Login | Register
SearchMy Stuff
My ProfileMy PreferencesMy Mates RSS Feed
2 3 ... 501 502
TOPIC CLOSED
Author Discussion

LongQ

Original Poster:

10,190 posts

119 months

[news] 
Tuesday 15th February 2011 quote quote all
As it says. Politics.

Please try to avoid science.

The budget required for the current proposals in most of the industrialised world seems to suggest massive taxation to force things along as well as loose price controls on energy companies (to start with - other industries later?) to give them seed investment.

Does it make sense?

Is it affordable?

What are the risks?

What are the alternatives.

The green flag lap starts now.

Edited by LongQ on Friday 7th October 11:42

MOTORVATOR

3,641 posts

133 months

[news] 
Tuesday 15th February 2011 quote quote all
I think you'll have to be a bit more concise with the budget for current proposals and what that does to future taxation.

Who here has the real figures for what is being raised from the populace already in the name of Climate?

LongQ

Original Poster:

10,190 posts

119 months

[news] 
Tuesday 15th February 2011 quote quote all
OK. Here is a starter form a week or so ago.

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/227386/david-c...

The EU is planning to spend 1 Trillion Euros by 2020 to return 'savings' of about 180M Euros in energy bills. Allegedly. Although some of this is regualr carbon fuel = notably gas - and some is nuclear, much will be wind and other renewables subsidised, probably, by feed in tarrifs.

However another report I have read sugests that prices will rise rapidly between now and 2015 and then more slowly to about 2020 wherreupon things are less reliably modellable but the chances are that that remain around that level thorugh to 2030 - the point at which the modelling stopped.

Here is an interesting suggestion based on the other preimise that the 1000 Eur per household reductions in cost would be the result of just 20% energy efficiency gained from ..... something unspecified. “Completing the single market for energy would mean five million new jobs across Europe by 2020."

So lets see. We invest 1 Trillion. We save 180 Million per annum, supposedly, yet still manage to create 5 million NEW jobs in the energy industry (if I read the report correctly.)

Hmm. Just imagine what they could do to feed the hungry if someone came up with some loaves and fishes.

Just what technology are they planning to use to get to that goal by 2020? Can't be wind - no saving there - at least not without paying for the 'savings' with taxation from somewhere else.

So what are the real numbers? And what does it all mean in terms of investment for this scheme AND the ones that 'unexpectedly' become necessary to support it?

And then there is Solar electricity generation and feed in tarrifs. Some interesting comments here but thats only a forum so I suggest a few searches for more info.

http://www.navitron.org.uk/forum/index.php?topic=1...


If only I had a south facing roof - free electricity and then I would get paid for using it! Can I claim compensation since my roof faces the wrong way? Why should I be penalised for that?

More to the point though ... the initiatives that are creating the anomalies are all political and subsidies pnly affordable through taxation and re-allocation. It seems they are rapidly becoming unaffordable. What political strategy changes are required to accomodate that sort of volatility? And at what cost to whom?



thinfourth2

30,378 posts

90 months

[news] 
Tuesday 15th February 2011 quote quote all
Working on the assumption that the planet is getting warmerman made or otherwise it is epically stupid for us to be spending billions on carbon reduction when.

1 We don't know if it is man that is warming the planet
2 USA and china aren't doing fk all to reduce carbon emissions.

So it is going to get warmer so would it not be wiser to spend the cash on moving to higher ground?

LongQ

Original Poster:

10,190 posts

119 months

[news] 
Tuesday 15th February 2011 quote quote all
thinfourth2 said:
Working on the assumption that the planet is getting warmerman made or otherwise it is epically stupid for us to be spending billions on carbon reduction when.

1 We don't know if it is man that is warming the planet
2 USA and china aren't doing fk all to reduce carbon emissions.

So it is going to get warmer so would it not be wiser to spend the cash on moving to higher ground?
Adaptation is a common theme in species development and humanity's ability to adapt tends to compensate for other shortcomings - of speed and strength for example when considering hunting and predation.

In general the planet does not seem to have had such a stable condition that life has only existed in certain places and stayed at those locations and those locations alone for all of time. All species have taken the opportunity to migrate to new locations as need or opportunity arises whether the distance be large or small. It is those species that seem to have limited ability to adapt that we revere as the most endangered - or so it seems. In some ways that might be considered to be lauding failure. Having established that meme it is easier to persuade people that other species that can adapt if required to are incapable of saving themselves without humanity dabbling with thing we don't fully understand in their name.

The point is that these are the political decisions we take today and many are on such a scale that to get them wrong could be disasterous - perhaps not for humanity as a whole but more for the potential to cause greatand uncontrollable harm to humanity and, by inference, other species in the long term. In the short term the potential for disruption to industrialised lives and all that 'industrialisation' has allowed us to develop in terms of general adaptation, seem to be quite high. Some may think this a good thing but then there are huge numbers of others who aspire to the same or a very similar way of life so to damage, or risk damaging, the way we live is not a journey that should be undertaken lightly. Yet our western politicains seem to be clambering over each other to appear to be offering ever greater self flagellation on our behalf.

Why is that?
Advertisement

powerstroke

2,814 posts

46 months

[news] 
Tuesday 15th February 2011 quote quote all
thinfourth2 said:
Working on the assumption that the planet is getting warmerman made or otherwise it is epically stupid for us to be spending billions on carbon reduction when.

1 We don't know if it is man that is warming the planet
2 USA and china aren't doing fk all to reduce carbon emissions.

So it is going to get warmer so would it not be wiser to spend the cash on moving to higher ground?
Its all about wrecking the captalist system, that is what the green movement is mostly about, Energy is what drives the economy control that and you control the people.
It works so far as they have managed to get people feeling guilty and thinking that they are being saved from storm, rising sea levels and extream heat..
hopefully more people will realise what the agenda is before its too late....

hairykrishna

9,802 posts

89 months

[news] 
Tuesday 15th February 2011 quote quote all
As opposed to the science thread, this is somewhere where my views are more in line with the rest of PH. Firstly, although I'm pretty sure the planet's warming, I'm not convinced that's a huge disaster. Secondly even if it is a big problem current measures are just burning money for little to no gain.

BJWoods

4,292 posts

170 months

[news] 
Tuesday 15th February 2011 quote quote all
The dash to wind warms and solar is dangerous.
Last December...

If we were to able quadruple, wind and solar in 4 years (not physically possible, in that timescale) where is the electricity going to come from on a cold winters night..

As 30% of coal/nuclear is end of life, or switcheddue to EU emmission regs..
And Chris Hulne and the Green don't want any nuclear, or cleaner coal (whilst the Chinsese are rapidly burning as many coal fired power stations as they can, and hydro, and gas, nuclear (Japan can't build the cores fast enough) and a tiny relative amount of wind/solar, the Chinese just want energy)




http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2011/01/coal...

Edited by BJWoods on Tuesday 15th February 10:38


Edited by BJWoods on Tuesday 15th February 10:39

BJWoods

4,292 posts

170 months

[news] 
Tuesday 15th February 2011 quote quote all
hairykrishna said:
As opposed to the science thread, this is somewhere where my views are more in line with the rest of PH. Firstly, although I'm pretty sure the planet's warming, I'm not convinced that's a huge disaster. Secondly even if it is a big problem current measures are just burning money for little to no gain.
Actually that is preety much my view (except, imho, we are still uncertain to the extent of AGW vs natural warming as well)

LongQ

Original Poster:

10,190 posts

119 months

[news] 
Tuesday 15th February 2011 quote quote all
hairykrishna said:
As opposed to the science thread, this is somewhere where my views are more in line with the rest of PH. Firstly, although I'm pretty sure the planet's warming, I'm not convinced that's a huge disaster. Secondly even if it is a big problem current measures are just burning money for little to no gain.
I agree. Indeed I would go further and say that future measures (say the next 10 to 20 years as being discussed openly at the moment) look even worse than current measures in terms of gains or lack of them.

Seems to me that it is really little more than a power struggle right now where any tactic to 'win' is acceptable. I'm not sure there is a commitment to pick up the pieces afterwards not that it would be possible, even if there were such a commitment, without severe unexpected consequences.The new power base might be expected to last a century or so. That seems to be the typical term.

It has always been inappropriate for social development to accept such things without question.

Oakey

16,660 posts

102 months

[news] 
Tuesday 15th February 2011 quote quote all
If you want some real tin foil hat conspiracy stuff with regards to the politicisation (sp?) of Climate Change then you should look into Maurice Strong.

LongQ

Original Poster:

10,190 posts

119 months

[news] 
Tuesday 15th February 2011 quote quote all
Oakey said:
If you want some real tin foil hat conspiracy stuff with regards to the politicisation (sp?) of Climate Change then you should look into Maurice Strong.
Irrespective of the potential for specific conspiracy or simply opportunistic cooperation by proxy, there do seem to be a few individuals who have more influence than might seem justified.

Strong, by many accounts, could be one.

Soros another, though he appears to fund in several directions. But then he would since he makes money from volatility not stability.

Less glamorous but no less interesting is the way that, in the UK, quangos and charities and 'worthy causes' - even the WI it seems, have become 'activist' organisations with opinions that would not have been pertinent to their function a short time ago.

Why is that? And why do they all seem to latch on to Climate Change?

powerstroke

2,814 posts

46 months

[news] 
Tuesday 15th February 2011 quote quote all
LongQ said:
Irrespective of the potential for specific conspiracy or simply opportunistic cooperation by proxy, there do seem to be a few individuals who have more influence than might seem justified.

Strong, by many accounts, could be one.

Soros another, though he appears to fund in several directions. But then he would since he makes money from volatility not stability.

Less glamorous but no less interesting is the way that, in the UK, quangos and charities and 'worthy causes' - even the WI it seems, have become 'activist' organisations with opinions that would not have been pertinent to their function a short time ago.

Why is that? And why do they all seem to latch on to Climate Change?
Because its been well sold perhaps??? and what is a stronger selling point than you can do your bit save the world!!! ?????? the fact its the biggest most expensive con in history is a moot point....

BJWoods

4,292 posts

170 months

[news] 
Tuesday 15th February 2011 quote quote all
powerstroke said:
Because its been well sold perhaps??? and what is a stronger selling point than you can do your bit save the world!!! ?????? the fact its the biggest most expensive con in history is a moot point....
I think mass delusion describes it better than a con.. ie a conman will walk away... someone that believes will be their at the bitter end..

BJWoods

4,292 posts

170 months

[news] 
Tuesday 15th February 2011 quote quote all
ultimately, whatever we do in the UK does not matter (nor europe)

India china, and Afric (with China's help) will burn al the coal..

Emmissions.... puts it all into perspective.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/3...

from the Guardian

On pure emissions alone, the key points are:

• China emits more CO2 than the US and Canada put together - up by 171% since the year 2000
• The US has had declining CO2 for two years running, the last time the US had declining CO2 for 3 years running was in the 1980s
• The UK is down one place to tenth on the list, 8% on the year. The country is now behind Iran, South Korea, Japan and Germany
• India is now the world's third biggest emitter of CO2 - pushing Russia into fourth place
• The biggest decrease from 2008-2009 is Ukraine - down 28%. The biggest increase is the Cook Islands - up 66.7%


The Excession

9,693 posts

136 months

[news] 
Tuesday 15th February 2011 quote quote all
wavey

Just saying hello and letting everyone know this thread will be falling under my other watchful eye too. wink

The real Apache

38,916 posts

170 months

[news] 
Tuesday 15th February 2011 quote quote all
The Excession said:
wavey

Just saying hello and letting everyone know this thread will be falling under my other watchful eye too. wink
Boy, sucker for punishment or what wink

LongQ

Original Poster:

10,190 posts

119 months

[news] 
Wednesday 16th February 2011 quote quote all
powerstroke said:
LongQ said:
Irrespective of the potential for specific conspiracy or simply opportunistic cooperation by proxy, there do seem to be a few individuals who have more influence than might seem justified.

Strong, by many accounts, could be one.

Soros another, though he appears to fund in several directions. But then he would since he makes money from volatility not stability.

Less glamorous but no less interesting is the way that, in the UK, quangos and charities and 'worthy causes' - even the WI it seems, have become 'activist' organisations with opinions that would not have been pertinent to their function a short time ago.

Why is that? And why do they all seem to latch on to Climate Change?
Because its been well sold perhaps??? and what is a stronger selling point than you can do your bit save the world!!! ?????? the fact its the biggest most expensive con in history is a moot point....
Well yes, but then I can't think of another idea that could be promoted as 'global' that is likely to be a long lasting (even unprovable/deniable) vehicle for a message. The neat trick is linking to CO2 - or more generically 'carbon' - on which the world relies for its current (no pun intended) capabilities. Never before has the developed world, in particular, been in thrall to energy to such an extent as it is now. Indeed that is also true, perhaps more true, of the parts of the world we think of as less developed. Before computers became the norm for everything a loss of electricity supply was inconvenient but one could always fall back on 'paper based' systems. Or take cash in tills working manually. 30 years ago people stocked things rather than relying on "just in time" supply managed by computer. If there were problems there were still ways around them.

Not so now in many areas of potential concern.

Of course one can argue that this reliance on consumption of large amounts of inefficently created electricity (in particular) is the source of the 'AGW problem'. However that still would not justify taking the risk of committing so much investment into unproven and even undeveloped technologies in the hope that they will work. It's really not a good time to be doing that and taking on such an easily identifiable risk in my opinion. Nor does it seem to be necessary to anyone but the most extreme viewpoints.

The 'just in case' scenario is rarely a strong case after the event. The chances of immediate responses taking a toll on both the financing and deployable expertise that could be applied to long term technology advances of greater value seem high. If they really are its not a good price to pay for some politician's vanity pissing contest.

NoNeed

8,797 posts

86 months

[news] 
Wednesday 16th February 2011 quote quote all
I have often wondered what the driving force is behind this, as we in our little country would have little effect, even as a continent as large as europe the effect would be minimal. I don't believe it to be taxation nor do I believe it to be a world domination thing. My conclusion (well the best I have come up with so far) is that it is to reverse "globalisation" by making prices reflect the carbon footprint of the product, thereby making cheap imports from China, India and the USA an impossibility. This would mean it is far more attractive to business to produce locally and consumers to buy local.

powerstroke

2,814 posts

46 months

[news] 
Wednesday 16th February 2011 quote quote all
NoNeed said:
I have often wondered what the driving force is behind this, as we in our little country would have little effect, even as a continent as large as europe the effect would be minimal. I don't believe it to be taxation nor do I believe it to be a world domination thing. My conclusion (well the best I have come up with so far) is that it is to reverse "globalisation" by making prices reflect the carbon footprint of the product, thereby making cheap imports from China, India and the USA an impossibility. This would mean it is far more attractive to business to produce locally and consumers to buy local.
Well if you're right most people are going to have to accept much lower wages and a
falling standard of living.. But I think its deeper than that, its more about peoples lust for power and imposing rule!!! just look at the direction the EU is going!!!.. ...

2 3 ... 501 502
TOPIC CLOSED