Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

JKenH

GreatApe wrote: »

Have you never been to Yorkshire?
When there do you get a sense that the coal mine closures were on net a good idea?

Yes, 35 years on, it probably is but there was a lot of pain along the way. RE will be good in the long run but if you lose your job you deserve sympathy, not cheering.

JKenH

Martyn1981 wrote: »

The problem with that 'argument' is that like all the other excuses directed against RE and change, is that it has no depth, no depth whatsoever.

Not suggesting we keep burning coal, just spare a thought for those displaced by the new regime.

Martyn1981 wrote: »

I'm also a big Dylan fan, and he really nailed it with 'The Times They Are A-Changin'

Then he grew up:)

I was thinking we could in the future converse by way of Dylan quotes but then I realised he wasn’t exactly big on harmony.

joefizz

Doesnt matter really how many jobs there are in RE in the states when the coal jobs are in swing states.
Coal jobs went some way to electing the current president, they will probably do so again.



RE jobs in the states are in states the anti-RE mob wont win and the pro-RE mob wont lose. Unless they are created in the coal areas (which is never going to happen politically as the pro RE mob want them in their states to keep the dosh coming in), then its a bit of a pointless comparison.



I think things might have been different in the 80s if Coal/Steel workers were employed in Tory marginals.

ABrass

Yes, 35 years on, it probably is but there was a lot of pain along the way. RE will be good in the long run but if you lose your job you deserve sympathy, not cheering.

Apparently in 1970 there were about 300k jobs in coal mining in the UK. By 1990 that dropped to around 50k.

250k jobs of a population of about 57 million. 50k jobs of a population of 330 million.

30 times the difference. The US has fairly barbaric social security but it's not something that we can make a difference on, nor would propping up a failing industry, let alone such a polluting industry, be a good way to help.

silverwhistle

JKenH wrote: »

Not suggesting we keep burning coal, just spare a thought for those displaced by the new regime.

I don't remember much sympathy let alone help, when Thatcher was closing the mines back in the 80s. We just started to import cheap Colombian coal at a great social cost.



There is no prospect of keeping on declining industries but you can help the process of adaptation, and at this there have been failures in both the UK and the US.



The recent Thomas Cook collapse was noted for help from the German government to keep their local business functioning. Here the government declined support of £200m, and I can sort of understand why, but ended up paying £100m on repatriation of their customers. As ever, companies make losses but the top bosses will still be able to pay their mortgages with unjustifiable bonuses: as with Deliveroo, WeWork, Thomas Cook, and quite a few universities and local authorities too.



I think bonuses should be received at least 5 years after the event to avoid the short term expansionist hubris we see so often.

ABrass

Moral hazard probably. Can't say they're wrong.

GreatApe

ABrass wrote: »

Apparently in 1970 there were about 300k jobs in coal mining in the UK. By 1990 that dropped to around 50k.

250k jobs of a population of about 57 million. 50k jobs of a population of 330 million.

30 times the difference. The US has fairly barbaric social security but it's not something that we can make a difference on, nor would propping up a failing industry, let alone such a polluting industry, be a good way to help.

There is a lot of misinformation about the UK coal story or rather lots of pub stats with no basis
Thatcher gets the blame but she didn't do anything particular worse than any other labor or Tory government

The first thing to note is that employment had fallen for a long time before Thatcher and in much greater numbers

1920 was 1.19 million employed 233 million tons mined
1930 was 910k employed 248 million tons
1940 was 744,000 employed 228 million tons
1950 was 693,000 employed 219 million tons
1960 was 607,000 employed 198 million tons
1970 was 290,000 employed 137 million tons
1980 was 237,000 employed 130 million tons
1990 was 49,000 employed. 93 million tons
2000 was 11,000. Employed 31 million tons
2010 was 6,000 employees 18 million tons
2020s close to zero on both counts

As you can see each decade lost lots of coal workers mostly through improved machines and methods.

212,000 coal jobs were lost under the 6 years Wilson government (labor)
193,000 coal jobs were lost under the 11 years of Thatcher government (Tories)
Per year Thatcher got rid of half as many miners as did Wilson

Also imported coal didn't play a significant part in meeting domestic demand.
Imports during thatchers time were only about 10% of UK consumption
The reality is coal demand was falling due to efficiency and North sea oil and gas but because of imports

Martyn1981

Fracking is not going as well as hoped (assuming you hoped?) in the UK:

Plan for fracking 'years behind schedule' and has cost taxpayer £32m

Spending watchdog finds that only three wells have been dug, despite aim to have 20 by 2020

GreatApe

Fracking has gone better than anyone could have hoped

You don't need domestic fracking to feel it's force

The 20mbpd of oil and gas Equivalent out of the USA is what keeps prices reasonable for both oil and gas

The next three years they expect USA fracking industry to grow another 5mbpd a massive amount

Martyn1981

Update on the legal battle in the US concerning the disinformation campaign run by Exxon.

Exxon has misled Americans on climate change for decades. Here’s how to fight back

Today, the state of New York will face off with ExxonMobil for oral arguments in the trial alleging that the company misled investors by providing false assurances that the company was adequately costing climate-related risks. But win or lose, that doesn’t mean an end to deliberate misinformation campaigns. Here’s what we should all know about how to resist those efforts by Exxon and other big corporate actors.

The fossil fuel industry has known about the role of its products in global warming for 60 years. Exxon’s own scientists warned their managers 40 years ago of “potentially catastrophic events”. Yet rather than alerting the public or taking action, these companies have spent the past few decades pouring millions of dollars into disinformation campaigns designed to delay action. All the while, the science is clear that climate-catalyzed damages have worsened, storms have intensified, and droughts and heatwaves have become more frequent and severe, while forests have been damaged and wildfires have burned through the country.

Exposing and explaining the techniques of denial are crucial steps in neutralizing disinformation, not just from the fossil fuel industry but from any source. Once people know the ways they can be deceived, disinformation no longer has power over them. As Edward Everett once said: “Education is a better safeguard of liberty than a standing army.” But it’s not enough to offer information – we also have to expose disinformation, so that people understand what we have been up against.

[My bold] - Easy to say, but those authors don't have to deal with the 'three Amigos' on this thread/board!