The UK’s net zero plan targets zero emissions by 2050, despite its <1% global emissions compared to China’s >30%. I can’t help but critique the economic cost to agriculture and industry. Subsidies must balance sustainability and rural livelihoods.
What are your thoughts?
Ed should come back with his thoughts on sports cars and 1970s rock.
Miliband does not seem like an expert on energy either.
I'll take him over Jeremy Clarkson.
Why?
Why do you keep chuntering "why" at me?
'keep'?
I've asked in a couple of posts today. And that was because you made statements of opinion, and I wanted to explore your thinking a little more.
The UK’s net zero plan targets zero emissions by 2050, despite its <1% global emissions compared to China’s >30%. I can’t help but critique the economic cost to agriculture and industry. Subsidies must balance sustainability and rural livelihoods.
What are your thoughts?
Ed should come back with his thoughts on sports cars and 1970s rock.
Miliband does not seem like an expert on energy either.
I'll take him over Jeremy Clarkson.
Whatever your thoughts on Clarkson he has done more for farming in this country than a century of government ministers. Of course a lot of the time he is playing a role on camera. But I think he genuinely cares about his farm, about farming and about those around him.
Miliband is not a realist. He inhabits a dream like world at some distance from reality. There is every reason to embrace green technology and build a better world. But there is also the reality that some energy policies are nonsense, such as paying wind farm owners NOT to generate power. We ought to be benefitting from the huge increases in green energy yet somehow in the UK was are still paying the highest prices. What's gone wrong?
He's only been in a year. To me he looks like a cabinet minister with a strong sense of direction who's across his brief. Let's see how his decisions pan out over a term. I agree that our energy costs relative to other countries is a key metric. You don't want to succeed on emissions at the expense of growth and living standards.
"strong sense of direction"
LOL. Again, why?
What do you mean, why? I listen to him and to me he clearly does. How else would I judge him?
You can disagree with him but that's a different matter.
I would tend to agree the he has a 'strong sense of direction'. The problem is, it's not in the direction to a destination that anyone in their right mind would like to go to.
But you think climate change is a hoax, don't you. So that gives you a different perspective on things.
Yes, were I more fervent on the climate crisis, I'd be even angrier that Mental Milly is offshoring our manufacturing industry to big polluters China and India, and importing tankers of Saudi LNG and killing our own oil and gas industry.
Aren’t we setting an example and the rest of the world will follow ?
As was said on a podcast I listened to this week. We’re leading the charge on this but no one is following.
The UK’s net zero plan targets zero emissions by 2050, despite its <1% global emissions compared to China’s >30%. I can’t help but critique the economic cost to agriculture and industry. Subsidies must balance sustainability and rural livelihoods.
What are your thoughts?
Ed should come back with his thoughts on sports cars and 1970s rock.
Miliband does not seem like an expert on energy either.
I'll take him over Jeremy Clarkson.
Whatever your thoughts on Clarkson he has done more for farming in this country than a century of government ministers. Of course a lot of the time he is playing a role on camera. But I think he genuinely cares about his farm, about farming and about those around him.
Miliband is not a realist. He inhabits a dream like world at some distance from reality. There is every reason to embrace green technology and build a better world. But there is also the reality that some energy policies are nonsense, such as paying wind farm owners NOT to generate power. We ought to be benefitting from the huge increases in green energy yet somehow in the UK was are still paying the highest prices. What's gone wrong?
He's only been in a year. To me he looks like a cabinet minister with a strong sense of direction who's across his brief. Let's see how his decisions pan out over a term. I agree that our energy costs relative to other countries is a key metric. You don't want to succeed on emissions at the expense of growth and living standards.
"strong sense of direction"
LOL. Again, why?
What do you mean, why? I listen to him and to me he clearly does. How else would I judge him?
You can disagree with him but that's a different matter.
I would tend to agree the he has a 'strong sense of direction'. The problem is, it's not in the direction to a destination that anyone in their right mind would like to go to.
But you think climate change is a hoax, don't you. So that gives you a different perspective on things.
Yes, were I more fervent on the climate crisis, I'd be even angrier that Mental Milly is offshoring our manufacturing industry to big polluters China and India, and importing tankers of Saudi LNG and killing our own oil and gas industry.
He's the Energy Secretary for the UK. I think that’s a big enough job even for Ed.
The UK’s net zero plan targets zero emissions by 2050, despite its <1% global emissions compared to China’s >30%. I can’t help but critique the economic cost to agriculture and industry. Subsidies must balance sustainability and rural livelihoods.
What are your thoughts?
Ed should come back with his thoughts on sports cars and 1970s rock.
Miliband does not seem like an expert on energy either.
I'll take him over Jeremy Clarkson.
Why?
Why do you keep chuntering "why" at me?
'keep'?
I've asked in a couple of posts today. And that was because you made statements of opinion, and I wanted to explore your thinking a little more.
But it appears you had none...
Why do you say that?
You post a comment in a discussion forum it’s not unreasonable for someone to ask why you think that.
The UK’s net zero plan targets zero emissions by 2050, despite its <1% global emissions compared to China’s >30%. I can’t help but critique the economic cost to agriculture and industry. Subsidies must balance sustainability and rural livelihoods.
What are your thoughts?
Ed should come back with his thoughts on sports cars and 1970s rock.
Miliband does not seem like an expert on energy either.
I'll take him over Jeremy Clarkson.
Whatever your thoughts on Clarkson he has done more for farming in this country than a century of government ministers. Of course a lot of the time he is playing a role on camera. But I think he genuinely cares about his farm, about farming and about those around him.
Miliband is not a realist. He inhabits a dream like world at some distance from reality. There is every reason to embrace green technology and build a better world. But there is also the reality that some energy policies are nonsense, such as paying wind farm owners NOT to generate power. We ought to be benefitting from the huge increases in green energy yet somehow in the UK was are still paying the highest prices. What's gone wrong?
He's only been in a year. To me he looks like a cabinet minister with a strong sense of direction who's across his brief. Let's see how his decisions pan out over a term. I agree that our energy costs relative to other countries is a key metric. You don't want to succeed on emissions at the expense of growth and living standards.
"strong sense of direction"
LOL. Again, why?
What do you mean, why? I listen to him and to me he clearly does. How else would I judge him?
You can disagree with him but that's a different matter.
I would tend to agree the he has a 'strong sense of direction'. The problem is, it's not in the direction to a destination that anyone in their right mind would like to go to.
But you think climate change is a hoax, don't you. So that gives you a different perspective on things.
Yes, were I more fervent on the climate crisis, I'd be even angrier that Mental Milly is offshoring our manufacturing industry to big polluters China and India, and importing tankers of Saudi LNG and killing our own oil and gas industry.
Aren’t we setting an example and the rest of the world will follow ?
As was said on a podcast I listened to this week. We’re leading the charge on this but no one is following.
They are watching with a mixture of opportunistic gratitude and wincing horror as we lop off our own economical extremities. What on earth about our present plight do these silly tossbags think other countries want a piece of?
Bring back Concorde. It may not have been as big as Air Force One, but it was better.
I remember when Thatcher and Major would take the occasional big overseas trip on Concorde.
What a statement of arrival, that only the French could also replicate, neither the Americans nor the Soviets (although the latter tried and failed).
The Americans did much better than Concorde. They abandoned the Boeing 2707 SST. They built the 747 (and its companions the DC-10 etc.). Look which proved more profitable, moved far more people, etc.
A great illustration of problems with work done on our transport system not being joined up. 5 minutes.
Do something less well than it could be done at little more expense, and lock in 2nd best for another 50 years. We may not agree with all suggestions (mentions the B and P words), but the point is very valid.
(Greek Street Roundabout, Stockport)
An influencer who is photogenic to a PB quality, but does serious work on roads.
The UK’s net zero plan targets zero emissions by 2050, despite its <1% global emissions compared to China’s >30%. I can’t help but critique the economic cost to agriculture and industry. Subsidies must balance sustainability and rural livelihoods.
What are your thoughts?
Ed should come back with his thoughts on sports cars and 1970s rock.
Miliband does not seem like an expert on energy either.
I'll take him over Jeremy Clarkson.
Whatever your thoughts on Clarkson he has done more for farming in this country than a century of government ministers. Of course a lot of the time he is playing a role on camera. But I think he genuinely cares about his farm, about farming and about those around him.
Miliband is not a realist. He inhabits a dream like world at some distance from reality. There is every reason to embrace green technology and build a better world. But there is also the reality that some energy policies are nonsense, such as paying wind farm owners NOT to generate power. We ought to be benefitting from the huge increases in green energy yet somehow in the UK was are still paying the highest prices. What's gone wrong?
He's only been in a year. To me he looks like a cabinet minister with a strong sense of direction who's across his brief. Let's see how his decisions pan out over a term. I agree that our energy costs relative to other countries is a key metric. You don't want to succeed on emissions at the expense of growth and living standards.
"strong sense of direction"
LOL. Again, why?
What do you mean, why? I listen to him and to me he clearly does. How else would I judge him?
You can disagree with him but that's a different matter.
I would tend to agree the he has a 'strong sense of direction'. The problem is, it's not in the direction to a destination that anyone in their right mind would like to go to.
But you think climate change is a hoax, don't you. So that gives you a different perspective on things.
Yes, were I more fervent on the climate crisis, I'd be even angrier that Mental Milly is offshoring our manufacturing industry to big polluters China and India, and importing tankers of Saudi LNG and killing our own oil and gas industry.
He's the Energy Secretary for the UK. I think that’s a big enough job even for Ed.
The UK’s net zero plan targets zero emissions by 2050, despite its <1% global emissions compared to China’s >30%. I can’t help but critique the economic cost to agriculture and industry. Subsidies must balance sustainability and rural livelihoods.
What are your thoughts?
Ed should come back with his thoughts on sports cars and 1970s rock.
Miliband does not seem like an expert on energy either.
I'll take him over Jeremy Clarkson.
Whatever your thoughts on Clarkson he has done more for farming in this country than a century of government ministers. Of course a lot of the time he is playing a role on camera. But I think he genuinely cares about his farm, about farming and about those around him.
Miliband is not a realist. He inhabits a dream like world at some distance from reality. There is every reason to embrace green technology and build a better world. But there is also the reality that some energy policies are nonsense, such as paying wind farm owners NOT to generate power. We ought to be benefitting from the huge increases in green energy yet somehow in the UK was are still paying the highest prices. What's gone wrong?
He's only been in a year. To me he looks like a cabinet minister with a strong sense of direction who's across his brief. Let's see how his decisions pan out over a term. I agree that our energy costs relative to other countries is a key metric. You don't want to succeed on emissions at the expense of growth and living standards.
"strong sense of direction"
LOL. Again, why?
What do you mean, why? I listen to him and to me he clearly does. How else would I judge him?
You can disagree with him but that's a different matter.
Well, I listen to him too, and I get zero sense he knows about the energy sector *as a whole*. Green energy and net zero; yes. But the energy sector is about a darned sight more than that, and needs to be treated as a totality.
It seems to me that he thinks 'Net Zero' is a vote winner, and therefore that's what he concentrates on. Sadly, the issues facing energy are much bigger than that.
Well that's different perceptions of the man then. But I've already agreed with you that our relative energy costs (and security) are as important as progress on emissions when it comes to how Ed Miliband's tenure as Energy Sec is assessed.
We can summarise now: Sense of direction? Yes. The right direction? He thinks so. You don't.
A great illustration of problems with work done on our transport system not being joined up. 5 minutes.
Do something less well than it could be done at little more expense, and lock in 2nd best for another 50 years. We may not agree with all suggestions (mentions the B and P words), but the point is very valid.
(Greek Street Roundabout, Stockport)
An influencer who is photogenic to a PB quality, but does serious work on roads.
This work enabled me to do a quick hin und zuruck to Manchester 12 days ago via Heald Green (rare track avoiding the Airport!). Apparently the diversion lasts until Friday.
The UK’s net zero plan targets zero emissions by 2050, despite its <1% global emissions compared to China’s >30%. I can’t help but critique the economic cost to agriculture and industry. Subsidies must balance sustainability and rural livelihoods.
What are your thoughts?
Ed should come back with his thoughts on sports cars and 1970s rock.
Miliband does not seem like an expert on energy either.
I'll take him over Jeremy Clarkson.
Whatever your thoughts on Clarkson he has done more for farming in this country than a century of government ministers. Of course a lot of the time he is playing a role on camera. But I think he genuinely cares about his farm, about farming and about those around him.
Miliband is not a realist. He inhabits a dream like world at some distance from reality. There is every reason to embrace green technology and build a better world. But there is also the reality that some energy policies are nonsense, such as paying wind farm owners NOT to generate power. We ought to be benefitting from the huge increases in green energy yet somehow in the UK was are still paying the highest prices. What's gone wrong?
He's only been in a year. To me he looks like a cabinet minister with a strong sense of direction who's across his brief. Let's see how his decisions pan out over a term. I agree that our energy costs relative to other countries is a key metric. You don't want to succeed on emissions at the expense of growth and living standards.
"strong sense of direction"
LOL. Again, why?
What do you mean, why? I listen to him and to me he clearly does. How else would I judge him?
You can disagree with him but that's a different matter.
I would tend to agree the he has a 'strong sense of direction'. The problem is, it's not in the direction to a destination that anyone in their right mind would like to go to.
But you think climate change is a hoax, don't you. So that gives you a different perspective on things.
Yes, were I more fervent on the climate crisis, I'd be even angrier that Mental Milly is offshoring our manufacturing industry to big polluters China and India, and importing tankers of Saudi LNG and killing our own oil and gas industry.
He's the Energy Secretary for the UK. I think that’s a big enough job even for Ed.
The UK’s net zero plan targets zero emissions by 2050, despite its <1% global emissions compared to China’s >30%. I can’t help but critique the economic cost to agriculture and industry. Subsidies must balance sustainability and rural livelihoods.
What are your thoughts?
Ed should come back with his thoughts on sports cars and 1970s rock.
Miliband does not seem like an expert on energy either.
I'll take him over Jeremy Clarkson.
Whatever your thoughts on Clarkson he has done more for farming in this country than a century of government ministers. Of course a lot of the time he is playing a role on camera. But I think he genuinely cares about his farm, about farming and about those around him.
Miliband is not a realist. He inhabits a dream like world at some distance from reality. There is every reason to embrace green technology and build a better world. But there is also the reality that some energy policies are nonsense, such as paying wind farm owners NOT to generate power. We ought to be benefitting from the huge increases in green energy yet somehow in the UK was are still paying the highest prices. What's gone wrong?
He's only been in a year. To me he looks like a cabinet minister with a strong sense of direction who's across his brief. Let's see how his decisions pan out over a term. I agree that our energy costs relative to other countries is a key metric. You don't want to succeed on emissions at the expense of growth and living standards.
"strong sense of direction"
LOL. Again, why?
What do you mean, why? I listen to him and to me he clearly does. How else would I judge him?
You can disagree with him but that's a different matter.
I would tend to agree the he has a 'strong sense of direction'. The problem is, it's not in the direction to a destination that anyone in their right mind would like to go to.
But you think climate change is a hoax, don't you. So that gives you a different perspective on things.
Yes, were I more fervent on the climate crisis, I'd be even angrier that Mental Milly is offshoring our manufacturing industry to big polluters China and India, and importing tankers of Saudi LNG and killing our own oil and gas industry.
Aren’t we setting an example and the rest of the world will follow ?
As was said on a podcast I listened to this week. We’re leading the charge on this but no one is following.
Lots of other countries are following or are ahead of us(!), or otherwise taking action on climate change. Even China. Most countries in the world have net zero targets. One estimate is that countries representing 84% of the world population have net zero targets.
The UK has a legal target of 2050, as do Germany, France, Japan, Canada, Spain, Hungary, Greece, Chile, Colombia, Australia, New Zealand and many others. Sweden is going for 2045! Suriname had a 2050 target but have achieved it already!!
In terms of those following on behind, China's going for a later target (2060), as are Ukraine, Russia and Kazakhstan. India is later still (2070), but they're still going for it. Some other countries have pledges, but haven't put them into law in the same way, like Mexico (2050), Turkey (2053), Brazil (2050), Saudi Arabia (2060), etc.
The big exception is, of course, the US under Trump. Others without any discussion of targets include Iran, Iraq, Syria, North Korea, Venezuela, Cuba, Libya, Afghanistan and Somalia.
The UK’s net zero plan targets zero emissions by 2050, despite its <1% global emissions compared to China’s >30%. I can’t help but critique the economic cost to agriculture and industry. Subsidies must balance sustainability and rural livelihoods.
What are your thoughts?
Ed should come back with his thoughts on sports cars and 1970s rock.
Miliband does not seem like an expert on energy either.
I'll take him over Jeremy Clarkson.
Whatever your thoughts on Clarkson he has done more for farming in this country than a century of government ministers. Of course a lot of the time he is playing a role on camera. But I think he genuinely cares about his farm, about farming and about those around him.
Miliband is not a realist. He inhabits a dream like world at some distance from reality. There is every reason to embrace green technology and build a better world. But there is also the reality that some energy policies are nonsense, such as paying wind farm owners NOT to generate power. We ought to be benefitting from the huge increases in green energy yet somehow in the UK was are still paying the highest prices. What's gone wrong?
He's only been in a year. To me he looks like a cabinet minister with a strong sense of direction who's across his brief. Let's see how his decisions pan out over a term. I agree that our energy costs relative to other countries is a key metric. You don't want to succeed on emissions at the expense of growth and living standards.
"strong sense of direction"
LOL. Again, why?
What do you mean, why? I listen to him and to me he clearly does. How else would I judge him?
You can disagree with him but that's a different matter.
I would tend to agree the he has a 'strong sense of direction'. The problem is, it's not in the direction to a destination that anyone in their right mind would like to go to.
But you think climate change is a hoax, don't you. So that gives you a different perspective on things.
Yes, were I more fervent on the climate crisis, I'd be even angrier that Mental Milly is offshoring our manufacturing industry to big polluters China and India, and importing tankers of Saudi LNG and killing our own oil and gas industry.
Aren’t we setting an example and the rest of the world will follow ?
As was said on a podcast I listened to this week. We’re leading the charge on this but no one is following.
They are watching with a mixture of opportunistic gratitude and wincing horror as we lop off our own economical extremities. What on earth about our present plight do these silly tossbags think other countries want a piece of?
As per my post above, that's simply not true. Most countries have net zero targets. But given you hold to a fringe conspiracy theory view that climate change is a hoax, it's not surprising that you should be presenting misinformation.
The UK’s net zero plan targets zero emissions by 2050, despite its <1% global emissions compared to China’s >30%. I can’t help but critique the economic cost to agriculture and industry. Subsidies must balance sustainability and rural livelihoods.
What are your thoughts?
Ed should come back with his thoughts on sports cars and 1970s rock.
Miliband does not seem like an expert on energy either.
I'll take him over Jeremy Clarkson.
Why?
Why do you keep chuntering "why" at me?
'keep'?
I've asked in a couple of posts today. And that was because you made statements of opinion, and I wanted to explore your thinking a little more.
But it appears you had none...
Why do you say that?
You post a comment in a discussion forum it’s not unreasonable for someone to ask why you think that.
Bring back Concorde. It may not have been as big as Air Force One, but it was better.
I remember when Thatcher and Major would take the occasional big overseas trip on Concorde.
What a statement of arrival, that only the French could also replicate, neither the Americans nor the Soviets (although the latter tried and failed).
The Americans did much better than Concorde. They abandoned the Boeing 2707 SST. They built the 747 (and its companions the DC-10 etc.). Look which proved more profitable, moved far more people, etc.
Successful in business yes maybe, but it’s not a 747 or DC-10 of which I have a massive LEGO model on the shelf in my office!
They didn’t just fail, they never even built a prototype. Yet still managed to spend billions on the project.
As least the Soviets built a few aircraft.
I've seen some people claim that a lot of the money spent on the SST project was (ahem) used for other projects, such as the XB-70. I've no idea if that's true, but I can imagine a lot of the research, such as aerodynamic factors, tyres, heating, fuel systems etc, might be common between them.
The UK’s net zero plan targets zero emissions by 2050, despite its <1% global emissions compared to China’s >30%. I can’t help but critique the economic cost to agriculture and industry. Subsidies must balance sustainability and rural livelihoods.
What are your thoughts?
Ed should come back with his thoughts on sports cars and 1970s rock.
Some but almost none. Pass the URL to your favourite AI machine and ask it where the listed vehicles are built and it will come back looking like Leon's expense claims.
I don't do AI. I'm a holdout. But at least a couple on there have UK plants, I think. Could be wrong, I'm not particularly knowledgeable on the topic.
But anyway, what can you do if we're not making these things? That state of affairs is inherited by this government not created by it.
Well, we could subsidise the ones that are made here, or leave it to the market since the site claims it is cheaper anyway. Or see @Malmesbury's post.
Ok but if we want to use subsidies to drive take-up of something that helps with energy transition but is made predominantly overseas there's a conflict between two 'good' things, promoting domestic manufacture and promoting the transition. He's favouring the second. That's ok if it's been properly considered.
Except that the end result is the most expensive energy in the developed world.
That is not the end result of our subsidies for electric vehicles.
The UK’s net zero plan targets zero emissions by 2050, despite its <1% global emissions compared to China’s >30%. I can’t help but critique the economic cost to agriculture and industry. Subsidies must balance sustainability and rural livelihoods.
What are your thoughts?
Ed should come back with his thoughts on sports cars and 1970s rock.
Miliband does not seem like an expert on energy either.
I'll take him over Jeremy Clarkson.
Whatever your thoughts on Clarkson he has done more for farming in this country than a century of government ministers. Of course a lot of the time he is playing a role on camera. But I think he genuinely cares about his farm, about farming and about those around him.
Miliband is not a realist. He inhabits a dream like world at some distance from reality. There is every reason to embrace green technology and build a better world. But there is also the reality that some energy policies are nonsense, such as paying wind farm owners NOT to generate power. We ought to be benefitting from the huge increases in green energy yet somehow in the UK was are still paying the highest prices. What's gone wrong?
He's only been in a year. To me he looks like a cabinet minister with a strong sense of direction who's across his brief. Let's see how his decisions pan out over a term. I agree that our energy costs relative to other countries is a key metric. You don't want to succeed on emissions at the expense of growth and living standards.
"strong sense of direction"
LOL. Again, why?
What do you mean, why? I listen to him and to me he clearly does. How else would I judge him?
You can disagree with him but that's a different matter.
I would tend to agree the he has a 'strong sense of direction'. The problem is, it's not in the direction to a destination that anyone in their right mind would like to go to.
But you think climate change is a hoax, don't you. So that gives you a different perspective on things.
Yes, were I more fervent on the climate crisis, I'd be even angrier that Mental Milly is offshoring our manufacturing industry to big polluters China and India, and importing tankers of Saudi LNG and killing our own oil and gas industry.
He's the Energy Secretary for the UK. I think that’s a big enough job even for Ed.
When I think of Ed I think of a Big job
You rate him then? Or are you in the 'climate zealot' camp?
But it's hard to stop wealthy people using their power and resource to achieve better outcomes.
Most recent example of two-tier justice would seem to be Standish vs Standish, if you're very wealthy then you get to keep your pre-marital assets because in practice these didn't have to be "shared" to buy the family home etc, while if you're not very wealthy and the pre-marital assets were pooled for housing etc then you have to split them.
The UK’s net zero plan targets zero emissions by 2050, despite its <1% global emissions compared to China’s >30%. I can’t help but critique the economic cost to agriculture and industry. Subsidies must balance sustainability and rural livelihoods.
What are your thoughts?
Ed should come back with his thoughts on sports cars and 1970s rock.
Miliband does not seem like an expert on energy either.
I'll take him over Jeremy Clarkson.
Whatever your thoughts on Clarkson he has done more for farming in this country than a century of government ministers. Of course a lot of the time he is playing a role on camera. But I think he genuinely cares about his farm, about farming and about those around him.
Miliband is not a realist. He inhabits a dream like world at some distance from reality. There is every reason to embrace green technology and build a better world. But there is also the reality that some energy policies are nonsense, such as paying wind farm owners NOT to generate power. We ought to be benefitting from the huge increases in green energy yet somehow in the UK was are still paying the highest prices. What's gone wrong?
He's only been in a year. To me he looks like a cabinet minister with a strong sense of direction who's across his brief. Let's see how his decisions pan out over a term. I agree that our energy costs relative to other countries is a key metric. You don't want to succeed on emissions at the expense of growth and living standards.
"strong sense of direction"
LOL. Again, why?
What do you mean, why? I listen to him and to me he clearly does. How else would I judge him?
You can disagree with him but that's a different matter.
I would tend to agree the he has a 'strong sense of direction'. The problem is, it's not in the direction to a destination that anyone in their right mind would like to go to.
But you think climate change is a hoax, don't you. So that gives you a different perspective on things.
Yes, were I more fervent on the climate crisis, I'd be even angrier that Mental Milly is offshoring our manufacturing industry to big polluters China and India, and importing tankers of Saudi LNG and killing our own oil and gas industry.
Aren’t we setting an example and the rest of the world will follow ?
As was said on a podcast I listened to this week. We’re leading the charge on this but no one is following.
They are watching with a mixture of opportunistic gratitude and wincing horror as we lop off our own economical extremities. What on earth about our present plight do these silly tossbags think other countries want a piece of?
As per my post above, that's simply not true. Most countries have net zero targets. But given you hold to a fringe conspiracy theory view that climate change is a hoax, it's not surprising that you should be presenting misinformation.
They didn’t just fail, they never even built a prototype. Yet still managed to spend billions on the project.
As least the Soviets built a few aircraft.
I've seen some people claim that a lot of the money spent on the SST project was (ahem) used for other projects, such as the XB-70. I've no idea if that's true, but I can imagine a lot of the research, such as aerodynamic factors, tyres, heating, fuel systems etc, might be common between them.
The US Military Industrial Complex are longstanding masters at finding ways to fund covert projects, when Congress is supposedly allowed to micromanage the budget line by line.
The UK’s net zero plan targets zero emissions by 2050, despite its <1% global emissions compared to China’s >30%. I can’t help but critique the economic cost to agriculture and industry. Subsidies must balance sustainability and rural livelihoods.
What are your thoughts?
Ed should come back with his thoughts on sports cars and 1970s rock.
Miliband does not seem like an expert on energy either.
I'll take him over Jeremy Clarkson.
Whatever your thoughts on Clarkson he has done more for farming in this country than a century of government ministers. Of course a lot of the time he is playing a role on camera. But I think he genuinely cares about his farm, about farming and about those around him.
Miliband is not a realist. He inhabits a dream like world at some distance from reality. There is every reason to embrace green technology and build a better world. But there is also the reality that some energy policies are nonsense, such as paying wind farm owners NOT to generate power. We ought to be benefitting from the huge increases in green energy yet somehow in the UK was are still paying the highest prices. What's gone wrong?
He's only been in a year. To me he looks like a cabinet minister with a strong sense of direction who's across his brief. Let's see how his decisions pan out over a term. I agree that our energy costs relative to other countries is a key metric. You don't want to succeed on emissions at the expense of growth and living standards.
"strong sense of direction"
LOL. Again, why?
What do you mean, why? I listen to him and to me he clearly does. How else would I judge him?
You can disagree with him but that's a different matter.
I would tend to agree the he has a 'strong sense of direction'. The problem is, it's not in the direction to a destination that anyone in their right mind would like to go to.
But you think climate change is a hoax, don't you. So that gives you a different perspective on things.
Yes, were I more fervent on the climate crisis, I'd be even angrier that Mental Milly is offshoring our manufacturing industry to big polluters China and India, and importing tankers of Saudi LNG and killing our own oil and gas industry.
He's the Energy Secretary for the UK. I think that’s a big enough job even for Ed.
When I think of Ed I think of a Big job
Never the right man for a number 1. Number 2 best he could be.
The UK’s net zero plan targets zero emissions by 2050, despite its <1% global emissions compared to China’s >30%. I can’t help but critique the economic cost to agriculture and industry. Subsidies must balance sustainability and rural livelihoods.
What are your thoughts?
Ed should come back with his thoughts on sports cars and 1970s rock.
Miliband does not seem like an expert on energy either.
I'll take him over Jeremy Clarkson.
Whatever your thoughts on Clarkson he has done more for farming in this country than a century of government ministers. Of course a lot of the time he is playing a role on camera. But I think he genuinely cares about his farm, about farming and about those around him.
Miliband is not a realist. He inhabits a dream like world at some distance from reality. There is every reason to embrace green technology and build a better world. But there is also the reality that some energy policies are nonsense, such as paying wind farm owners NOT to generate power. We ought to be benefitting from the huge increases in green energy yet somehow in the UK was are still paying the highest prices. What's gone wrong?
He's only been in a year. To me he looks like a cabinet minister with a strong sense of direction who's across his brief. Let's see how his decisions pan out over a term. I agree that our energy costs relative to other countries is a key metric. You don't want to succeed on emissions at the expense of growth and living standards.
"strong sense of direction"
LOL. Again, why?
What do you mean, why? I listen to him and to me he clearly does. How else would I judge him?
You can disagree with him but that's a different matter.
I would tend to agree the he has a 'strong sense of direction'. The problem is, it's not in the direction to a destination that anyone in their right mind would like to go to.
But you think climate change is a hoax, don't you. So that gives you a different perspective on things.
Yes, were I more fervent on the climate crisis, I'd be even angrier that Mental Milly is offshoring our manufacturing industry to big polluters China and India, and importing tankers of Saudi LNG and killing our own oil and gas industry.
He's the Energy Secretary for the UK. I think that’s a big enough job even for Ed.
When I think of Ed I think of a Big job
You rate him then? Or are you in the 'climate zealot' camp?
He’s a zealot, I don’t really rate him. That’s not to say I think climate change is a hoax, I don’t.
They didn’t just fail, they never even built a prototype. Yet still managed to spend billions on the project.
As least the Soviets built a few aircraft.
I've seen some people claim that a lot of the money spent on the SST project was (ahem) used for other projects, such as the XB-70. I've no idea if that's true, but I can imagine a lot of the research, such as aerodynamic factors, tyres, heating, fuel systems etc, might be common between them.
The US Military Industrial Complex are longstanding masters at finding ways to fund covert projects, when Congress is supposedly allowed to micromanage the budget line by line.
North American had their own SST design, based on their XB-70.
The UK’s net zero plan targets zero emissions by 2050, despite its <1% global emissions compared to China’s >30%. I can’t help but critique the economic cost to agriculture and industry. Subsidies must balance sustainability and rural livelihoods.
What are your thoughts?
Ed should come back with his thoughts on sports cars and 1970s rock.
Miliband does not seem like an expert on energy either.
I'll take him over Jeremy Clarkson.
Whatever your thoughts on Clarkson he has done more for farming in this country than a century of government ministers. Of course a lot of the time he is playing a role on camera. But I think he genuinely cares about his farm, about farming and about those around him.
Miliband is not a realist. He inhabits a dream like world at some distance from reality. There is every reason to embrace green technology and build a better world. But there is also the reality that some energy policies are nonsense, such as paying wind farm owners NOT to generate power. We ought to be benefitting from the huge increases in green energy yet somehow in the UK was are still paying the highest prices. What's gone wrong?
He's only been in a year. To me he looks like a cabinet minister with a strong sense of direction who's across his brief. Let's see how his decisions pan out over a term. I agree that our energy costs relative to other countries is a key metric. You don't want to succeed on emissions at the expense of growth and living standards.
"strong sense of direction"
LOL. Again, why?
What do you mean, why? I listen to him and to me he clearly does. How else would I judge him?
You can disagree with him but that's a different matter.
I would tend to agree the he has a 'strong sense of direction'. The problem is, it's not in the direction to a destination that anyone in their right mind would like to go to.
But you think climate change is a hoax, don't you. So that gives you a different perspective on things.
Yes, were I more fervent on the climate crisis, I'd be even angrier that Mental Milly is offshoring our manufacturing industry to big polluters China and India, and importing tankers of Saudi LNG and killing our own oil and gas industry.
He's the Energy Secretary for the UK. I think that’s a big enough job even for Ed.
When I think of Ed I think of a Big job
You rate him then? Or are you in the 'climate zealot' camp?
He’s a zealot, I don’t really rate him. That’s not to say I think climate change is a hoax, I don’t.
My prediction FWIW,
- Miliband will make progress in the face of concerted Nimbyism on energy storage, power transmission but the opposition will mean it takes longer than planned. - The credit for the long-benefits it delivers will be claimed by the government following the current one - The government following the current one will stall, or worse undo, the progress he makes.
OMG. A reporter asked Zelensky whether he would hold elections if war ended and he replied 'of course' and said they couldn't be held whilst their was fighting and Trump jumps right in and says so if a country it is at war, thinking of three years from now, it is ok not to hold elections and starts grinning.
OMG. A reporter asked Zelensky whether he would hold elections if war ended and he replied 'of course' and said they couldn't be held whilst their was fighting and Trump jumps right in and says so if a country it is at war, thinking of three years from now, it is ok not to hold elections and starts grinning.
OMG. A reporter asked Zelensky whether he would hold elections if war ended and he replied 'of course' and said they couldn't be held whilst their was fighting and Trump jumps right in and says so if a country it is at war, thinking of three years from now, it is ok not to hold elections and starts grinning.
Well, that’s not terrifying at all
Not surprising to be honest.
There is no way he will leave the WH voluntarily.
He grins and laughs slightly and he knows the Dem Internet sphere just lit up.
OMG. A reporter asked Zelensky whether he would hold elections if war ended and he replied 'of course' and said they couldn't be held whilst their was fighting and Trump jumps right in and says so if a country it is at war, thinking of three years from now, it is ok not to hold elections and starts grinning.
Well, that’s not terrifying at all
Not surprising to be honest.
There is no way he will leave the WH voluntarily.
He grins and laughs slightly and he knows the Dem Internet sphere just lit up.
They held elections during their Civil War, so I guess he needs something bigger than that...
OMG. A reporter asked Zelensky whether he would hold elections if war ended and he replied 'of course' and said they couldn't be held whilst their was fighting and Trump jumps right in and says so if a country it is at war, thinking of three years from now, it is ok not to hold elections and starts grinning.
Well, that’s not terrifying at all
Not surprising to be honest.
There is no way he will leave the WH voluntarily.
He grins and laughs slightly and he knows the Dem Internet sphere just lit up.
They held elections during their Civil War, so I guess he needs something bigger than that...
He might get both the way the GOP is allowing him to head.
OMG. A reporter asked Zelensky whether he would hold elections if war ended and he replied 'of course' and said they couldn't be held whilst their was fighting and Trump jumps right in and says so if a country it is at war, thinking of three years from now, it is ok not to hold elections and starts grinning.
Well, that’s not terrifying at all
Not surprising to be honest.
There is no way he will leave the WH voluntarily.
He grins and laughs slightly and he knows the Dem Internet sphere just lit up.
They held elections during their Civil War, so I guess he needs something bigger than that...
He might get both the way the GOP is allowing him to head.
In the 1864 election those states not under Washington’s control didn’t vote at all.
The UK’s net zero plan targets zero emissions by 2050, despite its <1% global emissions compared to China’s >30%. I can’t help but critique the economic cost to agriculture and industry. Subsidies must balance sustainability and rural livelihoods.
What are your thoughts?
Ed should come back with his thoughts on sports cars and 1970s rock.
Miliband does not seem like an expert on energy either.
I'll take him over Jeremy Clarkson.
Whatever your thoughts on Clarkson he has done more for farming in this country than a century of government ministers. Of course a lot of the time he is playing a role on camera. But I think he genuinely cares about his farm, about farming and about those around him.
Miliband is not a realist. He inhabits a dream like world at some distance from reality. There is every reason to embrace green technology and build a better world. But there is also the reality that some energy policies are nonsense, such as paying wind farm owners NOT to generate power. We ought to be benefitting from the huge increases in green energy yet somehow in the UK was are still paying the highest prices. What's gone wrong?
He's only been in a year. To me he looks like a cabinet minister with a strong sense of direction who's across his brief. Let's see how his decisions pan out over a term. I agree that our energy costs relative to other countries is a key metric. You don't want to succeed on emissions at the expense of growth and living standards.
"strong sense of direction"
LOL. Again, why?
What do you mean, why? I listen to him and to me he clearly does. How else would I judge him?
You can disagree with him but that's a different matter.
I would tend to agree the he has a 'strong sense of direction'. The problem is, it's not in the direction to a destination that anyone in their right mind would like to go to.
But you think climate change is a hoax, don't you. So that gives you a different perspective on things.
Yes, were I more fervent on the climate crisis, I'd be even angrier that Mental Milly is offshoring our manufacturing industry to big polluters China and India, and importing tankers of Saudi LNG and killing our own oil and gas industry.
He's the Energy Secretary for the UK. I think that’s a big enough job even for Ed.
When I think of Ed I think of a Big job
You rate him then? Or are you in the 'climate zealot' camp?
He’s a zealot, I don’t really rate him. That’s not to say I think climate change is a hoax, I don’t.
No, didn't think you were a CCD. Sorry Ed isn't doing it for you. There's time though. He's just getting going.
OMG. A reporter asked Zelensky whether he would hold elections if war ended and he replied 'of course' and said they couldn't be held whilst their was fighting and Trump jumps right in and says so if a country it is at war, thinking of three years from now, it is ok not to hold elections and starts grinning.
Well, that’s not terrifying at all
Not surprising to be honest.
There is no way he will leave the WH voluntarily.
He grins and laughs slightly and he knows the Dem Internet sphere just lit up.
They held elections during their Civil War, so I guess he needs something bigger than that...
He might get both the way the GOP is allowing him to head.
In the 1864 election those states not under Washington’s control didn’t vote at all.
Trump might be thinking of that as a precedent…
Blighty held no national elections between 1910 and 1918 (due to WW1), and between 1935 and 1945 (due to WW2).
OMG. A reporter asked Zelensky whether he would hold elections if war ended and he replied 'of course' and said they couldn't be held whilst their was fighting and Trump jumps right in and says so if a country it is at war, thinking of three years from now, it is ok not to hold elections and starts grinning.
Well, that’s not terrifying at all
Not surprising to be honest.
There is no way he will leave the WH voluntarily.
He grins and laughs slightly and he knows the Dem Internet sphere just lit up.
They held elections during their Civil War, so I guess he needs something bigger than that...
He might get both the way the GOP is allowing him to head.
In the 1864 election those states not under Washington’s control didn’t vote at all.
Trump might be thinking of that as a precedent…
Blighty held no national elections between 1910 and 1918 (due to WW1), and between 1935 and 1945 (due to WW2).
Ironically, the 1915 election was due to be the first general election mandated at a five year rather than a seven year interval.
OMG. A reporter asked Zelensky whether he would hold elections if war ended and he replied 'of course' and said they couldn't be held whilst their was fighting and Trump jumps right in and says so if a country it is at war, thinking of three years from now, it is ok not to hold elections and starts grinning.
Well, that’s not terrifying at all
Not surprising to be honest.
There is no way he will leave the WH voluntarily.
He grins and laughs slightly and he knows the Dem Internet sphere just lit up.
They held elections during their Civil War, so I guess he needs something bigger than that...
He might get both the way the GOP is allowing him to head.
In the 1864 election those states not under Washington’s control didn’t vote at all.
I don't want to be cynical about the apparently novel new 'bibliotherapy', but I am a little surprised we are having to relearn the idea that reading fiction can be relaxing, good for your mental health, and help you deal with real world issues by taking lessons from it.
Was that something society no longer realised you could do with books?
I just was blown away," Russell recalls. Learning from the lessons and mistakes of fictional characters helped her process what she was going through and made her feel less alone. "It opened up something in me that needed to be opened and needed to heal," she says. ...
While the benefits of self-help literature are well documented, advocates of fiction-based or "creative bibliotherapy" claim similar advantages. They argue that immersing oneself in rich, simulated worlds – often reflective of real-life experiences – can help readers process emotions, discover coping strategies, or simply provide momentary escape from their everyday woes. https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20250616-how-bibliotherapy-can-both-help-and-harm-your-mental-health
OMG. A reporter asked Zelensky whether he would hold elections if war ended and he replied 'of course' and said they couldn't be held whilst their was fighting and Trump jumps right in and says so if a country it is at war, thinking of three years from now, it is ok not to hold elections and starts grinning.
Well, that’s not terrifying at all
Not surprising to be honest.
There is no way he will leave the WH voluntarily.
He grins and laughs slightly and he knows the Dem Internet sphere just lit up.
I think he will leave it now, since the courts have ensured he will never have to face consequences for anything has done, given the broadness of their immunity ruling. The question is how far he abuses that broadness, and the 'shock' that the Justices will have that he would do so after they gave him the green light.
The fxckwit reporter talking about the suit and now fellating Trump .
Does Trump know there were no elections in Britain 1935-1945, because WW2 intervened?
America had an election in 1944.
The reporter was trying to make a thing of Ukraine holding no elections during wartime. He should learn a little British history.
I don’t imagine MTG could handle two massive erections.
But as we’re talking about her husband and Trump she doesn’t have to.
I saw some tweets from someone called Laura Loomer making some rather risqué comments about MTG’s oral proclivities.
😱😱😱😱
Loomer is the unofficial head of the DJT fan club. To be fair to her she’s also a pretty good investigative journalist who finds all sorts of crap on people who disagree with her. She’s not much of a fan of Rep. Greene.
The fxckwit reporter talking about the suit and now fellating Trump .
Does Trump know there were no elections in Britain 1935-1945, because WW2 intervened?
America had an election in 1944.
The reporter was trying to make a thing of Ukraine holding no elections during wartime. He should learn a little British history.
You too by the sound of it. Who was Prime Minister on VJ Day?
I think his point was clear even if the war was still going on away from Europe, about war which might reasonably interfere with the usual events at home.
Looking at how they suspended is quite amusing, apparently they just kept passing prolongation acts, so one which said the max duration was 6 years, then next year pass one saying the duration could be 7 years, until the last one which said it could be 10.
Donald Trump said a ceasefire was not necessary for peace in Ukraine, saying a deal could be worked out while the two countries are at war.
“I don’t think you need a ceasefire. You know, if you look at the six deals that I settled this year, they were all at war, I didn’t do any ceasefires,” the US president said alongside Mr Zelensky.
The fxckwit reporter talking about the suit and now fellating Trump .
Does Trump know there were no elections in Britain 1935-1945, because WW2 intervened?
America had an election in 1944.
The reporter was trying to make a thing of Ukraine holding no elections during wartime. He should learn a little British history.
You too by the sound of it. Who was Prime Minister on VJ Day?
Dreadful speech he gave too.
Although Churchill wanted to continue the wartime coalition until the end of the war in the Pacific. It was Attlee who jibbed.
So perhaps we should show Sunil some clementcy on that point.
I'm not sure that history will respect your clementcy. I find it amazing, when you look at his term, as to how awful it was. (Maybe I've got it wrong, but I don't think so). Atlee, not Sunil - he'd sort out the trains!
Do American “Journalists” understand just how badly they come across to the rest of the world, when literally hundreds of millions of people are watching?
Comments
As was said on a podcast I listened to this week. We’re leading the charge on this but no one is following.
A great illustration of problems with work done on our transport system not being joined up. 5 minutes.
Do something less well than it could be done at little more expense, and lock in 2nd best for another 50 years. We may not agree with all suggestions (mentions the B and P words), but the point is very valid.
(Greek Street Roundabout, Stockport)
An influencer who is photogenic to a PB quality, but does serious work on roads.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zXr7WjJJEwY
We can summarise now: Sense of direction? Yes. The right direction? He thinks so. You don't.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_2707
The UK has a legal target of 2050, as do Germany, France, Japan, Canada, Spain, Hungary, Greece, Chile, Colombia, Australia, New Zealand and many others. Sweden is going for 2045! Suriname had a 2050 target but have achieved it already!!
In terms of those following on behind, China's going for a later target (2060), as are Ukraine, Russia and Kazakhstan. India is later still (2070), but they're still going for it. Some other countries have pledges, but haven't put them into law in the same way, like Mexico (2050), Turkey (2053), Brazil (2050), Saudi Arabia (2060), etc.
The big exception is, of course, the US under Trump. Others without any discussion of targets include Iran, Iraq, Syria, North Korea, Venezuela, Cuba, Libya, Afghanistan and Somalia.
As least the Soviets built a few aircraft.
https://x.com/kobeissiletter/status/1957482336666468419?s=61
Not good.
https://x.com/moving_charlie/status/1957485309114863802?s=61
- Miliband will make progress in the face of concerted Nimbyism on energy storage, power transmission but the opposition will mean it takes longer than planned.
- The credit for the long-benefits it delivers will be claimed by the government following the current one
- The government following the current one will stall, or worse undo, the progress he makes.
Or has that been another casualty of Trump 2.0?
There is no way he will leave the WH voluntarily.
He grins and laughs slightly and he knows the Dem Internet sphere just lit up.
This show is turning from Ukraine to a discussion about how Trump is never leaving the WH except in a pine box.
Why are these moronic reporters asking about mail in ballots .
Presumably to get updated orders.
Not that Trump is any way interested in improving US elections unless he benefits from the changes.
Trump might be thinking of that as a precedent…
But as we’re talking about her husband and Trump she doesn’t have to.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1876_United_States_presidential_election#Electoral_disputes_and_Compromise_of_1877
Was that something society no longer realised you could do with books?
I just was blown away," Russell recalls. Learning from the lessons and mistakes of fictional characters helped her process what she was going through and made her feel less alone. "It opened up something in me that needed to be opened and needed to heal," she says. ...
While the benefits of self-help literature are well documented, advocates of fiction-based or "creative bibliotherapy" claim similar advantages. They argue that immersing oneself in rich, simulated worlds – often reflective of real-life experiences – can help readers process emotions, discover coping strategies, or simply provide momentary escape from their everyday woes.
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20250616-how-bibliotherapy-can-both-help-and-harm-your-mental-health
Great people on both sides.
https://www.thetimes.com/comment/columnists/article/if-police-cant-stop-shop-theft-lets-try-the-stocks-92xrjrp09
😱😱😱😱
https://x.com/lauraloomer
She’s currently suing comedian Bill Maher, for his alleging that she was having an affair with the president before the election.
Loomer also hates Pam Bondi.
Crazy stuff !!
So perhaps we should show Sunil some clementcy on that point.
Looking at how they suspended is quite amusing, apparently they just kept passing prolongation acts, so one which said the max duration was 6 years, then next year pass one saying the duration could be 7 years, until the last one which said it could be 10.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo6/7-8/45/enacted
And why did we never changed the name of the Septennial Act when the duration was reduced again?
I’d sooner not watch.
Will the government now proscribe Plasticine Action, on the basis that could morph into something more sinister?
“I don’t think you need a ceasefire. You know, if you look at the six deals that I settled this year, they were all at war, I didn’t do any ceasefires,” the US president said alongside Mr Zelensky.
Trying to work out these 6 wars he has ended.