UK we’re doing a bit while opening up new oil fields, new coal mines which are if no use to UK steel, and allowing oil companies to make huge profits. Some fracking as well. There’s Little investment, apart from HS2 in alternative travel arrangements etc. no investment in improving energy use at home and so on.
Let’s also not forget the UK’s proposal for carbon storage by pumping it into the bed of the North Sea. I must look into that one but there’s something really ropey sounding about it to me.
This is a global issue that demands a global response. It’s not happening fast enough or with enough seriousness.
No one is saying we shouldn’t stop burning fossil fuels, the key point is how quickly it can realistically be done, and without damaging society in the process.
Yes, let’s ignore all the evidence against it, and just blindly assume that working in the office has benefits that can’t be replicated working from home.
Also known as Luddites who can’t deal with technology.
Yea, I understand what you’re saying. But also you’ve got me thinking. Why not a ‘Hard Fossil Fuelexit’ (title needs work). Set a date a date for 12 months time to give people some to prepare and then its cold turkey. In true conservative style, the poor will suffer most. But the 10 year outlook from going cold turkey would look a lot better than the ten year outlook from business as usual.
Another thought, if the market worked effectively, and we had to pay the true price for fossil fuels (ie. including the cost of the damage caused), then they would have been phased out a long time ago.
Oil companies have been pumping waste products into redundant wells for decades.
Pumping hydrocarbons into them would not be a big deal - That’s where they came from.
Find rival countries to the oil producers and offer them favorable deals to set up the required solar panels in farms, thus cutting out the need to deal with countries like UAE, Russia and Saudi Arabia. The north of Africa has the sunshine and space to do it on such a large scale most, if not all of Europe could be run from solar energy produced in Northern Africa, add Spain and Portugal, although space wise, I am not sure they could produce the same level. Problem 1 solved
Problem 2 is the ability to store solar energy for long enough periods and transport to large distances to make it commercially viable. Turn to the energy companies and give them full tax breaks for the next 5 years with the stibulation that within that time period they must be able to provide 90% of Europes energy needs from solar. Reward is that if they succeed, then they get major tax benefits for the following 10 years. They will jump at an opportunity to avoid taxes for 15 years.
Set up similar deals for the southern states in USA, and northern Mexico and you then have North & Central America covered for their green energy supply (and as an added bonus, bringing in Mexico into a deal like this would see the possibility of bringing the cartels in check - these farms would need top security and the cartels would now how to sure up the security of the solar farms).
Majority of Australia is undeveloped, so you have the space and sunshine to set up enough farms in the outback that could supply South East Asia and the Pacific.
Once you get North Africa showing how wealthy solar energy farming and stable governments can be, you know countries in Central Africa and the lower Sarahra would jump at the chance to be able to sell energy to the rest of Central and southern Africa.
Job done. Planet saved…
So who do I see about my payment for sorting this shitshow out?
Cheers for the info. It’s something I need to look into. On the surface when it was first announced it sounded like another scheme to put money into certain people’s pockets rather than actually address anything.
I’ll admit I’m sceptical of anything this government says.
There is nothing wrong with carbon capture and sequestration, and geologically the same formations that held the oil and gas can hold Co2. But no one should be under any illusion as to the scale that would be required, or that it is somehow a cheaper alternative. I have done feasibility analyses for gas companies looking at it that found it required a carbon price of at least $300/tonne to be economically feasible.
Is it legal to link arms and walk slowly down the middle of the road in a major UK city?
If so, fine. Enjoy the noisy stroll! If not, why aren’t they all being arrested?
I don’t know why the focus of the protest isn’t the elected official, especially people with certain voting records, or the oil companies themselves.
Just dug through this article. Some obvious concerns regarding the scale and the technology isn’t fully developed, while the government ignored home insulation and other schemes of that ilk. From the article:
“Scientists told the Guardian that an overdependence on CCS was ill-advised. More than 700 scientists have written to the prime minister asking him to grant no new oil and gas licences, describing CCS as “yet to be proved at scale”, and the UN secretary-general called on governments last week to stop developing oil and gas.”
I also saw that Ineos, that United bloke, recently lead a consortium to undertake a similar project for the Danes.
Sounds like it’s shipping everything to the private sector again where enough cash can be funnelled to them.
