"It's Not The Production Of Oil, It's The CONSUMPTION Of Oil" | Author BLASTS Court Ruling
Vložit
- čas přidán 29. 06. 2024
- A Supreme Court hearing has ruled against Surrey Council’s planning application appeal to expand an oil well site in the county.
Rupert Darwall, author of Green Tyranny, explains the ruling will have a massive effect over all oil, gas and coal mining in the UK. He says "It's a very, very big deal."
Talk's Nick de Bois questions if the Government can overrule Surrey County Council. He says: "Theoretically, government can solve the problem."
#oil #coal #gas #mining #government #talk
Click here for more from Talk talk.tv
If you need any help visit: talk.tv/helplines
What about the many essential by-products including heart valves & medicines that come from oil, do we just stop producing them?
just ignore them, everyone else does. National energy security trumps all else
Oil is the lifeblood of modernity
Overcrowding Our Island Is Not Environmentally Friendly Either. Labour want Blasphemy Law's and Starmer, Refused to Prosecute the Grooming Gang's and Saville. Vote Reform 🏴🇮🇪🏴🏴
Costs of Net Zero by 2050 are astronomic and unafordable.
We need minimum 420 gw of installed capacity wind power, or 28,000 of the largest 15 mw wind turbines.
Cost around £2,000 billion.
Plus we need 30,000 gwh of stored backup, or 1,000 Coire Glas storage systems.
Cost around £2,000 billion.
Total just over £4,000 billion, plus maintenance costs.
Note: renewables cannot work without backup energy supplies, so the true cost of renewables MUST include a backup system.
ralph ellis. (climate scientist)
.
Shush, you know you will anger the netzero, ev and eco mobs. And PS you for got to include the cost of the extra infrastructure and upgrades required for all that too...
Infuriates me when net zero cult members say 99pc of scientists agree. So false.
Many afraid to speak up as they'll lose their funding
Which will be the Asylum costs under the present influx quadrupling into the next centuries
And those numbers, might prove a tad shy, of the real cost, Ralph. How long would it take them to build 28,000 turbines? Probably up to close on 2050, which by then, the first tranche of turbines would need replacing. Prof Michael Kelly (University of Cambridge), did an estimate of around £3Tn. So you're both in the same area of cost. Incidently, that's more money, than in the financial centre of London.
Who knew TB's supreme court would be bad who knew!!!
Wef agenda to keep the slaved poor
@@daveslater309They all serve their WEF masters
@@daveslater309yep, no matter how bad something passed is.. it never gets repealed.. it'a always "we will pass new laws, more laws, and leave the previous in place against your will, the result is wonderful, public pays more, and gets less freedom.. what a great system. Do you know the one thing they had no issue repealing though? 90% of the magna carta.. who allowed this? When were we conquered, when did the war end, and why weren't we informed? 🤔
It isn't bad, it's realistic. The judgement simply states that the CO2 emissions that will come from burning the oil needs to be taken into account.
@@Richard482 Ah and the change of infrastructure for batteries can be ignored!
FOLLOW THE MONEY.
Lemming like ,is what millions are . As noted anyone with just a little bit of knowledge knows the wind doesn’t blow all the time. So when 70% of our electricity comes from wind the whole country would be shut down an a calm night in 2winter Shan we most need our heating and hot water,and cooking ,there will be massive blackouts unless we have battery backup That would cost trillions for a few hours, and will not happen except for specific buildings like hospitals and computer centres. Gas fired power and nuclear must be our targets. That will take a long time if all transport and heating and hot water are run on electricity, massively increasing our need for greater supplies and greater backup. Not going to happen. Cold and dark and hungry ,that’s our future.
Buy local right? Right?
Courts judge on the basis of legislation passed by Parliament. It is in the laws that you have to find the problems - if there is a problem.
That's start with interrogating these numbers shall we
150 PPM. 220 PPM. 420 PPM and 6000PPM
George Oilwell (sic) would have understood perfectly.
Nothing quite like over-reach. We can see, yet again, what an unelected person/panel/committee are capable of when oversight is missing. This falls at the feet of government and requires strong action that will curb future rulings like this. This ruling is a bit like a fisherman having to protect a consumer from swallowing a fish bone.
Care in the community has failed. Bring back the nut hospitals.
And we'll be riding around on a horse and cart
The judgement was based on Environmental issues something a rich Author probably driving a gas guzzling motor couldn't give a toss for anyway