Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

edited 12 July 2021 at 11:38AM in Green & ethical MoneySaving
7.1K replies 449K views
1232233235237238706

Replies

  • mmmmikeymmmmikey Forumite
    467 Posts
    Tenth Anniversary Combo Breaker
    On a different tack, interesting piece here about EVs etc.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48865702

    Although this is disappointing, I don't really find it surprising and suspect that all we've seen so far with EVs is an initial show of enthusiasm, and sales will plateau for along time before they become a truly viable proposition for the mainstream.

    I'd love be proved wrong on this - any EV owners like to comment, or is anyone like me and really wants one but just can't justify the cost?
  • 1961Nick1961Nick Forumite
    1.5K Posts
    Seventh Anniversary 1,000 Posts Name Dropper
    Forumite
    mmmmikey wrote: »
    On a different tack, interesting piece here about EVs etc.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48865702

    Although this is disappointing, I don't really find it surprising and suspect that all we've seen so far with EVs is an initial show of enthusiasm, and sales will plateau for along time before they become a truly viable proposition for the mainstream.

    I'd love be proved wrong on this - any EV owners like to comment, or is anyone like me and really wants one but just can't justify the cost?
    The introduction of a 2% BIK rate in April 2020 could change the company car landscape. It's possible that many private buyers with a company car allowance will decide to have a company BEV instead from next April. It's also possible that this is what is causing any current dip in sales.
    4kWp (black/black) - Sofar Inverter - SSE(141°) - 30° pitch - North Lincs
    Installed June 2013 - PVGIS = 3400
    Sofar ME3000SP Inverter & 5 x Pylontech US2000B Plus & 2 x US2000C Batteries - 16.8kWh
  • JKenHJKenH Forumite
    3.3K Posts
    1,000 Posts Third Anniversary Name Dropper
    Forumite
    Martyn1981 wrote: »
    To save time arguing the same point over and over, and having you place views/opinions above facts, let's switch roles, and let you provide facts instead.

    So, we have three recent arguments raised (2 plus a fun one), so:

    1. With citations and facts show that - The government has a truly gargantuan task to convince the wider public that fighting climate change is such a good idea.

    To be clear, you'll need to show that the public therefore doesn't support this currently, and is actually strongly opposed.

    2. With citations and facts show that - What this means is a country has to accept a decrease in the standard of living if they deploy 'green technology'.

    Again to be clear, you'll need to show that the switch to green technologies will actually reduce our living standards.

    3. (the fun one) With citations and facts show that - the flat earthers have a genuine and scientific argument to support their claims.

    Without strong arguments to support these positions, I'm sorry but I don't know how you demand I show them respect. I'm all for thought exercises etc, but if we are discussing reality, then the arguments/positions have to be real too.

    Mart

    I am not in the business of providing citations and facts. I don’t have the time. Facts like statistics are a moveable feast depending who is pedalling them or where you get them from.

    My argument was in response to your comment

    “ Basically, we have to be careful not to listen to the loud and negative voices, as they can drown out reality.“

    I am not challenging your facts, simply your assertion that we should not listen to the loud and negative voices. If that is a comment aimed purely at like minded souls who are promoting a particular point of view that is your prerogative.

    If however you are saying this in the context of how society should respond to the issue of onshore wind farms it is not a reasonable argument. According to your surveys there is a small minority opposed to onshore wind and you appear to suggest they be ignored in favour of the greater good.

    We live in a democracy and those who govern us should listen to all voices then decide policy. The noisiest voices are usually the ones most directly affected by such developments. The government’s moratorium on onshore wind development recognises just this.

    You are not going to move the RE argument forward by arguing the government ride roughshod over the communities and individuals who are going to be affected by developments. It is this thinking, the talking down to those of us who are perceived not to understand, that will alienate the public and lead to the rise of populist parties (for better or worse) who actually are in touch with the masses. It has already happened in America and you have already noted the result for the Climate Change industry.

    All the other comments you have made are secondary and a diversion from this fundamental issue and I am not going there.
    Northern Lincolnshire. 7.8 kWp system, (4.2 kw west facing panels , 3.6 kw east facing), Solis inverters, Solar IBoost water heater, Mitsubishi SRK35ZS-S and SRK20ZS-S Wall Mounted Inverter Heat Pumps, Nissan Leaf and Kia Picanto)
  • ASavvyBuyerASavvyBuyer Forumite
    1.7K Posts
    Fifth Anniversary 1,000 Posts Name Dropper
    mmmmikey wrote: »
    On a different tack, interesting piece here about EVs etc.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48865702

    Although this is disappointing, I don't really find it surprising and suspect that all we've seen so far with EVs is an initial show of enthusiasm, and sales will plateau for along time before they become a truly viable proposition for the mainstream.

    I'd love be proved wrong on this - any EV owners like to comment, or is anyone like me and really wants one but just can't justify the cost?


    One of the reasons why sales are down is because there is very limited supply at the moment. Most of the EV cars that have been launched have at least 6 month waiting lists.

    Because of the limited supply, there are few discounts available now, as the showrooms are not likely to offer a discount when demand is higher than supply, (compared to ICE vehicles).

    When we bought our EV last August/September the dealer was keen to offer incentives, which made it nearly as cheap as a fossil fuel car of similar spec.
  • PiddlesPiddles Forumite
    123 Posts
    Forumite
    The introduction of a 2% BIK rate in April 2020 could change the company car landscape.
    As you said before, this is a game changer. Rather poor that the BBC journalist didn't pick up on it. Benefit in kind company car tax for plug in hybrids is also much improved on a sliding scale. If does it 70 or more miles on electricity, the BiK goes down from 16% to just 5%.

    https://www.goforfinance.com/2018/04/company-car-tax-table-2018-19-to-2020-21/

    My son-in-law has one of those Outlander PHEV SUVs as a company car. It only does a maximum of 30 miles on electricity. Much to their surprise, more than half of their mileage is powered by 100% renewables. The point being that they always set off from home with a full tank of leccy.

    It seems the rush to ever bigger batteries and longer range is unnecessary and an environmental error. Choose the battery size based on your real world journey requirements and save yourself a load of dosh and the planet a load of environmental impact from that lithium mining and refinement.
  • ed110220ed110220 Forumite
    1.4K Posts
    Tenth Anniversary 1,000 Posts Name Dropper Combo Breaker
    Forumite
    JKenH wrote: »
    Mart

    I am not in the business of providing citations and facts. I don’t have the time. Facts like statistics are a moveable feast depending who is pedalling them or where you get them from.

    My argument was in response to your comment

    “ Basically, we have to be careful not to listen to the loud and negative voices, as they can drown out reality.“

    I am not challenging your facts, simply your assertion that we should not listen to the loud and negative voices. If that is a comment aimed purely at like minded souls who are promoting a particular point of view that is your prerogative.

    If however you are saying this in the context of how society should respond to the issue of onshore wind farms it is not a reasonable argument. According to your surveys there is a small minority opposed to onshore wind and you appear to suggest they be ignored in favour of the greater good.

    We live in a democracy and those who govern us should listen to all voices then decide policy. The noisiest voices are usually the ones most directly affected by such developments. The government’s moratorium on onshore wind development recognises just this.

    You are not going to move the RE argument forward by arguing the government ride roughshod over the communities and individuals who are going to be affected by developments. It is this thinking, the talking down to those of us who are perceived not to understand, that will alienate the public and lead to the rise of populist parties (for better or worse) who actually are in touch with the masses. It has already happened in America and you have already noted the result for the Climate Change industry.

    All the other comments you have made are secondary and a diversion from this fundamental issue and I am not going there.

    Everyone is entitled to their opinion of course, but opinions not supported by evidence don't count for much. We accept this implicitly in most fields; eg if I said I was planning to launch a satellite based on the Earth being flat I'd be rightly ignored or ridiculed. If I said people shouldn't be vaccinated my opinion would rightly be criticised. If you want your opinion respected, you need to show evidence to support it. Handwaving facts away as a "moveable feast" is pretty weak, and basically means you're free to believe whatever you like unconstrained by reality.
    Solar install June 2022, Bath
    4.8 kW array, Growatt SPH5000 inverter, 2x Growatt ML33RTA batteries.
    SSW roof. ~22° pitch, BISF house. 12 x 400W Hyundai panels
  • JKenHJKenH Forumite
    3.3K Posts
    1,000 Posts Third Anniversary Name Dropper
    Forumite
    ed110220 wrote: »
    Everyone is entitled to their opinion of course, but opinions not supported by evidence don't count for much. We accept this implicitly in most fields; eg if I said I was planning to launch a satellite based on the Earth being flat I'd be rightly ignored or ridiculed. If I said people shouldn't be vaccinated my opinion would rightly be criticised. If you want your opinion respected, you need to show evidence to support it. Handwaving facts away as a "moveable feast" is pretty weak, and basically means you're free to believe whatever you like unconstrained by reality.

    Interesting you feel that opinions need to be supported by evidence - statements of fact yes but opinions no. I don’t like the colour blue is an opinion. No facts are needed or indeed exist in support of such a statement. Do you not respect that opinion?

    The statement “the Green Party would be the best to govern the country” is again an opinion but no one can provide any facts to support that despite the fact many people believe it.


    Mart’s statement
    Basically, we have to be careful not to listen to the loud and negative voices, as they can drown out reality.

    is supported by evidence; in fact quite the reverse as loud and negative voices in the context of a wind farm development are reflecting reality - the wide scale interruption to the enjoyment of their environment.

    So my opinion that the metropolitan liberal elite establishment trying to impose their views on the population is likely to encourage a populist backlash cannot be respected because I have not provided evidence in support. I would think it is pretty obvious with the outcome of recent voting in England and the USA that there may be a germ of truth in that.

    For the same reason I do not believe ignoring the loud and negative voices will assist the government in their truly gargantuan task to convince the wider public that fighting climate change is such a good idea.

    As to facts I wasn’t postulating any but I would like to paraphrase an old adage - this decade’s facts are the next decade’s chip paper
    Northern Lincolnshire. 7.8 kWp system, (4.2 kw west facing panels , 3.6 kw east facing), Solis inverters, Solar IBoost water heater, Mitsubishi SRK35ZS-S and SRK20ZS-S Wall Mounted Inverter Heat Pumps, Nissan Leaf and Kia Picanto)
  • Martyn1981Martyn1981 Forumite
    13.3K Posts
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    Forumite
    JKenH wrote: »
    Mart

    I am not in the business of providing citations and facts. I don’t have the time. Facts like statistics are a moveable feast depending who is pedalling them or where you get them from.

    My argument was in response to your comment

    “ Basically, we have to be careful not to listen to the loud and negative voices, as they can drown out reality.“

    I am not challenging your facts, simply your assertion that we should not listen to the loud and negative voices. If that is a comment aimed purely at like minded souls who are promoting a particular point of view that is your prerogative.

    If however you are saying this in the context of how society should respond to the issue of onshore wind farms it is not a reasonable argument. According to your surveys there is a small minority opposed to onshore wind and you appear to suggest they be ignored in favour of the greater good.

    So ....... I've said that certain comments are wrong.

    You've said that I have to respect them equally with all other comments(?)

    I've said, nope ....... if they are wrong then they don't deserve respect as they don't advance our knowledge.

    You've stuck to your guns and said I still have to respect those comments (whilst trying to jig the wording around, so as to suggest I don't think those people should have a vote (not sure what the vote is on).

    When I ask you to support the three issues that have stirred up this discussion, you flatly decline.

    So it seems to me that you only want to argue a theoretical discussion, on how every opinion/comment has equal value (I don't believe that's true), whilst simultaneously attacking my right to opine on those claims as being wrong* or complete garbage. I suspect you can't support the claims, and are simply arguing a theoretical point, which seems like a bit of a waste of time.

    *Despite Piddles defence of the 'gargantuan task' claim, which I thoroughly dispute, I have a strong feeling that that is more a 'lost in translation' issue, since the task 'was' gargantuan, but from my reading of news, surveys etc, seems to have been achieved already.

    JKenH wrote: »
    If however you are saying this in the context of how society should respond to the issue of onshore wind farms it is not a reasonable argument. According to your surveys there is a small minority opposed to onshore wind and you appear to suggest they be ignored in favour of the greater good.

    We live in a democracy and those who govern us should listen to all voices then decide policy. The noisiest voices are usually the ones most directly affected by such developments. The government’s moratorium on onshore wind development recognises just this.

    You are not going to move the RE argument forward by arguing the government ride roughshod over the communities and individuals who are going to be affected by developments. It is this thinking, the talking down to those of us who are perceived not to understand, that will alienate the public and lead to the rise of populist parties (for better or worse) who actually are in touch with the masses. It has already happened in America and you have already noted the result for the Climate Change industry.

    First off, why keep choosing certain words and phrases, such as 'your surveys', this type of spin is a bit naughty, and dare I say funny when added to your reluctance to supply supporting arguments.

    Similarly your clever flipping off the issue with "You are not going to move the RE argument forward by arguing the government ride roughshod over the communities and individuals who are going to be affected by developments." is also naughty as the government changed the planning rules, so that wind farms could be stopped by a small number of people, even if the community was for it and local planning supported it ...... so technically, you are supporting the government's policy of riding roughshod over the communities and individuals who are going to be affected by the development. Did you think I was going to miss that?

    Regarding your on-shore wind claims, now, that's an opinion, an interesting one, but this (and previous) posts seem to imply (am I wrong?) that the majority of locals oppose such deployments, and I'm not sure that's true.

    If the majority support wind farms, then doesn't your argument work against you.

    As to ignoring the small minority that oppose wind farms in favour of the greater good, that too is a little spinny, as it seems to make me out as the bad guy, for supporting the views of the great majority ...... I thought you wanted to include everyone's opinion, not ignore them for a minority?

    Then we have the 'don't rock the boat too hard' argument, as it'll turn people away, will it? I thought people were behind renewables, and want more action and faster action. The don't rock the boat argument seems like a delaying tactic.

    Fossil fuels produce less than half of UK electricity for first time
    Nearly seven out of 10 people surveyed by National Grid are concerned about climate change and believe it is not being addressed urgently enough.

    JKenH wrote: »
    All the other comments you have made are secondary and a diversion from this fundamental issue and I am not going there.

    Or, you are determined to argue around the issues, but not the issues themselves, and I don't see the point in that. If something is completely wrong, then I'll say so, if in my opinion it's completely wrong, then I'll say so in my opinion, but you can't demand respect for statements that are wrong, surely that's a debate for a different type of forum altogether.


    And just for fun, here's one of the best explanations for why some views and opinions should weigh more, and why (perhaps) the majority should drown out the vocal minority. Five years old, but near perfect.

    Climate Change Debate: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO)
    Mart. Cardiff. 5.58 kWp PV systems (3.58 ESE & 2.0 WNW)

    For general PV advice please see the PV FAQ thread on the Green & Ethical Board.
  • Martyn1981Martyn1981 Forumite
    13.3K Posts
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    Forumite
    JKenH wrote: »
    As to facts I wasn’t postulating any but I would like to paraphrase an old adage - this decade’s facts are the next decade’s chip paper

    Seriously?
    Mart. Cardiff. 5.58 kWp PV systems (3.58 ESE & 2.0 WNW)

    For general PV advice please see the PV FAQ thread on the Green & Ethical Board.
  • JKenHJKenH Forumite
    3.3K Posts
    1,000 Posts Third Anniversary Name Dropper
    Forumite
    Martyn1981 wrote: »
    So ....... I've said that certain comments are wrong.

    You've said that I have to respect them equally with all other comments(?)

    I've said, nope ....... if they are wrong then they don't deserve respect as they don't advance our knowledge.

    You've stuck to your guns and said I still have to respect those comments (whilst trying to jig the wording around, so as to suggest I don't think those people should have a vote (not sure what the vote is on).

    When I ask you to support the three issues that have stirred up this discussion, you flatly decline.

    So it seems to me that you only want to argue a theoretical discussion, on how every opinion/comment has equal value (I don't believe that's true), whilst simultaneously attacking my right to opine on those claims as being wrong* or complete garbage. I suspect you can't support the claims, and are simply arguing a theoretical point, which seems like a bit of a waste of time.

    *Despite Piddles defence of the 'gargantuan task' claim, which I thoroughly dispute, I have a strong feeling that that is more a 'lost in translation' issue, since the task 'was' gargantuan, but from my reading of news, surveys etc, seems to have been achieved already.




    First off, why keep choosing certain words and phrases, such as 'your surveys', this type of spin is a bit naughty, and dare I say funny when added to your reluctance to supply supporting arguments.

    Similarly your clever flipping off the issue with "You are not going to move the RE argument forward by arguing the government ride roughshod over the communities and individuals who are going to be affected by developments." is also naughty as the government changed the planning rules, so that wind farms could be stopped by a small number of people, even if the community was for it and local planning supported it ...... so technically, you are supporting the government's policy of riding roughshod over the communities and individuals who are going to be affected by the development. Did you think I was going to miss that?

    Regarding your on-shore wind claims, now, that's an opinion, an interesting one, but this (and previous) posts seem to imply (am I wrong?) that the majority of locals oppose such deployments, and I'm not sure that's true.

    If the majority support wind farms, then doesn't your argument work against you.

    As to ignoring the small minority that oppose wind farms in favour of the greater good, that too is a little spinny, as it seems to make me out as the bad guy, for supporting the views of the great majority ...... I thought you wanted to include everyone's opinion, not ignore them for a minority?

    Then we have the 'don't rock the boat too hard' argument, as it'll turn people away, will it? I thought people were behind renewables, and want more action and faster action. The don't rock the boat argument seems like a delaying tactic.

    Fossil fuels produce less than half of UK electricity for first time






    Or, you are determined to argue around the issues, but not the issues themselves, and I don't see the point in that. If something is completely wrong, then I'll say so, if in my opinion it's completely wrong, then I'll say so in my opinion, but you can't demand respect for statements that are wrong, surely that's a debate for a different type of forum altogether.


    And just for fun, here's one of the best explanations for why some views and opinions should weigh more, and why (perhaps) the majority should drown out the vocal minority. Five years old, but near perfect.

    Climate Change Debate: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO)

    Lighten up Mart.

    I have expressed an opinion - you don’t agree. End of.

    No one is going to want to come on here if every discussion ends in you demanding evidence and citations even for arguments that have not been made. Just look how you have twisted the flat earth comment made to illustrate that over time our perception of the world changes. I have never said there was a a valid argument in support of such theories.

    For clarity for someone who has only recently picked up on this thread, this is what I originally said.


    Sorry Mart I don’t agree with that and I suspect that on reflection you will probably realise that wasn’t quite how you intended it to sound.

    It is important to maintain an open mind and consider alternative views in an open debate. The orthodox view cannot remain unchallenged. Reality changes as society progresses; it is not absolute. The world was once thought to be flat and heretics were burnt at the stake.

    Forty years ago green protestors would have been considered loud and negative voices and still are by some. The fact is for some societies and some people in our society there are more pressing realities than going green.

    Everyone is entitled to see the world from their own perspective and we cannot presume that our values are better than theirs.”

    You don’t agree. There we are. Let’s just leave it there. Continuing to labour a point is not becoming for either of us.

    Ken
    Northern Lincolnshire. 7.8 kWp system, (4.2 kw west facing panels , 3.6 kw east facing), Solis inverters, Solar IBoost water heater, Mitsubishi SRK35ZS-S and SRK20ZS-S Wall Mounted Inverter Heat Pumps, Nissan Leaf and Kia Picanto)
Sign In or Register to comment.
Latest MSE News and Guides

Fans demand refunds from Leeds Festival

...after Rage Against The Machine pulls out

MSE News

The 'Ask An Expert' event

Check out last week's energy-themed Q&A with MSE's experts

MSE Forum

Free museums & galleries

Where to get your culture fix across the UK

MSE Deals