This appointed court is not a part of our constitution; it has no legitimacy, and it is effectively making up law. It needs to be binned.
Um no, it interprets the current law and generates a result.
The new Labour Government can change the law and fix the issue all the Supreme Court has done is combine the law as it currently is and come to (an admittedly unexpected) conclusion..
People like @Luckyguy1983 clearly have no understanding of our legal system whatsoever. This is how it has ALWAYS worked.
Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities. It is a complete abuse of "supreme court" powers to intervene on these spurious grounds, effectively to prevent any new oil wells being built in this country - economical self-harm which is for elected parliamentarians to inflict if they so wish, because they can be de-elected again. It's not for an appointed body to stretch its remit and make decisions like this.
They can intervene if the process was not followed properly. That’s a fundamental principle of the rule of law.
Their judgement is based upon a highly troubling interpretation of what that process should be - that's the point. The emissions involved in the set up and ongoing operation of the business were reported on in the usual way. The emissions generated subsequently were not, and I've explained why to demand that they are is deeply concerning in other posts.
I worry that this bit of the above… : “ Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities”
…Shows a confusion between parliament and the executive.
Parliament makes laws. The executive (Government or SCC) makes decisions which should be legal, but if there is doubt the Judicial system will decide
This is part of the citizenship exam. Maybe it should be taught in schools too?
That's true but the court made a mistake in its ruling.
The emissions generated by the burning of the oil should not be counted as the net difference of oil burnt as a result of the well is zero.
Why zero? Because oil is fungible and had we not extracted from this well we'd have just imported from Saudi Arabia or somewhere else the exact same amount of oil.
So the total net emissions of a fungible product is zero, unless or until we start forbidding imports.
As pointed out by someone previously, the Supreme Court did not rule on the substance of the issue, but only on whether the county council had considered the substance of the issue. Which they had not.
So your objection is not relevant, or in order, and we could expect that a revised planning decision from the country council, which did consider the substance of the issue, has a high probability of concluding that it shouldn't be a bar to approving the application, for the logical reasons you set out.
That outcome would be law followed, planning approved, everyone happy (especially the lawyers!)
Not the locals. Not people who care about the countryside. Not those who want to save the planet.
but, yeah, it was about legal processes at the moment
I want to save the planet.
To do that we need to follow science, not dogma.
The science is we need to transition away from consuming oil.
We still need oil for the transition though and there is no scientific reason why OPEC-produced oil is better for the environment than domestically produced oil.
If the world needs to transition away from consuming oil, then basic logic says that the world also has to transition away from producing oil. As a country, we should therefore transition away from both producing and consuming oil as well as appropriately taxing the import of oil and oil derivatives to encourage other countries to do likewise.
No. We should maximise oil production in democratic states in order to minimise the flow of cash to despots and dictators. As long as we need it, the "west" should produce it.
This.
Regdrding renewables. The economic arguments for wind turbines etc. are barking. They have to be backed 100% by conventional power stations (gas) to cover still windless dark cold periods.
The eco argument is equally ludicrous and industry destroying with higher costs when China and India etc extracting vast amounts of coal for cheap electricity.
There is an argument for it on security reasons, with our own oil running out thenturbines mean we need less gas/oil from Vladimir and Khassogis murderers.
But pointing that out would mean the politicians saying "we've cocked up energy policy, ours is running out and we've got to spend a fortune otherwise Vlad and Sundry Sheiks will have us over a barrel"
Far better to say "you wicked people, you are destroying the planet, we must go green to save it"
The downside of that is that the green zealots are as uncontrollable and destructive as any other zealot and they have been allowed within the citadel.
oh, ffs.
The anti wind argument again.
We should be moving toward a mixed energy source system, which for the majority of time would mean most of our energy being provided by wind/solar. In these times only a small amount is fossil fuel based. EG now we have 15GW wind/solar and 5GW gas fired. Sometimes that mix needs to change obviously, but overall the use of wind/solar reduces our need for gas on average.
Did you read what I wrote. I said wind makes sense on security but not economy or eco grounds.
Have you any idea how much it costs to build, maintain and decommision (both in £ and Carbon) enough gas power ststions to run the country when wind and solar produce nothing for a foggy still cold fortnight in December PLUS buil, maaintain and decpmmission a vast network of turbines , solar arrays and their associated grid wjring network that you would not need if you ran the gas power stations you already have full time?
I'd advocate a middle road, gas is a flexible enough power source and helps during cloudy blocked winter highs. We can turn them on and off when the turbines/solar aren't spinning - LNG logistics have improved since Russia's invasion. Nuclear and wind don't dovetail well to my mind as nuclear is inflexible compared to gas. Seeing as we've built plenty of wind and gas plants I'd keep those on/continue to build both
There is also the matter of base load. You need vast nuclear, coal and/or "traditional" gas power stations to provide that.
Otherwise after a national grid collapse (as happened in the 1987 storm) you would never be able to charge it (switch it on) again.
That is why Hinckley Point etc are being built at such eyewatering costs.
For the cost of another nuclear plant, you could have four tidal plants - producing 12 GW instead of 3 GW....
Yep. Good luck getting that past the nimbies.
Not the problem you think it is. The one at Swnasea had 80% local suppport through planning.
And the planning process takes a fraction of the time that a nuclear plant does.
Is @DoubleDutch some nutter returning to the site or a Russian bot with a new style of random abuse?
Good old fashioned and original troll in the sense of insinuating themselves into an online chat group with a seeming credible views on the topic and then sowing discord to get everyone fighting each other.
Enjoyed the debate about planning and climate change.
I live in an area with massive housing pressure, incredible rates of development of former industrial land in the city, and tens of thousands of new housing estates across the Lothians.
The main bottleneck is not planning regulations at all. It's the enormous stack of applications that our planning teams struggle to process.
This harms everyone. It means that development is slowed. It also means that substandard developments that will cost the city in the long run are let through the cracks. We built a hotel that looks like a giant dog turd.
If you're serious about both climate change and allowing as much appropriate development as possible, you should provide much more funding to our planning officers so mistakes aren't made as often, and applications processed more quickly.
BiB: But the only reason planning teams need to process applications is because applications are necessary because planning regulations exist.
That's like saying falling from a height doesn't hurt anyone, only hitting the ground does. You can't really separate the two.
If you're serious about development, abolish the applications and let people build what they want within the law without having to apply for anything. You've identified a cost saving too, we can abolish all those people who are working in the planning team - win/win. Can either use that money on tax cuts, or on funding something with a purpose.
That's where you differ from most of the population. Edinburgh Council are famously YIMBY - they simply can't knock down Georgian tenements and build giant dog shits quickly enough.
You'd love it. Move up here? We could go for a cycle down to Portobello together (via the Granton and Seafield megadevelopments).
This appointed court is not a part of our constitution; it has no legitimacy, and it is effectively making up law. It needs to be binned.
Um no, it interprets the current law and generates a result.
The new Labour Government can change the law and fix the issue all the Supreme Court has done is combine the law as it currently is and come to (an admittedly unexpected) conclusion..
People like @Luckyguy1983 clearly have no understanding of our legal system whatsoever. This is how it has ALWAYS worked.
Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities. It is a complete abuse of "supreme court" powers to intervene on these spurious grounds, effectively to prevent any new oil wells being built in this country - economical self-harm which is for elected parliamentarians to inflict if they so wish, because they can be de-elected again. It's not for an appointed body to stretch its remit and make decisions like this.
They can intervene if the process was not followed properly. That’s a fundamental principle of the rule of law.
Their judgement is based upon a highly troubling interpretation of what that process should be - that's the point. The emissions involved in the set up and ongoing operation of the business were reported on in the usual way. The emissions generated subsequently were not, and I've explained why to demand that they are is deeply concerning in other posts.
I worry that this bit of the above… : “ Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities”
…Shows a confusion between parliament and the executive.
Parliament makes laws. The executive (Government or SCC) makes decisions which should be legal, but if there is doubt the Judicial system will decide
This is part of the citizenship exam. Maybe it should be taught in schools too?
That's true but the court made a mistake in its ruling.
The emissions generated by the burning of the oil should not be counted as the net difference of oil burnt as a result of the well is zero.
Why zero? Because oil is fungible and had we not extracted from this well we'd have just imported from Saudi Arabia or somewhere else the exact same amount of oil.
So the total net emissions of a fungible product is zero, unless or until we start forbidding imports.
As pointed out by someone previously, the Supreme Court did not rule on the substance of the issue, but only on whether the county council had considered the substance of the issue. Which they had not.
So your objection is not relevant, or in order, and we could expect that a revised planning decision from the country council, which did consider the substance of the issue, has a high probability of concluding that it shouldn't be a bar to approving the application, for the logical reasons you set out.
That outcome would be law followed, planning approved, everyone happy (especially the lawyers!)
Not the locals. Not people who care about the countryside. Not those who want to save the planet.
but, yeah, it was about legal processes at the moment
I want to save the planet.
To do that we need to follow science, not dogma.
The science is we need to transition away from consuming oil.
We still need oil for the transition though and there is no scientific reason why OPEC-produced oil is better for the environment than domestically produced oil.
If the world needs to transition away from consuming oil, then basic logic says that the world also has to transition away from producing oil. As a country, we should therefore transition away from both producing and consuming oil as well as appropriately taxing the import of oil and oil derivatives to encourage other countries to do likewise.
No. We should maximise oil production in democratic states in order to minimise the flow of cash to despots and dictators. As long as we need it, the "west" should produce it.
This.
Regdrding renewables. The economic arguments for wind turbines etc. are barking. They have to be backed 100% by conventional power stations (gas) to cover still windless dark cold periods.
The eco argument is equally ludicrous and industry destroying with higher costs when China and India etc extracting vast amounts of coal for cheap electricity.
There is an argument for it on security reasons, with our own oil running out thenturbines mean we need less gas/oil from Vladimir and Khassogis murderers.
But pointing that out would mean the politicians saying "we've cocked up energy policy, ours is running out and we've got to spend a fortune otherwise Vlad and Sundry Sheiks will have us over a barrel"
Far better to say "you wicked people, you are destroying the planet, we must go green to save it"
The downside of that is that the green zealots are as uncontrollable and destructive as any other zealot and they have been allowed within the citadel.
oh, ffs.
The anti wind argument again.
We should be moving toward a mixed energy source system, which for the majority of time would mean most of our energy being provided by wind/solar. In these times only a small amount is fossil fuel based. EG now we have 15GW wind/solar and 5GW gas fired. Sometimes that mix needs to change obviously, but overall the use of wind/solar reduces our need for gas on average.
The anti-renewables loons are Putin's little shills.
As well as being a big exporter of fossil fuels, Russia is one of the few countries that is likely to benefit from anthropogenic climate change, so it's in their interests to deter moves away from fossil fuel consumption. It is also in their interest for those countries with small reserves to squander them as quickly as possible on fuel production so that they will be dependent on countries like Russia for raw materials for plastics, etc, in the future.
There seems to be no shortage of useful idiots, especially on the right of the political spectrum.
Many of the rewnewables-or-nothing loons, like Extinction Rebellion or Just Stop Oil, are Putin's little shills as well. He knows we will keep on buying fossil fuels for the immediate future, but the arguments between the anti-renewables and environmental extremists suit him, as they are very disruptive.
As for your last line: I might suggest that Just Stop Oil's behaviour over the last few days shows the useful idiots are also on the left of the political spectrum as well.
So you also believe that we should extract every last drop of UK oil as quickly as possible, thus leaving us at the mercy of Russia and Saudi Arabia in the future when it's all gone?
No.
It's a matter of progress. We need to move towards green energy - and we've been doing that really, really fast (*). But there is a limit to the speed by which we can do that without ruining the economy, and major technological hurdles remain (social ones as well, but less so).
Whilst this is in progress and we need oil and gas, we should try to be as self-sufficient as possible. Whilst also going great guns towards both reducing the need for oil and gas, and also being greener.
The alternate view involves us buying the oil and gas we need from those very regimes you named. Except not in some hypothetical future, but right now.
(*) It is a crying shame that so many so-called environmentalists ignore this.
That view epitomises short-term thinking. We know that our reserves of fossil fuels are small compared to those of Russia, etc, and we also know that we will need a certain amount of fossil fuel for essential purposes for an indefinite period. Given those two facts, it makes no long-term sense at all to be exploiting our own reserves for non-essential purposes now. It's asking for trouble in the future.
As for going great guns, no. While we, as a planet, have made some progress towards reducing emissions, it has been pitifully slow, to the extent that there has thus far been no noticeable effect on the rate of increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. Indeed, it is still accelerating. We are applauding our efforts while losing the war.
No. My view epitomises both long-term and short-term thinking. What we need to do now, to get where we need to be in the future. You just want to give as much money as possible to bad/evil regimes now. Regimes who have no reason to advance a green future. Gradatim ferociter, as a certain billionaire might say.
" makes no long-term sense at all to be exploiting our own reserves for non-essential purposes now."
Gas and oil is used for essential purposes now. Even on a sunny day with some wind, gas is providing us with some power. Petrol and diesel is allowing most of us to get around. And you think that is non-essential?
As for your last paragraph: we as a country have been going great guns. The world might not have been, but it's crass to deny how much progress our country has made over the last two decades.
When I look at of my window at all the single-occupant tonka-truck SUVs driving past my house, it's pretty hard to believe that we are using all that oil for essential purposes. Ditto the tourist-filled jets flying overhead.
"What Everyone Knows About Britain* (*Except the British)"
"If only Britain knew how it was viewed abroad If the country were a person, it would need its friends to sit it down and deliver it a few home truths about its damaging behaviour to itself and others, says Michael Peel"
You don’t have to spend too much time on history twitter so see stuff like this:
We are profoundly ignorant of our history, as a society. There was a survey doing the rounds around the D-Day anniversary the other week that said that supposedly half of the UK thought we had done the most, as a country, to win WW2.
I love my country, we have done wonderful things throughout history. But I wish we had a more grown up, nuanced understanding of our history and the things we have done, good and bad, and how that’s impacted other countries and peoples, for good or ill. That might help ameliorate the problems the column highlights.
I’m not holding my breath, the English, especially the elites, do so love their self-bestowed exceptionalism.
There is an argument for that. Had Hitler won the Battle of Britain he could have conquered Britain by late 1940 and captured Moscow by the end of summer 1941.
The Nazis could then have invaded the Eastern USA and Canada and the Japanese the Western USA and Australia, NZ and India
#PostOfficeScandal Today everyone in the United Kingdom and beyond should tune in to watch📺 @PostOffInquiry to watch the arrogant & self serving account of George Thomson who is the former General Secretary of @NFSP_UK
The organisation is a sham and it is time it is fully disbanded and consigned to the history books. Ask the current NFSP which side of court they sat on during the High Court litigation, they haven’t changed. Useless, out of touch and have no interest in the concerns of Postmasters up and down the country. They have contributed to the demise of the network and why it is where it is today. "
Enjoyed the debate about planning and climate change.
I live in an area with massive housing pressure, incredible rates of development of former industrial land in the city, and tens of thousands of new housing estates across the Lothians.
The main bottleneck is not planning regulations at all. It's the enormous stack of applications that our planning teams struggle to process.
This harms everyone. It means that development is slowed. It also means that substandard developments that will cost the city in the long run are let through the cracks. We built a hotel that looks like a giant dog turd.
If you're serious about both climate change and allowing as much appropriate development as possible, you should provide much more funding to our planning officers so mistakes aren't made as often, and applications processed more quickly.
BiB: But the only reason planning teams need to process applications is because applications are necessary because planning regulations exist.
That's like saying falling from a height doesn't hurt anyone, only hitting the ground does. You can't really separate the two.
If you're serious about development, abolish the applications and let people build what they want within the law without having to apply for anything. You've identified a cost saving too, we can abolish all those people who are working in the planning team - win/win. Can either use that money on tax cuts, or on funding something with a purpose.
That's where you differ from most of the population. Edinburgh Council are famously YIMBY - they simply can't knock down Georgian tenements and build giant dog shits quickly enough.
You'd love it. Move up here? We could go for a cycle down to Portobello together (via the Granton and Seafield megadevelopments).
Only someone totally BANANAs would think that is YIMBY.
Not having zero developments ≠ being YIMBY.
Edinburgh may have some developments but nowhere near enough. It should and would have much, much more if the Council and planning rules weren't in the way.
"What Everyone Knows About Britain* (*Except the British)"
"If only Britain knew how it was viewed abroad If the country were a person, it would need its friends to sit it down and deliver it a few home truths about its damaging behaviour to itself and others, says Michael Peel"
You don’t have to spend too much time on history twitter so see stuff like this:
We are profoundly ignorant of our history, as a society. There was a survey doing the rounds around the D-Day anniversary the other week that said that supposedly half of the UK thought we had done the most, as a country, to win WW2.
I love my country, we have done wonderful things throughout history. But I wish we had a more grown up, nuanced understanding of our history and the things we have done, good and bad, and how that’s impacted other countries and peoples, for good or ill. That might help ameliorate the problems the column highlights.
I’m not holding my breath, the English, especially the elites, do so love their self-bestowed exceptionalism.
Surprised only 50% think we won ww2 pretty much single handedly. Perhaps the Oppenheimer movie helped.
As noted yesterday, they may now consider supplying arms directly to Ukraine.
I don't understand this, I thought loads of the artillery ammunition Ukraine used last year was from South Korea. Was that stuff going via a circuitous route, for example South Korea was selling it to the US then the US was giving it to Ukraine? Or did the policy change in between? Or is there a policy to supply some types of weapons but not others and that's what they're talking about changing?
You’re facing the loss of your business, your home, your family, your liberty, your life. You reach out for help and discover someone like #GeorgeThomson as your only lifeline. Imagine the horror. #PostOfficeInquiry"
Is @DoubleDutch some nutter returning to the site or a Russian bot with a new style of random abuse?
Why don't you ask your pal Putin?
I’m going with: you’re just a nutter
But it will be interesting to see how you evolve
If you are real, here’s a style tip: abuse is much more powerful if you lace it with humour and irony, because then people will read it and remember it
Pure invective, with no other merit, sounds like a toddler shouting
This appointed court is not a part of our constitution; it has no legitimacy, and it is effectively making up law. It needs to be binned.
Um no, it interprets the current law and generates a result.
The new Labour Government can change the law and fix the issue all the Supreme Court has done is combine the law as it currently is and come to (an admittedly unexpected) conclusion..
People like @Luckyguy1983 clearly have no understanding of our legal system whatsoever. This is how it has ALWAYS worked.
Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities. It is a complete abuse of "supreme court" powers to intervene on these spurious grounds, effectively to prevent any new oil wells being built in this country - economical self-harm which is for elected parliamentarians to inflict if they so wish, because they can be de-elected again. It's not for an appointed body to stretch its remit and make decisions like this.
They can intervene if the process was not followed properly. That’s a fundamental principle of the rule of law.
Their judgement is based upon a highly troubling interpretation of what that process should be - that's the point. The emissions involved in the set up and ongoing operation of the business were reported on in the usual way. The emissions generated subsequently were not, and I've explained why to demand that they are is deeply concerning in other posts.
I worry that this bit of the above… : “ Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities”
…Shows a confusion between parliament and the executive.
Parliament makes laws. The executive (Government or SCC) makes decisions which should be legal, but if there is doubt the Judicial system will decide
This is part of the citizenship exam. Maybe it should be taught in schools too?
That's true but the court made a mistake in its ruling.
The emissions generated by the burning of the oil should not be counted as the net difference of oil burnt as a result of the well is zero.
Why zero? Because oil is fungible and had we not extracted from this well we'd have just imported from Saudi Arabia or somewhere else the exact same amount of oil.
So the total net emissions of a fungible product is zero, unless or until we start forbidding imports.
As pointed out by someone previously, the Supreme Court did not rule on the substance of the issue, but only on whether the county council had considered the substance of the issue. Which they had not.
So your objection is not relevant, or in order, and we could expect that a revised planning decision from the country council, which did consider the substance of the issue, has a high probability of concluding that it shouldn't be a bar to approving the application, for the logical reasons you set out.
That outcome would be law followed, planning approved, everyone happy (especially the lawyers!)
Not the locals. Not people who care about the countryside. Not those who want to save the planet.
but, yeah, it was about legal processes at the moment
I want to save the planet.
To do that we need to follow science, not dogma.
The science is we need to transition away from consuming oil.
We still need oil for the transition though and there is no scientific reason why OPEC-produced oil is better for the environment than domestically produced oil.
If the world needs to transition away from consuming oil, then basic logic says that the world also has to transition away from producing oil. As a country, we should therefore transition away from both producing and consuming oil as well as appropriately taxing the import of oil and oil derivatives to encourage other countries to do likewise.
No. We should maximise oil production in democratic states in order to minimise the flow of cash to despots and dictators. As long as we need it, the "west" should produce it.
All fossil fuel that is mined/produced will be burned. The increase in global temperature doesn't care if it is Saudi oil or US oil. By not stopping the production of oil the only remaining possible way to stop the global warming is through a very high level of carbon capture.
We need to stop the consumption of oil.
Production is a secondary matter.
We already consume more than we produce, which is a terrible failure. We need to work harder on reducing consumption, not production.
Globally we won't reduce consuming oil without reducing production. A reduction in consumption leads to lower prices which drives up consumption again. It is only when the price drops so much that the production becomes more expensive per unit than selling it does.
You are wrong, yes we will.
I changed my car last year. My old car was costing me ~£80 a tank of petrol which would last me 350 miles. My new car costs me ~£40 a tank of petrol which lasts me 350 miles. Does that mean I'm driving twice as many miles as I was to keep my expenditure the same? Of course it doesn't!
My oil consumption has come down by roughly 50% in that vehicle, not because of changes to production globally (of which OPEC of course adapts to keep prices where it wants it) but because I've adopted a technological change.
My old car was just petrol, my new one is not even a plug in, just a self-charging hybrid, that gets over twice the miles to the gallon as the old one.
We are seeing technological change like that on a micro and macro scale all over the planet. Over half my oil consumption has gone in my vehicle in one step and my intention is my next vehicle will be a net zero pure electric one, its just that's too expensive today.
Clean technology adaptation is the only way to solve the mess and clean the environment.
You are still destroying the planet.
...maybe, but only half as fast seemingly...
Are you saying - as per Zeno's paradox - he will never stop destroying the planet.
..wow, I had to google that.
If Barty kept buying cars which doubled his mileage on the same amount of fuel each time, then yes, I'd agree...
I have an 18-year-old car. The new version of the same car is more than twice as fuel efficient. Most new petrol cars sold now do 60mpg.
Imagine how much more that increase would be if FF cars had not increased in mass by perhaps 300kg over the period. That's an estimated figure - the overall is more like 400kg, but I can't find one with disaggrerated data by ICE vs Electric.
I expect most of the increase in mass is to do with "safety".
Most of the increase in mass is to do with the environment.
Batteries are heavy. My hybrid needs to carry a battery, its predecessor did not [besides the 12V one of course].
Since my comment relates to Fossil Fuel cars, it does not have much to do with batteries :-), which add even more extra.
The non-battery weight increase is very much to do with safety and also emissions, and came earlier - things such as door girders, compulsory airbags and catalytic converters.
More recently it is batteries, but also marketing of larger vehicles as "safer" (for those inside them, not outside).
One interesting question for the future is whether we actually need the huge batteries, never mind the tonka-tanks to carry them around in.
I wonder if once Sir Kier gets around to addressing Excise Duty etc on electric vehicles, and where the ~£2500 per year he needs from every vehicle to maintain revenue is going to come from, there will be a weight component in excise duty. It could be arguably justified on either environmental or safety grounds.
~£2500 per annum from vehicles is nowhere near needed to maintain our roads, which is all that drivers should be paying for.
Actually to be fair cyclists and most public transport use the roads too, so drivers should only be paying a proportion of road costs.
Vehicles should not be treated as a golden goose to be plucked for unrelated taxes. Everyone should pay their taxes equally, not just drivers.
My point is about government revenue raised from a source - ICE vehicles and their fuel use - which is gradually vanishing, and will need to be replaced. BEV or other EVs will be a part of that, I think. I'd say there's probably headroom to increase it, since the cost of motor transport has been falling for years in real terms.
It's axiomatic that the Public Highways network belongs to everyone, and is funded from general taxation - Council Tax, for example. It's also quite problematic to link "drivers" as a group to "motor vehicles", and try and hypothecate revenue or expenditure on that basis; that association does not exists afaics. "Drivers" are overwhelmingly also "pedestrians", use other forms of transport, and also use Public Highways for other purposes for which they are intended.
I keep getting timed out !
I very much agree on your point wrt everyone funding roads, which is what happens now. Some numbers I have are for 80-90% of cyclists also being people who drive motor vehicles. I think it's safe to say that 100% of drivers are also pedestrians, since they walk to and from their motor vehicles.
The groups that suffer are pedestrians-who-cannot-drive (for whatever reason), because they lose autonomy and ability to be out and about in their locality.
One recent interesting, and not well publicised, change, is that cycle tracks (track = physically separated from the carriageway, lane = not separated), are now "mobility tracks" because power wheel chairs and mobility scooters can officially use them in DFT Guidance, which is a small step forwards. I think this applies in England and Wales.
Much of the guidance it is still a mess, but baby steps...
This appointed court is not a part of our constitution; it has no legitimacy, and it is effectively making up law. It needs to be binned.
Um no, it interprets the current law and generates a result.
The new Labour Government can change the law and fix the issue all the Supreme Court has done is combine the law as it currently is and come to (an admittedly unexpected) conclusion..
People like @Luckyguy1983 clearly have no understanding of our legal system whatsoever. This is how it has ALWAYS worked.
Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities. It is a complete abuse of "supreme court" powers to intervene on these spurious grounds, effectively to prevent any new oil wells being built in this country - economical self-harm which is for elected parliamentarians to inflict if they so wish, because they can be de-elected again. It's not for an appointed body to stretch its remit and make decisions like this.
They can intervene if the process was not followed properly. That’s a fundamental principle of the rule of law.
Their judgement is based upon a highly troubling interpretation of what that process should be - that's the point. The emissions involved in the set up and ongoing operation of the business were reported on in the usual way. The emissions generated subsequently were not, and I've explained why to demand that they are is deeply concerning in other posts.
I worry that this bit of the above… : “ Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities”
…Shows a confusion between parliament and the executive.
Parliament makes laws. The executive (Government or SCC) makes decisions which should be legal, but if there is doubt the Judicial system will decide
This is part of the citizenship exam. Maybe it should be taught in schools too?
That's true but the court made a mistake in its ruling.
The emissions generated by the burning of the oil should not be counted as the net difference of oil burnt as a result of the well is zero.
Why zero? Because oil is fungible and had we not extracted from this well we'd have just imported from Saudi Arabia or somewhere else the exact same amount of oil.
So the total net emissions of a fungible product is zero, unless or until we start forbidding imports.
As pointed out by someone previously, the Supreme Court did not rule on the substance of the issue, but only on whether the county council had considered the substance of the issue. Which they had not.
So your objection is not relevant, or in order, and we could expect that a revised planning decision from the country council, which did consider the substance of the issue, has a high probability of concluding that it shouldn't be a bar to approving the application, for the logical reasons you set out.
That outcome would be law followed, planning approved, everyone happy (especially the lawyers!)
Not the locals. Not people who care about the countryside. Not those who want to save the planet.
but, yeah, it was about legal processes at the moment
I want to save the planet.
To do that we need to follow science, not dogma.
The science is we need to transition away from consuming oil.
We still need oil for the transition though and there is no scientific reason why OPEC-produced oil is better for the environment than domestically produced oil.
If the world needs to transition away from consuming oil, then basic logic says that the world also has to transition away from producing oil. As a country, we should therefore transition away from both producing and consuming oil as well as appropriately taxing the import of oil and oil derivatives to encourage other countries to do likewise.
No. We should maximise oil production in democratic states in order to minimise the flow of cash to despots and dictators. As long as we need it, the "west" should produce it.
This.
Regdrding renewables. The economic arguments for wind turbines etc. are barking. They have to be backed 100% by conventional power stations (gas) to cover still windless dark cold periods.
The eco argument is equally ludicrous and industry destroying with higher costs when China and India etc extracting vast amounts of coal for cheap electricity.
There is an argument for it on security reasons, with our own oil running out thenturbines mean we need less gas/oil from Vladimir and Khassogis murderers.
But pointing that out would mean the politicians saying "we've cocked up energy policy, ours is running out and we've got to spend a fortune otherwise Vlad and Sundry Sheiks will have us over a barrel"
Far better to say "you wicked people, you are destroying the planet, we must go green to save it"
The downside of that is that the green zealots are as uncontrollable and destructive as any other zealot and they have been allowed within the citadel.
oh, ffs.
The anti wind argument again.
We should be moving toward a mixed energy source system, which for the majority of time would mean most of our energy being provided by wind/solar. In these times only a small amount is fossil fuel based. EG now we have 15GW wind/solar and 5GW gas fired. Sometimes that mix needs to change obviously, but overall the use of wind/solar reduces our need for gas on average.
The anti-renewables loons are Putin's little shills.
As well as being a big exporter of fossil fuels, Russia is one of the few countries that is likely to benefit from anthropogenic climate change, so it's in their interests to deter moves away from fossil fuel consumption. It is also in their interest for those countries with small reserves to squander them as quickly as possible on fuel production so that they will be dependent on countries like Russia for raw materials for plastics, etc, in the future.
There seems to be no shortage of useful idiots, especially on the right of the political spectrum.
Many of the rewnewables-or-nothing loons, like Extinction Rebellion or Just Stop Oil, are Putin's little shills as well. He knows we will keep on buying fossil fuels for the immediate future, but the arguments between the anti-renewables and environmental extremists suit him, as they are very disruptive.
As for your last line: I might suggest that Just Stop Oil's behaviour over the last few days shows the useful idiots are also on the left of the political spectrum as well.
So you also believe that we should extract every last drop of UK oil as quickly as possible, thus leaving us at the mercy of Russia and Saudi Arabia in the future when it's all gone?
No.
It's a matter of progress. We need to move towards green energy - and we've been doing that really, really fast (*). But there is a limit to the speed by which we can do that without ruining the economy, and major technological hurdles remain (social ones as well, but less so).
Whilst this is in progress and we need oil and gas, we should try to be as self-sufficient as possible. Whilst also going great guns towards both reducing the need for oil and gas, and also being greener.
The alternate view involves us buying the oil and gas we need from those very regimes you named. Except not in some hypothetical future, but right now.
(*) It is a crying shame that so many so-called environmentalists ignore this.
That view epitomises short-term thinking. We know that our reserves of fossil fuels are small compared to those of Russia, etc, and we also know that we will need a certain amount of fossil fuel for essential purposes for an indefinite period. Given those two facts, it makes no long-term sense at all to be exploiting our own reserves for non-essential purposes now. It's asking for trouble in the future.
As for going great guns, no. While we, as a planet, have made some progress towards reducing emissions, it has been pitifully slow, to the extent that there has thus far been no noticeable effect on the rate of increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. Indeed, it is still accelerating. We are applauding our efforts while losing the war.
My mother told me the other day that in the late 1950s she missed out on a geography field trip to Italy as part of her degree because the airfare was £400 return (nominal, not equivalent of). Nowadays it's potentially £20. This seems wrong.
The question does arise whether a train would have been viable but it is sadly too late to ask
The international aviation market is skewed, in the same way international shipping is. It's atrocious that aviation kerosene is tax exempt, especially for domestic flights, while rail or bus travel is liable for fuel duty.
Yet placing tax on aviation kerosene is very difficult due to the international nature of the industry.
That should be changed, even if people have to pay more for flights.
And whilst I'm world dictator, I'd also stop flags of convenience schemes in shipping, and ensure ships' crews are treated decently.
"What Everyone Knows About Britain* (*Except the British)"
"If only Britain knew how it was viewed abroad If the country were a person, it would need its friends to sit it down and deliver it a few home truths about its damaging behaviour to itself and others, says Michael Peel"
You don’t have to spend too much time on history twitter so see stuff like this:
We are profoundly ignorant of our history, as a society. There was a survey doing the rounds around the D-Day anniversary the other week that said that supposedly half of the UK thought we had done the most, as a country, to win WW2.
I love my country, we have done wonderful things throughout history. But I wish we had a more grown up, nuanced understanding of our history and the things we have done, good and bad, and how that’s impacted other countries and peoples, for good or ill. That might help ameliorate the problems the column highlights.
I’m not holding my breath, the English, especially the elites, do so love their self-bestowed exceptionalism.
There is an argument for that. Had Hitler won the Battle of Britain he could have conquered Britain by late 1940 and captured Moscow by the end of summer 1941.
The Nazis could then have invaded the Eastern USA and Canada and the Japanese the Western USA and Australia, NZ and India
Indeed, Young HY. What would the world be like today, not to mention the UK? Utterly destroyed.
Instead, we had to wait until we got the Cameron-Johnson-Truss-Sunak Government.
It would have saved a lot of time if we had meekly surrendered in 1940.
This appointed court is not a part of our constitution; it has no legitimacy, and it is effectively making up law. It needs to be binned.
Um no, it interprets the current law and generates a result.
The new Labour Government can change the law and fix the issue all the Supreme Court has done is combine the law as it currently is and come to (an admittedly unexpected) conclusion..
People like @Luckyguy1983 clearly have no understanding of our legal system whatsoever. This is how it has ALWAYS worked.
Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities. It is a complete abuse of "supreme court" powers to intervene on these spurious grounds, effectively to prevent any new oil wells being built in this country - economical self-harm which is for elected parliamentarians to inflict if they so wish, because they can be de-elected again. It's not for an appointed body to stretch its remit and make decisions like this.
They can intervene if the process was not followed properly. That’s a fundamental principle of the rule of law.
Their judgement is based upon a highly troubling interpretation of what that process should be - that's the point. The emissions involved in the set up and ongoing operation of the business were reported on in the usual way. The emissions generated subsequently were not, and I've explained why to demand that they are is deeply concerning in other posts.
I worry that this bit of the above… : “ Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities”
…Shows a confusion between parliament and the executive.
Parliament makes laws. The executive (Government or SCC) makes decisions which should be legal, but if there is doubt the Judicial system will decide
This is part of the citizenship exam. Maybe it should be taught in schools too?
That's true but the court made a mistake in its ruling.
The emissions generated by the burning of the oil should not be counted as the net difference of oil burnt as a result of the well is zero.
Why zero? Because oil is fungible and had we not extracted from this well we'd have just imported from Saudi Arabia or somewhere else the exact same amount of oil.
So the total net emissions of a fungible product is zero, unless or until we start forbidding imports.
As pointed out by someone previously, the Supreme Court did not rule on the substance of the issue, but only on whether the county council had considered the substance of the issue. Which they had not.
So your objection is not relevant, or in order, and we could expect that a revised planning decision from the country council, which did consider the substance of the issue, has a high probability of concluding that it shouldn't be a bar to approving the application, for the logical reasons you set out.
That outcome would be law followed, planning approved, everyone happy (especially the lawyers!)
Not the locals. Not people who care about the countryside. Not those who want to save the planet.
but, yeah, it was about legal processes at the moment
I want to save the planet.
To do that we need to follow science, not dogma.
The science is we need to transition away from consuming oil.
We still need oil for the transition though and there is no scientific reason why OPEC-produced oil is better for the environment than domestically produced oil.
If the world needs to transition away from consuming oil, then basic logic says that the world also has to transition away from producing oil. As a country, we should therefore transition away from both producing and consuming oil as well as appropriately taxing the import of oil and oil derivatives to encourage other countries to do likewise.
No. We should maximise oil production in democratic states in order to minimise the flow of cash to despots and dictators. As long as we need it, the "west" should produce it.
This.
Regdrding renewables. The economic arguments for wind turbines etc. are barking. They have to be backed 100% by conventional power stations (gas) to cover still windless dark cold periods.
The eco argument is equally ludicrous and industry destroying with higher costs when China and India etc extracting vast amounts of coal for cheap electricity.
There is an argument for it on security reasons, with our own oil running out thenturbines mean we need less gas/oil from Vladimir and Khassogis murderers.
But pointing that out would mean the politicians saying "we've cocked up energy policy, ours is running out and we've got to spend a fortune otherwise Vlad and Sundry Sheiks will have us over a barrel"
Far better to say "you wicked people, you are destroying the planet, we must go green to save it"
The downside of that is that the green zealots are as uncontrollable and destructive as any other zealot and they have been allowed within the citadel.
oh, ffs.
The anti wind argument again.
We should be moving toward a mixed energy source system, which for the majority of time would mean most of our energy being provided by wind/solar. In these times only a small amount is fossil fuel based. EG now we have 15GW wind/solar and 5GW gas fired. Sometimes that mix needs to change obviously, but overall the use of wind/solar reduces our need for gas on average.
The anti-renewables loons are Putin's little shills.
As well as being a big exporter of fossil fuels, Russia is one of the few countries that is likely to benefit from anthropogenic climate change, so it's in their interests to deter moves away from fossil fuel consumption. It is also in their interest for those countries with small reserves to squander them as quickly as possible on fuel production so that they will be dependent on countries like Russia for raw materials for plastics, etc, in the future.
There seems to be no shortage of useful idiots, especially on the right of the political spectrum.
Many of the rewnewables-or-nothing loons, like Extinction Rebellion or Just Stop Oil, are Putin's little shills as well. He knows we will keep on buying fossil fuels for the immediate future, but the arguments between the anti-renewables and environmental extremists suit him, as they are very disruptive.
As for your last line: I might suggest that Just Stop Oil's behaviour over the last few days shows the useful idiots are also on the left of the political spectrum as well.
So you also believe that we should extract every last drop of UK oil as quickly as possible, thus leaving us at the mercy of Russia and Saudi Arabia in the future when it's all gone?
No.
It's a matter of progress. We need to move towards green energy - and we've been doing that really, really fast (*). But there is a limit to the speed by which we can do that without ruining the economy, and major technological hurdles remain (social ones as well, but less so).
Whilst this is in progress and we need oil and gas, we should try to be as self-sufficient as possible. Whilst also going great guns towards both reducing the need for oil and gas, and also being greener.
The alternate view involves us buying the oil and gas we need from those very regimes you named. Except not in some hypothetical future, but right now.
(*) It is a crying shame that so many so-called environmentalists ignore this.
That view epitomises short-term thinking. We know that our reserves of fossil fuels are small compared to those of Russia, etc, and we also know that we will need a certain amount of fossil fuel for essential purposes for an indefinite period. Given those two facts, it makes no long-term sense at all to be exploiting our own reserves for non-essential purposes now. It's asking for trouble in the future.
As for going great guns, no. While we, as a planet, have made some progress towards reducing emissions, it has been pitifully slow, to the extent that there has thus far been no noticeable effect on the rate of increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. Indeed, it is still accelerating. We are applauding our efforts while losing the war.
No. My view epitomises both long-term and short-term thinking. What we need to do now, to get where we need to be in the future. You just want to give as much money as possible to bad/evil regimes now. Regimes who have no reason to advance a green future. Gradatim ferociter, as a certain billionaire might say.
" makes no long-term sense at all to be exploiting our own reserves for non-essential purposes now."
Gas and oil is used for essential purposes now. Even on a sunny day with some wind, gas is providing us with some power. Petrol and diesel is allowing most of us to get around. And you think that is non-essential?
As for your last paragraph: we as a country have been going great guns. The world might not have been, but it's crass to deny how much progress our country has made over the last two decades.
When I look at of my window at all the single-occupant tonka-truck SUVs driving past my house, it's pretty hard to believe that we are using all that oil for essential purposes. Ditto the tourist-filled jets flying overhead.
You have zero idea why people are making those journeys. Zero. They may not seem essential to you; but can I judge your lifestyle too, please?
We are profoundly ignorant of our history, as a society. There was a survey doing the rounds around the D-Day anniversary the other week that said that supposedly half of the UK thought we had done the most, as a country, to win WW2.
I generally agree with most of your post (which I've deleted to shorten the quote), but this is PB, so instead I'm going to take issue with just one small part of it.
Obviously if you look at industrial production, or military casualties, the UK and its Empire will come pretty low down in its contribution to winning WWII, but there wouldn't have been a WWII if Britain had agreed a peace with Nazi Germany after the fall of France in 1940.
Germany and the USSR would still have fought a war, as would Japan and the US, but as to whether these wars would have been linked to the earlier short European war that saw the defeat of France and Britain, as a world war, is somewhat open to question. As is whether the USSR would have prevailed without support from Britain and the US, and without Germany fighting on a second front in North Africa, Italy and later France.
So it's at least arguable that Britain's role in WWII was absolutely crucial.
I would never choose to vote by post unless there was no alternative. I like to see my ballot paper go into the box. 😊
Yes, I miss that frisson, but I am rather peripatetic these days and I would hate to miss the opportunity to tell the bastards what i think of them.
You can go to the polling station and drop your postal vote in the box. It’s what I like to do if I can. That way you get the best of all worlds
Much as I would enjoy depriving Camden of a Reform conspiracist’s vote it’s no longer quite that simple.
You now (since 2022) have to take your postal vote to a member of staff at the polling station and complete a declaration form which includes an explanation of why your circumstances changed. If you just drop it into the ballot box as you have suggested it will be rejected.
"What Everyone Knows About Britain* (*Except the British)"
"If only Britain knew how it was viewed abroad If the country were a person, it would need its friends to sit it down and deliver it a few home truths about its damaging behaviour to itself and others, says Michael Peel"
You don’t have to spend too much time on history twitter so see stuff like this:
We are profoundly ignorant of our history, as a society. There was a survey doing the rounds around the D-Day anniversary the other week that said that supposedly half of the UK thought we had done the most, as a country, to win WW2.
I love my country, we have done wonderful things throughout history. But I wish we had a more grown up, nuanced understanding of our history and the things we have done, good and bad, and how that’s impacted other countries and peoples, for good or ill. That might help ameliorate the problems the column highlights.
I’m not holding my breath, the English, especially the elites, do so love their self-bestowed exceptionalism.
I think all countries teach their history overly favourably with regard to their role in it.
I remember laughing/arguing with my French ex about what she had been taught. As far as her history lessons went in France Napoleon was the second coming of Christ and only did good things and the French liberated themselves with a bit of help from the Americans in WW2.
The French teaching about WW2 especially makes ours look positively self-effacing.
The Americans too have quite a narrow and favourable view of their history and any Russian will tell you they won WW2 on their own.
Whilst we should be a bit more introspective it’s not as if we are exceptional.
"What Everyone Knows About Britain* (*Except the British)"
"If only Britain knew how it was viewed abroad If the country were a person, it would need its friends to sit it down and deliver it a few home truths about its damaging behaviour to itself and others, says Michael Peel"
You don’t have to spend too much time on history twitter so see stuff like this:
We are profoundly ignorant of our history, as a society. There was a survey doing the rounds around the D-Day anniversary the other week that said that supposedly half of the UK thought we had done the most, as a country, to win WW2.
I love my country, we have done wonderful things throughout history. But I wish we had a more grown up, nuanced understanding of our history and the things we have done, good and bad, and how that’s impacted other countries and peoples, for good or ill. That might help ameliorate the problems the column highlights.
I’m not holding my breath, the English, especially the elites, do so love their self-bestowed exceptionalism.
It's extraordinary really, though I wonder how different the UK is to many other countries in the stories it tells itself.
Turning school history lessons into a culture war battleground obviously does not help, but politicians - particularly Tories; Gove fiddled with English Lit too - can't help themselves. Nor is it about saying 'Britain was awful, the British are Bad People' etc.; we should just be honest with ourselves, and maybe set a little less store in past glories, most of which are beyond living memory. We should also remember that British people have been beastly to other British people as much as to other countries, and that the burden of collective responsibility for the ills of the British Empire make little sense in the context of the Industrial Revolution, the Civil war, the Harrowing and so on.
Losing Top Nation status takes a long time to get over, I guess.
"What Everyone Knows About Britain* (*Except the British)"
"If only Britain knew how it was viewed abroad If the country were a person, it would need its friends to sit it down and deliver it a few home truths about its damaging behaviour to itself and others, says Michael Peel"
You don’t have to spend too much time on history twitter so see stuff like this:
We are profoundly ignorant of our history, as a society. There was a survey doing the rounds around the D-Day anniversary the other week that said that supposedly half of the UK thought we had done the most, as a country, to win WW2.
I love my country, we have done wonderful things throughout history. But I wish we had a more grown up, nuanced understanding of our history and the things we have done, good and bad, and how that’s impacted other countries and peoples, for good or ill. That might help ameliorate the problems the column highlights.
I’m not holding my breath, the English, especially the elites, do so love their self-bestowed exceptionalism.
I don't think we're ignorant of our history. There is a massive appetite for reading history. I think we glorify ourselves considerably less than the US does, or peer nations, like France or Russia. Trying to determine who "did the most" to win WWII is willy-waving, that we, the Americans, and Russians all engage in. I think it would be fair to say that each of those three (and don't forget China) was indispensable towards the achievement of victory.
The Royal Navy, US economic might, and Soviet manpower were key to victory.
I've never read serious history books that portray the UK as some kind of meek little labrador. Being portrayed as the werwolf is actually pretty cool, but overstates our power.
This appointed court is not a part of our constitution; it has no legitimacy, and it is effectively making up law. It needs to be binned.
Um no, it interprets the current law and generates a result.
The new Labour Government can change the law and fix the issue all the Supreme Court has done is combine the law as it currently is and come to (an admittedly unexpected) conclusion..
People like @Luckyguy1983 clearly have no understanding of our legal system whatsoever. This is how it has ALWAYS worked.
Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities. It is a complete abuse of "supreme court" powers to intervene on these spurious grounds, effectively to prevent any new oil wells being built in this country - economical self-harm which is for elected parliamentarians to inflict if they so wish, because they can be de-elected again. It's not for an appointed body to stretch its remit and make decisions like this.
They can intervene if the process was not followed properly. That’s a fundamental principle of the rule of law.
Their judgement is based upon a highly troubling interpretation of what that process should be - that's the point. The emissions involved in the set up and ongoing operation of the business were reported on in the usual way. The emissions generated subsequently were not, and I've explained why to demand that they are is deeply concerning in other posts.
I worry that this bit of the above… : “ Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities”
…Shows a confusion between parliament and the executive.
Parliament makes laws. The executive (Government or SCC) makes decisions which should be legal, but if there is doubt the Judicial system will decide
This is part of the citizenship exam. Maybe it should be taught in schools too?
That's true but the court made a mistake in its ruling.
The emissions generated by the burning of the oil should not be counted as the net difference of oil burnt as a result of the well is zero.
Why zero? Because oil is fungible and had we not extracted from this well we'd have just imported from Saudi Arabia or somewhere else the exact same amount of oil.
So the total net emissions of a fungible product is zero, unless or until we start forbidding imports.
As pointed out by someone previously, the Supreme Court did not rule on the substance of the issue, but only on whether the county council had considered the substance of the issue. Which they had not.
So your objection is not relevant, or in order, and we could expect that a revised planning decision from the country council, which did consider the substance of the issue, has a high probability of concluding that it shouldn't be a bar to approving the application, for the logical reasons you set out.
That outcome would be law followed, planning approved, everyone happy (especially the lawyers!)
Not the locals. Not people who care about the countryside. Not those who want to save the planet.
but, yeah, it was about legal processes at the moment
I want to save the planet.
To do that we need to follow science, not dogma.
The science is we need to transition away from consuming oil.
We still need oil for the transition though and there is no scientific reason why OPEC-produced oil is better for the environment than domestically produced oil.
If the world needs to transition away from consuming oil, then basic logic says that the world also has to transition away from producing oil. As a country, we should therefore transition away from both producing and consuming oil as well as appropriately taxing the import of oil and oil derivatives to encourage other countries to do likewise.
No. We should maximise oil production in democratic states in order to minimise the flow of cash to despots and dictators. As long as we need it, the "west" should produce it.
This.
Regdrding renewables. The economic arguments for wind turbines etc. are barking. They have to be backed 100% by conventional power stations (gas) to cover still windless dark cold periods.
The eco argument is equally ludicrous and industry destroying with higher costs when China and India etc extracting vast amounts of coal for cheap electricity.
There is an argument for it on security reasons, with our own oil running out thenturbines mean we need less gas/oil from Vladimir and Khassogis murderers.
But pointing that out would mean the politicians saying "we've cocked up energy policy, ours is running out and we've got to spend a fortune otherwise Vlad and Sundry Sheiks will have us over a barrel"
Far better to say "you wicked people, you are destroying the planet, we must go green to save it"
The downside of that is that the green zealots are as uncontrollable and destructive as any other zealot and they have been allowed within the citadel.
oh, ffs.
The anti wind argument again.
We should be moving toward a mixed energy source system, which for the majority of time would mean most of our energy being provided by wind/solar. In these times only a small amount is fossil fuel based. EG now we have 15GW wind/solar and 5GW gas fired. Sometimes that mix needs to change obviously, but overall the use of wind/solar reduces our need for gas on average.
The anti-renewables loons are Putin's little shills.
As well as being a big exporter of fossil fuels, Russia is one of the few countries that is likely to benefit from anthropogenic climate change, so it's in their interests to deter moves away from fossil fuel consumption. It is also in their interest for those countries with small reserves to squander them as quickly as possible on fuel production so that they will be dependent on countries like Russia for raw materials for plastics, etc, in the future.
There seems to be no shortage of useful idiots, especially on the right of the political spectrum.
Many of the rewnewables-or-nothing loons, like Extinction Rebellion or Just Stop Oil, are Putin's little shills as well. He knows we will keep on buying fossil fuels for the immediate future, but the arguments between the anti-renewables and environmental extremists suit him, as they are very disruptive.
As for your last line: I might suggest that Just Stop Oil's behaviour over the last few days shows the useful idiots are also on the left of the political spectrum as well.
So you also believe that we should extract every last drop of UK oil as quickly as possible, thus leaving us at the mercy of Russia and Saudi Arabia in the future when it's all gone?
No.
It's a matter of progress. We need to move towards green energy - and we've been doing that really, really fast (*). But there is a limit to the speed by which we can do that without ruining the economy, and major technological hurdles remain (social ones as well, but less so).
Whilst this is in progress and we need oil and gas, we should try to be as self-sufficient as possible. Whilst also going great guns towards both reducing the need for oil and gas, and also being greener.
The alternate view involves us buying the oil and gas we need from those very regimes you named. Except not in some hypothetical future, but right now.
(*) It is a crying shame that so many so-called environmentalists ignore this.
That view epitomises short-term thinking. We know that our reserves of fossil fuels are small compared to those of Russia, etc, and we also know that we will need a certain amount of fossil fuel for essential purposes for an indefinite period. Given those two facts, it makes no long-term sense at all to be exploiting our own reserves for non-essential purposes now. It's asking for trouble in the future.
As for going great guns, no. While we, as a planet, have made some progress towards reducing emissions, it has been pitifully slow, to the extent that there has thus far been no noticeable effect on the rate of increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. Indeed, it is still accelerating. We are applauding our efforts while losing the war.
No. My view epitomises both long-term and short-term thinking. What we need to do now, to get where we need to be in the future. You just want to give as much money as possible to bad/evil regimes now. Regimes who have no reason to advance a green future. Gradatim ferociter, as a certain billionaire might say.
" makes no long-term sense at all to be exploiting our own reserves for non-essential purposes now."
Gas and oil is used for essential purposes now. Even on a sunny day with some wind, gas is providing us with some power. Petrol and diesel is allowing most of us to get around. And you think that is non-essential?
As for your last paragraph: we as a country have been going great guns. The world might not have been, but it's crass to deny how much progress our country has made over the last two decades.
When I look at of my window at all the single-occupant tonka-truck SUVs driving past my house, it's pretty hard to believe that we are using all that oil for essential purposes. Ditto the tourist-filled jets flying overhead.
You have zero idea why people are making those journeys. Zero. They may not seem essential to you; but can I judge your lifestyle too, please?
It's not the journey that's the issue. Is the giant, heavy box of steel for what is usually a very short distance.
"A dozen Labour candidates who the Guardian spoke to this week said that although Tory voters in their patches and elsewhere were hugely disillusioned and divided, they were encountering large numbers of undecided voters."
Yes, definitely true in Didcot and Wantage. They seem undecided whether to vote Labour, LibDem, Green, or not at all. It's unusually difficult, however, to find people who are openly Tory.
The Liberal vote is the tactician's choice in D&W, Nick. At least according to the Betfair market. You need to soft pedal there as it's causing huge confusion on the ground.
Different polls (and Betfair) give different results, but I think it's a genuine 3-way marginal (Reform are not competitive) and worth the considerable Labour effort there (unlike some other seats). The LibDem effort is misplaced IMO, and would be better focused on seats where Labour is clearly weaker - otherwise the result may be lots of good second places, like last time. It's clearly partly with an eye to next year's County election, though.
This appointed court is not a part of our constitution; it has no legitimacy, and it is effectively making up law. It needs to be binned.
Um no, it interprets the current law and generates a result.
The new Labour Government can change the law and fix the issue all the Supreme Court has done is combine the law as it currently is and come to (an admittedly unexpected) conclusion..
People like @Luckyguy1983 clearly have no understanding of our legal system whatsoever. This is how it has ALWAYS worked.
Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities. It is a complete abuse of "supreme court" powers to intervene on these spurious grounds, effectively to prevent any new oil wells being built in this country - economical self-harm which is for elected parliamentarians to inflict if they so wish, because they can be de-elected again. It's not for an appointed body to stretch its remit and make decisions like this.
They can intervene if the process was not followed properly. That’s a fundamental principle of the rule of law.
Their judgement is based upon a highly troubling interpretation of what that process should be - that's the point. The emissions involved in the set up and ongoing operation of the business were reported on in the usual way. The emissions generated subsequently were not, and I've explained why to demand that they are is deeply concerning in other posts.
I worry that this bit of the above… : “ Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities”
…Shows a confusion between parliament and the executive.
Parliament makes laws. The executive (Government or SCC) makes decisions which should be legal, but if there is doubt the Judicial system will decide
This is part of the citizenship exam. Maybe it should be taught in schools too?
That's true but the court made a mistake in its ruling.
The emissions generated by the burning of the oil should not be counted as the net difference of oil burnt as a result of the well is zero.
Why zero? Because oil is fungible and had we not extracted from this well we'd have just imported from Saudi Arabia or somewhere else the exact same amount of oil.
So the total net emissions of a fungible product is zero, unless or until we start forbidding imports.
As pointed out by someone previously, the Supreme Court did not rule on the substance of the issue, but only on whether the county council had considered the substance of the issue. Which they had not.
So your objection is not relevant, or in order, and we could expect that a revised planning decision from the country council, which did consider the substance of the issue, has a high probability of concluding that it shouldn't be a bar to approving the application, for the logical reasons you set out.
That outcome would be law followed, planning approved, everyone happy (especially the lawyers!)
Not the locals. Not people who care about the countryside. Not those who want to save the planet.
but, yeah, it was about legal processes at the moment
I want to save the planet.
To do that we need to follow science, not dogma.
The science is we need to transition away from consuming oil.
We still need oil for the transition though and there is no scientific reason why OPEC-produced oil is better for the environment than domestically produced oil.
If the world needs to transition away from consuming oil, then basic logic says that the world also has to transition away from producing oil. As a country, we should therefore transition away from both producing and consuming oil as well as appropriately taxing the import of oil and oil derivatives to encourage other countries to do likewise.
No. We should maximise oil production in democratic states in order to minimise the flow of cash to despots and dictators. As long as we need it, the "west" should produce it.
This.
Regdrding renewables. The economic arguments for wind turbines etc. are barking. They have to be backed 100% by conventional power stations (gas) to cover still windless dark cold periods.
The eco argument is equally ludicrous and industry destroying with higher costs when China and India etc extracting vast amounts of coal for cheap electricity.
There is an argument for it on security reasons, with our own oil running out thenturbines mean we need less gas/oil from Vladimir and Khassogis murderers.
But pointing that out would mean the politicians saying "we've cocked up energy policy, ours is running out and we've got to spend a fortune otherwise Vlad and Sundry Sheiks will have us over a barrel"
Far better to say "you wicked people, you are destroying the planet, we must go green to save it"
The downside of that is that the green zealots are as uncontrollable and destructive as any other zealot and they have been allowed within the citadel.
oh, ffs.
The anti wind argument again.
We should be moving toward a mixed energy source system, which for the majority of time would mean most of our energy being provided by wind/solar. In these times only a small amount is fossil fuel based. EG now we have 15GW wind/solar and 5GW gas fired. Sometimes that mix needs to change obviously, but overall the use of wind/solar reduces our need for gas on average.
The anti-renewables loons are Putin's little shills.
As well as being a big exporter of fossil fuels, Russia is one of the few countries that is likely to benefit from anthropogenic climate change, so it's in their interests to deter moves away from fossil fuel consumption. It is also in their interest for those countries with small reserves to squander them as quickly as possible on fuel production so that they will be dependent on countries like Russia for raw materials for plastics, etc, in the future.
There seems to be no shortage of useful idiots, especially on the right of the political spectrum.
Many of the rewnewables-or-nothing loons, like Extinction Rebellion or Just Stop Oil, are Putin's little shills as well. He knows we will keep on buying fossil fuels for the immediate future, but the arguments between the anti-renewables and environmental extremists suit him, as they are very disruptive.
As for your last line: I might suggest that Just Stop Oil's behaviour over the last few days shows the useful idiots are also on the left of the political spectrum as well.
So you also believe that we should extract every last drop of UK oil as quickly as possible, thus leaving us at the mercy of Russia and Saudi Arabia in the future when it's all gone?
No.
It's a matter of progress. We need to move towards green energy - and we've been doing that really, really fast (*). But there is a limit to the speed by which we can do that without ruining the economy, and major technological hurdles remain (social ones as well, but less so).
Whilst this is in progress and we need oil and gas, we should try to be as self-sufficient as possible. Whilst also going great guns towards both reducing the need for oil and gas, and also being greener.
The alternate view involves us buying the oil and gas we need from those very regimes you named. Except not in some hypothetical future, but right now.
(*) It is a crying shame that so many so-called environmentalists ignore this.
That view epitomises short-term thinking. We know that our reserves of fossil fuels are small compared to those of Russia, etc, and we also know that we will need a certain amount of fossil fuel for essential purposes for an indefinite period. Given those two facts, it makes no long-term sense at all to be exploiting our own reserves for non-essential purposes now. It's asking for trouble in the future.
As for going great guns, no. While we, as a planet, have made some progress towards reducing emissions, it has been pitifully slow, to the extent that there has thus far been no noticeable effect on the rate of increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. Indeed, it is still accelerating. We are applauding our efforts while losing the war.
No. My view epitomises both long-term and short-term thinking. What we need to do now, to get where we need to be in the future. You just want to give as much money as possible to bad/evil regimes now. Regimes who have no reason to advance a green future. Gradatim ferociter, as a certain billionaire might say.
" makes no long-term sense at all to be exploiting our own reserves for non-essential purposes now."
Gas and oil is used for essential purposes now. Even on a sunny day with some wind, gas is providing us with some power. Petrol and diesel is allowing most of us to get around. And you think that is non-essential?
As for your last paragraph: we as a country have been going great guns. The world might not have been, but it's crass to deny how much progress our country has made over the last two decades.
When I look at of my window at all the single-occupant tonka-truck SUVs driving past my house, it's pretty hard to believe that we are using all that oil for essential purposes. Ditto the tourist-filled jets flying overhead.
You have zero idea why people are making those journeys. Zero. They may not seem essential to you; but can I judge your lifestyle too, please?
Worse yet, by breathing, he is emitting CO2
Has he done a full environmental case study on that?
This appointed court is not a part of our constitution; it has no legitimacy, and it is effectively making up law. It needs to be binned.
Um no, it interprets the current law and generates a result.
The new Labour Government can change the law and fix the issue all the Supreme Court has done is combine the law as it currently is and come to (an admittedly unexpected) conclusion..
People like @Luckyguy1983 clearly have no understanding of our legal system whatsoever. This is how it has ALWAYS worked.
Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities. It is a complete abuse of "supreme court" powers to intervene on these spurious grounds, effectively to prevent any new oil wells being built in this country - economical self-harm which is for elected parliamentarians to inflict if they so wish, because they can be de-elected again. It's not for an appointed body to stretch its remit and make decisions like this.
They can intervene if the process was not followed properly. That’s a fundamental principle of the rule of law.
Their judgement is based upon a highly troubling interpretation of what that process should be - that's the point. The emissions involved in the set up and ongoing operation of the business were reported on in the usual way. The emissions generated subsequently were not, and I've explained why to demand that they are is deeply concerning in other posts.
I worry that this bit of the above… : “ Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities”
…Shows a confusion between parliament and the executive.
Parliament makes laws. The executive (Government or SCC) makes decisions which should be legal, but if there is doubt the Judicial system will decide
This is part of the citizenship exam. Maybe it should be taught in schools too?
That's true but the court made a mistake in its ruling.
The emissions generated by the burning of the oil should not be counted as the net difference of oil burnt as a result of the well is zero.
Why zero? Because oil is fungible and had we not extracted from this well we'd have just imported from Saudi Arabia or somewhere else the exact same amount of oil.
So the total net emissions of a fungible product is zero, unless or until we start forbidding imports.
As pointed out by someone previously, the Supreme Court did not rule on the substance of the issue, but only on whether the county council had considered the substance of the issue. Which they had not.
So your objection is not relevant, or in order, and we could expect that a revised planning decision from the country council, which did consider the substance of the issue, has a high probability of concluding that it shouldn't be a bar to approving the application, for the logical reasons you set out.
That outcome would be law followed, planning approved, everyone happy (especially the lawyers!)
Not the locals. Not people who care about the countryside. Not those who want to save the planet.
but, yeah, it was about legal processes at the moment
I want to save the planet.
To do that we need to follow science, not dogma.
The science is we need to transition away from consuming oil.
We still need oil for the transition though and there is no scientific reason why OPEC-produced oil is better for the environment than domestically produced oil.
If the world needs to transition away from consuming oil, then basic logic says that the world also has to transition away from producing oil. As a country, we should therefore transition away from both producing and consuming oil as well as appropriately taxing the import of oil and oil derivatives to encourage other countries to do likewise.
No. We should maximise oil production in democratic states in order to minimise the flow of cash to despots and dictators. As long as we need it, the "west" should produce it.
This.
Regdrding renewables. The economic arguments for wind turbines etc. are barking. They have to be backed 100% by conventional power stations (gas) to cover still windless dark cold periods.
The eco argument is equally ludicrous and industry destroying with higher costs when China and India etc extracting vast amounts of coal for cheap electricity.
There is an argument for it on security reasons, with our own oil running out thenturbines mean we need less gas/oil from Vladimir and Khassogis murderers.
But pointing that out would mean the politicians saying "we've cocked up energy policy, ours is running out and we've got to spend a fortune otherwise Vlad and Sundry Sheiks will have us over a barrel"
Far better to say "you wicked people, you are destroying the planet, we must go green to save it"
The downside of that is that the green zealots are as uncontrollable and destructive as any other zealot and they have been allowed within the citadel.
oh, ffs.
The anti wind argument again.
We should be moving toward a mixed energy source system, which for the majority of time would mean most of our energy being provided by wind/solar. In these times only a small amount is fossil fuel based. EG now we have 15GW wind/solar and 5GW gas fired. Sometimes that mix needs to change obviously, but overall the use of wind/solar reduces our need for gas on average.
The anti-renewables loons are Putin's little shills.
As well as being a big exporter of fossil fuels, Russia is one of the few countries that is likely to benefit from anthropogenic climate change, so it's in their interests to deter moves away from fossil fuel consumption. It is also in their interest for those countries with small reserves to squander them as quickly as possible on fuel production so that they will be dependent on countries like Russia for raw materials for plastics, etc, in the future.
There seems to be no shortage of useful idiots, especially on the right of the political spectrum.
Many of the rewnewables-or-nothing loons, like Extinction Rebellion or Just Stop Oil, are Putin's little shills as well. He knows we will keep on buying fossil fuels for the immediate future, but the arguments between the anti-renewables and environmental extremists suit him, as they are very disruptive.
As for your last line: I might suggest that Just Stop Oil's behaviour over the last few days shows the useful idiots are also on the left of the political spectrum as well.
So you also believe that we should extract every last drop of UK oil as quickly as possible, thus leaving us at the mercy of Russia and Saudi Arabia in the future when it's all gone?
No.
It's a matter of progress. We need to move towards green energy - and we've been doing that really, really fast (*). But there is a limit to the speed by which we can do that without ruining the economy, and major technological hurdles remain (social ones as well, but less so).
Whilst this is in progress and we need oil and gas, we should try to be as self-sufficient as possible. Whilst also going great guns towards both reducing the need for oil and gas, and also being greener.
The alternate view involves us buying the oil and gas we need from those very regimes you named. Except not in some hypothetical future, but right now.
(*) It is a crying shame that so many so-called environmentalists ignore this.
That view epitomises short-term thinking. We know that our reserves of fossil fuels are small compared to those of Russia, etc, and we also know that we will need a certain amount of fossil fuel for essential purposes for an indefinite period. Given those two facts, it makes no long-term sense at all to be exploiting our own reserves for non-essential purposes now. It's asking for trouble in the future.
As for going great guns, no. While we, as a planet, have made some progress towards reducing emissions, it has been pitifully slow, to the extent that there has thus far been no noticeable effect on the rate of increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. Indeed, it is still accelerating. We are applauding our efforts while losing the war.
No. My view epitomises both long-term and short-term thinking. What we need to do now, to get where we need to be in the future. You just want to give as much money as possible to bad/evil regimes now. Regimes who have no reason to advance a green future. Gradatim ferociter, as a certain billionaire might say.
" makes no long-term sense at all to be exploiting our own reserves for non-essential purposes now."
Gas and oil is used for essential purposes now. Even on a sunny day with some wind, gas is providing us with some power. Petrol and diesel is allowing most of us to get around. And you think that is non-essential?
As for your last paragraph: we as a country have been going great guns. The world might not have been, but it's crass to deny how much progress our country has made over the last two decades.
When I look at of my window at all the single-occupant tonka-truck SUVs driving past my house, it's pretty hard to believe that we are using all that oil for essential purposes. Ditto the tourist-filled jets flying overhead.
You have zero idea why people are making those journeys. Zero. They may not seem essential to you; but can I judge your lifestyle too, please?
It's not the journey that's the issue. Is the giant, heavy box of steel for what is usually a very short distance.
Blimey you have vehicle tracking to know how long those journeys are. Amazing.
This appointed court is not a part of our constitution; it has no legitimacy, and it is effectively making up law. It needs to be binned.
Um no, it interprets the current law and generates a result.
The new Labour Government can change the law and fix the issue all the Supreme Court has done is combine the law as it currently is and come to (an admittedly unexpected) conclusion..
People like @Luckyguy1983 clearly have no understanding of our legal system whatsoever. This is how it has ALWAYS worked.
Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities. It is a complete abuse of "supreme court" powers to intervene on these spurious grounds, effectively to prevent any new oil wells being built in this country - economical self-harm which is for elected parliamentarians to inflict if they so wish, because they can be de-elected again. It's not for an appointed body to stretch its remit and make decisions like this.
They can intervene if the process was not followed properly. That’s a fundamental principle of the rule of law.
Their judgement is based upon a highly troubling interpretation of what that process should be - that's the point. The emissions involved in the set up and ongoing operation of the business were reported on in the usual way. The emissions generated subsequently were not, and I've explained why to demand that they are is deeply concerning in other posts.
I worry that this bit of the above… : “ Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities”
…Shows a confusion between parliament and the executive.
Parliament makes laws. The executive (Government or SCC) makes decisions which should be legal, but if there is doubt the Judicial system will decide
This is part of the citizenship exam. Maybe it should be taught in schools too?
That's true but the court made a mistake in its ruling.
The emissions generated by the burning of the oil should not be counted as the net difference of oil burnt as a result of the well is zero.
Why zero? Because oil is fungible and had we not extracted from this well we'd have just imported from Saudi Arabia or somewhere else the exact same amount of oil.
So the total net emissions of a fungible product is zero, unless or until we start forbidding imports.
As pointed out by someone previously, the Supreme Court did not rule on the substance of the issue, but only on whether the county council had considered the substance of the issue. Which they had not.
So your objection is not relevant, or in order, and we could expect that a revised planning decision from the country council, which did consider the substance of the issue, has a high probability of concluding that it shouldn't be a bar to approving the application, for the logical reasons you set out.
That outcome would be law followed, planning approved, everyone happy (especially the lawyers!)
Not the locals. Not people who care about the countryside. Not those who want to save the planet.
but, yeah, it was about legal processes at the moment
I want to save the planet.
To do that we need to follow science, not dogma.
The science is we need to transition away from consuming oil.
We still need oil for the transition though and there is no scientific reason why OPEC-produced oil is better for the environment than domestically produced oil.
If the world needs to transition away from consuming oil, then basic logic says that the world also has to transition away from producing oil. As a country, we should therefore transition away from both producing and consuming oil as well as appropriately taxing the import of oil and oil derivatives to encourage other countries to do likewise.
No. We should maximise oil production in democratic states in order to minimise the flow of cash to despots and dictators. As long as we need it, the "west" should produce it.
This.
Regdrding renewables. The economic arguments for wind turbines etc. are barking. They have to be backed 100% by conventional power stations (gas) to cover still windless dark cold periods.
The eco argument is equally ludicrous and industry destroying with higher costs when China and India etc extracting vast amounts of coal for cheap electricity.
There is an argument for it on security reasons, with our own oil running out thenturbines mean we need less gas/oil from Vladimir and Khassogis murderers.
But pointing that out would mean the politicians saying "we've cocked up energy policy, ours is running out and we've got to spend a fortune otherwise Vlad and Sundry Sheiks will have us over a barrel"
Far better to say "you wicked people, you are destroying the planet, we must go green to save it"
The downside of that is that the green zealots are as uncontrollable and destructive as any other zealot and they have been allowed within the citadel.
oh, ffs.
The anti wind argument again.
We should be moving toward a mixed energy source system, which for the majority of time would mean most of our energy being provided by wind/solar. In these times only a small amount is fossil fuel based. EG now we have 15GW wind/solar and 5GW gas fired. Sometimes that mix needs to change obviously, but overall the use of wind/solar reduces our need for gas on average.
The anti-renewables loons are Putin's little shills.
As well as being a big exporter of fossil fuels, Russia is one of the few countries that is likely to benefit from anthropogenic climate change, so it's in their interests to deter moves away from fossil fuel consumption. It is also in their interest for those countries with small reserves to squander them as quickly as possible on fuel production so that they will be dependent on countries like Russia for raw materials for plastics, etc, in the future.
There seems to be no shortage of useful idiots, especially on the right of the political spectrum.
Many of the rewnewables-or-nothing loons, like Extinction Rebellion or Just Stop Oil, are Putin's little shills as well. He knows we will keep on buying fossil fuels for the immediate future, but the arguments between the anti-renewables and environmental extremists suit him, as they are very disruptive.
As for your last line: I might suggest that Just Stop Oil's behaviour over the last few days shows the useful idiots are also on the left of the political spectrum as well.
So you also believe that we should extract every last drop of UK oil as quickly as possible, thus leaving us at the mercy of Russia and Saudi Arabia in the future when it's all gone?
No.
It's a matter of progress. We need to move towards green energy - and we've been doing that really, really fast (*). But there is a limit to the speed by which we can do that without ruining the economy, and major technological hurdles remain (social ones as well, but less so).
Whilst this is in progress and we need oil and gas, we should try to be as self-sufficient as possible. Whilst also going great guns towards both reducing the need for oil and gas, and also being greener.
The alternate view involves us buying the oil and gas we need from those very regimes you named. Except not in some hypothetical future, but right now.
(*) It is a crying shame that so many so-called environmentalists ignore this.
That view epitomises short-term thinking. We know that our reserves of fossil fuels are small compared to those of Russia, etc, and we also know that we will need a certain amount of fossil fuel for essential purposes for an indefinite period. Given those two facts, it makes no long-term sense at all to be exploiting our own reserves for non-essential purposes now. It's asking for trouble in the future.
As for going great guns, no. While we, as a planet, have made some progress towards reducing emissions, it has been pitifully slow, to the extent that there has thus far been no noticeable effect on the rate of increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. Indeed, it is still accelerating. We are applauding our efforts while losing the war.
No. My view epitomises both long-term and short-term thinking. What we need to do now, to get where we need to be in the future. You just want to give as much money as possible to bad/evil regimes now. Regimes who have no reason to advance a green future. Gradatim ferociter, as a certain billionaire might say.
" makes no long-term sense at all to be exploiting our own reserves for non-essential purposes now."
Gas and oil is used for essential purposes now. Even on a sunny day with some wind, gas is providing us with some power. Petrol and diesel is allowing most of us to get around. And you think that is non-essential?
As for your last paragraph: we as a country have been going great guns. The world might not have been, but it's crass to deny how much progress our country has made over the last two decades.
When I look at of my window at all the single-occupant tonka-truck SUVs driving past my house, it's pretty hard to believe that we are using all that oil for essential purposes. Ditto the tourist-filled jets flying overhead.
You have zero idea why people are making those journeys. Zero. They may not seem essential to you; but can I judge your lifestyle too, please?
Now you're just being ridiculous. You're effectively claiming that every journey made is essential. Even if that were the case, it is certainly not essential that it be made in a gas-guzzling SUV. And you have the gall to call me a Putin apologist? Just take a look at yourself.
This appointed court is not a part of our constitution; it has no legitimacy, and it is effectively making up law. It needs to be binned.
Um no, it interprets the current law and generates a result.
The new Labour Government can change the law and fix the issue all the Supreme Court has done is combine the law as it currently is and come to (an admittedly unexpected) conclusion..
People like @Luckyguy1983 clearly have no understanding of our legal system whatsoever. This is how it has ALWAYS worked.
Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities. It is a complete abuse of "supreme court" powers to intervene on these spurious grounds, effectively to prevent any new oil wells being built in this country - economical self-harm which is for elected parliamentarians to inflict if they so wish, because they can be de-elected again. It's not for an appointed body to stretch its remit and make decisions like this.
They can intervene if the process was not followed properly. That’s a fundamental principle of the rule of law.
Their judgement is based upon a highly troubling interpretation of what that process should be - that's the point. The emissions involved in the set up and ongoing operation of the business were reported on in the usual way. The emissions generated subsequently were not, and I've explained why to demand that they are is deeply concerning in other posts.
I worry that this bit of the above… : “ Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities”
…Shows a confusion between parliament and the executive.
Parliament makes laws. The executive (Government or SCC) makes decisions which should be legal, but if there is doubt the Judicial system will decide
This is part of the citizenship exam. Maybe it should be taught in schools too?
That's true but the court made a mistake in its ruling.
The emissions generated by the burning of the oil should not be counted as the net difference of oil burnt as a result of the well is zero.
Why zero? Because oil is fungible and had we not extracted from this well we'd have just imported from Saudi Arabia or somewhere else the exact same amount of oil.
So the total net emissions of a fungible product is zero, unless or until we start forbidding imports.
As pointed out by someone previously, the Supreme Court did not rule on the substance of the issue, but only on whether the county council had considered the substance of the issue. Which they had not.
So your objection is not relevant, or in order, and we could expect that a revised planning decision from the country council, which did consider the substance of the issue, has a high probability of concluding that it shouldn't be a bar to approving the application, for the logical reasons you set out.
That outcome would be law followed, planning approved, everyone happy (especially the lawyers!)
Not the locals. Not people who care about the countryside. Not those who want to save the planet.
but, yeah, it was about legal processes at the moment
I want to save the planet.
To do that we need to follow science, not dogma.
The science is we need to transition away from consuming oil.
We still need oil for the transition though and there is no scientific reason why OPEC-produced oil is better for the environment than domestically produced oil.
If the world needs to transition away from consuming oil, then basic logic says that the world also has to transition away from producing oil. As a country, we should therefore transition away from both producing and consuming oil as well as appropriately taxing the import of oil and oil derivatives to encourage other countries to do likewise.
No. We should maximise oil production in democratic states in order to minimise the flow of cash to despots and dictators. As long as we need it, the "west" should produce it.
This.
Regdrding renewables. The economic arguments for wind turbines etc. are barking. They have to be backed 100% by conventional power stations (gas) to cover still windless dark cold periods.
The eco argument is equally ludicrous and industry destroying with higher costs when China and India etc extracting vast amounts of coal for cheap electricity.
There is an argument for it on security reasons, with our own oil running out thenturbines mean we need less gas/oil from Vladimir and Khassogis murderers.
But pointing that out would mean the politicians saying "we've cocked up energy policy, ours is running out and we've got to spend a fortune otherwise Vlad and Sundry Sheiks will have us over a barrel"
Far better to say "you wicked people, you are destroying the planet, we must go green to save it"
The downside of that is that the green zealots are as uncontrollable and destructive as any other zealot and they have been allowed within the citadel.
oh, ffs.
The anti wind argument again.
We should be moving toward a mixed energy source system, which for the majority of time would mean most of our energy being provided by wind/solar. In these times only a small amount is fossil fuel based. EG now we have 15GW wind/solar and 5GW gas fired. Sometimes that mix needs to change obviously, but overall the use of wind/solar reduces our need for gas on average.
The anti-renewables loons are Putin's little shills.
As well as being a big exporter of fossil fuels, Russia is one of the few countries that is likely to benefit from anthropogenic climate change, so it's in their interests to deter moves away from fossil fuel consumption. It is also in their interest for those countries with small reserves to squander them as quickly as possible on fuel production so that they will be dependent on countries like Russia for raw materials for plastics, etc, in the future.
There seems to be no shortage of useful idiots, especially on the right of the political spectrum.
Many of the rewnewables-or-nothing loons, like Extinction Rebellion or Just Stop Oil, are Putin's little shills as well. He knows we will keep on buying fossil fuels for the immediate future, but the arguments between the anti-renewables and environmental extremists suit him, as they are very disruptive.
As for your last line: I might suggest that Just Stop Oil's behaviour over the last few days shows the useful idiots are also on the left of the political spectrum as well.
So you also believe that we should extract every last drop of UK oil as quickly as possible, thus leaving us at the mercy of Russia and Saudi Arabia in the future when it's all gone?
No.
It's a matter of progress. We need to move towards green energy - and we've been doing that really, really fast (*). But there is a limit to the speed by which we can do that without ruining the economy, and major technological hurdles remain (social ones as well, but less so).
Whilst this is in progress and we need oil and gas, we should try to be as self-sufficient as possible. Whilst also going great guns towards both reducing the need for oil and gas, and also being greener.
The alternate view involves us buying the oil and gas we need from those very regimes you named. Except not in some hypothetical future, but right now.
(*) It is a crying shame that so many so-called environmentalists ignore this.
That view epitomises short-term thinking. We know that our reserves of fossil fuels are small compared to those of Russia, etc, and we also know that we will need a certain amount of fossil fuel for essential purposes for an indefinite period. Given those two facts, it makes no long-term sense at all to be exploiting our own reserves for non-essential purposes now. It's asking for trouble in the future.
As for going great guns, no. While we, as a planet, have made some progress towards reducing emissions, it has been pitifully slow, to the extent that there has thus far been no noticeable effect on the rate of increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. Indeed, it is still accelerating. We are applauding our efforts while losing the war.
No. My view epitomises both long-term and short-term thinking. What we need to do now, to get where we need to be in the future. You just want to give as much money as possible to bad/evil regimes now. Regimes who have no reason to advance a green future. Gradatim ferociter, as a certain billionaire might say.
" makes no long-term sense at all to be exploiting our own reserves for non-essential purposes now."
Gas and oil is used for essential purposes now. Even on a sunny day with some wind, gas is providing us with some power. Petrol and diesel is allowing most of us to get around. And you think that is non-essential?
As for your last paragraph: we as a country have been going great guns. The world might not have been, but it's crass to deny how much progress our country has made over the last two decades.
When I look at of my window at all the single-occupant tonka-truck SUVs driving past my house, it's pretty hard to believe that we are using all that oil for essential purposes. Ditto the tourist-filled jets flying overhead.
You have zero idea why people are making those journeys. Zero. They may not seem essential to you; but can I judge your lifestyle too, please?
It's not the journey that's the issue. Is the giant, heavy box of steel for what is usually a very short distance.
You seem to have a real objection to size but that box of steel is an efficient and powerful way to safely move both people and possessions both short and large distances.
"What Everyone Knows About Britain* (*Except the British)"
"If only Britain knew how it was viewed abroad If the country were a person, it would need its friends to sit it down and deliver it a few home truths about its damaging behaviour to itself and others, says Michael Peel"
You don’t have to spend too much time on history twitter so see stuff like this:
We are profoundly ignorant of our history, as a society. There was a survey doing the rounds around the D-Day anniversary the other week that said that supposedly half of the UK thought we had done the most, as a country, to win WW2.
I love my country, we have done wonderful things throughout history. But I wish we had a more grown up, nuanced understanding of our history and the things we have done, good and bad, and how that’s impacted other countries and peoples, for good or ill. That might help ameliorate the problems the column highlights.
I’m not holding my breath, the English, especially the elites, do so love their self-bestowed exceptionalism.
Trying to determine who "did the most" to win WWII is willy-waving, that we, the Americans, and Russians all engage in. I think it would be fair to say that each of those three (and don't forget China) was indispensable towards the achievement of victory.
The Royal Navy, US economic might, and Soviet manpower were key to victory.
I've never read serious history books that portray the UK as some kind of meek little labrador. Being portrayed as the werwolf is actually pretty cool, but overstates our power.
Isn’t there a famous summation of this
The British bought the time The Americans provided the money The Russians gave the me
This appointed court is not a part of our constitution; it has no legitimacy, and it is effectively making up law. It needs to be binned.
Um no, it interprets the current law and generates a result.
The new Labour Government can change the law and fix the issue all the Supreme Court has done is combine the law as it currently is and come to (an admittedly unexpected) conclusion..
People like @Luckyguy1983 clearly have no understanding of our legal system whatsoever. This is how it has ALWAYS worked.
Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities. It is a complete abuse of "supreme court" powers to intervene on these spurious grounds, effectively to prevent any new oil wells being built in this country - economical self-harm which is for elected parliamentarians to inflict if they so wish, because they can be de-elected again. It's not for an appointed body to stretch its remit and make decisions like this.
They can intervene if the process was not followed properly. That’s a fundamental principle of the rule of law.
Their judgement is based upon a highly troubling interpretation of what that process should be - that's the point. The emissions involved in the set up and ongoing operation of the business were reported on in the usual way. The emissions generated subsequently were not, and I've explained why to demand that they are is deeply concerning in other posts.
I worry that this bit of the above… : “ Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities”
…Shows a confusion between parliament and the executive.
Parliament makes laws. The executive (Government or SCC) makes decisions which should be legal, but if there is doubt the Judicial system will decide
This is part of the citizenship exam. Maybe it should be taught in schools too?
That's true but the court made a mistake in its ruling.
The emissions generated by the burning of the oil should not be counted as the net difference of oil burnt as a result of the well is zero.
Why zero? Because oil is fungible and had we not extracted from this well we'd have just imported from Saudi Arabia or somewhere else the exact same amount of oil.
So the total net emissions of a fungible product is zero, unless or until we start forbidding imports.
As pointed out by someone previously, the Supreme Court did not rule on the substance of the issue, but only on whether the county council had considered the substance of the issue. Which they had not.
So your objection is not relevant, or in order, and we could expect that a revised planning decision from the country council, which did consider the substance of the issue, has a high probability of concluding that it shouldn't be a bar to approving the application, for the logical reasons you set out.
That outcome would be law followed, planning approved, everyone happy (especially the lawyers!)
Not the locals. Not people who care about the countryside. Not those who want to save the planet.
but, yeah, it was about legal processes at the moment
I want to save the planet.
To do that we need to follow science, not dogma.
The science is we need to transition away from consuming oil.
We still need oil for the transition though and there is no scientific reason why OPEC-produced oil is better for the environment than domestically produced oil.
If the world needs to transition away from consuming oil, then basic logic says that the world also has to transition away from producing oil. As a country, we should therefore transition away from both producing and consuming oil as well as appropriately taxing the import of oil and oil derivatives to encourage other countries to do likewise.
No. We should maximise oil production in democratic states in order to minimise the flow of cash to despots and dictators. As long as we need it, the "west" should produce it.
This.
Regdrding renewables. The economic arguments for wind turbines etc. are barking. They have to be backed 100% by conventional power stations (gas) to cover still windless dark cold periods.
The eco argument is equally ludicrous and industry destroying with higher costs when China and India etc extracting vast amounts of coal for cheap electricity.
There is an argument for it on security reasons, with our own oil running out thenturbines mean we need less gas/oil from Vladimir and Khassogis murderers.
But pointing that out would mean the politicians saying "we've cocked up energy policy, ours is running out and we've got to spend a fortune otherwise Vlad and Sundry Sheiks will have us over a barrel"
Far better to say "you wicked people, you are destroying the planet, we must go green to save it"
The downside of that is that the green zealots are as uncontrollable and destructive as any other zealot and they have been allowed within the citadel.
oh, ffs.
The anti wind argument again.
We should be moving toward a mixed energy source system, which for the majority of time would mean most of our energy being provided by wind/solar. In these times only a small amount is fossil fuel based. EG now we have 15GW wind/solar and 5GW gas fired. Sometimes that mix needs to change obviously, but overall the use of wind/solar reduces our need for gas on average.
The anti-renewables loons are Putin's little shills.
As well as being a big exporter of fossil fuels, Russia is one of the few countries that is likely to benefit from anthropogenic climate change, so it's in their interests to deter moves away from fossil fuel consumption. It is also in their interest for those countries with small reserves to squander them as quickly as possible on fuel production so that they will be dependent on countries like Russia for raw materials for plastics, etc, in the future.
There seems to be no shortage of useful idiots, especially on the right of the political spectrum.
Many of the rewnewables-or-nothing loons, like Extinction Rebellion or Just Stop Oil, are Putin's little shills as well. He knows we will keep on buying fossil fuels for the immediate future, but the arguments between the anti-renewables and environmental extremists suit him, as they are very disruptive.
As for your last line: I might suggest that Just Stop Oil's behaviour over the last few days shows the useful idiots are also on the left of the political spectrum as well.
So you also believe that we should extract every last drop of UK oil as quickly as possible, thus leaving us at the mercy of Russia and Saudi Arabia in the future when it's all gone?
No.
It's a matter of progress. We need to move towards green energy - and we've been doing that really, really fast (*). But there is a limit to the speed by which we can do that without ruining the economy, and major technological hurdles remain (social ones as well, but less so).
Whilst this is in progress and we need oil and gas, we should try to be as self-sufficient as possible. Whilst also going great guns towards both reducing the need for oil and gas, and also being greener.
The alternate view involves us buying the oil and gas we need from those very regimes you named. Except not in some hypothetical future, but right now.
(*) It is a crying shame that so many so-called environmentalists ignore this.
That view epitomises short-term thinking. We know that our reserves of fossil fuels are small compared to those of Russia, etc, and we also know that we will need a certain amount of fossil fuel for essential purposes for an indefinite period. Given those two facts, it makes no long-term sense at all to be exploiting our own reserves for non-essential purposes now. It's asking for trouble in the future.
As for going great guns, no. While we, as a planet, have made some progress towards reducing emissions, it has been pitifully slow, to the extent that there has thus far been no noticeable effect on the rate of increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. Indeed, it is still accelerating. We are applauding our efforts while losing the war.
No. My view epitomises both long-term and short-term thinking. What we need to do now, to get where we need to be in the future. You just want to give as much money as possible to bad/evil regimes now. Regimes who have no reason to advance a green future. Gradatim ferociter, as a certain billionaire might say.
" makes no long-term sense at all to be exploiting our own reserves for non-essential purposes now."
Gas and oil is used for essential purposes now. Even on a sunny day with some wind, gas is providing us with some power. Petrol and diesel is allowing most of us to get around. And you think that is non-essential?
As for your last paragraph: we as a country have been going great guns. The world might not have been, but it's crass to deny how much progress our country has made over the last two decades.
When I look at of my window at all the single-occupant tonka-truck SUVs driving past my house, it's pretty hard to believe that we are using all that oil for essential purposes. Ditto the tourist-filled jets flying overhead.
You have zero idea why people are making those journeys. Zero. They may not seem essential to you; but can I judge your lifestyle too, please?
It's not the journey that's the issue. Is the giant, heavy box of steel for what is usually a very short distance.
Blimey you have vehicle tracking to know how long those journeys are. Amazing.
"What Everyone Knows About Britain* (*Except the British)"
"If only Britain knew how it was viewed abroad If the country were a person, it would need its friends to sit it down and deliver it a few home truths about its damaging behaviour to itself and others, says Michael Peel"
You don’t have to spend too much time on history twitter so see stuff like this:
We are profoundly ignorant of our history, as a society. There was a survey doing the rounds around the D-Day anniversary the other week that said that supposedly half of the UK thought we had done the most, as a country, to win WW2.
I love my country, we have done wonderful things throughout history. But I wish we had a more grown up, nuanced understanding of our history and the things we have done, good and bad, and how that’s impacted other countries and peoples, for good or ill. That might help ameliorate the problems the column highlights.
I’m not holding my breath, the English, especially the elites, do so love their self-bestowed exceptionalism.
Don't you ask yourself how one in five of us are going to vote Farage (according to the polls)? I'd be most surprised if any posters on here are going to and I certainly don't know anyone personally who would.
What do these weird people look like? what are their life experiences? Where do they live and spend their time? Did they go to school? Mix with other people in the playground?
This appointed court is not a part of our constitution; it has no legitimacy, and it is effectively making up law. It needs to be binned.
Um no, it interprets the current law and generates a result.
The new Labour Government can change the law and fix the issue all the Supreme Court has done is combine the law as it currently is and come to (an admittedly unexpected) conclusion..
People like @Luckyguy1983 clearly have no understanding of our legal system whatsoever. This is how it has ALWAYS worked.
Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities. It is a complete abuse of "supreme court" powers to intervene on these spurious grounds, effectively to prevent any new oil wells being built in this country - economical self-harm which is for elected parliamentarians to inflict if they so wish, because they can be de-elected again. It's not for an appointed body to stretch its remit and make decisions like this.
They can intervene if the process was not followed properly. That’s a fundamental principle of the rule of law.
Their judgement is based upon a highly troubling interpretation of what that process should be - that's the point. The emissions involved in the set up and ongoing operation of the business were reported on in the usual way. The emissions generated subsequently were not, and I've explained why to demand that they are is deeply concerning in other posts.
I worry that this bit of the above… : “ Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities”
…Shows a confusion between parliament and the executive.
Parliament makes laws. The executive (Government or SCC) makes decisions which should be legal, but if there is doubt the Judicial system will decide
This is part of the citizenship exam. Maybe it should be taught in schools too?
That's true but the court made a mistake in its ruling.
The emissions generated by the burning of the oil should not be counted as the net difference of oil burnt as a result of the well is zero.
Why zero? Because oil is fungible and had we not extracted from this well we'd have just imported from Saudi Arabia or somewhere else the exact same amount of oil.
So the total net emissions of a fungible product is zero, unless or until we start forbidding imports.
As pointed out by someone previously, the Supreme Court did not rule on the substance of the issue, but only on whether the county council had considered the substance of the issue. Which they had not.
So your objection is not relevant, or in order, and we could expect that a revised planning decision from the country council, which did consider the substance of the issue, has a high probability of concluding that it shouldn't be a bar to approving the application, for the logical reasons you set out.
That outcome would be law followed, planning approved, everyone happy (especially the lawyers!)
Not the locals. Not people who care about the countryside. Not those who want to save the planet.
but, yeah, it was about legal processes at the moment
I want to save the planet.
To do that we need to follow science, not dogma.
The science is we need to transition away from consuming oil.
We still need oil for the transition though and there is no scientific reason why OPEC-produced oil is better for the environment than domestically produced oil.
If the world needs to transition away from consuming oil, then basic logic says that the world also has to transition away from producing oil. As a country, we should therefore transition away from both producing and consuming oil as well as appropriately taxing the import of oil and oil derivatives to encourage other countries to do likewise.
No. We should maximise oil production in democratic states in order to minimise the flow of cash to despots and dictators. As long as we need it, the "west" should produce it.
This.
Regdrding renewables. The economic arguments for wind turbines etc. are barking. They have to be backed 100% by conventional power stations (gas) to cover still windless dark cold periods.
The eco argument is equally ludicrous and industry destroying with higher costs when China and India etc extracting vast amounts of coal for cheap electricity.
There is an argument for it on security reasons, with our own oil running out thenturbines mean we need less gas/oil from Vladimir and Khassogis murderers.
But pointing that out would mean the politicians saying "we've cocked up energy policy, ours is running out and we've got to spend a fortune otherwise Vlad and Sundry Sheiks will have us over a barrel"
Far better to say "you wicked people, you are destroying the planet, we must go green to save it"
The downside of that is that the green zealots are as uncontrollable and destructive as any other zealot and they have been allowed within the citadel.
oh, ffs.
The anti wind argument again.
We should be moving toward a mixed energy source system, which for the majority of time would mean most of our energy being provided by wind/solar. In these times only a small amount is fossil fuel based. EG now we have 15GW wind/solar and 5GW gas fired. Sometimes that mix needs to change obviously, but overall the use of wind/solar reduces our need for gas on average.
The anti-renewables loons are Putin's little shills.
As well as being a big exporter of fossil fuels, Russia is one of the few countries that is likely to benefit from anthropogenic climate change, so it's in their interests to deter moves away from fossil fuel consumption. It is also in their interest for those countries with small reserves to squander them as quickly as possible on fuel production so that they will be dependent on countries like Russia for raw materials for plastics, etc, in the future.
There seems to be no shortage of useful idiots, especially on the right of the political spectrum.
Many of the rewnewables-or-nothing loons, like Extinction Rebellion or Just Stop Oil, are Putin's little shills as well. He knows we will keep on buying fossil fuels for the immediate future, but the arguments between the anti-renewables and environmental extremists suit him, as they are very disruptive.
As for your last line: I might suggest that Just Stop Oil's behaviour over the last few days shows the useful idiots are also on the left of the political spectrum as well.
So you also believe that we should extract every last drop of UK oil as quickly as possible, thus leaving us at the mercy of Russia and Saudi Arabia in the future when it's all gone?
No.
It's a matter of progress. We need to move towards green energy - and we've been doing that really, really fast (*). But there is a limit to the speed by which we can do that without ruining the economy, and major technological hurdles remain (social ones as well, but less so).
Whilst this is in progress and we need oil and gas, we should try to be as self-sufficient as possible. Whilst also going great guns towards both reducing the need for oil and gas, and also being greener.
The alternate view involves us buying the oil and gas we need from those very regimes you named. Except not in some hypothetical future, but right now.
(*) It is a crying shame that so many so-called environmentalists ignore this.
That view epitomises short-term thinking. We know that our reserves of fossil fuels are small compared to those of Russia, etc, and we also know that we will need a certain amount of fossil fuel for essential purposes for an indefinite period. Given those two facts, it makes no long-term sense at all to be exploiting our own reserves for non-essential purposes now. It's asking for trouble in the future.
As for going great guns, no. While we, as a planet, have made some progress towards reducing emissions, it has been pitifully slow, to the extent that there has thus far been no noticeable effect on the rate of increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. Indeed, it is still accelerating. We are applauding our efforts while losing the war.
My mother told me the other day that in the late 1950s she missed out on a geography field trip to Italy as part of her degree because the airfare was £400 return (nominal, not equivalent of). Nowadays it's potentially £20. This seems wrong.
The question does arise whether a train would have been viable but it is sadly too late to ask
The international aviation market is skewed, in the same way international shipping is. It's atrocious that aviation kerosene is tax exempt, especially for domestic flights, while rail or bus travel is liable for fuel duty.
Yet placing tax on aviation kerosene is very difficult due to the international nature of the industry.
That should be changed, even if people have to pay more for flights.
And whilst I'm world dictator, I'd also stop flags of convenience schemes in shipping, and ensure ships' crews are treated decently.
If the UK taxed Kerosene, the Emirates A380 would take off from Dubai with the tanks filled to the brim, land at Heathrow and fly back to Dubai without refuelling. Using quite a bit more fuel in the process. The BA A380 would do exactly the same on Dubai trips.
Planes flying domestic routes would make a point of going somewhere close (Amsterdam, Dublin) to fill up there.
Airline flight planning departments already factor in the price of fuel at various destinations, when deciding how much to carry on any given flight.
This appointed court is not a part of our constitution; it has no legitimacy, and it is effectively making up law. It needs to be binned.
Um no, it interprets the current law and generates a result.
The new Labour Government can change the law and fix the issue all the Supreme Court has done is combine the law as it currently is and come to (an admittedly unexpected) conclusion..
People like @Luckyguy1983 clearly have no understanding of our legal system whatsoever. This is how it has ALWAYS worked.
Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities. It is a complete abuse of "supreme court" powers to intervene on these spurious grounds, effectively to prevent any new oil wells being built in this country - economical self-harm which is for elected parliamentarians to inflict if they so wish, because they can be de-elected again. It's not for an appointed body to stretch its remit and make decisions like this.
They can intervene if the process was not followed properly. That’s a fundamental principle of the rule of law.
Their judgement is based upon a highly troubling interpretation of what that process should be - that's the point. The emissions involved in the set up and ongoing operation of the business were reported on in the usual way. The emissions generated subsequently were not, and I've explained why to demand that they are is deeply concerning in other posts.
I worry that this bit of the above… : “ Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities”
…Shows a confusion between parliament and the executive.
Parliament makes laws. The executive (Government or SCC) makes decisions which should be legal, but if there is doubt the Judicial system will decide
This is part of the citizenship exam. Maybe it should be taught in schools too?
That's true but the court made a mistake in its ruling.
The emissions generated by the burning of the oil should not be counted as the net difference of oil burnt as a result of the well is zero.
Why zero? Because oil is fungible and had we not extracted from this well we'd have just imported from Saudi Arabia or somewhere else the exact same amount of oil.
So the total net emissions of a fungible product is zero, unless or until we start forbidding imports.
As pointed out by someone previously, the Supreme Court did not rule on the substance of the issue, but only on whether the county council had considered the substance of the issue. Which they had not.
So your objection is not relevant, or in order, and we could expect that a revised planning decision from the country council, which did consider the substance of the issue, has a high probability of concluding that it shouldn't be a bar to approving the application, for the logical reasons you set out.
That outcome would be law followed, planning approved, everyone happy (especially the lawyers!)
Not the locals. Not people who care about the countryside. Not those who want to save the planet.
but, yeah, it was about legal processes at the moment
I want to save the planet.
To do that we need to follow science, not dogma.
The science is we need to transition away from consuming oil.
We still need oil for the transition though and there is no scientific reason why OPEC-produced oil is better for the environment than domestically produced oil.
If the world needs to transition away from consuming oil, then basic logic says that the world also has to transition away from producing oil. As a country, we should therefore transition away from both producing and consuming oil as well as appropriately taxing the import of oil and oil derivatives to encourage other countries to do likewise.
No. We should maximise oil production in democratic states in order to minimise the flow of cash to despots and dictators. As long as we need it, the "west" should produce it.
All fossil fuel that is mined/produced will be burned. The increase in global temperature doesn't care if it is Saudi oil or US oil. By not stopping the production of oil the only remaining possible way to stop the global warming is through a very high level of carbon capture.
We need to stop the consumption of oil.
Production is a secondary matter.
We already consume more than we produce, which is a terrible failure. We need to work harder on reducing consumption, not production.
Globally we won't reduce consuming oil without reducing production. A reduction in consumption leads to lower prices which drives up consumption again. It is only when the price drops so much that the production becomes more expensive per unit than selling it does.
You are wrong, yes we will.
I changed my car last year. My old car was costing me ~£80 a tank of petrol which would last me 350 miles. My new car costs me ~£40 a tank of petrol which lasts me 350 miles. Does that mean I'm driving twice as many miles as I was to keep my expenditure the same? Of course it doesn't!
My oil consumption has come down by roughly 50% in that vehicle, not because of changes to production globally (of which OPEC of course adapts to keep prices where it wants it) but because I've adopted a technological change.
My old car was just petrol, my new one is not even a plug in, just a self-charging hybrid, that gets over twice the miles to the gallon as the old one.
We are seeing technological change like that on a micro and macro scale all over the planet. Over half my oil consumption has gone in my vehicle in one step and my intention is my next vehicle will be a net zero pure electric one, its just that's too expensive today.
Clean technology adaptation is the only way to solve the mess and clean the environment.
You are still destroying the planet.
...maybe, but only half as fast seemingly...
Are you saying - as per Zeno's paradox - he will never stop destroying the planet.
..wow, I had to google that.
If Barty kept buying cars which doubled his mileage on the same amount of fuel each time, then yes, I'd agree...
I have an 18-year-old car. The new version of the same car is more than twice as fuel efficient. Most new petrol cars sold now do 60mpg.
Imagine how much more that increase would be if FF cars had not increased in mass by perhaps 300kg over the period. That's an estimated figure - the overall is more like 400kg, but I can't find one with disaggrerated data by ICE vs Electric.
I expect most of the increase in mass is to do with "safety".
Most of the increase in mass is to do with the environment.
Batteries are heavy. My hybrid needs to carry a battery, its predecessor did not [besides the 12V one of course].
Since my comment relates to Fossil Fuel cars, it does not have much to do with batteries :-), which add even more extra.
The non-battery weight increase is very much to do with safety and also emissions, and came earlier - things such as door girders, compulsory airbags and catalytic converters.
More recently it is batteries, but also marketing of larger vehicles as "safer" (for those inside them, not outside).
One interesting question for the future is whether we actually need the huge batteries, never mind the tonka-tanks to carry them around in.
I wonder if once Sir Kier gets around to addressing Excise Duty etc on electric vehicles, and where the ~£2500 per year he needs from every vehicle to maintain revenue is going to come from, there will be a weight component in excise duty. It could be arguably justified on either environmental or safety grounds.
~£2500 per annum from vehicles is nowhere near needed to maintain our roads, which is all that drivers should be paying for.
Actually to be fair cyclists and most public transport use the roads too, so drivers should only be paying a proportion of road costs.
Vehicles should not be treated as a golden goose to be plucked for unrelated taxes. Everyone should pay their taxes equally, not just drivers.
Cyclists cause next to zero road wear. Fourth power law.
So I'd be more than happy to pay my proportional road tax of £1 per annum.
Wouldn't a true fourth power law lead to utterly colossal duties on lorries though which could push up food inflation ?
The actual calculation is fourth power of axle weight, rather than of vehicle weight, which reduces the cost to lorries somewhat. But yes, you’d charge commercial vehicles on a different scale to private vehicles.
I didn't realise it was anything like that low. I had a figure of 5k or 6k per annum in my head.
Given the size of the things, and that an average large lorry in the UK drives something like 7x the distance driven by an average private car (taking 50-55k miles vs 7500 miles) it seems to be a very strange number.
I would never choose to vote by post unless there was no alternative. I like to see my ballot paper go into the box. 😊
Yes, I miss that frisson, but I am rather peripatetic these days and I would hate to miss the opportunity to tell the bastards what i think of them.
You can go to the polling station and drop your postal vote in the box. It’s what I like to do if I can. That way you get the best of all worlds
Much as I would enjoy depriving Camden of a Reform conspiracist’s vote it’s no longer quite that simple.
You now (since 2022) have to take your postal vote to a member of staff at the polling station and complete a declaration form which includes an explanation of why your circumstances changed. If you just drop it into the ballot box as you have suggested it will be rejected.
"A dozen Labour candidates who the Guardian spoke to this week said that although Tory voters in their patches and elsewhere were hugely disillusioned and divided, they were encountering large numbers of undecided voters."
Yes, definitely true in Didcot and Wantage. They seem undecided whether to vote Labour, LibDem, Green, or not at all. It's unusually difficult, however, to find people who are openly Tory.
The Liberal vote is the tactician's choice in D&W, Nick. At least according to the Betfair market. You need to soft pedal there as it's causing huge confusion on the ground.
Different polls (and Betfair) give different results, but I think it's a genuine 3-way marginal (Reform are not competitive) and worth the considerable Labour effort there (unlike some other seats). The LibDem effort is misplaced IMO, and would be better focused on seats where Labour is clearly weaker - otherwise the result may be lots of good second places, like last time. It's clearly partly with an eye to next year's County election, though.
Really? BX has the Libs at 1.4 and Labour at 4.4 –– the Liberals are a pretty big favourite. Are you sure you are being fair in your analysis here? I know the seat very well and Labour gunning hard for the seat is simply splitting the anti-Tory vote.
This appointed court is not a part of our constitution; it has no legitimacy, and it is effectively making up law. It needs to be binned.
Um no, it interprets the current law and generates a result.
The new Labour Government can change the law and fix the issue all the Supreme Court has done is combine the law as it currently is and come to (an admittedly unexpected) conclusion..
People like @Luckyguy1983 clearly have no understanding of our legal system whatsoever. This is how it has ALWAYS worked.
Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities. It is a complete abuse of "supreme court" powers to intervene on these spurious grounds, effectively to prevent any new oil wells being built in this country - economical self-harm which is for elected parliamentarians to inflict if they so wish, because they can be de-elected again. It's not for an appointed body to stretch its remit and make decisions like this.
They can intervene if the process was not followed properly. That’s a fundamental principle of the rule of law.
Their judgement is based upon a highly troubling interpretation of what that process should be - that's the point. The emissions involved in the set up and ongoing operation of the business were reported on in the usual way. The emissions generated subsequently were not, and I've explained why to demand that they are is deeply concerning in other posts.
I worry that this bit of the above… : “ Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities”
…Shows a confusion between parliament and the executive.
Parliament makes laws. The executive (Government or SCC) makes decisions which should be legal, but if there is doubt the Judicial system will decide
This is part of the citizenship exam. Maybe it should be taught in schools too?
That's true but the court made a mistake in its ruling.
The emissions generated by the burning of the oil should not be counted as the net difference of oil burnt as a result of the well is zero.
Why zero? Because oil is fungible and had we not extracted from this well we'd have just imported from Saudi Arabia or somewhere else the exact same amount of oil.
So the total net emissions of a fungible product is zero, unless or until we start forbidding imports.
As pointed out by someone previously, the Supreme Court did not rule on the substance of the issue, but only on whether the county council had considered the substance of the issue. Which they had not.
So your objection is not relevant, or in order, and we could expect that a revised planning decision from the country council, which did consider the substance of the issue, has a high probability of concluding that it shouldn't be a bar to approving the application, for the logical reasons you set out.
That outcome would be law followed, planning approved, everyone happy (especially the lawyers!)
Not the locals. Not people who care about the countryside. Not those who want to save the planet.
but, yeah, it was about legal processes at the moment
I want to save the planet.
To do that we need to follow science, not dogma.
The science is we need to transition away from consuming oil.
We still need oil for the transition though and there is no scientific reason why OPEC-produced oil is better for the environment than domestically produced oil.
If the world needs to transition away from consuming oil, then basic logic says that the world also has to transition away from producing oil. As a country, we should therefore transition away from both producing and consuming oil as well as appropriately taxing the import of oil and oil derivatives to encourage other countries to do likewise.
No. We should maximise oil production in democratic states in order to minimise the flow of cash to despots and dictators. As long as we need it, the "west" should produce it.
This.
Regdrding renewables. The economic arguments for wind turbines etc. are barking. They have to be backed 100% by conventional power stations (gas) to cover still windless dark cold periods.
The eco argument is equally ludicrous and industry destroying with higher costs when China and India etc extracting vast amounts of coal for cheap electricity.
There is an argument for it on security reasons, with our own oil running out thenturbines mean we need less gas/oil from Vladimir and Khassogis murderers.
But pointing that out would mean the politicians saying "we've cocked up energy policy, ours is running out and we've got to spend a fortune otherwise Vlad and Sundry Sheiks will have us over a barrel"
Far better to say "you wicked people, you are destroying the planet, we must go green to save it"
The downside of that is that the green zealots are as uncontrollable and destructive as any other zealot and they have been allowed within the citadel.
oh, ffs.
The anti wind argument again.
We should be moving toward a mixed energy source system, which for the majority of time would mean most of our energy being provided by wind/solar. In these times only a small amount is fossil fuel based. EG now we have 15GW wind/solar and 5GW gas fired. Sometimes that mix needs to change obviously, but overall the use of wind/solar reduces our need for gas on average.
The anti-renewables loons are Putin's little shills.
As well as being a big exporter of fossil fuels, Russia is one of the few countries that is likely to benefit from anthropogenic climate change, so it's in their interests to deter moves away from fossil fuel consumption. It is also in their interest for those countries with small reserves to squander them as quickly as possible on fuel production so that they will be dependent on countries like Russia for raw materials for plastics, etc, in the future.
There seems to be no shortage of useful idiots, especially on the right of the political spectrum.
Many of the rewnewables-or-nothing loons, like Extinction Rebellion or Just Stop Oil, are Putin's little shills as well. He knows we will keep on buying fossil fuels for the immediate future, but the arguments between the anti-renewables and environmental extremists suit him, as they are very disruptive.
As for your last line: I might suggest that Just Stop Oil's behaviour over the last few days shows the useful idiots are also on the left of the political spectrum as well.
So you also believe that we should extract every last drop of UK oil as quickly as possible, thus leaving us at the mercy of Russia and Saudi Arabia in the future when it's all gone?
No.
It's a matter of progress. We need to move towards green energy - and we've been doing that really, really fast (*). But there is a limit to the speed by which we can do that without ruining the economy, and major technological hurdles remain (social ones as well, but less so).
Whilst this is in progress and we need oil and gas, we should try to be as self-sufficient as possible. Whilst also going great guns towards both reducing the need for oil and gas, and also being greener.
The alternate view involves us buying the oil and gas we need from those very regimes you named. Except not in some hypothetical future, but right now.
(*) It is a crying shame that so many so-called environmentalists ignore this.
That view epitomises short-term thinking. We know that our reserves of fossil fuels are small compared to those of Russia, etc, and we also know that we will need a certain amount of fossil fuel for essential purposes for an indefinite period. Given those two facts, it makes no long-term sense at all to be exploiting our own reserves for non-essential purposes now. It's asking for trouble in the future.
As for going great guns, no. While we, as a planet, have made some progress towards reducing emissions, it has been pitifully slow, to the extent that there has thus far been no noticeable effect on the rate of increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. Indeed, it is still accelerating. We are applauding our efforts while losing the war.
No. My view epitomises both long-term and short-term thinking. What we need to do now, to get where we need to be in the future. You just want to give as much money as possible to bad/evil regimes now. Regimes who have no reason to advance a green future. Gradatim ferociter, as a certain billionaire might say.
" makes no long-term sense at all to be exploiting our own reserves for non-essential purposes now."
Gas and oil is used for essential purposes now. Even on a sunny day with some wind, gas is providing us with some power. Petrol and diesel is allowing most of us to get around. And you think that is non-essential?
As for your last paragraph: we as a country have been going great guns. The world might not have been, but it's crass to deny how much progress our country has made over the last two decades.
When I look at of my window at all the single-occupant tonka-truck SUVs driving past my house, it's pretty hard to believe that we are using all that oil for essential purposes. Ditto the tourist-filled jets flying overhead.
You have zero idea why people are making those journeys. Zero. They may not seem essential to you; but can I judge your lifestyle too, please?
Now you're just being ridiculous. You're effectively claiming that every journey made is essential. Even if that were the case, it is certainly not essential that it be made in a gas-guzzling SUV. And you have the gall to call me a Putin apologist? Just take a look at yourself.
Ooh can I be on the panel which gets to determine which journeys are essential and which ones ok to dispense with. How do I apply? Are you a member?
This appointed court is not a part of our constitution; it has no legitimacy, and it is effectively making up law. It needs to be binned.
Um no, it interprets the current law and generates a result.
The new Labour Government can change the law and fix the issue all the Supreme Court has done is combine the law as it currently is and come to (an admittedly unexpected) conclusion..
People like @Luckyguy1983 clearly have no understanding of our legal system whatsoever. This is how it has ALWAYS worked.
Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities. It is a complete abuse of "supreme court" powers to intervene on these spurious grounds, effectively to prevent any new oil wells being built in this country - economical self-harm which is for elected parliamentarians to inflict if they so wish, because they can be de-elected again. It's not for an appointed body to stretch its remit and make decisions like this.
They can intervene if the process was not followed properly. That’s a fundamental principle of the rule of law.
Their judgement is based upon a highly troubling interpretation of what that process should be - that's the point. The emissions involved in the set up and ongoing operation of the business were reported on in the usual way. The emissions generated subsequently were not, and I've explained why to demand that they are is deeply concerning in other posts.
I worry that this bit of the above… : “ Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities”
…Shows a confusion between parliament and the executive.
Parliament makes laws. The executive (Government or SCC) makes decisions which should be legal, but if there is doubt the Judicial system will decide
This is part of the citizenship exam. Maybe it should be taught in schools too?
That's true but the court made a mistake in its ruling.
The emissions generated by the burning of the oil should not be counted as the net difference of oil burnt as a result of the well is zero.
Why zero? Because oil is fungible and had we not extracted from this well we'd have just imported from Saudi Arabia or somewhere else the exact same amount of oil.
So the total net emissions of a fungible product is zero, unless or until we start forbidding imports.
As pointed out by someone previously, the Supreme Court did not rule on the substance of the issue, but only on whether the county council had considered the substance of the issue. Which they had not.
So your objection is not relevant, or in order, and we could expect that a revised planning decision from the country council, which did consider the substance of the issue, has a high probability of concluding that it shouldn't be a bar to approving the application, for the logical reasons you set out.
That outcome would be law followed, planning approved, everyone happy (especially the lawyers!)
Not the locals. Not people who care about the countryside. Not those who want to save the planet.
but, yeah, it was about legal processes at the moment
I want to save the planet.
To do that we need to follow science, not dogma.
The science is we need to transition away from consuming oil.
We still need oil for the transition though and there is no scientific reason why OPEC-produced oil is better for the environment than domestically produced oil.
If the world needs to transition away from consuming oil, then basic logic says that the world also has to transition away from producing oil. As a country, we should therefore transition away from both producing and consuming oil as well as appropriately taxing the import of oil and oil derivatives to encourage other countries to do likewise.
No. We should maximise oil production in democratic states in order to minimise the flow of cash to despots and dictators. As long as we need it, the "west" should produce it.
This.
Regdrding renewables. The economic arguments for wind turbines etc. are barking. They have to be backed 100% by conventional power stations (gas) to cover still windless dark cold periods.
The eco argument is equally ludicrous and industry destroying with higher costs when China and India etc extracting vast amounts of coal for cheap electricity.
There is an argument for it on security reasons, with our own oil running out thenturbines mean we need less gas/oil from Vladimir and Khassogis murderers.
But pointing that out would mean the politicians saying "we've cocked up energy policy, ours is running out and we've got to spend a fortune otherwise Vlad and Sundry Sheiks will have us over a barrel"
Far better to say "you wicked people, you are destroying the planet, we must go green to save it"
The downside of that is that the green zealots are as uncontrollable and destructive as any other zealot and they have been allowed within the citadel.
oh, ffs.
The anti wind argument again.
We should be moving toward a mixed energy source system, which for the majority of time would mean most of our energy being provided by wind/solar. In these times only a small amount is fossil fuel based. EG now we have 15GW wind/solar and 5GW gas fired. Sometimes that mix needs to change obviously, but overall the use of wind/solar reduces our need for gas on average.
The anti-renewables loons are Putin's little shills.
As well as being a big exporter of fossil fuels, Russia is one of the few countries that is likely to benefit from anthropogenic climate change, so it's in their interests to deter moves away from fossil fuel consumption. It is also in their interest for those countries with small reserves to squander them as quickly as possible on fuel production so that they will be dependent on countries like Russia for raw materials for plastics, etc, in the future.
There seems to be no shortage of useful idiots, especially on the right of the political spectrum.
Many of the rewnewables-or-nothing loons, like Extinction Rebellion or Just Stop Oil, are Putin's little shills as well. He knows we will keep on buying fossil fuels for the immediate future, but the arguments between the anti-renewables and environmental extremists suit him, as they are very disruptive.
As for your last line: I might suggest that Just Stop Oil's behaviour over the last few days shows the useful idiots are also on the left of the political spectrum as well.
So you also believe that we should extract every last drop of UK oil as quickly as possible, thus leaving us at the mercy of Russia and Saudi Arabia in the future when it's all gone?
No.
It's a matter of progress. We need to move towards green energy - and we've been doing that really, really fast (*). But there is a limit to the speed by which we can do that without ruining the economy, and major technological hurdles remain (social ones as well, but less so).
Whilst this is in progress and we need oil and gas, we should try to be as self-sufficient as possible. Whilst also going great guns towards both reducing the need for oil and gas, and also being greener.
The alternate view involves us buying the oil and gas we need from those very regimes you named. Except not in some hypothetical future, but right now.
(*) It is a crying shame that so many so-called environmentalists ignore this.
That view epitomises short-term thinking. We know that our reserves of fossil fuels are small compared to those of Russia, etc, and we also know that we will need a certain amount of fossil fuel for essential purposes for an indefinite period. Given those two facts, it makes no long-term sense at all to be exploiting our own reserves for non-essential purposes now. It's asking for trouble in the future.
As for going great guns, no. While we, as a planet, have made some progress towards reducing emissions, it has been pitifully slow, to the extent that there has thus far been no noticeable effect on the rate of increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. Indeed, it is still accelerating. We are applauding our efforts while losing the war.
No. My view epitomises both long-term and short-term thinking. What we need to do now, to get where we need to be in the future. You just want to give as much money as possible to bad/evil regimes now. Regimes who have no reason to advance a green future. Gradatim ferociter, as a certain billionaire might say.
" makes no long-term sense at all to be exploiting our own reserves for non-essential purposes now."
Gas and oil is used for essential purposes now. Even on a sunny day with some wind, gas is providing us with some power. Petrol and diesel is allowing most of us to get around. And you think that is non-essential?
As for your last paragraph: we as a country have been going great guns. The world might not have been, but it's crass to deny how much progress our country has made over the last two decades.
When I look at of my window at all the single-occupant tonka-truck SUVs driving past my house, it's pretty hard to believe that we are using all that oil for essential purposes. Ditto the tourist-filled jets flying overhead.
You have zero idea why people are making those journeys. Zero. They may not seem essential to you; but can I judge your lifestyle too, please?
It's not the journey that's the issue. Is the giant, heavy box of steel for what is usually a very short distance.
You seem to have a real objection to size but that box of steel is an efficient and powerful way to safely move both people and possessions both short and large distances.
What would happen if everyone who walks, cycles or takes public transport suddenly started driving around instead?
We are profoundly ignorant of our history, as a society. There was a survey doing the rounds around the D-Day anniversary the other week that said that supposedly half of the UK thought we had done the most, as a country, to win WW2.
I generally agree with most of your post (which I've deleted to shorten the quote), but this is PB, so instead I'm going to take issue with just one small part of it.
Obviously if you look at industrial production, or military casualties, the UK and its Empire will come pretty low down in its contribution to winning WWII, but there wouldn't have been a WWII if Britain had agreed a peace with Nazi Germany after the fall of France in 1940.
Germany and the USSR would still have fought a war, as would Japan and the US, but as to whether these wars would have been linked to the earlier short European war that saw the defeat of France and Britain, as a world war, is somewhat open to question. As is whether the USSR would have prevailed without support from Britain and the US, and without Germany fighting on a second front in North Africa, Italy and later France.
So it's at least arguable that Britain's role in WWII was absolutely crucial.
It's incontrovertible, but crucial-but-minor is a perfectly understandable concept. The ignition key is crucial to you making a car journey but the engine and drivetrain do most of the work.
"What Everyone Knows About Britain* (*Except the British)"
"If only Britain knew how it was viewed abroad If the country were a person, it would need its friends to sit it down and deliver it a few home truths about its damaging behaviour to itself and others, says Michael Peel"
You don’t have to spend too much time on history twitter so see stuff like this:
We are profoundly ignorant of our history, as a society. There was a survey doing the rounds around the D-Day anniversary the other week that said that supposedly half of the UK thought we had done the most, as a country, to win WW2.
I love my country, we have done wonderful things throughout history. But I wish we had a more grown up, nuanced understanding of our history and the things we have done, good and bad, and how that’s impacted other countries and peoples, for good or ill. That might help ameliorate the problems the column highlights.
I’m not holding my breath, the English, especially the elites, do so love their self-bestowed exceptionalism.
Surprised only 50% think we won ww2 pretty much single handedly. Perhaps the Oppenheimer movie helped.
All rather unnuanced statements. Did UK do "the most" to win WW2? That would take quite a long essay, but in some ways, yes. Britain and it's colonies could perhaps have not won without the support of the Americans, but equally if Britain had capitulated in early 1940, when the US was dithering and the USSR was standing by, then America would almost certainly not been able to defeat the Nazis on their own, not least because they would have had nowhere to launch D-Day from. Britain did not win WW2 on their own, but neither did the US. If we measure who did "the most" in gruesome numbers of deaths, then UK slightly eclipses US on 450k v 418k (military and civilian), which is dwarfed by the Soviet Union's 24M !
As for "English" exceptionalism (when I last looked the Scots are pretty good at this too!), I am not sure it is any greater than any other major power. Nationalism and patriotism both thrive on the idea that "we" are a bit more special than the other lot. Where the UK is a little unusual is the "anti-exceptionalism" and self-loathing displayed by those on the more scummy end of the British left.
It’s a quiet morning in politics and for all the talk of undecideds I reckon a lot of people have now switched off from it.
A potentially exciting cricket match this afternoon in the men’s T20 world cup: England vs South Africa.
And three decent matches in the footy. Netherlands v France could be a good one this evening. Apart from watching England who are probably the most tedious side in the tournament, it has been an absolute cracker so far.
Plus some build-up tennis towards Wimbledon. On which subject I mentioned the 33-1 you could get on Emma Raducanu for Wimbledon, and Katy Boulter is playing very well this year but perhaps it’s across to the men’s that we should be looking.
Jack Draper is in the form of his young (22) life having just won Stuttgart. He’s the British No.1 and yesterday he defeated the existing Wimbledon champion Carlos Alcaraz on grass.
You can still (just) get 25-1 on Jack Draper for the title. Outlandish? Ridiculous? Maybe but remember he’ll have home support.
This appointed court is not a part of our constitution; it has no legitimacy, and it is effectively making up law. It needs to be binned.
Um no, it interprets the current law and generates a result.
The new Labour Government can change the law and fix the issue all the Supreme Court has done is combine the law as it currently is and come to (an admittedly unexpected) conclusion..
People like @Luckyguy1983 clearly have no understanding of our legal system whatsoever. This is how it has ALWAYS worked.
Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities. It is a complete abuse of "supreme court" powers to intervene on these spurious grounds, effectively to prevent any new oil wells being built in this country - economical self-harm which is for elected parliamentarians to inflict if they so wish, because they can be de-elected again. It's not for an appointed body to stretch its remit and make decisions like this.
They can intervene if the process was not followed properly. That’s a fundamental principle of the rule of law.
Their judgement is based upon a highly troubling interpretation of what that process should be - that's the point. The emissions involved in the set up and ongoing operation of the business were reported on in the usual way. The emissions generated subsequently were not, and I've explained why to demand that they are is deeply concerning in other posts.
I worry that this bit of the above… : “ Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities”
…Shows a confusion between parliament and the executive.
Parliament makes laws. The executive (Government or SCC) makes decisions which should be legal, but if there is doubt the Judicial system will decide
This is part of the citizenship exam. Maybe it should be taught in schools too?
That's true but the court made a mistake in its ruling.
The emissions generated by the burning of the oil should not be counted as the net difference of oil burnt as a result of the well is zero.
Why zero? Because oil is fungible and had we not extracted from this well we'd have just imported from Saudi Arabia or somewhere else the exact same amount of oil.
So the total net emissions of a fungible product is zero, unless or until we start forbidding imports.
As pointed out by someone previously, the Supreme Court did not rule on the substance of the issue, but only on whether the county council had considered the substance of the issue. Which they had not.
So your objection is not relevant, or in order, and we could expect that a revised planning decision from the country council, which did consider the substance of the issue, has a high probability of concluding that it shouldn't be a bar to approving the application, for the logical reasons you set out.
That outcome would be law followed, planning approved, everyone happy (especially the lawyers!)
Not the locals. Not people who care about the countryside. Not those who want to save the planet.
but, yeah, it was about legal processes at the moment
I want to save the planet.
To do that we need to follow science, not dogma.
The science is we need to transition away from consuming oil.
We still need oil for the transition though and there is no scientific reason why OPEC-produced oil is better for the environment than domestically produced oil.
If the world needs to transition away from consuming oil, then basic logic says that the world also has to transition away from producing oil. As a country, we should therefore transition away from both producing and consuming oil as well as appropriately taxing the import of oil and oil derivatives to encourage other countries to do likewise.
No. We should maximise oil production in democratic states in order to minimise the flow of cash to despots and dictators. As long as we need it, the "west" should produce it.
This.
Regdrding renewables. The economic arguments for wind turbines etc. are barking. They have to be backed 100% by conventional power stations (gas) to cover still windless dark cold periods.
The eco argument is equally ludicrous and industry destroying with higher costs when China and India etc extracting vast amounts of coal for cheap electricity.
There is an argument for it on security reasons, with our own oil running out thenturbines mean we need less gas/oil from Vladimir and Khassogis murderers.
But pointing that out would mean the politicians saying "we've cocked up energy policy, ours is running out and we've got to spend a fortune otherwise Vlad and Sundry Sheiks will have us over a barrel"
Far better to say "you wicked people, you are destroying the planet, we must go green to save it"
The downside of that is that the green zealots are as uncontrollable and destructive as any other zealot and they have been allowed within the citadel.
oh, ffs.
The anti wind argument again.
We should be moving toward a mixed energy source system, which for the majority of time would mean most of our energy being provided by wind/solar. In these times only a small amount is fossil fuel based. EG now we have 15GW wind/solar and 5GW gas fired. Sometimes that mix needs to change obviously, but overall the use of wind/solar reduces our need for gas on average.
The anti-renewables loons are Putin's little shills.
As well as being a big exporter of fossil fuels, Russia is one of the few countries that is likely to benefit from anthropogenic climate change, so it's in their interests to deter moves away from fossil fuel consumption. It is also in their interest for those countries with small reserves to squander them as quickly as possible on fuel production so that they will be dependent on countries like Russia for raw materials for plastics, etc, in the future.
There seems to be no shortage of useful idiots, especially on the right of the political spectrum.
Many of the rewnewables-or-nothing loons, like Extinction Rebellion or Just Stop Oil, are Putin's little shills as well. He knows we will keep on buying fossil fuels for the immediate future, but the arguments between the anti-renewables and environmental extremists suit him, as they are very disruptive.
As for your last line: I might suggest that Just Stop Oil's behaviour over the last few days shows the useful idiots are also on the left of the political spectrum as well.
So you also believe that we should extract every last drop of UK oil as quickly as possible, thus leaving us at the mercy of Russia and Saudi Arabia in the future when it's all gone?
No.
It's a matter of progress. We need to move towards green energy - and we've been doing that really, really fast (*). But there is a limit to the speed by which we can do that without ruining the economy, and major technological hurdles remain (social ones as well, but less so).
Whilst this is in progress and we need oil and gas, we should try to be as self-sufficient as possible. Whilst also going great guns towards both reducing the need for oil and gas, and also being greener.
The alternate view involves us buying the oil and gas we need from those very regimes you named. Except not in some hypothetical future, but right now.
(*) It is a crying shame that so many so-called environmentalists ignore this.
That view epitomises short-term thinking. We know that our reserves of fossil fuels are small compared to those of Russia, etc, and we also know that we will need a certain amount of fossil fuel for essential purposes for an indefinite period. Given those two facts, it makes no long-term sense at all to be exploiting our own reserves for non-essential purposes now. It's asking for trouble in the future.
As for going great guns, no. While we, as a planet, have made some progress towards reducing emissions, it has been pitifully slow, to the extent that there has thus far been no noticeable effect on the rate of increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. Indeed, it is still accelerating. We are applauding our efforts while losing the war.
My mother told me the other day that in the late 1950s she missed out on a geography field trip to Italy as part of her degree because the airfare was £400 return (nominal, not equivalent of). Nowadays it's potentially £20. This seems wrong.
The question does arise whether a train would have been viable but it is sadly too late to ask
The international aviation market is skewed, in the same way international shipping is. It's atrocious that aviation kerosene is tax exempt, especially for domestic flights, while rail or bus travel is liable for fuel duty.
Yet placing tax on aviation kerosene is very difficult due to the international nature of the industry.
That should be changed, even if people have to pay more for flights.
And whilst I'm world dictator, I'd also stop flags of convenience schemes in shipping, and ensure ships' crews are treated decently.
If the UK taxed Kerosene, the Emirates A380 would take off from Dubai with the tanks filled to the brim, land at Heathrow and fly back to Dubai without refuelling. Using quite a bit more fuel in the process. The BA A380 would do exactly the same on Dubai trips.
Planes flying domestic routes would make a point of going somewhere close (Amsterdam, Dublin) to fill up there.
Airline flight planning departments already factor in the price of fuel at various destinations, when deciding how much to carry on any given flight.
In the same way that Ryanair planes may start and end in some part of Eastern Europe while spending the rest of the day flying round Western Europe - as that keeps some staff cheap...
"What Everyone Knows About Britain* (*Except the British)"
"If only Britain knew how it was viewed abroad If the country were a person, it would need its friends to sit it down and deliver it a few home truths about its damaging behaviour to itself and others, says Michael Peel"
You don’t have to spend too much time on history twitter so see stuff like this:
We are profoundly ignorant of our history, as a society. There was a survey doing the rounds around the D-Day anniversary the other week that said that supposedly half of the UK thought we had done the most, as a country, to win WW2.
I love my country, we have done wonderful things throughout history. But I wish we had a more grown up, nuanced understanding of our history and the things we have done, good and bad, and how that’s impacted other countries and peoples, for good or ill. That might help ameliorate the problems the column highlights.
I’m not holding my breath, the English, especially the elites, do so love their self-bestowed exceptionalism.
Don't you ask yourself how one in five of us are going to vote Farage (according to the polls)? I'd be most surprised if any posters on here are going to and I certainly don't know anyone personally who would.
What do these weird people look like? what are their life experiences? Where do they live and spend their time? Did they go to school? Mix with other people in the playground?
I think we should be told!
They are probably very similar to the larger proportion of French people who want to vote for a far right party. Maybe ask around when you are in Villefranche-sur-Mer.
This appointed court is not a part of our constitution; it has no legitimacy, and it is effectively making up law. It needs to be binned.
Um no, it interprets the current law and generates a result.
The new Labour Government can change the law and fix the issue all the Supreme Court has done is combine the law as it currently is and come to (an admittedly unexpected) conclusion..
People like @Luckyguy1983 clearly have no understanding of our legal system whatsoever. This is how it has ALWAYS worked.
Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities. It is a complete abuse of "supreme court" powers to intervene on these spurious grounds, effectively to prevent any new oil wells being built in this country - economical self-harm which is for elected parliamentarians to inflict if they so wish, because they can be de-elected again. It's not for an appointed body to stretch its remit and make decisions like this.
They can intervene if the process was not followed properly. That’s a fundamental principle of the rule of law.
Their judgement is based upon a highly troubling interpretation of what that process should be - that's the point. The emissions involved in the set up and ongoing operation of the business were reported on in the usual way. The emissions generated subsequently were not, and I've explained why to demand that they are is deeply concerning in other posts.
I worry that this bit of the above… : “ Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities”
…Shows a confusion between parliament and the executive.
Parliament makes laws. The executive (Government or SCC) makes decisions which should be legal, but if there is doubt the Judicial system will decide
This is part of the citizenship exam. Maybe it should be taught in schools too?
That's true but the court made a mistake in its ruling.
The emissions generated by the burning of the oil should not be counted as the net difference of oil burnt as a result of the well is zero.
Why zero? Because oil is fungible and had we not extracted from this well we'd have just imported from Saudi Arabia or somewhere else the exact same amount of oil.
So the total net emissions of a fungible product is zero, unless or until we start forbidding imports.
As pointed out by someone previously, the Supreme Court did not rule on the substance of the issue, but only on whether the county council had considered the substance of the issue. Which they had not.
So your objection is not relevant, or in order, and we could expect that a revised planning decision from the country council, which did consider the substance of the issue, has a high probability of concluding that it shouldn't be a bar to approving the application, for the logical reasons you set out.
That outcome would be law followed, planning approved, everyone happy (especially the lawyers!)
Not the locals. Not people who care about the countryside. Not those who want to save the planet.
but, yeah, it was about legal processes at the moment
I want to save the planet.
To do that we need to follow science, not dogma.
The science is we need to transition away from consuming oil.
We still need oil for the transition though and there is no scientific reason why OPEC-produced oil is better for the environment than domestically produced oil.
If the world needs to transition away from consuming oil, then basic logic says that the world also has to transition away from producing oil. As a country, we should therefore transition away from both producing and consuming oil as well as appropriately taxing the import of oil and oil derivatives to encourage other countries to do likewise.
No. We should maximise oil production in democratic states in order to minimise the flow of cash to despots and dictators. As long as we need it, the "west" should produce it.
This.
Regdrding renewables. The economic arguments for wind turbines etc. are barking. They have to be backed 100% by conventional power stations (gas) to cover still windless dark cold periods.
The eco argument is equally ludicrous and industry destroying with higher costs when China and India etc extracting vast amounts of coal for cheap electricity.
There is an argument for it on security reasons, with our own oil running out thenturbines mean we need less gas/oil from Vladimir and Khassogis murderers.
But pointing that out would mean the politicians saying "we've cocked up energy policy, ours is running out and we've got to spend a fortune otherwise Vlad and Sundry Sheiks will have us over a barrel"
Far better to say "you wicked people, you are destroying the planet, we must go green to save it"
The downside of that is that the green zealots are as uncontrollable and destructive as any other zealot and they have been allowed within the citadel.
oh, ffs.
The anti wind argument again.
We should be moving toward a mixed energy source system, which for the majority of time would mean most of our energy being provided by wind/solar. In these times only a small amount is fossil fuel based. EG now we have 15GW wind/solar and 5GW gas fired. Sometimes that mix needs to change obviously, but overall the use of wind/solar reduces our need for gas on average.
The anti-renewables loons are Putin's little shills.
As well as being a big exporter of fossil fuels, Russia is one of the few countries that is likely to benefit from anthropogenic climate change, so it's in their interests to deter moves away from fossil fuel consumption. It is also in their interest for those countries with small reserves to squander them as quickly as possible on fuel production so that they will be dependent on countries like Russia for raw materials for plastics, etc, in the future.
There seems to be no shortage of useful idiots, especially on the right of the political spectrum.
Many of the rewnewables-or-nothing loons, like Extinction Rebellion or Just Stop Oil, are Putin's little shills as well. He knows we will keep on buying fossil fuels for the immediate future, but the arguments between the anti-renewables and environmental extremists suit him, as they are very disruptive.
As for your last line: I might suggest that Just Stop Oil's behaviour over the last few days shows the useful idiots are also on the left of the political spectrum as well.
So you also believe that we should extract every last drop of UK oil as quickly as possible, thus leaving us at the mercy of Russia and Saudi Arabia in the future when it's all gone?
No.
It's a matter of progress. We need to move towards green energy - and we've been doing that really, really fast (*). But there is a limit to the speed by which we can do that without ruining the economy, and major technological hurdles remain (social ones as well, but less so).
Whilst this is in progress and we need oil and gas, we should try to be as self-sufficient as possible. Whilst also going great guns towards both reducing the need for oil and gas, and also being greener.
The alternate view involves us buying the oil and gas we need from those very regimes you named. Except not in some hypothetical future, but right now.
(*) It is a crying shame that so many so-called environmentalists ignore this.
That view epitomises short-term thinking. We know that our reserves of fossil fuels are small compared to those of Russia, etc, and we also know that we will need a certain amount of fossil fuel for essential purposes for an indefinite period. Given those two facts, it makes no long-term sense at all to be exploiting our own reserves for non-essential purposes now. It's asking for trouble in the future.
As for going great guns, no. While we, as a planet, have made some progress towards reducing emissions, it has been pitifully slow, to the extent that there has thus far been no noticeable effect on the rate of increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. Indeed, it is still accelerating. We are applauding our efforts while losing the war.
No. My view epitomises both long-term and short-term thinking. What we need to do now, to get where we need to be in the future. You just want to give as much money as possible to bad/evil regimes now. Regimes who have no reason to advance a green future. Gradatim ferociter, as a certain billionaire might say.
" makes no long-term sense at all to be exploiting our own reserves for non-essential purposes now."
Gas and oil is used for essential purposes now. Even on a sunny day with some wind, gas is providing us with some power. Petrol and diesel is allowing most of us to get around. And you think that is non-essential?
As for your last paragraph: we as a country have been going great guns. The world might not have been, but it's crass to deny how much progress our country has made over the last two decades.
When I look at of my window at all the single-occupant tonka-truck SUVs driving past my house, it's pretty hard to believe that we are using all that oil for essential purposes. Ditto the tourist-filled jets flying overhead.
You have zero idea why people are making those journeys. Zero. They may not seem essential to you; but can I judge your lifestyle too, please?
Now you're just being ridiculous. You're effectively claiming that every journey made is essential. Even if that were the case, it is certainly not essential that it be made in a gas-guzzling SUV. And you have the gall to call me a Putin apologist? Just take a look at yourself.
Yes, every journey made is essential for whoever is making that journey for whatever reason they are making it.
We should be wanting to increase mobility and ensure more journeys can be made for whatever reason than they are now.
As we head into a cleaner, electric, future the cost of motoring ought to be a tiny fraction of what it is today and we ought to see many more journeys made. Cleanly.
This appointed court is not a part of our constitution; it has no legitimacy, and it is effectively making up law. It needs to be binned.
Um no, it interprets the current law and generates a result.
The new Labour Government can change the law and fix the issue all the Supreme Court has done is combine the law as it currently is and come to (an admittedly unexpected) conclusion..
People like @Luckyguy1983 clearly have no understanding of our legal system whatsoever. This is how it has ALWAYS worked.
Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities. It is a complete abuse of "supreme court" powers to intervene on these spurious grounds, effectively to prevent any new oil wells being built in this country - economical self-harm which is for elected parliamentarians to inflict if they so wish, because they can be de-elected again. It's not for an appointed body to stretch its remit and make decisions like this.
They can intervene if the process was not followed properly. That’s a fundamental principle of the rule of law.
Their judgement is based upon a highly troubling interpretation of what that process should be - that's the point. The emissions involved in the set up and ongoing operation of the business were reported on in the usual way. The emissions generated subsequently were not, and I've explained why to demand that they are is deeply concerning in other posts.
I worry that this bit of the above… : “ Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities”
…Shows a confusion between parliament and the executive.
Parliament makes laws. The executive (Government or SCC) makes decisions which should be legal, but if there is doubt the Judicial system will decide
This is part of the citizenship exam. Maybe it should be taught in schools too?
That's true but the court made a mistake in its ruling.
The emissions generated by the burning of the oil should not be counted as the net difference of oil burnt as a result of the well is zero.
Why zero? Because oil is fungible and had we not extracted from this well we'd have just imported from Saudi Arabia or somewhere else the exact same amount of oil.
So the total net emissions of a fungible product is zero, unless or until we start forbidding imports.
As pointed out by someone previously, the Supreme Court did not rule on the substance of the issue, but only on whether the county council had considered the substance of the issue. Which they had not.
So your objection is not relevant, or in order, and we could expect that a revised planning decision from the country council, which did consider the substance of the issue, has a high probability of concluding that it shouldn't be a bar to approving the application, for the logical reasons you set out.
That outcome would be law followed, planning approved, everyone happy (especially the lawyers!)
Not the locals. Not people who care about the countryside. Not those who want to save the planet.
but, yeah, it was about legal processes at the moment
I want to save the planet.
To do that we need to follow science, not dogma.
The science is we need to transition away from consuming oil.
We still need oil for the transition though and there is no scientific reason why OPEC-produced oil is better for the environment than domestically produced oil.
If the world needs to transition away from consuming oil, then basic logic says that the world also has to transition away from producing oil. As a country, we should therefore transition away from both producing and consuming oil as well as appropriately taxing the import of oil and oil derivatives to encourage other countries to do likewise.
No. We should maximise oil production in democratic states in order to minimise the flow of cash to despots and dictators. As long as we need it, the "west" should produce it.
This.
Regdrding renewables. The economic arguments for wind turbines etc. are barking. They have to be backed 100% by conventional power stations (gas) to cover still windless dark cold periods.
The eco argument is equally ludicrous and industry destroying with higher costs when China and India etc extracting vast amounts of coal for cheap electricity.
There is an argument for it on security reasons, with our own oil running out thenturbines mean we need less gas/oil from Vladimir and Khassogis murderers.
But pointing that out would mean the politicians saying "we've cocked up energy policy, ours is running out and we've got to spend a fortune otherwise Vlad and Sundry Sheiks will have us over a barrel"
Far better to say "you wicked people, you are destroying the planet, we must go green to save it"
The downside of that is that the green zealots are as uncontrollable and destructive as any other zealot and they have been allowed within the citadel.
oh, ffs.
The anti wind argument again.
We should be moving toward a mixed energy source system, which for the majority of time would mean most of our energy being provided by wind/solar. In these times only a small amount is fossil fuel based. EG now we have 15GW wind/solar and 5GW gas fired. Sometimes that mix needs to change obviously, but overall the use of wind/solar reduces our need for gas on average.
The anti-renewables loons are Putin's little shills.
As well as being a big exporter of fossil fuels, Russia is one of the few countries that is likely to benefit from anthropogenic climate change, so it's in their interests to deter moves away from fossil fuel consumption. It is also in their interest for those countries with small reserves to squander them as quickly as possible on fuel production so that they will be dependent on countries like Russia for raw materials for plastics, etc, in the future.
There seems to be no shortage of useful idiots, especially on the right of the political spectrum.
Many of the rewnewables-or-nothing loons, like Extinction Rebellion or Just Stop Oil, are Putin's little shills as well. He knows we will keep on buying fossil fuels for the immediate future, but the arguments between the anti-renewables and environmental extremists suit him, as they are very disruptive.
As for your last line: I might suggest that Just Stop Oil's behaviour over the last few days shows the useful idiots are also on the left of the political spectrum as well.
So you also believe that we should extract every last drop of UK oil as quickly as possible, thus leaving us at the mercy of Russia and Saudi Arabia in the future when it's all gone?
No.
It's a matter of progress. We need to move towards green energy - and we've been doing that really, really fast (*). But there is a limit to the speed by which we can do that without ruining the economy, and major technological hurdles remain (social ones as well, but less so).
Whilst this is in progress and we need oil and gas, we should try to be as self-sufficient as possible. Whilst also going great guns towards both reducing the need for oil and gas, and also being greener.
The alternate view involves us buying the oil and gas we need from those very regimes you named. Except not in some hypothetical future, but right now.
(*) It is a crying shame that so many so-called environmentalists ignore this.
That view epitomises short-term thinking. We know that our reserves of fossil fuels are small compared to those of Russia, etc, and we also know that we will need a certain amount of fossil fuel for essential purposes for an indefinite period. Given those two facts, it makes no long-term sense at all to be exploiting our own reserves for non-essential purposes now. It's asking for trouble in the future.
As for going great guns, no. While we, as a planet, have made some progress towards reducing emissions, it has been pitifully slow, to the extent that there has thus far been no noticeable effect on the rate of increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. Indeed, it is still accelerating. We are applauding our efforts while losing the war.
No. My view epitomises both long-term and short-term thinking. What we need to do now, to get where we need to be in the future. You just want to give as much money as possible to bad/evil regimes now. Regimes who have no reason to advance a green future. Gradatim ferociter, as a certain billionaire might say.
" makes no long-term sense at all to be exploiting our own reserves for non-essential purposes now."
Gas and oil is used for essential purposes now. Even on a sunny day with some wind, gas is providing us with some power. Petrol and diesel is allowing most of us to get around. And you think that is non-essential?
As for your last paragraph: we as a country have been going great guns. The world might not have been, but it's crass to deny how much progress our country has made over the last two decades.
When I look at of my window at all the single-occupant tonka-truck SUVs driving past my house, it's pretty hard to believe that we are using all that oil for essential purposes. Ditto the tourist-filled jets flying overhead.
You have zero idea why people are making those journeys. Zero. They may not seem essential to you; but can I judge your lifestyle too, please?
It's not the journey that's the issue. Is the giant, heavy box of steel for what is usually a very short distance.
You seem to have a real objection to size but that box of steel is an efficient and powerful way to safely move both people and possessions both short and large distances.
What would happen if everyone who walks, cycles or takes public transport suddenly started driving around instead?
Bugger all, given over 90% of all miles travelled already are in cars and we have had over 10% population growth and coped with that.
What would happen if everyone who drives relied upon public transport instead? It would collapse.
You’re facing the loss of your business, your home, your family, your liberty, your life. You reach out for help and discover someone like #GeorgeThomson as your only lifeline. Imagine the horror. #PostOfficeInquiry"
This appointed court is not a part of our constitution; it has no legitimacy, and it is effectively making up law. It needs to be binned.
Um no, it interprets the current law and generates a result.
The new Labour Government can change the law and fix the issue all the Supreme Court has done is combine the law as it currently is and come to (an admittedly unexpected) conclusion..
People like @Luckyguy1983 clearly have no understanding of our legal system whatsoever. This is how it has ALWAYS worked.
Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities. It is a complete abuse of "supreme court" powers to intervene on these spurious grounds, effectively to prevent any new oil wells being built in this country - economical self-harm which is for elected parliamentarians to inflict if they so wish, because they can be de-elected again. It's not for an appointed body to stretch its remit and make decisions like this.
They can intervene if the process was not followed properly. That’s a fundamental principle of the rule of law.
Their judgement is based upon a highly troubling interpretation of what that process should be - that's the point. The emissions involved in the set up and ongoing operation of the business were reported on in the usual way. The emissions generated subsequently were not, and I've explained why to demand that they are is deeply concerning in other posts.
I worry that this bit of the above… : “ Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities”
…Shows a confusion between parliament and the executive.
Parliament makes laws. The executive (Government or SCC) makes decisions which should be legal, but if there is doubt the Judicial system will decide
This is part of the citizenship exam. Maybe it should be taught in schools too?
That's true but the court made a mistake in its ruling.
The emissions generated by the burning of the oil should not be counted as the net difference of oil burnt as a result of the well is zero.
Why zero? Because oil is fungible and had we not extracted from this well we'd have just imported from Saudi Arabia or somewhere else the exact same amount of oil.
So the total net emissions of a fungible product is zero, unless or until we start forbidding imports.
As pointed out by someone previously, the Supreme Court did not rule on the substance of the issue, but only on whether the county council had considered the substance of the issue. Which they had not.
So your objection is not relevant, or in order, and we could expect that a revised planning decision from the country council, which did consider the substance of the issue, has a high probability of concluding that it shouldn't be a bar to approving the application, for the logical reasons you set out.
That outcome would be law followed, planning approved, everyone happy (especially the lawyers!)
Not the locals. Not people who care about the countryside. Not those who want to save the planet.
but, yeah, it was about legal processes at the moment
I want to save the planet.
To do that we need to follow science, not dogma.
The science is we need to transition away from consuming oil.
We still need oil for the transition though and there is no scientific reason why OPEC-produced oil is better for the environment than domestically produced oil.
If the world needs to transition away from consuming oil, then basic logic says that the world also has to transition away from producing oil. As a country, we should therefore transition away from both producing and consuming oil as well as appropriately taxing the import of oil and oil derivatives to encourage other countries to do likewise.
No. We should maximise oil production in democratic states in order to minimise the flow of cash to despots and dictators. As long as we need it, the "west" should produce it.
This.
Regdrding renewables. The economic arguments for wind turbines etc. are barking. They have to be backed 100% by conventional power stations (gas) to cover still windless dark cold periods.
The eco argument is equally ludicrous and industry destroying with higher costs when China and India etc extracting vast amounts of coal for cheap electricity.
There is an argument for it on security reasons, with our own oil running out thenturbines mean we need less gas/oil from Vladimir and Khassogis murderers.
But pointing that out would mean the politicians saying "we've cocked up energy policy, ours is running out and we've got to spend a fortune otherwise Vlad and Sundry Sheiks will have us over a barrel"
Far better to say "you wicked people, you are destroying the planet, we must go green to save it"
The downside of that is that the green zealots are as uncontrollable and destructive as any other zealot and they have been allowed within the citadel.
oh, ffs.
The anti wind argument again.
We should be moving toward a mixed energy source system, which for the majority of time would mean most of our energy being provided by wind/solar. In these times only a small amount is fossil fuel based. EG now we have 15GW wind/solar and 5GW gas fired. Sometimes that mix needs to change obviously, but overall the use of wind/solar reduces our need for gas on average.
The anti-renewables loons are Putin's little shills.
As well as being a big exporter of fossil fuels, Russia is one of the few countries that is likely to benefit from anthropogenic climate change, so it's in their interests to deter moves away from fossil fuel consumption. It is also in their interest for those countries with small reserves to squander them as quickly as possible on fuel production so that they will be dependent on countries like Russia for raw materials for plastics, etc, in the future.
There seems to be no shortage of useful idiots, especially on the right of the political spectrum.
Many of the rewnewables-or-nothing loons, like Extinction Rebellion or Just Stop Oil, are Putin's little shills as well. He knows we will keep on buying fossil fuels for the immediate future, but the arguments between the anti-renewables and environmental extremists suit him, as they are very disruptive.
As for your last line: I might suggest that Just Stop Oil's behaviour over the last few days shows the useful idiots are also on the left of the political spectrum as well.
So you also believe that we should extract every last drop of UK oil as quickly as possible, thus leaving us at the mercy of Russia and Saudi Arabia in the future when it's all gone?
No.
It's a matter of progress. We need to move towards green energy - and we've been doing that really, really fast (*). But there is a limit to the speed by which we can do that without ruining the economy, and major technological hurdles remain (social ones as well, but less so).
Whilst this is in progress and we need oil and gas, we should try to be as self-sufficient as possible. Whilst also going great guns towards both reducing the need for oil and gas, and also being greener.
The alternate view involves us buying the oil and gas we need from those very regimes you named. Except not in some hypothetical future, but right now.
(*) It is a crying shame that so many so-called environmentalists ignore this.
That view epitomises short-term thinking. We know that our reserves of fossil fuels are small compared to those of Russia, etc, and we also know that we will need a certain amount of fossil fuel for essential purposes for an indefinite period. Given those two facts, it makes no long-term sense at all to be exploiting our own reserves for non-essential purposes now. It's asking for trouble in the future.
As for going great guns, no. While we, as a planet, have made some progress towards reducing emissions, it has been pitifully slow, to the extent that there has thus far been no noticeable effect on the rate of increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. Indeed, it is still accelerating. We are applauding our efforts while losing the war.
My mother told me the other day that in the late 1950s she missed out on a geography field trip to Italy as part of her degree because the airfare was £400 return (nominal, not equivalent of). Nowadays it's potentially £20. This seems wrong.
The question does arise whether a train would have been viable but it is sadly too late to ask
The international aviation market is skewed, in the same way international shipping is. It's atrocious that aviation kerosene is tax exempt, especially for domestic flights, while rail or bus travel is liable for fuel duty.
Yet placing tax on aviation kerosene is very difficult due to the international nature of the industry.
That should be changed, even if people have to pay more for flights.
And whilst I'm world dictator, I'd also stop flags of convenience schemes in shipping, and ensure ships' crews are treated decently.
If the UK taxed Kerosene, the Emirates A380 would take off from Dubai with the tanks filled to the brim, land at Heathrow and fly back to Dubai without refuelling. Using quite a bit more fuel in the process. The BA A380 would do exactly the same on Dubai trips.
Planes flying domestic routes would make a point of going somewhere close (Amsterdam, Dublin) to fill up there.
Airline flight planning departments already factor in the price of fuel at various destinations, when deciding how much to carry on any given flight.
Yes. This needs to be done by international agreement.
P.S. Could an A380 really make it from Dubai to Heathrow and back again without refuelling?
I would never choose to vote by post unless there was no alternative. I like to see my ballot paper go into the box. 😊
Yes, I miss that frisson, but I am rather peripatetic these days and I would hate to miss the opportunity to tell the bastards what i think of them.
You can go to the polling station and drop your postal vote in the box. It’s what I like to do if I can. That way you get the best of all worlds
Much as I would enjoy depriving Camden of a Reform conspiracist’s vote it’s no longer quite that simple.
You now (since 2022) have to take your postal vote to a member of staff at the polling station and complete a declaration form which includes an explanation of why your circumstances changed. If you just drop it into the ballot box as you have suggested it will be rejected.
"What Everyone Knows About Britain* (*Except the British)"
"If only Britain knew how it was viewed abroad If the country were a person, it would need its friends to sit it down and deliver it a few home truths about its damaging behaviour to itself and others, says Michael Peel"
You don’t have to spend too much time on history twitter so see stuff like this:
We are profoundly ignorant of our history, as a society. There was a survey doing the rounds around the D-Day anniversary the other week that said that supposedly half of the UK thought we had done the most, as a country, to win WW2.
I love my country, we have done wonderful things throughout history. But I wish we had a more grown up, nuanced understanding of our history and the things we have done, good and bad, and how that’s impacted other countries and peoples, for good or ill. That might help ameliorate the problems the column highlights.
I’m not holding my breath, the English, especially the elites, do so love their self-bestowed exceptionalism.
That dumb illustration (probably by some self-loathing lefty) could equally apply to the United States, France, Germany, China, Japan and definitely Russia. I am anti-nationalism, but my simple message to self-loathing lefties is if you don't like your country, then please fuck off and try living elsewhere.
This appointed court is not a part of our constitution; it has no legitimacy, and it is effectively making up law. It needs to be binned.
Um no, it interprets the current law and generates a result.
The new Labour Government can change the law and fix the issue all the Supreme Court has done is combine the law as it currently is and come to (an admittedly unexpected) conclusion..
People like @Luckyguy1983 clearly have no understanding of our legal system whatsoever. This is how it has ALWAYS worked.
Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities. It is a complete abuse of "supreme court" powers to intervene on these spurious grounds, effectively to prevent any new oil wells being built in this country - economical self-harm which is for elected parliamentarians to inflict if they so wish, because they can be de-elected again. It's not for an appointed body to stretch its remit and make decisions like this.
They can intervene if the process was not followed properly. That’s a fundamental principle of the rule of law.
Their judgement is based upon a highly troubling interpretation of what that process should be - that's the point. The emissions involved in the set up and ongoing operation of the business were reported on in the usual way. The emissions generated subsequently were not, and I've explained why to demand that they are is deeply concerning in other posts.
I worry that this bit of the above… : “ Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities”
…Shows a confusion between parliament and the executive.
Parliament makes laws. The executive (Government or SCC) makes decisions which should be legal, but if there is doubt the Judicial system will decide
This is part of the citizenship exam. Maybe it should be taught in schools too?
That's true but the court made a mistake in its ruling.
The emissions generated by the burning of the oil should not be counted as the net difference of oil burnt as a result of the well is zero.
Why zero? Because oil is fungible and had we not extracted from this well we'd have just imported from Saudi Arabia or somewhere else the exact same amount of oil.
So the total net emissions of a fungible product is zero, unless or until we start forbidding imports.
As pointed out by someone previously, the Supreme Court did not rule on the substance of the issue, but only on whether the county council had considered the substance of the issue. Which they had not.
So your objection is not relevant, or in order, and we could expect that a revised planning decision from the country council, which did consider the substance of the issue, has a high probability of concluding that it shouldn't be a bar to approving the application, for the logical reasons you set out.
That outcome would be law followed, planning approved, everyone happy (especially the lawyers!)
Not the locals. Not people who care about the countryside. Not those who want to save the planet.
but, yeah, it was about legal processes at the moment
I want to save the planet.
To do that we need to follow science, not dogma.
The science is we need to transition away from consuming oil.
We still need oil for the transition though and there is no scientific reason why OPEC-produced oil is better for the environment than domestically produced oil.
If the world needs to transition away from consuming oil, then basic logic says that the world also has to transition away from producing oil. As a country, we should therefore transition away from both producing and consuming oil as well as appropriately taxing the import of oil and oil derivatives to encourage other countries to do likewise.
No. We should maximise oil production in democratic states in order to minimise the flow of cash to despots and dictators. As long as we need it, the "west" should produce it.
This.
Regdrding renewables. The economic arguments for wind turbines etc. are barking. They have to be backed 100% by conventional power stations (gas) to cover still windless dark cold periods.
The eco argument is equally ludicrous and industry destroying with higher costs when China and India etc extracting vast amounts of coal for cheap electricity.
There is an argument for it on security reasons, with our own oil running out thenturbines mean we need less gas/oil from Vladimir and Khassogis murderers.
But pointing that out would mean the politicians saying "we've cocked up energy policy, ours is running out and we've got to spend a fortune otherwise Vlad and Sundry Sheiks will have us over a barrel"
Far better to say "you wicked people, you are destroying the planet, we must go green to save it"
The downside of that is that the green zealots are as uncontrollable and destructive as any other zealot and they have been allowed within the citadel.
oh, ffs.
The anti wind argument again.
We should be moving toward a mixed energy source system, which for the majority of time would mean most of our energy being provided by wind/solar. In these times only a small amount is fossil fuel based. EG now we have 15GW wind/solar and 5GW gas fired. Sometimes that mix needs to change obviously, but overall the use of wind/solar reduces our need for gas on average.
The anti-renewables loons are Putin's little shills.
As well as being a big exporter of fossil fuels, Russia is one of the few countries that is likely to benefit from anthropogenic climate change, so it's in their interests to deter moves away from fossil fuel consumption. It is also in their interest for those countries with small reserves to squander them as quickly as possible on fuel production so that they will be dependent on countries like Russia for raw materials for plastics, etc, in the future.
There seems to be no shortage of useful idiots, especially on the right of the political spectrum.
Many of the rewnewables-or-nothing loons, like Extinction Rebellion or Just Stop Oil, are Putin's little shills as well. He knows we will keep on buying fossil fuels for the immediate future, but the arguments between the anti-renewables and environmental extremists suit him, as they are very disruptive.
As for your last line: I might suggest that Just Stop Oil's behaviour over the last few days shows the useful idiots are also on the left of the political spectrum as well.
So you also believe that we should extract every last drop of UK oil as quickly as possible, thus leaving us at the mercy of Russia and Saudi Arabia in the future when it's all gone?
No.
It's a matter of progress. We need to move towards green energy - and we've been doing that really, really fast (*). But there is a limit to the speed by which we can do that without ruining the economy, and major technological hurdles remain (social ones as well, but less so).
Whilst this is in progress and we need oil and gas, we should try to be as self-sufficient as possible. Whilst also going great guns towards both reducing the need for oil and gas, and also being greener.
The alternate view involves us buying the oil and gas we need from those very regimes you named. Except not in some hypothetical future, but right now.
(*) It is a crying shame that so many so-called environmentalists ignore this.
That view epitomises short-term thinking. We know that our reserves of fossil fuels are small compared to those of Russia, etc, and we also know that we will need a certain amount of fossil fuel for essential purposes for an indefinite period. Given those two facts, it makes no long-term sense at all to be exploiting our own reserves for non-essential purposes now. It's asking for trouble in the future.
As for going great guns, no. While we, as a planet, have made some progress towards reducing emissions, it has been pitifully slow, to the extent that there has thus far been no noticeable effect on the rate of increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. Indeed, it is still accelerating. We are applauding our efforts while losing the war.
No. My view epitomises both long-term and short-term thinking. What we need to do now, to get where we need to be in the future. You just want to give as much money as possible to bad/evil regimes now. Regimes who have no reason to advance a green future. Gradatim ferociter, as a certain billionaire might say.
" makes no long-term sense at all to be exploiting our own reserves for non-essential purposes now."
Gas and oil is used for essential purposes now. Even on a sunny day with some wind, gas is providing us with some power. Petrol and diesel is allowing most of us to get around. And you think that is non-essential?
As for your last paragraph: we as a country have been going great guns. The world might not have been, but it's crass to deny how much progress our country has made over the last two decades.
When I look at of my window at all the single-occupant tonka-truck SUVs driving past my house, it's pretty hard to believe that we are using all that oil for essential purposes. Ditto the tourist-filled jets flying overhead.
You have zero idea why people are making those journeys. Zero. They may not seem essential to you; but can I judge your lifestyle too, please?
Now you're just being ridiculous. You're effectively claiming that every journey made is essential. Even if that were the case, it is certainly not essential that it be made in a gas-guzzling SUV. And you have the gall to call me a Putin apologist? Just take a look at yourself.
Yes, every journey made is essential for whoever is making that journey for whatever reason they are making it.
We should be wanting to increase mobility and ensure more journeys can be made for whatever reason than they are now.
As we head into a cleaner, electric, future the cost of motoring ought to be a tiny fraction of what it is today and we ought to see many more journeys made. Cleanly.
We clearly have very different understandings of the meaning of the word "essential".
"What Everyone Knows About Britain* (*Except the British)"
"If only Britain knew how it was viewed abroad If the country were a person, it would need its friends to sit it down and deliver it a few home truths about its damaging behaviour to itself and others, says Michael Peel"
You don’t have to spend too much time on history twitter so see stuff like this:
We are profoundly ignorant of our history, as a society. There was a survey doing the rounds around the D-Day anniversary the other week that said that supposedly half of the UK thought we had done the most, as a country, to win WW2.
I love my country, we have done wonderful things throughout history. But I wish we had a more grown up, nuanced understanding of our history and the things we have done, good and bad, and how that’s impacted other countries and peoples, for good or ill. That might help ameliorate the problems the column highlights.
I’m not holding my breath, the English, especially the elites, do so love their self-bestowed exceptionalism.
Don't you ask yourself how one in five of us are going to vote Farage (according to the polls)? I'd be most surprised if any posters on here are going to and I certainly don't know anyone personally who would.
What do these weird people look like? what are their life experiences? Where do they live and spend their time? Did they go to school? Mix with other people in the playground?
I think we should be told!
They are probably very similar to the larger proportion of French people who want to vote for a far right party. Maybe ask around when you are in Villefranche-sur-Mer.
It is especially piquant because the south of France is the absolute heartland of Le Pen support - along with the post industrial north
Tho of course it has now spread right across the country - even into Brittany and Gascony - usually left wing
I’m off to France again tomorrow. It will be interesting to take the political temperature
Is @DoubleDutch some nutter returning to the site or a Russian bot with a new style of random abuse?
Good old fashioned and original troll in the sense of insinuating themselves into an online chat group with a seeming credible views on the topic and then sowing discord to get everyone fighting each other.
As if we need any help in doing that.
All a matter of taste. I find him far more sane than BartholomewRoberts
This appointed court is not a part of our constitution; it has no legitimacy, and it is effectively making up law. It needs to be binned.
Um no, it interprets the current law and generates a result.
The new Labour Government can change the law and fix the issue all the Supreme Court has done is combine the law as it currently is and come to (an admittedly unexpected) conclusion..
People like @Luckyguy1983 clearly have no understanding of our legal system whatsoever. This is how it has ALWAYS worked.
Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities. It is a complete abuse of "supreme court" powers to intervene on these spurious grounds, effectively to prevent any new oil wells being built in this country - economical self-harm which is for elected parliamentarians to inflict if they so wish, because they can be de-elected again. It's not for an appointed body to stretch its remit and make decisions like this.
They can intervene if the process was not followed properly. That’s a fundamental principle of the rule of law.
Their judgement is based upon a highly troubling interpretation of what that process should be - that's the point. The emissions involved in the set up and ongoing operation of the business were reported on in the usual way. The emissions generated subsequently were not, and I've explained why to demand that they are is deeply concerning in other posts.
I worry that this bit of the above… : “ Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities”
…Shows a confusion between parliament and the executive.
Parliament makes laws. The executive (Government or SCC) makes decisions which should be legal, but if there is doubt the Judicial system will decide
This is part of the citizenship exam. Maybe it should be taught in schools too?
That's true but the court made a mistake in its ruling.
The emissions generated by the burning of the oil should not be counted as the net difference of oil burnt as a result of the well is zero.
Why zero? Because oil is fungible and had we not extracted from this well we'd have just imported from Saudi Arabia or somewhere else the exact same amount of oil.
So the total net emissions of a fungible product is zero, unless or until we start forbidding imports.
As pointed out by someone previously, the Supreme Court did not rule on the substance of the issue, but only on whether the county council had considered the substance of the issue. Which they had not.
So your objection is not relevant, or in order, and we could expect that a revised planning decision from the country council, which did consider the substance of the issue, has a high probability of concluding that it shouldn't be a bar to approving the application, for the logical reasons you set out.
That outcome would be law followed, planning approved, everyone happy (especially the lawyers!)
Not the locals. Not people who care about the countryside. Not those who want to save the planet.
but, yeah, it was about legal processes at the moment
I want to save the planet.
To do that we need to follow science, not dogma.
The science is we need to transition away from consuming oil.
We still need oil for the transition though and there is no scientific reason why OPEC-produced oil is better for the environment than domestically produced oil.
If the world needs to transition away from consuming oil, then basic logic says that the world also has to transition away from producing oil. As a country, we should therefore transition away from both producing and consuming oil as well as appropriately taxing the import of oil and oil derivatives to encourage other countries to do likewise.
No. We should maximise oil production in democratic states in order to minimise the flow of cash to despots and dictators. As long as we need it, the "west" should produce it.
This.
Regdrding renewables. The economic arguments for wind turbines etc. are barking. They have to be backed 100% by conventional power stations (gas) to cover still windless dark cold periods.
The eco argument is equally ludicrous and industry destroying with higher costs when China and India etc extracting vast amounts of coal for cheap electricity.
There is an argument for it on security reasons, with our own oil running out thenturbines mean we need less gas/oil from Vladimir and Khassogis murderers.
But pointing that out would mean the politicians saying "we've cocked up energy policy, ours is running out and we've got to spend a fortune otherwise Vlad and Sundry Sheiks will have us over a barrel"
Far better to say "you wicked people, you are destroying the planet, we must go green to save it"
The downside of that is that the green zealots are as uncontrollable and destructive as any other zealot and they have been allowed within the citadel.
oh, ffs.
The anti wind argument again.
We should be moving toward a mixed energy source system, which for the majority of time would mean most of our energy being provided by wind/solar. In these times only a small amount is fossil fuel based. EG now we have 15GW wind/solar and 5GW gas fired. Sometimes that mix needs to change obviously, but overall the use of wind/solar reduces our need for gas on average.
The anti-renewables loons are Putin's little shills.
As well as being a big exporter of fossil fuels, Russia is one of the few countries that is likely to benefit from anthropogenic climate change, so it's in their interests to deter moves away from fossil fuel consumption. It is also in their interest for those countries with small reserves to squander them as quickly as possible on fuel production so that they will be dependent on countries like Russia for raw materials for plastics, etc, in the future.
There seems to be no shortage of useful idiots, especially on the right of the political spectrum.
Many of the rewnewables-or-nothing loons, like Extinction Rebellion or Just Stop Oil, are Putin's little shills as well. He knows we will keep on buying fossil fuels for the immediate future, but the arguments between the anti-renewables and environmental extremists suit him, as they are very disruptive.
As for your last line: I might suggest that Just Stop Oil's behaviour over the last few days shows the useful idiots are also on the left of the political spectrum as well.
So you also believe that we should extract every last drop of UK oil as quickly as possible, thus leaving us at the mercy of Russia and Saudi Arabia in the future when it's all gone?
No.
It's a matter of progress. We need to move towards green energy - and we've been doing that really, really fast (*). But there is a limit to the speed by which we can do that without ruining the economy, and major technological hurdles remain (social ones as well, but less so).
Whilst this is in progress and we need oil and gas, we should try to be as self-sufficient as possible. Whilst also going great guns towards both reducing the need for oil and gas, and also being greener.
The alternate view involves us buying the oil and gas we need from those very regimes you named. Except not in some hypothetical future, but right now.
(*) It is a crying shame that so many so-called environmentalists ignore this.
That view epitomises short-term thinking. We know that our reserves of fossil fuels are small compared to those of Russia, etc, and we also know that we will need a certain amount of fossil fuel for essential purposes for an indefinite period. Given those two facts, it makes no long-term sense at all to be exploiting our own reserves for non-essential purposes now. It's asking for trouble in the future.
As for going great guns, no. While we, as a planet, have made some progress towards reducing emissions, it has been pitifully slow, to the extent that there has thus far been no noticeable effect on the rate of increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. Indeed, it is still accelerating. We are applauding our efforts while losing the war.
No. My view epitomises both long-term and short-term thinking. What we need to do now, to get where we need to be in the future. You just want to give as much money as possible to bad/evil regimes now. Regimes who have no reason to advance a green future. Gradatim ferociter, as a certain billionaire might say.
" makes no long-term sense at all to be exploiting our own reserves for non-essential purposes now."
Gas and oil is used for essential purposes now. Even on a sunny day with some wind, gas is providing us with some power. Petrol and diesel is allowing most of us to get around. And you think that is non-essential?
As for your last paragraph: we as a country have been going great guns. The world might not have been, but it's crass to deny how much progress our country has made over the last two decades.
When I look at of my window at all the single-occupant tonka-truck SUVs driving past my house, it's pretty hard to believe that we are using all that oil for essential purposes. Ditto the tourist-filled jets flying overhead.
You have zero idea why people are making those journeys. Zero. They may not seem essential to you; but can I judge your lifestyle too, please?
It's not the journey that's the issue. Is the giant, heavy box of steel for what is usually a very short distance.
(I'm not going to try and dismantle the 76 nested comments here; it'll bork.)
I agree with @JosiasJessop it is about both long and short term thinking, and that we *have* made very rapid progress. It is tragic that the current generation of senior Conservatives won't recognise their own part in some of these achievements (though TBF strategic energy changes were mainly continued rollout of New Labour initiatives such as wind power), and have flipped 180 to try and save their backsides, burning down some good things they have done.
On monitoring journeys, this is basic stuff we have been doing for half a century; we have reliable data. I think we all know that, sarcasm aside.
This appointed court is not a part of our constitution; it has no legitimacy, and it is effectively making up law. It needs to be binned.
Um no, it interprets the current law and generates a result.
The new Labour Government can change the law and fix the issue all the Supreme Court has done is combine the law as it currently is and come to (an admittedly unexpected) conclusion..
People like @Luckyguy1983 clearly have no understanding of our legal system whatsoever. This is how it has ALWAYS worked.
Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities. It is a complete abuse of "supreme court" powers to intervene on these spurious grounds, effectively to prevent any new oil wells being built in this country - economical self-harm which is for elected parliamentarians to inflict if they so wish, because they can be de-elected again. It's not for an appointed body to stretch its remit and make decisions like this.
They can intervene if the process was not followed properly. That’s a fundamental principle of the rule of law.
Their judgement is based upon a highly troubling interpretation of what that process should be - that's the point. The emissions involved in the set up and ongoing operation of the business were reported on in the usual way. The emissions generated subsequently were not, and I've explained why to demand that they are is deeply concerning in other posts.
I worry that this bit of the above… : “ Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities”
…Shows a confusion between parliament and the executive.
Parliament makes laws. The executive (Government or SCC) makes decisions which should be legal, but if there is doubt the Judicial system will decide
This is part of the citizenship exam. Maybe it should be taught in schools too?
That's true but the court made a mistake in its ruling.
The emissions generated by the burning of the oil should not be counted as the net difference of oil burnt as a result of the well is zero.
Why zero? Because oil is fungible and had we not extracted from this well we'd have just imported from Saudi Arabia or somewhere else the exact same amount of oil.
So the total net emissions of a fungible product is zero, unless or until we start forbidding imports.
As pointed out by someone previously, the Supreme Court did not rule on the substance of the issue, but only on whether the county council had considered the substance of the issue. Which they had not.
So your objection is not relevant, or in order, and we could expect that a revised planning decision from the country council, which did consider the substance of the issue, has a high probability of concluding that it shouldn't be a bar to approving the application, for the logical reasons you set out.
That outcome would be law followed, planning approved, everyone happy (especially the lawyers!)
Not the locals. Not people who care about the countryside. Not those who want to save the planet.
but, yeah, it was about legal processes at the moment
I want to save the planet.
To do that we need to follow science, not dogma.
The science is we need to transition away from consuming oil.
We still need oil for the transition though and there is no scientific reason why OPEC-produced oil is better for the environment than domestically produced oil.
If the world needs to transition away from consuming oil, then basic logic says that the world also has to transition away from producing oil. As a country, we should therefore transition away from both producing and consuming oil as well as appropriately taxing the import of oil and oil derivatives to encourage other countries to do likewise.
No. We should maximise oil production in democratic states in order to minimise the flow of cash to despots and dictators. As long as we need it, the "west" should produce it.
All fossil fuel that is mined/produced will be burned. The increase in global temperature doesn't care if it is Saudi oil or US oil. By not stopping the production of oil the only remaining possible way to stop the global warming is through a very high level of carbon capture.
We need to stop the consumption of oil.
Production is a secondary matter.
We already consume more than we produce, which is a terrible failure. We need to work harder on reducing consumption, not production.
Globally we won't reduce consuming oil without reducing production. A reduction in consumption leads to lower prices which drives up consumption again. It is only when the price drops so much that the production becomes more expensive per unit than selling it does.
You are wrong, yes we will.
I changed my car last year. My old car was costing me ~£80 a tank of petrol which would last me 350 miles. My new car costs me ~£40 a tank of petrol which lasts me 350 miles. Does that mean I'm driving twice as many miles as I was to keep my expenditure the same? Of course it doesn't!
My oil consumption has come down by roughly 50% in that vehicle, not because of changes to production globally (of which OPEC of course adapts to keep prices where it wants it) but because I've adopted a technological change.
My old car was just petrol, my new one is not even a plug in, just a self-charging hybrid, that gets over twice the miles to the gallon as the old one.
We are seeing technological change like that on a micro and macro scale all over the planet. Over half my oil consumption has gone in my vehicle in one step and my intention is my next vehicle will be a net zero pure electric one, its just that's too expensive today.
Clean technology adaptation is the only way to solve the mess and clean the environment.
You are still destroying the planet.
...maybe, but only half as fast seemingly...
Are you saying - as per Zeno's paradox - he will never stop destroying the planet.
..wow, I had to google that.
If Barty kept buying cars which doubled his mileage on the same amount of fuel each time, then yes, I'd agree...
I have an 18-year-old car. The new version of the same car is more than twice as fuel efficient. Most new petrol cars sold now do 60mpg.
Imagine how much more that increase would be if FF cars had not increased in mass by perhaps 300kg over the period. That's an estimated figure - the overall is more like 400kg, but I can't find one with disaggrerated data by ICE vs Electric.
I expect most of the increase in mass is to do with "safety".
Most of the increase in mass is to do with the environment.
Batteries are heavy. My hybrid needs to carry a battery, its predecessor did not [besides the 12V one of course].
Since my comment relates to Fossil Fuel cars, it does not have much to do with batteries :-), which add even more extra.
The non-battery weight increase is very much to do with safety and also emissions, and came earlier - things such as door girders, compulsory airbags and catalytic converters.
More recently it is batteries, but also marketing of larger vehicles as "safer" (for those inside them, not outside).
One interesting question for the future is whether we actually need the huge batteries, never mind the tonka-tanks to carry them around in.
I wonder if once Sir Kier gets around to addressing Excise Duty etc on electric vehicles, and where the ~£2500 per year he needs from every vehicle to maintain revenue is going to come from, there will be a weight component in excise duty. It could be arguably justified on either environmental or safety grounds.
~£2500 per annum from vehicles is nowhere near needed to maintain our roads, which is all that drivers should be paying for.
Actually to be fair cyclists and most public transport use the roads too, so drivers should only be paying a proportion of road costs.
Vehicles should not be treated as a golden goose to be plucked for unrelated taxes. Everyone should pay their taxes equally, not just drivers.
Cyclists cause next to zero road wear. Fourth power law.
So I'd be more than happy to pay my proportional road tax of £1 per annum.
Wouldn't a true fourth power law lead to utterly colossal duties on lorries though which could push up food inflation ?
The actual calculation is fourth power of axle weight, rather than of vehicle weight, which reduces the cost to lorries somewhat. But yes, you’d charge commercial vehicles on a different scale to private vehicles.
I didn't realise it was anything like that low. I had a figure of 5k or 6k per annum in my head.
Given the size of the things, and that an average large lorry in the UK drives something like 7x the distance driven by an average private car (taking 50-55k miles vs 7500 miles) it seems to be a very strange number.
I had a much higher figure in my head, £30k or thereabouts, which is why I looked it up and was also quite surprised. Lorries do pay a fortune in fuel duty though, all that diesel at about 6mpg when loaded up.
Yes, government should be encouraging long-haul trucks onto rail, by building more capacity into the rail network and more regional hubs, to drive down costs there. Taxing trucks more is about the easiest way to stoke inflation, so you don’t want to do that.
@Luckyguy1983 the Supreme Court isn’t doing anything different to what the House of Lords judicial committee did before them. You need to educate yourself.
Exactly
It's an excellent decision. There was huge resistance from locals for extremely good reasons.
Fuck off @Luckyguy1983 with your business-rimming planet-wrecking bullshit
This appointed court is not a part of our constitution; it has no legitimacy, and it is effectively making up law. It needs to be binned.
Um no, it interprets the current law and generates a result.
The new Labour Government can change the law and fix the issue all the Supreme Court has done is combine the law as it currently is and come to (an admittedly unexpected) conclusion..
People like @Luckyguy1983 clearly have no understanding of our legal system whatsoever. This is how it has ALWAYS worked.
Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities. It is a complete abuse of "supreme court" powers to intervene on these spurious grounds, effectively to prevent any new oil wells being built in this country - economical self-harm which is for elected parliamentarians to inflict if they so wish, because they can be de-elected again. It's not for an appointed body to stretch its remit and make decisions like this.
They can intervene if the process was not followed properly. That’s a fundamental principle of the rule of law.
Their judgement is based upon a highly troubling interpretation of what that process should be - that's the point. The emissions involved in the set up and ongoing operation of the business were reported on in the usual way. The emissions generated subsequently were not, and I've explained why to demand that they are is deeply concerning in other posts.
I worry that this bit of the above… : “ Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities”
…Shows a confusion between parliament and the executive.
Parliament makes laws. The executive (Government or SCC) makes decisions which should be legal, but if there is doubt the Judicial system will decide
This is part of the citizenship exam. Maybe it should be taught in schools too?
That's true but the court made a mistake in its ruling.
The emissions generated by the burning of the oil should not be counted as the net difference of oil burnt as a result of the well is zero.
Why zero? Because oil is fungible and had we not extracted from this well we'd have just imported from Saudi Arabia or somewhere else the exact same amount of oil.
So the total net emissions of a fungible product is zero, unless or until we start forbidding imports.
As pointed out by someone previously, the Supreme Court did not rule on the substance of the issue, but only on whether the county council had considered the substance of the issue. Which they had not.
So your objection is not relevant, or in order, and we could expect that a revised planning decision from the country council, which did consider the substance of the issue, has a high probability of concluding that it shouldn't be a bar to approving the application, for the logical reasons you set out.
That outcome would be law followed, planning approved, everyone happy (especially the lawyers!)
Not the locals. Not people who care about the countryside. Not those who want to save the planet.
but, yeah, it was about legal processes at the moment
I want to save the planet.
To do that we need to follow science, not dogma.
The science is we need to transition away from consuming oil.
We still need oil for the transition though and there is no scientific reason why OPEC-produced oil is better for the environment than domestically produced oil.
If the world needs to transition away from consuming oil, then basic logic says that the world also has to transition away from producing oil. As a country, we should therefore transition away from both producing and consuming oil as well as appropriately taxing the import of oil and oil derivatives to encourage other countries to do likewise.
No. We should maximise oil production in democratic states in order to minimise the flow of cash to despots and dictators. As long as we need it, the "west" should produce it.
This.
Regdrding renewables. The economic arguments for wind turbines etc. are barking. They have to be backed 100% by conventional power stations (gas) to cover still windless dark cold periods.
The eco argument is equally ludicrous and industry destroying with higher costs when China and India etc extracting vast amounts of coal for cheap electricity.
There is an argument for it on security reasons, with our own oil running out thenturbines mean we need less gas/oil from Vladimir and Khassogis murderers.
But pointing that out would mean the politicians saying "we've cocked up energy policy, ours is running out and we've got to spend a fortune otherwise Vlad and Sundry Sheiks will have us over a barrel"
Far better to say "you wicked people, you are destroying the planet, we must go green to save it"
The downside of that is that the green zealots are as uncontrollable and destructive as any other zealot and they have been allowed within the citadel.
oh, ffs.
The anti wind argument again.
We should be moving toward a mixed energy source system, which for the majority of time would mean most of our energy being provided by wind/solar. In these times only a small amount is fossil fuel based. EG now we have 15GW wind/solar and 5GW gas fired. Sometimes that mix needs to change obviously, but overall the use of wind/solar reduces our need for gas on average.
The anti-renewables loons are Putin's little shills.
As well as being a big exporter of fossil fuels, Russia is one of the few countries that is likely to benefit from anthropogenic climate change, so it's in their interests to deter moves away from fossil fuel consumption. It is also in their interest for those countries with small reserves to squander them as quickly as possible on fuel production so that they will be dependent on countries like Russia for raw materials for plastics, etc, in the future.
There seems to be no shortage of useful idiots, especially on the right of the political spectrum.
Many of the rewnewables-or-nothing loons, like Extinction Rebellion or Just Stop Oil, are Putin's little shills as well. He knows we will keep on buying fossil fuels for the immediate future, but the arguments between the anti-renewables and environmental extremists suit him, as they are very disruptive.
As for your last line: I might suggest that Just Stop Oil's behaviour over the last few days shows the useful idiots are also on the left of the political spectrum as well.
So you also believe that we should extract every last drop of UK oil as quickly as possible, thus leaving us at the mercy of Russia and Saudi Arabia in the future when it's all gone?
No.
It's a matter of progress. We need to move towards green energy - and we've been doing that really, really fast (*). But there is a limit to the speed by which we can do that without ruining the economy, and major technological hurdles remain (social ones as well, but less so).
Whilst this is in progress and we need oil and gas, we should try to be as self-sufficient as possible. Whilst also going great guns towards both reducing the need for oil and gas, and also being greener.
The alternate view involves us buying the oil and gas we need from those very regimes you named. Except not in some hypothetical future, but right now.
(*) It is a crying shame that so many so-called environmentalists ignore this.
That view epitomises short-term thinking. We know that our reserves of fossil fuels are small compared to those of Russia, etc, and we also know that we will need a certain amount of fossil fuel for essential purposes for an indefinite period. Given those two facts, it makes no long-term sense at all to be exploiting our own reserves for non-essential purposes now. It's asking for trouble in the future.
As for going great guns, no. While we, as a planet, have made some progress towards reducing emissions, it has been pitifully slow, to the extent that there has thus far been no noticeable effect on the rate of increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. Indeed, it is still accelerating. We are applauding our efforts while losing the war.
No. My view epitomises both long-term and short-term thinking. What we need to do now, to get where we need to be in the future. You just want to give as much money as possible to bad/evil regimes now. Regimes who have no reason to advance a green future. Gradatim ferociter, as a certain billionaire might say.
" makes no long-term sense at all to be exploiting our own reserves for non-essential purposes now."
Gas and oil is used for essential purposes now. Even on a sunny day with some wind, gas is providing us with some power. Petrol and diesel is allowing most of us to get around. And you think that is non-essential?
As for your last paragraph: we as a country have been going great guns. The world might not have been, but it's crass to deny how much progress our country has made over the last two decades.
When I look at of my window at all the single-occupant tonka-truck SUVs driving past my house, it's pretty hard to believe that we are using all that oil for essential purposes. Ditto the tourist-filled jets flying overhead.
You have zero idea why people are making those journeys. Zero. They may not seem essential to you; but can I judge your lifestyle too, please?
Now you're just being ridiculous. You're effectively claiming that every journey made is essential. Even if that were the case, it is certainly not essential that it be made in a gas-guzzling SUV. And you have the gall to call me a Putin apologist? Just take a look at yourself.
Yes, every journey made is essential for whoever is making that journey for whatever reason they are making it.
We should be wanting to increase mobility and ensure more journeys can be made for whatever reason than they are now.
As we head into a cleaner, electric, future the cost of motoring ought to be a tiny fraction of what it is today and we ought to see many more journeys made. Cleanly.
We clearly have very different understandings of the meaning of the word "essential".
Clearly.
Name a single journey you could eliminate which wouldn't harm anyone's economic, mental or physical health or wellbeing.
"What Everyone Knows About Britain* (*Except the British)"
"If only Britain knew how it was viewed abroad If the country were a person, it would need its friends to sit it down and deliver it a few home truths about its damaging behaviour to itself and others, says Michael Peel"
You don’t have to spend too much time on history twitter so see stuff like this:
We are profoundly ignorant of our history, as a society. There was a survey doing the rounds around the D-Day anniversary the other week that said that supposedly half of the UK thought we had done the most, as a country, to win WW2.
I love my country, we have done wonderful things throughout history. But I wish we had a more grown up, nuanced understanding of our history and the things we have done, good and bad, and how that’s impacted other countries and peoples, for good or ill. That might help ameliorate the problems the column highlights.
I’m not holding my breath, the English, especially the elites, do so love their self-bestowed exceptionalism.
Don't you ask yourself how one in five of us are going to vote Farage (according to the polls)? I'd be most surprised if any posters on here are going to and I certainly don't know anyone personally who would.
What do these weird people look like? what are their life experiences? Where do they live and spend their time? Did they go to school? Mix with other people in the playground?
I think we should be told!
Unlike a lot of remainers, I was reasonably sure of a leave win - growing up where I did I was around loads of people for whom Brexit and Reform - basically, nice simple solutions to complex problems - are appealing. Because they are often at the sharp end of society's problems and don't often see the lofty posho braniac overlords sounding or looking or thinking like them, it is easy to see a Boris or a Nige - who despite both being posh don't fit the mold - as someone just offering commonsense solutions and cutting through the crap.
It's unfortunate that complex problems don't have simple solutions, and it's hard for politicians to be honest about that. Nige gets continuous free passes thanks to being an electoral dud, but Boris found out that people pretty quickly tire of the buffoon act when you're clearly not fixing anything.
So tbh I wouldn't be so condescending towards people - normal people, unlike dweebs like us who think a *lot* about politics - who have been consistently let down and are looking for different solutions. Now down that path lies only further disillusionment, to be clear - and more than enough people are not taken in by the Faragian snake oil. But the sneering only makes things worse.
"What Everyone Knows About Britain* (*Except the British)"
"If only Britain knew how it was viewed abroad If the country were a person, it would need its friends to sit it down and deliver it a few home truths about its damaging behaviour to itself and others, says Michael Peel"
You don’t have to spend too much time on history twitter so see stuff like this:
We are profoundly ignorant of our history, as a society. There was a survey doing the rounds around the D-Day anniversary the other week that said that supposedly half of the UK thought we had done the most, as a country, to win WW2.
I love my country, we have done wonderful things throughout history. But I wish we had a more grown up, nuanced understanding of our history and the things we have done, good and bad, and how that’s impacted other countries and peoples, for good or ill. That might help ameliorate the problems the column highlights.
I’m not holding my breath, the English, especially the elites, do so love their self-bestowed exceptionalism.
I think all countries teach their history overly favourably with regard to their role in it.
I remember laughing/arguing with my French ex about what she had been taught. As far as her history lessons went in France Napoleon was the second coming of Christ and only did good things and the French liberated themselves with a bit of help from the Americans in WW2.
The French teaching about WW2 especially makes ours look positively self-effacing.
The Americans too have quite a narrow and favourable view of their history and any Russian will tell you they won WW2 on their own.
Whilst we should be a bit more introspective it’s not as if we are exceptional.
Most countries bullshit their past importance. Long term political consequences include: UK - Brexit, reform. France - Gaullism, Le Pen. USA - MAGA. Russia - USSR, Putin.
This appointed court is not a part of our constitution; it has no legitimacy, and it is effectively making up law. It needs to be binned.
Um no, it interprets the current law and generates a result.
The new Labour Government can change the law and fix the issue all the Supreme Court has done is combine the law as it currently is and come to (an admittedly unexpected) conclusion..
People like @Luckyguy1983 clearly have no understanding of our legal system whatsoever. This is how it has ALWAYS worked.
Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities. It is a complete abuse of "supreme court" powers to intervene on these spurious grounds, effectively to prevent any new oil wells being built in this country - economical self-harm which is for elected parliamentarians to inflict if they so wish, because they can be de-elected again. It's not for an appointed body to stretch its remit and make decisions like this.
They can intervene if the process was not followed properly. That’s a fundamental principle of the rule of law.
Their judgement is based upon a highly troubling interpretation of what that process should be - that's the point. The emissions involved in the set up and ongoing operation of the business were reported on in the usual way. The emissions generated subsequently were not, and I've explained why to demand that they are is deeply concerning in other posts.
I worry that this bit of the above… : “ Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities”
…Shows a confusion between parliament and the executive.
Parliament makes laws. The executive (Government or SCC) makes decisions which should be legal, but if there is doubt the Judicial system will decide
This is part of the citizenship exam. Maybe it should be taught in schools too?
That's true but the court made a mistake in its ruling.
The emissions generated by the burning of the oil should not be counted as the net difference of oil burnt as a result of the well is zero.
Why zero? Because oil is fungible and had we not extracted from this well we'd have just imported from Saudi Arabia or somewhere else the exact same amount of oil.
So the total net emissions of a fungible product is zero, unless or until we start forbidding imports.
As pointed out by someone previously, the Supreme Court did not rule on the substance of the issue, but only on whether the county council had considered the substance of the issue. Which they had not.
So your objection is not relevant, or in order, and we could expect that a revised planning decision from the country council, which did consider the substance of the issue, has a high probability of concluding that it shouldn't be a bar to approving the application, for the logical reasons you set out.
That outcome would be law followed, planning approved, everyone happy (especially the lawyers!)
Not the locals. Not people who care about the countryside. Not those who want to save the planet.
but, yeah, it was about legal processes at the moment
I want to save the planet.
To do that we need to follow science, not dogma.
The science is we need to transition away from consuming oil.
We still need oil for the transition though and there is no scientific reason why OPEC-produced oil is better for the environment than domestically produced oil.
If the world needs to transition away from consuming oil, then basic logic says that the world also has to transition away from producing oil. As a country, we should therefore transition away from both producing and consuming oil as well as appropriately taxing the import of oil and oil derivatives to encourage other countries to do likewise.
No. We should maximise oil production in democratic states in order to minimise the flow of cash to despots and dictators. As long as we need it, the "west" should produce it.
This.
Regdrding renewables. The economic arguments for wind turbines etc. are barking. They have to be backed 100% by conventional power stations (gas) to cover still windless dark cold periods.
The eco argument is equally ludicrous and industry destroying with higher costs when China and India etc extracting vast amounts of coal for cheap electricity.
There is an argument for it on security reasons, with our own oil running out thenturbines mean we need less gas/oil from Vladimir and Khassogis murderers.
But pointing that out would mean the politicians saying "we've cocked up energy policy, ours is running out and we've got to spend a fortune otherwise Vlad and Sundry Sheiks will have us over a barrel"
Far better to say "you wicked people, you are destroying the planet, we must go green to save it"
The downside of that is that the green zealots are as uncontrollable and destructive as any other zealot and they have been allowed within the citadel.
oh, ffs.
The anti wind argument again.
We should be moving toward a mixed energy source system, which for the majority of time would mean most of our energy being provided by wind/solar. In these times only a small amount is fossil fuel based. EG now we have 15GW wind/solar and 5GW gas fired. Sometimes that mix needs to change obviously, but overall the use of wind/solar reduces our need for gas on average.
The anti-renewables loons are Putin's little shills.
As well as being a big exporter of fossil fuels, Russia is one of the few countries that is likely to benefit from anthropogenic climate change, so it's in their interests to deter moves away from fossil fuel consumption. It is also in their interest for those countries with small reserves to squander them as quickly as possible on fuel production so that they will be dependent on countries like Russia for raw materials for plastics, etc, in the future.
There seems to be no shortage of useful idiots, especially on the right of the political spectrum.
Many of the rewnewables-or-nothing loons, like Extinction Rebellion or Just Stop Oil, are Putin's little shills as well. He knows we will keep on buying fossil fuels for the immediate future, but the arguments between the anti-renewables and environmental extremists suit him, as they are very disruptive.
As for your last line: I might suggest that Just Stop Oil's behaviour over the last few days shows the useful idiots are also on the left of the political spectrum as well.
So you also believe that we should extract every last drop of UK oil as quickly as possible, thus leaving us at the mercy of Russia and Saudi Arabia in the future when it's all gone?
No.
It's a matter of progress. We need to move towards green energy - and we've been doing that really, really fast (*). But there is a limit to the speed by which we can do that without ruining the economy, and major technological hurdles remain (social ones as well, but less so).
Whilst this is in progress and we need oil and gas, we should try to be as self-sufficient as possible. Whilst also going great guns towards both reducing the need for oil and gas, and also being greener.
The alternate view involves us buying the oil and gas we need from those very regimes you named. Except not in some hypothetical future, but right now.
(*) It is a crying shame that so many so-called environmentalists ignore this.
That view epitomises short-term thinking. We know that our reserves of fossil fuels are small compared to those of Russia, etc, and we also know that we will need a certain amount of fossil fuel for essential purposes for an indefinite period. Given those two facts, it makes no long-term sense at all to be exploiting our own reserves for non-essential purposes now. It's asking for trouble in the future.
As for going great guns, no. While we, as a planet, have made some progress towards reducing emissions, it has been pitifully slow, to the extent that there has thus far been no noticeable effect on the rate of increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. Indeed, it is still accelerating. We are applauding our efforts while losing the war.
No. My view epitomises both long-term and short-term thinking. What we need to do now, to get where we need to be in the future. You just want to give as much money as possible to bad/evil regimes now. Regimes who have no reason to advance a green future. Gradatim ferociter, as a certain billionaire might say.
" makes no long-term sense at all to be exploiting our own reserves for non-essential purposes now."
Gas and oil is used for essential purposes now. Even on a sunny day with some wind, gas is providing us with some power. Petrol and diesel is allowing most of us to get around. And you think that is non-essential?
As for your last paragraph: we as a country have been going great guns. The world might not have been, but it's crass to deny how much progress our country has made over the last two decades.
When I look at of my window at all the single-occupant tonka-truck SUVs driving past my house, it's pretty hard to believe that we are using all that oil for essential purposes. Ditto the tourist-filled jets flying overhead.
You have zero idea why people are making those journeys. Zero. They may not seem essential to you; but can I judge your lifestyle too, please?
Now you're just being ridiculous. You're effectively claiming that every journey made is essential. Even if that were the case, it is certainly not essential that it be made in a gas-guzzling SUV. And you have the gall to call me a Putin apologist? Just take a look at yourself.
Yes, every journey made is essential for whoever is making that journey for whatever reason they are making it.
We should be wanting to increase mobility and ensure more journeys can be made for whatever reason than they are now.
As we head into a cleaner, electric, future the cost of motoring ought to be a tiny fraction of what it is today and we ought to see many more journeys made. Cleanly.
We clearly have very different understandings of the meaning of the word "essential".
This appointed court is not a part of our constitution; it has no legitimacy, and it is effectively making up law. It needs to be binned.
Um no, it interprets the current law and generates a result.
The new Labour Government can change the law and fix the issue all the Supreme Court has done is combine the law as it currently is and come to (an admittedly unexpected) conclusion..
People like @Luckyguy1983 clearly have no understanding of our legal system whatsoever. This is how it has ALWAYS worked.
Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities. It is a complete abuse of "supreme court" powers to intervene on these spurious grounds, effectively to prevent any new oil wells being built in this country - economical self-harm which is for elected parliamentarians to inflict if they so wish, because they can be de-elected again. It's not for an appointed body to stretch its remit and make decisions like this.
They can intervene if the process was not followed properly. That’s a fundamental principle of the rule of law.
Their judgement is based upon a highly troubling interpretation of what that process should be - that's the point. The emissions involved in the set up and ongoing operation of the business were reported on in the usual way. The emissions generated subsequently were not, and I've explained why to demand that they are is deeply concerning in other posts.
I worry that this bit of the above… : “ Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities”
…Shows a confusion between parliament and the executive.
Parliament makes laws. The executive (Government or SCC) makes decisions which should be legal, but if there is doubt the Judicial system will decide
This is part of the citizenship exam. Maybe it should be taught in schools too?
That's true but the court made a mistake in its ruling.
The emissions generated by the burning of the oil should not be counted as the net difference of oil burnt as a result of the well is zero.
Why zero? Because oil is fungible and had we not extracted from this well we'd have just imported from Saudi Arabia or somewhere else the exact same amount of oil.
So the total net emissions of a fungible product is zero, unless or until we start forbidding imports.
As pointed out by someone previously, the Supreme Court did not rule on the substance of the issue, but only on whether the county council had considered the substance of the issue. Which they had not.
So your objection is not relevant, or in order, and we could expect that a revised planning decision from the country council, which did consider the substance of the issue, has a high probability of concluding that it shouldn't be a bar to approving the application, for the logical reasons you set out.
That outcome would be law followed, planning approved, everyone happy (especially the lawyers!)
Not the locals. Not people who care about the countryside. Not those who want to save the planet.
but, yeah, it was about legal processes at the moment
I want to save the planet.
To do that we need to follow science, not dogma.
The science is we need to transition away from consuming oil.
We still need oil for the transition though and there is no scientific reason why OPEC-produced oil is better for the environment than domestically produced oil.
If the world needs to transition away from consuming oil, then basic logic says that the world also has to transition away from producing oil. As a country, we should therefore transition away from both producing and consuming oil as well as appropriately taxing the import of oil and oil derivatives to encourage other countries to do likewise.
No. We should maximise oil production in democratic states in order to minimise the flow of cash to despots and dictators. As long as we need it, the "west" should produce it.
This.
Regdrding renewables. The economic arguments for wind turbines etc. are barking. They have to be backed 100% by conventional power stations (gas) to cover still windless dark cold periods.
The eco argument is equally ludicrous and industry destroying with higher costs when China and India etc extracting vast amounts of coal for cheap electricity.
There is an argument for it on security reasons, with our own oil running out thenturbines mean we need less gas/oil from Vladimir and Khassogis murderers.
But pointing that out would mean the politicians saying "we've cocked up energy policy, ours is running out and we've got to spend a fortune otherwise Vlad and Sundry Sheiks will have us over a barrel"
Far better to say "you wicked people, you are destroying the planet, we must go green to save it"
The downside of that is that the green zealots are as uncontrollable and destructive as any other zealot and they have been allowed within the citadel.
oh, ffs.
The anti wind argument again.
We should be moving toward a mixed energy source system, which for the majority of time would mean most of our energy being provided by wind/solar. In these times only a small amount is fossil fuel based. EG now we have 15GW wind/solar and 5GW gas fired. Sometimes that mix needs to change obviously, but overall the use of wind/solar reduces our need for gas on average.
The anti-renewables loons are Putin's little shills.
As well as being a big exporter of fossil fuels, Russia is one of the few countries that is likely to benefit from anthropogenic climate change, so it's in their interests to deter moves away from fossil fuel consumption. It is also in their interest for those countries with small reserves to squander them as quickly as possible on fuel production so that they will be dependent on countries like Russia for raw materials for plastics, etc, in the future.
There seems to be no shortage of useful idiots, especially on the right of the political spectrum.
Many of the rewnewables-or-nothing loons, like Extinction Rebellion or Just Stop Oil, are Putin's little shills as well. He knows we will keep on buying fossil fuels for the immediate future, but the arguments between the anti-renewables and environmental extremists suit him, as they are very disruptive.
As for your last line: I might suggest that Just Stop Oil's behaviour over the last few days shows the useful idiots are also on the left of the political spectrum as well.
So you also believe that we should extract every last drop of UK oil as quickly as possible, thus leaving us at the mercy of Russia and Saudi Arabia in the future when it's all gone?
No.
It's a matter of progress. We need to move towards green energy - and we've been doing that really, really fast (*). But there is a limit to the speed by which we can do that without ruining the economy, and major technological hurdles remain (social ones as well, but less so).
Whilst this is in progress and we need oil and gas, we should try to be as self-sufficient as possible. Whilst also going great guns towards both reducing the need for oil and gas, and also being greener.
The alternate view involves us buying the oil and gas we need from those very regimes you named. Except not in some hypothetical future, but right now.
(*) It is a crying shame that so many so-called environmentalists ignore this.
That view epitomises short-term thinking. We know that our reserves of fossil fuels are small compared to those of Russia, etc, and we also know that we will need a certain amount of fossil fuel for essential purposes for an indefinite period. Given those two facts, it makes no long-term sense at all to be exploiting our own reserves for non-essential purposes now. It's asking for trouble in the future.
As for going great guns, no. While we, as a planet, have made some progress towards reducing emissions, it has been pitifully slow, to the extent that there has thus far been no noticeable effect on the rate of increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. Indeed, it is still accelerating. We are applauding our efforts while losing the war.
No. My view epitomises both long-term and short-term thinking. What we need to do now, to get where we need to be in the future. You just want to give as much money as possible to bad/evil regimes now. Regimes who have no reason to advance a green future. Gradatim ferociter, as a certain billionaire might say.
" makes no long-term sense at all to be exploiting our own reserves for non-essential purposes now."
Gas and oil is used for essential purposes now. Even on a sunny day with some wind, gas is providing us with some power. Petrol and diesel is allowing most of us to get around. And you think that is non-essential?
As for your last paragraph: we as a country have been going great guns. The world might not have been, but it's crass to deny how much progress our country has made over the last two decades.
When I look at of my window at all the single-occupant tonka-truck SUVs driving past my house, it's pretty hard to believe that we are using all that oil for essential purposes. Ditto the tourist-filled jets flying overhead.
You have zero idea why people are making those journeys. Zero. They may not seem essential to you; but can I judge your lifestyle too, please?
Now you're just being ridiculous. You're effectively claiming that every journey made is essential. Even if that were the case, it is certainly not essential that it be made in a gas-guzzling SUV. And you have the gall to call me a Putin apologist? Just take a look at yourself.
Yes, every journey made is essential for whoever is making that journey for whatever reason they are making it.
We should be wanting to increase mobility and ensure more journeys can be made for whatever reason than they are now.
As we head into a cleaner, electric, future the cost of motoring ought to be a tiny fraction of what it is today and we ought to see many more journeys made. Cleanly.
We clearly have very different understandings of the meaning of the word "essential".
Clearly.
Name a single journey you could eliminate which wouldn't harm anyone's economic, mental or physical health or wellbeing.
This appointed court is not a part of our constitution; it has no legitimacy, and it is effectively making up law. It needs to be binned.
Um no, it interprets the current law and generates a result.
The new Labour Government can change the law and fix the issue all the Supreme Court has done is combine the law as it currently is and come to (an admittedly unexpected) conclusion..
People like @Luckyguy1983 clearly have no understanding of our legal system whatsoever. This is how it has ALWAYS worked.
Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities. It is a complete abuse of "supreme court" powers to intervene on these spurious grounds, effectively to prevent any new oil wells being built in this country - economical self-harm which is for elected parliamentarians to inflict if they so wish, because they can be de-elected again. It's not for an appointed body to stretch its remit and make decisions like this.
They can intervene if the process was not followed properly. That’s a fundamental principle of the rule of law.
Their judgement is based upon a highly troubling interpretation of what that process should be - that's the point. The emissions involved in the set up and ongoing operation of the business were reported on in the usual way. The emissions generated subsequently were not, and I've explained why to demand that they are is deeply concerning in other posts.
I worry that this bit of the above… : “ Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities”
…Shows a confusion between parliament and the executive.
Parliament makes laws. The executive (Government or SCC) makes decisions which should be legal, but if there is doubt the Judicial system will decide
This is part of the citizenship exam. Maybe it should be taught in schools too?
That's true but the court made a mistake in its ruling.
The emissions generated by the burning of the oil should not be counted as the net difference of oil burnt as a result of the well is zero.
Why zero? Because oil is fungible and had we not extracted from this well we'd have just imported from Saudi Arabia or somewhere else the exact same amount of oil.
So the total net emissions of a fungible product is zero, unless or until we start forbidding imports.
As pointed out by someone previously, the Supreme Court did not rule on the substance of the issue, but only on whether the county council had considered the substance of the issue. Which they had not.
So your objection is not relevant, or in order, and we could expect that a revised planning decision from the country council, which did consider the substance of the issue, has a high probability of concluding that it shouldn't be a bar to approving the application, for the logical reasons you set out.
That outcome would be law followed, planning approved, everyone happy (especially the lawyers!)
Not the locals. Not people who care about the countryside. Not those who want to save the planet.
but, yeah, it was about legal processes at the moment
I want to save the planet.
To do that we need to follow science, not dogma.
The science is we need to transition away from consuming oil.
We still need oil for the transition though and there is no scientific reason why OPEC-produced oil is better for the environment than domestically produced oil.
If the world needs to transition away from consuming oil, then basic logic says that the world also has to transition away from producing oil. As a country, we should therefore transition away from both producing and consuming oil as well as appropriately taxing the import of oil and oil derivatives to encourage other countries to do likewise.
No. We should maximise oil production in democratic states in order to minimise the flow of cash to despots and dictators. As long as we need it, the "west" should produce it.
This.
Regdrding renewables. The economic arguments for wind turbines etc. are barking. They have to be backed 100% by conventional power stations (gas) to cover still windless dark cold periods.
The eco argument is equally ludicrous and industry destroying with higher costs when China and India etc extracting vast amounts of coal for cheap electricity.
There is an argument for it on security reasons, with our own oil running out thenturbines mean we need less gas/oil from Vladimir and Khassogis murderers.
But pointing that out would mean the politicians saying "we've cocked up energy policy, ours is running out and we've got to spend a fortune otherwise Vlad and Sundry Sheiks will have us over a barrel"
Far better to say "you wicked people, you are destroying the planet, we must go green to save it"
The downside of that is that the green zealots are as uncontrollable and destructive as any other zealot and they have been allowed within the citadel.
oh, ffs.
The anti wind argument again.
We should be moving toward a mixed energy source system, which for the majority of time would mean most of our energy being provided by wind/solar. In these times only a small amount is fossil fuel based. EG now we have 15GW wind/solar and 5GW gas fired. Sometimes that mix needs to change obviously, but overall the use of wind/solar reduces our need for gas on average.
The anti-renewables loons are Putin's little shills.
As well as being a big exporter of fossil fuels, Russia is one of the few countries that is likely to benefit from anthropogenic climate change, so it's in their interests to deter moves away from fossil fuel consumption. It is also in their interest for those countries with small reserves to squander them as quickly as possible on fuel production so that they will be dependent on countries like Russia for raw materials for plastics, etc, in the future.
There seems to be no shortage of useful idiots, especially on the right of the political spectrum.
Many of the rewnewables-or-nothing loons, like Extinction Rebellion or Just Stop Oil, are Putin's little shills as well. He knows we will keep on buying fossil fuels for the immediate future, but the arguments between the anti-renewables and environmental extremists suit him, as they are very disruptive.
As for your last line: I might suggest that Just Stop Oil's behaviour over the last few days shows the useful idiots are also on the left of the political spectrum as well.
So you also believe that we should extract every last drop of UK oil as quickly as possible, thus leaving us at the mercy of Russia and Saudi Arabia in the future when it's all gone?
No.
It's a matter of progress. We need to move towards green energy - and we've been doing that really, really fast (*). But there is a limit to the speed by which we can do that without ruining the economy, and major technological hurdles remain (social ones as well, but less so).
Whilst this is in progress and we need oil and gas, we should try to be as self-sufficient as possible. Whilst also going great guns towards both reducing the need for oil and gas, and also being greener.
The alternate view involves us buying the oil and gas we need from those very regimes you named. Except not in some hypothetical future, but right now.
(*) It is a crying shame that so many so-called environmentalists ignore this.
That view epitomises short-term thinking. We know that our reserves of fossil fuels are small compared to those of Russia, etc, and we also know that we will need a certain amount of fossil fuel for essential purposes for an indefinite period. Given those two facts, it makes no long-term sense at all to be exploiting our own reserves for non-essential purposes now. It's asking for trouble in the future.
As for going great guns, no. While we, as a planet, have made some progress towards reducing emissions, it has been pitifully slow, to the extent that there has thus far been no noticeable effect on the rate of increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. Indeed, it is still accelerating. We are applauding our efforts while losing the war.
No. My view epitomises both long-term and short-term thinking. What we need to do now, to get where we need to be in the future. You just want to give as much money as possible to bad/evil regimes now. Regimes who have no reason to advance a green future. Gradatim ferociter, as a certain billionaire might say.
" makes no long-term sense at all to be exploiting our own reserves for non-essential purposes now."
Gas and oil is used for essential purposes now. Even on a sunny day with some wind, gas is providing us with some power. Petrol and diesel is allowing most of us to get around. And you think that is non-essential?
As for your last paragraph: we as a country have been going great guns. The world might not have been, but it's crass to deny how much progress our country has made over the last two decades.
When I look at of my window at all the single-occupant tonka-truck SUVs driving past my house, it's pretty hard to believe that we are using all that oil for essential purposes. Ditto the tourist-filled jets flying overhead.
You have zero idea why people are making those journeys. Zero. They may not seem essential to you; but can I judge your lifestyle too, please?
It's not the journey that's the issue. Is the giant, heavy box of steel for what is usually a very short distance.
(I'm not going to try and dismantle the 76 nested comments here; it'll bork.)
I agree with @JosiasJessop it is about both long and short term thinking, and that we *have* made very rapid progress. It is tragic that the current generation of senior Conservatives won't recognise their own part in some of these achievements (though TBF strategic energy changes were mainly continued rollout of New Labour initiatives such as wind power), and have flipped 180 to try and save their backsides, burning down some good things they have done.
On monitoring journeys, this is basic stuff we have been doing for half a century; we have reliable data. I think we all know that, sarcasm aside.
I think Ed Davey played a pretty important part as well, during his tenure as Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change in the coalition.
Herewith Electoral Calculus' General Election seat prediction as at today's date:
Con 76, Lab 457, Lib Dem 66, SNP 22, Labour majority of 264
Still some way from what the spread-betting markets are suggesting with the Tories for instance currently priced at 107 seats to sell and 115 seats to buy and Labour at 422 seats to sell and 432 seats to buy, which would produce a mid-spread majority therefore of 204 (427 - 325 x 2). This is therefore a 60 seat smaller majority than Electoral Calculus is currently forecasting (264 - 204).
This appointed court is not a part of our constitution; it has no legitimacy, and it is effectively making up law. It needs to be binned.
Um no, it interprets the current law and generates a result.
The new Labour Government can change the law and fix the issue all the Supreme Court has done is combine the law as it currently is and come to (an admittedly unexpected) conclusion..
People like @Luckyguy1983 clearly have no understanding of our legal system whatsoever. This is how it has ALWAYS worked.
Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities. It is a complete abuse of "supreme court" powers to intervene on these spurious grounds, effectively to prevent any new oil wells being built in this country - economical self-harm which is for elected parliamentarians to inflict if they so wish, because they can be de-elected again. It's not for an appointed body to stretch its remit and make decisions like this.
They can intervene if the process was not followed properly. That’s a fundamental principle of the rule of law.
Their judgement is based upon a highly troubling interpretation of what that process should be - that's the point. The emissions involved in the set up and ongoing operation of the business were reported on in the usual way. The emissions generated subsequently were not, and I've explained why to demand that they are is deeply concerning in other posts.
I worry that this bit of the above… : “ Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities”
…Shows a confusion between parliament and the executive.
Parliament makes laws. The executive (Government or SCC) makes decisions which should be legal, but if there is doubt the Judicial system will decide
This is part of the citizenship exam. Maybe it should be taught in schools too?
That's true but the court made a mistake in its ruling.
The emissions generated by the burning of the oil should not be counted as the net difference of oil burnt as a result of the well is zero.
Why zero? Because oil is fungible and had we not extracted from this well we'd have just imported from Saudi Arabia or somewhere else the exact same amount of oil.
So the total net emissions of a fungible product is zero, unless or until we start forbidding imports.
As pointed out by someone previously, the Supreme Court did not rule on the substance of the issue, but only on whether the county council had considered the substance of the issue. Which they had not.
So your objection is not relevant, or in order, and we could expect that a revised planning decision from the country council, which did consider the substance of the issue, has a high probability of concluding that it shouldn't be a bar to approving the application, for the logical reasons you set out.
That outcome would be law followed, planning approved, everyone happy (especially the lawyers!)
Not the locals. Not people who care about the countryside. Not those who want to save the planet.
but, yeah, it was about legal processes at the moment
I want to save the planet.
To do that we need to follow science, not dogma.
The science is we need to transition away from consuming oil.
We still need oil for the transition though and there is no scientific reason why OPEC-produced oil is better for the environment than domestically produced oil.
If the world needs to transition away from consuming oil, then basic logic says that the world also has to transition away from producing oil. As a country, we should therefore transition away from both producing and consuming oil as well as appropriately taxing the import of oil and oil derivatives to encourage other countries to do likewise.
No. We should maximise oil production in democratic states in order to minimise the flow of cash to despots and dictators. As long as we need it, the "west" should produce it.
This.
Regdrding renewables. The economic arguments for wind turbines etc. are barking. They have to be backed 100% by conventional power stations (gas) to cover still windless dark cold periods.
The eco argument is equally ludicrous and industry destroying with higher costs when China and India etc extracting vast amounts of coal for cheap electricity.
There is an argument for it on security reasons, with our own oil running out thenturbines mean we need less gas/oil from Vladimir and Khassogis murderers.
But pointing that out would mean the politicians saying "we've cocked up energy policy, ours is running out and we've got to spend a fortune otherwise Vlad and Sundry Sheiks will have us over a barrel"
Far better to say "you wicked people, you are destroying the planet, we must go green to save it"
The downside of that is that the green zealots are as uncontrollable and destructive as any other zealot and they have been allowed within the citadel.
oh, ffs.
The anti wind argument again.
We should be moving toward a mixed energy source system, which for the majority of time would mean most of our energy being provided by wind/solar. In these times only a small amount is fossil fuel based. EG now we have 15GW wind/solar and 5GW gas fired. Sometimes that mix needs to change obviously, but overall the use of wind/solar reduces our need for gas on average.
The anti-renewables loons are Putin's little shills.
As well as being a big exporter of fossil fuels, Russia is one of the few countries that is likely to benefit from anthropogenic climate change, so it's in their interests to deter moves away from fossil fuel consumption. It is also in their interest for those countries with small reserves to squander them as quickly as possible on fuel production so that they will be dependent on countries like Russia for raw materials for plastics, etc, in the future.
There seems to be no shortage of useful idiots, especially on the right of the political spectrum.
Many of the rewnewables-or-nothing loons, like Extinction Rebellion or Just Stop Oil, are Putin's little shills as well. He knows we will keep on buying fossil fuels for the immediate future, but the arguments between the anti-renewables and environmental extremists suit him, as they are very disruptive.
As for your last line: I might suggest that Just Stop Oil's behaviour over the last few days shows the useful idiots are also on the left of the political spectrum as well.
So you also believe that we should extract every last drop of UK oil as quickly as possible, thus leaving us at the mercy of Russia and Saudi Arabia in the future when it's all gone?
No.
It's a matter of progress. We need to move towards green energy - and we've been doing that really, really fast (*). But there is a limit to the speed by which we can do that without ruining the economy, and major technological hurdles remain (social ones as well, but less so).
Whilst this is in progress and we need oil and gas, we should try to be as self-sufficient as possible. Whilst also going great guns towards both reducing the need for oil and gas, and also being greener.
The alternate view involves us buying the oil and gas we need from those very regimes you named. Except not in some hypothetical future, but right now.
(*) It is a crying shame that so many so-called environmentalists ignore this.
That view epitomises short-term thinking. We know that our reserves of fossil fuels are small compared to those of Russia, etc, and we also know that we will need a certain amount of fossil fuel for essential purposes for an indefinite period. Given those two facts, it makes no long-term sense at all to be exploiting our own reserves for non-essential purposes now. It's asking for trouble in the future.
As for going great guns, no. While we, as a planet, have made some progress towards reducing emissions, it has been pitifully slow, to the extent that there has thus far been no noticeable effect on the rate of increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. Indeed, it is still accelerating. We are applauding our efforts while losing the war.
No. My view epitomises both long-term and short-term thinking. What we need to do now, to get where we need to be in the future. You just want to give as much money as possible to bad/evil regimes now. Regimes who have no reason to advance a green future. Gradatim ferociter, as a certain billionaire might say.
" makes no long-term sense at all to be exploiting our own reserves for non-essential purposes now."
Gas and oil is used for essential purposes now. Even on a sunny day with some wind, gas is providing us with some power. Petrol and diesel is allowing most of us to get around. And you think that is non-essential?
As for your last paragraph: we as a country have been going great guns. The world might not have been, but it's crass to deny how much progress our country has made over the last two decades.
When I look at of my window at all the single-occupant tonka-truck SUVs driving past my house, it's pretty hard to believe that we are using all that oil for essential purposes. Ditto the tourist-filled jets flying overhead.
You have zero idea why people are making those journeys. Zero. They may not seem essential to you; but can I judge your lifestyle too, please?
Now you're just being ridiculous. You're effectively claiming that every journey made is essential. Even if that were the case, it is certainly not essential that it be made in a gas-guzzling SUV. And you have the gall to call me a Putin apologist? Just take a look at yourself.
Yes, every journey made is essential for whoever is making that journey for whatever reason they are making it.
We should be wanting to increase mobility and ensure more journeys can be made for whatever reason than they are now.
As we head into a cleaner, electric, future the cost of motoring ought to be a tiny fraction of what it is today and we ought to see many more journeys made. Cleanly.
We clearly have very different understandings of the meaning of the word "essential".
Clearly.
Name a single journey you could eliminate which wouldn't harm anyone's economic, mental or physical health or wellbeing.
For lots of people in office jobs, the commute.
There is already the technology to work from home if they can, if they aren't, there's a reason why, so no.
Plus for many people spending time with others is invaluable for their mental health.
So no, doesn't count. If someone wants to work from home, and their employer wants to let them, there's nothing forbidding it nor should there be.
Jesus Christ it's a beautiful day but it is very hard to be optimistic about the West at the moment
It's a glorious day here. A perfect summer's day. Light rain forecast overnight, warm and sunny again tomorrow. Which is as it should be in Dorsetopia.
Your pessimism for the future raises an interesting question: In how many periods through the past 125 years would we have been optimistic about the future? I would say all of those below in bold were as bleak as today.
1900-1914? Rising nationalism, arms race, strains of empire, etc. 1914-1918? No need to ask. 1919-1928? Briefly maybe but: Ireland, the pain of war losses, industrial strife. 1929-1939? God no. Depression, rise of Fascism, the Gathering Storm, etc. 1939-1945? Er... 1946-1956? Rationing, austerity, the Cold War, Suez... 1957-1966? Rock and roll! The swinging sixties, 1966 World Cup, the White Heat of Technology, the Space Race. Yay! 1967-1980? Vietnam, MLK, RFK assassinations, the Middle East, Norther Ireland, the energy crisis, industrial strife, Cold War, inflation. 1980-1990? More industrial strife. 1990-2008? End of the cold war, relative economic stability? 2008 onwards? The GFC, austerity, Brexit, Covid, Ukraine
But equally, all had reasons for optimism, as is the case today.
PS I appreciate none of this is black and white - it's all open to interpretation and argument.
"What Everyone Knows About Britain* (*Except the British)"
"If only Britain knew how it was viewed abroad If the country were a person, it would need its friends to sit it down and deliver it a few home truths about its damaging behaviour to itself and others, says Michael Peel"
You don’t have to spend too much time on history twitter so see stuff like this:
We are profoundly ignorant of our history, as a society. There was a survey doing the rounds around the D-Day anniversary the other week that said that supposedly half of the UK thought we had done the most, as a country, to win WW2.
I love my country, we have done wonderful things throughout history. But I wish we had a more grown up, nuanced understanding of our history and the things we have done, good and bad, and how that’s impacted other countries and peoples, for good or ill. That might help ameliorate the problems the column highlights.
I’m not holding my breath, the English, especially the elites, do so love their self-bestowed exceptionalism.
I think all countries teach their history overly favourably with regard to their role in it.
I remember laughing/arguing with my French ex about what she had been taught. As far as her history lessons went in France Napoleon was the second coming of Christ and only did good things and the French liberated themselves with a bit of help from the Americans in WW2.
The French teaching about WW2 especially makes ours look positively self-effacing.
The Americans too have quite a narrow and favourable view of their history and any Russian will tell you they won WW2 on their own.
Whilst we should be a bit more introspective it’s not as if we are exceptional.
Most countries bullshit their past importance. Long term political consequences include: UK - Brexit, reform. France - Gaullism, Le Pen. USA - MAGA. Russia - USSR, Putin.
And, of course, people like Mehmet II, Vlad Tepes, Genghis Khan, Nadir Shah, Alexander, Queen Nzinga, Timur, etc. are national heroes in their respective countries, despite, or more likely because, of leaving pyramids of heads in their wake.
This appointed court is not a part of our constitution; it has no legitimacy, and it is effectively making up law. It needs to be binned.
Um no, it interprets the current law and generates a result.
The new Labour Government can change the law and fix the issue all the Supreme Court has done is combine the law as it currently is and come to (an admittedly unexpected) conclusion..
People like @Luckyguy1983 clearly have no understanding of our legal system whatsoever. This is how it has ALWAYS worked.
Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities. It is a complete abuse of "supreme court" powers to intervene on these spurious grounds, effectively to prevent any new oil wells being built in this country - economical self-harm which is for elected parliamentarians to inflict if they so wish, because they can be de-elected again. It's not for an appointed body to stretch its remit and make decisions like this.
They can intervene if the process was not followed properly. That’s a fundamental principle of the rule of law.
Their judgement is based upon a highly troubling interpretation of what that process should be - that's the point. The emissions involved in the set up and ongoing operation of the business were reported on in the usual way. The emissions generated subsequently were not, and I've explained why to demand that they are is deeply concerning in other posts.
I worry that this bit of the above… : “ Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities”
…Shows a confusion between parliament and the executive.
Parliament makes laws. The executive (Government or SCC) makes decisions which should be legal, but if there is doubt the Judicial system will decide
This is part of the citizenship exam. Maybe it should be taught in schools too?
That's true but the court made a mistake in its ruling.
The emissions generated by the burning of the oil should not be counted as the net difference of oil burnt as a result of the well is zero.
Why zero? Because oil is fungible and had we not extracted from this well we'd have just imported from Saudi Arabia or somewhere else the exact same amount of oil.
So the total net emissions of a fungible product is zero, unless or until we start forbidding imports.
As pointed out by someone previously, the Supreme Court did not rule on the substance of the issue, but only on whether the county council had considered the substance of the issue. Which they had not.
So your objection is not relevant, or in order, and we could expect that a revised planning decision from the country council, which did consider the substance of the issue, has a high probability of concluding that it shouldn't be a bar to approving the application, for the logical reasons you set out.
That outcome would be law followed, planning approved, everyone happy (especially the lawyers!)
Not the locals. Not people who care about the countryside. Not those who want to save the planet.
but, yeah, it was about legal processes at the moment
I want to save the planet.
To do that we need to follow science, not dogma.
The science is we need to transition away from consuming oil.
We still need oil for the transition though and there is no scientific reason why OPEC-produced oil is better for the environment than domestically produced oil.
If the world needs to transition away from consuming oil, then basic logic says that the world also has to transition away from producing oil. As a country, we should therefore transition away from both producing and consuming oil as well as appropriately taxing the import of oil and oil derivatives to encourage other countries to do likewise.
No. We should maximise oil production in democratic states in order to minimise the flow of cash to despots and dictators. As long as we need it, the "west" should produce it.
This.
Regdrding renewables. The economic arguments for wind turbines etc. are barking. They have to be backed 100% by conventional power stations (gas) to cover still windless dark cold periods.
The eco argument is equally ludicrous and industry destroying with higher costs when China and India etc extracting vast amounts of coal for cheap electricity.
There is an argument for it on security reasons, with our own oil running out thenturbines mean we need less gas/oil from Vladimir and Khassogis murderers.
But pointing that out would mean the politicians saying "we've cocked up energy policy, ours is running out and we've got to spend a fortune otherwise Vlad and Sundry Sheiks will have us over a barrel"
Far better to say "you wicked people, you are destroying the planet, we must go green to save it"
The downside of that is that the green zealots are as uncontrollable and destructive as any other zealot and they have been allowed within the citadel.
oh, ffs.
The anti wind argument again.
We should be moving toward a mixed energy source system, which for the majority of time would mean most of our energy being provided by wind/solar. In these times only a small amount is fossil fuel based. EG now we have 15GW wind/solar and 5GW gas fired. Sometimes that mix needs to change obviously, but overall the use of wind/solar reduces our need for gas on average.
The anti-renewables loons are Putin's little shills.
As well as being a big exporter of fossil fuels, Russia is one of the few countries that is likely to benefit from anthropogenic climate change, so it's in their interests to deter moves away from fossil fuel consumption. It is also in their interest for those countries with small reserves to squander them as quickly as possible on fuel production so that they will be dependent on countries like Russia for raw materials for plastics, etc, in the future.
There seems to be no shortage of useful idiots, especially on the right of the political spectrum.
Many of the rewnewables-or-nothing loons, like Extinction Rebellion or Just Stop Oil, are Putin's little shills as well. He knows we will keep on buying fossil fuels for the immediate future, but the arguments between the anti-renewables and environmental extremists suit him, as they are very disruptive.
As for your last line: I might suggest that Just Stop Oil's behaviour over the last few days shows the useful idiots are also on the left of the political spectrum as well.
So you also believe that we should extract every last drop of UK oil as quickly as possible, thus leaving us at the mercy of Russia and Saudi Arabia in the future when it's all gone?
No.
It's a matter of progress. We need to move towards green energy - and we've been doing that really, really fast (*). But there is a limit to the speed by which we can do that without ruining the economy, and major technological hurdles remain (social ones as well, but less so).
Whilst this is in progress and we need oil and gas, we should try to be as self-sufficient as possible. Whilst also going great guns towards both reducing the need for oil and gas, and also being greener.
The alternate view involves us buying the oil and gas we need from those very regimes you named. Except not in some hypothetical future, but right now.
(*) It is a crying shame that so many so-called environmentalists ignore this.
That view epitomises short-term thinking. We know that our reserves of fossil fuels are small compared to those of Russia, etc, and we also know that we will need a certain amount of fossil fuel for essential purposes for an indefinite period. Given those two facts, it makes no long-term sense at all to be exploiting our own reserves for non-essential purposes now. It's asking for trouble in the future.
As for going great guns, no. While we, as a planet, have made some progress towards reducing emissions, it has been pitifully slow, to the extent that there has thus far been no noticeable effect on the rate of increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. Indeed, it is still accelerating. We are applauding our efforts while losing the war.
My mother told me the other day that in the late 1950s she missed out on a geography field trip to Italy as part of her degree because the airfare was £400 return (nominal, not equivalent of). Nowadays it's potentially £20. This seems wrong.
The question does arise whether a train would have been viable but it is sadly too late to ask
The international aviation market is skewed, in the same way international shipping is. It's atrocious that aviation kerosene is tax exempt, especially for domestic flights, while rail or bus travel is liable for fuel duty.
Yet placing tax on aviation kerosene is very difficult due to the international nature of the industry.
That should be changed, even if people have to pay more for flights.
And whilst I'm world dictator, I'd also stop flags of convenience schemes in shipping, and ensure ships' crews are treated decently.
If the UK taxed Kerosene, the Emirates A380 would take off from Dubai with the tanks filled to the brim, land at Heathrow and fly back to Dubai without refuelling. Using quite a bit more fuel in the process. The BA A380 would do exactly the same on Dubai trips.
Planes flying domestic routes would make a point of going somewhere close (Amsterdam, Dublin) to fill up there.
Airline flight planning departments already factor in the price of fuel at various destinations, when deciding how much to carry on any given flight.
Yes. You would need an international agreement similar to the one over minimum rates of corporate tax. There's an international treaty banning aviation fuel taxation at the moment, I believe, so no country is likely to start taxing aviation fuel unilaterally.
"What Everyone Knows About Britain* (*Except the British)"
"If only Britain knew how it was viewed abroad If the country were a person, it would need its friends to sit it down and deliver it a few home truths about its damaging behaviour to itself and others, says Michael Peel"
You don’t have to spend too much time on history twitter so see stuff like this:
We are profoundly ignorant of our history, as a society. There was a survey doing the rounds around the D-Day anniversary the other week that said that supposedly half of the UK thought we had done the most, as a country, to win WW2.
I love my country, we have done wonderful things throughout history. But I wish we had a more grown up, nuanced understanding of our history and the things we have done, good and bad, and how that’s impacted other countries and peoples, for good or ill. That might help ameliorate the problems the column highlights.
I’m not holding my breath, the English, especially the elites, do so love their self-bestowed exceptionalism.
There is an argument for that. Had Hitler won the Battle of Britain he could have conquered Britain by late 1940 and captured Moscow by the end of summer 1941.
The Nazis could then have invaded the Eastern USA and Canada and the Japanese the Western USA and Australia, NZ and India
No that I've seen/read it, but isn't that akin to the plot of The Man In The High Castle?
"What Everyone Knows About Britain* (*Except the British)"
"If only Britain knew how it was viewed abroad If the country were a person, it would need its friends to sit it down and deliver it a few home truths about its damaging behaviour to itself and others, says Michael Peel"
You don’t have to spend too much time on history twitter so see stuff like this:
We are profoundly ignorant of our history, as a society. There was a survey doing the rounds around the D-Day anniversary the other week that said that supposedly half of the UK thought we had done the most, as a country, to win WW2.
I love my country, we have done wonderful things throughout history. But I wish we had a more grown up, nuanced understanding of our history and the things we have done, good and bad, and how that’s impacted other countries and peoples, for good or ill. That might help ameliorate the problems the column highlights.
I’m not holding my breath, the English, especially the elites, do so love their self-bestowed exceptionalism.
Trying to determine who "did the most" to win WWII is willy-waving, that we, the Americans, and Russians all engage in. I think it would be fair to say that each of those three (and don't forget China) was indispensable towards the achievement of victory.
The Royal Navy, US economic might, and Soviet manpower were key to victory.
I've never read serious history books that portray the UK as some kind of meek little labrador. Being portrayed as the werwolf is actually pretty cool, but overstates our power.
Isn’t there a famous summation of this
The British bought the time The Americans provided the money The Russians gave the me
Each was differently crucial
It's exactly the same with the Napoleonic wars. Trying to determine who did "the most" to defeat France is a pointless exercise.
"What Everyone Knows About Britain* (*Except the British)"
"If only Britain knew how it was viewed abroad If the country were a person, it would need its friends to sit it down and deliver it a few home truths about its damaging behaviour to itself and others, says Michael Peel"
You don’t have to spend too much time on history twitter so see stuff like this:
We are profoundly ignorant of our history, as a society. There was a survey doing the rounds around the D-Day anniversary the other week that said that supposedly half of the UK thought we had done the most, as a country, to win WW2.
I love my country, we have done wonderful things throughout history. But I wish we had a more grown up, nuanced understanding of our history and the things we have done, good and bad, and how that’s impacted other countries and peoples, for good or ill. That might help ameliorate the problems the column highlights.
I’m not holding my breath, the English, especially the elites, do so love their self-bestowed exceptionalism.
Trying to determine who "did the most" to win WWII is willy-waving, that we, the Americans, and Russians all engage in. I think it would be fair to say that each of those three (and don't forget China) was indispensable towards the achievement of victory.
The Royal Navy, US economic might, and Soviet manpower were key to victory.
I've never read serious history books that portray the UK as some kind of meek little labrador. Being portrayed as the werwolf is actually pretty cool, but overstates our power.
Isn’t there a famous summation of this
The British bought the time The Americans provided the money The Russians gave the me
Each was differently crucial
It's exactly the same with the Napoleonic wars. Trying to determine who did "the most" to defeat France is a pointless exercise.
People forget or refuse to remember that the British forces were under French command for a large part of WWI.
"What Everyone Knows About Britain* (*Except the British)"
"If only Britain knew how it was viewed abroad If the country were a person, it would need its friends to sit it down and deliver it a few home truths about its damaging behaviour to itself and others, says Michael Peel"
You don’t have to spend too much time on history twitter so see stuff like this:
We are profoundly ignorant of our history, as a society. There was a survey doing the rounds around the D-Day anniversary the other week that said that supposedly half of the UK thought we had done the most, as a country, to win WW2.
I love my country, we have done wonderful things throughout history. But I wish we had a more grown up, nuanced understanding of our history and the things we have done, good and bad, and how that’s impacted other countries and peoples, for good or ill. That might help ameliorate the problems the column highlights.
I’m not holding my breath, the English, especially the elites, do so love their self-bestowed exceptionalism.
There is an argument for that. Had Hitler won the Battle of Britain he could have conquered Britain by late 1940 and captured Moscow by the end of summer 1941.
The Nazis could then have invaded the Eastern USA and Canada and the Japanese the Western USA and Australia, NZ and India
No that I've seen/read it, but isn't that akin to the plot of The Man In The High Castle?
Fatherland seems more plausible to me.
A great book, that.
TMITHC though - Dick had a truly great imagination but honestly was a pretty lumpen and boring writer.
"What Everyone Knows About Britain* (*Except the British)"
"If only Britain knew how it was viewed abroad If the country were a person, it would need its friends to sit it down and deliver it a few home truths about its damaging behaviour to itself and others, says Michael Peel"
You don’t have to spend too much time on history twitter so see stuff like this:
We are profoundly ignorant of our history, as a society. There was a survey doing the rounds around the D-Day anniversary the other week that said that supposedly half of the UK thought we had done the most, as a country, to win WW2.
I love my country, we have done wonderful things throughout history. But I wish we had a more grown up, nuanced understanding of our history and the things we have done, good and bad, and how that’s impacted other countries and peoples, for good or ill. That might help ameliorate the problems the column highlights.
I’m not holding my breath, the English, especially the elites, do so love their self-bestowed exceptionalism.
Trying to determine who "did the most" to win WWII is willy-waving, that we, the Americans, and Russians all engage in. I think it would be fair to say that each of those three (and don't forget China) was indispensable towards the achievement of victory.
The Royal Navy, US economic might, and Soviet manpower were key to victory.
I've never read serious history books that portray the UK as some kind of meek little labrador. Being portrayed as the werwolf is actually pretty cool, but overstates our power.
Isn’t there a famous summation of this
The British bought the time The Americans provided the money The Russians gave the me
Each was differently crucial
It's exactly the same with the Napoleonic wars. Trying to determine who did "the most" to defeat France is a pointless exercise.
People forget or refuse to remember that the British forces were under French command for a large part of WWI.
"What Everyone Knows About Britain* (*Except the British)"
"If only Britain knew how it was viewed abroad If the country were a person, it would need its friends to sit it down and deliver it a few home truths about its damaging behaviour to itself and others, says Michael Peel"
You don’t have to spend too much time on history twitter so see stuff like this:
We are profoundly ignorant of our history, as a society. There was a survey doing the rounds around the D-Day anniversary the other week that said that supposedly half of the UK thought we had done the most, as a country, to win WW2.
I love my country, we have done wonderful things throughout history. But I wish we had a more grown up, nuanced understanding of our history and the things we have done, good and bad, and how that’s impacted other countries and peoples, for good or ill. That might help ameliorate the problems the column highlights.
I’m not holding my breath, the English, especially the elites, do so love their self-bestowed exceptionalism.
Trying to determine who "did the most" to win WWII is willy-waving, that we, the Americans, and Russians all engage in. I think it would be fair to say that each of those three (and don't forget China) was indispensable towards the achievement of victory.
The Royal Navy, US economic might, and Soviet manpower were key to victory.
I've never read serious history books that portray the UK as some kind of meek little labrador. Being portrayed as the werwolf is actually pretty cool, but overstates our power.
Isn’t there a famous summation of this
The British bought the time The Americans provided the money The Russians gave the me
Each was differently crucial
It's exactly the same with the Napoleonic wars. Trying to determine who did "the most" to defeat France is a pointless exercise.
People forget or refuse to remember that the British forces were under French command for a large part of WWI.
This appointed court is not a part of our constitution; it has no legitimacy, and it is effectively making up law. It needs to be binned.
Um no, it interprets the current law and generates a result.
The new Labour Government can change the law and fix the issue all the Supreme Court has done is combine the law as it currently is and come to (an admittedly unexpected) conclusion..
People like @Luckyguy1983 clearly have no understanding of our legal system whatsoever. This is how it has ALWAYS worked.
Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities. It is a complete abuse of "supreme court" powers to intervene on these spurious grounds, effectively to prevent any new oil wells being built in this country - economical self-harm which is for elected parliamentarians to inflict if they so wish, because they can be de-elected again. It's not for an appointed body to stretch its remit and make decisions like this.
They can intervene if the process was not followed properly. That’s a fundamental principle of the rule of law.
Their judgement is based upon a highly troubling interpretation of what that process should be - that's the point. The emissions involved in the set up and ongoing operation of the business were reported on in the usual way. The emissions generated subsequently were not, and I've explained why to demand that they are is deeply concerning in other posts.
I worry that this bit of the above… : “ Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities”
…Shows a confusion between parliament and the executive.
Parliament makes laws. The executive (Government or SCC) makes decisions which should be legal, but if there is doubt the Judicial system will decide
This is part of the citizenship exam. Maybe it should be taught in schools too?
That's true but the court made a mistake in its ruling.
The emissions generated by the burning of the oil should not be counted as the net difference of oil burnt as a result of the well is zero.
Why zero? Because oil is fungible and had we not extracted from this well we'd have just imported from Saudi Arabia or somewhere else the exact same amount of oil.
So the total net emissions of a fungible product is zero, unless or until we start forbidding imports.
As pointed out by someone previously, the Supreme Court did not rule on the substance of the issue, but only on whether the county council had considered the substance of the issue. Which they had not.
So your objection is not relevant, or in order, and we could expect that a revised planning decision from the country council, which did consider the substance of the issue, has a high probability of concluding that it shouldn't be a bar to approving the application, for the logical reasons you set out.
That outcome would be law followed, planning approved, everyone happy (especially the lawyers!)
Not the locals. Not people who care about the countryside. Not those who want to save the planet.
but, yeah, it was about legal processes at the moment
I want to save the planet.
To do that we need to follow science, not dogma.
The science is we need to transition away from consuming oil.
We still need oil for the transition though and there is no scientific reason why OPEC-produced oil is better for the environment than domestically produced oil.
If the world needs to transition away from consuming oil, then basic logic says that the world also has to transition away from producing oil. As a country, we should therefore transition away from both producing and consuming oil as well as appropriately taxing the import of oil and oil derivatives to encourage other countries to do likewise.
No. We should maximise oil production in democratic states in order to minimise the flow of cash to despots and dictators. As long as we need it, the "west" should produce it.
This.
Regdrding renewables. The economic arguments for wind turbines etc. are barking. They have to be backed 100% by conventional power stations (gas) to cover still windless dark cold periods.
The eco argument is equally ludicrous and industry destroying with higher costs when China and India etc extracting vast amounts of coal for cheap electricity.
There is an argument for it on security reasons, with our own oil running out thenturbines mean we need less gas/oil from Vladimir and Khassogis murderers.
But pointing that out would mean the politicians saying "we've cocked up energy policy, ours is running out and we've got to spend a fortune otherwise Vlad and Sundry Sheiks will have us over a barrel"
Far better to say "you wicked people, you are destroying the planet, we must go green to save it"
The downside of that is that the green zealots are as uncontrollable and destructive as any other zealot and they have been allowed within the citadel.
oh, ffs.
The anti wind argument again.
We should be moving toward a mixed energy source system, which for the majority of time would mean most of our energy being provided by wind/solar. In these times only a small amount is fossil fuel based. EG now we have 15GW wind/solar and 5GW gas fired. Sometimes that mix needs to change obviously, but overall the use of wind/solar reduces our need for gas on average.
The anti-renewables loons are Putin's little shills.
As well as being a big exporter of fossil fuels, Russia is one of the few countries that is likely to benefit from anthropogenic climate change, so it's in their interests to deter moves away from fossil fuel consumption. It is also in their interest for those countries with small reserves to squander them as quickly as possible on fuel production so that they will be dependent on countries like Russia for raw materials for plastics, etc, in the future.
There seems to be no shortage of useful idiots, especially on the right of the political spectrum.
Many of the rewnewables-or-nothing loons, like Extinction Rebellion or Just Stop Oil, are Putin's little shills as well. He knows we will keep on buying fossil fuels for the immediate future, but the arguments between the anti-renewables and environmental extremists suit him, as they are very disruptive.
As for your last line: I might suggest that Just Stop Oil's behaviour over the last few days shows the useful idiots are also on the left of the political spectrum as well.
So you also believe that we should extract every last drop of UK oil as quickly as possible, thus leaving us at the mercy of Russia and Saudi Arabia in the future when it's all gone?
No.
It's a matter of progress. We need to move towards green energy - and we've been doing that really, really fast (*). But there is a limit to the speed by which we can do that without ruining the economy, and major technological hurdles remain (social ones as well, but less so).
Whilst this is in progress and we need oil and gas, we should try to be as self-sufficient as possible. Whilst also going great guns towards both reducing the need for oil and gas, and also being greener.
The alternate view involves us buying the oil and gas we need from those very regimes you named. Except not in some hypothetical future, but right now.
(*) It is a crying shame that so many so-called environmentalists ignore this.
That view epitomises short-term thinking. We know that our reserves of fossil fuels are small compared to those of Russia, etc, and we also know that we will need a certain amount of fossil fuel for essential purposes for an indefinite period. Given those two facts, it makes no long-term sense at all to be exploiting our own reserves for non-essential purposes now. It's asking for trouble in the future.
As for going great guns, no. While we, as a planet, have made some progress towards reducing emissions, it has been pitifully slow, to the extent that there has thus far been no noticeable effect on the rate of increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. Indeed, it is still accelerating. We are applauding our efforts while losing the war.
My mother told me the other day that in the late 1950s she missed out on a geography field trip to Italy as part of her degree because the airfare was £400 return (nominal, not equivalent of). Nowadays it's potentially £20. This seems wrong.
The question does arise whether a train would have been viable but it is sadly too late to ask
The international aviation market is skewed, in the same way international shipping is. It's atrocious that aviation kerosene is tax exempt, especially for domestic flights, while rail or bus travel is liable for fuel duty.
Yet placing tax on aviation kerosene is very difficult due to the international nature of the industry.
That should be changed, even if people have to pay more for flights.
And whilst I'm world dictator, I'd also stop flags of convenience schemes in shipping, and ensure ships' crews are treated decently.
If the UK taxed Kerosene, the Emirates A380 would take off from Dubai with the tanks filled to the brim, land at Heathrow and fly back to Dubai without refuelling. Using quite a bit more fuel in the process. The BA A380 would do exactly the same on Dubai trips.
Planes flying domestic routes would make a point of going somewhere close (Amsterdam, Dublin) to fill up there.
Airline flight planning departments already factor in the price of fuel at various destinations, when deciding how much to carry on any given flight.
Yes. This needs to be done by international agreement.
P.S. Could an A380 really make it from Dubai to Heathrow and back again without refuelling?
Yes quite easily, it has a range of 9,200 miles and regularly flies to both Auckland and Los Angeles from Dubai, both more than 8,000 miles. It holds 250 tonnes, 325,000 litres, of fuel.
Dubai to Heathrow is only around 3,500 miles, depending on which war zone you’re having to avoid on any given day.
The limiting factor would actually be the max landing weight at Heathrow, as a plane’s max landing weight is a lot lower than it’s max takeoff weight. Against that, the high takeoff weight at Dubai and the high landing weight at Heathrow also determines wear on a lot of items such as engines and tyres, all of which goes into the spreadsheets.
"What Everyone Knows About Britain* (*Except the British)"
"If only Britain knew how it was viewed abroad If the country were a person, it would need its friends to sit it down and deliver it a few home truths about its damaging behaviour to itself and others, says Michael Peel"
You don’t have to spend too much time on history twitter so see stuff like this:
We are profoundly ignorant of our history, as a society. There was a survey doing the rounds around the D-Day anniversary the other week that said that supposedly half of the UK thought we had done the most, as a country, to win WW2.
I love my country, we have done wonderful things throughout history. But I wish we had a more grown up, nuanced understanding of our history and the things we have done, good and bad, and how that’s impacted other countries and peoples, for good or ill. That might help ameliorate the problems the column highlights.
I’m not holding my breath, the English, especially the elites, do so love their self-bestowed exceptionalism.
Trying to determine who "did the most" to win WWII is willy-waving, that we, the Americans, and Russians all engage in. I think it would be fair to say that each of those three (and don't forget China) was indispensable towards the achievement of victory.
The Royal Navy, US economic might, and Soviet manpower were key to victory.
I've never read serious history books that portray the UK as some kind of meek little labrador. Being portrayed as the werwolf is actually pretty cool, but overstates our power.
Isn’t there a famous summation of this
The British bought the time The Americans provided the money The Russians gave the me
Each was differently crucial
It's exactly the same with the Napoleonic wars. Trying to determine who did "the most" to defeat France is a pointless exercise.
People forget or refuse to remember that the British forces were under French command for a large part of WWI.
Campbell is right. You see it on here, with lefties luxuriating in their silly protest votes for minor parties thinking that it 'will send a message'. It won't send any sort of message. It will be ignored. That's the problem with protest votes in FPP, no fucker ever notices them, they are just wasted votes, pure and simple.
I can believe that poll in Herefordshire. When I was there last year the sewage in the Wye was - and surely still is - a massive issue for everyone. The Tories are despised for “letting it happen”. One of Britain’s most beautiful rivers ruined by effluent from chicken farms. Horrible
This appointed court is not a part of our constitution; it has no legitimacy, and it is effectively making up law. It needs to be binned.
Um no, it interprets the current law and generates a result.
The new Labour Government can change the law and fix the issue all the Supreme Court has done is combine the law as it currently is and come to (an admittedly unexpected) conclusion..
People like @Luckyguy1983 clearly have no understanding of our legal system whatsoever. This is how it has ALWAYS worked.
Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities. It is a complete abuse of "supreme court" powers to intervene on these spurious grounds, effectively to prevent any new oil wells being built in this country - economical self-harm which is for elected parliamentarians to inflict if they so wish, because they can be de-elected again. It's not for an appointed body to stretch its remit and make decisions like this.
They can intervene if the process was not followed properly. That’s a fundamental principle of the rule of law.
Their judgement is based upon a highly troubling interpretation of what that process should be - that's the point. The emissions involved in the set up and ongoing operation of the business were reported on in the usual way. The emissions generated subsequently were not, and I've explained why to demand that they are is deeply concerning in other posts.
I worry that this bit of the above… : “ Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities”
…Shows a confusion between parliament and the executive.
Parliament makes laws. The executive (Government or SCC) makes decisions which should be legal, but if there is doubt the Judicial system will decide
This is part of the citizenship exam. Maybe it should be taught in schools too?
That's true but the court made a mistake in its ruling.
The emissions generated by the burning of the oil should not be counted as the net difference of oil burnt as a result of the well is zero.
Why zero? Because oil is fungible and had we not extracted from this well we'd have just imported from Saudi Arabia or somewhere else the exact same amount of oil.
So the total net emissions of a fungible product is zero, unless or until we start forbidding imports.
As pointed out by someone previously, the Supreme Court did not rule on the substance of the issue, but only on whether the county council had considered the substance of the issue. Which they had not.
So your objection is not relevant, or in order, and we could expect that a revised planning decision from the country council, which did consider the substance of the issue, has a high probability of concluding that it shouldn't be a bar to approving the application, for the logical reasons you set out.
That outcome would be law followed, planning approved, everyone happy (especially the lawyers!)
Not the locals. Not people who care about the countryside. Not those who want to save the planet.
but, yeah, it was about legal processes at the moment
I want to save the planet.
To do that we need to follow science, not dogma.
The science is we need to transition away from consuming oil.
We still need oil for the transition though and there is no scientific reason why OPEC-produced oil is better for the environment than domestically produced oil.
If the world needs to transition away from consuming oil, then basic logic says that the world also has to transition away from producing oil. As a country, we should therefore transition away from both producing and consuming oil as well as appropriately taxing the import of oil and oil derivatives to encourage other countries to do likewise.
No. We should maximise oil production in democratic states in order to minimise the flow of cash to despots and dictators. As long as we need it, the "west" should produce it.
This.
Regdrding renewables. The economic arguments for wind turbines etc. are barking. They have to be backed 100% by conventional power stations (gas) to cover still windless dark cold periods.
The eco argument is equally ludicrous and industry destroying with higher costs when China and India etc extracting vast amounts of coal for cheap electricity.
There is an argument for it on security reasons, with our own oil running out thenturbines mean we need less gas/oil from Vladimir and Khassogis murderers.
But pointing that out would mean the politicians saying "we've cocked up energy policy, ours is running out and we've got to spend a fortune otherwise Vlad and Sundry Sheiks will have us over a barrel"
Far better to say "you wicked people, you are destroying the planet, we must go green to save it"
The downside of that is that the green zealots are as uncontrollable and destructive as any other zealot and they have been allowed within the citadel.
oh, ffs.
The anti wind argument again.
We should be moving toward a mixed energy source system, which for the majority of time would mean most of our energy being provided by wind/solar. In these times only a small amount is fossil fuel based. EG now we have 15GW wind/solar and 5GW gas fired. Sometimes that mix needs to change obviously, but overall the use of wind/solar reduces our need for gas on average.
The anti-renewables loons are Putin's little shills.
As well as being a big exporter of fossil fuels, Russia is one of the few countries that is likely to benefit from anthropogenic climate change, so it's in their interests to deter moves away from fossil fuel consumption. It is also in their interest for those countries with small reserves to squander them as quickly as possible on fuel production so that they will be dependent on countries like Russia for raw materials for plastics, etc, in the future.
There seems to be no shortage of useful idiots, especially on the right of the political spectrum.
Many of the rewnewables-or-nothing loons, like Extinction Rebellion or Just Stop Oil, are Putin's little shills as well. He knows we will keep on buying fossil fuels for the immediate future, but the arguments between the anti-renewables and environmental extremists suit him, as they are very disruptive.
As for your last line: I might suggest that Just Stop Oil's behaviour over the last few days shows the useful idiots are also on the left of the political spectrum as well.
So you also believe that we should extract every last drop of UK oil as quickly as possible, thus leaving us at the mercy of Russia and Saudi Arabia in the future when it's all gone?
No.
It's a matter of progress. We need to move towards green energy - and we've been doing that really, really fast (*). But there is a limit to the speed by which we can do that without ruining the economy, and major technological hurdles remain (social ones as well, but less so).
Whilst this is in progress and we need oil and gas, we should try to be as self-sufficient as possible. Whilst also going great guns towards both reducing the need for oil and gas, and also being greener.
The alternate view involves us buying the oil and gas we need from those very regimes you named. Except not in some hypothetical future, but right now.
(*) It is a crying shame that so many so-called environmentalists ignore this.
That view epitomises short-term thinking. We know that our reserves of fossil fuels are small compared to those of Russia, etc, and we also know that we will need a certain amount of fossil fuel for essential purposes for an indefinite period. Given those two facts, it makes no long-term sense at all to be exploiting our own reserves for non-essential purposes now. It's asking for trouble in the future.
As for going great guns, no. While we, as a planet, have made some progress towards reducing emissions, it has been pitifully slow, to the extent that there has thus far been no noticeable effect on the rate of increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. Indeed, it is still accelerating. We are applauding our efforts while losing the war.
No. My view epitomises both long-term and short-term thinking. What we need to do now, to get where we need to be in the future. You just want to give as much money as possible to bad/evil regimes now. Regimes who have no reason to advance a green future. Gradatim ferociter, as a certain billionaire might say.
" makes no long-term sense at all to be exploiting our own reserves for non-essential purposes now."
Gas and oil is used for essential purposes now. Even on a sunny day with some wind, gas is providing us with some power. Petrol and diesel is allowing most of us to get around. And you think that is non-essential?
As for your last paragraph: we as a country have been going great guns. The world might not have been, but it's crass to deny how much progress our country has made over the last two decades.
When I look at of my window at all the single-occupant tonka-truck SUVs driving past my house, it's pretty hard to believe that we are using all that oil for essential purposes. Ditto the tourist-filled jets flying overhead.
You have zero idea why people are making those journeys. Zero. They may not seem essential to you; but can I judge your lifestyle too, please?
Now you're just being ridiculous. You're effectively claiming that every journey made is essential. Even if that were the case, it is certainly not essential that it be made in a gas-guzzling SUV. And you have the gall to call me a Putin apologist? Just take a look at yourself.
Yes, every journey made is essential for whoever is making that journey for whatever reason they are making it.
We should be wanting to increase mobility and ensure more journeys can be made for whatever reason than they are now.
As we head into a cleaner, electric, future the cost of motoring ought to be a tiny fraction of what it is today and we ought to see many more journeys made. Cleanly.
We clearly have very different understandings of the meaning of the word "essential".
Clearly.
Name a single journey you could eliminate which wouldn't harm anyone's economic, mental or physical health or wellbeing.
For lots of people in office jobs, the commute.
No thanks. I went back to the office (with permission) towards the end of one of the lockdowns (can't remember which one) as working at home was driving me crazy.
I can believe that poll in Herefordshire. When I was there last year the sewage in the Wye was - and surely still is - a massive issue for everyone. The Tories are despised for “letting it happen”. One of Britain’s most beautiful rivers ruined by effluent from chicken farms. Horrible
Makes sense that the Greens will benefit
I don't think the LDs will be as low as 4%. This used to be a target seat for them.
Is @DoubleDutch some nutter returning to the site or a Russian bot with a new style of random abuse?
Good old fashioned and original troll in the sense of insinuating themselves into an online chat group with a seeming credible views on the topic and then sowing discord to get everyone fighting each other.
This appointed court is not a part of our constitution; it has no legitimacy, and it is effectively making up law. It needs to be binned.
Um no, it interprets the current law and generates a result.
The new Labour Government can change the law and fix the issue all the Supreme Court has done is combine the law as it currently is and come to (an admittedly unexpected) conclusion..
People like @Luckyguy1983 clearly have no understanding of our legal system whatsoever. This is how it has ALWAYS worked.
Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities. It is a complete abuse of "supreme court" powers to intervene on these spurious grounds, effectively to prevent any new oil wells being built in this country - economical self-harm which is for elected parliamentarians to inflict if they so wish, because they can be de-elected again. It's not for an appointed body to stretch its remit and make decisions like this.
They can intervene if the process was not followed properly. That’s a fundamental principle of the rule of law.
Their judgement is based upon a highly troubling interpretation of what that process should be - that's the point. The emissions involved in the set up and ongoing operation of the business were reported on in the usual way. The emissions generated subsequently were not, and I've explained why to demand that they are is deeply concerning in other posts.
I worry that this bit of the above… : “ Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities”
…Shows a confusion between parliament and the executive.
Parliament makes laws. The executive (Government or SCC) makes decisions which should be legal, but if there is doubt the Judicial system will decide
This is part of the citizenship exam. Maybe it should be taught in schools too?
That's true but the court made a mistake in its ruling.
The emissions generated by the burning of the oil should not be counted as the net difference of oil burnt as a result of the well is zero.
Why zero? Because oil is fungible and had we not extracted from this well we'd have just imported from Saudi Arabia or somewhere else the exact same amount of oil.
So the total net emissions of a fungible product is zero, unless or until we start forbidding imports.
As pointed out by someone previously, the Supreme Court did not rule on the substance of the issue, but only on whether the county council had considered the substance of the issue. Which they had not.
So your objection is not relevant, or in order, and we could expect that a revised planning decision from the country council, which did consider the substance of the issue, has a high probability of concluding that it shouldn't be a bar to approving the application, for the logical reasons you set out.
That outcome would be law followed, planning approved, everyone happy (especially the lawyers!)
Not the locals. Not people who care about the countryside. Not those who want to save the planet.
but, yeah, it was about legal processes at the moment
I want to save the planet.
To do that we need to follow science, not dogma.
The science is we need to transition away from consuming oil.
We still need oil for the transition though and there is no scientific reason why OPEC-produced oil is better for the environment than domestically produced oil.
If the world needs to transition away from consuming oil, then basic logic says that the world also has to transition away from producing oil. As a country, we should therefore transition away from both producing and consuming oil as well as appropriately taxing the import of oil and oil derivatives to encourage other countries to do likewise.
No. We should maximise oil production in democratic states in order to minimise the flow of cash to despots and dictators. As long as we need it, the "west" should produce it.
This.
Regdrding renewables. The economic arguments for wind turbines etc. are barking. They have to be backed 100% by conventional power stations (gas) to cover still windless dark cold periods.
The eco argument is equally ludicrous and industry destroying with higher costs when China and India etc extracting vast amounts of coal for cheap electricity.
There is an argument for it on security reasons, with our own oil running out thenturbines mean we need less gas/oil from Vladimir and Khassogis murderers.
But pointing that out would mean the politicians saying "we've cocked up energy policy, ours is running out and we've got to spend a fortune otherwise Vlad and Sundry Sheiks will have us over a barrel"
Far better to say "you wicked people, you are destroying the planet, we must go green to save it"
The downside of that is that the green zealots are as uncontrollable and destructive as any other zealot and they have been allowed within the citadel.
oh, ffs.
The anti wind argument again.
We should be moving toward a mixed energy source system, which for the majority of time would mean most of our energy being provided by wind/solar. In these times only a small amount is fossil fuel based. EG now we have 15GW wind/solar and 5GW gas fired. Sometimes that mix needs to change obviously, but overall the use of wind/solar reduces our need for gas on average.
The anti-renewables loons are Putin's little shills.
As well as being a big exporter of fossil fuels, Russia is one of the few countries that is likely to benefit from anthropogenic climate change, so it's in their interests to deter moves away from fossil fuel consumption. It is also in their interest for those countries with small reserves to squander them as quickly as possible on fuel production so that they will be dependent on countries like Russia for raw materials for plastics, etc, in the future.
There seems to be no shortage of useful idiots, especially on the right of the political spectrum.
Many of the rewnewables-or-nothing loons, like Extinction Rebellion or Just Stop Oil, are Putin's little shills as well. He knows we will keep on buying fossil fuels for the immediate future, but the arguments between the anti-renewables and environmental extremists suit him, as they are very disruptive.
As for your last line: I might suggest that Just Stop Oil's behaviour over the last few days shows the useful idiots are also on the left of the political spectrum as well.
So you also believe that we should extract every last drop of UK oil as quickly as possible, thus leaving us at the mercy of Russia and Saudi Arabia in the future when it's all gone?
No.
It's a matter of progress. We need to move towards green energy - and we've been doing that really, really fast (*). But there is a limit to the speed by which we can do that without ruining the economy, and major technological hurdles remain (social ones as well, but less so).
Whilst this is in progress and we need oil and gas, we should try to be as self-sufficient as possible. Whilst also going great guns towards both reducing the need for oil and gas, and also being greener.
The alternate view involves us buying the oil and gas we need from those very regimes you named. Except not in some hypothetical future, but right now.
(*) It is a crying shame that so many so-called environmentalists ignore this.
That view epitomises short-term thinking. We know that our reserves of fossil fuels are small compared to those of Russia, etc, and we also know that we will need a certain amount of fossil fuel for essential purposes for an indefinite period. Given those two facts, it makes no long-term sense at all to be exploiting our own reserves for non-essential purposes now. It's asking for trouble in the future.
As for going great guns, no. While we, as a planet, have made some progress towards reducing emissions, it has been pitifully slow, to the extent that there has thus far been no noticeable effect on the rate of increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. Indeed, it is still accelerating. We are applauding our efforts while losing the war.
No. My view epitomises both long-term and short-term thinking. What we need to do now, to get where we need to be in the future. You just want to give as much money as possible to bad/evil regimes now. Regimes who have no reason to advance a green future. Gradatim ferociter, as a certain billionaire might say.
" makes no long-term sense at all to be exploiting our own reserves for non-essential purposes now."
Gas and oil is used for essential purposes now. Even on a sunny day with some wind, gas is providing us with some power. Petrol and diesel is allowing most of us to get around. And you think that is non-essential?
As for your last paragraph: we as a country have been going great guns. The world might not have been, but it's crass to deny how much progress our country has made over the last two decades.
When I look at of my window at all the single-occupant tonka-truck SUVs driving past my house, it's pretty hard to believe that we are using all that oil for essential purposes. Ditto the tourist-filled jets flying overhead.
You have zero idea why people are making those journeys. Zero. They may not seem essential to you; but can I judge your lifestyle too, please?
Now you're just being ridiculous. You're effectively claiming that every journey made is essential. Even if that were the case, it is certainly not essential that it be made in a gas-guzzling SUV. And you have the gall to call me a Putin apologist? Just take a look at yourself.
Yes, every journey made is essential for whoever is making that journey for whatever reason they are making it.
We should be wanting to increase mobility and ensure more journeys can be made for whatever reason than they are now.
As we head into a cleaner, electric, future the cost of motoring ought to be a tiny fraction of what it is today and we ought to see many more journeys made. Cleanly.
We clearly have very different understandings of the meaning of the word "essential".
Clearly.
Name a single journey you could eliminate which wouldn't harm anyone's economic, mental or physical health or wellbeing.
For lots of people in office jobs, the commute.
No thanks. I went back to the office (with permission) towards the end of one of the lockdowns (can't remember which one) as working at home was driving me crazy.
Were you finding you were spending far too much time contributing to meaningless arguments on political blogs?
Well, if he's right then that ought to show up in the polls as well, which will buy the Opposition more time and credit to warn against complacency. But there's still no evidence for it at the moment.
I can believe that poll in Herefordshire. When I was there last year the sewage in the Wye was - and surely still is - a massive issue for everyone. The Tories are despised for “letting it happen”. One of Britain’s most beautiful rivers ruined by effluent from chicken farms. Horrible
"What Everyone Knows About Britain* (*Except the British)"
"If only Britain knew how it was viewed abroad If the country were a person, it would need its friends to sit it down and deliver it a few home truths about its damaging behaviour to itself and others, says Michael Peel"
You don’t have to spend too much time on history twitter so see stuff like this:
We are profoundly ignorant of our history, as a society. There was a survey doing the rounds around the D-Day anniversary the other week that said that supposedly half of the UK thought we had done the most, as a country, to win WW2.
I love my country, we have done wonderful things throughout history. But I wish we had a more grown up, nuanced understanding of our history and the things we have done, good and bad, and how that’s impacted other countries and peoples, for good or ill. That might help ameliorate the problems the column highlights.
I’m not holding my breath, the English, especially the elites, do so love their self-bestowed exceptionalism.
Trying to determine who "did the most" to win WWII is willy-waving, that we, the Americans, and Russians all engage in. I think it would be fair to say that each of those three (and don't forget China) was indispensable towards the achievement of victory.
The Royal Navy, US economic might, and Soviet manpower were key to victory.
I've never read serious history books that portray the UK as some kind of meek little labrador. Being portrayed as the werwolf is actually pretty cool, but overstates our power.
Isn’t there a famous summation of this
The British bought the time The Americans provided the money The Russians gave the me
Each was differently crucial
It's exactly the same with the Napoleonic wars. Trying to determine who did "the most" to defeat France is a pointless exercise.
People forget or refuse to remember that the British forces were under French command for a large part of WWI.
The one I find shocks people is the idea that we actually went some troops BACK to France after Dunkirk. Everyone assumes it was the end of the war in France. It wasn’t quite.
Comments
As if we need any help in doing that.
You'd love it. Move up here? We could go for a cycle down to Portobello together (via the Granton and Seafield megadevelopments).
The Nazis could then have invaded the Eastern USA and Canada and the Japanese the Western USA and Australia, NZ and India
@chrish9070
#PostOfficeScandal Today everyone in the United Kingdom and beyond should tune in to watch📺
@PostOffInquiry to watch the arrogant & self serving account of George Thomson who is the former General Secretary of @NFSP_UK
The organisation is a sham and it is time it is fully disbanded and consigned to the history books. Ask the current NFSP which side of court they sat on during the High Court litigation, they haven’t changed. Useless, out of touch and have no interest in the concerns of Postmasters up and down the country. They have contributed to the demise of the network and why it is where it is today. "
https://x.com/chrish9070/status/1804100729650422180
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pPi9hgVUKw
Not having zero developments ≠ being YIMBY.
Edinburgh may have some developments but nowhere near enough. It should and would have much, much more if the Council and planning rules weren't in the way.
Which is why there's nowhere near enough housing.
@margison
You’re facing the loss of your business, your home, your family, your liberty, your life. You reach out for help and discover someone like #GeorgeThomson as your only lifeline. Imagine the horror. #PostOfficeInquiry"
https://x.com/margison/status/1804101682772529217
But it will be interesting to see how you evolve
If you are real, here’s a style tip: abuse is much more powerful if you lace it with humour and irony, because then people will read it and remember it
Pure invective, with no other merit, sounds like a toddler shouting
I very much agree on your point wrt everyone funding roads, which is what happens now. Some numbers I have are for 80-90% of cyclists also being people who drive motor vehicles. I think it's safe to say that 100% of drivers are also pedestrians, since they walk to and from their motor vehicles.
The groups that suffer are pedestrians-who-cannot-drive (for whatever reason), because they lose autonomy and ability to be out and about in their locality.
One recent interesting, and not well publicised, change, is that cycle tracks (track = physically separated from the carriageway, lane = not separated), are now "mobility tracks" because power wheel chairs and mobility scooters can officially use them in DFT Guidance, which is a small step forwards. I think this applies in England and Wales.
Much of the guidance it is still a mess, but baby steps...
https://www.gov.uk/mobility-scooters-and-powered-wheelchairs-rules/classes
Yet placing tax on aviation kerosene is very difficult due to the international nature of the industry.
That should be changed, even if people have to pay more for flights.
And whilst I'm world dictator, I'd also stop flags of convenience schemes in shipping, and ensure ships' crews are treated decently.
Instead, we had to wait until we got the Cameron-Johnson-Truss-Sunak Government.
It would have saved a lot of time if we had meekly surrendered in 1940.
Obviously if you look at industrial production, or military casualties, the UK and its Empire will come pretty low down in its contribution to winning WWII, but there wouldn't have been a WWII if Britain had agreed a peace with Nazi Germany after the fall of France in 1940.
Germany and the USSR would still have fought a war, as would Japan and the US, but as to whether these wars would have been linked to the earlier short European war that saw the defeat of France and Britain, as a world war, is somewhat open to question. As is whether the USSR would have prevailed without support from Britain and the US, and without Germany fighting on a second front in North Africa, Italy and later France.
So it's at least arguable that Britain's role in WWII was absolutely crucial.
You now (since 2022) have to take your postal vote to a member of staff at the polling station and complete a declaration form which includes an explanation of why your circumstances changed. If you just drop it into the ballot box as you have suggested it will be rejected.
https://www.gov.uk/how-to-vote/postal-voting
I remember laughing/arguing with my French ex about what she had been taught. As far as her history lessons went in France Napoleon was the second coming of Christ and only did good things and the French liberated themselves with a bit of help from the Americans in WW2.
The French teaching about WW2 especially makes ours look positively self-effacing.
The Americans too have quite a narrow and favourable view of their history and any Russian will tell you they won WW2 on their own.
Whilst we should be a bit more introspective it’s not as if we are exceptional.
Turning school history lessons into a culture war battleground obviously does not help, but politicians - particularly Tories; Gove fiddled with English Lit too - can't help themselves. Nor is it about saying 'Britain was awful, the British are Bad People' etc.; we should just be honest with ourselves, and maybe set a little less store in past glories, most of which are beyond living memory. We should also remember that British people have been beastly to other British people as much as to other countries, and that the burden of collective responsibility for the ills of the British Empire make little sense in the context of the Industrial Revolution, the Civil war, the Harrowing and so on.
Losing Top Nation status takes a long time to get over, I guess.
The Royal Navy, US economic might, and Soviet manpower were key to victory.
I've never read serious history books that portray the UK as some kind of meek little labrador. Being portrayed as the werwolf is actually pretty cool, but overstates our power.
Has he done a full environmental case study on that?
You should also know that doxxing is a bannable offence
The British bought the time
The Americans provided the money
The Russians gave the me
Each was differently crucial
What do these weird people look like? what are their life experiences? Where do they live and spend their time? Did they go to school? Mix with other people in the playground?
I think we should be told!
Planes flying domestic routes would make a point of going somewhere close (Amsterdam, Dublin) to fill up there.
Airline flight planning departments already factor in the price of fuel at various destinations, when deciding how much to carry on any given flight.
Given the size of the things, and that an average large lorry in the UK drives something like 7x the distance driven by an average private car (taking 50-55k miles vs 7500 miles) it seems to be a very strange number.
I quite like the idea of extra faff. Makes my vote seem more important
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/politics/market/1.229244614
As for "English" exceptionalism (when I last looked the Scots are pretty good at this too!), I am not sure it is any greater than any other major power. Nationalism and patriotism both thrive on the idea that "we" are a bit more special than the other lot. Where the UK is a little unusual is the "anti-exceptionalism" and self-loathing displayed by those on the more scummy end of the British left.
It’s a quiet morning in politics and for all the talk of undecideds I reckon a lot of people have now switched off from it.
A potentially exciting cricket match this afternoon in the men’s T20 world cup: England vs South Africa.
And three decent matches in the footy. Netherlands v France could be a good one this evening. Apart from watching England who are probably the most tedious side in the tournament, it has been an absolute cracker so far.
Plus some build-up tennis towards Wimbledon. On which subject I mentioned the 33-1 you could get on Emma Raducanu for Wimbledon, and Katy Boulter is playing very well this year but perhaps it’s across to the men’s that we should be looking.
Jack Draper is in the form of his young (22) life having just won Stuttgart. He’s the British No.1 and yesterday he defeated the existing Wimbledon champion Carlos Alcaraz on grass.
You can still (just) get 25-1 on Jack Draper for the title. Outlandish? Ridiculous? Maybe but remember he’ll have home support.
We should be wanting to increase mobility and ensure more journeys can be made for whatever reason than they are now.
As we head into a cleaner, electric, future the cost of motoring ought to be a tiny fraction of what it is today and we ought to see many more journeys made. Cleanly.
What would happen if everyone who drives relied upon public transport instead? It would collapse.
P.S. Could an A380 really make it from Dubai to Heathrow and back again without refuelling?
Tho of course it has now spread right across the country - even into Brittany and Gascony - usually left wing
I’m off to France again tomorrow. It will be interesting to take the political temperature
Oh my.
I agree with @JosiasJessop it is about both long and short term thinking, and that we *have* made very rapid progress. It is tragic that the current generation of senior Conservatives won't recognise their own part in some of these achievements (though TBF strategic energy changes were mainly continued rollout of New Labour initiatives such as wind power), and have flipped 180 to try and save their backsides, burning down some good things they have done.
On monitoring journeys, this is basic stuff we have been doing for half a century; we have reliable data. I think we all know that, sarcasm aside.
Lorries do pay a fortune in fuel duty though, all that diesel at about 6mpg when loaded up.
Yes, government should be encouraging long-haul trucks onto rail, by building more capacity into the rail network and more regional hubs, to drive down costs there. Taxing trucks more is about the easiest way to stoke inflation, so you don’t want to do that.
Name a single journey you could eliminate which wouldn't harm anyone's economic, mental or physical health or wellbeing.
It's unfortunate that complex problems don't have simple solutions, and it's hard for politicians to be honest about that. Nige gets continuous free passes thanks to being an electoral dud, but Boris found out that people pretty quickly tire of the buffoon act when you're clearly not fixing anything.
So tbh I wouldn't be so condescending towards people - normal people, unlike dweebs like us who think a *lot* about politics - who have been consistently let down and are looking for different solutions. Now down that path lies only further disillusionment, to be clear - and more than enough people are not taken in by the Faragian snake oil. But the sneering only makes things worse.
UK - Brexit, reform.
France - Gaullism, Le Pen.
USA - MAGA.
Russia - USSR, Putin.
Caption Contest (Who’s Out First? Edition)
https://x.com/GuidoFawkes/status/1804107204288541182
Con 76, Lab 457, Lib Dem 66, SNP 22, Labour majority of 264
Still some way from what the spread-betting markets are suggesting with the Tories for instance currently priced at 107 seats to sell and 115 seats to buy and Labour at 422 seats to sell and 432 seats to buy, which would produce a mid-spread majority therefore of 204 (427 - 325 x 2). This is therefore a 60 seat smaller majority than Electoral Calculus is currently forecasting (264 - 204).
Plus for many people spending time with others is invaluable for their mental health.
So no, doesn't count. If someone wants to work from home, and their employer wants to let them, there's nothing forbidding it nor should there be.
Fatherland seems more plausible to me.
Greens tipped to take seats in Herefordshire and Norfolk.
North Herefordshire Constituency Voting Intention:
GRN: 39% (+30)
CON: 28% (-35)
LAB: 15% (=0)
RFM: 13% (=X)
LDM: 4% (-9)
OTH: 1% (+1)
Waveney Valley Constituency Voting Intention:
GRN: 37% (+28)
CON: 24% (-38)
LAB: 17% (-2)
RFM: 16% (=X)
LDM: 7% (-2)
Via
@wethinkpolling
, 6-14 Jun.
Changes w/ GE2019 Notional.
Via
@wethinkpolling
, 6-14 Jun.
Changes w/ GE2019 Notional.
Hmm. DYOR etc etc.
RS “that’s nothing, they’re about to find out some of us bet on England winning the Euros.”
@JohnRentoul
The Tory warning of a big Labour majority is working, says
@campbellclaret
https://alastaircampbell.org/2024/06/these-bloody-opinion-polls-are-now-the-biggest-threat-to-a-decent-labour-majority-that-allows-them-to-get-stuff-done/
TMITHC though - Dick had a truly great imagination but honestly was a pretty lumpen and boring writer.
Does anyone have a link to the full video from last night’s debate? There only now seem to be highlights available. It’s not on iPlayer.
Or a full transcript I guess.
Thanks xx
Dubai to Heathrow is only around 3,500 miles, depending on which war zone you’re having to avoid on any given day.
The limiting factor would actually be the max landing weight at Heathrow, as a plane’s max landing weight is a lot lower than it’s max takeoff weight. Against that, the high takeoff weight at Dubai and the high landing weight at Heathrow also determines wear on a lot of items such as engines and tyres, all of which goes into the spreadsheets.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A380
https://onemileatatime.com/guides/longest-flights-in-the-world/
Makes sense that the Greens will benefit
LAB: 42% (-1)
CON: 19% (=0)
RFM: 17% (+1)
LDM: 12% (+1)
GRN: 5% (-1)
SNP: 2% (=0)
Via
@techneUK
, 19-20 Jun.
Changes w/ 12-13 Jun.
Another static, MOE survey.
Edit: Greens even money there. Value? https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/politics/market/1.229768842