Climate Change - The Existential Threat

[AsleepInYorkshire]

I disagree STRONGLY........
Personally I do think that we need to use less oil. However their message is clearly about using no oil, and I think you can judge my views on that.

Oil also originates artificial fertilisers without which half the world would starve - not that that would be a bad thing, in the macro sense - and then there's artificial fibres.
I wonder if the Stopoilies eat only organic, wear only linen/cotton, and of course no trainers.

Hard to imagine that within the lifetime of my parents' parents the world pretty much got by without oil, and within my lifetime the cottage in which I'm sitting just five miles from a city, had no electricity.

V8

No one seems to have honed in on the orange visi-vests they wear. What are they made from

AiY(D)

[Urbandreamer]

Thank you. Your post made me think. Should we be asking what are the alternatives to oil for [say] cars? Let me see if I can find anything out about this please.

On another note, and I haven't verified the information yet, the claim is that electric cars consume a huge amount of Co2 in their production. The question then is simple I suppose, how much Co2 does each kind of vehicle make over its life cycle?

Thanks again

AiY(D)

Ok, big and complicated questions. Rather than the simple "Just Stop Oil" message.

Right, oil alternatives. Castrol is named after a plant used for oil. Mineral oils generally perform better and are cheaper (it's still used to lube jet engines), but we could stop growing food and start growing oil instead. If you followed the Wiki link or followed up on the last few lines of my quote you would note that "palm oil" performed better than sperm whale oil for some uses. Of course there are or were environmental questions about palm oil plantations. I should know I use to hold shares in a palm oil producer.

CO2 from car production. Well, we could talk about how many cars use more Aluminum than steel. Aluminum needing electricity to process, which was traditionally produced using hydropower but is often done so using coal fired power plants in some countries. Steel does need CO2 emissions. But let's not go there. Instead let us ignore the biased claims and examine the facts. Logically it's not the amount to produce an EV, but the amount EXTRA if it does take extra. The thing that is different between a EV and IC car is the motor, batteries and steel gears.
So more copper and less gears (smelting copper and iron needs CO, and converts it to CO2). Though Aluminum is also a good conductor of electricity and heat. Lithium extraction is not CO2 intensive, but relatively environmentally damaging. Of course the claim was about CO2. I'd personally say that the argument is a bit moot and the Anti-EV lobby clutching at straws. However it is possible in my opinion that EV's do require extra CO2 emission if neither car were ever used.
Fueling one from wind turbines or nuclear power though might make a difference to total CO2 emissions. Especially if you include the refining process that produces petrol in the equation.

Ps artificial fertilizers are normally produced using natural gas. Although I will accept that oil and gas are the same industry and that you can't really extract one without the other. I doubt that "Just Stop Oil" realize the fact, or object to fertilizers produced using gas.

[mc2fool]

The transition to not burning it will take many years and in the meantime it is obviously better that we use our own oil rather than import it from overseas. Hence it is mad to ban any new developments in the North Sea. From a climate change perspective what matters is reducing CO2 output, not the source of the oil that we still have to use. From all perspectives (economic, security, cutting oil transport costs, employment, balance of payments) using our own oil is better.

Ok, I'd agree, but how is that going to work? Are you suggesting legislation that requires oil extracted from the the UK & UK waters, and all its derivative products, to be sold within the UK, for use within the UK? Or at least as much as the UK needs, and only when the UK is taking all of the oil it uses from UK oil and not importing any from anywhere else (if it can fill that need), will the oil companies be allowed to sell any further UK oil outside of the UK? Or just making it prohibitively expensive for them not to do so?

It sounds like a sensible and logical idea, but without in effect state control over the production and use of UK oil, how are you proposing we stop the oil companies selling "our own oil" on the global market to whoever they can get the most profit from?

[servodude]

The transition to not burning it will take many years and in the meantime it is obviously better that we use our own oil rather than import it from overseas. Hence it is mad to ban any new developments in the North Sea. From a climate change perspective what matters is reducing CO2 output, not the source of the oil that we still have to use. From all perspectives (economic, security, cutting oil transport costs, employment, balance of payments) using our own oil is better.

Ok, I'd agree, but how is that going to work? Are you suggesting legislation that requires oil extracted from the the UK & UK waters, and all its derivative products, to be sold within the UK, for use within the UK? Or at least as much as the UK needs, and only when the UK is taking all of the oil it uses from UK oil and not importing any from anywhere else (if it can fill that need), will the oil companies be allowed to sell any further UK oil outside of the UK? Or just making it prohibitively expensive for them not to do so?

It sounds like a sensible and logical idea, but without in effect state control over the production and use of UK oil, how are you proposing we stop the oil companies selling "our own oil" on the global market to whoever they can get the most profit from?

Bingo.
The "own oil" thing is a painful lie

[scrumpyjack]

The transition to not burning it will take many years and in the meantime it is obviously better that we use our own oil rather than import it from overseas. Hence it is mad to ban any new developments in the North Sea. From a climate change perspective what matters is reducing CO2 output, not the source of the oil that we still have to use. From all perspectives (economic, security, cutting oil transport costs, employment, balance of payments) using our own oil is better.

Ok, I'd agree, but how is that going to work? Are you suggesting legislation that requires oil extracted from the the UK & UK waters, and all its derivative products, to be sold within the UK, for use within the UK? Or at least as much as the UK needs, and only when the UK is taking all of the oil it uses from UK oil and not importing any from anywhere else (if it can fill that need), will the oil companies be allowed to sell any further UK oil outside of the UK? Or just making it prohibitively expensive for them not to do so?

It sounds like a sensible and logical idea, but without in effect state control over the production and use of UK oil, how are you proposing we stop the oil companies selling "our own oil" on the global market to whoever they can get the most profit from?

I don't envisage any such control. What matters is reducing consumption of oil. How much we do or do not produce will not affect consumption one iota. Oil is being extracted in many different places in the world- using our own oil creates jobs here, reduces oil transport helps the balance of payments. Stopping oil production in the North Sea will have no impact on CO2 output - we will carry on using the same amount of oil irrespective of where it comes from. The same is true of other countries. So, yet again, do whatever is sensible in moving to other energy usage (windfarms, nuclear, solar etc etc) but carry on producing our oil. To do anything else is not sensible, just pointless.

[mc2fool]

The transition to not burning it will take many years and in the meantime it is obviously better that we use our own oil rather than import it from overseas. Hence it is mad to ban any new developments in the North Sea. From a climate change perspective what matters is reducing CO2 output, not the source of the oil that we still have to use. From all perspectives (economic, security, cutting oil transport costs, employment, balance of payments) using our own oil is better.

Ok, I'd agree, but how is that going to work? Are you suggesting legislation that requires oil extracted from the the UK & UK waters, and all its derivative products, to be sold within the UK, for use within the UK? Or at least as much as the UK needs, and only when the UK is taking all of the oil it uses from UK oil and not importing any from anywhere else (if it can fill that need), will the oil companies be allowed to sell any further UK oil outside of the UK? Or just making it prohibitively expensive for them not to do so?

It sounds like a sensible and logical idea, but without in effect state control over the production and use of UK oil, how are you proposing we stop the oil companies selling "our own oil" on the global market to whoever they can get the most profit from?

I don't envisage any such control. What matters is reducing consumption of oil. How much we do or do not produce will not affect consumption one iota. Oil is being extracted in many different places in the world- using our own oil creates jobs here, reduces oil transport helps the balance of payments. Stopping oil production in the North Sea will have no impact on CO2 output - we will carry on using the same amount of oil irrespective of where it comes from. The same is true of other countries. So, yet again, do whatever is sensible in moving to other energy usage (windfarms, nuclear, solar etc etc) but carry on producing our oil. To do anything else is not sensible, just pointless.

The part of your statement I'm asking about is that we should use our own oil but you haven't said anything about how that's going to happen.

Irrespective of how much or little is extracted from UK sources, how is the goal of use our own oil rather than import it from overseas (which I agree with) going to come about? How are you proposing that we assure that? Simply having companies extracting UK source oil does not assure that it will be used in the UK and not sold elsewhere (and so requiring us to continue to import oil from overseas).

Without anything to make it happen use our own oil comes across as a slogan lacking a policy.

[scotview]

Irrespective of how much or little is extracted from UK sources, how is the goal of use our own oil rather than import it from overseas (which I agree with) going to come about? .

Well, we could reduce the current tax on it by say 50% to 80%, that seems to be an incentive to me.

[mc2fool]

Irrespective of how much or little is extracted from UK sources, how is the goal of use our own oil rather than import it from overseas (which I agree with) going to come about? .

Well, we could reduce the current tax on it by say 50% to 80%, that seems to be an incentive to me.

That would be a policy. Although reducing taxes on it wouldn't be the best way to achieve what scrumpyjack correctly identifies as, "What matters is reducing consumption of oil."

So instead we could impose extra taxes on UK extracted oil sold outside of the UK and/or extra taxes on non-UK extracted oil imported into the UK.

[tjh290633]

Hard to imagine that within the lifetime of my parents' parents the world pretty much got by without oil, and within my lifetime the cottage in which I'm sitting just five miles from a city, had no electricity.

V8

For the first 5 years of my life, my parent's house had gas but no electricity. Then we moved in 1938 to a new house with all main services. My grandmother's house had no mains services, using coal for heating and cooking, kerosene lamps and drawing water from a well. From memory she got electricity in the late 1940s and mains water a year or so later.

The coal came from a freeminer's small colliery just outside her back gate.

TJH

[Tedx]

Scotland needs to build that wall. Now.

And we'll get the English to pay for it.

Have you seen this...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doomsday_(2008_film)

it's more enjoyable than I expected

If its not Co2 driven atmospheric climate change....

The Gulf Stream system of warm ocean currents could collapse as early as 2025, a scientific study has warned.

The end of the system, which drives the Atlantic's currents and determines western Europe's weather, would likely lead to lower temperatures and catastrophic climate impacts.



Oh well.

[Edit: I suppose it's all driven by Co2 and other greenhouse gas emissions]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-66289494

[Tedx]

Scotland needs to build that wall. Now.

And we'll get the English to pay for it.

Have you seen this...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doomsday_(2008_film)

it's more enjoyable than I expected

Well looking at the review websites, the filmakers didn't have to use to many special effects. It's all there already in Scotland. I mean they use actual everyday footage from the A9 trunk road in the IMDB clip.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0483607/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1

[servodude]

Have you seen this...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doomsday_(2008_film)

it's more enjoyable than I expected

Well looking at the review websites, the filmakers didn't have to use to many special effects. It's all there already in Scotland. I mean they use actual everyday footage from the A9 trunk road in the IMDB clip.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0483607/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1

It's a common thing... look at world war Z. Filmed in Glasgow to save on zombie make up for extras!
Or the Tetris movie using Ingram St for Soviet Moscow.
Growth industry being a backdrop.

But seriously.. Doomsday is worth a watch mixing as it does Escape from New York, Mad Max and Excalibur... in Scotland.
I mean it's not Zardoz but what is?

[Urbandreamer]

Thank you. Your post made me think. Should we be asking what are the alternatives to oil for [say] cars? Let me see if I can find anything out about this please.

AiY(D)

This cropped up on my podcast list. I have not yet listened to it, but I hope it might shed more light on the subject.

The Inquiry: Can we stop oil?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3ct4wd7

[AsleepInYorkshire]

Thank you. Your post made me think. Should we be asking what are the alternatives to oil for [say] cars? Let me see if I can find anything out about this please.

AiY(D)

This cropped up on my podcast list. I have not yet listened to it, but I hope it might shed more light on the subject.

The Inquiry: Can we stop oil?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3ct4wd7

Thank you for the link, greatly appreciated. It's a 23-minute-long podcast which revolves around oil's history and the summation which is less than 90 seconds long is, in all fairness, nothing we don't already know. The world's economies need to plan their divorce from oil meticulously or the outcome will be devasting.

AiY(D)

[CliffEdge]

There are only two direct major threats to the UK population from climate change:
1 mass immigration of refugees
2 the collapse of the gulf stream

Other threats are indirect, related to climate change effects on the rest of the world.

Unfortunately the specific severity of threats 1 and 2 to the UK is not being adequately prepared for, rather priority is being given to generalized virtue signalling vagueness - some of which is sensible for other reasons than putative global warming interventions (massively overwhelmed by economic warfare of eg China etc.).