Climate Change

[Imploding Turtle]

Nothing to debate man made climate change is a fantasy...

Typical alt-right playbook comment. Short, quippy and requires a long detailed refutation.

[South West Claret.]

Nothing to debate man made climate change is a fantasy...

Don’t know and don’t want to know just about somes you up.

[willsclarets]

Wow smudge, do you really believe that? You've gone from wanting to have an open debate to declaring there's no need for one. I'm trying to understand your point of view, but it does seem like you're determined to let your political leaning get in the way of an issue that transcends it.

[CoolClaret]

.... Is directly correlated with the population on earth.

[Imploding Turtle]

.... Is directly correlated with the population on earth.

That's one argument that it's man-made, but it doesn't demonstrate causality like the science demonstrates.

[keith1879]

Correct but i dissagree there is little debate left,one side of this argument have the media as a tool to push their view at the same time as surpressing the opposite view its not hard to notice that Sky BBC CH4 go way over the top with weather related news items why is that ?
this is just one tiny bit of info online
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UE6QxBaIEv8" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Having insulted my own intelligence by watching about 90 seconds of this drivel ......it is the youtube video equivalent of an advert for a play which quotes a theatre review that says ".......a brilliant success...." when the full wording was "To call this a brilliant success would be worse than the biggest lie in the entire history of the universe". I have to agree with other posters .....the "debate" on climate change such as it is consists of a few nutters saying "Climate Change does not exist" and every scientist in the world saying "Actually it does". (Yes - of course I am exaggerating).

[Imploding Turtle]

For anyone interested, this clip that Smudge links to relates to a fake scandal propagated by the media in the late 2000s dubbed "Climategate".

Simply put someone leaked a bunch of private emails which the media, particularly the right-wing media and climate change deniers, took out of context to claim that there was fudging and deception going on. There wasn't, and 6 independent investigations proved that.

Out of thousands of emails they latched onto one in particular, from which they took specific quotes out of context. "hide the decline" and "mike's nature trick".

The riight-wing presented it (and whipped up quite an outrage among their viewers in doing so) as if "trick" meant deception, and that hiding the decline meant hiding the decline in global warming. But neither was true, as this video explains.

https://youtu.be/7nnVQ2fROOg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

But here we are, ten years later and complete morons are still pushing the lie that it was some big fraud, when the real fraud was committed by the right-wing media and the victims of the fraud were the morons who believed them.

Correct but i dissagree there is little debate left,one side of this argument have the media as a tool to push their view at the same time as surpressing the opposite view its not hard to notice that Sky BBC CH4 go way over the top with weather related news items why is that ?
this is just one tiny bit of info online
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UE6QxBaIEv8" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Paul Waine]

For anyone interested, this clip that Smudge links to relates to a fake scandal propagated by the media in the late 2000s dubbed "Climategate".

Simply put someone leaked a bunch of private emails which the media, particularly the right-wing media and climate change deniers, took out of context to claim that there was fudging and deception going on. There wasn't, and 6 independent investigations proved that.

Out of thousands of emails they latched onto one in particular, from which they took specific quotes out of context. "hide the decline" and "mike's nature trick".

The riight-wing presented it (and whipped up quite an outrage among their viewers in doing so) as if "trick" meant deception, and that hiding the decline meant hiding the decline in global warming. But neither was true, as this video explains.

https://youtu.be/7nnVQ2fROOg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

But here we are, ten years later and complete morons are still pushing the lie that it was some big fraud, when the real fraud was committed by the right-wing media and the victims of the fraud were the morons who believed them.

Hi IT, what is the significance of the the emails being "private?" Aren't all emails private - until they are placed in the public domain?

Is climate change a political issue? Right-wing "no climate change" v left-wing "climate change is real and...."

How do we curtail the carbon emissions? What do you recommend we all do?

[Imploding Turtle]

Hi IT, what is the significance of the the emails being "private?" Aren't all emails private - until they are placed in the public domain?

Is climate change a political issue? Right-wing "no climate change" v left-wing "climate change is real and...."

How do we curtail the carbon emissions? What do you recommend we all do?

If ever i saw a bad faith set of questions, this was it. But whatever.

I'm not going to explain to you the differences in how people communicate privately over how the communicate publicly.

It shouldn't be a political issue, but it's been made a political issue by the right who are the ones most likely to deny climate change and call anyone who things the government should do something about it "communists", "socialists", "marxists" etc.

We should stop subsidising the fossil fuel industry to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars every year. They're a mature industry. If they can't make money on their own after over a century of existence then we shouldn't be supporting them. What we should be subsidising more is new industries and technologies such as the renewable industries that aren't destroying our climate.

I'm still waiting for your apology for falsely accusing me of using a racist term.

[Paul Waine]

I'm not going to explain to you the differences in how people communicate privately over how the communicate publicly.

It shouldn't be a political issue, but it's been made a political issue by the right who are the ones most likely to deny climate change and call anyone who things the government should do something about it "communists", "socialists", "marxists" etc.

We should stop subsidising the fossil fuel industry to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars every year. They're a mature industry. If they can't make money on their own after over a century of existence then we shouldn't be supporting them. What we should be subsidising more is new industries and technologies such as the renewable industries that aren't destroying our climate.

Hi IT, so, your point about "private" is that the writer was saying things that she/he woudn't say in public? or, it was a bit of banter and was only meant as a joke? Or.....??? Well, what is your point about "private" - I'm intrigued now.

"The government" - don't you think it's a world wide thing? Isn't that what Kyoto, Paris etc have been all about? Let's put Trump to one side, I don't think he counts. Is it really a right v left issue?

You might remember I've spent most of my career in the fossil fuel industry. I'm still looking for those "subsidies" that you've promised me. Just because one or two lobbying groups have claimed that fossil fuel industry is subsidised, doesn't mean it's true (I can't speak for the oil & gas industry in Russia, China or many other countries where the industry is state owned and controlled).

How much do you think the renewable sector has been subsidised since early 2000s? Have you missed it? In the UK, firstly, we had the Climate Change Levy, then Renewable Obligation Certificates were added, then carbon trading - which became the EU Emissions Trading scheme. In a wider, global sense, there was the Clean Development Mechanism - companies could pay for "green" investments in other countries and submit the carbon savings to offset their national carbon certificates. In other European nations wind turbines and pv was subsidised by fixed feed-in tariffs. More recently, the UK has done the same with pv, both residential/roof tops and industrial scale "solar farms."

Meanwhile, in the USA, carbon emissions have fallen because they started fracking and produced an abundance of nat gas (from approx 2008). The nat gas has, for the most part, replaced coal fired generation and the US has seen a bigger fall in carbon emissions than any country that has used subsidies to prompt their green investment.

Now, if the UK was supported in developing nat gas production thru fracking, the UK could also contribute more strongly to reducing carbon emissions - as well as creating jobs and all those other good things.

[willsclarets]

Wouldn't disagree with any of that IT, but I would add that there's been a huge failure left of centre to make climate change a core issue at least to the point of holding to account. It's a shame that climate change is a political issue, but the chief opponents of the right on this are perceived lefty loony parties.

[willsclarets]

No doubt IT will provide some links to evidence, but if he doesn't I will. Subsidies since the early 2000's of green energy are dwarfed worldwide by subsidies of fossil fuels by a massive amount. You must know that.

[Imploding Turtle]

Hi IT, so, your point about "private" is that the writer was saying things that she/he woudn't say in public? or, it was a bit of banter and was only meant as a joke? Or.....??? Well, what is your point about "private" - I'm intrigued now.

"The government" - don't you think it's a world wide thing? Isn't that what Kyoto, Paris etc have been all about? Let's put Trump to one side, I don't think he counts. Is it really a right v left issue?

You might remember I've spent most of my career in the fossil fuel industry. I'm still looking for those "subsidies" that you've promised me. Just because one or two lobbying groups have claimed that fossil fuel industry is subsidised, doesn't mean it's true (I can't speak for the oil & gas industry in Russia, China or many other countries where the industry is state owned and controlled).

How much do you think the renewable sector has been subsidised since early 2000s? Have you missed it? In the UK, firstly, we had the Climate Change Levy, then Renewable Obligation Certificates were added, then carbon trading - which became the EU Emissions Trading scheme. In a wider, global sense, there was the Clean Development Mechanism - companies could pay for "green" investments in other countries and submit the carbon savings to offset their national carbon certificates. In other European nations wind turbines and pv was subsidised by fixed feed-in tariffs. More recently, the UK has done the same with pv, both residential/roof tops and industrial scale "solar farms."

Meanwhile, in the USA, carbon emissions have fallen because they started fracking and produced an abundance of nat gas (from approx 2008). The nat gas has, for the most part, replaced coal fired generation and the US has seen a bigger fall in carbon emissions than any country that has used subsidies to prompt their green investment.

Now, if the UK was supported in developing nat gas production thru fracking, the UK could also contribute more strongly to reducing carbon emissions - as well as creating jobs and all those other good things.

Yes. Emails are typically considered private. In public scientists will use less jargon, for example. Why does this need explaining?

Yes, it's a world-wide thing. But it also requires government action.

Are you ******* kidding me? The fossil fuel industry is subsidised up the arse. This if from January this year https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... commission" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Fossil fuel subsidies were at least $373 billion (with a B) in 2015 https://www.carbonbrief.org/oecd-fossil ... llion-2015" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I don't give a **** whether you think you've seen them or not.

The renewable energy sector is subsidised nothing close to the amount that fossil fuels are subsidised. I wish they were. Maybe we wouldn't be in such a mess. And they SHOULD be subsidised. It's an emerging market with emerging technology that is better for society than the existing tech. So of course it should be subsidised. But instead we're giving the lions share to literally the richest industry in history and then having people like you whine about how unfair it is that emerging tech is subsidised a little bit.
What you did was list various different schemes as if the number of them was what mattered, and not how pathetically funded they were all together. Go ahead and do that and compare it to how much per year we in the UK alone subsidise fossil fuel companies.

US carbon emission rose last year by 3.4% soooo....

**** off with this fracking bullshit. Replacing one dirty fuel with another slightly less dirty fuel isn't going to cut our carbon emissions enough. I'd call it a bad solution but it simply isn't a solution at all, because we'll still be pumping carbon that had been buried for millions of years back into the atmosphere. Coal accounts for about 30% of our electricity generation. Natural gas releases about half the Co2 as coal. So we'd be reducing half of 30% of our electricity producing Co2. That's a tiny amount. That's only 15% of our electicity producing Co2. But what makes it even more ridiculous is when you look at how much of our energy consumption is down to electricity usage. You see that little red strip in the right column? That's it. You are arguing that what we need to do is reduce the Co2 released by that tiny red strip by 15%. Don't be ridiculous.




What we need to be doing is phasing out fossil fuel subsidies altogether. They've had centuries to become profitable, and they've become very profitable. They don't need welfare. And if you want to limit renewable subsidies, fine. I'm totally OK with that. We should limit renewable subsidies to being no more than the total value of all subsidies ever received by the fossil fuel industry.

[Paul Waine]

Are you ******* kidding me? The fossil fuel industry is subsidised up the arse. This if from January this year https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... commission" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Fossil fuel subsidies were at least $373 billion (with a B) in 2015 https://www.carbonbrief.org/oecd-fossil ... llion-2015" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I don't give a **** whether you think you've seen them or not.
.

Oh, so the EU Commission counts 5% VAT on gas and power - rather than 20% standard rate of VAT a subsidy. I take it all back. We are all being subsidised in our consumption of heating and light.

How much would the subsidy be if the rate of VAT was 5% on everything? I guess, that's the best way to cut this "subsidy."

Silly me for thinking a "subsidy" was when the Gov't gives money to the industry, which is what it does with all the renewable energy subsidies. And, do you know who is paying this "real money" subsidy - you, me and all the consumers of elec. All these subsidies are paid by the consumer through higher "green charges" on the elec we consume.

I think I am right, though. The UK government does not pay money to the oil and gas industry to "subsidise" or reduce the cost of their production. So, I'm not sure why you were quoting "literally the richest industry in history...." as the recipients of subsidies. What a strange statement, The UK does not subsidies "fossil fuel companies." The UK reduces the VAT charged on the consumption of gas and elec to 5% from the standard rate of 20%. That "subsidy" (by reducing the tax charge) is received by the us, the consumers. (You are aware, I hope, that VAT is not a cost or charge on any manufacturer, it's just a pass-through and only borne by the end consumer)?

Sorry, IT, climate change may well be real - but you don't have the facts or understand the basic issues.

[dsr]

This if from January this year https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... commission" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Fossil fuel subsidies were at least $373 billion (with a B) in 2015 https://www.carbonbrief.org/oecd-fossil ... llion-2015" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I don't give a **** whether you think you've seen them or not.

For every £105 that a domestic customer pays for fuel, a business customer pay £100 and then gets tax relief bringing the cost down to £55-£81. And you think that means the domestic customer is subsidised? We're into fantasy statistics here.

[Imploding Turtle]

Oh, so the EU Commission counts 5% VAT on gas and power - rather than 20% standard rate of VAT a subsidy. I take it all back. We are all being subsidised in our consumption of heating and light.

How much would the subsidy be if the rate of VAT was 5% on everything? I guess, that's the best way to cut this "subsidy."

Silly me for thinking a "subsidy" was when the Gov't gives money to the industry, which is what it does with all the renewable energy subsidies. And, do you know who is paying this "real money" subsidy - you, me and all the consumers of elec. All these subsidies are paid by the consumer through higher "green charges" on the elec we consume.

I think I am right, though. The UK government does not pay money to the oil and gas industry to "subsidise" or reduce the cost of their production. So, I'm not sure why you were quoting "literally the richest industry in history...." as the recipients of subsidies. What a strange statement, The UK does not subsidies "fossil fuel companies." The UK reduces the VAT charged on the consumption of gas and elec to 5% from the standard rate of 20%. That "subsidy" (by reducing the tax charge) is received by the us, the consumers. (You are aware, I hope, that VAT is not a cost or charge on any manufacturer, it's just a pass-through and only borne by the end consumer)?

Sorry, IT, climate change may well be real - but you don't have the facts or understand the basic issues.

When the government gives a company a tax break then yes, that's a subsidy. In literally every meaningful way. That same definition is applied to renewables too, btw. So if the government reduces tax on the sale of solar panels, for example, that's also a subsidy.

You can bitch and whine about that definition all you like, but you'll still be wrong.

[dsr]

When the government gives a company a tax break then yes, that's a subsidy. In literally every meaningful way. That same definition is applied to renewables too, btw. So if the government reduces tax on the sale of solar panels, for example, that's also a subsidy.

You can bitch and whine about that definition all you like, but you'll still be wrong.

In recent memory, I used to pay £100 to the electricity company. Now the rules have changed and I pay £105 - £100 to the electricity company and £5 to the government.

What is confusing me is that you seem to be saying that I am receiving a subsidy in every meaningful way. But I would have thought that if I receive a meaningful subsidy, I would save money. If fossil fuel subsidies mean the customer pays more, shouldn't you be in favour of them?

[Imploding Turtle]

In recent memory, I used to pay £100 to the electricity company. Now the rules have changed and I pay £105 - £100 to the electricity company and £5 to the government.

What is confusing me is that you seem to be saying that I am receiving a subsidy in every meaningful way. But I would have thought that if I receive a meaningful subsidy, I would save money. If fossil fuel subsidies mean the customer pays more, shouldn't you be in favour of them?

No. You're deliberately misunderstanding, as always. Good For You.

[dsr]

No. You're deliberately misunderstanding, as always. Good For You.

No. I genuinely can't understand how you believe the imposition of VAT on domestic fuel to be a subsidy. Nobody benefits - not me, not the fuel company; only the government takes any money. The point of government subsidies is that they give money away, not take it.

I suppose the government could use your argument to instantly defuse the food banks crisis. As soon as people realise that the zero rate on food means that they are getting a subsidy of one-sixth the cost of their food, they will be celebrating and partying like it's Christmas.

[Imploding Turtle]

No. I genuinely can't understand how you believe the imposition of VAT on domestic fuel to be a subsidy. Nobody benefits - not me, not the fuel company; only the government takes any money. The point of government subsidies is that they give money away, not take it.

I suppose the government could use your argument to instantly defuse the food banks crisis. As soon as people realise that the zero rate on food means that they are getting a subsidy of one-sixth the cost of their food, they will be celebrating and partying like it's Christmas.

Jesus Christ, this is so stupid. Tax breaks are subsidies. Not Taxes. Taxes are not subsidies. Tax breaks are subsidies. Do you understand? Yes you do, but also no you don't, so i don't care.

[dsr]

Tax breaks are subsidies. Not Taxes. Taxes are not subsidies. Tax breaks are subsidies. Do you understand? Yes you do, but also no you don't, so i don't care.

So you do believe that the government is providing subsidies on books, food, childrens' clothes, and domestic fuel, simply by charging less tax than they do on other stuff?

Where is the line drawn? A pint of whisky has a pretty large amount of duty on it. There's no duty on a pint of milk - does that mean the government is subsidising milk because of the tax break?

When exactly did this tax subsidy start? Was it the introduction of VAT in 1974 that brought about this subsidy, or did the subsidy exist before that? VAT has never been above 8% on domestic fuel. Does that mean the current subsidy is 3% because that's the "discount" on the highest ever rate, or is the subsidy 15% because we charge 20% VAT on stuff like new cars, alcohol, and furniture? The highest rate of income tax ever charged in the UK was 101% - does that mean that all rates under 101% are thanks to a government subsidy? Does the income tax-free allowance constitute a subsidy?

There are a lot of questions in looking-glass land.

[Paul Waine]

When the government gives a company a tax break then yes, that's a subsidy. In literally every meaningful way. That same definition is applied to renewables too, btw. So if the government reduces tax on the sale of solar panels, for example, that's also a subsidy.

You can bitch and whine about that definition all you like, but you'll still be wrong.

What do we call it when the "tax break" is given to the consumer?

VAT has no impact on industry: they pay it when they buy things, they collect it when they sell things, they are simply providing a tax collection service for HMRC, passing on the difference between what they've collected and what they've paid. We've all known this from 1973 when VAT was introduced.

There's an argument that a higher tax rate or a lower tax rate paid by the consumer will impact on demand, but you've got to factor in price elasticity before you can say tht there is "higher demand" for gas and power because the VAT rate is lower than the standard rate. And, the 5% VAT rate applies to all electricity - whether it is "fossil fuel" generated, nuclear, hydro or other forms of renewable energy. There used to be a higher rate of VAT on "luxuries" - but that was when the standard rate was 8%. There are also many things that are zero rate - food, children's clothing. Are you claiming that the Gov't is subsidising our food by not charging 20% VAT? (There are also some things that are outside the scope of VAT).

So, let's get some facts right. Maybe the government is subsidising gas and power consumption, but it's the consumer that is getting the subsidy not oil and gas firms.

And, I guess you know that the Gov't pays subsidises solar panels by paying a higher than market price for the elec produced by those solar panels. That, "in literally every meaningful way" is a subsidy.

If you can't get these facts right, can we trust you on other things?

And, let's try and keep our discourse polite. I don't "bitch and whine" and I'm not the one who is wrong.

[Paul Waine]

So you do believe that the government is providing subsidies on books, food, childrens' clothes, and domestic fuel, simply by charging less tax than they do on other stuff?

Where is the line drawn? A pint of whisky has a pretty large amount of duty on it. There's no duty on a pint of milk - does that mean the government is subsidising milk because of the tax break?

When exactly did this tax subsidy start? Was it the introduction of VAT in 1974 that brought about this subsidy, or did the subsidy exist before that? VAT has never been above 8% on domestic fuel. Does that mean the current subsidy is 3% because that's the "discount" on the highest ever rate, or is the subsidy 15% because we charge 20% VAT on stuff like new cars, alcohol, and furniture? The highest rate of income tax ever charged in the UK was 101% - does that mean that all rates under 101% are thanks to a government subsidy? Does the income tax-free allowance constitute a subsidy?

There are a lot of questions in looking-glass land.

Well put, dsr. I might have saved myself a few minutes if I'd read your posts before posting my own response to our friend, IT.

Have a great day, sir. And, don't go wild spending all your lower VAT rate subsidies!

Now, this one makes you smaller and this one makes you bigger. Which one should I drink first?

[South West Claret.]

It’s here it’s there it’s everywhere.

[Imploding Turtle]

What do we call it when the "tax break" is given to the consumer?

VAT has no impact on industry: they pay it when they buy things, they collect it when they sell things, they are simply providing a tax collection service for HMRC, passing on the difference between what they've collected and what they've paid. We've all known this from 1973 when VAT was introduced.

There's an argument that a higher tax rate or a lower tax rate paid by the consumer will impact on demand, but you've got to factor in price elasticity before you can say tht there is "higher demand" for gas and power because the VAT rate is lower than the standard rate. And, the 5% VAT rate applies to all electricity - whether it is "fossil fuel" generated, nuclear, hydro or other forms of renewable energy. There used to be a higher rate of VAT on "luxuries" - but that was when the standard rate was 8%. There are also many things that are zero rate - food, children's clothing. Are you claiming that the Gov't is subsidising our food by not charging 20% VAT? (There are also some things that are outside the scope of VAT).

So, let's get some facts right. Maybe the government is subsidising gas and power consumption, but it's the consumer that is getting the subsidy not oil and gas firms.

And, I guess you know that the Gov't pays subsidises solar panels by paying a higher than market price for the elec produced by those solar panels. That, "in literally every meaningful way" is a subsidy.

If you can't get these facts right, can we trust you on other things?

And, let's try and keep our discourse polite. I don't "bitch and whine" and I'm not the one who is wrong.

It's still a subsidy. If an industry's product is made cheaper for the consumer by the government reducing the tax paid for the sale of that product then that's still a subsidy for that product. That's a common understanding of one of the things that constitutes a subsidy across all industries that pay reduced rates of tax on the sale of their products. And you don't have to take my word for it. Search for "is reduced tax a subsidy" and the top result on Google straight up tells you that a tax reduction IS a subsidy.



And, YES, of course the government subsidises renewable energy. I've never said they didn't. Why are you acting as if that's something I'm unaware of? It's an emerging industry, and it's much better for us than existing tech, so of course the government should be subsidising it.

And you can get ****** if you think i'm going to be polite to you after you falsely accused me of making a racist comment and then didn't apologise for it.

[Imploding Turtle]

So you do believe that the government is providing subsidies on books, food, childrens' clothes, and domestic fuel, simply by charging less tax than they do on other stuff?

Yes. That's literally the ******* definition of a subsidy.

[Imploding Turtle]

And by the way, i've no problem with the government subsidising essentials, including energy. I'm saying we should phase out those subsidies for fossil fuel generated energy.

[dsr]

Yes. That's literally the ******* definition of a subsidy.

I think you're struggling with one of the terms in that definition of subsidy. It's "tax reduction".

A tax reduction is when you pay less tax.

You don't get a tax reduction for buying more domestic fuel. You pay more tax when you buy more domestic fuel.

[Imploding Turtle]

I think you're struggling with one of the terms in that definition of subsidy. It's "tax reduction".

A tax reduction is when you pay less tax.

You don't get a tax reduction for buying more domestic fuel. You pay more tax when you buy more domestic fuel.

[Imploding Turtle]

It's funny how you two are reduced to arguing the semantics over the meaning of a word. Even if you were right - you're not - my point would still stand. Whether i call them subsidies or you call them tax breaks, we're talking about the exact same thing and i'm saying they should be phased out. So it's interesting to me that you're not actually arguing against the main point of the argument, which suggests you can't.

[dsr]

Posting it twice doesn't change anything. You still haven't grasped what a tax reduction is.

A tax reduction is a reduction of tax. It's hard to make it any simpler.

If I spend an extra £1,000 on heating my house, how much does my tax payable reduce by? If the answer is "it doesn't", then I have not had a tax reduction.

[dsr]

It's funny how you two are reduced to arguing the semantics over the meaning of a word. Even if you were right - you're not - my point would still stand. Whether i call them subsidies or you call them tax breaks, we're talking about the exact same thing and i'm saying they should be phased out. So it's interesting to me that you're not actually arguing against the main point of the argument, which suggests you can't.

The main point of the argument? I don't believe VAT should be charged on domestic fuel - not even at 5%. You think it should be charged at 20%. End of argument.

[Paul Waine]

It's funny how you two are reduced to arguing the semantics over the meaning of a word. Even if you were right - you're not - my point would still stand. Whether i call them subsidies or you call them tax breaks, we're talking about the exact same thing and i'm saying they should be phased out. So it's interesting to me that you're not actually arguing against the main point of the argument, which suggests you can't.

It's not funny, IT.

Your google search says: "While a tax drives a wedge that increases the price consumers have to pay and decreases the price producers receive, a subsidy does the opposite."

Do you not understand that statement?

The second part says: "A subsidy is a benefit given by the government to groups or individuals, usually in the form of a cash payment or a tax reduction.".

So, VAT is 5% and not 20% - so who is receiving the tax reduction? It's the consumer. It's not the fossil fuel industry. They get nothing, they always hand over all the VAT that they collect on their sales to the government, they don't keep any of it for themselves, so it's not a subsidy for the oil and gas industry. And, of course, the same VAT rules apply to all the "green" energy power generators.

This is not the same as a tax free ISA, where the saver doesn't pay tax on their ISA savings.

Of course we are arguing semantics. You claimed that the fossil fuel industry received more subsidies than the green energy sector. You provided a link to something that claims the sector receives a subsidy because the rate of VAT is lower on gas and power than the standard rate. The claim is all based on the semantics using the word "subsidy" and claiming that this "subsidy" is received as a benefit by the fossil fuel sector. If you'd said that gas and power consumers are charged a lower rate of VAT we'd all have been in agreement. But, it still wouldn't have been a subsidy for the fossil fuel industry because no benefit is given to the sector by the government, using the words in your google search.

BTW: In one of your posts you make a suggestion that oil and gas has had "centuries" to become profitable. Really, "centuries?" When did the world start using oil? and when did the world start burning natural gas? And, when was the coal industry profitable? Do you remember the National Coal Board? As for the power generation sector, do you know how many power generators have gone bust in the UK in this century?

[Hipper]

https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2019/0 ... sil-fuels/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

A long but interesting article.

[SmudgetheClaret]

I started my diesel car up on the drive and then it started spitting so I turned the engine off and the rain stopped I'm gonna have a rethink about this climate tax thing..

[Ooogeorgeorgeoghani]

If the world stopped producing carbon emissions tomorrow would this stop global warming, probably not , would it slow it down , probably not , should we try to reduce emissions just in case it might help , definitely!

[Imploding Turtle]

If the world stopped producing carbon emissions tomorrow would this stop global warming, probably not , would it slow it down , probably not , should we try to reduce emissions just in case it might help , definitely!

It would stop a lot of the warming we're going to see by not stopping carbon emissions tomorrow.

[Imploding Turtle]

Climate change: Global impacts 'accelerating' - WMO

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-47723577" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Hipper]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/ ... ast-report" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[willsclarets]

Yet more scare mongering, it's probably cyclical and I'm tired of paying more for car fuel and flights. Let's just wait to see whether the planet's irreversibly fu*ked before we're all on the same page.

[No Ney Never]

Remember how climate scientists warned about more extreme weather? Well, contrast this February with last February and know that you are experiencing it.

On the balance of things, it's questionable whether we are doing ourselves a favour or not?
Below is an extract from an article, this is the link.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/201 ... er/7185002" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I have no opinion either way, this is just a bit of wider reading into the subject.


What causes an ice age and what would happen if the Earth endured another one?

If we entered another ice age now it would have massive consequences for human civilisation.

Ice ages don't just happen overnight, although some movies might have us believe they do. These mythical events have shaped human history, but what causes them and could a new ice age spell the end of the world as we know it?

What is an ice age?

Key points:The last ice age was 12,000 years ago.
At that time the sea level was 120m lower than today.
The onset of an ice age is related to changes in the Earth's tilt and orbit.
The Earth is due for another ice age now but climate change makes it very unlikely

An ice age is a time where a significant amount of the Earth's water is locked up on land in continental glaciers.
During the last ice age, which finished about 12,000 years ago, enormous ice masses covered huge swathes of land now inhabited by millions of people.
Canada and the northern USA were completely covered in ice, as was the whole of northern Europe and northern Asia.
At the moment the Earth is in an interglacial period - a short warmer period between glacial (or ice age) periods.
The Earth has been alternating between long ice ages and shorter interglacial periods for around 2.6 million years.
For the last million years or so these have been happening roughly every 100,000 years - around 90,000 years of ice age followed by a roughly 10,000 year interglacial warm period.

What causes an ice age?

Ice ages don't just come out of nowhere - it takes thousands of years for an ice age to begin.
An ice age is triggered when summer temperatures in the northern hemisphere fail to rise above freezing for years. This means that winter snowfall doesn't melt, but instead builds up, compresses and over time starts to compact, or glaciate, into ice sheets.
Over thousands of years these ice sheets start to build up - it seems to be in northern Canada when that first happens - and then they spread out across the northern hemisphere.
"It's a long term trend over thousands of years to colder summers," Dr Steven Phipps, an ice sheet modeller, said.
Dr Phipps is also a climate system modeller and palaeoclimatologist with the University of Tasmania.
The onset of an ice age is related to the Milankovitch cycles - where regular changes in the Earth's tilt and orbit combine to affect which areas on Earth get more or less solar radiation.
When all these factors align so the northern hemisphere gets less solar radiation in summer, an ice age can be started.
A trend towards cooler summers in the northern hemisphere is what triggers an ice age.

Are we due for another ice age?

Based on previous cycles the Earth is probably due to go into an ice age about now. In fact, conditions were starting to line up for a new ice age at least 6,000 years ago.
"If you look at what was happening prior to the industrial revolution, summers were actually getting colder in the northern hemisphere. They've been getting colder for at least the last 6,000 years, so we were definitely on that trend," Dr Phipps said.
But that trend has now been comprehensively reversed because of greenhouse gas emissions, according to Dr Phipps.
"There's no chance of us going into an ice age now because the greenhouse gases we've put into the atmosphere during the industrial era have warmed the earth."
Although scientists cannot say we have definitely prevented the next ice age, it's certainly accepted that humans have had a significant part to play. 
Humans could have just walked from New Guinea to the Australian mainland.

Dr Steven Phipps, University of Tasmania. "There is actually a hypothesis that it's not just industrial society but ever since humans began practicing large scale farming at least 5,000 years ago, such as methane emissions from rice paddies," Dr Phipps said.
"So it's possibly not just greenhouse gas emissions over the last 200 years that's stopped us going into an ice age, but it's actually greenhouse gas emissions for the last 5,000 years that have collectively helped to steer us away from the next ice age."

What would happen if there was an ice age today?

We may have delayed the onset of the next ice age for now, but if another one came it would have pretty big consequences for human civilisation.
Besides the fact it would be an awful lot colder, huge regions where hundreds of millions of people live would become completely uninhabitable. They'd be covered in thick ice sheets and subject to an inhospitable climate.
"Assuming it was similar to the last one, then north America would be covered in ice, the whole of northern Europe, the whole of northern Asia would be covered in ice," Dr Phipps said.
There would be a lot less agricultural land available, so it would be very difficult to support the human population, Dr Phipps warned.
And the physical shape of the continents would look completely different across the whole planet.
A huge drop in sea level of up to 120 metres would close down marine channels - the Mediterranean Sea, Torres Strait, Bass Strait and Bering Strait - and create new areas of land that could be used for habitation or agriculture.
Ocean ports would no longer be on the ocean, and anyone wanting water views would need to relocate large distances.

What we have the last ice age to thank for...

Ice ages have had an absolutely enormous impact on human evolution.
During the last ice age, which ran from about 110,000 years ago to 10,000 years ago, the lower sea levels allowed humans to move out across the entire world.
"There was no Bering Straits, so north America and Asia were joined and that's actually how humans first roamed into the Americas, they just walked over the land bridge," Dr Phipps said.
While there was still some water between Asia and Australia it took just a few short canoe trips to bring the first humans to Australasia.
"They would have come over towards New Guinea. There was no Torres Strait so humans could have just walked from New Guinea to the Australian mainland. And there was no Bass Strait so humans could have walked from the Australian mainland over to Tasmania," he said.
The whole dispersal of humans around the world during the last 100,000 years was made entirely possible by the fact we were in an ice age at the time.
Lower sea levels during the last ice age made it easy for humans to migrate around the world.

How do we know they happened in the past?

It's a fair question - how can we know so much about these major events in the past? Scientists have a variety of methods they use.
Evidence for the more recent ice ages comes from changing sea levels in the past, which can be seen by looking at coral reefs or modern landscapes.
The Quaternary glaciation
Compared to conditions on Earth 20,000 to 30,000 years ago we are clearly not in an ice age nowBut in terms of the long history of the Earth we are actually still in an overarching ice age period - known as the Quaternary glaciation - which has been going for the last 2.6 million years. At the moment, the Earth is just in a slightly warmer period, an interglacial.There have been at least four other overarching ice ages in the Earth's history, the oldest started about 2,400 million years ago.

[Imploding Turtle]

On the balance of things, it's questionable whether we are doing ourselves a favour or not?
Below is an extract from an article, this is the link.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/201 ... er/7185002" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I have no opinion either way, this is just a bit of wider reading into the subject.


What causes an ice age and what would happen if the Earth endured another one?

...

We are not entering an ice age. There is absolutely nothing that says the current global warming is because we're entering an ice age. I would think that that would be pretty bloody obvious. You can experiment on this yourself. Put a glass of water in an oven, turn it on and see if it freezes.

[Imploding Turtle]

Yet more scare mongering, it's probably cyclical and I'm tired of paying more for car fuel and flights. Let's just wait to see whether the planet's irreversibly fu*ked before we're all on the same page.

"Let's see if the horse bolts before deciding on whether to close the stable door or not"

[dsr]

We are not entering an ice age. There is absolutely nothing that says the current global warming is because we're entering an ice age. I would think that that would be pretty bloody obvious. You can experiment on this yourself. Put a glass of water in an oven, turn it on and see if it freezes.

That seems a slightly aggressive tone to say you agree. But you're absolutely right, NNN's quote doesn't say that the current global warming is because we're entering an ice age.