Bring Back Boris?

[Scott777]

You assume, (you seem to be an incredibly presumptuous person) that the owners of the fossil fuel industry don't make most of their money from fossil fuels

Look where they are investing

BP invested £300m into renewables and 'low carbon' in the first half of 2022 — equivalent to just 2.5% of its £12.2bn profits. By comparison, it invested £3.8bn in new oil and gas projects — more than 10 times its low carbon investments.

It does not help your case by selecting only the facts that suit your biased opinion.  You omitted much more investment into 'green' energy.  "In September 2020, BP formed a partnership with Equinor to develop offshore wind and announced it will acquire 50% non-operating stake in the Empire Wind off New York and Beacon Wind off Massachusetts offshore wind farms."  It's a 1.1 Billion USD deal.

https://www.equinor.com/news/archive/20210129-equinor-bp-complete-transactions

"In December 2020, BP acquired a majority stake in Finite Carbon, the largest forest carbon offsets developer in the United States."

You also seem to be very prone to conspiracy thinking.

Who is more independent, a person who requires a product, with finite resources, extracted half a world away then shipped via a long and complex supply chain to be sold at a volatile price and then is still only in a form that is of limited use, requiring further conversion before use.

or

The person with local generation capacity and storage of the end product.  Sure the capital equipment requires investment and a supply chain, but once it's bought it can operate for decades with minimal maintenance

Yes, that's me, conspiracy theorist extraordinaire, and you forgot, far far far right.  😁

Whether generation capacity is local or not, both are equally dependent on whoever generates it.  The actual amount of energy that you can store in the form of petrol is far far greater than you can in electric form, using the same storage space.  And petrol does not discharge like leccy.

[Scott777]

If you send a letter to a person telling them to piss off and they do - that's a removal.
Once again, you're splitting hairs.

Not splitting hairs.  We are discussing whether Brexit made it harder to remove people.  That didn't affect our ability to ask people to leave, did it?

[BeElBeeBub]

You assume, (you seem to be an incredibly presumptuous person) that the owners of the fossil fuel industry can only make money from that.  In fact, there is now more money to be made from 'green' tech.  This is partly because of political interests.  Electricity is easier to control than petrol and oil.  For example, you cannot store large amounts of leccy, as you could with petrol.  You also cannot pay for your leccy with cash, as you can with petrol.  So there is political interest in moving over to leccy, so the government can control you more easily.  And given that there is plenty of money to be made from 'green' tech, (even if it isn't very green), then that opportunity has been seized by the richest people in the world.

For example, Aileen Getty is the grand-daughter of John Paul Getty, rich oil industrialist from the past.  "She is the founder of the Aileen Getty Foundation, which aims to finance environmental activism."  She was behind a major initial fund for XR.  So the reality is, the oil industry has been funding the climate scam and the push towards green tech.

You assume, (you seem to be an incredibly presumptuous person) that the owners of the fossil fuel industry don't make most of their money from fossil fuels

Look where they are investing

BP invested £300m into renewables and 'low carbon' in the first half of 2022 — equivalent to just 2.5% of its £12.2bn profits. By comparison, it invested £3.8bn in new oil and gas projects — more than 10 times its low carbon investments.

Shell invested equivalent to 6.3% of its £17.1bn profits into low carbon energy, investing nearly three times more in oil and gas.

BP is generally regarded as the most "green" of the energy giants

"no doubt that BP now has the most ambitious plans of any of the oil giants to pivot away from climate-wrecking fossil fuels as their core business" the company was "the best of a bad bunch"...Charlie Kronick, an analyst at Greenpeace UK

You also seem to be very prone to conspiracy thinking.

Who is more independent, a person who requires a product, with finite resources, extracted half a world away then shipped via a long and complex supply chain to be sold at a volatile price and then is still only in a form that is of limited use, requiring further conversion before use.

or

The person with local generation capacity and storage of the end product.  Sure the capital equipment requires investment and a supply chain, but once it's bought it can operate for decades with minimal maintenance 

The UK (and much of the world) should be shifting away from fossil fuels for the majority of power requirement.  Fossil fuels will always be needed, for some roles where their extreme energy density is a must (eg long range aviation) and for their chemical properties (the entire plastics industry).  Burning the stuff to keep warm or produce electricity which we can produce in other ways is daft.

[BeElBeeBub]

How do you know the voluntary leavers were asked to leave?  And even if they were, we did not remove them.

They are listed under the "removals" section of the HO statistics.
Removal means the person was asked to leave by the HO and then did.
If you send a letter to a person telling them to piss off and they do - that's a removal.
Once again, you're splitting hairs.

[Scott777]

Ah yes, because the fossil fuel industry is famously strapped for cash....

Any scientist that could show we didn't need to change our lifestyles or rates of fossil fuel use would be rolling in so much cash they wouldn't know what to do with it.

You assume, (you seem to be an incredibly presumptuous person) that the owners of the fossil fuel industry can only make money from that.  In fact, there is now more money to be made from 'green' tech.  This is partly because of political interests.  Electricity is easier to control than petrol and oil.  For example, you cannot store large amounts of leccy, as you could with petrol.  You also cannot pay for your leccy with cash, as you can with petrol.  So there is political interest in moving over to leccy, so the government can control you more easily.  And given that there is plenty of money to be made from 'green' tech, (even if it isn't very green), then that opportunity has been seized by the richest people in the world.

For example, Aileen Getty is the grand-daughter of John Paul Getty, rich oil industrialist from the past.  "She is the founder of the Aileen Getty Foundation, which aims to finance environmental activism."  She was behind a major initial fund for XR.  So the reality is, the oil industry has been funding the climate scam and the push towards green tech.

[Scott777]

That is why the 45k.*excludes* the refused entry.

The voluntarily returned are relevent as they are people who have been asked to leave and have left, rather than people forcibly removed (IE escorted onto a plane)

How do you know the voluntary leavers were asked to leave?  And even if they were, we did not remove them.

[BeElBeeBub]

Or not stupid, but they don't get funding to do science if they point out the flaws in the conclusions.

Ah yes, because the fossil fuel industry is famously strapped for cash....

Any scientist that could show we didn't need to change our lifestyles or rates of fossil fuel use would be rolling in so much cash they wouldn't know what to do with it.

[BeElBeeBub]

I just have to slightly correct this.  We are discussing immigrants.  That is people who are in the country.  The 19K are not immigrants, they are merely travelling here, so they don't count.  Then the 15K voluntarily returned, again not what we are discussing, because you said Brexit made it harder to return people, but we did not necessarily return them if they went by themselves.  So it's 9K who you claim we returned before Brexit.  And how does that compare to now?

That is why the 45k.*excludes* the refused entry.

The voluntarily returned are relevent as they are people who have been asked to leave and have left, rather than people forcibly removed (IE escorted onto a plane)

[Scott777]

oh for FFS, is it sunspots? or cosmic rays?
Maybe the scientists are stupid and forgot to account for the urban heat island effect?

Or not stupid, but they don't get funding to do science if they point out the flaws in the conclusions.

[Scott777]

It would (and is) damage the agri sector if fruit pickers were here.

like wise many other sectors require labour.  If you don't have the labour the product/service either doesn't get produced or goes up in price. The care sector (both young and old) is in dire straits because it can't get people willing to wipe arses and clean up puke at all hours of the day and night.

Paying for fruit-pickers here is expensive, cos they work at the minimum wage (and quite likely claim benefits or work cash in hand).  If they were not here, we buy fruit overseas, where it is cheaper to produce.  The problem with your solution is you ignore the long-term.  These fruit-pickers will eventually become the elderly.  To assess the true value of a migrant, you need to assess the whole life-span.  The benefits of having our own agriculture does not outweigh the costs of the hand-outs and healthcare they will need, and the the costs of building the homes and schools to accommodate them.

In aggregate immigrants are a net positive for the public purse (they contribute more taxes than the state pays in services) - this went especially for EU migrants.

Why aggregate them?  If one immigrant is called Roman Abramovich and another is called Joe Bloggs who picks apples, the aggregate economic value is probably quite good.  But the value of Joe is still not good.

[Scott777]

in 2018 (last full year  icould find figures for

Uk deported (not always to the EU)
9k asylum seekers forced deportation
15k asylum seekers voluntarily returned
19k asylum seekers refused and returned at points of entry

Of no asylum seekers the equivilent numbers were 5.5k, 15k and 20k

So all told, if we exclude the refused entry lot, a bit under 45k people were removed.

I just have to slightly correct this.  We are discussing immigrants.  That is people who are in the country.  The 19K are not immigrants, they are merely travelling here, so they don't count.  Then the 15K voluntarily returned, again not what we are discussing, because you said Brexit made it harder to return people, but we did not necessarily return them if they went by themselves.  So it's 9K who you claim we returned before Brexit.  And how does that compare to now?

[Scott777]

Developed countries in the West are generally having lower birth rates, which seems to indicate that better health and welfare systems gradually alter the idea that people need to have larger families to provide for family income, security in old age, or whatever.

Could be an argument for the world's developed countries putting more effort into helping regions of Africa, the Indian Subcontinent, South America, etc, to develop and be able to sustain themselves in a higher and more healthy standard of living, so they don't feel the need for large families or to emigrate...

Absolutely.  Instead, some idiots think mass migration is somehow a solution, when in fact it's just moving the problem to the UK.

[Nick]

Are you suggesting forced labour?
Here's a thing - I'm guessing you aren't currently in full time work.  Why don't you go and pick some fruit?

https://hallhunter.com/fruit-picking-jobs-uk/

off you go.

I run my own automation business and am currently sitting on plane at Schipphol Airport waiting to fly to Munich, why you think I don't work is anyone's guess. 

[BeElBeeBub]

You don't need to travel if you utilise the local dolites, the hard work and low pay is not relevant as they would be forced to do it. Just a constant stream of excuses why the feckless cannot be utilised.

Are you suggesting forced labour?
Here's a thing - I'm guessing you aren't currently in full time work.  Why don't you go and pick some fruit?

https://hallhunter.com/fruit-picking-jobs-uk/

off you go.

[BeElBeeBub]

It's called allowing them to develop, and not making the poorest people on the planet use the most expensive form of power. Let them build power stations and stop them from dying.

in many cases zero carbon generation is cheaper per kwh than fossil fuel, especially when you factor in the various subsidies the fossil fuel industry has.

"cutting co2 is too expensive!"

how much is the heat dome over the southern US costing? How much did the US wild fires cost?