One question I would like answered on North Sea oil. Would any public subsidy be involved?
No.
They do get tax relief for various activities, which a lot of people describe as subsidy, even if it's really not.
If a particular sector gets preferential tax treatment it absolutely is a subsidy. I appreciate the general public thinks of direct grants only, but there are loads of ways government can support a sector other than just cash transfers.
If a particular sector is generating considerable net tax revenue, then for me at least it seems inaccurate to call it subsidised.
Some of its activities (exploration at one end, and remediation at the other) are subsidised by the tax relief. For public benefit.
Preferential tax relief counts as a subsidy under WTO definitions.
That is a red herring; they also get taxed at far higher rates than other sectors.
As long as Hormuz stays closed, yes. The expectation at least prior to this was North Sea revenues would essentially disappear over the next five years. There's no reason for believing authorising new licences will materially add to revenue in the medium term.
We seem to have gone from a £25 billion bonanza and fuel bills in pennies to will it need subsidy in a few dozen comments but such are the byways of PB.com.
Anyhow the discussion at that moment was well as my observation were about definitions. Preferential tax treatment is a subsidy as far as WTO is concerned. A subsidy doesn't require you to hand over cash
Except the UK oil and gas industry doesn't get a preferential tax treatment. Exactly the opposite. It gets a punitive tax treatment that doesn't apply to any other industry and whose main aim is to destroy the industry rather than to raise revenue. The only comp[arable tax regime I can think of is smoking.
"BP, external and Shell, external both received more money back from the UK government than they paid in tax every year from 2015 to 2020 (except Shell in 2017)."
Taxes on profits have the difficulty that companies often manage to hide their profits.
Ultimately no govt in my lifetime has made big corporations pay what they should, and with big tech I think its only getting worse.
This is a myth. It is created by looking at BP and Shell's global profits and trying to claim the tax should be paid in the UK. This is expecially ridiculous in the case of Shell as it wasn't even headquartered in the UK until 2021.
Why are UK North Sea hydrocarbons more environmentally damaging than the rest of the World's hydrocarbons?
Ironically they are less damaging by almost every measure. Including how they are extracted. The UK and Noway have just about the strictest environmental rules in the world governing North Sea operations. They are so strict about pollution we have to collect the rain water that falls on the rig and send it back to the beach for processing in case it has picked up any hydrocarbons.
As I said earlier my wife lost a nephew in Piper Alpha and no doubt lessons were learnt but I just cannot see any sense in Miliband destroying jobs and tax revenues on an increasingly isolated idealistic position
Agree entirely.
Well not entirely. The underlying premise of Big_G_NorthWales' proposition is that Ed Miliband has sense but appears to be acting contrary to it on this particular occasion. It is not a premise that I agree with.
One thing this political betting site has failed to discuss is public opinion. You might get the false sense from my posts that even the looniest econ-loons think we should be open to drilling the North Sea, but I'm afraid that isn't the case. Fossil fuels are widely unpopular.
There is a simple, perverse logic that is difficult to quash - keeping oil and gas in the ground = oil and gas that isn't burnt. And in the Trump era, non-sensical destructive defiance is now commonplace in all sorts of areas. This time the shoe is on the other foot.
Good friends of mine who are very capable academics at Edinburgh University were 100% behind the banning of further exploration in the North Sea. And they still are. Their reasoning is that we must do everything possible to reduce our use of hydrocarbons as rapidly as possible and that means not encouraging any further production where we can control it.
I am all for us building up our renewables, ideally to over 100% of our internal demand, but I simply do not understand this rationale at all. If we still need hydrocarbons whilst we are transitioning as fast as possible we should use our own rather than importing it from elsewhere in the world where much of the production is far more ecologically damaging than north sea production. The idea that the amount we can produce from the North Sea will have any effect of world production and consumption is frankly ridiculous and self harming. But these are exceptionally bright people that I respect greatly and I have to accept it is not quite the no brainer I consider it.
Many people are sufficiently distanced from the means of production (whether agriculture, energy or manufacturing) that they neither know nor care what the requirements of production are.
Similar to those who ask why we have to have factory farming when we can just buy meat at the supermarket
Does anyone actually ask that? If that's a real thing then I'm a bit speechless...
I have heard it on two seperate occasions from people old enough to know better when at anti-vivisection meetings. Neither of them in the last decade admitedly but it always stuck in my mind. The first time I laughed out loud, as did the lady chairing the meeting as we genuinely thought it was meant as a joke. Needless to say it was made very clear that it wasn't. It did mean I was forewarned the second time around and tried to be more balanced in my reply.
Why are UK North Sea hydrocarbons more environmentally damaging than the rest of the World's hydrocarbons?
Ironically they are less damaging by almost every measure. Including how they are extracted. The UK and Noway have just about the strictest environmental rules in the world governing North Sea operations. They are so strict about pollution we have to collect the rain water that falls on the rig and send it back to the beach for processing in case it has picked up any hydrocarbons.
As I said earlier my wife lost a nephew in Piper Alpha and no doubt lessons were learnt but I just cannot see any sense in Miliband destroying jobs and tax revenues on an increasingly isolated idealistic position
Agree entirely.
Well not entirely. The underlying premise of Big_G_NorthWales' proposition is that Ed Miliband has sense but appears to be acting contrary to it on this particular occasion. It is not a premise that I agree with.
One thing this political betting site has failed to discuss is public opinion. You might get the false sense from my posts that even the looniest econ-loons think we should be open to drilling the North Sea, but I'm afraid that isn't the case. Fossil fuels are widely unpopular.
There is a simple, perverse logic that is difficult to quash - keeping oil and gas in the ground = oil and gas that isn't burnt. And in the Trump era, non-sensical destructive defiance is now commonplace in all sorts of areas. This time the shoe is on the other foot.
Good friends of mine who are very capable academics at Edinburgh University were 100% behind the banning of further exploration in the North Sea. And they still are. Their reasoning is that we must do everything possible to reduce our use of hydrocarbons as rapidly as possible and that means not encouraging any further production where we can control it.
I am all for us building up our renewables, ideally to over 100% of our internal demand, but I simply do not understand this rationale at all. If we still need hydrocarbons whilst we are transitioning as fast as possible we should use our own rather than importing it from elsewhere in the world where much of the production is far more ecologically damaging than north sea production. The idea that the amount we can produce from the North Sea will have any effect of world production and consumption is frankly ridiculous and self harming. But these are exceptionally bright people that I respect greatly and I have to accept it is not quite the no brainer I consider it.
Many people are sufficiently distanced from the means of production (whether agriculture, energy or manufacturing) that they neither know nor care what the requirements of production are.
Similar to those who ask why we have to have factory farming when we can just buy meat at the supermarket
Does anyone actually ask that? If that's a real thing then I'm a bit speechless...
I have heard it on two seperate occasions from people old enough to know better when at anti-vivisection meetings. Neither of them in the last decade admitedly but it always stuck in my mind. The first time I laughed out loud, as did the lady chairing the meeting as we genuinely thought it was meant as a joke. Needless to say it was made very clear that it wasn't. It did mean I was forewarned the second time around and tried to be more balanced in my reply.
Twitter saying Iranian media saying they have US POWs.
I really hope the Iranians make a song and dance about the Geneva Convention etc etc. Deeply cynical given their record but that’s the best outcome for the pilots, Iran and the rest of the world.
That it would show up the Israelis and Americans as malignant, violent thugs is a nice bonus.
Regardless of your feelings on the war and the US and Israel, it’s ridiculous to pretend the Iranian ruling regime aren’t violent thugs too.
Wholeheartedly agree but one can still hope that they see propaganda value in treating the POWs well to reinforce the propaganda value of their 'letter to America'.
It should not need stating given my original post was clear (somehow Gallowgate and Big_G_NorthWales have misconstrued it), but my point was that if the IRGC behave as normal and we witness the torture and public execution of a US pilot, the chance of peace is nil, Hormuz is closed for basically ever, and it gives Netanyahu and Trump twisted justification to wipe out Iranian (and Lebanese) civilian populations.
As such I hope they play for worldwide public opinion here rather than go full death-cult. Dura_Ace is right that I'm being optimistic.
Just out of iterest is anyone else seeing an issue with petrol stations running out of petrol or diesel because of (I assume) panic buying? The Tesco at Sleaford was out of petrol and the Sainsburys at Grantham was out of diesel today. Stupid given we are still a fair way away from supply issues - though aviation fuel looks a bit dodgy.
Twitter saying Iranian media saying they have US POWs.
I really hope the Iranians make a song and dance about the Geneva Convention etc etc. Deeply cynical given their record but that’s the best outcome for the pilots, Iran and the rest of the world.
That it would show up the Israelis and Americans as malignant, violent thugs is a nice bonus.
Regardless of your feelings on the war and the US and Israel, it’s ridiculous to pretend the Iranian ruling regime aren’t violent thugs too.
Wholeheartedly agree but one can still hope that they see propaganda value in treating the POWs well to reinforce the propaganda value of their 'letter to America'.
It should not need stating given my original post was clear (somehow Gallowgate and Big_G_NorthWales have misconstrued it), but my point was that if the IRGC behave as normal and we witness the torture and public execution of a US pilot, the chance of peace is nil, Hormuz is closed for basically ever, and it gives Netanyahu and Trump twisted justification to wipe out Iranian (and Lebanese) civilian populations.
As such I hope they play for worldwide public opinion here rather than go full death-cult. Dura_Ace is right that I'm being optimistic.
Just out of iterest is anyone else seeing an issue with petrol stations running out of petrol or diesel because of (I assume) panic buying? The Tesco at Sleaford was out of petrol and the Sainsburys at Grantham was out of diesel today. Stupid given we are still a fair way away from supply issues - though aviation fuel looks a bit dodgy.
I don't think it's supply issues, it's 2 weeks since the first big increase in prices and people are seeing further price rises and going best have a full tank before it increases even further.
I suspect a lot of people who fill up only 1-2 times a month are making the most of pay day and filling up now.
Twitter saying Iranian media saying they have US POWs.
I really hope the Iranians make a song and dance about the Geneva Convention etc etc. Deeply cynical given their record but that’s the best outcome for the pilots, Iran and the rest of the world.
That it would show up the Israelis and Americans as malignant, violent thugs is a nice bonus.
Regardless of your feelings on the war and the US and Israel, it’s ridiculous to pretend the Iranian ruling regime aren’t violent thugs too.
Wholeheartedly agree but one can still hope that they see propaganda value in treating the POWs well to reinforce the propaganda value of their 'letter to America'.
It should not need stating given my original post was clear (somehow Gallowgate and Big_G_NorthWales have misconstrued it), but my point was that if the IRGC behave as normal and we witness the torture and public execution of a US pilot, the chance of peace is nil, Hormuz is closed for basically ever, and it gives Netanyahu and Trump twisted justification to wipe out Iranian (and Lebanese) civilian populations.
As such I hope they play for worldwide public opinion here rather than go full death-cult. Dura_Ace is right that I'm being optimistic.
Why on earth would they kill a POW hostage?
Hostages are worth much more alive.
My old flatmate spent some time working for our government in Iraq, during some very tense times and it was clear that from our governments perspective it would be far worse to be captured than killed.
President Trump will ask Congress to approve roughly $1.5 trillion in funding for the military in the 2027 fiscal year, according to a budget request released by the White House on Friday. If approved, that amount would set military spending at its highest level in modern history.
NY Times
I wonder what he plans to do with an enlarged military?
There's a typically Trumpian incoherence between 'peace president no more foreign wars' rhetoric and the chomping desire to spend loads more on the already huge US military. The two things are incompatible. It's a choice. Does he make good on that rhetoric or does he just love to wave around a great big willy? I think we know the answer to this. The evidence is in.
Just out of iterest is anyone else seeing an issue with petrol stations running out of petrol or diesel because of (I assume) panic buying? The Tesco at Sleaford was out of petrol and the Sainsburys at Grantham was out of diesel today. Stupid given we are still a fair way away from supply issues - though aviation fuel looks a bit dodgy.
Speculating, it's possible that the issue at the major supermarkets such as Tesco and Sainsburys is because they are generally a bit less expensive than other suppliers and motorists are switching to them and away from other suppliers in order to try to offset the scale of the price hikes. Certainly our Sainsburys is the cheapest in this area. I'll really start to worry when Shell start to run out of fuel.
Twitter saying Iranian media saying they have US POWs.
I really hope the Iranians make a song and dance about the Geneva Convention etc etc. Deeply cynical given their record but that’s the best outcome for the pilots, Iran and the rest of the world.
That it would show up the Israelis and Americans as malignant, violent thugs is a nice bonus.
Regardless of your feelings on the war and the US and Israel, it’s ridiculous to pretend the Iranian ruling regime aren’t violent thugs too.
Wholeheartedly agree but one can still hope that they see propaganda value in treating the POWs well to reinforce the propaganda value of their 'letter to America'.
It should not need stating given my original post was clear (somehow Gallowgate and Big_G_NorthWales have misconstrued it), but my point was that if the IRGC behave as normal and we witness the torture and public execution of a US pilot, the chance of peace is nil, Hormuz is closed for basically ever, and it gives Netanyahu and Trump twisted justification to wipe out Iranian (and Lebanese) civilian populations.
As such I hope they play for worldwide public opinion here rather than go full death-cult. Dura_Ace is right that I'm being optimistic.
Why on earth would they kill a POW hostage?
Hostages are worth much more alive.
My old flatmate spent some time working for our government in Iraq, during some very tense times and it was clear that from our governments perspective it would be far worse to be captured than killed.
It’s actually quite a while since opponents of the US obeyed the various conventions on POWs.
Just out of iterest is anyone else seeing an issue with petrol stations running out of petrol or diesel because of (I assume) panic buying? The Tesco at Sleaford was out of petrol and the Sainsburys at Grantham was out of diesel today. Stupid given we are still a fair way away from supply issues - though aviation fuel looks a bit dodgy.
I don't think it's supply issues, it's 2 weeks since the first big increase in prices and people are seeing further price rises and going best have a full tank before it increases even further.
I suspect a lot of people who fill up only 1-2 times a month are making the most of pay day and filling up now.
It seems to be an artefact of people using the apps, finding a station that is a few pence cheaper, and everyone heading there.
As an agnostic, I'm deeply offended* by this blatant display of Christianity in the middle of London. How dare they express domination over me like that?
Why are UK North Sea hydrocarbons more environmentally damaging than the rest of the World's hydrocarbons?
Ironically they are less damaging by almost every measure. Including how they are extracted. The UK and Noway have just about the strictest environmental rules in the world governing North Sea operations. They are so strict about pollution we have to collect the rain water that falls on the rig and send it back to the beach for processing in case it has picked up any hydrocarbons.
As I said earlier my wife lost a nephew in Piper Alpha and no doubt lessons were learnt but I just cannot see any sense in Miliband destroying jobs and tax revenues on an increasingly isolated idealistic position
Agree entirely.
Well not entirely. The underlying premise of Big_G_NorthWales' proposition is that Ed Miliband has sense but appears to be acting contrary to it on this particular occasion. It is not a premise that I agree with.
One thing this political betting site has failed to discuss is public opinion. You might get the false sense from my posts that even the looniest econ-loons think we should be open to drilling the North Sea, but I'm afraid that isn't the case. Fossil fuels are widely unpopular.
There is a simple, perverse logic that is difficult to quash - keeping oil and gas in the ground = oil and gas that isn't burnt. And in the Trump era, non-sensical destructive defiance is now commonplace in all sorts of areas. This time the shoe is on the other foot.
Good friends of mine who are very capable academics at Edinburgh University were 100% behind the banning of further exploration in the North Sea. And they still are. Their reasoning is that we must do everything possible to reduce our use of hydrocarbons as rapidly as possible and that means not encouraging any further production where we can control it.
I am all for us building up our renewables, ideally to over 100% of our internal demand, but I simply do not understand this rationale at all. If we still need hydrocarbons whilst we are transitioning as fast as possible we should use our own rather than importing it from elsewhere in the world where much of the production is far more ecologically damaging than north sea production. The idea that the amount we can produce from the North Sea will have any effect of world production and consumption is frankly ridiculous and self harming. But these are exceptionally bright people that I respect greatly and I have to accept it is not quite the no brainer I consider it.
To take a step back, it is astonishing and depressing that the main policy response and discussion from this crisis is about the North Sea. Something that has zero impact now, marginal impact in the future, and would not have protected either us from 2022/Ukraine or the umpteen fossil fuel crises to come.
So you'll forgive a deep scepticism, even loathing, of those who are prattling on about it now. It's a deeply cynical diversion away from the only lesson you can draw from this and from Ukraine - we need to stop consuming fossil fuels as fast as possible.
I think that's what driving a lot of the blunt opposition to it. We need more people like you and Richard_Tyndall making the case for both, otherwise people will understandbly sense an ulterior (or frankly open) motive.
You could turn that argument around the other way. I've been a long term and vocal proponent of renewables for far longer than a lot of PBers, but it does not help their case to do economically stupid things (which will have no net impact on our CO2 output at all), for purely ideological reasons.
Just get on with approving the new production, and it will go away as a wedge issue for the climate sceptics.
And spend any tax revenue on upgrading the grid.
On that latter point, this is a good article.
I frequently am asked why, after nearly two decades working on foundational battery, electric vehicle, and energy storage engineering and scale-up, I founded a grid-scale power electronics company. So I wrote this long-form piece talking about why @heronpower, and why now. Enjoy! https://x.com/baglino/status/2040088982680486106
Just out of iterest is anyone else seeing an issue with petrol stations running out of petrol or diesel because of (I assume) panic buying? The Tesco at Sleaford was out of petrol and the Sainsburys at Grantham was out of diesel today. Stupid given we are still a fair way away from supply issues - though aviation fuel looks a bit dodgy.
I don't think it's supply issues, it's 2 weeks since the first big increase in prices and people are seeing further price rises and going best have a full tank before it increases even further.
I suspect a lot of people who fill up only 1-2 times a month are making the most of pay day and filling up now.
It seems to be an artefact of people using the apps, finding a station that is a few pence cheaper, and everyone heading there.
The shell garage at the end of our road frequently runs out of fuel despite being extortionate. Though thanks to my shameful and clearly stupid decision to embrace net zero, I don't give a toss.
Just out of iterest is anyone else seeing an issue with petrol stations running out of petrol or diesel because of (I assume) panic buying? The Tesco at Sleaford was out of petrol and the Sainsburys at Grantham was out of diesel today. Stupid given we are still a fair way away from supply issues - though aviation fuel looks a bit dodgy.
If only we'd developed Underground Coal Gasification followed by Fischer Tropsch Synthesis to make Jet A1 and diesel when we had the chance.
Another opportunity to utilise indigenous resources that was stopped by politicians.
There's always the option of gasifying waste followed by the same FT. However, waste gasification has a very patchy track record, to put it mildly.
President Trump will ask Congress to approve roughly $1.5 trillion in funding for the military in the 2027 fiscal year, according to a budget request released by the White House on Friday. If approved, that amount would set military spending at its highest level in modern history.
NY Times
I wonder what he plans to do with an enlarged military?
There's a typically Trumpian incoherence between 'peace president no more foreign wars' rhetoric and the chomping desire to spend loads more on the already huge US military. The two things are incompatible. It's a choice. Does he make good on that rhetoric or does he just love to wave around a great big willy? I think we know the answer to this. The evidence is in.
He's going to spend it all on Trump drones like the monstrously corrupt erstwhile jailbird he is. The myth of the US as a democracy with a functioning justice system has been utterly exposed by Trump.
I’m surprised they haven’t found the second US pilot yet .
Just reading those ejector seats aswell as the pilot have GPS tracking and personal locator beacons.
You have to have enough working fingers to activate the PLB manually and then switch it to high power mode when your ride arrives. You also have to be pretty sure deliverance is at hand when you trigger it.
Just out of iterest is anyone else seeing an issue with petrol stations running out of petrol or diesel because of (I assume) panic buying? The Tesco at Sleaford was out of petrol and the Sainsburys at Grantham was out of diesel today. Stupid given we are still a fair way away from supply issues - though aviation fuel looks a bit dodgy.
diesel was 184.9 at tesco , no ide if they had any but was 136.9 not long ago. Crazy stuff.
Why are UK North Sea hydrocarbons more environmentally damaging than the rest of the World's hydrocarbons?
Ironically they are less damaging by almost every measure. Including how they are extracted. The UK and Noway have just about the strictest environmental rules in the world governing North Sea operations. They are so strict about pollution we have to collect the rain water that falls on the rig and send it back to the beach for processing in case it has picked up any hydrocarbons.
As I said earlier my wife lost a nephew in Piper Alpha and no doubt lessons were learnt but I just cannot see any sense in Miliband destroying jobs and tax revenues on an increasingly isolated idealistic position
Agree entirely.
Well not entirely. The underlying premise of Big_G_NorthWales' proposition is that Ed Miliband has sense but appears to be acting contrary to it on this particular occasion. It is not a premise that I agree with.
One thing this political betting site has failed to discuss is public opinion. You might get the false sense from my posts that even the looniest econ-loons think we should be open to drilling the North Sea, but I'm afraid that isn't the case. Fossil fuels are widely unpopular.
There is a simple, perverse logic that is difficult to quash - keeping oil and gas in the ground = oil and gas that isn't burnt. And in the Trump era, non-sensical destructive defiance is now commonplace in all sorts of areas. This time the shoe is on the other foot.
Good friends of mine who are very capable academics at Edinburgh University were 100% behind the banning of further exploration in the North Sea. And they still are. Their reasoning is that we must do everything possible to reduce our use of hydrocarbons as rapidly as possible and that means not encouraging any further production where we can control it.
I am all for us building up our renewables, ideally to over 100% of our internal demand, but I simply do not understand this rationale at all. If we still need hydrocarbons whilst we are transitioning as fast as possible we should use our own rather than importing it from elsewhere in the world where much of the production is far more ecologically damaging than north sea production. The idea that the amount we can produce from the North Sea will have any effect of world production and consumption is frankly ridiculous and self harming. But these are exceptionally bright people that I respect greatly and I have to accept it is not quite the no brainer I consider it.
To take a step back, it is astonishing and depressing that the main policy response and discussion from this crisis is about the North Sea. Something that has zero impact now, marginal impact in the future, and would not have protected either us from 2022/Ukraine or the umpteen fossil fuel crises to come.
So you'll forgive a deep scepticism, even loathing, of those who are prattling on about it now. It's a deeply cynical diversion away from the only lesson you can draw from this and from Ukraine - we need to stop consuming fossil fuels as fast as possible.
I think that's what driving a lot of the blunt opposition to it. We need more people like you and Richard_Tyndall making the case for both, otherwise people will understandbly sense an ulterior (or frankly open) motive.
You could turn that argument around the other way. I've been a long term and vocal proponent of renewables for far longer than a lot of PBers, but it does not help their case to do economically stupid things (which will have no net impact on our CO2 output at all), for purely ideological reasons.
Just get on with approving the new production, and it will go away as a wedge issue for the climate sceptics.
And spend any tax revenue on upgrading the grid.
On that latter point, this is a good article.
I frequently am asked why, after nearly two decades working on foundational battery, electric vehicle, and energy storage engineering and scale-up, I founded a grid-scale power electronics company. So I wrote this long-form piece talking about why @heronpower, and why now. Enjoy! https://x.com/baglino/status/2040088982680486106
The respectful debate amongst experts pro and con renewable and oil and gas is worth listening to and valuable.
What sillies the water is the sewage level political debate.
Lies, distortions of the facts and sheer shithousery.
People who signed orders to close or deny licences in Government just a few years ago, should have the guts to stand up and own their responsibilities of they have now made a massive u turn to drill baby drill.
Just out of iterest is anyone else seeing an issue with petrol stations running out of petrol or diesel because of (I assume) panic buying? The Tesco at Sleaford was out of petrol and the Sainsburys at Grantham was out of diesel today. Stupid given we are still a fair way away from supply issues - though aviation fuel looks a bit dodgy.
I don't think it's supply issues, it's 2 weeks since the first big increase in prices and people are seeing further price rises and going best have a full tank before it increases even further.
I suspect a lot of people who fill up only 1-2 times a month are making the most of pay day and filling up now.
Long queues at a Sainsburys out of town, but no empty pumps, no queues at Sainsburys Local in Town 1p more foe petrol and 2p more for diesel.
The out of towers are then turning round and driving back sitting in a long queue.
Well, I have to applaud the honesty about his intentions, most coup leaders are not this direct.
Democracy "kills" and the people of Burkina Faso must "forget" it, the country's military ruler has said in an interview aired on state television.
Capt Ibrahim Traoré, who seized power in a coup three years ago, suggested most Africans do not want the system of democracy and that Burkina Faso had its own, alternative approach, without giving details.
Why are UK North Sea hydrocarbons more environmentally damaging than the rest of the World's hydrocarbons?
Ironically they are less damaging by almost every measure. Including how they are extracted. The UK and Noway have just about the strictest environmental rules in the world governing North Sea operations. They are so strict about pollution we have to collect the rain water that falls on the rig and send it back to the beach for processing in case it has picked up any hydrocarbons.
As I said earlier my wife lost a nephew in Piper Alpha and no doubt lessons were learnt but I just cannot see any sense in Miliband destroying jobs and tax revenues on an increasingly isolated idealistic position
Agree entirely.
Well not entirely. The underlying premise of Big_G_NorthWales' proposition is that Ed Miliband has sense but appears to be acting contrary to it on this particular occasion. It is not a premise that I agree with.
One thing this political betting site has failed to discuss is public opinion. You might get the false sense from my posts that even the looniest econ-loons think we should be open to drilling the North Sea, but I'm afraid that isn't the case. Fossil fuels are widely unpopular.
There is a simple, perverse logic that is difficult to quash - keeping oil and gas in the ground = oil and gas that isn't burnt. And in the Trump era, non-sensical destructive defiance is now commonplace in all sorts of areas. This time the shoe is on the other foot.
Good friends of mine who are very capable academics at Edinburgh University were 100% behind the banning of further exploration in the North Sea. And they still are. Their reasoning is that we must do everything possible to reduce our use of hydrocarbons as rapidly as possible and that means not encouraging any further production where we can control it.
I am all for us building up our renewables, ideally to over 100% of our internal demand, but I simply do not understand this rationale at all. If we still need hydrocarbons whilst we are transitioning as fast as possible we should use our own rather than importing it from elsewhere in the world where much of the production is far more ecologically damaging than north sea production. The idea that the amount we can produce from the North Sea will have any effect of world production and consumption is frankly ridiculous and self harming. But these are exceptionally bright people that I respect greatly and I have to accept it is not quite the no brainer I consider it.
To take a step back, it is astonishing and depressing that the main policy response and discussion from this crisis is about the North Sea. Something that has zero impact now, marginal impact in the future, and would not have protected either us from 2022/Ukraine or the umpteen fossil fuel crises to come.
So you'll forgive a deep scepticism, even loathing, of those who are prattling on about it now. It's a deeply cynical diversion away from the only lesson you can draw from this and from Ukraine - we need to stop consuming fossil fuels as fast as possible.
I think that's what driving a lot of the blunt opposition to it. We need more people like you and Richard_Tyndall making the case for both, otherwise people will understandbly sense an ulterior (or frankly open) motive.
You could turn that argument around the other way. I've been a long term and vocal proponent of renewables for far longer than a lot of PBers, but it does not help their case to do economically stupid things (which will have no net impact on our CO2 output at all), for purely ideological reasons.
Just get on with approving the new production, and it will go away as a wedge issue for the climate sceptics.
And spend any tax revenue on upgrading the grid.
On that latter point, this is a good article.
I frequently am asked why, after nearly two decades working on foundational battery, electric vehicle, and energy storage engineering and scale-up, I founded a grid-scale power electronics company. So I wrote this long-form piece talking about why @heronpower, and why now. Enjoy! https://x.com/baglino/status/2040088982680486106
The respectful debate amongst experts pro and con renewable and oil and gas is worth listening to and valuable.
What sillies the water is the sewage level political debate.
Lies, distortions of the facts and sheer shithousery.
People who signed orders to close or deny licences in Government just a few years ago, should have the guts to stand up and own their responsibilities of they have now made a massive u turn to drill baby drill.
What you just do not get is that this war has changed the narrative and made drilling our own gas and oil an imperative
It is this change that Miliband stands against because his ideoleoy does not permit him to reverse course, no matter the arguments
The 2 oil fields will be approved either with or without Miliband
Just out of iterest is anyone else seeing an issue with petrol stations running out of petrol or diesel because of (I assume) panic buying? The Tesco at Sleaford was out of petrol and the Sainsburys at Grantham was out of diesel today. Stupid given we are still a fair way away from supply issues - though aviation fuel looks a bit dodgy.
diesel was 184.9 at tesco , no ide if they had any but was 136.9 not long ago. Crazy stuff.
Asda Llandudno has the cheapest local diesel according to the app at 180.7p
Just out of iterest is anyone else seeing an issue with petrol stations running out of petrol or diesel because of (I assume) panic buying? The Tesco at Sleaford was out of petrol and the Sainsburys at Grantham was out of diesel today. Stupid given we are still a fair way away from supply issues - though aviation fuel looks a bit dodgy.
diesel was 184.9 at tesco , no ide if they had any but was 136.9 not long ago. Crazy stuff.
Asda Llandudno has the cheapest local diesel according to the app at 180.7p
Why are UK North Sea hydrocarbons more environmentally damaging than the rest of the World's hydrocarbons?
Ironically they are less damaging by almost every measure. Including how they are extracted. The UK and Noway have just about the strictest environmental rules in the world governing North Sea operations. They are so strict about pollution we have to collect the rain water that falls on the rig and send it back to the beach for processing in case it has picked up any hydrocarbons.
As I said earlier my wife lost a nephew in Piper Alpha and no doubt lessons were learnt but I just cannot see any sense in Miliband destroying jobs and tax revenues on an increasingly isolated idealistic position
Agree entirely.
Well not entirely. The underlying premise of Big_G_NorthWales' proposition is that Ed Miliband has sense but appears to be acting contrary to it on this particular occasion. It is not a premise that I agree with.
One thing this political betting site has failed to discuss is public opinion. You might get the false sense from my posts that even the looniest econ-loons think we should be open to drilling the North Sea, but I'm afraid that isn't the case. Fossil fuels are widely unpopular.
There is a simple, perverse logic that is difficult to quash - keeping oil and gas in the ground = oil and gas that isn't burnt. And in the Trump era, non-sensical destructive defiance is now commonplace in all sorts of areas. This time the shoe is on the other foot.
Good friends of mine who are very capable academics at Edinburgh University were 100% behind the banning of further exploration in the North Sea. And they still are. Their reasoning is that we must do everything possible to reduce our use of hydrocarbons as rapidly as possible and that means not encouraging any further production where we can control it.
I am all for us building up our renewables, ideally to over 100% of our internal demand, but I simply do not understand this rationale at all. If we still need hydrocarbons whilst we are transitioning as fast as possible we should use our own rather than importing it from elsewhere in the world where much of the production is far more ecologically damaging than north sea production. The idea that the amount we can produce from the North Sea will have any effect of world production and consumption is frankly ridiculous and self harming. But these are exceptionally bright people that I respect greatly and I have to accept it is not quite the no brainer I consider it.
To take a step back, it is astonishing and depressing that the main policy response and discussion from this crisis is about the North Sea. Something that has zero impact now, marginal impact in the future, and would not have protected either us from 2022/Ukraine or the umpteen fossil fuel crises to come.
So you'll forgive a deep scepticism, even loathing, of those who are prattling on about it now. It's a deeply cynical diversion away from the only lesson you can draw from this and from Ukraine - we need to stop consuming fossil fuels as fast as possible.
I think that's what driving a lot of the blunt opposition to it. We need more people like you and Richard_Tyndall making the case for both, otherwise people will understandbly sense an ulterior (or frankly open) motive.
You could turn that argument around the other way. I've been a long term and vocal proponent of renewables for far longer than a lot of PBers, but it does not help their case to do economically stupid things (which will have no net impact on our CO2 output at all), for purely ideological reasons.
Just get on with approving the new production, and it will go away as a wedge issue for the climate sceptics.
And spend any tax revenue on upgrading the grid.
On that latter point, this is a good article.
I frequently am asked why, after nearly two decades working on foundational battery, electric vehicle, and energy storage engineering and scale-up, I founded a grid-scale power electronics company. So I wrote this long-form piece talking about why @heronpower, and why now. Enjoy! https://x.com/baglino/status/2040088982680486106
The respectful debate amongst experts pro and con renewable and oil and gas is worth listening to and valuable.
What sillies the water is the sewage level political debate.
Lies, distortions of the facts and sheer shithousery.
People who signed orders to close or deny licences in Government just a few years ago, should have the guts to stand up and own their responsibilities of they have now made a massive u turn to drill baby drill.
What you just do not get is that this war has changed the narrative and made drilling our own gas and oil an imperative
It is this change that Miliband stands against because his ideoleoy does not permit him to reverse course, no matter the arguments
The 2 oil fields will be approved either with or without Miliband
Sorry but I have to disagree with you Big G. The direct cause of the current crisis may have changed over the last month but the basic principles and the basic threats have not. It has been inevitable that there would be disruption to supply at some point for years. We were just fortunate that the Russian invasion in 2022 had so little impact at the time. But that was definitely more luck than judgement.
And the underlying facts - that we are committing economic suicide and reducing our tax base by actvely dissuading North Sea development has been exactly the same since long before Milliband appeared on the scene. Indeed Robert and I (amongst others) were both raising the issue of Government ineptitude on this issue more than a decade ago when Osborne was messing with Oil and Gas tax rates multiple times in a single year.
The last administration bears a large amount of responsibility for where we are now even though, as I keep repeating, Milliband has certainly made it far worse. I would have at least a little more time for Badenoch if she stopped being so hypocritical and admitted the Tories got this wrong as well.
Why are UK North Sea hydrocarbons more environmentally damaging than the rest of the World's hydrocarbons?
Ironically they are less damaging by almost every measure. Including how they are extracted. The UK and Noway have just about the strictest environmental rules in the world governing North Sea operations. They are so strict about pollution we have to collect the rain water that falls on the rig and send it back to the beach for processing in case it has picked up any hydrocarbons.
As I said earlier my wife lost a nephew in Piper Alpha and no doubt lessons were learnt but I just cannot see any sense in Miliband destroying jobs and tax revenues on an increasingly isolated idealistic position
Agree entirely.
Well not entirely. The underlying premise of Big_G_NorthWales' proposition is that Ed Miliband has sense but appears to be acting contrary to it on this particular occasion. It is not a premise that I agree with.
One thing this political betting site has failed to discuss is public opinion. You might get the false sense from my posts that even the looniest econ-loons think we should be open to drilling the North Sea, but I'm afraid that isn't the case. Fossil fuels are widely unpopular.
There is a simple, perverse logic that is difficult to quash - keeping oil and gas in the ground = oil and gas that isn't burnt. And in the Trump era, non-sensical destructive defiance is now commonplace in all sorts of areas. This time the shoe is on the other foot.
Good friends of mine who are very capable academics at Edinburgh University were 100% behind the banning of further exploration in the North Sea. And they still are. Their reasoning is that we must do everything possible to reduce our use of hydrocarbons as rapidly as possible and that means not encouraging any further production where we can control it.
I am all for us building up our renewables, ideally to over 100% of our internal demand, but I simply do not understand this rationale at all. If we still need hydrocarbons whilst we are transitioning as fast as possible we should use our own rather than importing it from elsewhere in the world where much of the production is far more ecologically damaging than north sea production. The idea that the amount we can produce from the North Sea will have any effect of world production and consumption is frankly ridiculous and self harming. But these are exceptionally bright people that I respect greatly and I have to accept it is not quite the no brainer I consider it.
To take a step back, it is astonishing and depressing that the main policy response and discussion from this crisis is about the North Sea. Something that has zero impact now, marginal impact in the future, and would not have protected either us from 2022/Ukraine or the umpteen fossil fuel crises to come.
So you'll forgive a deep scepticism, even loathing, of those who are prattling on about it now. It's a deeply cynical diversion away from the only lesson you can draw from this and from Ukraine - we need to stop consuming fossil fuels as fast as possible.
I think that's what driving a lot of the blunt opposition to it. We need more people like you and Richard_Tyndall making the case for both, otherwise people will understandbly sense an ulterior (or frankly open) motive.
You could turn that argument around the other way. I've been a long term and vocal proponent of renewables for far longer than a lot of PBers, but it does not help their case to do economically stupid things (which will have no net impact on our CO2 output at all), for purely ideological reasons.
Just get on with approving the new production, and it will go away as a wedge issue for the climate sceptics.
And spend any tax revenue on upgrading the grid.
On that latter point, this is a good article.
I frequently am asked why, after nearly two decades working on foundational battery, electric vehicle, and energy storage engineering and scale-up, I founded a grid-scale power electronics company. So I wrote this long-form piece talking about why @heronpower, and why now. Enjoy! https://x.com/baglino/status/2040088982680486106
The respectful debate amongst experts pro and con renewable and oil and gas is worth listening to and valuable.
What sillies the water is the sewage level political debate.
Lies, distortions of the facts and sheer shithousery.
People who signed orders to close or deny licences in Government just a few years ago, should have the guts to stand up and own their responsibilities of they have now made a massive u turn to drill baby drill.
What you just do not get is that this war has changed the narrative and made drilling our own gas and oil an imperative
It is this change that Miliband stands against because his ideoleoy does not permit him to reverse course, no matter the arguments
The 2 oil fields will be approved either with or without Miliband
Sorry but I have to disagree with you Big G. The direct cause of the current crisis may have changed over the last month but the basic principles and the basic threats have not. It has been inevitable that there would be disruption to supply at some point for years. We were just fortunate that the Russian invasion in 2022 had so little impact at the time. But that was definitely more luck than judgement.
And the underlying facts - that we are committing economic suicide and reducing our tax base by actvely dissuading North Sea development has been exactly the same since long before Milliband appeared on the scene. Indeed Robert and I (amongst others) were both raising the issue of Government ineptitude on this issue more than a decade ago when Osborne was messing with Oil and Gas tax rates multiple times in a single year.
The last administration bears a large amount of responsibility for where we are now even though, as I keep repeating, Milliband has certainly made it far worse. I would have at least a little more time for Badenoch if she stopped being so hypocritical and admitted the Tories got this wrong as well.
Parties always calculate that the cost of showing weakness by admitting they were wrong (in anything but vague, tokenistic admissions of not getting it quite right), is greater than the cost of being called out as hypocritical for supporting something they previously opposed (or vice-versa), which they price in as the cost of doing business as politics already. Unfortunately they are right about that.
This is just a particularly frustrating example as the benefits seem so clear to me.
Why are UK North Sea hydrocarbons more environmentally damaging than the rest of the World's hydrocarbons?
Ironically they are less damaging by almost every measure. Including how they are extracted. The UK and Noway have just about the strictest environmental rules in the world governing North Sea operations. They are so strict about pollution we have to collect the rain water that falls on the rig and send it back to the beach for processing in case it has picked up any hydrocarbons.
As I said earlier my wife lost a nephew in Piper Alpha and no doubt lessons were learnt but I just cannot see any sense in Miliband destroying jobs and tax revenues on an increasingly isolated idealistic position
Agree entirely.
Well not entirely. The underlying premise of Big_G_NorthWales' proposition is that Ed Miliband has sense but appears to be acting contrary to it on this particular occasion. It is not a premise that I agree with.
One thing this political betting site has failed to discuss is public opinion. You might get the false sense from my posts that even the looniest econ-loons think we should be open to drilling the North Sea, but I'm afraid that isn't the case. Fossil fuels are widely unpopular.
There is a simple, perverse logic that is difficult to quash - keeping oil and gas in the ground = oil and gas that isn't burnt. And in the Trump era, non-sensical destructive defiance is now commonplace in all sorts of areas. This time the shoe is on the other foot.
Good friends of mine who are very capable academics at Edinburgh University were 100% behind the banning of further exploration in the North Sea. And they still are. Their reasoning is that we must do everything possible to reduce our use of hydrocarbons as rapidly as possible and that means not encouraging any further production where we can control it.
I am all for us building up our renewables, ideally to over 100% of our internal demand, but I simply do not understand this rationale at all. If we still need hydrocarbons whilst we are transitioning as fast as possible we should use our own rather than importing it from elsewhere in the world where much of the production is far more ecologically damaging than north sea production. The idea that the amount we can produce from the North Sea will have any effect of world production and consumption is frankly ridiculous and self harming. But these are exceptionally bright people that I respect greatly and I have to accept it is not quite the no brainer I consider it.
Many people are sufficiently distanced from the means of production (whether agriculture, energy or manufacturing) that they neither know nor care what the requirements of production are.
I do not want to name these people on here for obvious reasons but they both work in geosciences, these are not some airy fairy theoreticians. They simply regard the global warming crisis as overwhelmingly the greatest threat to life and civilisation and think we need to do everything, no matter how small, to reduce it. As you will have gathered I strongly disagree but I always find it thought provoking when seriously intelligent and informed people hold very different views.
Do they not realise that their actions are likely counterproductive and will spur a backlash (a la Trump) that will make global warming worse?
It's a hell of a lot more productive to live in the land of the possible and thing, what can I do today that won't negatively impact living standards, and will make a difference to emissions. And then tomorrow, we can have the same discussion. And the day after. Incrementalism is more likely to be successful than revolution.
Why are UK North Sea hydrocarbons more environmentally damaging than the rest of the World's hydrocarbons?
Ironically they are less damaging by almost every measure. Including how they are extracted. The UK and Noway have just about the strictest environmental rules in the world governing North Sea operations. They are so strict about pollution we have to collect the rain water that falls on the rig and send it back to the beach for processing in case it has picked up any hydrocarbons.
As I said earlier my wife lost a nephew in Piper Alpha and no doubt lessons were learnt but I just cannot see any sense in Miliband destroying jobs and tax revenues on an increasingly isolated idealistic position
Agree entirely.
Well not entirely. The underlying premise of Big_G_NorthWales' proposition is that Ed Miliband has sense but appears to be acting contrary to it on this particular occasion. It is not a premise that I agree with.
One thing this political betting site has failed to discuss is public opinion. You might get the false sense from my posts that even the looniest econ-loons think we should be open to drilling the North Sea, but I'm afraid that isn't the case. Fossil fuels are widely unpopular.
There is a simple, perverse logic that is difficult to quash - keeping oil and gas in the ground = oil and gas that isn't burnt. And in the Trump era, non-sensical destructive defiance is now commonplace in all sorts of areas. This time the shoe is on the other foot.
Good friends of mine who are very capable academics at Edinburgh University were 100% behind the banning of further exploration in the North Sea. And they still are. Their reasoning is that we must do everything possible to reduce our use of hydrocarbons as rapidly as possible and that means not encouraging any further production where we can control it.
I am all for us building up our renewables, ideally to over 100% of our internal demand, but I simply do not understand this rationale at all. If we still need hydrocarbons whilst we are transitioning as fast as possible we should use our own rather than importing it from elsewhere in the world where much of the production is far more ecologically damaging than north sea production. The idea that the amount we can produce from the North Sea will have any effect of world production and consumption is frankly ridiculous and self harming. But these are exceptionally bright people that I respect greatly and I have to accept it is not quite the no brainer I consider it.
Many people are sufficiently distanced from the means of production (whether agriculture, energy or manufacturing) that they neither know nor care what the requirements of production are.
I do not want to name these people on here for obvious reasons but they both work in geosciences, these are not some airy fairy theoreticians. They simply regard the global warming crisis as overwhelmingly the greatest threat to life and civilisation and think we need to do everything, no matter how small, to reduce it. As you will have gathered I strongly disagree but I always find it thought provoking when seriously intelligent and informed people hold very different views.
Do they not realise that their actions are likely counterproductive and will spur a backlash (a la Trump) that will make global warming worse?
It's a hell of a lot more productive to live in the land of the possible and think, what can I do today that won't negatively impact living standards, and will make a difference to emissions. And then tomorrow, we can have the same discussion. And the day after. Incrementalism is more likely to be successful than revolution.
That's just too sensible to work. Heck, even if you added a 'not significantly negatively impact living standards' it would get a lot of people on board.
President Trump will ask Congress to approve roughly $1.5 trillion in funding for the military in the 2027 fiscal year, according to a budget request released by the White House on Friday. If approved, that amount would set military spending at its highest level in modern history.
NY Times
I wonder what he plans to do with an enlarged military?
There's a typically Trumpian incoherence between 'peace president no more foreign wars' rhetoric and the chomping desire to spend loads more on the already huge US military. The two things are incompatible. It's a choice. Does he make good on that rhetoric or does he just love to wave around a great big willy? I think we know the answer to this. The evidence is in.
Trump would LOVE to wave around his great big willy.
Many of our current woes stem from that inability.
Why are UK North Sea hydrocarbons more environmentally damaging than the rest of the World's hydrocarbons?
Ironically they are less damaging by almost every measure. Including how they are extracted. The UK and Noway have just about the strictest environmental rules in the world governing North Sea operations. They are so strict about pollution we have to collect the rain water that falls on the rig and send it back to the beach for processing in case it has picked up any hydrocarbons.
As I said earlier my wife lost a nephew in Piper Alpha and no doubt lessons were learnt but I just cannot see any sense in Miliband destroying jobs and tax revenues on an increasingly isolated idealistic position
Agree entirely.
Well not entirely. The underlying premise of Big_G_NorthWales' proposition is that Ed Miliband has sense but appears to be acting contrary to it on this particular occasion. It is not a premise that I agree with.
One thing this political betting site has failed to discuss is public opinion. You might get the false sense from my posts that even the looniest econ-loons think we should be open to drilling the North Sea, but I'm afraid that isn't the case. Fossil fuels are widely unpopular.
There is a simple, perverse logic that is difficult to quash - keeping oil and gas in the ground = oil and gas that isn't burnt. And in the Trump era, non-sensical destructive defiance is now commonplace in all sorts of areas. This time the shoe is on the other foot.
Good friends of mine who are very capable academics at Edinburgh University were 100% behind the banning of further exploration in the North Sea. And they still are. Their reasoning is that we must do everything possible to reduce our use of hydrocarbons as rapidly as possible and that means not encouraging any further production where we can control it.
I am all for us building up our renewables, ideally to over 100% of our internal demand, but I simply do not understand this rationale at all. If we still need hydrocarbons whilst we are transitioning as fast as possible we should use our own rather than importing it from elsewhere in the world where much of the production is far more ecologically damaging than north sea production. The idea that the amount we can produce from the North Sea will have any effect of world production and consumption is frankly ridiculous and self harming. But these are exceptionally bright people that I respect greatly and I have to accept it is not quite the no brainer I consider it.
To take a step back, it is astonishing and depressing that the main policy response and discussion from this crisis is about the North Sea. Something that has zero impact now, marginal impact in the future, and would not have protected either us from 2022/Ukraine or the umpteen fossil fuel crises to come.
So you'll forgive a deep scepticism, even loathing, of those who are prattling on about it now. It's a deeply cynical diversion away from the only lesson you can draw from this and from Ukraine - we need to stop consuming fossil fuels as fast as possible.
I think that's what driving a lot of the blunt opposition to it. We need more people like you and Richard_Tyndall making the case for both, otherwise people will understandbly sense an ulterior (or frankly open) motive.
You could turn that argument around the other way. I've been a long term and vocal proponent of renewables for far longer than a lot of PBers, but it does not help their case to do economically stupid things (which will have no net impact on our CO2 output at all), for purely ideological reasons.
Just get on with approving the new production, and it will go away as a wedge issue for the climate sceptics.
And spend any tax revenue on upgrading the grid.
On that latter point, this is a good article.
I frequently am asked why, after nearly two decades working on foundational battery, electric vehicle, and energy storage engineering and scale-up, I founded a grid-scale power electronics company. So I wrote this long-form piece talking about why @heronpower, and why now. Enjoy! https://x.com/baglino/status/2040088982680486106
The respectful debate amongst experts pro and con renewable and oil and gas is worth listening to and valuable.
What sillies the water is the sewage level political debate.
Lies, distortions of the facts and sheer shithousery.
People who signed orders to close or deny licences in Government just a few years ago, should have the guts to stand up and own their responsibilities of they have now made a massive u turn to drill baby drill.
What you just do not get is that this war has changed the narrative and made drilling our own gas and oil an imperative
It is this change that Miliband stands against because his ideoleoy does not permit him to reverse course, no matter the arguments
The 2 oil fields will be approved either with or without Miliband
Sorry but I have to disagree with you Big G. The direct cause of the current crisis may have changed over the last month but the basic principles and the basic threats have not. It has been inevitable that there would be disruption to supply at some point for years. We were just fortunate that the Russian invasion in 2022 had so little impact at the time. But that was definitely more luck than judgement.
And the underlying facts - that we are committing economic suicide and reducing our tax base by actvely dissuading North Sea development has been exactly the same since long before Milliband appeared on the scene. Indeed Robert and I (amongst others) were both raising the issue of Government ineptitude on this issue more than a decade ago when Osborne was messing with Oil and Gas tax rates multiple times in a single year.
The last administration bears a large amount of responsibility for where we are now even though, as I keep repeating, Milliband has certainly made it far worse. I would have at least a little more time for Badenoch if she stopped being so hypocritical and admitted the Tories got this wrong as well.
It is still the case this war and the crisis in the Strait of Hormuz has made the development of North Sea oil and gas an imperative that Kemi ( for all her faults and she has them like all politicians) has made the running on
This is politics and I expect Miliband to change and agree the 2 oil and gas fields
President Trump will ask Congress to approve roughly $1.5 trillion in funding for the military in the 2027 fiscal year, according to a budget request released by the White House on Friday. If approved, that amount would set military spending at its highest level in modern history.
NY Times
I wonder what he plans to do with an enlarged military?
There's a typically Trumpian incoherence between 'peace president no more foreign wars' rhetoric and the chomping desire to spend loads more on the already huge US military. The two things are incompatible. It's a choice. Does he make good on that rhetoric or does he just love to wave around a great big willy? I think we know the answer to this. The evidence is in.
Trump would LOVE to wave around his great big willy.
Many of our current woes stem from that inability.
Ah classic compensation, do we think? It does happen.
Why are UK North Sea hydrocarbons more environmentally damaging than the rest of the World's hydrocarbons?
Ironically they are less damaging by almost every measure. Including how they are extracted. The UK and Noway have just about the strictest environmental rules in the world governing North Sea operations. They are so strict about pollution we have to collect the rain water that falls on the rig and send it back to the beach for processing in case it has picked up any hydrocarbons.
As I said earlier my wife lost a nephew in Piper Alpha and no doubt lessons were learnt but I just cannot see any sense in Miliband destroying jobs and tax revenues on an increasingly isolated idealistic position
Agree entirely.
Well not entirely. The underlying premise of Big_G_NorthWales' proposition is that Ed Miliband has sense but appears to be acting contrary to it on this particular occasion. It is not a premise that I agree with.
One thing this political betting site has failed to discuss is public opinion. You might get the false sense from my posts that even the looniest econ-loons think we should be open to drilling the North Sea, but I'm afraid that isn't the case. Fossil fuels are widely unpopular.
There is a simple, perverse logic that is difficult to quash - keeping oil and gas in the ground = oil and gas that isn't burnt. And in the Trump era, non-sensical destructive defiance is now commonplace in all sorts of areas. This time the shoe is on the other foot.
Good friends of mine who are very capable academics at Edinburgh University were 100% behind the banning of further exploration in the North Sea. And they still are. Their reasoning is that we must do everything possible to reduce our use of hydrocarbons as rapidly as possible and that means not encouraging any further production where we can control it.
I am all for us building up our renewables, ideally to over 100% of our internal demand, but I simply do not understand this rationale at all. If we still need hydrocarbons whilst we are transitioning as fast as possible we should use our own rather than importing it from elsewhere in the world where much of the production is far more ecologically damaging than north sea production. The idea that the amount we can produce from the North Sea will have any effect of world production and consumption is frankly ridiculous and self harming. But these are exceptionally bright people that I respect greatly and I have to accept it is not quite the no brainer I consider it.
Many people are sufficiently distanced from the means of production (whether agriculture, energy or manufacturing) that they neither know nor care what the requirements of production are.
I do not want to name these people on here for obvious reasons but they both work in geosciences, these are not some airy fairy theoreticians. They simply regard the global warming crisis as overwhelmingly the greatest threat to life and civilisation and think we need to do everything, no matter how small, to reduce it. As you will have gathered I strongly disagree but I always find it thought provoking when seriously intelligent and informed people hold very different views.
Do they not realise that their actions are likely counterproductive and will spur a backlash (a la Trump) that will make global warming worse?
It's a hell of a lot more productive to live in the land of the possible and thing, what can I do today that won't negatively impact living standards, and will make a difference to emissions. And then tomorrow, we can have the same discussion. And the day after. Incrementalism is more likely to be successful than revolution.
It’s a difficult judgment for scientists to make. They can see the data and it terrifies them. We are heading, seemingly willingly, into the apocalypse.
And it always seems that the sensible ones have to kowtow to the wishes of the crazies in case they make the crazies more popular. The asymmetry of FRITLF.
Why are UK North Sea hydrocarbons more environmentally damaging than the rest of the World's hydrocarbons?
Ironically they are less damaging by almost every measure. Including how they are extracted. The UK and Noway have just about the strictest environmental rules in the world governing North Sea operations. They are so strict about pollution we have to collect the rain water that falls on the rig and send it back to the beach for processing in case it has picked up any hydrocarbons.
As I said earlier my wife lost a nephew in Piper Alpha and no doubt lessons were learnt but I just cannot see any sense in Miliband destroying jobs and tax revenues on an increasingly isolated idealistic position
Agree entirely.
Well not entirely. The underlying premise of Big_G_NorthWales' proposition is that Ed Miliband has sense but appears to be acting contrary to it on this particular occasion. It is not a premise that I agree with.
One thing this political betting site has failed to discuss is public opinion. You might get the false sense from my posts that even the looniest econ-loons think we should be open to drilling the North Sea, but I'm afraid that isn't the case. Fossil fuels are widely unpopular.
There is a simple, perverse logic that is difficult to quash - keeping oil and gas in the ground = oil and gas that isn't burnt. And in the Trump era, non-sensical destructive defiance is now commonplace in all sorts of areas. This time the shoe is on the other foot.
Good friends of mine who are very capable academics at Edinburgh University were 100% behind the banning of further exploration in the North Sea. And they still are. Their reasoning is that we must do everything possible to reduce our use of hydrocarbons as rapidly as possible and that means not encouraging any further production where we can control it.
I am all for us building up our renewables, ideally to over 100% of our internal demand, but I simply do not understand this rationale at all. If we still need hydrocarbons whilst we are transitioning as fast as possible we should use our own rather than importing it from elsewhere in the world where much of the production is far more ecologically damaging than north sea production. The idea that the amount we can produce from the North Sea will have any effect of world production and consumption is frankly ridiculous and self harming. But these are exceptionally bright people that I respect greatly and I have to accept it is not quite the no brainer I consider it.
Many people are sufficiently distanced from the means of production (whether agriculture, energy or manufacturing) that they neither know nor care what the requirements of production are.
I do not want to name these people on here for obvious reasons but they both work in geosciences, these are not some airy fairy theoreticians. They simply regard the global warming crisis as overwhelmingly the greatest threat to life and civilisation and think we need to do everything, no matter how small, to reduce it. As you will have gathered I strongly disagree but I always find it thought provoking when seriously intelligent and informed people hold very different views.
Isn't the mistake they are making being to think that whether or not we drill in the north sea has any effect on oil and gas *consumption* whatsoever?
If it did, they might have a point, however all the avaliable evidence suggests shutting down the north Sea means that consumption continues unchanged and we just substitute imports.
They would do better to entirety ignore the question of production and figure out plausible ways of reducing consumption (preferably ones that don't involve massive amounts of wearing hair shirts, as no one will buy into that).
Well, I have to applaud the honesty about his intentions, most coup leaders are not this direct.
Democracy "kills" and the people of Burkina Faso must "forget" it, the country's military ruler has said in an interview aired on state television.
Capt Ibrahim Traoré, who seized power in a coup three years ago, suggested most Africans do not want the system of democracy and that Burkina Faso had its own, alternative approach, without giving details.
Why are UK North Sea hydrocarbons more environmentally damaging than the rest of the World's hydrocarbons?
Ironically they are less damaging by almost every measure. Including how they are extracted. The UK and Noway have just about the strictest environmental rules in the world governing North Sea operations. They are so strict about pollution we have to collect the rain water that falls on the rig and send it back to the beach for processing in case it has picked up any hydrocarbons.
As I said earlier my wife lost a nephew in Piper Alpha and no doubt lessons were learnt but I just cannot see any sense in Miliband destroying jobs and tax revenues on an increasingly isolated idealistic position
Agree entirely.
Well not entirely. The underlying premise of Big_G_NorthWales' proposition is that Ed Miliband has sense but appears to be acting contrary to it on this particular occasion. It is not a premise that I agree with.
One thing this political betting site has failed to discuss is public opinion. You might get the false sense from my posts that even the looniest econ-loons think we should be open to drilling the North Sea, but I'm afraid that isn't the case. Fossil fuels are widely unpopular.
There is a simple, perverse logic that is difficult to quash - keeping oil and gas in the ground = oil and gas that isn't burnt. And in the Trump era, non-sensical destructive defiance is now commonplace in all sorts of areas. This time the shoe is on the other foot.
Good friends of mine who are very capable academics at Edinburgh University were 100% behind the banning of further exploration in the North Sea. And they still are. Their reasoning is that we must do everything possible to reduce our use of hydrocarbons as rapidly as possible and that means not encouraging any further production where we can control it.
I am all for us building up our renewables, ideally to over 100% of our internal demand, but I simply do not understand this rationale at all. If we still need hydrocarbons whilst we are transitioning as fast as possible we should use our own rather than importing it from elsewhere in the world where much of the production is far more ecologically damaging than north sea production. The idea that the amount we can produce from the North Sea will have any effect of world production and consumption is frankly ridiculous and self harming. But these are exceptionally bright people that I respect greatly and I have to accept it is not quite the no brainer I consider it.
Many people are sufficiently distanced from the means of production (whether agriculture, energy or manufacturing) that they neither know nor care what the requirements of production are.
I do not want to name these people on here for obvious reasons but they both work in geosciences, these are not some airy fairy theoreticians. They simply regard the global warming crisis as overwhelmingly the greatest threat to life and civilisation and think we need to do everything, no matter how small, to reduce it. As you will have gathered I strongly disagree but I always find it thought provoking when seriously intelligent and informed people hold very different views.
Do they not realise that their actions are likely counterproductive and will spur a backlash (a la Trump) that will make global warming worse?
It's a hell of a lot more productive to live in the land of the possible and thing, what can I do today that won't negatively impact living standards, and will make a difference to emissions. And then tomorrow, we can have the same discussion. And the day after. Incrementalism is more likely to be successful than revolution.
Why are UK North Sea hydrocarbons more environmentally damaging than the rest of the World's hydrocarbons?
Ironically they are less damaging by almost every measure. Including how they are extracted. The UK and Noway have just about the strictest environmental rules in the world governing North Sea operations. They are so strict about pollution we have to collect the rain water that falls on the rig and send it back to the beach for processing in case it has picked up any hydrocarbons.
As I said earlier my wife lost a nephew in Piper Alpha and no doubt lessons were learnt but I just cannot see any sense in Miliband destroying jobs and tax revenues on an increasingly isolated idealistic position
Agree entirely.
Well not entirely. The underlying premise of Big_G_NorthWales' proposition is that Ed Miliband has sense but appears to be acting contrary to it on this particular occasion. It is not a premise that I agree with.
One thing this political betting site has failed to discuss is public opinion. You might get the false sense from my posts that even the looniest econ-loons think we should be open to drilling the North Sea, but I'm afraid that isn't the case. Fossil fuels are widely unpopular.
There is a simple, perverse logic that is difficult to quash - keeping oil and gas in the ground = oil and gas that isn't burnt. And in the Trump era, non-sensical destructive defiance is now commonplace in all sorts of areas. This time the shoe is on the other foot.
Good friends of mine who are very capable academics at Edinburgh University were 100% behind the banning of further exploration in the North Sea. And they still are. Their reasoning is that we must do everything possible to reduce our use of hydrocarbons as rapidly as possible and that means not encouraging any further production where we can control it.
I am all for us building up our renewables, ideally to over 100% of our internal demand, but I simply do not understand this rationale at all. If we still need hydrocarbons whilst we are transitioning as fast as possible we should use our own rather than importing it from elsewhere in the world where much of the production is far more ecologically damaging than north sea production. The idea that the amount we can produce from the North Sea will have any effect of world production and consumption is frankly ridiculous and self harming. But these are exceptionally bright people that I respect greatly and I have to accept it is not quite the no brainer I consider it.
Many people are sufficiently distanced from the means of production (whether agriculture, energy or manufacturing) that they neither know nor care what the requirements of production are.
I do not want to name these people on here for obvious reasons but they both work in geosciences, these are not some airy fairy theoreticians. They simply regard the global warming crisis as overwhelmingly the greatest threat to life and civilisation and think we need to do everything, no matter how small, to reduce it. As you will have gathered I strongly disagree but I always find it thought provoking when seriously intelligent and informed people hold very different views.
Isn't the mistake they are making being to think that whether or not we drill in the north sea has any effect on oil and gas *consumption* whatsoever?
If it did, they might have a point, however all the avaliable evidence suggests shutting down the north Sea means that consumption continues unchanged and we just substitute imports.
They would do better to entirety ignore the question of production and figure out plausible ways of reducing consumption (preferably ones that don't involve massive amounts of wearing hair shirts, as no one will buy into that).
100% completely agreed.
It is the classic fallacy of "something must be done, this is something, so this must be done".
Why are UK North Sea hydrocarbons more environmentally damaging than the rest of the World's hydrocarbons?
Ironically they are less damaging by almost every measure. Including how they are extracted. The UK and Noway have just about the strictest environmental rules in the world governing North Sea operations. They are so strict about pollution we have to collect the rain water that falls on the rig and send it back to the beach for processing in case it has picked up any hydrocarbons.
As I said earlier my wife lost a nephew in Piper Alpha and no doubt lessons were learnt but I just cannot see any sense in Miliband destroying jobs and tax revenues on an increasingly isolated idealistic position
Agree entirely.
Well not entirely. The underlying premise of Big_G_NorthWales' proposition is that Ed Miliband has sense but appears to be acting contrary to it on this particular occasion. It is not a premise that I agree with.
One thing this political betting site has failed to discuss is public opinion. You might get the false sense from my posts that even the looniest econ-loons think we should be open to drilling the North Sea, but I'm afraid that isn't the case. Fossil fuels are widely unpopular.
There is a simple, perverse logic that is difficult to quash - keeping oil and gas in the ground = oil and gas that isn't burnt. And in the Trump era, non-sensical destructive defiance is now commonplace in all sorts of areas. This time the shoe is on the other foot.
Good friends of mine who are very capable academics at Edinburgh University were 100% behind the banning of further exploration in the North Sea. And they still are. Their reasoning is that we must do everything possible to reduce our use of hydrocarbons as rapidly as possible and that means not encouraging any further production where we can control it.
I am all for us building up our renewables, ideally to over 100% of our internal demand, but I simply do not understand this rationale at all. If we still need hydrocarbons whilst we are transitioning as fast as possible we should use our own rather than importing it from elsewhere in the world where much of the production is far more ecologically damaging than north sea production. The idea that the amount we can produce from the North Sea will have any effect of world production and consumption is frankly ridiculous and self harming. But these are exceptionally bright people that I respect greatly and I have to accept it is not quite the no brainer I consider it.
Many people are sufficiently distanced from the means of production (whether agriculture, energy or manufacturing) that they neither know nor care what the requirements of production are.
I do not want to name these people on here for obvious reasons but they both work in geosciences, these are not some airy fairy theoreticians. They simply regard the global warming crisis as overwhelmingly the greatest threat to life and civilisation and think we need to do everything, no matter how small, to reduce it. As you will have gathered I strongly disagree but I always find it thought provoking when seriously intelligent and informed people hold very different views.
Isn't the mistake they are making being to think that whether or not we drill in the north sea has any effect on oil and gas *consumption* whatsoever?
If it did, they might have a point, however all the avaliable evidence suggests shutting down the north Sea means that consumption continues unchanged and we just substitute imports.
They would do better to entirety ignore the question of production and figure out plausible ways of reducing consumption (preferably ones that don't involve massive amounts of wearing hair shirts, as no one will buy into that).
I would point out that Norway manages both (a) to have the highest penetration of electric vehicles in the world, (b) one of the highest levels of renewable generation in the world... and (c) still drills for oil and gas. (And trust me, you would rather it was the environmentally conscious Norwegians doing it than someone in the Middle East or Africa.)
That barometer of the impending demise of civilsation -my local Tesco's - has seen petrol rise 3p overnight to 152.9p per litre while diesel is at 186.9p per litre.
The Habshan gas facilities, the biggest gas processing site in the United Arab Emirates, suffered "significant damage" in an Iranian drone strike overnight.
At least one worker was killed in the strike, and operations have been shuttered.
Why are UK North Sea hydrocarbons more environmentally damaging than the rest of the World's hydrocarbons?
Ironically they are less damaging by almost every measure. Including how they are extracted. The UK and Noway have just about the strictest environmental rules in the world governing North Sea operations. They are so strict about pollution we have to collect the rain water that falls on the rig and send it back to the beach for processing in case it has picked up any hydrocarbons.
As I said earlier my wife lost a nephew in Piper Alpha and no doubt lessons were learnt but I just cannot see any sense in Miliband destroying jobs and tax revenues on an increasingly isolated idealistic position
Agree entirely.
Well not entirely. The underlying premise of Big_G_NorthWales' proposition is that Ed Miliband has sense but appears to be acting contrary to it on this particular occasion. It is not a premise that I agree with.
One thing this political betting site has failed to discuss is public opinion. You might get the false sense from my posts that even the looniest econ-loons think we should be open to drilling the North Sea, but I'm afraid that isn't the case. Fossil fuels are widely unpopular.
There is a simple, perverse logic that is difficult to quash - keeping oil and gas in the ground = oil and gas that isn't burnt. And in the Trump era, non-sensical destructive defiance is now commonplace in all sorts of areas. This time the shoe is on the other foot.
Good friends of mine who are very capable academics at Edinburgh University were 100% behind the banning of further exploration in the North Sea. And they still are. Their reasoning is that we must do everything possible to reduce our use of hydrocarbons as rapidly as possible and that means not encouraging any further production where we can control it.
I am all for us building up our renewables, ideally to over 100% of our internal demand, but I simply do not understand this rationale at all. If we still need hydrocarbons whilst we are transitioning as fast as possible we should use our own rather than importing it from elsewhere in the world where much of the production is far more ecologically damaging than north sea production. The idea that the amount we can produce from the North Sea will have any effect of world production and consumption is frankly ridiculous and self harming. But these are exceptionally bright people that I respect greatly and I have to accept it is not quite the no brainer I consider it.
To take a step back, it is astonishing and depressing that the main policy response and discussion from this crisis is about the North Sea. Something that has zero impact now, marginal impact in the future, and would not have protected either us from 2022/Ukraine or the umpteen fossil fuel crises to come.
So you'll forgive a deep scepticism, even loathing, of those who are prattling on about it now. It's a deeply cynical diversion away from the only lesson you can draw from this and from Ukraine - we need to stop consuming fossil fuels as fast as possible.
I think that's what driving a lot of the blunt opposition to it. We need more people like you and Richard_Tyndall making the case for both, otherwise people will understandbly sense an ulterior (or frankly open) motive.
You could turn that argument around the other way. I've been a long term and vocal proponent of renewables for far longer than a lot of PBers, but it does not help their case to do economically stupid things (which will have no net impact on our CO2 output at all), for purely ideological reasons.
Just get on with approving the new production, and it will go away as a wedge issue for the climate sceptics.
And spend any tax revenue on upgrading the grid.
On that latter point, this is a good article.
I frequently am asked why, after nearly two decades working on foundational battery, electric vehicle, and energy storage engineering and scale-up, I founded a grid-scale power electronics company. So I wrote this long-form piece talking about why @heronpower, and why now. Enjoy! https://x.com/baglino/status/2040088982680486106
The respectful debate amongst experts pro and con renewable and oil and gas is worth listening to and valuable.
What sillies the water is the sewage level political debate.
Lies, distortions of the facts and sheer shithousery.
People who signed orders to close or deny licences in Government just a few years ago, should have the guts to stand up and own their responsibilities of they have now made a massive u turn to drill baby drill.
What you just do not get is that this war has changed the narrative and made drilling our own gas and oil an imperative
It is this change that Miliband stands against because his ideoleoy does not permit him to reverse course, no matter the arguments
The 2 oil fields will be approved either with or without Miliband
Sorry but I have to disagree with you Big G. The direct cause of the current crisis may have changed over the last month but the basic principles and the basic threats have not. It has been inevitable that there would be disruption to supply at some point for years. We were just fortunate that the Russian invasion in 2022 had so little impact at the time. But that was definitely more luck than judgement.
And the underlying facts - that we are committing economic suicide and reducing our tax base by actvely dissuading North Sea development has been exactly the same since long before Milliband appeared on the scene. Indeed Robert and I (amongst others) were both raising the issue of Government ineptitude on this issue more than a decade ago when Osborne was messing with Oil and Gas tax rates multiple times in a single year.
The last administration bears a large amount of responsibility for where we are now even though, as I keep repeating, Milliband has certainly made it far worse. I would have at least a little more time for Badenoch if she stopped being so hypocritical and admitted the Tories got this wrong as well.
It is still the case this war and the crisis in the Strait of Hormuz has made the development of North Sea oil and gas an imperative that Kemi ( for all her faults and she has them like all politicians) has made the running on
This is politics and I expect Miliband to change and agree the 2 oil and gas fields
Kemi has not made the running. Some of us have been banging on about this a lot longer than she has.
Why are UK North Sea hydrocarbons more environmentally damaging than the rest of the World's hydrocarbons?
Ironically they are less damaging by almost every measure. Including how they are extracted. The UK and Noway have just about the strictest environmental rules in the world governing North Sea operations. They are so strict about pollution we have to collect the rain water that falls on the rig and send it back to the beach for processing in case it has picked up any hydrocarbons.
As I said earlier my wife lost a nephew in Piper Alpha and no doubt lessons were learnt but I just cannot see any sense in Miliband destroying jobs and tax revenues on an increasingly isolated idealistic position
Agree entirely.
Well not entirely. The underlying premise of Big_G_NorthWales' proposition is that Ed Miliband has sense but appears to be acting contrary to it on this particular occasion. It is not a premise that I agree with.
One thing this political betting site has failed to discuss is public opinion. You might get the false sense from my posts that even the looniest econ-loons think we should be open to drilling the North Sea, but I'm afraid that isn't the case. Fossil fuels are widely unpopular.
There is a simple, perverse logic that is difficult to quash - keeping oil and gas in the ground = oil and gas that isn't burnt. And in the Trump era, non-sensical destructive defiance is now commonplace in all sorts of areas. This time the shoe is on the other foot.
Good friends of mine who are very capable academics at Edinburgh University were 100% behind the banning of further exploration in the North Sea. And they still are. Their reasoning is that we must do everything possible to reduce our use of hydrocarbons as rapidly as possible and that means not encouraging any further production where we can control it.
I am all for us building up our renewables, ideally to over 100% of our internal demand, but I simply do not understand this rationale at all. If we still need hydrocarbons whilst we are transitioning as fast as possible we should use our own rather than importing it from elsewhere in the world where much of the production is far more ecologically damaging than north sea production. The idea that the amount we can produce from the North Sea will have any effect of world production and consumption is frankly ridiculous and self harming. But these are exceptionally bright people that I respect greatly and I have to accept it is not quite the no brainer I consider it.
Many people are sufficiently distanced from the means of production (whether agriculture, energy or manufacturing) that they neither know nor care what the requirements of production are.
I do not want to name these people on here for obvious reasons but they both work in geosciences, these are not some airy fairy theoreticians. They simply regard the global warming crisis as overwhelmingly the greatest threat to life and civilisation and think we need to do everything, no matter how small, to reduce it. As you will have gathered I strongly disagree but I always find it thought provoking when seriously intelligent and informed people hold very different views.
Isn't the mistake they are making being to think that whether or not we drill in the north sea has any effect on oil and gas *consumption* whatsoever?
If it did, they might have a point, however all the avaliable evidence suggests shutting down the north Sea means that consumption continues unchanged and we just substitute imports.
They would do better to entirety ignore the question of production and figure out plausible ways of reducing consumption (preferably ones that don't involve massive amounts of wearing hair shirts, as no one will buy into that).
I would point out that Norway manages both (a) to have the highest penetration of electric vehicles in the world, (b) one of the highest levels of renewable generation in the world... and (c) still drills for oil and gas. (And trust me, you would rather it was the environmentally conscious Norwegians doing it than someone in the Middle East or Africa.)
A cheap shot. Many of the environmental standards in Africa have been raised by the involvement of the foreign investors - because the shareholders will not let them cut corners.
I have been in situations where I have insisted on the introduction of best practice standards. This has sometimes required setting up a new environmental law.
Why are UK North Sea hydrocarbons more environmentally damaging than the rest of the World's hydrocarbons?
Ironically they are less damaging by almost every measure. Including how they are extracted. The UK and Noway have just about the strictest environmental rules in the world governing North Sea operations. They are so strict about pollution we have to collect the rain water that falls on the rig and send it back to the beach for processing in case it has picked up any hydrocarbons.
As I said earlier my wife lost a nephew in Piper Alpha and no doubt lessons were learnt but I just cannot see any sense in Miliband destroying jobs and tax revenues on an increasingly isolated idealistic position
Agree entirely.
Well not entirely. The underlying premise of Big_G_NorthWales' proposition is that Ed Miliband has sense but appears to be acting contrary to it on this particular occasion. It is not a premise that I agree with.
One thing this political betting site has failed to discuss is public opinion. You might get the false sense from my posts that even the looniest econ-loons think we should be open to drilling the North Sea, but I'm afraid that isn't the case. Fossil fuels are widely unpopular.
There is a simple, perverse logic that is difficult to quash - keeping oil and gas in the ground = oil and gas that isn't burnt. And in the Trump era, non-sensical destructive defiance is now commonplace in all sorts of areas. This time the shoe is on the other foot.
Good friends of mine who are very capable academics at Edinburgh University were 100% behind the banning of further exploration in the North Sea. And they still are. Their reasoning is that we must do everything possible to reduce our use of hydrocarbons as rapidly as possible and that means not encouraging any further production where we can control it.
I am all for us building up our renewables, ideally to over 100% of our internal demand, but I simply do not understand this rationale at all. If we still need hydrocarbons whilst we are transitioning as fast as possible we should use our own rather than importing it from elsewhere in the world where much of the production is far more ecologically damaging than north sea production. The idea that the amount we can produce from the North Sea will have any effect of world production and consumption is frankly ridiculous and self harming. But these are exceptionally bright people that I respect greatly and I have to accept it is not quite the no brainer I consider it.
Many people are sufficiently distanced from the means of production (whether agriculture, energy or manufacturing) that they neither know nor care what the requirements of production are.
I do not want to name these people on here for obvious reasons but they both work in geosciences, these are not some airy fairy theoreticians. They simply regard the global warming crisis as overwhelmingly the greatest threat to life and civilisation and think we need to do everything, no matter how small, to reduce it. As you will have gathered I strongly disagree but I always find it thought provoking when seriously intelligent and informed people hold very different views.
Do they not realise that their actions are likely counterproductive and will spur a backlash (a la Trump) that will make global warming worse?
It's a hell of a lot more productive to live in the land of the possible and thing, what can I do today that won't negatively impact living standards, and will make a difference to emissions. And then tomorrow, we can have the same discussion. And the day after. Incrementalism is more likely to be successful than revolution.
I kinda agree with you, but then slow incrementalism and lip service to global warming has led to where we are now. A much hotter planet and vast amounts of CO2 still going into the atmosphere. I was on a training course recently with someone who studies glaciers. He was saying they discourage young researchers from coming into the field as it’s just too depressing to see these dramatic effects on our climate and not enough being done.
Comments
https://x.com/iraninsa/status/2040058819179315528
These are not entirely rational adversaries.
I suspect a lot of people who fill up only 1-2 times a month are making the most of pay day and filling up now.
My old flatmate spent some time working for our government in Iraq, during some very tense times and it was clear that from our governments perspective it would be far worse to be captured than killed.
I wish the media would stop pretending Trump gives a fig about these US pilots .
I've been a long term and vocal proponent of renewables for far longer than a lot of PBers, but it does not help their case to do economically stupid things (which will have no net impact on our CO2 output at all), for purely ideological reasons.
Just get on with approving the new production, and it will go away as a wedge issue for the climate sceptics.
And spend any tax revenue on upgrading the grid.
On that latter point, this is a good article.
I frequently am asked why, after nearly two decades working on foundational battery, electric vehicle, and energy storage engineering and scale-up, I founded a grid-scale power electronics company. So I wrote this long-form piece talking about why
@heronpower, and why now. Enjoy!
https://x.com/baglino/status/2040088982680486106
Though thanks to my shameful and clearly stupid decision to embrace net zero, I don't give a toss.
Is there a better one out there for the current PM and CoE?
Another opportunity to utilise indigenous resources that was stopped by politicians.
There's always the option of gasifying waste followed by the same FT. However, waste gasification has a very patchy track record, to put it mildly.
Just reading those ejector seats aswell as the pilot have GPS tracking and personal locator beacons.
What sillies the water is the sewage level political debate.
Lies, distortions of the facts and sheer shithousery.
People who signed orders to close or deny licences in Government just a few years ago, should have the guts to stand up and own their responsibilities of they have now made a massive u turn to drill baby drill.
The out of towers are then turning round and driving back sitting in a long queue.
Brain dead dickheads
Democracy "kills" and the people of Burkina Faso must "forget" it, the country's military ruler has said in an interview aired on state television.
Capt Ibrahim Traoré, who seized power in a coup three years ago, suggested most Africans do not want the system of democracy and that Burkina Faso had its own, alternative approach, without giving details.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cly0zp1xgz3o
It is this change that Miliband stands against because his ideoleoy does not permit him to reverse course, no matter the arguments
The 2 oil fields will be approved either with or without Miliband
And the underlying facts - that we are committing economic suicide and reducing our tax base by actvely dissuading North Sea development has been exactly the same since long before Milliband appeared on the scene. Indeed Robert and I (amongst others) were both raising the issue of Government ineptitude on this issue more than a decade ago when Osborne was messing with Oil and Gas tax rates multiple times in a single year.
The last administration bears a large amount of responsibility for where we are now even though, as I keep repeating, Milliband has certainly made it far worse. I would have at least a little more time for Badenoch if she stopped being so hypocritical and admitted the Tories got this wrong as well.
This is just a particularly frustrating example as the benefits seem so clear to me.
It's a hell of a lot more productive to live in the land of the possible and thing, what can I do today that won't negatively impact living standards, and will make a difference to emissions. And then tomorrow, we can have the same discussion. And the day after. Incrementalism is more likely to be successful than revolution.
Trump has shown a flagrant disregard time and again for those who have voted for him in the past. He is also not seeking election again.
Many of our current woes stem from that inability.
This is politics and I expect Miliband to change and agree the 2 oil and gas fields
And it always seems that the sensible ones have to kowtow to the wishes of the crazies in case they make the crazies more popular. The asymmetry of FRITLF.
But yes, you are right. That’s realpolitik.
If it did, they might have a point, however all the avaliable evidence suggests shutting down the north Sea means that consumption continues unchanged and we just substitute imports.
They would do better to entirety ignore the question of production and figure out plausible ways of reducing consumption (preferably ones that don't involve massive amounts of wearing hair shirts, as no one will buy into that).
So advocating multi-party democracy across all of Africa could get you called racist, by such people.
And suggesting multiparty democracy in Poland was warmongering and fascist.
It is the classic fallacy of "something must be done, this is something, so this must be done".
Except maybe in Trump's head.
Maybe.
That barometer of the impending demise of civilsation -my local Tesco's - has seen petrol rise 3p overnight to 152.9p per litre while diesel is at 186.9p per litre.
The Habshan gas facilities, the biggest gas processing site in the United Arab Emirates, suffered "significant damage" in an Iranian drone strike overnight.
At least one worker was killed in the strike, and operations have been shuttered.
I have been in situations where I have insisted on the introduction of best practice standards. This has sometimes required setting up a new environmental law.