Reply to topic  [ 28 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Time the coalition grew up over climate change, says Lawson 
Author Message
Legend

Joined: Sun Apr 26, 2009 12:30 pm
Posts: 45931
Location: Belfast
Reply with quote
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... bills.html

It's obviously long been keeping him awake at night, and I agree with at least the gist of a lot of what's been said, but he's leaving himself open to the usual greenwashing the way he's saying it... The climate change issue reminds me of those people online who bemoan 'haters', as if you can't just have a legitimate grievance :evil:

_________________
Plain English advice on everything money, purchase and service related:

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/


Sat Jun 11, 2011 6:47 pm
Profile
I haven't seen my friends in so long
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 3:29 pm
Posts: 7173
Reply with quote
What a tw@t. I'm not a sandal-wearing hippy, but even I can appreciate that the state of the British economy is going to mean sweet F. A. if we [LIFTED] up the entire planet.

As for wind power, I'm generally not in favour - nuclear, tidal and solar are better bets on these fair isles, IMO. At the rate we're using up oil & gas, and given the price of both these days, I can't see any harm in investing in and using alternatives.

_________________
timark_uk wrote:
That's your problem. You need Linux. That'll fix all your problems.
Mark


Sun Jun 12, 2011 7:44 pm
Profile
Legend
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 2:02 am
Posts: 29240
Location: Guantanamo Bay (thanks bobbdobbs)
Reply with quote
I like to think of myself as green but we do need to prepare for it. If not only the rich will have the resources to cope, and we know that they will bunk off as soon as the bill arrives. In fact the climate scientists now expect a worst case scenario of +4 C by the end of the century. Well kiss goodbye to most of east anglia under those conditions. Since it will also eliminate Florida, New York and Washington it seems appropriate.

_________________
Do concentrate, 007...

"You are gifted. Mine is bordering on seven seconds."

https://www.dropbox.com/referrals/NTg5MzczNTk

http://astore.amazon.co.uk/wwwx404couk-21


Sun Jun 12, 2011 11:40 pm
Profile
I haven't seen my friends in so long
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 9:43 pm
Posts: 5048
Reply with quote
Preparing for the change rather than trying to stop it would seem prudent.

What ever the cause, the climate changes. We used to be a connected land mass to Europe relatively recently in the grand scheme of things.

_________________
Fogmeister I ventured into Solitude but didn't really do much.
jonbwfc I was behind her in a queue today - but I wouldn't describe it as 'bushy'.


Mon Jun 13, 2011 6:56 am
Profile
What's a life?
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 7:26 pm
Posts: 17040
Reply with quote
Yes, this global warming thing is apparently already upon us :lol:.


Mon Jun 13, 2011 6:57 am
Profile
Legend
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 2:02 am
Posts: 29240
Location: Guantanamo Bay (thanks bobbdobbs)
Reply with quote
adidan wrote:
Preparing for the change rather than trying to stop it would seem prudent.

What ever the cause, the climate changes. We used to be a connected land mass to Europe relatively recently in the grand scheme of things.

I suggest a bit of both. Try and stop it and prepare for the worst. So no more building in river valleys as these could disappear as the sea level rises. Make sure that we have renewables so that even if we cannot stop climate changes we cannot add more to it.

_________________
Do concentrate, 007...

"You are gifted. Mine is bordering on seven seconds."

https://www.dropbox.com/referrals/NTg5MzczNTk

http://astore.amazon.co.uk/wwwx404couk-21


Mon Jun 13, 2011 10:17 am
Profile
I haven't seen my friends in so long
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 9:43 pm
Posts: 5048
Reply with quote
Amnesia10 wrote:
I suggest a bit of both. Try and stop it and prepare for the worst. So no more building in river valleys as these could disappear as the sea level rises. Make sure that we have renewables so that even if we cannot stop climate changes we cannot add more to it.

You can't stop the climate changing. That's what it does.

If they want to stop any influence we have they should spend money coming up with radical ideas. Current nuclear power isn't the answer and wind turbines are, effectively, useless. They kind of make people feel that they're partially in control but they're not. It's like when people donated their garden railings to the war effort, they were never used but it made the people feel like they were helping.

A battle with nature is one we can never win, we need to invest in radical thinking and have the resolve to implement those ideas. Throw money at that rather than a few windmills.

_________________
Fogmeister I ventured into Solitude but didn't really do much.
jonbwfc I was behind her in a queue today - but I wouldn't describe it as 'bushy'.


Mon Jun 13, 2011 12:40 pm
Profile
Legend
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 2:02 am
Posts: 29240
Location: Guantanamo Bay (thanks bobbdobbs)
Reply with quote
Wind and solar have a place but efficency improvements should be top of the list. Ban products from being sold that do not meet efficiency standards and have high tariffs and a carbon tax to discourage waste with some of that carbon tax to benefit those with low incomes. If there was a carbon tax that was high enough to max renewables cost effective without subsidy it would make a difference to its use without the need for feed in tarrifs.

_________________
Do concentrate, 007...

"You are gifted. Mine is bordering on seven seconds."

https://www.dropbox.com/referrals/NTg5MzczNTk

http://astore.amazon.co.uk/wwwx404couk-21


Mon Jun 13, 2011 1:55 pm
Profile
What's a life?
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 7:26 pm
Posts: 17040
Reply with quote
Amnesia10 wrote:
If there was a carbon tax that was high enough to max renewables cost effective without subsidy it would make a difference to its use without the need for feed in tarrifs.

I don't see the difference, in economic terms, between subsidising low carbon solutions and taxing the blazes out of high carbon solutions. Both are artificial anyway. If we're going to move to a 'green' economy we can't do it by 'fixing' the economy to make them work. It's like balancing a pencil on it's point, it can't hold up for long. We have to make green technologies that hold up to what we have now on their own merits, not punish people into using them even if they're rubbish. More carrot, less stick.


Mon Jun 13, 2011 3:15 pm
Profile
Legend
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 2:02 am
Posts: 29240
Location: Guantanamo Bay (thanks bobbdobbs)
Reply with quote
jonbwfc wrote:
Amnesia10 wrote:
If there was a carbon tax that was high enough to max renewables cost effective without subsidy it would make a difference to its use without the need for feed in tarrifs.

I don't see the difference, in economic terms, between subsidising low carbon solutions and taxing the blazes out of high carbon solutions. Both are artificial anyway. If we're going to move to a 'green' economy we can't do it by 'fixing' the economy to make them work. It's like balancing a pencil on it's point, it can't hold up for long. We have to make green technologies that hold up to what we have now on their own merits, not punish people into using them even if they're rubbish. More carrot, less stick.

Taxing will at least raise revenue which can be used to offset adjustment programs. Subsidies require governments to raise funding from somewhere and that means either higher taxes on things that you might like or lower spending. Also taxes will cover the externalities which our current system does not cover, such as climate change and pollution. It also presumes that our market was right in the first place, if it were then climate change would already be priced into the final price consumers pay, which it does not. If the tax raised a lot of money it could be used for insulation and other efficiency measures which would make us a lot less dependant on foriegn energy, which could reduce the price swings on gas and electricity during winter. It could also be given as tax relief for businesses to invest in new efficient hardware, at the same time as reducing long term demand. Subsidies still have to be paid for, any suggestions? Higher taxes on the Internet? Or Petrol? Or Income taxes?

_________________
Do concentrate, 007...

"You are gifted. Mine is bordering on seven seconds."

https://www.dropbox.com/referrals/NTg5MzczNTk

http://astore.amazon.co.uk/wwwx404couk-21


Mon Jun 13, 2011 4:04 pm
Profile
Doesn't have much of a life
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:10 pm
Posts: 1057
Reply with quote
Coal and Oil power stations cause too much polution and co2.

Wind farms don't generate enough power and cause landscape blight.

Solar power not much use in UK!

Nuclear all the way for me.

_________________
Image


Mon Jun 13, 2011 5:31 pm
Profile WWW
Doesn't have much of a life

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 8:23 pm
Posts: 638
Location: 3959 miles from the centre of the Earth - give or take a bit
Reply with quote
There was an interesting article in the MoS about the work that's being done at Daresbury Physics Lab on making thorium reactors a reality. It turns out they produce 0.6% of the radioactive waste on a normal reactor, and can't meltdown or undergo any of the runaway reactions. It seems all they need to do is make small, high energy particle accelerators and that's the problem more or less solved.

_________________
i7 860 @ 3.5GHz, GTX275, 4GB DDR3


Mon Jun 13, 2011 6:48 pm
Profile
I haven't seen my friends in so long
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 9:43 pm
Posts: 5048
Reply with quote
dogbert10 wrote:
There was an interesting article in the MoS about the work that's being done at Daresbury Physics Lab on making thorium reactors a reality. It turns out they produce 0.6% of the radioactive waste on a normal reactor, and can't meltdown or undergo any of the runaway reactions. It seems all they need to do is make small, high energy particle accelerators and that's the problem more or less solved.

Yup, we've spoken about them quite often on here. Basically a 1000 times greener nuclear reactor that you can effectively switch on and off so no chance of meltdown. Research has been going on for years into this, it would solve many problems (albeit not all). We also have a good supply of the stuff in the UK as it's much easier to find.

China are leading the way, they're already looking at building one. Here though, well, the UK has invested in Uranium and vested interests will probably try and keep Thorium on the back burner. Hardly 'green'.

I think investing in a cleaner, cheaper energy production system that we could sustain ourselves would be the best thing all round but then those in power aren't truly concerned with being 'green' only concerned with being seen as being bothered. I mean who of them would benefit from us having cleaner, cheaper fuel?

_________________
Fogmeister I ventured into Solitude but didn't really do much.
jonbwfc I was behind her in a queue today - but I wouldn't describe it as 'bushy'.


Tue Jun 14, 2011 7:47 am
Profile
What's a life?
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 7:26 pm
Posts: 17040
Reply with quote
In the long term, the future is kind of obvious. It's hydrogen. Be it in the form of fusion reactors or fuel cells, hydrogen is the best 'fuel' we have. That and sustainable sources are what we're going to end up with. My opinion is it's a combination of the two - fusion power generation to crack water to produce hydrogen to use as fuel in domestic situations, be it home generators or vehicles, combined with efficient solar/wind power in specialised situations. The question is not if we will end up using those systems, it's a matter of when. Thorium reactors maybe a good thing to have to tide us over for a while but eventually they'll fall by the wayside the way we'd like uranium reactors to.

To be honest, if developing thorium reactors requires a lot of time and resources, I'd rather that time and those resources were put towards getting fusion reactors working.

Jon


Tue Jun 14, 2011 9:03 am
Profile
Legend
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 2:02 am
Posts: 29240
Location: Guantanamo Bay (thanks bobbdobbs)
Reply with quote
jonbwfc wrote:
In the long term, the future is kind of obvious. It's hydrogen. Be it in the form of fusion reactors or fuel cells, hydrogen is the best 'fuel' we have. That and sustainable sources are what we're going to end up with. My opinion is it's a combination of the two - fusion power generation to crack water to produce hydrogen to use as fuel in domestic situations, be it home generators or vehicles, combined with efficient solar/wind power in specialised situations. The question is not if we will end up using those systems, it's a matter of when. Thorium reactors maybe a good thing to have to tide us over for a while but eventually they'll fall by the wayside the way we'd like uranium reactors to.

To be honest, if developing thorium reactors requires a lot of time and resources, I'd rather that time and those resources were put towards getting fusion reactors working.

Jon

Actually you can use a number of techniques to produce hydrogen even solar or wind. Though its best uses are for transport, though not sure how it would work for aircraft. Though efficiency and renewables could allow us a lot more breathing room we have now.

_________________
Do concentrate, 007...

"You are gifted. Mine is bordering on seven seconds."

https://www.dropbox.com/referrals/NTg5MzczNTk

http://astore.amazon.co.uk/wwwx404couk-21


Tue Jun 14, 2011 9:26 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 28 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Designed by ST Software.