Roger Mexico Posted October 18, 2019 Share Posted October 18, 2019 But the big difference is that Scotland and Norway, which he mentions, have both been developing renewable energy for some time. Scotland provided 74% of its gross electricity requirements that way last year. Norway manages 98% - and hopes to increase that so it can export even more. We have a trickle of hydro and sometimes nominally a bit from the incinerator (if you ignore the vast amounts of oil needed to keep it running. And no plans to do anything about increasing that because the 'new' (and completely unnecessary) power station has to be paid for. Plus of course all the pensions of those who let Proffitt get away with his follies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gettafa Posted October 18, 2019 Share Posted October 18, 2019 Doesn't the government now have a team of these carbon emission wallahs with a view to decreasing emissions by 2050? Now that is a job for life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b4mbi Posted October 18, 2019 Share Posted October 18, 2019 @Roger Mexico but you understand how they both got to that point? Norway, by using revenues from hyrdocarbons to fund the investment in renewables. Scotland on the back of redistributed UK govt subsidies on the back of hydrocarbon revenues from north sea. That is the pathway. Yes, there is a power station to pay off, but that is fuelled by Natural Gas. Cheaper input costs = cheaper local energy prices, whilst the significant majority of gas would be exported for the £££ for renewable investment. Win-win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Onchan Posted October 18, 2019 Share Posted October 18, 2019 26 minutes ago, b4mbi said: @Roger Mexico but you understand how they both got to that point? Norway, by using revenues from hyrdocarbons to fund the investment in renewables. Scotland on the back of redistributed UK govt subsidies on the back of hydrocarbon revenues from north sea. That is the pathway. Yes, there is a power station to pay off, but that is fuelled by Natural Gas. Cheaper input costs = cheaper local energy prices, whilst the significant majority of gas would be exported for the £££ for renewable investment. Win-win. That's how I understand it as well but probably won't appease those who have blinkers on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek Flint Posted October 18, 2019 Share Posted October 18, 2019 5 hours ago, b4mbi said: Guru speaks. Wow, finally someone with a grown up, mature attitude to the sustainability debate. It's so obvious the exploitation of the gas in our territorial waters is the right pathway for the Island to providing the necessary finance for the significant investment required for renewables to be the primary energy source for the Island in years to come, and thus achieving low carbon energy sustainability. Our carbon emissions are a complete red herring in this whole debate, as they are so vanishingly small and insignificant in global terms any increase or reduction of them will have no effect whatsoever. It should need just one person with an ounce of common sense to see the above, and hopefully Professor Curran is the man to deliver this. It really is about time someone changed the narrative on this whole issue. In the meantime CM confirmed to Tynwald (page 10) 24 people (14.5 equivalent full time) working on this..... Really?? Hope they all are empowered with wellies, a spade and some saplings. You are right. it is a complete red herring, as our paltry contribution isn’t worth a fig from a contributory point of view. And doing the right thing would make the Island even more uncompetitive than it already is. Doing the right thing is saying ‘no’ without compromise, to the further extraction of hydrocarbons. Fortunately for IOMG they have selected someone who will provide the right answers for them, rather than the planet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donald Trumps Posted October 18, 2019 Share Posted October 18, 2019 There's nothing CoMin likes more than using our money to hire someone to provide the right answer for them I'm surprised we don't complain about it really It rarely works out for the common good Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b4mbi Posted October 18, 2019 Share Posted October 18, 2019 1 hour ago, Derek Flint said: Fortunately for IOMG they have selected someone who will provide the right answers for them, rather than the planet. IOMG also appear to have selected someone who provides the right answers for the people of the Isle of Man, which is what we entrust them to do. Inevitably there's compromise between what's right to do for the people and what's best for the planet, and this short term compromise to get to a longer term sustainable energy solution has to be in the best interests of the people of the Island. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek Flint Posted October 18, 2019 Share Posted October 18, 2019 3 hours ago, b4mbi said: IOMG also appear to have selected someone who provides the right answers for the people of the Isle of Man, which is what we entrust them to do. Inevitably there's compromise between what's right to do for the people and what's best for the planet, and this short term compromise to get to a longer term sustainable energy solution has to be in the best interests of the people of the Island. I agree. All I want to see an end to is the continual contradiction that policy seems to give rise to, whether it’s road safety, climate change or anything else, everything seems to work against the policy position Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.