Richard_Tyndall said:

JosiasJessop said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

CarlottaVance said:

Russia blowing up the dam is going to have severe consequences. The act equates to the use of weapons of mass destruction under international law.
------
"Dams like the Dnipro dam in Nova Kahkovka are protected by the laws of war and the Geneva convention. Destroying it would be considered a weapon of mass destruction and an indiscriminate war crime. Article 56 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I provides:

'Works and installations containing dangerous forces, namely dams, dykes and nuclear electrical generating stations, shall not be made the object of attack, even where these objects are military objectives, if such attack may cause the release of dangerous forces and consequent severe losses among the civilian population. Other military objectives located at or in the vicinity of these works or installations shall not be made the object of attack if such attack may cause the release of dangerous forces from the works or installations and consequent severe losses among the civilian population.'

Model of the worse case attached.

SOURCE: https://cornucopia.se/2022/10/worst-case-modelling-for-nova-kakhovka-dam-break/

https://twitter.com/igorsushko/status/1665940031381594112?s=20

Talking about Desert Storm, the Americans thought about blowing up the dams on the Tigris and Euphrates rivers if the Iraqis used WMD in Desert Storm.

Colin Powell said they stopped when they realised it would cause more damage than nuking Baghdad and realised they would likely face war crimes charges.

It is interesting that an event we celebrate in film and memorial and which just had its 80th anniversary marked by a flypast of all the WW2 airfields in Lincolnshire would now be considered a war crime.

The problem with war crimes is they are only work if those who committed them are defeated and can be put on trial, as with the Nazis in WW2 or Serbs in Bosnia or ousted tyrants in Africa or the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia.

It doesn't matter how many war crimes Putin or indeed the US are alleged to have committed, they are not going to voluntarily hand themselves over to war crimes tribunals and nor are security forces going to be able to arrest them in Moscow or DC

But that should not impact whether or not things are considered a war crime. We all know that sometime speople get away with doing terrible things. That doesn't mean we should not still insist that these things ARE terrible and that we will hold people to account where we get the opportunity.

My original comment was just an observation on how the world has changed but we still perceive some things as being acceptable long after they are now considered criminal.

It's an interesting one.

Perhaps it's because there's thankfully been progress, but most people can see it in the context of the times? It was, for the time, total war, but there were standards. Even then, Britain, the US and Germany held back from using chemical weapons (not the Japanese, though...). The Red Cross was generally respected.

As I remember the RAF Chaplain at the time of Dresden used an argument that given that war is a complete negation of civilised behaviour, the only reasonable response from civilised people was to use all means at their disposal to bring it to an end as quickly as possible.

I have to say I don't necessarily hold with that view and think it can and is used to condone things which are completely beyond the pale. I only mention it as it seemed apposite to your comment.

Scott_xP said:

Security experts are to turn on an old phone belonging to Boris Johnson to try to extract WhatsApp messages revealing discussions with government figures at the start of the pandemic.

The phone was switched off in 2021 because of fears that it had been hacked with Israeli spy software. The advice was that it should never be turned back on.

But the Covid inquiry revealed today that it had reached a deal with the Cabinet Office to hand the phone to the “appropriate personnel in government for its contents to be downloaded”.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/covid-inquiry-baroness-hallett-boris-johnson-whatsapp-messages-tbncbgq5g

CarlottaVance said:

In lighter news, Harry having a bit of a 'mare in the witness box:

https://twitter.com/JasonFarrellSky

Sandpit said:

Scott_xP said:

Security experts are to turn on an old phone belonging to Boris Johnson to try to extract WhatsApp messages revealing discussions with government figures at the start of the pandemic.

The phone was switched off in 2021 because of fears that it had been hacked with Israeli spy software. The advice was that it should never be turned back on.

But the Covid inquiry revealed today that it had reached a deal with the Cabinet Office to hand the phone to the “appropriate personnel in government for its contents to be downloaded”.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/covid-inquiry-baroness-hallett-boris-johnson-whatsapp-messages-tbncbgq5g

Technically that’s easy to do.

You remove the SIM card, and switch it on in a room with no other phones within bluetooth range, and no wifi signal. You download the contents to a brand new computer that’s never had an internet connection, then switch the phone off.

The only thing that could kill it, would be spyware with system access, set to delete everything if it were switched off for a period of time, in which case it’s dead already.

BartholomewRoberts said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

logical_song said:

Sandpit said:

logical_song said:

Sandpit said:

logical_song said:

Sandpit said:

logical_song said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

logical_song said:

148grss said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

148grss said:

Taz said:

More on Labour becoming the political wing of Just Stop Oil/Exctinction Rebellion.

On the back of the policies on North Sea Oil and Gas and the bung from one of the major providers of on shore wind.

I wonder if we will see a dreaded "green new deal" next.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/other/labour-climate-tsar-is-extinction-rebellion-s-former-legal-strategy-co-ordinator/ar-AA1caQ5J?ocid=entnewsntp&cvid=bec714168f634cef806c5a4532ea1a10&ei=14

Yes Keir "Lock 'Em Up" Starmer is the political wing of the green protest movement... There are a few projections suggesting we may hit the 1.5 degrees above industrial temperatures this summer. And that could be a consistent temperature increase by 2030. That is the line at which most projections are like "we could likely protect civilisation as we know it in developed countries at the expense of a lot of lives elsewhere". We do not have the time to not halt new fossil fuel extraction. The ONLY argument for more fossil fuel extraction would be if we ever actually solve carbon capture (a thing we have not actually solved despite selling it as if it is a thing that works) and the short term value of fossil fuels allows us to invest in that. I'm in my early 30s. I would quite like a habitable and safe planet by the time I'm 60. Hell, if I'm lucky enough to live into my 90s like my grandad currently is, I'd quite like a habitable planet then!

If we hit the 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial temperatures that's not going to make the world uninhabitable. That's a fraction of a degree above where we have been in recent decades and fractions of a degree are perfectly normal variance.

Of course climate change is real, but we're already working on it. We're already decarbonising. We still need fossil fuel extraction, for the interim, and we will need fossil fuel extraction even when we hit net zero as petrochemicals are required for many medicines, materials and other industrial purposes not remotely related to burning and releasing carbon.

I want a habitable world. We are working on that already though and need to continue to do the right thing, not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

If it stayed at 1.5 degrees, possibly - although there is a big issue that if we were to get to 1.5 the feedback loop would still lead to greater warming. I also don't really see the decarbonising push by individual countries as useful if all they are doing is outsourcing their carbon producing industries to other countries who end up producing our consumer goods and then blamed for the new emissions, whilst also not benefitting from any wealth creation themselves.

And by uninhabitable I don't just mean the climate, I mean the political reality also leading to uninhabitable scenarios. If 700 million people are displaced by 2030 due to droughts across Asia and Africa (as is projected), then the current anti immigrant fervour will continue through the roof, and the fortress nation state will lead to increased authoritarianism. The current food inflation will pale in comparison to impacts of mass drought / flooding; one of the reasons wheat prices have been so bad (beyond the Ukraine war) is that wheat producing areas in the US, China and Africa have also been ravaged by harsh climate events. Resource wars, especially water wars, could become common in the not to distant future.

How much of a dent to standard of living can people take without things collapsing? If we had made the necessary investment earlier, we could have slowly changed expectations and sourcing for things. Now, who knows. Putting our head in the sand and hoping business as usual works hasn't worked so far. The next generation are more extreme on this issue, on the left and right, and as much as you hate the JSO or XR activists the ecofascists are much worse.

Yes, there are feedback loops. We need to reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere before we get runaway temperature rise. So far we only are slowing the increase. The economic case for new fossil fuel investment is getting much weaker, the danger is that they will become stranded assets. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fsnkPLkf1ao

Slowing the increase is all we can do for now. Unless you want a catastrophe then slowing is how you stop, its a transition. If I'm driving at 70mph and do an emergency stop, I have to slow before I stop or go into reverse and I will keep going forwards while slowing - but if I'm slowing down, I'm doing what I can.

We are slowing.

If new fossil fuel extraction becomes a stranded asset then that is the responsibility of the investors and they can lose out. Not a problem, some investments fail. Buyer beware and all that. But the environmental case for using domestically sourced fossil fuels over imported ones from countries like Russia or Saudi Arabia is unequivocally clear. Domestic fuels are much cleaner to use, while we transition to alternatives, and lets leave the Sheikhs and Oligarchs with stranded assets instead if that's what it comes to.

We aren't slowing fast enough. https://cleantechnica.com/2023/06/05/broken-record-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-levels-jump-again/
"Are renewable energy sources cheaper than fossil fuels?
Yes, renewable energy is cheaper than fossil fuels. In 2021, IRENA reported that two-thirds of newly installed renewable power in G20 countries had lower costs than the cheapest fossil fuel-fired option – and they’re only set to get more affordable from here on out."
https://www.theecoexperts.co.uk/blog/is-renewable-energy-cheaper-than-fossil-fuels#:~:text=Are renewable energy sources cheaper than fossil fuels?,to get more affordable from here on out.

Who exactly is “We”, in that statement?

Most of the policy suggestions appear to want to curtail emissions and economic progress, while raising energy prices, in Western nations, but simultaneously increasing reliance for energy on more polluting developing countries.

'We' is the world in general.
Curtailing emissions doesn't imply curtailing economic progress or raising energy prices. Nobody now should build a coal fired power station because it would cost more to run than Renewables and within a few years be a stranded asset.
https://ourworldindata.org/cheap-renewables-growth

So long as the “We” continues to be the whole world, and that policy suggestions reduce the CO2 emissions from the whole world, then great.

But that’s not what’s currently seen in practice.

OK Sandpit, explain what you mean.
Is this a criticism of any particular country?
"China is the world's leader in electricity production from renewable energy sources, with over triple the generation of the second-ranking country, the United States.
China's total renewable energy capacity exceeded 1,000 GW in 2021, accounting for 43.5 per cent of the country's total power generation capacity, 10.2 percentage points higher than in 2015. The country aims to have 80 per cent of its total energy mix come from non-fossil fuel sources by 2060" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_China

The UK is doing ok, 7th in the WEF ETI list, but 'we' (the whole world) need to increase the rate at which we move to renewables to hit net zero by 2030 - have a look at the graph here https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/12/doubling-renewable-energy-net-zero-emissions/
So, how does it make any sense, environmental or economic to spend time and money looking for new fossil fuels now?

Becuase most of the policy suggestions, are that the UK should abandon FF extraction, in favour of importing it - at a higher global CO2 impact - from other countries.

China is still building coal power plants.

Who is suggesting that "UK should abandon FF extraction, in favour of importing it" ? They would obviously be a complete idiot.
Or is it that somebody else is accusing someone of doing so?
China should stop building coal power plants, obviously.

Well indeed. Nobody is suggesting that UK should abandon fossil fuel extraction in favour of importing it - that appears to be a strawman dreamt up by those who are determined to slow down the transition from fossil fuels. And if anyone were suggesting it, the idea isn't without some environmental merit, given that the extraction of oil from the North Sea results in the emission of more CO2 than, say, the extraction of oil from the Saudi desert.

And yes, China should stop building coal power plants, but, on a per capita basis, China is responsible for far less CO2 in the air than we are and is unlikely ever to contribute to climate change as much as us. We are hardly in a position to criticise them for something we did in spades while simultaneously dragging our heels on cleaning up our own act.

Actually that is precisely what is suggested by blocking North Sea licences, but not blocking imports.

You don't change demand one iota by doing that, you don't help the environment at all. All you do is generate more imports, worsen our balance of payments, worsen our control over the environment and regulatory framework. And make yourself feel good by exporting emissions to other nations.

It is superficial foppery. If you want to be serious about it, do serious actions, like banning imports or banning gas boilers, or banning petrol stations. But if you're not prepared to do that, then we need fuel, and if we need fuel, then there is no scientific reason to block North Sea licences.

Oh and you're wrong on per capita climate emissions too. China is responsible for more ongoing emissions on a per capita basis than the UK is, let alone on an aggregate basis.

Pulpstar said:

Cookie said:

Just discovered I have a Chat GPT account. Not passing the Turing test yet:

Cookie: Where do you weigh a whale?

Chat GPT: You weigh a whale at a specialized facility or location equipped to handle the immense size and weight of these marine mammals. These facilities are typically marine research centers, aquariums, or other institutions that work with whales and have the necessary infrastructure and equipment.

To weigh a whale, the most common method is to use a large-scale or platform scale. The scale is typically placed on a solid foundation, such as a reinforced floor, capable of supporting the weight of the whale. The whale is carefully guided onto the scale, either by using a specialized lift or by coaxing it onto the weighing platform through training techniques.

It's important to note that weighing a whale is a complex and challenging task due to their size, weight, and the need to ensure the safety and well-being of the animal throughout the process. Therefore, it is typically carried out by experienced professionals who follow strict protocols to minimize stress and potential harm to the whale.

What's wrong with that answer ?

I think it's the one most of the world would give (If they had the knowledge). Is there a parochial joke you're making chatgpt is missing ?

Andy_JS said:

Pulpstar said:

Cookie said:

Just discovered I have a Chat GPT account. Not passing the Turing test yet:

Cookie: Where do you weigh a whale?

Chat GPT: You weigh a whale at a specialized facility or location equipped to handle the immense size and weight of these marine mammals. These facilities are typically marine research centers, aquariums, or other institutions that work with whales and have the necessary infrastructure and equipment.

To weigh a whale, the most common method is to use a large-scale or platform scale. The scale is typically placed on a solid foundation, such as a reinforced floor, capable of supporting the weight of the whale. The whale is carefully guided onto the scale, either by using a specialized lift or by coaxing it onto the weighing platform through training techniques.

It's important to note that weighing a whale is a complex and challenging task due to their size, weight, and the need to ensure the safety and well-being of the animal throughout the process. Therefore, it is typically carried out by experienced professionals who follow strict protocols to minimize stress and potential harm to the whale.

What's wrong with that answer ?

I think it's the one most of the world would give (If they had the knowledge). Is there a parochial joke you're making chatgpt is missing ?

You can tell it's an answer generated by a computer.

BartholomewRoberts said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

logical_song said:

Sandpit said:

logical_song said:

Sandpit said:

logical_song said:

Sandpit said:

logical_song said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

logical_song said:

148grss said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

148grss said:

Taz said:

More on Labour becoming the political wing of Just Stop Oil/Exctinction Rebellion.

On the back of the policies on North Sea Oil and Gas and the bung from one of the major providers of on shore wind.

I wonder if we will see a dreaded "green new deal" next.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/other/labour-climate-tsar-is-extinction-rebellion-s-former-legal-strategy-co-ordinator/ar-AA1caQ5J?ocid=entnewsntp&cvid=bec714168f634cef806c5a4532ea1a10&ei=14

Yes Keir "Lock 'Em Up" Starmer is the political wing of the green protest movement... There are a few projections suggesting we may hit the 1.5 degrees above industrial temperatures this summer. And that could be a consistent temperature increase by 2030. That is the line at which most projections are like "we could likely protect civilisation as we know it in developed countries at the expense of a lot of lives elsewhere". We do not have the time to not halt new fossil fuel extraction. The ONLY argument for more fossil fuel extraction would be if we ever actually solve carbon capture (a thing we have not actually solved despite selling it as if it is a thing that works) and the short term value of fossil fuels allows us to invest in that. I'm in my early 30s. I would quite like a habitable and safe planet by the time I'm 60. Hell, if I'm lucky enough to live into my 90s like my grandad currently is, I'd quite like a habitable planet then!

If we hit the 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial temperatures that's not going to make the world uninhabitable. That's a fraction of a degree above where we have been in recent decades and fractions of a degree are perfectly normal variance.

Of course climate change is real, but we're already working on it. We're already decarbonising. We still need fossil fuel extraction, for the interim, and we will need fossil fuel extraction even when we hit net zero as petrochemicals are required for many medicines, materials and other industrial purposes not remotely related to burning and releasing carbon.

I want a habitable world. We are working on that already though and need to continue to do the right thing, not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

If it stayed at 1.5 degrees, possibly - although there is a big issue that if we were to get to 1.5 the feedback loop would still lead to greater warming. I also don't really see the decarbonising push by individual countries as useful if all they are doing is outsourcing their carbon producing industries to other countries who end up producing our consumer goods and then blamed for the new emissions, whilst also not benefitting from any wealth creation themselves.

And by uninhabitable I don't just mean the climate, I mean the political reality also leading to uninhabitable scenarios. If 700 million people are displaced by 2030 due to droughts across Asia and Africa (as is projected), then the current anti immigrant fervour will continue through the roof, and the fortress nation state will lead to increased authoritarianism. The current food inflation will pale in comparison to impacts of mass drought / flooding; one of the reasons wheat prices have been so bad (beyond the Ukraine war) is that wheat producing areas in the US, China and Africa have also been ravaged by harsh climate events. Resource wars, especially water wars, could become common in the not to distant future.

How much of a dent to standard of living can people take without things collapsing? If we had made the necessary investment earlier, we could have slowly changed expectations and sourcing for things. Now, who knows. Putting our head in the sand and hoping business as usual works hasn't worked so far. The next generation are more extreme on this issue, on the left and right, and as much as you hate the JSO or XR activists the ecofascists are much worse.

Yes, there are feedback loops. We need to reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere before we get runaway temperature rise. So far we only are slowing the increase. The economic case for new fossil fuel investment is getting much weaker, the danger is that they will become stranded assets. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fsnkPLkf1ao

Slowing the increase is all we can do for now. Unless you want a catastrophe then slowing is how you stop, its a transition. If I'm driving at 70mph and do an emergency stop, I have to slow before I stop or go into reverse and I will keep going forwards while slowing - but if I'm slowing down, I'm doing what I can.

We are slowing.

If new fossil fuel extraction becomes a stranded asset then that is the responsibility of the investors and they can lose out. Not a problem, some investments fail. Buyer beware and all that. But the environmental case for using domestically sourced fossil fuels over imported ones from countries like Russia or Saudi Arabia is unequivocally clear. Domestic fuels are much cleaner to use, while we transition to alternatives, and lets leave the Sheikhs and Oligarchs with stranded assets instead if that's what it comes to.

We aren't slowing fast enough. https://cleantechnica.com/2023/06/05/broken-record-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-levels-jump-again/
"Are renewable energy sources cheaper than fossil fuels?
Yes, renewable energy is cheaper than fossil fuels. In 2021, IRENA reported that two-thirds of newly installed renewable power in G20 countries had lower costs than the cheapest fossil fuel-fired option – and they’re only set to get more affordable from here on out."
https://www.theecoexperts.co.uk/blog/is-renewable-energy-cheaper-than-fossil-fuels#:~:text=Are renewable energy sources cheaper than fossil fuels?,to get more affordable from here on out.

Who exactly is “We”, in that statement?

Most of the policy suggestions appear to want to curtail emissions and economic progress, while raising energy prices, in Western nations, but simultaneously increasing reliance for energy on more polluting developing countries.

'We' is the world in general.
Curtailing emissions doesn't imply curtailing economic progress or raising energy prices. Nobody now should build a coal fired power station because it would cost more to run than Renewables and within a few years be a stranded asset.
https://ourworldindata.org/cheap-renewables-growth

So long as the “We” continues to be the whole world, and that policy suggestions reduce the CO2 emissions from the whole world, then great.

But that’s not what’s currently seen in practice.

OK Sandpit, explain what you mean.
Is this a criticism of any particular country?
"China is the world's leader in electricity production from renewable energy sources, with over triple the generation of the second-ranking country, the United States.
China's total renewable energy capacity exceeded 1,000 GW in 2021, accounting for 43.5 per cent of the country's total power generation capacity, 10.2 percentage points higher than in 2015. The country aims to have 80 per cent of its total energy mix come from non-fossil fuel sources by 2060" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_China

The UK is doing ok, 7th in the WEF ETI list, but 'we' (the whole world) need to increase the rate at which we move to renewables to hit net zero by 2030 - have a look at the graph here https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/12/doubling-renewable-energy-net-zero-emissions/
So, how does it make any sense, environmental or economic to spend time and money looking for new fossil fuels now?

Becuase most of the policy suggestions, are that the UK should abandon FF extraction, in favour of importing it - at a higher global CO2 impact - from other countries.

China is still building coal power plants.

Who is suggesting that "UK should abandon FF extraction, in favour of importing it" ? They would obviously be a complete idiot.
Or is it that somebody else is accusing someone of doing so?
China should stop building coal power plants, obviously.

Well indeed. Nobody is suggesting that UK should abandon fossil fuel extraction in favour of importing it - that appears to be a strawman dreamt up by those who are determined to slow down the transition from fossil fuels. And if anyone were suggesting it, the idea isn't without some environmental merit, given that the extraction of oil from the North Sea results in the emission of more CO2 than, say, the extraction of oil from the Saudi desert.

And yes, China should stop building coal power plants, but, on a per capita basis, China is responsible for far less CO2 in the air than we are and is unlikely ever to contribute to climate change as much as us. We are hardly in a position to criticise them for something we did in spades while simultaneously dragging our heels on cleaning up our own act.

Actually that is precisely what is suggested by blocking North Sea licences, but not blocking imports.

You don't change demand one iota by doing that, you don't help the environment at all. All you do is generate more imports, worsen our balance of payments, worsen our control over the environment and regulatory framework. And make yourself feel good by exporting emissions to other nations.

It is superficial foppery. If you want to be serious about it, do serious actions, like banning imports or banning gas boilers, or banning petrol stations. But if you're not prepared to do that, then we need fuel, and if we need fuel, then there is no scientific reason to block North Sea licences.

Oh and you're wrong on per capita climate emissions too. China is responsible for more ongoing emissions on a per capita basis than the UK is, let alone on an aggregate basis.

On an aggregate basis China emits more emissions per annum than the UK has ever done through the whole of history. So the idea they're "unlikely ever to contribute to climate change as much as us" is rather laughable, when they already have done and do so on an ongoing basis per annum per capita too.

JosiasJessop said:

Sandpit said:

Scott_xP said:

Security experts are to turn on an old phone belonging to Boris Johnson to try to extract WhatsApp messages revealing discussions with government figures at the start of the pandemic.

The phone was switched off in 2021 because of fears that it had been hacked with Israeli spy software. The advice was that it should never be turned back on.

But the Covid inquiry revealed today that it had reached a deal with the Cabinet Office to hand the phone to the “appropriate personnel in government for its contents to be downloaded”.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/covid-inquiry-baroness-hallett-boris-johnson-whatsapp-messages-tbncbgq5g

Technically that’s easy to do.

You remove the SIM card, and switch it on in a room with no other phones within bluetooth range, and no wifi signal. You download the contents to a brand new computer that’s never had an internet connection, then switch the phone off.

The only thing that could kill it, would be spyware with system access, set to delete everything if it were switched off for a period of time, in which case it’s dead already.

I tink WhatsApp saves most (not all) data on the phone's internal storage, and not on the SIM. At least by default ...

DecrepiterJohnL said:

CarlottaVance said:

In lighter news, Harry having a bit of a 'mare in the witness box:

https://twitter.com/JasonFarrellSky

Prince Harry said the government was "at rock bottom".

Andy_JS said:

This is an interesting development.

"Wagner captures Russian commander as Prigozhin feud with army escalates
Lt Col Roman Venevitin seen telling interrogator he ordered troops to shoot at convoy of mercenaries"

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jun/05/wagner-group-release-video-of-captured-russian-commander

FeersumEnjineeya said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

logical_song said:

Sandpit said:

logical_song said:

Sandpit said:

logical_song said:

Sandpit said:

logical_song said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

logical_song said:

148grss said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

148grss said:

Taz said:

More on Labour becoming the political wing of Just Stop Oil/Exctinction Rebellion.

On the back of the policies on North Sea Oil and Gas and the bung from one of the major providers of on shore wind.

I wonder if we will see a dreaded "green new deal" next.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/other/labour-climate-tsar-is-extinction-rebellion-s-former-legal-strategy-co-ordinator/ar-AA1caQ5J?ocid=entnewsntp&cvid=bec714168f634cef806c5a4532ea1a10&ei=14

Yes Keir "Lock 'Em Up" Starmer is the political wing of the green protest movement... There are a few projections suggesting we may hit the 1.5 degrees above industrial temperatures this summer. And that could be a consistent temperature increase by 2030. That is the line at which most projections are like "we could likely protect civilisation as we know it in developed countries at the expense of a lot of lives elsewhere". We do not have the time to not halt new fossil fuel extraction. The ONLY argument for more fossil fuel extraction would be if we ever actually solve carbon capture (a thing we have not actually solved despite selling it as if it is a thing that works) and the short term value of fossil fuels allows us to invest in that. I'm in my early 30s. I would quite like a habitable and safe planet by the time I'm 60. Hell, if I'm lucky enough to live into my 90s like my grandad currently is, I'd quite like a habitable planet then!

If we hit the 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial temperatures that's not going to make the world uninhabitable. That's a fraction of a degree above where we have been in recent decades and fractions of a degree are perfectly normal variance.

Of course climate change is real, but we're already working on it. We're already decarbonising. We still need fossil fuel extraction, for the interim, and we will need fossil fuel extraction even when we hit net zero as petrochemicals are required for many medicines, materials and other industrial purposes not remotely related to burning and releasing carbon.

I want a habitable world. We are working on that already though and need to continue to do the right thing, not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

If it stayed at 1.5 degrees, possibly - although there is a big issue that if we were to get to 1.5 the feedback loop would still lead to greater warming. I also don't really see the decarbonising push by individual countries as useful if all they are doing is outsourcing their carbon producing industries to other countries who end up producing our consumer goods and then blamed for the new emissions, whilst also not benefitting from any wealth creation themselves.

And by uninhabitable I don't just mean the climate, I mean the political reality also leading to uninhabitable scenarios. If 700 million people are displaced by 2030 due to droughts across Asia and Africa (as is projected), then the current anti immigrant fervour will continue through the roof, and the fortress nation state will lead to increased authoritarianism. The current food inflation will pale in comparison to impacts of mass drought / flooding; one of the reasons wheat prices have been so bad (beyond the Ukraine war) is that wheat producing areas in the US, China and Africa have also been ravaged by harsh climate events. Resource wars, especially water wars, could become common in the not to distant future.

How much of a dent to standard of living can people take without things collapsing? If we had made the necessary investment earlier, we could have slowly changed expectations and sourcing for things. Now, who knows. Putting our head in the sand and hoping business as usual works hasn't worked so far. The next generation are more extreme on this issue, on the left and right, and as much as you hate the JSO or XR activists the ecofascists are much worse.

Yes, there are feedback loops. We need to reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere before we get runaway temperature rise. So far we only are slowing the increase. The economic case for new fossil fuel investment is getting much weaker, the danger is that they will become stranded assets. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fsnkPLkf1ao

Slowing the increase is all we can do for now. Unless you want a catastrophe then slowing is how you stop, its a transition. If I'm driving at 70mph and do an emergency stop, I have to slow before I stop or go into reverse and I will keep going forwards while slowing - but if I'm slowing down, I'm doing what I can.

We are slowing.

If new fossil fuel extraction becomes a stranded asset then that is the responsibility of the investors and they can lose out. Not a problem, some investments fail. Buyer beware and all that. But the environmental case for using domestically sourced fossil fuels over imported ones from countries like Russia or Saudi Arabia is unequivocally clear. Domestic fuels are much cleaner to use, while we transition to alternatives, and lets leave the Sheikhs and Oligarchs with stranded assets instead if that's what it comes to.

We aren't slowing fast enough. https://cleantechnica.com/2023/06/05/broken-record-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-levels-jump-again/
"Are renewable energy sources cheaper than fossil fuels?
Yes, renewable energy is cheaper than fossil fuels. In 2021, IRENA reported that two-thirds of newly installed renewable power in G20 countries had lower costs than the cheapest fossil fuel-fired option – and they’re only set to get more affordable from here on out."
https://www.theecoexperts.co.uk/blog/is-renewable-energy-cheaper-than-fossil-fuels#:~:text=Are renewable energy sources cheaper than fossil fuels?,to get more affordable from here on out.

Who exactly is “We”, in that statement?

Most of the policy suggestions appear to want to curtail emissions and economic progress, while raising energy prices, in Western nations, but simultaneously increasing reliance for energy on more polluting developing countries.

'We' is the world in general.
Curtailing emissions doesn't imply curtailing economic progress or raising energy prices. Nobody now should build a coal fired power station because it would cost more to run than Renewables and within a few years be a stranded asset.
https://ourworldindata.org/cheap-renewables-growth

So long as the “We” continues to be the whole world, and that policy suggestions reduce the CO2 emissions from the whole world, then great.

But that’s not what’s currently seen in practice.

OK Sandpit, explain what you mean.
Is this a criticism of any particular country?
"China is the world's leader in electricity production from renewable energy sources, with over triple the generation of the second-ranking country, the United States.
China's total renewable energy capacity exceeded 1,000 GW in 2021, accounting for 43.5 per cent of the country's total power generation capacity, 10.2 percentage points higher than in 2015. The country aims to have 80 per cent of its total energy mix come from non-fossil fuel sources by 2060" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_China

The UK is doing ok, 7th in the WEF ETI list, but 'we' (the whole world) need to increase the rate at which we move to renewables to hit net zero by 2030 - have a look at the graph here https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/12/doubling-renewable-energy-net-zero-emissions/
So, how does it make any sense, environmental or economic to spend time and money looking for new fossil fuels now?

Becuase most of the policy suggestions, are that the UK should abandon FF extraction, in favour of importing it - at a higher global CO2 impact - from other countries.

China is still building coal power plants.

Who is suggesting that "UK should abandon FF extraction, in favour of importing it" ? They would obviously be a complete idiot.
Or is it that somebody else is accusing someone of doing so?
China should stop building coal power plants, obviously.

Well indeed. Nobody is suggesting that UK should abandon fossil fuel extraction in favour of importing it - that appears to be a strawman dreamt up by those who are determined to slow down the transition from fossil fuels. And if anyone were suggesting it, the idea isn't without some environmental merit, given that the extraction of oil from the North Sea results in the emission of more CO2 than, say, the extraction of oil from the Saudi desert.

And yes, China should stop building coal power plants, but, on a per capita basis, China is responsible for far less CO2 in the air than we are and is unlikely ever to contribute to climate change as much as us. We are hardly in a position to criticise them for something we did in spades while simultaneously dragging our heels on cleaning up our own act.

Actually that is precisely what is suggested by blocking North Sea licences, but not blocking imports.

You don't change demand one iota by doing that, you don't help the environment at all. All you do is generate more imports, worsen our balance of payments, worsen our control over the environment and regulatory framework. And make yourself feel good by exporting emissions to other nations.

It is superficial foppery. If you want to be serious about it, do serious actions, like banning imports or banning gas boilers, or banning petrol stations. But if you're not prepared to do that, then we need fuel, and if we need fuel, then there is no scientific reason to block North Sea licences.

Oh and you're wrong on per capita climate emissions too. China is responsible for more ongoing emissions on a per capita basis than the UK is, let alone on an aggregate basis.

On an aggregate basis China emits more emissions per annum than the UK has ever done through the whole of history. So the idea they're "unlikely ever to contribute to climate change as much as us" is rather laughable, when they already have done and do so on an ongoing basis per annum per capita too.

Sorry, but you're talking bollocks.

Cumulative emissions of CO2 by UK to 2021: 78.5 billion tons
CO2 emissions by China in 2021: 11.47 billion tons.

FeersumEnjineeya said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

kamski said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

logical_song said:

Sandpit said:

logical_song said:

Sandpit said:

logical_song said:

Sandpit said:

logical_song said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

logical_song said:

148grss said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

148grss said:

Taz said:

More on Labour becoming the political wing of Just Stop Oil/Exctinction Rebellion.

On the back of the policies on North Sea Oil and Gas and the bung from one of the major providers of on shore wind.

I wonder if we will see a dreaded "green new deal" next.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/other/labour-climate-tsar-is-extinction-rebellion-s-former-legal-strategy-co-ordinator/ar-AA1caQ5J?ocid=entnewsntp&cvid=bec714168f634cef806c5a4532ea1a10&ei=14

Yes Keir "Lock 'Em Up" Starmer is the political wing of the green protest movement... There are a few projections suggesting we may hit the 1.5 degrees above industrial temperatures this summer. And that could be a consistent temperature increase by 2030. That is the line at which most projections are like "we could likely protect civilisation as we know it in developed countries at the expense of a lot of lives elsewhere". We do not have the time to not halt new fossil fuel extraction. The ONLY argument for more fossil fuel extraction would be if we ever actually solve carbon capture (a thing we have not actually solved despite selling it as if it is a thing that works) and the short term value of fossil fuels allows us to invest in that. I'm in my early 30s. I would quite like a habitable and safe planet by the time I'm 60. Hell, if I'm lucky enough to live into my 90s like my grandad currently is, I'd quite like a habitable planet then!

If we hit the 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial temperatures that's not going to make the world uninhabitable. That's a fraction of a degree above where we have been in recent decades and fractions of a degree are perfectly normal variance.

Of course climate change is real, but we're already working on it. We're already decarbonising. We still need fossil fuel extraction, for the interim, and we will need fossil fuel extraction even when we hit net zero as petrochemicals are required for many medicines, materials and other industrial purposes not remotely related to burning and releasing carbon.

I want a habitable world. We are working on that already though and need to continue to do the right thing, not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

If it stayed at 1.5 degrees, possibly - although there is a big issue that if we were to get to 1.5 the feedback loop would still lead to greater warming. I also don't really see the decarbonising push by individual countries as useful if all they are doing is outsourcing their carbon producing industries to other countries who end up producing our consumer goods and then blamed for the new emissions, whilst also not benefitting from any wealth creation themselves.

And by uninhabitable I don't just mean the climate, I mean the political reality also leading to uninhabitable scenarios. If 700 million people are displaced by 2030 due to droughts across Asia and Africa (as is projected), then the current anti immigrant fervour will continue through the roof, and the fortress nation state will lead to increased authoritarianism. The current food inflation will pale in comparison to impacts of mass drought / flooding; one of the reasons wheat prices have been so bad (beyond the Ukraine war) is that wheat producing areas in the US, China and Africa have also been ravaged by harsh climate events. Resource wars, especially water wars, could become common in the not to distant future.

How much of a dent to standard of living can people take without things collapsing? If we had made the necessary investment earlier, we could have slowly changed expectations and sourcing for things. Now, who knows. Putting our head in the sand and hoping business as usual works hasn't worked so far. The next generation are more extreme on this issue, on the left and right, and as much as you hate the JSO or XR activists the ecofascists are much worse.

Yes, there are feedback loops. We need to reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere before we get runaway temperature rise. So far we only are slowing the increase. The economic case for new fossil fuel investment is getting much weaker, the danger is that they will become stranded assets. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fsnkPLkf1ao

Slowing the increase is all we can do for now. Unless you want a catastrophe then slowing is how you stop, its a transition. If I'm driving at 70mph and do an emergency stop, I have to slow before I stop or go into reverse and I will keep going forwards while slowing - but if I'm slowing down, I'm doing what I can.

We are slowing.

If new fossil fuel extraction becomes a stranded asset then that is the responsibility of the investors and they can lose out. Not a problem, some investments fail. Buyer beware and all that. But the environmental case for using domestically sourced fossil fuels over imported ones from countries like Russia or Saudi Arabia is unequivocally clear. Domestic fuels are much cleaner to use, while we transition to alternatives, and lets leave the Sheikhs and Oligarchs with stranded assets instead if that's what it comes to.

We aren't slowing fast enough. https://cleantechnica.com/2023/06/05/broken-record-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-levels-jump-again/
"Are renewable energy sources cheaper than fossil fuels?
Yes, renewable energy is cheaper than fossil fuels. In 2021, IRENA reported that two-thirds of newly installed renewable power in G20 countries had lower costs than the cheapest fossil fuel-fired option – and they’re only set to get more affordable from here on out."
https://www.theecoexperts.co.uk/blog/is-renewable-energy-cheaper-than-fossil-fuels#:~:text=Are renewable energy sources cheaper than fossil fuels?,to get more affordable from here on out.

Who exactly is “We”, in that statement?

Most of the policy suggestions appear to want to curtail emissions and economic progress, while raising energy prices, in Western nations, but simultaneously increasing reliance for energy on more polluting developing countries.

'We' is the world in general.
Curtailing emissions doesn't imply curtailing economic progress or raising energy prices. Nobody now should build a coal fired power station because it would cost more to run than Renewables and within a few years be a stranded asset.
https://ourworldindata.org/cheap-renewables-growth

So long as the “We” continues to be the whole world, and that policy suggestions reduce the CO2 emissions from the whole world, then great.

But that’s not what’s currently seen in practice.

OK Sandpit, explain what you mean.
Is this a criticism of any particular country?
"China is the world's leader in electricity production from renewable energy sources, with over triple the generation of the second-ranking country, the United States.
China's total renewable energy capacity exceeded 1,000 GW in 2021, accounting for 43.5 per cent of the country's total power generation capacity, 10.2 percentage points higher than in 2015. The country aims to have 80 per cent of its total energy mix come from non-fossil fuel sources by 2060" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_China

The UK is doing ok, 7th in the WEF ETI list, but 'we' (the whole world) need to increase the rate at which we move to renewables to hit net zero by 2030 - have a look at the graph here https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/12/doubling-renewable-energy-net-zero-emissions/
So, how does it make any sense, environmental or economic to spend time and money looking for new fossil fuels now?

Becuase most of the policy suggestions, are that the UK should abandon FF extraction, in favour of importing it - at a higher global CO2 impact - from other countries.

China is still building coal power plants.

Who is suggesting that "UK should abandon FF extraction, in favour of importing it" ? They would obviously be a complete idiot.
Or is it that somebody else is accusing someone of doing so?
China should stop building coal power plants, obviously.

Well indeed. Nobody is suggesting that UK should abandon fossil fuel extraction in favour of importing it - that appears to be a strawman dreamt up by those who are determined to slow down the transition from fossil fuels. And if anyone were suggesting it, the idea isn't without some environmental merit, given that the extraction of oil from the North Sea results in the emission of more CO2 than, say, the extraction of oil from the Saudi desert.

And yes, China should stop building coal power plants, but, on a per capita basis, China is responsible for far less CO2 in the air than we are and is unlikely ever to contribute to climate change as much as us. We are hardly in a position to criticise them for something we did in spades while simultaneously dragging our heels on cleaning up our own act.

Actually that is precisely what is suggested by blocking North Sea licences, but not blocking imports.

You don't change demand one iota by doing that, you don't help the environment at all. All you do is generate more imports, worsen our balance of payments, worsen our control over the environment and regulatory framework. And make yourself feel good by exporting emissions to other nations.

It is superficial foppery. If you want to be serious about it, do serious actions, like banning imports or banning gas boilers, or banning petrol stations. But if you're not prepared to do that, then we need fuel, and if we need fuel, then there is no scientific reason to block North Sea licences.

Oh and you're wrong on per capita climate emissions too. China is responsible for more ongoing emissions on a per capita basis than the UK is, let alone on an aggregate basis.

you might want to think about 'let alone on an aggregate basis'

Not really.

The earth cares about the aggregate basis, and on an aggregate basis they utterly dwarf UK emissions.

On a per capita basis, they also dwarf UK emissions on an ongoing basis.

So either way you slice it, they are more responsible than we are. Which is unsurprising to anyone without an axe to grind.

That's a bizarre way to view it. By that logic, small countries all get a free pass to emit as much as they like.

BartholomewRoberts said:

kamski said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

logical_song said:

Sandpit said:

logical_song said:

Sandpit said:

logical_song said:

Sandpit said:

logical_song said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

logical_song said:

148grss said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

148grss said:

Taz said:

More on Labour becoming the political wing of Just Stop Oil/Exctinction Rebellion.

On the back of the policies on North Sea Oil and Gas and the bung from one of the major providers of on shore wind.

I wonder if we will see a dreaded "green new deal" next.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/other/labour-climate-tsar-is-extinction-rebellion-s-former-legal-strategy-co-ordinator/ar-AA1caQ5J?ocid=entnewsntp&cvid=bec714168f634cef806c5a4532ea1a10&ei=14

Yes Keir "Lock 'Em Up" Starmer is the political wing of the green protest movement... There are a few projections suggesting we may hit the 1.5 degrees above industrial temperatures this summer. And that could be a consistent temperature increase by 2030. That is the line at which most projections are like "we could likely protect civilisation as we know it in developed countries at the expense of a lot of lives elsewhere". We do not have the time to not halt new fossil fuel extraction. The ONLY argument for more fossil fuel extraction would be if we ever actually solve carbon capture (a thing we have not actually solved despite selling it as if it is a thing that works) and the short term value of fossil fuels allows us to invest in that. I'm in my early 30s. I would quite like a habitable and safe planet by the time I'm 60. Hell, if I'm lucky enough to live into my 90s like my grandad currently is, I'd quite like a habitable planet then!

If we hit the 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial temperatures that's not going to make the world uninhabitable. That's a fraction of a degree above where we have been in recent decades and fractions of a degree are perfectly normal variance.

Of course climate change is real, but we're already working on it. We're already decarbonising. We still need fossil fuel extraction, for the interim, and we will need fossil fuel extraction even when we hit net zero as petrochemicals are required for many medicines, materials and other industrial purposes not remotely related to burning and releasing carbon.

I want a habitable world. We are working on that already though and need to continue to do the right thing, not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

If it stayed at 1.5 degrees, possibly - although there is a big issue that if we were to get to 1.5 the feedback loop would still lead to greater warming. I also don't really see the decarbonising push by individual countries as useful if all they are doing is outsourcing their carbon producing industries to other countries who end up producing our consumer goods and then blamed for the new emissions, whilst also not benefitting from any wealth creation themselves.

And by uninhabitable I don't just mean the climate, I mean the political reality also leading to uninhabitable scenarios. If 700 million people are displaced by 2030 due to droughts across Asia and Africa (as is projected), then the current anti immigrant fervour will continue through the roof, and the fortress nation state will lead to increased authoritarianism. The current food inflation will pale in comparison to impacts of mass drought / flooding; one of the reasons wheat prices have been so bad (beyond the Ukraine war) is that wheat producing areas in the US, China and Africa have also been ravaged by harsh climate events. Resource wars, especially water wars, could become common in the not to distant future.

How much of a dent to standard of living can people take without things collapsing? If we had made the necessary investment earlier, we could have slowly changed expectations and sourcing for things. Now, who knows. Putting our head in the sand and hoping business as usual works hasn't worked so far. The next generation are more extreme on this issue, on the left and right, and as much as you hate the JSO or XR activists the ecofascists are much worse.

Yes, there are feedback loops. We need to reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere before we get runaway temperature rise. So far we only are slowing the increase. The economic case for new fossil fuel investment is getting much weaker, the danger is that they will become stranded assets. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fsnkPLkf1ao

Slowing the increase is all we can do for now. Unless you want a catastrophe then slowing is how you stop, its a transition. If I'm driving at 70mph and do an emergency stop, I have to slow before I stop or go into reverse and I will keep going forwards while slowing - but if I'm slowing down, I'm doing what I can.

We are slowing.

If new fossil fuel extraction becomes a stranded asset then that is the responsibility of the investors and they can lose out. Not a problem, some investments fail. Buyer beware and all that. But the environmental case for using domestically sourced fossil fuels over imported ones from countries like Russia or Saudi Arabia is unequivocally clear. Domestic fuels are much cleaner to use, while we transition to alternatives, and lets leave the Sheikhs and Oligarchs with stranded assets instead if that's what it comes to.

We aren't slowing fast enough. https://cleantechnica.com/2023/06/05/broken-record-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-levels-jump-again/
"Are renewable energy sources cheaper than fossil fuels?
Yes, renewable energy is cheaper than fossil fuels. In 2021, IRENA reported that two-thirds of newly installed renewable power in G20 countries had lower costs than the cheapest fossil fuel-fired option – and they’re only set to get more affordable from here on out."
https://www.theecoexperts.co.uk/blog/is-renewable-energy-cheaper-than-fossil-fuels#:~:text=Are renewable energy sources cheaper than fossil fuels?,to get more affordable from here on out.

Who exactly is “We”, in that statement?

Most of the policy suggestions appear to want to curtail emissions and economic progress, while raising energy prices, in Western nations, but simultaneously increasing reliance for energy on more polluting developing countries.

'We' is the world in general.
Curtailing emissions doesn't imply curtailing economic progress or raising energy prices. Nobody now should build a coal fired power station because it would cost more to run than Renewables and within a few years be a stranded asset.
https://ourworldindata.org/cheap-renewables-growth

So long as the “We” continues to be the whole world, and that policy suggestions reduce the CO2 emissions from the whole world, then great.

But that’s not what’s currently seen in practice.

OK Sandpit, explain what you mean.
Is this a criticism of any particular country?
"China is the world's leader in electricity production from renewable energy sources, with over triple the generation of the second-ranking country, the United States.
China's total renewable energy capacity exceeded 1,000 GW in 2021, accounting for 43.5 per cent of the country's total power generation capacity, 10.2 percentage points higher than in 2015. The country aims to have 80 per cent of its total energy mix come from non-fossil fuel sources by 2060" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_China

The UK is doing ok, 7th in the WEF ETI list, but 'we' (the whole world) need to increase the rate at which we move to renewables to hit net zero by 2030 - have a look at the graph here https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/12/doubling-renewable-energy-net-zero-emissions/
So, how does it make any sense, environmental or economic to spend time and money looking for new fossil fuels now?

Becuase most of the policy suggestions, are that the UK should abandon FF extraction, in favour of importing it - at a higher global CO2 impact - from other countries.

China is still building coal power plants.

Who is suggesting that "UK should abandon FF extraction, in favour of importing it" ? They would obviously be a complete idiot.
Or is it that somebody else is accusing someone of doing so?
China should stop building coal power plants, obviously.

Well indeed. Nobody is suggesting that UK should abandon fossil fuel extraction in favour of importing it - that appears to be a strawman dreamt up by those who are determined to slow down the transition from fossil fuels. And if anyone were suggesting it, the idea isn't without some environmental merit, given that the extraction of oil from the North Sea results in the emission of more CO2 than, say, the extraction of oil from the Saudi desert.

And yes, China should stop building coal power plants, but, on a per capita basis, China is responsible for far less CO2 in the air than we are and is unlikely ever to contribute to climate change as much as us. We are hardly in a position to criticise them for something we did in spades while simultaneously dragging our heels on cleaning up our own act.

Actually that is precisely what is suggested by blocking North Sea licences, but not blocking imports.

You don't change demand one iota by doing that, you don't help the environment at all. All you do is generate more imports, worsen our balance of payments, worsen our control over the environment and regulatory framework. And make yourself feel good by exporting emissions to other nations.

It is superficial foppery. If you want to be serious about it, do serious actions, like banning imports or banning gas boilers, or banning petrol stations. But if you're not prepared to do that, then we need fuel, and if we need fuel, then there is no scientific reason to block North Sea licences.

Oh and you're wrong on per capita climate emissions too. China is responsible for more ongoing emissions on a per capita basis than the UK is, let alone on an aggregate basis.

you might want to think about 'let alone on an aggregate basis'

Not really.

The earth cares about the aggregate basis, and on an aggregate basis they utterly dwarf UK emissions.

On a per capita basis, they also dwarf UK emissions on an ongoing basis.

So either way you slice it, they are more responsible than we are. Which is unsurprising to anyone without an axe to grind.

Cookie said:

Cookie (still enjoying himself): How can you tell there is an elephant in bed with you?

ChatGPT: If you were to wake up and suspect that there is an elephant in bed with you, you would likely notice several unmistakable signs:

Size and Space: You would likely feel an extreme lack of space in the bed, as an elephant would take up a significant portion of it. The bed would feel crowded and cramped.

Weight and Pressure: The immense weight of an elephant would cause the mattress to sink or compress significantly, leading to an unusual sensation of pressure and possibly discomfort.

Movement and Vibrations: An elephant's size and weight would likely result in noticeable movements and vibrations. You might feel the bed shaking or shifting as the elephant adjusts its position.

Sounds and Noises: Elephants are large animals, and their presence in a bed would likely produce audible sounds. You might hear heavy breathing, rustling, or even low rumbling sounds coming from the elephant.

Visual Confirmation: If you manage to look or glance in the direction of the supposed elephant, you would likely see the unmistakable sight of a massive creature beside or partially on the bed.

However, it's important to note that an elephant in bed with you is an unlikely scenario in reality, and it's more likely to be a humorous or imaginative concept.

Cookie said:

Cookie (still enjoying himself): How can you tell there is an elephant in bed with you?

ChatGPT: If you were to wake up and suspect that there is an elephant in bed with you, you would likely notice several unmistakable signs:

Size and Space: You would likely feel an extreme lack of space in the bed, as an elephant would take up a significant portion of it. The bed would feel crowded and cramped.

Weight and Pressure: The immense weight of an elephant would cause the mattress to sink or compress significantly, leading to an unusual sensation of pressure and possibly discomfort.

Movement and Vibrations: An elephant's size and weight would likely result in noticeable movements and vibrations. You might feel the bed shaking or shifting as the elephant adjusts its position.

Sounds and Noises: Elephants are large animals, and their presence in a bed would likely produce audible sounds. You might hear heavy breathing, rustling, or even low rumbling sounds coming from the elephant.

Visual Confirmation: If you manage to look or glance in the direction of the supposed elephant, you would likely see the unmistakable sight of a massive creature beside or partially on the bed.

However, it's important to note that an elephant in bed with you is an unlikely scenario in reality, and it's more likely to be a humorous or imaginative concept.

kamski said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

kamski said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

logical_song said:

Sandpit said:

logical_song said:

Sandpit said:

logical_song said:

Sandpit said:

logical_song said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

logical_song said:

148grss said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

148grss said:

Taz said:

More on Labour becoming the political wing of Just Stop Oil/Exctinction Rebellion.

On the back of the policies on North Sea Oil and Gas and the bung from one of the major providers of on shore wind.

I wonder if we will see a dreaded "green new deal" next.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/other/labour-climate-tsar-is-extinction-rebellion-s-former-legal-strategy-co-ordinator/ar-AA1caQ5J?ocid=entnewsntp&cvid=bec714168f634cef806c5a4532ea1a10&ei=14

Yes Keir "Lock 'Em Up" Starmer is the political wing of the green protest movement... There are a few projections suggesting we may hit the 1.5 degrees above industrial temperatures this summer. And that could be a consistent temperature increase by 2030. That is the line at which most projections are like "we could likely protect civilisation as we know it in developed countries at the expense of a lot of lives elsewhere". We do not have the time to not halt new fossil fuel extraction. The ONLY argument for more fossil fuel extraction would be if we ever actually solve carbon capture (a thing we have not actually solved despite selling it as if it is a thing that works) and the short term value of fossil fuels allows us to invest in that. I'm in my early 30s. I would quite like a habitable and safe planet by the time I'm 60. Hell, if I'm lucky enough to live into my 90s like my grandad currently is, I'd quite like a habitable planet then!

If we hit the 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial temperatures that's not going to make the world uninhabitable. That's a fraction of a degree above where we have been in recent decades and fractions of a degree are perfectly normal variance.

Of course climate change is real, but we're already working on it. We're already decarbonising. We still need fossil fuel extraction, for the interim, and we will need fossil fuel extraction even when we hit net zero as petrochemicals are required for many medicines, materials and other industrial purposes not remotely related to burning and releasing carbon.

I want a habitable world. We are working on that already though and need to continue to do the right thing, not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

If it stayed at 1.5 degrees, possibly - although there is a big issue that if we were to get to 1.5 the feedback loop would still lead to greater warming. I also don't really see the decarbonising push by individual countries as useful if all they are doing is outsourcing their carbon producing industries to other countries who end up producing our consumer goods and then blamed for the new emissions, whilst also not benefitting from any wealth creation themselves.

And by uninhabitable I don't just mean the climate, I mean the political reality also leading to uninhabitable scenarios. If 700 million people are displaced by 2030 due to droughts across Asia and Africa (as is projected), then the current anti immigrant fervour will continue through the roof, and the fortress nation state will lead to increased authoritarianism. The current food inflation will pale in comparison to impacts of mass drought / flooding; one of the reasons wheat prices have been so bad (beyond the Ukraine war) is that wheat producing areas in the US, China and Africa have also been ravaged by harsh climate events. Resource wars, especially water wars, could become common in the not to distant future.

How much of a dent to standard of living can people take without things collapsing? If we had made the necessary investment earlier, we could have slowly changed expectations and sourcing for things. Now, who knows. Putting our head in the sand and hoping business as usual works hasn't worked so far. The next generation are more extreme on this issue, on the left and right, and as much as you hate the JSO or XR activists the ecofascists are much worse.

Yes, there are feedback loops. We need to reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere before we get runaway temperature rise. So far we only are slowing the increase. The economic case for new fossil fuel investment is getting much weaker, the danger is that they will become stranded assets. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fsnkPLkf1ao

Slowing the increase is all we can do for now. Unless you want a catastrophe then slowing is how you stop, its a transition. If I'm driving at 70mph and do an emergency stop, I have to slow before I stop or go into reverse and I will keep going forwards while slowing - but if I'm slowing down, I'm doing what I can.

We are slowing.

If new fossil fuel extraction becomes a stranded asset then that is the responsibility of the investors and they can lose out. Not a problem, some investments fail. Buyer beware and all that. But the environmental case for using domestically sourced fossil fuels over imported ones from countries like Russia or Saudi Arabia is unequivocally clear. Domestic fuels are much cleaner to use, while we transition to alternatives, and lets leave the Sheikhs and Oligarchs with stranded assets instead if that's what it comes to.

We aren't slowing fast enough. https://cleantechnica.com/2023/06/05/broken-record-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-levels-jump-again/
"Are renewable energy sources cheaper than fossil fuels?
Yes, renewable energy is cheaper than fossil fuels. In 2021, IRENA reported that two-thirds of newly installed renewable power in G20 countries had lower costs than the cheapest fossil fuel-fired option – and they’re only set to get more affordable from here on out."
https://www.theecoexperts.co.uk/blog/is-renewable-energy-cheaper-than-fossil-fuels#:~:text=Are renewable energy sources cheaper than fossil fuels?,to get more affordable from here on out.

Who exactly is “We”, in that statement?

Most of the policy suggestions appear to want to curtail emissions and economic progress, while raising energy prices, in Western nations, but simultaneously increasing reliance for energy on more polluting developing countries.

'We' is the world in general.
Curtailing emissions doesn't imply curtailing economic progress or raising energy prices. Nobody now should build a coal fired power station because it would cost more to run than Renewables and within a few years be a stranded asset.
https://ourworldindata.org/cheap-renewables-growth

So long as the “We” continues to be the whole world, and that policy suggestions reduce the CO2 emissions from the whole world, then great.

But that’s not what’s currently seen in practice.

OK Sandpit, explain what you mean.
Is this a criticism of any particular country?
"China is the world's leader in electricity production from renewable energy sources, with over triple the generation of the second-ranking country, the United States.
China's total renewable energy capacity exceeded 1,000 GW in 2021, accounting for 43.5 per cent of the country's total power generation capacity, 10.2 percentage points higher than in 2015. The country aims to have 80 per cent of its total energy mix come from non-fossil fuel sources by 2060" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_China

The UK is doing ok, 7th in the WEF ETI list, but 'we' (the whole world) need to increase the rate at which we move to renewables to hit net zero by 2030 - have a look at the graph here https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/12/doubling-renewable-energy-net-zero-emissions/
So, how does it make any sense, environmental or economic to spend time and money looking for new fossil fuels now?

Becuase most of the policy suggestions, are that the UK should abandon FF extraction, in favour of importing it - at a higher global CO2 impact - from other countries.

China is still building coal power plants.

Who is suggesting that "UK should abandon FF extraction, in favour of importing it" ? They would obviously be a complete idiot.
Or is it that somebody else is accusing someone of doing so?
China should stop building coal power plants, obviously.

Well indeed. Nobody is suggesting that UK should abandon fossil fuel extraction in favour of importing it - that appears to be a strawman dreamt up by those who are determined to slow down the transition from fossil fuels. And if anyone were suggesting it, the idea isn't without some environmental merit, given that the extraction of oil from the North Sea results in the emission of more CO2 than, say, the extraction of oil from the Saudi desert.

And yes, China should stop building coal power plants, but, on a per capita basis, China is responsible for far less CO2 in the air than we are and is unlikely ever to contribute to climate change as much as us. We are hardly in a position to criticise them for something we did in spades while simultaneously dragging our heels on cleaning up our own act.

Actually that is precisely what is suggested by blocking North Sea licences, but not blocking imports.

You don't change demand one iota by doing that, you don't help the environment at all. All you do is generate more imports, worsen our balance of payments, worsen our control over the environment and regulatory framework. And make yourself feel good by exporting emissions to other nations.

It is superficial foppery. If you want to be serious about it, do serious actions, like banning imports or banning gas boilers, or banning petrol stations. But if you're not prepared to do that, then we need fuel, and if we need fuel, then there is no scientific reason to block North Sea licences.

Oh and you're wrong on per capita climate emissions too. China is responsible for more ongoing emissions on a per capita basis than the UK is, let alone on an aggregate basis.

you might want to think about 'let alone on an aggregate basis'

Not really.

The earth cares about the aggregate basis, and on an aggregate basis they utterly dwarf UK emissions.

On a per capita basis, they also dwarf UK emissions on an ongoing basis.

So either way you slice it, they are more responsible than we are. Which is unsurprising to anyone without an axe to grind.

Only if you refuse for some reason to slice it per capita on an aggregate basis, which I think is clearly what FeersumEnjineeya meant.

And while you're right that in principle it doesn't make much sense to stop local extraction of fossil fuels just to increase imports (though it might depend a bit). By the same logic, you can argue that a share of emissions due to manufacturing things should be allocated to the consuming country, rather than the producing country - it makes equally little sense to reduce local emissions by exporting production. I don't know if China still produces more emissions per capita on this basis - maybe someone has the figures?

Leon said:

Having been in Cincinnati for 18 hours I can confirm my intimation that America is fucked

Sandpit said:

Andy_JS said:

IanB2 said:

Andy_JS said:

Still amazed by the figures showing that California has lost half a million people over the last two years.

https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/CA/PST045222

For lower taxes it seems that many Americans are willing to live in the most dreadful places

The cities of Florida and Texas aren't that bad.

Austin and Miami look like the places to be at the moment. New York, LA, SF, Boston, are all experiencing population declines.

FeersumEnjineeya said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

logical_song said:

Sandpit said:

logical_song said:

Sandpit said:

logical_song said:

Sandpit said:

logical_song said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

logical_song said:

148grss said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

148grss said:

Taz said:

More on Labour becoming the political wing of Just Stop Oil/Exctinction Rebellion.

On the back of the policies on North Sea Oil and Gas and the bung from one of the major providers of on shore wind.

I wonder if we will see a dreaded "green new deal" next.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/other/labour-climate-tsar-is-extinction-rebellion-s-former-legal-strategy-co-ordinator/ar-AA1caQ5J?ocid=entnewsntp&cvid=bec714168f634cef806c5a4532ea1a10&ei=14

Yes Keir "Lock 'Em Up" Starmer is the political wing of the green protest movement... There are a few projections suggesting we may hit the 1.5 degrees above industrial temperatures this summer. And that could be a consistent temperature increase by 2030. That is the line at which most projections are like "we could likely protect civilisation as we know it in developed countries at the expense of a lot of lives elsewhere". We do not have the time to not halt new fossil fuel extraction. The ONLY argument for more fossil fuel extraction would be if we ever actually solve carbon capture (a thing we have not actually solved despite selling it as if it is a thing that works) and the short term value of fossil fuels allows us to invest in that. I'm in my early 30s. I would quite like a habitable and safe planet by the time I'm 60. Hell, if I'm lucky enough to live into my 90s like my grandad currently is, I'd quite like a habitable planet then!

If we hit the 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial temperatures that's not going to make the world uninhabitable. That's a fraction of a degree above where we have been in recent decades and fractions of a degree are perfectly normal variance.

Of course climate change is real, but we're already working on it. We're already decarbonising. We still need fossil fuel extraction, for the interim, and we will need fossil fuel extraction even when we hit net zero as petrochemicals are required for many medicines, materials and other industrial purposes not remotely related to burning and releasing carbon.

I want a habitable world. We are working on that already though and need to continue to do the right thing, not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

If it stayed at 1.5 degrees, possibly - although there is a big issue that if we were to get to 1.5 the feedback loop would still lead to greater warming. I also don't really see the decarbonising push by individual countries as useful if all they are doing is outsourcing their carbon producing industries to other countries who end up producing our consumer goods and then blamed for the new emissions, whilst also not benefitting from any wealth creation themselves.

And by uninhabitable I don't just mean the climate, I mean the political reality also leading to uninhabitable scenarios. If 700 million people are displaced by 2030 due to droughts across Asia and Africa (as is projected), then the current anti immigrant fervour will continue through the roof, and the fortress nation state will lead to increased authoritarianism. The current food inflation will pale in comparison to impacts of mass drought / flooding; one of the reasons wheat prices have been so bad (beyond the Ukraine war) is that wheat producing areas in the US, China and Africa have also been ravaged by harsh climate events. Resource wars, especially water wars, could become common in the not to distant future.

How much of a dent to standard of living can people take without things collapsing? If we had made the necessary investment earlier, we could have slowly changed expectations and sourcing for things. Now, who knows. Putting our head in the sand and hoping business as usual works hasn't worked so far. The next generation are more extreme on this issue, on the left and right, and as much as you hate the JSO or XR activists the ecofascists are much worse.

Yes, there are feedback loops. We need to reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere before we get runaway temperature rise. So far we only are slowing the increase. The economic case for new fossil fuel investment is getting much weaker, the danger is that they will become stranded assets. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fsnkPLkf1ao

Slowing the increase is all we can do for now. Unless you want a catastrophe then slowing is how you stop, its a transition. If I'm driving at 70mph and do an emergency stop, I have to slow before I stop or go into reverse and I will keep going forwards while slowing - but if I'm slowing down, I'm doing what I can.

We are slowing.

If new fossil fuel extraction becomes a stranded asset then that is the responsibility of the investors and they can lose out. Not a problem, some investments fail. Buyer beware and all that. But the environmental case for using domestically sourced fossil fuels over imported ones from countries like Russia or Saudi Arabia is unequivocally clear. Domestic fuels are much cleaner to use, while we transition to alternatives, and lets leave the Sheikhs and Oligarchs with stranded assets instead if that's what it comes to.

We aren't slowing fast enough. https://cleantechnica.com/2023/06/05/broken-record-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-levels-jump-again/
"Are renewable energy sources cheaper than fossil fuels?
Yes, renewable energy is cheaper than fossil fuels. In 2021, IRENA reported that two-thirds of newly installed renewable power in G20 countries had lower costs than the cheapest fossil fuel-fired option – and they’re only set to get more affordable from here on out."
https://www.theecoexperts.co.uk/blog/is-renewable-energy-cheaper-than-fossil-fuels#:~:text=Are renewable energy sources cheaper than fossil fuels?,to get more affordable from here on out.

Who exactly is “We”, in that statement?

Most of the policy suggestions appear to want to curtail emissions and economic progress, while raising energy prices, in Western nations, but simultaneously increasing reliance for energy on more polluting developing countries.

'We' is the world in general.
Curtailing emissions doesn't imply curtailing economic progress or raising energy prices. Nobody now should build a coal fired power station because it would cost more to run than Renewables and within a few years be a stranded asset.
https://ourworldindata.org/cheap-renewables-growth

So long as the “We” continues to be the whole world, and that policy suggestions reduce the CO2 emissions from the whole world, then great.

But that’s not what’s currently seen in practice.

OK Sandpit, explain what you mean.
Is this a criticism of any particular country?
"China is the world's leader in electricity production from renewable energy sources, with over triple the generation of the second-ranking country, the United States.
China's total renewable energy capacity exceeded 1,000 GW in 2021, accounting for 43.5 per cent of the country's total power generation capacity, 10.2 percentage points higher than in 2015. The country aims to have 80 per cent of its total energy mix come from non-fossil fuel sources by 2060" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_China

The UK is doing ok, 7th in the WEF ETI list, but 'we' (the whole world) need to increase the rate at which we move to renewables to hit net zero by 2030 - have a look at the graph here https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/12/doubling-renewable-energy-net-zero-emissions/
So, how does it make any sense, environmental or economic to spend time and money looking for new fossil fuels now?

Becuase most of the policy suggestions, are that the UK should abandon FF extraction, in favour of importing it - at a higher global CO2 impact - from other countries.

China is still building coal power plants.

Who is suggesting that "UK should abandon FF extraction, in favour of importing it" ? They would obviously be a complete idiot.
Or is it that somebody else is accusing someone of doing so?
China should stop building coal power plants, obviously.

Well indeed. Nobody is suggesting that UK should abandon fossil fuel extraction in favour of importing it - that appears to be a strawman dreamt up by those who are determined to slow down the transition from fossil fuels. And if anyone were suggesting it, the idea isn't without some environmental merit, given that the extraction of oil from the North Sea results in the emission of more CO2 than, say, the extraction of oil from the Saudi desert.

And yes, China should stop building coal power plants, but, on a per capita basis, China is responsible for far less CO2 in the air than we are and is unlikely ever to contribute to climate change as much as us. We are hardly in a position to criticise them for something we did in spades while simultaneously dragging our heels on cleaning up our own act.

Actually that is precisely what is suggested by blocking North Sea licences, but not blocking imports.

You don't change demand one iota by doing that, you don't help the environment at all. All you do is generate more imports, worsen our balance of payments, worsen our control over the environment and regulatory framework. And make yourself feel good by exporting emissions to other nations.

It is superficial foppery. If you want to be serious about it, do serious actions, like banning imports or banning gas boilers, or banning petrol stations. But if you're not prepared to do that, then we need fuel, and if we need fuel, then there is no scientific reason to block North Sea licences.

Oh and you're wrong on per capita climate emissions too. China is responsible for more ongoing emissions on a per capita basis than the UK is, let alone on an aggregate basis.

On an aggregate basis China emits more emissions per annum than the UK has ever done through the whole of history. So the idea they're "unlikely ever to contribute to climate change as much as us" is rather laughable, when they already have done and do so on an ongoing basis per annum per capita too.

Sorry, but you're talking bollocks.

Cumulative emissions of CO2 by UK to 2021: 78.5 billion tons
CO2 emissions by China in 2021: 11.47 billion tons.

FeersumEnjineeya said:

kamski said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

kamski said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

logical_song said:

Sandpit said:

logical_song said:

Sandpit said:

logical_song said:

Sandpit said:

logical_song said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

logical_song said:

148grss said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

148grss said:

Taz said:

More on Labour becoming the political wing of Just Stop Oil/Exctinction Rebellion.

On the back of the policies on North Sea Oil and Gas and the bung from one of the major providers of on shore wind.

I wonder if we will see a dreaded "green new deal" next.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/other/labour-climate-tsar-is-extinction-rebellion-s-former-legal-strategy-co-ordinator/ar-AA1caQ5J?ocid=entnewsntp&cvid=bec714168f634cef806c5a4532ea1a10&ei=14

Yes Keir "Lock 'Em Up" Starmer is the political wing of the green protest movement... There are a few projections suggesting we may hit the 1.5 degrees above industrial temperatures this summer. And that could be a consistent temperature increase by 2030. That is the line at which most projections are like "we could likely protect civilisation as we know it in developed countries at the expense of a lot of lives elsewhere". We do not have the time to not halt new fossil fuel extraction. The ONLY argument for more fossil fuel extraction would be if we ever actually solve carbon capture (a thing we have not actually solved despite selling it as if it is a thing that works) and the short term value of fossil fuels allows us to invest in that. I'm in my early 30s. I would quite like a habitable and safe planet by the time I'm 60. Hell, if I'm lucky enough to live into my 90s like my grandad currently is, I'd quite like a habitable planet then!

If we hit the 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial temperatures that's not going to make the world uninhabitable. That's a fraction of a degree above where we have been in recent decades and fractions of a degree are perfectly normal variance.

Of course climate change is real, but we're already working on it. We're already decarbonising. We still need fossil fuel extraction, for the interim, and we will need fossil fuel extraction even when we hit net zero as petrochemicals are required for many medicines, materials and other industrial purposes not remotely related to burning and releasing carbon.

I want a habitable world. We are working on that already though and need to continue to do the right thing, not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

If it stayed at 1.5 degrees, possibly - although there is a big issue that if we were to get to 1.5 the feedback loop would still lead to greater warming. I also don't really see the decarbonising push by individual countries as useful if all they are doing is outsourcing their carbon producing industries to other countries who end up producing our consumer goods and then blamed for the new emissions, whilst also not benefitting from any wealth creation themselves.

And by uninhabitable I don't just mean the climate, I mean the political reality also leading to uninhabitable scenarios. If 700 million people are displaced by 2030 due to droughts across Asia and Africa (as is projected), then the current anti immigrant fervour will continue through the roof, and the fortress nation state will lead to increased authoritarianism. The current food inflation will pale in comparison to impacts of mass drought / flooding; one of the reasons wheat prices have been so bad (beyond the Ukraine war) is that wheat producing areas in the US, China and Africa have also been ravaged by harsh climate events. Resource wars, especially water wars, could become common in the not to distant future.

How much of a dent to standard of living can people take without things collapsing? If we had made the necessary investment earlier, we could have slowly changed expectations and sourcing for things. Now, who knows. Putting our head in the sand and hoping business as usual works hasn't worked so far. The next generation are more extreme on this issue, on the left and right, and as much as you hate the JSO or XR activists the ecofascists are much worse.

Yes, there are feedback loops. We need to reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere before we get runaway temperature rise. So far we only are slowing the increase. The economic case for new fossil fuel investment is getting much weaker, the danger is that they will become stranded assets. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fsnkPLkf1ao

Slowing the increase is all we can do for now. Unless you want a catastrophe then slowing is how you stop, its a transition. If I'm driving at 70mph and do an emergency stop, I have to slow before I stop or go into reverse and I will keep going forwards while slowing - but if I'm slowing down, I'm doing what I can.

We are slowing.

If new fossil fuel extraction becomes a stranded asset then that is the responsibility of the investors and they can lose out. Not a problem, some investments fail. Buyer beware and all that. But the environmental case for using domestically sourced fossil fuels over imported ones from countries like Russia or Saudi Arabia is unequivocally clear. Domestic fuels are much cleaner to use, while we transition to alternatives, and lets leave the Sheikhs and Oligarchs with stranded assets instead if that's what it comes to.

We aren't slowing fast enough. https://cleantechnica.com/2023/06/05/broken-record-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-levels-jump-again/
"Are renewable energy sources cheaper than fossil fuels?
Yes, renewable energy is cheaper than fossil fuels. In 2021, IRENA reported that two-thirds of newly installed renewable power in G20 countries had lower costs than the cheapest fossil fuel-fired option – and they’re only set to get more affordable from here on out."
https://www.theecoexperts.co.uk/blog/is-renewable-energy-cheaper-than-fossil-fuels#:~:text=Are renewable energy sources cheaper than fossil fuels?,to get more affordable from here on out.

Who exactly is “We”, in that statement?

Most of the policy suggestions appear to want to curtail emissions and economic progress, while raising energy prices, in Western nations, but simultaneously increasing reliance for energy on more polluting developing countries.

'We' is the world in general.
Curtailing emissions doesn't imply curtailing economic progress or raising energy prices. Nobody now should build a coal fired power station because it would cost more to run than Renewables and within a few years be a stranded asset.
https://ourworldindata.org/cheap-renewables-growth

So long as the “We” continues to be the whole world, and that policy suggestions reduce the CO2 emissions from the whole world, then great.

But that’s not what’s currently seen in practice.

OK Sandpit, explain what you mean.
Is this a criticism of any particular country?
"China is the world's leader in electricity production from renewable energy sources, with over triple the generation of the second-ranking country, the United States.
China's total renewable energy capacity exceeded 1,000 GW in 2021, accounting for 43.5 per cent of the country's total power generation capacity, 10.2 percentage points higher than in 2015. The country aims to have 80 per cent of its total energy mix come from non-fossil fuel sources by 2060" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_China

The UK is doing ok, 7th in the WEF ETI list, but 'we' (the whole world) need to increase the rate at which we move to renewables to hit net zero by 2030 - have a look at the graph here https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/12/doubling-renewable-energy-net-zero-emissions/
So, how does it make any sense, environmental or economic to spend time and money looking for new fossil fuels now?

Becuase most of the policy suggestions, are that the UK should abandon FF extraction, in favour of importing it - at a higher global CO2 impact - from other countries.

China is still building coal power plants.

Who is suggesting that "UK should abandon FF extraction, in favour of importing it" ? They would obviously be a complete idiot.
Or is it that somebody else is accusing someone of doing so?
China should stop building coal power plants, obviously.

Well indeed. Nobody is suggesting that UK should abandon fossil fuel extraction in favour of importing it - that appears to be a strawman dreamt up by those who are determined to slow down the transition from fossil fuels. And if anyone were suggesting it, the idea isn't without some environmental merit, given that the extraction of oil from the North Sea results in the emission of more CO2 than, say, the extraction of oil from the Saudi desert.

And yes, China should stop building coal power plants, but, on a per capita basis, China is responsible for far less CO2 in the air than we are and is unlikely ever to contribute to climate change as much as us. We are hardly in a position to criticise them for something we did in spades while simultaneously dragging our heels on cleaning up our own act.

Actually that is precisely what is suggested by blocking North Sea licences, but not blocking imports.

You don't change demand one iota by doing that, you don't help the environment at all. All you do is generate more imports, worsen our balance of payments, worsen our control over the environment and regulatory framework. And make yourself feel good by exporting emissions to other nations.

It is superficial foppery. If you want to be serious about it, do serious actions, like banning imports or banning gas boilers, or banning petrol stations. But if you're not prepared to do that, then we need fuel, and if we need fuel, then there is no scientific reason to block North Sea licences.

Oh and you're wrong on per capita climate emissions too. China is responsible for more ongoing emissions on a per capita basis than the UK is, let alone on an aggregate basis.

you might want to think about 'let alone on an aggregate basis'

Not really.

The earth cares about the aggregate basis, and on an aggregate basis they utterly dwarf UK emissions.

On a per capita basis, they also dwarf UK emissions on an ongoing basis.

So either way you slice it, they are more responsible than we are. Which is unsurprising to anyone without an axe to grind.

Only if you refuse for some reason to slice it per capita on an aggregate basis, which I think is clearly what FeersumEnjineeya meant.

And while you're right that in principle it doesn't make much sense to stop local extraction of fossil fuels just to increase imports (though it might depend a bit). By the same logic, you can argue that a share of emissions due to manufacturing things should be allocated to the consuming country, rather than the producing country - it makes equally little sense to reduce local emissions by exporting production. I don't know if China still produces more emissions per capita on this basis - maybe someone has the figures?

This article explains the point I'm trying to make:

https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-which-countries-are-historically-responsible-for-climate-change/

China doesn't even make the top 20 in the list of countries by cumulative emissions per capita, while we are in 8th place.

Sandpit said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

kamski said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

kamski said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

logical_song said:

Sandpit said:

logical_song said:

Sandpit said:

logical_song said:

Sandpit said:

logical_song said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

logical_song said:

148grss said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

148grss said:

Taz said:

More on Labour becoming the political wing of Just Stop Oil/Exctinction Rebellion.

On the back of the policies on North Sea Oil and Gas and the bung from one of the major providers of on shore wind.

I wonder if we will see a dreaded "green new deal" next.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/other/labour-climate-tsar-is-extinction-rebellion-s-former-legal-strategy-co-ordinator/ar-AA1caQ5J?ocid=entnewsntp&cvid=bec714168f634cef806c5a4532ea1a10&ei=14

Yes Keir "Lock 'Em Up" Starmer is the political wing of the green protest movement... There are a few projections suggesting we may hit the 1.5 degrees above industrial temperatures this summer. And that could be a consistent temperature increase by 2030. That is the line at which most projections are like "we could likely protect civilisation as we know it in developed countries at the expense of a lot of lives elsewhere". We do not have the time to not halt new fossil fuel extraction. The ONLY argument for more fossil fuel extraction would be if we ever actually solve carbon capture (a thing we have not actually solved despite selling it as if it is a thing that works) and the short term value of fossil fuels allows us to invest in that. I'm in my early 30s. I would quite like a habitable and safe planet by the time I'm 60. Hell, if I'm lucky enough to live into my 90s like my grandad currently is, I'd quite like a habitable planet then!

If we hit the 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial temperatures that's not going to make the world uninhabitable. That's a fraction of a degree above where we have been in recent decades and fractions of a degree are perfectly normal variance.

Of course climate change is real, but we're already working on it. We're already decarbonising. We still need fossil fuel extraction, for the interim, and we will need fossil fuel extraction even when we hit net zero as petrochemicals are required for many medicines, materials and other industrial purposes not remotely related to burning and releasing carbon.

I want a habitable world. We are working on that already though and need to continue to do the right thing, not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

If it stayed at 1.5 degrees, possibly - although there is a big issue that if we were to get to 1.5 the feedback loop would still lead to greater warming. I also don't really see the decarbonising push by individual countries as useful if all they are doing is outsourcing their carbon producing industries to other countries who end up producing our consumer goods and then blamed for the new emissions, whilst also not benefitting from any wealth creation themselves.

And by uninhabitable I don't just mean the climate, I mean the political reality also leading to uninhabitable scenarios. If 700 million people are displaced by 2030 due to droughts across Asia and Africa (as is projected), then the current anti immigrant fervour will continue through the roof, and the fortress nation state will lead to increased authoritarianism. The current food inflation will pale in comparison to impacts of mass drought / flooding; one of the reasons wheat prices have been so bad (beyond the Ukraine war) is that wheat producing areas in the US, China and Africa have also been ravaged by harsh climate events. Resource wars, especially water wars, could become common in the not to distant future.

How much of a dent to standard of living can people take without things collapsing? If we had made the necessary investment earlier, we could have slowly changed expectations and sourcing for things. Now, who knows. Putting our head in the sand and hoping business as usual works hasn't worked so far. The next generation are more extreme on this issue, on the left and right, and as much as you hate the JSO or XR activists the ecofascists are much worse.

Yes, there are feedback loops. We need to reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere before we get runaway temperature rise. So far we only are slowing the increase. The economic case for new fossil fuel investment is getting much weaker, the danger is that they will become stranded assets. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fsnkPLkf1ao

Slowing the increase is all we can do for now. Unless you want a catastrophe then slowing is how you stop, its a transition. If I'm driving at 70mph and do an emergency stop, I have to slow before I stop or go into reverse and I will keep going forwards while slowing - but if I'm slowing down, I'm doing what I can.

We are slowing.

If new fossil fuel extraction becomes a stranded asset then that is the responsibility of the investors and they can lose out. Not a problem, some investments fail. Buyer beware and all that. But the environmental case for using domestically sourced fossil fuels over imported ones from countries like Russia or Saudi Arabia is unequivocally clear. Domestic fuels are much cleaner to use, while we transition to alternatives, and lets leave the Sheikhs and Oligarchs with stranded assets instead if that's what it comes to.

We aren't slowing fast enough. https://cleantechnica.com/2023/06/05/broken-record-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-levels-jump-again/
"Are renewable energy sources cheaper than fossil fuels?
Yes, renewable energy is cheaper than fossil fuels. In 2021, IRENA reported that two-thirds of newly installed renewable power in G20 countries had lower costs than the cheapest fossil fuel-fired option – and they’re only set to get more affordable from here on out."
https://www.theecoexperts.co.uk/blog/is-renewable-energy-cheaper-than-fossil-fuels#:~:text=Are renewable energy sources cheaper than fossil fuels?,to get more affordable from here on out.

Who exactly is “We”, in that statement?

Most of the policy suggestions appear to want to curtail emissions and economic progress, while raising energy prices, in Western nations, but simultaneously increasing reliance for energy on more polluting developing countries.

'We' is the world in general.
Curtailing emissions doesn't imply curtailing economic progress or raising energy prices. Nobody now should build a coal fired power station because it would cost more to run than Renewables and within a few years be a stranded asset.
https://ourworldindata.org/cheap-renewables-growth

So long as the “We” continues to be the whole world, and that policy suggestions reduce the CO2 emissions from the whole world, then great.

But that’s not what’s currently seen in practice.

OK Sandpit, explain what you mean.
Is this a criticism of any particular country?
"China is the world's leader in electricity production from renewable energy sources, with over triple the generation of the second-ranking country, the United States.
China's total renewable energy capacity exceeded 1,000 GW in 2021, accounting for 43.5 per cent of the country's total power generation capacity, 10.2 percentage points higher than in 2015. The country aims to have 80 per cent of its total energy mix come from non-fossil fuel sources by 2060" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_China

The UK is doing ok, 7th in the WEF ETI list, but 'we' (the whole world) need to increase the rate at which we move to renewables to hit net zero by 2030 - have a look at the graph here https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/12/doubling-renewable-energy-net-zero-emissions/
So, how does it make any sense, environmental or economic to spend time and money looking for new fossil fuels now?

Becuase most of the policy suggestions, are that the UK should abandon FF extraction, in favour of importing it - at a higher global CO2 impact - from other countries.

China is still building coal power plants.

Who is suggesting that "UK should abandon FF extraction, in favour of importing it" ? They would obviously be a complete idiot.
Or is it that somebody else is accusing someone of doing so?
China should stop building coal power plants, obviously.

Well indeed. Nobody is suggesting that UK should abandon fossil fuel extraction in favour of importing it - that appears to be a strawman dreamt up by those who are determined to slow down the transition from fossil fuels. And if anyone were suggesting it, the idea isn't without some environmental merit, given that the extraction of oil from the North Sea results in the emission of more CO2 than, say, the extraction of oil from the Saudi desert.

And yes, China should stop building coal power plants, but, on a per capita basis, China is responsible for far less CO2 in the air than we are and is unlikely ever to contribute to climate change as much as us. We are hardly in a position to criticise them for something we did in spades while simultaneously dragging our heels on cleaning up our own act.

Actually that is precisely what is suggested by blocking North Sea licences, but not blocking imports.

You don't change demand one iota by doing that, you don't help the environment at all. All you do is generate more imports, worsen our balance of payments, worsen our control over the environment and regulatory framework. And make yourself feel good by exporting emissions to other nations.

It is superficial foppery. If you want to be serious about it, do serious actions, like banning imports or banning gas boilers, or banning petrol stations. But if you're not prepared to do that, then we need fuel, and if we need fuel, then there is no scientific reason to block North Sea licences.

Oh and you're wrong on per capita climate emissions too. China is responsible for more ongoing emissions on a per capita basis than the UK is, let alone on an aggregate basis.

you might want to think about 'let alone on an aggregate basis'

Not really.

The earth cares about the aggregate basis, and on an aggregate basis they utterly dwarf UK emissions.

On a per capita basis, they also dwarf UK emissions on an ongoing basis.

So either way you slice it, they are more responsible than we are. Which is unsurprising to anyone without an axe to grind.

Only if you refuse for some reason to slice it per capita on an aggregate basis, which I think is clearly what FeersumEnjineeya meant.

And while you're right that in principle it doesn't make much sense to stop local extraction of fossil fuels just to increase imports (though it might depend a bit). By the same logic, you can argue that a share of emissions due to manufacturing things should be allocated to the consuming country, rather than the producing country - it makes equally little sense to reduce local emissions by exporting production. I don't know if China still produces more emissions per capita on this basis - maybe someone has the figures?

This article explains the point I'm trying to make:

https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-which-countries-are-historically-responsible-for-climate-change/

China doesn't even make the top 20 in the list of countries by cumulative emissions per capita, while we are in 8th place.

But who cares today about “cumulative emissions”?

Surely the goal is to reduce worldwide carbon emissions, to save the planet?

Talk of “cumulative emissions”, sounds awfully like the Californians asking for $5m payments to those who had families affected by slavery two centuries ago.

Pagan2 said:

kamski said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

kamski said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

logical_song said:

Sandpit said:

logical_song said:

Sandpit said:

logical_song said:

Sandpit said:

logical_song said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

logical_song said:

148grss said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

148grss said:

Taz said:

More on Labour becoming the political wing of Just Stop Oil/Exctinction Rebellion.

On the back of the policies on North Sea Oil and Gas and the bung from one of the major providers of on shore wind.

I wonder if we will see a dreaded "green new deal" next.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/other/labour-climate-tsar-is-extinction-rebellion-s-former-legal-strategy-co-ordinator/ar-AA1caQ5J?ocid=entnewsntp&cvid=bec714168f634cef806c5a4532ea1a10&ei=14

Yes Keir "Lock 'Em Up" Starmer is the political wing of the green protest movement... There are a few projections suggesting we may hit the 1.5 degrees above industrial temperatures this summer. And that could be a consistent temperature increase by 2030. That is the line at which most projections are like "we could likely protect civilisation as we know it in developed countries at the expense of a lot of lives elsewhere". We do not have the time to not halt new fossil fuel extraction. The ONLY argument for more fossil fuel extraction would be if we ever actually solve carbon capture (a thing we have not actually solved despite selling it as if it is a thing that works) and the short term value of fossil fuels allows us to invest in that. I'm in my early 30s. I would quite like a habitable and safe planet by the time I'm 60. Hell, if I'm lucky enough to live into my 90s like my grandad currently is, I'd quite like a habitable planet then!

If we hit the 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial temperatures that's not going to make the world uninhabitable. That's a fraction of a degree above where we have been in recent decades and fractions of a degree are perfectly normal variance.

Of course climate change is real, but we're already working on it. We're already decarbonising. We still need fossil fuel extraction, for the interim, and we will need fossil fuel extraction even when we hit net zero as petrochemicals are required for many medicines, materials and other industrial purposes not remotely related to burning and releasing carbon.

I want a habitable world. We are working on that already though and need to continue to do the right thing, not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

If it stayed at 1.5 degrees, possibly - although there is a big issue that if we were to get to 1.5 the feedback loop would still lead to greater warming. I also don't really see the decarbonising push by individual countries as useful if all they are doing is outsourcing their carbon producing industries to other countries who end up producing our consumer goods and then blamed for the new emissions, whilst also not benefitting from any wealth creation themselves.

And by uninhabitable I don't just mean the climate, I mean the political reality also leading to uninhabitable scenarios. If 700 million people are displaced by 2030 due to droughts across Asia and Africa (as is projected), then the current anti immigrant fervour will continue through the roof, and the fortress nation state will lead to increased authoritarianism. The current food inflation will pale in comparison to impacts of mass drought / flooding; one of the reasons wheat prices have been so bad (beyond the Ukraine war) is that wheat producing areas in the US, China and Africa have also been ravaged by harsh climate events. Resource wars, especially water wars, could become common in the not to distant future.

How much of a dent to standard of living can people take without things collapsing? If we had made the necessary investment earlier, we could have slowly changed expectations and sourcing for things. Now, who knows. Putting our head in the sand and hoping business as usual works hasn't worked so far. The next generation are more extreme on this issue, on the left and right, and as much as you hate the JSO or XR activists the ecofascists are much worse.

Yes, there are feedback loops. We need to reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere before we get runaway temperature rise. So far we only are slowing the increase. The economic case for new fossil fuel investment is getting much weaker, the danger is that they will become stranded assets. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fsnkPLkf1ao

Slowing the increase is all we can do for now. Unless you want a catastrophe then slowing is how you stop, its a transition. If I'm driving at 70mph and do an emergency stop, I have to slow before I stop or go into reverse and I will keep going forwards while slowing - but if I'm slowing down, I'm doing what I can.

We are slowing.

If new fossil fuel extraction becomes a stranded asset then that is the responsibility of the investors and they can lose out. Not a problem, some investments fail. Buyer beware and all that. But the environmental case for using domestically sourced fossil fuels over imported ones from countries like Russia or Saudi Arabia is unequivocally clear. Domestic fuels are much cleaner to use, while we transition to alternatives, and lets leave the Sheikhs and Oligarchs with stranded assets instead if that's what it comes to.

We aren't slowing fast enough. https://cleantechnica.com/2023/06/05/broken-record-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-levels-jump-again/
"Are renewable energy sources cheaper than fossil fuels?
Yes, renewable energy is cheaper than fossil fuels. In 2021, IRENA reported that two-thirds of newly installed renewable power in G20 countries had lower costs than the cheapest fossil fuel-fired option – and they’re only set to get more affordable from here on out."
https://www.theecoexperts.co.uk/blog/is-renewable-energy-cheaper-than-fossil-fuels#:~:text=Are renewable energy sources cheaper than fossil fuels?,to get more affordable from here on out.

Who exactly is “We”, in that statement?

Most of the policy suggestions appear to want to curtail emissions and economic progress, while raising energy prices, in Western nations, but simultaneously increasing reliance for energy on more polluting developing countries.

'We' is the world in general.
Curtailing emissions doesn't imply curtailing economic progress or raising energy prices. Nobody now should build a coal fired power station because it would cost more to run than Renewables and within a few years be a stranded asset.
https://ourworldindata.org/cheap-renewables-growth

So long as the “We” continues to be the whole world, and that policy suggestions reduce the CO2 emissions from the whole world, then great.

But that’s not what’s currently seen in practice.

OK Sandpit, explain what you mean.
Is this a criticism of any particular country?
"China is the world's leader in electricity production from renewable energy sources, with over triple the generation of the second-ranking country, the United States.
China's total renewable energy capacity exceeded 1,000 GW in 2021, accounting for 43.5 per cent of the country's total power generation capacity, 10.2 percentage points higher than in 2015. The country aims to have 80 per cent of its total energy mix come from non-fossil fuel sources by 2060" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_China

The UK is doing ok, 7th in the WEF ETI list, but 'we' (the whole world) need to increase the rate at which we move to renewables to hit net zero by 2030 - have a look at the graph here https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/12/doubling-renewable-energy-net-zero-emissions/
So, how does it make any sense, environmental or economic to spend time and money looking for new fossil fuels now?

Becuase most of the policy suggestions, are that the UK should abandon FF extraction, in favour of importing it - at a higher global CO2 impact - from other countries.

China is still building coal power plants.

Who is suggesting that "UK should abandon FF extraction, in favour of importing it" ? They would obviously be a complete idiot.
Or is it that somebody else is accusing someone of doing so?
China should stop building coal power plants, obviously.

Well indeed. Nobody is suggesting that UK should abandon fossil fuel extraction in favour of importing it - that appears to be a strawman dreamt up by those who are determined to slow down the transition from fossil fuels. And if anyone were suggesting it, the idea isn't without some environmental merit, given that the extraction of oil from the North Sea results in the emission of more CO2 than, say, the extraction of oil from the Saudi desert.

And yes, China should stop building coal power plants, but, on a per capita basis, China is responsible for far less CO2 in the air than we are and is unlikely ever to contribute to climate change as much as us. We are hardly in a position to criticise them for something we did in spades while simultaneously dragging our heels on cleaning up our own act.

Actually that is precisely what is suggested by blocking North Sea licences, but not blocking imports.

You don't change demand one iota by doing that, you don't help the environment at all. All you do is generate more imports, worsen our balance of payments, worsen our control over the environment and regulatory framework. And make yourself feel good by exporting emissions to other nations.

It is superficial foppery. If you want to be serious about it, do serious actions, like banning imports or banning gas boilers, or banning petrol stations. But if you're not prepared to do that, then we need fuel, and if we need fuel, then there is no scientific reason to block North Sea licences.

Oh and you're wrong on per capita climate emissions too. China is responsible for more ongoing emissions on a per capita basis than the UK is, let alone on an aggregate basis.

you might want to think about 'let alone on an aggregate basis'

Not really.

The earth cares about the aggregate basis, and on an aggregate basis they utterly dwarf UK emissions.

On a per capita basis, they also dwarf UK emissions on an ongoing basis.

So either way you slice it, they are more responsible than we are. Which is unsurprising to anyone without an axe to grind.

Only if you refuse for some reason to slice it per capita on an aggregate basis, which I think is clearly what FeersumEnjineeya meant.

And while you're right that in principle it doesn't make much sense to stop local extraction of fossil fuels just to increase imports (though it might depend a bit). By the same logic, you can argue that a share of emissions due to manufacturing things should be allocated to the consuming country, rather than the producing country - it makes equally little sense to reduce local emissions by exporting production. I don't know if China still produces more emissions per capita on this basis - maybe someone has the figures?

Only 17% of china's emissions are down to exported stuff

rcs1000 said:

Sandpit said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

kamski said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

kamski said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

logical_song said:

Sandpit said:

logical_song said:

Sandpit said:

logical_song said:

Sandpit said:

logical_song said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

logical_song said:

148grss said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

148grss said:

Taz said:

More on Labour becoming the political wing of Just Stop Oil/Exctinction Rebellion.

On the back of the policies on North Sea Oil and Gas and the bung from one of the major providers of on shore wind.

I wonder if we will see a dreaded "green new deal" next.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/other/labour-climate-tsar-is-extinction-rebellion-s-former-legal-strategy-co-ordinator/ar-AA1caQ5J?ocid=entnewsntp&cvid=bec714168f634cef806c5a4532ea1a10&ei=14

Yes Keir "Lock 'Em Up" Starmer is the political wing of the green protest movement... There are a few projections suggesting we may hit the 1.5 degrees above industrial temperatures this summer. And that could be a consistent temperature increase by 2030. That is the line at which most projections are like "we could likely protect civilisation as we know it in developed countries at the expense of a lot of lives elsewhere". We do not have the time to not halt new fossil fuel extraction. The ONLY argument for more fossil fuel extraction would be if we ever actually solve carbon capture (a thing we have not actually solved despite selling it as if it is a thing that works) and the short term value of fossil fuels allows us to invest in that. I'm in my early 30s. I would quite like a habitable and safe planet by the time I'm 60. Hell, if I'm lucky enough to live into my 90s like my grandad currently is, I'd quite like a habitable planet then!

If we hit the 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial temperatures that's not going to make the world uninhabitable. That's a fraction of a degree above where we have been in recent decades and fractions of a degree are perfectly normal variance.

Of course climate change is real, but we're already working on it. We're already decarbonising. We still need fossil fuel extraction, for the interim, and we will need fossil fuel extraction even when we hit net zero as petrochemicals are required for many medicines, materials and other industrial purposes not remotely related to burning and releasing carbon.

I want a habitable world. We are working on that already though and need to continue to do the right thing, not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

If it stayed at 1.5 degrees, possibly - although there is a big issue that if we were to get to 1.5 the feedback loop would still lead to greater warming. I also don't really see the decarbonising push by individual countries as useful if all they are doing is outsourcing their carbon producing industries to other countries who end up producing our consumer goods and then blamed for the new emissions, whilst also not benefitting from any wealth creation themselves.

And by uninhabitable I don't just mean the climate, I mean the political reality also leading to uninhabitable scenarios. If 700 million people are displaced by 2030 due to droughts across Asia and Africa (as is projected), then the current anti immigrant fervour will continue through the roof, and the fortress nation state will lead to increased authoritarianism. The current food inflation will pale in comparison to impacts of mass drought / flooding; one of the reasons wheat prices have been so bad (beyond the Ukraine war) is that wheat producing areas in the US, China and Africa have also been ravaged by harsh climate events. Resource wars, especially water wars, could become common in the not to distant future.

How much of a dent to standard of living can people take without things collapsing? If we had made the necessary investment earlier, we could have slowly changed expectations and sourcing for things. Now, who knows. Putting our head in the sand and hoping business as usual works hasn't worked so far. The next generation are more extreme on this issue, on the left and right, and as much as you hate the JSO or XR activists the ecofascists are much worse.

Yes, there are feedback loops. We need to reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere before we get runaway temperature rise. So far we only are slowing the increase. The economic case for new fossil fuel investment is getting much weaker, the danger is that they will become stranded assets. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fsnkPLkf1ao

Slowing the increase is all we can do for now. Unless you want a catastrophe then slowing is how you stop, its a transition. If I'm driving at 70mph and do an emergency stop, I have to slow before I stop or go into reverse and I will keep going forwards while slowing - but if I'm slowing down, I'm doing what I can.

We are slowing.

If new fossil fuel extraction becomes a stranded asset then that is the responsibility of the investors and they can lose out. Not a problem, some investments fail. Buyer beware and all that. But the environmental case for using domestically sourced fossil fuels over imported ones from countries like Russia or Saudi Arabia is unequivocally clear. Domestic fuels are much cleaner to use, while we transition to alternatives, and lets leave the Sheikhs and Oligarchs with stranded assets instead if that's what it comes to.

We aren't slowing fast enough. https://cleantechnica.com/2023/06/05/broken-record-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-levels-jump-again/
"Are renewable energy sources cheaper than fossil fuels?
Yes, renewable energy is cheaper than fossil fuels. In 2021, IRENA reported that two-thirds of newly installed renewable power in G20 countries had lower costs than the cheapest fossil fuel-fired option – and they’re only set to get more affordable from here on out."
https://www.theecoexperts.co.uk/blog/is-renewable-energy-cheaper-than-fossil-fuels#:~:text=Are renewable energy sources cheaper than fossil fuels?,to get more affordable from here on out.

Who exactly is “We”, in that statement?

Most of the policy suggestions appear to want to curtail emissions and economic progress, while raising energy prices, in Western nations, but simultaneously increasing reliance for energy on more polluting developing countries.

'We' is the world in general.
Curtailing emissions doesn't imply curtailing economic progress or raising energy prices. Nobody now should build a coal fired power station because it would cost more to run than Renewables and within a few years be a stranded asset.
https://ourworldindata.org/cheap-renewables-growth

So long as the “We” continues to be the whole world, and that policy suggestions reduce the CO2 emissions from the whole world, then great.

But that’s not what’s currently seen in practice.

OK Sandpit, explain what you mean.
Is this a criticism of any particular country?
"China is the world's leader in electricity production from renewable energy sources, with over triple the generation of the second-ranking country, the United States.
China's total renewable energy capacity exceeded 1,000 GW in 2021, accounting for 43.5 per cent of the country's total power generation capacity, 10.2 percentage points higher than in 2015. The country aims to have 80 per cent of its total energy mix come from non-fossil fuel sources by 2060" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_China

The UK is doing ok, 7th in the WEF ETI list, but 'we' (the whole world) need to increase the rate at which we move to renewables to hit net zero by 2030 - have a look at the graph here https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/12/doubling-renewable-energy-net-zero-emissions/
So, how does it make any sense, environmental or economic to spend time and money looking for new fossil fuels now?

Becuase most of the policy suggestions, are that the UK should abandon FF extraction, in favour of importing it - at a higher global CO2 impact - from other countries.

China is still building coal power plants.

Who is suggesting that "UK should abandon FF extraction, in favour of importing it" ? They would obviously be a complete idiot.
Or is it that somebody else is accusing someone of doing so?
China should stop building coal power plants, obviously.

Well indeed. Nobody is suggesting that UK should abandon fossil fuel extraction in favour of importing it - that appears to be a strawman dreamt up by those who are determined to slow down the transition from fossil fuels. And if anyone were suggesting it, the idea isn't without some environmental merit, given that the extraction of oil from the North Sea results in the emission of more CO2 than, say, the extraction of oil from the Saudi desert.

And yes, China should stop building coal power plants, but, on a per capita basis, China is responsible for far less CO2 in the air than we are and is unlikely ever to contribute to climate change as much as us. We are hardly in a position to criticise them for something we did in spades while simultaneously dragging our heels on cleaning up our own act.

Actually that is precisely what is suggested by blocking North Sea licences, but not blocking imports.

You don't change demand one iota by doing that, you don't help the environment at all. All you do is generate more imports, worsen our balance of payments, worsen our control over the environment and regulatory framework. And make yourself feel good by exporting emissions to other nations.

It is superficial foppery. If you want to be serious about it, do serious actions, like banning imports or banning gas boilers, or banning petrol stations. But if you're not prepared to do that, then we need fuel, and if we need fuel, then there is no scientific reason to block North Sea licences.

Oh and you're wrong on per capita climate emissions too. China is responsible for more ongoing emissions on a per capita basis than the UK is, let alone on an aggregate basis.

you might want to think about 'let alone on an aggregate basis'

Not really.

The earth cares about the aggregate basis, and on an aggregate basis they utterly dwarf UK emissions.

On a per capita basis, they also dwarf UK emissions on an ongoing basis.

So either way you slice it, they are more responsible than we are. Which is unsurprising to anyone without an axe to grind.

Only if you refuse for some reason to slice it per capita on an aggregate basis, which I think is clearly what FeersumEnjineeya meant.

And while you're right that in principle it doesn't make much sense to stop local extraction of fossil fuels just to increase imports (though it might depend a bit). By the same logic, you can argue that a share of emissions due to manufacturing things should be allocated to the consuming country, rather than the producing country - it makes equally little sense to reduce local emissions by exporting production. I don't know if China still produces more emissions per capita on this basis - maybe someone has the figures?

This article explains the point I'm trying to make:

https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-which-countries-are-historically-responsible-for-climate-change/

China doesn't even make the top 20 in the list of countries by cumulative emissions per capita, while we are in 8th place.

But who cares today about “cumulative emissions”?

Surely the goal is to reduce worldwide carbon emissions, to save the planet?

Talk of “cumulative emissions”, sounds awfully like the Californians asking for $5m payments to those who had families affected by slavery two centuries ago.

If I was a developing country, I'd certainly care. Why should I have to reduce my emissions to solve a problem largely caused by already developed countries?

rcs1000 said:

Sandpit said:

Andy_JS said:

IanB2 said:

Andy_JS said:

Still amazed by the figures showing that California has lost half a million people over the last two years.

https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/CA/PST045222

For lower taxes it seems that many Americans are willing to live in the most dreadful places

The cities of Florida and Texas aren't that bad.

Austin and Miami look like the places to be at the moment. New York, LA, SF, Boston, are all experiencing population declines.

Austin is a victim of its own success: it's now extremely expensive to live there and the traffic is worse than LA.

I would have happily moved there three years ago; now I wouldn't touch it with a barge pole.

Pulpstar said:

Cookie said:

Just discovered I have a Chat GPT account. Not passing the Turing test yet:

Cookie: Where do you weigh a whale?

Chat GPT: You weigh a whale at a specialized facility or location equipped to handle the immense size and weight of these marine mammals. These facilities are typically marine research centers, aquariums, or other institutions that work with whales and have the necessary infrastructure and equipment.

To weigh a whale, the most common method is to use a large-scale or platform scale. The scale is typically placed on a solid foundation, such as a reinforced floor, capable of supporting the weight of the whale. The whale is carefully guided onto the scale, either by using a specialized lift or by coaxing it onto the weighing platform through training techniques.

It's important to note that weighing a whale is a complex and challenging task due to their size, weight, and the need to ensure the safety and well-being of the animal throughout the process. Therefore, it is typically carried out by experienced professionals who follow strict protocols to minimize stress and potential harm to the whale.

What's wrong with that answer ?

I think it's the one most of the world would give (If they had the knowledge). Is there a parochial joke you're making chatgpt is missing ?

FeersumEnjineeya said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

kamski said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

logical_song said:

Sandpit said:

logical_song said:

Sandpit said:

logical_song said:

Sandpit said:

logical_song said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

logical_song said:

148grss said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

148grss said:

Taz said:

More on Labour becoming the political wing of Just Stop Oil/Exctinction Rebellion.

On the back of the policies on North Sea Oil and Gas and the bung from one of the major providers of on shore wind.

I wonder if we will see a dreaded "green new deal" next.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/other/labour-climate-tsar-is-extinction-rebellion-s-former-legal-strategy-co-ordinator/ar-AA1caQ5J?ocid=entnewsntp&cvid=bec714168f634cef806c5a4532ea1a10&ei=14

Yes Keir "Lock 'Em Up" Starmer is the political wing of the green protest movement... There are a few projections suggesting we may hit the 1.5 degrees above industrial temperatures this summer. And that could be a consistent temperature increase by 2030. That is the line at which most projections are like "we could likely protect civilisation as we know it in developed countries at the expense of a lot of lives elsewhere". We do not have the time to not halt new fossil fuel extraction. The ONLY argument for more fossil fuel extraction would be if we ever actually solve carbon capture (a thing we have not actually solved despite selling it as if it is a thing that works) and the short term value of fossil fuels allows us to invest in that. I'm in my early 30s. I would quite like a habitable and safe planet by the time I'm 60. Hell, if I'm lucky enough to live into my 90s like my grandad currently is, I'd quite like a habitable planet then!

If we hit the 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial temperatures that's not going to make the world uninhabitable. That's a fraction of a degree above where we have been in recent decades and fractions of a degree are perfectly normal variance.

Of course climate change is real, but we're already working on it. We're already decarbonising. We still need fossil fuel extraction, for the interim, and we will need fossil fuel extraction even when we hit net zero as petrochemicals are required for many medicines, materials and other industrial purposes not remotely related to burning and releasing carbon.

I want a habitable world. We are working on that already though and need to continue to do the right thing, not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

If it stayed at 1.5 degrees, possibly - although there is a big issue that if we were to get to 1.5 the feedback loop would still lead to greater warming. I also don't really see the decarbonising push by individual countries as useful if all they are doing is outsourcing their carbon producing industries to other countries who end up producing our consumer goods and then blamed for the new emissions, whilst also not benefitting from any wealth creation themselves.

And by uninhabitable I don't just mean the climate, I mean the political reality also leading to uninhabitable scenarios. If 700 million people are displaced by 2030 due to droughts across Asia and Africa (as is projected), then the current anti immigrant fervour will continue through the roof, and the fortress nation state will lead to increased authoritarianism. The current food inflation will pale in comparison to impacts of mass drought / flooding; one of the reasons wheat prices have been so bad (beyond the Ukraine war) is that wheat producing areas in the US, China and Africa have also been ravaged by harsh climate events. Resource wars, especially water wars, could become common in the not to distant future.

How much of a dent to standard of living can people take without things collapsing? If we had made the necessary investment earlier, we could have slowly changed expectations and sourcing for things. Now, who knows. Putting our head in the sand and hoping business as usual works hasn't worked so far. The next generation are more extreme on this issue, on the left and right, and as much as you hate the JSO or XR activists the ecofascists are much worse.

Yes, there are feedback loops. We need to reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere before we get runaway temperature rise. So far we only are slowing the increase. The economic case for new fossil fuel investment is getting much weaker, the danger is that they will become stranded assets. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fsnkPLkf1ao

Slowing the increase is all we can do for now. Unless you want a catastrophe then slowing is how you stop, its a transition. If I'm driving at 70mph and do an emergency stop, I have to slow before I stop or go into reverse and I will keep going forwards while slowing - but if I'm slowing down, I'm doing what I can.

We are slowing.

If new fossil fuel extraction becomes a stranded asset then that is the responsibility of the investors and they can lose out. Not a problem, some investments fail. Buyer beware and all that. But the environmental case for using domestically sourced fossil fuels over imported ones from countries like Russia or Saudi Arabia is unequivocally clear. Domestic fuels are much cleaner to use, while we transition to alternatives, and lets leave the Sheikhs and Oligarchs with stranded assets instead if that's what it comes to.

We aren't slowing fast enough. https://cleantechnica.com/2023/06/05/broken-record-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-levels-jump-again/
"Are renewable energy sources cheaper than fossil fuels?
Yes, renewable energy is cheaper than fossil fuels. In 2021, IRENA reported that two-thirds of newly installed renewable power in G20 countries had lower costs than the cheapest fossil fuel-fired option – and they’re only set to get more affordable from here on out."
https://www.theecoexperts.co.uk/blog/is-renewable-energy-cheaper-than-fossil-fuels#:~:text=Are renewable energy sources cheaper than fossil fuels?,to get more affordable from here on out.

Who exactly is “We”, in that statement?

Most of the policy suggestions appear to want to curtail emissions and economic progress, while raising energy prices, in Western nations, but simultaneously increasing reliance for energy on more polluting developing countries.

'We' is the world in general.
Curtailing emissions doesn't imply curtailing economic progress or raising energy prices. Nobody now should build a coal fired power station because it would cost more to run than Renewables and within a few years be a stranded asset.
https://ourworldindata.org/cheap-renewables-growth

So long as the “We” continues to be the whole world, and that policy suggestions reduce the CO2 emissions from the whole world, then great.

But that’s not what’s currently seen in practice.

OK Sandpit, explain what you mean.
Is this a criticism of any particular country?
"China is the world's leader in electricity production from renewable energy sources, with over triple the generation of the second-ranking country, the United States.
China's total renewable energy capacity exceeded 1,000 GW in 2021, accounting for 43.5 per cent of the country's total power generation capacity, 10.2 percentage points higher than in 2015. The country aims to have 80 per cent of its total energy mix come from non-fossil fuel sources by 2060" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_China

The UK is doing ok, 7th in the WEF ETI list, but 'we' (the whole world) need to increase the rate at which we move to renewables to hit net zero by 2030 - have a look at the graph here https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/12/doubling-renewable-energy-net-zero-emissions/
So, how does it make any sense, environmental or economic to spend time and money looking for new fossil fuels now?

Becuase most of the policy suggestions, are that the UK should abandon FF extraction, in favour of importing it - at a higher global CO2 impact - from other countries.

China is still building coal power plants.

Who is suggesting that "UK should abandon FF extraction, in favour of importing it" ? They would obviously be a complete idiot.
Or is it that somebody else is accusing someone of doing so?
China should stop building coal power plants, obviously.

Well indeed. Nobody is suggesting that UK should abandon fossil fuel extraction in favour of importing it - that appears to be a strawman dreamt up by those who are determined to slow down the transition from fossil fuels. And if anyone were suggesting it, the idea isn't without some environmental merit, given that the extraction of oil from the North Sea results in the emission of more CO2 than, say, the extraction of oil from the Saudi desert.

And yes, China should stop building coal power plants, but, on a per capita basis, China is responsible for far less CO2 in the air than we are and is unlikely ever to contribute to climate change as much as us. We are hardly in a position to criticise them for something we did in spades while simultaneously dragging our heels on cleaning up our own act.

Actually that is precisely what is suggested by blocking North Sea licences, but not blocking imports.

You don't change demand one iota by doing that, you don't help the environment at all. All you do is generate more imports, worsen our balance of payments, worsen our control over the environment and regulatory framework. And make yourself feel good by exporting emissions to other nations.

It is superficial foppery. If you want to be serious about it, do serious actions, like banning imports or banning gas boilers, or banning petrol stations. But if you're not prepared to do that, then we need fuel, and if we need fuel, then there is no scientific reason to block North Sea licences.

Oh and you're wrong on per capita climate emissions too. China is responsible for more ongoing emissions on a per capita basis than the UK is, let alone on an aggregate basis.

you might want to think about 'let alone on an aggregate basis'

Not really.

The earth cares about the aggregate basis, and on an aggregate basis they utterly dwarf UK emissions.

On a per capita basis, they also dwarf UK emissions on an ongoing basis.

So either way you slice it, they are more responsible than we are. Which is unsurprising to anyone without an axe to grind.

That's a bizarre way to view it. By that logic, small countries all get a free pass to emit as much as they like.

Not really, you should look at small countries emissions on an ongoing basis per capita - and if you do that, then China is emitting more than us as on ongoing basis.

We don't have a Tardis to change the past, all we can do is look after the Earth on an ongoing basis, and having done that we are emitting per capita less than China is.

We are doing our bit. In the present. We need others to, as well.

We are emitting less per capita than China now, but for a long time were weren't. Those emissions haven't gone away - they are still there, doing their bit to warm the Earth. You're right that we don't have a Tardis and can't change that, but it does mean that we, alongside other nations that industrialised early, bear greater responsibility when it comes to fixing the damage that has been done.

LostPassword said:

Sandpit said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

kamski said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

kamski said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

logical_song said:

Sandpit said:

logical_song said:

Sandpit said:

logical_song said:

Sandpit said:

logical_song said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

logical_song said:

148grss said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

148grss said:

Taz said:

More on Labour becoming the political wing of Just Stop Oil/Exctinction Rebellion.

On the back of the policies on North Sea Oil and Gas and the bung from one of the major providers of on shore wind.

I wonder if we will see a dreaded "green new deal" next.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/other/labour-climate-tsar-is-extinction-rebellion-s-former-legal-strategy-co-ordinator/ar-AA1caQ5J?ocid=entnewsntp&cvid=bec714168f634cef806c5a4532ea1a10&ei=14

Yes Keir "Lock 'Em Up" Starmer is the political wing of the green protest movement... There are a few projections suggesting we may hit the 1.5 degrees above industrial temperatures this summer. And that could be a consistent temperature increase by 2030. That is the line at which most projections are like "we could likely protect civilisation as we know it in developed countries at the expense of a lot of lives elsewhere". We do not have the time to not halt new fossil fuel extraction. The ONLY argument for more fossil fuel extraction would be if we ever actually solve carbon capture (a thing we have not actually solved despite selling it as if it is a thing that works) and the short term value of fossil fuels allows us to invest in that. I'm in my early 30s. I would quite like a habitable and safe planet by the time I'm 60. Hell, if I'm lucky enough to live into my 90s like my grandad currently is, I'd quite like a habitable planet then!

If we hit the 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial temperatures that's not going to make the world uninhabitable. That's a fraction of a degree above where we have been in recent decades and fractions of a degree are perfectly normal variance.

Of course climate change is real, but we're already working on it. We're already decarbonising. We still need fossil fuel extraction, for the interim, and we will need fossil fuel extraction even when we hit net zero as petrochemicals are required for many medicines, materials and other industrial purposes not remotely related to burning and releasing carbon.

I want a habitable world. We are working on that already though and need to continue to do the right thing, not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

If it stayed at 1.5 degrees, possibly - although there is a big issue that if we were to get to 1.5 the feedback loop would still lead to greater warming. I also don't really see the decarbonising push by individual countries as useful if all they are doing is outsourcing their carbon producing industries to other countries who end up producing our consumer goods and then blamed for the new emissions, whilst also not benefitting from any wealth creation themselves.

And by uninhabitable I don't just mean the climate, I mean the political reality also leading to uninhabitable scenarios. If 700 million people are displaced by 2030 due to droughts across Asia and Africa (as is projected), then the current anti immigrant fervour will continue through the roof, and the fortress nation state will lead to increased authoritarianism. The current food inflation will pale in comparison to impacts of mass drought / flooding; one of the reasons wheat prices have been so bad (beyond the Ukraine war) is that wheat producing areas in the US, China and Africa have also been ravaged by harsh climate events. Resource wars, especially water wars, could become common in the not to distant future.

How much of a dent to standard of living can people take without things collapsing? If we had made the necessary investment earlier, we could have slowly changed expectations and sourcing for things. Now, who knows. Putting our head in the sand and hoping business as usual works hasn't worked so far. The next generation are more extreme on this issue, on the left and right, and as much as you hate the JSO or XR activists the ecofascists are much worse.

Yes, there are feedback loops. We need to reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere before we get runaway temperature rise. So far we only are slowing the increase. The economic case for new fossil fuel investment is getting much weaker, the danger is that they will become stranded assets. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fsnkPLkf1ao

Slowing the increase is all we can do for now. Unless you want a catastrophe then slowing is how you stop, its a transition. If I'm driving at 70mph and do an emergency stop, I have to slow before I stop or go into reverse and I will keep going forwards while slowing - but if I'm slowing down, I'm doing what I can.

We are slowing.

If new fossil fuel extraction becomes a stranded asset then that is the responsibility of the investors and they can lose out. Not a problem, some investments fail. Buyer beware and all that. But the environmental case for using domestically sourced fossil fuels over imported ones from countries like Russia or Saudi Arabia is unequivocally clear. Domestic fuels are much cleaner to use, while we transition to alternatives, and lets leave the Sheikhs and Oligarchs with stranded assets instead if that's what it comes to.

We aren't slowing fast enough. https://cleantechnica.com/2023/06/05/broken-record-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-levels-jump-again/
"Are renewable energy sources cheaper than fossil fuels?
Yes, renewable energy is cheaper than fossil fuels. In 2021, IRENA reported that two-thirds of newly installed renewable power in G20 countries had lower costs than the cheapest fossil fuel-fired option – and they’re only set to get more affordable from here on out."
https://www.theecoexperts.co.uk/blog/is-renewable-energy-cheaper-than-fossil-fuels#:~:text=Are renewable energy sources cheaper than fossil fuels?,to get more affordable from here on out.

Who exactly is “We”, in that statement?

Most of the policy suggestions appear to want to curtail emissions and economic progress, while raising energy prices, in Western nations, but simultaneously increasing reliance for energy on more polluting developing countries.

'We' is the world in general.
Curtailing emissions doesn't imply curtailing economic progress or raising energy prices. Nobody now should build a coal fired power station because it would cost more to run than Renewables and within a few years be a stranded asset.
https://ourworldindata.org/cheap-renewables-growth

So long as the “We” continues to be the whole world, and that policy suggestions reduce the CO2 emissions from the whole world, then great.

But that’s not what’s currently seen in practice.

OK Sandpit, explain what you mean.
Is this a criticism of any particular country?
"China is the world's leader in electricity production from renewable energy sources, with over triple the generation of the second-ranking country, the United States.
China's total renewable energy capacity exceeded 1,000 GW in 2021, accounting for 43.5 per cent of the country's total power generation capacity, 10.2 percentage points higher than in 2015. The country aims to have 80 per cent of its total energy mix come from non-fossil fuel sources by 2060" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_China

The UK is doing ok, 7th in the WEF ETI list, but 'we' (the whole world) need to increase the rate at which we move to renewables to hit net zero by 2030 - have a look at the graph here https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/12/doubling-renewable-energy-net-zero-emissions/
So, how does it make any sense, environmental or economic to spend time and money looking for new fossil fuels now?

Becuase most of the policy suggestions, are that the UK should abandon FF extraction, in favour of importing it - at a higher global CO2 impact - from other countries.

China is still building coal power plants.

Who is suggesting that "UK should abandon FF extraction, in favour of importing it" ? They would obviously be a complete idiot.
Or is it that somebody else is accusing someone of doing so?
China should stop building coal power plants, obviously.

Well indeed. Nobody is suggesting that UK should abandon fossil fuel extraction in favour of importing it - that appears to be a strawman dreamt up by those who are determined to slow down the transition from fossil fuels. And if anyone were suggesting it, the idea isn't without some environmental merit, given that the extraction of oil from the North Sea results in the emission of more CO2 than, say, the extraction of oil from the Saudi desert.

And yes, China should stop building coal power plants, but, on a per capita basis, China is responsible for far less CO2 in the air than we are and is unlikely ever to contribute to climate change as much as us. We are hardly in a position to criticise them for something we did in spades while simultaneously dragging our heels on cleaning up our own act.

Actually that is precisely what is suggested by blocking North Sea licences, but not blocking imports.

You don't change demand one iota by doing that, you don't help the environment at all. All you do is generate more imports, worsen our balance of payments, worsen our control over the environment and regulatory framework. And make yourself feel good by exporting emissions to other nations.

It is superficial foppery. If you want to be serious about it, do serious actions, like banning imports or banning gas boilers, or banning petrol stations. But if you're not prepared to do that, then we need fuel, and if we need fuel, then there is no scientific reason to block North Sea licences.

Oh and you're wrong on per capita climate emissions too. China is responsible for more ongoing emissions on a per capita basis than the UK is, let alone on an aggregate basis.

you might want to think about 'let alone on an aggregate basis'

Not really.

The earth cares about the aggregate basis, and on an aggregate basis they utterly dwarf UK emissions.

On a per capita basis, they also dwarf UK emissions on an ongoing basis.

So either way you slice it, they are more responsible than we are. Which is unsurprising to anyone without an axe to grind.

Only if you refuse for some reason to slice it per capita on an aggregate basis, which I think is clearly what FeersumEnjineeya meant.

And while you're right that in principle it doesn't make much sense to stop local extraction of fossil fuels just to increase imports (though it might depend a bit). By the same logic, you can argue that a share of emissions due to manufacturing things should be allocated to the consuming country, rather than the producing country - it makes equally little sense to reduce local emissions by exporting production. I don't know if China still produces more emissions per capita on this basis - maybe someone has the figures?

This article explains the point I'm trying to make:

https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-which-countries-are-historically-responsible-for-climate-change/

China doesn't even make the top 20 in the list of countries by cumulative emissions per capita, while we are in 8th place.

But who cares today about “cumulative emissions”?

Surely the goal is to reduce worldwide carbon emissions, to save the planet?

Talk of “cumulative emissions”, sounds awfully like the Californians asking for $5m payments to those who had families affected by slavery two centuries ago.

If you wanted to establish who was responsible for the damage caused by global warming then you would want to look at cumulative emissions, so it will be relevant when countries are looking to be compensated for the damage they suffer from the carbon emissions of other countries.

williamglenn said:

CO2 emissions per capita:

United States - 15.52
Germany - 9.44
China - 7.38
United Kingdom - 5.55

https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-per-capita/

bondegezou said:

Cookie said:

Cookie (still enjoying himself): How can you tell there is an elephant in bed with you?

ChatGPT: If you were to wake up and suspect that there is an elephant in bed with you, you would likely notice several unmistakable signs:

Size and Space: You would likely feel an extreme lack of space in the bed, as an elephant would take up a significant portion of it. The bed would feel crowded and cramped.

Weight and Pressure: The immense weight of an elephant would cause the mattress to sink or compress significantly, leading to an unusual sensation of pressure and possibly discomfort.

Movement and Vibrations: An elephant's size and weight would likely result in noticeable movements and vibrations. You might feel the bed shaking or shifting as the elephant adjusts its position.

Sounds and Noises: Elephants are large animals, and their presence in a bed would likely produce audible sounds. You might hear heavy breathing, rustling, or even low rumbling sounds coming from the elephant.

Visual Confirmation: If you manage to look or glance in the direction of the supposed elephant, you would likely see the unmistakable sight of a massive creature beside or partially on the bed.

However, it's important to note that an elephant in bed with you is an unlikely scenario in reality, and it's more likely to be a humorous or imaginative concept.

Footprints in the butter...?

Chelyabinsk said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Not really, you should look at small countries emissions on an ongoing basis per capita - and if you do that, then China is emitting more than us as on ongoing basis.

We don't have a Tardis to change the past, all we can do is look after the Earth on an ongoing basis, and having done that we are emitting per capita less than China is.

We are doing our bit. In the present. We need others to, as well.

We are emitting less per capita than China now, but for a long time were weren't. Those emissions haven't gone away - they are still there, doing their bit to warm the Earth. You're right that we don't have a Tardis and can't change that, but it does mean that we, alongside other nations that industrialised early, bear greater responsibility when it comes to fixing the damage that has been done.

China emitted more CO2 equivalents in the past eight years than the UK has done since the start of the industrial revolution.

williamglenn said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

kamski said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

logical_song said:

Sandpit said:

logical_song said:

Sandpit said:

logical_song said:

Sandpit said:

logical_song said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

logical_song said:

148grss said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

148grss said:

Taz said:

More on Labour becoming the political wing of Just Stop Oil/Exctinction Rebellion.

On the back of the policies on North Sea Oil and Gas and the bung from one of the major providers of on shore wind.

I wonder if we will see a dreaded "green new deal" next.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/other/labour-climate-tsar-is-extinction-rebellion-s-former-legal-strategy-co-ordinator/ar-AA1caQ5J?ocid=entnewsntp&cvid=bec714168f634cef806c5a4532ea1a10&ei=14

Yes Keir "Lock 'Em Up" Starmer is the political wing of the green protest movement... There are a few projections suggesting we may hit the 1.5 degrees above industrial temperatures this summer. And that could be a consistent temperature increase by 2030. That is the line at which most projections are like "we could likely protect civilisation as we know it in developed countries at the expense of a lot of lives elsewhere". We do not have the time to not halt new fossil fuel extraction. The ONLY argument for more fossil fuel extraction would be if we ever actually solve carbon capture (a thing we have not actually solved despite selling it as if it is a thing that works) and the short term value of fossil fuels allows us to invest in that. I'm in my early 30s. I would quite like a habitable and safe planet by the time I'm 60. Hell, if I'm lucky enough to live into my 90s like my grandad currently is, I'd quite like a habitable planet then!

If we hit the 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial temperatures that's not going to make the world uninhabitable. That's a fraction of a degree above where we have been in recent decades and fractions of a degree are perfectly normal variance.

Of course climate change is real, but we're already working on it. We're already decarbonising. We still need fossil fuel extraction, for the interim, and we will need fossil fuel extraction even when we hit net zero as petrochemicals are required for many medicines, materials and other industrial purposes not remotely related to burning and releasing carbon.

I want a habitable world. We are working on that already though and need to continue to do the right thing, not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

If it stayed at 1.5 degrees, possibly - although there is a big issue that if we were to get to 1.5 the feedback loop would still lead to greater warming. I also don't really see the decarbonising push by individual countries as useful if all they are doing is outsourcing their carbon producing industries to other countries who end up producing our consumer goods and then blamed for the new emissions, whilst also not benefitting from any wealth creation themselves.

And by uninhabitable I don't just mean the climate, I mean the political reality also leading to uninhabitable scenarios. If 700 million people are displaced by 2030 due to droughts across Asia and Africa (as is projected), then the current anti immigrant fervour will continue through the roof, and the fortress nation state will lead to increased authoritarianism. The current food inflation will pale in comparison to impacts of mass drought / flooding; one of the reasons wheat prices have been so bad (beyond the Ukraine war) is that wheat producing areas in the US, China and Africa have also been ravaged by harsh climate events. Resource wars, especially water wars, could become common in the not to distant future.

How much of a dent to standard of living can people take without things collapsing? If we had made the necessary investment earlier, we could have slowly changed expectations and sourcing for things. Now, who knows. Putting our head in the sand and hoping business as usual works hasn't worked so far. The next generation are more extreme on this issue, on the left and right, and as much as you hate the JSO or XR activists the ecofascists are much worse.

Yes, there are feedback loops. We need to reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere before we get runaway temperature rise. So far we only are slowing the increase. The economic case for new fossil fuel investment is getting much weaker, the danger is that they will become stranded assets. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fsnkPLkf1ao

Slowing the increase is all we can do for now. Unless you want a catastrophe then slowing is how you stop, its a transition. If I'm driving at 70mph and do an emergency stop, I have to slow before I stop or go into reverse and I will keep going forwards while slowing - but if I'm slowing down, I'm doing what I can.

We are slowing.

If new fossil fuel extraction becomes a stranded asset then that is the responsibility of the investors and they can lose out. Not a problem, some investments fail. Buyer beware and all that. But the environmental case for using domestically sourced fossil fuels over imported ones from countries like Russia or Saudi Arabia is unequivocally clear. Domestic fuels are much cleaner to use, while we transition to alternatives, and lets leave the Sheikhs and Oligarchs with stranded assets instead if that's what it comes to.

We aren't slowing fast enough. https://cleantechnica.com/2023/06/05/broken-record-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-levels-jump-again/
"Are renewable energy sources cheaper than fossil fuels?
Yes, renewable energy is cheaper than fossil fuels. In 2021, IRENA reported that two-thirds of newly installed renewable power in G20 countries had lower costs than the cheapest fossil fuel-fired option – and they’re only set to get more affordable from here on out."
https://www.theecoexperts.co.uk/blog/is-renewable-energy-cheaper-than-fossil-fuels#:~:text=Are renewable energy sources cheaper than fossil fuels?,to get more affordable from here on out.

Who exactly is “We”, in that statement?

Most of the policy suggestions appear to want to curtail emissions and economic progress, while raising energy prices, in Western nations, but simultaneously increasing reliance for energy on more polluting developing countries.

'We' is the world in general.
Curtailing emissions doesn't imply curtailing economic progress or raising energy prices. Nobody now should build a coal fired power station because it would cost more to run than Renewables and within a few years be a stranded asset.
https://ourworldindata.org/cheap-renewables-growth

So long as the “We” continues to be the whole world, and that policy suggestions reduce the CO2 emissions from the whole world, then great.

But that’s not what’s currently seen in practice.

OK Sandpit, explain what you mean.
Is this a criticism of any particular country?
"China is the world's leader in electricity production from renewable energy sources, with over triple the generation of the second-ranking country, the United States.
China's total renewable energy capacity exceeded 1,000 GW in 2021, accounting for 43.5 per cent of the country's total power generation capacity, 10.2 percentage points higher than in 2015. The country aims to have 80 per cent of its total energy mix come from non-fossil fuel sources by 2060" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_China

The UK is doing ok, 7th in the WEF ETI list, but 'we' (the whole world) need to increase the rate at which we move to renewables to hit net zero by 2030 - have a look at the graph here https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/12/doubling-renewable-energy-net-zero-emissions/
So, how does it make any sense, environmental or economic to spend time and money looking for new fossil fuels now?

Becuase most of the policy suggestions, are that the UK should abandon FF extraction, in favour of importing it - at a higher global CO2 impact - from other countries.

China is still building coal power plants.

Who is suggesting that "UK should abandon FF extraction, in favour of importing it" ? They would obviously be a complete idiot.
Or is it that somebody else is accusing someone of doing so?
China should stop building coal power plants, obviously.

Well indeed. Nobody is suggesting that UK should abandon fossil fuel extraction in favour of importing it - that appears to be a strawman dreamt up by those who are determined to slow down the transition from fossil fuels. And if anyone were suggesting it, the idea isn't without some environmental merit, given that the extraction of oil from the North Sea results in the emission of more CO2 than, say, the extraction of oil from the Saudi desert.

And yes, China should stop building coal power plants, but, on a per capita basis, China is responsible for far less CO2 in the air than we are and is unlikely ever to contribute to climate change as much as us. We are hardly in a position to criticise them for something we did in spades while simultaneously dragging our heels on cleaning up our own act.

Actually that is precisely what is suggested by blocking North Sea licences, but not blocking imports.

You don't change demand one iota by doing that, you don't help the environment at all. All you do is generate more imports, worsen our balance of payments, worsen our control over the environment and regulatory framework. And make yourself feel good by exporting emissions to other nations.

It is superficial foppery. If you want to be serious about it, do serious actions, like banning imports or banning gas boilers, or banning petrol stations. But if you're not prepared to do that, then we need fuel, and if we need fuel, then there is no scientific reason to block North Sea licences.

Oh and you're wrong on per capita climate emissions too. China is responsible for more ongoing emissions on a per capita basis than the UK is, let alone on an aggregate basis.

you might want to think about 'let alone on an aggregate basis'

Not really.

The earth cares about the aggregate basis, and on an aggregate basis they utterly dwarf UK emissions.

On a per capita basis, they also dwarf UK emissions on an ongoing basis.

So either way you slice it, they are more responsible than we are. Which is unsurprising to anyone without an axe to grind.

That's a bizarre way to view it. By that logic, small countries all get a free pass to emit as much as they like.

Not really, you should look at small countries emissions on an ongoing basis per capita - and if you do that, then China is emitting more than us as on ongoing basis.

We don't have a Tardis to change the past, all we can do is look after the Earth on an ongoing basis, and having done that we are emitting per capita less than China is.

We are doing our bit. In the present. We need others to, as well.

We are emitting less per capita than China now, but for a long time were weren't. Those emissions haven't gone away - they are still there, doing their bit to warm the Earth. You're right that we don't have a Tardis and can't change that, but it does mean that we, alongside other nations that industrialised early, bear greater responsibility when it comes to fixing the damage that has been done.

Based on your own figures, China has been responsible for more emissions in the last decade than the UK in the whole of its history, so your claim that we bear greater responsibility doesn't stand up.

rcs1000 said:

Chelyabinsk said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Not really, you should look at small countries emissions on an ongoing basis per capita - and if you do that, then China is emitting more than us as on ongoing basis.

We don't have a Tardis to change the past, all we can do is look after the Earth on an ongoing basis, and having done that we are emitting per capita less than China is.

We are doing our bit. In the present. We need others to, as well.

We are emitting less per capita than China now, but for a long time were weren't. Those emissions haven't gone away - they are still there, doing their bit to warm the Earth. You're right that we don't have a Tardis and can't change that, but it does mean that we, alongside other nations that industrialised early, bear greater responsibility when it comes to fixing the damage that has been done.

China emitted more CO2 equivalents in the past eight years than the UK has done since the start of the industrial revolution.

Although as there are about 15x more of them than us, that's not that surprising. 15 x 8 gets you almost back to the industrial revolution.

williamglenn said:

CO2 emissions per capita:

United States - 15.52
Germany - 9.44
China - 7.38
United Kingdom - 5.55

https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-per-capita/

Sandpit said:

logical_song said:

Sandpit said:

logical_song said:

Sandpit said:

logical_song said:

Sandpit said:

logical_song said:

Sandpit said:

logical_song said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

logical_song said:

148grss said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

148grss said:

Taz said:

More on Labour becoming the political wing of Just Stop Oil/Exctinction Rebellion.

On the back of the policies on North Sea Oil and Gas and the bung from one of the major providers of on shore wind.

I wonder if we will see a dreaded "green new deal" next.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/other/labour-climate-tsar-is-extinction-rebellion-s-former-legal-strategy-co-ordinator/ar-AA1caQ5J?ocid=entnewsntp&cvid=bec714168f634cef806c5a4532ea1a10&ei=14

Yes Keir "Lock 'Em Up" Starmer is the political wing of the green protest movement... There are a few projections suggesting we may hit the 1.5 degrees above industrial temperatures this summer. And that could be a consistent temperature increase by 2030. That is the line at which most projections are like "we could likely protect civilisation as we know it in developed countries at the expense of a lot of lives elsewhere". We do not have the time to not halt new fossil fuel extraction. The ONLY argument for more fossil fuel extraction would be if we ever actually solve carbon capture (a thing we have not actually solved despite selling it as if it is a thing that works) and the short term value of fossil fuels allows us to invest in that. I'm in my early 30s. I would quite like a habitable and safe planet by the time I'm 60. Hell, if I'm lucky enough to live into my 90s like my grandad currently is, I'd quite like a habitable planet then!

If we hit the 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial temperatures that's not going to make the world uninhabitable. That's a fraction of a degree above where we have been in recent decades and fractions of a degree are perfectly normal variance.

Of course climate change is real, but we're already working on it. We're already decarbonising. We still need fossil fuel extraction, for the interim, and we will need fossil fuel extraction even when we hit net zero as petrochemicals are required for many medicines, materials and other industrial purposes not remotely related to burning and releasing carbon.

I want a habitable world. We are working on that already though and need to continue to do the right thing, not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

If it stayed at 1.5 degrees, possibly - although there is a big issue that if we were to get to 1.5 the feedback loop would still lead to greater warming. I also don't really see the decarbonising push by individual countries as useful if all they are doing is outsourcing their carbon producing industries to other countries who end up producing our consumer goods and then blamed for the new emissions, whilst also not benefitting from any wealth creation themselves.

And by uninhabitable I don't just mean the climate, I mean the political reality also leading to uninhabitable scenarios. If 700 million people are displaced by 2030 due to droughts across Asia and Africa (as is projected), then the current anti immigrant fervour will continue through the roof, and the fortress nation state will lead to increased authoritarianism. The current food inflation will pale in comparison to impacts of mass drought / flooding; one of the reasons wheat prices have been so bad (beyond the Ukraine war) is that wheat producing areas in the US, China and Africa have also been ravaged by harsh climate events. Resource wars, especially water wars, could become common in the not to distant future.

How much of a dent to standard of living can people take without things collapsing? If we had made the necessary investment earlier, we could have slowly changed expectations and sourcing for things. Now, who knows. Putting our head in the sand and hoping business as usual works hasn't worked so far. The next generation are more extreme on this issue, on the left and right, and as much as you hate the JSO or XR activists the ecofascists are much worse.

Yes, there are feedback loops. We need to reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere before we get runaway temperature rise. So far we only are slowing the increase. The economic case for new fossil fuel investment is getting much weaker, the danger is that they will become stranded assets. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fsnkPLkf1ao

Slowing the increase is all we can do for now. Unless you want a catastrophe then slowing is how you stop, its a transition. If I'm driving at 70mph and do an emergency stop, I have to slow before I stop or go into reverse and I will keep going forwards while slowing - but if I'm slowing down, I'm doing what I can.

We are slowing.

If new fossil fuel extraction becomes a stranded asset then that is the responsibility of the investors and they can lose out. Not a problem, some investments fail. Buyer beware and all that. But the environmental case for using domestically sourced fossil fuels over imported ones from countries like Russia or Saudi Arabia is unequivocally clear. Domestic fuels are much cleaner to use, while we transition to alternatives, and lets leave the Sheikhs and Oligarchs with stranded assets instead if that's what it comes to.

We aren't slowing fast enough. https://cleantechnica.com/2023/06/05/broken-record-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-levels-jump-again/
"Are renewable energy sources cheaper than fossil fuels?
Yes, renewable energy is cheaper than fossil fuels. In 2021, IRENA reported that two-thirds of newly installed renewable power in G20 countries had lower costs than the cheapest fossil fuel-fired option – and they’re only set to get more affordable from here on out."
https://www.theecoexperts.co.uk/blog/is-renewable-energy-cheaper-than-fossil-fuels#:~:text=Are renewable energy sources cheaper than fossil fuels?,to get more affordable from here on out.

Who exactly is “We”, in that statement?

Most of the policy suggestions appear to want to curtail emissions and economic progress, while raising energy prices, in Western nations, but simultaneously increasing reliance for energy on more polluting developing countries.

'We' is the world in general.
Curtailing emissions doesn't imply curtailing economic progress or raising energy prices. Nobody now should build a coal fired power station because it would cost more to run than Renewables and within a few years be a stranded asset.
https://ourworldindata.org/cheap-renewables-growth

So long as the “We” continues to be the whole world, and that policy suggestions reduce the CO2 emissions from the whole world, then great.

But that’s not what’s currently seen in practice.

OK Sandpit, explain what you mean.
Is this a criticism of any particular country?
"China is the world's leader in electricity production from renewable energy sources, with over triple the generation of the second-ranking country, the United States.
China's total renewable energy capacity exceeded 1,000 GW in 2021, accounting for 43.5 per cent of the country's total power generation capacity, 10.2 percentage points higher than in 2015. The country aims to have 80 per cent of its total energy mix come from non-fossil fuel sources by 2060" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_China

The UK is doing ok, 7th in the WEF ETI list, but 'we' (the whole world) need to increase the rate at which we move to renewables to hit net zero by 2030 - have a look at the graph here https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/12/doubling-renewable-energy-net-zero-emissions/
So, how does it make any sense, environmental or economic to spend time and money looking for new fossil fuels now?

Becuase most of the policy suggestions, are that the UK should abandon FF extraction, in favour of importing it - at a higher global CO2 impact - from other countries.

China is still building coal power plants.

Who is suggesting that "UK should abandon FF extraction, in favour of importing it" ? They would obviously be a complete idiot.
Or is it that somebody else is accusing someone of doing so?
China should stop building coal power plants, obviously.

Rt Hon Sir Keir Starmer, QC, MP.

Please provide a reference where he says that.

I’ll go with the Guardian.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/jun/04/starmer-labour-new-north-sea-oil-gas-ban

FeersumEnjineeya said:

williamglenn said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

kamski said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

logical_song said:

Sandpit said:

logical_song said:

Sandpit said:

logical_song said:

Sandpit said:

logical_song said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

logical_song said:

148grss said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

148grss said:

Taz said:

More on Labour becoming the political wing of Just Stop Oil/Exctinction Rebellion.

On the back of the policies on North Sea Oil and Gas and the bung from one of the major providers of on shore wind.

I wonder if we will see a dreaded "green new deal" next.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/other/labour-climate-tsar-is-extinction-rebellion-s-former-legal-strategy-co-ordinator/ar-AA1caQ5J?ocid=entnewsntp&cvid=bec714168f634cef806c5a4532ea1a10&ei=14

Yes Keir "Lock 'Em Up" Starmer is the political wing of the green protest movement... There are a few projections suggesting we may hit the 1.5 degrees above industrial temperatures this summer. And that could be a consistent temperature increase by 2030. That is the line at which most projections are like "we could likely protect civilisation as we know it in developed countries at the expense of a lot of lives elsewhere". We do not have the time to not halt new fossil fuel extraction. The ONLY argument for more fossil fuel extraction would be if we ever actually solve carbon capture (a thing we have not actually solved despite selling it as if it is a thing that works) and the short term value of fossil fuels allows us to invest in that. I'm in my early 30s. I would quite like a habitable and safe planet by the time I'm 60. Hell, if I'm lucky enough to live into my 90s like my grandad currently is, I'd quite like a habitable planet then!

If we hit the 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial temperatures that's not going to make the world uninhabitable. That's a fraction of a degree above where we have been in recent decades and fractions of a degree are perfectly normal variance.

Of course climate change is real, but we're already working on it. We're already decarbonising. We still need fossil fuel extraction, for the interim, and we will need fossil fuel extraction even when we hit net zero as petrochemicals are required for many medicines, materials and other industrial purposes not remotely related to burning and releasing carbon.

I want a habitable world. We are working on that already though and need to continue to do the right thing, not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

If it stayed at 1.5 degrees, possibly - although there is a big issue that if we were to get to 1.5 the feedback loop would still lead to greater warming. I also don't really see the decarbonising push by individual countries as useful if all they are doing is outsourcing their carbon producing industries to other countries who end up producing our consumer goods and then blamed for the new emissions, whilst also not benefitting from any wealth creation themselves.

And by uninhabitable I don't just mean the climate, I mean the political reality also leading to uninhabitable scenarios. If 700 million people are displaced by 2030 due to droughts across Asia and Africa (as is projected), then the current anti immigrant fervour will continue through the roof, and the fortress nation state will lead to increased authoritarianism. The current food inflation will pale in comparison to impacts of mass drought / flooding; one of the reasons wheat prices have been so bad (beyond the Ukraine war) is that wheat producing areas in the US, China and Africa have also been ravaged by harsh climate events. Resource wars, especially water wars, could become common in the not to distant future.

How much of a dent to standard of living can people take without things collapsing? If we had made the necessary investment earlier, we could have slowly changed expectations and sourcing for things. Now, who knows. Putting our head in the sand and hoping business as usual works hasn't worked so far. The next generation are more extreme on this issue, on the left and right, and as much as you hate the JSO or XR activists the ecofascists are much worse.

Yes, there are feedback loops. We need to reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere before we get runaway temperature rise. So far we only are slowing the increase. The economic case for new fossil fuel investment is getting much weaker, the danger is that they will become stranded assets. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fsnkPLkf1ao

Slowing the increase is all we can do for now. Unless you want a catastrophe then slowing is how you stop, its a transition. If I'm driving at 70mph and do an emergency stop, I have to slow before I stop or go into reverse and I will keep going forwards while slowing - but if I'm slowing down, I'm doing what I can.

We are slowing.

If new fossil fuel extraction becomes a stranded asset then that is the responsibility of the investors and they can lose out. Not a problem, some investments fail. Buyer beware and all that. But the environmental case for using domestically sourced fossil fuels over imported ones from countries like Russia or Saudi Arabia is unequivocally clear. Domestic fuels are much cleaner to use, while we transition to alternatives, and lets leave the Sheikhs and Oligarchs with stranded assets instead if that's what it comes to.

We aren't slowing fast enough. https://cleantechnica.com/2023/06/05/broken-record-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-levels-jump-again/
"Are renewable energy sources cheaper than fossil fuels?
Yes, renewable energy is cheaper than fossil fuels. In 2021, IRENA reported that two-thirds of newly installed renewable power in G20 countries had lower costs than the cheapest fossil fuel-fired option – and they’re only set to get more affordable from here on out."
https://www.theecoexperts.co.uk/blog/is-renewable-energy-cheaper-than-fossil-fuels#:~:text=Are renewable energy sources cheaper than fossil fuels?,to get more affordable from here on out.

Who exactly is “We”, in that statement?

Most of the policy suggestions appear to want to curtail emissions and economic progress, while raising energy prices, in Western nations, but simultaneously increasing reliance for energy on more polluting developing countries.

'We' is the world in general.
Curtailing emissions doesn't imply curtailing economic progress or raising energy prices. Nobody now should build a coal fired power station because it would cost more to run than Renewables and within a few years be a stranded asset.
https://ourworldindata.org/cheap-renewables-growth

So long as the “We” continues to be the whole world, and that policy suggestions reduce the CO2 emissions from the whole world, then great.

But that’s not what’s currently seen in practice.

OK Sandpit, explain what you mean.
Is this a criticism of any particular country?
"China is the world's leader in electricity production from renewable energy sources, with over triple the generation of the second-ranking country, the United States.
China's total renewable energy capacity exceeded 1,000 GW in 2021, accounting for 43.5 per cent of the country's total power generation capacity, 10.2 percentage points higher than in 2015. The country aims to have 80 per cent of its total energy mix come from non-fossil fuel sources by 2060" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_China

The UK is doing ok, 7th in the WEF ETI list, but 'we' (the whole world) need to increase the rate at which we move to renewables to hit net zero by 2030 - have a look at the graph here https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/12/doubling-renewable-energy-net-zero-emissions/
So, how does it make any sense, environmental or economic to spend time and money looking for new fossil fuels now?

Becuase most of the policy suggestions, are that the UK should abandon FF extraction, in favour of importing it - at a higher global CO2 impact - from other countries.

China is still building coal power plants.

Who is suggesting that "UK should abandon FF extraction, in favour of importing it" ? They would obviously be a complete idiot.
Or is it that somebody else is accusing someone of doing so?
China should stop building coal power plants, obviously.

Well indeed. Nobody is suggesting that UK should abandon fossil fuel extraction in favour of importing it - that appears to be a strawman dreamt up by those who are determined to slow down the transition from fossil fuels. And if anyone were suggesting it, the idea isn't without some environmental merit, given that the extraction of oil from the North Sea results in the emission of more CO2 than, say, the extraction of oil from the Saudi desert.

And yes, China should stop building coal power plants, but, on a per capita basis, China is responsible for far less CO2 in the air than we are and is unlikely ever to contribute to climate change as much as us. We are hardly in a position to criticise them for something we did in spades while simultaneously dragging our heels on cleaning up our own act.

Actually that is precisely what is suggested by blocking North Sea licences, but not blocking imports.

You don't change demand one iota by doing that, you don't help the environment at all. All you do is generate more imports, worsen our balance of payments, worsen our control over the environment and regulatory framework. And make yourself feel good by exporting emissions to other nations.

It is superficial foppery. If you want to be serious about it, do serious actions, like banning imports or banning gas boilers, or banning petrol stations. But if you're not prepared to do that, then we need fuel, and if we need fuel, then there is no scientific reason to block North Sea licences.

Oh and you're wrong on per capita climate emissions too. China is responsible for more ongoing emissions on a per capita basis than the UK is, let alone on an aggregate basis.

you might want to think about 'let alone on an aggregate basis'

Not really.

The earth cares about the aggregate basis, and on an aggregate basis they utterly dwarf UK emissions.

On a per capita basis, they also dwarf UK emissions on an ongoing basis.

So either way you slice it, they are more responsible than we are. Which is unsurprising to anyone without an axe to grind.

That's a bizarre way to view it. By that logic, small countries all get a free pass to emit as much as they like.

Not really, you should look at small countries emissions on an ongoing basis per capita - and if you do that, then China is emitting more than us as on ongoing basis.

We don't have a Tardis to change the past, all we can do is look after the Earth on an ongoing basis, and having done that we are emitting per capita less than China is.

We are doing our bit. In the present. We need others to, as well.

We are emitting less per capita than China now, but for a long time were weren't. Those emissions haven't gone away - they are still there, doing their bit to warm the Earth. You're right that we don't have a Tardis and can't change that, but it does mean that we, alongside other nations that industrialised early, bear greater responsibility when it comes to fixing the damage that has been done.

Based on your own figures, China has been responsible for more emissions in the last decade than the UK in the whole of its history, so your claim that we bear greater responsibility doesn't stand up.

Oh FFS. China has far more people than the UK. Do you not understand what "per capita" means?