1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

London Climate Protests

Discussion in 'Speaker's Corner' started by crinkleshoes, Apr 17, 2019.

  1. dowie

    Caporegime

    Joined: Jan 29, 2008

    Posts: 43,269

    Yeah it’s the oil companies who are to blame for supplying us with oil, nothing to do with all the consumers out there....
     
  2. D.P.

    Caporegime

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 30,213


    yeah, and it is the consumers fault for being addicted to nicotine, those nice tobacco companies were simply providing an important desirable product to consumers.
     
  3. dowie

    Caporegime

    Joined: Jan 29, 2008

    Posts: 43,269

    Eh? What relevance does tobacco addiction have here?

    Do you have an addiction to air travel?
     
  4. Nasher

    Capodecina

    Joined: Nov 22, 2006

    Posts: 14,207

    Yea I snort oil every day, I'm totally hooked.
     
  5. 200sols

    Mobster

    Joined: Jan 14, 2018

    Posts: 2,541

    Location: Hampshire

    Anyone can quit smoking but we can’t just quit oil without ruining the world economy and sending us back to the stone age.
     
  6. 4K8KW10

    Soldato

    Joined: Sep 2, 2017

    Posts: 7,170

    Nah, oil supplies are destined for a slow and terrible death, anyways. It blows my mind how people deny that the oil reserves will be depleted, anyways.
    It isnot like we have a choice - we either continue to use oil and destroy our planet, and maybe ourselves, or change and adapt for economy based on renewable energy sources.

    [​IMG]
    https://www.worldometers.info/
     
  7. 200sols

    Mobster

    Joined: Jan 14, 2018

    Posts: 2,541

    Location: Hampshire

    They have been claiming we will run out of oil for many years now, they always seem to find more but that is another story. Quick money today rules the world, not many in power care about ending the use of oil. If we carry on it will be a big shock when it runs out, they will have to pursue the much harder and riskier to extract oil.
     
  8. PlacidCasual

    Soldato

    Joined: May 13, 2003

    Posts: 6,096

    Oil has been a one off boon for mankind enabling rapid industrialisation that has lifted billions out of poverty. But anyone who doesn't think it's a limited time resources is bonkers. Yes we're getting much better a squeezing the last bit out of the toothpaste tube and finding more down the back of the sofa but that's not going to continue for ever. We need to move to a post fossil fuel nuclear powered World so we can reliably maintain our societal gains and spread them to others.
     
  9. 4K8KW10

    Soldato

    Joined: Sep 2, 2017

    Posts: 7,170

    Yup, the oil-rich countries, especially those in the deserts of the Middle East can invest their oil money for nuclear power plants construction and start exporting clean nuclear energy for the neighbours and why not for Europe and India/China.
     
  10. 200sols

    Mobster

    Joined: Jan 14, 2018

    Posts: 2,541

    Location: Hampshire

    I dont know how it is in the middle east but western people have an irrational fear of nuclear despite it being the safest form of energy production.
     
  11. Nasher

    Capodecina

    Joined: Nov 22, 2006

    Posts: 14,207

    The safest lol.

    When any other kind of power plant goes wrong it doesn't make a whole area uninhabitable for the next few 1000 years (and kill everyone nearby). They can't use them to make super weapons either...
     
  12. 200sols

    Mobster

    Joined: Jan 14, 2018

    Posts: 2,541

    Location: Hampshire

    I know you don’t deal in facts, but yes the safest.
     
  13. Nasher

    Capodecina

    Joined: Nov 22, 2006

    Posts: 14,207

    Did you learn that from the nuclear power industry?

    You ACTUALLY believe that nuclear is safer than wind, solar or hydro? How many coal plant disasters have we had which have destroyed entire cities? In the UK we build them as far from homes as possible for a reason.

    Most countries don't use (or have got rid of) nuclear because of the huge risks. Including Germany.
     
    Last edited: Nov 19, 2019
  14. 200sols

    Mobster

    Joined: Jan 14, 2018

    Posts: 2,541

    Location: Hampshire

    It’s a fact, not a belief based on one accident like you hold. Already posted these links before, maybe you will read them this time.

    https://ourworldindata.org/what-is-the-safest-form-of-energy

    https://www.fool.com/investing/gene...fest-form-of-power-is-also-the-most-fear.aspx

    World health organisation.... ‘According to the study, nuclear power is by far safest power source in the world -- 40% less deadly than the next safest, wind. ’
     
  15. Nasher

    Capodecina

    Joined: Nov 22, 2006

    Posts: 14,207

    But it's ********. If it's so safe why don't we have a reactor in every town, instead of in the middle of nowhere? Or maybe lets just all have cars with mini reactors, instead of petrol. Because petrol is very dangerous and kills/injures more people every year.
     
    Last edited: Nov 19, 2019
  16. b0rn2sk8

    Mobster

    Joined: Mar 9, 2003

    Posts: 4,789

    @Nasher you need to consider the whole supply chain and industrial accidents not just melt downs. Risks can and are managed. Driving is very risky, you do that daily.

    Put it this way, more people have died or been injured as a result of working at or living near a coal or gas power station as a relative measure.

    It’s the same reason flying is the safest form of transport despite the reality of when it goes wrong lots of people die.
     
  17. 200sols

    Mobster

    Joined: Jan 14, 2018

    Posts: 2,541

    Location: Hampshire

    Because as I said... irrational fear. It’s not a vote winner is it.
     
  18. Mr C

    Hitman

    Joined: Sep 8, 2006

    Posts: 639

    There was actually an article on this recently:

    I'm paraphrasing but this is in the context of the Fukushima disaster:

    https://www.economist.com/asia/2019...reactors-deadlier-than-the-fukushima-disaster

    So yes i must agree, irrational fear is the answer, it even states at the end of the article despite the knowledge of this (paying more for electricity, more pollution) people still refuse to reopen nuclear in japan

    I do believe if we are serious about reducing carbon emissions we really do need nuclear as a producer of base energy, it doesn't matter how much solar or wind we can make if it is intermittent or technology to store it efficiently is not available. So either a revolutionary breakthrough in battery technology or fusion power (two potential long term solutions but certainly won't be ready before we start getting too close to the warming target) or we start going back to nuclear.
     
  19. nkata

    Soldato

    Joined: Mar 1, 2010

    Posts: 7,108

    Location: Cheshire / Staffordshire

    Radioactivity is very HAZARDOUS.
    However the RISK of the HAZARD being realised can be managed to be very low.

    In other words if you assess and manage a hazard properly, the risks are minimised. This applies to any process but is more important to complex situations.
     
  20. Nasher

    Capodecina

    Joined: Nov 22, 2006

    Posts: 14,207

    Tell that to the people who used to live in Chernobyl or Fukushima.