Foxholer
Blackballed
The UK (aka UK Taxpayers) also subsidises UK coal production - to the tune of £365 million according to this May 2017 report!
https://www.newscientist.com/articl...bsidises-coal-sector-with-356-million-a-year/
Second vote ? Why not .?
- Thread starter bladeplayer
- Start date
The UK (aka UK Taxpayers) also subsidises UK coal production - to the tune of £365 million according to this May 2017 report!
https://www.newscientist.com/articl...bsidises-coal-sector-with-356-million-a-year/
Tashyboy
Please don’t ask to see my tatts 👍
Foxy, did you actually read that report in detail coz me flippin blood is boiling.
1, The UK is accused of not being transparent in its subsidies process, which emphasises my point of not applying for the EU grant.
2, The grant was not used for coal mining/ coal mines/pits. Coz there's none left. It was used for the coal sector.
3, The grants/our tax was used towards subsidies to coal fired power stations to burn coal from foreign countries which recieved EU grants to burn imported coal. So the taxpayer paid twice.
4, The German government subsidise its industry to the tune of £1.7 billion.
That report emphasised why I voted leave.
Foxholer
Blackballed
Yes I did - the report that that article refers to to get that figure!
I'm not a fan of subsidies for existing industries, but those figures don't seem too outlandish to me - given the differing sizes of countries and the nature of the actual coal.
Btw. Do you agree that Coal extraction for use to produce energy should be eliminated asap?
Tashyboy
Please don’t ask to see my tatts 👍
Without a shadow of a doubt foxy. Whats puzzles me is that the technology is there to burn fossil fuels cleaner. In essence to capture the co. But governments would not pay towards it. Provably especially the Chinese. But governments are prepared to Frack. Odd.
Back to Coal and CO. Trump pulled out of the Paris agreement because of the favours given to China and India to continue to pollute the world for X number of yearsand produce products whilst the west world is shackled into producing under strict Co guidelines. No wonder he had a Bee in his bonnet.
Foxholer
Blackballed
I believe that was simply an excuse! My view is that Trump pulled out of the agreement in order to support the extremely bad US energy producers! And as by far the #1 polluting nation, it is essential that US reduces its carbon footprint! Otherwise, we are doomed!
I'm actually in favour of a 'staggered' approach for countries who need to use the likes of coal for energy, but a plan needs to be agreed to get there faster than 'more advanced' naions. It seems to me that while 'bad' energy production is a consequence of 'less 'universally advanced' nations' (i.e where use of polluting fuel may be the most convenient form of energy production in certain areas of the country), those countries also have something of a head-start, compared to others, when adopting the latest technology!
And it seems something of an anomoly that certain of those in that position (China & India specifically) have both nuclear weapons and significant space programs!
But it's the US that is the major polluter - by far! - in the world! Until there's a commitment to do something about that, then very little progress can be made overall! The head in the sand denial of 'climate change' as a phenomenon by Trump etc. is extremely disturbing!
Crazyface
Tour Winner
Here's a thought. Maybe, Mrs T was planning for the future. We've got loads of coal left and are merrilly burning other countries stocks. In a few hundred years time they'll have none and we will have.....LOADS.
Maye a bit bonkers.....
Maye a bit bonkers.....
Tashyboy
Please don’t ask to see my tatts 👍
Right foxy, you will have to bear with me coz am going back and forwards with this site and facts. But.
The top five CO2 producers are, ( (2012) and largest cause of pollution
1, China, 8.1 Billion metric tons , coal
2, USA, 5.27 billion metric tons , coal
3, India,1.83 billion metric tons, coal
4, Russia,1.78 billion metric tons, Coal and gas
5, Japan, 1.26 billion metric tons. Coal and gas.
Now as much as coal and gas is gonna kill the planet. Nuclear energy puts the eeby jeebies up me. Ironically the country that is poisoning the planet the most is supplying us with nuclear technology. How's that work out. Re Trump, he made a pact in his manifesto that he would protect coal mining jobs in the USA. But the stats I show are from 2012, he knew for five years that China and India were two of the three largest polluters and yet nowt was being done about them. He played his get outta jail free card.
hors limite
Assistant Pro
Bloody hell, off topic or what? Can anyone tell me the number of active members of the forum? I ask because of the extraordinary disparity between the numbers who have taken the trouble to vote on the original question and the numbers who have viewed.
Tashyboy
Please don’t ask to see my tatts 👍
It's the norm for any topic on the forum, me and foxy are having a bit of man love. Summat that's not to common on here sometimes.
I think there's something wrong with the algorithms anyway.
Total votes; 90............................... but if you add up each section it = 94
Then add the three percentages together = 104%
As for the number that voted 'v' the number that viewed; sounds like the vote on the day. Lots of can't be bothered.
Fade and Die
Medal Winner
So unless 5 billion from the list do their bit I can't see me buying an electric car making much of a dent
.
Foxholer
Blackballed
Yes, China is the larger CO2 producer - 2015 figures indicate 10.5B tonnes, so increasing. But with 4 times the population of US and a 'developing' economy, that's not altogether surprising and, from memory, was recognised in the Kyoto (or subsequent) protocol. CO2 production per person in China is about half that of US. There's certainly plenty of scope for reducing pollution by both countries - as there in India, Russia and others.
Renewables (particularly non-Hydro ones) will eventually become the predominant power source imo. But what shape the planet will be in when that happens, I fear to think!
Foxholer
Blackballed
So unless 5 billion from the list do their bit I can't see me buying an electric car making much of a dent
And, unless charged by renewable power, a good chunk of fossil fuels is still used to provide an electric power too! Healthier cities though!
Fade and Die
Medal Winner
True, but sooner we go full nuclear the better. Renewables are a massive waste of time and money. Only viable long term solution is nuclear.
Foxholer
Blackballed
I used to be of the same opinion, but have 'softened' somewhat after a few 'disasters'! I'm not sure the cost-effectiveness of fission compared to the danger potential warrants its long term use. And getting rid of the waste is still an issue - launching it into the sun would be my favoured method, but getting it away from Earth is the critical danger stage of that exercise! There will always be the temptation to 'extend' the life of generators beyond 'safe' life during economic low periods!
Fusion reactors MIGHT be the answer, but these are still theroretical/experimental - and/so hugely expensive!
In the mean time, I believe it's worth workplaces providing solar powered recharging facilities for vehicles. That would 'solve' the fallacy of electric vehicles being 'green' - as they would (at least very nearly) be.
Last edited:
