"Just stop oil"
- Thread starter Diddums
- Start date
Yup the word don’t is missing and it’s pretty key.But then...............
Did you miss out some words there?
‘At no point have I suggested we don’t need to cut our consumption’.
One thing that’s not being discussed about these licenses is that the net impact on emissions will actually be reduced.
It will absolutely add to U.K. emissions but it will reduce global emissions and that is the ultimate goal.
The status quo involves is liquefying gas which uses a huge amount of energy, then pumping it into a tanker and shipping it half way round the world to the U.K. if you accept that the gas will ultimately be burnt over the next two plus decades through the transition, the local production option makes more sense and in terms of emissions, it should significantly be lower than continuing to tank it in.
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Feb 2018
- Posts
- 13,316
*********. When have they ever done whats in the best interests of the British people?
Last edited:
In fairness, this is in the interests of the British people. The just stop oil position is cutting your nose off to spite your face and would mean billions of £ flowing out of the UK economy to Norway, America and the Middle East because of ideology. Oil and gas is getting burnt in the UK for decades to come one way or another, its better the jobs are here and not propping up regimes in the Middle East or further contributing to Norway's sovereign wealth fund.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Nov 2008
- Posts
- 13,322
- Location
- London
Is it, how would investing in greener technologies and Nuclear not achieve the same thing without being as environmentally damaging?
Once these fields are operational, where's the motivation to switch to greener tech? The carbon capture going along with these new licenses is even less motivation to go green.
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2005
- Posts
- 12,659
Certainly not in the interests of the youth of Britain, given they will have the bear the brunt of the effects of burning oil today
Investing in alternatives to oil & gas would be in the interests of the British people present and future, allowing more Oil and gas exploration is only in the interests of oil companies
Instead the money is flowing into foreign and multinational corporations profits that many of our politicians have interests in.
Hilarious.
It's quite comical that the Tories are only able to get away with this right now purely because Just Stop Oil have made the general public hate them so much that they have by extension made climate change less unpopular >.>
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Feb 2018
- Posts
- 13,316
Im not sure thats the case. They arent being allowed to get away with anything they are just doing what they want. Most of this is about Uxbridge and Tory backers donors. Its the new culture war for the next election.
They wouldnt be getting away with this if Starmer gave a warning to stop the companies investing in the first place. These fields wont be open until years into the next parliament.
Last edited:
It's quite comical rubbish - most people are suffering under higher energy/fuel bills and that speaks to them more than any JSO discourse, if we can isolate ourselves from further cost of living hikes then most people are in.
e: on the other hand if you heard rishis speech where he was criticized for travelling by jet, he comically said we can't additionally tax people who want to fly on their holidays -
news flash going on holiday is not essential like heat -
his comment
If you or others think that the answer to climate change is getting people to ban everything that they are doing, to stop people flying, to stop people going on holiday, I think that is absolutely the wrong approach.
e: on the other hand if you heard rishis speech where he was criticized for travelling by jet, he comically said we can't additionally tax people who want to fly on their holidays -
news flash going on holiday is not essential like heat -
his comment
If you or others think that the answer to climate change is getting people to ban everything that they are doing, to stop people flying, to stop people going on holiday, I think that is absolutely the wrong approach.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2005
- Posts
- 12,659
Are you thick ? We'll still have to pay the going rate for oil and gas, Shell or BP aren't going to give us a discount because it's local oil lol
We can and there is no reason not to do both given fossil fuels are also used in things other than the generation of electricity. The issuing of oil and gas licences costs the UK government nothing and actually raises revenue, a lot of it which can be used to subsidise lower carbon options such as heat pumps. For example a new nuclear power or two station isn't going to replace 23 million gas boilers currently deployed in homes across the UK.
Speaking of heat pumps, in the last year 30,000 heat pumps were installed, at that run rate it will take 766 years to retrofit 23 million gas boilers without factoring in the units installed in the 15-20 years previously that will be coming to end of life.
Yes, I know before you say anything, I am being deliberately obtuse to make a point, the yearly run rate will obviously scale as the market grows. The point is that we currently import 50% of our fossil fuels so we have a really LONG way to go before we are even going to be close to producing enough to cover our own demand, even with reducing said demand.
I know this wasn't aimed at be and its very true. The wider point is that producing it in the UK instead of importing it from outside the UK supports UK jobs and the UK economy. Importing it supports the economies of the Middle East, Norway and the USA. This is one of those times we should actually be supporting the government to grow the local economy instead of offshoring literally everything.
The position of 'but fossil fuels are bad' is ill considered and fails to look at the bigger picture. We should absolutely be taking steps to curb fossil fuel consumption but the reality is that we will be using fossil fuels for a substantial period of time to come and we do need to secure existing jobs and supply chains around that. Net zero by 2050 is still 27 years away, even if we make the 2050 target, we will still be burning fossil fuels in the UK. Its a net zero emissions target not a zero emissions target.
Last edited:
It's all a bit depressing really the state of this country, pure unadulterated greed infests the rootip of this country. The goverment may not be in bed with hordes of drug cartel's like many other countries, the corruption comes from the Banks and the Energy sector, and all the ELT's across this country focusing on subsidizing their bonuses rather then spreading it to all the employees that made them successful in the first place can be lumped together in this group.
Last edited:
It's an interesting point that's often overlooked. You can continue to burn fossil fuels if it's offset by doing something green. I've not heard much discussed on what the government could do to offset carbon emissions - there's only so many trees that can be planted etc.
I remember reading about a device some researchers had come up with that effectively sucked the carbon out of the air. Things like that would go a long way for offsetting our footprint.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Nov 2008
- Posts
- 13,322
- Location
- London
No reason not to do both... you mean other than the massive environmental impact?
Generating electricity and transport are the biggest uses of oil and gas, and the easiest to replace with greener alternatives. The same goes for raising revenue for more low carbon projects, build adequate green supply and fund more projects through exporting green energy.
I'm not against our current oil and gas extraction, and can recognise its not something we can give up any time soon. I do find it baffling that theres already tried and tested green alternatives to the biggest offenders but people are still willing to argue in favour of worse options.
The recent announcement from Rishi includes carbon capture plans in scotland and the north. I can understand the idea behind it if we were talking about things that didn't have greener alternatives, but it just stinks of greenwashing to me.
Last edited:
I believe it is too energy intensive to be practical. Maybe if we built a load of nuclear power plants we could have cheap enough energy to do it.
Last edited:
The net environmental impact of producing it here is lower than producing it in America, liquefying it using huge amounts of energy and then shipping it half way around the world on a massive tanker that burns the worst of the worst fossil fuels. It’s also lower than producing it in Norway and pumping it down an undersea pipeline for hundreds of miles.
I’ve not argued in favour of worse options, quite the opposite. I also understand that the reality is that we will still be burning fossil fuels for decades to come. Even the countries with the most aggressive net zero policies see fossil fuels being part of the energy mix for the foreseeable future.
Even if we banned new new ICE vehicles and gas boilers tomorrow, it will take nigh on 2 decades before the vast majority are off the roads and out of houses.
What I’ve argued in favour of producing what fossil fuels we will continue to use over the next 30 years in the U.K. instead of importing it from others. The net impact of doing that is lower than importing it and it supports the U.K. economy.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2005
- Posts
- 12,659
The simple reality is either we make hard sacrifices now, or we sacrifice our future, it seems people are happy to kill the future because it's not them, even though it's their and their friends offspring they are selfishly dooming, it's quite messed up