We are doing our bit, are you the people who complain about direct action doing yours, do you recycle everything, turn lights off, stop using standby on your tv’s etc? and the list goes on and on.
And in reply to IFTE…you might be supprised to find that many climate warriors do NOT use cars, they produce their own power, my pc has never been plugged into the mains..or my laptop….or my tv…or my drill…..etc…..I know power was used in the building of these items but with better management all these things can be built with alternitave power.
]]>Thanks for your comments merrick.
Good to see that some are willing to engage in dialogue and not irresponsible action.
I am won over by some of your agruments but I am still not convinced that such direct action is the best answer. We also have to remember the good that Drax does. It’s not as if Drax is generating power just so the environment can suffer. It’s generating power to meet a demand.
Sure, some of that need is frivolous (see this link: http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1843587,00.html) but it is wrong to assume that all the power Drax produces is used for frivolous purposes.
I don’t think the 100 countries argument stands up. I’m sure we could find 100 countries that are less democratic than the UK but that would not be a sound reason for for making the UK less democratic.
The only viable alternative in the short term would be to change completely the way we all live our lives within modern economies. The way to win that argument is not by distrupting the good work Drax does. The way to do that is to win the argument.
The last 2 generations of westerners are a blip in the history of humanity. They are the only example I know of where for two generations a free society has been sustained without catastrophic wars, economic colapse or hardship. This is also the phenomenon which has tolerated demonstrations of your sort without either the society imploding or introiducing oppresive/violant state control of such protest.
I’m proud to call myself a member of such a “peculiar blip in the history of humanity”.
Drax is not the cause, it’s a symptom. nay form of victimisation is wrong so don’t victimise Drax.
]]>However, as you say, climate change is the most serious issue we face. Burning coal, even in a more efficient coal burner like Drax, has no place in a society that wants to avert catastrophic climate change.
I’ve already addressed the real issue, that there isn’t a non-fossil fuel source that can supply our hunger.
Fossil fuels are millions of years of solar energy captured by organisms, then millions of years of compression. It’s a phenomenal amount of stored power. There’s nothing else like it, and even if climate change weren’t looming, there would intevitably be a crunch point where the stuff ran out. (Or, more importantly and sooner, where demand outstrips supply forever and it becomes very expensive indeed).
The last two generations of Westerners are a peculiar blip in the history of humanity. Most people do not consume like us, and nor could they. Our grandparents did not consume like this, nor will our grandchildren be able to.
So, the question is raised: do we power down smoothly and fairly, or do we accelerate off the cliff and leave the generations that follow to wallow in the mess we made?
We have a choice to make, and it’s up to us, now. The science is in and it is very clear. We need to stabilise emissions in the next decade or two.
Thankyou for repeating Peter Shone’s cheap shot about switching off my PC, which I’ve already responded to.
Aside of presuming my electricity comes from fossil sources (it doesn’t), you ignore the fact – spelled out to Peter – that it is perfectly possible to generate enough energy to run a PC occasionally without the need for burning coal.
I suggest you get some elementary understanding of the electricity supply before you comment on how it works. Closing down Drax would not disrupt the electricity supply. All power stations (and many micro genrators) feed into the National Grid.
And anyway, with some elementary switching off of unused appliances left on standby, we’d reduce our consumption by more than Drax produces. We could close it down forever right now and not miss it. But that would only be the start.
Those who denied the science now concede it but seek to downplay it; the threat’s not that bad; hydrogen will save us; or scientist will come up with something soon. Anything to avoid the fact that overconsumption has to stop and sharpish if we are to avert catastrophic climate change.
The best place to start is the worst agents of climate change. That’s coal burning. Amongst them, the best place to start is the biggest emitters. That’s Drax.
]]>Save Drax from the campaign dogma.
]]>Leaving aside your presumption that I take my electricity from fossil fuels, your premise seems to be that if we get the benefits of a system we have no right to complain about it presently works.
Do I also take it that nobody who uses electricity from nuclear power stations has any right to complain about nukes?
And nobody who participates in an election has any right to complain about the government they get?
I think we all have a duty to consider ways to improve society, to discuss those ideas and implement the ones that make sense.
Thanks for your tip. Like many people, I do switch things off and take a variety of other efficiency measures.
It is perfectly possible for people to consume an amount of power that allows them to use a computer occasionally without the need for continued burning of coal or other fossil fuels.
I’d be interested to know quite what’s idiotic about that.
]]>The coal industry is pinning its hopes for expansion on so-called ‘clean’ solutions. The primary method under discussion is burying captured carbon dioxide in disused oil wells. This is currently an experimental technology, being tested at three sites worldwide. Putting aside the problem that it is just an experimental technology and that we require action now, there profound issues around carbon sequestration: it is questionable whether carbon dioxide can be securely stored, it isn’t economically viable to capture and transport the CO2 and we would we have to build power stations only in places where storage is possible, there is also a major conflict in the fact that the main interest in this technology coming from the oil and gas industry who intend to use the technology to extract more fossil fuels. Plus it’s only viable in certain parts of the world with access to old oil and gas wells. Three of the biggest producers and consumers of coal – Australia, India, and China – have very few suitable geographical features.
The second ‘clean’ coal technology is Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) generation technology, which is a far more efficient way of burning coal in the generation process. Certainly in winter, without major investment in peoples homes something is going to have to be burnt to provide heating. Community scale IGCC plant could (if it becomes viable soon enough) provide combined heat and power generation at emission levels that would also meet radical reduction targets. But it’s certainly no panacea for the problem of massively innefficient centralised power system that is rocketing our society towards dangerous climate change.
]]>