Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

Martyn1981

JKenH wrote: »

Just a couple of corrections needed which I am sure are misunderstandings rather than any malice on your part.

I have never once posted in support of nuclear. As I said in a previous post, having agreed with someone on one topic does not mean I share all their views. It just suits someone on here to keep saying I support nuclear and by implication don’t support RE. I have also tried to apply some historical context to the role that FF has played in the past in the face of the current trend for a revisionist commentary. I have stepped back from that debate but I note the discussion is still continuing. I have not advocated any expansion of FF but there is currently a need for a mix of energy sources as RE is not yet in a position to stand alone.

I did not say I was leaving the forum, simply that I wasn’t going to continue the exchange with Mart which was unedifying.

HTH as Z would say.

Ken

That's fair enough, and I hope you haven't mistaken/confused my many comments about GA's support for FF's and nuclear with you.

Also please don't get upset about anyone posting revisionist commentary about FF's (not that I have seen anyone do that). We all know how important they have been to our technological advancement, it's just sad that since we realised that their cost is far higher than we'd thought, the FF industries have been lying about the facts and science, but I suspect even that is now coming to an end. However, of course, that vast additional cost now has to be paid by everyone else.

So all good news, and RE is unbeatable now whether we judge it ethically or on green'ness, popularity or cost.

Looks like we all agree after all. result! :T

1961Nick

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Nope, simply telling the truth in the face of your 'mis-information'.

I fully accept that the UK's current contribution to annual CO2 emissions is about 1%. In fact I believe I told you that when explaining that at a minimum given our 1% of the global population, it confirms our responsibility to act, when you were suggesting we didn't have a moral responsibility.


BUT BUT BUT ....... please don't try to re-write history, you didn't say !% of annual emissions, you very specifically stated 1% of all the additional CO2 emissions. Would you like a reminder?



In fact we are responsible for ~5%, or 7ppm, not 1.4ppm.

I explained this here:




I assumed your error was accidental, but unfortunately, you responded with:



Which is an AGW denialist argument. It ignores the truth and simply pretends that scientists do not agree.


So to recap, your original claim was untrue (but an acceptable mistake). Your follow up was an AGW denial argument. And now you are trying to deny what you said. Why?


PS - 'Moving to a low carbon economy will bankrupt us' is also an AGW denial argument, setting up a false claim to scare people off it.

To clarify for those that find a simple fact difficult to accept.....

The UK's current contribution to global CO2 emissions is approximately 1%.

I'll leave you to dwell on that & twist the meaning so that I actually say something completely different.

JKenH

One to cheer Mart up. An unexpectedly complimentary story about Greta Thunberg from The Daily Telegraph.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/08/15/greta-thunberg-may-annoying-least-isnt-hypocrite/

mmmmikey

Update on fracking:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-49356631

Noooooooo! Why oh why are we doing this? I don't personally have any serious concerns about the safety aspects, but a quote from the article says it all for me:

"Fracking just isn't part of the future if we are serious about avoiding climate breakdown."

Martyn1981

1961Nick wrote: »

To clarify for those that find a simple fact difficult to accept.....

The UK's current contribution to global CO2 emissions is approximately 1%.

I'll leave you to dwell on that & twist the meaning so that I actually say something completely different.

Actually that statement is again wrong, it's ambiguous. Our contribution to current 'annual' contributions is 1%. Our current contribution to the AGW increase in global CO2 levels is 5%.


And for further clarification, as you were talking about cumulative emissions not annual, and as I can quote you, you can't 're-write' facts:

1961Nick wrote: »

£1T is a lot of money when you consider the UK is responsible for about 1% of global carbon emissions.....that's about 1.4ppm out of a total concentration of about 400ppm (260ppm are naturally occurring).

The UK's contribution to the rise from ~260ppms to 400ppm's (actually the figure is now more like 410ppm) is 5%, or ~7ppm, not the 1.4ppm you stated.

Nick, we can do this all day, all year if you like, but I'm posting facts, whilst you are trying to deny. mislead, re-write what was said - you can't do that as there's a clear audit trail ...... our posts.

Martyn1981

JKenH wrote: »

One to cheer Mart up. An unexpectedly complimentary story about Greta Thunberg from The Daily Telegraph.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/08/15/greta-thunberg-may-annoying-least-isnt-hypocrite/

You tease Ken, there's a paywall, and I stopped reading the Torygraph many years back as I slowly slid towards the dark (left) side.

But on Greta in general, she's done a great job of shaking up the world, and I loved her response to Big Oil when they called her their greatest threat:

'Biggest compliment yet': Greta Thunberg welcomes oil chief's 'greatest threat' label


Oh, and Ken, I'm always happy, especially when Nick goes out of his way to give me a good laugh each day.

JKenH

Martyn1981 wrote: »

You tease Ken, there's a paywall, and I stopped reading the Torygraph many years back as I slowly slid towards the dark (left) side.

You surprise me, Mart. Maybe time for a rethink.

Martyn1981

JKenH wrote: »

You surprise me, Mart. Maybe time for a rethink.

Go for it mate, you have my support, it's much more fun over here.

JKenH

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Go for it mate, you have my support, it's much more fun over here.

Haha,I walked into that one.

Martyn1981

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

Move on a decade or two and we find argument revolving around FF money being behind the shorting of Tesla stock in an attempt to hinder/delay growth in the EV sector ... whether rooted in conspiracy theory or not, the argument for this being the case is quite compelling!

HTH
Z

Big article on that yesterday if you're interested. First Big Tobacco, then Big Oil, and now Big Auto - such a waste, especially when we are so close. Big Auto better move fast as the disruption curve for BEV's is closing in on the steep part of the "S".

The Conspiracy Against Tesla … Is Too Obvious