Really hope the A320s fly from City. Such a good airport. Going to Berlin out of there next month having been to Milan Linate, Rome and Florence out of there in the past couple months. Love the BA Embraer 190s.
They tend to fly to small business airports which means that the commute at the other side is shorter too.
Read an interesting article on the standard (I'll cite my references rather than pasting other people's work as my own ) about some (and this is anecdotal 100% not data) people going back to meat because they feel like the climate is already defeated and seeing all the stuff going on at the moment is making loads of people switch to veganism etc, while some already in the lifestyle now viewing it as futile!
I have to admit, given the binary view of a lot of those pushing for change to lifestyles being so absolute rather than marginal, I'm inclined to go the same way, and @cafcnick1992 definitely gave me pause for thought the other day about tradeoffs, ie choosing to make the population poorer in order to push this stuff. Certainly gave me more pause for thought than some of the condescending tones on here.
As always, the message of those who are correct are so often delivered by self righteous arseholes. If the climate lobby could nail that, I reckon more people would listen.
Some may view it as futile but that's not the vorw of scientists. Yes there are tipping points but they also say that every 0.1 degree of warming prevented is millions of lives saved. That's what we have to remember and keep doing all we can. As well as using the signalling effects of our decisions to influence corporations and governments.
Can you provide anything that backs up the bit in bold. It's a claim that originated in Tufton Street and was popularised by Liz Truss' government and is now the official line of reform. But I've yet to see anyone put any logic to the claim let alone any evidence.
Hey Canters, thanks for responding in a kinder manner.
The headline is that green taxes raised £52.5bn in 2023. That is obviously cash extracted from the economy.
Now I'm not saying that it's not necessary, but it is definitely a trade off in my opinion. It's all about getting the balance right rather than binary black and white in my opinion.
The problem I see in public discourse is it's either the kind of idiots who have the heating on full with the windows open, driving a car that could invade a small country to drop Tarquin off at school, vs insufferable attention seeking crusties saying we have to change all our lives as of right now or we are destroying the planet.
There has to be a balance somewhere in the middle
I'm not sure that green taxes as a raw amount can necessarily be argued as making the population poorer.
The vast majority of those will have been around for decades. The majority of the cash raised will be from emissions trading schemes and the likes which are targeted at the most polluting large corporations. The ones that do affect consumers like fuel duty have been frozen for nearly 15 years precisely for the reason of protecting consumers.
So I don't see how that supports the point you're making.
The Courts overturning those new gas fields in Scotland is disappointing. We're so desperate to keep energy expensive its unreal.
You've made this claim 20 odd times in the last few weeks but refused to answer whenever challenged on it.
So for one final time. Can you explain how moving to rebewables which costs 70-80% less than gas is making energy more expensive?
It's gas thats driving our high energy prices through our outdated marginal pricing mechanism which has also allowed blatant profiteering in the energy sector during the energy crisis (also driven by gas) over and above their previous profits which were already legally defined as economically excess profits by the CMA.
I'd be very interested to hear how producing more natural gas makes energy more expensive than making no natural gas. You can produce natural gas and renewable energy, so there isn't an opportunity cost argument either. Even if the gas produced is sold overseas, some of it will remain in the UK.
I've said many times that I have no issue moving to renewables, as long as there is sufficient supply of "dirty" energy to keep energy affordable during the transition. Gas isn't making our energy expensive, it's the insufficient capacity of renewable energy that hurts us. It's been well publicised that there's a national gas shortage which makes us criminally reliant on imported energy which is very expensive.
1) there is an opportunity cost as both require state funding and we're constantly being told money is tight. So if its a choice I'd choose investment in the one that is 70-80% cheaper more certain and will last longer.
2) these licences do not mean natural gas on the grid anytime soon or even ever. It means the right to go and do explorative drilling (which btw causes massive habitat loss and wildlife death - far more than birds in wind farms) in the hope that a viable deposit of natural gas is found and can hopwfully flow onto the grid in a decade or 2. Generally the accepted believe is the remaining natural gas is both small in quantity and very hard to extract. This process is incredibly expensive so in the unlikely event they do find a viable deposit of natural gas it will be very expensive to the consumer in order to pay the costs of finding it.
We have a flow of gas onto the grid already. We should be aiming to reduce the reliance on that through increasing renewables. As I've posted before (with links and sources) we are expected in a year or so time to be ay 79% renewable.
Once again gas is what's making our energy more expensive as we are paying for every unit of energy as though it is the most expensive single unit of gas on the grid. Gas price is also incredibly volatile and subject to external shocks as we've seen in the last 3 years. Increasing our reliance on gas only makes that worse and our energy more expensive.
Reducing our reliance on gas to the point where the pricing mechanism has to change is objectively the only way to bring down energy prices.
The Courts overturning those new gas fields in Scotland is disappointing. We're so desperate to keep energy expensive its unreal.
You've made this claim 20 odd times in the last few weeks but refused to answer whenever challenged on it.
So for one final time. Can you explain how moving to rebewables which costs 70-80% less than gas is making energy more expensive?
It's gas thats driving our high energy prices through our outdated marginal pricing mechanism which has also allowed blatant profiteering in the energy sector during the energy crisis (also driven by gas) over and above their previous profits which were already legally defined as economically excess profits by the CMA.
Are pure price comparisons valid at all currently though?
I had understood the current pricing model ( no doubt now outdated) has evolved since privatisation and since the advent of renewables and particularly includes subsidies to encourage investment in renewables and infrastructure. In other words it is hugely complex meaning we aren’t comparing like with like.
All we know is that in future renewables will logically be cheaper / easier to generate and therefore very logical to use. Not sure the end price for consumers is the way to look at it or likely to reduce in the near term if sadly.
It wasn't me that brought up prices. I was simply challenging the claim that not drilling for gas makes energy more expensive when it objectively doesn't.
Unfortunately the pricing mechanism hasn't updated since the introduction of renewables. That is one of its major flaws. It was designed for a system with 2 or 3 major sources od energy all costing similar amounts.
Really hope the A320s fly from City. Such a good airport. Going to Berlin out of there next month having been to Milan Linate, Rome and Florence out of there in the past couple months. Love the BA Embraer 190s.
They tend to fly to small business airports which means that the commute at the other side is shorter too.
Read an interesting article on the standard (I'll cite my references rather than pasting other people's work as my own ) about some (and this is anecdotal 100% not data) people going back to meat because they feel like the climate is already defeated and seeing all the stuff going on at the moment is making loads of people switch to veganism etc, while some already in the lifestyle now viewing it as futile!
I have to admit, given the binary view of a lot of those pushing for change to lifestyles being so absolute rather than marginal, I'm inclined to go the same way, and @cafcnick1992 definitely gave me pause for thought the other day about tradeoffs, ie choosing to make the population poorer in order to push this stuff. Certainly gave me more pause for thought than some of the condescending tones on here.
As always, the message of those who are correct are so often delivered by self righteous arseholes. If the climate lobby could nail that, I reckon more people would listen.
Some may view it as futile but that's not the vorw of scientists. Yes there are tipping points but they also say that every 0.1 degree of warming prevented is millions of lives saved. That's what we have to remember and keep doing all we can. As well as using the signalling effects of our decisions to influence corporations and governments.
Can you provide anything that backs up the bit in bold. It's a claim that originated in Tufton Street and was popularised by Liz Truss' government and is now the official line of reform. But I've yet to see anyone put any logic to the claim let alone any evidence.
Hey Canters, thanks for responding in a kinder manner.
The headline is that green taxes raised £52.5bn in 2023. That is obviously cash extracted from the economy.
Now I'm not saying that it's not necessary, but it is definitely a trade off in my opinion. It's all about getting the balance right rather than binary black and white in my opinion.
The problem I see in public discourse is it's either the kind of idiots who have the heating on full with the windows open, driving a car that could invade a small country to drop Tarquin off at school, vs insufferable attention seeking crusties saying we have to change all our lives as of right now or we are destroying the planet.
There has to be a balance somewhere in the middle
I'm not sure that green taxes as a raw amount can necessarily be argued as making the population poorer.
The vast majority of those will have been around for decades. The majority of the cash raised will be from emissions trading schemes and the likes which are targeted at the most polluting large corporations. The ones that do affect consumers like fuel duty have been frozen for nearly 15 years precisely for the reason of protecting consumers.
So I don't see how that supports the point you're making.
I understand what you are saying but my views would be that costs that are endured by companies ultimately (in competitive markets!) make their way through to the consumer.
I do agree that a lot of these have been around for a while, but in my mind there is still a trade-off between the two.
A question I have, is there anything apart from cash stopping us effectively using tidal (and other sources) all around the UK, making massive battery storage, maybe even subsidizing people to install batteries at home/moving forward with vehicle to grid etc. Would be curious as to why we can't do that if it isn't cash constraints.
One of the downside of Heathrow expansion will probably see regional airports such as Southend close as budget airlines would prefer to fly from Heathrow. There is an airport in Kent which is in mouthballs as no owner has been able to make it pay. The government should find a way to bring it back in use, but the problem is that the infrastructure is not there. The rail system into Heathrow even with the Elizabeth it is working near to capacity, there does not seem to be any mention of this, let's just build the runway and sort out the infrastructure afterwards as we did with the channel tunnel.
I'm not sure that Heathrow expansion will have much impact on Southend or similar airports, because they focus on a different customer base; people who live to the east of London* for whom getting to the bigger airports is too much faff and/or people who don't like crowds find big airports scary and uncomfortable.
*I do know of one exception to this. Some poor Irish bloke who sat next to my mate on a delayed flight back fro Waterford who was shocked to find out that an airport named London Southend was in fact not in South London.
The Courts overturning those new gas fields in Scotland is disappointing. We're so desperate to keep energy expensive its unreal.
You've made this claim 20 odd times in the last few weeks but refused to answer whenever challenged on it.
So for one final time. Can you explain how moving to rebewables which costs 70-80% less than gas is making energy more expensive?
It's gas thats driving our high energy prices through our outdated marginal pricing mechanism which has also allowed blatant profiteering in the energy sector during the energy crisis (also driven by gas) over and above their previous profits which were already legally defined as economically excess profits by the CMA.
Are pure price comparisons valid at all currently though?
I had understood the current pricing model ( no doubt now outdated) has evolved since privatisation and since the advent of renewables and particularly includes subsidies to encourage investment in renewables and infrastructure. In other words it is hugely complex meaning we aren’t comparing like with like.
All we know is that in future renewables will logically be cheaper / easier to generate and therefore very logical to use. Not sure the end price for consumers is the way to look at it or likely to reduce in the near term if sadly.
It wasn't me that brought up prices. I was simply challenging the claim that not drilling for gas makes energy more expensive when it objectively doesn't.
Unfortunately the pricing mechanism hasn't updated since the introduction of renewables. That is one of its major flaws. It was designed for a system with 2 or 3 major sources od energy all costing similar amounts.
So we agree it’s not appropriate to simply compare prices.
Really hope the A320s fly from City. Such a good airport. Going to Berlin out of there next month having been to Milan Linate, Rome and Florence out of there in the past couple months. Love the BA Embraer 190s.
They tend to fly to small business airports which means that the commute at the other side is shorter too.
Read an interesting article on the standard (I'll cite my references rather than pasting other people's work as my own ) about some (and this is anecdotal 100% not data) people going back to meat because they feel like the climate is already defeated and seeing all the stuff going on at the moment is making loads of people switch to veganism etc, while some already in the lifestyle now viewing it as futile!
I have to admit, given the binary view of a lot of those pushing for change to lifestyles being so absolute rather than marginal, I'm inclined to go the same way, and @cafcnick1992 definitely gave me pause for thought the other day about tradeoffs, ie choosing to make the population poorer in order to push this stuff. Certainly gave me more pause for thought than some of the condescending tones on here.
As always, the message of those who are correct are so often delivered by self righteous arseholes. If the climate lobby could nail that, I reckon more people would listen.
Some may view it as futile but that's not the vorw of scientists. Yes there are tipping points but they also say that every 0.1 degree of warming prevented is millions of lives saved. That's what we have to remember and keep doing all we can. As well as using the signalling effects of our decisions to influence corporations and governments.
Can you provide anything that backs up the bit in bold. It's a claim that originated in Tufton Street and was popularised by Liz Truss' government and is now the official line of reform. But I've yet to see anyone put any logic to the claim let alone any evidence.
Hey Canters, thanks for responding in a kinder manner.
The headline is that green taxes raised £52.5bn in 2023. That is obviously cash extracted from the economy.
Now I'm not saying that it's not necessary, but it is definitely a trade off in my opinion. It's all about getting the balance right rather than binary black and white in my opinion.
The problem I see in public discourse is it's either the kind of idiots who have the heating on full with the windows open, driving a car that could invade a small country to drop Tarquin off at school, vs insufferable attention seeking crusties saying we have to change all our lives as of right now or we are destroying the planet.
There has to be a balance somewhere in the middle
I'm not sure that green taxes as a raw amount can necessarily be argued as making the population poorer.
The vast majority of those will have been around for decades. The majority of the cash raised will be from emissions trading schemes and the likes which are targeted at the most polluting large corporations. The ones that do affect consumers like fuel duty have been frozen for nearly 15 years precisely for the reason of protecting consumers.
So I don't see how that supports the point you're making.
I understand what you are saying but my views would be that costs that are endured by companies ultimately (in competitive markets!) make their way through to the consumer.
I do agree that a lot of these have been around for a while, but in my mind there is still a trade-off between the two.
A question I have, is there anything apart from cash stopping us effectively using tidal (and other sources) all around the UK, making massive battery storage, maybe even subsidizing people to install batteries at home/moving forward with vehicle to grid etc. Would be curious as to why we can't do that if it isn't cash constraints.
BBC news article on Breakfast TV on just this happening in Devon. Currently as a trial.
I think the point is because these things are long term we sometimes think nothing is happening when it is and has been.
I knew someone would blame Trump for that accident. Doesn't matter that we know the helicopter ignored air traffic control warnings. It's still Trumps fault.
You think that's bad, you should hear what Trump himself said.
Trump shouldn't be commenting until the investigation has taken its course.
Hopefully we can all agree with this and move on. I'm sure we all feel for the poor people that lost their lives and for the loved ones they've left behind.
If there's a case for making that particular tragedy political, this thread certainly isn't the place for it.
Really hope the A320s fly from City. Such a good airport. Going to Berlin out of there next month having been to Milan Linate, Rome and Florence out of there in the past couple months. Love the BA Embraer 190s.
They tend to fly to small business airports which means that the commute at the other side is shorter too.
Read an interesting article on the standard (I'll cite my references rather than pasting other people's work as my own ) about some (and this is anecdotal 100% not data) people going back to meat because they feel like the climate is already defeated and seeing all the stuff going on at the moment is making loads of people switch to veganism etc, while some already in the lifestyle now viewing it as futile!
I have to admit, given the binary view of a lot of those pushing for change to lifestyles being so absolute rather than marginal, I'm inclined to go the same way, and @cafcnick1992 definitely gave me pause for thought the other day about tradeoffs, ie choosing to make the population poorer in order to push this stuff. Certainly gave me more pause for thought than some of the condescending tones on here.
As always, the message of those who are correct are so often delivered by self righteous arseholes. If the climate lobby could nail that, I reckon more people would listen.
Some may view it as futile but that's not the vorw of scientists. Yes there are tipping points but they also say that every 0.1 degree of warming prevented is millions of lives saved. That's what we have to remember and keep doing all we can. As well as using the signalling effects of our decisions to influence corporations and governments.
Can you provide anything that backs up the bit in bold. It's a claim that originated in Tufton Street and was popularised by Liz Truss' government and is now the official line of reform. But I've yet to see anyone put any logic to the claim let alone any evidence.
Hey Canters, thanks for responding in a kinder manner.
The headline is that green taxes raised £52.5bn in 2023. That is obviously cash extracted from the economy.
Now I'm not saying that it's not necessary, but it is definitely a trade off in my opinion. It's all about getting the balance right rather than binary black and white in my opinion.
The problem I see in public discourse is it's either the kind of idiots who have the heating on full with the windows open, driving a car that could invade a small country to drop Tarquin off at school, vs insufferable attention seeking crusties saying we have to change all our lives as of right now or we are destroying the planet.
There has to be a balance somewhere in the middle
I'm not sure that green taxes as a raw amount can necessarily be argued as making the population poorer.
The vast majority of those will have been around for decades. The majority of the cash raised will be from emissions trading schemes and the likes which are targeted at the most polluting large corporations. The ones that do affect consumers like fuel duty have been frozen for nearly 15 years precisely for the reason of protecting consumers.
So I don't see how that supports the point you're making.
I understand what you are saying but my views would be that costs that are endured by companies ultimately (in competitive markets!) make their way through to the consumer.
I do agree that a lot of these have been around for a while, but in my mind there is still a trade-off between the two.
A question I have, is there anything apart from cash stopping us effectively using tidal (and other sources) all around the UK, making massive battery storage, maybe even subsidizing people to install batteries at home/moving forward with vehicle to grid etc. Would be curious as to why we can't do that if it isn't cash constraints.
Sufficient cash will enable anything to be developed, of course. But the issue with tidal energy generation is that it is more expensive than wind power, unfortunately. The capital costs of tidal barrages (like the proposed in Swansea a decade ago, but never developed) are around £4m/MW. Tidal stream turbines (turbines underwater) like the one at MayGen, between the north coast of Scotland and Orkney is about £8m/MW. Offshore wind in the UK is about £1.2bn/MW.
So, if you're an infrastructure company looking to develop renewable energy generation, you want to avoid tidal power in favour of offshore wind.
However... there are three, significant advantages of tidal power. First, it's very powerful (water is heavier than air!). Second, longevity: there is no reason to think that a tidal power generation system won't still be chugging away for more than 100 years. Third, and most important, it's reliable. While we have windy days and non-windy days, we never have non-tidal days. We know, with certainty, that the power will continue to be available for billions of years. On the downside, there is greater output from wind turbines, in part because there are so many more of them and the technology has advanced.
In total, fossil fuels made up just 29% of the UK’s electricity in 2024 – the lowest level on record – while renewables reached a record-high 45% and nuclear was another 13%.
Really hope the A320s fly from City. Such a good airport. Going to Berlin out of there next month having been to Milan Linate, Rome and Florence out of there in the past couple months. Love the BA Embraer 190s.
They tend to fly to small business airports which means that the commute at the other side is shorter too.
Read an interesting article on the standard (I'll cite my references rather than pasting other people's work as my own ) about some (and this is anecdotal 100% not data) people going back to meat because they feel like the climate is already defeated and seeing all the stuff going on at the moment is making loads of people switch to veganism etc, while some already in the lifestyle now viewing it as futile!
I have to admit, given the binary view of a lot of those pushing for change to lifestyles being so absolute rather than marginal, I'm inclined to go the same way, and @cafcnick1992 definitely gave me pause for thought the other day about tradeoffs, ie choosing to make the population poorer in order to push this stuff. Certainly gave me more pause for thought than some of the condescending tones on here.
As always, the message of those who are correct are so often delivered by self righteous arseholes. If the climate lobby could nail that, I reckon more people would listen.
Some may view it as futile but that's not the vorw of scientists. Yes there are tipping points but they also say that every 0.1 degree of warming prevented is millions of lives saved. That's what we have to remember and keep doing all we can. As well as using the signalling effects of our decisions to influence corporations and governments.
Can you provide anything that backs up the bit in bold. It's a claim that originated in Tufton Street and was popularised by Liz Truss' government and is now the official line of reform. But I've yet to see anyone put any logic to the claim let alone any evidence.
Hey Canters, thanks for responding in a kinder manner.
The headline is that green taxes raised £52.5bn in 2023. That is obviously cash extracted from the economy.
Now I'm not saying that it's not necessary, but it is definitely a trade off in my opinion. It's all about getting the balance right rather than binary black and white in my opinion.
The problem I see in public discourse is it's either the kind of idiots who have the heating on full with the windows open, driving a car that could invade a small country to drop Tarquin off at school, vs insufferable attention seeking crusties saying we have to change all our lives as of right now or we are destroying the planet.
There has to be a balance somewhere in the middle
The problem is that we do need to do change, as we are destroying the planet. It may not affect old crusties as much, because they won't be here to experience the worst of the effects of climate change, but the younger people of today will see a massive change in the planet making life extremely difficult for them, with increasing famine, wars, migration and the effect that weather extremes have on health. If we don't respect the natural world in which every species plays its part, humans will suffer too.
We can still change course if everyone pulls together instead of making it political and thinking only of the present.
The Courts overturning those new gas fields in Scotland is disappointing. We're so desperate to keep energy expensive its unreal.
You've made this claim 20 odd times in the last few weeks but refused to answer whenever challenged on it.
So for one final time. Can you explain how moving to rebewables which costs 70-80% less than gas is making energy more expensive?
It's gas thats driving our high energy prices through our outdated marginal pricing mechanism which has also allowed blatant profiteering in the energy sector during the energy crisis (also driven by gas) over and above their previous profits which were already legally defined as economically excess profits by the CMA.
I'd be very interested to hear how producing more natural gas makes energy more expensive than making no natural gas. You can produce natural gas and renewable energy, so there isn't an opportunity cost argument either. Even if the gas produced is sold overseas, some of it will remain in the UK.
I've said many times that I have no issue moving to renewables, as long as there is sufficient supply of "dirty" energy to keep energy affordable during the transition. Gas isn't making our energy expensive, it's the insufficient capacity of renewable energy that hurts us. It's been well publicised that there's a national gas shortage which makes us criminally reliant on imported energy which is very expensive.
1) there is an opportunity cost as both require state funding and we're constantly being told money is tight. So if its a choice I'd choose investment in the one that is 70-80% cheaper more certain and will last longer.
2) these licences do not mean natural gas on the grid anytime soon or even ever. It means the right to go and do explorative drilling (which btw causes massive habitat loss and wildlife death - far more than birds in wind farms) in the hope that a viable deposit of natural gas is found and can hopwfully flow onto the grid in a decade or 2. Generally the accepted believe is the remaining natural gas is both small in quantity and very hard to extract. This process is incredibly expensive so in the unlikely event they do find a viable deposit of natural gas it will be very expensive to the consumer in order to pay the costs of finding it.
We have a flow of gas onto the grid already. We should be aiming to reduce the reliance on that through increasing renewables. As I've posted before (with links and sources) we are expected in a year or so time to be ay 79% renewable.
Once again gas is what's making our energy more expensive as we are paying for every unit of energy as though it is the most expensive single unit of gas on the grid. Gas price is also incredibly volatile and subject to external shocks as we've seen in the last 3 years. Increasing our reliance on gas only makes that worse and our energy more expensive.
Reducing our reliance on gas to the point where the pricing mechanism has to change is objectively the only way to bring down energy prices.
Its collective suicide. Europe as a continent probably has more recoverable on-shore shale gas that in the US for example, but everyone has decided to ban oil and gas production and import it from elsewhere (often nations with questionable environmental policies).
Fracking in the US has been hugely beneficial when it comes to energy supply, yet over here, France, Bulgaria, Netherlands, Germany, Ireland, and the UK have banned fracking. We hate ourselves and I can't explain why.
Really hope the A320s fly from City. Such a good airport. Going to Berlin out of there next month having been to Milan Linate, Rome and Florence out of there in the past couple months. Love the BA Embraer 190s.
They tend to fly to small business airports which means that the commute at the other side is shorter too.
Read an interesting article on the standard (I'll cite my references rather than pasting other people's work as my own ) about some (and this is anecdotal 100% not data) people going back to meat because they feel like the climate is already defeated and seeing all the stuff going on at the moment is making loads of people switch to veganism etc, while some already in the lifestyle now viewing it as futile!
I have to admit, given the binary view of a lot of those pushing for change to lifestyles being so absolute rather than marginal, I'm inclined to go the same way, and @cafcnick1992 definitely gave me pause for thought the other day about tradeoffs, ie choosing to make the population poorer in order to push this stuff. Certainly gave me more pause for thought than some of the condescending tones on here.
As always, the message of those who are correct are so often delivered by self righteous arseholes. If the climate lobby could nail that, I reckon more people would listen.
Some may view it as futile but that's not the vorw of scientists. Yes there are tipping points but they also say that every 0.1 degree of warming prevented is millions of lives saved. That's what we have to remember and keep doing all we can. As well as using the signalling effects of our decisions to influence corporations and governments.
Can you provide anything that backs up the bit in bold. It's a claim that originated in Tufton Street and was popularised by Liz Truss' government and is now the official line of reform. But I've yet to see anyone put any logic to the claim let alone any evidence.
Hey Canters, thanks for responding in a kinder manner.
The headline is that green taxes raised £52.5bn in 2023. That is obviously cash extracted from the economy.
Now I'm not saying that it's not necessary, but it is definitely a trade off in my opinion. It's all about getting the balance right rather than binary black and white in my opinion.
The problem I see in public discourse is it's either the kind of idiots who have the heating on full with the windows open, driving a car that could invade a small country to drop Tarquin off at school, vs insufferable attention seeking crusties saying we have to change all our lives as of right now or we are destroying the planet.
There has to be a balance somewhere in the middle
I'm not sure that green taxes as a raw amount can necessarily be argued as making the population poorer.
The vast majority of those will have been around for decades. The majority of the cash raised will be from emissions trading schemes and the likes which are targeted at the most polluting large corporations. The ones that do affect consumers like fuel duty have been frozen for nearly 15 years precisely for the reason of protecting consumers.
So I don't see how that supports the point you're making.
I understand what you are saying but my views would be that costs that are endured by companies ultimately (in competitive markets!) make their way through to the consumer.
I do agree that a lot of these have been around for a while, but in my mind there is still a trade-off between the two.
A question I have, is there anything apart from cash stopping us effectively using tidal (and other sources) all around the UK, making massive battery storage, maybe even subsidizing people to install batteries at home/moving forward with vehicle to grid etc. Would be curious as to why we can't do that if it isn't cash constraints.
Just a point of pedantry on your first para as someone with a background of studying economics and who is a professional economist. In a true free market competitive economy the cost would be shared between producer (polluter) and consumer. When there is proper competition in the market there will always be a producer who doesn't pass the whole cost on to consumers in order to gain a temporary edge in the market (either short term boost or market share grab) therefore others are forced in time to follow in order to remain competitive. Unfortunately in the last 30-50 years we have gone so far past any economics textbook of a free market capitalist economy that the basic tenets of capitalism simply do not hold. We are now living in an economy whereby there isn't proper competition, almost all markets are dominated by large national or multinational companies with huge market share and power. These oligopolies are using that power and both tacit and overt collusion in order to make economically excess profits. That is the world where 100% of the cost of a tax like a green tax would be passed on to the consumer. Its where we are, but its not capitalism by any definition. (sorry but technical economics pedantry is one of my hobbies!)
On your 2nd point you can think that but personally i dont agree. The downsides of green taxes on polluters are minimal and I think they are actually part of how i think we should be tackling the above issue.
On your final point - I've posted a lot about solid state batteries over the last few pages. As I mentioned the Toyota-Samsung-Durham uni - UK govt research partnership into these broke down when Sunak's govt pulled funding for anything remotely "green" in order to try and appease a particular element of his party (and reform). As a result that research has been moved to China and instead of us getting early access at reduced price with the UK govt owning a small share we will now be at the will of a foreign power as to when we get it and at what inflated price.
Research is key on both batteries and tidal. There is a big tidal development going on in Swansea which would be huge. These two are key to decarbonising the grid and securing our energy security.
In the past there have been massive government subsidies and schemes to upgrade houses from wood and coal fires to paraffin, to gas, to central heating. The same should be done for batteries, solar, insulation and heat pumps (where applicable) in my view. Would cost a lot but be a huge economic boost.
The Courts overturning those new gas fields in Scotland is disappointing. We're so desperate to keep energy expensive its unreal.
You've made this claim 20 odd times in the last few weeks but refused to answer whenever challenged on it.
So for one final time. Can you explain how moving to rebewables which costs 70-80% less than gas is making energy more expensive?
It's gas thats driving our high energy prices through our outdated marginal pricing mechanism which has also allowed blatant profiteering in the energy sector during the energy crisis (also driven by gas) over and above their previous profits which were already legally defined as economically excess profits by the CMA.
I'd be very interested to hear how producing more natural gas makes energy more expensive than making no natural gas. You can produce natural gas and renewable energy, so there isn't an opportunity cost argument either. Even if the gas produced is sold overseas, some of it will remain in the UK.
I've said many times that I have no issue moving to renewables, as long as there is sufficient supply of "dirty" energy to keep energy affordable during the transition. Gas isn't making our energy expensive, it's the insufficient capacity of renewable energy that hurts us. It's been well publicised that there's a national gas shortage which makes us criminally reliant on imported energy which is very expensive.
1) there is an opportunity cost as both require state funding and we're constantly being told money is tight. So if its a choice I'd choose investment in the one that is 70-80% cheaper more certain and will last longer.
2) these licences do not mean natural gas on the grid anytime soon or even ever. It means the right to go and do explorative drilling (which btw causes massive habitat loss and wildlife death - far more than birds in wind farms) in the hope that a viable deposit of natural gas is found and can hopwfully flow onto the grid in a decade or 2. Generally the accepted believe is the remaining natural gas is both small in quantity and very hard to extract. This process is incredibly expensive so in the unlikely event they do find a viable deposit of natural gas it will be very expensive to the consumer in order to pay the costs of finding it.
We have a flow of gas onto the grid already. We should be aiming to reduce the reliance on that through increasing renewables. As I've posted before (with links and sources) we are expected in a year or so time to be ay 79% renewable.
Once again gas is what's making our energy more expensive as we are paying for every unit of energy as though it is the most expensive single unit of gas on the grid. Gas price is also incredibly volatile and subject to external shocks as we've seen in the last 3 years. Increasing our reliance on gas only makes that worse and our energy more expensive.
Reducing our reliance on gas to the point where the pricing mechanism has to change is objectively the only way to bring down energy prices.
Its collective suicide. Europe as a continent probably has more recoverable on-shore shale gas that in the US for example, but everyone has decided to ban oil and gas production and import it from elsewhere (often nations with questionable environmental policies).
Fracking in the US has been hugely beneficial when it comes to energy supply, yet over here, France, Bulgaria, Netherlands, Germany, Ireland, and the UK have banned fracking. We hate ourselves and I can't explain why.
Getting more oil and gas will not benefit consumers in the UK, it will be sold on international markets.
Collective suicide is ignoring the threat of Climate Change.
With emissions from gas boilers that amounts to the same as 28m cars, why has the new government not banned the installation in new builds? they have even cancelled the previous goverments targets of a ban by 2030. I remember the futile attempt by call me David to get people to go to B&Q and buy a wind turbine to put in your garden to produce electricity, the turbine was really no bigger than a kids windmill, I always wonder what the energy minsters use to heat there numerous properties and if they practice what they preach.
The Courts overturning those new gas fields in Scotland is disappointing. We're so desperate to keep energy expensive its unreal.
You've made this claim 20 odd times in the last few weeks but refused to answer whenever challenged on it.
So for one final time. Can you explain how moving to rebewables which costs 70-80% less than gas is making energy more expensive?
It's gas thats driving our high energy prices through our outdated marginal pricing mechanism which has also allowed blatant profiteering in the energy sector during the energy crisis (also driven by gas) over and above their previous profits which were already legally defined as economically excess profits by the CMA.
I'd be very interested to hear how producing more natural gas makes energy more expensive than making no natural gas. You can produce natural gas and renewable energy, so there isn't an opportunity cost argument either. Even if the gas produced is sold overseas, some of it will remain in the UK.
I've said many times that I have no issue moving to renewables, as long as there is sufficient supply of "dirty" energy to keep energy affordable during the transition. Gas isn't making our energy expensive, it's the insufficient capacity of renewable energy that hurts us. It's been well publicised that there's a national gas shortage which makes us criminally reliant on imported energy which is very expensive.
1) there is an opportunity cost as both require state funding and we're constantly being told money is tight. So if its a choice I'd choose investment in the one that is 70-80% cheaper more certain and will last longer.
2) these licences do not mean natural gas on the grid anytime soon or even ever. It means the right to go and do explorative drilling (which btw causes massive habitat loss and wildlife death - far more than birds in wind farms) in the hope that a viable deposit of natural gas is found and can hopwfully flow onto the grid in a decade or 2. Generally the accepted believe is the remaining natural gas is both small in quantity and very hard to extract. This process is incredibly expensive so in the unlikely event they do find a viable deposit of natural gas it will be very expensive to the consumer in order to pay the costs of finding it.
We have a flow of gas onto the grid already. We should be aiming to reduce the reliance on that through increasing renewables. As I've posted before (with links and sources) we are expected in a year or so time to be ay 79% renewable.
Once again gas is what's making our energy more expensive as we are paying for every unit of energy as though it is the most expensive single unit of gas on the grid. Gas price is also incredibly volatile and subject to external shocks as we've seen in the last 3 years. Increasing our reliance on gas only makes that worse and our energy more expensive.
Reducing our reliance on gas to the point where the pricing mechanism has to change is objectively the only way to bring down energy prices.
Its collective suicide. Europe as a continent probably has more recoverable on-shore shale gas that in the US for example, but everyone has decided to ban oil and gas production and import it from elsewhere (often nations with questionable environmental policies).
Fracking in the US has been hugely beneficial when it comes to energy supply, yet over here, France, Bulgaria, Netherlands, Germany, Ireland, and the UK have banned fracking. We hate ourselves and I can't explain why.
The Courts overturning those new gas fields in Scotland is disappointing. We're so desperate to keep energy expensive its unreal.
You've made this claim 20 odd times in the last few weeks but refused to answer whenever challenged on it.
So for one final time. Can you explain how moving to rebewables which costs 70-80% less than gas is making energy more expensive?
It's gas thats driving our high energy prices through our outdated marginal pricing mechanism which has also allowed blatant profiteering in the energy sector during the energy crisis (also driven by gas) over and above their previous profits which were already legally defined as economically excess profits by the CMA.
I'd be very interested to hear how producing more natural gas makes energy more expensive than making no natural gas. You can produce natural gas and renewable energy, so there isn't an opportunity cost argument either. Even if the gas produced is sold overseas, some of it will remain in the UK.
I've said many times that I have no issue moving to renewables, as long as there is sufficient supply of "dirty" energy to keep energy affordable during the transition. Gas isn't making our energy expensive, it's the insufficient capacity of renewable energy that hurts us. It's been well publicised that there's a national gas shortage which makes us criminally reliant on imported energy which is very expensive.
1) there is an opportunity cost as both require state funding and we're constantly being told money is tight. So if its a choice I'd choose investment in the one that is 70-80% cheaper more certain and will last longer.
2) these licences do not mean natural gas on the grid anytime soon or even ever. It means the right to go and do explorative drilling (which btw causes massive habitat loss and wildlife death - far more than birds in wind farms) in the hope that a viable deposit of natural gas is found and can hopwfully flow onto the grid in a decade or 2. Generally the accepted believe is the remaining natural gas is both small in quantity and very hard to extract. This process is incredibly expensive so in the unlikely event they do find a viable deposit of natural gas it will be very expensive to the consumer in order to pay the costs of finding it.
We have a flow of gas onto the grid already. We should be aiming to reduce the reliance on that through increasing renewables. As I've posted before (with links and sources) we are expected in a year or so time to be ay 79% renewable.
Once again gas is what's making our energy more expensive as we are paying for every unit of energy as though it is the most expensive single unit of gas on the grid. Gas price is also incredibly volatile and subject to external shocks as we've seen in the last 3 years. Increasing our reliance on gas only makes that worse and our energy more expensive.
Reducing our reliance on gas to the point where the pricing mechanism has to change is objectively the only way to bring down energy prices.
Its collective suicide. Europe as a continent probably has more recoverable on-shore shale gas that in the US for example, but everyone has decided to ban oil and gas production and import it from elsewhere (often nations with questionable environmental policies).
Fracking in the US has been hugely beneficial when it comes to energy supply, yet over here, France, Bulgaria, Netherlands, Germany, Ireland, and the UK have banned fracking. We hate ourselves and I can't explain why.
196 countries signed up to the Paris Agreement in 2015 to limit global warning to 1.5, of which we were one. Now, if we were to follow the lead of the US, we'd take ourselves out of it. You might not want that, but if you think we should be going pedal to the metal to achieve economic growth propelled by burning more fossil fuels, whist increasing renewable capacity in the meantime, might I respectfully suggest that you write to your local MP asking him/her to review our stance on achieving net zero, especially as it appears nothing you've read on this thread has satisfactorily answered the question you posed.
The Courts overturning those new gas fields in Scotland is disappointing. We're so desperate to keep energy expensive its unreal.
You've made this claim 20 odd times in the last few weeks but refused to answer whenever challenged on it.
So for one final time. Can you explain how moving to rebewables which costs 70-80% less than gas is making energy more expensive?
It's gas thats driving our high energy prices through our outdated marginal pricing mechanism which has also allowed blatant profiteering in the energy sector during the energy crisis (also driven by gas) over and above their previous profits which were already legally defined as economically excess profits by the CMA.
I'd be very interested to hear how producing more natural gas makes energy more expensive than making no natural gas. You can produce natural gas and renewable energy, so there isn't an opportunity cost argument either. Even if the gas produced is sold overseas, some of it will remain in the UK.
I've said many times that I have no issue moving to renewables, as long as there is sufficient supply of "dirty" energy to keep energy affordable during the transition. Gas isn't making our energy expensive, it's the insufficient capacity of renewable energy that hurts us. It's been well publicised that there's a national gas shortage which makes us criminally reliant on imported energy which is very expensive.
1) there is an opportunity cost as both require state funding and we're constantly being told money is tight. So if its a choice I'd choose investment in the one that is 70-80% cheaper more certain and will last longer.
2) these licences do not mean natural gas on the grid anytime soon or even ever. It means the right to go and do explorative drilling (which btw causes massive habitat loss and wildlife death - far more than birds in wind farms) in the hope that a viable deposit of natural gas is found and can hopwfully flow onto the grid in a decade or 2. Generally the accepted believe is the remaining natural gas is both small in quantity and very hard to extract. This process is incredibly expensive so in the unlikely event they do find a viable deposit of natural gas it will be very expensive to the consumer in order to pay the costs of finding it.
We have a flow of gas onto the grid already. We should be aiming to reduce the reliance on that through increasing renewables. As I've posted before (with links and sources) we are expected in a year or so time to be ay 79% renewable.
Once again gas is what's making our energy more expensive as we are paying for every unit of energy as though it is the most expensive single unit of gas on the grid. Gas price is also incredibly volatile and subject to external shocks as we've seen in the last 3 years. Increasing our reliance on gas only makes that worse and our energy more expensive.
Reducing our reliance on gas to the point where the pricing mechanism has to change is objectively the only way to bring down energy prices.
Its collective suicide. Europe as a continent probably has more recoverable on-shore shale gas that in the US for example, but everyone has decided to ban oil and gas production and import it from elsewhere (often nations with questionable environmental policies).
Fracking in the US has been hugely beneficial when it comes to energy supply, yet over here, France, Bulgaria, Netherlands, Germany, Ireland, and the UK have banned fracking. We hate ourselves and I can't explain why.
Getting more oil and gas will not benefit consumers in the UK, it will be sold on international markets.
Collective suicide is ignoring the threat of Climate Change.
The Courts overturning those new gas fields in Scotland is disappointing. We're so desperate to keep energy expensive its unreal.
You've made this claim 20 odd times in the last few weeks but refused to answer whenever challenged on it.
So for one final time. Can you explain how moving to rebewables which costs 70-80% less than gas is making energy more expensive?
It's gas thats driving our high energy prices through our outdated marginal pricing mechanism which has also allowed blatant profiteering in the energy sector during the energy crisis (also driven by gas) over and above their previous profits which were already legally defined as economically excess profits by the CMA.
I'd be very interested to hear how producing more natural gas makes energy more expensive than making no natural gas. You can produce natural gas and renewable energy, so there isn't an opportunity cost argument either. Even if the gas produced is sold overseas, some of it will remain in the UK.
I've said many times that I have no issue moving to renewables, as long as there is sufficient supply of "dirty" energy to keep energy affordable during the transition. Gas isn't making our energy expensive, it's the insufficient capacity of renewable energy that hurts us. It's been well publicised that there's a national gas shortage which makes us criminally reliant on imported energy which is very expensive.
1) there is an opportunity cost as both require state funding and we're constantly being told money is tight. So if its a choice I'd choose investment in the one that is 70-80% cheaper more certain and will last longer.
2) these licences do not mean natural gas on the grid anytime soon or even ever. It means the right to go and do explorative drilling (which btw causes massive habitat loss and wildlife death - far more than birds in wind farms) in the hope that a viable deposit of natural gas is found and can hopwfully flow onto the grid in a decade or 2. Generally the accepted believe is the remaining natural gas is both small in quantity and very hard to extract. This process is incredibly expensive so in the unlikely event they do find a viable deposit of natural gas it will be very expensive to the consumer in order to pay the costs of finding it.
We have a flow of gas onto the grid already. We should be aiming to reduce the reliance on that through increasing renewables. As I've posted before (with links and sources) we are expected in a year or so time to be ay 79% renewable.
Once again gas is what's making our energy more expensive as we are paying for every unit of energy as though it is the most expensive single unit of gas on the grid. Gas price is also incredibly volatile and subject to external shocks as we've seen in the last 3 years. Increasing our reliance on gas only makes that worse and our energy more expensive.
Reducing our reliance on gas to the point where the pricing mechanism has to change is objectively the only way to bring down energy prices.
Its collective suicide. Europe as a continent probably has more recoverable on-shore shale gas that in the US for example, but everyone has decided to ban oil and gas production and import it from elsewhere (often nations with questionable environmental policies).
Fracking in the US has been hugely beneficial when it comes to energy supply, yet over here, France, Bulgaria, Netherlands, Germany, Ireland, and the UK have banned fracking. We hate ourselves and I can't explain why.
You havent answered any of my points or been able to explain why gas would bring down prices when its the most expensive energy on the grid. Any supply we add would not be anywhere near enough to make the slightest dent on world prices.
There is a near unlimited supply of renewables - that could actually make a difference to world supply of energy. We could even get to the position of Norway where we are exporting our renewable energy. Given how uniquely placed we are as an island for wind and tidal this is very possible. We would already be there if our gas and oil wealth in the 70s and 80s had been handled with even the slightest bit of responsibility.
The Courts overturning those new gas fields in Scotland is disappointing. We're so desperate to keep energy expensive its unreal.
You've made this claim 20 odd times in the last few weeks but refused to answer whenever challenged on it.
So for one final time. Can you explain how moving to rebewables which costs 70-80% less than gas is making energy more expensive?
It's gas thats driving our high energy prices through our outdated marginal pricing mechanism which has also allowed blatant profiteering in the energy sector during the energy crisis (also driven by gas) over and above their previous profits which were already legally defined as economically excess profits by the CMA.
I'd be very interested to hear how producing more natural gas makes energy more expensive than making no natural gas. You can produce natural gas and renewable energy, so there isn't an opportunity cost argument either. Even if the gas produced is sold overseas, some of it will remain in the UK.
I've said many times that I have no issue moving to renewables, as long as there is sufficient supply of "dirty" energy to keep energy affordable during the transition. Gas isn't making our energy expensive, it's the insufficient capacity of renewable energy that hurts us. It's been well publicised that there's a national gas shortage which makes us criminally reliant on imported energy which is very expensive.
1) there is an opportunity cost as both require state funding and we're constantly being told money is tight. So if its a choice I'd choose investment in the one that is 70-80% cheaper more certain and will last longer.
2) these licences do not mean natural gas on the grid anytime soon or even ever. It means the right to go and do explorative drilling (which btw causes massive habitat loss and wildlife death - far more than birds in wind farms) in the hope that a viable deposit of natural gas is found and can hopwfully flow onto the grid in a decade or 2. Generally the accepted believe is the remaining natural gas is both small in quantity and very hard to extract. This process is incredibly expensive so in the unlikely event they do find a viable deposit of natural gas it will be very expensive to the consumer in order to pay the costs of finding it.
We have a flow of gas onto the grid already. We should be aiming to reduce the reliance on that through increasing renewables. As I've posted before (with links and sources) we are expected in a year or so time to be ay 79% renewable.
Once again gas is what's making our energy more expensive as we are paying for every unit of energy as though it is the most expensive single unit of gas on the grid. Gas price is also incredibly volatile and subject to external shocks as we've seen in the last 3 years. Increasing our reliance on gas only makes that worse and our energy more expensive.
Reducing our reliance on gas to the point where the pricing mechanism has to change is objectively the only way to bring down energy prices.
Its collective suicide. Europe as a continent probably has more recoverable on-shore shale gas that in the US for example, but everyone has decided to ban oil and gas production and import it from elsewhere (often nations with questionable environmental policies).
Fracking in the US has been hugely beneficial when it comes to energy supply, yet over here, France, Bulgaria, Netherlands, Germany, Ireland, and the UK have banned fracking. We hate ourselves and I can't explain why.
Getting more oil and gas will not benefit consumers in the UK, it will be sold on international markets.
Collective suicide is ignoring the threat of Climate Change.
You do realise that ME was quoting that phrase from its outlandish use above, don't you?
The Courts overturning those new gas fields in Scotland is disappointing. We're so desperate to keep energy expensive its unreal.
You've made this claim 20 odd times in the last few weeks but refused to answer whenever challenged on it.
So for one final time. Can you explain how moving to rebewables which costs 70-80% less than gas is making energy more expensive?
It's gas thats driving our high energy prices through our outdated marginal pricing mechanism which has also allowed blatant profiteering in the energy sector during the energy crisis (also driven by gas) over and above their previous profits which were already legally defined as economically excess profits by the CMA.
I'd be very interested to hear how producing more natural gas makes energy more expensive than making no natural gas. You can produce natural gas and renewable energy, so there isn't an opportunity cost argument either. Even if the gas produced is sold overseas, some of it will remain in the UK.
I've said many times that I have no issue moving to renewables, as long as there is sufficient supply of "dirty" energy to keep energy affordable during the transition. Gas isn't making our energy expensive, it's the insufficient capacity of renewable energy that hurts us. It's been well publicised that there's a national gas shortage which makes us criminally reliant on imported energy which is very expensive.
1) there is an opportunity cost as both require state funding and we're constantly being told money is tight. So if its a choice I'd choose investment in the one that is 70-80% cheaper more certain and will last longer.
2) these licences do not mean natural gas on the grid anytime soon or even ever. It means the right to go and do explorative drilling (which btw causes massive habitat loss and wildlife death - far more than birds in wind farms) in the hope that a viable deposit of natural gas is found and can hopwfully flow onto the grid in a decade or 2. Generally the accepted believe is the remaining natural gas is both small in quantity and very hard to extract. This process is incredibly expensive so in the unlikely event they do find a viable deposit of natural gas it will be very expensive to the consumer in order to pay the costs of finding it.
We have a flow of gas onto the grid already. We should be aiming to reduce the reliance on that through increasing renewables. As I've posted before (with links and sources) we are expected in a year or so time to be ay 79% renewable.
Once again gas is what's making our energy more expensive as we are paying for every unit of energy as though it is the most expensive single unit of gas on the grid. Gas price is also incredibly volatile and subject to external shocks as we've seen in the last 3 years. Increasing our reliance on gas only makes that worse and our energy more expensive.
Reducing our reliance on gas to the point where the pricing mechanism has to change is objectively the only way to bring down energy prices.
Its collective suicide. Europe as a continent probably has more recoverable on-shore shale gas that in the US for example, but everyone has decided to ban oil and gas production and import it from elsewhere (often nations with questionable environmental policies).
Fracking in the US has been hugely beneficial when it comes to energy supply, yet over here, France, Bulgaria, Netherlands, Germany, Ireland, and the UK have banned fracking. We hate ourselves and I can't explain why.
You havent answered any of my points or been able to explain why gas would bring down prices when its the most expensive energy on the grid. Any supply we add would not be anywhere near enough to make the slightest dent on world prices.
There is a near unlimited supply of renewables - that could actually make a difference to world supply of energy. We could even get to the position of Norway where we are exporting our renewable energy. Given how uniquely placed we are as an island for wind and tidal this is very possible. We would already be there if our gas and oil wealth in the 70s and 80s had been handled with even the slightest bit of responsibility.
The Courts overturning those new gas fields in Scotland is disappointing. We're so desperate to keep energy expensive its unreal.
You've made this claim 20 odd times in the last few weeks but refused to answer whenever challenged on it.
So for one final time. Can you explain how moving to rebewables which costs 70-80% less than gas is making energy more expensive?
It's gas thats driving our high energy prices through our outdated marginal pricing mechanism which has also allowed blatant profiteering in the energy sector during the energy crisis (also driven by gas) over and above their previous profits which were already legally defined as economically excess profits by the CMA.
I'd be very interested to hear how producing more natural gas makes energy more expensive than making no natural gas. You can produce natural gas and renewable energy, so there isn't an opportunity cost argument either. Even if the gas produced is sold overseas, some of it will remain in the UK.
I've said many times that I have no issue moving to renewables, as long as there is sufficient supply of "dirty" energy to keep energy affordable during the transition. Gas isn't making our energy expensive, it's the insufficient capacity of renewable energy that hurts us. It's been well publicised that there's a national gas shortage which makes us criminally reliant on imported energy which is very expensive.
1) there is an opportunity cost as both require state funding and we're constantly being told money is tight. So if its a choice I'd choose investment in the one that is 70-80% cheaper more certain and will last longer.
2) these licences do not mean natural gas on the grid anytime soon or even ever. It means the right to go and do explorative drilling (which btw causes massive habitat loss and wildlife death - far more than birds in wind farms) in the hope that a viable deposit of natural gas is found and can hopwfully flow onto the grid in a decade or 2. Generally the accepted believe is the remaining natural gas is both small in quantity and very hard to extract. This process is incredibly expensive so in the unlikely event they do find a viable deposit of natural gas it will be very expensive to the consumer in order to pay the costs of finding it.
We have a flow of gas onto the grid already. We should be aiming to reduce the reliance on that through increasing renewables. As I've posted before (with links and sources) we are expected in a year or so time to be ay 79% renewable.
Once again gas is what's making our energy more expensive as we are paying for every unit of energy as though it is the most expensive single unit of gas on the grid. Gas price is also incredibly volatile and subject to external shocks as we've seen in the last 3 years. Increasing our reliance on gas only makes that worse and our energy more expensive.
Reducing our reliance on gas to the point where the pricing mechanism has to change is objectively the only way to bring down energy prices.
Its collective suicide. Europe as a continent probably has more recoverable on-shore shale gas that in the US for example, but everyone has decided to ban oil and gas production and import it from elsewhere (often nations with questionable environmental policies).
Fracking in the US has been hugely beneficial when it comes to energy supply, yet over here, France, Bulgaria, Netherlands, Germany, Ireland, and the UK have banned fracking. We hate ourselves and I can't explain why.
You havent answered any of my points or been able to explain why gas would bring down prices when its the most expensive energy on the grid. Any supply we add would not be anywhere near enough to make the slightest dent on world prices.
There is a near unlimited supply of renewables - that could actually make a difference to world supply of energy. We could even get to the position of Norway where we are exporting our renewable energy. Given how uniquely placed we are as an island for wind and tidal this is very possible. We would already be there if our gas and oil wealth in the 70s and 80s had been handled with even the slightest bit of responsibility.
Surely the goal is to become totally self sufficient and stop buying in the international market?
The Courts overturning those new gas fields in Scotland is disappointing. We're so desperate to keep energy expensive its unreal.
You've made this claim 20 odd times in the last few weeks but refused to answer whenever challenged on it.
So for one final time. Can you explain how moving to rebewables which costs 70-80% less than gas is making energy more expensive?
It's gas thats driving our high energy prices through our outdated marginal pricing mechanism which has also allowed blatant profiteering in the energy sector during the energy crisis (also driven by gas) over and above their previous profits which were already legally defined as economically excess profits by the CMA.
I'd be very interested to hear how producing more natural gas makes energy more expensive than making no natural gas. You can produce natural gas and renewable energy, so there isn't an opportunity cost argument either. Even if the gas produced is sold overseas, some of it will remain in the UK.
I've said many times that I have no issue moving to renewables, as long as there is sufficient supply of "dirty" energy to keep energy affordable during the transition. Gas isn't making our energy expensive, it's the insufficient capacity of renewable energy that hurts us. It's been well publicised that there's a national gas shortage which makes us criminally reliant on imported energy which is very expensive.
1) there is an opportunity cost as both require state funding and we're constantly being told money is tight. So if its a choice I'd choose investment in the one that is 70-80% cheaper more certain and will last longer.
2) these licences do not mean natural gas on the grid anytime soon or even ever. It means the right to go and do explorative drilling (which btw causes massive habitat loss and wildlife death - far more than birds in wind farms) in the hope that a viable deposit of natural gas is found and can hopwfully flow onto the grid in a decade or 2. Generally the accepted believe is the remaining natural gas is both small in quantity and very hard to extract. This process is incredibly expensive so in the unlikely event they do find a viable deposit of natural gas it will be very expensive to the consumer in order to pay the costs of finding it.
We have a flow of gas onto the grid already. We should be aiming to reduce the reliance on that through increasing renewables. As I've posted before (with links and sources) we are expected in a year or so time to be ay 79% renewable.
Once again gas is what's making our energy more expensive as we are paying for every unit of energy as though it is the most expensive single unit of gas on the grid. Gas price is also incredibly volatile and subject to external shocks as we've seen in the last 3 years. Increasing our reliance on gas only makes that worse and our energy more expensive.
Reducing our reliance on gas to the point where the pricing mechanism has to change is objectively the only way to bring down energy prices.
Its collective suicide. Europe as a continent probably has more recoverable on-shore shale gas that in the US for example, but everyone has decided to ban oil and gas production and import it from elsewhere (often nations with questionable environmental policies).
Fracking in the US has been hugely beneficial when it comes to energy supply, yet over here, France, Bulgaria, Netherlands, Germany, Ireland, and the UK have banned fracking. We hate ourselves and I can't explain why.
You havent answered any of my points or been able to explain why gas would bring down prices when its the most expensive energy on the grid. Any supply we add would not be anywhere near enough to make the slightest dent on world prices.
There is a near unlimited supply of renewables - that could actually make a difference to world supply of energy. We could even get to the position of Norway where we are exporting our renewable energy. Given how uniquely placed we are as an island for wind and tidal this is very possible. We would already be there if our gas and oil wealth in the 70s and 80s had been handled with even the slightest bit of responsibility.
The Courts overturning those new gas fields in Scotland is disappointing. We're so desperate to keep energy expensive its unreal.
You've made this claim 20 odd times in the last few weeks but refused to answer whenever challenged on it.
So for one final time. Can you explain how moving to rebewables which costs 70-80% less than gas is making energy more expensive?
It's gas thats driving our high energy prices through our outdated marginal pricing mechanism which has also allowed blatant profiteering in the energy sector during the energy crisis (also driven by gas) over and above their previous profits which were already legally defined as economically excess profits by the CMA.
I'd be very interested to hear how producing more natural gas makes energy more expensive than making no natural gas. You can produce natural gas and renewable energy, so there isn't an opportunity cost argument either. Even if the gas produced is sold overseas, some of it will remain in the UK.
I've said many times that I have no issue moving to renewables, as long as there is sufficient supply of "dirty" energy to keep energy affordable during the transition. Gas isn't making our energy expensive, it's the insufficient capacity of renewable energy that hurts us. It's been well publicised that there's a national gas shortage which makes us criminally reliant on imported energy which is very expensive.
1) there is an opportunity cost as both require state funding and we're constantly being told money is tight. So if its a choice I'd choose investment in the one that is 70-80% cheaper more certain and will last longer.
2) these licences do not mean natural gas on the grid anytime soon or even ever. It means the right to go and do explorative drilling (which btw causes massive habitat loss and wildlife death - far more than birds in wind farms) in the hope that a viable deposit of natural gas is found and can hopwfully flow onto the grid in a decade or 2. Generally the accepted believe is the remaining natural gas is both small in quantity and very hard to extract. This process is incredibly expensive so in the unlikely event they do find a viable deposit of natural gas it will be very expensive to the consumer in order to pay the costs of finding it.
We have a flow of gas onto the grid already. We should be aiming to reduce the reliance on that through increasing renewables. As I've posted before (with links and sources) we are expected in a year or so time to be ay 79% renewable.
Once again gas is what's making our energy more expensive as we are paying for every unit of energy as though it is the most expensive single unit of gas on the grid. Gas price is also incredibly volatile and subject to external shocks as we've seen in the last 3 years. Increasing our reliance on gas only makes that worse and our energy more expensive.
Reducing our reliance on gas to the point where the pricing mechanism has to change is objectively the only way to bring down energy prices.
Its collective suicide. Europe as a continent probably has more recoverable on-shore shale gas that in the US for example, but everyone has decided to ban oil and gas production and import it from elsewhere (often nations with questionable environmental policies).
Fracking in the US has been hugely beneficial when it comes to energy supply, yet over here, France, Bulgaria, Netherlands, Germany, Ireland, and the UK have banned fracking. We hate ourselves and I can't explain why.
You havent answered any of my points or been able to explain why gas would bring down prices when its the most expensive energy on the grid. Any supply we add would not be anywhere near enough to make the slightest dent on world prices.
There is a near unlimited supply of renewables - that could actually make a difference to world supply of energy. We could even get to the position of Norway where we are exporting our renewable energy. Given how uniquely placed we are as an island for wind and tidal this is very possible. We would already be there if our gas and oil wealth in the 70s and 80s had been handled with even the slightest bit of responsibility.
Surely the goal is to become totally self sufficient and stop buying in the international market?
Exactly my point. But gas we have to buy on the world market.
Renewables we could produce enough to sell the excess on the world market.
The Courts overturning those new gas fields in Scotland is disappointing. We're so desperate to keep energy expensive its unreal.
You've made this claim 20 odd times in the last few weeks but refused to answer whenever challenged on it.
So for one final time. Can you explain how moving to rebewables which costs 70-80% less than gas is making energy more expensive?
It's gas thats driving our high energy prices through our outdated marginal pricing mechanism which has also allowed blatant profiteering in the energy sector during the energy crisis (also driven by gas) over and above their previous profits which were already legally defined as economically excess profits by the CMA.
I'd be very interested to hear how producing more natural gas makes energy more expensive than making no natural gas. You can produce natural gas and renewable energy, so there isn't an opportunity cost argument either. Even if the gas produced is sold overseas, some of it will remain in the UK.
I've said many times that I have no issue moving to renewables, as long as there is sufficient supply of "dirty" energy to keep energy affordable during the transition. Gas isn't making our energy expensive, it's the insufficient capacity of renewable energy that hurts us. It's been well publicised that there's a national gas shortage which makes us criminally reliant on imported energy which is very expensive.
1) there is an opportunity cost as both require state funding and we're constantly being told money is tight. So if its a choice I'd choose investment in the one that is 70-80% cheaper more certain and will last longer.
2) these licences do not mean natural gas on the grid anytime soon or even ever. It means the right to go and do explorative drilling (which btw causes massive habitat loss and wildlife death - far more than birds in wind farms) in the hope that a viable deposit of natural gas is found and can hopwfully flow onto the grid in a decade or 2. Generally the accepted believe is the remaining natural gas is both small in quantity and very hard to extract. This process is incredibly expensive so in the unlikely event they do find a viable deposit of natural gas it will be very expensive to the consumer in order to pay the costs of finding it.
We have a flow of gas onto the grid already. We should be aiming to reduce the reliance on that through increasing renewables. As I've posted before (with links and sources) we are expected in a year or so time to be ay 79% renewable.
Once again gas is what's making our energy more expensive as we are paying for every unit of energy as though it is the most expensive single unit of gas on the grid. Gas price is also incredibly volatile and subject to external shocks as we've seen in the last 3 years. Increasing our reliance on gas only makes that worse and our energy more expensive.
Reducing our reliance on gas to the point where the pricing mechanism has to change is objectively the only way to bring down energy prices.
Its collective suicide. Europe as a continent probably has more recoverable on-shore shale gas that in the US for example, but everyone has decided to ban oil and gas production and import it from elsewhere (often nations with questionable environmental policies).
Fracking in the US has been hugely beneficial when it comes to energy supply, yet over here, France, Bulgaria, Netherlands, Germany, Ireland, and the UK have banned fracking. We hate ourselves and I can't explain why.
You havent answered any of my points or been able to explain why gas would bring down prices when its the most expensive energy on the grid. Any supply we add would not be anywhere near enough to make the slightest dent on world prices.
There is a near unlimited supply of renewables - that could actually make a difference to world supply of energy. We could even get to the position of Norway where we are exporting our renewable energy. Given how uniquely placed we are as an island for wind and tidal this is very possible. We would already be there if our gas and oil wealth in the 70s and 80s had been handled with even the slightest bit of responsibility.
The Courts overturning those new gas fields in Scotland is disappointing. We're so desperate to keep energy expensive its unreal.
You've made this claim 20 odd times in the last few weeks but refused to answer whenever challenged on it.
So for one final time. Can you explain how moving to rebewables which costs 70-80% less than gas is making energy more expensive?
It's gas thats driving our high energy prices through our outdated marginal pricing mechanism which has also allowed blatant profiteering in the energy sector during the energy crisis (also driven by gas) over and above their previous profits which were already legally defined as economically excess profits by the CMA.
I'd be very interested to hear how producing more natural gas makes energy more expensive than making no natural gas. You can produce natural gas and renewable energy, so there isn't an opportunity cost argument either. Even if the gas produced is sold overseas, some of it will remain in the UK.
I've said many times that I have no issue moving to renewables, as long as there is sufficient supply of "dirty" energy to keep energy affordable during the transition. Gas isn't making our energy expensive, it's the insufficient capacity of renewable energy that hurts us. It's been well publicised that there's a national gas shortage which makes us criminally reliant on imported energy which is very expensive.
1) there is an opportunity cost as both require state funding and we're constantly being told money is tight. So if its a choice I'd choose investment in the one that is 70-80% cheaper more certain and will last longer.
2) these licences do not mean natural gas on the grid anytime soon or even ever. It means the right to go and do explorative drilling (which btw causes massive habitat loss and wildlife death - far more than birds in wind farms) in the hope that a viable deposit of natural gas is found and can hopwfully flow onto the grid in a decade or 2. Generally the accepted believe is the remaining natural gas is both small in quantity and very hard to extract. This process is incredibly expensive so in the unlikely event they do find a viable deposit of natural gas it will be very expensive to the consumer in order to pay the costs of finding it.
We have a flow of gas onto the grid already. We should be aiming to reduce the reliance on that through increasing renewables. As I've posted before (with links and sources) we are expected in a year or so time to be ay 79% renewable.
Once again gas is what's making our energy more expensive as we are paying for every unit of energy as though it is the most expensive single unit of gas on the grid. Gas price is also incredibly volatile and subject to external shocks as we've seen in the last 3 years. Increasing our reliance on gas only makes that worse and our energy more expensive.
Reducing our reliance on gas to the point where the pricing mechanism has to change is objectively the only way to bring down energy prices.
Its collective suicide. Europe as a continent probably has more recoverable on-shore shale gas that in the US for example, but everyone has decided to ban oil and gas production and import it from elsewhere (often nations with questionable environmental policies).
Fracking in the US has been hugely beneficial when it comes to energy supply, yet over here, France, Bulgaria, Netherlands, Germany, Ireland, and the UK have banned fracking. We hate ourselves and I can't explain why.
You havent answered any of my points or been able to explain why gas would bring down prices when its the most expensive energy on the grid. Any supply we add would not be anywhere near enough to make the slightest dent on world prices.
There is a near unlimited supply of renewables - that could actually make a difference to world supply of energy. We could even get to the position of Norway where we are exporting our renewable energy. Given how uniquely placed we are as an island for wind and tidal this is very possible. We would already be there if our gas and oil wealth in the 70s and 80s had been handled with even the slightest bit of responsibility.
Surely the goal is to become overly self sufficient and sell in the international market?
Current Situation: Emissions from Connecting Flights
Currently, many UK passengers flying long-haul must first take a short-haul flight to a European hub (e.g., Amsterdam Schiphol, Paris Charles de Gaulle, Frankfurt) before continuing their journey. These connecting flights introduce additional fuel consumption, emissions, and inefficiencies due to:
- Extra takeoff and landing cycles, which are fuel-intensive
A short-haul flight from Heathrow to Amsterdam (Schiphol) emits approximately 80-100 kg CO₂ per passenger (for a Boeing 737-800/A320).
A long-haul flight from Schiphol to New York (JFK) emits around 1.5-2.0 tonnes CO₂ per passenger on a Boeing 787 or A350.
Adding those together:
- With a connection (LHR → AMS → JFK): 100 kg CO₂ (LHR-AMS) + 1,800 kg CO₂ (AMS-JFK) = 1.9 tonnes CO₂ per passenger
- With a direct Heathrow-JFK flight: 1.7 tonnes CO₂ per passenger
This suggests a potential saving of 200 kg CO₂ per passenger by avoiding the connection.
Estimating GHG Savings from Heathrow’s Third Runway
Heathrow’s third runway is expected to allow an increase in direct long-haul routes, which should reduce the number of passengers transiting via European hubs.
Estimated Passenger Shift
- The UK Department for Transport estimated that a third runway would add 260,000 additional flights per year (mostly long-haul).
- If even 10 million passengers per year switch from indirect to direct flights, and each avoids 200 kg CO₂ per trip, that results in:
10,000,000 x 200kg CO₂ = 2 million tonnes CO₂ saved annually
That’s a significant emissions saving, equivalent to taking nearly 1 million cars off the road (assuming ~2 tonnes CO₂ per car per year).
Will Heathrow’s Third Runway Still Increase Overall Emissions?
Even with these savings, it’s worth noting that a third runway increases total capacity, meaning:
- More flights overall (including new short-haul feeder routes)
- More aviation emissions, as total air traffic grows
- Indirect emissions from airport expansion and increased ground transport
However, compared to a scenario where Heathrow remains constrained and passengers continue flying via Europe, the third runway could be the lesser evil in terms of per-passenger emissions efficiency.
- Increasing long-haul capacity at Heathrow could reduce per-passenger emissions by cutting unnecessary short-haul connections to European hubs.
- Potential savings: ~2 million tonnes CO₂ per year**, if enough passengers switch to direct long-haul routes.
- However, **total aviation emissions will still rise**, since more flights will operate overall.
If emissions reduction is the primary goal, Heathrow’s third runway alone isn’t the silver bullet, but it can contribute to a more efficient aviation network by reducing indirect flight emissions. As well as completing the third runway as soon as possible, the government should stipulate that its use is confined to the latest generations of fuel efficient aircraft (e.g. Boeing 787, Airbus A350) which are about 25% more fuel-efficient than older models.
Are you taking the increase in use of flights (expansion of the market) into account. Also millions tons of concrete. Emissions increase from traffic delays on M25.
Same argument as smoking tipped cigarettes is safer. Might fool some.
Current Situation: Emissions from Connecting Flights
Currently, many UK passengers flying long-haul must first take a short-haul flight to a European hub (e.g., Amsterdam Schiphol, Paris Charles de Gaulle, Frankfurt) before continuing their journey. These connecting flights introduce additional fuel consumption, emissions, and inefficiencies due to:
- Extra takeoff and landing cycles, which are fuel-intensive
A short-haul flight from Heathrow to Amsterdam (Schiphol) emits approximately 80-100 kg CO₂ per passenger (for a Boeing 737-800/A320).
A long-haul flight from Schiphol to New York (JFK) emits around 1.5-2.0 tonnes CO₂ per passenger on a Boeing 787 or A350.
Adding those together:
- With a connection (LHR → AMS → JFK): 100 kg CO₂ (LHR-AMS) + 1,800 kg CO₂ (AMS-JFK) = 1.9 tonnes CO₂ per passenger
- With a direct Heathrow-JFK flight: 1.7 tonnes CO₂ per passenger
This suggests a potential saving of 200 kg CO₂ per passenger by avoiding the connection.
Estimating GHG Savings from Heathrow’s Third Runway
Heathrow’s third runway is expected to allow an increase in direct long-haul routes, which should reduce the number of passengers transiting via European hubs.
Estimated Passenger Shift
- The UK Department for Transport estimated that a third runway would add 260,000 additional flights per year (mostly long-haul).
- If even 10 million passengers per year switch from indirect to direct flights, and each avoids 200 kg CO₂ per trip, that results in:
10,000,000 x 200kg CO₂ = 2 million tonnes CO₂ saved annually
That’s a significant emissions saving, equivalent to taking nearly 1 million cars off the road (assuming ~2 tonnes CO₂ per car per year).
Will Heathrow’s Third Runway Still Increase Overall Emissions?
Even with these savings, it’s worth noting that a third runway increases total capacity, meaning:
- More flights overall (including new short-haul feeder routes)
- More aviation emissions, as total air traffic grows
- Indirect emissions from airport expansion and increased ground transport
However, compared to a scenario where Heathrow remains constrained and passengers continue flying via Europe, the third runway could be the lesser evil in terms of per-passenger emissions efficiency.
- Increasing long-haul capacity at Heathrow could reduce per-passenger emissions by cutting unnecessary short-haul connections to European hubs.
- Potential savings: ~2 million tonnes CO₂ per year**, if enough passengers switch to direct long-haul routes.
- However, **total aviation emissions will still rise**, since more flights will operate overall.
If emissions reduction is the primary goal, Heathrow’s third runway alone isn’t the silver bullet, but it can contribute to a more efficient aviation network by reducing indirect flight emissions. As well as completing the third runway as soon as possible, the government should stipulate that its use is confined to the latest generations of fuel efficient aircraft (e.g. Boeing 787, Airbus A350) which are about 25% more fuel-efficient than older models.
Are you taking the increase in use of flights (expansion of the market) into account. Also millions tons of concrete. Emissions increase from traffic delays on M25.
Same argument as smoking tipped cigarettes is safer. Might fool some.
No I'm not and I hope that's clear.
Globally, there will be more flights in future, whether there's a third runway at Heathrow or not. But increased capacity at Heathrow will have an ameliorating effect (as I've shown) on UK passengers travelling long haul.
Will flights really reach net zero by 2050 - and at what cost to passengers? The passage quoted below is taken from a much longer article in the following link:
Aviation’s CO2 emissions come primarily through jet engines using carbon-rich fossil fuels, which produce CO2 when burned, so there have been attempts to create an alternative type made from renewable biomass and waste resources, known as Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF).
The first SAF flight ran between London and Amsterdam in 2008 using fuel derived from a mixture of Brazilian babassu nuts and coconuts.
Now the British government says that 22% of all jet fuel from UK aviation has to come from sustainable sources by 2040. But this comes with further challenges.
In the UK, SAF is mainly made from cooking oil, some of which is shipped from Asia, and shipping is responsible for 2% of global CO2 emissions.
Alternative methods of creating SAF require large quantities of electricity as part of the manufacturing process. This would involve a vast amount of renewable energy to make it sustainable.
"It's very hard, to think there is such a thing as a sustainable aviation fuel,” says Sir Dieter Helm. “There are aviation fuels that are less polluting than the ones being used at the moment, and you can use elements of biofuel and chip fat and so on.
The reductions from SAF, fuel efficiency improvements and zero carbon aircraft will only cut aviation emissions by around a third, according to the previous government's estimates. So another part of the Jet Zero strategy involves a pricing scheme to charge airlines for CO2 emissions and carbon offsetting.
Airlines already pay a duty for each flight someone takes in the UK, a cost that is passed to passengers. In much of the UK (excluding Scotland) this adds £7 to each domestic flight, £14 to short-haul ones and £92 for long-haul. But carbon offsetting means paying another fee.
Some schemes have been highly controversial, with questions around how to prove how many trees have been prevented from being cut down.
Cait Hewitt, policy director at the Aviation Environment Federation, is concerned that the current informal offsetting projects may be counterproductive: “They could actually have made that problem a bit worse over time by giving consumers the false impression that the emissions from their flight [are] being cancelled out somehow by an offset.”
A focus on restoring nature in 2025 could help solve a raft of problems facing UK Government - from the economy, to floods and our water supply, and from climate, to farming and our health.
Floods, financial fears and furious farmers have marked the start of this year and it’s already clear that the environmental crises facing the UK have never been greater. Communities are under water and the Office for Environmental Protection has warned that green goals are under threat. A week ago we were told that 2024 was the warmest year on record and that 2024 was the first year with temperatures 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. Gloomy news indeed.
As the Chancellor demands that regulators tasked with protecting nature ‘tear down the barriers’ to growth, she appears unaware of the critical role nature plays in the UK. Nature protections are not blocking the UK’s success – they underpin our economy and make us safer. A nation that undermines nature is a house of cards with shaky foundations.
The Wildlife Trusts have identified five areas where we believe political action can have the most significant impact on nature recovery – and which would also solve a raft of other related problems at the same time. From planning reform to the next Environmental Improvement Plan, it is vital that the UK Government improves its focus on supporting nature-friendly farmers, restoring fresh waters and making us more resilient to the climate crisis. It must recognise that the nature and climate crises are the biggest long-term threats to economic growth.
Current Situation: Emissions from Connecting Flights
Currently, many UK passengers flying long-haul must first take a short-haul flight to a European hub (e.g., Amsterdam Schiphol, Paris Charles de Gaulle, Frankfurt) before continuing their journey. These connecting flights introduce additional fuel consumption, emissions, and inefficiencies due to:
- Extra takeoff and landing cycles, which are fuel-intensive
A short-haul flight from Heathrow to Amsterdam (Schiphol) emits approximately 80-100 kg CO₂ per passenger (for a Boeing 737-800/A320).
A long-haul flight from Schiphol to New York (JFK) emits around 1.5-2.0 tonnes CO₂ per passenger on a Boeing 787 or A350.
Adding those together:
- With a connection (LHR → AMS → JFK): 100 kg CO₂ (LHR-AMS) + 1,800 kg CO₂ (AMS-JFK) = 1.9 tonnes CO₂ per passenger
- With a direct Heathrow-JFK flight: 1.7 tonnes CO₂ per passenger
This suggests a potential saving of 200 kg CO₂ per passenger by avoiding the connection.
Estimating GHG Savings from Heathrow’s Third Runway
Heathrow’s third runway is expected to allow an increase in direct long-haul routes, which should reduce the number of passengers transiting via European hubs.
Estimated Passenger Shift
- The UK Department for Transport estimated that a third runway would add 260,000 additional flights per year (mostly long-haul).
- If even 10 million passengers per year switch from indirect to direct flights, and each avoids 200 kg CO₂ per trip, that results in:
10,000,000 x 200kg CO₂ = 2 million tonnes CO₂ saved annually
That’s a significant emissions saving, equivalent to taking nearly 1 million cars off the road (assuming ~2 tonnes CO₂ per car per year).
Will Heathrow’s Third Runway Still Increase Overall Emissions?
Even with these savings, it’s worth noting that a third runway increases total capacity, meaning:
- More flights overall (including new short-haul feeder routes)
- More aviation emissions, as total air traffic grows
- Indirect emissions from airport expansion and increased ground transport
However, compared to a scenario where Heathrow remains constrained and passengers continue flying via Europe, the third runway could be the lesser evil in terms of per-passenger emissions efficiency.
- Increasing long-haul capacity at Heathrow could reduce per-passenger emissions by cutting unnecessary short-haul connections to European hubs.
- Potential savings: ~2 million tonnes CO₂ per year**, if enough passengers switch to direct long-haul routes.
- However, **total aviation emissions will still rise**, since more flights will operate overall.
If emissions reduction is the primary goal, Heathrow’s third runway alone isn’t the silver bullet, but it can contribute to a more efficient aviation network by reducing indirect flight emissions. As well as completing the third runway as soon as possible, the government should stipulate that its use is confined to the latest generations of fuel efficient aircraft (e.g. Boeing 787, Airbus A350) which are about 25% more fuel-efficient than older models.
Are you taking the increase in use of flights (expansion of the market) into account. Also millions tons of concrete. Emissions increase from traffic delays on M25.
Same argument as smoking tipped cigarettes is safer. Might fool some.
Having seen the argument made, I'm ignoring it. No one credible is genuinely suggesting the 3rd runway project is in anyway a response to the need to reduce carbon emissions, and it won't. Such claims will only pull the wool over the eyes of those who's eyes are already closed.
Current Situation: Emissions from Connecting Flights
Currently, many UK passengers flying long-haul must first take a short-haul flight to a European hub (e.g., Amsterdam Schiphol, Paris Charles de Gaulle, Frankfurt) before continuing their journey. These connecting flights introduce additional fuel consumption, emissions, and inefficiencies due to:
- Extra takeoff and landing cycles, which are fuel-intensive
A short-haul flight from Heathrow to Amsterdam (Schiphol) emits approximately 80-100 kg CO₂ per passenger (for a Boeing 737-800/A320).
A long-haul flight from Schiphol to New York (JFK) emits around 1.5-2.0 tonnes CO₂ per passenger on a Boeing 787 or A350.
Adding those together:
- With a connection (LHR → AMS → JFK): 100 kg CO₂ (LHR-AMS) + 1,800 kg CO₂ (AMS-JFK) = 1.9 tonnes CO₂ per passenger
- With a direct Heathrow-JFK flight: 1.7 tonnes CO₂ per passenger
This suggests a potential saving of 200 kg CO₂ per passenger by avoiding the connection.
Estimating GHG Savings from Heathrow’s Third Runway
Heathrow’s third runway is expected to allow an increase in direct long-haul routes, which should reduce the number of passengers transiting via European hubs.
Estimated Passenger Shift
- The UK Department for Transport estimated that a third runway would add 260,000 additional flights per year (mostly long-haul).
- If even 10 million passengers per year switch from indirect to direct flights, and each avoids 200 kg CO₂ per trip, that results in:
10,000,000 x 200kg CO₂ = 2 million tonnes CO₂ saved annually
That’s a significant emissions saving, equivalent to taking nearly 1 million cars off the road (assuming ~2 tonnes CO₂ per car per year).
Will Heathrow’s Third Runway Still Increase Overall Emissions?
Even with these savings, it’s worth noting that a third runway increases total capacity, meaning:
- More flights overall (including new short-haul feeder routes)
- More aviation emissions, as total air traffic grows
- Indirect emissions from airport expansion and increased ground transport
However, compared to a scenario where Heathrow remains constrained and passengers continue flying via Europe, the third runway could be the lesser evil in terms of per-passenger emissions efficiency.
- Increasing long-haul capacity at Heathrow could reduce per-passenger emissions by cutting unnecessary short-haul connections to European hubs.
- Potential savings: ~2 million tonnes CO₂ per year**, if enough passengers switch to direct long-haul routes.
- However, **total aviation emissions will still rise**, since more flights will operate overall.
If emissions reduction is the primary goal, Heathrow’s third runway alone isn’t the silver bullet, but it can contribute to a more efficient aviation network by reducing indirect flight emissions. As well as completing the third runway as soon as possible, the government should stipulate that its use is confined to the latest generations of fuel efficient aircraft (e.g. Boeing 787, Airbus A350) which are about 25% more fuel-efficient than older models.
Are you taking the increase in use of flights (expansion of the market) into account. Also millions tons of concrete. Emissions increase from traffic delays on M25.
Same argument as smoking tipped cigarettes is safer. Might fool some.
Having seen the argument made, I'm ignoring it. No one credible is genuinely suggesting the 3rd runway project is in anyway a response to the need to reduce carbon emissions, and it won't. Such claims will only pull the wool over the eyes of those who's eyes are already closed.
This is what the post says, as part of the conclusion...
Will Heathrow’s Third Runway Still Increase Overall Emissions?
Even with these savings, it’s worth noting that a third runway increases total capacity, meaning:
- More flights overall (including new short-haul feeder routes)
- More aviation emissions, as total air traffic grows
- Indirect emissions from airport expansion and increased ground transport
As you say, no-one is arguing that the development of the third runway will result in a reduction of overall aviation carbon emissions.
Comments
The vast majority of those will have been around for decades. The majority of the cash raised will be from emissions trading schemes and the likes which are targeted at the most polluting large corporations. The ones that do affect consumers like fuel duty have been frozen for nearly 15 years precisely for the reason of protecting consumers.
So I don't see how that supports the point you're making.
2) these licences do not mean natural gas on the grid anytime soon or even ever. It means the right to go and do explorative drilling (which btw causes massive habitat loss and wildlife death - far more than birds in wind farms) in the hope that a viable deposit of natural gas is found and can hopwfully flow onto the grid in a decade or 2. Generally the accepted believe is the remaining natural gas is both small in quantity and very hard to extract. This process is incredibly expensive so in the unlikely event they do find a viable deposit of natural gas it will be very expensive to the consumer in order to pay the costs of finding it.
We have a flow of gas onto the grid already. We should be aiming to reduce the reliance on that through increasing renewables. As I've posted before (with links and sources) we are expected in a year or so time to be ay 79% renewable.
Once again gas is what's making our energy more expensive as we are paying for every unit of energy as though it is the most expensive single unit of gas on the grid. Gas price is also incredibly volatile and subject to external shocks as we've seen in the last 3 years. Increasing our reliance on gas only makes that worse and our energy more expensive.
Reducing our reliance on gas to the point where the pricing mechanism has to change is objectively the only way to bring down energy prices.
Unfortunately the pricing mechanism hasn't updated since the introduction of renewables. That is one of its major flaws. It was designed for a system with 2 or 3 major sources od energy all costing similar amounts.
I do agree that a lot of these have been around for a while, but in my mind there is still a trade-off between the two.
A question I have, is there anything apart from cash stopping us effectively using tidal (and other sources) all around the UK, making massive battery storage, maybe even subsidizing people to install batteries at home/moving forward with vehicle to grid etc. Would be curious as to why we can't do that if it isn't cash constraints.
*I do know of one exception to this. Some poor Irish bloke who sat next to my mate on a delayed flight back fro Waterford who was shocked to find out that an airport named London Southend was in fact not in South London.
If there's a case for making that particular tragedy political, this thread certainly isn't the place for it.
So, if you're an infrastructure company looking to develop renewable energy generation, you want to avoid tidal power in favour of offshore wind.
However... there are three, significant advantages of tidal power. First, it's very powerful (water is heavier than air!). Second, longevity: there is no reason to think that a tidal power generation system won't still be chugging away for more than 100 years. Third, and most important, it's reliable. While we have windy days and non-windy days, we never have non-tidal days. We know, with certainty, that the power will continue to be available for billions of years. On the downside, there is greater output from wind turbines, in part because there are so many more of them and the technology has advanced.
In total, fossil fuels made up just 29% of the UK’s electricity in 2024 – the lowest level on record – while renewables reached a record-high 45% and nuclear was another 13%.
Edit - Link to the source Analysis: UK’s electricity was cleanest ever in 2024 - Carbon Brief
We can still change course if everyone pulls together instead of making it political and thinking only of the present.
Fracking in the US has been hugely beneficial when it comes to energy supply, yet over here, France, Bulgaria, Netherlands, Germany, Ireland, and the UK have banned fracking. We hate ourselves and I can't explain why.
On your 2nd point you can think that but personally i dont agree. The downsides of green taxes on polluters are minimal and I think they are actually part of how i think we should be tackling the above issue.
On your final point - I've posted a lot about solid state batteries over the last few pages. As I mentioned the Toyota-Samsung-Durham uni - UK govt research partnership into these broke down when Sunak's govt pulled funding for anything remotely "green" in order to try and appease a particular element of his party (and reform). As a result that research has been moved to China and instead of us getting early access at reduced price with the UK govt owning a small share we will now be at the will of a foreign power as to when we get it and at what inflated price.
Research is key on both batteries and tidal. There is a big tidal development going on in Swansea which would be huge. These two are key to decarbonising the grid and securing our energy security.
In the past there have been massive government subsidies and schemes to upgrade houses from wood and coal fires to paraffin, to gas, to central heating. The same should be done for batteries, solar, insulation and heat pumps (where applicable) in my view. Would cost a lot but be a huge economic boost.
Collective suicide is ignoring the threat of Climate Change.
There is a near unlimited supply of renewables - that could actually make a difference to world supply of energy. We could even get to the position of Norway where we are exporting our renewable energy. Given how uniquely placed we are as an island for wind and tidal this is very possible. We would already be there if our gas and oil wealth in the 70s and 80s had been handled with even the slightest bit of responsibility.
Renewables we could produce enough to sell the excess on the world market.
Also millions tons of concrete. Emissions increase from traffic delays on M25.
Same argument as smoking tipped cigarettes is safer. Might fool some.
Globally, there will be more flights in future, whether there's a third runway at Heathrow or not. But increased capacity at Heathrow will have an ameliorating effect (as I've shown) on UK passengers travelling long haul.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c245e726r79o
Aviation’s CO2 emissions come primarily through jet engines using carbon-rich fossil fuels, which produce CO2 when burned, so there have been attempts to create an alternative type made from renewable biomass and waste resources, known as Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF).
The first SAF flight ran between London and Amsterdam in 2008 using fuel derived from a mixture of Brazilian babassu nuts and coconuts.
Now the British government says that 22% of all jet fuel from UK aviation has to come from sustainable sources by 2040. But this comes with further challenges.
In the UK, SAF is mainly made from cooking oil, some of which is shipped from Asia, and shipping is responsible for 2% of global CO2 emissions.
Alternative methods of creating SAF require large quantities of electricity as part of the manufacturing process. This would involve a vast amount of renewable energy to make it sustainable.
"It's very hard, to think there is such a thing as a sustainable aviation fuel,” says Sir Dieter Helm. “There are aviation fuels that are less polluting than the ones being used at the moment, and you can use elements of biofuel and chip fat and so on.
"Think about the scale that's required to do it.”
..................................................
The pricetag for passengers
The reductions from SAF, fuel efficiency improvements and zero carbon aircraft will only cut aviation emissions by around a third, according to the previous government's estimates. So another part of the Jet Zero strategy involves a pricing scheme to charge airlines for CO2 emissions and carbon offsetting.
Airlines already pay a duty for each flight someone takes in the UK, a cost that is passed to passengers. In much of the UK (excluding Scotland) this adds £7 to each domestic flight, £14 to short-haul ones and £92 for long-haul. But carbon offsetting means paying another fee.
Some schemes have been highly controversial, with questions around how to prove how many trees have been prevented from being cut down.
Cait Hewitt, policy director at the Aviation Environment Federation, is concerned that the current informal offsetting projects may be counterproductive: “They could actually have made that problem a bit worse over time by giving consumers the false impression that the emissions from their flight [are] being cancelled out somehow by an offset.”
https://www.wildlifetrusts.org/blog/david-allwright/five-reasons-uk-government-restore-nature-2025
Floods, financial fears and furious farmers have marked the start of this year and it’s already clear that the environmental crises facing the UK have never been greater. Communities are under water and the Office for Environmental Protection has warned that green goals are under threat. A week ago we were told that 2024 was the warmest year on record and that 2024 was the first year with temperatures 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. Gloomy news indeed.
As the Chancellor demands that regulators tasked with protecting nature ‘tear down the barriers’ to growth, she appears unaware of the critical role nature plays in the UK. Nature protections are not blocking the UK’s success – they underpin our economy and make us safer. A nation that undermines nature is a house of cards with shaky foundations.
The Wildlife Trusts have identified five areas where we believe political action can have the most significant impact on nature recovery – and which would also solve a raft of other related problems at the same time. From planning reform to the next Environmental Improvement Plan, it is vital that the UK Government improves its focus on supporting nature-friendly farmers, restoring fresh waters and making us more resilient to the climate crisis. It must recognise that the nature and climate crises are the biggest long-term threats to economic growth.
The link above details those five areas.
Will Heathrow’s Third Runway Still Increase Overall Emissions?
As you say, no-one is arguing that the development of the third runway will result in a reduction of overall aviation carbon emissions.