Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Climate Emergency
Comments
-
I can't decide whether you're serious here or not.mathew_davey said:
I actually agree with this that's why I would want to stop trade. The travel cost and impact alone would cut carbon emissions. I generally hate the fact we have exported our need to over consume onto the world.Leroy Ambrose said:
What do you think India and China are doing to produce those emissions? They're making shit to sell to the West. Climate Change is globalisation's dirty little secret.mathew_davey said:
Do you mean the UK population, the west, or the whole world. Because if you just the UK, you're going to have to convince me that a population that produces 1-2% of the world's carbon emissions are really going to have any meaningful impact on the climate.SELR_addicks said:The issue isn't really the climate change sceptics; they're largely off to the side.The bigger problem is that the population as a whole doesn't have the stomach for the economic and lifestyle sacrifices required to seriously tackle climate change. There's a huge difference between saying we need to save the planet and accepting the costs involved in actually doing so.What's particularly interesting is that the people with the greatest electoral influence (the eldest/boomers) are often those least likely to experience the long-term consequences of decisions being made today and therefore vote against future interests.
When you have India and China doing who have a combined 41% if the world's carbon emissions. If we was serious about climate change the first change would be stop trade with these countries until they come in line with our emissions per person(less so India as they only produce about 8% however) at the same time, how can you tell people who for the first generation in human history that don't really have food insecurity and an improving standard of life for their that they need to slow down and potentially go backwards.
What's even more funny is all these renewables have just made us more expensive,less energy secure, and less able to make a meaningful impact on the climate.0 -
Mobile turned into a banshee for about 30 seconds.
A message from the government, telling me it’s hot!1 -
Just had the govt alarm go off on my phone.
Thought we were under attack from the Russians!1 -
Bloody hell it's right, the socialists are trying to control us 😂🤣😜4 -
Under the UK’s current wholesale market design, the price of electricity is usually set by the highest‑cost generator needed to meet demand, and that generator is most often gas.mathew_davey said:ME14addick said:
Have you read the rest of the posts over the last few days?mathew_davey said:
Do you mean the UK population, the west, or the whole world. Because if you just the UK, you're going to have to convince me that a population that produces 1-2% of the world's carbon emissions are really going to have any meaningful impact on the climate.SELR_addicks said:The issue isn't really the climate change sceptics; they're largely off to the side.The bigger problem is that the population as a whole doesn't have the stomach for the economic and lifestyle sacrifices required to seriously tackle climate change. There's a huge difference between saying we need to save the planet and accepting the costs involved in actually doing so.What's particularly interesting is that the people with the greatest electoral influence (the eldest/boomers) are often those least likely to experience the long-term consequences of decisions being made today and therefore vote against future interests.
When you have India and China doing who have a combined 41% if the world's carbon emissions. If we was serious about climate change the first change would be stop trade with these countries until they come in line with our emissions per person(less so India as they only produce about 8% however) at the same time, how can you tell people who for the first generation in human history that don't really have food insecurity and an improving standard of life for their that they need to slow down and potentially go backwards.
What's even more funny is all these renewables have just made us more expensive,less energy secure, and less able to make a meaningful impact on the climate.
You are wrong on just about eveything you've said and all your points have already been covered.
Your food security is being severely tested by climate change. Crop yields for almost everything is well down this year, shortages are likely leading to higher prices.
Renewables are cheaper, but electricity prices are linked to the most expensive form of electricity generation and that is gas. The sooner all our electricity is generated by renewables the cheaper it will be.
Food security issues right now is more tied to war and our rising energy costs which has had less of an impact on new industrial powerhouses, which is the point I making.ME14addick said:
Have you read the rest of the posts over the last few days?mathew_davey said:
Do you mean the UK population, the west, or the whole world. Because if you just the UK, you're going to have to convince me that a population that produces 1-2% of the world's carbon emissions are really going to have any meaningful impact on the climate.SELR_addicks said:The issue isn't really the climate change sceptics; they're largely off to the side.The bigger problem is that the population as a whole doesn't have the stomach for the economic and lifestyle sacrifices required to seriously tackle climate change. There's a huge difference between saying we need to save the planet and accepting the costs involved in actually doing so.What's particularly interesting is that the people with the greatest electoral influence (the eldest/boomers) are often those least likely to experience the long-term consequences of decisions being made today and therefore vote against future interests.
When you have India and China doing who have a combined 41% if the world's carbon emissions. If we was serious about climate change the first change would be stop trade with these countries until they come in line with our emissions per person(less so India as they only produce about 8% however) at the same time, how can you tell people who for the first generation in human history that don't really have food insecurity and an improving standard of life for their that they need to slow down and potentially go backwards.
What's even more funny is all these renewables have just made us more expensive,less energy secure, and less able to make a meaningful impact on the climate.
You are wrong on just about eveything you've said and all your points have already been covered.
Your food security is being severely tested by climate change. Crop yields for almost everything is well down this year, shortages are likely leading to higher prices.
Renewables are cheaper, but electricity prices are linked to the most expensive form of electricity generation and that is gas. The sooner all our electricity is generated by renewables the cheaper it will be.
Secondly your renewables are cheaper bollox just isn't true. If it was the government wouldn't need to get involved the market would do it. As when you consider the cost to maintain, the reliability, and also balancing the power grid (look at Spain's blackouts this year) wind, solar and tidal just aren't where they need to be yet.
Now if where talking nuclear Which is clean, and relatively safe now. I just don't understand why we aren't going down this route.
I think you believe I'm a climate change denier. It's clearly happening and getting worse, however I haven't seen a good argument why my way of life should suffer even more, when what we are doing isn't making a meaningful impact.How the pricing mechanism works
Under Great Britain’s pay‑as‑clear system, all generators are paid the same market price for a given half‑hour period. That price is set by the marginal generator — the last (and usually most expensive) plant needed to meet demand.
Gas‑fired power stations frequently act as this marginal generator.
As a result, even cheap renewables (wind, solar) get paid a price determined by gas.
This mechanism is explicitly confirmed in multiple analyses:
The Guardian explains that “the market price of electricity is determined by the most expensive source of available power generation… In the UK, more often than not, the cost of running gas plants sets the price for the entire system.”
UKERC finds that gas‑fired generators set the wholesale price around 90% of the time in 2025.
Legal analysis from Travers Smith notes that gas sets the price around 60% of the time, depending on conditions.
The exact percentage varies by year and methodology, but the conclusion is consistent: gas overwhelmingly determines the wholesale electricity price.
Why this matters
Even though renewables now supply nearly half of Britain’s electricity, many of them still sell into the wholesale market and therefore receive gas‑linked prices. This means:
UK electricity prices rise when global gas prices spike.
Consumers pay more even when most electricity is generated cheaply.
Renewables do not automatically lower bills unless they are under fixed‑price Contracts for Difference (CfDs).
UKERC estimates that two‑thirds of the rise in household electricity bills since 2021 is due to higher gas prices.
Is the UK changing this system?
Yes. The government has announced measures to decouple electricity prices from gas, including:
A new Wholesale Contracts for Difference (WCfD) scheme for existing low‑carbon generators.
Increasing the Electricity Generator Levy.
These reforms aim to reduce the dominance of gas in price‑setting.
1 -
Do a search on National Grid Live and you will see a real time breakdown of the methods of electricity generation. Gas is currently the biggest generator, but renewables often form the greatest share. You can look at previous days and weeks.mathew_davey said:ME14addick said:
Have you read the rest of the posts over the last few days?mathew_davey said:
Do you mean the UK population, the west, or the whole world. Because if you just the UK, you're going to have to convince me that a population that produces 1-2% of the world's carbon emissions are really going to have any meaningful impact on the climate.SELR_addicks said:The issue isn't really the climate change sceptics; they're largely off to the side.The bigger problem is that the population as a whole doesn't have the stomach for the economic and lifestyle sacrifices required to seriously tackle climate change. There's a huge difference between saying we need to save the planet and accepting the costs involved in actually doing so.What's particularly interesting is that the people with the greatest electoral influence (the eldest/boomers) are often those least likely to experience the long-term consequences of decisions being made today and therefore vote against future interests.
When you have India and China doing who have a combined 41% if the world's carbon emissions. If we was serious about climate change the first change would be stop trade with these countries until they come in line with our emissions per person(less so India as they only produce about 8% however) at the same time, how can you tell people who for the first generation in human history that don't really have food insecurity and an improving standard of life for their that they need to slow down and potentially go backwards.
What's even more funny is all these renewables have just made us more expensive,less energy secure, and less able to make a meaningful impact on the climate.
You are wrong on just about eveything you've said and all your points have already been covered.
Your food security is being severely tested by climate change. Crop yields for almost everything is well down this year, shortages are likely leading to higher prices.
Renewables are cheaper, but electricity prices are linked to the most expensive form of electricity generation and that is gas. The sooner all our electricity is generated by renewables the cheaper it will be.
Food security issues right now is more tied to war and our rising energy costs which has had less of an impact on new industrial powerhouses, which is the point I making.ME14addick said:
Have you read the rest of the posts over the last few days?mathew_davey said:
Do you mean the UK population, the west, or the whole world. Because if you just the UK, you're going to have to convince me that a population that produces 1-2% of the world's carbon emissions are really going to have any meaningful impact on the climate.SELR_addicks said:The issue isn't really the climate change sceptics; they're largely off to the side.The bigger problem is that the population as a whole doesn't have the stomach for the economic and lifestyle sacrifices required to seriously tackle climate change. There's a huge difference between saying we need to save the planet and accepting the costs involved in actually doing so.What's particularly interesting is that the people with the greatest electoral influence (the eldest/boomers) are often those least likely to experience the long-term consequences of decisions being made today and therefore vote against future interests.
When you have India and China doing who have a combined 41% if the world's carbon emissions. If we was serious about climate change the first change would be stop trade with these countries until they come in line with our emissions per person(less so India as they only produce about 8% however) at the same time, how can you tell people who for the first generation in human history that don't really have food insecurity and an improving standard of life for their that they need to slow down and potentially go backwards.
What's even more funny is all these renewables have just made us more expensive,less energy secure, and less able to make a meaningful impact on the climate.
You are wrong on just about eveything you've said and all your points have already been covered.
Your food security is being severely tested by climate change. Crop yields for almost everything is well down this year, shortages are likely leading to higher prices.
Renewables are cheaper, but electricity prices are linked to the most expensive form of electricity generation and that is gas. The sooner all our electricity is generated by renewables the cheaper it will be.
Secondly your renewables are cheaper bollox just isn't true. If it was the government wouldn't need to get involved the market would do it. As when you consider the cost to maintain, the reliability, and also balancing the power grid (look at Spain's blackouts this year) wind, solar and tidal just aren't where they need to be yet.
Now if where talking nuclear Which is clean, and relatively safe now. I just don't understand why we aren't going down this route.
I think you believe I'm a climate change denier. It's clearly happening and getting worse, however I haven't seen a good argument why my way of life should suffer even more, when what we are doing isn't making a meaningful impact.1 -
Good luck Matt Davey.1
-
@Chippycafc earlier I asked you the following question, but haven't had a reply:
Which of those resources that humans are using, causes the climate change that you agreed with Blackpool is real?2 -
ME14addick said:@Chippycafc earlier I asked you the following question, but haven't had a reply:
Which of those resources that humans are using, causes the climate change that you agreed with Blackpool is real?
I agreed with the numbers. And I answered it. Thanks but I will choose what whom and when I respond. As others do.
It's not quite a dictatorship yet but their having a good go at it. Must go as early start for the match tomorrow.
5 -
Sponsored links:
-
I only asked you which of the resources that humans use cause climate change.Chippycafc said:ME14addick said:@Chippycafc earlier I asked you the following question, but haven't had a reply:
Which of those resources that humans are using, causes the climate change that you agreed with Blackpool is real?
I agreed with the numbers. And I answered it. Thanks but I will choose what whom and when I respond. As others do.
It's not quite a dictatorship yet but their having a good go at it. Must go as early start for the match tomorrow.
You agreed with Blackpool that the increase in the number of humans is a cause of climate change. It’s therefore not unreasonable to ask how it is that those humans are causing climate change.
Nobody has said it's a dictatorship, but it's not unreasonable to ask for clarification if you make a statement on a thread.6 -
Lmao here we go again. Every time someone pipes up with “FAUCI LIED,” I swear a new conspiracy theorist is born who thinks watching one YouTube vid makes them a world‑class virologist.TD_Addick said:
Ducking the question about Fauci I see. What conspiracy are you talking about?ShootersHillGuru said:
So I’m right then. You’re just another conspiracy theorist with nutty views and are too afraid to actually spell them out.TD_Addick said:
Fauci or RFK couldn't care less because ultimately I'm not American the point I make is Fauci is a senior figure and scientist who lied. The climate change fear mongers love scientists, he lied and is a scientist.ShootersHillGuru said:TD_Addick has disappeared without answering who he’d prefer in charge. Fauci or RFK Jnr. I think if he gives the truthful answer we’ll all know enough about where he’s coming from.Like seriously, the guy changes guidance because, y’know, new info exists, and half the internet goes “AH‑HA!! GOTCHA!!” as if they cracked some Da Vinci code instead of just not understanding how science works.Newsflash: if you think “updating advice” = “lying,” then idk what to tell you except maybe stop treating your Facebook feed like a peer‑reviewed journal.The funniest part is how dramatic people get.Masks changed? “HE LIED.”Lab leak debate evolved? “HE LIED.”You misread a headline from 2020? “HE LIED.”Bro, calm down. Not every shift in public health messaging is a global conspiracy run from Fauci’s basement with a chalkboard and red string. Sometimes stuff just… changes. That’s how reality works. Sorry if that offends your personal fanfiction.Anyway, carry on with the next “Fauci lied” post. I’m sure it’ll be totally unique and not the same reheated nonsense we’ve all seen 500 times before. Swear this is just more evidence that democrqcy is no longer feasible.12 -
Great post, which I would like to 'like' multiple times. Sadly addressing a bit of off topic whataboutery as Dr Fauci has no relevance to climate change, but if the relevance is 'science', its just been closed down.Radostanradical said:
Lmao here we go again. Every time someone pipes up with “FAUCI LIED,” I swear a new conspiracy theorist is born who thinks watching one YouTube vid makes them a world‑class virologist.TD_Addick said:
Ducking the question about Fauci I see. What conspiracy are you talking about?ShootersHillGuru said:
So I’m right then. You’re just another conspiracy theorist with nutty views and are too afraid to actually spell them out.TD_Addick said:
Fauci or RFK couldn't care less because ultimately I'm not American the point I make is Fauci is a senior figure and scientist who lied. The climate change fear mongers love scientists, he lied and is a scientist.ShootersHillGuru said:TD_Addick has disappeared without answering who he’d prefer in charge. Fauci or RFK Jnr. I think if he gives the truthful answer we’ll all know enough about where he’s coming from.Like seriously, the guy changes guidance because, y’know, new info exists, and half the internet goes “AH‑HA!! GOTCHA!!” as if they cracked some Da Vinci code instead of just not understanding how science works.Newsflash: if you think “updating advice” = “lying,” then idk what to tell you except maybe stop treating your Facebook feed like a peer‑reviewed journal.The funniest part is how dramatic people get.Masks changed? “HE LIED.”Lab leak debate evolved? “HE LIED.”You misread a headline from 2020? “HE LIED.”Bro, calm down. Not every shift in public health messaging is a global conspiracy run from Fauci’s basement with a chalkboard and red string. Sometimes stuff just… changes. That’s how reality works. Sorry if that offends your personal fanfiction.Anyway, carry on with the next “Fauci lied” post. I’m sure it’ll be totally unique and not the same reheated nonsense we’ve all seen 500 times before. Swear this is just more evidence that democrqcy is no longer feasible.2 -
Fair enough brother.ken_shabby said:
Great post, which I would like to 'like' multiple times. Sadly addressing a bit of off topic whataboutery as Dr Fauci has no relevance to climate change, but if the relevance is 'science', its just been closed down.Radostanradical said:
Lmao here we go again. Every time someone pipes up with “FAUCI LIED,” I swear a new conspiracy theorist is born who thinks watching one YouTube vid makes them a world‑class virologist.TD_Addick said:
Ducking the question about Fauci I see. What conspiracy are you talking about?ShootersHillGuru said:
So I’m right then. You’re just another conspiracy theorist with nutty views and are too afraid to actually spell them out.TD_Addick said:
Fauci or RFK couldn't care less because ultimately I'm not American the point I make is Fauci is a senior figure and scientist who lied. The climate change fear mongers love scientists, he lied and is a scientist.ShootersHillGuru said:TD_Addick has disappeared without answering who he’d prefer in charge. Fauci or RFK Jnr. I think if he gives the truthful answer we’ll all know enough about where he’s coming from.Like seriously, the guy changes guidance because, y’know, new info exists, and half the internet goes “AH‑HA!! GOTCHA!!” as if they cracked some Da Vinci code instead of just not understanding how science works.Newsflash: if you think “updating advice” = “lying,” then idk what to tell you except maybe stop treating your Facebook feed like a peer‑reviewed journal.The funniest part is how dramatic people get.Masks changed? “HE LIED.”Lab leak debate evolved? “HE LIED.”You misread a headline from 2020? “HE LIED.”Bro, calm down. Not every shift in public health messaging is a global conspiracy run from Fauci’s basement with a chalkboard and red string. Sometimes stuff just… changes. That’s how reality works. Sorry if that offends your personal fanfiction.Anyway, carry on with the next “Fauci lied” post. I’m sure it’ll be totally unique and not the same reheated nonsense we’ve all seen 500 times before. Swear this is just more evidence that democrqcy is no longer feasible.0 -
Fauci represented everything in American public health care that Trumps appointee RFK Jnr wasn’t and could never be. Like most things scientific he was attacked, undermined and vilified. The USA now has no credible evidence based public healthcare system because the person in charge is less qualified in healthcare than I am and a conspiracy lunatic to boot. Anyone speaking out against the mad RFK policy changes is just dismissed from post and replaced with an unqualified yes man to toe the line.6
-
Chippy there refusing to answer questions posed to him about the causes of climate change. Pleading the fifth if you will. Perfectly within his rights.Chippycafc said:ME14addick said:@Chippycafc earlier I asked you the following question, but haven't had a reply:
Which of those resources that humans are using, causes the climate change that you agreed with Blackpool is real?
I agreed with the numbers. And I answered it. Thanks but I will choose what whom and when I respond. As others do.
It's not quite a dictatorship yet but they’re having a good go at it. Must go as early start for the match tomorrow.So to those of you going on about Fauci, by your logic that means either that chippy is a liar and knows full well that this climate emergency is real and is trying to conceal it, or that refusing to respond to questions put to you, especially if they’re felt to be in bad faith, isn’t in itself incriminating at all, and the gotcha about him pleading the fifth is nonsense after all. Pick one please.8 -
It's the same for climate change research in the USA. The fossil fuel lobby is huge and exerts considerable influence on politicians all over the world. Shutting down research into climate change, which is having the biggest impact on all our lives, should worry everyone.
It matters because the UK is deeply dependent on U.S. climate data because the U.S. operates several of the world’s core climate‑monitoring systems. UK agencies—especially the Met Office, BEIS/DSIT, Defra, and UK universities—use U.S. datasets for atmospheric chemistry, greenhouse‑gas baselines, ocean monitoring, satellite climate records, and global climate‑model initialisation. If U.S. climate‑monitoring programs are cut, UK forecasting accuracy and climate‑risk assessment degrade immediately.Three major U.S. climate‑monitoring agencies have had funding reduced, frozen, or targeted for elimination: NOAA, EPA, and several Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) climate‑monitoring programs, including the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. NOAA faces the most severe cuts, including proposals to shut down core atmospheric monitoring sites.
NOAA is the backbone of U.S. climate observation, responsible for CO₂ monitoring, atmospheric chemistry, satellite climate data, and long‑term climate records. Proposed FY2026 budget cuts would eliminate NOAA’s climate and weather research funding. The plan includes shutting down laboratories, including Mauna Loa Observatory, the world’s longest continuous CO₂ monitoring site (since 1957). Loss of NOAA’s Global Monitoring Laboratory would disrupt global CO₂ tracking, atmospheric circulation modelling, and calibration of greenhouse‑gas measurements worldwide.
EPA monitors greenhouse‑gas emissions, climate resilience impacts, air quality, and environmental data used in climate modelling. The Trump administration cancelled $57.3 billion in climate‑related grants and loans, froze funding, and cut climate programs beginning in 2025. EPA’s IRA‑funded climate programs faced rescissions of unobligated funds. Workforce shortages and grant‑management constraints have slowed climate‑monitoring program delivery.
IRA Climate programmes, including the Greenhouse Gas reduction Fund, which funds climate‑monitoring, emissions‑tracking, and community climate‑resilience projects. Congress passed the 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act (2025)', rescinding unobligated IRA climate funds. The administration froze and then rescinded the entire $27 billion Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, despite full obligation. Cuts reduce federal support for emissions‑tracking infrastructure, community climate‑impact monitoring, and clean‑energy deployment data.
We should all be very concerned at this shutdown of science. Man made climate change isn't going to go away because politicians choose to stop recording the data, We're living with the consequences right now and it's only going to get worse.
3 -
In defence of Chippy, I think his position is that some of us, in this debate me included are wringing our hands about what’s going on with the climate yet don’t really want to do what we say is necessary to have a meaningful impact for the better. I can only speak for myself and I do try to do the simple things like watching my energy use, recycling, but I drive a petrol hybrid and go on two foreign holidays a year. I consume things at probably too fast a rate. I’m as guilty as the next person. I realise completely that we’re heading into the abyss so could I do more. Definitely yes but unilaterally I’m not prepared. Certainly not give up my pool holidays or god forbid catch a bus. I’m the classic person that need to be forced to do things and that why I say the lead must come from government. I don’t think I’m wrong in thinking Chippy isn’t a climate sceptic but just observing the hypocrisy of people like me.Garrymanilow said:
Chippy there refusing to answer questions posed to him about the causes of climate change. Pleading the fifth if you will. Perfectly within his rights.Chippycafc said:ME14addick said:@Chippycafc earlier I asked you the following question, but haven't had a reply:
Which of those resources that humans are using, causes the climate change that you agreed with Blackpool is real?
I agreed with the numbers. And I answered it. Thanks but I will choose what whom and when I respond. As others do.
It's not quite a dictatorship yet but they’re having a good go at it. Must go as early start for the match tomorrow.So to those of you going on about Fauci, by your logic that means either that chippy is a liar and knows full well that this climate emergency is real and is trying to conceal it, or that refusing to respond to questions put to you, especially if they’re felt to be in bad faith, isn’t in itself incriminating at all, and the gotcha about him pleading the fifth is nonsense after all. Pick one please.8 -
Garrymanilow said:
Chippy there refusing to answer questions posed to him about the causes of climate change. Pleading the fifth if you will. Perfectly within his rights.Chippycafc said:ME14addick said:@Chippycafc earlier I asked you the following question, but haven't had a reply:
Which of those resources that humans are using, causes the climate change that you agreed with Blackpool is real?
I agreed with the numbers. And I answered it. Thanks but I will choose what whom and when I respond. As others do.
It's not quite a dictatorship yet but they’re having a good go at it. Must go as early start for the match tomorrow.So to those of you going on about Fauci, by your logic that means either that chippy is a liar and knows full well that this climate emergency is real and is trying to conceal it, or that refusing to respond to questions put to you, especially if they’re felt to be in bad faith, isn’t in itself incriminating at all, and the gotcha about him pleading the fifth is nonsense after all. Pick one please.
Donald Trump’s view on the Fifth Amendment changed over time. He once said that only the "mob" takes the Fifth and that a person who is innocent does not need it. Later, after invoking it himself (440 times) during a civil investigation, he stated that anyone in his position would be a "fool" not to use it.2 -
Why am I not surprised by that.bobmunro said:Garrymanilow said:
Chippy there refusing to answer questions posed to him about the causes of climate change. Pleading the fifth if you will. Perfectly within his rights.Chippycafc said:ME14addick said:@Chippycafc earlier I asked you the following question, but haven't had a reply:
Which of those resources that humans are using, causes the climate change that you agreed with Blackpool is real?
I agreed with the numbers. And I answered it. Thanks but I will choose what whom and when I respond. As others do.
It's not quite a dictatorship yet but they’re having a good go at it. Must go as early start for the match tomorrow.So to those of you going on about Fauci, by your logic that means either that chippy is a liar and knows full well that this climate emergency is real and is trying to conceal it, or that refusing to respond to questions put to you, especially if they’re felt to be in bad faith, isn’t in itself incriminating at all, and the gotcha about him pleading the fifth is nonsense after all. Pick one please.
Donald Trump’s view on the Fifth Amendment changed over time. He once said that only the "mob" takes the Fifth and that a person who is innocent does not need it. Later, after invoking it himself (440 times) during a civil investigation, he stated that anyone in his position would be a "fool" not to use it.0 -
Sponsored links:
-
He could be right on both counts. A mobster and a fool.bobmunro said:Garrymanilow said:
Chippy there refusing to answer questions posed to him about the causes of climate change. Pleading the fifth if you will. Perfectly within his rights.Chippycafc said:ME14addick said:@Chippycafc earlier I asked you the following question, but haven't had a reply:
Which of those resources that humans are using, causes the climate change that you agreed with Blackpool is real?
I agreed with the numbers. And I answered it. Thanks but I will choose what whom and when I respond. As others do.
It's not quite a dictatorship yet but they’re having a good go at it. Must go as early start for the match tomorrow.So to those of you going on about Fauci, by your logic that means either that chippy is a liar and knows full well that this climate emergency is real and is trying to conceal it, or that refusing to respond to questions put to you, especially if they’re felt to be in bad faith, isn’t in itself incriminating at all, and the gotcha about him pleading the fifth is nonsense after all. Pick one please.
Donald Trump’s view on the Fifth Amendment changed over time. He once said that only the "mob" takes the Fifth and that a person who is innocent does not need it. Later, after invoking it himself (440 times) during a civil investigation, he stated that anyone in his position would be a "fool" not to use it.5 -
To try and get this thread back on track has anyone got any smart water saving tips they're using in this drought?
Am currently in the 5th year of a 1 year DIY renovation project so am trying to design solutions into the project rather than add them in later.
I recently put up a shed so put some interconnected water butt's on that to give me 630liters of rainwater storage. When the house is done I'm gonna add a 1000 litre tank off the downpipe. Gonna get solar powered pumps and soaker hoses to auto water the beds and trees from these.
It's shower water that's really bothering me at the moment. We have one of those bucket things to go in the bottom and collect water that can be put on the garden but that feels a fairly small scale and crap solution.
My latest mad idea is to create a wellness inspired outdoor shower at the high point of the garden with hot and cold water plumbed in. That way in summer we can take our daily showers outside - which I absolutely love - but will create it so the surface runoff waters the garden. Also gonna put a small stock tank there that (when not in a drought) can be used as a cold plunge or warm relaxing soak.
Will make me feel much better that the shower water goes on the garden rather than down the drain. My worry is it may actually be too much water and won't spread to a big enough area and so am considering digging a soakaway. But that will defeat the purpose of it...
We already use plant safe shower products so no worries about greywater use there.4 -
I don't think we really know what Chippy's views on Climate Change are, he doesn't actually post anything factual, just agreement with the few that are climate sceptics. It would be good to actually know whether he thinks Clmate Change is happening.ShootersHillGuru said:
In defence of Chippy, I think his position is that some of us, in this debate me included are wringing our hands about what’s going on with the climate yet don’t really want to do what we say is necessary to have a meaningful impact for the better. I can only speak for myself and I do try to do the simple things like watching my energy use, recycling, but I drive a petrol hybrid and go on two foreign holidays a year. I consume things at probably too fast a rate. I’m as guilty as the next person. I realise completely that we’re heading into the abyss so could I do more. Definitely yes but unilaterally I’m not prepared. Certainly not give up my pool holidays or god forbid catch a bus. I’m the classic person that need to be forced to do things and that why I say the lead must come from government. I don’t think I’m wrong in thinking Chippy isn’t a climate sceptic but just observing the hypocrisy of people like me.Garrymanilow said:
Chippy there refusing to answer questions posed to him about the causes of climate change. Pleading the fifth if you will. Perfectly within his rights.Chippycafc said:ME14addick said:@Chippycafc earlier I asked you the following question, but haven't had a reply:
Which of those resources that humans are using, causes the climate change that you agreed with Blackpool is real?
I agreed with the numbers. And I answered it. Thanks but I will choose what whom and when I respond. As others do.
It's not quite a dictatorship yet but they’re having a good go at it. Must go as early start for the match tomorrow.So to those of you going on about Fauci, by your logic that means either that chippy is a liar and knows full well that this climate emergency is real and is trying to conceal it, or that refusing to respond to questions put to you, especially if they’re felt to be in bad faith, isn’t in itself incriminating at all, and the gotcha about him pleading the fifth is nonsense after all. Pick one please.
I don't see how you can agree that the increase in the number of humans on the planet is the cause of climate change, without specifying what it is that those humans are doing to cause it.
I also drive a petrol car because I can't afford to buy a new one. It's got low mileage for its age and I'm hoping that it will last until can no longer drive. Keeping the same car for so long is actually reducing the amount of resources needed to create another car. I'm far from perfect, but I worry that there isn't a consensus on the causes of the Climate Change that is all too evident now, right across the world. If everyone worked together to put pressure on Governments to do far more to mitigate and reduce emissions, the better the future would look. They have all kicked the can down the road for far too long and the chickens are now coming home to roost.8 -
I was in agreement with all this, until you used the word hypocrisy. I don't think it is hypocrisy. It think it's a perfectly reasonable position. There's nothing any one individual can do that will stop climate change. The actions of individuals are nothing but a spit in the ocean. To solve this problem we must act collectively; 'our' governments and 'our' businesses are the entities that between them have the reach and the power to do something meaningful. Individuals do not. Consequently, most people will make only those changes that don't have a major impact on their daily lives. There is little point making sacrifices, if no-one else is willing too. Essentially we are playing the world's biggest ever game of Prisoner's Dilemma and we don't trust everyone else to act correctly. Indeed, it's worse than that because we don't even know if time is on our side. Of course, almost all of us could do a bit more, and no-one is saying it's a great leadership position to take, but it is not hypocrisy. It would only be hypocrisy if we were demanding that others unilaterally did the things we are not currently prepared to do. Arguing for collective action whilst taking only tentative steps as an individual certainly isn't hypocrisy.ShootersHillGuru said:
In defence of Chippy, I think his position is that some of us, in this debate me included are wringing our hands about what’s going on with the climate yet don’t really want to do what we say is necessary to have a meaningful impact for the better. I can only speak for myself and I do try to do the simple things like watching my energy use, recycling, but I drive a petrol hybrid and go on two foreign holidays a year. I consume things at probably too fast a rate. I’m as guilty as the next person. I realise completely that we’re heading into the abyss so could I do more. Definitely yes but unilaterally I’m not prepared. Certainly not give up my pool holidays or god forbid catch a bus. I’m the classic person that need to be forced to do things and that why I say the lead must come from government. I don’t think I’m wrong in thinking Chippy isn’t a climate sceptic but just observing the hypocrisy of people like me.Garrymanilow said:
Chippy there refusing to answer questions posed to him about the causes of climate change. Pleading the fifth if you will. Perfectly within his rights.Chippycafc said:ME14addick said:@Chippycafc earlier I asked you the following question, but haven't had a reply:
Which of those resources that humans are using, causes the climate change that you agreed with Blackpool is real?
I agreed with the numbers. And I answered it. Thanks but I will choose what whom and when I respond. As others do.
It's not quite a dictatorship yet but they’re having a good go at it. Must go as early start for the match tomorrow.So to those of you going on about Fauci, by your logic that means either that chippy is a liar and knows full well that this climate emergency is real and is trying to conceal it, or that refusing to respond to questions put to you, especially if they’re felt to be in bad faith, isn’t in itself incriminating at all, and the gotcha about him pleading the fifth is nonsense after all. Pick one please.6 -
Radostanradical said:
Lmao here we go again. Every time someone pipes up with “FAUCI LIED,” I swear a new conspiracy theorist is born who thinks watching one YouTube vid makes them a world‑class virologist.TD_Addick said:
Ducking the question about Fauci I see. What conspiracy are you talking about?ShootersHillGuru said:
So I’m right then. You’re just another conspiracy theorist with nutty views and are too afraid to actually spell them out.TD_Addick said:
Fauci or RFK couldn't care less because ultimately I'm not American the point I make is Fauci is a senior figure and scientist who lied. The climate change fear mongers love scientists, he lied and is a scientist.ShootersHillGuru said:TD_Addick has disappeared without answering who he’d prefer in charge. Fauci or RFK Jnr. I think if he gives the truthful answer we’ll all know enough about where he’s coming from.Like seriously, the guy changes guidance because, y’know, new info exists, and half the internet goes “AH‑HA!! GOTCHA!!” as if they cracked some Da Vinci code instead of just not understanding how science works.Newsflash: if you think “updating advice” = “lying,” then idk what to tell you except maybe stop treating your Facebook feed like a peer‑reviewed journal.The funniest part is how dramatic people get.Masks changed? “HE LIED.”Lab leak debate evolved? “HE LIED.”You misread a headline from 2020? “HE LIED.”Bro, calm down. Not every shift in public health messaging is a global conspiracy run from Fauci’s basement with a chalkboard and red string. Sometimes stuff just… changes. That’s how reality works. Sorry if that offends your personal fanfiction.Anyway, carry on with the next “Fauci lied” post. I’m sure it’ll be totally unique and not the same reheated nonsense we’ve all seen 500 times before. Swear this is just more evidence that democrqcy is no longer feasible.
1 -
Again if your only argument against climate change is that one individual scientist may or may not have lied about something 6 years ago in a completely different field of science and therefore that means you can't trust the tens of thousands of scientists and researchers and their body of evidence from the last 50 years when they talk about climate change - then your argument is even weaker than I first imagined.TD_Addick said:Radostanradical said:
Lmao here we go again. Every time someone pipes up with “FAUCI LIED,” I swear a new conspiracy theorist is born who thinks watching one YouTube vid makes them a world‑class virologist.TD_Addick said:
Ducking the question about Fauci I see. What conspiracy are you talking about?ShootersHillGuru said:
So I’m right then. You’re just another conspiracy theorist with nutty views and are too afraid to actually spell them out.TD_Addick said:
Fauci or RFK couldn't care less because ultimately I'm not American the point I make is Fauci is a senior figure and scientist who lied. The climate change fear mongers love scientists, he lied and is a scientist.ShootersHillGuru said:TD_Addick has disappeared without answering who he’d prefer in charge. Fauci or RFK Jnr. I think if he gives the truthful answer we’ll all know enough about where he’s coming from.Like seriously, the guy changes guidance because, y’know, new info exists, and half the internet goes “AH‑HA!! GOTCHA!!” as if they cracked some Da Vinci code instead of just not understanding how science works.Newsflash: if you think “updating advice” = “lying,” then idk what to tell you except maybe stop treating your Facebook feed like a peer‑reviewed journal.The funniest part is how dramatic people get.Masks changed? “HE LIED.”Lab leak debate evolved? “HE LIED.”You misread a headline from 2020? “HE LIED.”Bro, calm down. Not every shift in public health messaging is a global conspiracy run from Fauci’s basement with a chalkboard and red string. Sometimes stuff just… changes. That’s how reality works. Sorry if that offends your personal fanfiction.Anyway, carry on with the next “Fauci lied” post. I’m sure it’ll be totally unique and not the same reheated nonsense we’ve all seen 500 times before. Swear this is just more evidence that democrqcy is no longer feasible.8 -
This has irritated me in the past. I made the decision not to use gas but am aware gas is used to produce electricity. It is about time we decoupled electricity prices from gas and decreased the amounts of gas being used. Does anybody get Trumps hatred of wind farms? Surely they are a good thing whereas drilling is a bad thing. They won't solve the problem in themselves but have to be part of the solution. This country should be much further down the line in terms of green energy but there are those trying to push back on it further.ME14addick said:
Under the UK’s current wholesale market design, the price of electricity is usually set by the highest‑cost generator needed to meet demand, and that generator is most often gas.mathew_davey said:ME14addick said:
Have you read the rest of the posts over the last few days?mathew_davey said:
Do you mean the UK population, the west, or the whole world. Because if you just the UK, you're going to have to convince me that a population that produces 1-2% of the world's carbon emissions are really going to have any meaningful impact on the climate.SELR_addicks said:The issue isn't really the climate change sceptics; they're largely off to the side.The bigger problem is that the population as a whole doesn't have the stomach for the economic and lifestyle sacrifices required to seriously tackle climate change. There's a huge difference between saying we need to save the planet and accepting the costs involved in actually doing so.What's particularly interesting is that the people with the greatest electoral influence (the eldest/boomers) are often those least likely to experience the long-term consequences of decisions being made today and therefore vote against future interests.
When you have India and China doing who have a combined 41% if the world's carbon emissions. If we was serious about climate change the first change would be stop trade with these countries until they come in line with our emissions per person(less so India as they only produce about 8% however) at the same time, how can you tell people who for the first generation in human history that don't really have food insecurity and an improving standard of life for their that they need to slow down and potentially go backwards.
What's even more funny is all these renewables have just made us more expensive,less energy secure, and less able to make a meaningful impact on the climate.
You are wrong on just about eveything you've said and all your points have already been covered.
Your food security is being severely tested by climate change. Crop yields for almost everything is well down this year, shortages are likely leading to higher prices.
Renewables are cheaper, but electricity prices are linked to the most expensive form of electricity generation and that is gas. The sooner all our electricity is generated by renewables the cheaper it will be.
Food security issues right now is more tied to war and our rising energy costs which has had less of an impact on new industrial powerhouses, which is the point I making.ME14addick said:
Have you read the rest of the posts over the last few days?mathew_davey said:
Do you mean the UK population, the west, or the whole world. Because if you just the UK, you're going to have to convince me that a population that produces 1-2% of the world's carbon emissions are really going to have any meaningful impact on the climate.SELR_addicks said:The issue isn't really the climate change sceptics; they're largely off to the side.The bigger problem is that the population as a whole doesn't have the stomach for the economic and lifestyle sacrifices required to seriously tackle climate change. There's a huge difference between saying we need to save the planet and accepting the costs involved in actually doing so.What's particularly interesting is that the people with the greatest electoral influence (the eldest/boomers) are often those least likely to experience the long-term consequences of decisions being made today and therefore vote against future interests.
When you have India and China doing who have a combined 41% if the world's carbon emissions. If we was serious about climate change the first change would be stop trade with these countries until they come in line with our emissions per person(less so India as they only produce about 8% however) at the same time, how can you tell people who for the first generation in human history that don't really have food insecurity and an improving standard of life for their that they need to slow down and potentially go backwards.
What's even more funny is all these renewables have just made us more expensive,less energy secure, and less able to make a meaningful impact on the climate.
You are wrong on just about eveything you've said and all your points have already been covered.
Your food security is being severely tested by climate change. Crop yields for almost everything is well down this year, shortages are likely leading to higher prices.
Renewables are cheaper, but electricity prices are linked to the most expensive form of electricity generation and that is gas. The sooner all our electricity is generated by renewables the cheaper it will be.
Secondly your renewables are cheaper bollox just isn't true. If it was the government wouldn't need to get involved the market would do it. As when you consider the cost to maintain, the reliability, and also balancing the power grid (look at Spain's blackouts this year) wind, solar and tidal just aren't where they need to be yet.
Now if where talking nuclear Which is clean, and relatively safe now. I just don't understand why we aren't going down this route.
I think you believe I'm a climate change denier. It's clearly happening and getting worse, however I haven't seen a good argument why my way of life should suffer even more, when what we are doing isn't making a meaningful impact.How the pricing mechanism works
Under Great Britain’s pay‑as‑clear system, all generators are paid the same market price for a given half‑hour period. That price is set by the marginal generator — the last (and usually most expensive) plant needed to meet demand.
Gas‑fired power stations frequently act as this marginal generator.
As a result, even cheap renewables (wind, solar) get paid a price determined by gas.
This mechanism is explicitly confirmed in multiple analyses:
The Guardian explains that “the market price of electricity is determined by the most expensive source of available power generation… In the UK, more often than not, the cost of running gas plants sets the price for the entire system.”
UKERC finds that gas‑fired generators set the wholesale price around 90% of the time in 2025.
Legal analysis from Travers Smith notes that gas sets the price around 60% of the time, depending on conditions.
The exact percentage varies by year and methodology, but the conclusion is consistent: gas overwhelmingly determines the wholesale electricity price.
Why this matters
Even though renewables now supply nearly half of Britain’s electricity, many of them still sell into the wholesale market and therefore receive gas‑linked prices. This means:
UK electricity prices rise when global gas prices spike.
Consumers pay more even when most electricity is generated cheaply.
Renewables do not automatically lower bills unless they are under fixed‑price Contracts for Difference (CfDs).
UKERC estimates that two‑thirds of the rise in household electricity bills since 2021 is due to higher gas prices.
Is the UK changing this system?
Yes. The government has announced measures to decouple electricity prices from gas, including:
A new Wholesale Contracts for Difference (WCfD) scheme for existing low‑carbon generators.
Increasing the Electricity Generator Levy.
These reforms aim to reduce the dominance of gas in price‑setting.
5 -
For me, that won't cut it as an answer when my great nephew asks me what I did to help mitigate the effects of a climate crisis that, by my own actions, I have contributed towards. Not when I have to look him in the eye. I'll do what I can, not only what I see others doing. And yes, I accept that I could do much more.Stig said:
I was in agreement with all this, until you used the word hypocrisy. I don't think it is hypocrisy. It think it's a perfectly reasonable position. There's nothing any one individual can do that will stop climate change. The actions of individuals are nothing but a spit in the ocean. To solve this problem we must act collectively; 'our' governments and 'our' businesses are the entities that between them have the reach and the power to do something meaningful. Individuals do not. Consequently, most people will make only those changes that don't have a major impact on their daily lives. There is little point making sacrifices, if no-one else is willing too. Essentially we are playing the world's biggest ever game of Prisoner's Dilemma and we don't trust everyone else to act correctly. Indeed, it's worse than that because we don't even know if time is on our side. Of course, almost all of us could do a bit more, and no-one is saying it's a great leadership position to take, but it is not hypocrisy. It would only be hypocrisy if we were demanding that others unilaterally did the things we are not currently prepared to do. Arguing for collective action whilst taking only tentative steps as an individual certainly isn't hypocrisy.ShootersHillGuru said:
In defence of Chippy, I think his position is that some of us, in this debate me included are wringing our hands about what’s going on with the climate yet don’t really want to do what we say is necessary to have a meaningful impact for the better. I can only speak for myself and I do try to do the simple things like watching my energy use, recycling, but I drive a petrol hybrid and go on two foreign holidays a year. I consume things at probably too fast a rate. I’m as guilty as the next person. I realise completely that we’re heading into the abyss so could I do more. Definitely yes but unilaterally I’m not prepared. Certainly not give up my pool holidays or god forbid catch a bus. I’m the classic person that need to be forced to do things and that why I say the lead must come from government. I don’t think I’m wrong in thinking Chippy isn’t a climate sceptic but just observing the hypocrisy of people like me.Garrymanilow said:
Chippy there refusing to answer questions posed to him about the causes of climate change. Pleading the fifth if you will. Perfectly within his rights.Chippycafc said:ME14addick said:@Chippycafc earlier I asked you the following question, but haven't had a reply:
Which of those resources that humans are using, causes the climate change that you agreed with Blackpool is real?
I agreed with the numbers. And I answered it. Thanks but I will choose what whom and when I respond. As others do.
It's not quite a dictatorship yet but they’re having a good go at it. Must go as early start for the match tomorrow.So to those of you going on about Fauci, by your logic that means either that chippy is a liar and knows full well that this climate emergency is real and is trying to conceal it, or that refusing to respond to questions put to you, especially if they’re felt to be in bad faith, isn’t in itself incriminating at all, and the gotcha about him pleading the fifth is nonsense after all. Pick one please.
3 -
Chippy will no doubt chip in. He's not the shy and retiring type.ME14addick said:
I don't think we really know what Chippy's views on Climate Change are, he doesn't actually post anything factual, just agreement with the few that are climate sceptics. It would be good to actually know whether he thinks Clmate Change is happening.ShootersHillGuru said:
In defence of Chippy, I think his position is that some of us, in this debate me included are wringing our hands about what’s going on with the climate yet don’t really want to do what we say is necessary to have a meaningful impact for the better. I can only speak for myself and I do try to do the simple things like watching my energy use, recycling, but I drive a petrol hybrid and go on two foreign holidays a year. I consume things at probably too fast a rate. I’m as guilty as the next person. I realise completely that we’re heading into the abyss so could I do more. Definitely yes but unilaterally I’m not prepared. Certainly not give up my pool holidays or god forbid catch a bus. I’m the classic person that need to be forced to do things and that why I say the lead must come from government. I don’t think I’m wrong in thinking Chippy isn’t a climate sceptic but just observing the hypocrisy of people like me.Garrymanilow said:
Chippy there refusing to answer questions posed to him about the causes of climate change. Pleading the fifth if you will. Perfectly within his rights.Chippycafc said:ME14addick said:@Chippycafc earlier I asked you the following question, but haven't had a reply:
Which of those resources that humans are using, causes the climate change that you agreed with Blackpool is real?
I agreed with the numbers. And I answered it. Thanks but I will choose what whom and when I respond. As others do.
It's not quite a dictatorship yet but they’re having a good go at it. Must go as early start for the match tomorrow.So to those of you going on about Fauci, by your logic that means either that chippy is a liar and knows full well that this climate emergency is real and is trying to conceal it, or that refusing to respond to questions put to you, especially if they’re felt to be in bad faith, isn’t in itself incriminating at all, and the gotcha about him pleading the fifth is nonsense after all. Pick one please.
I don't see how you can agree that the increase in the number of humans on the planet is the cause of climate change, without specifying what it is that those humans are doing to cause it.
I also drive a petrol car because I can't afford to buy a new one. It's got low mileage for its age and I'm hoping that it will last until can no longer drive. Keeping the same car for so long is actually reducing the amount of resources needed to create another car. I'm far from perfect, but I worry that there isn't a consensus on the causes of the Climate Change that is all too evident now, right across the world. If everyone worked together to put pressure on Governments to do far more to mitigate and reduce emissions, the better the future would look. They have all kicked the can down the road for far too long and the chickens are now coming home to roost.
From some of our past exchanges, I got the impression he's sceptical that our actions to deal with the issue will have the desired outcome because of uncertainty over how systems in nature interact. He'll correct me if I'm wrong.
I get that. We're attempting to lower the Earth's temperature, something we've never managed to do before, and forces in nature may defeat us in that whatever we do. BUT we must try!
1 -
Donald Trump receives significant financial support from donors with fossil‑fuel interests, both corporate and individual. This includes tens of millions in campaign contributions, PAC funding, and inaugural donations, documented by multiple independent investigations. Major donors included Chevron, ExxonMobil, ConocoPhillips, and Occidental Petroleum. Trump is paid to promote hatred of wind turbines.MuttleyCAFC said:
This has irritated me in the past. I made the decision not to use gas but am aware gas is used to produce electricity. It is about time we decoupled electricity prices from gas and decreased the amounts of gas being used. Does anybody get Trumps hatred of wind farms? Surely they are a good thing whereas drilling is a bad thing. They won't solve the problem in themselves but have to be part of the solution. This country should be much further down the line in terms of green energy but there are those trying to push back on it further.ME14addick said:
Under the UK’s current wholesale market design, the price of electricity is usually set by the highest‑cost generator needed to meet demand, and that generator is most often gas.mathew_davey said:ME14addick said:
Have you read the rest of the posts over the last few days?mathew_davey said:
Do you mean the UK population, the west, or the whole world. Because if you just the UK, you're going to have to convince me that a population that produces 1-2% of the world's carbon emissions are really going to have any meaningful impact on the climate.SELR_addicks said:The issue isn't really the climate change sceptics; they're largely off to the side.The bigger problem is that the population as a whole doesn't have the stomach for the economic and lifestyle sacrifices required to seriously tackle climate change. There's a huge difference between saying we need to save the planet and accepting the costs involved in actually doing so.What's particularly interesting is that the people with the greatest electoral influence (the eldest/boomers) are often those least likely to experience the long-term consequences of decisions being made today and therefore vote against future interests.
When you have India and China doing who have a combined 41% if the world's carbon emissions. If we was serious about climate change the first change would be stop trade with these countries until they come in line with our emissions per person(less so India as they only produce about 8% however) at the same time, how can you tell people who for the first generation in human history that don't really have food insecurity and an improving standard of life for their that they need to slow down and potentially go backwards.
What's even more funny is all these renewables have just made us more expensive,less energy secure, and less able to make a meaningful impact on the climate.
You are wrong on just about eveything you've said and all your points have already been covered.
Your food security is being severely tested by climate change. Crop yields for almost everything is well down this year, shortages are likely leading to higher prices.
Renewables are cheaper, but electricity prices are linked to the most expensive form of electricity generation and that is gas. The sooner all our electricity is generated by renewables the cheaper it will be.
Food security issues right now is more tied to war and our rising energy costs which has had less of an impact on new industrial powerhouses, which is the point I making.ME14addick said:
Have you read the rest of the posts over the last few days?mathew_davey said:
Do you mean the UK population, the west, or the whole world. Because if you just the UK, you're going to have to convince me that a population that produces 1-2% of the world's carbon emissions are really going to have any meaningful impact on the climate.SELR_addicks said:The issue isn't really the climate change sceptics; they're largely off to the side.The bigger problem is that the population as a whole doesn't have the stomach for the economic and lifestyle sacrifices required to seriously tackle climate change. There's a huge difference between saying we need to save the planet and accepting the costs involved in actually doing so.What's particularly interesting is that the people with the greatest electoral influence (the eldest/boomers) are often those least likely to experience the long-term consequences of decisions being made today and therefore vote against future interests.
When you have India and China doing who have a combined 41% if the world's carbon emissions. If we was serious about climate change the first change would be stop trade with these countries until they come in line with our emissions per person(less so India as they only produce about 8% however) at the same time, how can you tell people who for the first generation in human history that don't really have food insecurity and an improving standard of life for their that they need to slow down and potentially go backwards.
What's even more funny is all these renewables have just made us more expensive,less energy secure, and less able to make a meaningful impact on the climate.
You are wrong on just about eveything you've said and all your points have already been covered.
Your food security is being severely tested by climate change. Crop yields for almost everything is well down this year, shortages are likely leading to higher prices.
Renewables are cheaper, but electricity prices are linked to the most expensive form of electricity generation and that is gas. The sooner all our electricity is generated by renewables the cheaper it will be.
Secondly your renewables are cheaper bollox just isn't true. If it was the government wouldn't need to get involved the market would do it. As when you consider the cost to maintain, the reliability, and also balancing the power grid (look at Spain's blackouts this year) wind, solar and tidal just aren't where they need to be yet.
Now if where talking nuclear Which is clean, and relatively safe now. I just don't understand why we aren't going down this route.
I think you believe I'm a climate change denier. It's clearly happening and getting worse, however I haven't seen a good argument why my way of life should suffer even more, when what we are doing isn't making a meaningful impact.How the pricing mechanism works
Under Great Britain’s pay‑as‑clear system, all generators are paid the same market price for a given half‑hour period. That price is set by the marginal generator — the last (and usually most expensive) plant needed to meet demand.
Gas‑fired power stations frequently act as this marginal generator.
As a result, even cheap renewables (wind, solar) get paid a price determined by gas.
This mechanism is explicitly confirmed in multiple analyses:
The Guardian explains that “the market price of electricity is determined by the most expensive source of available power generation… In the UK, more often than not, the cost of running gas plants sets the price for the entire system.”
UKERC finds that gas‑fired generators set the wholesale price around 90% of the time in 2025.
Legal analysis from Travers Smith notes that gas sets the price around 60% of the time, depending on conditions.
The exact percentage varies by year and methodology, but the conclusion is consistent: gas overwhelmingly determines the wholesale electricity price.
Why this matters
Even though renewables now supply nearly half of Britain’s electricity, many of them still sell into the wholesale market and therefore receive gas‑linked prices. This means:
UK electricity prices rise when global gas prices spike.
Consumers pay more even when most electricity is generated cheaply.
Renewables do not automatically lower bills unless they are under fixed‑price Contracts for Difference (CfDs).
UKERC estimates that two‑thirds of the rise in household electricity bills since 2021 is due to higher gas prices.
Is the UK changing this system?
Yes. The government has announced measures to decouple electricity prices from gas, including:
A new Wholesale Contracts for Difference (WCfD) scheme for existing low‑carbon generators.
Increasing the Electricity Generator Levy.
These reforms aim to reduce the dominance of gas in price‑setting.
Many politicians are funded by fossil fuel companies, including in the UK. All the time politicians are willing to put personal gain over the greater good, we are heading for climate disaster.2
