Post by pepperpot on Aug 22, 2022 11:32:47 GMT
I get it, I'm not really doing what I'd hoped for. Probably futile anyway. Last two. Then get down into it.
Insulate Britain.
Burning stuff = climate change. As a minimum it’s been known, at least by big oil, since the 50’s. Widely since the 80’s and the most recent fig I saw was that by 2006, 90% of Americans knew about it. Despite the denial campaigns.
If you ignore the IB method of asking, what’s actually asked for sounds a reasonable request, especially this yr and in a country with apparently the leakiest housing stock in Europe. Could we not even rise to a gesture like scrap vat on insulation products until we’re on par with Europe. If not some subsidies for expediency. Why do ppl who believe so fervently about it’s necessity, feel the need to go to such lengths to get their msg heard. Only to be vilified by Priti and media for the impact they have. Arguable that they should be vilified for the knock on effects of their actions but if they ask nicely which some have for decades, it’s like talking to the wall.
At roughly a similar time, I heard Kwasi Kwartang wanting to re-label north sea gas as a green energy, the reason given was making funding easier to acquire because there’s more money looking for green projects. Looking for someone displaying lunacy? Look there. Why do requests that make pretty good sense, seem to get responded to with more favourable conditions for big oil? (quite a tenuous link I’ll admit)
I can’t help but think that if we actually do insulate Britain to the n-th degree, demand for big oils’ product would reduce. If lobbying didn’t work it wouldn’t happen, istm it only happens because of either a threat to, or an opportunity for, their business operations. If Britain was well insulated, I can certainly see a threat to co’s supplying fossil fuels to a nation where they’re the primary heat source. If net0 is the goal, leaders should be leading us there. I see them going in all directions at once. But then why should they listen to little ppl, they don’t lobby. They don’t give them party political donations. The gov has access to far better data and advisors than we do, but I remember making a house move in ‘07 and climate change played a part in my thinking.
I know all the reasons for why we still need to use fossils here and now, but why do we still need to use them here and now. What are the fundamental reasons for the status quo still being the status quo when the threat has been known about for many decades? Inertia? Sunk expenditure in infrastructure and assets? The simple desire all companies have to maintain or increase the bottom line? (all rhetorical)
Any CEO taking any co down a path that’s not profitable will be ousted by either shareholders or board and replaced by one who’s, shall we say, more attuned to an increasing bottom line and willing to do a better job of getting there. What’s the easiest way for a fossil fuel extractor to maintain or increase the bottom line? (rhetorical) I’m quite certain the way not to do it, is a mass write off of sunk grey assets, especially those with outstanding finance, and invest in a complete new set of green ones.
Is big oil’s need for profit hampering our flexibility wrt emissions?
Burning stuff = climate change. As a minimum it’s been known, at least by big oil, since the 50’s. Widely since the 80’s and the most recent fig I saw was that by 2006, 90% of Americans knew about it. Despite the denial campaigns.
If you ignore the IB method of asking, what’s actually asked for sounds a reasonable request, especially this yr and in a country with apparently the leakiest housing stock in Europe. Could we not even rise to a gesture like scrap vat on insulation products until we’re on par with Europe. If not some subsidies for expediency. Why do ppl who believe so fervently about it’s necessity, feel the need to go to such lengths to get their msg heard. Only to be vilified by Priti and media for the impact they have. Arguable that they should be vilified for the knock on effects of their actions but if they ask nicely which some have for decades, it’s like talking to the wall.
At roughly a similar time, I heard Kwasi Kwartang wanting to re-label north sea gas as a green energy, the reason given was making funding easier to acquire because there’s more money looking for green projects. Looking for someone displaying lunacy? Look there. Why do requests that make pretty good sense, seem to get responded to with more favourable conditions for big oil? (quite a tenuous link I’ll admit)
I can’t help but think that if we actually do insulate Britain to the n-th degree, demand for big oils’ product would reduce. If lobbying didn’t work it wouldn’t happen, istm it only happens because of either a threat to, or an opportunity for, their business operations. If Britain was well insulated, I can certainly see a threat to co’s supplying fossil fuels to a nation where they’re the primary heat source. If net0 is the goal, leaders should be leading us there. I see them going in all directions at once. But then why should they listen to little ppl, they don’t lobby. They don’t give them party political donations. The gov has access to far better data and advisors than we do, but I remember making a house move in ‘07 and climate change played a part in my thinking.
I know all the reasons for why we still need to use fossils here and now, but why do we still need to use them here and now. What are the fundamental reasons for the status quo still being the status quo when the threat has been known about for many decades? Inertia? Sunk expenditure in infrastructure and assets? The simple desire all companies have to maintain or increase the bottom line? (all rhetorical)
Any CEO taking any co down a path that’s not profitable will be ousted by either shareholders or board and replaced by one who’s, shall we say, more attuned to an increasing bottom line and willing to do a better job of getting there. What’s the easiest way for a fossil fuel extractor to maintain or increase the bottom line? (rhetorical) I’m quite certain the way not to do it, is a mass write off of sunk grey assets, especially those with outstanding finance, and invest in a complete new set of green ones.
Is big oil’s need for profit hampering our flexibility wrt emissions?
Remember picking up pennies in front of a steamroller?
Well, think of the steamroller as climate change, fuelled by emissions and we’re busy scurrying just underneath it burning ever more dinosaurs.
Will future generations thank our time for touchscreens, or consider us ignorant idiots.
Well, think of the steamroller as climate change, fuelled by emissions and we’re busy scurrying just underneath it burning ever more dinosaurs.
Will future generations thank our time for touchscreens, or consider us ignorant idiots.
Keeping up with the Jonses. (rejigged and expanded)
Late 1800's early 1900's there were big advances in manufacturing (aka Ford's production lines et al) which increased the supply of goods. All was rosie until demand ran thin at the end of the 20's, the economy crashed taking an inflated wall st with it. The great depression wasn't caused by wall st per say, but the supply/demand imbalance. FDR's new deal is widely held as the trigger for a turnaround, it certainly helped, but after 3yrs it ran out of steam and the US was back in recession by '38. WW2 starts and for the middle 3yrs there's high teens gdp growth.
So, war is good for business, why? They don't make 'em like they used to... if they did, the economy would’ve been suppressed. If demand had not been satisfied, advertising and introducing fashion to everyday functional items would not have been needed as much. Do you need the latest fashion of kettle for a complete and happy life? Ideas like keeping up with the Joneses (first seen used 1913) were seen as another solution to try and bring demand up to the ever increasing supply capacity.
Have the, arguably unnecessary, extra goods that have been produced in a throwaway and planned obsolescence society, to meet the elevated demand brought about by the marketing solutions, increased or decreased our emissions to date? If the ‘manufactured’ demand is necessary for not only maintaining, but increasing gdp growth for a ‘healthy’ economy, will that add to our need to supply energy to industrial activities in the future?
Is the need for profit impacting our environment?
Have the, arguably unnecessary, extra goods that have been produced in a throwaway and planned obsolescence society, to meet the elevated demand brought about by the marketing solutions, increased or decreased our emissions to date? If the ‘manufactured’ demand is necessary for not only maintaining, but increasing gdp growth for a ‘healthy’ economy, will that add to our need to supply energy to industrial activities in the future?
Is the need for profit impacting our environment?
Apols for tone today, not much sleep. I’ll soften it with;
When the power of love over comes the love of power, the world will know peace.
-Chinmoy Kumar Ghose
When the power of love over comes the love of power, the world will know peace.
-Chinmoy Kumar Ghose
The reveal. "A Resource-Based Economy is a system in which all goods and services are available without the use of money, credits, barter or any other system of debt or servitude. All resources become the common heritage of all of the inhabitants, not just a select few. The premise upon which this system is based is that the Earth is abundant with plentiful resources; our practice of rationing resources through monetary methods is irrelevant and counter productive to our survival."