Climate change and the impending apocalypse

[TrumpIsAPeado]

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

Starmer indicates he will not raise income tax for top earners.
https://www.independent.co.uk/business/starmer-indicates-he-will-not-raise-income-tax-for-top-earners-b2363320.html

[Stairway 2 7]

Starmer indicates he will not raise income tax for top earners.
https://www.independent.co.uk/business/starmer-indicates-he-will-not-raise-income-tax-for-top-earners-b2363320.html

Fair play. The man is a clown but he's centre right so it's expected. He says they are going ahead with stopping non dom status and private school tax. That's a massive 5 billion difference the tories would never do

I hate this Labour Party. I really liked Corbyn he was far more left than any UK political party in my lifetime. But you said the same yesterday as everyone said on here. He needs to be more right wing to win. So what is it be left or win and be left of the tories

Show me where he is further right wing than Sunak as you said.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

Fair play. The man is a clown but he's centre right so it's expected. He says they are going ahead with stopping non dom status and private school tax. That's a massive 5 billion difference the tories would never do

I hate this Labour Party. I really liked Corbyn he was far more left than any UK political party in my lifetime. But you said the same yesterday as everyone said on here. He needs to be more right wing to win. So what is it be left or win and be left of the tories

Show me where he is further right wing than Sunak as you said.

Did he say what he was going to do with that 5 billion?

If he has to be more right wing to win, then I don't want him to win. I want them all to lose, otherwise it's the rest of us that continue to lose.

[Stairway 2 7]

Did he say what he was going to do with that 5 billion?

If he has to be more right wing to win, then I don't want him to win. I want them all to lose, otherwise it's the rest of us that continue to lose.

350 million will go on 7000 teachers and £2500 if a teacher stays for 2 years. Ever child in the uk will have a breakfast club with free food. 13,000 neighbourhood police. 15,000 doctors. These are all the amount more than the tories have announced. Think that is only £2 billion. Will have to wait until he announces the policies next year

In the real world in England they have no choice but the two. If left wingers don't vote they get tories simple as. Unless you want kids imprisoned until 18 and their kids sent to Rwanda, in my opinion only a sick person doesn't want Labour to beat the tories

[TrumpIsAPeado]

350 million will go on 7000 teachers and £2500 if a teacher stays for 2 years. Ever child in the uk will have a breakfast club with free food. 13,000 neighbourhood police. 15,000 doctors. These are all the amount more than the tories have announced. Think that is only £2 billion. Will have to wait until he announces the policies next year

In the real world in England they have no choice but the two. If left wingers don't vote they get tories simple as. Unless you want kids imprisoned until 18 and their kids sent to Rwanda, in my opinion only a sick person doesn't want Labour to beat the tories

He said he wants to see more police on the streets. Perhaps that's where he's going to spend the remaining 3 billion to help enforce the tory anti-strike and protest laws that he's committed to keeping in place.

[Stairway 2 7]

He said he wants to see more police on the streets. Perhaps that's where he's going to spend the remaining 3 billion to help enforce the tory anti-strike and protest laws that he's committed to keeping in place.

He says he's committed to repelling it, although I'm not sure what breakfast clubs, doctors and teachers have to do with that

[TrumpIsAPeado]

He says he's committed to repelling it, although I'm not sure what breakfast clubs, doctors and teachers have to do with that

He has never stated that at any point. He has however suggested that he wants to allow the anti-protest bill time to "settle in".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7d3aCM9cvk

Labour WON'T repeal Tory anti-protest law if they win General Election.
https://www.thenational.scot/news/23506503.labour-wont-repeal-tory-anti-protest-law-win-general-election/

[Stairway 2 7]

He has never stated that at any point. He has however suggested that he wants to allow the anti-protest bill time to "settle in".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7d3aCM9cvk

Labour WON'T repeal Tory anti-protest law if they win General Election.
https://www.thenational.scot/news/23506503.labour-wont-repeal-tory-anti-protest-law-win-general-election/

https://www.google.com/amp/s/news.sky.com/story/amp/sir-keir-starmer-pledges-to-repeal-any-new-anti-strike-laws-in-first-big-speech-of-the-year-as-rail-union-warns-legislation-could-lead-to-longer-strife-12780233

Sir Keir Starmer pledges to repeal any new anti-strike laws in first big speech of the year

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1777839/starmer-gmb-speech-strikes-union-barons/amp
Sir Slippery' Starmer sparks outrage with vow to wreck new law that will thwart strikers

Repel anti strike, says will look at anti protest. Not far enough in my opinion

https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/new-protest-laws-labour-repeal-legisaltion-win-next-general-election-coronation-arrests-2326589

[Kato]

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 allThey could make a commitment now to reverse the licenses, no one will invest - job done.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[Stairway 2 7]

They could make a commitment now to reverse the licenses, no one will invest - job done.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

I've read they can't just reverse it without breaking the contract. So companies will invest now as they if the new gov breaks the contract they can take them to court. Could be wrong

[Kato]

I've read they can't just reverse it without breaking the contract. So companies will invest now as they if the new gov breaks the contract they can take them to court. Could be wrongAre there contracts signed? The licences have just been announced?

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[Stairway 2 7]

Are there contracts signed? The licences have just been announced?

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

No obviously assuming they are in the next 12 months, which they will be

[Stairway 2 7]

Harper is an arse and no loss to them, although committed to the environment. Although I do think there has to be a pro union green party. 50% of green GE voters polled in Scotland said the didn't want independence.

https://archive.ph/9RuN7

Robin Harper quits Greens over stance on trans rights and independence
Former co-convener fears coalition partner ‘has lost the plot’ on key issues

[TrumpIsAPeado]

Sir Keir Starmer pledges to repeal any new anti-strike laws in first big speech of the year

"Any new". As far as I'm aware, the tories aren't planning on introducing any further anti-strike laws. The job has already been done (given royal assent on the 20th of July) and Keir Starmer has no intentions of reversing them.

[Stairway 2 7]

"Any new". As far as I'm aware, the tories aren't planning on introducing any further anti-strike laws. The job has already been done (given royal assent on the 20th of July) and Keir Starmer has no intentions of reversing them.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/politics/2023/jan/04/anti-strike-law-could-be-brought-forward-as-government-tries-to-end-disputes

Keir Starmer has said an incoming Labour government would repeal Rishi Sunak’s anti-strike legislation, setting out clear dividing lines with the Conservatives on workers’ rights before the next general election.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/politics/2023/jan/04/anti-strike-law-could-be-brought-forward-as-government-tries-to-end-disputes

Keir Starmer has said an incoming Labour government would repeal Rishi Sunak’s anti-strike legislation, setting out clear dividing lines with the Conservatives on workers’ rights before the next general election.

That article was before the u-turn when Starmer came out and said the bill needed to "settle in". This was at the same time when David Lammy was talking to LBC news and saying that Labour wouldn't reverse the anti-protest bill either as it would in his words "take up too much parliamentary time".

They are a bunch of charlatans.

[Stairway 2 7]

That article was before the u-turn when Starmer came out and said the bill needed to "settle in". This was at the same time when David Lammy was talking to LBC news and saying that Labour wouldn't reverse the anti-protest bill either as it would in his words "take up too much parliamentary time".

They are a bunch of charlatans.

Your getting your bills mixed up. They are two separate bills

[TrumpIsAPeado]

Your getting your bills mixed up. They are two separate bills

I'm not mixing them up. I realize they are two separate bills. Both every bit as heinous with Labour's approach being to do nothing about either of them.

[Stairway 2 7]

I'm not mixing them up. I realize they are two separate bills. Both every bit as heinous with Labour's approach being to do nothing about either of them.

I was wrong twice yesterday in posts. If you admit you were wrong you'll have a much better experience on here. Away to fill up my car with nuclear energy

[TrumpIsAPeado]

I was wrong twice yesterday in posts. If you admit you were wrong you'll have a much better experience on here. Away to fill up my car with nuclear energy

Go back and read my posts over. I never claimed them to be the same bill and my point about Labour having no plans to do anything about either of them remains correct regardless.

[Stairway 2 7]

That article was before the u-turn when Starmer came out and said the bill needed to "settle in". This was at the same time when David Lammy was talking to LBC news and saying that Labour wouldn't reverse the anti-protest bill either as it would in his words "take up too much parliamentary time".

They are a bunch of charlatans.

The article is about the strike bill, Starmer saying time to settle in was a completely different bill, David Lammy also talked about a different bill to the strike bill...

[Moulin Yarns]

The article is about the strike bill, Starmer saying time to settle in was a completely different bill, David Lammy also talked about a different bill to the strike bill...

I think Harp is as well.

[Stairway 2 7]

I think Harp is as well.

He said a u turn on strike bill and gave example of lammy who was talking about protest bill. As yet they say are repealing strike bill and repeated that last month.

It's no big deal regardless

[TrumpIsAPeado]

The article is about the strike bill, Starmer saying time to settle in was a completely different bill, David Lammy also talked about a different bill to the strike bill...

Fair enough, I made a mistake. I though the video of Starmer was about the Strike Bill for some reason, but it was indeed about the Protest Bill. So my apologies for the hic up. If they really are going to reverse the Strike Bill then that's certainly a start. Although I'm still somewhat dubious considering David Lammy's comments regarding Conservative policy and his belief that it would take too much time to pick through it all. If that's the case when it comes to the Protest Bill, then it's difficult to see how they can reverse the Strike Bill while still using that argument not to reverse the Protest Bill.

[Stairway 2 7]

Fair enough, I made a mistake. I though the video of Starmer was about the Strike Bill for some reason, but it was indeed about the Protest Bill. So my apologies for the hic up. If they really are going to reverse the Strike Bill then that's certainly a start. Although I'm still somewhat dubious considering David Lammy's comments regarding Conservative policy and his belief that it would take too much time to pick through it all. If that's the case when it comes to the Protest Bill, then it's difficult to see how they can reverse the Strike Bill while still using that argument not to reverse the Protest Bill.

Fair play and there is no excuse to not veto the protest bill. They are a horrible shower, but not as bad as the gestapo sorry tories imo and I know that's hardly a compliment

[Stairway 2 7]

Wild. If Germany had kept its nuclear production at the same level, it could have ended burning coal and gas for electricity completely. Instead they now get 25% of power from burning fossil fuels

https://twitter.com/ArmandDoma/status/1627008826745683968

[Ozyhibby]

https://www.phenomenalworld.org/analysis/global-boiling/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

Wild. If Germany had kept its nuclear production at the same level, it could have ended burning coal and gas for electricity completely. Instead they now get 25% of power from burning fossil fuels

https://twitter.com/ArmandDoma/status/1627008826745683968

A decision that looked mad at the time and is even worse now. Merkel’s legacy won’t be looked at favourably.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Stairway 2 7]

A decision that looked mad at the time and is even worse now. Merkel’s legacy won’t be looked at favourably.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And not just for that.

Thankfully they are investing heavily in renewables so it will change. But in the meantime a lot of gas and coal needlessly burnt.

[lapsedhibee]

A decision that looked mad at the time and is even worse now. Merkel’s legacy won’t be looked at favourably.


Green politics has been a bigger thing in Germany than it has in most of Europe. And greens used to be worried about nucular waste. Luckily there's no problem these days about disposing of nucular waste. Just dump it somewhere.

[Ozyhibby]

https://www.businessgreen.com/news/4121425/study-heat-pumps-times-efficient-typical-gas-boilers

Article on heat pumps.
I’m coming round to the view that this along with solar panels is the way to go for me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Rumble de Thump]

Ocean heat record broken, with grim implications for the planet (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-66387537)

[Hibrandenburg]

https://www.businessgreen.com/news/4121425/study-heat-pumps-times-efficient-typical-gas-boilers

Article on heat pumps.
I’m coming round to the view that this along with solar panels is the way to go for me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I listened to an interview with a heat pump expert on BBC Cornwall a few days ago and it's a no brainer. Firstly they guy explained how a fridge worked and then explained the technology is similar just in reverse. Anything that can multiply the energy input to output 3 times has to be a good thing. The inhibiting factor just now is the price of installation but like all new technology that will come down as it becomes more widespread.

[Ozyhibby]

https://twitter.com/doug_parr/status/1687398397190320128?s=46&t=3pb_w_qndxJXScFNwz8V4A

Some good news.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

https://twitter.com/thenewsagents/status/1687357702106681344?s=46&t=3pb_w_qndxJXScFNwz8V4A

Film by Lewis Goodall. Worth a watch.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ballengeich]

https://twitter.com/thenewsagents/status/1687357702106681344?s=46&t=3pb_w_qndxJXScFNwz8V4A

Film by Lewis Goodall. Worth a watch.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Disruption of agriculture is likely to be an increasing problem as warming continues. In the UK we are already net importers of 40% of our food so will be particularly vulnerable as farmers who supply us will come under pressure to divert food to their local populations. The shortage of some salad items earlier this year is a forerunner of the future.

[grunt]

Greta Thunberg cancels her attendance at Edinburgh Book Festival


“I am unfortunately unable to attend the Edinburgh Book Festival. As a climate activist I cannot attend an event which receives sponsorship from Baillie Gifford, who invest heavily in the fossil fuel industry. Greenwashing efforts by the fossil fuel industry, including sponsorship of cultural events, allow them to keep the social license to continue operating. I cannot and do not want to be associated with events that accept this kind of sponsorship.”

[Stairway 2 7]

Robert Mcalpine argues for community heating programmes for flats. Heat pumps just aren't viable just now for them. They would all need insulated, double glazed and then a huge price for the heat pump insulation.

Only problem I see to his plan is the mixed make up of Scotlands flats. Council, housing associations, renters, Airbnb, bought houses and absentee landlords. Would need joined up thinking and government legislation

http://robinmcalpine.org/whats-the-problem-with-heat-pumps/

[Ozyhibby]

Robert Mcalpine argues for community heating programmes for flats. Heat pumps just aren't viable just now for them. They would all need insulated, double glazed and then a huge price for the heat pump insulation.

Only problem I see to his plan is the mixed make up of Scotlands flats. Council, housing associations, renters, Airbnb, bought houses and absentee landlords. Would need joined up thinking and government legislation

http://robinmcalpine.org/whats-the-problem-with-heat-pumps/

There are a few things in that article that don’t match up with what I’ve read else where? Everywhere else I have read that heat pumps need less maintenance than a gas boiler (no annual safety checks etc) and also that they last twice as long?

I would also dearly love the number of the guy who instals his gas boilers for him?
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20230805/8a9385685e0793c19dca3a5af6ad64d6.jpg
Suggest he is exaggerating to help make his point which undermines the whole article.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TrumpIsAPeado]

10-20k for what is effectively a fridge in reverse.

[Ozyhibby]

10-20k for what is effectively a fridge in reverse.

Figures I have read have been around £7-14k range. I can see why especially if you need new rads.
Undermines the whole article when you are exaggerating the figures to make the two options seem miles apart.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Stairway 2 7]

Figures I have read have been around £7-14k range. I can see why especially if you need new rads.
Undermines the whole article when you are exaggerating the figures to make the two options seem miles apart.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Read the Average in the uk is £8,000 to £18,000, ground source £14,500 to £45,000.

These will almost all be houses his article is about flats and I've read that will be 30k plus just now. All they number are without double glazing and insulation.

I'd go as far as saying they are financially a no go for tenements. I've yet to see what we do instead. Can community heating work. It works in some offices and university campuses and great in Scandinavia. Would take a lot of legislation but we have roof works that get shared ect. But would people who have just paid for a new boiler be happy

No easy options. We definitely need a suite of plans, what harvey doesn't seem to get.

[Ozyhibby]

Read the Average in the uk is £8,000 to £18,000, ground source £14,500 to £45,000.

These will almost all be houses his article is about flats and I've read that will be 30k plus just now. All they number are without double glazing and insulation.

I'd go as far as saying they are financially a no go for tenements. I've yet to see what we do instead. Can community heating work. It works in some offices and university campuses and great in Scandinavia. Would take a lot of legislation but we have roof works that get shared ect. But would people who have just paid for a new boiler be happy

No easy options. We definitely need a suite of plans, what harvey doesn't seem to get.

I can agree that they might not work in every situation but that applies to gas boilers as well. It does feel like this is a campaign to undermine something that will work in the majority of Scottish homes though.
If it doesn’t work in tenements then fine, we will need to come up with a different solution there but in the meantime if a heat pump works for your house then go for it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Stairway 2 7]

I can agree that they might not work in every situation but that applies to gas boilers as well. It does feel like this is a campaign to undermine something that will work in the majority of Scottish homes though.
If it doesn’t work in tenements then fine, we will need to come up with a different solution there but in the meantime if a heat pump works for your house then go for it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's two separate arguments. The idiots that say they don't work full stop, when they are clearly the best option for say 70% of homes. They should be compulsory for new builds and people in the majority of homes going forward.

The counter is the people that say they are fine for everywhere and that's it. Closing off the thinking is pushing down the problem of what we do with the hundreds of thousands of homes. Is it electric storage, hydrogen, community heating. The other option is do nothing and fingers crossed things change in the future attitude

[Stairway 2 7]

43,000 kids many taking long hall flights to s Korea for the scouts jamboree. The have to make other sleeping arrangements due to campsite being to hot for a heatwave. Do they not see the connection.

My nephew is away to America for skiing in the winter with his school. Europe mustn't have slopes.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/aug/04/uk-children-to-move-to-seoul-hotels-heatwave-world-scout-jamboree

[Ozyhibby]

https://twitter.com/thescotsman/status/1688189380186222592?s=46&t=3pb_w_qndxJXScFNwz8V4A

Another special interest group comes out against net zero.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[AgentDaleCooper]

https://twitter.com/thescotsman/status/1688189380186222592?s=46&t=3pb_w_qndxJXScFNwz8V4A

Another special interest group comes out against net zero.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

technically, it's the plan, i.e. the means of getting there, rather than the concept of 'net zero' itself, that they are opposing.

[Ozyhibby]

technically, it's the plan, i.e. the means of getting there, rather than the concept of 'net zero' itself, that they are opposing.

Everybody is down with the concept. Even the tories say that. Eventually you need to put things into practice though. That’s when you find out who is really up for it. Easiest thing in the world to set targets. Taking action to achieve those targets is the tricky bit.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-66422273?at_format=link&at_campaign_type=owned&at_medium=social&at_ptr_name=twitter&at_link_type=web_link&at_link_origin=BBCScotlandNews&at_link_id=1E5358CE-3475-11EE-A185-B20B79A687CD&at_bbc_team=editorial&at_campaign=Social_Flow

Article explains why UK has reduced emission by de-industrialising.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

https://x.com/lesleyriddoch/status/1695387643570192849?s=46&t=3pb_w_qndxJXScFNwz8V4A


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Hibrandenburg]

https://x.com/lesleyriddoch/status/1695387643570192849?s=46&t=3pb_w_qndxJXScFNwz8V4A


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I just got home from 3 weeks uk holiday, it actually was painful to throw recyclables in the bin because I've become so accustomed to bringing my recyclables back.

[danhibees1875]

Are there recycling bins in town? I can't recall ever seeing them. Just general waste/everything bins.

It's probably the only time I don't recycle versus when I'm at home or work, and it's not very often either, but it feels like a simple solution to at least a chunk of the problem.

[Ozyhibby]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-66749344

SG gets a hard time for selling licenses too cheap but at least they get built.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[grunt]

Greek floods: 3 years’ worth of rain fell within two days.

[Pretty Boy]

I keep saying it but until we get public transport infrastructure sorted then we are never going to get people out their cars.

I was meeting someone with work in Fife on Friday, decided I'd take the train and leave the car at home. £19.20 for a return to Glenrothes (a peak fare so I'm assuming the freeze on them was scrapped). 2 carriages, train was filthy and rammed the whole way. Went to get the train home and it was cancelled so had to hang about for 40 minutes. Later that night I went to the pub to watch the Scotland game, could have taken the car as I wasn't drinking but walked up. Left the pub when the bus tracker app said 6 minutes. Got to the bus stop, tracker counted down to due then just reset to 38 minutes. Started to walk, took me 45 minutes and no bus passed me on the way. My mate said he waited an hour as the next bus didn't show either. Finally back in Fife yesterday, return journey from Lochgelly to Rosyth was cancelled so a 20 minute train journey became a 75 minute bus journey.

None of that was that big a deal for me on these occasions but if you want people to rely on public transport to get kids to school, get to work and just generally get about their lives then it has to be a damn site better (and cheaper) than that. The train cancellations are a constant now.

[Ozyhibby]

I keep saying it but until we get public transport infrastructure sorted then we are never going to get people out their cars.

I was meeting someone with work in Fife on Friday, decided I'd take the train and leave the car at home. £19.20 for a return to Glenrothes (a peak fare so I'm assuming the freeze on them was scrapped). 2 carriages, train was filthy and rammed the whole way. Went to get the train home and it was cancelled so had to hang about for 40 minutes. Later that night I went to the pub to watch the Scotland game, could have taken the car as I wasn't drinking but walked up. Left the pub when the bus tracker app said 6 minutes. Got to the bus stop, tracker counted down to due then just reset to 38 minutes. Started to walk, took me 45 minutes and no bus passed me on the way. My mate said he waited an hour as the next bus didn't show either. Finally back in Fife yesterday, return journey from Lochgelly to Rosyth was cancelled so a 20 minute train journey became a 75 minute bus journey.

None of that was that big a deal for me on these occasions but if you want people to rely on public transport to get kids to school, get to work and just generally get about their lives then it has to be a damn site better (and cheaper) than that. The train cancellations are a constant now.

They should bring in a congestion charge and spend every penny on public transport.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[McD]

I keep saying it but until we get public transport infrastructure sorted then we are never going to get people out their cars.

I was meeting someone with work in Fife on Friday, decided I'd take the train and leave the car at home. £19.20 for a return to Glenrothes (a peak fare so I'm assuming the freeze on them was scrapped). 2 carriages, train was filthy and rammed the whole way. Went to get the train home and it was cancelled so had to hang about for 40 minutes. Later that night I went to the pub to watch the Scotland game, could have taken the car as I wasn't drinking but walked up. Left the pub when the bus tracker app said 6 minutes. Got to the bus stop, tracker counted down to due then just reset to 38 minutes. Started to walk, took me 45 minutes and no bus passed me on the way. My mate said he waited an hour as the next bus didn't show either. Finally back in Fife yesterday, return journey from Lochgelly to Rosyth was cancelled so a 20 minute train journey became a 75 minute bus journey.

None of that was that big a deal for me on these occasions but if you want people to rely on public transport to get kids to school, get to work and just generally get about their lives then it has to be a damn site better (and cheaper) than that. The train cancellations are a constant now.


:agree:


I don’t even believe we have the public transport infrastructure or volume to cope if everyone started using public transport. As you said, the train was rammed, what would happen if many more people said ‘yeah, I’ll leave the car and use the train’, it’s just not feasible.


To add to your excellent points, there’s also the knock on affect on other people. A train gets cancelled or bus doesn’t turn up - how does a parent get to their childcare to collect their children? The carers are then left to either change/cancel their plans, or leave a child unattended (unlikely), the child/parent/carer isn’t able to partake in activities that were planned, which could then have a knock on affect on the businesses and individuals that run those activities.
Or if the person now made late is part of the fire brigade, police, or paramedic, or doctor, or nurse, and someone else’s health is put in jeopardy. We don’t have enough of these people to just expect that someone else will be able to cover.

Because public transport is privately owned, it’s major focus will always be profit before public need

[Stairway 2 7]

:agree:


I don’t even believe we have the public transport infrastructure or volume to cope if everyone started using public transport. As you said, the train was rammed, what would happen if many more people said ‘yeah, I’ll leave the car and use the train’, it’s just not feasible.


To add to your excellent points, there’s also the knock on affect on other people. A train gets cancelled or bus doesn’t turn up - how does a parent get to their childcare to collect their children? The carers are then left to either change/cancel their plans, or leave a child unattended (unlikely), the child/parent/carer isn’t able to partake in activities that were planned, which could then have a knock on affect on the businesses and individuals that run those activities.
Or if the person now made late is part of the fire brigade, police, or paramedic, or doctor, or nurse, and someone else’s health is put in jeopardy. We don’t have enough of these people to just expect that someone else will be able to cover.

Because public transport is privately owned, it’s major focus will always be profit before public need

Lothian buses are public owned, scotrail too

[Ozyhibby]

Lothian buses are public owned, scotrail too

Edinburgh public transport isn’t too bad but it’s going to need a lot more capacity if we are to get people out of cars.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[lapsedhibee]

I don’t even believe we have the public transport infrastructure or volume to cope if everyone started using public transport. As you said, the train was rammed, what would happen if many more people said ‘yeah, I’ll leave the car and use the train’, it’s just not feasible.

Thinking out the box here, wild, but could the train operators put an extra carriage on the train? :dunno:

[s.a.m]

Thinking out the box here, wild, but could the train operators put an extra carriage on the train? :dunno:

That's the obvious answer, but I've often seen Scotrail on Twitter apologising for short trains, because of a lack of available rolling stock. Obviously needs to be some investment there before capacity can be easily be increased.

[Moulin Yarns]

Thinking out the box here, wild, but could the train operators put an extra carriage on the train? :dunno:

I watched a TV programme with Mel Geidroyc and Martin Clunes in Dorset and they got on one of those private steam trains. More carriages and comfier seats than Scotrail.

[Stairway 2 7]

Edinburgh public transport isn’t too bad but it’s going to need a lot more capacity if we are to get people out of cars.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Lothian is great, looking forward to new tram lines. Scotrail is awful as all rail in the UK, price is utterly ridiculous

[Moulin Yarns]

Lothian is great, looking forward to new tram lines. Scotrail is awful as all rail in the UK, price is utterly ridiculous

There are good train services in Yorkshire, return from glasshoughton to Leeds costs less than a single from pitlochry to Perth for a similar distance.

[McD]

Lothian buses are public owned, scotrail too


Edinburgh public transport isn’t too bad but it’s going to need a lot more capacity if we are to get people out of cars.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Thanks, wasn’t totally sure about Lothian buses, and completely forgot about scotrail.

I agree that within Edinburgh, public transport is reasonable, it’s a massive drop off outwith the city in my experience



Thinking out the box here, wild, but could the train operators put an extra carriage on the train? :dunno:

Whilst I appreciate the point if not the sarcasm, why don’t these train operators do that at the moment? Or for the years that this has been the case. Perhaps the wild suggestion should be made to them, it’s maybe never occurred to dozens of senior people over decades :dunno:

I see another poster has responded to this point in regards to available carriage stock, but that goes back to my point about profit before service. The cost of train travel in Scotland is very high, yet the quality of service is generally awful. A day return from Livingston to Edinburgh costs what would be 3+ trips by car, and the passenger isn’t forced to sit on a smelly, always very warm, dirty carriage that is 50/50 at best to turn up on time.

I give scotgov no criticism about scotrail, the issues have been there for a very long time, and will take time to unpick and improve, but I look forward to seeing what they can do.

[Stairway 2 7]

France to join Germany in making month train passes €49. Amazing. You could get a few returns in some cases for that from Scotrail

https://www.euronews.com/travel/2023/09/08/france-will-launch-a-49-rail-pass-after-the-success-of-the-deutschlandticket

[Hibs4185]

France to join Germany in making month train passes €49. Amazing. You could get a few returns in some cases for that from Scotrail

https://www.euronews.com/travel/2023/09/08/france-will-launch-a-49-rail-pass-after-the-success-of-the-deutschlandticket

I’ve used the train a few times in france and have also picked up family travelling to my house.

Ever single train has been on time and it’s always very reasonably priced.

[Moulin Yarns]

Don't know what it's like in Edinburgh, but I see flooding in Stirling and it hasn't stopped raining since 3:30 today and not gentle rain either, my gravel drive is going to need repairs as it's a bit of a slope.

[McD]

Thanks, wasn’t totally sure about Lothian buses, and completely forgot about scotrail.

I agree that within Edinburgh, public transport is reasonable, it’s a massive drop off outwith the city in my experience




Whilst I appreciate the point if not the sarcasm, why don’t these train operators do that at the moment? Or for the years that this has been the case. Perhaps the wild suggestion should be made to them, it’s maybe never occurred to dozens of senior people over decades :dunno:

I see another poster has responded to this point in regards to available carriage stock, but that goes back to my point about profit before service. The cost of train travel in Scotland is very high, yet the quality of service is generally awful. A day return from Livingston to Edinburgh costs what would be 3+ trips by car, and the passenger isn’t forced to sit on a smelly, always very warm, dirty carriage that is 50/50 at best to turn up on time.

I give scotgov no criticism about scotrail, the issues have been there for a very long time, and will take time to unpick and improve, but I look forward to seeing what they can do.



Having had a moan about the costs of train travel, and linking to Scotrail being publicly owned, I think it’s right to give credit where it’s due and call this out.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-66795296

Whilst it’s only a trial, and not on every rail journey, it’s a step in the right direction of making it more affordable for people to use trains, and ScotGov deserve to be given the recognition. Some significant drops in costs to travellers here

[Stairway 2 7]

3 returns to Glasgow is still more expensive than Germans and French pay for a months pass, Edinburgh to Glasgow month pass is £400. Would take big investment to match them but its certainly the way forward, unfortunately I think our population would say where's the money come from not why is the planet warming

[s.a.m]

France to join Germany in making month train passes €49. Amazing. You could get a few returns in some cases for that from Scotrail

https://www.euronews.com/travel/2023/09/08/france-will-launch-a-49-rail-pass-after-the-success-of-the-deutschlandticket

Also worth noting that in France, other than in very small businesses, employers are liable for 50% of the cost of their employees' public transport season tickets.

[Hibrandenburg]

Also worth noting that in France, other than in very small businesses, employers are liable for 50% of the cost of their employees' public transport season tickets.

Most employees in Germany have also been entitled to a "Company Ticket". The employer pays 25% tax free towards the ticket and the transport companies add 5% meaning that the employee only has to fish out €34.30 per month for public transport.

[McD]

Most employees in Germany have also been entitled to a "Company Ticket". The employer pays 25% tax free towards the ticket and the transport companies add 5% meaning that the employee only has to fish out €34.30 per month for public transport.



That’s excellent value, compared to here anyway

[Sylar]

Most employees in Germany have also been entitled to a "Company Ticket". The employer pays 25% tax free towards the ticket and the transport companies add 5% meaning that the employee only has to fish out €34.30 per month for public transport.

And yet Scotrail think they're revolutionising things here by scrapping peak fares - off-peak fares for me going between my home town and Glasgow ONLY would still run me £240 odd a month...I assume the German model allows you to travel on any public transport for that fee each month?

[grunt]

And yet Scotrail think they're revolutionising things here by scrapping peak fares - off-peak fares for me going between my home town and Glasgow ONLY would still run me £240 odd a month...I assume the German model allows you to travel on any public transport for that fee each month?
:greengrin

[Hibrandenburg]

And yet Scotrail think they're revolutionising things here by scrapping peak fares - off-peak fares for me going between my home town and Glasgow ONLY would still run me £240 odd a month...I assume the German model allows you to travel on any public transport for that fee each month?

Yes, with the exception of ICE and IC trains, you can use any public transport bus, train, tram and ferry.

If I pay €15 more I can take my bike.

[grunt]

This ... does not look good.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-66724246

https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/cpsprodpb/7205/production/_131098192_antarctic_sea_ice_extent-2023-09-14-nc.png.webp

[Just Alf]

This ... does not look good.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-66724246

https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/cpsprodpb/7205/production/_131098192_antarctic_sea_ice_extent-2023-09-14-nc.png.webpWas reading that earlier, one commentator was saying its a tipping point, if it doesn't recover next cycle it'll keep getting worse... the current el nino event won't help :-(

[Ozyhibby]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66857551

Labour will soon match them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Scorrie]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66857551

Labour will soon match them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I’m not so sure. I think there’s a lot of votes in needing to address climate change. There’s also a lot of jobs and cheaper fuel bills as well. If Labour do go down that route, they risk losing seats as the Greens and Lib Dems could attract the votes from the environmental lobby

[Ozyhibby]

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20230920/4f4aa14bd489e3455e306f53eb6cb834.jpg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[overdrive]

On the cost and convenience of public transport, we are going down to Liverpool for my birthday in December. We live a 5-10 min walk from South Gyle station so getting the train places is easy for us: a wee walk, get on the train and connect at Haymarket/Waverley depending where we are going.

We booked the hotel yesterday and went to book the train. £295 return and that's with a Two Together Railcard. What's more, there's only one train available on the day we come back (all the others are sold out for some reason) and it involves travelling through the night, arriving back the next day and requires 4 changes.

We are now driving there - we'd rather not. The cost alone got us reconsidering but the issue on the Sunday coming back decided it for us.

Whilst public transport is good in Edinburgh, it could be better. We are lucky we live in an area we have easy access to bus routes, tram and rail. A day ticket that would cover bus, tram and rail within Edinburgh would be good but would require different public transport organisations working together. One does actually exist via a website that I can't remember the name of but it is prohibitively expensive

[Pretty Boy]

On the cost and convenience of public transport, we are going down to Liverpool for my birthday in December. We live a 5-10 min walk from South Gyle station so getting the train places is easy for us: a wee walk, get on the train and connect at Haymarket/Waverley depending where we are going.

We booked the hotel yesterday and went to book the train. £295 return and that's with a Two Together Railcard. What's more, there's only one train available on the day we come back (all the others are sold out for some reason) and it involves travelling through the night, arriving back the next day and requires 4 changes.

We are now driving there - we'd rather not. The cost alone got us reconsidering but the issue on the Sunday coming back decided it for us.

Whilst public transport is good in Edinburgh, it could be better. We are lucky we live in an area we have easy access to bus routes, tram and rail. A day ticket that would cover bus, tram and rail within Edinburgh would be good but would require different public transport organisations working together. One does actually exist via a website that I can't remember the name of but it is prohibitively expensive

I think these things are just luck of the draw.

I'm always moaning about pricing and reliability on trains. However I booked returns to go and see my father in law at New Year, departing 30th December, returning 4th January; Edinburgh to Newark. 2 adults and 2 kids with a friends and family railcard and it's £117 all in. That's a lot cheaper than just under 2 full tanks of fuel which is what it costs to drive. Also a lot less stress than driving with 2 kids in tow.

I understand dynamic pricing and so on but again it can make it cost prohibitive in situations like your for people to ditch the car and use public transport. I've been there plenty of times before myself. the same journey as I mentioned above has been well over £300 even with a railcard before.

[Ozyhibby]

https://x.com/edconwaysky/status/1704427456973676598?s=46&t=3pb_w_qndxJXScFNwz8V4A


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Just Alf]

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20230920/4f4aa14bd489e3455e306f53eb6cb834.jpg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
https://x.com/edconwaysky/status/1704427456973676598?s=46&t=3pb_w_qndxJXScFNwz8V4A


Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkRemember the grief ScotGov got for the major delay in the deposit return scheme due to cost incurred by manufacturers and suppliers.... imagine the grief here as the car company's costs are on another magnitude all together!

[Stairway 2 7]

Sunaks press conference nauseating. Says he'll cancel a few measures like compulsory car sharing that was never going to happen. Then pushes back uks electric car date to match EU. Most disgusting is letting landlords away with green measures. No cost saving to the government but a bonus to the wealthy

[Ozyhibby]

https://x.com/richardlochhead/status/1704485579558158600?s=46&t=3pb_w_qndxJXScFNwz8V4A


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Kato]

Sunaks press conference nauseating. Says he'll cancel a few measures like compulsory car sharing that was never going to happen. Then pushes back uks electric car date to match EU. Most disgusting is letting landlords away with green measures. No cost saving to the government but a bonus to the wealthyA bit rinsing going on with the electioneering.

There was an article not too long ago saying they saw green issues as the New Brexit. Let's see if they go gung ho as the election.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[AgentDaleCooper]

Chris Packham's documentary is essential viewing

[nonshinyfinish]

Depressing example of a lie going round the world while truth is pulling its boots on: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/sep/29/how-a-thinktank-got-the-cost-of-net-zero-for-the-uk-wildly-wrong

[Pretty Boy]

Dale Vince pulls his funding from Just Stop Oil:

https://twitter.com/DaleVince/status/1710305921384026244?t=OStavNf4wBPdqDMqbMiuIA&s=19

[jacomo]

And yet Scotrail think they're revolutionising things here by scrapping peak fares - off-peak fares for me going between my home town and Glasgow ONLY would still run me £240 odd a month...I assume the German model allows you to travel on any public transport for that fee each month?


Tbf, Scotrail have no power to do much more. Way beyond their pay grade.

[jacomo]

Depressing example of a lie going round the world while truth is pulling its boots on: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/sep/29/how-a-thinktank-got-the-cost-of-net-zero-for-the-uk-wildly-wrong


Good spot. It’s a scandal that Gov ignores the civil service (and denigrates it every day) and instead bases policy on reports from shadowy lobby groups funded by vested interests.

[nonshinyfinish]

Good spot. It’s a scandal that Gov ignores the civil service (and denigrates it every day) and instead bases policy on reports from shadowy lobby groups funded by vested interests.

The report was eventually retracted, but it had done its job by then: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/oct/02/report-claiming-net-zero-will-cost-uk-trillions-retracted-due-to-factual-errors


The Civitas report was covered by the Sun, the Times, Daily Mail, Daily Express and the Spectator. By Monday the Express had removed its article, while others had added footnotes but kept the pieces online.

[grunt]

News from SSE today that their Dogger Bank wind turbine site has gone online.

https://www.sserenewables.com/news-and-views/2023/10/world-s-largest-offshore-wind-farm-produces-power-for-the-first-time/

Some astonishing stats in the press release:


Dogger Bank sits 70 nautical miles (130km) off the coast of Yorkshire and will occupy an area almost as large as Greater London and nearly twice the size of New York City.

[Stairway 2 7]

News from SSE today that their Dogger Bank wind turbine site has gone online.

https://www.sserenewables.com/news-and-views/2023/10/world-s-largest-offshore-wind-farm-produces-power-for-the-first-time/

Some astonishing stats in the press release:

That's amazing as you say some other stunning stats from that

Each rotation of the first turbine’s 107m long Haliade-X blades can produce enough clean energy to power an average home for two days

When fully complete, Dogger Bank’s world-record-beating 3.6GW capacity will comprise 277 giant offshore turbines capable of producing enough clean energy to power the equivalent of six million homes annually and deliver yearly CO2 savings equivalent to removing 1.5 million cars from the road

[Pretty Boy]

This is very interesting albeit caveated with a lot of if, but and maybe. Obviously most of us will have heard of hydrogen and fuel before but the processes involved here seem exciting if challenging:

https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/hydrogen-white-gold-us-renewables-b2440021.html

[Ozyhibby]

This is very interesting albeit caveated with a lot of if, but and maybe. Obviously most of us will have heard of hydrogen and fuel before but the processes involved here seem exciting if challenging:

https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/hydrogen-white-gold-us-renewables-b2440021.html

Can’t read the article but hydrogen is probably the best source of heating if we can scale it. And Scotland is in a good place for that. To do so we need to instal a massive amount of electricity capacity which will bring down prices.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[nonshinyfinish]

Can’t read the article but hydrogen is probably the best source of heating if we can scale it. And Scotland is in a good place for that. To do so we need to instal a massive amount of electricity capacity which will bring down prices.

This article is about 'white hydrogen', i.e. naturally occurring hydrogen that is extracted rather than produced from something else, so it doesn't have the electricity cost involved in water splitting. There are obviously other challenges as the article describes.


What if the answer to the climate crisis has been tucked away, since time immemorial, beneath our feet?

That is the possibility posed by increasing discoveries of vast, underground deposits of white hydrogen around the world.

Burning hydrogen produces only heat and water, and it’s attracting billions of dollars in investment as countries race to wean themselves off fossil fuels.

But not all hydrogen is created equal, and the energy industry uses a colour-coded, sliding scale to indicate its sustainability. Most common is “gray hydrogen”, made using the fossil fuel, natural gas. “Blue hydrogen” is created the same way but captures the carbon emissions; “green hydrogen” is produced by using clean energy to split water. As the name suggests, green hydrogen is the “greenest” but expensive and produced in smaller quantities.

Then there’s white hydrogen – also known as natural, gold or geologic hydrogen – which doesn’t need to be freed from other elements like oxygen by using vast amounts of electricity.

For a long time, many scientists thought large deposits of white hydrogen weren’t possible – but now, millions of megatons of hydrogen are thought to be lodged in Earth’s crust. This has the potential to supply global hydrogen demand for thousands of years, said USGS research geologist Geoffrey Ellis, a leading expert on white hydrogen.

Pioneers in white hydrogen also claim it could be produced for much lower costs than its cousins. It will be twice as cheap as the cheapest green hydrogen, according to Natural Hydrogen Energy, a US-based startup.

Until recently, it went relatively unnoticed that white hydrogen was already in real-world operation. Bourakébougou, a remote village in the landlocked West African nation of Mali, has powered its electricity supply with white hydrogen for more than a decade. The discovery was made after a local businessman brought in a Canadian consulting firm to test a water well that had caught fire when a worker lit a cigarette near it.

That company, Hydroma, says the source contains 98 per cent hydrogen gas and is the world’s first electricity production from white hydrogen without any carbon emissions via direct combustion.

Inevitably, there’s a catch – and the hapless smoker in Bourakébougou provides the first clue.

Hydrogen is a lot more flammable than natural gas, and can cause fires and explosions if not handled properly. Because the gas is so light, no known odorants can be added to alert people to potential leaks, just as a sulfur-containing smell raises the alarm on natural gas and propane.

Another unknown quantity of hydrogen, in general, is what impact it has on heating our already overcooked planet.

Hydrogen’s floaty quality means it easily leaks, warned a recent study by the Environmental Defense Fund, so the gas’ warming impact is “both widely overlooked and underestimated”.

“Therefore, the effectiveness of hydrogen as a decarbonization strategy, especially over timescales of several decades, remains unclear,” the researchers noted.

These aren’t the only challenges to overcome. Next comes finding the stuff, as many of the large deposits discovered so far have been hit upon by accident.

The largest accumulation of white hydrogen to date was inadvertently found in France this summer by scientists who were studying methane at a mining basin.

“Every now and again, in science one happens to chance upon something one wasn’t looking for. Occasionally, that discovery is of greater value than one was originally after. Call it serendipity,” wrote Jacques Pironon and Philippe de Donato, from the University of Lorraine.

The presence of hydrogen is often flagged by fairy circles which crop up in grasslands and other vegetation as the gas leaks kill off plants.

The lightness of hydrogen also becomes an issue when you start trying to move it around, making it more expensive because large amounts leak. As with the Mali project, white hydrogen may make sense in localized areas but become too costly for long-distance transportation.

Regardless, there is no shortage of interest in white hydrogen as a possibly limitless source of clean energy, and the dollars are pouring in. Denver-based Koloma won $91m in investment from a group that includes Bill Gates’ Breakthrough Energy Venture. One investment firm valued white hydrogen as a $75bn industry by 2030.

Michael E Webber, from the University of Texas in Austin, drew similarities between white hydrogen and the beginning of the fracking boom where “it’s mostly an idea waiting on better technologies, policies, and market conditions for it to prosper”.

“If it does, perhaps the oil and gas industry can turn its capabilities to extracting hydrogen produced by subsurface geological processes, shepherding in a new era of low-carbon fuels. That way it can avoid job disruption while using its global-scale competencies to ramp-up hydrogen quickly. It could give the hydrogen story the happy ending it deserves,” he wrote.

[Stairway 2 7]

In the least surprising news of the week UAE are using cop28 to make oil deals. People flying all over the world to an oil burning metropolis in the desert, to rub egos and eat canopies

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-67508331

[J-C]

In the least surprising news of the week UAE are using cop28 to make oil deals. People flying all over the world to an oil burning metropolis in the desert, to rub egos and eat canopies

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-67508331

Surely they'll need canopies to keep the sun off them, better to eat the canapés. 😁

[Stairway 2 7]

Surely they'll need canopies to keep the sun off them, better to eat the canapés. 😁

Need to stop messaging by swipe text on my phone or at least start reading what I've put in

[Sylar]

And today the president has said that transitioning away from fossil fuels will “have us back living in caves”. It’s beyond comprehension that this nation was allowed to host this. It’s always a bit of a circus, but it’s been a joke this year.

[Stairway 2 7]

And today the president has said that transitioning away from fossil fuels will “have us back living in caves”. It’s beyond comprehension that this nation was allowed to host this. It’s always a bit of a circus, but it’s been a joke this year.

Was going to post about that. Absolutely making a mockery of the whole thing. Just a photo op and a box ticking exercise. Why would you have it in a country that openly doesn't believe in climate change

[Sylar]

Because of what I do, I was involved in COP26 at Glasgow and I felt quite optimistic after it concluded. There’s such a growing populist turn against it nowadays that this COP in particular is going to amplify all of the wrong messages. I genuinely despair right now at where we’re heading.

[Bostonhibby]

And today the president has said that transitioning away from fossil fuels will “have us back living in caves”. It’s beyond comprehension that this nation was allowed to host this. It’s always a bit of a circus, but it’s been a joke this year.Maybe he is worried his horrible regime might end up back in tents if no one needs or buys the oil and they don't fancy buying sand?

Sent from my SM-A750FN using Tapatalk

[Sylar]

Maybe he is worried his horrible regime might end up back in tents if no one needs or buys the oil and they don't fancy buying sand?

Sent from my SM-A750FN using Tapatalk

Oh, I’ve zero doubt self-interest is the sole driver.

[Bostonhibby]

Oh, I’ve zero doubt self-interest is the sole driver.They'd be back in the stone age pretty quick left to their own devices.

Sent from my SM-A750FN using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

They'd be back in the stone age pretty quick left to their own devices.

Sent from my SM-A750FN using Tapatalk

No bad thing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Bostonhibby]

No bad thing.


Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkLive in hope.

Downside is the very rich ones would simply move to their secondary residences in the UK, and not to take up the jobs the EU workers were forced to leave behind.

Sent from my SM-A750FN using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

https://x.com/stvnews/status/1750858884917367096?s=46&t=3pb_w_qndxJXScFNwz8V4A

It has been a bit blowy right enough.[emoji106]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-41322742.html

Don’t they know this won’t work?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Hibrandenburg]

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-41322742.html

Don’t they know this won’t work?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

How could that possibly work in Scotland? It would mean that people get inconvenienced.

[AgentDaleCooper]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-68110310

so that's a full year under our belts at +1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels.

i find the whole thing very strange. i get the need to be calm and rationalise this into context, why there's still hope etc., but at the same time, it feels more and more like we're in a flimsy vehicle hurtling towards a wall lined with explosives.

when do we admit that our political systems, and a huge amount of our lifestyle choices, need to absolutely go in the bin? I'm not saying I live a 100% green life by any means, I'm just asking these questions. FWIW I really struggle to see how air travel can be justified in any cases other than seeing loved ones and one-off work trips, diplomacy etc. Same goes for meat, and I try to avoid it as much as possible, particularly cheap crap stuff, but again, I'm not here to claim moral superiority, I definitely still eat it when veggie options are rubbish.

Bottom line for me, though, is that individual choices are more or less pissing in the wind. Governments need to either legislate or be toppled, otherwise the future of our planet looks very inhospitable for eejits like us, and sadly many other creatures and life forms who have done nothing wrong.

[superfurryhibby]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-68110310

so that's a full year under our belts at +1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels.

i find the whole thing very strange. i get the need to be calm and rationalise this into context, why there's still hope etc., but at the same time, it feels more and more like we're in a flimsy vehicle hurtling towards a wall lined with explosives.

when do we admit that our political systems, and a huge amount of our lifestyle choices, need to absolutely go in the bin? I'm not saying I live a 100% green life by any means, I'm just asking these questions. FWIW I really struggle to see how air travel can be justified in any cases other than seeing loved ones and one-off work trips, diplomacy etc. Same goes for meat, and I try to avoid it as much as possible, particularly cheap crap stuff, but again, I'm not here to claim moral superiority, I definitely still eat it when veggie options are rubbish.

Bottom line for me, though, is that individual choices are more or less pissing in the wind. Governments need to either legislate or be toppled, otherwise the future of our planet looks very inhospitable for eejits like us, and sadly many other creatures and life forms who have done nothing wrong.

Exactly. If it is so serious then we need a more radical approach to addressing climate change. Unfortunately, the dominant free market-neoliberal capitalist economic forces aren't going to allow it.

Many of the green policies are just guilt tripping lip service.

Consume , consume...build more houses because it makes housing more accessible (as if that has ever actually happened in Britain), encourage economic reliance on tourism with all the attendant carbon footprint, new cars, they're so electric (but not very green). Cheap food imports, travelling all around the world, we need that cheap food (regardless of the cost to those who's countries grow it) because our wages are so low. Social care crisis anyone, let's import hundreds of thousands of people from developing nations instead of adequately funding the industry (whilst we're at it , we can spend hundreds of millions on a Tram system that serves a fraction of the cities population, handy for the tourists though and your house price might rise if you live near it, lol)). Fossil fuels? Let's issue new licences to extract more oil from the North Sea and tell the suckers their cars aren't compliant with our make no difference ULEZ zone).

Sadly, people feel there are no alternatives and they're right. Unless governments get radical, anything we do is pissing in the face of a gale force wind.

[AgentDaleCooper]

Exactly. If it is so serious then we need a more radical approach to addressing climate change. Unfortunately, the dominant free market-neoliberal capitalist economic forces aren't going to allow it.

Many of the green policies are just guilt tripping lip service.

Consume , consume...build more houses because it makes housing more accessible (as if that has ever actually happened in Britain), encourage economic reliance on tourism with all the attendant carbon footprint, new cars, they're so electric (but not very green). Cheap food imports, travelling all around the world, we ned that because wages are so low. Social care crisis, let's import hundreds of thousands of people from developing nations instead of adequately funding the industry. Fossil fuels? Let's issue new licences to extract more oil from the North Sea.

Sadly, people feel there are no alternatives and they're right. Unless governments get radical, anything we 8do is pissing in the face of a gale force wind.
I think one important first step is for people to stop rationalising how our current system might yet deal with it. It won't, and trying to convince oneself that it will is either arrogant, deluded, irresponsible, selfish, stupid or some combination of the above. I think we actually do need to start panicing soon, as we are way behind on changing course.

[Paul1642]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-68110310

so that's a full year under our belts at +1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels.

i find the whole thing very strange. i get the need to be calm and rationalise this into context, why there's still hope etc., but at the same time, it feels more and more like we're in a flimsy vehicle hurtling towards a wall lined with explosives.

when do we admit that our political systems, and a huge amount of our lifestyle choices, need to absolutely go in the bin? I'm not saying I live a 100% green life by any means, I'm just asking these questions. FWIW I really struggle to see how air travel can be justified in any cases other than seeing loved ones and one-off work trips, diplomacy etc. Same goes for meat, and I try to avoid it as much as possible, particularly cheap crap stuff, but again, I'm not here to claim moral superiority, I definitely still eat it when veggie options are rubbish.

Bottom line for me, though, is that individual choices are more or less pissing in the wind. Governments need to either legislate or be toppled, otherwise the future of our planet looks very inhospitable for eejits like us, and sadly many other creatures and life forms who have done nothing wrong.

I genially think we simply aren’t going to change and will inevitably eventually be ****ed as a result. Governments can’t legislate to do what’s needed because they will be voted out, and even if a government (UK for example) somehow went hardline on climate change and survived a few elections it would be a drop in the ocean because the rest of the world wouldn’t be doing the same.

We should all be willing to do the following but people aren’t willing to go without foreign holidays, new clothes, new electric items, live in cold home in winter (or a hot home in summer for those in hot climates) and so on. Once again it’s probably the mindset of why should I suffer when everyone else isn’t. Maybe if it was forced on the whole world’s population it would be easier to stomach because we would all be in the same boat but that would take totalitarian governments to achieve. Not something many would accept without a fight.

Using the UK as an example once again our economy is to some degree a ponzi scheme. If our population stops growing or shrink the economy goes to ****. We therefore have to increase our population by immigration with the effect of building more houses on green land, consuming more food, more fuel, more cars on the road and effectively more of everything bad for the environment. Then how many people live within walking distance of their work. A few centuries ago the answer would have been everyone. Now it’s probably a pretty small %, especially in the west.

Then the real elephant in the room is the world’s ever growing population. We are 1.5 degrees above pre industrialisation levels. The world’s population at that milestone was sub 800 million. We are now over 10 times that figure.

If our population was still 800 million we could sustain our current lifestyles without killing the planet I’d imagine. Dammed if I know the solution to that one though.

[Ozyhibby]

I genially think we simply aren’t going to change and will inevitably eventually be ****ed as a result. Governments can’t legislate to do what’s needed because they will be voted out, and even if a government (UK for example) somehow went hardline on climate change and survived a few elections it would be a drop in the ocean because the rest of the world wouldn’t be doing the same.

We should all be willing to do the following but people aren’t willing to go without foreign holidays, new clothes, new electric items, live in cold home in winter (or a hot home in summer for those in hot climates) and so on. Once again it’s probably the mindset of why should I suffer when everyone else isn’t. Maybe if it was forced on the whole world’s population it would be easier to stomach because we would all be in the same boat but that would take totalitarian governments to achieve. Not something many would accept without a fight.

Using the UK as an example once again our economy is to some degree a ponzi scheme. If our population stops growing or shrink the economy goes to ****. We therefore have to increase our population by immigration with the effect of building more houses on green land, consuming more food, more fuel, more cars on the road and effectively more of everything bad for the environment. Then how many people live within walking distance of their work. A few centuries ago the answer would have been everyone. Now it’s probably a pretty small %, especially in the west.

Then the real elephant in the room is the world’s ever growing population. We are 1.5 degrees above pre industrialisation levels. The world’s population at that milestone was sub 800 million. We are now over 10 times that figure.

If our population was still 800 million we could sustain our current lifestyles without killing the planet I’d imagine. Dammed if I know the solution to that one though.

To be fair we are doing our bit on population. If it wasn’t for immigration it would be falling rapidly.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

https://x.com/guardianeco/status/1756030850016399600?s=46&t=3pb_w_qndxJXScFNwz8V4A

Thought Labour had cancelled this emergency?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[grunt]

This Tory Government doesn't seem to believe in green issues.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/feb/29/uk-600m-backing-jim-ratcliffe-carbon-bomb-petrochemical-plant?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other


The UK government is providing a €700m (£600m) guarantee for the billionaire Jim Ratcliffe to build the biggest petrochemical plant in Europe in 30 years that will turbocharge plastic production.

The huge petrochemical plant has been described as a “carbon bomb” by campaigners. Being constructed in the Belgian city of Antwerp by Ratcliffe’s company Ineos, it will bring plastic production to Europe on a scale not seen before, just as countries are trying to negotiate a binding global treaty to tackle the growing problem of plastic pollution.

[Paul1642]

This Tory Government doesn't seem to believe in green issues.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/feb/29/uk-600m-backing-jim-ratcliffe-carbon-bomb-petrochemical-plant?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Looking past the green issues, I must be missing the economic reason for this?

Why on earth would we fund a billionaire to build a factory in Belgium?

[Moulin Yarns]

Looking past the green issues, I must be missing the economic reason for this?

Why on earth would we fund a billionaire to build a factory in Belgium?

My thoughts exactly, other than Ratcliffe being a huge tory doner.

AND this plant will do exactly what will be shut down at grangemouth!!

[Stairway 2 7]

It's being funded by banks plus UK, Italian, Spanish and Belgian governments I had read through export loans. I'm not sure at what rate or benefit to the other countries. I think it claims it will be carbon neutral after 10 years. I can't see how, probably some greenwashing project like tree planting but I'm unsure

[Jones28]

Just seen on the news that some Swiss women have won a case in the ECHR on tackling the climate crises.

Good news? Surely?

[Ozyhibby]

Just seen on the news that some Swiss women have won a case in the ECHR on tackling the climate crises.

Good news? Surely?

People think that when we sign up to these climate treaties they are meaningless but they become law and the public can use the law to ensure they are enforced. Good on the old Swiss ladies.[emoji106]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Stairway 2 7]

I critised this at the time. The green led scot gov £2 billion PFI deal will mainly benefit huge polluters and rich land owners. Carbon offset has been shown time and time again to be a swindle with negligible environmental benefits allowing massive amounts of Carbon emissions

https://tribunemag.co.uk/2023/03/privatising-scotlands-trees

The Scottish Government's £2 billion PFI deal to pay wealthy landowners to plant trees will increase inequality and do nothing to deter big polluters – proof that the market can't fix the climate crisis

[grunt]

I critised this at the time. The green led scot gov £2 billion PFI deal will mainly benefit huge polluters and rich land owners. Carbon offset has been shown time and time again to be a swindle with negligible environmental benefits allowing massive amounts of Carbon emissions

https://tribunemag.co.uk/2023/03/privatising-scotlands-trees

The Scottish Government's £2 billion PFI deal to pay wealthy landowners to plant trees will increase inequality and do nothing to deter big polluters – proof that the market can't fix the climate crisisHighly impartial source you have there.

[Stairway 2 7]

Highly impartial source you have there.

You regularly post links from the national which is obviously not impartial. That is fine some of the articles are poor some are really good. You'd be crazy and clouded if you only read articles from a source that repeats what you want to read. What did you think of the article it's well researched. It's obvious the PFI benefits the few who grossly own half of Scottish land. Carbon offsetting is more and more being shown as the scam it is, a get out for horrors like BP to say they are green whilst killing the planet.

If you want more sources that the PFI is terrible

An article from eco experts on Carbon offsetting I admit they have bias in saving the planet
https://www.theecoexperts.co.uk/blog/carbon-offsetting#:~:text=The%20main%20reason%20why%20car bon,being%20reduced%20as%20we%20think.

Greenpeace too
https://www.greenpeace.org.uk/news/the-biggest-problem-with-carbon-offsetting-is-that-it-doesnt-really-work/
The biggest problem with carbon offsetting is that it doesn’t really work

Robert Mcalpine ex Green party has been fighting for Scotlands nature for decades
https://robinmcalpine.org/scotlands-money-trees-are-making-us-poorer/
Scotland’s money trees are making us poorer
by Robin McAlpine | 13 Mar 2023

The Scottish Government is trying to 'lever in' private funding to profit from tree planting in Scotland. The direct consequence of this will be something akin to 'reverse land reform', pricing another generation off the land.

[Pretty Boy]

I critised this at the time. The green led scot gov £2 billion PFI deal will mainly benefit huge polluters and rich land owners. Carbon offset has been shown time and time again to be a swindle with negligible environmental benefits allowing massive amounts of Carbon emissions

https://tribunemag.co.uk/2023/03/privatising-scotlands-trees

The Scottish Government's £2 billion PFI deal to pay wealthy landowners to plant trees will increase inequality and do nothing to deter big polluters – proof that the market can't fix the climate crisis

Andy Wightman is always a good source of information for stuff like this, land ownership and other environmental issues on Twitter. Well researched stuff by himself and good links to others. He was a big critic of this policy at the time.

He's a big miss in parliament, a common sense voice in the green movement who understood that perfection can often be the enemy of good.

[superfurryhibby]

What we really need is legislation to outlaw wood burning and multi fuel stoves......

|Meanwhile we can carry on flying around in our private planers and helicopters, jet of all around the globe on holiday, burn thousands of acres of grouse moor, import food from all around the world \(obviously needed even more now we are because we are building houses, despite Nimbyism, on prime agricultural land).

[Stairway 2 7]

What we really need is legislation to outlaw wood burning and multi fuel stoves......

|Meanwhile we can carry on flying around in our private planers and helicopters, jet of all around the globe on holiday, burn thousands of acres of grouse moor, import food from all around the world \(obviously needed even more now we are because we are building houses, despite Nimbyism, on prime agricultural land).

We're importing food because of profit not space and food choice ie wanting non native foods. Only 0.1% of the uk is made up of actual homes, about 5% of uk is classified urban areas.

Even if our pitiful housebuilding increases I'm confident Scotland will be net zero by 2050 after that we should be going carbon negative. Agriculture is actually a huge emmiter of our co2 about 7.8% our 2nd highest cause of emissions. That's why countries like Holland and Germany are trying to cut farmers production and emissions to hit net zero.

Transport excluding air travel is out in front at worst culprit 10.9% of emissions, hence us wanting to cut car use dramatically. Businesses 3rd 7.5%, residential 6.3%. All new builds will have to be electric heating now which will help get net zero, replacing existing gas boilers will be harder. 5% energy, gas, coal and oil power stations. Air travel and shipping together is only 0.7%.

You can see why cars, agricultural and heating homes in buildings are the targets. Cut them or turn them electric and we'll get net zero. Scotland are doing pretty well I think in the push to electrify

[Moulin Yarns]

What we really need is legislation to outlaw wood burning and multi fuel stoves......

|Meanwhile we can carry on flying around in our private planers and helicopters, jet of all around the globe on holiday, burn thousands of acres of grouse moor, import food from all around the world \(obviously needed even more now we are because we are building houses, despite Nimbyism, on prime agricultural land).

See this stooshie about wood burning stoves, why has there been nothing said about the stricter ban on oil and gas boilers??

[Stairway 2 7]

See this stooshie about wood burning stoves, why has there been nothing said about the stricter ban on oil and gas boilers??

I think a number of green advocates I've seen are saying they are happy they are being banned in large towns and cities but unhappy about in some rural settings. I've read that for some they can be net zero sustainable and a source for when power isn't guaranteed. I don't know enough about them personally. I'm glad on the ban for oil and gas in new builds, it seems a no brainer

[Moulin Yarns]

I think a number of green advocates I've seen are saying they are happy they are being banned in large towns and cities but unhappy about in some rural settings. I've read that for some they can be net zero sustainable and a source for when power isn't guaranteed. I don't know enough about them personally. I'm glad on the ban for oil and gas in new builds, it seems a no brainer

I am in a small hamlet of about 20 houses and I think we all have wood burning stoves, myself included. I planted a number of trees in the garden up to 36 years ago and coppiced them in rotation for fuel. Coppiced wood regrow so it's very sustainable.

[Stairway 2 7]

I am in a small hamlet of about 20 houses and I think we all have wood burning stoves, myself included. I planted a number of trees in the garden up to 36 years ago and coppiced them in rotation for fuel. Coppiced wood regrow so it's very sustainable.

Sounds absolutely brilliant 👏

[RyeSloan]

I am in a small hamlet of about 20 houses and I think we all have wood burning stoves, myself included. I planted a number of trees in the garden up to 36 years ago and coppiced them in rotation for fuel. Coppiced wood regrow so it's very sustainable.

Which is probably the perfect use case for wood burning stoves.

What isn’t though is my neighbour up the road who has a house in a rather more built up area (that obviously has mains gas and electricity) that decides to put theirs on at any opportunity and routinely stink the road out with whatever they are burning in it.

There is now an odd situation where we are happily banning cars for their pollution but not bothering to police people routinely burning wood in fires in populated areas years after clean air acts were brought in to stop people doing exactly that.

Wood burning stoves do have a place in the types of situation you have described but I’m all for a ban in Inner city / urban areas.

[wookie70]

Which is probably the perfect use case for wood burning stoves.

What isn’t though is my neighbour up the road who has a house in a rather more built up area (that obviously has mains gas and electricity) that decides to put theirs on at any opportunity and routinely stink the road out with whatever they are burning in it.

There is now an odd situation where we are happily banning cars for their pollution but not bothering to police people routinely burning wood in fires in populated areas years after clean air acts were brought in to stop people doing exactly that.

Wood burning stoves do have a place in the types of situation you have described but I’m all for a ban in Inner city / urban areas.

I have a wood burner. I dry my wood for a couple of years and would only burn very dry logs. I can't even see smoke out my chimney when it is burning. No idea about particulates though and nearly all my wood has came from people chopping down trees and wanting rid of them. Much harder these days than it was a few years back but I have a good stock still

[Ozyhibby]

I have a wood burner. I dry my wood for a couple of years and would only burn very dry logs. I can't even see smoke out my chimney when it is burning. No idea about particulates though and nearly all my wood has came from people chopping down trees and wanting rid of them. Much harder these days than it was a few years back but I have a good stock still

I can see why people like wood burners. There is something amazing about watching a fire and tending to it. However, we can’t all have one. There isn’t enough wood. There is a reason we switched to coal. We were running out of trees to burn. Wood is not a very efficient fossil fuel to burn. It’s not very dense like coal.
Given that we can’t all have wood burners, how should society decide who gets to have one?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Moulin Yarns]

I can see why people like wood burners. There is something amazing about watching a fire and tending to it. However, we can’t all have one. There isn’t enough wood. There is a reason we switched to coal. We were running out of trees to burn. Wood is not a very efficient fossil fuel to burn. It’s not very dense like coal.
Given that we can’t all have wood burners, how should society decide who gets to have one?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If you read both my and wookie' posts you should realise that we are both using wood that would go to waste otherwise. I burn my own wood which regrows for future years. I also live in a house with no oil or gas heating system in a rural situation where power cuts are a frequent occurrence. Very different situation to the central belt.

Who chooses? Well the new building regulations have been pretty clear.

[superfurryhibby]

I can see why people like wood burners. There is something amazing about watching a fire and tending to it. However, we can’t all have one. There isn’t enough wood. There is a reason we switched to coal. We were running out of trees to burn. Wood is not a very efficient fossil fuel to burn. It’s not very dense like coal.
Given that we can’t all have wood burners, how should society decide who gets to have one?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

People also like wood burners because it saves them being extorted by robber power suppliers. Amazingly, with some straightforward adaptations, you can also do things like heat your hot water with it too.

You're making things up about availability of wood and the switch to coal. Coal had been used for fuel for a long, long time in Scotland. However, the speed, scale and demands of industrialisation required industrial level mining of a fuel that was suitable for it's needs. Nothing to do with availability of wood.

The Scottish timber industry produces huge amounts of low grade wood, much is unsuitable for construction, Mostly used for pulp, but It burns nicely too.

[Stairway 2 7]

Burners should be definitely banned in new builds and only really used when other heating sources available. It produces more co2 than oil and gas for the same amount of heat and methane. Obviously renewable electricity is much much better than all 3 and where we have to be heading as soon as we can. If we want net zero we need to go electric as fast as we can and we are getting there

[Stairway 2 7]

Electric vehicles are now saving 1.5 million barrels of oil being burnt a day. Two thirds of that are from people choosing to ride electric bikes. On yer bikes everyone!

https://www.theguardian.com/news/ng-interactive/2024/apr/11/evs-are-booming-but-electric-bikes-are-really-cutting-emissions

[Ozyhibby]

Electric vehicles are now saving 1.5 million barrels of oil being burnt a day. Two thirds of that are from people choosing to ride electric bikes. On yer bikes everyone!

https://www.theguardian.com/news/ng-interactive/2024/apr/11/evs-are-booming-but-electric-bikes-are-really-cutting-emissions

I’m surprised electric Vespas are not becoming more popular?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Stairway 2 7]

I’m surprised electric Vespas are not becoming more popular?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Think electric bikes have just got so good, hundreds of delivery drivers choosing them over mopeds it seems. Think the bonus is the battery is easily taken off and charged in the house, its light and easy to do but also makes the bike less likely to steal as the battery is the main price sometimes.

The have also came down in price can get a good one for about 800 in halfords and you can pay it up there, over 60 a month for a bus pass. Cycle to work scheme is great if its available at your work. Takes a third off the bikes cost minimum through tax savings and let's you pay over 12 or 18 months

[Ozyhibby]

Think electric bikes have just got so good, hundreds of delivery drivers choosing them over mopeds it seems. Think the bonus is the battery is easily taken off and charged in the house, its light and easy to do but also makes the bike less likely to steal as the battery is the main price sometimes.

The have also came down in price can get a good one for about 800 in halfords and you can pay it up there, over 60 a month for a bus pass. Cycle to work scheme is great if its available at your work. Takes a third off the bikes cost minimum through tax savings and let's you pay over 12 or 18 months

It’s theft that would be my biggest worry with an electric bike.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Stairway 2 7]

It’s theft that would be my biggest worry with an electric bike.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Feel alright if I take the battery off means I need a bag if uptown in shops ect though. Say its 800 for the bike its 500 second hand and 200 if the person has to find and buy a battery, thieves are probably going to go for a better steal. Dig dlock and they need an angle grinder too. The zoomos all the delivery drivers have don't need locked they immobilise, think about 2k to buy, can be rented for under 50 a week though

[RyeSloan]

I’m surprised electric Vespas are not becoming more popular?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

A 50cc petrol scooter will go about 100 miles on a single 5l tank of petrol and obviously you don’t need space to charge it.

Compared to an electric one which might do 40 miles on a full charge.

Sure they will eventually be a thing but the use case is still pretty weak I’d say.

I’ve commuted for years on a scooter. By far the most convenient, speedy and cost effective way of getting about town.

Cheap to buy (esp. second hand) and extremely cheap to run I’m amazed more people don’t do it.

Sensibly Edinburgh has excluded them from the LEZ rules as well.

[Bristolhibby]

I can see why people like wood burners. There is something amazing about watching a fire and tending to it. However, we can’t all have one. There isn’t enough wood. There is a reason we switched to coal. We were running out of trees to burn. Wood is not a very efficient fossil fuel to burn. It’s not very dense like coal.
Given that we can’t all have wood burners, how should society decide who gets to have one?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Money decides. Seen the price of a wood burner?

Also modern insulated houses simply don’t need them. My house is roasting, compared to my last mid 30s semi detached that I used to live in.

J

[grunt]

Dubai: a year's rain fell in one day. The pictures are apocalyptic.

[grunt]

https://x.com/DaveThroup/status/1780566686644445217


It has been the wettest 6 months across the whole of England since records began in 1871.

The wettest 12 months across 18 English catchments

And the wettest 18 month period for England on record.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GLXX9oxWwAAy5su?format=jpg&name=medium

[Ozyhibby]

https://x.com/DaveThroup/status/1780566686644445217



https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GLXX9oxWwAAy5su?format=jpg&name=medium

Funny thing is their water companies are so useless and have stolen so much money that they are only about 8 weeks away from a hose pipe ban.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Stairway 2 7]

Humza Yousaf Sept 23
"The UK government rolling back on their climate pledges is unforgivable.

It's time for climate action and ambition. Scotland will continue to show global leadership in the face of the climate crisis.

The UK Government is on the wrong side of history, I'd urge them to rethink"



https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-68841141?at_medium=social&at_campaign_type=owned&at_campaign=Social_Flow&at_link_type=web_link&at_link_origin=BBCScotlandNews&at_link_id=21C3EF28-FCE3-11EE-8472-D1F43B522972&at_ptr_name=twitter&at_bbc_team=editorial&at_format=link

The Scottish government is to ditch its flagship target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 75% by 2030.

The final goal of reaching "net-zero" by 2045 will remain, but BBC Scotland News understands the government's annual climate targets could also go.

Ministers have missed eight of the last 12 annual targets and have been told that reaching the 75% milestone by the end of the decade is unachievable.

A statement is expected at Holyrood on Thursday afternoon.

The Climate Change Committee (CCC) - which provides independent advice to ministers - warned back in 2022 that Scotland had lost its lead over the rest of the UK in tackling the issue

[Berwickhibby]

Humza Yousaf Sept 23
"The UK government rolling back on their climate pledges is unforgivable.

It's time for climate action and ambition. Scotland will continue to show global leadership in the face of the climate crisis.

The UK Government is on the wrong side of history, I'd urge them to rethink"



https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-68841141?at_medium=social&at_campaign_type=owned&at_campaign=Social_Flow&at_link_type=web_link&at_link_origin=BBCScotlandNews&at_link_id=21C3EF28-FCE3-11EE-8472-D1F43B522972&at_ptr_name=twitter&at_bbc_team=editorial&at_format=link

The Scottish government is to ditch its flagship target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 75% by 2030.

The final goal of reaching "net-zero" by 2045 will remain, but BBC Scotland News understands the government's annual climate targets could also go.

Ministers have missed eight of the last 12 annual targets and have been told that reaching the 75% milestone by the end of the decade is unachievable.

A statement is expected at Holyrood on Thursday afternoon.

The Climate Change Committee (CCC) - which provides independent advice to ministers - warned back in 2022 that Scotland had lost its lead over the rest of the UK in tackling the issue

Where is the outrage that the Scottish Government has failed out 8 of 12 of the targets set… Yousless was jetting around the globe boasting how Scotland was a world leader on reaching net zero. 🙄

[Moulin Yarns]

Where is the outrage that the Scottish Government has failed out 8 of 12 of the targets set… Yousless was jetting around the globe boasting how Scotland was a world leader on reaching net zero. 🙄

Ambitious targets are more difficult to achieve. On the other hand...


the UK’s Labour Party rolled back its pledge to make £28 billion per year of additional capital expenditure available to meet the country’s Net Zero target: extra spending is now likely to be around £5 billion should Labour form the next government.

[Berwickhibby]

Ambitious targets are more difficult to achieve. On the other hand...


the UK’s Labour Party rolled back its pledge to make £28 billion per year of additional capital expenditure available to meet the country’s Net Zero target: extra spending is now likely to be around £5 billion should Labour form the next government.

Deflect deflect …look over there …don’t look at the SNP failures

[Ozyhibby]

Deflect deflect …look over there …don’t look at the SNP failures

There is a lack of seriousness from both govts and Labour on this issue. And also from the public. Every restriction on the burning of fossil fuels is opposed and politically costly for whichever govt is doing it.
We can see it here with the LEZ, the introduction of cycle lanes, phasing out wood burning stoves in new build houses etc etc.
Everyone says they want to stop climate change. So long as it’s not inconvenient for them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Hibrandenburg]

There is a lack of seriousness from both govts and Labour on this issue. And also from the public. Every restriction on the burning of fossil fuels is opposed and politically costly for whichever govt is doing it.
We can see it here with the LEZ, the introduction of cycle lanes, phasing out wood burning stoves in new build houses etc etc.
Everyone says they want to stop climate change. So long as it’s not inconvenient for them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There's lots of denial going on. You just have to look at the outrage in Musselburgh over plans to build flood defences. Most of the arguments against seem to be that rising sea levels and climate change is just scaremongering.

[Stairway 2 7]

There is a lack of seriousness from both govts and Labour on this issue. And also from the public. Every restriction on the burning of fossil fuels is opposed and politically costly for whichever govt is doing it.
We can see it here with the LEZ, the introduction of cycle lanes, phasing out wood burning stoves in new build houses etc etc.
Everyone says they want to stop climate change. So long as it’s not inconvenient for them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Spot on. All of the above don't care enough certainly not over votes. Uxbridge byelection created more power than it should have. Fact is we can get net zero with our too biggest co2 contributers changing, car transport and house heating. There is uproar when any gov or council tries to cut the biggest polluter car use.

[Ozyhibby]

Spot on. All of the above don't care enough certainly not over votes. Uxbridge byelection created more power than it should have. Fact is we can get net zero with our too biggest co2 contributers changing, car transport and house heating. There is uproar when any gov or council tries to cut the biggest polluter car use.

Climate activists also need to take a hard look at themselves. Great at complaining about lack of action but when some action does happen they disappear and leave politicians twisting in the wind taking on the opposition to the changes. They should be out in force praising authorities like Edinburgh council for bringing in LEZ and building cycle paths. It’s much easier just to moan about what’s not happening though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[degenerated]

A 50cc petrol scooter will go about 100 miles on a single 5l tank of petrol and obviously you don’t need space to charge it.

Compared to an electric one which might do 40 miles on a full charge.

Sure they will eventually be a thing but the use case is still pretty weak I’d say.

I’ve commuted for years on a scooter. By far the most convenient, speedy and cost effective way of getting about town.

Cheap to buy (esp. second hand) and extremely cheap to run I’m amazed more people don’t do it.

Sensibly Edinburgh has excluded them from the LEZ rules as well.I take it any bikes are okay. I just checked and my vespa PX is allowed and it's a 2 stroke. Need to get my finger out and get it back on the road again.

[The Modfather]

I’m surprised electric Vespas are not becoming more popular?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I’ve got a Vespa, not an electric one though. I don’t use it it as much as I’d like, partly as I mainly WFH and old and boring these days so rarely go anywhere without the family. One of the big deterrents to feeling safe on a scooter is the state of the roads. If it’s not massive pot holes that are death traps it’s the parts of the road warped by the weight of busses. As much fun as scooters are the roads in Edinburgh aren’t fit for purpose.

[RyeSloan]

I take it any bikes are okay. I just checked and my vespa PX is allowed and it's a 2 stroke. Need to get my finger out and get it back on the road again.

Any motorbike / moped registered after 2006 are exempt [emoji736]

[Ozyhibby]

I’ve got a Vespa, not an electric one though. I don’t use it it as much as I’d like, partly as I mainly WFH and old and boring these days so rarely go anywhere without the family. One of the big deterrents to feeling safe on a scooter is the state of the roads. If it’s not massive pot holes that are death traps it’s the parts of the road warped by the weight of busses. As much fun as scooters are the roads in Edinburgh aren’t fit for purpose.

Not to mention the weight of modern cars. Modern SUV’s are nearly three tons. Everyone complains about the condition of the roads without making the connection that it’s us who are to blame. We keep buying bigger and bigger cars and expect the roads to stay the same with no extra wear and tear. We certainly don’t fund the council extra to deal with it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[RyeSloan]

I’ve got a Vespa, not an electric one though. I don’t use it it as much as I’d like, partly as I mainly WFH and old and boring these days so rarely go anywhere without the family. One of the big deterrents to feeling safe on a scooter is the state of the roads. If it’s not massive pot holes that are death traps it’s the parts of the road warped by the weight of busses. As much fun as scooters are the roads in Edinburgh aren’t fit for purpose.

Oddly enough the council has largely relaid my whole route into work in the last two years or so!

Taken ages but hey what’s a few temporary traffic lights tail backs when you can just jump the queue each time [emoji12]

[Stairway 2 7]

Not to mention the weight of modern cars. Modern SUV’s are nearly three tons. Everyone complains about the condition of the roads without making the connection that it’s us who are to blame. We keep buying bigger and bigger cars and expect the roads to stay the same with no extra wear and tear. We certainly don’t fund the council extra to deal with it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Go like Paris and tax cars on weight and size as well as emissions, as you say its the weight of the cars that are damaging the roads so charge for it

[Moulin Yarns]

Go like Paris and tax cars on weight and size as well as emissions, as you say its the weight of the cars that are damaging the roads so charge for it

That's in the pipeline from what I saw recently, the end of exemption from vehicle tax for electric vehicles.

[Ozyhibby]

Go like Paris and tax cars on weight and size as well as emissions, as you say its the weight of the cars that are damaging the roads so charge for it

I’d be 100% behind this.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[w pilton hibby]

I’ve got a Vespa, not an electric one though. I don’t use it it as much as I’d like, partly as I mainly WFH and old and boring these days so rarely go anywhere without the family. One of the big deterrents to feeling safe on a scooter is the state of the roads. If it’s not massive pot holes that are death traps it’s the parts of the road warped by the weight of busses. As much fun as scooters are the roads in Edinburgh aren’t fit for purpose.

Bear in mind that the average EV also weighs half as much again as a petrol/diesel vehicle. The more EVs on the road then there is more wear and tear on the roads.

[Ozyhibby]

Bear in mind that the average EV also weighs half as much again as a petrol/diesel vehicle. The more EVs on the road then there is more wear and tear on the roads.

Which is why we need to move away from cars in cities.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[RyeSloan]

Urmm while it was always a poorly thought out replacement that lacked imagination, foresight and proper integration with even the public transport that existed at the time this is surely something that can’t be allowed to happen!

Seems mental that the Council can be caught cold so close to the lease end date!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cg302gkw779o.amp

[Ozyhibby]

Urmm while it was always a poorly thought out replacement that lacked imagination, foresight and proper integration with even the public transport that existed at the time this is surely something that can’t be allowed to happen!

Seems mental that the Council can be caught cold so close to the lease end date!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cg302gkw779o.amp

If there is no other site available that the city can use then it should be allowed to compulsory purchase the site. It is strategically important to the people of the city.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[RyeSloan]

If there is no other site available that the city can use then it should be allowed to compulsory purchase the site. It is strategically important to the people of the city.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You would think so.

Considering all the public transport / active travel agendas at play it would seem a complete travesty for a capital city to not have a bloomin’ bus station!

[superfurryhibby]

Go like Paris and tax cars on weight and size as well as emissions, as you say its the weight of the cars that are damaging the roads so charge for it


I’d be 100% behind this.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Bear in mind that the average EV also weighs half as much again as a petrol/diesel vehicle. The more EVs on the road then there is more wear and tear on the roads.


Which is why we need to move away from cars in cities.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Classic shifting of goal posts :greengrin

[Stairway 2 7]

Classic shifting of goal posts :greengrin

Where is the shifting. Charge by size and weight regardless of engine type, whilst also trying to cut cars to a minimum

The elephant in the room though, bad roads are annoying the planet heating up kills. Stopping gas is miles away from the importance of pot holes

[grunt]

April 2024 was warmer globally than any previous April on record. This is the 11th consecutive month at record levels.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GNZ-12_WkAAQwGN?format=jpg&name=medium

https://x.com/ScottDuncanWX/status/1789757911486378164

[Stairway 2 7]

Liz Truss in the Torygraph today urging Sunak to end all net zero targets, **** bag. Did she not hurt us enough in her embarrassingly short reign

[Stairway 2 7]

Labour end the ban on onshore wind turbines, good news. Remarkable fact since Russias full blown invasion, Ukraine has managed to install 12 times more onshore wind turbine capacity than we currently have in the UK

[Kato]

Labour end the ban on onshore wind turbines, good news. Remarkable fact since Russias full blown invasion, Ukraine has managed to install 12 times more onshore wind turbine capacity than we currently have in the UKHow can that be? The last UK govt was most world beatingyist govt evah.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[RyeSloan]

Labour end the ban on onshore wind turbines, good news. Remarkable fact since Russias full blown invasion, Ukraine has managed to install 12 times more onshore wind turbine capacity than we currently have in the UK

Ukraine completed about 200MW of onshore wind last year. The first since the war started. It went into the war with about 1.7Gw of wind.

The U.K. has almost 30Gw of installed capacity with onshore accounting for about 14Gw.

The UK has also been much more focused on the substantially more effective offshore wind..so much so it has the leaves offshore wind capacity in the world. On top of that there is another 8Gw already in construction.

Back to onshore there is already 8Gw of planning consented applications. 6Gw in planning and waiting approval and 7Gw in pre planning.

On a more specific note The South Kyle onshore farm went operational in 2023 providing 230Mw

So the concept of Ukraine having 12x anything with regards to wind power v the U.K. doesn’t ring entirely true unless someone has picked a rather specific period of time and set of stats to fit their point while completely missing the bigger picture.

[Stairway 2 7]

Ukraine completed about 200MW of onshore wind last year. The first since the war started. It went into the war with about 1.7Gw of wind.

The U.K. has almost 30Gw of installed capacity with onshore accounting for about 14Gw.

The UK has also been much more focused on the substantially more effective offshore wind..so much so it has the leaves offshore wind capacity in the world. On top of that there is another 8Gw already in construction.

Back to onshore there is already 8Gw of planning consented applications. 6Gw in planning and waiting approval and 7Gw in pre planning.

On a more specific note The South Kyle onshore farm went operational in 2023 providing 230Mw

So the concept of Ukraine having 12x anything with regards to wind power v the U.K. doesn’t ring entirely true unless someone has picked a rather specific period of time and set of stats to fit their point while completely missing the bigger picture.

Sorry it's the 2 years since the war started and it's England not uk, its devolved and we have done much better than England. Yes offshore is more productive but onshore is better than literally burning fossil fuels like we're doing just now. Everything is far to slow in the uk. The same is said about solar, offshore and nuclear is cheaper yes but we need every weapon.

Also yes it's a specific period the last two years but they are dodging mines, drones, have 1 million men fighting and have regular power outages.

https://www.businessgreen.com/news/4332875/labour-government-lifts-facto-ban-onshore-wind-farms
Campaigners highlighted how as a result of the rules Ukraine has been able to install 12 times more onshore wind energy capacity than England since Russia's invasion, despite being at war.

[RyeSloan]

Sorry it's the 2 years since the war started and it's England not uk, its devolved and we have done much better than England. Yes offshore is more productive but onshore is better than literally burning fossil fuels like we're doing just now. Everything is far to slow in the uk. The same is said about solar, offshore and nuclear is cheaper yes but we need every weapon.

Also yes it's a specific period the last two years but they are dodging mines, drones, have 1 million men fighting and have regular power outages.

https://www.businessgreen.com/news/4332875/labour-government-lifts-facto-ban-onshore-wind-farms
Campaigners highlighted how as a result of the rules Ukraine has been able to install 12 times more onshore wind energy capacity than England since Russia's invasion, despite being at war.


Aye no doubt England has had an odd problem with onshore and taken in isolation I suppose the 12x thing might mean something.

But the U.K. has a national grid so taking England only, onshore only as some sort of comparator is a bit odd.

You could easily as say that the UK grid added over 2Gw of renewables in the last year alone which surpasses all of Ukraine’s total installed capacity.

It doesn’t after all matter, when trying not to burn fossil fuels, if the renewable is generated offshore in Dogger Bank or onshore on the north east coast of England instead.

But I get the point. England’s planning laws for onshore have stymied progress there and thankfully common sense has finally prevailed on that front.

[Ozyhibby]

Sorry it's the 2 years since the war started and it's England not uk, its devolved and we have done much better than England. Yes offshore is more productive but onshore is better than literally burning fossil fuels like we're doing just now. Everything is far to slow in the uk. The same is said about solar, offshore and nuclear is cheaper yes but we need every weapon.

Also yes it's a specific period the last two years but they are dodging mines, drones, have 1 million men fighting and have regular power outages.

https://www.businessgreen.com/news/4332875/labour-government-lifts-facto-ban-onshore-wind-farms
Campaigners highlighted how as a result of the rules Ukraine has been able to install 12 times more onshore wind energy capacity than England since Russia's invasion, despite being at war.

The great thing for Ukraine is that the windmills are harder for the Russians to take out.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Stairway 2 7]

The great thing for Ukraine is that the windmills are harder for the Russians to take out.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

A huge backfire of Putins war is getting the west to go full throttle towards energy independence and renewables. 34% of Russias federal budget comes from oil and gas, a world running on renewables must be scary for them

[Stairway 2 7]

Interesting thread and article in the FT
https://x.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1821866681704013859


It's about the greens in England but I can see similarities here. Will there be a split in the greens. The older green voter polls far more Nimby, anti onshore wind and solar, anti nuclear. The younger greens are completely pro decarbonisation even if that means using countryside to save the planet.

Also mentioned is something I was utterly baffled with last year. The greens in Germany chose to close their nuclear power stations and who would have thought it caused a rise in CO2 emissions in Germany, burning gas and coal took up the slack.

The shock of Chernoble caused a massive decline in nuclear projects. We burned fossil fuels instead.

"We estimate that the decline in Nuclear power Plants caused by Chernobyl led to the loss of approximately 141 million expected life years in the U.S., 33 in the U.K. and 318 million globally". https://nber.org/conferences/si-2024-political-economy

[lapsedhibee]

Interesting thread and article in the FT
https://x.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1821866681704013859


It's about the greens in England but I can see similarities here. Will there be a split in the greens. The older green voter polls far more Nimby, anti onshore wind and solar, anti nuclear. The younger greens are completely pro decarbonisation even if that means using countryside to save the planet.

Also mentioned is something I was utterly baffled with last year. The greens in Germany chose to close their nuclear power stations and who would have thought it caused a rise in CO2 emissions in Germany, burning gas and coal took up the slack.

The shock of Chernoble caused a massive decline in nuclear projects. We burned fossil fuels instead.

"We estimate that the decline in Nuclear power Plants caused by Chernobyl led to the loss of approximately 141 million expected life years in the U.S., 33 in the U.K. and 318 million globally". https://nber.org/conferences/si-2024-political-economy

Has the issue of what to do with nucular waste been properly addressed yet, or is it still 'dump it in the sea somewhere far away and hope for the best'?

[Keith_M]

... The greens in Germany chose to close their nuclear power stations and who would have thought it caused a rise in CO2 emissions in Germany, burning gas and coal took up the slack...


Not disagreeing with your general argument, but it was actually Angela Merkel's CDU that made the decision in 2011 to close the nuclear power stations, mainly as a reaction to the disaster in ***ushima.

Like you said, though, there has been a lot of discussion over whether the final closure should have been delayed until they could replace those with greener sources of power.


EDIT: Apparently, I can't write F..u..k..ushima

[Stairway 2 7]

Has the issue of what to do with nucular waste been properly addressed yet, or is it still 'dump it in the sea somewhere far away and hope for the best'?

It's safely sealed in countries all over the world. There are projects to try and use it to generate power but none are yet economical. I think the problem is there is a generation that think it get put in the sea or just in the ground as is.

Finland are leading the way with disposal and are happy to take others waste at a cost. They secure it deep underground in solid cases. They say it is safe from earthquake and wars for 100,000 years. Nuclear waste is spent in 1000 years.

I'm sure in a few hundred years we'd have the technology to take it out and deal with it although in 100,000 years it probably won't matter.

Whilst it's there it's saving lives from reducing CO2. Never mind what If's burning fossil fuels is killing us now, never mind destroying the planet that will kill more.

33 million UK live years gone because unlike France we didn't slow down Nuclear production. Also the massive electricity price spike we saw in the last years didn't happen in France due to their nuclear power self sufficiency

[Stairway 2 7]

Not disagreeing with your general argument, but it was actually Angela Merkel's CDU that made the decision in 2011 to close the nuclear power stations, mainly as a reaction to the disaster in ***ushima.

Like you said, though, there has been a lot of discussion over whether the final closure should have been delayed until they could replace those with greener sources of power.


EDIT: Apparently, I can't write F..u..k..ushima

I just read it from the FT article. But reading further it was the greens that closed the final stations, clever when your so reliant on gas and can't buy from Russia.
https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy-environment/news/german-greens-minister-robert-habeck-under-fire-over-2022-nuclear-shutdown/

I'd eventually like to not need nuclear and be purely renewable, I'm sure we won't need it in 100 years. In the meantime we are burning fossil fuels, it's crazy

[lapsedhibee]

Finland are leading the way with disposal and are happy to take others waste at a cost. They secure it deep underground in solid cases. They say it is safe from earthquake and wars for 100,000 years. Nuclear waste is spent in 1000 years.
Steel and copper cans. So long as it's stainless steel, I'm convinced that'll last 100,000 years.

[Stairway 2 7]

Steel and copper cans. So long as it's stainless steel, I'm convinced that'll last 100,000 years.

You sound like an expert the Finns should hire you. The other option is drilling for gas and lighting it on fire for energy

[lapsedhibee]

You sound like an expert the Finns should hire you. The other option is drilling for gas and lighting it on fire for energy

No, you're the expert. You're informing us that Finns are leading the way in waste disposal, but that only seems to mean that Finns have decided not to dump it in the sea but instead dump it far undergound. Credit to them for that decision to use their own territory, but I fully expect house prices around the area chosen to plummet in 50,000 years or so. Or possibly even earlier, when news about leaking cans leaks.

[Ozyhibby]

No, you're the expert. You're informing us that Finns are leading the way in waste disposal, but that only seems to mean that Finns have decided not to dump it in the sea but instead dump it far undergound. Credit to them for that decision to use their own territory, but I fully expect house prices around the area chosen to plummet in 50,000 years or so. Or possibly even earlier, when news about leaking cans leaks.

It’s only radioactive for about a thousand years so the cans leaking in 50,000 years shouldn’t be a problem?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[lapsedhibee]

It’s only radioactive for about a thousand years so the cans leaking in 50,000 years shouldn’t be a problem?



I revise my estimate of the fall in house prices to 2524.

[Stairway 2 7]

No, you're the expert. You're informing us that Finns are leading the way in waste disposal, but that only seems to mean that Finns have decided not to dump it in the sea but instead dump it far undergound. Credit to them for that decision to use their own territory, but I fully expect house prices around the area chosen to plummet in 50,000 years or so. Or possibly even earlier, when news about leaking cans leaks.

Using language like dumping in the sea is daft isn't it. Even if they over estimated the safety of the 100,000 years by 90% they will still be fine.

The problem is it isn't a nil sum game. So you say don't have nuclear because they might be mistaken when they say they can store it safely for a hundred millenia. You have to admit that instead of choosing nuclear you are choosing to burn fossil fuels. Burning fossil fuels isn't a maybe something could go wrong it causes deaths simple as. The BMJ estimated that burning fossil fuels kills 5 million people per year so I'm glad that countries like China are investing massively in nuclear power as if they can switch completely then 5 million less deaths per year is better than who wants to live next to a nuclear waste facility. The planet is dying also and we simply have to get to net zero. Once there hopefully we can transition to purely renewable, in the meantime people are dying

https://bmjgroup.com/air-pollution-from-fossil-fuel-use-accounts-for-over-5-million-extra-deaths-a-year/#:~:text=deaths%20a%20year-,Air%20pollution%20from%20fossil%20fuel%20use%20ac counts%20for,million%20extra%20deaths%20a%20year&text=Air%20pollution%20from%20using%20fossil,publi shed%20by%20The%20BMJ%20today.

[Ozyhibby]

Nuclear is the safest fuel source we have. I’m all for it but for the price. It’s too expensive for Scotland given our renewable options but for other countries then they should go for it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[lapsedhibee]

It’s only radioactive for about a thousand years so the cans leaking in 50,000 years shouldn’t be a problem?


Forbes quoting 24,400 years for the half-life of Plutonium 239, in waste from breeder reactors. God only knows how long its whole life is.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/christinero/2019/11/26/the-staggering-timescales-of-nuclear-waste-disposal/

[Stairway 2 7]

Nuclear is the safest fuel source we have. I’m all for it but for the price. It’s too expensive for Scotland given our renewable options but for other countries then they should go for it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's far more expensive than it should be due to our Victorian planning laws we take years to even start and dozens of applications, meetings, complaints ect ect. South Korea makes them like a conveyor belt and they get the electricity from them at a quarter of the price us auto this?

Also until battery storage catches up we need another power source when renewables aren't enough.

Last year 56% of the electricity we used was from renewable, 30% from nuclear, 14% from burning fossil fuels. We produced 97% of what we use from renewable but at certain times so loads got exported. Some on here would be surprised how much we already rely on nuclear but one more small reactor would make us completely green and fossil fuel free when it comes to electricity.

The problem is with cars going electric and hopefully heating we are going to need more electricity and at all times including night or winter.

[Ozyhibby]

It's far more expensive than it should be due to our Victorian planning laws we take years to even start and dozens of applications, meetings, complaints ect ect. South Korea makes them like a conveyor belt and they get the electricity from them at a quarter of the price us auto this?

Also until battery storage catches up we need another power source when renewables aren't enough.

Last year 56% of the electricity we used was from renewable, 30% from nuclear, 14% from burning fossil fuels. We produced 97% of what we use from renewable but at certain times so loads got exported. Some on here would be surprised how much we already rely on nuclear but one more small reactor would make us completely green and fossil fuel free when it comes to electricity.

The problem is with cars going electric and hopefully heating we are going to need more electricity and at all times including night or winter.

I’m def not against it, we just have to find a way of building them cheaper.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Kato]

It's far more expensive than it should be due to our Victorian planning laws we take years to even start and dozens of applications, meetings, complaints ect ect. South Korea makes them like a conveyor belt and they get the electricity from them at a quarter of the price us auto this?

Also until battery storage catches up we need another power source when renewables aren't enough.

Last year 56% of the electricity we used was from renewable, 30% from nuclear, 14% from burning fossil fuels. We produced 97% of what we use from renewable but at certain times so loads got exported. Some on here would be surprised how much we already rely on nuclear but one more small reactor would make us completely green and fossil fuel free when it comes to electricity.

The problem is with cars going electric and hopefully heating we are going to need more electricity and at all times including night or winter.Nuclear isn't fossil free even once the plant is up and running. Mining uranium and getting rid of the waste is a fossil fuel task.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[Stairway 2 7]

I’m def not against it, we just have to find a way of building them cheaper.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yeah I agree and Labour seem to be window dressing so far with the planning revolution. I read that the UK tax information has 16,000 pages so it's water tight. The planning application for the proposed Lower Thames Crossing runs to almost 360,000 pages. They had 20 meetings just to talk to objectors. A year and a half since they started pushing forward with it, £300 million in planning. Look at HS2 times times what France and Spain paid per mile as they said they wanted it and did it

Imagine the planning in the UK for new nuclear and they objections meetings ha. Other countries just get it done

https://worksinprogress.co/issue/building-back-faster/
1,961. That’s the number of documents contained within a single planning application for a wind farm off the northeast coast of England – capable of powering around 1.5 million homes. The environmental impact assessment and environmental scoping documents alone totalled 13,275 pages. To put that into context, that’s 144 pages longer than the complete works of Tolstoy combined with Proust’s seven volume opus In Search of Lost Time.

UK’s National Highways agency spent £267 million preparing a planning application to build a 23-kilometer road. The planning application, which featured 30,000-plus pages of environmental documentation, was the longest ever prepared.

[Stairway 2 7]

Nuclear isn't fossil free even once the plant is up and running. Mining uranium and getting rid of the waste is a fossil fuel task.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

Of course but it's an unbelievable net negative on co2. All they tasks are miniscule co2 positives compared to the megawatts of emission free energy.

As I say it's not a nil sum game the alternative is using co2 to extract gas from the seabed get it to a refinery, transport it to a gas power station and then burn it into the air. We can still create co2 and use fossil fuels and be net zero but we should be pushing to be net negative in the next 50 years

[Kato]

The other thing on nuclear power. When has the UK ever built a nuclear power plant which was non-concurrent with a nuclear bomb programme? Without looking, probably never.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[Stairway 2 7]

The other thing on nuclear power. When has the UK ever built a nuclear power plant which was non-concurrent with a nuclear bomb programme? Without looking, probably never.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

Hinckley c started being built in 2017 before that the last one to be built started in 1986

[Kato]

hinckley c taking 10-14 years to be built and commissioned? When does the green energy kick-in given all that fossil fuel being used during the build? Or does that get written off as negligible too?

Costing £46B at the moment. [emoji102] by 2030, if its finished, even more.

A wind power farm can be up and running in a year.

BTW am not convinced in any way that nuclear is green energy at all. Never have been and it seemed disingenuous when it began being labelled as such. So many lies were told about Torness's output when it was out of action, I just don't trust the people in charge.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[Moulin Yarns]

Torness is coming to the end of its life.

Waste facilities at Sellafield...

https://www.theguardian.com/business/article/2024/aug/08/sellafield-apologises-guilty-plea-security-failings-nuclear

[Kato]

Torness is coming to the end of its life.

Waste facilities at Sellafield...

https://www.theguardian.com/business/article/2024/aug/08/sellafield-apologises-guilty-plea-security-failings-nuclearIf the waste is "safely underground" why does it take 11,000 people to tend to it?

Seems an obsolete shambles looking at that article.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[Stairway 2 7]

hinckley c taking 10-14 years to be built and commissioned? When does the green energy kick-in given all that fossil fuel being used during the build? Or does that get written off as negligible too?

Costing £46B at the moment. [emoji102] by 2030, if its finished, even more.

A wind power farm can be up and running in a year.

BTW am not convinced in any way that nuclear is green energy at all. Never have been and it seemed disingenuous when it began being labelled as such. So many lies were told about Torness's output when it was out of action, I just don't trust the people in charge.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk
10 to 14 years is down to planning and NIMBYS. Hinckley took 10 to go from planning to construction, Finland took 4 years for Olkiluoto 3, France took 1 year for Flamanville.

Hinckley is costing 3 times Finlands Olkiluoto 3 and 5 times what south Korea builds its reactors for.

There wasn't much fossil fuels used in 14 years as most of the years it was planning, meetings, objections, meetings.

As I've said its the same with all projects in the uk hs2 3 times the price than Europe, tram projects almost double.

The green energy kicks off immediately a plant like Sizewell will save 3 gigawatt of fossil fuels being burnt per year! It's one or the other you need to choose. It's simply sometimes dark like just now and not always windy so until we progress storage we need another source. Right now its 30% is nuclear and 14% is fossil fuels.

[Stairway 2 7]

If the waste is "safely underground" why does it take 11,000 people to tend to it?

Seems an obsolete shambles looking at that article.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

11k aren't just looking after the waste. The site is massive it's got 2 power stations, a nuclear laboratory and college and waste decommissioning sights. About 99% of nuclear waste isn't the most harmful that needs stored underground, it can be processed.

The article shows its cyber security is poor although seems like everyones is nowadays reading about attacks including UK gov

[Kato]

There wasn't much fossil fuels used in 14 years as most of the years it was planning, meetings, objections, meetings.

How much is "wasn't much"? (Sheesh.)




The green energy kicks off immediately


....but it doesn't though, does it.





Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[Stairway 2 7]

How much is "wasn't much"? (Sheesh.)






....but it doesn't though, does it.





Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

Well none for 10 years as nothing happened as we live in the UK where planning is stuck in the 50s.

And of course it does its a green energy. No power is co2 free but nuclear is near the top. In its complete life cycle from planning to end of life nuclear omits half of hydro and solar and similar to wind. This is the median of multiple studies
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse_gas_emissions_of_energy_sources

Coal – PC 910
Gas – combined cycle 490
Biomass – Dedicated 230
Solar PV – Utility scale 48
Solar PV – rooftop 41
Geothermal 38
Concentrated solar power 27
Hydropower 24
Wind Offshore 12
Nuclear 12
Wind Onshore 11

[Kato]

Well none for 10 years as nothing happened as we live in the UK where planning is stuck in the 50s.

And of course it does its a green energy. No power is co2 free but nuclear is near the top. In its complete life cycle from planning to end of life nuclear omits half of hydro and solar and similar to wind. This is the median of multiple studies
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse_gas_emissions_of_energy_sources

Coal – PC910
Gas – combined cycle490
Biomass – Dedicated230
Solar PV – Utility scale48
Solar PV – rooftop41
Geothermal38
Concentrated solar power27
Hydropower24
Wind Offshore12
Nuclear12
Wind Onshore11

That's stats for when it's commissioned and I doubt it's taking into account the uranium mining or the build or the disposal or the decommissioning or the massive security required while they are running or the lies told about their output once they are commissioned.

Also they never run at full capacity and those in charge

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[Stairway 2 7]

That's stats for when it's commissioned and I doubt it's taking into account the uranium mining or the build or the disposal or the decommissioning or the massive security required while they are running or the lies told about their output once they are commissioned.

Also they never run at full capacity and those in charge

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

It's getting a bit conspiracy theory. I read that a lot of the anti nuclear message was pushed by Russia and the oil and gas companies. In Europe its an either or between nuclear and burning fossil fuels. You obviously won't believe the figures even though one of the studies is from The International Panel on Climate Change, who also say nuclear should be used to bridge the gap before we're fully renewable.

Renewables are the way forward and when battery capacity moves forward Scotland will be at the front of renewable power and a net exporter. In the meantime 44% of our power has to come from somewhere else what % do you want it to be nuclear and what burning gas. It's 30% to 14% just now. Should we do as Germany do close the nuclear early and go 44% gas or replace both with a new nuclear power station. Our stations were made before I was born I'd prefer a new higher technology small reactor personally and stop burning fuel for our electricity.

People are worried about what it's with nuclear but in the meantime 5 million die every year due to fossil fuels, makes the world's current wars look a small danger to life in comparison

[Kato]

Ok I looked around yesterday for a story that was in Evening News and Scotsman yesterday but to no avail.

I don't doubt the figures for the output you have listed. When I said they lied about their output it was regarding literature at the Torness visitor centre which overestimated their output, conflating potential with actual, which came at a time Torness wasn't generating any. In the literature they also claimed nuclear was 100% green, which it isn't. No conspiracy theory but I failed to find the story, so...

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[Bishop Hibee]

I did the tour of Torness about 10 years ago. Quite an eye opener. Armed police with machine guns patrol 24/7 365 days a year. A control room that looked like something out of a Roger Moore era Bond film with modern computer monitors etc bolted onto it.

The info from the tour guide would have done North Korean propaganda proud and if you knew nothing about nuclear power and the cost of building new ones, short life of the power stations, huge costs involved in decommissioning etc you’d think there should be one in every corner of Scotland.

Solar, wave and wind power far superior. Pump the £20bn+ that a replacement for Torness would cost into these, grants for heat pumps, insulation etc.

[Stairway 2 7]

I did the tour of Torness about 10 years ago. Quite an eye opener. Armed police with machine guns patrol 24/7 365 days a year. A control room that looked like something out of a Roger Moore era Bond film with modern computer monitors etc bolted onto it.

The info from the tour guide would have done North Korean propaganda proud and if you knew nothing about nuclear power and the cost of building new ones, short life of the power stations, huge costs involved in decommissioning etc you’d think there should be one in every corner of Scotland.

Solar, wave and wind power far superior. Pump the £20bn+ that a replacement for Torness would cost into these, grants for heat pumps, insulation etc.

Just transition estimated it will cost £130 billion to put heat pumps in every home. I'm not sure how we get there but we will certainly need grants. That is a separate issue from generation though. During the day when the sun is shining and when it's windy we generate more than enough electricity from renewables. At night and when there is no wind we use nuclear and gas. Hence although we produce the equivalent of 100% of our need in renewables, we sell a lot. In reality 44% of our use comes from nuclear and gas burning and more solar or wind won't change that too much. I believe when technology moves on battery power will sort that. In the meantime we need another source.

We are already 30% nuclear. It's the 14% gas we could do without. I actually believe there is some in Scotland that would close Torness now and stop that 30% from nuclear, the German way. A paper in Germany estimated them keeping their nuclear running would have meant a reduction in co2 of 73% in 2022 and a 50% reduction in costs of energy
https://x.com/AdamBlazowski/status/1800499047750590772

Every single person would choose replacing nuclear with other green energy. The fact is it'll be replaced by fossil fuel burning mostly. I don't know what the greens in Germany were thinking.

Thankfully this is just chat on a football forum and the rest of the world has agreed at copd to push massively to nuclear. The world's capacity will triple in 25 years

[Moulin Yarns]

https://electricityproduction.uk/in/scotland/

That's a live generation source.

Today 9.2% is nuclear and 83.1% is wind. 2.9% is gas.

[Stairway 2 7]

https://electricityproduction.uk/in/scotland/

That's a live generation source.

Today 9.2% is nuclear and 83.1% is wind. 2.9% is gas.

Yeah I thought it would be closer during the day and windy try on a still day at 4am. I thought it would be 100% just now as during the day in summer we usually are. The fact is over the whole of the year we are still reliant on gas and nuclear. The 14% gas is a disgrace. I blame Nick Clegg he pushed against nuclear when he was in coalition as it would take over a decade to come online. The selfishness of politician's wanting the fruits in their time in office. We could be in a place where we weren't burning gas and polluting the air. There is British deaths on UK politicians hand for not going for nuclear and wind to a much higher degree over the last 30 years

Gas is up to 11.6 in your link as of now, polluting Scottish air when it didn't need to happen

[Bishop Hibee]

Rather than typing it out or copying and pasting, here are the reasons why I’m 100% against nuclear power:

https://www.oneearth.org/the-7-reasons-why-nuclear-energy-is-not-the-answer-to-solve-climate-change/

[Stairway 2 7]

Rather than typing it out or copying and pasting, here are the reasons why I’m 100% against nuclear power:

https://www.oneearth.org/the-7-reasons-why-nuclear-energy-is-not-the-answer-to-solve-climate-change/

Starts of ludicrous. He says waiting 14 years for nuclear to be built would cost 98 million lives as 7 million people a year die from air pollution just now.

Almost all these deaths are from fossil fuels. So is he saying we just click our fingers and stop using fossil fuels right now and there will be no deaths. And what's it to do with nuclear. Utterly bizarre. Most of the co2 produced is from motor vehicles and that isn't going to change soon so I'm afraid most of those deaths are baked in. Just a totally bizarre paragraph

He'd have voted for the German nuclear reactors to be closed and would sit with his mouth open when co2 rocketed and energy prices rose due to it. They just don't get it, it isn't nuclear vs wind. We must build every bit of wind and solar we can. The only conversation just now is what do you chose nuclear or burning fossil fuels for the rest. If you say no nuclear then no problem but your choosing fossil fuels and the deaths and co2 that comes with it. If it gets to the point where the choice is nuclear vs renewable I and every sensible person will chose renewable.

SSE Peterhead gas station is the biggest polluter by far in Scotland 1.6 million co2 tons per year, 3 times the amount of Mossmoran or Ineos Grangemouth. It will be great when we don't need gas but it won't be in the next few decades. In fact Scottish Government are going to build another gas power station next to Peterhead.
https://news.stv.tv/north/climate-activists-protest-against-plans-to-build-second-gas-burning-power-station-in-peterhead

[Kato]

I'm just against it as a pure gut feeling that it's deeply bad juju that we shouldn't be arseing around with. When Torness went up I just saw an abomination.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[Stairway 2 7]

Council in Kent declared a green emergency in 2019. They now refuse planning to a solar farm that would power 11k homes and offset 8000 t of co2. Greens and Lib dems are against as usual.
https://x.com/Kent_Online/status/1822890850335989854

Adrian Ramsay Green MP went viral last month for opposing a new pylon project that would link a new 50gigawatt offshore wind farm to the gris

Not in my back yard

[Moulin Yarns]

Council in Kent declared a green emergency in 2019. They now refuse planning to a solar farm that would power 11k homes and offset 8000 t of co2. Greens and Lib dems are against as usual.
https://x.com/Kent_Online/status/1822890850335989854

Adrian Ramsay Green MP went viral last month for opposing a new pylon project that would link a new 50gigawatt offshore wind farm to the gris

Not in my back yard

The msp Stephen kerr campaigned to be my mp in Angus and perthshire Glens against pylons as well.

[Stairway 2 7]

The msp Stephen kerr campaigned to be my mp in Angus and perthshire Glens against pylons as well.

He is odious. Pretty much is constantly stirring up hatred. He never has any positive opinions on anything

[Jones28]

Council in Kent declared a green emergency in 2019. They now refuse planning to a solar farm that would power 11k homes and offset 8000 t of co2. Greens and Lib dems are against as usual.
https://x.com/Kent_Online/status/1822890850335989854

Adrian Ramsay Green MP went viral last month for opposing a new pylon project that would link a new 50gigawatt offshore wind farm to the gris

Not in my back yard

Theres a point that it's on high-grade farmland. Less farmland = more food imports which is bad for the environment as well.

There's brownfield sites all over the country that could be used instead.

[Stairway 2 7]

Theres a point that it's on high-grade farmland. Less farmland = more food imports which is bad for the environment as well.

There's brownfield sites all over the country that could be used instead.

Farmland is the third biggest carbon emmiter in the UK, we need to go after farming but Germany and Holland show how hard that is. 63% of the uk or 24 million acres is used for farming. WWF say we waste 9 million tons of food in the UK or 8% of all farmed food, we'd be fine without this plot.

There is a climate emergency not a food emergency in the UK.

[superfurryhibby]

Theres a point that it's on high-grade farmland. Less farmland = more food imports which is bad for the environment as well.

There's brownfield sites all over the country that could be used instead.

You're right. Reliance on imported food is short termism and will be seen as folly by future generations.

[Jones28]

Farmland is the third biggest carbon emmiter in the UK, we need to go after farming but Germany and Holland show how hard that is. 63% of the uk or 24 million acres is used for farming. WWF say we waste 9 million tons of food in the UK or 8% of all farmed food, we'd be fine without this plot.

There is a climate emergency not a food emergency in the UK.

Yes, we would be. But then it happens again and again and again and before you know it there's hundreds of thousands of acres of farmland dedicated to solar panels. Not to mention new housing developments that are literally everywhere. Farmland is being eroded constantly.

Farmland and agriculture is being eroded and legislated against growing food, but no one ever mentions the amount of carbon storage in farmland.

"Going after farming" - how exactly? What way would you suggest going after people that rear livestock and grow food?

This video explains things better than I could, it was made in relation to the farming documentary on BBC a couple of years ago.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3X-_Bqs_0k

It won't take a huge amount to create a food emergency, we are already net importers of food. Take away more food production and we are then importing MORE food. Where does it go from there?

[Stairway 2 7]

Yes, we would be. But then it happens again and again and again and before you know it there's hundreds of thousands of acres of farmland dedicated to solar panels. Not to mention new housing developments that are literally everywhere. Farmland is being eroded constantly.

Farmland and agriculture is being eroded and legislated against growing food, but no one ever mentions the amount of carbon storage in farmland.

"Going after farming" - how exactly? What way would you suggest going after people that rear livestock and grow food?

This video explains things better than I could, it was made in relation to the farming documentary on BBC a couple of years ago.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3X-_Bqs_0k

It won't take a huge amount to create a food emergency, we are already net importers of food. Take away more food production and we are then importing MORE food. Where does it go from there?

We import food mostly through choice, both in what we eat like rice or tomatoes and price like said cheap tomatoes from Holland. We should eat more locally and eat less meat.

We like all nations should be cutting CO2 from farming, the Dutch, Germans and Belgians had riots when they wanted to cut the Co2 farms produced by example using fertilisers. 140,000 km2 is farmed in the uk 230km2 is used for solar, it is ridiculous to say its causing a great impact on farming. There is 5 times more land used as Golf courses than used for solar in the UK and 2 times more land used as airports

Climate change is the biggest danger facing the world but no one actually really wants to do anything about it

[Jones28]

We import food mostly through choice, both in what we eat like rice or tomatoes and price like said cheap tomatoes from Holland. We should eat more locally and eat less meat.

We like all nations should be cutting CO2 from farming, the Dutch, Germans and Belgians had riots when they wanted to cut the Co2 farms produced by example using fertilisers. 140,000 km2 is farmed in the uk 230km2 is used for solar, it is ridiculous to say its causing a great impact on farming. There is 5 times more land used as Golf courses than used for solar in the UK and 2 times more land used as airports

Climate change is the biggest danger facing the world but no one actually really wants to do anything about it

I want to stop climate change, I've put solar panels on my roof and we are growing some of our own food in our garden.

Why is putting solar panels on brownfield sites such an awful idea instead of using farmland?

I didn't say it is causing an impact yet, but as the climate changes and the demand for energy doesn't change more farmland will be put up for solar panel usage and more food gets imported.

You've not said how farming needs to be "gone after", I'm curious as to how you want this to happen.

[Stairway 2 7]

I want to stop climate change, I've put solar panels on my roof and we are growing some of our own food in our garden.

Why is putting solar panels on brownfield sites such an awful idea instead of using farmland?

I didn't say it is causing an impact yet, but as the climate changes and the demand for energy doesn't change more farmland will be put up for solar panel usage and more food gets imported.

You've not said how farming needs to be "gone after", I'm curious as to how you want this to happen.

Same way as Germany and Holland were by cutting nitrogen usage, unfortunately over there right wing nutters latched onto it and stirred riots, they are good at that. Agriculture is actually our second biggest biggest producer of co2 and our biggest in nitrous oxide and methane. Only transport beats it, we can cut the co2 there by the phasing out of petrol cars. We need to cut emissions from farming if we can.

70% of our land is farmland and less than 0.1% is solar. Seeing as 9% of farmed food is wasted solar won't see us harm our food security. 67% of adults are overweight or obese in Scotland, we could do with cutting down anyway

[Jones28]

Same way as Germany and Holland were by cutting nitrogen usage, unfortunately over there right wing nutters latched onto it and stirred riots, they are good at that. Agriculture is actually our second biggest biggest producer of co2 and our biggest in nitrous oxide and methane. Only transport beats it, we can cut the co2 there by the phasing out of petrol cars. We need to cut emissions from farming if we can.

70% of our land is farmland and less than 0.1% is solar. Seeing as 9% of farmed food is wasted solar won't see us harm our food security. 67% of adults are overweight or obese in Scotland, we could do with cutting down anyway

Cutting emissions from farming means less farming, thats pretty much the long and short of it. You need big machines that run on diesel to combine crops and harvest grass. The technology isn't there yet to replace them with renewable sources.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6604460f91a320001a82b0fd/uk-greenhouse-gas-emissions-provisional-figures-statistical-release-2023.pdf

Wondering where your figures are coming from, I've only found reports to have agriculture at around the 4th or 5th biggest emitter.

Theres an interesting video from New Zealand here with regards to Methane, and how it doesn't really work in the context of climate change.

There's some bias, of course, but it paints a picture. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOJdz_LgDBE

[Moulin Yarns]

Same way as Germany and Holland were by cutting nitrogen usage, unfortunately over there right wing nutters latched onto it and stirred riots, they are good at that. Agriculture is actually our second biggest biggest producer of co2 and our biggest in nitrous oxide and methane. Only transport beats it, we can cut the co2 there by the phasing out of petrol cars. We need to cut emissions from farming if we can.

70% of our land is farmland and less than 0.1% is solar. Seeing as 9% of farmed food is wasted solar won't see us harm our food security. 67% of adults are overweight or obese in Scotland, we could do with cutting down anyway

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-41901294

[Stairway 2 7]

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-41901294

Was reading England's numbers, Scotland has an unreal amount of natural forest, tremendous place to live

[Stairway 2 7]

Cutting emissions from farming means less farming, thats pretty much the long and short of it. You need big machines that run on diesel to combine crops and harvest grass. The technology isn't there yet to replace them with renewable sources.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6604460f91a320001a82b0fd/uk-greenhouse-gas-emissions-provisional-figures-statistical-release-2023.pdf

Wondering where your figures are coming from, I've only found reports to have agriculture at around the 4th or 5th biggest emitter.

Theres an interesting video from New Zealand here with regards to Methane, and how it doesn't really work in the context of climate change.

There's some bias, of course, but it paints a picture. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOJdz_LgDBE

Scottish Government figures 1990-2021 agricultural is at second biggest emmiter. When 9% of farmed food is wasted we really should have more campaigns on it.
https://www.gov.scot/publications/scottish-greenhouse-gas-statistics-2021/pages/3/

Also as I said roughly 140,000 square kilometres are farmed in the uk. Solar takes up 230 squared kilometres, 5 times less than golf courses. We could quadruple the solar space and it would barely move the dial on our farming

We need multiple different ideas to get net zero and we're actually not far away

[Jones28]

Scottish Government figures 1990-2021 agricultural is at second biggest emmiter. When 9% of farmed food is wasted we really should have more campaigns on it.
https://www.gov.scot/publications/scottish-greenhouse-gas-statistics-2021/pages/3/

Also as I said roughly 140,000 square kilometres are farmed in the uk. Solar takes up 230 squared kilometres, 5 times less than golf courses. We could quadruple the solar space and it would barely move the dial on our farming

We need multiple different ideas to get net zero and we're actually not far away

I don’t disagree with your good wastage point but you can’t pin that on farming and say it’s agricultures fault.

I do disagree with solar panels using farmland when there are thousands of other sites they could go on.

[grunt]

The msp Stephen kerr campaigned to be my mp in Angus and perthshire Glens against pylons as well.


He is odious. Pretty much is constantly stirring up hatred. He never has any positive opinions on anything
The sort of politician who should have no place in Scotland.

[RyeSloan]

Cutting emissions from farming means less farming, thats pretty much the long and short of it. You need big machines that run on diesel to combine crops and harvest grass. The technology isn't there yet to replace them with renewable sources.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6604460f91a320001a82b0fd/uk-greenhouse-gas-emissions-provisional-figures-statistical-release-2023.pdf

Wondering where your figures are coming from, I've only found reports to have agriculture at around the 4th or 5th biggest emitter.

Theres an interesting video from New Zealand here with regards to Methane, and how it doesn't really work in the context of climate change.

There's some bias, of course, but it paints a picture. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOJdz_LgDBE

Not the long and short of it at all.

You can cut emissions by reducing them in the inputs and by more efficient methods.

One such example of cutting emissions from inputs is in fertiliser production. A good example of how that may done is what these guys are up to: https://www.atomeplc.com

[Jones28]

Not the long and short of it at all.

You can cut emissions by reducing them in the inputs and by more efficient methods.

One such example of cutting emissions from inputs is in fertiliser production. A good example of how that may done is what these guys are up to: https://www.atomeplc.com

That great, but it's very much down the line technology.

Agriculture is doing lots at the moment with regenerative farming at the forefront, but the bottom line is that food needs to be produced.

[superfurryhibby]

That great, but it's very much down the line technology.

Agriculture is doing lots at the moment with regenerative farming at the forefront, but the bottom line is that food needs to be produced.

The additional bottom line is that over reliance on imported food is not a green way to manage our consumption. It's particularly stupid when it's coming from thousands of miles away on massive cargo ships.

With the probability of increased pressure on water resources and growing food, it's folly to turn over good agricultural land for development.

The future will be more about self sufficiency and local solutions. We are blessed with adequate water and will find ways to grow what we need. The current focus on imported food is going to end in the not so distant future. I'm just back from Spain, the impact of water shortages is a real concern in rural food producing areas, it's driving costs up for everyone and creating even more hardship in an economy much less buoyant than our own.

[Moulin Yarns]

https://www.facebook.com/share/z2os8nD3nNSV6Yed/

The region that generates 100% renewable energy 99% of the time pays the most!!! And why is energy price dictated by gas prices even though gas is about 10% of the UK generation???

[Ozyhibby]

https://www.facebook.com/share/z2os8nD3nNSV6Yed/

The region that generates 100% renewable energy 99% of the time pays the most!!! And why is energy price dictated by gas prices even though gas is about 10% of the UK generation???

It’s our punishment for allowing all those windmills while people in England don’t have to put up with them. Mugs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[nonshinyfinish]

And why is energy price dictated by gas prices even though gas is about 10% of the UK generation???
I'm sure this has been discussed before on this thread or the energy prices one, but it's because the energy market works on marginal pricing – the price reflects the cost of the most expensive unit of energy needed to meet demand at any given time, and that is usually gas.

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/why-is-cheap-renewable-electricity-so-expensive/

It doesn't have to be this way – various renewable energy suppliers have campaigned for a while to change it, although I don't know exactly what the proposed alternatives look like. The end of the article linked above mentions an ongoing government consultation about separating the renewable energy market, but I won't hold my breath.

[Stairway 2 7]

https://www.facebook.com/share/z2os8nD3nNSV6Yed/

The region that generates 100% renewable energy 99% of the time pays the most!!! And why is energy price dictated by gas prices even though gas is about 10% of the UK generation???

We really don't generate 99% of our energy usage 99% of the time unfortunately.

Regardless this must be national put old pictures up day, can usually trust Facebook posts too. That's old data. From the very website quoted in the pic you can check it live. Southern Scotland is cheaper than loads of areas, Northern cheaper than some like north Wales and southern England. Thankfully it's now a lot cheaper than that pic per kw

https://powercompare.co.uk/energy/electricity/

[Moulin Yarns]

We really don't generate 99% of our energy usage 99% of the time unfortunately.

Regardless this must be national put old pictures up day, can usually trust Facebook posts too. That's old data. From the very website quoted in the pic you can check it live. Southern Scotland is cheaper than loads of areas, Northern cheaper than some like north Wales and southern England. Thankfully it's now a lot cheaper than that pic per kw

https://powercompare.co.uk/energy/electricity/

The region that generates 100% renewable energy is the north of Scotland. https://electricityproduction.uk/in/north-scotland/

If we get rid of Torness then the proportion generated by renewable in south Scotland would be higher

https://electricityproduction.uk/in/south-scotland/

Even looking at Scotland as a whole renewable is 90%

https://electricityproduction.uk/in/scotland/

Thank goodness all the energy I use is from renewable sources.

[Stairway 2 7]

The region that generates 100% renewable energy is the north of Scotland. https://electricityproduction.uk/in/north-scotland/

If we get rid of Torness then the proportion generated by renewable in south Scotland would be higher

https://electricityproduction.uk/in/south-scotland/

Even looking at Scotland as a whole renewable is 90%

https://electricityproduction.uk/in/scotland/

Thank goodness all the energy I use is from renewable sources.

Yeah we've been over this on here a few dozen times but to be fair a few SNP ministers have said the same before getting pulled up for misleading parliament.

Scotland produces the equivalent of 100% of the electricity we use from renewables. Unfortunately we also have to use gas and nuclear as sometimes it isn't blowing a gale like now or there is no sun. We sell quite a lot of our renewables when we have to much and other times we have to rely heavily on gas. You said 100% renewable 99% of the time.

Here's the most linked article, since this article was written it has gone up to 63.1% of all electricity generated in Scotland from renewable sources, 83.6% was classed as low carbon and 14.5% was from fossil fuels. If Torness goes that 20% of nuclear will generally go to gas as its a back up source, see Germany and their co2 rises

https://fullfact.org/environment/scotland-renewable-energy/
What was claimed
Just short of 100% of all the electricity Scotland uses is from renewable sources.

Our verdict
Scotland produces renewable electricity equivalent to its annual consumption, but some of this is exported, meaning it uses significant amounts of non-renewable electricity as well. In 2020, 56% of the electricity consumed in Scotland came from renewable sources.

[Pretty Boy]

Something of a historic milestone today as the UKs last coal fired power station ceases operation:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5y35qz73n8o

[Stairway 2 7]

Something of a historic milestone today as the UKs last coal fired power station ceases operation:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5y35qz73n8o
Uk ditching coal was fantastic and something the government's should be applauded for. It's pretty much the sole reason we dropped our level of CO2 faster than other g10 nations. We're on top of a mountain of coal and it's good that it's staying there rather than being burned. Coal was 45% of our energy 25 years ago!

We're now producing the lowest amount of co2 since 1879. Still got a long way to go but confident we'll get net zero in the next few decades. Next should be aiming for net negative, since we helped knacker the planet for hundreds of years

[Ozyhibby]

Uk ditching coal was fantastic and something the government's should be applauded for. It's pretty much the sole reason we dropped our level of CO2 faster than other g10 nations. We're on top of a mountain of coal and it's good that it's staying there rather than being burned. Coal was 45% of our energy 25 years ago!

We're now producing the lowest amount of co2 since 1879. Still got a long way to go but confident we'll get net zero in the next few decades. Next should be aiming for net negative, since we helped knacker the planet for hundreds of years

We have also de-industrialised as well. A lot of our emissions happen abroad on our behalf.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Andy Bee]

We have also de-industrialised as well. A lot of our emissions happen abroad on our behalf.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

We're still at it. https://x.com/ITVWales/status/1840369036271469043

Mixed emotions with this one.

[Stairway 2 7]

We have also de-industrialised as well. A lot of our emissions happen abroad on our behalf.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So have the other nations though and when you look at the graph it our outsourcing doesn't match our deindustrialisation. We do outsource but we actually actually manufacture 2% of the world's goods whilst being 0.85% of the world's population

The biggest jump has been in the last 18 years when our deindustrialisation has been flat,it was already gone to the service sector post millennium. By far the biggest factor is the switching from coal being our biggest source of power to renewables. Hopefully there is jobs created in the area of the pit that is closing