Should the UK bother pursuing the Green Obsession?

[Ultimatum]

I posit the question in the title of this thread.
Considering that the UK produces ~2% of CO2 emissions, and that less than half of the 0.8C increase in the last 250 years is down to human activity, are we really going to pursue policies that are going to almost double our energy bills and fuel the green obsession WHEN the Asias will go nowhere near cracking down on CO2.

We are starving our peoples for the sake of ignorance.

P.S.: There is a difference between healthy scepticism of policy and denial.

 

[Lyndon]

A lot of the alternative energy sources will end up being cheaper than oil and coal in 20-50 years, if some of them aren't cheaper already, so what is there to lose going alternative, and the huge possibility of a much bigger loss to come if we don't, obviously coal and oil are going to run out before too long, not to mention their cost to the environment, staying on the old course is clear stupidity with what we know now.

 

[Yerda]

I honestly don't know how to respond to this without being rude. You have literally broke whatever module or software component or tin cog it is that makes my wee head whirl. I am dead now. Well done.

P.s. I'm not dead. Good trolling, thumbs up.

 

[Quetzal]

Every little bit helps. I am happy to see the American government (well, half of it) supporting alternative energy sources. We only have one planet and I believe we should do everything we can to preserve it.

 

[Lyndon]

Jaiket, Just for interest's sake, as I don't know you that well, are you referring to my post or the OP's??

 

[Yerda]

Jaiket, Just for interest sake, as I don't know you that well, are you referring to my post or the OP's??

Oops. The OP. Sorry.

 

[Lyndon]

Thanks, that makes me feel better, I get called a troll often enough, I'm not looking to fit that profile here.

 

[Mycroft]

Very few things are green, when considered in the larger picture.

Take electric cars.

Electric Cars are built in a variety of countries, but the batteries for them are almost always produced in China or Japan. That means that these batteries have to be flown to the country of manufacture before they can be installed in the car. This creates a huge carbon footprint even before the car is built.

Moreover, the battery inside the car is lithium. Once the battery reaches the end of its life, there's really nothing you can do with the waste lithium (at present at least) except send it to landfill. Which, of course, is about as far away from green as you can get.

There's also another side to Green obsession, though: control. It could very easily become a thing where people are told what kind of car they can have, what they can buy, where they can live, how many children they can have, etc. all under the pretense of 'Green'

 

[Quetzal]

Very few things are green, when considered in the larger picture.

Take electric cars.

Electric Cars are built in a variety of countries, but the batteries for them are almost always produced in China or Japan. That means that these batteries have to be flown to the country of manufacture before they can be installed in the car. This creates a huge carbon footprint even before the car is built.

Moreover, the battery inside the car is lithium. Once the battery reaches the end of its life, there's really nothing you can do with the waste lithium (at present at least) except send it to landfill. Which, of course, is about as far away from green as you can get.

There's also another side to Green obsession, though: control. It could very easily become a thing where people are told what kind of car they can have, what they can buy, where they can live, how many children they can have, etc. all under the pretense of 'Green'

Careful of the slippery slope fallacy. I believe incentives will be offered to those who participate but I cannot see it becoming mandatory unless there is some sort of crisis.

 

[Nakosis]

I posit the question in the title of this thread.
Considering that the UK produces ~2% of CO2 emissions, and that less than half of the 0.8C increase in the last 250 years is down to human activity, are we really going to pursue policies that are going to almost double our energy bills and fuel the green obsession WHEN the Asias will go nowhere near cracking down on CO2.

We are starving our peoples for the sake of ignorance.

P.S.: There is a difference between healthy scepticism of policy and denial.

What does it matter? Yes, it probably won't do anything to effect climate change but it makes people feel good about doing something. It provides jobs in solar energy. It gets us closer to energy independence.

The US government is looking at adaptation now. Climate change is going to happen, not much we can do about preventing that. However we can learn to do more with less. Nothing wrong with that. And, it gives folks hope.

Hope springs eternal in the human breast;
Man never is, but always to be blessed:
The soul, uneasy and confined from home,
Rests and expatiates in a life to come.
– Alexander Pope

Benefits come from quixotic causes.

 

[Ultimatum]

A lot of the alternative energy sources will end up being cheaper than oil and coal in 20-50 years

Source?

if some of them aren't cheaper already, so what is there to lose going alternative, and the huge possibility of a much bigger loss to come if we don't, obviously coal and oil are going to run out before too long, not to mention their cost to the environment, staying on the old course is clear stupidity with what we know now.

But renewable energy is currently uneconomical and doesn't compete with the fossil-fuel alternative. So, if as you say, renewable energy does become cheaper, then it is at that point that we start to subsidise and incentivise.
But to push it whilst it is, on average, almost triple (now with the scrapped subsidies for onshore wind) the price of the economical alternative, you would have to be a lunatic--unless, of course you're quite happy to push millions of your fellow countrymen into fuel poverty WHILST the Asian giants laugh at our stupidity.

Careful of the slippery slope fallacy. I believe incentives will be offered to those who participate but I cannot see it becoming mandatory unless there is some sort of crisis.

This is true--corporate lobbyists wouldn't allow it. And what do you mean by crisis?

What does it matter? Yes, it probably won't do anything to effect climate change but it makes people feel good about doing something. It provides jobs in solar energy. It gets us closer to energy independence.

It makes people feel good about pushing up bills in an effort to fuel the Green Obsession?

The US government is looking at adaptation now. Climate change is going to happen, not much we can do about preventing that. .

"Climate change is going to happen"
What are you talking about? The Earth warms and cools intermittently and, yes, whilst it's true that if you add CO2 to a constant mixture of gasses heat increases, less than half of the 0.8C temperature increase over the last 250 is down to human activity.

To make the alarmist claim that it's all of fault is damaging and unreasonable. Take the warmer Roman period, cool Dark Ages, warmer Medieval period, colder pre-modern period and, finally the now warmer modern period.
And, of course, don't forget Younger Dryas phenomenon in where, 13,000 years ago, a sudden drop in temperature of around 15C over a couple of decades.

 

[Quetzal]

This is true--corporate lobbyists wouldn't allow it. And what do you mean by crisis?

The only time I could see a mandate on green cars would be due to irrefutable evidence that we are on the verge of a climate crisis.

 

[Nakosis]

It makes people feel good about pushing up bills in an effort to fuel the Green Obsession?

Sure they feel they are being environmentally conscious. It's like when folks pray. It doesn't really affect anything but it gives the perception that they are doing something.

"Climate change is going to happen"
What are you talking about? The Earth warms and cools intermittently and, yes, whilst it's true that if you add CO2 to a constant mixture of gasses heat increases, less than half of the 0.8C temperature increase over the last 250 is down to human activity.

To make the alarmist claim that it's all of fault is damaging and unreasonable. Take the warmer Roman period, cool Dark Ages, warmer Medieval period, colder pre-modern period and, finally the now warmer modern period.
And, of course, don't forget Younger Dryas phenomenon in where, 13,000 years ago, a sudden drop in temperature of around 15C over a couple of decades.

Yes, so climate change happens right. We've historical evidence of it. No reason to think it won't continue to change.
If they weren't alarmist about this they'd find something else to threaten folks with. It gets people motivated to act. Used to use God to threaten people, now it's science. Gives the politicians something to do. It's better than starting another war.

However my question remains the same, how does it harm you? There are benefits in this green "obsession" that I see. However what is the downside that you think will result?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

But renewable energy is currently uneconomical and doesn't compete with the fossil-fuel alternative.

So, what do you propose we do when we exhaust fossil fuels? That alone is reason enough to start switching, because there is no denying that we will run out of fossil fuels.

 

[Lyndon]

What about the pollution caused by fossil fuels, I feel I should tell all you anti renewable energy folk to go live downwind of a coal plant and quit talking till you've lived with the coal dust for a while. Seriously Renewable energy is not all about climate change and global warming, its also about pollution and affordability in the long term, some of the cheapest energy is renewable, like hydroelectric and some solar, when you consider the environmental cost of coal and gas, with fracking etc, its just not worth the cost, long term fossil fuel costs us MORE than renewables, except some of our cultural dinosaurs may never believe it.

 

[Altfish]

I think there is a happy medium with Green Issues. Yes, we should be harnessing wind, solar and other renewable energy sources but the race to close other energy sources may be too fast. Nuclear has got to make a big come back because as its safety issues are conquered it becomes a very attractive alternative.
Not convinced, by a long way. by fracking; I feel the technology has a long way to go and if we wait the gas is going nowhere but we may be able to extract a higher percentage.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

Nuclear nuclear nuclear nuclear.

It's all about dat nuclear.

And I really don't see the point of modestly reducing carbon emissions when it could never compensate for the huge emissions that India and China produce, who don't give a damn bout no global warming. Researching renewables is great, I mean, if they actually find a viable replacement for fossil fuels then obviously that would be brilliant. However, I don't support subsidising renewable energies that aren't working, like wind farms and the like, if they can't keep themselves afloat, what's the point? It hardly makes a difference to the environment and we're just wasting money.

 

[Ultimatum]

So, what do you propose we do when we exhaust fossil fuels? That alone is reason enough to start switching, because there is no denying that we will run out of fossil fuels.

Then of course we switch. But they've not run out.

I think there is a happy medium with Green Issues. Yes, we should be harnessing wind, solar and other renewable energy sources but the race to close other energy sources may be too fast. Nuclear has got to make a big come back because as its safety issues are conquered it becomes a very attractive alternative.
Not convinced, by a long way. by fracking; I feel the technology has a long way to go and if we wait the gas is going nowhere but we may be able to extract a higher percentage.

Well it's a darn shame that we don't control our energy policy then isn't it? We've given that one away to a foreign institution the seeks further political, economic and fiscal integration.

Nuclear nuclear nuclear nuclear.

It's all about dat nuclear.

And I really don't see the point of modestly reducing carbon emissions when it could never compensate for the huge emissions that India and China produce, who don't give a damn bout no global warming. Researching renewables is great, I mean, if they actually find a viable replacement for fossil fuels then obviously that would be brilliant. However, I don't support subsidising renewable energies that aren't working, like wind farms and the like, if they can't keep themselves afloat, what's the point? It hardly makes a difference to the environment and we're just wasting money.

The EU sets targets, quotas and repurcussions in relation to domestic renewable energies.
It's not up to our politicians.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

We are starving our peoples for the sake of ignorance.

.

what's new?

It's the most ancient superstition known to mankind, bad weather is punishment for our behavior.

whether too cold or too hot, dry, wet,- the 'problem' can be anything, but the 'solution' never changes;

sacrifices of wealth to appease the weather gods ( paid to those wise men who warn us of the problem)

 

[Laika]

Yes. The UK should commit to reducing greenhouse gas emissions ASAP. Whilst this is an international problem, international co-operation has been sluggish/lacking on this. it is therefore probably going to take the initiative of a few nations to break the deadlock and show the rest of the world it is possible and figure out how. waiting for everyone to agree creates a "nash eqilibrium" where it is in no-ones interest to change the status quo. if one nation takes the risk, sticks it neck out, invests and reaps the advantages of environmental technology and economy, it changes the equation. Suddenly, everyone will want "in".

either that, or when the s**t hits the fan, we'll be better prepared than everyone else.