stuart little
Established Member
Rember July '21, we had flash floods. One extreme to t'other.
Heatwave
- Thread starter Jacob
- Start date
Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:
Tris
What am I doing here?
That's just it though, we are seeing extreme events with greater frequency. Things that used to be considered once in a century are now once a decade, and we need to adapt to that
bertterbo
Established Member
Fossil fuels will not last forever. I've not looked at a graph recently but peak production is around now anyway.
Sure there will be new techniques, like fracking, but, ultimately, we are approaching peak supply with, assuming no alternatives, an ever increasing demand.
So, aside from any climate change stuff, an alternative is needed. Be that reducing demand for energy or increasing alternative supply.
Again, this is and will be the case regardless of any environmental concerns.
So why is it then that the climate change disbelievers are so keen on condemning non fossil fuels? I mean it's an absolute necessity to substitute a finite resource anyway.
What would they like to happen? That we burn all the oil and then wonder what to use to make "stuff" from when it's all gone? Not to mention what to use to turn the lights on and power the machines to make the "stuff".
I just don't get it. Again aside from any talk of climate change, what's the plan for when it all runs out? Should we put off developing new technologies and then do it all in a rush at the end, so we don't have to deal with all this "renewables" nonsense now?
The climate change disbelievers have made them selves known above, so, if possible, can you let me know what your plans are?
Thank you.
Sure there will be new techniques, like fracking, but, ultimately, we are approaching peak supply with, assuming no alternatives, an ever increasing demand.
So, aside from any climate change stuff, an alternative is needed. Be that reducing demand for energy or increasing alternative supply.
Again, this is and will be the case regardless of any environmental concerns.
So why is it then that the climate change disbelievers are so keen on condemning non fossil fuels? I mean it's an absolute necessity to substitute a finite resource anyway.
What would they like to happen? That we burn all the oil and then wonder what to use to make "stuff" from when it's all gone? Not to mention what to use to turn the lights on and power the machines to make the "stuff".
I just don't get it. Again aside from any talk of climate change, what's the plan for when it all runs out? Should we put off developing new technologies and then do it all in a rush at the end, so we don't have to deal with all this "renewables" nonsense now?
The climate change disbelievers have made them selves known above, so, if possible, can you let me know what your plans are?
Thank you.
DrPhill
Cyber Heretic
The concept of peak oil was based on analysis of actual oil extracted as historical data. The current estimates of oil in the ground are a fiction because oil in the ground is an asset that both affects share price and tax position. They are also a fiction because you cannot tell how much oil is actually in a well until it runs out.
See wikipedia:
3.5.1 Concerns over stated reserves
6 Criticisms
Or live science: https://www.livescience.com/38869-peak-oil.html
See wikipedia:
3.5.1 Concerns over stated reserves
6 Criticisms
Or live science: https://www.livescience.com/38869-peak-oil.html
Does all that translate as "it's going to last forever"?
If not, all that changes is the time scale. Which is not wholly relevant to the direction of the question.
Jacob
New Luddism. Wake up and resist.
Probably. But it gets increasingly expensive to extract and we've got to stop doing it now if we want to avoid the apocalypse.
Makes no difference to anything.
Terry - Somerset
Established Member
Peak oil is a moving proposition. Most estimates are based on known reserves and estimated future changes in consumption. Historically peak oil was always around 30 years from the present.
Peak oil may be defined as known (and expected) reserves that can be economically exploited. Oil which costs much more to extract than its market value is not an exploitable resource. If price and extraction cost is ignored, peak oil may be extended.
However there is no doubt (in my mind) that oil and gas are ultimately a limited resources. When other sources of energy become cheaper, it will no longer be the fuel of choice. It can then be used for that which science has yet to find a decent sustainable alternative - eg: plastics.
There also seem to be several stereotypical reactions to climate change (IMHO it is real):
Peak oil may be defined as known (and expected) reserves that can be economically exploited. Oil which costs much more to extract than its market value is not an exploitable resource. If price and extraction cost is ignored, peak oil may be extended.
However there is no doubt (in my mind) that oil and gas are ultimately a limited resources. When other sources of energy become cheaper, it will no longer be the fuel of choice. It can then be used for that which science has yet to find a decent sustainable alternative - eg: plastics.
There also seem to be several stereotypical reactions to climate change (IMHO it is real):
- unbelievers - identification with data, reports, scientists supporting their preconceptions. Or they simply don't like the consequences of dealing with necessary change - denial
- convinced - regulation, punishment, ridicule for all those who don't agree - like religious zealots - sanctimonious and insistent
- most - they understand the general arguments and evidence, but nervous of unambiguous acceptance because of the impacts upon their stable existence.
Jacob
New Luddism. Wake up and resist.
There's another group which accepts the evidence and regards action as urgent and necessary, which includes virtually all of the scientific community. Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia.
How do you think they should do more to educate and what on earth is there to be reassuring about?
I think they need to be more alarmist and if anything they've pulled their punches. Events have been taking place worldwide sooner than forecast - they haven't shouted loudly enough.
Last edited:
Sad to say, Jacob, but I think we are too late.
The problem we have is the current increases are locked in for generations. Our efforts now will allow our grandchildren to see an improvement - if we are lucky. I’m no vegetarian or vegan but I’m realising I have to do what I can and that doesn’t include pretending it’s not real or questioning the vast majority of scientists who study this. If you want a laugh have a look at Brian Cox vs the Australian MP.
Molynoox
Established Member
Yes I've seen that, it's quite remarkable how people argue with scientists on matters of science, it's really bizarre actually. I don't claim to understand it all but I know when to listen and if there is a scientific consensus then I don't see what there is left to debate about, that's as close to fact as it gets so might as well just accept it. Surely.
Ultimately, no one is perfect. I'm not religious in the slightest, but i like the idea of your life being weighed up at the Pearly Gates*. You do some good, and some bad, but you try and tip the scales in your favour. I guess i like the idea of some sort of ultimate judgement, although I'm well aware its not going to happen.
This is one of the reasons why i found the prior posts by (i cant be bothered to look up their name) above ranting about "vegetarianism" "riding on the meat industry" when a) it doesn't have to / doesn't always (i even gave an example, but i think it was too obtuse to be grasped) but ALSO, its a case of "every little helps".
I mean, most of us, if we are honest, go a few miles over the limit in a 30 zone now and again. 32 / 33, whatever. Its not the same as going 60. 35 still increases the chance of death on impact by a fair amount, so, yes, its wrong, but there are degrees of wrongness. A reduction in wrongdoing is better than no reduction in wrongdoing. 34 is better than 55 if you hit a kid. Not as good as 30, sure, but better than 55.
Its not a hard concept (for most people) to grasp.
Some things are just so easy also. When we first swapped our power supplier to a "renewables only" tariff, it was actually cheaper than anything the "big six" were offering. Im not sure if it is currently, but still.
(and the amount of people who say "what, you have an electron filter on your door", clearly not understanding the motive force of money)
...to just trying to "consume" less. Do you really need that injection moulded "thing" that's been shipped from china? Will your new mobile phone really do anything different to your last one? Im sitting in a room here floored by old scaffold boards, rather than some new "stuff". It was cheaper, looks better, and has a lower carbon footprint. I mean, whats not to like?
Some things take more effort, more money, or whatever, but, whilst LiPO batteries are still a bit too rich for me, the last 4kw solar panel set that i bought was a grand total of £380. I mean at that sort of money, anyone with a roof should have solar. And, yes, i know that was cheap - the previous 3.5kw was about £600, so still affordable to way more people than would actually bother.
As you say, its incremental, not absolute. No-one is perfect, but most people know what's right and wrong, and you just try and tip the scales correct way.
*(I'm well aware it doesn't work like that in that particular religion - belief trumps a lifetime of sin, as was evident by heaven's first admission)
If you'll all permit me to throw another log on the fire. I believe that our only hope is Alien intervention, they've already demonstrated that they have the ability to disarm nuclear weapons and reset them minutes later so maybe they possess the ability to alter the atmosphere. Who knows.
I'm sure there's many disbelievers to the existence of Aliens also.
I'm sure there's many disbelievers to the existence of Aliens also.
Trainee neophyte
Established Member
No one is mentioning the interesting experiment being conducted by Europe at the moment. By choosing to reduce their oil and gas purchases by a significant amount, they may be able to singlehandedly save the world.
Of course it means no more manufacturing or consuming, but that is a small price to pay to save the planet, surely? I am watching with interest to see what the consequences will be regarding life expectancy.
Of course it means no more manufacturing or consuming, but that is a small price to pay to save the planet, surely? I am watching with interest to see what the consequences will be regarding life expectancy.
Jacob
New Luddism. Wake up and resist.
Not no more manufacturing but much reduced manufacturing - which looks like the future anyway.
It's another of the elephants in the room which gets ignored - a sustainable future entails massive unemployment in production of non sustainable goods and services.
But increased employment in lots of other ways - from having more bus drivers with conductors on board! to sheer handwork in place of machines. Invest in scythes now! And the production of sustainable energy of course.
Massive changes, much creative thinking required!
Last edited:
Oh no, I hope you are okay sir. Maybe a scotch or a pint of beer instead of coffee will aid the healing process?? Get well soon!
John Brown
Freeloading Social media influenza
Thanks! I'm having the occasional beer...
selectortone
Still waking up not dead in the morning
The oil sector has been making $3 billion a day profit for the last 50 years. That's 55 thousand billion dollars. Profit. That might suggest why the fossil fuel lobby has a vested interest in debunking climate change.
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...-oil-sectors-staggering-profits-last-50-years
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...-oil-sectors-staggering-profits-last-50-years
Last edited:
Similar threads
