Climate Change: Let's Have a Fruitful Discussion
- savvydatingposted 2 years ago
0
Is climate change a threat to our existence? If so, how much time do we have left as a civilization? What is your opinion about Biden's policies on climate change? How much does the average person know about climate change policies and basic economics? Do you believe Al Gore? What are your thoughts regarding the IPCC and WHO? What do you think about solar panels and wind energy?No, except possibly that a nuclear war could result. But the climate change will not end life, or humanity, on the planet.
Biden's policies are foolish in the extreme as he doesn't care what damage they do. Better to stay right where we are, warming the planet, than to subside into the muck he is creating.
Al Gore, as well as IPCC and WHO, are all liars. Their "predictions", based on "science" never seem to come true.
Solar panels and wind energy are a great addition to our energy needs. They are NOT the answer to our needs, though - at this time that remains at nuclear and fossil fuels. What we desperately need is fusion.For those who do not know, Fusion power mimics the sun, and can provide all the energy humanity needs. This is an area that requires R&D. We’re not there yet. The WHO has made a few honest statements. I’ll address that another time.
I disagree with you about solar panels & wind energy. If they were effective, we would have seen the results by now.
I’ll go into more detail later on if the subject seems to interest potential consumers here.
Thanks, wilderness.Correction: I agree that solar panels & wind energy are not the answer. I do not believe they are a great addition to our energy needs.
Where you say: “….about solar panels & wind energy. If they were effective, we would have seen the results by now.”
If you look across the pond, at what’s happening in the EU and UK you will see the positive results of using solar panels and wind energy e.g. in the last 7 days 48.5% (almost half) of the electricity generated in the UK has come from wind power – see screen dump from the UK’s National Grid Live website below (and for better clarity, the enlargement of the critical figures below the main image)
Transfers and Storage in the above chart is where for example over the last 7 days the UK has exported 8.6% of our electricity to France, and imported 3.5% from Norway (hydropower).
I not so much keen on much of your comment EXCEPT that solar and biomass in of itself won't begin to approach the actual demand for energy, AND what we desperately need is nuclear fusion developed as the ideal energy source. Let's hope the technology is brought on board sooner rather than later.
We are in agreement somewhat. Hell has now frozen over.
Research into developing controlled fusion inside fusion reactors has been ongoing since the 1940s, but the technology is still in its development phase.
In February of this the previous ‘world record’ of producing nuclear fusion power was smashed when enough energy was generated to boil just 60 kettles, which doubles the previous world record back in 1997. This is great news but sadly it won't help in our battle to lessen the effects of climate change.
There's huge uncertainty about when fusion power will be ready for commercialisation. One estimate suggests maybe 20 years. Then fusion would need to scale up, which would mean a delay of perhaps another few decades.
And here's the problem: the need for carbon-free energy is urgent - and the UK government has pledged that all electricity in the UK must be zero emissions by 2035. That means nuclear, renewables and energy storage.
In other words "Fusion is not a solution to get us to 2050 net zero. This is a solution to power society in the second half of this century."
As regards solar and biomass, as you correctly stated “solar and biomass in of itself won't begin to approach the actual demand for energy”; but along with other forms of Green and Renewable Energy, including wind, tide and wave power, and hydropower, and new technologies into energy storage e.g. green hydrogen etc., then they do play an important role in the ‘low-carbon green energy mix’. You only have to look at the progress being made across Europe to appreciate that e.g. in the last 7 days 52.2% of the electricity generated in the UK came from Renewable Energy – see chart below:-
I agree with widerness. But I'm to add that the laity understanding of climate changes in terms of science is poor or zero like that of Donald Trump! Seriously, science predictions are like an assuption that need a verification. It'll take some decades for a clear cut answer. Critically, how many of us can still recalled Dalton Atomic Theory in our junior chemistry class? At the senior grade that's replaced with the Modern Atomic Theory. There many challenges like this one are in antiquity or history, for example, that the earth is flat and not circular.
The predictions of Ecologist, Paul Ehrlich, were the most absurd. But he had the ear of Americans, much like politicians who engage in planet fear mongering today.
... and use it for nefarious purposes.
https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/nefarious
Yes, it is probably a real thing. It may even make parts of the earth uninhabitable for humans, although I doubt this, as humans will adapt. It will not affect a lot of other species and anyone that qoutes those fake numbers and dates that Al Gore and his ilk came up with is providing fuel to those that do not believe there are going to be changes.
I have been a big fan of solar for almost 50 years but even I do not imagine that it is going to be enough. As wilderness points out, fusion would be the answer to a lot of our problems.In regards to Solar Energy, what works great is Solar Panels or a Solar Roof put on a home, large enough to meet the demands of daily use, with enough left over going to battery packs, which can supply the needs of the home during the night.
Most homes of sufficient size can maintain themselves "grid free" with such a system in place, negating the need of outside energy sources.
Larger systems, meant to sustain communities can also be created, an example of this is what Tesla has done for a community in Australia that could not meet its energy demands (some links):
https://evannex.com/blogs/news/tesla-so … rgy-crisis
https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-powerwa … owth-2020/
Whether a home system, or a neighborhood system, these can supply the energy needs for some 12-25 years. As technology improves, the lifespan and durability of these systems improves as well.
In regards to Climate Change
This is a critical element moving forward for the WB, IMF, BIS control of the international monetary system.
This is how people are going to be tracked, controlled, taxed, etc.
The steady focus on Climate Change, Carbon Emissions etc. is so that the populace has been groomed to accept Carbon Tax.
Once we have gone to digital wallets (this is set to occur in America in June/July of the coming year)... they can then begin tracking all we purchase, all we consume, and eventually will assign a Carbon Tax to it:
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/fednow-p … 14075.html
https://www.reuters.com/business/financ … 021-06-01/
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/ … nts-Report
This Carbon Tax will become a new Credit Score, akin to China's Social Score. What you are allowed to do, or not allowed to do, will be determined more and more by your Digital Wallet, Carbon Tax and Social Score. These names of course may be varied over time.
https://www.euractiv.com/section/econom … -in-davos/
For an idea of what this will be like, one only has to look to China and its non-cash identity based system to get a glimpse of how it will work... and how a person can be totally de-personed if they do not conform.
https://hubpages.com/politics/How-China … our-future
But all the concerns over Climate Change are so much drama, it is not a real threat to humanity. Humanity's biggest threat is its pollution.
Humans are going to die off from plastic poisoning before climate change ever has a chance to claim us. They don't talk at all about that catastrophe in the making, but the food chains in the oceans are going to fail because of it, the level of plastics in our bloodstreams is a significant cause of disease and death, and not just in humans.
https://myethicalchoice.com/en/journal/ … an-health/
This is a small River
This was taken in an Ocean portHmmm. I’ll read your articles and comment at a later date.
I would disagree, quite heavily, that roof top solar cells can not only take the home grid free, but free of other energy sources as well.
I have twice had solar people look at my home. Neither one could give me enough roof top cells to take me off the grid, and that was only for daytime. It's not that my home is sheltered from the sun or too far north (I'm south of the 45th parallel); it's that I'm total electric. No gas range, no gas hot water, no gas heat and no gas dryer. No oil, either.
ALL energy coming into the house is electric, and that even extends to gardening/lawn equipment as well as a plug in hybrid that hasn't had gasoline added since March.
So I really doubt that "most" homes can, using roof top solar cells and even adding some in a small yard, become energy independent. Not even with a giant, and expensive, battery bank. A few, located in just the right areas and without a large family, probably. Not much else.They work here, as they do in many parts of the world. (I know several farmers that want the grid but have never been connected since they are too far from the main line, similar to the US back before the 1930s.)The big difference is we have no heating needs like you do up in your part of the world, we do not run hot water all over the house like those in the US, Canada, and parts of Europe, nor do people here have dryers or many other electric appliances.
"The big difference is we have no heating needs like you do up in your part of the world, we do not run hot water all over the house like those in the US, Canada, and parts of Europe, nor do people here have dryers or many other electric appliances."
And there you go. Between not needing heat and not using hot water or other appliances it would about make the difference. Do you have a high usage of air conditioning, or is your area pretty temperate most of the time? Where I am varies from -30 degrees C to 45, which means goodly amounts of both AC and heat.I do not know anyone in my area that has AC (I only use it in my truck) but temps here are in the 20s (centigrade) almost year round. So no heating and not much cooling. (Mosquitoes are an issue year round though.)
I could not imagine life in an area like Arizona or southern Florida without AC. I did not realize that Boise even reached those temperatures.
Well, if this administration keeps doing what it is doing, no one here will be able to afford dryers or electric appliances…
except those who forced the green agenda. They will continue to live like Al Gore & friends.The newly elected president here is a Biden follower and also will do his best to make sure that no one is able to afford dryers or electric appliances. After the election he stated that his plan when he takes office in January is to start 13 new ministries, all of which will be people who will live like Al Gore and his friends.
The whole thing is depressing and so unnecessary. Before Covid, the U.S. was humming along beautifully. Furthermore, we were recovering quickly after the worst of the pandemic was over.
Biden changed all that. We were energy-independent. Now we're begging Venezuela for its (dirty) oil.
Had Biden done nothing, the U.S. would be even wealthier today; we would have been on our way to a full recovery (except in the area of education) which the Democrats own, and he could have taken the credit for all the achievements of the previous administration.
Instead, he decided to return to the policies of Obama and put them on steroids. Not good for us. Not good for the world."Before Covid, the U.S. was humming along beautifully." I agree. Perhaps more specifically, "Before the ridiculous, dogmatic, left-saturated leadership response to COVID, the U.S. was humming along beautifully."
When was your evaluation done and what size were they suggesting?
One around 6-8 years ago, one this year. Not sure of the size, but they were going to cover half the roof and build a "carport" for my RV for additional roof space. Still not enough.
I gave up completely, though, when I found out that the tax credits they are touting are non-refundable. Only rich people get to use the tax base to install solar - the rest of us have to pay it all ourselves.
I read the article about plastic. It struck me as rather alarmist. That being said, I do recycle and do not use plastic straws, primarily because I prefer to drink beverages without them. The pic is alarming, however it looks as though the plastic could be scooped up quite easily if someone would take the time to do it.
Also, in poor nations, like the one you show here, people do not have proper waste containers or places to dump garbage.
You do not see rivers like that in the U.S. But, shame on anyone here who just throws crap on the ground or in any mass of water. Here, we do not have any excuse for such careless and irresponsible behavior.
Dr. Mark, My feeling is that solar is useful for the type of people who can live off the grid, for the most part. The average American, living in cities, cannot.
However, I may be wrong.
Furthermore, solar panels are expensive. The best panels cost about $37,000. They’re only partially useful if one has a new, solid roof, and upgraded appliances. Even then, it can take years to pay them off ( which means families end up paying way more each month).
And god forbid the panels are installed by some fly by night company that promises free energy from the government. People who get scammed by these companies always end up paying 2 to 3 times as much for their energy bill than they did before.
That being said, solar panels can be placed on the ground as another option. They may be useful for some, as they have been for you.I was thinking mostly of suburbs and rural as ´people living in apartments have to rely on a grid. The systems are terribly expensive, and every so often a new article will coming out that will tell us that in 10 years solar will be affordable. That has been the case for about 50 years now, and I am still waiting for that 10 years to roll along.
We do not have heating costs where I live but even here it is still too early to try to get away from oil.Wow, is that right, is that how much it costs in the USA to have solar panels installed on a roof in America?
I had solar panels and wall battery installed in our home a year ago and it only cost me less than $6,000 for the solar panels, and a similar amount for the wall battery.
Last winter the solar panels and wall battery reduced our demand for electricity from the national grid by 50%, and during the summer we were almost self-sufficient.Yes. Solar panels are very expensive in the U.S.
Without the tax incentives, in America a Solar system that is sized large enough to offset 90% or more of electricity consumed in a home costs over $30k.
Adding a battery to that system adds another $10k.
You are looking at $40k ... with rebates and incentives $30k.
Sounds like a bad deal, I know, but if you factor in the cost of electricity doubling in the near future, it will save a lot of money long term.Wow, that is shocking.
That’s 2.5 times more than I paid (and I didn’t even get any government subsidies because they were scrapped in 2019, due to the falling prices of solar panels in the UK).
Yeah, when the solar panel industry was in its infancy in the UK, over 10 years ago, the sort of prices you have to pay now in the USA is comparable to how much it would have costed in the UK then. But with the industry, infrastructure, supply chains now well established in the UK, and with mass production (economies of scale) the costs in real terms have fallen significantly in the UK over the past 10 years.
The UK Government (Conservative) introduced government subsidies on solar panels in 2011, at a time when they were expensive (far too expensive for most people to afford). But over the years the costs have fallen in real terms so that even without subsidies solar panels has become economically viable by 2016; so in 2019 the Government scrapped the subsidies, as solar panels are now affordable to the middle class families.
Therefore, the price I paid is the full market price for purchase and installation; and I didn’t get any subsidies from the Government, but at that price it's an investment that is going to save me a small fortune on my electricity bill.I would like to think that would happen here in America.
But there will likely be serious opposition to it, trying to delay it, just as there has been significant and ongoing efforts to slow the transition to EVs.
Power companies have a lot of money.
Oil companies have a lot of money.
They fight at the state and federal level to have politicians slow or stop the transition to Solar Energy and EVs.
They work to have new laws and regulations passed to make it illegal for people to install solar.
Power Companies tried to have a Bill passed here in Florida that would have made it illegal to have a solar system on your property without the local Power Company's approval giving them control over the energy produced.
While campaigning to have this new law voted into reality during the election, they ran ads on radio, tv, and the internet saying it was PRO solar and would support the industry.
It took great effort by true Solar enthusiasts and the small Solar Industry businesses in the State to get out their own ads and opinion pieces in local papers to inform people of the Bill's true intentions.
It was almost passed, the people in Florida dodged a bullet, and with today's technology, systems such as Enphase Ensemble, you can power your home while disconnected from the grid, you control where the power goes (Battery or back to the Grid for credit), things that would not be possible if that law had passed.
So while I would love to wait a couple of years and get it at a cheaper price to myself, I don't think we will see that collapse in prices this decade. Maybe by 2030... not worth risking the wait to see, costs just as easily could go up,Thanks for the feedback. Your detailed explanation does mark a number of stark differences between our two nations:-
Yeah, the British oil and gas companies also have a lot of money, especially with the huge profits they are currently making because of the extortionately high price of natural gas due to the world shortage caused by the Ukrainian war.
That’s why the UK Government introduced a 25% windfall tax on them this summer, and increased it to 35% in yesterday’s annual budget.
Yea, British Power companies have a lot of money, because of the high price of electricity due to the shortage of natural gas e.g. the companies capitalising in the energy crisis.
Thus, in yesterday’s Annual Budget the UK Government slapped a 45% windfall tax on the Power companies, to claw back some of that money to compensate the Utility Companies and Consumers who are suffering from the high prices.
As you may or may not know, a windfall tax is a once off, short term tax that’s over and above the normal taxes that companies pay; and it’s only used in exceptional circumstances e.g. when an industry is making insanely high profits from a national crisis.
However, although the Power and Oil/Gas companies have a lot of money in the UK they don’t have the ‘power’ or political clout that they do in the USA.
In the UK the Power companies are at the ‘beg and call’ of the National Grid. The British Energy Supply System is a complex system devised and set up by Margaret Thatcher (Conservative Prime Minister) in the late 1980s.
Prior to the 1980s power supply to the home was a nationalised industry e.g. State owned (Government) and State run; which in politics is Socialism not Capitalism. So as part of privatising everything in the 1980s the Conservative Government Privatised the Energy Sector.
The system Margaret Thatcher set up in the 1980s was:-
• The National Grid (private company) at the heart of the system
• The Power companies who generate the electricity (all private companies).
• The Utility companies (all private companies) who compete with each other to sell the electricity that they get via the National Grid to the householders.
The Utility companies buy the electricity they need via the National Grid, and in turn the National Grid buy the required electricity from the power companies as and when required e.g. buying the cheapest electricity available first (wind power), and only resulting to requesting coal-fired power stations to be fired-up (the most expensive) as a last resort; hence less than 1% of our electricity in the UK comes from coal, and the last remaining coal-fired power station is due to close in 2024.
In the UK, unlike the USA, the British Oil and Gas Companies know that their days as fossil fuel companies are numbered, because of the British Government’s commitment to Renewable Energy and achieving net zero carbon emissions by 2050. Therefore, rather than fighting the Government the British Oil and Gas Companies are jumping on the ‘green’ bandwagon by diversifying into Renewable Energies e.g. by investing some of their profits into green projects.
For example SHELL Oil is installing electric charging points at all the petrol stations (gas stations) across the UK, and BP oil are investing in converting lampposts (streetlights) into EV charging points. And SHELL Oil also investing in wind power e.g. by buying and paying for the installation of their own wind turbines.
As regards domestic solar panels, yes it’s great having control over where the power goes; on my system, not only can I dictate whether the surplus power from the roof goes to battery or to the Grid for credit, but I can also dictate if/when I buy power from the grid to recharge the battery e.g. in the UK electricity is plentiful and cheap in early hours of the morning (when there’s little demand) so that’s a good time to recharge wall batteries and EVs.
Shell Oil subsidiary company (Limejump) trading 100% Renewable Energy with the National Grid: https://youtu.be/Gd1Ub34T_gMIn Spain, it was for a long time the same story. It was more expensive to have solar on your house, because of all the taxation, than to have ordinary electricity. And in some provinces simply forbidden.
This was all done through the influence of REPSOL, the Spanish oil company, on the government.
Today you can, but it is not promoted or made easy to generate solar energy in the city. (When you live in the countryside like me, and you have no other way to generate electricity, you were always allowed to have your own solar panels and batteries)
What's made easy is for big companies to make solar farms everywhere. They have given them more or less free reign. (and Europe is even on the brink of passing laws that make birds and nature more or less irrelevant in the discussion about where to place these farms)
So you have the same story over again. The energy market is given away to companies that will dominate the electricity prices.
The chance to control these prices by the government, which could be in handy during times of crisis is swindled. (In the Netherlands they regret, because of the Russian oil gas crisis, that they have privatized the electricity market. Now the government has to talk with 20+ companies to come to a price agreement...)
And of course, giving people the independency of electricity with their own solar on the roof should be avoided at all costs...
Hopefully, we will get a system like in Germany or the Netherlands where you can generate your own electricity through solar and if you generate more than you use you sell it to the grid, and if you need some you buy it from the grid. So you only need the panels and no batteries.
But I'm afraid this is a long way away...
But solar will never solve the energy problem and the climate crisis. As we still need diesel for trucks, ships, heavy machinery etc. And fuel for planes...Would be great to see planes on solar.....
In short, to make this place a better world I think we should buy products that need less energy to make and transport.
So, I think, one of the best things you can do is to buy local products. Food produced in your own province, products that are made in your own country.
And I think this should be promoted by law as well (shipment and import costs..The further away the higher the tax.)You raise some interesting point:
Like the Netherlands, in the late 1980s the UK Conservative Government privatised the electricity market; but interestingly the current Conservative Government is in the process of re-nationalising the National Grid e.g. it will be re-nationalised in 2024.
As regards “trucks, ships, planes and heavy machinery etc.” including public transport (buses/coaches and trains, and taxis) and private vehicles (cars); the UK Government is tackling all these to make them ‘greener’ as part of the UK’s Governments legal commitment to meet CO2 ‘net zero’ emission by 2050:-
All new fossil fuel vehicles, trucks, coaches, buses cars and taxis etc., will be banned in the UK from 2030 (in 8 years).
In 2009 the Labour (Socialist) Government launched a large scale electrification of the railways, which when the Conservatives came to power the following year they continued to support; so far just under 50% of the rail network in the UK has been electrified.
However, in 2020 the UK ran its first ‘prototype’ green hydrogen train, and since then, although electrification of the railways is continuing (at a much slower pace) the UK Government is now committed to focusing on developing ‘green hydrogen’ trains as it’s a cheaper and potentially quicker option. To the best of my knowledge, the UK is just one of three countries developing ‘green hydrogen’ trains e.g. China, Germany and the UK.
The UK's first Green Hydrogen train: https://youtu.be/geATz4pdCSg
In this respect the Government policy is to remove all diesel trains from our network by 2040.
In addition to all new fossil fuel road vehicle being banned in the UK by 2030, as a move away from using fossil fuel vehicles in the UK:-
• All London black taxis are now 100% electric.
• All buses in Bristol are now run on clean renewable energy made from domestic food waste and sewage.
Bristol busses using domestic food waste and sewage for power: https://youtu.be/QV4VEprPfos
• Several cities across Britain have now converted all their buses to use ‘green hydrogen’, especially in Scotland where ‘green hydrogen’ technologies are being developed.
• And in Scotland, between Scottish islands, the world’s first ferry service using ‘green hydrogen’ is now operational.
World's first hydrogen-powered seagoing ferries: https://youtu.be/jsbObSYqVao
• And increasingly ‘heavy machinery’ in the UK is converting to electric power, including several ‘steel works’.
The only area in the UK that is struggling to transition away from fossil fuels is the aviation industry, although R&D (Research & Development) into electric planes is taking place, the research is in its infancy; hence currently the UK aviation industry is turning to offset their CO2 emissions by paying for trees to be planted; planting trees equivalent to the percentage amount the industry is required to offset their CO2 emissions, as set by the UK Government e.g. currently they only need to offset a small percentage of their emissions, but each year that gradually increases, until 2050 when the Government will set the offset to be 100%.An update on my efforts to purchase a Solar System for my home.
The cost is roughly 30k, financed over many years it will amount to $198 a month and cover about 85% of what I consume.
Interestingly enough, I had to downsize the system I was going to have installed that would have created 104% of the electricity I consume.
There are laws, regulations, which categorize an electrical system that creates more than 11.75 KW into a different class.
Creating a system like I am having put into my home, which allows for the solar system to continue to power the home even when the grid is down, and allows the ability to bypass the grid should I choose, is frowned upon.
The power companies do not want us to be able to produce 100% or more of our electricity needs and be capable of bypassing the grid, even during a power outage or emergency situation.
They want us to be tied to the grid, for our excess power to go back to them, for pennies on the dollar, rather than to a battery back-up system.
In order to avoid certain regulations that require additional permits and inspections, as well as additional coverage that would add hundreds of dollars to my home insurance bill, yearly, I choose to install a smaller system that I can upgrade at a later date.
Sadly, as the power companies in America become more threatened by homes creating their own power and not needing to be reliant on the grid, there is likely going to be a massive effort to ensure that solar systems be required to be part of the grid and be controlled by the power companies, either that, or like the state of California has proposed, excessively tax those who own such solar systems to make it prohibitively expensive.Some interesting points Ken, thanks for the update.
I think we may have a slightly different viewpoint on the concept of ‘off-grid’, but that’s just a personal thing e.g. I wouldn’t want to go off-grid completely, because it provides additional energy security to be able to draw energy from the National Grid when needed; and besides, being able to sell any surplus to the grid does bring in a few extra pennies. But I can understand some people wanting to go off-grid entirely.
For clarity, in the UK Power Companies means the companies that ‘generate the electricity’; they don’t sell directly to the domestic user – it’s the Utility Companies who compete with each other to sell to the domestic user, via the National Grid (a private company). It’s the National Grid who buys from the ‘Power Companies’ on the basis of buying the cheapest first (which these days is Renewable) and buying the more expensive last (fossil fuels).
Yeah, the mind-set of what was the big six Utility Companies in the UK is similar to what you describe in America e.g. they are in it for the profit first, over and above the environment and the end-user.
However, there has been a transformation in the Energy Market in Britain over the past 10 years with many ideological Utility Companies springing up whose prime goal is to promote and provide ‘Renewable Energy’ and using their profits to invest in ‘Green Energy’ Projects.
For example, I switched from one of the big six to Bristol Energy about 5 years ago, Bristol Energy being a local non-profitmaking Utility Company set up by our Local (Labour) Government, specifically to promote Renewable Energy, and invest any money they make in ‘Green Energy’ Projects.
Bristol Energy - How to stand up to the Big Six: https://youtu.be/uoxY5jut28A
Then, when I had my solar panels installed last year I switched to Octopus Energy (who’s now as big as the former ‘big six’) because (like Bristol Energy), they don’t want to discourage people from having solar panels and batteries; they encourage it e.g. favourable tariffs – and any profits they make are invested in ‘Green Energy’ projects.
Introducing Octopus Energy: https://youtu.be/AaejnbrejvYArthur, I've swallow hook and sinker, these treatise specific Bristol and Octopus Energies, during our discussions on the Coronavirus Pandemic. This has prompted me to setting up a solar panel on my house. But the draw back is that the system in the market couldn't power-up my fridge and freezers. So, I'm still searching the market. One demerit of the system in Nigeria, is that any exccessive solar generated, is not tied to the grid like yours, to bring in the few pence and pounds. Still searching the market. Much thanks.
Sorry to hear that it's not so easy in Nigeria to get the suitable technology to meet your needs - I can imagine that it must be frustrating.
Ken, where you say: “They want us to be tied to the grid, for our excess power to go back to them, for pennies on the dollar, rather than to a battery back-up system.”
Yeah, in the UK most Utility Companies do just pay pennies; Octopus Energy, who we switched to when we had our solar panels installed, is a little unique in that one of their ‘Export Tariffs’ (Octopus Outgoing) has the option to sell your surplus solar energy at ‘market prices’ e.g. paying you low rates when electricity is cheap because of surplus supply (in the early hours of the morning, which is irrelevant because the sun doesn’t shine then anyway) and paying you premium prices during periods of high demand (peak demand), when electricity is most expensive e.g. between 4pm and 7pm.
Likewise, if you opt for their Agile Tariff (for electricity you use), which works on a similar principle e.g. you pay the ‘market price’ (which changes every 30 minutes) rather than a fixed price, there are times when prices go negative on the open market that you actually get paid to use electricity e.g. periods when there is an abundance of surplus electricity – as explained in this short video below:-
Octopus Energy: Agile Tariff - Get Paid To Use Electricity! How It Works: https://youtu.be/bjcqGu0ib5wGreat to read your story Ken.
When we bought the house in the countryside, there was no mains. We had to install solar power to make it a home. We started with a system of around €7.000 16 years ago. Everything was far more expensive then. The most expensive and important bit were the batteries.
If you have good batteries they will last for 15-20 years. (if well maintained - I think nowadays they are even better). We bought the batteries with an upgrade in mind and added solar panels over the years.
I think that if you're on solar power you will change the way you consume electricity. (LED lights etc.) We always turn off the light in the rooms we do not use. No things are on standby. (only the fridge and the router)
And some things are better to be avoided. Like better to use a kettle for hot water instead of an electric heater. A hairdryer is a no-go. (We had a bed and breakfast for a while and some guests brought hairdryers with them, shutting down the electricity at one point..) and an electric heater or electric induction plate....No, better not.
We still need a generator in the winter if we have a cloudy week. So we put on the generator for a couple of hours to pump some energy into the batteries.
It's all a learning process. But we have it running and don't pay any electricity bills.
And it's also a good feeling to be independent.
Yes, it's definitely true that the independency of electricity is not what companies want. Just like (apparently) in the US, here in Spain governments made it difficult for individuals to go off-grid when living in a place where there is a grid. (by means of tax or laws or whatever reason.)
I hope you will find a good system. Nowadays you have lithium batteries that are great. (probably our choice for an upgrade).Very interesting stories, Ken and Peter.
Every country seems to have its own little obstacles against solar systems. And every individual has his own priorities.
Here in Germany we don´t have limits on the size of solar systems on your house, as long as you put them panels on your roof. As soon as you plant them in the backyard, you get into trouble.
And we don´t have any issue with grid power outages. Reason is simple. Already today thousands of home owners, wind turbines, professional solar systems, biogas systems are hooked up to the grid. We probably experience an outage once in a lifetime. You can´t find generators in your favourite hardware store, simply no need.
But then - if you have an electric car , you may generously charge the car with your own solar system. But you are not allowed to feed back into your home at nighttime. So no bidirectional charging.
Reason is simple: Having mobile batteries with no charging limitations would totally free up the electricity grid market. What if you drive your car to your employer and sell excess electricity to the company, then you bypass grid and the whole energy circus is corrupted. You could even charge your car somewhere with cheaper electricity and then use it in your home where grid prices may be higher. I think you get the point.
Concerning individual habits, i would risk a divorce if my wife couldn´t use a hair dryer any more. And our daughter´s family near by conveniently uses our state of the art heat pump dryer to cope with clean and dry clothes for a family of 6.
Anyways, interesting how priorities are set by individuals, families, grid suppliers, politics.
DrMark, where you say "The Dutch guy living in Spain was commenting about this the other day. They are clearing forest in Spain to put in solar collection areas. Spain is in Europe." I'd be interested in seeing the article you refer to, and if it's from reliable source then I apologise. Certainly, I should have perhaps said in countries like the UK, where our forests are now protected, and where we are planting trees to increase the size of our woodlands and forests.
Peter describes what they are going through on the next page.
Hi Savvy, I have been flippant when it comes to this subject in the past, no doubt. I get so provoked by the way children have been used to spread the message/spread the word! It angers me that, for decades now, many children, in many locations, have grown up in fear of the earth heating or cooling or sinking out from under them.
Due to so much bogus information circulating, which was brought into the classroom to make damn sure that the climate alarmists got through to them early on!
I am not going to change my tune, for the sake of this discussion, I am obviously in the minority here.
While the climate change alarmist focus on what could happen one hundred years from now, I am more concerned about the here and now and about the many minds which have been messed with.
I am of the mindset that, as we've always done, we continue to look for new alternatives, all while utilizing the God-given natural resources we already have at our disposal! Why must we be all in on solar panels or all in on windmills, etc....Why must the baby get thrown out with the bathwater?
Al Gore is a greedy, smug, opportunist, who saw an opportunity to get rich and has! He has been making doomsday predictions, again, for decades, while jet setting the world...his predictions never come true and then he gets to say....because we were aware and prevented it, blah, blah, blah.
B.S.!!!That was the purpose, to groom younger generations to believe this so that they will accept (even fight for) a Carbon Tax system.
AB, I agree that it is not only useless, but morally wrong to “throw the baby out with the bath water.”
We have plenty of time to find a green energy source that is cheaper than fossil fuels. China, India and Africa will never switch until that happens.
We are not all going to die in 10 years if we don’t, but there will be thousands of deaths, most from cold deaths and lack of food if we force this current green energy agenda down the throats of Americans.
If our GDP suffers, the rest of the world suffers, especially the poorer nations who rely on our wealth to supplement their food and water supply, not to mention their energy supply." all while utilizing the God-given natural resources we already have at our disposal!"
So the earth and its resources are given to you/us?
I think it's a huge philosophical mistake to think that humans are set apart from this world. There are no two parties. Humankind and the rest of the world... A ruling party, humans, and a subservient party (the world and its resources).
You see us as owners of the world and having the right to do with this planet whatever we want. As God has given us this planet.
But that's not so. We, humans, are part of the ecosystem. Everything we do has consequences. If you cut down a tree it has consequences.
You can not simply take the resources of the world without consequences.
But we did for years on end, and now we are starting to see, as little children, the consequences of our deeds.
The planet is warming up. Haven't you noticed that every year more temperature records are being broken? Ask a farmer about his experiences in the field. He knows the consequences of changing seasons.
There is more extreme weather, bird populations are going down because of the scarcity of habitat. (The tree you cut down).
We are not talking about 100 years, we are talking about 20-30 years.
You think it's scaremongering. No it's not. Do you think scientists are wrong? We are a long way past the question of if Climate Change is real. Scientists from all over the world, from all kinds of different backgrounds, come to the same conclusion. The Climate Crisis we are in is deadly serious. It's only the politicians and oil companies who don't want to take action as they are trained into thinking in economics and votes.
If you ask : Is climate change a real threat for the world?
Who do you believe AB Williams, scientists or politicians?I get it Peter, it's your religion, I'll not convince you with anything that I might add and you really aren't interested in the least!
I will say this, doomsday predictions come and go and the wallets of both politicians and scientists get fatter.Science is not a religion. You don't believe 1+1=2. It is a fact. And a fact the world is build on.
A scientific prediction is not a fashion or a believe. When science predicts something it is based upon measurement.
When you drop a ball from a tower, you can predict when the ball will hit the ground and be absolutely spot on.
You confuse scientific predictions with a Biblical prediction based upon faith. Predicting that the end is near because you personally believe God has forsaken you is not a valid prediction. And indeed those predictions come and go.Your answer proves you're a smart alec. Congratulations!
Yep, you’re spot on when you say “Ask a farmer about his experiences in the field.”
I’m not a farmer but I do grow my own veg and fruits in our back garden, so that we are almost self-sufficient in vegetables all year round; and I have noticed a big difference in the growing seasons over the past 20 years.
Prior to 2000 the growing season where I live didn’t start until mid-April, and ended by mid-September; whereas now the growing season starts mid-March and continues until mid-November – Hotter summers and milder winters. It’s not all good news though; the change in climate confuses the trees and plants, and they’re either budding too soon (before the pollinating insects are out in force) or flowering too soon (going to seed) if I plant them at the usual time of year. Our fuchsia (which we’ve had in our back garden for decades) is now in flower over 10 months of the year, whereas it used to only flower from Spring to Autumn (about 6 months of the year).
There’s also been a dramatic decline in insect species in southern England; over the past 20 years flying insects have declined by 60% due to the warmer climate in Britain.
Latest studies (in 2020) have shown that of the 2430 insect species in Britain (native to the UK, and many beneficial e.g. helps with pollination) 55 have already gone extinct due to a warming climate, and a further 286 (11%) have become endangered. While in contrast there is a sharp rise in pest insects, normally native to France (warmer climate) as they migrate to Britain, which with its warming climate is more conducive to them; with the consequent that are having a negative impact of crop yields in British Agriculture.
Likewise, of the 725 aquatic insect species in Britain, 68 (9%) are now endangered, and 11 have already gone extinct. And on the flip side, there are 30 native mosquitos that pose no threat, but since 2016 a number of invasive mosquitoes (that carry deadly diseases) which requires warmer climates to survive have been found in Kent, England (in small numbers); Kent being one of the warmest parts of England – but so far they haven’t established a foothold in Kent.
Also, hundreds of fish and shellfish species native to Britain are now migrating northwards due to warming seas, adversely affecting the British fishing industry, and more exotic marine life never seen in British waters before (because our seas were to cold) e.g. 62 sightings of the Gigantic ‘killer’ jellyfish were seen on UK beaches this year, a species not seen in Britain before because in the past our seas were too cold.On my part of the world, one of my favourite fruits is the mango. I hadn't seen any mango tree yeild the sweet succulent fruits for the past 6 years in my state. Though the trees will yield flowers every month. But we get mangos from North and East of thd country. The only explanation for this is climate change or global warming. For example, fresh corn is suppose to go out of season along with mango May/June. But the corn is still being planted and harvested in November.
Yes, we eat our own vegies too. And eat depending on the season. I just started a mushroom plot (stropharia), so hopefully in a couple of weeks we will have some mushrooms too.
We do live on solar power, and it's a good feeling to be independent and self sufficient.
The strange thing is that we are now fighting against a huge plan to make a solar park very close to us.
It's complete madness. hundreds of thousands of almond and olive trees will be cut down to make way for solar panels. The company Renovalia is Italian, backed up by a Israely hedge fund. So the money generated by the energy won't go to Spain at all.
Farmers are individually approached to rent out their land, not knowing the scale of the solar parks (3.000 hectares - about 4.500 soccerfields!).
I've nothing against solar energy but why not on the roofs of factories or the roofs of houses. Why destroy good farmland and the fauna and flora that comes with it. abusing the land and the farmers who rent out get nothing out of it as they have to declare the rent as income (so it's taxed) and the land will be seen as industrial land and not agricultural so the tax will go up too.
The only party who gain by this enormous project is Renovalia. It's a classic example of disaster capitalism. Misusing the renewable energy sources and subsidies for speculation.
We're handing over allegations this week against the project.
It's so sad, as we are all for solar power and it's a good development, but to see this energy sector being just like the fossil fuel sector destroying the earth and it's eco system makes you sad.
---
Yes I read that there was a decline of insects in Germany as well. And so a decline in the animals that eat insects like birds.
Sometimes people think it's only the polar bear on the ice rock that is effected by the climate crisis. But it is so much more.
It's painful to see how the Great Barrier Riff near Australia is dying. And there are so many small not so famous disasters happening connected to climate change.
I read in the Guardian last year that more people died from air pollution than from COVID the last two years...But (with all respect to the COVID victims) you hardly hear about this. There is no daily list that counts the dead worldwide due to air pollution in the newspaper!!!Do you have a link to any local newspapers or other sources that discuss that solar park that is going to open in your area? Cutting down trees to make way for solar is sad and does not make any sense.
Yes, thank you Mark. We have email addresses from newspapers who already publicised a story about it. Which got an mediate response from the company Renovalia who did a paid add showing grassing sheep underneath the solar panels..., They even handed out free newspapers in the village when this add came out. To keep up the image that it is all green...
So yes, they feel that it won't be an easy win.
We are also in contact with local governments from the three villages affected. Some play innocent not knowing what is going on, há!
It's a nasty business. As the plans are publicised but without telling anybody that they are publicized. And than you've got 30 working days from the first day of publication, to make aligations.
Luckily a friend of ours is in the local governance and leaked the plans. Otherwise nobody would have known and we would have had the bulldozers in our back gardens without notice.
Some people will have fields full of solar panels' all around their house. And those fields will be fenced... It would be like living in a prison..
The solar parks are divided in very small ones, to avoid scrutiny from the national government as they will be seen as small projects. But it's all the same company... It stinks on all sides...
The company has also been active in Mexico and Chile, I read comparable stories from people over there on twitter...
Sorry to bother you with this personal story, but as the threat was about climate change and this business is happening right now I thought it was something to add.“Straight from the Horse’s Mouth”, far more reliable than just ‘hear say’; thanks for your personal account, which is most enlightening. What is happening in your area is deplorable.
It would seem that ‘Planning Regulations’ are far more relaxed in Spain than in the UK.
In comparison, in the UK anyone applying for planning permission must, by law:-
• Put up a site notice, and
• Advertise in a local newspaper that circulates in the area.
If they don’t then they would invalidate their application, and would have to start the whole process all over again from scratch.
In the UK people are given 5 weeks to submit their objections and the whole planning process can typically take 5 months, with Appeals taking a further 5 months; and large controversial developments will always require a ‘Public Inquiry’ which can drag on for years.
Another major difference between Spain and Britain is that in Britain the main factors that will decide the outcome of a major Public Inquiry isn’t just the strength and validity of ‘Objections’ (relevant to Planning Regulations) but also Environmental issues.
For example, in Britain forests, designated AONBs (Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty), SSSI (Sites of Special Scientific Interest), Conservation Areas, Green Belt, National Parks, Wetland sites are all protected from development including development of windfarms and solar farms.
* One of the SSSI's (Sites of Special Scientific Interest) (protected land) in England: https://youtu.be/uSUpnw4zgxs
So, in Britain, a company wishing to build a solar farm (or windfarm on land) are restricted to finding land that is NOT protected under law e.g. areas where development will have little or no negative environmental and wildlife impact.
Another example of where Regulations are tight in the UK is Australian’s Energy Company’s failed attempt to commercially frack in England:
• In 2007 an Australian Energy Company (AJ Lucas) created a UK subsidiary Company called Cuadrilla which is 93% owned by the Australian Company, and 7% owned by the British employees of the local Company.
• From 2011 Cradrilla performed a series of ‘test’ wells which established that there is far more oil and gas deep underground in England than there ever was in the North Sea of the coast of Scotland.
• On the 15th October 2018 Cradrilla finally started to frack commercially in England, following years of delays due to strong local ‘objections’ (Public Enquires and Appeals in the Courts etc.)
• However the UK Government (Conservative Government) banned fracking on the 2nd November 2019 because of the earthquakes that the fracking caused. The Scottish Government (Socialist Government) banned fracking in Scotland in 2015.
• On the 22nd September 2022 (two weeks after Liz Truss became Prime Minster she lifted the ban to allow fracking) – On the grounds of the current chronic shortage of natural gas in the Western World due to the was in Ukraine.
• On the 26th October 2022 (a day after Rishi Sunak became Prime Minister) he re-imposed the fracking ban in England and Wales. So that the oil and gas reserves that sit under England stay underground (untapped).
Yeah, the world desperately needs more Renewable Energy; but there is a right way and a wrong way to achieve it – and what’s happing where you live is most defiantly the ‘wrong way’. There’s more than enough trees being lost in Brazil (deforestation), we don’t need to add to the problem.
The UK currently has about 3 billion trees (1.42 million hectares), 13.2% of the UK’s land surface, comprising of 32 species of trees in our woodland and forests (of which 29 species are broadleaves).
As part of the UK Government’s reforestation campaign to help combat global warming around 680,000 trees are planned to be planted in the UK over the 12 months. It does fall short of the Government’s target, but it’s a step in the right direction.
I hope your fight against Renovalia is successful; I’d like to hear what the outcome is in due course.Hi Nathan, thanks for the response.
For planning permissions, you have to make it public in Spain as well. But it is not said that you have to make it public that you have made it public...
The plans are online. But only if you actively go looking for it. And if you don't know that anything is going on you won't go looking for it.
And there are notices about the project on the noticeboard in the town hall. But who reads those? When are you ever going to the town hall......
So the exposure is at a bare minimum. Something we definitely confront the local governments with.
For sure such tactics are used in other countries.
The law is one thing, the reality another...
Anyway. I will let you know how things develop and if we have any success.
The best thing against global warming is indeed to plant a tree.
That's a great campaign. I hope it will have a follow-up and become a yearly project. 680.000 trees a year would be good start.
We have such projects here as well, we plant trees together with the kids from school.Likewise, for years we’ve had tree planting projects in Britain, including “planting trees together with kids from school.”
The current UK Government tree planting scheme was launched in 2019, and is a yearly project, with the intention of tripling the rate of tree planting by 2024.
As an added incentive landowners, including farmers, can earn money from tree planting by taking part in the UK’s ‘carbon offset’ scheme as part of the UK’s goal of reaching net zero CO2 emissions by 2050.
Under British Law ‘all’ UK industry are legally required to reach carbon ‘net zero’ by 2050, which is easier for some industries to achieve than others e.g. the difficulty of the aviation industry to reduce their levels of CO2 emissions. So to help such industries in meeting their legal requirement to meet carbon ‘net zero’ by 2050 they can opt to ‘carbon offset’ e.g. by paying for the planting of trees equivalent to the amount of CO2 they use; hence the farmers/landowners getting income from aviation industry for example to plant and maintain the trees.
The scheme is already creating more woodlands in cities and creating thousands of green jobs.Peters, your last 2 paragraphs sums up the solution for global warming. I'v been saying it elsewhere, and in this forum, that the planting of trees daily holds the key to reduced CO2 and incrase photosynthesis. Thank you.
Climate change is certainly a threat to the way of living, to the status quo of the western, developed world. Of course humans can adapt to almost everything so their existance as a species is not threatened.
The narrative seems to be that climate change is initiated or contributed to by CO2 greenhouse gas emissions. And these emissions come mainly from burning fossile fuels to produce energy.
Where is the initiative to save energy? Not by reducing industry and living but by getting more efficient.
In this aspect the USA has a lot of potential. Why is it that per capita use of primary energy in the USA is twice as high as in the EU, UK or Japan or Korea? Even adjustment to PPP doesn´t change much in the overall energy inefficiency of the USA.
Shouldn´t politics be measured on how this issue is tackled?The USA is quite vast compared to other countries. Many of us travel for a living. We need fuel to travel. Furthermore, because we are so large, we rely on large trucks to travel large distances to provide us with the food and goods we need to live.
Some of us live in states where winters are long. Thus, we need energy to heat our homes. Did you know that people are more likely to die from cold deaths than heat deaths?
In the UK, people experience about 33 cold deaths for every heat death. Long story short, the U.S. is not as contained as the small countries you mentioned.
Nevertheless, we have the cleanest energy of any nation.
In the past 10 years, the U.S. has achieved the greatest reduction in carbon dioxide than any other nation.
We will continue to innovate, but forcing us to go to zero emissions in 10 years is folly. It will destroy our GDP, which in turn will have dire & deathly consequences, especially for the poor and middle classes....The USA is quite vast compared to other countries.
So what, primary energy useage for transportation is some 28% in the USA while some 30% in Europe.
Apparently the "vast plains" in the USA are not responsible for energy negligence and inefficiency. It covers all sectors of the economy, industry, households..
CO2 output per capita is also almost double in the USA compared to peer developed economies, except Canada, which is a twin to the USA in energy hunger.
Always be careful with absolute numbers, there are no peer developed countries on our planet that match the population and economic size of the USA.
...in the past 10 years, the U.S. has achieved the greatest reduction in carbon dioxide than any other nation...
In relative terms this is just a joke.
If you think you can keep to the current status, do so, just fine with me. The next decade will show if that was a wise decision, not necessarily because of global warming, but because of economic harm this will do to the US economy.
On the other hand i am confident that American ingenuity and entrepreneurism will eventually follow suit.Much to unpack here, which I will do later. (I have little time to address much this weekend.)
Nevertheless, I appreciate all the input and interesting information from all the participants in this forum, even if I disagree here and there.
Until another time, then.Before I can address “economic harm” I must ask what you mean by current status?
The USA “have the cleanest energy of any nation”; I don’t think so. If you look at the CO2 emission per capita you will find that the USA is one of the biggest offenders, ranked 16th in the world, compared for example to China, ranked at 42 or the UK ranked at 59th.
CO2 Emissions per capita (tons):-
• USA = 15.52
• China = 7.38
• UK = 5.55
Per Capita, the USA twice as polluting than China and three times more polluting than the UK. The world average is 4.79 tons of CO2 per year per person.
https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emiss … er-capita/The Industrial Revolution started in Great Britain around 1750. But the silent thing many has overlooked is mass production of goods in factories reach its zenith in the USA. While Great Britain had the 'steam engine', America explorer the crude oil in the form of petrol, a more higher grade of hydrocarbon than steam-driven by coal. It took years before other countries began to copy petroleum technology. Petrol technology was American's secret for decades. And this account for her higher CO2 emissions into the atmospher. Long story short.
Actually, coal is far more polluting than oil, but the CO2 emissions I quoted above are not historic, they are current levels of CO2 emissions.
You are technically right; more people in the UK do die from the cold in the winter months than from the heat in the summer.
But on average over the past 20 years it’s not “33 cold deaths for every heat death”, it’s been about 10 time more cold deaths than heat deaths e.g. over the past 20 years the average cold deaths has been around 8,500 per year, while heat deaths averaged at 800 per year.
However, this year, with the hottest heatwave in the UK on record, when temperatures exceeded 40c (105f) there were 3,271 recorded heat deaths in the UK (far in excess to average), making cold deaths over the past year just 2.6 times higher than heat deaths.
So with global warming, deaths from the heat are becoming a far more serious issue in the UK.
"Why is it that per capita use of primary energy in the USA is twice as high as in the EU, UK or Japan or Korea?"
There are many reasons, but the primary one may be wound up in that "primary energy" thing. Just what is "primary energy" and how does it compare with (I assume) "secondary energy" sources? Is the EU, or Japan/Korea, using a lot more gas that the US (per capita)? Are they using more coal in the homes? Or even wood, for heat/cooking?I think there are enough links on internet to find an explanation of what primary energy is. And definition applys to all countries on our little planet.
If you have a badly insulated home you need more heating than a well insulated house would need. That is for winter time. Assuming you have an air condition in your house then in the summer you will need electricity to do the cooling. And again - badly insulated means more electricity.
Comparing my experience from a double wide in winter in Michigan with my well insulated house in Northern Germany gives me enough personal data to verify and prove the statistics.
Primary energy can only be counted if it is sold and payed for. So coal firing is also always a source for primary energy, unless you have a little coal mine in your back yard.
When it comes to secondary energy = electricity then any thermal process (fossile or nuclear) requires some 200% of primary energy to produce 100% of electricity. The combustion engine in your car (if you have one) is doing much worse (only 20-30%), that is why you need a cooling water cycle to get rid of excess 70% primary heating energy in gasoline.
Renewable energy on the other hand comes always with high efficiency. For example hydropower plants (like Hoover Dam) transform 80-90% of potential energy stored in the water level differential into electricity. This is why economies with high amount of renewables and with careful use of thermal energy (good insulation) use much less primary energy than those countries with a more negligent approach to this issue.Renewable energy does not come with high efficiency. The opposite is true. In the U.S. we have gotten away from renewable energy because fossil fuels are superior, more efficient and affordable.
To go backward in time makes no sense. We can find other ways to tackle global warming, which frankly, can wait. We have time, as in centuries.
Frankly, we need to turn the oil spigots back on while we do more R&D. There is no point in allowing this country to lose its wealth by turning off our vast oil supply. That is madness and serves no one.
But I do agree that the U.S. has the capacity to come up with solutions, some of which have yet to be fully researched, such as creating algae on oceans to create an unlimited, safe fuel source, (possibly) and, of course, exploring nuclear energy....Renewable energy does not come with high efficiency. The opposite is true. ...
I don´t know what you are talking about. Probably you mix efficiency with pricing. But even concerning cost renewables are competitive. My direct experience with running and selling electricity from midsize Solar systems gets me a decent break even of some 8 ct./kWh. This is the equivalent of 48 USD/barrel crude oil, if used to generate electricity.
Current market price would have to be cut to 50% to reach this level. Average price of crude oil was well above 50 USD for the past 5 years, and that includes Corona downturn in 2020. So what are you talking about?
I don´t know what break even price for shale or fracking oil is, but it better be below said 48 bucks per barrel to be competitive. Let me know.
For wind turbines the break even is even lower at some 5 ct./kWh or 30 USD/barrel.
It will become increasingly difficult in the future to win the bet on fossile fuels. Just saying.."My direct experience with running and selling electricity from midsize Solar systems gets me a decent break even of some 8 ct./kWh."
Is that before or after government subsidies? Does it cost 8 ct/kWh to build and operate a solar system for, say, 10 years? Paying taxes and all other fees just as every other energy producer does?
Or is there massive govt. intervention to reach that 8ct in order to be competitive? I know that's how it works in the US; without govt. rules, laws and subsidies solar would never go anywhere because it is just too expensive...Is that before or after government subsidies?...
It is without subsidies and tax breaks.
The business case is quite simple: Investment per kWp installed power is some 800 USD. Harvest ist 1000 hours/year. This gets us 1000h x 0,08 ct/kWh = 80 USD/year. Leaves you with 10% earnings/year, not brilliant but decent, as i stated.
Though i have to add that in G. we have high tax deductions before even investing. So you can choose either to bring your hard earning money to the tax office or use it as equity in a solar investment. My personal favourite is 20% from tax breaks, 20% fresh money, 60% loan. Gives you initial payback on fresh money of 10% x 100% / 20% = 50% in the first year. Then you start the net present value game and the payback percentage goes down a little.
I'll leave most of your comment to our mathematicians, but is not a 42-gallon barrel of oil the equivalent of what is needed to boil a cup of water?
As for rebates, the government says we have them, but when it comes time to pay, the average consumer never seems to get them,
Solar energy is expensive. Fossil fuels are not expensive. But, we do need to commit ourselves to research and development for other sources of fuel that are efficient and that work in winter, summer, and year-round for that matter.I suggest you work yourself through these dry papers on discounted cost for energy.
https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/r … ergy-lcoe/
A good overview is page 7 of this pdf: https://www.lazard.com/media/450784/laz … vfinal.pdf
Renewables, wind, solar are much cheaper than fossiles. That is why the yearly add or replacement of electricity generation in the US is some 80% renewable. This whole renewable debate is not political, it is pure financial.These graphs are not useful for anyone who cannot afford solar. The initial cost of solar is not something the poor and lower-income people can afford. Subsidies are a tax on all people. Higher taxes hurt the poor throughout the world and even middle America. I realize Europeans are fine with paying high taxes for "free" stuff, but that does not translate into financial gain, despite what your graphs from the public company, Lazard, have attempted to indicate.
Progressives are making the sun and solar their god. This is not wise.
However, as I said in the beginning, there are some people in some regions for whom solar may be partially useful.Who is talking about any particular group of people?
Who is talking about subsidies?
The setting up of solar power or windpower is cheaper and gives a much better business case than fossile or nuclear power plants, from inital investment to the generation of electricity.
This is about cost of electricity production, not subsidised and not linked to any particular country. This cost evaluation is valid for the USA the same as for Europe or UK, or for China or for Madagaskar...
As i wrote earlier, people with money, entrepreneurs will find out soon and invest adequately. Actually this is already happening in the USA with some 70% of yearly newly invested electricity production is wind or solar already.
Fossile energy is on the downturn, no matter lobbied or not. And you don´t even need the buzz word "climate change" for this.Yes, many U.S companies are investing in renewable energy, primarily because of the huge tax breaks they get from this administration.
However, setting up renewable energy (solar panels) is not cheap in the United States for… your average consumer. We must first invest about $37,000 for panels, $10,000 minimum for a new roof to support panels, which are very heavy.
It is also highly recommended that we upgrade the refrigerator, dishwasher, washing machine & dryer for the solar panels to be cost effective. That is a great cost for your average family… which generally has greater efficiency with regular energy.
I do understand that fossil fuels are on the downturn. I also know that rushing all countries into renewable energies, which are not energy efficient at this time, is not a prudent choice.
Long story short. Solar panel will not save the environment.
More R&D is needed to find sources of energy that everyone can afford and which actually decrease carbon emission.
I certainly support more research and development.The tipping factor is the tax rebates.
They reduce the cost to mid-20s for a solar system.
If financed this brings the cost to about $200 dollars a month.
If a battery back up is added into the system that increases it another $10k.
This also increases the cost to about $250 dollars a month.
That battery however, can help allow for power to general outlets and refrigerators during an outage, and the solar panels will allow for power to the home as well, during an outage.
Having just gone through almost two days without power due to Nicole, it was a reminder of just how critical to daily life electricity is. We rely today on cell phones and refrigerators considerably. Light isn't such a bad thing either.
Also projecting out to the inevitable increase in our electric bill, and the devaluation of the dollar. Being able to lock in a set cost over the next 20 years for a Solar system, with a battery back-up, which is more reliable than a generator back-up system, will make it easier to pay the bills in the future.
So securing a system today for $250.00 a month, that may only reduce an electric bill of $290 dollars by $230 dollars may seem like an unwise financial decision.
But in five years, that system will reduce what would be a $500.00 electric bill by $400.00 in essence saving $150.00 a month, in addition to being able to provide power when there is none available from the grid.
As the cost of electricity goes up, a solar system will save its owner more money. If the system is good enough to almost eliminate the cost of power now, the savings will only be that much more substantial in the future.
Solar systems can save home owners a considerable amount of money, possibly more than they could afford to pay, for electricity, in the future.Solar power could be a more efficient energy system for the future. But not many can afford it. Sometime last year, I had a significant discussion of the system in lieu of electricity with CHRISS57, and Nathanville. I reasoned everyone should make their sound decision of going solar or staying put to electricity. But they's a limit to which every person can afford solar power. The poor and middle class can't go on solar. It's the high cost. Here in Nigeria, cost of electricity is very expensive because consumption is not computed by metering. You're billed an estimate to pay monthly. Nevertheless, solar power for home use is gradually making inroad in the country.
There never is an absolute, "no other choice" solution to issues and certainly not to energy supply.
But i am with my favourite and one of the last universally learned persons: Vilfredo Pareto https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vilfredo_Pareto
If you get 80% of success with 20% of effort, this should do the trick. Especially if you target 125%. Because then said 80% of the Pareto principle will get you 100% of your goal.
So go solar, go for windpower. Will not help during the night time, will be only 70 or 80%, but will save a lot of fossile CO2 in the air.
The real issue with renewables is storage. Because what is inherent in fossiles is lacking with on time production of renewable energy.Yes, I'm for the Pereto Principle also. That likewise isn't an absolute though it's an effective law with many merits. Everyone has 'choice' to go solar, electricity, or both, and other REnergy. Nevertheless, to make a long story short, the limiting factor is the cost.
...”Renewable energy does not come with high efficiency” - The opposite is true. ...
In the UK Renewable Energy became cheaper than fossil fuels in 2016, and over the past week 53.1% of the UK’s electricity has been generated from Renewables, compared to just 29.5% from fossil fuels – As shown in the image below taken from the UK’s National Grid Live website:-
Wilderness - Yep, absolutely, I fully agree with what you say about the vast majority of European members of NATO not paying their fair share.
Of the 30 NATO members, only 9 actually pay the required minimum 2%.
Although they could afford it, none of the wealthy NATO members in Europe, except the UK, pay the minimum 2%, which is despicable and disgraceful, and inexcusable.
Whereas 7 of the poorer European nations in NATO, who can ‘least afford’ to pay, actually pay more than the 2% minimum.
Greece is one of the poorest countries in Europe, yet it pays a higher percentage of its GDP than any other NATO member, including the USA.
The UK (the 6th wealthiest country in the world), apart from the USA, is the only wealthy NATO member who pays more than the 2% minimum; the UK currently pays 2.12% of its GDP, but because of the war in Ukraine the UK intends to increase that to 3%. In fact, in money terms the USA is the only NATO member who pays more in defence than the UK.
The 9 of the 30 NATO members who pay the minimum 2% or more of their GDP on Defence are:-
• Greece = 3.76%
• USA = 3.47%
• Poland = 2.42%
• Lithuania = 2.36%
• Estonia = 2.34%
• UK = 2.12%
• Latvia = 2.10%
• Croatia = 2.03%
• Slovak Republic = 2%
I don't as a rule get into discussions in regard to climate change. Due to my background in science ( which is limited) I have done enough research to know climate change is occurring, and it has progressed over the past couple of decades. The majority of scientists agree we are seeing changes at a faster pace.
It is clear we need to make changes to try to slow the changes down, and scientists also agree this will be very hard. Naturally solar and wind will help, but in my view, not enough, and will cause pollutants of their own.
Sort of a trade-off, that could in the long run for the planet. I think the way that this administration is going about pushing the Green deal is doing more harm than good. America needs a very good constructive plan to usher in greener energy. And a plan that all will see the good in.
So many social issues are involved, that are being ignored. So many energy options or combinations of energy options may not be considered. I think we have many good options to go side by side with wind and solar, for instance, nuclear, and fusion power, and work toward using far fewer fossa fuels.
Moving toward cleaner energy will take time, and careful planning, in my view. And w just need to weigh the trade-offs carefully. Poisoning our water, and soil could be a very bad trade-off.
The social turmoil that could result from moving too fast could truely stymie all efforts. Note I use the word could.
This is a thread that provokes one to really sit back and think, in my view. Thanks for posting it Savvy.Hi Sharlee, From what I have read, solar panels & wind turbines combined account for 1.1 % of global energy. We still need fossil fuels because they are cheaper and more efficient than renewable sources.
Moving to alternative energy sources will take time. I agree with you 100%.
The good news is that we have time. Meanwhile, we would be better served to address more pressing issues, such as health and education for ourselves and poor nations. Poor nations cannot afford solar & wind power. They much prefer fossil fuel. Otherwise, they are left to use wood & dung, which are terrible pollutants, to heat their homes and cook their food.
Greenpeace has tried providing small villages with solar micro-grids. They have failed spectacularly.
"Is climate change a threat to our existence?"
My first thought was about as much as the rapture. In other words, they both are about truths regarding our existence and it comes down to beliefs.
" If so, how much time do we have left as a civilization?"
Civilization is not static. It is dynamic as well as being global thus one portion may diminish while another is not affected.
"What is your opinion about Biden's policies on climate change?"
From my understanding, though I have not done a deep dive, they are in alignment with global consensus guided by science. Other than that I have no opinion other than a cursory poking about.
"How much does the average person know about climate change policies and basic economics?"
Not much in my view other than osmosis fed by the media. Isn't that pretty much the same as any policy?
"Do you believe Al Gore?"
I haven't heard him speak about it nor read anything by him
"What are your thoughts regarding the IPCC and WHO?"
None at this time. I may look into it at a later time.
"What do you think about solar panels and wind energy?"
They are both a first step on the right path for renewable energy to meet our needs seeking to eliminate dependence on fossil fuels.Hello tsmog, You get an A for thoroughness. The important thing to know is that we will not die from climate change, unless we give up fossil fuels altogether. Solar and wind will not heat a cold house during the dead of a still winter night.
Another interesting tidbit is that Enron developed a close relationship with politicians to promote action regarding global warming/climate change. I guarantee you, they didn’t do so out of benevolence.
Climate change activism is big money. As long as politicians keep people fearful, the money keeps rolling in… but not for voters.
If we keep on this trajectory of bad climate policy, as begun by the Obama presidency, the U.S. will suffer economically and this current lack of growth will continue into the future. This is a path that needs to be averted.
There has been so-called climate change since time immemorial. Climate change is here to stay. Except for the various ice ages, climate change doesn't pose a threat- species have either adjusted to the change or became extinct. There are more important issues to consider than climate change which is fluff.
gmWilliam, what are those 'more important issues to consider than the flufy climate changes'? Are these related to energy or weather phenomena being discussed here? Or are these just political or Americanism? Much thanks.
Taking each of your points in your opening statement in turn:-
#1: Is climate change a threat to our existence?
Most defiantly yes - Within the past 20 years, and 10 years in particular, that has become increasingly apparent:
• This year alone Europe, the UK and the USA have all seen record breaking heatwaves, and wildfires, and the USA has seen the worst hurricanes on record.
With the UK historically having a cold and damp climate, wildfires and heatwaves were a rare occurrence until 20 years ago e.g. prior to 2002 the last heatwave and drought in the UK was in 1976. The UK’s ten hottest years on record have all occurred since 2002, with this year being the hottest heatwave ever when temperatures reached 40.3C (105f).
Deadly Heatwave, Wildfires Raging Across Europe (Summer 2022): https://youtu.be/7xxixCZK69I
Wildfires rip through the UK amid record-breaking heatwave: https://youtu.be/zQ4wEx9v7_I
• This year saw the worst devastation on record from floods and rising sea levels in many third world countries.
And with global warming set to rise, it will only get worse.
#2: If so, how much time do we have left as a civilization?
The latest estimate by scientist is 8 years before we reach tipping-point (point of no return) if drastic measures are not taken to reduce CO2 emission.
#3: What is your opinion about Biden's policies on climate change?
Not being American I don’t have enough knowledge of American politics to comment.
#4: How much does the average person know about climate change policies and basic economics?
Unfortunately, from what I see in these forums the average American person’s knowledge on climate change policies and basic economics is limited. However, most Europeans do have a reasonable grasp of climate change policies, although few understand economics. However, climate change is a topic that I’ve taken a keen interest in since 2012, and I do have a good understanding of economics e.g. qualified in the subject.
#5: Do you believe Al Gore?
Not being American, I don’t know who Al Gore is.
#6: What are your thoughts regarding the IPCC and WHO?
I have a lot of respect for both Organisations.
#7: What do you think about solar panels and wind energy?
In many countries around the world, including China, the EU and UK they play an important part in the Energy Mix e.g. over the last 7 days 53.1% of the UK’s electricity was generated from Renewable Energy, with 49.5% of the electricity generated coming from just wind power.
And last year I had solar panels and a wall battery fitted to our home, and even in the British climate, during the winter months (last year) half of our electricity came from our solar panels; and during the summer months we were virtually self-sufficient in the energy we used.
So yes, solar panels and wind energy are very important.Not sure if I addressed this. Hard to keep up with the threads since I do not post everyday. For now, let me say that hurricanes are not the result of climate change. There is no scientific evidence for that at all.
I am surprised that solar helped you during winter months. If that is the case, good on you for taking care of your family. As you mentioned, solar is way less expensive in the U.K.
I do not believe that China, the polluter of the world, plays an important role in climate change (in any positive way) or that they should be lauded in any way. To give them credit for good is an abomination to all that is good and decent.
Thank you for posting. Your comments have been interesting.Yes you did address this in another forum, and as you may remember, one of your colleges (who’s almost as sceptical about climate change as you) did provide a link that quite rightly point out that although hurricanes have not become more frequent because of climate change, they are becoming more destructive because of climate change; especially the ones that regularly hit the USA.
The reasons that hurricanes are becoming more destructive due to climate change is very ‘basic’ physics that most kids learn at school (at least in British schools) e.g. it’s to do with temperature differentials: It’s the temperature differentials around the globe that causes air currents, and the greater the differentials the stronger the air current (wind, gales, hurricanes) e.g. global warming.
Anyway, you’re still ignoring the dramatic increase in heatwaves, drought, wildfires, melting ice caps and glaciers and rising sea levels, due to climate change. As I pointed out above, before this century, the last time we had a heatwave in the UK was in 1976; since 2002 (in 20 years) we’ve now had 10 heatwaves, this year’s being the worst, with temperatures reaching 40.3c (105f), which for a country when prior to 2002 it never reaches even 30c (86f) is unprecedented.
Likewise, up until a few years ago, wildfires in the UK were unheard of; whereas now, they’re becoming a common biannual occurrence.
I don’t know why you should think solar panels aren’t effective in the UK over winter; these days solar panels don’t need direct sunlight to work, even on cloudy days they generate electricity, albeit not as much as when its sunny, but every bit helps.
Solar panels used to be as expensive in the UK as they are in the USA, but the UK has gotten over the initial cost stage of establishing the industry, infrastructure and supply chains – It’s now a well-established, and big, industry in the Europe, generating wealth of jobs in the industry, and contributing to the country’s economy (GDP). So yes, solar energy is now cheap in the UK (economies of scale); and since 2016 cheaper than fossil across the EU and UK – which is why the UK Government stopped subsidies on solar energy in 2019 (the subsidies are no longer needed because Renewable Energy is now cheaper than fossil fuels across Europe, including in the UK).
Where you say “I do not believe that China, the polluter of the world, plays an important role in climate change (in any positive way)”; FYI, the only reason China is the polluter is because they have the biggest population. China’s population is 4.35 times bigger than the USA, yet China’s CO2 Emissions is only double. The USA is the 2nd worst polluter in the world, not just because of its large population bus also because Americans contribute double the amount of CO2 emission per person than Chinese, and three times the amount of CO2 emissions per person than in Britain – So it’s nothing for Americans to be proud of.
Yes, China should be lauded for their efforts: In China Renewable Energy has been increasing steadily, from 17.66% of their energy mix (electricity) in 2008 to 27.32% in 2020; while in contrast Renewable Energy in the USA is just 12% (2021), way behind China’s and the Europe’s progress towards transitioning towards Renewable Energy.Why shouldn’t China be lauded for their efforts?
1. Per person, the USA generates twice as much CO2 than China, and three times more than the UK: CO2 is the root cause of Climate Change – see data below.
2. Only 18% of the USA’s electricity comes from Renewable Energy, while 29.09% of China’s electricity is from Renewable Energy, and 38.6% of the UK’s electricity is from Renewable energy. Renewable Energy helps to reduce CO2 emissions, yet the USA is putting far less effort into rolling out Renewable Energy than China – see data below.
So, if any country shouldn’t be lauded, it’s the USA for its lack of effort to cut CO2 emissions.
• CO2 Emissions per Capita (per person) in China is only 7.38 CO2 tons per year – half that of the USA.
• CO2 Emissions per Capita (per person) in the USA is a whopping 15.52 CO2 tons per year – Double that of China.
• CO2 Emissions per Capita (per person) in the UK is only 5.55 CO2 tons per year – A third that of the USA.
In 2020 Renewable Energy accounted for 29.09% of China’s electricity energy mix.
• Hydropower = 17.3%
• Wind power = 5.5%
• Solar power = 3.1%
• Thermal energy = 2%
• Biomass = 1.5%
• Pumped hydro storage = 0.4%
In 2021 Renewable Energy accounted for just 18% in the USA’s electricity energy mix.
• Wind power = 9.2%
• Hydropower = 6.3%
• Solar power = 2.8%
• Biomass = 1.3%
• Thermal energy = 0.4%
In 2020 Renewable Energy accounted for 38.6% in the UK electricity energy mix.
• Wind power = 24.8%
• Biomass = 6.5%
• Solar power = 4.4%
• Hydropower = 1.6%
• Pumped hydro storage = 1.3%
So before criticising China, you should look at yourself (USA) first – “let him who is without sin cast the first stone”.Very good point. If China did not have a communist dictatorship we might have someone from that country able to share honest numbers. Those numbers he qouted are not true, and certainly do not take into account the millions of people burning coal in their fireplace to keep their homes warm. That is why they have so much pollution despite what the government claims.
Someone from England, who is aware of the terrible pollution in London when everyone burnt coal at home, should realize that the regime in China is not to be lauded. The only reason that they can report lower numbers is that they are fake and invented by their dictatorial govenment.Actually, if you look at the data on the Internet, no one is denying that China burns a lot of coal, 62% of their electricity comes from coal, which is comparable to the USA where 63% of their electricity is from fossil fuels. And China does have a chronic pollution problem, just as Britian did back in the 1970's and before (which I remember well).
The point I'm making is that just 10 years ago, 78% of their electricity came from coal, now it's down to 62% (in 10 years), and still decreasing as they continue to rollout Renewable Energy.
China now operates almost 50% of the world's installed offshore wind, and China uses over 33% of the world’s solar panels in the world.
The problem China faces is such a huge population 4.35 times larger than the population in the USA.China should not be praised. As a rational person you should question any numbers coming out of a society that actively interferes with free speech.
Yeah, I know where you're coming from, and valid points questioning data from a society that actively interferes with free speech. But to be frank, most of the mainstream information on climate change published in the right-wing media in the USA (supporting the coal and oil industry) is riddled with false information (propaganda), and in my view less trustworthy than China.
I don't need to take just take the information published by China. Much of it is independently varied by other sources e.g. as mentioned below, Chris has first-hand knowledge from working there that the "numbers from China is no fake".No, Chris has anecdotal information from working there. He cannot confirm those numbers, only can tell you of his own experience. That is very valuable and it is great to hear but that does not mean that what they publish is true.
As far as the coal and oil industry, I think you are right on that point. However, I do not think that their lies and false propoganda justify China making up lies. Saying China should be lauded is just like saying that Exxon is here to save the environment.China doesn’t make up lies, in the way that you are implying; the evidence of what they are achieving is there for the whole word to see: It’s a fact that almost 50% of the world’s offshore wind turbines are in China, and it’s a fact that over 33% of the world’s solar farms are in China, which can be independently verified by international satellites.
Also, the Three Gorges Dam, the world’s largest dam (that dwarfs Americas Hoover Dam), producing large amounts of green (Renewable Energy) isn’t fiction; it’s a reality.
Three Gorges Dam in China: The World's Most Powerful Dam https://youtu.be/lsiN_AckQgE
You don’t like information provided by China. But what you may not be aware of is that a handful of European countries, including the UK, are world leaders in Wind power technology e.g. a lot of the technology for China’s push to building wind farms is lucrative business (exports) for European countries e.g. Hitachi Energy (a Switzerland high-tech Company) as demonstrated in this video: https://youtu.be/krAbky3pd-A
In 2019 the UK’s exports of wind energy products and services to China was worth £525 million ($630 million) a year; this is expected to grow to £2.6 billion ($3.2 billion) by 2030.
Currently, as at 2021, the UK imports of services from China are £2.5 billion ($3 billion) a year and we export £8.2 billion ($9.85 billion) of services to China.Even if some of the numbers from China are true, (which is doubtful) this goes back to the original point. This has nothing to do with imports from China, their exports, has nothing to do with the production of energy in Europe. They do not deserve to be lauded. They are the largest polluter on the planet.
In total numbers the USA as a nation is the largest CO2 polluter on our planet, if we accumulate historic emissions.
At current rate it will take another 25 years for China to reach the historic CO2 output of the USA.
https://ourworldindata.org/contributed-most-global-co2
Of course this is kind of academic, but if adjusted to population size, no country can beat the USA, not in historic terms, not in recent yearly output.
The historic accumulation of CO2 is what makes us industrialized and developed nations the main contributor, even if countries like India, China or Nigeria are no angels by now either.Nigeria's contributions to the CO2 emissions is only significant when crude oil, was discovered at Olo Biri, on the Niger Delta, fringes in 1956. This prompt 'gas flareing' 24/7 over the sorrounding Islands for at most 3 decades, and the refineing of crude oil, leads the consumption of kerosine, petrol, and diesel. Coal, mined significantly in Enugu, was fuel, for the locomotion engine. This was replaced with diesel in the 1980's. Therefore, historical emissions of CO2 from 1751 to 1966, in Nigeria, was 'zero'. Post inustrial discharge of CO2 was still insignificant, compare to industrialization. All this I garner from my history class. Many third world countries still has the opinion to using diessel, petrol, and natural gas.
Not sure why you are so hot on defending China, but the truth is that China produces more pollution than any other nation on earth. That includes carbon. Do you think they should be getting an award from the rest of the world because they are not polluting as much as they might?
At one point the UK was the largest polluter in the world and burned enough coal to pollute your enviromment. That has absolutely nothing to do with what is going on in China today. To say "if we accumulate historic emissions" is a method to defend the pollution going on from China as if it is okay.
So why do you think it is okay for China to destroy the environment but want to condemn the rest of the world? It is certainly not because China wants things any better in your part of the world.to make it simple:
The change for the better can be seen in China.
This distinguishes China from other countries like India...
Change for the better can be defined as : reduction of CO2 output normalized to GDP.According to those numbers qouted by Nathanville it will take China 25 years to produce enough pollution to equal what has taken the US over a hundred and fifty years to produce.
You will excuse me if I do not think that is change for the better.As i did the little maths about the 25 years, i might as well explain.
China produces currently some 11 billion tons of CO2/years.
The USA is at 5 billion tons plus.
That makes a difference of 6 billion tons per year. And 25 years multiplied with the difference is some 150 billion tons and that closes the historic CO2 gap between the USA and China.
Anyways, the assumption behind is that neither the USA nor China increase their CO2 ouptut. Only - China is working on this. The USA ???
No reason to bash China for doing something and to endorse the USA for doing almost nothing, me think.No reason to bash China? You just admitted that they produce well over twice as much carbon pollution each year than the US. Do you think China should be congratulated for that? What Tiktok are you watching?
You also realize they are producing more cars than any other country? Do you really think that amount of pollution is going to go down?
They are working on it.
Small example on how they pressure their CO2 policies:
In Shanghai and other cities the purchase of a car is not only associated with the price of a car but also with buying a car license, a license plate.
In some cases the licence plate is more costly than the new car itself.
To enforce green policies an all electric car gets its "green" license plate for free. Guess how many electric cars were seen in the streets, already 5 years ago.
Number of cars manufactured and put on the road doesn´t scare. How many of them are all electric already is more important.
They are only the largest polluter because they have the largest population; 4.35 larger than the USA population – yet their pollution is only double that of the USA: If the USA’s population was as large as China’s, then USA’s pollution would be double that of China.
It might interest you to know that our neighbours (and close friends of ours), two doors up from us, are Chinese; they emigrated from China so that they could have two children. Both husband and wife are scientists involved in research at university in Bristol. So, from socialising with them we’ve learnt a lot about China straight from the ‘horse’s mouth’ (first hand). They annually take a holiday (vacation) in China to visit family; and a few years ago I had the pleasure of meeting the husband’s brother from China, who visited here on Visa.
Also, the UK has become a popular tourist attraction to the Chinese, so it’s not unusual to meet Chinese on shopping trips as part of their holiday (vacation) tour of Britain.
An amusing video on the subject of the boom in Chinese tourism in the last 25 years: https://youtu.be/DdK94CpYgm8Very interestingly post indeed. If cheap green energy were fully available to both the USA and China, and to all countries...climate crisis would began to abate. The good news is that science and technology, back up by the government, is prompting us to the goal.
Except for political reasons, I am having a hard time why you think the Chinese should receive praise for spewing their pollution upon the world. Do you think a "tiny" country like India is producing as much waste as the Chinese?
Dr.Mark, I don't buy your thought of India, as a 'tiny' country. In sub- Sahara West Africa, tiny countries include . Bukinah Faso, Senegal, Mali, and Niger. The population of Nigeria and India respectively is 211.4 million and 1.3 billion(2021). So both Nigeria and the USA would be tiny countries compared to India. Yet, the CO2 emission of India, is insignificant compared to the USA. How d' you see the USA as a very tiny country? Much thanks.
I was being facetious. The population of India is about the same as the population of China now but they manage not to produce as much pollution as that country.
Nathanville has stated that we should be praising China becuase they are only producing over twice as much pollution as the US....The population of India is about the same as the population of China now but they manage not to produce as much pollution as that country. ...
Because India is poor.
India´s GDP is between 1/6 to 1/3 of China´s GDP per capita, depending on nominal or PPP figures. And to become rich, they need energy and if energy is coming from fossiles, they are on the same road as all of us on our planet.
Isn´t this discussion about efficiency of energy useage? I make a suggestion: To measure efficiency we may divide CO2 output per capita by something like the "Human Development Index" https://hdr.undp.org/data-center/human- … dicies/HDI
So - how much bad CO2 is needed to create how much well being of those people who are responsible for the CO2?
Now - even in Chad with worlds lowest HDI of 0,394 human species is able to survive. And in Switzerland (worlds highest HDI of 0,959) you can´t eat more cheese than anywhere else on our planet. So lets spread the HDI between these 2 extremes (HDI*: Chad = 0 and Switzerland = 1) and lets see what comes out.
India (1,93 to/cap./ 0,642) = 4,4 to/cap/HDI*
China (8,05 to/cap / 0,768) = 12,1 to/cap/HDI*
USA (14,86 to/cap / 0,921) = 15,9 to/cap/HDI*
Brazil (2,28 to/cap / 0,758) = 3,54 to/cap/HDI*
Germany (8,09 to/cap / 0,942) = 8,34 to/cap/HDI*
Brazil performs best in this academic game. Brazil utilizes the least energy to achive an adequate HDI. The USA is top of the wasters of energy.
But wait a minute. Can we really compare Brazil and India with a country like Germany where average annual temperature is 10 .. 15 °C lower than
near the equator? Do you need CO2 producing heatings in those countries.
Comparisons are more tricky - you are right.Dr Mark, now I get you. When SavvyDating said that China is not to be 'laud', I know certain of us have reservations. Chriss57 has landed business deals and experiences right there in China. Nathanville(Arthur) also has business dealings or is oriented with his Chinese friends. Therefore, both knew their onions. At the same time, they may placade their friends and or business. That said, I don't think they should buy into your thoughts, or insightful discourse. Thanks again.
There are always these "killer" arguments on facts or numbers coming from non transparent, autocratic countries and thus not being trustworthy.
My professional life took me many times to China. From being involved in planning the Three Gorges Project in the early 90ties to windfarming in recent years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Gorges_Dam
Our Chinese headquarter was located in a twin tower office building in Shanghai. On smog days in 2013 we couldn´t see the opposite tower some 50 m away. These times are over. Never experiences this any more in the past 5 years.
I had business in Beijing in 2014 during the APEC conference. We experienced blue skys which was very unusual. Authorities had shut down surrounding industries and this allowed for the sky to clear up.
But most of the time back then the sun could only be seen through a curtain of yellow clouds, giving all photos (Tiananmin square or forbidden city..) a reddish colour. Again, if you look at recent postcards, this is no more.
China is adding every year the hydropower output equivalent of 1 to 2 Hoover Dams to its grid.
No media, personal experience, personally talking to people. The numbers from China are no fake.Terrible and awful. Even when the coronavirus 2019 pandemic, began to breakout, China, hide the correct figure. No Communist Regime will ever disclosed to near trutti the accuracy of any issue. Is it any wonder then that 'real' Donald Trump, walk out on the Unitdd Nations?
Arthur, I'm repeating the reply to point #5. The first response stuck because my keyboard develop faults, and I've got it service. 'Do you believe Al Gore?' 'Being American(thd word's suppose to be British) I don't know who Al Gore is.' The British and Americans are related for centuries before the American war of Independence, and you should have a basic grasp or ABC of American current affairs. FYI Al Gore, is a former USA vice presidential candidate.
Thanks, I just looked him up on Wikipedia to learn that he was vice president of the USA under President Bill Clinton, and that he was in Office from 1993 to 2001.
But prior to Trump I had no interest in American politics e.g. it was not controversial in those days, and it had little effect of importance in British Current Affairs, and therefore of little interest to me.
The Climate crisis we are in (not facing, and not climate change) can only be changed by changing economics.
Today we have a growth model of economics. This is simply unsustainable. Resources have limits and are at odds with forever growing.
There is an economic model that' getting more and more attention. And that's the doughnut model.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doughnut_(economic_model)
Where economics is sustainable. and not based on growth.
I don't know much about this, but it is clear that the economic system is the culprit.
You can change all the fossil fuels for solar and wind energy, still as long as you don't change the way of living you/we will come to a point where all the energy resources will be spent.
So energy and resources should be used in a way that they are recycled into the economic system and not simply used once and thrown away.Just to throw in a fairly new investigation on climate stability:
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adc9241
In short: Climate/temperatures are affected by green house gases, especially CO2. Chemical processes by weathering of silicates seem to have a self regulatory impact on CO2 concentration, because CO2 reacts with silicates (stone..) and takes it out of the atmsphere.
Scientists have searched for explanations why temperature control was already active (millions of years ago), long before photosynthesis (plant growth) could play a significant role to regulate CO2 concentration.
If this academic work holds some merit, then this will change the big picture on climate.
However it does not releave us from the immediate dangers for mankind in the coming decades and centuries.
As some scientists were asked:
"Will mankind survive?"
Answer: "About half of our species."It's good to see this discussion is still open as it's the most important topic of our generation.
Climate change will lead to mass emigration and wars for resources, crop problems with fertilization, extinction of animals and plants, and change in air temperature and humidity.
We're still fighting against the huge solar parks that are planned to be built here. Cutting down millions of almond and olive trees to put solar panels.
The good farming ground is bought by Renovalia who approached each farmer individually with confidentiality contracts, so nobody knew about the scale of the solar park.
The solar parks will not create new jobs as they will be built within a year with a lot of specialists coming not from the region and then everything will be automated for 30 years.
Solar parks are speculation and just another way to dominate the energy market.
The best way to use solar is to use all the roofs and abandoned industrial places.
We live in a time in which huge changes have to be made. But I don't think politicians have the guts to make them as they are more concerned about votes than about making the world a better place.
Powerful politicians denying climate change are a deadly danger for the future. Like denying smoking is deadly dangerous.Thanks for the update; and I also agree completely with you.
Do you still have family in the Netherlands? If so, what is their reaction to the government slowing down farm production?
Yes, I still have family and friends in The Netherlands and visit them once a year.
The problems with the farms and their CO2 problem is a problem 10+ years in the making. It's not a new problem, the only thing is that the government is pushed to take actions now because of European climate agreements. They did not take action for 10+ years as the farming industry is a powerful industry and they were afraid to do something. But stalling a problem is never a good thing.
The farmers had years to make plans to change their farms and way of farming. And the smart ones did. But some people think that everything will always stay the same and are now indignant and angry about the sudden measurements.
It looks as if the public opinion in The Netherlands is that they are tired of the farmer's protests as most people realize that the government has to do something about the climate crisis. And that farmers are crushing into a government building with a tractor and making blockades to stop getting products into the shops does not help to get the public on their side.
The Dutch government was actually sued by the public as they found that the government had not done enough to stop the climate crisis.
And the public won.
Dutch supreme court upholds landmark ruling demanding climate actionThanks, it is good to hear from someone who actually knows of the situation. Journalists (on both sides of the aisle) warp the situation and it is hard for any of us to know what is happening from reading their diatribes.
The Nethderland's Supreme Court judgement is a most vital historic landmark. That human rights is part of the climate crisis to be protect is an understanding. Any government should know this, more than an individual. Thanks.
So if the Nigerian supreme court decided to stop palm oil production because it leads to deforestation and global warming you would be okay with that? They could say "we are govenment and we know more than any individual" while leaving many Nigerians at a loss of a basic income and food.
We recently elected a socialist president here in Brazil that said he plans on doing the same thing. Food prices for many are already very high.Dr. Mark, I wouldn't agree with your first statement. Every. Nigerian will not.
The thing is that planting of tree regularly is no longer being done by the government. The present political dispensation, is worst than the Military Government, the later is bent on planting tree every day. Thanks again.I was using that as an example because palm oil plantations are being blamed on deforestation and thus global warming. You can choose any food that is commonly consumed in your area.
What if the government decided that production of that food was contributing to global warming and stopped or slowed down production? Do you think that would be a good thing for your country? Here it is beef, as Brazilians consume more beef than most countries in the world and the beef industry is often criticized for deforestation/climate change.I've read that elsdwhere, and also here in one of thd forum threads. I can hardly understand how beef production can contributed to the climate crisis. Clearing virgin forest to rear cattles, and other animals equates to planting palm oil tree. But they're also similar prouction of these man-made or natural. Critically, are we to get rid of any food production that contributed to the climate crisis? Planting millions of tree by governments is the answer. Thanks again.
What’s wrong with crop rotation and sustainable farming?
In the UK commercial organic farming is done on a crop rotation, typically three to four years, where I third or one quarter of the land is left fallow for a year so as to rebuild the nutrients in the soil naturally – A practice done across Europe for centuries, and which doesn’t require deforestation, as the same land is used over and over again.
Even wood sold in the UK must be certified that it’s from a sustainable source e.g. for every tree harvested, new trees are planted to replace it. Even the Christmas trees grown and harvested in Britain every December for people to have a real Christmas tree in their home to decorate for Christmas comes from sustainable forests e.g. for every Christmas tree cut down, new Christmas trees are planted for future harvesting.
Agroforestry on upland farms in the UK https://youtu.be/UNU7ZEpOK_kThe UK has not been able to feed itself since the 19th century. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6678806/ Why do you think crop rotation is enough to take care of the growing population of this world? Do you know there are over 8 billion people in this world?
If the UK were to take on 50% or Pakistan and Indias population, do you really think that crop rotation and organic farming would feed them?Appreciate your insights, Dr. Mark,
Not sure where the article on melanoma fits in.
Did you mean to supply another link?Yes, sorry about that. I was reading an article on the UK food production and working on a reply from a person whose dog has a melanoma on the foot.
Here is the correct link:
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyl … the-expertThank you for the correction. If the current back-yard-gardening was seriously carried out, Britain can feed herself and others. I've read 'Secret Intelligence in the 20th Century' that shows Britain's lack of food security up to pre-industrial times.
I definitely think it can be done if they were willing to forgo exotic foods. The point I was making though is that we have to decide if climate change is more important than food. Claiming that crop rotation is going to do it is incorrect.
DrMark, that link is about treating dog sickness compare with humans. I need a pointer to food production.
I added the correct link in a reply tô Savvy. Sorry.
Interesting opening paragraph in the Guardian (the link you provided), to quote: “The supply chain crisis has already forced supermarkets to use cardboard cut-outs to hide gaps on shelves.” Which at the time of publication was, and still is perfectly correct –But, the article was published in December 2021 (in the aftermath of the pandemic, and not long after Brexit):-
Prior to the pandemic we didn’t have food shortages; instead we had plenty of food waste e.g. about a third of the food sold in the UK was wasted, 70% of which was by householders throwing away food because it had passed its “Use by Date”. In recent months, to try to reduce food waste, supermarkets (food stores) have switched from putting “Use by Date” on food to “Best by Date” with a joint NHS (Government) and Food Industry awareness campaign to encourage people to use ‘common sense’ before throwing good food away e.g. to use a simple look, taste and smell test of food that’s past its ‘best by date’.
Defining the best before date for food (UK): https://youtu.be/RxHz1QioQMM
However, in the aftermath of the pandemic the UK (like most of the rest of the world) suffered chronic supply chain issues, which has adversely affected our food supplies; with the situation being made much worse also because of the supply chain issues due to Brexit e.g. most of our imported food comes from the EU – so a double whammy.
Yep, the UK produces 61% of its food, of which 11.2% is exported; and thus we import the rest, mostly from Europe:
Where the UK’s Food Comes From
• 53.9% grown in UK
• 27.8% imported from EU
• 4.4% imported from Africa
• 3.8% imported from South Africa
• 3.7% imported from North America
• 3.6% imported from Asia
• 1.9% imported from the rest of Europe outside of the EU
• 0.7% imported from Australia
Agriculture accounts for 6.8% of our GDP, and around 12% of employment in the UK.
However, Brazil is 35 times larger than UK with population that’s only 3 times larger. So with the UK being such a tiny island (35 times smaller than Brazil) with population just a third smaller than Brazil can produce over half the food we consume, using the agricultural techniques we use, then I think what we do in the UK is reasonable.
Yep, generally speaking the UK has not fed itself since the 19th century, but that’s not because it can’t, if you read the Guardian Article again you will see that it’s largely out of choice, mainly because importing food gives a greater dietary diversity (which is better for health), and partly because it’s often cheaper to buy imported food.
But the one exception, where Britain did become largely self-sufficient in food (out of necessity) was during the 2nd world war, when Germany blockaded shipping to Britain, forcing Britain to become reliant on its own food production – Hence the British ‘Dig for Victory’ food campaign during the 2nd world war.
Dig For Victory: https://youtu.be/35NpLveVZDg
Yep, I know the world is 8 billion; but Brazil doesn’t have to try to feed the world.
Besides Brazil’s population is dwarfed by the population of the EU, yet crop rotation and organic farming is common across Europe, including the EU and the EU is largely self-sufficient in food production.
I note in your comments further down the thread that you make the statement “we have to decide if climate change is more important than food.” The answer is that both are important, but there is no reason why they should be mutually exclusive of each other.It looks to me like you are skirting this issue again by blaming things on the supply chain, how much food is wasted, etc. The reason I added the link to that article is that it clearly states that even in the UK, where the soil is good and rainfall is adequate, there is not enough food to feed the population. In many areas it is much worse (Ethiopia, Sudan, Mali, Chad, etc.)
The UK only takes in about 200,000 immigrants per year but things would change drammatically if more immigration came from India, Pakiistan, or east Africa.
The issue of this thread is climate change. The question, and the whole point of that link, was that we have to decide if potential climate changes are more important than food security. You think there is no reason they should be mutually exclusive. I think the situation in the Netherlands proves you are wrong, although I admit it is difficult to find non-biased information on the subject. (Which is why I asked Peter his take on the subject.)
The president-elect here in Brazil promised to make food cheaper and stop global warming. I do not think that can be done unless you convince people to stop eating imported food, stop eating meat at every meal, and learn to subsist on what is grown locally.
DrMark: Nope, I am not blaming things on the supply chains and food waste; the opening sentence in the link you provided stated that the UK has a food shortage – for non-Brit readers I was just pointing out that food shortages is just a recent development because of the pandemic, the war in Ukraine and Brexit.
Food waste, yeah, if we didn’t waste so much food we wouldn’t need to import so much food; that’s common sense.
But getting to your main point, there is not enough ‘home-grown’ food in the UK to feed the nation not because we can’t grow enough ourselves, but because we don’t e.g. during the 2nd world war the UK did grow enough food to feed itself, because we had to – hence the UK Government’s ‘Dig for Victory’ campaign.
It doesn’t take much land for a family to feed itself on basic food e.g. I’ve set aside a small plot at the end of our back garden, measuring just 12ft by 20ft where I grow all our vegetables; and in that small plot of land I grow enough vegetables to feed a family of three for 12 months of the year – So we don’t buy vegetables except for potatoes.
Food production isn’t a major part of the UK’s economy, the ‘Service Sector’ is; and people don’t want to live on just a diet of British fruit and vegetables, they want to mix it with more exotic food that only grows in hotter climates; so there is no incentive for Britain to try to feed itself when it can import what it wants.
You can’t make a direct comparison between the UK and countries like Ethiopia, Sudan, Mali, Chad – Europe is better comparison; and in that respect the EU is virtually self-sufficient in feeding itself.
What does immigration have to do with it? If anything, we don’t get enough immigrants because the UK is an ageing population with a chronic labour shortage, the latter bought about by political ideology.
Yeah, the main question relevant this thread in this forum is as you say “we have to decide if potential climate changes are more important than food security.” And as I said “there is no reason they should be mutually exclusive.” – I didn’t say “they are mutually exclusive”, I said “they should be mutually exclusive”. The situation in Netherlands is an example of where it hasn’t worked, but there are plenty of examples in the UK for example where it can be made to work.
Yep, nothing better than out of the ‘horse’s mouth’ e.g. by asking Peter because it is all too often difficult to find non-biased information on a subject.
To fill in the gaps, I don’t know if any of this helps:-
• The Netherlands is the second largest exporter of agricultural produce in the world after the USA.
• The Netherlands has a strong agrarian and livestock sector, which produces significant agricultural exports.
• The protests were initially triggered in October 2019 by a government proposal to halve the country's livestock in an attempt to limit agricultural pollution in the Netherlands.
• The targets dictate that the Netherlands must halve emissions of nitrous oxide and ammonia by 2030.
• The Netherlands did not meet the EU’s 2020 emissions targets.
Taking the last point first; the UK met and exceeded the 2020 emission targets in 2016, and has already met its 2030 target.
The Netherlands issue is that its main form of agriculture is livestock, and it’s farming practices of rearing livestock gives rise to high levels of nitrous oxide and ammonia.
Two points from the above that spring to my mind:-
• Firstly, the UK Government is running a public awareness campaign to encourage people to eat less meat, because it’s better for the planet (climate change), and
• Secondly, in the UK farms that rear livestock are increasingly doing so in more environmentally friendly ways to help combat climate change.
Why Marshalls dairy farm going organic? https://youtu.be/GmRglRAP6QU
The British start-up that wants us to eat less meat https://youtu.be/Vv1l0Yxq94w
Yep, very valid points in the fight against climate change (global warming) in your last paragraph; to reiterate them again; to convince people (although I would say, to encourage people) to:-
• Stop eating imported food
• Stop eating meat at every meal, and
• Learn to subsist on what is grown locally.
Yep, locally produced food helps to reduce the carbon footprint; and although as a nation we import about 40% of our food, many organisations (large and small) source local produce for their catering; especially as its good PR to do so.
In the UK about 10% of the population are now either vegetarian or vegan; and in recent years, 31% of the UK population are now eating less meat.
One point you missed from the list, which is probably more important because it is the ‘lungs of the earth’, is the importance of reducing deforestation, and planting more trees...The Netherlands is the second largest exporter of agricultural produce in the world after the USA.
I was planning to bring that one up as an argument about efficiency and agriculture.
Many products in The Netherlands are grown without soil, only water and stacked. It's all high tec..As The Netherlands is a tiny country and every square meter has a high price and should be used to the max.
Sometimes I think the bigger the country, the less efficient and lax it is used.
Here in Spain I see so often piles of rubble on the countryside, simply dumped by somebody. In the Netherlands, no one would even think to do such a thing. Nature is a precious thing.
Of course every country is different in climate and resources but efficiency is something that can be applied in every country. Learn from each other.
As it's clear that now the world population is growing like crazy, efficiency is a key element for survival.
So to burn down forests so you will have fertile ground to plant crops is not the way to do it anymore.
Also more and more alternatives are worked on to replace meat. As meat is incredibly inefficient. You need lots of water and food (that needs land and water) to produce meat.
So food for though ;-)
Embrace what may be the most important green technology ever. It could save us all
But with every change (like quitting smoking) it has its resistance.Actually oceans are the lungs of the earth.
https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/ocean-oxygen.html
I think deforestation is more important because of the loss of species. I plant trees every week but I certainly cannot plant as many species here as those that are being lost.
As to your other point, immigration has a lot to do with this subject becaue even in a country with good rainfall and decent soil, like England, if more people immigrate to your country then more food is going to be need to be produced or imported.'the importance of deforestation and planting more trees'. If a grassland is to be cleared for a building, attemts should be made to plant some evergreen trees around. In case of a forest for agriculture (livestock), it's my reasoning that the number of trees felled including the younger growing plants, sh6uld be replant in double measure. 40 decades ago, when the fircely blazing Sahara Desert, was encroaching on Northdrn Nigeria, the Southern parts of the country, especially the. Middle Belt, suffer serve winter blitz. The Military Government of then General Olusegun Obansjo, began to plant hundreds of thousand trees. This greatly help in comcting the encroachment. The Desertencroachment is now past tence. The sought no longer experienced the cold Harmata.
Actually DrMark, we are both right. The oceans absorbs about 30% of CO2 emissions created by burning fossil fuels, and the trees of the world absorbs about another 30% of the CO2 emissions: We can’t do anything to increase the ocean size, but we can do a lot to increase the number of trees in the world.
It’s good to hear that you are regularly planting trees; every bit helps.
Immigration is essential to Britain; we have an ageing population with a lower birth rate, down from 2.5 when I left school to currently 1.56 per family and falling (which is not sustainable) e.g. a declining population. Consequently, because of Brexit, we now have a chronic labour shortage across all economic sectors in the UK e.g. over 80,000 vacant nursing jobs in the NHS, chronic shortage of farm labourers so that up to a third of soft fruits are left to rot in the fields, and a chronic shortage of drivers, further exasperating the already disrupted supply chains. In spite of pressuring being put on the current Government to relax its strict immigration policy, there is no sign of that being changed (without a change of Government) because (typical of hard-right-wing Governments) the current Government is guided by its political ideology rather than economics.
Nevertheless, if we had a change of Government, and immigration rules were relaxed so that job vacancies can be filled, an increase in population would mean more food required, but as Peter points out above (whether its imported or home grown) in this day and age food productivity can be increased without a negative impact on the planet.
Yep, absolutely Miebakagh, good points and good examples.
For example, where you say - “If grassland is to be cleared for a building, attempts should be made to plant some evergreen trees around.”
Since 1948 (post war Britain) It’s been the UK Government policy (regardless to which Government is in power) to support and promote ‘Urban Green Spaces’, with the goal that every citizen living in a city should be no more than a 10 minute walk away from green-land.
So when cities and towns in Britain are re-developed, provision is always made to incorporate greenery, which includes planting trees; currently 30% of urban land in cities and towns in England is ‘Urban Green Space’.
I live in a city, yet when I look out of my home-office window, all I can see predominantly is just trees; see photo below.
Plus, even in the centre of Bristol (the city where I live), you don’t see a concreate jungle, you see buildings intermingled with trees, as this short aerial video below of the centre of Bristol shows.
The video below was filmed from Cabot Tower, which is just a 10 minute walk from the city centre, and in every video shot you’ll see plenty of trees intermingled with the buildings: https://youtu.be/pC9kiYALPME
Below: View from my home-office window, which although I live in a city, is what I see when I’m sitting at my computer to take part in these forums.
One of the obligations of a government is to protect it's citizens. Climate Change is a direct threat against the citizens. If a Government is not protecting the citizens (and in many countries they don't and only protect themselves.) Than yes a government can be taken to court.
If it means that one industry has to be changed for the best interest of the citizens of the country then a government should do so.
Food prices are world wide high Mark, here in Spain everything has rissen too (as the fuel prices has rissen and the grain prices. - so products related to fuel rise...ll products have to be transported)Governments need to decide which is the most imminent threat though. For instance, if half of your citizens are going to die in the next few years from starvation, that is a more significant issue than climate change.
Yes, I realize prices are high worldwide secondary to the goverment dispersal of funds during the pandemic. Stopping food production though is not going to help those prices go down.Of course, you don't want hungry people. That's asking for a revolt.
And no government wants that. (except if you have a country ruled by an elite class who don't give a damn about the citizens of the country..)
But that does not mean that you can't change the existing way of producing and distributing food with a smarter and more efficient one that will also benefit the climate.
Climate change is already affecting crops. Extreme weather is becoming more and more regular. And because of this, you will also have immigration and refugee problems. And war for resources (water)... Problems create new problems.
But the big mother of problems is the Climate Crisis. So if you help to make this one smaller, and so far the big governments (US, China, India, Brazil, Europe) are not doing what they should do but are still sticking their hands in the sand. (Oh yes, they talk nice about green deals and stuff, but the reality is that they still play by the old "growth economy" playbook that only will make things worse.)
What needs to be done is not more "green energy" on top of fossil fuel energy. But a substitution for fossil fuel (which I don't see happening as trucks still drive on diesel. Millions of products (like clothing) use fossil fuels to produce them.)
Buy local as we already discussed (but not just food but also products and clothing). Countries should make those products in their own countries instead of keeping a subsidy system of profiting from labour in faraway countries.
In the EU you see that the political thoughts are now more and more direction being independent of non-EU countries. The US has had this philosophy for years (America first is not a new thing). I'm sure Brazil is thinking in the same line. Is there something like a South-American organization that promotes better economic treaties between South American countries?
It's all incredibly complex. But from what I've read is that the bottom line is: Produce less and produce locally to skip the transport costs (and contamination).Did not read the entirety of Dr. Mark’s comment because I am having a hard time following all the threads.
But I take it that Dr. Mark is taking into account the cost/benefit analysis of climate change policy costs (which are massive) and how that interprets into economic costs for the mostly poor who simply need food (and fuel) to live, and who cannot afford to live under costly policy measures which are imposed upon them in the name of “global warming.”
So, I hope you are taking these issues into account.I’d like to know what makes you think that “climate change policy is massively costly”; on this side of the pond Renewable Energy has been cheaper than fossil fuel energy since 2016.
Also, on this side of the pond our governments do look after its poor.I do not think any of us know what the costs of climate change policy are going to be. It is certainly not going to be just the costs of renewable energy as opposed to fossil fuels. There is a lot more to it, and you are not going to be able to find a web site with some politician telling you the true costs. People have agendas, and each side is going to show numbers to back up their side.
This is why I am willing to look at the work of economists who recognize that climate change is one of many problems in the world, and who also believe we can tackle various problems through long-term innovation rather than short-term solutions based upon panic and political promises.
The following are two short videos that are worth viewing in my opinion.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4ZsD3fL4_0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqeuB084ySQGreen energy was pushed by governments in the past via subsidies, tax breaks .. This created a surge for green technology development and energy generation. So in the past the inherent belief of governments ( and of the people) was that green energy is costly per se and needs support. - and yes - it was costly.
Today the picture has changed. It is cheaper to make or buy green energy than conventional sources.
I have been in the business for decades and i enjoyed tax breaks and subsidies for comfortable business cases for generating renewable energy. Today it is no more necessary to have "artificial" incentives. Green energy has benefits for the producing side and for the consuming side. Green will prevail, for simple economic reasons.
But - imho we have one problem in G. For decades the incentives to foster green energy have been regulated by government. This is kind of in the genes of our government. Today we don´t need this any more, but governments keeps throwing regulations at us.
The result is f.e. in our little city of 200.000 people: 1.500 requests for Solar systems are pending because authorities can´t keep up with demand for approval. While i understand the technical necessity for approval to not overload the grid with too many generating sources too fast, this overregulation only hinders development. May be a typically German approach.
No questions about economics, finances. This topic is already void. People do heavily invest into green energy generation. From rooftop panels to large offshore wind. Whenever a wind park project is opened for investors, shares are booked within days. People do understand opportunities and act adequately. No studies or publications on overall economic cost necessary.I think the economics question is still very regionall. Here in Brazil most of our electricity is generated through hydroelectric sources and solar is too expensive if you look at it next to the monthly electric bill. (I have seen Wilderness comment on the same thing there in the US.)
If you do not regulate the energy and throw it into the open market the results will be catastrophic for the environment.
Also, as a government you throw away a mighty powerful tool. As the situation today is that fossil fuel companies dictate politics as they are in command of the resources.
To give away your resources as a government is giving away political power. That's stupid and will not benefit a country.
Today the Dutch government has to negotiated with 15+ different energy companies to come to a price agreement. That's not workable in a crisis like we have now. And the political tendency in the Netherlands is regret about the privatisation of energy (water, public transport, post etc).
It is far more democratic if the government has control over the energy resources. And even better the people. To buy personally your solar equipment and connect it to the grid (government owned).
This means more work for smaller companies and all that is connected to them (renovation of roofs etc). Which is far better for the economy than one or two companies dictating the market.
You may have pending requests because authorities can't keep up. But that's solvable. But I rather wait to get a solid approval than a sloppy one that destroys the environment. As the main objective of companies is to make money not to give a damn about the environment and biodiversity
Spain is a Wild West market at the moment, and surely you don't want that.
Actually they are talking in Europe right now to loosen the restrictions on Solar Parks.
It's in the small print of the laws about a price max on gas where they are talking. It is a law they try to sneak in where governments are obliged to approve or disapprove a proposal of a company within a month. In other words the governments wont give people anymore the opportunity to make allegations.
Also in the same proposal of the EU it is stated that countries with cheaper solar energy should help countries with more expensive solar energy in Europe. In other words what will happen is that Spain, Portugal and Italy will be used by Germany, The Netherlands like a colony to get cheap energy. The southern countries will be build full of solar parks to deliver energy to the industry in the north.
It is like Shell, BP, Standard Oil in the early 20th century, colonising and privatising new energy resources. Destroying whole habitats, villages and countries in the good of a view rich countries and grabbing political power in the mean time.
Solar power is great, but it is a great threat to the environment when it is used by private companies on a large scale. As thousands of trees are cut for solar farms, agricultural land is sacrificed and biodiversity is destroyed because of hedge fund speculation and investments.
Privatising the solar energy market is a bad idea. And good for Germany it is not doing so as here in Spain the results are disastrous.
Solar Energy is definitely not always green energy.
In the grand scheme, the UK still needs fossil fuel, particularly in light of the harsh winter predictions. Gas demand for Europe is up by 44% according to the WSJ.
Savvydating, what do economists know about the climate change crisis; you should be listening to the scientists if you want to know how serious the problem is!
Besides, Bjorn Lomborg, who’s featured in the two videos you provided, is neither a climate scientist nor an economist, and his published works on the environment and climate policy has not been peer-reviewed. His extensive and extensively documented works, which are aimed at a lay audience, are riddled with errors and misrepresentations; this Wikipedia article puts his works into prospective: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bj%C3%B8rn_Lomborg
And where you say “In the grand scheme, the UK still needs fossil fuel, particularly in light of the harsh winter predictions. Gas demand for Europe is up by 44% according to the WSJ.”:-
Duh: Of course we still need fossil fuels in the UK at this moment in time; the UK is in the middle of transitioning away from fossil fuels towards Renewable Energy – Something that cannot be done at a stoke, it will take time. But, we are making good progress in the UK, and by 2035 (just 12 years from now) 100% of the electricity supplied to domestic homes in the UK will be from offshore windfarms: There are already days this winter when over 50% of the electricity in the UK comes from offshore windfarms, as shown in the recent screen dump below.
I am kind of surprised at your comment since you have an economics background. What do you think economists do? They study the economic effects of an action upon the economy. Do you not think they are also able to read and learn about climate change, or do you think all economists are stupid and only able to understand numbers?
I am reminded of a statement of our outgoing president during the COVID lockdown. His economists were telling him that the lockdown was going to lead to inflation around the world and the poor people here would be eating garbage to get by. He was ignored. People ended up suffering for not working for over a year.
Sometimes economists do understand what is happening in the world.I had a feeling you’d look up Wikipedia. Their assessment is inaccurate according to what you wrote. Lomborg does have a PhD and he has written peer reviewed articles. He is highly respected. Furthermore, he consults with scientists and Nobel laureates. He also uses the IPCC as his model.
(It should be said that most conservatives view the IPCC as too liberal.)
If you are the scientist you claim to be, Wikipedia is the last place in the world where you would look for accurate information. Wikipedia is biased, and not in a good way.Nathanville has asked several times for you to numerate why you consider these climate change initiatives to be massively expensive. I have my own ideas, but did not want to assume to answer for you. (Fayetville Faye called me out for assuming I knew what she meant, rightly as I was wrong.)
Can you add a list as to why you think climate change is massively expensive?Yes. I’ll make time to compose a list within a day or two… should have time tomorrow.
From what I can gather, the UK has accepted the Stern Review, for the most part, on climate change, which frankly, is inconsistent and flawed. Ironically, for Nathanville, Stern is an economist, but not a very good one.
Professor Nordhaus, who is the most world-recognized climate economist in the world, has stated that the “social cost of CO2 is $2.50 per ton. Stern, on the other hand, believes that the cost is $85 per ton, which was a rate higher than the UK estimated at the time of the report.
Given Sterns’ alarmist predictions of global catastrophe, he suggested spending 1% of GDP ($450 billion) every single year to cut carbon emissions. (Today, he believes that figure is not high enough) Anyway, his estimates seem reasonable, except that even the UN has estimated that if we spend $75 billion on the world’s basic problems, such as clean drinking water, sanitation, basic health care, and education, we could make nations richer by 700% but only reduce growth by 2%.
The world cannot afford bad investments. Why spend $450 billion per year, when we can solve the world’s problems with far less money, while still setting aside a much lesser amount for research and development on how to create a product that is cheaper yet as effective as fossil fuels?
We could save so much money and make the world a better place.
What we need is targeted approaches to tackling the world’s problems without spending billions on false promises made by politicians (including Biden) whose sole motive is to keep the world scared and dependent.
Agriculture: Carbon dioxide is a fertilizer that boosts photosynthesis, which has boosted global greening. The point is that climate alarmists use models that fail to recognize adaption and carbon dioxide fertilization.
Tropical cyclones: Rather than becoming alarmed about storms and spending billions of dollars on climate change policies that make no difference, how about spending money wisely on better building codes? The reason why hurricanes are so expensive is that people live in areas where they have no business living. How often have you heard homeowners bemoan the fact that a hurricane destroyed their home…. Yet they cannot wait to rebuild their home in the very same spot where another hurricane will come along.
Polar bears: Polar bears survived the last interglacial period, and they will continue to survive. They can adapt to become brown bears. The number of polar bears has grown.
We should spend some money on climate research and development on developing sources of fuel that are cleaner and cheaper than fossil fuels. Otherwise, China, the polluter of the world, will never change course.
We can tackle climate issues, but we should tackle imminent problems first, which will grow GDP. Despite what alarmists say, we are not in danger of imminent demise. Humans are smart, adaptable, and capable of solving problems without increasing our debt and destroying GDP.
Really savvydating? Wikipedia is far from bias, it’s factual and objective; and the source information it uses is well referenced e.g. all the hundreds of reference links to reputable sources in small print at the bottom of each Wikipedia article; thus each statement made by Wikipedia is well sourced (so that you can check out the source material yourself on any point), which is more that can be said for most articles you read on the Internet.
Yeah, Bjorn Lomborg has a PhD; a PhD in ‘political science’ (the scientific study of politics), so he’s not a professionally qualified ‘Climate Scientist’ and he’s not a professionally qualified ‘economist’, he’s a professionally qualified expert on ‘politics’.
You say he’s written peer reviewed articles? I haven’t found any, what evidence do you have that his work is peer reviewed?
Gee Whizz, he uses the IPCC model; that doesn’t inspire any confidence in me:
• The IPCC reports have been criticised for being too Conservative (right-wing biased).
• The IPCC reports consistently underestimate the pace and impacts of global warming.
• The IPCC is not impartial but political influenced e.g. It is governments (not scientists) who take part in the review process of the reports, and there is a tendency for governments to abuse this role to influence the outcome of reports.
Nevertheless, in spite of its flaws, the IPCC reports are the benchmark for climate science; but that doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t be reliant on everything Bjorn Lomborg (remember he’s a political expert, not a climate scientist or economist). If you want to really want to know what’s going on in the world with respect to the climate crisis (which you obviously don’t) then you should be paying more attention to what the scientists are saying. Or at the very least, listen to the news of all the major climate change disasters that are occurring around the world right now, adversely affecting the lives and livelihood of millions of people – looking at Pakistan this year would be a good start:
2022 Pakistan floods: Acute malnutrition & diseases rising sharply https://youtu.be/jzmk409jXKIThe IPCC is government influenced, but it is not right wing. Will find articles by Bjorn…
Here's one of many peer-reviewed articles by Lomborg. They are not that difficult to find.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a … 2520304157I get through the abstract. It's a good read. Thanks for the link.
Thanks for a comprehensive reply savvydating, it’s refreshing to actually see you engaging in a fruitful discussion on climate change.
However, your focus is on the economic ‘costs’ with no regard to the ‘environmental’ ‘costs’ of doing too little too late; and it’s only one side of the equation e.g. just a cost analysis, not a ‘cost and benefit’ analysis of spending adequate money on climate change policies.
Stern Review, a 700 page report which discusses the “effect of global warming on the world economy”, conducted by economist Nicholas Stern on behalf of the UK Labour (Socialist) Government in 2008, although not the first economic report on climate change, is significant as being the largest and most widely known and discussed report of its kind.
Yeah, the report has had both negative and positive critical response; but that was just the starting point. Following that report in 2008, the Labour Government created the CCC (Climate Change Committee), an Independent Government Department e.g. a Government Department that is not answerable to the Government, but answerable to Parliament only.
The Statutory Role of the CCC is to advise the UK governments on emissions targets and to report to Parliament on progress made in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and preparing for and adapting to the impacts of climate change – which sounds like a sensible approach to me.
In fulfilling their role the CCC focus is to:-
• Provide independent advice on setting and meeting carbon budgets and preparing for climate change
• Monitor progress in reducing emissions and achieving carbon budgets and targets
• Conduct independent analysis into climate change science, economics and policy
• Engage with a wide range of organisations and individuals to share evidence and analysis
All of which seems sound and wise to me.
Yes, in 2007 Nicholas Stern did call for a 1% of GDP to be employed in global warming-related environmental measures; which is a lot less than the USA and other NATO countries spend on Defence e.g. the USA spends 3.52% of its GDP ($811 billion) on Defence; if 3.5% of USA GDP is $811 billion then that would make 1% $231 billion, so where did you get the $450 billion from (almost double) that you quoted?
In my view, if a Government can spend $800 billion a year on defence, it can afford to spend $200 billion a year on tackling climate change.
If you think 1% of GDP is too much, then I suggest how much of GDP in the USA is spent on other things, for example, in the USA, percentage of GDP spent on:-
• 21% of GDP spent on Healthcare
• 15% of GDP spent on Pensions and Social Security
• 13% of GDP spent on Education
• 12% of GDP spent on Welfare
One thing that strikes me, while look at these figures, is how much the USA Government spends on Healthcare, considering you don’t have free healthcare in the USA e.g. you have to pay for expensive medical insurance. In comparison, to the UK’s Government spending as percentage of GDP is:-
• 20% of GDP spent on Healthcare, which is no difference to the USA, in spite of the fact that in the UK healthcare is free at the point of use e.g. no health insurance to pay as the costs are paid for by the Government.
• 17% of GDP spent on Pensions
• 10% of GDP spent on Education
Who say (apart from you) that “Professor Nordhaus is the most world-recognized climate economist in the world”? I think a lot of experts would disagree with that statement!
You say “The world cannot afford bad investments.”, and then you go onto say “Why spend $450 billion per year, when we can solve the world’s problems with far less money, while still setting aside a much lesser amount for research and development on how to create a product that is cheaper yet as effective as fossil fuels?”
Firstly, who says it’s a bad investment; especially for example, when in the UK the oil and gas companies are making $billions on investing in off-shore windfarms. And the $450 billion cost you quote is more like 2% of the USA GDP, not the 1% advocated by Nicholas Stern.
And your suggesting of setting aside much less money on R&D (Research and Development) speaks volumes of dodging the issue and inviting disaster, and doing so it will take far longer to find solutions; and with the climate crisis, we don’t have the luxury of time.
Besides, R&D in the long run is good for businesses, good for a countries economy, good for employment and good for exports. It’s the countries like China and Scotland, and other European countries, that have spent a lot of money on R&D who are now repeating the rewards e.g. becoming world leaders in Green Technologies, creating a lot of wealth and employment, and export opportunities.
I don’t think you release how serious a crisis the climate change is, and your approach will not make the world a better place. FYI the UK does have a targeted approach to tacking climate change, and COP and the UN have targeted approaches to tackling the world’s problems; but it does take money.
But the question isn’t so much, can we afford to spend the money now, but rather can afford not to; and the answer to that is no – the longer we leave it the more expensive it becomes e.g. stopping a problem when its small is a lot easier and cheaper than letting the situation get worse, and then trying to stop the problem once it’s become a much bigger problem.
Hurricanes are an American problem, not a British problem (we don’t get hurricanes in Britain), so it’s up to America what it does about hurricanes. However, Britain does get storms, and because of climate change destructive storms have gone from being just a once a century pre-Industrial Britain, to once a decade in the 20th century, to yearly this century: And your suggesting of people not living in areas not prone to storm (when the whole of the UK is prone to destructive storms these days) and building houses that are storm proof isn’t feasible: To start with, there is nowhere for Brits to live to avoid the storms, and secondly the cost of making British homes storm proof would cost far, far more, than spending money to fight climate change.
Besides, your assertion that “spending billions of dollars on climate change policies will make no difference to the climate” is a very defeatist attitude; and not founded in science e.g. it’s the burning of excess amounts of fossil fuels that is causing climate change, so logic should tell you that if we burnt far less fossil fuels we would have far less impact on the climate.
Where you say: “Agriculture: Carbon dioxide is a fertilizer that boosts photosynthesis, which has boosted global greening. The point is that climate alarmists use models that fail to recognize adaption and carbon dioxide fertilization.”
Duh; we all know that plants breathe in carbon dioxide, which is why reducing deforestation, and planting more trees is so critical in fighting climate change; but what carbon dioxide plants breathe in isn’t enough to compensate for the amount of carbon dioxide being created by burning fossil fuels. The oceans absorbs about 30% of the carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels, and all the plants in the world also absorbs about 30% of the carbon dioxide being created by burning fossil fuels; leaving a deficit of over 30% - hence climate change/global warming.
And although our oceans absorb 30% of human-made carbon dioxide from the air (much like our forests do), this is causing the ocean to become more acidic, which corrodes coral skeletons.
Yep, polar bears: If you’ve been reading my comments on this forum, I’ve made little or no reference to polar bears. As regards to your comments, current opinion is divided, but a couple of web links worth reading are:-
• https://polarbearsinternational.org/pol … ts/status/
• https://www.arcticwwf.org/wildlife/pola … opulation/
However, it’s not just about polar bears; if you’ve read comments in this forum, I’ve previously pointed out that thousands of species (77 animal species) that have already become extinct due to climate change, and tens of thousands under threat from extinction; with the UK being no exception e.g. 41% of the UK species have declined since the 1970s due to global warming, and currently 9 animal species in the UK are under threat of becoming extinct.
One aspect to look at is the effect global warming is having on coral reefs; over the past three decades the world has lost half of its coral reefs, with the prospect that we could lose over 90% of our coral reefs by 2050 if we don't act urgently to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions.
https://www.wwf.org.uk/coral-reefs-and-climate-change
Where you say “We should spend some money on climate research and development on developing sources of fuel that are cleaner and cheaper than fossil fuels. Otherwise, China, the polluter of the world, will never change course.”
Firstly, China only produces the most pollution in the world because it has the largest population; whereas per person, rather than population size, the USA produces far more pollution than any other country in the world.
Secondly, halve the world’s wind turbines are installed in China and about a third of the world’s solar panels are installed in China; so China is making far effort to combat climate change than the USA.
Thirdly, the UK is a world leader in offshore wind turbine technology because we have spent money on climate research and development; creating jobs and wealth in the UK – economic opportunities that the USA has missed out on because it’s hasn’t spent the money on the research and development.
No you can’t tackle climate change issues if you don’t take it seriously; the clock is ticking - time is running out.
How are climate change policies detrimental to the GDP? FYI investing in climate change policies in the UK is actually good for economic growth; it’s creating investment in the UK, it’s creating profitable and commercially viable green-industries in the UK, it’s creating jobs in the UK – all of which is good for the economy, economic growth, and a growth in the GDP.
With regards to your comment -”Despite what alarmists say, we are not in danger of imminent demise.” – If you actually paid attention to what the climate scientists are saying on the subject (not economists) then you’d know how serious the climate change crisis really is. Also, if you actually see what’s going on around the world right now, including in Europe and the UK, you’d know first-hand the harm that climate change is doing to millions of people around the world.
Yes, humans are adaptable, but are we really that smart; if we were then there’d be no need for discussions like this one?
And besides the climate change policies adapted by the UK is NOT increasing our national debt; it’s generating wealth and jobs – and increasing our GDP in the process.
But rather than just look at costs quoted by economists, why not look at the actual ‘costs and benefits’ that’s playing out in the real world, and tell me why you think they are massively costly?
For example:
Looking at the UK’s 10 point-plan:-
#1: Advancing offshore wind is a profitable business that British oil and gas companies are heavily investing in: Creating jobs and wealth.
#2: Driving the growth of low carbon hydrogen. That’s at an advanced R&D phase, and is already attracting investment, and generating jobs and wealth.
#3: Delivering new and advanced nuclear power. Although more expensive than Renewable Energy, it’s no more expensive than fossil fuel energy, and it’s a tried and tested technology that many governments turn to for power anyway.
#4: Accelerating the shift to zero emission vehicles. It’s not the Government that’s paying the cost, it’s people who are having to make the switch to electric when their old car need replacing, and although currently electric cars are more expensive to buy, they are a lot cheaper to run than fossil fuel cars. And industry is happy because they still make and sale cars.
#5: 5: Green public transport, cycling and walking. On the roads, it’s the private and commercial bus companies who have to make the changes, at their own cost, and in Bristol, since our bus company has replaced all its diesel buses with green-gas buses it’s been able to reduce bus fares by 10% and still make a profit; so everyone benefits.
#6: ‘Jet zero’ and green ships. R&D in its early stages in Scotland for ships, but Scotland is already using ships that run on green-hydrogen, which is cheaper and cleaner than diesel. Planes is more challenging, but ‘carbon offset’ e.g. planting more trees, seems a good approach (good for the environment), and it’s the aviation industry that pays farmers to plant the trees (giving farmers an extra income), so it doesn’t add to the national debt because it’s doesn’t cost the government anything; and doesn’t affect the GDP either.
#7: Greener Buildings. Yep, that is one area where the Government may have to dig deep into its pocket; but didn’t you argue in favour of government spending on improving house build in the USA to better protect them against hurricanes – making buildings greener is no more costly than making houses hurricane proof.
#8: Investing in carbon capture, usage and storage: Doesn’t cost the government anything, as its private companies making the investment, and when they develop the technologies, the rewards for the companies investing in the R&D is reaping the financial benefits in being a leader in the technologies; it’s good for the environment, and good for the economy as it creates economic growth and jobs – and thus good for the GDP.
#9: Protecting our natural environment. The UK has been doing that since 1948 anyway, long before Climate Change was an issue; and it’s not the Government spending money, it’s about making sure that private companies don’t cut down trees to build wind or solar farms on land etc.
#10: Green finance and innovation. Is just a catch-all to all of the above 9 listed points e.g. not the Government spending money, but the Government encouraging Private Industry to invest in green technologies.
So from the above (UK’s 10-point plan) what is excessively costly?
To me the real life costs and benefits of the climate change policy in the UK is not costly; but the costs and benefits to the economic and environmental impact on the world if insufficient is done by the world to tackle climate change is going to be far higher if the world does too little too late."In my view, if a Government can spend $800 billion a year on defence, it can afford to spend $200 billion a year on tackling climate change."
The reasoning to come to this conclusion is a little foggy. If a country spends all it can afford to protect itself it automatically indicates that it has 25% of that figure sitting unused? Your view is that every country sets aside a quarter of it's defense expenditures for use on something else not yet defined?
That view really says something about the EU that has an extra 25% of defense spending sitting idle, but refuses to spend it because the US will pick up the tab.Arthur, you've written a very long post, which can beat a long article here. I hope Google Panda does not penalize you...lol!
Yes, it's a very long post. Interesting though. And it shows how complicated and far reaching the climate crisis is.
The climate crisis has far reaching consequences. From fertilization problems to extreme weather to water shortage to refugee problems to air pollution to extinction and reduced biodiversity to....
And perhaps because the problem is so huge politicians and people try to trivialize it.
Have you seen the movie "Don't look up".. It's great. It's on Netflix.
Thanks for the link savvydating to the Climate Change article by Bjorn Lomborg on the Science Direct website; in reading it I can see why you have been duped into believing that Climate Change is not a serious issue.
And if you insist on listening to Bjorn Lomborg alone, and not look around to see what is happening in the real world right now, and not pay more attention to what scientists are saying e.g. the NASA website; then I don’t think we can have a fruitful discussion on climate change because your mind is shut tight beyond anything that Bjorn Lomborg says.
However Science Direct, which is part of a Dutch publishing company called Elsevier, does not peer review the articles themselves. They accept articles which claim to be peer reviewed – and it’s not a fool proof system e.g. in 2013 an American Scientist (John Bohannon) in conjunction with ‘Science’ (a peer review journal) set up a ‘sting’ against Elsevier by publishing a bogus paper in the Science journal, which should have subsequently been rejected by any good peer-review system, but which was subsequently accepted for publication by Elsevier.
In 2009 it transpired in a court case in Australia that Elsevier had been paid to publish a fake article that had the appearance of being peer-reviewed in an academic journal, but was not.
Peer Review is the evaluation of work by one or more people with similar competencies as the producers of the work (peers). It functions as a form of self-regulation by qualified members of a profession within the relevant field. Peer review methods are used to maintain quality standards, improve performance, and provide credibility. In academia, scholarly peer review is often used to determine an academic paper's suitability for publication. And ScienceDirect is just a publishing company who are not scientists, and thus not qualified to peer review the work themselves.
And nowhere on the link that you provided can I find any reference to where and when the article by Bjorn Lomborg on Climate Change was peer reviewed. I’m not saying it wasn’t peer reviewed in some academic publication somewhere, but it certainly hasn’t been peer reviewed in any scientific publications.
Wow; thanks for the info on the Netherlands, and the link on ‘green technology’ on food production.
Yes, that’s the impression I get “….the bigger the country, the less efficient and lax it is used.” – And like the Netherlands, Britain “is a tiny country and every square meter has a high price and should be used to the max.” In that respect many laws were passed in post war Britain (in the late 1940s) designed to protect the countryside and promote green land, for example:-
• ‘Urban Green Space’ – where it’s government policy that everyone living in a city or town should be within 10 minutes walking distance of ‘green space’; consequently 30% of urban areas in England are ‘Urban Green Spaces’.
• The Green Belt – a large area of green land surrounding all cities and towns where development is prohibited; designed to prevent urban sprawl.
• Including the Green Belt, just over 37% of the land in England is protected against development by one or more environmentally protected designation, including SSSI (Site of Special Scientific Interest); AONB (Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty); National Parks; Special Areas of Conservation (protecting natural wildlife habitats); Special Protection Areas (protecting areas for birds); Ramsar Sites (wetlands of international importance); and Marine Conservation Zones.
In reading your link it reminds me of a micro-protein pie that Sainsburys (one of Britain’s supermarkets) sold in the 1980s; similar to a steak pie, but made by feeding microscopic organisms on waste products; so very popular with vegetarians at the time: effectively a for runner to Quorn.
With 10% of people in Britain now being vegetarian, and 31% of the British population eating less meat; Quorn has become very popular as a food source in the UK. Quorn was developed in England in 1985 and is made from mycoprotein (micro-fungus) that is high in protein, and high in nutrition, and a lot healthier than beef; and is environmentally friendly.
So yes, the link you provided is another example of what can be achieved.Do you know what the per capita consumption of Quorn is in the UK?
Good question. I don’t know what the per capita consumption of Quorn is in the UK, but some facts of interest are:-
• Quorn currently has 60% of the vegetarian/vegan market in the UK, although they are under stiff competition as other food producers are jumping on the ‘band wagon’ because vegetarian and vegan food is a popular and profitable market in the UK, and
• 1 in 4 people (25% of the population) in the UK now eat Quorn on a regular basis.Some TV Adverts, and a promo public awareness video, that helps to make Quorn a popular food source in the UK.
Helping The Planet One Bite at a Time with Quorn Crispy Nuggets | TV Advert 2021: https://youtu.be/DkI9M4F4P2w
Quorn Deli – So Tasty Why Choose The Alternative? | TV Ad 2022: https://youtu.be/JIzTgp-hJhY
What is Quorn? | Learn more about how Quorn is made: https://youtu.be/3wlprJOfNDA
The only thing I would add is that in the UK is that as from 2030 (just over 7 years from now) the sale of all new fossil fuel vehicles (petrol (gas) and diesel) including trucks will be banned; and from 2035 the use of diesel trains will be banned. Plus the UK Government banned fracking in 2019; the Scottish Government banned fracking in Scotland in 2015.
Yes, we have an organization in South America called MERCOSUL (the southern market), sort of like the EU but not nearly as effecient. The main reason they wanted it was to trade between SA countries and not China and the US.
I dont really think that is the answer because even when it is trade between different countries there is too much energy being used just to shift around the products. (To give you an example, the state I live in is the same size as France.) I think your last paragraph is what we have to live by: produce locally and skip the transport costs. Unfortunatley that is not happening.Yep, peterstreep, I've seen the movie "Don't look up".. on Netflix; and yep, very appropriate to this discussion.
DrMark, Yep, I know Renewable Energy isn’t the only aspect of Climate Change Policy, but as the climate change crisis is being caused by the excessive burning of fossil fuels, Renewable Energy is a major step towards combating climate change.
Yep, when searching for data on the web you need to be sure the source information is reliable; which with all the misinformation and propaganda on the web is easier said than done. In that respect I can’t speak for other countries, but information published on Government websites in the UK, such as the ONS (Office of National Statistics) is reliable because such Government Departments, run by the civil service, are Independent of the Government, and answerable only to Parliament.
Such Government Departments were set-up to be independent of the Government in the late 1980s specifically so that any unscrupulous Government could not hide or influence information for its own political gains. It means that such Government Departments do from time to time publish data, which the opposition political parties and the general public can readily access, that is embarrassing to the Government; but that’s a good thing, as it helps to hold the Government to account.
And, unlike some countries I could mention, the British civil service is apolitical; something I know first-hand as I was a civil servant myself, all my working life e.g. the British civil servant doesn’t have hidden agendas: And this can at times be a further embarrassment to the UK Government since the introduction of the ‘Freedom of Information Act’ in 2000, as it’s the civil service that the public write to when they want specific information that the Government itself would rather not answer.
Anyway, getting back to your main points:-
Firstly, it’s one thing to say “climate change policy is massively costly”, but without qualifying that claim e.g. by giving examples, then there is nothing that we can discuss.
Secondly - focusing on what I do know; the UK’s current ‘Climate Change Policy’, published in 2020, and called “The ten point plan for a green industrial revolution”:
The UK Government plan focuses on increasing ambition in the following 10 areas:
1. advancing offshore wind
2. driving the growth of low carbon hydrogen
3. delivering new and advanced nuclear power
4. accelerating the shift to zero emission vehicles
5. green public transport, cycling and walking
6. ‘jet zero’ and green ships
7. greener buildings
8. investing in carbon capture, usage and storage
9. protecting our natural environment
10. green finance and innovation
To mobilise the 10 point plan the UK Government is providing £12 billion investment, the private sector are providing about £36 billion in investment; and up to around 250,000 green jobs are being created.
Yes it will cost $100’s billions by 2050, but the question isn’t so much ‘can we afford it’ but rather ‘can we afford not to’. But the transition to a greener country will also create wealth and jobs, all of which are good for the economy.
One amusing thing that sets the UK apart from the rest of the world is that the UK is the only country in the world to make ‘carbon net zero’ by 2050 a legal requirement? This twist came about because Theresa May (Prime Minister until July 2019) didn’t trust Boris Johnson (a maverick) would be committed to fighting climate change; Boris Johnson being the person who took over from Theresa May as Prime Minister. So in her last week of ‘Office’ Theresa May introduced a ‘Bill’ in Parliament that would legally bind future governments to being committed to fighting climate change; and as that ‘Bill’ was popular with the opposition political parties and the House of Lords, it was passed by Parliament to become law within just a few days; which is quite impressive when most ‘bills’ take months or years to get through Parliament.
2019, UK Government makes ‘carbon net zero’ a legal requirement: https://youtu.be/hj7v8e1uLyEReally DrMark – seems a bit of a silly question to me?
Economists are not scientists, no more than bankers are bricklayers. Your banker may know how to build a brick wall, but you wouldn’t pay him to build you one – you would employ a professional brick layer.
Yeah, an economist might know something about climate change, but they are not experts in the field, and most likely don’t know any more than the average well educated person about climate change; and most certainly they are not qualified in the field of climate science.
If you want to know about climate change the best people to listen to is a professionally qualified climate scientist. Just as if you want to know about economics the best people to listen to are economists.If you want to know about the economic effects of climate change you DO NOT listen to scientists then, at least according to your logic. After all, they are just like bricklayers, and have no way of knowing what the possible ecomic effects might be.
Yep - and that is a discussion well worth having; but not in isolation: To put such a discussion into perspective people also have to fully understand the consequences of ignoring the scientist.
Okay, how about a new thread "Who knows more about the possible economic effects of climate change: economists or climate sceintists?"
I guess it's not either or.
When talking about the climate crisis, we talk about a whole range of things.
I can imagine that one of the problems is that scientists are so specializes today that they have little time to look around in other fields.
The economic model that's used all over the world is the economic model of growth. And economic growth is now on a head collision with finite resources and environmental disasters.
Hence other economic models are looked at more seriously.
One of the contenders is the doughnut model of economics. (so far as I heard as a laymen) where the economic system is in equilibrium. It's an sustainable economic system.
A quick read.
Wikipedia Doughnut (economic model)
Yep, and we could have a new thread "Who knows more about the looming crisis facing mankind due to climate change: economists or climate scientists?"
Dr Mark, I’ve now twice asked savvydating why she thinks “climate change policy is massively costly”, and as yet she hasn’t qualified her statement; all she’s done so far is to cite that economics is far more important than the adverse effects of climate change. And as I said, you can’t talk about the economics in isolation; you also need to fully understand the consequences of ignoring the scientists.
However, I shall kick things off by focusing more on the economics of the UK’s Government ‘10-point plan for a green Industrial Revolution’. In doing so I recognise that each county is different and will have to follow its own plan to reduce CO2 emissions, so the UK 10-point plan is only an illustration of what can be achieved, and the economics at play in achieving it.
As regards to the question of whether you should listen to the scientists or economists – No Government implementing a policy to combat climate change just listens to the scientists, they listen to both scientists and economists before making an informed decision.
The Economics of the UK’s Government 10-point plan for a green Industrial Revolution:
#1: Advancing offshore wind.
This is already commercially profitable, so much so that the Government withdrew government subsidies in 2019; British oil companies are investment in offshore wind and its creating thousands of new jobs (green jobs) in the industry: All of which is good for the environment and good for the economy – and as Renewable Energy became cheaper than fossil fuel in 2016, it will within a matter of years mean cheaper electricity for all; which is good for both the poor and for the economy.
British Shell Oil & Gas Company’s investment in Renewables: https://youtu.be/BqJuaTuFv30
#2: Driving the growth of low carbon hydrogen.
Scotland has become a world leader in the R&D (Research and Development) of Green Hydrogen; ferries between the Scottish Islands are now powered by Green Hydrogen, and Aberdeen city in Scotland have switched to running all its commercial vehicles and buses on green hydrogen instead of fossil fuel. The UK Government is keen to see Green Hydrogen commercially scaled up to a point whereby Green Hydrogen could replace natural gas for heating homes by 2035; we are a long way off from that yet, and it may not happen in time – although the Government is also pushing for the scaling up of Green Hydrogen so that all remaining diesel trains can be replaced by green-Hydrogen trains by 2035. But the economic benefits of Green Hydrogen is already being felt in Scotland e.g. investment opportunities for businesses and job creation in new green-industries; all of which is good for the environment and the economy.
Aberdeen (the oil capital of Europe) now turning its back on oil in favour of Green Hydrogen: https://youtu.be/zK0QzWj5tDo
#3: Delivering new and advanced nuclear power.
Personally, I don’t agree with nuclear power, but 60% of the British people do, so the Government has public support for this strategy. Setting aside the dangers in the event of a nuclear accident, nuclear power is classified as a ‘green-energy’ e.g. no CO2 emissions, and although more expensive than Renewable Energy is comparable in costs to fossil fuel; and nuclear power will help as a stop gap, replacing natural gas, until the UK is fully reliant on Renewable Energy.
#4: Accelerating the shift to zero emission vehicles.
In 2017 the UK Government announced that the sale of all new fossil fuel cars was going to be banned by 2040, then in 2020 the ban was lowered to 2035, and in 2021 it was lowered to 2030.
Yes it does mean that everyone will shortly be faced with buying a new electric car when they need to replace their existing fossil fuel car, and currently electric cars are more expensive; but the price of new cars is falling year on year (economies of scale), and electric cars are a lot cheaper to run than fossil fuel cars.
This video by Auto Trader (a pro-car organisation) sums it up: https://youtu.be/DGjFwZZpxS8
#5: Green public transport, cycling and walking
Lots of people in the UK cycle and walk anyway. And most road public transport is already green e.g. most bus companies (commercial private companies who survive by making a profit) have already replaced their old diesel buses with new buses that run on green-gas; examples being the buses in Aberdeen in a video above who now use green-hydrogen, and the buses in Bristol (where I live) who now run all their buses on fuel made from Bristol sewage and domestic food waste.
In fact, since the Bristol buses have been changed to run on green-gas the bus company has lowered its fairs by 10%; which is good for the travelling passenger.
As regards trains, the UK Government has electrified a substantial part of the rail network over the last ten years; but is now pinning its hopes on Scotland commercially upscaling the production of Green Hydrogen so that green hydrogen trains can be used on the rest of the rail network; green hydrogen trains being a cheaper and quicker option to decarbonise the rail network.
2020 UK hydrogen train ventures out onto the main line: https://youtu.be/OddzzRZGsLU
#6: ‘Jet zero’ and green ships.
Green ships; Scotland has already established ‘Proof of Concept’ by using Green-hydrogen to run its fairies between the Scottish Islands – so to go further means commercially scaling up the technology.
‘Jet Zero’ is an interesting one e.g. the R&D (Research & Development) into electric planes is in its early stages and at best may only be viable for light-weight commercial aircraft.
Therefore, for the aviation industry the only real option they have to meet their legal requirement to be carbon-net-zero by 2050 is to pay farmers money to plant the required number of trees on their land to create the a carbon offset equivalent to the amount of CO2 emissions produced by the aviation company. ‘Carbon Offset’ being good for the economy in that being paid to plant trees gives farmers an additional income, and it’s also good for environment.
#7: Greener Buildings.
This might be the most contentious of all in that millions of poorer families live in poorly insulated Victorian homes. Currently most homes in the UK are heated by natural gas over the winter months, and the UK Government plan to cease supplying natural gas to homes by 2035, with the intention that either green-hydrogen is commercially scaled up in time to replace natural gas for home heating, and or that everyone switches to alternative heating by 2035 e.g. pumped storage.
The problem is that pumped storage is currently very expensive to install, albeit once installed is cheap to run; which in the long term would bring down the cost of heating.
Therefore, to resolve the problem the government may well have to dig deep into its pocket to give financial help, particularly to the poor, to better insulate their homes and to make the switch to greener heating; the one thing the Government will not do is leave the poor without any heating.
#8: Investing in carbon capture, usage and storage
In the UK there is currently a lot of investment by commercial companies into R&D (Research & Development) for carbon capture, usage and storage; in economic terms, the reward being that for those commercial companies investing in the research is that they will be at the forefront in development becoming commercial (profitable), so that they can make a profit from it – which would lead to job creation and be good for the economy.
#9: Protecting our natural environment.
UK Governments have been doing this on a large scale since 1948, and continues to do so e.g. cutting down trees to build solar farms would be prohibited in the UK. The down side is that since 2015 the UK Government has also banned the building of on-shore windfarms, to the frustration of industry who are hankering to invest in on-shore windfarms.
#10: Green finance and innovation.
This last one ties in with all the other 9 points above e.g. the UK Government encouraging private industry to finance in green project, and in R&D for green projects. Not that industry needs much encouragement these days because green projects are proofing to be a very profitable and secure investment in the UK.
SUMMERY
So as you can see from the above, in economic terms, in context, there is nothing in the UK Government’s policy to tackle ‘climate change’ that is massively costly; most of it is commercially, viable, profitable, creating hundreds of thousands of jobs and not just good for the environment but also good for the economy. And in most cases, the changes are all beneficial to the poor.
The only real contentious part of the Government’s 10-point plan is the concept of potentially getting most people to switch from using natural gas for heating to installing heat pumps – But that’s a problem the Government is going to have to tackle over the next ten years if it wants to meet its own goals.
Unprecedented temperatures. It's clear that every year we get more extreme weather.
The climate crisis is not something we can hide under the carpet. It's a harsh reality and we don't solve it with money. We only solve it with a mentality change. Starting with the awareness that it is a huge problem and not just a far away not my problem kind of thing.
Have a lovely Christmas.Lots to be said on this subject. Merry Christmas, dear Peter. I hope you and yours enjoy every minute of this special day.
Now, now; where you say “So, I disagree that the United States is as corrupt as Nigeria, or England for that matter.”
I agree that the USA is not as corrupt as Nigeria, but it’s a lot more corrupt than the UK; that should go without saying.
Also, the USA does not have a monopoly on illegal migrants trying to cross your borders; 100’s of thousands try to enter the EU and the UK each year.
• Over 308,000 illegal migrants into the EU in 2022.
• 45,756 illegal migrants crossed the English Channel to UK in 2022: https://youtu.be/hy4HO8xXv08Oh, if we only had the pittance of illegal aliens entering our country. Three quarters the population of the EU but 7 times the illegal crossings. 4.5X the population of the UK, but 45X the illegal aliens. We get more every week than the UK gets in a year!
Say, it's a little more expensive than Martha's Vineyard, but could we ship a few hundred thousand to London? Or maybe Glasgow?wilderness, (you're unusually at it again) like FatFredyCats. But I'm laughing it out loud! Okay, it'll take me some time to answer savvydating. Thanks.
I’m not disputing the figures, I recognise that the USA have a lot of illegal migrants compared to the EU & UK; all I was doing was pointing out that the USA doesn’t have a monopoly on it, and contrary to what savvydating was suggesting, such large numbers of illegal migrants to the USA is no indication that the USA is a superior place to live in relation to the rest of the free democratic world.
One consideration that is being ignored is the fact that illegal migrants to the USA are predominately people from poor countries in south America, who in order to get to the American border have a long and enduing trek north over land, and through Mexico.
Whereas, illegal migrants to the EU & EK are predominantly from the Middle East and African nations, and who have a treacherous sea journey to reach Europe, and then a long and enduring trek north over land before reaching the EU border and subsequently North France if they want to get to the UK, and even then have to make the dangerous journey across the British Channel between France and England to reach Britain.
Most illegal migrants to Australia are from Asian countries, and to get to Australia have to make a long and treacherous journey by sea.
So where the illegal migrants come from and how they get to you are going to impact on numbers e.g. Europe is more difficult for illegal migrants from the Middle East and Africa to reach than the USA is for illegal migrants from South American countries.
Yep, Britain, as tiny as it is might have only had 45,756 illegal migrants crossing the English Channel from France to the UK in 2022, but they are not the only refugees the UK took in over the past 12 months:-
In 2022, the UK Government encouraged and accepted a total of 186,000 refugees as follows:-
• 89,000 Ukrainians.
• 76,000 from Hong Kong, and
• 21,000 Afghans from Afghanistan.
And during the 2nd world war the UK took in 80,000 refugees from war torn Europe.
Yep, where you say “….could we ship a few hundred thousand to London?”-
Actually, in my personal opinion, I would welcome them; because of an ageing population, declining birth rate and Brexit we have a chronic labour shortage across all economic sectors in Britain, including in the NHS, bus drivers, lorry drivers, farm labourers and the leisure and tourist industries etc.
For example:-
• In September 2022, the NHS had 133,446 vacancies; 9.7% of the total workforce.
• A third of soft fruits are left to rot in the fields because there aren’t enough farm labourers to pick the fruit.
• Disruption to the supply chains and public transport because there aren’t enough drivers.
Industry has bitterly complained to the UK Government, pleading with it to relax the tough immigration laws, but their pleas fall on deaf ears because the current UK Government is dominated by the ERG (a hard right-wing nationalist political group within the Conservative Party who are anti-European and anti-immigration); so the current Conservative Government’s anti-immigration policy is governed by ‘political ideology’ rather than economics.
A completely different picture to post war Britain, when we had a similar chronic labour shortage; during that period, from 1953 to 1962 (when the Conservative were in power) over half a million migrants were imported into Britain to resolve the labour shortage problem; including 272,450 from the West Indies, 75,850 from India and 67,330 from Pakistan – This was known as the Windrush Generation.
Windrush was the HMT Empire Windrush, a German passenger liner and cruise ship that the Germany military commandeered during the 2nd world war for a navy and troopship, which was subsequently seized by the British at the end of the war a ‘prize of war’.
The Empire Windrush was the first ship used by the Labour Government in 1948 to bring back immigrants from the Caribbean to help rebuild Britain; hence the start of a mass migration to Britain known as the Windrush Generation.
The Windrush generation https://youtu.be/DPxni9s-GQENathanville, Do you disagree with the article headlined, "London as a corrupt financial capital"
And while I hate to cut and paste endlessly, and avoid doing so like the plague, the article goes on to say:
"The British are in no position to preach, according to the world-famous expert on the mafia and other forms of organized crime, Roberto S., the journalist, and author told his audience... that British financial institutions enabled what he called “criminal capitalism” to operate through the network of offshore banks, investment funds, and other holdings in British territories."
... his research showed that the City of London operated in a way that made possible the working of financial systems that eluded investigation, let alone taxation, and effectively made Britain the most corrupt country. He was quoted by the Guardian and Telegraph as saying:
"If I asked what the most corrupt place on Earth is, you might say it’s Afghanistan, maybe Greece, Nigeria, or the south of Italy. I would say it is the UK. It’s not UK bureaucracy, police, or politics, but what is corrupt is the financial capital.99% of the owners of capital in London have their headquarters offshore."
Bernie Madoff comes to mind. My understanding is that the greater majority of his investors were European.
Anyhoo, this is a digression from the discussion of climate change.
If you could refrain from cutting & pasting endless graphs and lists, and perhaps discuss one point with a paragraph or two of meaningful information, that might be a more productive way to have a more productive and fruitful discussion on climate change. Thanks.Savvy, I would love to have more one on one or group discussions/debates, but the majority seem to be all about cutting and pasting their rebuttals & one-upping the naysayers.
Since when did Vanity Fair become all the rage? It is utilized all of the time, no matter the subject. This is scary, not as scary as the climate alarmists, but scary enough!Spot on.
This forum is not supposed to be a game of “gotcha.” Best to use words sparingly. Throwing all manner of Internet material at the wall to see what sticks and what drowns out any thoughtful, yet dissenting voice is not useful, and certainly not fruitful.
Rather, it is an exercise in banality.
Yes I do disagree with the article headlined, "London as a corrupt financial capital"; and where’s the link – you provided no link to the article?
And FYI I do not ‘cut and paste’, I research and write in my own words from many sources, on topics that I have some knowledge and experience: And where I don’t have that knowledge and experience I say so.
London is the financial capital of the world, yes; and yes for historical reasons there is ‘tax havens’ e.g. Jersey. And yes, prior to the Ukrainian war London was famously used by the Russian Mafia to money launder. Since then however, the British Government has cracked down on the Russian Mafia assets in London, and frozen them.
But as you’ve quoted in your ‘cut and paste’, it is clearly pointed out in black and white that the UK bureaucracy, police, and politics are NOT corrupt – A clear distinction that needs to be made; and that non-corruption does extend to the Bank of England, and the Stock Market.
One blaring error in the article you ‘cut and pasted’ is where it says “99% of the owners of capital in London have their headquarters offshore.": That is a blatant exaggeration – If you fact check, it’s 38% of the FTSE 100 companies who uses tax havens, not the 99% claimed by Roberto Saviano.
Did you know that Roberto Saviano was sentenced for plagiarism on appeal in 2013, and in another plagiarism case in 2015, in his defence Roberto Saviano said “I'm not a journalist or a reporter, but, rather, a writer?
I think what may cause some misunderstanding between us on this matter is that you are probably not aware that the financial capital in London is located in ‘The City of London’ which is just one mile square in size and with a population of just 11,000 people, and which is separate and independent from a city called London which 670 square miles with a population of over 8 million people e.g. a city within a city.
This Video explains the financial city of London: https://youtu.be/LrObZ_HZZUchttps://theconversation.com/nigeria-a-c … tory-61120
I provided the above link to our Nigerian friend, Mie… 57 about five days ago. Here it is again. The article was quoted by BBC and The Telegraph, as I recall.
Yes, you do cut and paste an enormous amount of material from the internet, with some of your own words interspersed in-between.
Do not blame me if you are constantly asking for links and notations from the internet. I just gave you that, briefly, yet still you complain.
If anyone looks throughout this forum, they will find that the majority of my words are my own and the majority of your responses are pages of cut & paste material from the Internet.
Anyway, the question is, why did the BBC quote Saviano? Perhaps they do not mind that he is a plagiarist, the same as they do not mind that Biden is a plagiarist. Or is there some other reason?
By the way, my research tells me that the United States has much cleaner air than England. That is significant, given the size of your tiny country. Even your beloved Wikipedia agrees.
I’ll let you find the link yourself since you are so very fond of them.Thanks for the link. Yeah, ‘The Conversation’ website has a good reputation and a sophisticated fact-checking system, so it is often used by main stream news media; and the particular paragraph in the article that has got you excited was quoted in the Guardian (left-wing publication) and the Telegraph (right-wing publication); two respectable British newspapers, and thus would be no surprise if it was also quoted on the BBC news. But so what, the BBC, and British newspapers are only reporting on what was said, not making judgement on it e.g. the BBC and British newspapers frequently reported what Donald Trump said, regardless to whether what he was saying was true or not – they are doing their job, ‘reporting’, not ‘judging’ or ‘censuring’.
The paragraph in question, that has got you so excited, is, to quote:
“If I asked what the most corrupt place on Earth is.... I would say it is the UK. It’s not UK bureaucracy, police, or politics, but what is corrupt is the financial capital. Ninety per cent of the owners of capital in London have their headquarters offshore.”
As I said previously Roberto Saviano clearly states in his comment that the UK bureaucracy, police, and politics are NOT corrupt. He is saying that only the financial capital in London (1 square mile) is corrupt UK, citing that 90% of the financial institutions have their headquarters offshore (tax havens).
Firstly, he is exaggerating the facts, because if you fact check, it’s only 38% that uses tax havens.
Secondly, the question is, is it wrong for a Company to use tax havens to avoid paying so much tax to government? I would say probably yes, but there are a lot of Americans on these forums who would argue that businesses pay too much tax to governments; a subject of another debate perhaps.
And is using a tax haven, corruption? Some may think it’s morally wrong and that Companies should pay their due taxes in full to government, rather than using loopholes in the law to avoid paying so much tax; but in the UK it’s not illegal to use tax havens.
It’s new to me that I “cut and paste an enormous amount of material from the internet” that you claim; you know something that I don’t know? Just because I am a prolific writer, like my great-great grandfather, you can’t give me the credit for my own writing?
Why we’re on the subject, what about the corruption in American politics; American politicians are heavily financed for their election campaigns by big businesses, putting politicians in the pockets of big businesses that helped get them elected through the $billions donated to the election campaigns. Such funding is illegal in the UK, so that politicians in the UK are NOT indebted to their donors.
In the UK the strict limit a politician can spend on an election campaign is just £8,700 ($10,500), and a large political party spending is capped at £19.5 million ($23.7 million). In 2017 the UK Conservative Party was find £70,000 ($85,078) for trying to hide £275,813 ($335,223) worth of election campaign expenses in elections in 2014 & 2015 e.g. to make it appear that they didn’t overspend, which is an offence!
https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/ … n-expenses
Yep, the Polar vortex (climate change) over the USA seems to be getting worse each winter; with this Christmas being the worst on record.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/23 … in-the-us/In contrast, living in the San Diego area of Southern California, yesterday for the Christmas family get-together it was 80ºF (27ºC). It remained warm through to late evening with an onshore breeze from the ocean. Nice!
In my part of the world, the (Niger Delta), the temperature is still around 23*C. But it's sunny, and warm at night. The cool breeze from the ocean is comforting in the day time. Merry Christmas everyone. And a happy New Year!
We have cold weather in Florida right now, but we have had cold weather before. We had snow flurries in '77, that was something different! Heard there were a few flurries on Christmas day in a couple areas.
Sometimes we have cool weather, sometimes cold (to where we might hit the freezing mark) but most often, it's between warm and hot.
It's a mixed bag; but that's the weather for you!Extreme weather has become the norm. (cold or warm) and the climate is seriously disturbed, thanks to human activity (Industrialization)
It is not normal weather behaviour. For tens of thousands of years, there was a moderate climate where homo sapiens could thrive. Not anymore. The climate is seriously wrong if you look at a weather time line. And the reason is the extensive use of fossil fuels. It is human-made.
Though it was like a summer day on Christmas for us and yesterday too, the mornings have been frigid. That plays with my sinuses. We're expecting rain for a about a week now and brrrr . . .
Rains? That woutd be about the same as Nigeria, my country. Normal rainfall is usually began in late March and early April. Climate crisis has altered the partner.
Wow, good to hear you're enjoying some nice weather. It' not too bad here in Bristol, England either; for this time of year. At the moment 7am (not even dawn yet) it's already 5ºC (41ºF), and due to reach 11ºC (52ºF) by this afternoon. Quite a contrast to how the weather used to be here before the 1990s, when each winter it would be around freezing point and snow each winter up to 6 inches deep - since the 1990's our winters in Bristol have become far warmer and wetter, and almost never any snow; the climate change is very noticeable here.
Yes, climate change has affected us too. In general, it is a lot warmer, and most significant is the drought we have been experiencing in the southwest. And, the wildfires too.
Drought in the US Southwest is the worst in recorded history by LiveSciece
https://www.livescience.com/united-stat … in-history
A Closer Look: Temperature and Drought in the Southwest by the U.S. EPA
https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/southwestYep, the same here; data just released shows that this year (2022) has been the highest average annual temperature in the UK since records began e.g. every single month in 2022 (except December) had an higher average monthly temperature on record since the record was last broken in 2014.
And likewise, in England we’ve now get the most significant droughts, heatwaves, storms, floods and wildfires as regular events (almost annually now), when until just a couple of decades ago they were rare occurrences. This year, which had the hottest heatwave on record, was also hit by numerous devastating wildfires across large swathes of England; whereas, 20 years ago England almost never had wildfires.
The annual cost in the damage being caused by anthropogenic climate change must be running into the $billions.Climate crises have significantly affected many countries of the world, including the poles.
The polar ice s are melting and thus increasing the volume of water in the seas, rivers, and certain lakes that has outlets to rivers.
What I learned some decades ago in my Geography class couldn't be true today.
Cold lands are getting warmer, and warm lands experienced cold. The circle will go on and on.
I'll not be surprised if Nigeria, my country, began to produced polar bears! You know what I mean.My fear is that the Nigeria government, as one of the worst corrupt democracy in the world, wouldn't help her people in a humanitarian way. Governors, and Reprsntatives, who should spread democracy to the grass-roots are really mean, though they got they power from the people.
Agreed. But if the post-independence Nigerian government had consistently the British model, the corrupt state wouldn't thus felt. Presently, the Nigerian Federal Government, is comparabl to the United State government. Nigeria has a puppet federal government.
Speaking of the British model, do you believe that England is as corrupt as Nigeria… given their British model, as you say?
https://theconversation.com/nigeria-a-c … tory-61120
Furthermore, while nearly all Democrats in the U.S. Congress and the White House are corrupt (they enrich themselves while in Congress) I can say that this does not signify that every institution in the United States is corrupt.
Otherwise, you would NOT have millions of people crossing our borders illegally for the chance of a better life.
If we were as corrupt as Nigeria, no one would flock to the U.S. legally or illegally.
No one is flocking to Nigeria, after all.
People from other countries pay coyotes thousands of dollars, to include the transport of their small children for payment, (and a small sum of money) and whose children are then often exploited through sex trafficking and other means by drug cartels.
The United States still has freedom, even if we are currently hanging on to this privilege by a thread due to the corruption of Democrats and even some particularly stupid, rogue Republicans.
So, I disagree that the United States is as corrupt as Nigeria, or England for that matter.
But, we have seen better days, and it is possible that my strong nation is now in decline.Savvydating, well, well said. Did you ever noticed in my comment that I was talking of the Federal Government, and not peoples?
But you have gone too far. I don’t find any fault with that. We’re learning.
I know well about the London corruption issue, for I had a British education and leaning. The oil blocks of Nigeria, is no stranger to me. It became prominent with the Military Government of Military President, General Babangida, who shamelessly style himself the ‘Evil Genus’.
Rtd. General Buhari, now the current President of Nigeria, is not the only corrupt politician Nigeria had, while in power. He may be corrupt or he may not, depending on which school one is learning towards. Presently, there was as allegation of corruption against him I supporting a Presidential incumbent.
Buhari, was a servant, and so fall short of the Nicollo Machiavellian rules.
Here wa a man who before he became civilian president had only around 350,000 Nigeria Naira (now $1 is N450) in his banking account and some herds of cattle as a farmer. He publicly declared this asset when he was campaigning to be president 7 years ago. At the end of his first term, Buhari refused to publicly declared his assets again, saying that the Constitution of Nigeria did not required presidents to do so! But he knows better than this. He was ill advised. Being a public office holder, and a public servant, he should. They're rules in the Code of Conduct for public officers. He should read and noted well. Did he? That I don’t know. But ignorance of the law excused no one. As a military officer, and as Commander-in-chief of the Nigerian Army and Head of State, Buhari should know that. Period.
Now, the very opposite of Americans crossing over to Nigeria or other African countries for greener pastures, if that is practical, is security. The USA embassy has warned her citizens coming to Nigeria, of certain hot spot that endanger they person and to avoid sure, right? I don’t know about other countries.
Nevertheless, I agreed that corruption in always birthed by the government in power. I do had a grues against Ex-President Goodluck Jonathan of Nigeria. When he gave out money for the electrification of Nigeria, it went into private pockets sometimes.. But rtd. General Olusegun Obasanjo, would have had you to give account to the last penny. Otherwise, he wouldn’t give you another sum of money for any public project.
That said, yes, corruption in Government is very rampant all over the world. The Panama Papers is a proof of that.
Savvy, your comment is such that it has given rise to other issues that can be good for another thread, or discussion.
But sorry my post is coming late on my end side because I had an internet connection issue with my ISP. You’re always welcome.
Is climate change a threat to our existence?
Yes.
Scientists have delivered a “final warning” on the climate crisis, as rising greenhouse gas emissions push the world to the brink of irrevocable damage that only swift and drastic action can avert.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), made up of the world’s leading climate scientists, set out the final part of its mammoth sixth assessment report on Monday.
The comprehensive review of human knowledge of the climate crisis took hundreds of scientists eight years to compile and runs to thousands of pages, but boiled down to one message: act now, or it will be too late.
The UN secretary general, António Guterres, said: “This report is a clarion call to massively fast-track climate efforts by every country and every sector and on every timeframe. Our world needs climate action on all fronts: everything, everywhere, all at once.”
Source: Scientists deliver ‘final warning’ on climate crisis: act now or it’s too lateGlobally, June 2023 was the warmest June since directly measured instrumental records began in 1850, breaking the record previously set in June 2022. In addition, this June exceeded the previous record by 0.18 °C (0.34 °F), a surprisingly large margin, well outside the margin of uncertainty.
Sourse : June 2023 Temperature Update - Berkeley Earth
Just to add something. Yesterday, 07/15/23, here about 30 miles north of San Diego, California it was 80ºF (26.6ºC) by noon. It got up to 102ºF (38.9ºC) by 2:30 pm or so. Oh yeah, we are 20 miles inland from the coast of the Pacific. It is supposedly a heat wave that will go away soon. The average temperature for July is 88ºF (31ºC) cooling down to 63ºF (17ºC) at night.
Yes, it's crazy and the influence of El Niño is just starting. Next year will be worse as the after-effect of this sea anomaly takes a bit and is not immediately felt...
The sea temperature is of charge at the moment.
This is the Mediterranean at the moment, but the Atlantic is crazy too.
Is climate change a threat to our existence?
How much time do we have left as a civilization? The timeframe for the impact of climate change on human civilization is uncertain and depends on various factors, and which scientific study you want to believe. Predicting an exact timeline is challenging for science.
What is your opinion about Biden's policies on climate change? President Biden has taken significant steps to address climate change, such as rejoining the Paris Agreement and implementing various policies to promote renewable energy, energy efficiency, and emissions reductions. His administration has set ambitious climate targets and aims to transition the United States towards a clean energy future. However, opinions on his policies may vary depending on individual perspectives and political leanings. As well as which scientific study a given individual leans towards. In my view, yes Biden has committed to combat climate change with many promises, and lots of money. However, I have seen few of his promises implemented thus far. Let's just say his plan, needs a better plan... He has put the cart before the horse.
How much does the average person know about climate change policies and basic economics? The level of knowledge about climate change policies and basic economics varies widely among the general population. Some people may have a good understanding of the challenges posed by climate change and the policies being implemented to address it, while others might have limited awareness or even skepticism about the issue.
Do I believe Al Gore? Yes, Al Gore is a prominent advocate for addressing climate change and raising awareness of its impacts. He talks the talk but does not walk the walk... Not one of his long-time predictions has come to fruition. In my view, he does do his homework but leans to the most extreme scientific studies. At this point, he represents himself as an odd angry man when he speaks At Davos John Carry and Gore (In my view) were off the hinges, and did not make much sense.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7pReLPjXgBs Two guys that need to step back and let scientists do the predicting.
What are your thoughts regarding the IPCC and WHO? The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are highly regarded international body that assesses scientific information related to climate change. They take into account reports based on comprehensive evaluations of the latest scientific research and provide insights into the state of the climate.
The World Health Organization (WHO) is a specialized agency of the United Nations, responsible for international public health. My comment is negative about this organization. I will keep it to myself.
What do you think about solar panels and wind energy? Solar panels and wind energy are essential components of the renewable energy mix. They offer some advantages as clean and sustainable energy sources: However, ultimately here in the USA, many forests are being chopped down to accommodate the battery-run farms. Trees scientifically have been proven to be out freeing to rid the earth of emissions. In my view, batteries and all that goes into manufacturing them here or around the world are a huge threat to our soil. Not sure if these big brains considered we need soil to produce what we eat. Food and water substrains life. We can't even handle riding the planet of the battery we use at this point. It's laughable to think we could handle the tons and tons of batteries that would be needed to support Solar and wind power. And the poison chemicals that will be minded to build these solar and wind saviors --- That's a very ugly story --- But Biden has plans to let Africa worry about that...
Here is what we are told --- Wind energy involves using wind turbines to generate electricity. The wind is a renewable resource that produces no greenhouse gas emissions during electricity generation, making it an environmentally friendly alternative.
But has anyone told of the poisoning of our soil and water? Maybe dig deep into that... But be ready for frustration Google is not friendly to that side of Wind and Solar.
Another thought, one that flys over the heads of many --- it's essential to address challenges that we have in regard to solar and wind --- That would simply be Mother Nature, sun, and wind ... (the fact that these energy sources depend on weather conditions, grid integration, and energy storage to maximize their potential as part of a sustainable energy transition. Biden as I said puts the horse before the cart. Our grid is old, and can't actually run as efficiently as it did 10 years ago. We have weather patterns that solar and wind could leave us high and dry for electricity. We need more refined technology in regard to being able to utilize wind and solar. First how to save the earth from the poison of batteries.
So, at this point, in my view, a lot more thought needs to go into the new craze of wind and solar. And we sure as hell need some bigger minds running the show.An interesting read; and sure we need more R&D (research and Development); much of which is taking place in Britain here and now (especially in Scotland), and in other countries in Europe and around the world – We could certainly do with more commitment to R&D in America.
However, we are also in a situation of a ‘ticking time bomb’, where we don’t have the luxury of time to contemplate the best solutions; the climate crisis is happening here and now, and the longer we take to combat the root causes of the problem (namely excess burning of fossil fuels) the worse the situation will get. So we have to make the best of what we’ve got now to combat climate change, which for Britain is wind power (almost exclusively off shore, around the British cost where it’s almost always windy because of for example the Gulf Stream and westerly winds etc. In Britain wind-power already accounts for half our electricity supply, and we are on course for there to be enough wind-power to meet the domestic needs for electricity by 2035.
And yes, batteries have their environmental problems and issues. In that respect R&D is taking place in Northern England to develop more environmentally friendly batteries; and for storage of surplus energy generated by our windfarms out at sea, Scotland is at an advanced stage of R&D for commercially upscaling Green Hydrogen e.g. using sea water to convert surplus wind-power to green hydrogen for storage, and then converting green hydrogen to electricity when needed, with the by-product being water.
This was the stage Austria was at almost 10 years ago in its development of wind-power to Hydrogen as a means of storing surplus green energy (green battery). https://youtu.be/my_EjR7zgu8
The heatwave you’ve experienced in America this year is just a taster of what’s to come; we’ve had intensive and frequent heatwaves in Europe for over a decade now, and every year, or every other year previous record temperatures are being broken – Last year was the hottest year on record in Europe, and this year has become the hottest year on record in Europe.Question -- Are you not fearful about the amount of forest areas being cut to give room for wind farms? Science has well-proven trees that clean the air, and the ecco system will be badly disturbed here in the US removing forests for wind farms.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/20 … 0benefits.
This website is very informative.
https://climateataglance.com/climate-at … heatwaves/
Charts don't support some of what is being reported here in the USA in regard to heat waves.
This is a very interesting article in regards to the USA problems that scientists feel could occur using wind power.
https://scitechdaily.com/wind-farms-cau … _article=1Duh, in Britain, the wind farms are not built on land, they are built out at sea, so no trees are cut down to make way for them; besides in responsible countries like the UK such things are Government regulated to prevent such harm being done to the environment e.g. in the UK you need planning permission from government to build wind or solar farms.
Of course I’m concerned about the amount of forest cut down each year; but it’s only irresponsible countries, with relaxed planning permission laws, that allow such development without consideration to the Environment; beside most trees are not cut down for windfarms or solar farms – far more trees are cut down for private profit of the land that has nothing whatsoever to do with solar or windfarms in countries where the government have little or no regard for the environment; and you'll find that most European countries are a lot more responsible than that – So I suggest you re-check your sources.
Besides, FYI; the UK Government has an ambitious polity to plant more trees, not cut them down.
The UK currently has around 3 billion trees, and currently the UK Government scheme around 120 million new trees per year are being planted in the UK.This is very informative. I like the UK Government deals.
We have had many reports in the US that Scotland is aggressively cutting down trees.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/20 … -scotland/I think the 'compensatory planting elsewhere' scheme is a good idea.
For a million tree feel, three million or more to be plant could be a good responsibility. This will make people or companies to take good care of natural environments all the time.
Decades ago, during the Nigeria 'Operation Feed The Nation period', the Saharan Desert, was encroaching and scorching the Northern parts of Nigeria.
The then Nigeria's Federal Government of Military General Olusegun Obasanjo, launched the planting of many trees. That help prevent most of the countries of Northern Nigeria being turned into a desert region to date.
But that schema was not related to power sourcing. But it help anyway to prevent famine and hunger.16 million trees chopped down in Scotland. That is an obscene amount, and so unnecessary when all is said and done.
Well, in my view Scotland was scarfed to benefit England from needing to chop away at their tress...
Again, we are back to the ‘Devil is in the Details’:
Firstly, the 15.7 million trees that were cut down on Scotland since 2000 were all replaced with new trees as part of the planning consent; and in that same time period the Scottish Government has planted 500 million new trees in Scotland.
Secondly, Scotland is not part of England, Scotland is a separate country – And Scotland generates a surplus of Renewable Energy and benefits from selling some of its surplus Renewable Energy to England (Exporting it to England). Scotland exports (sells) 32% of the Renewable Energy it produces to England e.g. a large chunk of its surplus energy.
The rest of the surplus Renewable Energy Scotland produces is converted to ‘Green Hydrogen’ which is used in various ways, including:-
• To run all local government vehicles and public transport buses in the Scottish city of Aberdeen; and
• Green Hydrogen made from surplus Scottish Renewable Energy is also used to power their ferry service between the Scottish islands and mainland Scotland.
So Renewable Energy is proving to be a very profitable business for the Scottish economy, creating wealth and jobs, and good investment opportunities.
Scotland: World's first hydrogen powered seagoing ferries https://youtu.be/p4fyk_7meZg
Aberdeen, Scotland's Hydrogen Strategy - Leading the UK in H2 https://youtu.be/XBJAM1epr5c"Replacing" a mature old growth tree with a new seedling, or even 10 or 20 seedlings, is not a replacement. The new tree, if it happens to survive (unlike those UK governement trees planted along your country´s roadways, which almost always die) will not be mature for 20 or 30 years, and not be reducing signficant amounts of carbon dioxide for many years after that.
That is the detail that the devils want to hide.Are you trying to score political points? E.g. look who’s talking – over 500 million trees are cut down in the Amazon rainforest each year; and few of those are ever replaced.
Besides – FYI, when tree planning (at least in the UK), the general practice is to plant 3 trees for everyone replaced on the basis that not all will survive to maturity – as you confirmed – the devil is in the details.
Also, FYI, the UK Government trees planted along our country roadways do not die (where did you get that misinformation). FYI, such trees are flourishing e.g. I’ve seen the landscape across Britain change dramatically over the past 30 years, since the Government has started its massive reforestation programme in Britain:-
Bristol is in a basin surrounding by hills. 30 years ago those hills were just fields; now they are mature woodland; likewise, all the trees planted within the city urban area itself have matured, so viewing Bristol from high ground, such as on Durham Downs (common land) you see the city buildings nestled in between the trees.
And, just last week, while on holiday, travelling on the motorway from Bristol to Portsmouth, I noted that much of the journey was driving through mature woodland, whereas 30 years ago it was just open fields.
So no, your description of Government planting trees failing to survive is false information.
Views of the Bristol City Centre from Cabot Tower, showing the wealth of trees in and around the city; Cabot Tower is less than a mile from the city centre: https://youtu.be/-exf7mWDl28?t=120No, no political points at all. I was talking about deforestation and if some slimy corporation is claiming that they are doing it to save the climate they are sadly mistaken.
Yes, what is going on in the rainforest each year is terrible, and no matter how much each of us plant it is not going to replace those old trees.Yeah, what’s happing in the rain forest in Brazil is horrific; and yes, the combined efforts of the rest of the world to plant trees are never going to make up for that lost – But not to make the effort is irresponsible.
When you say: “if some slimy corporation is claiming that they are doing it to save the climate they are sadly mistaken.” I assume you are describing the Scottish Government (SNP) and the UK Government as “slimy corporation”, and that you are saying that the UK and Scottish Governments policy of reforestation of Britain is an attempt to save the planet?
No, of course the Scottish and UK Government’s reforestation of Britain policy isn’t, on its own, going to save the planet; but at least Britain is being responsible in ‘doing it’s bit’ to help save the planet; but to be successful, it has to be a worldwide effort.I was referring to the corporations cutting down trees to make wind farms.
Nathanville… Britain can do nothing to “save the planet.” The planet does not need saving. The planet, along with many other planets will do what they do.
It is extremely arrogant for any government to believe they can save the earth. More precisely, it is greedy to use propaganda to convince their citizens that they know what is best and what is true.
They do not. And they know that.
I ascertain that you believe otherwise.
But at what point do you decide not to be a sheep; at what point do you decide to think for yourself? Sure, your nice civil servant job serves you well in your nicely appointed home.
Meanwhile, the rest of the world scrabbles for every little thing, even within your country.
The poorest of the poor must use wood and dung (great pollutants) to make their meals and heat their huts.
Do you have no understanding whatsoever, of what it means to be poor?
The only thing your UK policy climate policies have managed to do is to seal the coffin on the lives of those who would have, and could have benefited from cheap energy.You are right in assessing countries government arrogance on saving the planet.
You are wrong about cheap energy coming only from conventional sources.
By the way, "wood and dung" are considered renewable energy sources. CO2 absorption and output is balanced, no pollutants on a decade time scale.
However you are right about the poor. The whole climate change and save the planet discussion is only for the have´s and not for the havenot´s.
But that is how politics, influencing, propaganda works: Go and influence those groups of society that are accessable. Poor people tend to be not accessable, they don´t even go voting. And poor people look at the rich and follow. If you refer to "sheep" then the poor are the sheep.
Of course society is a much more complex matter, but in a nutshell this is what is happening. Those who use their head and think for themselves are mostly already in a privileged situation. You may think they run in the wrong direction, but you and all of us have to live with it.This reply comes late. Yes, wood and dung are considered “cheap renewable sources” but they are pollutants, ( cheap, and deadly) especially inside a small hut where small children reside, along with their parents and older relatives. It makes these families very sick.
Correct, Britain cannot save the planet (on its own); it requires a joint effort by the whole world – but its defeatist attitude to not even bother trying to do your bit just because it looks an impossible task. At least when the current climate change increasingly impacts on modern society in a negative way over the coming years and decades countries like Britain (and other countries in Europe and around the world) can hold our heads up with some pride in the knowledge that we at least tried our best to mitigate against the climate crisis.
Yeah, the planet will survive; but modern society, as we know it, is and will continue to take hard knocks from the negative effects of climate change; and by the time that climate change denialists come to realise that, it will be too late. The devastating heatwaves that hit America and Europe this summer (the worst ever, since records began) is just a taster of what’s to come; over the next decade or so such heatwaves will not be the exception, they will be the norm, and they will get worse.
We’ve had a number of mass extinctions on the Earth, some due to climate change, and yes, as you state the planet survived; but on more than one occasion most of life on the Earth was wiped out.
I don’t know why you say “UK policy climate policies ….. seal the coffin” in preventing “cheap energy”. FYI since 2016 Renewable Energy has become cheaper than fossil fuels in two thirds of the world”. To burn fossil fuels for energy means that the power companies have to constantly by more fossil fuels, whereas wind, sun, tidal, wave, hydro and thermal energy is there for the taking. That’s why, overnight from 12:30am to 4:30am, when demand for electricity in Britain is low, and there is consequently a surplus of wind power at that time of night I only pay $0.12 per kWh for the electricity I use – Now if that isn’t cheap electricity, I don’t know what is.But in the meantime:...
Sunak’s new oil and gas licences are ‘moral and economic madness’Yep, Rishi Sunak (UK Conservative Prime Minister) is, as one of his fellow Conservative MPs, Chris Skidmore MP, said on Monday of this week: “This decision is on the wrong side of history.”
Rishi Sunak, since he’s been Prime Minister, since last September, has on the whole been quite levelled headed on most matters concerning the economy and environmental issues; but with the next General Election less than 18 months away, and with the cost of living and fuel crises, he is panicking a bit, and as the General Election looms ever closer, beginning to make poor judgment in a number of areas.
Notwithstanding that compared to the USA, the UK is less obsessive about fossil fuels e.g. we closed our coal mining industry down in the 1980s (for political reasons) leaving 200 years supply of untapped coal underground, and although there is more gas and oil under land in England than there ever was in the North Sea, it was Rishi Sunak, who last year re-imposed the restrictions on fracking, making it impossible for fracking to be commercially viable in England.
Also, on a positive note, any new licences that Rishi Sunak does grant is not likely to deliver new supplies of oil and gas for many years, if ever; with a General Election looming, expansion of the UK oil fields is not likely to happen e.g. current indications strongly point to Labour winning the next General Election at the end of 2024, and Labour’s policy is to end new oil and gas licences, and to transition away from fossil fuels and towards renewables at an even greater pace than the Conservatives have managed to achieve.
In conclusion, nothing is perfect, you can pick holes in any ‘good intention’ plans, but the main thing is that UK, and other European countries, are making the effort; more so than the USA."but with the next General Election less than 18 months away, and with the cost of living and fuel crises, he is panicking a bit,..."
No, this is business, Nathan. Nothing to do with elections. This is monetizing his prime minister position through the company of his wife.
I don't think comparing your country with other countries. is of much use. Look at yourself instead of finger-pointing. Because otherwise, we will be here till hell's frozen over.
Closing the coal mining had nothing to do with saving the planet as you said it was political reasons. You have to look at the motives. Thatcher was definitely not saving the planet. She unleashed together with Ronald Reagan neo-liberalism on this world and that has been destructive as hell for our planet. I'm sure you as a socialist are aware of this. So the closing the mines was a bit of a wrong example.
Parties often do different things when they are in power than what they promise. It is difficult to say what Labour will do when in power. Perhaps if Corbyn was still in power yes, but not with Starmer, he's far more a centrist and can go any way...He would easily go ahead with the oil and gas licenses. (sorry I'm a bit cynical about this, I want to see it first before I believe it..)
The effort the UK and Europe are making is laughable with what actually should be done. They may do better than the US but it is far far away from what should be done.
This year we already reached the 1.5° C above average worldwide!! And there are no signs that this trend is going to stop. On the contrary, the heating up of the earth is going faster than a lot of predictions.
So yes, people start to get fed up with politicians talking but doing nothing. As Biden still gives permits for pipelines and Sunak grants new oil and gas licenses. Canada is still fracking although its country is on fire...
I have the feeling not much has changed. Consumerism is more massive than ever.
" In conclusion, nothing is perfect, you can pick holes in any ‘good intention’ plans.. " True. But you should not do cherry-picking either.Yep I know that all eyes are watching Rishi Sunak like a hawk because of his wife, Akshata Murty e.g. Akshata Murty, an Indian heiress, is the 222nd richest person in Britain with a net worth of £730 million ($930 million), making her wealthier than Prince Charles before he became King e.g. his net worth at that time (2022) being £653 million ($832 million).
She cause political embarrassment to Rishi Sunak when she made a claim for ‘non-domiciled status’; in simple terms ‘non-domiciled status’ is where for an annual fee of £30,000 ($38,000) a wealthy person living in Britain does not have to pay British tax on any wealth they hold outside of the UK provided they don’t transfer that wealth to the UK.
Her claim for ‘non-domiciled status’ was controversial, and the British newspapers (including British the right-wing press) had a field day in embarrassing Rishi Sunak over it; to a point that to calm the waters Akshata Murty voluntarily renounced the fiscal benefits from her non-domiciled status.
But to say that of the Prime Minister’s decision to grant 100 oil licences in the North Sea “This is monetizing the prime minister’s position through the company of his wife” is not factual e.g. Akshata Murty wealth has nothing to do with oil.
Akshata Murty, is an Indian heiress whose personal wealth comes from her share in her father’s business empire in India, and from her own career and investments in:-
• A Dutch clean technology firm.
• Fashion Industry.
• Investments in start-ups, early-stage, and emerging companies that have been deemed to have high growth potential or which have demonstrated high growth.
• A stake interest in two of Jamie Oliver's restaurant businesses.
• An American fast food restaurant in India.
Besides, if Rishi Sunak was truly interested in extracting every ounce of oil and gas from the ground he wouldn’t have made fracking impossible.
Yep, what you say about Margaret Thatcher closing the coal mines in Britain is spot on, she did it to destroy the coal mining union (the most powerful trade union in Britain at the time); but my point, which I perhaps didn’t express, is that coal is a natural resource (national asset) that any government since could have exploited e.g. by re-opening the mines – and I’m sure there are some countries where given the chance they would want to exploit such a natural resource.
Yep, I would much prefer Jeremy Corbyn to Keir Starmer; but Keir Starmer is the democratically elected leader of the Labour Party; yes Keir Starmer isn’t radical like Jeremy Corbyn, but it is Labour’s current political policy not to issue any new oil and gas licenses, and that I am sure will be part of the Election Manifesto come the next General Election.
I don’t know how it works in your country, but in the UK, due to the ‘Salisbury Convention’ (which became part of the British Constitution in 1948) the Election Manifestos (which are published 6 weeks before a General Election) do play an important part in British Politics e.g. the House of Lords is obliged to pass any Bill that is part of the Election Manifesto, but are free to block any Bill they wish that wasn’t part of the Election Manifesto.
Thus, when a Government comes to power its policies are based on its Election Manifesto, and although they don’t always achieve everything they set out in their Election Manifesto (for various reasons, often for reasons beyond their control), the Election Manifesto is a good guide to the direction a newly elected Government takes.
Yeah, Keir Starmer may not be as radical as Jeremy Corbyn was, but the Labour Party (like all political parties in the UK) is committed to the climate change policy; plus the fact that the UK is the only country in the world where carbon net zero is a legal requirement rather than just a target, a law that Theresa May rushed through Parliament in less than 48 hours during her last week in Office as Prime Minister.
Yep I know that by 2027 the global average temperature increase will pass the 1.5° C, and that “there are no signs that this trend is going to stop.”, and that the “heating up of the earth is going faster than a lot of predictions.”
But I wouldn’t say that “The effort the UK and Europe are making is laughable with what actually should be done”:-
• In 2012 (just over 10 years ago) 39% of electricity in the UK came from burning coal, and less than 2% came from Renewable Energy.
• Whereas now, virtually no coal is burnt, and over half of our electricity comes from Renewable Energy – See below, screen shots of today’s National Grid, showing electricity production in Britain, as at the time of me posting this reply.
And this summer 3 new large off-shore windfarms came on line (including the largest off-shore windfarm in the world), and several more large off-shore windfarms are due to go live over the next couple of years; with more in the pipeline for future years.
In my mind, the transition from fossil fuels to Renewable Energy in Britain over the last 10 years isn’t laughable, but quite remarkable. Yes, there is always room to do more, faster, but what Britain and other European countries in the past 10 years is an achievement.
Arthur
July 2023 already breached the 1.5⁰C. Which was expected in 2027. Things are going much faster.
.Scientific American
What the problem is Nathan, is that all the solar power and windmills in the world will not change the course of the climate crisis.
The problem is consumption. Buying stuff and throwing stuff away. As all this stuff has to be made and transported, used and processed when disposed of.
This has not changed. People are still buying tons of clothing, new mobiles, maintenance for their houses, storing food etc.
Then you've got the Bitcoin market that consumes mega loads of energy.
On top of that, you have the computer industry and the cloud services that cost tons of energy too!
This is only increasing. People use more and more data and cloud services for their mobiles every day.
In short, people consume more and more. And this problem is never mentioned let alone regulated by any country. Especially the wealthy countries promote consumption in every way. All countries strive for a growth economy and as long as this is the case we are driving at full speed straight into a wall.
So we can talk about so-called green energy and organic products etc. But that's neglectable on the whole picture.
And frankly, I don't know how this situation is going to change.You seem to be suggesting that we abandon the transition away from fossil fuels to Renewable Energy to create electricity and instead carrying on burning fossil fuels to the cows come home: That’s music to the ears of climate change denialist – How is that meant to help to save the planet?
Also, you seem to be advocating that we all (in the wealthy countries) sacrifice our high living standards by abandoning consumerism. The very idea that we in the industrialised nations will have to sacrifice our high standard of living due to government’s climate change policies is one of the key fears that climate change denialists on this forum regularly cite as one of the main reasons for not supporting such policies to save the planet.
Thanks for the update (link) on the 1.5⁰C; yes there is no doubt that the earth is heating up far faster than predications; which almost certainly means that over the coming decades the climate is going to get more and more hostile for humans before it gets better, and that there is nothing we can do now to stop it. All we can hope for now is to strive to limit the damage as much as possible – and the more we can do to curb our carbon footprint, which includes greater emphases in Renewable Energy, the less the devastation is going to be!
Yes, part of “the problem is consumption. Buying stuff and throwing stuff away” (the throwaway society) including “transportation” etc. But it’s not the whole problem, it’s just part of the problem; eating meat, heating homes, and burning fossil fuels for electricity and transport are all part of the problem.
But you can’t force or persuade people in the wealthy countries to make such big sacrifices and give up their lifestyle and standard of living; trying to do so will only make people more determined not to change. The best you can hope for is to encourage people to make changes voluntarily, and to encourage people to do their bit to help the planet e.g. encourage more people to become vegetarians, encourage people to invest in solar panels on their roofs, encourage people to use public transport rather than drive their private cars everywhere, and to buy electric cars, and to encourage people to find ways of reducing their carbon footprint.
I don’t know what it’s like where you live, but in Britain people are becoming more aware of the issues, and people are increasingly trying to do their bit to reduce their carbon footprint; without making the drastic sacrifices that you advocate.
As regards eating meet in the UK, there has been a steady trend towards vegetarians since the 1970s, and last time I checked about 10% of the British population were vegetarians. But the shift in attitudes in Britain away from eating meat has increased quite notably in the last couple of years since the Government has run a public awareness campaign on the damage that meat eating does to the climate.
Now, only 73% of Brits are meat eaters: 12% are Flexitarians, 6% Vegetarians, 3% Pescetarian and 2% Vegan - see the details here: https://yougov.co.uk/topics/society/art … -and-lifes
Where you say: “In short, people consume more and more. And this problem is never mentioned let alone regulated by any country. Especially the wealthy countries promote consumption in every way”. A lot of what you say is valid, certainly. And everything you refer to (and more) is all part of our ‘carbon footprint’.
I can’t speak for other countries, but in the UK, everything you refer to is part of the ‘carbon footprint’, and is something that the UK Government is monitoring e.g. the UK carbon footprint fell by estimated 13% in 2020 (see full Report): https://www.gov.uk/government/statistic … nd-to-2019
Also, as you should know, reaching carbon net zero by 2050 became law in the UK in 2019, and as such, not only has the UK Government got a legal obligation to reduce the UK’s carbon emission to net zero by 2050, but that law equally applies to all Businesses in the UK; and as such all set clear targets by the UK Government for reducing Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions over key timeframes and listing they planned projects to achieve carbon net zero by 2050, which can include the carbon offset scheme. For example this link is to how the Crown Commercial Service in the UK are aiming to achieve net zero emission by 2050: https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati … ion-policy
So it’s not just about Renewable Energy to reduce fossil fuels for generating electricity, that just part of the whole picture of ‘carbon footprint’, but like other aspects of our carbon footprint e.g. transport, heating, food production, it’s an important element.
We are not going to tackle climate change by just focusing on just one aspect of our carbon footprint e.g. consumerism; every bit that can be done, to reduce our carbon footprint, including Renewable Energy, all helps.You seem to be suggesting that we abandon the transition away from fossil fuels to Renewable Energy...
No not at all, I'm definitely not suggesting that we should stop the transition of fossil fuels toward renewable energy.
What I say is that at the moment renewables are just a small percentage of the world's energy.
And all ships and planes that transport all the goods rely on fossil fuels. All the heavy machinery for the industry relies on diesel.
This won't change. Not in the near future.
That's why the only way to make a sustainable world is to consume less. Buy less products. And this is incredibly difficult.
How do you buy a car that's made locally? All the parts of one car are made in different countries. The resources come from all over the world, transported in diesel-fueled ships.
If you think about that then, yes, renewable energy is just a small part.
And Yes, I'm completely in favor of Just Stop Oil. I support this movement, simply to kick those politicians in the ##ss as otherwise they won't do anything. And the clock is ticking.
To say, the problem is too big and renewables won't work. This is far too fatalistic for me. You have to be active and try to make this place a better world for the next generation. But politicians have to act quickly worldwide to keep the temperature under the 1.5° C increase.
But the reality is simply that too little is done to stop the energy consumption of the West. And so far it looks pretty grim.
As nothing is done there will be a collapse of the society as we know it. There are already millions of refugees on the road as they can't live in the areas where they grew up in as a result of the climate crisis.Just a quick response at this point as I will shortly be going out for the day; but I shall study you points (all of which are valid) in more detail and give a fuller response tomorrow:
But in the meantime; just some data for food for thought:
Global Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Sector:
• Industry = 29.4% (24.2% from Energy used e.g. burning fossil fuels)
• Agriculture = 20.1%
• Buildings (Energy used e.g. fossil fuels for heating and electricity) = 17.5% (Commercial = 6.6% & Residential = 10.9%)
• Transport (Energy used e.g. burning fossil fuels) = 16.2%
• Energy production = 13.6% (including burning of fossil fuels)
• Waste disposal = 3.2%
Total Energy used across all sectors e.g. burning fossil fuels = 73.2%
N.B. The above is based on 2016 data so it's far from up-to-date; but perhaps it should give some flavour of the scale of the problem and the issues?
Thanks, and also a quick note.
They forgot the Bitcoin transactions and the energy for data transport etc.( Powering Data storage buildings etc.)
Quick Google:
Bitcoin currently consumes around 160 terawatt-hours of electricity annually - more than the entire country of Argentina.Thanks for the info; I’ve heard of bitcoin, but bitcoin is something I know little about, and have little understanding of. Following your comments, I Googled the subject (as you suggested) and I did find one article which seems to explain it all in detail, which I have read (link below); but even after reading that article I am still confused on the subject – whether you can explain in laypersons terms?
But one thing that is clear from reading the article is that it’s just sheer craziness and madness, and doesn’t do humanity any good; but one thing that put a smile on my face (irony) is that the bitcoin mining has been banned in China, and that the USA is the epicentre of bitcoin mining!!!!
https://www.toptal.com/finance/blockcha … oin-miningThe amount of energy needed for Bitcoin is huge, and also the amount of electronic waste.
And Bitcoin is just one electronic currency, you have many more who are environmentally unfriendly.
Most articles about Cryptocurrency are written from the market perspective. You have to look for scientific articles that raise the energy costs and environmental issues (disasters) connected with Bitcoin.
Bitcoin is comparable with the Beef industry when you talk about the environmental damage it causes.
Wiki Environmental_effects_of_bitcoin
Bitcoin energy consumptionThanks for the info and links (very educational); it is shocking – and I am speechless.
Reading up on it from your links does make one feel that, with such foolishness at a time like this, mankind does deserve to ‘burn in hell on earth’ (figuratively speaking); although from all the heatwaves and wildfires around the world this year (just a taste of what’s to come) that quote could also be interpreted literally!Yes it is.
The more you know about the climate crisis the more depressing it becomes. Perhaps that's why people don't want to know the harsh reality.
On the other side. It makes you appreciate and understand how amazing life is and how precious and easily destroyed. As well as how privileged we are in the West.
I can imagine that now you're health is doing better you appreciate it too! As you never know what's around the corner.
Joost.Yep, that’s what I love about gardening; an appreciation of nature. And that’s why when on holiday (or day trips) we often visit nature parks and wildlife parks - and explore the British countryside, much of which is protected against development e.g. AONBs (Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty), Conservations Areas and SSSI (Sites of Special Scientific Interest) etc.
Stealth Camping At A Site Of Special Scientific Interest https://youtu.be/6QkuiU6wkh4
There are more than 4,000 SSSI’s in England, identified and protected by Natural England (Government).
Equating beef production, which produces food for human consumption, to something as selfish as Bitcoin is ridiculous. Beef production does not hurt the environment when it is done responsibly.
Saying they are comparable is like saying "solar is bad since wind farms kill birds."Meat accounts for nearly 60% of all greenhouse gases from food production, study finds
And there are lots of other articles about this subject.
Simply google:beef production environmental impactIt is very easy to manipulate data to prove that which is not true. Have you not read the rash of fake papers purporting "evidence" by people like the president of Stanford university in the US?
That Guardian link is so poor that it proves nothing. Of course they show a feedlot, which does produce a lot of water pollution. Why not post a link about all of the greenhouse gases produced by tractors to produce soybeans for vegans?
The main point here is that comparing beef production to Bitcoins in ridiculous. One provides food to humans on this planet (anyone that disagrees and believes those Guardian numbers can just stop eating beef) and one just allows more greedy people to get rich."That Guardian link is so poor that it proves nothing."
The Guardian is a newspaper with a very high standard and does check it's facts. If the facts are not correct you can bet that readers will attack the newspaper.
But I said as well to Google for yourself. So you will find much more articles from different sources that basically say the same. That the meat and dairy industry is terrible for the environment.
You can compare the Bitcoin industry with the meat industry just as you can compare the public transport industry with the clothing industry.
It is not about what a product is used for. It is about how harmful it is to the environment.Maybe about the only news source that provides more leftist slanted info than the Guardian is Google itself. They actively squash conservative media sites and practice active censorship of sites that do not support their agenda.
I still do not think your comparison has value. As I pointed out, your comparison is akin to saying that solar energy is a bad source of renewal energy because wind towers kill birds.
Therefore, following that logic, all renewal energy destroys the environment.I’ve been following the banter between you and Peter with interest.
I’ve known for some time that meat production (including dairy products) account for 57% of all food production greenhouse gas emissions; but I take a more pragmatic view e.g. not eating meat has to be a personal choice, you can’t force people to change their diet, you can only encourage people to change their eating habits to help the planet, and for health reasons – which is the approach the UK Government and the NHS is taking.
The UK government and NHS public awareness campaigns in recent years seem to be having a positive impact. When I checked just a few years ago about 90% of the British public regularly ate meat; but the most recent polls show a different picture:-
• Only 73% of Brits are now meat eaters
• 12% of Brits are now flexitarians
• 6% are vegetarian
• 3% are pescetarian
• 2% are vegan
As you may know, I am a vegetarian, and have been since the age of 13; dairy products being the third highest cause of greenhouse gas emissions, behind that of beef and rice.
Given that not everyone is going to stop eating meat, and even dairy products accounts for a high percentage of greenhouse gas emissions, there are ways of reducing those emissions, as is being done in the UK and a number of EU countries - the action being taken by beef and dairy farmers doesn’t eliminate the problems of greenhouse gas emissions, but it’s a small step in the right direction.
It’s not just Britain; the Republic of Ireland (and other members of the EU) takes the matter very seriously, as this short video indicates: How a beef and dairy farm’s carbon footprint is calculated and audited in the Republic of Ireland https://youtu.be/VAMzV1knxM4
And this is how it is done in the UK: https://youtu.be/-M3-NrSZmQs"Flexitarian" is a term that refers to people that are omnivores. They do not need a separate catergory than what you call "meat eaters" which is also a term vegans use when referring to omnivores, the normal condition for human beings on this planet. So actually your number shows that 88% of Brits are omnivores.
Those numbers on beef production and environmental impact are bogus. The researchers studied feedlots in the US and then extrapolated their results to the rest of the world. It does not work that way. Beef raised on grass and range, which is the case in most of the world, use water not fit for human consumption and utilize land unfit for crops to produce human food. They do not pollute the environment like those antibiotic-injected cattle concentrated into feedlots.
The dairy situation in Ireland is really sad and an example that conservatives are using to fight climate change extremism. Politicians in that country want to kill a good portion of the dairy aniamls there that are providing food to the Irish people. (Later they can start importing food from China and the US. They will still produce just as much pollution, or more since it has to be shipped around the world, but the politicians can claim that they are preventing climate change since their country will not be producing the carbon.)
That country cannot turn that cattle land into crops even if they wanted to. Ireland is a perfect example of a land dominated by landscape that is appropriate for livestock and not cropland.Yeah, flexitarians are omnivores, I didn’t say they weren’t; what I meant to say, and what I said in the text but not in the bullet points, is the number of Brits who regularly eat meat.
Where I said in my bullet points: “Only 73% of Brits are now meat eaters” I meant to say ‘Only 73% of Brits are now regular meat eaters.’
I don’t know if you know any flexitarians in Brazil; but the ones I know typically are either strict vegetarians 5 or 6 days a week and treat themselves to a couple of sausages once or twice a week, or they are strict vegetarians most of the time but can’t resist the smell of bacon, and if offered a bacon sarnie succumb to the temptation. So essentially flexitarians in Britain are more vegetarian than not.
Where you refer to Peter’s link to the Guardian Article and say “Those numbers on beef production and environmental impact are bogus. The researchers studied feedlots in the US and then extrapolated their results to the rest of the world.” the Guardian actually provided a link to the source reference – if you follow that link (copy of link below), and then study the source document you will find that did not extrapolated the results from the USA study to the rest of the world, but in actual fact have been gathering data worldwide since before 2008 e.g. as stated in the report:-
“Moreover, CH4 (methane) and N2O (Nitrous oxide) emissions from agricultural activities are provided globally by different datasets.
That report is detailed and comprehensive and well spruced and referenced – If you have the time it does make an interesting read - link below:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s43016- … ardian.com
But yes, I totally agree with you that cattle raised on grass and range produce significantly less methane that cattle feed on feedlots; just as cattle fed on grassland that is high in clover (as in the republic of Ireland, and Britain) produces even less methane.
I’m not quite sure of the relevance of “water not fit for human consumption”, in that water that’s not fit for human consumption (provided it’s not contaminated) can be used to grow crops just as easily as it can be used to water cattle. Besides, what part of the world are you refereeing to e.g. in Britain (as in the Republic of Ireland) we don’t have water used in agriculture that’s not fit for human consumption; apart from which (apart from predominately South England during droughts, we don’t have a water shortage in Britain.
Where you say “utilize land unfit for crops to produce human food.” most land used for livestock can be used to grow crops, even in Ireland; albeit, these days Milk and beef output, which accounts for over 61% of the Republic of Ireland’s agriculture, is its prime food production because Ireland does have very limited horticultural and grain production on account of its topography and climate. Nevertheless they can and do grow barley, wheat, and oats, and the Irish climate is particular suitable for potatoes and mushrooms.
In England, where the climate is a lot less hostile, land used for livestock can just as easily be used for crops.
I don’t know why you say the dairy situation in Ireland is really sad? Is you statement based on your reference to conservatives (presumably in the USA) using Ireland as an example to fight climate change extremism? If so, then I suspect those example are based on out-dated information e.g. the Milk Quota, which stifled dairy farms, was abolished in 2015, and since then the Milk industry in the Republic of Ireland has flourished, with prospect of a bright future.In Britain and Ireland cattle drink from ponds, which are not able to be used to produce plants unless you take a pump and attach it to a truck and drive it around to the crops. That would produce a lot more pollution than anything that cattle are supposedly producing. Around the world cattle drink from ponds.
Your comment about most land used for cattle being okay for crops is really iincorrect. If you go to southern Ireland you can still see the scars on the hillsides from when they were eroded from plant production during the English occupation of that land. I have not spent much time in the UK but the hillsides of much of Scotland are also built for grazing, not crops.
Here is a link about the Irish plan to murder dairy cows to appease the climate change crowd. https://cowboystatedaily.com/2023/06/02 … erds-next/ If you do not like that link there are many others from the Irish Times and other sources.
This proposal is from 2023 and is not outdated. It has nothing to do with the milk qouta. When I lived in Ireland I knew many farmers that only had 10 cows or less, so a proposal like that is going after the working people that can least afford it.Off topic . . . I read the article on Diabetes for pups Dr. Mark. Thanks for giving attention to my questions. I found it to be very informative and answered my questions. One important point I gathered is more research is needed.
Regarding testing their glucose, today, for humans is the Continuous Glucose Monitoring now available. It is relatively new. It is affixed to the body and then uses a handheld monitor or smartphone for readings. I am considering one. It would be nice if they come up with one for pets. You mentioned that in your article.
I like that they do have an A1C type of test for pups. I depend on my quarterly one to keep me on track and make changes if necessary. Also, the Serum fructosamine test seems to do the trick too.
As with your previous article, the diet/nutrition part was thorough. I still can't get over you can feed pups chicken bones per the way you share. I remember my dad lecturing me about that as a kid.
Again, thanks!!! I hope you get plenty of traffic from it. I plan on sharing it at FB tomorrow morning.My suggested diet does not fit the standard protocol but it will help your friends dogs feel a lot better. I still hear the chicken bone thing a lot but what most people do not know are those birds we buy in the store are soft and not even two months old. Much different than an old layer hen that has been killed after 2 years of procuing eggs for us.
Anyway if you have any other questions on this or other issues just shoot the question off to Pethelpful and I will be glad to help if I can. I will keep my eyes open and when that continuous glucose monitor is available for cats and dogs will add an update to that article.Interesting discussion indeed @tsmog, and @ DrMark, as by-passing the comment system button, that's disfunctional for years. I saw the read likewise, and wonder animals specific dogs go diabetic. Thanks, DrMark, for sharing.
Thanks for the link, most enlightening; but it is only a proposal and under debate (consultation period); the Irish farmers are saying it should be ‘voluntary’ – so we’ll have to wait and see what transpires: But to put it in perspective, in 2022 there were 7.4 million cattle in the Republic of Ireland, so a reduction of 200,000 over three years (as being proposed) is a small reduction of just 2.7%.
Getting onto your other two points:-
1. Whether land used for livestock could be suitable for growing crops.
I my previous post I did acknowledge that livestock is Irelands “prime food production because Ireland does have very limited horticultural and grain production on account of its topography and climate.” which to a large extent is true for Scotland too – so I don’t think we are in total disagreement.
But, that limitation doesn't apply in England. The point I was trying to make is that it’s not as simple as all or nothing; there are a limited range of crops, such as potatoes, that are suited for the Irish and Scottish climate e.g. more than 75% of British potatoes are grown in Scotland.
2. British cattle do NOT “drink from ponds, which are not able to be used to produce plants……”
In Britain:
• 70% of the water used on farms comes from the ‘mains supply’ (drinking water)
• 18% of the water used on farms comes from bore holes, and
• 12% of the water used on farms comes from rivers, streams and springs.
The link below gives further details:
https://ahdb.org.uk/water-supply-proble … tock-farmsThose English water usage figures are interesting, much different than much of the world I have seen.
As I have mentioned,, I have never lived in England so appreciate your comments on the countryside there. Like the midwest US, that is good cropland, farmers choose not to raise cattle since they can make more profit from crops than they can with cattle.
Potatoes are not a good example of a crop that can be used on livestock range however as most are grown in fields, unlike the steep hillsides in the highlands of Scotland or southern Ireland. At least in Ireland, those fields that do produce that starch are in the Shannon valley and other croplands of a similar type.
Yes, I remember that the Irish cattle slaughter is only a proposal at this point. I hope for the sake of so many small dairymen there that it does not go through.I said I would review my notes on the economic situation as set forth by US Bank.
What they have stated is that the European Bank's Central shift to restrictive policies will dampen "economic prospects."
This means that high energy prices, along with higher food prices are eroding consumer confidence in Europe. Die-hard climate disciples are, however, willing to ignore this deterioration if they are personally doing okay.
I find in my own country that the price of everything has gone up significantly. While the war in Europe plays a part, the truth is that the war on energy has played a more significant role. It takes ships and trucks to transport food and goods. These ships and trucks cannot rely on electric vehicles to get to their destination without an enormous cost.
In the United States, more electric cars equals more pollution. This is not something one considers in Europe because the UK is the size of a dot compared to the rest of the world, including India, Russia, and China, countries that have no interest at all in reducing carbon emissions.
Air travel is another boogieman of the far Left. But what they fail to see is that air travel allows medical professionals and the expertise of other emergency personnel to enter countries that might not otherwise be served by the medical community, and by those who can supply clean water and other humanitarian relief.
Malaria is still a problem today though it need not be. Toxin controls proposed by Rachel Carson have devastated the lives of millions of people around the globe who have died from malaria to the cost of 200 billion by the late 1990s. How is that sound economics?
In the UK, one hears of 5 million new jobs being created through green energy, even as advisors warn that 10 million jobs could be at risk. This is not sound economics.
The US debt has increased to 32 Trillion dollars, and much of that money is allocated to climate change. This is hurting Americans. And given our trajectory, the prices of food and goods will increase each year. As the United States goes, so goes the rest of the world.
The EU has promised a greater cut in emissions than other countries, but that will cost EU citizens 1.5 trillion over the next three decades. A very expensive way to achieve almost nothing, meaning less than 1% less warming even if we were to achieve net zero, which is impossible and unnecessary.
We would be better served to use sound economics to increase our wealth, not decrease it for the sake of climate fear.
Today, the Biden administration is going after our farmland. How is that a sound economic decision? It isn't. It only means that fewer people will have enough food and that US farmers will lose their livelihood. This is already happening to the Dutch farmers.
Contrary to popular opinion, the climate agenda has nothing to do with sound science and everything to do with controlling the populace, enriching the elites and wealthy corporations. Sadly, it is also about depopulating the undesirables from the planet, to a degree. This is what I find most sinister.
Many in the West and the UK do not have a handle on how badly people around the globe will suffer if bad politicians and lobbyists have their way.Yes, the climate crisis effects the way we live as it is a global phenomonon. And as we live in a world economy its effects are wide spread.
More and more people can't live anymore in the countries they were born in. Because of drought, heat, drink water shortage... And so the have to move. There's already a huge immigration going on. Every year more and more refugees look for a better place to live.
The same global problem goes with food. You see what the war in Ukraine has done to the grain (and related products) suply in the world.
The fosil fuel resources are a problem. Not only do they effect hugely the climate but also they are finite.
The western economy is based on growth. But this is not realistic as resources are finite. And so there comes apoint that this growth economy will tumble down. To prevent this the economic model has to be changed. But I have yet to see a world leader who is willing or able to do so.
As in the end it is the companies who have the power.
If I remember correctly it was Ronald Reagan who said "The debt is big enough to take care of itself” ...
The United States lives on its debt. That's not something new.
It lives on the "live now pay later" idea. But there comes a time you have to pay back.
The energy of transport is a huge problem. Interestingly the idea of electric cars started with electric trucks and buses before the idea was brought to cars.
And in many countries buses are electric.
I think governments around the world should promote more public transport. Build proper railroad networks and bus routes. Instead of promoting everyone to have an electric car.
---Contrary to popular opinion, the climate agenda has nothing to do with sound science and everything to do with controlling the populace, enriching the elites and wealthy corporations. Sadly, it is also about depopulating the undesirables from the planet, to a degree. This is what I find most sinister.---
I don't know what the popular opinion is. But yes, the climate crisis will hit the poorest of society first. It is classic disaster capitalism.
At the moment oil companies are cashing in as never before. Keeping the lie awake that the climate crisis is a hoax. Exactly the same tactics the tobacco companies did to stop believing people that smoking was bad for your health.
What scientists are warning about is not popular among politicians as it goes against the growth economy. And all big companies are lobbying like crazy to put a brake on climate crisis rules and regulations.
What the science tells us is brutal. And the uncomfortable truth as All Gore years ago coined is not a popular idea. Exactly because it's uncomfortable. But this was years ago. uncomfortable truth has become deadly truth.
What is sinister is that the climate crisis will make a brutal world to live in for the 99%. The top 1% richest of the world will probably survive somewhere in New Zeeland. But the have not's like us will suffer greatly. It's not about race or gender this thing. It's about having billions or not having billions of dollars."What is sinister is that the climate crisis will make a brutal world to live in for the 99%. The top 1% richest of the world will probably survive somewhere in New Zeeland. But the have not's like us will suffer greatly. It's not about race or gender this thing. It's about having billions or not having billions of dollars."
The plutocrats and oligarchs (1%) believe that they would survive in a world rendered uninhabitable to the other 99 percent? It may take a little longer but they too will reap the result of the proverbial bird that fouls its own nest. It is fitting justice that they, too, will receive for their greed and poor judgement. No one can indefinitely insulate themselves from the biosphere of this planet, no matter how much money they have. But, they will try.
Over time, will it become The Eloy versus the Murlocks?
Most of the information you give in your lengthy reply is totally inaccurate; I’ll not point out the inaccuracies paragraph by paragraph or otherwise you will accuse me of making lengthy replies.
Instead I’ll just pick on one point you make which is totally false information.
You said: “In the UK, …. 5 million new jobs being created through green energy, even as advisors warn that 10 million jobs could be at risk. This is not sound economics.”
Excuse me; the UK is but a small country, as you so often take pride in pointing out – Our total workforce in the UK is only 32.93 million, so to suggest that a third of them (10 million) work for the fossil fuel sector by any stretch of the imagination wouldn’t be physically possible.
FYI, currently, only 36,000 people in the UK work in the fossil fuel sector; and many have skills that are sought after in the Renewable Sector.
Likewise, with a UK working population of just 32.93 million, I find it hard to imagine that 5 million (15%) of the UK workforce would end up working in the Renewable Energy Sector.
The actually number of people in the UK currently working in the Renewable Energy Sector is around 250,000 jobs; with up to another half million likely to be created over the coming years - Therefore it does make good economic sense.
Therefore, when you make bold statements I wish you would check the validity of them, and not keep spouting inaccurate information as if it was true; or if you are convinced your data is true then provide the evidence to prove your point.Picking up on just a couple of points - where you say”
“In the United States, more electric cars equals more pollution. This is not something one considers in Europe because the UK is the size of a dot compared to the rest of the world,…..”
How do you figure that more electric cars equals more pollution than cars burning gasoline. Cars running on gasoline pollute the planet from the exhaust fumes, an electric car doesn’t.
The UK is not Europe; the UK is just a part of Europe, just like New York is just a part of the USA. So are you suggesting that environmental impact in Europe is insignificant because Europe is but a dot compared to the USA and the rest of the world? FYI, the population of the EU is 50% bigger than the population of the USA - and the GDP of the EU isn’t that much less than the GDP of the USA.
Arthur, an article that discusses the impetus behind climate change denial, at least here in Florida.
But the propaganda starts in grade school, remarkable, isn't it?
https://news.yahoo.com/videos-denying-c … 31644.htmlThank you, credence, for the link. Certain politicians are not agreeing to climate changes, or crisis.
Thanks for the link Credence; the indoctrination at such a young age - that is just dreadful.
If you say that Google is left-wing slanted then I guess you're eating left-wing chicken soup.
"your comparison is akin to saying that solar energy is a bad source of renewal energy because wind towers kill birds."
comparison is not the same thing as because
Comparison is comparing two apples and two pears are two of a fruit, I can compare their calories, their shape, their colour, their taste, their size etc. although they are completely different fruit.
"because" is a cause/effect The apple fell from the tree because of gravity.
This is a totally different concept.
I haven’t replied sooner because I was preoccupied with seeing my NHS Hospital Consultant yesterday, and I wanted to carefully study and think about all your valid points in details before giving any response. All the tests I had when I saw my NHS Doctor last week all came back giving me a clean bill of health; so when I saw my NHS Hospital Consultant yesterday, as I have now made a full and sustained recovery from my illness a couple of years ago, he was able to discharge me from his hospital care – Yippee (no more hospital appointment). But it was an interesting appointment in that with him, my NHS Hospital Consultant had a medical consultant from the Egyptian healthcare who’d come to Britain to get an inside view on how the NHS functions.
Getting back on topic:
Yep, as many quite rightly keep pointing out in this forum, as Britain is only responsible for 1% of the global carbon emissions, any efforts Britain makes to reduce its carbon emission will (other than lead by example, and innovate) will have little effect on the climate.
It’s not a problem any single country can solve, it has to be a worldwide effort; but that doesn’t mean that individual counties should just give up trying, or not bother at all. The more that individuals and governments do to combat climate change the better; it all contributes to a worldwide joint effort.
CO2 Emissions by Country (Just some examples):
• China = 29.18% - Highest in the world.
• USA = 14.02% - 2nd highest in the world.
• Germany = 2.17% - 6th highest in the world.
• Australia = 1.16% - 14th highest in the world.
• UK = 1.03% and – 17th highest in the world.
• Spain = 0.7% - 24th highest in the world.
I’ve read through your comments several times; and there is very little I can add, other than perhaps the R&D (Research & Development) and progress being made in a number of countries around the world, including in Britain – which in themselves are a long way from solving the problems you highlight, but if nothing else, are a step in the right direction:
Examples being:-
• As regards ship: ferries between islands in Scotland are now powered by green hydrogen, not diesel.
• Buses in major cities across Britain as now predominately powered by green gas and not diesel; as are an increasing number of local government Lorries.
• Planes are a tricky one; although there is R&D into electric planes, albeit at a very early stage, so we’re not likely to see anything on a commercial scale in the foreseeable future.
• Sale of new fossil fuel cars is due to be banned in the UK in 2030.
• In the UK Natural Gas Boilers (heating in domestic homes) are being phased out now, and the sale of new boilers will be banned by 2035; with the UK government aiming to cease supplying natural gas to domestic homes by the mid-2040s.
• Trains is a major form of transport in the UK for both passengers and goods; it’s something the UK Government has been working hard to electrify since 2012; with 71% of UK trains, since 2022, now be electric. But electrifying the whole train network is an expensive and slow process, so the UK Government is keen to replace much of the remaining diesel trains with green hydrogen train as an easier, quicker and cheaper option – And to put the pressure on, all diesel trains are set to be banned in the UK by 2040.
Britain is now one of 10 countries with green hydrogen trains.
So yes, efforts we make as individual may not have much impact by themselves; but the accumulative effects will perhaps go a little way towards mitigation against climate change – but as a world, the efforts are probably too little, too late – But no reason to give up trying.
Likewise, Renewable Energy is only part of the solution; consumerism, transport, meat eating, and as you pointed out, Bitcoin mining etc., all contribute towards climate change e.g. our carbon footprint. And thus, all need to be tackled to minimise our carbon footprint as far as is acceptable by society.
I wouldn’t go as far as saying “nothing is being done”; many countries, including Britain, have and are making a lot of effort to reduce our carbon footprint, and transition from fossil fuels to Renewable Energy; but in the light of the report published last week (link below), it may well be too little, too late – and it seems that sooner rather than later many in wealthy countries will get a rude awakening (when it’s too late).
https://www.newscientist.com/article/23 … -heats-up/
And yes I’m fully aware of, as you say “There are already millions of refugees on the road as they can't live in the areas where they grew up in as a result of the climate crisis.”; but there are some on this forum that choose to be ignorant of that fact!
This looks like an interesting and fun tool (just ignore the offset options), any thoughts?
https://www.carbonfootprint.com/calculator.aspx
ArthurInteresting tool.
I can do and twist and try but i always end up above 11 tons of CO2 per year.
The tool seems to be a little inconsistent, because for living it asks for household size but for everything else it is per person.
Accumulated car travel distance is household related, at least to a significant percentage. Like our household of 2, 2 cars, 1 car doing the heavy lifting while the small electric car is more for convenience and not having to use the bike while raining. It is a more than 10 to 1 ratio for the gas guzzler, but combined distance has to be divided by 2 me think.
Actually our household behavior perfectly well displays the implications of green politics. Green and supposedly low CO2 is mostly for the well situated people. Driving an electric car to substitute the inconvenience of waitung for the bus or riding your bicycle turns any CO2 reduction balance upside down.
Of couse an electric car produces less CO2 over its lifecycle if compared to a combustion engine car. But are lifecycles comparable? Observing our road traffic my personal 10:1 ratio is probably a little exaggerated. But even at 70:30 (70% combustion engine car household use and 30% electric car use) the statistical CO2 balance advantage for e-mobility is questionable.
This is the status of today. But situation changes. In a few years electric cars will have range, will utilize less CO2 in production and will get more affordable as happens to every new and helpful technology. Airbags, ABS braking were first intruduced in luxury cars. Today every subcompact has these features.Wow, 11 tons of CO2 per year. I’ve given it a couple of tries, with different variants on a theme; I get between around 6 & 7.8 tons of CO2 per year.
Yeah, it’s not a precision tool, it does seem to be a little inconsistent as you observed; I think it gives you a rough guide rather than an accurate guide – which for some might be useful?Either I am doing the calculator wrong or I almost have no carbon footprint. My result is 0.17 metric tons of CO2 for the month of July 2023. (2.07 annually if each month was the same) The average for U.S. is 15.24 metric tons. Is that annual? Consider July I used minimal A/C. Also, my natural gas therm during winter is higher and electricity is less. Maybe, if I dug deep I would use my annual costs. I may do that later.
My . . .
Electricity was 388 kwhr
Natural Gas was 7 therms
Car = 40 miles per month
Secondary stuff = $548
So, what do you think, did I do it wrong? Otherwise, I see no way I can lower my carbon footprint at this time.
Edit: I was not really sure what they meant with all the secondary stuff. Like for TV it is bought and paid for, so entered zero.Yeah, it would be useful if there was a help menu with it e.g. to answer questions, especially all the secondary stuff.
But certainly, from the information you’ve given above, I would say that your carbon footprint is going to be extremely low anyway.
The 2.07 tons of CO2 you quoted for yourself is only 3 to 4 times less than the figures I got for myself, so considering that you do live in a mobile home with low electricity and gas usage, and you don’t drive much, then I would think the 2 tons annual you quoted would seem reasonable – and something to be proud of.I just did it using my actual annual costs for 2022 where I did a lot of driving because of medical appointments. And, I included more items in the secondary section. It arrived at 3.05 metric tons for the year or 0.25 / mth. For July 2023, it was 0.17, so the difference is 0.08 higher / mth.
Just looked at the info section. Wow!! It stated average US 15.24 tons vs. Europe at 6.8 tons and worldwide is 4.79 tons. hmmm . . .
Edit:
I looked at CO2 Emissions (Metric Tons per capita for 2020) for countries by The World Bank. It lists countries and at the bottom gives other statistics too. It gave me pause while thinking of things like poor nations vs rich nations, contrast/compare weather, and which nations are dependent on vehicles and aircraft.
Oh no! Forgot to leave the link. Here it is.
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PCYeah, it does give pause for thought – but even your revised personal carbon footprint figure is very respectable IMHO.
Thanks for the link to the worldbank, it certainly does show the stark difference between rich and poor counties.
According to the worldbank the USA is listed as 9th from the top, countries like Australia and Canada have higher carbon footprints per capita. I’ve listed just a few from the worldbank list, in order from high to low – but for anybody interested, it’s certainly worth have a peak at your link.
• Australia = 14.8
• Canada = 13.6
• USA = 13 (9th highest)
• China = 7.8
• Germany = 7.3
• EU = 5.5
• UK = 4.6
• Spain = 4.3
• Brazil = 1.9
• Nigeria = 0.5
With reference to your initial question about how to fill in the form for ‘secondary stuff’ like the TV: On reflection I think it only applies to new purchases over the past year e.g. the additional carbon footprint for any TV you already have will be covered by the electricity it uses, which is covered in your electric usage elsewhere on the form. Whereas if you buy something new during the year that will attract an additional carbon footprint associated with the manufacture and transportation (supply chain) of that TV from the factory, to the shop, and finally delivery to your home.
"Secondary" alone made up for 7 tons of CO2. I took numbers from my bank account analysis. There is a degree of uncertainty, because i don´t track my wife´s account that thoroughly.
Anyways, seems that the 7 or 8 tons have to be divided by 2, and then i come up with a total of 7-8 tons of CO2 per year.
The tool is very inconsistent and allows for high error margins.
If i had used this tool 6 years ago, my business travel routine would have spoiled the show completely. My flights were equivalent to 4 times the equator per year, and that in business (65 tons of CO2 per year only for flying).Different subject. What is the average temperature in England or the UK, if you prefer, this week. When I looked it up, I found that it has been about 68 F, / 20 Celsius. Is that your idea of a heatwave? Where I live that is fall weather, the mildest temperature imaginable.
Duh, do you not watch world events in the news – obviously not?
The heatwave in Europe this year, which exceeded 48 °C (118 °F), was in a heat dome over mainland Europe south of the Jet Stream; Britain this year was outside of that heat dome, on the north side of the Jet Stream, so the hottest temperature in Britain this year only reached 30 °C (86 °F).
To understand the above statement you need to understand what ‘Heat Domes’ and ‘Jet Streams’ are.
Last year (2022) Britain was south of the Jet Stream during the summer months, and thus inside the heat dome that hit Europe last summer; so last year temperatures in Britain reached 40.3 °C (104.5 °F)
UK sees hottest day on record, and wildfires near London (2022 heatwave): https://youtu.be/p_Ap2JQsFtE
Britain does not have heatwaves every year, but in the last 20 years heatwaves in Britain have become more frequent and hotter: Heatwaves in Britain prior to 1976 were rare, just 4 in two centuries. Whereas, since 1976 we’ve had 10 heatwaves, of which 7 have been in the last 20 years, and 6 of those within the last 10 years:
UK Heatwaves since 1976:
• 1976 = 35.9°C (96.6°F)
• 1990 = 37.1°C (98.8°F)
• 1995 = 35.2°C (95.4°F)
• 2003 = 38.5°C (101.3°F)
• 2013 = 34.1°C (93.4°F)
• 2018 = 35.3°C (95.5°F)
• 2019 = 38.7°C (101.7°F)
• 2020 = 37.8°C (100°F)
• 2021 = 32.2 °C (90.0 °F)
• 2022 = 40.3°C (104.5°F)Not so in my country, Nigeria, where I live presently.
The temperature is around 27C. But it's the rainy season. At the time it soared up and goes down, due to weather vagaries.
But Nigerians are much more to do with fossil fuel than any energy outlet available.
Green renewable energy, is not from Nigeria, now. It'll take time in the future.
From my database, when Great Britain shut down her coal mines, Nigeria, was harnessing the coals for other purposes, until the steam locomotion or engine arrived. Presently, Nigeria is still In using some steam engines to drive her trains, from China.
How much Co2 that is emitted from that, I don't have the statistics. The Federal Government of Nigeria, which operates the trains has not published anything relating to that.
All in all, the total Co2 emitted from companies, households, and what one may add is very minor.Interesting.
So, in your country, it’s about 80F on a bad day, this summer. Also not a crisis by any stretch of the imagination.FYI, if you check, you will find out that August is Nigeria's coldest month of the year - Nigeria's hottest month is April. So what is the relevance in picking Nigeria's coldest month as an example of how hot it doesn't get in Nigeria?
As we live on one planet, questions like this on local and momentary situations is not appropriate.
In my region in G. (fairly comparable to the UK) June was very dry and hot, while July was rainy and cold. So - is July worth more than June to judge on climate change?The question is highly appropriate. 68F is not a crisis, so why does everyone from the UK keep talking about a massive heat wave?
That strikes me as nonsensical.It’s very relevant: In June this year we only had temperatures up to 86 °F (30°C) in Britain; but in the heatwave that hit Britain last year it reached 104.5°F (40.3°C) – the 5th heatwave 5 years in a row.
Are you telling me that 104.5°F is not hot?
Watch this video below and tell me that the UK doesn’t suffer from massive heatwaves these days:-
UK sees hottest day on record, and wildfires near London (2022 heatwave): https://youtu.be/p_Ap2JQsFtEFires do cause heat. The question is, what caused the fires. California, for example, has a fire problem because the environmentalists demanded that dry brush not be removed for the benefit of certain animal species. Meanwhile, the forest burns, destroying everything in its path, including animals.
Stupid.
The UK is currently experiencing mild temperatures.
I checked.
Relax.The UK is currently experiencing mild temperatures, yes; but that doesn’t alter the fact that, that over the past 20 years we’ve now get extreme heat most every summer – whereas prior to 2003 we hardly ever had summer temperatures above 90.0°F, and certainly never above 100°F.
So although we didn’t get a heatwave in Britain this summer the probability of another heatwave hitting Britain within the next year or two is very high. So why should I relax?
As regards the cause of the wildfires we had in Britain last year: Did you know that heatwaves makes the ground tinder dry?
That’s why (because of the sheer heat making the ground tinder dry) many devastating wildfires have swept across Europe and Canada, and other parts of the world this year – the latest being in Hawaii yesterday.
This Week: At least 36 killed on Maui as fires burn through Hawaii and thousands race to escape https://youtu.be/6T9pc0SFcRE
And it wasn’t just one wildfire in Britain last year; there were hundreds of wildfires in Britain from July to September last year. In recent years more than 20,000 hectares of land (50,000 acres/ 77 square miles of land have been lost due to wildfires in the UK in recent years.
UK Heatwave 2022 causes dozens of wildfires across Britain: https://youtu.be/yhBP1eMRJro"Two astronomers have taken a new look at 240 studies of the world's climate and offered a challenge to global warming doom-mongers. Britain was probably warmer for Robin Hood and Richard Lionheart 1,000 years ago, they say."
https://www.theguardian.com/science/200 … s.researchYep, the report was published in 2003; at that time we’d only had three well dispersed heatwaves, one in 1976, one in 1990 and one in 1995, and none of those reached 100°F (38°C); and at that time British summers in the intervening years where much cooler, although noticeable warmer from the 1980’s but nowhere as hot as they are most years in the past 20 years.
So put in simple terms, the report is out dated.
Ahhhh 68F, it reached 100F yesterday on our property in Central Florida! I felt it, I was gardening in it!
But, that has happened in August, in Florida, in the South...many times before. We call it "Summer"! It was 81F on the east coast of Florida, while I was there last week. That 81F ocean breeze was heavenly. If only I could get my hubby to live on the coast!
Right? 68F is perfect weather.
It’s been 98 to 101F where I live, but starting to cool off this month. When I was little, back in the 60’s, I lived in the Mohave Valley. My brother and I would play outside in 105F. We thought nothing of it because we were having too much fun exploring the desert.
My understanding is that back during the Dust Bowl, the temperature reached 131F in June or July.
And it had nothing to do with carbon emissions.You understand correctly!
It was the same for us in the south. We were outside all day long, if there wasn't a pool or a lake to jump into, we'd be spraying the garden hose at one another!
Good times, great memories!No of course the 105°F you had back in the 1960’s where you lived as a kid has nothing to do with carbon emissions (climate change); that is naturally a hot part of the world (local climate) and the full effects of global warming weren’t felt in those days – It’s only in the past 40 years (since the 1980’s) that the effects of global warming is being felt across the world. Back in the 1960s we constantly had cold winters and cool summers e.g. the big freeze of 63; but in the last 20 years all that has changed, our summers are generally much hotter, and our winters more mild.
Are we talking about climate change or local heat wave or cold wave?
Almost 40 years ago i listened to a lecture of a meteorologist about our local climate. The guy said that our average rainfall was just about the same as in continental steppes of Kasachstan or Midwestern prairies. But we are living in all shades of green, not grey.
The reason why it was always green in our place was simply because we had rain within short intervals, even if it was only a little rain.
This is changing now. Intervals get longer, we now have long periodes of drought, then followed by heavy rain floodings.
There is no use pounding on 68F. Is probably the wet and strong rain period.
It is much more of an issue that intervals get longer and nature is not well prepared to adapt. In other words: climate changes faster than vegetation can react and grow drought resistant plants/trees. And "sponge" capacity of the soil is not able to cope with heavy rains either, leading to periodic floodings.
Air can take up more water with rising temperatures. 1° C temperature rise is eqivalent to 5-6 mm of rain (almost 1/4 inch). So if average temperatures rise, then there is more water, more humidity in the air. And this humidity is missing on the ground, causing drought. And then, if temperatures drop, this storage of water is released, causing heavy rains...
No rocket science, no conspiracies, simple physics. And physics don´t care if it is man made or by nature. Climate change is happening. Nature can´t react fast enough, but man has to adapt and does adapt: by technology in developed countries, by migration away from hot regions in 3rd world and developing countries.One problem I see is that climate change politicians are using this issue to try and influence votes. It is a local heat wave, and Hillary Clinton tells everyone it is Trumps fault and if they do not like the heat to vote Democrat;
As you point out, there is a lot more going on that just local heat waves and regional cool weather.Yeah, it’s become political in America, but that doesn’t mean that it’s political in countries around the world e.g. all political parties in the UK support climate change policies. So when it comes to elections (votes) in the UK, as all political parties are on the same side when it comes to climate change, it’s not a voting issue.
No, it is not political in Europe but it is very political here in south America. Our new socialist president promised to end Amazon deforestation and climate change and gained many votes because of that stance. Deforestation in the early part of this year has been higher than at any time since his previous term, much higher than during Bolsanaro´s term of office.
Yep, all eyes on this side of the pond are on the deforestation problem in the Amazon.
What is the time frame you speak of? More specifically, how long are these intervals?
And how in the world are people supposed to migrate away from hot regions?
Who is going to give them the money? And why should they leave when they could experience comfort, and in some cases an alleviation from poverty, comparatively speaking.
What they need (speaking of those you say should move) is for charitable people and goodwill entities to provide them with some cheap, clean, fossil fuel energy, or a goat, and certainly safe drinking water, at the very least.
Green energy is not kind to people or the planet. It simply isn’t.
As an aside, our friend, Nathanville, can spill all the word “vomit” (a term used for anyone who uses too many words to distract from the truth), and endless, biased graphs he wants. (I was told he writes for the Socialist government)
Anyway, it will make no difference to the planet, because the planet is not influenced by humans, some of whom are arrogant enough to believe they can control the climate.
That being said, I was raised to be a good steward of the earth. I know that, having been influenced by devout SDA grandparents, that we must put back into the earth what we take out. That is what we must do. We must also have common sense.
Getting rid of cows and driving electric cars will cause more harm than good. (I’ve already posted a link about electric cars.)
Or… do the population bomb conspirators continue to think that the poor take up too much space? As someone (perhaps you) mentioned, they don’t vote, so…
What I find rather disingenuous, to say the least, is that all of you “on the other side of the pond” keep whining about hot temperatures, knowing all the while that you have experienced mild temperatures this summer.
Not okay.Where you say “What I find rather disingenuous, to say the least, is that all of you “on the other side of the pond” keep whining about hot temperatures, knowing all the while that you have experienced mild temperatures this summer.” Where do you get that false statement from?
Haven’t you watched any news this summer’s European heatwave with temperatures up to 48 °C (118 °F); causing over 60,000 heat related deaths, and wildfires. So how do you call that mild summer temperatures.
As you don’t seem to watch the news, this video will give some insight:
2023: Europe struggles under record-breaking heat wave https://youtu.be/n3c1heM7Ys0..What is the time frame you speak of? More specifically, how long are these intervals?...
When i was a kid, we had rain at least once per week. And that in summer. Winter had always lowest rain/snowfall of the year.
This is changing. Now we have periods of 4 to 8 weeks. May and June this year were dry and sunny. July and August are rainy with many thunderstorms.
Last year July until September were dry, almost 3 months. In August/September 2022 this had direct impact on electricity prices. Thermal power plants require cooling water. If rivers run low, then no cooling, no electricity, thus resulting in high electricity prices.
Concerning temperatures: I have some experience with living in multiple locations on our planet. It is a difference enduring 110F in Arizona or some 80F in my place. Air humidity plays the trick. Not really complaining, it is simply different.
It is not about the temperature and climate itself, it is about its change.Appreciate your reply, Chris.
The climate is ever changing.
According to some in the UK, the last 40 years (of temperature) seems to be, in your minds, quite significant.
Why so? Surely you do not believe climate can be measured in 40 years, given the age of our planet?
Or do you believe that 40 years of heat or cold or perfect temperature, all around the globe, is all that is required for one to assume the planet is heating to the brink of extinction?FYI - It’s not just about the last 40 years in isolation; according to Paleoclimatologists it’s about the last 40 years in relation to the last 800,000 years.
According to the Paleoclimatologists the current climatic warming is occurring much more rapidly than past warming events; by up to at least 20 times faster, and it’s the speed of change that is damaging to eco systems and mankind e.g. too fast for us and nature to adapt.
One false claim you often make is that the wealthy countries burning fossil fuels is good for those living in poor countries, and that Renewable Energy is harmful to people living in poor countries; but according to the Paleoclimatologists, the result of burning fossil fuels on the scale that we currently burn fossil fuels is changing the climate at such a rapid pace that not only will ecosystems be affected, but the very poor that you claim you want to help will be adversely affected by manmade climate change - To Quote from the Paleoclimatologists:
“Hardest hit will be those living in low-lying coastal areas, and residents of poorer countries who do not have the resources to adapt to changes in temperature extremes and water resources.”
And the above statement by Paleoclimatologists is not just prediction; if you’ve been watching the news of world events the last couple of years, you will know that people in poor countries are already suffering from these climate change effects.
This document by Paleoclimatologists provides a detailed picture:
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/featu … /page1.phpWell, I hope your government pays you well to promote propaganda. NASA is one of the worst offenders, when it comes to twisting data to suit their agenda.
Every point in that article blatantly ignores much needed context.
We all know you are a loyal disciple of the Climate cult. Activism is your god, and a very destructive one. Once your personal standard of living decreases significantly, due to all the things you have to cut back on because your government has adopted useless UN climate dictates, then maybe your eyes will be opened. But I doubt it.Your only defence is to rubbish the evidence (evidence supported by the vast majority of scientists around the world) and to make personal attacks.
Where you say "Well, I hope your government pays you well to promote propaganda."; firstly my government is a right-wing conservative government, which isn't my politics; secondly, it's not propaganda, the scientific evidence is now overwhelming.
Besides, your last argument is unfounded and just scaremongering; my standard of living isn’t decreasing, and neither am I having to cut back on anything, due to the UK’s own Climate Change policies: If you are going to make such (false) allegations, then give examples to back up your argument.
How is my standard of living decreasing due to the UK’s Conservative Climate Change Policy?
What do I have to cut back on due to the UK’s Conservative Climate Change Policy?
On the contrary, people all around the world are already suffering the consequences of manmade climate change; and it’s going to get worst in the years to come – this year e.g. Hawaii is just a taster of what’s to come.
Contrary to your person insults: The reason I support my own Conservative Government Climate Change Policy is because I now know from the scientific community that the Climate Change crisis is real.
Prior to 2012 I was sceptical about the claims, but the scientific evidence is overwhelming – But unfortunately, by the time that climate change denialists realise that it’s real; it will be too late to do anything about it.It’s strange that every scientist and every scientific organisation in the world that supports manmade climate change (which is the vast majority of the scientific community) you dismiss out of hand.
Who are people to believe, what the scientific community is saying, or what you are saying?
You say that “Every point in that article blatantly ignores much needed context” – explain; what context is ignored by the scientists – let’s have a fruitful discussion, rather than you just dismissing out of hand everything you disagree with, and making personal attacks on people who disagree with you.This is terrible. I hope savvydating, make a good turn around to her 'fruitful discussion'. Wondering if a robot, is now doing all her postings.
It is not strange.
If scientists do not sign off on the climate change narrative proposed by the IPCC, they do not get grant money to study their area of specialization. Not one penny. If they dare to counter the prescribed narrative, they lose their jobs.
Even scientists have mortgages and families, so of course they will agree…
Otherwise, they are throwing their education away.
I realize that you have no idea just how much the study of climate has been corrupted, but it has been nevertheless.
And every specific point I’ve made you have dismissed with talking points from biased charts and heavily manipulated data.
As an aside, I also realize that you believe Greta Thunberg actually knows what she is talking about and that her family is not motivated by greed. So, some people are more amenable to certain information. That’s life.
I think of all the people in the world who will have to do with significantly less because of the greed of a handful of politicians, activists in academia, and the dictates of the UN.
As for your asking me to address the massive amount of false data that is in that report, sorry, I don’t have all day.
How about if you pick or one or two subjects at a time, like our friends Chris and Peter so kindly do, if you are truly that interested in a “fruitful” discussion?
As it is, I do not appreciate how you are using this forum. Your massive posting is out of line, and it is not fruitful when endless amounts of charts and links and lists monopolize the entire discussion.
That is not the purpose of forums, and I wish you would stop taking advantage in this manner. It simply isn’t appropriate.
I ask again that you try to be fair. That is the only way to have fruitful conversations.The key to your beliefs on climate change hinges on the scientist being wrong; so it’s no surprise that you try to discredit the scientist. However you can’t fool me, I happen to know exactly how scientists are funded; and you claim in your opening paragraphs is deliberate untrue misinformation – If you think otherwise, then where is your evidence, or are we just expected to take your word for it?
It seems to me that you try to discredit the charts and graphs, just as you try to discredit the scientist who produced them, because they are contrary to your beliefs – Yet we are expected to take your word that the scientists and the charts and graphs they produce are wrong, without any credible evidence from you to back up your claims?
Greta Thunberg is only repeating what the scientists are saying; but then again, you don’t believe the scientist, so of course you’re going to try to discredit anyone who repeats what the scientists are saying.
The only reason some of my posts are long and comprehensive is because I’m responding in details to every point you make, and it is a complex subject; but if you can’t handle complex issues, and can only deal with issues in bitesize, then I shall try to keep my comments to just two or three points in future posts – But in return, I ask that you actually answer my questions and not keep side stepping them – For Example:-
In your recent post you stated that:
1. My standard of living will be decreasing due to the UK’s Conservative Climate Change Policy?, and
2. I will have to cut back on things due to the UK’s Conservative Climate Change Policy?
At the time I disputed your claim, and asked:
1. How is my standard of living decreasing due to the UK’s Conservative Climate Change Policy?
2. What do I have to cut back on due to the UK’s Conservative Climate Change Policy?
I’m still waiting for your answer.You do not need to insult me anymore than I need to insult you. My point is that this forum is not the Nathanville climate show.
The bite size questions you seem to disdain promote healthy discussion. Furthermore, if you read this forum from page 1 on, you will see that I have given pertinent information, including the names of two scientists who are highly respected by their peers. They are the men I get most of my information from, the exception being Bjorn, who is a social scientist and an environmentalist.
As for links, I am not a proponent of them because I know full well how unreliable search engines can be.
I will look at your brief questions later. And thank you for making the attempt at being brief. I appreciate it.Nathanville… Propaganda does not work for me. I understand that a few of your friends, and even Mie.. 57 who wants to be popular, may be impressed with your word play.
But, know beyond a shadow of a doubt that I have never used the words, “UK’s Conservative Climate Policy” in regard to questions I have asked regarding your beliefs about “climate change.”
So, if want an answer from me, please rephrase your question without putting words into my mouth.
If you are being paid to write for the Socialist agenda here, please find another space. This is not the place.
HP has rules. I ask you again to please follow them.No, you have never used the words ““UK’s Conservative Climate Policy”
What you actually said, two days ago was (word for word quote):
• “Well, I hope your government pays you well to promote propaganda.”
• “Once your personal standard of living decreases significantly, due to all the things you have to cut back on because your government has adopted useless UN climate dictates, then maybe your eyes will be opened. But I doubt it.”
And now you are saying, to quote “If you are being paid to write for the Socialist agenda here….”
FYI (For Your Information):-
1. It’s not our left-win socialist parties (Labour and or Green Parties) agenda that I am supporting, it’s our current right-wing Conservative agenda on climate change policy that I am supporting; and any suggestion that I get paid by the Conservative Government for supporting them is ludicrous.
That’s why I used the term ‘UK’s Conservative Climate Policy’, because you seem to be confused as to which political party is currently pursing climate change policy in the UK.
So getting back to my simple request: Where you said
“Once your personal standard of living decreases significantly, due to all the things you have to cut back on because your government has adopted useless UN climate dictates” e.g. the UK’s Conservative Government Climate Change Policy.
So it seems to me that you are quite clearly stating that you think that my standard of living will decrease significantly, due to the Climate Change Policy by my government – Therefore I think it’s reasonable for me to ask, how will my standard of living decrease significantly, due to my government’s climate change policy?
Likewise, where you say that my “personal standard of living decreases significantly, due to all the things you have to cut back on because your government has adopted useless UN climate dictates” – I think it’s reasonable for me to ask, ‘What things will I have to cut back on’ due to my government’s climate change policy.
It seems to me that you’ve made bland statements without any supporting evidence to support your claim; so as you’ve made the allegations I think it’s reasonable to ask you to answer these questions in support of your allegations.It is reasonable to ask. The reason I haven’t answered many of your questions is because I don’t generally read your posts. Thus, I don’t see your questions.
But I will answer this one after I have reviewed my notes on a U.S. Bank article I read and another book. As I have mentioned before, I almost never rely on links. I find them too unreliable.
Savvydating, what in my post tell you that I want to be popular? What put that into you head, my friend? All I can infer is that you're trying to gyp me. But why? Obviously, you moved out from the Roman Catholic into the Seventh Day Advertising. Does not science hold any sphere in these two organizations? I just think you're just being a woman in the circumstance. So if I have to gathered all the climate scientists in the world before you, would you agree to anyone making a statement on the climate crisis? I'm wondering, my friend. Thanks.
Sorry, its just that you seem to agree with both sides at once, and you do not always seem consistent. But, perhaps I am not understanding your English.
I respect the SDA’s. No need for you to make fun of them, Mie…57.Savvy, one of my next door neighbour was a SDA. I couldn't make 'fun' of them, nor your organization. But what make you think that? All I do know is that you're a woman. And you're not getting my English? Woman, you're good to go!
Little things remind us that climate is changing. And this is happening within my lifetime, which admittedly is significantly more than 40 years.
When i met my wife, i remember making long ice-scating excursions on our canals and lakes. Last time i was on the ice was many years ago with my grandchildren in an indoor arena.
My sister used to do ice sailing, had a DN class ice boat. https://www.dniceboat.org/dn-class-info/
She had long sold the racer. No frozen lakes, canals, rivers any more.
We used to change car tires from summer to winter and back. Don´t do this any more. Guess why?
It is not necessarily that it gets hot in summer. It is more that it doesn´t get cold in winter.
For those being used to 90F in summer, a rise to 92F is no big deal. For those being used that it gets below 32F in winter 2°F rise will make a big difference.
All this anecdotal personal experience does not say that it won´t get really cold or hot sometime in the future. But the general trend can not be neglected.Interesting anecdotes about your growing up years and beyond.
My understanding is that if we are to understand trends in climate, we must look at the long view, as in every 10,000 years, at the very least.Yep, precisely, and that 's what Paleoclimatologists do; and the evidence from Paleoclimatologists clearly shows that today's climate change is manmade, and is a threat to eco systems and mankind.
Isn´t this 10.000 year thing an excuse for not doing nothing? Same as the UK or Germany contributing only little to world CO2 emissions?
The changes that i notice suggest a much faster pace of change. This may lead to fear and anxiety for many and sometimes to irrational behavior.
For me the rapid change is more an indicator that change can be reversed, also rapidly. May cause an overshoot of the control parameters for some period of time, but will do in the future.
So my conclusion: We have to allow to play on the keyboard of nature. Lets say: press the key named CO2-reduction and find out results. May be some more keys have to pressed, some more parameters need to be tackled. It does not help locking the piano of nature away. We are not deaf, are we? An climate change is not adagio, it is allegro irato.The 100,000 mark is not an excuse. It is a measurable trend.
As for the changes you have noticed in your life, they are only a small snapshot.
The reality is that, for example, hurricanes in the US have been slightly declining since 1900.
Wildfires, if one looks at satellite imagery, has shown a dramatic decline for the past 25 years. But if you go by the news or your feelings, you wouldn’t know that.
Another thing, before the 1920’s, about 500,000 people died each year from climate. In the ensuing years, the average number of deaths began declining dramatically. In 2010, the average number of deaths dropped to 18,000. In 2022, the number dropped to 11,000.
But if you watch the news, you would believe another thing entirely.
Then there is the question of sea levels. If they were to rise, people would obviously do something about it, such as building dikes like the Dutch have done in Holland.
And frankly, if it were to become much hotter for the long term, which I doubt, the UK might actually consider investing in air conditioning.
For more information on deaths from climate, see the International Disaster Database.Picking up on just one point: Where do you get your figures from?
For example, you clearly state that the number of people who died from climate in “2022, the number dropped to 11,000.” whereas in fact, across Europe alone, the death toll in the heatwave in 2022 was over 61,000.Bjorn, the environmentalist, wrote an article and may have found the numbers on the International Database I referenced before.
61,000? That’s massive. Where did you get that figure?Those numbers are what the MSM in Europe are claiming from heat. According to Dr. John Campbell and others in the UK, however, that huge number of excess deaths are related to myocarditis.
Myocarditis, as you probably already know, is sometimes secondary to COVID vaccines, especially after the second booster. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/c … ditis.html That link goes to the incidence in young people. I remember a time when you never heard of young men having heart attacks.
I remember some warnings on this issue.
https://www.bbc.com/portuguese/brasil-55939354 This article is about our former president, Bolsanaro, telling people to be cautious of this vaccine. The BBC and other MSM sources attacked him for being cautious, and complained that he was the first poltical leader that discouraged vaccines. (Not all vaccines, just the COVID vaccine that was rushed through production and was not even effective in preventing the disease.)As i wrote before, don´t use heat wave related deaths for any pro´s and con´s of this discussion.
I searched for the 60.000 deaths in Europe, found some reference in the media, but what was really telling was the bulletin of the RKI (Robert Koch Institute) the equivalent to the CDC in Germany. Highest number was 8000 in 2018, since then having lowered to some 4000 per year. Before 2018 average heat wave related deaths was some 1500 to 2000.
The bulletin also stated the error of uncertainty and that error range was almost as high as the yearly number itself. I conclude from this that any number from any nation and any time is not really worth taking into consideration, especially if taken from 1920 as stated somewhere.
Lets forget about these numbers. They reflect whatever you want to have proven.Just like during COVID, when the governments reported over a third of deaths were because of COVID even when they were something else, most of the excess deaths now are going to be chalked up to climate change. That is what now fits their scenario.
True.
Just saw the detailed explanation you wrote earlier. My brother has studied this “death from the shot” phenomenon extensively. He also mentioned the prevalence of blood clots. Will review your information. Thanks.These videos are kind of "dry" but he presents some interesting data without being judgemental, as Youtube would not allow it.
https://www.youtube.com/@Campbellteaching
If your brother is not already aware of this guy he would be interested.
Apart from the fact that it was splashed over all news media last year, including American news media, the information is freely available from multiple reliable sources including Nature Journal, the NPR and ONS etc.
In fact the official figures for heat related death tolls during the heatwave in Europe in 2022 is 62,862, 61,672 of those deaths occurring between 30th May & 4th September; of which 3,271 were in the UK.
In fact, this year is a repeat of last year e.g. over 60,000 people died in Europe from heat-related causes during this summer’s heatwave (2023) in mainland Europe: Again, the information is available from multiple sources, but his article from the British Red Cross makes interesting reading. https://www.redcross.org.uk/stories/dis … twave-2023
...As for the changes you have noticed in your life, they are only a small snapshot....
Is that so?
I am no fan of internet links, but it is worth while to look at insurance figures. Fairly unbiased and inflation adjusted.
https://www.munichre.com/en/risks/natur … sters.html
To use human deaths as an indicator is kind of misleading. Where is inflation adjustment, or to be more specific: where is human death count AC usage adjusted? Not to mention progress in medicine, in accessibility to medical treatment, in desaster alert systems.
Coastal protection efforts in the Netherland, Belgium, Germany are in part because of long term climate change after the last glacial ice age and a slow lowering of the European tectonic continental plate.
The speed of rise is quite significant:
Some 10.000 years ago: 1 m (3 ft) / 100 years
Some 2.000 years ago: 0,3 m (1 ft) / 100 years.
Today: back to almost 1 m (3 ft) / 100 years.
So our sea level is rising 1 inch every 3 years. Us and the Dutch are used to it. The Netherlands started their coastal protect program some 4 centuries ago when the sea level was a pole vault higher. Today much of the Netherlands is below sea level and still in good shape. An example of what humans can achieve with organisation and technology and collective will. I do not dispute this.
Climate change is not new. The speed is new.Savvydating, give me a link as per your last paragraphe.
Go to a search bar and type in International Disaster Database.
Sorry, but telling people to look on the International Disaster Database is a red herein, as only academic organization, universities, non-profit research institution and international public organization have access to and are authorised to use the information.
EM-DAT access is indeed restricted. The starting page gives a broad overview of what has happened on our planet. That overview is so unspecific that not much can be taken for arguments.
I suggest to look at insurance data. In most developed countries, natural disasters are subject to insurance policies. And insurances better know what risks to expect and how to cover risks financially. Me think publically available insurance data holds more information than research databases.@Nathanville, and @Chriss57, you both are correct. Certain members or institutes, or universities of the database ask you login with password. I was a registered of nature.com/ and so I easily go in there. Those sites with open access, admission I foraged. I admired Britains Fire Brigdaire, and the Red Cross, in Europe, helping out in grassland and forest fires. Let our friend savvydating hear.
Those sites I visited concentrated more on Europe than elsewhere. Perhaps, if I login as a register member of another database, I would have had more entry to other academic or professional sites. Critically, would those websites take on African disaster occurence, since the database is 'international'? In Nigeria, flood disasters occured during the rains, and the highest risk area is a State Bayelsa, in the south of the country. Most fire misfortunes took place in the north where grasslands, savannas, and forest a-plenty. It's the Harmatta, from the dry sand-domed Sahara, that prepared the ground for so called 'Harmattan Fire'.
As I said, the database was referenced by Bjorn, who wrote an article that included a chart from that site. So, I did not know if it was available to the public when Mie asked for a link, even though I have stated repeatedly that I rarely use links.
It is really tiresome to correct all the wrong all the false narratives you assign me.
It would be nice if you and Mie would read more carefully.
Likewise, on a personal level I welcome the climate change in Britain e.g. I suffer from ‘cold intolerance’, a medical condition; so I find the warmer winters and hotter summers most welcome – albeit, when it tops 40C (104F) it’s it bit too much, even for me.
Certainly there are benefits to the climate change in Britain, for example:
• Burning less natural gas in the winter months for heating due to warmer winters.
• Increased frequency of stormy weather from the Jet Stream and Westley Winds can be good for the offshore windfarms, and
• Periods of heatwaves are good for the solar energy etc.
• The warmer climate also benefits some crops - for example vineyards have become common place in England over the past 40 years, whereas prior to the 1980s Britain was too cold for vineyards to be successful; but on the flip side, it’s not so good for other crops e.g. potatoes.
Although warmer winters’ means less heating required over winter, on the flip side, British homes are built to keep the warmth in, not to keep cool, so during heatwaves the British do suffer in their own homes, at night as well as during the day.
The downside of the now frequent droughts and heatwaves in Britain includes:
• Some water authorities, especially in the South East of England, now regularly impose ‘hose pipe’ banns during the summer months to conserve drinking water; which means people can’t easily water their gardens.
• During the heatwaves the grass dies, become tinder dry, and become a fire hazard; and then the bare soil turns to dust; I saw my first dust devil during the heatwave in 2018, when we were on holiday in Kent, and attended a ‘War and Peace’ Event in Kent – the grass was brown and the soil was dust, and several times during the day (between events) a light breeze would whip up the dust into dust devils.
I didn’t capture any on camera, because they were short lived, but this short video I took of one of the displays shows how dry and dusty it was; when normally in Britain the grass is normally green and lush, and the soil wet. https://youtu.be/HL2gWEGc3zo
And this footage I took in Bristol during last year’s heatwave show how dead and tinder dry the grass was, something which until recent years you never saw in Britain: https://youtu.be/OudpSgnzddM?t=252
But of course, it’s not all about me; it’s about those who suffer from the effects of climate change, such as:-
• The 50+ homes destroyed in England by wildfires during the heatwave in 2022.
• The 2,800 people in Britain who died from the heat during the heatwave in 2022.
• And around the world, in both wealthy and poor countries, the increased death and destruction to property, land, lives and livelihoods caused by climate change.
Yep, the tool is very inconsistent and allows for high error margins; although I found it a useful exercise in that it helped to give me some crude idea on my carbon footprint, and it does highlight things like consumerism as a factor in carbon emissions.
Poor people in Sudan and elsewhere have no use for wind farms. They need fossil fuels to cook their meals and heat their water, etc.
Those with median incomes have no idea of the suffering of the poorest of the poor.
The earth may warm about 1 degree as time goes on, but that is nothing. The environmentalists have been warning everyone that death is at our doorstep since the 1960’s. First it was the population bomb, then it was the ice age. According to Al Gore, New York City should have been flooded decades ago.
Co2 is not harmful. We need it for our agriculture.
Even the UN stated that the earth is not in a crisis.
Just because the U.S. and England has had a warm summer does not mean the entire planet is warming.
Politicians can and do exert control over people by scaring them. Corporations are all too happy to accept the tax cuts and ill gotten gains from creating products which are only useful for a small populace of the world, when all is said and done.
And the cutting down of trees for profit? That is beyond obscene.What has Sudan got to do with Britain and other countries around the world that have chosen to transition away from fossil fuels to Renewable Energy?
Your 2nd paragraph is where your lack of knowledge and understanding of science lets you down:
FYOU the world as a whole has warmed by around 1.3C since the pre-industrial period (1850-1900) in the Berkeley Earth dataset, and land areas have warmed a much larger amount than the sea e.g. the average global land temperature has risen on average by 1.8C.
And, as confirmed earlier this year, there is now a 66% chance of average global temperatures reaching 1.5C by 2027.
In your 3rd paragraph, where you say “Just because the U.S. and England has had a warm summer does not mean the entire planet is warming.”; not only are you trying to dumb-down the issue, but your whole statement is totally inaccurate:
To start with, it’s not that the “USA and England has had a warm summer”; the USA had a devastating heatwave this year, but it was not England who had the heatwave this summer, it was the vast bulk of Europe had heatwaves this summer – with devastating results: Did you not see the News?????
FYI it’s not ‘just a warm summer this year’; Britain and Europe have been suffering heatwave after heatwave, increasingly over the last 20 years, and those heatwaves have been increasingly getting worse and worse. Last year Britain had its worst heatwave on record, which resulted in dozens of serious wildfires that threatened lives and destroyed property; which for Britain is up to now unique, as Britain has historically always been too wet for such serious wild wildfires – Did you not see the News last year????
And FYI, the Heatwaves that hit Europe last year (which at that time was the hottest heatwave on record) caused the death of over 61,000 people.
According to the latest data, the heatwave in Europe this year (which is now the hottest heatwave on record – far hotter than last year) has killed over 60,000 people, mostly in Italy, Greece, Spain and Portugal. Again, have you not been watching the News?????
Yeah, yeah, yeah, quoting and misquoting from the environmentalists in an attempt to rubbish the current climate crisis; but conveniently not accurately quoting from the scientific community:
Yeah, I was aware of concerns of the ‘population explosion’ back in the 1970’s, but the scientific community didn’t then, and don’t now, see it as a crisis.
Yeah, I know all about the ‘ice age’ prediction; and if it wasn’t for global warming due to humans burning excessive amounts of fossil fuels then yes we would most likely be heading towards an ice age at this time.
Duh - where you say “Co2 is not harmful. We need it for our agriculture.” Yeah, plants need CO2 as much as we need Oxygen; what does that statement have to do with the Global Warming issue??? Yeah, the planet needs CO2, just as it needs Oxygen, but too much of either is deadly.
Where you say “Politicians can and do exert control over people by scaring them”; that’ nonsense, at least on this side of the pond. In Britain, when it comes to climate change, the politicians are led by the science.
Where you say: “Corporations are all too happy to accept the tax cuts and ill-gotten gains from creating products which are only useful for a small populace of the world, when all is said and done.” What do you mean by that statement: FYI Last autumn the British Conservative Government slapped a ‘windfall’ tax on the British Oil Companies, so currently the British Oil Companies are paying a total of 75% tax on profit; I don’t call that tax cuts.
And what do you mean by “cutting down of trees for profit”; cutting down trees for windfarms is prohibited by the UK Conservative Government in England and Wales, it’s only in Scotland that the socialist government has permitted trees to be cut down to make way for windfarms, and they’ve only allowed it on the bases that new trees are planted to make up the lost.
If you think that cutting down trees is, as you say “beyond obscene”, are you suggesting that trees are actually important in ‘carbon capture’, which is important for fighting climate change? And if so, then how is burn oil not harmful to the climate when we know that burning oil pumps huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere.
Finally, where you say "Even the UN stated that the earth is not in a crisis."; what report does that claim come from; where's your evidence to back up your statement; where's the link to the document stating that the UN says the earth is not in a crisis????Arthur, you're rightly on course. Of course, climate change is a problem all over the world. It's not just the UK, Europe, and the USA.
My friend, savvyingdating may be right in saying that Sudan needs fossil oil to cook foods.
Yes, that equally applies to Nigeria, my country.
We're still using crude oil. But gas, electricity are also a must. Likewise is caol.The news and hard science have nothing in common with one another.
Your endless posts are too long. Using a bunch of words does not make you seem more credible.Well I suggest you study the hard science then.
I'm in Nigeria, my country.
And, I know what affects us when it comes to climate change and energy consumption.
I've done some research on renewable energy in my country, and...Nigeria is in no position at the moment for a policy about abandoning fossil fuels.
Solar energy was used as electricity. Europeans and Americans may harness all the new technologies.
But I'm not sure why you may misunderstand me.Savvydating, my friend, have you read my post yet? Do you know that solar energy can be used in Nigeria, in place of electricity?
Wood is even being used by some persons that found it hard to buy even a litre of kerosine.
I'm expecting your friendly feedback. Thank you.
The thing is that, as in America, fuel is very costly nowadays.
I hope you can understand now.Fuel is more costly currently because Biden has declared war on fossil fuel energy.
However, in the long run, it is cheaper than expensive batteries.I mentioned in the beginning stages of this forum that solar is useful for some.
I addressed the cost of fuel briefly, as well. Thanks, Mie…57.I saw an article yesterday where the Australian PM said that if you are unable to pay your electicity bills (the Australians are blowing up their coal plants and switching to green, which is driving up the costs of their electricity even though the government told everyone that their bills would go down) you could install solar panels on your roof.
Does that make sense? You do not have the money to pay your bills but you can afford to install solar panels on your roof?
Meanwhile the Chinese build new coal plants all the time. Two go online every week. https://edition.cnn.com/2023/02/27/ener … index.htmlMakes zero sense.
Read the article. Interesting. It’s funny that the UN thinks renewed talks with China might possibly make a difference. China is the major supplier of lithium for the world. There is no way they will give up on the money their coal plants are producing. Xi Jinping is playing the long game in order to achieve wealth.
And electric cars, due to lithium, produce more co2 emissions than regular gas cars.
Such a waste of money for consumers.
https://www.industryweek.com/technology … -footprintWhere does one find the Ask portion that tsmog speaks of on your site? Couldn’t find it. FYI: I sent a fan mail thanking you, on my son’s behalf, who has a sweet cat.
The Ask a Vet is a separate section on the top of the Pethelpful homepage.
https://pethelpful.com/ask-a-vet/
Sorry. I was referring to Nathanville, whose posts are too long, too repetitive and too biased. Not to mention, his AI generated statistics are faulty.
"Your endless posts are too long. Using a bunch of words does not make you seem more credible."
Back at you.
Yep, as you said “climate change is a problem all over the world.”
And yes, of course, at this time oil is an essential part of the economy for countries like Sudan and Nigeria; and it is still an essential part of the ‘energy mix’ for most countries around the world, including the UK.
But the point that savvyingdating doesn’t seem to grasp is that it’s within the power and grasp of developed countries like the EU, UK and USA, and Australia etc. to transition away from dependence on oil; and most these countries are doing so at varying rates; some faster than others.Your last paragraph is okay with me.
Savvydating my friend, being a woman, seems to know. But at most times, she'll just back away feign at such issues.
So, I'm trying to get her understanding in the matter.Nations can “transition away” from fossil fuels, but there is no need to do so.
Transitioning away is going backward in time, not forward. Despite Nathanville’s rosy picture of England, their economy is suffering.
When I first began this post, U.S. Bank wrote an article about the economic demise of the UK…
The problem with civil servants, even within my country, is that they get used to all the kickbacks they receive from the federal government. I know this because many in my own family, who are civil servants, swear by the Democratic Party.
… going off on a tangent, a bit, but these people work half a day, at most, get paid for full time, get regular raises, and they see nothing wrong with that… and how it steals money from the average wage earner in terms of taxes.
Big government loves climate change hysteria. It fits into their goal of keeping government big, and people small. It is amazing what the average person will give up on (such as autonomy and freedom) just to get some freebies here and there.
This attitude enables those with a defeatist mindset to believe that only the government can take care of them. Thus, they become modern day serfs.
For a better understanding of climate and the planet, read Climate: The Counter Consensus, by Dr. Robert M. Carter.Miebakagh might disagree with you about your comments about civil servants; did you know that Miebakagh was a civil servant in Nigeria – I don’t know what his experiences are, but my understanding from comments he’s made in the past, and from what I’ve read, is that he’s had problems with his civil service pension.
Also, what you describe about the civil service in the USA does not apply to the civil service in Britain:-
Firstly, in the UK we do not get “kickbacks” from the Government, in the UK that is illegal (a criminal offence) that comes under the category of ‘bribery and corruption’.
Secondly, civil service pay in the UK has always (since the 1980s) been significantly lower than pay for comparable jobs in the ‘private sector’, and the annual wage rises in the civil service in the UK are almost always below the rate of inflation.
The only good thing about the civil service is that it has always provided greater job security, and in the past a good pension.
Transitioning away from fossil fuels is not “going backward in time”. In Britain, Renewable Energy is significantly cheaper than electricity generated from fossil fuels (that is a fact), and that is a fact that I benefit from because during the hours of 12:30am to 4:30am, when wind power is plentiful and demand for electricity is low, I get cheap electricity at just $0.12 per kWh, which is why I put my dishwasher and washing machine on timer to come on during that period, and why I top up our wall battery at that time to provide me with cheap electricity during the day.
No I don’t paint a rosy picture of England per se, I just point out the achievements Britain is making in transitioning away from fossil fuels towards Renewable Energy:-
Yes, Britain does have a cost of living crisis and have had a fuel crisis for the last two winters, due to Brexit, the pandemic and the Ukrainian war – A crisis experienced by most all industrialised countries around the world, including the USA. But matters have been made worse in Britain due to Brexit, a self-inflicted wound by our own Government, which we have to live with; but it has nothing to do with Renewable Energy - on the contrary, the fuel crisis was because Britain is still too reliant on natural gas, but in that respect we’ve fared better than other European countries because unlike other countries virtually none of our natural gas came from Russia – And in actual fact during the energy crisis across Europe 5% of the electricity generated in Brittan has been exported to mainland Europe, most to France, to help them out during the crisis.
What has Government climate change policy got to do with Government Control of the people; that sounds like propaganda to me: Please elaborate? E.g. the fact that the majority of my electricity comes from Renewable Energy doesn’t affect my autonomy or freedom, so I don’t understand why you think it should?
Saw your question about the UN statement. I read it in one of my books. Will try to find it, along with a reference, and post it once I do.
Around 2018, leaders from around the world declared that we must keep temperature rises below 2.7F, and CNN told us we have 12 years to live. This measure was the result of the Paris climate change conference 3 years earlier. So, world leaders then asked the UN’s “climate scientists” to tell us how to achieve this limit.
The scientists delivered what they thought was a “policy relevant” not a “policy prescriptive” information. They “obligingly” said that the 2.7 goal was feasible, but would require “far reaching” changes in all of society. The media took that as evidence that we must make drastic changes in every aspect of society, even though the UN scientists never meant their statements to be taken as prescriptive.
Rather, they were merely answering a question in the most obliging manner possible.
The media, and now, even the UN, as a body has since run with this misrepresentation. But the scientists never meant that the world was ending…or that we needed to make drastic changes.
This is crucial. According to the media, we will all die from Co2 emissions unless we get to net zero emissions, which is impossible. If we were to do so, the world would die of starvation, and not from a hot planet.
Speaking of which, it is impossible to measure a planet’s temperature over a few decades or a few years. One would need at least 100,000 years to determine a slight trend, and millions of years to determine more severe planetary trends.
Still digging through references, and trying to find the one I mentioned before. Not a simple tasks as these books have chapters full of references.
That is not to say that anything would change your mind. Maybe it’s a European socialist thing.I can’t imagine CNN telling people they only have 12 years to live, that’s a crackpot statement; are you sure you didn’t miss hear what was said?
Yes, back in 2018 the 1.5C 2.7 goal was feasible, but would require “far reaching” changes in all of society.
The American media may have “took that as evidence that we must make drastic changes in every aspect of society”; but that’s not how it was conveyed in the UK; a more realistic and pragmatic message was given by the British News Media.
Correct, “The scientists never said the world was ending”, and neither did the British New Media make such a statement either; but the scientific community is quite clear that do need to make drastic changes.
What media is say “we will all die from Co2 emissions unless we get to net zero emissions”, certainly not the British New Media – Do you have links that you can share with us to such crazy statements.
FYI it is possible to scientifically measure the planet’s temperature over many millions of years, which has been done by many strands of scientific research, so the scientists do have a clear picture of planetary trends for as long as there has been life on the planet – I can post plenty of links from reputable sources if you want to see the evidence.
FYI I used to be sceptical about manmade climate change (prior to 2012), but never a denialist, just sceptical; but once the evidence became overwhelming I did change my mind, and I can now see that what is being claimed about the climate change crisis is real, and is happing right now, and is going to get a lot worse before it gets better.
Where you say: “I was referring to the corporations cutting down trees to make wind farms.”
What you previously said was “I was talking about deforestation and if some slimy corporation is claiming that they are doing it to save the climate…..”
What you refer to as “slimy corporation cutting down trees to make wind farms” is for the record is a public and private sector consortium made up of:-
• Scottish Forestry Commission (Independent Government Department responsible for developing, maintaining and managing the forests and woodlands in Scotland.
• The Scottish Government.
• The appropriate Local Government.
• And an assortment of other public and private bodies
In the case of the 15.7 million trees cut down in Scotland over the last 20 years to make way for windfarms, 13.9 million of those trees have been on land owned and managed by the Scottish Forestry Commission; therefore, although the developers of the windfarms have had to pay for the cost of replacing those trees, as part of the planning consent, it’s the Scottish Forestry Commission (an Independent Government Department) who have managed the replanting of the trees (on their land) to ensure that it has been done correctly and responsibly.
Delving into the fine details: Over the past 20 years Scotland have cut down the 15.7 million trees to make way for 21 windfarms, 6 of which have been built in the counties of Argyll and Bute. Honing in on just Argyll and Bute, all 6 windfarms were built on land belonging to the Forestry Commission (independent Government Department) and the consortium that have cut down the trees in those counties to make way for the 6 windfarms built in that part of Scotland include (but not exclusive to) following bodies:-
• Argyll and Bute Council (local government).
• The Scottish Government
• Highlands and Islands Enterprise (Independent Government Department responsible for promoting private commercial enterprise in Scotland)
• Marine Scotland (Independent Government Department responsible for protecting the eco system and environment at sea, in Scottish waters)
• Scottish Power Renewables (Private Energy Company that supplies electricity to the home)
• Scottish and Southern Energy (Private Energy Company that supplies electricity to the home)
• The Crown Estate Scotland (Land owned by the King)
• Scottish Natural Heritage (Independent Government Department, responsible for maintaining the natural heritage (environment) of Scotland.
• Skills Development Scotland (Independent Government Department, responsible for helping and supporting businesses with their goals and growth).
Accepting that there is a temporary reduction in carbon capture over a 30 year period, from cutting down the 15.7 million trees, until the new trees planted to replace them, which is about 30 years; the one factor, which has been overlooked in this forum is that those trees have been replace by windfarms that produces clean green electricity from wind – electricity which is no longer being produced by burning fossil fuels: So the net gain in not burning fossil fuels does more than offset the loss of carbon capture from the lost trees; and as an added bonus those new trees, planted to replace the trees cut down, reach maturity in 30 years and are once again playing their role in carbon capture.
As quoted by a conservation charity (environmental activists) in Scotland – “both wind farms and trees are key to reducing carbon levels”.
As mentioned above, the vast bulk of the trees cut down and replaced are on land owned by the Scottish Forestry Commission (Independent Government Department), and quoting from them on the matter, they stated “Renewable energy and forests are key to Scotland’s contribution to mitigating climate change and Scottish Forestry Commission is successfully managing both elements.”
And to put it into perspective, the 15.7 million trees that was cut down to make way for windfarms in Scotland is less than 1% of the total of forests in Scotland.
Going back to your “slimy corporation” slur; who the developers are, who operates and who owns the windfarms in Scotland is wide and varied, 8 of the windfarms were developed, and are owned and operated by ‘community windpower’ e.g. the local community; many others are owned and run by Utility Companies (Energy Providers who sell electricity to the home), and a few are operated by oil companies who are diversifying into the Renewable Energy sector – The link below provides a comprehensive list.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_o … m#ScotlandIf the corporations are private or owned by the government they are the same.
Uh? Since when has a democratically elected government, elected by the people for the people, to serve the people been synonymous to a private business who’s prime goal is to make as much profit as possible for their shareholders?
"Governments also struggle to effectively monitor state-owned enterprises. Many lack the capacity to do so. Poor transparency in public banks’ and enterprises’ activities remains an obstacle to accountability and oversight. This can lead to a buildup of large and hidden debts with governments having to bail them out, sometimes costing taxpayers more than 10 percent of GDP."
https://www.imf.org/en/Blogs/Articles/2 … f-covid-19
If you think that a state owned electricity company is going to do things for you since you voted you are sadly mistaken. They are working for their own interests, not yours.
You can find many more examples if you seach for this subject.Thanks for the link, a very interesting read.
However, if you analysis what is stated in the report in fine detail, rather than just honing in on the negative you will see a more balanced picture to the one you painted in your comments.
For examples:
1. The Report does not say that ‘all’ State-Owned Enterprises struggling and adding to the burden on government finances, it says ‘some’.
2. And yes, the Report does say “At their worst, they need large bailouts from taxpayers and hinder economic growth.”, but the Report also says “At their best, they can help countries achieve economic and social goals.”
And the Report goes on to say which version (1 or 2 above) you get boils down to good governance and accountability.
3. The Report does not say that “State-owned enterprises are falling short in ‘all’ countries; it clearly states that “State-owned enterprises are falling short in many developing countries”. The UK is not a developing country.
Yes the Report does say “Governments also struggle to effectively monitor state-owned enterprises.” But it does say “Many lack the capacity to do so”, it doesn’t say ‘all’ lack the capacity to do so.
And it does also say “Poor transparency remains an obstacle to accountability and oversight”
In the context of the above points, the Report infers that “state-owned enterprises are less productive than private firms by one-third, on average” in developing countries; then it goes on to say that productivity in State-owned “Enterprises in countries with perceived lower corruption is more than three times higher than those in countries where corruption is seen as severe” e.g. on a par with the private sector.
Also, the Report concludes with a list of four main recommendations from the IMF for how countries can improve the performance of state-owned enterprises; many of which is already done by many developed countries anyway; and the Report does give examples of developed who already does these things anyway, to ensure their State-owned Enterprises are value for money.
And in the last paragraph of the Report the IMF statement is - “Well-governed and financially healthy state-owned enterprises can help combat crises and promote development goals.”
LOOKING AT THE UK SPECIFICALLY, IN THE CONTEXT OF STATE-OWEN ENTERPRISES:
By the definition given in the IMF Report, in the UK ‘Independent Government Bodies/Departments’ (which I’ve frequently referenced in my comments in this and other forums) are not State-owned Enterprises; they are an arm of the Government. The only difference between an ‘Independent Government Department’ and a ‘Government Department’ is that the Government has direct control over the latter but not of the former; ‘Independent Government Departments’ are not answerable to the Government, they are answerable only to Parliament. Such departments are kept at arm’s length from the Government for a very good reason e.g. it prevents an unscrupulous Government from influencing or manipulating that Government Department for its own political purposes. That’s why the Electoral Commission and the ONS (Office of National Statistics) and the National Archives are all ‘Independent Government Departments’.
Yes the UK did have State Owned Heavy Industry, such as car manufacturing, Steel, and aeroplanes back in the 1970s, and your given picture of what the IMF says certainly applied to those industries; but they were all privatised in the 1980s.
FYI, the only State-owned Bank in the UK is what was the old ‘Post Office Bank’ (Now called National Savings & Investment); and that’s small fry compared to the rest of the banking system.
Also, all the other State-owned Enterprises, as defined by the IMF Report, such as water, sewage, gas, electricity and transport etc. were all privatised by Margaret Thatcher (then Conservative Prime Minister) in the 1980s; and as soon as they were privatised the cost to the consumer shot up significantly e.g. by about a third, as the newly formed private companies put up prices to cream-off profits for their shareholders. One of the few exceptions being London Transport which has remained State owned and controlled by the London local government; and to this day London Transport is the most integrated, most efficient and the cheapest transport system in the UK.
The Railway system is an interesting one: British Rail was nationalised (bought under State Ownership) by the Labour Government (socialists) in 1948, it was privatised by the Conservative Government in 1993. As part of the privatisation process British Rail was split into two business types; the railways, signals and train stations as one business, and the train operators as separate private businesses on franchise.
The rail track company went bankrupt in 2002 and was subsequently re-nationalised (bought under State Control and Ownership).
However, while the train service was cheap and efficient when it was a nationalised company, since privatisation the service has deteriorated and ticket costs sky-rocketed as private train operators keep putting up prices (above the rate of inflation) to cream off profits for their shareholders.
Consequently, with over 68% of the British Public wanting the train service to be re-nationalised, in 2021 the Conservative Government made an embarrassing U-turn on their philosophy of privatisation in preference to nationalisation by announcing their decision to renationalise the train service e.g. by taking the train service back into public ownership as each franchise expires; a process that has already started. And the Conservative Government has named the new Nationalised Industry ‘Great British Railways’.
Another U-turn by the Conservative Government is their decision announced in 2022 to re-nationalise the National Grid by 2024, so that the Government will have greater control over its legal commitment to make the UK carbon net neutral by 2050.
One of the key criticisms in the IMF Report (aimed mainly at developing countries) is the lack of ‘Transparency’ in State-owned Enterprises. FYI, ‘Transparency’ became a key element of the ‘Freedom of Information Act 2000’ passed by the Labour (socialist) Government in 2000. Consequently, any government, opposition political parties, activist groups and the general public all have access to detailed info on the running and policy, spending, finance and budget etc. of all public bodies in the UK, giving the necessary transparency.
ELECTRICITY COMPANY
Where you say: “If you think that a state-owned electricity company is going to do things for you since you voted you are sadly mistaken. They are working for their own interests, not yours.”
To start with, all the electricity companies were privatised by Margaret Thatcher (then Conservative Prime Minister) in the 1980s. So we don’t have any state-owned electricity companies in the UK.
Before I go further, to clarify (in simplistic terms) the system in the UK, in case it’s different in Brazil:-
1: The Producers of Electricity e.g. oil/gas companies, windfarm, solar farms etc. Produce the electricity which they sale to the National Grid.
2: The National Grid buy the electricity from the Producers, distribute the electricity to where it’s needed and Sale it to the Suppliers (Utility Companies).
3: The Utility Companies buy the electricity from the National Grid and supply it to the domestic homes & businesses.
4: The consumer pays the Utility Companies for the electricity they use.
From the time of being privatised in the 1980s until within the last 10 years there was only six big Utility Companies (what you call electricity company), all of them hiked their prices and ripped off the customer, making electricity very expensive. Consequently, the Conservative Government imposed a ‘price-cap’ on the Utility Companies (electricity Companies) in 2019 to stop the Utility Companies from ripping off the customer (home owners).
Also, within the last 10 years lots of small utility (electricity) companies, many with more ethical policies, started to compete with the big six, including non-profit making co-operatives, and a handful of small local community co-operatives created and run by the local residents themselves.
One such non-profit making co-operative was Bristol Energy (where I live) created by the Bristol Local Government (Labour/socialist local government) in 2015. I naturally switched from one of the big six to Bristol Energy as they were not creaming off profits for shareholders, and thus their electricity was a lot cheaper – it cut my electricity bill quite significantly.
The fly in the ointment was the winter following the pandemic when due to a world shortage of natural gas energy prices sky rocketed and with the Government cap on energy prices, utility companies were running at a lost that winter, and over two thirds of the companies went bankrupt.
Therefore, this winter, due to the worldwide chronic shortage of natural gas, so as not to repeat the same mistake, this time the Conservative Government bailed out the utility companies, to keep them afloat, and to cover a large chunk of the cost the Conservative Government imposed a windfall tax on the British oil/gas companies who were profiteering from the hyped price of natural gas on the world market.
The Utility Company I am with now is Octopus Energy. Octopus Energy is a private utility company (electricity company), there to make a profit for its investors; but the corner stone of its philosophy is an ethical one, where it’s aim is to invest in Renewable Energy and to provide electricity as cheaply as possible to its costumers (home owners).
By moving to Octopus Energy, my electricity is even cheaper than it was when I was with Bristol Energy. The tariff I’m on with Octopus Energy gives me very cheap electricity from 12:30am to 4:30am – at a time when demand for electricity is low, and when (because of our windfarms) supply is high - thus I pay just $0.12 per kWh during those hours, which is why I put my dishwasher and washing machine on timer for that time; and it when I topped up my wall battery, which then even in the winter months provides me with cheap electricity until at least the early afternoon.
A close friend of mine recently transferred to Octopus Energy from one of the big six (on my recommendation), and immediately it cut his electricity bill by a third. He doesn’t have solar panels like I do, so he’s opted for a different tariff on Octopus Energy. The tariff he’s opted for is based on wholesale market prices, and changed every 30 minutes; with Octopus Energy emailing their customers on that tariff the full pricing for the following day by 4pm each afternoon.
Just a few weeks ago my friend phoned me all excited because the price of electricity for him was set to go negative at 2am the following morning, to the tune of $0.36 per kWh – So as he was going to be paid $0.36 per kWh he’d put his washing machine of time to earn money for using electricity.
The reason that electricity prices sometimes go negative during the early hours of the morning in the UK is that supply of Renewable Energy (wind power) far outstrips demand, and it’s cheaper for the energy producers (the windfarm operators) to pay the National Grid to use the surplus electricity than it is to temporarily shut off the windfarms. And in turn the National Grid then pays the utility companies to make use of that surplus electricity. Of course the big six utility companies just pocket the profits, but Octopus Energy pass on a large chunk of that profit to its consumers.
So your statement about the electricity company that I use is inaccurate on several levels; firstly, it (Octopus Energy) is not State-owned, it’s a private company making a profit for its investors; and secondly, Octopus Energy philosophy is to provide cheap Renewable Energy to its customers, which is exactly what it does – So the cost of electricity to me, since I’ve switched to Octopus Energy is around a third less of what it was when I was with one of the big six electricity (utility) companies.
Introducing Octopus Energy https://youtu.be/AaejnbrejvYI have no idea on how your electricity companies are set up. You were the one defending the deforestation by telling us how the governement was elected by the people and only wanted to do what was best for the people.
So basically you are saying that the electricity company is private, (which is why I called them just another slimy corporation) when you stepped in and said that governement was replanting the trees? I guess that means a private company is doing the deforestation to make the wind farms and then the government comes along and plants trees to try and make up for the damage they are doing to the environment?I think it’s one of those situation where if it was possible for us to have a social chat with a pint in a pub we would clarify any miscommunication and misunderstandings amicably.
Yeah, I don’t expect you to know how electricity companies are set up in the UK; but keeping it very simple, in the UK there are three separate businesses sectors:-
1. The Generation of Electricity e.g. Windfarm business.
2. The Distributer e.g. the National Grid Company.
3. The Supplier e.g. the Utility Company that supplies the electricity from the National Grid to the Home.
As regards Generation, electricity can only be generated after the power source e.g. windfarm has been built; and again it’s not necessarily the same Company/Business that builds the windfarm as the Company who operates it once its built; the various stages from planning to operation, in simple terms are:-
1. The Investors.
2. The Developers.
3. The Operator.
The investors will buy or rent the land, pay the costs of the planning consent, and pay the developers (Companies who specialise in building windfarms) to build the windfarm, and then often lease the running of the windfarm to Companies who have the experience in operating windfarms.
So the investor, developer and operator are not necessarily one and the same, but they all make profit from the scheme, as does the land owner.
So getting back to your point:
Yes it may well be a private company (private investors) get the developer to cut the trees down, but in the case of the trees in question (in Scotland) the vast majority of land belongs to the Scottish Forestry Commission (Government), and it is the Forestry Commission (who has the experience and knowledge) who replant the trees, ensuring that the re-planting is done properly: But the investors pay for the cost of replanting the trees.
For clarity: I don’t defend deforestation per se; and certainly laws in England are a lot different in England than in Scotland in this regard e.g. having worked for 5 years in Planning Appeals, when I was a civil servant, I have personal experience on how extremely difficult it is to get planning permission in England to cut trees down for development.
However, in my view, in respect of the 15.7 million trees cut down in Scotland over a 20 year period to make way for 21 windfarms, the whole matter has been dealt with in a responsible and reasonable manner, and those trees that were cut down have been replaced responsibly.
I thought you might be willing to see another perspective. https://news.sky.com/story/half-a-milli … s-12836768
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/0 … ied-three/Where you have successes you always have failures; nobody said it would all be easy or smooth running – But it does need to be put into perspective e.g. one big failure on tree planting on the A14 Road, from which lessons has been learnt, and which is being rectified; compared to the other great successes elsewhere, such as on the M4 Motorway.
I don’t use the A14 (major road), but I do use the M4 (motorway) regularly. The following video is all about the M4, and if you ignore the voice and just focus on the image you will see from start to finish of the video, which covers the full length of the M4 from London to Wales, trees, trees, and more trees, lot of trees – which 30 years ago you wouldn’t have seen: So that is one of many successes in tree planting in Britain, which demonstrates what can and is being achieved.
Secrets of The Motorway - M4 https://youtu.be/KiuH4SA9bWc
Indeed i found some information (German only) on how much a 1 year old tree is worth compared to a grown tree of 25 to 30 years in terms of CO2 reduction: roughly between 0,5% and 1%.
So you would need some 100 to 200 newly planted trees to replace the performance of an adult tree. Planting 3 for 1 doesn´t do much, i would think, at least for the next 5 to 10 years.
But may be nature helps itself, if man doesn´t intervene and harvest and cut down trees and ...
Recent satellite images of the Ukraine war frontline show a green belt. For famers it is too dangerous in the fields. Nature is on its own and does remarkable things, even with hostile humans around.
Prima facie, for a left-wing socialist Government like the SNP (Scottish National Party), who have a reputation for being very pro-green, such action would appear to be disgraceful, and unforgivable.
However, the ‘Devil is in the Details’:
When you delve deeper, and look at the full facts, it’s not as shocking as it looks:
Yes, the Scottish SNP Government has allowed 15.7 million trees since the year 2000 to be cut down to make way for inland windfarms in Scotland. BUT, part of the conditions imposed on the ‘planning consent’ for the windfarms was that the developers had to replace the trees they cut down with an equal number of new trees: Thus maintaining the status quo.
In addition the ‘Coilltearachd agus Fearann Alba’ (Forestry and Land Scotland) (a Scottish Government Department) have planted more than 500 million trees since the year 2000.
Prima facie, for a left-wing socialist Government like the SNP (Pàrtaidh Nàiseanta na h-AlbaScottish) (Scottish National Party), who have a reputation for being very pro-green, such action would appear to be disgraceful, and unforgivable.
However, the ‘Devil is in the Details’:
When you delve deeper, and look at the full facts, it’s not as shocking as it looks:
Yes, the Scottish SNP Government has allowed 15.7 million trees since the year 2000 to be cut down to make way for inland windfarms in Scotland. But, part of the conditions imposed on the ‘planning consent’ for the windfarms was that the developers had to replace the trees they cut down with an equal number of new trees: Thus maintaining the status quo.
In addition the ‘Coilltearachd agus Fearann Alba’ (Forestry and Land Scotland) (a Scottish Government Department) have planted more than 500 million trees since the year 2000.
I haven't replied earlier because I only got back from holiday last night.
Apperently Scotland is an incredibly irresponsable country.
One of the European governments that boasts the most about its green commitment is the nationalist of Scotland. And one of its ministers has just learned that since 2000, the government, led by the separatists of the Scottish National Party (SNP) in the last 16 years, approved the logging of 15.7 million trees on 7,858 hectares of publicly owned land, namely Forestry and Land Scotland.
Scottish official admits almost 16M trees that capture carbon have been CHOPPED DOWN for WIND FARMSI ran this Scotland issue through my usual fact-check scheme.
This is the output (in German):
..
Um Platz für 21 Windkraftanlagen zu schaffen, soll Schottland „gerade“ 14 Millionen Bäume abgeholzt haben. Das ist falsch. Die Bäume wurden nicht kürzlich, sondern innerhalb von 20 Jahren gefällt. Mehr als 270 Millionen neue Bäume kamen in diesem Zeitraum dazu. ...
https://correctiv.org/faktencheck/2022/ … -gefaellt/
14 mill. trees were felled over the past 20 years to give room for windturbines. Within that period of time, some 270 mill. trees were planted.If 270 million were divided by 14 million trees felled, then the result speaks well. That is, for every million trees felled, 19 million were planted.
This will show responsibility. A responsible government is a good government. Others will then like to tread in the path.I read the article (German is fine with me) and stand corrected.
And it's comparing the 14 million trees (not 16 million) which are planted over a 20-year time span.
With 272 million newly planted trees....
Here the article from the Herald:
14m trees have been cut down in Scotland to make way for wind farms
I agree Chris that these kind of "news" items are dangerous and can easily be misread and taken out of context.It is always difficult with numbers. I am not sure were the numbers come from and allow myself to have doubts. That is for the 14 million and the 270 million trees.
Scotland has an area of 77900 squarekm. That means in english and american terms: 14 trees per acre, no matter downtown Glasgow or somewhere in the middle of nowhere.
And just imagine: I just generously assume a field consumption of 500 acres per windturbine. For 21 turbines that is ?? For for these 1.050 acres how many trees were cut down? 14 million?
And just imagine: 270 million trees in 20 years that is some 37.000 trees per day or 2,3 seconds for 1 newly planted tree. And that is 24/7.
I wonder how many tree nurseries have to involved in this undertaking.
I think someone messed up with the zeros and no journalist, fact-checker ever applied common sense to this.
Anyways, seems to be a perfect example of the word that supposedly Winston Churchill said." I only believe in statistics that I doctored myself"Where you say:-
"I wonder how many tree nurseries have to involved in this undertaking."
In part answer to your question, there are 62 private commercial forest nurseries in the UK. That doesn't include the respective government departments for forestry in each country in Britain, who also have their own forest nurseries e.g. e.g. Coilltearachd agus Fearann Alba (Forestry and Land Scotland), Forestry England and Coedwig Genedlaethol i Gymru (National Forest for Wales).
For example, just the Forestry England alone grows 7 million new trees every year - So tree growing and planting is big business in the UK.Arthur,
if it was just for the fun of challenging numbers, i would forget about the issue. But with respect to tree growing and nurseries i happen to live within bicycle distance from Europe´s largest tree growing business with some 300 nurseries in the area:
https://www.ammerland-touristik.de/park … landschaft
Largest private nursery in the EU:
https://www.bruns.de/en/home-en/
All of these nurseries combined don´t get close to the millions of trees yearly that are suggested by the media for Scotland. Never ever those millions.
There is a difference between spilling acorns around and calling that planting new trees or nursing, transporting and planting trees with roots and growth guarantee.Interesting points, and thanks for the links -
Yep, following your feedback I studied both the Scottish Government and UK Government websites; and yeah, according to the Scottish Government, they are claiming that they are planting 25 million trees a year, and looking at the UK Government website, they are not disputing the figures.
For comparison, the UK Government is claiming that around 4 million new trees are planted in England each year.
Yep, I can see your points in your last two paragraphs, and your last paragraph strikes a chord with the strategy adopted by the Scottish Governments; namely 'natural regeneration' (akin to spilling acorns around and leaving it to nature), quoting from their website:
“Most of the trees that we establish are grown in nurseries and planted out as saplings. But, a significant and increasing number are grown naturally from seed in the forest. This is a process we call 'natural regeneration'. In 2021, we're establishing 5 trees for every person in Scotland, around 25 million in total.Some interesting facts about the level of woodlands and forests of England over time (the link below gives details back to 10,000 BC).
• In 1086 15% of England was woodland.
• By 1350 10% of England was woodland.
• By 1870 5% of England was woodland.
• In 2001 8.4% of England was woodland.
• In 2023 10% of England is woodland.
https://www.conservationhandbooks.com/w … n-britain/
For the whole of the UK, currently the average is 13% of woodland; and by country within UK:
• 8% of Northern Ireland is woodland.
• 10% of England is woodland.
• 15% of Wales is woodland.
• 18% of Scotland is woodland.
None of the figures are anything to be proud of because of all the counties in Europe and America, the UK currently has one of the lowest percentage of woodland to land ratio; so we do have a lot of catching up to get anywhere near the level of forests and woodlands in countries like France and Germany.
Yep - prima facie, for a left-wing socialist Government like the SNP (Scottish National Party), who have a reputation for being very pro-green, such action would appear to be disgraceful, and unforgivable.
However, the ‘Devil is in the Details’:
When you delve deeper, and look at the full facts, it’s not as shocking as it looks:
Yes, the Scottish SNP Government has allowed 15.7 million trees since the year 2000 to be cut down to make way for inland windfarms in Scotland. BUT, part of the conditions imposed on the ‘planning consent’ for the windfarms was that the developer had to replace the trees the cut down with an equal number of new trees: Thus maintaining the status quo.
In addition the ‘Coilltearachd agus Fearann Alba’ (Forestry and Land Scotland) (a Scottish Government Department) have planted more than 500 million trees since the year 2000.
World’s largest offshore wind farm is currently under construction off the coast of England, and will be operational by 2026: https://youtu.be/8bMc3viR3uE
As i pointed out earlier in my comments, this climate change debate and its push for renewable energy is becoming more and more a financial treat. No politics needed.
It simply makes sense to invest into renewables, either on your private home to foster off grid mentality and save money at the same time or to invest into large wind or solar farms.
I don´t understand what chopping down trees has to do with batteries and renewables, especially not in not very populated areas of North America, at least compared to crowded Europe.
Here in G. i am currently developing and investing into a 2MWp solar system on the open field with an east-west orientation of panels. New developments came up with bifacial panels that harvest energy from both sides of the panel. Put the panels upright to face east-west to harvest early in the morning and in the evening and you get a delicious business case and at the same time reduce then need for battery storage.
If you want, then work yourself through this paper:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a … a%3Dihub#!
What Tim has descibed with the electricity pricing in southern California is valid for every region on our planet. Peak times are early in the morning and in the evening. If you can generate electricity at peak times you can sell at high prices, fairly simple i would say.
The USA has the advantage of size, of multiple time zones. If sun is at full strength on the east coast, excess electricity could be sold to sleepy California in the morning and vice versa in the evening. But that would require high performance long distance electricity grids. Something like DC-electricity lines. https://www.emf-portal.org/en/cms/page/ … portal.org
Technology for renewables is developing fast and creates efficient, very cost effective solutions. Just keep politics out of it. The market will decide and has already decided.You need politics Chris.
If you let the "free" market decide where to put panels then the only factor looked at is money and not the environment.
About chopping down trees.
In my area in Spain, near Valencia, the plan is to chop down 300.000 trees (almond,olive, carob) to make way for huge solar plants.
This is a plan that we as a community have just submitted allegations to.
Destroying ecosystems and habitats for eagles and many other wildlife. But not only that. Trees are the best way to fight climate change.
To cut down trees to make way for solar panels does not make the solar panels renewable.
You need politics to regulate where the solar parks are being built. On areas like abandoned mine quarries, or unused industrial estates. The best is simply on the roofs of houses car parks etc.
This needs to be regulated by the government. If you ask the multinationals to do what they want they will not give a damn about the nature and the climate crisis, only about their shareholders.I don´t object to guidelines.
If a guideline is: No chopping off trees, it is fine with me.
If a guideline is: 200 m left and right of railroad tracks are free to set up solar systems, it is fine with me.
Physical and technological restrictions in combination with financial (business case) restrictions already pose a downselect of potentional areas: You won´t find wind turbines in Mexico City, simply because air is too thin and efficiency is low. On the other hand offshore and coastline locations are perfect for windfarms.
Solar panels in the Arctic are not a good idea. Sun is too low even in summer and nil in winter.
Making renewables avaible on a non private scale will require infrastructure. And that infrastructure is not there yet. I would (i do ) buy stocks of companies that do eletric power infrastructure. And, excuse me, i don´t care if they are multinationals or not.Peter, I agreed with you completely. Politics is a in must in such issues.Government can't keep quite for investors to do what..
I mentioned trees due to having a natural ability to help clean the air.
https://onetreeplanted.org/blogs/storie … en%20down.
I mentioned batteries for two reasons they are dirty to manufacture, and we are dependent on nations that mine poison minerals to supply us with the poison minerals we have laws against mining.
I actually just jumped in to offer a rudimentary view and answer Savvys questions.
The science is very technical in regard to solar and wind, as well as the pros and cons. I will leave this one to the scientists.
So, when adding solar to your home, is China not making your panels, and does the polluted atmosphere from manufacturing the panels stay over China? So, it would seem you are doing your part, but China is not. So how in the end will our atmosphere be cleaner? China will gear up production to sell worldwide and even become dirtier than it presently is.
Panels will become cheaper, but will our atmosphere/ global warming get better or worse? I note that Germany is making solar panels, but having some problems. https://www.npr.org/2023/05/02/11732473 … ope%20did.I agree that photosynthesis takes CO2 out of the air, that applies to all plants and trees in particular. In fact with the rise of the CO2 level apparently forest growth in the northern hemisphere has increaded.
In G. we have significant forest growth and in volumetric measures growths is 40% higher than what is removed from the forests (by commercial use, natural decay..). This may change to worse over the years to come, but i am not really concerned about what we do our forests in developed countries. This does not mean that local projects are good per se. Some may tamper with nature. But statistics generally show another picture.
Concerning China and solar panels: https://www.reuters.com/world/china/chi … 023-02-16/
China is exporting roughly 30% of its production capacity, the majority is used domestically.
My take is that 100% peak solar is equivalent to 15% hydropower. If China has set up 85 GWp solar in 2022, that is some 13 GW of hydropower or more than 6 Hoover Dams in solar alone. China has to solve its issues with pollution, but their are on a good path from my personal experience in China in the past 2 decades.
From google maps: A small town in the north German plains. Roughly 7 MWp solar installed. Does it leave the impression of destroying nature?
I brought up forest due to living in a Merto Detroit area. My home backs up against a very large protected park that has a huge forest. We have air quality checks frequently, and our Annual Average 23 AQI. In Detriot, on any given day it is three times that value. So, I am a real tree advocate.
I truely support new forms to promote clean energy, but I think we need a logical plan to bring it to fruition, and make sure it does not end up making things worse.
In the 50s my aunt and her husband moved to Texas when so many were moving to make money off of liquid gold --- She became very wealthy overnight. But look where we have ended up. This new green energy will make billionaires. But have we really investigated the what-ifs?Interesting, i had to look up the AQI in my city realtime : Currently 18 downtown and 17 in the surroundings.
Found this gimmick:
https://www.iqair.com/de/air-quality-mapWell, your air quality is very good. Thank you for the link, great find.
I used the link to look at China.
Except for Tibet and Inner Mongolia the situation looks fairly well. In general few dangerous or hazardous spots. At least not much difference to the US and Canada situation.
It appears that the impact of fires in Canada reach all the way down to New Jersey and beyond.
