Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

ABrass

They are both right, but they can't both be right forever. The market doesn't appear to be fully pricing in the medium term devaluation of fossil fuels. There is some movement in the right direction but its clearly not enough.

Which means the markets will probably have another crash at some point when everyone finally accepts the reality of it. But that's how markets work.

ABrass

In news: York is banning private cars from the city center.

The medieval city of York has announced plans to ban private car journeys from the city centre within three years in an effort to cut carbon emissions.

Councillors spelled out the “unashamedly ambitious” goal that would follow the lead of Bristol, which is due to become the first UK city to ban diesel cars by 2021.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/dec/31/york-to-ban-private-cars-from-city-centre-within-three-years

Exiled_Tyke

GreatApe wrote: »

All forums are for debating

Else you can just post five links to news sites and no one ever discuss anything

Of course what you mean is my views are less welcome as they aren't all super pro one side

I understand that but it's not a valid objection

I disagree. This one is for sharing information on topic and further relevant discussion. It's not an invitation for you to try to find fault with as many of the articles posted as you can.

GreatApe

michaels wrote: »

Cant everyone be right?

Carney is correct, to meet co2 goals not all current hc reserves can be exploited.

The industry is correct, there is no political will to accept the economic impact that meeting the co2 goals entails so the hc will be burned regardless of the consequences.

Even if there was a 100% un changeable law that made oil extraction illegal in 30 years, the oil companies would be fine. They would just stop future investments into fields and let their current assets deplete down and then wind up their business and ether give shareholders the capital or try to deploy the capital elsewhere. This might be in energy it might be in anything else

The reality is all big business will fail given enough time
I've read many times the half life of the big S&P 500 companies is only 30 years
So half of them will go away

This doesn't mean investing in companies is a bad idea it means you just price this reality into the current stock price

Will the oil companies be some of the half of existing companies that will be no more in 30 years?
Maybe but it's not any significant insight that our resident internet experts have

Personally I don't see how oil will go before coal
Coal is more carbon intensive and more dirty
Coal is easier to displace and a lot of oil has marginal production costs well below the more expensive coal fields

Plus as everyone even the most die hard Greeney knows in their gut, the world will drop any pretends of fossil fuels bad if there are no acceptable affordable alternatives. And deposit the protests otherwise this is true today which is why coal gas and coal has expanded over the last five years and will do again over the next 5

GreatApe

Exiled_Tyke wrote: »

I disagree. This one is for sharing information on topic and further relevant discussion. It's not an invitation for you to try to find fault with as many of the articles posted as you can.

Aka I'd like this to be a place that can confirm my biases in relative peace

Cardew

Exiled_Tyke wrote: »

Great Ape - could we just have some peace and quiet please? Your comments are not relevant to the discussions here as this is not a debating forum and it should be quite clear to you that they are not welcome. That said your only purpose must surely be to cause as much annoyance as possible?

I find many of his posts thought provoking and interesting and thus I welcome them on this forum.

Solarchaser

I find them a waste of time as most people scroll by the multiple posts... as do i

Martyn1981

michaels wrote: »

Cant everyone be right?

Carney is correct, to meet co2 goals not all current hc reserves can be exploited.

The industry is correct, there is no political will to accept the economic impact that meeting the co2 goals entails so the hc will be burned regardless of the consequences.

Can they both be right, Um ..... no.

Regardless of 'strong' political will, the World is already moving towards RE and BEV's. They have both moved into positive economic territory too recently, so be it for environmental or economic reasons, they will continue to grow, and most likely accelerate. And political will is bending and will have to break eventually, so there is only one ending, and that's one that shifts away from the FF economy.

The only question here, and what Mr Carney is trying his best to advise, is whether we transition the FF company values steadily across perhaps the next 20-30yrs, or if it happens all of a sudden when we look at their values, see they are mostly due to reserves and realise the King is naked.

Just to be clear, the FF side of these companies values is going to reduce massively by 2050 whether they like it or not, it's only the time period over which the re-evalution(s) take that will differ.

Martyn1981

Exiled_Tyke wrote: »

I disagree. This one is for sharing information on topic and further relevant discussion. It's not an invitation for you to try to find fault with as many of the articles posted as you can.

I would even go further. This is a green and ethical thread, so that would suggest it is not a location for posting untrue and pro FF arguments.

We also need to consider 'harm'. All over the World we now see people suffering from water shortages, or flooding or vast fires, plus the harm and death/reduced life expectancies from FF pollution.

If it's acceptable to come on here and falsely claim (deny all scientific evidence) that AGW is not real, and that the health impacts from FF emissions are overstated or untrue, then would it be equally acceptable to go onto a food and drink thread and state that scientists are wrong and it's OK to give your children bleach to drink?

This may sound extreme, but think about it, is there a difference when arguing against the scientific fact, and spreading false/misleading claims about something that is actually causing enormous harm environmentally, economically and to the health of all animals, us included?

I'm sure there is an 'appropriate' place for GA's comments, but clearly it is not here, and he (and his defendants) seem only interested in spoiling things for everyone else.


Edit - Whilst i believe my 'bleach' example is comparable, if it seems a bit extreme or silly, then perhaps a better comparison would be someone going onto a medical discussion board, and arguing (falsely) that smoking doesn't cause cancer and other health issues.

I would suggest that that hypothetical person's comments would not be tolerated in the interests of free and open debate.

I'm also personally (and I hope others think similarly) becoming less tolerant of denial. We have seen this year the adoption of the term 'climate crisis'. This has been done as 'global warming' or 'anthropogenic global warming' simply doesn't convey to some the serious of what we face. Science denial is not something to be proud off, even in these odd Trumpian times.

Martyn1981

i like milestones, they help us to keep track of progress and hopefully encourage and motivate us too.

Britain hits historic clean energy milestone as zero carbon electricity outstrips fossil fuels in 2019

2019 was the cleanest year on record for Britain as, for the first time, the amount of zero carbon power outstripped that from fossil fuels for a full twelve months.