Fracking is back

Katie59

For those interested the global population has increased 10 fold since 1750, the start of industrialization. We are playing lip service to climate change all we are doing is retaining our present lifestyle until we take it seriously nothing will change.

Global population is now in decline.
In some cases beyond the tipping point.

No your wrong growstuff but I dont see the need to explain why and where.
Far better use of time and energy for both of us to read outside of our comfort zone and challenge our own conceptions.
Well, that is how I cope when coming across opinions that counter mine.

Namsnanny

^other scientist, are you including me in that grouping?^

I dont understand volver why?

Anyway, as I said for anyone else who is interested Bjorn Longberg's latest book, (which isnt 20 years old) it's a very interesting read.
All about how to fund energy, feed the poor, decrease the mortality of children and other serious problems we face.
He advises governments around the world.

Reading for ones self is far better that some potted rehash or mis quote (from me!).

Of course other authors are available?

Bjorn Longberg is also a well-known global warming sceptic, so it would be advisable not to rely on his writing for a balanced view.

So, what's your solution Katie59?

For those interested the global population has increased 10 fold since 1750, the start of industrialization. We are playing lip service to climate change all we are doing is retaining our present lifestyle until we take it seriously nothing will change.

The UK is far from target and any suggestion that we reduce the world's population to 10% of what is is now is very worrying indeed.

Are we living in Logan's Run?

volver

Actually I thought you meant 10%. Surely you are not talking about reducing the population by 90%?

The planet was self sustaining when the human population was only 10% of current levels, since then we have been using the earths resources at an increasing rate.
Climate change emissions are still increasing there is no way we are going to achieve any global targets, the UK is on target, but only by exporting our pollution to other countries.

I don't understand volver why?

Because I'm a scientist who specialised in Solar Power and alternative energy systems. Not a Political Scientist with dubious views. I read quite a lot. I wrote some of it. ??

other scientist, are you including me in that grouping?

I dont understand volver why?

Anyway, as I said for anyone else who is interested Bjorn Longberg's latest book, (which isnt 20 years old) it's a very interesting read.
All about how to fund energy, feed the poor, decrease the mortality of children and other serious problems we face.
He advises governments around the world.

Reading for ones self is far better that some potted rehash or mis quote (from me!).

Of course other authors are available?

I suspect that there are posters here who recycle their cereal boxes yet think that fracking is great. We need to be reducing fossil fuels for the sake of those who come after us. The issue here is that the government has no mandate. I thought that it was a joke when I read that Johnson wouldn't hold the title of the worst PM for long. The Tories have now saddled the country with an unelected ultra right wing cohort who are just puppets.

Scientists aren't mythical beings who hand down observations from on high. Sometimes they post on Gransnet.

That's what I do. I post and I know things... ?

(Game of Thrones again)

Why would I include you without specifically naming you volver?

Oh, missed a bit. Longberg isn't a scientist. He's a political scientist.

Or you wouldnt dismiss Bjorn Longberg and other scientists so easily.

Other scientists? Do you include me in that grouping? Can one dismiss themselves? Scientists aren't a group apart. They walk among us you.

You want a scientific argument, I'm up for it. But just saying Longberg thinks differently isn't a scientific argument.

volver

Namsnanny I don't need to buy cheap books off Ebay because this is my thing. I understand that actually having knowledge rather than opinions is not de rigeur on GN sometimes, but this time, what I know trumps what anyone has written in a 20 year old book.

Nuclear will ruin the planet even more than fossil fuels will. Renewables are the only answer and the experiment has indeed reached its conclusion. And the fossil fuel and nuclear people are in the wrong.

Not an opinion, a scientific truth. Inconvenient though it may be.

??Clearly you dont know as much as you think.
Or you wouldnt dismiss Bjorn Longberg and other scientists so easily.

But no matter. I'm happy to keep learning until the day I die.

Actually I thought you meant 10%. Surely you are not talking about reducing the population by 90%?

No. Just no. Does nobody actually know what nuclear is?

You can't quote figures like reducing the population by 10% and then not justify it.

Renewables are the answer, the problem is that consumption and population needs to reduced by 90% then it becomes realistic. That’s not going to happen so nuclear is going to be needed to bridge the gap.

Renewables seems the obvious way to go. A new windfarm is to be built off Dogger Bank that will provide electricity for 3.4 million homes. A local (very big) hospital is completely powered by its own small solar farm. The field isn't wasted because the farmer also uses it to grow crops. I don't see why we need dirty or dangerous electricity when we have the technology for clean energy.

Namsnanny I don't need to buy cheap books off Ebay because this is my thing. I understand that actually having knowledge rather than opinions is not de rigeur on GN sometimes, but this time, what I know trumps what anyone has written in a 20 year old book.

Nuclear will ruin the planet even more than fossil fuels will. Renewables are the only answer and the experiment has indeed reached its conclusion. And the fossil fuel and nuclear people are in the wrong.

Not an opinion, a scientific truth. Inconvenient though it may be.

No one tried harder to convert and support sun and /or wind energy than Germany.
Their emissions went up because they were forced to supply energy from coal.
Then they were forced to lie about its use.
The experiment has reached its conclusion.
The change from wood to coal saved and improved lives.
The same from coal to oil and gas.
Even more so the leap to nuclear.

But to some ideological perspectives are hard to give up.

I agree with M0nica

I've said it before, but try reading Bjorn Longberg.
Ebay has plenty of cheap books. Or order it from the library.
Some of us are operating on old outdated ideas.
But maybe that suits their mandate?

The irony is that most of our energy could be home produced. now, North Sea Oil and Gas, Renewable, Nuclear and some Coal, although we do import some, indeed we also export oil and gas

The problem is that it’s mostly privatized and able to charge what it wants

The conservatives have done so much to wreck our country one wonders what sort of morality they have.

volver

*M0nica*, you and I often disagree about energy policy, and that's a good basis for discussion.

Fracking will be a bl**dy disaster and anybody who thinks otherwise doesn't really understand the issue.

When citing Wytch Farm and saying that there has been no problems there? Well there were no problems in Chernobyl until it exploded. I'm not suggesting Wytch Farm will explode but just saying "its been fine so far" and crossing our fingers won't hack it any more. Also, fracking produces carbon based fuels which will contribute to climate change, which is already impacting the world and will only get worse.

Is the solution to stop people using electricity for any purpose.

No, it's to use renewables. Obviously.

I agree. As for Wytch Farm, this government has learned nothing about preparing for the worst while working for the best.

Government seem determined to do more and more unnecessary damage. Why do they choose to ignore wave technology? I am definitely against any form of fracking.