Climate change and the impending apocalypse

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RyeSloan

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jones28

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Allant1981

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

---

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

It shouldn't be like this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jones28

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

It shouldn't be like this.

---

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RyeSloan

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

https://www.statista.com/statistics/...ed-kingdom-uk/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens

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

https://www.statista.com/statistics/...ed-kingdom-uk/

---

Interesting, quite a chunk then.

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

Ach I give up [emoji1787]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by danhibees1875

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by s.a.m

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

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

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

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

---

I'm comfortable with "rogue antics".

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jones28

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Smartie

I'm comfortable with "rogue antics".

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

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

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

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

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lapsedhibee

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

---

.... or cycle :greengrin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

.... or cycle :greengrin

---

Just Stop Oiling the chain.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jones28

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

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

---

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


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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7

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

---

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Allant1981

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ballengeich

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

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

---

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

https://twitter.com/stvnews/status/1...dxJXScFNwz8V4A

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


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Technical question:

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

Attachment 27056

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

https://twitter.com/stvnews/status/1...dxJXScFNwz8V4A

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


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7

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


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

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

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

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

---

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


:aok:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

https://twitter.com/stvnews/status/1...dxJXScFNwz8V4A

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


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

What about this one?

https://www.euronews.com/video/2023/...imate-protests


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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lapsedhibee

Technical question:

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

Attachment 27056

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg

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

---

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

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F2DCODPa...jpg&name=large

Worth repeating ...

Quote:

---

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

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grunt

Worth repeating ...

---

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


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

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


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

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


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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

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


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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neil7908

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

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

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


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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pagan Hibernia

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

---

Posh people are well spoken [emoji106]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by He's here!

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

---

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


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

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


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

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


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

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


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

Disappointing.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by danhibees1875

Disappointing.

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pretty Boy

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

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

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

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

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

---

I expect all parties will be split on this issue.

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

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


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

https://twitter.com/telegraph/status...dxJXScFNwz8V4A

Net zero targets to go?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pretty Boy

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lapsedhibee

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

---

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


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If I'm reading all this right.

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Just Alf

If I'm reading all this right.

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

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

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

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

---

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


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Just Alf

If I'm reading all this right.

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

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

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

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

---

C'mon, man. That would bite into their profits, which is a heretical concept in this country.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Just Alf

If I'm reading all this right.

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

Pretty interesting thread from Ed Conway.

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

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

https://twitter.com/EdConwaySky/stat...50470731608064

Lying Tory liar Rishi Sunak lies about Oil & Gas.

https://twitter.com/implausibleblog/...367908354?s=20

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grunt

Lying Tory liar Rishi Sunak lies about Oil & Gas.

https://twitter.com/implausibleblog/...367908354?s=20

---

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


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

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


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

Union Dividend Shirley...! :greengrin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7

North Sea basin is drying up

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HarpOnHibee

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7

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

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7

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

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

---

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


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HarpOnHibee

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

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

---

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

Your second paragraph is just wrong. The fact is the north Sea oil is running out, that's good for the climate. The tories new licences won't stop the decline in output coming up.Attachment 27083Attachment 27084

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

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


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

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

https://indylibrary.scot/scotwind-pr...s-future-again

https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcas...=1000622942006

Stephen Flynn on yesterday’s announcement.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/po...cences-353690/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

https://twitter.com/edwinhayward/sta...dxJXScFNwz8V4A

Here is how you know Labour are in on this.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

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

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

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

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

I'm certain we won't though

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7

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

I'm certain we won't though

---

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


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

https://twitter.com/channel4news/sta...dxJXScFNwz8V4A
Channel 4 calling out the Tories in a way the BBC can’t these days.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

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


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7

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

---

Our figures look good because we stopped making things.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

Our figures look good because we stopped making things.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7

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

---

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

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

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

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

https://twitter.com/bbcnewsnight/sta...dxJXScFNwz8V4A

Embarrassing from Labour.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

Our figures look good because we stopped making things.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

Beat me to it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kato

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

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

---

That's a share of GDP.

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

The majority of our c02 drop has been from closing our coal power stationsAttachment 27087Attachment 27088

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7

That's a share of GDP.

---

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

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kato

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

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

---

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

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

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

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

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

Theresa May, 12 June 2019

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

BBC News, 12 June 2019

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

Philip Hammond, 20 June 2019

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

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

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

Honesty in public debate matters

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


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

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

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



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

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

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

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

Attachment 27089

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

https://archive.ph/X7ZAK

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotla...-fife-66376143

Scottish Parliament targeted by climate protestors.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by He's here!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotla...-fife-66376143

Scottish Parliament targeted by climate protestors.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7

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

---

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


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rumble de Thump

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by McD

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

---

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


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

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


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

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

https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp...ea-risks-jobs/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7

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

https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp...ea-risks-jobs/

---

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

https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcas...=1000622942006

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

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

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

https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcas...=1000622942006

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

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7

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

---

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


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

https://twitter.com/extremetemps/sta...dxJXScFNwz8V4A

Just to cheer everyone up.[emoji51]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

https://twitter.com/saulstaniforth/s...dxJXScFNwz8V4A

Labour commit to another Tory policy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

https://twitter.com/saulstaniforth/s...dxJXScFNwz8V4A

Labour commit to another Tory policy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

https://twitter.com/saulstaniforth/s...dxJXScFNwz8V4A

Labour commit to another Tory policy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HarpOnHibee

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

---

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