EnglishEdward
Deity
‘When the UK is burning so much methane these leaks are part of our emissions.
I am not sure how you work out that the UK is to blame for gas leaks in Turmenistan.
‘When the UK is burning so much methane these leaks are part of our emissions.
If you are buying gas you are supporting the global gas price. I am not sure how much it matters exactly where any individual bit of gas comes from.I am not sure how you work out that the UK is to blame for gas leaks in Turmenistan.
*yea actually horrified screams here*Global warming set to break key 1.5C limit for first time
Also the World Meteorological Organisation needs to learn about how to ramp up web server capacity when they make announcements, their site is not loading for me.
Our overheating world is likely to break a key temperature limit for the first time over the next few years, scientists predict.
Researchers say there's now a 66% chance we will pass the 1.5C global warming threshold between now and 2027.
Hitting the threshold would mean the world is 1.5C warmer than it was during the second half of the 19th Century, before fossil fuel emissions from industrialisation really began to ramp up.
The 1.5C figure has become a symbol of global climate change negotiations. Countries agreed to "pursue efforts" to limit global temperature rises to 1.5C under the 2015 Paris agreement.
Going over 1.5C every year for a decade or two would see far greater impacts of warming, such as longer heatwaves, more intense storms and wildfires.
But passing the level in one of the next few years would not mean that the Paris limit had been broken. Scientists say there is still time to restrict global warming by cutting emissions sharply.
Since 2020 the World Meteorological Organisation has been giving an estimate of the chances of the world breaking the 1.5C threshold in any one year.
Back then they predicted there was less than a 20% chance of breaking 1.5C in the five years ahead.
By last year this had increased to 50%, and now it's jumped to 66%, which the scientists say means it's "more likely than not."
you're using gas. if you want to not get blame for using gas, don't use gas.If the global gas price is higher, then Turkmenistan is losing more value (in escaping gas) and ought
to earn more money (from selling that gas which doesn't escape) to pay to better control the leaks.
The UK has been diversifying away from fossil fuels, including natural gas, for some time now.
Of course telling people off for flaring gas (easily detected) may have encouraged them to leak instead,
but UK culpability would require evidence that the Turmenistanis pay attention to UK environmentalists.
*yea actually horrified screams here*
you're using gas. if you want to not get blame for using gas, don't use gas.
whether you're only partially using gas, whether other people are selling you gas, whether whatever, distracts you from the point. you're using gas. if you don't want to, stop. if you want to, don't waffle![]()
It is part of the UK's responsibility. Whether it is gas, gold or bitcoin buying some increase the price of all and so incentivises its extraction.None of this substantiates the statement that the gas leaks in Turkmenistan are part of the UK's emissions.
The leakage is a result of extraction. If they were not extracting gas it would not be leaking.But it doesn't incentivise its leakage.
If the alternative to isolationism is the UK trying to impose its will on Turmenistan to end gas leaks or whatever, then isolationism may be better.
The Taleban is direspecting of human rights, yet trying to impose them by foreign occupation was counter-productive.
In my opinion the UK government ought to better concentrate on issues and problems within the UK.
you can buy gas several ways.But it doesn't incentivise its leakage.
No, they are not part of the UK emissions.When the UK is burning so much methane these leaks are part of our emissions.
Padme.jpg
So you'd support massive investments in renewable energy to make the UK independent of natural gas supplies, right?
if you don't want gas to leak, don't buy gas.
you can buy gas several ways.
for cheap, then stuff like this will happen more often.
for expensive, then stuff like this will happen less often.
(it's also god damn turkmenistan who you're trading with, which is up there with the worst dictatorships, but rarely heard about, because it's turkmenistan.)
It is part of the UK's responsibility. Whether it is gas, gold or bitcoin buying some increase the price of all and so incentivises its extraction.
Buying gold increases the amount of environmental damage done by gold mining. Just because in this case the damage comes from carelessness about releasing the product rather releasing mercury or whatever do not make the logic any different. Had everyone switched to renewables rather than gas this release would not be occurring.This argument is non-sensical. Increasing the price reduces the incentive for wasting the increasingly valuable commodity by simply leaking it into the atmosphere. Buying gold does not increase the amount of people dumping it in landfills.
The UK has already made massive investments in wind power.
Increasing the price reduces the incentive for wasting the increasingly valuable commodity by simply leaking it into the atmosphere.
Buying gold increases the amount of environmental damage done by gold mining. Just because in this case the damage comes from carelessness about releasing the product rather releasing mercury or whatever do not make the logic any different. Had everyone switched to renewables rather than gas this release would not be occurring.
Not massive enough given that somewhere between a third and half your electricity still comes from gas.
Just a reminder - by the tortuous logic this thread is running on, even if it all came from renewable sources, you'd still be to blame for every grubby coal power plant even if you're not buying from them.![]()