Greenhouse gas emissions from existing fossil fuel infrastructure are enough to burst through the critical limit of 1.5C in global temperature rise, a major new report warned today.
The report, from the world’s leading climate scientists, said that any new projects, such as oil and gas wells, would make passing 1.5C more likely.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which advises the United Nations, predicted in the report that 1.5C of warming above pre-industrial levels would be reached by the first half of the 2030s. It said:
“Projected CO2 emissions from existing fossil fuel infrastructure without additional abatement would exceed the remaining carbon budget for 1.5°C.”
The report added:
“Projected cumulative future CO2 emissions over the lifetime of existing and planned fossil fuel infrastructure, if historical operating patterns are maintained and without additional abatement, are approximately equal to the remaining carbon budget for limiting warming to 2°C with a likelihood of 83%.”
The IPCC said “more than a century of burning fossil fuels as well as unequal and unsustainable energy and land use has led to global warming of 1.1°C above pre-industrial”.
“This had resulted in more frequent and more intense extreme weather events that have caused increasingly dangerous impacts on nature and people in every region of the world”, the IPCC said.
The report said there were “multiple, feasible and effective options to reduce greenhouse gas emission and adapt to climate change that are available now”.
Urgent and more ambitious action could still secure a liveable sustainable future for all, the report said.
Oliver Geden, an author of the IPCC report, told the BBC:
“There’s not a cut-off day [for fossil fuels], but it’s clear that the fossil fuel infrastructure we already have will blow through that [1.5C] carbon budget.
“If greenhouse gas emissions can be made to peak as soon as possible, and are reduced rapidly in the following years, it may still be possible to avoid the worst ravages that would follow a 1.5C rise.
“The remaining carbon budget in opening new fossil fuel infrastructure is certainly not compatible with the 1.5C target.”
Funding problem
The IPCC said public and private finance for fossil fuels was still greater than that for climate adaptation and mitigation.
Removing fossil fuel subsidies would reduce emissions and lead to other public benefits, it said.
Friederike Otto, another author of the report, said:
“It’s not that there isn’t enough money in the world. But at the moment the money is clearly going to the wrong places. We still have subsidies of fossil fuels so the money on a very big scale needs to go to different places.”
She said any subsidy of fossil fuel was a mistake. On fossil fuel investment, she said:
“Investment in fossil fuels will just mean stranded assets.”
Recommendations
The IPCC said net zero CO2 energy systems would need:
- a substantial reduction in overall fossil fuel use
- minimal use of unabated fossil fuels
- use of carbon capture and storage in the remaining fossil fuel systems
- electricity systems that emit no net CO2
- widespread electrification
- alternative energy carriers in applications less amenable to electrification
- energy conservation and efficiency
- and greater integration across the energy system
By unabated, the IPCC means fossil fuels produced and used without interventions that reduce greenhouse gases throughout the life cycle. It suggests that 90% or more of CO2 would need to be captured from power plants and 50-80% of fugitive methane emissions removed from the energy supply.
The UN secretary general, António Guterres, said:
“This report is a clarion call to massively fast-track climate efforts by every country and every sector and on every timeframe. Our world needs climate action on all fronts: everything, everywhere, all at once.”
John Kerry, the US special presidential envoy for climate, said:
“Today’s message from the IPCC is abundantly clear: we are making progress, but not enough. We have the tools to stave off and reduce the risks of the worst impacts of the climate crisis, but we must take advantage of this moment to act now.”
UK new oil and gas plans
In the UK, the government has approved a new coal mine in Cumbria, opened a new licensing round for 900 locations for oil and gas exploration in the North Sea and approved the Jackdaw offshore gas field.
Onshore, it approved exploratory drilling at Dunsfold in Surrey. There are also plans for new onshore oil and gas operations in East Yorkshire (Rathlin Energy at West Newton), North Lincolnshire (Egdon Resources at Wressle), Lincolnshire (Egdon Resources at Biscathorpe and IGas at Glentworth) and West Sussex (Angus Energy at Balcombe).
Mike Childs, head of science, policy and research at Friends of the Earth, said:
“the government must deliver on legally-binding carbon reduction targets, thanks to our world-leading Climate Change Act. But last week we heard the government is still way off meeting its own goals over the crucial next decade.
“Legal action brought by Friends of the Earth and others last year also found the UK’s climate plans are wholly inadequate – the government is due to publish a revised Net Zero Strategy by the end of this month. Strengthening this will be the government’s best opportunity to show that it is listening to the science and put the UK on course to become a thriving green economy.
“For this to happen, we need to see a huge drive to insulate the UK’s heat-leaking homes, faster development of cheap, clean renewable energy, fewer roads being built and an end to new fossil fuel infrastructure.”
Mary Church, head of campaigns at Friends of the Earth Scotland, said,
“Today’s UN report is another stark warning that the chances of avoiding 1.5°C are shrinking fast. Deep emissions cuts are needed now, and the message at the heart of this latest assessment is that we must say no to all new oil and gas projects, put an end to fossil fuel subsidies and urgently start delivering a just transition for impacted communities.”
DRILL OR DROP? 
How many MORE warnings does it need ?
Why show a photo of Cuadrilla’s flare stacks? Totally irrelevant to the topic – how much gas was flared / vented? Contribution to the IPCC issues = nil.
If an example of what the IPCC is referring to, why not use the article in today’s Guardian?
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/mar/20/ukraine-is-a-false-justification-americas-destructive-new-rush-for-natural-gas
“The Plaquemines liquefied natural gas (LNG) export terminal is just one of five such terminals being built or expanded along the US Gulf coast in Louisiana and Texas. Eight more projects have been approved, and another eight have been proposed – all in a stretch of roughly 700 miles, and where five plants are already operating. If all the new terminals were built, they would double or even triple current US capacity to deliver natural gas – an amount of fuel that, if burned, would contribute to the world tipping over the emissions target required to keep global heating in check.”
This gas replaces Russian gas and demonstrates that the demand for this gas is there – check your household utility bills……
Paul Tresto: you ask ” How much gas was flared/ vented ? ”
Cuadrilla breached permit over venting unburned methane at Lancashire frack site:
The Environment Agency has warned Cuadrilla over allowing climate-changing methane to vent into the atmosphere from the Preston New Road fracking site.
The company breached three conditions of its environmental permit and has been instructed to update its procedures.
The breaches emerged during an audit of flaring and gas management at the site near Blackpool during February and March 2019.
An estimated 2.7-6.8 tonnes of methane were sent unburned through the flare, the Environment Agency (EA) said.
The regulator concluded in a compliance assessment report released today:
Cuadrilla vented methane for reasons other than safety, against permit conditions
Cuadrilla failed to follow operational procedures for the flare
Cuadrilla failed to follow the permit condition on monitoring methane concentrations in the flare.”
Link to DrillOrDrop article from May 2019: https://drillordrop.com/2019/05/21/cuadrilla-breached-permit-over-venting-unburned-methane-at-lancashire-frack-site/
”A six-day methane gas release at Cuadrilla’s fracking site near Blackpool had the same carbon footprint as 142 flights from London to New York, new research has concluded.
A monitoring station, installed by researchers from Manchester University, detected the methane, a powerful greenhouse gas, after it was emitted from the site at Preston New Road.
Analysis showed the methane had been released, unburnt, through the flare stack, from 11-16 January 2019. The researchers estimated about 4.2 tonnes had been emitted.
The release happened during a nitrogen lift operation. This pumped nitrogen into the PNR1z well to unload unwanted fluid and improve gas flow after fracking in October-December 2018.
Cuadrilla confirmed that the flare failed to light and a mixture of methane and nitrogen was vented, unburnt, into the atmosphere.
The Manchester study, reported in the Journal of the Air and Waste Management Association, claimed to be the first estimate of methane emissions during a nitrogen lift process for gas extraction.
It said the 4.2 tonnes of methane equated to 143 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent, assuming the usual 100-year time period to measure global warming potential (GWP100 value).
The study said:
“The GWP100 value is equivalent to the carbon footprint of 516 MWh of electricity consumed from the UK National Grid: the annual electricity demand of 166 households. Alternatively, equivalence can be drawn with 142 London–New York flights.”
Equivalent to around 5 days of London – New York flights then as there appear to be 27 flights London – NY flights a day – which is a lot more than I would have thought.
https://simpleflying.com/london-nyc-27-flights-7-airlines/
Cuadrilla are gone, I assume the London – NY flights continue?
So perhaps a photo of a typical commercial airliner would have been more appropriate?
Or perhaps, Paul, a photo of a couple of Cuadrilla’s flare stacks given that the article dealt with existing fossil fuel infrastructure?
And I thought the problem is how the fossil fuel is used….. If it is kept in tanks / ships / pipelines there is no issue for the IPCC other than some fugitive emissions. However, if it is combusted e.g. in jet engines on transatlantic flights then there is a problem. Take away demand and usage, take away the emissions.
The use of the words “fossil fuel infrastructure ” by the IPCC is confusing; it is not the fossil fuel extraction and processing infrastructure that is the issue; it is the consumption / end use of this fossil fuel.
From the report / article above:
The IPCC said net zero CO2 energy systems would need:
“a substantial reduction in overall fossil fuel use”
“minimal use of unabated fossil fuels”
If only we could be certain that ”Cuadrilla are gone”.
Rapid cuts to methane leaks at oil and gas sites needed to meet climate targets – IEA
OCTOBER 13, 2021
”Cutting methane emissions from oil and gas sites is vital to limiting global warming to 1.5C, the International Energy Agency said today.
In its annual World Energy Outlook, the IEA said this measure could close 15% of the gap between what was needed to limit temperature rise and today’s pledges by world governments.
The flagship report – designed as a guidebook for world leaders at next month’s climate talks in Glasgow – said there would need to be cuts in 2030 of almost 90 million tonnes of methane emissions from fossil fuel operations to keep the world on track for net zero by 2050.
“Rapid reductions in methane emissions are a key tool to limit near-term global warming, and the most cost-effective abatement opportunities are in the energy sector, particularly in oil and gas operations.
“Methane abatement is not addressed quickly or effectively enough by simply reducing fossil fuel use; concerted efforts from governments and industry are vital to secure the emissions cuts that close nearly 15% of the gap to the NZE [Net Zero Emissions by 2050 scenario].”
Plenty of information available about global methane emissions and their sources. See the following links:
https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/sources-of-methane-emissions
https://www.qedenv.com/markets-and-applications/oil-and-gas/industrial-process-leak-detection/what-are-the-main-sources-of-methane-emissions/
https://www.globalmethane.org/methane-emissions-data.aspx
The amount of methane in Earth’s atmosphere has reached record levels in recent years. One of the major sources of emissions is the extraction, storage, and transportation of oil, natural gas, and coal, which results in the release of about 97 million metric tons of methane gas each year, according to the United Nations (U.N.). In a recent research project, scientists mapped where those emissions are coming from—not just by nations, but within them:
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/149374/mapping-methane-emissions-from-fossil-fuel-exploitation
Friederike Otto works for the Grantham Institute, part of Imperial College London, she is also pushing the attribution theory, that states that increased CO2 increases the likelihood of extreme weather events, Jeremy Grantham funds the institute, he runs a hedge fund and makes his money from ( you have one guess) so called green projects, particularly selling carbon reduction certificates for planting trees, which were actually replacing trees that were chopped down to burn as bio fuels….I think that there are some vested interests in promulgating all this net zero crap.
The UN is seeking to become a world government body (also in the World Health Organisation) and Guterres views are just scripted for him. Be careful what you wish for.
You can keep making excuses, passing the buck or engaging in conspiracy theories or fantasies like Prime Minister Rishi Sunak claiming this country is a world leader in reducing CO2 – how dare he ? How bloody dare he whilst licensing new oil and gas fields and a new coal mine for Heaven’s sake. Plans for new road infrastructure and expansion of aviation have not been cancelled. Our politicians not only lie to us they lie to themselves – twenty years of lies. Only fair distribution of this planet’s wealth on a national and international basis and “everything everywhere “done to reduce demand for power and urgent replacement of fossil fuels can save us and the miraculous life on earth. WAKE UP ! One million are said to have marched against the Iraq war – XR and other organisations are praying for 100,000 on April 21st. to protest at government’s ” woefully inadequate and unlawful” climate strategy. The former was not an existential threat – the Climate Emergency is !
I was quite interested until I arrived at the “stranded asset” repeat. Another example of just restating something that has already been proved incorrect, wrong and very silly. Repeating will not make the statement correct. Tried with the “energy security” slogan that proceeded it. That lasted the test of time, didn’t it? LOL. (Not even an apology!)
It really is quite brave, if silly, to speak of stranded assets in the context of wind turbines sat doing nothing on a windless day, and advocating more! Especially when those fossil fuel assets are being milked to help to alleviate some of the pain for those not only trying to fund their own energy use but also contribute to fund that of industry to keep their jobs in UK rather than for them to move to where cheaper energy (fossil fuels) is available.
Subsidies for fossil fuels? Hmm, try promoting to the UK consumer that agricultural (red) diesel will no longer be subsidized and what that would do to their food prices that have rocketed already. Most consumers would be surprised to be told that is part of what some refer to as subsidy. These vested interests really do need to come up with some plans that are not going to cripple the already weakened finances of the voter. Until they do, they will excite the excitable but not get sufficient conversion to make much progress. Perhaps the “plans” just have issues that are best kept covered up-like £200B for new nuclear and £54B for Grid upgrade that turn cheap, unreliable renewables into expensive, unreliable renewables.
I noted the other day how many nuclear subs. the UK has that are awaiting decommissioning, whilst they rust away. Therefore, one would expect the Holy Grail of how to decommission nuclear must be just around the corner to deal with adding so much to the job. Anyone seen it?
Never mind, there will be a window of opportunity-called the summer-for lots of similar stuff, before the reality of the next winter kicks in. All with post pandemic global trade yet to recover, with the energy consumption that will dictate.
Meanwhile, I note the drilling stats. from the USA are still pushing northwards, and to Alaska, whilst John Kerry is wheeled out. Ever thus, the gulf between reality and a politician’s statement is pretty wide. Remember in UK the call to “buy diesel cars”, or “no new nuclear required” or “energy security”? Apology on those still awaited.
You miss the point as ever, Martin, and now we all know you know it; we have told you often enough. I too have told you.
Thanks however for your guidance –
“Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.”
King James Bible, Matthew 23:24
Most of us can still see clearly enough what the scientists are telling us despite the nit-picking dust cloud so frequently kicked up by those like yourself who, for reasons of your own, would prefer we looked elsewhere. To quote Orwell –
“Everything faded into mist. The past was erased, the erasure was forgotten, the lie became truth.”
Ahh, the poster who decided what a scientist would have told “us” -after he died, even though he had made it clear what he thought just before he did! Good try 1720, but you have already dismissed yourself from any coherence on that particular point. Just more of the “irrational exuberance” that 1720 was renowned for. Who spoke about the irrational exuberance, explaining why he had made such bad decisions in 1720? Oh yes, a scientist!
Which group of scientists should “we” believe in respect of growing cereals to be used for biofuel? Those who stated it was so much better for this planet, those who stated afterwards, no it wasn’t? I prefer my own eyes and experience that explained when US farmers decided to grow more corn to cash in, the soya plantings decreased and the price of food around the world escalated as a result. Now, some countries are looking to apply a moratorium on that stupidity. A moratorium on “green” activity? Who would have even thought that might be required? Not too many “we’s”, but quite a few others. Another area to be dismissed as exuberance? Cash for Ash the same? £6B subsidy for Drax the same?
“See clearly enough”??? No, that lie has remained a lie, the truth has remained truth-£200B worth. It just took a while until it was leaked out. Wonder when the generation costs will follow?
I did like the “fair distribution of this planet’s wealth” bit though. Rather than pray for 100,000, I can all pray for my “fair” distribution. £100,000 would be nice. I shall do so when I do the lottery this week. Who knows, if my prayer is answered I may be able to afford to pay my current energy bill without reducing my standard of living.
Just to correct another of your errors 1720, it is of no consequence to me where your “we’s” look. You appear consumed by the Group Think. I am not. I was given the ability to think for myself, encouraged to do so throughout life, and will continue to do so. The cult of the “we’s” is far too Orwellian for me, together with it’s self appointed leader.
Us and them has caused more damage to this planet than any other concept, yet it is still being attempted, ironically, by those who are also claiming to be protectors of same planet. The same trail can be followed throughout history but “one” would have thought that by now humanity would have found a better approach. Nope, they produced the Internet where it could be multiplied!
Mmm yes I think you touched a nerve there with Mr Collyer. Of course its a collusion between governments and the fossil fuel industry that has been holding back progress for a long time, and both continue to pay lip service to saving the planet … I think Collyer would argue even with luminaries like David Attenborough. I have to say I wish Attenborough had made more noise earlier but better late than never.
Well, CJR, I have far less air miles clocked up than Sir David over recent years, but he has his right to clock them up.
No, my nerves are quite okay thank you, CJR. I do find it helps with the humorous confusion between the Bible and Orwell by someone who continuously references Group Think and applies a number to his/her identity!
No progress is being held back, CJR. There is plenty of money sloshing around the world, unless and until the Banks are forced to reduce supplies. If there are projects that require it and are solid investments the money will find it’s way to them. $369B IRA. The new UK “sustainable” energy is getting £200B. If the money doesn’t find it’s way, eg. the Swansea Lagoon, then there is another reason. Perhaps definition of progress is the issue. Unfortunate for those with a vested interest, but they can always apply that badge elsewhere-and do. You can whinge away, using fossil fuel to do so, as much as you like but what I notice is absent is the provision of sound projects that will attract the money. There are indeed some that are yet to be proven sound but are still attracting huge quantities of money, such as CCS announced recently and fusion. The proof of those puddings are still to be shown. Tax payers money and industry money. There have been quite a few projects that have attracted money that ended up with a lot of that money wasted. If anyone wants Net Zero to fail, continue with that waste, and it will. Back all the horses in a race and you will pick the winner, but will soon be bust.
QED
History is full, Martin, of ‘I’s who thought they could think for themselves and need pay no attention to those who thought differently. That particular group of ‘I’s will find kindred spirits, becoming ‘we’s as they act in concert. You don’t understand Orwell, Martin, if you cannot see the difference – Hitler thought for himself in his “struggle”, as did Stalin, as did Napoleon, as did Blair, as did the fallen angel, as does Trump, as does Bolsonaro, Johnson, – and all gathered into ‘we’s with disastrous consequences. Naturally the collected ‘I’s, all “given the ability to think for (themselves)” need others they could feel superior to, the scientists perhaps. They will also need to ‘other’ those who do not fit in, subjugate, suppress and eliminate them. Why not call them the ‘we’s’?, using for personal, exclusive use a commonly accepted word with well-understood semantic significance.
Try and understand the difference between your ‘I’’s and ‘we’s and the ‘we’ who are the beneficiaries of rational scientific inquiry.
“Which group of scientists should “we” believe …?”, you ask.
Not those scientists whose possible errors you use to malign that overwhelming body of scientists and scientific opinion (who point out that the planet is self-destructing in its use of fossil fuels, and that this self-destruction is first destroying those who have nothing, leaving the ‘I’s the temporary enjoyment of their gains).
These are the scientists you should believe, Martin.
We speak up for them as well as for those ‘othered’ by the collected ‘I’s.
There is a problem, isn’t there, Martin, by now probably apparent even to you, that you cannot claim and distort for your own personal use any word, let alone that ‘we’, ‘us’ and related adjective most of us use as a plural of ‘I’ etc.? Language is not your personal possession, Martin, to do with and have others do with what you like, to malign any individual or group of whom you disapprove.
I rather doubt you’ll understand all this, Martin, so I have a suggestion for you – rubbish it, spare yourself the need to do any more thinking for yourself.
No more dust clouds, please. Try and grasp the important point, that the scientists you malign by implication have told us in no uncertain terms that we – humanity and all planetary life – have one last chance to prevent the acceleration of the slide to extinction, and that is to act as though we were not alone on the planet but are dependent upon all other life together to arrest that which is destroying us – building up together the alternative forms of energy available to us.
To do otherwise is no longer merely irrelevant and culpable but consciously evil.
In so far as your other gnomic utterances are comprehensible, the explanation seems to be your revered market forces coupled with backing the wrong scientific horse and an admixture of greed. There is no longer any sensible or rational case for selectively using “science” to disprove anthropogenic global heating.
You really are not that coherent, 1720.
I do indeed pay attention to those that disagree with me. There is still no need for me to agree with them. If I had not already decided that, your posting history would have been enough on it’s own. Your own version of recent history I have reminded you about several times. It wasn’t correct. HMG actually campaigned to stay in the EU. If you have difficulty with history that recent I suggest you keep well away from the 1900s.
But, interesting you quote the individual who gathers the “we’s” into his/her circle with disastrous consequences! Thanks for adding in that humorous oxymoron.
Sliding to extinction? Wasn’t that the reason behind all that money spent on putting man into space, so “we” were prepared for when solar activity made the earth uninhabitable? How is that going? Oh yes, too expensive as money was required for other things.
Fossil fuels can not be replaced before there are adequate replacements up and running. To suggest that can be done is even grander incoherence and will deliberately cause people to die. I don’t accept the some die sooner to save some dying later approach. Even if they do fall back upon the Bible. Sacrificial lambs next?
Greed? You mean like Drax who have reported record profits but announce they will pause CCS until they have proof of how much “we” will subsidize them to go ahead? Green greed is all around. The landowners who agreed to have turbines on their land, convinced by the green stuff. I wonder if all the “Greens” who installed wood burners in cities, or elsewhere, (mini Draxers) are so unaware about greed when being told they have to replace and the cost of that.
Bible quotations and now defining others as evil. OMG 1720, has a new calling and commandments are part of it.
PS 1720, I have never tried to disprove global heating. That discussion has been had many times, yet in the absence of anything better to contribute you resort to it. Please check the OED, again, for the definition of “fact”.
QED
I thought you’d have difficulty with my posting, close reading and thought required.
Please look up “anthropogenic” and avoid irrelevance. The ‘fact’ is that you have repeatedly either avoided or rejected the anthropogenic nature of global heating – when asked the direct question you responded “ my answer is no. The numbers of people now on the planet have played the largest part.” (in climate change). This I have used as evidence before. This you know.
Do try harder to understand what is being said to you, avoid repeating your silly barbs of the past, all dealt with, as, and I cannot overemphasise this, you know very well. Churning out earlier points of difference which you mendaciously accuse me of – anthropogenic, again – simply reflects on integrity.
What do you imagine an ‘oxymoron’ is? Look it up.
I’ll ignore the tempting dust clouds.
No difficulty 1720. Don’t make excuses for your own incoherence. I can understand what someone is attempting, even within incoherence. Your texts are not as challenging as some! (Hospitals come to mind.)
“All dealt with”??? Well, again there was some incoherent waffle which may be a way of dealing, but I have no difficulty understanding that it was just more incoherence. Perhaps, if such incorrect nonsense had been avoided initially, the dealing with it could also have been avoided? “Close reading and thought required?” Really, 1720? Close reading and thought is what identified the matters that required dealing with! I would gently suggest you requesting such is required of your posts may create a bigger problem than you already have.
I know the meaning of anthropogenic. You need to remember it was yourself who had issues with the meanings of even little words. Deflection is so old school. I also know it is a phrase you have picked up to direct at one activity of humanity. Why not gather at a wedding and warn the happy couple that sex could produce a child that would contribute to anthropogenic global heating?
The numbers of people now on the planet have played the largest part. You want to dissect within that to what they are doing, and concentrate upon one thing you want removed even before there are adequate alternatives. (Look at the current UK energy situation if you don’t want to believe that point.) Well, you might start by looking at all their activities, including respiration, and then on to many other things. However, much easier for you to concentrate on the one thing and ignore that you would reduce the numbers quite significantly without adequate alternatives. Goodness, you have made the excuse that you have to use plastic for your activism as no one has supplied an adequate alternative! Well, that is known as a parasitic existence upon a host, in agricultural circles, but there are cures 1720.
You may want to also look at a previous post about the fair distribution of wealth! Sorry, but if you want to do that fully you need to speak to those in the parts of the world who are getting a bigger slice, having had little, and what they have on their bucket lists. Consumption of most things in place of few things and starvation. Perhaps there is a problem therein that will just erode anything UK may attempt? However, you have already made your views known on the subject of Mozambique so I will not expect much awareness or empathy.
Then, 1720, you might want to consider what part is not anthropogenic, and whether that part is constant. Sorry, but it isn’t, and never has been.
I’ll interpret this guff as a Johnsonesque apology for an apology for wilfully misleading your readers. [Edited by moderator]
[Edited by moderator]
Misleading my readers? Well, that is up to them, not you. I treat them as being able to decide for themselves, you decide for them. However, I would suggest they would struggle to find anything in my post that is not true. They might not like the truth, but that I can not control.
[Edited by moderator]