Tuesday 7 November 2017

The Heat is Affecting Their Brains

It's been a few days of revealing argumentation on the green-left, with a new sighting of impossibilist nonsense and a couple of much more interesting, nay, even profound observations from the same befuddled quarter.

First, the nutters: it's the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research. They've decided that use of natural gas must be phased out by 2035.
there is “categorically no role” for new gas production ... "Considering both carbon dioxide and methane emissions, an urgent programme to phase out existing natural gas and other fossil fuel use across the EU is an imperative of any scientifically informed and equity-based policies designed to deliver on the Paris agreement” 
They note with horror that:
Far from phasing out natural gas ventures, the EU appears to be accelerating them in a new “projects of common interest” list for gas infrastructure. After 77 gas projects were approved in the last PCI round, the latest slate could potentially approve more than 100 gas ventures for public funding and fast-tracked planning approval, according to analysis by Friends of the Earth Europe ... Antoine Simon, an FoEE spokesman said: “It is intolerable to see the European commission and its members giving support to an increasing number of gas projects that will lock us in to decades of fossil fuel addiction"
Intolerable, eh?  Well sorry, Antoine, but the rest of us want to stay warm in winter etc etc, so you are banging your head against a well-constructed brick wall there.  If there's a real point, it is that methane leakage should be actively minimised - obviously (because it's a waste of energy!) - and it is certainly true that the gas networks particularly of eastern Europe and Russia (not to mention some states of the USA) still leave a huge amount to be desired in that regard.  Incidentally, you can get EU and World Bank money for sorting this out, it's a well-known issue.  So let's crack on.

Because much more enlightening is this scathing and long-overdue critique from the green-left itself - one Jonathan Franzen, who appears to have retained some brain cells.
The left, having excoriated the right for its intellectual dishonesty and turned climate denialism into a political rallying cry, was now in an impossible position. It had to keep insisting on the truth of climate science while persisting in the fiction that collective world action could stave off the worst of it: that universal acceptance of the facts, which really might have changed everything in 1995, could still change everything ... Denying the dark reality, pretending that the Paris accord could avert catastrophe, was understandable as a tactic to keep people motivated to reduce emissions; to keep hope alive. As a strategy, though, it did more harm than good. It ceded the ethical high ground, insulted the intelligence of unpersuaded voters (“Really? We still have 10 years?”), and precluded frank discussion of how the global community should prepare for drastic changes
Yes, some of them are slowly waking up to the consequences of refusing to discuss the necessary measures for adaptation to climate change (including, IMHO, geo-egineering) in favour atavistic anti-industrialism.  This latter stance has done them no good because, of course (a) in the industrialised world we have grown quite fond of electricity & want to remain warm in winter etc etc; and (b) the rest of the world wants to join us as fast as it can.  There's another piece on the unpicking of their lunacy here, embedded in some of the more traditional waffle if you can bear to wade through it. 
Adaptation was long a dirty word at climate change conferences. Civil society groups feared that espousing, and devoting money to, the means of staving off the worst effects of warming – walls against sea level rises, dykes and floating houses, changes to agriculture to grow heat-adapted crops – would distract attention from the urgent business of reducing emissions
Let's see what COP23 brings.  There's scope for plenty more nonsense yet.



CityUnslicker said...

Spo ton re adaptation, but sadly as the green loonies are also all want everyone else to go vegan and eschew electricity altogether then they are never going to concede anything practical.

Which is a bigger problem because they are going to shame any govt that tries anything like iron-seeding the sea etc even though in reality this is our best hope!

Anonymous said...

I'm in the middle of testing whether I can run my computer on ethical wood rather than electricity. So far so goo

Bill Quango MP said...

Question for Mr Drew.

Letter from Eon today saying they have to update my gas and energy meter by law. They will change the meter whether I want it changed or not so I should agree straight away.

They say all meters need replacing between every 10 and 30 years..BY LAW.
{Not a law I'm aware of.}

This letter appeared genuine. Mine are very old. And, of course, Eon are demanding I have a smart meter. We know it is a government self-imposed-pointless target to have the energy companies offer one to everyone by 2020. And all homes to have one by some other unrealistic target too. 2021 probably.

But my neighbour also had same letter. Their meter was changed only 6-7 years ago.

Blatant push to impose smart meters? Or a genuine need to replace old, worn out?
Mine must be 20-30 years or older. I've been in the property 11 years and they were already here.

Nick Drew said...

You are being strong-armed, there is no legal obligation:

"not a legal obligation on individuals to have one" (HMG)

obviously the suppliers are under huge govt pressure, and as this cascades down through their organisations there will be targets, & then subtle incentives to *dissemble* (see Do Bonuses Work? ...)

see also Which? magazine - https://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/advice/do-i-have-to-accept-a-smart-meter

"...But be aware that if your energy company has contacted you to change your energy meter to a smart meter because your current meter needs replacing (i.e. it's too old), then you should get it replaced as it could be a safety hazard not to. If you really don't want a smart meter, tell your supplier and they will probably offer to install a 'dumb' meter or set up a smart meter to work in 'dumb' mode with all the communications switched off"



All part of the C@W service to stroppy readers

Bill Quango MP said...

Thank you.

i shall probably have one fitted.
But not on their time. Saturday afternoon or not at all.

Anonymous said...

Personally I've given up worrying about global warming.....a major volcanic eruption would sort it out and I bet Mother Nature has something like this up her sleeve for us.....

rwendland said...

BQ, reminds me of my gas meter change saga. For about 5 consecutive years I'd get a letter saying I needed a gas meter change (it was old). Guy would come around, a contractor, look at it and say "that's a small commercial meter not domestic, I can't change that". Would go away saying he'd report it to his manager - nothing happens until it all starts again following year just the same (I'd tell them what happened the previous year to no avail). After 5 years or so I guess I struck lucky in getting a diligent contractor/manager who sorted it a month later, thankfully before smart meters were born.

A year later they decided they needed to replace my extremely old gas pipe from the meter to the road! Required more faffing with the meter - why not do all the replacement in one go? Not an example of private industry efficiency!

NB No idea why my house has a small commercial meter - it came with the house.