OPEC responds to the net zero lunacy
I have kids who are young adults now. They feel helpless when faced with the shortsightedness and in part sheer imbecility of current lawmakers and politicians in the world. It definitely puts a strain on their lives.
On the other hand, to try helping them to get their heads up a bit, I keep telling them that politicians have always been shortsighted imbeciles, and that we aren’t faced with the first existential threat to humanity. I was a kid during the cold war, and know what it is like to grow up with the permanent threat of being pulverized at any given second.
Nowadays, the threat is more diffuse and insidious. But it is still real, and we all face the pressure. Young people are more sensible to it though. They probably also hold the keys to go on and learn how to live with it.
4 Likes
Agree with pretty much everything in the article, except the gist of the last paragraph.
It is too late: people will not accept giving up the luxuries to which they have become accustomed.
2 Likes
How big business uses “lawfare” to crush dissent:
5 Likes
3 Likes
Is this accurate?
Milliband’s GB Energy are buying solar panels from China where they’re using power from coal burning power stations to manufacture them & then ship them 8000 miles by oil burning ships & then call it green energy
Sadly, it probably is true.
If only the Conservative government had invested in green energy and businesses for the previous 14 years - we could have been using panels made in Britain.
2 Likes
Source: Executive summary – Solar PV Global Supply Chains – Analysis - IEA
Not to say that it doesn’t come with other problems, e.g. the potential use of slave labour (see MPs could axe clause in bill banning forced labour in GB Energy supply chain | Modern slavery | The Guardian for Labour potentially watering protections against that down).
But apparently they pay for themselves carbon-wise pretty early on.
3 Likes
It also works on the false assumption that coal, gas and oil burning plants are somehow carbon neutral to build.
3 Likes
While that is relevant, I’m not sure it’s as important, since presumably the implicit central claim would be that the carbon emissions from production of solar panels would outweigh any lifetime savings.
We already know that fossil fuel plants are carbon emitters in operations, so unless they’re somehow a massive net negative in carbon emissions in production, then it’s not that important. On the other hand, since the operation of solar panels does not produce any carbon emissions (or remove them), the question about production is rather relevant.
Note that I am also taking the original question as being made in good faith.
Although, as @cynicaloldgit points out, the government should really have done more to bring production into the UK.
2 Likes
Most of these quotes are usually whataboutery from AstroTurfing sources.
2 Likes
Hence my engaging with it in good faith to begin with. It’s easy to be misled.
Notably, when I Googled the claims (I think I used the keywords “China solar panel coal”), most of the top results were related to astroturfing organisations.
2 Likes
Clearly no Tory donor saw the opportunity, or they dont believe there was any money in it. Wonder why?
2 Likes
PV manufacturing isn’t a particularly good fit for the UK. The keys to China’s dominance are scale and labour costs. Growing the silicon that is used to produce the cells is energy-intensive and requires a significant market share, and China was the first country to really make large investments in producing solar-grade silicon. While the production of cells from silicon ingots or wafers could be an area where advanced manufacturing economies might find an advantage, the next step is producing modules from cells and that is labour intensive. What we generally saw in the early 2000s was that the European manufacturers were progressively squeezed out between the scale of China’s production (allowing cheaper silicon) and their manufacturing advantage for the last step. If you look at a list of the largest producers 25 years ago, they are overwhelmingly European. Within 10 years that had changed.
5 Likes
Sorry, yes. I meant the origin of the quote, not @Dane question.
2 Likes
Cheers, today’s lesson.
I was going to argue that if you’ve a government full of skeptics then you’re not going to get mu h government support, yet that exists through grants etc for home upgrades. There is a small cottage industry in that.
So that shoots that argument down as well!
This is why I asked the question.
Clearly, the previous government did fuck all to accelerate cleaner energy, but this one seems to be of the opinion that the greenhouse gasses China is producing in the manufacture of these solar panels will just stay in China
I’m not sure why you think this is the case? Unless you can find a way to reduce energy consumption, then the energy needs to be produced, and why not something that repays the carbon emissions of production within a short timespan as opposed to something that emits carbon while generating electricity?
2 Likes
I’m wondering if that is the right way to look at things. That carbon is expended, full stop. Arguing that something is carbon negative afterwards is a bit like closing the gate after the horse has bolted.
But I appreciate we might not get it at all otherwise.
1 Like
If he’s as commited as Milliband likes to promote himself, then have these manufactured here, where he has input into how much of a footprint is made. It would also help UK businesses.
Giving himself a pat on the back for implementing the use of more solar panels, but knowing the manufacture and transport of them burned a squillion tons of coal & diesel isn’t helping the environment, or fooling anyone.