Global warming strikes again...

[MrCynical]

Not really because this is based on a false equivalence. If you're buying electricity generated from coal, then in a sense you're kinda to blame.

Nope - this thread's gone somewhere weird because it's relying on the principle that it doesn't matter where you're buying from. The UK doesn't buy gas from Turkmenistan, or have any say in that country's production of gas. Yet this thread is trying to blame the UK for it (and even more strangely, specifically the UK rather than gas users generally, but I digress). This establishes the principle that if something you're using is being produced in a polluting way, you're responsible for it, even if you don't buy from them, or have any connection to it. This logic goes to some really stupid places when you start to explore the implications.

 

[EnglishEdward]

.. are putting money into the system you have to take some responsibility for the outcomes of that system...

The logic of that is that everyone is responsible for everything which according
to Gilbert and Sullivan logic means that no one is responsible for anything.

Not massive enough given that somewhere between a third and half your electricity still comes from gas.

The reason that much UK electricity comes from gas is because the know all environmentalists
onlty too successfully campaigned against new nuclear power and continuing with coal.

Furthermore the investment in UK wind has not stopped, it is continuing on the continental
shelf e.g. the North Sea, and more recently there has been investment in solar panel power.

 

[Lexicus]

Nope - this thread's gone somewhere weird because it's relying on the principle that it doesn't matter where you're buying from. If something you're using is being produced in a polluting way, you're responsible for it, even if you don't buy from them, or have any connection to it. This logic goes to some really stupid places when you start to explore the implications.

Again, the point would have to implicate electricity generated from coal in order for the logical equivalence to work. It would be more on the order of: you are responsible for emissions from a dirty coal plant even if you're actually getting your electricity from a newer, cleaner coal plant.

 

[Samson]

To be equivalent, this requires releasing to be an inevitable part of the extraction process, and to be similar for all natural gas producers. I'm not seeing anything to indicate leaks on anywhere near this order of magnitude from countries the UK actually buys from.

If I buy a bar a of gold that was mined a long time ago I still have some responsibility for the harm caused by the mercury runoff from current illegal mining in the amazon. It is about providing price support.

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.

I think it does. You can get your electricity from "100% renewable sources", and I guess it must have some advantage over not, but it is not like the same for the environment as not using that electricity, right? If that electricity was not used (over the rime scale for it to matter) then less fossil fuel would be used, and the environment would be better off. One has to take responsibility for that difference.

The logic of that is that everyone is responsible for everything which according
to Gilbert and Sullivan logic merans that no one is responsible for anything.

Everyone is responsible for everything that their actions affected, but only partially. It seems pretty basic morals to me, but it is not something I have read anything on.

 

[MrCynical]

Again, the point would have to implicate electricity generated from coal in order for the logical equivalence to work. It would be more on the order of: you are responsible for emissions from a dirty coal plant even if you're actually getting your electricity from a newer, cleaner coal plant.

Nope - if we use Samson's above logic, it's all pushing up the price of electricity, so you're responsible for all generation methods. It is an exact equivalence.

To be clear - I don't agree with this. My point is that this line of logic doesn't work.

 

[Samson]

To be clear - I don't agree with this. My point is that this line of logic doesn't work.

If I mine bitcoin with E.ON electricity, who claim "All our customers' homes and businesses get 100% renewable electricity, at no extra cost" do you think I can claim it is carbon neutral?

 

[MrCynical]

think it does. You can get your electricity from "100% renewable sources", and I guess it must have some advantage over not, but it is not like the same for the environment as not using that electricity, right? If that electricity was not used (over the rime scale for it to matter) then less fossil fuel would be used, and the environment would be better off. One has to take responsibility for that difference.

We're mixing a few different things here.

Reducing demand is an environmental plus, but I do apply an "is it at least being used for something useful?" modifier to that. I rate bitcoin/blockchain stuff very poorly even if it could be proven to be running exclusively off renewable sources. This is because it is absurdly energy inefficient for what it actually accomplishes. Better to use that renewable power to bring non-renewable demand down, because almost anything has a better utility to cost ratio than the blockchain. It would be nice if we could run everything off renewables, but we're not at that point yet, and the UK measures up rather well both in terms of the percentage of renewables and the rate of increase.

Then we have the UK energy suppliers that claim "100% of their power comes from renewable sources". I consider these little more than accounting games. You're still running off the same grid, it's just shuffling money and figures around to argue you're somehow not.

But when it's a gas supplier the UK doesn't buy from, and isn't physically connected to, and has no political influence over, there are basic logical problems in arguing we're responsible for them.

f I mine bitcoin with E.ON electricity, who claim "All our customers' homes and businesses get 100% renewable electricity, at no extra cost" do you think I can claim it is carbon neutral?

No. You're still running off the same power plants and grid regardless of Eon's accounting. I regard most carbon offsetting/credits/neutrality as meaningless number shuffling. Also, as above - bitcoin is such a waste of energy even if you could genuinely run it solely off renewable sources, I would still regard it as negative, as it could be used for something more useful.

 

[Samson]

Reducing demand is an environmental plus, but I do apply an "is it at least being used for something useful?" modifier to that. I rate bitcoin/blockchain stuff very poorly even if it could be proven to be running exclusively off renewable sources. This is because it is absurdly energy inefficient for what it actually accomplishes. Better to use that renewable power to bring overall demand down, because almost anything has a better utility to cost ratio than the blockchain. It would be nice if we could run everything off renewables, but we're not at that point yet, and the UK measures up rather well both in terms of the percentage of renewables and the rate of increase.

I was only talking about the costs. We can debate the benefits in a separate thread.

I was considering the costs and the benefits separately, with the idea . Above I was only considering the

Then we have the UK energy suppliers that claim "100% of their power comes from renewable sources". I consider these little more than accounting games. You're still running off the same grid, it's just shuffling money and figures around to argue you're somehow not.

But when it's a gas supplier the UK doesn't buy from, and isn't physically connected to, and has no political influence over, there are basic logical problems in arguing we're responsible for them.

Why does it matter if the influence is economic not political? If we are getting it from the same interconnected market us buying the gas incentivises the gas production.

It is not trivial to fine out where our gas comes from and where Turkmenistan's gas goes. I found the map below, which shows we get a lot from europe, particularly Norway, and a certain amount from further afield that must be by ship. My understanding is that most of Turkmenistan's gas goes to europe via the various pipelines like the Trans-Caspian Gas Pipeline, and this is a relatively recent development about contemporaneous with our move from coal to gas. Now I am no expert in the the gas markets, but it seems fairly obvious that had we moved to renewables instead of gas, and all the gas we are currently burning was available on the European market the investment in the various gas pipelines across the caucasus and Turkey would not have happened, the Turkmenistan gas fields would have remained underutilized and this gas would stay in the ground.

Is this too much of a stretch? Is this more than I am responsible or the monero emissions beyond the 1/50p I pay?

Spoiler UK gas sources :

 

[MrCynical]

It is not trivial to fine out where our gas comes from and where Turkmenistan's gas goes. I found the map below, which shows we get a lot from europe, particularly Norway, and a certain amount from further afield that must be by ship. My understanding is that most of Turkmenistan's gas goes to europe via the various pipelines like the Trans-Caspian Gas Pipeline, and this is a relatively recent development about contemporaneous with our move from coal to gas.

I am not seeing any evidence that any of the UK's gas comes from Turkmenistan, whether we look at the approach of who we are paying, or where individual gas molecules were pumped out of the ground. If you can find such evidence I'm happy to look at it, but all sources are fairly consistent that I'm seeing.

Why does it matter if the influence is economic not political? If we are getting it from the same interconnected market us buying the gas incentivises the gas production.

What economic influence? Our purchasing requirements are not dependent on Turkmenistan's production methods. The largest influence that the UK can exert economically is where we buy from - which is already firmly "not them".

Is this too much of a stretch? Is this more than I am responsible or the monero emissions beyond the 1/50p I pay?

I don't regard you personally as responsible for monero's emissions. I assign most of the blame for that to those mining/speculating and profiting from monero. Processing day to day financial transactions is weirdly irrelevant to monero's running when you dismantle how that particular pile of crypto works.

 

[Lexicus]

The largest influence that the UK can exert economically is where we buy from

The UK could also decide to do renewable energy and not buy at all, is I think the point. It's not invalid but I do think it's a bit of a weak argument on which to hang UK's culpability in Turkmenistan's leakages.

 

[MrCynical]

The UK could also decide to do renewable energy and not buy at all, is I think the point. It's not invalid but I do think it's a bit of a weak argument on which to hang UK's culpability in Turkmenistan's leakages.

And as noted above, the UK has an unusually large renewable sector for an economy of its size, and has been rapidly expanding it. Mostly wind power, since it's simply the most efficient round here.

The idea the UK can simply stop buying gas right now on the spot is impractical when it comes to keeping the lights on, but it is doing a lot more to get away from it than most users. Which just part of the reason assigning blame for a gas supplier the UK doesn't even buy from is so blatantly silly.

Honest question, how much of this attempt to assign the blame to the UK (and only the UK it appears), comes down to the fact the original article used the UK simply to compare the magnitude?

 

[Samson]

I am not seeing any evidence that any of the UK's gas comes from Turkmenistan, whether we look at the approach of who we are paying, or where individual gas molecules were pumped out of the ground. If you can find such evidence I'm happy to look at it, but all sources are fairly consistent that I'm seeing.

I do not think any amount of Turkmenistan gas gets to the UK.

What economic influence? Our purchasing requirements are not dependent on Turkmenistan's production methods. The largest influence that the UK can exert economically is where we buy from - which is already firmly "not them".

I think that if, over the last couple of decades the UK had not started importing gas from Europe and had spent that money on renewables that the Turkmenistan gas industry would not have been developed. That means that our decision to transition to gas rather than renewables was at least partially causative on the current gas leaks. I call that economic influence, but it is logical We did X, Y happened. Had we not done X Y would not have happened, therefore we are responsible for Y.

The UK could also decide to do renewable energy and not buy at all, is I think the point. It's not invalid but I do think it's a bit of a weak argument on which to hang UK's culpability in Turkmenistan's leakages.

How would you feel about the logic that buying an old bar of gold contributes to current gold mining damage?

 

[Lexicus]

How would you feel about the logic that buying an old bar of gold contributes to current gold mining damage?

Valid, but the degree of culpability is not large.

 

[MrCynical]

I think that if, over the last couple of decades the UK had not started importing gas from Europe and had spent that money on renewables that the Turkmenistan gas industry would not have been developed.

A tough hypothesis to defend, and one I will leave to you to try. This seems to drastically overestimate the percentage of global gas imports the UK accounts for.

There's also a problem with the basic concept here, in that the UK has been both increasing gas imports and renewable percentage simultaneously over the past couple of decades. This has more to do with the abolition of coal plants, and declining North sea gas production. The only realistic scenario I can see where gas imports would be lower at this point would be if investment had been in nuclear, rather than renewables over a span of decades.

 

[Lexicus]

A tough hypothesis to defend, and one I will leave to you to try. This seems to drastically overestimate the percentage of global gas imports the UK accounts for.

There's also a problem with the basic concept here, in that the UK has been both increasing gas imports and renewable percentage simultaneously over the past couple of decades. This has more to do with the abolition of coal plants, and declining North sea gas production. The only realistic scenario I can see where gas imports would be lower at this point would be if investment had been in nuclear, rather than renewables over a span of decades.

The thing is, it's all fungible. Any other country could make the same argument that they don't contribute that much to the global total, and while we all point fingers at one another it keeps getting hotter.

 

[MrCynical]

The thing is, it's all fungible. Any other country could make the same argument that they don't contribute that much to the global total, and while we all point fingers at one another it keeps getting hotter.

This was in response to Samson's assertion that the UK buys so much gas that Turkmenistan would not have bothered setting up a gas industry at all if we didn't. It is not a comment on contributions to global warming.

 

[Lexicus]

This was in response to Samson's assertion that the UK buys so much gas that Turkmenistan would not have bothered setting up a gas industry at all if we didn't. It is not a comment on contributions to global warming.

Anyone know how Turkmenistan's production compares to the UK's consumption?

 

[MrCynical]

2.9 million million cubic ft for Turkmenistan vs. 1.7 for the UK, according to worldometers.

So about 70% more, to avoid horrible units.

 

[Samson]

A tough hypothesis to defend, and one I will leave to you to try. This seems to drastically overestimate the percentage of global gas imports the UK accounts for.

If we can accept that if that causality existed there would be responsibility that is my main point at least.

There's also a problem with the basic concept here, in that the UK has been both increasing gas imports and renewable percentage simultaneously over the past couple of decades. This has more to do with the abolition of coal plants, and declining North sea gas production. The only realistic scenario I can see where gas imports would be lower at this point would be if investment had been in nuclear, rather than renewables over a span of decades.

I am fairly confident if I was tyrant of the UK we could have done it with renewables. The seven and swansea tidal projects would have been high on my list, as well a a lot more windmills. Whether there was the political capital to implement that is another question, but we could have been a whole lot closer if the politicians had paid as much real attention to the problem as they did lip service.

Investing the amount we did to change to a different fossil fuel that always had the leakage problem never really made sense to me from an environmental standpoint.

 

[9gkj548hkm20vk79dj689bnj4]

I am not sure how you work out that the UK is to blame for gas leaks in Turmenistan.

especially if Turkmensitan may have a poor environmental record anyway...that any extraction operation going on pollutes too much...

(maybe they do, maybe they don't, I don't know)