suffolk, Local Online News Community, Forums, Chats, For Sale, Classified, Offers, Film Reviews, Events, Motors Sale, Property For Sale Rent, Jobs, Hotels, Taxi, Restaurants, Pubs, Clubs, Pictures, Sports, Charities, Lost Found

  1. Published on: 05/02/2020 08:16 AMReported by: roving-eye
    Britain’s reliance on coal for electricity has dropped from 70% in 1990 to less than 3% today

    government announces its intention to consult on bringing forward the deadline for removing coal power altogether by 2024

    Prime Minister sets out intention at a speech launching a Year of Climate Action ahead of COP26, attended by Sir David Attenborough and Italian Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte

    The deadline for the phase-out of coal from Britain’s energy system is planned to be brought forward a year to 1 October 2024, the Prime Minister has announced.

    The government will consult on bringing the deadline for ending unabated coal forward from 2025 to 2024, part of its drive to go further and faster on decarbonising the power sector, as it works towards net zero by 2050.

    New statistics released today show the UK’s greenhouse gas emissions fell by 2.1% between 2017 and 2018, thanks in large part to the rapid decline of coal-powered electricity generation. Last year more than half of the UK’s electricity came from low-carbon sources.

    This means the UK has cut its emissions by 43% since 1990 while growing the economy by more than two thirds – the best performance of any G7 nation.

    Business and Energy Secretary Andrea Leadsom said:

    The UK has a proud record in tackling climate change and making the most of the enormous economic potential of clean technologies. This is my number one priority, and we will raise our ambition in this year of climate action.

    Coal-generated energy will soon be a distant memory as we plan to decarbonise every sector of our economy, enabling a greener future for all our children.

    The Prime Minister today set out the UK’s position as a world leader in the response to climate change and called on all nations to strive towards net zero emissions.

    The government will also bring forward an end to the sale of new petrol and diesel cars and vans to 2035, or earlier if a faster transition is feasible, subject to consultation, as well as include hybrids for the first time.

    Coal is the most carbon intensive fossil fuel and is responsible for harmful air pollution. Last year Great Britain went 3,700 hours without using coal for power, nearly 5 times more than the whole of 2017. There are currently 4 active coal generators, one of which has announced closure in March 2020.

    Britain was one of the first countries in the world to commit to ending unabated coal generation. Existing policies are already cutting our reliance on coal from around 40% in 2012 to less than 3% in 2019. The contribution of renewables is now at record levels, standing at 33%.
     

    Submit News to Us



  2. Likes donkey22 liked this post





  3. Check Todays Deals on Ebay.co.uk      Check Todays Deals On Amazon.co.uk

    Your Comments:


  4. paulollie says:05/02/2020 09:01 PM
    Setting the record ever so slightly straight. The emissions in the picture can't be CO2 as its, invisible, odorless,tasteless etc etc.

    If we remove "all" CO2 from the atmosphere as seems the actions that Climate zealots require we will become extinct and every other living thing on the planet. The earth would resume its snowball state of pre Cambian times more likely.

    Its is not a "pollutant" but the very building block of life and we had better start to believe it.

  5. donkey22 says:06/02/2020 12:09 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by paulollie View Post
    Setting the record ever so slightly straight. The emissions in the picture can't be CO2 as its, invisible, odorless,tasteless etc etc.

    If we remove "all" CO2 from the atmosphere as seems the actions that Climate zealots require we will become extinct and every other living thing on the planet. The earth would resume its snowball state of pre Cambian times more likely.

    Its is not a "pollutant" but the very building block of life and we had better start to believe it.
    You have a very wonky idea of setting the record straight. The emissions in the picture could well contain unknown levels of carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide emissions mainly come from burning organic materials: coal, oil, gas, wood, and solid waste. So unless you know what those emissions are, there is no way you can correctly state that they can’t contain CO2.
    I’d be very interested if you could link to a scientifically backed study that is suggesting we do remove “all” CO2 from the atmosphere. All the climate change organisations and climate change scientists I’m aware of are not suggesting we do, because of the reasons you state. Indeed, it would be impossible, most animals on this planet do exhale CO2 after all! It’s a case of getting the right balance. We do need some CO2, correct, but atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide—the most dangerous and prevalent greenhouse gas—are at the highest and most dangerous levels ever recorded. Greenhouse gas levels are so high primarily because humans have released them into the air by burning fossil fuels. The gases absorb solar energy and keep heat close to Earth's surface, rather than letting it escape into space.
    Coal to be phased out of energy production by 2024, no more new petrol/diesel engined cars after 2035. You may not like it but for Britain, fossil fuels are soon to be confined to the history books. Great news for our planet, and the environment.
    Last edited by donkey22; 06/02/2020 at 10:07 AM.

  6. Likes Toodles McGinty liked this post
  7. paulollie says:06/02/2020 09:43 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by donkey22 View Post
    You have a very wonky idea of setting the record straight. The emissions in the picture could well contain unknown levels of carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide emissions mainly come from burning organic materials: coal, oil, gas, wood, and solid waste. So unless you know what those emissions are, there is no way you can correctly state that they can’t contain CO2.
    I’d be very interested if you could link to a scientifically backed study that is suggesting we do remove “all” CO2 from the atmosphere. No one is suggesting we do, because of the reasons you state. We do need some CO2, correct, but atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide—the most dangerous and prevalent greenhouse gas—are at the highest levels ever recorded. Greenhouse gas levels are so high primarily because humans have released them into the air by burning fossil fuels. The gases absorb solar energy and keep heat close to Earth's surface, rather than letting it escape into space.
    Coal to be phased out of energy production by 2024, no more petrol/diesel engined cars after 2035. You may not like it but for Britain, fossil fuels are soon to be confined to the history books. Great news for our planet, and the environment.
    Firstly, I'm no climate denier, climate has been changing for 4 billion years and will continue to do so. denying it is like saying night doesn't follow day.
    1: CO2 has been much higher than now, as much as 5000,6000,7000 PPM and life flourished, its how we came about.
    2: CO2 at 400ppm currently is about 250 ppm above the level that plants all plants near enough, need to survive not much of a margin? They pump it into greenhouses up to 2000ppm to make plants grow??
    3: CO2 does absorb heat good job it does or the earth on average would be -18c.
    4: All for getting a reduction on fossil fuel consumption but if they try and eradicate by 2035 or whatever date they fix, they had better have a fool proof way of getting food into cities containing millions of people and keeping them warm otherwise the death rate will make the coronavirus outbreak look like a rash.
    5: CO2 is not the most dangerous or prevalent, Methane far more effective and water vapour and clouds much much more abundant. Yet all the so called Computer models discount that and in fact ignore the presence of them.
    6: Phase out coal no problem with that.
    7: So how do we replace fossil fuels that currently provides 80 to 85% of our energy needs??? when Greenpeace are actively against nuclear, hydro and fossil you tell me?? the sun, wind, sea. Have you seen Canada and a fair part of the USA???? Covered in snow!!!
    8: CO2 is not a pollutant we breath it out at 40,000 ppm do we get rid of us???
    9: CO2 is taxable to the hilt , can't tax the sun, water vapour etc etc etc. but CO2 easy pickings. You can't see it, smell it, taste it, easy culprit.
    10: There are hundreds of reasons why the earths climate changes hundreds, tectonics, ocean currents, volcanoes, coriolis effect, solar, gravitational influence, Milankovitch Cycles. There is NO scientific concrete evidence even stated by the IPCC to say CO2 is the control knob only consensus amongst scientists that is not how science works read up on a few then come back to me and perhaps the "wonky" comments are not so wonky??
    Try looking at comments, papers or works of the likes of William Happer, Richard Lindzman, Willie Soon and others scientists in their own sphere for the alternative debate. Or even blogs from Tony Heller, wrongly accused of deniel their only crime is putting out the alternative narrative.
    Last edited by paulollie; 06/02/2020 at 11:05 AM.

  8. donkey22 says:06/02/2020 11:42 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by paulollie View Post
    Firstly, I'm no climate denier, climate has been changing for 4 billion years and will continue to do so. denying it is like saying night doesn't follow day.
    1: CO2 has been much higher than now, as much as 5000,6000,7000 PPM and life flourished, its how we came about.
    2: CO2 at 400ppm currently is about 250 ppm above the level that plants all plants near enough, need to survive not much of a margin? They pump it into greenhouses up to 2000ppm to make plants grow??
    3: CO2 does absorb heat good job it does or the earth on average would be -18c.
    4: All for getting a reduction on fossil fuel consumption but if they try and eradicate by 2035 or whatever date they fix, they had better have a fool proof way of getting food into cities containing millions of people and keeping them warm otherwise the death rate will make the coronavirus outbreak look like a rash.
    5: CO2 is not the most dangerous or prevalent, Methane far more effective and water vapour and clouds much much more abundant. Yet all the so called Computer models discount that and in fact ignore the presence of them.
    6: Phase out coal no problem with that.
    7: So how do we replace fossil fuels that currently provides 80 to 85% of our energy needs??? when Greenpeace are actively against nuclear, hydro and fossil you tell me?? the sun, wind, sea. Have you seen Canada and a fair part of the USA???? Covered in snow!!!
    8: CO2 is not a pollutant we breath it out at 40,000 ppm do we get rid of us???
    9: CO2 is taxable to the hilt , can't tax the sun, water vapour etc etc etc. but CO2 easy pickings. You can't see it, smell it, taste it, easy culprit.
    10: There are hundreds of reasons why the earths climate changes hundreds, tectonics, ocean currents, volcanoes, coriolis effect, solar, gravitational influence, Milankovitch Cycles. There is NO scientific concrete evidence even stated by the IPCC to say CO2 is the control knob only consensus amongst scientists that is not how science works read up on a few then come back to me and perhaps the "wonky" comments are not so wonky??
    Who’s accusing you of being a climate change denier? I wasn’t.

    Do you have a source to back up your first point? The current levels of CO2 concentration may be the highest levels we’ve had on Earth in the last 20 million years. Levels where most likely at their peak of 4000 ppm during the Cambrian period 500 million years ago. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carb...27s_atmosphere

    Point 2. Not much of a margin you claim? I’d say a margin of 60% is quite substantial. The use of CO2 in crop production in greenhouses has a relatively low carbon footprint, however technology is being introduced to capture CO2 from the atmosphere to pump back into greenhouses. A Carbon Enrichment for Plant Stimulation (CEPS) system, to enhance land use efficiency and thus increase food productivity and, at the same time, to sequestrate CO2 from ambient air. The deployment of such a CEPS system will have a potential to remove more than 500 million tonnes CO2 from air annually, and increase the current food productivity by more than 15 times than the open field operation. The deployment of the CEPS technology will also promote locally produced food, benefiting urban economical development and job creation.

    Point 3. Yes correct, as I already agreed, but current levels are dangerously high.

    Point 4. Fossil fuels are running out and extracting them from the planet is hugely damaging. They wouldn’t have lasted for ever anyway. Getting food into cities is a scaremongering ploy from the climate change denying nutters. We already use electric trains to move large volumes of goods and have the technology to produce entirely electric lorries. Indeed DAF have already started production of these vehicles. https://www.driving.co.uk/news/daf-e...delivered/amp/

    5. Science does recognise Methane is a problem, most reports I’m aware of do display these levels as a contributing factor in global warming. However, although other gases have more potent heat-trapping ability molecule per molecule than CO2 (e.g. methane), they are simply far less abundant in the atmosphere.
    Maybe you should change your source of information?

    7. It is feasible and entirely possible to replace fossil fuels with wind and solar capture by using considerably less than 1% of the earth’s surface area. In fact, the Renewable Electricity Futures Study found that an 80 percent renewables future is feasible with currently available technologies, including wind turbines, solar photovoltaics, concentrating solar power, biopower, geothermal, and hydropower. This figure is for currently available technology, not taking into account the leaps and bounds that we’re enjoying in future technological advancements.

    8. Yes we do breathe it out, but CO2 is by far the most dangerous greenhouse gas that is contributing to global warming. Like I said in my first post, it’s about getting the right balance.
    https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...arbon-dioxide/

    9. Who’s bothered if we can’t tax the wind or the sun? It’s not about creating taxes or wealth, it’s about saving the planet. Capitalism will have to change or die. So many damaging industries are coming to an end thanks to the climate change awakening. Goodbye coal, goodbye oil.

    10. What’s the point you’re trying to make here? The average temperature of the Earth is rising at nearly twice the rate it was 50 years ago. This rapid warming trend cannot be explained by natural cycles alone, scientists have concluded. The only way to explain the pattern is to include the effect of greenhouse gases (GHGs) emitted by humans.
    Current levels of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide in our atmosphere are higher than at any point over the past 800,000 years, and their ability to trap heat is changing our climate in multiple ways.

    And sorry, but yes your original post does still remain wonky. You still haven’t responded to the point I made about the photograph of the chimney emissions containing CO2, nor have you provided any evidence to back up your claim that ‘climate change zealots’ want to remove “all” CO2 from the earths atmosphere.

    Those pseudo “scientists “ you mention are in the tiny minority, they are climate change deniers and are shunned by the highly respected wider field of scientists who work on climate change. The only time I would pick up one of their papers is if I’d run out of toilet paper. I’ll stick to my peer reviewed reliable sources of information provided by the remaining 99% of respected scientists thanks.
    https://www.desmog.co.uk/2018/09/25/...ns-science?amp
    Last edited by donkey22; 06/02/2020 at 02:30 PM.

  9. paulollie says:06/02/2020 05:40 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by donkey22 View Post
    Who’s accusing you of being a climate change denier? I wasn’t.

    I am a "CO2 Control knob on earths temperature Sceptic" not a denier.

    Do you have a source to back up your first point? The current levels of CO2 concentration may be the highest levels we’ve had on Earth in the last 20 million years. Levels where most likely at their peak of 4000 ppm during the Cambrian period 500 million years ago. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carb...27s_atmosphere

    The peak was more than 4000PPM so you are incorrect there. You said "maybe" not a very scientific phrase ???? If you had mentioned Ice core, rock sediment, sea bed or river core sediment I might have believed you somewhat

    Point 2. Not much of a margin you claim? I’d say a margin of 60% is quite substantial. The use of CO2 in crop production in greenhouses has a relatively low carbon footprint, however technology is being introduced to capture CO2 from the atmosphere to pump back into greenhouses. A Carbon Enrichment for Plant Stimulation (CEPS) system, to enhance land use efficiency and thus increase food productivity and, at the same time, to sequestrate CO2 from ambient air. The deployment of such a CEPS system will have a potential to remove more than 500 million tonnes CO2 from air annually, and increase the current food productivity by more than 15 times than the open field operation. The deployment of the CEPS technology will also promote locally produced food, benefiting urban economical development and job creation.

    Not sure if you are for or against on that point?? The main issue though which you have not grasped is that CO2 is beneficial to plant life at higher levels than than we have now, hence even NASA saying the earth has greened more than 25% over the last twenty or thirty years.


    Point 3. Yes correct, as I already agreed, but current levels are dangerously high.

    Why are they dangerous, if again they have been higher many times in earths past are they dangerous now?

    Point 4. Fossil fuels are running out and extracting them from the planet is hugely damaging. They wouldn’t have lasted for ever anyway. Getting food into cities is a scaremongering ploy from the climate change denying nutters. We already use electric trains to move large volumes of goods and have the technology to produce entirely electric lorries. Indeed DAF have already started production of these vehicles. https://www.driving.co.uk/news/daf-e...delivered/amp/

    Agree , they are running out and it is an antiquated way of powering our world, however it is 80/85% on how we do it. Scare mongering on transporting goods well you said climate change nutters isn't it the same when the likes of a manipulated child or groups of people say the world will end by 2009, 20010, 2015 2035 which year decade do you want?? Electric yep an option but to change the worlds fleet of millions of vehicles by 2035????? Not a remote chance. How do we produce, our steel, glass, wood products etc etc ???

    You access

    5. Science does recognise Methane is a problem, most reports I’m aware of do display these levels as a contributing factor in global warming. However, although other gases have more potent heat-trapping ability molecule per molecule than CO2 (e.g. methane), they are simply far less abundant in the atmosphere.
    Maybe you should change your source of information?

    Wrong, water vapour is the most abundant greenhouse gas and clouds. "most reports I’m aware of" just a bland statement not backed up. If you read or watch William Happer Physicist you know a scientist, who probably knows more about CO2 than most, states that CO2 has to double each time to increase tempertaure, ie 400 PPM we have gained 1c degree therefore 800 PPM another degree, 1600PPM another degree??? I think you had better check your calcs and not just read Wiki.

    7. It is feasible and entirely possible to replace fossil fuels with wind and solar capture by using considerably less than 1% of the earth’s surface area. In fact, the Renewable Electricity Futures Study found that an 80 percent renewables future is feasible with currently available technologies, including wind turbines, solar photovoltaics, concentrating solar power, biopower, geothermal, and hydropower. This figure is for currently available technology, not taking into account the leaps and bounds that we’re enjoying in future technological advancements.

    All for new technology, however Canada for example the coldest country on the planet on average at -5c is covered as we speak with snow and much of North America as well. Try telling them Solar power is the answer, oh yes its not windy all the time .

    8. Yes we do breathe it out, but CO2 is by far the most dangerous greenhouse gas that is contributing to global warming. Like I said in my first post, it’s about getting the right balance.
    https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...arbon-dioxide/

    Why is it the most dangerous??? 146 million years ago in the mesozoic see I use wiki, CO2 was at 2000PPM and we were in an Ice age. Getting a right balance and you think political action will do that, don't think Nature thinks the same way. Plants breathe it in by the way thats called getting the balance.


    9. Who’s bothered if we can’t tax the wind or the sun? It’s not about creating taxes or wealth, it’s about saving the planet. Capitalism will have to change or die. So many damaging industries are coming to an end thanks to the climate change awakening. Goodbye coal, goodbye oil.

    Now you have let your Left Wing woke views out. took till point 9 i'll give you that. How is the government in this country or any other to raise taxes then, since the demise of the car/van/lorry will cause a £28 Billion tax hole.

    10. What’s the point you’re trying to make here? The average temperature of the Earth is rising at nearly twice the rate it was 50 years ago. This rapid warming trend cannot be explained by natural cycles alone, scientists have concluded. The only way to explain the pattern is to include the effect of greenhouse gases (GHGs) emitted by humans.

    The point is that the science is not settled far from it. The rise is 0.8c of a degree and most of that was around 1940's. Have you put a TLA in to add weight to your inconclusive argument?

    Current levels of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide in our atmosphere are higher than at any point over the past 800,000 years, and their ability to trap heat is changing our climate in multiple ways.

    Not disputing they are greenhouses gases but they are not the control knob, again as I said earlier read up on Milankovitch!!

    And sorry, but yes your original post does still remain wonky. You still haven’t responded to the point I made about the photograph of the chimney emissions containing CO2, nor have you provided any evidence to back up your claim that ‘climate change zealots’ want to remove “all” CO2 from the earths atmosphere.

    My point on the chimney, yes there probably is CO2 in the gases. However the Climate change alarmists use the visual image to spread fear and woe. You cannot, see, taste or smell CO2. Carbon free is touted all the time by the zealots especially Extinction Rebellion you know that cult group, hope you are not a member.

    Those pseudo “scientists “ you mention are in the tiny minority, they are climate change deniers and are shunned by the highly respected wider field of scientists who work on climate change. The only time I would pick up one of their papers is if I’d run out of toilet paper. I’ll stick to my peer reviewed reliable sources of information provided by the remaining 99% of respected scientists thanks.
    https://www.desmog.co.uk/2018/09/25/...ns-science?amp
    So please the "respected" scientists then I've given you some names, yes they are sceptics but scientists nevertheless, where are yours?? I'm surprised you didn't mention the famous 97% figure which was plucked out of thin air about 0.5% peer reviewed or the 11,000 so called scientists that the Guardian blabbed on about, 11256 actually I downloaded the PDF file. Guess what in the AtoZ of names there was one Mickey Mouse!!! Bet you read the Guardian though?

    Sorry Donkey I've heard most of what you've come back with for such a long time now its a joke. Buts that's what is driving all of this you have said yourself to the death or change of Capitalism must come Left wing drivel that goes nowhere to solve a problem of Climate Change meaning how we "Adapt" to it not beat it......That is impossible. As they say "Nature Bats last and it owns the Stadium"



  10. donkey22 says:06/02/2020 06:15 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by paulollie View Post
    So please the "respected" scientists then I've given you some names, yes they are sceptics but scientists nevertheless, where are yours?? I'm surprised you didn't mention the famous 97% figure which was plucked out of thin air about 0.5% peer reviewed or the 11,000 so called scientists that the Guardian blabbed on about, 11256 actually I downloaded the PDF file. Guess what in the AtoZ of names there was one Mickey Mouse!!! Bet you read the Guardian though?

    Sorry Donkey I've heard most of what you've come back with for such a long time now its a joke. Buts that's what is driving all of this you have said yourself to the death or change of Capitalism must come Left wing drivel that goes nowhere to solve a problem of Climate Change meaning how we "Adapt" to it not beat it......That is impossible. As they say "Nature Bats last and it owns the Stadium"


    ‘The emissions in the picture can't be CO2 as its, invisible, odorless,tasteless etc etc.’

    At least you admitted to being wrong about the photograph. The final paragraph you’ve written doesn’t even make sense. You clearly are not the best educated of people to be having a debate with. You’ll accept the drivel and nonsense written by a handful of climate change deniers yet ignore the fact based science that is driving the wider scientific community. But judging by your posting history this doesn’t exactly come as a surprise. You describe Extinction Rebellion as a cult. I suggest you buy a dictionary and look up the definition of the word. Bury your head back in the sand or crawl back under your rock. Either way, any attempt at trying to have an intelligent or meaningful debate with deniers/sceptics like you is a waste of time.

  11. paulollie says:06/02/2020 06:50 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by donkey2d2 View Post
    ‘The emissions in the picture can't be CO2 as its, invisible, odorless,tasteless etc etc.’

    At least you admitted to being wrong about the photograph. The final paragraph you’ve written doesn’t even make sense. You clearly are not the best educated of people to be having a debate with. You’ll accept the drivel and nonsense written by a handful of climate change deniers yet ignore the fact based science that is driving the wider scientific community. But judging by your posting history this doesn’t exactly come as a surprise. You describe Extinction Rebellion as a cult. I suggest you buy a dictionary and look up the definition of the word. Bury your head back in the sand or crawl back under your rock. Either way, any attempt at trying to have an intelligent or meaningful debate with deniers/sceptics like you is a waste of time.

    Well one thing I've learnt over the years you can't argue with stupid, however it seems I've just done that ??
    Oh by the way "Cult" definition of:-

    1 .A system of religious veneration and devotion directed towards a particular figure or object.
    "the cult of St Olaf"
    2. A person or thing that is popular or fashionable among a particular group or section of society. "the series has become a bit of a cult in the UK"

    Sums up your lot exactly. Finally you answered little if not Nil of any of my counter debate however instead resulted to the tried and expected insults i.e get under a stone, rock whatever...... sigh, sigh , sigh Donkey by name donkey by nature.

    Education try the link below since you are always harping on about education
    https://youtu.be/UWGVKuRWEgw
    Last edited by paulollie; 06/02/2020 at 08:34 PM.


Custom Search

You are in: UK / Suffolk
Find any Town in the UK, or Use UK map

User Control Panel

Not a Member? Sign Up!

Login or Register


Privacy & Cookie Policy


       
   Check Todays Deals On Amazon.co.uk
   Check Todays Deals on Ebay.co.uk
Christmas trees in suffolk
Firewood suppliers in suffolk
Replacement Stove Glass in suffolk
Bulk Aggregates in suffolk
Supporting Local Business

Be Seen - Advertise on Qlocal




UK, Local Online News Community, Forums, Chats, For Sale, Classified, Offers, Vouchers, Events, Motors Sale, Property For Sale Rent, Jobs, Hotels, Taxi, Restaurants, Pubs, Clubs, Pictures, Sports, Charities, Lost Found
suffolksuffolk News



Stats: Qlocal over 500,000 page views a month (google analytics)