We need a new Green Policy – Part 2 – politicalbetting.com

System

We need a new Green Policy – Part 2 – politicalbetting.com

In Part 1 I argued that Net Zero is the wrong path for the UK. To be clear that does not mean we should not have an environmental plan we definitely need one. Just not the one in place at present. Net Zero is focused on solving worldwide problems , we need instead to focus on our own requirements.

Read the full story here

JosiasJessop

That a good list, thanks Mr Brooke. I'd also add the need to ensure as much energy independence as possible is vital.

But... why not do both? D the list above *and* move towards net zero?

Oh. and first. If this thread survives...

TheScreamingEagles

First. Kinda

rottenborough

I have always believed that you can reduce the Israeli-Palestinian conflict since the early 1900s to one line: conflict, timeout, conflict, timeout, conflict, timeout, conflict, timeout, conflict and timeout. The most important difference between the parties is what they each did during the timeouts.

Israel built an impressive society and economy, even if flawed, and Hamas took nearly all of its resources and built attack tunnels.

Please, Israel, don’t get lost in those tunnels.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/29/opinion/israel-hamas-ceasefire.html

bondegezou

So, to summarise, we shouldn’t have a Net Zero programme. We should just do exactly the same things as a Net Zero programme…?

Alanbrooke

JosiasJessop said:

That a good list, thanks Mr Brooke. I'd also add the need to ensure as much energy independence as possible is vital.

But... why not do both? D the list above *and* move towards net zero?

Oh. and first. If this thread survives...

I doubt we have the money. But if the investment side is handled correctly some of the projects will meet your goal of doing two things in tandem.

Alanbrooke

bondegezou said:

So, to summarise, we shouldn’t have a Net Zero programme. We should just do exactly the same things as a Net Zero programme…?

Perhaps you cold point me to where we have a comprehensive flood defence programme of where we are build mini power stations.

148grss

Alanbrooke said:

JosiasJessop said:

That a good list, thanks Mr Brooke. I'd also add the need to ensure as much energy independence as possible is vital.

But... why not do both? D the list above *and* move towards net zero?

Oh. and first. If this thread survives...

I doubt we have the money. But if the investment side is handled correctly some of the projects will meet your goal of doing two things in tandem.

I never understand the "we don't have the money" argument when it comes to the environment. If we don't invest in a green future there will not be a future. Also, money isn't real! So, if a government with control over its own currency (like the UK) decides it wants to shift its economy to go big on green (in a similar manner as "wartime" economies shift) then we could do that. Would it change a lot of things, yes - but not necessarily negatively. It's just that the British political consensus is that government shouldn't be allowed to do things that could possibly make the world a better place. That we're behind even the US on this (who are investing huge amounts into green infrastructure) is telling about the myopic nature of British political foresight.

Alanbrooke

148grss said:

Alanbrooke said:

JosiasJessop said:

That a good list, thanks Mr Brooke. I'd also add the need to ensure as much energy independence as possible is vital.

But... why not do both? D the list above *and* move towards net zero?

Oh. and first. If this thread survives...

I doubt we have the money. But if the investment side is handled correctly some of the projects will meet your goal of doing two things in tandem.

I never understand the "we don't have the money" argument when it comes to the environment. If we don't invest in a green future there will not be a future. Also, money isn't real! So, if a government with control over its own currency (like the UK) decides it wants to shift its economy to go big on green (in a similar manner as "wartime" economies shift) then we could do that. Would it change a lot of things, yes - but not necessarily negatively. It's just that the British political consensus is that government shouldn't be allowed to do things that could possibly make the world a better place. That we're behind even the US on this (who are investing huge amounts into green infrastructure) is telling about the myopic nature of British political foresight.

Some fair points, but we dont actually have much in the pipeline on bio diversity, and while you dont think money is an issue there are a lot of people who do. If we had money as no option we could buy everything at once but Ive yet to see a country that can do that over the long term.

TimS

I concur with JosiasJessop's "why not both" question but nonetheless the suggestions are all sensible and things we are in most cases already doing, just not enough.

What this needs in addition though is how can the UK grasp the huge opportunities to compete in the decarbonised economy, and to do this requires intelligent government investment and regulation, business investment supported by incentives, and a globally minded approach to the issue of climate change that plugs us into the supply chains of the future. Otherwise we end up just importing everything, again.

Renewable energy is one example where we can become a technology and services exporter, but there are big opportunities in wider green tech and energy efficiency, automotive and other transportation, and green finance, all of which should be actively supported and marketed. And yes it also requires us to show commitment to global targets on net zero.

Thankfully only one Daily Mail talking point made it on to this header and that's the old heat pump thing. If our entire net zero strategy were forcing everyone on to heat pumps then there might be a point here, but they are eminently sensible ways of reducing energy usage, combined with insulation and draught exclusion. They are just the norm now in many European countries. I'm fitting an ASHP in our house in France, which comes complete with uninsulated exposed stone walls, and I expect it to work just fine as do my various neighbours' heat pumps.

TheKitchenCabinet

FPT

I'll bite on the article (the one about the comments on a Conservative revival).

There are a few things which make it tricky to compare the run-up to next year's election with 1997.

The first was back then the world was a more stable place and we seemed on the path to a better future. The Soviet Union had fallen and the Cold War was over. South Africa had elected Mandela. Back home, the economy was coming out of the downturn of the early 1990s. People thought Labour should be given a chance and they could gamble. That is not the case now. The world is a much more uncertain place and, bar SKS and possibly Reeves, I'm not sure the public would trust Labour's front bench in an uncertain world.

The second is events. Sunak and the Tories are sh1t and the situation is dire but it is hard to imagine that they can take a further sharp step down (their support looks to have bottomed). That is not the case with Labour. It might be said they are having the best of times now - no real scrutiny of their policies, benefiting from the Tories' performance etc. What happens though if the Middle East situation continues (as seems likely) and Labour loses core parts of its base? Or the policies come under more scrutiny?

The third is Starmer. Maybe I drink with different people but I have not heard one person - even my Labour friends - say he is great, in fact mediocre is the most common description. That is fine if the Government is so hated Conservative voters don't turn out but, given one and two, there is a risk Labour gets sideswiped especially if the economy picks up (which it is likely to do).

However, there is one point I think will trump this.

For most people, the last four years have seen multiple cataclysmic events hit them one after the other - Covid, inflation, war in Ukraine and now the Middle East. What happened last year or 18 months ago might as well be another century.

And that means nothing is fixed with people likely to be very volatile in their opinions. No one is even thinking of the election right now. Sure, they may hate the Tories now but if the economy improves and they still uncertain about Starmer, it could look very different in 12 months time. Just over two years ago, we were seriously considering SKS having to step down if Labour lost Batley and Spen. That sort of volatility never happened in the early 1990s.

Will I put money on a Conservative majority? Possibly. But God knows where we will stand next year.

Alanbrooke

TimS said:

I concur with JosiasJessop's "why not both" question but nonetheless the suggestions are all sensible and things we are in most cases already doing, just not enough.

What this needs in addition though is how can the UK grasp the huge opportunities to compete in the decarbonised economy, and to do this requires intelligent government investment and regulation, business investment supported by incentives, and a globally minded approach to the issue of climate change that plugs us into the supply chains of the future. Otherwise we end up just importing everything, again.

Renewable energy is one example where we can become a technology and services exporter, but there are big opportunities in wider green tech and energy efficiency, automotive and other transportation, and green finance, all of which should be actively supported and marketed. And yes it also requires us to show commitment to global targets on net zero.

Thankfully only one Daily Mail talking point made it on to this header and that's the old heat pump thing. If our entire net zero strategy were forcing everyone on to heat pumps then there might be a point here, but they are eminently sensible ways of reducing energy usage, combined with insulation and draught exclusion. They are just the norm now in many European countries. I'm fitting an ASHP in our house in France, which comes complete with uninsulated exposed stone walls, and I expect it to work just fine as do my various neighbours' heat pumps.

Weve touched on new opportunities over the last few days but regrettably I dont see that many. Wind and Solar are technologies where we dont have leadership. I can see possibilities in mini nuclear and tidal but at present we are letting these fall by the wayside.

bondegezou

Alanbrooke said:

bondegezou said:

So, to summarise, we shouldn’t have a Net Zero programme. We should just do exactly the same things as a Net Zero programme…?

Perhaps you cold point me to where we have a comprehensive flood defence programme of where we are build mini power stations.

Those are minor parts of your plan, but, sure, I agree with your criticism of the current Government. They are terrible at long-term investment and planning and I look forward to their forthcoming electoral defeat.

What you describe seems, broadly, sensible to me. What you describe looks like a Net Zero programme to me. Note “a” programme, not the current Govt’s programme, but what you describe is a programme that would get us to Net Zero while also mitigating some of the consequences of climate change. The main difference between your plan and most environmental campaigners’ is that you have decoupled your plan from the phrase “Net Zero”.

williamglenn

148grss said:

Alanbrooke said:

JosiasJessop said:

That a good list, thanks Mr Brooke. I'd also add the need to ensure as much energy independence as possible is vital.

But... why not do both? D the list above *and* move towards net zero?

Oh. and first. If this thread survives...

I doubt we have the money. But if the investment side is handled correctly some of the projects will meet your goal of doing two things in tandem.

I never understand the "we don't have the money" argument when it comes to the environment. If we don't invest in a green future there will not be a future. Also, money isn't real! So, if a government with control over its own currency (like the UK) decides it wants to shift its economy to go big on green (in a similar manner as "wartime" economies shift) then we could do that. Would it change a lot of things, yes - but not necessarily negatively. It's just that the British political consensus is that government shouldn't be allowed to do things that could possibly make the world a better place. That we're behind even the US on this (who are investing huge amounts into green infrastructure) is telling about the myopic nature of British political foresight.

How do you interpret this chart?

OnlyLivingBoy

Shouldn't our focus be on solving worldwide problems, because worldwide problems are also our problems?

148grss

This story is pretty outrageous:

https://www.tortoisemedia.com/2023/10/30/british-police-testing-women-for-abortion-drugs/

British police are testing women for abortion drugs and requesting data from menstrual tracking apps after unexplained pregnancy losses.

I bet if you asked the random person on the street they would assume that abortion was just legal in this country - and would also say this is not a particularly good use of limited police resources.

Selebian

bondegezou said:

So, to summarise, we shouldn’t have a Net Zero programme. We should just do exactly the same things as a Net Zero programme…?

Was just posting the same when I thought to check other posts. Nothing to object to here from me (question mark over the RR reactors where I'd want to be convinced of the case versus the traditional designs - I can see some benefits but also some potential costs; I haven't looked closely and don't have a settled view as yet).

Alanbrooke

bondegezou said:

Alanbrooke said:

bondegezou said:

So, to summarise, we shouldn’t have a Net Zero programme. We should just do exactly the same things as a Net Zero programme…?

Perhaps you cold point me to where we have a comprehensive flood defence programme of where we are build mini power stations.

Those are minor parts of your plan, but, sure, I agree with your criticism of the current Government. They are terrible at long-term investment and planning and I look forward to their forthcoming electoral defeat.

What you describe seems, broadly, sensible to me. What you describe looks like a Net Zero programme to me. Note “a” programme, not the current Govt’s programme, but what you describe is a programme that would get us to Net Zero while also mitigating some of the consequences of climate change. The main difference between your plan and most environmental campaigners’ is that you have decoupled your plan from the phrase “Net Zero”.

Net zero is a subset of what is proposed. As I have stated it will happen anyway our priority imo is to mitigate against the risks we can see.

Alanbrooke

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Shouldn't our focus be on solving worldwide problems, because worldwide problems are also our problems?

That only works if everyone else agrees. Were talking net zero 2050, China 2060 and India 2070. The world wants to solve the problem at a different pace than us.

148grss

williamglenn said:

148grss said:

Alanbrooke said:

JosiasJessop said:

That a good list, thanks Mr Brooke. I'd also add the need to ensure as much energy independence as possible is vital.

But... why not do both? D the list above *and* move towards net zero?

Oh. and first. If this thread survives...

I doubt we have the money. But if the investment side is handled correctly some of the projects will meet your goal of doing two things in tandem.

I never understand the "we don't have the money" argument when it comes to the environment. If we don't invest in a green future there will not be a future. Also, money isn't real! So, if a government with control over its own currency (like the UK) decides it wants to shift its economy to go big on green (in a similar manner as "wartime" economies shift) then we could do that. Would it change a lot of things, yes - but not necessarily negatively. It's just that the British political consensus is that government shouldn't be allowed to do things that could possibly make the world a better place. That we're behind even the US on this (who are investing huge amounts into green infrastructure) is telling about the myopic nature of British political foresight.

How do you interpret this chart?

That the UK is not a large fossil fuel producing economy, and is successfully outsourcing much of our CO2 that we consume to other countries. As consumers, the UK uses a lot of CO2 - but because the products are made in other countries it is on their books, not ours.

numbertwelve

148grss said:

Alanbrooke said:

JosiasJessop said:

That a good list, thanks Mr Brooke. I'd also add the need to ensure as much energy independence as possible is vital.

But... why not do both? D the list above *and* move towards net zero?

Oh. and first. If this thread survives...

I doubt we have the money. But if the investment side is handled correctly some of the projects will meet your goal of doing two things in tandem.

I never understand the "we don't have the money" argument when it comes to the environment. If we don't invest in a green future there will not be a future. Also, money isn't real! So, if a government with control over its own currency (like the UK) decides it wants to shift its economy to go big on green (in a similar manner as "wartime" economies shift) then we could do that. Would it change a lot of things, yes - but not necessarily negatively. It's just that the British political consensus is that government shouldn't be allowed to do things that could possibly make the world a better place. That we're behind even the US on this (who are investing huge amounts into green infrastructure) is telling about the myopic nature of British political foresight.

“Shouldn’t be allowed to do things that could possibly make the world a better place” is a rather sweeping statement and I actually think is quite unfair on most (but not all) of our politicians. Call me naive, but I think many do want to make the world better - they just have different outlooks in terms of doing so. One of the most fundamental being that we live in a global economic/financial system that values confidence above all else.

I do think British politicians major too much in the “there’s no money” excuse. There is the possibility to steer the economy into one geared up to greater investment and growth in new technologies. The key thing is being able to sell it to the markets. This is where (on the other side of the spectrum) Liz Truss fell down.

tlg86

A Leicester City player tweets...

https://twitter.com/HamzaChoudhury1/status/1718922617409655174

Hamza Choudhury
@HamzaChoudhury1
From river to sea…🇵🇸

Selebian

TimS said:

I concur with JosiasJessop's "why not both" question but nonetheless the suggestions are all sensible and things we are in most cases already doing, just not enough.

What this needs in addition though is how can the UK grasp the huge opportunities to compete in the decarbonised economy, and to do this requires intelligent government investment and regulation, business investment supported by incentives, and a globally minded approach to the issue of climate change that plugs us into the supply chains of the future. Otherwise we end up just importing everything, again.

Renewable energy is one example where we can become a technology and services exporter, but there are big opportunities in wider green tech and energy efficiency, automotive and other transportation, and green finance, all of which should be actively supported and marketed. And yes it also requires us to show commitment to global targets on net zero.

Thankfully only one Daily Mail talking point made it on to this header and that's the old heat pump thing. If our entire net zero strategy were forcing everyone on to heat pumps then there might be a point here, but they are eminently sensible ways of reducing energy usage, combined with insulation and draught exclusion. They are just the norm now in many European countries. I'm fitting an ASHP in our house in France, which comes complete with uninsulated exposed stone walls, and I expect it to work just fine as do my various neighbours' heat pumps.

On heat pumps, the high temp versions now becoming available counter some of the problems around poor insulation (where this is not easily upgraded) and the need to switch to larger heat exchangers (bigger radiators or underfloor setups). Lower efficiency, but - as always - it's a trade-off between less upfront cost/disruption and longer term savings.

Selebian

williamglenn said:

148grss said:

Alanbrooke said:

JosiasJessop said:

That a good list, thanks Mr Brooke. I'd also add the need to ensure as much energy independence as possible is vital.

But... why not do both? D the list above *and* move towards net zero?

Oh. and first. If this thread survives...

I doubt we have the money. But if the investment side is handled correctly some of the projects will meet your goal of doing two things in tandem.

I never understand the "we don't have the money" argument when it comes to the environment. If we don't invest in a green future there will not be a future. Also, money isn't real! So, if a government with control over its own currency (like the UK) decides it wants to shift its economy to go big on green (in a similar manner as "wartime" economies shift) then we could do that. Would it change a lot of things, yes - but not necessarily negatively. It's just that the British political consensus is that government shouldn't be allowed to do things that could possibly make the world a better place. That we're behind even the US on this (who are investing huge amounts into green infrastructure) is telling about the myopic nature of British political foresight.

How do you interpret this chart?

Easy. Gordon Brown Global financial crashes are the key to reducing G7 GHG emissions

148grss

Alanbrooke said:

148grss said:

Alanbrooke said:

JosiasJessop said:

That a good list, thanks Mr Brooke. I'd also add the need to ensure as much energy independence as possible is vital.

But... why not do both? D the list above *and* move towards net zero?

Oh. and first. If this thread survives...

I doubt we have the money. But if the investment side is handled correctly some of the projects will meet your goal of doing two things in tandem.

I never understand the "we don't have the money" argument when it comes to the environment. If we don't invest in a green future there will not be a future. Also, money isn't real! So, if a government with control over its own currency (like the UK) decides it wants to shift its economy to go big on green (in a similar manner as "wartime" economies shift) then we could do that. Would it change a lot of things, yes - but not necessarily negatively. It's just that the British political consensus is that government shouldn't be allowed to do things that could possibly make the world a better place. That we're behind even the US on this (who are investing huge amounts into green infrastructure) is telling about the myopic nature of British political foresight.

Some fair points, but we dont actually have much in the pipeline on bio diversity, and while you dont think money is an issue there are a lot of people who do. If we had money as no option we could buy everything at once but Ive yet to see a country that can do that over the long term.

I'm not saying that money isn't a problem - money is an expression of our ability to leverage labour value. We could, as government policy, leverage labour value for ecologically productive things - government could decide to shift the incentives for where labour should be focussed to improve biodiversity, for example. Paying for everything from PR campaigns about why wild flowers and "weeds" are good, all the way up to doing rewilding and breeding programs for at risk animals. Government could buy up land and just leave it to go wild. Tree planting is the only example government likes to talk about (because people like trees), and is not actually that significant an act (at the moment, because saplings don't remove as much CO2 from the atmosphere as larger older trees, and we're typically replacing older larger well established trees with saplings)

Alanbrooke

Selebian said:

TimS said:

I concur with JosiasJessop's "why not both" question but nonetheless the suggestions are all sensible and things we are in most cases already doing, just not enough.

What this needs in addition though is how can the UK grasp the huge opportunities to compete in the decarbonised economy, and to do this requires intelligent government investment and regulation, business investment supported by incentives, and a globally minded approach to the issue of climate change that plugs us into the supply chains of the future. Otherwise we end up just importing everything, again.

Renewable energy is one example where we can become a technology and services exporter, but there are big opportunities in wider green tech and energy efficiency, automotive and other transportation, and green finance, all of which should be actively supported and marketed. And yes it also requires us to show commitment to global targets on net zero.

Thankfully only one Daily Mail talking point made it on to this header and that's the old heat pump thing. If our entire net zero strategy were forcing everyone on to heat pumps then there might be a point here, but they are eminently sensible ways of reducing energy usage, combined with insulation and draught exclusion. They are just the norm now in many European countries. I'm fitting an ASHP in our house in France, which comes complete with uninsulated exposed stone walls, and I expect it to work just fine as do my various neighbours' heat pumps.

On heat pumps, the high temp versions now becoming available counter some of the problems around poor insulation (where this is not easily upgraded) and the need to switch to larger heat exchangers (bigger radiators or underfloor setups). Lower efficiency, but - as always - it's a trade-off between less upfront cost/disruption and longer term savings.

I am looking to change my bolier. I dont want to buy a heat pump. My next doot neighbour has one and doesnt sing its praises. But more importantly I hardly ever put the heat on, I put on an extra jumper. So I see no reason to be forced in to spending a large amount of money for something which has no benefit. I'd rather spend the money on something else.

malcolmg

148grss said:

Alanbrooke said:

JosiasJessop said:

That a good list, thanks Mr Brooke. I'd also add the need to ensure as much energy independence as possible is vital.

But... why not do both? D the list above *and* move towards net zero?

Oh. and first. If this thread survives...

I doubt we have the money. But if the investment side is handled correctly some of the projects will meet your goal of doing two things in tandem.

I never understand the "we don't have the money" argument when it comes to the environment. If we don't invest in a green future there will not be a future. Also, money isn't real! So, if a government with control over its own currency (like the UK) decides it wants to shift its economy to go big on green (in a similar manner as "wartime" economies shift) then we could do that. Would it change a lot of things, yes - but not necessarily negatively. It's just that the British political consensus is that government shouldn't be allowed to do things that could possibly make the world a better place. That we're behind even the US on this (who are investing huge amounts into green infrastructure) is telling about the myopic nature of British political foresight.

Are you as daft as you make out, they have to borrow or print money, both of which they have already done far too much of. Bit like saying when you are in debt up to your piehole and struggling to pay te hinterest, you decide to go out and get another loan you cannot pay. On e of these idiot Labour Money Tree twonks.

malcolmg

148grss said:

williamglenn said:

148grss said:

Alanbrooke said:

JosiasJessop said:

That a good list, thanks Mr Brooke. I'd also add the need to ensure as much energy independence as possible is vital.

But... why not do both? D the list above *and* move towards net zero?

Oh. and first. If this thread survives...

I doubt we have the money. But if the investment side is handled correctly some of the projects will meet your goal of doing two things in tandem.

I never understand the "we don't have the money" argument when it comes to the environment. If we don't invest in a green future there will not be a future. Also, money isn't real! So, if a government with control over its own currency (like the UK) decides it wants to shift its economy to go big on green (in a similar manner as "wartime" economies shift) then we could do that. Would it change a lot of things, yes - but not necessarily negatively. It's just that the British political consensus is that government shouldn't be allowed to do things that could possibly make the world a better place. That we're behind even the US on this (who are investing huge amounts into green infrastructure) is telling about the myopic nature of British political foresight.

How do you interpret this chart?

That the UK is not a large fossil fuel producing economy, and is successfully outsourcing much of our CO2 that we consume to other countries. As consumers, the UK uses a lot of CO2 - but because the products are made in other countries it is on their books, not ours.

You are as thick as you make out I see, it just means we pay for their CO2 reduction as well, are you in primary school.

Casino_Royale

Net Zero has a branding problem amongst certain constituencies. Because it's seen to all be about wearing a hair shirt. And plenty can't help preaching about it along those lines.

If it was pitching in terms of saving you money, environmental cleanliness and enhancing quality of life and safety for you and your family it might get quite a different reaction.

Daveyboy1961

Nothing in the thread header which I disagree with at all. Not sure of the costs though, I'm sure they are ball-park though. I wonder if we would need to take into home control all energy production methods so that we aren't forced to pay international energy costs as we are now.

OnlyLivingBoy

Alanbrooke said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Shouldn't our focus be on solving worldwide problems, because worldwide problems are also our problems?

That only works if everyone else agrees. Were talking net zero 2050, China 2060 and India 2070. The world wants to solve the problem at a different pace than us.

Indian's per capita emissions are about 40% of ours and they are still a poor country that is trying to lift millions out of poverty so it doesn't seem unreasonable to me that they have a bit longer to get there. China has become the world's workshop and so it will be harder for them to cut their emissions, too. In some areas, like solar or EV take-up, they are doing pretty well - I wouldn't characterise them as dragging their feet. The whole world needs to act and I think it's fair that rich countries that have been the main drivers of CO2 emissions historically should set themselves more demanding targets, as long as everyone acts to an appropriate timeline.

Alanbrooke

148grss said:

Alanbrooke said:

148grss said:

Alanbrooke said:

JosiasJessop said:

That a good list, thanks Mr Brooke. I'd also add the need to ensure as much energy independence as possible is vital.

But... why not do both? D the list above *and* move towards net zero?

Oh. and first. If this thread survives...

I doubt we have the money. But if the investment side is handled correctly some of the projects will meet your goal of doing two things in tandem.

I never understand the "we don't have the money" argument when it comes to the environment. If we don't invest in a green future there will not be a future. Also, money isn't real! So, if a government with control over its own currency (like the UK) decides it wants to shift its economy to go big on green (in a similar manner as "wartime" economies shift) then we could do that. Would it change a lot of things, yes - but not necessarily negatively. It's just that the British political consensus is that government shouldn't be allowed to do things that could possibly make the world a better place. That we're behind even the US on this (who are investing huge amounts into green infrastructure) is telling about the myopic nature of British political foresight.

Some fair points, but we dont actually have much in the pipeline on bio diversity, and while you dont think money is an issue there are a lot of people who do. If we had money as no option we could buy everything at once but Ive yet to see a country that can do that over the long term.

I'm not saying that money isn't a problem - money is an expression of our ability to leverage labour value. We could, as government policy, leverage labour value for ecologically productive things - government could decide to shift the incentives for where labour should be focussed to improve biodiversity, for example. Paying for everything from PR campaigns about why wild flowers and "weeds" are good, all the way up to doing rewilding and breeding programs for at risk animals. Government could buy up land and just leave it to go wild. Tree planting is the only example government likes to talk about (because people like trees), and is not actually that significant an act (at the moment, because saplings don't remove as much CO2 from the atmosphere as larger older trees, and we're typically replacing older larger well established trees with saplings)

The government should but up land and put it in a national reserve. You are correct that in the short term there wont be much impact on carbon. But there will be an impact on wild life and bio diversity.

I am currently fortunate enough to live inside a major woodland programme

https://heartofenglandforest.org/

I have watched the various elements of the forest mature and there is already a significant recovery in wildlife as the trees grow. Id rather see this approach than subsidising farmers.
Let the farmers produce food thats their job and if we want to protect our wildlife do it properly.

Taz

Selebian said:

TimS said:

I concur with JosiasJessop's "why not both" question but nonetheless the suggestions are all sensible and things we are in most cases already doing, just not enough.

What this needs in addition though is how can the UK grasp the huge opportunities to compete in the decarbonised economy, and to do this requires intelligent government investment and regulation, business investment supported by incentives, and a globally minded approach to the issue of climate change that plugs us into the supply chains of the future. Otherwise we end up just importing everything, again.

Renewable energy is one example where we can become a technology and services exporter, but there are big opportunities in wider green tech and energy efficiency, automotive and other transportation, and green finance, all of which should be actively supported and marketed. And yes it also requires us to show commitment to global targets on net zero.

Thankfully only one Daily Mail talking point made it on to this header and that's the old heat pump thing. If our entire net zero strategy were forcing everyone on to heat pumps then there might be a point here, but they are eminently sensible ways of reducing energy usage, combined with insulation and draught exclusion. They are just the norm now in many European countries. I'm fitting an ASHP in our house in France, which comes complete with uninsulated exposed stone walls, and I expect it to work just fine as do my various neighbours' heat pumps.

On heat pumps, the high temp versions now becoming available counter some of the problems around poor insulation (where this is not easily upgraded) and the need to switch to larger heat exchangers (bigger radiators or underfloor setups). Lower efficiency, but - as always - it's a trade-off between less upfront cost/disruption and longer term savings.

I don’t need to change now but what puts me off a heat pump is the additional cost to replace radiators and pipes as my pipework is quite small, around 10mm.

If this changes with technology advancing I’d be amenable to it.

JosiasJessop

Alanbrooke said:

TimS said:

I concur with JosiasJessop's "why not both" question but nonetheless the suggestions are all sensible and things we are in most cases already doing, just not enough.

What this needs in addition though is how can the UK grasp the huge opportunities to compete in the decarbonised economy, and to do this requires intelligent government investment and regulation, business investment supported by incentives, and a globally minded approach to the issue of climate change that plugs us into the supply chains of the future. Otherwise we end up just importing everything, again.

Renewable energy is one example where we can become a technology and services exporter, but there are big opportunities in wider green tech and energy efficiency, automotive and other transportation, and green finance, all of which should be actively supported and marketed. And yes it also requires us to show commitment to global targets on net zero.

Thankfully only one Daily Mail talking point made it on to this header and that's the old heat pump thing. If our entire net zero strategy were forcing everyone on to heat pumps then there might be a point here, but they are eminently sensible ways of reducing energy usage, combined with insulation and draught exclusion. They are just the norm now in many European countries. I'm fitting an ASHP in our house in France, which comes complete with uninsulated exposed stone walls, and I expect it to work just fine as do my various neighbours' heat pumps.

Weve touched on new opportunities over the last few days but regrettably I dont see that many. Wind and Solar are technologies where we dont have leadership. I can see possibilities in mini nuclear and tidal but at present we are letting these fall by the wayside.

You might be interested in this (paywalled, sadly):

https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/new-turbine-blade-design-aims-to-reduce-cost-of-tidal-power-25-10-2023/

JosiasJessop

TheScreamingEagles said:

First. Kinda

I'm so utterly awesome that I was first by a day...

Alanbrooke

Taz said:

Selebian said:

TimS said:

I concur with JosiasJessop's "why not both" question but nonetheless the suggestions are all sensible and things we are in most cases already doing, just not enough.

What this needs in addition though is how can the UK grasp the huge opportunities to compete in the decarbonised economy, and to do this requires intelligent government investment and regulation, business investment supported by incentives, and a globally minded approach to the issue of climate change that plugs us into the supply chains of the future. Otherwise we end up just importing everything, again.

Renewable energy is one example where we can become a technology and services exporter, but there are big opportunities in wider green tech and energy efficiency, automotive and other transportation, and green finance, all of which should be actively supported and marketed. And yes it also requires us to show commitment to global targets on net zero.

Thankfully only one Daily Mail talking point made it on to this header and that's the old heat pump thing. If our entire net zero strategy were forcing everyone on to heat pumps then there might be a point here, but they are eminently sensible ways of reducing energy usage, combined with insulation and draught exclusion. They are just the norm now in many European countries. I'm fitting an ASHP in our house in France, which comes complete with uninsulated exposed stone walls, and I expect it to work just fine as do my various neighbours' heat pumps.

On heat pumps, the high temp versions now becoming available counter some of the problems around poor insulation (where this is not easily upgraded) and the need to switch to larger heat exchangers (bigger radiators or underfloor setups). Lower efficiency, but - as always - it's a trade-off between less upfront cost/disruption and longer term savings.

I don’t need to change now but what puts me off a heat pump is the additional cost to replace radiators and pipes as my pipework is quite small, around 10mm.

If this changes with technology advancing I’d be amenable to it.

Snap. The hassle for me is all the other things I have to do. And this is for a system which wont actually do anything for me.

Alanbrooke

JosiasJessop said:

Alanbrooke said:

TimS said:

I concur with JosiasJessop's "why not both" question but nonetheless the suggestions are all sensible and things we are in most cases already doing, just not enough.

What this needs in addition though is how can the UK grasp the huge opportunities to compete in the decarbonised economy, and to do this requires intelligent government investment and regulation, business investment supported by incentives, and a globally minded approach to the issue of climate change that plugs us into the supply chains of the future. Otherwise we end up just importing everything, again.

Renewable energy is one example where we can become a technology and services exporter, but there are big opportunities in wider green tech and energy efficiency, automotive and other transportation, and green finance, all of which should be actively supported and marketed. And yes it also requires us to show commitment to global targets on net zero.

Thankfully only one Daily Mail talking point made it on to this header and that's the old heat pump thing. If our entire net zero strategy were forcing everyone on to heat pumps then there might be a point here, but they are eminently sensible ways of reducing energy usage, combined with insulation and draught exclusion. They are just the norm now in many European countries. I'm fitting an ASHP in our house in France, which comes complete with uninsulated exposed stone walls, and I expect it to work just fine as do my various neighbours' heat pumps.

Weve touched on new opportunities over the last few days but regrettably I dont see that many. Wind and Solar are technologies where we dont have leadership. I can see possibilities in mini nuclear and tidal but at present we are letting these fall by the wayside.

You might be interested in this (paywalled, sadly):

https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/new-turbine-blade-design-aims-to-reduce-cost-of-tidal-power-25-10-2023/

Thanks. I do see tidal as an area where the UK could create some leading technologies,

NickPalmer

Alanbrooke has found a pretty broad consensus on this with his interesting header. Like most I'd want to see the detailed figures but I think most people would sign up for that sort of programme.

Casino's point about branding is relevant - lots of people are actually in agreement with what needs to be done, but put off by slogans like Net Zero wich give too broad a front for tabloids and contrarians to attack. Much the same happened with 15 minute cities, which in essence is an objective which almost nobody would disagree with ("cites should aim for everyone to be able to reach shops and services on foot or cycling within 15 minutes"), but which was cheerfully misinterpreted by our PM.

Ratters

Regarding Mike Pence dropping out... the Republican field isn't as wide as I thought - there are 9 candidates remaining officially, nearly 3 months before the first vote:

- Ryan Binkley (who?) hasn't qualified for any debates
- Asa Hutchinson didn't qualify for the last debate and isn't on track to do so for the next one
- Doug Burgum and Tim Scott have not yet qualified for the third debate in just over a week's time due to falling short in the polls

If these four drop out then we're down to Trump, DeSantis, Haley, Ramaswamy and Christie. And Trump doesn't take part in debates so it starts to become a much more manageable field.

Admittedly, Trump is so far ahead in the polls that it's hard to imagine what would change the minds of Republican voters, but I wouldn't rule out the opposition consolidating over time.

numbertwelve

Casino_Royale said:

Net Zero has a branding problem amongst certain constituencies. Because it's seen to all be about wearing a hair shirt. And plenty can't help preaching about it along those lines.

If it was pitching in terms of saving you money, environmental cleanliness and enhancing quality of life and safety for you and your family it might get quite a different reaction.

Spot on.

But it isn’t just the messaging and the PR - it’s the actual role of government. If left to the market, the costs will fall on ordinary people. What government should be doing is investing and directing the flow. As someone who is generally a small state supporter, I feel quite amazed to hear myself saying this, but I do now believe there are certain issues where more government is a good thing, particularly where significant change is afoot, and this is one of those areas.

kyf_100

Casino_Royale said:

Net Zero has a branding problem amongst certain constituencies. Because it's seen to all be about wearing a hair shirt. And plenty can't help preaching about it along those lines.

If it was pitching in terms of saving you money, environmental cleanliness and enhancing quality of life and safety for you and your family it might get quite a different reaction.

We need to cease thinking about how to get to net zero (hint: we won't get there) and start making plans for what happens when we don't.

That involves a mixture of food and energy security, flood defences and the like, and of course a change to immigration policy when 25% of the world's farmland becomes untenable and mass migration when people from developing countries decide to come somewhere a bit more temperate (and more politically tolerant).

Those are the big questions. Heat pumps are not.

148grss

malcolmg said:

148grss said:

williamglenn said:

148grss said:

Alanbrooke said:

JosiasJessop said:

That a good list, thanks Mr Brooke. I'd also add the need to ensure as much energy independence as possible is vital.

But... why not do both? D the list above *and* move towards net zero?

Oh. and first. If this thread survives...

I doubt we have the money. But if the investment side is handled correctly some of the projects will meet your goal of doing two things in tandem.

I never understand the "we don't have the money" argument when it comes to the environment. If we don't invest in a green future there will not be a future. Also, money isn't real! So, if a government with control over its own currency (like the UK) decides it wants to shift its economy to go big on green (in a similar manner as "wartime" economies shift) then we could do that. Would it change a lot of things, yes - but not necessarily negatively. It's just that the British political consensus is that government shouldn't be allowed to do things that could possibly make the world a better place. That we're behind even the US on this (who are investing huge amounts into green infrastructure) is telling about the myopic nature of British political foresight.

How do you interpret this chart?

That the UK is not a large fossil fuel producing economy, and is successfully outsourcing much of our CO2 that we consume to other countries. As consumers, the UK uses a lot of CO2 - but because the products are made in other countries it is on their books, not ours.

You are as thick as you make out I see, it just means we pay for their CO2 reduction as well, are you in primary school.

If in the long term the CO2 intensive methods of production do not change, and they're just off shored to the global south - how does that solve it? We need to change production methods and offshoring things (to maximise profits for private companies) will not do that.

Alanbrooke

NickPalmer said:

Alanbrooke has found a pretty broad consensus on this with his interesting header. Like most I'd want to see the detailed figures but I think most people would sign up for that sort of programme.

Casino's point about branding is relevant - lots of people are actually in agreement with what needs to be done, but put off by slogans like Net Zero wich give too broad a front for tabloids and contrarians to attack. Much the same happened with 15 minute cities, which in essence is an objective which almost nobody would disagree with ("cites should aim for everyone to be able to reach shops and services on foot or cycling within 15 minutes"), but which was cheerfully misinterpreted by our PM.

Thanks Nick.

One of the things I think people lose track of is older folk are as interested in the future as the younger ones. I have three children, one grandchild and another on the way. It is silly to think I dont want to be sure they have a secure future. It should be the duty of every generation to leave the country in a better state than we found it. Somewhere along the way we have lost sight of that.

148grss

Ratters said:

Regarding Mike Pence dropping out... the Republican field isn't as wide as I thought - there are 9 candidates remaining officially, nearly 3 months before the first vote:

- Ryan Binkley (who?) hasn't qualified for any debates
- Asa Hutchinson didn't qualify for the last debate and isn't on track to do so for the next one
- Doug Burgum and Tim Scott have not yet qualified for the third debate in just over a week's time due to falling short in the polls

If these four drop out then we're down to Trump, DeSantis, Haley, Ramaswamy and Christie. And Trump doesn't take part in debates so it starts to become a much more manageable field.

Admittedly, Trump is so far ahead in the polls that it's hard to imagine what would change the minds of Republican voters, but I wouldn't rule out the opposition consolidating over time.

I mean, if GOP candidates want to sincerely beat Trump, they need to drop out sooner rather than later and coalesce around a candidate. Some think that should be DeSantis, others thing Haley, etc.

It could easily be that the lack of leadership from other GOP officials makes the permission structure to support Trump that much easier.

Alanbrooke

148grss said:

malcolmg said:

148grss said:

williamglenn said:

148grss said:

Alanbrooke said:

JosiasJessop said:

That a good list, thanks Mr Brooke. I'd also add the need to ensure as much energy independence as possible is vital.

But... why not do both? D the list above *and* move towards net zero?

Oh. and first. If this thread survives...

I doubt we have the money. But if the investment side is handled correctly some of the projects will meet your goal of doing two things in tandem.

I never understand the "we don't have the money" argument when it comes to the environment. If we don't invest in a green future there will not be a future. Also, money isn't real! So, if a government with control over its own currency (like the UK) decides it wants to shift its economy to go big on green (in a similar manner as "wartime" economies shift) then we could do that. Would it change a lot of things, yes - but not necessarily negatively. It's just that the British political consensus is that government shouldn't be allowed to do things that could possibly make the world a better place. That we're behind even the US on this (who are investing huge amounts into green infrastructure) is telling about the myopic nature of British political foresight.

How do you interpret this chart?

That the UK is not a large fossil fuel producing economy, and is successfully outsourcing much of our CO2 that we consume to other countries. As consumers, the UK uses a lot of CO2 - but because the products are made in other countries it is on their books, not ours.

You are as thick as you make out I see, it just means we pay for their CO2 reduction as well, are you in primary school.

If in the long term the CO2 intensive methods of production do not change, and they're just off shored to the global south - how does that solve it? We need to change production methods and offshoring things (to maximise profits for private companies) will not do that.

thats the argument @another_richard and myself have been advancing for years - comsumption is consumption and I prefer to see products made in this country where we can see how were doing it and take action when needed.

In a similar vein ( coming back to plastics ) we should ban the export of UK. There no point sending things to third world countries and forgetting about it. Its our waste and we should clean it up ourselves,

williamglenn

Ratters said:

Regarding Mike Pence dropping out... the Republican field isn't as wide as I thought - there are 9 candidates remaining officially, nearly 3 months before the first vote:

- Ryan Binkley (who?) hasn't qualified for any debates
- Asa Hutchinson didn't qualify for the last debate and isn't on track to do so for the next one
- Doug Burgum and Tim Scott have not yet qualified for the third debate in just over a week's time due to falling short in the polls

If these four drop out then we're down to Trump, DeSantis, Haley, Ramaswamy and Christie. And Trump doesn't take part in debates so it starts to become a much more manageable field.

Admittedly, Trump is so far ahead in the polls that it's hard to imagine what would change the minds of Republican voters, but I wouldn't rule out the opposition consolidating over time.

At the moment it looks like Haley is the only one with an outside chance. She also has the best polling against Biden, which might help her if she gets some momentum.

Nigelb

williamglenn said:

148grss said:

Alanbrooke said:

JosiasJessop said:

That a good list, thanks Mr Brooke. I'd also add the need to ensure as much energy independence as possible is vital.

But... why not do both? D the list above *and* move towards net zero?

Oh. and first. If this thread survives...

I doubt we have the money. But if the investment side is handled correctly some of the projects will meet your goal of doing two things in tandem.

I never understand the "we don't have the money" argument when it comes to the environment. If we don't invest in a green future there will not be a future. Also, money isn't real! So, if a government with control over its own currency (like the UK) decides it wants to shift its economy to go big on green (in a similar manner as "wartime" economies shift) then we could do that. Would it change a lot of things, yes - but not necessarily negatively. It's just that the British political consensus is that government shouldn't be allowed to do things that could possibly make the world a better place. That we're behind even the US on this (who are investing huge amounts into green infrastructure) is telling about the myopic nature of British political foresight.

How do you interpret this chart?

We stopped using coal.

Next question ?

Malmesbury

148grss said:

This story is pretty outrageous:

https://www.tortoisemedia.com/2023/10/30/british-police-testing-women-for-abortion-drugs/

British police are testing women for abortion drugs and requesting data from menstrual tracking apps after unexplained pregnancy losses.

I bet if you asked the random person on the street they would assume that abortion was just legal in this country - and would also say this is not a particularly good use of limited police resources.

WTAF

Selebian

Alanbrooke said:

Selebian said:

TimS said:

I concur with JosiasJessop's "why not both" question but nonetheless the suggestions are all sensible and things we are in most cases already doing, just not enough.

What this needs in addition though is how can the UK grasp the huge opportunities to compete in the decarbonised economy, and to do this requires intelligent government investment and regulation, business investment supported by incentives, and a globally minded approach to the issue of climate change that plugs us into the supply chains of the future. Otherwise we end up just importing everything, again.

Renewable energy is one example where we can become a technology and services exporter, but there are big opportunities in wider green tech and energy efficiency, automotive and other transportation, and green finance, all of which should be actively supported and marketed. And yes it also requires us to show commitment to global targets on net zero.

Thankfully only one Daily Mail talking point made it on to this header and that's the old heat pump thing. If our entire net zero strategy were forcing everyone on to heat pumps then there might be a point here, but they are eminently sensible ways of reducing energy usage, combined with insulation and draught exclusion. They are just the norm now in many European countries. I'm fitting an ASHP in our house in France, which comes complete with uninsulated exposed stone walls, and I expect it to work just fine as do my various neighbours' heat pumps.

On heat pumps, the high temp versions now becoming available counter some of the problems around poor insulation (where this is not easily upgraded) and the need to switch to larger heat exchangers (bigger radiators or underfloor setups). Lower efficiency, but - as always - it's a trade-off between less upfront cost/disruption and longer term savings.

I am looking to change my bolier. I dont want to buy a heat pump. My next doot neighbour has one and doesnt sing its praises. But more importantly I hardly ever put the heat on, I put on an extra jumper. So I see no reason to be forced in to spending a large amount of money for something which has no benefit. I'd rather spend the money on something else.

Many heat pumps have been mis-sold, I think. The low temperature ones only really make sense in new or very much upgraded buildings (I've spent time in both with heat pumps and they've been great, but with poor insulation it's going to suck).

If your heat use is very low, you might be better off with a simple electric boiler (solar linked potentially, with a hot tank).

Malmesbury

kyf_100 said:

Casino_Royale said:

Net Zero has a branding problem amongst certain constituencies. Because it's seen to all be about wearing a hair shirt. And plenty can't help preaching about it along those lines.

If it was pitching in terms of saving you money, environmental cleanliness and enhancing quality of life and safety for you and your family it might get quite a different reaction.

We need to cease thinking about how to get to net zero (hint: we won't get there) and start making plans for what happens when we don't.

That involves a mixture of food and energy security, flood defences and the like, and of course a change to immigration policy when 25% of the world's farmland becomes untenable and mass migration when people from developing countries decide to come somewhere a bit more temperate (and more politically tolerant).

Those are the big questions. Heat pumps are not.

I think we will hit net zero. The question is when. Land transport is in the way. Steel production and concrete production are next up. Aviation is coming along (bio fuel and electric)

The only question is by what date?

Nigelb

NickPalmer said:

Alanbrooke has found a pretty broad consensus on this with his interesting header. Like most I'd want to see the detailed figures but I think most people would sign up for that sort of programme.

Casino's point about branding is relevant - lots of people are actually in agreement with what needs to be done, but put off by slogans like Net Zero wich give too broad a front for tabloids and contrarians to attack. Much the same happened with 15 minute cities, which in essence is an objective which almost nobody would disagree with ("cites should aim for everyone to be able to reach shops and services on foot or cycling within 15 minutes"), but which was cheerfully misinterpreted by our PM.

You'd have to do some number crunching, but most of the stuff in the header (excepting the details of what energy mix we choose) is going to be necessary anyway for net zero.

On sector he doesn't mention is transport (currently responsible for around a quarter of our CO2 emissions). The future of that is where any planning for our future power grid has to start.

And pretending that the infrastructure for EVs (which all the major manufacturers are rapidly transitioning to) can be left to the market, is a recipe for severe damage to the UK economy.

Ratters

148grss said:

Ratters said:

Regarding Mike Pence dropping out... the Republican field isn't as wide as I thought - there are 9 candidates remaining officially, nearly 3 months before the first vote:

- Ryan Binkley (who?) hasn't qualified for any debates
- Asa Hutchinson didn't qualify for the last debate and isn't on track to do so for the next one
- Doug Burgum and Tim Scott have not yet qualified for the third debate in just over a week's time due to falling short in the polls

If these four drop out then we're down to Trump, DeSantis, Haley, Ramaswamy and Christie. And Trump doesn't take part in debates so it starts to become a much more manageable field.

Admittedly, Trump is so far ahead in the polls that it's hard to imagine what would change the minds of Republican voters, but I wouldn't rule out the opposition consolidating over time.

I mean, if GOP candidates want to sincerely beat Trump, they need to drop out sooner rather than later and coalesce around a candidate. Some think that should be DeSantis, others thing Haley, etc.

It could easily be that the lack of leadership from other GOP officials makes the permission structure to support Trump that much easier.

The trouble is that some candidates (e.g. Ramaswamy) are probably quite happy with Trump winning unless he is forced to withdraw and are standing to raise their profile rather than to beat Trump. So they will stay in as a spoiler.

I agree that the likes of Christie should drop out soon to help consolidate support around DeSantis or Haley (with the latter the better choice from what I've seen).

bondegezou

NickPalmer said:

Alanbrooke has found a pretty broad consensus on this with his interesting header. Like most I'd want to see the detailed figures but I think most people would sign up for that sort of programme.

Casino's point about branding is relevant - lots of people are actually in agreement with what needs to be done, but put off by slogans like Net Zero wich give too broad a front for tabloids and contrarians to attack. Much the same happened with 15 minute cities, which in essence is an objective which almost nobody would disagree with ("cites should aim for everyone to be able to reach shops and services on foot or cycling within 15 minutes"), but which was cheerfully misinterpreted by our PM.

If we need a re-branding, let’s re-brand, but I’d rather we did without the contrarians with their silly conspiracies!

Alanbrooke

Selebian said:

Alanbrooke said:

Selebian said:

TimS said:

I concur with JosiasJessop's "why not both" question but nonetheless the suggestions are all sensible and things we are in most cases already doing, just not enough.

What this needs in addition though is how can the UK grasp the huge opportunities to compete in the decarbonised economy, and to do this requires intelligent government investment and regulation, business investment supported by incentives, and a globally minded approach to the issue of climate change that plugs us into the supply chains of the future. Otherwise we end up just importing everything, again.

Renewable energy is one example where we can become a technology and services exporter, but there are big opportunities in wider green tech and energy efficiency, automotive and other transportation, and green finance, all of which should be actively supported and marketed. And yes it also requires us to show commitment to global targets on net zero.

Thankfully only one Daily Mail talking point made it on to this header and that's the old heat pump thing. If our entire net zero strategy were forcing everyone on to heat pumps then there might be a point here, but they are eminently sensible ways of reducing energy usage, combined with insulation and draught exclusion. They are just the norm now in many European countries. I'm fitting an ASHP in our house in France, which comes complete with uninsulated exposed stone walls, and I expect it to work just fine as do my various neighbours' heat pumps.

On heat pumps, the high temp versions now becoming available counter some of the problems around poor insulation (where this is not easily upgraded) and the need to switch to larger heat exchangers (bigger radiators or underfloor setups). Lower efficiency, but - as always - it's a trade-off between less upfront cost/disruption and longer term savings.

I am looking to change my bolier. I dont want to buy a heat pump. My next doot neighbour has one and doesnt sing its praises. But more importantly I hardly ever put the heat on, I put on an extra jumper. So I see no reason to be forced in to spending a large amount of money for something which has no benefit. I'd rather spend the money on something else.

Many heat pumps have been mis-sold, I think. The low temperature ones only really make sense in new or very much upgraded buildings (I've spent time in both with heat pumps and they've been great, but with poor insulation it's going to suck).

If your heat use is very low, you might be better off with a simple electric boiler (solar linked potentially, with a hot tank).

I currently have a combi boiler about 10 years old. I live in the countryside so there is no gas, its electricity or oil. Electricity hasnt been selling itself of late and oil has been fine price wise is you pick when to buy it. But my main heating approach has been not to switch the heating on in the first place. My fall back position is to light a fire and live in one room but the naggies in government want to cut this off too and force me to heat the entire house.

Malmesbury

148grss said:

malcolmg said:

148grss said:

williamglenn said:

148grss said:

Alanbrooke said:

JosiasJessop said:

That a good list, thanks Mr Brooke. I'd also add the need to ensure as much energy independence as possible is vital.

But... why not do both? D the list above *and* move towards net zero?

Oh. and first. If this thread survives...

I doubt we have the money. But if the investment side is handled correctly some of the projects will meet your goal of doing two things in tandem.

I never understand the "we don't have the money" argument when it comes to the environment. If we don't invest in a green future there will not be a future. Also, money isn't real! So, if a government with control over its own currency (like the UK) decides it wants to shift its economy to go big on green (in a similar manner as "wartime" economies shift) then we could do that. Would it change a lot of things, yes - but not necessarily negatively. It's just that the British political consensus is that government shouldn't be allowed to do things that could possibly make the world a better place. That we're behind even the US on this (who are investing huge amounts into green infrastructure) is telling about the myopic nature of British political foresight.

How do you interpret this chart?

That the UK is not a large fossil fuel producing economy, and is successfully outsourcing much of our CO2 that we consume to other countries. As consumers, the UK uses a lot of CO2 - but because the products are made in other countries it is on their books, not ours.

You are as thick as you make out I see, it just means we pay for their CO2 reduction as well, are you in primary school.

If in the long term the CO2 intensive methods of production do not change, and they're just off shored to the global south - how does that solve it? We need to change production methods and offshoring things (to maximise profits for private companies) will not do that.

An important part of this, often forgotten, is the interconnection of “offshore” industry to advanced economy industry.

Generally, industry in the developing world runs on related machinery and processes to that used in the advanced economies. So when we change over to lower polluting systems, they get them (eventually) via a trickle down effect.

Given the rapid generational moves in most developing economies, the machinery replacement cycles are getting shorter (see China).

Alanbrooke

Nigelb said:

NickPalmer said:

Alanbrooke has found a pretty broad consensus on this with his interesting header. Like most I'd want to see the detailed figures but I think most people would sign up for that sort of programme.

Casino's point about branding is relevant - lots of people are actually in agreement with what needs to be done, but put off by slogans like Net Zero wich give too broad a front for tabloids and contrarians to attack. Much the same happened with 15 minute cities, which in essence is an objective which almost nobody would disagree with ("cites should aim for everyone to be able to reach shops and services on foot or cycling within 15 minutes"), but which was cheerfully misinterpreted by our PM.

You'd have to do some number crunching, but most of the stuff in the header (excepting the details of what energy mix we choose) is going to be necessary anyway for net zero.

On sector he doesn't mention is transport (currently responsible for around a quarter of our CO2 emissions). The future of that is where any planning for our future power grid has to start.

And pretending that the infrastructure for EVs (which all the major manufacturers are rapidly transitioning to) can be left to the market, is a recipe for severe damage to the UK economy.

Yes, and thats a cock up heading down the line. Its where Sunak has probably done us all a favour on moving the EV date back 5 years.

algarkirk

148grss said:

This story is pretty outrageous:

https://www.tortoisemedia.com/2023/10/30/british-police-testing-women-for-abortion-drugs/

British police are testing women for abortion drugs and requesting data from menstrual tracking apps after unexplained pregnancy losses.

I bet if you asked the random person on the street they would assume that abortion was just legal in this country - and would also say this is not a particularly good use of limited police resources.

The article has nothing on how many, how often, and in what circumstances.

It is also seriously misleading in saying:

Although abortion was legalised in England and Wales in 1967, the procedure is still criminal in specific circumstances.

when in fact procuring abortion is always illegal except in narrowly defined statutory circumstances.

Andy_JS

Thanks to Alan for these interesting headers.

HYUFD

148grss said:

This story is pretty outrageous:

https://www.tortoisemedia.com/2023/10/30/british-police-testing-women-for-abortion-drugs/

British police are testing women for abortion drugs and requesting data from menstrual tracking apps after unexplained pregnancy losses.

I bet if you asked the random person on the street they would assume that abortion was just legal in this country - and would also say this is not a particularly good use of limited police resources.

Abortion is illegal in the UK after 24 weeks of pregnancy so no that is not outrageous

Nigelb

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Shouldn't our focus be on solving worldwide problems, because worldwide problems are also our problems?

That comes into it too.
Alanbrooke does mention foreign aid in that context.

Flatlander

Malmesbury said:

148grss said:

This story is pretty outrageous:

https://www.tortoisemedia.com/2023/10/30/british-police-testing-women-for-abortion-drugs/

British police are testing women for abortion drugs and requesting data from menstrual tracking apps after unexplained pregnancy losses.

I bet if you asked the random person on the street they would assume that abortion was just legal in this country - and would also say this is not a particularly good use of limited police resources.

WTAF

I assume this is sex selection related.

Alphabet_Soup

I passed a new-build estate the other day and noticed just two of the houses had solar panels. I'm guessing they were bought off-plan and the purchasers chose to have them as an optional extra. Which led me to think, why not make them compulsory for all new-builds? It's surely cheaper than retrofitting them later.

And there's been a spate of boiler-thefts from unfinished houses on the same site. If heat pumps are so great why aren't they a legal requirement, instead of threatening the owners of 200-year-old cottages like ours with the expense of fitting them in 10 years time?

If all new housing stock were greened up in the first place there'd be less pressure to ruin old houses by forcing them into the same straightjacket.

Fairliered

kyf_100 said:

Casino_Royale said:

Net Zero has a branding problem amongst certain constituencies. Because it's seen to all be about wearing a hair shirt. And plenty can't help preaching about it along those lines.

If it was pitching in terms of saving you money, environmental cleanliness and enhancing quality of life and safety for you and your family it might get quite a different reaction.

We need to cease thinking about how to get to net zero (hint: we won't get there) and start making plans for what happens when we don't.

That involves a mixture of food and energy security, flood defences and the like, and of course a change to immigration policy when 25% of the world's farmland becomes untenable and mass migration when people from developing countries decide to come somewhere a bit more temperate (and more politically tolerant).

Those are the big questions. Heat pumps are not.

Net zero, climate change and food and water security are far too important to be left to the greens. They will need sensible research, development and implementation by engineers.

HYUFD

williamglenn said:

148grss said:

Alanbrooke said:

JosiasJessop said:

That a good list, thanks Mr Brooke. I'd also add the need to ensure as much energy independence as possible is vital.

But... why not do both? D the list above *and* move towards net zero?

Oh. and first. If this thread survives...

I doubt we have the money. But if the investment side is handled correctly some of the projects will meet your goal of doing two things in tandem.

I never understand the "we don't have the money" argument when it comes to the environment. If we don't invest in a green future there will not be a future. Also, money isn't real! So, if a government with control over its own currency (like the UK) decides it wants to shift its economy to go big on green (in a similar manner as "wartime" economies shift) then we could do that. Would it change a lot of things, yes - but not necessarily negatively. It's just that the British political consensus is that government shouldn't be allowed to do things that could possibly make the world a better place. That we're behind even the US on this (who are investing huge amounts into green infrastructure) is telling about the myopic nature of British political foresight.

How do you interpret this chart?

We are already leading the pack on reducing emissions anyway

logical_song

Selebian said:

Alanbrooke said:

Selebian said:

TimS said:

I concur with JosiasJessop's "why not both" question but nonetheless the suggestions are all sensible and things we are in most cases already doing, just not enough.

What this needs in addition though is how can the UK grasp the huge opportunities to compete in the decarbonised economy, and to do this requires intelligent government investment and regulation, business investment supported by incentives, and a globally minded approach to the issue of climate change that plugs us into the supply chains of the future. Otherwise we end up just importing everything, again.

Renewable energy is one example where we can become a technology and services exporter, but there are big opportunities in wider green tech and energy efficiency, automotive and other transportation, and green finance, all of which should be actively supported and marketed. And yes it also requires us to show commitment to global targets on net zero.

Thankfully only one Daily Mail talking point made it on to this header and that's the old heat pump thing. If our entire net zero strategy were forcing everyone on to heat pumps then there might be a point here, but they are eminently sensible ways of reducing energy usage, combined with insulation and draught exclusion. They are just the norm now in many European countries. I'm fitting an ASHP in our house in France, which comes complete with uninsulated exposed stone walls, and I expect it to work just fine as do my various neighbours' heat pumps.

On heat pumps, the high temp versions now becoming available counter some of the problems around poor insulation (where this is not easily upgraded) and the need to switch to larger heat exchangers (bigger radiators or underfloor setups). Lower efficiency, but - as always - it's a trade-off between less upfront cost/disruption and longer term savings.

I am looking to change my bolier. I dont want to buy a heat pump. My next doot neighbour has one and doesnt sing its praises. But more importantly I hardly ever put the heat on, I put on an extra jumper. So I see no reason to be forced in to spending a large amount of money for something which has no benefit. I'd rather spend the money on something else.

Many heat pumps have been mis-sold, I think. The low temperature ones only really make sense in new or very much upgraded buildings (I've spent time in both with heat pumps and they've been great, but with poor insulation it's going to suck).

If your heat use is very low, you might be better off with a simple electric boiler (solar linked potentially, with a hot tank).

Yes, there are alternatives to heat pumps. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_v0midqPDc&t=363s
e.g Tepeo - a plug in replacement for a boiler. https://octopus.energy/blog/tepeo/

Nigelb

Alanbrooke said:

Nigelb said:

NickPalmer said:

Alanbrooke has found a pretty broad consensus on this with his interesting header. Like most I'd want to see the detailed figures but I think most people would sign up for that sort of programme.

Casino's point about branding is relevant - lots of people are actually in agreement with what needs to be done, but put off by slogans like Net Zero wich give too broad a front for tabloids and contrarians to attack. Much the same happened with 15 minute cities, which in essence is an objective which almost nobody would disagree with ("cites should aim for everyone to be able to reach shops and services on foot or cycling within 15 minutes"), but which was cheerfully misinterpreted by our PM.

You'd have to do some number crunching, but most of the stuff in the header (excepting the details of what energy mix we choose) is going to be necessary anyway for net zero.

On sector he doesn't mention is transport (currently responsible for around a quarter of our CO2 emissions). The future of that is where any planning for our future power grid has to start.

And pretending that the infrastructure for EVs (which all the major manufacturers are rapidly transitioning to) can be left to the market, is a recipe for severe damage to the UK economy.

Yes, and thats a cock up heading down the line. Its where Sunak has probably done us all a favour on moving the EV date back 5 years.

That is an admission of failure. The cockup started around the time of Brexit.
Moving the deadline does nothing to address the failure.

Nigelb

HYUFD said:

148grss said:

This story is pretty outrageous:

https://www.tortoisemedia.com/2023/10/30/british-police-testing-women-for-abortion-drugs/

British police are testing women for abortion drugs and requesting data from menstrual tracking apps after unexplained pregnancy losses.

I bet if you asked the random person on the street they would assume that abortion was just legal in this country - and would also say this is not a particularly good use of limited police resources.

Abortion is illegal in the UK after 24 weeks of pregnancy so no that is not outrageous

Isn't it ?
All manner of things are illegal, but that doesn't give the police unrestricted powers of search.

HYUFD

148grss said:

Ratters said:

Regarding Mike Pence dropping out... the Republican field isn't as wide as I thought - there are 9 candidates remaining officially, nearly 3 months before the first vote:

- Ryan Binkley (who?) hasn't qualified for any debates
- Asa Hutchinson didn't qualify for the last debate and isn't on track to do so for the next one
- Doug Burgum and Tim Scott have not yet qualified for the third debate in just over a week's time due to falling short in the polls

If these four drop out then we're down to Trump, DeSantis, Haley, Ramaswamy and Christie. And Trump doesn't take part in debates so it starts to become a much more manageable field.

Admittedly, Trump is so far ahead in the polls that it's hard to imagine what would change the minds of Republican voters, but I wouldn't rule out the opposition consolidating over time.

I mean, if GOP candidates want to sincerely beat Trump, they need to drop out sooner rather than later and coalesce around a candidate. Some think that should be DeSantis, others thing Haley, etc.

It could easily be that the lack of leadership from other GOP officials makes the permission structure to support Trump that much easier.

Whether Trump is nominee or not next year almost certainly depends on his criminal cases next year.

If convicted and jailed enough Republicans might desert him for him not to be, if found not guilty he will almost certainly be GOP nominee again even if all but 1 of the other GOP candidates drop out

Andy_JS

HYUFD said:

148grss said:

This story is pretty outrageous:

https://www.tortoisemedia.com/2023/10/30/british-police-testing-women-for-abortion-drugs/

British police are testing women for abortion drugs and requesting data from menstrual tracking apps after unexplained pregnancy losses.

I bet if you asked the random person on the street they would assume that abortion was just legal in this country - and would also say this is not a particularly good use of limited police resources.

Abortion is illegal in the UK after 24 weeks of pregnancy so no that is not outrageous

What's the Islamic stance on abortion?

Malmesbury

148grss said:

This story is pretty outrageous:

https://www.tortoisemedia.com/2023/10/30/british-police-testing-women-for-abortion-drugs/

British police are testing women for abortion drugs and requesting data from menstrual tracking apps after unexplained pregnancy losses.

I bet if you asked the random person on the street they would assume that abortion was just legal in this country - and would also say this is not a particularly good use of limited police resources.

WTAF

Alanbrooke said:

Selebian said:

Alanbrooke said:

Selebian said:

TimS said:

I concur with JosiasJessop's "why not both" question but nonetheless the suggestions are all sensible and things we are in most cases already doing, just not enough.

What this needs in addition though is how can the UK grasp the huge opportunities to compete in the decarbonised economy, and to do this requires intelligent government investment and regulation, business investment supported by incentives, and a globally minded approach to the issue of climate change that plugs us into the supply chains of the future. Otherwise we end up just importing everything, again.

Renewable energy is one example where we can become a technology and services exporter, but there are big opportunities in wider green tech and energy efficiency, automotive and other transportation, and green finance, all of which should be actively supported and marketed. And yes it also requires us to show commitment to global targets on net zero.

Thankfully only one Daily Mail talking point made it on to this header and that's the old heat pump thing. If our entire net zero strategy were forcing everyone on to heat pumps then there might be a point here, but they are eminently sensible ways of reducing energy usage, combined with insulation and draught exclusion. They are just the norm now in many European countries. I'm fitting an ASHP in our house in France, which comes complete with uninsulated exposed stone walls, and I expect it to work just fine as do my various neighbours' heat pumps.

On heat pumps, the high temp versions now becoming available counter some of the problems around poor insulation (where this is not easily upgraded) and the need to switch to larger heat exchangers (bigger radiators or underfloor setups). Lower efficiency, but - as always - it's a trade-off between less upfront cost/disruption and longer term savings.

I am looking to change my bolier. I dont want to buy a heat pump. My next doot neighbour has one and doesnt sing its praises. But more importantly I hardly ever put the heat on, I put on an extra jumper. So I see no reason to be forced in to spending a large amount of money for something which has no benefit. I'd rather spend the money on something else.

Many heat pumps have been mis-sold, I think. The low temperature ones only really make sense in new or very much upgraded buildings (I've spent time in both with heat pumps and they've been great, but with poor insulation it's going to suck).

If your heat use is very low, you might be better off with a simple electric boiler (solar linked potentially, with a hot tank).

I currently have a combi boiler about 10 years old. I live in the countryside so there is no gas, its electricity or oil. Electricity hasnt been selling itself of late and oil has been fine price wise is you pick when to buy it. But my main heating approach has been not to switch the heating on in the first place. My fall back position is to light a fire and live in one room but the naggies in government want to cut this off too and force me to heat the entire house.

Er wut?

To start with, every radiator since Victorian times has come with an advanced device. Called a valve.

If actually turning off radiators by hand is too boring, you can fit electronic valves per radiator. You can also setup thermostats per room.

Particulates from burning solid fuels are a legitimate concern.

HYUFD

Nigelb said:

HYUFD said:

148grss said:

This story is pretty outrageous:

https://www.tortoisemedia.com/2023/10/30/british-police-testing-women-for-abortion-drugs/

British police are testing women for abortion drugs and requesting data from menstrual tracking apps after unexplained pregnancy losses.

I bet if you asked the random person on the street they would assume that abortion was just legal in this country - and would also say this is not a particularly good use of limited police resources.

Abortion is illegal in the UK after 24 weeks of pregnancy so no that is not outrageous

Isn't it ?
All manner of things are illegal, but that doesn't give the police unrestricted powers of search.

It does give them powers of search if they suspect an offence may be committed and given they seemingly refuse to arrest protestors for shouting Jihad for public order offences at least they are doing something to enforce the law on this

Alanbrooke

Nigelb said:

Alanbrooke said:

Nigelb said:

NickPalmer said:

Alanbrooke has found a pretty broad consensus on this with his interesting header. Like most I'd want to see the detailed figures but I think most people would sign up for that sort of programme.

Casino's point about branding is relevant - lots of people are actually in agreement with what needs to be done, but put off by slogans like Net Zero wich give too broad a front for tabloids and contrarians to attack. Much the same happened with 15 minute cities, which in essence is an objective which almost nobody would disagree with ("cites should aim for everyone to be able to reach shops and services on foot or cycling within 15 minutes"), but which was cheerfully misinterpreted by our PM.

You'd have to do some number crunching, but most of the stuff in the header (excepting the details of what energy mix we choose) is going to be necessary anyway for net zero.

On sector he doesn't mention is transport (currently responsible for around a quarter of our CO2 emissions). The future of that is where any planning for our future power grid has to start.

And pretending that the infrastructure for EVs (which all the major manufacturers are rapidly transitioning to) can be left to the market, is a recipe for severe damage to the UK economy.

Yes, and thats a cock up heading down the line. Its where Sunak has probably done us all a favour on moving the EV date back 5 years.

That is an admission of failure.
Moving the deadline does nothing to address the failure.

May and Bojo setting unachievable dates just to look good for climate conferences is the failure. and in this case failure means alignment with the rest of Europe. The green agenda would advance so much better if politicians stopped making daft claims and treated the public as grown ups.

Nigelb

Daveyboy1961 said:

Nothing in the thread header which I disagree with at all. Not sure of the costs though, I'm sure they are ball-park though. I wonder if we would need to take into home control all energy production methods so that we aren't forced to pay international energy costs as we are now.

The government's own figures are ballpark estimates, with a very wide range of uncertainties, so don't ding him on that basis.

HYUFD

Andy_JS said:

HYUFD said:

148grss said:

This story is pretty outrageous:

https://www.tortoisemedia.com/2023/10/30/british-police-testing-women-for-abortion-drugs/

British police are testing women for abortion drugs and requesting data from menstrual tracking apps after unexplained pregnancy losses.

I bet if you asked the random person on the street they would assume that abortion was just legal in this country - and would also say this is not a particularly good use of limited police resources.

Abortion is illegal in the UK after 24 weeks of pregnancy so no that is not outrageous

What's the Islamic stance on abortion?

Forbidden except when life of mother is in danger, some schools also permit it up to 16 weeks
https://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/islamethics/abortion_1.shtml

Alanbrooke

Alphabet_Soup said:

I passed a new-build estate the other day and noticed just two of the houses had solar panels. I'm guessing they were bought off-plan and the purchasers chose to have them as an optional extra. Which led me to think, why not make them compulsory for all new-builds? It's surely cheaper than retrofitting them later.

And there's been a spate of boiler-thefts from unfinished houses on the same site. If heat pumps are so great why aren't they a legal requirement, instead of threatening the owners of 200-year-old cottages like ours with the expense of fitting them in 10 years time?

If all new housing stock were greened up in the first place there'd be less pressure to ruin old houses by forcing them into the same straightjacket.

Precisely

Stuartinromford

Alanbrooke said:

Nigelb said:

NickPalmer said:

Alanbrooke has found a pretty broad consensus on this with his interesting header. Like most I'd want to see the detailed figures but I think most people would sign up for that sort of programme.

Casino's point about branding is relevant - lots of people are actually in agreement with what needs to be done, but put off by slogans like Net Zero wich give too broad a front for tabloids and contrarians to attack. Much the same happened with 15 minute cities, which in essence is an objective which almost nobody would disagree with ("cites should aim for everyone to be able to reach shops and services on foot or cycling within 15 minutes"), but which was cheerfully misinterpreted by our PM.

You'd have to do some number crunching, but most of the stuff in the header (excepting the details of what energy mix we choose) is going to be necessary anyway for net zero.

On sector he doesn't mention is transport (currently responsible for around a quarter of our CO2 emissions). The future of that is where any planning for our future power grid has to start.

And pretending that the infrastructure for EVs (which all the major manufacturers are rapidly transitioning to) can be left to the market, is a recipe for severe damage to the UK economy.

Yes, and thats a cock up heading down the line. Its where Sunak has probably done us all a favour on moving the EV date back 5 years.

Didn't that annoucement turn out to be a bit smoke'n'mirrors? Something like the proportion of new electric cars required 2030-5 hasn't changed, but the balance can now be legacy fuel based engines as well as hybrids.

FrancisUrquhart

Hamas terrorists beheaded Shani Louk after the gunmen kidnapped the German tattoo artist from the Nova electronic festival and paraded her on the back of a truck, it has emerged.

The IDF and volunteers from the Zaka emergency response team said the bone from the base of a skull, without which a person can't survive, matched with Ms Louk's DNA.

Malmesbury

148grss said:

This story is pretty outrageous:

https://www.tortoisemedia.com/2023/10/30/british-police-testing-women-for-abortion-drugs/

British police are testing women for abortion drugs and requesting data from menstrual tracking apps after unexplained pregnancy losses.

I bet if you asked the random person on the street they would assume that abortion was just legal in this country - and would also say this is not a particularly good use of limited police resources.

WTAF

Andy_JS said:

HYUFD said:

148grss said:

This story is pretty outrageous:

https://www.tortoisemedia.com/2023/10/30/british-police-testing-women-for-abortion-drugs/

British police are testing women for abortion drugs and requesting data from menstrual tracking apps after unexplained pregnancy losses.

I bet if you asked the random person on the street they would assume that abortion was just legal in this country - and would also say this is not a particularly good use of limited police resources.

Abortion is illegal in the UK after 24 weeks of pregnancy so no that is not outrageous

What's the Islamic stance on abortion?

Forbidden. Because of the spec requirements for a serious percentage of the population to undergo spontaneous combustion in the style of the game “Lemmings”, manpower replacement is a serious issue.

williamglenn

How serious is this?

https://x.com/bushra1shaikh/status/1718797607936401522

Time for a new party that represents Muslims adequately. We will not win overall but could easily win parliamentary seats. We are currently in active discussions to get this done. Muslim Labour MPs have let the community down. Change is needed.

Taz

HYUFD said:

williamglenn said:

148grss said:

Alanbrooke said:

JosiasJessop said:

That a good list, thanks Mr Brooke. I'd also add the need to ensure as much energy independence as possible is vital.

But... why not do both? D the list above *and* move towards net zero?

Oh. and first. If this thread survives...

I doubt we have the money. But if the investment side is handled correctly some of the projects will meet your goal of doing two things in tandem.

I never understand the "we don't have the money" argument when it comes to the environment. If we don't invest in a green future there will not be a future. Also, money isn't real! So, if a government with control over its own currency (like the UK) decides it wants to shift its economy to go big on green (in a similar manner as "wartime" economies shift) then we could do that. Would it change a lot of things, yes - but not necessarily negatively. It's just that the British political consensus is that government shouldn't be allowed to do things that could possibly make the world a better place. That we're behind even the US on this (who are investing huge amounts into green infrastructure) is telling about the myopic nature of British political foresight.

How do you interpret this chart?

We are already leading the pack on reducing emissions anyway

Our energy usage is growing and coal has fallen to virtually zero.

It is a good news story.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_the_United_Kingdom#/media/File:Energy_mix_of_UK.svg

Nigelb

Alanbrooke said:

Nigelb said:

Alanbrooke said:

Nigelb said:

NickPalmer said:

Alanbrooke has found a pretty broad consensus on this with his interesting header. Like most I'd want to see the detailed figures but I think most people would sign up for that sort of programme.

Casino's point about branding is relevant - lots of people are actually in agreement with what needs to be done, but put off by slogans like Net Zero wich give too broad a front for tabloids and contrarians to attack. Much the same happened with 15 minute cities, which in essence is an objective which almost nobody would disagree with ("cites should aim for everyone to be able to reach shops and services on foot or cycling within 15 minutes"), but which was cheerfully misinterpreted by our PM.

You'd have to do some number crunching, but most of the stuff in the header (excepting the details of what energy mix we choose) is going to be necessary anyway for net zero.

On sector he doesn't mention is transport (currently responsible for around a quarter of our CO2 emissions). The future of that is where any planning for our future power grid has to start.

And pretending that the infrastructure for EVs (which all the major manufacturers are rapidly transitioning to) can be left to the market, is a recipe for severe damage to the UK economy.

Yes, and thats a cock up heading down the line. Its where Sunak has probably done us all a favour on moving the EV date back 5 years.

That is an admission of failure.
Moving the deadline does nothing to address the failure.

May and Bojo setting unachievable dates just to look good for climate conferences is the failure. and in this case failure means alignment with the rest of Europe. The green agenda would advance so much better if politicians stopped making daft claims and treated the public as grown ups.

You won't find any disagreement from me about May and Boris being useless on practical policy versus broad aspiration.
But that in itself isn't an argument against net zero.

And you, after all, voted for Brexit, I believe, which has distracted the entire political class from doing much else since the vote.

EPG

Lots of this list about making fuel use more efficient for domestic household purposes - some of which is already largely done like LEDs, some of which will encourage more energy use as it becomes relatively cheaper. Nothing about food/land use or transport or industry.

Alanbrooke

Taz said:

HYUFD said:

williamglenn said:

148grss said:

Alanbrooke said:

JosiasJessop said:

That a good list, thanks Mr Brooke. I'd also add the need to ensure as much energy independence as possible is vital.

But... why not do both? D the list above *and* move towards net zero?

Oh. and first. If this thread survives...

I doubt we have the money. But if the investment side is handled correctly some of the projects will meet your goal of doing two things in tandem.

I never understand the "we don't have the money" argument when it comes to the environment. If we don't invest in a green future there will not be a future. Also, money isn't real! So, if a government with control over its own currency (like the UK) decides it wants to shift its economy to go big on green (in a similar manner as "wartime" economies shift) then we could do that. Would it change a lot of things, yes - but not necessarily negatively. It's just that the British political consensus is that government shouldn't be allowed to do things that could possibly make the world a better place. That we're behind even the US on this (who are investing huge amounts into green infrastructure) is telling about the myopic nature of British political foresight.

How do you interpret this chart?

We are already leading the pack on reducing emissions anyway

Our energy usage is growing and coal has fallen to virtually zero.

It is a good news story.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_the_United_Kingdom#/media/File:Energy_mix_of_UK.svg

The one that really annoys me is bio mass. Shipping tons of industrially dried wood pellets across the Atlantic and calling it green,

FrancisUrquhart

williamglenn said:

How serious is this?

https://x.com/bushra1shaikh/status/1718797607936401522

Time for a new party that represents Muslims adequately. We will not win overall but could easily win parliamentary seats. We are currently in active discussions to get this done. Muslim Labour MPs have let the community down. Change is needed.

Not serious, it is in reply to moaning about Labour safe seats.

Also wasn't / isn't it Respect Party approach, albeit from left wing side.

Alanbrooke

Nigelb said:

Alanbrooke said:

Nigelb said:

Alanbrooke said:

Nigelb said:

NickPalmer said:

Alanbrooke has found a pretty broad consensus on this with his interesting header. Like most I'd want to see the detailed figures but I think most people would sign up for that sort of programme.

Casino's point about branding is relevant - lots of people are actually in agreement with what needs to be done, but put off by slogans like Net Zero wich give too broad a front for tabloids and contrarians to attack. Much the same happened with 15 minute cities, which in essence is an objective which almost nobody would disagree with ("cites should aim for everyone to be able to reach shops and services on foot or cycling within 15 minutes"), but which was cheerfully misinterpreted by our PM.

You'd have to do some number crunching, but most of the stuff in the header (excepting the details of what energy mix we choose) is going to be necessary anyway for net zero.

On sector he doesn't mention is transport (currently responsible for around a quarter of our CO2 emissions). The future of that is where any planning for our future power grid has to start.

And pretending that the infrastructure for EVs (which all the major manufacturers are rapidly transitioning to) can be left to the market, is a recipe for severe damage to the UK economy.

Yes, and thats a cock up heading down the line. Its where Sunak has probably done us all a favour on moving the EV date back 5 years.

That is an admission of failure.
Moving the deadline does nothing to address the failure.

May and Bojo setting unachievable dates just to look good for climate conferences is the failure. and in this case failure means alignment with the rest of Europe. The green agenda would advance so much better if politicians stopped making daft claims and treated the public as grown ups.

You won't find any disagreement from me about May and Boris being useless on practical policy versus broad aspiration.
But that in itself isn't an argument against net zero.

And you, after all, voted for Brexit, I believe, which has distracted the entire political class from doing much else since the vote.

Of course I did. But thats no excuse for the political class losing the plot. They are paid to run the country not a cage fight.

Taz

williamglenn said:

How serious is this?

https://x.com/bushra1shaikh/status/1718797607936401522

Time for a new party that represents Muslims adequately. We will not win overall but could easily win parliamentary seats. We are currently in active discussions to get this done. Muslim Labour MPs have let the community down. Change is needed.

Former failed apprentice candidate making a living as a daytime TV talking head on crap like the Jeremy Vine show on Channel 5.

I’d say, as with many of these people, it’s all about keeping their name out there and getting stuff to talk about on the next show.

I have said I think labours avidly pro Likud/Bibi stance will cost them votes. I don’t think this will happen though. More likely voters sit on their hands.

Stuartinromford

williamglenn said:

How serious is this?

https://x.com/bushra1shaikh/status/1718797607936401522

Time for a new party that represents Muslims adequately. We will not win overall but could easily win parliamentary seats. We are currently in active discussions to get this done. Muslim Labour MPs have let the community down. Change is needed.

GB News/Talk TV commentator?

#justsaying

Anyway, here are the twenty seats with the highest Muslim populations in the 2021 census. Divide by two to get a realistic celing for an avowedly community party (see Rahman's lot in Tower Hamlets)?

Nigelb

Alanbrooke said:

Nigelb said:

Alanbrooke said:

Nigelb said:

Alanbrooke said:

Nigelb said:

NickPalmer said:

Alanbrooke has found a pretty broad consensus on this with his interesting header. Like most I'd want to see the detailed figures but I think most people would sign up for that sort of programme.

Casino's point about branding is relevant - lots of people are actually in agreement with what needs to be done, but put off by slogans like Net Zero wich give too broad a front for tabloids and contrarians to attack. Much the same happened with 15 minute cities, which in essence is an objective which almost nobody would disagree with ("cites should aim for everyone to be able to reach shops and services on foot or cycling within 15 minutes"), but which was cheerfully misinterpreted by our PM.

You'd have to do some number crunching, but most of the stuff in the header (excepting the details of what energy mix we choose) is going to be necessary anyway for net zero.

On sector he doesn't mention is transport (currently responsible for around a quarter of our CO2 emissions). The future of that is where any planning for our future power grid has to start.

And pretending that the infrastructure for EVs (which all the major manufacturers are rapidly transitioning to) can be left to the market, is a recipe for severe damage to the UK economy.

Yes, and thats a cock up heading down the line. Its where Sunak has probably done us all a favour on moving the EV date back 5 years.

That is an admission of failure.
Moving the deadline does nothing to address the failure.

May and Bojo setting unachievable dates just to look good for climate conferences is the failure. and in this case failure means alignment with the rest of Europe. The green agenda would advance so much better if politicians stopped making daft claims and treated the public as grown ups.

You won't find any disagreement from me about May and Boris being useless on practical policy versus broad aspiration.
But that in itself isn't an argument against net zero.

And you, after all, voted for Brexit, I believe, which has distracted the entire political class from doing much else since the vote.

Of course I did. But thats no excuse for the political class losing the plot. They are paid to run the country not a cage fight.

I don't excuse them, but it is a proximate reason for their having done so.

It's been obvious for a decade that the world was going to transition to EVs. The failure to plan for that so that we benefitted, rather than it costing us to catch up, has been colossal.

Alanbrooke

Nigelb said:

Alanbrooke said:

Nigelb said:

Alanbrooke said:

Nigelb said:

Alanbrooke said:

Nigelb said:

NickPalmer said:

Alanbrooke has found a pretty broad consensus on this with his interesting header. Like most I'd want to see the detailed figures but I think most people would sign up for that sort of programme.

Casino's point about branding is relevant - lots of people are actually in agreement with what needs to be done, but put off by slogans like Net Zero wich give too broad a front for tabloids and contrarians to attack. Much the same happened with 15 minute cities, which in essence is an objective which almost nobody would disagree with ("cites should aim for everyone to be able to reach shops and services on foot or cycling within 15 minutes"), but which was cheerfully misinterpreted by our PM.

You'd have to do some number crunching, but most of the stuff in the header (excepting the details of what energy mix we choose) is going to be necessary anyway for net zero.

On sector he doesn't mention is transport (currently responsible for around a quarter of our CO2 emissions). The future of that is where any planning for our future power grid has to start.

And pretending that the infrastructure for EVs (which all the major manufacturers are rapidly transitioning to) can be left to the market, is a recipe for severe damage to the UK economy.

Yes, and thats a cock up heading down the line. Its where Sunak has probably done us all a favour on moving the EV date back 5 years.

That is an admission of failure.
Moving the deadline does nothing to address the failure.

May and Bojo setting unachievable dates just to look good for climate conferences is the failure. and in this case failure means alignment with the rest of Europe. The green agenda would advance so much better if politicians stopped making daft claims and treated the public as grown ups.

You won't find any disagreement from me about May and Boris being useless on practical policy versus broad aspiration.
But that in itself isn't an argument against net zero.

And you, after all, voted for Brexit, I believe, which has distracted the entire political class from doing much else since the vote.

Of course I did. But thats no excuse for the political class losing the plot. They are paid to run the country not a cage fight.

I don't excuse them, but it is a proximate reason for their having done so.

It's been obvious for a decade that the world was going to transition to EVs. The failure to plan for that so that we benefitted, rather than it costing us to catch up, has been colossal.

Most of Europe and the States arent set up for EVs. Germany and France bet the farm on diesel and it didnt work. The UK could of course be better prepared but I cant see how its noticeably behind any of the other major economies. Japan has only just started thinking about it.

kyf_100

logical_song said:

Selebian said:

Alanbrooke said:

Selebian said:

TimS said:

I concur with JosiasJessop's "why not both" question but nonetheless the suggestions are all sensible and things we are in most cases already doing, just not enough.

What this needs in addition though is how can the UK grasp the huge opportunities to compete in the decarbonised economy, and to do this requires intelligent government investment and regulation, business investment supported by incentives, and a globally minded approach to the issue of climate change that plugs us into the supply chains of the future. Otherwise we end up just importing everything, again.

Renewable energy is one example where we can become a technology and services exporter, but there are big opportunities in wider green tech and energy efficiency, automotive and other transportation, and green finance, all of which should be actively supported and marketed. And yes it also requires us to show commitment to global targets on net zero.

Thankfully only one Daily Mail talking point made it on to this header and that's the old heat pump thing. If our entire net zero strategy were forcing everyone on to heat pumps then there might be a point here, but they are eminently sensible ways of reducing energy usage, combined with insulation and draught exclusion. They are just the norm now in many European countries. I'm fitting an ASHP in our house in France, which comes complete with uninsulated exposed stone walls, and I expect it to work just fine as do my various neighbours' heat pumps.

On heat pumps, the high temp versions now becoming available counter some of the problems around poor insulation (where this is not easily upgraded) and the need to switch to larger heat exchangers (bigger radiators or underfloor setups). Lower efficiency, but - as always - it's a trade-off between less upfront cost/disruption and longer term savings.

I am looking to change my bolier. I dont want to buy a heat pump. My next doot neighbour has one and doesnt sing its praises. But more importantly I hardly ever put the heat on, I put on an extra jumper. So I see no reason to be forced in to spending a large amount of money for something which has no benefit. I'd rather spend the money on something else.

Many heat pumps have been mis-sold, I think. The low temperature ones only really make sense in new or very much upgraded buildings (I've spent time in both with heat pumps and they've been great, but with poor insulation it's going to suck).

If your heat use is very low, you might be better off with a simple electric boiler (solar linked potentially, with a hot tank).

Yes, there are alternatives to heat pumps. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_v0midqPDc&t=363s
e.g Tepeo - a plug in replacement for a boiler. https://octopus.energy/blog/tepeo/

When the cost for heating via electricity such as the above starts to compete with gas, fantastic. But we are a long way off that.

As for solar panels, I'm not sure they will fit on the exterior of my flat.

Additionally the problem with "storage heater" type solutions is they use energy you don't actually require. e.g. you have to put them on overnight, but if you wake up the next day and find it's warm enough you don't need the heating on (or you're not in), you've wasted 7 hours of overnight energy.

HYUFD

Stuartinromford said:

williamglenn said:

How serious is this?

https://x.com/bushra1shaikh/status/1718797607936401522

Time for a new party that represents Muslims adequately. We will not win overall but could easily win parliamentary seats. We are currently in active discussions to get this done. Muslim Labour MPs have let the community down. Change is needed.

GB News/Talk TV commentator?

#justsaying

Anyway, here are the twenty seats with the highest Muslim populations in the 2021 census. Divide by two to get a realistic celing for an avowedly community party (see Rahman's lot in Tower Hamlets)?

Galloway got 36% of the vote (almost all Muslim) to win Bethnal Green and Bow for Respect in 2005.

So he won the vast majority of the 41% Muslim vote there

algarkirk

Nigelb said:

HYUFD said:

148grss said:

This story is pretty outrageous:

https://www.tortoisemedia.com/2023/10/30/british-police-testing-women-for-abortion-drugs/

British police are testing women for abortion drugs and requesting data from menstrual tracking apps after unexplained pregnancy losses.

I bet if you asked the random person on the street they would assume that abortion was just legal in this country - and would also say this is not a particularly good use of limited police resources.

Abortion is illegal in the UK after 24 weeks of pregnancy so no that is not outrageous

Isn't it ?
All manner of things are illegal, but that doesn't give the police unrestricted powers of search.

There is not enough in the article to discuss powers of search and whether the police have acted properly. This may be very rare and very particular circumstances.

FrancisUrquhart

Facebook and Instagram are launching subscriptions in most of Europe that will remove adverts from the platforms. People using the Meta-owned platforms will be able to pay €9.99 (£8.72) per month for an ad-free experience. It will not be available in the UK.

Hows Threads doing these days?

Flatlander

kyf_100 said:

logical_song said:

Selebian said:

Alanbrooke said:

Selebian said:

TimS said:

I concur with JosiasJessop's "why not both" question but nonetheless the suggestions are all sensible and things we are in most cases already doing, just not enough.

What this needs in addition though is how can the UK grasp the huge opportunities to compete in the decarbonised economy, and to do this requires intelligent government investment and regulation, business investment supported by incentives, and a globally minded approach to the issue of climate change that plugs us into the supply chains of the future. Otherwise we end up just importing everything, again.

Renewable energy is one example where we can become a technology and services exporter, but there are big opportunities in wider green tech and energy efficiency, automotive and other transportation, and green finance, all of which should be actively supported and marketed. And yes it also requires us to show commitment to global targets on net zero.

Thankfully only one Daily Mail talking point made it on to this header and that's the old heat pump thing. If our entire net zero strategy were forcing everyone on to heat pumps then there might be a point here, but they are eminently sensible ways of reducing energy usage, combined with insulation and draught exclusion. They are just the norm now in many European countries. I'm fitting an ASHP in our house in France, which comes complete with uninsulated exposed stone walls, and I expect it to work just fine as do my various neighbours' heat pumps.

On heat pumps, the high temp versions now becoming available counter some of the problems around poor insulation (where this is not easily upgraded) and the need to switch to larger heat exchangers (bigger radiators or underfloor setups). Lower efficiency, but - as always - it's a trade-off between less upfront cost/disruption and longer term savings.

I am looking to change my bolier. I dont want to buy a heat pump. My next doot neighbour has one and doesnt sing its praises. But more importantly I hardly ever put the heat on, I put on an extra jumper. So I see no reason to be forced in to spending a large amount of money for something which has no benefit. I'd rather spend the money on something else.

Many heat pumps have been mis-sold, I think. The low temperature ones only really make sense in new or very much upgraded buildings (I've spent time in both with heat pumps and they've been great, but with poor insulation it's going to suck).

If your heat use is very low, you might be better off with a simple electric boiler (solar linked potentially, with a hot tank).

Yes, there are alternatives to heat pumps. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_v0midqPDc&t=363s
e.g Tepeo - a plug in replacement for a boiler. https://octopus.energy/blog/tepeo/

When the cost for heating via electricity such as the above starts to compete with gas, fantastic. But we are a long way off that.

As for solar panels, I'm not sure they will fit on the exterior of my flat.

Additionally the problem with "storage heater" type solutions is they use energy you don't actually require. e.g. you have to put them on overnight, but if you wake up the next day and find it's warm enough you don't need the heating on (or you're not in), you've wasted 7 hours of overnight energy.

The 'warm enough' problem could be easily fixed by a controller reading the weather forecasts.

Malmesbury

Alanbrooke said:

Nigelb said:

Alanbrooke said:

Nigelb said:

Alanbrooke said:

Nigelb said:

Alanbrooke said:

Nigelb said:

NickPalmer said:

Alanbrooke has found a pretty broad consensus on this with his interesting header. Like most I'd want to see the detailed figures but I think most people would sign up for that sort of programme.

Casino's point about branding is relevant - lots of people are actually in agreement with what needs to be done, but put off by slogans like Net Zero wich give too broad a front for tabloids and contrarians to attack. Much the same happened with 15 minute cities, which in essence is an objective which almost nobody would disagree with ("cites should aim for everyone to be able to reach shops and services on foot or cycling within 15 minutes"), but which was cheerfully misinterpreted by our PM.

You'd have to do some number crunching, but most of the stuff in the header (excepting the details of what energy mix we choose) is going to be necessary anyway for net zero.

On sector he doesn't mention is transport (currently responsible for around a quarter of our CO2 emissions). The future of that is where any planning for our future power grid has to start.

And pretending that the infrastructure for EVs (which all the major manufacturers are rapidly transitioning to) can be left to the market, is a recipe for severe damage to the UK economy.

Yes, and thats a cock up heading down the line. Its where Sunak has probably done us all a favour on moving the EV date back 5 years.

That is an admission of failure.
Moving the deadline does nothing to address the failure.

May and Bojo setting unachievable dates just to look good for climate conferences is the failure. and in this case failure means alignment with the rest of Europe. The green agenda would advance so much better if politicians stopped making daft claims and treated the public as grown ups.

You won't find any disagreement from me about May and Boris being useless on practical policy versus broad aspiration.
But that in itself isn't an argument against net zero.

And you, after all, voted for Brexit, I believe, which has distracted the entire political class from doing much else since the vote.

Of course I did. But thats no excuse for the political class losing the plot. They are paid to run the country not a cage fight.

I don't excuse them, but it is a proximate reason for their having done so.

It's been obvious for a decade that the world was going to transition to EVs. The failure to plan for that so that we benefitted, rather than it costing us to catch up, has been colossal.

Most of Europe and the States arent set up for EVs. Germany and France bet the farm on diesel and it didnt work. The UK could of course be better prepared but I cant see how its noticeably behind any of the other major economies. Japan has only just started thinking about it.

In the production of the remake of the Italian Job, some of the Minis were electrified. The idea of even looking at the results was turned down by the BMW UK. Mind you, they big it up in their website, now.

Lotus ran away from their partnership with Tesla on the first Roadster. Now they are scrambling to build EVs.

TheKitchenCabinet

FrancisUrquhart said:

Facebook and Instagram are launching subscriptions in most of Europe that will remove adverts from the platforms. People using the Meta-owned platforms will be able to pay €9.99 (£8.72) per month for an ad-free experience. It will not be available in the UK.

Hows Threads doing these days?

It has gone quiet but they still have high hopes.

Makes sense re the European side but not the UK - the UK is Europe's largest ad market and Meta probably gets a disproportionate percentage of its European revenues from here. Plus, for the EU, its main aim is probably to help offset the whole privacy / GDPR rules malarkey by claiming users now have an alternative.

MarqueeMark

HYUFD said:

williamglenn said:

148grss said:

Alanbrooke said:

JosiasJessop said:

That a good list, thanks Mr Brooke. I'd also add the need to ensure as much energy independence as possible is vital.

But... why not do both? D the list above *and* move towards net zero?

Oh. and first. If this thread survives...

I doubt we have the money. But if the investment side is handled correctly some of the projects will meet your goal of doing two things in tandem.

I never understand the "we don't have the money" argument when it comes to the environment. If we don't invest in a green future there will not be a future. Also, money isn't real! So, if a government with control over its own currency (like the UK) decides it wants to shift its economy to go big on green (in a similar manner as "wartime" economies shift) then we could do that. Would it change a lot of things, yes - but not necessarily negatively. It's just that the British political consensus is that government shouldn't be allowed to do things that could possibly make the world a better place. That we're behind even the US on this (who are investing huge amounts into green infrastructure) is telling about the myopic nature of British political foresight.

How do you interpret this chart?

We are already leading the pack on reducing emissions anyway

I reckon the Khmer Rouge did more...

Slackbladder

Stuartinromford said:

williamglenn said:

How serious is this?

https://x.com/bushra1shaikh/status/1718797607936401522

Time for a new party that represents Muslims adequately. We will not win overall but could easily win parliamentary seats. We are currently in active discussions to get this done. Muslim Labour MPs have let the community down. Change is needed.

GB News/Talk TV commentator?

#justsaying

Anyway, here are the twenty seats with the highest Muslim populations in the 2021 census. Divide by two to get a realistic celing for an avowedly community party (see Rahman's lot in Tower Hamlets)?

Give it 10-20 years and that will change, thats just demographics.

kyf_100

Flatlander said:

kyf_100 said:

logical_song said:

Selebian said:

Alanbrooke said:

Selebian said:

TimS said:

I concur with JosiasJessop's "why not both" question but nonetheless the suggestions are all sensible and things we are in most cases already doing, just not enough.

What this needs in addition though is how can the UK grasp the huge opportunities to compete in the decarbonised economy, and to do this requires intelligent government investment and regulation, business investment supported by incentives, and a globally minded approach to the issue of climate change that plugs us into the supply chains of the future. Otherwise we end up just importing everything, again.

Renewable energy is one example where we can become a technology and services exporter, but there are big opportunities in wider green tech and energy efficiency, automotive and other transportation, and green finance, all of which should be actively supported and marketed. And yes it also requires us to show commitment to global targets on net zero.

Thankfully only one Daily Mail talking point made it on to this header and that's the old heat pump thing. If our entire net zero strategy were forcing everyone on to heat pumps then there might be a point here, but they are eminently sensible ways of reducing energy usage, combined with insulation and draught exclusion. They are just the norm now in many European countries. I'm fitting an ASHP in our house in France, which comes complete with uninsulated exposed stone walls, and I expect it to work just fine as do my various neighbours' heat pumps.

On heat pumps, the high temp versions now becoming available counter some of the problems around poor insulation (where this is not easily upgraded) and the need to switch to larger heat exchangers (bigger radiators or underfloor setups). Lower efficiency, but - as always - it's a trade-off between less upfront cost/disruption and longer term savings.

I am looking to change my bolier. I dont want to buy a heat pump. My next doot neighbour has one and doesnt sing its praises. But more importantly I hardly ever put the heat on, I put on an extra jumper. So I see no reason to be forced in to spending a large amount of money for something which has no benefit. I'd rather spend the money on something else.

Many heat pumps have been mis-sold, I think. The low temperature ones only really make sense in new or very much upgraded buildings (I've spent time in both with heat pumps and they've been great, but with poor insulation it's going to suck).

If your heat use is very low, you might be better off with a simple electric boiler (solar linked potentially, with a hot tank).

Yes, there are alternatives to heat pumps. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_v0midqPDc&t=363s
e.g Tepeo - a plug in replacement for a boiler. https://octopus.energy/blog/tepeo/

When the cost for heating via electricity such as the above starts to compete with gas, fantastic. But we are a long way off that.

As for solar panels, I'm not sure they will fit on the exterior of my flat.

Additionally the problem with "storage heater" type solutions is they use energy you don't actually require. e.g. you have to put them on overnight, but if you wake up the next day and find it's warm enough you don't need the heating on (or you're not in), you've wasted 7 hours of overnight energy.

The 'warm enough' problem could be easily fixed by a controller reading the weather forecasts.

Aside from the inaccuracy of weather forecasts, how does that work if I expect to be at home on a given day but later decide to go out, leaving a boiling hot house with nobody in it?

Once upon a time, when I was renting, I lived in a place that had no boiler / central heating (it was very rural) and I had these awful storage heaters. If you used them, the place would be roasting in the morning (fantastic, as I left home for work before 8am) and absolutely freezing by the time you got back from work at six or seven.

Heat and hot water is very much an "on demand" thing, even running such devices during off peak tariff times overnight is a) wasteful (as you will always have to prepare more than you need) and b) can't take into account the unpredictability of when exactly you will need the heat or hot water.

In the end I gave up on the storage heater and bought an oil filled radiator that I'd stick on for an hour or two in the evening. It worked out at about 1/5th the cost of the storage heaters.

Nigelb

Alanbrooke said:

Nigelb said:

Alanbrooke said:

Nigelb said:

Alanbrooke said:

Nigelb said:

Alanbrooke said:

Nigelb said:

NickPalmer said:

Alanbrooke has found a pretty broad consensus on this with his interesting header. Like most I'd want to see the detailed figures but I think most people would sign up for that sort of programme.

Casino's point about branding is relevant - lots of people are actually in agreement with what needs to be done, but put off by slogans like Net Zero wich give too broad a front for tabloids and contrarians to attack. Much the same happened with 15 minute cities, which in essence is an objective which almost nobody would disagree with ("cites should aim for everyone to be able to reach shops and services on foot or cycling within 15 minutes"), but which was cheerfully misinterpreted by our PM.

You'd have to do some number crunching, but most of the stuff in the header (excepting the details of what energy mix we choose) is going to be necessary anyway for net zero.

On sector he doesn't mention is transport (currently responsible for around a quarter of our CO2 emissions). The future of that is where any planning for our future power grid has to start.

And pretending that the infrastructure for EVs (which all the major manufacturers are rapidly transitioning to) can be left to the market, is a recipe for severe damage to the UK economy.

Yes, and thats a cock up heading down the line. Its where Sunak has probably done us all a favour on moving the EV date back 5 years.

That is an admission of failure.
Moving the deadline does nothing to address the failure.

May and Bojo setting unachievable dates just to look good for climate conferences is the failure. and in this case failure means alignment with the rest of Europe. The green agenda would advance so much better if politicians stopped making daft claims and treated the public as grown ups.

You won't find any disagreement from me about May and Boris being useless on practical policy versus broad aspiration.
But that in itself isn't an argument against net zero.

And you, after all, voted for Brexit, I believe, which has distracted the entire political class from doing much else since the vote.

Of course I did. But thats no excuse for the political class losing the plot. They are paid to run the country not a cage fight.

I don't excuse them, but it is a proximate reason for their having done so.

It's been obvious for a decade that the world was going to transition to EVs. The failure to plan for that so that we benefitted, rather than it costing us to catch up, has been colossal.

Most of Europe and the States arent set up for EVs. Germany and France bet the farm on diesel and it didnt work. The UK could of course be better prepared but I cant see how its noticeably behind any of the other major economies. Japan has only just started thinking about it.

Essentially wrong.
While it's true that both the US and EU were slow to start, both have made strenuous efforts to catch up.
https://evmarketsreports.com/poland-and-hungary-emerging-in-global-battery-supply-chain/

There's a lot more capacity planned in Europe, too.

Japan too is doing a lot more than 'just start thinking about it'.

Pulpstar

I note Afghanistan seem to be on track with their chase, and they've done well for a minor nation this World Cup. Perhaps the ECB should try and snaffle Jonathan Trott to replace Matthew Mott ?