Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

Martyn1981

JKenH wrote: »

Sorry Mart I don’t agree with that and I suspect that on reflection you will probably realise that wasn’t quite how you intended it to sound.

It is important to maintain an open mind and consider alternative views in an open debate. The orthodox view cannot remain unchallenged. Reality changes as society progresses; it is not absolute. The world was once thought to be flat and heretics were burnt at the stake.

Forty years ago green protestors would have been considered loud and negative voices and still are by some. The fact is for some societies and some people in our society there are more pressing realities than going green.

Yes and no. I said 'reality' and you've said 'views', that's not a true and fair precis of what I said, and yes I did intend it, facts are facts. An opinion was stated about public opinion, and I responded with the facts about public opinion IYSWIM.

I was referring to the owner of the comments originally quoted. Someone who has posted no end of false information, and has changed profiles due to being ignored. When someone claims that the health impacts from coal pollution are blown out of scale because they have stood on a large mound of coal and it didn't smell that bad to them ...... there's a point where you have to stop listening.

On this subject I'm open to chat and opinion, but it has to have a basis in fact and reality, hence why I challenged recent opinions presented as facts that the UK was responsible for 1% of the additional CO2 in the atmosphere, when it's actually 5%, or that BEV's cost a high mileage driver twice the running costs of an ICE, when recent studies show BEV's to be cheaper, and the poster refuses (twice) to provide a citation.

The base issue behind my recent posts is this claim:

What this means is a country has to accept a decrease in the standard of living if they deploy 'green technology'

and the follow up statement about it:

GreatApe's post may be forthright, but it's difficult to say he's totally wrong.

To claim that a shift to renewables will reduce our standard of living is nothing more than old (very old) anti-RE rhetoric. We already see RE closing in on FF generation costs, and that's without including the externality costs.

So we are already seeing cheaper energy, it's absolutely abundant (we need to accept that), it's popular, it's job/labour intensive.

So it seems to win on every metric, therefore, the claim is, in my opinion 'totally wrong', and always was. Plus it ignore the impact on our standard of living of AGW, so we are better off acting, than not acting.

I totally agree that for some people other issues are more important than going green, but if you think about that, it's not really relevant to this board, nor this thread, as we are talking about green issues specifically.

Please be careful when applying fairness to all, as not everyone wants to play fair. We had someone spend the better part of a decade calling FiT subsidies immoral because they go to us and our neighbours, but tried to hide the fact he supported nuclear, which meant same subsidy payees, but not a single household receiving the subsidy.

And more recently posters who take any comment I make about accepting costs, as a willingness of mine to subject costs on others, when in reality I'm standing up for the solutions that bring the least net cost.

So discussion, opinion, debate is great, but that doesn't mean I'll stand aside and ignore spin and opinions masquerading as facts.

I hope that makes sense and seems fair, after all, there has to be a point where we stop entertaining myths and spin just for the sake of politeness? The planet isn't flat, so why ignore claims that it is?

JKenH wrote: »

Everyone is entitled to see the world from their own perspective and we cannot presume that our values are better than theirs.

But this isn't about true perspective, nor values, it's about opinions that run contrary to the facts.

As I've said before, we are all entitled to our own opinions, but not to our own facts. And it's claims stated as facts that I'm challenging here, with facts!


Edit - Sorry , I should have said. If you do think that our actions will put our economy at a disadvantage, then that's an interesting viewpoint, and one worth discussing, but as I said earlier, if most countries are doing the same, it might be a tricky position to defend and support with citations. M.

pile-o-stone

Martyn1981 wrote: »

If you do think that our actions will put our economy at a disadvantage, then that's an interesting viewpoint, and one worth discussing, but as I said earlier, if most countries are doing the same, it might be a tricky position to defend and support with citations. M.

There are huge health benefits from breathing clean air, drinking clean water and eating less meat. If we are looking at a cost/benefit ratio we have to factor in the impact of reduced health care costs and greater productivity from a healthier population.

It's not just about the cost of energy production in money, it's the cost in health.

Martyn1981

pile-o-stone wrote: »

There are huge health benefits from breathing clean air, drinking clean water and eating less meat. If we are looking at a cost/benefit ratio we have to factor in the impact of reduced health care costs and greater productivity from a healthier population.

It's not just about the cost of energy production in money, it's the cost in health.

Absolutely, and I have to apologies for talking money and economics so much, as my heart is on the side of doing the right things for the right reasons, but once you have economics on your side, a win gets much easier.

This is a silly argument, just for fun, but in many large cities, the poorest tend to live nearer to the main rounds. The air and noise pollution is far worse, but with BEV's slowly taking over, they will not only benefit from the improvements, but also have good access to the road network ...... I did say it was silly, but nice to imagine some flipping of fortunes.

The same might apply to poorer African nations, with cheap PV, they may end up having lower manufacturing costs than other countries, and start to get a better share of 'the riches' by attracting business.

Lots of wins, benefits, gains etc, and these should all go in the pro's column of the balance sheet when we look at the big picture.

zeupater

pile-o-stone wrote: »

There are huge health benefits from breathing clean air, drinking clean water and eating less meat. If we are looking at a cost/benefit ratio we have to factor in the impact of reduced health care costs and greater productivity from a healthier population.

It's not just about the cost of energy production in money, it's the cost in health.

Hi

... and, of course, the monetary cost of 'the cost in health' ... it's all inherently linked to a degree where you can't consider one without the other & that's why the big picture needs to be addressed as opposed to taking a compartmentalised analysis approach!

HTH
Z

zeupater

Martyn1981 wrote: »

.... in many large cities, the poorest tend to live nearer to the main rounds. The air and noise pollution is far worse ...

Hi

Seeing that sparked a little related snippet to be retrieved from the dark & cobwebbed area at the very back of my long term memory ....

As the prevailing airflow in the UK is from the West or SW, the poorest areas are generally in the East, particularly the NE ... the more affluent areas get access to clean(er) air from the countryside and the less affluent ones suffer all of the urban pollution ... it's pretty much still reflected in property prices throughout the country ....

HTH
Z

JKenH

Mart, Pile-o-stone, Z, I am not in disagreement about promoting RE but my issue is with the suggestion that we should not listen to those who do not share our point of view. Therein lies bigotry. Argue against them by all means but do not deny them a voice, do not ridicule them. They may not in your view be as intelligent or as worthy and their arguments may not stand up to rigorous scrutiny but they have as much right as you or me to hold that view and express it.

The world is changing at a faster and faster rate as new technologies develop. Forty years ago no one expected that in the summer of 2019 there would be days when we could produce all our electricity without fossil fuels. We promote the new world energy order as we believe it should be but we honestly don’t know what the future will bring. We should not be too prescriptive in our views. Forty years ago the big worry was that the world will run out of oil.

It is ironic that the most bigoted section of society today are the metropolitan elite who label themselves as Liberals. In a democracy all views are equal and it is the kick back against those who think they know best preaching at us that has led to the growth of populist politics.

Only by encoraging everyone on board will our problems be solved. Look at the groundswell of public opinion against plastics following a David Attenborough documentary. Making out someone is an idiot because they don’t share our view on Brexit, immigration , climate change or whatever will not endear them to the cause.

More specifically in relation to the onshore wind farm argument which I think is what the original post was about, the urban majority will support their development as it won’t take place in their back yard. Even if 99% of the population want them the 1% who have to look at them and listen to them are still entitled to have their view heard. Theirs is the reality.

Piddles

Martyn1981 wrote: »

To claim that a shift to renewables will reduce our standard of living is nothing more than old (very old) anti-RE rhetoric.

That's hasn't been everyone's actual experience though, has is it?

The Green Levy is a highly regressive tax isn't it?

Energy to cook our food and heat our home is pretty much an essential need.

We as a country got rich the dirty way. Much of that wealth is still sitting in assets that the rich are leveraging into the UK's ever growing wealth inequality.

It seems a little obscene that the bill for cleaning up the pollution (or at least stopping it from getting even worse) is falling so disproportionately on those who least profited from it and can least afford it. This isn't lost on the people at the bottom of the pile and green taxes do have a serious credibility problem. The government has had to freeze the fuel duty for what is it, ten years? And when a government does try to increase fuel taxes it ends up with the Les Gilets Jaunes.

So, yes, the task of getting the masses on board is gargantuan. Lecturing them with facts in this age of fake news just doesn't cut it any more. It needs a far more nuanced approach that doesn't include getting the poorest and most vulnerable to turn down their heating to unacceptable levels.

We need another tranche of green levies to complete the renewable picture, storage. That needs to be raised from assets, not the poor.

Piddles

JKenH wrote: »

It is ironic that the most bigoted section of society today are the metropolitan elite who label themselves as Liberals. In a democracy all views are equal and it is the kick back against those who think they know best preaching at us that has led to the growth of populist politics.

Gosh. Very eloquently put.

markin

JKenH wrote: »

.............. Forty years ago no one expected that in the summer of 2019 there would be days when we could produce all our electricity without fossil fuels. ..........

Ive read a article that showed that we actually imported 9% from the Netherlands... And that was actually coal power.

Martyn1981

JKenH wrote: »

Mart, Pile-o-stone, Z, I am not in disagreement about promoting RE but my issue is with the suggestion that we should not listen to those who do not share our point of view. Therein lies bigotry. Argue against them by all means but do not deny them a voice, do not ridicule them. They may not in your view be as intelligent or as worthy and their arguments may not stand up to rigorous scrutiny but they have as much right as you or me to hold that view and express it.

Again, I think we are talking about two different things. You are talking about views, I'm talking about facts.

Having a view or opinion is fine. Using your earlier analogy, claiming that the world is flat based on their knowledge and experience. But science says they are wrong, so it's not a place for views, but for facts. And if those flat-earther opinions are being expressed on the 'Spherical Earth Forum', then strong pushback is appropriate.

If RE will lead to a drop in living standards, then evidence and citations is needed. Otherwise it's just the continued spread of FUD, on a subject that is well researched, well developed, and disagrees with said 'opinion'.

Is this statement an expression of fact or opinion?

What this means is a country has to accept a decrease in the standard of living if they deploy 'green technology'

It reads as fact to me, and should therefore be robustly countered.

JKenH wrote: »

The world is changing at a faster and faster rate as new technologies develop. Forty years ago no one expected that in the summer of 2019 there would be days when we could produce all our electricity without fossil fuels. We promote the new world energy order as we believe it should be but we honestly don’t know what the future will bring. We should not be too prescriptive in our views. Forty years ago the big worry was that the world will run out of oil.

I agree, but you are missing key facts - we now know that RE is cheap (fact), we now know that more energy can be generated than we need (fact), we know that multiple large scale storage technologies exist today, and are affordable (but still costly) today (fact). These issues can't go backwards, PV production can't get more expensive, WT capacity factors can't drop, so we have facts now that will only get better.

So yes we don't know what the future will bring, but we are already passed the point for ultimate success.

JKenH wrote: »

It is ironic that the most bigoted section of society today are the metropolitan elite who label themselves as Liberals. In a democracy all views are equal and it is the kick back against those who think they know best preaching at us that has led to the growth of populist politics.

Are all views truly equal? Is it fair and equal to argue that the Earth is flat ...... as a fact?

Please understand what I'm saying, opinions and views are fine, but when expressed as facts, we should push back ...... if they are complete gibberish and go against science, reality and facts.

JKenH wrote: »

Only by encoraging everyone on board will our problems be solved. Look at the groundswell of public opinion against plastics following a David Attenborough documentary. Making out someone is an idiot because they don’t share our view on Brexit, immigration , climate change or whatever will not endear them to the cause.

How do you encourage everyone on board, when false negative information is being spread to change their opinion?

You may not believe this, but I love a good debate, often play Devil's Advocate, and feel/know I learn more when chatting with others who have differing (but sensible) opinions. But tolerating those who are simply flat (earther) wrong is not 'fair and reasonable' it's appeasement when there is so much on the line with every day we delay.

The US has pulled out of the Paris Accord as a result of the opinion of some. Do we sit back and respect their 'opinion' or fight back with 'facts'?

JKenH wrote: »

More specifically in relation to the onshore wind farm argument which I think is what the original post was about, the urban majority will support their development as it won’t take place in their back yard. Even if 99% of the population want them the 1% who have to look at them and listen to them are still entitled to have their view heard. Theirs is the reality.

I live in the suburbs and have a 2.3MW WT just over a mile from me, I love it, so do most people.

I may be wrong, but I thought WT's were supported by all groups in the UK, including those living in the countryside? I'd genuinely be interested to see any reports, articles etc you can find on this.

But, again, please stop using the word 'view' or implying I'm not open to views and opinions, the statement I responded to was:

The government has a truly gargantuan task to convince the wider public that fighting climate change is such a good idea.

I read that as a statement of fact, not an opinion*, but either way it sets out a position and I responded with facts.

I don't think there is a better way to respond to a statement about UK public opinion than with the results of a public opinion survey, and to ensure that it isn't a moment in time opinion, I explained that there are 29 quaterly surveys with consistent responses and a consistent trend.

So, to clear this matter up, do you believe the government has a gargantuan task ahead to convince us? If not, then debating views/opinions seems like a waste of time, when discussing facts and learning 'stuff'.

*@ Piddles - no offence intended. You expressed a position that I'm sure you believed, and hopefully the information I've given is good news to you.

Arguments should only arise when a point that has been properly challenged (and I believe corrected) is repeated or pushed without any new facts/citations to support it.


So ...... I agree with you entirely that views and opinions should be shared, enjoyed and discussed, but please, please, please note that on these recent issues, we have facts to fall back on, and they should trump unsupported claims, especially ones that are negative and go against the subject.