Is the race to save the planet a sprint or a marathon ?
The earth as we know it, the planet we exist upon , has evolved over some 4.5bln years, we have in that time experienced 5 recognised mass extinctions.
In more recent times, the planet has also endured an Ice age, some 10.000 + years ago.
1. Ordovician-Silurian Extinction:
Occurred around 443 million years ago, primarily impacting marine life.
2. Late Devonian Extinction:
Happened approximately 375 million years ago, impacting reef ecosystems and marine life.
3. Permian-Triassic Extinction:
The most severe, occurring around 252 million years ago, wiping out an estimated 90% of marine species and 70% of terrestrial vertebrate species.
4. Triassic-Jurassic Extinction:
Took place about 201 million years ago, leading to the extinction of many large reptiles and paving the way for dinosaurs to dominate.
5. Cretaceous-Paleogene Extinction:
Most well-known, occurring 66 million years ago, famously eliminating non-avian dinosaurs and many other species.
Each extinction is 10s - 100ms years apart.
No doubt there will be a sixth & no doubt humankind will contribute to the this event.
So as humankind considers this inevitably the issue becomes a point of reality.
Can the planet actually be saved?
If so what must be done/ can be done ?
Is this a global effort or can individual nations alone move the dial?
Does the technology exist, how much will it cost ?
The questions are considerable, it is clearly not a straightforward problem to consider.
But unless mankind truly has a unified desire it will be impossible to collectively attain a carbon neutral society.
& the question of time scale is relevant to each nation, as to what they can afford, what type of society they wish create for there populations.
Now I would suggest trying to force an unaffordable for most nations sprint, will fail, as we do not live in an ideal world.
But a marathon over 50- 100 years may well be attainable & realistic.
In the case of the UK, we have huge , numerous problems.
Our economy is wrecked & bankrupt in all but name. The majority of the population are overwhelmed in a deep rooted cost of living crisis.
Each & every institution is broken , dysfunctional & massively underfunded, at a time where our tax rate take is at a 50+ high.
We are suffering significant skill & resource shortages.
We are not equipped to lead a green industrial revolution , we can of participate though, but first we need a strong foundation & economy , which we clearly do not have, something that will take 20 years to rebuild.
Currently, we are in a catch 22 paradox with our energy supply & security.
Our economy is addicted to the tax return from our energy policies .
The cost of UK energy supply is crippling our industries & at the root of our cost of living crisis.
We are not benefiting from our fossil fuel energy stores, we are buying gas & oil from other countries at a premium using borrowed money, as our economy cannot sustain without 100m + per year borrowings & a further 100m + interest payments. This is unsustainable as we have a crippled 0.0? growth economy.
Recently the Norwegian energy minister stated that he felt the UK's energy policies we senseless or stronger words to that effect, as the UK was buying oil & gas from Norway at a premium, from the same fields we share and own in the North sea, effectively using borrowed money.
This is totally absurd, add this to addiction to buying our mass produced industrial products from overseas, off setting our carbon foot print as our industries cannot afford to compete due to our energy cost's.
Finally, if we are realistic , a nett zero economy will need time, we need to be able to afford it. it is a huge undertaking & will cost the nation between 1-2 trillion, it will not reduce global emissions , but we will be feel that we have done something.
But doing something should not be a poorly thought out obsession that cripples the ability of the next 3/4 generations quality of life to exist.
Yes we may well have to go out on limb for 50- 100 years, but let face it in context of the planets 4.5 bln year evolution, it is a drop in the ocean, isnt it now
Carbon Zero ? Saving the planet?
posted 1 day ago
comment by ifarka, (U8182)
posted 5 hours, 40 minutes ago
the money thing is a simple reality in context.
---
It's not you just seem determined to ignore the actual facts of the situation and the complexity of economies and industry. Say it costs the UK £1 trillion to get carbon neutral. A lot of that money is going into UK infrastructure, designed and engineered and manufactured/assembled/maintained by folks in the UK.
This isn't some Temu order of windmills and carbon scrubbers
_____________________________________________
Currently we are on course to close our virgin steel production under our Nett Zero policies oh and import the coal to run the plant, as we have refused the licence to reopen the coal mine.
So yes we will using TEMu ect ect to import the products to establish our Nett zero infrastructure , as we cannot afford to produce the steel of the quality that is required to build the infrastructure & the electric power steel production doesnt produce steel of the required grade.
Finally our energy costs are / have made our industries uncompetitive , so yes again we will be using TEMUfrom China as they are happy to use coal powered steel production.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There’s a a lot of bollix spouted about China. DYOR but the mass building of coal powered plants was to a) decommission less efficient coal plants b) have local backup power solutions for their flaky grid infrastructure and renewable supply.
Ah yes they’re renewables - China transitioning faster than any other country and installed more last year than the RoW combined. In addition selling their tech to U.K. and other suckers who can’t be ersed getting their supply chain in place.
Now, not all sweetness and light because of the RoW reliance on China their energy usage just keeps on going up and up. You could say it’s our own fault we’ve exported our carbon footprint.
posted 1 day ago
comment by ifarka, (U8182)
posted 5 minutes ago
The issue with a polarised society is that each end believes it is right.
if there is disagreement the opposing view point is deemed as ignorant
Right or wrong is absolute , but different opinions are taken from differing points of view.
Context is everything imo
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah but what about when you are demonstrably incorrect but fail/refuse to take on the information that several people give to you, which refute your claims?
For example, you continue to claim that the downturn in the oil industry, in Aberdeen, was first and foremost, and largely attributed to renewable energy policy.
That is just incorrect. Will you take on board the information and adjust your approach accordingly, in light of new information?
posted 1 day ago
Sorry the down turn is not due exploration costs in the North sea & an viable market.
It is due to the fact that our governments have pursued a Nett zero policy.
I appreciate the 2015/16 down turn , but in 2023 oil revenues contributed 25bln to the economy.
To suggest it is a natural fall off is imo disingenuous.
If exploration licences were renewed , youd be taliking about another boom period.
Oil & gas extraction flutuates according to the economy, but the demand is fairly consistent.
Norway doesnt seem to be suffering.
posted 1 day ago
Even if there were no switch to renewable energy policies, the viability of the oil industry in Aberdeen and the broader North Sea is fundamentally challenged by geological and economic realities.
The North Sea is a mature basin, meaning most of the easily accessible oil and gas has already been extracted. Production has been on a downward trajectory since its peak around 1999, and projections indicate significant further declines. For example, the North Sea Transition Authority (NSTA) forecasts an 89% drop in production by 2050 compared to 2024 levels. What remains is often in smaller, more fragmented fields, or in deeper, more complex geological structures, making it increasingly expensive and challenging to extract. Unit operating costs in the UK Continental Shelf (UKCS) have generally risen, making it less competitive compared to easier-to-access reserves globally.
Therefore, even without aggressive renewable energy policies, the North Sea oil industry would face a natural decline. It would become progressively more marginal and less attractive for investment. While there are still billions of barrels of oil equivalent remaining (some proven, some prospective), unlocking them would require significant capital expenditure, and the returns would be lower than in basins with lower extraction costs.
This is WITHOUT any policy towards renewable energy.
posted 23 hours, 55 minutes ago
ven if there were no switch to renewable energy policies, the viability of the oil industry in Aberdeen and the broader North Sea is fundamentally challenged by geological and economic realities.
The North Sea is a mature basin, meaning most of the easily accessible oil and gas has already been extracted. Production has been on a downward trajectory since its peak around 1999, and projections indicate significant further declines. For example, the North Sea Transition Authority (NSTA) forecasts an 89% drop in production by 2050 compared to 2024 levels. What remains is often in smaller, more fragmented fields, or in deeper, more complex geological structures, making it increasingly expensive and challenging to extract. Unit operating costs in the UK Continental Shelf (UKCS) have generally risen, making it less competitive compared to easier-to-access reserves globally.
Therefore, even without aggressive renewable energy policies, the North Sea oil industry would face a natural decline. It would become progressively more marginal and less attractive for investment. While there are still billions of barrels of oil equivalent remaining (some proven, some prospective), unlocking them would require significant capital expenditure, and the returns would be lower than in basins with lower extraction costs.
This is WITHOUT any policy towards renewable energy.
==========================================
I dont dispute that the North sea field is in a state of gradual decline, but as always with exploration it depends upon the barrel cost to extract.
My view is that in the current & short term the industry does have a part to play in the UKs energy security needs.
My whole premise is based upon a lengthening of our Nett Zero agenda ambitions to the point where we can establish a Nuclear powered grid .
posted 22 hours, 32 minutes ago
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 1 hour, 58 minutes ago
There’s a a lot of bollix spouted about China. DYOR but the mass building of coal powered plants was to a) decommission less efficient coal plants b) have local backup power solutions for their flaky grid infrastructure and renewable supply.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Indeed. In 2024, China's coal consumption dropped from the previous year for I believe the first time in history.
posted 20 hours, 7 minutes ago
comment by Drunken Hobo (U7360)
posted 2 hours, 17 minutes ago
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 1 hour, 58 minutes ago
There’s a a lot of bollix spouted about China. DYOR but the mass building of coal powered plants was to a) decommission less efficient coal plants b) have local backup power solutions for their flaky grid infrastructure and renewable supply.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Indeed. In 2024, China's coal consumption dropped from the previous year for I believe the first time in history.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, maybe a few more years data to be sure but it looks like China is at or just past peak coal use. To be doing that just after they were commissioning a new power station every day for years makes no senses unless they were decommissioning at a similar rate.
Other factors I didn’t mention power is devolved locally in China and local politicians didn’t want to be held responsible for outages and shortages. Further, the way accounting is in China you could get credit for work output without asking whether it was needed work. Communism in action but more reasons they were being built.
posted 10 hours, 13 minutes ago
I'm off to Greece in September...will it still be hot
I have no other questions
Thanks
posted 8 hours, 18 minutes ago
Sticky, sweaty, oppressively hot.
You're welcome
posted 8 hours, 4 minutes ago
People may offer you gifts, beware.