“Non c’è futuro”: gli attivisti esortano Burnham a respingere il controverso giacimento petrolifero britannico nel Mare del Nord
“There is no future”: Campaigners urge Burnham to reject controversial UK North Sea oil field
di Some-Technology4413
“Non c’è futuro”: gli attivisti esortano Burnham a respingere il controverso giacimento petrolifero britannico nel Mare del Nord
“There is no future”: Campaigners urge Burnham to reject controversial UK North Sea oil field
di Some-Technology4413
22 commenti
Campaigners. Famously an alternative way to say “activists who’ve never worked a single job that actually has responsibilities and know nothing they’re talking about”.
All the points the protestors make about using fossil fuels being bad are ok. Can any of them explain though, in the next 20-30 years of transition to Net Zero, why spending tax payers money on buying oil and gas from anyone, anywhere in the world, is better and more environmentally friendly than using UK oil and gas, where we have a degree of control over how it’s produced and we earn money from its extraction?
The idea that North Sea extraction, which in total is 0.7% of global oil production, is in anyway going to move the needle I just don’t understand. If it was hypothetically entirely shutdown tomorrow it would do very little to global prices, consumption would continue as it would anyway and we’d have less tax intake and less jobs.
Getting away from oil isn’t going to be solved in the North Sea.
We need to build more Nuclear power, wind and wave power. Drilling will only enrich rich people because the oil and gas will NOT go to Britain, it will be sold overseas and this pleases Trump.
The UK as a whole contributes only 1-2% of global greenhouse emissions. I know that will surprise many but it is the truth. If we take only greenhouse emissions from personal transportation, that number becomes lower.
We need to drill for oil and rescue this country from being permanently skint, and sod the affluent middle class activists, they’ve never had to worry about a thing in their lives because their parents have paid for everything!
It’s a complete waste of time and money what on earth is he thinking?
Thing is though we still live in a petrochemical economy and that’s not going to change any time soon even if you don’t use it for fuel. We still need lubricants, solvents, plastics, adhesives etc. having that under sovereign control is no bad thing the way the world is atm. The new fields earmarked are a mere 0.1% of global oil production.
We should not pump our own oil. Instead, buy it from Russia, China, or somewhere else who has no qualms about destroying the environment. That way, you can feel good about being green while paying for a premium for still destroying the environment.
It’s a pay off. It’s purpose is to appease powerful people who can make his life very difficult.
Why can’t we just allow private companies to drill if they want to but put absolutely no public finances into it
Anyone who opposes these developments that does any of the following is either a hypocrite or just prefers other countries to have jobs and wealth over their own:
-Buys non-organic food. Hydrogen from natural gas is used to make synthetic fertilisers.
-Drives a petrol or diesel car.
-Takes a flight
-Uses anything made from plastic where alternatives exist.
-Has a gas boiler in their house
-Pays for electricity that isn’t 100% renewable.
The list goes on.
Obviously we need to achieve net zero for economic and environmental reasons but it will require one of the largest overhauls of this country’s infrastructure to date and won’t happen overnight. In the meantime we should be using our own resources to keep people in work and retain the tax revenue while simultaneously investing in net zero.
Unless this directly brings my actual energy bills down ( which it won’t they just want line to go up )
I don’t want them drilling for anything .
Unfortunately, we do need to manage decline of the oil fields whilst we transition further to renewables. It’s not the solution to our energy prices some people are presenting it as, but it’s tax income as well as preventing a further drop in oil production at a volatile time that would raise prices and make everything, including building more renewable power, more expensive.
Alongside what others have said, it’s fundamentally too easy and too tempting for governments to dip back into using up the North Sea oil whenever things get slightly tough. We need to remove that incentive now before it becomes unavailable when we hit a serious crisis.
Keep it there until we truly need it as a strategic resource. If we can electrify enough not to need it at all, then that’s an added bonus.
>“There is no future”
They say as they dismantle that future by banning the things that would enable it.
It’s all to keep a few people happy and in work around Aberdeen and to stop the recent Tory swing in that part of the world.
We will own none of this oil. It’s all foreign licences. It’ll have zero effect on energy bills as much as the papers claim it will.
[If potentially 90% of the oil and gas has already been extracted](https://eciu.net/media/press-releases/around-90-of-uk-north-sea-oil-and-gas-already-drained-dry-analysis) is the best option really to allow private companies to come and extract what little we have left to sell on the private market, whilst taking government subsidies and never paying taxes?
Yes we should continue to import oil/gas from friendly countries like Iran, despite having the emissions of shipping it half way around the world and would never ever use our energy dependence as a weapon against us.
Wah wah wah constantly crying aren’t they. Everything they use is made from oil, but that doesn’t get them attention I guess. The more oil drilling the better, none of this net zero garbage.
Denial of the further extraction and usage of oil is somewhat of a stupid decision since crude oil isn’t just used for non renewable fuels, though it is a percentage of it, and it has usage beyond what people believe or have been told to believe.
Crude oil in fractional distillation produces a lot of byproduct, that people I think don’t realise, since usable hydrocarbon chemicals in separation for fuels are only a certain proportion. It produces lot of helpful chemicals for many chemical industries and infrastructure: like bitumen for road building and tarring, oils, lubricants, and some medical use, but particularly plastic productions (which itself has an arguably lower impact CO2 wise compared to making a renewable bag or product for instance). Plastic sadly is a reliance we need for convenience with its versatility, and it’s an acknowledgment of scientists that it’s going to be ever present, for good and bad. There’s a documentary discussing this I can’t remember the name of but I’ll try and find it.
It’s a common rhetoric of anti lobbies to believe in one extreme polarity oil and other sources are only used for “bad”, but the science and versatility of it is vast. Like nuclear too, sure it’s used for weapons grade plutonium or other related isotopes for nuclear weapon replenishment and is long lasting, but equally nuclear science labs and reactors themselves can produce nuclear tracers used in medical, research, and industrial capacity too. Nuclear itself too lacks research for application of these “depleted” byproducts, but still hold around 99% of their potential in energy.
I’m staunchly pro environmental myself, but from studying the sciences you see a more grounded approach on non renewables or nuclear, since it’s not so cut and dry and we can just “turn off the pumps” since we need it for swathes of things, and having our own rigs producing it when things could get hairy with global conflict is a sure fire bonus.
I saw it and went i bet this isnt in Aberdeen.
Oh look its hippies from London…