Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

JKenH

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Actually, you've previously posted on here denials that any such actions by Exxon (and/or others) happened, but I recall, you got many posts disagreeing with you!

As to the cost of earlier action, that's a very poor argument, and entirely misleading.

The costs of RE, such as wind and PV, fell massively as soon as their deployment, and therefore supply was increased significantly.

So your argument is completely false, we always had to work our way through the more expensive early deployments, whether that was done in the late naughties / early 10's of this century, or the 80's and 90's of the last.

So that cost is irrelevant, what is relevant is how much more CO2 has been added by this delay, and the simply staggering costs and harm, that that delayed response will cost us.

So, again, you seem obsessed with the cost of action, whilst ignoring/denying one of the most significant causes of that cost.

I don’t believe you really believe any of that. It is just every time one of your campaigning sources publishes an anti FF message you feel the need to repeat it then struggle to defend it because there is no substance to it. Why persist in continually repeating this pointless argument when you have already agreed it was no one’s fault we are where we are. We just have to get on with it.

Martyn1981 wrote: »

So, what's the reality? FF's have raised our technology and standard of living levels massively, and brought numerous benefits to most.

But, we then realised that the cost of FF's was far higher than we'd thought. Anyone's fault, no, FF's fault, no.

And putting aside the simply unforgiveable actions of the vested interest industries in lying about the issue, simply for monetary gain, nobody is actually at fault for there being a problem.

The fault lies simply with inaction, or too little action going forward.

The greatest gift that FF's have given us, is a high enough technological level to no longer need FF's. We don't need to hate them, we don't need to kill them off, but we can thank them for their service and allow them to enjoy a peaceful retirement.

1961Nick

Martyn1981 wrote: »

And @ Ken - Nope!

You are both in denial about the actions and misinformation campaigns run by big oil.

There was little to no disagreement with the science of AGW in the 80's and action could and should have started. But these companies began their relentless campaigns against the science (despite secretly agreeing with all the science), and this undermined public understanding and belief in the science.

Governments tend to follow what their public believe, though they should of course do what is necessary to protect the public, but that might lose them an election, so they go with the 'easy' option.

So, whilst the World was ready to accept the problem, and start to act, we were deliberately mislead and delayed for about 20-30yrs, with serious action, and deployment of RE, starting around 2010, a good 20-30yrs late.

None of this is opinion, it's well documented, and even subject to multiple legal actions. So continued denial of it, is simply ..... pointless, and dare I say disgusting on this thread/board.

So, to re-cap, we have two people who complain about the expenditure of monies on AGW mitigation, also defending (with denials) the actions of the very companies, who through deliberate misinformation, have delayed action, and thereby increased the total cost vastly, and most likely made it impossible now for us to avoid enormous environmental impacts, and possibly impossible to avoid runaway GW.

Your arguments don't tally - you complain (to the messenger) about the size of the cost, whilst defending those responsible for a major share of that cost through opinion manipulation. It's like you shouting at the receptionist in a dentist surgery, for the cost of the work needed to repair/replace your teeth, whilst defending the actions of the guy that kept punching you in the face, claiming it was good for you, medically and scientifically.

Which particular law did they break by selectively choosing their science & then spreading misinformation?

Big oil (or anything else that 'big' for that matter) may have been able to influence politics, policy & public opinion, but ultimately the rules are made by governments.

ABrass

Given its the US it's probably securities fraud. But if you really cared about the answer you'd Google the case and find that out for yourself. Go on, I have faith in you, bring us some News.

GreatApe

JKenH wrote: »

I don’t believe you really believe any of that. It is just every time one of your campaigning sources publishes an anti FF message you feel the need to repeat it then struggle to defend it because there is no substance to it. Why persist in continually repeating this pointless argument when you have already agreed it was no one’s fault we are where we are. We just have to get on with it.

A man needs a purpose and this is the one Marty has latched onto

I suppose it could be worse
He could be going door to door as a Jehovah's witness
Instead he goes forum to forum as a solar wind witness

GreatApe

Martyn1981 wrote: »

More a reason for green energy, than green energy itself, but 'bad air' is such an important issue, and if RE and BEV's help with that, almost as a side effect, then win win.

Dirty air is the killer poisoning us all while the government just spouts hot air

Total nonsense

Also if you wanted to do something about air pollution why not fit air purifiers into the London underground? That is actual pollution not the make believe stuff

You don't really give a crap about health you just see it as a way to promote your religion
Else you'd be saying why waste time with biased studies when we know the tube is toxic let's invest there

GreatApe

Martyn1981 wrote: »

News on the potential scale of off-shore wind, it's big, very big:

Offshore windfarms 'can provide more electricity than the world needs'

As an addendum, here are two old items on the subject.

1. The UK's potential:

The UK is the Saudi Arabia of wind energy

2. The (now old) land art demonstration of providing 100% of future energy (energy not just leccy) from off-shore wind (it's below the PV example):

TOTAL SURFACE AREA REQUIRED TO FUEL THE WORLD WITH SOLAR

You've posted this nonsense before
The UK is not the Saudi of wind energy
Oil can be transported in vast scales at low prices via tankers
It's not at all comparable to compare wind electricity to oil
The UK can't become a large net electricity exporter and certainly nowhere near Saudi net energy exports

Also Saudi Arab is not the world's largest fossil fuel producer That award goes to the USA

And even the tittle is misleading nonsense
It's like saying nuclear can power the world world, sure it's true but without more context it's meaningless

UK offshore wind power prices come down to about £46/MWh ($60/MWh) by 2024/5
That's good but it's still significantly more than the $10/MWh NAT gas sells for in the large gas user/producer hubs. Wind electricity costs 6 x natural gas prices. Convert to electricity it's still only ~$20/MWh marginal Vs $60/MWh offshore wind. Before even considering storage and curtailment

1961Nick

ABrass wrote: »

Given its the US it's probably securities fraud. But if you really cared about the answer you'd Google the case and find that out for yourself. Go on, I have faith in you, bring us some News.

Correct ... but what has that got to with "Green & Ethical"?

(I did mention this in an earlier post)

ABrass

Well this particular digression was because of the news that a company is being sued for defrauding investors over climate change.

But it's getting dull so I for one am happy to just leave it there

1961Nick

ABrass wrote: »

.......because of the news that a company is being sued for defrauding investors over climate change.

Nearly....allegedly misleading investors about the potential impact of CC on the business earnings.

Trying to prove a 'loss' looks a bit of a stretch from what I can see.

ABrass

Welcome to three pages earlier. May I suggest this goes to the circular pointless thread?