west coast mainline is spitting distance from my house but the nearest access point is a car journey away at Carstairs Junction, with one train at 0730 most mornings, one around tea time and then a couple of late services at the weekend.

Make the train a viable option for people to actively discourage them using their cars.

I also think working from home is something that should be championed. My commute is usually 300 miles in the car a week but I now WFH 3 days a week, saves me 180 miles of driving a week.
I'd read a study that said working from cuts emissions 4 summer months of year, it's worse for the environment the rest. Less commuting was undone by heating and powering individual houses compared to large efficient buildings. I think this will widen if businesses switch to electric heat from gas quicker than houses

[Stairway 2 7]

I'm comfortable with "rogue antics".

In view of stuff like that by-election last week that ended up cementing a core of voters together behind the Tories on the subject of ULEZ, I just worry that their actions might have the opposite effects to the ones they desire - cementing voters against green issues in general.

TBH I'm torn and undecided on it because I don't really know how else the message gets across. People having to continually suffer disappointing holidays, flooded houses etc probably, until the penny drops but unless it affects any of the "I'm alright Jack" brigade directly I think it'll be a long journey.

The consensus seems to be everyone is pro green policy, until its going to personally cost them thousands. I can understand that and it's why getting people to switch to an electric heating system is going to be a vote killer, especially if people are expected to fund themselves

[Paul1642]

The consensus seems to be everyone is pro green policy, until its going to personally cost them thousands. I can understand that and it's why getting people to switch to an electric heating system is going to be a vote killer, especially if people are expected to fund themselves

Most people simply can’t or won’t find a full or partial green setup out of their own pocket. Part of this is probably a mindset similar to ‘why should I spend 45k of my own money (heat pump 7.5k to 15k, solar panels, 7.5k, cheap EV 30k) when the majority won’t’ and ‘I can’t make a difference by myself so why bother’

I guess the solution is for the Government to fund Heat Pumps, solar panels and good insulation for the masses in the way that they did with smart meters whilst heavily subsidising electric vehicles, whilst also investing in even more green energy generation to cope with the increased electricity demand. Gas demand would plummet. They would also need to pass legislation requiring business to pay their own way to do the same, perhaps subsidised for small businesses.

This would cost an absolute fortune (I don’t even have the slightest idea how much) and we would then need a large tax increase to fund it or maybe even a new ‘green tax’. It’s probably the right thing to do and the long term benefits would be worth it however this is where the problem with democracy comes into things though. No party could ever consider this because they wouldn’t have a hope in hell in being elected in the first place with the voters knowing they would be hit hard in the pocket.

I personally would be on board with this due to the points made above. I can’t and won’t spend all my disposable income for years to come on these things when so few others are but if the whole country was in the same boat I could suck up the tax hit.

It would also be a great time to get a job in the green energy installation sector :)

[lapsedhibee]

I've probably said this before, so apologies for repeating myself.

So much of social change in the last century or more has come about after "disruption". The Suffragettes, Rosa Parks, the Stonewall Riots are just a few off the top of my head. At the time, they would have been seen as "nutjobs" or "extremists", whereas now (through the lens of history), they are lauded as heroes and heroines.

In that light, I'm comfortable with "rogue antics".

Rosa Parks's stand is a good analogy for the JSO rogues' antics. Let's hope all those sympathetic to the JSO cause back up their words of sympathy with action, like all those Montgomery workers who walked to work for a year rather than use the offending bus company.

[CropleyWasGod]

Rosa Parks's stand is a good analogy for the JSO rogues' antics. Let's hope all those sympathetic to the JSO cause back up their words of sympathy with action, like all those Montgomery workers who walked to work for a year rather than use the offending bus company.

.... or cycle :greengrin

[lapsedhibee]

.... or cycle :greengrin

Just Stop Oiling the chain.

[Jones28]

I'd read a study that said working from cuts emissions 4 summer months of year, it's worse for the environment the rest. Less commuting was undone by heating and powering individual houses compared to large efficient buildings. I think this will widen if businesses switch to electric heat from gas quicker than houses

It could well do, however I'd be interested in where the study came from. The government are champions of getting back to the office etc.

Personally, I've got solar panels on the house and on my WFH days there are negligible changes in the amount of electricity I use.

[Stairway 2 7]

It could well do, however I'd be interested in where the study came from. The government are champions of getting back to the office etc.

Personally, I've got solar panels on the house and on my WFH days there are negligible changes in the amount of electricity I use.

It was from the environmental team at wsp, they push many green engineering ideas. It will vary for individuals like yourself. Nationwide I think it would definitely be best working in office in the winter if its purely about the environment, with gas prices it might be cheaper for some people too especially if they live close to work


"WSP’s calculations show that working from home rather than the office in summer saves around 400kg of carbon emissions, the equivalent of 5% of a typical British commuter’s annual carbon footprint. This is because homeworking staff cut out their carbon emissions from their commute which would otherwise be greater than their home’s energy consumption.

This is a seasonal benefit, however. If an average employee worked at home all year round, they would produce 2.5 tonnes of carbon per year – around 80% more than an office worker. This is because working from home in the winter means most heating systems in Britain heat the whole house which produces far more carbon emissions than what would be produced from the commute.

David Symons, UK Director of Sustainability at WSP, explains: “Much of the information around the benefits of working from home centre on flexible working and increased wellbeing of employees, which are very important, but it’s exciting to see that our data shows it can also be good for the environment.

Working from home in the summer and from the office in winter, is only a small step towards a zero-carbon economy, but an easy one for companies to consider

[Stairway 2 7]

Interesting if depressing. 3 years since the US banned flavoured and disposable vapes, they have grown over 4 times to make up over 50% of us vape use. People want them so order easily online mostly from China. The new war on drugs with similar success. I guess its better legalising them and have a deposit return scheme for recycling

[Paul1642]

Interesting if depressing. 3 years since the US banned flavoured and disposable vapes, they have grown over 4 times to make up over 50% of us vape use. People want them so order easily online mostly from China. The new war on drugs with similar success. I guess its better legalising them and have a deposit return scheme for recycling

The streets near my house are absolutely littered with these things and their packaging. They make up a sizeable amount of litter and as if all the crisp packets and juice cans weren’t bad enough we can now add plastic coated used batteries to that. When I drive at night it’s increasingly common to see the wee blinking blue lights at the roadside for vapes that have been tossed out of car windows and ran over. Great. Kids are smoking them on levels much higher than cigarette usage in young people ever was and it’s much easier to hide from parents because you don’t go home reeking of smoke.

Unfortunately I have zero faith in a deposit return scheme helping this, especially when half the people using them are under age.

Whilst the USA stats are pretty depressing and and I’m not sure how we do better than that, the current system is not working earlier. There is just no need for these to exist in our society.

I’m recently home from Turkey where their sale is banned and genuinely never seen a single one being used by a local or on the ground anywhere (although litter as a whole wasn’t really noticeable anywhere) so it can be done. On the flip side of this cigarette use was definitely much more common but it think that was already the case long before vapes.

[ballengeich]

I totally agree, sure when I checked it works out £16 per week cheaper, which sounds ok but in reality not that great when it then costs me £13 per week less in fuel than the train saving, and that's what matters most at the minute

You're not comparing like with like here. You're looking at the fuel cost of using the car, but not taking into account the other costs of having the vehicle. There's the cost of buying a car which you write off over a number of years, and the expense of maintenance and repairs. To get an accurate comparison you'd need to assign some of these other costs to each journey you make.

I don't know how to do that or how the comparison would then look. For train costs to be compared with car costs in the way you're doing, the rail companies would need to have all their train maintenance and replacement costs met from taxation and only charge paying passengers for the fuel costs of journeys.

[Stairway 2 7]

You're not comparing like with like here. You're looking at the fuel cost of using the car, but not taking into account the other costs of having the vehicle. There's the cost of buying a car which you write off over a number of years, and the expense of maintenance and repairs. To get an accurate comparison you'd need to assign some of these other costs to each journey you make.

I don't know how to do that or how the comparison would then look. For train costs to be compared with car costs in the way you're doing, the rail companies would need to have all their train maintenance and replacement costs met from taxation and only charge paying passengers for the fuel costs of journeys.

Of course it should be subsidised and nationalised imo. Germany has introduced the 49€ a month train pass so £42, our average is £200 a month.

[Ozyhibby]

https://twitter.com/stvnews/status/1684244521054351370?s=46&t=3pb_w_qndxJXScFNwz8V4A

This is a protest I can really get behind.[emoji23]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[lapsedhibee]

Technical question:

Did Greenpeace dig up the road or cut up the SUV to stage this protest?

27056

[Smartie]

https://twitter.com/stvnews/status/1684244521054351370?s=46&t=3pb_w_qndxJXScFNwz8V4A

This is a protest I can really get behind.[emoji23]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm anti monarchy and I'm largely supportive of climate change protesters... but I'd say that one of King Charles' few redeeming features has been his consistent commitment to green issues, so this is a strange protest.

[Keith_M]

It was from the environmental team at wsp, they push many green engineering ideas. It will vary for individuals like yourself. Nationwide I think it would definitely be best working in office in the winter if its purely about the environment, with gas prices it might be cheaper for some people too especially if they live close to work


"WSP’s calculations show that working from home rather than the office in summer saves around 400kg of carbon emissions, the equivalent of 5% of a typical British commuter’s annual carbon footprint. This is because homeworking staff cut out their carbon emissions from their commute which would otherwise be greater than their home’s energy consumption.

This is a seasonal benefit, however. If an average employee worked at home all year round, they would produce 2.5 tonnes of carbon per year – around 80% more than an office worker. This is because working from home in the winter means most heating systems in Britain heat the whole house which produces far more carbon emissions than what would be produced from the commute.

David Symons, UK Director of Sustainability at WSP, explains: “Much of the information around the benefits of working from home centre on flexible working and increased wellbeing of employees, which are very important, but it’s exciting to see that our data shows it can also be good for the environment.

Working from home in the summer and from the office in winter, is only a small step towards a zero-carbon economy, but an easy one for companies to consider



That's really interesting, mate, it's not something I'd given much thought to.


:aok:

[Keith_M]

https://twitter.com/stvnews/status/1684244521054351370?s=46&t=3pb_w_qndxJXScFNwz8V4A

This is a protest I can really get behind.[emoji23]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



What about this one?

https://www.euronews.com/video/2023/05/23/topless-activists-pour-mud-on-themselves-in-rome-amid-europe-wide-climate-protests


It definitely drew people's attention, especially the watching Carabinieri ;-)

[Hibrandenburg]

Of course it should be subsidised and nationalised imo. Germany has introduced the 49€ a month train pass so £42, our average is £200 a month.

Worked for me. I used to commute to work in the car, now I use the train. A combination of cheap public trans port and drastically reducing the available parking space and replacing roadside parking with cycle paths has made Berlin City centre a hostile environment for cars. Whilst I personally feel it has improved the quality of the town centre, I can't help but think it's a policy that favours the well off.

[Hibrandenburg]

Technical question:

Did Greenpeace dig up the road or cut up the SUV to stage this protest?

27056

That was right outside my work. Didn't see it happen but it was on a kind of frame/plinth so I'm guessing it was placed there like that.

[lapsedhibee]

That was right outside my work. Didn't see it happen but it was on a kind of frame/plinth so I'm guessing it was placed there like that.

That's good. Because the last thing needed to encourage cycling in a city centre is badly relaid setts. See: all over the New Town.

[grunt]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F2DCODPaQAAT_Zq?format=jpg&name=large

[grunt]

Worth repeating ...




In the UK, the record-breaking 40C temperatures of 2022 will be seen as a cool year by the end of this century, the Met Office says

[Ozyhibby]

Worth repeating ...

I’m in Turkey just now and it was an unbearable 44degrees yesterday. Much better 36 today.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CropleyWasGod]

I’m in Turkey just now and it was an unbearable 44degrees yesterday. Much better 36 today.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You're lying, according to Neil Oliver.....


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-66314338

[Hibrandenburg]

You're lying, according to Neil Oliver.....


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-66314338

He doesn't believe that himself, but he's cornered a market and it pays the rent pandering to idiots.

[neil7908]

He doesn't believe that himself, but he's cornered a market and it pays the rent pandering to idiots.

And this is why we are ****ed. Too many would rather listen to lies and get angry at the wrong things whilst we burn.

I know conspiracy theories and stupid people have been around forever but it feels like our collective IQ has dropped off a cliff in the last 10 years.

[Paul1642]

And this is why we are ****ed. Too many would rather listen to lies and get angry at the wrong things whilst we burn.

I know conspiracy theories and stupid people have been around forever but it feels like our collective IQ has dropped off a cliff in the last 10 years.

They also have so much more of a platform than at any other stage in history making there lies much more contagious.

[Pagan Hibernia]

You're lying, according to Neil Oliver.....


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-66314338

Neil Oliver has a wonderful voice that I could listen to for hours. If only there was a way to mentally block out the absolute rubbish he speaks these days.

[Ozyhibby]

Neil Oliver has a wonderful voice that I could listen to for hours. If only there was a way to mentally block out the absolute rubbish he speaks these days.

Posh people are well spoken [emoji106]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[He's here!]

Worked for me. I used to commute to work in the car, now I use the train. A combination of cheap public trans port and drastically reducing the available parking space and replacing roadside parking with cycle paths has made Berlin City centre a hostile environment for cars. Whilst I personally feel it has improved the quality of the town centre, I can't help but think it's a policy that favours the well off.

That does seem to be the problem with Khan's London plans. The scheme basically impacts most on those of more modest means while leaving the less polluting (tho not much) cars of the most wealthy untouched. Little wonder Starmer/Sunak see rolling back on such policies as potential vote winners.

[Ozyhibby]

That does seem to be the problem with Khan's London plans. The scheme basically impacts most on those of more modest means while leaving the less polluting (tho not much) cars of the most wealthy untouched. Little wonder Starmer/Sunak see rolling back on such policies as potential vote winners.

We need to start charging based on size and weight of cars as well, similar to road tax.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

Forget net zero based on today’s announcement. The UK govt have given up on it and they are doing it with Scottish oil.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Scorrie]

Forget net zero based on today’s announcement. The UK govt have given up on it and they are doing it with Scottish oil.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I fear you’re right. This is the desperate new culture war designed to win the next election. They’ve seen what happened in Uxbridge and think it’s a vote winner. Absolutely horrendous policy but goes to show the depths a Conservative govt will go to retain power

[danhibees1875]

Forget net zero based on today’s announcement. The UK govt have given up on it and they are doing it with Scottish oil.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Disappointing.

Why is it that issuing licensing for fracking is devolved (and so theres currently a ban in Scotland), but not for gas/oil? Seems counterintuitive.

[Pretty Boy]

Disappointing.

Why is it that issuing licensing for fracking is devolved (and so theres currently a ban in Scotland), but not for gas/oil? Seems counterintuitive.

Looking at the comments made today is there not a bit of a split in the SNP when it comes to new offshore licenses? Stephen Flynn seems tentatively supportive of the new licenses albeit with caveats, given his constituency that is hardly surprising:

Mr Flynn, who is the MP for Aberdeen South, said new licences should be granted on "an evidence-based approach which takes into account the climate situation and wider energy security."

He also emphasised the importance of a "just transition" to protect North Sea jobs and employment.

That doesn't seem entirely consistent with the stance of the Scottish Government who have previously stated their firm opposition to new licenses. I suppose a cynic might say it's easy to be totally opposed to something when you don't have to make the decisions that will inevitably have to balance job losses against climate concerns.

The biggest issue is there is still going to be an over reliance on fossil fuels for a long time yet because the transition is far too far behind where it should be. Because of decades of dithering the UK is in a position of either having to grant these new licenses or having to buy fossil fuels from elsewhere. A perpetual shambles.

[Smartie]

Looking at the comments made today is there not a bit of a split in the SNP when it comes to new offshore licenses? Stephen Flynn seems tentatively supportive of the new licenses albeit with caveats, given his constituency that is hardly surprising:

Mr Flynn, who is the MP for Aberdeen South, said new licences should be granted on "an evidence-based approach which takes into account the climate situation and wider energy security."

He also emphasised the importance of a "just transition" to protect North Sea jobs and employment.

That doesn't seem entirely consistent with the stance of the Scottish Government who have previously stated their firm opposition to new licenses. I suppose a cynic might say it's easy to be totally opposed to something when you don't have to make the decisions that will inevitably have to balance job losses against climate concerns.

The biggest issue is there is still going to be an over reliance on fossil fuels for a long time yet because the transition is far too far behind where it should be. Because of decades of dithering the UK is in a position of either having to grant thee new licenses or having to buy fossil fuels from elsewhere. A perpetual shambles.

I expect all parties will be split on this issue.

On a personal basis, even I am a bit torn. I could get on board with the idea that it is done in the greenest possible way, with every possible penny of revenue being sunk into research into renewable energy. If it's used to keep the Tories in power and continue to establish a super rich elite, much as the oil revenues of the past 50 years have done then it can, er, get in the sea.

[Ozyhibby]

I could get behind it if we were doing everything else in our power to get to net zero but we are not. UK govt basically wants Scotland to provide all of the energy while they have a ban on wind farms. They then want to charge us more for the privilege. It’s mental we are putting up with it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

https://twitter.com/telegraph/status/1685667146406232064?s=46&t=3pb_w_qndxJXScFNwz8V4A

Net zero targets to go?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[lapsedhibee]

Because of decades of dithering the UK is in a position of either having to grant these new licenses or having to buy fossil fuels from elsewhere. A perpetual shambles.

Isn't it the case that we'll be buying fossil fuels from 'elsewhere' whether or not these new licences are granted? The new stuff will just be sold on international markets like the old stuff.

[Ozyhibby]

Isn't it the case that we'll be buying fossil fuels from 'elsewhere' whether or not these new licences are granted? The new stuff will just be sold on international markets like the old stuff.

Correct. All we are doing is adding to global supply so that everyone can keep ignoring net zero.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Just Alf]

If I'm reading all this right.

One one hand Westminster is signing off on a load of new north sea oil/gas extraction licences enabling the oil giants to make a **** load of money selling to us/other countries.

And on the other, Westminster has agreed to pay towards offsetting carbon emissions by pumping it into the depleted North Sea gas fields.

So the big guys continue to make a mint and us taxpayers will pay towards offsetting their emissions????

Surely the sensible thing is for the oil giants to use a tiny percentage of their profits to pay for the carbon capture!

[Ozyhibby]

If I'm reading all this right.

One one hand Westminster is signing off on a load of new north sea oil/gas extraction licences enabling the oil giants to make a **** load of money selling to us/other countries.

And on the other, Westminster has agreed to pay towards offsetting carbon emissions by pumping it into the depleted North Sea gas fields.

So the big guys continue to make a mint and us taxpayers will pay towards offsetting their emissions????

Surely the sensible thing is for the oil giants to use a tiny percentage of their profits to pay for the carbon capture!

We actually subsidise them to get the oil out. Apparently the oil business isn’t that profitable. Modern Scotland.[emoji106]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Kato]

If I'm reading all this right.

One one hand Westminster is signing off on a load of new north sea oil/gas extraction licences enabling the oil giants to make a **** load of money selling to us/other countries.

And on the other, Westminster has agreed to pay towards offsetting carbon emissions by pumping it into the depleted North Sea gas fields.

So the big guys continue to make a mint and us taxpayers will pay towards offsetting their emissions????

Surely the sensible thing is for the oil giants to use a tiny percentage of their profits to pay for the carbon capture!C'mon, man. That would bite into their profits, which is a heretical concept in this country.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[Smartie]

If I'm reading all this right.

One one hand Westminster is signing off on a load of new north sea oil/gas extraction licences enabling the oil giants to make a **** load of money selling to us/other countries.

And on the other, Westminster has agreed to pay towards offsetting carbon emissions by pumping it into the depleted North Sea gas fields.

So the big guys continue to make a mint and us taxpayers will pay towards offsetting their emissions????

Surely the sensible thing is for the oil giants to use a tiny percentage of their profits to pay for the carbon capture!

I think you need to have one of those Ian Murray suits to be able to make sense of it.

We don't deserve better because we don't want any better.

[Kato]

Watching the announcements on tea time news. A total sham.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[Stairway 2 7]

Pretty interesting thread from Ed Conway.

This is all a bit of a sideshow as it won't make much of a difference to uk output. North Sea basin is drying up and this will barely change that, we'll need to import. We should have went nuclear and renewable heavy 30 years ago.

Oil exploration might help plug the import gap a bit but gas is minimal

https://twitter.com/EdConwaySky/status/1686050470731608064

[grunt]

Lying Tory liar Rishi Sunak lies about Oil & Gas.

https://twitter.com/implausibleblog/status/1686082793367908354?s=20

[Ozyhibby]

Lying Tory liar Rishi Sunak lies about Oil & Gas.

https://twitter.com/implausibleblog/status/1686082793367908354?s=20

Uk have been lying to Scotland about this for 50 years now. Still seems to work though..


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[xyz23jc]

We actually subsidise them to get the oil out. Apparently the oil business isn’t that profitable. Modern Scotland.[emoji106]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Union Dividend Shirley...! :greengrin

[TrumpIsAPeado]

North Sea basin is drying up

It's been "drying up" ever since they tucked away the McCrone Report nearly 50 years ago.

[Stairway 2 7]

It's been "drying up" ever since they tucked away the McCrone Report nearly 50 years ago.

No one with knowledge on the matter doesn't think the majority of the oil and gas hasn't already been extracted. Its an aging basin and its getting more expensive to get to the less accessible deposits.

It's over now all chance of massive profits for the public is gone, sold to BP and Shell for pennies. The brutal thing is scot gov has done the same with our renewables. Sold the rights for sweeties to the same polluting multinationals, so there will be no great windfalls. Neoliberal parties giving our resources to multinationals on repeat

[TrumpIsAPeado]

No one with knowledge on the matter doesn't think the majority of the oil and gas hasn't already been extracted. Its an aging basin and its getting more expensive to get to the less accessible deposits.

It's over now all chance of massive profits for the public is gone, sold to BP and Shell for pennies. The brutal thing is scot gov has done the same with our renewables. Sold the rights for sweeties to the same polluting multinationals, so there will be no great windfalls. Neoliberal parties giving our resources to multinationals on repeat

Every major political party is neoliberal. They can't be elected otherwise. The media crucifies any party or party leader that attempts to stray away from this model and the general public fall for it every time. So we get what we deserve really.

As for the challenges of extracting oil and gas deeper down, the technology has consistently changed and evolved over time to make inaccessible sites more accessible. They always find a way of extracting more, despite nonsensical claims of things "running out". Extraction won't stop until it's no longer financially feasible or until we've burned and choked to death. My prediction is the latter.

[Ozyhibby]

No one with knowledge on the matter doesn't think the majority of the oil and gas hasn't already been extracted. Its an aging basin and its getting more expensive to get to the less accessible deposits.

It's over now all chance of massive profits for the public is gone, sold to BP and Shell for pennies. The brutal thing is scot gov has done the same with our renewables. Sold the rights for sweeties to the same polluting multinationals, so there will be no great windfalls. Neoliberal parties giving our resources to multinationals on repeat

Within the confines of the devolution settlement I’m not sure the SG could have done anything else? I’m sure they would have loved to have set up a nationalised company but it can’t.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Stairway 2 7]

Every major political party is neoliberal. They can't be elected otherwise. The media crucifies any party or party leader that attempts to stray away from this model and the general public fall for it every time. So we get what we deserve really.

As for the challenges of extracting oil and gas deeper down, the technology has consistently changed and evolved over time to make inaccessible sites more accessible. They always find a way of extracting more, despite nonsensical claims of things "running out". Extraction won't stop until it's no longer financially feasible or until we've burned and choked to death. My prediction is the latter.

Who said every party wasn't neolib. The fact is we sold the rights to oil and renewables for a tiny fraction of what the energy companies get

Your second paragraph is just wrong. The fact is the north Sea oil is running out, that's good for the climate. The tories new licences won't stop the decline in output coming up.2708327084

[Stairway 2 7]

Within the confines of the devolution settlement I’m not sure the SG could have done anything else? I’m sure they would have loved to have set up a nationalised company but it can’t.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They could. Commonweal had discussions with them on how they could set up a nationalised company and retain the profits, it was ignored although Labour in Wales are working with common weal. We will be getting £50-£90 million annually, whilst energy companies will make £3.5-£5.5 Billion! Annually, BP and Shell will get 20% of that. Makes the ferries look like a wee hiccup

https://indylibrary.scot/scotwind-privatising-scotlands-future-again

[Ozyhibby]

https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/the-news-agents/id1640878689?i=1000622942006

Stephen Flynn on yesterday’s announcement.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/politics/sunaks-family-firm-signed-a-billion-dollar-deal-with-bp-before-pm-opened-new-north-sea-licences-353690/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

https://twitter.com/edwinhayward/status/1686155180788613120?s=46&t=3pb_w_qndxJXScFNwz8V4A

Here is how you know Labour are in on this.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[AgentDaleCooper]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-66289494

i suspect i sound slightly hysterical about the issue, but genuinely, are we not at the point now where panic is a far more appropriate response than weighing up the economic impacts whilst the Tories (and inevitably Labour) drive us into disaster?

Obviously the solution will have to be practical and minimise disruption, but if we wait until things get truly real, then it'll be too late.

[Stairway 2 7]

We should do everything we can but we're also at the whim of the rest of the world. Uk has 1 coal power plant, Germany 69, China 1150 for example. Populations in countries like India and Nigeria are going to explode in the next 50 years. We should collectively help them do that with as little ecological damage as possible.

I'm certain we won't though

[Ozyhibby]

We should do everything we can but we're also at the whim of the rest of the world. Uk has 1 coal power plant, Germany 69, China 1150 for example. Populations in countries like India and Nigeria are going to explode in the next 50 years. We should collectively help them do that with as little ecological damage as possible.

I'm certain we won't though

We need to lead and make them follow. Start putting tariffs on goods not made with clean energy etc.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

https://twitter.com/channel4news/status/1686078885056692233?s=46&t=3pb_w_qndxJXScFNwz8V4A
Channel 4 calling out the Tories in a way the BBC can’t these days.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Stairway 2 7]

We need to lead and make them follow. Start putting tariffs on goods not made with clean energy etc.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Uk has cut the % of carbon used faster than any other g7 nation, almost halved in 30 years. Canada, USA and Japan barely look arsed. I doubt they will change due to us they haven't so far. Although we should do as much as we can to clear our conscience

[Ozyhibby]

Uk has cut the % of carbon used faster than any other g7 nation, almost halved in 30 years. Canada, USA and Japan barely look arsed. I doubt they will change due to us they haven't so far. Although we should do as much as we can to clear our conscience

Our figures look good because we stopped making things.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Stairway 2 7]

Our figures look good because we stopped making things.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The other nations g7 outsource also. Uk has dropped but it still produced 1.8% of the world's manufacturing last year, almost double our population

[Kato]

The other nations g7 outsource also. Uk has dropped but it still produced 1.8% of the world's manufacturing last year, almost double our population

4.9% in 1990, dropped by over 50% since then.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[Kato]

Germany in 1990 was around 7.6% and they had increased their share by 2019 to 8%. So not so much outsourcing for them.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

https://twitter.com/bbcnewsnight/status/1686133568433516546?s=46&t=3pb_w_qndxJXScFNwz8V4A

Embarrassing from Labour.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Hibrandenburg]

Our figures look good because we stopped making things.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Beat me to it.

[Stairway 2 7]

4.9% in 1990, dropped by over 50% since then.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

That's a share of GDP.

We manufacture about about the same amount of goods. The amount we manufacture hasn't changed much in 30 years whilst other nations have grown.

The majority of our c02 drop has been from closing our coal power stations2708727088

[Kato]

That's a share of GDP.



I don't think so. It's the Uk's percentage of world manufacturing.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[Stairway 2 7]

I don't think so. It's the Uk's percentage of world manufacturing.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

Yep your right every nation dropped by around half including Germany though, as China exploded. Graph shows it well China squeezed everyone. We manufacture about the same inflation adjusted. So our drop in co2 can't be from there. Full fact says its due to reducing coal, although we aren't on track to drop 80%

https://fullfact.org/environment/uk-greenhouse-gas-emissions/

u
Return to Full Fact homepage
THE ENVIRONMENT
UK greenhouse gas emissions: fast progress but not yet enough to meet future targets
21 JUNE 2019
WHAT WAS CLAIMED
The UK has led the world by committing to “net zero” greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.

OUR VERDICT
The UK’s stated ambition to reduce emissions goes further than most other countries, and the UK is generally considered to be a world-leader in setting targets into law. A few other countries have set similar or more ambitious targets.

“We have made huge progress in growing our economy and the jobs market while slashing emissions”

Theresa May, 12 June 2019

“The UK is already slipping away from its mid-term carbon targets of cutting emissions by 80% by 2050”

BBC News, 12 June 2019

"This is the government that has just led the world by committing to a zero carbon economy by 2050."

Philip Hammond, 20 June 2019

The government wants to set a new target to cut UK net greenhouse gas emissions to “net zero” by 2050. The existing target is to cut emissions by 80% compared to 1990 levels. The government is following recommendations from the independent Committee on Climate Change (CCC), made earlier this year.

“Net zero” means the UK emitting as much as it is removing from the environment (like by planting trees or carbon capture technology). So if this new proposed target were met, this “would effectively mean that the UK will end its contribution to global remissions in 2050”, according to the House of Commons Library.

Up until now the UK has been exceeding its own targets and reducing emissions faster than any other major advanced economy in the G7. But that progress isn’t fast enough at the moment to meet even the 80% target set by the Climate Change Act 2008.

Honesty in public debate matters

You can help us take action – and get our regular free email


Progress on cutting emissions has been fast
Gross greenhouse gas emissions in the UK have been cut by about 44% since 1990, although those figures don’t include emissions from international aviation and shipping.

That’s a faster cut than any other G7 country over the same period.

Using comparable figures as far as 2016, the UK had reduced gross emissions by 41%, compared to 27% for Germany, 23% in Italy and 18% for France. Emissions were higher by 4% in Japan, 5% in the USA and 26% in Canada.



The CCC, which assesses the government’s progress against its targets as set out in the Climate Change Act, has described the UK’s record as:

“[T]he most substantial emissions reduction in the G7, over a period when economic growth was above the G7 average.

“The UK can rightly claim early leadership on decarbonisation and the governance framework to deliver it, but the Government must not be complacent. Market-led developments explain much of the fall since 1990: energy efficiency improvements, a shift from coal to gas in the power sector and a broader shift to less energy-intensive UK industry.”

Less coal, more gas and renewables have driven falling emissions
The key driver behind the UK’s recent reductions in emissions has been the rapid decline of coal power. In 2008, Coal provided 32% of energy generation in the UK. In 2018, it was 5%, and in recent months there has been barely any coal-powered electricity generation. Coal is one of the most carbon-intensive forms of energy, so a shift away from that towards gas has driven a lot of the fall in emissions

27089

[Stairway 2 7]

Could Scotland use old mines and subways to power homes. We could then use a national energy company to unlock the profits say common weal

https://archive.ph/X7ZAK

[He's here!]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-66376143

Scottish Parliament targeted by climate protestors.

[Stairway 2 7]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-66376143

Scottish Parliament targeted by climate protestors.

Seems unfair. They say snp complicit but they weren't the decision makers and condemned

[Ozyhibby]

Seems unfair. They say snp complicit but they weren't the decision makers and condemned

It probably is unfair but fair play to them for making themselves heard. We need more like them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Rumble de Thump]

Seems unfair. They say snp complicit but they weren't the decision makers and condemned

They either think the Scottish Government is responsible for the decision, and didn't even bother checking the news to discover that the SNP had already spoken out against it, or they're trying to pretend the Scottish Government is responsible. They've made quite a mess, figuratively and literally.

[McD]

They either think the Scottish Government is responsible for the decision, and didn't even bother checking the news to discover that the SNP had already spoken out against it, or they're trying to pretend the Scottish Government is responsible. They've made quite a mess, figuratively and literally.


the article clearly states that they were protesting the Scottish Govt’s silence in response to the announcement of the new licences

[Ozyhibby]

the article clearly states that they were protesting the Scottish Govt’s silence in response to the announcement of the new licences

Which is weird because both Humza Yousaf and Stephen Flynn have given interviews over the last couple of days? Weird.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Stairway 2 7]

Which is weird because both Humza Yousaf and Stephen Flynn have given interviews over the last couple of days? Weird.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Flynn criticised Starmer for saying he'll stop north Sea exploration and this week was non committal

https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/politics/scottish-politics/5962012/stephen-flynn-early-shut-down-of-north-sea-risks-jobs/

[Ozyhibby]

Flynn criticised Starmer for saying he'll stop north Sea exploration and this week was non committal

https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/politics/scottish-politics/5962012/stephen-flynn-early-shut-down-of-north-sea-risks-jobs/

Fully explained his position here. I personally think he is getting it just right.

https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/the-news-agents/id1640878689?i=1000622942006

I know full interviews are not as fun as sound bites but they are still important.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Stairway 2 7]

Fully explained his position here. I personally think he is getting it just right.

https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/the-news-agents/id1640878689?i=1000622942006

I know full interviews are not as fun as sound bites but they are still important.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I listened to him and agree with him, but he's clearly more pro extraction than others in his party

[Ozyhibby]

I listened to him and agree with him, but he's clearly more pro extraction than others in his party

Exactly. We can’t shut down the industry tomorrow but we can gently(not so gently[emoji6]) nudge it towards green energy. It’s an industry that has massive skills in offshore work which will be needed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

https://twitter.com/extremetemps/status/1686485331539820545?s=46&t=3pb_w_qndxJXScFNwz8V4A

Just to cheer everyone up.[emoji51]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

https://twitter.com/saulstaniforth/status/1686642893551702017?s=46&t=3pb_w_qndxJXScFNwz8V4A

Labour commit to another Tory policy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TrumpIsAPeado]

https://twitter.com/saulstaniforth/status/1686642893551702017?s=46&t=3pb_w_qndxJXScFNwz8V4A

Labour commit to another Tory policy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

But there's a large difference between Labour and the tories. I don't know what it is, but it's what we're told.

[Stairway 2 7]

https://twitter.com/saulstaniforth/status/1686642893551702017?s=46&t=3pb_w_qndxJXScFNwz8V4A

Labour commit to another Tory policy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

How could they legally if they are auctioned off, tories aren't going to insert a small cancellation fee. They can only be judged on if they renegade on not issuing new licences. I'm personally more interested in policies to increase renewables and change from gas to electric. We're going to need a lot of gas for the next 5 decades unfortunately.

Norway is usually held up as how to do it. They have just approved £18 billion investment in new fields, hell mend us all

[Stairway 2 7]

But there's a large difference between Labour and the tories. I don't know what it is, but it's what we're told.

I'm not sure how you don't because I listed about a dozen policy stark differences. Rwanda and raising the top tax rate alone should show anyone without an agenda there is a sizable difference to many effected