FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > We won't save the planet by bankrupting the British people
We won't save the planet by bankrupting the British people
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So saves Braverman. Quite a soundbite and obviously well planned to create a stir. Would the British people go bankrupt if the government kept to their original promises? Is she saying that she wants to save the Planet but there are limits to how far she would go to do so? It almost paints a picture of a Planet (Earth) going up in flames with Braverman standing there waving a Union Jack shouting that she saved the British people from going bankrupt. I am sure that they know what they are doing. ...just an observation on my part and nothing more... " She campaigned to leave the EU, and now suddenly cares about the country not going bankrupt? She took donations from climate science deniers. Of course she is going to say bollocks like this. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So saves Braverman. Quite a soundbite and obviously well planned to create a stir. Would the British people go bankrupt if the government kept to their original promises? Is she saying that she wants to save the Planet but there are limits to how far she would go to do so? It almost paints a picture of a Planet (Earth) going up in flames with Braverman standing there waving a Union Jack shouting that she saved the British people from going bankrupt. I am sure that they know what they are doing. ...just an observation on my part and nothing more... She campaigned to leave the EU, and now suddenly cares about the country not going bankrupt? She took donations from climate science deniers. Of course she is going to say bollocks like this." 
If every country said the same thing, where would the Planet be?
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So saves Braverman. Quite a soundbite and obviously well planned to create a stir. Would the British people go bankrupt if the government kept to their original promises? Is she saying that she wants to save the Planet but there are limits to how far she would go to do so? It almost paints a picture of a Planet (Earth) going up in flames with Braverman standing there waving a Union Jack shouting that she saved the British people from going bankrupt. I am sure that they know what they are doing. ...just an observation on my part and nothing more... " Her comments are obviously timed to support Sunak’s announcement today. It’s a recalibration of direction to what they believe a more sold approach for the country. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I don't 'worry' about Earth, she can take good care of herself no matter what we humans (or any other form of life) may get up to...... Some people need a sense of proportion and reality. Our (Mother) Earth is colossal in comparison with her offspring. Eva X "Does she have a mobility scooter? (Only those in the know on these threads will get that  ) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So saves Braverman. Quite a soundbite and obviously well planned to create a stir. Would the British people go bankrupt if the government kept to their original promises? Is she saying that she wants to save the Planet but there are limits to how far she would go to do so? It almost paints a picture of a Planet (Earth) going up in flames with Braverman standing there waving a Union Jack shouting that she saved the British people from going bankrupt. I am sure that they know what they are doing. ...just an observation on my part and nothing more... Her comments are obviously timed to support Sunak’s announcement today. It’s a recalibration of direction to what they believe a more sold approach for the country. " "More solid approach for the country". Can you elaborate on what you mean? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So saves Braverman. Quite a soundbite and obviously well planned to create a stir. Would the British people go bankrupt if the government kept to their original promises? Is she saying that she wants to save the Planet but there are limits to how far she would go to do so? It almost paints a picture of a Planet (Earth) going up in flames with Braverman standing there waving a Union Jack shouting that she saved the British people from going bankrupt. I am sure that they know what they are doing. ...just an observation on my part and nothing more... She campaigned to leave the EU, and now suddenly cares about the country not going bankrupt? She took donations from climate science deniers. Of course she is going to say bollocks like this." Thank god the uk isn't close to bankruptcy after leaving the EU then | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I don't 'worry' about Earth, she can take good care of herself no matter what we humans (or any other form of life) may get up to...... Some people need a sense of proportion and reality. Our (Mother) Earth is colossal in comparison with her offspring. Eva X "Dont tell them about the great dying times , eocene era etc. They'll lose their shit. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So saves Braverman. Quite a soundbite and obviously well planned to create a stir. Would the British people go bankrupt if the government kept to their original promises? Is she saying that she wants to save the Planet but there are limits to how far she would go to do so? It almost paints a picture of a Planet (Earth) going up in flames with Braverman standing there waving a Union Jack shouting that she saved the British people from going bankrupt. I am sure that they know what they are doing. ...just an observation on my part and nothing more... She campaigned to leave the EU, and now suddenly cares about the country not going bankrupt? She took donations from climate science deniers. Of course she is going to say bollocks like this. Thank god the uk isn't close to bankruptcy after leaving the EU then" and I doubt it would be close to bankruptcy if we went full-steam (I mean wind) to making changes. We need to get past political hyperbole in all areas. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is it as much to do with putting a clear divide between the Tories and Labour. I think Labour are against this and will reverse the changes once they are in office. I think one Labour person would not commit to reversing changes but that was early this morning" for sure. I'm just not sure it's a clear line. We are doing the same things. With the same 2050 target. Just doing one part 5 years later than we said we could. The actual policy hasn't changed. Just a date. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So saves Braverman. Quite a soundbite and obviously well planned to create a stir. Would the British people go bankrupt if the government kept to their original promises? Is she saying that she wants to save the Planet but there are limits to how far she would go to do so? It almost paints a picture of a Planet (Earth) going up in flames with Braverman standing there waving a Union Jack shouting that she saved the British people from going bankrupt. I am sure that they know what they are doing. ...just an observation on my part and nothing more... Her comments are obviously timed to support Sunak’s announcement today. It’s a recalibration of direction to what they believe a more sold approach for the country. "More solid approach for the country". Can you elaborate on what you mean?" I thought that was crystal clear? At the moment the plan is not robust enough to provide a clear pathway of change without major disruption to the public. I believe you are not acknowledging the target has not changed from net zero in 2050. How we get there is changing and I’m pleased we have a government who has the backbone to make those changes when needed. The country can’t survive on views through rose tinted glasses, we need reality not wishful thinking | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"IMV he has backtracked as the tories are desperate to show good news, mixed with empathy, as there present look is gifting labour." Agreed. The policy was trash. Unworkable. I criticised the tories on this a fair while ago. Rishis realised how bad he's doig in the polls with 1 year out u til the election campaign starts. Inflation is coming down.going up in other places The gdp revision shows e.u struggling while uk grows. Starmer just ballsed up on his immigration policy. The currency is stable. Bows the time to strike with this policy where people will be under the thinking he's not just making election promises. This is all happening now and signed into law. Labour and atarmer have floundered. They promised more homes but objected to a policy that stop a block to them being built. His asylum policy was laughed at by e.u He went to meet macron( disastrous look) And he's talking about a closer tie to the e.u for trade. And now they have to start putting together manifestos. I said I'd wait until election time and the manifestos to make a judgement on starmer. But my god he's got it so badly wrong going into the final year of this tory government. Rishi has spotted his weakness and is striking. The trouble for rishi is. He's still alienated the core tory voters. Hung parliament for me is on the cards. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"IMV he has backtracked as the tories are desperate to show good news, mixed with empathy, as there present look is gifting labour. Agreed. The policy was trash. Unworkable. I criticised the tories on this a fair while ago. Rishis realised how bad he's doig in the polls with 1 year out u til the election campaign starts. Inflation is coming down.going up in other places The gdp revision shows e.u struggling while uk grows. Starmer just ballsed up on his immigration policy. The currency is stable. Bows the time to strike with this policy where people will be under the thinking he's not just making election promises. This is all happening now and signed into law. Labour and atarmer have floundered. They promised more homes but objected to a policy that stop a block to them being built. His asylum policy was laughed at by e.u He went to meet macron( disastrous look) And he's talking about a closer tie to the e.u for trade. And now they have to start putting together manifestos. I said I'd wait until election time and the manifestos to make a judgement on starmer. But my god he's got it so badly wrong going into the final year of this tory government. Rishi has spotted his weakness and is striking. The trouble for rishi is. He's still alienated the core tory voters. Hung parliament for me is on the cards. " when did the EU laugh at the immigration plan? I missed that bit. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So saves Braverman. Quite a soundbite and obviously well planned to create a stir. Would the British people go bankrupt if the government kept to their original promises? Is she saying that she wants to save the Planet but there are limits to how far she would go to do so? It almost paints a picture of a Planet (Earth) going up in flames with Braverman standing there waving a Union Jack shouting that she saved the British people from going bankrupt. I am sure that they know what they are doing. ...just an observation on my part and nothing more... Her comments are obviously timed to support Sunak’s announcement today. It’s a recalibration of direction to what they believe a more sold approach for the country. "More solid approach for the country". Can you elaborate on what you mean? I thought that was crystal clear? At the moment the plan is not robust enough to provide a clear pathway of change without major disruption to the public. I believe you are not acknowledging the target has not changed from net zero in 2050. How we get there is changing and I’m pleased we have a government who has the backbone to make those changes when needed. The country can’t survive on views through rose tinted glasses, we need reality not wishful thinking" A government who has a backbone to fuck over the environment for the benefit of oil company profits? What about not prioritising oil company profits over tackling climate change would make the country not survive? Some might argue that making sure the planet doesn't warm at an accelerated rate, and all the associated environment, social, and political impacts of that warming, would be beneficial for not only the UK, but also for the entire planet. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I don't 'worry' about Earth, she can take good care of herself no matter what we humans (or any other form of life) may get up to...... Some people need a sense of proportion and reality. Our (Mother) Earth is colossal in comparison with her offspring. Eva X "That's lovely, apart from the actual real world effects there will be. When millions of climate refugees want to come to the UK in 30 years time I'm sure it'll all be sorted out by some vague musings about mother earth. (Don't tell me, you've looked at the science and have worked out that climate scientists are all actually wrong) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So saves Braverman. Quite a soundbite and obviously well planned to create a stir. Would the British people go bankrupt if the government kept to their original promises? Is she saying that she wants to save the Planet but there are limits to how far she would go to do so? It almost paints a picture of a Planet (Earth) going up in flames with Braverman standing there waving a Union Jack shouting that she saved the British people from going bankrupt. I am sure that they know what they are doing. ...just an observation on my part and nothing more... Her comments are obviously timed to support Sunak’s announcement today. It’s a recalibration of direction to what they believe a more sold approach for the country. "More solid approach for the country". Can you elaborate on what you mean? I thought that was crystal clear? At the moment the plan is not robust enough to provide a clear pathway of change without major disruption to the public. I believe you are not acknowledging the target has not changed from net zero in 2050. How we get there is changing and I’m pleased we have a government who has the backbone to make those changes when needed. The country can’t survive on views through rose tinted glasses, we need reality not wishful thinking" I also think the target remains at 2050 but the cars will be 5 years later than the original plan. So 5 years extra I expect will have a negative environmental impact. But what is that impact in reality is a question I think needs addressing. Will this 5 year delay by the UK have a big effect on the planet or would it barely be noticed. I think he also announced a 50% increase in New boiler grants which does not seem to get a mention. Surely that helps | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So saves Braverman. Quite a soundbite and obviously well planned to create a stir. Would the British people go bankrupt if the government kept to their original promises? Is she saying that she wants to save the Planet but there are limits to how far she would go to do so? It almost paints a picture of a Planet (Earth) going up in flames with Braverman standing there waving a Union Jack shouting that she saved the British people from going bankrupt. I am sure that they know what they are doing. ...just an observation on my part and nothing more... Her comments are obviously timed to support Sunak’s announcement today. It’s a recalibration of direction to what they believe a more sold approach for the country. "More solid approach for the country". Can you elaborate on what you mean? I thought that was crystal clear? At the moment the plan is not robust enough to provide a clear pathway of change without major disruption to the public. I believe you are not acknowledging the target has not changed from net zero in 2050. How we get there is changing and I’m pleased we have a government who has the backbone to make those changes when needed. The country can’t survive on views through rose tinted glasses, we need reality not wishful thinking I also think the target remains at 2050 but the cars will be 5 years later than the original plan. So 5 years extra I expect will have a negative environmental impact. But what is that impact in reality is a question I think needs addressing. Will this 5 year delay by the UK have a big effect on the planet or would it barely be noticed. I think he also announced a 50% increase in New boiler grants which does not seem to get a mention. Surely that helps" The EU has the same target of 2035. That won’t be an issue for the people on this forum who only concern themselves with negativity. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So saves Braverman. Quite a soundbite and obviously well planned to create a stir. Would the British people go bankrupt if the government kept to their original promises? Is she saying that she wants to save the Planet but there are limits to how far she would go to do so? It almost paints a picture of a Planet (Earth) going up in flames with Braverman standing there waving a Union Jack shouting that she saved the British people from going bankrupt. I am sure that they know what they are doing. ...just an observation on my part and nothing more... Her comments are obviously timed to support Sunak’s announcement today. It’s a recalibration of direction to what they believe a more sold approach for the country. "More solid approach for the country". Can you elaborate on what you mean? I thought that was crystal clear? At the moment the plan is not robust enough to provide a clear pathway of change without major disruption to the public. I believe you are not acknowledging the target has not changed from net zero in 2050. How we get there is changing and I’m pleased we have a government who has the backbone to make those changes when needed. The country can’t survive on views through rose tinted glasses, we need reality not wishful thinking A government who has a backbone to fuck over the environment for the benefit of oil company profits? What about not prioritising oil company profits over tackling climate change would make the country not survive? Some might argue that making sure the planet doesn't warm at an accelerated rate, and all the associated environment, social, and political impacts of that warming, would be beneficial for not only the UK, but also for the entire planet." The EU have 2035 target for EV’s what do you say about that? The 2050 target hasn’t changed, what do you say about that? You make me feel as though your responses are automated, can you answer directly what I have asked? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So saves Braverman. Quite a soundbite and obviously well planned to create a stir. Would the British people go bankrupt if the government kept to their original promises? Is she saying that she wants to save the Planet but there are limits to how far she would go to do so? It almost paints a picture of a Planet (Earth) going up in flames with Braverman standing there waving a Union Jack shouting that she saved the British people from going bankrupt. I am sure that they know what they are doing. ...just an observation on my part and nothing more... Her comments are obviously timed to support Sunak’s announcement today. It’s a recalibration of direction to what they believe a more sold approach for the country. "More solid approach for the country". Can you elaborate on what you mean? I thought that was crystal clear? At the moment the plan is not robust enough to provide a clear pathway of change without major disruption to the public. I believe you are not acknowledging the target has not changed from net zero in 2050. How we get there is changing and I’m pleased we have a government who has the backbone to make those changes when needed. The country can’t survive on views through rose tinted glasses, we need reality not wishful thinking I also think the target remains at 2050 but the cars will be 5 years later than the original plan. So 5 years extra I expect will have a negative environmental impact. But what is that impact in reality is a question I think needs addressing. Will this 5 year delay by the UK have a big effect on the planet or would it barely be noticed. I think he also announced a 50% increase in New boiler grants which does not seem to get a mention. Surely that helps The EU has the same target of 2035. That won’t be an issue for the people on this forum who only concern themselves with negativity." I thought we wanted to do better than the EU? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So saves Braverman. Quite a soundbite and obviously well planned to create a stir. Would the British people go bankrupt if the government kept to their original promises? Is she saying that she wants to save the Planet but there are limits to how far she would go to do so? It almost paints a picture of a Planet (Earth) going up in flames with Braverman standing there waving a Union Jack shouting that she saved the British people from going bankrupt. I am sure that they know what they are doing. ...just an observation on my part and nothing more... Her comments are obviously timed to support Sunak’s announcement today. It’s a recalibration of direction to what they believe a more sold approach for the country. "More solid approach for the country". Can you elaborate on what you mean? I thought that was crystal clear? At the moment the plan is not robust enough to provide a clear pathway of change without major disruption to the public. I believe you are not acknowledging the target has not changed from net zero in 2050. How we get there is changing and I’m pleased we have a government who has the backbone to make those changes when needed. The country can’t survive on views through rose tinted glasses, we need reality not wishful thinking I also think the target remains at 2050 but the cars will be 5 years later than the original plan. So 5 years extra I expect will have a negative environmental impact. But what is that impact in reality is a question I think needs addressing. Will this 5 year delay by the UK have a big effect on the planet or would it barely be noticed. I think he also announced a 50% increase in New boiler grants which does not seem to get a mention. Surely that helps The EU has the same target of 2035. That won’t be an issue for the people on this forum who only concern themselves with negativity. I thought we wanted to do better than the EU? " Are you moving goalposts again? Everything in this forum is brexit related and how we are going to suffer, but when we align with the EU target date for scrapping the ICE, we have the usual doom and gloomers spouting the same BS. It is all One trick pony.. Have the EU got it wrong too? I also want to draw your attention to the idea that EV is not the right way to go. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Have the EU got it wrong too? I also want to draw your attention to the idea that EV is not the right way to go." A multi-faceted approach to the climate crisis is needed, everyone knows and accepts that. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Given that renewables are the future (and they are), we could actually decide to be a forward thinking nation and lead the way in renewable tech and usage. Far from bankrupting the country, we could actually benefit enormously from it - but that would require foresight and some semblance of a plan." It would also require some sort of energy storage technology that doesn't currently exist. Without that, 'renewables' are very helpful, but we'll still need enough nuclear power stations to run the whole country for those occasions when there's no wind or sun about. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So saves Braverman. Quite a soundbite and obviously well planned to create a stir. Would the British people go bankrupt if the government kept to their original promises? Is she saying that she wants to save the Planet but there are limits to how far she would go to do so? It almost paints a picture of a Planet (Earth) going up in flames with Braverman standing there waving a Union Jack shouting that she saved the British people from going bankrupt. I am sure that they know what they are doing. ...just an observation on my part and nothing more... Her comments are obviously timed to support Sunak’s announcement today. It’s a recalibration of direction to what they believe a more sold approach for the country. "More solid approach for the country". Can you elaborate on what you mean? I thought that was crystal clear? At the moment the plan is not robust enough to provide a clear pathway of change without major disruption to the public. I believe you are not acknowledging the target has not changed from net zero in 2050. How we get there is changing and I’m pleased we have a government who has the backbone to make those changes when needed. The country can’t survive on views through rose tinted glasses, we need reality not wishful thinking I also think the target remains at 2050 but the cars will be 5 years later than the original plan. So 5 years extra I expect will have a negative environmental impact. But what is that impact in reality is a question I think needs addressing. Will this 5 year delay by the UK have a big effect on the planet or would it barely be noticed. I think he also announced a 50% increase in New boiler grants which does not seem to get a mention. Surely that helps The EU has the same target of 2035. That won’t be an issue for the people on this forum who only concern themselves with negativity. I thought we wanted to do better than the EU? " Who is we? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Given that renewables are the future (and they are), we could actually decide to be a forward thinking nation and lead the way in renewable tech and usage. Far from bankrupting the country, we could actually benefit enormously from it - but that would require foresight and some semblance of a plan. It would also require some sort of energy storage technology that doesn't currently exist. Without that, 'renewables' are very helpful, but we'll still need enough nuclear power stations to run the whole country for those occasions when there's no wind or sun about." We live on an island and yet consistently ignore tidal/hydro power. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So saves Braverman. Quite a soundbite and obviously well planned to create a stir. Would the British people go bankrupt if the government kept to their original promises? Is she saying that she wants to save the Planet but there are limits to how far she would go to do so? It almost paints a picture of a Planet (Earth) going up in flames with Braverman standing there waving a Union Jack shouting that she saved the British people from going bankrupt. I am sure that they know what they are doing. ...just an observation on my part and nothing more... Her comments are obviously timed to support Sunak’s announcement today. It’s a recalibration of direction to what they believe a more sold approach for the country. "More solid approach for the country". Can you elaborate on what you mean? I thought that was crystal clear? At the moment the plan is not robust enough to provide a clear pathway of change without major disruption to the public. I believe you are not acknowledging the target has not changed from net zero in 2050. How we get there is changing and I’m pleased we have a government who has the backbone to make those changes when needed. The country can’t survive on views through rose tinted glasses, we need reality not wishful thinking I also think the target remains at 2050 but the cars will be 5 years later than the original plan. So 5 years extra I expect will have a negative environmental impact. But what is that impact in reality is a question I think needs addressing. Will this 5 year delay by the UK have a big effect on the planet or would it barely be noticed. I think he also announced a 50% increase in New boiler grants which does not seem to get a mention. Surely that helps The EU has the same target of 2035. That won’t be an issue for the people on this forum who only concern themselves with negativity. I thought we wanted to do better than the EU? Who is we?" We, the incredibly intelligent nation who chose to carve our own path through the political bedrock of the 21st century, of course. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So saves Braverman. Quite a soundbite and obviously well planned to create a stir. Would the British people go bankrupt if the government kept to their original promises? Is she saying that she wants to save the Planet but there are limits to how far she would go to do so? It almost paints a picture of a Planet (Earth) going up in flames with Braverman standing there waving a Union Jack shouting that she saved the British people from going bankrupt. I am sure that they know what they are doing. ...just an observation on my part and nothing more... Her comments are obviously timed to support Sunak’s announcement today. It’s a recalibration of direction to what they believe a more sold approach for the country. "More solid approach for the country". Can you elaborate on what you mean? I thought that was crystal clear? At the moment the plan is not robust enough to provide a clear pathway of change without major disruption to the public. I believe you are not acknowledging the target has not changed from net zero in 2050. How we get there is changing and I’m pleased we have a government who has the backbone to make those changes when needed. The country can’t survive on views through rose tinted glasses, we need reality not wishful thinking I also think the target remains at 2050 but the cars will be 5 years later than the original plan. So 5 years extra I expect will have a negative environmental impact. But what is that impact in reality is a question I think needs addressing. Will this 5 year delay by the UK have a big effect on the planet or would it barely be noticed. I think he also announced a 50% increase in New boiler grants which does not seem to get a mention. Surely that helps The EU has the same target of 2035. That won’t be an issue for the people on this forum who only concern themselves with negativity. I thought we wanted to do better than the EU? Who is we? We, the incredibly intelligent nation who chose to carve our own path through the political bedrock of the 21st century, of course. " I ask again, who is we? The Govt? The citizens? Individuals? Groups? The country as a whole? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So saves Braverman. Quite a soundbite and obviously well planned to create a stir. Would the British people go bankrupt if the government kept to their original promises? Is she saying that she wants to save the Planet but there are limits to how far she would go to do so? It almost paints a picture of a Planet (Earth) going up in flames with Braverman standing there waving a Union Jack shouting that she saved the British people from going bankrupt. I am sure that they know what they are doing. ...just an observation on my part and nothing more... Her comments are obviously timed to support Sunak’s announcement today. It’s a recalibration of direction to what they believe a more sold approach for the country. "More solid approach for the country". Can you elaborate on what you mean? I thought that was crystal clear? At the moment the plan is not robust enough to provide a clear pathway of change without major disruption to the public. I believe you are not acknowledging the target has not changed from net zero in 2050. How we get there is changing and I’m pleased we have a government who has the backbone to make those changes when needed. The country can’t survive on views through rose tinted glasses, we need reality not wishful thinking I also think the target remains at 2050 but the cars will be 5 years later than the original plan. So 5 years extra I expect will have a negative environmental impact. But what is that impact in reality is a question I think needs addressing. Will this 5 year delay by the UK have a big effect on the planet or would it barely be noticed. I think he also announced a 50% increase in New boiler grants which does not seem to get a mention. Surely that helps The EU has the same target of 2035. That won’t be an issue for the people on this forum who only concern themselves with negativity. I thought we wanted to do better than the EU? Who is we? We, the incredibly intelligent nation who chose to carve our own path through the political bedrock of the 21st century, of course. I ask again, who is we? The Govt? The citizens? Individuals? Groups? The country as a whole?" We’re all in this together, aren’t we? The brexiters keep telling remainers to jump on board and work to make Brexit great. I agree! Let’s do better than the EU on renewables, right?! Isn’t that how this works? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So saves Braverman. Quite a soundbite and obviously well planned to create a stir. Would the British people go bankrupt if the government kept to their original promises? Is she saying that she wants to save the Planet but there are limits to how far she would go to do so? It almost paints a picture of a Planet (Earth) going up in flames with Braverman standing there waving a Union Jack shouting that she saved the British people from going bankrupt. I am sure that they know what they are doing. ...just an observation on my part and nothing more... Her comments are obviously timed to support Sunak’s announcement today. It’s a recalibration of direction to what they believe a more sold approach for the country. "More solid approach for the country". Can you elaborate on what you mean? I thought that was crystal clear? At the moment the plan is not robust enough to provide a clear pathway of change without major disruption to the public. I believe you are not acknowledging the target has not changed from net zero in 2050. How we get there is changing and I’m pleased we have a government who has the backbone to make those changes when needed. The country can’t survive on views through rose tinted glasses, we need reality not wishful thinking I also think the target remains at 2050 but the cars will be 5 years later than the original plan. So 5 years extra I expect will have a negative environmental impact. But what is that impact in reality is a question I think needs addressing. Will this 5 year delay by the UK have a big effect on the planet or would it barely be noticed. I think he also announced a 50% increase in New boiler grants which does not seem to get a mention. Surely that helps The EU has the same target of 2035. That won’t be an issue for the people on this forum who only concern themselves with negativity. I thought we wanted to do better than the EU? Who is we? We, the incredibly intelligent nation who chose to carve our own path through the political bedrock of the 21st century, of course. I ask again, who is we? The Govt? The citizens? Individuals? Groups? The country as a whole? We’re all in this together, aren’t we? The brexiters keep telling remainers to jump on board and work to make Brexit great. I agree! Let’s do better than the EU on renewables, right?! Isn’t that how this works? " We're all in this together? Have you seen ANY thread on this forum? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So saves Braverman. Quite a soundbite and obviously well planned to create a stir. Would the British people go bankrupt if the government kept to their original promises? Is she saying that she wants to save the Planet but there are limits to how far she would go to do so? It almost paints a picture of a Planet (Earth) going up in flames with Braverman standing there waving a Union Jack shouting that she saved the British people from going bankrupt. I am sure that they know what they are doing. ...just an observation on my part and nothing more... Her comments are obviously timed to support Sunak’s announcement today. It’s a recalibration of direction to what they believe a more sold approach for the country. "More solid approach for the country". Can you elaborate on what you mean? I thought that was crystal clear? At the moment the plan is not robust enough to provide a clear pathway of change without major disruption to the public. I believe you are not acknowledging the target has not changed from net zero in 2050. How we get there is changing and I’m pleased we have a government who has the backbone to make those changes when needed. The country can’t survive on views through rose tinted glasses, we need reality not wishful thinking I also think the target remains at 2050 but the cars will be 5 years later than the original plan. So 5 years extra I expect will have a negative environmental impact. But what is that impact in reality is a question I think needs addressing. Will this 5 year delay by the UK have a big effect on the planet or would it barely be noticed. I think he also announced a 50% increase in New boiler grants which does not seem to get a mention. Surely that helps The EU has the same target of 2035. That won’t be an issue for the people on this forum who only concern themselves with negativity." I had not thought of what the EU were doing but your right they are 2035. Maybe they are climate deniers too lol. Anyway from the original plan the UK was 5 years ahead of the game but now drawn level. Will 5 years make any difference to the environment that could be classed as significant. Could it be measured. How long would places like China take to wipe out the gains of the UK 5 years delay. Hopefully in the coming days some answers will be shared in the general media | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Given that renewables are the future (and they are), we could actually decide to be a forward thinking nation and lead the way in renewable tech and usage. Far from bankrupting the country, we could actually benefit enormously from it - but that would require foresight and some semblance of a plan." "It would also require some sort of energy storage technology that doesn't currently exist. Without that, 'renewables' are very helpful, but we'll still need enough nuclear power stations to run the whole country for those occasions when there's no wind or sun about." "We live on an island and yet consistently ignore tidal/hydro power." We don't ignore it. There have been dozens of tidal power sites set up over the past 50 or so years, and almost all of them have been ripped to pieces by the sea. It's an extremely hostile environment. We're never going to be able to make tidal power work at the scale needed to make a useful contribution. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So saves Braverman. Quite a soundbite and obviously well planned to create a stir. Would the British people go bankrupt if the government kept to their original promises? Is she saying that she wants to save the Planet but there are limits to how far she would go to do so? It almost paints a picture of a Planet (Earth) going up in flames with Braverman standing there waving a Union Jack shouting that she saved the British people from going bankrupt. I am sure that they know what they are doing. ...just an observation on my part and nothing more... Her comments are obviously timed to support Sunak’s announcement today. It’s a recalibration of direction to what they believe a more sold approach for the country. "More solid approach for the country". Can you elaborate on what you mean? I thought that was crystal clear? At the moment the plan is not robust enough to provide a clear pathway of change without major disruption to the public. I believe you are not acknowledging the target has not changed from net zero in 2050. How we get there is changing and I’m pleased we have a government who has the backbone to make those changes when needed. The country can’t survive on views through rose tinted glasses, we need reality not wishful thinking I also think the target remains at 2050 but the cars will be 5 years later than the original plan. So 5 years extra I expect will have a negative environmental impact. But what is that impact in reality is a question I think needs addressing. Will this 5 year delay by the UK have a big effect on the planet or would it barely be noticed. I think he also announced a 50% increase in New boiler grants which does not seem to get a mention. Surely that helps The EU has the same target of 2035. That won’t be an issue for the people on this forum who only concern themselves with negativity. I had not thought of what the EU were doing but your right they are 2035. Maybe they are climate deniers too lol. Anyway from the original plan the UK was 5 years ahead of the game but now drawn level. Will 5 years make any difference to the environment that could be classed as significant. Could it be measured. How long would places like China take to wipe out the gains of the UK 5 years delay. Hopefully in the coming days some answers will be shared in the general media" We should also remember that car manufacturers have started to ramp down ice vehicles and concentrate on EV’s, some bringing the timeline in such as JLR and Ford, ahead of the date of 2030. The decision of the government is not going to hinder that delivery timeline. The realignment to 2035 is correct and needed, knee jerk decisions and arbitrary dates have set impossible timelines in the short to mid term. The kicker will come if e-Fuel takes off in the next 10 years. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So saves Braverman. Quite a soundbite and obviously well planned to create a stir. Would the British people go bankrupt if the government kept to their original promises? Is she saying that she wants to save the Planet but there are limits to how far she would go to do so? It almost paints a picture of a Planet (Earth) going up in flames with Braverman standing there waving a Union Jack shouting that she saved the British people from going bankrupt. I am sure that they know what they are doing. ...just an observation on my part and nothing more... Her comments are obviously timed to support Sunak’s announcement today. It’s a recalibration of direction to what they believe a more sold approach for the country. "More solid approach for the country". Can you elaborate on what you mean? I thought that was crystal clear? At the moment the plan is not robust enough to provide a clear pathway of change without major disruption to the public. I believe you are not acknowledging the target has not changed from net zero in 2050. How we get there is changing and I’m pleased we have a government who has the backbone to make those changes when needed. The country can’t survive on views through rose tinted glasses, we need reality not wishful thinking I also think the target remains at 2050 but the cars will be 5 years later than the original plan. So 5 years extra I expect will have a negative environmental impact. But what is that impact in reality is a question I think needs addressing. Will this 5 year delay by the UK have a big effect on the planet or would it barely be noticed. I think he also announced a 50% increase in New boiler grants which does not seem to get a mention. Surely that helps The EU has the same target of 2035. That won’t be an issue for the people on this forum who only concern themselves with negativity." Shhhj dpnt tell them this. E.u good Uk bad | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So saves Braverman. Quite a soundbite and obviously well planned to create a stir. Would the British people go bankrupt if the government kept to their original promises? Is she saying that she wants to save the Planet but there are limits to how far she would go to do so? It almost paints a picture of a Planet (Earth) going up in flames with Braverman standing there waving a Union Jack shouting that she saved the British people from going bankrupt. I am sure that they know what they are doing. ...just an observation on my part and nothing more... Her comments are obviously timed to support Sunak’s announcement today. It’s a recalibration of direction to what they believe a more sold approach for the country. "More solid approach for the country". Can you elaborate on what you mean? I thought that was crystal clear? At the moment the plan is not robust enough to provide a clear pathway of change without major disruption to the public. I believe you are not acknowledging the target has not changed from net zero in 2050. How we get there is changing and I’m pleased we have a government who has the backbone to make those changes when needed. The country can’t survive on views through rose tinted glasses, we need reality not wishful thinking I also think the target remains at 2050 but the cars will be 5 years later than the original plan. So 5 years extra I expect will have a negative environmental impact. But what is that impact in reality is a question I think needs addressing. Will this 5 year delay by the UK have a big effect on the planet or would it barely be noticed. I think he also announced a 50% increase in New boiler grants which does not seem to get a mention. Surely that helps The EU has the same target of 2035. That won’t be an issue for the people on this forum who only concern themselves with negativity. Shhhj dpnt tell them this. E.u good Uk bad" Do you think it would blow their minds if I mentioned the EU has allowed certain cars that have combustion engines to be manufactured after 2035? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Given that renewables are the future (and they are), we could actually decide to be a forward thinking nation and lead the way in renewable tech and usage. Far from bankrupting the country, we could actually benefit enormously from it - but that would require foresight and some semblance of a plan. It would also require some sort of energy storage technology that doesn't currently exist. Without that, 'renewables' are very helpful, but we'll still need enough nuclear power stations to run the whole country for those occasions when there's no wind or sun about. We live on an island and yet consistently ignore tidal/hydro power. We don't ignore it. There have been dozens of tidal power sites set up over the past 50 or so years, and almost all of them have been ripped to pieces by the sea. It's an extremely hostile environment. We're never going to be able to make tidal power work at the scale needed to make a useful contribution." I think you underestimate the ability of enginering | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’m going to make an absolutely wild prediction. We won’t be at or even near net zero by 2050. " Can you explain to me what net Zero is to be honest I don't see how we can ever be at Zero. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So saves Braverman. Quite a soundbite and obviously well planned to create a stir. Would the British people go bankrupt if the government kept to their original promises? Is she saying that she wants to save the Planet but there are limits to how far she would go to do so? It almost paints a picture of a Planet (Earth) going up in flames with Braverman standing there waving a Union Jack shouting that she saved the British people from going bankrupt. I am sure that they know what they are doing. ...just an observation on my part and nothing more... Her comments are obviously timed to support Sunak’s announcement today. It’s a recalibration of direction to what they believe a more sold approach for the country. "More solid approach for the country". Can you elaborate on what you mean? I thought that was crystal clear? At the moment the plan is not robust enough to provide a clear pathway of change without major disruption to the public. I believe you are not acknowledging the target has not changed from net zero in 2050. How we get there is changing and I’m pleased we have a government who has the backbone to make those changes when needed. The country can’t survive on views through rose tinted glasses, we need reality not wishful thinking I also think the target remains at 2050 but the cars will be 5 years later than the original plan. So 5 years extra I expect will have a negative environmental impact. But what is that impact in reality is a question I think needs addressing. Will this 5 year delay by the UK have a big effect on the planet or would it barely be noticed. I think he also announced a 50% increase in New boiler grants which does not seem to get a mention. Surely that helps The EU has the same target of 2035. That won’t be an issue for the people on this forum who only concern themselves with negativity. I had not thought of what the EU were doing but your right they are 2035. Maybe they are climate deniers too lol. Anyway from the original plan the UK was 5 years ahead of the game but now drawn level. Will 5 years make any difference to the environment that could be classed as significant. Could it be measured. How long would places like China take to wipe out the gains of the UK 5 years delay. Hopefully in the coming days some answers will be shared in the general media We should also remember that car manufacturers have started to ramp down ice vehicles and concentrate on EV’s, some bringing the timeline in such as JLR and Ford, ahead of the date of 2030. The decision of the government is not going to hinder that delivery timeline. The realignment to 2035 is correct and needed, knee jerk decisions and arbitrary dates have set impossible timelines in the short to mid term. The kicker will come if e-Fuel takes off in the next 10 years. " One of the problems is vans they have not even come close yet to making a van that can do what a ICE van can do and lorrys burn more fule then cars and vans. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’m going to make an absolutely wild prediction. We won’t be at or even near net zero by 2050. Can you explain to me what net Zero is to be honest I don't see how we can ever be at Zero." Net zero is when an individual, company or even nation ensures that their greenhouse gas output is at a level equivalent to that being removed from the environment. It’s different from total zero (which you’re right, will never be achievable) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’m going to make an absolutely wild prediction. We won’t be at or even near net zero by 2050. Can you explain to me what net Zero is to be honest I don't see how we can ever be at Zero. Net zero is when an individual, company or even nation ensures that their greenhouse gas output is at a level equivalent to that being removed from the environment. It’s different from total zero (which you’re right, will never be achievable)" The world won't reach Net Zero by 2050. Guaranteed. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I don't 'worry' about Earth, she can take good care of herself no matter what we humans (or any other form of life) may get up to...... Some people need a sense of proportion and reality. Our (Mother) Earth is colossal in comparison with her offspring. Eva X "No doubt correct….but the consequences on her offspring will be quite disastrous. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’m going to make an absolutely wild prediction. We won’t be at or even near net zero by 2050. Can you explain to me what net Zero is to be honest I don't see how we can ever be at Zero. Net zero is when an individual, company or even nation ensures that their greenhouse gas output is at a level equivalent to that being removed from the environment. It’s different from total zero (which you’re right, will never be achievable) The world won't reach Net Zero by 2050. Guaranteed. " …I agree, we were already well off target before todays irrational decision, and that should really worry us all …. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’m going to make an absolutely wild prediction. We won’t be at or even near net zero by 2050. Can you explain to me what net Zero is to be honest I don't see how we can ever be at Zero. Net zero is when an individual, company or even nation ensures that their greenhouse gas output is at a level equivalent to that being removed from the environment. It’s different from total zero (which you’re right, will never be achievable) The world won't reach Net Zero by 2050. Guaranteed. …I agree, we were already well off target before todays irrational decision, and that should really worry us all …." why worry we ain't going to be around if it happens | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’m going to make an absolutely wild prediction. We won’t be at or even near net zero by 2050. Can you explain to me what net Zero is to be honest I don't see how we can ever be at Zero. Net zero is when an individual, company or even nation ensures that their greenhouse gas output is at a level equivalent to that being removed from the environment. It’s different from total zero (which you’re right, will never be achievable) The world won't reach Net Zero by 2050. Guaranteed. …I agree, we were already well off target before todays irrational decision, and that should really worry us all …. why worry we ain't going to be around if it happens " Not sure if serious | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’m going to make an absolutely wild prediction. We won’t be at or even near net zero by 2050. Can you explain to me what net Zero is to be honest I don't see how we can ever be at Zero. Net zero is when an individual, company or even nation ensures that their greenhouse gas output is at a level equivalent to that being removed from the environment. It’s different from total zero (which you’re right, will never be achievable) The world won't reach Net Zero by 2050. Guaranteed. …I agree, we were already well off target before todays irrational decision, and that should really worry us all …. why worry we ain't going to be around if it happens Not sure if serious " definitely serious why worry about something you can't control | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’m going to make an absolutely wild prediction. We won’t be at or even near net zero by 2050. Can you explain to me what net Zero is to be honest I don't see how we can ever be at Zero. Net zero is when an individual, company or even nation ensures that their greenhouse gas output is at a level equivalent to that being removed from the environment. It’s different from total zero (which you’re right, will never be achievable) The world won't reach Net Zero by 2050. Guaranteed. …I agree, we were already well off target before todays irrational decision, and that should really worry us all …. why worry we ain't going to be around if it happens Not sure if serious definitely serious why worry about something you can't control " Because a) It is in our power to control and b) the future generations (not to mention other life forms we share this rock with) deserve a habitable planet | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’m going to make an absolutely wild prediction. We won’t be at or even near net zero by 2050. Can you explain to me what net Zero is to be honest I don't see how we can ever be at Zero. Net zero is when an individual, company or even nation ensures that their greenhouse gas output is at a level equivalent to that being removed from the environment. It’s different from total zero (which you’re right, will never be achievable) The world won't reach Net Zero by 2050. Guaranteed. …I agree, we were already well off target before todays irrational decision, and that should really worry us all …. why worry we ain't going to be around if it happens Not sure if serious definitely serious why worry about something you can't control Because a) It is in our power to control and b) the future generations (not to mention other life forms we share this rock with) deserve a habitable planet " im afraid it ain't in are control the world will never come together we can't even agree with are neighbors you do you both then some jack down the rd decides he want a gas gussling 4x4 and un does what you have saved you think china Russia give a rats ass about there own never mind us Australia Germany doing more coal now than before | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’m going to make an absolutely wild prediction. We won’t be at or even near net zero by 2050. Can you explain to me what net Zero is to be honest I don't see how we can ever be at Zero. Net zero is when an individual, company or even nation ensures that their greenhouse gas output is at a level equivalent to that being removed from the environment. It’s different from total zero (which you’re right, will never be achievable) The world won't reach Net Zero by 2050. Guaranteed. …I agree, we were already well off target before todays irrational decision, and that should really worry us all …. why worry we ain't going to be around if it happens Not sure if serious definitely serious why worry about something you can't control Because a) It is in our power to control and b) the future generations (not to mention other life forms we share this rock with) deserve a habitable planet im afraid it ain't in are control the world will never come together we can't even agree with are neighbors you do you both then some jack down the rd decides he want a gas gussling 4x4 and un does what you have saved you think china Russia give a rats ass about there own never mind us Australia Germany doing more coal now than before " Education is the key. The more people who understand the science and who are engaged in the desire for positive change, the more likely we are to be able to tackle climate change. The main issue is the anti-science propaganda and doubt pushed by various outlets funded by the fossil fuels industry. On a side note, the psychology of climate science denial is really interesting. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’m going to make an absolutely wild prediction. We won’t be at or even near net zero by 2050. Can you explain to me what net Zero is to be honest I don't see how we can ever be at Zero. Net zero is when an individual, company or even nation ensures that their greenhouse gas output is at a level equivalent to that being removed from the environment. It’s different from total zero (which you’re right, will never be achievable) The world won't reach Net Zero by 2050. Guaranteed. …I agree, we were already well off target before todays irrational decision, and that should really worry us all …. why worry we ain't going to be around if it happens Not sure if serious definitely serious why worry about something you can't control Because a) It is in our power to control and b) the future generations (not to mention other life forms we share this rock with) deserve a habitable planet im afraid it ain't in are control the world will never come together we can't even agree with are neighbors you do you both then some jack down the rd decides he want a gas gussling 4x4 and un does what you have saved you think china Russia give a rats ass about there own never mind us Australia Germany doing more coal now than before " So literally nobody should try? Could you imagine if crime was treated the same way | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’m going to make an absolutely wild prediction. We won’t be at or even near net zero by 2050. Can you explain to me what net Zero is to be honest I don't see how we can ever be at Zero. Net zero is when an individual, company or even nation ensures that their greenhouse gas output is at a level equivalent to that being removed from the environment. It’s different from total zero (which you’re right, will never be achievable) The world won't reach Net Zero by 2050. Guaranteed. …I agree, we were already well off target before todays irrational decision, and that should really worry us all …. why worry we ain't going to be around if it happens Not sure if serious definitely serious why worry about something you can't control Because a) It is in our power to control and b) the future generations (not to mention other life forms we share this rock with) deserve a habitable planet im afraid it ain't in are control the world will never come together we can't even agree with are neighbors you do you both then some jack down the rd decides he want a gas gussling 4x4 and un does what you have saved you think china Russia give a rats ass about there own never mind us Australia Germany doing more coal now than before Education is the key. The more people who understand the science and who are engaged in the desire for positive change, the more likely we are to be able to tackle climate change. The main issue is the anti-science propaganda and doubt pushed by various outlets funded by the fossil fuels industry. On a side note, the psychology of climate science denial is really interesting. " I totally agree but I ain't going to happen not in my life time things have definitely changed since I was little but we ain't even half way there | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’m going to make an absolutely wild prediction. We won’t be at or even near net zero by 2050. Can you explain to me what net Zero is to be honest I don't see how we can ever be at Zero. Net zero is when an individual, company or even nation ensures that their greenhouse gas output is at a level equivalent to that being removed from the environment. It’s different from total zero (which you’re right, will never be achievable) The world won't reach Net Zero by 2050. Guaranteed. …I agree, we were already well off target before todays irrational decision, and that should really worry us all …. why worry we ain't going to be around if it happens Not sure if serious definitely serious why worry about something you can't control Because a) It is in our power to control and b) the future generations (not to mention other life forms we share this rock with) deserve a habitable planet im afraid it ain't in are control the world will never come together we can't even agree with are neighbors you do you both then some jack down the rd decides he want a gas gussling 4x4 and un does what you have saved you think china Russia give a rats ass about there own never mind us Australia Germany doing more coal now than before " China is investing way more in renewables than the U.K | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’m going to make an absolutely wild prediction. We won’t be at or even near net zero by 2050. Can you explain to me what net Zero is to be honest I don't see how we can ever be at Zero. Net zero is when an individual, company or even nation ensures that their greenhouse gas output is at a level equivalent to that being removed from the environment. It’s different from total zero (which you’re right, will never be achievable) The world won't reach Net Zero by 2050. Guaranteed. …I agree, we were already well off target before todays irrational decision, and that should really worry us all …. why worry we ain't going to be around if it happens Not sure if serious definitely serious why worry about something you can't control Because a) It is in our power to control and b) the future generations (not to mention other life forms we share this rock with) deserve a habitable planet im afraid it ain't in are control the world will never come together we can't even agree with are neighbors you do you both then some jack down the rd decides he want a gas gussling 4x4 and un does what you have saved you think china Russia give a rats ass about there own never mind us Australia Germany doing more coal now than before So literally nobody should try? Could you imagine if crime was treated the same way" it already is how many times do you see or hear the police never turned up | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’m going to make an absolutely wild prediction. We won’t be at or even near net zero by 2050. Can you explain to me what net Zero is to be honest I don't see how we can ever be at Zero. Net zero is when an individual, company or even nation ensures that their greenhouse gas output is at a level equivalent to that being removed from the environment. It’s different from total zero (which you’re right, will never be achievable) The world won't reach Net Zero by 2050. Guaranteed. …I agree, we were already well off target before todays irrational decision, and that should really worry us all …. why worry we ain't going to be around if it happens Not sure if serious definitely serious why worry about something you can't control Because a) It is in our power to control and b) the future generations (not to mention other life forms we share this rock with) deserve a habitable planet im afraid it ain't in are control the world will never come together we can't even agree with are neighbors you do you both then some jack down the rd decides he want a gas gussling 4x4 and un does what you have saved you think china Russia give a rats ass about there own never mind us Australia Germany doing more coal now than before China is investing way more in renewables than the U.K" but still spewing loads of shite out | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’m going to make an absolutely wild prediction. We won’t be at or even near net zero by 2050. Can you explain to me what net Zero is to be honest I don't see how we can ever be at Zero. Net zero is when an individual, company or even nation ensures that their greenhouse gas output is at a level equivalent to that being removed from the environment. It’s different from total zero (which you’re right, will never be achievable) The world won't reach Net Zero by 2050. Guaranteed. …I agree, we were already well off target before todays irrational decision, and that should really worry us all …. why worry we ain't going to be around if it happens Not sure if serious definitely serious why worry about something you can't control Because a) It is in our power to control and b) the future generations (not to mention other life forms we share this rock with) deserve a habitable planet im afraid it ain't in are control the world will never come together we can't even agree with are neighbors you do you both then some jack down the rd decides he want a gas gussling 4x4 and un does what you have saved you think china Russia give a rats ass about there own never mind us Australia Germany doing more coal now than before Education is the key. The more people who understand the science and who are engaged in the desire for positive change, the more likely we are to be able to tackle climate change. The main issue is the anti-science propaganda and doubt pushed by various outlets funded by the fossil fuels industry. On a side note, the psychology of climate science denial is really interesting. I totally agree but I ain't going to happen not in my life time things have definitely changed since I was little but we ain't even half way there " True. So we need a renewed effort and collective push. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’m going to make an absolutely wild prediction. We won’t be at or even near net zero by 2050. Can you explain to me what net Zero is to be honest I don't see how we can ever be at Zero. Net zero is when an individual, company or even nation ensures that their greenhouse gas output is at a level equivalent to that being removed from the environment. It’s different from total zero (which you’re right, will never be achievable) The world won't reach Net Zero by 2050. Guaranteed. …I agree, we were already well off target before todays irrational decision, and that should really worry us all …. why worry we ain't going to be around if it happens Not sure if serious definitely serious why worry about something you can't control Because a) It is in our power to control and b) the future generations (not to mention other life forms we share this rock with) deserve a habitable planet im afraid it ain't in are control the world will never come together we can't even agree with are neighbors you do you both then some jack down the rd decides he want a gas gussling 4x4 and un does what you have saved you think china Russia give a rats ass about there own never mind us Australia Germany doing more coal now than before Education is the key. The more people who understand the science and who are engaged in the desire for positive change, the more likely we are to be able to tackle climate change. The main issue is the anti-science propaganda and doubt pushed by various outlets funded by the fossil fuels industry. On a side note, the psychology of climate science denial is really interesting. I totally agree but I ain't going to happen not in my life time things have definitely changed since I was little but we ain't even half way there True. So we need a renewed effort and collective push. " agree but until the old brigade expire and the youth gets together greed will always win | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’m going to make an absolutely wild prediction. We won’t be at or even near net zero by 2050. Can you explain to me what net Zero is to be honest I don't see how we can ever be at Zero. Net zero is when an individual, company or even nation ensures that their greenhouse gas output is at a level equivalent to that being removed from the environment. It’s different from total zero (which you’re right, will never be achievable)" So if you include marketing parts for a car moving the parts the people working in the plant making the car that is all adding to you greenhouse gas output then the shipping of the car so as said its never realy going to happen. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’m going to make an absolutely wild prediction. We won’t be at or even near net zero by 2050. Can you explain to me what net Zero is to be honest I don't see how we can ever be at Zero. Net zero is when an individual, company or even nation ensures that their greenhouse gas output is at a level equivalent to that being removed from the environment. It’s different from total zero (which you’re right, will never be achievable) The world won't reach Net Zero by 2050. Guaranteed. …I agree, we were already well off target before todays irrational decision, and that should really worry us all …." Why should it worry us the planet will be better of without humans if we go before everything some thing will survive | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’m going to make an absolutely wild prediction. We won’t be at or even near net zero by 2050. Can you explain to me what net Zero is to be honest I don't see how we can ever be at Zero. Net zero is when an individual, company or even nation ensures that their greenhouse gas output is at a level equivalent to that being removed from the environment. It’s different from total zero (which you’re right, will never be achievable) The world won't reach Net Zero by 2050. Guaranteed. …I agree, we were already well off target before todays irrational decision, and that should really worry us all …. why worry we ain't going to be around if it happens Not sure if serious definitely serious why worry about something you can't control Because a) It is in our power to control and b) the future generations (not to mention other life forms we share this rock with) deserve a habitable planet im afraid it ain't in are control the world will never come together we can't even agree with are neighbors you do you both then some jack down the rd decides he want a gas gussling 4x4 and un does what you have saved you think china Russia give a rats ass about there own never mind us Australia Germany doing more coal now than before China is investing way more in renewables than the U.K" So is it ok to cover fields with solar then fly or ship food in because all the fields are full. Surely that is going backwards. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I don't 'worry' about Earth, she can take good care of herself no matter what we humans (or any other form of life) may get up to...... Some people need a sense of proportion and reality. Our (Mother) Earth is colossal in comparison with her offspring. Eva X
No doubt correct….but the consequences on her offspring will be quite disastrous."************************************* And inevitable. There's far too much reverance placed upon humanity. And this is...., and has been for years...., my genuine opinion Eva X | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’m going to make an absolutely wild prediction. We won’t be at or even near net zero by 2050. Can you explain to me what net Zero is to be honest I don't see how we can ever be at Zero. Net zero is when an individual, company or even nation ensures that their greenhouse gas output is at a level equivalent to that being removed from the environment. It’s different from total zero (which you’re right, will never be achievable) The world won't reach Net Zero by 2050. Guaranteed. …I agree, we were already well off target before todays irrational decision, and that should really worry us all …." The decisions yesterday didn't change the target. Why do you believe those decisions to be irrational? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’m going to make an absolutely wild prediction. We won’t be at or even near net zero by 2050. Can you explain to me what net Zero is to be honest I don't see how we can ever be at Zero. Net zero is when an individual, company or even nation ensures that their greenhouse gas output is at a level equivalent to that being removed from the environment. It’s different from total zero (which you’re right, will never be achievable) The world won't reach Net Zero by 2050. Guaranteed. …I agree, we were already well off target before todays irrational decision, and that should really worry us all …. why worry we ain't going to be around if it happens Not sure if serious definitely serious why worry about something you can't control Because a) It is in our power to control and b) the future generations (not to mention other life forms we share this rock with) deserve a habitable planet im afraid it ain't in are control the world will never come together we can't even agree with are neighbors you do you both then some jack down the rd decides he want a gas gussling 4x4 and un does what you have saved you think china Russia give a rats ass about there own never mind us Australia Germany doing more coal now than before China is investing way more in renewables than the U.K" And yet are still behind us... quite considerably... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We live on an island and yet consistently ignore tidal/hydro power." "We don't ignore it. There have been dozens of tidal power sites set up over the past 50 or so years, and almost all of them have been ripped to pieces by the sea. It's an extremely hostile environment. We're never going to be able to make tidal power work at the scale needed to make a useful contribution." "I think you underestimate the ability of enginering" Unlike all of those hundreds of actual qualified engineers that have built the dozens of tidal power systems around the world, and then watched the sea smash them to bits? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We live on an island and yet consistently ignore tidal/hydro power. We don't ignore it. There have been dozens of tidal power sites set up over the past 50 or so years, and almost all of them have been ripped to pieces by the sea. It's an extremely hostile environment. We're never going to be able to make tidal power work at the scale needed to make a useful contribution. I think you underestimate the ability of enginering Unlike all of those hundreds of actual qualified engineers that have built the dozens of tidal power systems around the world, and then watched the sea smash them to bits?" I don't know a great deal about tidal, the potential and reliability appears to be there, however, I found this. "Turbines can injure marine animals and barrages restrict the movement of migratory species. The electromagnetic fields and noise generated are also a concern, particularly for animals that use echolocation." I'd ask does 'saving the planet' include destruction of our marine wildlife? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I have yet to find a post that explains why this is a bad decision, plenty of posts mentioning the obvious we need to be doing things but again no real mention of what, other than removing fossil fuels and turning to renewables. Can anyone tell me why they think the decision to delay the move to EV only built cars to 2035, in line with the EU is such a bad decision and what are the consequences of this one decision? " good and bad is a simple way of looking at the world. But some downsides of the decision. 1) setting big and real targets helps focus the mind. Nothing like a wedding or a holiday tobkick off the diet. 2) it's creates uncertainty for business. Many are making decisions today for 2030. 3) apparently businesses were being reassured recently the target won't move. That undermines trust in the UK (tbf that's not about moving the target per se) 4) it reduces belief in the target. Why try for 2035, if we are missing they will move the target again. Now there are positives too, don't get me wrong. But that wasn't the question you asked. In fact let me ask. What do we put in the "plus" column? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I don't 'worry' about Earth, she can take good care of herself no matter what we humans (or any other form of life) may get up to...... Some people need a sense of proportion and reality. Our (Mother) Earth is colossal in comparison with her offspring. Eva X
No doubt correct….but the consequences on her offspring will be quite disastrous.
*************************************
And inevitable.
There's far too much reverance placed upon humanity.
And this is...., and has been for years...., my genuine opinion
Eva X "Wow….that’s some take ! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We live on an island and yet consistently ignore tidal/hydro power. We don't ignore it. There have been dozens of tidal power sites set up over the past 50 or so years, and almost all of them have been ripped to pieces by the sea. It's an extremely hostile environment. We're never going to be able to make tidal power work at the scale needed to make a useful contribution. I think you underestimate the ability of enginering Unlike all of those hundreds of actual qualified engineers that have built the dozens of tidal power systems around the world, and then watched the sea smash them to bits?" And yet they’re still being built and planned (including around the U.K). It’s as if they know that there’s an immense amount of potential in tidal energy. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We live on an island and yet consistently ignore tidal/hydro power. We don't ignore it. There have been dozens of tidal power sites set up over the past 50 or so years, and almost all of them have been ripped to pieces by the sea. It's an extremely hostile environment. We're never going to be able to make tidal power work at the scale needed to make a useful contribution. I think you underestimate the ability of enginering Unlike all of those hundreds of actual qualified engineers that have built the dozens of tidal power systems around the world, and then watched the sea smash them to bits? I don't know a great deal about tidal, the potential and reliability appears to be there, however, I found this. "Turbines can injure marine animals and barrages restrict the movement of migratory species. The electromagnetic fields and noise generated are also a concern, particularly for animals that use echolocation." I'd ask does 'saving the planet' include destruction of our marine wildlife?" That is indeed a problem that will need solving, marine ecosystems are essential to the environment. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We live on an island and yet consistently ignore tidal/hydro power. We don't ignore it. There have been dozens of tidal power sites set up over the past 50 or so years, and almost all of them have been ripped to pieces by the sea. It's an extremely hostile environment. We're never going to be able to make tidal power work at the scale needed to make a useful contribution. I think you underestimate the ability of enginering Unlike all of those hundreds of actual qualified engineers that have built the dozens of tidal power systems around the world, and then watched the sea smash them to bits? I don't know a great deal about tidal, the potential and reliability appears to be there, however, I found this. "Turbines can injure marine animals and barrages restrict the movement of migratory species. The electromagnetic fields and noise generated are also a concern, particularly for animals that use echolocation." I'd ask does 'saving the planet' include destruction of our marine wildlife? That is indeed a problem that will need solving, marine ecosystems are essential to the environment. " From what I've read, the potential is there. There's no chance in hell the people calling for 'green' is going to accept those risks though. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I have yet to find a post that explains why this is a bad decision, plenty of posts mentioning the obvious we need to be doing things but again no real mention of what, other than removing fossil fuels and turning to renewables. Can anyone tell me why they think the decision to delay the move to EV only built cars to 2035, in line with the EU is such a bad decision and what are the consequences of this one decision? good and bad is a simple way of looking at the world. But some downsides of the decision. 1) setting big and real targets helps focus the mind. Nothing like a wedding or a holiday tobkick off the diet. 2) it's creates uncertainty for business. Many are making decisions today for 2030. 3) apparently businesses were being reassured recently the target won't move. That undermines trust in the UK (tbf that's not about moving the target per se) 4) it reduces belief in the target. Why try for 2035, if we are missing they will move the target again. Now there are positives too, don't get me wrong. But that wasn't the question you asked. In fact let me ask. What do we put in the "plus" column? " For the cars issue, there are many things in the plus column including: Alignment with the largest trading block in the region and generally with the rest of the world. This stops us paying the "early adopter" premium. Allows more time for technology to mature. Current electric cars will be regarded as prototypes in the future. Although appropriate for some, they are not ready for mass adoption. The recycling of electric vehicles and their batteries will be a big problem unless significant investment is made. Issues I mentioned in my previous post regarding tyre wear etc. are still valid. Mandating an early switch to electric puts all the eggs in one basket and stifles other technologies. I also suspect that it will be irrelevant as the choice of ICE cars will rapidly decline and after 2030 only a few "run out" models will be available due to the car industry fixation with the move to electric. Finally it gives time for the infrastructure to catch up. We don't generate enough electricity to charge a 100% electric car pool. On the minus side it is not ambitious enough. We should be mandating vehicle to grid technology to allow cars to power the owners house. Solar panels should be compulsory on new build houses, and house / estate design should maximise yield. The amount of solar panels allowable on a property without permission should be increased. Smart technology should be compulsory in new build. Retrofitting insulation and renewable energy to existing properties should be incentivised, Sunak's announcement also kicks that down the road. Also there should be a gradual planned shift in pricing to make fossil fuels increasingly expensive compared to renewable energy. Timed to follow the infrastructure and technology improvements, this may result in greener technology being cheaper than fossil fuels for the majority of people by 2030. The market will then solve the issue. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I have yet to find a post that explains why this is a bad decision, plenty of posts mentioning the obvious we need to be doing things but again no real mention of what, other than removing fossil fuels and turning to renewables. Can anyone tell me why they think the decision to delay the move to EV only built cars to 2035, in line with the EU is such a bad decision and what are the consequences of this one decision? good and bad is a simple way of looking at the world. But some downsides of the decision. 1) setting big and real targets helps focus the mind. Nothing like a wedding or a holiday tobkick off the diet. 2) it's creates uncertainty for business. Many are making decisions today for 2030. 3) apparently businesses were being reassured recently the target won't move. That undermines trust in the UK (tbf that's not about moving the target per se) 4) it reduces belief in the target. Why try for 2035, if we are missing they will move the target again. Now there are positives too, don't get me wrong. But that wasn't the question you asked. In fact let me ask. What do we put in the "plus" column? For the cars issue, there are many things in the plus column including: Alignment with the largest trading block in the region and generally with the rest of the world. This stops us paying the "early adopter" premium. Allows more time for technology to mature. Current electric cars will be regarded as prototypes in the future. Although appropriate for some, they are not ready for mass adoption. The recycling of electric vehicles and their batteries will be a big problem unless significant investment is made. Issues I mentioned in my previous post regarding tyre wear etc. are still valid. Mandating an early switch to electric puts all the eggs in one basket and stifles other technologies. I also suspect that it will be irrelevant as the choice of ICE cars will rapidly decline and after 2030 only a few "run out" models will be available due to the car industry fixation with the move to electric. Finally it gives time for the infrastructure to catch up. We don't generate enough electricity to charge a 100% electric car pool. On the minus side it is not ambitious enough. We should be mandating vehicle to grid technology to allow cars to power the owners house. Solar panels should be compulsory on new build houses, and house / estate design should maximise yield. The amount of solar panels allowable on a property without permission should be increased. Smart technology should be compulsory in new build. Retrofitting insulation and renewable energy to existing properties should be incentivised, Sunak's announcement also kicks that down the road. Also there should be a gradual planned shift in pricing to make fossil fuels increasingly expensive compared to renewable energy. Timed to follow the infrastructure and technology improvements, this may result in greener technology being cheaper than fossil fuels for the majority of people by 2030. The market will then solve the issue." I agree/like most of what you are saying there. One point... "Finally it gives time for the infrastructure to catch up. We don't generate enough electricity to charge a 100% electric car pool." Yesterday I saw a screenshot of a statement by National Grid saying we do and gave got the capacity. It mentioned that 2002 was the highest consumption year and there was excess capacity then. Also mentioned that full EV ownership is expected to only increase capacity requirements by 10%. If it had been an article I could link but that was gist. For me there is a need to balance pragmatism with ambition. The infrastructure has to be in place for full EV ownership. The technology needs to be more efficient and cheaper AND not have other undesirable consequences on the environment (mining of raw materials, recycling components). The price has to come down massively. Without that you simply will not change consumer behaviour. No matter how worthy the cause, most human beings are short term in focus and will prioritise their own current needs over a future (unborn) generation. I have said this before and still do not really understand why we do not take this approach... Through history major crises have been funded by the govt through long term borrowing. As a tax payer I (we) have only recently finished paying off the govt debt for sl@ve owner compensation, WWI and WWII. The climate change issue is another crisis. Why should the financial burden be only placed on the current generation when it is actually future generations who will benefit from the actions taken? It is, arguably, the actions of the inter-war generation and boomers that caused this issue but they won’t be here to pay their dues. It falls on Gen X/Z and Millennials but I would argue should be spread over next two centuries reducing impact now! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I agree/like most of what you are saying there. One point... Finally it gives time for the infrastructure to catch up. We don't generate enough electricity to charge a 100% electric car pool. Yesterday I saw a screenshot of a statement by National Grid saying we do and gave got the capacity. It mentioned that 2002 was the highest consumption year and there was excess capacity then. Also mentioned that full EV ownership is expected to only increase capacity requirements by 10%. If it had been an article I could link but that was gist. " You could be right, various articles say it will be OK however this relies on smart management of the charging infrastructure as well as increases in generation capacity. The government has already mandated that all chargers should be "smart" so that demand can be managed. So if you plug your car in and start it charging it may not until there is grid capacity. This all ties in to the smart management and vehicle to grid comments I made above. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I have yet to find a post that explains why this is a bad decision, plenty of posts mentioning the obvious we need to be doing things but again no real mention of what, other than removing fossil fuels and turning to renewables. Can anyone tell me why they think the decision to delay the move to EV only built cars to 2035, in line with the EU is such a bad decision and what are the consequences of this one decision? good and bad is a simple way of looking at the world. But some downsides of the decision. 1) setting big and real targets helps focus the mind. Nothing like a wedding or a holiday tobkick off the diet. 2) it's creates uncertainty for business. Many are making decisions today for 2030. 3) apparently businesses were being reassured recently the target won't move. That undermines trust in the UK (tbf that's not about moving the target per se) 4) it reduces belief in the target. Why try for 2035, if we are missing they will move the target again. Now there are positives too, don't get me wrong. But that wasn't the question you asked. In fact let me ask. What do we put in the "plus" column? " I’m not sure it is causing business an issue, there is nothing stopping the car manufacturers from continuing towards their targets. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I love that the tories would consider a hung Parliament to be an acceptable result. A reminder that they had an 80 seat majority - that’s a minimal two-terms worth of power historically. " It was a one issue election (opinion). Brexit has been done and so the battle re different mandates begins. I might be wrong but I think the last time a one issue election was Maggie Thatcher and the Falklands war. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I have yet to find a post that explains why this is a bad decision, plenty of posts mentioning the obvious we need to be doing things but again no real mention of what, other than removing fossil fuels and turning to renewables. Can anyone tell me why they think the decision to delay the move to EV only built cars to 2035, in line with the EU is such a bad decision and what are the consequences of this one decision? good and bad is a simple way of looking at the world. But some downsides of the decision. 1) setting big and real targets helps focus the mind. Nothing like a wedding or a holiday tobkick off the diet. 2) it's creates uncertainty for business. Many are making decisions today for 2030. 3) apparently businesses were being reassured recently the target won't move. That undermines trust in the UK (tbf that's not about moving the target per se) 4) it reduces belief in the target. Why try for 2035, if we are missing they will move the target again. Now there are positives too, don't get me wrong. But that wasn't the question you asked. In fact let me ask. What do we put in the "plus" column? For the cars issue, there are many things in the plus column including: Alignment with the largest trading block in the region and generally with the rest of the world. This stops us paying the "early adopter" premium. Allows more time for technology to mature. Current electric cars will be regarded as prototypes in the future. Although appropriate for some, they are not ready for mass adoption. The recycling of electric vehicles and their batteries will be a big problem unless significant investment is made. Issues I mentioned in my previous post regarding tyre wear etc. are still valid. Mandating an early switch to electric puts all the eggs in one basket and stifles other technologies. I also suspect that it will be irrelevant as the choice of ICE cars will rapidly decline and after 2030 only a few "run out" models will be available due to the car industry fixation with the move to electric. Finally it gives time for the infrastructure to catch up. We don't generate enough electricity to charge a 100% electric car pool. On the minus side it is not ambitious enough. We should be mandating vehicle to grid technology to allow cars to power the owners house. Solar panels should be compulsory on new build houses, and house / estate design should maximise yield. The amount of solar panels allowable on a property without permission should be increased. Smart technology should be compulsory in new build. Retrofitting insulation and renewable energy to existing properties should be incentivised, Sunak's announcement also kicks that down the road. Also there should be a gradual planned shift in pricing to make fossil fuels increasingly expensive compared to renewable energy. Timed to follow the infrastructure and technology improvements, this may result in greener technology being cheaper than fossil fuels for the majority of people by 2030. The market will then solve the issue." Why increase the number of panels if you don't have storage and that storage is full the UKPN network can only handle so much | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So saves Braverman. Quite a soundbite and obviously well planned to create a stir. Would the British people go bankrupt if the government kept to their original promises? Is she saying that she wants to save the Planet but there are limits to how far she would go to do so? It almost paints a picture of a Planet (Earth) going up in flames with Braverman standing there waving a Union Jack shouting that she saved the British people from going bankrupt. I am sure that they know what they are doing. ...just an observation on my part and nothing more... Her comments are obviously timed to support Sunak’s announcement today. It’s a recalibration of direction to what they believe a more sold approach for the country. "More solid approach for the country". Can you elaborate on what you mean? I thought that was crystal clear? At the moment the plan is not robust enough to provide a clear pathway of change without major disruption to the public. I believe you are not acknowledging the target has not changed from net zero in 2050. How we get there is changing and I’m pleased we have a government who has the backbone to make those changes when needed. The country can’t survive on views through rose tinted glasses, we need reality not wishful thinking I also think the target remains at 2050 but the cars will be 5 years later than the original plan. So 5 years extra I expect will have a negative environmental impact. But what is that impact in reality is a question I think needs addressing. Will this 5 year delay by the UK have a big effect on the planet or would it barely be noticed. I think he also announced a 50% increase in New boiler grants which does not seem to get a mention. Surely that helps" The date re cars has changed before. I recall 2040, was that the original target? As for air pump grants - you have to be wealthy (ish) even with a 50% grant to change the boiler system. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So saves Braverman. Quite a soundbite and obviously well planned to create a stir. Would the British people go bankrupt if the government kept to their original promises? Is she saying that she wants to save the Planet but there are limits to how far she would go to do so? It almost paints a picture of a Planet (Earth) going up in flames with Braverman standing there waving a Union Jack shouting that she saved the British people from going bankrupt. I am sure that they know what they are doing. ...just an observation on my part and nothing more... Her comments are obviously timed to support Sunak’s announcement today. It’s a recalibration of direction to what they believe a more sold approach for the country. "More solid approach for the country". Can you elaborate on what you mean? I thought that was crystal clear? At the moment the plan is not robust enough to provide a clear pathway of change without major disruption to the public. I believe you are not acknowledging the target has not changed from net zero in 2050. How we get there is changing and I’m pleased we have a government who has the backbone to make those changes when needed. The country can’t survive on views through rose tinted glasses, we need reality not wishful thinking I also think the target remains at 2050 but the cars will be 5 years later than the original plan. So 5 years extra I expect will have a negative environmental impact. But what is that impact in reality is a question I think needs addressing. Will this 5 year delay by the UK have a big effect on the planet or would it barely be noticed. I think he also announced a 50% increase in New boiler grants which does not seem to get a mention. Surely that helps The date re cars has changed before. I recall 2040, was that the original target? As for air pump grants - you have to be wealthy (ish) even with a 50% grant to change the boiler system." Hang on most properties in this area have a 60amp supply 32amp for a heat pump 16-32amp per charger most families with children still at home could posably have 4 cars to charge and a heat pump and the rest of the property. Off peak is 7 hours it takes that long to charge 1 car. And with electric having gone up it's now cheaper to run an ICE car | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I have yet to find a post that explains why this is a bad decision, plenty of posts mentioning the obvious we need to be doing things but again no real mention of what, other than removing fossil fuels and turning to renewables. Can anyone tell me why they think the decision to delay the move to EV only built cars to 2035, in line with the EU is such a bad decision and what are the consequences of this one decision? good and bad is a simple way of looking at the world. But some downsides of the decision. 1) setting big and real targets helps focus the mind. Nothing like a wedding or a holiday tobkick off the diet. 2) it's creates uncertainty for business. Many are making decisions today for 2030. 3) apparently businesses were being reassured recently the target won't move. That undermines trust in the UK (tbf that's not about moving the target per se) 4) it reduces belief in the target. Why try for 2035, if we are missing they will move the target again. Now there are positives too, don't get me wrong. But that wasn't the question you asked. In fact let me ask. What do we put in the "plus" column? I’m not sure it is causing business an issue, there is nothing stopping the car manufacturers from continuing towards their targets. " The car manufacturers are not in agreement with each other over this. Some don't like it while others, mostly Jaguar land rover and Toyota, welcome it. I think JLR and Toyota glee will disappear once Labour take office and revert back to square one | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We live on an island and yet consistently ignore tidal/hydro power." "We don't ignore it. There have been dozens of tidal power sites set up over the past 50 or so years, and almost all of them have been ripped to pieces by the sea. It's an extremely hostile environment. We're never going to be able to make tidal power work at the scale needed to make a useful contribution." "I think you underestimate the ability of enginering" "Unlike all of those hundreds of actual qualified engineers that have built the dozens of tidal power systems around the world, and then watched the sea smash them to bits?" "And yet they’re still being built and planned (including around the U.K). It’s as if they know that there’s an immense amount of potential in tidal energy." At the beginning of this post you were saying that we're ignoring tidal power. I wish you'd make your mind up. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We live on an island and yet consistently ignore tidal/hydro power. We don't ignore it. There have been dozens of tidal power sites set up over the past 50 or so years, and almost all of them have been ripped to pieces by the sea. It's an extremely hostile environment. We're never going to be able to make tidal power work at the scale needed to make a useful contribution. I think you underestimate the ability of enginering Unlike all of those hundreds of actual qualified engineers that have built the dozens of tidal power systems around the world, and then watched the sea smash them to bits? And yet they’re still being built and planned (including around the U.K). It’s as if they know that there’s an immense amount of potential in tidal energy. At the beginning of this post you were saying that we're ignoring tidal power. I wish you'd make your mind up." We’re - the people on this thread and others who seem to think that wind power is the only renewable source (One assumes because it suits their narrative) Glad you’ve given up disputing tidal as a viable source though  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Glad you’ve given up disputing tidal as a viable source though" There no point disputing anything with you, you're not a listener. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why increase the number of panels if you don't have storage and that storage is full the UKPN network can only handle so much " We have 4kw solar fitted. Due to the shape of the roof and orientation of the house we very rarely get much more than 3kw peak power and it is usually under 2kw. We could have fitted 6kw which would have given us nearer 4kw output for more of the day nut the rules attje time prohibited this. More than 4kw was commercial and needed surveys, permission from the grid and halved the feed in tariff payment. We use all the power generated by the solar panels pretty much all year. We run things like washing on sunny days, plan our weekly menus so the oven is in when it is sunny if possible, and we have a device which heats our hot water using all the spare electricity generated so our gas boiler doesn't fire up between March and October. We don't have an electric car or heat pump. Nor do we have battery storage. More panels would make these viable. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why increase the number of panels if you don't have storage and that storage is full the UKPN network can only handle so much We have 4kw solar fitted. Due to the shape of the roof and orientation of the house we very rarely get much more than 3kw peak power and it is usually under 2kw. We could have fitted 6kw which would have given us nearer 4kw output for more of the day nut the rules attje time prohibited this. More than 4kw was commercial and needed surveys, permission from the grid and halved the feed in tariff payment. We use all the power generated by the solar panels pretty much all year. We run things like washing on sunny days, plan our weekly menus so the oven is in when it is sunny if possible, and we have a device which heats our hot water using all the spare electricity generated so our gas boiler doesn't fire up between March and October. We don't have an electric car or heat pump. Nor do we have battery storage. More panels would make these viable." But if you 6kw was making 6kw and every home in your road had the same as they can and it was not being used where would it go. It limited to the size of the cable in the street. So where dose it go when your on holiday? It would be nice to have a system where the grid can turn it on and off road by road to control supply. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why increase the number of panels if you don't have storage and that storage is full the UKPN network can only handle so much We have 4kw solar fitted. Due to the shape of the roof and orientation of the house we very rarely get much more than 3kw peak power and it is usually under 2kw. We could have fitted 6kw which would have given us nearer 4kw output for more of the day nut the rules attje time prohibited this. More than 4kw was commercial and needed surveys, permission from the grid and halved the feed in tariff payment. We use all the power generated by the solar panels pretty much all year. We run things like washing on sunny days, plan our weekly menus so the oven is in when it is sunny if possible, and we have a device which heats our hot water using all the spare electricity generated so our gas boiler doesn't fire up between March and October. We don't have an electric car or heat pump. Nor do we have battery storage. More panels would make these viable. But if you 6kw was making 6kw and every home in your road had the same as they can and it was not being used where would it go. It limited to the size of the cable in the street. So where dose it go when your on holiday? It would be nice to have a system where the grid can turn it on and off road by road to control supply. " There is a case for smart control however the chances of everyone being on holiday at the same time are low. As most houses have an 80 amp fuse the street cable can take 6kw from each property. Also, the system produces much less power on normal days. It is often cloudy and raining, as it is now, we are currently generating 300 watts. Solar panels aren't very good in low light, or when it is too hot. In our road, most houses don't have the roof space to install more than 4kw anyway. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Glad you’ve given up disputing tidal as a viable source though There no point disputing anything with you, you're not a listener." Aye, course | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Let's all be honest here. It doesn't matter who maybe in charge of the country. They all do and say as they please. They are all full of bullshit " No they do what helps them and where thay are at. They only look at the person in the street if they need to stay in power. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Let's all be honest here. It doesn't matter who maybe in charge of the country. They all do and say as they please. They are all full of bullshit " Whilst true to an extent, the country peaked under New Labour, in terms of wealth and wellbeing. Wealth disparity did still increase though, so they were by no means perfect. A million times better than we now have thought. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Let's all be honest here. It doesn't matter who maybe in charge of the country. They all do and say as they please. They are all full of bullshit Whilst true to an extent, the country peaked under New Labour, in terms of wealth and wellbeing. Wealth disparity did still increase though, so they were by no means perfect. A million times better than we now have thought." All ears on the how the country peaked under new labour, can you explain further? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Let's all be honest here. It doesn't matter who maybe in charge of the country. They all do and say as they please. They are all full of bullshit Whilst true to an extent, the country peaked under New Labour, in terms of wealth and wellbeing. Wealth disparity did still increase though, so they were by no means perfect. A million times better than we now have thought. All ears on the how the country peaked under new labour, can you explain further? " Living standards peaked under New Labour. Sustained economic growth, high unemployment, NHS satisfaction and waits, rough sleeping virtually eradicated. In 2007 average annual pay (adjusted for inflation) which wouldn’t be bettered for over a decade. I’m comfortable saying that the country peaked under new labour. The tories have done only damage in the past 13 years. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Living standards peaked under New Labour. Sustained economic growth, high unemployment, NHS satisfaction and waits, rough sleeping virtually eradicated. In 2007 average annual pay (adjusted for inflation) which wouldn’t be bettered for over a decade. I’m comfortable saying that the country peaked under new labour. The tories have done only damage in the past 13 years." I assume that you meant to say "low unemployment". What do you mean by "average annual pay (adjusted for inflation) which wouldn’t be bettered for over a decade". Does this mean that the average person was paid more money (inflation-adjusted) back then? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Let's all be honest here. It doesn't matter who maybe in charge of the country. They all do and say as they please. They are all full of bullshit Whilst true to an extent, the country peaked under New Labour, in terms of wealth and wellbeing. Wealth disparity did still increase though, so they were by no means perfect. A million times better than we now have thought. All ears on the how the country peaked under new labour, can you explain further? Living standards peaked under New Labour. Sustained economic growth, high unemployment, NHS satisfaction and waits, rough sleeping virtually eradicated. In 2007 average annual pay (adjusted for inflation) which wouldn’t be bettered for over a decade. I’m comfortable saying that the country peaked under new labour. The tories have done only damage in the past 13 years." Unemployment under the Tories is similar to that of New Labour (I have no doubt you'll argue zero hour etc etc) When you say pay wouldn't be better for a decade, does that mean that pay is actually better under Tories but took a decade to get there? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Living standards peaked under New Labour. Sustained economic growth, high unemployment, NHS satisfaction and waits, rough sleeping virtually eradicated. In 2007 average annual pay (adjusted for inflation) which wouldn’t be bettered for over a decade. I’m comfortable saying that the country peaked under new labour. The tories have done only damage in the past 13 years. I assume that you meant to say "low unemployment". What do you mean by "average annual pay (adjusted for inflation) which wouldn’t be bettered for over a decade". Does this mean that the average person was paid more money (inflation-adjusted) back then?" The average person was indeed paid more under new Labour - depending upon sources I read (so unable to confirm one way or the other) this was either the case until 2018/2019, or still to this day. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Here’s a piece about household disposable income, which peaked in 2007, and didn’t reach those levels again until 2019/2020. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/personalandhouseholdfinances/incomeandwealth/bulletins/householddisposableincomeandinequality/financialyearending2020provisional Coupled with reduced services etc in the past decade, it’s easy to see that the period upto 2008 was the high water mark of U.K living for the average person. " Are we excluding 2008-10 as a period of time when 'New Labour' weren't in power? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Here’s a piece about household disposable income, which peaked in 2007, and didn’t reach those levels again until 2019/2020. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/personalandhouseholdfinances/incomeandwealth/bulletins/householddisposableincomeandinequality/financialyearending2020provisional Coupled with reduced services etc in the past decade, it’s easy to see that the period upto 2008 was the high water mark of U.K living for the average person. " Thanks for the link, it's always good to have some solid evidence to work with. The graph in table 1 does indeed show a high point in 2007. But that's followed by a sudden downturn. Did Labour forget how to run an economy, or did something else happen? The graph also shows that recent Tory governments have continued the trajectory that Labour was following, with (inflation-adjusted) wages rising every year. That would seem to indicate that they are doing just as well as Labour did. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Here’s a piece about household disposable income, which peaked in 2007, and didn’t reach those levels again until 2019/2020. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/personalandhouseholdfinances/incomeandwealth/bulletins/householddisposableincomeandinequality/financialyearending2020provisional Coupled with reduced services etc in the past decade, it’s easy to see that the period upto 2008 was the high water mark of U.K living for the average person. Are we excluding 2008-10 as a period of time when 'New Labour' weren't in power?" I think something economically important happened in 2008. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Let's all be honest here. It doesn't matter who maybe in charge of the country. They all do and say as they please. They are all full of bullshit Whilst true to an extent, the country peaked under New Labour, in terms of wealth and wellbeing. Wealth disparity did still increase though, so they were by no means perfect. A million times better than we now have thought. All ears on the how the country peaked under new labour, can you explain further? Living standards peaked under New Labour. Sustained economic growth, high unemployment, NHS satisfaction and waits, rough sleeping virtually eradicated. In 2007 average annual pay (adjusted for inflation) which wouldn’t be bettered for over a decade. I’m comfortable saying that the country peaked under new labour. The tories have done only damage in the past 13 years." There was a lot of strange events under labour at that time. I know when Blair became PM, it was a relief and it was reflected in the mood of the country. But I also remember a lot of problems, mortgages, loans and finance in general went rogue and I know people at the time living with 4 or more credit cards, loans, houses abroad and it fell a part for a lot of people. My memory of the time was everything felt on loan | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Here’s a piece about household disposable income, which peaked in 2007, and didn’t reach those levels again until 2019/2020. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/personalandhouseholdfinances/incomeandwealth/bulletins/householddisposableincomeandinequality/financialyearending2020provisional Coupled with reduced services etc in the past decade, it’s easy to see that the period upto 2008 was the high water mark of U.K living for the average person. Are we excluding 2008-10 as a period of time when 'New Labour' weren't in power? I think something economically important happened in 2008." It did. These things happen. Has nothing happened during 'Tory reign'? I don't think it's wise to cherry pick dates to suit your agenda. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’m going to make an absolutely wild prediction. We won’t be at or even near net zero by 2050. Can you explain to me what net Zero is to be honest I don't see how we can ever be at Zero. Net zero is when an individual, company or even nation ensures that their greenhouse gas output is at a level equivalent to that being removed from the environment. It’s different from total zero (which you’re right, will never be achievable) The world won't reach Net Zero by 2050. Guaranteed. …I agree, we were already well off target before todays irrational decision, and that should really worry us all …. why worry we ain't going to be around if it happens Not sure if serious definitely serious why worry about something you can't control Because a) It is in our power to control and b) the future generations (not to mention other life forms we share this rock with) deserve a habitable planet " It is in our power to control our addition to natural climate change, it is not in our power to change the planets natural cycle. On a planetary scale the Earth is merely taking a deep breath. Natural climate change has happened since the planet cooled, it is in truth little more than a giant planetary breath as said. Species have died because of it & will die again because of it. Regarding the UK & Sunak I think a little of the whole announcement was smoke & mirrors. Says on one hand they won’t force people to change to renewables but then ups the Grant available from £5k to £7.5k. Says we won’t make you change to EV’s until 2035 but if he cuts the link between gas/electricity prices (on the cards) Electricity prices will drop substantially & both renewables & EV’s will be more attractive. I also think with regard to blaming Chine/India & saying we are but a tiny percentage in comparison changes need to be made in who we calculate everyone’s emissions. How about every single thing we use having a carbon figure ie a car is 20000 units, a tomato 5 units. Then an uplift added for where it shipped from? Somewhere “Durty” add 20%, somewhere super clean add 0%. This emissions figure then “Belongs” not to the country that made the item but to the country that bought it. Which is as it should be really. Don’t complain about China while watching your Chinese made TV or driving your Chinese car or eating off your Chinese plates food cooked in your Chinese microwave. Sure it’s supply & demand but the carbon footprint belongs to the demand in my book. As someone else also said China are head & shoulders above everyone with regard to wind turbines & solar farms. I did read somewhere that they put up more turbines last year than the rest of the world put together so at least they are heading in the right direction. As another aside waaaay back when China were a burgeoning economy representatives of the USA & UK went. At the time the West was mainly coal or Nuclear powered with clean coal technology. They asked to buy the clean coal technology for the power stations they knew they needed. The West thinking they would delay the inevitable superseller China was obviously going to become told them to fck off. They built the power stations anyway & became the superseller & the whole world is paying for that bad decision. Joe Public needs to understand that climate change happens anyway, our involvement may mean it happens maybe sooner, quicker or hotter, but it will like the March of time happen anyway & the whole thing going on with mankind panicking & shitting a brick over it all is more about control & money than it is about the climate “Crisis”. S | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Here’s a piece about household disposable income, which peaked in 2007, and didn’t reach those levels again until 2019/2020. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/personalandhouseholdfinances/incomeandwealth/bulletins/householddisposableincomeandinequality/financialyearending2020provisional Coupled with reduced services etc in the past decade, it’s easy to see that the period upto 2008 was the high water mark of U.K living for the average person." "Are we excluding 2008-10 as a period of time when 'New Labour' weren't in power?" "I think something economically important happened in 2008." Oh yes, I remember, there was that big economic crash. So are we saying that the crash was Labour's fault and that they were poor at governing? Or are we saying that external events can have a massive impact on the UK, and that wages earned is therefore not a sensible way to determine how good a government is? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Here’s a piece about household disposable income, which peaked in 2007, and didn’t reach those levels again until 2019/2020. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/personalandhouseholdfinances/incomeandwealth/bulletins/householddisposableincomeandinequality/financialyearending2020provisional Coupled with reduced services etc in the past decade, it’s easy to see that the period upto 2008 was the high water mark of U.K living for the average person. Are we excluding 2008-10 as a period of time when 'New Labour' weren't in power? I think something economically important happened in 2008. Oh yes, I remember, there was that big economic crash. So are we saying that the crash was Labour's fault and that they were poor at governing? Or are we saying that external events can have a massive impact on the UK, and that wages earned is therefore not a sensible way to determine how good a government is?" I made a statement about living standards in the U.K which I believe to be correct. I have presented data which backs up my claim. Yes external influences can impact a government, as we’ve seen with the foncnscial crisis and Covid (not Brexit, which was very much a decision made by govt) but that doesn’t refute my statement - living standards in the U.K peaked under new labour. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Here’s a piece about household disposable income, which peaked in 2007, and didn’t reach those levels again until 2019/2020. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/personalandhouseholdfinances/incomeandwealth/bulletins/householddisposableincomeandinequality/financialyearending2020provisional Coupled with reduced services etc in the past decade, it’s easy to see that the period upto 2008 was the high water mark of U.K living for the average person. Thanks for the link, it's always good to have some solid evidence to work with. The graph in table 1 does indeed show a high point in 2007. But that's followed by a sudden downturn. Did Labour forget how to run an economy, or did something else happen? The graph also shows that recent Tory governments have continued the trajectory that Labour was following, with (inflation-adjusted) wages rising every year. That would seem to indicate that they are doing just as well as Labour did." Inflation adjusted wages? Just not in healthcare then  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Here’s a piece about household disposable income, which peaked in 2007, and didn’t reach those levels again until 2019/2020. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/personalandhouseholdfinances/incomeandwealth/bulletins/householddisposableincomeandinequality/financialyearending2020provisional Coupled with reduced services etc in the past decade, it’s easy to see that the period upto 2008 was the high water mark of U.K living for the average person. Are we excluding 2008-10 as a period of time when 'New Labour' weren't in power? I think something economically important happened in 2008. Oh yes, I remember, there was that big economic crash. So are we saying that the crash was Labour's fault and that they were poor at governing? Or are we saying that external events can have a massive impact on the UK, and that wages earned is therefore not a sensible way to determine how good a government is? I made a statement about living standards in the U.K which I believe to be correct. I have presented data which backs up my claim. Yes external influences can impact a government, as we’ve seen with the foncnscial crisis and Covid (not Brexit, which was very much a decision made by govt) but that doesn’t refute my statement - living standards in the U.K peaked under new labour. " You made a statement which you believe to be correct but once again you're not comparing apples with apples. Sustained economic growth - until it went wrong, same as Tories. High unemployment - very similar figures to Tories. NHS satisfaction and waits - was actually fucking dreadful until outsourced. Rough sleeping virtually eradicated - ill give you that one, much much better than the Tories. In 2007 average annual pay (adjusted for inflation) which wouldn’t be bettered for over a decade - you've said yourself it was bettered under Tories. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’m going to make an absolutely wild prediction. We won’t be at or even near net zero by 2050. Can you explain to me what net Zero is to be honest I don't see how we can ever be at Zero. Net zero is when an individual, company or even nation ensures that their greenhouse gas output is at a level equivalent to that being removed from the environment. It’s different from total zero (which you’re right, will never be achievable) The world won't reach Net Zero by 2050. Guaranteed. …I agree, we were already well off target before todays irrational decision, and that should really worry us all …. why worry we ain't going to be around if it happens Not sure if serious definitely serious why worry about something you can't control Because a) It is in our power to control and b) the future generations (not to mention other life forms we share this rock with) deserve a habitable planet It is in our power to control our addition to natural climate change, it is not in our power to change the planets natural cycle. On a planetary scale the Earth is merely taking a deep breath. Natural climate change has happened since the planet cooled, it is in truth little more than a giant planetary breath as said. Species have died because of it & will die again because of it. Regarding the UK & Sunak I think a little of the whole announcement was smoke & mirrors. Says on one hand they won’t force people to change to renewables but then ups the Grant available from £5k to £7.5k. Says we won’t make you change to EV’s until 2035 but if he cuts the link between gas/electricity prices (on the cards) Electricity prices will drop substantially & both renewables & EV’s will be more attractive. I also think with regard to blaming Chine/India & saying we are but a tiny percentage in comparison changes need to be made in who we calculate everyone’s emissions. How about every single thing we use having a carbon figure ie a car is 20000 units, a tomato 5 units. Then an uplift added for where it shipped from? Somewhere “Durty” add 20%, somewhere super clean add 0%. This emissions figure then “Belongs” not to the country that made the item but to the country that bought it. Which is as it should be really. Don’t complain about China while watching your Chinese made TV or driving your Chinese car or eating off your Chinese plates food cooked in your Chinese microwave. Sure it’s supply & demand but the carbon footprint belongs to the demand in my book. As someone else also said China are head & shoulders above everyone with regard to wind turbines & solar farms. I did read somewhere that they put up more turbines last year than the rest of the world put together so at least they are heading in the right direction. As another aside waaaay back when China were a burgeoning economy representatives of the USA & UK went. At the time the West was mainly coal or Nuclear powered with clean coal technology. They asked to buy the clean coal technology for the power stations they knew they needed. The West thinking they would delay the inevitable superseller China was obviously going to become told them to fck off. They built the power stations anyway & became the superseller & the whole world is paying for that bad decision. Joe Public needs to understand that climate change happens anyway, our involvement may mean it happens maybe sooner, quicker or hotter, but it will like the March of time happen anyway & the whole thing going on with mankind panicking & shitting a brick over it all is more about control & money than it is about the climate “Crisis”. S" Nuclear power... let's assume none of the nuclear power stations were ever constructed using RAAC , otherwise we have a more imminent crisis  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Here’s a piece about household disposable income, which peaked in 2007, and didn’t reach those levels again until 2019/2020. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/personalandhouseholdfinances/incomeandwealth/bulletins/householddisposableincomeandinequality/financialyearending2020provisional Coupled with reduced services etc in the past decade, it’s easy to see that the period upto 2008 was the high water mark of U.K living for the average person." "Are we excluding 2008-10 as a period of time when 'New Labour' weren't in power?" "I think something economically important happened in 2008." "Oh yes, I remember, there was that big economic crash. So are we saying that the crash was Labour's fault and that they were poor at governing? Or are we saying that external events can have a massive impact on the UK, and that wages earned is therefore not a sensible way to determine how good a government is?" "I made a statement about living standards in the U.K which I believe to be correct. I have presented data which backs up my claim. Yes external influences can impact a government, as we’ve seen with the foncnscial crisis and Covid (not Brexit, which was very much a decision made by govt) but that doesn’t refute my statement - living standards in the U.K peaked under new labour." You made an initial statement of "the country peaked under New Labour, in terms of wealth and wellbeing", and I agree, the data you supplied does indeed back that up. You followed your initial statement with "A million times better than we now have though" and, as has been pointed out, the data you supplied does not back up that second statement. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Joe public needs to understand that climate change happens anyway, our involvement may mean it happens maybe sooner, quicker or hotter, but it will like the March of time happen anyway & the whole thing going on with mankind panicking & shitting a brick over it all is more about control & money than it is about the climate “Crisis”. S" ********************************** Well said, I'm in total agreement with the above....! In my own opinion, I think there are far too many gullible people in this day and age with a distinct lack of any level of critical thinking. There was more on your original post which I was also in complete agreement with. The section of which I have quoted above is rather more significant, in my opinion. Thank you. Eva. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes external influences can impact a government, as we’ve seen with the foncnscial crisis and Covid (not Brexit, which was very much a decision made by govt) but that doesn’t refute my statement - living standards in the U.K peaked under new labour. " ********************************* Brexit was........ what..?? How was that brought about...? Please DO enlighten me, in particular. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes external influences can impact a government, as we’ve seen with the foncnscial crisis and Covid (not Brexit, which was very much a decision made by govt) but that doesn’t refute my statement - living standards in the U.K peaked under new labour. ********************************* Brexit was........ what..?? How was that brought about...? Please DO enlighten me, in particular." Brexit was a decision made by govt. I’m not sure what’s difficult to understand about that. Cameron’s govt. decided to offer a vote in order to appease the eurosceptics and fend off UKIP. Cameron’s govt. decided to press ahead with the vote. May’s govt decided to proceed with Brexit even when it wasn’t legally binding, May’s govt. chose the form of Brexit (that is out of CU and SM), Johnson’s govt. made the same decision to rule out any form of Brexit that they didn’t agree with. Brexit was a decision made by govt. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes external influences can impact a government, as we’ve seen with the foncnscial crisis and Covid (not Brexit, which was very much a decision made by govt) but that doesn’t refute my statement - living standards in the U.K peaked under new labour. ********************************* Brexit was........ what..?? How was that brought about...? Please DO enlighten me, in particular. Brexit was a decision made by govt. I’m not sure what’s difficult to understand about that. Cameron’s govt. decided to offer a vote in order to appease the eurosceptics and fend off UKIP. Cameron’s govt. decided to press ahead with the vote. May’s govt decided to proceed with Brexit even when it wasn’t legally binding, May’s govt. chose the form of Brexit (that is out of CU and SM), Johnson’s govt. made the same decision to rule out any form of Brexit that they didn’t agree with. Brexit was a decision made by govt." ******************************* I'm sorry but I must say this simple 'absolute assertion' you offer is wrong. Judging your previous 'assertions' on other subjects here tells me you have fixed ideas and any form of a rational attempt at a decent debate is not possible. I have more productive things to do today so, on that basis......... I'm out. Eva. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes external influences can impact a government, as we’ve seen with the foncnscial crisis and Covid (not Brexit, which was very much a decision made by govt) but that doesn’t refute my statement - living standards in the U.K peaked under new labour. ********************************* Brexit was........ what..?? How was that brought about...? Please DO enlighten me, in particular. Brexit was a decision made by govt. I’m not sure what’s difficult to understand about that. Cameron’s govt. decided to offer a vote in order to appease the eurosceptics and fend off UKIP. Cameron’s govt. decided to press ahead with the vote. May’s govt decided to proceed with Brexit even when it wasn’t legally binding, May’s govt. chose the form of Brexit (that is out of CU and SM), Johnson’s govt. made the same decision to rule out any form of Brexit that they didn’t agree with. Brexit was a decision made by govt. ******************************* I'm sorry but I must say this simple 'absolute assertion' you offer is wrong. Judging your previous 'assertions' on other subjects here tells me you have fixed ideas and any form of a rational attempt at a decent debate is not possible. I have more productive things to do today so, on that basis......... I'm out. Eva." Feel free to point out one single thing I said that was incorrect? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’m going to make an absolutely wild prediction. We won’t be at or even near net zero by 2050. Can you explain to me what net Zero is to be honest I don't see how we can ever be at Zero. Net zero is when an individual, company or even nation ensures that their greenhouse gas output is at a level equivalent to that being removed from the environment. It’s different from total zero (which you’re right, will never be achievable) The world won't reach Net Zero by 2050. Guaranteed. …I agree, we were already well off target before todays irrational decision, and that should really worry us all …. why worry we ain't going to be around if it happens Not sure if serious definitely serious why worry about something you can't control Because a) It is in our power to control and b) the future generations (not to mention other life forms we share this rock with) deserve a habitable planet It is in our power to control our addition to natural climate change, it is not in our power to change the planets natural cycle. On a planetary scale the Earth is merely taking a deep breath. Natural climate change has happened since the planet cooled, it is in truth little more than a giant planetary breath as said. Species have died because of it & will die again because of it. Regarding the UK & Sunak I think a little of the whole announcement was smoke & mirrors. Says on one hand they won’t force people to change to renewables but then ups the Grant available from £5k to £7.5k. Says we won’t make you change to EV’s until 2035 but if he cuts the link between gas/electricity prices (on the cards) Electricity prices will drop substantially & both renewables & EV’s will be more attractive. I also think with regard to blaming Chine/India & saying we are but a tiny percentage in comparison changes need to be made in who we calculate everyone’s emissions. How about every single thing we use having a carbon figure ie a car is 20000 units, a tomato 5 units. Then an uplift added for where it shipped from? Somewhere “Durty” add 20%, somewhere super clean add 0%. This emissions figure then “Belongs” not to the country that made the item but to the country that bought it. Which is as it should be really. Don’t complain about China while watching your Chinese made TV or driving your Chinese car or eating off your Chinese plates food cooked in your Chinese microwave. Sure it’s supply & demand but the carbon footprint belongs to the demand in my book. As someone else also said China are head & shoulders above everyone with regard to wind turbines & solar farms. I did read somewhere that they put up more turbines last year than the rest of the world put together so at least they are heading in the right direction. As another aside waaaay back when China were a burgeoning economy representatives of the USA & UK went. At the time the West was mainly coal or Nuclear powered with clean coal technology. They asked to buy the clean coal technology for the power stations they knew they needed. The West thinking they would delay the inevitable superseller China was obviously going to become told them to fck off. They built the power stations anyway & became the superseller & the whole world is paying for that bad decision. Joe Public needs to understand that climate change happens anyway, our involvement may mean it happens maybe sooner, quicker or hotter, but it will like the March of time happen anyway & the whole thing going on with mankind panicking & shitting a brick over it all is more about control & money than it is about the climate “Crisis”. S" It's worrying that in this day an age, such a catastrophic misunderstanding of the situation exists. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes external influences can impact a government, as we’ve seen with the foncnscial crisis and Covid (not Brexit, which was very much a decision made by govt) but that doesn’t refute my statement - living standards in the U.K peaked under new labour. ********************************* Brexit was........ what..?? How was that brought about...? Please DO enlighten me, in particular. Brexit was a decision made by govt. I’m not sure what’s difficult to understand about that. Cameron’s govt. decided to offer a vote in order to appease the eurosceptics and fend off UKIP. Cameron’s govt. decided to press ahead with the vote. May’s govt decided to proceed with Brexit even when it wasn’t legally binding, May’s govt. chose the form of Brexit (that is out of CU and SM), Johnson’s govt. made the same decision to rule out any form of Brexit that they didn’t agree with. Brexit was a decision made by govt. ******************************* I'm sorry but I must say this simple 'absolute assertion' you offer is wrong. Judging your previous 'assertions' on other subjects here tells me you have fixed ideas and any form of a rational attempt at a decent debate is not possible. I have more productive things to do today so, on that basis......... I'm out. Eva." When you return, you could simply respond to whether the Brexit referendum itself was legally binding, and whether we had to leave both CU and SM - or were they all decisions made by govt? When you’ve answered those points we can move on to the next bit. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’m going to make an absolutely wild prediction. We won’t be at or even near net zero by 2050. Can you explain to me what net Zero is to be honest I don't see how we can ever be at Zero. Net zero is when an individual, company or even nation ensures that their greenhouse gas output is at a level equivalent to that being removed from the environment. It’s different from total zero (which you’re right, will never be achievable) The world won't reach Net Zero by 2050. Guaranteed. …I agree, we were already well off target before todays irrational decision, and that should really worry us all …. why worry we ain't going to be around if it happens Not sure if serious definitely serious why worry about something you can't control Because a) It is in our power to control and b) the future generations (not to mention other life forms we share this rock with) deserve a habitable planet It is in our power to control our addition to natural climate change, it is not in our power to change the planets natural cycle. On a planetary scale the Earth is merely taking a deep breath. Natural climate change has happened since the planet cooled, it is in truth little more than a giant planetary breath as said. Species have died because of it & will die again because of it. Regarding the UK & Sunak I think a little of the whole announcement was smoke & mirrors. Says on one hand they won’t force people to change to renewables but then ups the Grant available from £5k to £7.5k. Says we won’t make you change to EV’s until 2035 but if he cuts the link between gas/electricity prices (on the cards) Electricity prices will drop substantially & both renewables & EV’s will be more attractive. I also think with regard to blaming Chine/India & saying we are but a tiny percentage in comparison changes need to be made in who we calculate everyone’s emissions. How about every single thing we use having a carbon figure ie a car is 20000 units, a tomato 5 units. Then an uplift added for where it shipped from? Somewhere “Durty” add 20%, somewhere super clean add 0%. This emissions figure then “Belongs” not to the country that made the item but to the country that bought it. Which is as it should be really. Don’t complain about China while watching your Chinese made TV or driving your Chinese car or eating off your Chinese plates food cooked in your Chinese microwave. Sure it’s supply & demand but the carbon footprint belongs to the demand in my book. As someone else also said China are head & shoulders above everyone with regard to wind turbines & solar farms. I did read somewhere that they put up more turbines last year than the rest of the world put together so at least they are heading in the right direction. As another aside waaaay back when China were a burgeoning economy representatives of the USA & UK went. At the time the West was mainly coal or Nuclear powered with clean coal technology. They asked to buy the clean coal technology for the power stations they knew they needed. The West thinking they would delay the inevitable superseller China was obviously going to become told them to fck off. They built the power stations anyway & became the superseller & the whole world is paying for that bad decision. Joe Public needs to understand that climate change happens anyway, our involvement may mean it happens maybe sooner, quicker or hotter, but it will like the March of time happen anyway & the whole thing going on with mankind panicking & shitting a brick over it all is more about control & money than it is about the climate “Crisis”. S It's worrying that in this day an age, such a catastrophic misunderstanding of the situation exists." ********************************* "Catastrophic"........  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So saves Braverman. Quite a soundbite and obviously well planned to create a stir. Would the British people go bankrupt if the government kept to their original promises? Is she saying that she wants to save the Planet but there are limits to how far she would go to do so? It almost paints a picture of a Planet (Earth) going up in flames with Braverman standing there waving a Union Jack shouting that she saved the British people from going bankrupt. I am sure that they know what they are doing. ...just an observation on my part and nothing more... " There is a false narrative that the country is broke- in fact there a lot of tax that could be collect. It’s worth looking at the Tax Justice network website - and quoting from it. “The wealthy have done really well financially in the last few years. The Chancellor should protect public spending by taxing wealth properly.” If he chose to, the Chancellor could: Equalize capital gains with income tax rates, raising up to £14 billion a year ?Apply national insurance to investment income, raising up to £8.6 billion a year Apply a 1% wealth tax on assets over £10 million, raising up to £10 billion a year End the inheritance tax loopholes that benefit the already wealthy, raising up to £1.4 billion a year. Reform the rules on non-dom status, raising up to £3.2 billion a year | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So saves Braverman. Quite a soundbite and obviously well planned to create a stir. Would the British people go bankrupt if the government kept to their original promises? Is she saying that she wants to save the Planet but there are limits to how far she would go to do so? It almost paints a picture of a Planet (Earth) going up in flames with Braverman standing there waving a Union Jack shouting that she saved the British people from going bankrupt. I am sure that they know what they are doing. ...just an observation on my part and nothing more... There is a false narrative that the country is broke- in fact there a lot of tax that could be collect. It’s worth looking at the Tax Justice network website - and quoting from it. “The wealthy have done really well financially in the last few years. The Chancellor should protect public spending by taxing wealth properly.” If he chose to, the Chancellor could: Equalize capital gains with income tax rates, raising up to £14 billion a year ?Apply national insurance to investment income, raising up to £8.6 billion a year Apply a 1% wealth tax on assets over £10 million, raising up to £10 billion a year End the inheritance tax loopholes that benefit the already wealthy, raising up to £1.4 billion a year. Reform the rules on non-dom status, raising up to £3.2 billion a year " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Reform the rules on non-dom status, raising up to £3.2 billion a year" How many more times will I have to say this - non-dom status only applies to foreigners that come here to set up new companies. If we scrapped non-dom status, they wouldn't come here. Scrapping it would result in less taxes being collected, not more. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Reform the rules on non-dom status, raising up to £3.2 billion a year How many more times will I have to say this - non-dom status only applies to foreigners that come here to set up new companies. If we scrapped non-dom status, they wouldn't come here. Scrapping it would result in less taxes being collected, not more." That would depend upon the business potential, surely? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Reform the rules on non-dom status, raising up to £3.2 billion a year How many more times will I have to say this - non-dom status only applies to foreigners that come here to set up new companies. If we scrapped non-dom status, they wouldn't come here. Scrapping it would result in less taxes being collected, not more." https://www.ft.com/content/2159ed6b-972f-47ab-98dc-c9e2a2b1889a | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Reform the rules on non-dom status, raising up to £3.2 billion a year How many more times will I have to say this - non-dom status only applies to foreigners that come here to set up new companies. If we scrapped non-dom status, they wouldn't come here. Scrapping it would result in less taxes being collected, not more. That would depend upon the business potential, surely? " You're missing the point, purposely I imagine. It can't be explained in a clearer format. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Reform the rules on non-dom status, raising up to £3.2 billion a year" "How many more times will I have to say this - non-dom status only applies to foreigners that come here to set up new companies. If we scrapped non-dom status, they wouldn't come here. Scrapping it would result in less taxes being collected, not more." "That would depend upon the business potential, surely?" I was trying to be succinct, and I ended up being obscure. Yes, if the business potential was good, they might well start up a new company here. But without non-dom status, they wouldn't stay in the country for more than 90 days. If they're not resident here, we can't collect taxes off them. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Reform the rules on non-dom status, raising up to £3.2 billion a year How many more times will I have to say this - non-dom status only applies to foreigners that come here to set up new companies. If we scrapped non-dom status, they wouldn't come here. Scrapping it would result in less taxes being collected, not more. That would depend upon the business potential, surely? You're missing the point, purposely I imagine. It can't be explained in a clearer format. " To add to this, you and many other take great delight in telling us companies have moved to the EU because of Brexit. This is the same, easier/cheaper to do business elsewhere? They'll go elsewhere. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Reform the rules on non-dom status, raising up to £3.2 billion a year How many more times will I have to say this - non-dom status only applies to foreigners that come here to set up new companies. If we scrapped non-dom status, they wouldn't come here. Scrapping it would result in less taxes being collected, not more. That would depend upon the business potential, surely? You're missing the point, purposely I imagine. It can't be explained in a clearer format. " Did you read the FT link above? I’ve not studied the potential result of abolishing non-Dom status. I suspect you haven’t either. More interestingly, nor have the govt - though they still tell us what will happen. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Reform the rules on non-dom status, raising up to £3.2 billion a year How many more times will I have to say this - non-dom status only applies to foreigners that come here to set up new companies. If we scrapped non-dom status, they wouldn't come here. Scrapping it would result in less taxes being collected, not more. That would depend upon the business potential, surely? You're missing the point, purposely I imagine. It can't be explained in a clearer format. To add to this, you and many other take great delight in telling us companies have moved to the EU because of Brexit. This is the same, easier/cheaper to do business elsewhere? They'll go elsewhere. " https://www.ft.com/content/2159ed6b-972f-47ab-98dc-c9e2a2b1889a | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Reform the rules on non-dom status, raising up to £3.2 billion a year How many more times will I have to say this - non-dom status only applies to foreigners that come here to set up new companies. If we scrapped non-dom status, they wouldn't come here. Scrapping it would result in less taxes being collected, not more. That would depend upon the business potential, surely? You're missing the point, purposely I imagine. It can't be explained in a clearer format. Did you read the FT link above? I’ve not studied the potential result of abolishing non-Dom status. I suspect you haven’t either. More interestingly, nor have the govt - though they still tell us what will happen. " I haven't read it, it's behind a paywall. I don't need to read it, see what I said about businesses leaving because of cheaper/easier access. I'm not disputing that figure may be true if it were to happen today with who is in the country holding non-dom status. I'm disputing the reality of tax collected going forwards. BTW, I'm still waiting for you on the other thread | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Reform the rules on non-dom status, raising up to £3.2 billion a year How many more times will I have to say this - non-dom status only applies to foreigners that come here to set up new companies. If we scrapped non-dom status, they wouldn't come here. Scrapping it would result in less taxes being collected, not more. That would depend upon the business potential, surely? You're missing the point, purposely I imagine. It can't be explained in a clearer format. Did you read the FT link above? I’ve not studied the potential result of abolishing non-Dom status. I suspect you haven’t either. More interestingly, nor have the govt - though they still tell us what will happen. I haven't read it, it's behind a paywall. I don't need to read it, see what I said about businesses leaving because of cheaper/easier access. I'm not disputing that figure may be true if it were to happen today with who is in the country holding non-dom status. I'm disputing the reality of tax collected going forwards. BTW, I'm still waiting for you on the other thread "“I don’t need to read it” Are you gonna continue to call other posters arrogant? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Reform the rules on non-dom status, raising up to £3.2 billion a year How many more times will I have to say this - non-dom status only applies to foreigners that come here to set up new companies. If we scrapped non-dom status, they wouldn't come here. Scrapping it would result in less taxes being collected, not more. That would depend upon the business potential, surely? You're missing the point, purposely I imagine. It can't be explained in a clearer format. Did you read the FT link above? I’ve not studied the potential result of abolishing non-Dom status. I suspect you haven’t either. More interestingly, nor have the govt - though they still tell us what will happen. I haven't read it, it's behind a paywall. I don't need to read it, see what I said about businesses leaving because of cheaper/easier access. I'm not disputing that figure may be true if it were to happen today with who is in the country holding non-dom status. I'm disputing the reality of tax collected going forwards. BTW, I'm still waiting for you on the other thread
“I don’t need to read it”
Are you gonna continue to call other posters arrogant? "I see you're cherry picking again, I don't need to read it because I'm not disputing the figure. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Reform the rules on non-dom status, raising up to £3.2 billion a year How many more times will I have to say this - non-dom status only applies to foreigners that come here to set up new companies. If we scrapped non-dom status, they wouldn't come here. Scrapping it would result in less taxes being collected, not more." It’s much more nuanced than that- again from Tax Justice and HMRC Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC), 121,300 individuals claimed non-dom status for tax purposes in 2014/15. There were 85,400 UK-resident taxpayers; the remaining 35,800 were non-UK resident. Famous residents claiming non-dom status include Mark Carney, the current governor of the Bank of England; Roman Abromavich, the billionaire owner of Chelsea Football Club; Steel magnate Lakshmi Mittal, media tycoon Viscount Rothermere and numerous footballers. High net worth individuals! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Reform the rules on non-dom status, raising up to £3.2 billion a year" "How many more times will I have to say this - non-dom status only applies to foreigners that come here to set up new companies. If we scrapped non-dom status, they wouldn't come here. Scrapping it would result in less taxes being collected, not more." "It’s much more nuanced than that- again from Tax Justice and HMRC Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC), 121,300 individuals claimed non-dom status for tax purposes in 2014/15. There were 85,400 UK-resident taxpayers; the remaining 35,800 were non-UK resident. Famous residents claiming non-dom status include Mark Carney, the current governor of the Bank of England; Roman Abromavich, the billionaire owner of Chelsea Football Club; Steel magnate Lakshmi Mittal, media tycoon Viscount Rothermere and numerous footballers. High net worth individuals!" Why have you chosen 2014/15 figures? Back then non-dom status was indefinite. In 2016 it was announced that it would be limited to 15 years, and in 2017 that was implemented. There are now fewer than half of the number you quote. Take a look at figure 5 of this HMRC article: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/statistics-on-non-domiciled-taxpayers-in-the-uk/statistical-commentary-on-non-domiciled-taxpayers-in-the-uk--2 Can you see where the change of policy was announced? Given the figures shown there, how many non-doms would you expect to stay if the status were to be abolished? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Reform the rules on non-dom status, raising up to £3.2 billion a year How many more times will I have to say this - non-dom status only applies to foreigners that come here to set up new companies. If we scrapped non-dom status, they wouldn't come here. Scrapping it would result in less taxes being collected, not more. It’s much more nuanced than that- again from Tax Justice and HMRC Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC), 121,300 individuals claimed non-dom status for tax purposes in 2014/15. There were 85,400 UK-resident taxpayers; the remaining 35,800 were non-UK resident. Famous residents claiming non-dom status include Mark Carney, the current governor of the Bank of England; Roman Abromavich, the billionaire owner of Chelsea Football Club; Steel magnate Lakshmi Mittal, media tycoon Viscount Rothermere and numerous footballers. High net worth individuals! Why have you chosen 2014/15 figures? Back then non-dom status was indefinite. In 2016 it was announced that it would be limited to 15 years, and in 2017 that was implemented. There are now fewer than half of the number you quote. Take a look at figure 5 of this HMRC article: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/statistics-on-non-domiciled-taxpayers-in-the-uk/statistical-commentary-on-non-domiciled-taxpayers-in-the-uk--2 Can you see where the change of policy was announced? Given the figures shown there, how many non-doms would you expect to stay if the status were to be abolished?" The FT article/study I linked to (where the potential gain figures were mentioned) discussed the nom-doms who left since 2017 - the answer was ‘far fewer than anticipated’ It would be beneficial for the tories to have done some actual research into the data before dismissing the notion out of hand, I’m sure we’d all agree. Especially if they’re going to attempt to argue that there’s no money to be found by closing non-dom status. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The FT article/study I linked to (where the potential gain figures were mentioned) discussed the nom-doms who left since 2017 - the answer was ‘far fewer than anticipated’" That's inaccurate. The FT article in your link talks about the existence of the Warwick University / LSE paper, and quotes a few bits. The article doesn't make any judgement as to the veracity of the report (though it does quote 2 sources that disagree with the report). The figure for people that have left since 2017 was quoted as 'fewer than anticipated' in the WU/LSE report, not from the FT doing research themselves. HMRC's figures say something rather different. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’m going to make an absolutely wild prediction. We won’t be at or even near net zero by 2050. Can you explain to me what net Zero is to be honest I don't see how we can ever be at Zero. Net zero is when an individual, company or even nation ensures that their greenhouse gas output is at a level equivalent to that being removed from the environment. It’s different from total zero (which you’re right, will never be achievable) The world won't reach Net Zero by 2050. Guaranteed. …I agree, we were already well off target before todays irrational decision, and that should really worry us all …. why worry we ain't going to be around if it happens Not sure if serious definitely serious why worry about something you can't control Because a) It is in our power to control and b) the future generations (not to mention other life forms we share this rock with) deserve a habitable planet It is in our power to control our addition to natural climate change, it is not in our power to change the planets natural cycle. On a planetary scale the Earth is merely taking a deep breath. Natural climate change has happened since the planet cooled, it is in truth little more than a giant planetary breath as said. Species have died because of it & will die again because of it. Regarding the UK & Sunak I think a little of the whole announcement was smoke & mirrors. Says on one hand they won’t force people to change to renewables but then ups the Grant available from £5k to £7.5k. Says we won’t make you change to EV’s until 2035 but if he cuts the link between gas/electricity prices (on the cards) Electricity prices will drop substantially & both renewables & EV’s will be more attractive. I also think with regard to blaming Chine/India & saying we are but a tiny percentage in comparison changes need to be made in who we calculate everyone’s emissions. How about every single thing we use having a carbon figure ie a car is 20000 units, a tomato 5 units. Then an uplift added for where it shipped from? Somewhere “Durty” add 20%, somewhere super clean add 0%. This emissions figure then “Belongs” not to the country that made the item but to the country that bought it. Which is as it should be really. Don’t complain about China while watching your Chinese made TV or driving your Chinese car or eating off your Chinese plates food cooked in your Chinese microwave. Sure it’s supply & demand but the carbon footprint belongs to the demand in my book. As someone else also said China are head & shoulders above everyone with regard to wind turbines & solar farms. I did read somewhere that they put up more turbines last year than the rest of the world put together so at least they are heading in the right direction. As another aside waaaay back when China were a burgeoning economy representatives of the USA & UK went. At the time the West was mainly coal or Nuclear powered with clean coal technology. They asked to buy the clean coal technology for the power stations they knew they needed. The West thinking they would delay the inevitable superseller China was obviously going to become told them to fck off. They built the power stations anyway & became the superseller & the whole world is paying for that bad decision. Joe Public needs to understand that climate change happens anyway, our involvement may mean it happens maybe sooner, quicker or hotter, but it will like the March of time happen anyway & the whole thing going on with mankind panicking & shitting a brick over it all is more about control & money than it is about the climate “Crisis”. S" That is all very well put | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Reform the rules on non-dom status, raising up to £3.2 billion a year How many more times will I have to say this - non-dom status only applies to foreigners that come here to set up new companies. If we scrapped non-dom status, they wouldn't come here. Scrapping it would result in less taxes being collected, not more. It’s much more nuanced than that- again from Tax Justice and HMRC Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC), 121,300 individuals claimed non-dom status for tax purposes in 2014/15. There were 85,400 UK-resident taxpayers; the remaining 35,800 were non-UK resident. Famous residents claiming non-dom status include Mark Carney, the current governor of the Bank of England; Roman Abromavich, the billionaire owner of Chelsea Football Club; Steel magnate Lakshmi Mittal, media tycoon Viscount Rothermere and numerous footballers. High net worth individuals! Why have you chosen 2014/15 figures? Back then non-dom status was indefinite. In 2016 it was announced that it would be limited to 15 years, and in 2017 that was implemented. There are now fewer than half of the number you quote. Take a look at figure 5 of this HMRC article: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/statistics-on-non-domiciled-taxpayers-in-the-uk/statistical-commentary-on-non-domiciled-taxpayers-in-the-uk--2 Can you see where the change of policy was announced? Given the figures shown there, how many non-doms would you expect to stay if the status were to be abolished?" Probably not many and this also was demonstrated in Norway also where on a small proportion left the country | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Reform the rules on non-dom status, raising up to £3.2 billion a year How many more times will I have to say this - non-dom status only applies to foreigners that come here to set up new companies. If we scrapped non-dom status, they wouldn't come here. Scrapping it would result in less taxes being collected, not more. It’s much more nuanced than that- again from Tax Justice and HMRC Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC), 121,300 individuals claimed non-dom status for tax purposes in 2014/15. There were 85,400 UK-resident taxpayers; the remaining 35,800 were non-UK resident. Famous residents claiming non-dom status include Mark Carney, the current governor of the Bank of England; Roman Abromavich, the billionaire owner of Chelsea Football Club; Steel magnate Lakshmi Mittal, media tycoon Viscount Rothermere and numerous footballers. High net worth individuals! Why have you chosen 2014/15 figures? Back then non-dom status was indefinite. In 2016 it was announced that it would be limited to 15 years, and in 2017 that was implemented. There are now fewer than half of the number you quote. Take a look at figure 5 of this HMRC article: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/statistics-on-non-domiciled-taxpayers-in-the-uk/statistical-commentary-on-non-domiciled-taxpayers-in-the-uk--2 Can you see where the change of policy was announced? Given the figures shown there, how many non-doms would you expect to stay if the status were to be abolished? The FT article/study I linked to (where the potential gain figures were mentioned) discussed the nom-doms who left since 2017 - the answer was ‘far fewer than anticipated’ It would be beneficial for the tories to have done some actual research into the data before dismissing the notion out of hand, I’m sure we’d all agree. Especially if they’re going to attempt to argue that there’s no money to be found by closing non-dom status. " https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/research/centres/cage/manage/publications/wp630.2022.pdf https://www.taxjustice.uk/blog/wealth-taxes-will-cause-the-rich-to-flee-11-wealth-tax-myths-debunked | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Reform the rules on non-dom status, raising up to £3.2 billion a year" "How many more times will I have to say this - non-dom status only applies to foreigners that come here to set up new companies. If we scrapped non-dom status, they wouldn't come here. Scrapping it would result in less taxes being collected, not more." "It’s much more nuanced than that- again from Tax Justice and HMRC Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC), 121,300 individuals claimed non-dom status for tax purposes in 2014/15. There were 85,400 UK-resident taxpayers; the remaining 35,800 were non-UK resident. Famous residents claiming non-dom status include Mark Carney, the current governor of the Bank of England; Roman Abromavich, the billionaire owner of Chelsea Football Club; Steel magnate Lakshmi Mittal, media tycoon Viscount Rothermere and numerous footballers. High net worth individuals!" "Why have you chosen 2014/15 figures? Back then non-dom status was indefinite. In 2016 it was announced that it would be limited to 15 years, and in 2017 that was implemented. There are now fewer than half of the number you quote. Take a look at figure 5 of this HMRC article: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/statistics-on-non-domiciled-taxpayers-in-the-uk/statistical-commentary-on-non-domiciled-taxpayers-in-the-uk--2 Can you see where the change of policy was announced? Given the figures shown there, how many non-doms would you expect to stay if the status were to be abolished?" "Probably not many and this also was demonstrated in Norway also where on a small proportion left the country " Did you look at the HMRC figures? The number of non-doms in the UK is now less than half what it was before the changes were made. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/research/centres/cage/manage/publications/wp630.2022.pdf https://www.taxjustice.uk/blog/wealth-taxes-will-cause-the-rich-to-flee-11-wealth-tax-myths-debunked " Have you guys not noticed that the multitude of links you keep providing all link back to one single report? The Warwick University / London School of Economics report is the only study on non-doms that concludes that people won't leave the country, and that more tax would be raised. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/research/centres/cage/manage/publications/wp630.2022.pdf https://www.taxjustice.uk/blog/wealth-taxes-will-cause-the-rich-to-flee-11-wealth-tax-myths-debunked Have you guys not noticed that the multitude of links you keep providing all link back to one single report? The Warwick University / London School of Economics report is the only study on non-doms that concludes that people won't leave the country, and that more tax would be raised." Which is a far better study than Steve Barclay has done, but didn’t stop him waxing lyrical about it. I also expect it’s a better study than anyone on this forum has done. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’m going to make an absolutely wild prediction. We won’t be at or even near net zero by 2050. Can you explain to me what net Zero is to be honest I don't see how we can ever be at Zero. Net zero is when an individual, company or even nation ensures that their greenhouse gas output is at a level equivalent to that being removed from the environment. It’s different from total zero (which you’re right, will never be achievable) The world won't reach Net Zero by 2050. Guaranteed. …I agree, we were already well off target before todays irrational decision, and that should really worry us all …. why worry we ain't going to be around if it happens Not sure if serious definitely serious why worry about something you can't control Because a) It is in our power to control and b) the future generations (not to mention other life forms we share this rock with) deserve a habitable planet It is in our power to control our addition to natural climate change, it is not in our power to change the planets natural cycle. On a planetary scale the Earth is merely taking a deep breath. Natural climate change has happened since the planet cooled, it is in truth little more than a giant planetary breath as said. Species have died because of it & will die again because of it. Regarding the UK & Sunak I think a little of the whole announcement was smoke & mirrors. Says on one hand they won’t force people to change to renewables but then ups the Grant available from £5k to £7.5k. Says we won’t make you change to EV’s until 2035 but if he cuts the link between gas/electricity prices (on the cards) Electricity prices will drop substantially & both renewables & EV’s will be more attractive. I also think with regard to blaming Chine/India & saying we are but a tiny percentage in comparison changes need to be made in who we calculate everyone’s emissions. How about every single thing we use having a carbon figure ie a car is 20000 units, a tomato 5 units. Then an uplift added for where it shipped from? Somewhere “Durty” add 20%, somewhere super clean add 0%. This emissions figure then “Belongs” not to the country that made the item but to the country that bought it. Which is as it should be really. Don’t complain about China while watching your Chinese made TV or driving your Chinese car or eating off your Chinese plates food cooked in your Chinese microwave. Sure it’s supply & demand but the carbon footprint belongs to the demand in my book. As someone else also said China are head & shoulders above everyone with regard to wind turbines & solar farms. I did read somewhere that they put up more turbines last year than the rest of the world put together so at least they are heading in the right direction. As another aside waaaay back when China were a burgeoning economy representatives of the USA & UK went. At the time the West was mainly coal or Nuclear powered with clean coal technology. They asked to buy the clean coal technology for the power stations they knew they needed. The West thinking they would delay the inevitable superseller China was obviously going to become told them to fck off. They built the power stations anyway & became the superseller & the whole world is paying for that bad decision. Joe Public needs to understand that climate change happens anyway, our involvement may mean it happens maybe sooner, quicker or hotter, but it will like the March of time happen anyway & the whole thing going on with mankind panicking & shitting a brick over it all is more about control & money than it is about the climate “Crisis”. S" One of the best posts I have read on here for a long time. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"5 years or 50 years ,l think we all know where the planet is headed, all the arguing from security council down to the streets will not stop it." That's not true. We have the means to tackle climate change. The issue is the lack of political will. Largely due to the money fossil fuel companies plough into world governments. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"5 years or 50 years ,l think we all know where the planet is headed, all the arguing from security council down to the streets will not stop it. That's not true. We have the means to tackle climate change. The issue is the lack of political will. Largely due to the money fossil fuel companies plough into world governments." This is partly it, but also climate change combat is expensive and long-term. No govt wants to invest hugely into a project that won’t see any noticeable return for decades when they might well be out on their ear in less than 5 years. See also: Transport. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"5 years or 50 years ,l think we all know where the planet is headed, all the arguing from security council down to the streets will not stop it. That's not true. We have the means to tackle climate change. The issue is the lack of political will. Largely due to the money fossil fuel companies plough into world governments. This is partly it, but also climate change combat is expensive and long-term. No govt wants to invest hugely into a project that won’t see any noticeable return for decades when they might well be out on their ear in less than 5 years. See also: Transport." There are plans, they will be fluid and driven by public demand. If we were to move our energy to something that was not 100% available and like for like, our society would fold. There is also an issue of going too fast too soon, if our economy tanked due to loss of production, again we would be sunk. Changing the source of energy is never going to happen overnight. It will eventually happen. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"5 years or 50 years ,l think we all know where the planet is headed, all the arguing from security council down to the streets will not stop it. That's not true. We have the means to tackle climate change. The issue is the lack of political will. Largely due to the money fossil fuel companies plough into world governments. This is partly it, but also climate change combat is expensive and long-term. No govt wants to invest hugely into a project that won’t see any noticeable return for decades when they might well be out on their ear in less than 5 years. See also: Transport. There are plans, they will be fluid and driven by public demand. " If we've learned one thing from this forum. Public demand and public opinion does not always reflect the reality of the situation. It's heavily influenced. " If we were to move our energy to something that was not 100% available and like for like, our society would fold. " No one is suggesting this, it's not on the cards. Don't worry " There is also an issue of going too fast too soon, if our economy tanked due to loss of production, again we would be sunk. " We're going extremely slowly and getting left behind, absolutely zero chance of is going too fast and/or too soon. " Changing the source of energy is never going to happen overnight. It will eventually happen." We should be driving for it to happen as soon as possible, not only for environmental reasons, but for economic. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"5 years or 50 years ,l think we all know where the planet is headed, all the arguing from security council down to the streets will not stop it. That's not true. We have the means to tackle climate change. The issue is the lack of political will. Largely due to the money fossil fuel companies plough into world governments. This is partly it, but also climate change combat is expensive and long-term. No govt wants to invest hugely into a project that won’t see any noticeable return for decades when they might well be out on their ear in less than 5 years. See also: Transport." It's expensive short term, long term it would save us all a lot of money. But yeah, that's of no interest to the government. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"5 years or 50 years ,l think we all know where the planet is headed, all the arguing from security council down to the streets will not stop it. That's not true. We have the means to tackle climate change. The issue is the lack of political will. Largely due to the money fossil fuel companies plough into world governments. This is partly it, but also climate change combat is expensive and long-term. No govt wants to invest hugely into a project that won’t see any noticeable return for decades when they might well be out on their ear in less than 5 years. See also: Transport. There are plans, they will be fluid and driven by public demand. If we've learned one thing from this forum. Public demand and public opinion does not always reflect the reality of the situation. It's heavily influenced. If we were to move our energy to something that was not 100% available and like for like, our society would fold. No one is suggesting this, it's not on the cards. Don't worry There is also an issue of going too fast too soon, if our economy tanked due to loss of production, again we would be sunk. We're going extremely slowly and getting left behind, absolutely zero chance of is going too fast and/or too soon. Changing the source of energy is never going to happen overnight. It will eventually happen. We should be driving for it to happen as soon as possible, not only for environmental reasons, but for economic. " How are we being left behind? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"5 years or 50 years ,l think we all know where the planet is headed, all the arguing from security council down to the streets will not stop it. That's not true. We have the means to tackle climate change. The issue is the lack of political will. Largely due to the money fossil fuel companies plough into world governments. This is partly it, but also climate change combat is expensive and long-term. No govt wants to invest hugely into a project that won’t see any noticeable return for decades when they might well be out on their ear in less than 5 years. See also: Transport. There are plans, they will be fluid and driven by public demand. If we've learned one thing from this forum. Public demand and public opinion does not always reflect the reality of the situation. It's heavily influenced. If we were to move our energy to something that was not 100% available and like for like, our society would fold. No one is suggesting this, it's not on the cards. Don't worry There is also an issue of going too fast too soon, if our economy tanked due to loss of production, again we would be sunk. We're going extremely slowly and getting left behind, absolutely zero chance of is going too fast and/or too soon. Changing the source of energy is never going to happen overnight. It will eventually happen. We should be driving for it to happen as soon as possible, not only for environmental reasons, but for economic. How are we being left behind?" https://eandt.theiet.org/content/articles/2023/08/uk-could-be-left-behind-in-green-energy-transition-study-warns/#:~:text=The%20UK%20is%20at%20risk,Japan%20(3.2%20per%20cent). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"5 years or 50 years ,l think we all know where the planet is headed, all the arguing from security council down to the streets will not stop it. That's not true. We have the means to tackle climate change. The issue is the lack of political will. Largely due to the money fossil fuel companies plough into world governments. This is partly it, but also climate change combat is expensive and long-term. No govt wants to invest hugely into a project that won’t see any noticeable return for decades when they might well be out on their ear in less than 5 years. See also: Transport. There are plans, they will be fluid and driven by public demand. If we've learned one thing from this forum. Public demand and public opinion does not always reflect the reality of the situation. It's heavily influenced. If we were to move our energy to something that was not 100% available and like for like, our society would fold. No one is suggesting this, it's not on the cards. Don't worry There is also an issue of going too fast too soon, if our economy tanked due to loss of production, again we would be sunk. We're going extremely slowly and getting left behind, absolutely zero chance of is going too fast and/or too soon. Changing the source of energy is never going to happen overnight. It will eventually happen. We should be driving for it to happen as soon as possible, not only for environmental reasons, but for economic. How are we being left behind?" Regressive energy and environmental policies. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"5 years or 50 years ,l think we all know where the planet is headed, all the arguing from security council down to the streets will not stop it. That's not true. We have the means to tackle climate change. The issue is the lack of political will. Largely due to the money fossil fuel companies plough into world governments. This is partly it, but also climate change combat is expensive and long-term. No govt wants to invest hugely into a project that won’t see any noticeable return for decades when they might well be out on their ear in less than 5 years. See also: Transport. There are plans, they will be fluid and driven by public demand. If we've learned one thing from this forum. Public demand and public opinion does not always reflect the reality of the situation. It's heavily influenced. If we were to move our energy to something that was not 100% available and like for like, our society would fold. No one is suggesting this, it's not on the cards. Don't worry There is also an issue of going too fast too soon, if our economy tanked due to loss of production, again we would be sunk. We're going extremely slowly and getting left behind, absolutely zero chance of is going too fast and/or too soon. Changing the source of energy is never going to happen overnight. It will eventually happen. We should be driving for it to happen as soon as possible, not only for environmental reasons, but for economic. How are we being left behind? https://eandt.theiet.org/content/articles/2023/08/uk-could-be-left-behind-in-green-energy-transition-study-warns/#:~:text=The%20UK%20is%20at%20risk,Japan%20(3.2%20per%20cent). " I’m not sure that is being left behind, to be honest. I’m just not convinced anyone really has a plan, it feels as though committing a big pile of money at the issue and arbitrary dates accounts for a plan. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"5 years or 50 years ,l think we all know where the planet is headed, all the arguing from security council down to the streets will not stop it. That's not true. We have the means to tackle climate change. The issue is the lack of political will. Largely due to the money fossil fuel companies plough into world governments. This is partly it, but also climate change combat is expensive and long-term. No govt wants to invest hugely into a project that won’t see any noticeable return for decades when they might well be out on their ear in less than 5 years. See also: Transport. There are plans, they will be fluid and driven by public demand. If we've learned one thing from this forum. Public demand and public opinion does not always reflect the reality of the situation. It's heavily influenced. If we were to move our energy to something that was not 100% available and like for like, our society would fold. No one is suggesting this, it's not on the cards. Don't worry There is also an issue of going too fast too soon, if our economy tanked due to loss of production, again we would be sunk. We're going extremely slowly and getting left behind, absolutely zero chance of is going too fast and/or too soon. Changing the source of energy is never going to happen overnight. It will eventually happen. We should be driving for it to happen as soon as possible, not only for environmental reasons, but for economic. How are we being left behind? https://eandt.theiet.org/content/articles/2023/08/uk-could-be-left-behind-in-green-energy-transition-study-warns/#:~:text=The%20UK%20is%20at%20risk,Japan%20(3.2%20per%20cent). I’m not sure that is being left behind, to be honest. I’m just not convinced anyone really has a plan, it feels as though committing a big pile of money at the issue and arbitrary dates accounts for a plan." The dates are arbitrary, indeed. We should ignore dates and and get as much done as soon as possible. We don’t have time to waste. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"5 years or 50 years ,l think we all know where the planet is headed, all the arguing from security council down to the streets will not stop it. That's not true. We have the means to tackle climate change. The issue is the lack of political will. Largely due to the money fossil fuel companies plough into world governments. This is partly it, but also climate change combat is expensive and long-term. No govt wants to invest hugely into a project that won’t see any noticeable return for decades when they might well be out on their ear in less than 5 years. See also: Transport. There are plans, they will be fluid and driven by public demand. If we've learned one thing from this forum. Public demand and public opinion does not always reflect the reality of the situation. It's heavily influenced. If we were to move our energy to something that was not 100% available and like for like, our society would fold. No one is suggesting this, it's not on the cards. Don't worry There is also an issue of going too fast too soon, if our economy tanked due to loss of production, again we would be sunk. We're going extremely slowly and getting left behind, absolutely zero chance of is going too fast and/or too soon. Changing the source of energy is never going to happen overnight. It will eventually happen. We should be driving for it to happen as soon as possible, not only for environmental reasons, but for economic. How are we being left behind? https://eandt.theiet.org/content/articles/2023/08/uk-could-be-left-behind-in-green-energy-transition-study-warns/#:~:text=The%20UK%20is%20at%20risk,Japan%20(3.2%20per%20cent). I’m not sure that is being left behind, to be honest. I’m just not convinced anyone really has a plan, it feels as though committing a big pile of money at the issue and arbitrary dates accounts for a plan. The dates are arbitrary, indeed. We should ignore dates and and get as much done as soon as possible. We don’t have time to waste." If I said that sounds sensible, what would the plan be? How do we get from 3.2% electric that is carbon neutral to 100% in a way that does not introduce compromise to the way people live? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"5 years or 50 years ,l think we all know where the planet is headed, all the arguing from security council down to the streets will not stop it. That's not true. We have the means to tackle climate change. The issue is the lack of political will. Largely due to the money fossil fuel companies plough into world governments. This is partly it, but also climate change combat is expensive and long-term. No govt wants to invest hugely into a project that won’t see any noticeable return for decades when they might well be out on their ear in less than 5 years. See also: Transport. There are plans, they will be fluid and driven by public demand. If we've learned one thing from this forum. Public demand and public opinion does not always reflect the reality of the situation. It's heavily influenced. If we were to move our energy to something that was not 100% available and like for like, our society would fold. No one is suggesting this, it's not on the cards. Don't worry There is also an issue of going too fast too soon, if our economy tanked due to loss of production, again we would be sunk. We're going extremely slowly and getting left behind, absolutely zero chance of is going too fast and/or too soon. Changing the source of energy is never going to happen overnight. It will eventually happen. We should be driving for it to happen as soon as possible, not only for environmental reasons, but for economic. How are we being left behind? https://eandt.theiet.org/content/articles/2023/08/uk-could-be-left-behind-in-green-energy-transition-study-warns/#:~:text=The%20UK%20is%20at%20risk,Japan%20(3.2%20per%20cent). I’m not sure that is being left behind, to be honest. I’m just not convinced anyone really has a plan, it feels as though committing a big pile of money at the issue and arbitrary dates accounts for a plan. The dates are arbitrary, indeed. We should ignore dates and and get as much done as soon as possible. We don’t have time to waste. If I said that sounds sensible, what would the plan be? How do we get from 3.2% electric that is carbon neutral to 100% in a way that does not introduce compromise to the way people live?" We have to compromise. That’s the long and the short of it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"5 years or 50 years ,l think we all know where the planet is headed, all the arguing from security council down to the streets will not stop it. That's not true. We have the means to tackle climate change. The issue is the lack of political will. Largely due to the money fossil fuel companies plough into world governments. This is partly it, but also climate change combat is expensive and long-term. No govt wants to invest hugely into a project that won’t see any noticeable return for decades when they might well be out on their ear in less than 5 years. See also: Transport. There are plans, they will be fluid and driven by public demand. If we've learned one thing from this forum. Public demand and public opinion does not always reflect the reality of the situation. It's heavily influenced. If we were to move our energy to something that was not 100% available and like for like, our society would fold. No one is suggesting this, it's not on the cards. Don't worry There is also an issue of going too fast too soon, if our economy tanked due to loss of production, again we would be sunk. We're going extremely slowly and getting left behind, absolutely zero chance of is going too fast and/or too soon. Changing the source of energy is never going to happen overnight. It will eventually happen. We should be driving for it to happen as soon as possible, not only for environmental reasons, but for economic. How are we being left behind? https://eandt.theiet.org/content/articles/2023/08/uk-could-be-left-behind-in-green-energy-transition-study-warns/#:~:text=The%20UK%20is%20at%20risk,Japan%20(3.2%20per%20cent). I’m not sure that is being left behind, to be honest. I’m just not convinced anyone really has a plan, it feels as though committing a big pile of money at the issue and arbitrary dates accounts for a plan. The dates are arbitrary, indeed. We should ignore dates and and get as much done as soon as possible. We don’t have time to waste. If I said that sounds sensible, what would the plan be? How do we get from 3.2% electric that is carbon neutral to 100% in a way that does not introduce compromise to the way people live? We have to compromise. That’s the long and the short of it. " Lockdown showed how people will react to having their routines compromised, it created a divide in countries all over the world. Now imagine the deal was, we are going to change the way you use energy, go about your day to day business. That would be the start of the end. It’s not just the energy being produced it’s everything we use that uses energy that also needs to change. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"5 years or 50 years ,l think we all know where the planet is headed, all the arguing from security council down to the streets will not stop it. That's not true. We have the means to tackle climate change. The issue is the lack of political will. Largely due to the money fossil fuel companies plough into world governments. This is partly it, but also climate change combat is expensive and long-term. No govt wants to invest hugely into a project that won’t see any noticeable return for decades when they might well be out on their ear in less than 5 years. See also: Transport. There are plans, they will be fluid and driven by public demand. If we've learned one thing from this forum. Public demand and public opinion does not always reflect the reality of the situation. It's heavily influenced. If we were to move our energy to something that was not 100% available and like for like, our society would fold. No one is suggesting this, it's not on the cards. Don't worry There is also an issue of going too fast too soon, if our economy tanked due to loss of production, again we would be sunk. We're going extremely slowly and getting left behind, absolutely zero chance of is going too fast and/or too soon. Changing the source of energy is never going to happen overnight. It will eventually happen. We should be driving for it to happen as soon as possible, not only for environmental reasons, but for economic. How are we being left behind? https://eandt.theiet.org/content/articles/2023/08/uk-could-be-left-behind-in-green-energy-transition-study-warns/#:~:text=The%20UK%20is%20at%20risk,Japan%20(3.2%20per%20cent). I’m not sure that is being left behind, to be honest. I’m just not convinced anyone really has a plan, it feels as though committing a big pile of money at the issue and arbitrary dates accounts for a plan. The dates are arbitrary, indeed. We should ignore dates and and get as much done as soon as possible. We don’t have time to waste. If I said that sounds sensible, what would the plan be? How do we get from 3.2% electric that is carbon neutral to 100% in a way that does not introduce compromise to the way people live? We have to compromise. That’s the long and the short of it. Lockdown showed how people will react to having their routines compromised, it created a divide in countries all over the world. Now imagine the deal was, we are going to change the way you use energy, go about your day to day business. That would be the start of the end. It’s not just the energy being produced it’s everything we use that uses energy that also needs to change." Meanwhile, the climate clock continues to tick. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"5 years or 50 years ,l think we all know where the planet is headed, all the arguing from security council down to the streets will not stop it. That's not true. We have the means to tackle climate change. The issue is the lack of political will. Largely due to the money fossil fuel companies plough into world governments. This is partly it, but also climate change combat is expensive and long-term. No govt wants to invest hugely into a project that won’t see any noticeable return for decades when they might well be out on their ear in less than 5 years. See also: Transport. There are plans, they will be fluid and driven by public demand. If we've learned one thing from this forum. Public demand and public opinion does not always reflect the reality of the situation. It's heavily influenced. If we were to move our energy to something that was not 100% available and like for like, our society would fold. No one is suggesting this, it's not on the cards. Don't worry There is also an issue of going too fast too soon, if our economy tanked due to loss of production, again we would be sunk. We're going extremely slowly and getting left behind, absolutely zero chance of is going too fast and/or too soon. Changing the source of energy is never going to happen overnight. It will eventually happen. We should be driving for it to happen as soon as possible, not only for environmental reasons, but for economic. How are we being left behind? https://eandt.theiet.org/content/articles/2023/08/uk-could-be-left-behind-in-green-energy-transition-study-warns/#:~:text=The%20UK%20is%20at%20risk,Japan%20(3.2%20per%20cent). I’m not sure that is being left behind, to be honest. I’m just not convinced anyone really has a plan, it feels as though committing a big pile of money at the issue and arbitrary dates accounts for a plan. The dates are arbitrary, indeed. We should ignore dates and and get as much done as soon as possible. We don’t have time to waste. If I said that sounds sensible, what would the plan be? How do we get from 3.2% electric that is carbon neutral to 100% in a way that does not introduce compromise to the way people live? We have to compromise. That’s the long and the short of it. Lockdown showed how people will react to having their routines compromised, it created a divide in countries all over the world. Now imagine the deal was, we are going to change the way you use energy, go about your day to day business. That would be the start of the end. It’s not just the energy being produced it’s everything we use that uses energy that also needs to change. Meanwhile, the climate clock continues to tick. " Which is why there needs to be a plan and not simply words | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"5 years or 50 years ,l think we all know where the planet is headed, all the arguing from security council down to the streets will not stop it. That's not true. We have the means to tackle climate change. The issue is the lack of political will. Largely due to the money fossil fuel companies plough into world governments. This is partly it, but also climate change combat is expensive and long-term. No govt wants to invest hugely into a project that won’t see any noticeable return for decades when they might well be out on their ear in less than 5 years. See also: Transport. There are plans, they will be fluid and driven by public demand. If we've learned one thing from this forum. Public demand and public opinion does not always reflect the reality of the situation. It's heavily influenced. If we were to move our energy to something that was not 100% available and like for like, our society would fold. No one is suggesting this, it's not on the cards. Don't worry There is also an issue of going too fast too soon, if our economy tanked due to loss of production, again we would be sunk. We're going extremely slowly and getting left behind, absolutely zero chance of is going too fast and/or too soon. Changing the source of energy is never going to happen overnight. It will eventually happen. We should be driving for it to happen as soon as possible, not only for environmental reasons, but for economic. How are we being left behind? https://eandt.theiet.org/content/articles/2023/08/uk-could-be-left-behind-in-green-energy-transition-study-warns/#:~:text=The%20UK%20is%20at%20risk,Japan%20(3.2%20per%20cent). I’m not sure that is being left behind, to be honest. I’m just not convinced anyone really has a plan, it feels as though committing a big pile of money at the issue and arbitrary dates accounts for a plan. The dates are arbitrary, indeed. We should ignore dates and and get as much done as soon as possible. We don’t have time to waste. If I said that sounds sensible, what would the plan be? How do we get from 3.2% electric that is carbon neutral to 100% in a way that does not introduce compromise to the way people live? We have to compromise. That’s the long and the short of it. Lockdown showed how people will react to having their routines compromised, it created a divide in countries all over the world. Now imagine the deal was, we are going to change the way you use energy, go about your day to day business. That would be the start of the end. It’s not just the energy being produced it’s everything we use that uses energy that also needs to change. Meanwhile, the climate clock continues to tick. Which is why there needs to be a plan and not simply words " This govt. are very good at ‘just words’ tbf. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"5 years or 50 years ,l think we all know where the planet is headed, all the arguing from security council down to the streets will not stop it. That's not true. We have the means to tackle climate change. The issue is the lack of political will. Largely due to the money fossil fuel companies plough into world governments. This is partly it, but also climate change combat is expensive and long-term. No govt wants to invest hugely into a project that won’t see any noticeable return for decades when they might well be out on their ear in less than 5 years. See also: Transport. There are plans, they will be fluid and driven by public demand. If we've learned one thing from this forum. Public demand and public opinion does not always reflect the reality of the situation. It's heavily influenced. If we were to move our energy to something that was not 100% available and like for like, our society would fold. No one is suggesting this, it's not on the cards. Don't worry There is also an issue of going too fast too soon, if our economy tanked due to loss of production, again we would be sunk. We're going extremely slowly and getting left behind, absolutely zero chance of is going too fast and/or too soon. Changing the source of energy is never going to happen overnight. It will eventually happen. We should be driving for it to happen as soon as possible, not only for environmental reasons, but for economic. How are we being left behind? https://eandt.theiet.org/content/articles/2023/08/uk-could-be-left-behind-in-green-energy-transition-study-warns/#:~:text=The%20UK%20is%20at%20risk,Japan%20(3.2%20per%20cent). I’m not sure that is being left behind, to be honest. I’m just not convinced anyone really has a plan, it feels as though committing a big pile of money at the issue and arbitrary dates accounts for a plan. The dates are arbitrary, indeed. We should ignore dates and and get as much done as soon as possible. We don’t have time to waste. If I said that sounds sensible, what would the plan be? How do we get from 3.2% electric that is carbon neutral to 100% in a way that does not introduce compromise to the way people live? We have to compromise. That’s the long and the short of it. Lockdown showed how people will react to having their routines compromised, it created a divide in countries all over the world. Now imagine the deal was, we are going to change the way you use energy, go about your day to day business. That would be the start of the end. It’s not just the energy being produced it’s everything we use that uses energy that also needs to change. Meanwhile, the climate clock continues to tick. Which is why there needs to be a plan and not simply words This govt. are very good at ‘just words’ tbf. " Governments…. They are all saying a lot of nothing, and blinding people with commitment to money. How is the money being spent, what on and what is it going to deliver would be a great start | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So saves Braverman. Quite a soundbite and obviously well planned to create a stir. Would the British people go bankrupt if the government kept to their original promises? Is she saying that she wants to save the Planet but there are limits to how far she would go to do so? It almost paints a picture of a Planet (Earth) going up in flames with Braverman standing there waving a Union Jack shouting that she saved the British people from going bankrupt. I am sure that they know what they are doing. ...just an observation on my part and nothing more... " I hope you have seen the BRAVERMAN comic strip in PRIVATE EYE….she’s a legend in her own mind(if you can call it that)…. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
