Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 2
Discussion
I've been saving this for the move 
As this is the political debate, has anyone asked themselves why? Why are all the politicians falling over themselves to follow what seems to be a nonsensical route.
It wouldn't have anything to do with dwindling fossil fuel reserves would it? We hardly hear a thing about that scenario yet surely it's a massive problem about to land squarely in their lap and the repercussions of it don't really bear thinking about.
Would you really want to be in charge when you have to tell the populace "sorry, that's it, we've run out of energy".
I put it to the floor for debate that the real reason for their path isn't concern for Global Warming but the very real possibility that we will simply run out of energy in the foreseeable future.
Discuss
As this is the political debate, has anyone asked themselves why? Why are all the politicians falling over themselves to follow what seems to be a nonsensical route.
It wouldn't have anything to do with dwindling fossil fuel reserves would it? We hardly hear a thing about that scenario yet surely it's a massive problem about to land squarely in their lap and the repercussions of it don't really bear thinking about.
Would you really want to be in charge when you have to tell the populace "sorry, that's it, we've run out of energy".
I put it to the floor for debate that the real reason for their path isn't concern for Global Warming but the very real possibility that we will simply run out of energy in the foreseeable future.
Discuss
BliarOut said:
I've been saving this for the move
As this is the political debate, has anyone asked themselves why? Why are all the politicians falling over themselves to follow what seems to be a nonsensical route.
It wouldn't have anything to do with dwindling fossil fuel reserves would it? We hardly hear a thing about that scenario yet surely it's a massive problem about to land squarely in their lap and the repercussions of it don't really bear thinking about.
Would you really want to be in charge when you have to tell the populace "sorry, that's it, we've run out of energy".
I put it to the floor for debate that the real reason for their path isn't concern for Global Warming but the very real possibility that we will simply run out of energy in the foreseeable future.
Discuss
I dont think that's the issue!!!! I guess north sea oil will run out fairly soon but we are aparently sitting on about 300 years worth of coal and who knows how much shale gas and shale oil reserves , the current policys on energy from the 3 main parties are bonkers, only UKIP seem to have a reasonable common sense view.. As this is the political debate, has anyone asked themselves why? Why are all the politicians falling over themselves to follow what seems to be a nonsensical route.
It wouldn't have anything to do with dwindling fossil fuel reserves would it? We hardly hear a thing about that scenario yet surely it's a massive problem about to land squarely in their lap and the repercussions of it don't really bear thinking about.
Would you really want to be in charge when you have to tell the populace "sorry, that's it, we've run out of energy".
I put it to the floor for debate that the real reason for their path isn't concern for Global Warming but the very real possibility that we will simply run out of energy in the foreseeable future.
Discuss
I would suggest Cui Bono - look at the politicians, then look at the companies they are on the boards of, the companies they own, and the companies of their friends and families. Then see if there is a correlation between bu***t and the company i.e. the greater the vested interest in Carbon Tax and so on the higher the level of bu***t and head in the sand...
Another source of as yet untapped fossil fuels is clathrate hydrate which holds about 6.4trillion tons of methane.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_hydrate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_hydrate
As I have said for a while, I suspect it's to try to distance ourselves from the current fossil fuels supplies: Arabs and Russians et al. To try to tell the populace that we are being held in hock to nasty unstable regimes would be hard. To frighten the masses s
tless with imminent doom is far easier if it gets the job (fuel saving) done, so be it.
tless with imminent doom is far easier if it gets the job (fuel saving) done, so be it.kerplunk said:
Can't interests converge then?
Why would there be a need to 'invent' another reason to reduce fossil fuel usage? Everyone can see the prices going up and increasing competition for finite resources.
Unfortunately we are back to the same issue with almost all forms of renewables. They don't always work when you need them.Why would there be a need to 'invent' another reason to reduce fossil fuel usage? Everyone can see the prices going up and increasing competition for finite resources.
London424 said:
kerplunk said:
Can't interests converge then?
Why would there be a need to 'invent' another reason to reduce fossil fuel usage? Everyone can see the prices going up and increasing competition for finite resources.
Unfortunately we are back to the same issue with almost all forms of renewables. They don't always work when you need them.Why would there be a need to 'invent' another reason to reduce fossil fuel usage? Everyone can see the prices going up and increasing competition for finite resources.
Diderot said:
London424 said:
kerplunk said:
Can't interests converge then?
Why would there be a need to 'invent' another reason to reduce fossil fuel usage? Everyone can see the prices going up and increasing competition for finite resources.
Unfortunately we are back to the same issue with almost all forms of renewables. They don't always work when you need them.Why would there be a need to 'invent' another reason to reduce fossil fuel usage? Everyone can see the prices going up and increasing competition for finite resources.
Forget peak oil, say hello to peak renewables and the subsidy sunset:
http://www.thegwpf.org/forget-peak-oil-think-peak-...
Fossil fuel energy for 1000s of years:
http://www.thegwpf.org/energy-for-1000-years-huge-...
London424 said:
kerplunk said:
Can't interests converge then?
Why would there be a need to 'invent' another reason to reduce fossil fuel usage? Everyone can see the prices going up and increasing competition for finite resources.
Unfortunately we are back to the same issue with almost all forms of renewables. They don't always work when you need them.Why would there be a need to 'invent' another reason to reduce fossil fuel usage? Everyone can see the prices going up and increasing competition for finite resources.
Still struggling with BO's premise - it conjures up a Yes Minister scene...
Sir Humphrey: Minister, fossil fuels are running out and we need to reduce our reliance on them.
Hackett: Good heavens - we'd better inform the public!
Sir Humphrey: Yes minister, but if we told the public fossil fuels are running out there would be uproar - it's too scary.
Hackett: So what DO we tell them?
Sir Humphrey: I suggest telling them that carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels will cause global warming which will lead to increased droughts and floods, challenge agriculture and already stressed eco-systems, and cause the ice caps to melt and inundate coastal cities...
Sir Humphrey: Minister, fossil fuels are running out and we need to reduce our reliance on them.
Hackett: Good heavens - we'd better inform the public!
Sir Humphrey: Yes minister, but if we told the public fossil fuels are running out there would be uproar - it's too scary.
Hackett: So what DO we tell them?
Sir Humphrey: I suggest telling them that carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels will cause global warming which will lead to increased droughts and floods, challenge agriculture and already stressed eco-systems, and cause the ice caps to melt and inundate coastal cities...
kerplunk said:
True, renewables seem unlikely to ever do the job as well, or as cheaply, as what we've been used to with fossil fuels.
I wouldn't necessarily say that is the case.Maybe one day when the technology has advanced enough they will become a viable alternative. Or maybe a science progresses, additional forms of renewable energy will become apparent.
Problem is, we're not at that point yet. But Politicians are forcing us down a road that is not yet ready to be traveled. At least, it's a road that cannot support the amount of traffic expected of it.
All we are seeing is energy bills rising. Our dependency on those fossil fuel nations (Russia, Ukraine, Saudi Arabia, etc) is increasing as we flounder over potential resources we have at our disposal, yet are not willing to utilize (Coal, Shale, Nuclear, etc).
And all of this because we are told the world is going to end any day now unless we all switch the Wind & Solar power, etc.
When our knowledge and infrastructure has advanced enough to allow renewables to feasibly take over from Fossil fuels then it will be a natural progression. But the political class forcing us down that road now does not make sense economically, and for that reason I can only think their motives are financially based.
kerplunk said:
Still struggling with BO's premise - it conjures up a Yes Minister scene...
Sir Humphrey: Minister, fossil fuels are running out and we need to reduce our reliance on them.
Hackett: Good heavens - we'd better inform the public!
Sir Humphrey: Yes minister, but if we told the public fossil fuels are running out there would be uproar - it's too scary.
Hackett: So what DO we tell them?
Sir Humphrey: I suggest telling them that carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels will cause global warming which will lead to increased droughts and floods, challenge agriculture and already stressed eco-systems, and cause the ice caps to melt and inundate coastal cities...
I have to say I agree completely. Sir Humphrey: Minister, fossil fuels are running out and we need to reduce our reliance on them.
Hackett: Good heavens - we'd better inform the public!
Sir Humphrey: Yes minister, but if we told the public fossil fuels are running out there would be uproar - it's too scary.
Hackett: So what DO we tell them?
Sir Humphrey: I suggest telling them that carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels will cause global warming which will lead to increased droughts and floods, challenge agriculture and already stressed eco-systems, and cause the ice caps to melt and inundate coastal cities...
He didn't mention money, sex, power or political influence... and of the three I favour money.
Always follow the money!
London424 said:
Isn't energy storage what we should really be spending money on?
If it could be stored then wind wouldn't be as useless, as you could conceivably store all energy to be used when required.
A good idea if you are planning to build them, but we have lots of them with more being built every day,the time for building storage is before you build the windmills.If it could be stored then wind wouldn't be as useless, as you could conceivably store all energy to be used when required.
Then there is the problem of long periods of low or high wind say when we have a high pressure sat over the UK, all that expense and still no power, wind mills died out for a reason.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff