There is a logic in Sunak’s green gamble – politicalbetting.com

Farooq said:

algarkirk said:

turbotubbs said:

Andy_JS said:

"Daniel Khalife pleads not guilty to Wandsworth prison escape"

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66876658

I'm no lawyer, bur seeing as he was apprehended outside the prison, how on earth is such a plea even possible?

Any number of defences available. Identity. No mens rea. Necessity. Coercion. Defect in the original process of imprisonment. Insanity. Assertion of human rights in the face of prison conditions.

Such a plea is possible for the simple reason that no-one can be criminally convicted except by proper process, and people are entitled not to convict themselves by pleading guilty. (If you remain mute, a NG plea is entered in default). NG means "prove it".

Small point, is necessity really a defence? I thought there was a cannibalism case way back, when some sailors aboard a lifeboat drew lots and ate one of the party. They were convicted of murder establishing that necessity isn't a defence?

To add to the complication, that was perfectly legal under maritime law and custom IIRC. It was some shoreside lawyer who insisted on prosecuting.

It was the Mignonette case. In Wiki and this book

https://archive.org/details/cannibalismcommo0000simp

BartholomewRoberts said:

Stark_Dawning said:

Remember the crime drama Broadchurch from 2013? In it there was an elderly character who'd previously married a women several years his junior, and he was portrayed as a heroic victim of prurient media harassment. Now there is talk of those sort of relationships to be criminalized (even if both parties are above the age of consent). I'm not saying if that approach is right or wrong, but it's amazing how quickly the received opinion can change.

I don't believe anyone is suggesting criminalising adult relationships based on age differential.

What I do believe is being discussed is tightening up safeguards regarding relationships people have with children.

There's a myth by some that the unrestricted age of consent in this country is 16, its not, its 18 already.

Relations with a 16 year old may be legal, or may be illegal, depending upon the circumstances. Some people are suggesting those circumstances be adjusted to include a "Romeo and Juliet" style law, which is not unusual abroad.

Will Romeo and Juliet survive the Online Harms bill ?

Interest rates paused

Vote was 5/4

4 votes to raise, 5 to hold.

Carnyx said:

Phil said:

Carnyx said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

SandyRentool said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

SandyRentool said:

david_herdson said:

On topic, Sunak is right. There has been a huge amount of cakeism from previous governments, basking in the approval of environmental campaigners for introducing the targets, while failing to have an honest conversation about costs - and because Labour, the Lib Dems and Greens, and indeed the core broadcast media, are signed up to the same agenda, then they're happy for the Tories to be blamed for the costs as they come in as the party in office.

Consequently, the only political opposition comes from right-wing Tories, Reform UK, the Mail and Telegraph. It's like Brexit all over again - and we know how that ended.

Brexit was ultimately a consequence of a failure to advocate the benefits of the policy. It's easy to see now the net costs but without explaining the many little benefits, that ground was ceded by default to the opponents who could highlight the irritants and costs involved. Proponents were quiet while opponents were loud (with the exception of Remainy true believers, who by taking their case too far, also turned the public off). And that's where we are with Net Zero and climate change policy.

Unless the policy is advocated from first principles, not just on 'save the planet' grounds, which some will see as hopelessly beyond Britain's scope and others will see and virtue-signalling guff or simply fraudulent, but on grounds of national security and economic benefit, there is every chance there will be a populist backlash against a policy seen as imposed by an elite conspiracy without a popular mandate - because there will be enough truth in the case to credibly make it, especially if the other side is out-of-practice in its media skills in countering those claims.

Put simply, in a democracy, you have to take the people with you.

It's not a great sign that the TV media coverage today is full of environmentalists and political opponents of the Tories whining about how awful the Tories are, rather than making the positive case for action (which it's worth noting the Tories are still signed up to, even if in a kick-the-can mode).

"Put simply, in a democracy, you have to take the people with you."

And Sunak has given up trying. Because he doesn't care about the environment himself, he'd rather take the soft option and follow the agenda of the Mail and Express.

This isn't leadership. Get rid.

Sunak is challenging the climate change process and in fact is brave and correct

Of course he has come under fierce attack, but as is being seen on this forum he is receiving support for his actions

No. Sunak is being completely disingenuous. Claiming that 2050 Net Zero can still be achieved without taking the steps required to get there is just taking the people for fools.

Clearly an attempt to have cake and eat it. He deserves all he gets for this nonsense.

There are multiple sets of steps you can take to get to the same destination.

If petrol cars get outlawed in 2035 then by 2050 they'll be at least 16 years old and a tiny proportion of vehicles on the road.

The problem with extremists is the fallacy of "something must be done, this is something, so this must be done."

Nonsense.

If, say, we pump out maximum emissions until 2049 then make a big bang transition to Net Zero then:

1) the UK economy is left for dead as the US/China plough on with a cheap, green energy economy

2) or, if everyone else follows our example, the planet is screwed.

Who said that we pump out maximum emissions until 2049 then make a big transition in 2050? Certainly not me.

The transition is happening either way, and before 2050, if its in 2030 or 2035, its just a question of getting the ducks in a row.

As for (2) as I've said before, everyone else will do what's in their own best interests, they won't "follow our example". If we cut off our nose to spite our face, taking harmful actions like cutting driving or flying rather than investing in clean technologies then they'll just carry on merrily along doing their own thing and ignore us.

If we want them to follow us, we need a sensible example to follow where we improve our living standards, not harm them, with cleaner technologies. That way we get to have our cake and eat it (which is the entire purpose of having a cake in my eyes) and they will follow us.

Despite your scornful response about it, a great deal of carbon can be sequestered by dressing agricultural fields with rock dust - as Sheffield University says, up to 40% of our Net Zero requirements, which is huge. It's huge if it's only half that.

I was already very keen on this idea anyway, to remineralise agricultural soils, resulting in healthier produce and improved yields, but for it to also help us massively on the way to Net Zero is a massive win.

'Produce' implies arable fields. So what happens at harvest? Even if one is direct drilling, the previous crop is eliminated one way or another. And if there is some increase in bound carbon (as in species-rich permanent grasslands) this is only a one off.

What am I missing

It seems you plough the rock dust into the soil, or spread it on top & plant crops as normal. Yields should be the same, or better in some cases as you can choose to apply the ground up silicates only to those fields where increasing the pH will be a net benefit (as is already done by spreading ground up limestone in some areas).

Sure, but you remove the carbon and rot, burn, belch, fart it back into the atmosphere. You're not making a coal seam de nos jours to sequester the carbon from the atmosphere, on the whole.

(Though anything to economise on fuel and oil-derved fertiliser is good, too, in that aim.)

Activated charcoal is the most promising sequestration option, or “biochar” as it’s
termed. There you really are locking away carbon in a process that partially mimics the creation of coal seams, and it works even if the ground is ploughed.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Interest rates paused

Vote was 5/4

Bugger, pound just slumped just as I was due to buy some Euros.

algarkirk said:

This has betting implications. I would still be cautious about betting the farm on Labour 326+ seats.

I'd actually be slightly more inclined to bet on this than I was last week.

In general, Sunak's strategy has been to calm things down after the turbulence of the Johnson and Truss Premierships. The idea has been to take the heat out and demonstrate steady progress on some reasonably modest targets. All very "grown ups in charge" and "why risk Captain Hindsight when you've got Captain Sensible at the helm?" But it's not about creating huge points of difference - it's managerial.

Immigration policy doesn't fit in with that. He's been more willing to create difference. I understand that, politically, because he needs some red meat and in reality a lot of people do like a strident line on it (I'm not one of them but I'm not the target market). His problem is that it isn't actually working because the policies themselves are crap, but there it it.

Now, though, he's rolling the dice in other areas. That suggests he's lost confidence in the ability of the strategy he set out last year and early this to narrow the polls.

But doing that not only speaks to his personal weakness and lack of resolve, but it's risky too. Firstly, he's in danger of trashing the Steady Eddie brand he has previously tried to develop. Secondly, if you're going to create dividing lines, you better make damned sure you're picking the right side of them politically, and I'm not sure he is - like "Get Brexit Done" versus "Bollocks to Brexit" in 2019, if you judge it right you do very well, but if you get the call wrong you do very badly.

On that basis, I think the old, steady approach had little chance of keeping Sunak in Number 10 but a reasonable chance of limiting losses and depriving Labour of an overall majority. Whereas the new approach has some chance of being very successful but, along with it, a greater chance it'll flop, there won't even be a partial recovery for the Tories, and Labour will breeze in.

Carnyx said:

Phil said:

Carnyx said:

Phil said:

Carnyx said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

SandyRentool said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

SandyRentool said:

david_herdson said:

On topic, Sunak is right. There has been a huge amount of cakeism from previous governments, basking in the approval of environmental campaigners for introducing the targets, while failing to have an honest conversation about costs - and because Labour, the Lib Dems and Greens, and indeed the core broadcast media, are signed up to the same agenda, then they're happy for the Tories to be blamed for the costs as they come in as the party in office.

Consequently, the only political opposition comes from right-wing Tories, Reform UK, the Mail and Telegraph. It's like Brexit all over again - and we know how that ended.

Brexit was ultimately a consequence of a failure to advocate the benefits of the policy. It's easy to see now the net costs but without explaining the many little benefits, that ground was ceded by default to the opponents who could highlight the irritants and costs involved. Proponents were quiet while opponents were loud (with the exception of Remainy true believers, who by taking their case too far, also turned the public off). And that's where we are with Net Zero and climate change policy.

Unless the policy is advocated from first principles, not just on 'save the planet' grounds, which some will see as hopelessly beyond Britain's scope and others will see and virtue-signalling guff or simply fraudulent, but on grounds of national security and economic benefit, there is every chance there will be a populist backlash against a policy seen as imposed by an elite conspiracy without a popular mandate - because there will be enough truth in the case to credibly make it, especially if the other side is out-of-practice in its media skills in countering those claims.

Put simply, in a democracy, you have to take the people with you.

It's not a great sign that the TV media coverage today is full of environmentalists and political opponents of the Tories whining about how awful the Tories are, rather than making the positive case for action (which it's worth noting the Tories are still signed up to, even if in a kick-the-can mode).

"Put simply, in a democracy, you have to take the people with you."

And Sunak has given up trying. Because he doesn't care about the environment himself, he'd rather take the soft option and follow the agenda of the Mail and Express.

This isn't leadership. Get rid.

Sunak is challenging the climate change process and in fact is brave and correct

Of course he has come under fierce attack, but as is being seen on this forum he is receiving support for his actions

No. Sunak is being completely disingenuous. Claiming that 2050 Net Zero can still be achieved without taking the steps required to get there is just taking the people for fools.

Clearly an attempt to have cake and eat it. He deserves all he gets for this nonsense.

There are multiple sets of steps you can take to get to the same destination.

If petrol cars get outlawed in 2035 then by 2050 they'll be at least 16 years old and a tiny proportion of vehicles on the road.

The problem with extremists is the fallacy of "something must be done, this is something, so this must be done."

Nonsense.

If, say, we pump out maximum emissions until 2049 then make a big bang transition to Net Zero then:

1) the UK economy is left for dead as the US/China plough on with a cheap, green energy economy

2) or, if everyone else follows our example, the planet is screwed.

Who said that we pump out maximum emissions until 2049 then make a big transition in 2050? Certainly not me.

The transition is happening either way, and before 2050, if its in 2030 or 2035, its just a question of getting the ducks in a row.

As for (2) as I've said before, everyone else will do what's in their own best interests, they won't "follow our example". If we cut off our nose to spite our face, taking harmful actions like cutting driving or flying rather than investing in clean technologies then they'll just carry on merrily along doing their own thing and ignore us.

If we want them to follow us, we need a sensible example to follow where we improve our living standards, not harm them, with cleaner technologies. That way we get to have our cake and eat it (which is the entire purpose of having a cake in my eyes) and they will follow us.

Despite your scornful response about it, a great deal of carbon can be sequestered by dressing agricultural fields with rock dust - as Sheffield University says, up to 40% of our Net Zero requirements, which is huge. It's huge if it's only half that.

I was already very keen on this idea anyway, to remineralise agricultural soils, resulting in healthier produce and improved yields, but for it to also help us massively on the way to Net Zero is a massive win.

'Produce' implies arable fields. So what happens at harvest? Even if one is direct drilling, the previous crop is eliminated one way or another. And if there is some increase in bound carbon (as in species-rich permanent grasslands) this is only a one off.

What am I missing

It seems you plough the rock dust into the soil, or spread it on top & plant crops as normal. Yields should be the same, or better in some cases as you can choose to apply the ground up silicates only to those fields where increasing the pH will be a net benefit (as is already done by spreading ground up limestone in some areas).

Sure, but you remove the carbon and rot, burn, belch, fart it back into the atmosphere. You're not making a coal seam de nos jours to sequester the carbon from the atmosphere, on the whole.

(Though anything to economise on fuel and oil-derved fertiliser is good, too, in that aim.)

I think you’re confused about the actual process here: the carbon doesn’t go into the crops, it reacts with the rock itself to form carbonates of various kinds.

TimS said:

Carnyx said:

Phil said:

Carnyx said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

SandyRentool said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

SandyRentool said:

david_herdson said:

On topic, Sunak is right. There has been a huge amount of cakeism from previous governments, basking in the approval of environmental campaigners for introducing the targets, while failing to have an honest conversation about costs - and because Labour, the Lib Dems and Greens, and indeed the core broadcast media, are signed up to the same agenda, then they're happy for the Tories to be blamed for the costs as they come in as the party in office.

Consequently, the only political opposition comes from right-wing Tories, Reform UK, the Mail and Telegraph. It's like Brexit all over again - and we know how that ended.

Brexit was ultimately a consequence of a failure to advocate the benefits of the policy. It's easy to see now the net costs but without explaining the many little benefits, that ground was ceded by default to the opponents who could highlight the irritants and costs involved. Proponents were quiet while opponents were loud (with the exception of Remainy true believers, who by taking their case too far, also turned the public off). And that's where we are with Net Zero and climate change policy.

Unless the policy is advocated from first principles, not just on 'save the planet' grounds, which some will see as hopelessly beyond Britain's scope and others will see and virtue-signalling guff or simply fraudulent, but on grounds of national security and economic benefit, there is every chance there will be a populist backlash against a policy seen as imposed by an elite conspiracy without a popular mandate - because there will be enough truth in the case to credibly make it, especially if the other side is out-of-practice in its media skills in countering those claims.

Put simply, in a democracy, you have to take the people with you.

It's not a great sign that the TV media coverage today is full of environmentalists and political opponents of the Tories whining about how awful the Tories are, rather than making the positive case for action (which it's worth noting the Tories are still signed up to, even if in a kick-the-can mode).

"Put simply, in a democracy, you have to take the people with you."

And Sunak has given up trying. Because he doesn't care about the environment himself, he'd rather take the soft option and follow the agenda of the Mail and Express.

This isn't leadership. Get rid.

Sunak is challenging the climate change process and in fact is brave and correct

Of course he has come under fierce attack, but as is being seen on this forum he is receiving support for his actions

No. Sunak is being completely disingenuous. Claiming that 2050 Net Zero can still be achieved without taking the steps required to get there is just taking the people for fools.

Clearly an attempt to have cake and eat it. He deserves all he gets for this nonsense.

There are multiple sets of steps you can take to get to the same destination.

If petrol cars get outlawed in 2035 then by 2050 they'll be at least 16 years old and a tiny proportion of vehicles on the road.

The problem with extremists is the fallacy of "something must be done, this is something, so this must be done."

Nonsense.

If, say, we pump out maximum emissions until 2049 then make a big bang transition to Net Zero then:

1) the UK economy is left for dead as the US/China plough on with a cheap, green energy economy

2) or, if everyone else follows our example, the planet is screwed.

Who said that we pump out maximum emissions until 2049 then make a big transition in 2050? Certainly not me.

The transition is happening either way, and before 2050, if its in 2030 or 2035, its just a question of getting the ducks in a row.

As for (2) as I've said before, everyone else will do what's in their own best interests, they won't "follow our example". If we cut off our nose to spite our face, taking harmful actions like cutting driving or flying rather than investing in clean technologies then they'll just carry on merrily along doing their own thing and ignore us.

If we want them to follow us, we need a sensible example to follow where we improve our living standards, not harm them, with cleaner technologies. That way we get to have our cake and eat it (which is the entire purpose of having a cake in my eyes) and they will follow us.

Despite your scornful response about it, a great deal of carbon can be sequestered by dressing agricultural fields with rock dust - as Sheffield University says, up to 40% of our Net Zero requirements, which is huge. It's huge if it's only half that.

I was already very keen on this idea anyway, to remineralise agricultural soils, resulting in healthier produce and improved yields, but for it to also help us massively on the way to Net Zero is a massive win.

'Produce' implies arable fields. So what happens at harvest? Even if one is direct drilling, the previous crop is eliminated one way or another. And if there is some increase in bound carbon (as in species-rich permanent grasslands) this is only a one off.

What am I missing

It seems you plough the rock dust into the soil, or spread it on top & plant crops as normal. Yields should be the same, or better in some cases as you can choose to apply the ground up silicates only to those fields where increasing the pH will be a net benefit (as is already done by spreading ground up limestone in some areas).

Sure, but you remove the carbon and rot, burn, belch, fart it back into the atmosphere. You're not making a coal seam de nos jours to sequester the carbon from the atmosphere, on the whole.

(Though anything to economise on fuel and oil-derved fertiliser is good, too, in that aim.)

Activated charcoal is the most promising sequestration option, or “biochar” as it’s
termed. There you really are locking away carbon in a process that partially mimics the creation of coal seams, and it works even if the ground is ploughed.

Thanks! But in both cases it's still only a one off. Not an ongoing process for decades? Still, useful.

With charcoal you can in theory keep adding it annually, at least until the soil gets too saturated with the stuff. But like all of these things it's not an alternative to stopping burning fossil fuels.

Carnyx said:

Phil said:

Carnyx said:

Phil said:

Carnyx said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

SandyRentool said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

SandyRentool said:

david_herdson said:

On topic, Sunak is right. There has been a huge amount of cakeism from previous governments, basking in the approval of environmental campaigners for introducing the targets, while failing to have an honest conversation about costs - and because Labour, the Lib Dems and Greens, and indeed the core broadcast media, are signed up to the same agenda, then they're happy for the Tories to be blamed for the costs as they come in as the party in office.

Consequently, the only political opposition comes from right-wing Tories, Reform UK, the Mail and Telegraph. It's like Brexit all over again - and we know how that ended.

Brexit was ultimately a consequence of a failure to advocate the benefits of the policy. It's easy to see now the net costs but without explaining the many little benefits, that ground was ceded by default to the opponents who could highlight the irritants and costs involved. Proponents were quiet while opponents were loud (with the exception of Remainy true believers, who by taking their case too far, also turned the public off). And that's where we are with Net Zero and climate change policy.

Unless the policy is advocated from first principles, not just on 'save the planet' grounds, which some will see as hopelessly beyond Britain's scope and others will see and virtue-signalling guff or simply fraudulent, but on grounds of national security and economic benefit, there is every chance there will be a populist backlash against a policy seen as imposed by an elite conspiracy without a popular mandate - because there will be enough truth in the case to credibly make it, especially if the other side is out-of-practice in its media skills in countering those claims.

Put simply, in a democracy, you have to take the people with you.

It's not a great sign that the TV media coverage today is full of environmentalists and political opponents of the Tories whining about how awful the Tories are, rather than making the positive case for action (which it's worth noting the Tories are still signed up to, even if in a kick-the-can mode).

"Put simply, in a democracy, you have to take the people with you."

And Sunak has given up trying. Because he doesn't care about the environment himself, he'd rather take the soft option and follow the agenda of the Mail and Express.

This isn't leadership. Get rid.

Sunak is challenging the climate change process and in fact is brave and correct

Of course he has come under fierce attack, but as is being seen on this forum he is receiving support for his actions

No. Sunak is being completely disingenuous. Claiming that 2050 Net Zero can still be achieved without taking the steps required to get there is just taking the people for fools.

Clearly an attempt to have cake and eat it. He deserves all he gets for this nonsense.

There are multiple sets of steps you can take to get to the same destination.

If petrol cars get outlawed in 2035 then by 2050 they'll be at least 16 years old and a tiny proportion of vehicles on the road.

The problem with extremists is the fallacy of "something must be done, this is something, so this must be done."

Nonsense.

If, say, we pump out maximum emissions until 2049 then make a big bang transition to Net Zero then:

1) the UK economy is left for dead as the US/China plough on with a cheap, green energy economy

2) or, if everyone else follows our example, the planet is screwed.

Who said that we pump out maximum emissions until 2049 then make a big transition in 2050? Certainly not me.

The transition is happening either way, and before 2050, if its in 2030 or 2035, its just a question of getting the ducks in a row.

As for (2) as I've said before, everyone else will do what's in their own best interests, they won't "follow our example". If we cut off our nose to spite our face, taking harmful actions like cutting driving or flying rather than investing in clean technologies then they'll just carry on merrily along doing their own thing and ignore us.

If we want them to follow us, we need a sensible example to follow where we improve our living standards, not harm them, with cleaner technologies. That way we get to have our cake and eat it (which is the entire purpose of having a cake in my eyes) and they will follow us.

Despite your scornful response about it, a great deal of carbon can be sequestered by dressing agricultural fields with rock dust - as Sheffield University says, up to 40% of our Net Zero requirements, which is huge. It's huge if it's only half that.

I was already very keen on this idea anyway, to remineralise agricultural soils, resulting in healthier produce and improved yields, but for it to also help us massively on the way to Net Zero is a massive win.

'Produce' implies arable fields. So what happens at harvest? Even if one is direct drilling, the previous crop is eliminated one way or another. And if there is some increase in bound carbon (as in species-rich permanent grasslands) this is only a one off.

What am I missing

It seems you plough the rock dust into the soil, or spread it on top & plant crops as normal. Yields should be the same, or better in some cases as you can choose to apply the ground up silicates only to those fields where increasing the pH will be a net benefit (as is already done by spreading ground up limestone in some areas).

Sure, but you remove the carbon and rot, burn, belch, fart it back into the atmosphere. You're not making a coal seam de nos jours to sequester the carbon from the atmosphere, on the whole.

(Though anything to economise on fuel and oil-derved fertiliser is good, too, in that aim.)

I think you’re confused about the actual process here: the carbon doesn’t go into the crops, it reacts with the rock itself to form carbonates of various kinds.

TimS said:

Carnyx said:

Phil said:

Carnyx said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

SandyRentool said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

SandyRentool said:

david_herdson said:

On topic, Sunak is right. There has been a huge amount of cakeism from previous governments, basking in the approval of environmental campaigners for introducing the targets, while failing to have an honest conversation about costs - and because Labour, the Lib Dems and Greens, and indeed the core broadcast media, are signed up to the same agenda, then they're happy for the Tories to be blamed for the costs as they come in as the party in office.

Consequently, the only political opposition comes from right-wing Tories, Reform UK, the Mail and Telegraph. It's like Brexit all over again - and we know how that ended.

Brexit was ultimately a consequence of a failure to advocate the benefits of the policy. It's easy to see now the net costs but without explaining the many little benefits, that ground was ceded by default to the opponents who could highlight the irritants and costs involved. Proponents were quiet while opponents were loud (with the exception of Remainy true believers, who by taking their case too far, also turned the public off). And that's where we are with Net Zero and climate change policy.

Unless the policy is advocated from first principles, not just on 'save the planet' grounds, which some will see as hopelessly beyond Britain's scope and others will see and virtue-signalling guff or simply fraudulent, but on grounds of national security and economic benefit, there is every chance there will be a populist backlash against a policy seen as imposed by an elite conspiracy without a popular mandate - because there will be enough truth in the case to credibly make it, especially if the other side is out-of-practice in its media skills in countering those claims.

Put simply, in a democracy, you have to take the people with you.

It's not a great sign that the TV media coverage today is full of environmentalists and political opponents of the Tories whining about how awful the Tories are, rather than making the positive case for action (which it's worth noting the Tories are still signed up to, even if in a kick-the-can mode).

"Put simply, in a democracy, you have to take the people with you."

And Sunak has given up trying. Because he doesn't care about the environment himself, he'd rather take the soft option and follow the agenda of the Mail and Express.

This isn't leadership. Get rid.

Sunak is challenging the climate change process and in fact is brave and correct

Of course he has come under fierce attack, but as is being seen on this forum he is receiving support for his actions

No. Sunak is being completely disingenuous. Claiming that 2050 Net Zero can still be achieved without taking the steps required to get there is just taking the people for fools.

Clearly an attempt to have cake and eat it. He deserves all he gets for this nonsense.

There are multiple sets of steps you can take to get to the same destination.

If petrol cars get outlawed in 2035 then by 2050 they'll be at least 16 years old and a tiny proportion of vehicles on the road.

The problem with extremists is the fallacy of "something must be done, this is something, so this must be done."

Nonsense.

If, say, we pump out maximum emissions until 2049 then make a big bang transition to Net Zero then:

1) the UK economy is left for dead as the US/China plough on with a cheap, green energy economy

2) or, if everyone else follows our example, the planet is screwed.

Who said that we pump out maximum emissions until 2049 then make a big transition in 2050? Certainly not me.

The transition is happening either way, and before 2050, if its in 2030 or 2035, its just a question of getting the ducks in a row.

As for (2) as I've said before, everyone else will do what's in their own best interests, they won't "follow our example". If we cut off our nose to spite our face, taking harmful actions like cutting driving or flying rather than investing in clean technologies then they'll just carry on merrily along doing their own thing and ignore us.

If we want them to follow us, we need a sensible example to follow where we improve our living standards, not harm them, with cleaner technologies. That way we get to have our cake and eat it (which is the entire purpose of having a cake in my eyes) and they will follow us.

Despite your scornful response about it, a great deal of carbon can be sequestered by dressing agricultural fields with rock dust - as Sheffield University says, up to 40% of our Net Zero requirements, which is huge. It's huge if it's only half that.

I was already very keen on this idea anyway, to remineralise agricultural soils, resulting in healthier produce and improved yields, but for it to also help us massively on the way to Net Zero is a massive win.

'Produce' implies arable fields. So what happens at harvest? Even if one is direct drilling, the previous crop is eliminated one way or another. And if there is some increase in bound carbon (as in species-rich permanent grasslands) this is only a one off.

What am I missing

It seems you plough the rock dust into the soil, or spread it on top & plant crops as normal. Yields should be the same, or better in some cases as you can choose to apply the ground up silicates only to those fields where increasing the pH will be a net benefit (as is already done by spreading ground up limestone in some areas).

Sure, but you remove the carbon and rot, burn, belch, fart it back into the atmosphere. You're not making a coal seam de nos jours to sequester the carbon from the atmosphere, on the whole.

(Though anything to economise on fuel and oil-derved fertiliser is good, too, in that aim.)

Activated charcoal is the most promising sequestration option, or “biochar” as it’s
termed. There you really are locking away carbon in a process that partially mimics the creation of coal seams, and it works even if the ground is ploughed.

Thanks! But in both cases it's still only a one off. Not an ongoing process for decades? Still, useful.

It’s a one-off each time you do it, but you can spread a /lot/ of rock dust around and it will keep on sucking CO2 out of the air for decades as the particles react over time. If we’re going to have to go to active measures to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere then it seems like this might be one of the cheapest with the least side effects. I’ve personally never liked the various “sequestration” ideas - it always seems to me that any CO2 you stick down a mine somewhere is probably going to leak out again at some point.

Carnyx said:

Phil said:

Carnyx said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

SandyRentool said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

SandyRentool said:

david_herdson said:

On topic, Sunak is right. There has been a huge amount of cakeism from previous governments, basking in the approval of environmental campaigners for introducing the targets, while failing to have an honest conversation about costs - and because Labour, the Lib Dems and Greens, and indeed the core broadcast media, are signed up to the same agenda, then they're happy for the Tories to be blamed for the costs as they come in as the party in office.

Consequently, the only political opposition comes from right-wing Tories, Reform UK, the Mail and Telegraph. It's like Brexit all over again - and we know how that ended.

Brexit was ultimately a consequence of a failure to advocate the benefits of the policy. It's easy to see now the net costs but without explaining the many little benefits, that ground was ceded by default to the opponents who could highlight the irritants and costs involved. Proponents were quiet while opponents were loud (with the exception of Remainy true believers, who by taking their case too far, also turned the public off). And that's where we are with Net Zero and climate change policy.

Unless the policy is advocated from first principles, not just on 'save the planet' grounds, which some will see as hopelessly beyond Britain's scope and others will see and virtue-signalling guff or simply fraudulent, but on grounds of national security and economic benefit, there is every chance there will be a populist backlash against a policy seen as imposed by an elite conspiracy without a popular mandate - because there will be enough truth in the case to credibly make it, especially if the other side is out-of-practice in its media skills in countering those claims.

Put simply, in a democracy, you have to take the people with you.

It's not a great sign that the TV media coverage today is full of environmentalists and political opponents of the Tories whining about how awful the Tories are, rather than making the positive case for action (which it's worth noting the Tories are still signed up to, even if in a kick-the-can mode).

"Put simply, in a democracy, you have to take the people with you."

And Sunak has given up trying. Because he doesn't care about the environment himself, he'd rather take the soft option and follow the agenda of the Mail and Express.

This isn't leadership. Get rid.

Sunak is challenging the climate change process and in fact is brave and correct

Of course he has come under fierce attack, but as is being seen on this forum he is receiving support for his actions

No. Sunak is being completely disingenuous. Claiming that 2050 Net Zero can still be achieved without taking the steps required to get there is just taking the people for fools.

Clearly an attempt to have cake and eat it. He deserves all he gets for this nonsense.

There are multiple sets of steps you can take to get to the same destination.

If petrol cars get outlawed in 2035 then by 2050 they'll be at least 16 years old and a tiny proportion of vehicles on the road.

The problem with extremists is the fallacy of "something must be done, this is something, so this must be done."

Nonsense.

If, say, we pump out maximum emissions until 2049 then make a big bang transition to Net Zero then:

1) the UK economy is left for dead as the US/China plough on with a cheap, green energy economy

2) or, if everyone else follows our example, the planet is screwed.

Who said that we pump out maximum emissions until 2049 then make a big transition in 2050? Certainly not me.

The transition is happening either way, and before 2050, if its in 2030 or 2035, its just a question of getting the ducks in a row.

As for (2) as I've said before, everyone else will do what's in their own best interests, they won't "follow our example". If we cut off our nose to spite our face, taking harmful actions like cutting driving or flying rather than investing in clean technologies then they'll just carry on merrily along doing their own thing and ignore us.

If we want them to follow us, we need a sensible example to follow where we improve our living standards, not harm them, with cleaner technologies. That way we get to have our cake and eat it (which is the entire purpose of having a cake in my eyes) and they will follow us.

Despite your scornful response about it, a great deal of carbon can be sequestered by dressing agricultural fields with rock dust - as Sheffield University says, up to 40% of our Net Zero requirements, which is huge. It's huge if it's only half that.

I was already very keen on this idea anyway, to remineralise agricultural soils, resulting in healthier produce and improved yields, but for it to also help us massively on the way to Net Zero is a massive win.

'Produce' implies arable fields. So what happens at harvest? Even if one is direct drilling, the previous crop is eliminated one way or another. And if there is some increase in bound carbon (as in species-rich permanent grasslands) this is only a one off.

What am I missing

It seems you plough the rock dust into the soil, or spread it on top & plant crops as normal. Yields should be the same, or better in some cases as you can choose to apply the ground up silicates only to those fields where increasing the pH will be a net benefit (as is already done by spreading ground up limestone in some areas).

Sure, but you remove the carbon and rot, burn, belch, fart it back into the atmosphere. You're not making a coal seam de nos jours to sequester the carbon from the atmosphere, on the whole.

(Though anything to economise on fuel and oil-derved fertiliser is good, too, in that aim.)

I think it happens by some form of accumulation rather than by photosynthesis if that's what you mean.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-40863-0

Phil said:

Carnyx said:

Phil said:

Carnyx said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

SandyRentool said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

SandyRentool said:

david_herdson said:

On topic, Sunak is right. There has been a huge amount of cakeism from previous governments, basking in the approval of environmental campaigners for introducing the targets, while failing to have an honest conversation about costs - and because Labour, the Lib Dems and Greens, and indeed the core broadcast media, are signed up to the same agenda, then they're happy for the Tories to be blamed for the costs as they come in as the party in office.

Consequently, the only political opposition comes from right-wing Tories, Reform UK, the Mail and Telegraph. It's like Brexit all over again - and we know how that ended.

Brexit was ultimately a consequence of a failure to advocate the benefits of the policy. It's easy to see now the net costs but without explaining the many little benefits, that ground was ceded by default to the opponents who could highlight the irritants and costs involved. Proponents were quiet while opponents were loud (with the exception of Remainy true believers, who by taking their case too far, also turned the public off). And that's where we are with Net Zero and climate change policy.

Unless the policy is advocated from first principles, not just on 'save the planet' grounds, which some will see as hopelessly beyond Britain's scope and others will see and virtue-signalling guff or simply fraudulent, but on grounds of national security and economic benefit, there is every chance there will be a populist backlash against a policy seen as imposed by an elite conspiracy without a popular mandate - because there will be enough truth in the case to credibly make it, especially if the other side is out-of-practice in its media skills in countering those claims.

Put simply, in a democracy, you have to take the people with you.

It's not a great sign that the TV media coverage today is full of environmentalists and political opponents of the Tories whining about how awful the Tories are, rather than making the positive case for action (which it's worth noting the Tories are still signed up to, even if in a kick-the-can mode).

"Put simply, in a democracy, you have to take the people with you."

And Sunak has given up trying. Because he doesn't care about the environment himself, he'd rather take the soft option and follow the agenda of the Mail and Express.

This isn't leadership. Get rid.

Sunak is challenging the climate change process and in fact is brave and correct

Of course he has come under fierce attack, but as is being seen on this forum he is receiving support for his actions

No. Sunak is being completely disingenuous. Claiming that 2050 Net Zero can still be achieved without taking the steps required to get there is just taking the people for fools.

Clearly an attempt to have cake and eat it. He deserves all he gets for this nonsense.

There are multiple sets of steps you can take to get to the same destination.

If petrol cars get outlawed in 2035 then by 2050 they'll be at least 16 years old and a tiny proportion of vehicles on the road.

The problem with extremists is the fallacy of "something must be done, this is something, so this must be done."

Nonsense.

If, say, we pump out maximum emissions until 2049 then make a big bang transition to Net Zero then:

1) the UK economy is left for dead as the US/China plough on with a cheap, green energy economy

2) or, if everyone else follows our example, the planet is screwed.

Who said that we pump out maximum emissions until 2049 then make a big transition in 2050? Certainly not me.

The transition is happening either way, and before 2050, if its in 2030 or 2035, its just a question of getting the ducks in a row.

As for (2) as I've said before, everyone else will do what's in their own best interests, they won't "follow our example". If we cut off our nose to spite our face, taking harmful actions like cutting driving or flying rather than investing in clean technologies then they'll just carry on merrily along doing their own thing and ignore us.

If we want them to follow us, we need a sensible example to follow where we improve our living standards, not harm them, with cleaner technologies. That way we get to have our cake and eat it (which is the entire purpose of having a cake in my eyes) and they will follow us.

Despite your scornful response about it, a great deal of carbon can be sequestered by dressing agricultural fields with rock dust - as Sheffield University says, up to 40% of our Net Zero requirements, which is huge. It's huge if it's only half that.

I was already very keen on this idea anyway, to remineralise agricultural soils, resulting in healthier produce and improved yields, but for it to also help us massively on the way to Net Zero is a massive win.

'Produce' implies arable fields. So what happens at harvest? Even if one is direct drilling, the previous crop is eliminated one way or another. And if there is some increase in bound carbon (as in species-rich permanent grasslands) this is only a one off.

What am I missing

It seems you plough the rock dust into the soil, or spread it on top & plant crops as normal. Yields should be the same, or better in some cases as you can choose to apply the ground up silicates only to those fields where increasing the pH will be a net benefit (as is already done by spreading ground up limestone in some areas).

Sure, but you remove the carbon and rot, burn, belch, fart it back into the atmosphere. You're not making a coal seam de nos jours to sequester the carbon from the atmosphere, on the whole.

(Though anything to economise on fuel and oil-derved fertiliser is good, too, in that aim.)

I think you’re confused about the actual process here: the carbon doesn’t go into the crops, it reacts with the rock itself to form carbonates of various kinds.

The theory certainly looks interesting, but I it doesn't seem to have been demonstrated in practice as yet.

Leon said:

Ok just one more AI image then I shall stop

People on Twitter are saying this is the first example of AI art which has impressed them, and made them realise AI can be creative and artistic. That AI art is art, in essence

Not saying I agree or disagree, but this is the image provoking the debate. See what you think

”Say what you want, but this is creative, novel, and endless. Incredible to see the community pick this up so fast”

https://x.com/linusekenstam/status/1704181236120305795?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw

It is a simple fact that current “AI” (a poor name for it - we should have resisted the use of those words until the tech is actually there) cannot create. All it can do is draw in bits of a pieces of existing works.

Of course we can debate how many human artists do the same, but the point still stands.

TimS said:

I've realised after this morning's round of news that the substance of what happened yesterday really doesn't matter. What Labour says doesn't matter. Even what the journalists say doesn't matter particularly. The mood music is everything.

Sunak made all sorts of reassuring noises about net zero in the speech and presented the changes as a sensible recalibration of policy. But as far as everyone is concerned the Tories are now anti-net zero and probably climate sceptics. This will win them some rightwing and RefUK support and put off others.

Labour was careful not to come out with anything too eco yesterday, but of course various others of a centre or left persuasion did. So as far as everyone is concerned Labour is pro-net zero and pro-banning you from driving or having a gas boiler after 2030. That might help get the vote out and win back some greens, but will put off others.

Reminds me of the Brexit debates when everything the government did was far right fascism and anyone who proposed single market or customs union was a saboteur of the will of the people.

Doesn't seem t ohave coordinated it too well with KCIII, though.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12543555/King-Charles-British-monarch-history-address-French-senate-today-meeting-rugby-stars-Brigitte-Macron.html

Some potential good news for Ukraine. Fingers crossed!

ISW has observed a significant inflection in western #Zaporizhia Obl:

Ukrainian forces are for the first time confirmed to be operating armored vehicles (Stryker & Marder infantry fighting vehicles) beyond the Russian anti-tank ditch and dragon’s teeth obstacles near #Verbove.🧵
https://x.com/TheStudyofWar/status/1704815837100523528?s=20

Luckyguy1983 said:

TimS said:

Carnyx said:

Phil said:

Carnyx said:

Phil said:

Carnyx said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

SandyRentool said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

SandyRentool said:

david_herdson said:

On topic, Sunak is right. There has been a huge amount of cakeism from previous governments, basking in the approval of environmental campaigners for introducing the targets, while failing to have an honest conversation about costs - and because Labour, the Lib Dems and Greens, and indeed the core broadcast media, are signed up to the same agenda, then they're happy for the Tories to be blamed for the costs as they come in as the party in office.

Consequently, the only political opposition comes from right-wing Tories, Reform UK, the Mail and Telegraph. It's like Brexit all over again - and we know how that ended.

Brexit was ultimately a consequence of a failure to advocate the benefits of the policy. It's easy to see now the net costs but without explaining the many little benefits, that ground was ceded by default to the opponents who could highlight the irritants and costs involved. Proponents were quiet while opponents were loud (with the exception of Remainy true believers, who by taking their case too far, also turned the public off). And that's where we are with Net Zero and climate change policy.

Unless the policy is advocated from first principles, not just on 'save the planet' grounds, which some will see as hopelessly beyond Britain's scope and others will see and virtue-signalling guff or simply fraudulent, but on grounds of national security and economic benefit, there is every chance there will be a populist backlash against a policy seen as imposed by an elite conspiracy without a popular mandate - because there will be enough truth in the case to credibly make it, especially if the other side is out-of-practice in its media skills in countering those claims.

Put simply, in a democracy, you have to take the people with you.

It's not a great sign that the TV media coverage today is full of environmentalists and political opponents of the Tories whining about how awful the Tories are, rather than making the positive case for action (which it's worth noting the Tories are still signed up to, even if in a kick-the-can mode).

"Put simply, in a democracy, you have to take the people with you."

And Sunak has given up trying. Because he doesn't care about the environment himself, he'd rather take the soft option and follow the agenda of the Mail and Express.

This isn't leadership. Get rid.

Sunak is challenging the climate change process and in fact is brave and correct

Of course he has come under fierce attack, but as is being seen on this forum he is receiving support for his actions

No. Sunak is being completely disingenuous. Claiming that 2050 Net Zero can still be achieved without taking the steps required to get there is just taking the people for fools.

Clearly an attempt to have cake and eat it. He deserves all he gets for this nonsense.

There are multiple sets of steps you can take to get to the same destination.

If petrol cars get outlawed in 2035 then by 2050 they'll be at least 16 years old and a tiny proportion of vehicles on the road.

The problem with extremists is the fallacy of "something must be done, this is something, so this must be done."

Nonsense.

If, say, we pump out maximum emissions until 2049 then make a big bang transition to Net Zero then:

1) the UK economy is left for dead as the US/China plough on with a cheap, green energy economy

2) or, if everyone else follows our example, the planet is screwed.

Who said that we pump out maximum emissions until 2049 then make a big transition in 2050? Certainly not me.

The transition is happening either way, and before 2050, if its in 2030 or 2035, its just a question of getting the ducks in a row.

As for (2) as I've said before, everyone else will do what's in their own best interests, they won't "follow our example". If we cut off our nose to spite our face, taking harmful actions like cutting driving or flying rather than investing in clean technologies then they'll just carry on merrily along doing their own thing and ignore us.

If we want them to follow us, we need a sensible example to follow where we improve our living standards, not harm them, with cleaner technologies. That way we get to have our cake and eat it (which is the entire purpose of having a cake in my eyes) and they will follow us.

Despite your scornful response about it, a great deal of carbon can be sequestered by dressing agricultural fields with rock dust - as Sheffield University says, up to 40% of our Net Zero requirements, which is huge. It's huge if it's only half that.

I was already very keen on this idea anyway, to remineralise agricultural soils, resulting in healthier produce and improved yields, but for it to also help us massively on the way to Net Zero is a massive win.

'Produce' implies arable fields. So what happens at harvest? Even if one is direct drilling, the previous crop is eliminated one way or another. And if there is some increase in bound carbon (as in species-rich permanent grasslands) this is only a one off.

What am I missing

It seems you plough the rock dust into the soil, or spread it on top & plant crops as normal. Yields should be the same, or better in some cases as you can choose to apply the ground up silicates only to those fields where increasing the pH will be a net benefit (as is already done by spreading ground up limestone in some areas).

Sure, but you remove the carbon and rot, burn, belch, fart it back into the atmosphere. You're not making a coal seam de nos jours to sequester the carbon from the atmosphere, on the whole.

(Though anything to economise on fuel and oil-derved fertiliser is good, too, in that aim.)

I think you’re confused about the actual process here: the carbon doesn’t go into the crops, it reacts with the rock itself to form carbonates of various kinds.

TimS said:

Carnyx said:

Phil said:

Carnyx said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

SandyRentool said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

SandyRentool said:

david_herdson said:

On topic, Sunak is right. There has been a huge amount of cakeism from previous governments, basking in the approval of environmental campaigners for introducing the targets, while failing to have an honest conversation about costs - and because Labour, the Lib Dems and Greens, and indeed the core broadcast media, are signed up to the same agenda, then they're happy for the Tories to be blamed for the costs as they come in as the party in office.

Consequently, the only political opposition comes from right-wing Tories, Reform UK, the Mail and Telegraph. It's like Brexit all over again - and we know how that ended.

Brexit was ultimately a consequence of a failure to advocate the benefits of the policy. It's easy to see now the net costs but without explaining the many little benefits, that ground was ceded by default to the opponents who could highlight the irritants and costs involved. Proponents were quiet while opponents were loud (with the exception of Remainy true believers, who by taking their case too far, also turned the public off). And that's where we are with Net Zero and climate change policy.

Unless the policy is advocated from first principles, not just on 'save the planet' grounds, which some will see as hopelessly beyond Britain's scope and others will see and virtue-signalling guff or simply fraudulent, but on grounds of national security and economic benefit, there is every chance there will be a populist backlash against a policy seen as imposed by an elite conspiracy without a popular mandate - because there will be enough truth in the case to credibly make it, especially if the other side is out-of-practice in its media skills in countering those claims.

Put simply, in a democracy, you have to take the people with you.

It's not a great sign that the TV media coverage today is full of environmentalists and political opponents of the Tories whining about how awful the Tories are, rather than making the positive case for action (which it's worth noting the Tories are still signed up to, even if in a kick-the-can mode).

"Put simply, in a democracy, you have to take the people with you."

And Sunak has given up trying. Because he doesn't care about the environment himself, he'd rather take the soft option and follow the agenda of the Mail and Express.

This isn't leadership. Get rid.

Sunak is challenging the climate change process and in fact is brave and correct

Of course he has come under fierce attack, but as is being seen on this forum he is receiving support for his actions

No. Sunak is being completely disingenuous. Claiming that 2050 Net Zero can still be achieved without taking the steps required to get there is just taking the people for fools.

Clearly an attempt to have cake and eat it. He deserves all he gets for this nonsense.

There are multiple sets of steps you can take to get to the same destination.

If petrol cars get outlawed in 2035 then by 2050 they'll be at least 16 years old and a tiny proportion of vehicles on the road.

The problem with extremists is the fallacy of "something must be done, this is something, so this must be done."

Nonsense.

If, say, we pump out maximum emissions until 2049 then make a big bang transition to Net Zero then:

1) the UK economy is left for dead as the US/China plough on with a cheap, green energy economy

2) or, if everyone else follows our example, the planet is screwed.

Who said that we pump out maximum emissions until 2049 then make a big transition in 2050? Certainly not me.

The transition is happening either way, and before 2050, if its in 2030 or 2035, its just a question of getting the ducks in a row.

As for (2) as I've said before, everyone else will do what's in their own best interests, they won't "follow our example". If we cut off our nose to spite our face, taking harmful actions like cutting driving or flying rather than investing in clean technologies then they'll just carry on merrily along doing their own thing and ignore us.

If we want them to follow us, we need a sensible example to follow where we improve our living standards, not harm them, with cleaner technologies. That way we get to have our cake and eat it (which is the entire purpose of having a cake in my eyes) and they will follow us.

Despite your scornful response about it, a great deal of carbon can be sequestered by dressing agricultural fields with rock dust - as Sheffield University says, up to 40% of our Net Zero requirements, which is huge. It's huge if it's only half that.

I was already very keen on this idea anyway, to remineralise agricultural soils, resulting in healthier produce and improved yields, but for it to also help us massively on the way to Net Zero is a massive win.

'Produce' implies arable fields. So what happens at harvest? Even if one is direct drilling, the previous crop is eliminated one way or another. And if there is some increase in bound carbon (as in species-rich permanent grasslands) this is only a one off.

What am I missing

It seems you plough the rock dust into the soil, or spread it on top & plant crops as normal. Yields should be the same, or better in some cases as you can choose to apply the ground up silicates only to those fields where increasing the pH will be a net benefit (as is already done by spreading ground up limestone in some areas).

Sure, but you remove the carbon and rot, burn, belch, fart it back into the atmosphere. You're not making a coal seam de nos jours to sequester the carbon from the atmosphere, on the whole.

(Though anything to economise on fuel and oil-derved fertiliser is good, too, in that aim.)

Activated charcoal is the most promising sequestration option, or “biochar” as it’s
termed. There you really are locking away carbon in a process that partially mimics the creation of coal seams, and it works even if the ground is ploughed.

Thanks! But in both cases it's still only a one off. Not an ongoing process for decades? Still, useful.

With charcoal you can in theory keep adding it annually, at least until the soil gets too saturated with the stuff. But like all of these things it's not an alternative to stopping burning fossil fuels.

Why shouldn't it be? Is the aim of the exercise to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, or to make life as unpleasant and Orwellian as possible for people?

Because we release many orders of magnitude more CO2 through burning than we could ever sequester in soil even in the most optimistic scenarios (and there are some bonkers maths doing the rounds). And sequestration is significantly more expensive than energy efficiency and transition.

To make sequestration work at scale you’d need vast government intervention both on the production side and in mandating farmers to use it.

Plus the world has realised that fossil fuel burning is dirty, non renewable of course, and increasingly geopolitically dangerous. Why keep on with the water mills once you have a steam engine. Same issue.

SandyRentool said:

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Anyway, speaking of Griffin..

Well done the people of Sheringham.

Unlike Cromer, Sheringham is a really nice resort. I'm off there this weekend, and will make sure I buy some extra bagels whilst there.

Sheringham is indeed pleasant, with more than an element of Walmington on Sea about it. It's no surprise they decided to have a 1940s festival as it's very on brand... as is the fact they commendably did a Captain Mainwaring on the idiots who tried to spoil it.

Cromer, like many seaside towns around the UK, jumped all in on the mass holiday resort bandwagon, got absolutely hammered when the package holiday came in, and has never really recovered. Sheringham has always had a tourist trade, but smaller scale and sold as more genteel, so they weren't hit nearly as hard.

Sheringham is also at one end of the North Norfolk Railway. That's the main reason I went there, but found the town very pleasant. Holt, at the other end of the railway, is also worth a visit.

Yes, we like Holt a lot, and even thought about buying a place there but property is a bit overpriced, as it tends to be generally in North Norfolk.

Leon said:

TimS said:

Leon said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Leon said:

AI art is exploding. It’s incredible now

Yes, there have been complaints it is putting self-employed artists out of business, which is sad. You'd have hoped AI would replace the sort of mass-produced wall art sold in Wilko and the like.

I would now be legit terrified as a professional artist

AI is showing creativity and flair, and anyone can use it, and it produces images in seconds, 24/7, virtually for free - in any style, theme, genre - and now it produces stuff no one has ever conceived before

Art as we know it is over

My wife is an artist. AI doesn’t compete with her because it’s simply another medium, like paint vs sculpture vs printing. People buy the person, the buying experience, the gallery of studio visit etc. Same as Nespresso doesn’t compete with barista coffee bars.

The biggest competition remains IKEA and Farrow & Ball. Art is, except at the very top end of the market, a home deco choice. They agonise way more over paying £200 for an etching than they would paying £200 for a meal out because it’s a decorative choice.

Hmmm

What’s to stop someone “pretending” to be an artist, like your wife - they could even mock up a studio - but actually getting DALLE3 to do the hard work?

For the moment she’s probably OK as it’s still very hard to fake real paint with real brushwork, but that may change

Anyone working in printed, published or digital art is screwed already. Illustrators etc. Graphic designers. Everyone in Hollywood (hence the strike)

Artists can just change their modus operandi. Do you remember when draughtsmen produced technical drawings on a large drawing board using pen and ink?

Another point on the inflation figures and why the BoE may have paused today is that ONS food price inflation as measured by basket value is about 2% higher than the real food inflation rate as measured by checkout values of baskets which include discounts at the till.

Leon said:

MarqueeMark said:

Leon said:

Ok this might be my favourite

@TheScreamingEagles should appreciate it. Lol

Not subtle though, is it? It does not look like natural lighting, which makes you aware you are looking for something.

A human artist would be far more subtle. And thereby making it far more rewarding.

What utter bollocks

Bring your critical faculties to the party. It really is not that good.

TimS said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

TimS said:

Carnyx said:

Phil said:

Carnyx said:

Phil said:

Carnyx said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

SandyRentool said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

SandyRentool said:

david_herdson said:

On topic, Sunak is right. There has been a huge amount of cakeism from previous governments, basking in the approval of environmental campaigners for introducing the targets, while failing to have an honest conversation about costs - and because Labour, the Lib Dems and Greens, and indeed the core broadcast media, are signed up to the same agenda, then they're happy for the Tories to be blamed for the costs as they come in as the party in office.

Consequently, the only political opposition comes from right-wing Tories, Reform UK, the Mail and Telegraph. It's like Brexit all over again - and we know how that ended.

Brexit was ultimately a consequence of a failure to advocate the benefits of the policy. It's easy to see now the net costs but without explaining the many little benefits, that ground was ceded by default to the opponents who could highlight the irritants and costs involved. Proponents were quiet while opponents were loud (with the exception of Remainy true believers, who by taking their case too far, also turned the public off). And that's where we are with Net Zero and climate change policy.

Unless the policy is advocated from first principles, not just on 'save the planet' grounds, which some will see as hopelessly beyond Britain's scope and others will see and virtue-signalling guff or simply fraudulent, but on grounds of national security and economic benefit, there is every chance there will be a populist backlash against a policy seen as imposed by an elite conspiracy without a popular mandate - because there will be enough truth in the case to credibly make it, especially if the other side is out-of-practice in its media skills in countering those claims.

Put simply, in a democracy, you have to take the people with you.

It's not a great sign that the TV media coverage today is full of environmentalists and political opponents of the Tories whining about how awful the Tories are, rather than making the positive case for action (which it's worth noting the Tories are still signed up to, even if in a kick-the-can mode).

"Put simply, in a democracy, you have to take the people with you."

And Sunak has given up trying. Because he doesn't care about the environment himself, he'd rather take the soft option and follow the agenda of the Mail and Express.

This isn't leadership. Get rid.

Sunak is challenging the climate change process and in fact is brave and correct

Of course he has come under fierce attack, but as is being seen on this forum he is receiving support for his actions

No. Sunak is being completely disingenuous. Claiming that 2050 Net Zero can still be achieved without taking the steps required to get there is just taking the people for fools.

Clearly an attempt to have cake and eat it. He deserves all he gets for this nonsense.

There are multiple sets of steps you can take to get to the same destination.

If petrol cars get outlawed in 2035 then by 2050 they'll be at least 16 years old and a tiny proportion of vehicles on the road.

The problem with extremists is the fallacy of "something must be done, this is something, so this must be done."

Nonsense.

If, say, we pump out maximum emissions until 2049 then make a big bang transition to Net Zero then:

1) the UK economy is left for dead as the US/China plough on with a cheap, green energy economy

2) or, if everyone else follows our example, the planet is screwed.

Who said that we pump out maximum emissions until 2049 then make a big transition in 2050? Certainly not me.

The transition is happening either way, and before 2050, if its in 2030 or 2035, its just a question of getting the ducks in a row.

As for (2) as I've said before, everyone else will do what's in their own best interests, they won't "follow our example". If we cut off our nose to spite our face, taking harmful actions like cutting driving or flying rather than investing in clean technologies then they'll just carry on merrily along doing their own thing and ignore us.

If we want them to follow us, we need a sensible example to follow where we improve our living standards, not harm them, with cleaner technologies. That way we get to have our cake and eat it (which is the entire purpose of having a cake in my eyes) and they will follow us.

Despite your scornful response about it, a great deal of carbon can be sequestered by dressing agricultural fields with rock dust - as Sheffield University says, up to 40% of our Net Zero requirements, which is huge. It's huge if it's only half that.

I was already very keen on this idea anyway, to remineralise agricultural soils, resulting in healthier produce and improved yields, but for it to also help us massively on the way to Net Zero is a massive win.

'Produce' implies arable fields. So what happens at harvest? Even if one is direct drilling, the previous crop is eliminated one way or another. And if there is some increase in bound carbon (as in species-rich permanent grasslands) this is only a one off.

What am I missing

It seems you plough the rock dust into the soil, or spread it on top & plant crops as normal. Yields should be the same, or better in some cases as you can choose to apply the ground up silicates only to those fields where increasing the pH will be a net benefit (as is already done by spreading ground up limestone in some areas).

Sure, but you remove the carbon and rot, burn, belch, fart it back into the atmosphere. You're not making a coal seam de nos jours to sequester the carbon from the atmosphere, on the whole.

(Though anything to economise on fuel and oil-derved fertiliser is good, too, in that aim.)

I think you’re confused about the actual process here: the carbon doesn’t go into the crops, it reacts with the rock itself to form carbonates of various kinds.

TimS said:

Carnyx said:

Phil said:

Carnyx said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

SandyRentool said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

SandyRentool said:

david_herdson said:

On topic, Sunak is right. There has been a huge amount of cakeism from previous governments, basking in the approval of environmental campaigners for introducing the targets, while failing to have an honest conversation about costs - and because Labour, the Lib Dems and Greens, and indeed the core broadcast media, are signed up to the same agenda, then they're happy for the Tories to be blamed for the costs as they come in as the party in office.

Consequently, the only political opposition comes from right-wing Tories, Reform UK, the Mail and Telegraph. It's like Brexit all over again - and we know how that ended.

Brexit was ultimately a consequence of a failure to advocate the benefits of the policy. It's easy to see now the net costs but without explaining the many little benefits, that ground was ceded by default to the opponents who could highlight the irritants and costs involved. Proponents were quiet while opponents were loud (with the exception of Remainy true believers, who by taking their case too far, also turned the public off). And that's where we are with Net Zero and climate change policy.

Unless the policy is advocated from first principles, not just on 'save the planet' grounds, which some will see as hopelessly beyond Britain's scope and others will see and virtue-signalling guff or simply fraudulent, but on grounds of national security and economic benefit, there is every chance there will be a populist backlash against a policy seen as imposed by an elite conspiracy without a popular mandate - because there will be enough truth in the case to credibly make it, especially if the other side is out-of-practice in its media skills in countering those claims.

Put simply, in a democracy, you have to take the people with you.

It's not a great sign that the TV media coverage today is full of environmentalists and political opponents of the Tories whining about how awful the Tories are, rather than making the positive case for action (which it's worth noting the Tories are still signed up to, even if in a kick-the-can mode).

"Put simply, in a democracy, you have to take the people with you."

And Sunak has given up trying. Because he doesn't care about the environment himself, he'd rather take the soft option and follow the agenda of the Mail and Express.

This isn't leadership. Get rid.

Sunak is challenging the climate change process and in fact is brave and correct

Of course he has come under fierce attack, but as is being seen on this forum he is receiving support for his actions

No. Sunak is being completely disingenuous. Claiming that 2050 Net Zero can still be achieved without taking the steps required to get there is just taking the people for fools.

Clearly an attempt to have cake and eat it. He deserves all he gets for this nonsense.

There are multiple sets of steps you can take to get to the same destination.

If petrol cars get outlawed in 2035 then by 2050 they'll be at least 16 years old and a tiny proportion of vehicles on the road.

The problem with extremists is the fallacy of "something must be done, this is something, so this must be done."

Nonsense.

If, say, we pump out maximum emissions until 2049 then make a big bang transition to Net Zero then:

1) the UK economy is left for dead as the US/China plough on with a cheap, green energy economy

2) or, if everyone else follows our example, the planet is screwed.

Who said that we pump out maximum emissions until 2049 then make a big transition in 2050? Certainly not me.

The transition is happening either way, and before 2050, if its in 2030 or 2035, its just a question of getting the ducks in a row.

As for (2) as I've said before, everyone else will do what's in their own best interests, they won't "follow our example". If we cut off our nose to spite our face, taking harmful actions like cutting driving or flying rather than investing in clean technologies then they'll just carry on merrily along doing their own thing and ignore us.

If we want them to follow us, we need a sensible example to follow where we improve our living standards, not harm them, with cleaner technologies. That way we get to have our cake and eat it (which is the entire purpose of having a cake in my eyes) and they will follow us.

Despite your scornful response about it, a great deal of carbon can be sequestered by dressing agricultural fields with rock dust - as Sheffield University says, up to 40% of our Net Zero requirements, which is huge. It's huge if it's only half that.

I was already very keen on this idea anyway, to remineralise agricultural soils, resulting in healthier produce and improved yields, but for it to also help us massively on the way to Net Zero is a massive win.

'Produce' implies arable fields. So what happens at harvest? Even if one is direct drilling, the previous crop is eliminated one way or another. And if there is some increase in bound carbon (as in species-rich permanent grasslands) this is only a one off.

What am I missing

It seems you plough the rock dust into the soil, or spread it on top & plant crops as normal. Yields should be the same, or better in some cases as you can choose to apply the ground up silicates only to those fields where increasing the pH will be a net benefit (as is already done by spreading ground up limestone in some areas).

Sure, but you remove the carbon and rot, burn, belch, fart it back into the atmosphere. You're not making a coal seam de nos jours to sequester the carbon from the atmosphere, on the whole.

(Though anything to economise on fuel and oil-derved fertiliser is good, too, in that aim.)

Activated charcoal is the most promising sequestration option, or “biochar” as it’s
termed. There you really are locking away carbon in a process that partially mimics the creation of coal seams, and it works even if the ground is ploughed.

Thanks! But in both cases it's still only a one off. Not an ongoing process for decades? Still, useful.

With charcoal you can in theory keep adding it annually, at least until the soil gets too saturated with the stuff. But like all of these things it's not an alternative to stopping burning fossil fuels.

Why shouldn't it be? Is the aim of the exercise to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, or to make life as unpleasant and Orwellian as possible for people?

Because we release many orders of magnitude more CO2 through burning than we could ever sequester in soil even in the most optimistic scenarios (and there are some bonkers maths doing the rounds). And sequestration is significantly more expensive than energy efficiency and transition.

To make sequestration work at scale you’d need vast government intervention both on the production side and in mandating farmers to use it.

Plus the world has realised that fossil fuel burning is dirty, non renewable of course, and increasingly geopolitically dangerous. Why keep on with the water mills once you have a steam engine. Same issue.

Not a particularly apposite analogy, given that we've gone back to windmills, which suffer from precisely the same flaw they had when our ancestors left then in the past.

I'd like to see some figures behind your cost assertion. A large scheme to get fields dressed and tackle a mjor issue seems exactly what we employ a huge Government for.

londonpubman said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Interest rates paused

Vote was 5/4

Ok so I called it wrong per my earlier post today. Not for the first time.

Not sure that rates have peaked though. Long way to go to bring inflation back to target!

Me too. No shame though - 5 to 4.

Good news from the BoE, at least for those of us about to buy a load of pounds with dollars.

BartholomewRoberts said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

TimS said:

Carnyx said:

Phil said:

Carnyx said:

Phil said:

Carnyx said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

SandyRentool said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

SandyRentool said:

david_herdson said:

On topic, Sunak is right. There has been a huge amount of cakeism from previous governments, basking in the approval of environmental campaigners for introducing the targets, while failing to have an honest conversation about costs - and because Labour, the Lib Dems and Greens, and indeed the core broadcast media, are signed up to the same agenda, then they're happy for the Tories to be blamed for the costs as they come in as the party in office.

Consequently, the only political opposition comes from right-wing Tories, Reform UK, the Mail and Telegraph. It's like Brexit all over again - and we know how that ended.

Brexit was ultimately a consequence of a failure to advocate the benefits of the policy. It's easy to see now the net costs but without explaining the many little benefits, that ground was ceded by default to the opponents who could highlight the irritants and costs involved. Proponents were quiet while opponents were loud (with the exception of Remainy true believers, who by taking their case too far, also turned the public off). And that's where we are with Net Zero and climate change policy.

Unless the policy is advocated from first principles, not just on 'save the planet' grounds, which some will see as hopelessly beyond Britain's scope and others will see and virtue-signalling guff or simply fraudulent, but on grounds of national security and economic benefit, there is every chance there will be a populist backlash against a policy seen as imposed by an elite conspiracy without a popular mandate - because there will be enough truth in the case to credibly make it, especially if the other side is out-of-practice in its media skills in countering those claims.

Put simply, in a democracy, you have to take the people with you.

It's not a great sign that the TV media coverage today is full of environmentalists and political opponents of the Tories whining about how awful the Tories are, rather than making the positive case for action (which it's worth noting the Tories are still signed up to, even if in a kick-the-can mode).

"Put simply, in a democracy, you have to take the people with you."

And Sunak has given up trying. Because he doesn't care about the environment himself, he'd rather take the soft option and follow the agenda of the Mail and Express.

This isn't leadership. Get rid.

Sunak is challenging the climate change process and in fact is brave and correct

Of course he has come under fierce attack, but as is being seen on this forum he is receiving support for his actions

No. Sunak is being completely disingenuous. Claiming that 2050 Net Zero can still be achieved without taking the steps required to get there is just taking the people for fools.

Clearly an attempt to have cake and eat it. He deserves all he gets for this nonsense.

There are multiple sets of steps you can take to get to the same destination.

If petrol cars get outlawed in 2035 then by 2050 they'll be at least 16 years old and a tiny proportion of vehicles on the road.

The problem with extremists is the fallacy of "something must be done, this is something, so this must be done."

Nonsense.

If, say, we pump out maximum emissions until 2049 then make a big bang transition to Net Zero then:

1) the UK economy is left for dead as the US/China plough on with a cheap, green energy economy

2) or, if everyone else follows our example, the planet is screwed.

Who said that we pump out maximum emissions until 2049 then make a big transition in 2050? Certainly not me.

The transition is happening either way, and before 2050, if its in 2030 or 2035, its just a question of getting the ducks in a row.

As for (2) as I've said before, everyone else will do what's in their own best interests, they won't "follow our example". If we cut off our nose to spite our face, taking harmful actions like cutting driving or flying rather than investing in clean technologies then they'll just carry on merrily along doing their own thing and ignore us.

If we want them to follow us, we need a sensible example to follow where we improve our living standards, not harm them, with cleaner technologies. That way we get to have our cake and eat it (which is the entire purpose of having a cake in my eyes) and they will follow us.

Despite your scornful response about it, a great deal of carbon can be sequestered by dressing agricultural fields with rock dust - as Sheffield University says, up to 40% of our Net Zero requirements, which is huge. It's huge if it's only half that.

I was already very keen on this idea anyway, to remineralise agricultural soils, resulting in healthier produce and improved yields, but for it to also help us massively on the way to Net Zero is a massive win.

'Produce' implies arable fields. So what happens at harvest? Even if one is direct drilling, the previous crop is eliminated one way or another. And if there is some increase in bound carbon (as in species-rich permanent grasslands) this is only a one off.

What am I missing

It seems you plough the rock dust into the soil, or spread it on top & plant crops as normal. Yields should be the same, or better in some cases as you can choose to apply the ground up silicates only to those fields where increasing the pH will be a net benefit (as is already done by spreading ground up limestone in some areas).

Sure, but you remove the carbon and rot, burn, belch, fart it back into the atmosphere. You're not making a coal seam de nos jours to sequester the carbon from the atmosphere, on the whole.

(Though anything to economise on fuel and oil-derved fertiliser is good, too, in that aim.)

I think you’re confused about the actual process here: the carbon doesn’t go into the crops, it reacts with the rock itself to form carbonates of various kinds.

TimS said:

Carnyx said:

Phil said:

Carnyx said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

SandyRentool said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

SandyRentool said:

david_herdson said:

On topic, Sunak is right. There has been a huge amount of cakeism from previous governments, basking in the approval of environmental campaigners for introducing the targets, while failing to have an honest conversation about costs - and because Labour, the Lib Dems and Greens, and indeed the core broadcast media, are signed up to the same agenda, then they're happy for the Tories to be blamed for the costs as they come in as the party in office.

Consequently, the only political opposition comes from right-wing Tories, Reform UK, the Mail and Telegraph. It's like Brexit all over again - and we know how that ended.

Brexit was ultimately a consequence of a failure to advocate the benefits of the policy. It's easy to see now the net costs but without explaining the many little benefits, that ground was ceded by default to the opponents who could highlight the irritants and costs involved. Proponents were quiet while opponents were loud (with the exception of Remainy true believers, who by taking their case too far, also turned the public off). And that's where we are with Net Zero and climate change policy.

Unless the policy is advocated from first principles, not just on 'save the planet' grounds, which some will see as hopelessly beyond Britain's scope and others will see and virtue-signalling guff or simply fraudulent, but on grounds of national security and economic benefit, there is every chance there will be a populist backlash against a policy seen as imposed by an elite conspiracy without a popular mandate - because there will be enough truth in the case to credibly make it, especially if the other side is out-of-practice in its media skills in countering those claims.

Put simply, in a democracy, you have to take the people with you.

It's not a great sign that the TV media coverage today is full of environmentalists and political opponents of the Tories whining about how awful the Tories are, rather than making the positive case for action (which it's worth noting the Tories are still signed up to, even if in a kick-the-can mode).

"Put simply, in a democracy, you have to take the people with you."

And Sunak has given up trying. Because he doesn't care about the environment himself, he'd rather take the soft option and follow the agenda of the Mail and Express.

This isn't leadership. Get rid.

Sunak is challenging the climate change process and in fact is brave and correct

Of course he has come under fierce attack, but as is being seen on this forum he is receiving support for his actions

No. Sunak is being completely disingenuous. Claiming that 2050 Net Zero can still be achieved without taking the steps required to get there is just taking the people for fools.

Clearly an attempt to have cake and eat it. He deserves all he gets for this nonsense.

There are multiple sets of steps you can take to get to the same destination.

If petrol cars get outlawed in 2035 then by 2050 they'll be at least 16 years old and a tiny proportion of vehicles on the road.

The problem with extremists is the fallacy of "something must be done, this is something, so this must be done."

Nonsense.

If, say, we pump out maximum emissions until 2049 then make a big bang transition to Net Zero then:

1) the UK economy is left for dead as the US/China plough on with a cheap, green energy economy

2) or, if everyone else follows our example, the planet is screwed.

Who said that we pump out maximum emissions until 2049 then make a big transition in 2050? Certainly not me.

The transition is happening either way, and before 2050, if its in 2030 or 2035, its just a question of getting the ducks in a row.

As for (2) as I've said before, everyone else will do what's in their own best interests, they won't "follow our example". If we cut off our nose to spite our face, taking harmful actions like cutting driving or flying rather than investing in clean technologies then they'll just carry on merrily along doing their own thing and ignore us.

If we want them to follow us, we need a sensible example to follow where we improve our living standards, not harm them, with cleaner technologies. That way we get to have our cake and eat it (which is the entire purpose of having a cake in my eyes) and they will follow us.

Despite your scornful response about it, a great deal of carbon can be sequestered by dressing agricultural fields with rock dust - as Sheffield University says, up to 40% of our Net Zero requirements, which is huge. It's huge if it's only half that.

I was already very keen on this idea anyway, to remineralise agricultural soils, resulting in healthier produce and improved yields, but for it to also help us massively on the way to Net Zero is a massive win.

'Produce' implies arable fields. So what happens at harvest? Even if one is direct drilling, the previous crop is eliminated one way or another. And if there is some increase in bound carbon (as in species-rich permanent grasslands) this is only a one off.

What am I missing

It seems you plough the rock dust into the soil, or spread it on top & plant crops as normal. Yields should be the same, or better in some cases as you can choose to apply the ground up silicates only to those fields where increasing the pH will be a net benefit (as is already done by spreading ground up limestone in some areas).

Sure, but you remove the carbon and rot, burn, belch, fart it back into the atmosphere. You're not making a coal seam de nos jours to sequester the carbon from the atmosphere, on the whole.

(Though anything to economise on fuel and oil-derved fertiliser is good, too, in that aim.)

Activated charcoal is the most promising sequestration option, or “biochar” as it’s
termed. There you really are locking away carbon in a process that partially mimics the creation of coal seams, and it works even if the ground is ploughed.

Thanks! But in both cases it's still only a one off. Not an ongoing process for decades? Still, useful.

With charcoal you can in theory keep adding it annually, at least until the soil gets too saturated with the stuff. But like all of these things it's not an alternative to stopping burning fossil fuels.

Why shouldn't it be? Is the aim of the exercise to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, or to make life as unpleasant and Orwellian as possible for people?

Quite the opposite.

To be net zero you need some things on the negative side, then some on the positive side, and they balance. You have to think though what are your priorities and have those priorities as your limited positives.

Burning fossil fuels when there's better and ultimately cheaper alternatives around is pointless. No reason to do it.

But some emissions have no better alternative.

EG a large source of emissions come from things like cow farts. I still want to eat beef and drink real milk, so I would like my positives to be going into things like that, balanced by any negatives.

Better than a future where we burn emissions, but all need vegan meals and soy lattes as the cows have been culled.

It’s even worse. Your final option won’t ever even be on the table. As a country we’re never going to abandon beef and milk, so we either trim emissions cleverly or countries at risk from climate change are *******. There is no version in which we democratically consent to give up life’s pleasures. Should anyone try, they will get voted out.

Pulpstar said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Stark_Dawning said:

Remember the crime drama Broadchurch from 2013? In it there was an elderly character who'd previously married a women several years his junior, and he was portrayed as a heroic victim of prurient media harassment. Now there is talk of those sort of relationships to be criminalized (even if both parties are above the age of consent). I'm not saying if that approach is right or wrong, but it's amazing how quickly the received opinion can change.

I don't believe anyone is suggesting criminalising adult relationships based on age differential.

What I do believe is being discussed is tightening up safeguards regarding relationships people have with children.

There's a myth by some that the unrestricted age of consent in this country is 16, its not, its 18 already.

Relations with a 16 year old may be legal, or may be illegal, depending upon the circumstances. Some people are suggesting those circumstances be adjusted to include a "Romeo and Juliet" style law, which is not unusual abroad.

Will Romeo and Juliet survive the Online Harms bill ?

The past is another country. Henry VII's mother Margaret Beaufort was 13 and a widow when Henry was born. Romeo would be in prison. Juliet (13,nearly 14) would be in the care of social services.

In strict law two 15 year olds heavily snogging are committing an offence. (In general it is not regarded as an offence, but anyone who thinks such activity is generally 'not sexual' in nature is delusional.)

BartholomewRoberts said:

MaxPB said:

Another point on the inflation figures and why the BoE may have paused today is that ONS food price inflation as measured by basket value is about 2% higher than the real food inflation rate as measured by checkout values of baskets which include discounts at the till.

So prices aren't going up as fast, but there's fewer/inferior discounts available?

The opposite I think. Tesco Clubcard prices messing up the ONS workings basically.

AlistairM said:

This is a lovely video of a group of mountain bikers coming across King Charles near Balmoral. He seems to genuinely be a very nice man interested in what others are doing.

https://www.gbnews.com/royal/royal-news-king-charles-cyclist-scotland

I've been up there a few times, had a night at the bothy. Never come across a royal but the police keep a friendly eye on you if you pass close to the castle when someone is in.

MaxPB said:

Another point on the inflation figures and why the BoE may have paused today is that ONS food price inflation as measured by basket value is about 2% higher than the real food inflation rate as measured by checkout values of baskets which include discounts at the till.

Supermarket discount schemes have become the “real price”. You can’t not join them if you’re on any kind of budget. Tesco especially - the clubcard price is the one that’s competitive with other retailers.

BartholomewRoberts said:

MaxPB said:

Another point on the inflation figures and why the BoE may have paused today is that ONS food price inflation as measured by basket value is about 2% higher than the real food inflation rate as measured by checkout values of baskets which include discounts at the till.

So prices aren't going up as fast, but there's fewer/inferior discounts available?

Nah other way around, sticker prices are still rising at about 13% but till based discounts bring that rate down to about 10-11%. The ONS doesn't take till discounts into account for food price inflation, but I'd be surprised if the BoE didn't. The raw food price inflation figure is actually something like 8% based on PoS data but that includes people switching to lesser brands and own brand products as well as till level discounts. The ONS measure of food price inflation doesn't really reflect reality, it's another one of those metrics that they're just way out of date on measuring, private indices do a better job.

DavidL said:

nico679 said:

A pretty good week for the government .

Interest rates on hold and they’ve managed to dupe some into thinking they care about the poor .

I’d be shocked if new polls don’t show an increase in support for the Tories .

Also inflation fell (a tiny amount but it was expected to go up) and we will have real wage growth for some time now.

No, thanks to Rishi Sunak we still only have nominal wage growth.

Real wage growth will occur when wages are growing faster than prices and fiscal drag, that's not happening.

"I’ve taken one flight in ten years, and my life is richer for it
Restrictions on aviation constitute wise stewardship of our shared planet, not an attempt, as some believe, to exert control
Paul Miles"

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/comment/ive-taken-one-flight-in-ten-years-and-my-life-is-richer/

BartholomewRoberts said:

DavidL said:

nico679 said:

A pretty good week for the government .

Interest rates on hold and they’ve managed to dupe some into thinking they care about the poor .

I’d be shocked if new polls don’t show an increase in support for the Tories .

Also inflation fell (a tiny amount but it was expected to go up) and we will have real wage growth for some time now.

No, thanks to Rishi Sunak we still only have nominal wage growth.

Real wage growth will occur when wages are growing faster than prices and fiscal drag, that's not happening.

In May to July average wage growth was 7.8%: https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/employmentandemployeetypes/bulletins/averageweeklyearningsingreatbritain/latest
With inflation now at 6.7% that is real wage growth and the gap between the two is likely to increase. Are you seriously suggesting that fiscal drag makes up that sort of difference? I don't believe it.

biggles said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

TimS said:

Carnyx said:

Phil said:

Carnyx said:

Phil said:

Carnyx said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

SandyRentool said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

SandyRentool said:

david_herdson said:

On topic, Sunak is right. There has been a huge amount of cakeism from previous governments, basking in the approval of environmental campaigners for introducing the targets, while failing to have an honest conversation about costs - and because Labour, the Lib Dems and Greens, and indeed the core broadcast media, are signed up to the same agenda, then they're happy for the Tories to be blamed for the costs as they come in as the party in office.

Consequently, the only political opposition comes from right-wing Tories, Reform UK, the Mail and Telegraph. It's like Brexit all over again - and we know how that ended.

Brexit was ultimately a consequence of a failure to advocate the benefits of the policy. It's easy to see now the net costs but without explaining the many little benefits, that ground was ceded by default to the opponents who could highlight the irritants and costs involved. Proponents were quiet while opponents were loud (with the exception of Remainy true believers, who by taking their case too far, also turned the public off). And that's where we are with Net Zero and climate change policy.

Unless the policy is advocated from first principles, not just on 'save the planet' grounds, which some will see as hopelessly beyond Britain's scope and others will see and virtue-signalling guff or simply fraudulent, but on grounds of national security and economic benefit, there is every chance there will be a populist backlash against a policy seen as imposed by an elite conspiracy without a popular mandate - because there will be enough truth in the case to credibly make it, especially if the other side is out-of-practice in its media skills in countering those claims.

Put simply, in a democracy, you have to take the people with you.

It's not a great sign that the TV media coverage today is full of environmentalists and political opponents of the Tories whining about how awful the Tories are, rather than making the positive case for action (which it's worth noting the Tories are still signed up to, even if in a kick-the-can mode).

"Put simply, in a democracy, you have to take the people with you."

And Sunak has given up trying. Because he doesn't care about the environment himself, he'd rather take the soft option and follow the agenda of the Mail and Express.

This isn't leadership. Get rid.

Sunak is challenging the climate change process and in fact is brave and correct

Of course he has come under fierce attack, but as is being seen on this forum he is receiving support for his actions

No. Sunak is being completely disingenuous. Claiming that 2050 Net Zero can still be achieved without taking the steps required to get there is just taking the people for fools.

Clearly an attempt to have cake and eat it. He deserves all he gets for this nonsense.

There are multiple sets of steps you can take to get to the same destination.

If petrol cars get outlawed in 2035 then by 2050 they'll be at least 16 years old and a tiny proportion of vehicles on the road.

The problem with extremists is the fallacy of "something must be done, this is something, so this must be done."

Nonsense.

If, say, we pump out maximum emissions until 2049 then make a big bang transition to Net Zero then:

1) the UK economy is left for dead as the US/China plough on with a cheap, green energy economy

2) or, if everyone else follows our example, the planet is screwed.

Who said that we pump out maximum emissions until 2049 then make a big transition in 2050? Certainly not me.

The transition is happening either way, and before 2050, if its in 2030 or 2035, its just a question of getting the ducks in a row.

As for (2) as I've said before, everyone else will do what's in their own best interests, they won't "follow our example". If we cut off our nose to spite our face, taking harmful actions like cutting driving or flying rather than investing in clean technologies then they'll just carry on merrily along doing their own thing and ignore us.

If we want them to follow us, we need a sensible example to follow where we improve our living standards, not harm them, with cleaner technologies. That way we get to have our cake and eat it (which is the entire purpose of having a cake in my eyes) and they will follow us.

Despite your scornful response about it, a great deal of carbon can be sequestered by dressing agricultural fields with rock dust - as Sheffield University says, up to 40% of our Net Zero requirements, which is huge. It's huge if it's only half that.

I was already very keen on this idea anyway, to remineralise agricultural soils, resulting in healthier produce and improved yields, but for it to also help us massively on the way to Net Zero is a massive win.

'Produce' implies arable fields. So what happens at harvest? Even if one is direct drilling, the previous crop is eliminated one way or another. And if there is some increase in bound carbon (as in species-rich permanent grasslands) this is only a one off.

What am I missing

It seems you plough the rock dust into the soil, or spread it on top & plant crops as normal. Yields should be the same, or better in some cases as you can choose to apply the ground up silicates only to those fields where increasing the pH will be a net benefit (as is already done by spreading ground up limestone in some areas).

Sure, but you remove the carbon and rot, burn, belch, fart it back into the atmosphere. You're not making a coal seam de nos jours to sequester the carbon from the atmosphere, on the whole.

(Though anything to economise on fuel and oil-derved fertiliser is good, too, in that aim.)

I think you’re confused about the actual process here: the carbon doesn’t go into the crops, it reacts with the rock itself to form carbonates of various kinds.

TimS said:

Carnyx said:

Phil said:

Carnyx said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

SandyRentool said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

SandyRentool said:

david_herdson said:

On topic, Sunak is right. There has been a huge amount of cakeism from previous governments, basking in the approval of environmental campaigners for introducing the targets, while failing to have an honest conversation about costs - and because Labour, the Lib Dems and Greens, and indeed the core broadcast media, are signed up to the same agenda, then they're happy for the Tories to be blamed for the costs as they come in as the party in office.

Consequently, the only political opposition comes from right-wing Tories, Reform UK, the Mail and Telegraph. It's like Brexit all over again - and we know how that ended.

Brexit was ultimately a consequence of a failure to advocate the benefits of the policy. It's easy to see now the net costs but without explaining the many little benefits, that ground was ceded by default to the opponents who could highlight the irritants and costs involved. Proponents were quiet while opponents were loud (with the exception of Remainy true believers, who by taking their case too far, also turned the public off). And that's where we are with Net Zero and climate change policy.

Unless the policy is advocated from first principles, not just on 'save the planet' grounds, which some will see as hopelessly beyond Britain's scope and others will see and virtue-signalling guff or simply fraudulent, but on grounds of national security and economic benefit, there is every chance there will be a populist backlash against a policy seen as imposed by an elite conspiracy without a popular mandate - because there will be enough truth in the case to credibly make it, especially if the other side is out-of-practice in its media skills in countering those claims.

Put simply, in a democracy, you have to take the people with you.

It's not a great sign that the TV media coverage today is full of environmentalists and political opponents of the Tories whining about how awful the Tories are, rather than making the positive case for action (which it's worth noting the Tories are still signed up to, even if in a kick-the-can mode).

"Put simply, in a democracy, you have to take the people with you."

And Sunak has given up trying. Because he doesn't care about the environment himself, he'd rather take the soft option and follow the agenda of the Mail and Express.

This isn't leadership. Get rid.

Sunak is challenging the climate change process and in fact is brave and correct

Of course he has come under fierce attack, but as is being seen on this forum he is receiving support for his actions

No. Sunak is being completely disingenuous. Claiming that 2050 Net Zero can still be achieved without taking the steps required to get there is just taking the people for fools.

Clearly an attempt to have cake and eat it. He deserves all he gets for this nonsense.

There are multiple sets of steps you can take to get to the same destination.

If petrol cars get outlawed in 2035 then by 2050 they'll be at least 16 years old and a tiny proportion of vehicles on the road.

The problem with extremists is the fallacy of "something must be done, this is something, so this must be done."

Nonsense.

If, say, we pump out maximum emissions until 2049 then make a big bang transition to Net Zero then:

1) the UK economy is left for dead as the US/China plough on with a cheap, green energy economy

2) or, if everyone else follows our example, the planet is screwed.

Who said that we pump out maximum emissions until 2049 then make a big transition in 2050? Certainly not me.

The transition is happening either way, and before 2050, if its in 2030 or 2035, its just a question of getting the ducks in a row.

As for (2) as I've said before, everyone else will do what's in their own best interests, they won't "follow our example". If we cut off our nose to spite our face, taking harmful actions like cutting driving or flying rather than investing in clean technologies then they'll just carry on merrily along doing their own thing and ignore us.

If we want them to follow us, we need a sensible example to follow where we improve our living standards, not harm them, with cleaner technologies. That way we get to have our cake and eat it (which is the entire purpose of having a cake in my eyes) and they will follow us.

Despite your scornful response about it, a great deal of carbon can be sequestered by dressing agricultural fields with rock dust - as Sheffield University says, up to 40% of our Net Zero requirements, which is huge. It's huge if it's only half that.

I was already very keen on this idea anyway, to remineralise agricultural soils, resulting in healthier produce and improved yields, but for it to also help us massively on the way to Net Zero is a massive win.

'Produce' implies arable fields. So what happens at harvest? Even if one is direct drilling, the previous crop is eliminated one way or another. And if there is some increase in bound carbon (as in species-rich permanent grasslands) this is only a one off.

What am I missing

It seems you plough the rock dust into the soil, or spread it on top & plant crops as normal. Yields should be the same, or better in some cases as you can choose to apply the ground up silicates only to those fields where increasing the pH will be a net benefit (as is already done by spreading ground up limestone in some areas).

Sure, but you remove the carbon and rot, burn, belch, fart it back into the atmosphere. You're not making a coal seam de nos jours to sequester the carbon from the atmosphere, on the whole.

(Though anything to economise on fuel and oil-derved fertiliser is good, too, in that aim.)

Activated charcoal is the most promising sequestration option, or “biochar” as it’s
termed. There you really are locking away carbon in a process that partially mimics the creation of coal seams, and it works even if the ground is ploughed.

Thanks! But in both cases it's still only a one off. Not an ongoing process for decades? Still, useful.

With charcoal you can in theory keep adding it annually, at least until the soil gets too saturated with the stuff. But like all of these things it's not an alternative to stopping burning fossil fuels.

Why shouldn't it be? Is the aim of the exercise to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, or to make life as unpleasant and Orwellian as possible for people?

Quite the opposite.

To be net zero you need some things on the negative side, then some on the positive side, and they balance. You have to think though what are your priorities and have those priorities as your limited positives.

Burning fossil fuels when there's better and ultimately cheaper alternatives around is pointless. No reason to do it.

But some emissions have no better alternative.

EG a large source of emissions come from things like cow farts. I still want to eat beef and drink real milk, so I would like my positives to be going into things like that, balanced by any negatives.

Better than a future where we burn emissions, but all need vegan meals and soy lattes as the cows have been culled.

It’s even worse. Your final option won’t ever even be on the table. As a country we’re never going to abandon beef and milk, so we either trim emissions cleverly or countries at risk from climate change are *******. There is no version in which we democratically consent to give up life’s pleasures. Should anyone try, they will get voted out.

So we tax those products and use it partly to pay for Green Reparations.

Green Party Policy is Climate Reparations of £50Bn a year, which will probably be "managed" by various gravy train riding Charities and NGO's who are enthusiastic about out.

Polluter pays.

https://www.greenparty.org.uk/news/2021/11/03/greens-call-for-uk-to-pay-reparations/

DavidL said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

DavidL said:

nico679 said:

A pretty good week for the government .

Interest rates on hold and they’ve managed to dupe some into thinking they care about the poor .

I’d be shocked if new polls don’t show an increase in support for the Tories .

Also inflation fell (a tiny amount but it was expected to go up) and we will have real wage growth for some time now.

No, thanks to Rishi Sunak we still only have nominal wage growth.

Real wage growth will occur when wages are growing faster than prices and fiscal drag, that's not happening.

In May to July average wage growth was 7.8%: https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/employmentandemployeetypes/bulletins/averageweeklyearningsingreatbritain/latest
With inflation now at 6.7% that is real wage growth and the gap between the two is likely to increase. Are you seriously suggesting that fiscal drag makes up that sort of difference? I don't believe it.

It definitely doesn't because people's net salary will still go up, just not as fast as that difference would imply. For someone on the basic rate they'd take about 70% of that and on the higher rate about 60% of it depending on their personal circumstances. Fiscal drag won't push anyone back into real terms pay losses, they just wouldn't see 100% of the rise.

Taz said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

DavidL said:

nico679 said:

A pretty good week for the government .

Interest rates on hold and they’ve managed to dupe some into thinking they care about the poor .

I’d be shocked if new polls don’t show an increase in support for the Tories .

Also inflation fell (a tiny amount but it was expected to go up) and we will have real wage growth for some time now.

No, thanks to Rishi Sunak we still only have nominal wage growth.

Real wage growth will occur when wages are growing faster than prices and fiscal drag, that's not happening.

The Tory party have truly embraced the De-Growth movement.

That's not true, if you're old and have a defined benefit pension you're seeing a lot of growth.

MaxPB said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

MaxPB said:

Another point on the inflation figures and why the BoE may have paused today is that ONS food price inflation as measured by basket value is about 2% higher than the real food inflation rate as measured by checkout values of baskets which include discounts at the till.

So prices aren't going up as fast, but there's fewer/inferior discounts available?

Nah other way around, sticker prices are still rising at about 13% but till based discounts bring that rate down to about 10-11%. The ONS doesn't take till discounts into account for food price inflation, but I'd be surprised if the BoE didn't. The raw food price inflation figure is actually something like 8% based on PoS data but that includes people switching to lesser brands and own brand products as well as till level discounts. The ONS measure of food price inflation doesn't really reflect reality, it's another one of those metrics that they're just way out of date on measuring, private indices do a better job.

The ONS captures people switching brands and retailers but it ignores discounts that aren't available to all shoppers, which doesn't seem wholly unreasonable.

MaxPB said:

DavidL said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

DavidL said:

nico679 said:

A pretty good week for the government .

Interest rates on hold and they’ve managed to dupe some into thinking they care about the poor .

I’d be shocked if new polls don’t show an increase in support for the Tories .

Also inflation fell (a tiny amount but it was expected to go up) and we will have real wage growth for some time now.

No, thanks to Rishi Sunak we still only have nominal wage growth.

Real wage growth will occur when wages are growing faster than prices and fiscal drag, that's not happening.

In May to July average wage growth was 7.8%: https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/employmentandemployeetypes/bulletins/averageweeklyearningsingreatbritain/latest
With inflation now at 6.7% that is real wage growth and the gap between the two is likely to increase. Are you seriously suggesting that fiscal drag makes up that sort of difference? I don't believe it.

It definitely doesn't because people's net salary will still go up, just not as fast as that difference would imply. For someone on the basic rate they'd take about 70% of that and on the higher rate about 60% of it depending on their personal circumstances. Fiscal drag won't push anyone back into real terms pay losses, they just wouldn't see 100% of the rise.

Lets take a graduate on £30k, they have a real tax rate of 41%. A 7.8% pay rise is a pay rise of £2,340 - of which £959.40 would go to the Exchequer and they'll keep only £1380.6

That's a real terms pay cut.

Foxy said:

DavidL said:

nico679 said:

A pretty good week for the government .

Interest rates on hold and they’ve managed to dupe some into thinking they care about the poor .

I’d be shocked if new polls don’t show an increase in support for the Tories .

Also inflation fell (a tiny amount but it was expected to go up) and we will have real wage growth for some time now.

Calculated to piss of those of us continuing to get real terms pay cuts for the 15th consecutive year.

(Scotland not included as far as Junior Doctors in this)

From the Indy. Pay was increased above general wage rises from 2004 to 2009, and productivity was supposed to also increase. It didn't but

The consultants' pay bonanza came in the main as a result of a new contract they signed with the Government in 2004. The contract was meant to improve NHS practices while making consultants work longer and more productively. But, after a series of concessions, the contract was watered down. The consultants kept their money, but a report by the heath think tank the King's Fund found little evidence of improvements in services offered to patients.

The figures show that, in 2000, the mean earnings of a consultant were £71,900. But by 2009 this figure had risen to £120,900 – an average yearly increase of 5.9 per cent. In contrast, across the whole of the pubic sector salaries rose over the same period by 4.5 per cent. For the private sector the rise was 3.7 per cent.

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/salaries-of-nhs-consultants-soar-by-68-per-cent-2172588.html

THIS. THIS is why all the Doctors are using 2010 in their bleatings.

MaxPB said:

Taz said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

DavidL said:

nico679 said:

A pretty good week for the government .

Interest rates on hold and they’ve managed to dupe some into thinking they care about the poor .

I’d be shocked if new polls don’t show an increase in support for the Tories .

Also inflation fell (a tiny amount but it was expected to go up) and we will have real wage growth for some time now.

No, thanks to Rishi Sunak we still only have nominal wage growth.

Real wage growth will occur when wages are growing faster than prices and fiscal drag, that's not happening.

The Tory party have truly embraced the De-Growth movement.

That's not true, if you're old and have a defined benefit pension you're seeing a lot of growth.

That's a big "if", of course and most of that growth would predate the current parliament.

However I was being a little facetious.

MarqueeMark said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

david_herdson said:

On topic, Sunak is right. There has been a huge amount of cakeism from previous governments, basking in the approval of environmental campaigners for introducing the targets, while failing to have an honest conversation about costs - and because Labour, the Lib Dems and Greens, and indeed the core broadcast media, are signed up to the same agenda, then they're happy for the Tories to be blamed for the costs as they come in as the party in office.

Consequently, the only political opposition comes from right-wing Tories, Reform UK, the Mail and Telegraph. It's like Brexit all over again - and we know how that ended.

Brexit was ultimately a consequence of a failure to advocate the benefits of the policy. It's easy to see now the net costs but without explaining the many little benefits, that ground was ceded by default to the opponents who could highlight the irritants and costs involved. Proponents were quiet while opponents were loud (with the exception of Remainy true believers, who by taking their case too far, also turned the public off). And that's where we are with Net Zero and climate change policy.

Unless the policy is advocated from first principles, not just on 'save the planet' grounds, which some will see as hopelessly beyond Britain's scope and others will see and virtue-signalling guff or simply fraudulent, but on grounds of national security and economic benefit, there is every chance there will be a populist backlash against a policy seen as imposed by an elite conspiracy without a popular mandate - because there will be enough truth in the case to credibly make it, especially if the other side is out-of-practice in its media skills in countering those claims.

Put simply, in a democracy, you have to take the people with you.

It's not a great sign that the TV media coverage today is full of environmentalists and political opponents of the Tories whining about how awful the Tories are, rather than making the positive case for action (which it's worth noting the Tories are still signed up to, even if in a kick-the-can mode).

But there is a mandate, here's the front page of the Tory manifesto from 2019.

Who is this "Boris Johnson"?

The chap whose dog you looked after whilst campaigning for him and his party in 2019?

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

algarkirk said:

This has betting implications. I would still be cautious about betting the farm on Labour 326+ seats.

I'd actually be slightly more inclined to bet on this than I was last week.

In general, Sunak's strategy has been to calm things down after the turbulence of the Johnson and Truss Premierships. The idea has been to take the heat out and demonstrate steady progress on some reasonably modest targets. All very "grown ups in charge" and "why risk Captain Hindsight when you've got Captain Sensible at the helm?" But it's not about creating huge points of difference - it's managerial.

Immigration policy doesn't fit in with that. He's been more willing to create difference. I understand that, politically, because he needs some red meat and in reality a lot of people do like a strident line on it (I'm not one of them but I'm not the target market). His problem is that it isn't actually working because the policies themselves are crap, but there it it.

Now, though, he's rolling the dice in other areas. That suggests he's lost confidence in the ability of the strategy he set out last year and early this to narrow the polls.

But doing that not only speaks to his personal weakness and lack of resolve, but it's risky too. Firstly, he's in danger of trashing the Steady Eddie brand he has previously tried to develop. Secondly, if you're going to create dividing lines, you better make damned sure you're picking the right side of them politically, and I'm not sure he is - like "Get Brexit Done" versus "Bollocks to Brexit" in 2019, if you judge it right you do very well, but if you get the call wrong you do very badly.

On that basis, I think the old, steady approach had little chance of keeping Sunak in Number 10 but a reasonable chance of limiting losses and depriving Labour of an overall majority. Whereas the new approach has some chance of being very successful but, along with it, a greater chance it'll flop, there won't even be a partial recovery for the Tories, and Labour will breeze in.

I get the logic there however I was thinking the opposite. That they've accepted defeat and it's all about the scale of it. If the centre goes to sensible non-scary SKS Labour on 'time for a change sick of the Cons' grounds AND they shed support on the reactionary side of life too, it could be meltdown at the GE. This is the risk with no change. So, instead, shore up the right flank and derisk that worst outcome. Lock in a bad but not catastrophic defeat, forego the only slim chance of winning, which is win back the centre.

Taz said:

biggles said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

TimS said:

Carnyx said:

Phil said:

Carnyx said:

Phil said:

Carnyx said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

SandyRentool said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

SandyRentool said:

david_herdson said:

On topic, Sunak is right. There has been a huge amount of cakeism from previous governments, basking in the approval of environmental campaigners for introducing the targets, while failing to have an honest conversation about costs - and because Labour, the Lib Dems and Greens, and indeed the core broadcast media, are signed up to the same agenda, then they're happy for the Tories to be blamed for the costs as they come in as the party in office.

Consequently, the only political opposition comes from right-wing Tories, Reform UK, the Mail and Telegraph. It's like Brexit all over again - and we know how that ended.

Brexit was ultimately a consequence of a failure to advocate the benefits of the policy. It's easy to see now the net costs but without explaining the many little benefits, that ground was ceded by default to the opponents who could highlight the irritants and costs involved. Proponents were quiet while opponents were loud (with the exception of Remainy true believers, who by taking their case too far, also turned the public off). And that's where we are with Net Zero and climate change policy.

Unless the policy is advocated from first principles, not just on 'save the planet' grounds, which some will see as hopelessly beyond Britain's scope and others will see and virtue-signalling guff or simply fraudulent, but on grounds of national security and economic benefit, there is every chance there will be a populist backlash against a policy seen as imposed by an elite conspiracy without a popular mandate - because there will be enough truth in the case to credibly make it, especially if the other side is out-of-practice in its media skills in countering those claims.

Put simply, in a democracy, you have to take the people with you.

It's not a great sign that the TV media coverage today is full of environmentalists and political opponents of the Tories whining about how awful the Tories are, rather than making the positive case for action (which it's worth noting the Tories are still signed up to, even if in a kick-the-can mode).

"Put simply, in a democracy, you have to take the people with you."

And Sunak has given up trying. Because he doesn't care about the environment himself, he'd rather take the soft option and follow the agenda of the Mail and Express.

This isn't leadership. Get rid.

Sunak is challenging the climate change process and in fact is brave and correct

Of course he has come under fierce attack, but as is being seen on this forum he is receiving support for his actions

No. Sunak is being completely disingenuous. Claiming that 2050 Net Zero can still be achieved without taking the steps required to get there is just taking the people for fools.

Clearly an attempt to have cake and eat it. He deserves all he gets for this nonsense.

There are multiple sets of steps you can take to get to the same destination.

If petrol cars get outlawed in 2035 then by 2050 they'll be at least 16 years old and a tiny proportion of vehicles on the road.

The problem with extremists is the fallacy of "something must be done, this is something, so this must be done."

Nonsense.

If, say, we pump out maximum emissions until 2049 then make a big bang transition to Net Zero then:

1) the UK economy is left for dead as the US/China plough on with a cheap, green energy economy

2) or, if everyone else follows our example, the planet is screwed.

Who said that we pump out maximum emissions until 2049 then make a big transition in 2050? Certainly not me.

The transition is happening either way, and before 2050, if its in 2030 or 2035, its just a question of getting the ducks in a row.

As for (2) as I've said before, everyone else will do what's in their own best interests, they won't "follow our example". If we cut off our nose to spite our face, taking harmful actions like cutting driving or flying rather than investing in clean technologies then they'll just carry on merrily along doing their own thing and ignore us.

If we want them to follow us, we need a sensible example to follow where we improve our living standards, not harm them, with cleaner technologies. That way we get to have our cake and eat it (which is the entire purpose of having a cake in my eyes) and they will follow us.

Despite your scornful response about it, a great deal of carbon can be sequestered by dressing agricultural fields with rock dust - as Sheffield University says, up to 40% of our Net Zero requirements, which is huge. It's huge if it's only half that.

I was already very keen on this idea anyway, to remineralise agricultural soils, resulting in healthier produce and improved yields, but for it to also help us massively on the way to Net Zero is a massive win.

'Produce' implies arable fields. So what happens at harvest? Even if one is direct drilling, the previous crop is eliminated one way or another. And if there is some increase in bound carbon (as in species-rich permanent grasslands) this is only a one off.

What am I missing

It seems you plough the rock dust into the soil, or spread it on top & plant crops as normal. Yields should be the same, or better in some cases as you can choose to apply the ground up silicates only to those fields where increasing the pH will be a net benefit (as is already done by spreading ground up limestone in some areas).

Sure, but you remove the carbon and rot, burn, belch, fart it back into the atmosphere. You're not making a coal seam de nos jours to sequester the carbon from the atmosphere, on the whole.

(Though anything to economise on fuel and oil-derved fertiliser is good, too, in that aim.)

I think you’re confused about the actual process here: the carbon doesn’t go into the crops, it reacts with the rock itself to form carbonates of various kinds.

TimS said:

Carnyx said:

Phil said:

Carnyx said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

SandyRentool said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

SandyRentool said:

david_herdson said:

On topic, Sunak is right. There has been a huge amount of cakeism from previous governments, basking in the approval of environmental campaigners for introducing the targets, while failing to have an honest conversation about costs - and because Labour, the Lib Dems and Greens, and indeed the core broadcast media, are signed up to the same agenda, then they're happy for the Tories to be blamed for the costs as they come in as the party in office.

Consequently, the only political opposition comes from right-wing Tories, Reform UK, the Mail and Telegraph. It's like Brexit all over again - and we know how that ended.

Brexit was ultimately a consequence of a failure to advocate the benefits of the policy. It's easy to see now the net costs but without explaining the many little benefits, that ground was ceded by default to the opponents who could highlight the irritants and costs involved. Proponents were quiet while opponents were loud (with the exception of Remainy true believers, who by taking their case too far, also turned the public off). And that's where we are with Net Zero and climate change policy.

Unless the policy is advocated from first principles, not just on 'save the planet' grounds, which some will see as hopelessly beyond Britain's scope and others will see and virtue-signalling guff or simply fraudulent, but on grounds of national security and economic benefit, there is every chance there will be a populist backlash against a policy seen as imposed by an elite conspiracy without a popular mandate - because there will be enough truth in the case to credibly make it, especially if the other side is out-of-practice in its media skills in countering those claims.

Put simply, in a democracy, you have to take the people with you.

It's not a great sign that the TV media coverage today is full of environmentalists and political opponents of the Tories whining about how awful the Tories are, rather than making the positive case for action (which it's worth noting the Tories are still signed up to, even if in a kick-the-can mode).

"Put simply, in a democracy, you have to take the people with you."

And Sunak has given up trying. Because he doesn't care about the environment himself, he'd rather take the soft option and follow the agenda of the Mail and Express.

This isn't leadership. Get rid.

Sunak is challenging the climate change process and in fact is brave and correct

Of course he has come under fierce attack, but as is being seen on this forum he is receiving support for his actions

No. Sunak is being completely disingenuous. Claiming that 2050 Net Zero can still be achieved without taking the steps required to get there is just taking the people for fools.

Clearly an attempt to have cake and eat it. He deserves all he gets for this nonsense.

There are multiple sets of steps you can take to get to the same destination.

If petrol cars get outlawed in 2035 then by 2050 they'll be at least 16 years old and a tiny proportion of vehicles on the road.

The problem with extremists is the fallacy of "something must be done, this is something, so this must be done."

Nonsense.

If, say, we pump out maximum emissions until 2049 then make a big bang transition to Net Zero then:

1) the UK economy is left for dead as the US/China plough on with a cheap, green energy economy

2) or, if everyone else follows our example, the planet is screwed.

Who said that we pump out maximum emissions until 2049 then make a big transition in 2050? Certainly not me.

The transition is happening either way, and before 2050, if its in 2030 or 2035, its just a question of getting the ducks in a row.

As for (2) as I've said before, everyone else will do what's in their own best interests, they won't "follow our example". If we cut off our nose to spite our face, taking harmful actions like cutting driving or flying rather than investing in clean technologies then they'll just carry on merrily along doing their own thing and ignore us.

If we want them to follow us, we need a sensible example to follow where we improve our living standards, not harm them, with cleaner technologies. That way we get to have our cake and eat it (which is the entire purpose of having a cake in my eyes) and they will follow us.

Despite your scornful response about it, a great deal of carbon can be sequestered by dressing agricultural fields with rock dust - as Sheffield University says, up to 40% of our Net Zero requirements, which is huge. It's huge if it's only half that.

I was already very keen on this idea anyway, to remineralise agricultural soils, resulting in healthier produce and improved yields, but for it to also help us massively on the way to Net Zero is a massive win.

'Produce' implies arable fields. So what happens at harvest? Even if one is direct drilling, the previous crop is eliminated one way or another. And if there is some increase in bound carbon (as in species-rich permanent grasslands) this is only a one off.

What am I missing

It seems you plough the rock dust into the soil, or spread it on top & plant crops as normal. Yields should be the same, or better in some cases as you can choose to apply the ground up silicates only to those fields where increasing the pH will be a net benefit (as is already done by spreading ground up limestone in some areas).

Sure, but you remove the carbon and rot, burn, belch, fart it back into the atmosphere. You're not making a coal seam de nos jours to sequester the carbon from the atmosphere, on the whole.

(Though anything to economise on fuel and oil-derved fertiliser is good, too, in that aim.)

Activated charcoal is the most promising sequestration option, or “biochar” as it’s
termed. There you really are locking away carbon in a process that partially mimics the creation of coal seams, and it works even if the ground is ploughed.

Thanks! But in both cases it's still only a one off. Not an ongoing process for decades? Still, useful.

With charcoal you can in theory keep adding it annually, at least until the soil gets too saturated with the stuff. But like all of these things it's not an alternative to stopping burning fossil fuels.

Why shouldn't it be? Is the aim of the exercise to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, or to make life as unpleasant and Orwellian as possible for people?

Quite the opposite.

To be net zero you need some things on the negative side, then some on the positive side, and they balance. You have to think though what are your priorities and have those priorities as your limited positives.

Burning fossil fuels when there's better and ultimately cheaper alternatives around is pointless. No reason to do it.

But some emissions have no better alternative.

EG a large source of emissions come from things like cow farts. I still want to eat beef and drink real milk, so I would like my positives to be going into things like that, balanced by any negatives.

Better than a future where we burn emissions, but all need vegan meals and soy lattes as the cows have been culled.

It’s even worse. Your final option won’t ever even be on the table. As a country we’re never going to abandon beef and milk, so we either trim emissions cleverly or countries at risk from climate change are *******. There is no version in which we democratically consent to give up life’s pleasures. Should anyone try, they will get voted out.

So we tax those products and use it partly to pay for Green Reparations.

Green Party Policy is Climate Reparations of £50Bn a year, which will probably be "managed" by various gravy train riding Charities and NGO's who are enthusiastic about out.

Polluter pays.

https://www.greenparty.org.uk/news/2021/11/03/greens-call-for-uk-to-pay-reparations/

We’ll never vote for it in the long run. Revenues won’t be high enough to stop it being the easiest, most popular of tax cuts.

Climate change adaptation only works with near 100% consensus. Not least for planning and certainty.

MarqueeMark said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

david_herdson said:

On topic, Sunak is right. There has been a huge amount of cakeism from previous governments, basking in the approval of environmental campaigners for introducing the targets, while failing to have an honest conversation about costs - and because Labour, the Lib Dems and Greens, and indeed the core broadcast media, are signed up to the same agenda, then they're happy for the Tories to be blamed for the costs as they come in as the party in office.

Consequently, the only political opposition comes from right-wing Tories, Reform UK, the Mail and Telegraph. It's like Brexit all over again - and we know how that ended.

Brexit was ultimately a consequence of a failure to advocate the benefits of the policy. It's easy to see now the net costs but without explaining the many little benefits, that ground was ceded by default to the opponents who could highlight the irritants and costs involved. Proponents were quiet while opponents were loud (with the exception of Remainy true believers, who by taking their case too far, also turned the public off). And that's where we are with Net Zero and climate change policy.

Unless the policy is advocated from first principles, not just on 'save the planet' grounds, which some will see as hopelessly beyond Britain's scope and others will see and virtue-signalling guff or simply fraudulent, but on grounds of national security and economic benefit, there is every chance there will be a populist backlash against a policy seen as imposed by an elite conspiracy without a popular mandate - because there will be enough truth in the case to credibly make it, especially if the other side is out-of-practice in its media skills in countering those claims.

Put simply, in a democracy, you have to take the people with you.

It's not a great sign that the TV media coverage today is full of environmentalists and political opponents of the Tories whining about how awful the Tories are, rather than making the positive case for action (which it's worth noting the Tories are still signed up to, even if in a kick-the-can mode).

But there is a mandate, here's the front page of the Tory manifesto from 2019.

Who is this "Boris Johnson"?

The guy who would be banning cars, if his wife was still the Prime Minister?

MaxPB said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

MaxPB said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

MaxPB said:

Another point on the inflation figures and why the BoE may have paused today is that ONS food price inflation as measured by basket value is about 2% higher than the real food inflation rate as measured by checkout values of baskets which include discounts at the till.

So prices aren't going up as fast, but there's fewer/inferior discounts available?

Nah other way around, sticker prices are still rising at about 13% but till based discounts bring that rate down to about 10-11%. The ONS doesn't take till discounts into account for food price inflation, but I'd be surprised if the BoE didn't. The raw food price inflation figure is actually something like 8% based on PoS data but that includes people switching to lesser brands and own brand products as well as till level discounts. The ONS measure of food price inflation doesn't really reflect reality, it's another one of those metrics that they're just way out of date on measuring, private indices do a better job.

The ONS captures people switching brands and retailers but it ignores discounts that aren't available to all shoppers, which doesn't seem wholly unreasonable.

The discounts are available to all shoppers, some decline to use them by not having a clubcard or nectar card. The ONS methodology is outdated, they could easily model the proportion of shoppers who checkout with loyalty discounts and add that in. I expect they will need to do that soon.

They should probably just base the ONS figures off Aldi and Lidl tbh - two shops that don't bother with loyalty card nonsense and I reckon are generally closish to the true 'fair price'.

MaxPB said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

MaxPB said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

MaxPB said:

Another point on the inflation figures and why the BoE may have paused today is that ONS food price inflation as measured by basket value is about 2% higher than the real food inflation rate as measured by checkout values of baskets which include discounts at the till.

So prices aren't going up as fast, but there's fewer/inferior discounts available?

Nah other way around, sticker prices are still rising at about 13% but till based discounts bring that rate down to about 10-11%. The ONS doesn't take till discounts into account for food price inflation, but I'd be surprised if the BoE didn't. The raw food price inflation figure is actually something like 8% based on PoS data but that includes people switching to lesser brands and own brand products as well as till level discounts. The ONS measure of food price inflation doesn't really reflect reality, it's another one of those metrics that they're just way out of date on measuring, private indices do a better job.

The ONS captures people switching brands and retailers but it ignores discounts that aren't available to all shoppers, which doesn't seem wholly unreasonable.

The discounts are available to all shoppers, some decline to use them by not having a clubcard or nectar card. The ONS methodology is outdated, they could easily model the proportion of shoppers who checkout with loyalty discounts and add that in. I expect they will need to do that soon.

The fact that the supermarkets will pay you for your data by means of a discount, should be ignored in the base price of the product mix for the purpose of calculating inflation.

Pulpstar said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

MaxPB said:

DavidL said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

DavidL said:

nico679 said:

A pretty good week for the government .

Interest rates on hold and they’ve managed to dupe some into thinking they care about the poor .

I’d be shocked if new polls don’t show an increase in support for the Tories .

Also inflation fell (a tiny amount but it was expected to go up) and we will have real wage growth for some time now.

No, thanks to Rishi Sunak we still only have nominal wage growth.

Real wage growth will occur when wages are growing faster than prices and fiscal drag, that's not happening.

In May to July average wage growth was 7.8%: https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/employmentandemployeetypes/bulletins/averageweeklyearningsingreatbritain/latest
With inflation now at 6.7% that is real wage growth and the gap between the two is likely to increase. Are you seriously suggesting that fiscal drag makes up that sort of difference? I don't believe it.

It definitely doesn't because people's net salary will still go up, just not as fast as that difference would imply. For someone on the basic rate they'd take about 70% of that and on the higher rate about 60% of it depending on their personal circumstances. Fiscal drag won't push anyone back into real terms pay losses, they just wouldn't see 100% of the rise.

Lets take a graduate on £30k, they have a real tax rate of 41%. A 7.8% pay rise is a pay rise of £2,340 - of which £959.40 would go to the Exchequer and they'll keep only £1380.6

That's a real terms pay cut.

Are you sure ?

You need to compare post tax salary post-rise to post tax salary pre-rise.

Just put it into a calculator to test the numbers. Used Plan 2 for Student Loan.

Year 1
Pre-tax £30k
Take home £24,179

Year 2
Pre-tax £32,340
Take home £25,560

Difference = 5.7% which is below inflation. Fiscal drag means a real terms pay cut.

Phil said:

MaxPB said:

Another point on the inflation figures and why the BoE may have paused today is that ONS food price inflation as measured by basket value is about 2% higher than the real food inflation rate as measured by checkout values of baskets which include discounts at the till.

Supermarket discount schemes have become the “real price”. You can’t not join them if you’re on any kind of budget. Tesco especially - the clubcard price is the one that’s competitive with other retailers.

Yep, Tesco. Find yourself in there without your clubcard and you know how it feels to be in Dantes circle of hell.

algarkirk said:

Pulpstar said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Stark_Dawning said:

Remember the crime drama Broadchurch from 2013? In it there was an elderly character who'd previously married a women several years his junior, and he was portrayed as a heroic victim of prurient media harassment. Now there is talk of those sort of relationships to be criminalized (even if both parties are above the age of consent). I'm not saying if that approach is right or wrong, but it's amazing how quickly the received opinion can change.

I don't believe anyone is suggesting criminalising adult relationships based on age differential.

What I do believe is being discussed is tightening up safeguards regarding relationships people have with children.

There's a myth by some that the unrestricted age of consent in this country is 16, its not, its 18 already.

Relations with a 16 year old may be legal, or may be illegal, depending upon the circumstances. Some people are suggesting those circumstances be adjusted to include a "Romeo and Juliet" style law, which is not unusual abroad.

Will Romeo and Juliet survive the Online Harms bill ?

The past is another country. Henry VII's mother Margaret Beaufort was 13 and a widow when Henry was born. Romeo would be in prison. Juliet (13,nearly 14) would be in the care of social services.

In strict law two 15 year olds heavily snogging are committing an offence. (In general it is not regarded as an offence, but anyone who thinks such activity is generally 'not sexual' in nature is delusional.)

What has happened over the past decade is an increase in state involvement in sexual encounters and personal relationships in general, in response to popular demand, but with all sorts of perverse consequences. I would suspect that some way along the line the kids rebel against it in a big way.

Leon said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

@Leon

The ban on you posting AI images is still in place, please desist.

🫡

I did actually say that was my last AI image. The only one since was Escher. Human

Just treat it like the ban on XL Bullies

Eabhal said:

Leon said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

@Leon

The ban on you posting AI images is still in place, please desist.

🫡

I did actually say that was my last AI image. The only one since was Escher. Human

Just treat it like the ban on XL Bullies

Minus the compulsory castration and muzzle in public.