Rachel Reeves and Keir Starmer appear happy to pursue growth at any cost – including the destruction of the planet
Every extra oil well widens the availability of the product, that’s bad. Please stop drilling.
If we immediately stopping drilling for oil here, we won’t use less oil, we’ll use the same amount of oil, but buy it off the Saudis, who suck.
All oil goes on the global market. Drilling for it here doesn’t mean we use British oil here, and doesn’t meaningfully mean the Saudis produce any less. The only way forward is to wean ourselves off being dependent on oil
I didn’t say the Saudis would produce less, I said we’d use the same amount but buy more off the Saudis.
We do need to move away from oil dependence (and we are), but until we do that, we need oil from somewhere and we may as well get it here.
If we never drill for it. Or allow anyone else. Studies will run out eventually.
It is in no way a solution. But the simple fact is adding new wells extends the time corperations and governments can delay implementing alternatives. Increasing the total amount of harm done to the enviroment.
It is not a zero sum game. Providing our own dose not mean the world burns the same amount t it means we burn for longer with less urgency to alternative options and inferstructure.
I mean honestly I am 54 years old. I learned about climate change in school in 1982. It was known proven science back that far. Esso/Exxon was the company that discovered and prooved it was man made back in the early 70s. They then decided to invest billions in climate change denial. Internally selling ideas like the one you are sharing.
These ideas exist for one reason. To allow oil companies to extract every fucking penny they can out of oil. Before we stop them. Its fucking disgusting that they have not been jailed.
If it was in my power, I would certainly jail the CEOs and nationalise the oil companies, so I’m with you there.
However, stopping oil immediately before alternatives are in place would be a humanitarian disaster.
However, stopping oil immediately before alternatives are in place would be a humanitarian disaster
I agree. But many don’t. Its def up for debate.
But that is in no way justification for new dilling. All drilling new fields dose is give excuses to delay those alternatives. We are not really waiting for new tech to solve this problem. The tech we have today is able to do it. What we need it the fiscal and societal motivation to move away from oil. More oil will just motivate those currently making money from it to slow down that investment more.
We need to invest in major inferstructure uprated to our electrical grid. Copy ideas like Norway new overhead power for trucking. (Think electric trams but using roads and semi trucks. Then using battery for last mile transport etc. While its only a trial being built atm. It is the type of thinking we need. And better electrical grids are the first steps.
Unfortunately giving current oil interests longer is not in anyway the solution. As a society we need to accept the use is going to stop. So pull our freaking socks up and get on with it. We don’t need to wait for new tech. We need to implement the best of the current tech and stop finding excuses.
It’s interesting you cite Norway because as I said elsewhere in this thread, they are a major oil producer and exporter who are also committed to green infrastructure. That’s the exact approach I think we should take!
You are right that we have a lot of encouraging tech but deploying that takes time and money, and often an ‘upfront’ increase in carbon emissions. Other tech looks good but hasn’t been proven to scale up or is still in the trial stage (as you akcnolwedge).
As I said, I agree with you that Norway is the model to follow; but they produce a lot of oil.
Oil extracted near the UK doesn’t get used in the UK - it goes to the global market.
My line of argument does not require that the oil be used here.
and we are
Really? What makes you say that?
The government is investing record amounts in green energy, approving record numbers of green projects and rewriting planning law so it can approve even more.
You’ve given me a list of nice-sounding ideas but no references whatsoever to demonstrate that what you’re saying is true. What has made you think that these things are happening?
I’m not especially keen on googling things for you, as it’s publicly available information which is easy to find. I think a better question, given that these are straightforward facts widely reported in both the mainstream and specialist press, is why you don’t think they’re doing anything.
Might not be obvious, but every highlighted word above is a different link to evidence that Labour is, in fact, all what I claimed on climate change - and more. Some repetition, inevitably, but I wanted to use multiple kinds of sources. And I could keep going!
I’m not especially keen on googling things for you
For me? Wow. There was me thinking that providing well-sourced opinions was for the benefit of the writer in their not being dismissed out of hand.
publicly available information
Firstly, a majority of these links are to the same story reported in different publications. They give the impression that you searched the web for something like “labour green transition” and then copied all the URLs as links. I didn’t ask for help searching the web.
Secondly, none of the articles are about anything Labour has actually achieved, only what they say they’d like to do, are planning to do, or have done only as a result of procedures that were already in place when they took power. If these links are all you have then you have nothing convincing.
We buy almost all our oil from Norway, it’s our gas that comes from the Gulf
Well, we need both and we should keep exploring both, although we can probably get away from gas sooner.
Norway is actually a great example of what I think we should do: keep using oil in order to fund a rapid transition to green power. It’s working well for them!
