Topic: Climate Emergency is already here. How much worse it gets is still up to us (?)

[Bioluminescence]

I’m sure Vladimir Putin and Mohamed Bin Salman will be very impressed by the UK taking the moral high ground.

It's got nothing to do with the moral high ground. It's about adopting evidence-based policies to limit the impacts of climate breakdown that we're seeing across the world. It's time to stop adding fuel to the fire.

[Elmo!]

That argument doesn't stack up either.

Lots of posters making the Tory argument here - surprised.

You could try actually addressing peoples arguments rather than just implying people are Tories and appeals to authority.

[west_london_red]

That argument doesn't stack up either.

Lots of posters making the Tory argument here - surprised.

You’ll have to explain to my why the argument doesn’t stack up. We need to move energy production away from oil and gas, simply saying we will not produce oil or gas but continue to use it doesn’t move us nearer to our goals of decarbonising.

[west_london_red]

It's got nothing to do with the moral high ground. It's about adopting evidence-based policies to limit the impacts of climate breakdown that we're seeing across the world. It's time to stop adding fuel to the fire.

Unless foreign produced oil and gas is less environmentally damaging then UK oil or gas you’re going to have to explain that one to me. No one is saying climate change isn’t happening and isn’t a disaster we are literally seeing happen in front of us, the point is that there is no point (unless I’m missing something) in the UK not using its own fossil fuels but still continuing to import and use them.

[Red-Soldier]

You’ll have to explain to my why the argument doesn’t stack up. We need to move energy production away from oil and gas, simply saying we will not produce oil or gas but continue to use it doesn’t move us nearer to our goals of decarbonising.

Have a read of this, any questions, or if you don't agree, it's your choice.

Climate pledges by governments to date – even if fully achieved – would fall well short of what is required to bring global energy-related carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions to net zero by 2050 and give the world an even chance of limiting the global temperature rise to 1.5 °C, according to the new report, Net Zero by 2050: a Roadmap for the Global Energy Sector.

The report is the world’s first comprehensive study of how to transition to a net zero energy system by 2050 while ensuring stable and affordable energy supplies, providing universal energy access, and enabling robust economic growth. It sets out a cost-effective and economically productive pathway, resulting in a clean, dynamic and resilient energy economy dominated by renewables like solar and wind instead of fossil fuels. The report also examines key uncertainties, such as the roles of bioenergy, carbon capture and behavioural changes in reaching net zero.

“Our Roadmap shows the priority actions that are needed today to ensure the opportunity of net-zero emissions by 2050 – narrow but still achievable – is not lost. The scale and speed of the efforts demanded by this critical and formidable goal – our best chance of tackling climate change and limiting global warming to 1.5 °C – make this perhaps the greatest challenge humankind has ever faced,” said Fatih Birol, the IEA Executive Director. “The IEA’s pathway to this brighter future brings a historic surge in clean energy investment that creates millions of new jobs and lifts global economic growth. Moving the world onto that pathway requires strong and credible policy actions from governments, underpinned by much greater international cooperation.”

Building on the IEA’s unrivalled energy modelling tools and expertise, the Roadmap sets out more than 400 milestones to guide the global journey to net zero by 2050. These include, from today, no investment in new fossil fuel supply projects, and no further final investment decisions for new unabated coal plants. By 2035, there are no sales of new internal combustion engine passenger cars, and by 2040, the global electricity sector has already reached net-zero emissions.

In the near term, the report describes a net zero pathway that requires the immediate and massive deployment of all available clean and efficient energy technologies, combined with a major global push to accelerate innovation. The pathway calls for annual additions of solar PV to reach 630 gigawatts by 2030, and those of wind power to reach 390 gigawatts. Together, this is four times the record level set in 2020. For solar PV, it is equivalent to installing the world’s current largest solar park roughly every day. A major worldwide push to increase energy efficiency is also an essential part of these efforts, resulting in the global rate of energy efficiency improvements averaging 4% a year through 2030 – about three times the average over the last two decades.

https://www.iea.org/news/pathway-to-critical-and-formidable-goal-of-net-zero-emissions-by-2050-is-narrow-but-brings-huge-benefits

[Red-Soldier]

You could try actually addressing peoples arguments rather than just implying people are Tories and appeals to authority.

You could try reading the link I posted..

[Red-Soldier]

It's got nothing to do with the moral high ground. It's about adopting evidence-based policies to limit the impacts of climate breakdown that we're seeing across the world. It's time to stop adding fuel to the fire.

Indeed.

[Elmo!]

You could try reading the link I posted..

The IEA one? I did. I don't think it really addresses my points.

The IEA is obviously looking at this on a global scale (clue in the name), and we can all agree that we need to stop fossil fuel production worldwide.

That does absolutely nothing to address how you actually achieve that though without just moving production from one place to another. How does stopping production in one place only for it to be increased elsewhere to make up the demand that hasn't changed actually achieve the goal of reducing fossil fuel production?

[west_london_red]

Have a read of this, any questions, or if you don't agree, it's your choice.

https://www.iea.org/news/pathway-to-critical-and-formidable-goal-of-net-zero-emissions-by-2050-is-narrow-but-brings-huge-benefits

I have read already and it still doesn’t address the point.

[Indomitable_Carp]

Unless foreign produced oil and gas is less environmentally damaging then UK oil or gas you’re going to have to explain that one to me. No one is saying climate change isn’t happening and isn’t a disaster we are literally seeing happen in front of us, the point is that there is no point (unless I’m missing something) in the UK not using its own fossil fuels but still continuing to import and use them.

To answer the comments here, the practical issues and concerns are three fold:

1) For those stating it means we have to buy from oppressive regimes - well that's not really true. The top exporter of oil and gas to the UK is the infamously oppressive Norway. That is closesly followed by the USA. Those two combined provide the bulk of our imports.

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9523/


2) It costs money and resources to set up the infrastructure to continue to extract more oil and gas from new sources in the North Sea. Oil and gas which, if we are serious about our climate pledges, we should only be extracting for a limited number of years. The money and resources would be much better spent on restructuring our economy towards a greener one, and retraining North Sea oil and gas workers for the immediate and long term future of our transition towards a green economy. It is true we will be continuing to buy oil and gas from elsewhere in the meantime - from countries that already have the infrastructure in place. Why waste money on such a short term investment, when we are already strapped for cash? The green economy is the future - and that's where the money should go and the wise investments are.

3) All of the science says that we should be keeping as much oil and gas in the ground as possible. Yes we will still be consuming the oil and gas of others until we can make the transition. But we are already doing that now, so why would we contribute even more to the problem? Continuing to invest in fossil fuels on our own shores not only sends out the wrong message to the entire world, but it only gives fossil fuel companies ever more financial incentive to keep acting against the interests of climate action.

[Nobby Reserve]

To answer the comments here, the practical issues and concerns are three fold:

1) For those stating it means we have to buy from oppressive regimes - well that's not really true. The top exporter of oil and gas to the UK is the infamously oppressive Norway. That is closesly followed by the USA. Those two combined provide the bulk of our imports.

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9523/


2) It costs money and resources to set up the infrastructure to continue to extract more oil and gas from new sources in the North Sea. Oil and gas which, if we are serious about our climate pledges, we should only be extracting for a limited number of years. The money and resources would be much better spent on restructuring our economy towards a greener one, and retraining North Sea oil and gas workers for the immediate and long term future of our transition towards a green economy. It is true we will be continuing to buy oil and gas from elsewhere in the meantime - from countries that already have the infrastructure in place. Why waste money on such a short term investment, when we are already strapped for cash? The green economy is the future - and that's where the money should go and the wise investments are.

3) All of the science says that we should be keeping as much oil and gas in the ground as possible. Yes we will still be consuming the oil and gas of others until we can make the transition. But we are already doing that now, so why would we contribute even more to the problem? Continuing to invest in fossil fuels on our own shores not only sends out the wrong message to the entire world, but it only gies fossil fuel companies ever more financial incentive to keep acting against the interests of climate action.

1) We'll still have to import oil for a long time yet, regardless of its source

2) There is already extensive infrastructure in place, which has facilitated the NSO industry since the 70's. Any investment in infrastructure to tap new fields/reserves would be relatively minimal. This investment in infrastructure doesn't/wouldn't come from the state, but from private capital. If they don't spend on infrastructure new oilfields, they won't then spend it on retraining oil industry workers or realigning the UK into green energy.

3) There has to be a transition period for moving away from oil (which has been the basis for the majority of global industrial growth & activity for decades). During that transition period, we will need oil. It makes zero difference to the level of oil consumption where that oil originates. We can either import it all, which generates minimal income for the Treasury. Or use the NSO reserves left, which generate £billions per year for the Treasury. I say that it would be better for facilitating the transition to green energy to use the revenues from any new licences to subsidise people buying solar power systems/proper insulation/heat pumps/EV's/etc.

I'm saying this as someone committed to the cause of transitioning to green energy (who's already taking steps, like getting an EV, towards reducing their emissions footprint)

I'm just being pragmatic.

Helping people afford the mechanisms that allow the transition to green energy and/or reducing GHG emissions will speed that transition. Surely that's what we all want.

[west_london_red]

To answer the comments here, the practical issues and concerns are three fold:

1) For those stating it means we have to buy from oppressive regimes - well that's not really true. The top exporter of oil and gas to the UK is the infamously oppressive Norway. That is closesly followed by the USA. Those two combined provide the bulk of our imports.

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9523/


2) It costs money and resources to set up the infrastructure to continue to extract more oil and gas from new sources in the North Sea. Oil and gas which, if we are serious about our climate pledges, we should only be extracting for a limited number of years. The money and resources would be much better spent on restructuring our economy towards a greener one, and retraining North Sea oil and gas workers for the immediate and long term future of our transition towards a green economy. It is true we will be continuing to buy oil and gas from elsewhere in the meantime - from countries that already have the infrastructure in place. Why waste money on such a short term investment, when we are already strapped for cash? The green economy is the future - and that's where the money should go and the wise investments are.

3) All of the science says that we should be keeping as much oil and gas in the ground as possible. Yes we will still be consuming the oil and gas of others until we can make the transition. But we are already doing that now, so why would we contribute even more to the problem? Continuing to invest in fossil fuels on our own shores not only sends out the wrong message to the entire world, but it only gies fossil fuel companies ever more financial incentive to keep acting against the interests of climate action.

1) The point I was addressing was about setting an example. It doesn’t matter which foreign country the oil and gas comes from, the point is they are going to keep on producing it. We can set the example all we want, but the US, Norway, Russia, Saudi Arabia are not going to follow our suit.

2) Whose money and resources? You seem to have removed the line between a private oil and gas company and where it spends its money and the state and its money.

3) The contributions to the problem is the burning of fossil fuels, that’s what we need to focus on. Reducing our own production but continuing to import fossil fuels doesn’t solve that. As Elmo said before, we need to focus on demand.

[Indomitable_Carp]

In response to both of the above:

The line between private and public investment in fossil fuels was removed a long time ago:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/mar/09/fossil-fuels-more-support-uk-than-renewables-since-2015#:~:text=However%2C%20fossil%20fuels%20have%20been,%C2%A31m%2C%20or%200.01%25.

As of 2021, the UK government had provided £80 billion in subsidies to the fossil fuel industry since 2015 (compared to £60 billion for renewable energy). 20% of those subsidies were to support the new extraction of fossil fuel resources.

Any money gained for government coffers via extraction is money that we have already wasted on the industry at the expense of the planet and our own green industry. The UK, by supporting the continued extraction of fossil fuels in the North Sea, is simply continuing to fund and subsidise fossil fuel companies with tax payer money, while delaying our own green transition. The longer we continue to subsidise the fossil fuel industry, the longer we give fossil fuel companies the power and incentive to continue influencing our politics and acting against meaningful climate action. If those £80 billion in fossil fuel subsidies had been spent on green energy, imagine how much further along we would be, and how much more advanced our green industry sector would be? If you want to talk about generating secure streams of revenue and private investment, green energy is the only future worth considering.

We will continue to buy oil and gas from abroad, as we do now. It's worked up until now - why would it not work into the future considering we will need less and less of it? In the meantime, we will spend the money on our own shores transitioning to a green economy, and not continue to subsidise the fossil fuel indsutry with public money.



Edit: Just to add some more stastics:

Since 2015, the UK government has been recieving between £300 million and £2 billion in tax revenue from the oil and gas industry per year - comparative penuts.

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/government-revenues-from-uk-oil-and-gas-production--2/statistics-of-government-revenues-from-uk-oil-and-gas-production-july-2021

The UK government has calculated a massively expanded £10 billion this last year, due to greatly increased energy prices and the energy levy - dwarfing previous years - but stiill far from recopuping the £80 billion in subsidies.

https://obr.uk/forecasts-in-depth/tax-by-tax-spend-by-spend/oil-and-gas-revenues/

Global fossil fuel profits in recent years have amounted to $1.5 trillion per year, jumping to $4 trillion this last year:

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/oil-gas-industry-earned-4-trillion-last-year-says-iea-chief-2023-02-14/#:~:text=OSLO%2C%20Feb%2014%20(Reuters),Fatih%20Birol%2C%20said%20on%20Tuesday.


Edit 2: Realised I had accidently double-posted a source. Rectified that now.

[Red-Soldier]

Thanks for taking the time to write your posts 

[Bioluminescence]

In response to both of the above:

The line between private and public investment in fossil fuels was removed a long time ago:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/mar/09/fossil-fuels-more-support-uk-than-renewables-since-2015#:~:text=However%2C%20fossil%20fuels%20have%20been,%C2%A31m%2C%20or%200.01%25.

As of 2021, the UK government had provided £80 billion in subsidies to the fossil fuel industry since 2015 (compared to £60 billion for renewable energy). 20% of those subsidies were to support the new extraction of fossil fuel resources.

Any money gained for government coffers via extraction is money that we have already wasted on the industry at the expense of the planet and our own green industry. The UK, by supporting the continued extraction of fossil fuels in the North Sea, is simply continuing to fund and subsidise fossil fuel companies with tax payer money, while delaying our own green transition. The longer we continue to subsidise the fossil fuel industry, the longer we give fossil fuel companies the power and incentive to continue influencing our politics and acting against meaningful climate action. If those £80 billion in fossil fuel subsidies had been spent on green energy, imagine how much further along we would be, and how much more advanced our green industry sector would be? If you want to talk about generating secure streams of revenue and private investment, green energy is the only future worth considering.

We will continue to buy oil and gas from abroad, as we do now. It's worked up until now - why would it not work into the future considering we will need less and less of it? In the meantime, we will spend the money on our own shores transitioning to a green economy, and not continue to subsidise the fossil fuel indsutry with public money.



Edit: Just to add some more stastics:

Since 2015, the UK government has been recieving between £300 million and £2 billion in tax revenue from the oil and gas industry per year - comparative penuts.

https://obr.uk/forecasts-in-depth/tax-by-tax-spend-by-spend/oil-and-gas-revenues/

The UK government has calculated a massively expanded £10 billion this last year, due to greatly increased energy prices and the energy levy - dwarfing previous years - but stiill far from recopuping the £80 billion in subsidies.

https://obr.uk/forecasts-in-depth/tax-by-tax-spend-by-spend/oil-and-gas-revenues/

Global fossil fuel profits in recent years have amounted to $1.5 trillion per year, jumping to $4 trillion this last year:

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/oil-gas-industry-earned-4-trillion-last-year-says-iea-chief-2023-02-14/#:~:text=OSLO%2C%20Feb%2014%20(Reuters),Fatih%20Birol%2C%20said%20on%20Tuesday.

Thanks for this and finding the figures. The cost of tax breaks and subsidies to the government is considerable, and there are much better ways to curb our reliance on foreign fossil fuels in any case. The experts are clear that we need to stop oil and gas exploration, and moving away from fossil fuels makes that a no-brainer really. The government now needs to take radical steps to make this transition happen. There are a few things it can do - such as release funds for the insulation of homes and businesses and for the installation of heat pumps, investments in efficiency and infrastructure (public transport, charging points, renewables, etc.) and in upskilling to meet the growing demand of a low-carbon economy (renewable energy generation, retrofitting and electric vehicles, for example). Some analyses show that done well, the cost will be cancelled out by savings by 2050. More generally, it's accepted that the cost of inaction outweighs the short-term cost of reducing CO2 emissions, especially if you take biodiversity loss and human health into account as well as the impacts of rising temperatures and extreme weather.

It makes no sense to develop oilfields in the UK. We export most of it anyway and it doesn't bring prices down, while their lifecycles mean they'll carry on producing into the 2040s and 2050s - when we should be reaching net zero. I agree with west_london_red that we need to reduce demand but we can do that without new oilfields.

[Machae]

Rising temperatures ‘likely to be beneficial’ for Britain, says Lord Frost

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/britain-lord-brexit-government-athens-b2381122.html

[redbyrdz]

Rising temperatures ‘likely to be beneficial’ for Britain, says Lord Frost

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/britain-lord-brexit-government-athens-b2381122.html

Hope they make him melt.

[Red-Soldier]

Rising temperatures ‘likely to be beneficial’ for Britain, says Lord Frost

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/britain-lord-brexit-government-athens-b2381122.html

Just like Brexit 

[thejbs]

Rising temperatures ‘likely to be beneficial’ for Britain, says Lord Frost

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/britain-lord-brexit-government-athens-b2381122.html

Yes, because Britain exists in a vacuum and doesn't import food from other countries that will become increasingly uninhabitable. And it absolutely won't see an unprecedented influx of climate refugees. What a fucking cretin.

[GreatEx]

Lord Brexit, a worthy URL for a c*nt among c*nts

[KlurgenJopp]

Rising temperatures ‘likely to be beneficial’ for Britain, says Lord Frost

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/britain-lord-brexit-government-athens-b2381122.html

 “Digging deeper, what are those consequences of the hotter, warmer summers and warmer, wetter winters?"

Drought? Crop failures? Fires in grain fields? Increase in pest numbers? New pests? New diseases?

What a twit. 

[spen71]

Sort of related to climate change.    Japan have recorded 800,000 drop in population.    The government are encouraging families to have more children.    Once again economy is more important than the planet.

If I was in my 20s/30s I would not have kids.    No way would I bring kids into this shit world now.    Really feel for my two daughters and the rest of them at that age.

[Nobby Reserve]

Rising temperatures ‘likely to be beneficial’ for Britain, says Lord Frost

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/britain-lord-brexit-government-athens-b2381122.html

A speech straight outta Tufton Street

[Mister Flip Flop]

Sort of related to climate change.    Japan have recorded 800,000 drop in population.    The government are encouraging families to have more children.    Once again economy is more important than the planet.

If I was in my 20s/30s I would not have kids.    No way would I bring kids into this shit world now.    Really feel for my two daughters and the rest of them at that age.

There's a lot of western nations in that boat. It's bizarre really because without a planet that's habitable there will be no economics. I'm pretty much consigned now to humans inability to save themselves. Governments aren't helping and think in 4 year cycles, places like China/India fear a popular uprising so will just continue on as is.

 I've done my own part over the last few years including ditching the car and as a motorbike enthusiast sold all but 1 of my 7 bikes as they are incredibly polluting. I've been on one sun holiday since 2018 and have abandoned short haul city flights for business or pleasure. I next to never travel over the pond for matches now and that's been hard, really hard. Unfortunately im not loaded so can't get the house future proofed as of yet (it's very expensive here in Ireland) but am saving to do just that in the next 5 years. I'm beginning to wonder why im bothering to be honest.

[thejbs]

At least in Ireland you have grants for solar/heat pumps etc. I’m desperate to get solar and a heat pump for environmental reasons but it’s just too expensive without assistance. We only use the car when unavoidable these days, the rest of the time it’s bikes. weve cut down meat consumption drastically and we’ve taken the decision to not have kids.

[Indomitable_Carp]

And fossil fuel lobbying once again wins the day, as the Tories approve 100 new North Sea licenses:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jul/31/rishi-sunak-approval-100-new-north-sea-oil-and-gas-licences-fossil-fuel-climate-crisis

But what else can be expected from "I'm-too-rich-to-give-a-shit-Rishy"?!

[Red-Soldier]

And fossil fuel lobbying once again wins the day, as the Tories approve 100 new North Sea licenses:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jul/31/rishi-sunak-approval-100-new-north-sea-oil-and-gas-licences-fossil-fuel-climate-crisis

But what else can be expected from "I'm-too-rich-to-give-a-shit-Rishy"?!

He's always been anti-environment, moreso than Boris.

[Nobby Reserve]

At least in Ireland you have grants for solar/heat pumps etc. I’m desperate to get solar and a heat pump for environmental reasons but it’s just too expensive without assistance. We only use the car when unavoidable these days, the rest of the time it’s bikes. weve cut down meat consumption drastically and we’ve taken the decision to not have kids.

Fossil Fuel industry lobbying has been mentioned in respect of other facets of addressing climate change, and I think they have a major hand in blocking the government here providing grants for things like domestic solar power systems, hear pumps, etc.

Imagine the impact on the turnover (and therefore profits) of electricity/gas suppliers if the majority of homes had solar power and heat pumps?

Free energy? Can't be having that...

[Bioluminescence]

Sunak's rhetoric is very clear - he attacks Labour as anti-car, anti-motorists and anti-families. When in reality green policies have multiple benefits, not least when it comes to air pollution and climate breakdown. There's no way to defend new gas and oil licences when heatwaves, wildfires and floods are devastating large parts of the world. Sunak may believe that his wealth will protect him but that will only last so long.

[Bioluminescence]

Fossil Fuel industry lobbying has been mentioned in respect of other facets of addressing climate change, and I think they have a major hand in blocking the government here providing grants for things like domestic solar power systems, hear pumps, etc.

Imagine the impact on the turnover (and therefore profits) of electricity/gas suppliers if the majority of homes had solar power and heat pumps?

Free energy? Can't be having that...

Agree. It was never about scientific evidence or a lack of awareness - it was always about blocking the adoption of solutions.

[GreatEx]

He's always been anti-environment, moreso than Boris.

Feels weird to be saying "to be fair" in relation to Boris, but to be fair to Boris, he seems to be quite conservationist for a conservative, so to speak. Compare what you have to Australia, where recent conservative prime ministers have been dismissive of "that climate crap", not to mention the most recent US and Brazil right wing leaders who actively encourage the use of fossil fuels and accelerated environmental destruction as some kind of perverse freedom ritual.

[west_london_red]

Sunak's rhetoric is very clear - he attacks Labour as anti-car, anti-motorists and anti-families. When in reality green policies have multiple benefits, not least when it comes to air pollution and climate breakdown. There's no way to defend new gas and oil licences when heatwaves, wildfires and floods are devastating large parts of the world. Sunak may believe that his wealth will protect him but that will only last so long.

They are just scraping the barrel for something to fight the next election on that doesn’t involve the last 13 years of Tory government, completely ignoring that they are the ones who brought in most of the ‘green crap’ they are now complaining about.

[Bioluminescence]

They are just scraping the barrel for something to fight the next election on that doesn’t involve the last 13 years of Tory government, completely ignoring that they are the ones who brought in most of the ‘green crap’ they are now complaining about.

That's it, isn't it? They've decided that since the ULEZ played a part in them retaining Uxbridge, anti-green policies is the way to win the next GE. It looks like Sunak's also planning to target low-traffic neighbourhood schemes and 20mph zones. All to pacify a handful of people. But while people don't have options such as affordable and reliable public transport, he might just get away with it again. Despite the mess the Tories have made of just about everything.

[LuverlyRita]

It's a small envrionmental win but, according to The Guardian, it looks like plastic lawns are facing a backlash. They are not maintenance free (they have to be vacuumed), they don't drain well, they soak up and smell of dog urine and they get so hot in summer they burn your feet 

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2023/jul/31/plastic-lawn-backlash-fake-grass

[thejbs]

Our neighbour installed one, only to rip it out a year later as it stank of dog piss.

[Red-Soldier]

Our neighbour installed one, only to rip it out a year later as it stank of dog piss.

 

[Nobby Reserve]

I replaced my back dandelion patch with artificial and it's one of the best things I ever did.

My garden's around 50' long and I've got several big trees at the far end and some at the sides. A stone-paved patio area across the width by the house. Half the lawn was mostly in shade, with the trees sucking up all the moisture from the ground around them, and grass really struggled. Throw in two kids, a big trampoline (under which everything but dandelions dies) and a tumble track, and most of my 'lawn' was a mix of weeds, moss and bare earth.

In about 2016 I spent weeks re-preparing it (aerating, improving the soil) and laid fresh 'shade-resistant' seed. Initially the results were OK, but within a year it had reverted to the previous state.

Then we got a dog.

The 'lawn' was essentially out of use for long spells over autumn/winter/spring anyway as our shitty climate turned it muddy. After a winter of having to wash and dry the dog's paws every time she went for a pee/poo, we decided to try artificial.

The drainage on my lawn is great anyway (we moved in new and I dug a herringbone drainage system into two soakaways) and I did the preparation thoroughly and properly.

I think it looks great. Can use it all year round. Underneath the trampoline is as green as everywhere else. Beneath the shade-producing, soil-drying trees is as green as anywhere. It never gets muddy. The dog can go out any time of year and comes in with clean paws. It's never flooded.

I've never smelt dog piss emanating from it. Genuinely never.

It isn't maintenance-free, but then I never expected it to be.

When I had a 'grass' lawn, I always had to rake up the mass of fallen leaves and garden-vac bits. I have to do that now. Have to periodically weedkiller, too. And scrape off the moss that forms under the tree-shaded bits. And every 2/3 years an afternoon brushing-in several bags of kiln-dried sand.

Don't have to mow it, though, nor weed'n'feed it, nor aerate it.

There's more than enough trees & shrubs around the whole garden to be a haven for bugs and wildlife.

I've also kept my front lawn. 

[Red-Soldier]

I replaced my back dandelion patch with artificial and it's one of the best things I ever did.

You wrong un 

[Machae]

https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/politics/sunaks-family-firm-signed-a-billion-dollar-deal-with-bp-before-pm-opened-new-north-sea-licences-353690/

Sunak’s family firm signed a billion-dollar deal with BP before PM opened new North Sea licences. The CEO of one of Infosys' other major clients, Shell, also joined Rishi Sunak's new business council two weeks ago.

[Red-Soldier]

https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/politics/sunaks-family-firm-signed-a-billion-dollar-deal-with-bp-before-pm-opened-new-north-sea-licences-353690/

Sunak’s family firm signed a billion-dollar deal with BP before PM opened new North Sea licences. The CEO of one of Infosys' other major clients, Shell, also joined Rishi Sunak's new business council two weeks ago.

Fossil fuel bodies are at the heart of all far-right governemnts/political parties.