Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

EricMears

Martyn1981 wrote: »

The 'we should wait till it gets cheap' argument has come up for 10yrs on here, but it's always been, shall we say, 'daft'. It relies entirely on somebody else doing it, or the costs will never fall, so it's not a valid alternative, just another morally bankrupt argument.

Had I followed that advice, I would have spent £40k on installing solar panels 20 years ago (and waiting four hundred years to see the investment pay off !). Afraid I'm glad I postponed that project until the FIT scheme made it viable.

As an aside, can I ask how many of us (or maybe our parents ?) rushed out and bought a thousand pound colour TV in the 1960s or waited until prices dropped ?

Martyn1981

EricMears wrote: »

Had I followed that advice, I would have spent £40k on installing solar panels 20 years ago (and waiting four hundred years to see the investment pay off !). Afraid I'm glad I postponed that project until the FIT scheme made it viable.

As an aside, can I ask how many of us (or maybe our parents ?) rushed out and bought a thousand pound colour TV in the 1960s or waited until prices dropped ?

Did the prices fall because somebody else spent money first* ..... or magic?

*PV costs were pretty stagnate for decades until Germany and Italy 'took one for the team' and started to invest, and China (possibly not 'for the team') invested massively, and at a loss initially in large scale production.

Martyn1981

The real reason why I put my head above the parapet - it's so that when 'the yuff' rise up and come after oldies (like me) with a pitchfork, I can scream .... 'Look at my browser history, no not that browser history, the other one' and hopefully get away with just a few superficial pokes and jabs:-

Greta Thunberg condemns world leaders in emotional speech at UN

A visibly emotional Thunberg, 16, said in stern remarks at the opening of the summit that the generations that have polluted the most have burdened her and her generation with the extreme impacts of climate change.

“This is all wrong. I shouldn’t be up here. I should be back in school on the other side of the ocean yet you all come to us young people for hope. How dare you,” said the Swedish teenager, her voice quivering.

“You have stolen my dreams and my childhood with your empty words,” Thunberg said, adding that the plans that leaders will unveil will not be enough to respond to the rate of the planet’s warming.

Thunberg has galvanized a new wave of climate change activism through her weekly Fridays for Future school strikes, which she began with her weekly, solitary protests outside of the Swedish parliament.

......

Donald Trump, a climate change denier who has undone every major US regulation aimed at combating climate change, made a brief appearance in the audience of the summit along with Vice-President Mike Pence and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. He did not speak but he listened to remarks by the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, and the Indian prime minister Narendra Modi.

Former New York mayor Michael Bloomberg, who serves as the UN special envoy on climate action, called out Trump’s stealth appearance before he spoke on Monday: “Hopefully our deliberations will be helpful to you as you formulate climate policy,” he said to audience laughter.

Sometimes humour helps?

GreatApe

Martyn1981 wrote: »

The real reason why I put my head above the parapet - it's so that when 'the yuff' rise up and come after oldies (like me) with a pitchfork, I can scream .... 'Look at my browser history, no not that browser history, the other one' and hopefully get away with just a few superficial pokes and jabs:-

Greta Thunberg condemns world leaders in emotional speech at UN

......

Sometimes humour helps?

That speach was so cring worthy
She is a kid and doesn't know what she is talking about
She has a platform because her message appeals to the greens and far lefties
A useful Pawn

'all you can talk about is money, and fairy tales of eternal economic growth'

Is it any surprise that she is from a fully developed rich nation?
Do you think she would feel and think the same if she was born in say India?
No because her and her family would have real problems to deal with not this imaginary problem
The money and economic growth isn't all that important if you have rich parents and live in a rich society. Its hell of a problem for the other 5-6 billion Humans


She really is the poster child of the far left
Only she is honest because of her disability

JKenH

Martyn1981 wrote: »

The 'we should wait till it gets cheap' argument has come up for 10yrs on here, but it's always been, shall we say, 'daft'. It relies entirely on somebody else doing it, or the costs will never fall, so it's not a valid alternative, just another morally bankrupt argument.

Just remind me please, Mart, why you have held off buying a battery or BEV. Nothing to do with waiting for them to get a bit cheaper, was it?

EricMears

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Did the prices fall because somebody else spent money first* ..... or magic?

Neither ! It's a simple economic fact that 'new adopters' pay more. I refer you to my supplementary point about colour TVs.

mmmmikey

EricMears wrote: »

Neither ! It's a simple economic fact that 'new adopters' pay more. I refer you to my supplementary point about colour TVs.

All fair enough if you look at it from the perspective of simple cash economics, which is fair enough for luxury items colour televisions - you pay your money and make your choice.


But the technologies would never get cheap if everyone took this approach, and is it really morally acceptable for us, as the country that lead the charge on inudtrialisation, to sit back and keep our fingers crossed that someone else will fix the problem? Also, from an economic perspective, what about the additonal cost of sea defences, firefighting, etc. that will be incurred by delaying? And what about the economic benefit of being first to market with new technology, seing the UK as an inventor and developer rather than just a customer? i.e. this is not just about being an adopter it's about leading the way on invention and design.



So all things considered, although I understand your comparison with TVs I really don't think it's va;id here.

silverwhistle

JKenH wrote: »

Just remind me please, Mart, why you have held off buying a battery or BEV. Nothing to do with waiting for them to get a bit cheaper, was it?

Possibly because a lot of us can't afford new cars of any sort, and don't care to borrow money to buy a depreciating asset? From my research I can tell you that the second hand EV market is still very limited and expensive.

HTH.

As for colour televisions, I've never owned one in 35+ years of having my own house, but that's purely inertia, not economics. On the other hand, I should point out that new adopters do tend to have more money; to spend or waste according to opinion, and I find it rather distasteful if someone else tries to persuade me to spend money they may have and I don't on priorities that are theirs and not mine.. New skis last year so I'm happy.;)

I'm not bothered having certain things, but if you circulate on these boards more widely you'll see these are all choices some people are very far from having.

1961Nick

Martyn1981 wrote: »

I appreciate it's also, however you can't spend the same money twice, and you, in particular, are very keen on suggesting we will spend too much, or as you suggest here, we will have spent all our money?????

I'm not sure if you realise how serious this is. You suggest we could overshoot by 2 or 3C (and have previously suggested heating so far isn't a problem. Well, we are already seeing serious weather/storm changes, and impacts (many/most involving costs (that money you hope to save)), and the 1.5C rise is scary. If we overshoot by 2 or 3C then we are completely stuffed.

If you don't understand the need to avoid exceeding the 1.5C set out in the Paris Accord, then you haven't accepted just how bad this all is.

But the great news is that solutions, cost effective solutions already exist, and deploying these, as fast as possible, will both minimise the temp rise, and the enormous costs of adaptation that are going to follow.

Your suggestion of less spend now, for more money later is backwards, the longer we delay the greater the total cost will be, and not just economically.

Hmmm.....I get what you’re saying Mart but I’m also aware that the maximum effect that the UK can have on future CO2 emissions is roughly 1%. That basically means we are in the hands of others when it comes to avoiding the climate catastrophe (assuming there is one of course). I don’t have the same confidence in the rest of the world as you do when it comes ensuring 1.5C isn’t breached by a significant amount. Being an island with a seafaring history, many of our major towns & Cities are ports which are particularly vulnerable to extreme weather & any rise in sea level. It would make a lot of sense to start planning for the worst now and spending money on flood defences as well as reducing GHG emissions. Any planning applications in low lying areas should be made to anticipate a significant rise in sea level. New roads & railways should also built to the same criteria in these areas.

Cancel Hinckley, subsidise more windmills, build a few more CCGT power stations to handle any shortfall, then spend the balance on some seriously over engineered flood defences.

The alternative for many of us could be spending 3 months of the year marooned on our own little islands in Lincolnshire ... but we’d be content in the knowledge that we done our moral duty in respect of climate change.

JKenH

silverwhistle wrote: »

Possibly because a lot of us can't afford new cars of any sort, and don't care to borrow money to buy a depreciating asset? From my research I can tell you that the second hand EV market is still very limited and expensive.

HTH.

As for colour televisions, I've never owned one in 35+ years of having my own house, but that's purely inertia, not economics. On the other hand, I should point out that new adopters do tend to have more money; to spend or waste according to opinion, and I find it rather distasteful if someone else tries to persuade me to spend money they may have and I don't on priorities that are theirs and not mine.. New skis last year so I'm happy.;)

I'm not bothered having certain things, but if you circulate on these boards more widely you'll see these are all choices some people are very far from having.

You don’t need to make excuses for Mart - it was a rhetorical question. The bottom line all of us are on here is because it’s a Money Saving forum - lots of moralising goes on about saving the planet but the truth is we all think with our wallets. Is there honestly one person on here who bought solar panels to save the planet not because it made financial sense?

When someone does something truly altruistic then I will be the first to applaud them but until then let’s please drop the self righteous hypocrisy and posturing.