Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

1961Nick

Coastalwatch wrote: »

It would appear that we're not quite leading the world when it comes to wind power. We may be taking advantage of it but we lag far behind with regard to our involvement in manufacture and installation. The report below points out how few British company's are involved and that much of the financial support for the industry came from the EU which will end once we leave. Sorry it's not good news this time, but an important read all the same.



https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-50085071

There's no reason why the UK can't continue to subsidise the offshore wind industry post Brexit. It's effectively nothing more than removing the EU from the funding loop.

It's possible that Brexit could make the UK wind industry more competitive in respect of domestic consumption if importers are subject to tariffs?

joefizz

ABrass wrote: »

The US could have led the way and avoided us going as high and causing as much harm, but there's no natural law saying they have to lead in all things.

Just based on my travels in the US this is probably the key. If solar hadve been called freedom solar and batteries, independence batteries then the US will have been a world leader.
Theyve been passed in tech, shale oil is going to go bang as well (costs almost as much to produce as get out, great if you can continually print money) and latest hypersonic missiles by russia and china (or appearance of them) mean the carrier groups arent worth what they once were, just big expensive targets.


The US consumer is more heavily dependent on oil and energy than most people here realise. A lot of the country is pretty much uninhabitable for humans without oil/energy and so the price has to be kept low (hence all the wars). They are also more price sensitive to changes in oil prices because they dont tax it as much as here. A 10% increase in the oil price here doesnt really mean a 10% difference in our prices, over there it does.



I looked at a train from Chicago to New York in the summer and it would have taken me 2 days. Another 2 days to get to Florida, had to go through NY to get from Chicago to Florida. In China or Japan that first journey would take a little over 5 hours. I took their high speed acela express from New York to Boston 2 years ago. I think they have the same definition of high speed trains as the UK. Trains are a whole different vested interest though.
I wasnt brave enough to get the bus....



We arent going to persuade them, they have to reach the conclusions themselves. Thankfully some of them are reaching these conclusions but its in places where the point of no return has already been passed and politics over there (we are getting close to the same) is only focussed on the next election/mid-terms so a 2 year outlook which dictates their future planning.


The US (like the UK) isnt really a democracy, elections are by and large decided by 3 or 4 counties along the i4 corridor in Florida (marginal constituencies here). Go there in the runup to the US elections and you see the sheer amount of money thrown at the place compared to elsewhere where you may not even know an election was on. Its what matters to that narrow strip of voters that pretty much decides the topics for election debate and until florida starts running out of fresh water or continually wiped out by hurricanes...
'my name is joefizz and I approve this message'

Martyn1981

mmmmikey wrote: »

It's really hard to see how the US will move forward on measures to address climate change. Every time there's a mass shooting millions of voices call for changes to gun law but somehow they still can't seem to get to the point of doing anything about it. How is this same group of voters going to get together to act on climate change. Sorry to say this, but doomed, we're all doomed.....

I want to agree, but my positivity refuses to give in.

In the US, there is enormous support for action, many states, cities, Mayors (they are powerful in the US) are already acting and leading.

There is also the economics, coal has continued to collapse since Trump got in despite attempts to shore it up. Actions to protect power generation that has 90 days storage on site (coal and nuclear) for weather extremes, backfired as nuclear reactors get shut down in the face of hurricanes, and coal freezes solid in extreme 'ice storms' and can't be shovelled up.

RE is being rolled out, more and more because of the economic benefits.

US action/protests are intensifying, so we may only be one change of administration away from serious action. The Republican Party is the only sizeable democratic party in the World now that denies AGW.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying things will be fine, but the whole US position balances on denial and political donations, it's fragile and could break soon ...... or not.

JKenH

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying things will be fine, but the whole US position balances on denial and political donations, it's fragile and could break soon ...... or not.

You have convinced yourself of that because you have chosen to read so many articles about Big Oil and the Koch brothers corrupting political debate but do you really believe that is the key to winning over the US voter? Are you sure you are not suffering from confirmation bias? Do you ever seek out alternative views and try to understand them?

The situation is similar to the claim made by Remainers that the Brexit referendum went the way it did because of all the cheating and lies put out by Leavers. The left wing newspapers were absolutely full of that just as they are about Big Oil’s role in covering up the climate crisis and a few Remainers got really whipped up about that as you have about Big Oil.

There is probably an element of truth in both situations (i.e. the premise that public have been misled) but it gets drummed up because there is a story to report and/or political mileage to be gained. And when it has all gone through the wash, as it has here in the UK, does it really change anyone’s mind about voting?

The reporting led Remainers to become even more convinced that the cheating and lies was why they lost but did that campaign to set the record straight convince Leave voters to admit they had been lied to after all and change their vote? It probably had no impact at all or maybe even a negative one causing further polarisation as Leavers just thought it was another Remainer dirty trick. Subsequent polls in the UK show little or no movement - the country is still split in two.

Once the court cases against Mobil-Exxon et al are heard it will soon disappear out of the public’s consciousness and they will get back to the real world priorities of here and now and it is in that real immediate world that attention must be focussed. Ideology will win some people over but those who were going to be convinced by that are already on side. You will probably never win over the genuine deniers. That leaves those who have enough other more immediate problems to worry about, those who don’t care and probably loads of other groups who are happy with the status quo for whatever reason.

The Republicans aren’t going to change tack so the Democrats need to get back into power and they aren’t going to do it on the back of climate change ideology. They are going to have to bribe the electorate (or more specifically the swing voters) with something else to get the job done. What it really needs is an energy policy that will provide immediate and tangible benefits not some vague promise that if you let us put your electricity bills up by 10% you will enjoy a better life in 30 years time.

To you, and I am sure a few others on this board who are deeply committed to AGW matters, these stories of lies and corruption are of tremendous significance but you have to remember that not everyone sees the world as you do and some may just take it as yet another story of businesses acting unethically that they see on TV or in the papers today and forget about tomorrow. Or they might just get fed up of the same old story over and over again as they have here with Brexit and say ‘I don’t really care, I just want this sorting’.

Strident ideological campaigning can turn more people off than it attracts. Are XR winning hearts and minds climbing on to the roofs of tube trains and stopping workers getting to their jobs? I am sure if you were to read the Guardian it would say they were but the Telegraph would have a different view. We all know about AGW now so what are they achieving beyond demonstrating it is a movement for cranks?

Hexane

JKenH wrote: »

Are XR winning hearts and minds climbing on to the roofs of tube trains and stopping workers getting to their jobs? I am sure if you were to read the Guardian it would say they were

Wrong. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/oct/17/extinction-rebellion-canning-town-well-off-people "Extinction Rebellion has built up so much goodwill. It mustn’t throw that away - The incident at Canning Town station exposes the movement’s lack of empathy with society’s least well-off people". That was just the first search result, there is plenty more in their coverage about the issues with these tactics.

Martyn1981

JKenH wrote: »

Strident ideological campaigning can turn more people off than it attracts.

Yep. So perhaps it's now time for you to stop.

mmmmikey

JKenH wrote: »

Strident ideological campaigning can turn more people off than it attracts. Are XR winning hearts and minds climbing on to the roofs of tube trains and stopping workers getting to their jobs? I am sure if you were to read the Guardian it would say they were but the Telegraph would have a different view. We all know about AGW now so what are they achieving beyond demonstrating it is a movement for cranks?

There's lots of truth in this in my opinion. Do I agree with XRs basic objectives? Yes, absolutely. But I think their actions will alienate the law-abiding population at large and as such are likely to be counter-productive when it comes to gaining more widespread support.

Martyn1981

I suppose XR is green energy news, given the potential impacts of their action, or not?

On a personal note, I'm completely torn. I'm naive ad positive, and assume people will do the right thing for the right reasons, or in the case of renewables now, the right thing to save money, or in the case of AGW and the now defined 'climate crisis', the right thing now as doing it later will actually cost us even more.

But of course, life isn't that simple, and many people don't accept the science and the economics, and still want to live in denial, and resist change of any sort - we are after all hard wired to fear change.

So when XR started to block roads in London months ago, my initial reaction was 'oh no, come on guys (meaning both sexes and all ages), don't blow all the positivity that the UK population now has to dealing with this'.

Then I watched the news and a reporter, BBC I think, asked a question that (still to this day) left me split on the whole issue - he asked how history would judge XR and their policy of civil disobedience, and then asked how history now judges similar action carried out by the Suffragettes.

So, I'm left with three questions:
1. Is it a just cause?
2. Do we need to act faster?
3. Will XR's actions lead to faster action or not?

I'm comfortable with 1 and 2, but uncertain about 3, since faster action will I think be a reaction to greater public support, and I don't know if XR's actions will lead to that or not.

But at the very least, at least it's helping to drive national, and international debate/discussion, which is a start, and the youth should be listened to, assuming of course, that XR is popular with the youth. And there are of course XR youth movements.

Whatever I (or others) think about XR, I have to admit that the youth have been let down by us, and so they have a right to let us know.


'Older generations can't understand': XR Youth on being heard

It is one of many ways XR Youth members are trying to make their voices heard in the climate crisis protest movement, which for them has an urgency they believe others struggle to fully grasp.

Talia Woodin, 20, one of the XR Youth members who protested at YouTube, said: “It’s something that older generations will never be able to understand, because they’ve never been told that they will not get the same opportunities in their future that their parents and their grandparents had.”

Daze Aghaji, another XR Youth member, said: “As an older person, you’re doing it for your next generation – but we’re actually doing it for ourselves.” The group is tired of hearing about the need to “save the children”; they are the children, and they have their own voice.

Since XR’s two-week rebellion in April, and on the back of the school climate strikes spearheaded by Greta Thunberg, young people have been flocking to join up, the group says. There are now at least 80 XR Youth groups internationally, 55 of which are in the UK. All are made up of climate activists born after 1990, with an average member age of 16, although some are as young as 10.

JKenH

Martyn1981 wrote: »

I suppose XR is green energy news, given the potential impacts of their action, or not?

On a personal note, I'm completely torn. I'm naive ad positive, and assume people will do the right thing for the right reasons, or in the case of renewables now, the right thing to save money, or in the case of AGW and the now defined 'climate crisis', the right thing now as doing it later will actually cost us even more.

But of course, life isn't that simple, and many people don't accept the science and the economics, and still want to live in denial, and resist change of any sort - we are after all hard wired to fear change.

So when XR started to block roads in London months ago, my initial reaction was 'oh no, come on guys (meaning both sexes and all ages), don't blow all the positivity that the UK population now has to dealing with this'.

Then I watched the news and a reporter, BBC I think, asked a question that (still to this day) left me split on the whole issue - he asked how history would judge XR and their policy of civil disobedience, and then asked how history now judges similar action carried out by the Suffragettes.

So, I'm left with three questions:
1. Is it a just cause?
2. Do we need to act faster?
3. Will XR's actions lead to faster action or not?

I'm comfortable with 1 and 2, but uncertain about 3, since faster action will I think be a reaction to greater public support, and I don't know if XR's actions will lead to that or not.

But at the very least, at least it's helping to drive national, and international debate/discussion, which is a start, and the youth should be listened to, assuming of course, that XR is popular with the youth. And there are of course XR youth movements.

Whatever I (or others) think about XR, I have to admit that the youth have been let down by us, and so they have a right to let us know.


'Older generations can't understand': XR Youth on being heard

For once I’m not disagreeing with what Mart says. I did, though, find a clip at the end of the article interesting.

Daniel Walsh, 17, is part of XR Youth London and has been arrested five times for his part in the protests. He said: “Young people already have to face the problems of social media and body image issues … and now you’ve got the climate crisis to deal with as well. For some people, it has tipped them to breaking point. Certainly for me, XR has kept me alive. I was depressed before I was part of XR.”

Reflecting back on their time in XR Youth, the members seem most proud of the communities that have been built and the friendships they’ve forged through the movement.

“Rebellion isn’t just going on the street and getting arrested, it’s also rebelling against a system that makes us lonely and have no purpose,” said Lovelock. “It’s about creating those communities where people are held in their grief and their terror of what’s going on.”


That says quite a bit about society today.

I then saw another article.



https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/oct/19/scouts-greta-thunberg-forget-badges-campfires-big-issues?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
Forget campfires… today’s scouts focus on climate crisis and homelessness
Spurred on by the likes of Greta Thunberg, the movement is now engaging with social problems
Rob Walker
Published: 13:22 Saturday, 19 October 2019
Follow Rob Walker
Inspired by a wave of youth activism, scouts from across Britain are setting aside campfires and hobby badges to tackle some of the UK’s biggest social issues, from homelessness and the climate crisis to migrants and mental health.

The 112-year-old movement has enlisted the support of British astronaut Tim Peake to lead its campaign, in part spurred on by the 16-year-old Swedish activist Greta Thunberg.


Kids don’t run the scouts movement, adults do. They set the agenda. Are we doing the best for today’s generation of kids focussing their minds on these depressing issues when they really should be out there having fun?

GreatApe

Martyn1981 wrote: »

I suppose XR is green energy news, given the potential impacts of their action, or not?

On a personal note, I'm completely torn. I'm naive ad positive, and assume people will do the right thing for the right reasons, or in the case of renewables now, the right thing to save money, or in the case of AGW and the now defined 'climate crisis', the right thing now as doing it later will actually cost us even more.

But of course, life isn't that simple, and many people don't accept the science and the economics, and still want to live in denial, and resist change of any sort - we are after all hard wired to fear change.

So when XR started to block roads in London months ago, my initial reaction was 'oh no, come on guys (meaning both sexes and all ages), don't blow all the positivity that the UK population now has to dealing with this'.

Then I watched the news and a reporter, BBC I think, asked a question that (still to this day) left me split on the whole issue - he asked how history would judge XR and their policy of civil disobedience, and then asked how history now judges similar action carried out by the Suffragettes.

So, I'm left with three questions:
1. Is it a just cause?
2. Do we need to act faster?
3. Will XR's actions lead to faster action or not?

I'm comfortable with 1 and 2, but uncertain about 3, since faster action will I think be a reaction to greater public support, and I don't know if XR's actions will lead to that or not.

But at the very least, at least it's helping to drive national, and international debate/discussion, which is a start, and the youth should be listened to, assuming of course, that XR is popular with the youth. And there are of course XR youth movements.

Whatever I (or others) think about XR, I have to admit that the youth have been let down by us, and so they have a right to let us know.


'Older generations can't understand': XR Youth on being heard

Kids mostly have no purpose so they are easy to recruit for almost anything but especially for 'change'

XR have no purpose because government already accept and have targets for reducing fossil fuel useage

Will blocking roads and trains help speed things up? No look at Germany all the will in the world, richer than the UK, the government and the opposition in support yet they are only able to do so much so quickly.

It's a 50 year transition 2000-2050 it's not going to be possible to sort it out by 2025 which is just 5y2m away as per XR wishes.


There isn't much more that can be done right now
And the movement is actually lead by watermelons
They don't care much about the methods or engineering or business
They can't want the world turned upside down to burn the existing structures of society
So hopefully on this brave new world they will be the ones on too