The BBC gave us an interesting article. I am not here to dis it, I accept that things need to change, but the article sets a few parameter in play and it made me wonder. The article ‘How will we heat homes in zero carbon Britain?’ Makes sense, even though it was written in February and I am only now taking notice. So why did I take notice? You see I will get to that in a moment, what is important is that the two methods given the ‘Hydrogen’ method and the ‘Heat pumps’ method, in both cases we see opposition,
Prof Julia King, states that hydrogen power would need twice as much wind power than is currently planned. Whilst the ‘Heat pumps’ method will require a massive government investment in transforming homes with low-carbon heating. It recommends spending £4bn a year into the next decade, and when did any UK government have that amount lying about? Yet something needs to happen. The article (at https://www.bbc.com/news/business-55948531) has a few more items, but I have to return to another part, You see on December 10th 2020 I wrote ‘Uniform Nameless Entitlement Perforation’, the article also showed a report by the EU stating that 1% of the plants are responsible for 50% of all the pollution. Is it not weird that we see this not here? How many of those 147 facilities that create so much pollution are in the UK? I actually do not know that as there is no list (in the report) how many of them are in the UK, and if that is not enough, the second tier represents 421 facilities that create between €82 and €263 of pollution damage, so are any of those in the UK? The entire mess we see is all about politicians trying to impress people with their ‘green’ actions, yet in all that I am not impressed. This is about shafting the people with the upcoming bill that the industry has a tax redemption for (or they can make it all tax deductible), how does that help the people who are merely getting by?
Lets not be fooled by the 2025 part, when we see “when your beloved boiler packs up, be prepared for a change – because gas heating can’t play a part in zero carbon Britain” it is not about being zero carbon, it is (as I personally see it) about shortages, it seems that my estimated shortage part was more than on the nose and as people are looking towards heating their places, it seems to me that the UK (other places too) are running out of gas and that is something that the government is less willing to tell the people.
And when we see the pollution graph (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2020/12/10/uniform-nameless-entitlement-perforation/) why do we see the push for one side whilst the EU stage of ‘Half the damage is being done by just one percent of industrial plants’ is seemingly ignored. Now it might be that none of those are in the UK or even the EU, but to ignore that much of a setting? Are you not wondering what is actually going on? I wrote “Tim McGrath was making his point coming from the graphs on page 89, where we see “Per capita and absolute CO2 consumption emissions by four global income groups in 2015”, you see the chart looks really clever, but where is the data?”, my reaction to a BS article on how a silly person and his friend were all about slamming rich people and their jets, all whilst a larger stage exists. Their data was debatable, the stage was fraught with issues and the EU report was ignored to a way too large an extent. 50% of all the pollution damage done by 147 facilities. Is anyone catching on yet? The other article ‘Hatred of Wealth’ was written (by yours truly) a day earlier.
Now I am not opposing the zero carbon stage, I am stating that there are larger issues and getting rid of 147 facilities gives us twice the time to come up with solutions that actually work, or optionally get more wind power installed for the Hydrogen solution, is that not a workable idea?
Well, I have no time to solve that issue, I have to think through a new idea to make life in Iran harder for the IRGC (we all need hobbies at times).