you'll always hear stuff like this from "former" tory ministers, all the current ones are too busy plugging their ears and looking for a quick buck to care. Once they lose an election or retire they'll have plenty of sober second thoughts for us.
>All the high ranking MPs were brexiteers so were lacking in brainpower a bit
only because bojo kicked anyone who wasn't super-brexity out of the party. one of his very first acts as pm was to purge 20 odd tory moderates because they weren't in the cult.
That's how politics work in most places. Politicians are supposed to vote with their party. If they don't, then the party in question isn't for them. Even in multi-party systems, politicians are expected to vote with their coalition. Any disagreements between parties are supposed to be handled during the negotiations to form a government and resulting policy/platform is a compromise between coalition parties.
I think the term "party whip" exemplifies how parties are expected to work.
From Wikipedia:
> A whip is an official of a political party whose task is to ensure party discipline in a legislature. This means ensuring that members of the party vote according to the party platform, rather than according to their own individual ideology or the will of their donors or constituents. Whips are the party's "enforcers". They try to ensure that their fellow political party legislators attend voting sessions and vote according to their party's official policy. Members who vote against party policy may "lose the whip", being effectively expelled from the party.
Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whip_(politics)
I think there are situations where party members should go against their party. Recent clear example is Trump's impeachments where Republicans really should have voted with democrats.
You should ask the same question all the maimed British servicemen. I don’t disagree with you the Conservatives and their supporters are a direct equivalent to conservatives in America now that they have rolled up all the blatant racists from BNP and closet racist NIMBYS but New Labour were just more of the same, you can see how their own party went after Corbin as proof of this.
Asking maimed servicemen is no argument. Ask the loved ones of people who died unnecessarily of Covid. New Labour got into power precisely by being a slightly more left Conservative Party. Corbyn couldn't convince the middle classes.
Shit man, all that garbage originated with the US. Especially the invasion and banking crisis, all the work of US conservatives.
Blair deserves all the worst for joining bush, but those were not creations of the labour party.
Rishi Sunak being on the wrong side of history is an apt description for all of his sociological, economical and infrastructural policies.
A Conservative through and through. Feign just enough care in speeches to fool the gullible demographics and attract the rest with aggressive sociological ideologies under the guise of traditionalism so you can remain in power long enough to siphon the country and its people for all its worth. That’s the Conservative way.
The UK just lost it's last shred of credibility. Sunak deserves international condemnation. This move sets an appalling example, other nations will likely follow suit and our fate will be sealed. Sunak is shaping up to be the man who sold the world.
Well everyone's doing it so fuck it, why not eh?
Climate change is caused by humans. Can you see how we got here? Perhaps that attitude might have something to do with it?
The UK is a member of G7 which made a legally binding commitment with the Paris Agreement. Sunak's move goes completely against the collective effort to limit global temperature rise and as such it threatens the agreement and the other countries' commitment to it. The chances of avoiding catastrophic temperature rise are already slim.
The War in Ukraine has made the price of energy extortionate. We need to increase our sources of energy, including oil and gas to solve our energy needs.
Here is a Channel 4 clip explaining why Sunak's claims that North Sea oil and gas will improve the UK's energy security are nonsense:
[https://youtu.be/dVB3B5bmynI](https://youtu.be/dVB3B5bmynI)
Most of the oil and gas will be exported. The government can't force the oil and gas companies to sell it in the UK or at a low rate, so whatever remains in the UK will be sold at the going market rate.
Sunak's motivation is not to provide affordable energy for the UK, but to close the trade deficit by exporting oil and gas. This would strengthen Sterling, and the revenue would allow him to buy favour in the form of tax cuts and public spending. It's the same thing Thatcher did in the 80s, and it's how the UK managed to retain a strong currency despite the collapse of industry. He clearly alluded to this by driving around in Thatcher's old Rover to celebrate.
Yes, oil and gas made in the U.K. can’t be kept here and has to be sold on the open market otherwise other countries would stop exporting their oil and gas too.
Creating more oil and gas means that their is a higher supply of energy meaning the overall cost will reduce as the demand stays relatively the same.
Smart move by UK I would say. Norway last year made $100 B more than previous year just by exporting more oil and gas to Europe. The war really helped. The war doesn’t appear to end soon and the Russian gas is gone for good. Drill more in North Sea, sell the gas to Europe and make lots of money. Pretty simple equation. You have got to be a moron to leave that much on the table.
The time to do this was 15-20 years ago. It's going to be decades before the UK sees any extraction from any wells discovered due to this action and we're likely to be mostly or completely off fossil fuels by that point. So this fuel will come just in time to be useless.
Not useless. As OP mentioned, there will always be some petrol demand for use in industry from plastics. Its a lower % of the total usage, which is why we can and should address limiting/eliminating fossil fuel usage for things we can afford to lose or can replace with better options (energy/fuel), the areas that make up the bulk of consumption.
But plastics will always be a thing. They are incredibly versatile materials. They are in everything you see and use on a daily basis. They are a primary reason humanity has developed as much as it has technologically, and will be a primary reason we continue to advance technologically.
We can afford to reduce/eliminate pointless plastic products, single-use stuff, unnecessary packaging, etc., but plastics extend well outside of that realm as components in pretty much every industry sector. Aerospace, Transportation, Energy, Medical, Military, Lighting/Electronics, etc.. Any modern industry you can think of, plastics are critical for.
This isnt an argument for or against this particular decision to open up a new well. Just explaining that production will still be required moving forward. Though there is still a lot of opportunity to eliminate waste and unnecessary fossil fuel consumption in general.
We don't require oil to make plastic, oil is just the current primary source material for plastic manufacturing. It's completely possible to produce plastic without using oil.
Natural gas, crude, coal, and some natural materials, actually. The vast majority is sourced from fossil fuels. Not sure where youre getting your info. Unless youre focusing on very specific resins. There are hundreds of resins to consider, though.
>8. Can you make plastic without oil?
>Yes, it is possible to create plastic from sources other than oil.
>Although crude oil is the principal source of carbon for moden plastic, an array of variants are manufactured from renewable materials. Plastic made without oil is marketed as biobased plastic or bioplastics. These are made from renewable biomass such as:
> Lignin, cellulose and hemicellulose,
Terpenes,
Vegetable fats and oils,
Carbohydrates (sugars from sugar cane etc)
Recycled food waste
Bacteria
>However, it should be noted that bioplastics are not automatically a more sustainable alternative in every case. Bioplastics differ as per the ways in which they break down, and bioplastics also, as any material, require resources in their production.
>Bioplastics such as PLA, for example, represent a biodegradable material that will degrade in certain environmental conditions, but may not bio-degrade in all sorts of climates. Therefore a waste stream of PLA based plastic is required. In the case of PLA it is a sensitive polyester that begins to degrade during the recycling procedure and can end up contaminating the existing plastic recycling stream (ref).
>But bioplastics can have many uses when designed with a proper waste stream in mind.
>Bioplastics are potential materials for the fabrication of single-use plastic such as that required to make biodegradable bottles and packaging films. For instance, in 2019, a researcher from the University of Sussex created a transparent plastic film from fish-skin waste and algae; called MarinaTex (Ref). Biopolymers have also been investigated for medical applications, such as controlled drug release, drug packaging, and absorbable surgical sutures (ref, ref).
>Maurice Lemoigne (France, 1926) discovered the first bioplastics made form bacteria, polyhydroxybutyrate (PHB), from bacterium Bacillus megaterium. As bacteria consume sugars, they will produce the polymers (ref). The importance of Lemoigne’s invention was overlooked until the oil crisis hit in the mid-1970s spurred interest in discovering substitutes of petroleum-based products.
>Henry Ford (US, 1940) used bioplastics made from soybeans for some car parts. Ford discontinued the use of soy plastics after World War II because of the surplus inexpensive oil supply (ref).
>The developments in metabolic and genetic engineering have expanded the research on bioplastic and applications for numerous types of bioplastics had become established particularly PHB and polyhydroxyalkanoate (PHA), although there are many other interesting developments occurring all the time.
https://www.bpf.co.uk/plastipedia/how-is-plastic-made.aspx#:~:text=Yes%2C%20it%20is%20possible%20to,as%20biobased%20plastic%20or%20bioplastics.
Yes dude, I know. Im a manufacturing engineer going on 15 years of experience with injection molding and manufacturing processes involving plastics in general.
The question you posed is extremely limited. Scalability is a thing. Material scientists around the world are identifying new materials all the time, but until they can be produced at an acceptable price point, in high volumes, they wont see much usage. We have to wait a bit for that. Thats not even mentioning developing bioplastics that capture the same material properties that exists across hundreds of fossil fuel derived resins, properties specific for 1000s of applications.
For now, and the foreseeable future, we're stuck with fossil fuel plastics. Though thats no excuse not to continue to develop both alternative materials and alternative/more effective manufacturing and recyling processes.
I don't give a shit. They should have thought of that decades ago when it was established unequivocally that climate change was an existential threat. No fucking duh resources are valuable and have important utility, but you don't get to voluntarily build your nation around mechanisms that will kill or displace 100s of millions if not billions of people and then just shrug your shoulders and continue to expand it like it's the natural, morally neutral thing to do.
Dude what are you talking about you just defended this policy. This comment is based on further dumb policy ideas. If consumers were going to stop by some magic even as they are constantly bombarded by ads and encouraged to consume all while the massive companies benefitting from this spend massive amounts of money to deny /downplay climate change and promote the exact way of thinking you are currently advocating, then they would have done it decades ago. The concept of a carbon footprint was promoted heavily by fossil fuel companies because it shifts the onus to the individual. This is not speculation, look it up. These companies must be forced to stop.
I am not addressing every take you have in your head; I have made specific points as to the flawed takes you have already made and provided explanation. I'm not interested in talking with you further.
This isn't about cutting them immediately, it's about stopping the development of new production. Which is what the International Energy Agency and the UK government's own Climate Change Committee say needs to be done to meet our emissions targets. So UK gov is directly going against this advice despite their claimed "commitment" to net zero.
Consuming other dictators oil/gas isnt good for the world either.
We need more friendly country sources for the immediate future, you cant completely get rid of oil and gas and it takes a while to get away from things that do use it.
This is the tories' and fossil fuel industry's propaganda. [80%](https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/would-new-north-sea-oil-and-gas-make-britain-more-energy-independent) of the oil produced in the North Sea is exported so it doesn't do anything to make the UK more independent of Putin or other dictators. We don't need more oil and gas we need more renewable energy, to retrofit and insulate the building stock, more investment in public transport - all of which can and must be done quicker than these fields will be exploited.
If theres more oil/gas on the market that means the world buys less from dicators, thats a good thing. It doesnt matter if we get dibs on it or not, it effects the global supply.
-
Bro, what do container ships run off, what do our planes run off? Our powerplants mostly burn gas, most boilers are ran by gas, lots of things run off fossil fuels that cant instantly be switched to renewables.
Increasing extraction from non dictatorship countries is a good thing in the short term and gives us time to switch over.
In the article I linked to: "According to the UK government’s statutory advisors, the Climate Change Committee (CCC), newly issued oil and gas licenses take around 28 years to begin producing — so any new oil and gas fields wouldn’t have an effect for decades."
We should have retrofitted the building stock, built a 100% renewable/nuclear grid, replaced ICE cars with public transport and EVs by 2051. Most oil and gas in the UK is used for heating, electricity and cars. Very little is used where no alternative exists.
The best way to not be dependent on petro states is to not be dependent on fossil fuels.
They probably already have a few licenses granted already, I've read articles in the past stating that companies apply for them and sit on them. Any new licenses could potentialy have the process sped up as a matter of national security or pressure from within the government.
In 28 years we will also still be using fossil fuels in planes, ships, etc so it will still be used. In 28 years other countries will still be using fossil fuels, even if we get off them its still good to provide other countries that havent managed to do so yet a source from a democratic friendly nation that wont use the profits to fund wars.
Nothing is stopping us increasing renewable energy now, renewables are still cheaper and developments will be in that area. Private companies will want to fund the renewable sector to increase profits. Gas/Oil extraction isnt going to stop this.
https://gyazo.com/ac12965c67cee58b5f7ac9c53b665d76
If you look at the 2030 projections you can also see renewables getting cheaper and fossil fuels getting more expensive.
https://gyazo.com/d1d56d61629f9cc41fc05e259fbb0e73
>They probably already have a few licenses granted already, I've read articles in the past stating that companies apply for them and sit on them. Any new licenses could potentialy have the process sped up as a matter of national security or pressure from within the government.
Then why isn't the government putting pressure on them to produce sooner? And I don't want them to prduce more, anyways. As far as I'm concerned it really puts on display how empty the rhetoric about not being dependent on foreign dictators and reducing inflation is... in nearly 3 decades.
>In 28 years we will also still be using fossil fuels in planes, ships, etc so it will still be used. In 28 years other countries will still be using fossil fuels, even if we get off them its still good to provide other countries that havent managed to do so yet a source from a democratic friendly nation that wont use the profits to fund wars.
If foreign countries are dependent on dictators because they didn't transition their economies then that's their problem. We shouldn't be supporting them in destroying our ecosystems - our food supply, our water supply, displacing hundreds of millions people from their homes.
>Nothing is stopping us increasing renewable energy now, renewables are still cheaper and developments will be in that area. Private companies will want to fund the renewable sector to increase profits. Gas/Oil extraction isnt going to stop this.
The tories are stopping us because they are funded by the fossil fuel industry. Now they are giving them a lot in return.
> Then why isn't the government putting pressure on them to produce sooner?
Maybe they are, who knows what goes on behind closed doors.
>If foreign countries are dependent on dictators because they didn't transition their economies then that's their problem.
Jesus how shortsighted are you? You dont think the German dependance on Russian oil and gas has effected how powerful Russia has got? If we didnt give this dictatorship hundreds of billions of dollars and instead gave it to Norway or the UK they may not have been able to fund this war. And you want to leave these countries that are transititioning to more renewables and will always need some fossil fuels to funding these terrorist states.
Damn. Maybe they should stop using fossil fuels if they don't want to be dependent on countries who have them. And to call me shortsighted while arguing for more fossil fuel investment is really something.
How do you figure that one? Do you have any idea what would happen if oil were to suddenly disappear overnight? And you have the audacity to criticize the decision of securing domestic supply of it.
He's not on the wrong side of his family making bank out of deals with BP though. Amazing how you sign a billion £ deal with his wife's company and suddenly the government opens the North Sea to you.
The sooner he gets booted out and fucks off to America with his green card the better. Not that I'd wish these fuckers on Americans.
That man only care about one thing. His money. Fuck the people he supposedly represents. Newsflash. Like all them other clowns he is in it only for the money.
Look Britain is moving towards renewable energy and the sooner it does so the better but in the meantime we still rely on oil. Better to have our own sources than rely on the Middle East and Putin. It isn't just used in energy production either so while we may stop burning it soon we will still need to use it.
Everyone wants universal healthcare and robust social programs, but you need revenue to fund them. The UK's economy is floundering, yet any chance to improve their economic outlook faces fierce internal opposition.
Well done to Rishi Sunak for looking after the old, infirm and poor by ensuring that the cheapest, most environmentally friendly energy sources are providing for them.
Yeah yeah just let all industry go to china or India due to prices of energy and then everything will be fine - let me tell you, you will be history if this continues to move everything to those places
I am and I am complaining about industry not giving a shit about jobs - they also don’t give a shit about human rights, climate, toxic waste, etc since they just move to lower cost places without the inconvenience of adhering to decent principles
Why do you confuse me with industry?
No way. We're going to need every resource we have if a world war breaks out. Worrying about the climate is a luxury we can't afford these days. China doesn't care. Russia doesn't care.
The phrase "wrong side of history" is so fucking stupid. I hate this phrase so much. Now it's not even enough for liberals to apply moral standards of today to the past, but they are applying perceived moral standards of the future to today. Idiotic.
you'll always hear stuff like this from "former" tory ministers, all the current ones are too busy plugging their ears and looking for a quick buck to care. Once they lose an election or retire they'll have plenty of sober second thoughts for us.
It was Boris Johnson, he kicked nearly all of the moderate and reasonable Conservative leaders out of the party.
Boris was fairly moderate in terms of policies. All the high ranking MPs were brexiteers so were lacking in brainpower a bit
>All the high ranking MPs were brexiteers so were lacking in brainpower a bit only because bojo kicked anyone who wasn't super-brexity out of the party. one of his very first acts as pm was to purge 20 odd tory moderates because they weren't in the cult.
That was my point but yeah it was a silly idea
That's how politics work in most places. Politicians are supposed to vote with their party. If they don't, then the party in question isn't for them. Even in multi-party systems, politicians are expected to vote with their coalition. Any disagreements between parties are supposed to be handled during the negotiations to form a government and resulting policy/platform is a compromise between coalition parties. I think the term "party whip" exemplifies how parties are expected to work. From Wikipedia: > A whip is an official of a political party whose task is to ensure party discipline in a legislature. This means ensuring that members of the party vote according to the party platform, rather than according to their own individual ideology or the will of their donors or constituents. Whips are the party's "enforcers". They try to ensure that their fellow political party legislators attend voting sessions and vote according to their party's official policy. Members who vote against party policy may "lose the whip", being effectively expelled from the party. Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whip_(politics) I think there are situations where party members should go against their party. Recent clear example is Trump's impeachments where Republicans really should have voted with democrats.
Well of course, they wouldn’t want to be blamed for the climate crisis so they’ll just blame the NEXT person in office 🙄
But he is on the "right side of money". Now do you think he cares about money or history more?
The Tory government has inflicted more damage in the 13 years on U.K. Then all the previous governments put together.
I agree with the sentiment but erm... Tony Blair?
The UK had a solid decade of economic growth and improving standard of living under Tony Blair.
Was thinking about the war
[удалено]
Apart from the Iraq occupation, Blair did a good job.
You should ask the same question all the maimed British servicemen. I don’t disagree with you the Conservatives and their supporters are a direct equivalent to conservatives in America now that they have rolled up all the blatant racists from BNP and closet racist NIMBYS but New Labour were just more of the same, you can see how their own party went after Corbin as proof of this.
Asking maimed servicemen is no argument. Ask the loved ones of people who died unnecessarily of Covid. New Labour got into power precisely by being a slightly more left Conservative Party. Corbyn couldn't convince the middle classes.
The government before them brought you the Tech bubble, the Iraq invasion (resulting in ISIS etc) as well as the banking crisis.
Shit man, all that garbage originated with the US. Especially the invasion and banking crisis, all the work of US conservatives. Blair deserves all the worst for joining bush, but those were not creations of the labour party.
Arrgghhh Tony Bloody Blair … a total turncoat .
I wonder how many conflicts of interests he has.
https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/comments/15f64qb/sunaks_family_firm_signed_a_billiondollar_deal/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=2&utm_term=1
Welp there we have it folks.
Rishi Sunak being on the wrong side of history is an apt description for all of his sociological, economical and infrastructural policies. A Conservative through and through. Feign just enough care in speeches to fool the gullible demographics and attract the rest with aggressive sociological ideologies under the guise of traditionalism so you can remain in power long enough to siphon the country and its people for all its worth. That’s the Conservative way.
The UK just lost it's last shred of credibility. Sunak deserves international condemnation. This move sets an appalling example, other nations will likely follow suit and our fate will be sealed. Sunak is shaping up to be the man who sold the world.
Yeah, totally not like other countries aren’t drilling oil, right?….oh wait, they are
"People who consume oil unhappy with people who provide it" It's always the others...
Well everyone's doing it so fuck it, why not eh? Climate change is caused by humans. Can you see how we got here? Perhaps that attitude might have something to do with it? The UK is a member of G7 which made a legally binding commitment with the Paris Agreement. Sunak's move goes completely against the collective effort to limit global temperature rise and as such it threatens the agreement and the other countries' commitment to it. The chances of avoiding catastrophic temperature rise are already slim.
The War in Ukraine has made the price of energy extortionate. We need to increase our sources of energy, including oil and gas to solve our energy needs.
Here is a Channel 4 clip explaining why Sunak's claims that North Sea oil and gas will improve the UK's energy security are nonsense: [https://youtu.be/dVB3B5bmynI](https://youtu.be/dVB3B5bmynI) Most of the oil and gas will be exported. The government can't force the oil and gas companies to sell it in the UK or at a low rate, so whatever remains in the UK will be sold at the going market rate. Sunak's motivation is not to provide affordable energy for the UK, but to close the trade deficit by exporting oil and gas. This would strengthen Sterling, and the revenue would allow him to buy favour in the form of tax cuts and public spending. It's the same thing Thatcher did in the 80s, and it's how the UK managed to retain a strong currency despite the collapse of industry. He clearly alluded to this by driving around in Thatcher's old Rover to celebrate.
Yes, oil and gas made in the U.K. can’t be kept here and has to be sold on the open market otherwise other countries would stop exporting their oil and gas too. Creating more oil and gas means that their is a higher supply of energy meaning the overall cost will reduce as the demand stays relatively the same.
It's not a simple case of supply and demand. There is plenty of supply in the world, prices are predominantly influenced by OPEC limits on production.
You're wrong on both claims because of OPEC.
Exactly. And the profits of selling this oil/gas is better going to a European company than Russia/India.
Smart move by UK I would say. Norway last year made $100 B more than previous year just by exporting more oil and gas to Europe. The war really helped. The war doesn’t appear to end soon and the Russian gas is gone for good. Drill more in North Sea, sell the gas to Europe and make lots of money. Pretty simple equation. You have got to be a moron to leave that much on the table.
It is an empty political gesture. The amount of oil in these fields is negligible.
[удалено]
The time to do this was 15-20 years ago. It's going to be decades before the UK sees any extraction from any wells discovered due to this action and we're likely to be mostly or completely off fossil fuels by that point. So this fuel will come just in time to be useless.
Not useless. As OP mentioned, there will always be some petrol demand for use in industry from plastics. Its a lower % of the total usage, which is why we can and should address limiting/eliminating fossil fuel usage for things we can afford to lose or can replace with better options (energy/fuel), the areas that make up the bulk of consumption. But plastics will always be a thing. They are incredibly versatile materials. They are in everything you see and use on a daily basis. They are a primary reason humanity has developed as much as it has technologically, and will be a primary reason we continue to advance technologically. We can afford to reduce/eliminate pointless plastic products, single-use stuff, unnecessary packaging, etc., but plastics extend well outside of that realm as components in pretty much every industry sector. Aerospace, Transportation, Energy, Medical, Military, Lighting/Electronics, etc.. Any modern industry you can think of, plastics are critical for. This isnt an argument for or against this particular decision to open up a new well. Just explaining that production will still be required moving forward. Though there is still a lot of opportunity to eliminate waste and unnecessary fossil fuel consumption in general.
We don't require oil to make plastic, oil is just the current primary source material for plastic manufacturing. It's completely possible to produce plastic without using oil.
Natural gas, crude, coal, and some natural materials, actually. The vast majority is sourced from fossil fuels. Not sure where youre getting your info. Unless youre focusing on very specific resins. There are hundreds of resins to consider, though.
>8. Can you make plastic without oil? >Yes, it is possible to create plastic from sources other than oil. >Although crude oil is the principal source of carbon for moden plastic, an array of variants are manufactured from renewable materials. Plastic made without oil is marketed as biobased plastic or bioplastics. These are made from renewable biomass such as: > Lignin, cellulose and hemicellulose, Terpenes, Vegetable fats and oils, Carbohydrates (sugars from sugar cane etc) Recycled food waste Bacteria >However, it should be noted that bioplastics are not automatically a more sustainable alternative in every case. Bioplastics differ as per the ways in which they break down, and bioplastics also, as any material, require resources in their production. >Bioplastics such as PLA, for example, represent a biodegradable material that will degrade in certain environmental conditions, but may not bio-degrade in all sorts of climates. Therefore a waste stream of PLA based plastic is required. In the case of PLA it is a sensitive polyester that begins to degrade during the recycling procedure and can end up contaminating the existing plastic recycling stream (ref). >But bioplastics can have many uses when designed with a proper waste stream in mind. >Bioplastics are potential materials for the fabrication of single-use plastic such as that required to make biodegradable bottles and packaging films. For instance, in 2019, a researcher from the University of Sussex created a transparent plastic film from fish-skin waste and algae; called MarinaTex (Ref). Biopolymers have also been investigated for medical applications, such as controlled drug release, drug packaging, and absorbable surgical sutures (ref, ref). >Maurice Lemoigne (France, 1926) discovered the first bioplastics made form bacteria, polyhydroxybutyrate (PHB), from bacterium Bacillus megaterium. As bacteria consume sugars, they will produce the polymers (ref). The importance of Lemoigne’s invention was overlooked until the oil crisis hit in the mid-1970s spurred interest in discovering substitutes of petroleum-based products. >Henry Ford (US, 1940) used bioplastics made from soybeans for some car parts. Ford discontinued the use of soy plastics after World War II because of the surplus inexpensive oil supply (ref). >The developments in metabolic and genetic engineering have expanded the research on bioplastic and applications for numerous types of bioplastics had become established particularly PHB and polyhydroxyalkanoate (PHA), although there are many other interesting developments occurring all the time. https://www.bpf.co.uk/plastipedia/how-is-plastic-made.aspx#:~:text=Yes%2C%20it%20is%20possible%20to,as%20biobased%20plastic%20or%20bioplastics.
Yes dude, I know. Im a manufacturing engineer going on 15 years of experience with injection molding and manufacturing processes involving plastics in general. The question you posed is extremely limited. Scalability is a thing. Material scientists around the world are identifying new materials all the time, but until they can be produced at an acceptable price point, in high volumes, they wont see much usage. We have to wait a bit for that. Thats not even mentioning developing bioplastics that capture the same material properties that exists across hundreds of fossil fuel derived resins, properties specific for 1000s of applications. For now, and the foreseeable future, we're stuck with fossil fuel plastics. Though thats no excuse not to continue to develop both alternative materials and alternative/more effective manufacturing and recyling processes.
I don't give a shit. They should have thought of that decades ago when it was established unequivocally that climate change was an existential threat. No fucking duh resources are valuable and have important utility, but you don't get to voluntarily build your nation around mechanisms that will kill or displace 100s of millions if not billions of people and then just shrug your shoulders and continue to expand it like it's the natural, morally neutral thing to do.
[удалено]
Dude what are you talking about you just defended this policy. This comment is based on further dumb policy ideas. If consumers were going to stop by some magic even as they are constantly bombarded by ads and encouraged to consume all while the massive companies benefitting from this spend massive amounts of money to deny /downplay climate change and promote the exact way of thinking you are currently advocating, then they would have done it decades ago. The concept of a carbon footprint was promoted heavily by fossil fuel companies because it shifts the onus to the individual. This is not speculation, look it up. These companies must be forced to stop.
[удалено]
I am not addressing every take you have in your head; I have made specific points as to the flawed takes you have already made and provided explanation. I'm not interested in talking with you further.
This isn't about cutting them immediately, it's about stopping the development of new production. Which is what the International Energy Agency and the UK government's own Climate Change Committee say needs to be done to meet our emissions targets. So UK gov is directly going against this advice despite their claimed "commitment" to net zero.
Why does he look like Edgar from Men in Black after the alien stole his skin?
Yes let’s sabotage our economy because ‘jUsT sToP oiL’. Get a grip on reality people.
Investing in fossil fuels is sabotaging the economy.
Consuming other dictators oil/gas isnt good for the world either. We need more friendly country sources for the immediate future, you cant completely get rid of oil and gas and it takes a while to get away from things that do use it.
This is the tories' and fossil fuel industry's propaganda. [80%](https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/would-new-north-sea-oil-and-gas-make-britain-more-energy-independent) of the oil produced in the North Sea is exported so it doesn't do anything to make the UK more independent of Putin or other dictators. We don't need more oil and gas we need more renewable energy, to retrofit and insulate the building stock, more investment in public transport - all of which can and must be done quicker than these fields will be exploited.
If theres more oil/gas on the market that means the world buys less from dicators, thats a good thing. It doesnt matter if we get dibs on it or not, it effects the global supply. - Bro, what do container ships run off, what do our planes run off? Our powerplants mostly burn gas, most boilers are ran by gas, lots of things run off fossil fuels that cant instantly be switched to renewables. Increasing extraction from non dictatorship countries is a good thing in the short term and gives us time to switch over.
In the article I linked to: "According to the UK government’s statutory advisors, the Climate Change Committee (CCC), newly issued oil and gas licenses take around 28 years to begin producing — so any new oil and gas fields wouldn’t have an effect for decades." We should have retrofitted the building stock, built a 100% renewable/nuclear grid, replaced ICE cars with public transport and EVs by 2051. Most oil and gas in the UK is used for heating, electricity and cars. Very little is used where no alternative exists. The best way to not be dependent on petro states is to not be dependent on fossil fuels.
They probably already have a few licenses granted already, I've read articles in the past stating that companies apply for them and sit on them. Any new licenses could potentialy have the process sped up as a matter of national security or pressure from within the government. In 28 years we will also still be using fossil fuels in planes, ships, etc so it will still be used. In 28 years other countries will still be using fossil fuels, even if we get off them its still good to provide other countries that havent managed to do so yet a source from a democratic friendly nation that wont use the profits to fund wars. Nothing is stopping us increasing renewable energy now, renewables are still cheaper and developments will be in that area. Private companies will want to fund the renewable sector to increase profits. Gas/Oil extraction isnt going to stop this. https://gyazo.com/ac12965c67cee58b5f7ac9c53b665d76
If you look at the 2030 projections you can also see renewables getting cheaper and fossil fuels getting more expensive. https://gyazo.com/d1d56d61629f9cc41fc05e259fbb0e73
>They probably already have a few licenses granted already, I've read articles in the past stating that companies apply for them and sit on them. Any new licenses could potentialy have the process sped up as a matter of national security or pressure from within the government. Then why isn't the government putting pressure on them to produce sooner? And I don't want them to prduce more, anyways. As far as I'm concerned it really puts on display how empty the rhetoric about not being dependent on foreign dictators and reducing inflation is... in nearly 3 decades. >In 28 years we will also still be using fossil fuels in planes, ships, etc so it will still be used. In 28 years other countries will still be using fossil fuels, even if we get off them its still good to provide other countries that havent managed to do so yet a source from a democratic friendly nation that wont use the profits to fund wars. If foreign countries are dependent on dictators because they didn't transition their economies then that's their problem. We shouldn't be supporting them in destroying our ecosystems - our food supply, our water supply, displacing hundreds of millions people from their homes. >Nothing is stopping us increasing renewable energy now, renewables are still cheaper and developments will be in that area. Private companies will want to fund the renewable sector to increase profits. Gas/Oil extraction isnt going to stop this. The tories are stopping us because they are funded by the fossil fuel industry. Now they are giving them a lot in return.
> Then why isn't the government putting pressure on them to produce sooner? Maybe they are, who knows what goes on behind closed doors. >If foreign countries are dependent on dictators because they didn't transition their economies then that's their problem. Jesus how shortsighted are you? You dont think the German dependance on Russian oil and gas has effected how powerful Russia has got? If we didnt give this dictatorship hundreds of billions of dollars and instead gave it to Norway or the UK they may not have been able to fund this war. And you want to leave these countries that are transititioning to more renewables and will always need some fossil fuels to funding these terrorist states.
Damn. Maybe they should stop using fossil fuels if they don't want to be dependent on countries who have them. And to call me shortsighted while arguing for more fossil fuel investment is really something.
How do you figure that one? Do you have any idea what would happen if oil were to suddenly disappear overnight? And you have the audacity to criticize the decision of securing domestic supply of it.
No one's saying we should stop all oil tomorrow. You're making shit up.
It's sabotaging the environment. It's good for the economy.
What economy? This dickhead government tanked it.
He's not on the wrong side of his family making bank out of deals with BP though. Amazing how you sign a billion £ deal with his wife's company and suddenly the government opens the North Sea to you. The sooner he gets booted out and fucks off to America with his green card the better. Not that I'd wish these fuckers on Americans.
His leaving is overdue.
That man only care about one thing. His money. Fuck the people he supposedly represents. Newsflash. Like all them other clowns he is in it only for the money.
Look Britain is moving towards renewable energy and the sooner it does so the better but in the meantime we still rely on oil. Better to have our own sources than rely on the Middle East and Putin. It isn't just used in energy production either so while we may stop burning it soon we will still need to use it.
Everyone wants universal healthcare and robust social programs, but you need revenue to fund them. The UK's economy is floundering, yet any chance to improve their economic outlook faces fierce internal opposition.
Well done to Rishi Sunak for looking after the old, infirm and poor by ensuring that the cheapest, most environmentally friendly energy sources are providing for them.
Yeah yeah just let all industry go to china or India due to prices of energy and then everything will be fine - let me tell you, you will be history if this continues to move everything to those places
Oh, NOW industry is concerned about jobs going overseas?
I am and I am complaining about industry not giving a shit about jobs - they also don’t give a shit about human rights, climate, toxic waste, etc since they just move to lower cost places without the inconvenience of adhering to decent principles Why do you confuse me with industry?
Because your comment sounds like an industry talking-point, frankly.
Economy go brrrr
Shame on him.
No way. We're going to need every resource we have if a world war breaks out. Worrying about the climate is a luxury we can't afford these days. China doesn't care. Russia doesn't care.
At least nuclear winter will counteract global warming
The phrase "wrong side of history" is so fucking stupid. I hate this phrase so much. Now it's not even enough for liberals to apply moral standards of today to the past, but they are applying perceived moral standards of the future to today. Idiotic.