Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

Martyn1981

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81867569#Comment_81867569

Yep, he's done an excellent job for the FFI. I think recent 'progress' in the US plots them reaching zero leccy emissions around 2148.

Obviously things will move faster, eventually, and the FF industry can't fight forever against cheaper RE, especially in the US where PV (and storage) is excellent. But unlike the UK (and Germany) who are now largely over the ageing-out nuclear hump, the US is just beginning, and will probably need ~300GW of new wind and solar deployment, just to stand still as their ~100 reactors reach end of life.

Trump's 2x 4yr terms will have a huge delaying impact on US progress.

Martyn1981

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81861461#Comment_81861461

This news made me think about your link, I'm sure this kind of expense (FF externality costs) are the literal tip of the iceberg (before it melts).

South Wales council to buy and demolish homes prone to flooding

A row of homes in a village in south Wales is to be bought by a local authority and demolished as they can no longer be protected from flooding caused by the climate crisis.

It will cost Rhondda Cynon Taf county borough council more than £2.5m to buy the 16 riverside properties, pay for legal costs and help to rehouse dozens of residents.

The Labour-led council believes it is the first time a local authority in the UK has bought such a large number of inland homes to protect householders from flooding caused by the climate emergency.

michaels

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81869927#Comment_81869927

Hmm. Is that what taxpayer money should be spent on?

Netexporter

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81870865#Comment_81870865

The choice was buy the houses or increase the flood defences. I assume the latter would cost at least as much and would eventually fail, as nature always wins. The local authority are probably culpable if some other planning decision has added to the amount of storm water.

debitcardmayhem

Miliband civil servants predict years of plunging gas prices

Telegraph - not sure if link works

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/gift/cffa0eedc093c6bb

QrizB

That's a rather inconsistent article, IMHO. It would be more interesting to read the actual DESNZ report.

You'll find it here:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/fossil-fuel-price-assumptions-2025

Martyn1981

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81870872#Comment_81870872

Yep, and that seems to reflect the fact that adaptation costs sky rocket as we attempt to cope with the ever more extreme edge cases, not the far more manageable change in averages.

This was highlighted by the extreme flooding in Washington State, when they got hit by 3 'atmospheric river' events last December, whilst expectations are for one every 10yrs or so.

It's almost as if moving away from FF's sooner and faster is a good idea. I only wish someone had suggested it 60yrs ago, but can you imagine how much pushback such science would have received? 😉

Timely article in today's news:

Flawed economic models mean climate crisis could crash global economy, experts warn

Flawed economic models mean the accelerating impact of the climate crisis could lead to a global financial crash, experts warn.

Recovery would be far harder than after the 2008 financial crash, they said, as “we can’t bail out the Earth like we did the banks”.

As the world speeds towards 2C of global heating, the risks of extreme weather disasters and climate tipping points are increasing fast. But current economic models used by governments and financial institutions entirely miss such shocks, the researchers said, instead forecasting that steady economic growth will be slowed only by gradually rising average temperatures. This is because the models assume the future will behave like the past, despite the burning of fossil fuels pushing the climate system into uncharted territory.