The very fact it’s annoying a lot of people who only have a passing interest in environmental matters and the very fact everyone is now talking about them/the issue is the only proof you need that their approach is effective.
Good for them. I suspect that future generations will regard those currently being arrested for their protests in the same light as we now look upon the pioneers of slavery abolition and the suffragettes.
A lot of whataboutery on here re other things they could do etc but the key for British protesters is to set an example and to push the agenda forward within the UK. They’re doing something, which is more than can be said for the rest of us. They’re raising this up the political agenda and once societal consciousness increases, it will drive political, educational and international change. That’s how protests work…they’re not expecting the world to change overnight because they’ve thrown some confetti at a tennis match but it’s making people talk and trying to stop everyone burying their heads in the sand.
My thoughts exactly 👍
Me too.
Me too.
Minimal disruption at Wimbledon (with max media coverage) caused by a granddad worried about his grandchildren’s future 👏👏 - not someone to be ‘two footed’.
It’s those of us that do nothing who should be asking ourselves questions.
Sorry I must have missed the pricks stopping traffic across the capital/m25 stopping tradesman/zero hour workers getting to work and earning money. I suppose it’s sweet when it doesn’t affect you. I will two foot away.
Such a lad! ;-)
PS I was only commenting on Wimbledon. 'Minimal disruption at Wimbledon (with max media coverage) caused by a granddad worried about his grandchildren’s future 👏👏' I have a grandchild. It makes a difference. Sorry, an' all that. For what it's worth I don't believe in stopping traffic etc. Not at all.
It's good to see such interest in the debate on here, but as usual it's the same peeps getting angry and the same peeps being supportive - very few people change their minds over the issue, and I believe most won't until food and/or water shortages affect us directly, as well as mass migration that could be caused by droughts etc. Food prices are only going to rise if crops fail, but people seem almost dead set against taking any meaningful action. I'm guessing the antis don't think those things actually will happen? It's quite depressing that people are far more angry about protests than they are about inaction on climate change. Just my opinion of course. Perhaps the temperatures will stop rising, and the ice will stop melting (the ice that reflect the sun's rays), but it seems pretty unlikely. If people were more united on the issue that'd be more chance of doing something.
Interesting read that. I guess Greta couldn't get tickets for a Wimbledon then 😉
Of course targeting the fossil fuel industry infrastructure directly is preferable, and I'm sure you recall issues last year with JSO protestors blockading refineries, for which some potentially lengthy stays in prison can be the reward for those prepared to do what they believe necessary for the cause they passionately believe in.
I note that the Labour party have committed to end new gas and oil development and not grant new licenses to the exploration companies, a policy consistent with JSO objectives, even though some on here don't agree that it's a worthwhile one. Still, I can't believe the Tory party policy of granting new licenses is really the best way to go in the midst of the climate change crisis.
As a result of my career path over the last thirty years I've been aware of the progressive and often ireverrsible damage being done to our planet's environment. Some improvements have taken place during that time but in general the situation continues to worsen and we are now on the cusp of a global crisis. I too have been inconvenienced by the protests but we're all drinking in the Last Chance Saloon and if people don't chose to recognise this they are sadly and unwittingly complicit. Some of you may remember the 2006 documentary by the former US Vice President, Al Gore which won two Oscars. The film provides an excellent introduction to the situation and I would recommend that anyone who hasn't yet seen it should watch it now. It's 97 minutes long and will cost you £2.49 (SD Version) to view on You Tube. If you haven't already then I implore you to watch it now, you can do so here....
Just click on the blue button to the right of the screen stating 'Buy or Rent' and select SD for £2.49. I'd be very surprised if, after watching, your opinion on this subject hasn't been genuinely changed but if that is the case then message me with proof of purchase and I'll gladly pay you the £2.49 that it cost you to watch the film.
Very good I sometimes wonder if that Florida thing had gone the other way and Gore had got into power instead of dub-ya, how different the world might be...
Interesting read that. I guess Greta couldn't get tickets for a Wimbledon then 😉
Of course targeting the fossil fuel industry infrastructure directly is preferable, and I'm sure you recall issues last year with JSO protestors blockading refineries, for which some potentially lengthy stays in prison can be the reward for those prepared to do what they believe necessary for the cause they passionately believe in.
I note that the Labour party have committed to end new gas and oil development and not grant new licenses to the exploration companies, a policy consistent with JSO objectives, even though some on here don't agree that it's a worthwhile one. Still, I can't believe the Tory party policy of granting new licenses is really the best way to go in the midst of the climate change crisis.
The counter argument I understand is to do with energy security.
Who knows what the lesser of two evils are in the short term.
It’s presumably not a simple choice with various dynamics to consider. If the evidence were overwhelming in one direction I imagine there would be no argument.
I couldn't help but notice on the JSO site for upcoming speeches/events, there's one scheduled for the 23rd July called the "Beyond Fucked Banquet" Not much other detail there other than how to apply for free tickets, so I don't think I'll be attending on this occasion. I could name a few suitable guest speakers for that though.
Interesting read that. I guess Greta couldn't get tickets for a Wimbledon then 😉
Of course targeting the fossil fuel industry infrastructure directly is preferable, and I'm sure you recall issues last year with JSO protestors blockading refineries, for which some potentially lengthy stays in prison can be the reward for those prepared to do what they believe necessary for the cause they passionately believe in.
I note that the Labour party have committed to end new gas and oil development and not grant new licenses to the exploration companies, a policy consistent with JSO objectives, even though some on here don't agree that it's a worthwhile one. Still, I can't believe the Tory party policy of granting new licenses is really the best way to go in the midst of the climate change crisis.
The counter argument I understand is to do with energy security.
Who knows what the lesser of two evils are in the short term.
It’s presumably not a simple choice with various dynamics to consider. If the evidence were overwhelming in one direction I imagine there would be no argument.
Previous Tory Prime Ministers including Cameron and (astonishingly) Johnson supported reductions in CO2 emissions but more recently both Truss and Sunak have little sympathy for that cause. Johnson had imposed a ban on further licences being granted for the North Sea oil and gas extraction but I think Truss rescinded these bans.
The point being made about granting licences as improving our energy security is a complete distraction. Almost 40% of our electrical generating capacity is owned by foreign companies following the privatisation of the energy companies during the mid 1980s, prior to this all of our capacity was, like the water industry, completely publicly owned. Nothing is being done to rectify this, a Private Members bill to force water companies to invest in infrastructure repairs was defeated in Parliament and instead a bill allowing the companies to charge their customers for the necessary remedial works was whipped through the House by this Government. As a result most of us will face increases in water bills of around 40% over the coming few years and the imposed deadline for the completion of the remedial works to prevent sewage discharge into the sea and our rivers has been set at 2030. In terms of security over 70% of the UK Water industry is owned by corporate investors in 17 different overseas countries including China and Abu Dhabi. These water companies have amassed aggregate debts of £60 billion but have paid £57 billion in dividends to their shareholders since privatisation. Sadly we are becoming all too familiar with the use of the multiplier 'billion'. If compared to units of time then one million would be 11.5 days whereas one billion equates to 31.5 years. So £57 billion in dividends converted to units of time represents 1795 years. When privatised, I believe there were 75 water reservoirs in the UK. After over 30 years of 'investment' from the private sector we've added just one new reservoir despite the population increasing by 12 million during that period. Think about that when complaining about hosepipe bans.
The fundamental issue of Energy Security is very real and worrying but any investment in North Sea solutions will take 10-15 years to come to fruition. Our decision to entrust our infrastructure to the vagaries of the 'free market' has culminated with the threat by France, during the post Brexit negotiations on fishing rights when a French MP suggested that they should switch off the electrical supply to the Channel Islands, which originates from France. The supply is provided by EDF who also supply 10% of the electrical energy to the UK. EDF is owned by the French government. Our energy security has been offered on a plate to anyone willing to buy it on global markets for so many years now.
The real opportunities to restore our energy security rests with developing plans for nuclear and hydrogen solutions and also with more investment in wind-farms. Rather than massive nuclear stations like Sizewell C (being developed by EDF) we should consider the smaller local nuclear power stations such as those being proposed by Rolls Royce. Hydrogen is also a very viable opportunity particularly where plants can be created local to wind-farms where off peak energy (night-time winds) can be used to create Hydrogen which can then be stored and distributed via the gas distribution network. These are longer term projects which will (rightly) take time although and are unlikely to make a significant contribution for 20 years or so. Quicker solutions are available and include more wind farm. This technology already provides around 20% of our electrical energy capacity and is becoming a very economical way, particularly onshore farms, of generating electrical energy. At present its onshore expansion is constrained by complex planning regulations which empower nimbyism. If these constraints were relaxed we could very quickly improve our Energy Security increase our renewable capacity and have this all operational before any North Sea oil/gas rigs have been constructed.
Interesting read that. I guess Greta couldn't get tickets for a Wimbledon then 😉
Of course targeting the fossil fuel industry infrastructure directly is preferable, and I'm sure you recall issues last year with JSO protestors blockading refineries, for which some potentially lengthy stays in prison can be the reward for those prepared to do what they believe necessary for the cause they passionately believe in.
I note that the Labour party have committed to end new gas and oil development and not grant new licenses to the exploration companies, a policy consistent with JSO objectives, even though some on here don't agree that it's a worthwhile one. Still, I can't believe the Tory party policy of granting new licenses is really the best way to go in the midst of the climate change crisis.
The counter argument I understand is to do with energy security.
Who knows what the lesser of two evils are in the short term.
It’s presumably not a simple choice with various dynamics to consider. If the evidence were overwhelming in one direction I imagine there would be no argument.
Previous Tory Prime Ministers including Cameron and (astonishingly) Johnson supported reductions in CO2 emissions but more recently both Truss and Sunak have little sympathy for that cause. Johnson had imposed a ban on further licences being granted for the North Sea oil and gas extraction but I think Truss rescinded these bans.
The point being made about granting licences as improving our energy security is a complete distraction. Almost 40% of our electrical generating capacity is owned by foreign companies following the privatisation of the energy companies during the mid 1980s, prior to this all of our capacity was, like the water industry, completely publicly owned. Nothing is being done to rectify this, a Private Members bill to force water companies to invest in infrastructure repairs was defeated in Parliament and instead a bill allowing the companies to charge their customers for the necessary remedial works was whipped through the House by this Government. As a result most of us will face increases in water bills of around 40% over the coming few years and the imposed deadline for the completion of the remedial works to prevent sewage discharge into the sea and our rivers has been set at 2030. In terms of security over 70% of the UK Water industry is owned by corporate investors in 17 different overseas countries including China and Abu Dhabi. These water companies have amassed aggregate debts of £60 billion but have paid £57 billion in dividends to their shareholders since privatisation. Sadly we are becoming all too familiar with the use of the multiplier 'billion'. If compared to units of time then one million would be 11.5 days whereas one billion equates to 31.5 years. So £57 billion in dividends converted to units of time represents 1795 years. When privatised, I believe there were 75 water reservoirs in the UK. After over 30 years of 'investment' from the private sector we've added just one new reservoir despite the population increasing by 12 million during that period. Think about that when complaining about hosepipe bans.
The fundamental issue of Energy Security is very real and worrying but any investment in North Sea solutions will take 10-15 years to come to fruition. Our decision to entrust our infrastructure to the vagaries of the 'free market' has culminated with the threat by France, during the post Brexit negotiations on fishing rights when a French MP suggested that they should switch off the electrical supply to the Channel Islands, which originates from France. The supply is provided by EDF who also supply 10% of the electrical energy to the UK. EDF is owned by the French government. Our energy security has been offered on a plate to anyone willing to buy it on global markets for so many years now.
The real opportunities to restore our energy security rests with developing plans for nuclear and hydrogen solutions and also with more investment in wind-farms. Rather than massive nuclear stations like Sizewell C (being developed by EDF) we should consider the smaller local nuclear power stations such as those being proposed by Rolls Royce. Hydrogen is also a very viable opportunity particularly where plants can be created local to wind-farms where off peak energy (night-time winds) can be used to create Hydrogen which can then be stored and distributed via the gas distribution network. These are longer term projects which will (rightly) take time although and are unlikely to make a significant contribution for 20 years or so. Quicker solutions are available and include more wind farm. This technology already provides around 20% of our electrical energy capacity and is becoming a very economical way, particularly onshore farms, of generating electrical energy. At present its onshore expansion is constrained by complex planning regulations which empower nimbyism. If these constraints were relaxed we could very quickly improve our Energy Security increase our renewable capacity and have this all operational before any North Sea oil/gas rigs have been constructed.
Sorry to witter on.
I’m not saying you are wrong.
But why do you suppose the licences were granted if security is not enhanced beyond other approaches? Why go this route?
Seems an odd decision if onshore wind is the quicker solution - I don’t immediately see who is so disadvantaged by onshore wind versus the negativity associated with granting the ‘oil’ licences they have. I assume there are other arguments that make it more complex as otherwise seems more a vote loser than vote gainer.
Climate Change is accelerating and unless it is taken seriously, the planet is heading for disaster. We had the hottest June on record in the UK, Canada has suffered devastating wildfires, China is currently experiencing floods which have killed many and left many others homeless, much of Europe is in drought, Italy had devastating floods after a period of drought, causing the cancellation of the Italian Grand Prix. Sea temperatures are about 4 degrees higher around the UK this year, which has a devastating effect on wildlife. All of this has taken place in this year alone.
Been a lovely summer over here so far
What really irritates me is that Justin Trudeau at a federal level has added a carbon tax onto fuel of 14 cents a litre! Fuel here is already the most expensive in North America, and a bag of potatoes costs over $10. Everything that relies on fuel will see prices rise.
What happens when people have their disposal income taken away? They make less environmentally friendly choices and buy whatever they need to get by. People aren't going to purchase electric cars if they have less money.
Climate Change is accelerating and unless it is taken seriously, the planet is heading for disaster. We had the hottest June on record in the UK, Canada has suffered devastating wildfires, China is currently experiencing floods which have killed many and left many others homeless, much of Europe is in drought, Italy had devastating floods after a period of drought, causing the cancellation of the Italian Grand Prix. Sea temperatures are about 4 degrees higher around the UK this year, which has a devastating effect on wildlife. All of this has taken place in this year alone.
Been a lovely summer over here so far
What really irritates me is that Justin Trudeau at a federal level has added a carbon tax onto fuel of 14 cents a litre! Fuel here is already the most expensive in North America, and a bag of potatoes costs over $10. Everything that relies on fuel will see prices rise.
What happens when people have their disposal income taken away? They make less environmentally friendly choices and buy whatever they need to get by. People aren't going to purchase electric cars if they have less money.
Climate Change is accelerating and unless it is taken seriously, the planet is heading for disaster. We had the hottest June on record in the UK, Canada has suffered devastating wildfires, China is currently experiencing floods which have killed many and left many others homeless, much of Europe is in drought, Italy had devastating floods after a period of drought, causing the cancellation of the Italian Grand Prix. Sea temperatures are about 4 degrees higher around the UK this year, which has a devastating effect on wildlife. All of this has taken place in this year alone.
Been a lovely summer over here so far
What really irritates me is that Justin Trudeau at a federal level has added a carbon tax onto fuel of 14 cents a litre! Fuel here is already the most expensive in North America, and a bag of potatoes costs over $10. Everything that relies on fuel will see prices rise.
What happens when people have their disposal income taken away? They make less environmentally friendly choices and buy whatever they need to get by. People aren't going to purchase electric cars if they have less money.
The most expensive in North America?
So basically more than the US then ?
Well yes, and whilst you might scoff at that compared to European prices, some people have to drive miles to get anywhere.
Climate Change is accelerating and unless it is taken seriously, the planet is heading for disaster. We had the hottest June on record in the UK, Canada has suffered devastating wildfires, China is currently experiencing floods which have killed many and left many others homeless, much of Europe is in drought, Italy had devastating floods after a period of drought, causing the cancellation of the Italian Grand Prix. Sea temperatures are about 4 degrees higher around the UK this year, which has a devastating effect on wildlife. All of this has taken place in this year alone.
Been a lovely summer over here so far
What really irritates me is that Justin Trudeau at a federal level has added a carbon tax onto fuel of 14 cents a litre! Fuel here is already the most expensive in North America, and a bag of potatoes costs over $10. Everything that relies on fuel will see prices rise.
What happens when people have their disposal income taken away? They make less environmentally friendly choices and buy whatever they need to get by. People aren't going to purchase electric cars if they have less money.
Great example of somebody not taking climate change seriously and therefore baulking at policies introduced to begin to enact the sort of radical changes to society required for human survival.
Would you agree that the focus of your post us entirely economic?
Interesting read that. I guess Greta couldn't get tickets for a Wimbledon then 😉
Of course targeting the fossil fuel industry infrastructure directly is preferable, and I'm sure you recall issues last year with JSO protestors blockading refineries, for which some potentially lengthy stays in prison can be the reward for those prepared to do what they believe necessary for the cause they passionately believe in.
I note that the Labour party have committed to end new gas and oil development and not grant new licenses to the exploration companies, a policy consistent with JSO objectives, even though some on here don't agree that it's a worthwhile one. Still, I can't believe the Tory party policy of granting new licenses is really the best way to go in the midst of the climate change crisis.
The counter argument I understand is to do with energy security.
Who knows what the lesser of two evils are in the short term.
It’s presumably not a simple choice with various dynamics to consider. If the evidence were overwhelming in one direction I imagine there would be no argument.
Previous Tory Prime Ministers including Cameron and (astonishingly) Johnson supported reductions in CO2 emissions but more recently both Truss and Sunak have little sympathy for that cause. Johnson had imposed a ban on further licences being granted for the North Sea oil and gas extraction but I think Truss rescinded these bans.
The point being made about granting licences as improving our energy security is a complete distraction. Almost 40% of our electrical generating capacity is owned by foreign companies following the privatisation of the energy companies during the mid 1980s, prior to this all of our capacity was, like the water industry, completely publicly owned. Nothing is being done to rectify this, a Private Members bill to force water companies to invest in infrastructure repairs was defeated in Parliament and instead a bill allowing the companies to charge their customers for the necessary remedial works was whipped through the House by this Government. As a result most of us will face increases in water bills of around 40% over the coming few years and the imposed deadline for the completion of the remedial works to prevent sewage discharge into the sea and our rivers has been set at 2030. In terms of security over 70% of the UK Water industry is owned by corporate investors in 17 different overseas countries including China and Abu Dhabi. These water companies have amassed aggregate debts of £60 billion but have paid £57 billion in dividends to their shareholders since privatisation. Sadly we are becoming all too familiar with the use of the multiplier 'billion'. If compared to units of time then one million would be 11.5 days whereas one billion equates to 31.5 years. So £57 billion in dividends converted to units of time represents 1795 years. When privatised, I believe there were 75 water reservoirs in the UK. After over 30 years of 'investment' from the private sector we've added just one new reservoir despite the population increasing by 12 million during that period. Think about that when complaining about hosepipe bans.
The fundamental issue of Energy Security is very real and worrying but any investment in North Sea solutions will take 10-15 years to come to fruition. Our decision to entrust our infrastructure to the vagaries of the 'free market' has culminated with the threat by France, during the post Brexit negotiations on fishing rights when a French MP suggested that they should switch off the electrical supply to the Channel Islands, which originates from France. The supply is provided by EDF who also supply 10% of the electrical energy to the UK. EDF is owned by the French government. Our energy security has been offered on a plate to anyone willing to buy it on global markets for so many years now.
The real opportunities to restore our energy security rests with developing plans for nuclear and hydrogen solutions and also with more investment in wind-farms. Rather than massive nuclear stations like Sizewell C (being developed by EDF) we should consider the smaller local nuclear power stations such as those being proposed by Rolls Royce. Hydrogen is also a very viable opportunity particularly where plants can be created local to wind-farms where off peak energy (night-time winds) can be used to create Hydrogen which can then be stored and distributed via the gas distribution network. These are longer term projects which will (rightly) take time although and are unlikely to make a significant contribution for 20 years or so. Quicker solutions are available and include more wind farm. This technology already provides around 20% of our electrical energy capacity and is becoming a very economical way, particularly onshore farms, of generating electrical energy. At present its onshore expansion is constrained by complex planning regulations which empower nimbyism. If these constraints were relaxed we could very quickly improve our Energy Security increase our renewable capacity and have this all operational before any North Sea oil/gas rigs have been constructed.
Sorry to witter on.
I’m not saying you are wrong.
But why do you suppose the licences were granted if security is not enhanced beyond other approaches? Why go this route?
Seems an odd decision if onshore wind is the quicker solution - I don’t immediately see who is so disadvantaged by onshore wind versus the negativity associated with granting the ‘oil’ licences they have. I assume there are other arguments that make it more complex as otherwise seems more a vote loser than vote gainer.
Licences granted to appease the oil industry. The Government needs to keep them sweet so that they continue to fund the Tory party.
We need to massively increase alternative forms of energy production. There is no security in oil and gas because it is in the hands the big companies. We need to wean ourselves off oil and gas.
It isn't going to be easy, I drive a 10 year old petrol car and can't afford to buy an electric car, but recognise tthat things are going to have to change.
Interesting read that. I guess Greta couldn't get tickets for a Wimbledon then 😉
Of course targeting the fossil fuel industry infrastructure directly is preferable, and I'm sure you recall issues last year with JSO protestors blockading refineries, for which some potentially lengthy stays in prison can be the reward for those prepared to do what they believe necessary for the cause they passionately believe in.
I note that the Labour party have committed to end new gas and oil development and not grant new licenses to the exploration companies, a policy consistent with JSO objectives, even though some on here don't agree that it's a worthwhile one. Still, I can't believe the Tory party policy of granting new licenses is really the best way to go in the midst of the climate change crisis.
The counter argument I understand is to do with energy security.
Who knows what the lesser of two evils are in the short term.
It’s presumably not a simple choice with various dynamics to consider. If the evidence were overwhelming in one direction I imagine there would be no argument.
Previous Tory Prime Ministers including Cameron and (astonishingly) Johnson supported reductions in CO2 emissions but more recently both Truss and Sunak have little sympathy for that cause. Johnson had imposed a ban on further licences being granted for the North Sea oil and gas extraction but I think Truss rescinded these bans.
The point being made about granting licences as improving our energy security is a complete distraction. Almost 40% of our electrical generating capacity is owned by foreign companies following the privatisation of the energy companies during the mid 1980s, prior to this all of our capacity was, like the water industry, completely publicly owned. Nothing is being done to rectify this, a Private Members bill to force water companies to invest in infrastructure repairs was defeated in Parliament and instead a bill allowing the companies to charge their customers for the necessary remedial works was whipped through the House by this Government. As a result most of us will face increases in water bills of around 40% over the coming few years and the imposed deadline for the completion of the remedial works to prevent sewage discharge into the sea and our rivers has been set at 2030. In terms of security over 70% of the UK Water industry is owned by corporate investors in 17 different overseas countries including China and Abu Dhabi. These water companies have amassed aggregate debts of £60 billion but have paid £57 billion in dividends to their shareholders since privatisation. Sadly we are becoming all too familiar with the use of the multiplier 'billion'. If compared to units of time then one million would be 11.5 days whereas one billion equates to 31.5 years. So £57 billion in dividends converted to units of time represents 1795 years. When privatised, I believe there were 75 water reservoirs in the UK. After over 30 years of 'investment' from the private sector we've added just one new reservoir despite the population increasing by 12 million during that period. Think about that when complaining about hosepipe bans.
The fundamental issue of Energy Security is very real and worrying but any investment in North Sea solutions will take 10-15 years to come to fruition. Our decision to entrust our infrastructure to the vagaries of the 'free market' has culminated with the threat by France, during the post Brexit negotiations on fishing rights when a French MP suggested that they should switch off the electrical supply to the Channel Islands, which originates from France. The supply is provided by EDF who also supply 10% of the electrical energy to the UK. EDF is owned by the French government. Our energy security has been offered on a plate to anyone willing to buy it on global markets for so many years now.
The real opportunities to restore our energy security rests with developing plans for nuclear and hydrogen solutions and also with more investment in wind-farms. Rather than massive nuclear stations like Sizewell C (being developed by EDF) we should consider the smaller local nuclear power stations such as those being proposed by Rolls Royce. Hydrogen is also a very viable opportunity particularly where plants can be created local to wind-farms where off peak energy (night-time winds) can be used to create Hydrogen which can then be stored and distributed via the gas distribution network. These are longer term projects which will (rightly) take time although and are unlikely to make a significant contribution for 20 years or so. Quicker solutions are available and include more wind farm. This technology already provides around 20% of our electrical energy capacity and is becoming a very economical way, particularly onshore farms, of generating electrical energy. At present its onshore expansion is constrained by complex planning regulations which empower nimbyism. If these constraints were relaxed we could very quickly improve our Energy Security increase our renewable capacity and have this all operational before any North Sea oil/gas rigs have been constructed.
Sorry to witter on.
I’m not saying you are wrong.
But why do you suppose the licences were granted if security is not enhanced beyond other approaches? Why go this route?
Seems an odd decision if onshore wind is the quicker solution - I don’t immediately see who is so disadvantaged by onshore wind versus the negativity associated with granting the ‘oil’ licences they have. I assume there are other arguments that make it more complex as otherwise seems more a vote loser than vote gainer.
Licences granted to appease the oil industry. The Government needs to keep them sweet so that they continue to fund the Tory party.
We need to massively increase alternative forms of energy production. There is no security in oil and gas because it is in the hands the big companies. We need to wean ourselves off oil and gas.
It isn't going to be easy, I drive a 10 year old petrol car and can't afford to buy an electric car, but recognise tthat things are going to have to change.
Is that accurate? How much money do they need to replace from other donors?
Interesting read that. I guess Greta couldn't get tickets for a Wimbledon then 😉
Of course targeting the fossil fuel industry infrastructure directly is preferable, and I'm sure you recall issues last year with JSO protestors blockading refineries, for which some potentially lengthy stays in prison can be the reward for those prepared to do what they believe necessary for the cause they passionately believe in.
I note that the Labour party have committed to end new gas and oil development and not grant new licenses to the exploration companies, a policy consistent with JSO objectives, even though some on here don't agree that it's a worthwhile one. Still, I can't believe the Tory party policy of granting new licenses is really the best way to go in the midst of the climate change crisis.
The counter argument I understand is to do with energy security.
Who knows what the lesser of two evils are in the short term.
It’s presumably not a simple choice with various dynamics to consider. If the evidence were overwhelming in one direction I imagine there would be no argument.
Previous Tory Prime Ministers including Cameron and (astonishingly) Johnson supported reductions in CO2 emissions but more recently both Truss and Sunak have little sympathy for that cause. Johnson had imposed a ban on further licences being granted for the North Sea oil and gas extraction but I think Truss rescinded these bans.
The point being made about granting licences as improving our energy security is a complete distraction. Almost 40% of our electrical generating capacity is owned by foreign companies following the privatisation of the energy companies during the mid 1980s, prior to this all of our capacity was, like the water industry, completely publicly owned. Nothing is being done to rectify this, a Private Members bill to force water companies to invest in infrastructure repairs was defeated in Parliament and instead a bill allowing the companies to charge their customers for the necessary remedial works was whipped through the House by this Government. As a result most of us will face increases in water bills of around 40% over the coming few years and the imposed deadline for the completion of the remedial works to prevent sewage discharge into the sea and our rivers has been set at 2030. In terms of security over 70% of the UK Water industry is owned by corporate investors in 17 different overseas countries including China and Abu Dhabi. These water companies have amassed aggregate debts of £60 billion but have paid £57 billion in dividends to their shareholders since privatisation. Sadly we are becoming all too familiar with the use of the multiplier 'billion'. If compared to units of time then one million would be 11.5 days whereas one billion equates to 31.5 years. So £57 billion in dividends converted to units of time represents 1795 years. When privatised, I believe there were 75 water reservoirs in the UK. After over 30 years of 'investment' from the private sector we've added just one new reservoir despite the population increasing by 12 million during that period. Think about that when complaining about hosepipe bans.
The fundamental issue of Energy Security is very real and worrying but any investment in North Sea solutions will take 10-15 years to come to fruition. Our decision to entrust our infrastructure to the vagaries of the 'free market' has culminated with the threat by France, during the post Brexit negotiations on fishing rights when a French MP suggested that they should switch off the electrical supply to the Channel Islands, which originates from France. The supply is provided by EDF who also supply 10% of the electrical energy to the UK. EDF is owned by the French government. Our energy security has been offered on a plate to anyone willing to buy it on global markets for so many years now.
The real opportunities to restore our energy security rests with developing plans for nuclear and hydrogen solutions and also with more investment in wind-farms. Rather than massive nuclear stations like Sizewell C (being developed by EDF) we should consider the smaller local nuclear power stations such as those being proposed by Rolls Royce. Hydrogen is also a very viable opportunity particularly where plants can be created local to wind-farms where off peak energy (night-time winds) can be used to create Hydrogen which can then be stored and distributed via the gas distribution network. These are longer term projects which will (rightly) take time although and are unlikely to make a significant contribution for 20 years or so. Quicker solutions are available and include more wind farm. This technology already provides around 20% of our electrical energy capacity and is becoming a very economical way, particularly onshore farms, of generating electrical energy. At present its onshore expansion is constrained by complex planning regulations which empower nimbyism. If these constraints were relaxed we could very quickly improve our Energy Security increase our renewable capacity and have this all operational before any North Sea oil/gas rigs have been constructed.
Sorry to witter on.
I’m not saying you are wrong.
But why do you suppose the licences were granted if security is not enhanced beyond other approaches? Why go this route?
Seems an odd decision if onshore wind is the quicker solution - I don’t immediately see who is so disadvantaged by onshore wind versus the negativity associated with granting the ‘oil’ licences they have. I assume there are other arguments that make it more complex as otherwise seems more a vote loser than vote gainer.
Licences granted to appease the oil industry. The Government needs to keep them sweet so that they continue to fund the Tory party.
We need to massively increase alternative forms of energy production. There is no security in oil and gas because it is in the hands the big companies. We need to wean ourselves off oil and gas.
It isn't going to be easy, I drive a 10 year old petrol car and can't afford to buy an electric car, but recognise tthat things are going to have to change.
I'm sure the companies running the new energy sources will not be small, probably the same companies than run oil and gas.
Interesting read that. I guess Greta couldn't get tickets for a Wimbledon then 😉
Of course targeting the fossil fuel industry infrastructure directly is preferable, and I'm sure you recall issues last year with JSO protestors blockading refineries, for which some potentially lengthy stays in prison can be the reward for those prepared to do what they believe necessary for the cause they passionately believe in.
I note that the Labour party have committed to end new gas and oil development and not grant new licenses to the exploration companies, a policy consistent with JSO objectives, even though some on here don't agree that it's a worthwhile one. Still, I can't believe the Tory party policy of granting new licenses is really the best way to go in the midst of the climate change crisis.
The counter argument I understand is to do with energy security.
Who knows what the lesser of two evils are in the short term.
It’s presumably not a simple choice with various dynamics to consider. If the evidence were overwhelming in one direction I imagine there would be no argument.
Previous Tory Prime Ministers including Cameron and (astonishingly) Johnson supported reductions in CO2 emissions but more recently both Truss and Sunak have little sympathy for that cause. Johnson had imposed a ban on further licences being granted for the North Sea oil and gas extraction but I think Truss rescinded these bans.
The point being made about granting licences as improving our energy security is a complete distraction. Almost 40% of our electrical generating capacity is owned by foreign companies following the privatisation of the energy companies during the mid 1980s, prior to this all of our capacity was, like the water industry, completely publicly owned. Nothing is being done to rectify this, a Private Members bill to force water companies to invest in infrastructure repairs was defeated in Parliament and instead a bill allowing the companies to charge their customers for the necessary remedial works was whipped through the House by this Government. As a result most of us will face increases in water bills of around 40% over the coming few years and the imposed deadline for the completion of the remedial works to prevent sewage discharge into the sea and our rivers has been set at 2030. In terms of security over 70% of the UK Water industry is owned by corporate investors in 17 different overseas countries including China and Abu Dhabi. These water companies have amassed aggregate debts of £60 billion but have paid £57 billion in dividends to their shareholders since privatisation. Sadly we are becoming all too familiar with the use of the multiplier 'billion'. If compared to units of time then one million would be 11.5 days whereas one billion equates to 31.5 years. So £57 billion in dividends converted to units of time represents 1795 years. When privatised, I believe there were 75 water reservoirs in the UK. After over 30 years of 'investment' from the private sector we've added just one new reservoir despite the population increasing by 12 million during that period. Think about that when complaining about hosepipe bans.
The fundamental issue of Energy Security is very real and worrying but any investment in North Sea solutions will take 10-15 years to come to fruition. Our decision to entrust our infrastructure to the vagaries of the 'free market' has culminated with the threat by France, during the post Brexit negotiations on fishing rights when a French MP suggested that they should switch off the electrical supply to the Channel Islands, which originates from France. The supply is provided by EDF who also supply 10% of the electrical energy to the UK. EDF is owned by the French government. Our energy security has been offered on a plate to anyone willing to buy it on global markets for so many years now.
The real opportunities to restore our energy security rests with developing plans for nuclear and hydrogen solutions and also with more investment in wind-farms. Rather than massive nuclear stations like Sizewell C (being developed by EDF) we should consider the smaller local nuclear power stations such as those being proposed by Rolls Royce. Hydrogen is also a very viable opportunity particularly where plants can be created local to wind-farms where off peak energy (night-time winds) can be used to create Hydrogen which can then be stored and distributed via the gas distribution network. These are longer term projects which will (rightly) take time although and are unlikely to make a significant contribution for 20 years or so. Quicker solutions are available and include more wind farm. This technology already provides around 20% of our electrical energy capacity and is becoming a very economical way, particularly onshore farms, of generating electrical energy. At present its onshore expansion is constrained by complex planning regulations which empower nimbyism. If these constraints were relaxed we could very quickly improve our Energy Security increase our renewable capacity and have this all operational before any North Sea oil/gas rigs have been constructed.
Sorry to witter on.
I’m not saying you are wrong.
But why do you suppose the licences were granted if security is not enhanced beyond other approaches? Why go this route?
Seems an odd decision if onshore wind is the quicker solution - I don’t immediately see who is so disadvantaged by onshore wind versus the negativity associated with granting the ‘oil’ licences they have. I assume there are other arguments that make it more complex as otherwise seems more a vote loser than vote gainer.
Licences granted to appease the oil industry. The Government needs to keep them sweet so that they continue to fund the Tory party.
We need to massively increase alternative forms of energy production. There is no security in oil and gas because it is in the hands the big companies. We need to wean ourselves off oil and gas.
It isn't going to be easy, I drive a 10 year old petrol car and can't afford to buy an electric car, but recognise tthat things are going to have to change.
I'm sure the companies running the new energy sources will not be small, probably the same companies than run oil and gas.
That's why we need energy supply to be publicly owned, not the disaster that privatisation of the utilities has turned out to be.
Interesting read that. I guess Greta couldn't get tickets for a Wimbledon then 😉
Of course targeting the fossil fuel industry infrastructure directly is preferable, and I'm sure you recall issues last year with JSO protestors blockading refineries, for which some potentially lengthy stays in prison can be the reward for those prepared to do what they believe necessary for the cause they passionately believe in.
I note that the Labour party have committed to end new gas and oil development and not grant new licenses to the exploration companies, a policy consistent with JSO objectives, even though some on here don't agree that it's a worthwhile one. Still, I can't believe the Tory party policy of granting new licenses is really the best way to go in the midst of the climate change crisis.
The counter argument I understand is to do with energy security.
Who knows what the lesser of two evils are in the short term.
It’s presumably not a simple choice with various dynamics to consider. If the evidence were overwhelming in one direction I imagine there would be no argument.
Previous Tory Prime Ministers including Cameron and (astonishingly) Johnson supported reductions in CO2 emissions but more recently both Truss and Sunak have little sympathy for that cause. Johnson had imposed a ban on further licences being granted for the North Sea oil and gas extraction but I think Truss rescinded these bans.
The point being made about granting licences as improving our energy security is a complete distraction. Almost 40% of our electrical generating capacity is owned by foreign companies following the privatisation of the energy companies during the mid 1980s, prior to this all of our capacity was, like the water industry, completely publicly owned. Nothing is being done to rectify this, a Private Members bill to force water companies to invest in infrastructure repairs was defeated in Parliament and instead a bill allowing the companies to charge their customers for the necessary remedial works was whipped through the House by this Government. As a result most of us will face increases in water bills of around 40% over the coming few years and the imposed deadline for the completion of the remedial works to prevent sewage discharge into the sea and our rivers has been set at 2030. In terms of security over 70% of the UK Water industry is owned by corporate investors in 17 different overseas countries including China and Abu Dhabi. These water companies have amassed aggregate debts of £60 billion but have paid £57 billion in dividends to their shareholders since privatisation. Sadly we are becoming all too familiar with the use of the multiplier 'billion'. If compared to units of time then one million would be 11.5 days whereas one billion equates to 31.5 years. So £57 billion in dividends converted to units of time represents 1795 years. When privatised, I believe there were 75 water reservoirs in the UK. After over 30 years of 'investment' from the private sector we've added just one new reservoir despite the population increasing by 12 million during that period. Think about that when complaining about hosepipe bans.
The fundamental issue of Energy Security is very real and worrying but any investment in North Sea solutions will take 10-15 years to come to fruition. Our decision to entrust our infrastructure to the vagaries of the 'free market' has culminated with the threat by France, during the post Brexit negotiations on fishing rights when a French MP suggested that they should switch off the electrical supply to the Channel Islands, which originates from France. The supply is provided by EDF who also supply 10% of the electrical energy to the UK. EDF is owned by the French government. Our energy security has been offered on a plate to anyone willing to buy it on global markets for so many years now.
The real opportunities to restore our energy security rests with developing plans for nuclear and hydrogen solutions and also with more investment in wind-farms. Rather than massive nuclear stations like Sizewell C (being developed by EDF) we should consider the smaller local nuclear power stations such as those being proposed by Rolls Royce. Hydrogen is also a very viable opportunity particularly where plants can be created local to wind-farms where off peak energy (night-time winds) can be used to create Hydrogen which can then be stored and distributed via the gas distribution network. These are longer term projects which will (rightly) take time although and are unlikely to make a significant contribution for 20 years or so. Quicker solutions are available and include more wind farm. This technology already provides around 20% of our electrical energy capacity and is becoming a very economical way, particularly onshore farms, of generating electrical energy. At present its onshore expansion is constrained by complex planning regulations which empower nimbyism. If these constraints were relaxed we could very quickly improve our Energy Security increase our renewable capacity and have this all operational before any North Sea oil/gas rigs have been constructed.
Sorry to witter on.
I’m not saying you are wrong.
But why do you suppose the licences were granted if security is not enhanced beyond other approaches? Why go this route?
Seems an odd decision if onshore wind is the quicker solution - I don’t immediately see who is so disadvantaged by onshore wind versus the negativity associated with granting the ‘oil’ licences they have. I assume there are other arguments that make it more complex as otherwise seems more a vote loser than vote gainer.
Licences granted to appease the oil industry. The Government needs to keep them sweet so that they continue to fund the Tory party.
We need to massively increase alternative forms of energy production. There is no security in oil and gas because it is in the hands the big companies. We need to wean ourselves off oil and gas.
It isn't going to be easy, I drive a 10 year old petrol car and can't afford to buy an electric car, but recognise tthat things are going to have to change.
I'm sure the companies running the new energy sources will not be small, probably the same companies than run oil and gas.
That's why we need energy supply to be publicly owned, not the disaster that privatisation of the utilities has turned out to be.
Interesting read that. I guess Greta couldn't get tickets for a Wimbledon then 😉
Of course targeting the fossil fuel industry infrastructure directly is preferable, and I'm sure you recall issues last year with JSO protestors blockading refineries, for which some potentially lengthy stays in prison can be the reward for those prepared to do what they believe necessary for the cause they passionately believe in.
I note that the Labour party have committed to end new gas and oil development and not grant new licenses to the exploration companies, a policy consistent with JSO objectives, even though some on here don't agree that it's a worthwhile one. Still, I can't believe the Tory party policy of granting new licenses is really the best way to go in the midst of the climate change crisis.
The counter argument I understand is to do with energy security.
Who knows what the lesser of two evils are in the short term.
It’s presumably not a simple choice with various dynamics to consider. If the evidence were overwhelming in one direction I imagine there would be no argument.
Previous Tory Prime Ministers including Cameron and (astonishingly) Johnson supported reductions in CO2 emissions but more recently both Truss and Sunak have little sympathy for that cause. Johnson had imposed a ban on further licences being granted for the North Sea oil and gas extraction but I think Truss rescinded these bans.
The point being made about granting licences as improving our energy security is a complete distraction. Almost 40% of our electrical generating capacity is owned by foreign companies following the privatisation of the energy companies during the mid 1980s, prior to this all of our capacity was, like the water industry, completely publicly owned. Nothing is being done to rectify this, a Private Members bill to force water companies to invest in infrastructure repairs was defeated in Parliament and instead a bill allowing the companies to charge their customers for the necessary remedial works was whipped through the House by this Government. As a result most of us will face increases in water bills of around 40% over the coming few years and the imposed deadline for the completion of the remedial works to prevent sewage discharge into the sea and our rivers has been set at 2030. In terms of security over 70% of the UK Water industry is owned by corporate investors in 17 different overseas countries including China and Abu Dhabi. These water companies have amassed aggregate debts of £60 billion but have paid £57 billion in dividends to their shareholders since privatisation. Sadly we are becoming all too familiar with the use of the multiplier 'billion'. If compared to units of time then one million would be 11.5 days whereas one billion equates to 31.5 years. So £57 billion in dividends converted to units of time represents 1795 years. When privatised, I believe there were 75 water reservoirs in the UK. After over 30 years of 'investment' from the private sector we've added just one new reservoir despite the population increasing by 12 million during that period. Think about that when complaining about hosepipe bans.
The fundamental issue of Energy Security is very real and worrying but any investment in North Sea solutions will take 10-15 years to come to fruition. Our decision to entrust our infrastructure to the vagaries of the 'free market' has culminated with the threat by France, during the post Brexit negotiations on fishing rights when a French MP suggested that they should switch off the electrical supply to the Channel Islands, which originates from France. The supply is provided by EDF who also supply 10% of the electrical energy to the UK. EDF is owned by the French government. Our energy security has been offered on a plate to anyone willing to buy it on global markets for so many years now.
The real opportunities to restore our energy security rests with developing plans for nuclear and hydrogen solutions and also with more investment in wind-farms. Rather than massive nuclear stations like Sizewell C (being developed by EDF) we should consider the smaller local nuclear power stations such as those being proposed by Rolls Royce. Hydrogen is also a very viable opportunity particularly where plants can be created local to wind-farms where off peak energy (night-time winds) can be used to create Hydrogen which can then be stored and distributed via the gas distribution network. These are longer term projects which will (rightly) take time although and are unlikely to make a significant contribution for 20 years or so. Quicker solutions are available and include more wind farm. This technology already provides around 20% of our electrical energy capacity and is becoming a very economical way, particularly onshore farms, of generating electrical energy. At present its onshore expansion is constrained by complex planning regulations which empower nimbyism. If these constraints were relaxed we could very quickly improve our Energy Security increase our renewable capacity and have this all operational before any North Sea oil/gas rigs have been constructed.
Sorry to witter on.
I’m not saying you are wrong.
But why do you suppose the licences were granted if security is not enhanced beyond other approaches? Why go this route?
Seems an odd decision if onshore wind is the quicker solution - I don’t immediately see who is so disadvantaged by onshore wind versus the negativity associated with granting the ‘oil’ licences they have. I assume there are other arguments that make it more complex as otherwise seems more a vote loser than vote gainer.
Licences granted to appease the oil industry. The Government needs to keep them sweet so that they continue to fund the Tory party.
We need to massively increase alternative forms of energy production. There is no security in oil and gas because it is in the hands the big companies. We need to wean ourselves off oil and gas.
It isn't going to be easy, I drive a 10 year old petrol car and can't afford to buy an electric car, but recognise tthat things are going to have to change.
I'm sure the companies running the new energy sources will not be small, probably the same companies than run oil and gas.
That's why we need energy supply to be publicly owned, not the disaster that privatisation of the utilities has turned out to be.
Yes!
Btw... I no longer buy that you ever voted blue
I certainly did - all my life including the 2019 GE and to my eternal shame, for Brexit. I have learnt a lot in the last three years and my eyes have been opened to the lies and manipulation that has taken place.
Approving further exploitation of oil and gas given what we know is craziness. Yes it takes time for recyclables to match demand, but that's where the focus should be, the nuclear option too if needs be, but less so because uranium is a finite resource too. If we look to keep burning fossil fuels until reserves are exhausted, human stock reserves will be fully depleted long before they are. Those who argue for delaying do so primarily for economic benefit. Protests will continue.
Let's all hope that all no one gets injured at Silverstone this weekend and that common sense prevails.
Comments
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-66120290
PS I was only commenting on Wimbledon. 'Minimal disruption at Wimbledon (with max media coverage) caused by a granddad worried about his grandchildren’s future 👏👏'
I have a grandchild. It makes a difference. Sorry, an' all that. For what it's worth I don't believe in stopping traffic etc. Not at all.
It's good to see such interest in the debate on here, but as usual it's the same peeps getting angry and the same peeps being supportive - very few people change their minds over the issue, and I believe most won't until food and/or water shortages affect us directly, as well as mass migration that could be caused by droughts etc. Food prices are only going to rise if crops fail, but people seem almost dead set against taking any meaningful action.
I'm guessing the antis don't think those things actually will happen?
It's quite depressing that people are far more angry about protests than they are about inaction on climate change.
Just my opinion of course. Perhaps the temperatures will stop rising, and the ice will stop melting (the ice that reflect the sun's rays), but it seems pretty unlikely. If people were more united on the issue that'd be more chance of doing something.
Of course targeting the fossil fuel industry infrastructure directly is preferable, and I'm sure you recall issues last year with JSO protestors blockading refineries, for which some potentially lengthy stays in prison can be the reward for those prepared to do what they believe necessary for the cause they passionately believe in.
I note that the Labour party have committed to end new gas and oil development and not grant new licenses to the exploration companies, a policy consistent with JSO objectives, even though some on here don't agree that it's a worthwhile one. Still, I can't believe the Tory party policy of granting new licenses is really the best way to go in the midst of the climate change crisis.
Very good
I sometimes wonder if that Florida thing had gone the other way and Gore had got into power instead of dub-ya, how different the world might be...
Previous Tory Prime Ministers including Cameron and (astonishingly) Johnson supported reductions in CO2 emissions but more recently both Truss and Sunak have little sympathy for that cause. Johnson had imposed a ban on further licences being granted for the North Sea oil and gas extraction but I think Truss rescinded these bans.
The point being made about granting licences as improving our energy security is a complete distraction. Almost 40% of our electrical generating capacity is owned by foreign companies following the privatisation of the energy companies during the mid 1980s, prior to this all of our capacity was, like the water industry, completely publicly owned. Nothing is being done to rectify this, a Private Members bill to force water companies to invest in infrastructure repairs was defeated in Parliament and instead a bill allowing the companies to charge their customers for the necessary remedial works was whipped through the House by this Government. As a result most of us will face increases in water bills of around 40% over the coming few years and the imposed deadline for the completion of the remedial works to prevent sewage discharge into the sea and our rivers has been set at 2030. In terms of security over 70% of the UK Water industry is owned by corporate investors in 17 different overseas countries including China and Abu Dhabi. These water companies have amassed aggregate debts of £60 billion but have paid £57 billion in dividends to their shareholders since privatisation. Sadly we are becoming all too familiar with the use of the multiplier 'billion'. If compared to units of time then one million would be 11.5 days whereas one billion equates to 31.5 years. So £57 billion in dividends converted to units of time represents 1795 years. When privatised, I believe there were 75 water reservoirs in the UK. After over 30 years of 'investment' from the private sector we've added just one new reservoir despite the population increasing by 12 million during that period. Think about that when complaining about hosepipe bans.
The fundamental issue of Energy Security is very real and worrying but any investment in North Sea solutions will take 10-15 years to come to fruition. Our decision to entrust our infrastructure to the vagaries of the 'free market' has culminated with the threat by France, during the post Brexit negotiations on fishing rights when a French MP suggested that they should switch off the electrical supply to the Channel Islands, which originates from France. The supply is provided by EDF who also supply 10% of the electrical energy to the UK. EDF is owned by the French government. Our energy security has been offered on a plate to anyone willing to buy it on global markets for so many years now.
The real opportunities to restore our energy security rests with developing plans for nuclear and hydrogen solutions and also with more investment in wind-farms. Rather than massive nuclear stations like Sizewell C (being developed by EDF) we should consider the smaller local nuclear power stations such as those being proposed by Rolls Royce. Hydrogen is also a very viable opportunity particularly where plants can be created local to wind-farms where off peak energy (night-time winds) can be used to create Hydrogen which can then be stored and distributed via the gas distribution network. These are longer term projects which will (rightly) take time although and are unlikely to make a significant contribution for 20 years or so. Quicker solutions are available and include more wind farm. This technology already provides around 20% of our electrical energy capacity and is becoming a very economical way, particularly onshore farms, of generating electrical energy. At present its onshore expansion is constrained by complex planning regulations which empower nimbyism. If these constraints were relaxed we could very quickly improve our Energy Security increase our renewable capacity and have this all operational before any North Sea oil/gas rigs have been constructed.
Sorry to witter on.
Seems an odd decision if onshore wind is the quicker solution - I don’t immediately see who is so disadvantaged by onshore wind versus the negativity associated with granting the ‘oil’ licences they have. I assume there are other arguments that make it more complex as otherwise seems more a vote loser than vote gainer.
What really irritates me is that Justin Trudeau at a federal level has added a carbon tax onto fuel of 14 cents a litre! Fuel here is already the most expensive in North America, and a bag of potatoes costs over $10. Everything that relies on fuel will see prices rise.
What happens when people have their disposal income taken away? They make less environmentally friendly choices and buy whatever they need to get by. People aren't going to purchase electric cars if they have less money.
Would you agree that the focus of your post us entirely economic?
We need to massively increase alternative forms of energy production. There is no security in oil and gas because it is in the hands the big companies. We need to wean ourselves off oil and gas.
It isn't going to be easy, I drive a 10 year old petrol car and can't afford to buy an electric car, but recognise tthat things are going to have to change.
As a vote loser it seems a strange trade off.
The disruption at Wimbledon and any other event will be so minuscule compared to what is going to happen
Btw... I no longer buy that you ever voted blue
https://open.spotify.com/episode/5EaZwjKpMcUwv8osCWZfRv?si=EsmO05PfR6S8uuS3-YtJ-Q
From Pod Save The UK podcast
Let's all hope that all no one gets injured at Silverstone this weekend and that common sense prevails.