Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 2
Discussion
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
Do you really think they know or care about that?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
More likely they have too little to do these days - many policy decisions (Competences in EU speak but these things go wider than just the EU) are a long way from their control.
Why do people become politicians?
I would suggest that for most, maybe all, control and influence are the key drivers. Naff all control and influence over major events and world influence left. Except what they are 'offered' by those further along the influence chain.
All they can do with Ecology, in general, is shout about it, worry people and use it as an excuse to raise taxes whislt claiming, wrongly, to cut costs.
Big business will like this, in the main. It mandates that people have to buy new 'stuff' and new stuff always offers greater profit margin potential then establish product, by and large. That the new stuff is mandated by laws is a bonus. You don't have to spend on marketing to the masses - just your captive vendors. Once you have established a government supported NEED using locally produced product and manufacturing quality as part of the sell you can switch the product to make it somewhere cheaper (the mass market will be pleased at any price reductions) without crippling your margins. Then you drop the quality to use up manufacturing capacity add volume and most people will not notice 'cos they never had enough previous experience of the product to measure against. It won't matter even if they do notice - they are obliged to pay for your product.
Politicians, especially those who desire high positions, are often driven by a desire to be remembered in History. Their egos are strong enough (they would not usually choose politics otherwise) to give them a self belief that their assigned epitaph will be a glorious record of all they achieved in their political life - failures airbrushed carefully from the record.
We really should not vote for anyone who wishes to join the club. Nor should we give them the money they wish for to play their games to thier benefit rather than ours.
Ultimately if the people want democracy the people will have to take control of the cash flow. Until we have a say on income and expenditure we cannot consider ourselves to be a democracy or anything close to a democracy. (But that is taking the subject a long way off topic so I'll stop there.)
BliarOut said:
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.
Wondering if this was a suitable response to the above?http://www.thegwpf.org/deluge-entering-era-fossil-...
LongQ said:
No wonder pubs are closing.
Here's to the next 500 then.
You're raising a glass to the next 500 pubs to close?Here's to the next 500 then.
Oh well, I suppose it reduces the terrifying effects of "passive drinking". I mean, the vinous breath of a businessman must be wreeking havoc on the eco-thing mustn't it.
Andy Zarse said:
LongQ said:
No wonder pubs are closing.
Here's to the next 500 then.
You're raising a glass to the next 500 pubs to close?Here's to the next 500 then.
Oh well, I suppose it reduces the terrifying effects of "passive drinking". I mean, the vinous breath of a businessman must be wreeking havoc on the eco-thing mustn't it.
No - context problem and some poor editing on my part.
Are there 500 (pubs) left, yet to be closed?
BliarOut said:
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.
We hardly hear anything about it because it's not going to happen in this lifetime; coal reserves are in the 300yr+ area, oil as ever is loitering in the vicinity of 30-50 years and gas has the absurd range of 50-500 years depending on whose figures you believe. Energy companies just don't bother to even roughly assay the size of reserves unless they are going to be exploited within a couple of economic cycles.
singlecoil said:
We will, of course, run out at some point, the only argument can be over when. There's no doubt that not having to import so much oil would be a good thing financially.
Wrong, we may never run out. Have a read:http://principia-scientific.org/14-editor-s-favori...
Globs said:
Remarkable how such theories wax and wane; I've got a set of O&G conference proceedings from 1979 which contains a paper about Abiogenic oil theory.hidetheelephants said:
Globs said:
Remarkable how such theories wax and wane; I've got a set of O&G conference proceedings from 1979 which contains a paper about Abiogenic oil theory.Running out however is not going to be an issue IMO.
The truth is far worse: some people actually appear to believe this CO2 crap, even as they shiver and freeze. f
king idiots.KP said:
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...
Not cynical enough KP and not overly complicated the way the civil service would make things – the conversation probably went more like the one below……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: Bad news sir, there is an abundance of oil and gas. It seems the more the companies look for it the more they find.
Hackett: Bad news Sir Humphrey? Surely this is great news, cheap energy for all will bring happiness and prosperity to all.
Sir Humphrey: Yes sir but more importantly no sir. Unfortunately if energy becomes cheap enough for everyone to afford the companies will not bother to dig any up. Leading to fuel shortages and huge price increases.
Hackett: That’s dreadful.
Sir Humphrey: Yes sir and also no sir. Huge prices will also give the treasury a huge increase in duty and VAT income allowing us to spend the money giving it to the populace that struggle to afford the huge prices.
Hackett: So what you’re saying is that we need to tell everyone that there isn’t enough energy, to keep the prices high enough to cause people to struggle so that we have the money to stop them struggling?
Sir Humphrey: Yes sir.
Hackett: Surely someone will find out about this though. There could be some awkward questions in the house?
Sir Humphrey: That is where the environment secretary comes in sir.
Hackett: That hair shirt wearing cyclist? He hasn’t taken my calls since that whole badger thing at Hayward’s spinney.
Sir Humphrey: Yes sir and no sir – he merely never received any of your missives. He will though this time as we need him to be very vocal over how bad gas, oil and coal are for the environment.
Hackett: Bad Sir Humphrey? My O level chemistry might have been sometime ago but the main products of combustion are water and carbon dioxide.
Sir Humphrey: Yes sir – whilst we will never convince the population that water is bad for them we will instead say CO2 is bad for the planet.
Hackett: CO2? Plant food?
Sir Humphrey: Yes sir. But it is also a GHG in certain conditions, namely conditions without water, but we can not expect GCSE grade scientists to know this as it won’t be on the curriculum.
Hackett: How does this stop the questions in the House though?
Sir Humphrey: Well sir, far be it from me to suggest policy but if coal, gas and oil are very expensive but also bad for the planet there will be a market for expensive alternatives that will require government support.
Hackett: Creating a large number of artificial companies, needing MP influence, to wean the populace off abundant but artificially expensive energy. But isn’t there a danger these alternatives will reduce the need for conventional energy?
Sir Humphrey: No sir. They will be based on proven failed technology, wind, solar that sort of thing. No chance of ever being capable of challenging conventional energy sources.
Hackett: Very good Sir Humphrey – make it happen. What about nuclear though?
Sir Humphrey: No problem sir, we’ll just fund a few NGOs to fight against it.....
Jinx said:
Not cynical enough KP and not overly complicated the way the civil service would make things – the conversation probably went more like the one below……
Sir Humphrey: Bad news sir, there is an abundance of oil and gas. It seems the more the companies look for it the more they find.
Hackett: Bad news Sir Humphrey? Surely this is great news, cheap energy for all will bring happiness and prosperity to all.
Sir Humphrey: Yes sir but more importantly no sir. Unfortunately if energy becomes cheap enough for everyone to afford the companies will not bother to dig any up. Leading to fuel shortages and huge price increases.
Hackett: That’s dreadful.
Sir Humphrey: Yes sir and also no sir. Huge prices will also give the treasury a huge increase in duty and VAT income allowing us to spend the money giving it to the populace that struggle to afford the huge prices.
Hackett: So what you’re saying is that we need to tell everyone that there isn’t enough energy, to keep the prices high enough to cause people to struggle so that we have the money to stop them struggling?
Sir Humphrey: Yes sir.
Hackett: Surely someone will find out about this though. There could be some awkward questions in the house?
Sir Humphrey: That is where the environment secretary comes in sir.
Hackett: That hair shirt wearing cyclist? He hasn’t taken my calls since that whole badger thing at Hayward’s spinney.
Sir Humphrey: Yes sir and no sir – he merely never received any of your missives. He will though this time as we need him to be very vocal over how bad gas, oil and coal are for the environment.
Hackett: Bad Sir Humphrey? My O level chemistry might have been sometime ago but the main products of combustion are water and carbon dioxide.
Sir Humphrey: Yes sir – whilst we will never convince the population that water is bad for them we will instead say CO2 is bad for the planet.
Hackett: CO2? Plant food?
Sir Humphrey: Yes sir. But it is also a GHG in certain conditions, namely conditions without water, but we can not expect GCSE grade scientists to know this as it won’t be on the curriculum.
Hackett: How does this stop the questions in the House though?
Sir Humphrey: Well sir, far be it from me to suggest policy but if coal, gas and oil are very expensive but also bad for the planet there will be a market for expensive alternatives that will require government support.
Hackett: Creating a large number of artificial companies, needing MP influence, to wean the populace off abundant but artificially expensive energy. But isn’t there a danger these alternatives will reduce the need for conventional energy?
Sir Humphrey: No sir. They will be based on proven failed technology, wind, solar that sort of thing. No chance of ever being capable of challenging conventional energy sources.
Hackett: Very good Sir Humphrey – make it happen. What about nuclear though?
Sir Humphrey: No problem sir, we’ll just fund a few NGOs to fight against it.....
Sir Humphrey: Bad news sir, there is an abundance of oil and gas. It seems the more the companies look for it the more they find.
Hackett: Bad news Sir Humphrey? Surely this is great news, cheap energy for all will bring happiness and prosperity to all.
Sir Humphrey: Yes sir but more importantly no sir. Unfortunately if energy becomes cheap enough for everyone to afford the companies will not bother to dig any up. Leading to fuel shortages and huge price increases.
Hackett: That’s dreadful.
Sir Humphrey: Yes sir and also no sir. Huge prices will also give the treasury a huge increase in duty and VAT income allowing us to spend the money giving it to the populace that struggle to afford the huge prices.
Hackett: So what you’re saying is that we need to tell everyone that there isn’t enough energy, to keep the prices high enough to cause people to struggle so that we have the money to stop them struggling?
Sir Humphrey: Yes sir.
Hackett: Surely someone will find out about this though. There could be some awkward questions in the house?
Sir Humphrey: That is where the environment secretary comes in sir.
Hackett: That hair shirt wearing cyclist? He hasn’t taken my calls since that whole badger thing at Hayward’s spinney.
Sir Humphrey: Yes sir and no sir – he merely never received any of your missives. He will though this time as we need him to be very vocal over how bad gas, oil and coal are for the environment.
Hackett: Bad Sir Humphrey? My O level chemistry might have been sometime ago but the main products of combustion are water and carbon dioxide.
Sir Humphrey: Yes sir – whilst we will never convince the population that water is bad for them we will instead say CO2 is bad for the planet.
Hackett: CO2? Plant food?
Sir Humphrey: Yes sir. But it is also a GHG in certain conditions, namely conditions without water, but we can not expect GCSE grade scientists to know this as it won’t be on the curriculum.
Hackett: How does this stop the questions in the House though?
Sir Humphrey: Well sir, far be it from me to suggest policy but if coal, gas and oil are very expensive but also bad for the planet there will be a market for expensive alternatives that will require government support.
Hackett: Creating a large number of artificial companies, needing MP influence, to wean the populace off abundant but artificially expensive energy. But isn’t there a danger these alternatives will reduce the need for conventional energy?
Sir Humphrey: No sir. They will be based on proven failed technology, wind, solar that sort of thing. No chance of ever being capable of challenging conventional energy sources.
Hackett: Very good Sir Humphrey – make it happen. What about nuclear though?
Sir Humphrey: No problem sir, we’ll just fund a few NGOs to fight against it.....
Jinx said:
Damnit - oh well an edit or two to include special advisors and maybe a mention of Father in laws with plenty of useless land is in order 
I'll leave it in the capable hands of PH.
No, a mixture of styles won't look convincing. You do it...I'll leave it in the capable hands of PH.
And I'll send an anonymous copy to my MP, Nicky Boy Clegg...
Ought to send one to Cameron, too. And Ed Davey...
And let's rub it in with a copy to Huhne. What's his new address..?
Take 2:
Sir Humphrey: Bad news sir, there is an abundance of oil and gas. It seems the more the companies look for it the more they find.
Hackett: Bad news Sir Humphrey? Surely this is great news, cheap energy for all will bring happiness and prosperity to all.
Sir Humphrey: Yes sir but more importantly no sir. Unfortunately if energy becomes cheap enough for everyone to afford the companies will not bother to dig any up. Leading to fuel shortages and huge price increases.
Hackett: That’s dreadful.
Sir Humphrey: Yes sir and also no sir. Huge prices will also give the treasury a huge increase in duty and VAT income allowing us to spend the money giving it to the populace that struggle to afford the huge prices.
Hackett: So what you’re saying is that we need to tell everyone that there isn’t enough energy, to keep the prices high enough to cause people to struggle so that we have the money to stop them struggling?
Sir Humphrey: Yes sir.
Hackett: Surely someone will find out about this though. Won’t some of the civil service leak out these reports from the energy companies?
Sir Humphrey: Possibly sir but something this important will require special advisor oversight. I will prepare a list of reliable people accordingly.
Hackett: There could be some awkward questions in the house?
Sir Humphrey: That is where the environment secretary comes in sir.
Hackett: That hair shirt wearing cyclist? He hasn’t taken my calls since that whole badger thing at Hayward’s spinney.
Sir Humphrey: Yes sir and no sir – he never received any of your missives. He will though this time as we need him to be very vocal over how bad gas, oil and coal are for the environment.
Hackett: Bad Sir Humphrey? My O-level chemistry might have been sometime ago but the main products of combustion are water and carbon dioxide.
Sir Humphrey: Yes sir – whilst we will never convince the population that water is bad for them we will instead say CO2 is bad for the planet.
Hackett: CO2? Plant food?
Sir Humphrey: Yes sir. But it is also a GHG in certain conditions, namely conditions without water, but we can not expect GCSE grade scientists to know this as it won’t be on the curriculum.
Hackett: How does this stop the questions in the House though?
Sir Humphrey: Well sir, far be it from me to suggest policy but if coal, gas and oil are very expensive but also bad for the planet there will be a market for expensive alternatives that will require government support.
Hackett: Creating a large number of artificial companies all needing MP influence, at board level at least. I like it; MPs leading the way to wean the populace off artificially expensive abundant energy. But isn’t there a danger these alternatives will reduce the need for conventional energy?
Sir Humphrey: No sir. They will be based on proven failed technology, wind, solar that sort of thing. No chance of ever being capable of challenging conventional energy sources.
Hackett: The upper house though, I can see some problems from the peers?
Sir Humphrey: Of course not sir, who do you think will own all the land these useless windmills will occupy?
Hackett: Very good Sir Humphrey – make it happen. What about nuclear though?
Sir Humphrey: No problem sir, we’ll just fund a few NGOs to build public support against it.....
Sir Humphrey: Bad news sir, there is an abundance of oil and gas. It seems the more the companies look for it the more they find.
Hackett: Bad news Sir Humphrey? Surely this is great news, cheap energy for all will bring happiness and prosperity to all.
Sir Humphrey: Yes sir but more importantly no sir. Unfortunately if energy becomes cheap enough for everyone to afford the companies will not bother to dig any up. Leading to fuel shortages and huge price increases.
Hackett: That’s dreadful.
Sir Humphrey: Yes sir and also no sir. Huge prices will also give the treasury a huge increase in duty and VAT income allowing us to spend the money giving it to the populace that struggle to afford the huge prices.
Hackett: So what you’re saying is that we need to tell everyone that there isn’t enough energy, to keep the prices high enough to cause people to struggle so that we have the money to stop them struggling?
Sir Humphrey: Yes sir.
Hackett: Surely someone will find out about this though. Won’t some of the civil service leak out these reports from the energy companies?
Sir Humphrey: Possibly sir but something this important will require special advisor oversight. I will prepare a list of reliable people accordingly.
Hackett: There could be some awkward questions in the house?
Sir Humphrey: That is where the environment secretary comes in sir.
Hackett: That hair shirt wearing cyclist? He hasn’t taken my calls since that whole badger thing at Hayward’s spinney.
Sir Humphrey: Yes sir and no sir – he never received any of your missives. He will though this time as we need him to be very vocal over how bad gas, oil and coal are for the environment.
Hackett: Bad Sir Humphrey? My O-level chemistry might have been sometime ago but the main products of combustion are water and carbon dioxide.
Sir Humphrey: Yes sir – whilst we will never convince the population that water is bad for them we will instead say CO2 is bad for the planet.
Hackett: CO2? Plant food?
Sir Humphrey: Yes sir. But it is also a GHG in certain conditions, namely conditions without water, but we can not expect GCSE grade scientists to know this as it won’t be on the curriculum.
Hackett: How does this stop the questions in the House though?
Sir Humphrey: Well sir, far be it from me to suggest policy but if coal, gas and oil are very expensive but also bad for the planet there will be a market for expensive alternatives that will require government support.
Hackett: Creating a large number of artificial companies all needing MP influence, at board level at least. I like it; MPs leading the way to wean the populace off artificially expensive abundant energy. But isn’t there a danger these alternatives will reduce the need for conventional energy?
Sir Humphrey: No sir. They will be based on proven failed technology, wind, solar that sort of thing. No chance of ever being capable of challenging conventional energy sources.
Hackett: The upper house though, I can see some problems from the peers?
Sir Humphrey: Of course not sir, who do you think will own all the land these useless windmills will occupy?
Hackett: Very good Sir Humphrey – make it happen. What about nuclear though?
Sir Humphrey: No problem sir, we’ll just fund a few NGOs to build public support against it.....
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...
Well you might find it was actually first championed by thatcher as an excuse to bash the coal minersSir 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...
McWigglebum4th said:
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...
Well you might find it was actually first championed by thatcher as an excuse to bash the coal minersSir 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...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff