FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Reeves: further and faster
Reeves: further and faster
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By *otMe66 OP Man 1 day ago
Terra Firma |
Reeves plans to stimulate growth were revealed in her speech today. My take away; I don't see faster but I can see further as they are all longterm plans that require private funding and I would anticipate these plans are going to divide the labour party and weaken the team.
The message was important to her specifically but also Starmer's labour party, it was a desperate bid to turn the negativity around. However cut through the blurb and there is nothing guaranteed.
What is guaranteed is the in motion fallout from the budget that is still creeping towards us.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
“Heathrow is the single largest polluter in the UK, and its emissions account for over half of all UK aviation emissions. It currently emits around 20MtCO2 of carbon annually. A 3rd runway would increase this by approximately 7MtCO2 to 27MtCO2.” (Hacan research)
72kg carbon per tonne concrete
What has Ed Miliband got to say |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66 OP Man 1 day ago
Terra Firma |
"I hope she means it and is learning from her mistakes. There's clearly a clash coming between the Growers and the Greens which hopefully Millivolt loses."
I think she means what she is saying but she can't guarantee a single she is talking about will ever begin, and if it does there are no quick wins.
This speech is the speech the labour party should have made in July, not now after the horse has bolted.
I fear it is too little too late. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Seems her plans could have come from a conservative government when you look at the amount things like deregulation and pushing through plans despite protests from groups like environmentalists etc. However it does not take away the harm done by the budget. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I hope she means it and is learning from her mistakes. There's clearly a clash coming between the Growers and the Greens which hopefully Millivolt loses.
I think she means what she is saying but she can't guarantee a single she is talking about will ever begin, and if it does there are no quick wins.
This speech is the speech the labour party should have made in July, not now after the horse has bolted.
I fear it is too little too late."
No short term gain on a huge infastructure project. Procurement and over budget it will be HS2 all over again.
All they had to do was nurse along a slowly recovering economy and implement the bigger changes in a couple of years time. Instead they’ve spooked everyone
Economic growth down
Business confidence down
Business lending down
Business investment down
More businesses closing than opening
Housing starts down three consecutive months
Unemployment up
Inflation up from when they took after
Upset the pensioners and farmers |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"“Heathrow is the single largest polluter in the UK, and its emissions account for over half of all UK aviation emissions. It currently emits around 20MtCO2 of carbon annually. A 3rd runway would increase this by approximately 7MtCO2 to 27MtCO2.” (Hacan research)
72kg carbon per tonne concrete
What has Ed Miliband got to say "
No Ulez cams on them.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I hope she means it and is learning from her mistakes. There's clearly a clash coming between the Growers and the Greens which hopefully Millivolt loses.
I think she means what she is saying but she can't guarantee a single she is talking about will ever begin, and if it does there are no quick wins.
This speech is the speech the labour party should have made in July, not now after the horse has bolted.
I fear it is too little too late."
Agreed |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Seems her plans could have come from a conservative government when you look at the amount things like deregulation and pushing through plans despite protests from groups like environmentalists etc. However it does not take away the harm done by the budget. "
Agreed |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I hope she means it and is learning from her mistakes. There's clearly a clash coming between the Growers and the Greens which hopefully Millivolt loses.
I think she means what she is saying but she can't guarantee a single she is talking about will ever begin, and if it does there are no quick wins.
This speech is the speech the labour party should have made in July, not now after the horse has bolted.
I fear it is too little too late.
No short term gain on a huge infastructure project. Procurement and over budget it will be HS2 all over again.
All they had to do was nurse along a slowly recovering economy and implement the bigger changes in a couple of years time. Instead they’ve spooked everyone
Economic growth down
Business confidence down
Business lending down
Business investment down
More businesses closing than opening
Housing starts down three consecutive months
Unemployment up
Inflation up from when they took after
Upset the pensioners and farmers "
For sure, the list goes on. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I think her speech was an attempt to reassure the voters and the markets.
Personally I'm not convinced.
Gatwick would be the better option.
I wonder if it's partially an excuse to rebuild Heathrow totally.
Once the developers go in the phwfff it doesn't look good, it's gonna need a rebuild, it's gonna cost missus.
The there's the maintenance the cost of that has to be factored in as well as surrounding infrastructure. It will take years maybe a decade. The ground is subsiding, the drainage is crap. It's a built up suburban area, motorway access is dire. It will be a nightmare.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"“Heathrow is the single largest polluter in the UK, and its emissions account for over half of all UK aviation emissions. It currently emits around 20MtCO2 of carbon annually. A 3rd runway would increase this by approximately 7MtCO2 to 27MtCO2.” (Hacan research)"
That's just the tired old Scope 3 nonsense, they're including the emissions of all the flights in that figure. Heathrow's actual emissions are closer to 1MtCO2 per annum, which is projected to increase to 1.25MtCO2 with a third runway. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"“Heathrow is the single largest polluter in the UK, and its emissions account for over half of all UK aviation emissions. It currently emits around 20MtCO2 of carbon annually. A 3rd runway would increase this by approximately 7MtCO2 to 27MtCO2.” (Hacan research)
That's just the tired old Scope 3 nonsense, they're including the emissions of all the flights in that figure. Heathrow's actual emissions are closer to 1MtCO2 per annum, which is projected to increase to 1.25MtCO2 with a third runway."
So how does that work?
For example: A flight from Heathrow to New York JFK produces say 10 tons of CO2.
So does Heathrow get slapped with the whole 10 tons or is it split 50/50?
Or do the climate "scientists" wallop both with 10 tons each?
I've no idea how it works but I know where I'd bet my fiver. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66 OP Man 12 hours ago
Terra Firma |
"“Heathrow is the single largest polluter in the UK, and its emissions account for over half of all UK aviation emissions. It currently emits around 20MtCO2 of carbon annually. A 3rd runway would increase this by approximately 7MtCO2 to 27MtCO2.” (Hacan research)
That's just the tired old Scope 3 nonsense, they're including the emissions of all the flights in that figure. Heathrow's actual emissions are closer to 1MtCO2 per annum, which is projected to increase to 1.25MtCO2 with a third runway.
So how does that work?
For example: A flight from Heathrow to New York JFK produces say 10 tons of CO2.
So does Heathrow get slapped with the whole 10 tons or is it split 50/50?
Or do the climate "scientists" wallop both with 10 tons each?
I've no idea how it works but I know where I'd bet my fiver."
By the time they get a usable 3rd runway at Heathrow, we will be flying without fossil fuels  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"“Heathrow is the single largest polluter in the UK, and its emissions account for over half of all UK aviation emissions. It currently emits around 20MtCO2 of carbon annually. A 3rd runway would increase this by approximately 7MtCO2 to 27MtCO2.” (Hacan research)
That's just the tired old Scope 3 nonsense, they're including the emissions of all the flights in that figure. Heathrow's actual emissions are closer to 1MtCO2 per annum, which is projected to increase to 1.25MtCO2 with a third runway.
So how does that work?
For example: A flight from Heathrow to New York JFK produces say 10 tons of CO2.
So does Heathrow get slapped with the whole 10 tons or is it split 50/50?
Or do the climate "scientists" wallop both with 10 tons each?
I've no idea how it works but I know where I'd bet my fiver."
It'll probably be given to some third world country as part of their 'quota' in exchange for some aid or debt relief..
The modern day equivalent of pots and pans but without the diseases carried by the givers.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"“Heathrow is the single largest polluter in the UK, and its emissions account for over half of all UK aviation emissions. It currently emits around 20MtCO2 of carbon annually. A 3rd runway would increase this by approximately 7MtCO2 to 27MtCO2.” (Hacan research)"
"That's just the tired old Scope 3 nonsense, they're including the emissions of all the flights in that figure. Heathrow's actual emissions are closer to 1MtCO2 per annum, which is projected to increase to 1.25MtCO2 with a third runway."
"So how does that work?
For example: A flight from Heathrow to New York JFK produces say 10 tons of CO2.
So does Heathrow get slapped with the whole 10 tons or is it split 50/50?
Or do the climate "scientists" wallop both with 10 tons each?
I've no idea how it works but I know where I'd bet my fiver."
You've got it. Scope 3 emissions are all those emissions made as a result of a company supplying its product. So an airport becomes responsible for all of the emissions made by every flight that takes off or lands there. Of course, the airlines also get charged with those emissions, as do each of the people in the plane. For business class passengers, their employer also gets charged the same emissions since they are responsible for making their employee travel.
This is why fossil fuel companies get labelled as the biggest polluters on the planet, as the eco bean counters consider that all of the emissions from the petrol, diesel, and oil burnt by their customers belongs to the company that supplied it. Of course all of those customers also get charged with the same emissions. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"“Heathrow is the single largest polluter in the UK, and its emissions account for over half of all UK aviation emissions. It currently emits around 20MtCO2 of carbon annually. A 3rd runway would increase this by approximately 7MtCO2 to 27MtCO2.” (Hacan research)
That's just the tired old Scope 3 nonsense, they're including the emissions of all the flights in that figure. Heathrow's actual emissions are closer to 1MtCO2 per annum, which is projected to increase to 1.25MtCO2 with a third runway.
So how does that work?
For example: A flight from Heathrow to New York JFK produces say 10 tons of CO2.
So does Heathrow get slapped with the whole 10 tons or is it split 50/50?
Or do the climate "scientists" wallop both with 10 tons each?
I've no idea how it works but I know where I'd bet my fiver.
You've got it. Scope 3 emissions are all those emissions made as a result of a company supplying its product. So an airport becomes responsible for all of the emissions made by every flight that takes off or lands there. Of course, the airlines also get charged with those emissions, as do each of the people in the plane. For business class passengers, their employer also gets charged the same emissions since they are responsible for making their employee travel.
This is why fossil fuel companies get labelled as the biggest polluters on the planet, as the eco bean counters consider that all of the emissions from the petrol, diesel, and oil burnt by their customers belongs to the company that supplied it. Of course all of those customers also get charged with the same emissions."
So if I've got this right, a plane flying from London to New York produces say 10 tons of CO2.
That 10 tons gets put into Heathrow's numbers but also into JFK's.
Hey presto 10 tons becomes 20 tons.
That is very creative accounting.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"So if I've got this right, a plane flying from London to New York produces say 10 tons of CO2.
That 10 tons gets put into Heathrow's numbers but also into JFK's.
Hey presto 10 tons becomes 20 tons."
You have got that right.
Of course, the airline also gets allocated the same 10 tons, and the aircraft manufacturer also gets the same 10 tons. So 'the airline industry' gets allocated 40 tons.
And away from 'the airline industry', the fossil fuel company is also made responsible for the same 10 tons. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"So if I've got this right, a plane flying from London to New York produces say 10 tons of CO2.
That 10 tons gets put into Heathrow's numbers but also into JFK's.
Hey presto 10 tons becomes 20 tons.
You have got that right.
Of course, the airline also gets allocated the same 10 tons, and the aircraft manufacturer also gets the same 10 tons. So 'the airline industry' gets allocated 40 tons.
And away from 'the airline industry', the fossil fuel company is also made responsible for the same 10 tons."
I didn't know that, quite shocking really.
So when the climate change warriors bang on about how much CO2 the aviation industry produces, the real figure is a quarter of what they claim. Or a fifth if you lump in the fuel company.
That isn't what I would call "settled" science. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
