Not giving my money to the fossel fuel industry

Use this board for general non-cycling-related chat, or to introduce yourself to the forum.
Jdsk
Posts: 24478
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: Not giving my money to the fossel fuel industry

Post by Jdsk »

From the Original Post:
simonineaston wrote: 12 Jan 2023, 4:37pm ...
How do you, dear reader, deal with this issue, ie how much effort do you put into not giving your money to fossil fuel companies or else, not supporting them by buying their shares? Do you think the time has come when we should put our money where our gobs are and insist that they start making other plans. Or are you content to let someone else do that job? And if so, who are these other persons and are they, in your view, proving effective?
...
On pensions:
"Make My Money Matter":
https://makemymoneymatter.co.uk

On banking:
"Stephen Fry and Aisling Bea urge UK banks to stop financing fossil fuels":
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-64399747

Jonathan
pwa
Posts: 17357
Joined: 2 Oct 2011, 8:55pm

Re: Not giving my money to the fossel fuel industry

Post by pwa »

I personally know a sheep farmer who lives alone in a damp, windswept house that has rooms lit by bare light bulbs, and furnished with a spartan array of old, shabby furniture. He lives to work and has next to nothing to show for it. So please be careful not to create the impression that all farmers are lazy and living off the taxpayer. Some are about as poverty stricken as a person working full time can be.

But of course we need state investment in farmland to reflect our goals, such as well maintained rights of way, biodiversity, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions.
pwa
Posts: 17357
Joined: 2 Oct 2011, 8:55pm

Re: Not giving my money to the fossel fuel industry

Post by pwa »

Jdsk wrote: 25 Jan 2023, 4:08pm From the Original Post:
simonineaston wrote: 12 Jan 2023, 4:37pm ...
How do you, dear reader, deal with this issue, ie how much effort do you put into not giving your money to fossil fuel companies or else, not supporting them by buying their shares? Do you think the time has come when we should put our money where our gobs are and insist that they start making other plans. Or are you content to let someone else do that job? And if so, who are these other persons and are they, in your view, proving effective?
...
On pensions:
"Make My Money Matter":
https://makemymoneymatter.co.uk

On banking:
"Stephen Fry and Aisling Bea urge UK banks to stop financing fossil fuels":
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-64399747

Jonathan
Doesn't Fry drive a Bentley? I've certainly seen him driving one. A quick search tells me they do about 13.6mpg according to the maker's optimistic figures. A strange choice of charriot for someone so concerned with continued use of fossil fuels. Perhaps he wants the world to change for the better, as long as he himself doesn't have to change what he does. If he wants to be a champion of environmental issues, he really ought to try to look the part. He reminds me of his friend Emma Thompson, who flew 5000 miless to take part in an Extinction Rebellion event! The staggering juxtaposition of what these celebs say and what they do seems to escape their attention. I have much more respect for Chris Packham, also backing pressure on the banks, in that he seems to be more inclined to do what he preaches.
User avatar
Cugel
Posts: 5430
Joined: 13 Nov 2017, 11:14am

Re: Not giving my money to the fossel fuel industry

Post by Cugel »

pwa wrote: 25 Jan 2023, 8:49pm
Doesn't Fry drive a Bentley? I've certainly seen him driving one. A quick search tells me they do about 13.6mpg according to the maker's optimistic figures. A strange choice of charriot for someone so concerned with continued use of fossil fuels. Perhaps he wants the world to change for the better, as long as he himself doesn't have to change what he does. If he wants to be a champion of environmental issues, he really ought to try to look the part. He reminds me of his friend Emma Thompson, who flew 5000 miless to take part in an Extinction Rebellion event! The staggering juxtaposition of what these celebs say and what they do seems to escape their attention. I have much more respect for Chris Packham, also backing pressure on the banks, in that he seems to be more inclined to do what he preaches.
True - but the hypocrisy or "Do as I say not as I do" behaviours matter not one chit in the case for changing our ways as best we can so as to make less contribution to the planet-raping & pillaging driving us (and a thousand other species) to extinction or to a vast and painful population-crash.

One may make the case, as some even here do, that one individual changing their ways will make no difference if all the others fail to act in similar ways - therefore I can continue to do as I like. This is no argument at all, really. What other personal desires should be set free from our Mr Hydes, despite the consequences? Drive over the cyclists delaying the car journey from the tortured fried chicken shop to the grog shop whilst sniffing laughing gas and reviewing one's likes on facepuke? After all, loadsa others do it.

It's a tempting mental excuse-maker, to associate some sleb's hypocrisy as they recommend something with the case for the thing they recommend, thereby "justifying" rejection of the thing. Unjust to the thing, that is!

Some take it to the extreme. We have a member here who thinks it's OK to burn tons of fuel for his pleasure because Greta Thunderberg looked at him a certain way through a newspap pic. :-)

Cugel, watching the sun make free electricity on me roof. (So probably a lithium mining hypocrite).
“Practical men who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence are usually the slaves of some defunct economist”.
John Maynard Keynes
mattheus
Posts: 5030
Joined: 29 Dec 2008, 12:57pm
Location: Western Europe

Re: Not giving my money to the fossel fuel industry

Post by mattheus »

pwa wrote: 25 Jan 2023, 8:49pm
Doesn't Fry drive a Bentley? I've certainly seen him driving one. A quick search tells me they do about 13.6mpg according to the maker's optimistic figures. A strange choice of charriot for someone so concerned with continued use of fossil fuels. Perhaps he wants the world to change for the better, as long as he himself doesn't have to change what he does. If he wants to be a champion of environmental issues, he really ought to try to look the part. He reminds me of his friend Emma Thompson, who flew 5000 miless to take part in an Extinction Rebellion event! The staggering juxtaposition of what these celebs say and what they do seems to escape their attention. I have much more respect for Chris Packham, also backing pressure on the banks, in that he seems to be more inclined to do what he preaches.
Fry is much better known for driving a black cab, but of course that isn't the soundest transport choice either, so anyway ...

You have a choice of who to listen to. How lucky you are! These are comic actors - what do you expect from them, PhDs on interacting eco-systems?
(what was it that Greta said about scientists ... ? I'd recommend looking that up.)

But now that you've mentioned the luvvies: what would you rather they do, stay silent? Start a Bentley Owners Club? Is it perhaps slightly pleasurable to beat down these tall poppies I wonder ...
thirdcrank
Posts: 36764
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Not giving my money to the fossel fuel industry

Post by thirdcrank »

mattheus wrote: 26 Jan 2023, 10:11am
pwa wrote: 25 Jan 2023, 8:49pm
Doesn't Fry drive a Bentley? I've certainly seen him driving one. A quick search tells me they do about 13.6mpg according to the maker's optimistic figures. A strange choice of charriot for someone so concerned with continued use of fossil fuels. Perhaps he wants the world to change for the better, as long as he himself doesn't have to change what he does. If he wants to be a champion of environmental issues, he really ought to try to look the part. He reminds me of his friend Emma Thompson, who flew 5000 miless to take part in an Extinction Rebellion event! The staggering juxtaposition of what these celebs say and what they do seems to escape their attention. I have much more respect for Chris Packham, also backing pressure on the banks, in that he seems to be more inclined to do what he preaches.
Fry is much better known for driving a black cab, but of course that isn't the soundest transport choice either, so anyway ...

You have a choice of who to listen to. How lucky you are! These are comic actors - what do you expect from them, PhDs on interacting eco-systems?
(what was it that Greta said about scientists ... ? I'd recommend looking that up.)

But now that you've mentioned the luvvies: what would you rather they do, stay silent? Start a Bentley Owners Club? Is it perhaps slightly pleasurable to beat down these tall poppies I wonder ...
Leading by example might be another possibility.
mattheus
Posts: 5030
Joined: 29 Dec 2008, 12:57pm
Location: Western Europe

Re: Not giving my money to the fossel fuel industry

Post by mattheus »

thirdcrank wrote: 26 Jan 2023, 10:36am
Leading by example might be another possibility.
Well yes, I agree that would be the ideal scenario!
Biospace
Posts: 1990
Joined: 24 Jun 2019, 12:23pm

Re: Not giving my money to the fossel fuel industry

Post by Biospace »

thirdcrank wrote: 26 Jan 2023, 10:36am
pwa wrote: 25 Jan 2023, 8:49pm
Doesn't Fry drive a Bentley? I've certainly seen him driving one. A quick search tells me they do about 13.6mpg according to the maker's optimistic figures. A strange choice of charriot for someone so concerned with continued use of fossil fuels.
Leading by example might be another possibility.
If he drives it 1500 miles a year, it will use a lot less fuel than the most efficient car covering over average mileage. Perhaps he argues that not having children gives him more than enough headroom in the carbon stakes? I see personal energy quotas as the way to sort out this sort of finger-pointing, but how they could be implemented could introduce a new tier of problems.

pwa wrote: 25 Jan 2023, 8:46pm I personally know a sheep farmer who lives alone in a damp, windswept house that has rooms lit by bare light bulbs, and furnished with a spartan array of old, shabby furniture. He lives to work and has next to nothing to show for it. So please be careful not to create the impression that all farmers are lazy and living off the taxpayer. Some are about as poverty stricken as a person working full time can be.

But of course we need state investment in farmland to reflect our goals, such as well maintained rights of way, biodiversity, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions.
I know someone like this too, but they're very definitely not on the bread line even though many assume he is.

I don't believe I was tarring all farmers with the 'lazy and living off the taxpayer' brush. Whatever individual behaviours are, it is the system which has been the problem for decades.

Would you explain your assumption that state investment is needed to reduce GHG in farming?
pwa
Posts: 17357
Joined: 2 Oct 2011, 8:55pm

Re: Not giving my money to the fossel fuel industry

Post by pwa »

Biospace wrote: 26 Jan 2023, 2:07pm
pwa wrote: 25 Jan 2023, 8:46pm I personally know a sheep farmer who lives alone in a damp, windswept house that has rooms lit by bare light bulbs, and furnished with a spartan array of old, shabby furniture. He lives to work and has next to nothing to show for it. So please be careful not to create the impression that all farmers are lazy and living off the taxpayer. Some are about as poverty stricken as a person working full time can be.

But of course we need state investment in farmland to reflect our goals, such as well maintained rights of way, biodiversity, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions.
I know someone like this too, but they're very definitely not on the bread line even though many assume he is.

I don't believe I was tarring all farmers with the 'lazy and living off the taxpayer' brush. Whatever individual behaviours are, it is the system which has been the problem for decades.

Would you explain your assumption that state investment is needed to reduce GHG in farming?
I would put it more broadly than that. State money is needed to ensure farmed land is maintained or improved in ways that benefit us all. If we leave it just to market forces we will have some farms become so single mindedly commercial that any wildlife potential is driven out, even more than at present. The surviving farms will be the vast arable prairies of the east of England. And the other farms will cease farming. Unless the price of food rises dramatically.

A lot of farming outside the big arable areas is currently done by farmers who make little money from it, and they are an aging bunch of people who have children who don't want to take over from them because it is a lot of work for little reward. I believe that we ought to ensure that the state money necessary to keep these marginal farms going is directed at outcomes that make things better for you and me. Such as measures to reduce spillage into streams, biodiversity enhancing programmes, a nationwide upgrade of rights of way, and running farms in a way that tackles emissions. I think most of us want the bulk of our food to come from the UK, and we want our countryside to deliver the other things we value it for. None of that will happen without some state funding. Or much higher food prices combined with trade barriers. If you tell a dairy farmer that they must meet this and that strict rule and work to the highest standards, and do it all while getting so little per pint of milk that they struggle to break even, something must give.

With regard to greenhouse gas emissions, having locally produced food makes sustainability easier, so it is best to ensure local farming does not go bankrupt or wither through lack of investment. And there are ongoing trials of new ways of reducing methane emissions. A farmer struggling just to break even is not going to have the time and energy to devote to this area of concern without the state making it easier for them. And they won't be farming at all without getting higher prices for produce, or some state funding.

So I support the notion of continued financial investment in farming, with it directed at outcomes that we consider to be important to us. Control of greenhouse gas emissions is one of those outcomes.
reohn2
Posts: 45143
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: Not giving my money to the fossel fuel industry

Post by reohn2 »

^^^ Post of the week!
-----------------------------------------------------------
"All we are not stares back at what we are"
W H Auden
Jdsk
Posts: 24478
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: Not giving my money to the fossel fuel industry

Post by Jdsk »

pwa wrote: 27 Jan 2023, 4:36amI would put it more broadly than that. State money is needed to ensure farmed land is maintained or improved in ways that benefit us all.
...
Details of he new payment system for England have just been announced:
viewtopic.php?p=1751656#p1751656

Jonathan
Biospace
Posts: 1990
Joined: 24 Jun 2019, 12:23pm

Re: Not giving my money to the fossel fuel industry

Post by Biospace »

pwa wrote: 27 Jan 2023, 4:36am
I would put it more broadly than that. State money is needed to ensure farmed land is maintained or improved in ways that benefit us all. If we leave it just to market forces we will have some farms become so single mindedly commercial that any wildlife potential is driven out, even more than at present. The surviving farms will be the vast arable prairies of the east of England. And the other farms will cease farming. Unless the price of food rises dramatically.

A lot of farming outside the big arable areas is currently done by farmers who make little money from it, and they are an aging bunch of people who have children who don't want to take over from them because it is a lot of work for little reward. I believe that we ought to ensure that the state money necessary to keep these marginal farms going is directed at outcomes that make things better for you and me. Such as measures to reduce spillage into streams, biodiversity enhancing programmes, a nationwide upgrade of rights of way, and running farms in a way that tackles emissions. I think most of us want the bulk of our food to come from the UK, and we want our countryside to deliver the other things we value it for. None of that will happen without some state funding. Or much higher food prices combined with trade barriers. If you tell a dairy farmer that they must meet this and that strict rule and work to the highest standards, and do it all while getting so little per pint of milk that they struggle to break even, something must give.

With regard to greenhouse gas emissions, having locally produced food makes sustainability easier, so it is best to ensure local farming does not go bankrupt or wither through lack of investment. And there are ongoing trials of new ways of reducing methane emissions. A farmer struggling just to break even is not going to have the time and energy to devote to this area of concern without the state making it easier for them. And they won't be farming at all without getting higher prices for produce, or some state funding.

So I support the notion of continued financial investment in farming, with it directed at outcomes that we consider to be important to us. Control of greenhouse gas emissions is one of those outcomes.

  • Decade upon decade of generous subsidies have created large amounts of income for larger and more business-minded farmers, so more smaller farms have been taken over by larger businesses than otherwise.
  • Lack of biodiversity is a result of farmers having spent decades adjusting to growing what the government has promoted, the routine use of synthetic pesticides and more. Before government started influencing how and what farmers supplied, farms were a definition of biodiversity.
  • Many farms have been bought up by those from London retiring at a relatively young age, wanting space for their car collection, daughters' horses and ponies, privacy and entertainment. A proportion of the land is rented to local farmers and/or with contractors carrying out a lot of the work.
  • The inherent loneliness of modern farming, having ditched people for machinery is part of what makes farming unattractive to many. Not so long ago, a farm was a community in itself.
  • Environmental pollution regulation applies to other businesses, without them needing constant subsidy to help them adjust.

I see the vast wealth and power of Britain's food processing industry and supermarkets as where a lot of taxpayers' money (the subsidies) has ended up - they're the true beneficiaries of low food prices. Artificially low energy prices encourage more movement of livestock and food than there otherwise would be, transmitting disease and reducing responsibilities.

50 years of subsidies were 50 years of huge wealth increase in larger farms and increasing numbers of smaller ones being consumed by them. These subsidies saw little or no understanding for the environment being very much a continuation of wartime thinking to produce most food at any cost, most of what you hope for above would be the undoing of the damage done in large part through this government approach.

Put simply, we paid farmers to rip out centuries-old hedges, now we're paying them to plant hedges.

Here's a good example of how to make money from farming - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_htLIUKX1Y
pwa
Posts: 17357
Joined: 2 Oct 2011, 8:55pm

Re: Not giving my money to the fossel fuel industry

Post by pwa »

Biospace wrote: 28 Jan 2023, 2:20pmes, without them needing constant subsidy to help them adjust.[/list]


I see the vast wealth and power of Britain's food processing industry and supermarkets as where a lot of taxpayers' money (the subsidies) has ended up - they're the true beneficiaries of low food prices. Artificially low energy prices encourage more movement of livestock and food than there otherwise would be, transmitting disease and reducing responsibilities.

50 years of subsidies were 50 years of huge wealth increase in larger farms and increasing numbers of smaller ones being consumed by them. These subsidies saw little or no understanding for the environment being very much a continuation of wartime thinking to produce most food at any cost, most of what you hope for above would be the undoing of the damage done in large part through this government approach.

Put simply, we paid farmers to rip out centuries-old hedges, now we're paying them to plant hedges.

Here's a good example of how to make money from farming - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_htLIUKX1Y
I'm guessing you live in a lowland area towards the east midlands, East Anglia or another place where large arable farms dominate. The vast wealth you describe is, in the upland areas, contrasted with farms barely breaking even. I see fields alomst abandoned, with scrub and thistles where there was once lush grass pasture, the farmer having given up. The farmers around our village are getting by, not rolling in money. Your description of farming may apply where you are, but not here. If we are to see improvements to rights of way, biodiversity, and measures to tackle greenhouse gas emissions, here where I live, it won't be coming out of imaginary vast profits being made by our farmers.
reohn2
Posts: 45143
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: Not giving my money to the fossel fuel industry

Post by reohn2 »

Some home truths about the electric vehicle,one man's story,it's a 25minute video but well worth the watch:- https://youtu.be/3rMjfQ8NmhU
-----------------------------------------------------------
"All we are not stares back at what we are"
W H Auden
Carlton green
Posts: 3628
Joined: 22 Jun 2019, 12:27pm

Re: Not giving my money to the fossel fuel industry

Post by Carlton green »

reohn2 wrote: 28 Jan 2023, 8:21pm Some home truths about the electric vehicle,one man's story,it's a 25minute video but well worth the watch:- https://youtu.be/3rMjfQ8NmhU
Thanks for that; an interesting video and yes, as the presenter says, we’re all a bit blinkered and don’t see the much much wider picture. There are no easy answers but electric cars - the only ones that we’ll be able to buy - are nowhere near as green as we believe them to be. Their fuel can be green (mostly it isn’t) but the rest is equally as bad, perhaps even worse, than coal mining and oil extraction; arguably existing problems are being replaced by something worse.

I’m inclined to keep my small fossil fuel car running for as long as I can. It’s not faultlessly green but neither are the alternatives that we’re led to believe are better for the planet. The most sensible thing, when considering the bigger picture, would be to cap permissible average fuel consumption (mpg) of new fossil fuel vehicles whilst, at the same time, finding environmentally sound battery materials and making much further use of electrification (traditional overhead and third rail type supply) for public transport.
Don’t fret, it’s OK to: ride a simple old bike; ride slowly, walk, rest and admire the view; ride off-road; ride in your raincoat; ride by yourself; ride in the dark; and ride one hundred yards or one hundred miles. Your bike and your choices to suit you.
Post Reply