Technology, Science and the Environment.

[SpacedX]

1 hour ago, Sideshow Faes said:

This all sounds crazy, but it's relatively realistic given that observable changes exceed even the worst case projections at this moment.

It really doesn't, it's the harsh reality that many are utterly oblivious to. 

 

Take a look at the poll on the climate change thread. 

[dsr-burnley]

1 hour ago, Sideshow Faes said:

You greatly underestimate the problem.

 

Will humanity survive the next 20-40 years? Yes. Without almost instant civilisation level change will we exist in the same numbers? No. 

 

Vast areas of the earth will be unliveable. In the sense that the wet bulb temperature will exceed what the human body can withstand for large parts of the year and/or crops will no longer be able to grow across large areas.

 

Canada will probably be in good shape. It'll have the climate of the US South. But the current US South will be extremely harsh.

Within relatively short order.

 

There'll be mass migrations and war will be fought over those migrations and access to food and water. 

 

This all sounds crazy, but it's relatively realistic given that observable changes exceed even the worst case projections at this moment.

 

 

I don't deny any of that.  It's at least plausible, though I wouldn't go so far as to say it's likely.  But the earth will still be easily able to support life.  (The new land available in Canada, Siberia, and Antarctica will make up for a lot of the land lost to heat.)

[leicsmac]

40 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

I don't deny any of that.  It's at least plausible, though I wouldn't go so far as to say it's likely.  But the earth will still be easily able to support life.  (The new land available in Canada, Siberia, and Antarctica will make up for a lot of the land lost to heat.)

The land that would have been previously permafrosted tundra and therefore in no way either fertile or arable?  We'd better get good at massive hydroponics programs pretty fast.

 

The Earth will certainly support life again, it might just draw the line at human civilisation.

 

NB. Hey, this gives me a story idea.

Edited 21 August 2023 by leicsmac

[Guest Sideshow Faes]

5 hours ago, MonkeyTennis? said:

The sad truth is that, as a species, we are probably no more capable of making the kind of dramatic technological and social changes required to stop or reverse climate change, as we are of sending human beings to live on other worlds. Both are almost impossibly difficult challenges that require a level of organisation and discipline to achieve that seems to be almost totally beyond the capability of human beings at a collective or individual level. And I don't mean that in a judgemental or fatalistic way - we are what we are. 

 

 

This isn't true. The IPCC reports spell out what to do. We have the necessary tech now. What we don't have is honesty about the emergency it is as we've shown what we can do when we really want to. Unfortunately there are dishonest forces prepared to risk everything.

[Guest Sideshow Faes]

3 hours ago, dsr-burnley said:

I don't deny any of that.  It's at least plausible, though I wouldn't go so far as to say it's likely.  But the earth will still be easily able to support life.  (The new land available in Canada, Siberia, and Antarctica will make up for a lot of the land lost to heat.)

Out of interest, what is the point of this line of argument? Brilliant, hundreds of millions (minimum) dead, continuous extreme weather, but some might make it to the north pole to live a horrific existence relative to anything mankind has known before? I'm not sure it matters if you're right or wrong.

[Guest Sideshow Faes]

3 hours ago, Line-X said:

Agree and at no stage did I suggest that we should or will. 

 

We already are. 

 

Yes indeed we do, but not at the expense of getting off it. 

 

Unfortunately there are many, many things that are marginalising and detracting from the immediate response necessitated by our climate emergency. Space Agencies are not the problem. 

Regarding your last point, I think if space agencies are going to do anything it's going to be putting some sort of solar shade in place. 

 

As an aside, given how slowly the world is moving to carbon zero, I do sometimes wonder whether the biggest countries have decided the rest of the world is expendable, and after fighting off mass migration will attempt to cool the earth via technological means so the rich can keep pillaging the now much emptier earth. 

[dsr-burnley]

4 hours ago, Sideshow Faes said:

Out of interest, what is the point of this line of argument? Brilliant, hundreds of millions (minimum) dead, continuous extreme weather, but some might make it to the north pole to live a horrific existence relative to anything mankind has known before? I'm not sure it matters if you're right or wrong.

For one thing, I've never been convinced that we in the 1900's lived in the best possible world conditions and every deviation would lead to worse weather.  It's possible that changes in temperature might lead to better weather.  And all these "look at the hurricanes this year, it's a sign of global warning" prophets of doom are very much working against their cause because they simply give anti-global warming prophets the chance next year to say "no hurricanes this time". 

 

For another, mankind has been around for a long time.  It may be evident to you that mankind in a globally warmed earth will be far worse off than we were in the Stone and Ice Ages, but I'm not convinced by that either.  If you restrict yourself to "worse than the industrial revolution era", it would be more believable.

 

And the point of my saying all this is to keep things real.  Again, if people who want something done urgently, then to say "the world will be uninhabitable in 20 years" is simply going to make a lot of people decide there's nothing that can be done except to hope that it they're wrong.  Obviously it's going to take a lot more than 20 years to reverse this lot, assuming the various figures are correct that global warming has been going on for 100 years or so.  And equally obviously we need the rest of the world to take part in the drive to negative emissions (because net zero won't help, it will only stop the hindrance) because the poorer countries like India and China aren't going to look at us and say "we don't want that lifestyle just in case ...".  So if we tell people that in 20 years we will all be dead, then a whole lot of people will choose to enjoy the next 20 and take their chance rather than making any progress at all.

[Guest Sideshow Faes]

58 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

For one thing, I've never been convinced that we in the 1900's lived in the best possible world conditions and every deviation would lead to worse weather.  It's possible that changes in temperature might lead to better weather.  And all these "look at the hurricanes this year, it's a sign of global warning" prophets of doom are very much working against their cause because they simply give anti-global warming prophets the chance next year to say "no hurricanes this time". 

 

For another, mankind has been around for a long time.  It may be evident to you that mankind in a globally warmed earth will be far worse off than we were in the Stone and Ice Ages, but I'm not convinced by that either.  If you restrict yourself to "worse than the industrial revolution era", it would be more believable.

 

And the point of my saying all this is to keep things real.  Again, if people who want something done urgently, then to say "the world will be uninhabitable in 20 years" is simply going to make a lot of people decide there's nothing that can be done except to hope that it they're wrong.  Obviously it's going to take a lot more than 20 years to reverse this lot, assuming the various figures are correct that global warming has been going on for 100 years or so.  And equally obviously we need the rest of the world to take part in the drive to negative emissions (because net zero won't help, it will only stop the hindrance) because the poorer countries like India and China aren't going to look at us and say "we don't want that lifestyle just in case ...".  So if we tell people that in 20 years we will all be dead, then a whole lot of people will choose to enjoy the next 20 and take their chance rather than making any progress at all.

China is growing their zero carbon energy sector faster than the rest of the world combined.

 

Just read the IPCC reports. Nonsense about what the past was like or what the future may hold based on nothing more than what's in your head really doesn't fly with me.

 

We have experts that work for years to understand the climate, taking in everything science can learn about previous times, and their models are holding up incredibly well to observations, even if observations are unfortunately now starting to be worse than predictions.

[leicsmac]

6 hours ago, Sideshow Faes said:

Regarding your last point, I think if space agencies are going to do anything it's going to be putting some sort of solar shade in place. 

 

As an aside, given how slowly the world is moving to carbon zero, I do sometimes wonder whether the biggest countries have decided the rest of the world is expendable, and after fighting off mass migration will attempt to cool the earth via technological means so the rich can keep pillaging the now much emptier earth. 

I have considered this conspiracy theory before, too.

 

I believe it a possibility, but where it falls down or what they haven't considered fully is a couple of things IMO. Firstly, while such folks are obsessed with power and control, I don't think there's a way they can control the collapse that would happen in a way that they could be sure to benefit, same as any other vast natural disaster. Secondly, all the trappings of rich and powerful life they have rely on other people and the complex systems they drive. They might think those same systems would still work with vastly fewer people, but I'm not so sure. 

 

 

2 hours ago, dsr-burnley said:

For one thing, I've never been convinced that we in the 1900's lived in the best possible world conditions and every deviation would lead to worse weather.  It's possible that changes in temperature might lead to better weather.  And all these "look at the hurricanes this year, it's a sign of global warning" prophets of doom are very much working against their cause because they simply give anti-global warming prophets the chance next year to say "no hurricanes this time". 

 

For another, mankind has been around for a long time.  It may be evident to you that mankind in a globally warmed earth will be far worse off than we were in the Stone and Ice Ages, but I'm not convinced by that either.  If you restrict yourself to "worse than the industrial revolution era", it would be more believable.

 

And the point of my saying all this is to keep things real.  Again, if people who want something done urgently, then to say "the world will be uninhabitable in 20 years" is simply going to make a lot of people decide there's nothing that can be done except to hope that it they're wrong.  Obviously it's going to take a lot more than 20 years to reverse this lot, assuming the various figures are correct that global warming has been going on for 100 years or so.  And equally obviously we need the rest of the world to take part in the drive to negative emissions (because net zero won't help, it will only stop the hindrance) because the poorer countries like India and China aren't going to look at us and say "we don't want that lifestyle just in case ...".  So if we tell people that in 20 years we will all be dead, then a whole lot of people will choose to enjoy the next 20 and take their chance rather than making any progress at all.

All due respect, you're arguing against the point the scientific community isn't making.

 

The consensus is that global average temperatures are rising, which will result in more flooding, droughts and extreme weather phenomena (those are matters of reasonably simple atmospheric physics, a warmer atmosphere is more volatile in a lot of ways) and that in the course of the next several decades this will result in changes that at best result in increased global instability and hundreds of millions of people dead, suffering or displaced, and at worst civilisational collapse - worse than the industrial revolution era but perhaps not as bad as the stone age, as you say - but that's hardly something to look forward to, is it?

 

The timeframes regarding "20 years" or whatever are timeframes for adequately addressing the problem, not a timeline of consequence.

 

Regarding messaging and fatalism as a result of it, if people don't parse the truthful information being offered like above from the misinformation like "the world will be uninhabitable in 20 years" and choose to do nothing as a result, then that's on them, no one else, and the responsibility for the consequences will partly lie with them too. When those who are left decide "who killed the world?" and seek justice for it, the apathetic will be accountable as well as the malicious.

 

NB. The faster we get to net zero, the lower the overall change in temperature will be, the less prevalent and serious the consequences, so it is worth aiming for.

[dsr-burnley]

8 hours ago, Sideshow Faes said:

China is growing their zero carbon energy sector faster than the rest of the world combined.

 

Just read the IPCC reports. Nonsense about what the past was like or what the future may hold based on nothing more than what's in your head really doesn't fly with me.

 

We have experts that work for years to understand the climate, taking in everything science can learn about previous times, and their models are holding up incredibly well to observations, even if observations are unfortunately now starting to be worse than predictions.

But they're also growing their coal-fired energy sector faster than the rest of the world, too.

 

I'm not being critical of China on this point.  Obviously they are much poorer than us at present and they want to catch up, and one essential factor in catching up is the use of more energy.  They can't be expected (nor India, nor Africa, etc etc) to do it on renewables, which in spite of the progress that's been made, are still more expensive (and less predictable) than fossil fuels.

 

It would make sense to concentrate less on net zero here, and more on net zero for everywhere else.  The third world, or developing world, whatever it is called, is going to be in the business of large scale increase in power generation, and the only way to get them to use renewables is to make it cheaper than fossil fuels, whether by subsidy or improving (and sharing) technology, or however.  What we can do in this country, although it may have a marginal effect of "showing a good example", is like pouring a bucket of water onto the Great Fire of London.

[SpacedX]

7 hours ago, dsr-burnley said:

For one thing, I've never been convinced that we in the 1900's lived in the best possible world conditions and every deviation would lead to worse weather.  It's possible that changes in temperature might lead to better weather. 

Not on a global scale it isn't. Everywhere will be adversely affected and has been explained to you, the displacement of populations will be on an unimaginable scale. Competition for resources will result in increased conflict possibly societal collapse. This is only set to worsen as climate change increases the intensity and frequency of sudden- and slow-onset hazards. 

 

7 hours ago, dsr-burnley said:

And all these "look at the hurricanes this year, it's a sign of global warning" prophets of doom are very much working against their cause because they simply give anti-global warming prophets the chance next year to say "no hurricanes this time". 

The ocean surface hit its highest ever sea temperature this year. Global average daily sea surface temperatures (SST) hit 20.96C this month, breaking the record of 20.95C reached in 2016. Warmer oceans lead to a greater intensity of tropical storms, cyclones and hurricanes and the potential for a higher frequency of their formation. That's the meteorological science tells us, that's nature. Nature is chaotic and it isn't obliged to conform to the skewed agenda driven insistence of global warming denialists, online contrarians and merchants of doubt who relentlessly exploit every perceived inconsistency, expression of uncertainty with no qualms whatsoever about rigour or honesty. Nothing will challenge the sustained efforts of a coalition of business lobbies, politicians, maverick scientists, charlatans and contrarian internet attention-seekers to discredit and derail the climate science that they are woefully misinformed about. Science need not pander to these fools and even tactful and diplomatic scientific communication falls upon deaf ears.

 

8 hours ago, dsr-burnley said:

For another, mankind has been around for a long time.  It may be evident to you that mankind in a globally warmed earth will be far worse off than we were in the Stone and Ice Ages, but I'm not convinced by that either.  If you restrict yourself to "worse than the industrial revolution era", it would be more believable.

Well human population didn't expand until the late Pleistocene - prior to that it fluctuated between 130,000 and 410,000 people which is a bit different to the predicted 10.4 billion by the end of the century.

 

9 hours ago, dsr-burnley said:

And the point of my saying all this is to keep things real.  

Well good job posting little more than your own conjecture and supposition.

 

9 hours ago, dsr-burnley said:

For Again, if people who want something done urgently, then to say "the world will be uninhabitable in 20 years" is simply going to make a lot of people decide there's nothing that can be done except to hope that it they're wrong.  Obviously it's going to take a lot more than 20 years to reverse this lot, assuming the various figures are correct that global warming has been going on for 100 years or so.  

No it isn't, it reinforces the message that immediate action is imperative. The earliest signs of warming developed around the 1830s - that's almost double the century that you suggest. 

 

9 hours ago, dsr-burnley said:

And equally obviously we need the rest of the world to take part in the drive to negative emissions (because net zero won't help, it will only stop the hindrance) because the poorer countries like India and China aren't going to look at us and say "we don't want that lifestyle just in case ...".  So if we tell people that in 20 years we will all be dead, then a whole lot of people will choose to enjoy the next 20 and take their chance rather than making any progress at all.

Nonsense. We are on the brink of complete catastrophe. And yes, striving towards net-zero is essential, The IPCC stated in 2018 that the world needs to reach net zero by around 2050 if it is to meet the Paris Agreement target of limiting global warming to 1.5°C. The 2050 deadline was subsequently included in the Glasgow Climate Pact agreed at COP26 in 2021. Parties signed up to the Pact recognise that limiting global warming to 1.5°C requires rapid, deep and sustained reductions in global greenhouse gas emissions, including reducing global carbon dioxide emissions to net zero around mid-century. Because of the limits to negative emissions technologies and the criticisms of offsetting, climate scientists stress the need to focus on abating domestic emissions as the primary way to bring emissions to net zero and thus avoid runaway global temperature increase. Net-zero again reinforces the vital message that immediate action is imperative.

[Guest Sideshow Faes]

34 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

But they're also growing their coal-fired energy sector faster than the rest of the world, too.

 

I'm not being critical of China on this point.  Obviously they are much poorer than us at present and they want to catch up, and one essential factor in catching up is the use of more energy.  They can't be expected (nor India, nor Africa, etc etc) to do it on renewables, which in spite of the progress that's been made, are still more expensive (and less predictable) than fossil fuels.

 

It would make sense to concentrate less on net zero here, and more on net zero for everywhere else.  The third world, or developing world, whatever it is called, is going to be in the business of large scale increase in power generation, and the only way to get them to use renewables is to make it cheaper than fossil fuels, whether by subsidy or improving (and sharing) technology, or however.  What we can do in this country, although it may have a marginal effect of "showing a good example", is like pouring a bucket of water onto the Great Fire of London.

Chinese coal power is a temporary measure while they build enough renewables to take the load. They have a net zero goal of 2060 but are actually ahead of schedule.

 

Renewables are already cheaper than fossil fuels. Much cheaper. I've no idea where you've got the idea from that it's cheaper to go digging for oil or coal than putting up renewable systems.

[Guest Sideshow Faes]

It's incredible how some people have such a strong opinion and feeling of being right about subjects where they clearly have little or no knowledge.

[leicsmac]

17 minutes ago, Sideshow Faes said:

It's incredible how some people have such a strong opinion and feeling of being right about subjects where they clearly have little or no knowledge.

It's called Dunning-Kruger, I believe. Fascinating area of psychology, though the consequences of it are rather less so and more grim.

[dsr-burnley]

48 minutes ago, Sideshow Faes said:

Chinese coal power is a temporary measure while they build enough renewables to take the load. They have a net zero goal of 2060 but are actually ahead of schedule.

 

Renewables are already cheaper than fossil fuels. Much cheaper. I've no idea where you've got the idea from that it's cheaper to go digging for oil or coal than putting up renewable systems.

Why am I paying a green energy levy of £170 per year?

 

When (or if) we have the technology to store sufficient power to tide us over when the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing, then wind and solar power may become cheaper than gas power.  But until then, renewable energy consists of wind and solar when available, and gas when not available, and the combination of those sources is more expensive than gas (or coal) alone.

 

It may be true that the power generated by a windmill is cheaper per unit than the power generated by a gas power station; I wouldn't know for sure.  But the windmill needs expensive backup, which must be taken into account.

[dsr-burnley]

54 minutes ago, Line-X said:

The ocean surface hit its highest ever sea temperature this year. Global average daily sea surface temperatures (SST) hit 20.96C this month, breaking the record of 20.95C reached in 2016. Warmer oceans lead to a greater intensity of tropical storms, cyclones and hurricanes and the potential for a higher frequency of their formation. That's the meteorological science tells us, that's nature. Nature is chaotic and it isn't obliged to conform to the skewed agenda driven insistence of global warming denialists, online contrarians and merchants of doubt who relentlessly exploit every perceived inconsistency, expression of uncertainty with no qualms whatsoever about rigour or honesty. Nothing will challenge the sustained efforts of a coalition of business lobbies, politicians, maverick scientists, charlatans and contrarian internet attention-seekers to discredit and derail the climate science that they are woefully misinformed about. Science need not pander to these fools and even tactful and diplomatic scientific communication falls upon deaf ears.

All fair points, apart from the unnecessary snide dig in the middle, but you haven't understood the point about hurricanes - or I haven't made it clearly enough.

 

Several years ago some people trying to get us worked up about global warming pointed to the increased number of hurricanes that happened over a two or three year period, saying this is a sign of global warning.  Maybe they convinced some people.  But then over the next few years, the number of hurricanes was lower than average, which gives global warming deniers the easy option of saying "you were wrong, the increase in hurricanes was not a sign of global warming".  

 

When trying to stir up the world, things need to be kept honest and accurate, because every mistake and every lie will serve to harden the beliefs of the opposition.

[Guest Sideshow Faes]

8 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

Why am I paying a green energy levy of £170 per year?

 

When (or if) we have the technology to store sufficient power to tide us over when the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing, then wind and solar power may become cheaper than gas power.  But until then, renewable energy consists of wind and solar when available, and gas when not available, and the combination of those sources is more expensive than gas (or coal) alone.

 

It may be true that the power generated by a windmill is cheaper per unit than the power generated by a gas power station; I wouldn't know for sure.  But the windmill needs expensive backup, which must be taken into account.

You seem to have spent too long on climate denial websites (probably accidentally, many otherwise safe spaces like newspaper content sections and Facebook have been taken over by science deniers) I'll give you the benefit of the doubt). 

 

Wind power is already 9 times cheaper than any form of fossil fuel. We also give huge subsidies to fossil fuel industries while we've cut the much smaller subsidies to renewables. 

 

And an energy levy is government policy, not the actual cost of energy. It's a complete red herring.

 

There are multiple countries that already have zero carbon energy systems. It isn't some impossible dream. Simply a combination of wind, solar and water power sources (the latter comes in multiple forms) can cover a country's energy needs and in combination cover for peaks and troughs in supply from each part of the system.

 

These things are already tested, work and are cheaper than fossil fuels. Yet here you are arguing that it's impossible and unaffordable. Do you not think to ever read any evidence before coming to your conclusions? 

 

Sorry if I'm coming across a little rude but we're almost out of time yet vast numbers of people have fallen hook, line and sinker for these simplistic non-arguments bought and paid for by the oil industry. When are you going to wake up to reality? The IPCC, as I've already said, have literally written out the roadmap to net zero and the actions that we can take now.

 

 

Edited 22 August 2023 by Sideshow Faes

[dsr-burnley]

2 minutes ago, Sideshow Faes said:

You seem to have spent too long on climate denial websites (probably accidentally, many otherwise safe spaces like newspaper content sections and Facebook have been taken over by science deniers) I'll give you the benefit of the doubt). 

 

Wind power is already 9 times cheaper than any form of fossil fuel. We also give huge subsidies to fossil fuel industries while we've cut the much smaller subsidies to renewables. 

 

And an energy levy is government policy, not the actual cost of energy. It's a complete red herring.

 

There are multiple countries that already have zero carbon energy systems. It isn't some impossible dream. Simply a combination of wind, solar and water power sources (the latter comes in multiple forms) can cover a country's energy needs and in combination cover for peaks and troughs in supply from each part of the system.

 

These things are already tested, work and are cheaper than fossil fuels. Yet here you are arguing that it's impossible and unaffordable. Do you not think to ever read any evidence before coming to your conclusions? 

 

Sorry if I'm coming across a little rude but we're almost out of time yet vast numbers of people have fallen hook, line and sinker for these simplistic non-arguments bought and paid for by the oil industry. When are you going to wake up to reality? The IPCC, as I've already said, have literally written out the roadmap to net zero and the actions that we can take now.

 

 

Last time I looked at these subsidies for fossil fuels, the main "subsidies" were the charge of 5% VAT instead of 20%, and the capital allowances on capital investment.  Neither of which is a subsidy in the real world.  Has any more relevant set of figures been produced.  

[Guest Sideshow Faes]

5 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

Last time I looked at these subsidies for fossil fuels, the main "subsidies" were the charge of 5% VAT instead of 20%, and the capital allowances on capital investment.  Neither of which is a subsidy in the real world.  Has any more relevant set of figures been produced.  

Interesting the way you keep moving the point of argument. It's as if you're looking for anything you can latch on to as an ah-ha moment. You chuck out one speculative nonsense argument then hook onto another when you get a response.

 

Tax breaks absolutely are subsidies and it's ridiculous to claim otherwise. We subsidise fossil fuels to the tune of an average £10bn per year (we also give significant but smaller subsidies to renewables). 

 

 

[leicsmac]

20 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

All fair points, apart from the unnecessary snide dig in the middle, but you haven't understood the point about hurricanes - or I haven't made it clearly enough.

 

Several years ago some people trying to get us worked up about global warming pointed to the increased number of hurricanes that happened over a two or three year period, saying this is a sign of global warning.  Maybe they convinced some people.  But then over the next few years, the number of hurricanes was lower than average, which gives global warming deniers the easy option of saying "you were wrong, the increase in hurricanes was not a sign of global warming".  

 

When trying to stir up the world, things need to be kept honest and accurate, because every mistake and every lie will serve to harden the beliefs of the opposition.

As much as this sounds about right, the facts of the matter are what they are and these errors in perception spoken of here, such as they are, are really rather irrelevant beyond possibly dealing with accountability should this all go Pete Tong.

 

The "opposition" can believe as they like - their beliefs won't save them, nor anyone else for that matter, should they get their way. And that's on them.

 

NB. I find the monetary arguments above pretty spurious too tbh, given the consequences of all of this will result in cost an order of magnitude, if not bigger, than any measure taken to mitigate them. And the cost will not just be material, either.

[Zear0]

21 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

Last time I looked at these subsidies for fossil fuels, the main "subsidies" were the charge of 5% VAT instead of 20%, and the capital allowances on capital investment.  Neither of which is a subsidy in the real world.  Has any more relevant set of figures been produced.  

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-60295177

 

"Oil and gas firms operating in the North Sea are taxed differently.

They pay 30% corporation tax on their profits and a supplementary 10% rate on top of that. Other firms with profits over £250,000 a year currently pay 25% corporation tax.

But oil and gas firms have been able to reduce the amount of tax they pay by factoring in losses or spending on things like decommissioning North Sea oil platforms.

In recent years, such methods have meant that BP and Shell have paid almost no UK tax.

Both firms received more money back from the UK government than they paid every year from 2015 to 2020 (except Shell in 2017).

Shell also paid a negative amount of tax in 2021, taking its 2015 to 2021 UK tax total to -£685m.

BP paid more money in tax than it received back in 2021, taking its total for the same period to -£107m."

 

Be nice if equivalent terms were offered to renewables.

Edited 22 August 2023 by Zear0

[dsr-burnley]

4 minutes ago, Sideshow Faes said:

Interesting the way you keep moving the point of argument. It's as if you're looking for anything you can latch on to as an ah-ha moment. You chuck out one speculative nonsense argument then hook onto another when you get a response.

 

Tax breaks absolutely are subsidies and it's ridiculous to claim otherwise. We subsidise fossil fuels to the tune of an average £10bn per year (we also give significant but smaller subsidies to renewables). 

 

 

Surely there is no point just repeating what I said before?  you make a point, I make a point, or vice versa; the points don't agree with each other, we move on.  

 

Differential VAT rates, assuming that's what you're on about, are not government subsidies.  If VAT is 5% we may pay £1,050 for our electricity bill, of which the company collects £1,000 and the government £50.  If VAT rises to 20%, then the company collects £1,000 and the government £200.  I would not see the VAT rise as the end of a subsidy, I would see it as a tax rise on the consumer.  

 

If you aren't talking about VAT and you have a different source of figures for the subsidy, then I apologise and would be interested to see the figures.

[The Bear]

The most irritating thing about renewable energy is, that we're hardly a landlocked country. We're a small island so we should have enough wind and water renewables coming out of our ears. Top that up with solar and we should be able to power our tiny country fairly easily and fairly quickly  with some investment and planning. 

[dsr-burnley]

6 minutes ago, Zear0 said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-60295177

 

"Oil and gas firms operating in the North Sea are taxed differently.

They pay 30% corporation tax on their profits and a supplementary 10% rate on top of that. Other firms with profits over £250,000 a year currently pay 25% corporation tax.

But oil and gas firms have been able to reduce the amount of tax they pay by factoring in losses or spending on things like decommissioning North Sea oil platforms.

In recent years, such methods have meant that BP and Shell have paid almost no UK tax.

Both firms received more money back from the UK government than they paid every year from 2015 to 2020 (except Shell in 2017).

Shell also paid a negative amount of tax in 2021, taking its 2015 to 2021 UK tax total to -£685m.

BP paid more money in tax than it received back in 2021, taking its total for the same period to -£107m."

 

Be nice if equivalent terms were offered to renewables.

Surely the only difference in the taxation of renewables is that they don't have 40% or 75% corporation tax rates?  They can still offset losses against profits, they can still claim relief for the cost of clearing up after themselves when they decommission a site.  

[Guest Sideshow Faes]

When the energy profits levy was implemented specific tax relief for oil and gas investment was included, which was not the case for renewables.

 

But this is a distraction tactic.

 

Renewables are cheaper. Countries elsewhere have proven they can be used now. There are no good argument against.