'Two thirds of Britons want faster action on climate'

This Forum is the main messageboard to discuss all things Claret and Blue and beyond
Paul Waine
Posts: 9845
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:28 pm
Been Liked: 2344 times
Has Liked: 3164 times

Re: 'Two thirds of Britons want faster action on climate'

Post by Paul Waine » Wed Jun 26, 2019 10:23 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:
Ending fossil fuel subsidies (which they don't ******* need because it's the richest industry in history) will make fossil fuels more expensive. Or more accurately it will make them exactly as expensive as the free market says they should be.
Then we better subsidise the production and use of renewable energy solutions with some (or all, i'm fine with all) of the billions of pounds we'll save every year because we no longer need to give these leeches tax breaks and grants.
Hi IT, shall we have another go at clearing up your confusion?

The only "subsidy" that you can identify for the "fossil fuel" industry is the 5% VAT rate in the UK on residential gas and power.

If you take at taxes on petrol and diesel you will discover that the UK rate is the highest in Europe - and, possibly the highest in the world. And, then the government adds 20% VAT on top.

So, as gas and power consumers we get cheaper home eating, lighting and cooking. None of the "VAT subsidy" goes back to the gas and power companies that sell it to us - it's just that the government collects lower VAT - so, it's not the gas and power companies that are subsidised.

Then, let's take a look at the profitability of the gas and power supply companies. You say that "it's the richest industry in history." Really, where did you get that from? Do you know how many gas and supply companies have gone bust in the UK? - and I'm not talking about the little tiddlers. Check out what happened to the largest suppliers in the early 2000s. Check out the profitability of the "big 6" (are there still a big 6) now.

I assume you are thinking "richest industry in history" because some years - and not every year - the very largest multinational oil and gas companies can report large profits. But, check out the return on a percentage of the investment in those companies. And, check out how many of the large (and not so large) oil and gas companies have gone bust, frequently, over the years.

And, if you are interested, take a look at what BP has to say about climate change - and what they report they are doing about it.

A few facts won't go amiss in this debate.

boatshed bill
Posts: 15108
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:47 am
Been Liked: 3139 times
Has Liked: 6682 times

Re: 'Two thirds of Britons want faster action on climate'

Post by boatshed bill » Wed Jun 26, 2019 10:25 pm

I think we should just blame China, after all they create massive pollution whilst producing the plethora of pointless sh!te that we continue to buy.

Imploding Turtle
Posts: 19799
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:12 am
Been Liked: 5483 times
Has Liked: 2540 times
Location: Burnley, Lancs

Re: 'Two thirds of Britons want faster action on climate'

Post by Imploding Turtle » Wed Jun 26, 2019 10:36 pm

Paul Waine wrote:Hi IT, shall we have another go at clearing up your confusion?

The only "subsidy" that you can identify for the "fossil fuel" industry is the 5% VAT rate in the UK on residential gas and power.

...

This is why i don't bother reading much of your posts any more. You misrepresent what I say so ******* quickly in them that it's just a waste of time.


Not only am I not confused, but i'm also quite aware that there are other forms of subsidies these leeches benefit from, but the ending of the tax subsidy they receive will be a much more effective approach in combating climate change that the ending of the subsidies they receive to help fund exploration, drilling and extraction.

The reason you're pretending (or "lying", as it's more commonly known in this kind of example) is because it's actually you who won't shut up about the tax subsidy they receive because in your dumb little world tax subsidies aren't subsidies, despite every ******* definition of the word proving you wrong.

Here it is one more ******* time. A tax reduction is a tax subsidy. If you continue to believe this stupid idea you have that a tax reduction cannot be a subsidy, even when i've provided you independent, clearly ******* credible, proof that you're wrong and i'm right, then your posts are not worth reading because clearly you are incapable of reaching your opinions critically.

Image

Now, go ahead and whine about my foul language so we can both move on.

Imploding Turtle
Posts: 19799
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:12 am
Been Liked: 5483 times
Has Liked: 2540 times
Location: Burnley, Lancs

Re: 'Two thirds of Britons want faster action on climate'

Post by Imploding Turtle » Wed Jun 26, 2019 10:42 pm

elwaclaret wrote:Not in a position to argue the point IT. I don’t follow the ins and outs of climate change. But I know we are destroying nature, environments where nature exists, plants and species that cannot be replaced... many of which could be the only known antidote for some human disease etc. If we keep going at the rate we are I don’t think I’ll be that bothered if Earth turns into Mars.

I’ve certainly changed sides on plastic.

This is what you need. Informative, educational, interesting and sometimes lightly amusing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52KLGqD ... PfAIyI7VAP" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I think he's still adding to the playlist. But if you want to get caught up on what the actual facts of climate change are, and what the unknowns are, then I haven't found a better series of videos to explain it yet. He also debunks a lot of bullshit you'll have no doubt heard and probably caused undue skepticism.

elwaclaret
Posts: 8929
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:57 am
Been Liked: 1986 times
Has Liked: 2876 times

Re: 'Two thirds of Britons want faster action on climate'

Post by elwaclaret » Wed Jun 26, 2019 10:46 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:This is what you need. Informative, educational, interesting and sometimes lightly amusing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52KLGqD ... PfAIyI7VAP" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I think he's still adding to the playlist. But if you want to get caught up on what the actual facts of climate change are, and what the unknowns are, then I haven't found a better series of videos to explain it yet. He also debunks a lot of bullshit you'll have no doubt heard and probably caused undue skepticism.
Can’t say I follow it to any great extent.... far too much history to retain to be going off on any other politic tangents :shock: :D

Imploding Turtle
Posts: 19799
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:12 am
Been Liked: 5483 times
Has Liked: 2540 times
Location: Burnley, Lancs

Re: 'Two thirds of Britons want faster action on climate'

Post by Imploding Turtle » Wed Jun 26, 2019 10:48 pm

elwaclaret wrote:Can’t say I follow it to any great extent.... far too much history to retain to be going off on any other politic tangents :shock: :D

Well, if you're interested in finding out what the science says then there's the playlist you need.

Paul Waine
Posts: 9845
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:28 pm
Been Liked: 2344 times
Has Liked: 3164 times

Re: 'Two thirds of Britons want faster action on climate'

Post by Paul Waine » Wed Jun 26, 2019 10:50 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:This is why i don't bother reading much of your posts any more. You misrepresent what I say so ******* quickly in them that it's just a waste of time.


Not only am I not confused, but i'm also quite aware that there are other forms of subsidies these leeches benefit from, but the ending of the tax subsidy they receive will be a much more effective approach in combating climate change that the ending of the subsidies they receive to help fund exploration, drilling and extraction.

The reason you're pretending (or "lying", as it's more commonly known in this kind of example) is because it's actually you who won't shut up about the tax subsidy they receive because in your dumb little world tax subsidies aren't subsidies, despite every ******* definition of the word proving you wrong.

Here it is one more ******* time. A tax reduction is a tax subsidy. If you continue to believe this stupid idea you have that a tax reduction cannot be a subsidy, even when i've provided you independent, clearly ******* credible, proof that you're wrong and i'm right, then your posts are not worth reading because clearly you are incapable of reaching your opinions critically.

Image

Now, go ahead and whine about my foul language so we can both move on.
We both know what your definition of a subsidy is. Nothing I posted argues against your definition. What I did was argue against your claims that the fossil fuel industry is subsidised by the UK government. It's the consumer that benefits from 5% VAT. The suppliers gain nothing from the VAT rate - whatever they collect they pay over to the gov't.

I also suggested you check out your claim that the fossil fuel industry is the "richest industry in history" (or whatever you phrase was).

Let's have some facts when we are talking about climate change. That's all I'm asking for.

I'm smiling at your reference to "subsidies they receive to help fund exploration, drilling and extraction." Take a look at the north sea petroleum revenue tax scheme.... I thought it was a major claim of the Scottish Nats that they would fund Scottish spending from North Sea oil revenues....

Wile E Coyote
Posts: 8507
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 5:22 pm
Been Liked: 2887 times
Has Liked: 1760 times

Re: 'Two thirds of Britons want faster action on climate'

Post by Wile E Coyote » Wed Jun 26, 2019 10:58 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:And you do have a clue? Then explain why you disagree with the scientific consensus on AGW. Present your opinion in a way you would like others to present theirs, and we'll see how well it stands up to scrutiny.
I could cite numerous examples, but you are assuming you are somehow worthy of providing that level of adequate scrutiny, quite simply you are not.

Imploding Turtle
Posts: 19799
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:12 am
Been Liked: 5483 times
Has Liked: 2540 times
Location: Burnley, Lancs

Re: 'Two thirds of Britons want faster action on climate'

Post by Imploding Turtle » Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:04 pm

Paul Waine wrote:We both know what your definition of a subsidy is. Nothing I posted argues against your definition. What I did was argue against your claims that the fossil fuel industry is subsidised by the UK government. It's the consumer that benefits from 5% VAT. The suppliers gain nothing from the VAT rate - whatever they collect they pay over to the gov't.

I also suggested you check out your claim that the fossil fuel industry is the "richest industry in history" (or whatever you phrase was).

Let's have some facts when we are talking about climate change. That's all I'm asking for.

I'm smiling at your reference to "subsidies they receive to help fund exploration, drilling and extraction." Take a look at the north sea petroleum revenue tax scheme.... I thought it was a major claim of the Scottish Nats that they would fund Scottish spending from North Sea oil revenues....

Just because the consumer of a product benefits from a subsidy on that product doesn't mean the subsidy doesn't exist.

On £100 of revenue the energy companies pay £5 VAT instead of £20. I have absolutely no doubt that if the government end this subsidy for fossil-fuel energy that is sold then these companies would pass that cost onto the consumer. This means the consumer pays more for fossil-fuel generated energy and thus decreases its demand and increases the demand for renewable-sourced energy.

A tax subsidy that intended to make a product cheaper for the consumer benefits the company producing and selling that product because it means their customers can buy more of it. It is still a ******* subsidy. And by ending that subsidy then it reduces the demand for that product and increased demand for alternatives.

This is all an extremely simple concept of capitalism. The price of something controls demand. And vis-a-versa. If you increase demand then the price increases. And if you reduce demand then the price decreases. Likewise if you increase the price of something then you decrease demand, and if you reduce the price of something then demand increases. Demand for fossil-fuel generated energy has had its demand increased by this tax subsidy for as long as the tax subsidy has existed. If we end that subsidy then the price will increase and demand will decrease. And, helpfully, demand for an alternative to fossil-fuel generated energy will go up. Nothing about this is wrong so why are you continuing to argue against it? Is your pension dependent on the profitability of fossil-fuels or something?

Imploding Turtle
Posts: 19799
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:12 am
Been Liked: 5483 times
Has Liked: 2540 times
Location: Burnley, Lancs

Re: 'Two thirds of Britons want faster action on climate'

Post by Imploding Turtle » Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:06 pm

Wile E Coyote wrote:I could cite numerous examples, but you are assuming you are somehow worthy of providing that level of adequate scrutiny, quite simply you are not.
Wow. Your response was even more pathetic than I imagined it would be.

If you don't have the balls to present your own opinion for fear that it will be shot down to easily and you'll be forced to either change your opinion or continue to hold an opinion you know is wrong, then that's kinda sad.

Wile E Coyote
Posts: 8507
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 5:22 pm
Been Liked: 2887 times
Has Liked: 1760 times

Re: 'Two thirds of Britons want faster action on climate'

Post by Wile E Coyote » Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:26 pm

that is just plain rude, you have little to offer but woefully tiresome and hackneyed insults. who would bother to debate with such dumplings? not I.

dsr
Posts: 15139
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:47 pm
Been Liked: 4549 times
Has Liked: 2241 times

Re: 'Two thirds of Britons want faster action on climate'

Post by dsr » Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:On £100 of revenue the energy companies pay £5 VAT instead of £20. I have absolutely no doubt that if the government end this subsidy for fossil-fuel energy that is sold then these companies would pass that cost onto the consumer. This means the consumer pays more for fossil-fuel generated energy and thus decreases its demand and increases the demand for renewable-sourced energy.
At risk of causing more confusion, the companies wouldn't have a cost to pass on. If companies are forced to charge an extra 15% VAT, that's a cost to the consumer, not a cost to the company.

Anyway, it's worse than you think. You're saying that the "subsidy" is 15% because the tax on clothes, cakes, wallpaper, etc. is 20%. But why compare fuel with flowers? Why not compare it with other fuel? The current rate of tax on petrol is in the region of 160%, so by that comparison, the subsidy is 155%. Wow.

Though I think you might do better to rail against government subsidy of gambling. Get onto the gambling thread and explain that the government is subsidising gambling by something like 17% on every bet. Or more, when you allow that winning bets are tax free. Wow again.

dsr
Posts: 15139
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:47 pm
Been Liked: 4549 times
Has Liked: 2241 times

Re: 'Two thirds of Britons want faster action on climate'

Post by dsr » Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:35 pm

Paul Waine wrote:We both know what your definition of a subsidy is. Nothing I posted argues against your definition. What I did was argue against your claims that the fossil fuel industry is subsidised by the UK government. It's the consumer that benefits from 5% VAT. The suppliers gain nothing from the VAT rate - whatever they collect they pay over to the gov't.
I wonder if it would be a smart move by the government to introduce a 100% tax on bullfighting capes? They could then claim that they are subsidising everything we spend by 80% and nobody would ever complain again about getting nothing from the government! Wow! :D

Paul Waine
Posts: 9845
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:28 pm
Been Liked: 2344 times
Has Liked: 3164 times

Re: 'Two thirds of Britons want faster action on climate'

Post by Paul Waine » Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:47 pm

dsr wrote:I wonder if it would be a smart move by the government to introduce a 100% tax on bullfighting capes? They could then claim that they are subsidising everything we spend by 80% and nobody would ever complain again about getting nothing from the government! Wow! :D
and, I expect we could all say that it was a very effective tax - not as much bullfighting in the UK these days. ;)

martin_p
Posts: 10368
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 3:40 pm
Been Liked: 3764 times
Has Liked: 696 times

Re: 'Two thirds of Britons want faster action on climate'

Post by martin_p » Thu Jun 27, 2019 12:04 am

Wile E Coyote wrote:that is just plain rude, you have little to offer but woefully tiresome and hackneyed insults. who would bother to debate with such dumplings? not I.
You haven’t really shown any aptitude for debating so I don’t think your refusal to do so is any great loss to the discussion.

Wile E Coyote
Posts: 8507
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 5:22 pm
Been Liked: 2887 times
Has Liked: 1760 times

Re: 'Two thirds of Britons want faster action on climate'

Post by Wile E Coyote » Thu Jun 27, 2019 12:15 am

martin_p wrote:You haven’t really shown any aptitude for debating so I don’t think your refusal to do so is any great loss to the discussion.
but then again, you are a simpleton of no value, so your turgid opinion on discussions is irrelevant martin.

martin_p
Posts: 10368
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 3:40 pm
Been Liked: 3764 times
Has Liked: 696 times

Re: 'Two thirds of Britons want faster action on climate'

Post by martin_p » Thu Jun 27, 2019 12:15 am

Wile E Coyote wrote:but then again, you are a simpleton of no value, so your turgid opinion on discussions is irrelevant martin.
See.
This user liked this post: Greenmile

Paul Waine
Posts: 9845
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:28 pm
Been Liked: 2344 times
Has Liked: 3164 times

Re: 'Two thirds of Britons want faster action on climate'

Post by Paul Waine » Thu Jun 27, 2019 12:21 am

Imploding Turtle wrote:Just because the consumer of a product benefits from a subsidy on that product doesn't mean the subsidy doesn't exist.

On £100 of revenue the energy companies pay £5 VAT instead of £20. I have absolutely no doubt that if the government end this subsidy for fossil-fuel energy that is sold then these companies would pass that cost onto the consumer. This means the consumer pays more for fossil-fuel generated energy and thus decreases its demand and increases the demand for renewable-sourced energy.

A tax subsidy that intended to make a product cheaper for the consumer benefits the company producing and selling that product because it means their customers can buy more of it. It is still a ******* subsidy. And by ending that subsidy then it reduces the demand for that product and increased demand for alternatives.

This is all an extremely simple concept of capitalism. The price of something controls demand. And vis-a-versa. If you increase demand then the price increases. And if you reduce demand then the price decreases. Likewise if you increase the price of something then you decrease demand, and if you reduce the price of something then demand increases. Demand for fossil-fuel generated energy has had its demand increased by this tax subsidy for as long as the tax subsidy has existed. If we end that subsidy then the price will increase and demand will decrease. And, helpfully, demand for an alternative to fossil-fuel generated energy will go up. Nothing about this is wrong so why are you continuing to argue against it? Is your pension dependent on the profitability of fossil-fuels or something?
Hi IT, I'm wondering why I'm bothering to respond, but let's "give it a go."

I acknowledge that climate change is happening - and that it is a result of carbon dioxide, and other green house gases, emissions.

I think there will be more that recognise the need to "tackle climate change" if there are more "facts" - and fewer "embelishments" and confusions of these facts.

As I've said, I'm not disputing your definition of a subsidy. A reduced rate of VAT is a subsidy to the consumer. Of course, we know that the 5% rate applies to all gas and power - including the renewable "green" power that we can buy (and the little bit of "green" gas).

I agree that in a lot of purchasing decisions the consumer doesn't look at the net price and add the VAT. Yes, taxation distorts supply and demand. But, there is a competitive market for gas and power in the UK. The VAT is an add-on to the suppliers' costs and is paid over to the government (HMRC) - the suppliers are only tax collectors in this respect. It makes no difference to them whether the rate if 5% or 20% or any other rate. Yes, a lower price to the consumer may increase the gas/power consumption, but demand is relatively inelastic - we turn the heat on when it's cold, we have our lights on when it's dark etc. Gas/power are not so much "consumer choices." The government didn't introduce the 5% VAT to increase demand, but to reduce the cost to the consumer. And, don't forget the 5% VAT applies to both "brown" and "green" gas and power, so if there is an effect on gas/power consumption it isn't increasing the demand for "fossil-fuel generated energy" but all energy - and currently we are running around 50% on each side...

But, then, as part of the "green agenda" the government has been passing on the costs of all the renewable energy subsidies as surcharges on the consumers' gas and power prices. There are quite a few additional charges the consumer pays to support wind farms and solar panels and more. I don't have the figures to hand, but it's possible that these "hidden green charges" more than offset the "consumer subsidy" from the 5% VAT.

So, your statement "Nothing about this is wrong...." is wrong.

Yes, I've got a pension - I'm also still working full time. No, my pension is not reliant on continued existence of any particular past employer.

Falcon
Posts: 3210
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 1:40 pm
Been Liked: 892 times
Has Liked: 1161 times
Location: Proudsville

Re: 'Two thirds of Britons want faster action on climate'

Post by Falcon » Thu Jun 27, 2019 10:43 am

What if climate change was all a hoax and we created a better world for nothing!

Hipper
Posts: 5682
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 1:33 pm
Been Liked: 1175 times
Has Liked: 918 times

Re: 'Two thirds of Britons want faster action on climate'

Post by Hipper » Thu Jun 27, 2019 11:15 am

An example of subsidies and their possible effect.

Farmers and railways effectively get subsidised diesel - red diesel or gas oil. Although identical to ordinary (white) diesel that we put in cars, it has a red die and comes with a much lower fuel levy. My guess is that if this fuel levy was progressively increased to normal diesel rates it would make rival technologies (the hydrogen train for example) more economic, or in the case of agriculture, encourage the search for alternative energy sources.

Of course the current arrangements give us cheaper rail tickets and food. With food it may allow our farmers to compete better with imports, so in turn protecting the countryside.

If it be your will
Posts: 2103
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2016 10:12 am
Been Liked: 500 times
Has Liked: 509 times

Re: 'Two thirds of Britons want faster action on climate'

Post by If it be your will » Thu Jun 27, 2019 11:19 am

.
Last edited by If it be your will on Tue Nov 03, 2020 10:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.

claretonthecoast1882
Posts: 10088
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2018 1:59 pm
Been Liked: 4161 times
Has Liked: 57 times

Re: 'Two thirds of Britons want faster action on climate'

Post by claretonthecoast1882 » Thu Jun 27, 2019 11:19 am

Falcon wrote:What if climate change was all a hoax and we created a better world for nothing!

You are going to tip someone over the edge with that

aggi
Posts: 8762
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:31 am
Been Liked: 2109 times

Re: 'Two thirds of Britons want faster action on climate'

Post by aggi » Thu Jun 27, 2019 3:35 pm

Paul Waine wrote:We both know what your definition of a subsidy is. Nothing I posted argues against your definition. What I did was argue against your claims that the fossil fuel industry is subsidised by the UK government. It's the consumer that benefits from 5% VAT. The suppliers gain nothing from the VAT rate - whatever they collect they pay over to the gov't.
Out of curiosity, why do you think that companies such as Amazon, Play, etc set up in zero VAT jurisdictions to sell to the UK if the suppliers gain nothing from the VAT rate?

Obviously their products are more elastic than domestic fuel but I would be amazed if domestic fuel suppliers don't take the VAT level into account when they are doing their pricing models.

dsr
Posts: 15139
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:47 pm
Been Liked: 4549 times
Has Liked: 2241 times

Re: 'Two thirds of Britons want faster action on climate'

Post by dsr » Thu Jun 27, 2019 4:12 pm

Amazon were (until they changed the rules) gaining an advantage by selling products without VAT, competing against companies selling the same product including VAT. Competitive advantage. Electricity and gas companies don't get a competitive advantage because everyone in the market has to charge VAT.

Yes, as imploding turtle is suggesting, if all companies put their prices up it will reduce demand slightly as the poorest people put less heat on and shiver a bit more, but if all companies raise their prices by a tax difference it will make little difference to any of them.

Imploding Turtle
Posts: 19799
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:12 am
Been Liked: 5483 times
Has Liked: 2540 times
Location: Burnley, Lancs

Re: 'Two thirds of Britons want faster action on climate'

Post by Imploding Turtle » Thu Jun 27, 2019 5:05 pm

dsr wrote:Amazon were (until they changed the rules) gaining an advantage by selling products without VAT, competing against companies selling the same product including VAT. Competitive advantage. Electricity and gas companies don't get a competitive advantage because everyone in the market has to charge VAT.

Yes, as imploding turtle is suggesting, if all companies put their prices up it will reduce demand slightly as the poorest people put less heat on and shiver a bit more, but if all companies raise their prices by a tax difference it will make little difference to any of them.
I like how you're pretending to give a **** about poor people shivering a little bit more but don't seem to give a **** about poor people around the world dying.

And while bills would go up for consumers of fossil-fuel generated energy there's no reason why the extra money the government saves by no longer providing this massive subsidy can't go towards subsidising the production of renewable-generated energy and thus brings the cost of bills back down. Which renders your concern-trolling kinda worthless.

dsr
Posts: 15139
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:47 pm
Been Liked: 4549 times
Has Liked: 2241 times

Re: 'Two thirds of Britons want faster action on climate'

Post by dsr » Thu Jun 27, 2019 5:32 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:I like how you're pretending to give a **** about poor people shivering a little bit more but don't seem to give a **** about poor people around the world dying.

And while bills would go up for consumers of fossil-fuel generated energy there's no reason why the extra money the government saves by no longer providing this massive subsidy can't go towards subsidising the production of renewable-generated energy and thus brings the cost of bills back down. Which renders your concern-trolling kinda worthless.
I think I've just been called a virtue signaller by turtle. Ooh, that hurts.

Where did I say I was concerned? I said that the poorest people would turn the heat down and would shiver. Prediction, not statement of concern. If I had wanted to make it a statement of concern, I would have said so. But I don't feel any need to be concerned about the government ramping VAT up to top whack on domestic fuel, because it ain't going to happen.

But back to the real world, if you move fuel production away from fossil fuels to renewables, prices go up. If the government pays the fuel companies compensation to encourage them to move to a more expensive form of production, the fuel companies can't spend the money on expensive equipment AND give it back to the customer/taxpayer. You can only spend your sixpence once.

Hipper
Posts: 5682
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 1:33 pm
Been Liked: 1175 times
Has Liked: 918 times

Re: 'Two thirds of Britons want faster action on climate'

Post by Hipper » Thu Jun 27, 2019 6:53 pm

The government can do actions that will effect things. They have for example banned the sale of diesel and petrol cars from 2040. So it's not a question of pricing people out of the market - no-one will able to buy them.

Of course how that works etc. is open to debate but in principle they can do such things (I suppose you could argue that if electric cars are more expensive then that IS pricing people out of the market).

Likewise, other authorities can act. London could introduce such bans. Already electric cabs are being encouraged and I note Uber is doing something too. Presumably the costs will be born by users.

aggi
Posts: 8762
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:31 am
Been Liked: 2109 times

Re: 'Two thirds of Britons want faster action on climate'

Post by aggi » Thu Jun 27, 2019 7:23 pm

dsr wrote:Amazon were (until they changed the rules) gaining an advantage by selling products without VAT, competing against companies selling the same product including VAT. Competitive advantage. Electricity and gas companies don't get a competitive advantage because everyone in the market has to charge VAT.

Yes, as imploding turtle is suggesting, if all companies put their prices up it will reduce demand slightly as the poorest people put less heat on and shiver a bit more, but if all companies raise their prices by a tax difference it will make little difference to any of them.
I think the point is there could be a VAT differential on renewables vs fossil fuel which would give renewable suppliers that competitive advantage whereas currently some renewables (e.g. solar/battery set-ups) are at 20% as opposed to 5% so are at a competitive disadvantage (although IT hasn't responded to my post that this was EU driven).

Paul Waine seems to be suggesting that even if VAT jumped to 20% the prices and demand would still be the same and that pricing decisions are made independently of tax rates which you don't seem to agree with (which seems a more realistic stance).

If it be your will
Posts: 2103
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2016 10:12 am
Been Liked: 500 times
Has Liked: 509 times

Re: 'Two thirds of Britons want faster action on climate'

Post by If it be your will » Thu Jun 27, 2019 8:28 pm

.
Last edited by If it be your will on Tue Nov 03, 2020 10:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.

aggi
Posts: 8762
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:31 am
Been Liked: 2109 times

Re: 'Two thirds of Britons want faster action on climate'

Post by aggi » Thu Jun 27, 2019 8:38 pm

If it be your will wrote:He is sort of right, though. Assuming science doesn't come up with an answer (it might, but that is a dangerous hope-for-the-best plan), all mainstream solutions end up increasing prices, either directly or indirectly - and banning petrol cars comes into this category, unless electric ones become cheaper than petrol ones (in which case you needn't really do anything). Any solution involving price increases hits the poor hardest. If you subsidised non-fossil energy via taxes, then it could be made to hit the rich harder and protect the poor, I guess, but it would need a more progressive tax system than we have now.

I've pressed many people on this, and it is always illuminating. The conversation always follows this course:

a) They should put the price of fossil fuels up
b) How much would you increase, say, petrol, then?
a) 50p/litre (say)
b) Would that make you drive less? Would that make you get the train to work? Or walk the kids to school?
a) Hmm. No. Probably not materially, no. Put it up a pound a litre!
b) Would your consumption drop then?
a) Hmm, it might a bit, but not a lot. It might stop others driving as much, though...
b) What petrol price would make you drive 80% less?
a) Me?? Well, I don't know. It would need to be high - there's no alternatives for me! Probably a tenner a litre or something!

...and when it all comes down to it, you can always tell that what each individual is aiming for. It is whatever price gets others to reduce consumption, not them. If you haven't asked anyone this, try it. Other than the truly committed greens, you'll get similar answers, and the answers vary depending on their own income.

Rationing is the only really fair approach, but their is no electoral appetite for that.
You're only detailing half of the tactic there though. Increasing the price of petrol would have to be tied in with other strategies.

E.g. increasing public transport provision, better cycling infrastructure, decentralising jobs so commutes are shorter, incentives for carpooling, improving IT infrastructure so working from home is a more realistic option, etc.

Look at London for instance, lots of people don't drive as parking costs a lot and the public transport is available. Or the Netherlands, it has good cycling infrastructure so car journeys are lower. Or most of the USA, petrol is cheap and non-driving infrastructure poor so most people drive everywhere.

Imploding Turtle
Posts: 19799
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:12 am
Been Liked: 5483 times
Has Liked: 2540 times
Location: Burnley, Lancs

Re: 'Two thirds of Britons want faster action on climate'

Post by Imploding Turtle » Thu Jun 27, 2019 8:55 pm

If it be your will wrote:He is sort of right, though. Assuming science doesn't come up with an answer ...
We have the answer already. We know what we need to do and we already have the technology to implement it. All that's lacking is the political and economic will to do it.

If it be your will
Posts: 2103
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2016 10:12 am
Been Liked: 500 times
Has Liked: 509 times

Re: 'Two thirds of Britons want faster action on climate'

Post by If it be your will » Thu Jun 27, 2019 9:14 pm

.
Last edited by If it be your will on Tue Nov 03, 2020 10:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.

If it be your will
Posts: 2103
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2016 10:12 am
Been Liked: 500 times
Has Liked: 509 times

Re: 'Two thirds of Britons want faster action on climate'

Post by If it be your will » Thu Jun 27, 2019 9:20 pm

.
Last edited by If it be your will on Tue Nov 03, 2020 10:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Paul Waine
Posts: 9845
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:28 pm
Been Liked: 2344 times
Has Liked: 3164 times

Re: 'Two thirds of Britons want faster action on climate'

Post by Paul Waine » Thu Jun 27, 2019 10:12 pm

aggi wrote:Out of curiosity, why do you think that companies such as Amazon, Play, etc set up in zero VAT jurisdictions to sell to the UK if the suppliers gain nothing from the VAT rate?

Obviously their products are more elastic than domestic fuel but I would be amazed if domestic fuel suppliers don't take the VAT level into account when they are doing their pricing models.
Hi aggi, did you really post that?

Amazon and others were outside the UK, so outside the scope of VAT - under the rules at that time. But, they were competing against other suppliers who were in the UK and subject to the appropriate VAT rate. Don't you think that being able to price their goods just a little below the UK price including VAT is a massive advantage - less postal/delivery costs, if any?

Do you think I should start buying my gas and elec from Amazon Jersey. We just need to work out how it can be delivered without using any of the UK's pipelines and wires. Or, maybe it's 5 litre cans of petrol I should be buying from Facebook Guersey and saving petrol duty and VAT?

Yes, there can be competition between suppliers if one is inside the scope of VAT and the other is outside, but that doesn't work for fossil fuels... :o

Dy1geo
Posts: 858
Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2016 8:17 pm
Been Liked: 211 times
Has Liked: 62 times

Re: 'Two thirds of Britons want faster action on climate'

Post by Dy1geo » Thu Jun 27, 2019 10:27 pm

It’s alarming that it’s only two thirds I would have it as a guess that more than two thirds of Britons want faster Broadband

Imploding Turtle
Posts: 19799
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:12 am
Been Liked: 5483 times
Has Liked: 2540 times
Location: Burnley, Lancs

Re: 'Two thirds of Britons want faster action on climate'

Post by Imploding Turtle » Thu Jun 27, 2019 11:11 pm

If it be your will wrote:You might be right. I'm not definitely saying you aren't. But if the obstacle really is political, and not financial, then the only explanation is incredibly successful lobbying and/or outright corruption.

It's both.

aggi
Posts: 8762
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:31 am
Been Liked: 2109 times

Re: 'Two thirds of Britons want faster action on climate'

Post by aggi » Fri Jun 28, 2019 5:03 am

Paul Waine wrote:Hi aggi, did you really post that?

Amazon and others were outside the UK, so outside the scope of VAT - under the rules at that time. But, they were competing against other suppliers who were in the UK and subject to the appropriate VAT rate. Don't you think that being able to price their goods just a little below the UK price including VAT is a massive advantage - less postal/delivery costs, if any?

Do you think I should start buying my gas and elec from Amazon Jersey. We just need to work out how it can be delivered without using any of the UK's pipelines and wires. Or, maybe it's 5 litre cans of petrol I should be buying from Facebook Guersey and saving petrol duty and VAT?

Yes, there can be competition between suppliers if one is inside the scope of VAT and the other is outside, but that doesn't work for fossil fuels... :o
You seem to have suggested a few times that the rate of VAT doesn't impact on the pricing structure, that the consumer decision is made on the net price rather than gross and companies neglect to incorporate the VAT when setting the price, so I was just illustrating that isn't the case. Maybe I've misunderstood what you meant by None of the "VAT subsidy" goes back to the gas and power companies that sell it to us - it's just that the government collects lower VAT - so, it's not the gas and power companies that are subsidised. .

I think the point is that fossil fuels would be at the 20% rate and renewables at 5% (as opposed to the current situation where fossil fuels are at 5% and some renewables ,e.g.the solar/battery setup, are at 20%) which would encourage use of renewables as opposed to the current position of encouraging a fossil fuel/renewables hybrid.

Or, if all domestic fuels were at 20% (bear in mind that the 5% band is a bit unusual and is primarily designed to cut the cost of fuel to the consumer) then it is likely that all fuel usage would decrease within which would be a decrease in fossil fuel usage. The impact of that 5% band is to increase fuel consumption, if that VAT rate was increased to 20% the energy companies wouldn't absorb all of the increase (although I suspect they would absorb some so it is certainly a subsidy in that context) and demand isn't perfectly inelastic.

I think IT's mistake is suggesting that it is a subsidy on fossil fuel rather than domestic fuel as a whole. However, cutting domestic fuel use would most likely cut fossil fuel use.

Paul Waine
Posts: 9845
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:28 pm
Been Liked: 2344 times
Has Liked: 3164 times

Re: 'Two thirds of Britons want faster action on climate'

Post by Paul Waine » Fri Jun 28, 2019 11:06 am

aggi wrote:You seem to have suggested a few times that the rate of VAT doesn't impact on the pricing structure, that the consumer decision is made on the net price rather than gross and companies neglect to incorporate the VAT when setting the price, so I was just illustrating that isn't the case. Maybe I've misunderstood what you meant by None of the "VAT subsidy" goes back to the gas and power companies that sell it to us - it's just that the government collects lower VAT - so, it's not the gas and power companies that are subsidised. .

I think the point is that fossil fuels would be at the 20% rate and renewables at 5% (as opposed to the current situation where fossil fuels are at 5% and some renewables ,e.g.the solar/battery setup, are at 20%) which would encourage use of renewables as opposed to the current position of encouraging a fossil fuel/renewables hybrid.

Or, if all domestic fuels were at 20% (bear in mind that the 5% band is a bit unusual and is primarily designed to cut the cost of fuel to the consumer) then it is likely that all fuel usage would decrease within which would be a decrease in fossil fuel usage. The impact of that 5% band is to increase fuel consumption, if that VAT rate was increased to 20% the energy companies wouldn't absorb all of the increase (although I suspect they would absorb some so it is certainly a subsidy in that context) and demand isn't perfectly inelastic.

I think IT's mistake is suggesting that it is a subsidy on fossil fuel rather than domestic fuel as a whole. However, cutting domestic fuel use would most likely cut fossil fuel use.
Hi aggi, I think we are in agreement with most of this. Of course, the consumer looks at the cost to themselves, So, buying something that includes 20% VAT is always going to be more expensive that buying the same item from a seller who doesn't need to add VAT to the price. (Of course, there can also be other costs that make a difference - bricks and mortar shops v on-line/no shops being an obvious example).

Yes, I agree on the price impact on both supply and demand.

I agree, if VAT was 20% on the gas and power that we use in our homes we would all be aiming to reduce our usage. It was reduced to 5% because of the impact on the "fuel poor" - the people who may not have enough cash to pay the price resulting from 20% VAT. (The large utilities companies are required to have schemes to support people who have difficulty paying their bills. Ironically, or otherwise, there are also a number of renewable energy costs included in our gas/power prices that inflate the cost we pay).

We know that 5% VAT applies to all the gas/power we consume - whatever the source of the energy, fossil fuel, nuclear, hydro, wind, solar etc.

Physics doesn't allow that fossil fuels generated power and non-fossil fuel power can be priced differently. It's all the same once it's been generated and feed into the grid. Yes, it would be logical for every "green energy" supplier to be able to offer lower prices if they were only required to charge 5% VAT - whereas all fossil-fuel power was charged at 20%. If all other things were equal, everyone would be buying "green" energy up to 100% of the total elec consumption - even when green energy is typically less than 20% (it can be higher when the sun is shining and the wind is blowing - it will be lower when the wind is still on a grey day, and overnight).

So, the government does it the other way round. I guess you know that all renewable energy generators are paid a "renewable obligation certificate" (ROC) in addition to getting the same wholesale price for the power as all the fossil fuel generators do. These ROCs are very valuable. The cost of the ROCs is, eventually, one of the green energy add-ons in the price we all pay for power.

I get what you are saying about 20% VAT being charged on solar panels and I guess other equipment required to generate renewable power. It will add to the cot of installation. I know there's a campaign asking the gov't to reverse this decision - which I understand is required under the VAT regs. Of course, for a long time, solar panel installations have been subsidised with massively generous "feed-in" tariffs. And, now - for other reasons - the costs of solar panels are massively less than the first were.

I guess we both agree that gas/power consumption is price inelastic. We don't "rush out and buy more" when the price falls, we tend not to turn our heating down and lights off when the price is higher. (Maybe if the SMART meters worked properly, we could adjust the time we used elec to when the wholesale prices were lowest - that's what the "economy 7" tariffs were aimed at). Hence, I'm not sure that any gas/elec supplier would really be able to identify anything more than a marginal short-term difference in demand if VAT was changed from 5% to 20% or the reverse.

Hope you enjoy the sunshine today. We can all keep our radiators switched off.

Hipper
Posts: 5682
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 1:33 pm
Been Liked: 1175 times
Has Liked: 918 times

Re: 'Two thirds of Britons want faster action on climate'

Post by Hipper » Fri Jun 28, 2019 11:53 am

Fossil fuel market prices are very variable. Green energy tends not to be as, for example, once you've built a windmill, the maintenance costs and source - wind - are pretty consistent.

I'm with ecotricity. Their current rates are:

Gas: per unit 4.19p Standing Charge 26.36p/day
Electricity: per unit 17.66p Standing Charge 27.75/day

No idea how that compares. When I joined them a few years ago they charged the same as the highest of the big six but since then they've found their own pricing.

aggi
Posts: 8762
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:31 am
Been Liked: 2109 times

Re: 'Two thirds of Britons want faster action on climate'

Post by aggi » Fri Jun 28, 2019 4:44 pm

If it be your will wrote:You might be right. I'm not definitely saying you aren't. But if the obstacle really is political, and not financial, then the only explanation is incredibly successful lobbying and/or outright corruption.

So are you of the view there would be no cost implications to an 80% reduction in fossil fuel use? Just political resistance?

Like I say, I'm not definitely saying you're wrong, but it does seem a stretch.
I'd say there is incredibly successful lobbying. However, beyond that the bigger issue is the short-term outlook of politics.

Something like increased cycling infrastructure would cost initially. However there is a lot of research that suggests that local spending (and hence taxes) increases, healthcare costs decrease, etc. Add to that it costs a lot, lot more to pay for car infrastructure (but people just take that cost for granted) than cycling infrastructure. It was in the news recently that the budget for upgrading a junction and 10 mile stretch of road near Bedford would cost the same as the proposed 1,000 miles of cycling infrastructure in Manchester (obviously only one of those has been given the full budget so far).

Similarly, pollution costs millions in terms of healthcare. Replacing car use with public transport could cut down significantly on that. However, these are calculations that need to be done in the long-term, not chopped and changed every 5 years to get votes.

Paul Waine
Posts: 9845
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:28 pm
Been Liked: 2344 times
Has Liked: 3164 times

Re: 'Two thirds of Britons want faster action on climate'

Post by Paul Waine » Fri Jun 28, 2019 10:18 pm

Hipper wrote:Fossil fuel market prices are very variable. Green energy tends not to be as, for example, once you've built a windmill, the maintenance costs and source - wind - are pretty consistent.

I'm with ecotricity. Their current rates are:

Gas: per unit 4.19p Standing Charge 26.36p/day
Electricity: per unit 17.66p Standing Charge 27.75/day

No idea how that compares. When I joined them a few years ago they charged the same as the highest of the big six but since then they've found their own pricing.
Hi Hipper, here's the first bit of your comparison:

Engie:
Gas: per unit 3.51p Standing Charge 20.72/day
Electricity: per unit 15.57p Standing Charge 21.52/day
on my latest bill. Went up quite a bit when my 24 month fix came to an end in March. Think I'm now on 18 month fix - with no penalty when I get round to switching.

It's wholesale prices that are volatile, driven both by shorter weather and one or two other short term supply disruptions and longer term more fundamental supply shortages or surpluses.
This user liked this post: Hipper

Paul Waine
Posts: 9845
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:28 pm
Been Liked: 2344 times
Has Liked: 3164 times

Re: 'Two thirds of Britons want faster action on climate'

Post by Paul Waine » Fri Jun 28, 2019 10:20 pm

Read a report today in The Times that the contrails from aircraft are a big factor in climate change. Seems they have a bigger warming effect than aircraft carbon emissions - but, no one has been taking them into account, so far.

Hipper
Posts: 5682
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 1:33 pm
Been Liked: 1175 times
Has Liked: 918 times

Re: 'Two thirds of Britons want faster action on climate'

Post by Hipper » Sat Jun 29, 2019 8:37 am

Paul Waine wrote:Read a report today in The Times that the contrails from aircraft are a big factor in climate change. Seems they have a bigger warming effect than aircraft carbon emissions - but, no one has been taking them into account, so far.
That was noticed on the 9/11 day when planes were pulled from the sky:

https://globalnews.ca/news/2934513/empt ... xperiment/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

However this report claims a cooling effect in the day time - reflecting the suns heat - and a warming effect at night - trapping the escaping heat. The sum of this a warming. This effect was noticed over England in WW2 with large bomber raids.

Ships have contrails too:

http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/not ... trail.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

There was also a television programme a few weeks ago where the U.S. weather was investigated by airship. It said that environmental cleaner air with reduced particulate air pollution led to less cloud cover and therefore less precipitation - particles 'seed' clouds.
This user liked this post: Paul Waine

Paul Waine
Posts: 9845
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:28 pm
Been Liked: 2344 times
Has Liked: 3164 times

Re: 'Two thirds of Britons want faster action on climate'

Post by Paul Waine » Sat Jun 29, 2019 9:24 am

Hi Hipper, so your post suggests the opposite of the report in The Times. So, I've gone back to The Times to read it again - and find the research paper it references. Based on what The Times reports I'll still need to do some googling to find the original research paper.

EDIT: Research paper here: http://www.researchgate.net/publication ... c/download" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Based on the second link in your post, it suggests that one answer to climate change is that we all fly more, maybe even send up "ghost" planes, i.e. fly them empty because they have a cooling effect, rather than add to "global warming." Maybe Emma T could have mentioned that this was the reason she flew in from California to join the Extinction Rebellion protests! ;)

The Times: Friday 28-June: Aircraft leave a trail of climate destruction

Cloud trails formed by aircraft are having a bigger impact on global warming than all the CO2 emitted by aviation since the start of powered flight in 1903, scientists have said.

Researchers say the warming effects of clouds they create will triple by 2050, the year Britain is committed to achieving net zero carbon emissions.
The target includes CO2 from domestic but not international flights and does not include aircraft condensation trails, also known as contrails.

The ribbons of white cloud are created when ice crystals form at high altitudes around sooty particles from burnt fuel. Under certain conditions they become wider patches of cloud cover, known as contrail cirrus. These can linger up to 17 hours and have a net warming effect.

Their impact has been largely neglected in global schemes to offset aviation emissions, Germany’s national aeronautics research centre said. Its study in the journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics forecast that the climate impact of contrail cirrus will triple by 2050 due to increased air traffic.

Researchers found that aviation accounted for about 5 per cent of climate warming caused by man in 2005, with contrail cirrus the largest single contributor.

Lisa Bock, a researcher at the German Aerospace Centre who co-authored the study, said: “It is important to recognise the significant impact of non-CO2 emissions, such as contrail cirrus, on climate and to take those effects into consideration when setting up emission trading systems or schemes like the Corsia agreement.”

Corsia, the UN’s scheme to offset air traffic carbon emissions from 2020, ignores the non-CO2 climate impacts of aviation.

Sir David King, the British government’s former chief scientist, who was not involved in the research, said: “This is an important study — we have taken our eye off the ball when it comes to aviation.”

Uncertainty remains over the scale of the impact of contrails. The scientific consensus is that it is about double that of the CO2 produced by aviation, according to Keith Shine of the Department of Meteorology at the University of Reading, who was also not involved in the study.

“One thing to note is the longevity of the emissions. If aviation was halted today the contrails would disappear in a matter of hours. The CO2 emitted by aviation would persist for many decades.”

Paul Waine
Posts: 9845
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:28 pm
Been Liked: 2344 times
Has Liked: 3164 times

Re: 'Two thirds of Britons want faster action on climate'

Post by Paul Waine » Sat Jun 29, 2019 10:07 am

Further post re above.

I've read the research paper: http://www.researchgate.net/publication ... c/download" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I'm well out of my league on this one - I'm not trained in chemistry or physics!

Well done to Rhys Blakely, Science Correspondent of The Times if he understands the research paper and has reported it accurately. I don't know either way....

Imploding Turtle
Posts: 19799
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:12 am
Been Liked: 5483 times
Has Liked: 2540 times
Location: Burnley, Lancs

Re: 'Two thirds of Britons want faster action on climate'

Post by Imploding Turtle » Sat Jun 29, 2019 11:03 am

Paul Waine wrote:Hi Hipper, so your post suggests the opposite of the report in The Times. So, I've gone back to The Times to read it again - and find the research paper it references. Based on what The Times reports I'll still need to do some googling to find the original research paper.

EDIT: Research paper here: http://www.researchgate.net/publication ... c/download" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Based on the second link in your post, it suggests that one answer to climate change is that we all fly more, maybe even send up "ghost" planes, i.e. fly them empty because they have a cooling effect, rather than add to "global warming." Maybe Emma T could have mentioned that this was the reason she flew in from California to join the Extinction Rebellion protests! ;)

The Times: Friday 28-June: Aircraft leave a trail of climate destruction

Cloud trails formed by aircraft are having a bigger impact on global warming than all the CO2 emitted by aviation since the start of powered flight in 1903, scientists have said.

Researchers say the warming effects of clouds they create will triple by 2050, the year Britain is committed to achieving net zero carbon emissions.
The target includes CO2 from domestic but not international flights and does not include aircraft condensation trails, also known as contrails.

The ribbons of white cloud are created when ice crystals form at high altitudes around sooty particles from burnt fuel. Under certain conditions they become wider patches of cloud cover, known as contrail cirrus. These can linger up to 17 hours and have a net warming effect.

Their impact has been largely neglected in global schemes to offset aviation emissions, Germany’s national aeronautics research centre said. Its study in the journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics forecast that the climate impact of contrail cirrus will triple by 2050 due to increased air traffic.

Researchers found that aviation accounted for about 5 per cent of climate warming caused by man in 2005, with contrail cirrus the largest single contributor.

Lisa Bock, a researcher at the German Aerospace Centre who co-authored the study, said: “It is important to recognise the significant impact of non-CO2 emissions, such as contrail cirrus, on climate and to take those effects into consideration when setting up emission trading systems or schemes like the Corsia agreement.”

Corsia, the UN’s scheme to offset air traffic carbon emissions from 2020, ignores the non-CO2 climate impacts of aviation.

Sir David King, the British government’s former chief scientist, who was not involved in the research, said: “This is an important study — we have taken our eye off the ball when it comes to aviation.”

Uncertainty remains over the scale of the impact of contrails. The scientific consensus is that it is about double that of the CO2 produced by aviation, according to Keith Shine of the Department of Meteorology at the University of Reading, who was also not involved in the study.

“One thing to note is the longevity of the emissions. If aviation was halted today the contrails would disappear in a matter of hours. The CO2 emitted by aviation would persist for many decades.”

The warming effect of contrails has been well known for quite some time. The journalist in the Times is writing as if it's something that should be a shock to us that contrails have a large net warming effect.

The actual study was published in 2011. I'm not sure why the Times journalist kept that information from you, or why he's writing as if this is brand new information that should rock your world but i guess that's the state of science journalism nowadays.
https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate1068" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Paul Waine
Posts: 9845
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:28 pm
Been Liked: 2344 times
Has Liked: 3164 times

Re: 'Two thirds of Britons want faster action on climate'

Post by Paul Waine » Sat Jun 29, 2019 12:26 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:The warming effect of contrails has been well known for quite some time. The journalist in the Times is writing as if it's something that should be a shock to us that contrails have a large net warming effect.

The actual study was published in 2011. I'm not sure why the Times journalist kept that information from you, or why he's writing as if this is brand new information that should rock your world but i guess that's the state of science journalism nowadays.
https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate1068" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Hi IT, I was expecting you'd be along pretty quickly to provide the "right" information.

Thing is, you've got some things wrong. You say "the actual study was published in 2011...." But, the one you reference isn't the one that The Times is reporting on. This is a new study, published this month - and paper put out for discussion (possibly "peer review" - though I'm not sure of how these protocols operate) in Jan-2019. Ulrike Burkhardt is one of the researchers for both papers.

I'm sure you will read the new study in full and be able to explain it all shortly.

Hipper
Posts: 5682
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 1:33 pm
Been Liked: 1175 times
Has Liked: 918 times

Re: 'Two thirds of Britons want faster action on climate'

Post by Hipper » Sat Jun 29, 2019 5:03 pm

What it does show is that this whole business is extremely complicated with consequences in all directions, some surprising.

Our own situation in the UK is affected by the Gulf Stream:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-44875508" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It seems that the way it was thought to behave was wrong. My understanding was that it was slowing down because of fresh cooler water entering the northern seas from the likes of the Greenland and affecting the current. The article says something completely different. It fluctuates relatively frequently with no mention of man's impact on it although I would have thought there is one.

Although it doesn't mean global warming isn't happening it is an example of our ignorance that could be seized on by deniers, and that we clearly have a lot to learn about sea and air temperature behaviour.

Imploding Turtle
Posts: 19799
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:12 am
Been Liked: 5483 times
Has Liked: 2540 times
Location: Burnley, Lancs

Re: 'Two thirds of Britons want faster action on climate'

Post by Imploding Turtle » Sat Jun 29, 2019 5:51 pm

Paul Waine wrote:Hi IT, I was expecting you'd be along pretty quickly to provide the "right" information.

Thing is, you've got some things wrong. You say "the actual study was published in 2011...." But, the one you reference isn't the one that The Times is reporting on. This is a new study, published this month - and paper put out for discussion (possibly "peer review" - though I'm not sure of how these protocols operate) in Jan-2019. Ulrike Burkhardt is one of the researchers for both papers.

I'm sure you will read the new study in full and be able to explain it all shortly.
I've read it. There's nothing I see wrong with it. I'm saying that the Times science correspondent is writing as if it is somehow new information that contrails are a problem when that information is at minimum 8 years old.
What he's then writing about is a study that uses that information, plugs it into projected air travel usage and climate models to model what the next 30 years of contrails will affect the climate.

To be clear here, because i expect you're going to misunderstand this, my objection is with the journalist who is characterising the fact that contrails cause warming as if it's a recent discovery. It's not.

But if nothing else at least some of you are finally accepting the validity of climate models.
This user liked this post: Paul Waine

If it be your will
Posts: 2103
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2016 10:12 am
Been Liked: 500 times
Has Liked: 509 times

Re: 'Two thirds of Britons want faster action on climate'

Post by If it be your will » Sat Jun 29, 2019 10:47 pm

.
Last edited by If it be your will on Tue Nov 03, 2020 10:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Post Reply