| Miliband on 20:05 - Apr 30 with 1329 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Miliband on 07:57 - Apr 30 by SullutaCreturned |
Quick update, John, the latest figures show China emits 32.88% of global CO2 which is more than twice as much as the USA. The UK currently emits 0.88% soi China emits 37 times as much as the UK with 20 times the population. |
It is a percentage and misleading. Actual tonnage is a far better guide. I suspect will drop as China modernises. Whether the percentage drop depends on the whole.
They want to be like us of even more advance than us. I have read that they are simultaneously greening desert areas and have planted 1 billion trees. The right wing never mentions this.
The right wing commentators have no imagination and want us to following current day China (without the tree planting ) not the future China they see for themselves. |  |
|  |
| Miliband on 21:28 - Apr 30 with 1274 views | Kilkennyjack |
| Miliband on 08:41 - Apr 30 by Boundy |
Grangemouth oil refinery now closed as will soon the UK ,well at least for producing for its own needs.
How to deindustrialise a nation , just put your cross in the box called Labour. |
The Tory privatisation of all our British assets is the root cause, and will never work unless its returned to public ownership.
Shite in our rivers and seas tells you they paid our money out to shareholders rather invest in the water infrastructure.
Dont start me on trains and energy. |  |
| Beware of the Risen People
|
| |
| Miliband on 22:18 - Apr 30 with 1267 views | JACKMANANDBOY |
| Miliband on 20:05 - Apr 30 by ReslovenSwan1 |
It is a percentage and misleading. Actual tonnage is a far better guide. I suspect will drop as China modernises. Whether the percentage drop depends on the whole.
They want to be like us of even more advance than us. I have read that they are simultaneously greening desert areas and have planted 1 billion trees. The right wing never mentions this.
The right wing commentators have no imagination and want us to following current day China (without the tree planting ) not the future China they see for themselves. |
China's relationship with forestation is complex. One major issue is that what they are planting now is essentially commercial plantations that are effectively monocultures good for economic growth but destroy habitats.
https://www.ncesc.com/geographic-faq/why-is-china-cutting-down-trees/ |  |
| |
| Miliband on 00:40 - May 1 with 1228 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
The forests still absorb carbon from the atmosphere and still generate oxygen. Diversity can be improved in later planting phases. It could be mono culture is only the first step to get a foot hold. China will care more about the environment as their wealth increases and they can afford it.
They are racing to improve wealth for their people. | |
| |
| Miliband on 08:41 - May 1 with 1205 views | JACKMANANDBOY |
| Miliband on 00:40 - May 1 by ReslovenSwan1 |
The forests still absorb carbon from the atmosphere and still generate oxygen. Diversity can be improved in later planting phases. It could be mono culture is only the first step to get a foot hold. China will care more about the environment as their wealth increases and they can afford it.
They are racing to improve wealth for their people. |
If you want to maximise C02 efficiency you need a functioning ecosystem, monocultures destroy ecosystems and the only way to re-establish diversity would be to replace the monoculture. | |
| |
| Miliband on 11:52 - May 1 with 1177 views | Boundy |
UK: We need to build solar panels to save the planet.
Also UK: We need to dim the sun to save the planet. |  |
| "In a free society, the State is the servant of the people—not the master." |
| |
| Miliband on 13:35 - May 2 with 1088 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Miliband on 11:52 - May 1 by Boundy |
UK: We need to build solar panels to save the planet.
Also UK: We need to dim the sun to save the planet. |
You are making things up. Who has said we need to dim the sun " to save the planet" ? . £50 m is being spent to carry out experiments in a controlled environment.
Net zero is common sense not some eco crackpot nonsense as it is being projected.
[Net zero means achieving a balance where the amount of greenhouse gases emitted into the atmosphere is equal to the amount removed. This is primarily achieved by reducing greenhouse gas emissions to a very low level, with any remaining emissions being balanced by carbon removal. In simpler terms, it's about no longer adding more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere than are taken away].
China and India will eventually come to this way of thinking also perhaps within my remaining lifetime. I am happy to pay a little more for clean energy but I can afford it.
The best way to do this is end burning fossil fuels which is in reality the sun's energy absorbed by the earth millions of years ago and stored in the ground.
Only really big ship and big planes require fossil fuels along with big steelworks and the like. | |
| |
| Miliband on 13:51 - May 2 with 1083 views | Boundy |
| Miliband on 13:35 - May 2 by ReslovenSwan1 |
You are making things up. Who has said we need to dim the sun " to save the planet" ? . £50 m is being spent to carry out experiments in a controlled environment.
Net zero is common sense not some eco crackpot nonsense as it is being projected.
[Net zero means achieving a balance where the amount of greenhouse gases emitted into the atmosphere is equal to the amount removed. This is primarily achieved by reducing greenhouse gas emissions to a very low level, with any remaining emissions being balanced by carbon removal. In simpler terms, it's about no longer adding more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere than are taken away].
China and India will eventually come to this way of thinking also perhaps within my remaining lifetime. I am happy to pay a little more for clean energy but I can afford it.
The best way to do this is end burning fossil fuels which is in reality the sun's energy absorbed by the earth millions of years ago and stored in the ground.
Only really big ship and big planes require fossil fuels along with big steelworks and the like. |
What part of what I posted is "made up" ,Do you approve of scientists ?governments controlling the amount of sunlight being made available to the population .What is the purpose of these experiments and why would anyone want to cause the potential catastrophic disruption to weather patterns and even shift rain from areas that are vital for food production. The ultimate purpose of these experiments are to "save the planet " what do you think they're for ? | |
| "In a free society, the State is the servant of the people—not the master." |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Miliband on 14:06 - May 2 with 1074 views | JACKMANANDBOY |
| Miliband on 13:35 - May 2 by ReslovenSwan1 |
You are making things up. Who has said we need to dim the sun " to save the planet" ? . £50 m is being spent to carry out experiments in a controlled environment.
Net zero is common sense not some eco crackpot nonsense as it is being projected.
[Net zero means achieving a balance where the amount of greenhouse gases emitted into the atmosphere is equal to the amount removed. This is primarily achieved by reducing greenhouse gas emissions to a very low level, with any remaining emissions being balanced by carbon removal. In simpler terms, it's about no longer adding more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere than are taken away].
China and India will eventually come to this way of thinking also perhaps within my remaining lifetime. I am happy to pay a little more for clean energy but I can afford it.
The best way to do this is end burning fossil fuels which is in reality the sun's energy absorbed by the earth millions of years ago and stored in the ground.
Only really big ship and big planes require fossil fuels along with big steelworks and the like. |
I'm all in favour of protecting the environment but we are being played. The amount of coverage that pollution such as micro plastics gets is minimal compared to CO2 but is arguably a bigger existential threat. C02 is part of the natural order, micro plastics are not and are accumulating in the food chain exponentially.
Plant and animal diversity is another existential threat, once a species is extinct there's no going back, the drop in World insect population indicates that all ecosystems are under threat.
So when we start to truly address the systemic issues in the environment I'll be convinced that man does care. You can't make money protecting invertebrates in rainforests or stopping the wholesale use of plastics that enter water courses.
So we get told, buy an electric car and buy a heat pump, both are developing technologies that will look very different in 10 years time. Has any body published the full environmental costs of scrapping a small petrol car and replacing it with a new electric one?
I'm afraid this is not all about saving the planet as we would be getting the same attention and coverage on pollution, micro plastics and diversity as we are seeing for CO2.
Read this and tell me why it gets no coverage or attention.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/bugpocalypse-why-insect-populations-ta
[Post edited 2 May 14:12]
| |
| |
| Miliband on 09:55 - May 3 with 990 views | controversial_jack |
| Miliband on 14:06 - May 2 by JACKMANANDBOY |
I'm all in favour of protecting the environment but we are being played. The amount of coverage that pollution such as micro plastics gets is minimal compared to CO2 but is arguably a bigger existential threat. C02 is part of the natural order, micro plastics are not and are accumulating in the food chain exponentially.
Plant and animal diversity is another existential threat, once a species is extinct there's no going back, the drop in World insect population indicates that all ecosystems are under threat.
So when we start to truly address the systemic issues in the environment I'll be convinced that man does care. You can't make money protecting invertebrates in rainforests or stopping the wholesale use of plastics that enter water courses.
So we get told, buy an electric car and buy a heat pump, both are developing technologies that will look very different in 10 years time. Has any body published the full environmental costs of scrapping a small petrol car and replacing it with a new electric one?
I'm afraid this is not all about saving the planet as we would be getting the same attention and coverage on pollution, micro plastics and diversity as we are seeing for CO2.
Read this and tell me why it gets no coverage or attention.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/bugpocalypse-why-insect-populations-ta
[Post edited 2 May 14:12]
|
Exactly, co2 is natural and in balance, it's either in the atmosphere or the oceans. When the atmosphere gets low, the oceans emit co2 and vice versa . This is why humans cannot have any effect whatsoever. We can however do something against plastics and pollution | | | |
| Miliband on 16:38 - May 3 with 970 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Miliband on 13:51 - May 2 by Boundy |
What part of what I posted is "made up" ,Do you approve of scientists ?governments controlling the amount of sunlight being made available to the population .What is the purpose of these experiments and why would anyone want to cause the potential catastrophic disruption to weather patterns and even shift rain from areas that are vital for food production. The ultimate purpose of these experiments are to "save the planet " what do you think they're for ? |
You posted that the experiments to be carried out were to " save the planet". Where's did you get this information from?
I do approve of scientists and the experiment strike me as money well spent. At about 40c the asphalt starts melting for example.
Net zero simple removes anthropogenic influence from the climate. It is one" Man made" problem of any we are turning our attention to. We can control this we cannot control other factors like sun intensity.
Voters have lost faith in science particularly in the USA and handing power over to idiots like Farage and Trump. Vaccines have increased life expectancy to 82 in UK. It was in the 40s before vaccines and anti biotics. Herd immunity is a troublesome concept for non social individualists who do what is best for them not the community as a whole.
Right wing people hate wind farms. Farage and ,want coal and oil. They want the profit but do not want to clean up. There are thousands of derelict rigs in the gulf of Mexico. Farage dare not go to Merthyr to try all about tidying up that high hole they left behind.
Plastic is another separate urgent issue. Both issue needs attending to. "Savings the planet" is loose wording. What you meen is "save Humanity". It is clear in terms of diversity and overall health the planet would be better off without humanity .
Experiments are experiments They are the basic tool of scientists. Social influencers are not well educated in the national b and cause people unnecessary stress.
If you do not trust in science withdraw from the NHS and decline medication. [Post edited 3 May 16:41]
| |
| |
| Miliband on 13:09 - May 4 with 927 views | SullutaCreturned |
| Miliband on 14:06 - May 2 by JACKMANANDBOY |
I'm all in favour of protecting the environment but we are being played. The amount of coverage that pollution such as micro plastics gets is minimal compared to CO2 but is arguably a bigger existential threat. C02 is part of the natural order, micro plastics are not and are accumulating in the food chain exponentially.
Plant and animal diversity is another existential threat, once a species is extinct there's no going back, the drop in World insect population indicates that all ecosystems are under threat.
So when we start to truly address the systemic issues in the environment I'll be convinced that man does care. You can't make money protecting invertebrates in rainforests or stopping the wholesale use of plastics that enter water courses.
So we get told, buy an electric car and buy a heat pump, both are developing technologies that will look very different in 10 years time. Has any body published the full environmental costs of scrapping a small petrol car and replacing it with a new electric one?
I'm afraid this is not all about saving the planet as we would be getting the same attention and coverage on pollution, micro plastics and diversity as we are seeing for CO2.
Read this and tell me why it gets no coverage or attention.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/bugpocalypse-why-insect-populations-ta
[Post edited 2 May 14:12]
|
This is my problem, they (governments and experts paid by governments) tell us...well CO2, climate change etc but they don't tell us everything and they don't tell us the truth about what they do tell us.
The government don't talk about insect decline or plastic pollution in anywhere near the same terms as CO2 yet we are killing the seas and we are also killing the soil because if the insect popuation drops below a certain level then the soil will not regenerate and food qulaity will drop even further, we are literally killing our planet.
PS, Kilky, you may want to look again at privatisation, the tories weren't the only guilty party. | | | |
| Miliband on 13:49 - May 4 with 907 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Miliband on 13:09 - May 4 by SullutaCreturned |
This is my problem, they (governments and experts paid by governments) tell us...well CO2, climate change etc but they don't tell us everything and they don't tell us the truth about what they do tell us.
The government don't talk about insect decline or plastic pollution in anywhere near the same terms as CO2 yet we are killing the seas and we are also killing the soil because if the insect popuation drops below a certain level then the soil will not regenerate and food qulaity will drop even further, we are literally killing our planet.
PS, Kilky, you may want to look again at privatisation, the tories weren't the only guilty party. |
There is a right wing press conspiracy against green energy. They say it does not work when it clearly does.
Everything that goes wrong is blamed on green energy. " See it does not work" they say.
The Heathrow thing was nothing to do with net zero but Reform said it was. Spin.
Co2 in Co 2 out. Like everything there must be balance and harmony. That is how nature works.
At least the Chinese are planting trees. Labour costs are too high for us.
Today only 9% of gas used today. Sunny and breezy. Fresh becoming cheaper and clean.
https://www.energydashboard.co.uk/live [Post edited 4 May 16:32]
| |
| |
| Miliband on 14:45 - May 4 with 902 views | max936 |
| Miliband on 14:06 - May 2 by JACKMANANDBOY |
I'm all in favour of protecting the environment but we are being played. The amount of coverage that pollution such as micro plastics gets is minimal compared to CO2 but is arguably a bigger existential threat. C02 is part of the natural order, micro plastics are not and are accumulating in the food chain exponentially.
Plant and animal diversity is another existential threat, once a species is extinct there's no going back, the drop in World insect population indicates that all ecosystems are under threat.
So when we start to truly address the systemic issues in the environment I'll be convinced that man does care. You can't make money protecting invertebrates in rainforests or stopping the wholesale use of plastics that enter water courses.
So we get told, buy an electric car and buy a heat pump, both are developing technologies that will look very different in 10 years time. Has any body published the full environmental costs of scrapping a small petrol car and replacing it with a new electric one?
I'm afraid this is not all about saving the planet as we would be getting the same attention and coverage on pollution, micro plastics and diversity as we are seeing for CO2.
Read this and tell me why it gets no coverage or attention.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/bugpocalypse-why-insect-populations-ta
[Post edited 2 May 14:12]
|
Top posting, 100% agree.
Carbon Neutral is a con to rob more and more money off Joe public, the fact that a former failed politician is in charge of this process says it all, some won't see it cause it doesn't suit their agenda. [Post edited 4 May 14:46]
|  |
| |
| Miliband on 16:41 - May 4 with 861 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Miliband on 14:45 - May 4 by max936 |
Top posting, 100% agree.
Carbon Neutral is a con to rob more and more money off Joe public, the fact that a former failed politician is in charge of this process says it all, some won't see it cause it doesn't suit their agenda. [Post edited 4 May 14:46]
|
Today 10% fossil fuels for electric generation. It is in front of your own eyes not a con job at all. 90% no carbon or low carbon ( including nuclear).
Sadly it is not like this every day and Biomass needs stricter auditing it seems.
I have an agenda and it is clean energy. Take a trip up the valley to Merthyr and consider why there is a big black hole in the ground. Guess what British liberal democracy and project management mean the miner has cut and run leaving the rate payers to tidy up the mess. Old tips still a hazard.
Swansea people are angry that Port Talbot is cleaning up. Perhaps you like a breathing in acidic soot every day. Personally clean air is something I want and I am willing to pay extra.
It just a fact of life that people struggling with cash self abuse their own lungs. Oos now I have done it.
"It's a con have another fag". "Lungs are overrated" . [Post edited 4 May 17:58]
| |
| |
| Miliband on 21:41 - May 4 with 827 views | JACKMANANDBOY |
| Miliband on 13:09 - May 4 by SullutaCreturned |
This is my problem, they (governments and experts paid by governments) tell us...well CO2, climate change etc but they don't tell us everything and they don't tell us the truth about what they do tell us.
The government don't talk about insect decline or plastic pollution in anywhere near the same terms as CO2 yet we are killing the seas and we are also killing the soil because if the insect popuation drops below a certain level then the soil will not regenerate and food qulaity will drop even further, we are literally killing our planet.
PS, Kilky, you may want to look again at privatisation, the tories weren't the only guilty party. |
I despair that people are unable to think beyond what they are told by the media or social media. | |
| |
| Miliband on 13:53 - May 5 with 750 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Miliband on 21:41 - May 4 by JACKMANANDBOY |
I despair that people are unable to think beyond what they are told by the media or social media. |
Individuals can chose to care about the environment or not. Other only concern is their pocket. Extreme levels of this ars parts of India where they have trashed their towns and live hand to mouth.
It seems logical to me that'd thee people that want to see a carbon balance are the same people that care about insects and plastics and other such matters.
Milliband is doing a sold job it seems to me. I support him. I am pretty pay a limited extra for clean electricity. The HMG hands out billions to people struggling. I can live with this as well. | |
| |
| Miliband on 14:58 - May 5 with 741 views | SullutaCreturned |
| Miliband on 13:49 - May 4 by ReslovenSwan1 |
There is a right wing press conspiracy against green energy. They say it does not work when it clearly does.
Everything that goes wrong is blamed on green energy. " See it does not work" they say.
The Heathrow thing was nothing to do with net zero but Reform said it was. Spin.
Co2 in Co 2 out. Like everything there must be balance and harmony. That is how nature works.
At least the Chinese are planting trees. Labour costs are too high for us.
Today only 9% of gas used today. Sunny and breezy. Fresh becoming cheaper and clean.
https://www.energydashboard.co.uk/live [Post edited 4 May 16:32]
|
I didn't mention green energy, I said climate change. Renewable energy is clearly a better option than burning fossil fuels (which incidentally comes from the decayed remains of ancient animals and plants and is NOT the suns energy stored in the ground though the suns heat plays its part in the evolution) but what we need is green energy that works. That means better technology and an infratsructure capable of supplying the energy where it's needed.
Incidentally, why is a percentage misleading? It tells you how much of the CO2 the Chinese emit, shows us how much more than us they emit and shows how pitifully inadequate the Uk's attempt at net zero really is on a global scale.
Incidentally, you say only 9% but what about the imported eledtricity? What source is that generated from? It's 25% today with 10.3 gas, 11.4 nuclear, 22.9% wind, 22 solar | | | |
| Miliband on 18:01 - May 5 with 719 views | JACKMANANDBOY |
| Miliband on 13:53 - May 5 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Individuals can chose to care about the environment or not. Other only concern is their pocket. Extreme levels of this ars parts of India where they have trashed their towns and live hand to mouth.
It seems logical to me that'd thee people that want to see a carbon balance are the same people that care about insects and plastics and other such matters.
Milliband is doing a sold job it seems to me. I support him. I am pretty pay a limited extra for clean electricity. The HMG hands out billions to people struggling. I can live with this as well. |
When the government and environmental campaigners make pronouncements and plans on the scale of those to reduce CO2 to increase diversity and reduce microplastics across the globe, it will be fair to say they really care. | |
| |
| Miliband on 18:52 - May 5 with 695 views | max936 |
| Miliband on 14:58 - May 5 by SullutaCreturned |
I didn't mention green energy, I said climate change. Renewable energy is clearly a better option than burning fossil fuels (which incidentally comes from the decayed remains of ancient animals and plants and is NOT the suns energy stored in the ground though the suns heat plays its part in the evolution) but what we need is green energy that works. That means better technology and an infratsructure capable of supplying the energy where it's needed.
Incidentally, why is a percentage misleading? It tells you how much of the CO2 the Chinese emit, shows us how much more than us they emit and shows how pitifully inadequate the Uk's attempt at net zero really is on a global scale.
Incidentally, you say only 9% but what about the imported eledtricity? What source is that generated from? It's 25% today with 10.3 gas, 11.4 nuclear, 22.9% wind, 22 solar |
He needs to go and buy himself a clue, cause like most of his ill thought out opinions he ain't got one, clueless. [Post edited 5 May 18:55]
| |
| |
| Miliband on 01:42 - May 8 with 568 views | Robbie |
Seriously does anybody fill up at their local petrol station and look around at any trees in the area and aw biess them , sorry for filling up but I need to drive for errands ,
Politicians on a bus with the rest unwashed think not , private jet awaits at your service . | | | |
| Miliband on 09:10 - May 8 with 519 views | Boundy |
| Miliband on 16:38 - May 3 by ReslovenSwan1 |
You posted that the experiments to be carried out were to " save the planet". Where's did you get this information from?
I do approve of scientists and the experiment strike me as money well spent. At about 40c the asphalt starts melting for example.
Net zero simple removes anthropogenic influence from the climate. It is one" Man made" problem of any we are turning our attention to. We can control this we cannot control other factors like sun intensity.
Voters have lost faith in science particularly in the USA and handing power over to idiots like Farage and Trump. Vaccines have increased life expectancy to 82 in UK. It was in the 40s before vaccines and anti biotics. Herd immunity is a troublesome concept for non social individualists who do what is best for them not the community as a whole.
Right wing people hate wind farms. Farage and ,want coal and oil. They want the profit but do not want to clean up. There are thousands of derelict rigs in the gulf of Mexico. Farage dare not go to Merthyr to try all about tidying up that high hole they left behind.
Plastic is another separate urgent issue. Both issue needs attending to. "Savings the planet" is loose wording. What you meen is "save Humanity". It is clear in terms of diversity and overall health the planet would be better off without humanity .
Experiments are experiments They are the basic tool of scientists. Social influencers are not well educated in the national b and cause people unnecessary stress.
If you do not trust in science withdraw from the NHS and decline medication. [Post edited 3 May 16:41]
|
"You posted that the experiments to be carried out were to " save the planet". Where's did you get this information from?"
What are the experiments for ? | |
| "In a free society, the State is the servant of the people—not the master." |
| |
| Miliband on 13:09 - May 8 with 487 views | BarrySwan |
| Miliband on 22:56 - Apr 25 by majorraglan |
I’m no Miliband fan and would like to see the back of him, but quite a few of the points he made are very valid. He doesn’t come across brilliantly in this interview, but elements of it including the Express reporting are politically driven.
The gas under the North Sea is extracted by major PLC companies including BP, Shell, Ineos, Harbour Energy and Equinor ( Norwegian State owned) - they are commercial organisations who operate to make as much profit as they can. There is no state owned British oil/gas company. We have embraced capitalism and market forces.
Britain produces 0.8% of the world’s gas. Britain produces 54% of the gas it uses and imports the other 46% sourcing all its gas on the commercial market and paying the going rate. Some of the gas is sourced from companies paying the 78% tax rate, but some of it isn’t.
Do people really think that if companies weren’t paying 78% tax the oil and gas companies would drop the price and sell it to Britain on the cheap? What would be the incentive to do that when they could benefit from paying the lower tax rate and selling the gas on the commercial market which would enable them to trouser even more cash! Given that maximising profit is generally the goal for a company they are hardly likely take a lower rate when they can get much much more commercially. It doesn’t make sense and goes completely against the concept of the free market economy.
Millband is right about international events such as the invasion of Ukraine impacting on prices. Why would Shell sell oil to the UK at £60 per unit when they can get £120 or more on the international market? It would never happen.
If we had a State owned company supplying our gas the government of the day could control the price and hold it down, or increase it as they saw fit, but we don’t and we’re at the whim of the markets - that has a much bigger impact than the 78% tax rate.
As has been pointed out earlier in the thread, the real question which needs to asked is why is our energy so expensive? We need lower energy because it’s crippling our business and driving a lot of consumers in to energy poverty.
It is my understanding the tariff paid for renewable energy is directly linked to the most expensive energy sourced that day, so if gas is used to generate electricity during a 24 hour period (which it invariably is) then we pay the gas rate for green energy. from wind turbines. Over and above that, if we had a very windy day and were producing 100% of our energy needs via renewable sources, there is nothing in being to stop the owners of the turbines shutting down a number of their turbines which would then reduce supply and necessitate a gas power plant being turned on to keep up with demand and make good the shortfall. Guess what happens then…… yup the turbine owners get the gas rate for energy they’ve produced!!! This could easily be abused to fleece the public and line the pockets of the turbine owners!!! Most countries operate the same model as the U.K.
The State owned Great British Energy company Starmer talked about could make a difference to prices if it was big enough to deliver a huge amount of renewable energy at cheap prices, but it’s going to take years to get off the ground and it would probably be privatised when the Conservatives got back in power!!!
We’re getting shafted every which way! [Post edited 25 Apr 23:05]
|
Surely new gas and oil exploration licences in the North Sea could be granted to the energy extraction companies on the basis that a fair price that allowed for a reasonable but capped company profit after production expenses be charged to the UK market.
And that anything else can be sold to the rest of the world at current internationally recognised rates.
Thus allowing energy companies to discover new oil and gas fields in sea and land areas under UK control whilst making a decent and fair profit on these finds through the UK residential and industrial market.
A kind of hybrid pricing structure that allows energy companies to fund exploration and make a going concern profit from expanding production from new fields and dragging down UK energy prices from the almost world high.
And also allowing these companies to make a higher profit on any excess gas or oil each year sold on the international market.
Surely its a win win for both the energy extraction companies and the UK commercial and residential consumer? | | | |
| Miliband on 13:53 - May 8 with 456 views | Whiterockin |
| Miliband on 13:09 - May 8 by BarrySwan |
Surely new gas and oil exploration licences in the North Sea could be granted to the energy extraction companies on the basis that a fair price that allowed for a reasonable but capped company profit after production expenses be charged to the UK market.
And that anything else can be sold to the rest of the world at current internationally recognised rates.
Thus allowing energy companies to discover new oil and gas fields in sea and land areas under UK control whilst making a decent and fair profit on these finds through the UK residential and industrial market.
A kind of hybrid pricing structure that allows energy companies to fund exploration and make a going concern profit from expanding production from new fields and dragging down UK energy prices from the almost world high.
And also allowing these companies to make a higher profit on any excess gas or oil each year sold on the international market.
Surely its a win win for both the energy extraction companies and the UK commercial and residential consumer? |
Could we do it ourselves in a sort of "nationalisation" way? |  | | |
| Miliband on 16:06 - May 8 with 409 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Miliband on 18:52 - May 5 by max936 |
He needs to go and buy himself a clue, cause like most of his ill thought out opinions he ain't got one, clueless. [Post edited 5 May 18:55]
|
I do not get personal. Life is too short. I could say one of those clever out downs like " I am in your head" that boxers do.
Pur me on ignore.It does not bother neat all.
I am open to other views and corrections if appropriate..
Id o not cry for Port Talbot which particularly offended you. A old boy in Neath told me the old boys were happy with a pay off and early retirement. The younger one keep their jobs
. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
