• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

Cont: Global warming discussion V

Big Oil not only prevents sensible adjustments to infrastructure to take place, it deliberately ruined sensible infrastructure in the first place to make room for cars:
Don't conflate two different things. Big Auto is not Big Oil. Oil companies had little involvement in roading infrastructure. Before gas cars became popular, oil companies were doing just fine selling other products such as heating oil and kerosene. The first 'Big Oil' company was Standard Oil,
Standard Oil Company, Inc., was an American oil production, transportation, refining, and marketing company that operated from 1870 to 1911. At its height, Standard Oil was the largest petroleum company in the world, and its success made its cofounder and chairman, John D. Rockefeller, among the wealthiest Americans of all time and among the richest people in modern history. Its history as one of the world's first and largest multinational corporations ended in 1911, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that it was an illegal monopoly...

In 1904, Standard controlled 91% of production and 85% of final sales. Most of its output was kerosene, of which 55 percent was exported around the world...

Standard Oil's market position was initially established through an emphasis on efficiency and responsibility. While most companies dumped gasoline in rivers (this was before the automobile was popular), Standard used it to fuel its machines. While other companies' refineries piled mountains of heavy waste, Rockefeller found ways to sell it. For example, Standard bought the company that invented and produced Vaseline, the Chesebrough Manufacturing Co.
In supplying gasoline to motor car drivers, 'Big Oil' was simply responding to demand.

In the early days electric cars were preferred in cities because they were much more user-friendly. All you had to was plug it in to charge the batteries, and go. No nasty liquids, no fumes, no back-firing, virtually no maintenance, and most importantly no hand cranking. Anybody could drive an electric car, while gas cars needed a strong man who was mechanically minded and willing to risk breaking his arm (or worse) starting the damn thing.

But electric cars had downsides too. Lower range - fine in the city but not for rural areas that didn't have electricity. Low speed, again great for cities but not so great for long distance travel. And they were more expensive than gas cars. A gas car had the advantage that you could carry extra fuel and stockpile it where you needed it, whereas electric cars needed a mains electricity supply nearby (which was far from universal in those days). Then the electric starter motor was invented, and gas cars took off because now anyone could drive them.

The idea that 'Big Oil' pushed motor cars onto an unwilling public is ludicrous. People bought them because they wanted them, and they wanted them because they were a huge advance over the horse and cart - especially in places like the US where large distances were involved. In 1908 when Henry Ford introduced the Model T, 54% of Americans lived in rural areas. Roading infrastructure expanded to meet the needs of those drivers, not city dwellers (who were quite happy walking or using public transport).

Of course car makers promoted this new technology in glowing terms without mentioning the downsides, and naturally they wanted better roads etc. to support motor cars. But people didn't have to buy them. Even after Ford dramatically lowered the cost of production, a motor car was an expensive item to purchase and maintain. The average person needed a good reason to spend that kind of money - and they had one - freedom. The freedom go where you wanted when you wanted without wasting too much time getting there. That's not something they were brainwashed into believing - it's inherent in human nature.

Of course in reality it wasn't that simple. The more cars you have the more roads you need, and when everybody drives into the city at once you have a big problem. Cities have been struggling to provide sufficient infrastructure ever since motor cars became popular. But they struggled to deal with horse traffic before that.

This wasn't a conspiracy dreamed up by Big Auto and Big Oil to get people hooked on gas cars, it just happened - because everyone wants a better life for themselves, but nobody looks at the big picture.

The current state of things is what makes Stout and others like him think that cars are just something that appeals to human nature
To a large extent that's true. They wouldn't be so popular if it wasn't. Just because we weren't born with wheels doesn't mean the desire for effortless mobility isn't inherent. For millennia we only had animals to satisfy that desire, and they had considerable downsides.

Back in the 1960s we used horses on the farm. Then the farm bike was invented by a guy from New Plymouth in New Zealand. These have low gearing suitable for riding hilly country at low speed. My dad got one and put a tray on the back for the dog to ride on. He got rid of the horse soon after. I never learned to ride a horse properly, but it only took a minute to get used to the bike (though it was quite funny to see my dad kneeing the bike's fuel tank to make it 'go faster').

A couple of bike paths don't do the trick. You have to do something akin to (or even better than) what was done in cities like Amsterdam or Copenhagen.
More than just a couple of bike paths here. The only problem is cars are more versatile and a lot less effort, so few people ride bikes. However that is changing now as electric bikes are becoming more capable. It is quite possible to ride on cycle ways all the way to the next city, and with how clogged the motorway is at peak traffic time not much slower! But not great in bad weather or when you have cargo.

Some people don't like videos and prefer text. However, one of the things I love about the (as always) excellent video from Climate Town is the footage of big-city streets before they were usurped by cars: the first minute of the video!
I wasn't that impressed. The city seemed crowded, and that was a long time ago when its population was much lower. Things weren't as rosy back then as you imagine.

The Truth About Horse-Drawn Carriages in New York City
There are over 200 horses in New York City working nine hour shifts, carrying carriages that weigh hundreds of pounds...

New York has the highest horse-drawn carriage accident rate in the country...

It costs the city hundreds of thousands of dollars annually to monitor the horse-drawn carriage industry, and a 2007 audit by the city’s Comptroller revealed that the horses are not adequately cared for. They’re kept in rundown buildings, in tiny stables without enough room to comfortably lie down or move around. The buildings do not have adequate fire protection, some are not required to install sprinkler systems, and the horses are forced to use steep ramps to access different floors. Once a horse hits the streets of New York, his life expectancy is cut in half
Hang on a minute, that was in 2007! ;)

New York, manure and stairs: when horses were the cities’ nightmares
There are times when the solution to a specific problem becomes a revolution, although not necessarily a positive one.

This is the case with the invention of the automobile in the nineteenth century, partly in response to the transport needs of a world in midst of an industrial era, and partly to address a much more mundane cause: horse poop...

The increase in population made these animals somewhat inconvenient: the horse-drawn carriages, in addition to noisy, hindered traffic in the streets, caused fatal accidents (in 1900, 200 New Yorkers were runover by these passenger vehicles) and, above all, were large producers of manure.

[New York City] was a thriving urban centre by the end of the nineteenth century, with around 3.5 million inhabitants who, logically, needed to move around the town. At that time, there were about 170,000 horses also living in NYC... By a quick calculation, we can estimate that each day in New York between one and two million kilos of equine excrement were "produced" every day...

The accumulation of faeces intensified with the rain, becoming a pestilent fluid that seeped into the basements, attracting all kinds of rats, flies and other disease-transmitting insects... when these animals died, their carcasses were abandoned on the streets, creating an additional health issue.
If 200 are a problem, imagine the chaos caused by 170,000 of them!

The situation was so dire that in 1898, New York Mayor George E. Waring Jr. organized the first international congress on urban planning, with manure as the "star" theme...

Measures were put in place... staircases to access buildings, sewerage infrastructure was improved, and the first streetcar lines appeared (horse-drawn, but able to carry more passengers than a carriage); in addition, public transport was encouraged and street cleaning crews (known as White Wings because of their white uniforms) were established.

All of this contributed to stopping every citizen from using his or her own horse, and thus cleaning became manageable.

However, the real solution would arrive years later with the widespread use of cars. Years would go by before they became popular, and although nowadays it seems contradictory, two centuries ago, the automobile was a ‘green’ solution to the problem of horses and their manure.

But hey, I bet it was Big Oats who manipulated people's thinking to the extent where it didn't even occur to them to try looking outside the box. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
As long as companies benefit from the extraction and burning of fossil fuels, fossil fuels will continue to be extracted and burned.
That's right, and how can they benefit? By selling it. But they won't sell it unless there is demand. Every person who drives an EV (BEV or PHEV in electric mode) or walks, bikes or rides on electrically powered public transport is reducing that demand. If only 20% of us did that the oil companies would panic and look at ways to diversify (eg. by converting gas stations to charging stations).

I think you are the one who should tell us how 'public pressure' is supposed to make oil companies mend their ways. The article you linked to was one big contradiction of the idea.
I didn't follow his link, but there are many ways to make oil companies mend their ways. Number one is don't buy their product. Oil companies are freaking out about electric cars. When demand is low the price drops, they make less money can't afford to drill for more. So they don't want us to drive EVs - but they can't stop us doing so.

What's wrong with this plan? Yes, you guessed it - it's us. You see, when the price of gas drops, suddenly people start thinking their EV wasn't such a great 'investment'. Why, it might even just possibly be cheaper (if you squint at the numbers) to drive a gas car! And besides, EVs are a pain - what with taking a whole 15 minutes to top up and only having a range of 400 of miles or so (half that when towing a boat up a mountain in a blizzard at -40°C, which you might want to do some day).

 
I didn't follow his link, but there are many ways to make oil companies mend their ways.

Ehh. "Mend their ways" is probably overly optimistic.

As you say, though, reducing demand is one of the best ways to reduce their influence. I'd go with reducing demand (as swiftly as feasible), holding them accountable for the harm that they've done via dishonesty, and regulating to prevent further harm via dishonesty as the main ways to keep them in line. Sufficient public pressure has been somewhat foundational for each of the efforts to make those happen. At the moment, the first two look like they're in the process of approaching the tipping points, regardless.

Global shift to clean energy means fossil fuel demand will peak soon, IEA says

Demand for climate-warming fuels like coal, oil and natural gas will likely peak before 2030, evidence of the accelerating global shift to energy that doesn't emit greenhouse gasses, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA)'s World Energy Outlook.

After a long slog, climate change lawsuits will finally put Big Oil on trial
32 lawsuits now target fossil fuel companies over climate damage.


Hardly a full fix for the problems at hand with fossil fuels, but definitely progress.
 
Last edited:
Plenty of college educated people with their faces deep in the fossil fuel trough. Sure, they may bitch about it but that's not stopping them from driving the monster sized RV thousands of miles to Burning Man.

Well, you gotta lean your There is no Planet B sign up against something, right?


Yes, still the same old made-up narrative!
What's next? The story about the beggar who has a limousine with a chauffeur parked around the corner to take him to his mansion when he has finished begging?
 
Ehh. "Mend their ways" is probably overly optimistic.

As you say, though, reducing demand is one of the best ways to reduce their influence. I'd go with reducing demand (as swiftly as feasible), holding them accountable for the harm that they've done via dishonesty, and regulating to prevent further harm via dishonesty as the main ways to keep them in line. Sufficient public pressure has been somewhat foundational for each of the efforts to make those happen. At the moment, the first two look like they're in the process of approaching the tipping points, regardless.

Global shift to clean energy means fossil fuel demand will peak soon, IEA says



After a long slog, climate change lawsuits will finally put Big Oil on trial
32 lawsuits now target fossil fuel companies over climate damage.


Hardly a full fix for the problems at hand with fossil fuels, but definitely progress.


Yes, "definitely progress", always somewhere in the future, sometimes even in the near future. Meanwhile, in the real world, in the present, fossil-fuel extraction and burning is still increasing, but any day now ...
 
To get a little more technical, "Drill, Baby, Drill" has been a more general vote Republican slogan for quite a while. "Drill, Drill, Drill" is just a variation that Trump's used.

For recent news on the Biden Administration front there, though -

Oil and gas companies must pay more to drill on public lands under new Biden administration rule

Not what he promised, but better than either nothing or the Republican alternative. Also, it's true that the Biden Administration has approved a lot of drilling, but, well, the situation is a bit more complex, if we're to allow for oil advocates to weigh in.

Why Biden’s Oil Drilling Permits Surge Is Not What It Seems

Thanks for this. It's nice to get some actual information here, rather than "Watch this YouTube video!"
 
You seem to ignore everything I've written for the past year or so.

No. I just don't accept it- especially as you consistently fail to supply evidence for your sweeping cynical generalisations.

It doesn't seem to come as a surprise to voters (and it shouldn't!) when they vote for politicians promising one thing and then doing the opposite once elected, and yet voters keep making the same mistake election after election.

Meaning, once again, you can't back up your claims with actual evidence: "It seems"- to you, is all you've got.
The only (recent) example you've put forward is Biden: hence my charge that you are focussing on America as if it was the only country in the world.



If I ask my Sudanese, Egyptian, Jordanian and Saudi co-workers, how many of them do you expect will know about this? When you say 'everybody', do you actually mean 'everybody', just Americans, or just people on this forum? That kind of patronising generalisation is not going to wash with me.


You should keep up on what is happening in the world, the real world, instead of fantasizing about it.

Now we get to my suggestion that you are a shill for Big Oil, to which you respond with a great deal of bluster and denial, but no actual substance.

They are companies and act like companies. There is really no persuading or influencing them not to act like companies.

And as companies, they are subject both to the law of supply and demand, and to stakeholder pressure. Something you deny, because reasons.

Strawman! I never said or implied what you claim.

And more strawman. It's really all you've got, isn't it?

No, it's not all I've got. You obviously don't realise how easy you're making life for the fossil fuel companies, by your strident monomaniac insistence that nothing can be done. Finally, after much prodding, we get this:

Now we're getting somewhere! I am all for taking action against these businesses.
But taking actual action against these businesses is very different from going vegan, taking cold showers and appealing to business owners and politicians to, please, do the right thing and not drill, drill, drill so much!

And what do we get?
Nothing!
No substance at all!
Not one concrete suggestion about how these companies can be influenced. No guidance or suggestions whatsoever. Just 'we should take action'. Pitiful.

If they were even aware of my existence, they would hate me more than you do.

I don't hate you at all. And I stand by my argument: if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. You resolutely refuse to suggest any solutions. You go on and on and on about how nothing can influence fossil fuel companies- they are just too big, too powerful, too rich, politicans and scientists are in their pockets, and the public is too lazy and stupid, for anything to be done. I see no reason at all to suppose that those businesses look on your efforts with anything other than glee. You are busily doing their work for them.
 
I can recommend David Lipsky's The Parrot and the Igloo: Climate and the Science of Denial, which I more or less summarized in this forum last year as I was reading it.

Lipsky's argument seems to be that propaganda has convinced the public that climate change is not real.
Curious, then, that I am not aware of a single climate-change denier on this forum.
Looking at individual countries:
74% of British people say they are concerned about climate change.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopula...matechangegreatbritain/septembertooctober2022

77% of EU citizens think climate change is a serious problem.
https://europa.eu/eurobarometer/surveys/browse/all/series/2981

The problem is America, where there is a major difference between Democrats and Republicans. Overall, though, 54% of Americans think climate change is a major problem.
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-r...l, a majority of U.S.,than in the early 2010s.

So, where has this mass brainwashing actually worked? Where has it been successful? It's so easy to sneer at ordinary people, and claim they've been brainwashed or propagandised into believing something that's not true. This is the stance of so many conspiracy theorists. "I'm smart! I know the REAL TRUTH! Other people be stoopid!"
dann: is it your claim that the majority of people in the world do not believe in climate change as a result of propaganda campaigns by fossil fuel companies? If so, can you show some evidence for this claim?
 
Yes, "definitely progress", always somewhere in the future, sometimes even in the near future. Meanwhile, in the real world, in the present, fossil-fuel extraction and burning is still increasing, but any day now ...

Simply not true. You are burying your head in the sands of cynicism.
In the UK, the use of renewables has soared
By the end of 1991, renewables accounted for just 2% of all electrical generation in the UK. By 2013 this figure had risen to 14.6%.

2017 placed Britain into the position as one of Europe’s leaders in the growth of renewable energy generation. Only countries like Iceland, Norway and Sweden, who had more established renewable schemes, used more on a relative scale.

In 2019, zero-carbon electricity production overtook fossil fuels for the first time, while on 17 August renewable generation hit the highest share ever at 85.1% (wind 39%, solar 25%, nuclear 20% and hydro 1%).

In 2023, individual renewables contributed the following:

Wind power contributed 29.4% of the UK’s total electricity generation.
Biomass energy, the burning of renewable organic materials, contributed 5% to the renewable mix.
Solar power contributed 4.9% to the renewable mix
Hydropower, including tidal, contributed 1.8% to the renewable mix.

I'm quoting more, at the risk of being seen as spamming, simply because otherwise you will just refuse to read it:
2022 was the UK’s highest year on record for zero carbon generation so far at 138 terawatt-hours (TWh), with 133TWh generated in 2023, and the records for renewables continue to come.

December 2023 was the 15th month in a row where zero-carbon generation produced more than fossil fuel generation.
We’ve reduced the involvement of coal in our generation mix by more than 97% since 2013. Power provided from coal was responsible for only 1% of electricity generation in 2023, compared to 2018 when coal represented 5.1% and 2013 when 39.6% was generated by coal – showing the significant reduction that’s taking place.
Zero-carbon power sources in Britain’s electricity mix outperformed traditional fossil fuel generation in 2023 by providing 51% of the electricity used, compared to 32% from gas and 1% from coal.
A maximum zero carbon record of 87.6% was reached on 4 January 2023.
The record for the maximum amount of wind power generation was broken twice in 2023;10 January saw the first record of the year, with wind generating over 21.6GW, and 21 December delivered the largest wind generation to date with a record 21.8GW. The highest share of wind in the overall generation mix was on 19 November 2023 between 4:30am and 5am, at 69%.
20 April 2023 saw the highest ever solar generation record at 10.971GW.
2023 was the greenest year on record, with carbon intensity averaging 149 grams of CO2 per kWh. The lowest carbon intensity record of 27 gCO2/kWh was achieved on 18 September 2023.

So, dann: do you accept that in the UK, it's not a case of 'any day now', 'sometime in the near future', but actually right now, and this has been the case for several years now?
https://www.nationalgrid.com/stories/energy-explained/how-much-uks-energy-renewable
 
And a lot of good that'll do you:
You're unlikely to save much money by switching supplier at the moment, as most fixed deals are similar to the price-capped variable rates.
How to choose the best energy supplier (Which?)

Well, for a start, I wasn't talking about saving money, I was talking about being able to choose energy suppliers based on their commitment to renewables.
Then, it's clear you didn't actually read your own link:
dann's link that he didn't read said:
Several energy companies, and more tariffs, are branded as ‘green’. But there’s no set definition of what ‘green’ means, so it’s worth checking before you sign up to make sure you’re getting what you expect.

So we asked energy companies for information on a range of sustainability criteria in August 2023. Then we awarded them points based on their responses and information published on their websites.

As a result, we named 100Green, Ecotricity, Good Energy and Octopus Energy Eco Providers for 2023. Find out more in our guide: Small energy companies A-Z.

Our scoring looked at:

Generating renewable power
Buying and selling renewable power
Carbon intense power
Green gas
Time of use and Smart Export Guarantee tariffs
Low carbon installations
Transparency and clarity.

So it is not only possible to change suppliers based on their eco-credentials, it is also easy, because the information is out there, in the public domain.

As for the economics of your argument:
Cosmic Yak said:
People choose to use solar panels. Moreover, in the UK at least, consumers can choose which company supplies their electricity.
Then there's supply and demand: if people didn't want renewables, businesses would not use them. It's a basic rule of economics: you can't force people to buy something they don't want. You find out what they want, and produce that. It's called marketing.

No, that's not called marketing. People don't usually know if the products they buy are made by using fossil fuels, wind and solar or nuclear. Most of the time, they have no way of knowing.

I wasn't talking about products: I was talking about how energy is generated. You are off target here.
Also, it appears you do not know what marketing is.

Businesses use whatever is cheaper. That is the basic rule of market economics.

Nonsense. You obviously don't know much about how businesses work.

You can force people to buy something they don't want: Most of the time, people buy the **** they can afford instead of the quality goods that they may want but can't afford.

Utter nonsense. Does everyone in the world want a Rolls or a Mclaren? Are we all disappointed because we've been forced to buy Audis, BMWs and Jaguars? No, dann, that's a massive oversimplification, displaying very little grasp of how economics works. You are assuming that everyone wants to live off lobster and champagne. People aren't all like that. Not everyone needs material status symbols. Not everyone is into conspicuous consumption.
And none of that is forcing people to buy things they don't want. Economists have known this hasn't worked since the days of the Ford Edsel.

It's called supply and demand. You can want, but you can't demand something that you can't afford.

You are basing your entire argument around price? Renewable energy is cheaper than fossil fuels.
https://www.snexplores.org/article/green-energy-cheaper-than-fossil-fuels-climate

'Demand', in this context, does not mean 'insist upon'. Your economic ignorance is showing yet again.

This is also the reason why you can't base a business on what people want. You can base a business on what people are dependent on and thus have to buy. Electricity, for instance.

People are currently dependent on cars. Is every model of car, and every car company, that have ever been made, still being made, and still doing business, now?
People are dependent on food. Are we still using veal crates in Europe?
People are dependent on wood. Are we checking whether it comes from sustainable sources, or not?
Just because people need electricity does not in any way mean that electricity has to come from fossil fuels.
Businesses respond to stakeholder pressure. Consumer behaviour and public opinion pull and push industries to conform to those pressures. Those that do not adapt go bust.

Making people believe that your product is better than it actually is and thus making them buy it is what's called marketing.

No, that's called false advertising. Once again: you clearly have no idea what marketing actually is.
 
Greenwashing Energy is the Norm: there is no way for the consumer to verify what energy mix the provider bought/produced themselves - it's playing with numbers.

Usually, the providers will provide what is cheapest, with renewable "capacity" being sold as actually green energy.

What we need is Community based energy providers.
And a Consumer Protection Agency that can just show up and audit a company with total authority.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
Cute.

Not applicable to the US or most other markets, obviously.

You did not specify the US. The post you made was in response to posts about the UK.
If you want to broaden the scope of this particular topic, how about providing something to back it up? You know, like maybe, evidence or something?

Not meaningful for the UK either, really.
Articles like this is exactly how greenwashing works - it's the McDonald's Salad.

Just because you say so, or have you got any actual evidence for this?
I do wonder if you know who Which are, and what they do. Your comments here indicate that you don't.

I await your apology for your loaded language.

You can add that to the list of things you will never get from me. Nonsense is nonsense, and I make no apologies for describing it thus.
 
Look at the name of the thread, Yak:

It says GLOBAL warming, not what some UK consumer site (with the PR it gets from providers) thinks is the company you should get your power from.
What level of research/audit you think that Site got to do to corroborate the companies' claims?

It's up to You to make clear that you are only talking about a specific location/market, excluding everything else.

This semantics game is really tiresome.
 
Last edited:
Yes, "definitely progress", always somewhere in the future, sometimes even in the near future. Meanwhile, in the real world, in the present, fossil-fuel extraction and burning is still increasing, but any day now ...

I take it that you're one of the people who, when their kid gets a 99/100 on a big test, berates the kid for not getting 100/100, rather than praising them for how well they've done.
 
I didn't own a car (or have regular use of anyone else's) for the first 20 years of my independent adult life. I walked, biked, and used public transit. This worked out fine for me, but I learned a few things.

If you take public transit, you'll be late to work sometimes. Your supervisors may or may not pretend to be understanding, but they'll be thinking, "if you were serious about your job you'd drive a car." That doesn't matter if you're a lab tech or a retail associate, but back when there were these things called "promotions" it mattered a great deal. It probably still does, somewhere. When you're secure in a corner office maybe you can get back on the bike or the train. Of course by then you've got flexible hours and a car whose heater and AC work, so you'd probably be very tempted not to.

I had the same experience +10 years not owning a car and being that weirdo who showed up at work on a bicycle or the bus. The times they are a-changin' though. My son is graduating high school with an electrical apprenticeship and companies have been coming to his school looking for recruits. One company even said they "admired the dedication" of one of their employees who took the bus to different job sites.
 
So, where has this mass brainwashing actually worked? Where has it been successful?

For what it's worth, I would surmise that it's been most effective in states and among groups that depend more heavily on the fossil fuel industries. When people are just looking for any straw they can grasp onto for emotional purposes, factual quality can be easily overlooked. Republican propagandists have also incorporated such and slip it past defenses using their usual manipulation of biases and trust. That has distinct consequences on Republican rhetoric and greatly eases and strengthens the influence that the fossil fuel industries have on Republican decision making.
 
For what it's worth, I would surmise that it's been most effective in states and among groups that depend more heavily on the fossil fuel industries. When people are just looking for any straw they can grasp onto for emotional purposes, factual quality can be easily overlooked. Republican propagandists have also incorporated such and slip it past defenses using their usual manipulation of biases and trust. That has distinct consequences on Republican rhetoric and greatly eases and strengthens the influence that the fossil fuel industries have on Republican decision making.

In America.
Not worldwide.
 
Look at the name of the thread, Yak:

It says GLOBAL warming,

It does, and therefore discussion of what measures specific countries are taking to mitigate global warming is exactly on topic.

not what some UK consumer site (with the PR it gets from providers)

Once again, you are showing that you have no idea what Which is, nor what it does.
It is a consumer protection group. The sole purpose of Which is to investigate PR claims by companies and check whether they are true or not, so that consumers can make informed choices. That's what they do. That's all they do.

thinks is the company you should get your power from.
What level of research/audit you think that Site got to do to corroborate the companies' claims?

No, I'm not playing your game. Look at how we got here. You responded to a post about UK energy providers by claiming that there was a monopoly, and consumers could not choose a company.
I showed you that wasn't true. Rather than admit your error, you retreated to the next fall-back position, which was that there was no way to tell how these companies generated their power. Again, I demonstrated that was an error. Again, you refused to acknowledge your mistake, but retreated yet again to another position, again based on an evidence-free argument from incredulity: Now you don't believe that the information consumers have access to is accurate. Every step of the way, you retreat to a new and still unevidenced position: it's an infinite regression of arguments from incredulity.
You are also arguing like a conspiracy theorist. You demand an ever more detailed level of evidence for my claims, and no amount of detail will satisfy you. Your own claims, on the other hand, are grand, sweeping declarations thrown out without a single shred of evidence to back them up. This double standard of evidence is just what conspiracy theorists hold to, and it's not a standard I will accept.
So, I'm not accepting your evidential double standards, and insistence that we simply take your word as gospel. I have made my claim, and provided evidence to support it. If you want to dispute Which's methods and findings, then the burden of proof is on you to show your detailed and factual reasons for rejecting these findings.

It's up to You to make clear that you are only talking about a specific location/market, excluding everything else.

You jumped in on a conversation between myself and dann: I am under no obligation to ensure that someone not in that conversation is reading it carefully. That's up to you. The numerous and specific references to the UK should have given you a clue that, at that time, we were discussing the UK.
As for "excluding everything else", that is an outright lie. I specifically invited you to show evidence on this topic concerning the rest of the world, here:

If you want to broaden the scope of this particular topic, how about providing something to back it up? You know, like maybe, evidence or something?

This semantics game is really tiresome.

There is no semantics game happening here. There is you not reading posts properly, and also you making unevidenced claims, along with a great deal of arguments from incredulity coming from you too. No semantics involved at all, and I wonder why you choose to characterise this discussion as such. If you want to move this debate along in a meaningful and productive way, then acknowledge your multiple errors, and back up your claims with evidence. Simples.
 
In America.
Not worldwide.

Sure. That was something of a given in what I said, though. The only part of my post that could apply more worldwide was "among groups that depend more heavily on the fossil fuel industries," but taking such that way would be ignoring the context.
 
Sure. That was something of a given in what I said, though. The only part of my post that could apply more worldwide was "among groups that depend more heavily on the fossil fuel industries," but taking such that way would be ignoring the context.

Even in the States, though, a majority of the public believes that global warming is a major problem. dann's claim that everyone except him has been brainwashed is just not true.
I also wanted to ensure that we don't just confine the discussion to America. This forum is now mostly Americans, and there is a tendency to only talk about the US, as if that was the only country in the world. It's rather annoying for us non-Americans!
 
Even in the States, though, a majority of the public believes that global warming is a major problem.

Seven Key Gallup Findings About the Environment on Earth Day
April 22, 2024

Consistent with recent years, 42% of Americans worry “a great deal” about global warming or climate change. Gallup also finds 59% of Americans believing that global warming has already begun to happen. However, 55% do not think it will pose a serious threat in their own lifetime.
That's a lot of people with their heads in the sand.

Meanwhile...

Our turbulent skies
"If you look at a FAA [Federal Aviation Administration] report, in 10 years from 2012 to 2022, only 34 passengers were seriously injured in 163 turbulence instances, so it's very low. It's over 25 years since a passenger has been killed in commercial aircraft turbulence - that was in 1997."

That was until May 22 this year, when a passenger died of a suspected heart attack and 30 people were injured after a Singapore Airlines Boeing 777-300ER hit turbulence...

Evidence also shows turbulence is becoming more common with the impacts of climate change.

"There have been some recent studies showing increases in instances of clear-air turbulence - about a 15 per cent increase over the last 40 years," Turner says.

You see, we don't have to do anything about GHG emissions from airliners because eventually Nature will solve the problem for us - by making it too risky to fly!

This article is good news because it shows that the (mainstream) media is no longer equivocating over whether 'climate change' is a serious problem. The more reports we get like this the faster it will sink in that Global Warming is not just about a small increase in average temperature.

It needs to 'get real' for people to appreciate the urgency of the matter, and this is one example. Next time you are thinking about taking that long distance airplane flight for your holiday, you just might want to consider that the chances of having a bumpy ride (or worse) are increasing. And when you do take the flight (because you will anyway) and it does get bumpy, Global Warming will become real for you too!
 
That's a lot of people with their heads in the sand.

Depends how you define "serious threat".

Even by the end of this century, I don't think the warming will be having a serious impact on more than a tiny fraction of people.
_____________________________

Meanwhile, it looks like the warming is giving Alaska some much-needed colour:

https://www.stuff.co.nz/environment...ers-turning-orange-alaska-alarming-scientists

This should be a rallying cry for the state, Bristol said.

“It’s the kind of thing that can really bring Alaskans together to think more concretely about what we should be doing now, and in the next few years,” he said.

“I don’t exactly know what those solutions are right now, but it’s our job to figure it out.”

Stopping exports of a jillion barrels of oil a year doesn't appear to be on the table.
 
"There have been some recent studies showing increases in instances of clear-air turbulence - about a 15 per cent increase over the last 40 years," Turner says.

Reading the article I don't see that they corelated that with the increase in air traffic in the last 40 years? ( Yes there was a big dip 2020 )
 
Depends how you define "serious threat".

Even by the end of this century, I don't think the warming will be having a serious impact on more than a tiny fraction of people.
Nobody cares about your uninformed opinion.

The Global Economy Will Be 31% Poorer By 2100 Because Of Climate Change
The study concludes that every 1 Celsius (1.8 Fahrenheit) degree increase in atmospheric temperatures will lead to a 12% global GDP decline. It notes that the consequences of not addressing carbon emissions in the present will be “multiple orders of magnitude above previous estimates” as the remainder of the century unfolds. It further observes that a unilateral decarbonization policy will be a cost-effective means of reducing carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere and argues that the social cost of carbon is US $1,056 per ton if we don’t address unilateral decarbonization quickly. For those who balk at a carbon tax or levy in the United States and other countries including Canada, the current federal carbon price of CDN $80 (US $58.77) seems laughably insignificant in light of this newly published research...

If business-as-usual continues, the conclusion is a decline in the present value of economies on average across the world amounting to 31% which differs dramatically from IPCC reports that state a 1 Celsius temperature rise reduces global GDP by 1 to 3%...

The authors of the study, however, refute the consensus opinion of IPCC reports that estimate 1 to 3% economic output declines. Instead, they look at time-series global projections, the increased number of extreme climate events, reinsurance financial industry payouts, global and country-level modelling, and three climate-economy datasets covering 173 countries with one spanning the last 120 years...

Global temperature shocks predict a large and persistent rise in extreme climatic events that cause economic damage: extreme temperature, extreme wind, and extreme precipitation...

What the geoscience data shows related to climate change is that global outcomes are affected by ocean temperatures and atmospheric humidity rather than local temperature idiosyncracies. Warmer areas of the planet are more severely affected than colder areas. Whether you live in a high-income or low-income country, climate change experiences produce similar effects. That’s why taking a global perspective seems appropriate with the disturbing results a wake-up call for climate policy makers. The paper concludes that a rise of 3 Celsius (5.4 Fahrenheit) by 2100, 2 Celsius (3.6 Fahrenheit) higher than today will produce damage equal to "fighting a war domestically and permanently."
You say global warming will seriously impact no more than 'a tiny fraction of people' by 2100. Yet right now in the north Island of New Zealand, people are already being seriously impacted. My brother is panicking about how much his rates and insurances are going up. My house insurance already went up 40% this year, and rates are locked into a 59% increase in the next 3 years.

Insurance companies will not be caught short. Right now they are calculating when the next extreme weather is likely to occur and how much they will have to charge us to remain profitable. It may not be long before insurance becomes the largest cost many of us have to bear - or go without it and risk everything.

By 2033 (when the average global temperature reaches 1.5 °C and peak reaches 2.0 °C) we can pretty much guarantee that extreme weather events like Cyclone Gabrielle will be a regular occurrence here - and everyone will have to pay the price.

Stopping exports of a jillion barrels of oil a year doesn't appear to be on the table.
It will happen eventually, but perhaps not until all the oil tankers have been sunk by extreme weather and/or wars make trade impossible. Its already happening in Ukraine, which may actually be one of the best incentives to get off oil and gas that we have right now.

Humans are stupid. Yesterday I watched a YouTube video about how Europe promoted diesel as a fuel that would lower CO2 emissions. The very idea is laughable, yet people fell for it because it also promised cheaper motoring. Only problem is the trend towards larger cars has wiped out what little advantage diesel had, while the pollution is causing devastating health effects. Of course the fact that oil companies didn't know what to do with this previously useless byproduct of gasoline production had nothing to do with it. :rolleyes:

Enter diesel-gate, the totally predictable result of lowering permitted emissions below what car manufacturers could achieve. Volkswagen's penance for that was to ramp up EV production, but it isn't going well. German car makers are now lobbying the government to save them from foreign EV makers like Tesla and BYD who are undercutting them with cheaper better products. It won't help. Even tougher pollution regulations are coming and gas car makers won't be able to meet them, while EVs will fly through.

The stupid thing is that EVs will win out in Europe not because they reduce our dependence on oil, but because they don't produce health-destroying air pollution. People see the smog and feel the effects of breathing it, but CO2 is invisible and the effects are disconnected from its creation. Most people have no appreciation of the fact that for every kg of petrol they put in their car 3 kg of CO2 comes out the tailpipe. The average car spews out about 4 tons of the stuff per year. Imagine if you were forced to collect it all and put it back in the ground (and somehow make it stay there) - how much would that cost? Yet that's what we will eventually have to do.
 
The Global Economy Will Be 31% Poorer By 2100 Because Of Climate Change

One study that admits it's completely at odds with IPPCC and contains no hard evidence.

The authors of the study, however, refute the consensus opinion of IPCC reports that estimate 1 to 3% economic output declines.

I\ll stick with IPCC's assessment, thanks.

You say global warming will seriously impact no more than 'a tiny fraction of people' by 2100. Yet right now in the north Island of New Zealand, people are already being seriously impacted. My brother is panicking about how much his rates and insurances are going up. My house insurance already went up 40% this year, and rates are locked into a 59% increase in the next 3 years.

That's the very definition of a tiny impact. Insurance premiums are up - ho hum. First world problems indeed.

Insurance is a fraction of people's expenditure. Auckland rates are up a whole 7.5% and none of that is due to climate change.

Cyclone_Gabrielle#Hawke's_Bay"]Cyclone Gabrielle[/URL] will be a regular occurrence here - and everyone will have to pay the price.

Crystal balls on special this week?

Were you here when Bola hit? One bad cyclone every 40 years is no big deal.

I
Roger Ramjets;14336664Its already happening in Ukraine...[/QUOTE said:
You blaming Ukraine on climate change?

Most people have no appreciation of the fact that for every kg of petrol they put in their car 3 kg of CO2 comes out the tailpipe.

2.4 kg per kg of fuel. Why exaggerate?
 
I don't recall saying I was happy about that.

I'm neither happy or unhappy about things I don't care about.

Oh, you want to play pedantic semantics, now? How petty.
OK, let me rephrase. I grant that in your posts on this forum, you never express happiness. Your posts ooze misery and cynicism. Try this:
You accepted the rise of meat consumption despite it not being correlated against the rise in global population, and used that to advance your arguments. This contrasts with your demand for correlation of a rise in turbulence with a rise in air traffic- a piece of evidence you now demand because it suits your argument. This is a double standard of evidence, one often used by conspiracy theorists and other dishonest debaters. I think this is wrong, and am wondering how you justify this?

The discussion.

No, running away from your own double standards of evidence won't work. This is a sceptics' forum, remember?
 
One study that admits it's completely at odds with IPPCC and contains no hard evidence.

I\ll stick with IPCC's assessment, thanks.
I predict their assessment will turn out to be conservative, as usual.

That's the very definition of a tiny impact. Insurance premiums are up - ho hum. First world problems indeed.
I guess you must be rich then. For many of us insurance bills are becoming a big problem. You can't not afford to have insurance when an extreme weather could destroy everything, and banks will insist on it anyway (unlike me, most people don't buy houses and cars with cash).

Insurance is a fraction of people's expenditure.
An increasing fraction. 2 years ago my gross income was NZ$12,500 (thanks, Covid!). If it wasn't for some money put aside I would not have been able to pay my insurance bill of over $2,000. Rates were $2,400 and insurances $2,300, a combined 38% of my income. If it wasn't for getting the pension from November 2022 I would be bankrupt by now.

Auckland rates are up a whole 7.5% and none of that is due to climate change.
Good for you that they have been able to keep the rates increase low, but that doesn't mean 'climate change' isn't costing you.

Category 3 property buy-out information between Auckland Council and the government
Last updated: 14 May 2024

The Governing Body and the New Zealand Government have agreed to share the cost of storm recovery and resilience work in the Auckland region.

The co-funding agreement includes:
- almost $2 billion worth of investment in Auckland’s storm recovery and resilience programme
- a 50/50 split of funding to buy Category 3 properties.

Category 3 buy-outs
$774 million will be spent purchasing an estimated 700 residential properties...

Government funding for these projects

$1.076 billion secures the cost-share agreement of government funding for these projects.

This includes:
- 62 per cent of the estimated capital cost of the resilience projects ($380 million)
- 79 per cent of the transport recovery costs ($110 million Crown funding and an expected $199 million from the National Land Transport Fund via Waka Kotahi)
- 50 per cent of the cost of Category 3 buy-outs ($387 million).


The Atheist said:
Were you here when Bola hit? One bad cyclone every 40 years is no big deal.
I was right here and it wasn't nearly as bad as Gabrielle. I also remember Giselle, and it wasn't nearly as bad here either.

BTW the time between them was 20 years and 35 years, not 40 years. In the future we can expect them more frequently.

Cyclone Gabrielle: Stronger than Bola?
Gabrielle appears to have been a stronger cyclone system than even 1988′s destructive Bola or 1968′s Giselle, with one early analysis showing it carried historically low pressure levels.

Having claimed at least 11 lives, displaced thousands of people and caused billions of dollars in damage, Gabrielle is already considered New Zealand’s worst weather event this century.

In a reanalysis of head-to-head pressure values, Gabrielle was found to be more intense than Bola – a system that similarly devastated the North Island’s East Coast – and also Giselle, largely remembered for creating ferocious storm conditions that sank the inter-island ferry Wāhine in Wellington Harbour...

At its minimum, Gabrielle’s low pressure plummeted to an estimated 963 hectopascals (hPa) and reached levels of 966.8hPa near Great Barrier Island.

That compared with Bola and Giselle’s respective lowest values of 982hPa and 967hPa.

“The lower the pressure, the faster winds are going to be blowing in toward the centre of the storm,” explained Niwa meteorologist Ben Noll...

In Gabrielle’s case, however, the system likely had more fuel for heavy rain, given total atmospheric moisture in the most recent decade happened to be 5.3 per cent higher than in the 1960s – and 3.2 per cent higher than in the 1980s.

The atmosphere is moister now than it was when Giselle and Bola existed; if you were to re-run those two systems in the present climate, you’d expect them to produce more rain.”

The wild influence of climate change, certainly, was inter-weaved with many of Gabrielle’s driving factors.

Along with the compounded effects of three years of La Niña, it’d contributed to abnormal warmth in the tropical waters where Gabrielle formed up and quickly reached category 3 strength, before veering southward into the Tasman.
But intensity doesn't worry me as much as the high probability that these southward 'wanderings' will become more frequent. One every 35 years we can handle, one every 5 years would be devastating.

The Atheist said:
You blaming Ukraine on climate change?
No, I'm saying the Ukraine war is helping to get Europe off oil and gas.

2.4 kg per kg of fuel. Why exaggerate?
Wrong! Petrol is lighter than water.
 
Which would put you firmly in the bottom 1% of earners, so how it affects you isn't something the other 99% is concerned with.
Rates and insurance increases only impact the bottom 1% of earners?

'Very significant' rise in home insurance premiums revealed
House insurance premiums jumped by more than 30 percent in a year in some parts of New Zealand...

A climate change researcher specialising in disaster economics says the data is a taste of what could come as the risk of climate change-driven natural hazards, especially flooding, increases...

The other major factor was a jump in costs for reinsurance - essentially, insurance for insurers in the event of a major natural disaster.

That had increased by 25 to 40 percent for many insurers in the last year as a response to multiple severe weather events around the world, including Cyclone Gabrielle and the Auckland Anniversary floods, Grafton said.

"Some reinsurers have made it quite clear that they've been somewhat surprised by the number that have occurred, and the severity of those events, globally."

Finity Principal Simon Young said prior to last year, a severe weather event in New Zealand that cost insurers more than $300 million was "inconceivable".

"And suddenly you have two billion-dollar events that are not earthquakes."...

"I would anticipate over the very long term - that 30 to 50-year period - we will see areas that the insurance industry as a whole might decide are just uninsurable.

What our house and contents insurance survey found
Just over 60% of respondents in our latest insurance satisfaction survey were concerned about the cost of house insurance. Another 52% were worried about the cost of contents insurance.

Of those respondents without contents insurance, 18% didn’t renew or cancelled their policy because of the high cost; while 8% of homeowners made the same choice for their house insurance. This continues a pattern we started to see last year...

Wellington is still the most expensive region to insure a standard and large home. The median premium for a standard house is $3,733, while a large house comes in at $5,088.

It’s also harder to shop around for house insurance in Wellington and Christchurch. AA Insurance, AMI and State Insurance all won’t provide online quotes without a risk assessment of the property in these areas...

What’s behind the price increases?

In the past 10 years, according to Statistics NZ Consumer Price Index data, house insurance has increased 97% while contents has gone up 48%.

That upward trend doesn’t look like it’s going to stop anytime soon.

The cost of reinsurance, extreme weather events, and increased use of risk-based pricing on individual properties by insurers are all factors in the price rises...

So, is there anything that could bring prices down?

Insurer IAG (with brands AMI, State and NZI) says better planning by local councils, investing in protection and resilience measures, and retreating from at-risk places will help bring insurance prices down.

While central government released a climate adaptation plan in 2022, it’s local councils that are on the front line of protecting their communities from the impacts of climate change.

Work on this is underway, but it could take years, and deep pockets, to ensure New Zealanders are out of harm’s way...
 
It affects "some people", namely those who choose to live in areas under threat,

If you choose to live in a flood zone, expect to pay more. Doesn't affect me at all.
 
It affects "some people", namely those who choose to live in areas under threat,

If you choose to live in a flood zone, expect to pay more. Doesn't affect me at all.

I love the way you think you can avoid the effects of global warming just by moving house. :rolleyes:
Your callous lack of concern for those who are already being affected is noted with disapproval.
 
I love the way you think you can avoid the effects of global warming just by moving house.

Nice little strawman there, mate. Is there a special on them this week?

I was talking about flood plains, and I've always chosen not to live on one. I don't live in an earthquake-prone area, or on top of a magma field either. That I couldn't give a rat's arse about fools who do is fine by me. I'm very happy that my insurance premiums aren't impacted by morons who can't see where floods happen, and they happen a lot in NZ. We get a lot of rain.

Speaking of which, I hope their insurance is well and truly up to date, because there's going to be an awful lot of water arriving over the country in 7-10 days' time.



Your callous lack of concern for those who are already being affected is noted with disapproval.[/QUOTE]
 
I couldn't give a rat's arse...
Yes, we noticed.

I'm very happy that my insurance premiums aren't impacted...
Are you sure about that? Reinsurance rates are going up globally due to global warming, and everybody is being affected.

I was talking about flood plains, and I've always chosen not to live on one. I don't live in an earthquake-prone area, or on top of a magma field either...
So you carefully chose the one spot in Auckland which isn't near a volcano, fault line, or area that could be flooded. Congratulations. And you also found a spot that can't suffer from landslides or 270 kph winds, right?

But you are still being affected because when others - who for one reason or another have to live where they do - suffer from extreme weather events the costs are borne by everyone. When a farmer in Hawke's Bay is wiped out by unprecedented flooding that raises the price of food. Then other workers have to earn more, businesses offer fewer products and poorer service, unemployment and crime increases, people become despondent and the mood of the whole country darkens.

You pretend purport to care about poor people with your constantly going on about the lack of affordable housing etc., but now we know the truth - you couldn't give a rat's arse about anyone but yourself.

Actually I suspect you enjoy it. It must really boost your ego to imagine you are one of the few geniuses who has found a place to live that isn't affected by Global Warming, relaxing in your palace while you watch the rest of the World burn.
 
Are you sure about that? Reinsurance rates are going up globally due to global warming, and everybody is being affected.

The enormous weight of increased premiums is being rightly borne by those who choose to live in at-risk areas.

So you carefully chose the one spot in Auckland which isn't near a volcano, fault line, or area that could be flooded.

Wasn't very hard. The really funny thing is, the parts of Auckland most at risk of volcanic eruption and rising seas are the most expensive parts.

Congratulations. And you also found a spot that can't suffer from landslides or 270 kph winds, right?

100%. Zero chance of tsunami as well, unlike Tamaki Drive.

But you are still being affected because when others - who for one reason or another have to live where they do - suffer from extreme weather events the costs are borne by everyone. When a farmer in Hawke's Bay is wiped out by unprecedented flooding that raises the price of food. Then other workers have to earn more, businesses offer fewer products and poorer service, unemployment and crime increases, people become despondent and the mood of the whole country darkens.

I repeat, floods aren't new to NZ. None of these were down to climate change: https://nzhistory.govt.nz/keyword/floods

Pro tip - it rains a lot in NZ and we get frequent floods.

You pretend purport to care about poor people with your constantly going on about the lack of affordable housing etc., but now we know the truth - you couldn't give a rat's arse about anyone but yourself.

Pathetic attempt at poisoning the well. Poor people don't choose to live in at-risk areas, rich people do.

Actually I suspect you enjoy it. It must really boost your ego to imagine you are one of the few geniuses who has found a place to live that isn't affected by Global Warming, relaxing in your palace while you watch the rest of the World burn.

Yeah, it's great. Nothing pleases me more than first-world people crying over a few dollars as whole countries are under threat.
 
Nice little strawman there, mate. Is there a special on them this week?

I was talking about flood plains,

Well, actually, restricting the discussion to floodplains, and more specifically the area around your own house, was your strawman of Roger Ramjets' point. RR was clearly talking about more than just flooding, and more than just your own neighbourhood.

and I've always chosen not to live on one.

Floodplains, in my understanding, are low-lying areas next to rivers, which are prone to flooding. I don't see the connection between that, and the Auckland Anniversary floods referenced earlier. These floods were caused by excesive rainfall over a wide area, not flooding from rivers bursting their banks. Again, this is my understanding, and I am ready, as always, to be corrected on this.

I don't live in an earthquake-prone area, or on top of a magma field either.

Are earthquakes and volcanoes exacerbated by climate change? What is the relevance of this? Also, are you saying that the whole of Japan, and the other countries around the Ring of Fire, should be evacuated? Also Pakistan, Turkey, Iran and all the other countries prone to earthquakes? If so, that is a ridiculous and entirely unrealistic expectation.

That I couldn't give a rat's arse about fools who do is fine by me. I'm very happy that my insurance premiums aren't impacted by morons who can't see where floods happen, and they happen a lot in NZ. We get a lot of rain.

I wonder, then, if you expect anyone to give a rat's arse about you? If society as a whole functioned according to your view here, well, there wouldn't be any society. Communities and civilisations work by people helping each other: I don't know if you're aware of this, but that's the way it works.
You also appear to be unaware of NZ's policy of managed retreat. Areas most likely to flood are being abandoned, and those people relocated. Do you support your government's endeavours, or do you think they should adopt your attitude, not give a rat's arse, and leave those people to take their chances unaided?
 
Back
Top Bottom