China, India etc are never going to move fast enough when they think it’ll be to their disadvantage.
They have doomed us all
That's rather dramatic.
They've moved a lot further than I expected they would, or they'd given any inclination of ever doing so in the past.
Based on the calculations that the pledges so far will limit temperature rises to 2.4C then that's really a rise of 1.2C only (since 1.2 has already happened).
More likely though as technology improves, we'll see adopting of clean technologies even faster than what's been agreed today.
The China and India changes give coal a future as an energy source. That watering down of phase out to phase down completely undermines everything positive that we could have achieved by getting the world to getting rid of coal. What does phase down even mean?
As an aside, rail passenger numbers have stabilised at 62-64% of pre-virus levels during the week while on the Underground, Mondays are quiet (57%) but on other days it's 60-65% of pre-virus. Is this now the new normal - transport companies having to run 100% of services with 65% of passenger numbers?
For the time being, yes.
One would expect that the provision of trains would eventually align with actual customer demand, but that may take some years. The operation of the railways has been skewed to the needs of weekday commuters since forever, and so are working practices: a future in which trains may be as busy or busier at weekends will take some getting used to. Institutional inertia is tough to overcome.
Rail companies may need to learn employment practices from the hospitality industry. Rail unions may not be happy.
I would actually rather Sharma have rejected the last minute changes from India and China. He should not have caved in.
And the talks collapse
Then that's what happens. This deal achieves nothing. In 2050 China and India are still going to be burning coal and shitting up the planet.
Maybe, maybe not.
China have pledged to reach Net Zero by 2060. If they're to do that, realistically they'll have to have removed coal by 2050, they'd need to be at a comparable point as we'll be by 2040.
If they're not to do that, then it little matters what's agreed if they're not going to keep their word anyway.
I would actually rather Sharma have rejected the last minute changes from India and China. He should not have caved in.
What can he personally achieve? If the other nations would rather cave in than see no deal at all would could Sharma have possibly done? It's not like he can compel them to cave in or not cave in.
Her stringing that story out for years rather blunts its impact compared to the recent standards stuff, since it just begs the question why she drip feeds details.
No need to highlight MPs. Nobody with a conscience should want to be on the second list - to which I would add GP surgery receptionists. I would put no win no fee ambulance chasing lawyers and journalists on a special, higher list.
Verstappen gets a €50,000 fine whilst Hamilton is disqualified.
Racist anti British stewards.
Disqualification is a bit of an odd one, usually they just gird penalty you for stuff.
I think they felt without it he wouldn't have been as fast.
Of course, sometimes they do let people off for breaking the technical regs. Remember Eddie Irvine and Michael Schumacher at Kuala Lumpar in 2000?
But, there was a legitimate argument that made no difference to the performance. Here, however...
Plus Hamilton already had a penalty.
Yes, and of course not all breaches of rules reasonably have the same punishment, we don't chop off hands for both theft and littering. On the face of it touching the car is wrong, but it take deliberate contrary action to breach car set up rules - remember I think it was BAR having a tank inside the tank or something, so they could leave fuel in for the weigh in?
Er...I didn't know we chopped hands off at all in this country.
Oh yes we do. It happened as recently as 1579. See R v Stubbe (1579) KB 29/215, m.20.
Don't tell me the softies have stopped doing it.
Still sentenced to it in Scotland in the C18 on very rare occasion. But done only as part of a death sentence - chop then hang - in cases of particularly aggravated murder.
It wasn't sufficient. If they wanted a proper punishment, they should have rendered them totally armless before hanging.
It did rather add to the suspense of the ceremony.
In 1820 the UKG had two participants in the Scottish Rising decapitated. But only after they were hanged. Well, obviously.
Henry V gave a close friend of his a fair trial - two months after he had beheaded him for treason.
Can't argue with that, we offer pardons to dead people too.
Governor of the State of Louisiana is getting ready to pardon Homer Plessy, was convicted in 1892 of violating state law segregating train passengers by race.
Plessy was a man of mixed race and very light-skinned (not uncommon in cosmopolitan New Orleans) who was recruited for a test case versus newly-enacted Louisiana Separate [Railroad] Car Act. His appeal reached the US Supreme Court, resulting in the infamous Plessy v Ferguson "separate but equal" decision that legitimized for the next half century state "Jim Crow" laws discriminating against Blacks in virtually all aspects of life from the cradle to the grave.
After losing his SCOTUS appeal, Plessy plead guilty and was fined $25; he died in 1925.
> Keith Plessy, 64, who is descended from a cousin of Homer Plessy, attended the news conference. Later, he told the pardon board that he remembers meeting civil rights icon Rosa Parks, who refused in 1955 to leave a whites-only seat on a bus in Birmingham, Alabama, and kneeling to honor her.
“She said to me, ‘Get up boy, your name is Plessy — you’ve got work to do,’” . . .
> Keith Plessy and Phoebe Ferguson, the great-great-granddaughter of John Howard Ferguson, the judge who oversaw his case in Orleans Parish Criminal District Court, now lead a nonprofit that advocates for civil rights education.
“We cannot undo the wrongs of the past but we can and should acknowledge them,” Phoebe Ferguson told the pardon board. . . .
Paradoxically, Plessy's family had to flee St. Domingue, because they were deemed white by the Haitians.
Heard an interview given by Keith Plessy and Phoebe Ferguson, where one of them (forget which but doesn't matter) noted that, while back in 1892 it was Plessy VERSUS Ferguson, in 2021 it's Plessy AND Ferguson.
Haitian slavery was fascinating (if hideous), It was probably the most brutal, exploitiative, and profitable form of chattel slavery ever devised. In 1790, St. Domingue produced around 70% of the world's sugar, and 30% of the world's coffee. The plantations generated astonishing profits for their owners.
5/6 of the population were slaves, with the remaining 1/6 made up of Les Blancs, and Les Gens Libres de Colour. The Whites were divided between Les Grand Blancs, the super rich, and Les Petit Blancs, small farmer and traders. The two groups loatheed each other. Les Gens Libre de Colour were in some cases, wealthy slaveowners in their own right. Others sympathised with the slaves.
For the slaves, life was hell on earth. The slave population was naturally decreasing, and required constant importation of slaves to maintain numbers. Life expectancy on arrival at hte colony was about three years. Systematic terror was required to keep the slaves in their place.
Come the revolution, Les Blancs were either killed or driven out, along with many Gens Libre de Colour. Plessy's family were among them. Others, however, like Toussaint L'Ouverture, and Petion were leaders of the revolt.
One of our more ignominious campaigns was during the Napoleon's wars to re institute slavery on St Dominigue. Something around 70% mortality for the nearly 30 000 British troops sent there.
The failure of the campaign, and hence first successful slave rebellion is a large part of why slavery was at its end in the British Empire shortly after. The news had spread to other slave colonies, and the military cost too high.
Is it generally accepted that the decline in case numbers was due to half term?
Shoot me down if you must.
The case numbers have oscillated since early Summer in line with school holidays. However we have done very well to build immunity in school kids during that time. Personally I think there is some gap filling going on but must be running out of school kids to infect soon. My Y8 daughter's secondary school of over 1200 pupils had about 5 cases last week. Earlier in the term there were 15 in her class alone.
Verstappen gets a €50,000 fine whilst Hamilton is disqualified.
Racist anti British stewards.
Disqualification is a bit of an odd one, usually they just gird penalty you for stuff.
I think they felt without it he wouldn't have been as fast.
Of course, sometimes they do let people off for breaking the technical regs. Remember Eddie Irvine and Michael Schumacher at Kuala Lumpar in 2000?
But, there was a legitimate argument that made no difference to the performance. Here, however...
Plus Hamilton already had a penalty.
Yes, and of course not all breaches of rules reasonably have the same punishment, we don't chop off hands for both theft and littering. On the face of it touching the car is wrong, but it take deliberate contrary action to breach car set up rules - remember I think it was BAR having a tank inside the tank or something, so they could leave fuel in for the weigh in?
Er...I didn't know we chopped hands off at all in this country.
Oh yes we do. It happened as recently as 1579. See R v Stubbe (1579) KB 29/215, m.20.
Don't tell me the softies have stopped doing it.
Still sentenced to it in Scotland in the C18 on very rare occasion. But done only as part of a death sentence - chop then hang - in cases of particularly aggravated murder.
It wasn't sufficient. If they wanted a proper punishment, they should have rendered them totally armless before hanging.
It did rather add to the suspense of the ceremony.
In 1820 the UKG had two participants in the Scottish Rising decapitated. But only after they were hanged. Well, obviously.
Henry V gave a close friend of his a fair trial - two months after he had beheaded him for treason.
Can't argue with that, we offer pardons to dead people too.
Governor of the State of Louisiana is getting ready to pardon Homer Plessy, was convicted in 1892 of violating state law segregating train passengers by race.
Plessy was a man of mixed race and very light-skinned (not uncommon in cosmopolitan New Orleans) who was recruited for a test case versus newly-enacted Louisiana Separate [Railroad] Car Act. His appeal reached the US Supreme Court, resulting in the infamous Plessy v Ferguson "separate but equal" decision that legitimized for the next half century state "Jim Crow" laws discriminating against Blacks in virtually all aspects of life from the cradle to the grave.
After losing his SCOTUS appeal, Plessy plead guilty and was fined $25; he died in 1925.
> Keith Plessy, 64, who is descended from a cousin of Homer Plessy, attended the news conference. Later, he told the pardon board that he remembers meeting civil rights icon Rosa Parks, who refused in 1955 to leave a whites-only seat on a bus in Birmingham, Alabama, and kneeling to honor her.
“She said to me, ‘Get up boy, your name is Plessy — you’ve got work to do,’” . . .
> Keith Plessy and Phoebe Ferguson, the great-great-granddaughter of John Howard Ferguson, the judge who oversaw his case in Orleans Parish Criminal District Court, now lead a nonprofit that advocates for civil rights education.
“We cannot undo the wrongs of the past but we can and should acknowledge them,” Phoebe Ferguson told the pardon board. . . .
Paradoxically, Plessy's family had to flee St. Domingue, because they were deemed white by the Haitians.
Heard an interview given by Keith Plessy and Phoebe Ferguson, where one of them (forget which but doesn't matter) noted that, while back in 1892 it was Plessy VERSUS Ferguson, in 2021 it's Plessy AND Ferguson.
Um, that's a negative, Sir. Lawyers always have and always will refer to Hadley v Baxendale (as written) as Hadley and Baxendale.
That was day 1 of law school stuff
Except when there is an R in it. R v Kray will always be spoken of as it is written.
R V Kray and Co would be an ideal name for a firm of Criminal Defence Lawyers.
Verstappen gets a €50,000 fine whilst Hamilton is disqualified.
Racist anti British stewards.
Disqualification is a bit of an odd one, usually they just gird penalty you for stuff.
I think they felt without it he wouldn't have been as fast.
Of course, sometimes they do let people off for breaking the technical regs. Remember Eddie Irvine and Michael Schumacher at Kuala Lumpar in 2000?
But, there was a legitimate argument that made no difference to the performance. Here, however...
Plus Hamilton already had a penalty.
Yes, and of course not all breaches of rules reasonably have the same punishment, we don't chop off hands for both theft and littering. On the face of it touching the car is wrong, but it take deliberate contrary action to breach car set up rules - remember I think it was BAR having a tank inside the tank or something, so they could leave fuel in for the weigh in?
Er...I didn't know we chopped hands off at all in this country.
Oh yes we do. It happened as recently as 1579. See R v Stubbe (1579) KB 29/215, m.20.
Don't tell me the softies have stopped doing it.
Still sentenced to it in Scotland in the C18 on very rare occasion. But done only as part of a death sentence - chop then hang - in cases of particularly aggravated murder.
It wasn't sufficient. If they wanted a proper punishment, they should have rendered them totally armless before hanging.
It did rather add to the suspense of the ceremony.
In 1820 the UKG had two participants in the Scottish Rising decapitated. But only after they were hanged. Well, obviously.
Henry V gave a close friend of his a fair trial - two months after he had beheaded him for treason.
Can't argue with that, we offer pardons to dead people too.
Governor of the State of Louisiana is getting ready to pardon Homer Plessy, was convicted in 1892 of violating state law segregating train passengers by race.
Plessy was a man of mixed race and very light-skinned (not uncommon in cosmopolitan New Orleans) who was recruited for a test case versus newly-enacted Louisiana Separate [Railroad] Car Act. His appeal reached the US Supreme Court, resulting in the infamous Plessy v Ferguson "separate but equal" decision that legitimized for the next half century state "Jim Crow" laws discriminating against Blacks in virtually all aspects of life from the cradle to the grave.
After losing his SCOTUS appeal, Plessy plead guilty and was fined $25; he died in 1925.
> Keith Plessy, 64, who is descended from a cousin of Homer Plessy, attended the news conference. Later, he told the pardon board that he remembers meeting civil rights icon Rosa Parks, who refused in 1955 to leave a whites-only seat on a bus in Birmingham, Alabama, and kneeling to honor her.
“She said to me, ‘Get up boy, your name is Plessy — you’ve got work to do,’” . . .
> Keith Plessy and Phoebe Ferguson, the great-great-granddaughter of John Howard Ferguson, the judge who oversaw his case in Orleans Parish Criminal District Court, now lead a nonprofit that advocates for civil rights education.
“We cannot undo the wrongs of the past but we can and should acknowledge them,” Phoebe Ferguson told the pardon board. . . .
Paradoxically, Plessy's family had to flee St. Domingue, because they were deemed white by the Haitians.
Heard an interview given by Keith Plessy and Phoebe Ferguson, where one of them (forget which but doesn't matter) noted that, while back in 1892 it was Plessy VERSUS Ferguson, in 2021 it's Plessy AND Ferguson.
Um, that's a negative, Sir. Lawyers always have and always will refer to Hadley v Baxendale (as written) as Hadley and Baxendale.
Do NOT believe that is true in the USA. Does anyone know for sure?
Verstappen gets a €50,000 fine whilst Hamilton is disqualified.
Racist anti British stewards.
Disqualification is a bit of an odd one, usually they just gird penalty you for stuff.
I think they felt without it he wouldn't have been as fast.
Of course, sometimes they do let people off for breaking the technical regs. Remember Eddie Irvine and Michael Schumacher at Kuala Lumpar in 2000?
But, there was a legitimate argument that made no difference to the performance. Here, however...
Plus Hamilton already had a penalty.
Yes, and of course not all breaches of rules reasonably have the same punishment, we don't chop off hands for both theft and littering. On the face of it touching the car is wrong, but it take deliberate contrary action to breach car set up rules - remember I think it was BAR having a tank inside the tank or something, so they could leave fuel in for the weigh in?
Er...I didn't know we chopped hands off at all in this country.
Oh yes we do. It happened as recently as 1579. See R v Stubbe (1579) KB 29/215, m.20.
Don't tell me the softies have stopped doing it.
Still sentenced to it in Scotland in the C18 on very rare occasion. But done only as part of a death sentence - chop then hang - in cases of particularly aggravated murder.
It wasn't sufficient. If they wanted a proper punishment, they should have rendered them totally armless before hanging.
It did rather add to the suspense of the ceremony.
In 1820 the UKG had two participants in the Scottish Rising decapitated. But only after they were hanged. Well, obviously.
Henry V gave a close friend of his a fair trial - two months after he had beheaded him for treason.
Can't argue with that, we offer pardons to dead people too.
Governor of the State of Louisiana is getting ready to pardon Homer Plessy, was convicted in 1892 of violating state law segregating train passengers by race.
Plessy was a man of mixed race and very light-skinned (not uncommon in cosmopolitan New Orleans) who was recruited for a test case versus newly-enacted Louisiana Separate [Railroad] Car Act. His appeal reached the US Supreme Court, resulting in the infamous Plessy v Ferguson "separate but equal" decision that legitimized for the next half century state "Jim Crow" laws discriminating against Blacks in virtually all aspects of life from the cradle to the grave.
After losing his SCOTUS appeal, Plessy plead guilty and was fined $25; he died in 1925.
> Keith Plessy, 64, who is descended from a cousin of Homer Plessy, attended the news conference. Later, he told the pardon board that he remembers meeting civil rights icon Rosa Parks, who refused in 1955 to leave a whites-only seat on a bus in Birmingham, Alabama, and kneeling to honor her.
“She said to me, ‘Get up boy, your name is Plessy — you’ve got work to do,’” . . .
> Keith Plessy and Phoebe Ferguson, the great-great-granddaughter of John Howard Ferguson, the judge who oversaw his case in Orleans Parish Criminal District Court, now lead a nonprofit that advocates for civil rights education.
“We cannot undo the wrongs of the past but we can and should acknowledge them,” Phoebe Ferguson told the pardon board. . . .
Paradoxically, Plessy's family had to flee St. Domingue, because they were deemed white by the Haitians.
Heard an interview given by Keith Plessy and Phoebe Ferguson, where one of them (forget which but doesn't matter) noted that, while back in 1892 it was Plessy VERSUS Ferguson, in 2021 it's Plessy AND Ferguson.
Um, that's a negative, Sir. Lawyers always have and always will refer to Hadley v Baxendale (as written) as Hadley and Baxendale.
A while back somebody (who would know) that the reason Boris Johnson wears ill fitting suits is that he cannot afford to buy new ones.
I dismissed that as a joke but now....
I suspect its more that his weight yo-yos quite a bit and he is somewhat on the chubbier side at the moment. Of course, from personal experience, the first thing you stop doing in such a scenario is button up your jacket.
Can relate.
I bet Boris Johnson only buys one pair of trousers when he buys a suit.
He seems that disorganised.
As any stylish man about town knows, you should always buy two pairs of trousers and two jackets when you buy a suit….
lol. That’s just buying two suits. You buy two pairs of trousers for all the time you spend sitting down wearing it, and minimal time lying down.
That was a joke……. Of course you have two pairs of trousers made (sometimes more if you want belt loops sometimes, braces another or side adjusters depending on the look you are after that day) and can always get a slightly larger pair made for the Christmas client entertaining season just in case the other shrink……
However there is a logic in having identical jackets - we used to call it the “Italian jacket” (for some unknown reason) where you could leave your reserve suit jacket on your desk chair and bugger off out and people think you are somewhere around the office….
Can be a risky thing to do. I remember a former colleague who did that. Unfortunately, he had a heart attack on the way back from the pub. Investigations were complicated by the fact that his employers were insistent that he couldn’t be dead as his jacket was still on his chair.
Generally I think being dead tends to stop disciplinary proceedings for skiving. Except for vampires and zombies, obviously.
A while back somebody (who would know) that the reason Boris Johnson wears ill fitting suits is that he cannot afford to buy new ones.
I dismissed that as a joke but now....
I suspect its more that his weight yo-yos quite a bit and he is somewhat on the chubbier side at the moment. Of course, from personal experience, the first thing you stop doing in such a scenario is button up your jacket.
Can relate.
I bet Boris Johnson only buys one pair of trousers when he buys a suit.
He seems that disorganised.
As any stylish man about town knows, you should always buy two pairs of trousers and two jackets when you buy a suit….
lol. That’s just buying two suits. You buy two pairs of trousers for all the time you spend sitting down wearing it, and minimal time lying down.
That was a joke……. Of course you have two pairs of trousers made (sometimes more if you want belt loops sometimes, braces another or side adjusters depending on the look you are after that day) and can always get a slightly larger pair made for the Christmas client entertaining season just in case the other shrink……
However there is a logic in having identical jackets - we used to call it the “Italian jacket” (for some unknown reason) where you could leave your reserve suit jacket on your desk chair and bugger off out and people think you are somewhere around the office….
Can be a risky thing to do. I remember a former colleague who did that. Unfortunately, he had a heart attack on the way back from the pub. Investigations were complicated by the fact that his employers were insistent that he couldn’t be dead as his jacket was still on his chair.
Generally I think being dead tends to stop disciplinary proceedings for skiving. Except for vampires and zombies, obviously.
Depends whether HR place practicality above theory. Not all do.
Despite South Africa’s win today, are we at the point where a Northern Hemisphere team could be reasonably expected to beat a Southern Hemisphere team?
I would actually rather Sharma have rejected the last minute changes from India and China. He should not have caved in.
Sure, but from their perspective what you are saying is: there's only so much first worldness to go round and we've used up all of it, so tough. Where do you think these guys got the idea of a coal and steel based revolution?
Verstappen gets a €50,000 fine whilst Hamilton is disqualified.
Racist anti British stewards.
Disqualification is a bit of an odd one, usually they just gird penalty you for stuff.
I think they felt without it he wouldn't have been as fast.
Of course, sometimes they do let people off for breaking the technical regs. Remember Eddie Irvine and Michael Schumacher at Kuala Lumpar in 2000?
But, there was a legitimate argument that made no difference to the performance. Here, however...
Plus Hamilton already had a penalty.
Yes, and of course not all breaches of rules reasonably have the same punishment, we don't chop off hands for both theft and littering. On the face of it touching the car is wrong, but it take deliberate contrary action to breach car set up rules - remember I think it was BAR having a tank inside the tank or something, so they could leave fuel in for the weigh in?
Er...I didn't know we chopped hands off at all in this country.
Oh yes we do. It happened as recently as 1579. See R v Stubbe (1579) KB 29/215, m.20.
Don't tell me the softies have stopped doing it.
Still sentenced to it in Scotland in the C18 on very rare occasion. But done only as part of a death sentence - chop then hang - in cases of particularly aggravated murder.
It wasn't sufficient. If they wanted a proper punishment, they should have rendered them totally armless before hanging.
It did rather add to the suspense of the ceremony.
In 1820 the UKG had two participants in the Scottish Rising decapitated. But only after they were hanged. Well, obviously.
Henry V gave a close friend of his a fair trial - two months after he had beheaded him for treason.
Can't argue with that, we offer pardons to dead people too.
Governor of the State of Louisiana is getting ready to pardon Homer Plessy, was convicted in 1892 of violating state law segregating train passengers by race.
Plessy was a man of mixed race and very light-skinned (not uncommon in cosmopolitan New Orleans) who was recruited for a test case versus newly-enacted Louisiana Separate [Railroad] Car Act. His appeal reached the US Supreme Court, resulting in the infamous Plessy v Ferguson "separate but equal" decision that legitimized for the next half century state "Jim Crow" laws discriminating against Blacks in virtually all aspects of life from the cradle to the grave.
After losing his SCOTUS appeal, Plessy plead guilty and was fined $25; he died in 1925.
> Keith Plessy, 64, who is descended from a cousin of Homer Plessy, attended the news conference. Later, he told the pardon board that he remembers meeting civil rights icon Rosa Parks, who refused in 1955 to leave a whites-only seat on a bus in Birmingham, Alabama, and kneeling to honor her.
“She said to me, ‘Get up boy, your name is Plessy — you’ve got work to do,’” . . .
> Keith Plessy and Phoebe Ferguson, the great-great-granddaughter of John Howard Ferguson, the judge who oversaw his case in Orleans Parish Criminal District Court, now lead a nonprofit that advocates for civil rights education.
“We cannot undo the wrongs of the past but we can and should acknowledge them,” Phoebe Ferguson told the pardon board. . . .
Paradoxically, Plessy's family had to flee St. Domingue, because they were deemed white by the Haitians.
Heard an interview given by Keith Plessy and Phoebe Ferguson, where one of them (forget which but doesn't matter) noted that, while back in 1892 it was Plessy VERSUS Ferguson, in 2021 it's Plessy AND Ferguson.
Um, that's a negative, Sir. Lawyers always have and always will refer to Hadley v Baxendale (as written) as Hadley and Baxendale.
That was day 1 of law school stuff
Except when there is an R in it. R v Kray will always be spoken of as it is written.
Despite South Africa’s win today, are we at the point where a Northern Hemisphere team could be reasonably expected to beat a Southern Hemisphere team?
No. Depends on where, who etc. Certainly a good win for the Irish.
I would actually rather Sharma have rejected the last minute changes from India and China. He should not have caved in.
And the talks collapse
Then that's what happens. This deal achieves nothing. In 2050 China and India are still going to be burning coal and shitting up the planet.
Maybe, maybe not.
China have pledged to reach Net Zero by 2060. If they're to do that, realistically they'll have to have removed coal by 2050, they'd need to be at a comparable point as we'll be by 2040.
If they're not to do that, then it little matters what's agreed if they're not going to keep their word anyway.
China is the world's largest electric car (4.5x larger than second place), solar and wind market right now. So it's not like they aren't moving in the right direction.
China, India etc are never going to move fast enough when they think it’ll be to their disadvantage.
They have doomed us all
That's rather dramatic.
They've moved a lot further than I expected they would, or they'd given any inclination of ever doing so in the past.
Based on the calculations that the pledges so far will limit temperature rises to 2.4C then that's really a rise of 1.2C only (since 1.2 has already happened).
More likely though as technology improves, we'll see adopting of clean technologies even faster than what's been agreed today.
The China and India changes give coal a future as an energy source. That watering down of phase out to phase down completely undermines everything positive that we could have achieved by getting the world to getting rid of coal. What does phase down even mean?
Surely if the talks had collapsed then you would not have been ridding the world of coal anyway. With China and India insisting on that your choice was simply a deal that helps in other ways but is not perfect or no deal at all which means not just coal but all the other issues also fall.
As Kerry said, you should not let perfect be the enemy of good.
I would actually rather Sharma have rejected the last minute changes from India and China. He should not have caved in.
And the talks collapse
Then that's what happens. This deal achieves nothing. In 2050 China and India are still going to be burning coal and shitting up the planet.
Maybe, maybe not.
China have pledged to reach Net Zero by 2060. If they're to do that, realistically they'll have to have removed coal by 2050, they'd need to be at a comparable point as we'll be by 2040.
If they're not to do that, then it little matters what's agreed if they're not going to keep their word anyway.
China is the world's largest electric car (4.5x larger than second place), solar and wind market right now. So it's not like they aren't moving in the right direction.
Most of these statistics rest on the fact that China is a Big Country.
However, not one where Dreams stay with you, Like a Lover's Voice fires the mountainside.
Despite South Africa’s win today, are we at the point where a Northern Hemisphere team could be reasonably expected to beat a Southern Hemisphere team?
Not if the Northern Hemisphere side in question is Wales... sadly.
I would actually rather Sharma have rejected the last minute changes from India and China. He should not have caved in.
And the talks collapse
Then that's what happens. This deal achieves nothing. In 2050 China and India are still going to be burning coal and shitting up the planet.
Maybe, maybe not.
China have pledged to reach Net Zero by 2060. If they're to do that, realistically they'll have to have removed coal by 2050, they'd need to be at a comparable point as we'll be by 2040.
If they're not to do that, then it little matters what's agreed if they're not going to keep their word anyway.
China is the world's largest electric car (4.5x larger than second place), solar and wind market right now. So it's not like they aren't moving in the right direction.
Yes, I think it's a reasonable deal as far as it goes, and Sharma does deserve credit for his efforts (and his genuine grief at not getting even further).
An oddity is that animal agriculture, which contributes more to greenhouse gas emissions than the entire transport sector, is not mentioned at all.
Despite South Africa’s win today, are we at the point where a Northern Hemisphere team could be reasonably expected to beat a Southern Hemisphere team?
Not if the Northern Hemisphere side in question is Wales... sadly.
Scrappy but ultimately solid England win over Oz, a stirring Irish win over the All Blacks. Scotland beat the Aussies last week (and could have beaten the Boks today with more discipline)
It does feel like the two hemispheres are much closer in quality than the rankings suggest
The Boks are marginally but palpably the best team in the world, next I'd have England and the All Blacks equal, then Ireland very close behind. Then Oz? Not sure where France are: hard to tell
I would actually rather Sharma have rejected the last minute changes from India and China. He should not have caved in.
And the talks collapse
Then that's what happens. This deal achieves nothing. In 2050 China and India are still going to be burning coal and shitting up the planet.
Maybe, maybe not.
China have pledged to reach Net Zero by 2060. If they're to do that, realistically they'll have to have removed coal by 2050, they'd need to be at a comparable point as we'll be by 2040.
If they're not to do that, then it little matters what's agreed if they're not going to keep their word anyway.
China is the world's largest electric car (4.5x larger than second place), solar and wind market right now. So it's not like they aren't moving in the right direction.
Yes, I think it's a reasonable deal as far as it goes, and Sharma does deserve credit for his efforts (and his genuine grief at not getting even further).
An oddity is that animal agriculture, which contributes more to greenhouse gas emissions than the entire transport sector, is not mentioned at all.
Putting it crudely, the one thing that nobody is prepared to do is to tell the population of the developed world to adopt horrid vegan diets - let alone lecturing dirt poor nomadic pastoralists about the evil of keeping goats.
No need to highlight MPs. Nobody with a conscience should want to be on the second list - to which I would add GP surgery receptionists. I would put no win no fee ambulance chasing lawyers and journalists on a special, higher list.
You think people too thick or ill-educated to represent themselves in court should be denied access to justice?
Verstappen gets a €50,000 fine whilst Hamilton is disqualified.
Racist anti British stewards.
Disqualification is a bit of an odd one, usually they just gird penalty you for stuff.
I think they felt without it he wouldn't have been as fast.
Of course, sometimes they do let people off for breaking the technical regs. Remember Eddie Irvine and Michael Schumacher at Kuala Lumpar in 2000?
But, there was a legitimate argument that made no difference to the performance. Here, however...
Plus Hamilton already had a penalty.
Yes, and of course not all breaches of rules reasonably have the same punishment, we don't chop off hands for both theft and littering. On the face of it touching the car is wrong, but it take deliberate contrary action to breach car set up rules - remember I think it was BAR having a tank inside the tank or something, so they could leave fuel in for the weigh in?
Er...I didn't know we chopped hands off at all in this country.
Oh yes we do. It happened as recently as 1579. See R v Stubbe (1579) KB 29/215, m.20.
Don't tell me the softies have stopped doing it.
Still sentenced to it in Scotland in the C18 on very rare occasion. But done only as part of a death sentence - chop then hang - in cases of particularly aggravated murder.
It wasn't sufficient. If they wanted a proper punishment, they should have rendered them totally armless before hanging.
It did rather add to the suspense of the ceremony.
In 1820 the UKG had two participants in the Scottish Rising decapitated. But only after they were hanged. Well, obviously.
Henry V gave a close friend of his a fair trial - two months after he had beheaded him for treason.
Can't argue with that, we offer pardons to dead people too.
Governor of the State of Louisiana is getting ready to pardon Homer Plessy, was convicted in 1892 of violating state law segregating train passengers by race.
Plessy was a man of mixed race and very light-skinned (not uncommon in cosmopolitan New Orleans) who was recruited for a test case versus newly-enacted Louisiana Separate [Railroad] Car Act. His appeal reached the US Supreme Court, resulting in the infamous Plessy v Ferguson "separate but equal" decision that legitimized for the next half century state "Jim Crow" laws discriminating against Blacks in virtually all aspects of life from the cradle to the grave.
After losing his SCOTUS appeal, Plessy plead guilty and was fined $25; he died in 1925.
> Keith Plessy, 64, who is descended from a cousin of Homer Plessy, attended the news conference. Later, he told the pardon board that he remembers meeting civil rights icon Rosa Parks, who refused in 1955 to leave a whites-only seat on a bus in Birmingham, Alabama, and kneeling to honor her.
“She said to me, ‘Get up boy, your name is Plessy — you’ve got work to do,’” . . .
> Keith Plessy and Phoebe Ferguson, the great-great-granddaughter of John Howard Ferguson, the judge who oversaw his case in Orleans Parish Criminal District Court, now lead a nonprofit that advocates for civil rights education.
“We cannot undo the wrongs of the past but we can and should acknowledge them,” Phoebe Ferguson told the pardon board. . . .
Paradoxically, Plessy's family had to flee St. Domingue, because they were deemed white by the Haitians.
Heard an interview given by Keith Plessy and Phoebe Ferguson, where one of them (forget which but doesn't matter) noted that, while back in 1892 it was Plessy VERSUS Ferguson, in 2021 it's Plessy AND Ferguson.
Um, that's a negative, Sir. Lawyers always have and always will refer to Hadley v Baxendale (as written) as Hadley and Baxendale.
Do NOT believe that is true in the USA.
They're wrong of course
Because they don't wear (horsehair) wigs?
(I'll back "Perry Mason" versus "Rumpole of the Bailey" every time!)
Verstappen gets a €50,000 fine whilst Hamilton is disqualified.
Racist anti British stewards.
Disqualification is a bit of an odd one, usually they just gird penalty you for stuff.
I think they felt without it he wouldn't have been as fast.
Of course, sometimes they do let people off for breaking the technical regs. Remember Eddie Irvine and Michael Schumacher at Kuala Lumpar in 2000?
But, there was a legitimate argument that made no difference to the performance. Here, however...
Plus Hamilton already had a penalty.
Yes, and of course not all breaches of rules reasonably have the same punishment, we don't chop off hands for both theft and littering. On the face of it touching the car is wrong, but it take deliberate contrary action to breach car set up rules - remember I think it was BAR having a tank inside the tank or something, so they could leave fuel in for the weigh in?
Er...I didn't know we chopped hands off at all in this country.
Oh yes we do. It happened as recently as 1579. See R v Stubbe (1579) KB 29/215, m.20.
Don't tell me the softies have stopped doing it.
Still sentenced to it in Scotland in the C18 on very rare occasion. But done only as part of a death sentence - chop then hang - in cases of particularly aggravated murder.
It wasn't sufficient. If they wanted a proper punishment, they should have rendered them totally armless before hanging.
It did rather add to the suspense of the ceremony.
In 1820 the UKG had two participants in the Scottish Rising decapitated. But only after they were hanged. Well, obviously.
Henry V gave a close friend of his a fair trial - two months after he had beheaded him for treason.
Can't argue with that, we offer pardons to dead people too.
Governor of the State of Louisiana is getting ready to pardon Homer Plessy, was convicted in 1892 of violating state law segregating train passengers by race.
Plessy was a man of mixed race and very light-skinned (not uncommon in cosmopolitan New Orleans) who was recruited for a test case versus newly-enacted Louisiana Separate [Railroad] Car Act. His appeal reached the US Supreme Court, resulting in the infamous Plessy v Ferguson "separate but equal" decision that legitimized for the next half century state "Jim Crow" laws discriminating against Blacks in virtually all aspects of life from the cradle to the grave.
After losing his SCOTUS appeal, Plessy plead guilty and was fined $25; he died in 1925.
> Keith Plessy, 64, who is descended from a cousin of Homer Plessy, attended the news conference. Later, he told the pardon board that he remembers meeting civil rights icon Rosa Parks, who refused in 1955 to leave a whites-only seat on a bus in Birmingham, Alabama, and kneeling to honor her.
“She said to me, ‘Get up boy, your name is Plessy — you’ve got work to do,’” . . .
> Keith Plessy and Phoebe Ferguson, the great-great-granddaughter of John Howard Ferguson, the judge who oversaw his case in Orleans Parish Criminal District Court, now lead a nonprofit that advocates for civil rights education.
“We cannot undo the wrongs of the past but we can and should acknowledge them,” Phoebe Ferguson told the pardon board. . . .
Paradoxically, Plessy's family had to flee St. Domingue, because they were deemed white by the Haitians.
Heard an interview given by Keith Plessy and Phoebe Ferguson, where one of them (forget which but doesn't matter) noted that, while back in 1892 it was Plessy VERSUS Ferguson, in 2021 it's Plessy AND Ferguson.
Haitian slavery was fascinating (if hideous), It was probably the most brutal, exploitiative, and profitable form of chattel slavery ever devised. In 1790, St. Domingue produced around 70% of the world's sugar, and 30% of the world's coffee. The plantations generated astonishing profits for their owners.
5/6 of the population were slaves, with the remaining 1/6 made up of Les Blancs, and Les Gens Libres de Colour. The Whites were divided between Les Grand Blancs, the super rich, and Les Petit Blancs, small farmer and traders. The two groups loatheed each other. Les Gens Libre de Colour were in some cases, wealthy slaveowners in their own right. Others sympathised with the slaves.
For the slaves, life was hell on earth. The slave population was naturally decreasing, and required constant importation of slaves to maintain numbers. Life expectancy on arrival at hte colony was about three years. Systematic terror was required to keep the slaves in their place.
Come the revolution, Les Blancs were either killed or driven out, along with many Gens Libre de Colour. Plessy's family were among them. Others, however, like Toussaint L'Ouverture, and Petion were leaders of the revolt.
One of our more ignominious campaigns was during the Napoleon's wars to re institute slavery on St Dominigue. Something around 70% mortality for the nearly 30 000 British troops sent there.
The failure of the campaign, and hence first successful slave rebellion is a large part of why slavery was at its end in the British Empire shortly after. The news had spread to other slave colonies, and the military cost too high.
I share that view. The heroism and ruthlessness with which the Haitian slaves fought for their freedom had a big impact in first, the introduction of laws to improve the treatment of slaves, then the abolition of the trade, and finally, the abolition of the institution. There was a big revolt in Jamaica in 1831/32 which finally persuaded Parliament that the game was up for the institution.
China, India etc are never going to move fast enough when they think it’ll be to their disadvantage.
They have doomed us all
That's rather dramatic.
They've moved a lot further than I expected they would, or they'd given any inclination of ever doing so in the past.
Based on the calculations that the pledges so far will limit temperature rises to 2.4C then that's really a rise of 1.2C only (since 1.2 has already happened).
More likely though as technology improves, we'll see adopting of clean technologies even faster than what's been agreed today.
The China and India changes give coal a future as an energy source. That watering down of phase out to phase down completely undermines everything positive that we could have achieved by getting the world to getting rid of coal. What does phase down even mean?
Surely if the talks had collapsed then you would not have been ridding the world of coal anyway. With China and India insisting on that your choice was simply a deal that helps in other ways but is not perfect or no deal at all which means not just coal but all the other issues also fall.
As Kerry said, you should not let perfect be the enemy of good.
Go down the other route and have the nations who sign up to the no coal deal introduce tariffs on countries that don't sign up.
I would actually rather Sharma have rejected the last minute changes from India and China. He should not have caved in.
And the talks collapse
Then that's what happens. This deal achieves nothing. In 2050 China and India are still going to be burning coal and shitting up the planet.
Maybe, maybe not.
China have pledged to reach Net Zero by 2060. If they're to do that, realistically they'll have to have removed coal by 2050, they'd need to be at a comparable point as we'll be by 2040.
If they're not to do that, then it little matters what's agreed if they're not going to keep their word anyway.
China is the world's largest electric car (4.5x larger than second place), solar and wind market right now. So it's not like they aren't moving in the right direction.
Most of these statistics rest on the fact that China is a Big Country.
However, not one where Dreams stay with you, Like a Lover's Voice fires the mountainside.
Sure. But it's directionally moving in the right direction.
China, India etc are never going to move fast enough when they think it’ll be to their disadvantage.
They have doomed us all
That's rather dramatic.
They've moved a lot further than I expected they would, or they'd given any inclination of ever doing so in the past.
Based on the calculations that the pledges so far will limit temperature rises to 2.4C then that's really a rise of 1.2C only (since 1.2 has already happened).
More likely though as technology improves, we'll see adopting of clean technologies even faster than what's been agreed today.
The China and India changes give coal a future as an energy source. That watering down of phase out to phase down completely undermines everything positive that we could have achieved by getting the world to getting rid of coal. What does phase down even mean?
Surely if the talks had collapsed then you would not have been ridding the world of coal anyway. With China and India insisting on that your choice was simply a deal that helps in other ways but is not perfect or no deal at all which means not just coal but all the other issues also fall.
As Kerry said, you should not let perfect be the enemy of good.
In our house we don't let acceptable be the enemy of barely adequate.
China, India etc are never going to move fast enough when they think it’ll be to their disadvantage.
They have doomed us all
That's rather dramatic.
They've moved a lot further than I expected they would, or they'd given any inclination of ever doing so in the past.
Based on the calculations that the pledges so far will limit temperature rises to 2.4C then that's really a rise of 1.2C only (since 1.2 has already happened).
More likely though as technology improves, we'll see adopting of clean technologies even faster than what's been agreed today.
The China and India changes give coal a future as an energy source. That watering down of phase out to phase down completely undermines everything positive that we could have achieved by getting the world to getting rid of coal. What does phase down even mean?
Surely if the talks had collapsed then you would not have been ridding the world of coal anyway. With China and India insisting on that your choice was simply a deal that helps in other ways but is not perfect or no deal at all which means not just coal but all the other issues also fall.
As Kerry said, you should not let perfect be the enemy of good.
Go down the other route and have the nations who sign up to the no coal deal introduce tariffs on countries that don't sign up.
Do we then impose tariffs on countries that do not impose tariffs on countries that use coal?
China, India etc are never going to move fast enough when they think it’ll be to their disadvantage.
They have doomed us all
That's rather dramatic.
They've moved a lot further than I expected they would, or they'd given any inclination of ever doing so in the past.
Based on the calculations that the pledges so far will limit temperature rises to 2.4C then that's really a rise of 1.2C only (since 1.2 has already happened).
More likely though as technology improves, we'll see adopting of clean technologies even faster than what's been agreed today.
The China and India changes give coal a future as an energy source. That watering down of phase out to phase down completely undermines everything positive that we could have achieved by getting the world to getting rid of coal. What does phase down even mean?
Surely if the talks had collapsed then you would not have been ridding the world of coal anyway. With China and India insisting on that your choice was simply a deal that helps in other ways but is not perfect or no deal at all which means not just coal but all the other issues also fall.
As Kerry said, you should not let perfect be the enemy of good.
Go down the other route and have the nations who sign up to the no coal deal introduce tariffs on countries that don't sign up.
Do we then impose tariffs on countries that do not impose tariffs on countries that use coal?
Addendum - have never heard anyone in US refer to the case of "Plessy AND Ferguson" always as "Plessy versus Ferguson".
This includes American judges & lawyers from SCOTUS to Night Court.
EDIT - Sadly cannot recall usage in "The Paper Chase" which I'd consider definitive!
Yes, but American lawyers are wankers, by and large. All that "objection sustained" tosspottery.
A devastating retort, m'lord.
objection overruled.
A much talking judge is an ill-tuned cymbal - Francis Bacon (a legal authority albeit with his own legal issues)
Addendum - Replevin!
...
Happened to hear a (rare) reference to "replevin" early is morning, as I was watching an old Hopalong Cassidy movie on TV, where our hero pretends to be a big-time attorney in order to smoke out a criminal gang led by a crooked bush-league lawyer:
China, India etc are never going to move fast enough when they think it’ll be to their disadvantage.
They have doomed us all
That's rather dramatic.
They've moved a lot further than I expected they would, or they'd given any inclination of ever doing so in the past.
Based on the calculations that the pledges so far will limit temperature rises to 2.4C then that's really a rise of 1.2C only (since 1.2 has already happened).
More likely though as technology improves, we'll see adopting of clean technologies even faster than what's been agreed today.
The China and India changes give coal a future as an energy source. That watering down of phase out to phase down completely undermines everything positive that we could have achieved by getting the world to getting rid of coal. What does phase down even mean?
Surely if the talks had collapsed then you would not have been ridding the world of coal anyway. With China and India insisting on that your choice was simply a deal that helps in other ways but is not perfect or no deal at all which means not just coal but all the other issues also fall.
As Kerry said, you should not let perfect be the enemy of good.
Indeed, a deal without China or India signed up to it would be worthless.
This deal is not perfect but better than nothing, though I suggest they hold COP29 (the next with a vacant host) in China to put the pressure on the host to get a more substantial deal
Verstappen gets a €50,000 fine whilst Hamilton is disqualified.
Racist anti British stewards.
Disqualification is a bit of an odd one, usually they just gird penalty you for stuff.
I think they felt without it he wouldn't have been as fast.
Of course, sometimes they do let people off for breaking the technical regs. Remember Eddie Irvine and Michael Schumacher at Kuala Lumpar in 2000?
But, there was a legitimate argument that made no difference to the performance. Here, however...
Plus Hamilton already had a penalty.
Yes, and of course not all breaches of rules reasonably have the same punishment, we don't chop off hands for both theft and littering. On the face of it touching the car is wrong, but it take deliberate contrary action to breach car set up rules - remember I think it was BAR having a tank inside the tank or something, so they could leave fuel in for the weigh in?
Er...I didn't know we chopped hands off at all in this country.
Oh yes we do. It happened as recently as 1579. See R v Stubbe (1579) KB 29/215, m.20.
Don't tell me the softies have stopped doing it.
Still sentenced to it in Scotland in the C18 on very rare occasion. But done only as part of a death sentence - chop then hang - in cases of particularly aggravated murder.
It wasn't sufficient. If they wanted a proper punishment, they should have rendered them totally armless before hanging.
It did rather add to the suspense of the ceremony.
In 1820 the UKG had two participants in the Scottish Rising decapitated. But only after they were hanged. Well, obviously.
Henry V gave a close friend of his a fair trial - two months after he had beheaded him for treason.
Can't argue with that, we offer pardons to dead people too.
Governor of the State of Louisiana is getting ready to pardon Homer Plessy, was convicted in 1892 of violating state law segregating train passengers by race.
Plessy was a man of mixed race and very light-skinned (not uncommon in cosmopolitan New Orleans) who was recruited for a test case versus newly-enacted Louisiana Separate [Railroad] Car Act. His appeal reached the US Supreme Court, resulting in the infamous Plessy v Ferguson "separate but equal" decision that legitimized for the next half century state "Jim Crow" laws discriminating against Blacks in virtually all aspects of life from the cradle to the grave.
After losing his SCOTUS appeal, Plessy plead guilty and was fined $25; he died in 1925.
> Keith Plessy, 64, who is descended from a cousin of Homer Plessy, attended the news conference. Later, he told the pardon board that he remembers meeting civil rights icon Rosa Parks, who refused in 1955 to leave a whites-only seat on a bus in Birmingham, Alabama, and kneeling to honor her.
“She said to me, ‘Get up boy, your name is Plessy — you’ve got work to do,’” . . .
> Keith Plessy and Phoebe Ferguson, the great-great-granddaughter of John Howard Ferguson, the judge who oversaw his case in Orleans Parish Criminal District Court, now lead a nonprofit that advocates for civil rights education.
“We cannot undo the wrongs of the past but we can and should acknowledge them,” Phoebe Ferguson told the pardon board. . . .
Paradoxically, Plessy's family had to flee St. Domingue, because they were deemed white by the Haitians.
Heard an interview given by Keith Plessy and Phoebe Ferguson, where one of them (forget which but doesn't matter) noted that, while back in 1892 it was Plessy VERSUS Ferguson, in 2021 it's Plessy AND Ferguson.
Um, that's a negative, Sir. Lawyers always have and always will refer to Hadley v Baxendale (as written) as Hadley and Baxendale.
Do NOT believe that is true in the USA.
They're wrong of course
Because they don't wear (horsehair) wigs?
(I'll back "Perry Mason" versus "Rumpole of the Bailey" every time!)
I would actually rather Sharma have rejected the last minute changes from India and China. He should not have caved in.
And the talks collapse
Then that's what happens. This deal achieves nothing. In 2050 China and India are still going to be burning coal and shitting up the planet.
Maybe, maybe not.
China have pledged to reach Net Zero by 2060. If they're to do that, realistically they'll have to have removed coal by 2050, they'd need to be at a comparable point as we'll be by 2040.
If they're not to do that, then it little matters what's agreed if they're not going to keep their word anyway.
China is the world's largest electric car (4.5x larger than second place), solar and wind market right now. So it's not like they aren't moving in the right direction.
Yes, I think it's a reasonable deal as far as it goes, and Sharma does deserve credit for his efforts (and his genuine grief at not getting even further).
An oddity is that animal agriculture, which contributes more to greenhouse gas emissions than the entire transport sector, is not mentioned at all.
Neither does the military, which contributes 6% of world CO2.
Putting it crudely, the one thing that nobody is prepared to do is to tell the population of the developed world to adopt horrid vegan diets - let alone lecturing dirt poor nomadic pastoralists about the evil of keeping goats.
Nobody's suggesting that, though - it's one of those myths. The British National Food Strategy recommends a 30% reduction in meat consumption over 10 years. My organisation favours a greater reduction in the UK, but would happily accept an increase in countries with inadequate diets, and I was discussing it this week with a range of delegates at COP from developing countries. It's just odd to knock ourselves out over electric cars and not address food at all, when the greenhouse gases from farming vastly outweigh every petrol-powered car on the planet.
China, India etc are never going to move fast enough when they think it’ll be to their disadvantage.
They have doomed us all
That's rather dramatic.
They've moved a lot further than I expected they would, or they'd given any inclination of ever doing so in the past.
Based on the calculations that the pledges so far will limit temperature rises to 2.4C then that's really a rise of 1.2C only (since 1.2 has already happened).
More likely though as technology improves, we'll see adopting of clean technologies even faster than what's been agreed today.
The China and India changes give coal a future as an energy source. That watering down of phase out to phase down completely undermines everything positive that we could have achieved by getting the world to getting rid of coal. What does phase down even mean?
Surely if the talks had collapsed then you would not have been ridding the world of coal anyway. With China and India insisting on that your choice was simply a deal that helps in other ways but is not perfect or no deal at all which means not just coal but all the other issues also fall.
As Kerry said, you should not let perfect be the enemy of good.
Go down the other route and have the nations who sign up to the no coal deal introduce tariffs on countries that don't sign up.
I think all imports should include an import tax to cover the carbon production. It is the way to level the playing field for domestic producers.
China, India etc are never going to move fast enough when they think it’ll be to their disadvantage.
They have doomed us all
That's rather dramatic.
They've moved a lot further than I expected they would, or they'd given any inclination of ever doing so in the past.
Based on the calculations that the pledges so far will limit temperature rises to 2.4C then that's really a rise of 1.2C only (since 1.2 has already happened).
More likely though as technology improves, we'll see adopting of clean technologies even faster than what's been agreed today.
The China and India changes give coal a future as an energy source. That watering down of phase out to phase down completely undermines everything positive that we could have achieved by getting the world to getting rid of coal. What does phase down even mean?
Surely if the talks had collapsed then you would not have been ridding the world of coal anyway. With China and India insisting on that your choice was simply a deal that helps in other ways but is not perfect or no deal at all which means not just coal but all the other issues also fall.
As Kerry said, you should not let perfect be the enemy of good.
Go down the other route and have the nations who sign up to the no coal deal introduce tariffs on countries that don't sign up.
I think all imports should include an import tax to cover the carbon production. It is the way to level the playing field for domestic producers.
I think that only makes sense if there is a global agreement on it, this was a chance to make it happen with countries who sign up to eliminating coal avoiding tariffs from say 2030 or 2035 and those who don't feeling the full force of uncompetitive exports if they can't get rid of coal for energy.
......and right on cue with the final coup de grace Jennifer Arcuri. A terrible few days for the dwindling dispirited rabble of Leavers. The old saying about what happens when you tether yourself to an incontinent horse is proving accurate. I heard Sir Keir today and he was very good indeed. Just the right mix of suppressed anger and disgust. It looks like Labour could have found themselves a winner
China, India etc are never going to move fast enough when they think it’ll be to their disadvantage.
They have doomed us all
That's rather dramatic.
They've moved a lot further than I expected they would, or they'd given any inclination of ever doing so in the past.
Based on the calculations that the pledges so far will limit temperature rises to 2.4C then that's really a rise of 1.2C only (since 1.2 has already happened).
More likely though as technology improves, we'll see adopting of clean technologies even faster than what's been agreed today.
The China and India changes give coal a future as an energy source. That watering down of phase out to phase down completely undermines everything positive that we could have achieved by getting the world to getting rid of coal. What does phase down even mean?
Surely if the talks had collapsed then you would not have been ridding the world of coal anyway. With China and India insisting on that your choice was simply a deal that helps in other ways but is not perfect or no deal at all which means not just coal but all the other issues also fall.
As Kerry said, you should not let perfect be the enemy of good.
Go down the other route and have the nations who sign up to the no coal deal introduce tariffs on countries that don't sign up.
I think all imports should include an import tax to cover the carbon production. It is the way to level the playing field for domestic producers.
I think that only makes sense if there is a global agreement on it, this was a chance to make it happen with countries who sign up to eliminating coal avoiding tariffs from say 2030 or 2035 and those who don't feeling the full force of uncompetitive exports if they can't get rid of coal for energy.
This isn't the last COP. What's been agreed now has been 'banked' and we can go further for the complete elimination of coal in the future. It wouldn't surprise me if an agreement on removing coal is achieved by 2035 at this rate anyway.
Realistically without China on board, the whole thing becomes pointless. Getting China committing to Net Zero and setting on a pathway there is more significant than anything the UK or almost any other nation can be doing.
Putting it crudely, the one thing that nobody is prepared to do is to tell the population of the developed world to adopt horrid vegan diets - let alone lecturing dirt poor nomadic pastoralists about the evil of keeping goats.
Nobody's suggesting that, though - it's one of those myths. The British National Food Strategy recommends a 30% reduction in meat consumption over 10 years. My organisation favours a greater reduction in the UK, but would happily accept an increase in countries with inadequate diets, and I was discussing it this week with a range of delegates at COP from developing countries. It's just odd to knock ourselves out over electric cars and not address food at all, when the greenhouse gases from farming vastly outweigh every petrol-powered car on the planet.
That's fair enough. As I said, I was being crude (and perhaps not entirely serious.)
From a purely personal point of view, if I developed a bizarre allergy to meat and was told I could never eat it again then I don't think I'd find that hard to adapt to at all: vegetarianism isn't such a stretch. Eggs and dairy are a different matter.
Not following internal Irish poltiics. Is there some obvious reason for the Sinn Fein surge?
SF is just the main leftwing party in Ireland now, with FF and FG effectively combined now the main party of the Irish centre right (the days of FF and FG being the main 2 parties in the Republic is over, though ironically both grew out of SF anyway after the Irish War of Independence and Civil War)
Not following internal Irish poltiics. Is there some obvious reason for the Sinn Fein surge?
They're pretty much the only credible opposition party.
The other parties joined together to lock them out but had to go into government with each other meaning that anyone unhappy with the government is now going to Sinn Fein.
Not following internal Irish poltiics. Is there some obvious reason for the Sinn Fein surge?
What were outsiders are now the main opposition.
We may not be far from SF FM in Stormont and in Dublin.
Not if FF and FG combined still have more seats than SF in Dublin and in NI SF is down 1% in a new poll with the DUP up 5% as Unionists start to rally behind Sir Jeffrey Donaldson's party
TLDR. Basically. Have got rid of Adams. Replaced with Mac Donald the most popular leader. Opposed to Church. Appeal to young. Talk about housing and the future. FF and FG are associated with past scandals and backward Ireland.
What I concluded was that the referendum both became inevitable and was inevitably lost in that cowardly decision by Brown to renege on his commitment to a referendum on the new EU constitution. It gave those who sought to defend the EU and deny its undemocratic consequences nowhere to go and nothing on which to stand.
It was not only one of the most brilliant and entertaining speeches in the Commons in my lifetime, it was also one of the most important setting a direction for this country for good or ill. Genuinely historic. And very funny.
I think I read somewhere that in America the word sleaze usually only refers to sexual misconduct whereas over here it also means dodgy financial dealings.
......and right on cue with the final coup de grace Jennifer Arcuri. A terrible few days for the dwindling dispirited rabble of Leavers. The old saying about what happens when you tether yourself to an incontinent horse is proving accurate. I heard Sir Keir today and he was very good indeed. Just the right mix of suppressed anger and disgust. It looks like Labour could have found themselves a winner
“it looks like Labour could have found themselves a winner”
TLDR. Basically. Have got rid of Adams. Replaced with Mac Donald the most popular leader. Opposed to Church. Appeal to young. Talk about housing and the future. FF and FG are associated with past scandals and backward Ireland.
It is thanks to the centre right FG in particular Ireland has one of the highest gdp per capitas in Europe, SF would raise taxes and end all the economic dynamism Ireland has had in recent years.
Mary Lou Macdonald is also a practising Catholic. SF may be more socially liberal than FF but then so is FG, it was only ever FF, especially under De Valera, that was the political wing of the Roman Catholic church
TLDR. Basically. Have got rid of Adams. Replaced with Mac Donald the most popular leader. Opposed to Church. Appeal to young. Talk about housing and the future. FF and FG are associated with past scandals and backward Ireland.
It is thanks to the centre right FG in particular Ireland has one of the highest gdp per capitas in Europe, SF would raise taxes and end all the economic dynamism Ireland has had in recent years.
Mary Lou Macdonald is also a practising Catholic. SF may be more socially liberal than FF but then so is FG, it was only ever FF, especially under De Valera, that was the political wing of the Roman Catholic church
FG are more right-wing than FF. FG are part of the European People's Party, FF are part of the ALDE (like the LibDems and Alliance).
TLDR. Basically. Have got rid of Adams. Replaced with Mac Donald the most popular leader. Opposed to Church. Appeal to young. Talk about housing and the future. FF and FG are associated with past scandals and backward Ireland.
It is thanks to the centre right FG in particular Ireland has one of the highest gdp per capitas in Europe, SF would raise taxes and end all the economic dynamism Ireland has had in recent years.
Mary Lou Macdonald is also a practising Catholic. SF may be more socially liberal than FF but then so is FG, it was only ever FF, especially under De Valera, that was the political wing of the Roman Catholic church
FG are more right-wing than FF. FG are part of the European People's Party, FF are part of the ALDE (like the LibDems and Alliance).
FG are more right-wing on economics than FF yes but FF are more socially conservative than FG (FF had more members in the Dail who voted against abortion and gay marriage for instance than either SF or FG).
Both are more conservative economically than SF however
China, India etc are never going to move fast enough when they think it’ll be to their disadvantage.
They have doomed us all
That's rather dramatic.
They've moved a lot further than I expected they would, or they'd given any inclination of ever doing so in the past.
Based on the calculations that the pledges so far will limit temperature rises to 2.4C then that's really a rise of 1.2C only (since 1.2 has already happened).
More likely though as technology improves, we'll see adopting of clean technologies even faster than what's been agreed today.
The China and India changes give coal a future as an energy source. That watering down of phase out to phase down completely undermines everything positive that we could have achieved by getting the world to getting rid of coal. What does phase down even mean?
Surely if the talks had collapsed then you would not have been ridding the world of coal anyway. With China and India insisting on that your choice was simply a deal that helps in other ways but is not perfect or no deal at all which means not just coal but all the other issues also fall.
As Kerry said, you should not let perfect be the enemy of good.
Go down the other route and have the nations who sign up to the no coal deal introduce tariffs on countries that don't sign up.
Do we then impose tariffs on countries that do not impose tariffs on countries that use coal?
Make it part of the agreement.
So basically have a trade war with India and China - and their satellite countries.
What I concluded was that the referendum both became inevitable and was inevitably lost in that cowardly decision by Brown to renege on his commitment to a referendum on the new EU constitution. It gave those who sought to defend the EU and deny its undemocratic consequences nowhere to go and nothing on which to stand.
It was not only one of the most brilliant and entertaining speeches in the Commons in my lifetime, it was also one of the most important setting a direction for this country for good or ill. Genuinely historic. And very funny.
"Diplomats from nearly 200 countries on Saturday struck a major agreement aimed at intensifying global efforts to fight climate change by calling on governments to return next year with stronger plans to curb their planet-warming emissions and urging wealthy nations to “at least double” funding to protect poor nations from the hazards of a hotter planet."
What I concluded was that the referendum both became inevitable and was inevitably lost in that cowardly decision by Brown to renege on his commitment to a referendum on the new EU constitution. It gave those who sought to defend the EU and deny its undemocratic consequences nowhere to go and nothing on which to stand.
It was not only one of the most brilliant and entertaining speeches in the Commons in my lifetime, it was also one of the most important setting a direction for this country for good or ill. Genuinely historic. And very funny.
Blair not Brown.
Brown was the PM who turned up late so he could sign the Treaty without the cameras recording it. I accept that Blair was responsible for most of the negotiation.
Minister for private jets ‘lobbying against his own government’
The aeroplane-owning transport secretary is spending public money on lobbyists opposing the government’s own plans to build on private runways, including one he has personally used
In the final days of the parliamentary recess in September, Grant Shapps made an unorthodox journey for a cabinet minister. The transport secretary flew solo in his personal plane from a farm near his Hertfordshire home to Sywell, an aerodrome in Northamptonshire.
Shapps, 53, was there for the rally of the Light Aircraft Association: an annual jamboree for aviation enthusiasts from across Europe. Having obtained a licence in his twenties, he remains a flying fanatic and the proud owner of a £100,000 Piper Saratoga.
Shortly after arriving, he went to chat with the editor of his favourite magazine, Flyer, which represents the interests of amateur pilots, including campaigning to block development on Britain’s private airfields.
Shapps told him: “Because I was reading your last month’s edition, I had sent a message to my office at DfT and asked them to invite you in so you can challenge on some of these things ... to see what else we should be doing.” The minister joked: “We’ll even have coffee!”
Perhaps it is not a surprise he has brought his boyish enthusiasm for flying into government. It may even appear an advantage, giving him knowledge of a niche and technical area within his remit.
However, it has had far-reaching effects in Whitehall, secretly pitting him against the prime minister and frustrating efforts to build more homes and tackle climate change.
His department is quietly spending public money funding lobbying against the government’s own housing plans where development would take place on private runways — including some he has personally used.
As a result, Homes England, the housing agency overseen by Michael Gove, has already withdrawn plans for a new town with thousands of homes in one of the most housing-stressed areas in the country.
The lobbyists are also battling against plans to build a battery gigafactory on Coventry airport. Boris Johnson has praised the development and it is supposed to deliver thousands of jobs while helping Britain to achieve its net-zero ambitions. According to flight traffic data, Shapps recently flew his plane on to the airfield.
He has set up a scheme that lets private pilots claim public money for new equipment, and allegedly lobbied against a looming ban on a kind of toxic fuel used by his aeroplane.
Minister for private jets ‘lobbying against his own government’
The aeroplane-owning transport secretary is spending public money on lobbyists opposing the government’s own plans to build on private runways, including one he has personally used
In the final days of the parliamentary recess in September, Grant Shapps made an unorthodox journey for a cabinet minister. The transport secretary flew solo in his personal plane from a farm near his Hertfordshire home to Sywell, an aerodrome in Northamptonshire.
Shapps, 53, was there for the rally of the Light Aircraft Association: an annual jamboree for aviation enthusiasts from across Europe. Having obtained a licence in his twenties, he remains a flying fanatic and the proud owner of a £100,000 Piper Saratoga.
Shortly after arriving, he went to chat with the editor of his favourite magazine, Flyer, which represents the interests of amateur pilots, including campaigning to block development on Britain’s private airfields.
Shapps told him: “Because I was reading your last month’s edition, I had sent a message to my office at DfT and asked them to invite you in so you can challenge on some of these things ... to see what else we should be doing.” The minister joked: “We’ll even have coffee!”
Perhaps it is not a surprise he has brought his boyish enthusiasm for flying into government. It may even appear an advantage, giving him knowledge of a niche and technical area within his remit.
However, it has had far-reaching effects in Whitehall, secretly pitting him against the prime minister and frustrating efforts to build more homes and tackle climate change.
His department is quietly spending public money funding lobbying against the government’s own housing plans where development would take place on private runways — including some he has personally used.
As a result, Homes England, the housing agency overseen by Michael Gove, has already withdrawn plans for a new town with thousands of homes in one of the most housing-stressed areas in the country.
The lobbyists are also battling against plans to build a battery gigafactory on Coventry airport. Boris Johnson has praised the development and it is supposed to deliver thousands of jobs while helping Britain to achieve its net-zero ambitions. According to flight traffic data, Shapps recently flew his plane on to the airfield.
I am much more concerned with his vociferous, and largely successful, campaign against quarantines and restrictions on movement in the first year of the pandemic which undoubtedly cost many, many thousands of lives, even if you accept (as I do) that some of these vulnerable people would have died of Covid later. He was, in my opinion, mainly responsible for the utter incoherence of our travel and quarantine policies in a desperate attempt to protect air travel. He should have been sacked.
China, India etc are never going to move fast enough when they think it’ll be to their disadvantage.
They have doomed us all
That's rather dramatic.
They've moved a lot further than I expected they would, or they'd given any inclination of ever doing so in the past.
Based on the calculations that the pledges so far will limit temperature rises to 2.4C then that's really a rise of 1.2C only (since 1.2 has already happened).
More likely though as technology improves, we'll see adopting of clean technologies even faster than what's been agreed today.
The China and India changes give coal a future as an energy source. That watering down of phase out to phase down completely undermines everything positive that we could have achieved by getting the world to getting rid of coal. What does phase down even mean?
Surely if the talks had collapsed then you would not have been ridding the world of coal anyway. With China and India insisting on that your choice was simply a deal that helps in other ways but is not perfect or no deal at all which means not just coal but all the other issues also fall.
As Kerry said, you should not let perfect be the enemy of good.
Go down the other route and have the nations who sign up to the no coal deal introduce tariffs on countries that don't sign up.
I think all imports should include an import tax to cover the carbon production. It is the way to level the playing field for domestic producers.
Some years ago, some people associated with the Raspberry Pi project wanted equalisation of tariffs between components and completed electronics. They were told by various Ministries that this wasn't possible - such changes would kick off Chinese retaliation.
What you are proposing is that times X.
Since the Chinese regard their dominance in manufacturing as strategic, that means kicking off in a big way with China. Forget selling the Australians some submarines, this would be a direct attack on the Chinese economy, as they would see it.
I think I read somewhere that in America the word sleaze usually only refers to sexual misconduct whereas over here it also means dodgy financial dealings.
Have you watched Aliens (1986)?
"These people are *dead*, Burke! Don't you have any idea what you have done here? Well, I'm gonna make sure they nail you right to the wall for this! You're not gonna sleaze your way out of this one! Right to the wall!"
Course no one has mentioned the Greens. They are the third part of the Irish coalition. When your 2nd, 3rd and 4th Party are in government, who does your anti-government voter plump for?
Comments
Neil Henderson
@hendopolis
·
1m
MIRROR: Tory MPs £300k link to China ‘spy’ firm #TomorrowsPapersToday
China have pledged to reach Net Zero by 2060. If they're to do that, realistically they'll have to have removed coal by 2050, they'd need to be at a comparable point as we'll be by 2040.
If they're not to do that, then it little matters what's agreed if they're not going to keep their word anyway.
https://www.britishempire.co.uk/maproom/saintdomingue/revolt.htm
The failure of the campaign, and hence first successful slave rebellion is a large part of why slavery was at its end in the British Empire shortly after. The news had spread to other slave colonies, and the military cost too high.
This includes American judges & lawyers from SCOTUS to Night Court.
EDIT - Sadly cannot recall usage in "The Paper Chase" which I'd consider definitive!
As Kerry said, you should not let perfect be the enemy of good.
As long as we stipulate carbon capture and storage.
And I don't mean 'carbon capture ready'. That is about as meaningful as saying that Dr Sunil's pad is Rachel Reeves ready'.
However, not one where Dreams stay with you, Like a Lover's Voice fires the mountainside.
An oddity is that animal agriculture, which contributes more to greenhouse gas emissions than the entire transport sector, is not mentioned at all.
It does feel like the two hemispheres are much closer in quality than the rankings suggest
The Boks are marginally but palpably the best team in the world, next I'd have England and the All Blacks equal, then Ireland very close behind. Then Oz? Not sure where France are: hard to tell
I'm with you. Serve them right for being poor.
(I'll back "Perry Mason" versus "Rumpole of the Bailey" every time!)
Addendum - Replevin!
Must stick in the craw of the likes of Cox... to see Boris Johnson getting away with siphoning public money to his affair.
Yet still Tory MPs go out to defend him. Phenomenal, practically homicidal loyalty.
Texas Masquerade (1944) - William 'Hopalong Cassidy' Boyd, Andy Clyde, Jimmy Rogers
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYmKydMWYZ4
I am only playing it on a Series S on a 1080p TV and it's still absolutely stunning. Must be jaw dropping on a Series X, or a top of the range PC.
This deal is not perfect but better than nothing, though I suggest they hold COP29 (the next with a vacant host) in China to put the pressure on the host to get a more substantial deal
Small steps, but better than none.
THE HERALD: Revealed: the 20 Scots MPs making up to 23k on the side
https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/1459627383531745287?s=20
https://twitter.com/10DowningStreet/status/1459650425918050305?s=20
https://twitter.com/JohnBurnsST/status/1459649745996165121
Realistically without China on board, the whole thing becomes pointless. Getting China committing to Net Zero and setting on a pathway there is more significant than anything the UK or almost any other nation can be doing.
From a purely personal point of view, if I developed a bizarre allergy to meat and was told I could never eat it again then I don't think I'd find that hard to adapt to at all: vegetarianism isn't such a stretch. Eggs and dairy are a different matter.
The other parties joined together to lock them out but had to go into government with each other meaning that anyone unhappy with the government is now going to Sinn Fein.
We may not be far from SF FM in Stormont and in Dublin.
Julius Sleazer
https://twitter.com/LucidTalk/status/1459496514930286592?s=20
https://harvardpolitics.com/the-rise-of-the-new-sinn-fein/
TLDR.
Basically. Have got rid of Adams. Replaced with Mac Donald the most popular leader. Opposed to Church. Appeal to young. Talk about housing and the future.
FF and FG are associated with past scandals and backward Ireland.
What I concluded was that the referendum both became inevitable and was inevitably lost in that cowardly decision by Brown to renege on his commitment to a referendum on the new EU constitution. It gave those who sought to defend the EU and deny its undemocratic consequences nowhere to go and nothing on which to stand.
It was not only one of the most brilliant and entertaining speeches in the Commons in my lifetime, it was also one of the most important setting a direction for this country for good or ill. Genuinely historic. And very funny.
I thought you worked in advertising, not comedy.
https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/mercedes-hamiltons-wing-failed-tests-by-just-02mm/6778716/
Mary Lou Macdonald is also a practising Catholic. SF may be more socially liberal than FF but then so is FG, it was only ever FF, especially under De Valera, that was the political wing of the Roman Catholic church
FG are part of the European People's Party, FF are part of the ALDE (like the LibDems and Alliance).
Both are more conservative economically than SF however
NY Times.
Minister for private jets ‘lobbying against his own government’
The aeroplane-owning transport secretary is spending public money on lobbyists opposing the government’s own plans to build on private runways, including one he has personally used
In the final days of the parliamentary recess in September, Grant Shapps made an unorthodox journey for a cabinet minister. The transport secretary flew solo in his personal plane from a farm near his Hertfordshire home to Sywell, an aerodrome in Northamptonshire.
Shapps, 53, was there for the rally of the Light Aircraft Association: an annual jamboree for aviation enthusiasts from across Europe. Having obtained a licence in his twenties, he remains a flying fanatic and the proud owner of a £100,000 Piper Saratoga.
Shortly after arriving, he went to chat with the editor of his favourite magazine, Flyer, which represents the interests of amateur pilots, including campaigning to block development on Britain’s private airfields.
Shapps told him: “Because I was reading your last month’s edition, I had sent a message to my office at DfT and asked them to invite you in so you can challenge on some of these things ... to see what else we should be doing.” The minister joked: “We’ll even have coffee!”
Perhaps it is not a surprise he has brought his boyish enthusiasm for flying into government. It may even appear an advantage, giving him knowledge of a niche and technical area within his remit.
However, it has had far-reaching effects in Whitehall, secretly pitting him against the prime minister and frustrating efforts to build more homes and tackle climate change.
His department is quietly spending public money funding lobbying against the government’s own housing plans where development would take place on private runways — including some he has personally used.
As a result, Homes England, the housing agency overseen by Michael Gove, has already withdrawn plans for a new town with thousands of homes in one of the most housing-stressed areas in the country.
The lobbyists are also battling against plans to build a battery gigafactory on Coventry airport. Boris Johnson has praised the development and it is supposed to deliver thousands of jobs while helping Britain to achieve its net-zero ambitions. According to flight traffic data, Shapps recently flew his plane on to the airfield.
He has set up a scheme that lets private pilots claim public money for new equipment, and allegedly lobbied against a looming ban on a kind of toxic fuel used by his aeroplane.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/minister-for-private-jets-lobbying-against-his-own-government-l6cmgtkfg
What you are proposing is that times X.
Since the Chinese regard their dominance in manufacturing as strategic, that means kicking off in a big way with China. Forget selling the Australians some submarines, this would be a direct attack on the Chinese economy, as they would see it.
Are you really up for that?
"These people are *dead*, Burke! Don't you have any idea what you have done here? Well, I'm gonna make sure they nail you right to the wall for this! You're not gonna sleaze your way out of this one! Right to the wall!"
When your 2nd, 3rd and 4th Party are in government, who does your anti-government voter plump for?