The Alternative Green Energy Thread

Exiled_Tyke

Net Zero Watch are unloved because they are climate change deniers and apparently backed by FF companies.  Therefore they would appear to be focused on maintaining the longevity of !!!!!! and supporting the profits of oil and gas companies.   The science points in a very clear direction and we are now all feeling the effects of climate change. Whether the BBC has got their journalism right or not is irrelevant to the basic issue.  

JKenH

Exiled_Tyke said:

Net Zero Watch are unloved because they are climate change deniers and apparently backed by FF companies.  Therefore they would appear to be focused on maintaining the longevity of !!!!!! and supporting the profits of oil and gas companies.   The science points in a very clear direction and we are now all feeling the effects of climate change. Whether the BBC has got their journalism right or not is irrelevant to the basic issue.  

But the BBC is probably the primary source of information on climate change for the vast majority of the general public and as a public service broadcaster there is an obligation to get their journalism right. The BBC, should not deliberately mislead just to push a particular message, no matter how important it might be that the message is heard. Exaggerating or incorrectly attributing phenomena to climate change undermines the evidence that does exist and provides fuel for so called “climate deniers”. 

Barely a day goes by without us being told we should expect more of this, that or the other weather because of climate change. There is a danger of climate change fatigue creeping in. For more than 20 years we have been hearing tales of doom that have yet to materialise. Cry wolf too often and nobody listens. 

To be honest, most of us in this country probably enjoy the weather we have now (milder winters, warmer summers etc) compared to that of the 1960s and numerous times I have heard people say that if this is what climate change looks like - bring it on. 

The human race is a remarkably adaptable species. We survived numerous ice ages so I am sure we can deal with a couple more degrees of temperature without it killing us off. Isn’t it a fact that cold weather kills far more people than hot weather? Or does that make me a “climate denier”?

Netexporter

To be honest, most of us in this country probably enjoy the weather we have now (milder winters, warmer summers etc) compared to that of the 1960s and numerous times I have heard people say that if this is what climate change looks like - bring it on.

I'm all right, Jack!

JKenH

Sorry to keep banging on about this but it does seem to be the attitude of the BBC to shoot first and ask questions later, particularly in relation to attributing extreme weather to climate change 

Here is an example related to the floods in Bologna, Northern Italy in May this year. This is the BBC weather forecast https://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/av/65640935 and this is what the weather forecaster said. 

“As our planet warms up, climate scientists tell us that extreme weather events are likely to become more frequent, and I think that really does fit the bill for Italy for what we’ve seen”

Yet 7 days ago BBC on its website says 

Not all extreme rainfall events can be attributed to climate change, as other factors including changes to land use can play a role. For example, the WWA says that climate change only had a "limited" role in the heavy rainfall that hit northern Italy in May 2023. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-58073295

In the same weather forecast a caption on the screen was shown saying that half a years rainfall fell in 36 hours quoting a figure of 200mm falling in the mountains. 

Now as we all know from our geography lessons at school it does rain more in the mountains but even had 200mm fallen in Bologna, that’s only a quarter of the annual rainfall (around 825mm https://en.climate-data.org/europe/italy/emilia-romagna/bologna-5093/  )

So once again we have exaggeration from the BBC to make out the weather is more severe than it really is. Historically this area of Italy has been prone to floods of this nature. 

Netexporter

So much simpler to watch GB News, as you know everything is inaccurate there.

Exiled_Tyke

So WWA agrees that human induced climate change is a real thing.  I don't care how the BBC or anyone else reports it. That is a side issue.  I only care that we need to address it and frankly as world governments are doing their best to ignore the problem I really have a problem with it being talked up.  I have a massive problem with FF companies spending years spreading misinformation about there not being a climate problem and the wonderfully objective Net Zero Watch not bothering to call them out on it. But they wouldn't would they?  

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/

JKenH

Exiled_Tyke said:

So WWA agrees that human induced climate change is a real thing.  I don't care how the BBC or anyone else reports it. That is a side issue.  I only care that we need to address it and frankly as world governments are doing their best to ignore the problem I really have a problem with it being talked up.  I have a massive problem with FF companies spending years spreading misinformation about there not being a climate problem and the wonderfully objective Net Zero Watch not bothering to call them out on it. But they wouldn't would they?  

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/

When did you first learn about AGW and what did you do about it at the time? Did you immediately get rid of your own ICE car, stop taking holidays abroad and ditch your gas central heating or did you decide that would be too much inconvenience and carry on as normal until the government gave you enough subsidies and bribes to change your behaviour? Without programmes like FiT and electric car grants and tax breaks nothing would have changed but once they came along a lot of people suddenly went  all green and ethical. I have absolutely no truck with individuals who just want to blame the oil companies for our CO2 emissions then choose to cook with gas when electric cookers are widely available or  jump on an airplane to take their family on holiday. If you really care you stay at home and get rid of your gas central heating/hot water and cooker - now, not when the government bribes you to change. You might not, personally, do any of those things but thousands of so called activists do.

Too many people want to shift their own guilt at their lack of any personal action to address climate issues by piling blame on the oil companies. Those same people now defend China rolling out more and more coal generation on the basis they are also installing renewables. 

We have been pumping CO2 into the atmosphere for decades (even centuries) and the scientists were aware of the potential for global warming back at the end of the 19th century. More research was carried out in the 1950s but no one really cared. It was a problem for the 21st century. Most people in the 60s, 70s and 80s thought the Cold War was the most pressing threat to humanity although acid rain and the hole in the ozone layer (remember those?) it seemed at the time were more pressing concerns. It is, perhaps, no coincidence that once the Russian block collapsed we found some new existential threat to worry about - climate change! 

This article, on the history of climate change science, acknowledges the role of the oil companies in the 1990s looking after their own interests but also points out another obstacle

“normal human inertia and unwillingness to do anything without immediate benefits for oneself." 

https://www.livescience.com/humans-first-warned-about-climate-change

In the 1990s we had the oil companies looking after their own interests but now we have a huge renewables industry together with associated media organisations all trying to make as much money out of the existence of climate change as possible. The renewables industry doesn’t exist for the benefit of mankind nor do media outlets like CleanTechnica. Business is business whichever side of the climate change debate you are on and the truth will be manipulated accordingly. 

Exiled_Tyke

Again you miss the point and also seem to miss the purpose of this area of the MSE boards on being green and ethical.  So people need to be encouraged into making the right decisions? That's as it always has been. People have multiple issues to cope with (the cost of living being a major one).  We only moved away from leaded fuel to unleaded when government incentivised the change. We are by nature short termist in our need to survive in the short term. For many of the households I've worked with over the last few years this isn't about choice or being bribed by government. It's about making ends meet.  So we have to find ways of facilitating that change and government must take responsibility in making that happen. 

Whether the BBC have got it wrong, whether one storm in Italy was human induced climate change or not. whether I'm a greedy individual who won't change until government bribes me is all irrelevant. The planet is in crisis and we need to stop bickering around the edges and pull together to make change happen. And government needs to support it. And any voice that will fight against the enormous power of the oil companies should be welcomed.  

And finally (and admittedly anecdotally) every (and I mean every) individual I've spoken to on the subject who's investing in RE whether in shares, funds or domestically isn't expecting great returns (and certainly not better returns than oil companies are making) but a belief that it's the right thing to do.  Business is not and cannot be a simple matter of being business. If it was then we wouldn't have the subjects of sustainability and corporate responsibility.   If business wants to simply be business then they'll make lots of short term profits and burn the planet in the process.  These are the games being played out at every COP meeting and we desperately need change: to embrace the challenges (of which there are many) of RE, to look at the way we use energy differently and YES for governments to help us all to do the right thing. 

JKenH

Exiled_Tyke said:

Whether the BBC have got it wrong, whether one storm in Italy was human induced climate change or not. whether I'm a greedy individual who won't change until government bribes me is all irrelevant. The planet is in crisis and we need to stop bickering around the edges and pull together to make change happen. And government needs to support it. And any voice that will fight against the enormous power of the oil companies should be welcomed.  

. 

So it is ok for the BBC to get it wrong (aka lie and exaggerate) about climate change as long as it encourages us to make the right decisions?

And isn’t the fight against the enormous power of the oil companies what really matters?

JKenH

Exiled_Tyke said:

Again you miss the point and also seem to miss the purpose of this area of the MSE boards on being green and ethical. . 

The purpose of these forums is to discuss ideas. If you don’t want to read alternative points of view I suggest you stay on the G & E thread that Matt started. I started this separate thread so we could have some discussion on G & E matters. (See my original post on this thread .) Or are you suggesting that shouldn’t be allowed here either?