Categories
Options
We need a new Green Policy – Part 1 – politicalbetting.com
We need a new Green Policy – Part 1 – politicalbetting.com
Net Zero, that’s where our bank balances are headed on current trends. According to the OBR it will cost £1.4 trillion to complete Net Zero by 2050, that’s more than 3 times the cost of the COVID emergency, but obviously over a longer timescale.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
If we're going to have posts that don't have any betting content than that's fine and I do appreciate that it takes a lot of effort to write them. But just a little bit of research to check your assumptions might be nice?
https://www.northnorthants.gov.uk/elections-and-voting/recall-petition-wellingborough-constituency
So, yes, let's look again at this policy. Hopefully we will scrap it, or at least water it down until it does little harm, like the Germans are starting to do. And let's end the practice of fixing some targets (but not others) in law to try to commit future generations - they are capable of making their own minds up, and do not need us to try to dictate their priorities.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jun/29/china-wind-solar-power-global-renewable-energy-leader
https://time.com/6090732/china-coal-power-plants-emissions/
the point being while China is doing some good things on the ground its also doing some bad ones and in total it intends to do what suits it, not what suits us.
https://twitter.com/nexta_tv/status/1717944810718306444
Truth, or infowars?
They are showing considerable interest, and actually further on the path to decarbonisation than we are in some key ways. However, they are not there yet and their determination to rely on domestic resources (coal) is masking the overall picture.
"A 1.5 degree rise will give us a temperature more akin to central France. "
Part of the issue with climate change (man-made and natural) is that the effects are hard to discern in advance. We were at the National Space Centre yesterday, and there's a model there that highlights quite how far north the UK is. We should have similar climates to Canada and Norway, but we are warmer, thanks to the Gulf Stream. If that gets shifted, then wave bye-bye to any increases in temperature for us.
There are other advantages to 'going green', aside from the climate. My view is that some of the best - perhaps the best - series of legislation to come out of parliament post-WW2 are he various clean air act. They have improved air quality and saved countless lives. Removing ICE cars from the road will be another big step towards a more liveable environment.
But as is often the case, the question then becomes: how fast? How fast can we make this change? How fast should we make this change?
A ground invasion is a very risky move which is why Biden has been trying to stop it (unsuccessfully it would seem). So it isn't impossible.
That said, given his track record I can imagine Netanyahu might make such an offer knowing it would be refused and he would then have a pretext to invade over Biden's objections. Bottom line is, if he is to survive he needs a ground offensive and a major win. Even that may not (hopefully, will not) be enough for his career.
https://x.com/laurimyllyvirta/status/1716736409183146050?s=46
“China coal plants” is just an excuse for Britain to get left behind on major infrastructure transformation, as usual.
A sad little kingdom of asset sweaters.
Worried about small boats and refugees now? Just wait.
It is at least good to see we’ve now reached phase 4 of the debate though, phases 1, 2 and 3 being respectively “there’s no warming” “it’s not anthropogenic” and “it’s not as bad as they claim”. Phase 4 is the policy and trade off debate. It’s a shame that didn’t start back in the late 1980s.
Second because even if it were, it’s such a nihilistic view. It’s like saying China isn’t bothered about human rights so let’s jettison our own.
Simon Case, the Cabinet Secretary, is said to have made the remark in a WhatsApp message sent in July 2020, months into the first wave of Covid hitting the UK.
The exchange, reported by The Times, is expected to be published by the public inquiry into the Government’s response to the pandemic.
Both Donald Trump, the former US president, and Jair Bolsonaro, then the Brazilian president, were criticised for taking too sceptical an approach to restrictions such as lockdowns that were designed to stop the spread of Covid.
The Telegraph could not independently confirm whether Mr Case had made the comment, said to have been contained in a WhatsApp group with a small number of senior No 10 figures.
The Cabinet Office, headed by Mr Case, did not immediately respond to a request for comment
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/10/27/simon-case-allegedly-called-boris-johnson-trump-level-mad/
Don't open by saying you're concerned about the effect that saving the world will have on your bank balance.
They have massive renewable energy programs, they're building loads of nuclear which the US and EU have almost given up, they're subsidizing EVs and getting loads of traction with them. They are doing the energy transition. And the reason renewables are seeing the spectacular cost reductions they are is because *both* Obama *and* Xi promoted and subsidized them. It's true that their net zero target is somewhat less ambitious than Britain's (2060 vs 2050) for whatever that's worth, but they also set shorter-term targets and mostly hit them.
If you try to you can of course find some measures where they're worse - since you're comparing a massive still-industrializing economy to a medium-sized mature economy you'll be able to find measures on either side. In any country you'll find people like you who will pick the parts to say the other countries aren't doing anything. The way for this stuff to grind to a halt is if British people listen to the British Alanbrooke and Chinese people listen to the Chinese Alanbrooke and each country decides to stop trying to solve the problem on the grounds that they're being taken for a ride by all the other countries.
And I think that's partly because Hamas are actually not keen on peace either.
But then, he's not been nicknamed Head Case in the public sector for no reason.
They just smack somewhat of 'Ok, Boomer'. In other words, older boomer generation reactionary moaning instead of engaging positively with the changing of the guard.
It's not very in-keeping with the measured and a-political nature of this site, which usually doesn't go down this GB News route.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/oct/27/tragedy-israel-palestine-conflict-horror
https://reader.foreignaffairs.com/2023/10/25/what-palestinians-really-think-of-hamas/content.html
It is encouraging to see how unpopular they are, however.
(Rare to see him drop one, he's normally very good. But boy New Zealand could have done with him hanging on there.)
It is clear though that support for Palestine is not the same as support for for Hamas, just as opposition to antisemitism is not the same as support for the government of Israel.
However it’s good to hear a range of voices and views, so thanks to @AlanBrooke for taking the time to produce it and the other articles.
Sadly, it can be hard to distinguish the people who want the Palestinians to live and thrive and hate Hamas, from the ones who secretly quite like what Hamas is doing if it means a 'free' Palestine.
Autumn is rapidly becoming a very wet one after a dry start.
My guess is about 2.2-2.4C of warming and that we'll hit NZ by about 2060, globally. We're already at 1.2C warming now, so that will be shit, and create all sorts of issues, including mass migration ones, but it isn't the complete end of the world and it doesn't threaten human survival either. It's far from the catastrophic 4-5C of warming (or worse) that we were looking at 10-15 years ago.
What will shift the dial? Technology and economics. Wind and solar is cheaper than gas now, in many instances, and electric cars and heating are getting better and cheaper all the time.
Just not quite fast enough. What happens in the next 5-10 years is crucial.
Why do so many on the left take such active pleasure in falsely denigrating and hating their own country?
Another way to read this polling is that they were offered three different degrees of living alongside Israeli Jews, and picked the one that involved the least degree of doing that.
The answer, of course, is mass availability of wind and solar power at absolute knock-down prices, that are deployable as 'plug and play', so they aren't economically incentivised to do anything else.
"Poll finds dramatic rise in Palestinian support for Hamas ... The poll found that 53% of Palestinians believe Hamas is “most deserving of representing and leading the Palestinian people,” while only 14% prefer Abbas’ secular Fatah party."
https://apnews.com/article/hamas-middle-east-science-32095d8e1323fc1cad819c34da08fd87
And a problem is this: everyone knows how thoroughly anti-Semitic Hamas is, and what their objective is wrt Jews. You cannot support Hamas and say that you're not anti-Semitic - it's like a German saying they supported the Nazis because they built good roads or had good education policies.
Hamas still exist in Gaza not just because they have power and guns; but because they also have enough support. Sadly, like the Iranian regime.
And there is a lot about the economic cost, but what about the economic benefits? Green technology is a massive growth industry and something we can be a leader in if we invest and put our minds to it.
And good morning everybody. A few clouds in the sky this morning; sadly, from the Department of the Environment point of view, coming up from the Southeast!
Starmers Green Prosperity Plan does poll well incidentally. Strongly too with the "Loyal Nationalists" of the "Red Wall".
https://twitter.com/LukeTryl/status/1717811493410889927?t=DQb_YrF0-fw1sNprh_IEMQ&s=19
This is fundamentally an energy problem. It's solved by technology and economics.
There it should stay and there it should remain.
Another wheel falling off Rishi Sunak's clown car.
Transport for All have been cleared to pursue a Judicial Review into Sunak and Harpers' cutting of almost all Active Travel investment for the next years to cut thruppence off the price of petrol / diesel for a few weeks.
https://transportactionnetwork.org.uk/high-court-orders-government-to-answer-on-walking-and-cycling-funding-cuts/
For example, if you electrify your house with solar panels and storage batteries you can cut your electricity bill by anything from 30-70%, ad-infinitum. The issue is being able to shell out the £6-10k up front for all the kit, but even then it repays for itself over 10-12 years, and then makes a profit thereafter.
I know this because I've just ordered. But I can only do so because I have (some) spare capital. HMG should be offering £5k+ discounts on all of this, and to borrow the rest at cost - or make it easy to add to mortgages.
Heat pumps are different. They need to be less shit. They need to pump in 20C+ of heat, with turboboost options for when it's really cold, not just 14-15C and only really working when your house is insulated like an igloo. But, again, once in - no gas bills.
So this will make us wealthier overall, if we get it right.
The OBR also identified £1.1bn cost savings through reducing the spend on fossil fuels.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/oct/02/report-claiming-net-zero-will-cost-uk-trillions-retracted-due-to-factual-errors
There are even a lot of Tories who don't want to trash the country and planet.
Looking at the mountains, somebody did some very clever work to get them up there.
As for your point on coordinated action if we all put our own houses in order in our own way we will end up with a similar result.
Step 1: don't take sufficient action to stop climate change running out of control.
Step 2: realise Britain has failed to become a leader in any new technologies as other countries adapt faster.
Step 3: complain about all these new migrants from places that are now inhospitable, Britain's weather is fine thank you very much.
Human nature, Treasury brain, Anglo Saxon Short Term Capitalism, Boomer "after I've gone"ness...
There are a lot of pressures to avoid short term costs for long term gain.
See British Infrastructure, passim ad nauseum.
Given the rapid rise in house prices most can easily borrow such a small sum on a marginal mortgage increase. Perhaps the Govt could offer funding against 1-3% of equity in the house.
Can you elucidate on that "20C+ of heat"? Heat is in kWh or kJ, not Celsius, and heating a house is about amount of heat gained and lost not temperature differences.
(I won't draw attention to igloos being built out of material that are as poor as insulators as a naked brick wall
Secondly, we're a small country with a (relatively) small industrial base, especially in low-value, high-volume stuff. The chances are we would always be outplayed in high-volume technology.
Thirdly, *nothing* Britain could do would stop climate change running out of control. Even if we had zero emissions, the emissions from the rest of the world would dwarf that.
Fourthly, people need jobs. I daresay people in public service, especially occupations such as the NHS or education, may feel a certain amount of job security. But going green too fast could really damage the economy. Like many things, it is a balancing game.
Many conservatives do care about these things, which is one of many reasons that they are increasingly alienated from the current government.
One thing that is often discounted is that developing countries buy equipment from the developed world. Often second hand, but there has been a noticeable effect in terms of emissions, safety etc, as what is available in the developed world improves.
For example, fairly soon, ICE engines will fading away. Development has stopped, pretty much. Even in the cases where local production of cheap cars in the developing world occurs, they are based on components and technology from the global supply chain.
Quite simply, it is going to get harder and much more expensive to build an ICE, anywhere. And at the same time, the reductions in cost will make EVs ever cheaper.
Government have always put pollutants in our air - including New Labour. The following is quite interesting wrt London:
https://www.london.gov.uk/programmes-strategies/environment-and-climate-change/environment-and-climate-change-publications/70-years-great-london-smog
I know it's a meme that has been repeated ad infinitum in various media (decline of manufacturing etc), yet we are in the top 10 in the world.
On the others I agree, @JosiasJessop. On the "Europe leading in greening" at present Johnson, Sunak et al are broadly correct, though they never say that the transformation in electricity supply is far more down to Blair and Brown's governments than their own useless butt-sitting - these things have 10-20 year lead times, and Sunak just made a colossal cockup of his wind power licensing round by being Mr Spreadsheet Dunce.
Sadly, things like solar cells are the latter (and we want them to be low-cost, high-volume).
(*) I might be wrong, though.
2) There's plenty of room for us to establish a market leading position in certain niches, just as Germany does with a comparable population, if we put our mind to it.
3) It's a game theory situation where we only win it everyone plays their part. Britain, formally a leading voice for net zero, changing path would have a negative impact globally.
4) Arguments about the pace of change are different to arguments on whether we should change at all.
2) There may be plenty of room; but it's blooming difficult to do. See wind turbines as an example, and the problems Vestas had.
3) I agree we should do our bit; and I'd argue we are.
4) I don't see many people saying we shouldn't change. So yes, it is the pace of change - and that's something that can really hit people in their pockets.
(1); https://www.gov.uk/government/news/pm-recommits-uk-to-net-zero-by-2050-and-pledges-a-fairer-path-to-achieving-target-to-ease-the-financial-burden-on-british-families
However, I take issue with your crediting it to 'Blair and Brown.' If they hadn't dithered for all their time in office over new nuclear, we might have had no coal stations left by now and much less reliance on gas.
Although the latter was an error by the Coalition as much as Blair and Borwn.
Looks a big ask against this attack without Williamson.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-66475360
Ive just spent 3 years working in the water sector and the problems go back decades. Nobody comes out well.
We have two choices: become a leader in clean tech and make money selling it to others, or be on the hook to pay others for it.
What is @Alanbrooke suggesting as the alternative? More fossil fuels? We’ve binned coal, so other than shipping it from Brazil to burn in recommissioned power stations that isn’t an option. We’ve burned North Sea gas, and Mr Putin is no longer an option. We’ve binned nuclear and have to pay foreign governments to build new ones.
We have a windy archipelago surrounded by violent seas. And a creative industrial economy. So either we invest in making the machines to generate electricity. Or pay others for the machines. We used to be good capitalists. What a pity we’re just shit these days.
I agree that us moving towards it aggressively will not shift the dial on overall heating trends, but it is an area where the UK can lead in terms of showing how to get there and creating systems, strategies and technologies to do it. We can cash in on such leadership in multiple ways - especially if others are delaying. After all, overall there is no alternative to net zero if the world of which we are a part is to have a viable future.
Leaving it to others while moaning about the costs is the typical British response. It has held us back for decades. Let’s try a different approach for a change.
So, I am very interested to see what part 2 brings. I’m not convinced by part 1.
Not sure it's helpful.