Hargreaves Lansdown has a service where they open, close, and fund savings accounts with multiple providers for you, with no direct contact - so you don't have to keep messing around with each individual company:
Setting aside the rights and wrongs of fracking, the reason the moratorium was brought into being in the first place (aside from the earthquakes) was Cummings wanted the issue locking down in Autumn 2019 so Boris could get himself that majority. The first thing they did when he called the election was the moratorium to stop fracking being an issue.
Now Boris / Cummings have long gone (and with them the election winning nous) we have the ERG faction setting Government policy thinking that the likes of LuckyGuy and Barty is somehow representative of public opinion or even Conservative voters. Big big mistake. These people are at the extreme fringes of public opinion.
If you don't buy this general thesis, how else can you explain Rees Mogg?
Did anyone notice he's accused anti-fracking groups of being in the pay of foreign governments? Not going down too well in the shires.
I'll repeat my anecdote from a presentation at a fracking conference some year ago:
"The cheapest shale gas in the UK will be LNG imported from the US"
That comes in at the standard wholesale price of gas. So if the existing wells (like the two in Lancashire) are to resume pumping under some form of special domestic-only deal, it will be cheaper.
No, UK shale gas is lots more expensive than US, that's the whole point.
Yes, but by the time we get US shale gas, it's priced as 'Dutch ttf' and costs the same as any other gas. If the plan is to keep UK fracked gas off the international market for the time being, its price would presumably be lower than Dutch ttf.
The anti-fracking lobby is hilarious. Anyone would think the Government was reallocating half the NHS budget to and demolishing Bath to build 'Frackville'. All they're actually doing is reviewing restrictions on fracking activity in the face of an unprecedented rise in gas prices. It literally costs us nothing. The histrionics is truly a sight to behold.
They are not just “reviewing restrictions”. They have already cancelled the general moratorium against fracking.
It doesn’t cost us nothing. Fracking will have negative effects in local populations, and ultimately on the whole world population through climate change.
I'm afraid the latter point is simply nonsense, as has already been explained. You choose not to accept the blindingly simple logic because it doesn't fit with your extremely ideological world view.
As for environmental impacts; they should continue to be monitored, but not so we can ban something that could keep people warm due to the 'danger' of an earthquake that you'd need a seismagraph to even know about.
The worry is not about 0.5 Richter earthquakes. The danger is the bigger earthquakes that might happen: 4 on the Richter scale happened in Texas, for example. The current stop on activity if anything exceeds 0.5 Richter is because small earthquakes can predict bigger earthquakes. This is blindingly simple.
Of course the Richter scale is logarithmic not linear, an earthquake measuring 1 is 1/1000th as strong as one measuring 4 on the scale, let alone 0.5
Mining is the largest cause of human-created earthquakes across the planet, but mining is still legally permissible. Standards should be followed for fracking along the lines of mining and other comparable developments.
Nobody on PB seems to care about tuition fees or transport costs. Because presumably most people don't have a problem with them as they either don't have them or don't use them
You are an intelligent fellow, you presumably knew the risk/reward of a modern university education when you embarked on it.
If your degree has not got you the job you thought it might, maybe you, and many other graduates, were mis-sold
It's very well to say that to one person, but when it's a problem generational, perhaps there is a structural problem. Not just for those with the debt, but for the older generations that need younger people to pay for their pensions and healthcare. That isn't going to work if millenials don't have kids because they are struggling under a debt mountain.
For all intents and purposes it is now a form of tax, one that thankfully expires. No one calls income tax a "debt mountain" do they?
It's one that expires once you are past the life decision phase of settling down and having a family. If you can't afford a home and kids by your late 40s, you probably aren't going to do it.
Crashing fertility rates are THE primary problem of Western societies, but it's such a big problem no politician wants to think about it.
It's the equivalent of a couple of pence on the base rate of income tax what with the repayment threshold being so high. I doubt that is responsible for crashing fertility rates, because that happened long before student loans were introduced.
Setting aside the rights and wrongs of fracking, the reason the moratorium was brought into being in the first place (aside from the earthquakes) was Cummings wanted the issue locking down in Autumn 2019 so Boris could get himself that majority. The first thing they did when he called the election was the moratorium to stop fracking being an issue.
Now Boris / Cummings have long gone (and with them the election winning nous) we have the ERG faction setting Government policy thinking that the likes of LuckyGuy and Barty is somehow representative of public opinion or even Conservative voters. Big big mistake. These people are at the extreme fringes of public opinion.
If you don't buy this general thesis, how else can you explain Rees Mogg?
Did anyone notice he's accused anti-fracking groups of being in the pay of foreign governments? Not going down too well in the shires.
Those are the same NIMBYs that a partly responsible for the present energy situation.
Allegedly @GOVUK will scrap plans to ban the import of fur and foie gras . Shelved earlier in the year under @trussliz it won’t happen and banning live animal export for slaughter and the import of hunting trophies may go too . Apparently banning things seems ‘very socialist’ . https://twitter.com/ChrisGPackham/status/1572666986554949632/photo/1
Seems another 'brave' policy – allowing trophy hunting imports. Truss is an effing weirdo.
Effective ban on onshore wind needs lifting too tbh. Yes I know it's not the sole solution to our energy problems.
Amongst all the posh sods speaking at the funeral, Liz Truss accent stood out - and I liked it. She’s Yorkshire alright. It’s good that common uneducated people with an accent can get right up the greasy pole in politics, it gives me hope.
What the fuck is this? Jizzy Lizzy has a PPE from Oxford and is a Chartered Accountant. How is that 'uneducated'?
Irony? LizT makes great play of having been educated at Dotheboys Hall.
One comment I read after one of her more rubbish speeches - if her Comprehensive managed to get her into Oxford it must have been a lot better than she is making out.
Or her father pulled strings, of course.
But from what I know, which may be completely wrong, it's probably the former.
That in itself raises questions about her integrity, but equally Harold Wilson played the same card most days and he was quite successful.
I went to a secondary school that dropped from seven classes in year 7 to six classes by year 10, because so many kids had been permanently excluded for violence. There would be fights in the corridor to determine who would get to sit next to me in class tests, and poke me with a compass so that I showed my answers.
I still made it to Cambridge, mostly because my Dad had gone to Cambridge, and his Dad was a graduate, and so there was an expectation at home that I would do well at school and go to university. When you told my Dad that you scored 98% on a test he'd want to know how you managed to drop 2%.
I know nothing about the school Liz Truss went to, but it's not implausible to me that she ended up at Oxford on her merits, and despite her school, and without any inappropriate influence.
It would be interesting to know whether the school you went to has improved as a consequence of the inspection regime now in place… what is the name of the school, so I can look it up?
If it's like the dump schools round here - it will be on it's 3rd name, it's 6/10th head and it's 5th Trust, having destroyed 3 of them
Interesting, may I ask where you are?
Darlington - now I did exaggerate very slightly there I think it's the 4th trust and the current head is an acting one but the rest is true.
What's more entertaining is that if you move to the big new build estates you get a choice of 1 secondary school - care to guess which one...
Setting aside the rights and wrongs of fracking, the reason the moratorium was brought into being in the first place (aside from the earthquakes) was Cummings wanted the issue locking down in Autumn 2019 so Boris could get himself that majority. The first thing they did when he called the election was the moratorium to stop fracking being an issue.
Now Boris / Cummings have long gone (and with them the election winning nous) we have the ERG faction setting Government policy thinking that the likes of LuckyGuy and Barty is somehow representative of public opinion or even Conservative voters. Big big mistake. These people are at the extreme fringes of public opinion.
If you don't buy this general thesis, how else can you explain Rees Mogg?
Did anyone notice he's accused anti-fracking groups of being in the pay of foreign governments? Not going down too well in the shires.
Those are the same NIMBYs that a partly responsible for the present energy situation.
Allegedly @GOVUK will scrap plans to ban the import of fur and foie gras . Shelved earlier in the year under @trussliz it won’t happen and banning live animal export for slaughter and the import of hunting trophies may go too . Apparently banning things seems ‘very socialist’ . https://twitter.com/ChrisGPackham/status/1572666986554949632/photo/1
Seems another 'brave' policy – allowing trophy hunting imports. Truss is an effing weirdo.
Effective ban on onshore wind needs lifting too tbh. Yes I know it's not the sole solution to our energy problems.
Absolutely and completely agreed.
Bans on fracking and bans on onshore wind etc both need lifting. Its not either/or, its both. We should not be banning things, we should have standards then allow anything that meets those standards.
Allegedly @GOVUK will scrap plans to ban the import of fur and foie gras . Shelved earlier in the year under @trussliz it won’t happen and banning live animal export for slaughter and the import of hunting trophies may go too . Apparently banning things seems ‘very socialist’ . https://twitter.com/ChrisGPackham/status/1572666986554949632/photo/1
Seems another 'brave' policy – allowing trophy hunting imports. Truss is an effing weirdo.
Effective ban on onshore wind needs lifting too tbh. Yes I know it's not the sole solution to our energy problems.
Starmer leads Truss on best PM in the latest Ipsos Mori polling. Unlike, Redfield & Wilton, Ipsos does not begin its question on the subject with "At this moment".
Setting aside the rights and wrongs of fracking, the reason the moratorium was brought into being in the first place (aside from the earthquakes) was Cummings wanted the issue locking down in Autumn 2019 so Boris could get himself that majority. The first thing they did when he called the election was the moratorium to stop fracking being an issue.
Now Boris / Cummings have long gone (and with them the election winning nous) we have the ERG faction setting Government policy thinking that the likes of LuckyGuy and Barty is somehow representative of public opinion or even Conservative voters. Big big mistake. These people are at the extreme fringes of public opinion.
If you don't buy this general thesis, how else can you explain Rees Mogg?
Did anyone notice he's accused anti-fracking groups of being in the pay of foreign governments? Not going down too well in the shires.
Those are the same NIMBYs that a partly responsible for the present energy situation.
Tory MPs?
Yeas, sorry, I was referring to your "in the shires" part.
I'll repeat my anecdote from a presentation at a fracking conference some year ago:
"The cheapest shale gas in the UK will be LNG imported from the US"
That comes in at the standard wholesale price of gas. So if the existing wells (like the two in Lancashire) are to resume pumping under some form of special domestic-only deal, it will be cheaper.
No, UK shale gas is lots more expensive than US, that's the whole point.
Yes, but by the time we get US shale gas, it's priced as 'Dutch ttf' and costs the same as any other gas. If the plan is to keep UK fracked gas off the international market for the time being, its price would presumably be lower than Dutch ttf.
The anti-fracking lobby is hilarious. Anyone would think the Government was reallocating half the NHS budget to and demolishing Bath to build 'Frackville'. All they're actually doing is reviewing restrictions on fracking activity in the face of an unprecedented rise in gas prices. It literally costs us nothing. The histrionics is truly a sight to behold.
They are not just “reviewing restrictions”. They have already cancelled the general moratorium against fracking.
It doesn’t cost us nothing. Fracking will have negative effects in local populations, and ultimately on the whole world population through climate change.
This is why your criticisms aren't serious.
Importing Qatari gas instead of UK gas causes more climate change, not less.
Anyone who quotes climate change as a reason to oppose fracking is not being serious. If you want to stop climate change, lets start with stopping Qatari etc imports which have more emissions than UK domestic generation, not less.
We need to do many things to stop climate change, and we are doing many things (if not enough). Yes, we need to reduce and then stop Qatari imports. But we were talking specifically about fracking. In a context where we’re doing all the things we need to stop climate change, where is the role for fracking?
(Existing UK domestic generation has less emissions than Qatari gas, but developing new fields has an initial cost in emissions (and in £). Developing new fields is rarely a sensible way of reducing emissions.)
Again not true. You keep making these statements which are based on nothing but supposition and are factually inaccurate. Qatari gas does not just seep from the ground by osmosis. It needs to be drilled for and produced in exactly the same way as UK gas. Adding new field emissions to UK fields but ignoring them for imported gas is simply dishonest.
My apologies. You are quite right. I was not seeking to add new field emissions in the UK, but not in Qatar or anywhere else. I was seeking to compare a new field in the UK with an existing field in Qatar. I understand there are a lot of existing fields in Qatar(!). It is, as I understand it, cheaper (financially and in terms of emissions) to get another X cubic metres out of an existing field than it is to get your first X cubic metres out of a new site.
Of course, fields run out, so you need new fields… except we’re going to have to reduce demand so much that, at some point, we stop needing new fields.
Starmer leads Truss on best PM in the latest Ipsos Mori polling. Unlike, Redfield & Wilton, Ipsos does not begin its question on the subject with "At this moment".
Is that restricted to 10/10 likelihood to vote like the headline VI?
Allegedly @GOVUK will scrap plans to ban the import of fur and foie gras . Shelved earlier in the year under @trussliz it won’t happen and banning live animal export for slaughter and the import of hunting trophies may go too . Apparently banning things seems ‘very socialist’ . https://twitter.com/ChrisGPackham/status/1572666986554949632/photo/1
Seems another 'brave' policy – allowing trophy hunting imports. Truss is an effing weirdo.
Effective ban on onshore wind needs lifting too tbh. Yes I know it's not the sole solution to our energy problems.
Absolutely and completely agreed.
Bans on fracking and bans on onshore wind etc both need lifting. Its not either/or, its both. We should not be banning things, we should have standards then allow anything that meets those standards.
That seems like sophistry. If I impose standards and something can’t meet those standards, then I have banned it. Changing the wording doesn’t change that.
Are the inability to import a recently killed for fun giraffe's ears and the fact that British embassy is not in al Quds really pressing issues? tories please explain.
Truss has achieved the remarkable feat of making Sir Keir look charismatic and Boris look sensible.
Instead of being prepared to be unpopular, she seems positively determined to be so. And that's coming from me! I literally chose that name!
Maybe our language will evolve "I never realised fracking would prove quite so truss with the electorate." "Remember that jeweller, Ratner? He used to be the classic example of someone trussing a brand."
Nobody on PB seems to care about tuition fees or transport costs. Because presumably most people don't have a problem with them as they either don't have them or don't use them
You are an intelligent fellow, you presumably knew the risk/reward of a modern university education when you embarked on it.
If your degree has not got you the job you thought it might, maybe you, and many other graduates, were mis-sold
It's very well to say that to one person, but when it's a problem generational, perhaps there is a structural problem. Not just for those with the debt, but for the older generations that need younger people to pay for their pensions and healthcare. That isn't going to work if millenials don't have kids because they are struggling under a debt mountain.
For all intents and purposes it is now a form of tax, one that thankfully expires. No one calls income tax a "debt mountain" do they?
It's one that expires once you are past the life decision phase of settling down and having a family. If you can't afford a home and kids by your late 40s, you probably aren't going to do it.
Crashing fertility rates are THE primary problem of Western societies, but it's such a big problem no politician wants to think about it.
It's the equivalent of a couple of pence on the base rate of income tax what with the repayment threshold being so high. I doubt that is responsible for crashing fertility rates, because that happened long before student loans were introduced.
The threshold is 20k a year, which is just about scraping by if you are trying to pursue a career in London, which is the only place to have a proper career in most industries. And you pay a tenth of income over that. So just when you get to the point you could start putting some money aside for a deposit, you get hammered with a huge marginal tax hike.
It's barely worth me engaging with the logical fallacies of your last point. Just because something can have multiple causes doesn't mean something isn't a major contributor.
Starmer leads Truss on best PM in the latest Ipsos Mori polling. Unlike, Redfield & Wilton, Ipsos does not begin its question on the subject with "At this moment".
Presume we will have several hours of overanalysis by Moon and G on what would be the reason for Truss leading with Mori were she in fact in the lead
Amongst all the posh sods speaking at the funeral, Liz Truss accent stood out - and I liked it. She’s Yorkshire alright. It’s good that common uneducated people with an accent can get right up the greasy pole in politics, it gives me hope.
What the fuck is this? Jizzy Lizzy has a PPE from Oxford and is a Chartered Accountant. How is that 'uneducated'?
Irony? LizT makes great play of having been educated at Dotheboys Hall.
One comment I read after one of her more rubbish speeches - if her Comprehensive managed to get her into Oxford it must have been a lot better than she is making out.
Or her father pulled strings, of course.
But from what I know, which may be completely wrong, it's probably the former.
That in itself raises questions about her integrity, but equally Harold Wilson played the same card most days and he was quite successful.
I went to a secondary school that dropped from seven classes in year 7 to six classes by year 10, because so many kids had been permanently excluded for violence. There would be fights in the corridor to determine who would get to sit next to me in class tests, and poke me with a compass so that I showed my answers.
I still made it to Cambridge, mostly because my Dad had gone to Cambridge, and his Dad was a graduate, and so there was an expectation at home that I would do well at school and go to university. When you told my Dad that you scored 98% on a test he'd want to know how you managed to drop 2%.
I know nothing about the school Liz Truss went to, but it's not implausible to me that she ended up at Oxford on her merits, and despite her school, and without any inappropriate influence.
It would be interesting to know whether the school you went to has improved as a consequence of the inspection regime now in place… what is the name of the school, so I can look it up?
If it's like the dump schools round here - it will be on it's 3rd name, it's 6/10th head and it's 5th Trust, having destroyed 3 of them
Interesting, may I ask where you are?
Darlington - now I did exaggerate very slightly there I think it's the 4th trust and the current head is an acting one but the rest is true.
What's more entertaining is that if you move to the big new build estates you get a choice of 1 secondary school - care to guess which one...
Longfield? Or Wyvern?
Wyvern - Longfield used to be the leader of the local Trust with Wyvern / Branksome / DSMS under it (I can't remember under which name) but Wyvern quickly managed to blow the whole trust up....
Allegedly @GOVUK will scrap plans to ban the import of fur and foie gras . Shelved earlier in the year under @trussliz it won’t happen and banning live animal export for slaughter and the import of hunting trophies may go too . Apparently banning things seems ‘very socialist’ . https://twitter.com/ChrisGPackham/status/1572666986554949632/photo/1
Seems another 'brave' policy – allowing trophy hunting imports. Truss is an effing weirdo.
Effective ban on onshore wind needs lifting too tbh. Yes I know it's not the sole solution to our energy problems.
Absolutely and completely agreed.
Bans on fracking and bans on onshore wind etc both need lifting. Its not either/or, its both. We should not be banning things, we should have standards then allow anything that meets those standards.
That seems like sophistry. If I impose standards and something can’t meet those standards, then I have banned it. Changing the wording doesn’t change that.
Not necessarily. If you impose standards and something can't meet those standards today then it may be de facto banned, rather than de jure banned.
But if processes, research or technology improves to enable it to meet your new, higher standards then once those standards are met its neither banned de facto nor de jure. Whereas if its banned, then no effort is put in to meet potentially higher standards.
Nobody on PB seems to care about tuition fees or transport costs. Because presumably most people don't have a problem with them as they either don't have them or don't use them
You are an intelligent fellow, you presumably knew the risk/reward of a modern university education when you embarked on it.
If your degree has not got you the job you thought it might, maybe you, and many other graduates, were mis-sold
It's very well to say that to one person, but when it's a problem generational, perhaps there is a structural problem. Not just for those with the debt, but for the older generations that need younger people to pay for their pensions and healthcare. That isn't going to work if millenials don't have kids because they are struggling under a debt mountain.
For all intents and purposes it is now a form of tax, one that thankfully expires. No one calls income tax a "debt mountain" do they?
It's one that expires once you are past the life decision phase of settling down and having a family. If you can't afford a home and kids by your late 40s, you probably aren't going to do it.
Crashing fertility rates are THE primary problem of Western societies, but it's such a big problem no politician wants to think about it.
It's the equivalent of a couple of pence on the base rate of income tax what with the repayment threshold being so high. I doubt that is responsible for crashing fertility rates, because that happened long before student loans were introduced.
The threshold is 20k a year, which is just about scraping by if you are trying to pursue a career in London, which is the only place to have a proper career in most industries. And you pay a tenth of income over that. So just when you get to the point you could start putting some money aside for a deposit, you get hammered with a huge marginal tax hike.
It's barely worth me engaging with the logical fallacies of your last point. Just because something can have multiple causes doesn't mean something isn't a major contributor.
If tuition fees aren't paid for by graduates, they will be paid for through general taxation. So they will be paying either way.
As for my second point, the decline in fertility rates happened in the 70s. Tuition fees came in 30 years later.
That sounds like a massively city-centric solution. Probably only works in London tbh.
Don't think it works in Newcastle even (unless you went to Gateshead)...
A live-linked dashboard of current waiting times for green, amber and red at every hospital wouldn't be a bad thing mind. e.g. If Doncaster showed as much lower than Bassetlaw I could decide to head there if I had an emergency.
If the boss of Cuadrilla is saying fracking won't work then there's not much worry about it I'd have thought. A few exploratory wells that don't yield anything. Some humming and harring followed eventually by a restoration phase https://drillordrop.com/2019/07/10/site-restoration-underway-at-tinker-lane/
With the frackers out of pocket.
Well this is basically my thought.
If fracking isn't viable as some claim, then it won't be done. So it can be legal, but not done, what's the issue with that?
If fracking is viable, then it shouldn't be banned.
We don't need to ban that which isn't viable, just have it legal but undone by choice rather than diktat.
Fracking should be treated like mining and other resource generation - subject to sensible standards, and if we can't economically do it in this country then so be it. But if we can, it should not be forbidden.
That seems like a sensible thing to say, but it's very dependent on what being "subject to sensible standards" means. That's why there's a debate, that's what one needs to address. In particular:
What are the "sensible standards" with respect to climate change?
What are the "sensible standards" with respect to the earthquake risk?
What are the "sensible standards" with respect to major building projects in rural areas?
Thank you for saying its sensible and yes your questions are sensible too. My answers to your questions would be:
Climate change: Similar rules and regulations should apply to imports etc - if gas can be imported for use, it should be able to be extracted domestically, which reduces our carbon emissions it doesn't increase them.
Earthquake risk: It should have similar standards to alternative developments like seismic activity allowed to take place with regards to mining etc too.
Building projects: It should have similar standards to other forms of development.
Standards shouldn't be lower than they would be for alternatives, but they shouldn't be draconianly higher either.
Thanks for a detailed answer that generally avoids actually saying anything.
Climate change: so, what should those standards be? We're meant to be Net Zero in 28 years. It is difficult to see fracking being consistent with that. How should Government implement reaching Net Zero? Is it sensible to say, on one hand, that we've made this commitment, while saying, on the other hand, that we want developers to open fracking wells, that typically run for 20-40 years? Will fracking licenses say, "No fracking past 2050"? The Government has not provided clarity on how it will achieve Net Zero, but that matters for developers of wells.
Earthquake risk: the BGS says the earthquake risk is unpredictable, in a manner that is different from the risks from mining. Do you take a precautionary approach, as with the present rules, or do you wait for a big earthquake and only worry about it after the fact?
Climate Change: Net Zero should be reached by reducing demand, not supply. Demand being met by Qatari imports instead of domestically produced gas makes no improvement whatsoever to the climate, demand not existing does make a difference. Net zero doesn't mean zero production even post-2050.
Earthquake risk: If it were up to me, I would predominantly deal with it after the fact, but require firms involved to demonstrate appropriate liability insurance that covers that, if they're proven to cause one. If they're unable to find insurance, then they won't be able to trade, same as any other firm. If they have the relevant insurance to appropriate standards then the liability risk is covered.
I would have thought that, as a Conservative, you had some idea of how supply and demand are related.
Dealing with problems after the fact means people suffer the ill consequences and then find themselves stuck with lengthy, legalistic processes to get compensation.
Not when limits on supply are circumvented by simply importing to make up the difference. Stopping UK oil and gas production will do nothing to reduce carbon emissions if all we do is import that oil and gas instead. In fact it will increase it because of the increased transport costs and the lack of CO2 mitigation policies in the production facilities of the countries we are importing from.
“if all we do is import that oil and gas instead”: I certainly don’t think that should be all we do. We should be massively driving down demand, as soon as possible.
“Stopping UK oil and gas production”: The immediate question was not about stopping any production, but about opening up new production. If we’re serious about climate change and reducing demand, then demand will fall below existing domestic production at some point before 2050.
You’re starting from the premise of the domestic impact on climate change, others are starting from the premise of maximising domestic production at a time of high prices.
It’s difficult to predict the future. (It’s much easier predicting the past…) If I knew what was going to happen to gas prices, I’d be very rich. However, we can observe some general points.
Gas prices are currently very high because of Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Hopefully, the war will be over with a Ukrainian victory as soon as possible. Of course, that may not happen, but commentators generally think the price shock from the war will reduce over time, either because something happens in the war or because alternative supply routes to Europe are established.
Fracking will take time to produce gas. That depends on particular sites etc., but fracking isn’t going to have a significant effect on domestic production this winter and probably not next winter. As I understand it.
So fracking doesn’t seem like a good way to tackle the current energy crisis. On shore solar and wind are the quickest ways of increasing domestic energy production. By the time fracking is producing serious quantities of gas in the UK, if that ever happens, gas prices are likely to be back to normal.
Longer term, if we in the UK and the rest of the world are serious about climate change, then the demand for gas will have to be significantly decreased soon. Demand will decrease faster than supply. Prices should fall. A large gas reserve will become almost worthless. I don’t think that has a sunk in for a lot of people.
A company seeking new gas production has to take a gamble on what prices will be. I think many are gambling that people aren’t serious about climate change, and maybe they’ll be proved correct. It’s difficult for businesses to deal with such uncertainty. It would be better if the Government could be clearer about how we move to Net Zero, but they won’t because they want the plaudits for being green without talking about the costs there will have to be.
I am afraid that you've gone so very deep down your ideological rabbit hole on this, it's actually 'the costs', that you feel people should bear are what is important to you. There are a lot of ways we can make ourselves (if we must reach an arbitrary target) net zero. Dressing fields with rock dust will apparently get us 45% of the way there for example. I would imagine this feels wrong to you, because there's not enough pain and misery involved.
Could you tell me more about how dressing fields with rock dust will get us 45% of the way to net zero emissions?
Truss has achieved the remarkable feat of making Sir Keir look charismatic and Boris look sensible.
Instead of being prepared to be unpopular, she seems positively determined to be so. And that's coming from me! I literally chose that name!
Maybe our language will evolve "I never realised fracking would prove quite so truss with the electorate." "Remember that jeweller, Ratner? He used to be the classic example of someone trussing a brand."
Allegedly @GOVUK will scrap plans to ban the import of fur and foie gras . Shelved earlier in the year under @trussliz it won’t happen and banning live animal export for slaughter and the import of hunting trophies may go too . Apparently banning things seems ‘very socialist’ . https://twitter.com/ChrisGPackham/status/1572666986554949632/photo/1
Seems another 'brave' policy – allowing trophy hunting imports. Truss is an effing weirdo.
Effective ban on onshore wind needs lifting too tbh. Yes I know it's not the sole solution to our energy problems.
Absolutely and completely agreed.
Bans on fracking and bans on onshore wind etc both need lifting. Its not either/or, its both. We should not be banning things, we should have standards then allow anything that meets those standards.
That seems like sophistry. If I impose standards and something can’t meet those standards, then I have banned it. Changing the wording doesn’t change that.
Not necessarily. If you impose standards and something can't meet those standards today then it may be de facto banned, rather than de jure banned.
But if processes, research or technology improves to enable it to meet your new, higher standards then once those standards are met its neither banned de facto nor de jure. Whereas if its banned, then no effort is put in to meet potentially higher standards.
You’re playing with words, Bart. You are still banning those things that don’t meet the standards.
If the boss of Cuadrilla is saying fracking won't work then there's not much worry about it I'd have thought. A few exploratory wells that don't yield anything. Some humming and harring followed eventually by a restoration phase https://drillordrop.com/2019/07/10/site-restoration-underway-at-tinker-lane/
With the frackers out of pocket.
Well this is basically my thought.
If fracking isn't viable as some claim, then it won't be done. So it can be legal, but not done, what's the issue with that?
If fracking is viable, then it shouldn't be banned.
We don't need to ban that which isn't viable, just have it legal but undone by choice rather than diktat.
Fracking should be treated like mining and other resource generation - subject to sensible standards, and if we can't economically do it in this country then so be it. But if we can, it should not be forbidden.
That seems like a sensible thing to say, but it's very dependent on what being "subject to sensible standards" means. That's why there's a debate, that's what one needs to address. In particular:
What are the "sensible standards" with respect to climate change?
What are the "sensible standards" with respect to the earthquake risk?
What are the "sensible standards" with respect to major building projects in rural areas?
Thank you for saying its sensible and yes your questions are sensible too. My answers to your questions would be:
Climate change: Similar rules and regulations should apply to imports etc - if gas can be imported for use, it should be able to be extracted domestically, which reduces our carbon emissions it doesn't increase them.
Earthquake risk: It should have similar standards to alternative developments like seismic activity allowed to take place with regards to mining etc too.
Building projects: It should have similar standards to other forms of development.
Standards shouldn't be lower than they would be for alternatives, but they shouldn't be draconianly higher either.
Thanks for a detailed answer that generally avoids actually saying anything.
Climate change: so, what should those standards be? We're meant to be Net Zero in 28 years. It is difficult to see fracking being consistent with that. How should Government implement reaching Net Zero? Is it sensible to say, on one hand, that we've made this commitment, while saying, on the other hand, that we want developers to open fracking wells, that typically run for 20-40 years? Will fracking licenses say, "No fracking past 2050"? The Government has not provided clarity on how it will achieve Net Zero, but that matters for developers of wells.
Earthquake risk: the BGS says the earthquake risk is unpredictable, in a manner that is different from the risks from mining. Do you take a precautionary approach, as with the present rules, or do you wait for a big earthquake and only worry about it after the fact?
Climate Change: Net Zero should be reached by reducing demand, not supply. Demand being met by Qatari imports instead of domestically produced gas makes no improvement whatsoever to the climate, demand not existing does make a difference. Net zero doesn't mean zero production even post-2050.
Earthquake risk: If it were up to me, I would predominantly deal with it after the fact, but require firms involved to demonstrate appropriate liability insurance that covers that, if they're proven to cause one. If they're unable to find insurance, then they won't be able to trade, same as any other firm. If they have the relevant insurance to appropriate standards then the liability risk is covered.
I would have thought that, as a Conservative, you had some idea of how supply and demand are related.
Dealing with problems after the fact means people suffer the ill consequences and then find themselves stuck with lengthy, legalistic processes to get compensation.
Not when limits on supply are circumvented by simply importing to make up the difference. Stopping UK oil and gas production will do nothing to reduce carbon emissions if all we do is import that oil and gas instead. In fact it will increase it because of the increased transport costs and the lack of CO2 mitigation policies in the production facilities of the countries we are importing from.
“if all we do is import that oil and gas instead”: I certainly don’t think that should be all we do. We should be massively driving down demand, as soon as possible.
“Stopping UK oil and gas production”: The immediate question was not about stopping any production, but about opening up new production. If we’re serious about climate change and reducing demand, then demand will fall below existing domestic production at some point before 2050.
You’re starting from the premise of the domestic impact on climate change, others are starting from the premise of maximising domestic production at a time of high prices.
It’s difficult to predict the future. (It’s much easier predicting the past…) If I knew what was going to happen to gas prices, I’d be very rich. However, we can observe some general points.
Gas prices are currently very high because of Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Hopefully, the war will be over with a Ukrainian victory as soon as possible. Of course, that may not happen, but commentators generally think the price shock from the war will reduce over time, either because something happens in the war or because alternative supply routes to Europe are established.
Fracking will take time to produce gas. That depends on particular sites etc., but fracking isn’t going to have a significant effect on domestic production this winter and probably not next winter. As I understand it.
So fracking doesn’t seem like a good way to tackle the current energy crisis. On shore solar and wind are the quickest ways of increasing domestic energy production. By the time fracking is producing serious quantities of gas in the UK, if that ever happens, gas prices are likely to be back to normal.
Longer term, if we in the UK and the rest of the world are serious about climate change, then the demand for gas will have to be significantly decreased soon. Demand will decrease faster than supply. Prices should fall. A large gas reserve will become almost worthless. I don’t think that has a sunk in for a lot of people.
A company seeking new gas production has to take a gamble on what prices will be. I think many are gambling that people aren’t serious about climate change, and maybe they’ll be proved correct. It’s difficult for businesses to deal with such uncertainty. It would be better if the Government could be clearer about how we move to Net Zero, but they won’t because they want the plaudits for being green without talking about the costs there will have to be.
I am afraid that you've gone so very deep down your ideological rabbit hole on this, it's actually 'the costs', that you feel people should bear are what is important to you. There are a lot of ways we can make ourselves (if we must reach an arbitrary target) net zero. Dressing fields with rock dust will apparently get us 45% of the way there for example. I would imagine this feels wrong to you, because there's not enough pain and misery involved.
Could you tell me more about how dressing fields with rock dust will get us 45% of the way to net zero emissions?
Truss has achieved the remarkable feat of making Sir Keir look charismatic and Boris look sensible.
Instead of being prepared to be unpopular, she seems positively determined to be so. And that's coming from me! I literally chose that name!
Maybe our language will evolve "I never realised fracking would prove quite so truss with the electorate." "Remember that jeweller, Ratner? He used to be the classic example of someone trussing a brand."
Great stuff.
You have v low standards of enjoyment. You must watch Eastenders
Allegedly @GOVUK will scrap plans to ban the import of fur and foie gras . Shelved earlier in the year under @trussliz it won’t happen and banning live animal export for slaughter and the import of hunting trophies may go too . Apparently banning things seems ‘very socialist’ . https://twitter.com/ChrisGPackham/status/1572666986554949632/photo/1
Seems another 'brave' policy – allowing trophy hunting imports. Truss is an effing weirdo.
Effective ban on onshore wind needs lifting too tbh. Yes I know it's not the sole solution to our energy problems.
Absolutely and completely agreed.
Bans on fracking and bans on onshore wind etc both need lifting. Its not either/or, its both. We should not be banning things, we should have standards then allow anything that meets those standards.
That seems like sophistry. If I impose standards and something can’t meet those standards, then I have banned it. Changing the wording doesn’t change that.
Not necessarily. If you impose standards and something can't meet those standards today then it may be de facto banned, rather than de jure banned.
But if processes, research or technology improves to enable it to meet your new, higher standards then once those standards are met its neither banned de facto nor de jure. Whereas if its banned, then no effort is put in to meet potentially higher standards.
You’re playing with words, Bart. You are still banning those things that don’t meet the standards.
You're banning things don't meet the standards, rather than banning things even if they do though, that's the difference.
Set standards, and then allow competition to meet the standards that are set. Banning things, even if they meet standards, is just nonsensical prohibition.
If the boss of Cuadrilla is saying fracking won't work then there's not much worry about it I'd have thought. A few exploratory wells that don't yield anything. Some humming and harring followed eventually by a restoration phase https://drillordrop.com/2019/07/10/site-restoration-underway-at-tinker-lane/
With the frackers out of pocket.
Well this is basically my thought.
If fracking isn't viable as some claim, then it won't be done. So it can be legal, but not done, what's the issue with that?
If fracking is viable, then it shouldn't be banned.
We don't need to ban that which isn't viable, just have it legal but undone by choice rather than diktat.
Fracking should be treated like mining and other resource generation - subject to sensible standards, and if we can't economically do it in this country then so be it. But if we can, it should not be forbidden.
That seems like a sensible thing to say, but it's very dependent on what being "subject to sensible standards" means. That's why there's a debate, that's what one needs to address. In particular:
What are the "sensible standards" with respect to climate change?
What are the "sensible standards" with respect to the earthquake risk?
What are the "sensible standards" with respect to major building projects in rural areas?
Thank you for saying its sensible and yes your questions are sensible too. My answers to your questions would be:
Climate change: Similar rules and regulations should apply to imports etc - if gas can be imported for use, it should be able to be extracted domestically, which reduces our carbon emissions it doesn't increase them.
Earthquake risk: It should have similar standards to alternative developments like seismic activity allowed to take place with regards to mining etc too.
Building projects: It should have similar standards to other forms of development.
Standards shouldn't be lower than they would be for alternatives, but they shouldn't be draconianly higher either.
Thanks for a detailed answer that generally avoids actually saying anything.
Climate change: so, what should those standards be? We're meant to be Net Zero in 28 years. It is difficult to see fracking being consistent with that. How should Government implement reaching Net Zero? Is it sensible to say, on one hand, that we've made this commitment, while saying, on the other hand, that we want developers to open fracking wells, that typically run for 20-40 years? Will fracking licenses say, "No fracking past 2050"? The Government has not provided clarity on how it will achieve Net Zero, but that matters for developers of wells.
Earthquake risk: the BGS says the earthquake risk is unpredictable, in a manner that is different from the risks from mining. Do you take a precautionary approach, as with the present rules, or do you wait for a big earthquake and only worry about it after the fact?
Climate Change: Net Zero should be reached by reducing demand, not supply. Demand being met by Qatari imports instead of domestically produced gas makes no improvement whatsoever to the climate, demand not existing does make a difference. Net zero doesn't mean zero production even post-2050.
Earthquake risk: If it were up to me, I would predominantly deal with it after the fact, but require firms involved to demonstrate appropriate liability insurance that covers that, if they're proven to cause one. If they're unable to find insurance, then they won't be able to trade, same as any other firm. If they have the relevant insurance to appropriate standards then the liability risk is covered.
I would have thought that, as a Conservative, you had some idea of how supply and demand are related.
Dealing with problems after the fact means people suffer the ill consequences and then find themselves stuck with lengthy, legalistic processes to get compensation.
Not when limits on supply are circumvented by simply importing to make up the difference. Stopping UK oil and gas production will do nothing to reduce carbon emissions if all we do is import that oil and gas instead. In fact it will increase it because of the increased transport costs and the lack of CO2 mitigation policies in the production facilities of the countries we are importing from.
“if all we do is import that oil and gas instead”: I certainly don’t think that should be all we do. We should be massively driving down demand, as soon as possible.
“Stopping UK oil and gas production”: The immediate question was not about stopping any production, but about opening up new production. If we’re serious about climate change and reducing demand, then demand will fall below existing domestic production at some point before 2050.
You’re starting from the premise of the domestic impact on climate change, others are starting from the premise of maximising domestic production at a time of high prices.
It’s difficult to predict the future. (It’s much easier predicting the past…) If I knew what was going to happen to gas prices, I’d be very rich. However, we can observe some general points.
Gas prices are currently very high because of Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Hopefully, the war will be over with a Ukrainian victory as soon as possible. Of course, that may not happen, but commentators generally think the price shock from the war will reduce over time, either because something happens in the war or because alternative supply routes to Europe are established.
Fracking will take time to produce gas. That depends on particular sites etc., but fracking isn’t going to have a significant effect on domestic production this winter and probably not next winter. As I understand it.
So fracking doesn’t seem like a good way to tackle the current energy crisis. On shore solar and wind are the quickest ways of increasing domestic energy production. By the time fracking is producing serious quantities of gas in the UK, if that ever happens, gas prices are likely to be back to normal.
Longer term, if we in the UK and the rest of the world are serious about climate change, then the demand for gas will have to be significantly decreased soon. Demand will decrease faster than supply. Prices should fall. A large gas reserve will become almost worthless. I don’t think that has a sunk in for a lot of people.
A company seeking new gas production has to take a gamble on what prices will be. I think many are gambling that people aren’t serious about climate change, and maybe they’ll be proved correct. It’s difficult for businesses to deal with such uncertainty. It would be better if the Government could be clearer about how we move to Net Zero, but they won’t because they want the plaudits for being green without talking about the costs there will have to be.
I am afraid that you've gone so very deep down your ideological rabbit hole on this, it's actually 'the costs', that you feel people should bear are what is important to you. There are a lot of ways we can make ourselves (if we must reach an arbitrary target) net zero. Dressing fields with rock dust will apparently get us 45% of the way there for example. I would imagine this feels wrong to you, because there's not enough pain and misery involved.
Could you tell me more about how dressing fields with rock dust will get us 45% of the way to net zero emissions?
Truss has achieved the remarkable feat of making Sir Keir look charismatic and Boris look sensible.
Instead of being prepared to be unpopular, she seems positively determined to be so. And that's coming from me! I literally chose that name!
Maybe our language will evolve "I never realised fracking would prove quite so truss with the electorate." "Remember that jeweller, Ratner? He used to be the classic example of someone trussing a brand."
Great stuff.
You have v low standards of enjoyment. You must watch Eastenders
It would be nice if I had just ONE hospital three miles away! (rather than twelve)....
Coffee is either very stupid or very insensitive. I would go for both.
It does seem stupid to localise services in this way. I once had to wait many months for an MRI scan on a knee. Services like this should certainly be managed nationally, I'd have happily travelled to the National Scanning Centre in Birmingham, say, should there have been one
It would be nice if I had just ONE hospital three miles away! (rather than twelve)....
Coffee is either very stupid or very insensitive. I would go for both.
So, she went to Ipswich or Colchester, gave up, went to a local community hospital which gave her aspirin and sticking plaster.
Way that works here is if you injure yourself in working hours you go to the local 12 bed hospital. If it requires more than aspirin they write a letter to A&E at the proper hospital in Plymouth saying Blimee this bloke is fucked, way above our pay grade, please advise, and the letter gets you to the head of the A&E queue.
If the boss of Cuadrilla is saying fracking won't work then there's not much worry about it I'd have thought. A few exploratory wells that don't yield anything. Some humming and harring followed eventually by a restoration phase https://drillordrop.com/2019/07/10/site-restoration-underway-at-tinker-lane/
With the frackers out of pocket.
Well this is basically my thought.
If fracking isn't viable as some claim, then it won't be done. So it can be legal, but not done, what's the issue with that?
If fracking is viable, then it shouldn't be banned.
We don't need to ban that which isn't viable, just have it legal but undone by choice rather than diktat.
Fracking should be treated like mining and other resource generation - subject to sensible standards, and if we can't economically do it in this country then so be it. But if we can, it should not be forbidden.
That seems like a sensible thing to say, but it's very dependent on what being "subject to sensible standards" means. That's why there's a debate, that's what one needs to address. In particular:
What are the "sensible standards" with respect to climate change?
What are the "sensible standards" with respect to the earthquake risk?
What are the "sensible standards" with respect to major building projects in rural areas?
Thank you for saying its sensible and yes your questions are sensible too. My answers to your questions would be:
Climate change: Similar rules and regulations should apply to imports etc - if gas can be imported for use, it should be able to be extracted domestically, which reduces our carbon emissions it doesn't increase them.
Earthquake risk: It should have similar standards to alternative developments like seismic activity allowed to take place with regards to mining etc too.
Building projects: It should have similar standards to other forms of development.
Standards shouldn't be lower than they would be for alternatives, but they shouldn't be draconianly higher either.
Thanks for a detailed answer that generally avoids actually saying anything.
Climate change: so, what should those standards be? We're meant to be Net Zero in 28 years. It is difficult to see fracking being consistent with that. How should Government implement reaching Net Zero? Is it sensible to say, on one hand, that we've made this commitment, while saying, on the other hand, that we want developers to open fracking wells, that typically run for 20-40 years? Will fracking licenses say, "No fracking past 2050"? The Government has not provided clarity on how it will achieve Net Zero, but that matters for developers of wells.
Earthquake risk: the BGS says the earthquake risk is unpredictable, in a manner that is different from the risks from mining. Do you take a precautionary approach, as with the present rules, or do you wait for a big earthquake and only worry about it after the fact?
Climate Change: Net Zero should be reached by reducing demand, not supply. Demand being met by Qatari imports instead of domestically produced gas makes no improvement whatsoever to the climate, demand not existing does make a difference. Net zero doesn't mean zero production even post-2050.
Earthquake risk: If it were up to me, I would predominantly deal with it after the fact, but require firms involved to demonstrate appropriate liability insurance that covers that, if they're proven to cause one. If they're unable to find insurance, then they won't be able to trade, same as any other firm. If they have the relevant insurance to appropriate standards then the liability risk is covered.
I would have thought that, as a Conservative, you had some idea of how supply and demand are related.
Dealing with problems after the fact means people suffer the ill consequences and then find themselves stuck with lengthy, legalistic processes to get compensation.
Not when limits on supply are circumvented by simply importing to make up the difference. Stopping UK oil and gas production will do nothing to reduce carbon emissions if all we do is import that oil and gas instead. In fact it will increase it because of the increased transport costs and the lack of CO2 mitigation policies in the production facilities of the countries we are importing from.
“if all we do is import that oil and gas instead”: I certainly don’t think that should be all we do. We should be massively driving down demand, as soon as possible.
“Stopping UK oil and gas production”: The immediate question was not about stopping any production, but about opening up new production. If we’re serious about climate change and reducing demand, then demand will fall below existing domestic production at some point before 2050.
You’re starting from the premise of the domestic impact on climate change, others are starting from the premise of maximising domestic production at a time of high prices.
It’s difficult to predict the future. (It’s much easier predicting the past…) If I knew what was going to happen to gas prices, I’d be very rich. However, we can observe some general points.
Gas prices are currently very high because of Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Hopefully, the war will be over with a Ukrainian victory as soon as possible. Of course, that may not happen, but commentators generally think the price shock from the war will reduce over time, either because something happens in the war or because alternative supply routes to Europe are established.
Fracking will take time to produce gas. That depends on particular sites etc., but fracking isn’t going to have a significant effect on domestic production this winter and probably not next winter. As I understand it.
So fracking doesn’t seem like a good way to tackle the current energy crisis. On shore solar and wind are the quickest ways of increasing domestic energy production. By the time fracking is producing serious quantities of gas in the UK, if that ever happens, gas prices are likely to be back to normal.
Longer term, if we in the UK and the rest of the world are serious about climate change, then the demand for gas will have to be significantly decreased soon. Demand will decrease faster than supply. Prices should fall. A large gas reserve will become almost worthless. I don’t think that has a sunk in for a lot of people.
A company seeking new gas production has to take a gamble on what prices will be. I think many are gambling that people aren’t serious about climate change, and maybe they’ll be proved correct. It’s difficult for businesses to deal with such uncertainty. It would be better if the Government could be clearer about how we move to Net Zero, but they won’t because they want the plaudits for being green without talking about the costs there will have to be.
I am afraid that you've gone so very deep down your ideological rabbit hole on this, it's actually 'the costs', that you feel people should bear are what is important to you. There are a lot of ways we can make ourselves (if we must reach an arbitrary target) net zero. Dressing fields with rock dust will apparently get us 45% of the way there for example. I would imagine this feels wrong to you, because there's not enough pain and misery involved.
Could you tell me more about how dressing fields with rock dust will get us 45% of the way to net zero emissions?
There’s a lot of “could” and “up to” in that article, which you’ve managed to turn into “will”. But if it can do half that much, it’s still great news. Hooray! Let us sprinkle much rock dust, and then let us work on the other 55%+ that’s needed. I am very happy with doing things the easy way.
That sounds like a massively city-centric solution. Probably only works in London tbh.
Don't think it works in Newcastle even (unless you went to Gateshead)...
Newcastle and Gateshead are the same city anyway – i.e. Newcastle – the idea they are somehow separate is completely ludicrous.
Don't say that to Gateshead council - why do you think it's taken 20+ years to get a sane regional assembly rebuilt...
Gateshead and Sunderland are (rightly) scared that were such a thing to be recreated they would end up being 2nd / 4th class citizens with all the investment / money going to Newcastle
If the boss of Cuadrilla is saying fracking won't work then there's not much worry about it I'd have thought. A few exploratory wells that don't yield anything. Some humming and harring followed eventually by a restoration phase https://drillordrop.com/2019/07/10/site-restoration-underway-at-tinker-lane/
With the frackers out of pocket.
Well this is basically my thought.
If fracking isn't viable as some claim, then it won't be done. So it can be legal, but not done, what's the issue with that?
If fracking is viable, then it shouldn't be banned.
We don't need to ban that which isn't viable, just have it legal but undone by choice rather than diktat.
Fracking should be treated like mining and other resource generation - subject to sensible standards, and if we can't economically do it in this country then so be it. But if we can, it should not be forbidden.
That seems like a sensible thing to say, but it's very dependent on what being "subject to sensible standards" means. That's why there's a debate, that's what one needs to address. In particular:
What are the "sensible standards" with respect to climate change?
What are the "sensible standards" with respect to the earthquake risk?
What are the "sensible standards" with respect to major building projects in rural areas?
Thank you for saying its sensible and yes your questions are sensible too. My answers to your questions would be:
Climate change: Similar rules and regulations should apply to imports etc - if gas can be imported for use, it should be able to be extracted domestically, which reduces our carbon emissions it doesn't increase them.
Earthquake risk: It should have similar standards to alternative developments like seismic activity allowed to take place with regards to mining etc too.
Building projects: It should have similar standards to other forms of development.
Standards shouldn't be lower than they would be for alternatives, but they shouldn't be draconianly higher either.
Thanks for a detailed answer that generally avoids actually saying anything.
Climate change: so, what should those standards be? We're meant to be Net Zero in 28 years. It is difficult to see fracking being consistent with that. How should Government implement reaching Net Zero? Is it sensible to say, on one hand, that we've made this commitment, while saying, on the other hand, that we want developers to open fracking wells, that typically run for 20-40 years? Will fracking licenses say, "No fracking past 2050"? The Government has not provided clarity on how it will achieve Net Zero, but that matters for developers of wells.
Earthquake risk: the BGS says the earthquake risk is unpredictable, in a manner that is different from the risks from mining. Do you take a precautionary approach, as with the present rules, or do you wait for a big earthquake and only worry about it after the fact?
Climate Change: Net Zero should be reached by reducing demand, not supply. Demand being met by Qatari imports instead of domestically produced gas makes no improvement whatsoever to the climate, demand not existing does make a difference. Net zero doesn't mean zero production even post-2050.
Earthquake risk: If it were up to me, I would predominantly deal with it after the fact, but require firms involved to demonstrate appropriate liability insurance that covers that, if they're proven to cause one. If they're unable to find insurance, then they won't be able to trade, same as any other firm. If they have the relevant insurance to appropriate standards then the liability risk is covered.
I would have thought that, as a Conservative, you had some idea of how supply and demand are related.
Dealing with problems after the fact means people suffer the ill consequences and then find themselves stuck with lengthy, legalistic processes to get compensation.
Not when limits on supply are circumvented by simply importing to make up the difference. Stopping UK oil and gas production will do nothing to reduce carbon emissions if all we do is import that oil and gas instead. In fact it will increase it because of the increased transport costs and the lack of CO2 mitigation policies in the production facilities of the countries we are importing from.
“if all we do is import that oil and gas instead”: I certainly don’t think that should be all we do. We should be massively driving down demand, as soon as possible.
“Stopping UK oil and gas production”: The immediate question was not about stopping any production, but about opening up new production. If we’re serious about climate change and reducing demand, then demand will fall below existing domestic production at some point before 2050.
You’re starting from the premise of the domestic impact on climate change, others are starting from the premise of maximising domestic production at a time of high prices.
It’s difficult to predict the future. (It’s much easier predicting the past…) If I knew what was going to happen to gas prices, I’d be very rich. However, we can observe some general points.
Gas prices are currently very high because of Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Hopefully, the war will be over with a Ukrainian victory as soon as possible. Of course, that may not happen, but commentators generally think the price shock from the war will reduce over time, either because something happens in the war or because alternative supply routes to Europe are established.
Fracking will take time to produce gas. That depends on particular sites etc., but fracking isn’t going to have a significant effect on domestic production this winter and probably not next winter. As I understand it.
So fracking doesn’t seem like a good way to tackle the current energy crisis. On shore solar and wind are the quickest ways of increasing domestic energy production. By the time fracking is producing serious quantities of gas in the UK, if that ever happens, gas prices are likely to be back to normal.
Longer term, if we in the UK and the rest of the world are serious about climate change, then the demand for gas will have to be significantly decreased soon. Demand will decrease faster than supply. Prices should fall. A large gas reserve will become almost worthless. I don’t think that has a sunk in for a lot of people.
A company seeking new gas production has to take a gamble on what prices will be. I think many are gambling that people aren’t serious about climate change, and maybe they’ll be proved correct. It’s difficult for businesses to deal with such uncertainty. It would be better if the Government could be clearer about how we move to Net Zero, but they won’t because they want the plaudits for being green without talking about the costs there will have to be.
I am afraid that you've gone so very deep down your ideological rabbit hole on this, it's actually 'the costs', that you feel people should bear are what is important to you. There are a lot of ways we can make ourselves (if we must reach an arbitrary target) net zero. Dressing fields with rock dust will apparently get us 45% of the way there for example. I would imagine this feels wrong to you, because there's not enough pain and misery involved.
Could you tell me more about how dressing fields with rock dust will get us 45% of the way to net zero emissions?
All imploding faster and harder than the most extreme forecasts
With the comicality of a stopped clock - one if the Russian state owned oil companies was found to have donated to one of the U.K. anti-fracking campaigns.
This isn’t surprising, when you consider the payments made to campaigns against LNG ports in Europe etc.
If the boss of Cuadrilla is saying fracking won't work then there's not much worry about it I'd have thought. A few exploratory wells that don't yield anything. Some humming and harring followed eventually by a restoration phase https://drillordrop.com/2019/07/10/site-restoration-underway-at-tinker-lane/
With the frackers out of pocket.
Well this is basically my thought.
If fracking isn't viable as some claim, then it won't be done. So it can be legal, but not done, what's the issue with that?
If fracking is viable, then it shouldn't be banned.
We don't need to ban that which isn't viable, just have it legal but undone by choice rather than diktat.
Fracking should be treated like mining and other resource generation - subject to sensible standards, and if we can't economically do it in this country then so be it. But if we can, it should not be forbidden.
That seems like a sensible thing to say, but it's very dependent on what being "subject to sensible standards" means. That's why there's a debate, that's what one needs to address. In particular:
What are the "sensible standards" with respect to climate change?
What are the "sensible standards" with respect to the earthquake risk?
What are the "sensible standards" with respect to major building projects in rural areas?
Thank you for saying its sensible and yes your questions are sensible too. My answers to your questions would be:
Climate change: Similar rules and regulations should apply to imports etc - if gas can be imported for use, it should be able to be extracted domestically, which reduces our carbon emissions it doesn't increase them.
Earthquake risk: It should have similar standards to alternative developments like seismic activity allowed to take place with regards to mining etc too.
Building projects: It should have similar standards to other forms of development.
Standards shouldn't be lower than they would be for alternatives, but they shouldn't be draconianly higher either.
Thanks for a detailed answer that generally avoids actually saying anything.
Climate change: so, what should those standards be? We're meant to be Net Zero in 28 years. It is difficult to see fracking being consistent with that. How should Government implement reaching Net Zero? Is it sensible to say, on one hand, that we've made this commitment, while saying, on the other hand, that we want developers to open fracking wells, that typically run for 20-40 years? Will fracking licenses say, "No fracking past 2050"? The Government has not provided clarity on how it will achieve Net Zero, but that matters for developers of wells.
Earthquake risk: the BGS says the earthquake risk is unpredictable, in a manner that is different from the risks from mining. Do you take a precautionary approach, as with the present rules, or do you wait for a big earthquake and only worry about it after the fact?
Climate Change: Net Zero should be reached by reducing demand, not supply. Demand being met by Qatari imports instead of domestically produced gas makes no improvement whatsoever to the climate, demand not existing does make a difference. Net zero doesn't mean zero production even post-2050.
Earthquake risk: If it were up to me, I would predominantly deal with it after the fact, but require firms involved to demonstrate appropriate liability insurance that covers that, if they're proven to cause one. If they're unable to find insurance, then they won't be able to trade, same as any other firm. If they have the relevant insurance to appropriate standards then the liability risk is covered.
I would have thought that, as a Conservative, you had some idea of how supply and demand are related.
Dealing with problems after the fact means people suffer the ill consequences and then find themselves stuck with lengthy, legalistic processes to get compensation.
Not when limits on supply are circumvented by simply importing to make up the difference. Stopping UK oil and gas production will do nothing to reduce carbon emissions if all we do is import that oil and gas instead. In fact it will increase it because of the increased transport costs and the lack of CO2 mitigation policies in the production facilities of the countries we are importing from.
“if all we do is import that oil and gas instead”: I certainly don’t think that should be all we do. We should be massively driving down demand, as soon as possible.
“Stopping UK oil and gas production”: The immediate question was not about stopping any production, but about opening up new production. If we’re serious about climate change and reducing demand, then demand will fall below existing domestic production at some point before 2050.
You’re starting from the premise of the domestic impact on climate change, others are starting from the premise of maximising domestic production at a time of high prices.
It’s difficult to predict the future. (It’s much easier predicting the past…) If I knew what was going to happen to gas prices, I’d be very rich. However, we can observe some general points.
Gas prices are currently very high because of Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Hopefully, the war will be over with a Ukrainian victory as soon as possible. Of course, that may not happen, but commentators generally think the price shock from the war will reduce over time, either because something happens in the war or because alternative supply routes to Europe are established.
Fracking will take time to produce gas. That depends on particular sites etc., but fracking isn’t going to have a significant effect on domestic production this winter and probably not next winter. As I understand it.
So fracking doesn’t seem like a good way to tackle the current energy crisis. On shore solar and wind are the quickest ways of increasing domestic energy production. By the time fracking is producing serious quantities of gas in the UK, if that ever happens, gas prices are likely to be back to normal.
Longer term, if we in the UK and the rest of the world are serious about climate change, then the demand for gas will have to be significantly decreased soon. Demand will decrease faster than supply. Prices should fall. A large gas reserve will become almost worthless. I don’t think that has a sunk in for a lot of people.
A company seeking new gas production has to take a gamble on what prices will be. I think many are gambling that people aren’t serious about climate change, and maybe they’ll be proved correct. It’s difficult for businesses to deal with such uncertainty. It would be better if the Government could be clearer about how we move to Net Zero, but they won’t because they want the plaudits for being green without talking about the costs there will have to be.
I am afraid that you've gone so very deep down your ideological rabbit hole on this, it's actually 'the costs', that you feel people should bear are what is important to you. There are a lot of ways we can make ourselves (if we must reach an arbitrary target) net zero. Dressing fields with rock dust will apparently get us 45% of the way there for example. I would imagine this feels wrong to you, because there's not enough pain and misery involved.
Could you tell me more about how dressing fields with rock dust will get us 45% of the way to net zero emissions?
Allegedly @GOVUK will scrap plans to ban the import of fur and foie gras . Shelved earlier in the year under @trussliz it won’t happen and banning live animal export for slaughter and the import of hunting trophies may go too . Apparently banning things seems ‘very socialist’ . https://twitter.com/ChrisGPackham/status/1572666986554949632/photo/1
Seems another 'brave' policy – allowing trophy hunting imports. Truss is an effing weirdo.
Effective ban on onshore wind needs lifting too tbh. Yes I know it's not the sole solution to our energy problems.
Absolutely and completely agreed.
Bans on fracking and bans on onshore wind etc both need lifting. Its not either/or, its both. We should not be banning things, we should have standards then allow anything that meets those standards.
That seems like sophistry. If I impose standards and something can’t meet those standards, then I have banned it. Changing the wording doesn’t change that.
Not necessarily. If you impose standards and something can't meet those standards today then it may be de facto banned, rather than de jure banned.
But if processes, research or technology improves to enable it to meet your new, higher standards then once those standards are met its neither banned de facto nor de jure. Whereas if its banned, then no effort is put in to meet potentially higher standards.
You’re playing with words, Bart. You are still banning those things that don’t meet the standards.
You're banning things don't meet the standards, rather than banning things even if they do though, that's the difference.
Set standards, and then allow competition to meet the standards that are set. Banning things, even if they meet standards, is just nonsensical prohibition.
Great, we’re agreed that when you said, “We should not be banning things,” what you actually meant was, “We should be banning (slightly different) things.”
If the boss of Cuadrilla is saying fracking won't work then there's not much worry about it I'd have thought. A few exploratory wells that don't yield anything. Some humming and harring followed eventually by a restoration phase https://drillordrop.com/2019/07/10/site-restoration-underway-at-tinker-lane/
With the frackers out of pocket.
Well this is basically my thought.
If fracking isn't viable as some claim, then it won't be done. So it can be legal, but not done, what's the issue with that?
If fracking is viable, then it shouldn't be banned.
We don't need to ban that which isn't viable, just have it legal but undone by choice rather than diktat.
Fracking should be treated like mining and other resource generation - subject to sensible standards, and if we can't economically do it in this country then so be it. But if we can, it should not be forbidden.
That seems like a sensible thing to say, but it's very dependent on what being "subject to sensible standards" means. That's why there's a debate, that's what one needs to address. In particular:
What are the "sensible standards" with respect to climate change?
What are the "sensible standards" with respect to the earthquake risk?
What are the "sensible standards" with respect to major building projects in rural areas?
Thank you for saying its sensible and yes your questions are sensible too. My answers to your questions would be:
Climate change: Similar rules and regulations should apply to imports etc - if gas can be imported for use, it should be able to be extracted domestically, which reduces our carbon emissions it doesn't increase them.
Earthquake risk: It should have similar standards to alternative developments like seismic activity allowed to take place with regards to mining etc too.
Building projects: It should have similar standards to other forms of development.
Standards shouldn't be lower than they would be for alternatives, but they shouldn't be draconianly higher either.
Thanks for a detailed answer that generally avoids actually saying anything.
Climate change: so, what should those standards be? We're meant to be Net Zero in 28 years. It is difficult to see fracking being consistent with that. How should Government implement reaching Net Zero? Is it sensible to say, on one hand, that we've made this commitment, while saying, on the other hand, that we want developers to open fracking wells, that typically run for 20-40 years? Will fracking licenses say, "No fracking past 2050"? The Government has not provided clarity on how it will achieve Net Zero, but that matters for developers of wells.
Earthquake risk: the BGS says the earthquake risk is unpredictable, in a manner that is different from the risks from mining. Do you take a precautionary approach, as with the present rules, or do you wait for a big earthquake and only worry about it after the fact?
Climate Change: Net Zero should be reached by reducing demand, not supply. Demand being met by Qatari imports instead of domestically produced gas makes no improvement whatsoever to the climate, demand not existing does make a difference. Net zero doesn't mean zero production even post-2050.
Earthquake risk: If it were up to me, I would predominantly deal with it after the fact, but require firms involved to demonstrate appropriate liability insurance that covers that, if they're proven to cause one. If they're unable to find insurance, then they won't be able to trade, same as any other firm. If they have the relevant insurance to appropriate standards then the liability risk is covered.
I would have thought that, as a Conservative, you had some idea of how supply and demand are related.
Dealing with problems after the fact means people suffer the ill consequences and then find themselves stuck with lengthy, legalistic processes to get compensation.
Not when limits on supply are circumvented by simply importing to make up the difference. Stopping UK oil and gas production will do nothing to reduce carbon emissions if all we do is import that oil and gas instead. In fact it will increase it because of the increased transport costs and the lack of CO2 mitigation policies in the production facilities of the countries we are importing from.
“if all we do is import that oil and gas instead”: I certainly don’t think that should be all we do. We should be massively driving down demand, as soon as possible.
“Stopping UK oil and gas production”: The immediate question was not about stopping any production, but about opening up new production. If we’re serious about climate change and reducing demand, then demand will fall below existing domestic production at some point before 2050.
You’re starting from the premise of the domestic impact on climate change, others are starting from the premise of maximising domestic production at a time of high prices.
It’s difficult to predict the future. (It’s much easier predicting the past…) If I knew what was going to happen to gas prices, I’d be very rich. However, we can observe some general points.
Gas prices are currently very high because of Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Hopefully, the war will be over with a Ukrainian victory as soon as possible. Of course, that may not happen, but commentators generally think the price shock from the war will reduce over time, either because something happens in the war or because alternative supply routes to Europe are established.
Fracking will take time to produce gas. That depends on particular sites etc., but fracking isn’t going to have a significant effect on domestic production this winter and probably not next winter. As I understand it.
So fracking doesn’t seem like a good way to tackle the current energy crisis. On shore solar and wind are the quickest ways of increasing domestic energy production. By the time fracking is producing serious quantities of gas in the UK, if that ever happens, gas prices are likely to be back to normal.
Longer term, if we in the UK and the rest of the world are serious about climate change, then the demand for gas will have to be significantly decreased soon. Demand will decrease faster than supply. Prices should fall. A large gas reserve will become almost worthless. I don’t think that has a sunk in for a lot of people.
A company seeking new gas production has to take a gamble on what prices will be. I think many are gambling that people aren’t serious about climate change, and maybe they’ll be proved correct. It’s difficult for businesses to deal with such uncertainty. It would be better if the Government could be clearer about how we move to Net Zero, but they won’t because they want the plaudits for being green without talking about the costs there will have to be.
I am afraid that you've gone so very deep down your ideological rabbit hole on this, it's actually 'the costs', that you feel people should bear are what is important to you. There are a lot of ways we can make ourselves (if we must reach an arbitrary target) net zero. Dressing fields with rock dust will apparently get us 45% of the way there for example. I would imagine this feels wrong to you, because there's not enough pain and misery involved.
Could you tell me more about how dressing fields with rock dust will get us 45% of the way to net zero emissions?
Why do I have the feeling this will have unintended consequences?
Acts as a decent fertiliser apparently.
Not really, unless you happen to have a deficiency of one of the micromicronutrients in the rock dust. Which you will already know about if you are a modern farmer.
My own daydream is two terms of Starmer, nice and competent in the first term to build credibility, a bit more radical reform in the second to address some of the structural problems and then Streeting in place in time for a third Labour victory, followed by a Lib-Lab Coalition (with the third placed Conservative Independence Party forming the opposition) elected in the face of growing Lib-Dem support on the back of a groundswell of pro-EU feeling. Towards the end of their tenure, PM Streeting and Chancellor Moran announce an STV referendum on PR, with the next election to be fought under the outcome of that referendum, in 2042.
I'll repeat my anecdote from a presentation at a fracking conference some year ago:
"The cheapest shale gas in the UK will be LNG imported from the US"
That comes in at the standard wholesale price of gas. So if the existing wells (like the two in Lancashire) are to resume pumping under some form of special domestic-only deal, it will be cheaper.
No, UK shale gas is lots more expensive than US, that's the whole point.
Yes, but by the time we get US shale gas, it's priced as 'Dutch ttf' and costs the same as any other gas. If the plan is to keep UK fracked gas off the international market for the time being, its price would presumably be lower than Dutch ttf.
The anti-fracking lobby is hilarious. Anyone would think the Government was reallocating half the NHS budget to and demolishing Bath to build 'Frackville'. All they're actually doing is reviewing restrictions on fracking activity in the face of an unprecedented rise in gas prices. It literally costs us nothing. The histrionics is truly a sight to behold.
They are not just “reviewing restrictions”. They have already cancelled the general moratorium against fracking.
It doesn’t cost us nothing. Fracking will have negative effects in local populations, and ultimately on the whole world population through climate change.
This is why your criticisms aren't serious.
Importing Qatari gas instead of UK gas causes more climate change, not less.
Anyone who quotes climate change as a reason to oppose fracking is not being serious. If you want to stop climate change, lets start with stopping Qatari etc imports which have more emissions than UK domestic generation, not less.
We need to do many things to stop climate change, and we are doing many things (if not enough). Yes, we need to reduce and then stop Qatari imports. But we were talking specifically about fracking. In a context where we’re doing all the things we need to stop climate change, where is the role for fracking?
(Existing UK domestic generation has less emissions than Qatari gas, but developing new fields has an initial cost in emissions (and in £). Developing new fields is rarely a sensible way of reducing emissions.)
Again not true. You keep making these statements which are based on nothing but supposition and are factually inaccurate. Qatari gas does not just seep from the ground by osmosis. It needs to be drilled for and produced in exactly the same way as UK gas. Adding new field emissions to UK fields but ignoring them for imported gas is simply dishonest.
Surely because the geology of the UK is so bad for fracking it's likely that fracking in the UK would generate more pollution per cubic feet of gas produced than Qatar?
More that much less work is required to get the gas, making it a lot cheaper.
Bit like the example I mentioned the other day with respect to coal - dump trucks the size of houses being filled in an open cast mine from a seam a hundred feet thick vs a deep mine with a seam two foot thick
That sounds like a massively city-centric solution. Probably only works in London tbh.
Don't think it works in Newcastle even (unless you went to Gateshead)...
A live-linked dashboard of current waiting times for green, amber and red at every hospital wouldn't be a bad thing mind. e.g. If Doncaster showed as much lower than Bassetlaw I could decide to head there if I had an emergency.
Would be a great idea and might do something to mitigate healthcare parochialism. For example, it's only a 40-50 minute drive from Queen's in Nottingham to Leicester Royal, but who would think to make the journey? If the wait is four hours in Leicester and only 2.5 hours at Queen's, Leicester folk would be better off driving to Nottingham.
That sounds like a massively city-centric solution. Probably only works in London tbh.
Don't think it works in Newcastle even (unless you went to Gateshead)...
A live-linked dashboard of current waiting times for green, amber and red at every hospital wouldn't be a bad thing mind. e.g. If Doncaster showed as much lower than Bassetlaw I could decide to head there if I had an emergency.
That’s the sort of thing that should be easy to do, but would likely be almost impossible in practice because of systems not talking to each other. It’s also a really useful tool for the public in both urban and rural areas.
The easiest practical way to do it, is going to be to have one person for every couple of dozen hospitals, ring around each one every hour and update a database that feeds the dashboard. The dashboard itself would need to be able to highlight out-of-date information though, otherwise the whole exercise could be worse than pointless.
Edit: I wonder if there’s already something of a demand-management system for ambulance services, to send them to the most appropriate facility at times of long queues?
If the boss of Cuadrilla is saying fracking won't work then there's not much worry about it I'd have thought. A few exploratory wells that don't yield anything. Some humming and harring followed eventually by a restoration phase https://drillordrop.com/2019/07/10/site-restoration-underway-at-tinker-lane/
With the frackers out of pocket.
Well this is basically my thought.
If fracking isn't viable as some claim, then it won't be done. So it can be legal, but not done, what's the issue with that?
If fracking is viable, then it shouldn't be banned.
We don't need to ban that which isn't viable, just have it legal but undone by choice rather than diktat.
Fracking should be treated like mining and other resource generation - subject to sensible standards, and if we can't economically do it in this country then so be it. But if we can, it should not be forbidden.
That seems like a sensible thing to say, but it's very dependent on what being "subject to sensible standards" means. That's why there's a debate, that's what one needs to address. In particular:
What are the "sensible standards" with respect to climate change?
What are the "sensible standards" with respect to the earthquake risk?
What are the "sensible standards" with respect to major building projects in rural areas?
Thank you for saying its sensible and yes your questions are sensible too. My answers to your questions would be:
Climate change: Similar rules and regulations should apply to imports etc - if gas can be imported for use, it should be able to be extracted domestically, which reduces our carbon emissions it doesn't increase them.
Earthquake risk: It should have similar standards to alternative developments like seismic activity allowed to take place with regards to mining etc too.
Building projects: It should have similar standards to other forms of development.
Standards shouldn't be lower than they would be for alternatives, but they shouldn't be draconianly higher either.
Thanks for a detailed answer that generally avoids actually saying anything.
Climate change: so, what should those standards be? We're meant to be Net Zero in 28 years. It is difficult to see fracking being consistent with that. How should Government implement reaching Net Zero? Is it sensible to say, on one hand, that we've made this commitment, while saying, on the other hand, that we want developers to open fracking wells, that typically run for 20-40 years? Will fracking licenses say, "No fracking past 2050"? The Government has not provided clarity on how it will achieve Net Zero, but that matters for developers of wells.
Earthquake risk: the BGS says the earthquake risk is unpredictable, in a manner that is different from the risks from mining. Do you take a precautionary approach, as with the present rules, or do you wait for a big earthquake and only worry about it after the fact?
Climate Change: Net Zero should be reached by reducing demand, not supply. Demand being met by Qatari imports instead of domestically produced gas makes no improvement whatsoever to the climate, demand not existing does make a difference. Net zero doesn't mean zero production even post-2050.
Earthquake risk: If it were up to me, I would predominantly deal with it after the fact, but require firms involved to demonstrate appropriate liability insurance that covers that, if they're proven to cause one. If they're unable to find insurance, then they won't be able to trade, same as any other firm. If they have the relevant insurance to appropriate standards then the liability risk is covered.
I would have thought that, as a Conservative, you had some idea of how supply and demand are related.
Dealing with problems after the fact means people suffer the ill consequences and then find themselves stuck with lengthy, legalistic processes to get compensation.
Not when limits on supply are circumvented by simply importing to make up the difference. Stopping UK oil and gas production will do nothing to reduce carbon emissions if all we do is import that oil and gas instead. In fact it will increase it because of the increased transport costs and the lack of CO2 mitigation policies in the production facilities of the countries we are importing from.
“if all we do is import that oil and gas instead”: I certainly don’t think that should be all we do. We should be massively driving down demand, as soon as possible.
“Stopping UK oil and gas production”: The immediate question was not about stopping any production, but about opening up new production. If we’re serious about climate change and reducing demand, then demand will fall below existing domestic production at some point before 2050.
You’re starting from the premise of the domestic impact on climate change, others are starting from the premise of maximising domestic production at a time of high prices.
It’s difficult to predict the future. (It’s much easier predicting the past…) If I knew what was going to happen to gas prices, I’d be very rich. However, we can observe some general points.
Gas prices are currently very high because of Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Hopefully, the war will be over with a Ukrainian victory as soon as possible. Of course, that may not happen, but commentators generally think the price shock from the war will reduce over time, either because something happens in the war or because alternative supply routes to Europe are established.
Fracking will take time to produce gas. That depends on particular sites etc., but fracking isn’t going to have a significant effect on domestic production this winter and probably not next winter. As I understand it.
So fracking doesn’t seem like a good way to tackle the current energy crisis. On shore solar and wind are the quickest ways of increasing domestic energy production. By the time fracking is producing serious quantities of gas in the UK, if that ever happens, gas prices are likely to be back to normal.
Longer term, if we in the UK and the rest of the world are serious about climate change, then the demand for gas will have to be significantly decreased soon. Demand will decrease faster than supply. Prices should fall. A large gas reserve will become almost worthless. I don’t think that has a sunk in for a lot of people.
A company seeking new gas production has to take a gamble on what prices will be. I think many are gambling that people aren’t serious about climate change, and maybe they’ll be proved correct. It’s difficult for businesses to deal with such uncertainty. It would be better if the Government could be clearer about how we move to Net Zero, but they won’t because they want the plaudits for being green without talking about the costs there will have to be.
I am afraid that you've gone so very deep down your ideological rabbit hole on this, it's actually 'the costs', that you feel people should bear are what is important to you. There are a lot of ways we can make ourselves (if we must reach an arbitrary target) net zero. Dressing fields with rock dust will apparently get us 45% of the way there for example. I would imagine this feels wrong to you, because there's not enough pain and misery involved.
Could you tell me more about how dressing fields with rock dust will get us 45% of the way to net zero emissions?
Setting aside the rights and wrongs of fracking, the reason the moratorium was brought into being in the first place (aside from the earthquakes) was Cummings wanted the issue locking down in Autumn 2019 so Boris could get himself that majority. The first thing they did when he called the election was the moratorium to stop fracking being an issue.
Now Boris / Cummings have long gone (and with them the election winning nous) we have the ERG faction setting Government policy thinking that the likes of LuckyGuy and Barty is somehow representative of public opinion or even Conservative voters. Big big mistake. These people are at the extreme fringes of public opinion.
If you don't buy this general thesis, how else can you explain Rees Mogg?
Did anyone notice he's accused anti-fracking groups of being in the pay of foreign governments? Not going down too well in the shires.
Those are the same NIMBYs that a partly responsible for the present energy situation.
Tory MPs?
Yeas, sorry, I was referring to your "in the shires" part.
Thank you. I was rather eliding the two, admittedly, out of a sense of their sensitivity to local opinion.
Allegedly @GOVUK will scrap plans to ban the import of fur and foie gras . Shelved earlier in the year under @trussliz it won’t happen and banning live animal export for slaughter and the import of hunting trophies may go too . Apparently banning things seems ‘very socialist’ . https://twitter.com/ChrisGPackham/status/1572666986554949632/photo/1
Seems another 'brave' policy – allowing trophy hunting imports. Truss is an effing weirdo.
Effective ban on onshore wind needs lifting too tbh. Yes I know it's not the sole solution to our energy problems.
Absolutely and completely agreed.
Bans on fracking and bans on onshore wind etc both need lifting. Its not either/or, its both. We should not be banning things, we should have standards then allow anything that meets those standards.
That seems like sophistry. If I impose standards and something can’t meet those standards, then I have banned it. Changing the wording doesn’t change that.
Not necessarily. If you impose standards and something can't meet those standards today then it may be de facto banned, rather than de jure banned.
But if processes, research or technology improves to enable it to meet your new, higher standards then once those standards are met its neither banned de facto nor de jure. Whereas if its banned, then no effort is put in to meet potentially higher standards.
You’re playing with words, Bart. You are still banning those things that don’t meet the standards.
You're banning things don't meet the standards, rather than banning things even if they do though, that's the difference.
Set standards, and then allow competition to meet the standards that are set. Banning things, even if they meet standards, is just nonsensical prohibition.
Great, we’re agreed that when you said, “We should not be banning things,” what you actually meant was, “We should be banning (slightly different) things.”
Well yes, when I said that "we not be banning things, we should have standards then allow anything that meets those standards"
I meant that we should not be banning things [in totality regardless of standards] but instead ban [not allow] only things that fail to reach standards, yes, I thought that was obvious by the statement of allowing that which meets standards tends to mean as read disallowing that which fails to meet standards.
The difference is the difference between saying "produce should be fresh and in date" and saying "apples are banned, bananas are OK".
If fracking can meet the standards set, it should be allowed. If it can't, then fracking isn't banned, its simply failing to reach the standards, in which case any potential fracker needs to work on achieving standards set - but those standards should be comparable to standards for mining and other alternatives.
My own daydream is two terms of Starmer, nice and competent in the first term to build credibility, a bit more radical reform in the second to address some of the structural problems and then Streeting in place in time for a third Labour victory, followed by a Lib-Lab Coalition (with the third placed Conservative Independence Party forming the opposition) elected in the face of growing Lib-Dem support on the back of a groundswell of pro-EU feeling. Towards the end of their tenure, PM Streeting and Chancellor Moran announce an STV referendum on PR, with the next election to be fought under the outcome of that referendum, in 2042.
So Wes is Starmer's chosen successor, as I understand it. Starmer does not intend to serve more than two terms as PM.
That sounds like a massively city-centric solution. Probably only works in London tbh.
Don't think it works in Newcastle even (unless you went to Gateshead)...
Newcastle and Gateshead are the same city anyway – i.e. Newcastle – the idea they are somehow separate is completely ludicrous.
Don't say that to Gateshead council - why do you think it's taken 20+ years to get a sane regional assembly rebuilt...
Gateshead and Sunderland are (rightly) scared that were such a thing to be recreated they would end up being 2nd / 4th class citizens with all the investment / money going to Newcastle
Which would if course be a perfectly good outcome for Gateshead, as it is very clearly part of Newcastle.
It would be nice if I had just ONE hospital three miles away! (rather than twelve)....
Coffee is either very stupid or very insensitive. I would go for both.
If in doubt, insult the person eh......
Your boys and girls are on fire today. A series of illiberal environmental, animal welfare and diplomatic policies that make Donald Trump look like the Wokemaster General.
Nobody on PB seems to care about tuition fees or transport costs. Because presumably most people don't have a problem with them as they either don't have them or don't use them
I disagreed with you the other day about using the money supporting Ukraine to cut student debt, but that doesn't mean I don't care about tuition fees. It means that in a forced choice I prioritise one over the other.
If the boss of Cuadrilla is saying fracking won't work then there's not much worry about it I'd have thought. A few exploratory wells that don't yield anything. Some humming and harring followed eventually by a restoration phase https://drillordrop.com/2019/07/10/site-restoration-underway-at-tinker-lane/
With the frackers out of pocket.
Well this is basically my thought.
If fracking isn't viable as some claim, then it won't be done. So it can be legal, but not done, what's the issue with that?
If fracking is viable, then it shouldn't be banned.
We don't need to ban that which isn't viable, just have it legal but undone by choice rather than diktat.
Fracking should be treated like mining and other resource generation - subject to sensible standards, and if we can't economically do it in this country then so be it. But if we can, it should not be forbidden.
That seems like a sensible thing to say, but it's very dependent on what being "subject to sensible standards" means. That's why there's a debate, that's what one needs to address. In particular:
What are the "sensible standards" with respect to climate change?
What are the "sensible standards" with respect to the earthquake risk?
What are the "sensible standards" with respect to major building projects in rural areas?
Thank you for saying its sensible and yes your questions are sensible too. My answers to your questions would be:
Climate change: Similar rules and regulations should apply to imports etc - if gas can be imported for use, it should be able to be extracted domestically, which reduces our carbon emissions it doesn't increase them.
Earthquake risk: It should have similar standards to alternative developments like seismic activity allowed to take place with regards to mining etc too.
Building projects: It should have similar standards to other forms of development.
Standards shouldn't be lower than they would be for alternatives, but they shouldn't be draconianly higher either.
Thanks for a detailed answer that generally avoids actually saying anything.
Climate change: so, what should those standards be? We're meant to be Net Zero in 28 years. It is difficult to see fracking being consistent with that. How should Government implement reaching Net Zero? Is it sensible to say, on one hand, that we've made this commitment, while saying, on the other hand, that we want developers to open fracking wells, that typically run for 20-40 years? Will fracking licenses say, "No fracking past 2050"? The Government has not provided clarity on how it will achieve Net Zero, but that matters for developers of wells.
Earthquake risk: the BGS says the earthquake risk is unpredictable, in a manner that is different from the risks from mining. Do you take a precautionary approach, as with the present rules, or do you wait for a big earthquake and only worry about it after the fact?
Climate Change: Net Zero should be reached by reducing demand, not supply. Demand being met by Qatari imports instead of domestically produced gas makes no improvement whatsoever to the climate, demand not existing does make a difference. Net zero doesn't mean zero production even post-2050.
Earthquake risk: If it were up to me, I would predominantly deal with it after the fact, but require firms involved to demonstrate appropriate liability insurance that covers that, if they're proven to cause one. If they're unable to find insurance, then they won't be able to trade, same as any other firm. If they have the relevant insurance to appropriate standards then the liability risk is covered.
I would have thought that, as a Conservative, you had some idea of how supply and demand are related.
Dealing with problems after the fact means people suffer the ill consequences and then find themselves stuck with lengthy, legalistic processes to get compensation.
Not when limits on supply are circumvented by simply importing to make up the difference. Stopping UK oil and gas production will do nothing to reduce carbon emissions if all we do is import that oil and gas instead. In fact it will increase it because of the increased transport costs and the lack of CO2 mitigation policies in the production facilities of the countries we are importing from.
“if all we do is import that oil and gas instead”: I certainly don’t think that should be all we do. We should be massively driving down demand, as soon as possible.
“Stopping UK oil and gas production”: The immediate question was not about stopping any production, but about opening up new production. If we’re serious about climate change and reducing demand, then demand will fall below existing domestic production at some point before 2050.
You’re starting from the premise of the domestic impact on climate change, others are starting from the premise of maximising domestic production at a time of high prices.
It’s difficult to predict the future. (It’s much easier predicting the past…) If I knew what was going to happen to gas prices, I’d be very rich. However, we can observe some general points.
Gas prices are currently very high because of Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Hopefully, the war will be over with a Ukrainian victory as soon as possible. Of course, that may not happen, but commentators generally think the price shock from the war will reduce over time, either because something happens in the war or because alternative supply routes to Europe are established.
Fracking will take time to produce gas. That depends on particular sites etc., but fracking isn’t going to have a significant effect on domestic production this winter and probably not next winter. As I understand it.
So fracking doesn’t seem like a good way to tackle the current energy crisis. On shore solar and wind are the quickest ways of increasing domestic energy production. By the time fracking is producing serious quantities of gas in the UK, if that ever happens, gas prices are likely to be back to normal.
Longer term, if we in the UK and the rest of the world are serious about climate change, then the demand for gas will have to be significantly decreased soon. Demand will decrease faster than supply. Prices should fall. A large gas reserve will become almost worthless. I don’t think that has a sunk in for a lot of people.
A company seeking new gas production has to take a gamble on what prices will be. I think many are gambling that people aren’t serious about climate change, and maybe they’ll be proved correct. It’s difficult for businesses to deal with such uncertainty. It would be better if the Government could be clearer about how we move to Net Zero, but they won’t because they want the plaudits for being green without talking about the costs there will have to be.
I am afraid that you've gone so very deep down your ideological rabbit hole on this, it's actually 'the costs', that you feel people should bear are what is important to you. There are a lot of ways we can make ourselves (if we must reach an arbitrary target) net zero. Dressing fields with rock dust will apparently get us 45% of the way there for example. I would imagine this feels wrong to you, because there's not enough pain and misery involved.
Could you tell me more about how dressing fields with rock dust will get us 45% of the way to net zero emissions?
Allegedly @GOVUK will scrap plans to ban the import of fur and foie gras . Shelved earlier in the year under @trussliz it won’t happen and banning live animal export for slaughter and the import of hunting trophies may go too . Apparently banning things seems ‘very socialist’ . https://twitter.com/ChrisGPackham/status/1572666986554949632/photo/1
Seems another 'brave' policy – allowing trophy hunting imports. Truss is an effing weirdo.
Effective ban on onshore wind needs lifting too tbh. Yes I know it's not the sole solution to our energy problems.
Absolutely and completely agreed.
Bans on fracking and bans on onshore wind etc both need lifting. Its not either/or, its both. We should not be banning things, we should have standards then allow anything that meets those standards.
That seems like sophistry. If I impose standards and something can’t meet those standards, then I have banned it. Changing the wording doesn’t change that.
Not necessarily. If you impose standards and something can't meet those standards today then it may be de facto banned, rather than de jure banned.
But if processes, research or technology improves to enable it to meet your new, higher standards then once those standards are met its neither banned de facto nor de jure. Whereas if its banned, then no effort is put in to meet potentially higher standards.
You’re playing with words, Bart. You are still banning those things that don’t meet the standards.
You're banning things don't meet the standards, rather than banning things even if they do though, that's the difference.
Set standards, and then allow competition to meet the standards that are set. Banning things, even if they meet standards, is just nonsensical prohibition.
Great, we’re agreed that when you said, “We should not be banning things,” what you actually meant was, “We should be banning (slightly different) things.”
Cuadrilla kept breaching the standards.
Presumably Barty is therefore happy with that ban?
If the boss of Cuadrilla is saying fracking won't work then there's not much worry about it I'd have thought. A few exploratory wells that don't yield anything. Some humming and harring followed eventually by a restoration phase https://drillordrop.com/2019/07/10/site-restoration-underway-at-tinker-lane/
With the frackers out of pocket.
Well this is basically my thought.
If fracking isn't viable as some claim, then it won't be done. So it can be legal, but not done, what's the issue with that?
If fracking is viable, then it shouldn't be banned.
We don't need to ban that which isn't viable, just have it legal but undone by choice rather than diktat.
Fracking should be treated like mining and other resource generation - subject to sensible standards, and if we can't economically do it in this country then so be it. But if we can, it should not be forbidden.
That seems like a sensible thing to say, but it's very dependent on what being "subject to sensible standards" means. That's why there's a debate, that's what one needs to address. In particular:
What are the "sensible standards" with respect to climate change?
What are the "sensible standards" with respect to the earthquake risk?
What are the "sensible standards" with respect to major building projects in rural areas?
Thank you for saying its sensible and yes your questions are sensible too. My answers to your questions would be:
Climate change: Similar rules and regulations should apply to imports etc - if gas can be imported for use, it should be able to be extracted domestically, which reduces our carbon emissions it doesn't increase them.
Earthquake risk: It should have similar standards to alternative developments like seismic activity allowed to take place with regards to mining etc too.
Building projects: It should have similar standards to other forms of development.
Standards shouldn't be lower than they would be for alternatives, but they shouldn't be draconianly higher either.
Thanks for a detailed answer that generally avoids actually saying anything.
Climate change: so, what should those standards be? We're meant to be Net Zero in 28 years. It is difficult to see fracking being consistent with that. How should Government implement reaching Net Zero? Is it sensible to say, on one hand, that we've made this commitment, while saying, on the other hand, that we want developers to open fracking wells, that typically run for 20-40 years? Will fracking licenses say, "No fracking past 2050"? The Government has not provided clarity on how it will achieve Net Zero, but that matters for developers of wells.
Earthquake risk: the BGS says the earthquake risk is unpredictable, in a manner that is different from the risks from mining. Do you take a precautionary approach, as with the present rules, or do you wait for a big earthquake and only worry about it after the fact?
Climate Change: Net Zero should be reached by reducing demand, not supply. Demand being met by Qatari imports instead of domestically produced gas makes no improvement whatsoever to the climate, demand not existing does make a difference. Net zero doesn't mean zero production even post-2050.
Earthquake risk: If it were up to me, I would predominantly deal with it after the fact, but require firms involved to demonstrate appropriate liability insurance that covers that, if they're proven to cause one. If they're unable to find insurance, then they won't be able to trade, same as any other firm. If they have the relevant insurance to appropriate standards then the liability risk is covered.
I would have thought that, as a Conservative, you had some idea of how supply and demand are related.
Dealing with problems after the fact means people suffer the ill consequences and then find themselves stuck with lengthy, legalistic processes to get compensation.
Not when limits on supply are circumvented by simply importing to make up the difference. Stopping UK oil and gas production will do nothing to reduce carbon emissions if all we do is import that oil and gas instead. In fact it will increase it because of the increased transport costs and the lack of CO2 mitigation policies in the production facilities of the countries we are importing from.
“if all we do is import that oil and gas instead”: I certainly don’t think that should be all we do. We should be massively driving down demand, as soon as possible.
“Stopping UK oil and gas production”: The immediate question was not about stopping any production, but about opening up new production. If we’re serious about climate change and reducing demand, then demand will fall below existing domestic production at some point before 2050.
You’re starting from the premise of the domestic impact on climate change, others are starting from the premise of maximising domestic production at a time of high prices.
It’s difficult to predict the future. (It’s much easier predicting the past…) If I knew what was going to happen to gas prices, I’d be very rich. However, we can observe some general points.
Gas prices are currently very high because of Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Hopefully, the war will be over with a Ukrainian victory as soon as possible. Of course, that may not happen, but commentators generally think the price shock from the war will reduce over time, either because something happens in the war or because alternative supply routes to Europe are established.
Fracking will take time to produce gas. That depends on particular sites etc., but fracking isn’t going to have a significant effect on domestic production this winter and probably not next winter. As I understand it.
So fracking doesn’t seem like a good way to tackle the current energy crisis. On shore solar and wind are the quickest ways of increasing domestic energy production. By the time fracking is producing serious quantities of gas in the UK, if that ever happens, gas prices are likely to be back to normal.
Longer term, if we in the UK and the rest of the world are serious about climate change, then the demand for gas will have to be significantly decreased soon. Demand will decrease faster than supply. Prices should fall. A large gas reserve will become almost worthless. I don’t think that has a sunk in for a lot of people.
A company seeking new gas production has to take a gamble on what prices will be. I think many are gambling that people aren’t serious about climate change, and maybe they’ll be proved correct. It’s difficult for businesses to deal with such uncertainty. It would be better if the Government could be clearer about how we move to Net Zero, but they won’t because they want the plaudits for being green without talking about the costs there will have to be.
I am afraid that you've gone so very deep down your ideological rabbit hole on this, it's actually 'the costs', that you feel people should bear are what is important to you. There are a lot of ways we can make ourselves (if we must reach an arbitrary target) net zero. Dressing fields with rock dust will apparently get us 45% of the way there for example. I would imagine this feels wrong to you, because there's not enough pain and misery involved.
Could you tell me more about how dressing fields with rock dust will get us 45% of the way to net zero emissions?
Why do I have the feeling this will have unintended consequences?
Acts as a decent fertiliser apparently.
Not really, unless you happen to have a deficiency of one of the micromicronutrients in the rock dust. Which you will already know about if you are a modern farmer.
Completely off topic, but Modern Farmer sounds so much like a portmanteau Viz character ...
If the boss of Cuadrilla is saying fracking won't work then there's not much worry about it I'd have thought. A few exploratory wells that don't yield anything. Some humming and harring followed eventually by a restoration phase https://drillordrop.com/2019/07/10/site-restoration-underway-at-tinker-lane/
With the frackers out of pocket.
Well this is basically my thought.
If fracking isn't viable as some claim, then it won't be done. So it can be legal, but not done, what's the issue with that?
If fracking is viable, then it shouldn't be banned.
We don't need to ban that which isn't viable, just have it legal but undone by choice rather than diktat.
Fracking should be treated like mining and other resource generation - subject to sensible standards, and if we can't economically do it in this country then so be it. But if we can, it should not be forbidden.
That seems like a sensible thing to say, but it's very dependent on what being "subject to sensible standards" means. That's why there's a debate, that's what one needs to address. In particular:
What are the "sensible standards" with respect to climate change?
What are the "sensible standards" with respect to the earthquake risk?
What are the "sensible standards" with respect to major building projects in rural areas?
Thank you for saying its sensible and yes your questions are sensible too. My answers to your questions would be:
Climate change: Similar rules and regulations should apply to imports etc - if gas can be imported for use, it should be able to be extracted domestically, which reduces our carbon emissions it doesn't increase them.
Earthquake risk: It should have similar standards to alternative developments like seismic activity allowed to take place with regards to mining etc too.
Building projects: It should have similar standards to other forms of development.
Standards shouldn't be lower than they would be for alternatives, but they shouldn't be draconianly higher either.
Thanks for a detailed answer that generally avoids actually saying anything.
Climate change: so, what should those standards be? We're meant to be Net Zero in 28 years. It is difficult to see fracking being consistent with that. How should Government implement reaching Net Zero? Is it sensible to say, on one hand, that we've made this commitment, while saying, on the other hand, that we want developers to open fracking wells, that typically run for 20-40 years? Will fracking licenses say, "No fracking past 2050"? The Government has not provided clarity on how it will achieve Net Zero, but that matters for developers of wells.
Earthquake risk: the BGS says the earthquake risk is unpredictable, in a manner that is different from the risks from mining. Do you take a precautionary approach, as with the present rules, or do you wait for a big earthquake and only worry about it after the fact?
Climate Change: Net Zero should be reached by reducing demand, not supply. Demand being met by Qatari imports instead of domestically produced gas makes no improvement whatsoever to the climate, demand not existing does make a difference. Net zero doesn't mean zero production even post-2050.
Earthquake risk: If it were up to me, I would predominantly deal with it after the fact, but require firms involved to demonstrate appropriate liability insurance that covers that, if they're proven to cause one. If they're unable to find insurance, then they won't be able to trade, same as any other firm. If they have the relevant insurance to appropriate standards then the liability risk is covered.
I would have thought that, as a Conservative, you had some idea of how supply and demand are related.
Dealing with problems after the fact means people suffer the ill consequences and then find themselves stuck with lengthy, legalistic processes to get compensation.
Not when limits on supply are circumvented by simply importing to make up the difference. Stopping UK oil and gas production will do nothing to reduce carbon emissions if all we do is import that oil and gas instead. In fact it will increase it because of the increased transport costs and the lack of CO2 mitigation policies in the production facilities of the countries we are importing from.
“if all we do is import that oil and gas instead”: I certainly don’t think that should be all we do. We should be massively driving down demand, as soon as possible.
“Stopping UK oil and gas production”: The immediate question was not about stopping any production, but about opening up new production. If we’re serious about climate change and reducing demand, then demand will fall below existing domestic production at some point before 2050.
You’re starting from the premise of the domestic impact on climate change, others are starting from the premise of maximising domestic production at a time of high prices.
It’s difficult to predict the future. (It’s much easier predicting the past…) If I knew what was going to happen to gas prices, I’d be very rich. However, we can observe some general points.
Gas prices are currently very high because of Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Hopefully, the war will be over with a Ukrainian victory as soon as possible. Of course, that may not happen, but commentators generally think the price shock from the war will reduce over time, either because something happens in the war or because alternative supply routes to Europe are established.
Fracking will take time to produce gas. That depends on particular sites etc., but fracking isn’t going to have a significant effect on domestic production this winter and probably not next winter. As I understand it.
So fracking doesn’t seem like a good way to tackle the current energy crisis. On shore solar and wind are the quickest ways of increasing domestic energy production. By the time fracking is producing serious quantities of gas in the UK, if that ever happens, gas prices are likely to be back to normal.
Longer term, if we in the UK and the rest of the world are serious about climate change, then the demand for gas will have to be significantly decreased soon. Demand will decrease faster than supply. Prices should fall. A large gas reserve will become almost worthless. I don’t think that has a sunk in for a lot of people.
A company seeking new gas production has to take a gamble on what prices will be. I think many are gambling that people aren’t serious about climate change, and maybe they’ll be proved correct. It’s difficult for businesses to deal with such uncertainty. It would be better if the Government could be clearer about how we move to Net Zero, but they won’t because they want the plaudits for being green without talking about the costs there will have to be.
I am afraid that you've gone so very deep down your ideological rabbit hole on this, it's actually 'the costs', that you feel people should bear are what is important to you. There are a lot of ways we can make ourselves (if we must reach an arbitrary target) net zero. Dressing fields with rock dust will apparently get us 45% of the way there for example. I would imagine this feels wrong to you, because there's not enough pain and misery involved.
Could you tell me more about how dressing fields with rock dust will get us 45% of the way to net zero emissions?
Why do I have the feeling this will have unintended consequences?
Acts as a decent fertiliser apparently.
Not really, unless you happen to have a deficiency of one of the micromicronutrients in the rock dust. Which you will already know about if you are a modern farmer.
Completely off topic, but Modern Farmer sounds so much like a portmanteau Viz character ...
Allegedly @GOVUK will scrap plans to ban the import of fur and foie gras . Shelved earlier in the year under @trussliz it won’t happen and banning live animal export for slaughter and the import of hunting trophies may go too . Apparently banning things seems ‘very socialist’ . https://twitter.com/ChrisGPackham/status/1572666986554949632/photo/1
Seems another 'brave' policy – allowing trophy hunting imports. Truss is an effing weirdo.
Effective ban on onshore wind needs lifting too tbh. Yes I know it's not the sole solution to our energy problems.
Absolutely and completely agreed.
Bans on fracking and bans on onshore wind etc both need lifting. Its not either/or, its both. We should not be banning things, we should have standards then allow anything that meets those standards.
That seems like sophistry. If I impose standards and something can’t meet those standards, then I have banned it. Changing the wording doesn’t change that.
Not necessarily. If you impose standards and something can't meet those standards today then it may be de facto banned, rather than de jure banned.
But if processes, research or technology improves to enable it to meet your new, higher standards then once those standards are met its neither banned de facto nor de jure. Whereas if its banned, then no effort is put in to meet potentially higher standards.
You’re playing with words, Bart. You are still banning those things that don’t meet the standards.
You're banning things don't meet the standards, rather than banning things even if they do though, that's the difference.
Set standards, and then allow competition to meet the standards that are set. Banning things, even if they meet standards, is just nonsensical prohibition.
Great, we’re agreed that when you said, “We should not be banning things,” what you actually meant was, “We should be banning (slightly different) things.”
Well yes, when I said that "we not be banning things, we should have standards then allow anything that meets those standards"
I meant that we should not be banning things [in totality regardless of standards] but instead ban [not allow] only things that fail to reach standards, yes, I thought that was obvious by the statement of allowing that which meets standards tends to mean as read disallowing that which fails to meet standards.
The difference is the difference between saying "produce should be fresh and in date" and saying "apples are banned, bananas are OK".
If fracking can meet the standards set, it should be allowed. If it can't, then fracking isn't banned, its simply failing to reach the standards, in which case any potential fracker needs to work on achieving standards set - but those standards should be comparable to standards for mining and other alternatives.
How do people seriously fail to pass the sniff test and error check figures before making stupid remarks? 🤦♂️
Looks like a fairly consistent 4.8 with an error in Sept/Oct 2023 to me.
I think the Bank of England cutting base rates by 225 basis points in September 2023 and then increasing them by 450 basis points in October 2023 is somewhat unlikely. A 225 error in your figures for September 2023 rolling into October 2023 looks a bit more probable.
Under Labour you saw a GP within 2 days. The NHS waiting times were the shortest in history. The NHS had the largest funding it has ever had as a share of GDP (actually inline with the EU for once). There was a guarantee for cancer treatment.
The Tories are arsonists. You don't get an arsonist to put out the fire they created.
If the boss of Cuadrilla is saying fracking won't work then there's not much worry about it I'd have thought. A few exploratory wells that don't yield anything. Some humming and harring followed eventually by a restoration phase https://drillordrop.com/2019/07/10/site-restoration-underway-at-tinker-lane/
With the frackers out of pocket.
Well this is basically my thought.
If fracking isn't viable as some claim, then it won't be done. So it can be legal, but not done, what's the issue with that?
If fracking is viable, then it shouldn't be banned.
We don't need to ban that which isn't viable, just have it legal but undone by choice rather than diktat.
Fracking should be treated like mining and other resource generation - subject to sensible standards, and if we can't economically do it in this country then so be it. But if we can, it should not be forbidden.
That seems like a sensible thing to say, but it's very dependent on what being "subject to sensible standards" means. That's why there's a debate, that's what one needs to address. In particular:
What are the "sensible standards" with respect to climate change?
What are the "sensible standards" with respect to the earthquake risk?
What are the "sensible standards" with respect to major building projects in rural areas?
Thank you for saying its sensible and yes your questions are sensible too. My answers to your questions would be:
Climate change: Similar rules and regulations should apply to imports etc - if gas can be imported for use, it should be able to be extracted domestically, which reduces our carbon emissions it doesn't increase them.
Earthquake risk: It should have similar standards to alternative developments like seismic activity allowed to take place with regards to mining etc too.
Building projects: It should have similar standards to other forms of development.
Standards shouldn't be lower than they would be for alternatives, but they shouldn't be draconianly higher either.
Thanks for a detailed answer that generally avoids actually saying anything.
Climate change: so, what should those standards be? We're meant to be Net Zero in 28 years. It is difficult to see fracking being consistent with that. How should Government implement reaching Net Zero? Is it sensible to say, on one hand, that we've made this commitment, while saying, on the other hand, that we want developers to open fracking wells, that typically run for 20-40 years? Will fracking licenses say, "No fracking past 2050"? The Government has not provided clarity on how it will achieve Net Zero, but that matters for developers of wells.
Earthquake risk: the BGS says the earthquake risk is unpredictable, in a manner that is different from the risks from mining. Do you take a precautionary approach, as with the present rules, or do you wait for a big earthquake and only worry about it after the fact?
Climate Change: Net Zero should be reached by reducing demand, not supply. Demand being met by Qatari imports instead of domestically produced gas makes no improvement whatsoever to the climate, demand not existing does make a difference. Net zero doesn't mean zero production even post-2050.
Earthquake risk: If it were up to me, I would predominantly deal with it after the fact, but require firms involved to demonstrate appropriate liability insurance that covers that, if they're proven to cause one. If they're unable to find insurance, then they won't be able to trade, same as any other firm. If they have the relevant insurance to appropriate standards then the liability risk is covered.
I would have thought that, as a Conservative, you had some idea of how supply and demand are related.
Dealing with problems after the fact means people suffer the ill consequences and then find themselves stuck with lengthy, legalistic processes to get compensation.
Not when limits on supply are circumvented by simply importing to make up the difference. Stopping UK oil and gas production will do nothing to reduce carbon emissions if all we do is import that oil and gas instead. In fact it will increase it because of the increased transport costs and the lack of CO2 mitigation policies in the production facilities of the countries we are importing from.
“if all we do is import that oil and gas instead”: I certainly don’t think that should be all we do. We should be massively driving down demand, as soon as possible.
“Stopping UK oil and gas production”: The immediate question was not about stopping any production, but about opening up new production. If we’re serious about climate change and reducing demand, then demand will fall below existing domestic production at some point before 2050.
You’re starting from the premise of the domestic impact on climate change, others are starting from the premise of maximising domestic production at a time of high prices.
It’s difficult to predict the future. (It’s much easier predicting the past…) If I knew what was going to happen to gas prices, I’d be very rich. However, we can observe some general points.
Gas prices are currently very high because of Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Hopefully, the war will be over with a Ukrainian victory as soon as possible. Of course, that may not happen, but commentators generally think the price shock from the war will reduce over time, either because something happens in the war or because alternative supply routes to Europe are established.
Fracking will take time to produce gas. That depends on particular sites etc., but fracking isn’t going to have a significant effect on domestic production this winter and probably not next winter. As I understand it.
So fracking doesn’t seem like a good way to tackle the current energy crisis. On shore solar and wind are the quickest ways of increasing domestic energy production. By the time fracking is producing serious quantities of gas in the UK, if that ever happens, gas prices are likely to be back to normal.
Longer term, if we in the UK and the rest of the world are serious about climate change, then the demand for gas will have to be significantly decreased soon. Demand will decrease faster than supply. Prices should fall. A large gas reserve will become almost worthless. I don’t think that has a sunk in for a lot of people.
A company seeking new gas production has to take a gamble on what prices will be. I think many are gambling that people aren’t serious about climate change, and maybe they’ll be proved correct. It’s difficult for businesses to deal with such uncertainty. It would be better if the Government could be clearer about how we move to Net Zero, but they won’t because they want the plaudits for being green without talking about the costs there will have to be.
I am afraid that you've gone so very deep down your ideological rabbit hole on this, it's actually 'the costs', that you feel people should bear are what is important to you. There are a lot of ways we can make ourselves (if we must reach an arbitrary target) net zero. Dressing fields with rock dust will apparently get us 45% of the way there for example. I would imagine this feels wrong to you, because there's not enough pain and misery involved.
Could you tell me more about how dressing fields with rock dust will get us 45% of the way to net zero emissions?
Why do I have the feeling this will have unintended consequences?
It would have the unintended consequences of big increases in crop yields, and more nutritious produce.
It really, really would not.
Want more studies do you?
Jesus, mate, the only study you have produced to date was so rigorous, it was about apple trees and written by someone who thinks apple trees have a 20 year life span. Your latest link is very light on everything, but especially so on the *agricultural* pay off.
I do actually know what I am talking about. I manage 11 acres of pasture for (mainly) horses, and I shell out £1,000s every few years to dress them with what's called calcified seaweed and is nothing of the sort, it is basically marine rock dust. My neighbours manage pasture for sheep and cattle and haymaking and apply industrial NPK every year. One of us gets twice the yield of the other. Have a guess which way round?
That sounds like a massively city-centric solution. Probably only works in London tbh.
Don't think it works in Newcastle even (unless you went to Gateshead)...
Newcastle and Gateshead are the same city anyway – i.e. Newcastle – the idea they are somehow separate is completely ludicrous.
Don't say that to Gateshead council - why do you think it's taken 20+ years to get a sane regional assembly rebuilt...
Gateshead and Sunderland are (rightly) scared that were such a thing to be recreated they would end up being 2nd / 4th class citizens with all the investment / money going to Newcastle
Which would if course be a perfectly good outcome for Gateshead, as it is very clearly part of Newcastle.
Under Labour you saw a GP within 2 days. The NHS waiting times were the shortest in history. The NHS had the largest funding it has ever had as a share of GDP (actually inline with the EU for once). There was a guarantee for cancer treatment.
The Tories are arsonists. You don't get an arsonist to put out the fire they created.
Under Labour the GP receptionist said "sorry all our appointments are full, call back tomorrow at 8am" so you wouldn't be logged into the figures and people gave up on calling GPs.
Though considering you were OK with lockdown, and cancelling cancer etc treatments in order to prioritise Covid instead, any remarks you make now I'll take with a pinch of salt.
Under Labour you saw a GP within 2 days. The NHS waiting times were the shortest in history. The NHS had the largest funding it has ever had as a share of GDP (actually inline with the EU for once). There was a guarantee for cancer treatment.
The Tories are arsonists. You don't get an arsonist to put out the fire they created.
Under Labour you saw a GP within 2 days. The NHS waiting times were the shortest in history. The NHS had the largest funding it has ever had as a share of GDP (actually inline with the EU for once). There was a guarantee for cancer treatment.
The Tories are arsonists. You don't get an arsonist to put out the fire they created.
Under Labour the GP receptionist said "sorry all our appointments are full, call back tomorrow at 8am" so you wouldn't be logged into the figures and people gave up on calling GPs.
Though considering you were OK with lockdown, and cancelling cancer etc treatments in order to prioritise Covid instead, any remarks you make now I'll take with a pinch of salt.
No Mr R, that might have been the case in the early part of the Labour government, but it wasn't by the end of it.
If the boss of Cuadrilla is saying fracking won't work then there's not much worry about it I'd have thought. A few exploratory wells that don't yield anything. Some humming and harring followed eventually by a restoration phase https://drillordrop.com/2019/07/10/site-restoration-underway-at-tinker-lane/
With the frackers out of pocket.
Well this is basically my thought.
If fracking isn't viable as some claim, then it won't be done. So it can be legal, but not done, what's the issue with that?
If fracking is viable, then it shouldn't be banned.
We don't need to ban that which isn't viable, just have it legal but undone by choice rather than diktat.
Fracking should be treated like mining and other resource generation - subject to sensible standards, and if we can't economically do it in this country then so be it. But if we can, it should not be forbidden.
That seems like a sensible thing to say, but it's very dependent on what being "subject to sensible standards" means. That's why there's a debate, that's what one needs to address. In particular:
What are the "sensible standards" with respect to climate change?
What are the "sensible standards" with respect to the earthquake risk?
What are the "sensible standards" with respect to major building projects in rural areas?
Thank you for saying its sensible and yes your questions are sensible too. My answers to your questions would be:
Climate change: Similar rules and regulations should apply to imports etc - if gas can be imported for use, it should be able to be extracted domestically, which reduces our carbon emissions it doesn't increase them.
Earthquake risk: It should have similar standards to alternative developments like seismic activity allowed to take place with regards to mining etc too.
Building projects: It should have similar standards to other forms of development.
Standards shouldn't be lower than they would be for alternatives, but they shouldn't be draconianly higher either.
Thanks for a detailed answer that generally avoids actually saying anything.
Climate change: so, what should those standards be? We're meant to be Net Zero in 28 years. It is difficult to see fracking being consistent with that. How should Government implement reaching Net Zero? Is it sensible to say, on one hand, that we've made this commitment, while saying, on the other hand, that we want developers to open fracking wells, that typically run for 20-40 years? Will fracking licenses say, "No fracking past 2050"? The Government has not provided clarity on how it will achieve Net Zero, but that matters for developers of wells.
Earthquake risk: the BGS says the earthquake risk is unpredictable, in a manner that is different from the risks from mining. Do you take a precautionary approach, as with the present rules, or do you wait for a big earthquake and only worry about it after the fact?
Climate Change: Net Zero should be reached by reducing demand, not supply. Demand being met by Qatari imports instead of domestically produced gas makes no improvement whatsoever to the climate, demand not existing does make a difference. Net zero doesn't mean zero production even post-2050.
Earthquake risk: If it were up to me, I would predominantly deal with it after the fact, but require firms involved to demonstrate appropriate liability insurance that covers that, if they're proven to cause one. If they're unable to find insurance, then they won't be able to trade, same as any other firm. If they have the relevant insurance to appropriate standards then the liability risk is covered.
I would have thought that, as a Conservative, you had some idea of how supply and demand are related.
Dealing with problems after the fact means people suffer the ill consequences and then find themselves stuck with lengthy, legalistic processes to get compensation.
Not when limits on supply are circumvented by simply importing to make up the difference. Stopping UK oil and gas production will do nothing to reduce carbon emissions if all we do is import that oil and gas instead. In fact it will increase it because of the increased transport costs and the lack of CO2 mitigation policies in the production facilities of the countries we are importing from.
“if all we do is import that oil and gas instead”: I certainly don’t think that should be all we do. We should be massively driving down demand, as soon as possible.
“Stopping UK oil and gas production”: The immediate question was not about stopping any production, but about opening up new production. If we’re serious about climate change and reducing demand, then demand will fall below existing domestic production at some point before 2050.
You’re starting from the premise of the domestic impact on climate change, others are starting from the premise of maximising domestic production at a time of high prices.
It’s difficult to predict the future. (It’s much easier predicting the past…) If I knew what was going to happen to gas prices, I’d be very rich. However, we can observe some general points.
Gas prices are currently very high because of Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Hopefully, the war will be over with a Ukrainian victory as soon as possible. Of course, that may not happen, but commentators generally think the price shock from the war will reduce over time, either because something happens in the war or because alternative supply routes to Europe are established.
Fracking will take time to produce gas. That depends on particular sites etc., but fracking isn’t going to have a significant effect on domestic production this winter and probably not next winter. As I understand it.
So fracking doesn’t seem like a good way to tackle the current energy crisis. On shore solar and wind are the quickest ways of increasing domestic energy production. By the time fracking is producing serious quantities of gas in the UK, if that ever happens, gas prices are likely to be back to normal.
Longer term, if we in the UK and the rest of the world are serious about climate change, then the demand for gas will have to be significantly decreased soon. Demand will decrease faster than supply. Prices should fall. A large gas reserve will become almost worthless. I don’t think that has a sunk in for a lot of people.
A company seeking new gas production has to take a gamble on what prices will be. I think many are gambling that people aren’t serious about climate change, and maybe they’ll be proved correct. It’s difficult for businesses to deal with such uncertainty. It would be better if the Government could be clearer about how we move to Net Zero, but they won’t because they want the plaudits for being green without talking about the costs there will have to be.
I am afraid that you've gone so very deep down your ideological rabbit hole on this, it's actually 'the costs', that you feel people should bear are what is important to you. There are a lot of ways we can make ourselves (if we must reach an arbitrary target) net zero. Dressing fields with rock dust will apparently get us 45% of the way there for example. I would imagine this feels wrong to you, because there's not enough pain and misery involved.
Could you tell me more about how dressing fields with rock dust will get us 45% of the way to net zero emissions?
Why do I have the feeling this will have unintended consequences?
It would have the unintended consequences of big increases in crop yields, and more nutritious produce.
It really, really would not.
Want more studies do you?
Jesus, mate, the only study you have produced to date was so rigorous, it was about apple trees and written by someone who thinks apple trees have a 20 year life span. Your latest link is very light on everything, but especially so on the *agricultural* pay off.
I do actually know what I am talking about. I manage 11 acres of pasture for (mainly) horses, and I shell out £1,000s every few years to dress them with what's called calcified seaweed and is nothing of the sort, it is basically marine rock dust. My neighbours manage pasture for sheep and cattle and haymaking and apply industrial NPK every year. One of us gets twice the yield of the other. Have a guess which way round?
Apple trees do have a roughly 20-25 year life span as a commercial crop.
That sounds like a massively city-centric solution. Probably only works in London tbh.
Don't think it works in Newcastle even (unless you went to Gateshead)...
Newcastle and Gateshead are the same city anyway – i.e. Newcastle – the idea they are somehow separate is completely ludicrous.
Don't say that to Gateshead council - why do you think it's taken 20+ years to get a sane regional assembly rebuilt...
Gateshead and Sunderland are (rightly) scared that were such a thing to be recreated they would end up being 2nd / 4th class citizens with all the investment / money going to Newcastle
Which would if course be a perfectly good outcome for Gateshead, as it is very clearly part of Newcastle.
You've never been there then?
Many times a year, my wife's family are from there. The idea that Newcastle and Gateshead are separate places is risible.
If the boss of Cuadrilla is saying fracking won't work then there's not much worry about it I'd have thought. A few exploratory wells that don't yield anything. Some humming and harring followed eventually by a restoration phase https://drillordrop.com/2019/07/10/site-restoration-underway-at-tinker-lane/
With the frackers out of pocket.
Well this is basically my thought.
If fracking isn't viable as some claim, then it won't be done. So it can be legal, but not done, what's the issue with that?
If fracking is viable, then it shouldn't be banned.
We don't need to ban that which isn't viable, just have it legal but undone by choice rather than diktat.
Fracking should be treated like mining and other resource generation - subject to sensible standards, and if we can't economically do it in this country then so be it. But if we can, it should not be forbidden.
That seems like a sensible thing to say, but it's very dependent on what being "subject to sensible standards" means. That's why there's a debate, that's what one needs to address. In particular:
What are the "sensible standards" with respect to climate change?
What are the "sensible standards" with respect to the earthquake risk?
What are the "sensible standards" with respect to major building projects in rural areas?
Thank you for saying its sensible and yes your questions are sensible too. My answers to your questions would be:
Climate change: Similar rules and regulations should apply to imports etc - if gas can be imported for use, it should be able to be extracted domestically, which reduces our carbon emissions it doesn't increase them.
Earthquake risk: It should have similar standards to alternative developments like seismic activity allowed to take place with regards to mining etc too.
Building projects: It should have similar standards to other forms of development.
Standards shouldn't be lower than they would be for alternatives, but they shouldn't be draconianly higher either.
Thanks for a detailed answer that generally avoids actually saying anything.
Climate change: so, what should those standards be? We're meant to be Net Zero in 28 years. It is difficult to see fracking being consistent with that. How should Government implement reaching Net Zero? Is it sensible to say, on one hand, that we've made this commitment, while saying, on the other hand, that we want developers to open fracking wells, that typically run for 20-40 years? Will fracking licenses say, "No fracking past 2050"? The Government has not provided clarity on how it will achieve Net Zero, but that matters for developers of wells.
Earthquake risk: the BGS says the earthquake risk is unpredictable, in a manner that is different from the risks from mining. Do you take a precautionary approach, as with the present rules, or do you wait for a big earthquake and only worry about it after the fact?
Climate Change: Net Zero should be reached by reducing demand, not supply. Demand being met by Qatari imports instead of domestically produced gas makes no improvement whatsoever to the climate, demand not existing does make a difference. Net zero doesn't mean zero production even post-2050.
Earthquake risk: If it were up to me, I would predominantly deal with it after the fact, but require firms involved to demonstrate appropriate liability insurance that covers that, if they're proven to cause one. If they're unable to find insurance, then they won't be able to trade, same as any other firm. If they have the relevant insurance to appropriate standards then the liability risk is covered.
I would have thought that, as a Conservative, you had some idea of how supply and demand are related.
Dealing with problems after the fact means people suffer the ill consequences and then find themselves stuck with lengthy, legalistic processes to get compensation.
Not when limits on supply are circumvented by simply importing to make up the difference. Stopping UK oil and gas production will do nothing to reduce carbon emissions if all we do is import that oil and gas instead. In fact it will increase it because of the increased transport costs and the lack of CO2 mitigation policies in the production facilities of the countries we are importing from.
“if all we do is import that oil and gas instead”: I certainly don’t think that should be all we do. We should be massively driving down demand, as soon as possible.
“Stopping UK oil and gas production”: The immediate question was not about stopping any production, but about opening up new production. If we’re serious about climate change and reducing demand, then demand will fall below existing domestic production at some point before 2050.
You’re starting from the premise of the domestic impact on climate change, others are starting from the premise of maximising domestic production at a time of high prices.
It’s difficult to predict the future. (It’s much easier predicting the past…) If I knew what was going to happen to gas prices, I’d be very rich. However, we can observe some general points.
Gas prices are currently very high because of Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Hopefully, the war will be over with a Ukrainian victory as soon as possible. Of course, that may not happen, but commentators generally think the price shock from the war will reduce over time, either because something happens in the war or because alternative supply routes to Europe are established.
Fracking will take time to produce gas. That depends on particular sites etc., but fracking isn’t going to have a significant effect on domestic production this winter and probably not next winter. As I understand it.
So fracking doesn’t seem like a good way to tackle the current energy crisis. On shore solar and wind are the quickest ways of increasing domestic energy production. By the time fracking is producing serious quantities of gas in the UK, if that ever happens, gas prices are likely to be back to normal.
Longer term, if we in the UK and the rest of the world are serious about climate change, then the demand for gas will have to be significantly decreased soon. Demand will decrease faster than supply. Prices should fall. A large gas reserve will become almost worthless. I don’t think that has a sunk in for a lot of people.
A company seeking new gas production has to take a gamble on what prices will be. I think many are gambling that people aren’t serious about climate change, and maybe they’ll be proved correct. It’s difficult for businesses to deal with such uncertainty. It would be better if the Government could be clearer about how we move to Net Zero, but they won’t because they want the plaudits for being green without talking about the costs there will have to be.
I am afraid that you've gone so very deep down your ideological rabbit hole on this, it's actually 'the costs', that you feel people should bear are what is important to you. There are a lot of ways we can make ourselves (if we must reach an arbitrary target) net zero. Dressing fields with rock dust will apparently get us 45% of the way there for example. I would imagine this feels wrong to you, because there's not enough pain and misery involved.
Could you tell me more about how dressing fields with rock dust will get us 45% of the way to net zero emissions?
Why do I have the feeling this will have unintended consequences?
Acts as a decent fertiliser apparently.
Not really, unless you happen to have a deficiency of one of the micromicronutrients in the rock dust. Which you will already know about if you are a modern farmer.
Completely off topic, but Modern Farmer sounds so much like a portmanteau Viz character ...
Would there be anything unfeasibly large about him at all?
Under Labour you saw a GP within 2 days. The NHS waiting times were the shortest in history. The NHS had the largest funding it has ever had as a share of GDP (actually inline with the EU for once). There was a guarantee for cancer treatment.
The Tories are arsonists. You don't get an arsonist to put out the fire they created.
Under Labour the GP receptionist said "sorry all our appointments are full, call back tomorrow at 8am" so you wouldn't be logged into the figures and people gave up on calling GPs.
Though considering you were OK with lockdown, and cancelling cancer etc treatments in order to prioritise Covid instead, any remarks you make now I'll take with a pinch of salt.
No Mr R, that might have been the case in the early part of the Labour government, but it wasn't by the end of it.
I used to get that with my GP surgery, even at the end of the Labour government. Call at a time that suits the GP, or they refuse to log you in which case you get no appointment rather than an appointment later on.
The guarantee would have only meant anything if it was 48hours from your first phone call any time of day and the GPs were banned from rejecting appointments. They never were. All the guarantee did was abolish the ability to schedule appointments easier and enforce a mad dash to be first to call at 8am whether that time suited you or not.
If the boss of Cuadrilla is saying fracking won't work then there's not much worry about it I'd have thought. A few exploratory wells that don't yield anything. Some humming and harring followed eventually by a restoration phase https://drillordrop.com/2019/07/10/site-restoration-underway-at-tinker-lane/
With the frackers out of pocket.
Well this is basically my thought.
If fracking isn't viable as some claim, then it won't be done. So it can be legal, but not done, what's the issue with that?
If fracking is viable, then it shouldn't be banned.
We don't need to ban that which isn't viable, just have it legal but undone by choice rather than diktat.
Fracking should be treated like mining and other resource generation - subject to sensible standards, and if we can't economically do it in this country then so be it. But if we can, it should not be forbidden.
That seems like a sensible thing to say, but it's very dependent on what being "subject to sensible standards" means. That's why there's a debate, that's what one needs to address. In particular:
What are the "sensible standards" with respect to climate change?
What are the "sensible standards" with respect to the earthquake risk?
What are the "sensible standards" with respect to major building projects in rural areas?
Thank you for saying its sensible and yes your questions are sensible too. My answers to your questions would be:
Climate change: Similar rules and regulations should apply to imports etc - if gas can be imported for use, it should be able to be extracted domestically, which reduces our carbon emissions it doesn't increase them.
Earthquake risk: It should have similar standards to alternative developments like seismic activity allowed to take place with regards to mining etc too.
Building projects: It should have similar standards to other forms of development.
Standards shouldn't be lower than they would be for alternatives, but they shouldn't be draconianly higher either.
Thanks for a detailed answer that generally avoids actually saying anything.
Climate change: so, what should those standards be? We're meant to be Net Zero in 28 years. It is difficult to see fracking being consistent with that. How should Government implement reaching Net Zero? Is it sensible to say, on one hand, that we've made this commitment, while saying, on the other hand, that we want developers to open fracking wells, that typically run for 20-40 years? Will fracking licenses say, "No fracking past 2050"? The Government has not provided clarity on how it will achieve Net Zero, but that matters for developers of wells.
Earthquake risk: the BGS says the earthquake risk is unpredictable, in a manner that is different from the risks from mining. Do you take a precautionary approach, as with the present rules, or do you wait for a big earthquake and only worry about it after the fact?
Climate Change: Net Zero should be reached by reducing demand, not supply. Demand being met by Qatari imports instead of domestically produced gas makes no improvement whatsoever to the climate, demand not existing does make a difference. Net zero doesn't mean zero production even post-2050.
Earthquake risk: If it were up to me, I would predominantly deal with it after the fact, but require firms involved to demonstrate appropriate liability insurance that covers that, if they're proven to cause one. If they're unable to find insurance, then they won't be able to trade, same as any other firm. If they have the relevant insurance to appropriate standards then the liability risk is covered.
I would have thought that, as a Conservative, you had some idea of how supply and demand are related.
Dealing with problems after the fact means people suffer the ill consequences and then find themselves stuck with lengthy, legalistic processes to get compensation.
Not when limits on supply are circumvented by simply importing to make up the difference. Stopping UK oil and gas production will do nothing to reduce carbon emissions if all we do is import that oil and gas instead. In fact it will increase it because of the increased transport costs and the lack of CO2 mitigation policies in the production facilities of the countries we are importing from.
“if all we do is import that oil and gas instead”: I certainly don’t think that should be all we do. We should be massively driving down demand, as soon as possible.
“Stopping UK oil and gas production”: The immediate question was not about stopping any production, but about opening up new production. If we’re serious about climate change and reducing demand, then demand will fall below existing domestic production at some point before 2050.
You’re starting from the premise of the domestic impact on climate change, others are starting from the premise of maximising domestic production at a time of high prices.
It’s difficult to predict the future. (It’s much easier predicting the past…) If I knew what was going to happen to gas prices, I’d be very rich. However, we can observe some general points.
Gas prices are currently very high because of Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Hopefully, the war will be over with a Ukrainian victory as soon as possible. Of course, that may not happen, but commentators generally think the price shock from the war will reduce over time, either because something happens in the war or because alternative supply routes to Europe are established.
Fracking will take time to produce gas. That depends on particular sites etc., but fracking isn’t going to have a significant effect on domestic production this winter and probably not next winter. As I understand it.
So fracking doesn’t seem like a good way to tackle the current energy crisis. On shore solar and wind are the quickest ways of increasing domestic energy production. By the time fracking is producing serious quantities of gas in the UK, if that ever happens, gas prices are likely to be back to normal.
Longer term, if we in the UK and the rest of the world are serious about climate change, then the demand for gas will have to be significantly decreased soon. Demand will decrease faster than supply. Prices should fall. A large gas reserve will become almost worthless. I don’t think that has a sunk in for a lot of people.
A company seeking new gas production has to take a gamble on what prices will be. I think many are gambling that people aren’t serious about climate change, and maybe they’ll be proved correct. It’s difficult for businesses to deal with such uncertainty. It would be better if the Government could be clearer about how we move to Net Zero, but they won’t because they want the plaudits for being green without talking about the costs there will have to be.
I am afraid that you've gone so very deep down your ideological rabbit hole on this, it's actually 'the costs', that you feel people should bear are what is important to you. There are a lot of ways we can make ourselves (if we must reach an arbitrary target) net zero. Dressing fields with rock dust will apparently get us 45% of the way there for example. I would imagine this feels wrong to you, because there's not enough pain and misery involved.
Could you tell me more about how dressing fields with rock dust will get us 45% of the way to net zero emissions?
Why do I have the feeling this will have unintended consequences?
It would have the unintended consequences of big increases in crop yields, and more nutritious produce.
It really, really would not.
Want more studies do you?
Jesus, mate, the only study you have produced to date was so rigorous, it was about apple trees and written by someone who thinks apple trees have a 20 year life span. Your latest link is very light on everything, but especially so on the *agricultural* pay off.
I do actually know what I am talking about. I manage 11 acres of pasture for (mainly) horses, and I shell out £1,000s every few years to dress them with what's called calcified seaweed and is nothing of the sort, it is basically marine rock dust. My neighbours manage pasture for sheep and cattle and haymaking and apply industrial NPK every year. One of us gets twice the yield of the other. Have a guess which way round?
Apple trees do have a roughly 20-25 year life span as a commercial crop.
I know that. The article in question claimed they were dying of old age (NOT seeing a decline in yield) in their late teens.
That sounds like a massively city-centric solution. Probably only works in London tbh.
Don't think it works in Newcastle even (unless you went to Gateshead)...
Newcastle and Gateshead are the same city anyway – i.e. Newcastle – the idea they are somehow separate is completely ludicrous.
Don't say that to Gateshead council - why do you think it's taken 20+ years to get a sane regional assembly rebuilt...
Gateshead and Sunderland are (rightly) scared that were such a thing to be recreated they would end up being 2nd / 4th class citizens with all the investment / money going to Newcastle
Which would if course be a perfectly good outcome for Gateshead, as it is very clearly part of Newcastle.
You've never been there then?
Many times a year, my wife's family are from there. The idea that Newcastle and Gateshead are separate places is risible.
Under Labour you saw a GP within 2 days. The NHS waiting times were the shortest in history. The NHS had the largest funding it has ever had as a share of GDP (actually inline with the EU for once). There was a guarantee for cancer treatment.
The Tories are arsonists. You don't get an arsonist to put out the fire they created.
Under Labour the GP receptionist said "sorry all our appointments are full, call back tomorrow at 8am" so you wouldn't be logged into the figures and people gave up on calling GPs.
Though considering you were OK with lockdown, and cancelling cancer etc treatments in order to prioritise Covid instead, any remarks you make now I'll take with a pinch of salt.
The suppression of an enquiry into Mid Staffs and the 10 billion quid IT bodge were other highlights of Labours mismanagement of the NHS, and the filthy conditions of hospitals. Who can forget Brown needing to promise a 'deep clean' because of the shit everywhere?
If the boss of Cuadrilla is saying fracking won't work then there's not much worry about it I'd have thought. A few exploratory wells that don't yield anything. Some humming and harring followed eventually by a restoration phase https://drillordrop.com/2019/07/10/site-restoration-underway-at-tinker-lane/
With the frackers out of pocket.
Well this is basically my thought.
If fracking isn't viable as some claim, then it won't be done. So it can be legal, but not done, what's the issue with that?
If fracking is viable, then it shouldn't be banned.
We don't need to ban that which isn't viable, just have it legal but undone by choice rather than diktat.
Fracking should be treated like mining and other resource generation - subject to sensible standards, and if we can't economically do it in this country then so be it. But if we can, it should not be forbidden.
That seems like a sensible thing to say, but it's very dependent on what being "subject to sensible standards" means. That's why there's a debate, that's what one needs to address. In particular:
What are the "sensible standards" with respect to climate change?
What are the "sensible standards" with respect to the earthquake risk?
What are the "sensible standards" with respect to major building projects in rural areas?
Thank you for saying its sensible and yes your questions are sensible too. My answers to your questions would be:
Climate change: Similar rules and regulations should apply to imports etc - if gas can be imported for use, it should be able to be extracted domestically, which reduces our carbon emissions it doesn't increase them.
Earthquake risk: It should have similar standards to alternative developments like seismic activity allowed to take place with regards to mining etc too.
Building projects: It should have similar standards to other forms of development.
Standards shouldn't be lower than they would be for alternatives, but they shouldn't be draconianly higher either.
Thanks for a detailed answer that generally avoids actually saying anything.
Climate change: so, what should those standards be? We're meant to be Net Zero in 28 years. It is difficult to see fracking being consistent with that. How should Government implement reaching Net Zero? Is it sensible to say, on one hand, that we've made this commitment, while saying, on the other hand, that we want developers to open fracking wells, that typically run for 20-40 years? Will fracking licenses say, "No fracking past 2050"? The Government has not provided clarity on how it will achieve Net Zero, but that matters for developers of wells.
Earthquake risk: the BGS says the earthquake risk is unpredictable, in a manner that is different from the risks from mining. Do you take a precautionary approach, as with the present rules, or do you wait for a big earthquake and only worry about it after the fact?
Climate Change: Net Zero should be reached by reducing demand, not supply. Demand being met by Qatari imports instead of domestically produced gas makes no improvement whatsoever to the climate, demand not existing does make a difference. Net zero doesn't mean zero production even post-2050.
Earthquake risk: If it were up to me, I would predominantly deal with it after the fact, but require firms involved to demonstrate appropriate liability insurance that covers that, if they're proven to cause one. If they're unable to find insurance, then they won't be able to trade, same as any other firm. If they have the relevant insurance to appropriate standards then the liability risk is covered.
I would have thought that, as a Conservative, you had some idea of how supply and demand are related.
Dealing with problems after the fact means people suffer the ill consequences and then find themselves stuck with lengthy, legalistic processes to get compensation.
Not when limits on supply are circumvented by simply importing to make up the difference. Stopping UK oil and gas production will do nothing to reduce carbon emissions if all we do is import that oil and gas instead. In fact it will increase it because of the increased transport costs and the lack of CO2 mitigation policies in the production facilities of the countries we are importing from.
“if all we do is import that oil and gas instead”: I certainly don’t think that should be all we do. We should be massively driving down demand, as soon as possible.
“Stopping UK oil and gas production”: The immediate question was not about stopping any production, but about opening up new production. If we’re serious about climate change and reducing demand, then demand will fall below existing domestic production at some point before 2050.
You’re starting from the premise of the domestic impact on climate change, others are starting from the premise of maximising domestic production at a time of high prices.
It’s difficult to predict the future. (It’s much easier predicting the past…) If I knew what was going to happen to gas prices, I’d be very rich. However, we can observe some general points.
Gas prices are currently very high because of Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Hopefully, the war will be over with a Ukrainian victory as soon as possible. Of course, that may not happen, but commentators generally think the price shock from the war will reduce over time, either because something happens in the war or because alternative supply routes to Europe are established.
Fracking will take time to produce gas. That depends on particular sites etc., but fracking isn’t going to have a significant effect on domestic production this winter and probably not next winter. As I understand it.
So fracking doesn’t seem like a good way to tackle the current energy crisis. On shore solar and wind are the quickest ways of increasing domestic energy production. By the time fracking is producing serious quantities of gas in the UK, if that ever happens, gas prices are likely to be back to normal.
Longer term, if we in the UK and the rest of the world are serious about climate change, then the demand for gas will have to be significantly decreased soon. Demand will decrease faster than supply. Prices should fall. A large gas reserve will become almost worthless. I don’t think that has a sunk in for a lot of people.
A company seeking new gas production has to take a gamble on what prices will be. I think many are gambling that people aren’t serious about climate change, and maybe they’ll be proved correct. It’s difficult for businesses to deal with such uncertainty. It would be better if the Government could be clearer about how we move to Net Zero, but they won’t because they want the plaudits for being green without talking about the costs there will have to be.
I am afraid that you've gone so very deep down your ideological rabbit hole on this, it's actually 'the costs', that you feel people should bear are what is important to you. There are a lot of ways we can make ourselves (if we must reach an arbitrary target) net zero. Dressing fields with rock dust will apparently get us 45% of the way there for example. I would imagine this feels wrong to you, because there's not enough pain and misery involved.
Could you tell me more about how dressing fields with rock dust will get us 45% of the way to net zero emissions?
Why do I have the feeling this will have unintended consequences?
It would have the unintended consequences of big increases in crop yields, and more nutritious produce.
It really, really would not.
Want more studies do you?
Jesus, mate, the only study you have produced to date was so rigorous, it was about apple trees and written by someone who thinks apple trees have a 20 year life span. Your latest link is very light on everything, but especially so on the *agricultural* pay off.
I do actually know what I am talking about. I manage 11 acres of pasture for (mainly) horses, and I shell out £1,000s every few years to dress them with what's called calcified seaweed and is nothing of the sort, it is basically marine rock dust. My neighbours manage pasture for sheep and cattle and haymaking and apply industrial NPK every year. One of us gets twice the yield of the other. Have a guess which way round?
He will get more yield, because nitrogen delivers bulk. Doesn't mean healthier grass, healthier cows, healthier milk or healthier mutton.
As I'd have thought was obvious, the increases in crop yields to which I refer are all other things being equal, not removing nitrogen fertilisers and substituting with rock dust.
That sounds like a massively city-centric solution. Probably only works in London tbh.
Don't think it works in Newcastle even (unless you went to Gateshead)...
Newcastle and Gateshead are the same city anyway – i.e. Newcastle – the idea they are somehow separate is completely ludicrous.
Don't say that to Gateshead council - why do you think it's taken 20+ years to get a sane regional assembly rebuilt...
Gateshead and Sunderland are (rightly) scared that were such a thing to be recreated they would end up being 2nd / 4th class citizens with all the investment / money going to Newcastle
Which would if course be a perfectly good outcome for Gateshead, as it is very clearly part of Newcastle.
You've never been there then?
Many times a year, my wife's family are from there. The idea that Newcastle and Gateshead are separate places is risible.
It's North/South London in miniature isn't it ?
Effectively, yes. Although at least London had the good sense to end that nonsense administratively ... (checks notes) ... 134 years ago.
Quite extraordinary to see that even in 2010, satisfaction was over 70%. It is now 34%.
And, of course, correlation/causation caveats do not apply. Government is responsible for the NHS. This is the public's direct feedback on what they think of its stewardship. ~AA https://twitter.com/AdamBienkov/status/1572932799593648129
Under Labour you saw a GP within 2 days. The NHS waiting times were the shortest in history. The NHS had the largest funding it has ever had as a share of GDP (actually inline with the EU for once). There was a guarantee for cancer treatment.
The Tories are arsonists. You don't get an arsonist to put out the fire they created.
Under Labour the GP receptionist said "sorry all our appointments are full, call back tomorrow at 8am" so you wouldn't be logged into the figures and people gave up on calling GPs.
Though considering you were OK with lockdown, and cancelling cancer etc treatments in order to prioritise Covid instead, any remarks you make now I'll take with a pinch of salt.
No Mr R, that might have been the case in the early part of the Labour government, but it wasn't by the end of it.
I used to get that with my GP surgery, even at the end of the Labour government. Call at a time that suits the GP, or they refuse to log you in which case you get no appointment rather than an appointment later on.
The guarantee would have only meant anything if it was 48hours from your first phone call any time of day and the GPs were banned from rejecting appointments. They never were. All the guarantee did was abolish the ability to schedule appointments easier and enforce a mad dash to be first to call at 8am whether that time suited you or not.
The GP system - the existence of the GP role - is absurd, and both it and the NHS generally take the p*ss almost as much as it's possible to take the p*ss.
Under Labour you saw a GP within 2 days. The NHS waiting times were the shortest in history. The NHS had the largest funding it has ever had as a share of GDP (actually inline with the EU for once). There was a guarantee for cancer treatment.
The Tories are arsonists. You don't get an arsonist to put out the fire they created.
Under Labour the GP receptionist said "sorry all our appointments are full, call back tomorrow at 8am" so you wouldn't be logged into the figures and people gave up on calling GPs.
Though considering you were OK with lockdown, and cancelling cancer etc treatments in order to prioritise Covid instead, any remarks you make now I'll take with a pinch of salt.
No Mr R, that might have been the case in the early part of the Labour government, but it wasn't by the end of it.
I used to get that with my GP surgery, even at the end of the Labour government. Call at a time that suits the GP, or they refuse to log you in which case you get no appointment rather than an appointment later on.
The guarantee would have only meant anything if it was 48hours from your first phone call any time of day and the GPs were banned from rejecting appointments. They never were. All the guarantee did was abolish the ability to schedule appointments easier and enforce a mad dash to be first to call at 8am whether that time suited you or not.
Yes for a pre booked follow up youd need a signed affadavit from the GP to say it was definitely required to present to the gruppenfuhrer in reception.
Under Labour you saw a GP within 2 days. The NHS waiting times were the shortest in history. The NHS had the largest funding it has ever had as a share of GDP (actually inline with the EU for once). There was a guarantee for cancer treatment.
The Tories are arsonists. You don't get an arsonist to put out the fire they created.
Under Labour the GP receptionist said "sorry all our appointments are full, call back tomorrow at 8am" so you wouldn't be logged into the figures and people gave up on calling GPs.
Though considering you were OK with lockdown, and cancelling cancer etc treatments in order to prioritise Covid instead, any remarks you make now I'll take with a pinch of salt.
No lockdown was about prioritising the NHS *as a whole* so it didn't collapse, thereby stopping all cancer treatments, and everything else.
If the boss of Cuadrilla is saying fracking won't work then there's not much worry about it I'd have thought. A few exploratory wells that don't yield anything. Some humming and harring followed eventually by a restoration phase https://drillordrop.com/2019/07/10/site-restoration-underway-at-tinker-lane/
With the frackers out of pocket.
Well this is basically my thought.
If fracking isn't viable as some claim, then it won't be done. So it can be legal, but not done, what's the issue with that?
If fracking is viable, then it shouldn't be banned.
We don't need to ban that which isn't viable, just have it legal but undone by choice rather than diktat.
Fracking should be treated like mining and other resource generation - subject to sensible standards, and if we can't economically do it in this country then so be it. But if we can, it should not be forbidden.
That seems like a sensible thing to say, but it's very dependent on what being "subject to sensible standards" means. That's why there's a debate, that's what one needs to address. In particular:
What are the "sensible standards" with respect to climate change?
What are the "sensible standards" with respect to the earthquake risk?
What are the "sensible standards" with respect to major building projects in rural areas?
Thank you for saying its sensible and yes your questions are sensible too. My answers to your questions would be:
Climate change: Similar rules and regulations should apply to imports etc - if gas can be imported for use, it should be able to be extracted domestically, which reduces our carbon emissions it doesn't increase them.
Earthquake risk: It should have similar standards to alternative developments like seismic activity allowed to take place with regards to mining etc too.
Building projects: It should have similar standards to other forms of development.
Standards shouldn't be lower than they would be for alternatives, but they shouldn't be draconianly higher either.
Thanks for a detailed answer that generally avoids actually saying anything.
Climate change: so, what should those standards be? We're meant to be Net Zero in 28 years. It is difficult to see fracking being consistent with that. How should Government implement reaching Net Zero? Is it sensible to say, on one hand, that we've made this commitment, while saying, on the other hand, that we want developers to open fracking wells, that typically run for 20-40 years? Will fracking licenses say, "No fracking past 2050"? The Government has not provided clarity on how it will achieve Net Zero, but that matters for developers of wells.
Earthquake risk: the BGS says the earthquake risk is unpredictable, in a manner that is different from the risks from mining. Do you take a precautionary approach, as with the present rules, or do you wait for a big earthquake and only worry about it after the fact?
Climate Change: Net Zero should be reached by reducing demand, not supply. Demand being met by Qatari imports instead of domestically produced gas makes no improvement whatsoever to the climate, demand not existing does make a difference. Net zero doesn't mean zero production even post-2050.
Earthquake risk: If it were up to me, I would predominantly deal with it after the fact, but require firms involved to demonstrate appropriate liability insurance that covers that, if they're proven to cause one. If they're unable to find insurance, then they won't be able to trade, same as any other firm. If they have the relevant insurance to appropriate standards then the liability risk is covered.
I would have thought that, as a Conservative, you had some idea of how supply and demand are related.
Dealing with problems after the fact means people suffer the ill consequences and then find themselves stuck with lengthy, legalistic processes to get compensation.
Not when limits on supply are circumvented by simply importing to make up the difference. Stopping UK oil and gas production will do nothing to reduce carbon emissions if all we do is import that oil and gas instead. In fact it will increase it because of the increased transport costs and the lack of CO2 mitigation policies in the production facilities of the countries we are importing from.
“if all we do is import that oil and gas instead”: I certainly don’t think that should be all we do. We should be massively driving down demand, as soon as possible.
“Stopping UK oil and gas production”: The immediate question was not about stopping any production, but about opening up new production. If we’re serious about climate change and reducing demand, then demand will fall below existing domestic production at some point before 2050.
You’re starting from the premise of the domestic impact on climate change, others are starting from the premise of maximising domestic production at a time of high prices.
It’s difficult to predict the future. (It’s much easier predicting the past…) If I knew what was going to happen to gas prices, I’d be very rich. However, we can observe some general points.
Gas prices are currently very high because of Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Hopefully, the war will be over with a Ukrainian victory as soon as possible. Of course, that may not happen, but commentators generally think the price shock from the war will reduce over time, either because something happens in the war or because alternative supply routes to Europe are established.
Fracking will take time to produce gas. That depends on particular sites etc., but fracking isn’t going to have a significant effect on domestic production this winter and probably not next winter. As I understand it.
So fracking doesn’t seem like a good way to tackle the current energy crisis. On shore solar and wind are the quickest ways of increasing domestic energy production. By the time fracking is producing serious quantities of gas in the UK, if that ever happens, gas prices are likely to be back to normal.
Longer term, if we in the UK and the rest of the world are serious about climate change, then the demand for gas will have to be significantly decreased soon. Demand will decrease faster than supply. Prices should fall. A large gas reserve will become almost worthless. I don’t think that has a sunk in for a lot of people.
A company seeking new gas production has to take a gamble on what prices will be. I think many are gambling that people aren’t serious about climate change, and maybe they’ll be proved correct. It’s difficult for businesses to deal with such uncertainty. It would be better if the Government could be clearer about how we move to Net Zero, but they won’t because they want the plaudits for being green without talking about the costs there will have to be.
I am afraid that you've gone so very deep down your ideological rabbit hole on this, it's actually 'the costs', that you feel people should bear are what is important to you. There are a lot of ways we can make ourselves (if we must reach an arbitrary target) net zero. Dressing fields with rock dust will apparently get us 45% of the way there for example. I would imagine this feels wrong to you, because there's not enough pain and misery involved.
Could you tell me more about how dressing fields with rock dust will get us 45% of the way to net zero emissions?
Why do I have the feeling this will have unintended consequences?
It would have the unintended consequences of big increases in crop yields, and more nutritious produce.
It really, really would not.
Want more studies do you?
Jesus, mate, the only study you have produced to date was so rigorous, it was about apple trees and written by someone who thinks apple trees have a 20 year life span. Your latest link is very light on everything, but especially so on the *agricultural* pay off.
I do actually know what I am talking about. I manage 11 acres of pasture for (mainly) horses, and I shell out £1,000s every few years to dress them with what's called calcified seaweed and is nothing of the sort, it is basically marine rock dust. My neighbours manage pasture for sheep and cattle and haymaking and apply industrial NPK every year. One of us gets twice the yield of the other. Have a guess which way round?
Apple trees do have a roughly 20-25 year life span as a commercial crop.
I know that. The article in question claimed they were dying of old age (NOT seeing a decline in yield) in their late teens.
Ah, well, that's obviously bollocks.
That whole rock dust thing seemed wrong to me, though. Basalt I assume?
Still, considering what gets added as 'land improver' round here, it couldn't be much worse.
I’m sceptical the market thinks what that tweet says it thinks.
The BoE base rate is highly unlikely to be so volatile. However, I do suspect IR’s are going to overshoot current expectations.
Related question to any economists - I’ve never quite understood the precise relationship between the BoE base rate and the government gilt rates. Is the gilt rate a prediction of the base rate over the period of the bond? Or is it more complicated than that?
Amongst all the posh sods speaking at the funeral, Liz Truss accent stood out - and I liked it. She’s Yorkshire alright. It’s good that common uneducated people with an accent can get right up the greasy pole in politics, it gives me hope.
What the fuck is this? Jizzy Lizzy has a PPE from Oxford and is a Chartered Accountant. How is that 'uneducated'?
Irony? LizT makes great play of having been educated at Dotheboys Hall.
One comment I read after one of her more rubbish speeches - if her Comprehensive managed to get her into Oxford it must have been a lot better than she is making out.
Or her father pulled strings, of course.
But from what I know, which may be completely wrong, it's probably the former.
That in itself raises questions about her integrity, but equally Harold Wilson played the same card most days and he was quite successful.
I went to a secondary school that dropped from seven classes in year 7 to six classes by year 10, because so many kids had been permanently excluded for violence. There would be fights in the corridor to determine who would get to sit next to me in class tests, and poke me with a compass so that I showed my answers.
I still made it to Cambridge, mostly because my Dad had gone to Cambridge, and his Dad was a graduate, and so there was an expectation at home that I would do well at school and go to university. When you told my Dad that you scored 98% on a test he'd want to know how you managed to drop 2%.
I know nothing about the school Liz Truss went to, but it's not implausible to me that she ended up at Oxford on her merits, and despite her school, and without any inappropriate influence.
It would be interesting to know whether the school you went to has improved as a consequence of the inspection regime now in place… what is the name of the school, so I can look it up?
If it's like the dump schools round here - it will be on it's 3rd name, it's 6/10th head and it's 5th Trust, having destroyed 3 of them
Interesting, may I ask where you are?
Darlington - now I did exaggerate very slightly there I think it's the 4th trust and the current head is an acting one but the rest is true.
What's more entertaining is that if you move to the big new build estates you get a choice of 1 secondary school - care to guess which one...
Longfield? Or Wyvern?
Wyvern - Longfield used to be the leader of the local Trust with Wyvern / Branksome / DSMS under it (I can't remember under which name) but Wyvern quickly managed to blow the whole trust up....
Reading some of the history, it does look a complete mess and underlines the weaknesses in school governance; in particular, the arrangements to support struggling schools. The parallel systems of local authority education departments and regional schools commissioners really doesn’t work in my experience. The whole system is underfunded and has fallen into a pattern of dealing with school failure rather than identifying and fixing underperforming schools before they fail. It is farcical that schools have to end up in special measures before they get serious attention… even more farcical that a failing school then has to be pimped around academy trusts to find one that’ll take it on (at the risk of overstretching its own management bandwidth).
Under Labour you saw a GP within 2 days. The NHS waiting times were the shortest in history. The NHS had the largest funding it has ever had as a share of GDP (actually inline with the EU for once). There was a guarantee for cancer treatment.
The Tories are arsonists. You don't get an arsonist to put out the fire they created.
Under Labour the GP receptionist said "sorry all our appointments are full, call back tomorrow at 8am" so you wouldn't be logged into the figures and people gave up on calling GPs.
Though considering you were OK with lockdown, and cancelling cancer etc treatments in order to prioritise Covid instead, any remarks you make now I'll take with a pinch of salt.
The suppression of an enquiry into Mid Staffs and the 10 billion quid IT bodge were other highlights of Labours mismanagement of the NHS, and the filthy conditions of hospitals. Who can forget Brown needing to promise a 'deep clean' because of the shit everywhere?
Are you seriously suggesting that the NHS is in better shape now than it was at the end of the Labour party's governance?
Comments
https://www.hl.co.uk/investment-services/active-savings/latest-rates-and-products
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/18330/russia-funding-environmental-groups
Truss has achieved the remarkable feat of making Sir Keir look charismatic and Boris look sensible.
Mining is the largest cause of human-created earthquakes across the planet, but mining is still legally permissible. Standards should be followed for fracking along the lines of mining and other comparable developments.
Bans on fracking and bans on onshore wind etc both need lifting. Its not either/or, its both. We should not be banning things, we should have standards then allow anything that meets those standards.
*Reveals she waited 9 hours in A&E this summer, then gave up
*Next day went to hospital '3 miles away' and was seen swiftly.
@wesstreeting: govt saying "get on your bike" for healthcare
https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1572926944324231171
Of course, fields run out, so you need new fields… except we’re going to have to reduce demand so much that, at some point, we stop needing new fields.
LAB: 40% (-4)
CON: 30% (-)
LDEM: 13% (+3)
GRN: 8% (-)
via @IpsosUK, 07 - 15 Sep
https://sotn.newstatesman.com/2022/09/britainpredicts
"I never realised fracking would prove quite so truss with the electorate."
"Remember that jeweller, Ratner? He used to be the classic example of someone trussing a brand."
It's barely worth me engaging with the logical fallacies of your last point. Just because something can have multiple causes doesn't mean something isn't a major contributor.
But if processes, research or technology improves to enable it to meet your new, higher standards then once those standards are met its neither banned de facto nor de jure. Whereas if its banned, then no effort is put in to meet potentially higher standards.
As for my second point, the decline in fertility rates happened in the 70s. Tuition fees came in 30 years later.
Coffee is either very stupid or very insensitive. I would go for both.
It takes Mrs Eek 1 hr to drive to the office and the hospital is 5 minutes drive in the opposite direction...
Newcastle and Gateshead are the same city anyway – i.e. Newcastle – the idea they are somehow separate is completely ludicrous.
Set standards, and then allow competition to meet the standards that are set. Banning things, even if they meet standards, is just nonsensical prohibition.
Now our health spending appears to on a par with many developed nations, voters can see this isn't about money.
Way that works here is if you injure yourself in working hours you go to the local 12 bed hospital. If it requires more than aspirin they write a letter to A&E at the proper hospital in Plymouth saying Blimee this bloke is fucked, way above our pay grade, please advise, and the letter gets you to the head of the A&E queue.
Gateshead and Sunderland are (rightly) scared that were such a thing to be recreated they would end up being 2nd / 4th class citizens with all the investment / money going to Newcastle
This isn’t surprising, when you consider the payments made to campaigns against LNG ports in Europe etc.
My own daydream is two terms of Starmer, nice and competent in the first term to build credibility, a bit more radical reform in the second to address some of the structural problems and then Streeting in place in time for a third Labour victory, followed by a Lib-Lab Coalition (with the third placed Conservative Independence Party forming the opposition) elected in the face of growing Lib-Dem support on the back of a groundswell of pro-EU feeling. Towards the end of their tenure, PM Streeting and Chancellor Moran announce an STV referendum on PR, with the next election to be fought under the outcome of that referendum, in 2042.
Bit like the example I mentioned the other day with respect to coal - dump trucks the size of houses being filled in an open cast mine from a seam a hundred feet thick vs a deep mine with a seam two foot thick
Probably lots of similar examples nationwide.
The easiest practical way to do it, is going to be to have one person for every couple of dozen hospitals, ring around each one every hour and update a database that feeds the dashboard. The dashboard itself would need to be able to highlight out-of-date information though, otherwise the whole exercise could be worse than pointless.
Edit: I wonder if there’s already something of a demand-management system for ambulance services, to send them to the most appropriate facility at times of long queues?
I meant that we should not be banning things [in totality regardless of standards] but instead ban [not allow] only things that fail to reach standards, yes, I thought that was obvious by the statement of allowing that which meets standards tends to mean as read disallowing that which fails to meet standards.
The difference is the difference between saying "produce should be fresh and in date" and saying "apples are banned, bananas are OK".
If fracking can meet the standards set, it should be allowed. If it can't, then fracking isn't banned, its simply failing to reach the standards, in which case any potential fracker needs to work on achieving standards set - but those standards should be comparable to standards for mining and other alternatives.
Keep it up.
Presumably Barty is therefore happy with that ban?
Looks like a fairly consistent 4.8 with an error in Sept/Oct 2023 to me.
I think the Bank of England cutting base rates by 225 basis points in September 2023 and then increasing them by 450 basis points in October 2023 is somewhat unlikely. A 225 error in your figures for September 2023 rolling into October 2023 looks a bit more probable.
Under Labour you saw a GP within 2 days. The NHS waiting times were the shortest in history. The NHS had the largest funding it has ever had as a share of GDP (actually inline with the EU for once). There was a guarantee for cancer treatment.
The Tories are arsonists. You don't get an arsonist to put out the fire they created.
I do actually know what I am talking about. I manage 11 acres of pasture for (mainly) horses, and I shell out £1,000s every few years to dress them with what's called calcified seaweed and is nothing of the sort, it is basically marine rock dust. My neighbours manage pasture for sheep and cattle and haymaking and apply industrial NPK every year. One of us gets twice the yield of the other. Have a guess which way round?
Though considering you were OK with lockdown, and cancelling cancer etc treatments in order to prioritise Covid instead, any remarks you make now I'll take with a pinch of salt.
The guarantee would have only meant anything if it was 48hours from your first phone call any time of day and the GPs were banned from rejecting appointments. They never were. All the guarantee did was abolish the ability to schedule appointments easier and enforce a mad dash to be first to call at 8am whether that time suited you or not.
Only a matter of time until one of them tries an Aum Shinrikyo move.
As I'd have thought was obvious, the increases in crop yields to which I refer are all other things being equal, not removing nitrogen fertilisers and substituting with rock dust.
And, of course, correlation/causation caveats do not apply. Government is responsible for the NHS. This is the public's direct feedback on what they think of its stewardship. ~AA https://twitter.com/AdamBienkov/status/1572932799593648129
Do you get anything right?
That whole rock dust thing seemed wrong to me, though. Basalt I assume?
Still, considering what gets added as 'land improver' round here, it couldn't be much worse.
The BoE base rate is highly unlikely to be so volatile. However, I do suspect IR’s are going to overshoot current expectations.
Related question to any economists - I’ve never quite understood the precise relationship between the BoE base rate and the government gilt rates. Is the gilt rate a prediction of the base rate over the period of the bond? Or is it more complicated than that?