Am I still allowed to question climate change?

[Flexo]

Tsk... all this divide-and-conquer.

[Cyclone]

Based on what?

This is just a popular meme supported by the green lobby.

 

And what supports the popular meme that the green lobby has strong influence?

 

You can't dismiss the lobbying efforts of a multi billion £ industry, whilst claiming that a vastly less rich group of environmentalists succeeds with lobbying can you?

[unbeliever]

And what supports the popular meme that the green lobby has strong influence?

 

You can't dismiss the lobbying efforts of a multi billion £ industry, whilst claiming that a vastly less rich group of environmentalists succeeds with lobbying can you?

 

Depends whether you count the vast amount of taxpayers' money available to the green lobbies and their supporters.

[Cyclone]

Depends whether you count the vast amount of taxpayers' money available to the green lobbies and their supporters.

 

Is there such a thing? Are greenpeace funded by the taxpayer?

[unbeliever]

Is there such a thing? Are greenpeace funded by the taxpayer?

 

Not directly at least.

WWF gets some tens of millions per year from governments.

I haven't checked the others.

 

The scientific community in this area (some of whom I know personally) get an awful lot of government money, are far from politically quiet, and are subject to a political litmus test. That's a lot of influence right there.

Now to an extent that's how it should be in a technocratic system with democratic oversight (which is kind of what modern government is in my view). But it draws scientists and interest groups into the political arena and thereby corrupts their independence.

 

You can surely see that funding for climate science, green parties and environmental lobby groups would fall dramatically if the CO2 threat was seen to be resolved or even clearly in the process of being resolved. Which is exactly what would be the state if affairs once a large scale nuclear building program was underway.

Edited January 12, 2017 by unbeliever

[Flexo]

if the CO2 threat was seen to be resolved or even clearly in the process of being resolved.

 

That sounds nice.

 

Are you optimistic about if and when that shall happen?

[unbeliever]

That sounds nice.

 

Are you optimistic about if and when that shall happen?

 

 

I don't think it will happen. We're doing completely the wrong things to achieve it. As I have been saying for quite some time.

[Obelix]

And what supports the popular meme that the green lobby has strong influence?

 

You can't dismiss the lobbying efforts of a multi billion £ industry, whilst claiming that a vastly less rich group of environmentalists succeeds with lobbying can you?

 

Do you remember the Brent Spar when Greenpeace knowingly and mendaciously lied about almost everything to get Shell to abandon the deep sea disposal of the platform.

 

It got so bad that Shell stations were attacked and the staff assaulted before Shell gave in. Then Greenpeace basically said "Yeah we lied and we will carry on lying about things to get our way"

[Flexo]

Ah. Then I'm lost as to what your point was there.

 

As you mention "green lobby" (if we must put people into tribes) and nuclear.... I don't recall much comment about nuclear being environmentally bad for some time now. That peaked in the 80's and 90's.

 

Some, like George Monbiot, have become quite evangelical supporters of nuclear power.

 

NIMBYism will be a problem of course. Some folk go insane at the thought of having a windmill in sight - they won't want a nuclear power station. But there are sites we can use and that issue is worst in densely populated countries like the UK.

 

There was a debate about Hinckley C but largely around the very high price the govt has guaranteed to pay for the electric. George Monbiot suggest this is owing to it being developed off the govt balance sheet:

 

So how do the operators, the French company EdF, expect Hinkley C – even if it can be built – to be economically viable? By extracting from the government a price guarantee of £92.50 per megawatt hour for the electricity it produces, index-linked for 35 years.

 

This is simply astronomical. It is more than twice the current wholesale price of electricity, and more than the government is now paying for solar power, whose costs are expected to fall greatly during the lifetime of the nuclear plant. Against current prices, the government’s guarantee represents a subsidy of over £1 billion a year.

 

One of the reasons that the cost is so high is that the plant is being built with private cash, on the expectation of a 15% return. This is a classic example of market fundamentalism trouncing value for money. If the government were building this plant, it could borrow at 2.5% across 30 years.

 

It’s not as if the risk is wholly born by the investors anyway. The government is underwriting much of the cost of the project through its infrastructure guarantee scheme. If the project fails, it could mean that taxpayers had to cover £17bn of the £24.5bn construction cost.

 

....

 

Some fourth-generation designs, if governments are prepared to invest in sufficient research and development, could answer three needs at once: for low carbon energy, energy security and the disposal of nuclear waste. But Hinkley C commits us to 20th-Century technologies for much of the 21st.

 

Yes, we are still pro-nuclear. But not at any price.

[flamingjimmy]

You can't dismiss the lobbying efforts of a multi billion £ industry, whilst claiming that a vastly less rich group of environmentalists succeeds with lobbying can you?

 

That appears to be exactly what he's doing as far as I can see.

 

In any case, here's some stuff:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/feb/17/fossil-fuel-industry-gives-37m-to-major-parties-and-gets-big-subsidy-in-return

 

http://energydesk.greenpeace.org/2015/05/06/donor-watch-tory-city-donors-invested-in-coal-oil-and-gas/

 

And across the other side of the pond

 

https://www.desmogblog.com/2016/02/17/fossil-fuel-industry-spending-millions-2016-presidential-candidates

 

Also there's the fact that the former CEO of one of the World's largest oil companies is apparently about to have a senior position in the world's most powerful government.

 

That's from 10 seconds of googling, to be honest I can't really believe anyone actually challenged the statement. Just to be clear Obelix what is it that you don't believe? That the fossil industry donates millions to political parties or that there's some equivalent well of money on the other side that that greens have to take from?

 

And before you go on about government subsidies for green industries, the fossil fuel industries apparently get even more:

 

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/new-figures-published-by-the-imf-show-the-uk-provides-more-subsidies-for-fossil-fuels-than-renewables/

 

---------- Post added 12-01-2017 at 16:51 ----------

 

Depends whether you count the vast amount of taxpayers' money available to the green lobbies and their supporters.

 

Kind of like the even vaster government subsidies available to fossil fuel industries, according to the well known hippie green thinktank the IMF.

Edited January 12, 2017 by flamingjimmy