Is climate change a fraud?

[Max Power]

5 hours ago, Chinahand said:

Do you feel you are being controlled financially by fossil fuel companies taking a share of your taxes Max?

https://ourworldindata.org/fossil-fuel-subsidies

$2.55 billion was provided just to the UK fossil fuel industry in 2021

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/fossil-fuel-subsidies

For the World as a whole it is over $700 billion.

Why should we subsidize expensive polluting fuels?

Be very very careful with the information provided by people who Stu Peters associates with. It is out of date and misses a lot of information.

So, without those subsidies would we grind to a halt? We need energy, is what we get from renewals sufficient?

[Happier diner]

1 hour ago, Max Power said:

So, without those subsidies would we grind to a halt? We need energy, is what we get from renewals sufficient?

Renewals is unlimited. By it's very definition. 

[Chinahand]

2 hours ago, Max Power said:

So, without those subsidies would we grind to a halt? We need energy, is what we get from renewals sufficient?

It's the other way round. Those subsidies stop better technologies developing and replacing fossil fuels more quickly. 

[WTF]

9 hours ago, Happier diner said:

Renewals is unlimited. By it's very definition. 

 we could burn trees faster than we can grow them so are they actually renewable  or should they be classed as sustainable ??

[Happier diner]

9 minutes ago, WTF said:

 we could burn trees faster than we can grow them so are they actually renewable  or should they be classed as sustainable ??

They are only renewable if they grow as fast as you use them. Sustainable is pretty much the same thing.

[Max Power]

17 hours ago, Chinahand said:

It's the other way round. Those subsidies stop better technologies developing and replacing fossil fuels more quickly. 

I'm not altogether sure which way round it is, as the use of fossil fuels decreases, but renewables can't yet meet the demand, are the subsidies keeping the supply of energy required at optimum levels?

For example, the infrastructure around EVs is not sufficient for growth, if we didn't have petrol and diesel, transport would grind to a halt, including shipping and rail. Are the subsidies to keep our fuel supply afloat?

[Max Power]

Oh well, it had to happen sooner or later...

[Banker]

More funds to support climate targets which as we all know won’t impact anything given our minuscule size!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5yjx0rdvq1o?fbclid=IwY2xjawFX2QBleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHfIYQ-80UKX3zbFfiIkcxtTLiIj8yxjfaiLTnnhc314M9Und0tXu-7s6yQ_aem_kjc5gjC6hiq5sO2mNEJtnw

[Max Power]

I thought this was a good analysis, 70 years on from the introduction of wind and solar:

In the seven decades since solar and wind energy were introduced as the vanguard of a green revolution, have we truly considered their feasibility, effectiveness, and the hidden costs associated with their widespread adoption? As the world grapples with climate alarmism, the mythos surrounding green energy demands a critical re-evaluation. Is our pursuit of this renewable utopia as calculated and beneficial as we’ve been led to believe? Solar and wind energy, despite their long-standing presence and the hefty trillions of taxpayer dollars invested, contribute a mere 4% to the global energy supply. This is a staggering shortfall for technologies heralded as the cornerstone of sustainability. The intermittent nature of these energy sources—dependent on the sun shining and the wind blowing—necessitates a reliance on fossil fuels as backup. This dependency raises a profound question: Are we merely circling back to traditional energy sources under the guise of progress? Beyond their operational inefficiencies, the environmental impact of these technologies paints a troubling picture. Solar farms, once seen as the embodiment of environmental harmony, have been found to disrupt local ecosystems. The Photovoltaic Heat Island effect, where solar panels inadvertently raise local temperatures, poses significant ecological challenges. Moreover, the adverse effects on wildlife, from incinerated birds to deceived insects, threaten biodiversity and undermine the environmental benefits these technologies purport to offer. The financial repercussions are equally concerning. The trillions spent on subsidies for solar and wind energy could arguably have been better allocated. Investments in improving energy efficiency or cleaner fossil fuel technologies might have provided more immediate and reliable results. Yet, this financial drain continues, overshadowing other viable green alternatives like nuclear energy, which offers a low-emission and reliable energy source free from the fickleness of sunlight and wind. As we look to the future, the question remains: Do we genuinely have a plan, or are we simply following a path paved by men such as Al Gore, Maurice Strong and Roger Revelle, one meant to open up the government coffers and enrich them and their connections? The true cost of green energy extends far beyond financial expenditure; it encompasses environmental degradation, resource misallocation, and a potential misstep in the belief that we can affect climate change. The narrative surrounding green energy must evolve. We must acknowledge the limitations and challenges of solar and wind technologies while exploring more balanced and effective energy strategies. This includes embracing nuclear energy, investing in technological advancements, and developing robust recycling and environmental management practices. As the world stands on the precipice of an energy evolution, it is imperative that we critically assess our current trajectory. Are we prepared to continue investing in a vision that has yet to deliver on its promises, or will we recalibrate our approach, ensuring that our energy policies are truly sustainable and beneficial for future generations? The time for introspection and decisive action is now.

[Non-Believer]