FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Lobbyists for fossil fuel
Lobbyists for fossil fuel
Jump to: Newest in thread
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jul/05/double-agent-fossil-fuel-lobbyists | |||
| |||
 | |||
"Very quiet here "Yep. Are you surprised? | |||
"Very quiet here
Yep. Are you surprised? "It was a bit “do bears shit in the woods” though so...  | |||
"Very quiet here
Yep. Are you surprised? "I'm pleasantly surprised you shared the link. But it's hardly news. We know the lengths that the fossil fuels industry goes to spread doubt about the causes of climate change. Especially in the US. | |||
"Very quiet here
Yep. Are you surprised?
It was a bit “do bears shit in the woods” though so... "Aren't half of the threads on here? | |||
"Very quiet here
Yep. Are you surprised?
I'm pleasantly surprised you shared the link. But it's hardly news. We know the lengths that the fossil fuels industry goes to spread doubt about the causes of climate change. Especially in the US."Why would you be surprised that I shared it? I'm genuinely confused by your claim. | |||
| |||
"I think the reality and headlines of where we actually are in terms of energy consumption and the sources needed to provide it, will become more of a debate. The Shell CEO has been slated for telling the truth as he understands it. We have climate change deniers, and energy capability deniers both wrong. We need fossil fuels for the foreseeable future, if we are to maintain our development and energy consumption. " It’s too late to be stalling on renewables. We need action, serious action. Preferably yesterday. | |||
| |||
"I think the reality and headlines of where we actually are in terms of energy consumption and the sources needed to provide it, will become more of a debate. The Shell CEO has been slated for telling the truth as he understands it. We have climate change deniers, and energy capability deniers both wrong. We need fossil fuels for the foreseeable future, if we are to maintain our development and energy consumption. " It sure would be nice if a calm, rationale, non-partisan, public discussion could take place that spells out the practical realistic steps we need to take to eventually be one fossil fuel free. Regardless of climate change, it is a finite resource (the Gulf states can see that and are aggressively diversifying). The trouble is, IMHO, human beings tend to be short-termist (because we have a limited life span), CEOs etc are profit driven to generate shareholder value and personal enrichment and tend to not be in post for extended periods (short-termist again), and climate change is something that is seen as affecting the future but not me by many (so hard to justify the economic pain required now that they personally will not see the benefit of). Isn’t the reality that current green energy is still developing as a technology. It IS improving but has some ways to go yet before it can efficiently supersede fossil fuels? So a sensible debate would be a proper sliding scale that shows a gradual transition away but recognises that there will be short term pressures so we may have bumps in demand for maintaining fossil fuel for a while yet. Shouldn’t the fossil fuel companies be compelled to hugely increase their own development of alternative energy generation? After all, don’t they want to still be in business in 100 to 200 years time? With their huge resources and access to big brains, aren’t they uniquely positioned to exploit the future? Can’t CEO and Executives have remuneration packages also tied to the long term performance of their companies? Alas I doubt humans can avoid partisan destructive debate. The last few years (and growth of social media) see increasingly tribalist mentalities and a “win the argument at any cost” attitudes. I think we may be fucked! | |||
"It’s not just fossil fuels though - though that is the thread I appreciate. Livestock farming and fishing industries need dramatic change if we’re going to hope to sustain future generations." Cellular farming is something I came across from your posts on here so thanks for that. It seems an interesting concept and would no doubt help with co2 emissions as well as animal welfare (if that's your bag). From what I've read on the topic, at the moment they say it's 'expensive', not sure what that means in comparison to regular farming. And finally, whilst it seems interesting, am I sure I want to eat 'meat' that's been made in a factory? I don't know, I like the fact that my steak came off the animal. | |||
"It’s not just fossil fuels though - though that is the thread I appreciate. Livestock farming and fishing industries need dramatic change if we’re going to hope to sustain future generations. Cellular farming is something I came across from your posts on here so thanks for that. It seems an interesting concept and would no doubt help with co2 emissions as well as animal welfare (if that's your bag). From what I've read on the topic, at the moment they say it's 'expensive', not sure what that means in comparison to regular farming. And finally, whilst it seems interesting, am I sure I want to eat 'meat' that's been made in a factory? I don't know, I like the fact that my steak came off the animal." Surely the right way forward is cannibalism? The planet is overcrowded as it is with insufficient resources to support this many humans. So provide sustenance and a population reduction in tandem | |||
"I think the reality and headlines of where we actually are in terms of energy consumption and the sources needed to provide it, will become more of a debate. The Shell CEO has been slated for telling the truth as he understands it. We have climate change deniers, and energy capability deniers both wrong. We need fossil fuels for the foreseeable future, if we are to maintain our development and energy consumption. It sure would be nice if a calm, rationale, non-partisan, public discussion could take place that spells out the practical realistic steps we need to take to eventually be one fossil fuel free. Regardless of climate change, it is a finite resource (the Gulf states can see that and are aggressively diversifying). The trouble is, IMHO, human beings tend to be short-termist (because we have a limited life span), CEOs etc are profit driven to generate shareholder value and personal enrichment and tend to not be in post for extended periods (short-termist again), and climate change is something that is seen as affecting the future but not me by many (so hard to justify the economic pain required now that they personally will not see the benefit of). Isn’t the reality that current green energy is still developing as a technology. It IS improving but has some ways to go yet before it can efficiently supersede fossil fuels? So a sensible debate would be a proper sliding scale that shows a gradual transition away but recognises that there will be short term pressures so we may have bumps in demand for maintaining fossil fuel for a while yet. Shouldn’t the fossil fuel companies be compelled to hugely increase their own development of alternative energy generation? After all, don’t they want to still be in business in 100 to 200 years time? With their huge resources and access to big brains, aren’t they uniquely positioned to exploit the future? Can’t CEO and Executives have remuneration packages also tied to the long term performance of their companies? Alas I doubt humans can avoid partisan destructive debate. The last few years (and growth of social media) see increasingly tribalist mentalities and a “win the argument at any cost” attitudes. I think we may be fucked! " I agree, we are fucked. The reasonable prediction is we will not stop climate change, even if we delay it. As a consequence, with each passing year, will see an increase in the areas of the world unable to sustain their populations. Peoples from those non-viable areas will be forced to migrate, en-mass, to viable areas where the population of those areas will resist them. Wars will ensue. Wars will increase energy usage and climate change will become more rapid. Countries facing annihilation by climate change and/or the threat of climate migrants will increase their military until, one day, nuclear war will ensue. This will end humanity. So if you want a longish life move to Alaska in the next 10 to 15 years. It will likely be the last to become non-viable and will have the best defence. | |||
| |||
"I'm sure quantum computing will pave the way for future developments in this space, it is too complex for humans to workout. We could be miles off on all of our modelling, we simply do not know and work to best endeavours with what we have! Quantum Computing will build alternative yet unknown energy sources and molecular structures for application in food production, fuels and medicines. Quantum computers are close to being functional and once they are it will be a game changer for all of us. " As a physicist, I firmly doubt this. Fusion power shows promise though, but it has also been promised to work within the next few years since like the 50s... | |||
"It’s not just fossil fuels though - though that is the thread I appreciate. Livestock farming and fishing industries need dramatic change if we’re going to hope to sustain future generations. Cellular farming is something I came across from your posts on here so thanks for that. It seems an interesting concept and would no doubt help with co2 emissions as well as animal welfare (if that's your bag). From what I've read on the topic, at the moment they say it's 'expensive', not sure what that means in comparison to regular farming. And finally, whilst it seems interesting, am I sure I want to eat 'meat' that's been made in a factory? I don't know, I like the fact that my steak came off the animal. Surely the right way forward is cannibalism? The planet is overcrowded as it is with insufficient resources to support this many humans. So provide sustenance and a population reduction in tandem "*********************************** That sounds like the premise of the Charlton Heston - Edward G. Robinson film, 'Soylent Green'...! Freaked me out when watching this as a youngster, the ending was horrifying to me back then....... X | |||
"I'm sure quantum computing will pave the way for future developments in this space, it is too complex for humans to workout. We could be miles off on all of our modelling, we simply do not know and work to best endeavours with what we have! Quantum Computing will build alternative yet unknown energy sources and molecular structures for application in food production, fuels and medicines. Quantum computers are close to being functional and once they are it will be a game changer for all of us. As a physicist, I firmly doubt this. Fusion power shows promise though, but it has also been promised to work within the next few years since like the 50s..." Why do you doubt it, the reasons would be good | |||
| |||
"I'm sure quantum computing will pave the way for future developments in this space, it is too complex for humans to workout. We could be miles off on all of our modelling, we simply do not know and work to best endeavours with what we have! Quantum Computing will build alternative yet unknown energy sources and molecular structures for application in food production, fuels and medicines. Quantum computers are close to being functional and once they are it will be a game changer for all of us. " Without that quantum leap, it's settled that substantial changes must be made very quickly, to avert irreversible damage, that wealthy organisations are trying to stop us acting upon. Hesitation and doubt are their friends. | |||
"It's tragic that billions of lives are jeopardised by the selfish interests of hugely profitable organisations. It's sickening that individuals are so morally bankrupt." In fairness to them, the do an excellent job of instilling doubt to people not paying attention and demonising protesters to divert people's attention. | |||
"It’s not just fossil fuels though - though that is the thread I appreciate. Livestock farming and fishing industries need dramatic change if we’re going to hope to sustain future generations. Cellular farming is something I came across from your posts on here so thanks for that. It seems an interesting concept and would no doubt help with co2 emissions as well as animal welfare (if that's your bag). From what I've read on the topic, at the moment they say it's 'expensive', not sure what that means in comparison to regular farming. And finally, whilst it seems interesting, am I sure I want to eat 'meat' that's been made in a factory? I don't know, I like the fact that my steak came off the animal. Surely the right way forward is cannibalism? The planet is overcrowded as it is with insufficient resources to support this many humans. So provide sustenance and a population reduction in tandem
***********************************
That sounds like the premise of the Charlton Heston - Edward G. Robinson film, 'Soylent Green'...!
Freaked me out when watching this as a youngster, the ending was horrifying to me back then....... X"It’s the only way forward! We could solve the migrant crisis too and eat all the boat people! Might be a better deterrent than Rwanda? After that we start eating those who are unproductive, the sick, the old, the benefit claimants. Once they have been consumed the poor will be next on the menu. Then middle income earners. In the end only the 1% will be left and by then there will be enough natural resources to support them, carbon emissions will be far lower and all will be good in the world! | |||
"It’s not just fossil fuels though - though that is the thread I appreciate. Livestock farming and fishing industries need dramatic change if we’re going to hope to sustain future generations. Cellular farming is something I came across from your posts on here so thanks for that. It seems an interesting concept and would no doubt help with co2 emissions as well as animal welfare (if that's your bag). From what I've read on the topic, at the moment they say it's 'expensive', not sure what that means in comparison to regular farming. And finally, whilst it seems interesting, am I sure I want to eat 'meat' that's been made in a factory? I don't know, I like the fact that my steak came off the animal. Surely the right way forward is cannibalism? The planet is overcrowded as it is with insufficient resources to support this many humans. So provide sustenance and a population reduction in tandem
***********************************
That sounds like the premise of the Charlton Heston - Edward G. Robinson film, 'Soylent Green'...!
Freaked me out when watching this as a youngster, the ending was horrifying to me back then....... X
It’s the only way forward! We could solve the migrant crisis too and eat all the boat people! Might be a better deterrent than Rwanda?
After that we start eating those who are unproductive, the sick, the old, the benefit claimants.
Once they have been consumed the poor will be next on the menu. Then middle income earners. In the end only the 1% will be left and by then there will be enough natural resources to support them, carbon emissions will be far lower and all will be good in the world!
"That'll do it, I'll at least survive a while  | |||
"It’s not just fossil fuels though - though that is the thread I appreciate. Livestock farming and fishing industries need dramatic change if we’re going to hope to sustain future generations. Cellular farming is something I came across from your posts on here so thanks for that. It seems an interesting concept and would no doubt help with co2 emissions as well as animal welfare (if that's your bag). From what I've read on the topic, at the moment they say it's 'expensive', not sure what that means in comparison to regular farming. And finally, whilst it seems interesting, am I sure I want to eat 'meat' that's been made in a factory? I don't know, I like the fact that my steak came off the animal. Surely the right way forward is cannibalism? The planet is overcrowded as it is with insufficient resources to support this many humans. So provide sustenance and a population reduction in tandem
***********************************
That sounds like the premise of the Charlton Heston - Edward G. Robinson film, 'Soylent Green'...!
Freaked me out when watching this as a youngster, the ending was horrifying to me back then....... X
It’s the only way forward! We could solve the migrant crisis too and eat all the boat people! Might be a better deterrent than Rwanda?
After that we start eating those who are unproductive, the sick, the old, the benefit claimants.
Once they have been consumed the poor will be next on the menu. Then middle income earners. In the end only the 1% will be left and by then there will be enough natural resources to support them, carbon emissions will be far lower and all will be good in the world!
"What? Eat the poor, sick and elderly, no thank you! I want some plump fillet that has grazed on Chablis, reds from Beaujolais and Japanese A5 grade wagyu. So you are first on the list old boy | |||
"It’s not just fossil fuels though - though that is the thread I appreciate. Livestock farming and fishing industries need dramatic change if we’re going to hope to sustain future generations. Cellular farming is something I came across from your posts on here so thanks for that. It seems an interesting concept and would no doubt help with co2 emissions as well as animal welfare (if that's your bag). From what I've read on the topic, at the moment they say it's 'expensive', not sure what that means in comparison to regular farming. And finally, whilst it seems interesting, am I sure I want to eat 'meat' that's been made in a factory? I don't know, I like the fact that my steak came off the animal. Surely the right way forward is cannibalism? The planet is overcrowded as it is with insufficient resources to support this many humans. So provide sustenance and a population reduction in tandem
***********************************
That sounds like the premise of the Charlton Heston - Edward G. Robinson film, 'Soylent Green'...!
Freaked me out when watching this as a youngster, the ending was horrifying to me back then....... X
It’s the only way forward! We could solve the migrant crisis too and eat all the boat people! Might be a better deterrent than Rwanda?
After that we start eating those who are unproductive, the sick, the old, the benefit claimants.
Once they have been consumed the poor will be next on the menu. Then middle income earners. In the end only the 1% will be left and by then there will be enough natural resources to support them, carbon emissions will be far lower and all will be good in the world!
What? Eat the poor, sick and elderly, no thank you!
I want some plump fillet that has grazed on Chablis, reds from Beaujolais and Japanese A5 grade wagyu.
So you are first on the list old boy "
Well there are a few women on here we’d like to eat but that is a totally different thing 
BTW prefer Italian reds, particularly partial to Primativo and only eat steak on rare occasions being more partial to fish. So my flesh may not be conducive to your pallet? | |||
| |||
"Why does it have to be a choice between fossil fuels and renewables. Why not press ahead with both. Renewables will need to be our future but fossil fuels will be needed around the world for many many years yet. " It does, ultimately, have to be a choice. Fossil fuels lead to climate change. If there was not a real threat Governments would not be making such a concerted effort to make this shift. Further investment in fossil fuels will not be for now. We have enough for now and for decades to come. It is to come online in a decade and be pumping for many years after. The oil companies and the countries with the supplys make trillions and wield I ordinate power and influence by maintaining the status quo. The transition to renewables (whatever some posters keep insisting) produce cheaper energy with greater security. Using the money for new fossil fuel development will allow both technology development and scale up to happen many times faster. | |||
"Cilla Black just unveiled it
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jul/05/double-agent-fossil-fuel-lobbyists"This may well be part of the reason that such furious backsliding and concerted negative publicity around the transition to renewables has become apparent. The consequences of global warming are clearer in people's daily lives as are many of the benefits of renewables that are being reported with record energy production rates. Transition is needed and possible, so you have to work doubly hard to slow it down and maintain power and income. | |||
"Why does it have to be a choice between fossil fuels and renewables. Why not press ahead with both. Renewables will need to be our future but fossil fuels will be needed around the world for many many years yet. " There will be a period of cutover that may take many years to complete. The we want it now chant is impossible to fulfil based on current energy demands globally. Ships sailing from China, cars manufactured, bread being baked and lights in your house are the tip of the iceberg in energy demands. We do not have a simple answer to replace and no amount of protesting is going to make this turn around any time soon. Governments like corporations are listening, working to make it net zero, it is all smoke and mirrors. The reality is we need adult conversations and not if, but’s and maybe’s! Net zero means nothing, that is the reality | |||
"Why does it have to be a choice between fossil fuels and renewables. Why not press ahead with both. Renewables will need to be our future but fossil fuels will be needed around the world for many many years yet. There will be a period of cutover that may take many years to complete. The we want it now chant is impossible to fulfil based on current energy demands globally. Ships sailing from China, cars manufactured, bread being baked and lights in your house are the tip of the iceberg in energy demands. We do not have a simple answer to replace and no amount of protesting is going to make this turn around any time soon. Governments like corporations are listening, working to make it net zero, it is all smoke and mirrors. The reality is we need adult conversations and not if, but’s and maybe’s! Net zero means nothing, that is the reality " "Net zero means nothing, that is the reality" sounds like a religious chant. Of course we can't have it now. We can have it much, much faster than the pace at which the fossil fuel companies wish to fill their coffers at. They are backsliding because of short term capitalism. There are significant global consequences for delaying. The money exists to speed up the future but it is being used to repeat the past. | |||
"Why does it have to be a choice between fossil fuels and renewables. Why not press ahead with both. Renewables will need to be our future but fossil fuels will be needed around the world for many many years yet. There will be a period of cutover that may take many years to complete. The we want it now chant is impossible to fulfil based on current energy demands globally. Ships sailing from China, cars manufactured, bread being baked and lights in your house are the tip of the iceberg in energy demands. We do not have a simple answer to replace and no amount of protesting is going to make this turn around any time soon. Governments like corporations are listening, working to make it net zero, it is all smoke and mirrors. The reality is we need adult conversations and not if, but’s and maybe’s! Net zero means nothing, that is the reality "Net zero means nothing, that is the reality" sounds like a religious chant. Of course we can't have it now. We can have it much, much faster than the pace at which the fossil fuel companies wish to fill their coffers at. They are backsliding because of short term capitalism. There are significant global consequences for delaying. The money exists to speed up the future but it is being used to repeat the past." You are right net zero means nothing being a religious chant. Flaky goal, hardly measurable and allows companies to lead people into believing their purchases are clean and they are doing their bit. As for speeding things along, it is going at a rate equal to demand. Fossil fuel companies filling their coffers? the price is going up and up, and will continue to do so. They know we need fossil fuels and without them we would plunge into darkness, they’re using that to manipulate the price so no change there. However, the Middle East are changing their strategy for future growth and it doesn’t include oil. The charade that is going on under our noses is impressive, the speed of change will and is being managed carefully, no nation is going to stop their reliance on fossil fuels to function, until the alternative is proven to be scalable and reliable. | |||
"Why does it have to be a choice between fossil fuels and renewables. Why not press ahead with both. Renewables will need to be our future but fossil fuels will be needed around the world for many many years yet. There will be a period of cutover that may take many years to complete. The we want it now chant is impossible to fulfil based on current energy demands globally. Ships sailing from China, cars manufactured, bread being baked and lights in your house are the tip of the iceberg in energy demands. We do not have a simple answer to replace and no amount of protesting is going to make this turn around any time soon. Governments like corporations are listening, working to make it net zero, it is all smoke and mirrors. The reality is we need adult conversations and not if, but’s and maybe’s! Net zero means nothing, that is the reality "Net zero means nothing, that is the reality" sounds like a religious chant. Of course we can't have it now. We can have it much, much faster than the pace at which the fossil fuel companies wish to fill their coffers at. They are backsliding because of short term capitalism. There are significant global consequences for delaying. The money exists to speed up the future but it is being used to repeat the past. You are right net zero means nothing being a religious chant. Flaky goal, hardly measurable and allows companies to lead people into believing their purchases are clean and they are doing their bit. As for speeding things along, it is going at a rate equal to demand. " This is the point. Demand is artificially altered by the lobbying, misinformation, and doubt seeded by the fossil fuels industry. " Fossil fuel companies filling their coffers? the price is going up and up, and will continue to do so. They know we need fossil fuels and without them we would plunge into darkness, they’re using that to manipulate the price so no change there. " So surely a faster transition away from fossil fuels would be optimal. " However, the Middle East are changing their strategy for future growth and it doesn’t include oil. The charade that is going on under our noses is impressive, the speed of change will and is being managed carefully, no nation is going to stop their reliance on fossil fuels to function, until the alternative is proven to be scalable and reliable. " This kind of rhetoric plays exactly into the bank accounts of the oil companies. Surely we should be working to move away from fossil fuels as soon as reasonably possible, for the sake of climate change and our energy costs. | |||
"Why does it have to be a choice between fossil fuels and renewables. Why not press ahead with both. Renewables will need to be our future but fossil fuels will be needed around the world for many many years yet. There will be a period of cutover that may take many years to complete. The we want it now chant is impossible to fulfil based on current energy demands globally. Ships sailing from China, cars manufactured, bread being baked and lights in your house are the tip of the iceberg in energy demands. We do not have a simple answer to replace and no amount of protesting is going to make this turn around any time soon. Governments like corporations are listening, working to make it net zero, it is all smoke and mirrors. The reality is we need adult conversations and not if, but’s and maybe’s! Net zero means nothing, that is the reality "Net zero means nothing, that is the reality" sounds like a religious chant. Of course we can't have it now. We can have it much, much faster than the pace at which the fossil fuel companies wish to fill their coffers at. They are backsliding because of short term capitalism. There are significant global consequences for delaying. The money exists to speed up the future but it is being used to repeat the past. You are right net zero means nothing being a religious chant. Flaky goal, hardly measurable and allows companies to lead people into believing their purchases are clean and they are doing their bit. As for speeding things along, it is going at a rate equal to demand. This is the point. Demand is artificially altered by the lobbying, misinformation, and doubt seeded by the fossil fuels industry. Fossil fuel companies filling their coffers? the price is going up and up, and will continue to do so. They know we need fossil fuels and without them we would plunge into darkness, they’re using that to manipulate the price so no change there. So surely a faster transition away from fossil fuels would be optimal. However, the Middle East are changing their strategy for future growth and it doesn’t include oil. The charade that is going on under our noses is impressive, the speed of change will and is being managed carefully, no nation is going to stop their reliance on fossil fuels to function, until the alternative is proven to be scalable and reliable. This kind of rhetoric plays exactly into the bank accounts of the oil companies. Surely we should be working to move away from fossil fuels as soon as reasonably possible, for the sake of climate change and our energy costs." How? What is the plan and timescales? We are transitioning at the rate we use energy and that is the bottom line. If no cars were built, food wasn't processed, hospitals were not life support, people did not travel, people did not want manufactured clothing, lighting, heating etc etc we could migrate tomorrow. The reality is people can't put up with 4 hours with an electric power cut, imagine if there was no guaranteed continuous supply, unrest like you've never seen it before. The narrative is keeping most people happy and there are small things in place to keep the more diligent of mind happy that they are doing their bit. The need for fossil fuels will not disappear overnight and this should be understood, until this is acknowledged the conversation will always be constructed to pacify, some see through this and get angry. As I said, at the start of this post, what is the plan and timescales? I'm all for moving off fossil fuels but not until we have the infrastructure to continue living our lives as we do today. | |||
 | |||
"Why does it have to be a choice between fossil fuels and renewables. Why not press ahead with both. Renewables will need to be our future but fossil fuels will be needed around the world for many many years yet. There will be a period of cutover that may take many years to complete. The we want it now chant is impossible to fulfil based on current energy demands globally. Ships sailing from China, cars manufactured, bread being baked and lights in your house are the tip of the iceberg in energy demands. We do not have a simple answer to replace and no amount of protesting is going to make this turn around any time soon. Governments like corporations are listening, working to make it net zero, it is all smoke and mirrors. The reality is we need adult conversations and not if, but’s and maybe’s! Net zero means nothing, that is the reality "Net zero means nothing, that is the reality" sounds like a religious chant. Of course we can't have it now. We can have it much, much faster than the pace at which the fossil fuel companies wish to fill their coffers at. They are backsliding because of short term capitalism. There are significant global consequences for delaying. The money exists to speed up the future but it is being used to repeat the past. You are right net zero means nothing being a religious chant. Flaky goal, hardly measurable and allows companies to lead people into believing their purchases are clean and they are doing their bit. As for speeding things along, it is going at a rate equal to demand. Fossil fuel companies filling their coffers? the price is going up and up, and will continue to do so. They know we need fossil fuels and without them we would plunge into darkness, they’re using that to manipulate the price so no change there. However, the Middle East are changing their strategy for future growth and it doesn’t include oil. The charade that is going on under our noses is impressive, the speed of change will and is being managed carefully, no nation is going to stop their reliance on fossil fuels to function, until the alternative is proven to be scalable and reliable. " You are deliberately misunderstanding, I guess. Net zero does mean something. In the same way zero road deaths means something or education for all means something or universal healthcare means something. How are any of these things achieved? The fact that companies are dishonest means that it shouldn't be done? A rate equal to demand is also meaningless. Consumers cannot "demand" electricity from renewables. It needs to be legislated for. The transition away from fossil fuels is not demand driven, it is driven by Governments and global agreements. Are they just doing this for fun without a plan? Nobody has said that fossil fuels are not needed right now and for several years to come. What is not needed is further investment in them. We are not going to run out using what is currently being exploited. Do you think otherwise? This is an attempt to extend the fossil fuel subsidies and profits well beyond when they are needed. They are backsliding because it gives them higher profits now. The longer they delay, the longer that lasts. | |||
"Why does it have to be a choice between fossil fuels and renewables. Why not press ahead with both. Renewables will need to be our future but fossil fuels will be needed around the world for many many years yet. There will be a period of cutover that may take many years to complete. The we want it now chant is impossible to fulfil based on current energy demands globally. Ships sailing from China, cars manufactured, bread being baked and lights in your house are the tip of the iceberg in energy demands. We do not have a simple answer to replace and no amount of protesting is going to make this turn around any time soon. Governments like corporations are listening, working to make it net zero, it is all smoke and mirrors. The reality is we need adult conversations and not if, but’s and maybe’s! Net zero means nothing, that is the reality "Net zero means nothing, that is the reality" sounds like a religious chant. Of course we can't have it now. We can have it much, much faster than the pace at which the fossil fuel companies wish to fill their coffers at. They are backsliding because of short term capitalism. There are significant global consequences for delaying. The money exists to speed up the future but it is being used to repeat the past. You are right net zero means nothing being a religious chant. Flaky goal, hardly measurable and allows companies to lead people into believing their purchases are clean and they are doing their bit. As for speeding things along, it is going at a rate equal to demand. This is the point. Demand is artificially altered by the lobbying, misinformation, and doubt seeded by the fossil fuels industry. Fossil fuel companies filling their coffers? the price is going up and up, and will continue to do so. They know we need fossil fuels and without them we would plunge into darkness, they’re using that to manipulate the price so no change there. So surely a faster transition away from fossil fuels would be optimal. However, the Middle East are changing their strategy for future growth and it doesn’t include oil. The charade that is going on under our noses is impressive, the speed of change will and is being managed carefully, no nation is going to stop their reliance on fossil fuels to function, until the alternative is proven to be scalable and reliable. This kind of rhetoric plays exactly into the bank accounts of the oil companies. Surely we should be working to move away from fossil fuels as soon as reasonably possible, for the sake of climate change and our energy costs. How? What is the plan and timescales? We are transitioning at the rate we use energy and that is the bottom line. If no cars were built, food wasn't processed, hospitals were not life support, people did not travel, people did not want manufactured clothing, lighting, heating etc etc we could migrate tomorrow. The reality is people can't put up with 4 hours with an electric power cut, imagine if there was no guaranteed continuous supply, unrest like you've never seen it before. The narrative is keeping most people happy and there are small things in place to keep the more diligent of mind happy that they are doing their bit. The need for fossil fuels will not disappear overnight and this should be understood, until this is acknowledged the conversation will always be constructed to pacify, some see through this and get angry. As I said, at the start of this post, what is the plan and timescales? I'm all for moving off fossil fuels but not until we have the infrastructure to continue living our lives as we do today. " Just because a randomer on a swingers forum doesn't know the timescales. Doesn't mean we shouldn't bother trying. | |||
"Why does it have to be a choice between fossil fuels and renewables. Why not press ahead with both. Renewables will need to be our future but fossil fuels will be needed around the world for many many years yet. There will be a period of cutover that may take many years to complete. The we want it now chant is impossible to fulfil based on current energy demands globally. Ships sailing from China, cars manufactured, bread being baked and lights in your house are the tip of the iceberg in energy demands. We do not have a simple answer to replace and no amount of protesting is going to make this turn around any time soon. Governments like corporations are listening, working to make it net zero, it is all smoke and mirrors. The reality is we need adult conversations and not if, but’s and maybe’s! Net zero means nothing, that is the reality "Net zero means nothing, that is the reality" sounds like a religious chant. Of course we can't have it now. We can have it much, much faster than the pace at which the fossil fuel companies wish to fill their coffers at. They are backsliding because of short term capitalism. There are significant global consequences for delaying. The money exists to speed up the future but it is being used to repeat the past. You are right net zero means nothing being a religious chant. Flaky goal, hardly measurable and allows companies to lead people into believing their purchases are clean and they are doing their bit. As for speeding things along, it is going at a rate equal to demand. This is the point. Demand is artificially altered by the lobbying, misinformation, and doubt seeded by the fossil fuels industry. Fossil fuel companies filling their coffers? the price is going up and up, and will continue to do so. They know we need fossil fuels and without them we would plunge into darkness, they’re using that to manipulate the price so no change there. So surely a faster transition away from fossil fuels would be optimal. However, the Middle East are changing their strategy for future growth and it doesn’t include oil. The charade that is going on under our noses is impressive, the speed of change will and is being managed carefully, no nation is going to stop their reliance on fossil fuels to function, until the alternative is proven to be scalable and reliable. This kind of rhetoric plays exactly into the bank accounts of the oil companies. Surely we should be working to move away from fossil fuels as soon as reasonably possible, for the sake of climate change and our energy costs. How? What is the plan and timescales? We are transitioning at the rate we use energy and that is the bottom line. If no cars were built, food wasn't processed, hospitals were not life support, people did not travel, people did not want manufactured clothing, lighting, heating etc etc we could migrate tomorrow. The reality is people can't put up with 4 hours with an electric power cut, imagine if there was no guaranteed continuous supply, unrest like you've never seen it before. The narrative is keeping most people happy and there are small things in place to keep the more diligent of mind happy that they are doing their bit. The need for fossil fuels will not disappear overnight and this should be understood, until this is acknowledged the conversation will always be constructed to pacify, some see through this and get angry. As I said, at the start of this post, what is the plan and timescales? I'm all for moving off fossil fuels but not until we have the infrastructure to continue living our lives as we do today. " So people shouldn’t be expected to suffer a little inconvenience for a potential greater good in the future? Just stirring the Brexit pot a little bit…. | |||
"Why does it have to be a choice between fossil fuels and renewables. Why not press ahead with both. Renewables will need to be our future but fossil fuels will be needed around the world for many many years yet. There will be a period of cutover that may take many years to complete. The we want it now chant is impossible to fulfil based on current energy demands globally. Ships sailing from China, cars manufactured, bread being baked and lights in your house are the tip of the iceberg in energy demands. We do not have a simple answer to replace and no amount of protesting is going to make this turn around any time soon. Governments like corporations are listening, working to make it net zero, it is all smoke and mirrors. The reality is we need adult conversations and not if, but’s and maybe’s! Net zero means nothing, that is the reality "Net zero means nothing, that is the reality" sounds like a religious chant. Of course we can't have it now. We can have it much, much faster than the pace at which the fossil fuel companies wish to fill their coffers at. They are backsliding because of short term capitalism. There are significant global consequences for delaying. The money exists to speed up the future but it is being used to repeat the past. You are right net zero means nothing being a religious chant. Flaky goal, hardly measurable and allows companies to lead people into believing their purchases are clean and they are doing their bit. As for speeding things along, it is going at a rate equal to demand. This is the point. Demand is artificially altered by the lobbying, misinformation, and doubt seeded by the fossil fuels industry. Fossil fuel companies filling their coffers? the price is going up and up, and will continue to do so. They know we need fossil fuels and without them we would plunge into darkness, they’re using that to manipulate the price so no change there. So surely a faster transition away from fossil fuels would be optimal. However, the Middle East are changing their strategy for future growth and it doesn’t include oil. The charade that is going on under our noses is impressive, the speed of change will and is being managed carefully, no nation is going to stop their reliance on fossil fuels to function, until the alternative is proven to be scalable and reliable. This kind of rhetoric plays exactly into the bank accounts of the oil companies. Surely we should be working to move away from fossil fuels as soon as reasonably possible, for the sake of climate change and our energy costs. How? What is the plan and timescales? We are transitioning at the rate we use energy and that is the bottom line. If no cars were built, food wasn't processed, hospitals were not life support, people did not travel, people did not want manufactured clothing, lighting, heating etc etc we could migrate tomorrow. The reality is people can't put up with 4 hours with an electric power cut, imagine if there was no guaranteed continuous supply, unrest like you've never seen it before. The narrative is keeping most people happy and there are small things in place to keep the more diligent of mind happy that they are doing their bit. The need for fossil fuels will not disappear overnight and this should be understood, until this is acknowledged the conversation will always be constructed to pacify, some see through this and get angry. As I said, at the start of this post, what is the plan and timescales? I'm all for moving off fossil fuels but not until we have the infrastructure to continue living our lives as we do today. Just because a randomer on a swingers forum doesn't know the timescales. Doesn't mean we shouldn't bother trying." That is my point trying for what and when? This is exactly how JSO are failing to get traction along with Thunberg they make bold claim of in our lifetime we will see deserts, famine, fires and lots of other frightening claims, but they slip by. I'm not advocating fossil fuels, I advocating clear concise discussions that remove emotion and set out a plan that outlines the how. All we seem to have are random dates in the future to meet a strap line net zero target. We need real statements of intent that outline what is required and what will not be tolerated by corps claiming to be carbon neutral, net zero and all manner of sales spiel to promote themselves, when unfortunately all they have done is outsourced the problem so its not theirs. There is so much wrong on our approach top to bottom and I believe it needs to start with open and honest dialogue. | |||
"Why does it have to be a choice between fossil fuels and renewables. Why not press ahead with both. Renewables will need to be our future but fossil fuels will be needed around the world for many many years yet. There will be a period of cutover that may take many years to complete. The we want it now chant is impossible to fulfil based on current energy demands globally. Ships sailing from China, cars manufactured, bread being baked and lights in your house are the tip of the iceberg in energy demands. We do not have a simple answer to replace and no amount of protesting is going to make this turn around any time soon. Governments like corporations are listening, working to make it net zero, it is all smoke and mirrors. The reality is we need adult conversations and not if, but’s and maybe’s! Net zero means nothing, that is the reality "Net zero means nothing, that is the reality" sounds like a religious chant. Of course we can't have it now. We can have it much, much faster than the pace at which the fossil fuel companies wish to fill their coffers at. They are backsliding because of short term capitalism. There are significant global consequences for delaying. The money exists to speed up the future but it is being used to repeat the past. You are right net zero means nothing being a religious chant. Flaky goal, hardly measurable and allows companies to lead people into believing their purchases are clean and they are doing their bit. As for speeding things along, it is going at a rate equal to demand. This is the point. Demand is artificially altered by the lobbying, misinformation, and doubt seeded by the fossil fuels industry. Fossil fuel companies filling their coffers? the price is going up and up, and will continue to do so. They know we need fossil fuels and without them we would plunge into darkness, they’re using that to manipulate the price so no change there. So surely a faster transition away from fossil fuels would be optimal. However, the Middle East are changing their strategy for future growth and it doesn’t include oil. The charade that is going on under our noses is impressive, the speed of change will and is being managed carefully, no nation is going to stop their reliance on fossil fuels to function, until the alternative is proven to be scalable and reliable. This kind of rhetoric plays exactly into the bank accounts of the oil companies. Surely we should be working to move away from fossil fuels as soon as reasonably possible, for the sake of climate change and our energy costs. How? What is the plan and timescales? We are transitioning at the rate we use energy and that is the bottom line. If no cars were built, food wasn't processed, hospitals were not life support, people did not travel, people did not want manufactured clothing, lighting, heating etc etc we could migrate tomorrow. The reality is people can't put up with 4 hours with an electric power cut, imagine if there was no guaranteed continuous supply, unrest like you've never seen it before. The narrative is keeping most people happy and there are small things in place to keep the more diligent of mind happy that they are doing their bit. The need for fossil fuels will not disappear overnight and this should be understood, until this is acknowledged the conversation will always be constructed to pacify, some see through this and get angry. As I said, at the start of this post, what is the plan and timescales? I'm all for moving off fossil fuels but not until we have the infrastructure to continue living our lives as we do today. So people shouldn’t be expected to suffer a little inconvenience for a potential greater good in the future? Just stirring the Brexit pot a little bit…." No, socially we have become selfish and there is no way the vast majority of people globally will take a negative impact on their way of life. (leave brexit out of it ) | |||
"Why does it have to be a choice between fossil fuels and renewables. Why not press ahead with both. Renewables will need to be our future but fossil fuels will be needed around the world for many many years yet. There will be a period of cutover that may take many years to complete. The we want it now chant is impossible to fulfil based on current energy demands globally. Ships sailing from China, cars manufactured, bread being baked and lights in your house are the tip of the iceberg in energy demands. We do not have a simple answer to replace and no amount of protesting is going to make this turn around any time soon. Governments like corporations are listening, working to make it net zero, it is all smoke and mirrors. The reality is we need adult conversations and not if, but’s and maybe’s! Net zero means nothing, that is the reality "Net zero means nothing, that is the reality" sounds like a religious chant. Of course we can't have it now. We can have it much, much faster than the pace at which the fossil fuel companies wish to fill their coffers at. They are backsliding because of short term capitalism. There are significant global consequences for delaying. The money exists to speed up the future but it is being used to repeat the past. You are right net zero means nothing being a religious chant. Flaky goal, hardly measurable and allows companies to lead people into believing their purchases are clean and they are doing their bit. As for speeding things along, it is going at a rate equal to demand. Fossil fuel companies filling their coffers? the price is going up and up, and will continue to do so. They know we need fossil fuels and without them we would plunge into darkness, they’re using that to manipulate the price so no change there. However, the Middle East are changing their strategy for future growth and it doesn’t include oil. The charade that is going on under our noses is impressive, the speed of change will and is being managed carefully, no nation is going to stop their reliance on fossil fuels to function, until the alternative is proven to be scalable and reliable. You are deliberately misunderstanding, I guess. Net zero does mean something. In the same way zero road deaths means something or education for all means something or universal healthcare means something. How are any of these things achieved? The fact that companies are dishonest means that it shouldn't be done? A rate equal to demand is also meaningless. Consumers cannot "demand" electricity from renewables. It needs to be legislated for. The transition away from fossil fuels is not demand driven, it is driven by Governments and global agreements. Are they just doing this for fun without a plan? Nobody has said that fossil fuels are not needed right now and for several years to come. What is not needed is further investment in them. We are not going to run out using what is currently being exploited. Do you think otherwise? This is an attempt to extend the fossil fuel subsidies and profits well beyond when they are needed. They are backsliding because it gives them higher profits now. The longer they delay, the longer that lasts." I'm trying to make a point ref net zero, it is a phrase that pays and we need to be mindful of such things. | |||
"Why does it have to be a choice between fossil fuels and renewables. Why not press ahead with both. Renewables will need to be our future but fossil fuels will be needed around the world for many many years yet. There will be a period of cutover that may take many years to complete. The we want it now chant is impossible to fulfil based on current energy demands globally. Ships sailing from China, cars manufactured, bread being baked and lights in your house are the tip of the iceberg in energy demands. We do not have a simple answer to replace and no amount of protesting is going to make this turn around any time soon. Governments like corporations are listening, working to make it net zero, it is all smoke and mirrors. The reality is we need adult conversations and not if, but’s and maybe’s! Net zero means nothing, that is the reality "Net zero means nothing, that is the reality" sounds like a religious chant. Of course we can't have it now. We can have it much, much faster than the pace at which the fossil fuel companies wish to fill their coffers at. They are backsliding because of short term capitalism. There are significant global consequences for delaying. The money exists to speed up the future but it is being used to repeat the past. You are right net zero means nothing being a religious chant. Flaky goal, hardly measurable and allows companies to lead people into believing their purchases are clean and they are doing their bit. As for speeding things along, it is going at a rate equal to demand. This is the point. Demand is artificially altered by the lobbying, misinformation, and doubt seeded by the fossil fuels industry. Fossil fuel companies filling their coffers? the price is going up and up, and will continue to do so. They know we need fossil fuels and without them we would plunge into darkness, they’re using that to manipulate the price so no change there. So surely a faster transition away from fossil fuels would be optimal. However, the Middle East are changing their strategy for future growth and it doesn’t include oil. The charade that is going on under our noses is impressive, the speed of change will and is being managed carefully, no nation is going to stop their reliance on fossil fuels to function, until the alternative is proven to be scalable and reliable. This kind of rhetoric plays exactly into the bank accounts of the oil companies. Surely we should be working to move away from fossil fuels as soon as reasonably possible, for the sake of climate change and our energy costs. How? What is the plan and timescales? We are transitioning at the rate we use energy and that is the bottom line. If no cars were built, food wasn't processed, hospitals were not life support, people did not travel, people did not want manufactured clothing, lighting, heating etc etc we could migrate tomorrow. The reality is people can't put up with 4 hours with an electric power cut, imagine if there was no guaranteed continuous supply, unrest like you've never seen it before. The narrative is keeping most people happy and there are small things in place to keep the more diligent of mind happy that they are doing their bit. The need for fossil fuels will not disappear overnight and this should be understood, until this is acknowledged the conversation will always be constructed to pacify, some see through this and get angry. As I said, at the start of this post, what is the plan and timescales? I'm all for moving off fossil fuels but not until we have the infrastructure to continue living our lives as we do today. Just because a randomer on a swingers forum doesn't know the timescales. Doesn't mean we shouldn't bother trying. That is my point trying for what and when? This is exactly how JSO are failing to get traction along with Thunberg they make bold claim of in our lifetime we will see deserts, famine, fires and lots of other frightening claims, but they slip by. I'm not advocating fossil fuels, I advocating clear concise discussions that remove emotion and set out a plan that outlines the how. All we seem to have are random dates in the future to meet a strap line net zero target. We need real statements of intent that outline what is required and what will not be tolerated by corps claiming to be carbon neutral, net zero and all manner of sales spiel to promote themselves, when unfortunately all they have done is outsourced the problem so its not theirs. There is so much wrong on our approach top to bottom and I believe it needs to start with open and honest dialogue." The timeline is set by the rate of the planet heating up, not by anything someone says. | |||
"Why does it have to be a choice between fossil fuels and renewables. Why not press ahead with both. Renewables will need to be our future but fossil fuels will be needed around the world for many many years yet. There will be a period of cutover that may take many years to complete. The we want it now chant is impossible to fulfil based on current energy demands globally. Ships sailing from China, cars manufactured, bread being baked and lights in your house are the tip of the iceberg in energy demands. We do not have a simple answer to replace and no amount of protesting is going to make this turn around any time soon. Governments like corporations are listening, working to make it net zero, it is all smoke and mirrors. The reality is we need adult conversations and not if, but’s and maybe’s! Net zero means nothing, that is the reality "Net zero means nothing, that is the reality" sounds like a religious chant. Of course we can't have it now. We can have it much, much faster than the pace at which the fossil fuel companies wish to fill their coffers at. They are backsliding because of short term capitalism. There are significant global consequences for delaying. The money exists to speed up the future but it is being used to repeat the past. You are right net zero means nothing being a religious chant. Flaky goal, hardly measurable and allows companies to lead people into believing their purchases are clean and they are doing their bit. As for speeding things along, it is going at a rate equal to demand. This is the point. Demand is artificially altered by the lobbying, misinformation, and doubt seeded by the fossil fuels industry. Fossil fuel companies filling their coffers? the price is going up and up, and will continue to do so. They know we need fossil fuels and without them we would plunge into darkness, they’re using that to manipulate the price so no change there. So surely a faster transition away from fossil fuels would be optimal. However, the Middle East are changing their strategy for future growth and it doesn’t include oil. The charade that is going on under our noses is impressive, the speed of change will and is being managed carefully, no nation is going to stop their reliance on fossil fuels to function, until the alternative is proven to be scalable and reliable. This kind of rhetoric plays exactly into the bank accounts of the oil companies. Surely we should be working to move away from fossil fuels as soon as reasonably possible, for the sake of climate change and our energy costs. How? What is the plan and timescales? We are transitioning at the rate we use energy and that is the bottom line. If no cars were built, food wasn't processed, hospitals were not life support, people did not travel, people did not want manufactured clothing, lighting, heating etc etc we could migrate tomorrow. The reality is people can't put up with 4 hours with an electric power cut, imagine if there was no guaranteed continuous supply, unrest like you've never seen it before. The narrative is keeping most people happy and there are small things in place to keep the more diligent of mind happy that they are doing their bit. The need for fossil fuels will not disappear overnight and this should be understood, until this is acknowledged the conversation will always be constructed to pacify, some see through this and get angry. As I said, at the start of this post, what is the plan and timescales? I'm all for moving off fossil fuels but not until we have the infrastructure to continue living our lives as we do today. Just because a randomer on a swingers forum doesn't know the timescales. Doesn't mean we shouldn't bother trying. That is my point trying for what and when? This is exactly how JSO are failing to get traction along with Thunberg they make bold claim of in our lifetime we will see deserts, famine, fires and lots of other frightening claims, but they slip by. I'm not advocating fossil fuels, I advocating clear concise discussions that remove emotion and set out a plan that outlines the how. All we seem to have are random dates in the future to meet a strap line net zero target. We need real statements of intent that outline what is required and what will not be tolerated by corps claiming to be carbon neutral, net zero and all manner of sales spiel to promote themselves, when unfortunately all they have done is outsourced the problem so its not theirs. There is so much wrong on our approach top to bottom and I believe it needs to start with open and honest dialogue. The timeline is set by the rate of the planet heating up, not by anything someone says." That is a climate change prediction based on modelling we have today, how is calling for alternative energies to power and provide the consumption of the earth tying into those predictions? | |||
