|
Post by captainconfident on Dec 21, 2014 14:27:06 GMT
I agree that the regressive policy whereby we pay the subsidy through our electricity bills is less than desirable. I would prefer it to be funded through more progressive taxes. But that's politics for you, again. Governments of every hue have an aversion to raising the more visible taxes and so the less well off pay more than their share through FITs and VAT. Meanwhile the middle class / pensioner subsidies like ISAs just get bigger and bigger, which is great for the likes of us but no way to run a tax system. I thought I should retweet this paragraph because it's the truth and I do find it shaming, sitting here with my ISAs and overgenerating solar panels, thinking of an electric car which would suck up some more of my free electricity. If you've already got money, have some more! The poor can pay for the infrastructure and taxes.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 9,014
Likes: 4,825
|
Post by adrianc on Dec 21, 2014 14:47:08 GMT
|
|
shimself
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,561
Likes: 1,170
|
Post by shimself on Dec 21, 2014 16:38:59 GMT
I think batteries are the wrong tehnology. They are heavy (which increases energy consumption) and they use nasty/rare chemicals which cost a lot of energy to produce. Fuel cells are a much better idea and their time should come, probably running on hydrogen derived from electrolysis. Give it 20-30 years. Maybe so but I don't think we should wait that long, we should use the best avaiable in the interim. One could equally argue that gas, coal and nuclear fission powered generation are the wrong technology so we should do without without mains electricity.
|
|
pikestaff
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,136
Likes: 1,484
|
Post by pikestaff on Dec 21, 2014 18:04:16 GMT
I think batteries are the wrong tehnology. They are heavy (which increases energy consumption) and they use nasty/rare chemicals which cost a lot of energy to produce. Fuel cells are a much better idea and their time should come, probably running on hydrogen derived from electrolysis. Give it 20-30 years. Maybe so but I don't think we should wait that long, we should use the best avaiable in the interim. One could equally argue that gas, coal and nuclear fission powered generation are the wrong technology so we should do without without mains electricity. My personal view is batteries are the opposite of green. I would never buy a battery car.
|
|
|
Post by yorkshireman on Dec 21, 2014 19:01:20 GMT
When steps are taken to demand action by China and others to cut emissions I will start to take the green lobby more seriously.
Meanwhile I will continue to drive a petrol car economically, control energy usage, recycle as much as possible and not waste food, all of which is common sense and sound financial practice and is more relevant to the average person than the “green cr*p” peddled by husky hugging politicians.
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Dec 21, 2014 20:31:35 GMT
When steps are taken to demand action by China and others to cut emissions I will start to take the green lobby more seriously... May I ask why particularly China, and which 'others' (top 3 or 4) specifically ? and also what is intended to be meant buy 'cut' ?
|
|
|
Post by yorkshireman on Dec 21, 2014 23:47:42 GMT
When steps are taken to demand action by China and others to cut emissions I will start to take the green lobby more seriously... May I ask why particularly China, and which 'others' (top 3 or 4) specifically ? and also what is intended to be meant buy 'cut' ? Cut carbon dioxide emissions. China produces the highest amount of CO2 emissions in metric tonnes and, before someone points it out, the US is the worst polluter in metric tonnes per person, Russia and India complete the top 4: www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/each-countrys-share-of-co2.htmlwww.actionforourplanet.com/#/top-10-polluting-countries/4541684868 As usual the UK is at the forefront of implementing costly green policies whilst others, including some EU countries drag their heels. A good example of this, and I speak with personal experience, was in the late 1990’s, early 2000’s when the burden of costly environmental regulations killed of a number textile manufacturing firms in West Yorkshire only for these processes to go to countries with less stringent rules (and lower labour costs of course.) This illustrates the law of unintended consequences and why I view the current push for green energy with concern.
|
|
|
Post by captainconfident on Dec 23, 2014 1:34:54 GMT
On one level I agree with yorkshireman. It's all green gesture politics because we all know that the humans will ruin the wonder filled planet. The only question is will we do it fast, or slow enough that our generation doesn't live to see the worst.
An Economist article rated the most effective green measure of the last 50 years to be not solar panels, recycling or switching from coal and oil generation to gas, but.... China's one child policy. This was done by extrapolating the population as if China had followed the typical growth of other nations and calculating the extra environmental demand of all the missing people.
On the other, almost irrational level, I will subscribe to any green scheme going for the sake of my conscience.
|
|
pikestaff
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,136
Likes: 1,484
|
Post by pikestaff on Dec 23, 2014 7:44:08 GMT
The fact that some countries are dragging their feet is no reason not to do our bit.
Besides, China's leadership are well aware of the problem and are doing their bit with massive investment in solar, wind, hydroelectric (environmentally very damaging unfortunately) and (just starting) nuclear. I'm more worried about the USA (toxic politics) and India (inadequate investment).
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Dec 23, 2014 11:18:15 GMT
May I ask why particularly China, and which 'others' (top 3 or 4) specifically ? and also what is intended to be meant buy 'cut' ? Cut carbon dioxide emissions. China produces the highest amount of CO2 emissions in metric tonnes.... Yes, but cut in absolute terms or relative (per capita) terms? A 'country' is a label attached to a political/geographic entity with a particular population, particular stage of economic development (e.g. per capita GDP etc.). Lets say China tomorrow was to be broken up into say 5 countries each with 1/5 of the current 'China' emissions. What then ? By the measure of 'highest polluter' by country criteria, they could then presumably sit back comfortably and be right to take the line you have said which 'we'll do nothing until others higher up the list do', even though the aggregate contribution has not changed. Its an illogical measure. China has a population of 1.3+ bn; India has a population of 1.2+ bn. and are the two biggest countries by population Even regardless of their current state of economic development, its hardly surprising they would top or come close to top of the list of biggest contributors in absolute terms. It says nothing about what steps they are or are not taking or should or should not take. On 2010 data (I couldn't easily find more recent usable) China was 55th in the world on a per capita basis, and India 127th. No doubt China will have moved up that list somewhat due to still having economic growth while many others were stagnant/going backwards. CO2 emissions roughly trend with economic development / wealth (to a point). So an argument that 'we shouldn't do anything until China/India cut absolute total emissions' is in my mind an argument to say one wants to condemn at least 2.5 bn of the worlds population to stunted economic development/relative poverty, regardless of the fact that on a per person basis they contribute less than most richer countries. Its an argument I personally find morally objectionable. As people move up the develpment/wealth curve, environmental considerations rise up their agenda. Once people are no longer or far less concerned with the basics such as ensuring they have food, and then access to some of what we would consider the basics for even a modest way of life, they get more concerned with issues such as their environment (both local and more 'global'). Even political systems such as China's have to respond. Nonetheless, you would expect absolute and per capita contribution to continue to rise, even if on a per capita GDP basis it dropped (i.e. more efficient per unit of output). I think it is also incumbent on us to recognise the biggest beneficiaries to date of carbon based economic development are by definition the populations of the current 'developed' countries. We owe todays wealth/standard of living to economies which have benefited since initial industrialisation from low cost/convenience dirty carbon energy. I guess its up to individuals to decide whether that could be viewed as placing a greater degree of moral obligation on those economies to take a lead, given that they are coming from a much more prosperous starting point, and a higher per capita emissions contribution then most under developed/developing countries. Of course the likes of China and India are massively concerning in the long run - not because of the country labels, but precisely because they represent such a large proportion of the worlds population who are currently still quite far down the economic development food chain and per capita income. Their per capita emissions are therefore bound to increase. I find the likes of Australia, the US and Canada as the real standouts who should be doing more in the short term. These are rich countries who's per capita emissions are high up the list. I should add: I am absolutely not some dyed in the wool greenie: far from it. I find much of what so called green activitists do and say to be shallow and insufficiently results focussed, and more 'feel good' based.
|
|
|
Post by yorkshireman on Dec 24, 2014 19:05:04 GMT
Cut carbon dioxide emissions. China produces the highest amount of CO2 emissions in metric tonnes.... Yes, but cut in absolute terms or relative (per capita) terms? A 'country' is a label attached to a political/geographic entity with a particular population, particular stage of economic development (e.g. per capita GDP etc.). Lets say China tomorrow was to be broken up into say 5 countries each with 1/5 of the current 'China' emissions. What then ? By the measure of 'highest polluter' by country criteria, they could then presumably sit back comfortably and be right to take the line you have said which 'we'll do nothing until others higher up the list do', even though the aggregate contribution has not changed. Its an illogical measure. China has a population of 1.3+ bn; India has a population of 1.2+ bn. and are the two biggest countries by population Even regardless of their current state of economic development, its hardly surprising they would top or come close to top of the list of biggest contributors in absolute terms. It says nothing about what steps they are or are not taking or should or should not take. On 2010 data (I couldn't easily find more recent usable) China was 55th in the world on a per capita basis, and India 127th. No doubt China will have moved up that list somewhat due to still having economic growth while many others were stagnant/going backwards. CO2 emissions roughly trend with economic development / wealth (to a point). So an argument that 'we shouldn't do anything until China/India cut absolute total emissions' is in my mind an argument to say one wants to condemn at least 2.5 bn of the worlds population to stunted economic development/relative poverty, regardless of the fact that on a per person basis they contribute less than most richer countries. Its an argument I personally find morally objectionable. As people move up the develpment/wealth curve, environmental considerations rise up their agenda. Once people are no longer or far less concerned with the basics such as ensuring they have food, and then access to some of what we would consider the basics for even a modest way of life, they get more concerned with issues such as their environment (both local and more 'global'). Even political systems such as China's have to respond. Nonetheless, you would expect absolute and per capita contribution to continue to rise, even if on a per capita GDP basis it dropped (i.e. more efficient per unit of output). I think it is also incumbent on us to recognise the biggest beneficiaries to date of carbon based economic development are by definition the populations of the current 'developed' countries. We owe todays wealth/standard of living to economies which have benefited since initial industrialisation from low cost/convenience dirty carbon energy. I guess its up to individuals to decide whether that could be viewed as placing a greater degree of moral obligation on those economies to take a lead, given that they are coming from a much more prosperous starting point, and a higher per capita emissions contribution then most under developed/developing countries. Of course the likes of China and India are massively concerning in the long run - not because of the country labels, but precisely because they represent such a large proportion of the worlds population who are currently still quite far down the economic development food chain and per capita income. Their per capita emissions are therefore bound to increase. I find the likes of Australia, the US and Canada as the real standouts who should be doing more in the short term. These are rich countries who's per capita emissions are high up the list. I should add: I am absolutely not some dyed in the wool greenie: far from it. I find much of what so called green activitists do and say to be shallow and insufficiently results focussed, and more 'feel good' based. Perhaps this is the solution! www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/main-topics/general-news/ministers-face-call-to-back-carbon-ambition-1-7019820
|
|
|
Post by captainconfident on Dec 26, 2014 23:36:03 GMT
"Public to pay heavily for green subsidies". The government is offering up to £1 billion subsidy for "clean coal". What does the Daily Wail say about that?
I say this is worth the investment if the studies say its feasible. And first to develop the technology for CCS has the companies with the expertise to export to other countries.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 9,014
Likes: 4,825
|
Post by adrianc on Dec 27, 2014 10:08:51 GMT
"Public to pay heavily for green subsidies". The government is offering up to £1 billion subsidy for "clean coal". What does the Daily Wail say about that? You're expecting consistency, logic and reality from the media, especially the Wail?
|
|
|
Post by captainconfident on Dec 28, 2014 17:21:17 GMT
When I wrote that I wasn't sure what the answer would be.
I was reading an article about the poor credentials of a US company contracted to "clean up" at Sellafield. The cost of such contracts so far was put at £70 billion and expected to rise. That's just for this one plant. The Telegraph was grumbling that "green subsidies" over the last 6 years might be as high as £21.9 billion.
It looks to me like the Telegraph and the Mail are focusing on the wrong thing if their agenda really is concern about wasting tax payers money.
|
|