I don't think Putin is evil, though he does have a significant disconnect, common (if not universal) in powerful statespeople, with the human consequences of his actions. Though perhaps he is tormented by them in private, as Thatcher was about the British casualties (though I believe not the enemy casualties) in the Falklands. Madeline Albright was asked if half a million casualties was an acceptable death toll in Iraq, and she answered 'yes' without batting an eyelid. Perhaps that's the sort of attitude you need (or just think you need) to run a big country.
Exactly how far would Putin have to go, for you to accept he is evil?
He has personally authorised a brutal, unprovoked invasion on an unthreatening neighbouring state, utilising, as a military method, the indiscriminate slaughter of civilians: men, women and children. The purpose being to restore the “greatness” of the lost Russian empire
What more does he have to do? Roast the dead babies? Nuke Warsaw? Batter your Nan to death with a brick, on Whitechapel Road?
I have difficulty subscribing to the notion of anyone being evil - I think we are naturally good, and we can become, by degrees, disconnected from our natural goodness. I'd say that Putin has become very disconnected, and is probably full of anger, resentment and wrath, but 'evil' is just a caricature. It's a glib label that prevents us from exploring the motivations of people that we oppose.
Part two of this is less of a philosophical argument - whilst Russia is the aggressor and Putin is responsible for this horrendous situation, I also believe that the truth of the atrocities of the invasion is less extreme than that which is being portrayed...
If we are to achieve net zero, how is there any common sense in trying to produce more CO2?
This is the time to massively invest in renewables and nuclear.
They are entirely compatible. 1. We need power next winter. If we can't get replacement gas then our gas-fired power stations are in trouble. Without them we have a big hole in our capabilities as we bet the farm on cheap gas imports to maximise profits. We may need to keep burning coal a bit longer whilst we change our capabilities. 2. We must invest into renewables. Not just erecting wind farms but actually making the turbines. Invest into tidal so that we can harness the huge tidal surges. Mass produced solar panels so that every house can have one. 3. But having done all that we still need oil. We aren't about to replace next week every truck engine with hydrogen so we need oil. We still need plastic so we still need oil. Better to use our own oil than be on the hook to someone else (see gas, point 1) 4. Nuclear is a massive dead end. We can't produce our own nuclear power stations any more from an engineering point of view, and even from a construction point of view they are very very very slow to put up and at vast cost. Better to sink the money into cheaper cleaner faster alternatives.
I have a Tesla on order to sit alongside our Ioniq EV. And I am advocating more domestic oil and gas production. The two are not incompatible.
On 4 nuclear may not be a dead end in the UK - but it depends on whether Rolls Royce’s mini nuke design works.
And the thing is we do need baseline power and there are no easy solutions there. If the wind doesn’t blow for a few days no amount of storage is going to help
It doesn't depend on whether they work (although having a nuclear sub reactor parked in your town is going to bring out a tsunami of NIMBY's). It depends on the cost. Of siting, planning permission, building, maintaining, defending, decommissioning. Boris hasn't told us any of the answers to those.
The nuke mini reactors are nearly certainly going to go on the sites of existing nuclear power stations. They have a fairly small footprint, and the sites have very large amounts of land "behind the fences". There are also the existing turbine halls to take the steam generated, the connections to the grid etc.
If you listen to the anti-nuke types, they are extremely worried by the possibility that because of this, the mini-nukes won't even get a "proper"* planning enquiry.
*One lasting decades.
Still nothing on the relative costs.
And they are still a new form of energy generation - that might have significant teething problems. A lot being taken on good faith - never wise with the nuclear industry.
The question on costs is hard to gauge at this point. They are, of course, a modification of existing nuclear reactor designs for submarines. The sizing seems to suggest something quite close to the reactors for the next generation of Trident submarines (PWR3).
So, rather than being a whole new design, they will be an evolution of an existing design. I would suspect that many components, such as the pressure vessel, will be very, very similar.
The resistance to the mini-nuke idea from the backers of traditional sized nuclear power stations has been interesting. They claimed that the re-use of military technology was an "unfair advantage". Which speaks volumes, to me.
If these mini-nukes turn out to be an order of magnitude cheaper than the RN gets charged, somebody might just say "Hang on a minute...."
I don't know how much RR have had in development assistance. I know £200m has been announced, but it is likely to be way more. For a fraction of that, the Government could have got tidal power stations moving forward several years ago.
If Starmer goes on the attack on this, the Government is in World Of Pain.... And frankly, it will serve them right.
Doesn't everything nuclear always cost shitloads more and take shitloads longer than everyone breezily asserts at the start? These RR mini nukes will be no different.
Exactly so. The promised economies of scale will never actually materialise. And the rationale for them only works if you have 10 at a site rather than one, so we'll have to press on regardless, eh?
Meanwhile, the cost for the decommissioning the UK's nuclear facilities was put at between £132 billion and £220 billion. Let's top that up, eh?
If we are to achieve net zero, how is there any common sense in trying to produce more CO2?
This is the time to massively invest in renewables and nuclear.
They are entirely compatible. 1. We need power next winter. If we can't get replacement gas then our gas-fired power stations are in trouble. Without them we have a big hole in our capabilities as we bet the farm on cheap gas imports to maximise profits. We may need to keep burning coal a bit longer whilst we change our capabilities. 2. We must invest into renewables. Not just erecting wind farms but actually making the turbines. Invest into tidal so that we can harness the huge tidal surges. Mass produced solar panels so that every house can have one. 3. But having done all that we still need oil. We aren't about to replace next week every truck engine with hydrogen so we need oil. We still need plastic so we still need oil. Better to use our own oil than be on the hook to someone else (see gas, point 1) 4. Nuclear is a massive dead end. We can't produce our own nuclear power stations any more from an engineering point of view, and even from a construction point of view they are very very very slow to put up and at vast cost. Better to sink the money into cheaper cleaner faster alternatives.
I have a Tesla on order to sit alongside our Ioniq EV. And I am advocating more domestic oil and gas production. The two are not incompatible.
On 4 nuclear may not be a dead end in the UK - but it depends on whether Rolls Royce’s mini nuke design works.
And the thing is we do need baseline power and there are no easy solutions there. If the wind doesn’t blow for a few days no amount of storage is going to help
It doesn't depend on whether they work (although having a nuclear sub reactor parked in your town is going to bring out a tsunami of NIMBY's). It depends on the cost. Of siting, planning permission, building, maintaining, defending, decommissioning. Boris hasn't told us any of the answers to those.
The nuke mini reactors are nearly certainly going to go on the sites of existing nuclear power stations. They have a fairly small footprint, and the sites have very large amounts of land "behind the fences". There are also the existing turbine halls to take the steam generated, the connections to the grid etc.
If you listen to the anti-nuke types, they are extremely worried by the possibility that because of this, the mini-nukes won't even get a "proper"* planning enquiry.
*One lasting decades.
Still nothing on the relative costs.
And they are still a new form of energy generation - that might have significant teething problems. A lot being taken on good faith - never wise with the nuclear industry.
The question on costs is hard to gauge at this point. They are, of course, a modification of existing nuclear reactor designs for submarines. The sizing seems to suggest something quite close to the reactors for the next generation of Trident submarines (PWR3).
So, rather than being a whole new design, they will be an evolution of an existing design. I would suspect that many components, such as the pressure vessel, will be very, very similar.
The resistance to the mini-nuke idea from the backers of traditional sized nuclear power stations has been interesting. They claimed that the re-use of military technology was an "unfair advantage". Which speaks volumes, to me.
If these mini-nukes turn out to be an order of magnitude cheaper than the RN gets charged, somebody might just say "Hang on a minute...."
I don't know how much RR have had in development assistance. I know £200m has been announced, but it is likely to be way more. For a fraction of that, the Government could have got tidal power stations moving forward several years ago.
If Starmer goes on the attack on this, the Government is in World Of Pain.... And frankly, it will serve them right.
Doesn't everything nuclear always cost shitloads more and take shitloads longer than everyone breezily asserts at the start? These RR mini nukes will be no different.
Exactly so. The promised economies of scale will never actually materialise. And the rationale for them only works if you have 10 at a site rather than one, so we'll have to press on regardless, eh?
Meanwhile, the cost for the decommissioning the UK's nuclear facilities was put at between £132 billion and £220 billion. Let's top that up, eh?
Why are you so confident that lagoons will not suffer massive price increases over their proponent's projections?
I don't think Putin is evil, though he does have a significant disconnect, common (if not universal) in powerful statespeople, with the human consequences of his actions. Though perhaps he is tormented by them in private, as Thatcher was about the British casualties (though I believe not the enemy casualties) in the Falklands. Madeline Albright was asked if half a million casualties was an acceptable death toll in Iraq, and she answered 'yes' without batting an eyelid. Perhaps that's the sort of attitude you need (or just think you need) to run a big country.
Exactly how far would Putin have to go, for you to accept he is evil?
He has personally authorised a brutal, unprovoked invasion on an unthreatening neighbouring state, utilising, as a military method, the indiscriminate slaughter of civilians: men, women and children. The purpose being to restore the “greatness” of the lost Russian empire
What more does he have to do? Roast the dead babies? Nuke Warsaw? Batter your Nan to death with a brick, on Whitechapel Road?
I have difficulty subscribing to the notion of anyone being evil - I think we are naturally good, and we can become, by degrees, disconnected from our natural goodness. I'd say that Putin has become very disconnected, and is probably full of anger, resentment and wrath, but 'evil' is just a caricature. It's a glib label that prevents us from exploring the motivations of people that we oppose.
Part two of this is less of a philosophical argument - whilst Russia is the aggressor and Putin is responsible for this horrendous situation, I also believe that the truth of the atrocities of the invasion is less extreme than that which is being portrayed...
I don't think Putin is evil, though he does have a significant disconnect, common (if not universal) in powerful statespeople, with the human consequences of his actions. Though perhaps he is tormented by them in private, as Thatcher was about the British casualties (though I believe not the enemy casualties) in the Falklands. Madeline Albright was asked if half a million casualties was an acceptable death toll in Iraq, and she answered 'yes' without batting an eyelid. Perhaps that's the sort of attitude you need (or just think you need) to run a big country.
Exactly how far would Putin have to go, for you to accept he is evil?
He has personally authorised a brutal, unprovoked invasion on an unthreatening neighbouring state, utilising, as a military method, the indiscriminate slaughter of civilians: men, women and children. The purpose being to restore the “greatness” of the lost Russian empire
What more does he have to do? Roast the dead babies? Nuke Warsaw? Batter your Nan to death with a brick, on Whitechapel Road?
I have difficulty subscribing to the notion of anyone being evil - I think we are naturally good, and we can become, by degrees, disconnected from our natural goodness. I'd say that Putin has become very disconnected, and is probably full of anger, resentment and wrath, but 'evil' is just a caricature. It's a glib label that prevents us from exploring the motivations of people that we oppose.
Part two of this is less of a philosophical argument - whilst Russia is the aggressor and Putin is responsible for this horrendous situation, I also believe that the truth of the atrocities of the invasion is less extreme than that which is being portrayed. Ukraine gets applauded here for 'winning the information war', but inherent in that information war is accusing your opponents of indiscriminate (or even deliberate) butchery of civilians. The truth lies somewhere in the middle.
The Russians say that the Ukrainians are shelling their own citizens.
So you think there's some truth in that?
I don't believe the Russian propaganda. But what I find plausible are reports from Mariupol that the Azov brigade have been preventing civilians from leaving the city, and attempting to use them as human sheilds. With the attack on the hospital, it was tragic that three people lost their lives, but logic tells me that 3 casualties isn't consistent with bombing an operational maternity hospital.
Given that over 30k inhabitants has made it out already, you’d think someone might have confirmed that ?
"With the attack on the hospital, it was tragic that three people lost their lives, but logic tells me that 3 casualties isn't consistent with bombing an operational maternity hospital."
What was interesting was that while Labrov, the foreign minister was claiming that the hospital was not a maternity hospital at all, but housed only the military, the Russian Ambassador to the UN was admitting it was a maternity hospital. However, the shell/bomb had missed it, causing only a crater in front. In the picture he showed, all the windows had been blown in yet he denied any casualties. Had you been in any of the wards, imagine what broken glass acting as shrapnel would have done to any patient?
One or both must be lying, and lying poorly. It's as if only useful idiots were being targetted. When you shoot yourself in the foot like that, you don't need Ukranian propaganda.
It beggars belief that anyone should think the Russian propaganda even slightly likely, given their long history of targeting hospitals (see Syria, for example), and the plain fact that they’ve shelled and bombed most of the city.
“Vladimir Putin has 'finally agreed 'to face-to-face peace talks with Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky after more than three weeks of war, it has been reported. The two leaders have let their diplomatic teams conduct peace talks on the neutral ground since shortly after the start of the conflict on February 24, but a BBC correspondent has confirmed the two will meet in person”
It may just be me, but the intensity of fighting does seem to have reduced in recent days. It may just be lack of targets. Or perhaps, informally, not so much a ceasefire as "if you don't move, we won't kill you while talks go on"? We can hope.
But we also have to hope for Putin not to make stupid demands of Ukraine. Less optimism there.
Or the crippling if Russian logistics means they pause is not one of choice but necessity.
"Just possibly - fighting was getting closer and close to the hospital. So there were very few mothers-to-be there - mostly evacuated or sent to other places. But it is still a hospital....."
So the excuse for the low casualties is that they were incompetent - it fell in front of the hospital rather than destroying it. Perhaps they'll try harder next time. Use a hypersonic, vacuum bomb or something similar. In the meantime, we can criticise the Ukranians for exaggeration. I begin to think that they lie badly because it doesn't matter much. Only the domestic audience matters.
More that when they bombed a hospital, it was mostly empty. Because the Ukrainians were worried that the Russians might bomb the hospital.
Darn those Ukrainians for thinking that the Russians might do something they actually did and taking precautions.
I am not 'darning' anyone for doing that. However, the specific emotional impact of the act was that a working maternity hospital, with the implied unthinkable carnage, had been bombed. Thankfully, the low level of actual casualties implies that this was not the case, for which we should all be thankful. But we still need to be extremely wary of these sorts of events, as they are used to soften public resistance to otherwise unpopular steps, such as attacking a nuclear power.
If we are to achieve net zero, how is there any common sense in trying to produce more CO2?
This is the time to massively invest in renewables and nuclear.
You’re conflating two things
1. We should try to reduce the usage of fossil fuels 2. To the extent we need to use fossil fuels for an interim period it is better to use domestically produced fossil fuels for economic/environmental/geopolitical reasons
If you can make a sensible economic return from new production in the UK, even assuming it will only have a limited lifespan, then it makes sense to do so as it can be better controlled than other sources
A humble man goes jogging Keeping fit And why does he do this? Because this is no ordinary man. This is Boris Johnson: plain, no frills, unassuming. But he knows he is leader of the free world & must keep in top condition for all of us. We are blessed.👍🇬🇧
tbf, I’m several stone lighter (he does look like an walrus in a hurry), but my running form isn’t vastly better.
A local gym offers running courses - According to the chap running them, he can massively improve most peoples speed *and* reduce their probability of injuring themselves.
Given some of the strange flopping about I see on the pavements, I think he is right.
I find the concept of evil itself to be inaccurate, unhelpful and rooted in superstition.
A moral relativist then
Who gets to define "evil". You? Me?
Such terms are relativist by definition.
I fear we are going to get "God" invoked if we're not careful, and the whole business of that somehow not being a human concept and therefore giving us a moral absolute. And there the argument will end if we're lucky
HY can't talk to us about God as he misquotes the Bible. I'm not about to get involved in a debate with him on the subject as he has nothing to say worth listening to.
My point was that evil in the human world is a defined concept not an absolute. I know several people who firmly believe Boris is evil and can point to the deliberately callous way they treat the poor / sick as evidence. When you aren't being reduced to penury and left humiliated and desperate by sneering politicians you won't accept that "evil" is a valid definition for the man. But it could be depending on perspective.
It’s been a long time since I studied theology, but relative vs absolute morality was a key philosophical discussion. I don’t think you can just state it as a fact like that
I can. In the modern world morality is relative. Something defined by societies and something that different societies have different views about. Now lets go back further in time towards absolute morality defined by religion. That is ALSO relative. Which religion are we considering? Is Christian absolutism compatible with other faith's own definitions? How about Catholic vs Eastern Orthodox vs Anglican etc etc?
I don’t really have the energy for this debate today (still getting over covid).
But most religions have similar core principles - “thou shalt not murder” for example - which are simply the building blocks of a functioning society rather than anything intrinsically religious.
But if you have a society which says murder is ok - let’s say the Thugee Cult* - then relative morality would say “it’s ok, it’s their belief system” while absolute morality says “murder is wrong”
For me morality is absolute - but equally I would be strict on the definitions vs try to overlay it with too many nice to haves.
* ignoring the debate on whether the Thugees were real or invented
Sure. Thou shall not commit murder. Unless its a crusade. Or the inquisition. Etc etc. Thou shall not commit adultery. Unless you are permitted.
The problem with all of this is that the definitions of things like "murder" are themselves flexible. And when the Pope - the literal voice of God - is sanctioning murder, where does the definition of evil sit?
Crusades were originally about protection of pilgrims and then morphed into a general invasion / raid / war of aggression. Not typically defined as “murder”.
The inquisition was, I would agree, evil. It was humans applying unacceptable methods in the pursuit of ideological purity
“Vladimir Putin has 'finally agreed 'to face-to-face peace talks with Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky after more than three weeks of war, it has been reported. The two leaders have let their diplomatic teams conduct peace talks on the neutral ground since shortly after the start of the conflict on February 24, but a BBC correspondent has confirmed the two will meet in person”
Why do i not trust the Russians to use this meeting as bait to strike?
How has COVID affected the temper of pb.com threads?
Many recent threads -- this one included -- seem to become exceptionally ill-tempered rather quickly. COVID seems to have overwhelmed some people's ability to process or even acknowledge conflicting points of view.
There is good argument that Russia would not have launched the invasion without Putin's paranoia, exacerbated by COVID.
My guess is Boris would be in more trouble without COVID. In benign & placid times, his shortcomings would be even more apparent.
(OTH, there is a good argument that President Donald Trump would be romping through his second term, without his disastrous response to COVID).
I'm not convinced about Russia, given that they already invaded in 2014, fully 5 years before Covid. An argument can be made for it, but it's tough to account for that past behaviour.
I think there would have been a low-level war in the Donbas regardless of COVID.
Without COVID, I doubt if Putin would have risked an enormous invasion.
Without COVID and the consequent absence of travel/tourism/visitors, I doubt if the populations of Russia, or elsewhere, would be so inward-looking. The importance of meeting people from other countries regularly, one-to-one, through tourism or exchange or cultural activities is one of the great bulwarks against war.
The boundaries in the East of Ukraine/Crimea were wrong -- unpopular though it is to say this. Just as the boundaries of Serbia prior to the secession of Kosovo were wrong. There was always going to be a problem in East Ukraine, but it did not have to end this way.
A way that is probably the worst of all for both Russia and Ukraine.
It was the discovery of offshore gas in Crimea at the end of 2012 that meant Russia wanted it. It did not want Ukraine to have independent sources of energy and foreign currency.
I don't think Putin is evil, though he does have a significant disconnect, common (if not universal) in powerful statespeople, with the human consequences of his actions. Though perhaps he is tormented by them in private, as Thatcher was about the British casualties (though I believe not the enemy casualties) in the Falklands. Madeline Albright was asked if half a million casualties was an acceptable death toll in Iraq, and she answered 'yes' without batting an eyelid. Perhaps that's the sort of attitude you need (or just think you need) to run a big country.
Exactly how far would Putin have to go, for you to accept he is evil?
He has personally authorised a brutal, unprovoked invasion on an unthreatening neighbouring state, utilising, as a military method, the indiscriminate slaughter of civilians: men, women and children. The purpose being to restore the “greatness” of the lost Russian empire
What more does he have to do? Roast the dead babies? Nuke Warsaw? Batter your Nan to death with a brick, on Whitechapel Road?
I have difficulty subscribing to the notion of anyone being evil - I think we are naturally good, and we can become, by degrees, disconnected from our natural goodness. I'd say that Putin has become very disconnected, and is probably full of anger, resentment and wrath, but 'evil' is just a caricature. It's a glib label that prevents us from exploring the motivations of people that we oppose.
Part two of this is less of a philosophical argument - whilst Russia is the aggressor and Putin is responsible for this horrendous situation, I also believe that the truth of the atrocities of the invasion is less extreme than that which is being portrayed. Ukraine gets applauded here for 'winning the information war', but inherent in that information war is accusing your opponents of indiscriminate (or even deliberate) butchery of civilians. The truth lies somewhere in the middle.
The Russians say that the Ukrainians are shelling their own citizens.
So you think there's some truth in that?
I don't believe the Russian propaganda. But what I find plausible are reports from Mariupol that the Azov brigade have been preventing civilians from leaving the city, and attempting to use them as human sheilds. With the attack on the hospital, it was tragic that three people lost their lives, but logic tells me that 3 casualties isn't consistent with bombing an operational maternity hospital.
I don’t believe the Russian propaganda but I find plausible is the Russian propaganda
The graphic shows the evolution in how confident people are that Russia will be defeated.
Encouraging for Ukraine, discouraging for Putin. A nation confidently united, like that, can literally never be defeated. Unless he deports them ALL to Siberia
I still don't see path to them regaining Donbas (never mind Crimea), but if they remain united like that it means the Leadership can presumably hold firmer against offering concessions to the Russians as the price for peace, on the basis that the Ukrainian people would rather not pay some prices.
I don't see why they couldn't get the Donbass back under some scenarios. I wouldn't rule out Crimea either. However that's easy for me to say, I'm not the one facing a humanitarian crisis. Unless Putin is prepared to use WMD (horrible thought) or starts calling up masses of reserves - 500,000? - it is hard to see him winning a military victory so long as the Ukrainian air force keeps flying and their army isn't decimated. I believe the Ukrainians are busy training reservists - I thought I saw a figure of 250,000 - which would give them superior numbers. Hopefully all the Nato weapons are getting there.
VVP never articulated the aims or schedule of Operation Ukrainian Freedom in anything other than the most ambiguous terms so he can declare victory whenever he wants.
We can surmise the aims were:
1. Regime change in Ukraine turning them into another gimp state like Belarus. 2. No NATO for Ukraine. 3. A more sustainable form for the DPR/LPR. 4. Land bridge to Crimea and deny Ukraine access to the Black Sea.
1. is looking like a stretch at the moment although they might get lucky and get Zeldisney. 2. That's a tick. 3. and 4. are looking achievable.
VVP might be inclined to settle for 2,3 & 4, work on getting sanctions lifted as the west eventually gets bored/greedy and then have another go 5-10 years hence and break off another piece.
Your last paragraph is why 2,3&4 is not a workable deal. Russia promised before to respect Ukraine’s territorial integrity
The graphic shows the evolution in how confident people are that Russia will be defeated.
Encouraging for Ukraine, discouraging for Putin. A nation confidently united, like that, can literally never be defeated. Unless he deports them ALL to Siberia
I still don't see path to them regaining Donbas (never mind Crimea), but if they remain united like that it means the Leadership can presumably hold firmer against offering concessions to the Russians as the price for peace, on the basis that the Ukrainian people would rather not pay some prices.
I don't see why they couldn't get the Donbass back under some scenarios. I wouldn't rule out Crimea either. However that's easy for me to say, I'm not the one facing a humanitarian crisis. Unless Putin is prepared to use WMD (horrible thought) or starts calling up masses of reserves - 500,000? - it is hard to see him winning a military victory so long as the Ukrainian air force keeps flying and their army isn't decimated. I believe the Ukrainians are busy training reservists - I thought I saw a figure of 250,000 - which would give them superior numbers. Hopefully all the Nato weapons are getting there.
VVP never articulated the aims or schedule of Operation Ukrainian Freedom in anything other than the most ambiguous terms so he can declare victory whenever he wants.
We can surmise the aims were:
1. Regime change in Ukraine turning them into another gimp state like Belarus. 2. No NATO for Ukraine. 3. A more sustainable form for the DPR/LPR. 4. Land bridge to Crimea and deny Ukraine access to the Black Sea.
1. is looking like a stretch at the moment although they might get lucky and get Zeldisney. 2. That's a tick. 3. and 4. are looking achievable.
VVP might be inclined to settle for 2,3 & 4, work on getting sanctions lifted as the west eventually gets bored/greedy and then have another go 5-10 years hence and break off another piece.
Your last paragraph is why 2,3&4 is not a workable deal. Russia promised before to respect Ukraine’s territorial integrity
And we and the US promised, by treaty, to defend it (knowing we never could if the aggressor was Russia). If I was Ukraine I’d want a bit more than empty promises.
Comments
Meanwhile, the cost for the decommissioning the UK's nuclear facilities was put at between £132 billion and £220 billion. Let's top that up, eh?
They are massive engineering structures.
1. We should try to reduce the usage of fossil fuels
2. To the extent we need to use fossil fuels for an interim period it is better to use domestically produced fossil fuels for economic/environmental/geopolitical reasons
If you can make a sensible economic return from new production in the UK, even assuming it will only have a limited lifespan, then it makes sense to do so as it can be better controlled than other sources
The inquisition was, I would agree, evil. It was humans applying unacceptable methods in the pursuit of ideological purity
That is why Ukraine can’t give it up.