Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

ed110220

JKenH wrote: »

Obviously things are looking bad for Big Oil in the courts and one might reasonably expect from the evidence presented here that the actions will succeed.

My question is what happens next?

If Big Oil are found guilty they will no doubt have to pay damages, even punitive damages which will affect their profits which will knock their dividends and share prices. This in turn will impact heavily on UK pension funds. Those of us lucky enough to be in final salary schemes should be ok (in a worst case the PPF kicks in) but anyone in defined contribution schemes ( most people under 40) will take a hit. That will only be the start of it however. It could tip the world into recession so anyone working might find their jobs at risk.

It could though have a longer term impact on the oil industry that might challenge the viability of some companies.

Having taken this action and demonstrated that oil has wrecked the climate can the US allow the oil industry to continue? Probably not as it exists at the moment.Europe would be morally obliged to follow in any action to restrict the activities of oil companies.

This could all be a huge shock for the western world and significantly alter the balance of power. Gazprom will be allowed to continue as they did before and Russia will extend its influence in the Middle East. Similarly China will extend its sphere of influence against a much weaker US.

Interesting times ahead.

Given that the stock value of fossil fuel companies reflects quantities of fuel in the ground that are likely to crash the world's economy through disruption to agriculture, sea level rise, mass migration etc leading to a lot of hungry, angry people well before they are burnt through, the question may be moot.

China, if it is wise and the western world the US in particular sticks to its Trumpian foolishness will be in a better place economically to benefit from the transition to renewable energy, electrification of transport etc. As for Russia I don't know what the ruling elite there are aiming for as it doesn't seem to be a leader in anything other than fossil fuels and possibly weapons, is badly hit by demographic decline and seems to be heading for long term irrelevance. Probably it will have to eventually throw its lot in with China to survive, much like Britain had to to give up being an independent power in the 20th Century to be a junior partner of the US.

Martyn1981

JKenH wrote: »

You said it was in the 80s that Exxon should have published their research. It was in the 80s that the IPCC was formed. Are you saying that the IPCC was so ineffective that we lost 30 years before any action was taken? What were they doing and saying all this time?

I am sure the world was just as sceptical in the 90s about oil funded research as they are now. Governments have chosen the paths that they have taken because they want to get re-elected. Take the the UK as an example; NHS, standards of living, employment are matters of more pressing concern on polling day than AGW. It doesn’t matter what the surveys show; if the public wanted money spending on RE rather than the NHS then the Greens would storm into power.It is easy when you are a fringe party such as the Greens or Liberals, or in opposition to make a big noise about idealist policies but the reality is, once in government pragmatism takes over. There is no money in the budget. That’s why very little gets done to promote RE. That is not the fault of BIg Oil.

You say we are potentially on course for irreversible climate change. If you believe that then why, oh why do you continue to use FF? Although you love to bash Big Oil the reality is you, I, most people here, are hooked on it. We don’t want to give it up. We can make all the excuses in the world to salve our consciences and blame the government, Big Oil, our parents but, the reality is, the choice is ours.

I'm sorry but your FF apology arguments are simply distasteful.

Your attempts to blame me for the problems, rather than the mis-information and lies spread by the FF industries, is similarly distasteful, and utterly hopeless on a thread and board where people won't fall for it. I've always said that I don't do enough, so have therefore devoted some of my free time to spreading good RE news and pushing back on the falsehoods and lies - such as FF apologists spread.

Pretend all you like that everyone else is to blame, but the scale of the mis-information campaign was vast, and vastly funded. To deny this rightly reflects on you.


A while back you tried a dig at the 'left' with a post about how the left can't think like the hard right, well I now believe that that's true. Try as I might, I simply can't do it, I can't reject fact, values, morals, nor openly lie in posts about who is to blame!

Martyn1981

JKenH wrote: »

Obviously things are looking bad for Big Oil in the courts and one might reasonably expect from the evidence presented here that the actions will succeed.

My question is what happens next?

We will continue towards a sustainable and renewable future. There is no scaleability issues with RE, and the storage technologies and types already exist and are affordable when FF externalities are taken into account.

There is nothing to fear, only the false fears spread, again, by FF interests.

RE despite being cheaper, is actually more labour intensive, so that's a win win for jobs too.

Anyone more worried about the FF companies, their profits, and the dividends they pay out, is simply morally bankrupt. Or Donald Trump ....... not sure there's a difference actually.

JKenH

Martyn1981 wrote: »

I'm sorry but your FF apology arguments are simply distasteful.

Your attempts to blame me for the problems, rather than the mis-information and lies spread by the FF industries, is similarly distasteful, and utterly hopeless on a thread and board where people won't fall for it. I've always said that I don't do enough, so have therefore devoted some of my free time to spreading good RE news and pushing back on the falsehoods and lies - such as FF apologists spread.

Pretend all you like that everyone else is to blame, but the scale of the mis-information campaign was vast, and vastly funded. To deny this rightly reflects on you.


A while back you tried a dig at the 'left' with a post about how the left can't think like the hard right, well I now believe that that's true. Try as I might, I simply can't do it, I can't reject fact, values, morals, nor openly lie in posts about who is to blame!

Mart, your answer to any argument you can’t legitimately counter is to ascribe it to a FF apologist.

A few posts back you said we are where we are. I agree.

Whatever happened in the past happened, blaming Big Oil for something they did 30 years ago won’t magically solve today’s problems or relieve us individually of our responsibilities. Spreading good RE news does not solve the problem either and I am disappointed that you feel it is sufficient to absolve you for your failure to do enough on a practical level. Every litre of fuel you burn adds at least 100g of CO2 to the atmosphere. You are directly contributing to the problem just as I am. It is in our gift not to use FF but we continue to do so. You justify it by claiming the oil companies could have and should have done more 30 years ago. Two wrongs don’t make a right.

GreatApe

Martyn1981 wrote: »

RE despite being cheaper, is actually more labour intensive, so that's a win win for jobs too.

That can't be true because the cost of stuff is more or less a long chain of human labor inputs.

That is to say cheaper stuff typically has less man hours embedded and expensive stuff more

There is one exception and that's if you pay RE workers less than Fossil fuel workers then maybe your statement can be true

nyone more worried about the FF companies, their profits, and the dividends they pay out, is simply morally bankrupt. Or Donald Trump ....... not sure there's a difference actually.

They will be absolutely fine the world is not reducing its carbon useage and when the work FF burn peaks and starts to go down the FF companies will just invest less in new capacity (or none at all)

JKenH

Martyn1981 wrote: »

We will continue towards a sustainable and renewable future.

That might be a little simplistic. Yes, we may get there eventually but it will be a very bumpy ride and there may be a lot of hardship on the way. As things are we simply cannot manage without FF either at a nation state level or an individual level.

Solarchaser

I think it's safe to say the arguement of unless you are selling everything you own to buy an EV, then you are not green enough to talk about green issues will be laughed at by the vast majority of users of this forum.... and to persist with it, just takes your own rating, down a few more pegs.

I've lurked on this board for a couple of years, drawn here by the domestic battery thread.
Several times I've seen what looks like a logical argument be ripped apart by the Z and M tag team, sometimes I feel, A little too vociferously.

But when I see the utter BS in the last couple of pages of this thread, I do indeed start to understand why it's so vociferously done.

I have a diesel car for work, as I travel alot.
My employer is a large multinational, that has taken on the warnings of climate change and so started to make small steps to improve it's own footprint.
A limit of 120 on emissions for any company vehicle is a reasonable step, until you find vw/merc/BMW have all lied and none of the 100 or so UK vehicles we have are under 120 after all. Bought in good faith.
And now they are looking at hybrids... maybe in a year, electric who knows.

I have an EV for alot of reasons, a little green, a little money saving, alot of being sick of working on cars in the wind and rain.... much much less to go wrong.

As far as cost per mile, the EV is almost exclusively charged from my own solar panels, so costs about zero.

If i was charging without solar I'd move to e7 or an equivalent and charge overnight at 5p/kwh so 1.25p / mile

Recently we went summer holidays around England in it, and found a big difference in charging costs.
Lidl chargers are generally free.
Ecotricity are about 10p /mile
Polar are a rip off... they are part of BP

So anyway, I must be super green right, I have solar, I have an EV.
Oh yeah I also have a highly tuned petrol car that gets about 35p /mile.
Jeezo i best delete my account, I'm not green enough to want greener tech to be used.

Does that argument seem silly?

Yeah, to me too!!

JKenH

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Anyone more worried about the FF companies, their profits, and the dividends they pay out, is simply morally bankrupt. Or Donald Trump ....... not sure there's a difference actually.

Sorry Mart, that is a little naive.

1961Nick

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Anyone more worried about the FF companies, their profits, and the dividends they pay out, is simply morally bankrupt. Or Donald Trump ....... not sure there's a difference actually.

When “British Wind” pays a dividend equal to that of British Petroleum, the investment will naturally shift towards RE. Nothing needs to be ‘done’, it will just happen so there’s no need to fret about big oil.

JKenH

Solarchaser wrote: »

I think it's safe to say the arguement of unless you are selling everything you own to buy an EV, then you are not green enough to talk about green issues will be laughed at by the vast majority of users of this forum.... and to persist with it, just takes your own rating, down a few more pegs.

I've lurked on this board for a couple of years, drawn here by the domestic battery thread.
Several times I've seen what looks like a logical argument be ripped apart by the Z and M tag team, sometimes I feel, A little too vociferously.

But when I see the utter BS in the last couple of pages of this thread, I do indeed start to understand why it's so vociferously done.

I have a diesel car for work, as I travel alot.
My employer is a large multinational, that has taken on the warnings of climate change and so started to make small steps to improve it's own footprint.
A limit of 120 on emissions for any company vehicle is a reasonable step, until you find vw/merc/BMW have all lied and none of the 100 or so UK vehicles we have are under 120 after all. Bought in good faith.
And now they are looking at hybrids... maybe in a year, electric who knows.

I have an EV for alot of reasons, a little green, a little money saving, alot of being sick of working on cars in the wind and rain.... much much less to go wrong.

As far as cost per mile, the EV is almost exclusively charged from my own solar panels, so costs about zero.

If i was charging without solar I'd move to e7 or an equivalent and charge overnight at 5p/kwh so 1.25p / mile

Recently we went summer holidays around England in it, and found a big difference in charging costs.
Lidl chargers are generally free.
Ecotricity are about 10p /mile
Polar are a rip off... they are part of BP

So anyway, I must be super green right, I have solar, I have an EV.
Oh yeah I also have a highly tuned petrol car that gets about 35p /mile.
Jeezo i best delete my account, I'm not green enough to want greener tech to be used.

Does that argument seem silly?

Yeah, to me too!!

I understand what you are saying. In fact I think you have perfectly demonstrated the problem with this forum. Most of us on here are interested in RE to some degree or another and implement it where it works for them financially. Mart is like that so am I. We could do more but for financial reasons we choose not to.

We also all see the world a little differently and on any particular subject RE or otherwise it is unlikely, in fact impossible to agree with everyone. The problem arises when you support a particular point of view as postulated by A resulting in poster B assuming that you agree with all the views expressed by A and applying a label. If you resist that then B will insist that you challnge A and a failure to do so confirms by implication you agree with A on all points.

I had become a little frustrated of late at the intolerance shown on the forum to A and last week as I had a little time on my hands I pointed this out. Despite on several occasions telling B that I bear him no personal animosity my support of A opened the floodgates. This only heightened my resolve to stand my ground with B. This culminatied in a new poster suddenly appearing on the scene (Great Ache) mocking me and A. Some people assumed that B was the troll. Over a 30 minute period yesterday 10 posts were made by Great Ache then suddenly they stopped. A period of 18 hours elapsed without a post from B then it started all over again. Foolishly I engaged with B again today with arguments that I knew he would react to.

I am grateful you have posted as it has made me take a step back and realise this type of exchange on a forum is not edifying. I shall not continue the exchange.