Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

JKenH

Martyn1981 wrote: »

I'm sorry but that is appalling.

The world was accepting the science of AGW in the 80's, but the actions of the large energy companies to lie, and it is a lie when then their own science was in full agreement with that stating that the impact on the planet for all of us would be severe.

The delay in acting can, I believe, be directly linked to the mis-information campaigning by these companies, done, as you state to protect their profits.

We pretty much lost 30yrs where FF emissions grew, when without the mis-information / lies, more action would have been possible, and we could have reduced the emissions that were made during that time, and today have a far more advanced RE industry.

I am honestly shocked that you are 'excusing' the actions of these companies, that's not green, it's not ethical.

And your time lines are entirely false, we are not talking 1950-1980, we are talking 1980 onwards.

They did not stop decades ago, they haven't even stopped today, and the Koch brothers, and Koch Industries are infamous for their campaiging, lobbying and funding of astro-turfing (fake grass routes) campaigns.

Are you honestly trying to defend the false anti-AGW campaigning?

It might seem appalling in the light of today’s mores. I don’t think the world would be so comfortable now with the Americans dropping napalm nowadays. But that was then and this is now and the oil companies are pouring billions into RE because it makes business sense to do so.

Do you believe there are any big companies who truly act altruistically? Are the wind turbine manufacturers and the factories in China spewing out solar panels doing it because they want to save the planet? Your naivety sometimes astounds me.


You say that

We pretty much lost 30yrs where FF emissions grew, when without the mis-information / lies, more action would have been possible, and we could have reduced the emissions that were made during that time, and today have a far more advanced RE industry.


And also say

your time lines are entirely false, we are not talking 1950-1980, we are talking 1980 onwards.


As you say [the world was accepting the science of AGW in the 80's/I] so Exxon withholding its data cannot be said to have been a significant factor in delaying Climate Change science.

So we are left with the charge that they have delayed the development of the RE industry. Perhaps in the US it has had an impact but Maybe not as much as you think. After all Al Gore who was in the vanguard of AGW campaigning was an American. The world media narrative has been very pro AGW since that time. We have gone a long way in those 30 yeas to the extent that in the uk it could be argued we are probably already nearing maximum RE capacity.

It is questionable if we would have a much more advanced RE industry. Technology evolves over time and it is hard to predict how rapidly technology would have developed but for Big Oil’s campaigning.

Implementing the technology is another matter. Yes the oil lobby has slowed implementation down in the US but even though we now have good RE technology, fossil fuel plants are still being built at an alarming rate in China and India.

There is a cost economically and hence politically for governments in rolling out green technology. Arguments will inevitably be made that where there is a limited amount of money in the kitty should it go to RE or say NHS.

pile-o-stone

Hexane wrote: »

Wait, you just replied to one of your OWN posts by saying "Well said"? The mask slips?

If you're going to have parody accounts to confuse us all, you need to keep track of which account is which. Try using a piece of paper.

Quick, delete both posts before anyone notices!

Well spotted. I noticed he has edited his post to remove the quote and so it just says "Well said". To me that makes it worse because he could just say he wanted to highlight a good point that he made, or that he was just making a joke.

With deleting it he has underlined that he was logged in as the wrong user when he thanked his post.

Can I say for the record that this is literally the saddest thing I've seen on a forum. It's bad enough that he is actively tying to disrupt this board with his nonsense posts, but to then create alternative logons to do the same thing, and to support himself is absolutely tragic.

The guy behind that (I hope you're reading this) needs to have a long, hard look at himself and where his life went so wrong for him to spend his time doing this sort of thing. It's not like we're some sort of right wing hate site like 8chan where we're spouting hate and so he would be applauded for disrupting us. We are a few individuals who are interested in renewables and like to discuss them, and many of us have installed renewables as well.

I think people are generally pretty reasonable and pretty good, so I'll appeal directly. Great Aoe, we are not evil people, we are not policy makers, we are ordinary people who enjoy a chat. Please put your energies into disrupting sites that need disrupting.

Please mate.

pile-o-stone

Martyn1981 wrote: »

On that point, and I haven't read up specifically, just caught bits round the edges, but changing to 'cleaner diesel' seems to be the big move, but has it's own problems for the older ships.

I also didn't know that heating oil in the UK is basically red diesel, am I the last to learn that?

I thought red diesel was the stuff that farmers used in their tractors because it was subsidised. Shows how little i know.

Our diesel car is Euro 6 compliant, which I believe is cleaner but I'd still like to get rid. The question I have is whether buying a new electric car with zero emissions (except those created generating the electricity it runs on) is more environmentally friendly than keeping my existing diesel car that has embodied energy in its construction (i.e. the energy involved in its build has already been expended). Any help with that conundrum is appreciated.

JKenH

Martyn1981 wrote: »

And again, please don't use the FF apologist argument that if anyone still uses FF's then their opinion/argument loses value. Like most on here, I want national and international changes that allow all of us to move from FF's as quickly as possible. This argument, that you already used, is pretty disgusting and tries to dodge, spin, avoid the real issues, and I believe reveals more about you, than me.

Why not - because the truth offends? You make me out to be simply an FF apologist yet in practice I am probably greener than you. I do not spend my days protesting about evil oil companies then continue to use their products. If you weren’t so vocal about telling everyone else how to solve the AGW problem I wouldn’t keep pointing this out to you.

Have a read of this scientific article if you have half an hour to spare. It not only deals with individual hypocrisy but also that of governments.

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fcomm.2018.00049/full

There is a telling comment in it.

behavior always trumps values as an index of what people really think, feel and want.

JKenH

pile-o-stone wrote: »

I thought red diesel was the stuff that farmers used in their tractors because it was subsidised. Shows how little i know.

Our diesel car is Euro 6 compliant, which I believe is cleaner but I'd still like to get rid. The question I have is whether buying a new electric car with zero emissions (except those created generating the electricity it runs on) is more environmentally friendly than keeping my existing diesel car that has embodied energy in its construction (i.e. the energy involved in its build has already been expended). Any help with that conundrum is appreciated.

Edit: I have a friend who recently bought a Prius (that wouldn’t be my personal choice) and he loves it.


Get an electric car if that is what your heart tells you and if it suits your lifestyle (journey pattern). Someone else will take your smelly (actually very clean) diesel off you and probably enjoy zero or very low road tax, and by passing the technology down, the older cars will eventually be displaced to the scrap heap.

GreatApe

Martyn1981 wrote: »

On that point, and I haven't read up specifically, just caught bits round the edges, but changing to 'cleaner diesel' seems to be the big move, but has it's own problems for the older ships.

I also didn't know that heating oil in the UK is basically red diesel, am I the last to learn that?

Ships could be converted to LNG

There is now a global market for it and it's relatively cheap
About 1 cent/KWh Vs 5 cents/KWh for diesel

Clean and more energy dense than even diesel (per kg not per litre)

And can be directly used (a turbo fan turning a ships propellor) or indirectly used to turn a generator which turns an electric motor

This generator set would also be more mass efficient that is to say a jet engine is more efficient than a diesel and also more reliable too

https://gizmodo.com/the-worlds-fastest-boat-is-basically-an-aquatic-concor-572876759

GreatApe

pile-o-stone wrote: »

Well spotted. I noticed he has edited his post to remove the quote and so it just says "Well said". To me that makes it worse because he could just say he wanted to highlight a good point that he made, or that he was just making a joke.

With deleting it he has underlined that he was logged in as the wrong user when he thanked his post.

Can I say for the record that this is literally the saddest thing I've seen on a forum. It's bad enough that he is actively tying to disrupt this board with his nonsense posts, but to then create alternative logons to do the same thing, and to support himself is absolutely tragic.

The guy behind that (I hope you're reading this) needs to have a long, hard look at himself and where his life went so wrong for him to spend his time doing this sort of thing. It's not like we're some sort of right wing hate site like 8chan where we're spouting hate and so he would be applauded for disrupting us. We are a few individuals who are interested in renewables and like to discuss them, and many of us have installed renewables as well.

I think people are generally pretty reasonable and pretty good, so I'll appeal directly. Great Aoe, we are not evil people, we are not policy makers, we are ordinary people who enjoy a chat. Please put your energies into disrupting sites that need disrupting.

Please mate.

The parody account wasn't me

I use a smartphone and hit the multiquote button frequently (and also the spam button frequently because it's easy to do on such a small screen where said buttons are literally 5mm apart less than the thickness of thumb doing the clicking) this results in having multiple quotes on screen which I have to delete manually before posting. And sometimes I miss these quotes

And it wasn't you I was referring 'well said' to it was one of Kens posts

GreatApe

JKenH wrote: »

Edit: I have a friend who recently bought a Prius (that wouldn’t be my personal choice) and he loves it.

Get an electric car if that is what your heart tells you and if it suits your lifestyle (journey pattern). Someone else will take your smelly (actually very clean) diesel off you and probably enjoy zero or very low road tax, and by passing the technology down, the older cars will eventually be displaced to the scrap heap.

A friend recently bought a big crossover, he lives in zone 1 and gets a impressive 16 mpg opted for the petrol version the diesel would probably have gotten twice that mileage

Anti diesel sentiment is silly
Modern diesel or petrols have negligible heath impacts

20% of adults smoke tabaco
62% of adults are obease or overweight (28% clinically obese)
33% of adults admitted to taking illegal drugs at some point (the real figure probably being higher)

If health is important protest for more NHS spending or get a gym membership that will have magnitudes more positive impact than closing down a coal power station in Yorkshire

pile-o-stone

GreatApe wrote: »

And it wasn't you I was referring 'well said' to it was one of Kens posts

I actually saw the post that Hexane was referring to. You quoted your own post and commented underneath "Well Said". You then subsequently deleted the quote part of the post to hide this.

When I originally saw the post I thought nothing of it, I've often seen people quote their own posts to highlight a point or to add further information to a point they made. When Hexane pointed it out and remarked about you forgetting which username you were using, I though "oh yeah, that's a possibility too". It was only when you went back and modified the post that I realised he had hit the nail on the head. You really should have left it, you just confirmed your guilt by changing it.

It's really not a big deal, I just think it's a bit tragic to be doing this sort of thing. I understand from reading Mart's posts that you have a history with him. I don't understand though why you are trying to disrupt this board, it's not Martyn's board and he isn't the sole user.

It is also not a large board seen by a large number of people, it will not form government policy. Whatever is posted here is irrelevant in the wider world. We post stuff to each other because we are, as you say 'hobbyists', it's interesting to us but not anyone else.

You may therefore claim you are trying to prevent green propaganda, but how is that possible when there are only around 18 regular users on here, most of whom are posting the 'propaganda'? Who are you setting right, who are you 'keeping honest'? Who sees your posts except people who are closed minded to nuclear, most which seem to have you on ignore anyway?

Sorry to labour the point but I really don't understand your motivation for posting on here ?

GreatApe

JKenH wrote: »

Why not - because the truth offends? You make me out to be simply an FF apologist yet in practice I am probably greener than you. I do not spend my days protesting about evil oil companies then continue to use their products. If you weren’t so vocal about telling everyone else how to solve the AGW problem I wouldn’t keep pointing this out to you.

Have a read of this scientific article if you have half an hour to spare. It not only deals with individual hypocrisy but also that of governments.

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fcomm.2018.00049/full

There is a telling comment in it.

behavior always trumps values as an index of what people really think, feel and want.

:beer:

It's funny when he says he continues to use his oil car because buying an electric car will harm his finances and his quality of life. Accepting that on an individual level money is actually important

But business and government should be forced to not care much about money and go green ASAP because you know government and business finances don't matter to the lefties

I used to tease him and say which would you rather, spend £10 billion on the NHS or on going green. He would always say it's not one or the other. So mart which would you rather, spend £10,000 more on your EV car or spend that £10,000 on whatever it is you spend your money on? Oh maybe there is a third option, it's not one or the other, you could get an EV and continue spending at the same rate to maintain your current lifestyle.....out it on the credit card....