Meet the Top Tory who wants asylum seekers to F-Off – politicalbetting.com

System

Meet the Top Tory who wants asylum seekers to F-Off – politicalbetting.com

Lee Anderson who only became an MP at GE2019 has risen fast up the ranks and is now deputy chairman of the Tory party. A former coal-miner he was previously a Labour Councillor.

Read the full story here

Taz

First !!

Unlike Lee Anderson in Ashfield in the next GE.

Taz

The Welsh Govt are in a tough financial position.

Of course it's never their fault, always someone else's

Mr Drakeford has blamed the budgetary constraints on "record levels of inflation" and the "mismanagement of the UK economy and public finances by successive UK governments".

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/welsh-government-facing-toughest-financial-situation-since-devolution/ar-AA1eZS86?ocid=entnewsntp&cvid=268175b700ad42118f3308d85038909f&ei=14

Mortimer

FPT:

AlistairM said:

TOPPING said:

AlistairM said:

pm215 said:

Eabhal said:

Otoh, there is actually a nascent campaign againt cycle2work, because it's regressive (it is!). But honestly, talk about idealogy over outcomes. Deeply frustrating.

I dislike c2w because as you say it's regressive -- middle class higher rate tax payers like me effectively get expensive bikes nearly half price because we have secure employment at companies who care enough about retention to offer the benefit. It smacks of an "ooh, we can do a quick faff with the tax system" wheeze rather than a thought out policy on how best to encourage cycling. But I don't want it scrapped, I'd like to see it replaced with something better. My suggestion is make cycles and cycle accessories zero rated for VAT.

Having just received my new bike via C2W I now agree with scrapping the system.

Don't you pay for it through the nose via interest payments?

For me it is the price of the bike (~£1200) split into 12 monthly payments (i.e. ~£100/month) taken off your salary before deductions. So if you are a high rate tax payer then it costs not much more than half the actual cost of the bike spread over 12 months.

FFS. Why are we subsidising this sort of thing.

Big state at its worst.

Eabhal

Mortimer said:

FPT:

AlistairM said:

TOPPING said:

AlistairM said:

pm215 said:

Eabhal said:

Otoh, there is actually a nascent campaign againt cycle2work, because it's regressive (it is!). But honestly, talk about idealogy over outcomes. Deeply frustrating.

I dislike c2w because as you say it's regressive -- middle class higher rate tax payers like me effectively get expensive bikes nearly half price because we have secure employment at companies who care enough about retention to offer the benefit. It smacks of an "ooh, we can do a quick faff with the tax system" wheeze rather than a thought out policy on how best to encourage cycling. But I don't want it scrapped, I'd like to see it replaced with something better. My suggestion is make cycles and cycle accessories zero rated for VAT.

Having just received my new bike via C2W I now agree with scrapping the system.

Don't you pay for it through the nose via interest payments?

For me it is the price of the bike (~£1200) split into 12 monthly payments (i.e. ~£100/month) taken off your salary before deductions. So if you are a high rate tax payer then it costs not much more than half the actual cost of the bike spread over 12 months.

FFS. Why are we subsidising this sort of thing.

Big state at its worst.

You'll be shocked when you hear about company cars

Taz

Mortimer said:

FPT:

AlistairM said:

TOPPING said:

AlistairM said:

pm215 said:

Eabhal said:

Otoh, there is actually a nascent campaign againt cycle2work, because it's regressive (it is!). But honestly, talk about idealogy over outcomes. Deeply frustrating.

I dislike c2w because as you say it's regressive -- middle class higher rate tax payers like me effectively get expensive bikes nearly half price because we have secure employment at companies who care enough about retention to offer the benefit. It smacks of an "ooh, we can do a quick faff with the tax system" wheeze rather than a thought out policy on how best to encourage cycling. But I don't want it scrapped, I'd like to see it replaced with something better. My suggestion is make cycles and cycle accessories zero rated for VAT.

Having just received my new bike via C2W I now agree with scrapping the system.

Don't you pay for it through the nose via interest payments?

For me it is the price of the bike (~£1200) split into 12 monthly payments (i.e. ~£100/month) taken off your salary before deductions. So if you are a high rate tax payer then it costs not much more than half the actual cost of the bike spread over 12 months.

FFS. Why are we subsidising this sort of thing.

Big state at its worst.

I got mine on the cycle to work scheme. If they are going to subsidise it I may as well benefit from it.

Irony is, although I do use mine to commute to the office, the majority of people who had them here just have them on the cheap and do not use them for work but for social cycling.

Mortimer

Eabhal said:

Mortimer said:

FPT:

AlistairM said:

TOPPING said:

AlistairM said:

pm215 said:

Eabhal said:

Otoh, there is actually a nascent campaign againt cycle2work, because it's regressive (it is!). But honestly, talk about idealogy over outcomes. Deeply frustrating.

I dislike c2w because as you say it's regressive -- middle class higher rate tax payers like me effectively get expensive bikes nearly half price because we have secure employment at companies who care enough about retention to offer the benefit. It smacks of an "ooh, we can do a quick faff with the tax system" wheeze rather than a thought out policy on how best to encourage cycling. But I don't want it scrapped, I'd like to see it replaced with something better. My suggestion is make cycles and cycle accessories zero rated for VAT.

Having just received my new bike via C2W I now agree with scrapping the system.

Don't you pay for it through the nose via interest payments?

For me it is the price of the bike (~£1200) split into 12 monthly payments (i.e. ~£100/month) taken off your salary before deductions. So if you are a high rate tax payer then it costs not much more than half the actual cost of the bike spread over 12 months.

FFS. Why are we subsidising this sort of thing.

Big state at its worst.

You'll be shocked when you hear about company cars

Another nonsense, I agree.

We should really be taxing people less and letting them make their own decisions, not carving out weird little niches that are in effect propping up certain industries.

Sandpit

I’ll keep saying it. Many voters, who aren’t paying attention to politics on a daily basis, don’t understand why irrelguar arrivals can’t be immediately put on a bus to Dover, to be sent back from whence they came on the first available ferry.

BartholomewRoberts

148grss said:

williamglenn said:

148grss said:

Sandpit said:

148grss said:

darkage said:

On the assumption that all the science is correct it seems to me that a technical solution through decarbonisation and adaptation is the most feasible answer to the problem of global warming. It is quite obvious that it is not going to be realistic to stop consumption in developing counties, if you stake all your hopes on this, accepting the massive economic hit that would be involved, then you are going to end up disappointed and you will not innovate (which is necessary to solve the problem) at the same rate.

Perhaps this position is actually a form of faith in technical progress, but there is evidence of success to justify it, ie with the improving efficiency of solar panels, the emergence of electric cars, etc. To the contrary I've seen little evidence that developing countries will slow down their growth in consumption. It seems to me that the environmental activists and their fellow travellers are right to point out the problem but by catastrophising and preaching that consumption is a sin they are actually getting in the way of the optimum solution.

That to me is what feels more like a religious belief "a new technology will save us" where we have no actual reason to believe it will, when instead we have had the means to make the necessary changes in the last 30 years and it was decided not to. If environmentalists making demands for revolution sound like religious zealots, it's partly because the last 30 years have been such monumental failures:

https://thecorrespondent.com/751/weve-emitted-more-co2-in-the-past-30-years-than-in-all-of-history-these-three-reasons-are-to-blame

The point is that there have been massive positive technological changes in the past three decades.

The religious are those who say that little or nothing has been done.

That technological change has not reduced the likelihood of climate catastrophe and has increased it. In the last 30 years we've had the incentive, we've had the knowledge and we've had the technology to massively change economies - the issue has been that the "market" (see those invested in oil) have incentives for short term profit over long term sustainability. We do not currently have viable carbon capture tech, and to assume that we will have it in time to save us sounds more akin to a faith based position than the materialist approach of just reducing our dependency on fossil fuels and reducing our consumption. I don't advocate going back to the stone age - we could have a globally average standard of living that is very good that is also not highly destructive to the environment. What you can't have is that and growth growth growth at the same time.

So in your alternative vision, 8 billion people would collectively have a higher standard of living but with lower aggregate consumption? How does that add up?

Redistribution of resources. The analogy of growth is always "you might get a smaller slice, but of a bigger pie, so you'll be richer". I'm saying we need to shrink the pie, but give more people bigger slices. That means some people will get smaller slices, yes, but most of those people already have massive slices and they'll be relatively worse off compared to their life previously, but still very well off compared to the standard of living across the whole of human history. Elon Musk or Mark Zuckerberg or Bill Gates are not people who deserve millions times more resources at their disposal than any other human being.

And that is because you are a religious zealot who doesn't give a damn about the environment.

Shrinking the pie, but keeping dirty technologies, does not help the environment, does not solve CO2 and other emissions, does not address climate change. It does nothing positive.

Having economic growth, with clean technologies, is better for the planet, better for the environment, and raises living standards.

They are not perfect individuals, far from it, but Elon Musk with the assistance he has given to push the switch to electric vehicles and Bill Gates with his Foundation have done more for the planet than anyone in Greenpeace or Just Stop Oil or any other hairshirt zealot ever has.

Sandpit

Eabhal said:

Mortimer said:

FPT:

AlistairM said:

TOPPING said:

AlistairM said:

pm215 said:

Eabhal said:

Otoh, there is actually a nascent campaign againt cycle2work, because it's regressive (it is!). But honestly, talk about idealogy over outcomes. Deeply frustrating.

I dislike c2w because as you say it's regressive -- middle class higher rate tax payers like me effectively get expensive bikes nearly half price because we have secure employment at companies who care enough about retention to offer the benefit. It smacks of an "ooh, we can do a quick faff with the tax system" wheeze rather than a thought out policy on how best to encourage cycling. But I don't want it scrapped, I'd like to see it replaced with something better. My suggestion is make cycles and cycle accessories zero rated for VAT.

Having just received my new bike via C2W I now agree with scrapping the system.

Don't you pay for it through the nose via interest payments?

For me it is the price of the bike (~£1200) split into 12 monthly payments (i.e. ~£100/month) taken off your salary before deductions. So if you are a high rate tax payer then it costs not much more than half the actual cost of the bike spread over 12 months.

FFS. Why are we subsidising this sort of thing.

Big state at its worst.

You'll be shocked when you hear about company cars

Yes, you have to pay a fortune in extra tax, just because the company needs you to be mobile as part of your job.

boulay

Sorry Mike, whilst I don’t agree with his approach, to write “ his comment that asylum seekers should just “fuck off” ” is disingenuous.

As you well know he was, in a stupid way, reacting to those who did not want to go on the Bibby Stockholm barge and was making the point that if this accommodation wasn’t to their satisfaction then they should f-off back to France.

Whether you think the barge is suitable accommodation or not, personally if I was in fear for my life and needed asylum I know I would be grateful for it, you are trying to twist what he said to appear to be him generally telling asylum seekers to F off which would be a pretty damning thing to accuse him off if true.

There is a difference with how his comments are reported, the truth and a distortion such as you are making for political capital.

williamglenn

148grss said:

williamglenn said:

148grss said:

Sandpit said:

148grss said:

darkage said:

On the assumption that all the science is correct it seems to me that a technical solution through decarbonisation and adaptation is the most feasible answer to the problem of global warming. It is quite obvious that it is not going to be realistic to stop consumption in developing counties, if you stake all your hopes on this, accepting the massive economic hit that would be involved, then you are going to end up disappointed and you will not innovate (which is necessary to solve the problem) at the same rate.

Perhaps this position is actually a form of faith in technical progress, but there is evidence of success to justify it, ie with the improving efficiency of solar panels, the emergence of electric cars, etc. To the contrary I've seen little evidence that developing countries will slow down their growth in consumption. It seems to me that the environmental activists and their fellow travellers are right to point out the problem but by catastrophising and preaching that consumption is a sin they are actually getting in the way of the optimum solution.

That to me is what feels more like a religious belief "a new technology will save us" where we have no actual reason to believe it will, when instead we have had the means to make the necessary changes in the last 30 years and it was decided not to. If environmentalists making demands for revolution sound like religious zealots, it's partly because the last 30 years have been such monumental failures:

https://thecorrespondent.com/751/weve-emitted-more-co2-in-the-past-30-years-than-in-all-of-history-these-three-reasons-are-to-blame

The point is that there have been massive positive technological changes in the past three decades.

The religious are those who say that little or nothing has been done.

That technological change has not reduced the likelihood of climate catastrophe and has increased it. In the last 30 years we've had the incentive, we've had the knowledge and we've had the technology to massively change economies - the issue has been that the "market" (see those invested in oil) have incentives for short term profit over long term sustainability. We do not currently have viable carbon capture tech, and to assume that we will have it in time to save us sounds more akin to a faith based position than the materialist approach of just reducing our dependency on fossil fuels and reducing our consumption. I don't advocate going back to the stone age - we could have a globally average standard of living that is very good that is also not highly destructive to the environment. What you can't have is that and growth growth growth at the same time.

So in your alternative vision, 8 billion people would collectively have a higher standard of living but with lower aggregate consumption? How does that add up?

Redistribution of resources. The analogy of growth is always "you might get a smaller slice, but of a bigger pie, so you'll be richer". I'm saying we need to shrink the pie, but give more people bigger slices. That means some people will get smaller slices, yes, but most of those people already have massive slices and they'll be relatively worse off compared to their life previously, but still very well off compared to the standard of living across the whole of human history. Elon Musk or Mark Zuckerberg or Bill Gates are not people who deserve millions times more resources at their disposal than any other human being.

You're violating your own materialist framework by conflating "resources at their disposal" with resources actually consumed. To take a trivial example, they're not eating a million times more food than you are.

Malmesbury

Eabhal said:

Mortimer said:

FPT:

AlistairM said:

TOPPING said:

AlistairM said:

pm215 said:

Eabhal said:

Otoh, there is actually a nascent campaign againt cycle2work, because it's regressive (it is!). But honestly, talk about idealogy over outcomes. Deeply frustrating.

I dislike c2w because as you say it's regressive -- middle class higher rate tax payers like me effectively get expensive bikes nearly half price because we have secure employment at companies who care enough about retention to offer the benefit. It smacks of an "ooh, we can do a quick faff with the tax system" wheeze rather than a thought out policy on how best to encourage cycling. But I don't want it scrapped, I'd like to see it replaced with something better. My suggestion is make cycles and cycle accessories zero rated for VAT.

Having just received my new bike via C2W I now agree with scrapping the system.

Don't you pay for it through the nose via interest payments?

For me it is the price of the bike (~£1200) split into 12 monthly payments (i.e. ~£100/month) taken off your salary before deductions. So if you are a high rate tax payer then it costs not much more than half the actual cost of the bike spread over 12 months.

FFS. Why are we subsidising this sort of thing.

Big state at its worst.

You'll be shocked when you hear about company cars

Or the electric car stuff which means that if you buy an EV through your own company, you are *encouraged* to use it for personal use.

A relative calculated that, in the end, a high end Tesla cost less via this route than a Mini.

tlg86

boulay said:

Sorry Mike, whilst I don’t agree with his approach, to write “ his comment that asylum seekers should just “fuck off” ” is disingenuous.

As you well know he was, in a stupid way, reacting to those who did not want to go on the Bibby Stockholm barge and was making the point that if this accommodation wasn’t to their satisfaction then they should f-off back to France.

Whether you think the barge is suitable accommodation or not, personally if I was in fear for my life and needed asylum I know I would be grateful for it, you are trying to twist what he said to appear to be him generally telling asylum seekers to F off which would be a pretty damning thing to accuse him off if true.

There is a difference with how his comments are reported, the truth and a distortion such as you are making for political capital.

I'd be surprised if anyone who's come across the channel in a dingy would be objecting to this accommodation. As ever, the opposition comes from the far-left who are outraged on behalf of others.

Taz

Sandpit said:

Eabhal said:

Mortimer said:

FPT:

AlistairM said:

TOPPING said:

AlistairM said:

pm215 said:

Eabhal said:

Otoh, there is actually a nascent campaign againt cycle2work, because it's regressive (it is!). But honestly, talk about idealogy over outcomes. Deeply frustrating.

I dislike c2w because as you say it's regressive -- middle class higher rate tax payers like me effectively get expensive bikes nearly half price because we have secure employment at companies who care enough about retention to offer the benefit. It smacks of an "ooh, we can do a quick faff with the tax system" wheeze rather than a thought out policy on how best to encourage cycling. But I don't want it scrapped, I'd like to see it replaced with something better. My suggestion is make cycles and cycle accessories zero rated for VAT.

Having just received my new bike via C2W I now agree with scrapping the system.

Don't you pay for it through the nose via interest payments?

For me it is the price of the bike (~£1200) split into 12 monthly payments (i.e. ~£100/month) taken off your salary before deductions. So if you are a high rate tax payer then it costs not much more than half the actual cost of the bike spread over 12 months.

FFS. Why are we subsidising this sort of thing.

Big state at its worst.

You'll be shocked when you hear about company cars

Yes, you have to pay a fortune in extra tax, just because the company needs you to be mobile as part of your job.

Company cars are no longer the perk they used to be 30 or so years ago when they were seen as some sort of status symbol.

They certainly are not massively subsidised like a cycle to "work" bike is.

nico679

More unhinged nonsense from Jenrick .

Apparently the UK is being punished for Brexit and that’s why the ECHR is being difficult .

More threats to leave the ECHR , what an absolute cesspit this government have become .

AlistairM

Sandpit said:

Eabhal said:

Mortimer said:

FPT:

AlistairM said:

TOPPING said:

AlistairM said:

pm215 said:

Eabhal said:

Otoh, there is actually a nascent campaign againt cycle2work, because it's regressive (it is!). But honestly, talk about idealogy over outcomes. Deeply frustrating.

I dislike c2w because as you say it's regressive -- middle class higher rate tax payers like me effectively get expensive bikes nearly half price because we have secure employment at companies who care enough about retention to offer the benefit. It smacks of an "ooh, we can do a quick faff with the tax system" wheeze rather than a thought out policy on how best to encourage cycling. But I don't want it scrapped, I'd like to see it replaced with something better. My suggestion is make cycles and cycle accessories zero rated for VAT.

Having just received my new bike via C2W I now agree with scrapping the system.

Don't you pay for it through the nose via interest payments?

For me it is the price of the bike (~£1200) split into 12 monthly payments (i.e. ~£100/month) taken off your salary before deductions. So if you are a high rate tax payer then it costs not much more than half the actual cost of the bike spread over 12 months.

FFS. Why are we subsidising this sort of thing.

Big state at its worst.

You'll be shocked when you hear about company cars

Yes, you have to pay a fortune in extra tax, just because the company needs you to be mobile as part of your job.

I have a company car horror story from over 10 years ago. I parked my company car in the company's own car park. There was building work going on to the company's building and there were temporary barriers near where I parked the car. Getting to the car at the end of the day I find scraping all down one side and a note left on the car apologising and giving their details.

All fine one would think. The company car insurance covered the damage to it and it was all repaired. A year later I left the company and no longer had a company car so bought my own. Discovered when it came to take out my insurance that the damage to the company car had destroyed my 15 years of no claims bonus and therefore massively increasing the cost of my insurance. Swore never to have a company car again.

TimS

boulay said:

Sorry Mike, whilst I don’t agree with his approach, to write “ his comment that asylum seekers should just “fuck off” ” is disingenuous.

As you well know he was, in a stupid way, reacting to those who did not want to go on the Bibby Stockholm barge and was making the point that if this accommodation wasn’t to their satisfaction then they should f-off back to France.

Whether you think the barge is suitable accommodation or not, personally if I was in fear for my life and needed asylum I know I would be grateful for it, you are trying to twist what he said to appear to be him generally telling asylum seekers to F off which would be a pretty damning thing to accuse him off if true.

There is a difference with how his comments are reported, the truth and a distortion such as you are making for political capital.

Some people say they don’t want to go on the barge: Lee tells them to F off back to France

Some people say the barge is fine and they are being treated well: Sun runs todays front page splash complaining of luxury conditions.

RochdalePioneers

boulay said:

Sorry Mike, whilst I don’t agree with his approach, to write “ his comment that asylum seekers should just “fuck off” ” is disingenuous.

As you well know he was, in a stupid way, reacting to those who did not want to go on the Bibby Stockholm barge and was making the point that if this accommodation wasn’t to their satisfaction then they should f-off back to France.

Whether you think the barge is suitable accommodation or not, personally if I was in fear for my life and needed asylum I know I would be grateful for it, you are trying to twist what he said to appear to be him generally telling asylum seekers to F off which would be a pretty damning thing to accuse him off if true.

There is a difference with how his comments are reported, the truth and a distortion such as you are making for political capital.

He got the policy wrong. If they refuse to get on the floating gulag then their application will be withdrawn as will any support. Leaving them free to disappear off into the black economy...

148grss

BartholomewRoberts said:

148grss said:

williamglenn said:

148grss said:

Sandpit said:

148grss said:

darkage said:

On the assumption that all the science is correct it seems to me that a technical solution through decarbonisation and adaptation is the most feasible answer to the problem of global warming. It is quite obvious that it is not going to be realistic to stop consumption in developing counties, if you stake all your hopes on this, accepting the massive economic hit that would be involved, then you are going to end up disappointed and you will not innovate (which is necessary to solve the problem) at the same rate.

Perhaps this position is actually a form of faith in technical progress, but there is evidence of success to justify it, ie with the improving efficiency of solar panels, the emergence of electric cars, etc. To the contrary I've seen little evidence that developing countries will slow down their growth in consumption. It seems to me that the environmental activists and their fellow travellers are right to point out the problem but by catastrophising and preaching that consumption is a sin they are actually getting in the way of the optimum solution.

That to me is what feels more like a religious belief "a new technology will save us" where we have no actual reason to believe it will, when instead we have had the means to make the necessary changes in the last 30 years and it was decided not to. If environmentalists making demands for revolution sound like religious zealots, it's partly because the last 30 years have been such monumental failures:

https://thecorrespondent.com/751/weve-emitted-more-co2-in-the-past-30-years-than-in-all-of-history-these-three-reasons-are-to-blame

The point is that there have been massive positive technological changes in the past three decades.

The religious are those who say that little or nothing has been done.

That technological change has not reduced the likelihood of climate catastrophe and has increased it. In the last 30 years we've had the incentive, we've had the knowledge and we've had the technology to massively change economies - the issue has been that the "market" (see those invested in oil) have incentives for short term profit over long term sustainability. We do not currently have viable carbon capture tech, and to assume that we will have it in time to save us sounds more akin to a faith based position than the materialist approach of just reducing our dependency on fossil fuels and reducing our consumption. I don't advocate going back to the stone age - we could have a globally average standard of living that is very good that is also not highly destructive to the environment. What you can't have is that and growth growth growth at the same time.

So in your alternative vision, 8 billion people would collectively have a higher standard of living but with lower aggregate consumption? How does that add up?

Redistribution of resources. The analogy of growth is always "you might get a smaller slice, but of a bigger pie, so you'll be richer". I'm saying we need to shrink the pie, but give more people bigger slices. That means some people will get smaller slices, yes, but most of those people already have massive slices and they'll be relatively worse off compared to their life previously, but still very well off compared to the standard of living across the whole of human history. Elon Musk or Mark Zuckerberg or Bill Gates are not people who deserve millions times more resources at their disposal than any other human being.

And that is because you are a religious zealot who doesn't give a damn about the environment.

Shrinking the pie, but keeping dirty technologies, does not help the environment, does not solve climate emissions, does not address climate change. It does nothing positive.

Having economic growth, with clean technologies, is better for the planet, better for the environment, and raises living standards.

They are not perfect individuals, far from it, but Elon Musk with the assistance he has given to push the switch to climate change and Bill Gates with his Foundation have done more for the planet than anyone in Greenpeace or Just Stop Oil or any other hairshirt zealot ever has.

When did I say I wanted to shrink the pie and keep dirty technologies? This is the strawman argument made about any environmental position - either we want everyone to go back to the stone age, or we're Malthusians who want to cull the population of the planet.

Elon and his rocketry work - which he is specifically doing because he doesn't want to stop extractivist economics on Earth and wishes to have a dystopian style escape to the stars for rich people only - emits a ridiculous amount of CO2. I'm not against space exploration, far from it, but we could do with sorting out our terrestrial issues first and then doing space travel, not doing space travel so we don't have to sort out our problems here.

https://www.theecoexperts.co.uk/blog/elon-musk-rocket-emitted-358-tonnes-of-co2

We will never know the full impacts of billionaires - not all of their investments are public; but even looking at the not particularly useful global footprint metric - the global average is 4.7ish tonnes of CO2; Bill Gates is closer to 7500 tonnes. And the impact of his investment in "offsetting" is unprovable, because it is waiting for future technology to arrive and then invest in - offsetting doesn't work

https://www.theecoexperts.co.uk/blog/carbon-offsetting#:~:text=Carbon offsetting doesn't work in most cases.&text=A recent example of this,Verra did not reduce emissions.

Eabhal

Mortimer said:

Eabhal said:

Mortimer said:

FPT:

AlistairM said:

TOPPING said:

AlistairM said:

pm215 said:

Eabhal said:

Otoh, there is actually a nascent campaign againt cycle2work, because it's regressive (it is!). But honestly, talk about idealogy over outcomes. Deeply frustrating.

I dislike c2w because as you say it's regressive -- middle class higher rate tax payers like me effectively get expensive bikes nearly half price because we have secure employment at companies who care enough about retention to offer the benefit. It smacks of an "ooh, we can do a quick faff with the tax system" wheeze rather than a thought out policy on how best to encourage cycling. But I don't want it scrapped, I'd like to see it replaced with something better. My suggestion is make cycles and cycle accessories zero rated for VAT.

Having just received my new bike via C2W I now agree with scrapping the system.

Don't you pay for it through the nose via interest payments?

For me it is the price of the bike (~£1200) split into 12 monthly payments (i.e. ~£100/month) taken off your salary before deductions. So if you are a high rate tax payer then it costs not much more than half the actual cost of the bike spread over 12 months.

FFS. Why are we subsidising this sort of thing.

Big state at its worst.

You'll be shocked when you hear about company cars

Another nonsense, I agree.

We should really be taxing people less and letting them make their own decisions, not carving out weird little niches that are in effect propping up certain industries.

C2W is silly anyway - you should be targeting people on lower wages and with fewer transport options, rather than rich car owning office workers.

It is a highly effective nudge though, a major reason why I got my bike in the first place.

RochdalePioneers

Taz said:

Sandpit said:

Eabhal said:

Mortimer said:

FPT:

AlistairM said:

TOPPING said:

AlistairM said:

pm215 said:

Eabhal said:

Otoh, there is actually a nascent campaign againt cycle2work, because it's regressive (it is!). But honestly, talk about idealogy over outcomes. Deeply frustrating.

I dislike c2w because as you say it's regressive -- middle class higher rate tax payers like me effectively get expensive bikes nearly half price because we have secure employment at companies who care enough about retention to offer the benefit. It smacks of an "ooh, we can do a quick faff with the tax system" wheeze rather than a thought out policy on how best to encourage cycling. But I don't want it scrapped, I'd like to see it replaced with something better. My suggestion is make cycles and cycle accessories zero rated for VAT.

Having just received my new bike via C2W I now agree with scrapping the system.

Don't you pay for it through the nose via interest payments?

For me it is the price of the bike (~£1200) split into 12 monthly payments (i.e. ~£100/month) taken off your salary before deductions. So if you are a high rate tax payer then it costs not much more than half the actual cost of the bike spread over 12 months.

FFS. Why are we subsidising this sort of thing.

Big state at its worst.

You'll be shocked when you hear about company cars

Yes, you have to pay a fortune in extra tax, just because the company needs you to be mobile as part of your job.

Company cars are no longer the perk they used to be 30 or so years ago when they were seen as some sort of status symbol.

They certainly are not massively subsidised like a cycle to "work" bike is.

Mine is. A £10k tax saving buying it through my company.

SirNorfolkPassmore

Mortimer said:

FPT:

AlistairM said:

TOPPING said:

AlistairM said:

pm215 said:

Eabhal said:

Otoh, there is actually a nascent campaign againt cycle2work, because it's regressive (it is!). But honestly, talk about idealogy over outcomes. Deeply frustrating.

I dislike c2w because as you say it's regressive -- middle class higher rate tax payers like me effectively get expensive bikes nearly half price because we have secure employment at companies who care enough about retention to offer the benefit. It smacks of an "ooh, we can do a quick faff with the tax system" wheeze rather than a thought out policy on how best to encourage cycling. But I don't want it scrapped, I'd like to see it replaced with something better. My suggestion is make cycles and cycle accessories zero rated for VAT.

Having just received my new bike via C2W I now agree with scrapping the system.

Don't you pay for it through the nose via interest payments?

For me it is the price of the bike (~£1200) split into 12 monthly payments (i.e. ~£100/month) taken off your salary before deductions. So if you are a high rate tax payer then it costs not much more than half the actual cost of the bike spread over 12 months.

FFS. Why are we subsidising this sort of thing.

Big state at its worst.

A subsidy and a tax break are rather different things economically, particularly if you are a free marketeer.

As soon as you tax something, you prevent mutually beneficial transactions from happening - I was willing to buy what you were selling for up to £20, you were willing to sell for at least £19 but, because the taxman wants £2, the deal that would have benefited us both can't happen (and the taxman gets nothing either).

Subsidies have the opposite problem - if I'm willing to buy for£19 and you to sell for at least £20, the deal is not mutually beneficial and should not happen, but if a £2 subsidy is provided then it will. The free marketeer is upset and money has been wasted on facilitating a trade benefiting nobody.

A tax break is not a subsidy - indeed it gets closer to the ideal situation for the free market believer. That doesn't mean all tax breaks are good as the pragmatic free marketeer understands that you do need to fund education and defence. But you're just wrong to call it a subsidy.

BartholomewRoberts

148grss said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

148grss said:

williamglenn said:

148grss said:

Sandpit said:

148grss said:

darkage said:

On the assumption that all the science is correct it seems to me that a technical solution through decarbonisation and adaptation is the most feasible answer to the problem of global warming. It is quite obvious that it is not going to be realistic to stop consumption in developing counties, if you stake all your hopes on this, accepting the massive economic hit that would be involved, then you are going to end up disappointed and you will not innovate (which is necessary to solve the problem) at the same rate.

Perhaps this position is actually a form of faith in technical progress, but there is evidence of success to justify it, ie with the improving efficiency of solar panels, the emergence of electric cars, etc. To the contrary I've seen little evidence that developing countries will slow down their growth in consumption. It seems to me that the environmental activists and their fellow travellers are right to point out the problem but by catastrophising and preaching that consumption is a sin they are actually getting in the way of the optimum solution.

That to me is what feels more like a religious belief "a new technology will save us" where we have no actual reason to believe it will, when instead we have had the means to make the necessary changes in the last 30 years and it was decided not to. If environmentalists making demands for revolution sound like religious zealots, it's partly because the last 30 years have been such monumental failures:

https://thecorrespondent.com/751/weve-emitted-more-co2-in-the-past-30-years-than-in-all-of-history-these-three-reasons-are-to-blame

The point is that there have been massive positive technological changes in the past three decades.

The religious are those who say that little or nothing has been done.

That technological change has not reduced the likelihood of climate catastrophe and has increased it. In the last 30 years we've had the incentive, we've had the knowledge and we've had the technology to massively change economies - the issue has been that the "market" (see those invested in oil) have incentives for short term profit over long term sustainability. We do not currently have viable carbon capture tech, and to assume that we will have it in time to save us sounds more akin to a faith based position than the materialist approach of just reducing our dependency on fossil fuels and reducing our consumption. I don't advocate going back to the stone age - we could have a globally average standard of living that is very good that is also not highly destructive to the environment. What you can't have is that and growth growth growth at the same time.

So in your alternative vision, 8 billion people would collectively have a higher standard of living but with lower aggregate consumption? How does that add up?

Redistribution of resources. The analogy of growth is always "you might get a smaller slice, but of a bigger pie, so you'll be richer". I'm saying we need to shrink the pie, but give more people bigger slices. That means some people will get smaller slices, yes, but most of those people already have massive slices and they'll be relatively worse off compared to their life previously, but still very well off compared to the standard of living across the whole of human history. Elon Musk or Mark Zuckerberg or Bill Gates are not people who deserve millions times more resources at their disposal than any other human being.

And that is because you are a religious zealot who doesn't give a damn about the environment.

Shrinking the pie, but keeping dirty technologies, does not help the environment, does not solve climate emissions, does not address climate change. It does nothing positive.

Having economic growth, with clean technologies, is better for the planet, better for the environment, and raises living standards.

They are not perfect individuals, far from it, but Elon Musk with the assistance he has given to push the switch to climate change and Bill Gates with his Foundation have done more for the planet than anyone in Greenpeace or Just Stop Oil or any other hairshirt zealot ever has.

When did I say I wanted to shrink the pie and keep dirty technologies? This is the strawman argument made about any environmental position - either we want everyone to go back to the stone age, or we're Malthusians who want to cull the population of the planet.

Elon and his rocketry work - which he is specifically doing because he doesn't want to stop extractivist economics on Earth and wishes to have a dystopian style escape to the stars for rich people only - emits a ridiculous amount of CO2. I'm not against space exploration, far from it, but we could do with sorting out our terrestrial issues first and then doing space travel, not doing space travel so we don't have to sort out our problems here.

https://www.theecoexperts.co.uk/blog/elon-musk-rocket-emitted-358-tonnes-of-co2

We will never know the full impacts of billionaires - not all of their investments are public; but even looking at the not particularly useful global footprint metric - the global average is 4.7ish tonnes of CO2; Bill Gates is closer to 7500 tonnes. And the impact of his investment in "offsetting" is unprovable, because it is waiting for future technology to arrive and then invest in - offsetting doesn't work

https://www.theecoexperts.co.uk/blog/carbon-offsetting#:~:text=Carbon offsetting doesn't work in most cases.&text=A recent example of this,Verra did not reduce emissions.

You did, you said that. You're the one who denounced R&D and investment and said that clean technologies are not the solution.

You're a hypocrite who doesn't give a damn about the environment. If clean technologies come about through R&D (and they have been at a seriously impressive rate for decades now) then there is no environmental reason whatsoever for anyone to reduce their consumption.

If clean technologies can't come about, then we're f***ed either way.

The only valid solution is technological. And that means the role the state has to play is in encouraging that and ensuring there is a profit motive to be clean.

148grss

williamglenn said:

148grss said:

williamglenn said:

148grss said:

Sandpit said:

148grss said:

darkage said:

On the assumption that all the science is correct it seems to me that a technical solution through decarbonisation and adaptation is the most feasible answer to the problem of global warming. It is quite obvious that it is not going to be realistic to stop consumption in developing counties, if you stake all your hopes on this, accepting the massive economic hit that would be involved, then you are going to end up disappointed and you will not innovate (which is necessary to solve the problem) at the same rate.

Perhaps this position is actually a form of faith in technical progress, but there is evidence of success to justify it, ie with the improving efficiency of solar panels, the emergence of electric cars, etc. To the contrary I've seen little evidence that developing countries will slow down their growth in consumption. It seems to me that the environmental activists and their fellow travellers are right to point out the problem but by catastrophising and preaching that consumption is a sin they are actually getting in the way of the optimum solution.

That to me is what feels more like a religious belief "a new technology will save us" where we have no actual reason to believe it will, when instead we have had the means to make the necessary changes in the last 30 years and it was decided not to. If environmentalists making demands for revolution sound like religious zealots, it's partly because the last 30 years have been such monumental failures:

https://thecorrespondent.com/751/weve-emitted-more-co2-in-the-past-30-years-than-in-all-of-history-these-three-reasons-are-to-blame

The point is that there have been massive positive technological changes in the past three decades.

The religious are those who say that little or nothing has been done.

That technological change has not reduced the likelihood of climate catastrophe and has increased it. In the last 30 years we've had the incentive, we've had the knowledge and we've had the technology to massively change economies - the issue has been that the "market" (see those invested in oil) have incentives for short term profit over long term sustainability. We do not currently have viable carbon capture tech, and to assume that we will have it in time to save us sounds more akin to a faith based position than the materialist approach of just reducing our dependency on fossil fuels and reducing our consumption. I don't advocate going back to the stone age - we could have a globally average standard of living that is very good that is also not highly destructive to the environment. What you can't have is that and growth growth growth at the same time.

So in your alternative vision, 8 billion people would collectively have a higher standard of living but with lower aggregate consumption? How does that add up?

Redistribution of resources. The analogy of growth is always "you might get a smaller slice, but of a bigger pie, so you'll be richer". I'm saying we need to shrink the pie, but give more people bigger slices. That means some people will get smaller slices, yes, but most of those people already have massive slices and they'll be relatively worse off compared to their life previously, but still very well off compared to the standard of living across the whole of human history. Elon Musk or Mark Zuckerberg or Bill Gates are not people who deserve millions times more resources at their disposal than any other human being.

You're violating your own materialist framework by conflating "resources at their disposal" with resources actually consumed. To take a trivial example, they're not eating a million times more food than you are.

Sure, but the resource intensity of the food eaten will require resources and labour power is going to be massively higher than a rice farmer in China, for example. I'm not saying it will lead to a million times more food, but it will lead to that resource potentially being used for a million times the people.

We all know the philosophical scenario of the doctor with 6 patients: 5 are going to die and one will live, but he could harvest the organs from the 1 to save the 5. This is deemed by most people to not be okay, because the person needs to consent to such a thing, bodily autonomy is important, etc. etc.

But bank accounts and investments are not organs. So is it immoral to make 1 man have an average household income to save the lives of 5 other people? Not killed, not impoverished, just average? What about 500 people? Or 5 million?

Musk spent $44billion to buy twitter - because he is an idiot. No two ways about it; he didn't want to buy it, it was a publicity stunt, he is driving twitter into the ground. Is it an inalienable right to be able to leverage world transforming money? (3 times the amount of military aid the US had given to Ukraine at the time of purchase). I don't think so.

148grss

BartholomewRoberts said:

148grss said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

148grss said:

williamglenn said:

148grss said:

Sandpit said:

148grss said:

darkage said:

On the assumption that all the science is correct it seems to me that a technical solution through decarbonisation and adaptation is the most feasible answer to the problem of global warming. It is quite obvious that it is not going to be realistic to stop consumption in developing counties, if you stake all your hopes on this, accepting the massive economic hit that would be involved, then you are going to end up disappointed and you will not innovate (which is necessary to solve the problem) at the same rate.

Perhaps this position is actually a form of faith in technical progress, but there is evidence of success to justify it, ie with the improving efficiency of solar panels, the emergence of electric cars, etc. To the contrary I've seen little evidence that developing countries will slow down their growth in consumption. It seems to me that the environmental activists and their fellow travellers are right to point out the problem but by catastrophising and preaching that consumption is a sin they are actually getting in the way of the optimum solution.

That to me is what feels more like a religious belief "a new technology will save us" where we have no actual reason to believe it will, when instead we have had the means to make the necessary changes in the last 30 years and it was decided not to. If environmentalists making demands for revolution sound like religious zealots, it's partly because the last 30 years have been such monumental failures:

https://thecorrespondent.com/751/weve-emitted-more-co2-in-the-past-30-years-than-in-all-of-history-these-three-reasons-are-to-blame

The point is that there have been massive positive technological changes in the past three decades.

The religious are those who say that little or nothing has been done.

That technological change has not reduced the likelihood of climate catastrophe and has increased it. In the last 30 years we've had the incentive, we've had the knowledge and we've had the technology to massively change economies - the issue has been that the "market" (see those invested in oil) have incentives for short term profit over long term sustainability. We do not currently have viable carbon capture tech, and to assume that we will have it in time to save us sounds more akin to a faith based position than the materialist approach of just reducing our dependency on fossil fuels and reducing our consumption. I don't advocate going back to the stone age - we could have a globally average standard of living that is very good that is also not highly destructive to the environment. What you can't have is that and growth growth growth at the same time.

So in your alternative vision, 8 billion people would collectively have a higher standard of living but with lower aggregate consumption? How does that add up?

Redistribution of resources. The analogy of growth is always "you might get a smaller slice, but of a bigger pie, so you'll be richer". I'm saying we need to shrink the pie, but give more people bigger slices. That means some people will get smaller slices, yes, but most of those people already have massive slices and they'll be relatively worse off compared to their life previously, but still very well off compared to the standard of living across the whole of human history. Elon Musk or Mark Zuckerberg or Bill Gates are not people who deserve millions times more resources at their disposal than any other human being.

And that is because you are a religious zealot who doesn't give a damn about the environment.

Shrinking the pie, but keeping dirty technologies, does not help the environment, does not solve climate emissions, does not address climate change. It does nothing positive.

Having economic growth, with clean technologies, is better for the planet, better for the environment, and raises living standards.

They are not perfect individuals, far from it, but Elon Musk with the assistance he has given to push the switch to climate change and Bill Gates with his Foundation have done more for the planet than anyone in Greenpeace or Just Stop Oil or any other hairshirt zealot ever has.

When did I say I wanted to shrink the pie and keep dirty technologies? This is the strawman argument made about any environmental position - either we want everyone to go back to the stone age, or we're Malthusians who want to cull the population of the planet.

Elon and his rocketry work - which he is specifically doing because he doesn't want to stop extractivist economics on Earth and wishes to have a dystopian style escape to the stars for rich people only - emits a ridiculous amount of CO2. I'm not against space exploration, far from it, but we could do with sorting out our terrestrial issues first and then doing space travel, not doing space travel so we don't have to sort out our problems here.

https://www.theecoexperts.co.uk/blog/elon-musk-rocket-emitted-358-tonnes-of-co2

We will never know the full impacts of billionaires - not all of their investments are public; but even looking at the not particularly useful global footprint metric - the global average is 4.7ish tonnes of CO2; Bill Gates is closer to 7500 tonnes. And the impact of his investment in "offsetting" is unprovable, because it is waiting for future technology to arrive and then invest in - offsetting doesn't work

https://www.theecoexperts.co.uk/blog/carbon-offsetting#:~:text=Carbon offsetting doesn't work in most cases.&text=A recent example of this,Verra did not reduce emissions.

You did, you said that. You're the one who denounced R&D and investment and said that clean technologies are not the solution.

You're a hypocrite who doesn't give a damn about the environment. If clean technologies come about through R&D (and they have been at a seriously impressive rate for decades now) then there is no environmental reason whatsoever for anyone to reduce their consumption.

If clean technologies can't come about, then we're f***ed either way.

The only valid solution is technological. And that means the role the state has to play is in encouraging that and ensuring there is a profit motive to be clean.

I said we have no current evidence that a new technology will save us, yes. We have the current technologies to reach carbon neutrality, we just choose not to make the societal and economic changes to make that a viable world - one that would require some shrinkage and redistribution of resources. Carbon capture is the silver bullet because it lets us keep putting carbon in the atmosphere, dealing with the effects of our economic choices whilst allowing us to keep making them. We could choose to make different choices now. As someone looking at the standard of tech now - where carbon capture does not currently work - I'd rather invest in the solution we have that we know could work versus hoping for the technology we haven't been able to make work to work in time.

williamglenn

148grss said:

williamglenn said:

148grss said:

williamglenn said:

148grss said:

Sandpit said:

148grss said:

darkage said:

On the assumption that all the science is correct it seems to me that a technical solution through decarbonisation and adaptation is the most feasible answer to the problem of global warming. It is quite obvious that it is not going to be realistic to stop consumption in developing counties, if you stake all your hopes on this, accepting the massive economic hit that would be involved, then you are going to end up disappointed and you will not innovate (which is necessary to solve the problem) at the same rate.

Perhaps this position is actually a form of faith in technical progress, but there is evidence of success to justify it, ie with the improving efficiency of solar panels, the emergence of electric cars, etc. To the contrary I've seen little evidence that developing countries will slow down their growth in consumption. It seems to me that the environmental activists and their fellow travellers are right to point out the problem but by catastrophising and preaching that consumption is a sin they are actually getting in the way of the optimum solution.

That to me is what feels more like a religious belief "a new technology will save us" where we have no actual reason to believe it will, when instead we have had the means to make the necessary changes in the last 30 years and it was decided not to. If environmentalists making demands for revolution sound like religious zealots, it's partly because the last 30 years have been such monumental failures:

https://thecorrespondent.com/751/weve-emitted-more-co2-in-the-past-30-years-than-in-all-of-history-these-three-reasons-are-to-blame

The point is that there have been massive positive technological changes in the past three decades.

The religious are those who say that little or nothing has been done.

That technological change has not reduced the likelihood of climate catastrophe and has increased it. In the last 30 years we've had the incentive, we've had the knowledge and we've had the technology to massively change economies - the issue has been that the "market" (see those invested in oil) have incentives for short term profit over long term sustainability. We do not currently have viable carbon capture tech, and to assume that we will have it in time to save us sounds more akin to a faith based position than the materialist approach of just reducing our dependency on fossil fuels and reducing our consumption. I don't advocate going back to the stone age - we could have a globally average standard of living that is very good that is also not highly destructive to the environment. What you can't have is that and growth growth growth at the same time.

So in your alternative vision, 8 billion people would collectively have a higher standard of living but with lower aggregate consumption? How does that add up?

Redistribution of resources. The analogy of growth is always "you might get a smaller slice, but of a bigger pie, so you'll be richer". I'm saying we need to shrink the pie, but give more people bigger slices. That means some people will get smaller slices, yes, but most of those people already have massive slices and they'll be relatively worse off compared to their life previously, but still very well off compared to the standard of living across the whole of human history. Elon Musk or Mark Zuckerberg or Bill Gates are not people who deserve millions times more resources at their disposal than any other human being.

You're violating your own materialist framework by conflating "resources at their disposal" with resources actually consumed. To take a trivial example, they're not eating a million times more food than you are.

Sure, but the resource intensity of the food eaten will require resources and labour power is going to be massively higher than a rice farmer in China, for example. I'm not saying it will lead to a million times more food, but it will lead to that resource potentially being used for a million times the people.

We all know the philosophical scenario of the doctor with 6 patients: 5 are going to die and one will live, but he could harvest the organs from the 1 to save the 5. This is deemed by most people to not be okay, because the person needs to consent to such a thing, bodily autonomy is important, etc. etc.

But bank accounts and investments are not organs. So is it immoral to make 1 man have an average household income to save the lives of 5 other people? Not killed, not impoverished, just average? What about 500 people? Or 5 million?

Musk spent $44billion to buy twitter - because he is an idiot. No two ways about it; he didn't want to buy it, it was a publicity stunt, he is driving twitter into the ground. Is it an inalienable right to be able to leverage world transforming money? (3 times the amount of military aid the US had given to Ukraine at the time of purchase). I don't think so.

You're not a materialist at all if you regard debt-based dollars as something real and tangible.

bondegezou

I’ve been blithely posting on an old thread again… so, FPT…

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

Nigelb said:

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

Nigelb said:

tlg86 said:

I see Quentin Letts has raised a good question:

https://twitter.com/thequentinletts/status/1689206927287349248

Re Sir Chris Bryant's sporty little gambit to ban non-attending parliamentarians, where does this leave Sinn Fein MPs?

One might argue "but that's different", but I think this is why we should steer well away from this sort of thing. The moment you create exceptions, it becomes very messy.

Where's the problem ?
Suspend them for a sufficient period for a recall, and see if their constituents care enough to vote for one. We already know the answer.

It clearly demonstrates the measure isn't targeted at any individual, but rather provides a mechanism for the electorate to do something about an absentee MP, should they so wish.

I don't think even that would be necessary under Bryant's gambit.

As I understand it, his proposal is that a motion is tabled to require a particular MP to attend Parliament on a particular day. If the motion is passed by a vote of MPs and she does not attend as required, she would be in contempt of Parliament with a risk of suspension for 10+ days, triggering a recall petition.

A motion to require a Sinn Fein MP to attend on a particular day would be unlikely to pass. The reason for voting against it as an MP would be pretty straightforward - Sinn Fein MPs are elected on an explicitly abstentionist platform, so voters in their constituency (even if you disagree with them) have not been misled in any way, and requiring someone elected on a clear promise NOT to attend to break that promise is both inappropriate and incendiary.

Absolutely - but I was considering a worst case scenario where the proposed procedure was weaponised to target an MP for party political reasons.
Any such effort, without very good justification, would do far more damage to the party trying it on.

Yes. It's notable that the only failed recall petition was in Northern Ireland (for Ian Paisley Jnr of the DUP rather than Sinn Fein). I'm doubtful a recall petition would pass if it came to that, and there is no reason to think a Sinn Fein candidate would lose a subsequent by-election even if enough unionists mobilised to make it happen ("Yes, we voted for an abstentionist MP - what part of that don't you understand?")

It failed by a mere 444 signatures (0.6% of the electorate) and that was in one of the safest seats in NI, with the best possible name recognition. I don’t think the lesson from that is that recall petitions can’t pass in NI. I think the lesson is that most would pass.

bondegezou

Taz said:

The Welsh Govt are in a tough financial position.

Of course it's never their fault, always someone else's

Mr Drakeford has blamed the budgetary constraints on "record levels of inflation" and the "mismanagement of the UK economy and public finances by successive UK governments".

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/welsh-government-facing-toughest-financial-situation-since-devolution/ar-AA1eZS86?ocid=entnewsntp&cvid=268175b700ad42118f3308d85038909f&ei=14

To be fair, there are very high levels of inflation and there has been mismanagement of the UK economy and public finances by UK governments.

Fishing

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

Mortimer said:

FPT:

AlistairM said:

TOPPING said:

AlistairM said:

pm215 said:

Eabhal said:

Otoh, there is actually a nascent campaign againt cycle2work, because it's regressive (it is!). But honestly, talk about idealogy over outcomes. Deeply frustrating.

I dislike c2w because as you say it's regressive -- middle class higher rate tax payers like me effectively get expensive bikes nearly half price because we have secure employment at companies who care enough about retention to offer the benefit. It smacks of an "ooh, we can do a quick faff with the tax system" wheeze rather than a thought out policy on how best to encourage cycling. But I don't want it scrapped, I'd like to see it replaced with something better. My suggestion is make cycles and cycle accessories zero rated for VAT.

Having just received my new bike via C2W I now agree with scrapping the system.

Don't you pay for it through the nose via interest payments?

For me it is the price of the bike (~£1200) split into 12 monthly payments (i.e. ~£100/month) taken off your salary before deductions. So if you are a high rate tax payer then it costs not much more than half the actual cost of the bike spread over 12 months.

FFS. Why are we subsidising this sort of thing.

Big state at its worst.

A subsidy and a tax break are rather different things economically, particularly if you are a free marketeer.

As soon as you tax something, you prevent mutually beneficial transactions from happening - I was willing to buy what you were selling for up to £20, you were willing to sell for at least £19 but, because the taxman wants £2, the deal that would have benefited us both can't happen (and the taxman gets nothing either).

Subsidies have the opposite problem - if I'm willing to buy for£19 and you to sell for at least £20, the deal is not mutually beneficial and should not happen, but if a £2 subsidy is provided then it will. The free marketeer is upset and money has been wasted on facilitating a trade benefiting nobody.

A tax break is not a subsidy - indeed it gets closer to the ideal situation for the free market believer. That doesn't mean all tax breaks are good as the pragmatic free marketeer understands that you do need to fund education and defence. But you're just wrong to call it a subsidy.

There's a much more important, moral difference. With a tax break, you're allowing people to keep more of their own hard earned money. With a subsidy you're doling out other people's. Just as tax evasion, which is people keeping more of the money they've worked for (and which nearly everybody who can does to some extent) is morally much less reprehensible than benefit fraud, which is shirkers stealing other people's cash.

bondegezou

Sandpit said:

I’ll keep saying it. Many voters, who aren’t paying attention to politics on a daily basis, don’t understand why irrelguar arrivals can’t be immediately put on a bus to Dover, to be sent back from whence they came on the first available ferry.

And if they looked into the manner, they’d see that the proportion of cases where irregular arrivals have been sent back (albeit not immediately) has decreased considerably over the course of the last 8 years of Conservative rule.

Stuartinromford

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

Mortimer said:

FPT:

AlistairM said:

TOPPING said:

AlistairM said:

pm215 said:

Eabhal said:

Otoh, there is actually a nascent campaign againt cycle2work, because it's regressive (it is!). But honestly, talk about idealogy over outcomes. Deeply frustrating.

I dislike c2w because as you say it's regressive -- middle class higher rate tax payers like me effectively get expensive bikes nearly half price because we have secure employment at companies who care enough about retention to offer the benefit. It smacks of an "ooh, we can do a quick faff with the tax system" wheeze rather than a thought out policy on how best to encourage cycling. But I don't want it scrapped, I'd like to see it replaced with something better. My suggestion is make cycles and cycle accessories zero rated for VAT.

Having just received my new bike via C2W I now agree with scrapping the system.

Don't you pay for it through the nose via interest payments?

For me it is the price of the bike (~£1200) split into 12 monthly payments (i.e. ~£100/month) taken off your salary before deductions. So if you are a high rate tax payer then it costs not much more than half the actual cost of the bike spread over 12 months.

FFS. Why are we subsidising this sort of thing.

Big state at its worst.

A subsidy and a tax break are rather different things economically, particularly if you are a free marketeer.

As soon as you tax something, you prevent mutually beneficial transactions from happening - I was willing to buy what you were selling for up to £20, you were willing to sell for at least £19 but, because the taxman wants £2, the deal that would have benefited us both can't happen (and the taxman gets nothing either).

Subsidies have the opposite problem - if I'm willing to buy for£19 and you to sell for at least £20, the deal is not mutually beneficial and should not happen, but if a £2 subsidy is provided then it will. The free marketeer is upset and money has been wasted on facilitating a trade benefiting nobody.

A tax break is not a subsidy - indeed it gets closer to the ideal situation for the free market believer. That doesn't mean all tax breaks are good as the pragmatic free marketeer understands that you do need to fund education and defence. But you're just wrong to call it a subsidy.

Not just that.

I don't think any of us knows the overall cost:benefit calculus for the cycle to work scheme. There clearly are benefits in terms of reduced congestion and longterm health outcomes. They may be large or they may be small and they're complicated by not knowing what would happen without the tax break.

But it's at least possible that the gains for the state in subsidising people to buy bikes outweigh the costs. But a reflexive state shrinking is just as liable to get things wrong as an unthiking expansion of the state.

bondegezou

BartholomewRoberts said:

148grss said:

williamglenn said:

148grss said:

Sandpit said:

148grss said:

darkage said:

On the assumption that all the science is correct it seems to me that a technical solution through decarbonisation and adaptation is the most feasible answer to the problem of global warming. It is quite obvious that it is not going to be realistic to stop consumption in developing counties, if you stake all your hopes on this, accepting the massive economic hit that would be involved, then you are going to end up disappointed and you will not innovate (which is necessary to solve the problem) at the same rate.

Perhaps this position is actually a form of faith in technical progress, but there is evidence of success to justify it, ie with the improving efficiency of solar panels, the emergence of electric cars, etc. To the contrary I've seen little evidence that developing countries will slow down their growth in consumption. It seems to me that the environmental activists and their fellow travellers are right to point out the problem but by catastrophising and preaching that consumption is a sin they are actually getting in the way of the optimum solution.

That to me is what feels more like a religious belief "a new technology will save us" where we have no actual reason to believe it will, when instead we have had the means to make the necessary changes in the last 30 years and it was decided not to. If environmentalists making demands for revolution sound like religious zealots, it's partly because the last 30 years have been such monumental failures:

https://thecorrespondent.com/751/weve-emitted-more-co2-in-the-past-30-years-than-in-all-of-history-these-three-reasons-are-to-blame

The point is that there have been massive positive technological changes in the past three decades.

The religious are those who say that little or nothing has been done.

That technological change has not reduced the likelihood of climate catastrophe and has increased it. In the last 30 years we've had the incentive, we've had the knowledge and we've had the technology to massively change economies - the issue has been that the "market" (see those invested in oil) have incentives for short term profit over long term sustainability. We do not currently have viable carbon capture tech, and to assume that we will have it in time to save us sounds more akin to a faith based position than the materialist approach of just reducing our dependency on fossil fuels and reducing our consumption. I don't advocate going back to the stone age - we could have a globally average standard of living that is very good that is also not highly destructive to the environment. What you can't have is that and growth growth growth at the same time.

So in your alternative vision, 8 billion people would collectively have a higher standard of living but with lower aggregate consumption? How does that add up?

Redistribution of resources. The analogy of growth is always "you might get a smaller slice, but of a bigger pie, so you'll be richer". I'm saying we need to shrink the pie, but give more people bigger slices. That means some people will get smaller slices, yes, but most of those people already have massive slices and they'll be relatively worse off compared to their life previously, but still very well off compared to the standard of living across the whole of human history. Elon Musk or Mark Zuckerberg or Bill Gates are not people who deserve millions times more resources at their disposal than any other human being.

And that is because you are a religious zealot who doesn't give a damn about the environment.

Shrinking the pie, but keeping dirty technologies, does not help the environment, does not solve CO2 and other emissions, does not address climate change. It does nothing positive.

Having economic growth, with clean technologies, is better for the planet, better for the environment, and raises living standards.

They are not perfect individuals, far from it, but Elon Musk with the assistance he has given to push the switch to electric vehicles and Bill Gates with his Foundation have done more for the planet than anyone in Greenpeace or Just Stop Oil or any other hairshirt zealot ever has.

Elon Musk today is driving down CO2 production by encouraging people to switch off Twitter, so well done that man!

Of course, this argument over reduced consumption vs technological innovation as solutions to climate change is silly. We need both and both are happening.

BartholomewRoberts

148grss said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

148grss said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

148grss said:

williamglenn said:

148grss said:

Sandpit said:

148grss said:

darkage said:

On the assumption that all the science is correct it seems to me that a technical solution through decarbonisation and adaptation is the most feasible answer to the problem of global warming. It is quite obvious that it is not going to be realistic to stop consumption in developing counties, if you stake all your hopes on this, accepting the massive economic hit that would be involved, then you are going to end up disappointed and you will not innovate (which is necessary to solve the problem) at the same rate.

Perhaps this position is actually a form of faith in technical progress, but there is evidence of success to justify it, ie with the improving efficiency of solar panels, the emergence of electric cars, etc. To the contrary I've seen little evidence that developing countries will slow down their growth in consumption. It seems to me that the environmental activists and their fellow travellers are right to point out the problem but by catastrophising and preaching that consumption is a sin they are actually getting in the way of the optimum solution.

That to me is what feels more like a religious belief "a new technology will save us" where we have no actual reason to believe it will, when instead we have had the means to make the necessary changes in the last 30 years and it was decided not to. If environmentalists making demands for revolution sound like religious zealots, it's partly because the last 30 years have been such monumental failures:

https://thecorrespondent.com/751/weve-emitted-more-co2-in-the-past-30-years-than-in-all-of-history-these-three-reasons-are-to-blame

The point is that there have been massive positive technological changes in the past three decades.

The religious are those who say that little or nothing has been done.

That technological change has not reduced the likelihood of climate catastrophe and has increased it. In the last 30 years we've had the incentive, we've had the knowledge and we've had the technology to massively change economies - the issue has been that the "market" (see those invested in oil) have incentives for short term profit over long term sustainability. We do not currently have viable carbon capture tech, and to assume that we will have it in time to save us sounds more akin to a faith based position than the materialist approach of just reducing our dependency on fossil fuels and reducing our consumption. I don't advocate going back to the stone age - we could have a globally average standard of living that is very good that is also not highly destructive to the environment. What you can't have is that and growth growth growth at the same time.

So in your alternative vision, 8 billion people would collectively have a higher standard of living but with lower aggregate consumption? How does that add up?

Redistribution of resources. The analogy of growth is always "you might get a smaller slice, but of a bigger pie, so you'll be richer". I'm saying we need to shrink the pie, but give more people bigger slices. That means some people will get smaller slices, yes, but most of those people already have massive slices and they'll be relatively worse off compared to their life previously, but still very well off compared to the standard of living across the whole of human history. Elon Musk or Mark Zuckerberg or Bill Gates are not people who deserve millions times more resources at their disposal than any other human being.

And that is because you are a religious zealot who doesn't give a damn about the environment.

Shrinking the pie, but keeping dirty technologies, does not help the environment, does not solve climate emissions, does not address climate change. It does nothing positive.

Having economic growth, with clean technologies, is better for the planet, better for the environment, and raises living standards.

They are not perfect individuals, far from it, but Elon Musk with the assistance he has given to push the switch to climate change and Bill Gates with his Foundation have done more for the planet than anyone in Greenpeace or Just Stop Oil or any other hairshirt zealot ever has.

When did I say I wanted to shrink the pie and keep dirty technologies? This is the strawman argument made about any environmental position - either we want everyone to go back to the stone age, or we're Malthusians who want to cull the population of the planet.

Elon and his rocketry work - which he is specifically doing because he doesn't want to stop extractivist economics on Earth and wishes to have a dystopian style escape to the stars for rich people only - emits a ridiculous amount of CO2. I'm not against space exploration, far from it, but we could do with sorting out our terrestrial issues first and then doing space travel, not doing space travel so we don't have to sort out our problems here.

https://www.theecoexperts.co.uk/blog/elon-musk-rocket-emitted-358-tonnes-of-co2

We will never know the full impacts of billionaires - not all of their investments are public; but even looking at the not particularly useful global footprint metric - the global average is 4.7ish tonnes of CO2; Bill Gates is closer to 7500 tonnes. And the impact of his investment in "offsetting" is unprovable, because it is waiting for future technology to arrive and then invest in - offsetting doesn't work

https://www.theecoexperts.co.uk/blog/carbon-offsetting#:~:text=Carbon offsetting doesn't work in most cases.&text=A recent example of this,Verra did not reduce emissions.

You did, you said that. You're the one who denounced R&D and investment and said that clean technologies are not the solution.

You're a hypocrite who doesn't give a damn about the environment. If clean technologies come about through R&D (and they have been at a seriously impressive rate for decades now) then there is no environmental reason whatsoever for anyone to reduce their consumption.

If clean technologies can't come about, then we're f***ed either way.

The only valid solution is technological. And that means the role the state has to play is in encouraging that and ensuring there is a profit motive to be clean.

I said we have no current evidence that a new technology will save us, yes. We have the current technologies to reach carbon neutrality, we just choose not to make the societal and economic changes to make that a viable world - one that would require some shrinkage and redistribution of resources. Carbon capture is the silver bullet because it lets us keep putting carbon in the atmosphere, dealing with the effects of our economic choices whilst allowing us to keep making them. We could choose to make different choices now. As someone looking at the standard of tech now - where carbon capture does not currently work - I'd rather invest in the solution we have that we know could work versus hoping for the technology we haven't been able to make work to work in time.

"Current technology" is not even close to being sufficient to get us to reach carbon neutrality. It has reduced our emissions, but its not remotely sufficient.

That's why investments in technology, R&D are required. And companies will invest if they get a reward from that investment. Which requires a profit motive. Which means people make money - something that you seem to be against.

But just because current technology isn't enough doesn't mean future technology won't be enough. It will, and billions are going annually into much-needed R&D to get us there.

We can reach net zero, over time, with investment. Something you are against, because you don't give a damn about the environment.

148grss

williamglenn said:

148grss said:

williamglenn said:

148grss said:

williamglenn said:

148grss said:

Sandpit said:

148grss said:

darkage said:

On the assumption that all the science is correct it seems to me that a technical solution through decarbonisation and adaptation is the most feasible answer to the problem of global warming. It is quite obvious that it is not going to be realistic to stop consumption in developing counties, if you stake all your hopes on this, accepting the massive economic hit that would be involved, then you are going to end up disappointed and you will not innovate (which is necessary to solve the problem) at the same rate.

Perhaps this position is actually a form of faith in technical progress, but there is evidence of success to justify it, ie with the improving efficiency of solar panels, the emergence of electric cars, etc. To the contrary I've seen little evidence that developing countries will slow down their growth in consumption. It seems to me that the environmental activists and their fellow travellers are right to point out the problem but by catastrophising and preaching that consumption is a sin they are actually getting in the way of the optimum solution.

That to me is what feels more like a religious belief "a new technology will save us" where we have no actual reason to believe it will, when instead we have had the means to make the necessary changes in the last 30 years and it was decided not to. If environmentalists making demands for revolution sound like religious zealots, it's partly because the last 30 years have been such monumental failures:

https://thecorrespondent.com/751/weve-emitted-more-co2-in-the-past-30-years-than-in-all-of-history-these-three-reasons-are-to-blame

The point is that there have been massive positive technological changes in the past three decades.

The religious are those who say that little or nothing has been done.

That technological change has not reduced the likelihood of climate catastrophe and has increased it. In the last 30 years we've had the incentive, we've had the knowledge and we've had the technology to massively change economies - the issue has been that the "market" (see those invested in oil) have incentives for short term profit over long term sustainability. We do not currently have viable carbon capture tech, and to assume that we will have it in time to save us sounds more akin to a faith based position than the materialist approach of just reducing our dependency on fossil fuels and reducing our consumption. I don't advocate going back to the stone age - we could have a globally average standard of living that is very good that is also not highly destructive to the environment. What you can't have is that and growth growth growth at the same time.

So in your alternative vision, 8 billion people would collectively have a higher standard of living but with lower aggregate consumption? How does that add up?

Redistribution of resources. The analogy of growth is always "you might get a smaller slice, but of a bigger pie, so you'll be richer". I'm saying we need to shrink the pie, but give more people bigger slices. That means some people will get smaller slices, yes, but most of those people already have massive slices and they'll be relatively worse off compared to their life previously, but still very well off compared to the standard of living across the whole of human history. Elon Musk or Mark Zuckerberg or Bill Gates are not people who deserve millions times more resources at their disposal than any other human being.

You're violating your own materialist framework by conflating "resources at their disposal" with resources actually consumed. To take a trivial example, they're not eating a million times more food than you are.

Sure, but the resource intensity of the food eaten will require resources and labour power is going to be massively higher than a rice farmer in China, for example. I'm not saying it will lead to a million times more food, but it will lead to that resource potentially being used for a million times the people.

We all know the philosophical scenario of the doctor with 6 patients: 5 are going to die and one will live, but he could harvest the organs from the 1 to save the 5. This is deemed by most people to not be okay, because the person needs to consent to such a thing, bodily autonomy is important, etc. etc.

But bank accounts and investments are not organs. So is it immoral to make 1 man have an average household income to save the lives of 5 other people? Not killed, not impoverished, just average? What about 500 people? Or 5 million?

Musk spent $44billion to buy twitter - because he is an idiot. No two ways about it; he didn't want to buy it, it was a publicity stunt, he is driving twitter into the ground. Is it an inalienable right to be able to leverage world transforming money? (3 times the amount of military aid the US had given to Ukraine at the time of purchase). I don't think so.

You're not a materialist at all if you regard debt-based dollars as something real and tangible.

I mean if they aren't real (which I essentially accept, money is fake) when I talk about them, why are they real when it comes to economic growth? We're trying to discuss the need to move economies to a system that doesn't destroy the world, and that requires me to reference things in the economy we currently have. I'm not saying the economy we currently have is purely materialistic - but if this economy is willing to treat fake money as real for Elon buying twitter, why can't it accept fake money as real for trying to save the planet?

This is the impasse - when Bolsanaro first came on the scene every paper was crowing about how good this would be for Brazils economy, how growth would increase and how he would free the market up. And he did that. By allowing the greatest deforestation of the Amazon in 15 years. All for growth. The same seems to be the desire of our government - north sea oil extraction for that sweet GDP. But where is that going? Has that benefited the world? Will it? When we talk about making the world materially worse - money and growth are real things that are important. When we talk about what that money could otherwise have done - well money isn't real anyway.

If money is just a representation of the possibilities of labour - the ability to leverage resources - then it matters how that is spent. If money means anything else, then yes - it's pointless to discuss it.

BartholomewRoberts

bondegezou said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

148grss said:

williamglenn said:

148grss said:

Sandpit said:

148grss said:

darkage said:

On the assumption that all the science is correct it seems to me that a technical solution through decarbonisation and adaptation is the most feasible answer to the problem of global warming. It is quite obvious that it is not going to be realistic to stop consumption in developing counties, if you stake all your hopes on this, accepting the massive economic hit that would be involved, then you are going to end up disappointed and you will not innovate (which is necessary to solve the problem) at the same rate.

Perhaps this position is actually a form of faith in technical progress, but there is evidence of success to justify it, ie with the improving efficiency of solar panels, the emergence of electric cars, etc. To the contrary I've seen little evidence that developing countries will slow down their growth in consumption. It seems to me that the environmental activists and their fellow travellers are right to point out the problem but by catastrophising and preaching that consumption is a sin they are actually getting in the way of the optimum solution.

That to me is what feels more like a religious belief "a new technology will save us" where we have no actual reason to believe it will, when instead we have had the means to make the necessary changes in the last 30 years and it was decided not to. If environmentalists making demands for revolution sound like religious zealots, it's partly because the last 30 years have been such monumental failures:

https://thecorrespondent.com/751/weve-emitted-more-co2-in-the-past-30-years-than-in-all-of-history-these-three-reasons-are-to-blame

The point is that there have been massive positive technological changes in the past three decades.

The religious are those who say that little or nothing has been done.

That technological change has not reduced the likelihood of climate catastrophe and has increased it. In the last 30 years we've had the incentive, we've had the knowledge and we've had the technology to massively change economies - the issue has been that the "market" (see those invested in oil) have incentives for short term profit over long term sustainability. We do not currently have viable carbon capture tech, and to assume that we will have it in time to save us sounds more akin to a faith based position than the materialist approach of just reducing our dependency on fossil fuels and reducing our consumption. I don't advocate going back to the stone age - we could have a globally average standard of living that is very good that is also not highly destructive to the environment. What you can't have is that and growth growth growth at the same time.

So in your alternative vision, 8 billion people would collectively have a higher standard of living but with lower aggregate consumption? How does that add up?

Redistribution of resources. The analogy of growth is always "you might get a smaller slice, but of a bigger pie, so you'll be richer". I'm saying we need to shrink the pie, but give more people bigger slices. That means some people will get smaller slices, yes, but most of those people already have massive slices and they'll be relatively worse off compared to their life previously, but still very well off compared to the standard of living across the whole of human history. Elon Musk or Mark Zuckerberg or Bill Gates are not people who deserve millions times more resources at their disposal than any other human being.

And that is because you are a religious zealot who doesn't give a damn about the environment.

Shrinking the pie, but keeping dirty technologies, does not help the environment, does not solve CO2 and other emissions, does not address climate change. It does nothing positive.

Having economic growth, with clean technologies, is better for the planet, better for the environment, and raises living standards.

They are not perfect individuals, far from it, but Elon Musk with the assistance he has given to push the switch to electric vehicles and Bill Gates with his Foundation have done more for the planet than anyone in Greenpeace or Just Stop Oil or any other hairshirt zealot ever has.

Elon Musk today is driving down CO2 production by encouraging people to switch off Twitter, so well done that man!

Of course, this argument over reduced consumption vs technological innovation as solutions to climate change is silly. We need both and both are happening.

No, the only thing we need is technological innovation.

Consumption is higher than its ever been, and ought to be higher still in the future. That is a good thing.

Leon

nico679 said:

More unhinged nonsense from Jenrick .

Apparently the UK is being punished for Brexit and that’s why the ECHR is being difficult .

More threats to leave the ECHR , what an absolute cesspit this government have become .

Yes, they should follow your advice and pursue a "White Britain" policy, favouring white European migrants over the duskier types from elsewhere

FrankBooth

My understanding is that Anderson was referring to those who having come over in small boats were refusing the barge accommodation as they were scared of water. A lot of people will share the sentiment if not the language used. The barge is far better than the tents in Calais.

No doubt the Lib Dems will use this in the blue wall as they have F all else to say at the moment.

148grss

BartholomewRoberts said:

bondegezou said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

148grss said:

williamglenn said:

148grss said:

Sandpit said:

148grss said:

darkage said:

On the assumption that all the science is correct it seems to me that a technical solution through decarbonisation and adaptation is the most feasible answer to the problem of global warming. It is quite obvious that it is not going to be realistic to stop consumption in developing counties, if you stake all your hopes on this, accepting the massive economic hit that would be involved, then you are going to end up disappointed and you will not innovate (which is necessary to solve the problem) at the same rate.

Perhaps this position is actually a form of faith in technical progress, but there is evidence of success to justify it, ie with the improving efficiency of solar panels, the emergence of electric cars, etc. To the contrary I've seen little evidence that developing countries will slow down their growth in consumption. It seems to me that the environmental activists and their fellow travellers are right to point out the problem but by catastrophising and preaching that consumption is a sin they are actually getting in the way of the optimum solution.

That to me is what feels more like a religious belief "a new technology will save us" where we have no actual reason to believe it will, when instead we have had the means to make the necessary changes in the last 30 years and it was decided not to. If environmentalists making demands for revolution sound like religious zealots, it's partly because the last 30 years have been such monumental failures:

https://thecorrespondent.com/751/weve-emitted-more-co2-in-the-past-30-years-than-in-all-of-history-these-three-reasons-are-to-blame

The point is that there have been massive positive technological changes in the past three decades.

The religious are those who say that little or nothing has been done.

That technological change has not reduced the likelihood of climate catastrophe and has increased it. In the last 30 years we've had the incentive, we've had the knowledge and we've had the technology to massively change economies - the issue has been that the "market" (see those invested in oil) have incentives for short term profit over long term sustainability. We do not currently have viable carbon capture tech, and to assume that we will have it in time to save us sounds more akin to a faith based position than the materialist approach of just reducing our dependency on fossil fuels and reducing our consumption. I don't advocate going back to the stone age - we could have a globally average standard of living that is very good that is also not highly destructive to the environment. What you can't have is that and growth growth growth at the same time.

So in your alternative vision, 8 billion people would collectively have a higher standard of living but with lower aggregate consumption? How does that add up?

Redistribution of resources. The analogy of growth is always "you might get a smaller slice, but of a bigger pie, so you'll be richer". I'm saying we need to shrink the pie, but give more people bigger slices. That means some people will get smaller slices, yes, but most of those people already have massive slices and they'll be relatively worse off compared to their life previously, but still very well off compared to the standard of living across the whole of human history. Elon Musk or Mark Zuckerberg or Bill Gates are not people who deserve millions times more resources at their disposal than any other human being.

And that is because you are a religious zealot who doesn't give a damn about the environment.

Shrinking the pie, but keeping dirty technologies, does not help the environment, does not solve CO2 and other emissions, does not address climate change. It does nothing positive.

Having economic growth, with clean technologies, is better for the planet, better for the environment, and raises living standards.

They are not perfect individuals, far from it, but Elon Musk with the assistance he has given to push the switch to electric vehicles and Bill Gates with his Foundation have done more for the planet than anyone in Greenpeace or Just Stop Oil or any other hairshirt zealot ever has.

Elon Musk today is driving down CO2 production by encouraging people to switch off Twitter, so well done that man!

Of course, this argument over reduced consumption vs technological innovation as solutions to climate change is silly. We need both and both are happening.

No, the only thing we need is technological innovation.

Consumption is higher than its ever been, and ought to be higher still in the future. That is a good thing.

And apparently environmentalists are the zealots...

Why must consumption be ever rising?

kle4

Lee Anderson should be on stage with his one man parody show "The Regular Tory", he could do quite well. A kind of saltier Colbert.

Sandpit

Stuartinromford said:

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

Mortimer said:

FPT:

AlistairM said:

TOPPING said:

AlistairM said:

pm215 said:

Eabhal said:

Otoh, there is actually a nascent campaign againt cycle2work, because it's regressive (it is!). But honestly, talk about idealogy over outcomes. Deeply frustrating.

I dislike c2w because as you say it's regressive -- middle class higher rate tax payers like me effectively get expensive bikes nearly half price because we have secure employment at companies who care enough about retention to offer the benefit. It smacks of an "ooh, we can do a quick faff with the tax system" wheeze rather than a thought out policy on how best to encourage cycling. But I don't want it scrapped, I'd like to see it replaced with something better. My suggestion is make cycles and cycle accessories zero rated for VAT.

Having just received my new bike via C2W I now agree with scrapping the system.

Don't you pay for it through the nose via interest payments?

For me it is the price of the bike (~£1200) split into 12 monthly payments (i.e. ~£100/month) taken off your salary before deductions. So if you are a high rate tax payer then it costs not much more than half the actual cost of the bike spread over 12 months.

FFS. Why are we subsidising this sort of thing.

Big state at its worst.

A subsidy and a tax break are rather different things economically, particularly if you are a free marketeer.

As soon as you tax something, you prevent mutually beneficial transactions from happening - I was willing to buy what you were selling for up to £20, you were willing to sell for at least £19 but, because the taxman wants £2, the deal that would have benefited us both can't happen (and the taxman gets nothing either).

Subsidies have the opposite problem - if I'm willing to buy for£19 and you to sell for at least £20, the deal is not mutually beneficial and should not happen, but if a £2 subsidy is provided then it will. The free marketeer is upset and money has been wasted on facilitating a trade benefiting nobody.

A tax break is not a subsidy - indeed it gets closer to the ideal situation for the free market believer. That doesn't mean all tax breaks are good as the pragmatic free marketeer understands that you do need to fund education and defence. But you're just wrong to call it a subsidy.

Not just that.

I don't think any of us knows the overall cost:benefit calculus for the cycle to work scheme. There clearly are benefits in terms of reduced congestion and longterm health outcomes. They may be large or they may be small and they're complicated by not knowing what would happen without the tax break.

But it's at least possible that the gains for the state in subsidising people to buy bikes outweigh the costs. But a reflexive state shrinking is just as liable to get things wrong as an unthiking expansion of the state.

Is there any monitoring of the how the recipients of these subsidised bikes are actually using them, or are a bunch of relatively rich people getting a 40% discount on something they only use on Sundays?

SouthamObserver

nico679 said:

More unhinged nonsense from Jenrick .

Apparently the UK is being punished for Brexit and that’s why the ECHR is being difficult .

More threats to leave the ECHR , what an absolute cesspit this government have become .

The people who told us Brexit would be a rip roaring, pain free success also told us the Truss/Kwarteng budget was a triumph. Now they’re saying we should forget Net Zero and also pull out of the ECHR. Hmmmm.

logical_song

BartholomewRoberts said:

bondegezou said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

148grss said:

williamglenn said:

148grss said:

Sandpit said:

148grss said:

darkage said:

On the assumption that all the science is correct it seems to me that a technical solution through decarbonisation and adaptation is the most feasible answer to the problem of global warming. It is quite obvious that it is not going to be realistic to stop consumption in developing counties, if you stake all your hopes on this, accepting the massive economic hit that would be involved, then you are going to end up disappointed and you will not innovate (which is necessary to solve the problem) at the same rate.

Perhaps this position is actually a form of faith in technical progress, but there is evidence of success to justify it, ie with the improving efficiency of solar panels, the emergence of electric cars, etc. To the contrary I've seen little evidence that developing countries will slow down their growth in consumption. It seems to me that the environmental activists and their fellow travellers are right to point out the problem but by catastrophising and preaching that consumption is a sin they are actually getting in the way of the optimum solution.

That to me is what feels more like a religious belief "a new technology will save us" where we have no actual reason to believe it will, when instead we have had the means to make the necessary changes in the last 30 years and it was decided not to. If environmentalists making demands for revolution sound like religious zealots, it's partly because the last 30 years have been such monumental failures:

https://thecorrespondent.com/751/weve-emitted-more-co2-in-the-past-30-years-than-in-all-of-history-these-three-reasons-are-to-blame

The point is that there have been massive positive technological changes in the past three decades.

The religious are those who say that little or nothing has been done.

That technological change has not reduced the likelihood of climate catastrophe and has increased it. In the last 30 years we've had the incentive, we've had the knowledge and we've had the technology to massively change economies - the issue has been that the "market" (see those invested in oil) have incentives for short term profit over long term sustainability. We do not currently have viable carbon capture tech, and to assume that we will have it in time to save us sounds more akin to a faith based position than the materialist approach of just reducing our dependency on fossil fuels and reducing our consumption. I don't advocate going back to the stone age - we could have a globally average standard of living that is very good that is also not highly destructive to the environment. What you can't have is that and growth growth growth at the same time.

So in your alternative vision, 8 billion people would collectively have a higher standard of living but with lower aggregate consumption? How does that add up?

Redistribution of resources. The analogy of growth is always "you might get a smaller slice, but of a bigger pie, so you'll be richer". I'm saying we need to shrink the pie, but give more people bigger slices. That means some people will get smaller slices, yes, but most of those people already have massive slices and they'll be relatively worse off compared to their life previously, but still very well off compared to the standard of living across the whole of human history. Elon Musk or Mark Zuckerberg or Bill Gates are not people who deserve millions times more resources at their disposal than any other human being.

And that is because you are a religious zealot who doesn't give a damn about the environment.

Shrinking the pie, but keeping dirty technologies, does not help the environment, does not solve CO2 and other emissions, does not address climate change. It does nothing positive.

Having economic growth, with clean technologies, is better for the planet, better for the environment, and raises living standards.

They are not perfect individuals, far from it, but Elon Musk with the assistance he has given to push the switch to electric vehicles and Bill Gates with his Foundation have done more for the planet than anyone in Greenpeace or Just Stop Oil or any other hairshirt zealot ever has.

Elon Musk today is driving down CO2 production by encouraging people to switch off Twitter, so well done that man!

Of course, this argument over reduced consumption vs technological innovation as solutions to climate change is silly. We need both and both are happening.

No, the only thing we need is technological innovation.

Consumption is higher than its ever been, and ought to be higher still in the future. That is a good thing.

This is the equivalent of hoping something will turn up.
Supposing it doesn't or isn't enough or not quick enough?

kle4

bondegezou said:

I’ve been blithely posting on an old thread again… so, FPT…

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

Nigelb said:

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

Nigelb said:

tlg86 said:

I see Quentin Letts has raised a good question:

https://twitter.com/thequentinletts/status/1689206927287349248

Re Sir Chris Bryant's sporty little gambit to ban non-attending parliamentarians, where does this leave Sinn Fein MPs?

One might argue "but that's different", but I think this is why we should steer well away from this sort of thing. The moment you create exceptions, it becomes very messy.

Where's the problem ?
Suspend them for a sufficient period for a recall, and see if their constituents care enough to vote for one. We already know the answer.

It clearly demonstrates the measure isn't targeted at any individual, but rather provides a mechanism for the electorate to do something about an absentee MP, should they so wish.

I don't think even that would be necessary under Bryant's gambit.

As I understand it, his proposal is that a motion is tabled to require a particular MP to attend Parliament on a particular day. If the motion is passed by a vote of MPs and she does not attend as required, she would be in contempt of Parliament with a risk of suspension for 10+ days, triggering a recall petition.

A motion to require a Sinn Fein MP to attend on a particular day would be unlikely to pass. The reason for voting against it as an MP would be pretty straightforward - Sinn Fein MPs are elected on an explicitly abstentionist platform, so voters in their constituency (even if you disagree with them) have not been misled in any way, and requiring someone elected on a clear promise NOT to attend to break that promise is both inappropriate and incendiary.

Absolutely - but I was considering a worst case scenario where the proposed procedure was weaponised to target an MP for party political reasons.
Any such effort, without very good justification, would do far more damage to the party trying it on.

Yes. It's notable that the only failed recall petition was in Northern Ireland (for Ian Paisley Jnr of the DUP rather than Sinn Fein). I'm doubtful a recall petition would pass if it came to that, and there is no reason to think a Sinn Fein candidate would lose a subsequent by-election even if enough unionists mobilised to make it happen ("Yes, we voted for an abstentionist MP - what part of that don't you understand?")

It failed by a mere 444 signatures (0.6% of the electorate) and that was in one of the safest seats in NI, with the best possible name recognition. I don’t think the lesson from that is that recall petitions can’t pass in NI. I think the lesson is that most would pass.

Agreed. Perhaps it's because it was the very first one, but no others have even come close to failing.

SouthamObserver

I suspect this is the bigger Anderson problem for Sunak:

Deputy Chair of the Conservative Party Lee Anderson tells GB News the government has failed on immigration:

“We are in government and we have failed on this, there is no doubt about it. we have said we are going to fix it, it is a failure.”

https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1689238030316396544

bondegezou

BartholomewRoberts said:

bondegezou said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

148grss said:

williamglenn said:

148grss said:

Sandpit said:

148grss said:

darkage said:

On the assumption that all the science is correct it seems to me that a technical solution through decarbonisation and adaptation is the most feasible answer to the problem of global warming. It is quite obvious that it is not going to be realistic to stop consumption in developing counties, if you stake all your hopes on this, accepting the massive economic hit that would be involved, then you are going to end up disappointed and you will not innovate (which is necessary to solve the problem) at the same rate.

Perhaps this position is actually a form of faith in technical progress, but there is evidence of success to justify it, ie with the improving efficiency of solar panels, the emergence of electric cars, etc. To the contrary I've seen little evidence that developing countries will slow down their growth in consumption. It seems to me that the environmental activists and their fellow travellers are right to point out the problem but by catastrophising and preaching that consumption is a sin they are actually getting in the way of the optimum solution.

That to me is what feels more like a religious belief "a new technology will save us" where we have no actual reason to believe it will, when instead we have had the means to make the necessary changes in the last 30 years and it was decided not to. If environmentalists making demands for revolution sound like religious zealots, it's partly because the last 30 years have been such monumental failures:

https://thecorrespondent.com/751/weve-emitted-more-co2-in-the-past-30-years-than-in-all-of-history-these-three-reasons-are-to-blame

The point is that there have been massive positive technological changes in the past three decades.

The religious are those who say that little or nothing has been done.

That technological change has not reduced the likelihood of climate catastrophe and has increased it. In the last 30 years we've had the incentive, we've had the knowledge and we've had the technology to massively change economies - the issue has been that the "market" (see those invested in oil) have incentives for short term profit over long term sustainability. We do not currently have viable carbon capture tech, and to assume that we will have it in time to save us sounds more akin to a faith based position than the materialist approach of just reducing our dependency on fossil fuels and reducing our consumption. I don't advocate going back to the stone age - we could have a globally average standard of living that is very good that is also not highly destructive to the environment. What you can't have is that and growth growth growth at the same time.

So in your alternative vision, 8 billion people would collectively have a higher standard of living but with lower aggregate consumption? How does that add up?

Redistribution of resources. The analogy of growth is always "you might get a smaller slice, but of a bigger pie, so you'll be richer". I'm saying we need to shrink the pie, but give more people bigger slices. That means some people will get smaller slices, yes, but most of those people already have massive slices and they'll be relatively worse off compared to their life previously, but still very well off compared to the standard of living across the whole of human history. Elon Musk or Mark Zuckerberg or Bill Gates are not people who deserve millions times more resources at their disposal than any other human being.

And that is because you are a religious zealot who doesn't give a damn about the environment.

Shrinking the pie, but keeping dirty technologies, does not help the environment, does not solve CO2 and other emissions, does not address climate change. It does nothing positive.

Having economic growth, with clean technologies, is better for the planet, better for the environment, and raises living standards.

They are not perfect individuals, far from it, but Elon Musk with the assistance he has given to push the switch to electric vehicles and Bill Gates with his Foundation have done more for the planet than anyone in Greenpeace or Just Stop Oil or any other hairshirt zealot ever has.

Elon Musk today is driving down CO2 production by encouraging people to switch off Twitter, so well done that man!

Of course, this argument over reduced consumption vs technological innovation as solutions to climate change is silly. We need both and both are happening.

No, the only thing we need is technological innovation.

Consumption is higher than its ever been, and ought to be higher still in the future. That is a good thing.

Let me be more specific. We need reduced consumption of fossil fuels. Likewise, reduced electricity consumption from greater efficiency is a good thing, not some threat to increased living standards.

Living standards should be higher in the future, but if we can achieve that with less consumption, as is probable, then that’s a good thing.

148grss

BartholomewRoberts said:

148grss said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

148grss said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

148grss said:

williamglenn said:

148grss said:

Sandpit said:

148grss said:

darkage said:

On the assumption that all the science is correct it seems to me that a technical solution through decarbonisation and adaptation is the most feasible answer to the problem of global warming. It is quite obvious that it is not going to be realistic to stop consumption in developing counties, if you stake all your hopes on this, accepting the massive economic hit that would be involved, then you are going to end up disappointed and you will not innovate (which is necessary to solve the problem) at the same rate.

Perhaps this position is actually a form of faith in technical progress, but there is evidence of success to justify it, ie with the improving efficiency of solar panels, the emergence of electric cars, etc. To the contrary I've seen little evidence that developing countries will slow down their growth in consumption. It seems to me that the environmental activists and their fellow travellers are right to point out the problem but by catastrophising and preaching that consumption is a sin they are actually getting in the way of the optimum solution.

That to me is what feels more like a religious belief "a new technology will save us" where we have no actual reason to believe it will, when instead we have had the means to make the necessary changes in the last 30 years and it was decided not to. If environmentalists making demands for revolution sound like religious zealots, it's partly because the last 30 years have been such monumental failures:

https://thecorrespondent.com/751/weve-emitted-more-co2-in-the-past-30-years-than-in-all-of-history-these-three-reasons-are-to-blame

The point is that there have been massive positive technological changes in the past three decades.

The religious are those who say that little or nothing has been done.

That technological change has not reduced the likelihood of climate catastrophe and has increased it. In the last 30 years we've had the incentive, we've had the knowledge and we've had the technology to massively change economies - the issue has been that the "market" (see those invested in oil) have incentives for short term profit over long term sustainability. We do not currently have viable carbon capture tech, and to assume that we will have it in time to save us sounds more akin to a faith based position than the materialist approach of just reducing our dependency on fossil fuels and reducing our consumption. I don't advocate going back to the stone age - we could have a globally average standard of living that is very good that is also not highly destructive to the environment. What you can't have is that and growth growth growth at the same time.

So in your alternative vision, 8 billion people would collectively have a higher standard of living but with lower aggregate consumption? How does that add up?

Redistribution of resources. The analogy of growth is always "you might get a smaller slice, but of a bigger pie, so you'll be richer". I'm saying we need to shrink the pie, but give more people bigger slices. That means some people will get smaller slices, yes, but most of those people already have massive slices and they'll be relatively worse off compared to their life previously, but still very well off compared to the standard of living across the whole of human history. Elon Musk or Mark Zuckerberg or Bill Gates are not people who deserve millions times more resources at their disposal than any other human being.

And that is because you are a religious zealot who doesn't give a damn about the environment.

Shrinking the pie, but keeping dirty technologies, does not help the environment, does not solve climate emissions, does not address climate change. It does nothing positive.

Having economic growth, with clean technologies, is better for the planet, better for the environment, and raises living standards.

They are not perfect individuals, far from it, but Elon Musk with the assistance he has given to push the switch to climate change and Bill Gates with his Foundation have done more for the planet than anyone in Greenpeace or Just Stop Oil or any other hairshirt zealot ever has.

When did I say I wanted to shrink the pie and keep dirty technologies? This is the strawman argument made about any environmental position - either we want everyone to go back to the stone age, or we're Malthusians who want to cull the population of the planet.

Elon and his rocketry work - which he is specifically doing because he doesn't want to stop extractivist economics on Earth and wishes to have a dystopian style escape to the stars for rich people only - emits a ridiculous amount of CO2. I'm not against space exploration, far from it, but we could do with sorting out our terrestrial issues first and then doing space travel, not doing space travel so we don't have to sort out our problems here.

https://www.theecoexperts.co.uk/blog/elon-musk-rocket-emitted-358-tonnes-of-co2

We will never know the full impacts of billionaires - not all of their investments are public; but even looking at the not particularly useful global footprint metric - the global average is 4.7ish tonnes of CO2; Bill Gates is closer to 7500 tonnes. And the impact of his investment in "offsetting" is unprovable, because it is waiting for future technology to arrive and then invest in - offsetting doesn't work

https://www.theecoexperts.co.uk/blog/carbon-offsetting#:~:text=Carbon offsetting doesn't work in most cases.&text=A recent example of this,Verra did not reduce emissions.

You did, you said that. You're the one who denounced R&D and investment and said that clean technologies are not the solution.

You're a hypocrite who doesn't give a damn about the environment. If clean technologies come about through R&D (and they have been at a seriously impressive rate for decades now) then there is no environmental reason whatsoever for anyone to reduce their consumption.

If clean technologies can't come about, then we're f***ed either way.

The only valid solution is technological. And that means the role the state has to play is in encouraging that and ensuring there is a profit motive to be clean.

I said we have no current evidence that a new technology will save us, yes. We have the current technologies to reach carbon neutrality, we just choose not to make the societal and economic changes to make that a viable world - one that would require some shrinkage and redistribution of resources. Carbon capture is the silver bullet because it lets us keep putting carbon in the atmosphere, dealing with the effects of our economic choices whilst allowing us to keep making them. We could choose to make different choices now. As someone looking at the standard of tech now - where carbon capture does not currently work - I'd rather invest in the solution we have that we know could work versus hoping for the technology we haven't been able to make work to work in time.

"Current technology" is not even close to being sufficient to get us to reach carbon neutrality. It has reduced our emissions, but its not remotely sufficient.

That's why investments in technology, R&D are required. And companies will invest if they get a reward from that investment. Which requires a profit motive. Which means people make money - something that you seem to be against.

But just because current technology isn't enough doesn't mean future technology won't be enough. It will, and billions are going annually into much-needed R&D to get us there.

We can reach net zero, over time, with investment. Something you are against, because you don't give a damn about the environment.

Your position: Just invest in R&D and a new technology will appear that can magic away the problem

My position: We don't know if that tech is possible in the time frame needed, so why not use the tech we have and reduce global consumption to get to the same place. We can always do the R&D for new stuff when we know we are safe.

Apparently my position is the zealous magical thinking position, and your position is the reasonable one.

nico679

What leaving the ECHR means .

Breaking the terms of the Good Friday Agreement .
Co-operation on security matters with the EU ends .
It also puts into jeopardy the Trade and Co-Operation Agreement .
The UK would be in the company of Russia and Belarus , is this really what people want especially at this time .

Because of the Article 50 case they cannot leave the ECHR without parliamentary approval . That set a precedent that rights of UK citizens can not be removed using Henry Vlll powers .

bondegezou

FrankBooth said:

My understanding is that Anderson was referring to those who having come over in small boats were refusing the barge accommodation as they were scared of water. A lot of people will share the sentiment if not the language used. The barge is far better than the tents in Calais.

No doubt the Lib Dems will use this in the blue wall as they have F all else to say at the moment.

LibDems doing something at the moment: https://www.libdems.org.uk/news/article/carers-leave-bill-to-become-law

FrankBooth

148grss said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

bondegezou said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

148grss said:

williamglenn said:

148grss said:

Sandpit said:

148grss said:

darkage said:

On the assumption that all the science is correct it seems to me that a technical solution through decarbonisation and adaptation is the most feasible answer to the problem of global warming. It is quite obvious that it is not going to be realistic to stop consumption in developing counties, if you stake all your hopes on this, accepting the massive economic hit that would be involved, then you are going to end up disappointed and you will not innovate (which is necessary to solve the problem) at the same rate.

Perhaps this position is actually a form of faith in technical progress, but there is evidence of success to justify it, ie with the improving efficiency of solar panels, the emergence of electric cars, etc. To the contrary I've seen little evidence that developing countries will slow down their growth in consumption. It seems to me that the environmental activists and their fellow travellers are right to point out the problem but by catastrophising and preaching that consumption is a sin they are actually getting in the way of the optimum solution.

That to me is what feels more like a religious belief "a new technology will save us" where we have no actual reason to believe it will, when instead we have had the means to make the necessary changes in the last 30 years and it was decided not to. If environmentalists making demands for revolution sound like religious zealots, it's partly because the last 30 years have been such monumental failures:

https://thecorrespondent.com/751/weve-emitted-more-co2-in-the-past-30-years-than-in-all-of-history-these-three-reasons-are-to-blame

The point is that there have been massive positive technological changes in the past three decades.

The religious are those who say that little or nothing has been done.

That technological change has not reduced the likelihood of climate catastrophe and has increased it. In the last 30 years we've had the incentive, we've had the knowledge and we've had the technology to massively change economies - the issue has been that the "market" (see those invested in oil) have incentives for short term profit over long term sustainability. We do not currently have viable carbon capture tech, and to assume that we will have it in time to save us sounds more akin to a faith based position than the materialist approach of just reducing our dependency on fossil fuels and reducing our consumption. I don't advocate going back to the stone age - we could have a globally average standard of living that is very good that is also not highly destructive to the environment. What you can't have is that and growth growth growth at the same time.

So in your alternative vision, 8 billion people would collectively have a higher standard of living but with lower aggregate consumption? How does that add up?

Redistribution of resources. The analogy of growth is always "you might get a smaller slice, but of a bigger pie, so you'll be richer". I'm saying we need to shrink the pie, but give more people bigger slices. That means some people will get smaller slices, yes, but most of those people already have massive slices and they'll be relatively worse off compared to their life previously, but still very well off compared to the standard of living across the whole of human history. Elon Musk or Mark Zuckerberg or Bill Gates are not people who deserve millions times more resources at their disposal than any other human being.

And that is because you are a religious zealot who doesn't give a damn about the environment.

Shrinking the pie, but keeping dirty technologies, does not help the environment, does not solve CO2 and other emissions, does not address climate change. It does nothing positive.

Having economic growth, with clean technologies, is better for the planet, better for the environment, and raises living standards.

They are not perfect individuals, far from it, but Elon Musk with the assistance he has given to push the switch to electric vehicles and Bill Gates with his Foundation have done more for the planet than anyone in Greenpeace or Just Stop Oil or any other hairshirt zealot ever has.

Elon Musk today is driving down CO2 production by encouraging people to switch off Twitter, so well done that man!

Of course, this argument over reduced consumption vs technological innovation as solutions to climate change is silly. We need both and both are happening.

No, the only thing we need is technological innovation.

Consumption is higher than its ever been, and ought to be higher still in the future. That is a good thing.

And apparently environmentalists are the zealots...

Why must consumption be ever rising?

The global population is rising and most people are dirt poor.

kle4

FrankBooth said:

My understanding is that Anderson was referring to those who having come over in small boats were refusing the barge accommodation as they were scared of water. A lot of people will share the sentiment if not the language used. The barge is far better than the tents in Calais.

No doubt the Lib Dems will use this in the blue wall as they have F all else to say at the moment.

The whole barge argument has not really gripped me. The term 'barge' invokes certain images, but what matters are the conditions and it seems like there have been far worse options to house people used in the past.

The problems in respect of migrants/refugees and others are to do with how the country is coping with the numbers and solutions to reduce (as many people want) etc, not the specifics of whether a 'barge' is nice or nasty enough, depending on preference (though people should always have adequate conditions).

SouthamObserver

nico679 said:

What leaving the ECHR means .

Breaking the terms of the Good Friday Agreement .
Co-operation on security matters with the EU ends .
It also puts into jeopardy the Trade and Co-Operation Agreement .
The UK would be in the company of Russia and Belarus , is this really what people want especially at this time .

Because of the Article 50 case they cannot leave the ECHR without parliamentary approval . That set a precedent that rights of UK citizens can not be removed using Henry Vlll powers .

The people advocating it are the principle argument against doing it.

kle4

SouthamObserver said:

I suspect this is the bigger Anderson problem for Sunak:

Deputy Chair of the Conservative Party Lee Anderson tells GB News the government has failed on immigration:

“We are in government and we have failed on this, there is no doubt about it. we have said we are going to fix it, it is a failure.”

https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1689238030316396544

No.10: The man who made a name for himself for a 'plain speaking' style is being bluntly honest about a failure? Who could have seen that coming?

nico679

Leon said:

nico679 said:

More unhinged nonsense from Jenrick .

Apparently the UK is being punished for Brexit and that’s why the ECHR is being difficult .

More threats to leave the ECHR , what an absolute cesspit this government have become .

Yes, they should follow your advice and pursue a "White Britain" policy, favouring white European migrants over the duskier types from elsewhere

I never said that and I won’t take lectures from a Trump supporter.

Sandpit

FrankBooth said:

148grss said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

bondegezou said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

148grss said:

williamglenn said:

148grss said:

Sandpit said:

148grss said:

darkage said:

On the assumption that all the science is correct it seems to me that a technical solution through decarbonisation and adaptation is the most feasible answer to the problem of global warming. It is quite obvious that it is not going to be realistic to stop consumption in developing counties, if you stake all your hopes on this, accepting the massive economic hit that would be involved, then you are going to end up disappointed and you will not innovate (which is necessary to solve the problem) at the same rate.

Perhaps this position is actually a form of faith in technical progress, but there is evidence of success to justify it, ie with the improving efficiency of solar panels, the emergence of electric cars, etc. To the contrary I've seen little evidence that developing countries will slow down their growth in consumption. It seems to me that the environmental activists and their fellow travellers are right to point out the problem but by catastrophising and preaching that consumption is a sin they are actually getting in the way of the optimum solution.

That to me is what feels more like a religious belief "a new technology will save us" where we have no actual reason to believe it will, when instead we have had the means to make the necessary changes in the last 30 years and it was decided not to. If environmentalists making demands for revolution sound like religious zealots, it's partly because the last 30 years have been such monumental failures:

https://thecorrespondent.com/751/weve-emitted-more-co2-in-the-past-30-years-than-in-all-of-history-these-three-reasons-are-to-blame

The point is that there have been massive positive technological changes in the past three decades.

The religious are those who say that little or nothing has been done.

That technological change has not reduced the likelihood of climate catastrophe and has increased it. In the last 30 years we've had the incentive, we've had the knowledge and we've had the technology to massively change economies - the issue has been that the "market" (see those invested in oil) have incentives for short term profit over long term sustainability. We do not currently have viable carbon capture tech, and to assume that we will have it in time to save us sounds more akin to a faith based position than the materialist approach of just reducing our dependency on fossil fuels and reducing our consumption. I don't advocate going back to the stone age - we could have a globally average standard of living that is very good that is also not highly destructive to the environment. What you can't have is that and growth growth growth at the same time.

So in your alternative vision, 8 billion people would collectively have a higher standard of living but with lower aggregate consumption? How does that add up?

Redistribution of resources. The analogy of growth is always "you might get a smaller slice, but of a bigger pie, so you'll be richer". I'm saying we need to shrink the pie, but give more people bigger slices. That means some people will get smaller slices, yes, but most of those people already have massive slices and they'll be relatively worse off compared to their life previously, but still very well off compared to the standard of living across the whole of human history. Elon Musk or Mark Zuckerberg or Bill Gates are not people who deserve millions times more resources at their disposal than any other human being.

And that is because you are a religious zealot who doesn't give a damn about the environment.

Shrinking the pie, but keeping dirty technologies, does not help the environment, does not solve CO2 and other emissions, does not address climate change. It does nothing positive.

Having economic growth, with clean technologies, is better for the planet, better for the environment, and raises living standards.

They are not perfect individuals, far from it, but Elon Musk with the assistance he has given to push the switch to electric vehicles and Bill Gates with his Foundation have done more for the planet than anyone in Greenpeace or Just Stop Oil or any other hairshirt zealot ever has.

Elon Musk today is driving down CO2 production by encouraging people to switch off Twitter, so well done that man!

Of course, this argument over reduced consumption vs technological innovation as solutions to climate change is silly. We need both and both are happening.

No, the only thing we need is technological innovation.

Consumption is higher than its ever been, and ought to be higher still in the future. That is a good thing.

And apparently environmentalists are the zealots...

Why must consumption be ever rising?

The global population is rising and most people are dirt poor.

Even as the global population has risen, so has their wealth. There have never been fewer people in poverty. Actual poverty, as opposed to inequality.
https://data.worldbank.org/topic/poverty

SouthamObserver

Jenrick admitting that it is deliberate policy to slow down the processing of the asylum claims backlog is also pretty unhelpful to the government.

kle4

nico679 said:

More unhinged nonsense from Jenrick .

Apparently the UK is being punished for Brexit and that’s why the ECHR is being difficult .

More threats to leave the ECHR , what an absolute cesspit this government have become .

I've never really been clear on why leaving it would be a panacea for a great many different issues, especially when it is usually also presented as not that big a deal so do not worry.

bondegezou

nico679 said:

What leaving the ECHR means .

Breaking the terms of the Good Friday Agreement .
Co-operation on security matters with the EU ends .
It also puts into jeopardy the Trade and Co-Operation Agreement .
The UK would be in the company of Russia and Belarus , is this really what people want especially at this time .

Because of the Article 50 case they cannot leave the ECHR without parliamentary approval . That set a precedent that rights of UK citizens can not be removed using Henry Vlll powers .

Conservative policy at the moment seems to be based on leaving things: leave the EU, leave the ECHR, presumably leave Eurovision will be next. Leaving the EU was meant to allow us to take back control of our borders, but Conservative policy since has seen record legal immigration, record illegal immigration and record low deportations.

Leon

nico679 said:

Leon said:

nico679 said:

More unhinged nonsense from Jenrick .

Apparently the UK is being punished for Brexit and that’s why the ECHR is being difficult .

More threats to leave the ECHR , what an absolute cesspit this government have become .

Yes, they should follow your advice and pursue a "White Britain" policy, favouring white European migrants over the duskier types from elsewhere

I never said that and I won’t take lectures from a Trump supporter.

You absolutely said that, and I'm not a Trump supporter

Otherwise, good comment

SouthamObserver

kle4 said:

SouthamObserver said:

I suspect this is the bigger Anderson problem for Sunak:

Deputy Chair of the Conservative Party Lee Anderson tells GB News the government has failed on immigration:

“We are in government and we have failed on this, there is no doubt about it. we have said we are going to fix it, it is a failure.”

https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1689238030316396544

No.10: The man who made a name for himself for a 'plain speaking' style is being bluntly honest about a failure? Who could have seen that coming?

If you know absolutely nothing about the country you govern you put someone like Lee Anderson in a position to speak to it on your behalf.

Leon

A Tesla self-driving flawlessly for ONE HOUR in San Francisco

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R24lMWo0r-I

They are close to solving this, and it is the future. Autonomous e-cars. Goodbye private human-driven cars

kle4

Sandpit said:

FrankBooth said:

148grss said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

bondegezou said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

148grss said:

williamglenn said:

148grss said:

Sandpit said:

148grss said:

darkage said:

On the assumption that all the science is correct it seems to me that a technical solution through decarbonisation and adaptation is the most feasible answer to the problem of global warming. It is quite obvious that it is not going to be realistic to stop consumption in developing counties, if you stake all your hopes on this, accepting the massive economic hit that would be involved, then you are going to end up disappointed and you will not innovate (which is necessary to solve the problem) at the same rate.

Perhaps this position is actually a form of faith in technical progress, but there is evidence of success to justify it, ie with the improving efficiency of solar panels, the emergence of electric cars, etc. To the contrary I've seen little evidence that developing countries will slow down their growth in consumption. It seems to me that the environmental activists and their fellow travellers are right to point out the problem but by catastrophising and preaching that consumption is a sin they are actually getting in the way of the optimum solution.

That to me is what feels more like a religious belief "a new technology will save us" where we have no actual reason to believe it will, when instead we have had the means to make the necessary changes in the last 30 years and it was decided not to. If environmentalists making demands for revolution sound like religious zealots, it's partly because the last 30 years have been such monumental failures:

https://thecorrespondent.com/751/weve-emitted-more-co2-in-the-past-30-years-than-in-all-of-history-these-three-reasons-are-to-blame

The point is that there have been massive positive technological changes in the past three decades.

The religious are those who say that little or nothing has been done.

That technological change has not reduced the likelihood of climate catastrophe and has increased it. In the last 30 years we've had the incentive, we've had the knowledge and we've had the technology to massively change economies - the issue has been that the "market" (see those invested in oil) have incentives for short term profit over long term sustainability. We do not currently have viable carbon capture tech, and to assume that we will have it in time to save us sounds more akin to a faith based position than the materialist approach of just reducing our dependency on fossil fuels and reducing our consumption. I don't advocate going back to the stone age - we could have a globally average standard of living that is very good that is also not highly destructive to the environment. What you can't have is that and growth growth growth at the same time.

So in your alternative vision, 8 billion people would collectively have a higher standard of living but with lower aggregate consumption? How does that add up?

Redistribution of resources. The analogy of growth is always "you might get a smaller slice, but of a bigger pie, so you'll be richer". I'm saying we need to shrink the pie, but give more people bigger slices. That means some people will get smaller slices, yes, but most of those people already have massive slices and they'll be relatively worse off compared to their life previously, but still very well off compared to the standard of living across the whole of human history. Elon Musk or Mark Zuckerberg or Bill Gates are not people who deserve millions times more resources at their disposal than any other human being.

And that is because you are a religious zealot who doesn't give a damn about the environment.

Shrinking the pie, but keeping dirty technologies, does not help the environment, does not solve CO2 and other emissions, does not address climate change. It does nothing positive.

Having economic growth, with clean technologies, is better for the planet, better for the environment, and raises living standards.

They are not perfect individuals, far from it, but Elon Musk with the assistance he has given to push the switch to electric vehicles and Bill Gates with his Foundation have done more for the planet than anyone in Greenpeace or Just Stop Oil or any other hairshirt zealot ever has.

Elon Musk today is driving down CO2 production by encouraging people to switch off Twitter, so well done that man!

Of course, this argument over reduced consumption vs technological innovation as solutions to climate change is silly. We need both and both are happening.

No, the only thing we need is technological innovation.

Consumption is higher than its ever been, and ought to be higher still in the future. That is a good thing.

And apparently environmentalists are the zealots...

Why must consumption be ever rising?

The global population is rising and most people are dirt poor.

Even as the global population has risen, so has their wealth. There have never been fewer people in poverty. Actual poverty, as opposed to inequality.
https://data.worldbank.org/topic/poverty

And we should aim for even more to come out of it, which along with other contributors means consumption is going to rise a lot for quite some time (I think estimates are global population may peak in 75-100 years, based on current trends?).

We can certainly reduce consumption in a lot of areas, but overall it seems likely to and good that it will increase for humanity as a whole.

Taz

Gas prices up by a quarter today due to supply concerns and still going up.

Sunak may well be an unlucky PM.

Should this persist, and oil keeps increasing too, then his attempt to take the credit for falling inflation will rebound when it stops falling.

bondegezou

kle4 said:

Sandpit said:

FrankBooth said:

148grss said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

bondegezou said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

148grss said:

williamglenn said:

148grss said:

Sandpit said:

148grss said:

darkage said:

On the assumption that all the science is correct it seems to me that a technical solution through decarbonisation and adaptation is the most feasible answer to the problem of global warming. It is quite obvious that it is not going to be realistic to stop consumption in developing counties, if you stake all your hopes on this, accepting the massive economic hit that would be involved, then you are going to end up disappointed and you will not innovate (which is necessary to solve the problem) at the same rate.

Perhaps this position is actually a form of faith in technical progress, but there is evidence of success to justify it, ie with the improving efficiency of solar panels, the emergence of electric cars, etc. To the contrary I've seen little evidence that developing countries will slow down their growth in consumption. It seems to me that the environmental activists and their fellow travellers are right to point out the problem but by catastrophising and preaching that consumption is a sin they are actually getting in the way of the optimum solution.

That to me is what feels more like a religious belief "a new technology will save us" where we have no actual reason to believe it will, when instead we have had the means to make the necessary changes in the last 30 years and it was decided not to. If environmentalists making demands for revolution sound like religious zealots, it's partly because the last 30 years have been such monumental failures:

https://thecorrespondent.com/751/weve-emitted-more-co2-in-the-past-30-years-than-in-all-of-history-these-three-reasons-are-to-blame

The point is that there have been massive positive technological changes in the past three decades.

The religious are those who say that little or nothing has been done.

That technological change has not reduced the likelihood of climate catastrophe and has increased it. In the last 30 years we've had the incentive, we've had the knowledge and we've had the technology to massively change economies - the issue has been that the "market" (see those invested in oil) have incentives for short term profit over long term sustainability. We do not currently have viable carbon capture tech, and to assume that we will have it in time to save us sounds more akin to a faith based position than the materialist approach of just reducing our dependency on fossil fuels and reducing our consumption. I don't advocate going back to the stone age - we could have a globally average standard of living that is very good that is also not highly destructive to the environment. What you can't have is that and growth growth growth at the same time.

So in your alternative vision, 8 billion people would collectively have a higher standard of living but with lower aggregate consumption? How does that add up?

Redistribution of resources. The analogy of growth is always "you might get a smaller slice, but of a bigger pie, so you'll be richer". I'm saying we need to shrink the pie, but give more people bigger slices. That means some people will get smaller slices, yes, but most of those people already have massive slices and they'll be relatively worse off compared to their life previously, but still very well off compared to the standard of living across the whole of human history. Elon Musk or Mark Zuckerberg or Bill Gates are not people who deserve millions times more resources at their disposal than any other human being.

And that is because you are a religious zealot who doesn't give a damn about the environment.

Shrinking the pie, but keeping dirty technologies, does not help the environment, does not solve CO2 and other emissions, does not address climate change. It does nothing positive.

Having economic growth, with clean technologies, is better for the planet, better for the environment, and raises living standards.

They are not perfect individuals, far from it, but Elon Musk with the assistance he has given to push the switch to electric vehicles and Bill Gates with his Foundation have done more for the planet than anyone in Greenpeace or Just Stop Oil or any other hairshirt zealot ever has.

Elon Musk today is driving down CO2 production by encouraging people to switch off Twitter, so well done that man!

Of course, this argument over reduced consumption vs technological innovation as solutions to climate change is silly. We need both and both are happening.

No, the only thing we need is technological innovation.

Consumption is higher than its ever been, and ought to be higher still in the future. That is a good thing.

And apparently environmentalists are the zealots...

Why must consumption be ever rising?

The global population is rising and most people are dirt poor.

Even as the global population has risen, so has their wealth. There have never been fewer people in poverty. Actual poverty, as opposed to inequality.
https://data.worldbank.org/topic/poverty

And we should aim for even more to come out of it, which along with other contributors means consumption is going to rise a lot for quite some time (I think estimates are global population may peak in 75-100 years, based on current trends?).

We can certainly reduce consumption in a lot of areas, but overall it seems likely to and good that it will increase for humanity as a whole.

The UN predicts a peak in 2086, so a bit sooner than you said.

We can of course change that. There are populations in the world who would love the sort of access to effective family planning that we take for granted in the UK. Let’s provide it. We should be providing it anyway as a central part of helping development.

CatMan

kle4 said:

nico679 said:

More unhinged nonsense from Jenrick .

Apparently the UK is being punished for Brexit and that’s why the ECHR is being difficult .

More threats to leave the ECHR , what an absolute cesspit this government have become .

I've never really been clear on why leaving it would be a panacea for a great many different issues, especially when it is usually also presented as not that big a deal so do not worry.

It's basically Brexit Part 2: Leaving it would solve our problems, take back control etc etc

Taz

SouthamObserver said:

kle4 said:

SouthamObserver said:

I suspect this is the bigger Anderson problem for Sunak:

Deputy Chair of the Conservative Party Lee Anderson tells GB News the government has failed on immigration:

“We are in government and we have failed on this, there is no doubt about it. we have said we are going to fix it, it is a failure.”

https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1689238030316396544

No.10: The man who made a name for himself for a 'plain speaking' style is being bluntly honest about a failure? Who could have seen that coming?

If you know absolutely nothing about the country you govern you put someone like Lee Anderson in a position to speak to it on your behalf.

Anderson is there to do the Prescott role John Prescott fulfilled in the Blair years. Reach parts of the electorate and supporter base the leadership cannot.

148grss

kle4 said:

Sandpit said:

FrankBooth said:

148grss said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

bondegezou said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

148grss said:

williamglenn said:

148grss said:

Sandpit said:

148grss said:

darkage said:

On the assumption that all the science is correct it seems to me that a technical solution through decarbonisation and adaptation is the most feasible answer to the problem of global warming. It is quite obvious that it is not going to be realistic to stop consumption in developing counties, if you stake all your hopes on this, accepting the massive economic hit that would be involved, then you are going to end up disappointed and you will not innovate (which is necessary to solve the problem) at the same rate.

Perhaps this position is actually a form of faith in technical progress, but there is evidence of success to justify it, ie with the improving efficiency of solar panels, the emergence of electric cars, etc. To the contrary I've seen little evidence that developing countries will slow down their growth in consumption. It seems to me that the environmental activists and their fellow travellers are right to point out the problem but by catastrophising and preaching that consumption is a sin they are actually getting in the way of the optimum solution.

That to me is what feels more like a religious belief "a new technology will save us" where we have no actual reason to believe it will, when instead we have had the means to make the necessary changes in the last 30 years and it was decided not to. If environmentalists making demands for revolution sound like religious zealots, it's partly because the last 30 years have been such monumental failures:

https://thecorrespondent.com/751/weve-emitted-more-co2-in-the-past-30-years-than-in-all-of-history-these-three-reasons-are-to-blame

The point is that there have been massive positive technological changes in the past three decades.

The religious are those who say that little or nothing has been done.

That technological change has not reduced the likelihood of climate catastrophe and has increased it. In the last 30 years we've had the incentive, we've had the knowledge and we've had the technology to massively change economies - the issue has been that the "market" (see those invested in oil) have incentives for short term profit over long term sustainability. We do not currently have viable carbon capture tech, and to assume that we will have it in time to save us sounds more akin to a faith based position than the materialist approach of just reducing our dependency on fossil fuels and reducing our consumption. I don't advocate going back to the stone age - we could have a globally average standard of living that is very good that is also not highly destructive to the environment. What you can't have is that and growth growth growth at the same time.

So in your alternative vision, 8 billion people would collectively have a higher standard of living but with lower aggregate consumption? How does that add up?

Redistribution of resources. The analogy of growth is always "you might get a smaller slice, but of a bigger pie, so you'll be richer". I'm saying we need to shrink the pie, but give more people bigger slices. That means some people will get smaller slices, yes, but most of those people already have massive slices and they'll be relatively worse off compared to their life previously, but still very well off compared to the standard of living across the whole of human history. Elon Musk or Mark Zuckerberg or Bill Gates are not people who deserve millions times more resources at their disposal than any other human being.

And that is because you are a religious zealot who doesn't give a damn about the environment.

Shrinking the pie, but keeping dirty technologies, does not help the environment, does not solve CO2 and other emissions, does not address climate change. It does nothing positive.

Having economic growth, with clean technologies, is better for the planet, better for the environment, and raises living standards.

They are not perfect individuals, far from it, but Elon Musk with the assistance he has given to push the switch to electric vehicles and Bill Gates with his Foundation have done more for the planet than anyone in Greenpeace or Just Stop Oil or any other hairshirt zealot ever has.

Elon Musk today is driving down CO2 production by encouraging people to switch off Twitter, so well done that man!

Of course, this argument over reduced consumption vs technological innovation as solutions to climate change is silly. We need both and both are happening.

No, the only thing we need is technological innovation.

Consumption is higher than its ever been, and ought to be higher still in the future. That is a good thing.

And apparently environmentalists are the zealots...

Why must consumption be ever rising?

The global population is rising and most people are dirt poor.

Even as the global population has risen, so has their wealth. There have never been fewer people in poverty. Actual poverty, as opposed to inequality.
https://data.worldbank.org/topic/poverty

And we should aim for even more to come out of it, which along with other contributors means consumption is going to rise a lot for quite some time (I think estimates are global population may peak in 75-100 years, based on current trends?).

We can certainly reduce consumption in a lot of areas, but overall it seems likely to and good that it will increase for humanity as a whole.

Consumption for the poorest needs to increase; consumption for the richest needs to vastly decrease. We should not meet in the middle - the poorest need to have available to them much more, and the richest much less. If we try to have our cake and eat it too - allow the poorest to have better living standards without distribution - those standard increases can come only from more extractivist growth, which will harm the planet as a whole.

viewcode

SouthamObserver said:

kle4 said:

SouthamObserver said:

I suspect this is the bigger Anderson problem for Sunak:

Deputy Chair of the Conservative Party Lee Anderson tells GB News the government has failed on immigration:

“We are in government and we have failed on this, there is no doubt about it. we have said we are going to fix it, it is a failure.”

https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1689238030316396544

No.10: The man who made a name for himself for a 'plain speaking' style is being bluntly honest about a failure? Who could have seen that coming?

If you know absolutely nothing about the country you govern you put someone like Lee Anderson in a position to speak to it on your behalf.

Let's be honest. That's been standard operating procedure for years.... 😀

Sandpit

Taz said:

Gas prices up by a quarter today due to supply concerns and still going up.

Sunak may well be an unlucky PM.

Should this persist, and oil keeps increasing too, then his attempt to take the credit for falling inflation will rebound when it stops falling.

Which is why we should all be pressuring the OPEC countries to start pumping oil.

It both reduces Western inflation and starves Putin of foreign currency. Win-win.

Luckyguy1983

nico679 said:

What leaving the ECHR means .

Breaking the terms of the Good Friday Agreement .
Co-operation on security matters with the EU ends .
It also puts into jeopardy the Trade and Co-Operation Agreement .
The UK would be in the company of Russia and Belarus , is this really what people want especially at this time .

Because of the Article 50 case they cannot leave the ECHR without parliamentary approval . That set a precedent that rights of UK citizens can not be removed using Henry Vlll powers .

We should not leave the Convention, but I see no reason why we should remain part of the Court. In any independent country, why would the highest court, with the right to overrule the expressed will of Parliament, be a supranational one?

Stuartinromford

Taz said:

SouthamObserver said:

kle4 said:

SouthamObserver said:

I suspect this is the bigger Anderson problem for Sunak:

Deputy Chair of the Conservative Party Lee Anderson tells GB News the government has failed on immigration:

“We are in government and we have failed on this, there is no doubt about it. we have said we are going to fix it, it is a failure.”

https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1689238030316396544

No.10: The man who made a name for himself for a 'plain speaking' style is being bluntly honest about a failure? Who could have seen that coming?

If you know absolutely nothing about the country you govern you put someone like Lee Anderson in a position to speak to it on your behalf.

Anderson is there to do the Prescott role John Prescott fulfilled in the Blair years. Reach parts of the electorate and supporter base the leadership cannot.

We all know about John Prescott's reach...



Whilst it's clear that Anderson has that role, the harder question is whether he is any good at it. Or if it's another bit of uncomprehending cosplay.

148grss

bondegezou said:

kle4 said:

Sandpit said:

FrankBooth said:

148grss said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

bondegezou said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

148grss said:

williamglenn said:

148grss said:

Sandpit said:

148grss said:

darkage said:

On the assumption that all the science is correct it seems to me that a technical solution through decarbonisation and adaptation is the most feasible answer to the problem of global warming. It is quite obvious that it is not going to be realistic to stop consumption in developing counties, if you stake all your hopes on this, accepting the massive economic hit that would be involved, then you are going to end up disappointed and you will not innovate (which is necessary to solve the problem) at the same rate.

Perhaps this position is actually a form of faith in technical progress, but there is evidence of success to justify it, ie with the improving efficiency of solar panels, the emergence of electric cars, etc. To the contrary I've seen little evidence that developing countries will slow down their growth in consumption. It seems to me that the environmental activists and their fellow travellers are right to point out the problem but by catastrophising and preaching that consumption is a sin they are actually getting in the way of the optimum solution.

That to me is what feels more like a religious belief "a new technology will save us" where we have no actual reason to believe it will, when instead we have had the means to make the necessary changes in the last 30 years and it was decided not to. If environmentalists making demands for revolution sound like religious zealots, it's partly because the last 30 years have been such monumental failures:

https://thecorrespondent.com/751/weve-emitted-more-co2-in-the-past-30-years-than-in-all-of-history-these-three-reasons-are-to-blame

The point is that there have been massive positive technological changes in the past three decades.

The religious are those who say that little or nothing has been done.

That technological change has not reduced the likelihood of climate catastrophe and has increased it. In the last 30 years we've had the incentive, we've had the knowledge and we've had the technology to massively change economies - the issue has been that the "market" (see those invested in oil) have incentives for short term profit over long term sustainability. We do not currently have viable carbon capture tech, and to assume that we will have it in time to save us sounds more akin to a faith based position than the materialist approach of just reducing our dependency on fossil fuels and reducing our consumption. I don't advocate going back to the stone age - we could have a globally average standard of living that is very good that is also not highly destructive to the environment. What you can't have is that and growth growth growth at the same time.

So in your alternative vision, 8 billion people would collectively have a higher standard of living but with lower aggregate consumption? How does that add up?

Redistribution of resources. The analogy of growth is always "you might get a smaller slice, but of a bigger pie, so you'll be richer". I'm saying we need to shrink the pie, but give more people bigger slices. That means some people will get smaller slices, yes, but most of those people already have massive slices and they'll be relatively worse off compared to their life previously, but still very well off compared to the standard of living across the whole of human history. Elon Musk or Mark Zuckerberg or Bill Gates are not people who deserve millions times more resources at their disposal than any other human being.

And that is because you are a religious zealot who doesn't give a damn about the environment.

Shrinking the pie, but keeping dirty technologies, does not help the environment, does not solve CO2 and other emissions, does not address climate change. It does nothing positive.

Having economic growth, with clean technologies, is better for the planet, better for the environment, and raises living standards.

They are not perfect individuals, far from it, but Elon Musk with the assistance he has given to push the switch to electric vehicles and Bill Gates with his Foundation have done more for the planet than anyone in Greenpeace or Just Stop Oil or any other hairshirt zealot ever has.

Elon Musk today is driving down CO2 production by encouraging people to switch off Twitter, so well done that man!

Of course, this argument over reduced consumption vs technological innovation as solutions to climate change is silly. We need both and both are happening.

No, the only thing we need is technological innovation.

Consumption is higher than its ever been, and ought to be higher still in the future. That is a good thing.

And apparently environmentalists are the zealots...

Why must consumption be ever rising?

The global population is rising and most people are dirt poor.

Even as the global population has risen, so has their wealth. There have never been fewer people in poverty. Actual poverty, as opposed to inequality.
https://data.worldbank.org/topic/poverty

And we should aim for even more to come out of it, which along with other contributors means consumption is going to rise a lot for quite some time (I think estimates are global population may peak in 75-100 years, based on current trends?).

We can certainly reduce consumption in a lot of areas, but overall it seems likely to and good that it will increase for humanity as a whole.

The UN predicts a peak in 2086, so a bit sooner than you said.

We can of course change that. There are populations in the world who would love the sort of access to effective family planning that we take for granted in the UK. Let’s provide it. We should be providing it anyway as a central part of helping development.

Again, much like countries pledges to reduce emissions being thrown aside for political expediency, a shift in family planning has started. The new talking point of "declining [white] populations" (where white is usually left out) is behind the anti abortion movement in the US and the nativist policies in Hungary. We're even getting an echo of that here in the UK; many people at the NatCon conference talked about the need for more [white] babies.

This is in part a reaction for cultural reasons, but is also a reaction from capital. The labour market is tightening now, and already unions are showing their muscles. Capital is seeing population stagnation or even reduction in some areas and is aware that would start to put more power in the hands of workers. So you get the nativists and capitalists hand in hand on policy once again.

bondegezou

Luckyguy1983 said:

nico679 said:

What leaving the ECHR means .

Breaking the terms of the Good Friday Agreement .
Co-operation on security matters with the EU ends .
It also puts into jeopardy the Trade and Co-Operation Agreement .
The UK would be in the company of Russia and Belarus , is this really what people want especially at this time .

Because of the Article 50 case they cannot leave the ECHR without parliamentary approval . That set a precedent that rights of UK citizens can not be removed using Henry Vlll powers .

We should not leave the Convention, but I see no reason why we should remain part of the Court. In any independent country, why would the highest court, with the right to overrule the expressed will of Parliament, be a supranational one?

So, you want us to leave the WTO and the International Maritime Organization too?

Malmesbury

148grss said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

148grss said:

williamglenn said:

148grss said:

Sandpit said:

148grss said:

darkage said:

On the assumption that all the science is correct it seems to me that a technical solution through decarbonisation and adaptation is the most feasible answer to the problem of global warming. It is quite obvious that it is not going to be realistic to stop consumption in developing counties, if you stake all your hopes on this, accepting the massive economic hit that would be involved, then you are going to end up disappointed and you will not innovate (which is necessary to solve the problem) at the same rate.

Perhaps this position is actually a form of faith in technical progress, but there is evidence of success to justify it, ie with the improving efficiency of solar panels, the emergence of electric cars, etc. To the contrary I've seen little evidence that developing countries will slow down their growth in consumption. It seems to me that the environmental activists and their fellow travellers are right to point out the problem but by catastrophising and preaching that consumption is a sin they are actually getting in the way of the optimum solution.

That to me is what feels more like a religious belief "a new technology will save us" where we have no actual reason to believe it will, when instead we have had the means to make the necessary changes in the last 30 years and it was decided not to. If environmentalists making demands for revolution sound like religious zealots, it's partly because the last 30 years have been such monumental failures:

https://thecorrespondent.com/751/weve-emitted-more-co2-in-the-past-30-years-than-in-all-of-history-these-three-reasons-are-to-blame

The point is that there have been massive positive technological changes in the past three decades.

The religious are those who say that little or nothing has been done.

That technological change has not reduced the likelihood of climate catastrophe and has increased it. In the last 30 years we've had the incentive, we've had the knowledge and we've had the technology to massively change economies - the issue has been that the "market" (see those invested in oil) have incentives for short term profit over long term sustainability. We do not currently have viable carbon capture tech, and to assume that we will have it in time to save us sounds more akin to a faith based position than the materialist approach of just reducing our dependency on fossil fuels and reducing our consumption. I don't advocate going back to the stone age - we could have a globally average standard of living that is very good that is also not highly destructive to the environment. What you can't have is that and growth growth growth at the same time.

So in your alternative vision, 8 billion people would collectively have a higher standard of living but with lower aggregate consumption? How does that add up?

Redistribution of resources. The analogy of growth is always "you might get a smaller slice, but of a bigger pie, so you'll be richer". I'm saying we need to shrink the pie, but give more people bigger slices. That means some people will get smaller slices, yes, but most of those people already have massive slices and they'll be relatively worse off compared to their life previously, but still very well off compared to the standard of living across the whole of human history. Elon Musk or Mark Zuckerberg or Bill Gates are not people who deserve millions times more resources at their disposal than any other human being.

And that is because you are a religious zealot who doesn't give a damn about the environment.

Shrinking the pie, but keeping dirty technologies, does not help the environment, does not solve climate emissions, does not address climate change. It does nothing positive.

Having economic growth, with clean technologies, is better for the planet, better for the environment, and raises living standards.

They are not perfect individuals, far from it, but Elon Musk with the assistance he has given to push the switch to climate change and Bill Gates with his Foundation have done more for the planet than anyone in Greenpeace or Just Stop Oil or any other hairshirt zealot ever has.

When did I say I wanted to shrink the pie and keep dirty technologies? This is the strawman argument made about any environmental position - either we want everyone to go back to the stone age, or we're Malthusians who want to cull the population of the planet.

Elon and his rocketry work - which he is specifically doing because he doesn't want to stop extractivist economics on Earth and wishes to have a dystopian style escape to the stars for rich people only - emits a ridiculous amount of CO2. I'm not against space exploration, far from it, but we could do with sorting out our terrestrial issues first and then doing space travel, not doing space travel so we don't have to sort out our problems here.

https://www.theecoexperts.co.uk/blog/elon-musk-rocket-emitted-358-tonnes-of-co2

We will never know the full impacts of billionaires - not all of their investments are public; but even looking at the not particularly useful global footprint metric - the global average is 4.7ish tonnes of CO2; Bill Gates is closer to 7500 tonnes. And the impact of his investment in "offsetting" is unprovable, because it is waiting for future technology to arrive and then invest in - offsetting doesn't work

https://www.theecoexperts.co.uk/blog/carbon-offsetting#:~:text=Carbon offsetting doesn't work in most cases.&text=A recent example of this,Verra did not reduce emissions.

Rocketry makes up tiny portion of world emissions. SpaceX has killed the fashion for solid rocket boosters - which emit lots of nasties. They are a large part of the pivot to methane/LOX, which is clean burning.

Methane can then be produced by the Sabatier process - which is part of the plan for Mars (for a number of organisations, not just SpaceX).

Yes, initially the methane on Earth is from natural gas, but an off shoot of creating automated plants to make it on Mars will be that the technology goes though the scaling/mass production process and becomes much cheaper.

Peck

Sunak and Jenrick know exactly what they're doing. And it's not just "f*** off". It's "f*** off BACK" to somewhere. That's a votewinner. It's why 90% of people who voted Leave voted Leave.

There are 5 Tory deputy chairmen. All of the types who've come on my radar while doing that job have been, shall we say, skilled obtainers of donations. Serious question: does Lee Anderson have responsibilities in that area?

nico679

Leon said:

nico679 said:

Leon said:

nico679 said:

More unhinged nonsense from Jenrick .

Apparently the UK is being punished for Brexit and that’s why the ECHR is being difficult .

More threats to leave the ECHR , what an absolute cesspit this government have become .

Yes, they should follow your advice and pursue a "White Britain" policy, favouring white European migrants over the duskier types from elsewhere

I never said that and I won’t take lectures from a Trump supporter.

You absolutely said that, and I'm not a Trump supporter

Otherwise, good comment

I did not and stop mis-representing me . In my post I was pointing out that remain needed a gobby politically incorrect figure like Farage to point out that immigration would still happen but instead of EU nationals you’d end up with non-EU nationals .

I’m pro immigration I don’t care where people come from as long as they’re law abiding citizens . That’s my view .

kle4

Stuartinromford said:

Taz said:

SouthamObserver said:

kle4 said:

SouthamObserver said:

I suspect this is the bigger Anderson problem for Sunak:

Deputy Chair of the Conservative Party Lee Anderson tells GB News the government has failed on immigration:

“We are in government and we have failed on this, there is no doubt about it. we have said we are going to fix it, it is a failure.”

https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1689238030316396544

No.10: The man who made a name for himself for a 'plain speaking' style is being bluntly honest about a failure? Who could have seen that coming?

If you know absolutely nothing about the country you govern you put someone like Lee Anderson in a position to speak to it on your behalf.

Anderson is there to do the Prescott role John Prescott fulfilled in the Blair years. Reach parts of the electorate and supporter base the leadership cannot.

We all know about John Prescott's reach...



Whilst it's clear that Anderson has that role, the harder question is whether he is any good at it. Or if it's another bit of uncomprehending cosplay.

I do think he hams it up, but it does seem like an sincere exaggerration, if that makes sense, in that it is just making more flamboyant things he probably does generally believe. And despite the snark I think they are correct they need more people like that to be visible in the party.

Pulpstar

Peck said:

Sunak and Jenrick know exactly what they're doing. And it's not just "f*** off". It's "f*** off BACK" to somewhere. That's a votewinner. It's why 90% of people who voted Leave voted Leave.

That was the sell, the reality is just more trade friction tbh.

Malmesbury

148grss said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

148grss said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

148grss said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

148grss said:

williamglenn said:

148grss said:

Sandpit said:

148grss said:

darkage said:

On the assumption that all the science is correct it seems to me that a technical solution through decarbonisation and adaptation is the most feasible answer to the problem of global warming. It is quite obvious that it is not going to be realistic to stop consumption in developing counties, if you stake all your hopes on this, accepting the massive economic hit that would be involved, then you are going to end up disappointed and you will not innovate (which is necessary to solve the problem) at the same rate.

Perhaps this position is actually a form of faith in technical progress, but there is evidence of success to justify it, ie with the improving efficiency of solar panels, the emergence of electric cars, etc. To the contrary I've seen little evidence that developing countries will slow down their growth in consumption. It seems to me that the environmental activists and their fellow travellers are right to point out the problem but by catastrophising and preaching that consumption is a sin they are actually getting in the way of the optimum solution.

That to me is what feels more like a religious belief "a new technology will save us" where we have no actual reason to believe it will, when instead we have had the means to make the necessary changes in the last 30 years and it was decided not to. If environmentalists making demands for revolution sound like religious zealots, it's partly because the last 30 years have been such monumental failures:

https://thecorrespondent.com/751/weve-emitted-more-co2-in-the-past-30-years-than-in-all-of-history-these-three-reasons-are-to-blame

The point is that there have been massive positive technological changes in the past three decades.

The religious are those who say that little or nothing has been done.

That technological change has not reduced the likelihood of climate catastrophe and has increased it. In the last 30 years we've had the incentive, we've had the knowledge and we've had the technology to massively change economies - the issue has been that the "market" (see those invested in oil) have incentives for short term profit over long term sustainability. We do not currently have viable carbon capture tech, and to assume that we will have it in time to save us sounds more akin to a faith based position than the materialist approach of just reducing our dependency on fossil fuels and reducing our consumption. I don't advocate going back to the stone age - we could have a globally average standard of living that is very good that is also not highly destructive to the environment. What you can't have is that and growth growth growth at the same time.

So in your alternative vision, 8 billion people would collectively have a higher standard of living but with lower aggregate consumption? How does that add up?

Redistribution of resources. The analogy of growth is always "you might get a smaller slice, but of a bigger pie, so you'll be richer". I'm saying we need to shrink the pie, but give more people bigger slices. That means some people will get smaller slices, yes, but most of those people already have massive slices and they'll be relatively worse off compared to their life previously, but still very well off compared to the standard of living across the whole of human history. Elon Musk or Mark Zuckerberg or Bill Gates are not people who deserve millions times more resources at their disposal than any other human being.

And that is because you are a religious zealot who doesn't give a damn about the environment.

Shrinking the pie, but keeping dirty technologies, does not help the environment, does not solve climate emissions, does not address climate change. It does nothing positive.

Having economic growth, with clean technologies, is better for the planet, better for the environment, and raises living standards.

They are not perfect individuals, far from it, but Elon Musk with the assistance he has given to push the switch to climate change and Bill Gates with his Foundation have done more for the planet than anyone in Greenpeace or Just Stop Oil or any other hairshirt zealot ever has.

When did I say I wanted to shrink the pie and keep dirty technologies? This is the strawman argument made about any environmental position - either we want everyone to go back to the stone age, or we're Malthusians who want to cull the population of the planet.

Elon and his rocketry work - which he is specifically doing because he doesn't want to stop extractivist economics on Earth and wishes to have a dystopian style escape to the stars for rich people only - emits a ridiculous amount of CO2. I'm not against space exploration, far from it, but we could do with sorting out our terrestrial issues first and then doing space travel, not doing space travel so we don't have to sort out our problems here.

https://www.theecoexperts.co.uk/blog/elon-musk-rocket-emitted-358-tonnes-of-co2

We will never know the full impacts of billionaires - not all of their investments are public; but even looking at the not particularly useful global footprint metric - the global average is 4.7ish tonnes of CO2; Bill Gates is closer to 7500 tonnes. And the impact of his investment in "offsetting" is unprovable, because it is waiting for future technology to arrive and then invest in - offsetting doesn't work

https://www.theecoexperts.co.uk/blog/carbon-offsetting#:~:text=Carbon offsetting doesn't work in most cases.&text=A recent example of this,Verra did not reduce emissions.

You did, you said that. You're the one who denounced R&D and investment and said that clean technologies are not the solution.

You're a hypocrite who doesn't give a damn about the environment. If clean technologies come about through R&D (and they have been at a seriously impressive rate for decades now) then there is no environmental reason whatsoever for anyone to reduce their consumption.

If clean technologies can't come about, then we're f***ed either way.

The only valid solution is technological. And that means the role the state has to play is in encouraging that and ensuring there is a profit motive to be clean.

I said we have no current evidence that a new technology will save us, yes. We have the current technologies to reach carbon neutrality, we just choose not to make the societal and economic changes to make that a viable world - one that would require some shrinkage and redistribution of resources. Carbon capture is the silver bullet because it lets us keep putting carbon in the atmosphere, dealing with the effects of our economic choices whilst allowing us to keep making them. We could choose to make different choices now. As someone looking at the standard of tech now - where carbon capture does not currently work - I'd rather invest in the solution we have that we know could work versus hoping for the technology we haven't been able to make work to work in time.

"Current technology" is not even close to being sufficient to get us to reach carbon neutrality. It has reduced our emissions, but its not remotely sufficient.

That's why investments in technology, R&D are required. And companies will invest if they get a reward from that investment. Which requires a profit motive. Which means people make money - something that you seem to be against.

But just because current technology isn't enough doesn't mean future technology won't be enough. It will, and billions are going annually into much-needed R&D to get us there.

We can reach net zero, over time, with investment. Something you are against, because you don't give a damn about the environment.

Your position: Just invest in R&D and a new technology will appear that can magic away the problem

My position: We don't know if that tech is possible in the time frame needed, so why not use the tech we have and reduce global consumption to get to the same place. We can always do the R&D for new stuff when we know we are safe.

Apparently my position is the zealous magical thinking position, and your position is the reasonable one.

You need to learn about Technology Readiness Level

https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/458490main_TRL_Definitions.pdf

Every technology for net zero exists. Multiple technologies, for multiple solutions to the same problems, actually.

The issue is not "inventing" stuff, it is getting it to TRL9

EDIT: What Tesla did was to take the concept of a high performance electric car from TRL-6/7 to TRL-9

kinabalu

Luckyguy1983 said:

nico679 said:

What leaving the ECHR means .

Breaking the terms of the Good Friday Agreement .
Co-operation on security matters with the EU ends .
It also puts into jeopardy the Trade and Co-Operation Agreement .
The UK would be in the company of Russia and Belarus , is this really what people want especially at this time .

Because of the Article 50 case they cannot leave the ECHR without parliamentary approval . That set a precedent that rights of UK citizens can not be removed using Henry Vlll powers .

We should not leave the Convention, but I see no reason why we should remain part of the Court. In any independent country, why would the highest court, with the right to overrule the expressed will of Parliament, be a supranational one?

Because fundamental rights and freedoms should be enshrined at the highest possible level.

boulay

nico679 said:

Leon said:

nico679 said:

Leon said:

nico679 said:

More unhinged nonsense from Jenrick .

Apparently the UK is being punished for Brexit and that’s why the ECHR is being difficult .

More threats to leave the ECHR , what an absolute cesspit this government have become .

Yes, they should follow your advice and pursue a "White Britain" policy, favouring white European migrants over the duskier types from elsewhere

I never said that and I won’t take lectures from a Trump supporter.

You absolutely said that, and I'm not a Trump supporter

Otherwise, good comment

I did not and stop mis-representing me . In my post I was pointing out that remain needed a gobby politically incorrect figure like Farage to point out that immigration would still happen but instead of EU nationals you’d end up with non-EU nationals .

I’m pro immigration I don’t care where people come from as long as they’re law abiding citizens . That’s my view .

What should happen to the ones who turn out to be non law abiding? Prison in the UK and then free to stay or deported?

Peck

kle4 said:

SouthamObserver said:

I suspect this is the bigger Anderson problem for Sunak:

Deputy Chair of the Conservative Party Lee Anderson tells GB News the government has failed on immigration:

“We are in government and we have failed on this, there is no doubt about it. we have said we are going to fix it, it is a failure.”

https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1689238030316396544

No.10: The man who made a name for himself for a 'plain speaking' style is being bluntly honest about a failure? Who could have seen that coming?

It's possible that Anderson is limbering up to jump to Reform (and contribute to the coming Tory landslide that way) but I doubt it. He's much more likely to be doing pre-publicity for a Big Tory Move on immigration.

148grss

Malmesbury said:

148grss said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

148grss said:

williamglenn said:

148grss said:

Sandpit said:

148grss said:

darkage said:

On the assumption that all the science is correct it seems to me that a technical solution through decarbonisation and adaptation is the most feasible answer to the problem of global warming. It is quite obvious that it is not going to be realistic to stop consumption in developing counties, if you stake all your hopes on this, accepting the massive economic hit that would be involved, then you are going to end up disappointed and you will not innovate (which is necessary to solve the problem) at the same rate.

Perhaps this position is actually a form of faith in technical progress, but there is evidence of success to justify it, ie with the improving efficiency of solar panels, the emergence of electric cars, etc. To the contrary I've seen little evidence that developing countries will slow down their growth in consumption. It seems to me that the environmental activists and their fellow travellers are right to point out the problem but by catastrophising and preaching that consumption is a sin they are actually getting in the way of the optimum solution.

That to me is what feels more like a religious belief "a new technology will save us" where we have no actual reason to believe it will, when instead we have had the means to make the necessary changes in the last 30 years and it was decided not to. If environmentalists making demands for revolution sound like religious zealots, it's partly because the last 30 years have been such monumental failures:

https://thecorrespondent.com/751/weve-emitted-more-co2-in-the-past-30-years-than-in-all-of-history-these-three-reasons-are-to-blame

The point is that there have been massive positive technological changes in the past three decades.

The religious are those who say that little or nothing has been done.

That technological change has not reduced the likelihood of climate catastrophe and has increased it. In the last 30 years we've had the incentive, we've had the knowledge and we've had the technology to massively change economies - the issue has been that the "market" (see those invested in oil) have incentives for short term profit over long term sustainability. We do not currently have viable carbon capture tech, and to assume that we will have it in time to save us sounds more akin to a faith based position than the materialist approach of just reducing our dependency on fossil fuels and reducing our consumption. I don't advocate going back to the stone age - we could have a globally average standard of living that is very good that is also not highly destructive to the environment. What you can't have is that and growth growth growth at the same time.

So in your alternative vision, 8 billion people would collectively have a higher standard of living but with lower aggregate consumption? How does that add up?

Redistribution of resources. The analogy of growth is always "you might get a smaller slice, but of a bigger pie, so you'll be richer". I'm saying we need to shrink the pie, but give more people bigger slices. That means some people will get smaller slices, yes, but most of those people already have massive slices and they'll be relatively worse off compared to their life previously, but still very well off compared to the standard of living across the whole of human history. Elon Musk or Mark Zuckerberg or Bill Gates are not people who deserve millions times more resources at their disposal than any other human being.

And that is because you are a religious zealot who doesn't give a damn about the environment.

Shrinking the pie, but keeping dirty technologies, does not help the environment, does not solve climate emissions, does not address climate change. It does nothing positive.

Having economic growth, with clean technologies, is better for the planet, better for the environment, and raises living standards.

They are not perfect individuals, far from it, but Elon Musk with the assistance he has given to push the switch to climate change and Bill Gates with his Foundation have done more for the planet than anyone in Greenpeace or Just Stop Oil or any other hairshirt zealot ever has.

When did I say I wanted to shrink the pie and keep dirty technologies? This is the strawman argument made about any environmental position - either we want everyone to go back to the stone age, or we're Malthusians who want to cull the population of the planet.

Elon and his rocketry work - which he is specifically doing because he doesn't want to stop extractivist economics on Earth and wishes to have a dystopian style escape to the stars for rich people only - emits a ridiculous amount of CO2. I'm not against space exploration, far from it, but we could do with sorting out our terrestrial issues first and then doing space travel, not doing space travel so we don't have to sort out our problems here.

https://www.theecoexperts.co.uk/blog/elon-musk-rocket-emitted-358-tonnes-of-co2

We will never know the full impacts of billionaires - not all of their investments are public; but even looking at the not particularly useful global footprint metric - the global average is 4.7ish tonnes of CO2; Bill Gates is closer to 7500 tonnes. And the impact of his investment in "offsetting" is unprovable, because it is waiting for future technology to arrive and then invest in - offsetting doesn't work

https://www.theecoexperts.co.uk/blog/carbon-offsetting#:~:text=Carbon offsetting doesn't work in most cases.&text=A recent example of this,Verra did not reduce emissions.

Rocketry makes up tiny portion of world emissions. SpaceX has killed the fashion for solid rocket boosters - which emit lots of nasties. They are a large part of the pivot to methane/LOX, which is clean burning.

Methane can then be produced by the Sabatier process - which is part of the plan for Mars (for a number of organisations, not just SpaceX).

Yes, initially the methane on Earth is from natural gas, but an off shoot of creating automated plants to make it on Mars will be that the technology goes though the scaling/mass production process and becomes much cheaper.

My example was not to say this is the biggest issue, rather that it was indicative of how economic choices get made. One rich bloke wants to do space capitalism and leverages huge resources to do that and test flies a rocket that causes emissions. That could all instead do something else for the common good and the issues that we face right now. Yes, I want space travel to be a thing, but not so rich people can run away from Earth as it crumbles behind them.

kle4

Peck said:

kle4 said:

SouthamObserver said:

I suspect this is the bigger Anderson problem for Sunak:

Deputy Chair of the Conservative Party Lee Anderson tells GB News the government has failed on immigration:

“We are in government and we have failed on this, there is no doubt about it. we have said we are going to fix it, it is a failure.”

https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1689238030316396544

No.10: The man who made a name for himself for a 'plain speaking' style is being bluntly honest about a failure? Who could have seen that coming?

It's possible that Anderson is limbering up to jump to Reform (and contribute to the coming Tory landslide that way) but I doubt it. He's much more likely to be doing pre-publicity for a Big Tory Move on immigration.

And auditioning for a presenter gig on GB news.

(Actually, for all I know he already has one).

Malmesbury

148grss said:

Malmesbury said:

148grss said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

148grss said:

williamglenn said:

148grss said:

Sandpit said:

148grss said:

darkage said:

On the assumption that all the science is correct it seems to me that a technical solution through decarbonisation and adaptation is the most feasible answer to the problem of global warming. It is quite obvious that it is not going to be realistic to stop consumption in developing counties, if you stake all your hopes on this, accepting the massive economic hit that would be involved, then you are going to end up disappointed and you will not innovate (which is necessary to solve the problem) at the same rate.

Perhaps this position is actually a form of faith in technical progress, but there is evidence of success to justify it, ie with the improving efficiency of solar panels, the emergence of electric cars, etc. To the contrary I've seen little evidence that developing countries will slow down their growth in consumption. It seems to me that the environmental activists and their fellow travellers are right to point out the problem but by catastrophising and preaching that consumption is a sin they are actually getting in the way of the optimum solution.

That to me is what feels more like a religious belief "a new technology will save us" where we have no actual reason to believe it will, when instead we have had the means to make the necessary changes in the last 30 years and it was decided not to. If environmentalists making demands for revolution sound like religious zealots, it's partly because the last 30 years have been such monumental failures:

https://thecorrespondent.com/751/weve-emitted-more-co2-in-the-past-30-years-than-in-all-of-history-these-three-reasons-are-to-blame

The point is that there have been massive positive technological changes in the past three decades.

The religious are those who say that little or nothing has been done.

That technological change has not reduced the likelihood of climate catastrophe and has increased it. In the last 30 years we've had the incentive, we've had the knowledge and we've had the technology to massively change economies - the issue has been that the "market" (see those invested in oil) have incentives for short term profit over long term sustainability. We do not currently have viable carbon capture tech, and to assume that we will have it in time to save us sounds more akin to a faith based position than the materialist approach of just reducing our dependency on fossil fuels and reducing our consumption. I don't advocate going back to the stone age - we could have a globally average standard of living that is very good that is also not highly destructive to the environment. What you can't have is that and growth growth growth at the same time.

So in your alternative vision, 8 billion people would collectively have a higher standard of living but with lower aggregate consumption? How does that add up?

Redistribution of resources. The analogy of growth is always "you might get a smaller slice, but of a bigger pie, so you'll be richer". I'm saying we need to shrink the pie, but give more people bigger slices. That means some people will get smaller slices, yes, but most of those people already have massive slices and they'll be relatively worse off compared to their life previously, but still very well off compared to the standard of living across the whole of human history. Elon Musk or Mark Zuckerberg or Bill Gates are not people who deserve millions times more resources at their disposal than any other human being.

And that is because you are a religious zealot who doesn't give a damn about the environment.

Shrinking the pie, but keeping dirty technologies, does not help the environment, does not solve climate emissions, does not address climate change. It does nothing positive.

Having economic growth, with clean technologies, is better for the planet, better for the environment, and raises living standards.

They are not perfect individuals, far from it, but Elon Musk with the assistance he has given to push the switch to climate change and Bill Gates with his Foundation have done more for the planet than anyone in Greenpeace or Just Stop Oil or any other hairshirt zealot ever has.

When did I say I wanted to shrink the pie and keep dirty technologies? This is the strawman argument made about any environmental position - either we want everyone to go back to the stone age, or we're Malthusians who want to cull the population of the planet.

Elon and his rocketry work - which he is specifically doing because he doesn't want to stop extractivist economics on Earth and wishes to have a dystopian style escape to the stars for rich people only - emits a ridiculous amount of CO2. I'm not against space exploration, far from it, but we could do with sorting out our terrestrial issues first and then doing space travel, not doing space travel so we don't have to sort out our problems here.

https://www.theecoexperts.co.uk/blog/elon-musk-rocket-emitted-358-tonnes-of-co2

We will never know the full impacts of billionaires - not all of their investments are public; but even looking at the not particularly useful global footprint metric - the global average is 4.7ish tonnes of CO2; Bill Gates is closer to 7500 tonnes. And the impact of his investment in "offsetting" is unprovable, because it is waiting for future technology to arrive and then invest in - offsetting doesn't work

https://www.theecoexperts.co.uk/blog/carbon-offsetting#:~:text=Carbon offsetting doesn't work in most cases.&text=A recent example of this,Verra did not reduce emissions.

Rocketry makes up tiny portion of world emissions. SpaceX has killed the fashion for solid rocket boosters - which emit lots of nasties. They are a large part of the pivot to methane/LOX, which is clean burning.

Methane can then be produced by the Sabatier process - which is part of the plan for Mars (for a number of organisations, not just SpaceX).

Yes, initially the methane on Earth is from natural gas, but an off shoot of creating automated plants to make it on Mars will be that the technology goes though the scaling/mass production process and becomes much cheaper.

My example was not to say this is the biggest issue, rather that it was indicative of how economic choices get made. One rich bloke wants to do space capitalism and leverages huge resources to do that and test flies a rocket that causes emissions. That could all instead do something else for the common good and the issues that we face right now. Yes, I want space travel to be a thing, but not so rich people can run away from Earth as it crumbles behind them.

And my point was that incremental improvement are happening.

Look at some FCC and FAA filings for Kuiper and Starlink.

Taz

Malmesbury said:

148grss said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

148grss said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

148grss said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

148grss said:

williamglenn said:

148grss said:

Sandpit said:

148grss said:

darkage said:

On the assumption that all the science is correct it seems to me that a technical solution through decarbonisation and adaptation is the most feasible answer to the problem of global warming. It is quite obvious that it is not going to be realistic to stop consumption in developing counties, if you stake all your hopes on this, accepting the massive economic hit that would be involved, then you are going to end up disappointed and you will not innovate (which is necessary to solve the problem) at the same rate.

Perhaps this position is actually a form of faith in technical progress, but there is evidence of success to justify it, ie with the improving efficiency of solar panels, the emergence of electric cars, etc. To the contrary I've seen little evidence that developing countries will slow down their growth in consumption. It seems to me that the environmental activists and their fellow travellers are right to point out the problem but by catastrophising and preaching that consumption is a sin they are actually getting in the way of the optimum solution.

That to me is what feels more like a religious belief "a new technology will save us" where we have no actual reason to believe it will, when instead we have had the means to make the necessary changes in the last 30 years and it was decided not to. If environmentalists making demands for revolution sound like religious zealots, it's partly because the last 30 years have been such monumental failures:

https://thecorrespondent.com/751/weve-emitted-more-co2-in-the-past-30-years-than-in-all-of-history-these-three-reasons-are-to-blame

The point is that there have been massive positive technological changes in the past three decades.

The religious are those who say that little or nothing has been done.

That technological change has not reduced the likelihood of climate catastrophe and has increased it. In the last 30 years we've had the incentive, we've had the knowledge and we've had the technology to massively change economies - the issue has been that the "market" (see those invested in oil) have incentives for short term profit over long term sustainability. We do not currently have viable carbon capture tech, and to assume that we will have it in time to save us sounds more akin to a faith based position than the materialist approach of just reducing our dependency on fossil fuels and reducing our consumption. I don't advocate going back to the stone age - we could have a globally average standard of living that is very good that is also not highly destructive to the environment. What you can't have is that and growth growth growth at the same time.

So in your alternative vision, 8 billion people would collectively have a higher standard of living but with lower aggregate consumption? How does that add up?

Redistribution of resources. The analogy of growth is always "you might get a smaller slice, but of a bigger pie, so you'll be richer". I'm saying we need to shrink the pie, but give more people bigger slices. That means some people will get smaller slices, yes, but most of those people already have massive slices and they'll be relatively worse off compared to their life previously, but still very well off compared to the standard of living across the whole of human history. Elon Musk or Mark Zuckerberg or Bill Gates are not people who deserve millions times more resources at their disposal than any other human being.

And that is because you are a religious zealot who doesn't give a damn about the environment.

Shrinking the pie, but keeping dirty technologies, does not help the environment, does not solve climate emissions, does not address climate change. It does nothing positive.

Having economic growth, with clean technologies, is better for the planet, better for the environment, and raises living standards.

They are not perfect individuals, far from it, but Elon Musk with the assistance he has given to push the switch to climate change and Bill Gates with his Foundation have done more for the planet than anyone in Greenpeace or Just Stop Oil or any other hairshirt zealot ever has.

When did I say I wanted to shrink the pie and keep dirty technologies? This is the strawman argument made about any environmental position - either we want everyone to go back to the stone age, or we're Malthusians who want to cull the population of the planet.

Elon and his rocketry work - which he is specifically doing because he doesn't want to stop extractivist economics on Earth and wishes to have a dystopian style escape to the stars for rich people only - emits a ridiculous amount of CO2. I'm not against space exploration, far from it, but we could do with sorting out our terrestrial issues first and then doing space travel, not doing space travel so we don't have to sort out our problems here.

https://www.theecoexperts.co.uk/blog/elon-musk-rocket-emitted-358-tonnes-of-co2

We will never know the full impacts of billionaires - not all of their investments are public; but even looking at the not particularly useful global footprint metric - the global average is 4.7ish tonnes of CO2; Bill Gates is closer to 7500 tonnes. And the impact of his investment in "offsetting" is unprovable, because it is waiting for future technology to arrive and then invest in - offsetting doesn't work

https://www.theecoexperts.co.uk/blog/carbon-offsetting#:~:text=Carbon offsetting doesn't work in most cases.&text=A recent example of this,Verra did not reduce emissions.

You did, you said that. You're the one who denounced R&D and investment and said that clean technologies are not the solution.

You're a hypocrite who doesn't give a damn about the environment. If clean technologies come about through R&D (and they have been at a seriously impressive rate for decades now) then there is no environmental reason whatsoever for anyone to reduce their consumption.

If clean technologies can't come about, then we're f***ed either way.

The only valid solution is technological. And that means the role the state has to play is in encouraging that and ensuring there is a profit motive to be clean.

I said we have no current evidence that a new technology will save us, yes. We have the current technologies to reach carbon neutrality, we just choose not to make the societal and economic changes to make that a viable world - one that would require some shrinkage and redistribution of resources. Carbon capture is the silver bullet because it lets us keep putting carbon in the atmosphere, dealing with the effects of our economic choices whilst allowing us to keep making them. We could choose to make different choices now. As someone looking at the standard of tech now - where carbon capture does not currently work - I'd rather invest in the solution we have that we know could work versus hoping for the technology we haven't been able to make work to work in time.

"Current technology" is not even close to being sufficient to get us to reach carbon neutrality. It has reduced our emissions, but its not remotely sufficient.

That's why investments in technology, R&D are required. And companies will invest if they get a reward from that investment. Which requires a profit motive. Which means people make money - something that you seem to be against.

But just because current technology isn't enough doesn't mean future technology won't be enough. It will, and billions are going annually into much-needed R&D to get us there.

We can reach net zero, over time, with investment. Something you are against, because you don't give a damn about the environment.

Your position: Just invest in R&D and a new technology will appear that can magic away the problem

My position: We don't know if that tech is possible in the time frame needed, so why not use the tech we have and reduce global consumption to get to the same place. We can always do the R&D for new stuff when we know we are safe.

Apparently my position is the zealous magical thinking position, and your position is the reasonable one.

You need to learn about Technology Readiness Level

https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/458490main_TRL_Definitions.pdf

Every technology for net zero exists. Multiple technologies, for multiple solutions to the same problems, actually.

The issue is not "inventing" stuff, it is getting it to TRL9

EDIT: What Tesla did was to take the concept of a high performance electric car from TRL-6/7 to TRL-9

Thanks for that link.

I work in manufacturing and projects. We work on stage gates for projects once green lit so that is especially interesting to me in my anoraky sense as alot of it precedes what we get involved in.

viewcode

148grss said:

Malmesbury said:

148grss said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

148grss said:

williamglenn said:

148grss said:

Sandpit said:

148grss said:

darkage said:

On the assumption that all the science is correct it seems to me that a technical solution through decarbonisation and adaptation is the most feasible answer to the problem of global warming. It is quite obvious that it is not going to be realistic to stop consumption in developing counties, if you stake all your hopes on this, accepting the massive economic hit that would be involved, then you are going to end up disappointed and you will not innovate (which is necessary to solve the problem) at the same rate.

Perhaps this position is actually a form of faith in technical progress, but there is evidence of success to justify it, ie with the improving efficiency of solar panels, the emergence of electric cars, etc. To the contrary I've seen little evidence that developing countries will slow down their growth in consumption. It seems to me that the environmental activists and their fellow travellers are right to point out the problem but by catastrophising and preaching that consumption is a sin they are actually getting in the way of the optimum solution.

That to me is what feels more like a religious belief "a new technology will save us" where we have no actual reason to believe it will, when instead we have had the means to make the necessary changes in the last 30 years and it was decided not to. If environmentalists making demands for revolution sound like religious zealots, it's partly because the last 30 years have been such monumental failures:

https://thecorrespondent.com/751/weve-emitted-more-co2-in-the-past-30-years-than-in-all-of-history-these-three-reasons-are-to-blame

The point is that there have been massive positive technological changes in the past three decades.

The religious are those who say that little or nothing has been done.

That technological change has not reduced the likelihood of climate catastrophe and has increased it. In the last 30 years we've had the incentive, we've had the knowledge and we've had the technology to massively change economies - the issue has been that the "market" (see those invested in oil) have incentives for short term profit over long term sustainability. We do not currently have viable carbon capture tech, and to assume that we will have it in time to save us sounds more akin to a faith based position than the materialist approach of just reducing our dependency on fossil fuels and reducing our consumption. I don't advocate going back to the stone age - we could have a globally average standard of living that is very good that is also not highly destructive to the environment. What you can't have is that and growth growth growth at the same time.

So in your alternative vision, 8 billion people would collectively have a higher standard of living but with lower aggregate consumption? How does that add up?

Redistribution of resources. The analogy of growth is always "you might get a smaller slice, but of a bigger pie, so you'll be richer". I'm saying we need to shrink the pie, but give more people bigger slices. That means some people will get smaller slices, yes, but most of those people already have massive slices and they'll be relatively worse off compared to their life previously, but still very well off compared to the standard of living across the whole of human history. Elon Musk or Mark Zuckerberg or Bill Gates are not people who deserve millions times more resources at their disposal than any other human being.

And that is because you are a religious zealot who doesn't give a damn about the environment.

Shrinking the pie, but keeping dirty technologies, does not help the environment, does not solve climate emissions, does not address climate change. It does nothing positive.

Having economic growth, with clean technologies, is better for the planet, better for the environment, and raises living standards.

They are not perfect individuals, far from it, but Elon Musk with the assistance he has given to push the switch to climate change and Bill Gates with his Foundation have done more for the planet than anyone in Greenpeace or Just Stop Oil or any other hairshirt zealot ever has.

When did I say I wanted to shrink the pie and keep dirty technologies? This is the strawman argument made about any environmental position - either we want everyone to go back to the stone age, or we're Malthusians who want to cull the population of the planet.

Elon and his rocketry work - which he is specifically doing because he doesn't want to stop extractivist economics on Earth and wishes to have a dystopian style escape to the stars for rich people only - emits a ridiculous amount of CO2. I'm not against space exploration, far from it, but we could do with sorting out our terrestrial issues first and then doing space travel, not doing space travel so we don't have to sort out our problems here.

https://www.theecoexperts.co.uk/blog/elon-musk-rocket-emitted-358-tonnes-of-co2

We will never know the full impacts of billionaires - not all of their investments are public; but even looking at the not particularly useful global footprint metric - the global average is 4.7ish tonnes of CO2; Bill Gates is closer to 7500 tonnes. And the impact of his investment in "offsetting" is unprovable, because it is waiting for future technology to arrive and then invest in - offsetting doesn't work

https://www.theecoexperts.co.uk/blog/carbon-offsetting#:~:text=Carbon offsetting doesn't work in most cases.&text=A recent example of this,Verra did not reduce emissions.

Rocketry makes up tiny portion of world emissions. SpaceX has killed the fashion for solid rocket boosters - which emit lots of nasties. They are a large part of the pivot to methane/LOX, which is clean burning.

Methane can then be produced by the Sabatier process - which is part of the plan for Mars (for a number of organisations, not just SpaceX).

Yes, initially the methane on Earth is from natural gas, but an off shoot of creating automated plants to make it on Mars will be that the technology goes though the scaling/mass production process and becomes much cheaper.

My example was not to say this is the biggest issue, rather that it was indicative of how economic choices get made. One rich bloke wants to do space capitalism and leverages huge resources to do that and test flies a rocket that causes emissions. That could all instead do something else for the common good and the issues that we face right now. Yes, I want space travel to be a thing, but not so rich people can run away from Earth as it crumbles behind them.

The saddest thing about Musk (apart from the realisation that even billionaires can't get good hair transplants, see also Trump), is that he's not doing a remake of "When Worlds Collide ', he''s doing a remake of "Elysium"... ☹️

Carnyx

bondegezou said:

nico679 said:

What leaving the ECHR means .

Breaking the terms of the Good Friday Agreement .
Co-operation on security matters with the EU ends .
It also puts into jeopardy the Trade and Co-Operation Agreement .
The UK would be in the company of Russia and Belarus , is this really what people want especially at this time .

Because of the Article 50 case they cannot leave the ECHR without parliamentary approval . That set a precedent that rights of UK citizens can not be removed using Henry Vlll powers .

Conservative policy at the moment seems to be based on leaving things: leave the EU, leave the ECHR, presumably leave Eurovision will be next. Leaving the EU was meant to allow us to take back control of our borders, but Conservative policy since has seen record legal immigration, record illegal immigration and record low deportations.

And no doubt insist that all doctors leave the Société Internationale d'Urologie.

148grss

Malmesbury said:

148grss said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

148grss said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

148grss said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

148grss said:

williamglenn said:

148grss said:

Sandpit said:

148grss said:

darkage said:

On the assumption that all the science is correct it seems to me that a technical solution through decarbonisation and adaptation is the most feasible answer to the problem of global warming. It is quite obvious that it is not going to be realistic to stop consumption in developing counties, if you stake all your hopes on this, accepting the massive economic hit that would be involved, then you are going to end up disappointed and you will not innovate (which is necessary to solve the problem) at the same rate.

Perhaps this position is actually a form of faith in technical progress, but there is evidence of success to justify it, ie with the improving efficiency of solar panels, the emergence of electric cars, etc. To the contrary I've seen little evidence that developing countries will slow down their growth in consumption. It seems to me that the environmental activists and their fellow travellers are right to point out the problem but by catastrophising and preaching that consumption is a sin they are actually getting in the way of the optimum solution.

That to me is what feels more like a religious belief "a new technology will save us" where we have no actual reason to believe it will, when instead we have had the means to make the necessary changes in the last 30 years and it was decided not to. If environmentalists making demands for revolution sound like religious zealots, it's partly because the last 30 years have been such monumental failures:

https://thecorrespondent.com/751/weve-emitted-more-co2-in-the-past-30-years-than-in-all-of-history-these-three-reasons-are-to-blame

The point is that there have been massive positive technological changes in the past three decades.

The religious are those who say that little or nothing has been done.

That technological change has not reduced the likelihood of climate catastrophe and has increased it. In the last 30 years we've had the incentive, we've had the knowledge and we've had the technology to massively change economies - the issue has been that the "market" (see those invested in oil) have incentives for short term profit over long term sustainability. We do not currently have viable carbon capture tech, and to assume that we will have it in time to save us sounds more akin to a faith based position than the materialist approach of just reducing our dependency on fossil fuels and reducing our consumption. I don't advocate going back to the stone age - we could have a globally average standard of living that is very good that is also not highly destructive to the environment. What you can't have is that and growth growth growth at the same time.

So in your alternative vision, 8 billion people would collectively have a higher standard of living but with lower aggregate consumption? How does that add up?

Redistribution of resources. The analogy of growth is always "you might get a smaller slice, but of a bigger pie, so you'll be richer". I'm saying we need to shrink the pie, but give more people bigger slices. That means some people will get smaller slices, yes, but most of those people already have massive slices and they'll be relatively worse off compared to their life previously, but still very well off compared to the standard of living across the whole of human history. Elon Musk or Mark Zuckerberg or Bill Gates are not people who deserve millions times more resources at their disposal than any other human being.

And that is because you are a religious zealot who doesn't give a damn about the environment.

Shrinking the pie, but keeping dirty technologies, does not help the environment, does not solve climate emissions, does not address climate change. It does nothing positive.

Having economic growth, with clean technologies, is better for the planet, better for the environment, and raises living standards.

They are not perfect individuals, far from it, but Elon Musk with the assistance he has given to push the switch to climate change and Bill Gates with his Foundation have done more for the planet than anyone in Greenpeace or Just Stop Oil or any other hairshirt zealot ever has.

When did I say I wanted to shrink the pie and keep dirty technologies? This is the strawman argument made about any environmental position - either we want everyone to go back to the stone age, or we're Malthusians who want to cull the population of the planet.

Elon and his rocketry work - which he is specifically doing because he doesn't want to stop extractivist economics on Earth and wishes to have a dystopian style escape to the stars for rich people only - emits a ridiculous amount of CO2. I'm not against space exploration, far from it, but we could do with sorting out our terrestrial issues first and then doing space travel, not doing space travel so we don't have to sort out our problems here.

https://www.theecoexperts.co.uk/blog/elon-musk-rocket-emitted-358-tonnes-of-co2

We will never know the full impacts of billionaires - not all of their investments are public; but even looking at the not particularly useful global footprint metric - the global average is 4.7ish tonnes of CO2; Bill Gates is closer to 7500 tonnes. And the impact of his investment in "offsetting" is unprovable, because it is waiting for future technology to arrive and then invest in - offsetting doesn't work

https://www.theecoexperts.co.uk/blog/carbon-offsetting#:~:text=Carbon offsetting doesn't work in most cases.&text=A recent example of this,Verra did not reduce emissions.

You did, you said that. You're the one who denounced R&D and investment and said that clean technologies are not the solution.

You're a hypocrite who doesn't give a damn about the environment. If clean technologies come about through R&D (and they have been at a seriously impressive rate for decades now) then there is no environmental reason whatsoever for anyone to reduce their consumption.

If clean technologies can't come about, then we're f***ed either way.

The only valid solution is technological. And that means the role the state has to play is in encouraging that and ensuring there is a profit motive to be clean.

I said we have no current evidence that a new technology will save us, yes. We have the current technologies to reach carbon neutrality, we just choose not to make the societal and economic changes to make that a viable world - one that would require some shrinkage and redistribution of resources. Carbon capture is the silver bullet because it lets us keep putting carbon in the atmosphere, dealing with the effects of our economic choices whilst allowing us to keep making them. We could choose to make different choices now. As someone looking at the standard of tech now - where carbon capture does not currently work - I'd rather invest in the solution we have that we know could work versus hoping for the technology we haven't been able to make work to work in time.

"Current technology" is not even close to being sufficient to get us to reach carbon neutrality. It has reduced our emissions, but its not remotely sufficient.

That's why investments in technology, R&D are required. And companies will invest if they get a reward from that investment. Which requires a profit motive. Which means people make money - something that you seem to be against.

But just because current technology isn't enough doesn't mean future technology won't be enough. It will, and billions are going annually into much-needed R&D to get us there.

We can reach net zero, over time, with investment. Something you are against, because you don't give a damn about the environment.

Your position: Just invest in R&D and a new technology will appear that can magic away the problem

My position: We don't know if that tech is possible in the time frame needed, so why not use the tech we have and reduce global consumption to get to the same place. We can always do the R&D for new stuff when we know we are safe.

Apparently my position is the zealous magical thinking position, and your position is the reasonable one.

You need to learn about Technology Readiness Level

https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/458490main_TRL_Definitions.pdf

Every technology for net zero exists. Multiple technologies, for multiple solutions to the same problems, actually.

The issue is not "inventing" stuff, it is getting it to TRL9

EDIT: What Tesla did was to take the concept of a high performance electric car from TRL-6/7 to TRL-9

We have the blueprint to get to carbon neutral now - it just involves changing things rather than just a magic bullet technology of carbon capture:

https://cat.org.uk/info-resources/zero-carbon-britain/research-reports/zero-carbon-britain-making-it-happen/

Carnyx

kle4 said:

Peck said:

kle4 said:

SouthamObserver said:

I suspect this is the bigger Anderson problem for Sunak:

Deputy Chair of the Conservative Party Lee Anderson tells GB News the government has failed on immigration:

“We are in government and we have failed on this, there is no doubt about it. we have said we are going to fix it, it is a failure.”

https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1689238030316396544

No.10: The man who made a name for himself for a 'plain speaking' style is being bluntly honest about a failure? Who could have seen that coming?

It's possible that Anderson is limbering up to jump to Reform (and contribute to the coming Tory landslide that way) but I doubt it. He's much more likely to be doing pre-publicity for a Big Tory Move on immigration.

And auditioning for a presenter gig on GB news.

(Actually, for all I know he already has one).

Your political nous is glittering.

https://www.gbnews.com/shows/lee-andersons-real-world/

Malmesbury

Taz said:

Malmesbury said:

148grss said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

148grss said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

148grss said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

148grss said:

williamglenn said:

148grss said:

Sandpit said:

148grss said:

darkage said:

On the assumption that all the science is correct it seems to me that a technical solution through decarbonisation and adaptation is the most feasible answer to the problem of global warming. It is quite obvious that it is not going to be realistic to stop consumption in developing counties, if you stake all your hopes on this, accepting the massive economic hit that would be involved, then you are going to end up disappointed and you will not innovate (which is necessary to solve the problem) at the same rate.

Perhaps this position is actually a form of faith in technical progress, but there is evidence of success to justify it, ie with the improving efficiency of solar panels, the emergence of electric cars, etc. To the contrary I've seen little evidence that developing countries will slow down their growth in consumption. It seems to me that the environmental activists and their fellow travellers are right to point out the problem but by catastrophising and preaching that consumption is a sin they are actually getting in the way of the optimum solution.

That to me is what feels more like a religious belief "a new technology will save us" where we have no actual reason to believe it will, when instead we have had the means to make the necessary changes in the last 30 years and it was decided not to. If environmentalists making demands for revolution sound like religious zealots, it's partly because the last 30 years have been such monumental failures:

https://thecorrespondent.com/751/weve-emitted-more-co2-in-the-past-30-years-than-in-all-of-history-these-three-reasons-are-to-blame

The point is that there have been massive positive technological changes in the past three decades.

The religious are those who say that little or nothing has been done.

That technological change has not reduced the likelihood of climate catastrophe and has increased it. In the last 30 years we've had the incentive, we've had the knowledge and we've had the technology to massively change economies - the issue has been that the "market" (see those invested in oil) have incentives for short term profit over long term sustainability. We do not currently have viable carbon capture tech, and to assume that we will have it in time to save us sounds more akin to a faith based position than the materialist approach of just reducing our dependency on fossil fuels and reducing our consumption. I don't advocate going back to the stone age - we could have a globally average standard of living that is very good that is also not highly destructive to the environment. What you can't have is that and growth growth growth at the same time.

So in your alternative vision, 8 billion people would collectively have a higher standard of living but with lower aggregate consumption? How does that add up?

Redistribution of resources. The analogy of growth is always "you might get a smaller slice, but of a bigger pie, so you'll be richer". I'm saying we need to shrink the pie, but give more people bigger slices. That means some people will get smaller slices, yes, but most of those people already have massive slices and they'll be relatively worse off compared to their life previously, but still very well off compared to the standard of living across the whole of human history. Elon Musk or Mark Zuckerberg or Bill Gates are not people who deserve millions times more resources at their disposal than any other human being.

And that is because you are a religious zealot who doesn't give a damn about the environment.

Shrinking the pie, but keeping dirty technologies, does not help the environment, does not solve climate emissions, does not address climate change. It does nothing positive.

Having economic growth, with clean technologies, is better for the planet, better for the environment, and raises living standards.

They are not perfect individuals, far from it, but Elon Musk with the assistance he has given to push the switch to climate change and Bill Gates with his Foundation have done more for the planet than anyone in Greenpeace or Just Stop Oil or any other hairshirt zealot ever has.

When did I say I wanted to shrink the pie and keep dirty technologies? This is the strawman argument made about any environmental position - either we want everyone to go back to the stone age, or we're Malthusians who want to cull the population of the planet.

Elon and his rocketry work - which he is specifically doing because he doesn't want to stop extractivist economics on Earth and wishes to have a dystopian style escape to the stars for rich people only - emits a ridiculous amount of CO2. I'm not against space exploration, far from it, but we could do with sorting out our terrestrial issues first and then doing space travel, not doing space travel so we don't have to sort out our problems here.

https://www.theecoexperts.co.uk/blog/elon-musk-rocket-emitted-358-tonnes-of-co2

We will never know the full impacts of billionaires - not all of their investments are public; but even looking at the not particularly useful global footprint metric - the global average is 4.7ish tonnes of CO2; Bill Gates is closer to 7500 tonnes. And the impact of his investment in "offsetting" is unprovable, because it is waiting for future technology to arrive and then invest in - offsetting doesn't work

https://www.theecoexperts.co.uk/blog/carbon-offsetting#:~:text=Carbon offsetting doesn't work in most cases.&text=A recent example of this,Verra did not reduce emissions.

You did, you said that. You're the one who denounced R&D and investment and said that clean technologies are not the solution.

You're a hypocrite who doesn't give a damn about the environment. If clean technologies come about through R&D (and they have been at a seriously impressive rate for decades now) then there is no environmental reason whatsoever for anyone to reduce their consumption.

If clean technologies can't come about, then we're f***ed either way.

The only valid solution is technological. And that means the role the state has to play is in encouraging that and ensuring there is a profit motive to be clean.

I said we have no current evidence that a new technology will save us, yes. We have the current technologies to reach carbon neutrality, we just choose not to make the societal and economic changes to make that a viable world - one that would require some shrinkage and redistribution of resources. Carbon capture is the silver bullet because it lets us keep putting carbon in the atmosphere, dealing with the effects of our economic choices whilst allowing us to keep making them. We could choose to make different choices now. As someone looking at the standard of tech now - where carbon capture does not currently work - I'd rather invest in the solution we have that we know could work versus hoping for the technology we haven't been able to make work to work in time.

"Current technology" is not even close to being sufficient to get us to reach carbon neutrality. It has reduced our emissions, but its not remotely sufficient.

That's why investments in technology, R&D are required. And companies will invest if they get a reward from that investment. Which requires a profit motive. Which means people make money - something that you seem to be against.

But just because current technology isn't enough doesn't mean future technology won't be enough. It will, and billions are going annually into much-needed R&D to get us there.

We can reach net zero, over time, with investment. Something you are against, because you don't give a damn about the environment.

Your position: Just invest in R&D and a new technology will appear that can magic away the problem

My position: We don't know if that tech is possible in the time frame needed, so why not use the tech we have and reduce global consumption to get to the same place. We can always do the R&D for new stuff when we know we are safe.

Apparently my position is the zealous magical thinking position, and your position is the reasonable one.

You need to learn about Technology Readiness Level

https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/458490main_TRL_Definitions.pdf

Every technology for net zero exists. Multiple technologies, for multiple solutions to the same problems, actually.

The issue is not "inventing" stuff, it is getting it to TRL9

EDIT: What Tesla did was to take the concept of a high performance electric car from TRL-6/7 to TRL-9

Thanks for that link.

I work in manufacturing and projects. We work on stage gates.

That is a really interesting link.

One problem is that many people don't understand that TRL-1 to TRL-9 exist. In their world one boffin in a white lab coat, chewing a briar pipe, twiddles some big Bakelite knobs on a machine and INVENTS!

Ten minutes later it's being made in a factory.

It's at the heart of all those Elon Musk did everything/nothing debates.

Mortimer

SouthamObserver said:

I suspect this is the bigger Anderson problem for Sunak:

Deputy Chair of the Conservative Party Lee Anderson tells GB News the government has failed on immigration:

“We are in government and we have failed on this, there is no doubt about it. we have said we are going to fix it, it is a failure.”

https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1689238030316396544

Sunak has bigger problems than Anderson, personnel wise. Shapps and Cleverly are both far more personable and charismatic.

When he is flailing in the polls and another 1000 Tory councillors have lost, who then will support him?

Eabhal

Malmesbury said:

148grss said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

148grss said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

148grss said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

148grss said:

williamglenn said:

148grss said:

Sandpit said:

148grss said:

darkage said:

On the assumption that all the science is correct it seems to me that a technical solution through decarbonisation and adaptation is the most feasible answer to the problem of global warming. It is quite obvious that it is not going to be realistic to stop consumption in developing counties, if you stake all your hopes on this, accepting the massive economic hit that would be involved, then you are going to end up disappointed and you will not innovate (which is necessary to solve the problem) at the same rate.

Perhaps this position is actually a form of faith in technical progress, but there is evidence of success to justify it, ie with the improving efficiency of solar panels, the emergence of electric cars, etc. To the contrary I've seen little evidence that developing countries will slow down their growth in consumption. It seems to me that the environmental activists and their fellow travellers are right to point out the problem but by catastrophising and preaching that consumption is a sin they are actually getting in the way of the optimum solution.

That to me is what feels more like a religious belief "a new technology will save us" where we have no actual reason to believe it will, when instead we have had the means to make the necessary changes in the last 30 years and it was decided not to. If environmentalists making demands for revolution sound like religious zealots, it's partly because the last 30 years have been such monumental failures:

https://thecorrespondent.com/751/weve-emitted-more-co2-in-the-past-30-years-than-in-all-of-history-these-three-reasons-are-to-blame

The point is that there have been massive positive technological changes in the past three decades.

The religious are those who say that little or nothing has been done.

That technological change has not reduced the likelihood of climate catastrophe and has increased it. In the last 30 years we've had the incentive, we've had the knowledge and we've had the technology to massively change economies - the issue has been that the "market" (see those invested in oil) have incentives for short term profit over long term sustainability. We do not currently have viable carbon capture tech, and to assume that we will have it in time to save us sounds more akin to a faith based position than the materialist approach of just reducing our dependency on fossil fuels and reducing our consumption. I don't advocate going back to the stone age - we could have a globally average standard of living that is very good that is also not highly destructive to the environment. What you can't have is that and growth growth growth at the same time.

So in your alternative vision, 8 billion people would collectively have a higher standard of living but with lower aggregate consumption? How does that add up?

Redistribution of resources. The analogy of growth is always "you might get a smaller slice, but of a bigger pie, so you'll be richer". I'm saying we need to shrink the pie, but give more people bigger slices. That means some people will get smaller slices, yes, but most of those people already have massive slices and they'll be relatively worse off compared to their life previously, but still very well off compared to the standard of living across the whole of human history. Elon Musk or Mark Zuckerberg or Bill Gates are not people who deserve millions times more resources at their disposal than any other human being.

And that is because you are a religious zealot who doesn't give a damn about the environment.

Shrinking the pie, but keeping dirty technologies, does not help the environment, does not solve climate emissions, does not address climate change. It does nothing positive.

Having economic growth, with clean technologies, is better for the planet, better for the environment, and raises living standards.

They are not perfect individuals, far from it, but Elon Musk with the assistance he has given to push the switch to climate change and Bill Gates with his Foundation have done more for the planet than anyone in Greenpeace or Just Stop Oil or any other hairshirt zealot ever has.

When did I say I wanted to shrink the pie and keep dirty technologies? This is the strawman argument made about any environmental position - either we want everyone to go back to the stone age, or we're Malthusians who want to cull the population of the planet.

Elon and his rocketry work - which he is specifically doing because he doesn't want to stop extractivist economics on Earth and wishes to have a dystopian style escape to the stars for rich people only - emits a ridiculous amount of CO2. I'm not against space exploration, far from it, but we could do with sorting out our terrestrial issues first and then doing space travel, not doing space travel so we don't have to sort out our problems here.

https://www.theecoexperts.co.uk/blog/elon-musk-rocket-emitted-358-tonnes-of-co2

We will never know the full impacts of billionaires - not all of their investments are public; but even looking at the not particularly useful global footprint metric - the global average is 4.7ish tonnes of CO2; Bill Gates is closer to 7500 tonnes. And the impact of his investment in "offsetting" is unprovable, because it is waiting for future technology to arrive and then invest in - offsetting doesn't work

https://www.theecoexperts.co.uk/blog/carbon-offsetting#:~:text=Carbon offsetting doesn't work in most cases.&text=A recent example of this,Verra did not reduce emissions.

You did, you said that. You're the one who denounced R&D and investment and said that clean technologies are not the solution.

You're a hypocrite who doesn't give a damn about the environment. If clean technologies come about through R&D (and they have been at a seriously impressive rate for decades now) then there is no environmental reason whatsoever for anyone to reduce their consumption.

If clean technologies can't come about, then we're f***ed either way.

The only valid solution is technological. And that means the role the state has to play is in encouraging that and ensuring there is a profit motive to be clean.

I said we have no current evidence that a new technology will save us, yes. We have the current technologies to reach carbon neutrality, we just choose not to make the societal and economic changes to make that a viable world - one that would require some shrinkage and redistribution of resources. Carbon capture is the silver bullet because it lets us keep putting carbon in the atmosphere, dealing with the effects of our economic choices whilst allowing us to keep making them. We could choose to make different choices now. As someone looking at the standard of tech now - where carbon capture does not currently work - I'd rather invest in the solution we have that we know could work versus hoping for the technology we haven't been able to make work to work in time.

"Current technology" is not even close to being sufficient to get us to reach carbon neutrality. It has reduced our emissions, but its not remotely sufficient.

That's why investments in technology, R&D are required. And companies will invest if they get a reward from that investment. Which requires a profit motive. Which means people make money - something that you seem to be against.

But just because current technology isn't enough doesn't mean future technology won't be enough. It will, and billions are going annually into much-needed R&D to get us there.

We can reach net zero, over time, with investment. Something you are against, because you don't give a damn about the environment.

Your position: Just invest in R&D and a new technology will appear that can magic away the problem

My position: We don't know if that tech is possible in the time frame needed, so why not use the tech we have and reduce global consumption to get to the same place. We can always do the R&D for new stuff when we know we are safe.

Apparently my position is the zealous magical thinking position, and your position is the reasonable one.

You need to learn about Technology Readiness Level

https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/458490main_TRL_Definitions.pdf

Every technology for net zero exists. Multiple technologies, for multiple solutions to the same problems, actually.

The issue is not "inventing" stuff, it is getting it to TRL9

EDIT: What Tesla did was to take the concept of a high performance electric car from TRL-6/7 to TRL-9

There is a middle ground here.

I think getting to net zero will be quite easy for the UK, and the rest of the world will follow quickly, just based on the current technology we have available. Transport is the area where we have made least progress so far, and that is all looking rather rosy.

Even if the rest of the world does not follow, it's probably a net positive anyway given all the other benefits of going for renewable energy.

We should not plan based on new technologies suddenly coming available, but when they do we should embrace them and accelerate the process even further given the escalating costs of further warming.

LostPassword

Sandpit said:

Stuartinromford said:

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

Mortimer said:

FPT:

AlistairM said:

TOPPING said:

AlistairM said:

pm215 said:

Eabhal said:

Otoh, there is actually a nascent campaign againt cycle2work, because it's regressive (it is!). But honestly, talk about idealogy over outcomes. Deeply frustrating.

I dislike c2w because as you say it's regressive -- middle class higher rate tax payers like me effectively get expensive bikes nearly half price because we have secure employment at companies who care enough about retention to offer the benefit. It smacks of an "ooh, we can do a quick faff with the tax system" wheeze rather than a thought out policy on how best to encourage cycling. But I don't want it scrapped, I'd like to see it replaced with something better. My suggestion is make cycles and cycle accessories zero rated for VAT.

Having just received my new bike via C2W I now agree with scrapping the system.

Don't you pay for it through the nose via interest payments?

For me it is the price of the bike (~£1200) split into 12 monthly payments (i.e. ~£100/month) taken off your salary before deductions. So if you are a high rate tax payer then it costs not much more than half the actual cost of the bike spread over 12 months.

FFS. Why are we subsidising this sort of thing.

Big state at its worst.

A subsidy and a tax break are rather different things economically, particularly if you are a free marketeer.

As soon as you tax something, you prevent mutually beneficial transactions from happening - I was willing to buy what you were selling for up to £20, you were willing to sell for at least £19 but, because the taxman wants £2, the deal that would have benefited us both can't happen (and the taxman gets nothing either).

Subsidies have the opposite problem - if I'm willing to buy for£19 and you to sell for at least £20, the deal is not mutually beneficial and should not happen, but if a £2 subsidy is provided then it will. The free marketeer is upset and money has been wasted on facilitating a trade benefiting nobody.

A tax break is not a subsidy - indeed it gets closer to the ideal situation for the free market believer. That doesn't mean all tax breaks are good as the pragmatic free marketeer understands that you do need to fund education and defence. But you're just wrong to call it a subsidy.

Not just that.

I don't think any of us knows the overall cost:benefit calculus for the cycle to work scheme. There clearly are benefits in terms of reduced congestion and longterm health outcomes. They may be large or they may be small and they're complicated by not knowing what would happen without the tax break.

But it's at least possible that the gains for the state in subsidising people to buy bikes outweigh the costs. But a reflexive state shrinking is just as liable to get things wrong as an unthiking expansion of the state.

Is there any monitoring of the how the recipients of these subsidised bikes are actually using them, or are a bunch of relatively rich people getting a 40% discount on something they only use on Sundays?

For what it's worth I did use the bicycle I bought with the cycle to work scheme to cycle to work, but I'd already been cycling to work for several years at that point.

The policy has been in place for some years now and it seems pretty clear that a tax break won't be enough to encourage people to cycle if that means cycling on the same roads as cars.

This is one area where Boris Johnson got it, and very few other politicians do (though I think the King of the North does too). Create more segregated cycle lanes that are easy to use and go to where people want to go.

Luckyguy1983

kinabalu said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

nico679 said:

What leaving the ECHR means .

Breaking the terms of the Good Friday Agreement .
Co-operation on security matters with the EU ends .
It also puts into jeopardy the Trade and Co-Operation Agreement .
The UK would be in the company of Russia and Belarus , is this really what people want especially at this time .

Because of the Article 50 case they cannot leave the ECHR without parliamentary approval . That set a precedent that rights of UK citizens can not be removed using Henry Vlll powers .

We should not leave the Convention, but I see no reason why we should remain part of the Court. In any independent country, why would the highest court, with the right to overrule the expressed will of Parliament, be a supranational one?

Because fundamental rights and freedoms should be enshrined at the highest possible level.

Indeed they should - within the nation subject to the Court.

Mortimer

Stuartinromford said:

Taz said:

SouthamObserver said:

kle4 said:

SouthamObserver said:

I suspect this is the bigger Anderson problem for Sunak:

Deputy Chair of the Conservative Party Lee Anderson tells GB News the government has failed on immigration:

“We are in government and we have failed on this, there is no doubt about it. we have said we are going to fix it, it is a failure.”

https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1689238030316396544

No.10: The man who made a name for himself for a 'plain speaking' style is being bluntly honest about a failure? Who could have seen that coming?

If you know absolutely nothing about the country you govern you put someone like Lee Anderson in a position to speak to it on your behalf.

Anderson is there to do the Prescott role John Prescott fulfilled in the Blair years. Reach parts of the electorate and supporter base the leadership cannot.

We all know about John Prescott's reach...



Whilst it's clear that Anderson has that role, the harder question is whether he is any good at it. Or if it's another bit of uncomprehending cosplay.

He isn't meant to appeal to wets.

He is meant to appeal to the base. He does that far better than most here understand.

Creating a fuss about this issue is like the 350m. It causes wets to support the outcry, and the public to think 'hmmm actually I'm not sure I like the boats arriving either'.

Leon

nico679 said:

Leon said:

nico679 said:

Leon said:

nico679 said:

More unhinged nonsense from Jenrick .

Apparently the UK is being punished for Brexit and that’s why the ECHR is being difficult .

More threats to leave the ECHR , what an absolute cesspit this government have become .

Yes, they should follow your advice and pursue a "White Britain" policy, favouring white European migrants over the duskier types from elsewhere

I never said that and I won’t take lectures from a Trump supporter.

You absolutely said that, and I'm not a Trump supporter

Otherwise, good comment

I did not and stop mis-representing me . In my post I was pointing out that remain needed a gobby politically incorrect figure like Farage to point out that immigration would still happen but instead of EU nationals you’d end up with non-EU nationals .

I’m pro immigration I don’t care where people come from as long as they’re law abiding citizens . That’s my view .

So you’re frustrated that Remain didn’t conduct an overtly racist campaign - because you think this would have won the vote. Got it

RochdalePioneers

Leon said:

A Tesla self-driving flawlessly for ONE HOUR in San Francisco

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R24lMWo0r-I

They are close to solving this, and it is the future. Autonomous e-cars. Goodbye private human-driven cars

I hope that once America has fully beta tested it that the UNECE regulations can be dropped here so that we can have the same software. It is currently illegal!

Peck

Mortimer said:

SouthamObserver said:

I suspect this is the bigger Anderson problem for Sunak:

Deputy Chair of the Conservative Party Lee Anderson tells GB News the government has failed on immigration:

“We are in government and we have failed on this, there is no doubt about it. we have said we are going to fix it, it is a failure.”

https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1689238030316396544

Sunak has bigger problems than Anderson, personnel wise. Shapps and Cleverly are both far more personable and charismatic.

When he is flailing in the polls and another 1000 Tory councillors have lost, who then will support him?

Election likely before or on 2 May 2024 then?

Malmesbury

viewcode said:

148grss said:

Malmesbury said:

148grss said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

148grss said:

williamglenn said:

148grss said:

Sandpit said:

148grss said:

darkage said:

On the assumption that all the science is correct it seems to me that a technical solution through decarbonisation and adaptation is the most feasible answer to the problem of global warming. It is quite obvious that it is not going to be realistic to stop consumption in developing counties, if you stake all your hopes on this, accepting the massive economic hit that would be involved, then you are going to end up disappointed and you will not innovate (which is necessary to solve the problem) at the same rate.

Perhaps this position is actually a form of faith in technical progress, but there is evidence of success to justify it, ie with the improving efficiency of solar panels, the emergence of electric cars, etc. To the contrary I've seen little evidence that developing countries will slow down their growth in consumption. It seems to me that the environmental activists and their fellow travellers are right to point out the problem but by catastrophising and preaching that consumption is a sin they are actually getting in the way of the optimum solution.

That to me is what feels more like a religious belief "a new technology will save us" where we have no actual reason to believe it will, when instead we have had the means to make the necessary changes in the last 30 years and it was decided not to. If environmentalists making demands for revolution sound like religious zealots, it's partly because the last 30 years have been such monumental failures:

https://thecorrespondent.com/751/weve-emitted-more-co2-in-the-past-30-years-than-in-all-of-history-these-three-reasons-are-to-blame

The point is that there have been massive positive technological changes in the past three decades.

The religious are those who say that little or nothing has been done.

That technological change has not reduced the likelihood of climate catastrophe and has increased it. In the last 30 years we've had the incentive, we've had the knowledge and we've had the technology to massively change economies - the issue has been that the "market" (see those invested in oil) have incentives for short term profit over long term sustainability. We do not currently have viable carbon capture tech, and to assume that we will have it in time to save us sounds more akin to a faith based position than the materialist approach of just reducing our dependency on fossil fuels and reducing our consumption. I don't advocate going back to the stone age - we could have a globally average standard of living that is very good that is also not highly destructive to the environment. What you can't have is that and growth growth growth at the same time.

So in your alternative vision, 8 billion people would collectively have a higher standard of living but with lower aggregate consumption? How does that add up?

Redistribution of resources. The analogy of growth is always "you might get a smaller slice, but of a bigger pie, so you'll be richer". I'm saying we need to shrink the pie, but give more people bigger slices. That means some people will get smaller slices, yes, but most of those people already have massive slices and they'll be relatively worse off compared to their life previously, but still very well off compared to the standard of living across the whole of human history. Elon Musk or Mark Zuckerberg or Bill Gates are not people who deserve millions times more resources at their disposal than any other human being.

And that is because you are a religious zealot who doesn't give a damn about the environment.

Shrinking the pie, but keeping dirty technologies, does not help the environment, does not solve climate emissions, does not address climate change. It does nothing positive.

Having economic growth, with clean technologies, is better for the planet, better for the environment, and raises living standards.

They are not perfect individuals, far from it, but Elon Musk with the assistance he has given to push the switch to climate change and Bill Gates with his Foundation have done more for the planet than anyone in Greenpeace or Just Stop Oil or any other hairshirt zealot ever has.

When did I say I wanted to shrink the pie and keep dirty technologies? This is the strawman argument made about any environmental position - either we want everyone to go back to the stone age, or we're Malthusians who want to cull the population of the planet.

Elon and his rocketry work - which he is specifically doing because he doesn't want to stop extractivist economics on Earth and wishes to have a dystopian style escape to the stars for rich people only - emits a ridiculous amount of CO2. I'm not against space exploration, far from it, but we could do with sorting out our terrestrial issues first and then doing space travel, not doing space travel so we don't have to sort out our problems here.

https://www.theecoexperts.co.uk/blog/elon-musk-rocket-emitted-358-tonnes-of-co2

We will never know the full impacts of billionaires - not all of their investments are public; but even looking at the not particularly useful global footprint metric - the global average is 4.7ish tonnes of CO2; Bill Gates is closer to 7500 tonnes. And the impact of his investment in "offsetting" is unprovable, because it is waiting for future technology to arrive and then invest in - offsetting doesn't work

https://www.theecoexperts.co.uk/blog/carbon-offsetting#:~:text=Carbon offsetting doesn't work in most cases.&text=A recent example of this,Verra did not reduce emissions.

Rocketry makes up tiny portion of world emissions. SpaceX has killed the fashion for solid rocket boosters - which emit lots of nasties. They are a large part of the pivot to methane/LOX, which is clean burning.

Methane can then be produced by the Sabatier process - which is part of the plan for Mars (for a number of organisations, not just SpaceX).

Yes, initially the methane on Earth is from natural gas, but an off shoot of creating automated plants to make it on Mars will be that the technology goes though the scaling/mass production process and becomes much cheaper.

My example was not to say this is the biggest issue, rather that it was indicative of how economic choices get made. One rich bloke wants to do space capitalism and leverages huge resources to do that and test flies a rocket that causes emissions. That could all instead do something else for the common good and the issues that we face right now. Yes, I want space travel to be a thing, but not so rich people can run away from Earth as it crumbles behind them.

The saddest thing about Musk (apart from the realisation that even billionaires can't get good hair transplants, see also Trump), is that he's not doing a remake of "When Worlds Collide ', he''s doing a remake of "Elysium"... ☹️

He doesn't seem to be assuming he is going himself.

Several people (who are in a position to know) have said/hinted that he is in a 'Requiem' style situation.

Mortimer

Peck said:

Mortimer said:

SouthamObserver said:

I suspect this is the bigger Anderson problem for Sunak:

Deputy Chair of the Conservative Party Lee Anderson tells GB News the government has failed on immigration:

“We are in government and we have failed on this, there is no doubt about it. we have said we are going to fix it, it is a failure.”

https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1689238030316396544

Sunak has bigger problems than Anderson, personnel wise. Shapps and Cleverly are both far more personable and charismatic.

When he is flailing in the polls and another 1000 Tory councillors have lost, who then will support him?

Election likely before or on 2 May 2024 then?

Leadership election post May 2024, GE in October on the back of a new, barnacle free leader.