Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

JKenH

Tree planting is something that we should all take seriously

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/11/15/least-30-million-trees-planted-tories-libdems-spar-greening/


The article below makes reference to a paper published in 2017.

https://news.mongabay.com/2019/05/tall-and-old-or-dense-and-young-which-kind-of-forest-is-better-for-the-climate/

The paper asserts better management of forests, wetlands and farmland can provide 37 percent of the cost-effective climate mitigation needed through 2030. Forests alone can provide 18 percent of the mitigation, according to a statement published last year by the Climate and Land Alliance and signed by an international group of 40 scientists.

Martyn1981

JKenH wrote: »

I don’t see how expressing a point of view on a quote from a climate activist should give rise to any issue about morality. Am I a bad person simply because I disagree with something you post? Nothing I said was offensive.

As far as I am aware I still enjoy the right to free thought and free speech, the right to question the orthodox view. I admit that right might not be around for much longer as we are moving to an age of Liberal Authoritarianism but for now I can enjoy it as can you.

As has been said many times before - 'you are entitled to your own opinion but not to your own facts'.

AGW denial is nothing more than a lie. It has no place on a green and ethical thread/board.

As has been explained before, someone might prefer Rugby to Football, that doesn't mean they should constantly attack football on a football thread/board.

You have made your point now, many times over, defending or denying the actions that the FF industry has taken to make the matter vastly worse than it could and should have been. We will all now suffer from more extreme weather events, mitigation costs, adaptation costs and environmental costs.

You do not need to counter pro environmental and RE posts with 'an alternative view' as the alternative view is a lie. It runs counter to all scientific evidence and consensus.

Spreading this false 'counter view' on this thread/board is nothing short of trolling.

Please stop, I'm sure there are many other sites where you can discuss science denial to your heart's content, you do not have to disrupt and spoil this one.

JKenH

Martyn1981 wrote: »

As has been said many times before - 'you are entitled to your own opinion but not to your own facts'.

AGW denial is nothing more than a lie. It has no place on a green and ethical thread/board.

As has been explained before, someone might prefer Rugby to Football, that doesn't mean they should constantly attack football on a football thread/board.

You have made your point now, many times over, defending or denying the actions that the FF industry has taken to make the matter vastly worse than it could and should have been. We will all now suffer from more extreme weather events, mitigation costs, adaptation costs and environmental costs.

You do not need to counter pro environmental and RE posts with 'an alternative view' as the alternative view is a lie. It runs counter to all scientific evidence and consensus.

Spreading this false 'counter view' on this thread/board is nothing short of trolling.

Please stop, I'm sure there are many other sites where you can discuss science denial to your heart's content, you do not have to disrupt and spoil this one.

No science denial from me. I am just fed up with you regurgitating every few days the same old story that Big Oil misled the world. You have made your point on that, why do you have to keep repeating it?

Martyn1981

EricMears wrote: »

What on Earth has happened to this thread ? Very few posts relevant to "Green, ethical, energy issues in the news "; many flame wars about nothing in particular ! Why can't those warmongers just put each other on ignore and leave the rest of us to spot the odd relevant item ?

In short - The Three Amigos.

In not so short - I have asked Ken perhaps a 100 times now to place me on ignore and end his campaign.

It would not be morally acceptable to me to not challenge and correct false science denial on here given the significance of the issue(s) facing us.

Last time I explained this to you you said you didn't need any explanations as you were aware of the facts, then shortly after you claimed the planet was in a natural warming cycle, when in fact it is in a natural cooling period, and then you stressed you the significance of volcanoes in the current warming, which again is not correct.

So it seems that sharing the news and facts is important to all of us. Yesterday Nick posted that we 'could look objectively at both sides of the picture' which falsely suggests:
1. That there is another side, when science long ago proved there wasn't.
2. Sets up a false position, suggesting that someone's rights/opinions are not being respected, when in reality those opinions are disrespectful of reality and the discussion/thread/board in the first place.

Despite the constant barrage of comments and science denial thrown at me since the Spring, I have continued to post facts and pushback on errors, science denial, lies and trolling. There is little else that I can do, morally.

Martyn1981

JKenH wrote: »

No science denial from me. I am just fed up with you regurgitating every few days the same old story that Big Oil misled the world. You have made your point on that, why do you have to keep repeating it?

This is a news thread, about green and ethical energy. FF's actions are currently big news.

Once again, please place me on ignore so we can go back to the fun and friendly days before you began your campaign and started spreading science denial, and also denial about the actions and impacts of the FF industries.

Martyn1981

Suggestions for an incoming government from the Solar Trade Association, but the issues/suggestions do reflect wider on RE in general, and I particularly like the CfD suggestions which might be at net zero cost:

SEG floor price, CfD and scrapping VAT: STA unveils policy advice for next government

Firstly, regular Contracts for Difference (CfD) auctions should be held, with solar allowed to participate, a request regularly made by a range of industry organisations, including the Committee on Climate Change and Energy UK.

The auctions should be technology neutral and utilise a floor price mechanism, under which when wholesale prices fall below the floor price, the generator receives a top-up payment. When the wholesale prices rise above the floor again, the generator doesn’t retain the upside until the value of CfD top-ups have been reimbursed.

Investors would then benefit from lower average cost of capital whilst also capturing upside in return for taking on merchant risk, the STA said.

dubaicare

You made some good points there. I looked on the net for more information about the issue and found most people will go along with your views on this web site.

EricMears

Martyn1981 wrote: »

There is little else that I can do, morally.

Have you never considered putting those with whom you disagree on ignore ? It takes two to tango or indeed to have a flame war.

1961Nick

Martyn1981 wrote: »

In short - The Three Amigos.

In not so short - I have asked Ken perhaps a 100 times now to place me on ignore and end his campaign.

It would not be morally acceptable to me to not challenge and correct false science denial on here given the significance of the issue(s) facing us.

Last time I explained this to you you said you didn't need any explanations as you were aware of the facts, then shortly after you claimed the planet was in a natural warming cycle, when in fact it is in a natural cooling period, and then you stressed you the significance of volcanoes in the current warming, which again is not correct.

So it seems that sharing the news and facts is important to all of us. Yesterday Nick posted that we 'could look objectively at both sides of the picture' which falsely suggests:
1. That there is another side, when science long ago proved there wasn't.
2. Sets up a false position, suggesting that someone's rights/opinions are not being respected, when in reality those opinions are disrespectful of reality and the discussion/thread/board in the first place.

Despite the constant barrage of comments and science denial thrown at me since the Spring, I have continued to post facts and pushback on errors, science denial, lies and trolling. There is little else that I can do, morally.

So do we all have to bend the knee to Mart's utilitarianism?

Just because you believe you have the moral high ground, that doesn't excuse your rude, insulting & offensive behaviour. You really are quite messed up & urgently need a a chill pill before you do yourself some damage. What's more, it's getting worse.

1961Nick

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Suggestions for an incoming government from the Solar Trade Association, but the issues/suggestions do reflect wider on RE in general, and I particularly like the CfD suggestions which might be at net zero cost:

SEG floor price, CfD and scrapping VAT: STA unveils policy advice for next government

That appears to make a lot of sense. Even if it didn't hit net zero, it could still be a cost effective way to facilitate the deployment of more solar farms.