The tragedy for Welby is that this will probably come to define his time as AoC. I don't think he's been particularly good in the role, but he will now be remembered for this.
If he has said: "Yes, I made a drastic mistake. I resign," then he would, at least, be seen as an honourable man. It would also give others who might be in a position to make such mistakes pause for thought (*); a precedent.
Not now.
(*) Yeah, right.
The tragedy for Paula Vennells is that this will probably come to define her chairmanship of the PO...
Keir Starmer will announce a stringent new climate goal for the UK on Tuesday, the Guardian can reveal, with a target in line with the advice given to the government by its scientists and independent advisers.
The UK will pledge to cut emissions by 81% compared with 1990 levels by 2035, a target in line with the recommendations of the Climate Change Committee.
The goal would be achieved by decarbonising the power sector and through a massive expansion of offshore wind, as well as through investments in carbon capture and storage and nuclear energy.
Complete masochistic lunacy. We already have some of the most expensive energy in the world, now Free Gear and Mad Ed want to make our position even worse. Households will be shafted and nobody will want to make anything here. The Chinese are building dozens of new coal power stations and Trump will take America in the opposite direction so the US will boom further as a result. So their decision won't have the slightest effect on climate change. But our moronic government will at least be able to float on a cloud of smug.
We need to scrap Net Zero madness while we still have an economy left.
Miliband is a total idiot and risks a backlash against what are sensible long-term goals, by trying to accomplish them in the short term regardless of cost. All while ignoring tidal and small nuclear, which have the potential to be revolutionary.
Meanwhile China is still building more coal power stations, and the incoming US administration is going to be more interested in drilling for oil than building windmills.
Miliband Derangement Syndrome. Current plans for carbon emission mitigation are in line with the fall in emissions achieved by the Conservative government.
The difficulty in doing so, however, starts to rise exponentially as we approach zero. There’s not going to be many commercial aircraft or long-distance trucks using anything but fossil fuels for a while yet.
On the one hand good header; on the other hand it shouldn't need saying. Just look at what goes on today in 2024. Some bloke (bloke, mind) dresses up in gold and purple with a funny hat, as do other religions, and states that he has a direct line to some invisible being that only he can commune with and we as non-chosen must take his word for it.
Absolutely stark raving bonkers but still going on.
"Fear is the basis of religious dogma, as of so much else in human life".
How right Russell was and is.
Rubbish. The Church of England like the Roman Catholic, Orthodox and Lutheran church is a church of apostolic succession and its Bishops including Archbishops are therefore direct descendants of St Peter
Starmer tells the Private Sector to start paying "their fair share"
I wonder if our pension pots will have some funding repurposed for this.
Sir Keir added: "I will be making an argument powerfully that now is the time for the private sector to start paying their fair share in relation to these commitments."
As part of this, a new "capital market mechanism" will be launched on the London Stock Exchange, with Downing Street hoping it will raise £75bn for green investment over the next decade.
Yet you listen to the climate loons and you'd think we have done nothing
Looking at that graph in isolation, what we need is more recessions and pandemics, as 2009 and 2020 were the best years ever for carbon emissions reduction.
Keir Starmer will announce a stringent new climate goal for the UK on Tuesday, the Guardian can reveal, with a target in line with the advice given to the government by its scientists and independent advisers.
The UK will pledge to cut emissions by 81% compared with 1990 levels by 2035, a target in line with the recommendations of the Climate Change Committee.
The goal would be achieved by decarbonising the power sector and through a massive expansion of offshore wind, as well as through investments in carbon capture and storage and nuclear energy.
Complete masochistic lunacy. We already have some of the most expensive energy in the world, now Free Gear and Mad Ed want to make our position even worse. Households will be shafted and nobody will want to make anything here. The Chinese are building dozens of new coal power stations and Trump will take America in the opposite direction so the US will boom further as a result. So their decision won't have the slightest effect on climate change. But our moronic government will at least be able to float on a cloud of smug.
We need to scrap Net Zero madness while we still have an economy left.
No, we don't. But CCS is indeed a waste of money, and we massively overpay for nuclear.
We need to do it right - but unfortunately it looks as though Labour will just repeat the Tories' mistakes.
China installed more renewable than coal capacity last year, by some distance. They are also heading for net zero (despite making no such pledges).
One of the ironies is that even if Trump tried to back coal and oil, solar in the US is unstoppable.
Except that it's Mad Ed's government in that put in place the targets the Conservatives had to meet and were too lazy and complacent to repeal (and could not have done so when they were in coalition with the Lib Dems anyway). I know, I worked at DECC under Mad Ed for a short time when it was obviously falling apart. And of course the useless May made things even worse when she was in power.
I agree there's plenty of blame to go around in our Nut Zero disaster, and the Conservatives share a good part of it, but Mad Ed is certainly its biggest originator and current proponent. And just for good measure dished out £11 billion in "climate aid" to foreigners, as though our own plans aren't ruinously expensive enough.
He is pretty certifiable, even for a fanatical socialist. And incompetent with it, as the CCS fiasco shows.
On the one hand good header; on the other hand it shouldn't need saying. Just look at what goes on today in 2024. Some bloke (bloke, mind) dresses up in gold and purple with a funny hat, as do other religions, and states that he has a direct line to some invisible being that only he can commune with and we as non-chosen must take his word for it.
Absolutely stark raving bonkers but still going on.
"Fear is the basis of religious dogma, as of so much else in human life".
How right Russell was and is.
Rubbish. The Church of England like the Roman Catholic, Orthodox and Lutheran church is a church of apostolic succession and its Bishops including Archbishops are therefore direct descendants of St Peter
Fabulous. Look, there's no shame in being scared it's perfectly human for you to be. Humans create all kinds of amazing stuff in their minds to ward off dark thoughts.
So if you want to go hard on the whole apostolic succession stuff then go for your (eternal) life.
Yet you listen to the climate loons and you'd think we have done nothing
It's been very impressive - we must be grateful that the Conservatives ignored the naysayers and worrywarts, and I hope Miliband continues to do the same.
If Labour just continues with the rollout of offshore wind then they will achieve a large chunk of their plans. The challenge is heat pumps and EVs, and I was very disappointed there wasn't more on that in the budget.
Keir Starmer will announce a stringent new climate goal for the UK on Tuesday, the Guardian can reveal, with a target in line with the advice given to the government by its scientists and independent advisers.
The UK will pledge to cut emissions by 81% compared with 1990 levels by 2035, a target in line with the recommendations of the Climate Change Committee.
The goal would be achieved by decarbonising the power sector and through a massive expansion of offshore wind, as well as through investments in carbon capture and storage and nuclear energy.
Complete masochistic lunacy. We already have some of the most expensive energy in the world, now Free Gear and Mad Ed want to make our position even worse. Households will be shafted and nobody will want to make anything here. The Chinese are building dozens of new coal power stations and Trump will take America in the opposite direction so the US will boom further as a result. So their decision won't have the slightest effect on climate change. But our moronic government will at least be able to float on a cloud of smug.
We need to scrap Net Zero madness while we still have an economy left.
Miliband is a total idiot and risks a backlash against what are sensible long-term goals, by trying to accomplish them in the short term regardless of cost. All while ignoring tidal and small nuclear, which have the potential to be revolutionary.
Meanwhile China is still building more coal power stations, and the incoming US administration is going to be more interested in drilling for oil than building windmills.
Miliband Derangement Syndrome. Current plans for carbon emission mitigation are in line with the fall in emissions achieved by the Conservative government.
The difficulty in doing so, however, starts to rise exponentially as we approach zero. There’s not going to be many commercial aircraft or long-distance trucks using anything but fossil fuels for a while yet.
Our target, for now, excludes aviation. And there are no really long distances in the UK. A few years off, but the next iteration of the Tesla Semi (which already has a range of nearly 500km), and its competitors, will be good enough to do the job.
President-elect Donald Trump is expected to be name Florida congressman Michael Waltz as the next national security adviser, two sources familiar with the matter told CBS News
Good good. Last week he said we need to be much harder on Russian sanctions and those who are buying his oil, while letting Ukraine do what they wish with American weapons, in order to force Putin to the negotiating table from a point of weakness. https://x.com/osinttechnical/status/1856166839794933992
And as a counterpoint to this, to show how the administration is going to go:
Musky Baby replied "Interesting" to a post proclaiming: "Jeffrey Sachs explains how the US and NATO provoked the war in Ukraine."
Elon Musk undeniably played a huge role at the start of the conflict in supporting Ukraine through the provision of Starlink, and this has been ongoing, his position is just that he wants the war to end as a priority, and that he doesn't support a return to the 2014 borders - a legitimate position, even though it is one that you don't agree with.
He really did not play a huge role. His role was tiny when compared to (say) Boris Johnson. Yes, and I mean that.
The tragedy for Welby is that this will probably come to define his time as AoC. I don't think he's been particularly good in the role, but he will now be remembered for this.
If he has said: "Yes, I made a drastic mistake. I resign," then he would, at least, be seen as an honourable man. It would also give others who might be in a position to make such mistakes pause for thought (*); a precedent.
Not now.
(*) Yeah, right.
It would be a clear demonstration of the repentance that his church preaches.
Clinging on looks rather the opposite.
It’s pure NU10Kism
If a low level manager in an organisation systematically gundecked reports of abuse for decades, they’d be on “gardening leave” in 1 minute, followed by their possessions in a bag.
Then the organisation would be busy cooperating with the police about what charges etc, to try and “preserve their reputation”
Some solemn lectures about zero tolerance as the cherry on the cake.
The tragedy for Welby is that this will probably come to define his time as AoC. I don't think he's been particularly good in the role, but he will now be remembered for this.
If he has said: "Yes, I made a drastic mistake. I resign," then he would, at least, be seen as an honourable man. It would also give others who might be in a position to make such mistakes pause for thought (*); a precedent.
Not now.
(*) Yeah, right.
The tragedy for Paula Vennells is that this will probably come to define her chairmanship of the PO...
President-elect Donald Trump is expected to be name Florida congressman Michael Waltz as the next national security adviser, two sources familiar with the matter told CBS News
Good good. Last week he said we need to be much harder on Russian sanctions and those who are buying his oil, while letting Ukraine do what they wish with American weapons, in order to force Putin to the negotiating table from a point of weakness. https://x.com/osinttechnical/status/1856166839794933992
And as a counterpoint to this, to show how the administration is going to go:
Musky Baby replied "Interesting" to a post proclaiming: "Jeffrey Sachs explains how the US and NATO provoked the war in Ukraine."
Elon Musk undeniably played a huge role at the start of the conflict in supporting Ukraine through the provision of Starlink, and this has been ongoing, his position is just that he wants the war to end as a priority, and that he doesn't support a return to the 2014 borders - a legitimate position, even though it is one that you don't agree with.
He really did not play a huge role. His role was tiny when compared to (say) Boris Johnson. Yes, and I mean that.
Yet again, people believe Musk's own hype.
Since he lacks the control of the sixth biggest military on the planet, has no standing army, or billions of munitions, of course his contribution will be less than the British Prime Minister.
ianVisits @ianvisits As far as I can tell, the last time an Archbishop of Canterbury was forced to resign/sacked was 1690 when William Sancroft was removed after refusing to swear an oath of allegiance to William and Mary after Parliament deposed King James II.
Keir Starmer will announce a stringent new climate goal for the UK on Tuesday, the Guardian can reveal, with a target in line with the advice given to the government by its scientists and independent advisers.
The UK will pledge to cut emissions by 81% compared with 1990 levels by 2035, a target in line with the recommendations of the Climate Change Committee.
The goal would be achieved by decarbonising the power sector and through a massive expansion of offshore wind, as well as through investments in carbon capture and storage and nuclear energy.
Complete masochistic lunacy. We already have some of the most expensive energy in the world, now Free Gear and Mad Ed want to make our position even worse. Households will be shafted and nobody will want to make anything here. The Chinese are building dozens of new coal power stations and Trump will take America in the opposite direction so the US will boom further as a result. So their decision won't have the slightest effect on climate change. But our moronic government will at least be able to float on a cloud of smug.
We need to scrap Net Zero madness while we still have an economy left.
Congratulations on a take which is nonsensical at best and plain bonkers at worst.
We need to generate electricity. We can’t burn coal as we don’t have any, so we can’t copy the Chinese. We burnt off much of North Sea gas already. We’re functionally incompetent when it comes to building nukes. What we do have is wind. What you propose is that we ignore our abundant natural resource and instead be reliant on very expensive foreign resources. Great plan man.
The problem is not what they are doing but how they are doing it. Both the Tories and Labour have pursued some really stupid policies with regard to this. CCS being the most obvious. Reducing supply without reducing demand being another.
Oh and bearing in mind that CO2 emissions can only really be considered on a worldwide basis as that is the only measure that matters
Yet you listen to the climate loons and you'd think we have done nothing
If we'd listened to the anti-renewables loons we wouldn't have.
Conversations like this morning’s show the frog continues to simmer gently. People really aren’t as worried about climate change as you’d expect. Mitigating it is still seen as an optional indulgence.
Well done Miliband for actually carrying out policy with purpose, something other parts of this new government are rightly criticised for not doing.
Keir Starmer will announce a stringent new climate goal for the UK on Tuesday, the Guardian can reveal, with a target in line with the advice given to the government by its scientists and independent advisers.
The UK will pledge to cut emissions by 81% compared with 1990 levels by 2035, a target in line with the recommendations of the Climate Change Committee.
The goal would be achieved by decarbonising the power sector and through a massive expansion of offshore wind, as well as through investments in carbon capture and storage and nuclear energy.
Complete masochistic lunacy. We already have some of the most expensive energy in the world, now Free Gear and Mad Ed want to make our position even worse. Households will be shafted and nobody will want to make anything here. The Chinese are building dozens of new coal power stations and Trump will take America in the opposite direction so the US will boom further as a result. So their decision won't have the slightest effect on climate change. But our moronic government will at least be able to float on a cloud of smug.
We need to scrap Net Zero madness while we still have an economy left.
No, we don't. But CCS is indeed a waste of money, and we massively overpay for nuclear.
We need to do it right - but unfortunately it looks as though Labour will just repeat the Tories' mistakes.
China installed more renewable than coal capacity last year, by some distance. They are also heading for net zero (despite making no such pledges).
One of the ironies is that even if Trump tried to back coal and oil, solar in the US is unstoppable.
So long as they don’t impose tariffs on Chinese imports.
Keir Starmer will announce a stringent new climate goal for the UK on Tuesday, the Guardian can reveal, with a target in line with the advice given to the government by its scientists and independent advisers.
The UK will pledge to cut emissions by 81% compared with 1990 levels by 2035, a target in line with the recommendations of the Climate Change Committee.
The goal would be achieved by decarbonising the power sector and through a massive expansion of offshore wind, as well as through investments in carbon capture and storage and nuclear energy.
Complete masochistic lunacy. We already have some of the most expensive energy in the world, now Free Gear and Mad Ed want to make our position even worse. Households will be shafted and nobody will want to make anything here. The Chinese are building dozens of new coal power stations and Trump will take America in the opposite direction so the US will boom further as a result. So their decision won't have the slightest effect on climate change. But our moronic government will at least be able to float on a cloud of smug.
We need to scrap Net Zero madness while we still have an economy left.
Miliband is a total idiot and risks a backlash against what are sensible long-term goals, by trying to accomplish them in the short term regardless of cost. All while ignoring tidal and small nuclear, which have the potential to be revolutionary.
Meanwhile China is still building more coal power stations, and the incoming US administration is going to be more interested in drilling for oil than building windmills.
Miliband Derangement Syndrome. Current plans for carbon emission mitigation are in line with the fall in emissions achieved by the Conservative government.
The safe option to replace Saint Gary is Mark Chapman as he is already MOTD2 host and all round professional that everybody goes to for sport presenter gigs.
But the quote about wanting to refresh the programme suggests otherwise, checks what happened to viewership of Football Focus....
Not watched it in years, what did happen to it?
Me neither.
I assume the thing that happened to it is it became overtaken by YouTube and other, superior, more timely alternatives to outdated 20th century linear television programming?
150 million out of the UK's 68 million people watched the show did they?
Utterly meaningless numbers, even setting aside the fact the same 'brand' is slapped onto live England games they have the unique rights to as the highlights package.
MotD was a staple pre-internet. Time has moved on now though.
Funny how every stat that you don't agree with on PB is fabricated or meaningless.
I'm always surprised about how many people still watch TV, and how influential News at 10 still is. Something PBers shouldn't forget when it comes to nascent political scandals, narratives.
Younger people (like me) have largely abandoned it, but we don't vote as much as the TV-watching oldies.
Not that funny, there's a whole plethora of bullshit stats out there. Lies, damned lies and statistics is a saying from over a century before I was even born - so if you find it "funny" it says more about you than me.
And with the advent of the internet the rise of spurious and meaningless data has reached levels Disraeli could never have imagined.
Could you provide some evidence to support that claim?
@BartholomewRoberts uses statistics like a drunk uses a lamppost: for support rather than illumination
Yet you listen to the climate loons and you'd think we have done nothing
If we'd listened to the anti-renewables loons we wouldn't have.
Conversations like this morning’s show the frog continues to simmer gently. People really aren’t as worried about climate change as you’d expect. Mitigating it is still seen as an optional indulgence.
Well done Miliband for actually carrying out policy with purpose, something other parts of this new government are rightly criticised for not doing.
You put your finger on it, although perhaps not in the way you intended.
There has been so much information about climate change and its impacts (catastrophic) and what contributes to it (modern life) and yet people are still not willing to change their lifestyles unless under threat of penalty.
So perhaps we just need to understand that people don't want to change or don't believe the threat is sufficient.
We are either like Easter Island or the doom-mongers are like Gregory VII, uniquely able to understand the threat we are under and dictate to everyone else what actions should be taken.
President-elect Donald Trump is expected to be name Florida congressman Michael Waltz as the next national security adviser, two sources familiar with the matter told CBS News
Good good. Last week he said we need to be much harder on Russian sanctions and those who are buying his oil, while letting Ukraine do what they wish with American weapons, in order to force Putin to the negotiating table from a point of weakness. https://x.com/osinttechnical/status/1856166839794933992
And as a counterpoint to this, to show how the administration is going to go:
Musky Baby replied "Interesting" to a post proclaiming: "Jeffrey Sachs explains how the US and NATO provoked the war in Ukraine."
Elon Musk undeniably played a huge role at the start of the conflict in supporting Ukraine through the provision of Starlink, and this has been ongoing, his position is just that he wants the war to end as a priority, and that he doesn't support a return to the 2014 borders - a legitimate position, even though it is one that you don't agree with.
He really did not play a huge role. His role was tiny when compared to (say) Boris Johnson. Yes, and I mean that.
Yet again, people believe Musk's own hype.
Since he lacks the control of the sixth biggest military on the planet, has no standing army, or billions of munitions, of course his contribution will be less than the British Prime Minister.
He is the richest man in the world, and idiots listen to his every pronouncement. The statement was: "Elon Musk undeniably played a huge role at the start of the conflict in supporting Ukraine through the provision of Starlink,"
My argument is that the statement is bullshit, for a number of reasons. What Ukraine needed at the start of the conflict was weapons, and it was those weapons - and the international support - that allowed their brave fighters to drive Russia out of much of Ukraine in early 2022. Musk was not there telling Russia to get out; AFAICR he was remarkably quiescent.
Finally: Musk is parroting Russian and tankie propaganda. It is untrue, and does nothing to help Ukraine.
Anyone who believes NATO and the US 'provoked' Russia into invading Ukraine is either a blithering idiot, or someone who is knowingly doing Putin's evil for him.
Keir Starmer will announce a stringent new climate goal for the UK on Tuesday, the Guardian can reveal, with a target in line with the advice given to the government by its scientists and independent advisers.
The UK will pledge to cut emissions by 81% compared with 1990 levels by 2035, a target in line with the recommendations of the Climate Change Committee.
The goal would be achieved by decarbonising the power sector and through a massive expansion of offshore wind, as well as through investments in carbon capture and storage and nuclear energy.
Complete masochistic lunacy. We already have some of the most expensive energy in the world, now Free Gear and Mad Ed want to make our position even worse. Households will be shafted and nobody will want to make anything here. The Chinese are building dozens of new coal power stations and Trump will take America in the opposite direction so the US will boom further as a result. So their decision won't have the slightest effect on climate change. But our moronic government will at least be able to float on a cloud of smug.
We need to scrap Net Zero madness while we still have an economy left.
Miliband is a total idiot and risks a backlash against what are sensible long-term goals, by trying to accomplish them in the short term regardless of cost. All while ignoring tidal and small nuclear, which have the potential to be revolutionary.
Meanwhile China is still building more coal power stations, and the incoming US administration is going to be more interested in drilling for oil than building windmills.
In the US, though, the market is more favourable to renewables. They have far better conditions for solar power - the cheapest form of electoral generation by far - and huge onshore wind potential (which is why oil rich Texas builds so many turbines).
Offshore wind will be hit hard by the new administration, obviously.
Milliband is answering the wrong question. It's not 'how soon can we get to net zero'; it's 'what the cheapest and most reliable way of getting there ?'
Concentrate on the second question, and he would get far more support. And would scrap most of the CCS spend.
The cheapest and most reliable way will still involve having to have gas contracts to feed capacity when it isnt windy and the sun isnt shining. And that will not change by 2030. The whole 2030 net zero is an utter sham. We will get to 2030, and it is quite possible that we have the capacity to power the grid when solar is good and it is windy, and that will be classed as 'job done'.
If this comes from the closed loop of bill payments it will be ruinously expensive, but I guess all the costs will be riding on the taxpayer and hidden in general expenditure with the laughable "wind is the cheapest form of electricity", if you ignore all the subsidy.
Just to say something positive about Starmer: I agree with his stance of making the proposed assisted dying law something not subject to whipping. Like abortion, it should be a matter of conscience.
Keir Starmer will announce a stringent new climate goal for the UK on Tuesday, the Guardian can reveal, with a target in line with the advice given to the government by its scientists and independent advisers.
The UK will pledge to cut emissions by 81% compared with 1990 levels by 2035, a target in line with the recommendations of the Climate Change Committee.
The goal would be achieved by decarbonising the power sector and through a massive expansion of offshore wind, as well as through investments in carbon capture and storage and nuclear energy.
Complete masochistic lunacy. We already have some of the most expensive energy in the world, now Free Gear and Mad Ed want to make our position even worse. Households will be shafted and nobody will want to make anything here. The Chinese are building dozens of new coal power stations and Trump will take America in the opposite direction so the US will boom further as a result. So their decision won't have the slightest effect on climate change. But our moronic government will at least be able to float on a cloud of smug.
We need to scrap Net Zero madness while we still have an economy left.
Miliband is a total idiot and risks a backlash against what are sensible long-term goals, by trying to accomplish them in the short term regardless of cost. All while ignoring tidal and small nuclear, which have the potential to be revolutionary.
Meanwhile China is still building more coal power stations, and the incoming US administration is going to be more interested in drilling for oil than building windmills.
Miliband Derangement Syndrome. Current plans for carbon emission mitigation are in line with the fall in emissions achieved by the Conservative government.
The difficulty in doing so, however, starts to rise exponentially as we approach zero. There’s not going to be many commercial aircraft or long-distance trucks using anything but fossil fuels for a while yet.
The best time to start on a difficult problem is now, not to put off any action because you’re worried about future difficulties.
Starmer tells the Private Sector to start paying "their fair share"
I wonder if our pension pots will have some funding repurposed for this.
Sir Keir added: "I will be making an argument powerfully that now is the time for the private sector to start paying their fair share in relation to these commitments."
As part of this, a new "capital market mechanism" will be launched on the London Stock Exchange, with Downing Street hoping it will raise £75bn for green investment over the next decade.
Keir Starmer will announce a stringent new climate goal for the UK on Tuesday, the Guardian can reveal, with a target in line with the advice given to the government by its scientists and independent advisers.
The UK will pledge to cut emissions by 81% compared with 1990 levels by 2035, a target in line with the recommendations of the Climate Change Committee.
The goal would be achieved by decarbonising the power sector and through a massive expansion of offshore wind, as well as through investments in carbon capture and storage and nuclear energy.
Complete masochistic lunacy. We already have some of the most expensive energy in the world, now Free Gear and Mad Ed want to make our position even worse. Households will be shafted and nobody will want to make anything here. The Chinese are building dozens of new coal power stations and Trump will take America in the opposite direction so the US will boom further as a result. So their decision won't have the slightest effect on climate change. But our moronic government will at least be able to float on a cloud of smug.
We need to scrap Net Zero madness while we still have an economy left.
No, we don't. But CCS is indeed a waste of money, and we massively overpay for nuclear.
We need to do it right - but unfortunately it looks as though Labour will just repeat the Tories' mistakes.
China installed more renewable than coal capacity last year, by some distance. They are also heading for net zero (despite making no such pledges).
One of the ironies is that even if Trump tried to back coal and oil, solar in the US is unstoppable.
So long as they don’t impose tariffs on Chinese imports.
Bloody Chinese sunlight coming over here taking all our darkness ....
Keir Starmer will announce a stringent new climate goal for the UK on Tuesday, the Guardian can reveal, with a target in line with the advice given to the government by its scientists and independent advisers.
The UK will pledge to cut emissions by 81% compared with 1990 levels by 2035, a target in line with the recommendations of the Climate Change Committee.
The goal would be achieved by decarbonising the power sector and through a massive expansion of offshore wind, as well as through investments in carbon capture and storage and nuclear energy.
Complete masochistic lunacy. We already have some of the most expensive energy in the world, now Free Gear and Mad Ed want to make our position even worse. Households will be shafted and nobody will want to make anything here. The Chinese are building dozens of new coal power stations and Trump will take America in the opposite direction so the US will boom further as a result. So their decision won't have the slightest effect on climate change. But our moronic government will at least be able to float on a cloud of smug.
We need to scrap Net Zero madness while we still have an economy left.
Congratulations on a take which is nonsensical at best and plain bonkers at worst.
We need to generate electricity. We can’t burn coal as we don’t have any, so we can’t copy the Chinese. We burnt off much of North Sea gas already. We’re functionally incompetent when it comes to building nukes. What we do have is wind. What you propose is that we ignore our abundant natural resource and instead be reliant on very expensive foreign resources. Great plan man.
We aren't functionally incompetent at building nukes - we just aren't given Rolls Royce the orders we should have given them 3 years ago.
What we are incompetent at is managing projects - Hinkley Point C is built to a working French design but we insisted on a whole set of changes and other insane rules such as (supposedly) having both analogue and Digital monitoring of all sensors.
President-elect Donald Trump is expected to be name Florida congressman Michael Waltz as the next national security adviser, two sources familiar with the matter told CBS News
Good good. Last week he said we need to be much harder on Russian sanctions and those who are buying his oil, while letting Ukraine do what they wish with American weapons, in order to force Putin to the negotiating table from a point of weakness. https://x.com/osinttechnical/status/1856166839794933992
And as a counterpoint to this, to show how the administration is going to go:
Musky Baby replied "Interesting" to a post proclaiming: "Jeffrey Sachs explains how the US and NATO provoked the war in Ukraine."
Elon Musk undeniably played a huge role at the start of the conflict in supporting Ukraine through the provision of Starlink, and this has been ongoing, his position is just that he wants the war to end as a priority, and that he doesn't support a return to the 2014 borders - a legitimate position, even though it is one that you don't agree with.
He really did not play a huge role. His role was tiny when compared to (say) Boris Johnson. Yes, and I mean that.
Yet again, people believe Musk's own hype.
Since he lacks the control of the sixth biggest military on the planet, has no standing army, or billions of munitions, of course his contribution will be less than the British Prime Minister.
He is the richest man in the world, and idiots listen to his every pronouncement. The statement was: "Elon Musk undeniably played a huge role at the start of the conflict in supporting Ukraine through the provision of Starlink,"
My argument is that the statement is bullshit, for a number of reasons. What Ukraine needed at the start of the conflict was weapons, and it was those weapons - and the international support - that allowed their brave fighters to drive Russia out of much of Ukraine in early 2022. Musk was not there telling Russia to get out; AFAICR he was remarkably quiescent.
Finally: Musk is parroting Russian and tankie propaganda. It is untrue, and does nothing to help Ukraine.
Anyone who believes NATO and the US 'provoked' Russia into invading Ukraine is either a blithering idiot, or someone who is knowingly doing Putin's evil for him.
The problem is not what they are doing but how they are doing it. Both the Tories and Labour have pursued some really stupid policies with regard to this. CCS being the most obvious. Reducing supply without reducing demand being another.
Oh and bearing in mind that CO2 emissions can only really be considered on a worldwide basis as that is the only measure that matters
Worldwide CO2 emissions from 1940 to 2023
Absolutely. But that's argument for pivoting massive resources to climate change adaptation. Something we will have to do relatively soon.
I'm also of the view that the positive externalities of mitigation measures are worth it, particularly offshore wind and EVs, regardless of the impact on global emissions. I think heat pumps will get there too - they are already a net benefit in places like the Highlands, where nearly half of all non-gas households rely solely on electric heating.
Just to say something positive about Starmer: I agree with his stance of making the proposed assisted dying law something not subject to whipping. Like abortion, it should be a matter of conscience.
I'll also say someting positive about him - really really good move going to Paris yesterday and trying to forge an Anglo-French polcy on Ukraine. Macron too. Both deserve great credit for their efforts on this.
Yet you listen to the climate loons and you'd think we have done nothing
Looking at that graph in isolation, what we need is more recessions and pandemics, as 2009 and 2020 were the best years ever for carbon emissions reduction.
I am sure after the recent budget Labour are playing their part in achieving that.
Keir Starmer will announce a stringent new climate goal for the UK on Tuesday, the Guardian can reveal, with a target in line with the advice given to the government by its scientists and independent advisers.
The UK will pledge to cut emissions by 81% compared with 1990 levels by 2035, a target in line with the recommendations of the Climate Change Committee.
The goal would be achieved by decarbonising the power sector and through a massive expansion of offshore wind, as well as through investments in carbon capture and storage and nuclear energy.
Complete masochistic lunacy. We already have some of the most expensive energy in the world, now Free Gear and Mad Ed want to make our position even worse. Households will be shafted and nobody will want to make anything here. The Chinese are building dozens of new coal power stations and Trump will take America in the opposite direction so the US will boom further as a result. So their decision won't have the slightest effect on climate change. But our moronic government will at least be able to float on a cloud of smug.
We need to scrap Net Zero madness while we still have an economy left.
Miliband is a total idiot and risks a backlash against what are sensible long-term goals, by trying to accomplish them in the short term regardless of cost. All while ignoring tidal and small nuclear, which have the potential to be revolutionary.
Meanwhile China is still building more coal power stations, and the incoming US administration is going to be more interested in drilling for oil than building windmills.
Miliband Derangement Syndrome. Current plans for carbon emission mitigation are in line with the fall in emissions achieved by the Conservative government.
The difficulty in doing so, however, starts to rise exponentially as we approach zero. There’s not going to be many commercial aircraft or long-distance trucks using anything but fossil fuels for a while yet.
The best time to start on a difficult problem is now, not to put off any action because you’re worried about future difficulties.
Except that this is a luxury belief for many of the population, and politicians need to work within the constraints of what’s acceptable in terms of energy bills. Telling the bottom quintile that heating their old house is now impossibly expensive unless they invest in new inside walls and solar panels, isn’t compatible with them voting for you in future. Telling the second-bottom quintile that they need to spend £30k on an electric car or pay £10 a day to get to work, also isn’t compatible with them voting for you.
Keir Starmer will announce a stringent new climate goal for the UK on Tuesday, the Guardian can reveal, with a target in line with the advice given to the government by its scientists and independent advisers.
The UK will pledge to cut emissions by 81% compared with 1990 levels by 2035, a target in line with the recommendations of the Climate Change Committee.
The goal would be achieved by decarbonising the power sector and through a massive expansion of offshore wind, as well as through investments in carbon capture and storage and nuclear energy.
Complete masochistic lunacy. We already have some of the most expensive energy in the world, now Free Gear and Mad Ed want to make our position even worse. Households will be shafted and nobody will want to make anything here. The Chinese are building dozens of new coal power stations and Trump will take America in the opposite direction so the US will boom further as a result. So their decision won't have the slightest effect on climate change. But our moronic government will at least be able to float on a cloud of smug.
We need to scrap Net Zero madness while we still have an economy left.
No, we don't. But CCS is indeed a waste of money, and we massively overpay for nuclear.
We need to do it right - but unfortunately it looks as though Labour will just repeat the Tories' mistakes.
China installed more renewable than coal capacity last year, by some distance. They are also heading for net zero (despite making no such pledges).
One of the ironies is that even if Trump tried to back coal and oil, solar in the US is unstoppable.
So long as they don’t impose tariffs on Chinese imports.
Bloody Chinese sunlight coming over here taking all our darkness ....
Hey Richard wanted to say thanks for alerting me to Public Service Broadcasting (I think it was you). Went to see them last week - really cracking night, even though it was full of old gits like me, many wearing UK Subs and CRASS t-shirts...
Keir Starmer will announce a stringent new climate goal for the UK on Tuesday, the Guardian can reveal, with a target in line with the advice given to the government by its scientists and independent advisers.
The UK will pledge to cut emissions by 81% compared with 1990 levels by 2035, a target in line with the recommendations of the Climate Change Committee.
The goal would be achieved by decarbonising the power sector and through a massive expansion of offshore wind, as well as through investments in carbon capture and storage and nuclear energy.
Complete masochistic lunacy. We already have some of the most expensive energy in the world, now Free Gear and Mad Ed want to make our position even worse. Households will be shafted and nobody will want to make anything here. The Chinese are building dozens of new coal power stations and Trump will take America in the opposite direction so the US will boom further as a result. So their decision won't have the slightest effect on climate change. But our moronic government will at least be able to float on a cloud of smug.
We need to scrap Net Zero madness while we still have an economy left.
Apparently we need to ‘set an example’ to others.
The 'example' being other countries surveying the wreckage from on top of their piles of money and thinking 'Thank Christ we didn't do that'.
This is quite revealing of the mindset. Westminster Council are wanting to build a communal heating system for ex Council flats in Pimlico at the cost of £66k per flat, paid for by leaseholders. That is before the cost escalates out of control. By contrast an electric boiler and heating system for each flat would cost £5k.
I'm not wholly convinced by this . I think the Times is blagging / trolling in large measure. At the very least, it's gross oversimplification.
1 - 81% by 2035 is hardly demanding or a big change. Boris Johnson set a target of 78% by 2035 back in 2021, and he hard wired it into law. TBF the Tories then ran away from their own policy for arse-saving reasons.
2 - That scheme is mainly the Churchill Gardens estate, with 3200 properties of which 1600 are flats in mid-rise blocks (up to 9 stories), 1600 more are homes, and there are 60 businesses.
3 - A district heating system already exists (since 1958); it used to use excess heat from Battersea Power Station. It used to do the flats. The others were added in 2006, and the scheme updated. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Churchill_Gardens
4 - Much of it is listed (10 buildings) so hundreds of wall penetrations would not be possible - cf the obvious solution for this would perhaps be A2A heat pumps. Maybe that could work for the part that is houses, not the part that is flats.
5 - The £66k cost to install cited in the headline is (of course) for a 3/4 bed property, not a studio. At the other end it estimates £40k. Is this much for flats valued at £400k to £800k?
6 - The Times quotes £1500 to £5k for an electric boiler in a normal home. l'm not sure this applies here - these are not normal homes. That could require rewire of entire buildings to deliver the level of current required. and potentially the whole geographical area. A lot of it may even require 3-phase to the home (don't know enough to tell, but it's common).
7 - If they put Electric Boilers in the bills will skyrocket, and I think people living there would be complaining from the other side of their faces when they get their bills for the next 30 years.
The remedy for that is a proper refurbishment to say EPC B level; I don't know what the current standards are. Has this been considered - it has been done elsewhere? I suspect one problem is that that would require move-outs, and they would complain about *that* furiously.
Full article in case anyone has trouble accessing:
Keir Starmer will announce a stringent new climate goal for the UK on Tuesday, the Guardian can reveal, with a target in line with the advice given to the government by its scientists and independent advisers.
The UK will pledge to cut emissions by 81% compared with 1990 levels by 2035, a target in line with the recommendations of the Climate Change Committee.
The goal would be achieved by decarbonising the power sector and through a massive expansion of offshore wind, as well as through investments in carbon capture and storage and nuclear energy.
Complete masochistic lunacy. We already have some of the most expensive energy in the world, now Free Gear and Mad Ed want to make our position even worse. Households will be shafted and nobody will want to make anything here. The Chinese are building dozens of new coal power stations and Trump will take America in the opposite direction so the US will boom further as a result. So their decision won't have the slightest effect on climate change. But our moronic government will at least be able to float on a cloud of smug.
We need to scrap Net Zero madness while we still have an economy left.
Miliband is a total idiot and risks a backlash against what are sensible long-term goals, by trying to accomplish them in the short term regardless of cost. All while ignoring tidal and small nuclear, which have the potential to be revolutionary.
Meanwhile China is still building more coal power stations, and the incoming US administration is going to be more interested in drilling for oil than building windmills.
In the US, though, the market is more favourable to renewables. They have far better conditions for solar power - the cheapest form of electoral generation by far - and huge onshore wind potential (which is why oil rich Texas builds so many turbines).
Offshore wind will be hit hard by the new administration, obviously.
Milliband is answering the wrong question. It's not 'how soon can we get to net zero'; it's 'what the cheapest and most reliable way of getting there ?'
Concentrate on the second question, and he would get far more support. And would scrap most of the CCS spend.
The cheapest and most reliable way will still involve having to have gas contracts to feed capacity when it isnt windy and the sun isnt shining. And that will not change by 2030. The whole 2030 net zero is an utter sham. We will get to 2030, and it is quite possible that we have the capacity to power the grid when solar is good and it is windy, and that will be classed as 'job done'.
If this comes from the closed loop of bill payments it will be ruinously expensive, but I guess all the costs will be riding on the taxpayer and hidden in general expenditure with the laughable "wind is the cheapest form of electricity", if you ignore all the subsidy.
Net Zero is supposed to be by 2050, not 2030. You're two decades out, and the CCC expect us to still be using gas into the 2050s in precisely the way you describe.
President-elect Donald Trump is expected to be name Florida congressman Michael Waltz as the next national security adviser, two sources familiar with the matter told CBS News
Good good. Last week he said we need to be much harder on Russian sanctions and those who are buying his oil, while letting Ukraine do what they wish with American weapons, in order to force Putin to the negotiating table from a point of weakness. https://x.com/osinttechnical/status/1856166839794933992
And as a counterpoint to this, to show how the administration is going to go:
Musky Baby replied "Interesting" to a post proclaiming: "Jeffrey Sachs explains how the US and NATO provoked the war in Ukraine."
Elon Musk undeniably played a huge role at the start of the conflict in supporting Ukraine through the provision of Starlink, and this has been ongoing, his position is just that he wants the war to end as a priority, and that he doesn't support a return to the 2014 borders - a legitimate position, even though it is one that you don't agree with.
He really did not play a huge role. His role was tiny when compared to (say) Boris Johnson. Yes, and I mean that.
Yet again, people believe Musk's own hype.
Since he lacks the control of the sixth biggest military on the planet, has no standing army, or billions of munitions, of course his contribution will be less than the British Prime Minister.
He is the richest man in the world, and idiots listen to his every pronouncement. The statement was: "Elon Musk undeniably played a huge role at the start of the conflict in supporting Ukraine through the provision of Starlink,"
My argument is that the statement is bullshit, for a number of reasons. What Ukraine needed at the start of the conflict was weapons, and it was those weapons - and the international support - that allowed their brave fighters to drive Russia out of much of Ukraine in early 2022. Musk was not there telling Russia to get out; AFAICR he was remarkably quiescent.
Finally: Musk is parroting Russian and tankie propaganda. It is untrue, and does nothing to help Ukraine.
Anyone who believes NATO and the US 'provoked' Russia into invading Ukraine is either a blithering idiot, or someone who is knowingly doing Putin's evil for him.
Has Musked said anything Tankie related?
He agreed (*) with the suggestion that the US and NATO 'provoked' Russia into invading Ukraine. That is a classic tankie line, that gives Russia no agency and blames us for Putin's evil.
(*) I take responses such as 'interesting' as lily-livered agreement. If he felt it was wrong, he should have said so.
The problem is not what they are doing but how they are doing it. Both the Tories and Labour have pursued some really stupid policies with regard to this. CCS being the most obvious. Reducing supply without reducing demand being another.
Oh and bearing in mind that CO2 emissions can only really be considered on a worldwide basis as that is the only measure that matters
Worldwide CO2 emissions from 1940 to 2023
Absolutely. But that's argument for pivoting massive resources to climate change adaptation. Something we will have to do relatively soon.
I'm also of the view that the positive externalities of mitigation measures are worth it, particularly offshore wind and EVs, regardless of the impact on global emissions. I think heat pumps will get there too - they are already a net benefit in places like the Highlands, where nearly half of all non-gas households rely solely on electric heating.
All of the things you mention are the positives - the things we should be doing. It is not a case of pivoting resources. We have already been doing all this for the last decade or two. The idiocy is putting vast sums of money into a pointless technology that won't work (CCS) and also cutting off fossil fuel supply without similarly reducing demand. (Ignoring the decimation of the Petro-chemical industry that keeps all the alternative energy tech actually working).
The problem is not what they are doing but how they are doing it. Both the Tories and Labour have pursued some really stupid policies with regard to this. CCS being the most obvious. Reducing supply without reducing demand being another.
Oh and bearing in mind that CO2 emissions can only really be considered on a worldwide basis as that is the only measure that matters
Worldwide CO2 emissions from 1940 to 2023
It's also worth noting we have outsourced a lot of our emissions to China etc via the goods we import.
Net zero on domestically produced goods may be possible with a huge increase in renewable energy, but we need other countries to do the same (or we stop importing from said countries).
And it will be hard to stop developing countries using fossil fuels, as even if renewables keep falling to be significantly cheaper than fossil fuels currently are, then the price of fossil fuels can just be cut until then are competitive again. That will reduce supply as the more expensive sources are priced out, but I'd be surprised if it was ever a majority of the market.
5 - The £66k cost to install cited in the headline is (of course) for a 3/4 bed property, not a studio. At the other end it estimates £40k. Is this much for flats valued at £400k to £800k?
The problem is not what they are doing but how they are doing it. Both the Tories and Labour have pursued some really stupid policies with regard to this. CCS being the most obvious. Reducing supply without reducing demand being another.
Oh and bearing in mind that CO2 emissions can only really be considered on a worldwide basis as that is the only measure that matters
Worldwide CO2 emissions from 1940 to 2023
Absolutely. But that's argument for pivoting massive resources to climate change adaptation. Something we will have to do relatively soon.
I'm also of the view that the positive externalities of mitigation measures are worth it, particularly offshore wind and EVs, regardless of the impact on global emissions. I think heat pumps will get there too - they are already a net benefit in places like the Highlands, where nearly half of all non-gas households rely solely on electric heating.
Except all those people in highlands who installed wood burners. In fact wood burners are so popular in the highlands and other areas of scotland that the government tried to ban new installations by blocking the issuing of building control completion certificates. This was backed down on.
An utter path to ruinous. Replacing a system that is reliable and works with one that isnt and doesnt. It's not as if the information exists about this, it does.
You could say "lets work towards this and see where we get", but its not. We are lied to that that energy generation grid can be net zero by 2030. This is a lie. You know it is, I know it is, and you know I know you know it is.
Keir Starmer will announce a stringent new climate goal for the UK on Tuesday, the Guardian can reveal, with a target in line with the advice given to the government by its scientists and independent advisers.
The UK will pledge to cut emissions by 81% compared with 1990 levels by 2035, a target in line with the recommendations of the Climate Change Committee.
The goal would be achieved by decarbonising the power sector and through a massive expansion of offshore wind, as well as through investments in carbon capture and storage and nuclear energy.
Complete masochistic lunacy. We already have some of the most expensive energy in the world, now Free Gear and Mad Ed want to make our position even worse. Households will be shafted and nobody will want to make anything here. The Chinese are building dozens of new coal power stations and Trump will take America in the opposite direction so the US will boom further as a result. So their decision won't have the slightest effect on climate change. But our moronic government will at least be able to float on a cloud of smug.
We need to scrap Net Zero madness while we still have an economy left.
Miliband is a total idiot and risks a backlash against what are sensible long-term goals, by trying to accomplish them in the short term regardless of cost. All while ignoring tidal and small nuclear, which have the potential to be revolutionary.
Meanwhile China is still building more coal power stations, and the incoming US administration is going to be more interested in drilling for oil than building windmills.
Miliband Derangement Syndrome. Current plans for carbon emission mitigation are in line with the fall in emissions achieved by the Conservative government.
The difficulty in doing so, however, starts to rise exponentially as we approach zero. There’s not going to be many commercial aircraft or long-distance trucks using anything but fossil fuels for a while yet.
The best time to start on a difficult problem is now, not to put off any action because you’re worried about future difficulties.
Except that this is a luxury belief for many of the population, and politicians need to work within the constraints of what’s acceptable in terms of energy bills. Telling the bottom quintile that heating their old house is now impossibly expensive unless they invest in new inside walls and solar panels, isn’t compatible with them voting for you in future. Telling the second-bottom quintile that they need to spend £30k on an electric car or pay £10 a day to get to work, also isn’t compatible with them voting for you.
Neither of the examples you raise are related to “commercial aircraft or long-distance trucks”, which is what we were talking about. But I agree that you need to handle the transition well and that we need to support the bottom two quintiles. I favour increasing tax on the top three quintiles.
The problem is not what they are doing but how they are doing it. Both the Tories and Labour have pursued some really stupid policies with regard to this. CCS being the most obvious. Reducing supply without reducing demand being another.
Oh and bearing in mind that CO2 emissions can only really be considered on a worldwide basis as that is the only measure that matters
Worldwide CO2 emissions from 1940 to 2023
It's also worth noting we have outsourced a lot of our emissions to China etc via the goods we import.
Net zero on domestically produced goods may be possible with a huge increase in renewable energy, but we need other countries to do the same (or we stop importing from said countries).
And it will be hard to stop developing countries using fossil fuels, as even if renewables keep falling to be significantly cheaper than fossil fuels currently are, then the price of fossil fuels can just be cut until then are competitive again. That will reduce supply as the more expensive sources are priced out, but I'd be surprised if it was ever a majority of the market.
Not producing steel anymore will do wonders. Of course as you say we still need the product.
President-elect Donald Trump is expected to be name Florida congressman Michael Waltz as the next national security adviser, two sources familiar with the matter told CBS News
Good good. Last week he said we need to be much harder on Russian sanctions and those who are buying his oil, while letting Ukraine do what they wish with American weapons, in order to force Putin to the negotiating table from a point of weakness. https://x.com/osinttechnical/status/1856166839794933992
And as a counterpoint to this, to show how the administration is going to go:
Musky Baby replied "Interesting" to a post proclaiming: "Jeffrey Sachs explains how the US and NATO provoked the war in Ukraine."
Elon Musk undeniably played a huge role at the start of the conflict in supporting Ukraine through the provision of Starlink, and this has been ongoing, his position is just that he wants the war to end as a priority, and that he doesn't support a return to the 2014 borders - a legitimate position, even though it is one that you don't agree with.
He really did not play a huge role. His role was tiny when compared to (say) Boris Johnson. Yes, and I mean that.
Yet again, people believe Musk's own hype.
Since he lacks the control of the sixth biggest military on the planet, has no standing army, or billions of munitions, of course his contribution will be less than the British Prime Minister.
He is the richest man in the world, and idiots listen to his every pronouncement. The statement was: "Elon Musk undeniably played a huge role at the start of the conflict in supporting Ukraine through the provision of Starlink,"
My argument is that the statement is bullshit, for a number of reasons. What Ukraine needed at the start of the conflict was weapons, and it was those weapons - and the international support - that allowed their brave fighters to drive Russia out of much of Ukraine in early 2022. Musk was not there telling Russia to get out; AFAICR he was remarkably quiescent.
Finally: Musk is parroting Russian and tankie propaganda. It is untrue, and does nothing to help Ukraine.
Anyone who believes NATO and the US 'provoked' Russia into invading Ukraine is either a blithering idiot, or someone who is knowingly doing Putin's evil for him.
Has Musked said anything Tankie related?
He agreed (*) with the suggestion that the US and NATO 'provoked' Russia into invading Ukraine. That is a classic tankie line, that gives Russia no agency and blames us for Putin's evil.
(*) I take responses such as 'interesting' as lily-livered agreement. If he felt it was wrong, he should have said so.
The problem is not what they are doing but how they are doing it. Both the Tories and Labour have pursued some really stupid policies with regard to this. CCS being the most obvious. Reducing supply without reducing demand being another.
Oh and bearing in mind that CO2 emissions can only really be considered on a worldwide basis as that is the only measure that matters
Worldwide CO2 emissions from 1940 to 2023
It's also worth noting we have outsourced a lot of our emissions to China etc via the goods we import.
Net zero on domestically produced goods may be possible with a huge increase in renewable energy, but we need other countries to do the same (or we stop importing from said countries).
And it will be hard to stop developing countries using fossil fuels, as even if renewables keep falling to be significantly cheaper than fossil fuels currently are, then the price of fossil fuels can just be cut until then are competitive again. That will reduce supply as the more expensive sources are priced out, but I'd be surprised if it was ever a majority of the market.
I don't agree. There is a substantial monetary cost involved in exploiting hydrocarbons for energy and it is certainly possible that renewables will be cheaper even if the price of hydrocarbons collapses. For example the break even price for any North Sea development is around 40 - 50 dollars a barrel. When the price drops below that point it simply isn't worth going through all the hassle of producing the stuff. That figure will be around 10-15 dollars a barrel in the Middle East but it is still a cost that can be undercut by renewables.
President-elect Donald Trump is expected to be name Florida congressman Michael Waltz as the next national security adviser, two sources familiar with the matter told CBS News
Good good. Last week he said we need to be much harder on Russian sanctions and those who are buying his oil, while letting Ukraine do what they wish with American weapons, in order to force Putin to the negotiating table from a point of weakness. https://x.com/osinttechnical/status/1856166839794933992
And as a counterpoint to this, to show how the administration is going to go:
Musky Baby replied "Interesting" to a post proclaiming: "Jeffrey Sachs explains how the US and NATO provoked the war in Ukraine."
Elon Musk undeniably played a huge role at the start of the conflict in supporting Ukraine through the provision of Starlink, and this has been ongoing, his position is just that he wants the war to end as a priority, and that he doesn't support a return to the 2014 borders - a legitimate position, even though it is one that you don't agree with.
He really did not play a huge role. His role was tiny when compared to (say) Boris Johnson. Yes, and I mean that.
Yet again, people believe Musk's own hype.
Since he lacks the control of the sixth biggest military on the planet, has no standing army, or billions of munitions, of course his contribution will be less than the British Prime Minister.
He is the richest man in the world, and idiots listen to his every pronouncement. The statement was: "Elon Musk undeniably played a huge role at the start of the conflict in supporting Ukraine through the provision of Starlink,"
My argument is that the statement is bullshit, for a number of reasons. What Ukraine needed at the start of the conflict was weapons, and it was those weapons - and the international support - that allowed their brave fighters to drive Russia out of much of Ukraine in early 2022. Musk was not there telling Russia to get out; AFAICR he was remarkably quiescent.
Finally: Musk is parroting Russian and tankie propaganda. It is untrue, and does nothing to help Ukraine.
Anyone who believes NATO and the US 'provoked' Russia into invading Ukraine is either a blithering idiot, or someone who is knowingly doing Putin's evil for him.
Has Musked said anything Tankie related?
He agreed (*) with the suggestion that the US and NATO 'provoked' Russia into invading Ukraine. That is a classic tankie line, that gives Russia no agency and blames us for Putin's evil.
(*) I take responses such as 'interesting' as lily-livered agreement. If he felt it was wrong, he should have said so.
Yet you listen to the climate loons and you'd think we have done nothing
Looking at that graph in isolation, what we need is more recessions and pandemics, as 2009 and 2020 were the best years ever for carbon emissions reduction.
The Greens and over eco zealots are entirely aware of this, which is why there is a general belief in degrowth. They look at the charts and come to the same conclusion. The most luxurious of luxury beliefs.
Mr. Sandpit, Miliband wants the credit. The alternative is that he's actually an idiot fundamentalist.
It's unfortunate that this brand of economic self-harm has arisen in a governing party that promised growth, and at a time when our economic picture is less than rosy.
The government are not going to last. They will just fall apart in a couple of years time.
"The international liberal order in which Keir Starmer and David Lammy insist Britain belongs is coming to an end. Labour confronts an enigma of arrival: the world it expected to join when it came to power does not exist."
By what mechanism, outside if the next general election ?
Internal implosion. A split on Gaza. A split on Trump. A split on Austerity. A rump Corbyn party. Any number of 'culture war' style rebellions. The 'tiggers' part 2. They are held together only by power for its own sake and nothing else, they have no mission or plan for what they are doing, other than just being in power.
President-elect Donald Trump is expected to be name Florida congressman Michael Waltz as the next national security adviser, two sources familiar with the matter told CBS News
Good good. Last week he said we need to be much harder on Russian sanctions and those who are buying his oil, while letting Ukraine do what they wish with American weapons, in order to force Putin to the negotiating table from a point of weakness. https://x.com/osinttechnical/status/1856166839794933992
And as a counterpoint to this, to show how the administration is going to go:
Musky Baby replied "Interesting" to a post proclaiming: "Jeffrey Sachs explains how the US and NATO provoked the war in Ukraine."
Elon Musk undeniably played a huge role at the start of the conflict in supporting Ukraine through the provision of Starlink, and this has been ongoing, his position is just that he wants the war to end as a priority, and that he doesn't support a return to the 2014 borders - a legitimate position, even though it is one that you don't agree with.
He really did not play a huge role. His role was tiny when compared to (say) Boris Johnson. Yes, and I mean that.
Yet again, people believe Musk's own hype.
Since he lacks the control of the sixth biggest military on the planet, has no standing army, or billions of munitions, of course his contribution will be less than the British Prime Minister.
He is the richest man in the world, and idiots listen to his every pronouncement. The statement was: "Elon Musk undeniably played a huge role at the start of the conflict in supporting Ukraine through the provision of Starlink,"
My argument is that the statement is bullshit, for a number of reasons. What Ukraine needed at the start of the conflict was weapons, and it was those weapons - and the international support - that allowed their brave fighters to drive Russia out of much of Ukraine in early 2022. Musk was not there telling Russia to get out; AFAICR he was remarkably quiescent.
Finally: Musk is parroting Russian and tankie propaganda. It is untrue, and does nothing to help Ukraine.
Anyone who believes NATO and the US 'provoked' Russia into invading Ukraine is either a blithering idiot, or someone who is knowingly doing Putin's evil for him.
Has Musked said anything Tankie related?
He agreed (*) with the suggestion that the US and NATO 'provoked' Russia into invading Ukraine. That is a classic tankie line, that gives Russia no agency and blames us for Putin's evil.
(*) I take responses such as 'interesting' as lily-livered agreement. If he felt it was wrong, he should have said so.
Keir Starmer will announce a stringent new climate goal for the UK on Tuesday, the Guardian can reveal, with a target in line with the advice given to the government by its scientists and independent advisers.
The UK will pledge to cut emissions by 81% compared with 1990 levels by 2035, a target in line with the recommendations of the Climate Change Committee.
The goal would be achieved by decarbonising the power sector and through a massive expansion of offshore wind, as well as through investments in carbon capture and storage and nuclear energy.
Complete masochistic lunacy. We already have some of the most expensive energy in the world, now Free Gear and Mad Ed want to make our position even worse. Households will be shafted and nobody will want to make anything here. The Chinese are building dozens of new coal power stations and Trump will take America in the opposite direction so the US will boom further as a result. So their decision won't have the slightest effect on climate change. But our moronic government will at least be able to float on a cloud of smug.
We need to scrap Net Zero madness while we still have an economy left.
No, we don't. But CCS is indeed a waste of money, and we massively overpay for nuclear.
We need to do it right - but unfortunately it looks as though Labour will just repeat the Tories' mistakes.
China installed more renewable than coal capacity last year, by some distance. They are also heading for net zero (despite making no such pledges).
One of the ironies is that even if Trump tried to back coal and oil, solar in the US is unstoppable.
So long as they don’t impose tariffs on Chinese imports.
Bloody Chinese sunlight coming over here taking all our darkness ....
Hey Richard wanted to say thanks for alerting me to Public Service Broadcasting (I think it was you). Went to see them last week - really cracking night, even though it was full of old gits like me, many wearing UK Subs and CRASS t-shirts...
Glad you enjoyed it. Sadly I missed the latest Rock City gig as I was offshore but my family said it was fab. I am hoping to catch them in Sheffield next March.
President-elect Donald Trump is expected to be name Florida congressman Michael Waltz as the next national security adviser, two sources familiar with the matter told CBS News
Good good. Last week he said we need to be much harder on Russian sanctions and those who are buying his oil, while letting Ukraine do what they wish with American weapons, in order to force Putin to the negotiating table from a point of weakness. https://x.com/osinttechnical/status/1856166839794933992
And as a counterpoint to this, to show how the administration is going to go:
Musky Baby replied "Interesting" to a post proclaiming: "Jeffrey Sachs explains how the US and NATO provoked the war in Ukraine."
Elon Musk undeniably played a huge role at the start of the conflict in supporting Ukraine through the provision of Starlink, and this has been ongoing, his position is just that he wants the war to end as a priority, and that he doesn't support a return to the 2014 borders - a legitimate position, even though it is one that you don't agree with.
He really did not play a huge role. His role was tiny when compared to (say) Boris Johnson. Yes, and I mean that.
Yet again, people believe Musk's own hype.
Since he lacks the control of the sixth biggest military on the planet, has no standing army, or billions of munitions, of course his contribution will be less than the British Prime Minister.
He is the richest man in the world, and idiots listen to his every pronouncement. The statement was: "Elon Musk undeniably played a huge role at the start of the conflict in supporting Ukraine through the provision of Starlink,"
My argument is that the statement is bullshit, for a number of reasons. What Ukraine needed at the start of the conflict was weapons, and it was those weapons - and the international support - that allowed their brave fighters to drive Russia out of much of Ukraine in early 2022. Musk was not there telling Russia to get out; AFAICR he was remarkably quiescent.
Finally: Musk is parroting Russian and tankie propaganda. It is untrue, and does nothing to help Ukraine.
Anyone who believes NATO and the US 'provoked' Russia into invading Ukraine is either a blithering idiot, or someone who is knowingly doing Putin's evil for him.
Has Musked said anything Tankie related?
He agreed (*) with the suggestion that the US and NATO 'provoked' Russia into invading Ukraine. That is a classic tankie line, that gives Russia no agency and blames us for Putin's evil.
(*) I take responses such as 'interesting' as lily-livered agreement. If he felt it was wrong, he should have said so.
President-elect Donald Trump is expected to be name Florida congressman Michael Waltz as the next national security adviser, two sources familiar with the matter told CBS News
Good good. Last week he said we need to be much harder on Russian sanctions and those who are buying his oil, while letting Ukraine do what they wish with American weapons, in order to force Putin to the negotiating table from a point of weakness. https://x.com/osinttechnical/status/1856166839794933992
And as a counterpoint to this, to show how the administration is going to go:
Musky Baby replied "Interesting" to a post proclaiming: "Jeffrey Sachs explains how the US and NATO provoked the war in Ukraine."
Elon Musk undeniably played a huge role at the start of the conflict in supporting Ukraine through the provision of Starlink, and this has been ongoing, his position is just that he wants the war to end as a priority, and that he doesn't support a return to the 2014 borders - a legitimate position, even though it is one that you don't agree with.
He really did not play a huge role. His role was tiny when compared to (say) Boris Johnson. Yes, and I mean that.
Yet again, people believe Musk's own hype.
Since he lacks the control of the sixth biggest military on the planet, has no standing army, or billions of munitions, of course his contribution will be less than the British Prime Minister.
He is the richest man in the world, and idiots listen to his every pronouncement. The statement was: "Elon Musk undeniably played a huge role at the start of the conflict in supporting Ukraine through the provision of Starlink,"
My argument is that the statement is bullshit, for a number of reasons. What Ukraine needed at the start of the conflict was weapons, and it was those weapons - and the international support - that allowed their brave fighters to drive Russia out of much of Ukraine in early 2022. Musk was not there telling Russia to get out; AFAICR he was remarkably quiescent.
Finally: Musk is parroting Russian and tankie propaganda. It is untrue, and does nothing to help Ukraine.
Anyone who believes NATO and the US 'provoked' Russia into invading Ukraine is either a blithering idiot, or someone who is knowingly doing Putin's evil for him.
Has Musked said anything Tankie related?
He agreed (*) with the suggestion that the US and NATO 'provoked' Russia into invading Ukraine. That is a classic tankie line, that gives Russia no agency and blames us for Putin's evil.
(*) I take responses such as 'interesting' as lily-livered agreement. If he felt it was wrong, he should have said so.
It's not quite what you said at the beginning though, is it? You only clarified when I asked what he said. For none state actors he was the first in there at the beginning with starlink. If he's the richest, can we go down the list of other rich people, and see at what point we get to somebody else? Or corporations who were too busy not wanting to lose their investments as a result of state sanctions.
I think 'interesting' is a low bar to call someone a tankie. It is quite possible of course his position has changed on Ukraine. It is a partisan issue in the US unlike here, but then despite what we have been doing, the heavy lifting has come from the american taxpayer.
Keir Starmer will announce a stringent new climate goal for the UK on Tuesday, the Guardian can reveal, with a target in line with the advice given to the government by its scientists and independent advisers.
The UK will pledge to cut emissions by 81% compared with 1990 levels by 2035, a target in line with the recommendations of the Climate Change Committee.
The goal would be achieved by decarbonising the power sector and through a massive expansion of offshore wind, as well as through investments in carbon capture and storage and nuclear energy.
Complete masochistic lunacy. We already have some of the most expensive energy in the world, now Free Gear and Mad Ed want to make our position even worse. Households will be shafted and nobody will want to make anything here. The Chinese are building dozens of new coal power stations and Trump will take America in the opposite direction so the US will boom further as a result. So their decision won't have the slightest effect on climate change. But our moronic government will at least be able to float on a cloud of smug.
We need to scrap Net Zero madness while we still have an economy left.
Miliband is a total idiot and risks a backlash against what are sensible long-term goals, by trying to accomplish them in the short term regardless of cost. All while ignoring tidal and small nuclear, which have the potential to be revolutionary.
Meanwhile China is still building more coal power stations, and the incoming US administration is going to be more interested in drilling for oil than building windmills.
Miliband Derangement Syndrome. Current plans for carbon emission mitigation are in line with the fall in emissions achieved by the Conservative government.
The difficulty in doing so, however, starts to rise exponentially as we approach zero. There’s not going to be many commercial aircraft or long-distance trucks using anything but fossil fuels for a while yet.
The best time to start on a difficult problem is now, not to put off any action because you’re worried about future difficulties.
Except that this is a luxury belief for many of the population, and politicians need to work within the constraints of what’s acceptable in terms of energy bills. Telling the bottom quintile that heating their old house is now impossibly expensive unless they invest in new inside walls and solar panels, isn’t compatible with them voting for you in future. Telling the second-bottom quintile that they need to spend £30k on an electric car or pay £10 a day to get to work, also isn’t compatible with them voting for you.
My wife tells me that Hyundai are launching a new electric car in Ireland next year priced at €19-22k. The more expensive model will have a rated range of 350km.
The new technology keeps on getting cheaper and better. It makes your talking points outdated.
Keir Starmer will announce a stringent new climate goal for the UK on Tuesday, the Guardian can reveal, with a target in line with the advice given to the government by its scientists and independent advisers.
The UK will pledge to cut emissions by 81% compared with 1990 levels by 2035, a target in line with the recommendations of the Climate Change Committee.
The goal would be achieved by decarbonising the power sector and through a massive expansion of offshore wind, as well as through investments in carbon capture and storage and nuclear energy.
Complete masochistic lunacy. We already have some of the most expensive energy in the world, now Free Gear and Mad Ed want to make our position even worse. Households will be shafted and nobody will want to make anything here. The Chinese are building dozens of new coal power stations and Trump will take America in the opposite direction so the US will boom further as a result. So their decision won't have the slightest effect on climate change. But our moronic government will at least be able to float on a cloud of smug.
We need to scrap Net Zero madness while we still have an economy left.
Miliband is a total idiot and risks a backlash against what are sensible long-term goals, by trying to accomplish them in the short term regardless of cost. All while ignoring tidal and small nuclear, which have the potential to be revolutionary.
Meanwhile China is still building more coal power stations, and the incoming US administration is going to be more interested in drilling for oil than building windmills.
In the US, though, the market is more favourable to renewables. They have far better conditions for solar power - the cheapest form of electoral generation by far - and huge onshore wind potential (which is why oil rich Texas builds so many turbines).
Offshore wind will be hit hard by the new administration, obviously.
Milliband is answering the wrong question. It's not 'how soon can we get to net zero'; it's 'what the cheapest and most reliable way of getting there ?'
Concentrate on the second question, and he would get far more support. And would scrap most of the CCS spend.
The cheapest and most reliable way will still involve having to have gas contracts to feed capacity when it isnt windy and the sun isnt shining. And that will not change by 2030. The whole 2030 net zero is an utter sham. We will get to 2030, and it is quite possible that we have the capacity to power the grid when solar is good and it is windy, and that will be classed as 'job done'.
If this comes from the closed loop of bill payments it will be ruinously expensive, but I guess all the costs will be riding on the taxpayer and hidden in general expenditure with the laughable "wind is the cheapest form of electricity", if you ignore all the subsidy.
Yet you listen to the climate loons and you'd think we have done nothing
It's been very impressive - we must be grateful that the Conservatives ignored the naysayers and worrywarts, and I hope Miliband continues to do the same.
If Labour just continues with the rollout of offshore wind then they will achieve a large chunk of their plans. The challenge is heat pumps and EVs, and I was very disappointed there wasn't more on that in the budget.
It's not quite that good - though I have often given them credit for it. In the main they were short-termists wanting their sweeties NOW. Much credit goes to the Lib Dems, for forcing certain long-term policies in as part of the coalition (eg EPC improvement in rented houses), and that continued a £20bninvestment programme started by Blair in ~2001/2.
Also remember that the Conservatives spent their entire period of Government slashing fuel excise duty by the rate of inflation every single year.
Plus windfarms coming onstream up until the 2020s were the result of licensing rounds from before 2010, and the Cons did little or nothing on that front before Johnson.
The problem is not what they are doing but how they are doing it. Both the Tories and Labour have pursued some really stupid policies with regard to this. CCS being the most obvious. Reducing supply without reducing demand being another.
Oh and bearing in mind that CO2 emissions can only really be considered on a worldwide basis as that is the only measure that matters
Worldwide CO2 emissions from 1940 to 2023
It's also worth noting we have outsourced a lot of our emissions to China etc via the goods we import.
Net zero on domestically produced goods may be possible with a huge increase in renewable energy, but we need other countries to do the same (or we stop importing from said countries).
And it will be hard to stop developing countries using fossil fuels, as even if renewables keep falling to be significantly cheaper than fossil fuels currently are, then the price of fossil fuels can just be cut until then are competitive again. That will reduce supply as the more expensive sources are priced out, but I'd be surprised if it was ever a majority of the market.
The EU and UK CBAMs level the playing field for imports into the bloc.
Most developing countries are following the lead of China and making the transition to clean energy more quickly than the West has done. India is the outlier, alongside our friends in Russia, and they don’t seem to believe in air quality controls much either, so they can enjoy their stinky air and particulate deaths for a while longer.
Keir Starmer will announce a stringent new climate goal for the UK on Tuesday, the Guardian can reveal, with a target in line with the advice given to the government by its scientists and independent advisers.
The UK will pledge to cut emissions by 81% compared with 1990 levels by 2035, a target in line with the recommendations of the Climate Change Committee.
The goal would be achieved by decarbonising the power sector and through a massive expansion of offshore wind, as well as through investments in carbon capture and storage and nuclear energy.
Complete masochistic lunacy. We already have some of the most expensive energy in the world, now Free Gear and Mad Ed want to make our position even worse. Households will be shafted and nobody will want to make anything here. The Chinese are building dozens of new coal power stations and Trump will take America in the opposite direction so the US will boom further as a result. So their decision won't have the slightest effect on climate change. But our moronic government will at least be able to float on a cloud of smug.
We need to scrap Net Zero madness while we still have an economy left.
Miliband is a total idiot and risks a backlash against what are sensible long-term goals, by trying to accomplish them in the short term regardless of cost. All while ignoring tidal and small nuclear, which have the potential to be revolutionary.
Meanwhile China is still building more coal power stations, and the incoming US administration is going to be more interested in drilling for oil than building windmills.
Miliband Derangement Syndrome. Current plans for carbon emission mitigation are in line with the fall in emissions achieved by the Conservative government.
The difficulty in doing so, however, starts to rise exponentially as we approach zero. There’s not going to be many commercial aircraft or long-distance trucks using anything but fossil fuels for a while yet.
The best time to start on a difficult problem is now, not to put off any action because you’re worried about future difficulties.
Except that this is a luxury belief for many of the population, and politicians need to work within the constraints of what’s acceptable in terms of energy bills. Telling the bottom quintile that heating their old house is now impossibly expensive unless they invest in new inside walls and solar panels, isn’t compatible with them voting for you in future. Telling the second-bottom quintile that they need to spend £30k on an electric car or pay £10 a day to get to work, also isn’t compatible with them voting for you.
My wife yelled me that Hyundai are launching a new electric car in Ireland next year priced at €19-22k. The more expensive model will have a rated range of 350km.
The new technology keeps on getting cheaper and better. It makes your talking points outdated.
That car is £23,495 in Britain. Comparing prices I'm tempted to say we do live in Rip-off Britain...
The problem is not what they are doing but how they are doing it. Both the Tories and Labour have pursued some really stupid policies with regard to this. CCS being the most obvious. Reducing supply without reducing demand being another.
Oh and bearing in mind that CO2 emissions can only really be considered on a worldwide basis as that is the only measure that matters
Worldwide CO2 emissions from 1940 to 2023
Absolutely. But that's argument for pivoting massive resources to climate change adaptation. Something we will have to do relatively soon.
I'm also of the view that the positive externalities of mitigation measures are worth it, particularly offshore wind and EVs, regardless of the impact on global emissions. I think heat pumps will get there too - they are already a net benefit in places like the Highlands, where nearly half of all non-gas households rely solely on electric heating.
All of the things you mention are the positives - the things we should be doing. It is not a case of pivoting resources. We have already been doing all this for the last decade or two. The idiocy is putting vast sums of money into a pointless technology that won't work (CCS) and also cutting off fossil fuel supply without similarly reducing demand. (Ignoring the decimation of the Petro-chemical industry that keeps all the alternative energy tech actually working).
I think you've misunderstood me - adaptation is getting ready for the climate change that is already baked in. Increased flooding risks, new pandemics, migration etc etc. We've done very little of that so far.
I think the UK's optimal resource allocation will have to move towards adaptation sooner than people think (particularly if the US pathetically gives up on mitigation).
President-elect Donald Trump is expected to be name Florida congressman Michael Waltz as the next national security adviser, two sources familiar with the matter told CBS News
Good good. Last week he said we need to be much harder on Russian sanctions and those who are buying his oil, while letting Ukraine do what they wish with American weapons, in order to force Putin to the negotiating table from a point of weakness. https://x.com/osinttechnical/status/1856166839794933992
And as a counterpoint to this, to show how the administration is going to go:
Musky Baby replied "Interesting" to a post proclaiming: "Jeffrey Sachs explains how the US and NATO provoked the war in Ukraine."
Elon Musk undeniably played a huge role at the start of the conflict in supporting Ukraine through the provision of Starlink, and this has been ongoing, his position is just that he wants the war to end as a priority, and that he doesn't support a return to the 2014 borders - a legitimate position, even though it is one that you don't agree with.
He really did not play a huge role. His role was tiny when compared to (say) Boris Johnson. Yes, and I mean that.
Yet again, people believe Musk's own hype.
Since he lacks the control of the sixth biggest military on the planet, has no standing army, or billions of munitions, of course his contribution will be less than the British Prime Minister.
He is the richest man in the world, and idiots listen to his every pronouncement. The statement was: "Elon Musk undeniably played a huge role at the start of the conflict in supporting Ukraine through the provision of Starlink,"
My argument is that the statement is bullshit, for a number of reasons. What Ukraine needed at the start of the conflict was weapons, and it was those weapons - and the international support - that allowed their brave fighters to drive Russia out of much of Ukraine in early 2022. Musk was not there telling Russia to get out; AFAICR he was remarkably quiescent.
Finally: Musk is parroting Russian and tankie propaganda. It is untrue, and does nothing to help Ukraine.
Anyone who believes NATO and the US 'provoked' Russia into invading Ukraine is either a blithering idiot, or someone who is knowingly doing Putin's evil for him.
Has Musked said anything Tankie related?
He agreed (*) with the suggestion that the US and NATO 'provoked' Russia into invading Ukraine. That is a classic tankie line, that gives Russia no agency and blames us for Putin's evil.
(*) I take responses such as 'interesting' as lily-livered agreement. If he felt it was wrong, he should have said so.
It's not quite what you said at the beginning though, is it? You only clarified when I asked what he said. For none state actors he was the first in there at the beginning with starlink. If he's the richest, can we go down the list of other rich people, and see at what point we get to somebody else? Or corporations who were too busy not wanting to lose their investments as a result of state sanctions.
I think 'interesting' is a low bar to call someone a tankie. It is quite possible of course his position has changed on Ukraine. It is a partisan issue in the US unlike here, but then despite what we have been doing, the heavy lifting has come from the american taxpayer.
You’re confusing me with Josias there. Yes IMHO Musk’s efforts with Starlink were critical to the Ukranian military in the early stages of the war, and continue to be today.
Mr. Sandpit, Miliband wants the credit. The alternative is that he's actually an idiot fundamentalist.
It's unfortunate that this brand of economic self-harm has arisen in a governing party that promised growth, and at a time when our economic picture is less than rosy.
The government are not going to last. They will just fall apart in a couple of years time.
"The international liberal order in which Keir Starmer and David Lammy insist Britain belongs is coming to an end. Labour confronts an enigma of arrival: the world it expected to join when it came to power does not exist."
By what mechanism, outside if the next general election ?
Internal implosion. A split on Gaza. A split on Trump. A split on Austerity. A rump Corbyn party. Any number of 'culture war' style rebellions. The 'tiggers' part 2. They are held together only by power for its own sake and nothing else, they have no mission or plan for what they are doing, other than just being in power.
It's an interesting subject - the moribund nature of centrist politics. Nicely written Speccie article by Patrick O'Flynn a similar theme, but dealing with the Tory centrists:
Hague is far from being alone among a generation of One Nation Tories who became accustomed to regarding themselves as get-with-the-programme modernisers just as the tide was going out on the progressive paradigm. One could say that George Osborne, Rory Stewart, David Gauke and Dominic Grieve are also among those wandering around an ideological wilderness while claiming it to be the promised land. It’s not where the voters live. Not these days.
Keir Starmer will announce a stringent new climate goal for the UK on Tuesday, the Guardian can reveal, with a target in line with the advice given to the government by its scientists and independent advisers.
The UK will pledge to cut emissions by 81% compared with 1990 levels by 2035, a target in line with the recommendations of the Climate Change Committee.
The goal would be achieved by decarbonising the power sector and through a massive expansion of offshore wind, as well as through investments in carbon capture and storage and nuclear energy.
Complete masochistic lunacy. We already have some of the most expensive energy in the world, now Free Gear and Mad Ed want to make our position even worse. Households will be shafted and nobody will want to make anything here. The Chinese are building dozens of new coal power stations and Trump will take America in the opposite direction so the US will boom further as a result. So their decision won't have the slightest effect on climate change. But our moronic government will at least be able to float on a cloud of smug.
We need to scrap Net Zero madness while we still have an economy left.
Miliband is a total idiot and risks a backlash against what are sensible long-term goals, by trying to accomplish them in the short term regardless of cost. All while ignoring tidal and small nuclear, which have the potential to be revolutionary.
Meanwhile China is still building more coal power stations, and the incoming US administration is going to be more interested in drilling for oil than building windmills.
Miliband Derangement Syndrome. Current plans for carbon emission mitigation are in line with the fall in emissions achieved by the Conservative government.
The difficulty in doing so, however, starts to rise exponentially as we approach zero. There’s not going to be many commercial aircraft or long-distance trucks using anything but fossil fuels for a while yet.
The best time to start on a difficult problem is now, not to put off any action because you’re worried about future difficulties.
Except that this is a luxury belief for many of the population, and politicians need to work within the constraints of what’s acceptable in terms of energy bills. Telling the bottom quintile that heating their old house is now impossibly expensive unless they invest in new inside walls and solar panels, isn’t compatible with them voting for you in future. Telling the second-bottom quintile that they need to spend £30k on an electric car or pay £10 a day to get to work, also isn’t compatible with them voting for you.
My wife yelled me that Hyundai are launching a new electric car in Ireland next year priced at €19-22k. The more expensive model will have a rated range of 350km.
The new technology keeps on getting cheaper and better. It makes your talking points outdated.
They are indeed getting cheaper and better but they’re not quite there yet, especially on the infrastructure side. Great if you own a house, not so great if you rent an apartment, and likely to be a total sh!t-show between Christmas and New Year.
President-elect Donald Trump is expected to be name Florida congressman Michael Waltz as the next national security adviser, two sources familiar with the matter told CBS News
Good good. Last week he said we need to be much harder on Russian sanctions and those who are buying his oil, while letting Ukraine do what they wish with American weapons, in order to force Putin to the negotiating table from a point of weakness. https://x.com/osinttechnical/status/1856166839794933992
And as a counterpoint to this, to show how the administration is going to go:
Musky Baby replied "Interesting" to a post proclaiming: "Jeffrey Sachs explains how the US and NATO provoked the war in Ukraine."
Elon Musk undeniably played a huge role at the start of the conflict in supporting Ukraine through the provision of Starlink, and this has been ongoing, his position is just that he wants the war to end as a priority, and that he doesn't support a return to the 2014 borders - a legitimate position, even though it is one that you don't agree with.
He really did not play a huge role. His role was tiny when compared to (say) Boris Johnson. Yes, and I mean that.
Yet again, people believe Musk's own hype.
Since he lacks the control of the sixth biggest military on the planet, has no standing army, or billions of munitions, of course his contribution will be less than the British Prime Minister.
He is the richest man in the world, and idiots listen to his every pronouncement. The statement was: "Elon Musk undeniably played a huge role at the start of the conflict in supporting Ukraine through the provision of Starlink,"
My argument is that the statement is bullshit, for a number of reasons. What Ukraine needed at the start of the conflict was weapons, and it was those weapons - and the international support - that allowed their brave fighters to drive Russia out of much of Ukraine in early 2022. Musk was not there telling Russia to get out; AFAICR he was remarkably quiescent.
Finally: Musk is parroting Russian and tankie propaganda. It is untrue, and does nothing to help Ukraine.
Anyone who believes NATO and the US 'provoked' Russia into invading Ukraine is either a blithering idiot, or someone who is knowingly doing Putin's evil for him.
Has Musked said anything Tankie related?
He agreed (*) with the suggestion that the US and NATO 'provoked' Russia into invading Ukraine. That is a classic tankie line, that gives Russia no agency and blames us for Putin's evil.
(*) I take responses such as 'interesting' as lily-livered agreement. If he felt it was wrong, he should have said so.
Yet you listen to the climate loons and you'd think we have done nothing
It's been very impressive - we must be grateful that the Conservatives ignored the naysayers and worrywarts, and I hope Miliband continues to do the same.
If Labour just continues with the rollout of offshore wind then they will achieve a large chunk of their plans. The challenge is heat pumps and EVs, and I was very disappointed there wasn't more on that in the budget.
It's not quite that good - though I have often given them credit for it. In the main they were short-termists wanting their sweeties NOW. Much credit goes to the Lib Dems, for forcing certain long-term policies in as part of the coalition (eg EPC improvement in rented houses), and that continued a £20bninvestment programme started by Blair in ~2001/2.
Also remember that the Conservatives spent their entire period of Government slashing fuel excise duty by the rate of inflation every single year.
Plus windfarms coming onstream up until the 2020s were the result of licensing rounds from before 2010, and the Cons did little or nothing on that front before Johnson.
Yes, I suppose that's true. I suppose they didn't actually get in the way though, which is to their credit.
(BTW we've just bought a new place and are exploring heat pump options to replace the ancient boiler. Might end up getting some of these new electric heaters instead. Money where the mouth is, will keep you updated!)
President-elect Donald Trump is expected to be name Florida congressman Michael Waltz as the next national security adviser, two sources familiar with the matter told CBS News
Good good. Last week he said we need to be much harder on Russian sanctions and those who are buying his oil, while letting Ukraine do what they wish with American weapons, in order to force Putin to the negotiating table from a point of weakness. https://x.com/osinttechnical/status/1856166839794933992
And as a counterpoint to this, to show how the administration is going to go:
Musky Baby replied "Interesting" to a post proclaiming: "Jeffrey Sachs explains how the US and NATO provoked the war in Ukraine."
Elon Musk undeniably played a huge role at the start of the conflict in supporting Ukraine through the provision of Starlink, and this has been ongoing, his position is just that he wants the war to end as a priority, and that he doesn't support a return to the 2014 borders - a legitimate position, even though it is one that you don't agree with.
He really did not play a huge role. His role was tiny when compared to (say) Boris Johnson. Yes, and I mean that.
Yet again, people believe Musk's own hype.
Since he lacks the control of the sixth biggest military on the planet, has no standing army, or billions of munitions, of course his contribution will be less than the British Prime Minister.
He is the richest man in the world, and idiots listen to his every pronouncement. The statement was: "Elon Musk undeniably played a huge role at the start of the conflict in supporting Ukraine through the provision of Starlink,"
My argument is that the statement is bullshit, for a number of reasons. What Ukraine needed at the start of the conflict was weapons, and it was those weapons - and the international support - that allowed their brave fighters to drive Russia out of much of Ukraine in early 2022. Musk was not there telling Russia to get out; AFAICR he was remarkably quiescent.
Finally: Musk is parroting Russian and tankie propaganda. It is untrue, and does nothing to help Ukraine.
Anyone who believes NATO and the US 'provoked' Russia into invading Ukraine is either a blithering idiot, or someone who is knowingly doing Putin's evil for him.
Has Musked said anything Tankie related?
He agreed (*) with the suggestion that the US and NATO 'provoked' Russia into invading Ukraine. That is a classic tankie line, that gives Russia no agency and blames us for Putin's evil.
(*) I take responses such as 'interesting' as lily-livered agreement. If he felt it was wrong, he should have said so.
It's not quite what you said at the beginning though, is it? You only clarified when I asked what he said. For none state actors he was the first in there at the beginning with starlink. If he's the richest, can we go down the list of other rich people, and see at what point we get to somebody else? Or corporations who were too busy not wanting to lose their investments as a result of state sanctions.
I think 'interesting' is a low bar to call someone a tankie. It is quite possible of course his position has changed on Ukraine. It is a partisan issue in the US unlike here, but then despite what we have been doing, the heavy lifting has come from the american taxpayer.
You’re confusing me with Josias there. Yes IMHO Musk’s efforts with Starlink were critical to the Ukranian military in the early stages of the war, and continue to be today.
Even if true (it isn't), he's doing massive harm to Ukraine now.
Mr. Sandpit, Miliband wants the credit. The alternative is that he's actually an idiot fundamentalist.
It's unfortunate that this brand of economic self-harm has arisen in a governing party that promised growth, and at a time when our economic picture is less than rosy.
The government are not going to last. They will just fall apart in a couple of years time.
"The international liberal order in which Keir Starmer and David Lammy insist Britain belongs is coming to an end. Labour confronts an enigma of arrival: the world it expected to join when it came to power does not exist."
By what mechanism, outside if the next general election ?
Internal implosion. A split on Gaza. A split on Trump. A split on Austerity. A rump Corbyn party. Any number of 'culture war' style rebellions. The 'tiggers' part 2. They are held together only by power for its own sake and nothing else, they have no mission or plan for what they are doing, other than just being in power.
TIG peaked at 11 MPs, only 3 of whom had defected from the governing party. Therefore, it would take 27 TIGs to destroy Labour’s majority, I believe.
The problem is not what they are doing but how they are doing it. Both the Tories and Labour have pursued some really stupid policies with regard to this. CCS being the most obvious. Reducing supply without reducing demand being another.
Oh and bearing in mind that CO2 emissions can only really be considered on a worldwide basis as that is the only measure that matters
Worldwide CO2 emissions from 1940 to 2023
It's also worth noting we have outsourced a lot of our emissions to China etc via the goods we import.
Net zero on domestically produced goods may be possible with a huge increase in renewable energy, but we need other countries to do the same (or we stop importing from said countries).
And it will be hard to stop developing countries using fossil fuels, as even if renewables keep falling to be significantly cheaper than fossil fuels currently are, then the price of fossil fuels can just be cut until then are competitive again. That will reduce supply as the more expensive sources are priced out, but I'd be surprised if it was ever a majority of the market.
I don't agree. There is a substantial monetary cost involved in exploiting hydrocarbons for energy and it is certainly possible that renewables will be cheaper even if the price of hydrocarbons collapses. For example the break even price for any North Sea development is around 40 - 50 dollars a barrel. When the price drops below that point it simply isn't worth going through all the hassle of producing the stuff. That figure will be around 10-15 dollars a barrel in the Middle East but it is still a cost that can be undercut by renewables.
If we get renewable energy pricing down to below 10 dollars a barrel equivalent, including battery costs to even out supply, then the world will stop using fossil fuels.
Ultimately the scale investments driving prices down are now coming from the US and China -purely given their size - rather than the UK. We've already reached a tipping point where subsidy is not needed for renewables to make sense at current fossil fuel prices.
Keir Starmer will announce a stringent new climate goal for the UK on Tuesday, the Guardian can reveal, with a target in line with the advice given to the government by its scientists and independent advisers.
The UK will pledge to cut emissions by 81% compared with 1990 levels by 2035, a target in line with the recommendations of the Climate Change Committee.
The goal would be achieved by decarbonising the power sector and through a massive expansion of offshore wind, as well as through investments in carbon capture and storage and nuclear energy.
Complete masochistic lunacy. We already have some of the most expensive energy in the world, now Free Gear and Mad Ed want to make our position even worse. Households will be shafted and nobody will want to make anything here. The Chinese are building dozens of new coal power stations and Trump will take America in the opposite direction so the US will boom further as a result. So their decision won't have the slightest effect on climate change. But our moronic government will at least be able to float on a cloud of smug.
We need to scrap Net Zero madness while we still have an economy left.
Miliband is a total idiot and risks a backlash against what are sensible long-term goals, by trying to accomplish them in the short term regardless of cost. All while ignoring tidal and small nuclear, which have the potential to be revolutionary.
Meanwhile China is still building more coal power stations, and the incoming US administration is going to be more interested in drilling for oil than building windmills.
In the US, though, the market is more favourable to renewables. They have far better conditions for solar power - the cheapest form of electoral generation by far - and huge onshore wind potential (which is why oil rich Texas builds so many turbines).
Offshore wind will be hit hard by the new administration, obviously.
Milliband is answering the wrong question. It's not 'how soon can we get to net zero'; it's 'what the cheapest and most reliable way of getting there ?'
Concentrate on the second question, and he would get far more support. And would scrap most of the CCS spend.
The cheapest and most reliable way will still involve having to have gas contracts to feed capacity when it isnt windy and the sun isnt shining. And that will not change by 2030. The whole 2030 net zero is an utter sham. We will get to 2030, and it is quite possible that we have the capacity to power the grid when solar is good and it is windy, and that will be classed as 'job done'.
If this comes from the closed loop of bill payments it will be ruinously expensive, but I guess all the costs will be riding on the taxpayer and hidden in general expenditure with the laughable "wind is the cheapest form of electricity", if you ignore all the subsidy.
Bear in mind it is Net Zero not Gross Zero.
The plan for the grid is full decarbonisation isnt it?
President-elect Donald Trump is expected to be name Florida congressman Michael Waltz as the next national security adviser, two sources familiar with the matter told CBS News
Good good. Last week he said we need to be much harder on Russian sanctions and those who are buying his oil, while letting Ukraine do what they wish with American weapons, in order to force Putin to the negotiating table from a point of weakness. https://x.com/osinttechnical/status/1856166839794933992
And as a counterpoint to this, to show how the administration is going to go:
Musky Baby replied "Interesting" to a post proclaiming: "Jeffrey Sachs explains how the US and NATO provoked the war in Ukraine."
Elon Musk undeniably played a huge role at the start of the conflict in supporting Ukraine through the provision of Starlink, and this has been ongoing, his position is just that he wants the war to end as a priority, and that he doesn't support a return to the 2014 borders - a legitimate position, even though it is one that you don't agree with.
He really did not play a huge role. His role was tiny when compared to (say) Boris Johnson. Yes, and I mean that.
Yet again, people believe Musk's own hype.
Since he lacks the control of the sixth biggest military on the planet, has no standing army, or billions of munitions, of course his contribution will be less than the British Prime Minister.
He is the richest man in the world, and idiots listen to his every pronouncement. The statement was: "Elon Musk undeniably played a huge role at the start of the conflict in supporting Ukraine through the provision of Starlink,"
My argument is that the statement is bullshit, for a number of reasons. What Ukraine needed at the start of the conflict was weapons, and it was those weapons - and the international support - that allowed their brave fighters to drive Russia out of much of Ukraine in early 2022. Musk was not there telling Russia to get out; AFAICR he was remarkably quiescent.
Finally: Musk is parroting Russian and tankie propaganda. It is untrue, and does nothing to help Ukraine.
Anyone who believes NATO and the US 'provoked' Russia into invading Ukraine is either a blithering idiot, or someone who is knowingly doing Putin's evil for him.
Has Musked said anything Tankie related?
He agreed (*) with the suggestion that the US and NATO 'provoked' Russia into invading Ukraine. That is a classic tankie line, that gives Russia no agency and blames us for Putin's evil.
(*) I take responses such as 'interesting' as lily-livered agreement. If he felt it was wrong, he should have said so.
It's not quite what you said at the beginning though, is it? You only clarified when I asked what he said. For none state actors he was the first in there at the beginning with starlink. If he's the richest, can we go down the list of other rich people, and see at what point we get to somebody else? Or corporations who were too busy not wanting to lose their investments as a result of state sanctions.
I think 'interesting' is a low bar to call someone a tankie. It is quite possible of course his position has changed on Ukraine. It is a partisan issue in the US unlike here, but then despite what we have been doing, the heavy lifting has come from the american taxpayer.
Musk is parroting and disseminating Russian propaganda. Propaganda that is utterly wrong.
I fail to see how this is advantageous to Ukraine or, in the medium and long term, the USA.
Keir Starmer will announce a stringent new climate goal for the UK on Tuesday, the Guardian can reveal, with a target in line with the advice given to the government by its scientists and independent advisers.
The UK will pledge to cut emissions by 81% compared with 1990 levels by 2035, a target in line with the recommendations of the Climate Change Committee.
The goal would be achieved by decarbonising the power sector and through a massive expansion of offshore wind, as well as through investments in carbon capture and storage and nuclear energy.
Complete masochistic lunacy. We already have some of the most expensive energy in the world, now Free Gear and Mad Ed want to make our position even worse. Households will be shafted and nobody will want to make anything here. The Chinese are building dozens of new coal power stations and Trump will take America in the opposite direction so the US will boom further as a result. So their decision won't have the slightest effect on climate change. But our moronic government will at least be able to float on a cloud of smug.
We need to scrap Net Zero madness while we still have an economy left.
Congratulations on a take which is nonsensical at best and plain bonkers at worst.
We need to generate electricity. We can’t burn coal as we don’t have any, so we can’t copy the Chinese. We burnt off much of North Sea gas already. We’re functionally incompetent when it comes to building nukes. What we do have is wind. What you propose is that we ignore our abundant natural resource and instead be reliant on very expensive foreign resources. Great plan man.
We aren't functionally incompetent at building nukes - we just aren't given Rolls Royce the orders we should have given them 3 years ago.
What we are incompetent at is managing projects - Hinkley Point C is built to a working French design but we insisted on a whole set of changes and other insane rules such as (supposedly) having both analogue and Digital monitoring of all sensors.
No, we're incompetent at the due process in initiating and approving projects.
The examples you give there are both how the Government insist on a full tender and procurement evaluation before awarding anything to Rolls Royce (that will need to satisfy all sort of criteria) and how our own regulatory bodies insisted on all sort of changes to a functional design to get it "as safe as reasonably practical" (the last two words doing an awful lot of lifting.
President-elect Donald Trump is expected to be name Florida congressman Michael Waltz as the next national security adviser, two sources familiar with the matter told CBS News
Good good. Last week he said we need to be much harder on Russian sanctions and those who are buying his oil, while letting Ukraine do what they wish with American weapons, in order to force Putin to the negotiating table from a point of weakness. https://x.com/osinttechnical/status/1856166839794933992
And as a counterpoint to this, to show how the administration is going to go:
Musky Baby replied "Interesting" to a post proclaiming: "Jeffrey Sachs explains how the US and NATO provoked the war in Ukraine."
Elon Musk undeniably played a huge role at the start of the conflict in supporting Ukraine through the provision of Starlink, and this has been ongoing, his position is just that he wants the war to end as a priority, and that he doesn't support a return to the 2014 borders - a legitimate position, even though it is one that you don't agree with.
He really did not play a huge role. His role was tiny when compared to (say) Boris Johnson. Yes, and I mean that.
Yet again, people believe Musk's own hype.
Since he lacks the control of the sixth biggest military on the planet, has no standing army, or billions of munitions, of course his contribution will be less than the British Prime Minister.
He is the richest man in the world, and idiots listen to his every pronouncement. The statement was: "Elon Musk undeniably played a huge role at the start of the conflict in supporting Ukraine through the provision of Starlink,"
My argument is that the statement is bullshit, for a number of reasons. What Ukraine needed at the start of the conflict was weapons, and it was those weapons - and the international support - that allowed their brave fighters to drive Russia out of much of Ukraine in early 2022. Musk was not there telling Russia to get out; AFAICR he was remarkably quiescent.
Finally: Musk is parroting Russian and tankie propaganda. It is untrue, and does nothing to help Ukraine.
Anyone who believes NATO and the US 'provoked' Russia into invading Ukraine is either a blithering idiot, or someone who is knowingly doing Putin's evil for him.
Has Musked said anything Tankie related?
He agreed (*) with the suggestion that the US and NATO 'provoked' Russia into invading Ukraine. That is a classic tankie line, that gives Russia no agency and blames us for Putin's evil.
(*) I take responses such as 'interesting' as lily-livered agreement. If he felt it was wrong, he should have said so.
It's not quite what you said at the beginning though, is it? You only clarified when I asked what he said. For none state actors he was the first in there at the beginning with starlink. If he's the richest, can we go down the list of other rich people, and see at what point we get to somebody else? Or corporations who were too busy not wanting to lose their investments as a result of state sanctions.
I think 'interesting' is a low bar to call someone a tankie. It is quite possible of course his position has changed on Ukraine. It is a partisan issue in the US unlike here, but then despite what we have been doing, the heavy lifting has come from the american taxpayer.
You’re confusing me with Josias there. Yes IMHO Musk’s efforts with Starlink were critical to the Ukranian military in the early stages of the war, and continue to be today.
Even if true (it isn't), he's doing massive harm to Ukraine now.
By giving them thousands of satellite internet connections for military use?
Meanwhile, Trump is about to appoint a security advisor who favours letting the Ukranians bomb the hell out of Russian infrastructure and intends to drag Putin to the negotiating table from a position of weakness.
President-elect Donald Trump is expected to be name Florida congressman Michael Waltz as the next national security adviser, two sources familiar with the matter told CBS News
Good good. Last week he said we need to be much harder on Russian sanctions and those who are buying his oil, while letting Ukraine do what they wish with American weapons, in order to force Putin to the negotiating table from a point of weakness. https://x.com/osinttechnical/status/1856166839794933992
And as a counterpoint to this, to show how the administration is going to go:
Musky Baby replied "Interesting" to a post proclaiming: "Jeffrey Sachs explains how the US and NATO provoked the war in Ukraine."
Elon Musk undeniably played a huge role at the start of the conflict in supporting Ukraine through the provision of Starlink, and this has been ongoing, his position is just that he wants the war to end as a priority, and that he doesn't support a return to the 2014 borders - a legitimate position, even though it is one that you don't agree with.
He really did not play a huge role. His role was tiny when compared to (say) Boris Johnson. Yes, and I mean that.
Yet again, people believe Musk's own hype.
Since he lacks the control of the sixth biggest military on the planet, has no standing army, or billions of munitions, of course his contribution will be less than the British Prime Minister.
He is the richest man in the world, and idiots listen to his every pronouncement. The statement was: "Elon Musk undeniably played a huge role at the start of the conflict in supporting Ukraine through the provision of Starlink,"
My argument is that the statement is bullshit, for a number of reasons. What Ukraine needed at the start of the conflict was weapons, and it was those weapons - and the international support - that allowed their brave fighters to drive Russia out of much of Ukraine in early 2022. Musk was not there telling Russia to get out; AFAICR he was remarkably quiescent.
Finally: Musk is parroting Russian and tankie propaganda. It is untrue, and does nothing to help Ukraine.
Anyone who believes NATO and the US 'provoked' Russia into invading Ukraine is either a blithering idiot, or someone who is knowingly doing Putin's evil for him.
Has Musked said anything Tankie related?
He agreed (*) with the suggestion that the US and NATO 'provoked' Russia into invading Ukraine. That is a classic tankie line, that gives Russia no agency and blames us for Putin's evil.
(*) I take responses such as 'interesting' as lily-livered agreement. If he felt it was wrong, he should have said so.
It's not quite what you said at the beginning though, is it? You only clarified when I asked what he said. For none state actors he was the first in there at the beginning with starlink. If he's the richest, can we go down the list of other rich people, and see at what point we get to somebody else? Or corporations who were too busy not wanting to lose their investments as a result of state sanctions.
I think 'interesting' is a low bar to call someone a tankie. It is quite possible of course his position has changed on Ukraine. It is a partisan issue in the US unlike here, but then despite what we have been doing, the heavy lifting has come from the american taxpayer.
You’re confusing me with Josias there. Yes IMHO Musk’s efforts with Starlink were critical to the Ukranian military in the early stages of the war, and continue to be today.
Even if true (it isn't), he's doing massive harm to Ukraine now.
By giving them thousands of satellite internet connections for military use?
Meanwhile, Trump is about to appoint a security advisor who favours letting the Ukranians bomb the hell out of Russian infrastructure and intends to drag Putin to the negotiating table from a position of weakness.
We're talking about the start of the war.
Answer this: how is Musky Baby parroting Russian propaganda helping Ukraine?
The problem is not what they are doing but how they are doing it. Both the Tories and Labour have pursued some really stupid policies with regard to this. CCS being the most obvious. Reducing supply without reducing demand being another.
Oh and bearing in mind that CO2 emissions can only really be considered on a worldwide basis as that is the only measure that matters
Worldwide CO2 emissions from 1940 to 2023
Absolutely. But that's argument for pivoting massive resources to climate change adaptation. Something we will have to do relatively soon.
I'm also of the view that the positive externalities of mitigation measures are worth it, particularly offshore wind and EVs, regardless of the impact on global emissions. I think heat pumps will get there too - they are already a net benefit in places like the Highlands, where nearly half of all non-gas households rely solely on electric heating.
Except all those people in highlands who installed wood burners. In fact wood burners are so popular in the highlands and other areas of scotland that the government tried to ban new installations by blocking the issuing of building control completion certificates. This was backed down on.
An utter path to ruinous. Replacing a system that is reliable and works with one that isnt and doesnt. It's not as if the information exists about this, it does.
You could say "lets work towards this and see where we get", but its not. We are lied to that that energy generation grid can be net zero by 2030. This is a lie. You know it is, I know it is, and you know I know you know it is.
At one level Scottish wood burners in the Highlands is a rounding error and an edge case. Scottish Highlands population is maybe 1/5 of Scottish Population (remote Highlands: 1/20), which is around 1/60 (1/250) of UK population.
We have tried it out over decades, and we know what works. Anyone with a good quality house (new or renovated) will need a log burner designed for a narrowboat or caravan.
But who told you it could be done by 2030? The Net Zero set by the Conservative Government in 2021 is 2035.
Keir Starmer will announce a stringent new climate goal for the UK on Tuesday, the Guardian can reveal, with a target in line with the advice given to the government by its scientists and independent advisers.
The UK will pledge to cut emissions by 81% compared with 1990 levels by 2035, a target in line with the recommendations of the Climate Change Committee.
The goal would be achieved by decarbonising the power sector and through a massive expansion of offshore wind, as well as through investments in carbon capture and storage and nuclear energy.
Complete masochistic lunacy. We already have some of the most expensive energy in the world, now Free Gear and Mad Ed want to make our position even worse. Households will be shafted and nobody will want to make anything here. The Chinese are building dozens of new coal power stations and Trump will take America in the opposite direction so the US will boom further as a result. So their decision won't have the slightest effect on climate change. But our moronic government will at least be able to float on a cloud of smug.
We need to scrap Net Zero madness while we still have an economy left.
Congratulations on a take which is nonsensical at best and plain bonkers at worst.
We need to generate electricity. We can’t burn coal as we don’t have any, so we can’t copy the Chinese. We burnt off much of North Sea gas already. We’re functionally incompetent when it comes to building nukes. What we do have is wind. What you propose is that we ignore our abundant natural resource and instead be reliant on very expensive foreign resources. Great plan man.
We aren't functionally incompetent at building nukes - we just aren't given Rolls Royce the orders we should have given them 3 years ago.
What we are incompetent at is managing projects - Hinkley Point C is built to a working French design but we insisted on a whole set of changes and other insane rules such as (supposedly) having both analogue and Digital monitoring of all sensors.
No, we're incompetent at the due process in initiating and approving projects.
The examples you give there are both how the Government insist on a full tender and procurement evaluation before awarding anything to Rolls Royce (that will need to satisfy all sort of criteria) and how our own regulatory bodies insisted on all sort of changes to a functional design to get it "as safe as reasonably practical" (the last two words doing an awful lot of lifting.
Keir Starmer will announce a stringent new climate goal for the UK on Tuesday, the Guardian can reveal, with a target in line with the advice given to the government by its scientists and independent advisers.
The UK will pledge to cut emissions by 81% compared with 1990 levels by 2035, a target in line with the recommendations of the Climate Change Committee.
The goal would be achieved by decarbonising the power sector and through a massive expansion of offshore wind, as well as through investments in carbon capture and storage and nuclear energy.
Complete masochistic lunacy. We already have some of the most expensive energy in the world, now Free Gear and Mad Ed want to make our position even worse. Households will be shafted and nobody will want to make anything here. The Chinese are building dozens of new coal power stations and Trump will take America in the opposite direction so the US will boom further as a result. So their decision won't have the slightest effect on climate change. But our moronic government will at least be able to float on a cloud of smug.
We need to scrap Net Zero madness while we still have an economy left.
Congratulations on a take which is nonsensical at best and plain bonkers at worst.
We need to generate electricity. We can’t burn coal as we don’t have any, so we can’t copy the Chinese. We burnt off much of North Sea gas already. We’re functionally incompetent when it comes to building nukes. What we do have is wind. What you propose is that we ignore our abundant natural resource and instead be reliant on very expensive foreign resources. Great plan man.
We aren't functionally incompetent at building nukes - we just aren't given Rolls Royce the orders we should have given them 3 years ago.
What we are incompetent at is managing projects - Hinkley Point C is built to a working French design but we insisted on a whole set of changes and other insane rules such as (supposedly) having both analogue and Digital monitoring of all sensors.
No, we're incompetent at the due process in initiating and approving projects.
The examples you give there are both how the Government insist on a full tender and procurement evaluation before awarding anything to Rolls Royce (that will need to satisfy all sort of criteria) and how our own regulatory bodies insisted on all sort of changes to a functional design to get it "as safe as reasonably practical" (the last two words doing an awful lot of lifting.
The problem is not what they are doing but how they are doing it. Both the Tories and Labour have pursued some really stupid policies with regard to this. CCS being the most obvious. Reducing supply without reducing demand being another.
Oh and bearing in mind that CO2 emissions can only really be considered on a worldwide basis as that is the only measure that matters
Worldwide CO2 emissions from 1940 to 2023
Absolutely. But that's argument for pivoting massive resources to climate change adaptation. Something we will have to do relatively soon.
I'm also of the view that the positive externalities of mitigation measures are worth it, particularly offshore wind and EVs, regardless of the impact on global emissions. I think heat pumps will get there too - they are already a net benefit in places like the Highlands, where nearly half of all non-gas households rely solely on electric heating.
Except all those people in highlands who installed wood burners. In fact wood burners are so popular in the highlands and other areas of scotland that the government tried to ban new installations by blocking the issuing of building control completion certificates. This was backed down on.
An utter path to ruinous. Replacing a system that is reliable and works with one that isnt and doesnt. It's not as if the information exists about this, it does.
You could say "lets work towards this and see where we get", but its not. We are lied to that that energy generation grid can be net zero by 2030. This is a lie. You know it is, I know it is, and you know I know you know it is.
At one level Scottish wood burners in the Highlands is a rounding error and an edge case. Scottish Highlands population is maybe 1/5 of Scottish Population (remote Highlands: 1/20), which is around 1/60 (1/250) of UK population.
We have tried it out over decades, and we know what works. Anyone with a good quality house (new or renovated) will need a log burner designed for a narrowboat or caravan.
But who told you it could be done by 2030? The Net Zero set by the Conservative Government in 2021 is 2035.
It's also worth noting that we have beaten quite a few of our climate targets over the last decade. The technology is the big driver of all this, the government is riding a wave.
There was a good article somewhere comparing it to the dash for gas in the 90s, which happened very quickly too. I'll try and find it.
President-elect Donald Trump is expected to be name Florida congressman Michael Waltz as the next national security adviser, two sources familiar with the matter told CBS News
Good good. Last week he said we need to be much harder on Russian sanctions and those who are buying his oil, while letting Ukraine do what they wish with American weapons, in order to force Putin to the negotiating table from a point of weakness. https://x.com/osinttechnical/status/1856166839794933992
And as a counterpoint to this, to show how the administration is going to go:
Musky Baby replied "Interesting" to a post proclaiming: "Jeffrey Sachs explains how the US and NATO provoked the war in Ukraine."
Elon Musk undeniably played a huge role at the start of the conflict in supporting Ukraine through the provision of Starlink, and this has been ongoing, his position is just that he wants the war to end as a priority, and that he doesn't support a return to the 2014 borders - a legitimate position, even though it is one that you don't agree with.
He really did not play a huge role. His role was tiny when compared to (say) Boris Johnson. Yes, and I mean that.
Yet again, people believe Musk's own hype.
Since he lacks the control of the sixth biggest military on the planet, has no standing army, or billions of munitions, of course his contribution will be less than the British Prime Minister.
He is the richest man in the world, and idiots listen to his every pronouncement. The statement was: "Elon Musk undeniably played a huge role at the start of the conflict in supporting Ukraine through the provision of Starlink,"
My argument is that the statement is bullshit, for a number of reasons. What Ukraine needed at the start of the conflict was weapons, and it was those weapons - and the international support - that allowed their brave fighters to drive Russia out of much of Ukraine in early 2022. Musk was not there telling Russia to get out; AFAICR he was remarkably quiescent.
Finally: Musk is parroting Russian and tankie propaganda. It is untrue, and does nothing to help Ukraine.
Anyone who believes NATO and the US 'provoked' Russia into invading Ukraine is either a blithering idiot, or someone who is knowingly doing Putin's evil for him.
Has Musked said anything Tankie related?
He agreed (*) with the suggestion that the US and NATO 'provoked' Russia into invading Ukraine. That is a classic tankie line, that gives Russia no agency and blames us for Putin's evil.
(*) I take responses such as 'interesting' as lily-livered agreement. If he felt it was wrong, he should have said so.
It's not quite what you said at the beginning though, is it? You only clarified when I asked what he said. For none state actors he was the first in there at the beginning with starlink. If he's the richest, can we go down the list of other rich people, and see at what point we get to somebody else? Or corporations who were too busy not wanting to lose their investments as a result of state sanctions.
I think 'interesting' is a low bar to call someone a tankie. It is quite possible of course his position has changed on Ukraine. It is a partisan issue in the US unlike here, but then despite what we have been doing, the heavy lifting has come from the american taxpayer.
You’re confusing me with Josias there. Yes IMHO Musk’s efforts with Starlink were critical to the Ukranian military in the early stages of the war, and continue to be today.
Even if true (it isn't), he's doing massive harm to Ukraine now.
By giving them thousands of satellite internet connections for military use?
Meanwhile, Trump is about to appoint a security advisor who favours letting the Ukranians bomb the hell out of Russian infrastructure and intends to drag Putin to the negotiating table from a position of weakness.
In the very early days? No. That was down to weaponry and the fight in the Ukrainian people.
And remember how Musk threw his toys out of the pram and wanted the US government to pay him back for Starlink use. It's good business for him.
President-elect Donald Trump is expected to be name Florida congressman Michael Waltz as the next national security adviser, two sources familiar with the matter told CBS News
Good good. Last week he said we need to be much harder on Russian sanctions and those who are buying his oil, while letting Ukraine do what they wish with American weapons, in order to force Putin to the negotiating table from a point of weakness. https://x.com/osinttechnical/status/1856166839794933992
And as a counterpoint to this, to show how the administration is going to go:
Musky Baby replied "Interesting" to a post proclaiming: "Jeffrey Sachs explains how the US and NATO provoked the war in Ukraine."
Elon Musk undeniably played a huge role at the start of the conflict in supporting Ukraine through the provision of Starlink, and this has been ongoing, his position is just that he wants the war to end as a priority, and that he doesn't support a return to the 2014 borders - a legitimate position, even though it is one that you don't agree with.
He really did not play a huge role. His role was tiny when compared to (say) Boris Johnson. Yes, and I mean that.
Yet again, people believe Musk's own hype.
Since he lacks the control of the sixth biggest military on the planet, has no standing army, or billions of munitions, of course his contribution will be less than the British Prime Minister.
He is the richest man in the world, and idiots listen to his every pronouncement. The statement was: "Elon Musk undeniably played a huge role at the start of the conflict in supporting Ukraine through the provision of Starlink,"
My argument is that the statement is bullshit, for a number of reasons. What Ukraine needed at the start of the conflict was weapons, and it was those weapons - and the international support - that allowed their brave fighters to drive Russia out of much of Ukraine in early 2022. Musk was not there telling Russia to get out; AFAICR he was remarkably quiescent.
Finally: Musk is parroting Russian and tankie propaganda. It is untrue, and does nothing to help Ukraine.
Anyone who believes NATO and the US 'provoked' Russia into invading Ukraine is either a blithering idiot, or someone who is knowingly doing Putin's evil for him.
Has Musked said anything Tankie related?
He agreed (*) with the suggestion that the US and NATO 'provoked' Russia into invading Ukraine. That is a classic tankie line, that gives Russia no agency and blames us for Putin's evil.
(*) I take responses such as 'interesting' as lily-livered agreement. If he felt it was wrong, he should have said so.
It's not quite what you said at the beginning though, is it? You only clarified when I asked what he said. For none state actors he was the first in there at the beginning with starlink. If he's the richest, can we go down the list of other rich people, and see at what point we get to somebody else? Or corporations who were too busy not wanting to lose their investments as a result of state sanctions.
I think 'interesting' is a low bar to call someone a tankie. It is quite possible of course his position has changed on Ukraine. It is a partisan issue in the US unlike here, but then despite what we have been doing, the heavy lifting has come from the american taxpayer.
You’re confusing me with Josias there. Yes IMHO Musk’s efforts with Starlink were critical to the Ukranian military in the early stages of the war, and continue to be today.
Even if true (it isn't), he's doing massive harm to Ukraine now.
By giving them thousands of satellite internet connections for military use?
Meanwhile, Trump is about to appoint a security advisor who favours letting the Ukranians bomb the hell out of Russian infrastructure and intends to drag Putin to the negotiating table from a position of weakness.
We're talking about the start of the war.
Answer this: how is Musky Baby parroting Russian propaganda helping Ukraine?
I know this might seem petty but any chance you could stop calling him “Musky Baby”. For some unknown reason it makes my skin crawl.
Maybe, if you want to be derogatory, rename him something that reflects a bad side of him - Elon Muscovy perhaps. But please not Musky Baby. Thanks
Keir Starmer will announce a stringent new climate goal for the UK on Tuesday, the Guardian can reveal, with a target in line with the advice given to the government by its scientists and independent advisers.
The UK will pledge to cut emissions by 81% compared with 1990 levels by 2035, a target in line with the recommendations of the Climate Change Committee.
The goal would be achieved by decarbonising the power sector and through a massive expansion of offshore wind, as well as through investments in carbon capture and storage and nuclear energy.
Complete masochistic lunacy. We already have some of the most expensive energy in the world, now Free Gear and Mad Ed want to make our position even worse. Households will be shafted and nobody will want to make anything here. The Chinese are building dozens of new coal power stations and Trump will take America in the opposite direction so the US will boom further as a result. So their decision won't have the slightest effect on climate change. But our moronic government will at least be able to float on a cloud of smug.
We need to scrap Net Zero madness while we still have an economy left.
Congratulations on a take which is nonsensical at best and plain bonkers at worst.
We need to generate electricity. We can’t burn coal as we don’t have any, so we can’t copy the Chinese. We burnt off much of North Sea gas already. We’re functionally incompetent when it comes to building nukes. What we do have is wind. What you propose is that we ignore our abundant natural resource and instead be reliant on very expensive foreign resources. Great plan man.
We aren't functionally incompetent at building nukes - we just aren't given Rolls Royce the orders we should have given them 3 years ago.
What we are incompetent at is managing projects - Hinkley Point C is built to a working French design but we insisted on a whole set of changes and other insane rules such as (supposedly) having both analogue and Digital monitoring of all sensors.
No, we're incompetent at the due process in initiating and approving projects.
The examples you give there are both how the Government insist on a full tender and procurement evaluation before awarding anything to Rolls Royce (that will need to satisfy all sort of criteria) and how our own regulatory bodies insisted on all sort of changes to a functional design to get it "as safe as reasonably practical" (the last two words doing an awful lot of lifting.
We are actually quite good at managing projects.
I will say HS2 and leave things there.
HS2 is what happens when the politicans start to micromanage the project stage by stage, rather than giving the professionals a scope and and a budget, then letting them get on with it.
This is interesting, from Noah Smith. Cities swing strongly towards Trump. He blames the poor standard of (Democratic) local government. They are tolerant of crime, high-taxing, and hostile to new house building.
President-elect Donald Trump is expected to be name Florida congressman Michael Waltz as the next national security adviser, two sources familiar with the matter told CBS News
Good good. Last week he said we need to be much harder on Russian sanctions and those who are buying his oil, while letting Ukraine do what they wish with American weapons, in order to force Putin to the negotiating table from a point of weakness. https://x.com/osinttechnical/status/1856166839794933992
And as a counterpoint to this, to show how the administration is going to go:
Musky Baby replied "Interesting" to a post proclaiming: "Jeffrey Sachs explains how the US and NATO provoked the war in Ukraine."
Elon Musk undeniably played a huge role at the start of the conflict in supporting Ukraine through the provision of Starlink, and this has been ongoing, his position is just that he wants the war to end as a priority, and that he doesn't support a return to the 2014 borders - a legitimate position, even though it is one that you don't agree with.
He really did not play a huge role. His role was tiny when compared to (say) Boris Johnson. Yes, and I mean that.
Yet again, people believe Musk's own hype.
Since he lacks the control of the sixth biggest military on the planet, has no standing army, or billions of munitions, of course his contribution will be less than the British Prime Minister.
He is the richest man in the world, and idiots listen to his every pronouncement. The statement was: "Elon Musk undeniably played a huge role at the start of the conflict in supporting Ukraine through the provision of Starlink,"
My argument is that the statement is bullshit, for a number of reasons. What Ukraine needed at the start of the conflict was weapons, and it was those weapons - and the international support - that allowed their brave fighters to drive Russia out of much of Ukraine in early 2022. Musk was not there telling Russia to get out; AFAICR he was remarkably quiescent.
Finally: Musk is parroting Russian and tankie propaganda. It is untrue, and does nothing to help Ukraine.
Anyone who believes NATO and the US 'provoked' Russia into invading Ukraine is either a blithering idiot, or someone who is knowingly doing Putin's evil for him.
Has Musked said anything Tankie related?
He agreed (*) with the suggestion that the US and NATO 'provoked' Russia into invading Ukraine. That is a classic tankie line, that gives Russia no agency and blames us for Putin's evil.
(*) I take responses such as 'interesting' as lily-livered agreement. If he felt it was wrong, he should have said so.
It's not quite what you said at the beginning though, is it? You only clarified when I asked what he said. For none state actors he was the first in there at the beginning with starlink. If he's the richest, can we go down the list of other rich people, and see at what point we get to somebody else? Or corporations who were too busy not wanting to lose their investments as a result of state sanctions.
I think 'interesting' is a low bar to call someone a tankie. It is quite possible of course his position has changed on Ukraine. It is a partisan issue in the US unlike here, but then despite what we have been doing, the heavy lifting has come from the american taxpayer.
You’re confusing me with Josias there. Yes IMHO Musk’s efforts with Starlink were critical to the Ukranian military in the early stages of the war, and continue to be today.
Even if true (it isn't), he's doing massive harm to Ukraine now.
By giving them thousands of satellite internet connections for military use?
Meanwhile, Trump is about to appoint a security advisor who favours letting the Ukranians bomb the hell out of Russian infrastructure and intends to drag Putin to the negotiating table from a position of weakness.
We're talking about the start of the war.
Answer this: how is Musky Baby parroting Russian propaganda helping Ukraine?
I know this might seem petty but any chance you could stop calling him “Musky Baby”. For some unknown reason it makes my skin crawl.
Maybe, if you want to be derogatory, rename him something that reflects a bad side of him - Elon Muscovy perhaps. But please not Musky Baby. Thanks
Nah. I use it because it highlights an important part of his character. If you don't like it, you know where the door is. ---->
This is interesting, from Noah Smith. Cities swing strongly towards Trump. He blames the poor standard of (Democratic) local government. They are tolerant of crime, high-taxing, and hostile to new house building.
Everyone searching for answers (that mirror their priors). The most plausible explanation is simply more people voting on household finances than ideology this time than last time, and therefore that swing is seen most in areas where Trump was behind than where he was already strong. But that doesn't excite anyone.
President-elect Donald Trump is expected to be name Florida congressman Michael Waltz as the next national security adviser, two sources familiar with the matter told CBS News
Good good. Last week he said we need to be much harder on Russian sanctions and those who are buying his oil, while letting Ukraine do what they wish with American weapons, in order to force Putin to the negotiating table from a point of weakness. https://x.com/osinttechnical/status/1856166839794933992
And as a counterpoint to this, to show how the administration is going to go:
Musky Baby replied "Interesting" to a post proclaiming: "Jeffrey Sachs explains how the US and NATO provoked the war in Ukraine."
Elon Musk undeniably played a huge role at the start of the conflict in supporting Ukraine through the provision of Starlink, and this has been ongoing, his position is just that he wants the war to end as a priority, and that he doesn't support a return to the 2014 borders - a legitimate position, even though it is one that you don't agree with.
He really did not play a huge role. His role was tiny when compared to (say) Boris Johnson. Yes, and I mean that.
Yet again, people believe Musk's own hype.
Since he lacks the control of the sixth biggest military on the planet, has no standing army, or billions of munitions, of course his contribution will be less than the British Prime Minister.
He is the richest man in the world, and idiots listen to his every pronouncement. The statement was: "Elon Musk undeniably played a huge role at the start of the conflict in supporting Ukraine through the provision of Starlink,"
My argument is that the statement is bullshit, for a number of reasons. What Ukraine needed at the start of the conflict was weapons, and it was those weapons - and the international support - that allowed their brave fighters to drive Russia out of much of Ukraine in early 2022. Musk was not there telling Russia to get out; AFAICR he was remarkably quiescent.
Finally: Musk is parroting Russian and tankie propaganda. It is untrue, and does nothing to help Ukraine.
Anyone who believes NATO and the US 'provoked' Russia into invading Ukraine is either a blithering idiot, or someone who is knowingly doing Putin's evil for him.
Has Musked said anything Tankie related?
He agreed (*) with the suggestion that the US and NATO 'provoked' Russia into invading Ukraine. That is a classic tankie line, that gives Russia no agency and blames us for Putin's evil.
(*) I take responses such as 'interesting' as lily-livered agreement. If he felt it was wrong, he should have said so.
It's not quite what you said at the beginning though, is it? You only clarified when I asked what he said. For none state actors he was the first in there at the beginning with starlink. If he's the richest, can we go down the list of other rich people, and see at what point we get to somebody else? Or corporations who were too busy not wanting to lose their investments as a result of state sanctions.
I think 'interesting' is a low bar to call someone a tankie. It is quite possible of course his position has changed on Ukraine. It is a partisan issue in the US unlike here, but then despite what we have been doing, the heavy lifting has come from the american taxpayer.
You’re confusing me with Josias there. Yes IMHO Musk’s efforts with Starlink were critical to the Ukranian military in the early stages of the war, and continue to be today.
Even if true (it isn't), he's doing massive harm to Ukraine now.
By giving them thousands of satellite internet connections for military use?
Meanwhile, Trump is about to appoint a security advisor who favours letting the Ukranians bomb the hell out of Russian infrastructure and intends to drag Putin to the negotiating table from a position of weakness.
We're talking about the start of the war.
Answer this: how is Musky Baby parroting Russian propaganda helping Ukraine?
I know this might seem petty but any chance you could stop calling him “Musky Baby”. For some unknown reason it makes my skin crawl.
Maybe, if you want to be derogatory, rename him something that reflects a bad side of him - Elon Muscovy perhaps. But please not Musky Baby. Thanks
Nah. I use it because it highlights an important part of his character. If you don't like it, you know where the door is. ---->
Um, what part of his character is being highlighted by calling him “Musky Baby”?
Sounds like a dad in Happy Days talking to one of the Fonz’s out of town friends in an attempt to be down with the youth.
Comments
The Conservative's greatest achievement, IMO.
I wonder if our pension pots will have some funding repurposed for this.
Sir Keir added: "I will be making an argument powerfully that now is the time for the private sector to start paying their fair share in relation to these commitments."
As part of this, a new "capital market mechanism" will be launched on the London Stock Exchange, with Downing Street hoping it will raise £75bn for green investment over the next decade.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/starmer-tells-private-sector-to-start-paying-their-fair-share-on-global-climate-change/ar-AA1tU9Uy?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=U531&cvid=bda08059f32b40f28a8deeff4585b01c&ei=17
I agree there's plenty of blame to go around in our Nut Zero disaster, and the Conservatives share a good part of it, but Mad Ed is certainly its biggest originator and current proponent. And just for good measure dished out £11 billion in "climate aid" to foreigners, as though our own plans aren't ruinously expensive enough.
He is pretty certifiable, even for a fanatical socialist. And incompetent with it, as the CCS fiasco shows.
So if you want to go hard on the whole apostolic succession stuff then go for your (eternal) life.
If Labour just continues with the rollout of offshore wind then they will achieve a large chunk of their plans. The challenge is heat pumps and EVs, and I was very disappointed there wasn't more on that in the budget.
And there are no really long distances in the UK.
A few years off, but the next iteration of the Tesla Semi (which already has a range of nearly 500km), and its competitors, will be good enough to do the job.
Yet again, people believe Musk's own hype.
If a low level manager in an organisation systematically gundecked reports of abuse for decades, they’d be on “gardening leave” in 1 minute, followed by their possessions in a bag.
Then the organisation would be busy cooperating with the police about what charges etc, to try and “preserve their reputation”
Some solemn lectures about zero tolerance as the cherry on the cake.
What are some previously Safe R districts that trended left this cycle and could plausibly be under threat in a blue wave 2026?
MI-04, VA-01, NC-11, MO-02, WA-05 all strike me as potentials.
https://x.com/PoliticalKiwi/status/1856206679387382214
ianVisits
@ianvisits
As far as I can tell, the last time an Archbishop of Canterbury was forced to resign/sacked was 1690 when William Sancroft was removed after refusing to swear an oath of allegiance to William and Mary after Parliament deposed King James II.
https://x.com/ianvisits/status/1856028675868672102
We need to generate electricity. We can’t burn coal as we don’t have any, so we can’t copy the Chinese. We burnt off much of North Sea gas already. We’re functionally incompetent when it comes to building nukes. What we do have is wind. What you propose is that we ignore our abundant natural resource and instead be reliant on very expensive foreign resources. Great plan man.
Oh and bearing in mind that CO2 emissions can only really be considered on a worldwide basis as that is the only measure that matters
Worldwide CO2 emissions from 1940 to 2023
Well done Miliband for actually carrying out policy with purpose, something other parts of this new government are rightly criticised for not doing.
Up until now, there was a degree of plausible deniability; now it looks like open policy.
A Communist dictatorship without the efficiencies of the free market always seemed like an odd place for the Right to look to as a model to follow.
There has been so much information about climate change and its impacts (catastrophic) and what contributes to it (modern life) and yet people are still not willing to change their lifestyles unless under threat of penalty.
So perhaps we just need to understand that people don't want to change or don't believe the threat is sufficient.
We are either like Easter Island or the doom-mongers are like Gregory VII, uniquely able to understand the threat we are under and dictate to everyone else what actions should be taken.
My argument is that the statement is bullshit, for a number of reasons. What Ukraine needed at the start of the conflict was weapons, and it was those weapons - and the international support - that allowed their brave fighters to drive Russia out of much of Ukraine in early 2022. Musk was not there telling Russia to get out; AFAICR he was remarkably quiescent.
Finally: Musk is parroting Russian and tankie propaganda. It is untrue, and does nothing to help Ukraine.
Anyone who believes NATO and the US 'provoked' Russia into invading Ukraine is either a blithering idiot, or someone who is knowingly doing Putin's evil for him.
If this comes from the closed loop of bill payments it will be ruinously expensive, but I guess all the costs will be riding on the taxpayer and hidden in general expenditure with the laughable "wind is the cheapest form of electricity", if you ignore all the subsidy.
What we are incompetent at is managing projects - Hinkley Point C is built to a working French design but we insisted on a whole set of changes and other insane rules such as (supposedly) having both analogue and Digital monitoring of all sensors.
I'm also of the view that the positive externalities of mitigation measures are worth it, particularly offshore wind and EVs, regardless of the impact on global emissions. I think heat pumps will get there too - they are already a net benefit in places like the Highlands, where nearly half of all non-gas households rely solely on electric heating.
1 - 81% by 2035 is hardly demanding or a big change. Boris Johnson set a target of 78% by 2035 back in 2021, and he hard wired it into law. TBF the Tories then ran away from their own policy for arse-saving reasons.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-enshrines-new-target-in-law-to-slash-emissions-by-78-by-2035
2 - That scheme is mainly the Churchill Gardens estate, with 3200 properties of which 1600 are flats in mid-rise blocks (up to 9 stories), 1600 more are homes, and there are 60 businesses.
3 - A district heating system already exists (since 1958); it used to use excess heat from Battersea Power Station. It used to do the flats. The others were added in 2006, and the scheme updated.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Churchill_Gardens
4 - Much of it is listed (10 buildings) so hundreds of wall penetrations would not be possible - cf the obvious solution for this would perhaps be A2A heat pumps. Maybe that could work for the part that is houses, not the part that is flats.
5 - The £66k cost to install cited in the headline is (of course) for a 3/4 bed property, not a studio. At the other end it estimates £40k. Is this much for flats valued at £400k to £800k?
6 - The Times quotes £1500 to £5k for an electric boiler in a normal home. l'm not sure this applies here - these are not normal homes. That could require rewire of entire buildings to deliver the level of current required. and potentially the whole geographical area. A lot of it may even require 3-phase to the home (don't know enough to tell, but it's common).
7 - If they put Electric Boilers in the bills will skyrocket, and I think people living there would be complaining from the other side of their faces when they get their bills for the next 30 years.
The remedy for that is a proper refurbishment to say EPC B level; I don't know what the current standards are. Has this been considered - it has been done elsewhere? I suspect one problem is that that would require move-outs, and they would complain about *that* furiously.
Full article in case anyone has trouble accessing:
https://archive.ph/rByds
This place feels like Facebook sometimes.
(*) I take responses such as 'interesting' as lily-livered agreement. If he felt it was wrong, he should have said so.
Net zero on domestically produced goods may be possible with a huge increase in renewable energy, but we need other countries to do the same (or we stop importing from said countries).
And it will be hard to stop developing countries using fossil fuels, as even if renewables keep falling to be significantly cheaper than fossil fuels currently are, then the price of fossil fuels can just be cut until then are competitive again. That will reduce supply as the more expensive sources are priced out, but I'd be surprised if it was ever a majority of the market.
An utter path to ruinous. Replacing a system that is reliable and works with one that isnt and doesnt. It's not as if the information exists about this, it does.
You could say "lets work towards this and see where we get", but its not. We are lied to that that energy generation grid can be net zero by 2030. This is a lie. You know it is, I know it is, and you know I know you know it is.
https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1856172877688570095
(And see previous, like https://www.newsweek.com/nato-ally-leader-confronts-elon-musk-claim-about-alliance-1875362 )
I think 'interesting' is a low bar to call someone a tankie. It is quite possible of course his position has changed on Ukraine. It is a partisan issue in the US unlike here, but then despite what we have been doing, the heavy lifting has come from the american taxpayer.
The new technology keeps on getting cheaper and better. It makes your talking points outdated.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/watch-vampire-bats-run-on-a-tiny-treadmill-to-shed-light-on-their-blood-fueled-metabolism-180985414/
Also remember that the Conservatives spent their entire period of Government slashing fuel excise duty by the rate of inflation every single year.
Plus windfarms coming onstream up until the 2020s were the result of licensing rounds from before 2010, and the Cons did little or nothing on that front before Johnson.
Most developing countries are following the lead of China and making the transition to clean energy more quickly than the West has done. India is the outlier, alongside our friends in Russia, and they don’t seem to believe in air quality controls much either, so they can enjoy their stinky air and particulate deaths for a while longer.
I think the UK's optimal resource allocation will have to move towards adaptation sooner than people think (particularly if the US pathetically gives up on mitigation).
Hague is far from being alone among a generation of One Nation Tories who became accustomed to regarding themselves as get-with-the-programme modernisers just as the tide was going out on the progressive paradigm. One could say that George Osborne, Rory Stewart, David Gauke and Dominic Grieve are also among those wandering around an ideological wilderness while claiming it to be the promised land. It’s not where the voters live. Not these days.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/william-hague-donald-trump-and-the-lesson-of-eric-morecambe/
(BTW we've just bought a new place and are exploring heat pump options to replace the ancient boiler. Might end up getting some of these new electric heaters instead. Money where the mouth is, will keep you updated!)
Wow. What a wunderkind.
Ultimately the scale investments driving prices down are now coming from the US and China -purely given their size - rather than the UK. We've already reached a tipping point where subsidy is not needed for renewables to make sense at current fossil fuel prices.
I fail to see how this is advantageous to Ukraine or, in the medium and long term, the USA.
The examples you give there are both how the Government insist on a full tender and procurement evaluation before awarding anything to Rolls Royce (that will need to satisfy all sort of criteria) and how our own regulatory bodies insisted on all sort of changes to a functional design to get it "as safe as reasonably practical" (the last two words doing an awful lot of lifting.
We are actually quite good at managing projects.
Meanwhile, Trump is about to appoint a security advisor who favours letting the Ukranians bomb the hell out of Russian infrastructure and intends to drag Putin to the negotiating table from a position of weakness.
Answer this: how is Musky Baby parroting Russian propaganda helping Ukraine?
We have tried it out over decades, and we know what works. Anyone with a good quality house (new or renovated) will need a log burner designed for a narrowboat or caravan.
But who told you it could be done by 2030? The Net Zero set by the Conservative Government in 2021 is 2035.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/plans-unveiled-to-decarbonise-uk-power-system-by-2035
Thought so.
There was a good article somewhere comparing it to the dash for gas in the 90s, which happened very quickly too. I'll try and find it.
And remember how Musk threw his toys out of the pram and wanted the US government to pay him back for Starlink use. It's good business for him.
Maybe, if you want to be derogatory, rename him something that reflects a bad side of him - Elon Muscovy perhaps. But please not Musky Baby. Thanks
This is interesting, from Noah Smith. Cities swing strongly towards Trump. He blames the poor standard of (Democratic) local government. They are tolerant of crime, high-taxing, and hostile to new house building.
Sounds like a dad in Happy Days talking to one of the Fonz’s out of town friends in an attempt to be down with the youth.