| Enough now 08:27 - Aug 25 with 4346 views | Boundy |
I can't wait for rain, what ever your opinions are on climate change I for one think its about time the heavens opened ,last night was horrendous with 3 major fires all within a few miles proximity ,the nearest to me on Mynydd Drumau .The smell of smoke still strong this morning which for me is an insignificant inconvenience but for the farms and small holdings a potential disaster not forgetting to mention the wildlife . |  |
| "In a free society, the State is the servant of the people—not the master." |
| |  |
| Enough now on 18:40 - Aug 25 with 1524 views | onehunglow |
| Enough now on 17:47 - Aug 25 by Scotia |
There's no end to human stupidity.
We're the first species in 3.5 billion years of life on earth to willfully create a massive extinction event that we're in the firing line of. |
We are born ignorant
We learn stupidity | |
| |
| Enough now on 18:44 - Aug 25 with 1521 views | shingle |
In a couple of months everyone will be complaining about the wet weather or the cold, our patios fences and walls will start to go green and horrible due to the damp,and the energy bills will go through the roof, why because it's winter as for this summer there have been years that have been hotter 76 springs to mind there have been years if you delve deep enough where these fires have been as bad if not worse, obviously we have to spare a thought for those affected by the fires just as we have do every summer when things dry up due to guess what it being summer, personally it has been a wonderfull summer weather wise and it also great to see small buisnesses who always seem to suffer due to the rain actually have an extremely profitable summer due to the weather, lets hope we are lucky enough to have similar weather next year. | | | |
| Enough now on 18:45 - Aug 25 with 1518 views | onehunglow |
| Enough now on 17:53 - Aug 25 by Boundy |
No mention of barbeques being banned , would they be a link to what's been happening Hmmm . There now apperas to be cctv images of yoofs who may have a connection to last nights fires, also 4 have been arressted for setting alight and destroying the Grade II* listed Rheola House on Tuesday which was started deliberately with the 4 in custody on suspicion of arson. |
It’s plain stupid to look for excuses for arson of this magnitude
And while I’m at it, we ban hosepipes ,we can ban bbqs
It’s not a human right to cremate sausages over some Peroni
We are facing dire circumstances yet some look for reasons to question tough measures to save our lives
Not, we’d rather have a farming good bbq in a forest and it only takes one match to burn a thousand trees
Stupid , I’ll say
Basically we are stupid feckless and gutless
It’s why we’re in the state we are | |
| |
| Enough now on 18:54 - Aug 25 with 1488 views | Whiterockin |
| Enough now on 18:45 - Aug 25 by onehunglow |
It’s plain stupid to look for excuses for arson of this magnitude
And while I’m at it, we ban hosepipes ,we can ban bbqs
It’s not a human right to cremate sausages over some Peroni
We are facing dire circumstances yet some look for reasons to question tough measures to save our lives
Not, we’d rather have a farming good bbq in a forest and it only takes one match to burn a thousand trees
Stupid , I’ll say
Basically we are stupid feckless and gutless
It’s why we’re in the state we are |
Every generation blame the one coming behind, but it is their fault for not educating and setting parameters. |  | | |
| Enough now on 20:06 - Aug 25 with 1438 views | Gwyn737 |
| Enough now on 18:54 - Aug 25 by Whiterockin |
Every generation blame the one coming behind, but it is their fault for not educating and setting parameters. |
There’s also the paradox that older generations say that things were better in their day and simultaneously young people these days have it easy.
The vast majority of young people are great, with some noticeable exceptions. Always been thus. | | | |
| Enough now on 21:50 - Aug 25 with 1383 views | Scotia |
| Enough now on 20:06 - Aug 25 by Gwyn737 |
There’s also the paradox that older generations say that things were better in their day and simultaneously young people these days have it easy.
The vast majority of young people are great, with some noticeable exceptions. Always been thus. |
This could be the first generation where that is demonstrably not true. I dread to think what's to come for my daughter and her kids.
Doing well aren't we. | | | |
| Enough now on 14:47 - Aug 31 with 1156 views | SullutaCreturned |
| Enough now on 14:48 - Aug 25 by Gwyn737 |
The deliberately started fires are a nightmare but some seem to use this against climate change ie ‘we wouldn’t have these fires if people didn’t start them’.
The trouble with that is it ignores the conditions that allow these fires to be so devastating.
I think it’s best not to talk about man made climate change anymore. We better off just saying the events seem to be getting more extreme and regular and what can we do to mitigate against them. |
I've been saying for a while we should ignore the reasons for climate change and deal with the effects. Largely because I don't think we can stop whats happening no matter what we do.
Reason? We have been told for 30 years we are on a cliff edge re climate change, The first suggestion of global warming was in 1824 (Fourier), then in 1596 there was more evidence put forward (Foote and Tyndall) and again in 1896 Arrhenius published evidence demonstrating burning coal and oil could heat the planet. Finally in 1938 Guy Callendar collected global weather station data that showed over the previous 50 years linking industrial carbon dioxide emissions to warming the planet by 0.3 degrees.
So that is 200 years of knowing the ozone layer retains heat and 138 years of global warming ( man made or not ) so, in my humble opinion, right or wrong, I think it's too late to try and stop it or slow it down and it's impossible to reverse it if its naturally occurring.
Therefore, in my clearly non expert opinion, we have to learn to live with it, we need to build infrastructure to enable us to cope.
My recurring thought is we need to start building desalination plants all around the Uk coast and build infrastructure so we can pump millions of gallons inland AND give farmers free water because if the land stays green it's far less likely to burn. We need to protect our food production. If the proper infrastructure was in place the fire brigades could also tap into it to fight any fires. Iknow people will say we can't afford that but I would counter, can we afford not to? | | | |
| Enough now on 15:08 - Aug 31 with 1132 views | Gwyn737 |
An excerpt from a really interesting article (so not my words!)
Apologies for the length but there’s some great points in there imo.
Opposing action to tackle climate change is getting tricker. Back in the early 1990s you could just deny it was happening. A group of fossil fuel companies set up a front organisation called “Information Council for the Environment” which put out ads with headlines like: “Some say the earth was warming. Some also said the earth was flat” and “Who told you the earth was warming….Chicken Little?”. Oil firms put out slightly subtler adverts in their own names, while trying to block the 1997 Kyoto Agreement, explaining that the science was terribly uncertain about everything, though their own unpublished research showed otherwise.
During the 2000s and 2010s that became an unviable strategy as a strong scientific consensus developed around the reality of global warming. So companies, commentators and politicians who wanted to argue against moves to combat climate change shifted to a new strategy. Now they emphasised the value of oil and gas, and that there was no reason to rush precipitously given uncertainty about the effects. After Joe Biden announced a major plan to tackle climate change, the number of these ads on social media shot up, falling just as fast once Trump won re-election.
While none of this has stopped countries from taking any action, it has helped to limit it, particularly in the US. But in the last year or so there has been another shift. The impact of climate change is now hitting rich western countries hard. It is no longer possible to discount this as a future problem. This summer we have seen extraordinary wildfires, thousands of heat-related deaths, and floods. It is only going to get worse. Public concern is rising and support for net zero remains solid in the UK, despite most press coverage being opposed.
So opponents of action are having to change course again, with a surge of anti-net zero articles and op-eds over the last year or so. The new approach is to argue the damage is now done so we should accept the inevitable and focus on dealing with the consequences rather than waste money by ameliorating further change. It was well illustrated in a recent piece by Allister Heath, editor of the Sunday Telegraph:
“Climate change is real, but Britain can do almost nothing about it. The war against global warming has been lost, with only grievous collateral damage to show for it….It’s time to accept this sobering reality, cut our losses, cease tilting at (and building) windmills, ditch the despicable con that is net zero, and learn to cope with, and whenever possible, even enjoy, a warmer, drier, more volatile Mediterranean climate, if that is indeed to be our fate.”
Heath is a particularly hyperbolic writer but he is using standard arguments: there is nothing Britain can do by itself; trying will mean irreparably damaging our economy; and will waste time when we should be focusing on adaptation.
This sequence of arguments perfectly matches a theory put forward by the influential economist Albert O. Hirschman in his 1991 book “The Rhetoric of Reaction”. Going back to the expansion of suffrage he shows that those wishing to stop popular progressive policies tend to acknowledge the underlying problem while seeking to prevent action via three forms of argument:
Futility: the reform will make no meaningful difference (Britain can’t change the climate alone)
Jeopardy: the reform may help but will harm some other valuable existing achievement (it will trash our economy)
Perversity: the reform will aggravate the problem it is meant to solve (emissions will go abroad / it will make adaptation harder)
In the rest of the post I’ll look at why these superficially attractive arguments aren’t true when it comes to climate change. But also at how this rhetorical structure keeps reappearing across numerous policy debates. When you have seen in once you see it everywhere. Progressives and centrists use it too. Though these types of criticisms can be true, they are nearly always overstated, yet can be very effective at killing popular policies.
Futility, jeopardy, perversity and climate change
The most popular argument against net zero, the one you hear repeated back in focus groups, is futility: that Britain is too small to solve the problem itself and we are hurting ourselves for no benefit. As Heath puts it: “Britain’s re-embrace of collectivism, of energy rationing, our advanced case of suicidal empathy, have achieved little other than putting us at the mercy of China.”¹
This seems compelling. Britain accounts for less than 1% of global emissions. We cannot do much by ourselves. It is an argument made by the political right in many other countries. But it only works if you know nothing about what is actually happening outside your borders. Currently around 70% of countries (137 out of 198) have a net zero target, covering 79% of the world’s population. Of those that do not most are poor and have low emissions. A majority of the world’s largest companies have a target too. These plans are of varying quality and detail, but many have been directly influenced by ours. It is a field in which we have genuinely shown global leadership (back to the days Margaret Thatcher who was one of the first world leaders to acknowledge the threat).²
We can also see that these global policy shifts are starting to make a real difference. China’s emissions have risen very quickly as it has industrialised in recent decades, but there is good (independent) evidence that they may be starting to fall as a result of massive investment in renewables and nuclear. The US, under Trump, has abandoned efforts at a national level. But plenty of states and companies still have targets and US emissions are falling.³ At a global level we are approaching a plateau as the rate of increase has dropped.
None of this is enough to stop dramatic climate change, which we can already see all around us. But it is much better than the counterfactual where no one had done anything. Climate Action Tracker estimates that policy changes since 2015 have reduced prospective warming from 3.6 degrees to 2.6 degrees by 2100. Given that the impacts of rising temperatures are non-linear – at some points systems start failing and the problems get far worse – this is incredibly important. But it will only stick if policies are retained. And, of course, if they are sped up then we can still bring that number lower.
This does not mean that there are no fair criticisms of the UK’s current energy policy. There are plenty of reasonable technical challenges about the right balance between different clean energies, prospects for new technologies, and how we pay for electricity.⁴ But the idea that we should stop bothering, or do far less than now, is genuinely insane. It is a painful irony that the visible effects of climate change may help people like Heath convince voters that further action is futile.
The “jeopardy” argument is closely linked. Given the supposed futility, spending money ameliorating climate change seems economically harmful. These claims typically require over-estimating the costs. The best assessment for implementing net zero in the UK by 2050 is 0.2% of GDP a year, once the benefits of cheaper fuel, lower heating bills and more efficient equipment have been factored in. This isn’t nothing in a struggling economy but it is not “suicidal”.
But critically this estimate does not include the savings from avoiding higher levels of climate change. These are very hypothetical because the range of potential consequences is wide and encompasses all sorts of second and third order effects like much higher levels of mass migration and military conflicts over water. We don’t, though, need specific numbers to know that 3.6 degrees of warming would be economically vastly more damaging than 2.6 degrees.
It is harder to make the “perversity” argument with climate change: that taking action will actually make the climate worse. This is where Heath makes a cunning diversion from the bog-standard position. By acknowledging that the climate is changing fast he can argue we should focus on adaptation: “We need universal air-conditioning and irrigation…..We will require water reservoirs, pipelines and desalination plants; for that, abundant, cheap electricity will be a must.” And of course he is right that we do need to adapt and that will also cost money, and require electricity. But it is perfectly possible to do both, and reducing the effects of change will make adaptation cheaper in the long-run.
A cleverer “perversity” argument against net zero is that we are simply “offshoring” our emissions to countries with lower standards. The strongest version notes that ramping up costs for, say, steel production via regulation and expensive energy leads to that steel being made in countries that have very little regulation at all. Like most perversity arguments there is truth to it - pretty much any policy has some negative consequences - but they almost never outweigh the benefits. That is the case here. The UK’s overall “carbon footprint” – including imports – has fallen significantly. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Enough now on 15:32 - Aug 31 with 1104 views | SullutaCreturned |
| Enough now on 15:08 - Aug 31 by Gwyn737 |
An excerpt from a really interesting article (so not my words!)
Apologies for the length but there’s some great points in there imo.
Opposing action to tackle climate change is getting tricker. Back in the early 1990s you could just deny it was happening. A group of fossil fuel companies set up a front organisation called “Information Council for the Environment” which put out ads with headlines like: “Some say the earth was warming. Some also said the earth was flat” and “Who told you the earth was warming….Chicken Little?”. Oil firms put out slightly subtler adverts in their own names, while trying to block the 1997 Kyoto Agreement, explaining that the science was terribly uncertain about everything, though their own unpublished research showed otherwise.
During the 2000s and 2010s that became an unviable strategy as a strong scientific consensus developed around the reality of global warming. So companies, commentators and politicians who wanted to argue against moves to combat climate change shifted to a new strategy. Now they emphasised the value of oil and gas, and that there was no reason to rush precipitously given uncertainty about the effects. After Joe Biden announced a major plan to tackle climate change, the number of these ads on social media shot up, falling just as fast once Trump won re-election.
While none of this has stopped countries from taking any action, it has helped to limit it, particularly in the US. But in the last year or so there has been another shift. The impact of climate change is now hitting rich western countries hard. It is no longer possible to discount this as a future problem. This summer we have seen extraordinary wildfires, thousands of heat-related deaths, and floods. It is only going to get worse. Public concern is rising and support for net zero remains solid in the UK, despite most press coverage being opposed.
So opponents of action are having to change course again, with a surge of anti-net zero articles and op-eds over the last year or so. The new approach is to argue the damage is now done so we should accept the inevitable and focus on dealing with the consequences rather than waste money by ameliorating further change. It was well illustrated in a recent piece by Allister Heath, editor of the Sunday Telegraph:
“Climate change is real, but Britain can do almost nothing about it. The war against global warming has been lost, with only grievous collateral damage to show for it….It’s time to accept this sobering reality, cut our losses, cease tilting at (and building) windmills, ditch the despicable con that is net zero, and learn to cope with, and whenever possible, even enjoy, a warmer, drier, more volatile Mediterranean climate, if that is indeed to be our fate.”
Heath is a particularly hyperbolic writer but he is using standard arguments: there is nothing Britain can do by itself; trying will mean irreparably damaging our economy; and will waste time when we should be focusing on adaptation.
This sequence of arguments perfectly matches a theory put forward by the influential economist Albert O. Hirschman in his 1991 book “The Rhetoric of Reaction”. Going back to the expansion of suffrage he shows that those wishing to stop popular progressive policies tend to acknowledge the underlying problem while seeking to prevent action via three forms of argument:
Futility: the reform will make no meaningful difference (Britain can’t change the climate alone)
Jeopardy: the reform may help but will harm some other valuable existing achievement (it will trash our economy)
Perversity: the reform will aggravate the problem it is meant to solve (emissions will go abroad / it will make adaptation harder)
In the rest of the post I’ll look at why these superficially attractive arguments aren’t true when it comes to climate change. But also at how this rhetorical structure keeps reappearing across numerous policy debates. When you have seen in once you see it everywhere. Progressives and centrists use it too. Though these types of criticisms can be true, they are nearly always overstated, yet can be very effective at killing popular policies.
Futility, jeopardy, perversity and climate change
The most popular argument against net zero, the one you hear repeated back in focus groups, is futility: that Britain is too small to solve the problem itself and we are hurting ourselves for no benefit. As Heath puts it: “Britain’s re-embrace of collectivism, of energy rationing, our advanced case of suicidal empathy, have achieved little other than putting us at the mercy of China.”¹
This seems compelling. Britain accounts for less than 1% of global emissions. We cannot do much by ourselves. It is an argument made by the political right in many other countries. But it only works if you know nothing about what is actually happening outside your borders. Currently around 70% of countries (137 out of 198) have a net zero target, covering 79% of the world’s population. Of those that do not most are poor and have low emissions. A majority of the world’s largest companies have a target too. These plans are of varying quality and detail, but many have been directly influenced by ours. It is a field in which we have genuinely shown global leadership (back to the days Margaret Thatcher who was one of the first world leaders to acknowledge the threat).²
We can also see that these global policy shifts are starting to make a real difference. China’s emissions have risen very quickly as it has industrialised in recent decades, but there is good (independent) evidence that they may be starting to fall as a result of massive investment in renewables and nuclear. The US, under Trump, has abandoned efforts at a national level. But plenty of states and companies still have targets and US emissions are falling.³ At a global level we are approaching a plateau as the rate of increase has dropped.
None of this is enough to stop dramatic climate change, which we can already see all around us. But it is much better than the counterfactual where no one had done anything. Climate Action Tracker estimates that policy changes since 2015 have reduced prospective warming from 3.6 degrees to 2.6 degrees by 2100. Given that the impacts of rising temperatures are non-linear – at some points systems start failing and the problems get far worse – this is incredibly important. But it will only stick if policies are retained. And, of course, if they are sped up then we can still bring that number lower.
This does not mean that there are no fair criticisms of the UK’s current energy policy. There are plenty of reasonable technical challenges about the right balance between different clean energies, prospects for new technologies, and how we pay for electricity.⁴ But the idea that we should stop bothering, or do far less than now, is genuinely insane. It is a painful irony that the visible effects of climate change may help people like Heath convince voters that further action is futile.
The “jeopardy” argument is closely linked. Given the supposed futility, spending money ameliorating climate change seems economically harmful. These claims typically require over-estimating the costs. The best assessment for implementing net zero in the UK by 2050 is 0.2% of GDP a year, once the benefits of cheaper fuel, lower heating bills and more efficient equipment have been factored in. This isn’t nothing in a struggling economy but it is not “suicidal”.
But critically this estimate does not include the savings from avoiding higher levels of climate change. These are very hypothetical because the range of potential consequences is wide and encompasses all sorts of second and third order effects like much higher levels of mass migration and military conflicts over water. We don’t, though, need specific numbers to know that 3.6 degrees of warming would be economically vastly more damaging than 2.6 degrees.
It is harder to make the “perversity” argument with climate change: that taking action will actually make the climate worse. This is where Heath makes a cunning diversion from the bog-standard position. By acknowledging that the climate is changing fast he can argue we should focus on adaptation: “We need universal air-conditioning and irrigation…..We will require water reservoirs, pipelines and desalination plants; for that, abundant, cheap electricity will be a must.” And of course he is right that we do need to adapt and that will also cost money, and require electricity. But it is perfectly possible to do both, and reducing the effects of change will make adaptation cheaper in the long-run.
A cleverer “perversity” argument against net zero is that we are simply “offshoring” our emissions to countries with lower standards. The strongest version notes that ramping up costs for, say, steel production via regulation and expensive energy leads to that steel being made in countries that have very little regulation at all. Like most perversity arguments there is truth to it - pretty much any policy has some negative consequences - but they almost never outweigh the benefits. That is the case here. The UK’s overall “carbon footprint” – including imports – has fallen significantly. |
TATA to India, perverse offshoring.
I do have issues with how we are going about net zero because it's all designed to benefit corporations and the very rich. It should be a national effort and it should ne a nationalised industry, solar panels on every suitable public building, solar panels on car parks AND there are experiments with solar canopies over roads with Germany preferring to pout them on walls alongside major roads.
Every new build should have to have solar built in, whatever the purpose of the building. Cheap, clean electricity should be everyones right. | | | |
| Enough now on 15:39 - Aug 31 with 1094 views | Gwyn737 |
| Enough now on 15:32 - Aug 31 by SullutaCreturned |
TATA to India, perverse offshoring.
I do have issues with how we are going about net zero because it's all designed to benefit corporations and the very rich. It should be a national effort and it should ne a nationalised industry, solar panels on every suitable public building, solar panels on car parks AND there are experiments with solar canopies over roads with Germany preferring to pout them on walls alongside major roads.
Every new build should have to have solar built in, whatever the purpose of the building. Cheap, clean electricity should be everyones right. |
I absolutely agree that how we get there is up for debate and some current plans at best seem counter intuitive.
The direction of travel remains necessary and the quicker some stop using words like ‘Net Zero madness’ the better. | | | |
| Enough now on 16:16 - Aug 31 with 1069 views | SullutaCreturned |
| Enough now on 15:39 - Aug 31 by Gwyn737 |
I absolutely agree that how we get there is up for debate and some current plans at best seem counter intuitive.
The direction of travel remains necessary and the quicker some stop using words like ‘Net Zero madness’ the better. |
I think there is "net zero madness" but its the government to blame. They are pushing the most expensive ways to reduce our emissions and all the while they are making a lot of money for their rich friends.
It's madness to make the vast majority pay ever increasing bills at a time when an increasing number of people are getting angry with the super rich and politicical classes and even madder when the corporations involved announce record profits, strange how the record high prices are never the reason for record profits! | | | |
| Enough now on 16:21 - Aug 31 with 1065 views | Gwyn737 |
| Enough now on 16:16 - Aug 31 by SullutaCreturned |
I think there is "net zero madness" but its the government to blame. They are pushing the most expensive ways to reduce our emissions and all the while they are making a lot of money for their rich friends.
It's madness to make the vast majority pay ever increasing bills at a time when an increasing number of people are getting angry with the super rich and politicical classes and even madder when the corporations involved announce record profits, strange how the record high prices are never the reason for record profits! |
The study quoted in the article cites 0.2% of GDP by 2050. Not slim pickings with the current finanacial times but not madness.
Madness is saying things like ‘we got on with it in ‘76, completely forgetting what is was actually like. | | | |
| Enough now on 19:14 - Aug 31 with 1005 views | SullutaCreturned |
| Enough now on 16:21 - Aug 31 by Gwyn737 |
The study quoted in the article cites 0.2% of GDP by 2050. Not slim pickings with the current finanacial times but not madness.
Madness is saying things like ‘we got on with it in ‘76, completely forgetting what is was actually like. |
It's 0.2% of GDP per year but I simply cannot trust an estimated figure in an article clearly in favour of net zero.
It's not that I'm against going net zero but these have been known to be badly wrong and they often make bad assumptions as part of their calculations; we know government estimates are very often wrong. I just don't trust that it will be that 0.2%, not given the way prices are rising.
Look at the price of fuel, a barrel of oil has been more expensive in the last 18 months and fuel prices have been lower more expensive. Right now a barrel of crude is $85 but in April it was $112, the avrage price per litre of unleaded was 31.56 in April and it is £1.59 today having dropped 2p since Saturday. Our prices are artificially inflated, we still link electricity prices to gas and gas is expensive but we are apparently producing cheaper electricity via renewables.
This is all linked, the prices are being kept high on purpose. | | | |
| Enough now on 19:35 - Aug 31 with 998 views | Gwyn737 |
| Enough now on 19:14 - Aug 31 by SullutaCreturned |
It's 0.2% of GDP per year but I simply cannot trust an estimated figure in an article clearly in favour of net zero.
It's not that I'm against going net zero but these have been known to be badly wrong and they often make bad assumptions as part of their calculations; we know government estimates are very often wrong. I just don't trust that it will be that 0.2%, not given the way prices are rising.
Look at the price of fuel, a barrel of oil has been more expensive in the last 18 months and fuel prices have been lower more expensive. Right now a barrel of crude is $85 but in April it was $112, the avrage price per litre of unleaded was 31.56 in April and it is £1.59 today having dropped 2p since Saturday. Our prices are artificially inflated, we still link electricity prices to gas and gas is expensive but we are apparently producing cheaper electricity via renewables.
This is all linked, the prices are being kept high on purpose. |
The oil and gas examples are important. They’re killing us financially. Much more than net zero that seems to take the blame.
Edit. Here’s the link to the projection https://www.theccc.org.uk/publ
They’re independent. [Post edited 31 Aug 19:39]
| | | |
| Enough now on 10:02 - Sep 1 with 907 views | JACKMANANDBOY |
| Enough now on 19:14 - Aug 31 by SullutaCreturned |
It's 0.2% of GDP per year but I simply cannot trust an estimated figure in an article clearly in favour of net zero.
It's not that I'm against going net zero but these have been known to be badly wrong and they often make bad assumptions as part of their calculations; we know government estimates are very often wrong. I just don't trust that it will be that 0.2%, not given the way prices are rising.
Look at the price of fuel, a barrel of oil has been more expensive in the last 18 months and fuel prices have been lower more expensive. Right now a barrel of crude is $85 but in April it was $112, the avrage price per litre of unleaded was 31.56 in April and it is £1.59 today having dropped 2p since Saturday. Our prices are artificially inflated, we still link electricity prices to gas and gas is expensive but we are apparently producing cheaper electricity via renewables.
This is all linked, the prices are being kept high on purpose. |
I think you'll find that the idiot Miliband has been signing renewable deals with generation prices higher than we are paying now. |  |
| |
| Enough now on 19:41 - Sep 2 with 807 views | Boundy |
Cloud seeding , no can't be true
https://www.bing.com/videos/ri | |
| "In a free society, the State is the servant of the people—not the master." |
| |
| Enough now on 20:39 - Sep 2 with 786 views | SullutaCreturned |
| Enough now on 19:35 - Aug 31 by Gwyn737 |
The oil and gas examples are important. They’re killing us financially. Much more than net zero that seems to take the blame.
Edit. Here’s the link to the projection https://www.theccc.org.uk/publ
They’re independent. [Post edited 31 Aug 19:39]
|
Net zero targets are part of the reason for high fuel prices though, there is the "green" element of fuel duty accounts for about one third of the price of a litre, about 53p, that's a lot. The so called green levy is raising money to pay for net zero, the two are intrinsically linked.
Then there'll be the future price rises that are bound to happen after all the future deals Milliband has signed us up to. The prices will continue to rise and they willpush inflation up, it'll trigger more and more demands for pay rises. I think it will spiral and cause problems.
I'll repeat it, I think we are beyond stopping te,mperature rises and instead we need to plan to mitigate ithem as much as possible by spending money on infrastructure to deal with them. The move to renewables should obviously continue but at a slower pace, done more sensibly and without signing up to future deals that will be financially punitive for the vast majority of UK residents. Politicians don't mind that because when IPSA recommends an above inflation pay rise they'll tell us they can't turn it down and they have those expense accounts too. That's beside the fact that very many MP's are already wealthy or go on to become wealthy after their election.
Lastly, I don't believe that any of these grouos are truly independent, call me overly cynical but those people are appointed by the UK governments. They won't appoint unfriendly people. They'll appoint people to give the outcomes they want. | | | |
| Enough now on 21:37 - Sep 2 with 769 views | builthjack |
I think you will find that the major oil companies, refineries, are making an absolute fortune. Record profits. Profiteering.
Those politicians with shares in them are very quiet. |  |
| Swansea Indepenent Poster Of The Year 2021. Dr P / Mart66 / Roathie / Parlay / E20/ Duffle was 2nd, but he is deluded and thinks in his little twisted brain that he won. Poor sod. We let him win this year, as he has cried for a whole year. His 14 usernames, bless his cotton socks.
|
| |
| Enough now on 08:12 - Sep 3 with 699 views | Scotia |
| Enough now on 20:39 - Sep 2 by SullutaCreturned |
Net zero targets are part of the reason for high fuel prices though, there is the "green" element of fuel duty accounts for about one third of the price of a litre, about 53p, that's a lot. The so called green levy is raising money to pay for net zero, the two are intrinsically linked.
Then there'll be the future price rises that are bound to happen after all the future deals Milliband has signed us up to. The prices will continue to rise and they willpush inflation up, it'll trigger more and more demands for pay rises. I think it will spiral and cause problems.
I'll repeat it, I think we are beyond stopping te,mperature rises and instead we need to plan to mitigate ithem as much as possible by spending money on infrastructure to deal with them. The move to renewables should obviously continue but at a slower pace, done more sensibly and without signing up to future deals that will be financially punitive for the vast majority of UK residents. Politicians don't mind that because when IPSA recommends an above inflation pay rise they'll tell us they can't turn it down and they have those expense accounts too. That's beside the fact that very many MP's are already wealthy or go on to become wealthy after their election.
Lastly, I don't believe that any of these grouos are truly independent, call me overly cynical but those people are appointed by the UK governments. They won't appoint unfriendly people. They'll appoint people to give the outcomes they want. |
We are beyond stopping temprature rise, but not reducing it to a level where mitigation will be possible. At the moment we're looking at a catastrophe. More northerly / southerly ends of the globe may get an extra few decades grace, the problem is that the people who live in the areas nearer the equator will migrate. And that's just over the long term, the Nepal flood was caused by a glacial collapse, we don't know if that was caused by an earthquake or higher tempratures. There are other areas of India, Nepal, Tibet and China at risk of exactly the same thing.
This summer should be a warning to us on a global scale, next summer will be too.
Many groups aren't truly independent, but most of those encouraging a move away from Net Zero are blatantly being paid by oil companies / fossil fuel suppliers. Nigel Farage for instance. | | | |
| Enough now on 20:23 - Sep 4 with 566 views | SullutaCreturned |
| Enough now on 08:12 - Sep 3 by Scotia |
We are beyond stopping temprature rise, but not reducing it to a level where mitigation will be possible. At the moment we're looking at a catastrophe. More northerly / southerly ends of the globe may get an extra few decades grace, the problem is that the people who live in the areas nearer the equator will migrate. And that's just over the long term, the Nepal flood was caused by a glacial collapse, we don't know if that was caused by an earthquake or higher tempratures. There are other areas of India, Nepal, Tibet and China at risk of exactly the same thing.
This summer should be a warning to us on a global scale, next summer will be too.
Many groups aren't truly independent, but most of those encouraging a move away from Net Zero are blatantly being paid by oil companies / fossil fuel suppliers. Nigel Farage for instance. |
That's the point, I don't thonk any group is truly independent no matter which side of the fence they stand.
I don't think we cn reeuce the speed of the rise either, there are too many countries still churning out greenhouse gasses and while China is on course to actually reeuce their emissions, and as I said, we hit the tipping point a fair while back, the evidence has been around and growing for 200 years.
All we can do is mitigate where we are. Lets face it, we have screwed the only home we all have and just maybe there's an element of nature deciding it's time to cull the animal doing the planet the most harm! | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.