Impressed £67.5 billion... nope... 263 billion, and rising.

[Scouse]

Theyre going to be part of the North sea super grid.

So the North Sea is "Europe Wide"?

 

[dysfunction]

It is for him as he can't see much further than his nose.

 

[Embattle]

North Sea Wind Power Hub - Wikipedia

 

[dysfunction]

North Sea Wind Power Hub - Wikipedia

So will this be affected by Brexit then? Since I would have thought being in the EU would facilitate this sort of thing a lot easier as energy tariffs could be an issue?

 

[Job]

No..because the real world carries on.
That if course is part of the remain bullshit that the EU oversees everything in real time and when we leave everything comes to a zombie invasion halt.

Of course the EU command would like that in their power mad wankoff fantasy, but in reality it will just carry on as before, they are down to causing shit in Ireland to exercise their peace enabling citizen control.

 

[Bodhi]

So will this be affected by Brexit then? Since I would have thought being in the EU would facilitate this sort of thing a lot easier as energy tariffs could be an issue?

/looks at countries involved.

Ah Norway are there. We'll be fine. Next made up problem?

 

[dysfunction]

/looks at countries involved.

Ah Norway are there. We'll be fine. Next made up problem?

Er they have a special relationship with the EU dont they? Like almost being in the EU but not quite.
Access to EU single market with free movement of services.

So unlike UK after Brexit

 

[Embattle]

You are definitely overreaching on this one.

 

[Bodhi]

How Deadly Is Your Kilowatt? We Rank The Killer Energy Sources

 

[Scouse]

How Deadly Is Your Kilowatt? We Rank The Killer Energy Sources

Pro nuclear advocate produces pro nuclear piece with suspect methodology tbh.

I mean, he's recently praised 3 mile island... :\

But hey ho. The price of offshore wind makes the nuclear question almost moot. It ain't going to get any cheaper because of the complexity of build. Wind (and solar) can (and will) get cheaper still. And that doesn't come with publicly-funded nuclear disposal costs.

 

[Embattle]

Pro nuclear advocate produces pro nuclear piece with suspect methodology tbh.

I mean, he's recently praised 3 mile island... :\

But hey ho. The price of offshore wind makes the nuclear question almost moot. It ain't going to get any cheaper because of the complexity of build. Wind (and solar) can (and will) get cheaper still. And that doesn't come with publicly-funded nuclear disposal costs.

While I'm sure you will try you still can't argue about the numbers of deaths, you certainly can on costs with the current generation of nuclear power plants.

 

[Scouse]

While I'm sure you will try you still can't argue about the numbers of deaths, you certainly can on costs with the current generation of nuclear power plants.

You can if his methodology is off. But meh

 

[Job]

So the Guard is having a go at the evil oil companies.
But oil doesnt put co2 in the air, that happens when you burn it.
And....who does that?
Well that would be us...
No ones forcing you to put the heating on or fill your tank or turn on the TV.
We are gorging on energy and blaming the supplier.

It’s time to rein in the fossil fuel giants before their greed chokes the planet | Richard Heede

 

[Gwadien]

So the Guard is having a go at the evil oil companies.
But oil doesnt put co2 in the air, that happens when you burn it.
And....who does that?
Well that would be us...
No ones forcing you to put the heating on or fill your tank or turn on the TV.
We are gorging on energy and blaming the supplier.

It’s time to rein in the fossil fuel giants before their greed chokes the planet | Richard Heede

Lmao, what a fucked up point of view.

So you're saying we're the consumers but we shouldn't get a choice where that energy comes from?

 

[fettoken]

Lmao, what a fucked up point of view.

So you're saying we're the consumers but we shouldn't get a choice where that energy comes from?

So you’re saying it is completely out of the consumers hands? We have no obligation?

 

[Gwadien]

So you’re saying it is completely out of the consumers hands? We have no obligation?

No, I'm saying that the market should be driven by consumers, if -everyone- said that the use of oil companies isn't right, and we should definitely decrease our consumption, then the companies would follow suit.

The problem is that the evil oil companies invest millions in lobbying Governments and convincing thick people like @Job that they're the good guys and we shouldn't be targeting them, as it's our fault not theirs.

Reality is that they are the wealthiest companies on the planet, if they wanted to find a good alternative solution to fossil fuels, they could do it over night, the problem is why would they do that when we're so happy to blindly follow their most profitable option.

If we can't address the industrial uses of energy, how can we be expected to address the domestic uses of energy?

 

[Gwadien]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TuCmdtcWKog

 

[Job]

No, I'm saying that the market should be driven by consumers, if -everyone- said that the use of oil companies isn't right, and we should definitely decrease our consumption, then the companies would follow suit.

The problem is that the evil oil companies invest millions in lobbying Governments and convincing thick people like @Job that they're the good guys and we shouldn't be targeting them, as it's our fault not theirs.

Reality is that they are the wealthiest companies on the planet, if they wanted to find a good alternative solution to fossil fuels, they could do it over night, the problem is why would they do that when we're so happy to blindly follow their most profitable option.

If we can't address the industrial uses of energy, how can we be expected to address the domestic uses of energy?

I dont think theyre the good guys.
Im just pointing out its us demanding the energy, using it..complaining its not cheap enough and now demanding they find an alternative.
Well there was nuclear..but the activists didnt like that, maybe extinction rebellion should be attacking people who block nuclear, which they wont for obvious reasons.
So they want a totally unsuitable technology to sudenly start working without making any concessions.
Like...no imported goods or foods.
Cycle everywhere
Wear a jumper instead of heating
Shoot all their pets
No holidays jets.
Turn off the internet.

Just do something you evil bastards...make it so I can keep doing what I do and reduce co2..which may not have any effect.

 

[Job]

Even the commentors allowed to speak have pointed this out to George in the Guard.

The big polluters’ masterstroke was to blame the climate crisis on you and me | George Monbiot

 

[Bodhi]

No, I'm saying that the market should be driven by consumers, if -everyone- said that the use of oil companies isn't right, and we should definitely decrease our consumption, then the companies would follow suit.

The problem is that the evil oil companies invest millions in lobbying Governments and convincing thick people like @Job that they're the good guys and we shouldn't be targeting them, as it's our fault not theirs.

Reality is that they are the wealthiest companies on the planet, if they wanted to find a good alternative solution to fossil fuels, they could do it over night, the problem is why would they do that when we're so happy to blindly follow their most profitable option.

If we can't address the industrial uses of energy, how can we be expected to address the domestic uses of energy?

The oil companies are already heavily invested in renewables - mostly because as without fossil fuels renewables wouldn't be getting off the ground.

 

[Scouse]

The oil companies are already heavily invested in renewables - mostly because as without fossil fuels renewables wouldn't be getting off the ground.

They're also massively heavily invested in climate science denial groups, biased research, underhand and overt lobbying and false representation because: profit.


The above isn't even remotely controversial. The question should be what are we going to do about it? But the answer is - nothing, our politicians and large swathes of the public have been bought or conned.

 

[Scouse]

What a fucking crusty, eh?!

 

[Bodhi]

They're also massively heavily invested in climate science denial groups, biased research, underhand and overt lobbying and false representation because: profit.


The above isn't even remotely controversial. The question should be what are we going to do about it? But the answer is - nothing, our politicians and large swathes of the public have been bought or conned.

Hmm.

Heartland Institute Budget - $5.5 million
NOAA Budget - $4.5 billion

K m8.

 

[Bodhi]

What a fucking crusty, eh?!

Strange how that article doesn't state why he's an ex-Paralympian - as he was banned in 2016 for doping offences. Probably LSD and Ketamine going by the rest of the crusties.

 

[Job]

Should have taken off.

Is that superglue?
Youre gonna need it.

 

[Job]

I do admire their conviction, though its just going to backfire.

 

[Scouse]

Strange how that article doesn't state why he's an ex-Paralympian - as he was banned in 2016 for doping offences. Probably LSD and Ketamine going by the rest of the crusties.

Actually was kinda meaning the old guy on the plane. He doesn't look like a dope fiend either.

You keep clinging in desparation to your "they're all crusties" bullshit if it makes you feel better tho

 

[Scouse]

its just going to backfire.

How? Are we going to increase the rate we're destroying the environment?

 

[Scouse]

Hmm.

Heartland Institute Budget - $5.5 million
NOAA Budget - $4.5 billion

K m8.

Again @Bodhi - state explicitly what you mean please.

The Heartland Institute is a privately funded quack-tank run by a loon to discredit all sorts of things - including the dangers of smoking (Philip Morris helped fund that), US healthcare reforms, and lobbying for fracking.

The NOAA is a US government run and funded service that runs applied scientific research programmes.

So, one's a independently funded lobby org and the other is a government run scientific org. And they're linked / relevant to the point I made how, exactly?

 

[Bodhi]

Again @Bodhi - state explicitly what you mean please.

The Heartland Institute is a privately funded quack-tank run by a loon to discredit all sorts of things - including the dangers of smoking (Philip Morris helped fund that), US healthcare reforms, and lobbying for fracking.

The NOAA is a US government run and funded service that runs applied scientific research programmes.

So, one's a independently funded lobby org and the other is a government run scientific org. And they're linked / relevant to the point I made how, exactly?

Sorry I forgot I had to put it in simple terms for you. The budgets of those on the Pro-AGW side dwarf those on the sceptical side, as seen by the numbers I quoted. So to say FF companies are massively funding "denial" isn't really borne out by the facts. You can replace Heartland Institute with another well known skeptic group if you like, the numbers will be massively similar.

Anyway as I said, FF Companies fucking LOVE renewables, loads of subsidies they can milk for new projects, they can diversify their portfolio, wind turbines and solar panels require a shedload of energy to produce in the first place, so currently cannot be done without coal/oil/gas. The only energy transition they would suffer from is one to nuclear, as that would pretty much take them out of the loop completely.