“they will not be able to fly as much, have to buy electric cars, eat less meat and completely renovate their home at vast expense to eradicate gas boilers”
That is what is going to be necessary, though. Moving from the century of oil & gas to a zero-carbon century is going to require serious sacrifices.
May as well be honest about it. People see through the political framing bullshit, and then get angry.
Is it worth it? It seems to be presumed that 2deg C of warming is such a potential catastrophe that its worth any amount of sacrifice to avoid it. This is a dubious assumption on two grounds:
1) Other than loudly bleating about the "scientific consensus" being that warming is bad, and periodically blaming any bad weather of any kind on global warming (usually just as unsupported assertion) no one seems to want to talk about what a given degree of warning might mean. It would be logical to expect both winners and losers from the process to start with, but no one seems to want to talk about any potential gains, only losses, and only then in the most nebulous of terms.
2) Even if the answer to "1)" is indeed warning is very bad, it doesn't mean that preventing it is of infinite utility, or even necessarily greater utility than the things which cause the warning. Owning a house is of great utility to me, but that doesn't mean it would be wise to auction off my underwear and put the cash towards a house - partly because the value raised would be meaningless against a house, and mainly because I'd find having cold nuts/and or being arrested for public indecency a far bigger deal than not owning a house.
In a global context, the west has done its bit on emissions, and then some. We're howling at the moon if we think that the Chinese care about our latest efforts to vitue signal our way to the stone age, or have any serious intention to reduce emissions any more than is convenient for them anyway.
We're just offering them another chance to take advantage of our willingness to trash our Western lives (particularly for the poor) so our leaders can strutt about and preen themselves to each other, before jetting off to the next global summit on poverty.
Any serious attempt to implement Boris's new target will result in a drop in living standards for working people of a size never seen before. What I can't understand is why the left is just nodding along to this - they should be screaming about the injustices that will result, where only the wealthy can fly abroad, where only the wealthy can drive long distances, where only the wealthy can heat their homes, or eat steak - because that is the reality of the future we're signed up thanks to successive governments of several hues.
2 degrees global warmer is probably no big deal for the UK, but it sucks if you are Bangladesh.
Off topic. Well it is betting related. This is pretty much the first choice Everton eleven. Only Holgate in for Keane. Something we haven't had since we were top of the league after 5 games. It is a long way from Arsenal's best possible line up. Nketiah on his own up front. We haven't won at Arsenal since 1996. We won't get a better chance...
Forget WBA beating Chelsea, Leeds beating Man City, Leicester winning the EPL....most EPL teams, your never even keeping your stars players for more than a season or two. There is no dream....
That is more to do with the distribution of shared TV and commercial revenues.
In Germany the bottom club receives about 40% of the top club and then gets relegated to a league with far lower revenue. In England the bottom club receives about 60% of the top club, and then gets significant parachute payments.
Chicken and egg.....EPL is big bucks around the world, because it is such a competitive and exciting league, so can afford to share the money. Millions aren't getting up at all hours to watch every Bundersliga games.
Spanish, Italian and English top flights have all had periods of dominance, no reason the German league couldnt get there if they get it right. That would involve Bayern giving the others a chance to catch up through more equal revenue, at the expense of Bayerns Champions League progress for 5-10 years. Such a gamble may or may not pay off, but it is necessary for the Bundesliga to even have a chance at the top spot for drama and quality.
Good luck selling that....ok lads, right Liverpool, Man Utd, Man City, you have to got to get a lot crappier, forget competing for the Champions League.....the rest, you are still going to be crapper, the best players aren't going to be here, but it will be great as we can all play shitter football on a slightly more level playing field.
And less money coming in, the only way get cheaper ticket prices is big cuts to player salaries, so that again makes even less likely the best player come.
Forget WBA beating Chelsea, Leeds beating Man City, Leicester winning the EPL....most EPL teams, your never even keeping your stars players for more than a season or two. There is no dream....
That is more to do with the distribution of shared TV and commercial revenues.
In Germany the bottom club receives about 40% of the top club and then gets relegated to a league with far lower revenue. In England the bottom club receives about 60% of the top club, and then gets significant parachute payments.
Chicken and egg.....EPL is big bucks around the world, because it is such a competitive and exciting league, so can afford to share that massive pie. The tv deals for the foreign coverage is now basically as big as the Sky deal.
Millions aren't getting up at all hours to watch every Bundersliga games.
The PL owes a lot to Arsene Wenger and Roman Abramovich. But the PL’s in-built advantages won’t disappear with the Americans and petro-dollars.
What’s vital is to keep the Tv money distributed reasonably evenly.
The US seems to have reached peak demand. On present trends, we'll overtake their vaccination rate again soon.
Vaccines are available in pretty much any pharmacy now. In some US states (Alabama, etc) they seem to be at only about 30% of the adult population vaccinated, and the numbers getting jabbed are falling every day.
While California, New York and other liberal areas are probably going to see vaccination rates of 65%+, you might well see endemic Covid problems in other parts of the country.
So why is Jo Biden still sitting on his vaccine stockpile - especially the non-approved Az/J&J - like a broody old chuck?
I understand that even the legal impediments are fairly trivial.
Could you be a bit more specific as to what outrage JoE Biden is committing re: vac?
Forget WBA beating Chelsea, Leeds beating Man City, Leicester winning the EPL....most EPL teams, your never even keeping your stars players for more than a season or two. There is no dream....
That is more to do with the distribution of shared TV and commercial revenues.
In Germany the bottom club receives about 40% of the top club and then gets relegated to a league with far lower revenue. In England the bottom club receives about 60% of the top club, and then gets significant parachute payments.
Chicken and egg.....EPL is big bucks around the world, because it is such a competitive and exciting league, so can afford to share that massive pie. The tv deals for the foreign coverage is now basically as big as the Sky deal.
Millions aren't getting up at all hours to watch every Bundersliga games.
The PL owes a lot to Arsene Wenger and Roman Abramovich. But the PL’s in-built advantages won’t disappear with the Americans and petro-dollars.
What’s vital is to keep the Tv money distributed reasonably evenly.
Well and the big bucks from the tv deals....half of which comes from overseas markets. And people from China to Canada aren't getting up at all hours to watch weird named clubs in other leagues, it is because the EPL is the most exciting competitive league with on average better players distributed across all the teams.
Weren't people excitedly pasting tweets that it had all fallen apart because of some 'insult' ?
The UK is on track to sign a free trade deal with Australia in June after “major breakthroughs” in this week’s negotiations, international trade secretary Liz Truss has said this afternoon.
She added that the remainder of the details would be sorted out in a “sprint” over the next few weeks.
And thus the narrative moves swiftly on from "Ha! Aren't they hopeless, can't even talk to Australia without insulting them?!" to "Why are they bothering with puny, pathetic Australia, when all that matters is the EU?" Or something.
Still seems like "rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic to me". It's no surprise all the Boris Fanboys jumping on the like button.
One's not a substitute for the other, but (a) it's also considerably more than nothing, and (b) these arrangements will build in value over time.
Besides which, (c) Europe accounts for an ever-decreasing share of world economic activity, and it may very well turn out that the British Government has more to gain in the long run from functioning as an independent actor when dealing with everyone else than it does from being a peripheral member of a protectionist bloc. We shall find out in the fullness of time.
Maybe, but I am worried that the fulness of time is so long that our economy stumbles on like a war wounded soldier, and is unable to recover. I still remember the phrase of "sick man of Europe" from the 60s before we entered the EU.
Also not sure where you get the idea that EU is a reducing trade share of the world.
The EU is inevitably declining as a share of world economic output as (a) its birth rate is below replacement, and therefore its population is going to drop, and (b) other parts of the world are earlier in their economic development, and therefore will grow quicker.
However, it is also probably true that the pace of relative decline will slow. Birth rates are collapsing across the developed world, so the population gap will not grow so much in future. And as countries get richer (see South Korea and Taiwan), then their growth rates drop too - simply they're not playing catch up any more.
Weren't people excitedly pasting tweets that it had all fallen apart because of some 'insult' ?
The UK is on track to sign a free trade deal with Australia in June after “major breakthroughs” in this week’s negotiations, international trade secretary Liz Truss has said this afternoon.
She added that the remainder of the details would be sorted out in a “sprint” over the next few weeks.
And thus the narrative moves swiftly on from "Ha! Aren't they hopeless, can't even talk to Australia without insulting them?!" to "Why are they bothering with puny, pathetic Australia, when all that matters is the EU?" Or something.
Still seems like "rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic to me". It's no surprise all the Boris Fanboys jumping on the like button.
One's not a substitute for the other, but (a) it's also considerably more than nothing, and (b) these arrangements will build in value over time.
Besides which, (c) Europe accounts for an ever-decreasing share of world economic activity, and it may very well turn out that the British Government has more to gain in the long run from functioning as an independent actor when dealing with everyone else than it does from being a peripheral member of a protectionist bloc. We shall find out in the fullness of time.
Maybe, but I am worried that the fulness of time is so long that our economy stumbles on like a war wounded soldier, and is unable to recover. I still remember the phrase of "sick man of Europe" from the 60s before we entered the EU.
Also not sure where you get the idea that EU is a reducing trade share of the world.
It wasn't Europe that turned the UK around though.
It was Thatcher.
As for Europe being a reducing share of world trade that is just a matter of fact.
The wider political aspects of green fanaticism and doom mongering, is who does it hurt the most in terms of votes? Is there a danger on the left that the more they talk up the climate crisis/emergency that they push people towards the Greens as a party and just annoy your own support?
Forget WBA beating Chelsea, Leeds beating Man City, Leicester winning the EPL....most EPL teams, your never even keeping your stars players for more than a season or two. There is no dream....
That is more to do with the distribution of shared TV and commercial revenues.
In Germany the bottom club receives about 40% of the top club and then gets relegated to a league with far lower revenue. In England the bottom club receives about 60% of the top club, and then gets significant parachute payments.
Chicken and egg.....EPL is big bucks around the world, because it is such a competitive and exciting league, so can afford to share the money. Millions aren't getting up at all hours to watch every Bundersliga games.
Spanish, Italian and English top flights have all had periods of dominance, no reason the German league couldnt get there if they get it right. That would involve Bayern giving the others a chance to catch up through more equal revenue, at the expense of Bayerns Champions League progress for 5-10 years. Such a gamble may or may not pay off, but it is necessary for the Bundesliga to even have a chance at the top spot for drama and quality.
Good luck selling that....ok lads, right Liverpool, Man Utd, Man City, you have to got to get a lot crappier, forget competing for the Champions League.....the rest, you are still going to be crapper, the best players aren't going to be here, but it will be great as we can all play shitter football on a slightly more level playing field.
And less money coming in, the only way get cheaper ticket prices is big cuts to player salaries, so that again makes even less likely the best player come.
That is basically the deal the big English sides accepted in the 90s and 00s, when they were consistently outbid by the Italians and then the Spanish. They then started to reap the rewards since then because the PL has great competitive balance.
Like many industries there is a choice between investing or jam now.
Forget WBA beating Chelsea, Leeds beating Man City, Leicester winning the EPL....most EPL teams, your never even keeping your stars players for more than a season or two. There is no dream....
That is more to do with the distribution of shared TV and commercial revenues.
In Germany the bottom club receives about 40% of the top club and then gets relegated to a league with far lower revenue. In England the bottom club receives about 60% of the top club, and then gets significant parachute payments.
Chicken and egg.....EPL is big bucks around the world, because it is such a competitive and exciting league, so can afford to share the money. Millions aren't getting up at all hours to watch every Bundersliga games.
Spanish, Italian and English top flights have all had periods of dominance, no reason the German league couldnt get there if they get it right. That would involve Bayern giving the others a chance to catch up through more equal revenue, at the expense of Bayerns Champions League progress for 5-10 years. Such a gamble may or may not pay off, but it is necessary for the Bundesliga to even have a chance at the top spot for drama and quality.
Good luck selling that....ok lads, right Liverpool, Man Utd, Man City, you have to got to get a lot crappier, forget competing for the Champions League.....the rest, you are still going to be crapper, the best players aren't going to be here, but it will be great as we can all play shitter football on a slightly more level playing field.
And less money coming in, the only way get cheaper ticket prices is big cuts to player salaries, so that again makes even less likely the best player come.
Big cuts to agent's fees could be a start. They leech huge sums out of the game.
Forget WBA beating Chelsea, Leeds beating Man City, Leicester winning the EPL....most EPL teams, your never even keeping your stars players for more than a season or two. There is no dream....
That is more to do with the distribution of shared TV and commercial revenues.
In Germany the bottom club receives about 40% of the top club and then gets relegated to a league with far lower revenue. In England the bottom club receives about 60% of the top club, and then gets significant parachute payments.
Chicken and egg.....EPL is big bucks around the world, because it is such a competitive and exciting league, so can afford to share the money. Millions aren't getting up at all hours to watch every Bundersliga games.
Spanish, Italian and English top flights have all had periods of dominance, no reason the German league couldnt get there if they get it right. That would involve Bayern giving the others a chance to catch up through more equal revenue, at the expense of Bayerns Champions League progress for 5-10 years. Such a gamble may or may not pay off, but it is necessary for the Bundesliga to even have a chance at the top spot for drama and quality.
Good luck selling that....ok lads, right Liverpool, Man Utd, Man City, you have to got to get a lot crappier, forget competing for the Champions League.....the rest, you are still going to be crapper, the best players aren't going to be here, but it will be great as we can all play shitter football on a slightly more level playing field.
And less money coming in, the only way get cheaper ticket prices is big cuts to player salaries, so that again makes even less likely the best player come.
That is basically the deal the big English sides accepted in the 90s and 00s, when they were consistently outbid by the Italians and then the Spanish. They then started to reap the rewards since then because the PL has great competitive balance.
Like many industries there is a choice between investing or jam now.
And the mega money came in.....So all of the teams are packed full of internationals.
Forget WBA beating Chelsea, Leeds beating Man City, Leicester winning the EPL....most EPL teams, your never even keeping your stars players for more than a season or two. There is no dream....
That is more to do with the distribution of shared TV and commercial revenues.
In Germany the bottom club receives about 40% of the top club and then gets relegated to a league with far lower revenue. In England the bottom club receives about 60% of the top club, and then gets significant parachute payments.
Chicken and egg.....EPL is big bucks around the world, because it is such a competitive and exciting league, so can afford to share the money. Millions aren't getting up at all hours to watch every Bundersliga games.
Spanish, Italian and English top flights have all had periods of dominance, no reason the German league couldnt get there if they get it right. That would involve Bayern giving the others a chance to catch up through more equal revenue, at the expense of Bayerns Champions League progress for 5-10 years. Such a gamble may or may not pay off, but it is necessary for the Bundesliga to even have a chance at the top spot for drama and quality.
Good luck selling that....ok lads, right Liverpool, Man Utd, Man City, you have to got to get a lot crappier, forget competing for the Champions League.....the rest, you are still going to be crapper, the best players aren't going to be here, but it will be great as we can all play shitter football on a slightly more level playing field.
And less money coming in, the only way get cheaper ticket prices is big cuts to player salaries, so that again makes even less likely the best player come.
Big cuts to agent's fees could be a start. They leech huge sums out of the game.
Yes, all the middlemen and hangers on....its just an absolute piss take that the agent charges the club and the player, the dinner lady, anybody they can squeeze money out of, with basically the threat to the club they will never sign unless you give me x amount....total shake down.
Forget WBA beating Chelsea, Leeds beating Man City, Leicester winning the EPL....most EPL teams, your never even keeping your stars players for more than a season or two. There is no dream....
That is more to do with the distribution of shared TV and commercial revenues.
In Germany the bottom club receives about 40% of the top club and then gets relegated to a league with far lower revenue. In England the bottom club receives about 60% of the top club, and then gets significant parachute payments.
Chicken and egg.....EPL is big bucks around the world, because it is such a competitive and exciting league, so can afford to share that massive pie. The tv deals for the foreign coverage is now basically as big as the Sky deal.
Millions aren't getting up at all hours to watch every Bundersliga games.
The PL owes a lot to Arsene Wenger and Roman Abramovich. But the PL’s in-built advantages won’t disappear with the Americans and petro-dollars.
What’s vital is to keep the Tv money distributed reasonably evenly.
Well and the big bucks from the tv deals....half of which comes from overseas markets. And people from China to Canada aren't getting up at all hours to watch weird named clubs in other leagues, it is because the EPL is the most exciting competitive league with on average better players distributed across all the teams.
And it’s Wenger and Abramovich that contributed to the attractiveness of the league.
I’m not sure it would be as attractive today simply because football has become a bit samey. The sweet spot was when it still had its Britishness but was sprinkled with overseas talent.
But it’s still the most interesting league by a country mile.
“they will not be able to fly as much, have to buy electric cars, eat less meat and completely renovate their home at vast expense to eradicate gas boilers”
That is what is going to be necessary, though. Moving from the century of oil & gas to a zero-carbon century is going to require serious sacrifices.
May as well be honest about it. People see through the political framing bullshit, and then get angry.
Is it worth it? It seems to be presumed that 2deg C of warming is such a potential catastrophe that its worth any amount of sacrifice to avoid it. This is a dubious assumption on two grounds:
1) Other than loudly bleating about the "scientific consensus" being that warming is bad, and periodically blaming any bad weather of any kind on global warming (usually just as unsupported assertion) no one seems to want to talk about what a given degree of warning might mean. It would be logical to expect both winners and losers from the process to start with, but no one seems to want to talk about any potential gains, only losses, and only then in the most nebulous of terms.
2) Even if the answer to "1)" is indeed warning is very bad, it doesn't mean that preventing it is of infinite utility, or even necessarily greater utility than the things which cause the warning. Owning a house is of great utility to me, but that doesn't mean it would be wise to auction off my underwear and put the cash towards a house - partly because the value raised would be meaningless against a house, and mainly because I'd find having cold nuts/and or being arrested for public indecency a far bigger deal than not owning a house.
In a global context, the west has done its bit on emissions, and then some. We're howling at the moon if we think that the Chinese care about our latest efforts to vitue signal our way to the stone age, or have any serious intention to reduce emissions any more than is convenient for them anyway.
We're just offering them another chance to take advantage of our willingness to trash our Western lives (particularly for the poor) so our leaders can strutt about and preen themselves to each other, before jetting off to the next global summit on poverty.
Any serious attempt to implement Boris's new target will result in a drop in living standards for working people of a size never seen before. What I can't understand is why the left is just nodding along to this - they should be screaming about the injustices that will result, where only the wealthy can fly abroad, where only the wealthy can drive long distances, where only the wealthy can heat their homes, or eat steak - because that is the reality of the future we're signed up thanks to successive governments of several hues.
Well, as to 1) - attributing any weather incident to climate change is bloody silly. OTOH 7 of the 10 hottest years ever have happened since 2014. That's climate change for you. Secondly the Internet is thick with detailed analyses of the effects of given rates of global warming on weather, crops, fresh water availability, habitable areas lost to the sea/the heat, etc. Thirdly altering an equilibrium is always destructive irrespective of any ultimate "gains"; it may be that the flooding of Bangladesh is outweighed by the thawing of the steppes, but the Bangladeshis are not going to be effortlessly transported to a new life in mother Russia. They are going to starve or drown while Russians occupy the newly fertile steppes.
Forget WBA beating Chelsea, Leeds beating Man City, Leicester winning the EPL....most EPL teams, your never even keeping your stars players for more than a season or two. There is no dream....
That is more to do with the distribution of shared TV and commercial revenues.
In Germany the bottom club receives about 40% of the top club and then gets relegated to a league with far lower revenue. In England the bottom club receives about 60% of the top club, and then gets significant parachute payments.
Chicken and egg.....EPL is big bucks around the world, because it is such a competitive and exciting league, so can afford to share the money. Millions aren't getting up at all hours to watch every Bundersliga games.
Spanish, Italian and English top flights have all had periods of dominance, no reason the German league couldnt get there if they get it right. That would involve Bayern giving the others a chance to catch up through more equal revenue, at the expense of Bayerns Champions League progress for 5-10 years. Such a gamble may or may not pay off, but it is necessary for the Bundesliga to even have a chance at the top spot for drama and quality.
Good luck selling that....ok lads, right Liverpool, Man Utd, Man City, you have to got to get a lot crappier, forget competing for the Champions League.....the rest, you are still going to be crapper, the best players aren't going to be here, but it will be great as we can all play shitter football on a slightly more level playing field.
And less money coming in, the only way get cheaper ticket prices is big cuts to player salaries, so that again makes even less likely the best player come.
Big cuts to agent's fees could be a start. They leech huge sums out of the game.
The mindset of players here is amazing. They are happy to pay agents tens of millions of pounds for work they could get the best commercial lawyers in the world to do for a tiny fraction of the cost.
Weren't people excitedly pasting tweets that it had all fallen apart because of some 'insult' ?
The UK is on track to sign a free trade deal with Australia in June after “major breakthroughs” in this week’s negotiations, international trade secretary Liz Truss has said this afternoon.
She added that the remainder of the details would be sorted out in a “sprint” over the next few weeks.
And thus the narrative moves swiftly on from "Ha! Aren't they hopeless, can't even talk to Australia without insulting them?!" to "Why are they bothering with puny, pathetic Australia, when all that matters is the EU?" Or something.
Still seems like "rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic to me". It's no surprise all the Boris Fanboys jumping on the like button.
One's not a substitute for the other, but (a) it's also considerably more than nothing, and (b) these arrangements will build in value over time.
Besides which, (c) Europe accounts for an ever-decreasing share of world economic activity, and it may very well turn out that the British Government has more to gain in the long run from functioning as an independent actor when dealing with everyone else than it does from being a peripheral member of a protectionist bloc. We shall find out in the fullness of time.
Maybe, but I am worried that the fulness of time is so long that our economy stumbles on like a war wounded soldier, and is unable to recover. I still remember the phrase of "sick man of Europe" from the 60s before we entered the EU.
Also not sure where you get the idea that EU is a reducing trade share of the world.
Well, we just don't know do we? But what we do know is that, apart from the drop in value of the pound immediately after the referendum vote, all of the predictions of doom have either been vastly overblown or failed to materialise entirely. The UK took a larger hit from the Covid crash than most of continental Europe but will likely outperform it in the upturn. In brief, there's little reason to suppose that Brexit will deal a staggering blow to the UK economy and every reason to imagine that we'll live or die by our own efforts.
Incidentally, predictions of disaster in the event that our own Union breaks up are probably overdone as well. Scotland is a wealthy country and can do perfectly well as an independent actor; secession may have important geopolitical consequences for the remainder of the British state, but is likely to prove inconsequential in economic terms.
That Europe (and the developed world as a whole) is shrinking as a proportion of total world economic activity is obvious. Most of the rest of the globe - most notably India and China - is growing faster.
Weren't people excitedly pasting tweets that it had all fallen apart because of some 'insult' ?
The UK is on track to sign a free trade deal with Australia in June after “major breakthroughs” in this week’s negotiations, international trade secretary Liz Truss has said this afternoon.
She added that the remainder of the details would be sorted out in a “sprint” over the next few weeks.
And thus the narrative moves swiftly on from "Ha! Aren't they hopeless, can't even talk to Australia without insulting them?!" to "Why are they bothering with puny, pathetic Australia, when all that matters is the EU?" Or something.
Still seems like "rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic to me". It's no surprise all the Boris Fanboys jumping on the like button.
One's not a substitute for the other, but (a) it's also considerably more than nothing, and (b) these arrangements will build in value over time.
Besides which, (c) Europe accounts for an ever-decreasing share of world economic activity, and it may very well turn out that the British Government has more to gain in the long run from functioning as an independent actor when dealing with everyone else than it does from being a peripheral member of a protectionist bloc. We shall find out in the fullness of time.
Maybe, but I am worried that the fulness of time is so long that our economy stumbles on like a war wounded soldier, and is unable to recover. I still remember the phrase of "sick man of Europe" from the 60s before we entered the EU.
Also not sure where you get the idea that EU is a reducing trade share of the world.
The EU is inevitably declining as a share of world economic output as (a) its birth rate is below replacement, and therefore its population is going to drop, and (b) other parts of the world are earlier in their economic development, and therefore will grow quicker.
However, it is also probably true that the pace of relative decline will slow. Birth rates are collapsing across the developed world, so the population gap will not grow so much in future. And as countries get richer (see South Korea and Taiwan), then their growth rates drop too - simply they're not playing catch up any more.
Don't forget (c) Europe is falling behind other developed nations.
The simple fact is that the developed Anglophone nations have been growing for decades now faster than Europe.
For a mix of faster growing population (more net immigration is a factor) and more growth per capita.
“they will not be able to fly as much, have to buy electric cars, eat less meat and completely renovate their home at vast expense to eradicate gas boilers”
That is what is going to be necessary, though. Moving from the century of oil & gas to a zero-carbon century is going to require serious sacrifices.
May as well be honest about it. People see through the political framing bullshit, and then get angry.
No it is not all what is going to be necessary (the electric car bit is) - and if it is necessary then it won't happen. Do you think the Chinese are going to choose not to fly just because we tell people they're killing pandas if they fly?
The solution, the only solution that will work is clean technologies.
Saying don't use power will not work. People won't listen to you. Saying "here is some clean and affordable power, use this instead of coal" people will listen to.
Saying don't fly will not work. People won't listen to you. Saying "here is a newly designed clean and affordable plane, use this instead of jet fuel" people will listen to.
Saying "don't eat meat" will not work. People won't listen to you. Full stop, I see no alternative to this one, the line is drawn here. Maybe find a way to offset against it because meat is happening.
Artificial meat will be a mainstream, cheap product inside a decade.
An interesting thought. Can artificial meat taste like roast rib of beef? Or will it taste more like a Quorn veggie sausage?
There was one brand of veggie beef pie that tasted so much like the real thing I couldn't eat it.
Good evening, everyone.
I've tried some of this food and it's mainly diabolical.
I had a "cauliflower steak" for dinner which is, let's face it, just a slice of cauliflower dressed up.
I woke up starving at 3am and had a massive bowl of crunchy nut cornflakes with gold top milk and toast.
Impossible and Beyond are really rather good. Indeed, I'd rather use Impossible than cheap meat, although that's probably because cheap US meat is really not that nice at all.
Agreed. I'd happily have either as a regular alternative to real meat. Are they available in the UK yet?
I don't know, but they really are a revelation. I mean, they don't replace a steak, but if I'm just adding protein that's going to be drowned out by other flavours (see Bolognase), then I might as well use Beyond or Impossible.
My wife is a big fan of the Beyond sausages, and jokes that they contain as much meat than the average hot dog.
Why not have a tin of chickpeas if you don't want meat ?
I like chickpeas - you can use them to make falafel, or you can roast them.
But they do not enhance a Bolognase sauce.
I did make a recipe with both pasta and chickpeas. My wife called it 'interesting'. Obvs, have not made it again.
“they will not be able to fly as much, have to buy electric cars, eat less meat and completely renovate their home at vast expense to eradicate gas boilers”
That is what is going to be necessary, though. Moving from the century of oil & gas to a zero-carbon century is going to require serious sacrifices.
May as well be honest about it. People see through the political framing bullshit, and then get angry.
No it is not all what is going to be necessary (the electric car bit is) - and if it is necessary then it won't happen. Do you think the Chinese are going to choose not to fly just because we tell people they're killing pandas if they fly?
The solution, the only solution that will work is clean technologies.
Saying don't use power will not work. People won't listen to you. Saying "here is some clean and affordable power, use this instead of coal" people will listen to.
Saying don't fly will not work. People won't listen to you. Saying "here is a newly designed clean and affordable plane, use this instead of jet fuel" people will listen to.
Saying "don't eat meat" will not work. People won't listen to you. Full stop, I see no alternative to this one, the line is drawn here. Maybe find a way to offset against it because meat is happening.
Artificial meat will be a mainstream, cheap product inside a decade.
An interesting thought. Can artificial meat taste like roast rib of beef? Or will it taste more like a Quorn veggie sausage?
There was one brand of veggie beef pie that tasted so much like the real thing I couldn't eat it.
Good evening, everyone.
I've tried some of this food and it's mainly diabolical.
I had a "cauliflower steak" for dinner which is, let's face it, just a slice of cauliflower dressed up.
I woke up starving at 3am and had a massive bowl of crunchy nut cornflakes with gold top milk and toast.
Impossible and Beyond are really rather good. Indeed, I'd rather use Impossible than cheap meat, although that's probably because cheap US meat is really not that nice at all.
The best steak substitute imo is Portobello mushroom fried with plenty of butter and I think (though I've never tried) some soy sauce or some sort of veggy stock to add savour. You should also be able to get liquid off it to make a wine/cream sauce, as you would with a real piece of beef. It's natural and tastes good because it's food.
Weren't people excitedly pasting tweets that it had all fallen apart because of some 'insult' ?
The UK is on track to sign a free trade deal with Australia in June after “major breakthroughs” in this week’s negotiations, international trade secretary Liz Truss has said this afternoon.
She added that the remainder of the details would be sorted out in a “sprint” over the next few weeks.
And thus the narrative moves swiftly on from "Ha! Aren't they hopeless, can't even talk to Australia without insulting them?!" to "Why are they bothering with puny, pathetic Australia, when all that matters is the EU?" Or something.
Still seems like "rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic to me". It's no surprise all the Boris Fanboys jumping on the like button.
One's not a substitute for the other, but (a) it's also considerably more than nothing, and (b) these arrangements will build in value over time.
Besides which, (c) Europe accounts for an ever-decreasing share of world economic activity, and it may very well turn out that the British Government has more to gain in the long run from functioning as an independent actor when dealing with everyone else than it does from being a peripheral member of a protectionist bloc. We shall find out in the fullness of time.
Maybe, but I am worried that the fulness of time is so long that our economy stumbles on like a war wounded soldier, and is unable to recover. I still remember the phrase of "sick man of Europe" from the 60s before we entered the EU.
Also not sure where you get the idea that EU is a reducing trade share of the world.
It wasn't Europe that turned the UK around though.
It was Thatcher.
As for Europe being a reducing share of world trade that is just a matter of fact.
The wider political aspects of green fanaticism and doom mongering, is who does it hurt the most in terms of votes? Is there a danger on the left that the more they talk up the climate crisis/emergency that they push people towards the Greens as a party and just annoy your own support?
For very many people, the notion of a "climate emergency" is meaningless. Yes, there may be some concern about polar bears but for most people the climate equals the weather and the weather, except for short periods, is relatively benign here.
The extent to which changes in climate will or may produce changes in the way we live is more problematic - obviously the possible loss of a winter sports industry in Scotland will be locally very serious but beyond that...
Coastal erosion is very serious if your house ends up over a cliff but again it's not an issue for the majority.
Hot summers (with temperatures regularly above 40c in London) will be difficult but we'll adapt. Elderly people will need to be protected but that can be organised. Flooding (of all kinds) can be mitigated with bigger walls or more imaginative solutions.
Short of a single catastrophic event, climate change will likely manifest slowly and gradually and insidiously over the coming decades. The political response to that is twofold - the short term mitigation of the immediate consequences and the longer term technological solutions to ensure the damage to the environment is reduced and ultimately reversed.
At the moment, platitudes lead the way - progress is being made (though I think that's little to do with politics) but there's still a strong element in some countries who either refuse to accept or are too frightened to admit there is a problem.
Weren't people excitedly pasting tweets that it had all fallen apart because of some 'insult' ?
The UK is on track to sign a free trade deal with Australia in June after “major breakthroughs” in this week’s negotiations, international trade secretary Liz Truss has said this afternoon.
She added that the remainder of the details would be sorted out in a “sprint” over the next few weeks.
And thus the narrative moves swiftly on from "Ha! Aren't they hopeless, can't even talk to Australia without insulting them?!" to "Why are they bothering with puny, pathetic Australia, when all that matters is the EU?" Or something.
Still seems like "rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic to me". It's no surprise all the Boris Fanboys jumping on the like button.
One's not a substitute for the other, but (a) it's also considerably more than nothing, and (b) these arrangements will build in value over time.
Besides which, (c) Europe accounts for an ever-decreasing share of world economic activity, and it may very well turn out that the British Government has more to gain in the long run from functioning as an independent actor when dealing with everyone else than it does from being a peripheral member of a protectionist bloc. We shall find out in the fullness of time.
Maybe, but I am worried that the fulness of time is so long that our economy stumbles on like a war wounded soldier, and is unable to recover. I still remember the phrase of "sick man of Europe" from the 60s before we entered the EU.
Also not sure where you get the idea that EU is a reducing trade share of the world.
Well, we just don't know do we? But what we do know is that, apart from the drop in value of the pound immediately after the referendum vote, all of the predictions of doom have either been vastly overblown or failed to materialise entirely. The UK took a larger hit from the Covid crash than most of continental Europe but will likely outperform it in the upturn. In brief, there's little reason to suppose that Brexit will deal a staggering blow to the UK economy and every reason to imagine that we'll live or die by our own efforts.
Incidentally, predictions of disaster in the event that our own Union breaks up are probably overdone as well. Scotland is a wealthy country and can do perfectly well as an independent actor; secession may have important geopolitical consequences for the remainder of the British state, but is likely to prove inconsequential in economic terms.
That Europe (and the developed world as a whole) is shrinking as a proportion of total world economic activity is obvious. Most of the rest of the globe - most notably India and China - is growing faster.
Ultimately, you need to compare pre- and post-Covid output to see whose done best.
And we won't know that until (realistically) about 12 months time. Otherwise all you're measuring is the size of the drop.
“they will not be able to fly as much, have to buy electric cars, eat less meat and completely renovate their home at vast expense to eradicate gas boilers”
That is what is going to be necessary, though. Moving from the century of oil & gas to a zero-carbon century is going to require serious sacrifices.
May as well be honest about it. People see through the political framing bullshit, and then get angry.
No it is not all what is going to be necessary (the electric car bit is) - and if it is necessary then it won't happen. Do you think the Chinese are going to choose not to fly just because we tell people they're killing pandas if they fly?
The solution, the only solution that will work is clean technologies.
Saying don't use power will not work. People won't listen to you. Saying "here is some clean and affordable power, use this instead of coal" people will listen to.
Saying don't fly will not work. People won't listen to you. Saying "here is a newly designed clean and affordable plane, use this instead of jet fuel" people will listen to.
Saying "don't eat meat" will not work. People won't listen to you. Full stop, I see no alternative to this one, the line is drawn here. Maybe find a way to offset against it because meat is happening.
Artificial meat will be a mainstream, cheap product inside a decade.
An interesting thought. Can artificial meat taste like roast rib of beef? Or will it taste more like a Quorn veggie sausage?
There was one brand of veggie beef pie that tasted so much like the real thing I couldn't eat it.
Good evening, everyone.
I've tried some of this food and it's mainly diabolical.
I had a "cauliflower steak" for dinner which is, let's face it, just a slice of cauliflower dressed up.
I woke up starving at 3am and had a massive bowl of crunchy nut cornflakes with gold top milk and toast.
Impossible and Beyond are really rather good. Indeed, I'd rather use Impossible than cheap meat, although that's probably because cheap US meat is really not that nice at all.
The best steak substitute imo is Portobello mushroom fried with plenty of butter and I think (though I've never tried) some soy sauce or some sort of veggy stock to add savour. You should also be able to get liquid off it to make a wine/cream sauce, as you would with a real piece of beef. It's natural and tastes good because it's food.
Obviously even better than that is a steak.
I love steak. And I love portobello (and other) mushrooms.
But as a substitute for mince, Beyond and Impossible are really good.
Forget WBA beating Chelsea, Leeds beating Man City, Leicester winning the EPL....most EPL teams, your never even keeping your stars players for more than a season or two. There is no dream....
That is more to do with the distribution of shared TV and commercial revenues.
In Germany the bottom club receives about 40% of the top club and then gets relegated to a league with far lower revenue. In England the bottom club receives about 60% of the top club, and then gets significant parachute payments.
Chicken and egg.....EPL is big bucks around the world, because it is such a competitive and exciting league, so can afford to share the money. Millions aren't getting up at all hours to watch every Bundersliga games.
Spanish, Italian and English top flights have all had periods of dominance, no reason the German league couldnt get there if they get it right. That would involve Bayern giving the others a chance to catch up through more equal revenue, at the expense of Bayerns Champions League progress for 5-10 years. Such a gamble may or may not pay off, but it is necessary for the Bundesliga to even have a chance at the top spot for drama and quality.
Good luck selling that....ok lads, right Liverpool, Man Utd, Man City, you have to got to get a lot crappier, forget competing for the Champions League.....the rest, you are still going to be crapper, the best players aren't going to be here, but it will be great as we can all play shitter football on a slightly more level playing field.
And less money coming in, the only way get cheaper ticket prices is big cuts to player salaries, so that again makes even less likely the best player come.
Big cuts to agent's fees could be a start. They leech huge sums out of the game.
The mindset of players here is amazing. They are happy to pay agents tens of millions of pounds for work they could get the best commercial lawyers in the world to do for a tiny fraction of the cost.
I dunno, Mesut Ozil’s agent did a good job for his client.
“they will not be able to fly as much, have to buy electric cars, eat less meat and completely renovate their home at vast expense to eradicate gas boilers”
That is what is going to be necessary, though. Moving from the century of oil & gas to a zero-carbon century is going to require serious sacrifices.
May as well be honest about it. People see through the political framing bullshit, and then get angry.
No it is not all what is going to be necessary (the electric car bit is) - and if it is necessary then it won't happen. Do you think the Chinese are going to choose not to fly just because we tell people they're killing pandas if they fly?
The solution, the only solution that will work is clean technologies.
Saying don't use power will not work. People won't listen to you. Saying "here is some clean and affordable power, use this instead of coal" people will listen to.
Saying don't fly will not work. People won't listen to you. Saying "here is a newly designed clean and affordable plane, use this instead of jet fuel" people will listen to.
Saying "don't eat meat" will not work. People won't listen to you. Full stop, I see no alternative to this one, the line is drawn here. Maybe find a way to offset against it because meat is happening.
Artificial meat will be a mainstream, cheap product inside a decade.
An interesting thought. Can artificial meat taste like roast rib of beef? Or will it taste more like a Quorn veggie sausage?
There was one brand of veggie beef pie that tasted so much like the real thing I couldn't eat it.
Good evening, everyone.
I've tried some of this food and it's mainly diabolical.
I had a "cauliflower steak" for dinner which is, let's face it, just a slice of cauliflower dressed up.
I woke up starving at 3am and had a massive bowl of crunchy nut cornflakes with gold top milk and toast.
Impossible and Beyond are really rather good. Indeed, I'd rather use Impossible than cheap meat, although that's probably because cheap US meat is really not that nice at all.
Agreed. I'd happily have either as a regular alternative to real meat. Are they available in the UK yet?
I don't know, but they really are a revelation. I mean, they don't replace a steak, but if I'm just adding protein that's going to be drowned out by other flavours (see Bolognase), then I might as well use Beyond or Impossible.
My wife is a big fan of the Beyond sausages, and jokes that they contain as much meat than the average hot dog.
Why not have a tin of chickpeas if you don't want meat ?
I like chickpeas - you can use them to make falafel, or you can roast them.
But they do not enhance a Bolognase sauce.
Do you know the difference between a chickpea and a lentil?
The wider political aspects of green fanaticism and doom mongering, is who does it hurt the most in terms of votes? Is there a danger on the left that the more they talk up the climate crisis/emergency that they push people towards the Greens as a party and just annoy your own support?
For very many people, the notion of a "climate emergency" is meaningless. Yes, there may be some concern about polar bears but for most people the climate equals the weather and the weather, except for short periods, is relatively benign here.
The extent to which changes in climate will or may produce changes in the way we live is more problematic - obviously the possible loss of a winter sports industry in Scotland will be locally very serious but beyond that...
Coastal erosion is very serious if your house ends up over a cliff but again it's not an issue for the majority.
Hot summers (with temperatures regularly above 40c in London) will be difficult but we'll adapt. Elderly people will need to be protected but that can be organised. Flooding (of all kinds) can be mitigated with bigger walls or more imaginative solutions.
Short of a single catastrophic event, climate change will likely manifest slowly and gradually and insidiously over the coming decades. The political response to that is twofold - the short term mitigation of the immediate consequences and the longer term technological solutions to ensure the damage to the environment is reduced and ultimately reversed.
At the moment, platitudes lead the way - progress is being made (though I think that's little to do with politics) but there's still a strong element in some countries who either refuse to accept or are too frightened to admit there is a problem.
John Lewis insurance wanted to double my premium when they realised that, if you draw a straight line, my house is rather near the sea. I pointed out to them that well before the sea level reaches my front doorstep up a very steep hill, all of London would be underwater. But it made no difference.
The wider political aspects of green fanaticism and doom mongering, is who does it hurt the most in terms of votes? Is there a danger on the left that the more they talk up the climate crisis/emergency that they push people towards the Greens as a party and just annoy your own support?
For very many people, the notion of a "climate emergency" is meaningless. Yes, there may be some concern about polar bears but for most people the climate equals the weather and the weather, except for short periods, is relatively benign here.
The extent to which changes in climate will or may produce changes in the way we live is more problematic - obviously the possible loss of a winter sports industry in Scotland will be locally very serious but beyond that...
Coastal erosion is very serious if your house ends up over a cliff but again it's not an issue for the majority.
Hot summers (with temperatures regularly above 40c in London) will be difficult but we'll adapt. Elderly people will need to be protected but that can be organised. Flooding (of all kinds) can be mitigated with bigger walls or more imaginative solutions.
Short of a single catastrophic event, climate change will likely manifest slowly and gradually and insidiously over the coming decades. The political response to that is twofold - the short term mitigation of the immediate consequences and the longer term technological solutions to ensure the damage to the environment is reduced and ultimately reversed.
At the moment, platitudes lead the way - progress is being made (though I think that's little to do with politics) but there's still a strong element in some countries who either refuse to accept or are too frightened to admit there is a problem.
A UKcentric take on the matter. It won't be the loss of the Scottish ski resorts we notice, it'll be the knock on effects of the tropics becoming uninhabitable and their populations wanting to move North whether North wants them or not.
The wider political aspects of green fanaticism and doom mongering, is who does it hurt the most in terms of votes? Is there a danger on the left that the more they talk up the climate crisis/emergency that they push people towards the Greens as a party and just annoy your own support?
For very many people, the notion of a "climate emergency" is meaningless. Yes, there may be some concern about polar bears but for most people the climate equals the weather and the weather, except for short periods, is relatively benign here.
The extent to which changes in climate will or may produce changes in the way we live is more problematic - obviously the possible loss of a winter sports industry in Scotland will be locally very serious but beyond that...
Coastal erosion is very serious if your house ends up over a cliff but again it's not an issue for the majority.
Hot summers (with temperatures regularly above 40c in London) will be difficult but we'll adapt. Elderly people will need to be protected but that can be organised. Flooding (of all kinds) can be mitigated with bigger walls or more imaginative solutions.
Short of a single catastrophic event, climate change will likely manifest slowly and gradually and insidiously over the coming decades. The political response to that is twofold - the short term mitigation of the immediate consequences and the longer term technological solutions to ensure the damage to the environment is reduced and ultimately reversed.
At the moment, platitudes lead the way - progress is being made (though I think that's little to do with politics) but there's still a strong element in some countries who either refuse to accept or are too frightened to admit there is a problem.
The big danger of global warming for us is it might make us colder. Disruption of the Gulf Stream is expected to lead to more extreme weather on both sides of the Atlantic, as well as colder winters. Check our latitude, and the weather in Canada at the same level, or Russia.
“they will not be able to fly as much, have to buy electric cars, eat less meat and completely renovate their home at vast expense to eradicate gas boilers”
That is what is going to be necessary, though. Moving from the century of oil & gas to a zero-carbon century is going to require serious sacrifices.
May as well be honest about it. People see through the political framing bullshit, and then get angry.
No it is not all what is going to be necessary (the electric car bit is) - and if it is necessary then it won't happen. Do you think the Chinese are going to choose not to fly just because we tell people they're killing pandas if they fly?
The solution, the only solution that will work is clean technologies.
Saying don't use power will not work. People won't listen to you. Saying "here is some clean and affordable power, use this instead of coal" people will listen to.
Saying don't fly will not work. People won't listen to you. Saying "here is a newly designed clean and affordable plane, use this instead of jet fuel" people will listen to.
Saying "don't eat meat" will not work. People won't listen to you. Full stop, I see no alternative to this one, the line is drawn here. Maybe find a way to offset against it because meat is happening.
Artificial meat will be a mainstream, cheap product inside a decade.
An interesting thought. Can artificial meat taste like roast rib of beef? Or will it taste more like a Quorn veggie sausage?
There was one brand of veggie beef pie that tasted so much like the real thing I couldn't eat it.
Good evening, everyone.
I've tried some of this food and it's mainly diabolical.
I had a "cauliflower steak" for dinner which is, let's face it, just a slice of cauliflower dressed up.
I woke up starving at 3am and had a massive bowl of crunchy nut cornflakes with gold top milk and toast.
Impossible and Beyond are really rather good. Indeed, I'd rather use Impossible than cheap meat, although that's probably because cheap US meat is really not that nice at all.
The best steak substitute imo is Portobello mushroom fried with plenty of butter and I think (though I've never tried) some soy sauce or some sort of veggy stock to add savour. You should also be able to get liquid off it to make a wine/cream sauce, as you would with a real piece of beef. It's natural and tastes good because it's food.
Obviously even better than that is a steak.
I love steak. And I love portobello (and other) mushrooms.
But as a substitute for mince, Beyond and Impossible are really good.
I've never heard of these brands before, just searched for them on ASDA's website and Beyond has pet food but nothing else. Seems to be expensive though.
Are these brands more expensive or cheaper than regular meat?
If they're more expensive then I see no point whatsoever in them.
The wider political aspects of green fanaticism and doom mongering, is who does it hurt the most in terms of votes? Is there a danger on the left that the more they talk up the climate crisis/emergency that they push people towards the Greens as a party and just annoy your own support?
For very many people, the notion of a "climate emergency" is meaningless. Yes, there may be some concern about polar bears but for most people the climate equals the weather and the weather, except for short periods, is relatively benign here.
The extent to which changes in climate will or may produce changes in the way we live is more problematic - obviously the possible loss of a winter sports industry in Scotland will be locally very serious but beyond that...
Coastal erosion is very serious if your house ends up over a cliff but again it's not an issue for the majority.
Hot summers (with temperatures regularly above 40c in London) will be difficult but we'll adapt. Elderly people will need to be protected but that can be organised. Flooding (of all kinds) can be mitigated with bigger walls or more imaginative solutions.
Short of a single catastrophic event, climate change will likely manifest slowly and gradually and insidiously over the coming decades. The political response to that is twofold - the short term mitigation of the immediate consequences and the longer term technological solutions to ensure the damage to the environment is reduced and ultimately reversed.
At the moment, platitudes lead the way - progress is being made (though I think that's little to do with politics) but there's still a strong element in some countries who either refuse to accept or are too frightened to admit there is a problem.
A UKcentric take on the matter. It won't be the loss of the Scottish ski resorts we notice, it'll be the knock on effects of the tropics becoming uninhabitable and their populations wanting to move North whether North wants them or not.
Forget WBA beating Chelsea, Leeds beating Man City, Leicester winning the EPL....most EPL teams, your never even keeping your stars players for more than a season or two. There is no dream....
That is more to do with the distribution of shared TV and commercial revenues.
In Germany the bottom club receives about 40% of the top club and then gets relegated to a league with far lower revenue. In England the bottom club receives about 60% of the top club, and then gets significant parachute payments.
Chicken and egg.....EPL is big bucks around the world, because it is such a competitive and exciting league, so can afford to share the money. Millions aren't getting up at all hours to watch every Bundersliga games.
Spanish, Italian and English top flights have all had periods of dominance, no reason the German league couldnt get there if they get it right. That would involve Bayern giving the others a chance to catch up through more equal revenue, at the expense of Bayerns Champions League progress for 5-10 years. Such a gamble may or may not pay off, but it is necessary for the Bundesliga to even have a chance at the top spot for drama and quality.
Good luck selling that....ok lads, right Liverpool, Man Utd, Man City, you have to got to get a lot crappier, forget competing for the Champions League.....the rest, you are still going to be crapper, the best players aren't going to be here, but it will be great as we can all play shitter football on a slightly more level playing field.
And less money coming in, the only way get cheaper ticket prices is big cuts to player salaries, so that again makes even less likely the best player come.
Big cuts to agent's fees could be a start. They leech huge sums out of the game.
The mindset of players here is amazing. They are happy to pay agents tens of millions of pounds for work they could get the best commercial lawyers in the world to do for a tiny fraction of the cost.
I dunno, Mesut Ozil’s agent did a good job for his client.
Not especially. Doubt he was any happier than other players of his ability. He was still in the top 3 or 4 in the world in his position when Arsenal gave him his last contract. The issue was Guardiola and Klopp changed the pressing and defensive demands on attackers so quickly that whilst he could still break down the weaker teams he simply couldnt cope against the elite teams.
A good agent would have sought out a manager and club happy to play his kind of number 10 role, not let him waste a third of his career.
A UKcentric take on the matter. It won't be the loss of the Scottish ski resorts we notice, it'll be the knock on effects of the tropics becoming uninhabitable and their populations wanting to move North whether North wants them or not.
Indeed, areas of southern Europe around the Med will become increasingly uncomfortable in the summer months in the decades to come.
The curious juxtaposition of climate vs weather. Spain recorded its coldest ever temperatures on January 6th and 7th with a village in Leon recording -35.8c.
The trend, however, is for rising temperatures - so far nowhere in Spain has recorded a value above 48c. That will change sooner rather than later. It's when July and August are regularly (say one year in three) getting above 45-47d that it'll be an issue.
I don't rule out the impact of, for example, increasing moorland and forest fires in the UK as we saw last summer.
As you rightly say, we've yet to see the real impact of climate migration whether from areas going underwater or areas becoming too hot to sustain life.
The wider political aspects of green fanaticism and doom mongering, is who does it hurt the most in terms of votes? Is there a danger on the left that the more they talk up the climate crisis/emergency that they push people towards the Greens as a party and just annoy your own support?
For very many people, the notion of a "climate emergency" is meaningless. Yes, there may be some concern about polar bears but for most people the climate equals the weather and the weather, except for short periods, is relatively benign here.
The extent to which changes in climate will or may produce changes in the way we live is more problematic - obviously the possible loss of a winter sports industry in Scotland will be locally very serious but beyond that...
Coastal erosion is very serious if your house ends up over a cliff but again it's not an issue for the majority.
Hot summers (with temperatures regularly above 40c in London) will be difficult but we'll adapt. Elderly people will need to be protected but that can be organised. Flooding (of all kinds) can be mitigated with bigger walls or more imaginative solutions.
Short of a single catastrophic event, climate change will likely manifest slowly and gradually and insidiously over the coming decades. The political response to that is twofold - the short term mitigation of the immediate consequences and the longer term technological solutions to ensure the damage to the environment is reduced and ultimately reversed.
At the moment, platitudes lead the way - progress is being made (though I think that's little to do with politics) but there's still a strong element in some countries who either refuse to accept or are too frightened to admit there is a problem.
A UKcentric take on the matter. It won't be the loss of the Scottish ski resorts we notice, it'll be the knock on effects of the tropics becoming uninhabitable and their populations wanting to move North whether North wants them or not.
Seattle Times - NHL’s Kraken sued by Seattle’s Kraken Lounge over planned Northgate restaurant name
A University District punk-rock bar is suing the Kraken for $3.5 million, alleging the NHL expansion team’s name choice and plans to open a Northgate Mall practice facility restaurant risks irreparably harming its brand.
A lawsuit filed Thursday in King County Superior Court states the Kraken Bar & Lounge, founded in 2011 by William Knupp and husband-and-wife Kat Colley and Daniel Colley, had begrudgingly tolerated the team’s name choice despite a parade of new patrons in “hockey themed attire” showing up amid its usual music clientele wanting to make the venue their hangout. But the final straw, according to the lawsuit, came when the team this month announced it will open the Kraken Bar & Grill at its planned $80 million training facility come mid-September.
The lawsuit for trademark infringement and tortious interference asks that the team be prohibited from using “The Seattle Kraken” name and any others similarly confusing with its own trademarks. It states that the team’s announcement of the coming practice facility restaurant run by former F.X. McRory’s Steak Chop & Oyster House owner Mick McHugh “is sure to ruin The Kraken Bar and its near decade-old, cherished image and reputation as one of Seattle’s last dive bars.”
The suit claims the punk bar’s trademarks are entitled to protections because they are distinctive of its goods and services and existed long before the team’s July 2020 name announcement.
The NHL team did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The lawsuit claims the punk bar’s owners didn’t know what to do last summer when the better-resourced NHL team announced its name and new patrons began showing up wanting to turn their establishment into a hockey bar.
“That The Kraken Bar would or should become a ‘hockey bar’ or a sports bar of any kind was anathema to The Kraken Bar and its regular patrons,” the lawsuit states. “The Kraken Bar’s regular patrons frequented the bar precisely because it was a dive-bar, associated with affordable food and drinks as well as cutting edge live music performances by well-known punk and metal bands.”
The lawsuit says the punk bar by this year noticed actual confusion by customers thinking the venue was team-sponsored. And that the team’s “blitzkrieg advertising campaigns” had caused the bar’s online and social-media presence to drop “to a location only the most dutiful or mindful consumer could find.”
The $3.5 million amount sought equates to past investments and sweat equity the owners say they’ve put in. “The Kraken Bar remains one of the few dive bars left in the neighborhood and region,” the lawsuit states. “Its patrons are loyal. Many cannot stand the thought of losing The Kraken Bar to a corporate-sponsored bar, devoid of personality and consumed by an investor mandate to extract premium prices.”
The wider political aspects of green fanaticism and doom mongering, is who does it hurt the most in terms of votes? Is there a danger on the left that the more they talk up the climate crisis/emergency that they push people towards the Greens as a party and just annoy your own support?
For very many people, the notion of a "climate emergency" is meaningless. Yes, there may be some concern about polar bears but for most people the climate equals the weather and the weather, except for short periods, is relatively benign here.
The extent to which changes in climate will or may produce changes in the way we live is more problematic - obviously the possible loss of a winter sports industry in Scotland will be locally very serious but beyond that...
Coastal erosion is very serious if your house ends up over a cliff but again it's not an issue for the majority.
Hot summers (with temperatures regularly above 40c in London) will be difficult but we'll adapt. Elderly people will need to be protected but that can be organised. Flooding (of all kinds) can be mitigated with bigger walls or more imaginative solutions.
Short of a single catastrophic event, climate change will likely manifest slowly and gradually and insidiously over the coming decades. The political response to that is twofold - the short term mitigation of the immediate consequences and the longer term technological solutions to ensure the damage to the environment is reduced and ultimately reversed.
At the moment, platitudes lead the way - progress is being made (though I think that's little to do with politics) but there's still a strong element in some countries who either refuse to accept or are too frightened to admit there is a problem.
A UKcentric take on the matter. It won't be the loss of the Scottish ski resorts we notice, it'll be the knock on effects of the tropics becoming uninhabitable and their populations wanting to move North whether North wants them or not.
I very much doubt it will come to that. The developed world is already moving to decarbonise, leaving most of the big polluters as developing countries. Which are, generally speaking, rather closer to the Equator.
China and, in time, India will also move to decarbonise, regardless of how expensive it is for them, simply out of self-interest. It's either that or roast to death.
The biggest environmental concern isn't actually global warming at all. It's human overpopulation and habitat destruction.
“they will not be able to fly as much, have to buy electric cars, eat less meat and completely renovate their home at vast expense to eradicate gas boilers”
That is what is going to be necessary, though. Moving from the century of oil & gas to a zero-carbon century is going to require serious sacrifices.
May as well be honest about it. People see through the political framing bullshit, and then get angry.
No it is not all what is going to be necessary (the electric car bit is) - and if it is necessary then it won't happen. Do you think the Chinese are going to choose not to fly just because we tell people they're killing pandas if they fly?
The solution, the only solution that will work is clean technologies.
Saying don't use power will not work. People won't listen to you. Saying "here is some clean and affordable power, use this instead of coal" people will listen to.
Saying don't fly will not work. People won't listen to you. Saying "here is a newly designed clean and affordable plane, use this instead of jet fuel" people will listen to.
Saying "don't eat meat" will not work. People won't listen to you. Full stop, I see no alternative to this one, the line is drawn here. Maybe find a way to offset against it because meat is happening.
Artificial meat will be a mainstream, cheap product inside a decade.
Will believe it when I see it frankly. Meat is not just about taste but texture as well. From all reports I have seen from people that have tried what is currently there it fails at both
The menu in the pub where I had lunch today had vegan meat balls. My friend and I agreed this was virtually a fraud on the customers.
Surely a vegan’s balls are made of meat just like the rest of us?
Forget WBA beating Chelsea, Leeds beating Man City, Leicester winning the EPL....most EPL teams, your never even keeping your stars players for more than a season or two. There is no dream....
That is more to do with the distribution of shared TV and commercial revenues.
In Germany the bottom club receives about 40% of the top club and then gets relegated to a league with far lower revenue. In England the bottom club receives about 60% of the top club, and then gets significant parachute payments.
Chicken and egg.....EPL is big bucks around the world, because it is such a competitive and exciting league, so can afford to share the money. Millions aren't getting up at all hours to watch every Bundersliga games.
Spanish, Italian and English top flights have all had periods of dominance, no reason the German league couldnt get there if they get it right. That would involve Bayern giving the others a chance to catch up through more equal revenue, at the expense of Bayerns Champions League progress for 5-10 years. Such a gamble may or may not pay off, but it is necessary for the Bundesliga to even have a chance at the top spot for drama and quality.
Good luck selling that....ok lads, right Liverpool, Man Utd, Man City, you have to got to get a lot crappier, forget competing for the Champions League.....the rest, you are still going to be crapper, the best players aren't going to be here, but it will be great as we can all play shitter football on a slightly more level playing field.
And less money coming in, the only way get cheaper ticket prices is big cuts to player salaries, so that again makes even less likely the best player come.
Big cuts to agent's fees could be a start. They leech huge sums out of the game.
The mindset of players here is amazing. They are happy to pay agents tens of millions of pounds for work they could get the best commercial lawyers in the world to do for a tiny fraction of the cost.
I dunno, Mesut Ozil’s agent did a good job for his client.
Not especially. Doubt he was any happier than other players of his ability. He was still in the top 3 or 4 in the world in his position when Arsenal gave him his last contract. The issue was Guardiola and Klopp changed the pressing and defensive demands on attackers so quickly that whilst he could still break down the weaker teams he simply couldnt cope against the elite teams.
A good agent would have sought out a manager and club happy to play his kind of number 10 role, not let him waste a third of his career.
Having watched the guy home and away between 2013 and 2020, I can assure you that money was his main focus. He was never that good, that’s why Real sold him.
A UKcentric take on the matter. It won't be the loss of the Scottish ski resorts we notice, it'll be the knock on effects of the tropics becoming uninhabitable and their populations wanting to move North whether North wants them or not.
Indeed, areas of southern Europe around the Med will become increasingly uncomfortable in the summer months in the decades to come.
The curious juxtaposition of climate vs weather. Spain recorded its coldest ever temperatures on January 6th and 7th with a village in Leon recording -35.8c.
The trend, however, is for rising temperatures - so far nowhere in Spain has recorded a value above 48c. That will change sooner rather than later. It's when July and August are regularly (say one year in three) getting above 45-47d that it'll be an issue.
I don't rule out the impact of, for example, increasing moorland and forest fires in the UK as we saw last summer.
As you rightly say, we've yet to see the real impact of climate migration whether from areas going underwater or areas becoming too hot to sustain life.
The sea doesn't need to rise much for Bangladesh or the Nile delta to be uninhabitable.
And if snow on the himalayas disappears then so do the Mekong and Irawaddy rivers.
A UKcentric take on the matter. It won't be the loss of the Scottish ski resorts we notice, it'll be the knock on effects of the tropics becoming uninhabitable and their populations wanting to move North whether North wants them or not.
Indeed, areas of southern Europe around the Med will become increasingly uncomfortable in the summer months in the decades to come.
The curious juxtaposition of climate vs weather. Spain recorded its coldest ever temperatures on January 6th and 7th with a village in Leon recording -35.8c.
The trend, however, is for rising temperatures - so far nowhere in Spain has recorded a value above 48c. That will change sooner rather than later. It's when July and August are regularly (say one year in three) getting above 45-47d that it'll be an issue.
I don't rule out the impact of, for example, increasing moorland and forest fires in the UK as we saw last summer.
As you rightly say, we've yet to see the real impact of climate migration whether from areas going underwater or areas becoming too hot to sustain life.
The sea doesn't need to rise much for Bangladesh or the Nile delta to be uninhabitable.
And if snow precipitation on the himalayas disappears then so do the Mekong and Irawaddy rivers.
Fixed that for you, though rain instead of snow would alter the dynamics of the rivers.
The wider political aspects of green fanaticism and doom mongering, is who does it hurt the most in terms of votes? Is there a danger on the left that the more they talk up the climate crisis/emergency that they push people towards the Greens as a party and just annoy your own support?
For very many people, the notion of a "climate emergency" is meaningless. Yes, there may be some concern about polar bears but for most people the climate equals the weather and the weather, except for short periods, is relatively benign here.
The extent to which changes in climate will or may produce changes in the way we live is more problematic - obviously the possible loss of a winter sports industry in Scotland will be locally very serious but beyond that...
Coastal erosion is very serious if your house ends up over a cliff but again it's not an issue for the majority.
Hot summers (with temperatures regularly above 40c in London) will be difficult but we'll adapt. Elderly people will need to be protected but that can be organised. Flooding (of all kinds) can be mitigated with bigger walls or more imaginative solutions.
Short of a single catastrophic event, climate change will likely manifest slowly and gradually and insidiously over the coming decades. The political response to that is twofold - the short term mitigation of the immediate consequences and the longer term technological solutions to ensure the damage to the environment is reduced and ultimately reversed.
At the moment, platitudes lead the way - progress is being made (though I think that's little to do with politics) but there's still a strong element in some countries who either refuse to accept or are too frightened to admit there is a problem.
A UKcentric take on the matter. It won't be the loss of the Scottish ski resorts we notice, it'll be the knock on effects of the tropics becoming uninhabitable and their populations wanting to move North whether North wants them or not.
Not being an expert but being curious, we all know we have had global warming in the past (English vineyards, skating on the Thames, etc).
Have there previously been such mass migrations or human extinctions?
"The climate extremists will never be satisfied No policy, not matter how damaging to ordinary life, will ever be enough to appease the cult of St Greta
Boris Johnson said this: "Of course, there's absolutely nothing to conceal all the details with the House, as I've shared them with my officials, immediately."
The wider political aspects of green fanaticism and doom mongering, is who does it hurt the most in terms of votes? Is there a danger on the left that the more they talk up the climate crisis/emergency that they push people towards the Greens as a party and just annoy your own support?
For very many people, the notion of a "climate emergency" is meaningless. Yes, there may be some concern about polar bears but for most people the climate equals the weather and the weather, except for short periods, is relatively benign here.
The extent to which changes in climate will or may produce changes in the way we live is more problematic - obviously the possible loss of a winter sports industry in Scotland will be locally very serious but beyond that...
Coastal erosion is very serious if your house ends up over a cliff but again it's not an issue for the majority.
Hot summers (with temperatures regularly above 40c in London) will be difficult but we'll adapt. Elderly people will need to be protected but that can be organised. Flooding (of all kinds) can be mitigated with bigger walls or more imaginative solutions.
Short of a single catastrophic event, climate change will likely manifest slowly and gradually and insidiously over the coming decades. The political response to that is twofold - the short term mitigation of the immediate consequences and the longer term technological solutions to ensure the damage to the environment is reduced and ultimately reversed.
At the moment, platitudes lead the way - progress is being made (though I think that's little to do with politics) but there's still a strong element in some countries who either refuse to accept or are too frightened to admit there is a problem.
John Lewis insurance wanted to double my premium when they realised that, if you draw a straight line, my house is rather near the sea. I pointed out to them that well before the sea level reaches my front doorstep up a very steep hill, all of London would be underwater. But it made no difference.
Of course on the Undercliff, that height above sea level is subject to change...
Explosive line from @Peston: "As I understand it, Cummings has WhatsApp messages that substantiate his claims that he was exonerated as the leaker, and that the Cabinet Secretary Simon Case believed "all the evidence definitely leads to Henry Newman and others in that office"". https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1385671158117421057
The wider political aspects of green fanaticism and doom mongering, is who does it hurt the most in terms of votes? Is there a danger on the left that the more they talk up the climate crisis/emergency that they push people towards the Greens as a party and just annoy your own support?
For very many people, the notion of a "climate emergency" is meaningless. Yes, there may be some concern about polar bears but for most people the climate equals the weather and the weather, except for short periods, is relatively benign here.
The extent to which changes in climate will or may produce changes in the way we live is more problematic - obviously the possible loss of a winter sports industry in Scotland will be locally very serious but beyond that...
Coastal erosion is very serious if your house ends up over a cliff but again it's not an issue for the majority.
Hot summers (with temperatures regularly above 40c in London) will be difficult but we'll adapt. Elderly people will need to be protected but that can be organised. Flooding (of all kinds) can be mitigated with bigger walls or more imaginative solutions.
Short of a single catastrophic event, climate change will likely manifest slowly and gradually and insidiously over the coming decades. The political response to that is twofold - the short term mitigation of the immediate consequences and the longer term technological solutions to ensure the damage to the environment is reduced and ultimately reversed.
At the moment, platitudes lead the way - progress is being made (though I think that's little to do with politics) but there's still a strong element in some countries who either refuse to accept or are too frightened to admit there is a problem.
A UKcentric take on the matter. It won't be the loss of the Scottish ski resorts we notice, it'll be the knock on effects of the tropics becoming uninhabitable and their populations wanting to move North whether North wants them or not.
Not being an expert but being curious, we all know we have had global warming in the past (English vineyards, skating on the Thames, etc).
Have there previously been such mass migrations or human extinctions?
There were rather fewer people in the past, and rather less mobile. But yes we have; it was climate change that made the first migration into the Americas possible.
The wider political aspects of green fanaticism and doom mongering, is who does it hurt the most in terms of votes? Is there a danger on the left that the more they talk up the climate crisis/emergency that they push people towards the Greens as a party and just annoy your own support?
For very many people, the notion of a "climate emergency" is meaningless. Yes, there may be some concern about polar bears but for most people the climate equals the weather and the weather, except for short periods, is relatively benign here.
The extent to which changes in climate will or may produce changes in the way we live is more problematic - obviously the possible loss of a winter sports industry in Scotland will be locally very serious but beyond that...
Coastal erosion is very serious if your house ends up over a cliff but again it's not an issue for the majority.
Hot summers (with temperatures regularly above 40c in London) will be difficult but we'll adapt. Elderly people will need to be protected but that can be organised. Flooding (of all kinds) can be mitigated with bigger walls or more imaginative solutions.
Short of a single catastrophic event, climate change will likely manifest slowly and gradually and insidiously over the coming decades. The political response to that is twofold - the short term mitigation of the immediate consequences and the longer term technological solutions to ensure the damage to the environment is reduced and ultimately reversed.
At the moment, platitudes lead the way - progress is being made (though I think that's little to do with politics) but there's still a strong element in some countries who either refuse to accept or are too frightened to admit there is a problem.
A UKcentric take on the matter. It won't be the loss of the Scottish ski resorts we notice, it'll be the knock on effects of the tropics becoming uninhabitable and their populations wanting to move North whether North wants them or not.
Not being an expert but being curious, we all know we have had global warming in the past (English vineyards, skating on the Thames, etc).
Have there previously been such mass migrations or human extinctions?
Didn't neolithic man migrate to the UK and Ireland 10 000 years ago when the Iceshelf defrosted. Wouldn't that count?
Forget WBA beating Chelsea, Leeds beating Man City, Leicester winning the EPL....most EPL teams, your never even keeping your stars players for more than a season or two. There is no dream....
That is more to do with the distribution of shared TV and commercial revenues.
In Germany the bottom club receives about 40% of the top club and then gets relegated to a league with far lower revenue. In England the bottom club receives about 60% of the top club, and then gets significant parachute payments.
Chicken and egg.....EPL is big bucks around the world, because it is such a competitive and exciting league, so can afford to share the money. Millions aren't getting up at all hours to watch every Bundersliga games.
Spanish, Italian and English top flights have all had periods of dominance, no reason the German league couldnt get there if they get it right. That would involve Bayern giving the others a chance to catch up through more equal revenue, at the expense of Bayerns Champions League progress for 5-10 years. Such a gamble may or may not pay off, but it is necessary for the Bundesliga to even have a chance at the top spot for drama and quality.
Good luck selling that....ok lads, right Liverpool, Man Utd, Man City, you have to got to get a lot crappier, forget competing for the Champions League.....the rest, you are still going to be crapper, the best players aren't going to be here, but it will be great as we can all play shitter football on a slightly more level playing field.
And less money coming in, the only way get cheaper ticket prices is big cuts to player salaries, so that again makes even less likely the best player come.
Big cuts to agent's fees could be a start. They leech huge sums out of the game.
The mindset of players here is amazing. They are happy to pay agents tens of millions of pounds for work they could get the best commercial lawyers in the world to do for a tiny fraction of the cost.
I dunno, Mesut Ozil’s agent did a good job for his client.
Not especially. Doubt he was any happier than other players of his ability. He was still in the top 3 or 4 in the world in his position when Arsenal gave him his last contract. The issue was Guardiola and Klopp changed the pressing and defensive demands on attackers so quickly that whilst he could still break down the weaker teams he simply couldnt cope against the elite teams.
A good agent would have sought out a manager and club happy to play his kind of number 10 role, not let him waste a third of his career.
Having watched the guy home and away between 2013 and 2020, I can assure you that money was his main focus. He was never that good, that’s why Real sold him.
He is the second fastest player to 50 assists in Premier League history (behind De Bruyne). You simply don't achieve that if you are never that good.
The wider political aspects of green fanaticism and doom mongering, is who does it hurt the most in terms of votes? Is there a danger on the left that the more they talk up the climate crisis/emergency that they push people towards the Greens as a party and just annoy your own support?
For very many people, the notion of a "climate emergency" is meaningless. Yes, there may be some concern about polar bears but for most people the climate equals the weather and the weather, except for short periods, is relatively benign here.
The extent to which changes in climate will or may produce changes in the way we live is more problematic - obviously the possible loss of a winter sports industry in Scotland will be locally very serious but beyond that...
Coastal erosion is very serious if your house ends up over a cliff but again it's not an issue for the majority.
Hot summers (with temperatures regularly above 40c in London) will be difficult but we'll adapt. Elderly people will need to be protected but that can be organised. Flooding (of all kinds) can be mitigated with bigger walls or more imaginative solutions.
Short of a single catastrophic event, climate change will likely manifest slowly and gradually and insidiously over the coming decades. The political response to that is twofold - the short term mitigation of the immediate consequences and the longer term technological solutions to ensure the damage to the environment is reduced and ultimately reversed.
At the moment, platitudes lead the way - progress is being made (though I think that's little to do with politics) but there's still a strong element in some countries who either refuse to accept or are too frightened to admit there is a problem.
A UKcentric take on the matter. It won't be the loss of the Scottish ski resorts we notice, it'll be the knock on effects of the tropics becoming uninhabitable and their populations wanting to move North whether North wants them or not.
Not being an expert but being curious, we all know we have had global warming in the past (English vineyards, skating on the Thames, etc).
Have there previously been such mass migrations or human extinctions?
Didn't neolithic man migrate to the UK and Ireland 10 000 years ago when the Iceshelf defrosted. Wouldn't that count?
The wider political aspects of green fanaticism and doom mongering, is who does it hurt the most in terms of votes? Is there a danger on the left that the more they talk up the climate crisis/emergency that they push people towards the Greens as a party and just annoy your own support?
For very many people, the notion of a "climate emergency" is meaningless. Yes, there may be some concern about polar bears but for most people the climate equals the weather and the weather, except for short periods, is relatively benign here.
The extent to which changes in climate will or may produce changes in the way we live is more problematic - obviously the possible loss of a winter sports industry in Scotland will be locally very serious but beyond that...
Coastal erosion is very serious if your house ends up over a cliff but again it's not an issue for the majority.
Hot summers (with temperatures regularly above 40c in London) will be difficult but we'll adapt. Elderly people will need to be protected but that can be organised. Flooding (of all kinds) can be mitigated with bigger walls or more imaginative solutions.
Short of a single catastrophic event, climate change will likely manifest slowly and gradually and insidiously over the coming decades. The political response to that is twofold - the short term mitigation of the immediate consequences and the longer term technological solutions to ensure the damage to the environment is reduced and ultimately reversed.
At the moment, platitudes lead the way - progress is being made (though I think that's little to do with politics) but there's still a strong element in some countries who either refuse to accept or are too frightened to admit there is a problem.
A UKcentric take on the matter. It won't be the loss of the Scottish ski resorts we notice, it'll be the knock on effects of the tropics becoming uninhabitable and their populations wanting to move North whether North wants them or not.
I very much doubt it will come to that. The developed world is already moving to decarbonise, leaving most of the big polluters as developing countries. Which are, generally speaking, rather closer to the Equator.
China and, in time, India will also move to decarbonise, regardless of how expensive it is for them, simply out of self-interest. It's either that or roast to death.
The biggest environmental concern isn't actually global warming at all. It's human overpopulation and habitat destruction.
Your last para is probably right, but there's a lot of interconnection: the more people the more energy consumers, and habitat destruction is also carbon sink destruction. As to your main point, decarbonising now is too little too late and is reducing, not rectifying, damage.
I'm saying that we should have an adult discussion about what trying means, and whether it is a) actually possible to succeed and b) just how much is it worth spending trying.
I don't quite know what the dig at "the Left" is all about apart from it almost being a Pavlovian response among some.
The left traditionally sees itself as fighting for the rights of the poor, the low paid, the working class. The burden of all this will fall hardest on them, but the majority of the left seems totally unconcerned. In fairness, I did hear Ed Millband (of all people!) talking sense on this issue on radio 4 recently, although having pointed out this will shaft working people, he promptly tripped over his own shoelaces as his only solution was more government grants for home insulation, something this country did to death about ten years ago, with slim picking left.
@Philip_Thompson and I disagree on some aspects of the climate change debate but we do agree clean energy will be the answer and that has to mean exporting and explaining a new economic model based on the notion of clean energy.
The problem is that clean energy is very expensive. It's only competitive for UK electricity because we've rigged the market in it's favour. I calculated that the differential between the price per KW of electricity and natural gas supplied to my house (2.3p vs 12.8p) is so great I could theoretically save money by generating my electricity with a gas powered genset, despite its inefficiencies. Imagine how cheap UK electricity might be if we were gas turbines to generate the power instead of a renewable priority mix.
That was the easy bit anyway. Clean energy powered flight doesn't exist nor yet is there anything looking even slightly viable on the horizon. Clean energy for space heating existd, but for most of the UK's housing stock it's going to be cripplingly expensive compared to natural gas, as its uses electricity at about 5x the price per KW. Even a heat pump that at 2x efficiency, is double the cost of gas.
The only area where people "win" from clean energy is cars, and that's just a tax arbitrage because of fuel duty.
I'm not in the business of depriving the rest of the world of that which I take for granted - if that prosperity can be achieved without damaging the planet for future generations, that seems wholly desirable.
The problem I have is the damage has and is being done - we will have to live with the consequences of our past and present actions long after we have remediated the problem in the future.
For example, with rising sea levels, how are we to defend London from the river and the sea? Do we invest in ever larger defences or do we look at alternative solutions such as allowing the occasional flooding of alluvial land around the Thames Estuary?
Better have a word with that nice Mr Xi then, cos unless he's feeling helpful , it's going to happen anyway. Good luck...!
Explosive line from @Peston: "As I understand it, Cummings has WhatsApp messages that substantiate his claims that he was exonerated as the leaker, and that the Cabinet Secretary Simon Case believed "all the evidence definitely leads to Henry Newman and others in that office"". https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1385671158117421057
I always thought it was important for Johnson to keep Cummings onside. Otherwise he would find a way to take revenge.
Forget WBA beating Chelsea, Leeds beating Man City, Leicester winning the EPL....most EPL teams, your never even keeping your stars players for more than a season or two. There is no dream....
That is more to do with the distribution of shared TV and commercial revenues.
In Germany the bottom club receives about 40% of the top club and then gets relegated to a league with far lower revenue. In England the bottom club receives about 60% of the top club, and then gets significant parachute payments.
Chicken and egg.....EPL is big bucks around the world, because it is such a competitive and exciting league, so can afford to share the money. Millions aren't getting up at all hours to watch every Bundersliga games.
Spanish, Italian and English top flights have all had periods of dominance, no reason the German league couldnt get there if they get it right. That would involve Bayern giving the others a chance to catch up through more equal revenue, at the expense of Bayerns Champions League progress for 5-10 years. Such a gamble may or may not pay off, but it is necessary for the Bundesliga to even have a chance at the top spot for drama and quality.
Good luck selling that....ok lads, right Liverpool, Man Utd, Man City, you have to got to get a lot crappier, forget competing for the Champions League.....the rest, you are still going to be crapper, the best players aren't going to be here, but it will be great as we can all play shitter football on a slightly more level playing field.
And less money coming in, the only way get cheaper ticket prices is big cuts to player salaries, so that again makes even less likely the best player come.
Big cuts to agent's fees could be a start. They leech huge sums out of the game.
The mindset of players here is amazing. They are happy to pay agents tens of millions of pounds for work they could get the best commercial lawyers in the world to do for a tiny fraction of the cost.
I dunno, Mesut Ozil’s agent did a good job for his client.
Not especially. Doubt he was any happier than other players of his ability. He was still in the top 3 or 4 in the world in his position when Arsenal gave him his last contract. The issue was Guardiola and Klopp changed the pressing and defensive demands on attackers so quickly that whilst he could still break down the weaker teams he simply couldnt cope against the elite teams.
A good agent would have sought out a manager and club happy to play his kind of number 10 role, not let him waste a third of his career.
Having watched the guy home and away between 2013 and 2020, I can assure you that money was his main focus. He was never that good, that’s why Real sold him.
He is the second fastest player to 50 assists in Premier League history (behind De Bruyne). You simply don't achieve that if you are never that good.
I’m not keen on assist stats as it’s often the pass before that is key. That said, his set piece delivery was always good.
The issue is more that he didn’t run the game. I see him as the anti-Pires. We always said that if Pires played well, then Arsenal played well. With Ozil, the opposite was true. If Arsenal didn’t play well, he didn’t play well.
This is demonstrated by the best performance by Arsenal during his time at the club being a game in which he didn’t play:
Explosive line from @Peston: "As I understand it, Cummings has WhatsApp messages that substantiate his claims that he was exonerated as the leaker, and that the Cabinet Secretary Simon Case believed "all the evidence definitely leads to Henry Newman and others in that office"". https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1385671158117421057
I always thought it was important for Johnson to keep Cummings onside. Otherwise he would find a way to take revenge.
Bloody funny PM today about this. Evan Davis was on fire.
“they will not be able to fly as much, have to buy electric cars, eat less meat and completely renovate their home at vast expense to eradicate gas boilers”
That is what is going to be necessary, though. Moving from the century of oil & gas to a zero-carbon century is going to require serious sacrifices.
May as well be honest about it. People see through the political framing bullshit, and then get angry.
Is it worth it? It seems to be presumed that 2deg C of warming is such a potential catastrophe that its worth any amount of sacrifice to avoid it. This is a dubious assumption on two grounds:
1) Other than loudly bleating about the "scientific consensus" being that warming is bad, and periodically blaming any bad weather of any kind on global warming (usually just as unsupported assertion) no one seems to want to talk about what a given degree of warning might mean. It would be logical to expect both winners and losers from the process to start with, but no one seems to want to talk about any potential gains, only losses, and only then in the most nebulous of terms.
2 degrees of warming means that rice won’t grow in south east Asia.
A billion hungry Chinese with pointy sticks will not be a good thing for the west
The wider political aspects of green fanaticism and doom mongering, is who does it hurt the most in terms of votes? Is there a danger on the left that the more they talk up the climate crisis/emergency that they push people towards the Greens as a party and just annoy your own support?
Explosive line from @Peston: "As I understand it, Cummings has WhatsApp messages that substantiate his claims that he was exonerated as the leaker, and that the Cabinet Secretary Simon Case believed "all the evidence definitely leads to Henry Newman and others in that office"". https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1385671158117421057
I always thought it was important for Johnson to keep Cummings onside. Otherwise he would find a way to take revenge.
Bloody funny PM today about this. Evan Davis was on fire.
Taking our sleazy liar of a PM down is every journalist’s dream right now.
“they will not be able to fly as much, have to buy electric cars, eat less meat and completely renovate their home at vast expense to eradicate gas boilers”
That is what is going to be necessary, though. Moving from the century of oil & gas to a zero-carbon century is going to require serious sacrifices.
May as well be honest about it. People see through the political framing bullshit, and then get angry.
Is it worth it? It seems to be presumed that 2deg C of warming is such a potential catastrophe that its worth any amount of sacrifice to avoid it. This is a dubious assumption on two grounds:
1) Other than loudly bleating about the "scientific consensus" being that warming is bad, and periodically blaming any bad weather of any kind on global warming (usually just as unsupported assertion) no one seems to want to talk about what a given degree of warning might mean. It would be logical to expect both winners and losers from the process to start with, but no one seems to want to talk about any potential gains, only losses, and only then in the most nebulous of terms.
2 degrees of warming means that rice won’t grow in south east Asia.
A billion hungry Chinese with pointy sticks will not be a good thing for the west
Has Asia never been 2 degrees warmer in the past?
Oh and surely the Chinese will have moved away from subsistence farming by then? Like we did.
Explosive line from @Peston: "As I understand it, Cummings has WhatsApp messages that substantiate his claims that he was exonerated as the leaker, and that the Cabinet Secretary Simon Case believed "all the evidence definitely leads to Henry Newman and others in that office"". https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1385671158117421057
I always thought it was important for Johnson to keep Cummings onside. Otherwise he would find a way to take revenge.
Bloody funny PM today about this. Evan Davis was on fire.
Taking our sleazy liar of a PM down is every journalist’s dream right now.
Vaccine roll-out, opening the economy, fighting the greed of the ESL resonate with the public
Whether this is just noise or something more will soon be apparent as May's elections are less than two weeks away
Forget WBA beating Chelsea, Leeds beating Man City, Leicester winning the EPL....most EPL teams, your never even keeping your stars players for more than a season or two. There is no dream....
That is more to do with the distribution of shared TV and commercial revenues.
In Germany the bottom club receives about 40% of the top club and then gets relegated to a league with far lower revenue. In England the bottom club receives about 60% of the top club, and then gets significant parachute payments.
Chicken and egg.....EPL is big bucks around the world, because it is such a competitive and exciting league, so can afford to share the money. Millions aren't getting up at all hours to watch every Bundersliga games.
Spanish, Italian and English top flights have all had periods of dominance, no reason the German league couldnt get there if they get it right. That would involve Bayern giving the others a chance to catch up through more equal revenue, at the expense of Bayerns Champions League progress for 5-10 years. Such a gamble may or may not pay off, but it is necessary for the Bundesliga to even have a chance at the top spot for drama and quality.
Good luck selling that....ok lads, right Liverpool, Man Utd, Man City, you have to got to get a lot crappier, forget competing for the Champions League.....the rest, you are still going to be crapper, the best players aren't going to be here, but it will be great as we can all play shitter football on a slightly more level playing field.
And less money coming in, the only way get cheaper ticket prices is big cuts to player salaries, so that again makes even less likely the best player come.
Big cuts to agent's fees could be a start. They leech huge sums out of the game.
The mindset of players here is amazing. They are happy to pay agents tens of millions of pounds for work they could get the best commercial lawyers in the world to do for a tiny fraction of the cost.
I dunno, Mesut Ozil’s agent did a good job for his client.
Not especially. Doubt he was any happier than other players of his ability. He was still in the top 3 or 4 in the world in his position when Arsenal gave him his last contract. The issue was Guardiola and Klopp changed the pressing and defensive demands on attackers so quickly that whilst he could still break down the weaker teams he simply couldnt cope against the elite teams.
A good agent would have sought out a manager and club happy to play his kind of number 10 role, not let him waste a third of his career.
Having watched the guy home and away between 2013 and 2020, I can assure you that money was his main focus. He was never that good, that’s why Real sold him.
He is the second fastest player to 50 assists in Premier League history (behind De Bruyne). You simply don't achieve that if you are never that good.
I’m not keen on assist stats as it’s often the pass before that is key. That said, his set piece delivery was always good.
The issue is more that he didn’t run the game. I see him as the anti-Pires. We always said that if Pires played well, then Arsenal played well. With Ozil, the opposite was true. If Arsenal didn’t play well, he didn’t play well.
This is demonstrated by the best performance by Arsenal during his time at the club bring a game in which he didn’t play:
That is true, he was a passenger against the good sides particularly in the second half of his time at the club. The blame for that lies as much with Wenger as it did with Ozil, and it doesnt take away the fact that he was exceptional against weaker opponents as demonstrated by his assist records. You may not like assists as a stat but the others in the top five in that category are De Bruyne, Cantona, Fabregas, Bergkamp, that speaks for itself imo. It is not something that happens to people who are not that good.
“they will not be able to fly as much, have to buy electric cars, eat less meat and completely renovate their home at vast expense to eradicate gas boilers”
That is what is going to be necessary, though. Moving from the century of oil & gas to a zero-carbon century is going to require serious sacrifices.
May as well be honest about it. People see through the political framing bullshit, and then get angry.
Is it worth it? It seems to be presumed that 2deg C of warming is such a potential catastrophe that its worth any amount of sacrifice to avoid it. This is a dubious assumption on two grounds:
1) Other than loudly bleating about the "scientific consensus" being that warming is bad, and periodically blaming any bad weather of any kind on global warming (usually just as unsupported assertion) no one seems to want to talk about what a given degree of warning might mean. It would be logical to expect both winners and losers from the process to start with, but no one seems to want to talk about any potential gains, only losses, and only then in the most nebulous of terms.
2 degrees of warming means that rice won’t grow in south east Asia.
A billion hungry Chinese with pointy sticks will not be a good thing for the west
Has Asia never been 2 degrees warmer in the past?
Oh and surely the Chinese will have moved away from subsistence farming by then? Like we did.
We haven’t moved away from farming, though, have we? Or depending on someone else managing to farm?
And again, disrupting equilibria has consequences. On previous occasions when Asia has been two degrees warmer there have not been 100m Philippinos or 1.3bn Chinese.
NEW: The Electoral Commission has just confirmed to me that the issue over the No11 refurb is NOT yet settled with them, even though the government says Boris Johnson has now footed the bill.
"Discussions with the Tory Party continue as we work to establish whether any sums relating to the works at 11 Downing Street fall within the regime regulated by the Commission, and therefore need to be reported and subsequently published. The Party is working with us on this."
Forget WBA beating Chelsea, Leeds beating Man City, Leicester winning the EPL....most EPL teams, your never even keeping your stars players for more than a season or two. There is no dream....
That is more to do with the distribution of shared TV and commercial revenues.
In Germany the bottom club receives about 40% of the top club and then gets relegated to a league with far lower revenue. In England the bottom club receives about 60% of the top club, and then gets significant parachute payments.
Chicken and egg.....EPL is big bucks around the world, because it is such a competitive and exciting league, so can afford to share the money. Millions aren't getting up at all hours to watch every Bundersliga games.
Spanish, Italian and English top flights have all had periods of dominance, no reason the German league couldnt get there if they get it right. That would involve Bayern giving the others a chance to catch up through more equal revenue, at the expense of Bayerns Champions League progress for 5-10 years. Such a gamble may or may not pay off, but it is necessary for the Bundesliga to even have a chance at the top spot for drama and quality.
Good luck selling that....ok lads, right Liverpool, Man Utd, Man City, you have to got to get a lot crappier, forget competing for the Champions League.....the rest, you are still going to be crapper, the best players aren't going to be here, but it will be great as we can all play shitter football on a slightly more level playing field.
And less money coming in, the only way get cheaper ticket prices is big cuts to player salaries, so that again makes even less likely the best player come.
Big cuts to agent's fees could be a start. They leech huge sums out of the game.
The mindset of players here is amazing. They are happy to pay agents tens of millions of pounds for work they could get the best commercial lawyers in the world to do for a tiny fraction of the cost.
I dunno, Mesut Ozil’s agent did a good job for his client.
Not especially. Doubt he was any happier than other players of his ability. He was still in the top 3 or 4 in the world in his position when Arsenal gave him his last contract. The issue was Guardiola and Klopp changed the pressing and defensive demands on attackers so quickly that whilst he could still break down the weaker teams he simply couldnt cope against the elite teams.
A good agent would have sought out a manager and club happy to play his kind of number 10 role, not let him waste a third of his career.
Having watched the guy home and away between 2013 and 2020, I can assure you that money was his main focus. He was never that good, that’s why Real sold him.
He is the second fastest player to 50 assists in Premier League history (behind De Bruyne). You simply don't achieve that if you are never that good.
I’m not keen on assist stats as it’s often the pass before that is key. That said, his set piece delivery was always good.
The issue is more that he didn’t run the game. I see him as the anti-Pires. We always said that if Pires played well, then Arsenal played well. With Ozil, the opposite was true. If Arsenal didn’t play well, he didn’t play well.
This is demonstrated by the best performance by Arsenal during his time at the club bring a game in which he didn’t play:
That is true, he was a passenger against the good sides particularly in the second half of his time at the club. The blame for that lies as much with Wenger as it did with Ozil, and it doesnt take away the fact that he was exceptional against weaker opponents as demonstrated by his assist records. You may not like assists as a stat but the others in the top five in that category are De Bruyne, Cantona, Fabregas, Bergkamp, that speaks for itself imo. It is not something that happens to people who are not that good.
Never saw Cantona in the flesh (he had a reputation of choking in Europe, didn’t he?), but I can tell you Ozil was definitely not in the same class as the other three.
Where are we tonight: - No10 won't issue on record statement clearing top BJ aide Henry Newman for leaking - Electoral Commission still in discussions with Tories over flat refurb donation declarations - No 10 hasn't denied BJ *threatened* to abandon leak inquiry https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1385684553822519296
“they will not be able to fly as much, have to buy electric cars, eat less meat and completely renovate their home at vast expense to eradicate gas boilers”
That is what is going to be necessary, though. Moving from the century of oil & gas to a zero-carbon century is going to require serious sacrifices.
May as well be honest about it. People see through the political framing bullshit, and then get angry.
Is it worth it? It seems to be presumed that 2deg C of warming is such a potential catastrophe that its worth any amount of sacrifice to avoid it. This is a dubious assumption on two grounds:
1) Other than loudly bleating about the "scientific consensus" being that warming is bad, and periodically blaming any bad weather of any kind on global warming (usually just as unsupported assertion) no one seems to want to talk about what a given degree of warning might mean. It would be logical to expect both winners and losers from the process to start with, but no one seems to want to talk about any potential gains, only losses, and only then in the most nebulous of terms.
2 degrees of warming means that rice won’t grow in south east Asia.
A billion hungry Chinese with pointy sticks will not be a good thing for the west
2 degrees is pretty much baked in. The question for our children is whether we can stop it there.
Forget WBA beating Chelsea, Leeds beating Man City, Leicester winning the EPL....most EPL teams, your never even keeping your stars players for more than a season or two. There is no dream....
That is more to do with the distribution of shared TV and commercial revenues.
In Germany the bottom club receives about 40% of the top club and then gets relegated to a league with far lower revenue. In England the bottom club receives about 60% of the top club, and then gets significant parachute payments.
Chicken and egg.....EPL is big bucks around the world, because it is such a competitive and exciting league, so can afford to share the money. Millions aren't getting up at all hours to watch every Bundersliga games.
Spanish, Italian and English top flights have all had periods of dominance, no reason the German league couldnt get there if they get it right. That would involve Bayern giving the others a chance to catch up through more equal revenue, at the expense of Bayerns Champions League progress for 5-10 years. Such a gamble may or may not pay off, but it is necessary for the Bundesliga to even have a chance at the top spot for drama and quality.
Good luck selling that....ok lads, right Liverpool, Man Utd, Man City, you have to got to get a lot crappier, forget competing for the Champions League.....the rest, you are still going to be crapper, the best players aren't going to be here, but it will be great as we can all play shitter football on a slightly more level playing field.
And less money coming in, the only way get cheaper ticket prices is big cuts to player salaries, so that again makes even less likely the best player come.
Big cuts to agent's fees could be a start. They leech huge sums out of the game.
The mindset of players here is amazing. They are happy to pay agents tens of millions of pounds for work they could get the best commercial lawyers in the world to do for a tiny fraction of the cost.
I dunno, Mesut Ozil’s agent did a good job for his client.
Not especially. Doubt he was any happier than other players of his ability. He was still in the top 3 or 4 in the world in his position when Arsenal gave him his last contract. The issue was Guardiola and Klopp changed the pressing and defensive demands on attackers so quickly that whilst he could still break down the weaker teams he simply couldnt cope against the elite teams.
A good agent would have sought out a manager and club happy to play his kind of number 10 role, not let him waste a third of his career.
Having watched the guy home and away between 2013 and 2020, I can assure you that money was his main focus. He was never that good, that’s why Real sold him.
He is the second fastest player to 50 assists in Premier League history (behind De Bruyne). You simply don't achieve that if you are never that good.
I’m not keen on assist stats as it’s often the pass before that is key. That said, his set piece delivery was always good.
The issue is more that he didn’t run the game. I see him as the anti-Pires. We always said that if Pires played well, then Arsenal played well. With Ozil, the opposite was true. If Arsenal didn’t play well, he didn’t play well.
This is demonstrated by the best performance by Arsenal during his time at the club bring a game in which he didn’t play:
That is true, he was a passenger against the good sides particularly in the second half of his time at the club. The blame for that lies as much with Wenger as it did with Ozil, and it doesnt take away the fact that he was exceptional against weaker opponents as demonstrated by his assist records. You may not like assists as a stat but the others in the top five in that category are De Bruyne, Cantona, Fabregas, Bergkamp, that speaks for itself imo. It is not something that happens to people who are not that good.
Never saw Cantona in the flesh (he had a reputation of choking in Europe, didn’t he?), but I can tell you Ozil was definitely not in the same class as the other three.
I saw Cantona on all his home games and he was a genius footballer
Explosive line from @Peston: "As I understand it, Cummings has WhatsApp messages that substantiate his claims that he was exonerated as the leaker, and that the Cabinet Secretary Simon Case believed "all the evidence definitely leads to Henry Newman and others in that office"". https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1385671158117421057
I always thought it was important for Johnson to keep Cummings onside. Otherwise he would find a way to take revenge.
Hell has no fury like a flunky scorned. Especially when scorned for/by an inamorata.
Just ask the ghost of Sarah Churchill, 1st Duchess of Marlborough.
“they will not be able to fly as much, have to buy electric cars, eat less meat and completely renovate their home at vast expense to eradicate gas boilers”
That is what is going to be necessary, though. Moving from the century of oil & gas to a zero-carbon century is going to require serious sacrifices.
May as well be honest about it. People see through the political framing bullshit, and then get angry.
Is it worth it? It seems to be presumed that 2deg C of warming is such a potential catastrophe that its worth any amount of sacrifice to avoid it. This is a dubious assumption on two grounds:
1) Other than loudly bleating about the "scientific consensus" being that warming is bad, and periodically blaming any bad weather of any kind on global warming (usually just as unsupported assertion) no one seems to want to talk about what a given degree of warning might mean. It would be logical to expect both winners and losers from the process to start with, but no one seems to want to talk about any potential gains, only losses, and only then in the most nebulous of terms.
2 degrees of warming means that rice won’t grow in south east Asia.
A billion hungry Chinese with pointy sticks will not be a good thing for the west
Has Asia never been 2 degrees warmer in the past?
Oh and surely the Chinese will have moved away from subsistence farming by then? Like we did.
We haven’t moved away from farming, though, have we? Or depending on someone else managing to farm?
And again, disrupting equilibria has consequences. On previous occasions when Asia has been two degrees warmer there have not been 100m Philippinos or 1.3bn Chinese.
True. There is a lot of land in the world though. Are you saying the planet will not be able to feed itself?
The wider political aspects of green fanaticism and doom mongering, is who does it hurt the most in terms of votes? Is there a danger on the left that the more they talk up the climate crisis/emergency that they push people towards the Greens as a party and just annoy your own support?
For very many people, the notion of a "climate emergency" is meaningless. Yes, there may be some concern about polar bears but for most people the climate equals the weather and the weather, except for short periods, is relatively benign here.
The extent to which changes in climate will or may produce changes in the way we live is more problematic - obviously the possible loss of a winter sports industry in Scotland will be locally very serious but beyond that...
Coastal erosion is very serious if your house ends up over a cliff but again it's not an issue for the majority.
Hot summers (with temperatures regularly above 40c in London) will be difficult but we'll adapt. Elderly people will need to be protected but that can be organised. Flooding (of all kinds) can be mitigated with bigger walls or more imaginative solutions.
Short of a single catastrophic event, climate change will likely manifest slowly and gradually and insidiously over the coming decades. The political response to that is twofold - the short term mitigation of the immediate consequences and the longer term technological solutions to ensure the damage to the environment is reduced and ultimately reversed.
At the moment, platitudes lead the way - progress is being made (though I think that's little to do with politics) but there's still a strong element in some countries who either refuse to accept or are too frightened to admit there is a problem.
A UKcentric take on the matter. It won't be the loss of the Scottish ski resorts we notice, it'll be the knock on effects of the tropics becoming uninhabitable and their populations wanting to move North whether North wants them or not.
Time to buy land in Greenland and Alaska?
How did she respond?
Gerald Grosvenor bought 150,000 acres of Northern Canada about a decade ago as his personal hedge against climate change
I don't think Cummings was ever a Tory, but truly Johnson doesn't seem to engender long-lasting loyalty in his friendships and relationships.
I think this will be his long term downfall. He isn't clubbable, nor does he have an ideology which engenders devotion for fear of a rival faction taking over. Having neither means support can drain pretty quickly. No sign of that yet though.
“they will not be able to fly as much, have to buy electric cars, eat less meat and completely renovate their home at vast expense to eradicate gas boilers”
That is what is going to be necessary, though. Moving from the century of oil & gas to a zero-carbon century is going to require serious sacrifices.
May as well be honest about it. People see through the political framing bullshit, and then get angry.
Is it worth it? It seems to be presumed that 2deg C of warming is such a potential catastrophe that its worth any amount of sacrifice to avoid it. This is a dubious assumption on two grounds:
1) Other than loudly bleating about the "scientific consensus" being that warming is bad, and periodically blaming any bad weather of any kind on global warming (usually just as unsupported assertion) no one seems to want to talk about what a given degree of warning might mean. It would be logical to expect both winners and losers from the process to start with, but no one seems to want to talk about any potential gains, only losses, and only then in the most nebulous of terms.
2 degrees of warming means that rice won’t grow in south east Asia.
A billion hungry Chinese with pointy sticks will not be a good thing for the west
2 degrees is pretty much baked in. The question for our children is whether we can stop it there.
Indeed. Basically we're already steaming straight towards the iceberg. We might be able to turn slightly enough to deflect off it rather than ram it, but we're not going to avoid it and the only question is how bad the damage is going to be.
The wider political aspects of green fanaticism and doom mongering, is who does it hurt the most in terms of votes? Is there a danger on the left that the more they talk up the climate crisis/emergency that they push people towards the Greens as a party and just annoy your own support?
It's the doom-mongering that annoys me, not the substance of their arguments. If they presented exactly the same arguments, but somehow in a positive and/or optimistic way, I wouldn't have a problem with any of it.
The wider political aspects of green fanaticism and doom mongering, is who does it hurt the most in terms of votes? Is there a danger on the left that the more they talk up the climate crisis/emergency that they push people towards the Greens as a party and just annoy your own support?
For very many people, the notion of a "climate emergency" is meaningless. Yes, there may be some concern about polar bears but for most people the climate equals the weather and the weather, except for short periods, is relatively benign here.
The extent to which changes in climate will or may produce changes in the way we live is more problematic - obviously the possible loss of a winter sports industry in Scotland will be locally very serious but beyond that...
Coastal erosion is very serious if your house ends up over a cliff but again it's not an issue for the majority.
Hot summers (with temperatures regularly above 40c in London) will be difficult but we'll adapt. Elderly people will need to be protected but that can be organised. Flooding (of all kinds) can be mitigated with bigger walls or more imaginative solutions.
Short of a single catastrophic event, climate change will likely manifest slowly and gradually and insidiously over the coming decades. The political response to that is twofold - the short term mitigation of the immediate consequences and the longer term technological solutions to ensure the damage to the environment is reduced and ultimately reversed.
At the moment, platitudes lead the way - progress is being made (though I think that's little to do with politics) but there's still a strong element in some countries who either refuse to accept or are too frightened to admit there is a problem.
A UKcentric take on the matter. It won't be the loss of the Scottish ski resorts we notice, it'll be the knock on effects of the tropics becoming uninhabitable and their populations wanting to move North whether North wants them or not.
Time to buy land in Greenland and Alaska?
How did she respond?
Gerald Grosvenor bought 150,000 acres of Northern Canada about a decade ago as his personal hedge against climate change
It was just a little joke on Alaska, as warbled by Perry Como where has Oregon boy where has Oregon? if you wan Al-ask-a Alaska where she's gone.
“they will not be able to fly as much, have to buy electric cars, eat less meat and completely renovate their home at vast expense to eradicate gas boilers”
That is what is going to be necessary, though. Moving from the century of oil & gas to a zero-carbon century is going to require serious sacrifices.
May as well be honest about it. People see through the political framing bullshit, and then get angry.
Is it worth it? It seems to be presumed that 2deg C of warming is such a potential catastrophe that its worth any amount of sacrifice to avoid it. This is a dubious assumption on two grounds:
1) Other than loudly bleating about the "scientific consensus" being that warming is bad, and periodically blaming any bad weather of any kind on global warming (usually just as unsupported assertion) no one seems to want to talk about what a given degree of warning might mean. It would be logical to expect both winners and losers from the process to start with, but no one seems to want to talk about any potential gains, only losses, and only then in the most nebulous of terms.
2 degrees of warming means that rice won’t grow in south east Asia.
A billion hungry Chinese with pointy sticks will not be a good thing for the west
2 degrees is pretty much baked in. The question for our children is whether we can stop it there.
Indeed. Basically we're already steaming straight towards the iceberg. We might be able to turn slightly enough to deflect off it rather than ram it, but we're not going to avoid it and the only question is how bad the damage is going to be.
Picture a group of grumpy PBers lounging about at the Feast of Belshazzar, opining as how all this "Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin" guff is just a chariot-load of camel poop.
“they will not be able to fly as much, have to buy electric cars, eat less meat and completely renovate their home at vast expense to eradicate gas boilers”
That is what is going to be necessary, though. Moving from the century of oil & gas to a zero-carbon century is going to require serious sacrifices.
May as well be honest about it. People see through the political framing bullshit, and then get angry.
Is it worth it? It seems to be presumed that 2deg C of warming is such a potential catastrophe that its worth any amount of sacrifice to avoid it. This is a dubious assumption on two grounds:
1) Other than loudly bleating about the "scientific consensus" being that warming is bad, and periodically blaming any bad weather of any kind on global warming (usually just as unsupported assertion) no one seems to want to talk about what a given degree of warning might mean. It would be logical to expect both winners and losers from the process to start with, but no one seems to want to talk about any potential gains, only losses, and only then in the most nebulous of terms.
2 degrees of warming means that rice won’t grow in south east Asia.
A billion hungry Chinese with pointy sticks will not be a good thing for the west
I find that unlikely. China is a famine culture - they will eat anything. If rice stops growing, they'll grow something else.
“they will not be able to fly as much, have to buy electric cars, eat less meat and completely renovate their home at vast expense to eradicate gas boilers”
That is what is going to be necessary, though. Moving from the century of oil & gas to a zero-carbon century is going to require serious sacrifices.
May as well be honest about it. People see through the political framing bullshit, and then get angry.
Is it worth it? It seems to be presumed that 2deg C of warming is such a potential catastrophe that its worth any amount of sacrifice to avoid it. This is a dubious assumption on two grounds:
1) Other than loudly bleating about the "scientific consensus" being that warming is bad, and periodically blaming any bad weather of any kind on global warming (usually just as unsupported assertion) no one seems to want to talk about what a given degree of warning might mean. It would be logical to expect both winners and losers from the process to start with, but no one seems to want to talk about any potential gains, only losses, and only then in the most nebulous of terms.
2 degrees of warming means that rice won’t grow in south east Asia.
A billion hungry Chinese with pointy sticks will not be a good thing for the west
Has Asia never been 2 degrees warmer in the past?
Oh and surely the Chinese will have moved away from subsistence farming by then? Like we did.
Rice is about half of the daily calorific intake in China. It’s not about subsistence farming it’s about having enough food.
I don’t know about historical temperatures but we have more people and more monoculture. In the past people starved to death or write the Magna Carta. This time it’s different.
Just a coincidence that I've recently finished reading Among The Thugs by Bill Buford. One of the most amazing books I've ever read, even though it was published 30 years ago.
“they will not be able to fly as much, have to buy electric cars, eat less meat and completely renovate their home at vast expense to eradicate gas boilers”
That is what is going to be necessary, though. Moving from the century of oil & gas to a zero-carbon century is going to require serious sacrifices.
May as well be honest about it. People see through the political framing bullshit, and then get angry.
Is it worth it? It seems to be presumed that 2deg C of warming is such a potential catastrophe that its worth any amount of sacrifice to avoid it. This is a dubious assumption on two grounds:
1) Other than loudly bleating about the "scientific consensus" being that warming is bad, and periodically blaming any bad weather of any kind on global warming (usually just as unsupported assertion) no one seems to want to talk about what a given degree of warning might mean. It would be logical to expect both winners and losers from the process to start with, but no one seems to want to talk about any potential gains, only losses, and only then in the most nebulous of terms.
2 degrees of warming means that rice won’t grow in south east Asia.
A billion hungry Chinese with pointy sticks will not be a good thing for the west
Has Asia never been 2 degrees warmer in the past?
Oh and surely the Chinese will have moved away from subsistence farming by then? Like we did.
Rice is about half of the daily calorific intake in China. It’s not about subsistence farming it’s about having enough food.
I don’t know about historical temperatures but we have more people and more monoculture. In the past people starved to death or write the Magna Carta. This time it’s different.
Only in half of China - the other half grows more wheat.
Explosive line from @Peston: "As I understand it, Cummings has WhatsApp messages that substantiate his claims that he was exonerated as the leaker, and that the Cabinet Secretary Simon Case believed "all the evidence definitely leads to Henry Newman and others in that office"". https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1385671158117421057
I always thought it was important for Johnson to keep Cummings onside. Otherwise he would find a way to take revenge.
Hell has no fury like a flunky scorned. Especially when scorned for/by an inamorata.
Just ask the ghost of Sarah Churchill, 1st Duchess of Marlborough.
Abigail Masham (the Emma Stone character in the movie) was my direct ancestor 😄
Sam Coates Sky @SamCoatesSky · 26m Where are we tonight: - No10 won't issue on record statement clearing top BJ aide Henry Newman for leaking - Electoral Commission still in discussions with Tories over flat refurb donation declarations - No 10 hasn't denied BJ *threatened* to abandon leak inquiry
“they will not be able to fly as much, have to buy electric cars, eat less meat and completely renovate their home at vast expense to eradicate gas boilers”
That is what is going to be necessary, though. Moving from the century of oil & gas to a zero-carbon century is going to require serious sacrifices.
May as well be honest about it. People see through the political framing bullshit, and then get angry.
No it is not all what is going to be necessary (the electric car bit is) - and if it is necessary then it won't happen. Do you think the Chinese are going to choose not to fly just because we tell people they're killing pandas if they fly?
The solution, the only solution that will work is clean technologies.
Saying don't use power will not work. People won't listen to you. Saying "here is some clean and affordable power, use this instead of coal" people will listen to.
Saying don't fly will not work. People won't listen to you. Saying "here is a newly designed clean and affordable plane, use this instead of jet fuel" people will listen to.
Saying "don't eat meat" will not work. People won't listen to you. Full stop, I see no alternative to this one, the line is drawn here. Maybe find a way to offset against it because meat is happening.
Artificial meat will be a mainstream, cheap product inside a decade.
An interesting thought. Can artificial meat taste like roast rib of beef? Or will it taste more like a Quorn veggie sausage?
There was one brand of veggie beef pie that tasted so much like the real thing I couldn't eat it.
Good evening, everyone.
I've tried some of this food and it's mainly diabolical.
I had a "cauliflower steak" for dinner which is, let's face it, just a slice of cauliflower dressed up.
I woke up starving at 3am and had a massive bowl of crunchy nut cornflakes with gold top milk and toast.
Impossible and Beyond are really rather good. Indeed, I'd rather use Impossible than cheap meat, although that's probably because cheap US meat is really not that nice at all.
The best steak substitute imo is Portobello mushroom fried with plenty of butter and I think (though I've never tried) some soy sauce or some sort of veggy stock to add savour. You should also be able to get liquid off it to make a wine/cream sauce, as you would with a real piece of beef. It's natural and tastes good because it's food.
Obviously even better than that is a steak.
I love steak. And I love portobello (and other) mushrooms.
But as a substitute for mince, Beyond and Impossible are really good.
I've never heard of these brands before, just searched for them on ASDA's website and Beyond has pet food but nothing else. Seems to be expensive though.
Are these brands more expensive or cheaper than regular meat?
If they're more expensive then I see no point whatsoever in them.
At my local store, they're cheaper than nice meat, and more expensive than cheap meat.
“they will not be able to fly as much, have to buy electric cars, eat less meat and completely renovate their home at vast expense to eradicate gas boilers”
That is what is going to be necessary, though. Moving from the century of oil & gas to a zero-carbon century is going to require serious sacrifices.
May as well be honest about it. People see through the political framing bullshit, and then get angry.
Is it worth it? It seems to be presumed that 2deg C of warming is such a potential catastrophe that its worth any amount of sacrifice to avoid it. This is a dubious assumption on two grounds:
1) Other than loudly bleating about the "scientific consensus" being that warming is bad, and periodically blaming any bad weather of any kind on global warming (usually just as unsupported assertion) no one seems to want to talk about what a given degree of warning might mean. It would be logical to expect both winners and losers from the process to start with, but no one seems to want to talk about any potential gains, only losses, and only then in the most nebulous of terms.
2 degrees of warming means that rice won’t grow in south east Asia.
A billion hungry Chinese with pointy sticks will not be a good thing for the west
I find that unlikely. China is a famine culture - they will eat anything. If rice stops growing, they'll grow something else.
You do realise that in 1959-61 about 30m Chinese died of starvation?
“they will not be able to fly as much, have to buy electric cars, eat less meat and completely renovate their home at vast expense to eradicate gas boilers”
That is what is going to be necessary, though. Moving from the century of oil & gas to a zero-carbon century is going to require serious sacrifices.
May as well be honest about it. People see through the political framing bullshit, and then get angry.
No it is not all what is going to be necessary (the electric car bit is) - and if it is necessary then it won't happen. Do you think the Chinese are going to choose not to fly just because we tell people they're killing pandas if they fly?
The solution, the only solution that will work is clean technologies.
Saying don't use power will not work. People won't listen to you. Saying "here is some clean and affordable power, use this instead of coal" people will listen to.
Saying don't fly will not work. People won't listen to you. Saying "here is a newly designed clean and affordable plane, use this instead of jet fuel" people will listen to.
Saying "don't eat meat" will not work. People won't listen to you. Full stop, I see no alternative to this one, the line is drawn here. Maybe find a way to offset against it because meat is happening.
Artificial meat will be a mainstream, cheap product inside a decade.
An interesting thought. Can artificial meat taste like roast rib of beef? Or will it taste more like a Quorn veggie sausage?
There was one brand of veggie beef pie that tasted so much like the real thing I couldn't eat it.
Good evening, everyone.
I've tried some of this food and it's mainly diabolical.
I had a "cauliflower steak" for dinner which is, let's face it, just a slice of cauliflower dressed up.
I woke up starving at 3am and had a massive bowl of crunchy nut cornflakes with gold top milk and toast.
Impossible and Beyond are really rather good. Indeed, I'd rather use Impossible than cheap meat, although that's probably because cheap US meat is really not that nice at all.
The best steak substitute imo is Portobello mushroom fried with plenty of butter and I think (though I've never tried) some soy sauce or some sort of veggy stock to add savour. You should also be able to get liquid off it to make a wine/cream sauce, as you would with a real piece of beef. It's natural and tastes good because it's food.
Obviously even better than that is a steak.
I love steak. And I love portobello (and other) mushrooms.
But as a substitute for mince, Beyond and Impossible are really good.
I've never heard of these brands before, just searched for them on ASDA's website and Beyond has pet food but nothing else. Seems to be expensive though.
Are these brands more expensive or cheaper than regular meat?
If they're more expensive then I see no point whatsoever in them.
At my local store, they're cheaper than nice meat, and more expensive than cheap meat.
IKEA veggie meatballs are very good indeed. Better than the meat ones.
“they will not be able to fly as much, have to buy electric cars, eat less meat and completely renovate their home at vast expense to eradicate gas boilers”
That is what is going to be necessary, though. Moving from the century of oil & gas to a zero-carbon century is going to require serious sacrifices.
May as well be honest about it. People see through the political framing bullshit, and then get angry.
Is it worth it? It seems to be presumed that 2deg C of warming is such a potential catastrophe that its worth any amount of sacrifice to avoid it. This is a dubious assumption on two grounds:
1) Other than loudly bleating about the "scientific consensus" being that warming is bad, and periodically blaming any bad weather of any kind on global warming (usually just as unsupported assertion) no one seems to want to talk about what a given degree of warning might mean. It would be logical to expect both winners and losers from the process to start with, but no one seems to want to talk about any potential gains, only losses, and only then in the most nebulous of terms.
2 degrees of warming means that rice won’t grow in south east Asia.
A billion hungry Chinese with pointy sticks will not be a good thing for the west
I find that unlikely. China is a famine culture - they will eat anything. If rice stops growing, they'll grow something else.
You do realise that in 1959-61 about 30m Chinese died of starvation?
And why was that? John McDonnell might reflect a bit when brandishing mao’s little red book. Every bit as evil as hitler (mao, not McDonnell).
Comments
This is pretty much the first choice Everton eleven. Only Holgate in for Keane. Something we haven't had since we were top of the league after 5 games.
It is a long way from Arsenal's best possible line up. Nketiah on his own up front.
We haven't won at Arsenal since 1996. We won't get a better chance...
And less money coming in, the only way get cheaper ticket prices is big cuts to player salaries, so that again makes even less likely the best player come.
What’s vital is to keep the Tv money distributed reasonably evenly.
US has a (very) large surplus of non-approved not-needed-for-US vaccine that is being held back there.
However, it is also probably true that the pace of relative decline will slow. Birth rates are collapsing across the developed world, so the population gap will not grow so much in future. And as countries get richer (see South Korea and Taiwan), then their growth rates drop too - simply they're not playing catch up any more.
Love the avatar btw.
Like many industries there is a choice between investing or jam now.
They leech huge sums out of the game.
I’m not sure it would be as attractive today simply because football has become a bit samey. The sweet spot was when it still had its Britishness but was sprinkled with overseas talent.
But it’s still the most interesting league by a country mile.
Incidentally, predictions of disaster in the event that our own Union breaks up are probably overdone as well. Scotland is a wealthy country and can do perfectly well as an independent actor; secession may have important geopolitical consequences for the remainder of the British state, but is likely to prove inconsequential in economic terms.
That Europe (and the developed world as a whole) is shrinking as a proportion of total world economic activity is obvious. Most of the rest of the globe - most notably India and China - is growing faster.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_OZ4Jy6IvCY
The simple fact is that the developed Anglophone nations have been growing for decades now faster than Europe.
For a mix of faster growing population (more net immigration is a factor) and more growth per capita.
Obviously even better than that is a steak.
The extent to which changes in climate will or may produce changes in the way we live is more problematic - obviously the possible loss of a winter sports industry in Scotland will be locally very serious but beyond that...
Coastal erosion is very serious if your house ends up over a cliff but again it's not an issue for the majority.
Hot summers (with temperatures regularly above 40c in London) will be difficult but we'll adapt. Elderly people will need to be protected but that can be organised. Flooding (of all kinds) can be mitigated with bigger walls or more imaginative solutions.
Short of a single catastrophic event, climate change will likely manifest slowly and gradually and insidiously over the coming decades. The political response to that is twofold - the short term mitigation of the immediate consequences and the longer term technological solutions to ensure the damage to the environment is reduced and ultimately reversed.
At the moment, platitudes lead the way - progress is being made (though I think that's little to do with politics) but there's still a strong element in some countries who either refuse to accept or are too frightened to admit there is a problem.
And we won't know that until (realistically) about 12 months time. Otherwise all you're measuring is the size of the drop.
But as a substitute for mince, Beyond and Impossible are really good.
Donald Trump has never had a lentil on his face.
https://mobile.twitter.com/eldsjal/status/1385667437929062403
Are these brands more expensive or cheaper than regular meat?
If they're more expensive then I see no point whatsoever in them.
A good agent would have sought out a manager and club happy to play his kind of number 10 role, not let him waste a third of his career.
The curious juxtaposition of climate vs weather. Spain recorded its coldest ever temperatures on January 6th and 7th with a village in Leon recording -35.8c.
The trend, however, is for rising temperatures - so far nowhere in Spain has recorded a value above 48c. That will change sooner rather than later. It's when July and August are regularly (say one year in three) getting above 45-47d that it'll be an issue.
I don't rule out the impact of, for example, increasing moorland and forest fires in the UK as we saw last summer.
As you rightly say, we've yet to see the real impact of climate migration whether from areas going underwater or areas becoming too hot to sustain life.
Seattle Times - NHL’s Kraken sued by Seattle’s Kraken Lounge over planned Northgate restaurant name
A University District punk-rock bar is suing the Kraken for $3.5 million, alleging the NHL expansion team’s name choice and plans to open a Northgate Mall practice facility restaurant risks irreparably harming its brand.
A lawsuit filed Thursday in King County Superior Court states the Kraken Bar & Lounge, founded in 2011 by William Knupp and husband-and-wife Kat Colley and Daniel Colley, had begrudgingly tolerated the team’s name choice despite a parade of new patrons in “hockey themed attire” showing up amid its usual music clientele wanting to make the venue their hangout. But the final straw, according to the lawsuit, came when the team this month announced it will open the Kraken Bar & Grill at its planned $80 million training facility come mid-September.
The lawsuit for trademark infringement and tortious interference asks that the team be prohibited from using “The Seattle Kraken” name and any others similarly confusing with its own trademarks. It states that the team’s announcement of the coming practice facility restaurant run by former F.X. McRory’s Steak Chop & Oyster House owner Mick McHugh “is sure to ruin The Kraken Bar and its near decade-old, cherished image and reputation as one of Seattle’s last dive bars.”
The suit claims the punk bar’s trademarks are entitled to protections because they are distinctive of its goods and services and existed long before the team’s July 2020 name announcement.
The NHL team did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The lawsuit claims the punk bar’s owners didn’t know what to do last summer when the better-resourced NHL team announced its name and new patrons began showing up wanting to turn their establishment into a hockey bar.
“That The Kraken Bar would or should become a ‘hockey bar’ or a sports bar of any kind was anathema to The Kraken Bar and its regular patrons,” the lawsuit states. “The Kraken Bar’s regular patrons frequented the bar precisely because it was a dive-bar, associated with affordable food and drinks as well as cutting edge live music performances by well-known punk and metal bands.”
The lawsuit says the punk bar by this year noticed actual confusion by customers thinking the venue was team-sponsored. And that the team’s “blitzkrieg advertising campaigns” had caused the bar’s online and social-media presence to drop “to a location only the most dutiful or mindful consumer could find.”
The $3.5 million amount sought equates to past investments and sweat equity the owners say they’ve put in. “The Kraken Bar remains one of the few dive bars left in the neighborhood and region,” the lawsuit states. “Its patrons are loyal. Many cannot stand the thought of losing The Kraken Bar to a corporate-sponsored bar, devoid of personality and consumed by an investor mandate to extract premium prices.”
China and, in time, India will also move to decarbonise, regardless of how expensive it is for them, simply out of self-interest. It's either that or roast to death.
The biggest environmental concern isn't actually global warming at all. It's human overpopulation and habitat destruction.
And if snow on the himalayas disappears then so do the Mekong and Irawaddy rivers.
Have there previously been such mass migrations or human extinctions?
No policy, not matter how damaging to ordinary life, will ever be enough to appease the cult of St Greta
DOUGLAS MURRAY" {£}
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/04/23/climate-extremists-will-never-satisfied/
He's now being accused of breaking his promise to the House.
https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1385675212872691719
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1385671158117421057
That was the easy bit anyway. Clean energy powered flight doesn't exist nor yet is there anything looking even slightly viable on the horizon. Clean energy for space heating existd, but for most of the UK's housing stock it's going to be cripplingly expensive compared to natural gas, as its uses electricity at about 5x the price per KW. Even a heat pump that at 2x efficiency, is double the cost of gas.
The only area where people "win" from clean energy is cars, and that's just a tax arbitrage because of fuel duty. Better have a word with that nice Mr Xi then, cos unless he's feeling helpful , it's going to happen anyway. Good luck...!
The issue is more that he didn’t run the game. I see him as the anti-Pires. We always said that if Pires played well, then Arsenal played well. With Ozil, the opposite was true. If Arsenal didn’t play well, he didn’t play well.
This is demonstrated by the best performance by Arsenal during his time at the club being a game in which he didn’t play:
https://www.11v11.com/matches/manchester-city-v-arsenal-18-january-2015-310693/
A billion hungry Chinese with pointy sticks will not be a good thing for the west
https://dominiccummings.com/2021/04/23/statement-regarding-no10-claims-today/
Oh and surely the Chinese will have moved away from subsistence farming by then? Like we did.
Whether this is just noise or something more will soon be apparent as May's elections are less than two weeks away
And my wife and I have already voted
And again, disrupting equilibria has consequences. On previous occasions when Asia has been two degrees warmer there have not been 100m Philippinos or 1.3bn Chinese.
They say yesterday's statement still stands.
This said:
https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1385683793173008384
"Discussions with the Tory Party continue as we work to establish whether any sums relating to the works at 11 Downing Street fall within the regime regulated by the Commission, and therefore need to be reported and subsequently published. The Party is working with us on this."
- No10 won't issue on record statement clearing top BJ aide Henry Newman for leaking
- Electoral Commission still in discussions with Tories over flat refurb donation declarations
- No 10 hasn't denied BJ *threatened* to abandon leak inquiry
https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1385684553822519296
Just ask the ghost of Sarah Churchill, 1st Duchess of Marlborough.
Having neither means support can drain pretty quickly.
No sign of that yet though.
where has Oregon boy
where has Oregon?
if you wan Al-ask-a
Alaska where she's gone.
But shifting SW3 to Canada would be good move.
Is trouble continuing
I don’t know about historical temperatures but we have more people and more monoculture. In the past people starved to death or write the Magna Carta. This time it’s different.
@SamCoatesSky
·
26m
Where are we tonight:
- No10 won't issue on record statement clearing top BJ aide Henry Newman for leaking
- Electoral Commission still in discussions with Tories over flat refurb donation declarations
- No 10 hasn't denied BJ *threatened* to abandon leak inquiry
As I said previously if it something other than noise we will see in a couple of weeks