news & politics:discussion

[Guest]

57 minutes ago, lost said:

Well it was clearly a tongue in cheek comment. In reality its the fault of politicians from all sides not telling people the truth. There really is no alternative yet based on price per KWH. If we need to transition to net zero then people are going to have to take massive drops in living standards, its that simple.

If you say so.

It isn’t that simple, where there’s political will there’s always a way the issues is that we have had the Tories in power for so long. If we made a quicker move to renewables then we could get accustomed to it more easily and prices would adjust to reflect that. Plus if we had a government that was on the side of their own people rather than energy firms we could ensure prices were more fair for everyone.

It’s 2022 we don’t have to just accept living standards will be poorer if we move to net zero. 

[lost]

11 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

If you say so.

It isn’t that simple, where there’s political will there’s always a way

OK lets have a political will for everyone to live to 140 years old.

 

Quote

we have had the Tories in power for so long

They must be in power in every country on the planet sadly.

Edited August 31, 2022 by lost

[Guest]

14 minutes ago, lost said:

OK lets have a political will for everyone to live to 140 years old.

 

They must be in power in every country on the planet sadly.

Typical Tory response.

If we had a government that was serious about these issues and was serious about the living standards of their people then living standards wouldn’t have to change for net zero, if anything they’d get better. 

[lost]

6 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

Typical Tory response.

If we had a government that was serious about these issues and was serious about the living standards of their people then living standards wouldn’t have to change for net zero, if anything they’d get better. 

If a non-Tory response is lying to people and saying something that currently is scientifically impossible will be possible by an arbitrary date then yes.

Edited August 31, 2022 by lost

[steviewevie]

1 hour ago, lost said:

Isn't that the same thing? Energy generated in another country goes on their emissions not ours. Similar to sending all our manufacturing out to China. The consumer goods are only cheap because they've been manufactured using energy generated from coal.

yeah, but it wasn't about renewables or net zero, it was purely to save money.

[lost]

3 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

yeah, but it wasn't about renewables or net zero, it was purely to save money.

Yes the same thing. If we are spending less money on part our energy infrastructure we can spend more somewhere else (transition to renewables) Its the same pot.

Edited August 31, 2022 by lost

[Guest]

34 minutes ago, lost said:

If a non-Tory response is lying to people and saying something that currently is scientifically impossible will be possible by an arbitrary date then yes.

Ah I see, you are a climate change sceptic. It makes sense now.

Net Zero by 2050 is more than possible, it should be much before then. 

[lost]

3 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

Ah I see, you are a climate change sceptic. It makes sense now.

Net Zero by 2050 is more than possible, it should be much before then. 

😆 Sure the world will reach net zero by 2050

Edited August 31, 2022 by lost

[steviewevie]

6 minutes ago, lost said:

Yes the same thing. If we are spending less money on part our energy infrastructure we can spend more somewhere else (transition to renewables) Its the same pot.

I don't know, you seem to making some convoluted link to net zero just to make some political point. The didn't bother because of cost. They didn't say they were saving money for renewables.

[steviewevie]

anyway, our lack of storage is not actually the main problem here, we will likely not have a supply issue, just a price issue.

[lost]

5 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

I don't know, you seem to making some convoluted link to net zero just to make some political point. The didn't bother because of cost. They didn't say they were saving money for renewables.

How's it convoluted? We spend a set amount each year on energy. That has to pay for our infrastructure, staff and the cost of energy which is split into KWH cost of the different technologies that make up the grid. If we use more expensive energy sources the cost goes up. Some of the cost maybe mitigated by making "efficiency savings" elsewhere.

Edited August 31, 2022 by lost

[steviewevie]

10 minutes ago, lost said:

How's it convoluted? We spend a set amount each year on energy. That has to pay for our infrastructure, staff and the cost of energy which is split into KWH cost of the different technologies that make up the grid. If we use more expensive energy sources the cost goes up. Some of the cost maybe mitigated by making "efficiency savings" elsewhere.

in that at time the decision was based on cost cutting and the thought that we were energy secure, it was not based on any plans for net zero or renewables.

and as an aside the autistic swedish girl slur pissed me off.

[Neil]

3 hours ago, Ozanne said:

So it hasn’t been brought back yet then?

It also confirms what a colossal failure it was to get rid of the storage in the first place. Another Tory blunder.  

only looks that blunder in the changed circumstances of russia invading ukraine.when the facts change i change my mind.

[lost]

Just now, steviewevie said:

in that at time the decision was based on cost cutting and the thought that we were energy secure, it was not based on any plans for net zero or renewables.

But as I said the drive to net zero at least in this country is based on say getting 40% of our electricity from Europe and most of our consumer goods from Asia. We outsourced our emissions.

We now need to see if politicians believe national security of our energy sources and supply lines are more important. This suddenly makes net zero pretty much impossible by the dates set

[Guest]

2 hours ago, lost said:

😆 Sure the world will reach net zero by 2050

As I said, Net Zero is possible but it’s a political choice which that article appears to back up nicely.

So far today you’ve made a tasteless comment about Greta Thunberg and come out as a climate sceptic all because I criticised the Tories record, it’s not a great look.

[lost]

5 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

So far today you’ve made a tasteless comment about Greta Thunberg and come out as a climate sceptic all because I criticised the Tories record, it’s not a great look.

As I've pointed out calling me a climate sceptic is like calling me an immortality sceptic 🤪

You'll find public option shifts on this as the truth of net zero becomes apparent. Labour will have to shift too as well as the Tories. In the same way as Starmer is now "pro-Brexit"

Edited August 31, 2022 by lost

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, lost said:

As I've pointed out calling me a climate sceptic is like calling me an immortality sceptic 🤪

You'll find public option shifts on this as the truth of net zero becomes apparent. Labour will have to shift too as well as the Tories. In the same way as Starmer is now "pro-Brexit"

‘Truth of net zero’. Geez. You sound like one of those nutters on GBNews, no wonder you don’t like a young female trying to change public opinion.

[lost]

15 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

‘Truth of net zero’. Geez. You sound like one of those nutters on GBNews, no wonder you don’t like a young female trying to change public opinion.

The KWH cost of each energy source is all out there if you'd care to google.

Greenpeace called the nuclear reactor we've got opening in 2025 "the most expensive object on earth"

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-36160368

Dozens of these are going to be a difficult sell for politicians vs fracking etc.. 

Edited August 31, 2022 by lost

[steviewevie]

going forward renewables are going to become cheaper. Just watch what US does over the next decade.

China is experiencing a heatwave, which is also meaning a surge in energy use...so they're probably going to have to go fossil fuels in short term but long term move to renewables.

[gary1979666]

24 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

As I said, Net Zero is possible but it’s a political choice which that article appears to back up nicely.

So far today you’ve made a tasteless comment about Greta Thunberg and come out as a climate sceptic all because I criticised the Tories record, it’s not a great look.

I don't think Lost has come across as a climate sceptic - he's not once denied the need to try to get to net zero or deny climate change.  He's adding a dose of realism / scepticism to the debate by saying he doesn't think it will happen - i.e. countries, including the UK don't have the real will to achieve it, given the current challenges.

The Thunberg comment wasn't the best, but was said more for the effect of how climate change is generally discussed. Greta has cut through when many, many other climate "activists" (meant in a positive way, can't think of the right word right now) haven't been able to capture the spirit of why we do it.  

[steviewevie]

For net zero to have a chance the tories, especially the Truss kind, need to get kicked out. Simple as. At least Johnson was kind of on board, Truss is definitely not.

[Guest]

Net Zero by 2050 is definitely achievable whether the world will succeed with that is down to political choice. Ultimately if we fail it’ll be because governments round the world have failed us.

We should be aiming for Net Zero long before 2050.

[steviewevie]

For get the moon, it's all about the US vs China Clean Energy Race.

[lost]

11 minutes ago, gary1979666 said:

The Thunberg comment wasn't the best, but was said more for the effect of how climate change is generally discussed. Greta has cut through when many, many other climate "activists" (meant in a positive way, can't think of the right word right now) haven't been able to capture the spirit of why we do it.  

I actually feel sorry for her as she's being exploited and doesn't have the mental capacity to work it out. Hasn't had an education and public opinion could turn extremely quickly.

I get why these tactics are used as if you asked the average person would you rather heat your house this winter or save the planet in 50 years time they'd go with the former. The same reason people smoke as we aren't great at extrapolating long term pain vs short term pleasure.

[gary1979666]

10 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

For net zero to have a chance the tories, especially the Truss kind, need to get kicked out. Simple as. At least Johnson was kind of on board, Truss is definitely not.

I agree - Truss is playing to a certain audience, some (a lot?) of whom don't really support actions to stop climate change.  Johnson was better, as he used it to give him more cuddly credentials (whether he believed it or not, is another matter).

There's the same problem in the US - a lot of republicans deny climate change, so a red with green combo won't get the nomination, especially if there are extra costs for Joe Public.  Sad really.