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It's gas thats driving our high energy prices through our outdated marginal pricing mechanism which has also allowed blatant profiteering in the energy sector during the energy crisis (also driven by gas) over and above their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?
I didn't, but so what? I was pointing out the catastrophising asininity of the phrase, not the fact that ME14 quoted it. You Chicken Lickens, honestly...
I don’t have an issue with him flying in a private jet or first class or whatever means that allow him to attend overseas meetings. I mean whatever we think of him, he is the prime minister and shouldn’t have to measure his bag so he can take it in the cabin. It’s the utter hypocrisy that gets me.
Someone once said wind turbines are an eyesore. Now not all agree, and beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but I find multiple lanes of parallel roads scaring the countryside, that are harmful to biodiversity, unattractive, as is the monoculture that dominates much of it too.
The argument will be that these are necessary given the volume of traffic and need to feed folk. Similarly though, wind and solar farms are necessary to meet the demand for renewable energy. We need more housing too, and have so many huge distribution centers being built where I am, I've lost count.
All this may be good for the economy, but it comes at a cost in loss of biodiversity in the environment. We're one of the most nature depleted places on the planet. Still, a third runway at Heathrow will do wonders for it and our efforts to reduce emissions, so that's something to look forward to.
None of the above are nice to view.
All are bad for green space, and bad for the wildlife that once lived in those areas.
Roads, runways and additional housing lead to an increase in emissions.
All are the result of an ever increasing population and the need to support that population.
We are moving in ever decreasing circles and that will continue until the concrete jungle is complete.
Until such time that people come to their senses, and identify the core problem, quality of life in the UK will continue to decline for humans and animals alike.
Would it be useful to focus on quality of life for humans and non-human animals globally, rather than just the UK?
The key point about environmental/climate issues, for me, is that it transcends national borders. We will be forced to cooperate on an unprecedented global scale if we wish to survive.
I find isolationist/nationalist perspectives frustrating in this context.
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?
I didn't, but so what? I was pointing out the catastrophising asininity of the phrase, not the fact that ME14 quoted it. You Chicken Lickens, honestly...
Thank you for admitting that you didn't realise that my remark was made in response to that of another poster. Better to be a chicken licken than an ostrich.
If you think that we are not heading for catastrophe, have a read of the following article which is summarised below and bear in mind that many people who are alive today will hopefully be around in 2100.
The UK is likely to undergo drastic changes, as the effects of climate change become more pronounced
If temperatures climb above 1.5°C, we could be facing a very different country by 2100
Reaching net zero emissions and transforming the UK into a world leader in the fight against climate change, would set a precedent for other nations to follow
The UK will need to invest heavily in flood defences and better firefighting services to manage the impact of climate change by 2100
Many important species of animals in the UK could also be extinct by 2100, including hedgehogs, dormice, wildcats, and water voles
Shouldn't deniers just be left behind now? Why should such a debate still have purchase such that Forbes would bother entertaining it? Does it still stimulate sales sufficiently among the audiences of certain media outlets that they have to keep returning to it?
I'd be all for encouraging deniers to drive with a hosepipe running from the exhaust of their fossil powered vehicle to the driver seat to confirm the value of their beliefs in practice.
Shouldn't deniers just be left behind now? Why should such a debate still have purchase such that Forbes would bother entertaining it? Does it still stimulate sales sufficiently among the audiences of certain media outlets that they have to keep returning to it?
I'd be all for encouraging deniers to drive with a hosepipe running from the exhaust of their fossil powered vehicle to the driver seat to confirm the value of their beliefs in practice.
Yes because, like those who still think smoking isn't bad for your health, if the science hasn't persuaded them by now, it never will. I'll leave it on but agree we should move on.
Shouldn't deniers just be left behind now? Why should such a debate still have purchase such that Forbes would bother entertaining it? Does it still stimulate sales sufficiently among the audiences of certain media outlets that they have to keep returning to it?
I'd be all for encouraging deniers to drive with a hosepipe running from the exhaust of their fossil powered vehicle to the driver seat to confirm the value of their beliefs in practice.
Yes because, like those who still think smoking isn't bad for your health, if the science hasn't persuaded them by now, it never will. I'll leave it on but agree we should move on.
Wasnt meant as a dig your way mate. It's important to pick off the stragglers, especially as some of them actually hold the strings of power as producers or government officials in some quarters amd have these followers. But it (i.e. the constant debate with them) is frustrating of course and slows down what needs to be speeded up.
Norway problem is manly due to the fact they are tied into EU energy pricing (although they are not part of the EU) for the home market although they are mainly self sufficient with their hydro electric power. The Norwegian people feel they are paying too much for something that is theirs, but to stay part of the EU single market they have to abide by EU regulations.
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%.
Aren’t we just turning off fossil fuel generated electricity and replacing it with imported electricity from the EU which in turn has been depended upon Russian gas and oil ? Those of us that were around in the 1970s have experienced life with the power being turned off for hours every day and having to get by with candles and coal fires. The rapid drive to dependence upon wind and solar farms and electric cars could mean a return to those days except this time very few homes will have coal fires to keep them warm.
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%.
Aren’t we just turning off fossil fuel generated electricity and replacing it with imported electricity from the EU which in turn has been depended upon Russian gas and oil ? Those of us that were around in the 1970s have experienced life with the power being turned off for hours every day and having to get by with candles and coal fires. The rapid drive to dependence upon wind and solar farms and electric cars could mean a return to those days except this time very few homes will have coal fires to keep them warm.
The last government imposed a defacto ban on onshore wind farm development in 2015 that was only lifted last year, losing a decade of additional capacity development there.
Furthermore, there are four more nuclear reactors planned to supply 12 million homes with electricity for the next sixty years or so, which will reduce our dependency on imports. The first of the two at Hinckley Point C is projected to be generating by 2030 according to EDF. It should have been sooner, about now originally, but its construction has been set back a few times, once for eighteen months due to COVID. However, as all four are the same new model, the next three are expected to have shorter lead times before they become operational.
So we're behind where we should have been on renewables and nuclear capacity, hence our increased reliance on imports to keep the lights on at the moment.
In terms of power outages, it's ironic that, in more recent times, they've mostly been the result of severe weather events.
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%.
Aren’t we just turning off fossil fuel generated electricity and replacing it with imported electricity from the EU which in turn has been depended upon Russian gas and oil ? Those of us that were around in the 1970s have experienced life with the power being turned off for hours every day and having to get by with candles and coal fires. The rapid drive to dependence upon wind and solar farms and electric cars could mean a return to those days except this time very few homes will have coal fires to keep them warm.
The last government imposed a defacto ban on onshore wind farm development in 2015 that was only lifted last year, losing a decade of additional capacity development there.
Furthermore, there are four more nuclear reactors planned to supply 12 million homes with electricity for the next sixty years or so, which will reduce our dependency on imports. The first of the two at Hinckley Point C is projected to be generating by 2030 according to EDF. It should have been sooner, about now originally, but its construction has been set back a few times, once for eighteen months due to COVID. However, as all four are the same new model, the next three are expected to have shorter lead times before they become operational.
So we're behind where we should have been on renewables and nuclear capacity, hence our increased reliance on imports to keep the lights on at the moment.
In terms of power outages, it's ironic that, in more recent times, they've mostly been the result of severe weather events.
But isn’t that the real problem ? We are told there is electricity generation being put in place but that has all got long lead times and is subject to delay and cancellation; yet in the meantime there are increasing electricity usage measures and deadlines looming now that come at a significant cost to business and individuals.
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%.
Aren’t we just turning off fossil fuel generated electricity and replacing it with imported electricity from the EU which in turn has been depended upon Russian gas and oil ? Those of us that were around in the 1970s have experienced life with the power being turned off for hours every day and having to get by with candles and coal fires. The rapid drive to dependence upon wind and solar farms and electric cars could mean a return to those days except this time very few homes will have coal fires to keep them warm.
The last government imposed a defacto ban on onshore wind farm development in 2015 that was only lifted last year, losing a decade of additional capacity development there.
Furthermore, there are four more nuclear reactors planned to supply 12 million homes with electricity for the next sixty years or so, which will reduce our dependency on imports. The first of the two at Hinckley Point C is projected to be generating by 2030 according to EDF. It should have been sooner, about now originally, but its construction has been set back a few times, once for eighteen months due to COVID. However, as all four are the same new model, the next three are expected to have shorter lead times before they become operational.
So we're behind where we should have been on renewables and nuclear capacity, hence our increased reliance on imports to keep the lights on at the moment.
In terms of power outages, it's ironic that, in more recent times, they've mostly been the result of severe weather events.
But isn’t that the real problem ? We are told there is electricity generation being put in place but that has all got long lead times and is subject to delay and cancellation; yet in the meantime there are increasing electricity usage measures and deadlines looming now that come at a significant cost to business and individuals.
I'm not sure how there are significant costs to business or individuals? can you explain please?
However we use gas (I think we can all agree that Coal's day is done) its gonna come through the world market so will cost us the same. Whether we grant loads of exploratory drilling licenses (which as I said a few pages back are now guarantee that gas actually starts flowing and very unlikely in the next 10 years) whether we buy our gas from abroad or import energy it comes from the world market so will be costing broadly the same. Remember its not a govt decision but one for the suppliers so they will minimise costs. Also much of the energy we've been importing has been hydro electric from Norway.
Drilling for gas has much longer lead times than the ones you are talking about for Nuclear. We have a massive offshore windfarm coming online this year. Prices of home solar are coming down - they can have instant effects, home mini wind turbines are becoming a thing, solid state batteries will revolutionise storage and how the grid works. Renewables will have much more of an effect in the short term AND cost 70-80% less than fossil fuels. Its a win win.
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%.
Aren’t we just turning off fossil fuel generated electricity and replacing it with imported electricity from the EU which in turn has been depended upon Russian gas and oil ? Those of us that were around in the 1970s have experienced life with the power being turned off for hours every day and having to get by with candles and coal fires. The rapid drive to dependence upon wind and solar farms and electric cars could mean a return to those days except this time very few homes will have coal fires to keep them warm.
The last government imposed a defacto ban on onshore wind farm development in 2015 that was only lifted last year, losing a decade of additional capacity development there.
Furthermore, there are four more nuclear reactors planned to supply 12 million homes with electricity for the next sixty years or so, which will reduce our dependency on imports. The first of the two at Hinckley Point C is projected to be generating by 2030 according to EDF. It should have been sooner, about now originally, but its construction has been set back a few times, once for eighteen months due to COVID. However, as all four are the same new model, the next three are expected to have shorter lead times before they become operational.
So we're behind where we should have been on renewables and nuclear capacity, hence our increased reliance on imports to keep the lights on at the moment.
In terms of power outages, it's ironic that, in more recent times, they've mostly been the result of severe weather events.
But isn’t that the real problem ? We are told there is electricity generation being put in place but that has all got long lead times and is subject to delay and cancellation; yet in the meantime there are increasing electricity usage measures and deadlines looming now that come at a significant cost to business and individuals.
I'm not sure how there are significant costs to business or individuals? can you explain please?
However we use gas (I think we can all agree that Coal's day is done) its gonna come through the world market so will cost us the same. Whether we grant loads of exploratory drilling licenses (which as I said a few pages back are now guarantee that gas actually starts flowing and very unlikely in the next 10 years) whether we buy our gas from abroad or import energy it comes from the world market so will be costing broadly the same. Remember its not a govt decision but one for the suppliers so they will minimise costs. Also much of the energy we've been importing has been hydro electric from Norway.
Drilling for gas has much longer lead times than the ones you are talking about for Nuclear. We have a massive offshore windfarm coming online this year. Prices of home solar are coming down - they can have instant effects, home mini wind turbines are becoming a thing, solid state batteries will revolutionise storage and how the grid works. Renewables will have much more of an effect in the short term AND cost 70-80% less than fossil fuels. Its a win win.
I was going to ask the same, so I'll just add that, just because we haven't transitioned to renewables at a rate that gives us energy security without reliance on imports at present, that doesn't make the policy the wrong one. It's poor execution of it if anything, as hampered by any number of factors, including encountering resistance to it by the influential fossil fuel industry lobbyists, who wanted those exploratory drilling licences granted.
UK not fully prepared for impacts of climate change, say Fire Chiefs
Fire and rescue services are on the frontline of responding to extreme weather-related events but lack access to long-term forecasting mechanisms and sustainable funding to adapt to the impacts of climate change.
Eight of the risks in the UK Government’s National Risk Register are climate change related extreme weather events that are predicted to become more frequent and extreme as global temperatures rise.
National Fire Chiefs Council supports Government targets to reduce emissions but calls for further action to ensure that fire and rescue services and other partners on the frontline response to climate change can protect communities now and in the future.
The UK is not yet adequately prepared to tackle the growing impact of climate change, the National Fire Chiefs Council (NFCC) said today, Monday 3rd February. Publishing a new set of recommendations on the preparedness, resilience, mitigation and adaptation strategies the UK needs to adopt to be prepared to withstand current and future impacts of climate change, NFCC has called on the UK and devolved governments to take urgent action to help protect communities, infrastructure and the economy as extreme weather events look set to increase.
UK fire and rescue services already play a crucial role in responding to climate change-related emergencies but responding to these events requires significant fire and rescue service resource, often over prolonged periods of time. This results in a challenge in being able to maintain their ‘business as usual’ service whilst managing the significant resource and staffing pressures that the response to such incidents creates.
Norway’s Electricity Exports – Norway’s move to limit electricity exports is based on domestic energy security, not a rejection of net zero policies. Many nations prioritise their own supply in times of scarcity.
Wind Energy Reliability – While wind fluctuations exist, diversified renewable grids, battery storage and backup sources help mitigate intermittency. Climate change is scientifically linked to extreme weather patterns, not a "circular argument."
Climate Policy and Impact – While one country’s policies alone won’t solve climate change, collective global action is essential. Claiming policies do nothing ignores decades of scientific research.
China’s Coal Expansion – China’s energy mix is evolving, with massive investments in renewables alongside coal. It is misleading to justify fossil fuel dependence based on China’s strategy.
Economic and Political Shift – The claim that net zero is anti-prosperity ignores economic benefits of clean energy, job creation, and long-term cost savings. Major investors are still backing green initiatives.
The arguments against net zero ignore the long-term benefits of renewable energy, economic growth and global cooperation in addressing climate change. While challenges like energy reliability exist, technological advancements in storage and diversified grids mitigate these issues. Climate policies are not about "appeasing weather gods" but about reducing emissions for a sustainable future. Rejecting net zero would leave Australia economically and environmentally vulnerable as the world transitions to cleaner energy.
Still, if enough pale, stale, male presenters say it on telly, some will suck it up.
Norway’s Electricity Exports – Norway’s move to limit electricity exports is based on domestic energy security, not a rejection of net zero policies. Many nations prioritise their own supply in times of scarcity.
Wind Energy Reliability – While wind fluctuations exist, diversified renewable grids, battery storage and backup sources help mitigate intermittency. Climate change is scientifically linked to extreme weather patterns, not a "circular argument."
Climate Policy and Impact – While one country’s policies alone won’t solve climate change, collective global action is essential. Claiming policies do nothing ignores decades of scientific research.
China’s Coal Expansion – China’s energy mix is evolving, with massive investments in renewables alongside coal. It is misleading to justify fossil fuel dependence based on China’s strategy.
Economic and Political Shift – The claim that net zero is anti-prosperity ignores economic benefits of clean energy, job creation, and long-term cost savings. Major investors are still backing green initiatives.
The arguments against net zero ignore the long-term benefits of renewable energy, economic growth and global cooperation in addressing climate change. While challenges like energy reliability exist, technological advancements in storage and diversified grids mitigate these issues. Climate policies are not about "appeasing weather gods" but about reducing emissions for a sustainable future. Rejecting net zero would leave Australia economically and environmentally vulnerable as the world transitions to cleaner energy.
Still, if enough pale, stale, male presenters say it on telly, some will suck it up.
It’s not so much arguing against ‘net zero’ , it’s looking for answers to the bleeding obvious questions that arise around will we have sufficient electricity generation capacity in place to accommodate switching to net zero without a) having daily power cuts imposed on everyone before we all go out and trade our ICE vehicles for electric ones we have to plug into the national grid; b) increasing prices and taxes to subsidise the investment to switch; c) making the UK more and more vulnerable with greater reliance on imported electricity; and d) businesses and homes having to splash out a lot of cash to buy those electric cars, batteries and whatever else, presumably by taking on a lot more debt, pushing inflation up and keeping interest rates high.
Norway’s Electricity Exports – Norway’s move to limit electricity exports is based on domestic energy security, not a rejection of net zero policies. Many nations prioritise their own supply in times of scarcity.
Wind Energy Reliability – While wind fluctuations exist, diversified renewable grids, battery storage and backup sources help mitigate intermittency. Climate change is scientifically linked to extreme weather patterns, not a "circular argument."
Climate Policy and Impact – While one country’s policies alone won’t solve climate change, collective global action is essential. Claiming policies do nothing ignores decades of scientific research.
China’s Coal Expansion – China’s energy mix is evolving, with massive investments in renewables alongside coal. It is misleading to justify fossil fuel dependence based on China’s strategy.
Economic and Political Shift – The claim that net zero is anti-prosperity ignores economic benefits of clean energy, job creation, and long-term cost savings. Major investors are still backing green initiatives.
The arguments against net zero ignore the long-term benefits of renewable energy, economic growth and global cooperation in addressing climate change. While challenges like energy reliability exist, technological advancements in storage and diversified grids mitigate these issues. Climate policies are not about "appeasing weather gods" but about reducing emissions for a sustainable future. Rejecting net zero would leave Australia economically and environmentally vulnerable as the world transitions to cleaner energy.
Still, if enough pale, stale, male presenters say it on telly, some will suck it up.
It’s not so much arguing against ‘net zero’ , it’s looking for answers to the bleeding obvious questions that arise around will we have sufficient electricity generation capacity in place to accommodate switching to net zero without a) having daily power cuts imposed on everyone before we all go out and trade our ICE vehicles for electric ones we have to plug into the national grid; b) increasing prices and taxes to subsidise the investment to switch; c) making the UK more and more vulnerable with greater reliance on imported electricity; and d) businesses and homes having to splash out a lot of cash to buy those electric cars, batteries and whatever else, presumably by taking on a lot more debt, pushing inflation up and keeping interest rates high.
Here are the first few words of the clip: "In Norway just the last couple of days, Norway has literally declared virtually a net zero War"
Norway’s Electricity Exports – Norway’s move to limit electricity exports is based on domestic energy security, not a rejection of net zero policies. Many nations prioritise their own supply in times of scarcity.
Wind Energy Reliability – While wind fluctuations exist, diversified renewable grids, battery storage and backup sources help mitigate intermittency. Climate change is scientifically linked to extreme weather patterns, not a "circular argument."
Climate Policy and Impact – While one country’s policies alone won’t solve climate change, collective global action is essential. Claiming policies do nothing ignores decades of scientific research.
China’s Coal Expansion – China’s energy mix is evolving, with massive investments in renewables alongside coal. It is misleading to justify fossil fuel dependence based on China’s strategy.
Economic and Political Shift – The claim that net zero is anti-prosperity ignores economic benefits of clean energy, job creation, and long-term cost savings. Major investors are still backing green initiatives.
The arguments against net zero ignore the long-term benefits of renewable energy, economic growth and global cooperation in addressing climate change. While challenges like energy reliability exist, technological advancements in storage and diversified grids mitigate these issues. Climate policies are not about "appeasing weather gods" but about reducing emissions for a sustainable future. Rejecting net zero would leave Australia economically and environmentally vulnerable as the world transitions to cleaner energy.
Still, if enough pale, stale, male presenters say it on telly, some will suck it up.
It’s not so much arguing against ‘net zero’ , it’s looking for answers to the bleeding obvious questions that arise around will we have sufficient electricity generation capacity in place to accommodate switching to net zero without a) having daily power cuts imposed on everyone before we all go out and trade our ICE vehicles for electric ones we have to plug into the national grid; b) increasing prices and taxes to subsidise the investment to switch; c) making the UK more and more vulnerable with greater reliance on imported electricity; and d) businesses and homes having to splash out a lot of cash to buy those electric cars, batteries and whatever else, presumably by taking on a lot more debt, pushing inflation up and keeping interest rates high.
Domestic electricity generation capacity through renewables and nuclear is set to increase though, and ICE's cars will still be on the roads a decade from now as we aren't all intending to trade them in for EV's suddenly at the end of 2029. I'm sure the plan and forecast isn't for a greater reliance on imported electricity under 'net zero,' but delivering to plan is another matter and there are no guarantees that we'll meet it, but is there such a level of uncertainty that justifies us deferring on our 'net zero' commitments now?
I'm not sure there is, and it would send a terrible signal internationally as others look to us to set an example and might follow our lead.
Norway’s Electricity Exports – Norway’s move to limit electricity exports is based on domestic energy security, not a rejection of net zero policies. Many nations prioritise their own supply in times of scarcity.
Wind Energy Reliability – While wind fluctuations exist, diversified renewable grids, battery storage and backup sources help mitigate intermittency. Climate change is scientifically linked to extreme weather patterns, not a "circular argument."
Climate Policy and Impact – While one country’s policies alone won’t solve climate change, collective global action is essential. Claiming policies do nothing ignores decades of scientific research.
China’s Coal Expansion – China’s energy mix is evolving, with massive investments in renewables alongside coal. It is misleading to justify fossil fuel dependence based on China’s strategy.
Economic and Political Shift – The claim that net zero is anti-prosperity ignores economic benefits of clean energy, job creation, and long-term cost savings. Major investors are still backing green initiatives.
The arguments against net zero ignore the long-term benefits of renewable energy, economic growth and global cooperation in addressing climate change. While challenges like energy reliability exist, technological advancements in storage and diversified grids mitigate these issues. Climate policies are not about "appeasing weather gods" but about reducing emissions for a sustainable future. Rejecting net zero would leave Australia economically and environmentally vulnerable as the world transitions to cleaner energy.
Still, if enough pale, stale, male presenters say it on telly, some will suck it up.
It’s not so much arguing against ‘net zero’ , it’s looking for answers to the bleeding obvious questions that arise around will we have sufficient electricity generation capacity in place to accommodate switching to net zero without a) having daily power cuts imposed on everyone before we all go out and trade our ICE vehicles for electric ones we have to plug into the national grid; b) increasing prices and taxes to subsidise the investment to switch; c) making the UK more and more vulnerable with greater reliance on imported electricity; and d) businesses and homes having to splash out a lot of cash to buy those electric cars, batteries and whatever else, presumably by taking on a lot more debt, pushing inflation up and keeping interest rates high.
Domestic electricity generation capacity through renewables and nuclear is set to increase though, and ICE's cars will still be on the roads a decade from now as we aren't all intending to trade them in for EV's suddenly at the end of 2029. I'm sure the plan and forecast isn't for a greater reliance on imported electricity under 'net zero,' but delivering to plan is another matter and there are no guarantees that we'll meet it, but is there such a level of uncertainty that justifies us deferring on our 'net zero' commitments now?
I'm not sure there is, and it would send a terrible signal internationally as others look to us to set an example and might follow our lead.
FFS, there are just 60 million of us living on a relatively small island. If the rest of World needs us to lead the way then the concept of net zero is fucked anyway.
Norway’s Electricity Exports – Norway’s move to limit electricity exports is based on domestic energy security, not a rejection of net zero policies. Many nations prioritise their own supply in times of scarcity.
Wind Energy Reliability – While wind fluctuations exist, diversified renewable grids, battery storage and backup sources help mitigate intermittency. Climate change is scientifically linked to extreme weather patterns, not a "circular argument."
Climate Policy and Impact – While one country’s policies alone won’t solve climate change, collective global action is essential. Claiming policies do nothing ignores decades of scientific research.
China’s Coal Expansion – China’s energy mix is evolving, with massive investments in renewables alongside coal. It is misleading to justify fossil fuel dependence based on China’s strategy.
Economic and Political Shift – The claim that net zero is anti-prosperity ignores economic benefits of clean energy, job creation, and long-term cost savings. Major investors are still backing green initiatives.
The arguments against net zero ignore the long-term benefits of renewable energy, economic growth and global cooperation in addressing climate change. While challenges like energy reliability exist, technological advancements in storage and diversified grids mitigate these issues. Climate policies are not about "appeasing weather gods" but about reducing emissions for a sustainable future. Rejecting net zero would leave Australia economically and environmentally vulnerable as the world transitions to cleaner energy.
Still, if enough pale, stale, male presenters say it on telly, some will suck it up.
It’s not so much arguing against ‘net zero’ , it’s looking for answers to the bleeding obvious questions that arise around will we have sufficient electricity generation capacity in place to accommodate switching to net zero without a) having daily power cuts imposed on everyone before we all go out and trade our ICE vehicles for electric ones we have to plug into the national grid; b) increasing prices and taxes to subsidise the investment to switch; c) making the UK more and more vulnerable with greater reliance on imported electricity; and d) businesses and homes having to splash out a lot of cash to buy those electric cars, batteries and whatever else, presumably by taking on a lot more debt, pushing inflation up and keeping interest rates high.
Domestic electricity generation capacity through renewables and nuclear is set to increase though, and ICE's cars will still be on the roads a decade from now as we aren't all intending to trade them in for EV's suddenly at the end of 2029. I'm sure the plan and forecast isn't for a greater reliance on imported electricity under 'net zero,' but delivering to plan is another matter and there are no guarantees that we'll meet it, but is there such a level of uncertainty that justifies us deferring on our 'net zero' commitments now?
I'm not sure there is, and it would send a terrible signal internationally as others look to us to set an example and might follow our lead.
FFS, there are just 60 million of us living on a relatively small island. If the rest of World needs us to lead the way then the concept of net zero is fucked anyway.
They didn't do so bad following our lead with the industrial revolution though. Quick to follow us then, but I do take your point.
Countries who are moving to renewable sources of energy will be in a much better place than those who don't, as they will have to catch up eventually.
Those who use disparaging remarks about achieving 'net zero' don't seem to realise that keeping the status quo will cost £billions in mitigations against climate change. Extreme weather events are happening with increasing frequency and each one costs a lot of money in cleaning up, rebuilding and the impact on humans. Australia is currently experiencing severe flooding in Queensland and today Torremolinos in Spain is experiencing flash floods.
I posted the article from UK Fire Chiefs as this topic was discussed on BBC Breakfast this morning. The Fire Chief was saying that they were very stretched when we had the wildfires in London a couple of years ago. He also said that they are under prepared to fight wildfires in future. The following is an article from 2023 which discusses the lack of preparedness in the UK. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-66948836
Norway’s Electricity Exports – Norway’s move to limit electricity exports is based on domestic energy security, not a rejection of net zero policies. Many nations prioritise their own supply in times of scarcity.
Wind Energy Reliability – While wind fluctuations exist, diversified renewable grids, battery storage and backup sources help mitigate intermittency. Climate change is scientifically linked to extreme weather patterns, not a "circular argument."
Climate Policy and Impact – While one country’s policies alone won’t solve climate change, collective global action is essential. Claiming policies do nothing ignores decades of scientific research.
China’s Coal Expansion – China’s energy mix is evolving, with massive investments in renewables alongside coal. It is misleading to justify fossil fuel dependence based on China’s strategy.
Economic and Political Shift – The claim that net zero is anti-prosperity ignores economic benefits of clean energy, job creation, and long-term cost savings. Major investors are still backing green initiatives.
The arguments against net zero ignore the long-term benefits of renewable energy, economic growth and global cooperation in addressing climate change. While challenges like energy reliability exist, technological advancements in storage and diversified grids mitigate these issues. Climate policies are not about "appeasing weather gods" but about reducing emissions for a sustainable future. Rejecting net zero would leave Australia economically and environmentally vulnerable as the world transitions to cleaner energy.
Still, if enough pale, stale, male presenters say it on telly, some will suck it up.
It’s not so much arguing against ‘net zero’ , it’s looking for answers to the bleeding obvious questions that arise around will we have sufficient electricity generation capacity in place to accommodate switching to net zero without a) having daily power cuts imposed on everyone before we all go out and trade our ICE vehicles for electric ones we have to plug into the national grid; b) increasing prices and taxes to subsidise the investment to switch; c) making the UK more and more vulnerable with greater reliance on imported electricity; and d) businesses and homes having to splash out a lot of cash to buy those electric cars, batteries and whatever else, presumably by taking on a lot more debt, pushing inflation up and keeping interest rates high.
Domestic electricity generation capacity through renewables and nuclear is set to increase though, and ICE's cars will still be on the roads a decade from now as we aren't all intending to trade them in for EV's suddenly at the end of 2029. I'm sure the plan and forecast isn't for a greater reliance on imported electricity under 'net zero,' but delivering to plan is another matter and there are no guarantees that we'll meet it, but is there such a level of uncertainty that justifies us deferring on our 'net zero' commitments now?
I'm not sure there is, and it would send a terrible signal internationally as others look to us to set an example and might follow our lead.
FFS, there are just 60 million of us living on a relatively small island. If the rest of World needs us to lead the way then the concept of net zero is fucked anyway.
We're one of the most economically, technologically and intellectually advanced nations on the planet. We lead the way in many fields - including scientific research.
Norway’s Electricity Exports – Norway’s move to limit electricity exports is based on domestic energy security, not a rejection of net zero policies. Many nations prioritise their own supply in times of scarcity.
Wind Energy Reliability – While wind fluctuations exist, diversified renewable grids, battery storage and backup sources help mitigate intermittency. Climate change is scientifically linked to extreme weather patterns, not a "circular argument."
Climate Policy and Impact – While one country’s policies alone won’t solve climate change, collective global action is essential. Claiming policies do nothing ignores decades of scientific research.
China’s Coal Expansion – China’s energy mix is evolving, with massive investments in renewables alongside coal. It is misleading to justify fossil fuel dependence based on China’s strategy.
Economic and Political Shift – The claim that net zero is anti-prosperity ignores economic benefits of clean energy, job creation, and long-term cost savings. Major investors are still backing green initiatives.
The arguments against net zero ignore the long-term benefits of renewable energy, economic growth and global cooperation in addressing climate change. While challenges like energy reliability exist, technological advancements in storage and diversified grids mitigate these issues. Climate policies are not about "appeasing weather gods" but about reducing emissions for a sustainable future. Rejecting net zero would leave Australia economically and environmentally vulnerable as the world transitions to cleaner energy.
Still, if enough pale, stale, male presenters say it on telly, some will suck it up.
It’s not so much arguing against ‘net zero’ , it’s looking for answers to the bleeding obvious questions that arise around will we have sufficient electricity generation capacity in place to accommodate switching to net zero without a) having daily power cuts imposed on everyone before we all go out and trade our ICE vehicles for electric ones we have to plug into the national grid; b) increasing prices and taxes to subsidise the investment to switch; c) making the UK more and more vulnerable with greater reliance on imported electricity; and d) businesses and homes having to splash out a lot of cash to buy those electric cars, batteries and whatever else, presumably by taking on a lot more debt, pushing inflation up and keeping interest rates high.
Domestic electricity generation capacity through renewables and nuclear is set to increase though, and ICE's cars will still be on the roads a decade from now as we aren't all intending to trade them in for EV's suddenly at the end of 2029. I'm sure the plan and forecast isn't for a greater reliance on imported electricity under 'net zero,' but delivering to plan is another matter and there are no guarantees that we'll meet it, but is there such a level of uncertainty that justifies us deferring on our 'net zero' commitments now?
I'm not sure there is, and it would send a terrible signal internationally as others look to us to set an example and might follow our lead.
FFS, there are just 60 million of us living on a relatively small island. If the rest of World needs us to lead the way then the concept of net zero is fucked anyway.
Wait? You think our virtue signalling government won't inspire the world to copy our model of high prices and declining living standards?
Norway’s Electricity Exports – Norway’s move to limit electricity exports is based on domestic energy security, not a rejection of net zero policies. Many nations prioritise their own supply in times of scarcity.
Wind Energy Reliability – While wind fluctuations exist, diversified renewable grids, battery storage and backup sources help mitigate intermittency. Climate change is scientifically linked to extreme weather patterns, not a "circular argument."
Climate Policy and Impact – While one country’s policies alone won’t solve climate change, collective global action is essential. Claiming policies do nothing ignores decades of scientific research.
China’s Coal Expansion – China’s energy mix is evolving, with massive investments in renewables alongside coal. It is misleading to justify fossil fuel dependence based on China’s strategy.
Economic and Political Shift – The claim that net zero is anti-prosperity ignores economic benefits of clean energy, job creation, and long-term cost savings. Major investors are still backing green initiatives.
The arguments against net zero ignore the long-term benefits of renewable energy, economic growth and global cooperation in addressing climate change. While challenges like energy reliability exist, technological advancements in storage and diversified grids mitigate these issues. Climate policies are not about "appeasing weather gods" but about reducing emissions for a sustainable future. Rejecting net zero would leave Australia economically and environmentally vulnerable as the world transitions to cleaner energy.
Still, if enough pale, stale, male presenters say it on telly, some will suck it up.
It’s not so much arguing against ‘net zero’ , it’s looking for answers to the bleeding obvious questions that arise around will we have sufficient electricity generation capacity in place to accommodate switching to net zero without a) having daily power cuts imposed on everyone before we all go out and trade our ICE vehicles for electric ones we have to plug into the national grid; b) increasing prices and taxes to subsidise the investment to switch; c) making the UK more and more vulnerable with greater reliance on imported electricity; and d) businesses and homes having to splash out a lot of cash to buy those electric cars, batteries and whatever else, presumably by taking on a lot more debt, pushing inflation up and keeping interest rates high.
Domestic electricity generation capacity through renewables and nuclear is set to increase though, and ICE's cars will still be on the roads a decade from now as we aren't all intending to trade them in for EV's suddenly at the end of 2029. I'm sure the plan and forecast isn't for a greater reliance on imported electricity under 'net zero,' but delivering to plan is another matter and there are no guarantees that we'll meet it, but is there such a level of uncertainty that justifies us deferring on our 'net zero' commitments now?
I'm not sure there is, and it would send a terrible signal internationally as others look to us to set an example and might follow our lead.
FFS, there are just 60 million of us living on a relatively small island. If the rest of World needs us to lead the way then the concept of net zero is fucked anyway.
Wait? You think our virtue signalling government won't inspire the world to copy our model of high prices and declining living standards?
It wouldn’t surprise me if this lot currently in power offer to pay the rest of world to switch to net zero…
Comments
You Chicken Lickens, honestly...
https://order-order.com/2025/01/31/taxpayer-forks-out-11000-an-hour-for-starmers-private-jet-flights-over-first-three-months-in-office
The key point about environmental/climate issues, for me, is that it transcends national borders. We will be forced to cooperate on an unprecedented global scale if we wish to survive.
I find isolationist/nationalist perspectives frustrating in this context.
If you think that we are not heading for catastrophe, have a read of the following article which is summarised below and bear in mind that many people who are alive today will hopefully be around in 2100.
https://www.theecoexperts.co.uk/news/climate-change-uk-2100
Spoke a lot of sense back then which most is still happening today
I'd be all for encouraging deniers to drive with a hosepipe running from the exhaust of their fossil powered vehicle to the driver seat to confirm the value of their beliefs in practice.
The last government imposed a defacto ban on onshore wind farm development in 2015 that was only lifted last year, losing a decade of additional capacity development there.
Furthermore, there are four more nuclear reactors planned to supply 12 million homes with electricity for the next sixty years or so, which will reduce our dependency on imports. The first of the two at Hinckley Point C is projected to be generating by 2030 according to EDF. It should have been sooner, about now originally, but its construction has been set back a few times, once for eighteen months due to COVID. However, as all four are the same new model, the next three are expected to have shorter lead times before they become operational.
So we're behind where we should have been on renewables and nuclear capacity, hence our increased reliance on imports to keep the lights on at the moment.
In terms of power outages, it's ironic that, in more recent times, they've mostly been the result of severe weather events.
However we use gas (I think we can all agree that Coal's day is done) its gonna come through the world market so will cost us the same. Whether we grant loads of exploratory drilling licenses (which as I said a few pages back are now guarantee that gas actually starts flowing and very unlikely in the next 10 years) whether we buy our gas from abroad or import energy it comes from the world market so will be costing broadly the same. Remember its not a govt decision but one for the suppliers so they will minimise costs. Also much of the energy we've been importing has been hydro electric from Norway.
Drilling for gas has much longer lead times than the ones you are talking about for Nuclear. We have a massive offshore windfarm coming online this year. Prices of home solar are coming down - they can have instant effects, home mini wind turbines are becoming a thing, solid state batteries will revolutionise storage and how the grid works. Renewables will have much more of an effect in the short term AND cost 70-80% less than fossil fuels. Its a win win.
UK not fully prepared for impacts of climate change, say Fire Chiefs
The UK is not yet adequately prepared to tackle the growing impact of climate change, the National Fire Chiefs Council (NFCC) said today, Monday 3rd February. Publishing a new set of recommendations on the preparedness, resilience, mitigation and adaptation strategies the UK needs to adopt to be prepared to withstand current and future impacts of climate change, NFCC has called on the UK and devolved governments to take urgent action to help protect communities, infrastructure and the economy as extreme weather events look set to increase.
UK fire and rescue services already play a crucial role in responding to climate change-related emergencies but responding to these events requires significant fire and rescue service resource, often over prolonged periods of time. This results in a challenge in being able to maintain their ‘business as usual’ service whilst managing the significant resource and staffing pressures that the response to such incidents creates.
https://nfcc.org.uk/uk-not-fully-prepared-for-impacts-of-climate-change-say-fire-chiefs/
The arguments against net zero ignore the long-term benefits of renewable energy, economic growth and global cooperation in addressing climate change. While challenges like energy reliability exist, technological advancements in storage and diversified grids mitigate these issues. Climate policies are not about "appeasing weather gods" but about reducing emissions for a sustainable future. Rejecting net zero would leave Australia economically and environmentally vulnerable as the world transitions to cleaner energy.
Still, if enough pale, stale, male presenters say it on telly, some will suck it up.
It’s not so much arguing against ‘net zero’ , it’s looking for answers to the bleeding obvious questions that arise around will
we have sufficient electricity generation capacity in place to accommodate switching to net zero without a) having daily power cuts imposed on everyone before we all go out and trade our ICE vehicles for electric ones we have to plug into the national grid; b) increasing prices and taxes to subsidise the investment to switch; c) making the UK more and more vulnerable with greater reliance on imported electricity; and d) businesses and homes having to splash out a lot of cash to buy those electric cars, batteries and whatever else, presumably by taking on a lot more debt, pushing inflation up and keeping interest rates high.
I'm not sure there is, and it would send a terrible signal internationally as others look to us to set an example and might follow our lead.
They didn't do so bad following our lead with the industrial revolution though. Quick to follow us then, but I do take your point.
Those who use disparaging remarks about achieving 'net zero' don't seem to realise that keeping the status quo will cost £billions in mitigations against climate change. Extreme weather events are happening with increasing frequency and each one costs a lot of money in cleaning up, rebuilding and the impact on humans. Australia is currently experiencing severe flooding in Queensland and today Torremolinos in Spain is experiencing flash floods.
I posted the article from UK Fire Chiefs as this topic was discussed on BBC Breakfast this morning. The Fire Chief was saying that they were very stretched when we had the wildfires in London a couple of years ago. He also said that they are under prepared to fight wildfires in future. The following is an article from 2023 which discusses the lack of preparedness in the UK.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-66948836