New Hampshire yesterday! "Democrat Hal Rafter won by 12 points in a state House district that went narrowly for Donald Trump in 2020," wrote Post columnist Aaron Blake. "The 12-point improvement on the 2020 margin is in line with Democrats’ encouraging continued over-performances in special elections this year; Daily Kos Elections and FiveThirtyEight data on more than two dozen special elections show the party running an average of 7.6 points better than their 2020 margins — margins from a 2020 election that, it bears noting, were already good for Democrats — and double digits better than the normal partisan fundamentals."
"Rafter's election flipped a red seat to blue, bringing the populous statehouse to a 198-197 narrowly favoring Republicans, but that could become a tie if upcoming special elections break as expected, and frequent vacancies often tilt the balance of power for votes"
Interesting bearing in mind this was one of the Trumps states that he says he was cheated from winning!!!
I'm no lawyer, bur seeing as he was apprehended outside the prison, how on earth is such a plea even possible?
Any number of defences available. Identity. No mens rea. Necessity. Coercion. Defect in the original process of imprisonment. Insanity. Assertion of human rights in the face of prison conditions.
Such a plea is possible for the simple reason that no-one can be criminally convicted except by proper process, and people are entitled not to convict themselves by pleading guilty. (If you remain mute, a NG plea is entered in default). NG means "prove it".
I'm no lawyer, bur seeing as he was apprehended outside the prison, how on earth is such a plea even possible?
Any number of defences available. Identity. No mens rea. Necessity. Coercion. Defect in the original process of imprisonment. Insanity. Assertion of human rights in the face of prison conditions.
Such a plea is possible for the simple reason that no-one can be criminally convicted except by proper process, and people are entitled not to convict themselves by pleading guilty. (If you remain mute, a NG plea is entered in default). NG means "prove it".
Small point, is necessity really a defence? I thought there was a cannibalism case way back, when some sailors aboard a lifeboat drew lots and ate one of the party. They were convicted of murder establishing that necessity isn't a defence?
I'm no lawyer, bur seeing as he was apprehended outside the prison, how on earth is such a plea even possible?
Any number of defences available. Identity. No mens rea. Necessity. Coercion. Defect in the original process of imprisonment. Insanity. Assertion of human rights in the face of prison conditions.
Such a plea is possible for the simple reason that no-one can be criminally convicted except by proper process, and people are entitled not to convict themselves by pleading guilty. (If you remain mute, a NG plea is entered in default). NG means "prove it".
Small point, is necessity really a defence? I thought there was a cannibalism case way back, when some sailors aboard a lifeboat drew lots and ate one of the party. They were convicted of murder establishing that necessity isn't a defence?
What you may claim was necessary isn’t necessarily what the judge and jury decide was necessary.
AI is now generating pretty pictures - that also function as QR codes. And they really work
Is this the first example of “art” that humans simply couldn’t do, no matter how talented?
A human could do this. It would be laborious, to be sure, but the principle is easy enough. It's still quite a leap of imagination to think of doing it, though, so kudos to the person who dreamt it up.
Fair enough. Try this
It still has that quality of “teenage album cover design” but now it’s “Christ what an amazing teenage album cover design”. For me this is even more impressive than the QR code. AI art is leaping ahead - again
Mediocre gimmicks
Perhaps. But it is still extremely clever
Maybe. But nothing about it detains my attention. Whereas last week I spent 20 minutes in front of a minor work by a minor painter in York's Art Gallery and I would happily travel a long way to see it again. When AI can do that for me I'll change my mind.
But that’s because you KNOW you are looking at human art. So you are emotionally prepared for and invested in the art beforehand
What would you do if you went into an art gallery and you knew 50% of the art was human, and 50% of the art was AI - but they didn’t tell you which? How would you react to the individual artworks?
You’d be clueless and disturbed (so would I, this is not an insult)
And if you think you’d always be able to tell the difference you’re delusional
Remember the crime drama Broadchurch from 2013? In it there was an elderly character who'd previously married a women several years his junior, and he was portrayed as a heroic victim of prurient media harassment. Now there is talk of those sort of relationships to be criminalized (even if both parties are above the age of consent). I'm not saying if that approach is right or wrong, but it's amazing how quickly the received opinion can change.
I don't believe anyone is suggesting criminalising adult relationships based on age differential.
What I do believe is being discussed is tightening up safeguards regarding relationships people have with children.
There's a myth by some that the unrestricted age of consent in this country is 16, its not, its 18 already.
Relations with a 16 year old may be legal, or may be illegal, depending upon the circumstances. Some people are suggesting those circumstances be adjusted to include a "Romeo and Juliet" style law, which is not unusual abroad.
I'm no lawyer, bur seeing as he was apprehended outside the prison, how on earth is such a plea even possible?
Any number of defences available. Identity. No mens rea. Necessity. Coercion. Defect in the original process of imprisonment. Insanity. Assertion of human rights in the face of prison conditions.
Such a plea is possible for the simple reason that no-one can be criminally convicted except by proper process, and people are entitled not to convict themselves by pleading guilty. (If you remain mute, a NG plea is entered in default). NG means "prove it".
Small point, is necessity really a defence? I thought there was a cannibalism case way back, when some sailors aboard a lifeboat drew lots and ate one of the party. They were convicted of murder establishing that necessity isn't a defence?
To add to the complication, that was perfectly legal under maritime law and custom IIRC. It was some shoreside lawyer who insisted on prosecuting.
Remember the crime drama Broadchurch from 2013? In it there was an elderly character who'd previously married a women several years his junior, and he was portrayed as a heroic victim of prurient media harassment. Now there is talk of those sort of relationships to be criminalized (even if both parties are above the age of consent). I'm not saying if that approach is right or wrong, but it's amazing how quickly the received opinion can change.
I don't believe anyone is suggesting criminalising adult relationships based on age differential.
What I do believe is being discussed is tightening up safeguards regarding relationships people have with children.
There's a myth by some that the unrestricted age of consent in this country is 16, its not, its 18 already.
Relations with a 16 year old may be legal, or may be illegal, depending upon the circumstances. Some people are suggesting those circumstances be adjusted to include a "Romeo and Juliet" style law, which is not unusual abroad.
Will Romeo and Juliet survive the Online Harms bill ?
On topic, Sunak is right. There has been a huge amount of cakeism from previous governments, basking in the approval of environmental campaigners for introducing the targets, while failing to have an honest conversation about costs - and because Labour, the Lib Dems and Greens, and indeed the core broadcast media, are signed up to the same agenda, then they're happy for the Tories to be blamed for the costs as they come in as the party in office.
Consequently, the only political opposition comes from right-wing Tories, Reform UK, the Mail and Telegraph. It's like Brexit all over again - and we know how that ended.
Brexit was ultimately a consequence of a failure to advocate the benefits of the policy. It's easy to see now the net costs but without explaining the many little benefits, that ground was ceded by default to the opponents who could highlight the irritants and costs involved. Proponents were quiet while opponents were loud (with the exception of Remainy true believers, who by taking their case too far, also turned the public off). And that's where we are with Net Zero and climate change policy.
Unless the policy is advocated from first principles, not just on 'save the planet' grounds, which some will see as hopelessly beyond Britain's scope and others will see and virtue-signalling guff or simply fraudulent, but on grounds of national security and economic benefit, there is every chance there will be a populist backlash against a policy seen as imposed by an elite conspiracy without a popular mandate - because there will be enough truth in the case to credibly make it, especially if the other side is out-of-practice in its media skills in countering those claims.
Put simply, in a democracy, you have to take the people with you.
It's not a great sign that the TV media coverage today is full of environmentalists and political opponents of the Tories whining about how awful the Tories are, rather than making the positive case for action (which it's worth noting the Tories are still signed up to, even if in a kick-the-can mode).
"Put simply, in a democracy, you have to take the people with you."
And Sunak has given up trying. Because he doesn't care about the environment himself, he'd rather take the soft option and follow the agenda of the Mail and Express.
This isn't leadership. Get rid.
Sunak is challenging the climate change process and in fact is brave and correct
Of course he has come under fierce attack, but as is being seen on this forum he is receiving support for his actions
No. Sunak is being completely disingenuous. Claiming that 2050 Net Zero can still be achieved without taking the steps required to get there is just taking the people for fools.
Clearly an attempt to have cake and eat it. He deserves all he gets for this nonsense.
There are multiple sets of steps you can take to get to the same destination.
If petrol cars get outlawed in 2035 then by 2050 they'll be at least 16 years old and a tiny proportion of vehicles on the road.
The problem with extremists is the fallacy of "something must be done, this is something, so this must be done."
Nonsense.
If, say, we pump out maximum emissions until 2049 then make a big bang transition to Net Zero then:
1) the UK economy is left for dead as the US/China plough on with a cheap, green energy economy
2) or, if everyone else follows our example, the planet is screwed.
Who said that we pump out maximum emissions until 2049 then make a big transition in 2050? Certainly not me.
The transition is happening either way, and before 2050, if its in 2030 or 2035, its just a question of getting the ducks in a row.
As for (2) as I've said before, everyone else will do what's in their own best interests, they won't "follow our example". If we cut off our nose to spite our face, taking harmful actions like cutting driving or flying rather than investing in clean technologies then they'll just carry on merrily along doing their own thing and ignore us.
If we want them to follow us, we need a sensible example to follow where we improve our living standards, not harm them, with cleaner technologies. That way we get to have our cake and eat it (which is the entire purpose of having a cake in my eyes) and they will follow us.
Despite your scornful response about it, a great deal of carbon can be sequestered by dressing agricultural fields with rock dust - as Sheffield University says, up to 40% of our Net Zero requirements, which is huge. It's huge if it's only half that.
I was already very keen on this idea anyway, to remineralise agricultural soils, resulting in healthier produce and improved yields, but for it to also help us massively on the way to Net Zero is a massive win.
'Produce' implies arable fields. So what happens at harvest? Even if one is direct drilling, the previous crop is eliminated one way or another. And if there is some increase in bound carbon (as in species-rich permanent grasslands) this is only a one off.
What am I missing
It seems you plough the rock dust into the soil, or spread it on top & plant crops as normal. Yields should be the same, or better in some cases as you can choose to apply the ground up silicates only to those fields where increasing the pH will be a net benefit (as is already done by spreading ground up limestone in some areas).
Sure, but you remove the carbon and rot, burn, belch, fart it back into the atmosphere. You're not making a coal seam de nos jours to sequester the carbon from the atmosphere, on the whole.
(Though anything to economise on fuel and oil-derved fertiliser is good, too, in that aim.)
"...asked about a proposal on whether the government was planning on making people have seven bins - something Sunak said he scrapped - he says that was in the environment act.
"There's a very clear statement there," Sunak says."
But the Environment Act 2021 section 57 (which his government passed) says: ... (6) Recyclable household waste in two or more recyclable waste streams may be collected together where— (a) it is not technically or economically practicable to collect recyclable household waste in those recyclable waste streams separately, or (b) collecting recyclable household waste in those recyclable waste streams separately has no significant environmental benefit (having regard to the overall environmental impact of collecting it separately and of collecting it together). ... (10) For the purposes of this section the recyclable waste streams are— (a) glass; (b) metal; (c) plastic; (d) paper and card; (e) food waste; (f) garden waste. ...
But it is technically possible to collect them together, and there's an environmental benefit to collecting them together (only one waste bin needs to go around).
I've always put glass, metal and plastic into the same bin. They're easily separated at the recycling facility via machinery. There's no technical need to have separate bins for those streams.
We have a bin for glass, metal and plastic. The council separate them. We have a bin for paper and card (usually the one that is most full - thanks Amazon) and one for food and garden waste, which are both compostable. Using seven bins is totally unnecessary, and a scare story put about by those who don’t care what happens to their rubbish as long as their council tax doesn’t rise.
On topic, Sunak is right. There has been a huge amount of cakeism from previous governments, basking in the approval of environmental campaigners for introducing the targets, while failing to have an honest conversation about costs - and because Labour, the Lib Dems and Greens, and indeed the core broadcast media, are signed up to the same agenda, then they're happy for the Tories to be blamed for the costs as they come in as the party in office.
Consequently, the only political opposition comes from right-wing Tories, Reform UK, the Mail and Telegraph. It's like Brexit all over again - and we know how that ended.
Brexit was ultimately a consequence of a failure to advocate the benefits of the policy. It's easy to see now the net costs but without explaining the many little benefits, that ground was ceded by default to the opponents who could highlight the irritants and costs involved. Proponents were quiet while opponents were loud (with the exception of Remainy true believers, who by taking their case too far, also turned the public off). And that's where we are with Net Zero and climate change policy.
Unless the policy is advocated from first principles, not just on 'save the planet' grounds, which some will see as hopelessly beyond Britain's scope and others will see and virtue-signalling guff or simply fraudulent, but on grounds of national security and economic benefit, there is every chance there will be a populist backlash against a policy seen as imposed by an elite conspiracy without a popular mandate - because there will be enough truth in the case to credibly make it, especially if the other side is out-of-practice in its media skills in countering those claims.
Put simply, in a democracy, you have to take the people with you.
It's not a great sign that the TV media coverage today is full of environmentalists and political opponents of the Tories whining about how awful the Tories are, rather than making the positive case for action (which it's worth noting the Tories are still signed up to, even if in a kick-the-can mode).
"Put simply, in a democracy, you have to take the people with you."
And Sunak has given up trying. Because he doesn't care about the environment himself, he'd rather take the soft option and follow the agenda of the Mail and Express.
This isn't leadership. Get rid.
Sunak is challenging the climate change process and in fact is brave and correct
Of course he has come under fierce attack, but as is being seen on this forum he is receiving support for his actions
No. Sunak is being completely disingenuous. Claiming that 2050 Net Zero can still be achieved without taking the steps required to get there is just taking the people for fools.
Clearly an attempt to have cake and eat it. He deserves all he gets for this nonsense.
There are multiple sets of steps you can take to get to the same destination.
If petrol cars get outlawed in 2035 then by 2050 they'll be at least 16 years old and a tiny proportion of vehicles on the road.
The problem with extremists is the fallacy of "something must be done, this is something, so this must be done."
Nonsense.
If, say, we pump out maximum emissions until 2049 then make a big bang transition to Net Zero then:
1) the UK economy is left for dead as the US/China plough on with a cheap, green energy economy
2) or, if everyone else follows our example, the planet is screwed.
Who said that we pump out maximum emissions until 2049 then make a big transition in 2050? Certainly not me.
The transition is happening either way, and before 2050, if its in 2030 or 2035, its just a question of getting the ducks in a row.
As for (2) as I've said before, everyone else will do what's in their own best interests, they won't "follow our example". If we cut off our nose to spite our face, taking harmful actions like cutting driving or flying rather than investing in clean technologies then they'll just carry on merrily along doing their own thing and ignore us.
If we want them to follow us, we need a sensible example to follow where we improve our living standards, not harm them, with cleaner technologies. That way we get to have our cake and eat it (which is the entire purpose of having a cake in my eyes) and they will follow us.
Despite your scornful response about it, a great deal of carbon can be sequestered by dressing agricultural fields with rock dust - as Sheffield University says, up to 40% of our Net Zero requirements, which is huge. It's huge if it's only half that.
I was already very keen on this idea anyway, to remineralise agricultural soils, resulting in healthier produce and improved yields, but for it to also help us massively on the way to Net Zero is a massive win.
'Produce' implies arable fields. So what happens at harvest? Even if one is direct drilling, the previous crop is eliminated one way or another. And if there is some increase in bound carbon (as in species-rich permanent grasslands) this is only a one off.
What am I missing
It seems you plough the rock dust into the soil, or spread it on top & plant crops as normal. Yields should be the same, or better in some cases as you can choose to apply the ground up silicates only to those fields where increasing the pH will be a net benefit (as is already done by spreading ground up limestone in some areas).
Sure, but you remove the carbon and rot, burn, belch, fart it back into the atmosphere. You're not making a coal seam de nos jours to sequester the carbon from the atmosphere, on the whole.
(Though anything to economise on fuel and oil-derved fertiliser is good, too, in that aim.)
I think you’re confused about the actual process here: the carbon doesn’t go into the crops, it reacts with the rock itself to form carbonates of various kinds.
On topic, Sunak is right. There has been a huge amount of cakeism from previous governments, basking in the approval of environmental campaigners for introducing the targets, while failing to have an honest conversation about costs - and because Labour, the Lib Dems and Greens, and indeed the core broadcast media, are signed up to the same agenda, then they're happy for the Tories to be blamed for the costs as they come in as the party in office.
Consequently, the only political opposition comes from right-wing Tories, Reform UK, the Mail and Telegraph. It's like Brexit all over again - and we know how that ended.
Brexit was ultimately a consequence of a failure to advocate the benefits of the policy. It's easy to see now the net costs but without explaining the many little benefits, that ground was ceded by default to the opponents who could highlight the irritants and costs involved. Proponents were quiet while opponents were loud (with the exception of Remainy true believers, who by taking their case too far, also turned the public off). And that's where we are with Net Zero and climate change policy.
Unless the policy is advocated from first principles, not just on 'save the planet' grounds, which some will see as hopelessly beyond Britain's scope and others will see and virtue-signalling guff or simply fraudulent, but on grounds of national security and economic benefit, there is every chance there will be a populist backlash against a policy seen as imposed by an elite conspiracy without a popular mandate - because there will be enough truth in the case to credibly make it, especially if the other side is out-of-practice in its media skills in countering those claims.
Put simply, in a democracy, you have to take the people with you.
It's not a great sign that the TV media coverage today is full of environmentalists and political opponents of the Tories whining about how awful the Tories are, rather than making the positive case for action (which it's worth noting the Tories are still signed up to, even if in a kick-the-can mode).
"Put simply, in a democracy, you have to take the people with you."
And Sunak has given up trying. Because he doesn't care about the environment himself, he'd rather take the soft option and follow the agenda of the Mail and Express.
This isn't leadership. Get rid.
Sunak is challenging the climate change process and in fact is brave and correct
Of course he has come under fierce attack, but as is being seen on this forum he is receiving support for his actions
No. Sunak is being completely disingenuous. Claiming that 2050 Net Zero can still be achieved without taking the steps required to get there is just taking the people for fools.
Clearly an attempt to have cake and eat it. He deserves all he gets for this nonsense.
There are multiple sets of steps you can take to get to the same destination.
If petrol cars get outlawed in 2035 then by 2050 they'll be at least 16 years old and a tiny proportion of vehicles on the road.
The problem with extremists is the fallacy of "something must be done, this is something, so this must be done."
Nonsense.
If, say, we pump out maximum emissions until 2049 then make a big bang transition to Net Zero then:
1) the UK economy is left for dead as the US/China plough on with a cheap, green energy economy
2) or, if everyone else follows our example, the planet is screwed.
Who said that we pump out maximum emissions until 2049 then make a big transition in 2050? Certainly not me.
The transition is happening either way, and before 2050, if its in 2030 or 2035, its just a question of getting the ducks in a row.
As for (2) as I've said before, everyone else will do what's in their own best interests, they won't "follow our example". If we cut off our nose to spite our face, taking harmful actions like cutting driving or flying rather than investing in clean technologies then they'll just carry on merrily along doing their own thing and ignore us.
If we want them to follow us, we need a sensible example to follow where we improve our living standards, not harm them, with cleaner technologies. That way we get to have our cake and eat it (which is the entire purpose of having a cake in my eyes) and they will follow us.
Despite your scornful response about it, a great deal of carbon can be sequestered by dressing agricultural fields with rock dust - as Sheffield University says, up to 40% of our Net Zero requirements, which is huge. It's huge if it's only half that.
I was already very keen on this idea anyway, to remineralise agricultural soils, resulting in healthier produce and improved yields, but for it to also help us massively on the way to Net Zero is a massive win.
'Produce' implies arable fields. So what happens at harvest? Even if one is direct drilling, the previous crop is eliminated one way or another. And if there is some increase in bound carbon (as in species-rich permanent grasslands) this is only a one off.
What am I missing
It seems you plough the rock dust into the soil, or spread it on top & plant crops as normal. Yields should be the same, or better in some cases as you can choose to apply the ground up silicates only to those fields where increasing the pH will be a net benefit (as is already done by spreading ground up limestone in some areas).
Sure, but you remove the carbon and rot, burn, belch, fart it back into the atmosphere. You're not making a coal seam de nos jours to sequester the carbon from the atmosphere, on the whole.
(Though anything to economise on fuel and oil-derved fertiliser is good, too, in that aim.)
Activated charcoal is the most promising sequestration option, or “biochar” as it’s termed. There you really are locking away carbon in a process that partially mimics the creation of coal seams, and it works even if the ground is ploughed.
The French really regret executing their King. Maybe we should suggest that they can finally decide to uphold the Treaty of Troyes?
French royal mania continues, and it is quite something. After the “Vive le roi!” on the streets of Paris yesterday, a standing ovation just now for King Charles after his speech in the French Senate 🇫🇷🇬🇧 https://x.com/PedderSophie/status/1704794067299664001?s=20
Remember the crime drama Broadchurch from 2013? In it there was an elderly character who'd previously married a women several years his junior, and he was portrayed as a heroic victim of prurient media harassment. Now there is talk of those sort of relationships to be criminalized (even if both parties are above the age of consent). I'm not saying if that approach is right or wrong, but it's amazing how quickly the received opinion can change.
I don't believe anyone is suggesting criminalising adult relationships based on age differential.
What I do believe is being discussed is tightening up safeguards regarding relationships people have with children.
There's a myth by some that the unrestricted age of consent in this country is 16, its not, its 18 already.
Relations with a 16 year old may be legal, or may be illegal, depending upon the circumstances. Some people are suggesting those circumstances be adjusted to include a "Romeo and Juliet" style law, which is not unusual abroad.
Will Romeo and Juliet survive the Online Harms bill ?
On topic, Sunak is right. There has been a huge amount of cakeism from previous governments, basking in the approval of environmental campaigners for introducing the targets, while failing to have an honest conversation about costs - and because Labour, the Lib Dems and Greens, and indeed the core broadcast media, are signed up to the same agenda, then they're happy for the Tories to be blamed for the costs as they come in as the party in office.
Consequently, the only political opposition comes from right-wing Tories, Reform UK, the Mail and Telegraph. It's like Brexit all over again - and we know how that ended.
Brexit was ultimately a consequence of a failure to advocate the benefits of the policy. It's easy to see now the net costs but without explaining the many little benefits, that ground was ceded by default to the opponents who could highlight the irritants and costs involved. Proponents were quiet while opponents were loud (with the exception of Remainy true believers, who by taking their case too far, also turned the public off). And that's where we are with Net Zero and climate change policy.
Unless the policy is advocated from first principles, not just on 'save the planet' grounds, which some will see as hopelessly beyond Britain's scope and others will see and virtue-signalling guff or simply fraudulent, but on grounds of national security and economic benefit, there is every chance there will be a populist backlash against a policy seen as imposed by an elite conspiracy without a popular mandate - because there will be enough truth in the case to credibly make it, especially if the other side is out-of-practice in its media skills in countering those claims.
Put simply, in a democracy, you have to take the people with you.
It's not a great sign that the TV media coverage today is full of environmentalists and political opponents of the Tories whining about how awful the Tories are, rather than making the positive case for action (which it's worth noting the Tories are still signed up to, even if in a kick-the-can mode).
"Put simply, in a democracy, you have to take the people with you."
And Sunak has given up trying. Because he doesn't care about the environment himself, he'd rather take the soft option and follow the agenda of the Mail and Express.
This isn't leadership. Get rid.
Sunak is challenging the climate change process and in fact is brave and correct
Of course he has come under fierce attack, but as is being seen on this forum he is receiving support for his actions
No. Sunak is being completely disingenuous. Claiming that 2050 Net Zero can still be achieved without taking the steps required to get there is just taking the people for fools.
Clearly an attempt to have cake and eat it. He deserves all he gets for this nonsense.
There are multiple sets of steps you can take to get to the same destination.
If petrol cars get outlawed in 2035 then by 2050 they'll be at least 16 years old and a tiny proportion of vehicles on the road.
The problem with extremists is the fallacy of "something must be done, this is something, so this must be done."
Nonsense.
If, say, we pump out maximum emissions until 2049 then make a big bang transition to Net Zero then:
1) the UK economy is left for dead as the US/China plough on with a cheap, green energy economy
2) or, if everyone else follows our example, the planet is screwed.
Who said that we pump out maximum emissions until 2049 then make a big transition in 2050? Certainly not me.
The transition is happening either way, and before 2050, if its in 2030 or 2035, its just a question of getting the ducks in a row.
As for (2) as I've said before, everyone else will do what's in their own best interests, they won't "follow our example". If we cut off our nose to spite our face, taking harmful actions like cutting driving or flying rather than investing in clean technologies then they'll just carry on merrily along doing their own thing and ignore us.
If we want them to follow us, we need a sensible example to follow where we improve our living standards, not harm them, with cleaner technologies. That way we get to have our cake and eat it (which is the entire purpose of having a cake in my eyes) and they will follow us.
Despite your scornful response about it, a great deal of carbon can be sequestered by dressing agricultural fields with rock dust - as Sheffield University says, up to 40% of our Net Zero requirements, which is huge. It's huge if it's only half that.
I was already very keen on this idea anyway, to remineralise agricultural soils, resulting in healthier produce and improved yields, but for it to also help us massively on the way to Net Zero is a massive win.
'Produce' implies arable fields. So what happens at harvest? Even if one is direct drilling, the previous crop is eliminated one way or another. And if there is some increase in bound carbon (as in species-rich permanent grasslands) this is only a one off.
What am I missing
It seems you plough the rock dust into the soil, or spread it on top & plant crops as normal. Yields should be the same, or better in some cases as you can choose to apply the ground up silicates only to those fields where increasing the pH will be a net benefit (as is already done by spreading ground up limestone in some areas).
Sure, but you remove the carbon and rot, burn, belch, fart it back into the atmosphere. You're not making a coal seam de nos jours to sequester the carbon from the atmosphere, on the whole.
(Though anything to economise on fuel and oil-derved fertiliser is good, too, in that aim.)
I think you’re confused about the actual process here: the carbon doesn’t go into the crops, it reacts with the rock itself to form carbonates of various kinds.
On topic, Sunak is right. There has been a huge amount of cakeism from previous governments, basking in the approval of environmental campaigners for introducing the targets, while failing to have an honest conversation about costs - and because Labour, the Lib Dems and Greens, and indeed the core broadcast media, are signed up to the same agenda, then they're happy for the Tories to be blamed for the costs as they come in as the party in office.
Consequently, the only political opposition comes from right-wing Tories, Reform UK, the Mail and Telegraph. It's like Brexit all over again - and we know how that ended.
Brexit was ultimately a consequence of a failure to advocate the benefits of the policy. It's easy to see now the net costs but without explaining the many little benefits, that ground was ceded by default to the opponents who could highlight the irritants and costs involved. Proponents were quiet while opponents were loud (with the exception of Remainy true believers, who by taking their case too far, also turned the public off). And that's where we are with Net Zero and climate change policy.
Unless the policy is advocated from first principles, not just on 'save the planet' grounds, which some will see as hopelessly beyond Britain's scope and others will see and virtue-signalling guff or simply fraudulent, but on grounds of national security and economic benefit, there is every chance there will be a populist backlash against a policy seen as imposed by an elite conspiracy without a popular mandate - because there will be enough truth in the case to credibly make it, especially if the other side is out-of-practice in its media skills in countering those claims.
Put simply, in a democracy, you have to take the people with you.
It's not a great sign that the TV media coverage today is full of environmentalists and political opponents of the Tories whining about how awful the Tories are, rather than making the positive case for action (which it's worth noting the Tories are still signed up to, even if in a kick-the-can mode).
"Put simply, in a democracy, you have to take the people with you."
And Sunak has given up trying. Because he doesn't care about the environment himself, he'd rather take the soft option and follow the agenda of the Mail and Express.
This isn't leadership. Get rid.
Sunak is challenging the climate change process and in fact is brave and correct
Of course he has come under fierce attack, but as is being seen on this forum he is receiving support for his actions
No. Sunak is being completely disingenuous. Claiming that 2050 Net Zero can still be achieved without taking the steps required to get there is just taking the people for fools.
Clearly an attempt to have cake and eat it. He deserves all he gets for this nonsense.
There are multiple sets of steps you can take to get to the same destination.
If petrol cars get outlawed in 2035 then by 2050 they'll be at least 16 years old and a tiny proportion of vehicles on the road.
The problem with extremists is the fallacy of "something must be done, this is something, so this must be done."
Nonsense.
If, say, we pump out maximum emissions until 2049 then make a big bang transition to Net Zero then:
1) the UK economy is left for dead as the US/China plough on with a cheap, green energy economy
2) or, if everyone else follows our example, the planet is screwed.
Who said that we pump out maximum emissions until 2049 then make a big transition in 2050? Certainly not me.
The transition is happening either way, and before 2050, if its in 2030 or 2035, its just a question of getting the ducks in a row.
As for (2) as I've said before, everyone else will do what's in their own best interests, they won't "follow our example". If we cut off our nose to spite our face, taking harmful actions like cutting driving or flying rather than investing in clean technologies then they'll just carry on merrily along doing their own thing and ignore us.
If we want them to follow us, we need a sensible example to follow where we improve our living standards, not harm them, with cleaner technologies. That way we get to have our cake and eat it (which is the entire purpose of having a cake in my eyes) and they will follow us.
Despite your scornful response about it, a great deal of carbon can be sequestered by dressing agricultural fields with rock dust - as Sheffield University says, up to 40% of our Net Zero requirements, which is huge. It's huge if it's only half that.
I was already very keen on this idea anyway, to remineralise agricultural soils, resulting in healthier produce and improved yields, but for it to also help us massively on the way to Net Zero is a massive win.
'Produce' implies arable fields. So what happens at harvest? Even if one is direct drilling, the previous crop is eliminated one way or another. And if there is some increase in bound carbon (as in species-rich permanent grasslands) this is only a one off.
What am I missing
It seems you plough the rock dust into the soil, or spread it on top & plant crops as normal. Yields should be the same, or better in some cases as you can choose to apply the ground up silicates only to those fields where increasing the pH will be a net benefit (as is already done by spreading ground up limestone in some areas).
Sure, but you remove the carbon and rot, burn, belch, fart it back into the atmosphere. You're not making a coal seam de nos jours to sequester the carbon from the atmosphere, on the whole.
(Though anything to economise on fuel and oil-derved fertiliser is good, too, in that aim.)
Activated charcoal is the most promising sequestration option, or “biochar” as it’s termed. There you really are locking away carbon in a process that partially mimics the creation of coal seams, and it works even if the ground is ploughed.
Thanks! But in both cases it's still only a one off. Not an ongoing process for decades? Still, useful.
This has betting implications. I would still be cautious about betting the farm on Labour 326+ seats.
I'd actually be slightly more inclined to bet on this than I was last week.
In general, Sunak's strategy has been to calm things down after the turbulence of the Johnson and Truss Premierships. The idea has been to take the heat out and demonstrate steady progress on some reasonably modest targets. All very "grown ups in charge" and "why risk Captain Hindsight when you've got Captain Sensible at the helm?" But it's not about creating huge points of difference - it's managerial.
Immigration policy doesn't fit in with that. He's been more willing to create difference. I understand that, politically, because he needs some red meat and in reality a lot of people do like a strident line on it (I'm not one of them but I'm not the target market). His problem is that it isn't actually working because the policies themselves are crap, but there it it.
Now, though, he's rolling the dice in other areas. That suggests he's lost confidence in the ability of the strategy he set out last year and early this to narrow the polls.
But doing that not only speaks to his personal weakness and lack of resolve, but it's risky too. Firstly, he's in danger of trashing the Steady Eddie brand he has previously tried to develop. Secondly, if you're going to create dividing lines, you better make damned sure you're picking the right side of them politically, and I'm not sure he is - like "Get Brexit Done" versus "Bollocks to Brexit" in 2019, if you judge it right you do very well, but if you get the call wrong you do very badly.
On that basis, I think the old, steady approach had little chance of keeping Sunak in Number 10 but a reasonable chance of limiting losses and depriving Labour of an overall majority. Whereas the new approach has some chance of being very successful but, along with it, a greater chance it'll flop, there won't even be a partial recovery for the Tories, and Labour will breeze in.
On topic, Sunak is right. There has been a huge amount of cakeism from previous governments, basking in the approval of environmental campaigners for introducing the targets, while failing to have an honest conversation about costs - and because Labour, the Lib Dems and Greens, and indeed the core broadcast media, are signed up to the same agenda, then they're happy for the Tories to be blamed for the costs as they come in as the party in office.
Consequently, the only political opposition comes from right-wing Tories, Reform UK, the Mail and Telegraph. It's like Brexit all over again - and we know how that ended.
Brexit was ultimately a consequence of a failure to advocate the benefits of the policy. It's easy to see now the net costs but without explaining the many little benefits, that ground was ceded by default to the opponents who could highlight the irritants and costs involved. Proponents were quiet while opponents were loud (with the exception of Remainy true believers, who by taking their case too far, also turned the public off). And that's where we are with Net Zero and climate change policy.
Unless the policy is advocated from first principles, not just on 'save the planet' grounds, which some will see as hopelessly beyond Britain's scope and others will see and virtue-signalling guff or simply fraudulent, but on grounds of national security and economic benefit, there is every chance there will be a populist backlash against a policy seen as imposed by an elite conspiracy without a popular mandate - because there will be enough truth in the case to credibly make it, especially if the other side is out-of-practice in its media skills in countering those claims.
Put simply, in a democracy, you have to take the people with you.
It's not a great sign that the TV media coverage today is full of environmentalists and political opponents of the Tories whining about how awful the Tories are, rather than making the positive case for action (which it's worth noting the Tories are still signed up to, even if in a kick-the-can mode).
"Put simply, in a democracy, you have to take the people with you."
And Sunak has given up trying. Because he doesn't care about the environment himself, he'd rather take the soft option and follow the agenda of the Mail and Express.
This isn't leadership. Get rid.
Sunak is challenging the climate change process and in fact is brave and correct
Of course he has come under fierce attack, but as is being seen on this forum he is receiving support for his actions
No. Sunak is being completely disingenuous. Claiming that 2050 Net Zero can still be achieved without taking the steps required to get there is just taking the people for fools.
Clearly an attempt to have cake and eat it. He deserves all he gets for this nonsense.
There are multiple sets of steps you can take to get to the same destination.
If petrol cars get outlawed in 2035 then by 2050 they'll be at least 16 years old and a tiny proportion of vehicles on the road.
The problem with extremists is the fallacy of "something must be done, this is something, so this must be done."
Nonsense.
If, say, we pump out maximum emissions until 2049 then make a big bang transition to Net Zero then:
1) the UK economy is left for dead as the US/China plough on with a cheap, green energy economy
2) or, if everyone else follows our example, the planet is screwed.
Who said that we pump out maximum emissions until 2049 then make a big transition in 2050? Certainly not me.
The transition is happening either way, and before 2050, if its in 2030 or 2035, its just a question of getting the ducks in a row.
As for (2) as I've said before, everyone else will do what's in their own best interests, they won't "follow our example". If we cut off our nose to spite our face, taking harmful actions like cutting driving or flying rather than investing in clean technologies then they'll just carry on merrily along doing their own thing and ignore us.
If we want them to follow us, we need a sensible example to follow where we improve our living standards, not harm them, with cleaner technologies. That way we get to have our cake and eat it (which is the entire purpose of having a cake in my eyes) and they will follow us.
Despite your scornful response about it, a great deal of carbon can be sequestered by dressing agricultural fields with rock dust - as Sheffield University says, up to 40% of our Net Zero requirements, which is huge. It's huge if it's only half that.
I was already very keen on this idea anyway, to remineralise agricultural soils, resulting in healthier produce and improved yields, but for it to also help us massively on the way to Net Zero is a massive win.
'Produce' implies arable fields. So what happens at harvest? Even if one is direct drilling, the previous crop is eliminated one way or another. And if there is some increase in bound carbon (as in species-rich permanent grasslands) this is only a one off.
What am I missing
It seems you plough the rock dust into the soil, or spread it on top & plant crops as normal. Yields should be the same, or better in some cases as you can choose to apply the ground up silicates only to those fields where increasing the pH will be a net benefit (as is already done by spreading ground up limestone in some areas).
Sure, but you remove the carbon and rot, burn, belch, fart it back into the atmosphere. You're not making a coal seam de nos jours to sequester the carbon from the atmosphere, on the whole.
(Though anything to economise on fuel and oil-derved fertiliser is good, too, in that aim.)
I think you’re confused about the actual process here: the carbon doesn’t go into the crops, it reacts with the rock itself to form carbonates of various kinds.
On topic, Sunak is right. There has been a huge amount of cakeism from previous governments, basking in the approval of environmental campaigners for introducing the targets, while failing to have an honest conversation about costs - and because Labour, the Lib Dems and Greens, and indeed the core broadcast media, are signed up to the same agenda, then they're happy for the Tories to be blamed for the costs as they come in as the party in office.
Consequently, the only political opposition comes from right-wing Tories, Reform UK, the Mail and Telegraph. It's like Brexit all over again - and we know how that ended.
Brexit was ultimately a consequence of a failure to advocate the benefits of the policy. It's easy to see now the net costs but without explaining the many little benefits, that ground was ceded by default to the opponents who could highlight the irritants and costs involved. Proponents were quiet while opponents were loud (with the exception of Remainy true believers, who by taking their case too far, also turned the public off). And that's where we are with Net Zero and climate change policy.
Unless the policy is advocated from first principles, not just on 'save the planet' grounds, which some will see as hopelessly beyond Britain's scope and others will see and virtue-signalling guff or simply fraudulent, but on grounds of national security and economic benefit, there is every chance there will be a populist backlash against a policy seen as imposed by an elite conspiracy without a popular mandate - because there will be enough truth in the case to credibly make it, especially if the other side is out-of-practice in its media skills in countering those claims.
Put simply, in a democracy, you have to take the people with you.
It's not a great sign that the TV media coverage today is full of environmentalists and political opponents of the Tories whining about how awful the Tories are, rather than making the positive case for action (which it's worth noting the Tories are still signed up to, even if in a kick-the-can mode).
"Put simply, in a democracy, you have to take the people with you."
And Sunak has given up trying. Because he doesn't care about the environment himself, he'd rather take the soft option and follow the agenda of the Mail and Express.
This isn't leadership. Get rid.
Sunak is challenging the climate change process and in fact is brave and correct
Of course he has come under fierce attack, but as is being seen on this forum he is receiving support for his actions
No. Sunak is being completely disingenuous. Claiming that 2050 Net Zero can still be achieved without taking the steps required to get there is just taking the people for fools.
Clearly an attempt to have cake and eat it. He deserves all he gets for this nonsense.
There are multiple sets of steps you can take to get to the same destination.
If petrol cars get outlawed in 2035 then by 2050 they'll be at least 16 years old and a tiny proportion of vehicles on the road.
The problem with extremists is the fallacy of "something must be done, this is something, so this must be done."
Nonsense.
If, say, we pump out maximum emissions until 2049 then make a big bang transition to Net Zero then:
1) the UK economy is left for dead as the US/China plough on with a cheap, green energy economy
2) or, if everyone else follows our example, the planet is screwed.
Who said that we pump out maximum emissions until 2049 then make a big transition in 2050? Certainly not me.
The transition is happening either way, and before 2050, if its in 2030 or 2035, its just a question of getting the ducks in a row.
As for (2) as I've said before, everyone else will do what's in their own best interests, they won't "follow our example". If we cut off our nose to spite our face, taking harmful actions like cutting driving or flying rather than investing in clean technologies then they'll just carry on merrily along doing their own thing and ignore us.
If we want them to follow us, we need a sensible example to follow where we improve our living standards, not harm them, with cleaner technologies. That way we get to have our cake and eat it (which is the entire purpose of having a cake in my eyes) and they will follow us.
Despite your scornful response about it, a great deal of carbon can be sequestered by dressing agricultural fields with rock dust - as Sheffield University says, up to 40% of our Net Zero requirements, which is huge. It's huge if it's only half that.
I was already very keen on this idea anyway, to remineralise agricultural soils, resulting in healthier produce and improved yields, but for it to also help us massively on the way to Net Zero is a massive win.
'Produce' implies arable fields. So what happens at harvest? Even if one is direct drilling, the previous crop is eliminated one way or another. And if there is some increase in bound carbon (as in species-rich permanent grasslands) this is only a one off.
What am I missing
It seems you plough the rock dust into the soil, or spread it on top & plant crops as normal. Yields should be the same, or better in some cases as you can choose to apply the ground up silicates only to those fields where increasing the pH will be a net benefit (as is already done by spreading ground up limestone in some areas).
Sure, but you remove the carbon and rot, burn, belch, fart it back into the atmosphere. You're not making a coal seam de nos jours to sequester the carbon from the atmosphere, on the whole.
(Though anything to economise on fuel and oil-derved fertiliser is good, too, in that aim.)
Activated charcoal is the most promising sequestration option, or “biochar” as it’s termed. There you really are locking away carbon in a process that partially mimics the creation of coal seams, and it works even if the ground is ploughed.
Thanks! But in both cases it's still only a one off. Not an ongoing process for decades? Still, useful.
With charcoal you can in theory keep adding it annually, at least until the soil gets too saturated with the stuff. But like all of these things it's not an alternative to stopping burning fossil fuels.
To the thread header - I disagree with Sunak myself but I don’t see why there would be international condemnation. We are still doing more than most large countries and at least as much as the rest.
On topic, Sunak is right. There has been a huge amount of cakeism from previous governments, basking in the approval of environmental campaigners for introducing the targets, while failing to have an honest conversation about costs - and because Labour, the Lib Dems and Greens, and indeed the core broadcast media, are signed up to the same agenda, then they're happy for the Tories to be blamed for the costs as they come in as the party in office.
Consequently, the only political opposition comes from right-wing Tories, Reform UK, the Mail and Telegraph. It's like Brexit all over again - and we know how that ended.
Brexit was ultimately a consequence of a failure to advocate the benefits of the policy. It's easy to see now the net costs but without explaining the many little benefits, that ground was ceded by default to the opponents who could highlight the irritants and costs involved. Proponents were quiet while opponents were loud (with the exception of Remainy true believers, who by taking their case too far, also turned the public off). And that's where we are with Net Zero and climate change policy.
Unless the policy is advocated from first principles, not just on 'save the planet' grounds, which some will see as hopelessly beyond Britain's scope and others will see and virtue-signalling guff or simply fraudulent, but on grounds of national security and economic benefit, there is every chance there will be a populist backlash against a policy seen as imposed by an elite conspiracy without a popular mandate - because there will be enough truth in the case to credibly make it, especially if the other side is out-of-practice in its media skills in countering those claims.
Put simply, in a democracy, you have to take the people with you.
It's not a great sign that the TV media coverage today is full of environmentalists and political opponents of the Tories whining about how awful the Tories are, rather than making the positive case for action (which it's worth noting the Tories are still signed up to, even if in a kick-the-can mode).
"Put simply, in a democracy, you have to take the people with you."
And Sunak has given up trying. Because he doesn't care about the environment himself, he'd rather take the soft option and follow the agenda of the Mail and Express.
This isn't leadership. Get rid.
Sunak is challenging the climate change process and in fact is brave and correct
Of course he has come under fierce attack, but as is being seen on this forum he is receiving support for his actions
No. Sunak is being completely disingenuous. Claiming that 2050 Net Zero can still be achieved without taking the steps required to get there is just taking the people for fools.
Clearly an attempt to have cake and eat it. He deserves all he gets for this nonsense.
There are multiple sets of steps you can take to get to the same destination.
If petrol cars get outlawed in 2035 then by 2050 they'll be at least 16 years old and a tiny proportion of vehicles on the road.
The problem with extremists is the fallacy of "something must be done, this is something, so this must be done."
Nonsense.
If, say, we pump out maximum emissions until 2049 then make a big bang transition to Net Zero then:
1) the UK economy is left for dead as the US/China plough on with a cheap, green energy economy
2) or, if everyone else follows our example, the planet is screwed.
Who said that we pump out maximum emissions until 2049 then make a big transition in 2050? Certainly not me.
The transition is happening either way, and before 2050, if its in 2030 or 2035, its just a question of getting the ducks in a row.
As for (2) as I've said before, everyone else will do what's in their own best interests, they won't "follow our example". If we cut off our nose to spite our face, taking harmful actions like cutting driving or flying rather than investing in clean technologies then they'll just carry on merrily along doing their own thing and ignore us.
If we want them to follow us, we need a sensible example to follow where we improve our living standards, not harm them, with cleaner technologies. That way we get to have our cake and eat it (which is the entire purpose of having a cake in my eyes) and they will follow us.
Despite your scornful response about it, a great deal of carbon can be sequestered by dressing agricultural fields with rock dust - as Sheffield University says, up to 40% of our Net Zero requirements, which is huge. It's huge if it's only half that.
I was already very keen on this idea anyway, to remineralise agricultural soils, resulting in healthier produce and improved yields, but for it to also help us massively on the way to Net Zero is a massive win.
'Produce' implies arable fields. So what happens at harvest? Even if one is direct drilling, the previous crop is eliminated one way or another. And if there is some increase in bound carbon (as in species-rich permanent grasslands) this is only a one off.
What am I missing
It seems you plough the rock dust into the soil, or spread it on top & plant crops as normal. Yields should be the same, or better in some cases as you can choose to apply the ground up silicates only to those fields where increasing the pH will be a net benefit (as is already done by spreading ground up limestone in some areas).
Sure, but you remove the carbon and rot, burn, belch, fart it back into the atmosphere. You're not making a coal seam de nos jours to sequester the carbon from the atmosphere, on the whole.
(Though anything to economise on fuel and oil-derved fertiliser is good, too, in that aim.)
I think you’re confused about the actual process here: the carbon doesn’t go into the crops, it reacts with the rock itself to form carbonates of various kinds.
On topic, Sunak is right. There has been a huge amount of cakeism from previous governments, basking in the approval of environmental campaigners for introducing the targets, while failing to have an honest conversation about costs - and because Labour, the Lib Dems and Greens, and indeed the core broadcast media, are signed up to the same agenda, then they're happy for the Tories to be blamed for the costs as they come in as the party in office.
Consequently, the only political opposition comes from right-wing Tories, Reform UK, the Mail and Telegraph. It's like Brexit all over again - and we know how that ended.
Brexit was ultimately a consequence of a failure to advocate the benefits of the policy. It's easy to see now the net costs but without explaining the many little benefits, that ground was ceded by default to the opponents who could highlight the irritants and costs involved. Proponents were quiet while opponents were loud (with the exception of Remainy true believers, who by taking their case too far, also turned the public off). And that's where we are with Net Zero and climate change policy.
Unless the policy is advocated from first principles, not just on 'save the planet' grounds, which some will see as hopelessly beyond Britain's scope and others will see and virtue-signalling guff or simply fraudulent, but on grounds of national security and economic benefit, there is every chance there will be a populist backlash against a policy seen as imposed by an elite conspiracy without a popular mandate - because there will be enough truth in the case to credibly make it, especially if the other side is out-of-practice in its media skills in countering those claims.
Put simply, in a democracy, you have to take the people with you.
It's not a great sign that the TV media coverage today is full of environmentalists and political opponents of the Tories whining about how awful the Tories are, rather than making the positive case for action (which it's worth noting the Tories are still signed up to, even if in a kick-the-can mode).
"Put simply, in a democracy, you have to take the people with you."
And Sunak has given up trying. Because he doesn't care about the environment himself, he'd rather take the soft option and follow the agenda of the Mail and Express.
This isn't leadership. Get rid.
Sunak is challenging the climate change process and in fact is brave and correct
Of course he has come under fierce attack, but as is being seen on this forum he is receiving support for his actions
No. Sunak is being completely disingenuous. Claiming that 2050 Net Zero can still be achieved without taking the steps required to get there is just taking the people for fools.
Clearly an attempt to have cake and eat it. He deserves all he gets for this nonsense.
There are multiple sets of steps you can take to get to the same destination.
If petrol cars get outlawed in 2035 then by 2050 they'll be at least 16 years old and a tiny proportion of vehicles on the road.
The problem with extremists is the fallacy of "something must be done, this is something, so this must be done."
Nonsense.
If, say, we pump out maximum emissions until 2049 then make a big bang transition to Net Zero then:
1) the UK economy is left for dead as the US/China plough on with a cheap, green energy economy
2) or, if everyone else follows our example, the planet is screwed.
Who said that we pump out maximum emissions until 2049 then make a big transition in 2050? Certainly not me.
The transition is happening either way, and before 2050, if its in 2030 or 2035, its just a question of getting the ducks in a row.
As for (2) as I've said before, everyone else will do what's in their own best interests, they won't "follow our example". If we cut off our nose to spite our face, taking harmful actions like cutting driving or flying rather than investing in clean technologies then they'll just carry on merrily along doing their own thing and ignore us.
If we want them to follow us, we need a sensible example to follow where we improve our living standards, not harm them, with cleaner technologies. That way we get to have our cake and eat it (which is the entire purpose of having a cake in my eyes) and they will follow us.
Despite your scornful response about it, a great deal of carbon can be sequestered by dressing agricultural fields with rock dust - as Sheffield University says, up to 40% of our Net Zero requirements, which is huge. It's huge if it's only half that.
I was already very keen on this idea anyway, to remineralise agricultural soils, resulting in healthier produce and improved yields, but for it to also help us massively on the way to Net Zero is a massive win.
'Produce' implies arable fields. So what happens at harvest? Even if one is direct drilling, the previous crop is eliminated one way or another. And if there is some increase in bound carbon (as in species-rich permanent grasslands) this is only a one off.
What am I missing
It seems you plough the rock dust into the soil, or spread it on top & plant crops as normal. Yields should be the same, or better in some cases as you can choose to apply the ground up silicates only to those fields where increasing the pH will be a net benefit (as is already done by spreading ground up limestone in some areas).
Sure, but you remove the carbon and rot, burn, belch, fart it back into the atmosphere. You're not making a coal seam de nos jours to sequester the carbon from the atmosphere, on the whole.
(Though anything to economise on fuel and oil-derved fertiliser is good, too, in that aim.)
Activated charcoal is the most promising sequestration option, or “biochar” as it’s termed. There you really are locking away carbon in a process that partially mimics the creation of coal seams, and it works even if the ground is ploughed.
Thanks! But in both cases it's still only a one off. Not an ongoing process for decades? Still, useful.
It’s a one-off each time you do it, but you can spread a /lot/ of rock dust around and it will keep on sucking CO2 out of the air for decades as the particles react over time. If we’re going to have to go to active measures to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere then it seems like this might be one of the cheapest with the least side effects. I’ve personally never liked the various “sequestration” ideas - it always seems to me that any CO2 you stick down a mine somewhere is probably going to leak out again at some point.
People on Twitter are saying this is the first example of AI art which has impressed them, and made them realise AI can be creative and artistic. That AI art is art, in essence
Not saying I agree or disagree, but this is the image provoking the debate. See what you think
”Say what you want, but this is creative, novel, and endless. Incredible to see the community pick this up so fast”
On topic, Sunak is right. There has been a huge amount of cakeism from previous governments, basking in the approval of environmental campaigners for introducing the targets, while failing to have an honest conversation about costs - and because Labour, the Lib Dems and Greens, and indeed the core broadcast media, are signed up to the same agenda, then they're happy for the Tories to be blamed for the costs as they come in as the party in office.
Consequently, the only political opposition comes from right-wing Tories, Reform UK, the Mail and Telegraph. It's like Brexit all over again - and we know how that ended.
Brexit was ultimately a consequence of a failure to advocate the benefits of the policy. It's easy to see now the net costs but without explaining the many little benefits, that ground was ceded by default to the opponents who could highlight the irritants and costs involved. Proponents were quiet while opponents were loud (with the exception of Remainy true believers, who by taking their case too far, also turned the public off). And that's where we are with Net Zero and climate change policy.
Unless the policy is advocated from first principles, not just on 'save the planet' grounds, which some will see as hopelessly beyond Britain's scope and others will see and virtue-signalling guff or simply fraudulent, but on grounds of national security and economic benefit, there is every chance there will be a populist backlash against a policy seen as imposed by an elite conspiracy without a popular mandate - because there will be enough truth in the case to credibly make it, especially if the other side is out-of-practice in its media skills in countering those claims.
Put simply, in a democracy, you have to take the people with you.
It's not a great sign that the TV media coverage today is full of environmentalists and political opponents of the Tories whining about how awful the Tories are, rather than making the positive case for action (which it's worth noting the Tories are still signed up to, even if in a kick-the-can mode).
"Put simply, in a democracy, you have to take the people with you."
And Sunak has given up trying. Because he doesn't care about the environment himself, he'd rather take the soft option and follow the agenda of the Mail and Express.
This isn't leadership. Get rid.
Sunak is challenging the climate change process and in fact is brave and correct
Of course he has come under fierce attack, but as is being seen on this forum he is receiving support for his actions
No. Sunak is being completely disingenuous. Claiming that 2050 Net Zero can still be achieved without taking the steps required to get there is just taking the people for fools.
Clearly an attempt to have cake and eat it. He deserves all he gets for this nonsense.
There are multiple sets of steps you can take to get to the same destination.
If petrol cars get outlawed in 2035 then by 2050 they'll be at least 16 years old and a tiny proportion of vehicles on the road.
The problem with extremists is the fallacy of "something must be done, this is something, so this must be done."
Nonsense.
If, say, we pump out maximum emissions until 2049 then make a big bang transition to Net Zero then:
1) the UK economy is left for dead as the US/China plough on with a cheap, green energy economy
2) or, if everyone else follows our example, the planet is screwed.
Who said that we pump out maximum emissions until 2049 then make a big transition in 2050? Certainly not me.
The transition is happening either way, and before 2050, if its in 2030 or 2035, its just a question of getting the ducks in a row.
As for (2) as I've said before, everyone else will do what's in their own best interests, they won't "follow our example". If we cut off our nose to spite our face, taking harmful actions like cutting driving or flying rather than investing in clean technologies then they'll just carry on merrily along doing their own thing and ignore us.
If we want them to follow us, we need a sensible example to follow where we improve our living standards, not harm them, with cleaner technologies. That way we get to have our cake and eat it (which is the entire purpose of having a cake in my eyes) and they will follow us.
Despite your scornful response about it, a great deal of carbon can be sequestered by dressing agricultural fields with rock dust - as Sheffield University says, up to 40% of our Net Zero requirements, which is huge. It's huge if it's only half that.
I was already very keen on this idea anyway, to remineralise agricultural soils, resulting in healthier produce and improved yields, but for it to also help us massively on the way to Net Zero is a massive win.
'Produce' implies arable fields. So what happens at harvest? Even if one is direct drilling, the previous crop is eliminated one way or another. And if there is some increase in bound carbon (as in species-rich permanent grasslands) this is only a one off.
What am I missing
It seems you plough the rock dust into the soil, or spread it on top & plant crops as normal. Yields should be the same, or better in some cases as you can choose to apply the ground up silicates only to those fields where increasing the pH will be a net benefit (as is already done by spreading ground up limestone in some areas).
Sure, but you remove the carbon and rot, burn, belch, fart it back into the atmosphere. You're not making a coal seam de nos jours to sequester the carbon from the atmosphere, on the whole.
(Though anything to economise on fuel and oil-derved fertiliser is good, too, in that aim.)
I think it happens by some form of accumulation rather than by photosynthesis if that's what you mean.
People on Twitter are saying this is the first example of AI art which has impressed them, and made them realise AI can be creative and artistic. That AI art is art, in essence
Not saying I agree or disagree, but this is the image provoking the debate. See what you think
”Say what you want, but this is creative, novel, and endless. Incredible to see the community pick this up so fast”
Ok so I called it wrong per my earlier post today. Not for the first time.
Not sure that rates have peaked though. Long way to go to bring inflation back to target!
There's about 2.3% of CPI to come out of the YoY calculation by the end of December which would bring the headline rate down to 4.4%, I expect they will pause rate rises until the new year to assess what input prices look like and how much import price inflation will be generated by weaker sterling. I did say this would likely be the case yesterday.
Me from yesterday:
Nice to see my theory that Nandos bringing back their student discount is a signal that food price inflation is way down. August monthly rate of just 0.4% compared to August last year at 1.5% and next month will have an even bigger drop.
I think we have reached the end of the beginning of our inflation fight, wouldn't be surprised if the BoE paused interest rate rises for three months to see where core CPI ends up in December/January before taking a decision
On topic, Sunak is right. There has been a huge amount of cakeism from previous governments, basking in the approval of environmental campaigners for introducing the targets, while failing to have an honest conversation about costs - and because Labour, the Lib Dems and Greens, and indeed the core broadcast media, are signed up to the same agenda, then they're happy for the Tories to be blamed for the costs as they come in as the party in office.
Consequently, the only political opposition comes from right-wing Tories, Reform UK, the Mail and Telegraph. It's like Brexit all over again - and we know how that ended.
Brexit was ultimately a consequence of a failure to advocate the benefits of the policy. It's easy to see now the net costs but without explaining the many little benefits, that ground was ceded by default to the opponents who could highlight the irritants and costs involved. Proponents were quiet while opponents were loud (with the exception of Remainy true believers, who by taking their case too far, also turned the public off). And that's where we are with Net Zero and climate change policy.
Unless the policy is advocated from first principles, not just on 'save the planet' grounds, which some will see as hopelessly beyond Britain's scope and others will see and virtue-signalling guff or simply fraudulent, but on grounds of national security and economic benefit, there is every chance there will be a populist backlash against a policy seen as imposed by an elite conspiracy without a popular mandate - because there will be enough truth in the case to credibly make it, especially if the other side is out-of-practice in its media skills in countering those claims.
Put simply, in a democracy, you have to take the people with you.
It's not a great sign that the TV media coverage today is full of environmentalists and political opponents of the Tories whining about how awful the Tories are, rather than making the positive case for action (which it's worth noting the Tories are still signed up to, even if in a kick-the-can mode).
"Put simply, in a democracy, you have to take the people with you."
And Sunak has given up trying. Because he doesn't care about the environment himself, he'd rather take the soft option and follow the agenda of the Mail and Express.
This isn't leadership. Get rid.
Sunak is challenging the climate change process and in fact is brave and correct
Of course he has come under fierce attack, but as is being seen on this forum he is receiving support for his actions
No. Sunak is being completely disingenuous. Claiming that 2050 Net Zero can still be achieved without taking the steps required to get there is just taking the people for fools.
Clearly an attempt to have cake and eat it. He deserves all he gets for this nonsense.
There are multiple sets of steps you can take to get to the same destination.
If petrol cars get outlawed in 2035 then by 2050 they'll be at least 16 years old and a tiny proportion of vehicles on the road.
The problem with extremists is the fallacy of "something must be done, this is something, so this must be done."
Nonsense.
If, say, we pump out maximum emissions until 2049 then make a big bang transition to Net Zero then:
1) the UK economy is left for dead as the US/China plough on with a cheap, green energy economy
2) or, if everyone else follows our example, the planet is screwed.
Who said that we pump out maximum emissions until 2049 then make a big transition in 2050? Certainly not me.
The transition is happening either way, and before 2050, if its in 2030 or 2035, its just a question of getting the ducks in a row.
As for (2) as I've said before, everyone else will do what's in their own best interests, they won't "follow our example". If we cut off our nose to spite our face, taking harmful actions like cutting driving or flying rather than investing in clean technologies then they'll just carry on merrily along doing their own thing and ignore us.
If we want them to follow us, we need a sensible example to follow where we improve our living standards, not harm them, with cleaner technologies. That way we get to have our cake and eat it (which is the entire purpose of having a cake in my eyes) and they will follow us.
Despite your scornful response about it, a great deal of carbon can be sequestered by dressing agricultural fields with rock dust - as Sheffield University says, up to 40% of our Net Zero requirements, which is huge. It's huge if it's only half that.
I was already very keen on this idea anyway, to remineralise agricultural soils, resulting in healthier produce and improved yields, but for it to also help us massively on the way to Net Zero is a massive win.
'Produce' implies arable fields. So what happens at harvest? Even if one is direct drilling, the previous crop is eliminated one way or another. And if there is some increase in bound carbon (as in species-rich permanent grasslands) this is only a one off.
What am I missing
It seems you plough the rock dust into the soil, or spread it on top & plant crops as normal. Yields should be the same, or better in some cases as you can choose to apply the ground up silicates only to those fields where increasing the pH will be a net benefit (as is already done by spreading ground up limestone in some areas).
Sure, but you remove the carbon and rot, burn, belch, fart it back into the atmosphere. You're not making a coal seam de nos jours to sequester the carbon from the atmosphere, on the whole.
(Though anything to economise on fuel and oil-derved fertiliser is good, too, in that aim.)
I think you’re confused about the actual process here: the carbon doesn’t go into the crops, it reacts with the rock itself to form carbonates of various kinds.
On topic, Sunak is right. There has been a huge amount of cakeism from previous governments, basking in the approval of environmental campaigners for introducing the targets, while failing to have an honest conversation about costs - and because Labour, the Lib Dems and Greens, and indeed the core broadcast media, are signed up to the same agenda, then they're happy for the Tories to be blamed for the costs as they come in as the party in office.
Consequently, the only political opposition comes from right-wing Tories, Reform UK, the Mail and Telegraph. It's like Brexit all over again - and we know how that ended.
Brexit was ultimately a consequence of a failure to advocate the benefits of the policy. It's easy to see now the net costs but without explaining the many little benefits, that ground was ceded by default to the opponents who could highlight the irritants and costs involved. Proponents were quiet while opponents were loud (with the exception of Remainy true believers, who by taking their case too far, also turned the public off). And that's where we are with Net Zero and climate change policy.
Unless the policy is advocated from first principles, not just on 'save the planet' grounds, which some will see as hopelessly beyond Britain's scope and others will see and virtue-signalling guff or simply fraudulent, but on grounds of national security and economic benefit, there is every chance there will be a populist backlash against a policy seen as imposed by an elite conspiracy without a popular mandate - because there will be enough truth in the case to credibly make it, especially if the other side is out-of-practice in its media skills in countering those claims.
Put simply, in a democracy, you have to take the people with you.
It's not a great sign that the TV media coverage today is full of environmentalists and political opponents of the Tories whining about how awful the Tories are, rather than making the positive case for action (which it's worth noting the Tories are still signed up to, even if in a kick-the-can mode).
"Put simply, in a democracy, you have to take the people with you."
And Sunak has given up trying. Because he doesn't care about the environment himself, he'd rather take the soft option and follow the agenda of the Mail and Express.
This isn't leadership. Get rid.
Sunak is challenging the climate change process and in fact is brave and correct
Of course he has come under fierce attack, but as is being seen on this forum he is receiving support for his actions
No. Sunak is being completely disingenuous. Claiming that 2050 Net Zero can still be achieved without taking the steps required to get there is just taking the people for fools.
Clearly an attempt to have cake and eat it. He deserves all he gets for this nonsense.
There are multiple sets of steps you can take to get to the same destination.
If petrol cars get outlawed in 2035 then by 2050 they'll be at least 16 years old and a tiny proportion of vehicles on the road.
The problem with extremists is the fallacy of "something must be done, this is something, so this must be done."
Nonsense.
If, say, we pump out maximum emissions until 2049 then make a big bang transition to Net Zero then:
1) the UK economy is left for dead as the US/China plough on with a cheap, green energy economy
2) or, if everyone else follows our example, the planet is screwed.
Who said that we pump out maximum emissions until 2049 then make a big transition in 2050? Certainly not me.
The transition is happening either way, and before 2050, if its in 2030 or 2035, its just a question of getting the ducks in a row.
As for (2) as I've said before, everyone else will do what's in their own best interests, they won't "follow our example". If we cut off our nose to spite our face, taking harmful actions like cutting driving or flying rather than investing in clean technologies then they'll just carry on merrily along doing their own thing and ignore us.
If we want them to follow us, we need a sensible example to follow where we improve our living standards, not harm them, with cleaner technologies. That way we get to have our cake and eat it (which is the entire purpose of having a cake in my eyes) and they will follow us.
Despite your scornful response about it, a great deal of carbon can be sequestered by dressing agricultural fields with rock dust - as Sheffield University says, up to 40% of our Net Zero requirements, which is huge. It's huge if it's only half that.
I was already very keen on this idea anyway, to remineralise agricultural soils, resulting in healthier produce and improved yields, but for it to also help us massively on the way to Net Zero is a massive win.
'Produce' implies arable fields. So what happens at harvest? Even if one is direct drilling, the previous crop is eliminated one way or another. And if there is some increase in bound carbon (as in species-rich permanent grasslands) this is only a one off.
What am I missing
It seems you plough the rock dust into the soil, or spread it on top & plant crops as normal. Yields should be the same, or better in some cases as you can choose to apply the ground up silicates only to those fields where increasing the pH will be a net benefit (as is already done by spreading ground up limestone in some areas).
Sure, but you remove the carbon and rot, burn, belch, fart it back into the atmosphere. You're not making a coal seam de nos jours to sequester the carbon from the atmosphere, on the whole.
(Though anything to economise on fuel and oil-derved fertiliser is good, too, in that aim.)
Activated charcoal is the most promising sequestration option, or “biochar” as it’s termed. There you really are locking away carbon in a process that partially mimics the creation of coal seams, and it works even if the ground is ploughed.
Thanks! But in both cases it's still only a one off. Not an ongoing process for decades? Still, useful.
With charcoal you can in theory keep adding it annually, at least until the soil gets too saturated with the stuff. But like all of these things it's not an alternative to stopping burning fossil fuels.
Why shouldn't it be? Is the aim of the exercise to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, or to make life as unpleasant and Orwellian as possible for people?
On topic, Sunak is right. There has been a huge amount of cakeism from previous governments, basking in the approval of environmental campaigners for introducing the targets, while failing to have an honest conversation about costs - and because Labour, the Lib Dems and Greens, and indeed the core broadcast media, are signed up to the same agenda, then they're happy for the Tories to be blamed for the costs as they come in as the party in office.
Consequently, the only political opposition comes from right-wing Tories, Reform UK, the Mail and Telegraph. It's like Brexit all over again - and we know how that ended.
Brexit was ultimately a consequence of a failure to advocate the benefits of the policy. It's easy to see now the net costs but without explaining the many little benefits, that ground was ceded by default to the opponents who could highlight the irritants and costs involved. Proponents were quiet while opponents were loud (with the exception of Remainy true believers, who by taking their case too far, also turned the public off). And that's where we are with Net Zero and climate change policy.
Unless the policy is advocated from first principles, not just on 'save the planet' grounds, which some will see as hopelessly beyond Britain's scope and others will see and virtue-signalling guff or simply fraudulent, but on grounds of national security and economic benefit, there is every chance there will be a populist backlash against a policy seen as imposed by an elite conspiracy without a popular mandate - because there will be enough truth in the case to credibly make it, especially if the other side is out-of-practice in its media skills in countering those claims.
Put simply, in a democracy, you have to take the people with you.
It's not a great sign that the TV media coverage today is full of environmentalists and political opponents of the Tories whining about how awful the Tories are, rather than making the positive case for action (which it's worth noting the Tories are still signed up to, even if in a kick-the-can mode).
"Put simply, in a democracy, you have to take the people with you."
And Sunak has given up trying. Because he doesn't care about the environment himself, he'd rather take the soft option and follow the agenda of the Mail and Express.
This isn't leadership. Get rid.
Sunak is challenging the climate change process and in fact is brave and correct
Of course he has come under fierce attack, but as is being seen on this forum he is receiving support for his actions
No. Sunak is being completely disingenuous. Claiming that 2050 Net Zero can still be achieved without taking the steps required to get there is just taking the people for fools.
Clearly an attempt to have cake and eat it. He deserves all he gets for this nonsense.
There are multiple sets of steps you can take to get to the same destination.
If petrol cars get outlawed in 2035 then by 2050 they'll be at least 16 years old and a tiny proportion of vehicles on the road.
The problem with extremists is the fallacy of "something must be done, this is something, so this must be done."
Nonsense.
If, say, we pump out maximum emissions until 2049 then make a big bang transition to Net Zero then:
1) the UK economy is left for dead as the US/China plough on with a cheap, green energy economy
2) or, if everyone else follows our example, the planet is screwed.
Who said that we pump out maximum emissions until 2049 then make a big transition in 2050? Certainly not me.
The transition is happening either way, and before 2050, if its in 2030 or 2035, its just a question of getting the ducks in a row.
As for (2) as I've said before, everyone else will do what's in their own best interests, they won't "follow our example". If we cut off our nose to spite our face, taking harmful actions like cutting driving or flying rather than investing in clean technologies then they'll just carry on merrily along doing their own thing and ignore us.
If we want them to follow us, we need a sensible example to follow where we improve our living standards, not harm them, with cleaner technologies. That way we get to have our cake and eat it (which is the entire purpose of having a cake in my eyes) and they will follow us.
Despite your scornful response about it, a great deal of carbon can be sequestered by dressing agricultural fields with rock dust - as Sheffield University says, up to 40% of our Net Zero requirements, which is huge. It's huge if it's only half that.
I was already very keen on this idea anyway, to remineralise agricultural soils, resulting in healthier produce and improved yields, but for it to also help us massively on the way to Net Zero is a massive win.
'Produce' implies arable fields. So what happens at harvest? Even if one is direct drilling, the previous crop is eliminated one way or another. And if there is some increase in bound carbon (as in species-rich permanent grasslands) this is only a one off.
What am I missing
It seems you plough the rock dust into the soil, or spread it on top & plant crops as normal. Yields should be the same, or better in some cases as you can choose to apply the ground up silicates only to those fields where increasing the pH will be a net benefit (as is already done by spreading ground up limestone in some areas).
Sure, but you remove the carbon and rot, burn, belch, fart it back into the atmosphere. You're not making a coal seam de nos jours to sequester the carbon from the atmosphere, on the whole.
(Though anything to economise on fuel and oil-derved fertiliser is good, too, in that aim.)
I think you’re confused about the actual process here: the carbon doesn’t go into the crops, it reacts with the rock itself to form carbonates of various kinds.
The theory certainly looks interesting, but I it doesn't seem to have been demonstrated in practice as yet.
I've realised after this morning's round of news that the substance of what happened yesterday really doesn't matter. What Labour says doesn't matter. Even what the journalists say doesn't matter particularly. The mood music is everything.
Sunak made all sorts of reassuring noises about net zero in the speech and presented the changes as a sensible recalibration of policy. But as far as everyone is concerned the Tories are now anti-net zero and probably climate sceptics. This will win them some rightwing and RefUK support and put off others.
Labour was careful not to come out with anything too eco yesterday, but of course various others of a centre or left persuasion did. So as far as everyone is concerned Labour is pro-net zero and pro-banning you from driving or having a gas boiler after 2030. That might help get the vote out and win back some greens, but will put off others.
Reminds me of the Brexit debates when everything the government did was far right fascism and anyone who proposed single market or customs union was a saboteur of the will of the people.
People on Twitter are saying this is the first example of AI art which has impressed them, and made them realise AI can be creative and artistic. That AI art is art, in essence
Not saying I agree or disagree, but this is the image provoking the debate. See what you think
”Say what you want, but this is creative, novel, and endless. Incredible to see the community pick this up so fast”
It is a simple fact that current “AI” (a poor name for it - we should have resisted the use of those words until the tech is actually there) cannot create. All it can do is draw in bits of a pieces of existing works.
Of course we can debate how many human artists do the same, but the point still stands.
This is a lovely video of a group of mountain bikers coming across King Charles near Balmoral. He seems to genuinely be a very nice man interested in what others are doing.
I've realised after this morning's round of news that the substance of what happened yesterday really doesn't matter. What Labour says doesn't matter. Even what the journalists say doesn't matter particularly. The mood music is everything.
Sunak made all sorts of reassuring noises about net zero in the speech and presented the changes as a sensible recalibration of policy. But as far as everyone is concerned the Tories are now anti-net zero and probably climate sceptics. This will win them some rightwing and RefUK support and put off others.
Labour was careful not to come out with anything too eco yesterday, but of course various others of a centre or left persuasion did. So as far as everyone is concerned Labour is pro-net zero and pro-banning you from driving or having a gas boiler after 2030. That might help get the vote out and win back some greens, but will put off others.
Reminds me of the Brexit debates when everything the government did was far right fascism and anyone who proposed single market or customs union was a saboteur of the will of the people.
Doesn't seem t ohave coordinated it too well with KCIII, though.
On topic, Sunak is right. There has been a huge amount of cakeism from previous governments, basking in the approval of environmental campaigners for introducing the targets, while failing to have an honest conversation about costs - and because Labour, the Lib Dems and Greens, and indeed the core broadcast media, are signed up to the same agenda, then they're happy for the Tories to be blamed for the costs as they come in as the party in office.
Consequently, the only political opposition comes from right-wing Tories, Reform UK, the Mail and Telegraph. It's like Brexit all over again - and we know how that ended.
Brexit was ultimately a consequence of a failure to advocate the benefits of the policy. It's easy to see now the net costs but without explaining the many little benefits, that ground was ceded by default to the opponents who could highlight the irritants and costs involved. Proponents were quiet while opponents were loud (with the exception of Remainy true believers, who by taking their case too far, also turned the public off). And that's where we are with Net Zero and climate change policy.
Unless the policy is advocated from first principles, not just on 'save the planet' grounds, which some will see as hopelessly beyond Britain's scope and others will see and virtue-signalling guff or simply fraudulent, but on grounds of national security and economic benefit, there is every chance there will be a populist backlash against a policy seen as imposed by an elite conspiracy without a popular mandate - because there will be enough truth in the case to credibly make it, especially if the other side is out-of-practice in its media skills in countering those claims.
Put simply, in a democracy, you have to take the people with you.
It's not a great sign that the TV media coverage today is full of environmentalists and political opponents of the Tories whining about how awful the Tories are, rather than making the positive case for action (which it's worth noting the Tories are still signed up to, even if in a kick-the-can mode).
"Put simply, in a democracy, you have to take the people with you."
And Sunak has given up trying. Because he doesn't care about the environment himself, he'd rather take the soft option and follow the agenda of the Mail and Express.
This isn't leadership. Get rid.
Sunak is challenging the climate change process and in fact is brave and correct
Of course he has come under fierce attack, but as is being seen on this forum he is receiving support for his actions
No. Sunak is being completely disingenuous. Claiming that 2050 Net Zero can still be achieved without taking the steps required to get there is just taking the people for fools.
Clearly an attempt to have cake and eat it. He deserves all he gets for this nonsense.
There are multiple sets of steps you can take to get to the same destination.
If petrol cars get outlawed in 2035 then by 2050 they'll be at least 16 years old and a tiny proportion of vehicles on the road.
The problem with extremists is the fallacy of "something must be done, this is something, so this must be done."
Nonsense.
If, say, we pump out maximum emissions until 2049 then make a big bang transition to Net Zero then:
1) the UK economy is left for dead as the US/China plough on with a cheap, green energy economy
2) or, if everyone else follows our example, the planet is screwed.
Who said that we pump out maximum emissions until 2049 then make a big transition in 2050? Certainly not me.
The transition is happening either way, and before 2050, if its in 2030 or 2035, its just a question of getting the ducks in a row.
As for (2) as I've said before, everyone else will do what's in their own best interests, they won't "follow our example". If we cut off our nose to spite our face, taking harmful actions like cutting driving or flying rather than investing in clean technologies then they'll just carry on merrily along doing their own thing and ignore us.
If we want them to follow us, we need a sensible example to follow where we improve our living standards, not harm them, with cleaner technologies. That way we get to have our cake and eat it (which is the entire purpose of having a cake in my eyes) and they will follow us.
Despite your scornful response about it, a great deal of carbon can be sequestered by dressing agricultural fields with rock dust - as Sheffield University says, up to 40% of our Net Zero requirements, which is huge. It's huge if it's only half that.
I was already very keen on this idea anyway, to remineralise agricultural soils, resulting in healthier produce and improved yields, but for it to also help us massively on the way to Net Zero is a massive win.
'Produce' implies arable fields. So what happens at harvest? Even if one is direct drilling, the previous crop is eliminated one way or another. And if there is some increase in bound carbon (as in species-rich permanent grasslands) this is only a one off.
What am I missing
It seems you plough the rock dust into the soil, or spread it on top & plant crops as normal. Yields should be the same, or better in some cases as you can choose to apply the ground up silicates only to those fields where increasing the pH will be a net benefit (as is already done by spreading ground up limestone in some areas).
Sure, but you remove the carbon and rot, burn, belch, fart it back into the atmosphere. You're not making a coal seam de nos jours to sequester the carbon from the atmosphere, on the whole.
(Though anything to economise on fuel and oil-derved fertiliser is good, too, in that aim.)
I think you’re confused about the actual process here: the carbon doesn’t go into the crops, it reacts with the rock itself to form carbonates of various kinds.
The theory certainly looks interesting, but I it doesn't seem to have been demonstrated in practice as yet.
Some potential good news for Ukraine. Fingers crossed!
ISW has observed a significant inflection in western #Zaporizhia Obl:
Ukrainian forces are for the first time confirmed to be operating armored vehicles (Stryker & Marder infantry fighting vehicles) beyond the Russian anti-tank ditch and dragon’s teeth obstacles near #Verbove.🧵 https://x.com/TheStudyofWar/status/1704815837100523528?s=20
People on Twitter are saying this is the first example of AI art which has impressed them, and made them realise AI can be creative and artistic. That AI art is art, in essence
Not saying I agree or disagree, but this is the image provoking the debate. See what you think
”Say what you want, but this is creative, novel, and endless. Incredible to see the community pick this up so fast”
On topic, Sunak is right. There has been a huge amount of cakeism from previous governments, basking in the approval of environmental campaigners for introducing the targets, while failing to have an honest conversation about costs - and because Labour, the Lib Dems and Greens, and indeed the core broadcast media, are signed up to the same agenda, then they're happy for the Tories to be blamed for the costs as they come in as the party in office.
Consequently, the only political opposition comes from right-wing Tories, Reform UK, the Mail and Telegraph. It's like Brexit all over again - and we know how that ended.
Brexit was ultimately a consequence of a failure to advocate the benefits of the policy. It's easy to see now the net costs but without explaining the many little benefits, that ground was ceded by default to the opponents who could highlight the irritants and costs involved. Proponents were quiet while opponents were loud (with the exception of Remainy true believers, who by taking their case too far, also turned the public off). And that's where we are with Net Zero and climate change policy.
Unless the policy is advocated from first principles, not just on 'save the planet' grounds, which some will see as hopelessly beyond Britain's scope and others will see and virtue-signalling guff or simply fraudulent, but on grounds of national security and economic benefit, there is every chance there will be a populist backlash against a policy seen as imposed by an elite conspiracy without a popular mandate - because there will be enough truth in the case to credibly make it, especially if the other side is out-of-practice in its media skills in countering those claims.
Put simply, in a democracy, you have to take the people with you.
It's not a great sign that the TV media coverage today is full of environmentalists and political opponents of the Tories whining about how awful the Tories are, rather than making the positive case for action (which it's worth noting the Tories are still signed up to, even if in a kick-the-can mode).
"Put simply, in a democracy, you have to take the people with you."
And Sunak has given up trying. Because he doesn't care about the environment himself, he'd rather take the soft option and follow the agenda of the Mail and Express.
This isn't leadership. Get rid.
Sunak is challenging the climate change process and in fact is brave and correct
Of course he has come under fierce attack, but as is being seen on this forum he is receiving support for his actions
No. Sunak is being completely disingenuous. Claiming that 2050 Net Zero can still be achieved without taking the steps required to get there is just taking the people for fools.
Clearly an attempt to have cake and eat it. He deserves all he gets for this nonsense.
There are multiple sets of steps you can take to get to the same destination.
If petrol cars get outlawed in 2035 then by 2050 they'll be at least 16 years old and a tiny proportion of vehicles on the road.
The problem with extremists is the fallacy of "something must be done, this is something, so this must be done."
Nonsense.
If, say, we pump out maximum emissions until 2049 then make a big bang transition to Net Zero then:
1) the UK economy is left for dead as the US/China plough on with a cheap, green energy economy
2) or, if everyone else follows our example, the planet is screwed.
Who said that we pump out maximum emissions until 2049 then make a big transition in 2050? Certainly not me.
The transition is happening either way, and before 2050, if its in 2030 or 2035, its just a question of getting the ducks in a row.
As for (2) as I've said before, everyone else will do what's in their own best interests, they won't "follow our example". If we cut off our nose to spite our face, taking harmful actions like cutting driving or flying rather than investing in clean technologies then they'll just carry on merrily along doing their own thing and ignore us.
If we want them to follow us, we need a sensible example to follow where we improve our living standards, not harm them, with cleaner technologies. That way we get to have our cake and eat it (which is the entire purpose of having a cake in my eyes) and they will follow us.
Despite your scornful response about it, a great deal of carbon can be sequestered by dressing agricultural fields with rock dust - as Sheffield University says, up to 40% of our Net Zero requirements, which is huge. It's huge if it's only half that.
I was already very keen on this idea anyway, to remineralise agricultural soils, resulting in healthier produce and improved yields, but for it to also help us massively on the way to Net Zero is a massive win.
'Produce' implies arable fields. So what happens at harvest? Even if one is direct drilling, the previous crop is eliminated one way or another. And if there is some increase in bound carbon (as in species-rich permanent grasslands) this is only a one off.
What am I missing
It seems you plough the rock dust into the soil, or spread it on top & plant crops as normal. Yields should be the same, or better in some cases as you can choose to apply the ground up silicates only to those fields where increasing the pH will be a net benefit (as is already done by spreading ground up limestone in some areas).
Sure, but you remove the carbon and rot, burn, belch, fart it back into the atmosphere. You're not making a coal seam de nos jours to sequester the carbon from the atmosphere, on the whole.
(Though anything to economise on fuel and oil-derved fertiliser is good, too, in that aim.)
I think you’re confused about the actual process here: the carbon doesn’t go into the crops, it reacts with the rock itself to form carbonates of various kinds.
On topic, Sunak is right. There has been a huge amount of cakeism from previous governments, basking in the approval of environmental campaigners for introducing the targets, while failing to have an honest conversation about costs - and because Labour, the Lib Dems and Greens, and indeed the core broadcast media, are signed up to the same agenda, then they're happy for the Tories to be blamed for the costs as they come in as the party in office.
Consequently, the only political opposition comes from right-wing Tories, Reform UK, the Mail and Telegraph. It's like Brexit all over again - and we know how that ended.
Brexit was ultimately a consequence of a failure to advocate the benefits of the policy. It's easy to see now the net costs but without explaining the many little benefits, that ground was ceded by default to the opponents who could highlight the irritants and costs involved. Proponents were quiet while opponents were loud (with the exception of Remainy true believers, who by taking their case too far, also turned the public off). And that's where we are with Net Zero and climate change policy.
Unless the policy is advocated from first principles, not just on 'save the planet' grounds, which some will see as hopelessly beyond Britain's scope and others will see and virtue-signalling guff or simply fraudulent, but on grounds of national security and economic benefit, there is every chance there will be a populist backlash against a policy seen as imposed by an elite conspiracy without a popular mandate - because there will be enough truth in the case to credibly make it, especially if the other side is out-of-practice in its media skills in countering those claims.
Put simply, in a democracy, you have to take the people with you.
It's not a great sign that the TV media coverage today is full of environmentalists and political opponents of the Tories whining about how awful the Tories are, rather than making the positive case for action (which it's worth noting the Tories are still signed up to, even if in a kick-the-can mode).
"Put simply, in a democracy, you have to take the people with you."
And Sunak has given up trying. Because he doesn't care about the environment himself, he'd rather take the soft option and follow the agenda of the Mail and Express.
This isn't leadership. Get rid.
Sunak is challenging the climate change process and in fact is brave and correct
Of course he has come under fierce attack, but as is being seen on this forum he is receiving support for his actions
No. Sunak is being completely disingenuous. Claiming that 2050 Net Zero can still be achieved without taking the steps required to get there is just taking the people for fools.
Clearly an attempt to have cake and eat it. He deserves all he gets for this nonsense.
There are multiple sets of steps you can take to get to the same destination.
If petrol cars get outlawed in 2035 then by 2050 they'll be at least 16 years old and a tiny proportion of vehicles on the road.
The problem with extremists is the fallacy of "something must be done, this is something, so this must be done."
Nonsense.
If, say, we pump out maximum emissions until 2049 then make a big bang transition to Net Zero then:
1) the UK economy is left for dead as the US/China plough on with a cheap, green energy economy
2) or, if everyone else follows our example, the planet is screwed.
Who said that we pump out maximum emissions until 2049 then make a big transition in 2050? Certainly not me.
The transition is happening either way, and before 2050, if its in 2030 or 2035, its just a question of getting the ducks in a row.
As for (2) as I've said before, everyone else will do what's in their own best interests, they won't "follow our example". If we cut off our nose to spite our face, taking harmful actions like cutting driving or flying rather than investing in clean technologies then they'll just carry on merrily along doing their own thing and ignore us.
If we want them to follow us, we need a sensible example to follow where we improve our living standards, not harm them, with cleaner technologies. That way we get to have our cake and eat it (which is the entire purpose of having a cake in my eyes) and they will follow us.
Despite your scornful response about it, a great deal of carbon can be sequestered by dressing agricultural fields with rock dust - as Sheffield University says, up to 40% of our Net Zero requirements, which is huge. It's huge if it's only half that.
I was already very keen on this idea anyway, to remineralise agricultural soils, resulting in healthier produce and improved yields, but for it to also help us massively on the way to Net Zero is a massive win.
'Produce' implies arable fields. So what happens at harvest? Even if one is direct drilling, the previous crop is eliminated one way or another. And if there is some increase in bound carbon (as in species-rich permanent grasslands) this is only a one off.
What am I missing
It seems you plough the rock dust into the soil, or spread it on top & plant crops as normal. Yields should be the same, or better in some cases as you can choose to apply the ground up silicates only to those fields where increasing the pH will be a net benefit (as is already done by spreading ground up limestone in some areas).
Sure, but you remove the carbon and rot, burn, belch, fart it back into the atmosphere. You're not making a coal seam de nos jours to sequester the carbon from the atmosphere, on the whole.
(Though anything to economise on fuel and oil-derved fertiliser is good, too, in that aim.)
Activated charcoal is the most promising sequestration option, or “biochar” as it’s termed. There you really are locking away carbon in a process that partially mimics the creation of coal seams, and it works even if the ground is ploughed.
Thanks! But in both cases it's still only a one off. Not an ongoing process for decades? Still, useful.
With charcoal you can in theory keep adding it annually, at least until the soil gets too saturated with the stuff. But like all of these things it's not an alternative to stopping burning fossil fuels.
Why shouldn't it be? Is the aim of the exercise to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, or to make life as unpleasant and Orwellian as possible for people?
Because we release many orders of magnitude more CO2 through burning than we could ever sequester in soil even in the most optimistic scenarios (and there are some bonkers maths doing the rounds). And sequestration is significantly more expensive than energy efficiency and transition.
To make sequestration work at scale you’d need vast government intervention both on the production side and in mandating farmers to use it.
Plus the world has realised that fossil fuel burning is dirty, non renewable of course, and increasingly geopolitically dangerous. Why keep on with the water mills once you have a steam engine. Same issue.
I'm no lawyer, bur seeing as he was apprehended outside the prison, how on earth is such a plea even possible?
Any number of defences available. Identity. No mens rea. Necessity. Coercion. Defect in the original process of imprisonment. Insanity. Assertion of human rights in the face of prison conditions.
Such a plea is possible for the simple reason that no-one can be criminally convicted except by proper process, and people are entitled not to convict themselves by pleading guilty. (If you remain mute, a NG plea is entered in default). NG means "prove it".
Small point, is necessity really a defence? I thought there was a cannibalism case way back, when some sailors aboard a lifeboat drew lots and ate one of the party. They were convicted of murder establishing that necessity isn't a defence?
Big subject. R v Dudley and Stephens is the case. Necessity can be a defence but not always. And what constitutes necessity is a legal (and philosophical) minefield.
Don't, for example, try Plantinga's actually quite amusing gem 'The Nature of Necessity' after consuming lots of alcohol.
Unlike Cromer, Sheringham is a really nice resort. I'm off there this weekend, and will make sure I buy some extra bagels whilst there.
Sheringham is indeed pleasant, with more than an element of Walmington on Sea about it. It's no surprise they decided to have a 1940s festival as it's very on brand... as is the fact they commendably did a Captain Mainwaring on the idiots who tried to spoil it.
Cromer, like many seaside towns around the UK, jumped all in on the mass holiday resort bandwagon, got absolutely hammered when the package holiday came in, and has never really recovered. Sheringham has always had a tourist trade, but smaller scale and sold as more genteel, so they weren't hit nearly as hard.
Sheringham is also at one end of the North Norfolk Railway. That's the main reason I went there, but found the town very pleasant. Holt, at the other end of the railway, is also worth a visit.
Yes, we like Holt a lot, and even thought about buying a place there but property is a bit overpriced, as it tends to be generally in North Norfolk.
People on Twitter are saying this is the first example of AI art which has impressed them, and made them realise AI can be creative and artistic. That AI art is art, in essence
Not saying I agree or disagree, but this is the image provoking the debate. See what you think
”Say what you want, but this is creative, novel, and endless. Incredible to see the community pick this up so fast”
That one is weak. Too "forced". The clouds look ridiculous.
It’s not meant to be hyper-realistic. It’s more like M C Escher
Eg is the AI art worse or better than this by Escher?
I’d say the AI art is slightly superior. But really it’s irrelevant. The point is, if you were shown that AI image and you were told “it was done by a disciple of Escher in the 1940s” you’d think Wow that’s really skilful and clever
You’d entirely believe it was art by a human. So the machines CAN make art
Yes, there have been complaints it is putting self-employed artists out of business, which is sad. You'd have hoped AI would replace the sort of mass-produced wall art sold in Wilko and the like.
I would now be legit terrified as a professional artist
AI is showing creativity and flair, and anyone can use it, and it produces images in seconds, 24/7, virtually for free - in any style, theme, genre - and now it produces stuff no one has ever conceived before
Art as we know it is over
My wife is an artist. AI doesn’t compete with her because it’s simply another medium, like paint vs sculpture vs printing. People buy the person, the buying experience, the gallery of studio visit etc. Same as Nespresso doesn’t compete with barista coffee bars.
The biggest competition remains IKEA and Farrow & Ball. Art is, except at the very top end of the market, a home deco choice. They agonise way more over paying £200 for an etching than they would paying £200 for a meal out because it’s a decorative choice.
Hmmm
What’s to stop someone “pretending” to be an artist, like your wife - they could even mock up a studio - but actually getting DALLE3 to do the hard work?
For the moment she’s probably OK as it’s still very hard to fake real paint with real brushwork, but that may change
Anyone working in printed, published or digital art is screwed already. Illustrators etc. Graphic designers. Everyone in Hollywood (hence the strike)
Artists can just change their modus operandi. Do you remember when draughtsmen produced technical drawings on a large drawing board using pen and ink?
On topic, Sunak is right. There has been a huge amount of cakeism from previous governments, basking in the approval of environmental campaigners for introducing the targets, while failing to have an honest conversation about costs - and because Labour, the Lib Dems and Greens, and indeed the core broadcast media, are signed up to the same agenda, then they're happy for the Tories to be blamed for the costs as they come in as the party in office.
Consequently, the only political opposition comes from right-wing Tories, Reform UK, the Mail and Telegraph. It's like Brexit all over again - and we know how that ended.
Brexit was ultimately a consequence of a failure to advocate the benefits of the policy. It's easy to see now the net costs but without explaining the many little benefits, that ground was ceded by default to the opponents who could highlight the irritants and costs involved. Proponents were quiet while opponents were loud (with the exception of Remainy true believers, who by taking their case too far, also turned the public off). And that's where we are with Net Zero and climate change policy.
Unless the policy is advocated from first principles, not just on 'save the planet' grounds, which some will see as hopelessly beyond Britain's scope and others will see and virtue-signalling guff or simply fraudulent, but on grounds of national security and economic benefit, there is every chance there will be a populist backlash against a policy seen as imposed by an elite conspiracy without a popular mandate - because there will be enough truth in the case to credibly make it, especially if the other side is out-of-practice in its media skills in countering those claims.
Put simply, in a democracy, you have to take the people with you.
It's not a great sign that the TV media coverage today is full of environmentalists and political opponents of the Tories whining about how awful the Tories are, rather than making the positive case for action (which it's worth noting the Tories are still signed up to, even if in a kick-the-can mode).
"Put simply, in a democracy, you have to take the people with you."
And Sunak has given up trying. Because he doesn't care about the environment himself, he'd rather take the soft option and follow the agenda of the Mail and Express.
This isn't leadership. Get rid.
Sunak is challenging the climate change process and in fact is brave and correct
Of course he has come under fierce attack, but as is being seen on this forum he is receiving support for his actions
No. Sunak is being completely disingenuous. Claiming that 2050 Net Zero can still be achieved without taking the steps required to get there is just taking the people for fools.
Clearly an attempt to have cake and eat it. He deserves all he gets for this nonsense.
There are multiple sets of steps you can take to get to the same destination.
If petrol cars get outlawed in 2035 then by 2050 they'll be at least 16 years old and a tiny proportion of vehicles on the road.
The problem with extremists is the fallacy of "something must be done, this is something, so this must be done."
Nonsense.
If, say, we pump out maximum emissions until 2049 then make a big bang transition to Net Zero then:
1) the UK economy is left for dead as the US/China plough on with a cheap, green energy economy
2) or, if everyone else follows our example, the planet is screwed.
Who said that we pump out maximum emissions until 2049 then make a big transition in 2050? Certainly not me.
The transition is happening either way, and before 2050, if its in 2030 or 2035, its just a question of getting the ducks in a row.
As for (2) as I've said before, everyone else will do what's in their own best interests, they won't "follow our example". If we cut off our nose to spite our face, taking harmful actions like cutting driving or flying rather than investing in clean technologies then they'll just carry on merrily along doing their own thing and ignore us.
If we want them to follow us, we need a sensible example to follow where we improve our living standards, not harm them, with cleaner technologies. That way we get to have our cake and eat it (which is the entire purpose of having a cake in my eyes) and they will follow us.
Despite your scornful response about it, a great deal of carbon can be sequestered by dressing agricultural fields with rock dust - as Sheffield University says, up to 40% of our Net Zero requirements, which is huge. It's huge if it's only half that.
I was already very keen on this idea anyway, to remineralise agricultural soils, resulting in healthier produce and improved yields, but for it to also help us massively on the way to Net Zero is a massive win.
'Produce' implies arable fields. So what happens at harvest? Even if one is direct drilling, the previous crop is eliminated one way or another. And if there is some increase in bound carbon (as in species-rich permanent grasslands) this is only a one off.
What am I missing
It seems you plough the rock dust into the soil, or spread it on top & plant crops as normal. Yields should be the same, or better in some cases as you can choose to apply the ground up silicates only to those fields where increasing the pH will be a net benefit (as is already done by spreading ground up limestone in some areas).
Sure, but you remove the carbon and rot, burn, belch, fart it back into the atmosphere. You're not making a coal seam de nos jours to sequester the carbon from the atmosphere, on the whole.
(Though anything to economise on fuel and oil-derved fertiliser is good, too, in that aim.)
I think you’re confused about the actual process here: the carbon doesn’t go into the crops, it reacts with the rock itself to form carbonates of various kinds.
On topic, Sunak is right. There has been a huge amount of cakeism from previous governments, basking in the approval of environmental campaigners for introducing the targets, while failing to have an honest conversation about costs - and because Labour, the Lib Dems and Greens, and indeed the core broadcast media, are signed up to the same agenda, then they're happy for the Tories to be blamed for the costs as they come in as the party in office.
Consequently, the only political opposition comes from right-wing Tories, Reform UK, the Mail and Telegraph. It's like Brexit all over again - and we know how that ended.
Brexit was ultimately a consequence of a failure to advocate the benefits of the policy. It's easy to see now the net costs but without explaining the many little benefits, that ground was ceded by default to the opponents who could highlight the irritants and costs involved. Proponents were quiet while opponents were loud (with the exception of Remainy true believers, who by taking their case too far, also turned the public off). And that's where we are with Net Zero and climate change policy.
Unless the policy is advocated from first principles, not just on 'save the planet' grounds, which some will see as hopelessly beyond Britain's scope and others will see and virtue-signalling guff or simply fraudulent, but on grounds of national security and economic benefit, there is every chance there will be a populist backlash against a policy seen as imposed by an elite conspiracy without a popular mandate - because there will be enough truth in the case to credibly make it, especially if the other side is out-of-practice in its media skills in countering those claims.
Put simply, in a democracy, you have to take the people with you.
It's not a great sign that the TV media coverage today is full of environmentalists and political opponents of the Tories whining about how awful the Tories are, rather than making the positive case for action (which it's worth noting the Tories are still signed up to, even if in a kick-the-can mode).
"Put simply, in a democracy, you have to take the people with you."
And Sunak has given up trying. Because he doesn't care about the environment himself, he'd rather take the soft option and follow the agenda of the Mail and Express.
This isn't leadership. Get rid.
Sunak is challenging the climate change process and in fact is brave and correct
Of course he has come under fierce attack, but as is being seen on this forum he is receiving support for his actions
No. Sunak is being completely disingenuous. Claiming that 2050 Net Zero can still be achieved without taking the steps required to get there is just taking the people for fools.
Clearly an attempt to have cake and eat it. He deserves all he gets for this nonsense.
There are multiple sets of steps you can take to get to the same destination.
If petrol cars get outlawed in 2035 then by 2050 they'll be at least 16 years old and a tiny proportion of vehicles on the road.
The problem with extremists is the fallacy of "something must be done, this is something, so this must be done."
Nonsense.
If, say, we pump out maximum emissions until 2049 then make a big bang transition to Net Zero then:
1) the UK economy is left for dead as the US/China plough on with a cheap, green energy economy
2) or, if everyone else follows our example, the planet is screwed.
Who said that we pump out maximum emissions until 2049 then make a big transition in 2050? Certainly not me.
The transition is happening either way, and before 2050, if its in 2030 or 2035, its just a question of getting the ducks in a row.
As for (2) as I've said before, everyone else will do what's in their own best interests, they won't "follow our example". If we cut off our nose to spite our face, taking harmful actions like cutting driving or flying rather than investing in clean technologies then they'll just carry on merrily along doing their own thing and ignore us.
If we want them to follow us, we need a sensible example to follow where we improve our living standards, not harm them, with cleaner technologies. That way we get to have our cake and eat it (which is the entire purpose of having a cake in my eyes) and they will follow us.
Despite your scornful response about it, a great deal of carbon can be sequestered by dressing agricultural fields with rock dust - as Sheffield University says, up to 40% of our Net Zero requirements, which is huge. It's huge if it's only half that.
I was already very keen on this idea anyway, to remineralise agricultural soils, resulting in healthier produce and improved yields, but for it to also help us massively on the way to Net Zero is a massive win.
'Produce' implies arable fields. So what happens at harvest? Even if one is direct drilling, the previous crop is eliminated one way or another. And if there is some increase in bound carbon (as in species-rich permanent grasslands) this is only a one off.
What am I missing
It seems you plough the rock dust into the soil, or spread it on top & plant crops as normal. Yields should be the same, or better in some cases as you can choose to apply the ground up silicates only to those fields where increasing the pH will be a net benefit (as is already done by spreading ground up limestone in some areas).
Sure, but you remove the carbon and rot, burn, belch, fart it back into the atmosphere. You're not making a coal seam de nos jours to sequester the carbon from the atmosphere, on the whole.
(Though anything to economise on fuel and oil-derved fertiliser is good, too, in that aim.)
Activated charcoal is the most promising sequestration option, or “biochar” as it’s termed. There you really are locking away carbon in a process that partially mimics the creation of coal seams, and it works even if the ground is ploughed.
Thanks! But in both cases it's still only a one off. Not an ongoing process for decades? Still, useful.
With charcoal you can in theory keep adding it annually, at least until the soil gets too saturated with the stuff. But like all of these things it's not an alternative to stopping burning fossil fuels.
Why shouldn't it be? Is the aim of the exercise to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, or to make life as unpleasant and Orwellian as possible for people?
Quite the opposite.
To be net zero you need some things on the negative side, then some on the positive side, and they balance. You have to think though what are your priorities and have those priorities as your limited positives.
Burning fossil fuels when there's better and ultimately cheaper alternatives around is pointless. No reason to do it.
But some emissions have no better alternative.
EG a large source of emissions come from things like cow farts. I still want to eat beef and drink real milk, so I would like my positives to be going into things like that, balanced by any negatives.
Better than a future where we burn emissions, but all need vegan meals and soy lattes as the cows have been culled.
Another point on the inflation figures and why the BoE may have paused today is that ONS food price inflation as measured by basket value is about 2% higher than the real food inflation rate as measured by checkout values of baskets which include discounts at the till.
People on Twitter are saying this is the first example of AI art which has impressed them, and made them realise AI can be creative and artistic. That AI art is art, in essence
Not saying I agree or disagree, but this is the image provoking the debate. See what you think
”Say what you want, but this is creative, novel, and endless. Incredible to see the community pick this up so fast”
That one is weak. Too "forced". The clouds look ridiculous.
It’s not meant to be hyper-realistic. It’s more like M C Escher
Eg is the AI art worse or better than this by Escher?
I’d say the AI art is slightly superior. But really it’s irrelevant. The point is, if you were shown that AI image and you were told “it was done by a disciple of Escher in the 1940s” you’d think Wow that’s really skilful and clever
You’d entirely believe it was art by a human. So the machines CAN make art
I agree with you about the central point, that machines can make art, we can easily be fooled into thinking it's human-made, and that said art can be transporting and beautiful.
I just think the spiral-village one is a bit shit. And nowhere near as good as that particular Escher. Just a view.
The neat thing is that creating this sort of work is now available to those of us whose technical artistry is severely lacking. If I had an artistic vision I wanted to realise, I have a damn good chance nowadays, whereas before I'd be looking at a long learning process or an expensive commission.
People on Twitter are saying this is the first example of AI art which has impressed them, and made them realise AI can be creative and artistic. That AI art is art, in essence
Not saying I agree or disagree, but this is the image provoking the debate. See what you think
”Say what you want, but this is creative, novel, and endless. Incredible to see the community pick this up so fast”
Another point on the inflation figures and why the BoE may have paused today is that ONS food price inflation as measured by basket value is about 2% higher than the real food inflation rate as measured by checkout values of baskets which include discounts at the till.
So prices aren't going up as fast, but there's fewer/inferior discounts available?
On topic, Sunak is right. There has been a huge amount of cakeism from previous governments, basking in the approval of environmental campaigners for introducing the targets, while failing to have an honest conversation about costs - and because Labour, the Lib Dems and Greens, and indeed the core broadcast media, are signed up to the same agenda, then they're happy for the Tories to be blamed for the costs as they come in as the party in office.
Consequently, the only political opposition comes from right-wing Tories, Reform UK, the Mail and Telegraph. It's like Brexit all over again - and we know how that ended.
Brexit was ultimately a consequence of a failure to advocate the benefits of the policy. It's easy to see now the net costs but without explaining the many little benefits, that ground was ceded by default to the opponents who could highlight the irritants and costs involved. Proponents were quiet while opponents were loud (with the exception of Remainy true believers, who by taking their case too far, also turned the public off). And that's where we are with Net Zero and climate change policy.
Unless the policy is advocated from first principles, not just on 'save the planet' grounds, which some will see as hopelessly beyond Britain's scope and others will see and virtue-signalling guff or simply fraudulent, but on grounds of national security and economic benefit, there is every chance there will be a populist backlash against a policy seen as imposed by an elite conspiracy without a popular mandate - because there will be enough truth in the case to credibly make it, especially if the other side is out-of-practice in its media skills in countering those claims.
Put simply, in a democracy, you have to take the people with you.
It's not a great sign that the TV media coverage today is full of environmentalists and political opponents of the Tories whining about how awful the Tories are, rather than making the positive case for action (which it's worth noting the Tories are still signed up to, even if in a kick-the-can mode).
"Put simply, in a democracy, you have to take the people with you."
And Sunak has given up trying. Because he doesn't care about the environment himself, he'd rather take the soft option and follow the agenda of the Mail and Express.
This isn't leadership. Get rid.
Sunak is challenging the climate change process and in fact is brave and correct
Of course he has come under fierce attack, but as is being seen on this forum he is receiving support for his actions
No. Sunak is being completely disingenuous. Claiming that 2050 Net Zero can still be achieved without taking the steps required to get there is just taking the people for fools.
Clearly an attempt to have cake and eat it. He deserves all he gets for this nonsense.
There are multiple sets of steps you can take to get to the same destination.
If petrol cars get outlawed in 2035 then by 2050 they'll be at least 16 years old and a tiny proportion of vehicles on the road.
The problem with extremists is the fallacy of "something must be done, this is something, so this must be done."
Nonsense.
If, say, we pump out maximum emissions until 2049 then make a big bang transition to Net Zero then:
1) the UK economy is left for dead as the US/China plough on with a cheap, green energy economy
2) or, if everyone else follows our example, the planet is screwed.
Who said that we pump out maximum emissions until 2049 then make a big transition in 2050? Certainly not me.
The transition is happening either way, and before 2050, if its in 2030 or 2035, its just a question of getting the ducks in a row.
As for (2) as I've said before, everyone else will do what's in their own best interests, they won't "follow our example". If we cut off our nose to spite our face, taking harmful actions like cutting driving or flying rather than investing in clean technologies then they'll just carry on merrily along doing their own thing and ignore us.
If we want them to follow us, we need a sensible example to follow where we improve our living standards, not harm them, with cleaner technologies. That way we get to have our cake and eat it (which is the entire purpose of having a cake in my eyes) and they will follow us.
Despite your scornful response about it, a great deal of carbon can be sequestered by dressing agricultural fields with rock dust - as Sheffield University says, up to 40% of our Net Zero requirements, which is huge. It's huge if it's only half that.
I was already very keen on this idea anyway, to remineralise agricultural soils, resulting in healthier produce and improved yields, but for it to also help us massively on the way to Net Zero is a massive win.
'Produce' implies arable fields. So what happens at harvest? Even if one is direct drilling, the previous crop is eliminated one way or another. And if there is some increase in bound carbon (as in species-rich permanent grasslands) this is only a one off.
What am I missing
It seems you plough the rock dust into the soil, or spread it on top & plant crops as normal. Yields should be the same, or better in some cases as you can choose to apply the ground up silicates only to those fields where increasing the pH will be a net benefit (as is already done by spreading ground up limestone in some areas).
Sure, but you remove the carbon and rot, burn, belch, fart it back into the atmosphere. You're not making a coal seam de nos jours to sequester the carbon from the atmosphere, on the whole.
(Though anything to economise on fuel and oil-derved fertiliser is good, too, in that aim.)
I think you’re confused about the actual process here: the carbon doesn’t go into the crops, it reacts with the rock itself to form carbonates of various kinds.
On topic, Sunak is right. There has been a huge amount of cakeism from previous governments, basking in the approval of environmental campaigners for introducing the targets, while failing to have an honest conversation about costs - and because Labour, the Lib Dems and Greens, and indeed the core broadcast media, are signed up to the same agenda, then they're happy for the Tories to be blamed for the costs as they come in as the party in office.
Consequently, the only political opposition comes from right-wing Tories, Reform UK, the Mail and Telegraph. It's like Brexit all over again - and we know how that ended.
Brexit was ultimately a consequence of a failure to advocate the benefits of the policy. It's easy to see now the net costs but without explaining the many little benefits, that ground was ceded by default to the opponents who could highlight the irritants and costs involved. Proponents were quiet while opponents were loud (with the exception of Remainy true believers, who by taking their case too far, also turned the public off). And that's where we are with Net Zero and climate change policy.
Unless the policy is advocated from first principles, not just on 'save the planet' grounds, which some will see as hopelessly beyond Britain's scope and others will see and virtue-signalling guff or simply fraudulent, but on grounds of national security and economic benefit, there is every chance there will be a populist backlash against a policy seen as imposed by an elite conspiracy without a popular mandate - because there will be enough truth in the case to credibly make it, especially if the other side is out-of-practice in its media skills in countering those claims.
Put simply, in a democracy, you have to take the people with you.
It's not a great sign that the TV media coverage today is full of environmentalists and political opponents of the Tories whining about how awful the Tories are, rather than making the positive case for action (which it's worth noting the Tories are still signed up to, even if in a kick-the-can mode).
"Put simply, in a democracy, you have to take the people with you."
And Sunak has given up trying. Because he doesn't care about the environment himself, he'd rather take the soft option and follow the agenda of the Mail and Express.
This isn't leadership. Get rid.
Sunak is challenging the climate change process and in fact is brave and correct
Of course he has come under fierce attack, but as is being seen on this forum he is receiving support for his actions
No. Sunak is being completely disingenuous. Claiming that 2050 Net Zero can still be achieved without taking the steps required to get there is just taking the people for fools.
Clearly an attempt to have cake and eat it. He deserves all he gets for this nonsense.
There are multiple sets of steps you can take to get to the same destination.
If petrol cars get outlawed in 2035 then by 2050 they'll be at least 16 years old and a tiny proportion of vehicles on the road.
The problem with extremists is the fallacy of "something must be done, this is something, so this must be done."
Nonsense.
If, say, we pump out maximum emissions until 2049 then make a big bang transition to Net Zero then:
1) the UK economy is left for dead as the US/China plough on with a cheap, green energy economy
2) or, if everyone else follows our example, the planet is screwed.
Who said that we pump out maximum emissions until 2049 then make a big transition in 2050? Certainly not me.
The transition is happening either way, and before 2050, if its in 2030 or 2035, its just a question of getting the ducks in a row.
As for (2) as I've said before, everyone else will do what's in their own best interests, they won't "follow our example". If we cut off our nose to spite our face, taking harmful actions like cutting driving or flying rather than investing in clean technologies then they'll just carry on merrily along doing their own thing and ignore us.
If we want them to follow us, we need a sensible example to follow where we improve our living standards, not harm them, with cleaner technologies. That way we get to have our cake and eat it (which is the entire purpose of having a cake in my eyes) and they will follow us.
Despite your scornful response about it, a great deal of carbon can be sequestered by dressing agricultural fields with rock dust - as Sheffield University says, up to 40% of our Net Zero requirements, which is huge. It's huge if it's only half that.
I was already very keen on this idea anyway, to remineralise agricultural soils, resulting in healthier produce and improved yields, but for it to also help us massively on the way to Net Zero is a massive win.
'Produce' implies arable fields. So what happens at harvest? Even if one is direct drilling, the previous crop is eliminated one way or another. And if there is some increase in bound carbon (as in species-rich permanent grasslands) this is only a one off.
What am I missing
It seems you plough the rock dust into the soil, or spread it on top & plant crops as normal. Yields should be the same, or better in some cases as you can choose to apply the ground up silicates only to those fields where increasing the pH will be a net benefit (as is already done by spreading ground up limestone in some areas).
Sure, but you remove the carbon and rot, burn, belch, fart it back into the atmosphere. You're not making a coal seam de nos jours to sequester the carbon from the atmosphere, on the whole.
(Though anything to economise on fuel and oil-derved fertiliser is good, too, in that aim.)
Activated charcoal is the most promising sequestration option, or “biochar” as it’s termed. There you really are locking away carbon in a process that partially mimics the creation of coal seams, and it works even if the ground is ploughed.
Thanks! But in both cases it's still only a one off. Not an ongoing process for decades? Still, useful.
With charcoal you can in theory keep adding it annually, at least until the soil gets too saturated with the stuff. But like all of these things it's not an alternative to stopping burning fossil fuels.
Why shouldn't it be? Is the aim of the exercise to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, or to make life as unpleasant and Orwellian as possible for people?
Because we release many orders of magnitude more CO2 through burning than we could ever sequester in soil even in the most optimistic scenarios (and there are some bonkers maths doing the rounds). And sequestration is significantly more expensive than energy efficiency and transition.
To make sequestration work at scale you’d need vast government intervention both on the production side and in mandating farmers to use it.
Plus the world has realised that fossil fuel burning is dirty, non renewable of course, and increasingly geopolitically dangerous. Why keep on with the water mills once you have a steam engine. Same issue.
Not a particularly apposite analogy, given that we've gone back to windmills, which suffer from precisely the same flaw they had when our ancestors left then in the past.
I'd like to see some figures behind your cost assertion. A large scheme to get fields dressed and tackle a mjor issue seems exactly what we employ a huge Government for.
Right. I have absolutely HAD it with the family justice system. It is *impossible* to do vital public interest reporting when there is no commitment to transparency even from the high court, and zero willingness to make efforts to ensure transparency @JudiciaryUK
Relatedly, Twitter is saying that all Non Fungible Tokens are now worthless. As seemed highly likely from the get go
AI will not go the same way
Every SV techbro type who was very into crypto & NFTs last year has “pivoted” into AI this year.
So be very cautious about anything AI-ish you read online - there are an awful lot of self-promoting hucksters out there trying to jump on the next gravy train in order to extract cash from the gullible.
Yes, there have been complaints it is putting self-employed artists out of business, which is sad. You'd have hoped AI would replace the sort of mass-produced wall art sold in Wilko and the like.
I would now be legit terrified as a professional artist
AI is showing creativity and flair, and anyone can use it, and it produces images in seconds, 24/7, virtually for free - in any style, theme, genre - and now it produces stuff no one has ever conceived before
Art as we know it is over
My wife is an artist. AI doesn’t compete with her because it’s simply another medium, like paint vs sculpture vs printing. People buy the person, the buying experience, the gallery of studio visit etc. Same as Nespresso doesn’t compete with barista coffee bars.
The biggest competition remains IKEA and Farrow & Ball. Art is, except at the very top end of the market, a home deco choice. They agonise way more over paying £200 for an etching than they would paying £200 for a meal out because it’s a decorative choice.
Hmmm
What’s to stop someone “pretending” to be an artist, like your wife - they could even mock up a studio - but actually getting DALLE3 to do the hard work?
For the moment she’s probably OK as it’s still very hard to fake real paint with real brushwork, but that may change
Anyone working in printed, published or digital art is screwed already. Illustrators etc. Graphic designers. Everyone in Hollywood (hence the strike)
Artists can just change their modus operandi. Do you remember when draughtsmen produced technical drawings on a large drawing board using pen and ink?
But the computer can produce art of equal or superior quality - for free (virtually) and in endless quantities, and never gets tired. So the human artist, however dedicated, can’t compete
It’s the concept of art as a paid occupation which is being destroyed. I’m sure people will still create art in their spare time, because they enjoy it
On topic, Sunak is right. There has been a huge amount of cakeism from previous governments, basking in the approval of environmental campaigners for introducing the targets, while failing to have an honest conversation about costs - and because Labour, the Lib Dems and Greens, and indeed the core broadcast media, are signed up to the same agenda, then they're happy for the Tories to be blamed for the costs as they come in as the party in office.
Consequently, the only political opposition comes from right-wing Tories, Reform UK, the Mail and Telegraph. It's like Brexit all over again - and we know how that ended.
Brexit was ultimately a consequence of a failure to advocate the benefits of the policy. It's easy to see now the net costs but without explaining the many little benefits, that ground was ceded by default to the opponents who could highlight the irritants and costs involved. Proponents were quiet while opponents were loud (with the exception of Remainy true believers, who by taking their case too far, also turned the public off). And that's where we are with Net Zero and climate change policy.
Unless the policy is advocated from first principles, not just on 'save the planet' grounds, which some will see as hopelessly beyond Britain's scope and others will see and virtue-signalling guff or simply fraudulent, but on grounds of national security and economic benefit, there is every chance there will be a populist backlash against a policy seen as imposed by an elite conspiracy without a popular mandate - because there will be enough truth in the case to credibly make it, especially if the other side is out-of-practice in its media skills in countering those claims.
Put simply, in a democracy, you have to take the people with you.
It's not a great sign that the TV media coverage today is full of environmentalists and political opponents of the Tories whining about how awful the Tories are, rather than making the positive case for action (which it's worth noting the Tories are still signed up to, even if in a kick-the-can mode).
"Put simply, in a democracy, you have to take the people with you."
And Sunak has given up trying. Because he doesn't care about the environment himself, he'd rather take the soft option and follow the agenda of the Mail and Express.
This isn't leadership. Get rid.
Sunak is challenging the climate change process and in fact is brave and correct
Of course he has come under fierce attack, but as is being seen on this forum he is receiving support for his actions
No. Sunak is being completely disingenuous. Claiming that 2050 Net Zero can still be achieved without taking the steps required to get there is just taking the people for fools.
Clearly an attempt to have cake and eat it. He deserves all he gets for this nonsense.
There are multiple sets of steps you can take to get to the same destination.
If petrol cars get outlawed in 2035 then by 2050 they'll be at least 16 years old and a tiny proportion of vehicles on the road.
The problem with extremists is the fallacy of "something must be done, this is something, so this must be done."
Nonsense.
If, say, we pump out maximum emissions until 2049 then make a big bang transition to Net Zero then:
1) the UK economy is left for dead as the US/China plough on with a cheap, green energy economy
2) or, if everyone else follows our example, the planet is screwed.
Who said that we pump out maximum emissions until 2049 then make a big transition in 2050? Certainly not me.
The transition is happening either way, and before 2050, if its in 2030 or 2035, its just a question of getting the ducks in a row.
As for (2) as I've said before, everyone else will do what's in their own best interests, they won't "follow our example". If we cut off our nose to spite our face, taking harmful actions like cutting driving or flying rather than investing in clean technologies then they'll just carry on merrily along doing their own thing and ignore us.
If we want them to follow us, we need a sensible example to follow where we improve our living standards, not harm them, with cleaner technologies. That way we get to have our cake and eat it (which is the entire purpose of having a cake in my eyes) and they will follow us.
Despite your scornful response about it, a great deal of carbon can be sequestered by dressing agricultural fields with rock dust - as Sheffield University says, up to 40% of our Net Zero requirements, which is huge. It's huge if it's only half that.
I was already very keen on this idea anyway, to remineralise agricultural soils, resulting in healthier produce and improved yields, but for it to also help us massively on the way to Net Zero is a massive win.
'Produce' implies arable fields. So what happens at harvest? Even if one is direct drilling, the previous crop is eliminated one way or another. And if there is some increase in bound carbon (as in species-rich permanent grasslands) this is only a one off.
What am I missing
It seems you plough the rock dust into the soil, or spread it on top & plant crops as normal. Yields should be the same, or better in some cases as you can choose to apply the ground up silicates only to those fields where increasing the pH will be a net benefit (as is already done by spreading ground up limestone in some areas).
Sure, but you remove the carbon and rot, burn, belch, fart it back into the atmosphere. You're not making a coal seam de nos jours to sequester the carbon from the atmosphere, on the whole.
(Though anything to economise on fuel and oil-derved fertiliser is good, too, in that aim.)
I think you’re confused about the actual process here: the carbon doesn’t go into the crops, it reacts with the rock itself to form carbonates of various kinds.
On topic, Sunak is right. There has been a huge amount of cakeism from previous governments, basking in the approval of environmental campaigners for introducing the targets, while failing to have an honest conversation about costs - and because Labour, the Lib Dems and Greens, and indeed the core broadcast media, are signed up to the same agenda, then they're happy for the Tories to be blamed for the costs as they come in as the party in office.
Consequently, the only political opposition comes from right-wing Tories, Reform UK, the Mail and Telegraph. It's like Brexit all over again - and we know how that ended.
Brexit was ultimately a consequence of a failure to advocate the benefits of the policy. It's easy to see now the net costs but without explaining the many little benefits, that ground was ceded by default to the opponents who could highlight the irritants and costs involved. Proponents were quiet while opponents were loud (with the exception of Remainy true believers, who by taking their case too far, also turned the public off). And that's where we are with Net Zero and climate change policy.
Unless the policy is advocated from first principles, not just on 'save the planet' grounds, which some will see as hopelessly beyond Britain's scope and others will see and virtue-signalling guff or simply fraudulent, but on grounds of national security and economic benefit, there is every chance there will be a populist backlash against a policy seen as imposed by an elite conspiracy without a popular mandate - because there will be enough truth in the case to credibly make it, especially if the other side is out-of-practice in its media skills in countering those claims.
Put simply, in a democracy, you have to take the people with you.
It's not a great sign that the TV media coverage today is full of environmentalists and political opponents of the Tories whining about how awful the Tories are, rather than making the positive case for action (which it's worth noting the Tories are still signed up to, even if in a kick-the-can mode).
"Put simply, in a democracy, you have to take the people with you."
And Sunak has given up trying. Because he doesn't care about the environment himself, he'd rather take the soft option and follow the agenda of the Mail and Express.
This isn't leadership. Get rid.
Sunak is challenging the climate change process and in fact is brave and correct
Of course he has come under fierce attack, but as is being seen on this forum he is receiving support for his actions
No. Sunak is being completely disingenuous. Claiming that 2050 Net Zero can still be achieved without taking the steps required to get there is just taking the people for fools.
Clearly an attempt to have cake and eat it. He deserves all he gets for this nonsense.
There are multiple sets of steps you can take to get to the same destination.
If petrol cars get outlawed in 2035 then by 2050 they'll be at least 16 years old and a tiny proportion of vehicles on the road.
The problem with extremists is the fallacy of "something must be done, this is something, so this must be done."
Nonsense.
If, say, we pump out maximum emissions until 2049 then make a big bang transition to Net Zero then:
1) the UK economy is left for dead as the US/China plough on with a cheap, green energy economy
2) or, if everyone else follows our example, the planet is screwed.
Who said that we pump out maximum emissions until 2049 then make a big transition in 2050? Certainly not me.
The transition is happening either way, and before 2050, if its in 2030 or 2035, its just a question of getting the ducks in a row.
As for (2) as I've said before, everyone else will do what's in their own best interests, they won't "follow our example". If we cut off our nose to spite our face, taking harmful actions like cutting driving or flying rather than investing in clean technologies then they'll just carry on merrily along doing their own thing and ignore us.
If we want them to follow us, we need a sensible example to follow where we improve our living standards, not harm them, with cleaner technologies. That way we get to have our cake and eat it (which is the entire purpose of having a cake in my eyes) and they will follow us.
Despite your scornful response about it, a great deal of carbon can be sequestered by dressing agricultural fields with rock dust - as Sheffield University says, up to 40% of our Net Zero requirements, which is huge. It's huge if it's only half that.
I was already very keen on this idea anyway, to remineralise agricultural soils, resulting in healthier produce and improved yields, but for it to also help us massively on the way to Net Zero is a massive win.
'Produce' implies arable fields. So what happens at harvest? Even if one is direct drilling, the previous crop is eliminated one way or another. And if there is some increase in bound carbon (as in species-rich permanent grasslands) this is only a one off.
What am I missing
It seems you plough the rock dust into the soil, or spread it on top & plant crops as normal. Yields should be the same, or better in some cases as you can choose to apply the ground up silicates only to those fields where increasing the pH will be a net benefit (as is already done by spreading ground up limestone in some areas).
Sure, but you remove the carbon and rot, burn, belch, fart it back into the atmosphere. You're not making a coal seam de nos jours to sequester the carbon from the atmosphere, on the whole.
(Though anything to economise on fuel and oil-derved fertiliser is good, too, in that aim.)
Activated charcoal is the most promising sequestration option, or “biochar” as it’s termed. There you really are locking away carbon in a process that partially mimics the creation of coal seams, and it works even if the ground is ploughed.
Thanks! But in both cases it's still only a one off. Not an ongoing process for decades? Still, useful.
With charcoal you can in theory keep adding it annually, at least until the soil gets too saturated with the stuff. But like all of these things it's not an alternative to stopping burning fossil fuels.
Why shouldn't it be? Is the aim of the exercise to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, or to make life as unpleasant and Orwellian as possible for people?
Quite the opposite.
To be net zero you need some things on the negative side, then some on the positive side, and they balance. You have to think though what are your priorities and have those priorities as your limited positives.
Burning fossil fuels when there's better and ultimately cheaper alternatives around is pointless. No reason to do it.
But some emissions have no better alternative.
EG a large source of emissions come from things like cow farts. I still want to eat beef and drink real milk, so I would like my positives to be going into things like that, balanced by any negatives.
Better than a future where we burn emissions, but all need vegan meals and soy lattes as the cows have been culled.
It’s even worse. Your final option won’t ever even be on the table. As a country we’re never going to abandon beef and milk, so we either trim emissions cleverly or countries at risk from climate change are *******. There is no version in which we democratically consent to give up life’s pleasures. Should anyone try, they will get voted out.
On topic, Sunak is right. There has been a huge amount of cakeism from previous governments, basking in the approval of environmental campaigners for introducing the targets, while failing to have an honest conversation about costs - and because Labour, the Lib Dems and Greens, and indeed the core broadcast media, are signed up to the same agenda, then they're happy for the Tories to be blamed for the costs as they come in as the party in office.
Consequently, the only political opposition comes from right-wing Tories, Reform UK, the Mail and Telegraph. It's like Brexit all over again - and we know how that ended.
Brexit was ultimately a consequence of a failure to advocate the benefits of the policy. It's easy to see now the net costs but without explaining the many little benefits, that ground was ceded by default to the opponents who could highlight the irritants and costs involved. Proponents were quiet while opponents were loud (with the exception of Remainy true believers, who by taking their case too far, also turned the public off). And that's where we are with Net Zero and climate change policy.
Unless the policy is advocated from first principles, not just on 'save the planet' grounds, which some will see as hopelessly beyond Britain's scope and others will see and virtue-signalling guff or simply fraudulent, but on grounds of national security and economic benefit, there is every chance there will be a populist backlash against a policy seen as imposed by an elite conspiracy without a popular mandate - because there will be enough truth in the case to credibly make it, especially if the other side is out-of-practice in its media skills in countering those claims.
Put simply, in a democracy, you have to take the people with you.
It's not a great sign that the TV media coverage today is full of environmentalists and political opponents of the Tories whining about how awful the Tories are, rather than making the positive case for action (which it's worth noting the Tories are still signed up to, even if in a kick-the-can mode).
"Put simply, in a democracy, you have to take the people with you."
And Sunak has given up trying. Because he doesn't care about the environment himself, he'd rather take the soft option and follow the agenda of the Mail and Express.
This isn't leadership. Get rid.
Sunak is challenging the climate change process and in fact is brave and correct
Of course he has come under fierce attack, but as is being seen on this forum he is receiving support for his actions
No. Sunak is being completely disingenuous. Claiming that 2050 Net Zero can still be achieved without taking the steps required to get there is just taking the people for fools.
Clearly an attempt to have cake and eat it. He deserves all he gets for this nonsense.
There are multiple sets of steps you can take to get to the same destination.
If petrol cars get outlawed in 2035 then by 2050 they'll be at least 16 years old and a tiny proportion of vehicles on the road.
The problem with extremists is the fallacy of "something must be done, this is something, so this must be done."
Nonsense.
If, say, we pump out maximum emissions until 2049 then make a big bang transition to Net Zero then:
1) the UK economy is left for dead as the US/China plough on with a cheap, green energy economy
2) or, if everyone else follows our example, the planet is screwed.
Who said that we pump out maximum emissions until 2049 then make a big transition in 2050? Certainly not me.
The transition is happening either way, and before 2050, if its in 2030 or 2035, its just a question of getting the ducks in a row.
As for (2) as I've said before, everyone else will do what's in their own best interests, they won't "follow our example". If we cut off our nose to spite our face, taking harmful actions like cutting driving or flying rather than investing in clean technologies then they'll just carry on merrily along doing their own thing and ignore us.
If we want them to follow us, we need a sensible example to follow where we improve our living standards, not harm them, with cleaner technologies. That way we get to have our cake and eat it (which is the entire purpose of having a cake in my eyes) and they will follow us.
Despite your scornful response about it, a great deal of carbon can be sequestered by dressing agricultural fields with rock dust - as Sheffield University says, up to 40% of our Net Zero requirements, which is huge. It's huge if it's only half that.
I was already very keen on this idea anyway, to remineralise agricultural soils, resulting in healthier produce and improved yields, but for it to also help us massively on the way to Net Zero is a massive win.
'Produce' implies arable fields. So what happens at harvest? Even if one is direct drilling, the previous crop is eliminated one way or another. And if there is some increase in bound carbon (as in species-rich permanent grasslands) this is only a one off.
What am I missing
It seems you plough the rock dust into the soil, or spread it on top & plant crops as normal. Yields should be the same, or better in some cases as you can choose to apply the ground up silicates only to those fields where increasing the pH will be a net benefit (as is already done by spreading ground up limestone in some areas).
Sure, but you remove the carbon and rot, burn, belch, fart it back into the atmosphere. You're not making a coal seam de nos jours to sequester the carbon from the atmosphere, on the whole.
(Though anything to economise on fuel and oil-derved fertiliser is good, too, in that aim.)
I think you’re confused about the actual process here: the carbon doesn’t go into the crops, it reacts with the rock itself to form carbonates of various kinds.
On topic, Sunak is right. There has been a huge amount of cakeism from previous governments, basking in the approval of environmental campaigners for introducing the targets, while failing to have an honest conversation about costs - and because Labour, the Lib Dems and Greens, and indeed the core broadcast media, are signed up to the same agenda, then they're happy for the Tories to be blamed for the costs as they come in as the party in office.
Consequently, the only political opposition comes from right-wing Tories, Reform UK, the Mail and Telegraph. It's like Brexit all over again - and we know how that ended.
Brexit was ultimately a consequence of a failure to advocate the benefits of the policy. It's easy to see now the net costs but without explaining the many little benefits, that ground was ceded by default to the opponents who could highlight the irritants and costs involved. Proponents were quiet while opponents were loud (with the exception of Remainy true believers, who by taking their case too far, also turned the public off). And that's where we are with Net Zero and climate change policy.
Unless the policy is advocated from first principles, not just on 'save the planet' grounds, which some will see as hopelessly beyond Britain's scope and others will see and virtue-signalling guff or simply fraudulent, but on grounds of national security and economic benefit, there is every chance there will be a populist backlash against a policy seen as imposed by an elite conspiracy without a popular mandate - because there will be enough truth in the case to credibly make it, especially if the other side is out-of-practice in its media skills in countering those claims.
Put simply, in a democracy, you have to take the people with you.
It's not a great sign that the TV media coverage today is full of environmentalists and political opponents of the Tories whining about how awful the Tories are, rather than making the positive case for action (which it's worth noting the Tories are still signed up to, even if in a kick-the-can mode).
"Put simply, in a democracy, you have to take the people with you."
And Sunak has given up trying. Because he doesn't care about the environment himself, he'd rather take the soft option and follow the agenda of the Mail and Express.
This isn't leadership. Get rid.
Sunak is challenging the climate change process and in fact is brave and correct
Of course he has come under fierce attack, but as is being seen on this forum he is receiving support for his actions
No. Sunak is being completely disingenuous. Claiming that 2050 Net Zero can still be achieved without taking the steps required to get there is just taking the people for fools.
Clearly an attempt to have cake and eat it. He deserves all he gets for this nonsense.
There are multiple sets of steps you can take to get to the same destination.
If petrol cars get outlawed in 2035 then by 2050 they'll be at least 16 years old and a tiny proportion of vehicles on the road.
The problem with extremists is the fallacy of "something must be done, this is something, so this must be done."
Nonsense.
If, say, we pump out maximum emissions until 2049 then make a big bang transition to Net Zero then:
1) the UK economy is left for dead as the US/China plough on with a cheap, green energy economy
2) or, if everyone else follows our example, the planet is screwed.
Who said that we pump out maximum emissions until 2049 then make a big transition in 2050? Certainly not me.
The transition is happening either way, and before 2050, if its in 2030 or 2035, its just a question of getting the ducks in a row.
As for (2) as I've said before, everyone else will do what's in their own best interests, they won't "follow our example". If we cut off our nose to spite our face, taking harmful actions like cutting driving or flying rather than investing in clean technologies then they'll just carry on merrily along doing their own thing and ignore us.
If we want them to follow us, we need a sensible example to follow where we improve our living standards, not harm them, with cleaner technologies. That way we get to have our cake and eat it (which is the entire purpose of having a cake in my eyes) and they will follow us.
Despite your scornful response about it, a great deal of carbon can be sequestered by dressing agricultural fields with rock dust - as Sheffield University says, up to 40% of our Net Zero requirements, which is huge. It's huge if it's only half that.
I was already very keen on this idea anyway, to remineralise agricultural soils, resulting in healthier produce and improved yields, but for it to also help us massively on the way to Net Zero is a massive win.
'Produce' implies arable fields. So what happens at harvest? Even if one is direct drilling, the previous crop is eliminated one way or another. And if there is some increase in bound carbon (as in species-rich permanent grasslands) this is only a one off.
What am I missing
It seems you plough the rock dust into the soil, or spread it on top & plant crops as normal. Yields should be the same, or better in some cases as you can choose to apply the ground up silicates only to those fields where increasing the pH will be a net benefit (as is already done by spreading ground up limestone in some areas).
Sure, but you remove the carbon and rot, burn, belch, fart it back into the atmosphere. You're not making a coal seam de nos jours to sequester the carbon from the atmosphere, on the whole.
(Though anything to economise on fuel and oil-derved fertiliser is good, too, in that aim.)
Activated charcoal is the most promising sequestration option, or “biochar” as it’s termed. There you really are locking away carbon in a process that partially mimics the creation of coal seams, and it works even if the ground is ploughed.
Thanks! But in both cases it's still only a one off. Not an ongoing process for decades? Still, useful.
With charcoal you can in theory keep adding it annually, at least until the soil gets too saturated with the stuff. But like all of these things it's not an alternative to stopping burning fossil fuels.
Why shouldn't it be? Is the aim of the exercise to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, or to make life as unpleasant and Orwellian as possible for people?
Because we release many orders of magnitude more CO2 through burning than we could ever sequester in soil even in the most optimistic scenarios (and there are some bonkers maths doing the rounds). And sequestration is significantly more expensive than energy efficiency and transition.
To make sequestration work at scale you’d need vast government intervention both on the production side and in mandating farmers to use it.
Plus the world has realised that fossil fuel burning is dirty, non renewable of course, and increasingly geopolitically dangerous. Why keep on with the water mills once you have a steam engine. Same issue.
Not a particularly apposite analogy, given that we've gone back to windmills, which suffer from precisely the same flaw they had when our ancestors left then in the past.
I'd like to see some figures behind your cost assertion. A large scheme to get fields dressed and tackle a mjor issue seems exactly what we employ a huge Government for.
Technology has come along in leaps and bounds making windmills far better than they were in the past.
Wind is a bountiful source of free energy, so long as capital expenses are low enough we'd be crazy not to make use of it. Especially given in the future most electricity is going to be absorbed by batteries anyway, so isn't time-sensitive. The latter is a feature that many don't seem to have wrapped their heads around yet.
Remember the crime drama Broadchurch from 2013? In it there was an elderly character who'd previously married a women several years his junior, and he was portrayed as a heroic victim of prurient media harassment. Now there is talk of those sort of relationships to be criminalized (even if both parties are above the age of consent). I'm not saying if that approach is right or wrong, but it's amazing how quickly the received opinion can change.
I don't believe anyone is suggesting criminalising adult relationships based on age differential.
What I do believe is being discussed is tightening up safeguards regarding relationships people have with children.
There's a myth by some that the unrestricted age of consent in this country is 16, its not, its 18 already.
Relations with a 16 year old may be legal, or may be illegal, depending upon the circumstances. Some people are suggesting those circumstances be adjusted to include a "Romeo and Juliet" style law, which is not unusual abroad.
Will Romeo and Juliet survive the Online Harms bill ?
The past is another country. Henry VII's mother Margaret Beaufort was 13 and a widow when Henry was born. Romeo would be in prison. Juliet (13,nearly 14) would be in the care of social services.
In strict law two 15 year olds heavily snogging are committing an offence. (In general it is not regarded as an offence, but anyone who thinks such activity is generally 'not sexual' in nature is delusional.)
Globally I severely doubt net zero will happen by 2050. Africa has a rising population, China is still pumping out coal stations, India's wasn't phased about using Russian gas, Germany got terrified of nuclear; our own highest court judges pleasure themselves over stopping new nuclear, the USA is going to be congress locked on anything that really cuts its emissions at best heck even the sainted Trudeau knows where his oil is buttered...
It will only happen through engineering developments and an attractive economic case.
The rest is piss & wind.
Thankfully, that should continue to move (as wind and solar have in the last 10 years) so we will eventually get there, but perhaps not by 2050.
Another point on the inflation figures and why the BoE may have paused today is that ONS food price inflation as measured by basket value is about 2% higher than the real food inflation rate as measured by checkout values of baskets which include discounts at the till.
So prices aren't going up as fast, but there's fewer/inferior discounts available?
The opposite I think. Tesco Clubcard prices messing up the ONS workings basically.
This is a lovely video of a group of mountain bikers coming across King Charles near Balmoral. He seems to genuinely be a very nice man interested in what others are doing.
I've been up there a few times, had a night at the bothy. Never come across a royal but the police keep a friendly eye on you if you pass close to the castle when someone is in.
Another point on the inflation figures and why the BoE may have paused today is that ONS food price inflation as measured by basket value is about 2% higher than the real food inflation rate as measured by checkout values of baskets which include discounts at the till.
Supermarket discount schemes have become the “real price”. You can’t not join them if you’re on any kind of budget. Tesco especially - the clubcard price is the one that’s competitive with other retailers.
Globally I severely doubt net zero will happen by 2050. Africa has a rising population, China is still pumping out coal stations, India's wasn't phased about using Russian gas, Germany got terrified of nuclear; our own highest court judges pleasure themselves over stopping new nuclear, the USA is going to be congress locked on anything that really cuts its emissions at best heck even the sainted Trudeau knows where his oil is buttered...
It will only happen through engineering developments and an attractive economic case.
The rest is piss & wind.
Thankfully, that should continue to move (as wind and solar have in the last 10 years) so we will eventually get there, but perhaps not by 2050.
We'll get there at some point because another 200,000 -> half million years of human existence and we'll either run out of fossil fuels or the CO2 concentration will become so high the air will literally be unbreathable. A long long time in human terms, but not actually so long in terms of earth's total history.
Another point on the inflation figures and why the BoE may have paused today is that ONS food price inflation as measured by basket value is about 2% higher than the real food inflation rate as measured by checkout values of baskets which include discounts at the till.
So prices aren't going up as fast, but there's fewer/inferior discounts available?
Nah other way around, sticker prices are still rising at about 13% but till based discounts bring that rate down to about 10-11%. The ONS doesn't take till discounts into account for food price inflation, but I'd be surprised if the BoE didn't. The raw food price inflation figure is actually something like 8% based on PoS data but that includes people switching to lesser brands and own brand products as well as till level discounts. The ONS measure of food price inflation doesn't really reflect reality, it's another one of those metrics that they're just way out of date on measuring, private indices do a better job.
Some potential good news for Ukraine. Fingers crossed!
ISW has observed a significant inflection in western #Zaporizhia Obl:
Ukrainian forces are for the first time confirmed to be operating armored vehicles (Stryker & Marder infantry fighting vehicles) beyond the Russian anti-tank ditch and dragon’s teeth obstacles near #Verbove.🧵 https://x.com/TheStudyofWar/status/1704815837100523528?s=20
Yes, this is a continuation of the breakthrough at Robotyne (4km W of Verbove) a couple of weeks ago. They’re slowly heading towards Chernihivka and Tokmak, from where they can take over the railway line to Crimea. Right now they’re expanding the size of the front laterally, so as to avoid being cut off from the sides or behind by the enemy.
"I’ve taken one flight in ten years, and my life is richer for it Restrictions on aviation constitute wise stewardship of our shared planet, not an attempt, as some believe, to exert control Paul Miles"
Relatedly, Twitter is saying that all Non Fungible Tokens are now worthless. As seemed highly likely from the get go
AI will not go the same way
Every SV techbro type who was very into crypto & NFTs last year has “pivoted” into AI this year.
So be very cautious about anything AI-ish you read online - there are an awful lot of self-promoting hucksters out there trying to jump on the next gravy train in order to extract cash from the gullible.
Well, happily I’m making money out of them, and out of AI art, by writing about it for the Gazette. So even tho 98% of artists are about to lose their careers, I’m making a quid and having fun, so it’s all a wash in the end
On topic, Sunak is right. There has been a huge amount of cakeism from previous governments, basking in the approval of environmental campaigners for introducing the targets, while failing to have an honest conversation about costs - and because Labour, the Lib Dems and Greens, and indeed the core broadcast media, are signed up to the same agenda, then they're happy for the Tories to be blamed for the costs as they come in as the party in office.
Consequently, the only political opposition comes from right-wing Tories, Reform UK, the Mail and Telegraph. It's like Brexit all over again - and we know how that ended.
Brexit was ultimately a consequence of a failure to advocate the benefits of the policy. It's easy to see now the net costs but without explaining the many little benefits, that ground was ceded by default to the opponents who could highlight the irritants and costs involved. Proponents were quiet while opponents were loud (with the exception of Remainy true believers, who by taking their case too far, also turned the public off). And that's where we are with Net Zero and climate change policy.
Unless the policy is advocated from first principles, not just on 'save the planet' grounds, which some will see as hopelessly beyond Britain's scope and others will see and virtue-signalling guff or simply fraudulent, but on grounds of national security and economic benefit, there is every chance there will be a populist backlash against a policy seen as imposed by an elite conspiracy without a popular mandate - because there will be enough truth in the case to credibly make it, especially if the other side is out-of-practice in its media skills in countering those claims.
Put simply, in a democracy, you have to take the people with you.
It's not a great sign that the TV media coverage today is full of environmentalists and political opponents of the Tories whining about how awful the Tories are, rather than making the positive case for action (which it's worth noting the Tories are still signed up to, even if in a kick-the-can mode).
"Put simply, in a democracy, you have to take the people with you."
And Sunak has given up trying. Because he doesn't care about the environment himself, he'd rather take the soft option and follow the agenda of the Mail and Express.
This isn't leadership. Get rid.
Sunak is challenging the climate change process and in fact is brave and correct
Of course he has come under fierce attack, but as is being seen on this forum he is receiving support for his actions
No. Sunak is being completely disingenuous. Claiming that 2050 Net Zero can still be achieved without taking the steps required to get there is just taking the people for fools.
Clearly an attempt to have cake and eat it. He deserves all he gets for this nonsense.
There are multiple sets of steps you can take to get to the same destination.
If petrol cars get outlawed in 2035 then by 2050 they'll be at least 16 years old and a tiny proportion of vehicles on the road.
The problem with extremists is the fallacy of "something must be done, this is something, so this must be done."
Nonsense.
If, say, we pump out maximum emissions until 2049 then make a big bang transition to Net Zero then:
1) the UK economy is left for dead as the US/China plough on with a cheap, green energy economy
2) or, if everyone else follows our example, the planet is screwed.
Who said that we pump out maximum emissions until 2049 then make a big transition in 2050? Certainly not me.
The transition is happening either way, and before 2050, if its in 2030 or 2035, its just a question of getting the ducks in a row.
As for (2) as I've said before, everyone else will do what's in their own best interests, they won't "follow our example". If we cut off our nose to spite our face, taking harmful actions like cutting driving or flying rather than investing in clean technologies then they'll just carry on merrily along doing their own thing and ignore us.
If we want them to follow us, we need a sensible example to follow where we improve our living standards, not harm them, with cleaner technologies. That way we get to have our cake and eat it (which is the entire purpose of having a cake in my eyes) and they will follow us.
Despite your scornful response about it, a great deal of carbon can be sequestered by dressing agricultural fields with rock dust - as Sheffield University says, up to 40% of our Net Zero requirements, which is huge. It's huge if it's only half that.
I was already very keen on this idea anyway, to remineralise agricultural soils, resulting in healthier produce and improved yields, but for it to also help us massively on the way to Net Zero is a massive win.
'Produce' implies arable fields. So what happens at harvest? Even if one is direct drilling, the previous crop is eliminated one way or another. And if there is some increase in bound carbon (as in species-rich permanent grasslands) this is only a one off.
What am I missing
It seems you plough the rock dust into the soil, or spread it on top & plant crops as normal. Yields should be the same, or better in some cases as you can choose to apply the ground up silicates only to those fields where increasing the pH will be a net benefit (as is already done by spreading ground up limestone in some areas).
Sure, but you remove the carbon and rot, burn, belch, fart it back into the atmosphere. You're not making a coal seam de nos jours to sequester the carbon from the atmosphere, on the whole.
(Though anything to economise on fuel and oil-derved fertiliser is good, too, in that aim.)
I think you’re confused about the actual process here: the carbon doesn’t go into the crops, it reacts with the rock itself to form carbonates of various kinds.
On topic, Sunak is right. There has been a huge amount of cakeism from previous governments, basking in the approval of environmental campaigners for introducing the targets, while failing to have an honest conversation about costs - and because Labour, the Lib Dems and Greens, and indeed the core broadcast media, are signed up to the same agenda, then they're happy for the Tories to be blamed for the costs as they come in as the party in office.
Consequently, the only political opposition comes from right-wing Tories, Reform UK, the Mail and Telegraph. It's like Brexit all over again - and we know how that ended.
Brexit was ultimately a consequence of a failure to advocate the benefits of the policy. It's easy to see now the net costs but without explaining the many little benefits, that ground was ceded by default to the opponents who could highlight the irritants and costs involved. Proponents were quiet while opponents were loud (with the exception of Remainy true believers, who by taking their case too far, also turned the public off). And that's where we are with Net Zero and climate change policy.
Unless the policy is advocated from first principles, not just on 'save the planet' grounds, which some will see as hopelessly beyond Britain's scope and others will see and virtue-signalling guff or simply fraudulent, but on grounds of national security and economic benefit, there is every chance there will be a populist backlash against a policy seen as imposed by an elite conspiracy without a popular mandate - because there will be enough truth in the case to credibly make it, especially if the other side is out-of-practice in its media skills in countering those claims.
Put simply, in a democracy, you have to take the people with you.
It's not a great sign that the TV media coverage today is full of environmentalists and political opponents of the Tories whining about how awful the Tories are, rather than making the positive case for action (which it's worth noting the Tories are still signed up to, even if in a kick-the-can mode).
"Put simply, in a democracy, you have to take the people with you."
And Sunak has given up trying. Because he doesn't care about the environment himself, he'd rather take the soft option and follow the agenda of the Mail and Express.
This isn't leadership. Get rid.
Sunak is challenging the climate change process and in fact is brave and correct
Of course he has come under fierce attack, but as is being seen on this forum he is receiving support for his actions
No. Sunak is being completely disingenuous. Claiming that 2050 Net Zero can still be achieved without taking the steps required to get there is just taking the people for fools.
Clearly an attempt to have cake and eat it. He deserves all he gets for this nonsense.
There are multiple sets of steps you can take to get to the same destination.
If petrol cars get outlawed in 2035 then by 2050 they'll be at least 16 years old and a tiny proportion of vehicles on the road.
The problem with extremists is the fallacy of "something must be done, this is something, so this must be done."
Nonsense.
If, say, we pump out maximum emissions until 2049 then make a big bang transition to Net Zero then:
1) the UK economy is left for dead as the US/China plough on with a cheap, green energy economy
2) or, if everyone else follows our example, the planet is screwed.
Who said that we pump out maximum emissions until 2049 then make a big transition in 2050? Certainly not me.
The transition is happening either way, and before 2050, if its in 2030 or 2035, its just a question of getting the ducks in a row.
As for (2) as I've said before, everyone else will do what's in their own best interests, they won't "follow our example". If we cut off our nose to spite our face, taking harmful actions like cutting driving or flying rather than investing in clean technologies then they'll just carry on merrily along doing their own thing and ignore us.
If we want them to follow us, we need a sensible example to follow where we improve our living standards, not harm them, with cleaner technologies. That way we get to have our cake and eat it (which is the entire purpose of having a cake in my eyes) and they will follow us.
Despite your scornful response about it, a great deal of carbon can be sequestered by dressing agricultural fields with rock dust - as Sheffield University says, up to 40% of our Net Zero requirements, which is huge. It's huge if it's only half that.
I was already very keen on this idea anyway, to remineralise agricultural soils, resulting in healthier produce and improved yields, but for it to also help us massively on the way to Net Zero is a massive win.
'Produce' implies arable fields. So what happens at harvest? Even if one is direct drilling, the previous crop is eliminated one way or another. And if there is some increase in bound carbon (as in species-rich permanent grasslands) this is only a one off.
What am I missing
It seems you plough the rock dust into the soil, or spread it on top & plant crops as normal. Yields should be the same, or better in some cases as you can choose to apply the ground up silicates only to those fields where increasing the pH will be a net benefit (as is already done by spreading ground up limestone in some areas).
Sure, but you remove the carbon and rot, burn, belch, fart it back into the atmosphere. You're not making a coal seam de nos jours to sequester the carbon from the atmosphere, on the whole.
(Though anything to economise on fuel and oil-derved fertiliser is good, too, in that aim.)
Activated charcoal is the most promising sequestration option, or “biochar” as it’s termed. There you really are locking away carbon in a process that partially mimics the creation of coal seams, and it works even if the ground is ploughed.
Thanks! But in both cases it's still only a one off. Not an ongoing process for decades? Still, useful.
With charcoal you can in theory keep adding it annually, at least until the soil gets too saturated with the stuff. But like all of these things it's not an alternative to stopping burning fossil fuels.
Why shouldn't it be? Is the aim of the exercise to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, or to make life as unpleasant and Orwellian as possible for people?
Quite the opposite.
To be net zero you need some things on the negative side, then some on the positive side, and they balance. You have to think though what are your priorities and have those priorities as your limited positives.
Burning fossil fuels when there's better and ultimately cheaper alternatives around is pointless. No reason to do it.
But some emissions have no better alternative.
EG a large source of emissions come from things like cow farts. I still want to eat beef and drink real milk, so I would like my positives to be going into things like that, balanced by any negatives.
Better than a future where we burn emissions, but all need vegan meals and soy lattes as the cows have been culled.
It’s even worse. Your final option won’t ever even be on the table. As a country we’re never going to abandon beef and milk, so we either trim emissions cleverly or countries at risk from climate change are *******. There is no version in which we democratically consent to give up life’s pleasures. Should anyone try, they will get voted out.
So we tax those products and use it partly to pay for Green Reparations.
Green Party Policy is Climate Reparations of £50Bn a year, which will probably be "managed" by various gravy train riding Charities and NGO's who are enthusiastic about out.
It definitely doesn't because people's net salary will still go up, just not as fast as that difference would imply. For someone on the basic rate they'd take about 70% of that and on the higher rate about 60% of it depending on their personal circumstances. Fiscal drag won't push anyone back into real terms pay losses, they just wouldn't see 100% of the rise.
If your pay goes up by 7.8% and your marginal tax rate is say 41% (eg base rate, with NIC and graduate tax) then the Exchequer claims 3.2% from you in PAYE and you get 4.6%. Other tax rates are available, but same principle with almost any combination of taxes.
Interest rates on hold and they’ve managed to dupe some into thinking they care about the poor .
I’d be shocked if new polls don’t show an increase in support for the Tories .
Also inflation fell (a tiny amount but it was expected to go up) and we will have real wage growth for some time now.
Calculated to piss of those of us continuing to get real terms pay cuts for the 15th consecutive year.
(Scotland not included as far as Junior Doctors in this)
Was there any response at all to the 12% "olive branch" offered by the consultants? It just seemed to disappear into the ether without much of a splash. The damage being done to a frail NHS is becoming unsustainable. The government needs to find ways to end this impasse.
Another point on the inflation figures and why the BoE may have paused today is that ONS food price inflation as measured by basket value is about 2% higher than the real food inflation rate as measured by checkout values of baskets which include discounts at the till.
So prices aren't going up as fast, but there's fewer/inferior discounts available?
Nah other way around, sticker prices are still rising at about 13% but till based discounts bring that rate down to about 10-11%. The ONS doesn't take till discounts into account for food price inflation, but I'd be surprised if the BoE didn't. The raw food price inflation figure is actually something like 8% based on PoS data but that includes people switching to lesser brands and own brand products as well as till level discounts. The ONS measure of food price inflation doesn't really reflect reality, it's another one of those metrics that they're just way out of date on measuring, private indices do a better job.
The ONS captures people switching brands and retailers but it ignores discounts that aren't available to all shoppers, which doesn't seem wholly unreasonable.
On topic, Sunak is right. There has been a huge amount of cakeism from previous governments, basking in the approval of environmental campaigners for introducing the targets, while failing to have an honest conversation about costs - and because Labour, the Lib Dems and Greens, and indeed the core broadcast media, are signed up to the same agenda, then they're happy for the Tories to be blamed for the costs as they come in as the party in office.
Consequently, the only political opposition comes from right-wing Tories, Reform UK, the Mail and Telegraph. It's like Brexit all over again - and we know how that ended.
Brexit was ultimately a consequence of a failure to advocate the benefits of the policy. It's easy to see now the net costs but without explaining the many little benefits, that ground was ceded by default to the opponents who could highlight the irritants and costs involved. Proponents were quiet while opponents were loud (with the exception of Remainy true believers, who by taking their case too far, also turned the public off). And that's where we are with Net Zero and climate change policy.
Unless the policy is advocated from first principles, not just on 'save the planet' grounds, which some will see as hopelessly beyond Britain's scope and others will see and virtue-signalling guff or simply fraudulent, but on grounds of national security and economic benefit, there is every chance there will be a populist backlash against a policy seen as imposed by an elite conspiracy without a popular mandate - because there will be enough truth in the case to credibly make it, especially if the other side is out-of-practice in its media skills in countering those claims.
Put simply, in a democracy, you have to take the people with you.
It's not a great sign that the TV media coverage today is full of environmentalists and political opponents of the Tories whining about how awful the Tories are, rather than making the positive case for action (which it's worth noting the Tories are still signed up to, even if in a kick-the-can mode).
But there is a mandate, here's the front page of the Tory manifesto from 2019.
It definitely doesn't because people's net salary will still go up, just not as fast as that difference would imply. For someone on the basic rate they'd take about 70% of that and on the higher rate about 60% of it depending on their personal circumstances. Fiscal drag won't push anyone back into real terms pay losses, they just wouldn't see 100% of the rise.
Lets take a graduate on £30k, they have a real tax rate of 41%. A 7.8% pay rise is a pay rise of £2,340 - of which £959.40 would go to the Exchequer and they'll keep only £1380.6
Relatedly, Twitter is saying that all Non Fungible Tokens are now worthless. As seemed highly likely from the get go
AI will not go the same way
Every SV techbro type who was very into crypto & NFTs last year has “pivoted” into AI this year.
So be very cautious about anything AI-ish you read online - there are an awful lot of self-promoting hucksters out there trying to jump on the next gravy train in order to extract cash from the gullible.
Well, happily I’m making money out of them, and out of AI art, by writing about it for the Gazette. So even tho 98% of artists are about to lose their careers, I’m making a quid and having fun, so it’s all a wash in the end
You have a friend who’s an author, what’s your view on the group of authors suing OpenAI over using complete novels as training data?
Interest rates on hold and they’ve managed to dupe some into thinking they care about the poor .
I’d be shocked if new polls don’t show an increase in support for the Tories .
Also inflation fell (a tiny amount but it was expected to go up) and we will have real wage growth for some time now.
Calculated to piss of those of us continuing to get real terms pay cuts for the 15th consecutive year.
(Scotland not included as far as Junior Doctors in this)
From the Indy. Pay was increased above general wage rises from 2004 to 2009, and productivity was supposed to also increase. It didn't but
The consultants' pay bonanza came in the main as a result of a new contract they signed with the Government in 2004. The contract was meant to improve NHS practices while making consultants work longer and more productively. But, after a series of concessions, the contract was watered down. The consultants kept their money, but a report by the heath think tank the King's Fund found little evidence of improvements in services offered to patients.
The figures show that, in 2000, the mean earnings of a consultant were £71,900. But by 2009 this figure had risen to £120,900 – an average yearly increase of 5.9 per cent. In contrast, across the whole of the pubic sector salaries rose over the same period by 4.5 per cent. For the private sector the rise was 3.7 per cent.
On topic, Sunak is right. There has been a huge amount of cakeism from previous governments, basking in the approval of environmental campaigners for introducing the targets, while failing to have an honest conversation about costs - and because Labour, the Lib Dems and Greens, and indeed the core broadcast media, are signed up to the same agenda, then they're happy for the Tories to be blamed for the costs as they come in as the party in office.
Consequently, the only political opposition comes from right-wing Tories, Reform UK, the Mail and Telegraph. It's like Brexit all over again - and we know how that ended.
Brexit was ultimately a consequence of a failure to advocate the benefits of the policy. It's easy to see now the net costs but without explaining the many little benefits, that ground was ceded by default to the opponents who could highlight the irritants and costs involved. Proponents were quiet while opponents were loud (with the exception of Remainy true believers, who by taking their case too far, also turned the public off). And that's where we are with Net Zero and climate change policy.
Unless the policy is advocated from first principles, not just on 'save the planet' grounds, which some will see as hopelessly beyond Britain's scope and others will see and virtue-signalling guff or simply fraudulent, but on grounds of national security and economic benefit, there is every chance there will be a populist backlash against a policy seen as imposed by an elite conspiracy without a popular mandate - because there will be enough truth in the case to credibly make it, especially if the other side is out-of-practice in its media skills in countering those claims.
Put simply, in a democracy, you have to take the people with you.
It's not a great sign that the TV media coverage today is full of environmentalists and political opponents of the Tories whining about how awful the Tories are, rather than making the positive case for action (which it's worth noting the Tories are still signed up to, even if in a kick-the-can mode).
But there is a mandate, here's the front page of the Tory manifesto from 2019.
On topic, Sunak is right. There has been a huge amount of cakeism from previous governments, basking in the approval of environmental campaigners for introducing the targets, while failing to have an honest conversation about costs - and because Labour, the Lib Dems and Greens, and indeed the core broadcast media, are signed up to the same agenda, then they're happy for the Tories to be blamed for the costs as they come in as the party in office.
Consequently, the only political opposition comes from right-wing Tories, Reform UK, the Mail and Telegraph. It's like Brexit all over again - and we know how that ended.
Brexit was ultimately a consequence of a failure to advocate the benefits of the policy. It's easy to see now the net costs but without explaining the many little benefits, that ground was ceded by default to the opponents who could highlight the irritants and costs involved. Proponents were quiet while opponents were loud (with the exception of Remainy true believers, who by taking their case too far, also turned the public off). And that's where we are with Net Zero and climate change policy.
Unless the policy is advocated from first principles, not just on 'save the planet' grounds, which some will see as hopelessly beyond Britain's scope and others will see and virtue-signalling guff or simply fraudulent, but on grounds of national security and economic benefit, there is every chance there will be a populist backlash against a policy seen as imposed by an elite conspiracy without a popular mandate - because there will be enough truth in the case to credibly make it, especially if the other side is out-of-practice in its media skills in countering those claims.
Put simply, in a democracy, you have to take the people with you.
It's not a great sign that the TV media coverage today is full of environmentalists and political opponents of the Tories whining about how awful the Tories are, rather than making the positive case for action (which it's worth noting the Tories are still signed up to, even if in a kick-the-can mode).
But there is a mandate, here's the front page of the Tory manifesto from 2019.
Who is this "Boris Johnson"?
The chap whose dog you looked after whilst campaigning for him and his party in 2019?
Another point on the inflation figures and why the BoE may have paused today is that ONS food price inflation as measured by basket value is about 2% higher than the real food inflation rate as measured by checkout values of baskets which include discounts at the till.
So prices aren't going up as fast, but there's fewer/inferior discounts available?
Nah other way around, sticker prices are still rising at about 13% but till based discounts bring that rate down to about 10-11%. The ONS doesn't take till discounts into account for food price inflation, but I'd be surprised if the BoE didn't. The raw food price inflation figure is actually something like 8% based on PoS data but that includes people switching to lesser brands and own brand products as well as till level discounts. The ONS measure of food price inflation doesn't really reflect reality, it's another one of those metrics that they're just way out of date on measuring, private indices do a better job.
The ONS captures people switching brands and retailers but it ignores discounts that aren't available to all shoppers, which doesn't seem wholly unreasonable.
The discounts are available to all shoppers, some decline to use them by not having a clubcard or nectar card. The ONS methodology is outdated, they could easily model the proportion of shoppers who checkout with loyalty discounts and add that in. I expect they will need to do that soon.
This has betting implications. I would still be cautious about betting the farm on Labour 326+ seats.
I'd actually be slightly more inclined to bet on this than I was last week.
In general, Sunak's strategy has been to calm things down after the turbulence of the Johnson and Truss Premierships. The idea has been to take the heat out and demonstrate steady progress on some reasonably modest targets. All very "grown ups in charge" and "why risk Captain Hindsight when you've got Captain Sensible at the helm?" But it's not about creating huge points of difference - it's managerial.
Immigration policy doesn't fit in with that. He's been more willing to create difference. I understand that, politically, because he needs some red meat and in reality a lot of people do like a strident line on it (I'm not one of them but I'm not the target market). His problem is that it isn't actually working because the policies themselves are crap, but there it it.
Now, though, he's rolling the dice in other areas. That suggests he's lost confidence in the ability of the strategy he set out last year and early this to narrow the polls.
But doing that not only speaks to his personal weakness and lack of resolve, but it's risky too. Firstly, he's in danger of trashing the Steady Eddie brand he has previously tried to develop. Secondly, if you're going to create dividing lines, you better make damned sure you're picking the right side of them politically, and I'm not sure he is - like "Get Brexit Done" versus "Bollocks to Brexit" in 2019, if you judge it right you do very well, but if you get the call wrong you do very badly.
On that basis, I think the old, steady approach had little chance of keeping Sunak in Number 10 but a reasonable chance of limiting losses and depriving Labour of an overall majority. Whereas the new approach has some chance of being very successful but, along with it, a greater chance it'll flop, there won't even be a partial recovery for the Tories, and Labour will breeze in.
I get the logic there however I was thinking the opposite. That they've accepted defeat and it's all about the scale of it. If the centre goes to sensible non-scary SKS Labour on 'time for a change sick of the Cons' grounds AND they shed support on the reactionary side of life too, it could be meltdown at the GE. This is the risk with no change. So, instead, shore up the right flank and derisk that worst outcome. Lock in a bad but not catastrophic defeat, forego the only slim chance of winning, which is win back the centre.
On topic, Sunak is right. There has been a huge amount of cakeism from previous governments, basking in the approval of environmental campaigners for introducing the targets, while failing to have an honest conversation about costs - and because Labour, the Lib Dems and Greens, and indeed the core broadcast media, are signed up to the same agenda, then they're happy for the Tories to be blamed for the costs as they come in as the party in office.
Consequently, the only political opposition comes from right-wing Tories, Reform UK, the Mail and Telegraph. It's like Brexit all over again - and we know how that ended.
Brexit was ultimately a consequence of a failure to advocate the benefits of the policy. It's easy to see now the net costs but without explaining the many little benefits, that ground was ceded by default to the opponents who could highlight the irritants and costs involved. Proponents were quiet while opponents were loud (with the exception of Remainy true believers, who by taking their case too far, also turned the public off). And that's where we are with Net Zero and climate change policy.
Unless the policy is advocated from first principles, not just on 'save the planet' grounds, which some will see as hopelessly beyond Britain's scope and others will see and virtue-signalling guff or simply fraudulent, but on grounds of national security and economic benefit, there is every chance there will be a populist backlash against a policy seen as imposed by an elite conspiracy without a popular mandate - because there will be enough truth in the case to credibly make it, especially if the other side is out-of-practice in its media skills in countering those claims.
Put simply, in a democracy, you have to take the people with you.
It's not a great sign that the TV media coverage today is full of environmentalists and political opponents of the Tories whining about how awful the Tories are, rather than making the positive case for action (which it's worth noting the Tories are still signed up to, even if in a kick-the-can mode).
"Put simply, in a democracy, you have to take the people with you."
And Sunak has given up trying. Because he doesn't care about the environment himself, he'd rather take the soft option and follow the agenda of the Mail and Express.
This isn't leadership. Get rid.
Sunak is challenging the climate change process and in fact is brave and correct
Of course he has come under fierce attack, but as is being seen on this forum he is receiving support for his actions
No. Sunak is being completely disingenuous. Claiming that 2050 Net Zero can still be achieved without taking the steps required to get there is just taking the people for fools.
Clearly an attempt to have cake and eat it. He deserves all he gets for this nonsense.
There are multiple sets of steps you can take to get to the same destination.
If petrol cars get outlawed in 2035 then by 2050 they'll be at least 16 years old and a tiny proportion of vehicles on the road.
The problem with extremists is the fallacy of "something must be done, this is something, so this must be done."
Nonsense.
If, say, we pump out maximum emissions until 2049 then make a big bang transition to Net Zero then:
1) the UK economy is left for dead as the US/China plough on with a cheap, green energy economy
2) or, if everyone else follows our example, the planet is screwed.
Who said that we pump out maximum emissions until 2049 then make a big transition in 2050? Certainly not me.
The transition is happening either way, and before 2050, if its in 2030 or 2035, its just a question of getting the ducks in a row.
As for (2) as I've said before, everyone else will do what's in their own best interests, they won't "follow our example". If we cut off our nose to spite our face, taking harmful actions like cutting driving or flying rather than investing in clean technologies then they'll just carry on merrily along doing their own thing and ignore us.
If we want them to follow us, we need a sensible example to follow where we improve our living standards, not harm them, with cleaner technologies. That way we get to have our cake and eat it (which is the entire purpose of having a cake in my eyes) and they will follow us.
Despite your scornful response about it, a great deal of carbon can be sequestered by dressing agricultural fields with rock dust - as Sheffield University says, up to 40% of our Net Zero requirements, which is huge. It's huge if it's only half that.
I was already very keen on this idea anyway, to remineralise agricultural soils, resulting in healthier produce and improved yields, but for it to also help us massively on the way to Net Zero is a massive win.
'Produce' implies arable fields. So what happens at harvest? Even if one is direct drilling, the previous crop is eliminated one way or another. And if there is some increase in bound carbon (as in species-rich permanent grasslands) this is only a one off.
What am I missing
It seems you plough the rock dust into the soil, or spread it on top & plant crops as normal. Yields should be the same, or better in some cases as you can choose to apply the ground up silicates only to those fields where increasing the pH will be a net benefit (as is already done by spreading ground up limestone in some areas).
Sure, but you remove the carbon and rot, burn, belch, fart it back into the atmosphere. You're not making a coal seam de nos jours to sequester the carbon from the atmosphere, on the whole.
(Though anything to economise on fuel and oil-derved fertiliser is good, too, in that aim.)
I think you’re confused about the actual process here: the carbon doesn’t go into the crops, it reacts with the rock itself to form carbonates of various kinds.
On topic, Sunak is right. There has been a huge amount of cakeism from previous governments, basking in the approval of environmental campaigners for introducing the targets, while failing to have an honest conversation about costs - and because Labour, the Lib Dems and Greens, and indeed the core broadcast media, are signed up to the same agenda, then they're happy for the Tories to be blamed for the costs as they come in as the party in office.
Consequently, the only political opposition comes from right-wing Tories, Reform UK, the Mail and Telegraph. It's like Brexit all over again - and we know how that ended.
Brexit was ultimately a consequence of a failure to advocate the benefits of the policy. It's easy to see now the net costs but without explaining the many little benefits, that ground was ceded by default to the opponents who could highlight the irritants and costs involved. Proponents were quiet while opponents were loud (with the exception of Remainy true believers, who by taking their case too far, also turned the public off). And that's where we are with Net Zero and climate change policy.
Unless the policy is advocated from first principles, not just on 'save the planet' grounds, which some will see as hopelessly beyond Britain's scope and others will see and virtue-signalling guff or simply fraudulent, but on grounds of national security and economic benefit, there is every chance there will be a populist backlash against a policy seen as imposed by an elite conspiracy without a popular mandate - because there will be enough truth in the case to credibly make it, especially if the other side is out-of-practice in its media skills in countering those claims.
Put simply, in a democracy, you have to take the people with you.
It's not a great sign that the TV media coverage today is full of environmentalists and political opponents of the Tories whining about how awful the Tories are, rather than making the positive case for action (which it's worth noting the Tories are still signed up to, even if in a kick-the-can mode).
"Put simply, in a democracy, you have to take the people with you."
And Sunak has given up trying. Because he doesn't care about the environment himself, he'd rather take the soft option and follow the agenda of the Mail and Express.
This isn't leadership. Get rid.
Sunak is challenging the climate change process and in fact is brave and correct
Of course he has come under fierce attack, but as is being seen on this forum he is receiving support for his actions
No. Sunak is being completely disingenuous. Claiming that 2050 Net Zero can still be achieved without taking the steps required to get there is just taking the people for fools.
Clearly an attempt to have cake and eat it. He deserves all he gets for this nonsense.
There are multiple sets of steps you can take to get to the same destination.
If petrol cars get outlawed in 2035 then by 2050 they'll be at least 16 years old and a tiny proportion of vehicles on the road.
The problem with extremists is the fallacy of "something must be done, this is something, so this must be done."
Nonsense.
If, say, we pump out maximum emissions until 2049 then make a big bang transition to Net Zero then:
1) the UK economy is left for dead as the US/China plough on with a cheap, green energy economy
2) or, if everyone else follows our example, the planet is screwed.
Who said that we pump out maximum emissions until 2049 then make a big transition in 2050? Certainly not me.
The transition is happening either way, and before 2050, if its in 2030 or 2035, its just a question of getting the ducks in a row.
As for (2) as I've said before, everyone else will do what's in their own best interests, they won't "follow our example". If we cut off our nose to spite our face, taking harmful actions like cutting driving or flying rather than investing in clean technologies then they'll just carry on merrily along doing their own thing and ignore us.
If we want them to follow us, we need a sensible example to follow where we improve our living standards, not harm them, with cleaner technologies. That way we get to have our cake and eat it (which is the entire purpose of having a cake in my eyes) and they will follow us.
Despite your scornful response about it, a great deal of carbon can be sequestered by dressing agricultural fields with rock dust - as Sheffield University says, up to 40% of our Net Zero requirements, which is huge. It's huge if it's only half that.
I was already very keen on this idea anyway, to remineralise agricultural soils, resulting in healthier produce and improved yields, but for it to also help us massively on the way to Net Zero is a massive win.
'Produce' implies arable fields. So what happens at harvest? Even if one is direct drilling, the previous crop is eliminated one way or another. And if there is some increase in bound carbon (as in species-rich permanent grasslands) this is only a one off.
What am I missing
It seems you plough the rock dust into the soil, or spread it on top & plant crops as normal. Yields should be the same, or better in some cases as you can choose to apply the ground up silicates only to those fields where increasing the pH will be a net benefit (as is already done by spreading ground up limestone in some areas).
Sure, but you remove the carbon and rot, burn, belch, fart it back into the atmosphere. You're not making a coal seam de nos jours to sequester the carbon from the atmosphere, on the whole.
(Though anything to economise on fuel and oil-derved fertiliser is good, too, in that aim.)
Activated charcoal is the most promising sequestration option, or “biochar” as it’s termed. There you really are locking away carbon in a process that partially mimics the creation of coal seams, and it works even if the ground is ploughed.
Thanks! But in both cases it's still only a one off. Not an ongoing process for decades? Still, useful.
With charcoal you can in theory keep adding it annually, at least until the soil gets too saturated with the stuff. But like all of these things it's not an alternative to stopping burning fossil fuels.
Why shouldn't it be? Is the aim of the exercise to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, or to make life as unpleasant and Orwellian as possible for people?
Quite the opposite.
To be net zero you need some things on the negative side, then some on the positive side, and they balance. You have to think though what are your priorities and have those priorities as your limited positives.
Burning fossil fuels when there's better and ultimately cheaper alternatives around is pointless. No reason to do it.
But some emissions have no better alternative.
EG a large source of emissions come from things like cow farts. I still want to eat beef and drink real milk, so I would like my positives to be going into things like that, balanced by any negatives.
Better than a future where we burn emissions, but all need vegan meals and soy lattes as the cows have been culled.
It’s even worse. Your final option won’t ever even be on the table. As a country we’re never going to abandon beef and milk, so we either trim emissions cleverly or countries at risk from climate change are *******. There is no version in which we democratically consent to give up life’s pleasures. Should anyone try, they will get voted out.
So we tax those products and use it partly to pay for Green Reparations.
Green Party Policy is Climate Reparations of £50Bn a year, which will probably be "managed" by various gravy train riding Charities and NGO's who are enthusiastic about out.
It definitely doesn't because people's net salary will still go up, just not as fast as that difference would imply. For someone on the basic rate they'd take about 70% of that and on the higher rate about 60% of it depending on their personal circumstances. Fiscal drag won't push anyone back into real terms pay losses, they just wouldn't see 100% of the rise.
Lets take a graduate on £30k, they have a real tax rate of 41%. A 7.8% pay rise is a pay rise of £2,340 - of which £959.40 would go to the Exchequer and they'll keep only £1380.6
That's a real terms pay cut.
Are you sure ?
You need to compare post tax salary post-rise to post tax salary pre-rise.
On topic, Sunak is right. There has been a huge amount of cakeism from previous governments, basking in the approval of environmental campaigners for introducing the targets, while failing to have an honest conversation about costs - and because Labour, the Lib Dems and Greens, and indeed the core broadcast media, are signed up to the same agenda, then they're happy for the Tories to be blamed for the costs as they come in as the party in office.
Consequently, the only political opposition comes from right-wing Tories, Reform UK, the Mail and Telegraph. It's like Brexit all over again - and we know how that ended.
Brexit was ultimately a consequence of a failure to advocate the benefits of the policy. It's easy to see now the net costs but without explaining the many little benefits, that ground was ceded by default to the opponents who could highlight the irritants and costs involved. Proponents were quiet while opponents were loud (with the exception of Remainy true believers, who by taking their case too far, also turned the public off). And that's where we are with Net Zero and climate change policy.
Unless the policy is advocated from first principles, not just on 'save the planet' grounds, which some will see as hopelessly beyond Britain's scope and others will see and virtue-signalling guff or simply fraudulent, but on grounds of national security and economic benefit, there is every chance there will be a populist backlash against a policy seen as imposed by an elite conspiracy without a popular mandate - because there will be enough truth in the case to credibly make it, especially if the other side is out-of-practice in its media skills in countering those claims.
Put simply, in a democracy, you have to take the people with you.
It's not a great sign that the TV media coverage today is full of environmentalists and political opponents of the Tories whining about how awful the Tories are, rather than making the positive case for action (which it's worth noting the Tories are still signed up to, even if in a kick-the-can mode).
But there is a mandate, here's the front page of the Tory manifesto from 2019.
Who is this "Boris Johnson"?
The guy who would be banning cars, if his wife was still the Prime Minister?
Interest rates on hold and they’ve managed to dupe some into thinking they care about the poor .
I’d be shocked if new polls don’t show an increase in support for the Tories .
Also inflation fell (a tiny amount but it was expected to go up) and we will have real wage growth for some time now.
Calculated to piss of those of us continuing to get real terms pay cuts for the 15th consecutive year.
(Scotland not included as far as Junior Doctors in this)
Was there any response at all to the 12% "olive branch" offered by the consultants? It just seemed to disappear into the ether without much of a splash. The damage being done to a frail NHS is becoming unsustainable. The government needs to find ways to end this impasse.
The latest, as reported on the news last night, is the govt pay award was final and not open to negotiation.
So they have not grasped the olive branch.
Something needs to be done to sort out the consultants, the Junior doctors, the RMT and the train drivers.
The risk for the latter 2 is people come to stop using the trains and find other means as they are even less reliable than usual.
Another point on the inflation figures and why the BoE may have paused today is that ONS food price inflation as measured by basket value is about 2% higher than the real food inflation rate as measured by checkout values of baskets which include discounts at the till.
So prices aren't going up as fast, but there's fewer/inferior discounts available?
Nah other way around, sticker prices are still rising at about 13% but till based discounts bring that rate down to about 10-11%. The ONS doesn't take till discounts into account for food price inflation, but I'd be surprised if the BoE didn't. The raw food price inflation figure is actually something like 8% based on PoS data but that includes people switching to lesser brands and own brand products as well as till level discounts. The ONS measure of food price inflation doesn't really reflect reality, it's another one of those metrics that they're just way out of date on measuring, private indices do a better job.
The ONS captures people switching brands and retailers but it ignores discounts that aren't available to all shoppers, which doesn't seem wholly unreasonable.
The discounts are available to all shoppers, some decline to use them by not having a clubcard or nectar card. The ONS methodology is outdated, they could easily model the proportion of shoppers who checkout with loyalty discounts and add that in. I expect they will need to do that soon.
They should probably just base the ONS figures off Aldi and Lidl tbh - two shops that don't bother with loyalty card nonsense and I reckon are generally closish to the true 'fair price'.
Comments
"Democrat Hal Rafter won by 12 points in a state House district that went narrowly for Donald Trump in 2020," wrote Post columnist Aaron Blake. "The 12-point improvement on the 2020 margin is in line with Democrats’ encouraging continued over-performances in special elections this year; Daily Kos Elections and FiveThirtyEight data on more than two dozen special elections show the party running an average of 7.6 points better than their 2020 margins — margins from a 2020 election that, it bears noting, were already good for Democrats — and double digits better than the normal partisan fundamentals."
"Rafter's election flipped a red seat to blue, bringing the populous statehouse to a 198-197 narrowly favoring Republicans, but that could become a tie if upcoming special elections break as expected, and frequent vacancies often tilt the balance of power for votes"
Interesting bearing in mind this was one of the Trumps states that he says he was cheated from winning!!!
Such a plea is possible for the simple reason that no-one can be criminally convicted except by proper process, and people are entitled not to convict themselves by pleading guilty. (If you remain mute, a NG plea is entered in default). NG means "prove it".
But then I saw PORNHUB and now I can’t NOT see it. You can’t go back. On odd psychovisual phenomenon
What would you do if you went into an art gallery and you knew 50% of the art was human, and 50% of the art was AI - but they didn’t tell you which? How would you react to the individual artworks?
You’d be clueless and disturbed (so would I, this is not an insult)
And if you think you’d always be able to tell the difference you’re delusional
What I do believe is being discussed is tightening up safeguards regarding relationships people have with children.
There's a myth by some that the unrestricted age of consent in this country is 16, its not, its 18 already.
Relations with a 16 year old may be legal, or may be illegal, depending upon the circumstances. Some people are suggesting those circumstances be adjusted to include a "Romeo and Juliet" style law, which is not unusual abroad.
It was the Mignonette case. In Wiki and this book
https://archive.org/details/cannibalismcommo0000simp
AI will not go the same way
(Though anything to economise on fuel and oil-derved fertiliser is good, too, in that aim.)
Vote was 5/4
termed. There you really are locking away carbon in a process that partially mimics the creation of coal seams, and it works even if the ground is ploughed.
French royal mania continues, and it is quite something. After the “Vive le roi!” on the streets of Paris yesterday, a standing ovation just now for King Charles after his speech in the French Senate
🇫🇷🇬🇧
https://x.com/PedderSophie/status/1704794067299664001?s=20
In general, Sunak's strategy has been to calm things down after the turbulence of the Johnson and Truss Premierships. The idea has been to take the heat out and demonstrate steady progress on some reasonably modest targets. All very "grown ups in charge" and "why risk Captain Hindsight when you've got Captain Sensible at the helm?" But it's not about creating huge points of difference - it's managerial.
Immigration policy doesn't fit in with that. He's been more willing to create difference. I understand that, politically, because he needs some red meat and in reality a lot of people do like a strident line on it (I'm not one of them but I'm not the target market). His problem is that it isn't actually working because the policies themselves are crap, but there it it.
Now, though, he's rolling the dice in other areas. That suggests he's lost confidence in the ability of the strategy he set out last year and early this to narrow the polls.
But doing that not only speaks to his personal weakness and lack of resolve, but it's risky too. Firstly, he's in danger of trashing the Steady Eddie brand he has previously tried to develop. Secondly, if you're going to create dividing lines, you better make damned sure you're picking the right side of them politically, and I'm not sure he is - like "Get Brexit Done" versus "Bollocks to Brexit" in 2019, if you judge it right you do very well, but if you get the call wrong you do very badly.
On that basis, I think the old, steady approach had little chance of keeping Sunak in Number 10 but a reasonable chance of limiting losses and depriving Labour of an overall majority. Whereas the new approach has some chance of being very successful but, along with it, a greater chance it'll flop, there won't even be a partial recovery for the Tories, and Labour will breeze in.
Not sure that rates have peaked though. Long way to go to bring inflation back to target!
People on Twitter are saying this is the first example of AI art which has impressed them, and made them realise AI can be creative and artistic. That AI art is art, in essence
Not saying I agree or disagree, but this is the image provoking the debate. See what you think
”Say what you want, but this is creative, novel, and endless. Incredible to see the community pick this up so fast”
https://x.com/linusekenstam/status/1704181236120305795?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-40863-0
Interest rates on hold and they’ve managed to dupe some into thinking they care about the poor .
I’d be shocked if new polls don’t show an increase in support for the Tories .
Me from yesterday:
Nice to see my theory that Nandos bringing back their student discount is a signal that food price inflation is way down. August monthly rate of just 0.4% compared to August last year at 1.5% and next month will have an even bigger drop.
I think we have reached the end of the beginning of our inflation fight, wouldn't be surprised if the BoE paused interest rate rises for three months to see where core CPI ends up in December/January before taking a decision
https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/4540968/#Comment_4540968
Sunak made all sorts of reassuring noises about net zero in the speech and presented the changes as a sensible recalibration of policy. But as far as everyone is concerned the Tories are now anti-net zero and probably climate sceptics. This will win them some rightwing and RefUK support and put off others.
Labour was careful not to come out with anything too eco yesterday, but of course various others of a centre or left persuasion did. So as far as everyone is concerned Labour is pro-net zero and pro-banning you from driving or having a gas boiler after 2030. That might help get the vote out and win back some greens, but will put off others.
Reminds me of the Brexit debates when everything the government did was far right fascism and anyone who proposed single market or customs union was a saboteur of the will of the people.
Of course we can debate how many human artists do the same, but the point still stands.
https://www.gbnews.com/royal/royal-news-king-charles-cyclist-scotland
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12543555/King-Charles-British-monarch-history-address-French-senate-today-meeting-rugby-stars-Brigitte-Macron.html
You should be able to demonstrate carbon capture by doing chemical & visual analysis of the rock particles in the soil over time I would think.
ISW has observed a significant inflection in western #Zaporizhia Obl:
Ukrainian forces are for the first time confirmed to be operating armored vehicles (Stryker & Marder infantry fighting vehicles) beyond the Russian anti-tank ditch and dragon’s teeth obstacles near #Verbove.🧵
https://x.com/TheStudyofWar/status/1704815837100523528?s=20
To make sequestration work at scale you’d need vast government intervention both on the production side and in mandating farmers to use it.
Plus the world has realised that fossil fuel burning is dirty, non renewable of course, and increasingly geopolitically dangerous. Why keep on with the water mills once you have a steam engine. Same issue.
Don't, for example, try Plantinga's actually quite amusing gem 'The Nature of Necessity' after consuming lots of alcohol.
Eg is the AI art worse or better than this by Escher?
I’d say the AI art is slightly superior. But really it’s irrelevant. The point is, if you were shown that AI image and you were told “it was done by a disciple of Escher in the 1940s” you’d think Wow that’s really skilful and clever
You’d entirely believe it was art by a human. So the machines CAN make art
To be net zero you need some things on the negative side, then some on the positive side, and they balance. You have to think though what are your priorities and have those priorities as your limited positives.
Burning fossil fuels when there's better and ultimately cheaper alternatives around is pointless. No reason to do it.
But some emissions have no better alternative.
EG a large source of emissions come from things like cow farts. I still want to eat beef and drink real milk, so I would like my positives to be going into things like that, balanced by any negatives.
Better than a future where we burn emissions, but all need vegan meals and soy lattes as the cows have been culled.
I just think the spiral-village one is a bit shit. And nowhere near as good as that particular Escher. Just a view.
The neat thing is that creating this sort of work is now available to those of us whose technical artistry is severely lacking. If I had an artistic vision I wanted to realise, I have a damn good chance nowadays, whereas before I'd be looking at a long learning process or an expensive commission.
I'd like to see some figures behind your cost assertion. A large scheme to get fields dressed and tackle a mjor issue seems exactly what we employ a huge Government for.
Is anyone familiar with this case?
"Louise Tickle
@louisetickle
Right. I have absolutely HAD it with the family justice system. It is *impossible* to do vital public interest reporting when there is no commitment to transparency even from the high court, and zero willingness to make efforts to ensure transparency
@JudiciaryUK
@jessphillips
1/"
https://twitter.com/louisetickle/status/1704795779703947698
So be very cautious about anything AI-ish you read online - there are an awful lot of self-promoting hucksters out there trying to jump on the next gravy train in order to extract cash from the gullible.
It’s the concept of art as a paid occupation which is being destroyed. I’m sure people will still create art in their spare time, because they enjoy it
Wind is a bountiful source of free energy, so long as capital expenses are low enough we'd be crazy not to make use of it. Especially given in the future most electricity is going to be absorbed by batteries anyway, so isn't time-sensitive. The latter is a feature that many don't seem to have wrapped their heads around yet.
In strict law two 15 year olds heavily snogging are committing an offence. (In general it is not regarded as an offence, but anyone who thinks such activity is generally 'not sexual' in nature is delusional.)
The rest is piss & wind.
Thankfully, that should continue to move (as wind and solar have in the last 10 years) so we will eventually get there, but perhaps not by 2050.
Real wage growth will occur when wages are growing faster than prices and fiscal drag, that's not happening.
(Scotland not included as far as Junior Doctors in this)
Restrictions on aviation constitute wise stewardship of our shared planet, not an attempt, as some believe, to exert control
Paul Miles"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/comment/ive-taken-one-flight-in-ten-years-and-my-life-is-richer/
With inflation now at 6.7% that is real wage growth and the gap between the two is likely to increase. Are you seriously suggesting that fiscal drag makes up that sort of difference? I don't believe it.
The first - in NYC - is seriously clever
Green Party Policy is Climate Reparations of £50Bn a year, which will probably be "managed" by various gravy train riding Charities and NGO's who are enthusiastic about out.
Polluter pays.
https://www.greenparty.org.uk/news/2021/11/03/greens-call-for-uk-to-pay-reparations/
If so, yes it makes a difference.
If your pay goes up by 7.8% and your marginal tax rate is say 41% (eg base rate, with NIC and graduate tax) then the Exchequer claims 3.2% from you in PAYE and you get 4.6%. Other tax rates are available, but same principle with almost any combination of taxes.
Is 4.6% more or less than 6.7%?
That's a real terms pay cut.
https://www.reuters.com/legal/john-grisham-other-top-us-authors-sue-openai-over-copyrights-2023-09-20/
The consultants' pay bonanza came in the main as a result of a new contract they signed with the Government in 2004. The contract was meant to improve NHS practices while making consultants work longer and more productively. But, after a series of concessions, the contract was watered down. The consultants kept their money, but a report by the heath think tank the King's Fund found little evidence of improvements in services offered to patients.
The figures show that, in 2000, the mean earnings of a consultant were £71,900. But by 2009 this figure had risen to £120,900 – an average yearly increase of 5.9 per cent. In contrast, across the whole of the pubic sector salaries rose over the same period by 4.5 per cent. For the private sector the rise was 3.7 per cent.
https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/salaries-of-nhs-consultants-soar-by-68-per-cent-2172588.html
THIS. THIS is why all the Doctors are using 2010 in their bleatings.
The ban on you posting AI images is still in place, please desist.
However I was being a little facetious.
Climate change adaptation only works with near 100% consensus. Not least for planning and certainty.
You need to compare post tax salary post-rise to post tax salary pre-rise.
So they have not grasped the olive branch.
Something needs to be done to sort out the consultants, the Junior doctors, the RMT and the train drivers.
The risk for the latter 2 is people come to stop using the trains and find other means as they are even less reliable than usual.