leicsmac

Rory getting his mojo back here.

Using less, on the route to using enough "less" to not emit any excess carbon emissions at all as soon as feasible (hence "net zero") is good, yes. And for that to work, the amount of gas, oil and coal burned for energy generation has to be "next to none", rather than just "less".

I'll take that at face value then, but given your past contributions here I wouldn't say that you were even a bit thick tbh. I'll try to clarify a little more. The way we (humans as a whole) are using gas, oil and coal burning for generating energy has caused a large (by comparison) increase in the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (it's been shown that this is by far the biggest cause of such emissions.) This increase is driving an increase in global average temperature. That increase is then resulting in many more instances of extreme weather events that cause a lot of damage in both money and lives. As temperatures continue to increase, so will the number of those events, so will the damage, so will the cost. The increase isn't linear, either - as things go up, even small differences in temperature will result in big differences in events and damage. It's been reasonably calculated that the cost of this damage, if left unchecked, is much higher (as in at least tens, maybe hundreds of times) than the cost it would take to install renewable and fission related infrastructure across the UK and the world. So, the choice from an economic perspective seems obvious: the biggest thing stopping appears to be the fact that it needs a largish investment up front and the political will to carry out a project that will last for much longer than one democratic term. And also opposition from those who have money and power now and don't want to give even a little bit of it up.

Au contraire, I'm sure that you're smart enough to understand the points I'm making, but if you simply choose not to engage with them then it would be more honest to simply say so. I'm not prepared to be gaslit into thinking that actually looking at this from a viewpoint that takes into account both global and long term outcomes is somehow abstract or difficult to grasp. Not when it's both rather easy to understand and critically important. But with respect to the mechanics of the solution, a suite of renewable tailored to location and fission generation is likely called for. How that is applied is one for the logistics staff, but it does need to be done.

Fair enough. It's certainly easier to talk than to do, but the doing tends to start with the talking, so it is also important. As far as I'm concerned - and can prove to a reasonable balance of probability, certainly probable enough for it to matter - the practical economic argument is as simple as the ethical one. Either the UK invests to lead/follow the world in adapting energy generation that does not rely on constant carbon emissions, or changes in the Earth will occur that will result in a cost in money and lives that is an order of magnitude, several orders of magnitude, perhaps, higher than the cost of that investment. The mechanics of the solution are clearly a matter of debate but that the solution needs to be applied is not - and believing applying the mechanics to be difficult cannot be used as an excuse to not apply the solution. Buy now, or pay much more later. The only possible counterargument I can think of is that the future is worth so much less than the present in the mind of a person that we shouldn't care.

I'm sorry, but this either shows a lack of understanding of the way media outlets use and are using inference to indicate certainty where there isn't any, or this line of argument is really disingenuous. Edit: with respect to earlier discussion, if and when you want to discuss energy policy that concerns a rather broader outlook, it would be welcomed.

Second part of that sentence important. Again, the press regulator appears entirely toothless on things like this.

It's patriotic to not only the country, but to our species, the future and the great many lives it will save from a great deal of problems in that future. Again, I'm waiting to hear why exactly that isn't a good enough reason by Itself.

I could use that argument, but as far as I'm concerned the idea that fossil fuel use for energy generation creates problems we're already seeing and will only get much much worse (entirely unnecessarily) stands pretty much by itself and I've heard precious little counterargument to it.

And I'm sure future generations will thank us most profusely for our lack of creativity and adaptation should that remain the case. Hopefully, such energy decisions will end up being made by people who can look beyond the end of their self interested noses.

Based on the idea that it's totally fine to let the future burn for the sake of profit in the present, clearly.

If this is true, it's reasonably certain that the nature of that dependency may become very...changeable.

Fair points. It may well be close, then.

What an absolute clusterfvck this whole matter has been. Either be fine with the Americans using the place as a torture blacksite (among other things) or don't, just don't spend time and money dithering around either way, especially when it makes it look like Felon#47 is calling the shots.

Yeah, went about as well as it possibly could have. I wonder whether the Chinese will now look to speed things up in terms of their own mission, or whether they won't mind being a close second to NASA this time round.

... and to add to this, the most important argument will always remain that the world has to transition away from fossil fuels for energy generation (the UK not excepted), or reasonably soon things will happen that, in worst case, will ensure that the only economy is "time for a run to Gas Town to swap aquacola for their guzzolene. And don't forget some bullets from the bullet farm". The world is changing in terms of events affecting crops, livestock and access to potable water already and I have no idea why some people can't apparently get their heads around what's going on and how bad it could get. That denial is as dangerous as it is ludicrous.

Rory on the march here.

Artemis II re-entry in a couple of hours. Here's hoping it all goes smoothly.

Vance must be squirming a little bit right now seeing how the administration he belongs to is picking a fight with his (alleged) chosen religious sect.

Well, Karoline Leavitt said as much so...

....or pay the price for not doing so, yes. Like I said, people have to choose which might be less bad.

Long term strategic project planning on scientific policy matters and the democratic process appear to clash horribly, and people are going to have to choose which consequences of not having one or the other (in matters of science policy only) they prefer - because it's becoming very clear the mindset of too many people means they can't coexist.

Perhaps, if I may shed a little light; Those driven entirely by destructive short term self interest tend to assume that everyone else is too, so those that aren't tend to confound them. The standard thought is to believe it to be some kind of deception (because everyone really is selfish like them, really!), so the person is "dodgy" rather than not buying into the me-centric worldview that apparently "everyone" possesses deep inside.

Oh, look, it's only what the global climate science corps have been warning about in terms of consequence for decades. Now, imagine for a moment what humans will be like when that bottom tier of Maslows Hierarchy gets kicked out from underneath them on a massive scale?

Would it really have mattered if he did? That area of the press will be looking to pillory him by any means necessary and if they can't get an easy reason, they'll fabricate one that their readership will swallow like taffy anyway.