Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Also allow smoking in public buildings again. All that heat wasted outside could be used to bring down heating costs." No thanks. That was one nanny state rule I fully endorse  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Also allow smoking in public buildings again. All that heat wasted outside could be used to bring down heating costs. No thanks. That was one nanny state rule I fully endorse "The economic needs trump your endorsement. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Also allow smoking in public buildings again. All that heat wasted outside could be used to bring down heating costs." Even as, at the time, a smoker, I absolutely was in favour of that ban. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Also allow smoking in public buildings again. All that heat wasted outside could be used to bring down heating costs. No thanks. That was one nanny state rule I fully endorse
The economic needs trump your endorsement. "Could they just turn off the outside heaters? Seems easier than reversing the smoking ban. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Also allow smoking in public buildings again. All that heat wasted outside could be used to bring down heating costs. No thanks. That was one nanny state rule I fully endorse
The economic needs trump your endorsement.
Could they just turn off the outside heaters?
Seems easier than reversing the smoking ban."Every penny helps in times of crisis. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Also allow smoking in public buildings again. All that heat wasted outside could be used to bring down heating costs. Even as, at the time, a smoker, I absolutely was in favour of that ban. " The reduction in people smoking is costing the country a fortune. Less taxes etc. People moan about the cost to NHS. But people living longer is costing the country a fortune in pensions. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Also allow smoking in public buildings again. All that heat wasted outside could be used to bring down heating costs. No thanks. That was one nanny state rule I fully endorse
The economic needs trump your endorsement. "Lol! Actually joking aside it would be counter productive. A return to smoking indoors may help with building/room temperature in winter but in summer it would require air con and may increase number of smokers putting pressure on NHS. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Also allow smoking in public buildings again. All that heat wasted outside could be used to bring down heating costs. No thanks. That was one nanny state rule I fully endorse
The economic needs trump your endorsement.
Lol! Actually joking aside it would be counter productive. A return to smoking indoors may help with building/room temperature in winter but in summer it would require air con and may increase number of smokers putting pressure on NHS. "It would cost more in the winter too from the open windows leading people to turn up the heating. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Also allow smoking in public buildings again. All that heat wasted outside could be used to bring down heating costs. No thanks. That was one nanny state rule I fully endorse
The economic needs trump your endorsement.
Lol! Actually joking aside it would be counter productive. A return to smoking indoors may help with building/room temperature in winter but in summer it would require air con and may increase number of smokers putting pressure on NHS. "I addressed the NHS conundrum in my last post. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Well if the Gulf Stream reverses as suggested, we'll have Winters of -35C so some heating will be a good thing." Parody ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"At last, and outbreak of common sense. Now it's time to get fracking." | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The government will issue at least 100 new oil and gas licences for the North Sea. There will be millions of pounds available for a new carbon capture scheme in north-east Scotland. Sunak said, even when the UK reaches net zero in 2050, it will still need oil and gas. it looks like the government have made decisions based on the fact we need fossil fuels for sometime to come. I'm pleased we are starting to have some considered thinking and honesty in this space, instead of the headline soundbites of JSO that have no substance and no clarity in how we provide consistent reliable energy for the the countries needs. " Pretty pointless this announcement, it’s takes 20, yes 20 years before production starts from issuance of the licence. Sunak is really desperate, he’s going for broke as this anti-green warrior. He wants to see some massive shift in public opinion and boost of his/tory party poll ratings. whilst many green policies are not liked, the public realise they are necessary and are mature enough to accept them for what they are, needed. ULEZ is not liked by lots of people, but on the flip side, if it means people buy new vehicles to avoid charges then it’s good for the economy. Plus ULEZ only affects 10% of motorists with 90% unaffected. So all this rhetoric about anti green policies is really talking points in a last ditch attempt to save the tories from electoral defeat come 2024. 13 years of economic malaise, incompetence, sleaze and corruption. Who do they think they are kidding? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The government will issue at least 100 new oil and gas licences for the North Sea. There will be millions of pounds available for a new carbon capture scheme in north-east Scotland. Sunak said, even when the UK reaches net zero in 2050, it will still need oil and gas. it looks like the government have made decisions based on the fact we need fossil fuels for sometime to come. I'm pleased we are starting to have some considered thinking and honesty in this space, instead of the headline soundbites of JSO that have no substance and no clarity in how we provide consistent reliable energy for the the countries needs. Pretty pointless this announcement, it’s takes 20, yes 20 years before production starts from issuance of the licence. Sunak is really desperate, he’s going for broke as this anti-green warrior. He wants to see some massive shift in public opinion and boost of his/tory party poll ratings. whilst many green policies are not liked, the public realise they are necessary and are mature enough to accept them for what they are, needed. ULEZ is not liked by lots of people, but on the flip side, if it means people buy new vehicles to avoid charges then it’s good for the economy. Plus ULEZ only affects 10% of motorists with 90% unaffected. So all this rhetoric about anti green policies is really talking points in a last ditch attempt to save the tories from electoral defeat come 2024. 13 years of economic malaise, incompetence, sleaze and corruption. Who do they think they are kidding? " If we get back to the actual point, which is energy security for the UK, how would you propose we produce and obtain the energy we need to keep the country running over the next 20 years? To second guess you, if you are going to say renewables can you explain what they are, the reliability and how much energy they would provide? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If we get back to the actual point, which is energy security for the UK, how would you propose we produce and obtain the energy we need to keep the country running over the next 20 years?" Alongside these new licences, has the Govt made any announcement about gas and oil storage in the UK? Surely THAT is essential for energy security? All well and good drilling up more oil and gas but if that is then just sold on the international energy markets we are still in same position we have been since start of the war in Ukraine. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The government will issue at least 100 new oil and gas licences for the North Sea. There will be millions of pounds available for a new carbon capture scheme in north-east Scotland. Sunak said, even when the UK reaches net zero in 2050, it will still need oil and gas. it looks like the government have made decisions based on the fact we need fossil fuels for sometime to come. I'm pleased we are starting to have some considered thinking and honesty in this space, instead of the headline soundbites of JSO that have no substance and no clarity in how we provide consistent reliable energy for the the countries needs. Pretty pointless this announcement, it’s takes 20, yes 20 years before production starts from issuance of the licence. Sunak is really desperate, he’s going for broke as this anti-green warrior. He wants to see some massive shift in public opinion and boost of his/tory party poll ratings. whilst many green policies are not liked, the public realise they are necessary and are mature enough to accept them for what they are, needed. ULEZ is not liked by lots of people, but on the flip side, if it means people buy new vehicles to avoid charges then it’s good for the economy. Plus ULEZ only affects 10% of motorists with 90% unaffected. So all this rhetoric about anti green policies is really talking points in a last ditch attempt to save the tories from electoral defeat come 2024. 13 years of economic malaise, incompetence, sleaze and corruption. Who do they think they are kidding? If we get back to the actual point, which is energy security for the UK, how would you propose we produce and obtain the energy we need to keep the country running over the next 20 years? To second guess you, if you are going to say renewables can you explain what they are, the reliability and how much energy they would provide? " Drilling for oil and gas in the North Sea does not provide energy security. Oil extracted from the North Sea is traded on the international markets. The extractors are private companies and they will sell at the highest price to the highest bidder. As we saw last year with the gas prices - as long as private companies are allowed to put profit above all else, there is no benefit in terms of energy security for the rest of us. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jul/31/new-oil-gas-licences-rishi-sunak-un-climate-crisis" Thanks. As I feared, just more of the same. What a wasted opportunity! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It is yet another desperate move by the government to cling to power. One of the achillies heels of democracy and election cycles. Short term ideas to stay in power for another 5 years. But at least the Tories are trying to be different. Maybe they are worried Stramers Labour Party has just cloned with them, and they want to have a clear difference. Over to Keith now." Although this does start to differentiate the two parties. Labour don't appear to be in the same panic to destroy the planet and our wallets for the benefit of fossil fuel companies at the same rate | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It is yet another desperate move by the government to cling to power. One of the achillies heels of democracy and election cycles. Short term ideas to stay in power for another 5 years. But at least the Tories are trying to be different. Maybe they are worried Stramers Labour Party has just cloned with them, and they want to have a clear difference. Over to Keith now. Although this does start to differentiate the two parties. Labour don't appear to be in the same panic to destroy the planet and our wallets for the benefit of fossil fuel companies at the same rate " What?  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It is yet another desperate move by the government to cling to power. One of the achillies heels of democracy and election cycles. Short term ideas to stay in power for another 5 years. But at least the Tories are trying to be different. Maybe they are worried Stramers Labour Party has just cloned with them, and they want to have a clear difference. Over to Keith now. Although this does start to differentiate the two parties. Labour don't appear to be in the same panic to destroy the planet and our wallets for the benefit of fossil fuel companies at the same rate What? "I don't see an awful lot of difference between Labour and the Tories, policy wise. If the Tories want to take us deeper into reliance on externally priced fossil fuels, and to try to heat the planet as fast as possible, just to make fossil fuels companies richer. Then this could be a significant policy gap between the two. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It is yet another desperate move by the government to cling to power. One of the achillies heels of democracy and election cycles. Short term ideas to stay in power for another 5 years. But at least the Tories are trying to be different. Maybe they are worried Stramers Labour Party has just cloned with them, and they want to have a clear difference. Over to Keith now. Although this does start to differentiate the two parties. Labour don't appear to be in the same panic to destroy the planet and our wallets for the benefit of fossil fuel companies at the same rate "  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It is yet another desperate move by the government to cling to power. One of the achillies heels of democracy and election cycles. Short term ideas to stay in power for another 5 years. But at least the Tories are trying to be different. Maybe they are worried Stramers Labour Party has just cloned with them, and they want to have a clear difference. Over to Keith now. Although this does start to differentiate the two parties. Labour don't appear to be in the same panic to destroy the planet and our wallets for the benefit of fossil fuel companies at the same rate What?
I don't see an awful lot of difference between Labour and the Tories, policy wise.
If the Tories want to take us deeper into reliance on externally priced fossil fuels, and to try to heat the planet as fast as possible, just to make fossil fuels companies richer. Then this could be a significant policy gap between the two. "Again..WHAT?? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It is yet another desperate move by the government to cling to power. One of the achillies heels of democracy and election cycles. Short term ideas to stay in power for another 5 years. But at least the Tories are trying to be different. Maybe they are worried Stramers Labour Party has just cloned with them, and they want to have a clear difference. Over to Keith now. Although this does start to differentiate the two parties. Labour don't appear to be in the same panic to destroy the planet and our wallets for the benefit of fossil fuel companies at the same rate " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It is yet another desperate move by the government to cling to power. One of the achillies heels of democracy and election cycles. Short term ideas to stay in power for another 5 years. But at least the Tories are trying to be different. Maybe they are worried Stramers Labour Party has just cloned with them, and they want to have a clear difference. Over to Keith now. Although this does start to differentiate the two parties. Labour don't appear to be in the same panic to destroy the planet and our wallets for the benefit of fossil fuel companies at the same rate What?
I don't see an awful lot of difference between Labour and the Tories, policy wise.
If the Tories want to take us deeper into reliance on externally priced fossil fuels, and to try to heat the planet as fast as possible, just to make fossil fuels companies richer. Then this could be a significant policy gap between the two.
Again..WHAT?? "Not sure how else to express the point. There are plenty of people here cheering on the support the government shows to the fossil fuels industry im return for the donations they receive. I'll leave you to crack on. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Well if the Gulf Stream reverses as suggested, we'll have Winters of -35C so some heating will be a good thing. Parody ? " Nope. We are at latitude 53 deg. Further North than all the USA and almost all of Asia. If, as some scientists think, the Gulf Stream changes, our Winters will be -35C. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I see the colour orange for some reason. " Orange is the new back? Protestant Vs Catholic? Stop, stop something or other | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We need pragmatism and energy security with a clear but achievable path to the future. Not read past the headlines on this but I would hope to see the Govt have some kind of requirements on those licences that sees the companies involved ALSO investing (a minimum threshold) in future sustainable energy tech and R&D putting the (potential/probable) huge profits to good use as well as enriching shareholders. Basically a win/win approach. " Anyone know whether nepotism (or something similar) involved (ya know, Tory donators)? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Also allow smoking in public buildings again. All that heat wasted outside could be used to bring down heating costs. No thanks. That was one nanny state rule I fully endorse "Nah let the Buggers destroy their lungs early - reduce the cost to the NHS  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Also allow smoking in public buildings again. All that heat wasted outside could be used to bring down heating costs. No thanks. That was one nanny state rule I fully endorse
The economic needs trump your endorsement.
Could they just turn off the outside heaters?
Seems easier than reversing the smoking ban." I thought the poster meant the heat from the cigarettes | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Also allow smoking in public buildings again. All that heat wasted outside could be used to bring down heating costs. No thanks. That was one nanny state rule I fully endorse
The economic needs trump your endorsement.
Lol! Actually joking aside it would be counter productive. A return to smoking indoors may help with building/room temperature in winter but in summer it would require air con and may increase number of smokers putting pressure on NHS. "Nah, it's self inflicted, let them pay for their own care  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The government will issue at least 100 new oil and gas licences for the North Sea. There will be millions of pounds available for a new carbon capture scheme in north-east Scotland. Sunak said, even when the UK reaches net zero in 2050, it will still need oil and gas. it looks like the government have made decisions based on the fact we need fossil fuels for sometime to come. I'm pleased we are starting to have some considered thinking and honesty in this space, instead of the headline soundbites of JSO that have no substance and no clarity in how we provide consistent reliable energy for the the countries needs. Pretty pointless this announcement, it’s takes 20, yes 20 years before production starts from issuance of the licence. Sunak is really desperate, he’s going for broke as this anti-green warrior. He wants to see some massive shift in public opinion and boost of his/tory party poll ratings. whilst many green policies are not liked, the public realise they are necessary and are mature enough to accept them for what they are, needed. ULEZ is not liked by lots of people, but on the flip side, if it means people buy new vehicles to avoid charges then it’s good for the economy. Plus ULEZ only affects 10% of motorists with 90% unaffected. So all this rhetoric about anti green policies is really talking points in a last ditch attempt to save the tories from electoral defeat come 2024. 13 years of economic malaise, incompetence, sleaze and corruption. Who do they think they are kidding? " Sadly the electorate have short memories. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Hey NotMe a question back to you re: If we get back to the actual point, which is energy security for the UK, how would you propose we produce and obtain the energy we need to keep the country running over the next 20 years? Alongside these new licences, has the Govt made any announcement about gas and oil storage in the UK? Surely THAT is essential for energy security? All well and good drilling up more oil and gas but if that is then just sold on the international energy markets we are still in same position we have been since start of the war in Ukraine." Part of a licence process and Centrica offshore applied and won licence On 21 July 2022, for Rough facility which can store 100 billion cubic feet of gas. Others I assume will follow if needed. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Well if the Gulf Stream reverses as suggested, we'll have Winters of -35C so some heating will be a good thing. Parody ? Nope. We are at latitude 53 deg. Further North than all the USA and almost all of Asia. If, as some scientists think, the Gulf Stream changes, our Winters will be -35C." Nope, Gulf Stream won’t stop…a part transporting heat northwards *may* slow/stop. It could result in a localised reduction in temperatures but nowhere near on scale you suggest. The main, and by far biggest risks, remains a warming climate …. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The government will issue at least 100 new oil and gas licences for the North Sea. There will be millions of pounds available for a new carbon capture scheme in north-east Scotland. Sunak said, even when the UK reaches net zero in 2050, it will still need oil and gas. it looks like the government have made decisions based on the fact we need fossil fuels for sometime to come. I'm pleased we are starting to have some considered thinking and honesty in this space, instead of the headline soundbites of JSO that have no substance and no clarity in how we provide consistent reliable energy for the the countries needs. Pretty pointless this announcement, it’s takes 20, yes 20 years before production starts from issuance of the licence. Sunak is really desperate, he’s going for broke as this anti-green warrior. He wants to see some massive shift in public opinion and boost of his/tory party poll ratings. whilst many green policies are not liked, the public realise they are necessary and are mature enough to accept them for what they are, needed. ULEZ is not liked by lots of people, but on the flip side, if it means people buy new vehicles to avoid charges then it’s good for the economy. Plus ULEZ only affects 10% of motorists with 90% unaffected. So all this rhetoric about anti green policies is really talking points in a last ditch attempt to save the tories from electoral defeat come 2024. 13 years of economic malaise, incompetence, sleaze and corruption. Who do they think they are kidding? If we get back to the actual point, which is energy security for the UK, how would you propose we produce and obtain the energy we need to keep the country running over the next 20 years? To second guess you, if you are going to say renewables can you explain what they are, the reliability and how much energy they would provide? " Nuclear (mic drop) | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It is yet another desperate move by the government to cling to power. One of the achillies heels of democracy and election cycles. Short term ideas to stay in power for another 5 years. But at least the Tories are trying to be different. Maybe they are worried Stramers Labour Party has just cloned with them, and they want to have a clear difference. Over to Keith now. Although this does start to differentiate the two parties. Labour don't appear to be in the same panic to destroy the planet and our wallets for the benefit of fossil fuel companies at the same rate " Well you definitely underestimated this Tory, sorry Labour Party. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/08/01/labour-revoke-oil-gas-licences-sunak-debbonaire-north-sea/ | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The government will issue at least 100 new oil and gas licences for the North Sea. There will be millions of pounds available for a new carbon capture scheme in north-east Scotland. Sunak said, even when the UK reaches net zero in 2050, it will still need oil and gas. it looks like the government have made decisions based on the fact we need fossil fuels for sometime to come. I'm pleased we are starting to have some considered thinking and honesty in this space, instead of the headline soundbites of JSO that have no substance and no clarity in how we provide consistent reliable energy for the the countries needs. Pretty pointless this announcement, it’s takes 20, yes 20 years before production starts from issuance of the licence. Sunak is really desperate, he’s going for broke as this anti-green warrior. He wants to see some massive shift in public opinion and boost of his/tory party poll ratings. whilst many green policies are not liked, the public realise they are necessary and are mature enough to accept them for what they are, needed. ULEZ is not liked by lots of people, but on the flip side, if it means people buy new vehicles to avoid charges then it’s good for the economy. Plus ULEZ only affects 10% of motorists with 90% unaffected. So all this rhetoric about anti green policies is really talking points in a last ditch attempt to save the tories from electoral defeat come 2024. 13 years of economic malaise, incompetence, sleaze and corruption. Who do they think they are kidding? If we get back to the actual point, which is energy security for the UK, how would you propose we produce and obtain the energy we need to keep the country running over the next 20 years? To second guess you, if you are going to say renewables can you explain what they are, the reliability and how much energy they would provide? Nuclear (mic drop)" I agree with nuclear but it will take many years to get to the point nuclear is in place to supply the energy we need, so fossil fuels are still needed. That is the reality and hopefully now that our need is understood it will see an end of JSO and their poorly thought out interventions. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Hey NotMe a question back to you re: If we get back to the actual point, which is energy security for the UK, how would you propose we produce and obtain the energy we need to keep the country running over the next 20 years? Alongside these new licences, has the Govt made any announcement about gas and oil storage in the UK? Surely THAT is essential for energy security? All well and good drilling up more oil and gas but if that is then just sold on the international energy markets we are still in same position we have been since start of the war in Ukraine. Part of a licence process and Centrica offshore applied and won licence On 21 July 2022, for Rough facility which can store 100 billion cubic feet of gas. Others I assume will follow if needed." I don’t remember hearing about that? So the UK will have storage again? If I remember rightly, Rough Storage was decommissioned because upgrading it was deemed too expensive and we just shipped North Sea gas directly into Europe via pipeline? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The government will issue at least 100 new oil and gas licences for the North Sea. There will be millions of pounds available for a new carbon capture scheme in north-east Scotland. Sunak said, even when the UK reaches net zero in 2050, it will still need oil and gas. it looks like the government have made decisions based on the fact we need fossil fuels for sometime to come. I'm pleased we are starting to have some considered thinking and honesty in this space, instead of the headline soundbites of JSO that have no substance and no clarity in how we provide consistent reliable energy for the the countries needs. Pretty pointless this announcement, it’s takes 20, yes 20 years before production starts from issuance of the licence. Sunak is really desperate, he’s going for broke as this anti-green warrior. He wants to see some massive shift in public opinion and boost of his/tory party poll ratings. whilst many green policies are not liked, the public realise they are necessary and are mature enough to accept them for what they are, needed. ULEZ is not liked by lots of people, but on the flip side, if it means people buy new vehicles to avoid charges then it’s good for the economy. Plus ULEZ only affects 10% of motorists with 90% unaffected. So all this rhetoric about anti green policies is really talking points in a last ditch attempt to save the tories from electoral defeat come 2024. 13 years of economic malaise, incompetence, sleaze and corruption. Who do they think they are kidding? If we get back to the actual point, which is energy security for the UK, how would you propose we produce and obtain the energy we need to keep the country running over the next 20 years? To second guess you, if you are going to say renewables can you explain what they are, the reliability and how much energy they would provide? Nuclear (mic drop) I agree with nuclear but it will take many years to get to the point nuclear is in place to supply the energy we need, so fossil fuels are still needed. That is the reality and hopefully now that our need is understood it will see an end of JSO and their poorly thought out interventions. " I bet we could build nuclear capacity as quickly (or quicker) as it will be to open new gas fields? Look what China are doing! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The government will issue at least 100 new oil and gas licences for the North Sea. There will be millions of pounds available for a new carbon capture scheme in north-east Scotland. Sunak said, even when the UK reaches net zero in 2050, it will still need oil and gas. it looks like the government have made decisions based on the fact we need fossil fuels for sometime to come. I'm pleased we are starting to have some considered thinking and honesty in this space, instead of the headline soundbites of JSO that have no substance and no clarity in how we provide consistent reliable energy for the the countries needs. Pretty pointless this announcement, it’s takes 20, yes 20 years before production starts from issuance of the licence. Sunak is really desperate, he’s going for broke as this anti-green warrior. He wants to see some massive shift in public opinion and boost of his/tory party poll ratings. whilst many green policies are not liked, the public realise they are necessary and are mature enough to accept them for what they are, needed. ULEZ is not liked by lots of people, but on the flip side, if it means people buy new vehicles to avoid charges then it’s good for the economy. Plus ULEZ only affects 10% of motorists with 90% unaffected. So all this rhetoric about anti green policies is really talking points in a last ditch attempt to save the tories from electoral defeat come 2024. 13 years of economic malaise, incompetence, sleaze and corruption. Who do they think they are kidding? If we get back to the actual point, which is energy security for the UK, how would you propose we produce and obtain the energy we need to keep the country running over the next 20 years? To second guess you, if you are going to say renewables can you explain what they are, the reliability and how much energy they would provide? Nuclear (mic drop) I agree with nuclear but it will take many years to get to the point nuclear is in place to supply the energy we need, so fossil fuels are still needed. That is the reality and hopefully now that our need is understood it will see an end of JSO and their poorly thought out interventions. I bet we could build nuclear capacity as quickly (or quicker) as it will be to open new gas fields? Look what China are doing!" For electricity I agree build more small nuclear plants there was talk of bringing one back to dungeons but I think that hs been scrapped. But we will also need gas for years to heat homes don't see a rush on heat pumps as yet. And older cars will still need oil. And even if we are not burning oil it is used in so much more? Look around you now plastic is made from oil scrap oil scrap pvc, platic, and any thing made from it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The government will issue at least 100 new oil and gas licences for the North Sea. There will be millions of pounds available for a new carbon capture scheme in north-east Scotland. Sunak said, even when the UK reaches net zero in 2050, it will still need oil and gas. it looks like the government have made decisions based on the fact we need fossil fuels for sometime to come. I'm pleased we are starting to have some considered thinking and honesty in this space, instead of the headline soundbites of JSO that have no substance and no clarity in how we provide consistent reliable energy for the the countries needs. Pretty pointless this announcement, it’s takes 20, yes 20 years before production starts from issuance of the licence. Sunak is really desperate, he’s going for broke as this anti-green warrior. He wants to see some massive shift in public opinion and boost of his/tory party poll ratings. whilst many green policies are not liked, the public realise they are necessary and are mature enough to accept them for what they are, needed. ULEZ is not liked by lots of people, but on the flip side, if it means people buy new vehicles to avoid charges then it’s good for the economy. Plus ULEZ only affects 10% of motorists with 90% unaffected. So all this rhetoric about anti green policies is really talking points in a last ditch attempt to save the tories from electoral defeat come 2024. 13 years of economic malaise, incompetence, sleaze and corruption. Who do they think they are kidding? If we get back to the actual point, which is energy security for the UK, how would you propose we produce and obtain the energy we need to keep the country running over the next 20 years? To second guess you, if you are going to say renewables can you explain what they are, the reliability and how much energy they would provide? Nuclear (mic drop) I agree with nuclear but it will take many years to get to the point nuclear is in place to supply the energy we need, so fossil fuels are still needed. That is the reality and hopefully now that our need is understood it will see an end of JSO and their poorly thought out interventions. I bet we could build nuclear capacity as quickly (or quicker) as it will be to open new gas fields? Look what China are doing! For electricity I agree build more small nuclear plants there was talk of bringing one back to dungeons but I think that hs been scrapped. But we will also need gas for years to heat homes don't see a rush on heat pumps as yet. And older cars will still need oil. And even if we are not burning oil it is used in so much more? Look around you now plastic is made from oil scrap oil scrap pvc, platic, and any thing made from it." Yep. Does anyone know whether oil as a machine lubricant or component is considered as harmful re climate change as actually burning fossil fuels? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The government will issue at least 100 new oil and gas licences for the North Sea. There will be millions of pounds available for a new carbon capture scheme in north-east Scotland. Sunak said, even when the UK reaches net zero in 2050, it will still need oil and gas. it looks like the government have made decisions based on the fact we need fossil fuels for sometime to come. I'm pleased we are starting to have some considered thinking and honesty in this space, instead of the headline soundbites of JSO that have no substance and no clarity in how we provide consistent reliable energy for the the countries needs. Pretty pointless this announcement, it’s takes 20, yes 20 years before production starts from issuance of the licence. Sunak is really desperate, he’s going for broke as this anti-green warrior. He wants to see some massive shift in public opinion and boost of his/tory party poll ratings. whilst many green policies are not liked, the public realise they are necessary and are mature enough to accept them for what they are, needed. ULEZ is not liked by lots of people, but on the flip side, if it means people buy new vehicles to avoid charges then it’s good for the economy. Plus ULEZ only affects 10% of motorists with 90% unaffected. So all this rhetoric about anti green policies is really talking points in a last ditch attempt to save the tories from electoral defeat come 2024. 13 years of economic malaise, incompetence, sleaze and corruption. Who do they think they are kidding? If we get back to the actual point, which is energy security for the UK, how would you propose we produce and obtain the energy we need to keep the country running over the next 20 years? To second guess you, if you are going to say renewables can you explain what they are, the reliability and how much energy they would provide? Nuclear (mic drop) I agree with nuclear but it will take many years to get to the point nuclear is in place to supply the energy we need, so fossil fuels are still needed. That is the reality and hopefully now that our need is understood it will see an end of JSO and their poorly thought out interventions. I bet we could build nuclear capacity as quickly (or quicker) as it will be to open new gas fields? Look what China are doing! For electricity I agree build more small nuclear plants there was talk of bringing one back to dungeons but I think that hs been scrapped. But we will also need gas for years to heat homes don't see a rush on heat pumps as yet. And older cars will still need oil. And even if we are not burning oil it is used in so much more? Look around you now plastic is made from oil scrap oil scrap pvc, platic, and any thing made from it. Yep. Does anyone know whether oil as a machine lubricant or component is considered as harmful re climate change as actually burning fossil fuels?" Lube oils and such are most damaging to the environment in disposal - which sadly as individuals we’re pretty bad at. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The government will issue at least 100 new oil and gas licences for the North Sea. There will be millions of pounds available for a new carbon capture scheme in north-east Scotland. Sunak said, even when the UK reaches net zero in 2050, it will still need oil and gas. it looks like the government have made decisions based on the fact we need fossil fuels for sometime to come. I'm pleased we are starting to have some considered thinking and honesty in this space, instead of the headline soundbites of JSO that have no substance and no clarity in how we provide consistent reliable energy for the the countries needs. Pretty pointless this announcement, it’s takes 20, yes 20 years before production starts from issuance of the licence. Sunak is really desperate, he’s going for broke as this anti-green warrior. He wants to see some massive shift in public opinion and boost of his/tory party poll ratings. whilst many green policies are not liked, the public realise they are necessary and are mature enough to accept them for what they are, needed. ULEZ is not liked by lots of people, but on the flip side, if it means people buy new vehicles to avoid charges then it’s good for the economy. Plus ULEZ only affects 10% of motorists with 90% unaffected. So all this rhetoric about anti green policies is really talking points in a last ditch attempt to save the tories from electoral defeat come 2024. 13 years of economic malaise, incompetence, sleaze and corruption. Who do they think they are kidding? If we get back to the actual point, which is energy security for the UK, how would you propose we produce and obtain the energy we need to keep the country running over the next 20 years? To second guess you, if you are going to say renewables can you explain what they are, the reliability and how much energy they would provide? Nuclear (mic drop) I agree with nuclear but it will take many years to get to the point nuclear is in place to supply the energy we need, so fossil fuels are still needed. That is the reality and hopefully now that our need is understood it will see an end of JSO and their poorly thought out interventions. I bet we could build nuclear capacity as quickly (or quicker) as it will be to open new gas fields? Look what China are doing! For electricity I agree build more small nuclear plants there was talk of bringing one back to dungeons but I think that hs been scrapped. But we will also need gas for years to heat homes don't see a rush on heat pumps as yet. And older cars will still need oil. And even if we are not burning oil it is used in so much more? Look around you now plastic is made from oil scrap oil scrap pvc, platic, and any thing made from it. Yep. Does anyone know whether oil as a machine lubricant or component is considered as harmful re climate change as actually burning fossil fuels? Lube oils and such are most damaging to the environment in disposal - which sadly as individuals we’re pretty bad at." Thanks. I know this is the politics forum and we are supposed to be all serious but I couldn’t help but snigger at “lube oils” as it means something completely different in my mind | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The government will issue at least 100 new oil and gas licences for the North Sea. There will be millions of pounds available for a new carbon capture scheme in north-east Scotland. Sunak said, even when the UK reaches net zero in 2050, it will still need oil and gas. it looks like the government have made decisions based on the fact we need fossil fuels for sometime to come. I'm pleased we are starting to have some considered thinking and honesty in this space, instead of the headline soundbites of JSO that have no substance and no clarity in how we provide consistent reliable energy for the the countries needs. Pretty pointless this announcement, it’s takes 20, yes 20 years before production starts from issuance of the licence. Sunak is really desperate, he’s going for broke as this anti-green warrior. He wants to see some massive shift in public opinion and boost of his/tory party poll ratings. whilst many green policies are not liked, the public realise they are necessary and are mature enough to accept them for what they are, needed. ULEZ is not liked by lots of people, but on the flip side, if it means people buy new vehicles to avoid charges then it’s good for the economy. Plus ULEZ only affects 10% of motorists with 90% unaffected. So all this rhetoric about anti green policies is really talking points in a last ditch attempt to save the tories from electoral defeat come 2024. 13 years of economic malaise, incompetence, sleaze and corruption. Who do they think they are kidding? If we get back to the actual point, which is energy security for the UK, how would you propose we produce and obtain the energy we need to keep the country running over the next 20 years? To second guess you, if you are going to say renewables can you explain what they are, the reliability and how much energy they would provide? Nuclear (mic drop) I agree with nuclear but it will take many years to get to the point nuclear is in place to supply the energy we need, so fossil fuels are still needed. That is the reality and hopefully now that our need is understood it will see an end of JSO and their poorly thought out interventions. " What’s so poorly thought out by JSO position. No further oil development….we still have existing reserves to get us through a rapid transition. It’s what the science and evidence tells us….I’d say the extremists are those that *dont* support these aims and objectives !! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The government will issue at least 100 new oil and gas licences for the North Sea. There will be millions of pounds available for a new carbon capture scheme in north-east Scotland. Sunak said, even when the UK reaches net zero in 2050, it will still need oil and gas. it looks like the government have made decisions based on the fact we need fossil fuels for sometime to come. I'm pleased we are starting to have some considered thinking and honesty in this space, instead of the headline soundbites of JSO that have no substance and no clarity in how we provide consistent reliable energy for the the countries needs. Pretty pointless this announcement, it’s takes 20, yes 20 years before production starts from issuance of the licence. Sunak is really desperate, he’s going for broke as this anti-green warrior. He wants to see some massive shift in public opinion and boost of his/tory party poll ratings. whilst many green policies are not liked, the public realise they are necessary and are mature enough to accept them for what they are, needed. ULEZ is not liked by lots of people, but on the flip side, if it means people buy new vehicles to avoid charges then it’s good for the economy. Plus ULEZ only affects 10% of motorists with 90% unaffected. So all this rhetoric about anti green policies is really talking points in a last ditch attempt to save the tories from electoral defeat come 2024. 13 years of economic malaise, incompetence, sleaze and corruption. Who do they think they are kidding? If we get back to the actual point, which is energy security for the UK, how would you propose we produce and obtain the energy we need to keep the country running over the next 20 years? To second guess you, if you are going to say renewables can you explain what they are, the reliability and how much energy they would provide? Nuclear (mic drop) I agree with nuclear but it will take many years to get to the point nuclear is in place to supply the energy we need, so fossil fuels are still needed. That is the reality and hopefully now that our need is understood it will see an end of JSO and their poorly thought out interventions. What’s so poorly thought out by JSO position. No further oil development….we still have existing reserves to get us through a rapid transition. It’s what the science and evidence tells us….I’d say the extremists are those that *dont* support these aims and objectives !!" What rapid expansion? Tell me what will replace fossil fuels and when it will be in place for all our energy needs? You also think an extremist is someone who does not agree with disruption to society from a group who have no idea of the implications of their demands? Interesting place to be | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As long as there is demand for oil somewhere, there will be businesses trying to supply that demand. The demand may fall over time as countries transition but not all countries can transition at the same speed meaning the demand will still be there in many years to come. If this country has a resource that it needs in the immediate future and other countries need it longer term, why shouldn't we make use of it" 1. Because it's causing climate change. 2. Because the demand is artificially created by governments who take donations from the fossil fuels industry. 3. Because it keeps us reliant on externally priced energy, when what we need is energy independence. For just threw reasons why not. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The government will issue at least 100 new oil and gas licences for the North Sea. There will be millions of pounds available for a new carbon capture scheme in north-east Scotland. Sunak said, even when the UK reaches net zero in 2050, it will still need oil and gas. it looks like the government have made decisions based on the fact we need fossil fuels for sometime to come. I'm pleased we are starting to have some considered thinking and honesty in this space, instead of the headline soundbites of JSO that have no substance and no clarity in how we provide consistent reliable energy for the the countries needs. Pretty pointless this announcement, it’s takes 20, yes 20 years before production starts from issuance of the licence. Sunak is really desperate, he’s going for broke as this anti-green warrior. He wants to see some massive shift in public opinion and boost of his/tory party poll ratings. whilst many green policies are not liked, the public realise they are necessary and are mature enough to accept them for what they are, needed. ULEZ is not liked by lots of people, but on the flip side, if it means people buy new vehicles to avoid charges then it’s good for the economy. Plus ULEZ only affects 10% of motorists with 90% unaffected. So all this rhetoric about anti green policies is really talking points in a last ditch attempt to save the tories from electoral defeat come 2024. 13 years of economic malaise, incompetence, sleaze and corruption. Who do they think they are kidding? If we get back to the actual point, which is energy security for the UK, how would you propose we produce and obtain the energy we need to keep the country running over the next 20 years? To second guess you, if you are going to say renewables can you explain what they are, the reliability and how much energy they would provide? Nuclear (mic drop) I agree with nuclear but it will take many years to get to the point nuclear is in place to supply the energy we need, so fossil fuels are still needed. That is the reality and hopefully now that our need is understood it will see an end of JSO and their poorly thought out interventions. What’s so poorly thought out by JSO position. No further oil development….we still have existing reserves to get us through a rapid transition. It’s what the science and evidence tells us….I’d say the extremists are those that *dont* support these aims and objectives !! What rapid expansion? Tell me what will replace fossil fuels and when it will be in place for all our energy needs? You also think an extremist is someone who does not agree with disruption to society from a group who have no idea of the implications of their demands? Interesting place to be " It’s a *transition* - using existing reserves, we know what we need to do to reduce ff dependency and where ff will be required longer term. It’s what science, evidence and international commitments demand. Are you upset by peaceful demonstrations, yet happy to see the climate severely disrupted. Think you have the wrong priorities! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As long as there is demand for oil somewhere, there will be businesses trying to supply that demand. The demand may fall over time as countries transition but not all countries can transition at the same speed meaning the demand will still be there in many years to come. If this country has a resource that it needs in the immediate future and other countries need it longer term, why shouldn't we make use of it 1. Because it's causing climate change. 2. Because the demand is artificially created by governments who take donations from the fossil fuels industry. 3. Because it keeps us reliant on externally priced energy, when what we need is energy independence. For just threw reasons why not." ??this ?? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As long as there is demand for oil somewhere, there will be businesses trying to supply that demand. The demand may fall over time as countries transition but not all countries can transition at the same speed meaning the demand will still be there in many years to come. If this country has a resource that it needs in the immediate future and other countries need it longer term, why shouldn't we make use of it 1. Because it's causing climate change. 2. Because the demand is artificially created by governments who take donations from the fossil fuels industry. 3. Because it keeps us reliant on externally priced energy, when what we need is energy independence. For just threw reasons why not." I think you misunderstand my post. I say as long as there is demand. I'm not saying demand should be artificially created. I'm also not saying countries that can transition should not transition just because we have oil. There are countries that are not as fortunate as the UK and may need oil far longer. The sooner every country transitions the better but some will create demand, not through choice but necessity. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The government will issue at least 100 new oil and gas licences for the North Sea. There will be millions of pounds available for a new carbon capture scheme in north-east Scotland. Sunak said, even when the UK reaches net zero in 2050, it will still need oil and gas. it looks like the government have made decisions based on the fact we need fossil fuels for sometime to come. I'm pleased we are starting to have some considered thinking and honesty in this space, instead of the headline soundbites of JSO that have no substance and no clarity in how we provide consistent reliable energy for the the countries needs. Pretty pointless this announcement, it’s takes 20, yes 20 years before production starts from issuance of the licence. Sunak is really desperate, he’s going for broke as this anti-green warrior. He wants to see some massive shift in public opinion and boost of his/tory party poll ratings. whilst many green policies are not liked, the public realise they are necessary and are mature enough to accept them for what they are, needed. ULEZ is not liked by lots of people, but on the flip side, if it means people buy new vehicles to avoid charges then it’s good for the economy. Plus ULEZ only affects 10% of motorists with 90% unaffected. So all this rhetoric about anti green policies is really talking points in a last ditch attempt to save the tories from electoral defeat come 2024. 13 years of economic malaise, incompetence, sleaze and corruption. Who do they think they are kidding? If we get back to the actual point, which is energy security for the UK, how would you propose we produce and obtain the energy we need to keep the country running over the next 20 years? To second guess you, if you are going to say renewables can you explain what they are, the reliability and how much energy they would provide? Nuclear (mic drop) I agree with nuclear but it will take many years to get to the point nuclear is in place to supply the energy we need, so fossil fuels are still needed. That is the reality and hopefully now that our need is understood it will see an end of JSO and their poorly thought out interventions. What’s so poorly thought out by JSO position. No further oil development….we still have existing reserves to get us through a rapid transition. It’s what the science and evidence tells us….I’d say the extremists are those that *dont* support these aims and objectives !! What rapid expansion? Tell me what will replace fossil fuels and when it will be in place for all our energy needs? You also think an extremist is someone who does not agree with disruption to society from a group who have no idea of the implications of their demands? Interesting place to be It’s a *transition* - using existing reserves, we know what we need to do to reduce ff dependency and where ff will be required longer term. It’s what science, evidence and international commitments demand. Are you upset by peaceful demonstrations, yet happy to see the climate severely disrupted. Think you have the wrong priorities! " We have 5 years worth of reserves. Do you honestly think we can become fully reliant on renewables within 5 years if we stopped production on oil today? JSO protests aren't peaceful. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The government will issue at least 100 new oil and gas licences for the North Sea. There will be millions of pounds available for a new carbon capture scheme in north-east Scotland. Sunak said, even when the UK reaches net zero in 2050, it will still need oil and gas. it looks like the government have made decisions based on the fact we need fossil fuels for sometime to come. I'm pleased we are starting to have some considered thinking and honesty in this space, instead of the headline soundbites of JSO that have no substance and no clarity in how we provide consistent reliable energy for the the countries needs. Pretty pointless this announcement, it’s takes 20, yes 20 years before production starts from issuance of the licence. Sunak is really desperate, he’s going for broke as this anti-green warrior. He wants to see some massive shift in public opinion and boost of his/tory party poll ratings. whilst many green policies are not liked, the public realise they are necessary and are mature enough to accept them for what they are, needed. ULEZ is not liked by lots of people, but on the flip side, if it means people buy new vehicles to avoid charges then it’s good for the economy. Plus ULEZ only affects 10% of motorists with 90% unaffected. So all this rhetoric about anti green policies is really talking points in a last ditch attempt to save the tories from electoral defeat come 2024. 13 years of economic malaise, incompetence, sleaze and corruption. Who do they think they are kidding? If we get back to the actual point, which is energy security for the UK, how would you propose we produce and obtain the energy we need to keep the country running over the next 20 years? To second guess you, if you are going to say renewables can you explain what they are, the reliability and how much energy they would provide? Nuclear (mic drop) I agree with nuclear but it will take many years to get to the point nuclear is in place to supply the energy we need, so fossil fuels are still needed. That is the reality and hopefully now that our need is understood it will see an end of JSO and their poorly thought out interventions. What’s so poorly thought out by JSO position. No further oil development….we still have existing reserves to get us through a rapid transition. It’s what the science and evidence tells us….I’d say the extremists are those that *dont* support these aims and objectives !! What rapid expansion? Tell me what will replace fossil fuels and when it will be in place for all our energy needs? You also think an extremist is someone who does not agree with disruption to society from a group who have no idea of the implications of their demands? Interesting place to be It’s a *transition* - using existing reserves, we know what we need to do to reduce ff dependency and where ff will be required longer term. It’s what science, evidence and international commitments demand. Are you upset by peaceful demonstrations, yet happy to see the climate severely disrupted. Think you have the wrong priorities! We have 5 years worth of reserves. Do you honestly think we can become fully reliant on renewables within 5 years if we stopped production on oil today? JSO protests aren't peaceful." We don’t need to, there are decades of North Sea production, albeit it’s a mature and dwindling resource. The 5 yr figure is spurious. ‘JSO not peaceful’ ….lol. They are very restrained when they have been physically attacked !!! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The government will issue at least 100 new oil and gas licences for the North Sea. There will be millions of pounds available for a new carbon capture scheme in north-east Scotland. Sunak said, even when the UK reaches net zero in 2050, it will still need oil and gas. it looks like the government have made decisions based on the fact we need fossil fuels for sometime to come. I'm pleased we are starting to have some considered thinking and honesty in this space, instead of the headline soundbites of JSO that have no substance and no clarity in how we provide consistent reliable energy for the the countries needs. Pretty pointless this announcement, it’s takes 20, yes 20 years before production starts from issuance of the licence. Sunak is really desperate, he’s going for broke as this anti-green warrior. He wants to see some massive shift in public opinion and boost of his/tory party poll ratings. whilst many green policies are not liked, the public realise they are necessary and are mature enough to accept them for what they are, needed. ULEZ is not liked by lots of people, but on the flip side, if it means people buy new vehicles to avoid charges then it’s good for the economy. Plus ULEZ only affects 10% of motorists with 90% unaffected. So all this rhetoric about anti green policies is really talking points in a last ditch attempt to save the tories from electoral defeat come 2024. 13 years of economic malaise, incompetence, sleaze and corruption. Who do they think they are kidding? If we get back to the actual point, which is energy security for the UK, how would you propose we produce and obtain the energy we need to keep the country running over the next 20 years? To second guess you, if you are going to say renewables can you explain what they are, the reliability and how much energy they would provide? Nuclear (mic drop) I agree with nuclear but it will take many years to get to the point nuclear is in place to supply the energy we need, so fossil fuels are still needed. That is the reality and hopefully now that our need is understood it will see an end of JSO and their poorly thought out interventions. What’s so poorly thought out by JSO position. No further oil development….we still have existing reserves to get us through a rapid transition. It’s what the science and evidence tells us….I’d say the extremists are those that *dont* support these aims and objectives !! What rapid expansion? Tell me what will replace fossil fuels and when it will be in place for all our energy needs? You also think an extremist is someone who does not agree with disruption to society from a group who have no idea of the implications of their demands? Interesting place to be It’s a *transition* - using existing reserves, we know what we need to do to reduce ff dependency and where ff will be required longer term. It’s what science, evidence and international commitments demand. Are you upset by peaceful demonstrations, yet happy to see the climate severely disrupted. Think you have the wrong priorities! We have 5 years worth of reserves. Do you honestly think we can become fully reliant on renewables within 5 years if we stopped production on oil today? JSO protests aren't peaceful. We don’t need to, there are decades of North Sea production, albeit it’s a mature and dwindling resource. The 5 yr figure is spurious. ‘JSO not peaceful’ ….lol. They are very restrained when they have been physically attacked !!! " You said "using existing reserves"
JSO aren't 'restrained', they're a bunch of fucking wet wipes who wouldn't know how to fight back | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The government will issue at least 100 new oil and gas licences for the North Sea. There will be millions of pounds available for a new carbon capture scheme in north-east Scotland. Sunak said, even when the UK reaches net zero in 2050, it will still need oil and gas. it looks like the government have made decisions based on the fact we need fossil fuels for sometime to come. I'm pleased we are starting to have some considered thinking and honesty in this space, instead of the headline soundbites of JSO that have no substance and no clarity in how we provide consistent reliable energy for the the countries needs. Pretty pointless this announcement, it’s takes 20, yes 20 years before production starts from issuance of the licence. Sunak is really desperate, he’s going for broke as this anti-green warrior. He wants to see some massive shift in public opinion and boost of his/tory party poll ratings. whilst many green policies are not liked, the public realise they are necessary and are mature enough to accept them for what they are, needed. ULEZ is not liked by lots of people, but on the flip side, if it means people buy new vehicles to avoid charges then it’s good for the economy. Plus ULEZ only affects 10% of motorists with 90% unaffected. So all this rhetoric about anti green policies is really talking points in a last ditch attempt to save the tories from electoral defeat come 2024. 13 years of economic malaise, incompetence, sleaze and corruption. Who do they think they are kidding? If we get back to the actual point, which is energy security for the UK, how would you propose we produce and obtain the energy we need to keep the country running over the next 20 years? To second guess you, if you are going to say renewables can you explain what they are, the reliability and how much energy they would provide? Nuclear (mic drop) I agree with nuclear but it will take many years to get to the point nuclear is in place to supply the energy we need, so fossil fuels are still needed. That is the reality and hopefully now that our need is understood it will see an end of JSO and their poorly thought out interventions. What’s so poorly thought out by JSO position. No further oil development….we still have existing reserves to get us through a rapid transition. It’s what the science and evidence tells us….I’d say the extremists are those that *dont* support these aims and objectives !! What rapid expansion? Tell me what will replace fossil fuels and when it will be in place for all our energy needs? You also think an extremist is someone who does not agree with disruption to society from a group who have no idea of the implications of their demands? Interesting place to be It’s a *transition* - using existing reserves, we know what we need to do to reduce ff dependency and where ff will be required longer term. It’s what science, evidence and international commitments demand. Are you upset by peaceful demonstrations, yet happy to see the climate severely disrupted. Think you have the wrong priorities! We have 5 years worth of reserves. Do you honestly think we can become fully reliant on renewables within 5 years if we stopped production on oil today? JSO protests aren't peaceful. We don’t need to, there are decades of North Sea production, albeit it’s a mature and dwindling resource. The 5 yr figure is spurious. ‘JSO not peaceful’ ….lol. They are very restrained when they have been physically attacked !!! You said "using existing reserves"
JSO aren't 'restrained', they're a bunch of fucking wet wipes who wouldn't know how to fight back "Yes, existing reserves will take decades to extract at current rates…do keep up ! Do you understand the science, evidence and commitments made ? You should then understand that JSO are asking for us to uphold these commitments. So you agree that JSO are peaceful …whilst being physically assaulted by thugs. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The government will issue at least 100 new oil and gas licences for the North Sea. There will be millions of pounds available for a new carbon capture scheme in north-east Scotland. Sunak said, even when the UK reaches net zero in 2050, it will still need oil and gas. it looks like the government have made decisions based on the fact we need fossil fuels for sometime to come. I'm pleased we are starting to have some considered thinking and honesty in this space, instead of the headline soundbites of JSO that have no substance and no clarity in how we provide consistent reliable energy for the the countries needs. Pretty pointless this announcement, it’s takes 20, yes 20 years before production starts from issuance of the licence. Sunak is really desperate, he’s going for broke as this anti-green warrior. He wants to see some massive shift in public opinion and boost of his/tory party poll ratings. whilst many green policies are not liked, the public realise they are necessary and are mature enough to accept them for what they are, needed. ULEZ is not liked by lots of people, but on the flip side, if it means people buy new vehicles to avoid charges then it’s good for the economy. Plus ULEZ only affects 10% of motorists with 90% unaffected. So all this rhetoric about anti green policies is really talking points in a last ditch attempt to save the tories from electoral defeat come 2024. 13 years of economic malaise, incompetence, sleaze and corruption. Who do they think they are kidding? If we get back to the actual point, which is energy security for the UK, how would you propose we produce and obtain the energy we need to keep the country running over the next 20 years? To second guess you, if you are going to say renewables can you explain what they are, the reliability and how much energy they would provide? Nuclear (mic drop) I agree with nuclear but it will take many years to get to the point nuclear is in place to supply the energy we need, so fossil fuels are still needed. That is the reality and hopefully now that our need is understood it will see an end of JSO and their poorly thought out interventions. What’s so poorly thought out by JSO position. No further oil development….we still have existing reserves to get us through a rapid transition. It’s what the science and evidence tells us….I’d say the extremists are those that *dont* support these aims and objectives !! What rapid expansion? Tell me what will replace fossil fuels and when it will be in place for all our energy needs? You also think an extremist is someone who does not agree with disruption to society from a group who have no idea of the implications of their demands? Interesting place to be It’s a *transition* - using existing reserves, we know what we need to do to reduce ff dependency and where ff will be required longer term. It’s what science, evidence and international commitments demand. Are you upset by peaceful demonstrations, yet happy to see the climate severely disrupted. Think you have the wrong priorities! We have 5 years worth of reserves. Do you honestly think we can become fully reliant on renewables within 5 years if we stopped production on oil today? JSO protests aren't peaceful. We don’t need to, there are decades of North Sea production, albeit it’s a mature and dwindling resource. The 5 yr figure is spurious. ‘JSO not peaceful’ ….lol. They are very restrained when they have been physically attacked !!! You said "using existing reserves"
JSO aren't 'restrained', they're a bunch of fucking wet wipes who wouldn't know how to fight back
Yes, existing reserves will take decades to extract at current rates…do keep up !
Do you understand the science, evidence and commitments made ?
You should then understand that JSO are asking for us to uphold these commitments.
So you agree that JSO are peaceful …whilst being physically assaulted by thugs. "Oh I see... you want to include 'reserves' that are unproven. I'd rather use what we can prove we have. Do keep up. I do not agree that JSO are peaceful. I don't think disrupting people, sports, concerts, vandalising art, buildings etc. is peaceful in any way, shape or form. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" JSO protests aren't peaceful." I’ve not seen anyone from JSO physically harming anybody. Is there evidence of such? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" JSO protests aren't peaceful. I’ve not seen anyone from JSO physically harming anybody. Is there evidence of such? " Is harming a human being the only way to not be peaceful? Is that really the only measure? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" JSO protests aren't peaceful. I’ve not seen anyone from JSO physically harming anybody. Is there evidence of such? Is harming a human being the only way to not be peaceful? Is that really the only measure?" What have they done that’s not peaceful then? Sitting in the road and disrupting sporting events, throwing washable paint or degradable material around. All seems like pretty peaceful protest to me. It’s disruptive, yes - but protest is meant to be disruptive. But peaceful. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" JSO protests aren't peaceful. I’ve not seen anyone from JSO physically harming anybody. Is there evidence of such? Is harming a human being the only way to not be peaceful? Is that really the only measure? What have they done that’s not peaceful then? Sitting in the road and disrupting sporting events, throwing washable paint or degradable material around. All seems like pretty peaceful protest to me. It’s disruptive, yes - but protest is meant to be disruptive. But peaceful. " peaceful /'pi?sf  l/
adjective
1.
free from disturbance; tranquil.
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" JSO protests aren't peaceful. I’ve not seen anyone from JSO physically harming anybody. Is there evidence of such? Is harming a human being the only way to not be peaceful? Is that really the only measure? What have they done that’s not peaceful then? Sitting in the road and disrupting sporting events, throwing washable paint or degradable material around. All seems like pretty peaceful protest to me. It’s disruptive, yes - but protest is meant to be disruptive. But peaceful. peaceful /'pi?sf l/
adjective
1.
free from disturbance; tranquil.
"So there’s no such thing as peaceful protest at all then? That’s your claim? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" JSO protests aren't peaceful. I’ve not seen anyone from JSO physically harming anybody. Is there evidence of such? Is harming a human being the only way to not be peaceful? Is that really the only measure? What have they done that’s not peaceful then? Sitting in the road and disrupting sporting events, throwing washable paint or degradable material around. All seems like pretty peaceful protest to me. It’s disruptive, yes - but protest is meant to be disruptive. But peaceful. peaceful /'pi?sf l/
adjective
1.
free from disturbance; tranquil.
So there’s no such thing as peaceful protest at all then? That’s your claim? "If you use the definition then I guess there isn't. I'll refer you to my earlier comment about why I personally don't think they're peaceful. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" JSO protests aren't peaceful. I’ve not seen anyone from JSO physically harming anybody. Is there evidence of such? Is harming a human being the only way to not be peaceful? Is that really the only measure? What have they done that’s not peaceful then? Sitting in the road and disrupting sporting events, throwing washable paint or degradable material around. All seems like pretty peaceful protest to me. It’s disruptive, yes - but protest is meant to be disruptive. But peaceful. peaceful /'pi?sf l/
adjective
1.
free from disturbance; tranquil.
So there’s no such thing as peaceful protest at all then? That’s your claim?
If you use the definition then I guess there isn't. I'll refer you to my earlier comment about why I personally don't think they're peaceful. "We’ll call them nonviolent then, and we’re all happy. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" JSO protests aren't peaceful. I’ve not seen anyone from JSO physically harming anybody. Is there evidence of such? Is harming a human being the only way to not be peaceful? Is that really the only measure? What have they done that’s not peaceful then? Sitting in the road and disrupting sporting events, throwing washable paint or degradable material around. All seems like pretty peaceful protest to me. It’s disruptive, yes - but protest is meant to be disruptive. But peaceful. peaceful /'pi?sf l/
adjective
1.
free from disturbance; tranquil.
So there’s no such thing as peaceful protest at all then? That’s your claim?
If you use the definition then I guess there isn't. I'll refer you to my earlier comment about why I personally don't think they're peaceful.
We’ll call them nonviolent then, and we’re all happy. "Call them non violent, I won't argue with that. Not too many protestors are violent, not real protestors anyway. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The government will issue at least 100 new oil and gas licences for the North Sea. There will be millions of pounds available for a new carbon capture scheme in north-east Scotland. Sunak said, even when the UK reaches net zero in 2050, it will still need oil and gas. it looks like the government have made decisions based on the fact we need fossil fuels for sometime to come. I'm pleased we are starting to have some considered thinking and honesty in this space, instead of the headline soundbites of JSO that have no substance and no clarity in how we provide consistent reliable energy for the the countries needs. Pretty pointless this announcement, it’s takes 20, yes 20 years before production starts from issuance of the licence. Sunak is really desperate, he’s going for broke as this anti-green warrior. He wants to see some massive shift in public opinion and boost of his/tory party poll ratings. whilst many green policies are not liked, the public realise they are necessary and are mature enough to accept them for what they are, needed. ULEZ is not liked by lots of people, but on the flip side, if it means people buy new vehicles to avoid charges then it’s good for the economy. Plus ULEZ only affects 10% of motorists with 90% unaffected. So all this rhetoric about anti green policies is really talking points in a last ditch attempt to save the tories from electoral defeat come 2024. 13 years of economic malaise, incompetence, sleaze and corruption. Who do they think they are kidding? If we get back to the actual point, which is energy security for the UK, how would you propose we produce and obtain the energy we need to keep the country running over the next 20 years? To second guess you, if you are going to say renewables can you explain what they are, the reliability and how much energy they would provide? Nuclear (mic drop) I agree with nuclear but it will take many years to get to the point nuclear is in place to supply the energy we need, so fossil fuels are still needed. That is the reality and hopefully now that our need is understood it will see an end of JSO and their poorly thought out interventions. What’s so poorly thought out by JSO position. No further oil development….we still have existing reserves to get us through a rapid transition. It’s what the science and evidence tells us….I’d say the extremists are those that *dont* support these aims and objectives !! What rapid expansion? Tell me what will replace fossil fuels and when it will be in place for all our energy needs? You also think an extremist is someone who does not agree with disruption to society from a group who have no idea of the implications of their demands? Interesting place to be It’s a *transition* - using existing reserves, we know what we need to do to reduce ff dependency and where ff will be required longer term. It’s what science, evidence and international commitments demand. Are you upset by peaceful demonstrations, yet happy to see the climate severely disrupted. Think you have the wrong priorities! We have 5 years worth of reserves. Do you honestly think we can become fully reliant on renewables within 5 years if we stopped production on oil today? JSO protests aren't peaceful. We don’t need to, there are decades of North Sea production, albeit it’s a mature and dwindling resource. The 5 yr figure is spurious. ‘JSO not peaceful’ ….lol. They are very restrained when they have been physically attacked !!! You said "using existing reserves"
JSO aren't 'restrained', they're a bunch of fucking wet wipes who wouldn't know how to fight back
Yes, existing reserves will take decades to extract at current rates…do keep up !
Do you understand the science, evidence and commitments made ?
You should then understand that JSO are asking for us to uphold these commitments.
So you agree that JSO are peaceful …whilst being physically assaulted by thugs.
Oh I see... you want to include 'reserves' that are unproven. I'd rather use what we can prove we have. Do keep up.
I do not agree that JSO are peaceful. I don't think disrupting people, sports, concerts, vandalising art, buildings etc. is peaceful in any way, shape or form."Well, the 5 yrs is an entirely misleading figure. In addition , it’s meaningless as it’s all sold on international markets. The bottom line is we (or anyone else) cannot afford new oil and gas, and there is enough for a transition ….as that transition can take longer than the 5 yrs you imply … If you don’t agree, let me know what global temperature increase you are happy with, and the costs of mitigation, if indeed that is possible ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The government will issue at least 100 new oil and gas licences for the North Sea. There will be millions of pounds available for a new carbon capture scheme in north-east Scotland. Sunak said, even when the UK reaches net zero in 2050, it will still need oil and gas. it looks like the government have made decisions based on the fact we need fossil fuels for sometime to come. I'm pleased we are starting to have some considered thinking and honesty in this space, instead of the headline soundbites of JSO that have no substance and no clarity in how we provide consistent reliable energy for the the countries needs. Pretty pointless this announcement, it’s takes 20, yes 20 years before production starts from issuance of the licence. Sunak is really desperate, he’s going for broke as this anti-green warrior. He wants to see some massive shift in public opinion and boost of his/tory party poll ratings. whilst many green policies are not liked, the public realise they are necessary and are mature enough to accept them for what they are, needed. ULEZ is not liked by lots of people, but on the flip side, if it means people buy new vehicles to avoid charges then it’s good for the economy. Plus ULEZ only affects 10% of motorists with 90% unaffected. So all this rhetoric about anti green policies is really talking points in a last ditch attempt to save the tories from electoral defeat come 2024. 13 years of economic malaise, incompetence, sleaze and corruption. Who do they think they are kidding? If we get back to the actual point, which is energy security for the UK, how would you propose we produce and obtain the energy we need to keep the country running over the next 20 years? To second guess you, if you are going to say renewables can you explain what they are, the reliability and how much energy they would provide? Nuclear (mic drop) I agree with nuclear but it will take many years to get to the point nuclear is in place to supply the energy we need, so fossil fuels are still needed. That is the reality and hopefully now that our need is understood it will see an end of JSO and their poorly thought out interventions. What’s so poorly thought out by JSO position. No further oil development….we still have existing reserves to get us through a rapid transition. It’s what the science and evidence tells us….I’d say the extremists are those that *dont* support these aims and objectives !! What rapid expansion? Tell me what will replace fossil fuels and when it will be in place for all our energy needs? You also think an extremist is someone who does not agree with disruption to society from a group who have no idea of the implications of their demands? Interesting place to be It’s a *transition* - using existing reserves, we know what we need to do to reduce ff dependency and where ff will be required longer term. It’s what science, evidence and international commitments demand. Are you upset by peaceful demonstrations, yet happy to see the climate severely disrupted. Think you have the wrong priorities! We have 5 years worth of reserves. Do you honestly think we can become fully reliant on renewables within 5 years if we stopped production on oil today? JSO protests aren't peaceful. We don’t need to, there are decades of North Sea production, albeit it’s a mature and dwindling resource. The 5 yr figure is spurious. ‘JSO not peaceful’ ….lol. They are very restrained when they have been physically attacked !!! You said "using existing reserves"
JSO aren't 'restrained', they're a bunch of fucking wet wipes who wouldn't know how to fight back
Yes, existing reserves will take decades to extract at current rates…do keep up !
Do you understand the science, evidence and commitments made ?
You should then understand that JSO are asking for us to uphold these commitments.
So you agree that JSO are peaceful …whilst being physically assaulted by thugs.
Oh I see... you want to include 'reserves' that are unproven. I'd rather use what we can prove we have. Do keep up.
I do not agree that JSO are peaceful. I don't think disrupting people, sports, concerts, vandalising art, buildings etc. is peaceful in any way, shape or form.
Well, the 5 yrs is an entirely misleading figure. In addition , it’s meaningless as it’s all sold on international markets.
The bottom line is we (or anyone else) cannot afford new oil and gas, and there is enough for a transition ….as that transition can take longer than the 5 yrs you imply …
If you don’t agree, let me know what global temperature increase you are happy with, and the costs of mitigation, if indeed that is possible ?
"What's misleading about it? That's our proven reserves. And if its already sold on the international markets then how do we have enough for a transition? I'd be more than happy with higher temperatures if this summer is anything to go by | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The government will issue at least 100 new oil and gas licences for the North Sea. There will be millions of pounds available for a new carbon capture scheme in north-east Scotland. Sunak said, even when the UK reaches net zero in 2050, it will still need oil and gas. it looks like the government have made decisions based on the fact we need fossil fuels for sometime to come. I'm pleased we are starting to have some considered thinking and honesty in this space, instead of the headline soundbites of JSO that have no substance and no clarity in how we provide consistent reliable energy for the the countries needs. Pretty pointless this announcement, it’s takes 20, yes 20 years before production starts from issuance of the licence. Sunak is really desperate, he’s going for broke as this anti-green warrior. He wants to see some massive shift in public opinion and boost of his/tory party poll ratings. whilst many green policies are not liked, the public realise they are necessary and are mature enough to accept them for what they are, needed. ULEZ is not liked by lots of people, but on the flip side, if it means people buy new vehicles to avoid charges then it’s good for the economy. Plus ULEZ only affects 10% of motorists with 90% unaffected. So all this rhetoric about anti green policies is really talking points in a last ditch attempt to save the tories from electoral defeat come 2024. 13 years of economic malaise, incompetence, sleaze and corruption. Who do they think they are kidding? If we get back to the actual point, which is energy security for the UK, how would you propose we produce and obtain the energy we need to keep the country running over the next 20 years? To second guess you, if you are going to say renewables can you explain what they are, the reliability and how much energy they would provide? Nuclear (mic drop) I agree with nuclear but it will take many years to get to the point nuclear is in place to supply the energy we need, so fossil fuels are still needed. That is the reality and hopefully now that our need is understood it will see an end of JSO and their poorly thought out interventions. What’s so poorly thought out by JSO position. No further oil development….we still have existing reserves to get us through a rapid transition. It’s what the science and evidence tells us….I’d say the extremists are those that *dont* support these aims and objectives !! What rapid expansion? Tell me what will replace fossil fuels and when it will be in place for all our energy needs? You also think an extremist is someone who does not agree with disruption to society from a group who have no idea of the implications of their demands? Interesting place to be It’s a *transition* - using existing reserves, we know what we need to do to reduce ff dependency and where ff will be required longer term. It’s what science, evidence and international commitments demand. Are you upset by peaceful demonstrations, yet happy to see the climate severely disrupted. Think you have the wrong priorities! We have 5 years worth of reserves. Do you honestly think we can become fully reliant on renewables within 5 years if we stopped production on oil today? JSO protests aren't peaceful. We don’t need to, there are decades of North Sea production, albeit it’s a mature and dwindling resource. The 5 yr figure is spurious. ‘JSO not peaceful’ ….lol. They are very restrained when they have been physically attacked !!! You said "using existing reserves"
JSO aren't 'restrained', they're a bunch of fucking wet wipes who wouldn't know how to fight back
Yes, existing reserves will take decades to extract at current rates…do keep up !
Do you understand the science, evidence and commitments made ?
You should then understand that JSO are asking for us to uphold these commitments.
So you agree that JSO are peaceful …whilst being physically assaulted by thugs.
Oh I see... you want to include 'reserves' that are unproven. I'd rather use what we can prove we have. Do keep up.
I do not agree that JSO are peaceful. I don't think disrupting people, sports, concerts, vandalising art, buildings etc. is peaceful in any way, shape or form.
Well, the 5 yrs is an entirely misleading figure. In addition , it’s meaningless as it’s all sold on international markets.
The bottom line is we (or anyone else) cannot afford new oil and gas, and there is enough for a transition ….as that transition can take longer than the 5 yrs you imply …
If you don’t agree, let me know what global temperature increase you are happy with, and the costs of mitigation, if indeed that is possible ?
What's misleading about it? That's our proven reserves.
And if its already sold on the international markets then how do we have enough for a transition?
I'd be more than happy with higher temperatures if this summer is anything to go by "Well, it’s clear you don’t have the vaguest idea of the consequences of climate change by that vacuous comment…. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The government will issue at least 100 new oil and gas licences for the North Sea. There will be millions of pounds available for a new carbon capture scheme in north-east Scotland. Sunak said, even when the UK reaches net zero in 2050, it will still need oil and gas. it looks like the government have made decisions based on the fact we need fossil fuels for sometime to come. I'm pleased we are starting to have some considered thinking and honesty in this space, instead of the headline soundbites of JSO that have no substance and no clarity in how we provide consistent reliable energy for the the countries needs. Pretty pointless this announcement, it’s takes 20, yes 20 years before production starts from issuance of the licence. Sunak is really desperate, he’s going for broke as this anti-green warrior. He wants to see some massive shift in public opinion and boost of his/tory party poll ratings. whilst many green policies are not liked, the public realise they are necessary and are mature enough to accept them for what they are, needed. ULEZ is not liked by lots of people, but on the flip side, if it means people buy new vehicles to avoid charges then it’s good for the economy. Plus ULEZ only affects 10% of motorists with 90% unaffected. So all this rhetoric about anti green policies is really talking points in a last ditch attempt to save the tories from electoral defeat come 2024. 13 years of economic malaise, incompetence, sleaze and corruption. Who do they think they are kidding? If we get back to the actual point, which is energy security for the UK, how would you propose we produce and obtain the energy we need to keep the country running over the next 20 years? To second guess you, if you are going to say renewables can you explain what they are, the reliability and how much energy they would provide? Nuclear (mic drop) I agree with nuclear but it will take many years to get to the point nuclear is in place to supply the energy we need, so fossil fuels are still needed. That is the reality and hopefully now that our need is understood it will see an end of JSO and their poorly thought out interventions. What’s so poorly thought out by JSO position. No further oil development….we still have existing reserves to get us through a rapid transition. It’s what the science and evidence tells us….I’d say the extremists are those that *dont* support these aims and objectives !! What rapid expansion? Tell me what will replace fossil fuels and when it will be in place for all our energy needs? You also think an extremist is someone who does not agree with disruption to society from a group who have no idea of the implications of their demands? Interesting place to be It’s a *transition* - using existing reserves, we know what we need to do to reduce ff dependency and where ff will be required longer term. It’s what science, evidence and international commitments demand. Are you upset by peaceful demonstrations, yet happy to see the climate severely disrupted. Think you have the wrong priorities! We have 5 years worth of reserves. Do you honestly think we can become fully reliant on renewables within 5 years if we stopped production on oil today? JSO protests aren't peaceful. We don’t need to, there are decades of North Sea production, albeit it’s a mature and dwindling resource. The 5 yr figure is spurious. ‘JSO not peaceful’ ….lol. They are very restrained when they have been physically attacked !!! You said "using existing reserves"
JSO aren't 'restrained', they're a bunch of fucking wet wipes who wouldn't know how to fight back
Yes, existing reserves will take decades to extract at current rates…do keep up !
Do you understand the science, evidence and commitments made ?
You should then understand that JSO are asking for us to uphold these commitments.
So you agree that JSO are peaceful …whilst being physically assaulted by thugs.
Oh I see... you want to include 'reserves' that are unproven. I'd rather use what we can prove we have. Do keep up.
I do not agree that JSO are peaceful. I don't think disrupting people, sports, concerts, vandalising art, buildings etc. is peaceful in any way, shape or form.
Well, the 5 yrs is an entirely misleading figure. In addition , it’s meaningless as it’s all sold on international markets.
The bottom line is we (or anyone else) cannot afford new oil and gas, and there is enough for a transition ….as that transition can take longer than the 5 yrs you imply …
If you don’t agree, let me know what global temperature increase you are happy with, and the costs of mitigation, if indeed that is possible ?
"I am talking about oil for other things than fule. Fabric, Carpets, lubricant, PVC we are going to need oil for lots of things for a long time. How do you intent to replace everything that comes out of oil. Even JSO protesting use hi vis vests and banners made out of oil why don't they set an example and use other materials? As for gas for Boilers to heat homes that is going to take 20 years to get changed to heat pumps. But heat pumps need oil to be manufactured? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The government will issue at least 100 new oil and gas licences for the North Sea. There will be millions of pounds available for a new carbon capture scheme in north-east Scotland. Sunak said, even when the UK reaches net zero in 2050, it will still need oil and gas. it looks like the government have made decisions based on the fact we need fossil fuels for sometime to come. I'm pleased we are starting to have some considered thinking and honesty in this space, instead of the headline soundbites of JSO that have no substance and no clarity in how we provide consistent reliable energy for the the countries needs. Pretty pointless this announcement, it’s takes 20, yes 20 years before production starts from issuance of the licence. Sunak is really desperate, he’s going for broke as this anti-green warrior. He wants to see some massive shift in public opinion and boost of his/tory party poll ratings. whilst many green policies are not liked, the public realise they are necessary and are mature enough to accept them for what they are, needed. ULEZ is not liked by lots of people, but on the flip side, if it means people buy new vehicles to avoid charges then it’s good for the economy. Plus ULEZ only affects 10% of motorists with 90% unaffected. So all this rhetoric about anti green policies is really talking points in a last ditch attempt to save the tories from electoral defeat come 2024. 13 years of economic malaise, incompetence, sleaze and corruption. Who do they think they are kidding? If we get back to the actual point, which is energy security for the UK, how would you propose we produce and obtain the energy we need to keep the country running over the next 20 years? To second guess you, if you are going to say renewables can you explain what they are, the reliability and how much energy they would provide? Nuclear (mic drop) I agree with nuclear but it will take many years to get to the point nuclear is in place to supply the energy we need, so fossil fuels are still needed. That is the reality and hopefully now that our need is understood it will see an end of JSO and their poorly thought out interventions. What’s so poorly thought out by JSO position. No further oil development….we still have existing reserves to get us through a rapid transition. It’s what the science and evidence tells us….I’d say the extremists are those that *dont* support these aims and objectives !! What rapid expansion? Tell me what will replace fossil fuels and when it will be in place for all our energy needs? You also think an extremist is someone who does not agree with disruption to society from a group who have no idea of the implications of their demands? Interesting place to be It’s a *transition* - using existing reserves, we know what we need to do to reduce ff dependency and where ff will be required longer term. It’s what science, evidence and international commitments demand. Are you upset by peaceful demonstrations, yet happy to see the climate severely disrupted. Think you have the wrong priorities! We have 5 years worth of reserves. Do you honestly think we can become fully reliant on renewables within 5 years if we stopped production on oil today? JSO protests aren't peaceful. We don’t need to, there are decades of North Sea production, albeit it’s a mature and dwindling resource. The 5 yr figure is spurious. ‘JSO not peaceful’ ….lol. They are very restrained when they have been physically attacked !!! You said "using existing reserves"
JSO aren't 'restrained', they're a bunch of fucking wet wipes who wouldn't know how to fight back
Yes, existing reserves will take decades to extract at current rates…do keep up !
Do you understand the science, evidence and commitments made ?
You should then understand that JSO are asking for us to uphold these commitments.
So you agree that JSO are peaceful …whilst being physically assaulted by thugs.
Oh I see... you want to include 'reserves' that are unproven. I'd rather use what we can prove we have. Do keep up.
I do not agree that JSO are peaceful. I don't think disrupting people, sports, concerts, vandalising art, buildings etc. is peaceful in any way, shape or form.
Well, the 5 yrs is an entirely misleading figure. In addition , it’s meaningless as it’s all sold on international markets.
The bottom line is we (or anyone else) cannot afford new oil and gas, and there is enough for a transition ….as that transition can take longer than the 5 yrs you imply …
If you don’t agree, let me know what global temperature increase you are happy with, and the costs of mitigation, if indeed that is possible ?
What's misleading about it? That's our proven reserves.
And if its already sold on the international markets then how do we have enough for a transition?
I'd be more than happy with higher temperatures if this summer is anything to go by
Well, it’s clear you don’t have the vaguest idea of the consequences of climate change by that vacuous comment…. "You asked what temperature I'd be happy with, you obviously don't understand a little banter. What is clear is you have plenty of words like 'misleading' 'meaningless' 'vague' but not once have you tried to educate. You're making the exact same mistakes as JSO. Lose the emotion and you may be able to have grown up conversations | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The government will issue at least 100 new oil and gas licences for the North Sea. There will be millions of pounds available for a new carbon capture scheme in north-east Scotland. Sunak said, even when the UK reaches net zero in 2050, it will still need oil and gas. it looks like the government have made decisions based on the fact we need fossil fuels for sometime to come. I'm pleased we are starting to have some considered thinking and honesty in this space, instead of the headline soundbites of JSO that have no substance and no clarity in how we provide consistent reliable energy for the the countries needs. Pretty pointless this announcement, it’s takes 20, yes 20 years before production starts from issuance of the licence. Sunak is really desperate, he’s going for broke as this anti-green warrior. He wants to see some massive shift in public opinion and boost of his/tory party poll ratings. whilst many green policies are not liked, the public realise they are necessary and are mature enough to accept them for what they are, needed. ULEZ is not liked by lots of people, but on the flip side, if it means people buy new vehicles to avoid charges then it’s good for the economy. Plus ULEZ only affects 10% of motorists with 90% unaffected. So all this rhetoric about anti green policies is really talking points in a last ditch attempt to save the tories from electoral defeat come 2024. 13 years of economic malaise, incompetence, sleaze and corruption. Who do they think they are kidding? If we get back to the actual point, which is energy security for the UK, how would you propose we produce and obtain the energy we need to keep the country running over the next 20 years? To second guess you, if you are going to say renewables can you explain what they are, the reliability and how much energy they would provide? Nuclear (mic drop) I agree with nuclear but it will take many years to get to the point nuclear is in place to supply the energy we need, so fossil fuels are still needed. That is the reality and hopefully now that our need is understood it will see an end of JSO and their poorly thought out interventions. What’s so poorly thought out by JSO position. No further oil development….we still have existing reserves to get us through a rapid transition. It’s what the science and evidence tells us….I’d say the extremists are those that *dont* support these aims and objectives !! What rapid expansion? Tell me what will replace fossil fuels and when it will be in place for all our energy needs? You also think an extremist is someone who does not agree with disruption to society from a group who have no idea of the implications of their demands? Interesting place to be It’s a *transition* - using existing reserves, we know what we need to do to reduce ff dependency and where ff will be required longer term. It’s what science, evidence and international commitments demand. Are you upset by peaceful demonstrations, yet happy to see the climate severely disrupted. Think you have the wrong priorities! We have 5 years worth of reserves. Do you honestly think we can become fully reliant on renewables within 5 years if we stopped production on oil today? JSO protests aren't peaceful. We don’t need to, there are decades of North Sea production, albeit it’s a mature and dwindling resource. The 5 yr figure is spurious. ‘JSO not peaceful’ ….lol. They are very restrained when they have been physically attacked !!! You said "using existing reserves"
JSO aren't 'restrained', they're a bunch of fucking wet wipes who wouldn't know how to fight back
Yes, existing reserves will take decades to extract at current rates…do keep up !
Do you understand the science, evidence and commitments made ?
You should then understand that JSO are asking for us to uphold these commitments.
So you agree that JSO are peaceful …whilst being physically assaulted by thugs.
Oh I see... you want to include 'reserves' that are unproven. I'd rather use what we can prove we have. Do keep up.
I do not agree that JSO are peaceful. I don't think disrupting people, sports, concerts, vandalising art, buildings etc. is peaceful in any way, shape or form.
Well, the 5 yrs is an entirely misleading figure. In addition , it’s meaningless as it’s all sold on international markets.
The bottom line is we (or anyone else) cannot afford new oil and gas, and there is enough for a transition ….as that transition can take longer than the 5 yrs you imply …
If you don’t agree, let me know what global temperature increase you are happy with, and the costs of mitigation, if indeed that is possible ?
What's misleading about it? That's our proven reserves.
And if its already sold on the international markets then how do we have enough for a transition?
I'd be more than happy with higher temperatures if this summer is anything to go by
Well, it’s clear you don’t have the vaguest idea of the consequences of climate change by that vacuous comment…. "The irony is strong.... You have soundbites, nothing more and your refusal or inability to answer questions on how the future energy needs would be met is common place. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The government will issue at least 100 new oil and gas licences for the North Sea. There will be millions of pounds available for a new carbon capture scheme in north-east Scotland. Sunak said, even when the UK reaches net zero in 2050, it will still need oil and gas. it looks like the government have made decisions based on the fact we need fossil fuels for sometime to come. I'm pleased we are starting to have some considered thinking and honesty in this space, instead of the headline soundbites of JSO that have no substance and no clarity in how we provide consistent reliable energy for the the countries needs. Pretty pointless this announcement, it’s takes 20, yes 20 years before production starts from issuance of the licence. Sunak is really desperate, he’s going for broke as this anti-green warrior. He wants to see some massive shift in public opinion and boost of his/tory party poll ratings. whilst many green policies are not liked, the public realise they are necessary and are mature enough to accept them for what they are, needed. ULEZ is not liked by lots of people, but on the flip side, if it means people buy new vehicles to avoid charges then it’s good for the economy. Plus ULEZ only affects 10% of motorists with 90% unaffected. So all this rhetoric about anti green policies is really talking points in a last ditch attempt to save the tories from electoral defeat come 2024. 13 years of economic malaise, incompetence, sleaze and corruption. Who do they think they are kidding? If we get back to the actual point, which is energy security for the UK, how would you propose we produce and obtain the energy we need to keep the country running over the next 20 years? To second guess you, if you are going to say renewables can you explain what they are, the reliability and how much energy they would provide? Nuclear (mic drop) I agree with nuclear but it will take many years to get to the point nuclear is in place to supply the energy we need, so fossil fuels are still needed. That is the reality and hopefully now that our need is understood it will see an end of JSO and their poorly thought out interventions. What’s so poorly thought out by JSO position. No further oil development….we still have existing reserves to get us through a rapid transition. It’s what the science and evidence tells us….I’d say the extremists are those that *dont* support these aims and objectives !! What rapid expansion? Tell me what will replace fossil fuels and when it will be in place for all our energy needs? You also think an extremist is someone who does not agree with disruption to society from a group who have no idea of the implications of their demands? Interesting place to be It’s a *transition* - using existing reserves, we know what we need to do to reduce ff dependency and where ff will be required longer term. It’s what science, evidence and international commitments demand. Are you upset by peaceful demonstrations, yet happy to see the climate severely disrupted. Think you have the wrong priorities! We have 5 years worth of reserves. Do you honestly think we can become fully reliant on renewables within 5 years if we stopped production on oil today? JSO protests aren't peaceful. We don’t need to, there are decades of North Sea production, albeit it’s a mature and dwindling resource. The 5 yr figure is spurious. ‘JSO not peaceful’ ….lol. They are very restrained when they have been physically attacked !!! You said "using existing reserves"
JSO aren't 'restrained', they're a bunch of fucking wet wipes who wouldn't know how to fight back
Yes, existing reserves will take decades to extract at current rates…do keep up !
Do you understand the science, evidence and commitments made ?
You should then understand that JSO are asking for us to uphold these commitments.
So you agree that JSO are peaceful …whilst being physically assaulted by thugs.
Oh I see... you want to include 'reserves' that are unproven. I'd rather use what we can prove we have. Do keep up.
I do not agree that JSO are peaceful. I don't think disrupting people, sports, concerts, vandalising art, buildings etc. is peaceful in any way, shape or form.
Well, the 5 yrs is an entirely misleading figure. In addition , it’s meaningless as it’s all sold on international markets.
The bottom line is we (or anyone else) cannot afford new oil and gas, and there is enough for a transition ….as that transition can take longer than the 5 yrs you imply …
If you don’t agree, let me know what global temperature increase you are happy with, and the costs of mitigation, if indeed that is possible ?
What's misleading about it? That's our proven reserves.
And if its already sold on the international markets then how do we have enough for a transition?
I'd be more than happy with higher temperatures if this summer is anything to go by
Well, it’s clear you don’t have the vaguest idea of the consequences of climate change by that vacuous comment….
The irony is strong.... You have soundbites, nothing more and your refusal or inability to answer questions on how the future energy needs would be met is common place.
"So because a randomer on a swinging site didn't answer some of your questions, we should all cheer on the government prioritising oil company profits over tackling climate change? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The government will issue at least 100 new oil and gas licences for the North Sea. There will be millions of pounds available for a new carbon capture scheme in north-east Scotland. Sunak said, even when the UK reaches net zero in 2050, it will still need oil and gas. it looks like the government have made decisions based on the fact we need fossil fuels for sometime to come. I'm pleased we are starting to have some considered thinking and honesty in this space, instead of the headline soundbites of JSO that have no substance and no clarity in how we provide consistent reliable energy for the the countries needs. Pretty pointless this announcement, it’s takes 20, yes 20 years before production starts from issuance of the licence. Sunak is really desperate, he’s going for broke as this anti-green warrior. He wants to see some massive shift in public opinion and boost of his/tory party poll ratings. whilst many green policies are not liked, the public realise they are necessary and are mature enough to accept them for what they are, needed. ULEZ is not liked by lots of people, but on the flip side, if it means people buy new vehicles to avoid charges then it’s good for the economy. Plus ULEZ only affects 10% of motorists with 90% unaffected. So all this rhetoric about anti green policies is really talking points in a last ditch attempt to save the tories from electoral defeat come 2024. 13 years of economic malaise, incompetence, sleaze and corruption. Who do they think they are kidding? If we get back to the actual point, which is energy security for the UK, how would you propose we produce and obtain the energy we need to keep the country running over the next 20 years? To second guess you, if you are going to say renewables can you explain what they are, the reliability and how much energy they would provide? Nuclear (mic drop) I agree with nuclear but it will take many years to get to the point nuclear is in place to supply the energy we need, so fossil fuels are still needed. That is the reality and hopefully now that our need is understood it will see an end of JSO and their poorly thought out interventions. What’s so poorly thought out by JSO position. No further oil development….we still have existing reserves to get us through a rapid transition. It’s what the science and evidence tells us….I’d say the extremists are those that *dont* support these aims and objectives !! What rapid expansion? Tell me what will replace fossil fuels and when it will be in place for all our energy needs? You also think an extremist is someone who does not agree with disruption to society from a group who have no idea of the implications of their demands? Interesting place to be It’s a *transition* - using existing reserves, we know what we need to do to reduce ff dependency and where ff will be required longer term. It’s what science, evidence and international commitments demand. Are you upset by peaceful demonstrations, yet happy to see the climate severely disrupted. Think you have the wrong priorities! We have 5 years worth of reserves. Do you honestly think we can become fully reliant on renewables within 5 years if we stopped production on oil today? JSO protests aren't peaceful. We don’t need to, there are decades of North Sea production, albeit it’s a mature and dwindling resource. The 5 yr figure is spurious. ‘JSO not peaceful’ ….lol. They are very restrained when they have been physically attacked !!! You said "using existing reserves"
JSO aren't 'restrained', they're a bunch of fucking wet wipes who wouldn't know how to fight back
Yes, existing reserves will take decades to extract at current rates…do keep up !
Do you understand the science, evidence and commitments made ?
You should then understand that JSO are asking for us to uphold these commitments.
So you agree that JSO are peaceful …whilst being physically assaulted by thugs.
Oh I see... you want to include 'reserves' that are unproven. I'd rather use what we can prove we have. Do keep up.
I do not agree that JSO are peaceful. I don't think disrupting people, sports, concerts, vandalising art, buildings etc. is peaceful in any way, shape or form.
Well, the 5 yrs is an entirely misleading figure. In addition , it’s meaningless as it’s all sold on international markets.
The bottom line is we (or anyone else) cannot afford new oil and gas, and there is enough for a transition ….as that transition can take longer than the 5 yrs you imply …
If you don’t agree, let me know what global temperature increase you are happy with, and the costs of mitigation, if indeed that is possible ?
What's misleading about it? That's our proven reserves.
And if its already sold on the international markets then how do we have enough for a transition?
I'd be more than happy with higher temperatures if this summer is anything to go by
Well, it’s clear you don’t have the vaguest idea of the consequences of climate change by that vacuous comment….
The irony is strong.... You have soundbites, nothing more and your refusal or inability to answer questions on how the future energy needs would be met is common place.
So because a randomer on a swinging site didn't answer some of your questions, we should all cheer on the government prioritising oil company profits over tackling climate change? "How about you have a go at answering the questions since you have raised your hand? One other thing out of interest... I see this phrase a lot, "some randomer on a swinging site", is this meant to dilute any significance? It does make me laugh, so what is the most biting part in this from your opinion, the fact a person is random or it is a swinging site? Get your thinking cap on, I look forward to all of your answers. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The government will issue at least 100 new oil and gas licences for the North Sea. There will be millions of pounds available for a new carbon capture scheme in north-east Scotland. Sunak said, even when the UK reaches net zero in 2050, it will still need oil and gas. it looks like the government have made decisions based on the fact we need fossil fuels for sometime to come. I'm pleased we are starting to have some considered thinking and honesty in this space, instead of the headline soundbites of JSO that have no substance and no clarity in how we provide consistent reliable energy for the the countries needs. Pretty pointless this announcement, it’s takes 20, yes 20 years before production starts from issuance of the licence. Sunak is really desperate, he’s going for broke as this anti-green warrior. He wants to see some massive shift in public opinion and boost of his/tory party poll ratings. whilst many green policies are not liked, the public realise they are necessary and are mature enough to accept them for what they are, needed. ULEZ is not liked by lots of people, but on the flip side, if it means people buy new vehicles to avoid charges then it’s good for the economy. Plus ULEZ only affects 10% of motorists with 90% unaffected. So all this rhetoric about anti green policies is really talking points in a last ditch attempt to save the tories from electoral defeat come 2024. 13 years of economic malaise, incompetence, sleaze and corruption. Who do they think they are kidding? If we get back to the actual point, which is energy security for the UK, how would you propose we produce and obtain the energy we need to keep the country running over the next 20 years? To second guess you, if you are going to say renewables can you explain what they are, the reliability and how much energy they would provide? Nuclear (mic drop) I agree with nuclear but it will take many years to get to the point nuclear is in place to supply the energy we need, so fossil fuels are still needed. That is the reality and hopefully now that our need is understood it will see an end of JSO and their poorly thought out interventions. What’s so poorly thought out by JSO position. No further oil development….we still have existing reserves to get us through a rapid transition. It’s what the science and evidence tells us….I’d say the extremists are those that *dont* support these aims and objectives !! What rapid expansion? Tell me what will replace fossil fuels and when it will be in place for all our energy needs? You also think an extremist is someone who does not agree with disruption to society from a group who have no idea of the implications of their demands? Interesting place to be It’s a *transition* - using existing reserves, we know what we need to do to reduce ff dependency and where ff will be required longer term. It’s what science, evidence and international commitments demand. Are you upset by peaceful demonstrations, yet happy to see the climate severely disrupted. Think you have the wrong priorities! We have 5 years worth of reserves. Do you honestly think we can become fully reliant on renewables within 5 years if we stopped production on oil today? JSO protests aren't peaceful. We don’t need to, there are decades of North Sea production, albeit it’s a mature and dwindling resource. The 5 yr figure is spurious. ‘JSO not peaceful’ ….lol. They are very restrained when they have been physically attacked !!! You said "using existing reserves"
JSO aren't 'restrained', they're a bunch of fucking wet wipes who wouldn't know how to fight back
Yes, existing reserves will take decades to extract at current rates…do keep up !
Do you understand the science, evidence and commitments made ?
You should then understand that JSO are asking for us to uphold these commitments.
So you agree that JSO are peaceful …whilst being physically assaulted by thugs.
Oh I see... you want to include 'reserves' that are unproven. I'd rather use what we can prove we have. Do keep up.
I do not agree that JSO are peaceful. I don't think disrupting people, sports, concerts, vandalising art, buildings etc. is peaceful in any way, shape or form.
Well, the 5 yrs is an entirely misleading figure. In addition , it’s meaningless as it’s all sold on international markets.
The bottom line is we (or anyone else) cannot afford new oil and gas, and there is enough for a transition ….as that transition can take longer than the 5 yrs you imply …
If you don’t agree, let me know what global temperature increase you are happy with, and the costs of mitigation, if indeed that is possible ?
What's misleading about it? That's our proven reserves.
And if its already sold on the international markets then how do we have enough for a transition?
I'd be more than happy with higher temperatures if this summer is anything to go by
Well, it’s clear you don’t have the vaguest idea of the consequences of climate change by that vacuous comment….
The irony is strong.... You have soundbites, nothing more and your refusal or inability to answer questions on how the future energy needs would be met is common place.
So because a randomer on a swinging site didn't answer some of your questions, we should all cheer on the government prioritising oil company profits over tackling climate change?
How about you have a go at answering the questions since you have raised your hand?
One other thing out of interest...
I see this phrase a lot, "some randomer on a swinging site", is this meant to dilute any significance? It does make me laugh, so what is the most biting part in this from your opinion, the fact a person is random or it is a swinging site?
Get your thinking cap on, I look forward to all of your answers."Which questions would you like answers to that will change your stance and support tackling climate change over propping up oil company profits? My comments about "randomers" is a comment on how much stock you seem to put in the opinions of these people. You imply your views hinge on the way one of us randomers will answer your questions. Rather than say, looking into it for yourself. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Bickering aside, who actually benefits from these new licences and why?" Oil companies. Because they will drill and sell lots of oil and gas. The Tories who will continue to receive donations from the same companies. The end. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The government will issue at least 100 new oil and gas licences for the North Sea. There will be millions of pounds available for a new carbon capture scheme in north-east Scotland. Sunak said, even when the UK reaches net zero in 2050, it will still need oil and gas. it looks like the government have made decisions based on the fact we need fossil fuels for sometime to come. I'm pleased we are starting to have some considered thinking and honesty in this space, instead of the headline soundbites of JSO that have no substance and no clarity in how we provide consistent reliable energy for the the countries needs. Pretty pointless this announcement, it’s takes 20, yes 20 years before production starts from issuance of the licence. Sunak is really desperate, he’s going for broke as this anti-green warrior. He wants to see some massive shift in public opinion and boost of his/tory party poll ratings. whilst many green policies are not liked, the public realise they are necessary and are mature enough to accept them for what they are, needed. ULEZ is not liked by lots of people, but on the flip side, if it means people buy new vehicles to avoid charges then it’s good for the economy. Plus ULEZ only affects 10% of motorists with 90% unaffected. So all this rhetoric about anti green policies is really talking points in a last ditch attempt to save the tories from electoral defeat come 2024. 13 years of economic malaise, incompetence, sleaze and corruption. Who do they think they are kidding? If we get back to the actual point, which is energy security for the UK, how would you propose we produce and obtain the energy we need to keep the country running over the next 20 years? To second guess you, if you are going to say renewables can you explain what they are, the reliability and how much energy they would provide? Nuclear (mic drop) I agree with nuclear but it will take many years to get to the point nuclear is in place to supply the energy we need, so fossil fuels are still needed. That is the reality and hopefully now that our need is understood it will see an end of JSO and their poorly thought out interventions. What’s so poorly thought out by JSO position. No further oil development….we still have existing reserves to get us through a rapid transition. It’s what the science and evidence tells us….I’d say the extremists are those that *dont* support these aims and objectives !! What rapid expansion? Tell me what will replace fossil fuels and when it will be in place for all our energy needs? You also think an extremist is someone who does not agree with disruption to society from a group who have no idea of the implications of their demands? Interesting place to be It’s a *transition* - using existing reserves, we know what we need to do to reduce ff dependency and where ff will be required longer term. It’s what science, evidence and international commitments demand. Are you upset by peaceful demonstrations, yet happy to see the climate severely disrupted. Think you have the wrong priorities! We have 5 years worth of reserves. Do you honestly think we can become fully reliant on renewables within 5 years if we stopped production on oil today? JSO protests aren't peaceful. We don’t need to, there are decades of North Sea production, albeit it’s a mature and dwindling resource. The 5 yr figure is spurious. ‘JSO not peaceful’ ….lol. They are very restrained when they have been physically attacked !!! You said "using existing reserves"
JSO aren't 'restrained', they're a bunch of fucking wet wipes who wouldn't know how to fight back
Yes, existing reserves will take decades to extract at current rates…do keep up !
Do you understand the science, evidence and commitments made ?
You should then understand that JSO are asking for us to uphold these commitments.
So you agree that JSO are peaceful …whilst being physically assaulted by thugs.
Oh I see... you want to include 'reserves' that are unproven. I'd rather use what we can prove we have. Do keep up.
I do not agree that JSO are peaceful. I don't think disrupting people, sports, concerts, vandalising art, buildings etc. is peaceful in any way, shape or form.
Well, the 5 yrs is an entirely misleading figure. In addition , it’s meaningless as it’s all sold on international markets.
The bottom line is we (or anyone else) cannot afford new oil and gas, and there is enough for a transition ….as that transition can take longer than the 5 yrs you imply …
If you don’t agree, let me know what global temperature increase you are happy with, and the costs of mitigation, if indeed that is possible ?
What's misleading about it? That's our proven reserves.
And if its already sold on the international markets then how do we have enough for a transition?
I'd be more than happy with higher temperatures if this summer is anything to go by
Well, it’s clear you don’t have the vaguest idea of the consequences of climate change by that vacuous comment….
You asked what temperature I'd be happy with, you obviously don't understand a little banter.
What is clear is you have plenty of words like 'misleading' 'meaningless' 'vague' but not once have you tried to educate.
You're making the exact same mistakes as JSO. Lose the emotion and you may be able to have grown up conversations "I think you need to calm down mate ! The transition will be longer for some things than others, oil will be required for some things for longer, no one’s debating that, but there are sufficient resources for that. But we have to be net zero for a habitable planet. Most of the technology / policy is available to achieve that. Your comment was vacuous as it shows both a lack of understanding or seriousness of the situation. If you disagree, tell me what global temperatures you’d be happy with ….have you seen what already going on globally with 1.2C increase in temperatures? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Bickering aside, who actually benefits from these new licences and why? Oil companies. Because they will drill and sell lots of oil and gas. The Tories who will continue to receive donations from the same companies. The end." Grant Shapps was interviewed on Sky. Takeaways: - UK Govt doesn't control oil and gas supply - Extraction is by foreign firms - They sell on world markets at world prices - No impact on UK energy security | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The government will issue at least 100 new oil and gas licences for the North Sea. There will be millions of pounds available for a new carbon capture scheme in north-east Scotland. Sunak said, even when the UK reaches net zero in 2050, it will still need oil and gas. it looks like the government have made decisions based on the fact we need fossil fuels for sometime to come. I'm pleased we are starting to have some considered thinking and honesty in this space, instead of the headline soundbites of JSO that have no substance and no clarity in how we provide consistent reliable energy for the the countries needs. Pretty pointless this announcement, it’s takes 20, yes 20 years before production starts from issuance of the licence. Sunak is really desperate, he’s going for broke as this anti-green warrior. He wants to see some massive shift in public opinion and boost of his/tory party poll ratings. whilst many green policies are not liked, the public realise they are necessary and are mature enough to accept them for what they are, needed. ULEZ is not liked by lots of people, but on the flip side, if it means people buy new vehicles to avoid charges then it’s good for the economy. Plus ULEZ only affects 10% of motorists with 90% unaffected. So all this rhetoric about anti green policies is really talking points in a last ditch attempt to save the tories from electoral defeat come 2024. 13 years of economic malaise, incompetence, sleaze and corruption. Who do they think they are kidding? If we get back to the actual point, which is energy security for the UK, how would you propose we produce and obtain the energy we need to keep the country running over the next 20 years? To second guess you, if you are going to say renewables can you explain what they are, the reliability and how much energy they would provide? Nuclear (mic drop) I agree with nuclear but it will take many years to get to the point nuclear is in place to supply the energy we need, so fossil fuels are still needed. That is the reality and hopefully now that our need is understood it will see an end of JSO and their poorly thought out interventions. What’s so poorly thought out by JSO position. No further oil development….we still have existing reserves to get us through a rapid transition. It’s what the science and evidence tells us….I’d say the extremists are those that *dont* support these aims and objectives !! What rapid expansion? Tell me what will replace fossil fuels and when it will be in place for all our energy needs? You also think an extremist is someone who does not agree with disruption to society from a group who have no idea of the implications of their demands? Interesting place to be It’s a *transition* - using existing reserves, we know what we need to do to reduce ff dependency and where ff will be required longer term. It’s what science, evidence and international commitments demand. Are you upset by peaceful demonstrations, yet happy to see the climate severely disrupted. Think you have the wrong priorities! We have 5 years worth of reserves. Do you honestly think we can become fully reliant on renewables within 5 years if we stopped production on oil today? JSO protests aren't peaceful. We don’t need to, there are decades of North Sea production, albeit it’s a mature and dwindling resource. The 5 yr figure is spurious. ‘JSO not peaceful’ ….lol. They are very restrained when they have been physically attacked !!! You said "using existing reserves"
JSO aren't 'restrained', they're a bunch of fucking wet wipes who wouldn't know how to fight back
Yes, existing reserves will take decades to extract at current rates…do keep up !
Do you understand the science, evidence and commitments made ?
You should then understand that JSO are asking for us to uphold these commitments.
So you agree that JSO are peaceful …whilst being physically assaulted by thugs.
Oh I see... you want to include 'reserves' that are unproven. I'd rather use what we can prove we have. Do keep up.
I do not agree that JSO are peaceful. I don't think disrupting people, sports, concerts, vandalising art, buildings etc. is peaceful in any way, shape or form.
Well, the 5 yrs is an entirely misleading figure. In addition , it’s meaningless as it’s all sold on international markets.
The bottom line is we (or anyone else) cannot afford new oil and gas, and there is enough for a transition ….as that transition can take longer than the 5 yrs you imply …
If you don’t agree, let me know what global temperature increase you are happy with, and the costs of mitigation, if indeed that is possible ?
What's misleading about it? That's our proven reserves.
And if its already sold on the international markets then how do we have enough for a transition?
I'd be more than happy with higher temperatures if this summer is anything to go by
Well, it’s clear you don’t have the vaguest idea of the consequences of climate change by that vacuous comment….
The irony is strong.... You have soundbites, nothing more and your refusal or inability to answer questions on how the future energy needs would be met is common place.
So because a randomer on a swinging site didn't answer some of your questions, we should all cheer on the government prioritising oil company profits over tackling climate change?
How about you have a go at answering the questions since you have raised your hand?
One other thing out of interest...
I see this phrase a lot, "some randomer on a swinging site", is this meant to dilute any significance? It does make me laugh, so what is the most biting part in this from your opinion, the fact a person is random or it is a swinging site?
Get your thinking cap on, I look forward to all of your answers.
Which questions would you like answers to that will change your stance and support tackling climate change over propping up oil company profits?
My comments about "randomers" is a comment on how much stock you seem to put in the opinions of these people. You imply your views hinge on the way one of us randomers will answer your questions. Rather than say, looking into it for yourself."Doesn't 'looking into it for yourself' include asking questions of those who appear to have more knowledge on the subject? I've asked a few questions and got no answers, just berated for 'not having the vaguest idea on the consequences of climate change'. It's the same old mistake, if you want people to listen and possibly look at things from your POV, then educate if you're in a position to do so. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The government will issue at least 100 new oil and gas licences for the North Sea. There will be millions of pounds available for a new carbon capture scheme in north-east Scotland. Sunak said, even when the UK reaches net zero in 2050, it will still need oil and gas. it looks like the government have made decisions based on the fact we need fossil fuels for sometime to come. I'm pleased we are starting to have some considered thinking and honesty in this space, instead of the headline soundbites of JSO that have no substance and no clarity in how we provide consistent reliable energy for the the countries needs. Pretty pointless this announcement, it’s takes 20, yes 20 years before production starts from issuance of the licence. Sunak is really desperate, he’s going for broke as this anti-green warrior. He wants to see some massive shift in public opinion and boost of his/tory party poll ratings. whilst many green policies are not liked, the public realise they are necessary and are mature enough to accept them for what they are, needed. ULEZ is not liked by lots of people, but on the flip side, if it means people buy new vehicles to avoid charges then it’s good for the economy. Plus ULEZ only affects 10% of motorists with 90% unaffected. So all this rhetoric about anti green policies is really talking points in a last ditch attempt to save the tories from electoral defeat come 2024. 13 years of economic malaise, incompetence, sleaze and corruption. Who do they think they are kidding? If we get back to the actual point, which is energy security for the UK, how would you propose we produce and obtain the energy we need to keep the country running over the next 20 years? To second guess you, if you are going to say renewables can you explain what they are, the reliability and how much energy they would provide? Nuclear (mic drop) I agree with nuclear but it will take many years to get to the point nuclear is in place to supply the energy we need, so fossil fuels are still needed. That is the reality and hopefully now that our need is understood it will see an end of JSO and their poorly thought out interventions. What’s so poorly thought out by JSO position. No further oil development….we still have existing reserves to get us through a rapid transition. It’s what the science and evidence tells us….I’d say the extremists are those that *dont* support these aims and objectives !! What rapid expansion? Tell me what will replace fossil fuels and when it will be in place for all our energy needs? You also think an extremist is someone who does not agree with disruption to society from a group who have no idea of the implications of their demands? Interesting place to be It’s a *transition* - using existing reserves, we know what we need to do to reduce ff dependency and where ff will be required longer term. It’s what science, evidence and international commitments demand. Are you upset by peaceful demonstrations, yet happy to see the climate severely disrupted. Think you have the wrong priorities! We have 5 years worth of reserves. Do you honestly think we can become fully reliant on renewables within 5 years if we stopped production on oil today? JSO protests aren't peaceful. We don’t need to, there are decades of North Sea production, albeit it’s a mature and dwindling resource. The 5 yr figure is spurious. ‘JSO not peaceful’ ….lol. They are very restrained when they have been physically attacked !!! You said "using existing reserves"
JSO aren't 'restrained', they're a bunch of fucking wet wipes who wouldn't know how to fight back
Yes, existing reserves will take decades to extract at current rates…do keep up !
Do you understand the science, evidence and commitments made ?
You should then understand that JSO are asking for us to uphold these commitments.
So you agree that JSO are peaceful …whilst being physically assaulted by thugs.
Oh I see... you want to include 'reserves' that are unproven. I'd rather use what we can prove we have. Do keep up.
I do not agree that JSO are peaceful. I don't think disrupting people, sports, concerts, vandalising art, buildings etc. is peaceful in any way, shape or form.
Well, the 5 yrs is an entirely misleading figure. In addition , it’s meaningless as it’s all sold on international markets.
The bottom line is we (or anyone else) cannot afford new oil and gas, and there is enough for a transition ….as that transition can take longer than the 5 yrs you imply …
If you don’t agree, let me know what global temperature increase you are happy with, and the costs of mitigation, if indeed that is possible ?
What's misleading about it? That's our proven reserves.
And if its already sold on the international markets then how do we have enough for a transition?
I'd be more than happy with higher temperatures if this summer is anything to go by
Well, it’s clear you don’t have the vaguest idea of the consequences of climate change by that vacuous comment….
You asked what temperature I'd be happy with, you obviously don't understand a little banter.
What is clear is you have plenty of words like 'misleading' 'meaningless' 'vague' but not once have you tried to educate.
You're making the exact same mistakes as JSO. Lose the emotion and you may be able to have grown up conversations
I think you need to calm down mate !
The transition will be longer for some things than others, oil will be required for some things for longer, no one’s debating that, but there are sufficient resources for that. But we have to be net zero for a habitable planet.
Most of the technology / policy is available to achieve that.
Your comment was vacuous as it shows both a lack of understanding or seriousness of the situation.
If you disagree, tell me what global temperatures you’d be happy with ….have you seen what already going on globally with 1.2C increase in temperatures?
"I'm perfectly calm, mate. I've asked questions which you either refuse to, or can't answer. You're just spouting the same old nonsense as others. You're not teaching me anything | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The government will issue at least 100 new oil and gas licences for the North Sea. There will be millions of pounds available for a new carbon capture scheme in north-east Scotland. Sunak said, even when the UK reaches net zero in 2050, it will still need oil and gas. it looks like the government have made decisions based on the fact we need fossil fuels for sometime to come. I'm pleased we are starting to have some considered thinking and honesty in this space, instead of the headline soundbites of JSO that have no substance and no clarity in how we provide consistent reliable energy for the the countries needs. Pretty pointless this announcement, it’s takes 20, yes 20 years before production starts from issuance of the licence. Sunak is really desperate, he’s going for broke as this anti-green warrior. He wants to see some massive shift in public opinion and boost of his/tory party poll ratings. whilst many green policies are not liked, the public realise they are necessary and are mature enough to accept them for what they are, needed. ULEZ is not liked by lots of people, but on the flip side, if it means people buy new vehicles to avoid charges then it’s good for the economy. Plus ULEZ only affects 10% of motorists with 90% unaffected. So all this rhetoric about anti green policies is really talking points in a last ditch attempt to save the tories from electoral defeat come 2024. 13 years of economic malaise, incompetence, sleaze and corruption. Who do they think they are kidding? If we get back to the actual point, which is energy security for the UK, how would you propose we produce and obtain the energy we need to keep the country running over the next 20 years? To second guess you, if you are going to say renewables can you explain what they are, the reliability and how much energy they would provide? Nuclear (mic drop) I agree with nuclear but it will take many years to get to the point nuclear is in place to supply the energy we need, so fossil fuels are still needed. That is the reality and hopefully now that our need is understood it will see an end of JSO and their poorly thought out interventions. What’s so poorly thought out by JSO position. No further oil development….we still have existing reserves to get us through a rapid transition. It’s what the science and evidence tells us….I’d say the extremists are those that *dont* support these aims and objectives !! What rapid expansion? Tell me what will replace fossil fuels and when it will be in place for all our energy needs? You also think an extremist is someone who does not agree with disruption to society from a group who have no idea of the implications of their demands? Interesting place to be It’s a *transition* - using existing reserves, we know what we need to do to reduce ff dependency and where ff will be required longer term. It’s what science, evidence and international commitments demand. Are you upset by peaceful demonstrations, yet happy to see the climate severely disrupted. Think you have the wrong priorities! We have 5 years worth of reserves. Do you honestly think we can become fully reliant on renewables within 5 years if we stopped production on oil today? JSO protests aren't peaceful. We don’t need to, there are decades of North Sea production, albeit it’s a mature and dwindling resource. The 5 yr figure is spurious. ‘JSO not peaceful’ ….lol. They are very restrained when they have been physically attacked !!! You said "using existing reserves"
JSO aren't 'restrained', they're a bunch of fucking wet wipes who wouldn't know how to fight back
Yes, existing reserves will take decades to extract at current rates…do keep up !
Do you understand the science, evidence and commitments made ?
You should then understand that JSO are asking for us to uphold these commitments.
So you agree that JSO are peaceful …whilst being physically assaulted by thugs.
Oh I see... you want to include 'reserves' that are unproven. I'd rather use what we can prove we have. Do keep up.
I do not agree that JSO are peaceful. I don't think disrupting people, sports, concerts, vandalising art, buildings etc. is peaceful in any way, shape or form.
Well, the 5 yrs is an entirely misleading figure. In addition , it’s meaningless as it’s all sold on international markets.
The bottom line is we (or anyone else) cannot afford new oil and gas, and there is enough for a transition ….as that transition can take longer than the 5 yrs you imply …
If you don’t agree, let me know what global temperature increase you are happy with, and the costs of mitigation, if indeed that is possible ?
What's misleading about it? That's our proven reserves.
And if its already sold on the international markets then how do we have enough for a transition?
I'd be more than happy with higher temperatures if this summer is anything to go by
Well, it’s clear you don’t have the vaguest idea of the consequences of climate change by that vacuous comment….
You asked what temperature I'd be happy with, you obviously don't understand a little banter.
What is clear is you have plenty of words like 'misleading' 'meaningless' 'vague' but not once have you tried to educate.
You're making the exact same mistakes as JSO. Lose the emotion and you may be able to have grown up conversations
I think you need to calm down mate !
The transition will be longer for some things than others, oil will be required for some things for longer, no one’s debating that, but there are sufficient resources for that. But we have to be net zero for a habitable planet.
Most of the technology / policy is available to achieve that.
Your comment was vacuous as it shows both a lack of understanding or seriousness of the situation.
If you disagree, tell me what global temperatures you’d be happy with ….have you seen what already going on globally with 1.2C increase in temperatures?
I'm perfectly calm, mate.
I've asked questions which you either refuse to, or can't answer. You're just spouting the same old nonsense as others. You're not teaching me anything "You didn’t sound it ! I’ve answered all your questions. I’m still waiting to hear about how much warming is acceptable to you as you cheer on the rush to exploit more oil reserves ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"(Sing to the old Batman TV series theme tune) Bicker bicker bicker bicker, Bicker bicker bicker bicker, BICKER " Lol …nothing better than a bicker !!! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The government will issue at least 100 new oil and gas licences for the North Sea. There will be millions of pounds available for a new carbon capture scheme in north-east Scotland. Sunak said, even when the UK reaches net zero in 2050, it will still need oil and gas. it looks like the government have made decisions based on the fact we need fossil fuels for sometime to come. I'm pleased we are starting to have some considered thinking and honesty in this space, instead of the headline soundbites of JSO that have no substance and no clarity in how we provide consistent reliable energy for the the countries needs. Pretty pointless this announcement, it’s takes 20, yes 20 years before production starts from issuance of the licence. Sunak is really desperate, he’s going for broke as this anti-green warrior. He wants to see some massive shift in public opinion and boost of his/tory party poll ratings. whilst many green policies are not liked, the public realise they are necessary and are mature enough to accept them for what they are, needed. ULEZ is not liked by lots of people, but on the flip side, if it means people buy new vehicles to avoid charges then it’s good for the economy. Plus ULEZ only affects 10% of motorists with 90% unaffected. So all this rhetoric about anti green policies is really talking points in a last ditch attempt to save the tories from electoral defeat come 2024. 13 years of economic malaise, incompetence, sleaze and corruption. Who do they think they are kidding? If we get back to the actual point, which is energy security for the UK, how would you propose we produce and obtain the energy we need to keep the country running over the next 20 years? To second guess you, if you are going to say renewables can you explain what they are, the reliability and how much energy they would provide? Nuclear (mic drop) I agree with nuclear but it will take many years to get to the point nuclear is in place to supply the energy we need, so fossil fuels are still needed. That is the reality and hopefully now that our need is understood it will see an end of JSO and their poorly thought out interventions. What’s so poorly thought out by JSO position. No further oil development….we still have existing reserves to get us through a rapid transition. It’s what the science and evidence tells us….I’d say the extremists are those that *dont* support these aims and objectives !! What rapid expansion? Tell me what will replace fossil fuels and when it will be in place for all our energy needs? You also think an extremist is someone who does not agree with disruption to society from a group who have no idea of the implications of their demands? Interesting place to be It’s a *transition* - using existing reserves, we know what we need to do to reduce ff dependency and where ff will be required longer term. It’s what science, evidence and international commitments demand. Are you upset by peaceful demonstrations, yet happy to see the climate severely disrupted. Think you have the wrong priorities! We have 5 years worth of reserves. Do you honestly think we can become fully reliant on renewables within 5 years if we stopped production on oil today? JSO protests aren't peaceful. We don’t need to, there are decades of North Sea production, albeit it’s a mature and dwindling resource. The 5 yr figure is spurious. ‘JSO not peaceful’ ….lol. They are very restrained when they have been physically attacked !!! You said "using existing reserves"
JSO aren't 'restrained', they're a bunch of fucking wet wipes who wouldn't know how to fight back
Yes, existing reserves will take decades to extract at current rates…do keep up !
Do you understand the science, evidence and commitments made ?
You should then understand that JSO are asking for us to uphold these commitments.
So you agree that JSO are peaceful …whilst being physically assaulted by thugs.
Oh I see... you want to include 'reserves' that are unproven. I'd rather use what we can prove we have. Do keep up.
I do not agree that JSO are peaceful. I don't think disrupting people, sports, concerts, vandalising art, buildings etc. is peaceful in any way, shape or form.
Well, the 5 yrs is an entirely misleading figure. In addition , it’s meaningless as it’s all sold on international markets.
The bottom line is we (or anyone else) cannot afford new oil and gas, and there is enough for a transition ….as that transition can take longer than the 5 yrs you imply …
If you don’t agree, let me know what global temperature increase you are happy with, and the costs of mitigation, if indeed that is possible ?
What's misleading about it? That's our proven reserves.
And if its already sold on the international markets then how do we have enough for a transition?
I'd be more than happy with higher temperatures if this summer is anything to go by
Well, it’s clear you don’t have the vaguest idea of the consequences of climate change by that vacuous comment….
You asked what temperature I'd be happy with, you obviously don't understand a little banter.
What is clear is you have plenty of words like 'misleading' 'meaningless' 'vague' but not once have you tried to educate.
You're making the exact same mistakes as JSO. Lose the emotion and you may be able to have grown up conversations
I think you need to calm down mate !
The transition will be longer for some things than others, oil will be required for some things for longer, no one’s debating that, but there are sufficient resources for that. But we have to be net zero for a habitable planet.
Most of the technology / policy is available to achieve that.
Your comment was vacuous as it shows both a lack of understanding or seriousness of the situation.
If you disagree, tell me what global temperatures you’d be happy with ….have you seen what already going on globally with 1.2C increase in temperatures?
I'm perfectly calm, mate.
I've asked questions which you either refuse to, or can't answer. You're just spouting the same old nonsense as others. You're not teaching me anything
You didn’t sound it ! I’ve answered all your questions. I’m still waiting to hear about how much warming is acceptable to you as you cheer on the rush to exploit more oil reserves ? "I think you need to go back and read the thread, there's plenty of questions to be answered
I have at no point cheered on any rush to exploit more oil reserves.
I'm not sure why you keep asking about what temperature increase is acceptable, isn't it agreed that 1.5°C is?
As I said, we can have an adult discussion, you just need to lose the emotion. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Bickering aside, who actually benefits from these new licences and why?" The fossil fuel companies - they have access to more resources to exploit for profit. All of us in the UK - we get money from the licences, and more money in taxes on the sale of the products, plus we get a local oil source which cuts down on 'fuel miles'. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'd prefer no new oil, but. To use a phrase from the 70s. It's Scotland's Oil. The UK can fuck right off. " I think Scotland could be a place to look at closely when it comes to transition. It was mentioned on the news the other week that the independence side used oil sales as one thing to prove independence was viable. After the referendum the price crashed and now it's to phased out. As it was to form a good amount of income they now need a replacement, equally as profitable. I'm not wanting to talk independence but just saying the government in Scotland could be the leaders in transition for both climate reasons and political reasons (making independence more sell able) | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The government will issue at least 100 new oil and gas licences for the North Sea. There will be millions of pounds available for a new carbon capture scheme in north-east Scotland. Sunak said, even when the UK reaches net zero in 2050, it will still need oil and gas. it looks like the government have made decisions based on the fact we need fossil fuels for sometime to come. I'm pleased we are starting to have some considered thinking and honesty in this space, instead of the headline soundbites of JSO that have no substance and no clarity in how we provide consistent reliable energy for the the countries needs. Pretty pointless this announcement, it’s takes 20, yes 20 years before production starts from issuance of the licence. Sunak is really desperate, he’s going for broke as this anti-green warrior. He wants to see some massive shift in public opinion and boost of his/tory party poll ratings. whilst many green policies are not liked, the public realise they are necessary and are mature enough to accept them for what they are, needed. ULEZ is not liked by lots of people, but on the flip side, if it means people buy new vehicles to avoid charges then it’s good for the economy. Plus ULEZ only affects 10% of motorists with 90% unaffected. So all this rhetoric about anti green policies is really talking points in a last ditch attempt to save the tories from electoral defeat come 2024. 13 years of economic malaise, incompetence, sleaze and corruption. Who do they think they are kidding? If we get back to the actual point, which is energy security for the UK, how would you propose we produce and obtain the energy we need to keep the country running over the next 20 years? To second guess you, if you are going to say renewables can you explain what they are, the reliability and how much energy they would provide? Nuclear (mic drop) I agree with nuclear but it will take many years to get to the point nuclear is in place to supply the energy we need, so fossil fuels are still needed. That is the reality and hopefully now that our need is understood it will see an end of JSO and their poorly thought out interventions. What’s so poorly thought out by JSO position. No further oil development….we still have existing reserves to get us through a rapid transition. It’s what the science and evidence tells us….I’d say the extremists are those that *dont* support these aims and objectives !! What rapid expansion? Tell me what will replace fossil fuels and when it will be in place for all our energy needs? You also think an extremist is someone who does not agree with disruption to society from a group who have no idea of the implications of their demands? Interesting place to be It’s a *transition* - using existing reserves, we know what we need to do to reduce ff dependency and where ff will be required longer term. It’s what science, evidence and international commitments demand. Are you upset by peaceful demonstrations, yet happy to see the climate severely disrupted. Think you have the wrong priorities! We have 5 years worth of reserves. Do you honestly think we can become fully reliant on renewables within 5 years if we stopped production on oil today? JSO protests aren't peaceful. We don’t need to, there are decades of North Sea production, albeit it’s a mature and dwindling resource. The 5 yr figure is spurious. ‘JSO not peaceful’ ….lol. They are very restrained when they have been physically attacked !!! You said "using existing reserves"
JSO aren't 'restrained', they're a bunch of fucking wet wipes who wouldn't know how to fight back
Yes, existing reserves will take decades to extract at current rates…do keep up !
Do you understand the science, evidence and commitments made ?
You should then understand that JSO are asking for us to uphold these commitments.
So you agree that JSO are peaceful …whilst being physically assaulted by thugs.
Oh I see... you want to include 'reserves' that are unproven. I'd rather use what we can prove we have. Do keep up.
I do not agree that JSO are peaceful. I don't think disrupting people, sports, concerts, vandalising art, buildings etc. is peaceful in any way, shape or form.
Well, the 5 yrs is an entirely misleading figure. In addition , it’s meaningless as it’s all sold on international markets.
The bottom line is we (or anyone else) cannot afford new oil and gas, and there is enough for a transition ….as that transition can take longer than the 5 yrs you imply …
If you don’t agree, let me know what global temperature increase you are happy with, and the costs of mitigation, if indeed that is possible ?
What's misleading about it? That's our proven reserves.
And if its already sold on the international markets then how do we have enough for a transition?
I'd be more than happy with higher temperatures if this summer is anything to go by
Well, it’s clear you don’t have the vaguest idea of the consequences of climate change by that vacuous comment….
You asked what temperature I'd be happy with, you obviously don't understand a little banter.
What is clear is you have plenty of words like 'misleading' 'meaningless' 'vague' but not once have you tried to educate.
You're making the exact same mistakes as JSO. Lose the emotion and you may be able to have grown up conversations
I think you need to calm down mate !
The transition will be longer for some things than others, oil will be required for some things for longer, no one’s debating that, but there are sufficient resources for that. But we have to be net zero for a habitable planet.
Most of the technology / policy is available to achieve that.
Your comment was vacuous as it shows both a lack of understanding or seriousness of the situation.
If you disagree, tell me what global temperatures you’d be happy with ….have you seen what already going on globally with 1.2C increase in temperatures?
I'm perfectly calm, mate.
I've asked questions which you either refuse to, or can't answer. You're just spouting the same old nonsense as others. You're not teaching me anything
You didn’t sound it ! I’ve answered all your questions. I’m still waiting to hear about how much warming is acceptable to you as you cheer on the rush to exploit more oil reserves ?
I think you need to go back and read the thread, there's plenty of questions to be answered
I have at no point cheered on any rush to exploit more oil reserves.
I'm not sure why you keep asking about what temperature increase is acceptable, isn't it agreed that 1.5°C is?
As I said, we can have an adult discussion, you just need to lose the emotion."The point being extracting new oil will ensure we go way beyond 1.5 ! That’s why I was asking, no emotion, just evidence. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The government will issue at least 100 new oil and gas licences for the North Sea. There will be millions of pounds available for a new carbon capture scheme in north-east Scotland. Sunak said, even when the UK reaches net zero in 2050, it will still need oil and gas. it looks like the government have made decisions based on the fact we need fossil fuels for sometime to come. I'm pleased we are starting to have some considered thinking and honesty in this space, instead of the headline soundbites of JSO that have no substance and no clarity in how we provide consistent reliable energy for the the countries needs. Pretty pointless this announcement, it’s takes 20, yes 20 years before production starts from issuance of the licence. Sunak is really desperate, he’s going for broke as this anti-green warrior. He wants to see some massive shift in public opinion and boost of his/tory party poll ratings. whilst many green policies are not liked, the public realise they are necessary and are mature enough to accept them for what they are, needed. ULEZ is not liked by lots of people, but on the flip side, if it means people buy new vehicles to avoid charges then it’s good for the economy. Plus ULEZ only affects 10% of motorists with 90% unaffected. So all this rhetoric about anti green policies is really talking points in a last ditch attempt to save the tories from electoral defeat come 2024. 13 years of economic malaise, incompetence, sleaze and corruption. Who do they think they are kidding? If we get back to the actual point, which is energy security for the UK, how would you propose we produce and obtain the energy we need to keep the country running over the next 20 years? To second guess you, if you are going to say renewables can you explain what they are, the reliability and how much energy they would provide? Nuclear (mic drop) I agree with nuclear but it will take many years to get to the point nuclear is in place to supply the energy we need, so fossil fuels are still needed. That is the reality and hopefully now that our need is understood it will see an end of JSO and their poorly thought out interventions. What’s so poorly thought out by JSO position. No further oil development….we still have existing reserves to get us through a rapid transition. It’s what the science and evidence tells us….I’d say the extremists are those that *dont* support these aims and objectives !! What rapid expansion? Tell me what will replace fossil fuels and when it will be in place for all our energy needs? You also think an extremist is someone who does not agree with disruption to society from a group who have no idea of the implications of their demands? Interesting place to be It’s a *transition* - using existing reserves, we know what we need to do to reduce ff dependency and where ff will be required longer term. It’s what science, evidence and international commitments demand. Are you upset by peaceful demonstrations, yet happy to see the climate severely disrupted. Think you have the wrong priorities! We have 5 years worth of reserves. Do you honestly think we can become fully reliant on renewables within 5 years if we stopped production on oil today? JSO protests aren't peaceful. We don’t need to, there are decades of North Sea production, albeit it’s a mature and dwindling resource. The 5 yr figure is spurious. ‘JSO not peaceful’ ….lol. They are very restrained when they have been physically attacked !!! You said "using existing reserves"
JSO aren't 'restrained', they're a bunch of fucking wet wipes who wouldn't know how to fight back
Yes, existing reserves will take decades to extract at current rates…do keep up !
Do you understand the science, evidence and commitments made ?
You should then understand that JSO are asking for us to uphold these commitments.
So you agree that JSO are peaceful …whilst being physically assaulted by thugs.
Oh I see... you want to include 'reserves' that are unproven. I'd rather use what we can prove we have. Do keep up.
I do not agree that JSO are peaceful. I don't think disrupting people, sports, concerts, vandalising art, buildings etc. is peaceful in any way, shape or form.
Well, the 5 yrs is an entirely misleading figure. In addition , it’s meaningless as it’s all sold on international markets.
The bottom line is we (or anyone else) cannot afford new oil and gas, and there is enough for a transition ….as that transition can take longer than the 5 yrs you imply …
If you don’t agree, let me know what global temperature increase you are happy with, and the costs of mitigation, if indeed that is possible ?
What's misleading about it? That's our proven reserves.
And if its already sold on the international markets then how do we have enough for a transition?
I'd be more than happy with higher temperatures if this summer is anything to go by
Well, it’s clear you don’t have the vaguest idea of the consequences of climate change by that vacuous comment….
You asked what temperature I'd be happy with, you obviously don't understand a little banter.
What is clear is you have plenty of words like 'misleading' 'meaningless' 'vague' but not once have you tried to educate.
You're making the exact same mistakes as JSO. Lose the emotion and you may be able to have grown up conversations
I think you need to calm down mate !
The transition will be longer for some things than others, oil will be required for some things for longer, no one’s debating that, but there are sufficient resources for that. But we have to be net zero for a habitable planet.
Most of the technology / policy is available to achieve that.
Your comment was vacuous as it shows both a lack of understanding or seriousness of the situation.
If you disagree, tell me what global temperatures you’d be happy with ….have you seen what already going on globally with 1.2C increase in temperatures?
I'm perfectly calm, mate.
I've asked questions which you either refuse to, or can't answer. You're just spouting the same old nonsense as others. You're not teaching me anything
You didn’t sound it ! I’ve answered all your questions. I’m still waiting to hear about how much warming is acceptable to you as you cheer on the rush to exploit more oil reserves ?
I think you need to go back and read the thread, there's plenty of questions to be answered
I have at no point cheered on any rush to exploit more oil reserves.
I'm not sure why you keep asking about what temperature increase is acceptable, isn't it agreed that 1.5°C is?
As I said, we can have an adult discussion, you just need to lose the emotion.
The point being extracting new oil will ensure we go way beyond 1.5 ! That’s why I was asking, no emotion, just evidence."I'm not sure where you're evidence is.. I've been asking for 'education'. Yet, nothing. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The point being extracting new oil will ensure we go way beyond 1.5 ! That’s why I was asking, no emotion, just evidence." Can you give us a link to your evidence that granting these specific licences will be the extra push that definitely puts global temperature increase over 1.5deg. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The point being extracting new oil will ensure we go way beyond 1.5 ! That’s why I was asking, no emotion, just evidence. Can you give us a link to your evidence that granting these specific licences will be the extra push that definitely puts global temperature increase over 1.5deg." We know the world is on track to break the 1.5C threshold with current policies. How is adding more oil capacity going to help ? Look at what the govts own climate advisors have said on this. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There is a protest being staged at Sunaks North Yorkshire grade 2 listed 1826 property, by Greenpeace against the new licenses. " He doesn't give a fuck about protests. As long as the profits for the oil companies keep rolling in the media will demonise anyone who thinks we shouldn't accelerate the race to warm the planet for oil companies profits. Tories will get voted in again. Job done. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The point being extracting new oil will ensure we go way beyond 1.5 ! That’s why I was asking, no emotion, just evidence. Can you give us a link to your evidence that granting these specific licences will be the extra push that definitely puts global temperature increase over 1.5deg. We know the world is on track to break the 1.5C threshold with current policies. How is adding more oil capacity going to help ? Look at what the govts own climate advisors have said on this. " Have you read anything about the licenses? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The point being extracting new oil will ensure we go way beyond 1.5 ! That’s why I was asking, no emotion, just evidence." "Can you give us a link to your evidence that granting these specific licences will be the extra push that definitely puts global temperature increase over 1.5deg." "We know the world is on track to break the 1.5C threshold with current policies. How is adding more oil capacity going to help ?" Ah, I see you're relying on the famous "stands to reason dunnit" logic. So when you said "extracting new oil will ensure we go way beyond 1.5 !", You actually meant 'extracting new oil might make it more likely that we reach 1.5'. and when you said "no emotion, just evidence", you actually meant 'no evidence, just emotion'. See, this is why someone has been telling you to remove the emotion from your posts. These overblown statements don't make your message more compelling, they just make it less believable to those of us that use logic to analyse situations. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There is a protest being staged at Sunaks North Yorkshire grade 2 listed 1826 property, by Greenpeace against the new licenses. He doesn't give a fuck about protests. As long as the profits for the oil companies keep rolling in the media will demonise anyone who thinks we shouldn't accelerate the race to warm the planet for oil companies profits. Tories will get voted in again. Job done. " You forgot to add “in your opinion” | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There is a protest being staged at Sunaks North Yorkshire grade 2 listed 1826 property, by Greenpeace against the new licenses. " Is it important to the story that Sunak's house is grade 2 listed, or that it was built in 1826? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There is a protest being staged at Sunaks North Yorkshire grade 2 listed 1826 property, by Greenpeace against the new licenses. He doesn't give a fuck about protests. As long as the profits for the oil companies keep rolling in the media will demonise anyone who thinks we shouldn't accelerate the race to warm the planet for oil companies profits. Tories will get voted in again. Job done. You forgot to add “in your opinion”" The only part of this that's "in my opinion" is how easy the Tories will be re-elected. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There is a protest being staged at Sunaks North Yorkshire grade 2 listed 1826 property, by Greenpeace against the new licenses. He doesn't give a fuck about protests. As long as the profits for the oil companies keep rolling in the media will demonise anyone who thinks we shouldn't accelerate the race to warm the planet for oil companies profits. Tories will get voted in again. Job done. You forgot to add “in your opinion” The only part of this that's "in my opinion" is how easy the Tories will be re-elected." Interesting! Can you explain the facts you have in a factual way that we can see? Im eager to see the facts ref Sunak not giving a fuck about protests outside his house? let’s go for the media demonisation of anyone who doesn’t want the planet to be warmer, what media is this? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"re-legalise incandescent light bulbs... but this country is always cold, so the extra heat is a good thing." I assume this is a sick joke? Eco-design on light bulbs is a success. I read just now, that the savings for Europe as a whole is equal to the electricity use of Portugal every year, according to the European Commission. The new type light bulbs weren't very good at first, and now they're much better. It's not just energy use. It's also about making them without poisonous chemicals inside. Was it "always cold" when I measured it at 40C in a garden in Bucks last year? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There is a protest being staged at Sunaks North Yorkshire grade 2 listed 1826 property, by Greenpeace against the new licenses. He doesn't give a fuck about protests. As long as the profits for the oil companies keep rolling in the media will demonise anyone who thinks we shouldn't accelerate the race to warm the planet for oil companies profits. Tories will get voted in again. Job done. You forgot to add “in your opinion” The only part of this that's "in my opinion" is how easy the Tories will be re-elected. Interesting! Can you explain the facts you have in a factual way that we can see? Im eager to see the facts ref Sunak not giving a fuck about protests outside his house? let’s go for the media demonisation of anyone who doesn’t want the planet to be warmer, what media is this? " Exhibit A. Tories granting 100 new oil and gas licences for North Sea Exhibit B. Tories labelling people who express dissent "tofu eating wokerati". Exhibit C. The way that the media reports on people who protest against the governments record of prioritising oil company profits over British people or over environmental concerns or over climate change. You know, real life stuff that's actually going on. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"He doesn't give a fuck about protests. As long as the profits for the oil companies keep rolling in the media will demonise anyone who thinks we shouldn't accelerate the race to warm the planet for oil companies profits." I normally just mentally filter out these sort of statements, but NotMe's question has made me notice this one. Do you really believe that the media companies are colluding with the fossil fuel companies to not just continue CO2 emissions, but to actually accelerate the current rate of warming? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There is a protest being staged at Sunaks North Yorkshire grade 2 listed 1826 property, by Greenpeace against the new licenses. He doesn't give a fuck about protests. As long as the profits for the oil companies keep rolling in the media will demonise anyone who thinks we shouldn't accelerate the race to warm the planet for oil companies profits. Tories will get voted in again. Job done. You forgot to add “in your opinion” The only part of this that's "in my opinion" is how easy the Tories will be re-elected. Interesting! Can you explain the facts you have in a factual way that we can see? Im eager to see the facts ref Sunak not giving a fuck about protests outside his house? let’s go for the media demonisation of anyone who doesn’t want the planet to be warmer, what media is this? Exhibit A. Tories granting 100 new oil and gas licences for North Sea Exhibit B. Tories labelling people who express dissent "tofu eating wokerati". Exhibit C. The way that the media reports on people who protest against the governments record of prioritising oil company profits over British people or over environmental concerns or over climate change. You know, real life stuff that's actually going on. " Tories = all of them Tories = all of them Media = all of them Nice generalisation to work up some sort of furore but not facts. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"He doesn't give a fuck about protests. As long as the profits for the oil companies keep rolling in the media will demonise anyone who thinks we shouldn't accelerate the race to warm the planet for oil companies profits. I normally just mentally filter out these sort of statements, but NotMe's question has made me notice this one. Do you really believe that the media companies are colluding with the fossil fuel companies to not just continue CO2 emissions, but to actually accelerate the current rate of warming?" Why else would the media be pushing the fossil fuels agenda, and demonise protestors? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There is a protest being staged at Sunaks North Yorkshire grade 2 listed 1826 property, by Greenpeace against the new licenses. He doesn't give a fuck about protests. As long as the profits for the oil companies keep rolling in the media will demonise anyone who thinks we shouldn't accelerate the race to warm the planet for oil companies profits. Tories will get voted in again. Job done. You forgot to add “in your opinion” The only part of this that's "in my opinion" is how easy the Tories will be re-elected. Interesting! Can you explain the facts you have in a factual way that we can see? Im eager to see the facts ref Sunak not giving a fuck about protests outside his house? let’s go for the media demonisation of anyone who doesn’t want the planet to be warmer, what media is this? Exhibit A. Tories granting 100 new oil and gas licences for North Sea Exhibit B. Tories labelling people who express dissent "tofu eating wokerati". Exhibit C. The way that the media reports on people who protest against the governments record of prioritising oil company profits over British people or over environmental concerns or over climate change. You know, real life stuff that's actually going on. Tories = all of them Tories = all of them Media = all of them Nice generalisation to work up some sort of furore but not facts. " You appear to have misread my post. I didn't use "all of them". | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"re-legalise incandescent light bulbs... but this country is always cold, so the extra heat is a good thing." "I assume this is a sick joke?" I would use 'mildly humorous' rather than "sick", but the "joke" bit is correct. "It's not just energy use. It's also about making them without poisonous chemicals inside." Good point. The incandescent light bulb was made of tungsten, steel, glass and resin, none of which was toxic, and most of which was easily recyclable. LED bulbs on the other hand contain gallium, arsenic, and phosphorus, all of which are toxic. These elements are all bound tightly to silicon substrates, or mixed in with silicone coatings, so they are impossible to recycle. Clearly we should ban LEDs and go back to incandescent light bulbs. That is what you were saying isn't it? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There is a protest being staged at Sunaks North Yorkshire grade 2 listed 1826 property, by Greenpeace against the new licenses. He doesn't give a fuck about protests. As long as the profits for the oil companies keep rolling in the media will demonise anyone who thinks we shouldn't accelerate the race to warm the planet for oil companies profits. Tories will get voted in again. Job done. You forgot to add “in your opinion” The only part of this that's "in my opinion" is how easy the Tories will be re-elected. Interesting! Can you explain the facts you have in a factual way that we can see? Im eager to see the facts ref Sunak not giving a fuck about protests outside his house? let’s go for the media demonisation of anyone who doesn’t want the planet to be warmer, what media is this? Exhibit A. Tories granting 100 new oil and gas licences for North Sea Exhibit B. Tories labelling people who express dissent "tofu eating wokerati". Exhibit C. The way that the media reports on people who protest against the governments record of prioritising oil company profits over British people or over environmental concerns or over climate change. You know, real life stuff that's actually going on. Tories = all of them Tories = all of them Media = all of them Nice generalisation to work up some sort of furore but not facts. You appear to have misread my post. I didn't use "all of them". " You generalised them. You do it regularly. "The Tories", "The Media". | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The point being extracting new oil will ensure we go way beyond 1.5 ! That’s why I was asking, no emotion, just evidence. Can you give us a link to your evidence that granting these specific licences will be the extra push that definitely puts global temperature increase over 1.5deg. We know the world is on track to break the 1.5C threshold with current policies. How is adding more oil capacity going to help ? Look at what the govts own climate advisors have said on this. " So are you against oil extraction even if its not for fule as in used for PVC, plastic, polyester etc | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There is a protest being staged at Sunaks North Yorkshire grade 2 listed 1826 property, by Greenpeace against the new licenses. He doesn't give a fuck about protests. As long as the profits for the oil companies keep rolling in the media will demonise anyone who thinks we shouldn't accelerate the race to warm the planet for oil companies profits. Tories will get voted in again. Job done. You forgot to add “in your opinion” The only part of this that's "in my opinion" is how easy the Tories will be re-elected. Interesting! Can you explain the facts you have in a factual way that we can see? Im eager to see the facts ref Sunak not giving a fuck about protests outside his house? let’s go for the media demonisation of anyone who doesn’t want the planet to be warmer, what media is this? Exhibit A. Tories granting 100 new oil and gas licences for North Sea Exhibit B. Tories labelling people who express dissent "tofu eating wokerati". Exhibit C. The way that the media reports on people who protest against the governments record of prioritising oil company profits over British people or over environmental concerns or over climate change. You know, real life stuff that's actually going on. Tories = all of them Tories = all of them Media = all of them Nice generalisation to work up some sort of furore but not facts. You appear to have misread my post. I didn't use "all of them". You generalised them. You do it regularly. "The Tories", "The Media". " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"re-legalise incandescent light bulbs... but this country is always cold, so the extra heat is a good thing. I assume this is a sick joke? I would use 'mildly humorous' rather than "sick", but the "joke" bit is correct. It's not just energy use. It's also about making them without poisonous chemicals inside. Good point. The incandescent light bulb was made of tungsten, steel, glass and resin, none of which was toxic, and most of which was easily recyclable. LED bulbs on the other hand contain gallium, arsenic, and phosphorus, all of which are toxic. These elements are all bound tightly to silicon substrates, or mixed in with silicone coatings, so they are impossible to recycle. Clearly we should ban LEDs and go back to incandescent light bulbs. That is what you were saying isn't it?" And you missed no PVC or plastic in them. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"He doesn't give a fuck about protests. As long as the profits for the oil companies keep rolling in the media will demonise anyone who thinks we shouldn't accelerate the race to warm the planet for oil companies profits." "I normally just mentally filter out these sort of statements, but NotMe's question has made me notice this one. Do you really believe that the media companies are colluding with the fossil fuel companies to not just continue CO2 emissions, but to actually accelerate the current rate of warming?" "Why else would the media be pushing the fossil fuels agenda, and demonise protestors? " So you do actually believe that. Interesting. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"He doesn't give a fuck about protests. As long as the profits for the oil companies keep rolling in the media will demonise anyone who thinks we shouldn't accelerate the race to warm the planet for oil companies profits. I normally just mentally filter out these sort of statements, but NotMe's question has made me notice this one. Do you really believe that the media companies are colluding with the fossil fuel companies to not just continue CO2 emissions, but to actually accelerate the current rate of warming? Why else would the media be pushing the fossil fuels agenda, and demonise protestors? So you do actually believe that. Interesting." I believe that the media supports the government and the agenda of the owners. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"re-legalise incandescent light bulbs... but this country is always cold, so the extra heat is a good thing." " I assume this is a sick joke?" "I would use 'mildly humorous' rather than "sick", but the "joke" bit is correct." "It's not just energy use. It's also about making them without poisonous chemicals inside." "Good point. The incandescent light bulb was made of tungsten, steel, glass and resin, none of which was toxic, and most of which was easily recyclable. LED bulbs on the other hand contain gallium, arsenic, and phosphorus, all of which are toxic. These elements are all bound tightly to silicon substrates, or mixed in with silicone coatings, so they are impossible to recycle. Clearly we should ban LEDs and go back to incandescent light bulbs. That is what you were saying isn't it?" "And you missed no PVC or plastic in them." Good point. The poster didn't mention the use of oil-based products as a concern, but I'm sure they would agree that reducing plastics by reviving incandescent bulbs is a good thing. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"He doesn't give a fuck about protests. As long as the profits for the oil companies keep rolling in the media will demonise anyone who thinks we shouldn't accelerate the race to warm the planet for oil companies profits. I normally just mentally filter out these sort of statements, but NotMe's question has made me notice this one. Do you really believe that the media companies are colluding with the fossil fuel companies to not just continue CO2 emissions, but to actually accelerate the current rate of warming? Why else would the media be pushing the fossil fuels agenda, and demonise protestors? So you do actually believe that. Interesting. I believe that the media supports the government and the agenda of the owners. "Funny that some people seem to think this self evident fact is some kind of conspiracy theory. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Bickering aside, who actually benefits from these new licences and why? The fossil fuel companies - they have access to more resources to exploit for profit. All of us in the UK - we get money from the licences, and more money in taxes on the sale of the products, plus we get a local oil source which cuts down on 'fuel miles'." Hmmm agree with first para but only partially with the second. Unless we rebuild “Rough Storage” (surely that needed a better name) then local oil/gas source is irrelevant as it will all get exported first before being imported again! NotMe said above that there are plans for UK based storage (seems obvious so why decom Rough in first place doh!) but apart from in this thread I have never heard or seen anything about this. A link would be welcome. Also as per one of my earlier posts, this is such a wasted opportunity! Short term rather than long term thinking from politicians as usual. Why not issue these licenses under different terms? Why not create a sovereign wealth fund? Why not caveat licences with a UK first clause re supply in emergency situations? BTW they are rhetorical. We know why. It is therefore misleading of the politicians to say this safeguards UK energy needs. It doesn’t. The oil/gas will be sold at prevailing market rates internationally. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Unless we rebuild “Rough Storage” (surely that needed a better name) then local oil/gas source is irrelevant as it will all get exported first before being imported again!" If you do a search for "rough storage doubling" you'll find links to stories that tell you that Rough was re-opened in October, and has now been nearly doubled in capacity. "NotMe said above that there are plans for UK based storage (seems obvious so why decom Rough in first place doh!)" It was decommissioned because it needed a lot of expensive work doing, and we have an agreement with Germany to store all of our gas there. Why spend money on a storage site that we don't need? Then someone started a war, and it looked like gas might become scarce, and that Germany might not be able to re-supply us with all the gas we needed for the winter. Happily that didn't happen, but it has been deemed prudent to re-open Rough Storage, since the idea of a war in Europe now seems less impossible than it did a couple of years ago. "It is therefore misleading of the politicians to say this safeguards UK energy needs. It doesn’t. The oil/gas will be sold at prevailing market rates internationally." Under normal circumstances, yes, it will be sold on the international market. But if there is a sudden scarcity of gas for some unforeseen reason, the local supply can be commandeered. In that sense, it does indeed safeguard UK energy needs. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The point being extracting new oil will ensure we go way beyond 1.5 ! That’s why I was asking, no emotion, just evidence. Can you give us a link to your evidence that granting these specific licences will be the extra push that definitely puts global temperature increase over 1.5deg. We know the world is on track to break the 1.5C threshold with current policies. How is adding more oil capacity going to help ? Look at what the govts own climate advisors have said on this. Have you read anything about the licenses?" Specifically ? Not the nonsense about how it will be net zero compatible ?!? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The point being extracting new oil will ensure we go way beyond 1.5 ! That’s why I was asking, no emotion, just evidence. Can you give us a link to your evidence that granting these specific licences will be the extra push that definitely puts global temperature increase over 1.5deg. We know the world is on track to break the 1.5C threshold with current policies. How is adding more oil capacity going to help ? Ah, I see you're relying on the famous "stands to reason dunnit" logic. So when you said "extracting new oil will ensure we go way beyond 1.5 !", You actually meant 'extracting new oil might make it more likely that we reach 1.5'. and when you said "no emotion, just evidence", you actually meant 'no evidence, just emotion'. See, this is why someone has been telling you to remove the emotion from your posts. These overblown statements don't make your message more compelling, they just make it less believable to those of us that use logic to analyse situations." No I said it would take us beyond 1.5; given that we are highly likely to exceed 1.5 anyway. That’s what the evidence says, based entirely on evidence. You seem to have the problem with the ‘emotions’ and projection. I’ve also said where the evidence for this comes from. I’m the only one doing so. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The point being extracting new oil will ensure we go way beyond 1.5 ! That’s why I was asking, no emotion, just evidence. Can you give us a link to your evidence that granting these specific licences will be the extra push that definitely puts global temperature increase over 1.5deg. We know the world is on track to break the 1.5C threshold with current policies. How is adding more oil capacity going to help ? Look at what the govts own climate advisors have said on this. So are you against oil extraction even if its not for fule as in used for PVC, plastic, polyester etc " I’ve answered this …for some things transition may take longer and that’s all about the managed use of existing oil reserves to keep us to outer climate target. We need to phase out oil for those things we can transition more easily . | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The point being extracting new oil will ensure we go way beyond 1.5 ! That’s why I was asking, no emotion, just evidence. Can you give us a link to your evidence that granting these specific licences will be the extra push that definitely puts global temperature increase over 1.5deg. We know the world is on track to break the 1.5C threshold with current policies. How is adding more oil capacity going to help ? Look at what the govts own climate advisors have said on this. Have you read anything about the licenses? Specifically ? Not the nonsense about how it will be net zero compatible ?!?" I do not have the time to go into great detail on this, simply look beyond the headlines at the actual licenses that have been granted, are being granted, the NSTA. Google NSTA and you will be given a huge amount of information that will allow you to see the stewardship regulations that are being implemented. you should really research things you are passionate about. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"He doesn't give a fuck about protests. As long as the profits for the oil companies keep rolling in the media will demonise anyone who thinks we shouldn't accelerate the race to warm the planet for oil companies profits. I normally just mentally filter out these sort of statements, but NotMe's question has made me notice this one. Do you really believe that the media companies are colluding with the fossil fuel companies to not just continue CO2 emissions, but to actually accelerate the current rate of warming? Why else would the media be pushing the fossil fuels agenda, and demonise protestors? So you do actually believe that. Interesting. I believe that the media supports the government and the agenda of the owners. "“The media” what media? You know we have media that leans towards the left and some that lean to the right? Your statements sound conspiracy driven to a person looking in with no axe to grind. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The point being extracting new oil will ensure we go way beyond 1.5 ! That’s why I was asking, no emotion, just evidence. Can you give us a link to your evidence that granting these specific licences will be the extra push that definitely puts global temperature increase over 1.5deg. We know the world is on track to break the 1.5C threshold with current policies. How is adding more oil capacity going to help ? Look at what the govts own climate advisors have said on this. Have you read anything about the licenses? Specifically ? Not the nonsense about how it will be net zero compatible ?!? I do not have the time to go into great detail on this, simply look beyond the headlines at the actual licenses that have been granted, are being granted, the NSTA. Google NSTA and you will be given a huge amount of information that will allow you to see the stewardship regulations that are being implemented. you should really research things you are passionate about. " You are pretty arrogant, aren’t you ? I’m well aware of this organisation which, err, promotes maximum extraction from the North Sea. Unproven technologies included. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"He doesn't give a fuck about protests. As long as the profits for the oil companies keep rolling in the media will demonise anyone who thinks we shouldn't accelerate the race to warm the planet for oil companies profits. I normally just mentally filter out these sort of statements, but NotMe's question has made me notice this one. Do you really believe that the media companies are colluding with the fossil fuel companies to not just continue CO2 emissions, but to actually accelerate the current rate of warming? Why else would the media be pushing the fossil fuels agenda, and demonise protestors? So you do actually believe that. Interesting. I believe that the media supports the government and the agenda of the owners.
“The media” what media? You know we have media that leans towards the left and some that lean to the right?
Your statements sound conspiracy driven to a person looking in with no axe to grind."If you're unable to, or unwilling to recognise that the vast majority of the media in this country is right wing, and/or government supporting. What can I say to help? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The point being extracting new oil will ensure we go way beyond 1.5 ! That’s why I was asking, no emotion, just evidence. Can you give us a link to your evidence that granting these specific licences will be the extra push that definitely puts global temperature increase over 1.5deg. We know the world is on track to break the 1.5C threshold with current policies. How is adding more oil capacity going to help ? Look at what the govts own climate advisors have said on this. Have you read anything about the licenses? Specifically ? Not the nonsense about how it will be net zero compatible ?!? I do not have the time to go into great detail on this, simply look beyond the headlines at the actual licenses that have been granted, are being granted, the NSTA. Google NSTA and you will be given a huge amount of information that will allow you to see the stewardship regulations that are being implemented. you should really research things you are passionate about. You are pretty arrogant, aren’t you ? I’m well aware of this organisation which, err, promotes maximum extraction from the North Sea. Unproven technologies included." If you consider informed and rational as arrogant, then yes I am. ps.. Getting personal isn't a good look and does explain why some posters have mentioned your emotional responses. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"He doesn't give a fuck about protests. As long as the profits for the oil companies keep rolling in the media will demonise anyone who thinks we shouldn't accelerate the race to warm the planet for oil companies profits. I normally just mentally filter out these sort of statements, but NotMe's question has made me notice this one. Do you really believe that the media companies are colluding with the fossil fuel companies to not just continue CO2 emissions, but to actually accelerate the current rate of warming? Why else would the media be pushing the fossil fuels agenda, and demonise protestors? So you do actually believe that. Interesting. I believe that the media supports the government and the agenda of the owners.
“The media” what media? You know we have media that leans towards the left and some that lean to the right?
Your statements sound conspiracy driven to a person looking in with no axe to grind.
If you're unable to, or unwilling to recognise that the vast majority of the media in this country is right wing, and/or government supporting. What can I say to help?"You can see the irony in your reply? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"He doesn't give a fuck about protests. As long as the profits for the oil companies keep rolling in the media will demonise anyone who thinks we shouldn't accelerate the race to warm the planet for oil companies profits. I normally just mentally filter out these sort of statements, but NotMe's question has made me notice this one. Do you really believe that the media companies are colluding with the fossil fuel companies to not just continue CO2 emissions, but to actually accelerate the current rate of warming? Why else would the media be pushing the fossil fuels agenda, and demonise protestors? So you do actually believe that. Interesting. I believe that the media supports the government and the agenda of the owners.
“The media” what media? You know we have media that leans towards the left and some that lean to the right?
Your statements sound conspiracy driven to a person looking in with no axe to grind.
If you're unable to, or unwilling to recognise that the vast majority of the media in this country is right wing, and/or government supporting. What can I say to help?"https://pressgazette.co.uk/media-audience-and-business-data/media_metrics/most-popular-websites-news-uk-monthly-2/ This link will show you a league table of audiences. In the top 10 (you'll need to scroll to the 3rd graph) let us know how the top 10 fair in terms of 'wings' | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"He doesn't give a fuck about protests. As long as the profits for the oil companies keep rolling in the media will demonise anyone who thinks we shouldn't accelerate the race to warm the planet for oil companies profits. I normally just mentally filter out these sort of statements, but NotMe's question has made me notice this one. Do you really believe that the media companies are colluding with the fossil fuel companies to not just continue CO2 emissions, but to actually accelerate the current rate of warming? Why else would the media be pushing the fossil fuels agenda, and demonise protestors? So you do actually believe that. Interesting. I believe that the media supports the government and the agenda of the owners.
“The media” what media? You know we have media that leans towards the left and some that lean to the right?
Your statements sound conspiracy driven to a person looking in with no axe to grind.
If you're unable to, or unwilling to recognise that the vast majority of the media in this country is right wing, and/or government supporting. What can I say to help?
You can see the irony in your reply?"Feel free to enlighten me. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"He doesn't give a fuck about protests. As long as the profits for the oil companies keep rolling in the media will demonise anyone who thinks we shouldn't accelerate the race to warm the planet for oil companies profits. I normally just mentally filter out these sort of statements, but NotMe's question has made me notice this one. Do you really believe that the media companies are colluding with the fossil fuel companies to not just continue CO2 emissions, but to actually accelerate the current rate of warming? Why else would the media be pushing the fossil fuels agenda, and demonise protestors? So you do actually believe that. Interesting. I believe that the media supports the government and the agenda of the owners.
“The media” what media? You know we have media that leans towards the left and some that lean to the right?
Your statements sound conspiracy driven to a person looking in with no axe to grind.
If you're unable to, or unwilling to recognise that the vast majority of the media in this country is right wing, and/or government supporting. What can I say to help?
https://pressgazette.co.uk/media-audience-and-business-data/media_metrics/most-popular-websites-news-uk-monthly-2/
This link will show you a league table of audiences. In the top 10 (you'll need to scroll to the 3rd graph) let us know how the top 10 fair in terms of 'wings'"I had a quick skim and couldn't see the graph you mentioned. But this looks really interesting. Whatever you lot think of me, in genuinely interested in how the media functions and the purposes it serves in this country. I'm going to read this through when I have more time. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"He doesn't give a fuck about protests. As long as the profits for the oil companies keep rolling in the media will demonise anyone who thinks we shouldn't accelerate the race to warm the planet for oil companies profits. I normally just mentally filter out these sort of statements, but NotMe's question has made me notice this one. Do you really believe that the media companies are colluding with the fossil fuel companies to not just continue CO2 emissions, but to actually accelerate the current rate of warming? Why else would the media be pushing the fossil fuels agenda, and demonise protestors? So you do actually believe that. Interesting. I believe that the media supports the government and the agenda of the owners.
“The media” what media? You know we have media that leans towards the left and some that lean to the right?
Your statements sound conspiracy driven to a person looking in with no axe to grind.
If you're unable to, or unwilling to recognise that the vast majority of the media in this country is right wing, and/or government supporting. What can I say to help?
https://pressgazette.co.uk/media-audience-and-business-data/media_metrics/most-popular-websites-news-uk-monthly-2/
This link will show you a league table of audiences. In the top 10 (you'll need to scroll to the 3rd graph) let us know how the top 10 fair in terms of 'wings'
I had a quick skim and couldn't see the graph you mentioned.
But this looks really interesting. Whatever you lot think of me, in genuinely interested in how the media functions and the purposes it serves in this country. I'm going to read this through when I have more time."Third graph shows these figures: 1 BBC 37.7m 2 Mail Online 24.5m 3 The Sun 24.3m 4 Mirror 22.9m 5 The Independent 21.1m 6 The Guardian 20.5m 7 Sky News 18.4m 8 ITV 15.5m 9 The Telegraph 14.6m 10 Money Saving Expert 13.3m This is for reach in June 2023. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The point being extracting new oil will ensure we go way beyond 1.5 ! That’s why I was asking, no emotion, just evidence. Can you give us a link to your evidence that granting these specific licences will be the extra push that definitely puts global temperature increase over 1.5deg. We know the world is on track to break the 1.5C threshold with current policies. How is adding more oil capacity going to help ? Look at what the govts own climate advisors have said on this. Have you read anything about the licenses? Specifically ? Not the nonsense about how it will be net zero compatible ?!? I do not have the time to go into great detail on this, simply look beyond the headlines at the actual licenses that have been granted, are being granted, the NSTA. Google NSTA and you will be given a huge amount of information that will allow you to see the stewardship regulations that are being implemented. you should really research things you are passionate about. You are pretty arrogant, aren’t you ? I’m well aware of this organisation which, err, promotes maximum extraction from the North Sea. Unproven technologies included. If you consider informed and rational as arrogant, then yes I am. ps.. Getting personal isn't a good look and does explain why some posters have mentioned your emotional responses." I think informed and rationale is pushing it ! But you carry on …..  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"He doesn't give a fuck about protests. As long as the profits for the oil companies keep rolling in the media will demonise anyone who thinks we shouldn't accelerate the race to warm the planet for oil companies profits. I normally just mentally filter out these sort of statements, but NotMe's question has made me notice this one. Do you really believe that the media companies are colluding with the fossil fuel companies to not just continue CO2 emissions, but to actually accelerate the current rate of warming? Why else would the media be pushing the fossil fuels agenda, and demonise protestors? So you do actually believe that. Interesting. I believe that the media supports the government and the agenda of the owners.
“The media” what media? You know we have media that leans towards the left and some that lean to the right?
Your statements sound conspiracy driven to a person looking in with no axe to grind.
If you're unable to, or unwilling to recognise that the vast majority of the media in this country is right wing, and/or government supporting. What can I say to help?
https://pressgazette.co.uk/media-audience-and-business-data/media_metrics/most-popular-websites-news-uk-monthly-2/
This link will show you a league table of audiences. In the top 10 (you'll need to scroll to the 3rd graph) let us know how the top 10 fair in terms of 'wings'
I had a quick skim and couldn't see the graph you mentioned.
But this looks really interesting. Whatever you lot think of me, in genuinely interested in how the media functions and the purposes it serves in this country. I'm going to read this through when I have more time.
Third graph shows these figures:
1 BBC 37.7m
2 Mail Online 24.5m
3 The Sun 24.3m
4 Mirror 22.9m
5 The Independent 21.1m
6 The Guardian 20.5m
7 Sky News 18.4m
8 ITV 15.5m
9 The Telegraph 14.6m
10 Money Saving Expert 13.3m
This is for reach in June 2023."Got it. There you go! The rest of the article is interesting. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"He doesn't give a fuck about protests. As long as the profits for the oil companies keep rolling in the media will demonise anyone who thinks we shouldn't accelerate the race to warm the planet for oil companies profits. I normally just mentally filter out these sort of statements, but NotMe's question has made me notice this one. Do you really believe that the media companies are colluding with the fossil fuel companies to not just continue CO2 emissions, but to actually accelerate the current rate of warming? Why else would the media be pushing the fossil fuels agenda, and demonise protestors? So you do actually believe that. Interesting. I believe that the media supports the government and the agenda of the owners.
“The media” what media? You know we have media that leans towards the left and some that lean to the right?
Your statements sound conspiracy driven to a person looking in with no axe to grind.
If you're unable to, or unwilling to recognise that the vast majority of the media in this country is right wing, and/or government supporting. What can I say to help?
https://pressgazette.co.uk/media-audience-and-business-data/media_metrics/most-popular-websites-news-uk-monthly-2/
This link will show you a league table of audiences. In the top 10 (you'll need to scroll to the 3rd graph) let us know how the top 10 fair in terms of 'wings'
I had a quick skim and couldn't see the graph you mentioned.
But this looks really interesting. Whatever you lot think of me, in genuinely interested in how the media functions and the purposes it serves in this country. I'm going to read this through when I have more time.
Third graph shows these figures:
1 BBC 37.7m
2 Mail Online 24.5m
3 The Sun 24.3m
4 Mirror 22.9m
5 The Independent 21.1m
6 The Guardian 20.5m
7 Sky News 18.4m
8 ITV 15.5m
9 The Telegraph 14.6m
10 Money Saving Expert 13.3m
This is for reach in June 2023.
Got it. There you go!
The rest of the article is interesting."It is. How many of those would you put in the right wing category? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"He doesn't give a fuck about protests. As long as the profits for the oil companies keep rolling in the media will demonise anyone who thinks we shouldn't accelerate the race to warm the planet for oil companies profits. I normally just mentally filter out these sort of statements, but NotMe's question has made me notice this one. Do you really believe that the media companies are colluding with the fossil fuel companies to not just continue CO2 emissions, but to actually accelerate the current rate of warming? Why else would the media be pushing the fossil fuels agenda, and demonise protestors? So you do actually believe that. Interesting. I believe that the media supports the government and the agenda of the owners.
“The media” what media? You know we have media that leans towards the left and some that lean to the right?
Your statements sound conspiracy driven to a person looking in with no axe to grind.
If you're unable to, or unwilling to recognise that the vast majority of the media in this country is right wing, and/or government supporting. What can I say to help?
https://pressgazette.co.uk/media-audience-and-business-data/media_metrics/most-popular-websites-news-uk-monthly-2/
This link will show you a league table of audiences. In the top 10 (you'll need to scroll to the 3rd graph) let us know how the top 10 fair in terms of 'wings'
I had a quick skim and couldn't see the graph you mentioned.
But this looks really interesting. Whatever you lot think of me, in genuinely interested in how the media functions and the purposes it serves in this country. I'm going to read this through when I have more time.
Third graph shows these figures:
1 BBC 37.7m
2 Mail Online 24.5m
3 The Sun 24.3m
4 Mirror 22.9m
5 The Independent 21.1m
6 The Guardian 20.5m
7 Sky News 18.4m
8 ITV 15.5m
9 The Telegraph 14.6m
10 Money Saving Expert 13.3m
This is for reach in June 2023.
Got it. There you go!
The rest of the article is interesting.
It is. How many of those would you put in the right wing category?"Actually this deserves its own thread | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"He doesn't give a fuck about protests. As long as the profits for the oil companies keep rolling in the media will demonise anyone who thinks we shouldn't accelerate the race to warm the planet for oil companies profits. I normally just mentally filter out these sort of statements, but NotMe's question has made me notice this one. Do you really believe that the media companies are colluding with the fossil fuel companies to not just continue CO2 emissions, but to actually accelerate the current rate of warming? Why else would the media be pushing the fossil fuels agenda, and demonise protestors? So you do actually believe that. Interesting. I believe that the media supports the government and the agenda of the owners.
“The media” what media? You know we have media that leans towards the left and some that lean to the right?
Your statements sound conspiracy driven to a person looking in with no axe to grind.
If you're unable to, or unwilling to recognise that the vast majority of the media in this country is right wing, and/or government supporting. What can I say to help?
https://pressgazette.co.uk/media-audience-and-business-data/media_metrics/most-popular-websites-news-uk-monthly-2/
This link will show you a league table of audiences. In the top 10 (you'll need to scroll to the 3rd graph) let us know how the top 10 fair in terms of 'wings'
I had a quick skim and couldn't see the graph you mentioned.
But this looks really interesting. Whatever you lot think of me, in genuinely interested in how the media functions and the purposes it serves in this country. I'm going to read this through when I have more time.
Third graph shows these figures:
1 BBC 37.7m
2 Mail Online 24.5m
3 The Sun 24.3m
4 Mirror 22.9m
5 The Independent 21.1m
6 The Guardian 20.5m
7 Sky News 18.4m
8 ITV 15.5m
9 The Telegraph 14.6m
10 Money Saving Expert 13.3m
This is for reach in June 2023.
Got it. There you go!
The rest of the article is interesting.
It is. How many of those would you put in the right wing category?
Actually this deserves its own thread" | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Unless we rebuild “Rough Storage” (surely that needed a better name) then local oil/gas source is irrelevant as it will all get exported first before being imported again! If you do a search for "rough storage doubling" you'll find links to stories that tell you that Rough was re-opened in October, and has now been nearly doubled in capacity. NotMe said above that there are plans for UK based storage (seems obvious so why decom Rough in first place doh!) It was decommissioned because it needed a lot of expensive work doing, and we have an agreement with Germany to store all of our gas there. Why spend money on a storage site that we don't need? Then someone started a war, and it looked like gas might become scarce, and that Germany might not be able to re-supply us with all the gas we needed for the winter. Happily that didn't happen, but it has been deemed prudent to re-open Rough Storage, since the idea of a war in Europe now seems less impossible than it did a couple of years ago. It is therefore misleading of the politicians to say this safeguards UK energy needs. It doesn’t. The oil/gas will be sold at prevailing market rates internationally. Under normal circumstances, yes, it will be sold on the international market. But if there is a sudden scarcity of gas for some unforeseen reason, the local supply can be commandeered. In that sense, it does indeed safeguard UK energy needs." Thanks for that reply. I was being a bit lazy (well too busy actually). | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The point being extracting new oil will ensure we go way beyond 1.5 ! That’s why I was asking, no emotion, just evidence. Can you give us a link to your evidence that granting these specific licences will be the extra push that definitely puts global temperature increase over 1.5deg. We know the world is on track to break the 1.5C threshold with current policies. How is adding more oil capacity going to help ? Look at what the govts own climate advisors have said on this. So are you against oil extraction even if its not for fule as in used for PVC, plastic, polyester etc I’ve answered this …for some things transition may take longer and that’s all about the managed use of existing oil reserves to keep us to outer climate target. We need to phase out oil for those things we can transition more easily . " So how long do you believe it will take to transition away from PVC cables, or plastic toothbrush. Will we go back to wool and cotton clothes in the next 25 years, and roads not made from Tar or lubricants made out of plant based oil when the world dose not have the capacity to grow food when more farming land is being filed with solar energy. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The point being extracting new oil will ensure we go way beyond 1.5 ! That’s why I was asking, no emotion, just evidence. Can you give us a link to your evidence that granting these specific licences will be the extra push that definitely puts global temperature increase over 1.5deg. We know the world is on track to break the 1.5C threshold with current policies. How is adding more oil capacity going to help ? Look at what the govts own climate advisors have said on this. So are you against oil extraction even if its not for fule as in used for PVC, plastic, polyester etc I’ve answered this …for some things transition may take longer and that’s all about the managed use of existing oil reserves to keep us to outer climate target. We need to phase out oil for those things we can transition more easily . So how long do you believe it will take to transition away from PVC cables, or plastic toothbrush. Will we go back to wool and cotton clothes in the next 25 years, and roads not made from Tar or lubricants made out of plant based oil when the world dose not have the capacity to grow food when more farming land is being filed with solar energy." As I said some things will take longer to transition for which oil should be prioritised for, alternatives will be found. Rather facile comment about solar, when the impact of that is minimal compared to how our food system and land use is currently employed ! Perhaps you should be commenting on that ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
