Comments by "S Andersson" (@sandersson2813) on "Sunak accused of dropping UK’s position as climate leader for political gain" video.

Ha ha. It's probably his best ever move.
2
What evidence have you got of that claim? Furthermore Germany are in the EU and they have gone back on their net zero targets.
2
@neilywales Cars aren't charged by renewables. Renewables only currently supply on average 20% of our energy needs. If you make all the cars electric, that simply increases electricity for demand which means MORE has to be met with fossil fuels, or nuclear. We already have spent billions on renewables. Renewables alone CANNOT meet our energy needs, not least because we have NO STORAGE for that electricity generated. PS, flooding in the UK and Europe is largely down to poor town planning, drainage, flood defences and lack of sustainable urban drainage.
1
@neilywales Who's making tje renewables infrastructure Neily? Yes, Chinese, so your money is STILL going overseas, especially as we have NO STATE OWNED renewable energy companies so profit is going to Ørsted, Vattenfall, Statkraft etc, none of which are British.
1
@RampantFirefly Have you got a special cable going into your house that only comes from renewable sources? No, you get whatever is in the grid regardless of how it is produced.
1
@RampantFirefly Yes, but until we have a way of STORING renewable energy in sufficient quantities for low wind and sun conditions you NEED fossil fuels AND nuclear. We are nowhere near generating enough electricity for our CURRENT needs, that's before all the proposed electrification of vehicles and heating, cooking, industry hot water etc. We are miles off and we are one of the leading countries in renewables so OBVIOUSLY we need to scale back these naive targets until we have an infrastructure to deal with it. Can't see how you can disagree with that.
1
@RampantFirefly What are you doing to reduce Co2? Nothing I bet, like all climate zealot hypocrites. You could get off the Internet as that's the same Co2 as air travel per year.
1
@stevec6427 We aren't solely relying on that. We need it as part of collection of energy sources because we don't have sufficient technology to replace it yet, ergo we need to keep using it. Furthermore we make 6000+ products that rely upon oil and gas as constituent parts. You wouldn't last five minutes without it, from the moment you get up to when you get up next day you are reliant on it for everything.
1
@stevec6427 Ha ha ha ha. And who do you think those companies are going to pass the cost onto? You think they'll do it for free? YOU will pay. PS the UK has 30m + properties that use oil and gas, that means at least 10,000 each on average to convert to electricity and electric boilers are MORE expensive to run. That would cost 300 BILLION to convert those properties. Got a spare 10k?
1
@stevec6427 Ha ha ha, why do you think Oil and Gas prices were high Steve? You think they just put them up to inconvenience you? It's called demand pull inflation and happened as a result of a massive energy demand increase post covid. Jesus, use your brain.
1
@RampantFirefly I didn't say "the technology isn't there, so why bother" I didn't even imply that. I said the technology isn't there to allow us to store renewable energy in sufficient quantities to do away with fossil fuels any time soon. Not only do you not understand the energy issue, you can't read either. We rely on air for freight and the transportation of goods, so yes, it IS necessary. Our modern world is also contingent on being able to travel. Funny how people like you only attack certain sources of CO2, whilst completely ignoring others and letting them off.
1
@RampantFirefly You said it wasnt essential for the modern world, which includes air freight, well the modern world is defined by how we live. If planes aren't necessary for the modern world, neither is the internet. We had a modern world without it 25 years ago
1
@RampantFirefly I'd argue that air travel IS important to modern life. It's been part of our "modern world" since about 1960. You've probably been on dozens of flights to loads of different countries and your world would be very different without it. It's certainly more important than "social media" For your information, freight is transported on passenger planes too. Again, I didn't say a bloody thing about not preparing for the future, I simply said we are NOWHERE near being able to transition to renewables and that it is obvious that oil and gas are a necessarily large proportion of our energy supply. Sorry you can't understand that , but our move to renewables is hampered by technology not developing at a fast enough rate for such preposterous targets.
1
@RampantFirefly Ha ha ha. Yes, a train from UK to Norway for example is a great use of time. The airline industry is a paltry 2% of Co2, like most climate zealots you're focussed on a tiny proportion. Why would you want to give that up for 2 bloody %? Why for example don't you target your ire at the global fashion industry? That's 5x the Co2 of the airline industry, yet it's never mentioned. You still haven't addressed that I didn't say we "shouldn't bother doing anything" You are clearly naive if you think we are anywhere near getting rid of oil and gas for energy, products and industrial processes. Yes, there will come a time when it's a real minority, but that is clearly decades away. Your own handle is Fly boy for goodness sake.
1
@Falney Clearly you know nothing about the National Grid and what it does. Go and do some research, then amend your comment.
1
@Falney That wasn't what I was talking about, I was referring to the COST which you said the National Grid could afford "from all the profit they make" Well the National Grid doesn't generate power and it doesn't sell it. It simply distributes, transmits it and provides some of the infrastructure. Furthermore, any costs incurred in modifying the network to allow for increased electrification will si.ply be passed onto the customer. They won't do it for free.
1
@Falney You realise the National Grid also operates in North America? It's not a charity, it's no longer state owned and it will not upgrade the grid at zero cost to you. How naive are you? Doesn't matter if they made a trillion in profit, infrastructure is going to cost the consumer, not the company. Their profit was NOTHING like that. It was 5bn, 4.6 actually. It would have been headline news had it made 20bn given that is more than Shell, BP and Total combined. It would have caused a scandal.
1
@samgrainger1554 Better for everyone. The net zero targets were always too soon, naive and would simply cost people too much money. People aren't in favour of net zero if they are told it's going to cost them tens of thousands of £
1
Net zero was always stupid, damaging, expensive and would make no difference to the climate
1
European Cars are only 1% of global Co2. British cars are only 0.132% of Global Co2.
1