Quote from: TobyD on August 06, 2021, 10:04:41 amExcept, hang on a moment: while you can make any number of reasonable points about the Thatcher government's indifference about what would replace mining, you can't get away from the basic point that one reason the United Kingdom is better placed as far as energy policy is concerned is that we have closed most of our coal mines. Another reason we're better off, as far as the politics of net zero are concerned, is that unlike most of the English-speaking world, our main centre-right party isn't hand in glove with the mining industry, loudly insisting that there are 'clean' ways to use our fossil fuels. Which bit did you think was excellent? Didn’t we just import more coal when the UK mines closed, rather than reducing use?I don’t think for one minute that if there was economically viable reserves left Johnson wouldn’t be on some green coal bullshit. In terms of the second para, just look at the relationships with the oil producers and the fracking companies.
Except, hang on a moment: while you can make any number of reasonable points about the Thatcher government's indifference about what would replace mining, you can't get away from the basic point that one reason the United Kingdom is better placed as far as energy policy is concerned is that we have closed most of our coal mines. Another reason we're better off, as far as the politics of net zero are concerned, is that unlike most of the English-speaking world, our main centre-right party isn't hand in glove with the mining industry, loudly insisting that there are 'clean' ways to use our fossil fuels.
Agree 100%, I think this has often been the case with governments doing the ‘right’ thing on big issues that it’s been against public opinion at the time, such as banning the death penalty and legalising homosexuality. Also agree with the last point of the article that it’s a terrible time to have a narcissistic populist PM who mainly makes decisions on how much his buddies will like him
Anyone been to Siurana by train?
Quote from: seankenny on August 06, 2021, 03:04:07 pmAnyone been to Siurana by train?A friend thumbed lifts from Chulilla to Istanbul and back. He was gone for just a week.Anything is possible if the will is there.
so I can still get a holiday somewhere warm or snowy once or twice a year.
Quote from: SA Chris on August 06, 2021, 03:48:43 pm so I can still get a holiday somewhere warm or snowy once or twice a year.Without picking on Chris, this seems a very good example of the disconnect between what change people are prepared to accept and what may be needed, juxtaposed with Sean's post immediately before. (until we have synthetic/no carbon jet fuel or electric planes at least)
Which bit did you think was excellent? Didn’t we just import more coal when the UK mines closed, rather than reducing use?I don’t think for one minute that if there was economically viable reserves left Johnson wouldn’t be on some green coal bullshit. In terms of the second para, just look at the relationships with the oil producers and the fracking companies.
More importantly both Chris’s are right. Much as we understand the situation very few of us are yet at a point where we are willing to make the real changes that are going to be necessary (mea culpa: I flew yesterday).
My point was that we got to where we are with coal by not having economically viable coal mines left, if we had them I'm not sure we would be in a hugely different position to the states. I’m not sure our govt’s relationship with Shell and BP, etc. is any different to that in the states either. Yes they acknowledge climate change but talk is cheap!
The solutions won't be hydrogen planes or whatever bullshit Johnson can dream up next, it will be not flying. It wont be electric cars it will be not having a car at all.
Quote from: TobyD on August 07, 2021, 09:34:00 amThe solutions won't be hydrogen planes or whatever bullshit Johnson can dream up next, it will be not flying. It wont be electric cars it will be not having a car at all.It looks like you subscribe to the hair-shirt worldview on climate change. Which seems to believe people should go without many of the activities and lifestyles that give them happiness and a feeling of independence. A problem with this view is it's immediately divisive and inevitably ends with rich paying more to keep their nice lives and the poor going without. It'll end up in being a pretty shit way to live for a lot of people if you ask me, and I'd be able to afford the nice lifestyle.
Quote from: TobyD on August 07, 2021, 09:34:00 amThe solutions won't be hydrogen planes or whatever bullshit Johnson can dream up next, it will be not flying. It wont be electric cars it will be not having a car at all.It looks like you subscribe to the hair-shirt worldview on climate change. Which seems to believe people should go without many of the activities and lifestyles that give them happiness and a feeling of independence. A problem with this view is it's immediately divisive and inevitably ends with rich paying more to keep their nice lives and the poor going without. It'll end up in being a pretty shit way to live for a lot of people if you ask me, and I'd be able to afford the nice lifestyle.So, what about new little humans aka kids? Should people go without them? They're by far the biggest contributor of CO2 compared to every other contributor, including power generation, travel and eating meat. Do you think people should go without, for e.g., having 3 kids instead of 2? Or is it just lifestyles and the nice things like owning a form of transport that gives independence; international travel; and eating meat?If the global population stabilised where it's at now, or even reduced slightly, and we brought in the low-carbon travel and power generation technologies that we already are bringing in, then everyone wouldn't have to 'go without' some of the good things in life. Why is growing the population, on a ball with finite resources and an atmosphere that at current consumption levels becomes more inhospitable as population increases, a wise or good thing?
So your sense of purpose is not necessarily good for the environment!
Have a lot of sympathy with the point around kids and agree this can all be incredibly devisive, but we still need to at least be able to acknowledge the current situation we're in. I'm not clear what population control measures you're alluding to but on a UK level at least any 1 child-esque policy introduced now will have no effect on the need to reduce surface transport by an unprecedented level by 2035, even with the most optimistic picture of EV rollout.
Not saying this to advocate for a binary "all of us should stop driving no matter what" solution, but any conversation about carbon emissions in the UK in particular has to at least acknowledge the role that road transport plays in this.