BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴
Comments
-
Sealioning (also spelled sea-lioning and sea lioning) is a type of trolling or harassment that consists of pursuing people with persistent requests for evidence or repeated questions, while maintaining a pretense of civility and sincerity.[1][2][3][4] It may take the form of "incessant, bad-faith invitations to engage in debate".[5] The term originated with a 2014 strip of the webcomic Wondermark by David Malki.[0
-
Have you a link for that?rick_chasey said:Sealioning (also spelled sea-lioning and sea lioning) is a type of trolling or harassment that consists of pursuing people with persistent requests for evidence or repeated questions, while maintaining a pretense of civility and sincerity.[1][2][3][4] It may take the form of "incessant, bad-faith invitations to engage in debate".[5] The term originated with a 2014 strip of the webcomic Wondermark by David Malki.[
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!1 -
-
Can you summarise that or explain it in your own words?
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!-1 -
tailwindhome said:
Can you summarise that or explain it in your own words?
Trop drôle1 -
Maybe you just can't be bothered to explain your point and are now trying to deflect. I've told you a few times before that if you can't be bothered to explain, people will just ignore your point or answer based on what they can read.rick_chasey said:Sealioning (also spelled sea-lioning and sea lioning) is a type of trolling or harassment that consists of pursuing people with persistent requests for evidence or repeated questions, while maintaining a pretense of civility and sincerity.[1][2][3][4] It may take the form of "incessant, bad-faith invitations to engage in debate".[5] The term originated with a 2014 strip of the webcomic Wondermark by David Malki.[
In the absence of anything other info or arguments, you have made no point. Not new, sadly."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Wrong thread
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
Wrong thread“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0
-
After a quick scan of the article, my take is that EU future regs are aiming to level the playing field regarding the use of data by ‘big tech’. It’s not primarily aimed to benefit the development of EU-based companies (although that will undoubtedly play a part).Stevo_666 said:
Maybe you just can't be bothered to explain your point and are now trying to deflect. I've told you a few times before that if you can't be bothered to explain, people will just ignore your point or answer based on what they can read.rick_chasey said:Sealioning (also spelled sea-lioning and sea lioning) is a type of trolling or harassment that consists of pursuing people with persistent requests for evidence or repeated questions, while maintaining a pretense of civility and sincerity.[1][2][3][4] It may take the form of "incessant, bad-faith invitations to engage in debate".[5] The term originated with a 2014 strip of the webcomic Wondermark by David Malki.[
In the absence of anything other info or arguments, you have made no point. Not new, sadly.
EU companies account for about 4% market cap of the sector, but the EU population accounts for c.25% of the revenue stream for the major players like Facebook and Google. These companies are not keen to split their offering into separate streams per region and are starting to adopt the strategy of compliance with EU regs as the standard.
Because AI solutions are data-driven, it’s inevitable that there will be a continued move towards increased data sharing. The EU are aiming regs at reducing ‘barriers’ to data sharing - big tech traditionally wants to own and control the data, which has implications for AI development (and obv. for big tech revenue streams).
Overall seems a sensible strategy to me, with the EU leveraging the strength of their customer base to ensure effective future compliance and development.
And today another news story about Amazon Corp Tax in Europe. It’s obvious that they (and other big tech) will want to continue to treat our data in the same way as they do their revenue, which has huge implications for the future development of AI.
I have no idea if that helps with the argument happening here (not sure what the argument is about really) but it’s quite interesting.
Free to register to read the article (no future pending payment info required).0 -
It was in response to this commentpinkbikini said:
I have no idea if that helps with the argument happening here (not sure what the argument is about really) but it’s quite interesting.
I suggested that it's fairly multifaceted and they are trying to be world leaders re regulation in certain ways e.g. big tech.TheBigBean said:There is a purpose of regulation beyond protectism, and encouraging use of other countries with worse regulation seems a bit foolish.
0 -
This was the bottom story in The Times business section yesterday. Real or imagined problem?Manufacturers are warning of dramatically rising costs after being told by government officials last week that Britain will not discuss recognising existing European product safety standards from January 1 next year.
This is despite the fact that product accreditations issued by Ukas, the government-approved body, are still recognised across Europe under a multilateral agreement.
Instead, all goods sold in Britain from next year will have to bear a UK CA stamp of approval, replacing the familiar CE mark on everything from laptop power supplies to industrial parts used to make chemical plants.
The pressure systems industry is particularly worried because it has to meet additional safety standards. Its concern is that overseas metal mills and foundries will decide not to register for the UK system as the cost will be too great compared with the size of the market.
Rob Bartlett, chief executive of the British Valve and Actuator Association, said: “It will mean increased material costs, increased bureaucracy costs and potential supply disruption for the majority of UK pressure equipment manufacturers, damaging their ability to compete in the EU export market and, in particular, their ability to supply into their own home UK market.”
Andrew Varga, managing director of Seetru Engineering in Bristol, agreed. “People will end up seeing rising prices as manufacturers pass on the costs,” he said. “There will also be reduced choice in the market.” He added that his business — which makes valves for pressure safety systems, achieved £10 million in sales last year and employs 132 people — was struggling to engage with its overseas suppliers on the issue.
“The problem is our supply chain all have to be accredited by the standards bodies. This is going to become a real problem for many companies because there are no sources of materials in the UK, only from the EU and elsewhere.
“Our supply chain is going to reduce drastically. They would have to get accredited by the end of the year and they are not even aware of it.”
Varga estimated that it would cost his company £4,000 per product line to secure accreditation from standards approval bodies — and he has 20 product lines — with the same costs again to manage the red tape.
“The bureaucracy runs absolutely counter to the bonfire of red tape we were promised. They are duplicating and it’s red tape gone bonkers,” he said. “These points have been made to the government by many organisations and the latest feedback we received last week is that it’s not on the agenda. We think that’s because it runs counter to the [government’s] sovereignty requirements. The government is digging its heels in.”
The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy said ministers and officials were working hard to ensure industry was ready for the new rules. Businesses had been given extra time to prepare.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/firms-warn-of-rocketing-costs-as-britain-replaces-ce-safety-mark-3hd78vpf90 -
If correct, it suggests one of two core principles behind it.kingstongraham said:This was the bottom story in The Times business section yesterday. Real or imagined problem?
Manufacturers are warning of dramatically rising costs after being told by government officials last week that Britain will not discuss recognising existing European product safety standards from January 1 next year.
This is despite the fact that product accreditations issued by Ukas, the government-approved body, are still recognised across Europe under a multilateral agreement.
Instead, all goods sold in Britain from next year will have to bear a UK CA stamp of approval, replacing the familiar CE mark on everything from laptop power supplies to industrial parts used to make chemical plants.
The pressure systems industry is particularly worried because it has to meet additional safety standards. Its concern is that overseas metal mills and foundries will decide not to register for the UK system as the cost will be too great compared with the size of the market.
Rob Bartlett, chief executive of the British Valve and Actuator Association, said: “It will mean increased material costs, increased bureaucracy costs and potential supply disruption for the majority of UK pressure equipment manufacturers, damaging their ability to compete in the EU export market and, in particular, their ability to supply into their own home UK market.”
Andrew Varga, managing director of Seetru Engineering in Bristol, agreed. “People will end up seeing rising prices as manufacturers pass on the costs,” he said. “There will also be reduced choice in the market.” He added that his business — which makes valves for pressure safety systems, achieved £10 million in sales last year and employs 132 people — was struggling to engage with its overseas suppliers on the issue.
“The problem is our supply chain all have to be accredited by the standards bodies. This is going to become a real problem for many companies because there are no sources of materials in the UK, only from the EU and elsewhere.
“Our supply chain is going to reduce drastically. They would have to get accredited by the end of the year and they are not even aware of it.”
Varga estimated that it would cost his company £4,000 per product line to secure accreditation from standards approval bodies — and he has 20 product lines — with the same costs again to manage the red tape.
“The bureaucracy runs absolutely counter to the bonfire of red tape we were promised. They are duplicating and it’s red tape gone bonkers,” he said. “These points have been made to the government by many organisations and the latest feedback we received last week is that it’s not on the agenda. We think that’s because it runs counter to the [government’s] sovereignty requirements. The government is digging its heels in.”
The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy said ministers and officials were working hard to ensure industry was ready for the new rules. Businesses had been given extra time to prepare.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/firms-warn-of-rocketing-costs-as-britain-replaces-ce-safety-mark-3hd78vpf9
Closed internal market or outsource all manufacturing as we simply don’t believe in it.
I tend towards a little bit of both. Encouraging high end internal manufacturing to create internal supply chains but outsource all the high volume, low value stuff.
The latter is 100% helping us hit our low carbon targets. Let other nations do the dirty work.0 -
The Economist had a variant of this story a few months back, I can't remember the industry but they had hundreds of products in their supply chain and the EU suppliers were just not going to bother.kingstongraham said:This was the bottom story in The Times business section yesterday. Real or imagined problem?
Manufacturers are warning of dramatically rising costs after being told by government officials last week that Britain will not discuss recognising existing European product safety standards from January 1 next year.
This is despite the fact that product accreditations issued by Ukas, the government-approved body, are still recognised across Europe under a multilateral agreement.
Instead, all goods sold in Britain from next year will have to bear a UK CA stamp of approval, replacing the familiar CE mark on everything from laptop power supplies to industrial parts used to make chemical plants.
The pressure systems industry is particularly worried because it has to meet additional safety standards. Its concern is that overseas metal mills and foundries will decide not to register for the UK system as the cost will be too great compared with the size of the market.
Rob Bartlett, chief executive of the British Valve and Actuator Association, said: “It will mean increased material costs, increased bureaucracy costs and potential supply disruption for the majority of UK pressure equipment manufacturers, damaging their ability to compete in the EU export market and, in particular, their ability to supply into their own home UK market.”
Andrew Varga, managing director of Seetru Engineering in Bristol, agreed. “People will end up seeing rising prices as manufacturers pass on the costs,” he said. “There will also be reduced choice in the market.” He added that his business — which makes valves for pressure safety systems, achieved £10 million in sales last year and employs 132 people — was struggling to engage with its overseas suppliers on the issue.
“The problem is our supply chain all have to be accredited by the standards bodies. This is going to become a real problem for many companies because there are no sources of materials in the UK, only from the EU and elsewhere.
“Our supply chain is going to reduce drastically. They would have to get accredited by the end of the year and they are not even aware of it.”
Varga estimated that it would cost his company £4,000 per product line to secure accreditation from standards approval bodies — and he has 20 product lines — with the same costs again to manage the red tape.
“The bureaucracy runs absolutely counter to the bonfire of red tape we were promised. They are duplicating and it’s red tape gone bonkers,” he said. “These points have been made to the government by many organisations and the latest feedback we received last week is that it’s not on the agenda. We think that’s because it runs counter to the [government’s] sovereignty requirements. The government is digging its heels in.”
The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy said ministers and officials were working hard to ensure industry was ready for the new rules. Businesses had been given extra time to prepare.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/firms-warn-of-rocketing-costs-as-britain-replaces-ce-safety-mark-3hd78vpf9
To paraphrase Philip Hammond people voted to pay more for less choice.
IMHO people will just have to suck it up as this is what life looks like if you leave the SM/CU. There is no point asking the Govt to paper over the cracks as they are not going away. Some businesses will decline or fail and some people will earn less or lose their jobs, all you can do is hope that the majority voted Leave.0 -
You could join the campaign to re-enter the single market.surrey_commuter said:
The Economist had a variant of this story a few months back, I can't remember the industry but they had hundreds of products in their supply chain and the EU suppliers were just not going to bother.kingstongraham said:This was the bottom story in The Times business section yesterday. Real or imagined problem?
Manufacturers are warning of dramatically rising costs after being told by government officials last week that Britain will not discuss recognising existing European product safety standards from January 1 next year.
This is despite the fact that product accreditations issued by Ukas, the government-approved body, are still recognised across Europe under a multilateral agreement.
Instead, all goods sold in Britain from next year will have to bear a UK CA stamp of approval, replacing the familiar CE mark on everything from laptop power supplies to industrial parts used to make chemical plants.
The pressure systems industry is particularly worried because it has to meet additional safety standards. Its concern is that overseas metal mills and foundries will decide not to register for the UK system as the cost will be too great compared with the size of the market.
Rob Bartlett, chief executive of the British Valve and Actuator Association, said: “It will mean increased material costs, increased bureaucracy costs and potential supply disruption for the majority of UK pressure equipment manufacturers, damaging their ability to compete in the EU export market and, in particular, their ability to supply into their own home UK market.”
Andrew Varga, managing director of Seetru Engineering in Bristol, agreed. “People will end up seeing rising prices as manufacturers pass on the costs,” he said. “There will also be reduced choice in the market.” He added that his business — which makes valves for pressure safety systems, achieved £10 million in sales last year and employs 132 people — was struggling to engage with its overseas suppliers on the issue.
“The problem is our supply chain all have to be accredited by the standards bodies. This is going to become a real problem for many companies because there are no sources of materials in the UK, only from the EU and elsewhere.
“Our supply chain is going to reduce drastically. They would have to get accredited by the end of the year and they are not even aware of it.”
Varga estimated that it would cost his company £4,000 per product line to secure accreditation from standards approval bodies — and he has 20 product lines — with the same costs again to manage the red tape.
“The bureaucracy runs absolutely counter to the bonfire of red tape we were promised. They are duplicating and it’s red tape gone bonkers,” he said. “These points have been made to the government by many organisations and the latest feedback we received last week is that it’s not on the agenda. We think that’s because it runs counter to the [government’s] sovereignty requirements. The government is digging its heels in.”
The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy said ministers and officials were working hard to ensure industry was ready for the new rules. Businesses had been given extra time to prepare.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/firms-warn-of-rocketing-costs-as-britain-replaces-ce-safety-mark-3hd78vpf9
To paraphrase Philip Hammond people voted to pay more for less choice.
IMHO people will just have to suck it up as this is what life looks like if you leave the SM/CU. There is no point asking the Govt to paper over the cracks as they are not going away. Some businesses will decline or fail and some people will earn less or lose their jobs, all you can do is hope that the majority voted Leave.0 -
I don't see what the government are trying to achieve with this, as someone who has worked for a certification body and knows about certifications and accreditations? It doesn't make sense.0
-
I am assuming that this was typed intentionally silly?morstar said:
The latter is 100% helping us hit our low carbon targets. Let other nations do the dirty work.
The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
I just assumed it was a further example of their misunderstanding of SovReiGNtY...elbowloh said:I don't see what the government are trying to achieve with this, as someone who has worked for a certification body and knows about certifications and accreditations? It doesn't make sense.
We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
Higher standards?elbowloh said:I don't see what the government are trying to achieve with this, as someone who has worked for a certification body and knows about certifications and accreditations? It doesn't make sense.
0 -
I think they fully get what sovreignty is, the issue is that they neither know nor care what the implications are.ddraver said:
I just assumed it was a further example of their misunderstanding of SovReiGNtY...elbowloh said:I don't see what the government are trying to achieve with this, as someone who has worked for a certification body and knows about certifications and accreditations? It doesn't make sense.
We were in the SM/CU for so long that people do not understand what it entails and the many ways that it makes our lives easier0 -
Sorry, no.pblakeney said:
I am assuming that this was typed intentionally silly?morstar said:
The latter is 100% helping us hit our low carbon targets. Let other nations do the dirty work.
We are setting domestic carbon emissions targets that are easier to hit with less heavy industry on our shores.
Nobody believes what we buy from overseas is meeting the same targets we have set do they?
0 -
That won't happen but if it was a prospect then even I would see the benefit in the Govt keeping businesses and industries on life supportrick_chasey said:
You could join the campaign to re-enter the single market.surrey_commuter said:
The Economist had a variant of this story a few months back, I can't remember the industry but they had hundreds of products in their supply chain and the EU suppliers were just not going to bother.kingstongraham said:This was the bottom story in The Times business section yesterday. Real or imagined problem?
Manufacturers are warning of dramatically rising costs after being told by government officials last week that Britain will not discuss recognising existing European product safety standards from January 1 next year.
This is despite the fact that product accreditations issued by Ukas, the government-approved body, are still recognised across Europe under a multilateral agreement.
Instead, all goods sold in Britain from next year will have to bear a UK CA stamp of approval, replacing the familiar CE mark on everything from laptop power supplies to industrial parts used to make chemical plants.
The pressure systems industry is particularly worried because it has to meet additional safety standards. Its concern is that overseas metal mills and foundries will decide not to register for the UK system as the cost will be too great compared with the size of the market.
Rob Bartlett, chief executive of the British Valve and Actuator Association, said: “It will mean increased material costs, increased bureaucracy costs and potential supply disruption for the majority of UK pressure equipment manufacturers, damaging their ability to compete in the EU export market and, in particular, their ability to supply into their own home UK market.”
Andrew Varga, managing director of Seetru Engineering in Bristol, agreed. “People will end up seeing rising prices as manufacturers pass on the costs,” he said. “There will also be reduced choice in the market.” He added that his business — which makes valves for pressure safety systems, achieved £10 million in sales last year and employs 132 people — was struggling to engage with its overseas suppliers on the issue.
“The problem is our supply chain all have to be accredited by the standards bodies. This is going to become a real problem for many companies because there are no sources of materials in the UK, only from the EU and elsewhere.
“Our supply chain is going to reduce drastically. They would have to get accredited by the end of the year and they are not even aware of it.”
Varga estimated that it would cost his company £4,000 per product line to secure accreditation from standards approval bodies — and he has 20 product lines — with the same costs again to manage the red tape.
“The bureaucracy runs absolutely counter to the bonfire of red tape we were promised. They are duplicating and it’s red tape gone bonkers,” he said. “These points have been made to the government by many organisations and the latest feedback we received last week is that it’s not on the agenda. We think that’s because it runs counter to the [government’s] sovereignty requirements. The government is digging its heels in.”
The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy said ministers and officials were working hard to ensure industry was ready for the new rules. Businesses had been given extra time to prepare.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/firms-warn-of-rocketing-costs-as-britain-replaces-ce-safety-mark-3hd78vpf9
To paraphrase Philip Hammond people voted to pay more for less choice.
IMHO people will just have to suck it up as this is what life looks like if you leave the SM/CU. There is no point asking the Govt to paper over the cracks as they are not going away. Some businesses will decline or fail and some people will earn less or lose their jobs, all you can do is hope that the majority voted Leave.0 -
In the future, there may be a carbon border tax.morstar said:
Sorry, no.pblakeney said:
I am assuming that this was typed intentionally silly?morstar said:
The latter is 100% helping us hit our low carbon targets. Let other nations do the dirty work.
We are setting domestic carbon emissions targets that are easier to hit with less heavy industry on our shores.
Nobody believes what we buy from overseas is meeting the same targets we have set do they?0 -
Agreed. But easier to pay a tax (we have met our environmental obligations)TheBigBean said:
In the future, there may be a carbon border tax.morstar said:
Sorry, no.pblakeney said:
I am assuming that this was typed intentionally silly?morstar said:
The latter is 100% helping us hit our low carbon targets. Let other nations do the dirty work.
We are setting domestic carbon emissions targets that are easier to hit with less heavy industry on our shores.
Nobody believes what we buy from overseas is meeting the same targets we have set do they?
than to have carbon neutral heavy industry on a large scale.0 -
Do you think the Govt is using price to reduce demand for electricity?TheBigBean said:
In the future, there may be a carbon border tax.morstar said:
Sorry, no.pblakeney said:
I am assuming that this was typed intentionally silly?morstar said:
The latter is 100% helping us hit our low carbon targets. Let other nations do the dirty work.
We are setting domestic carbon emissions targets that are easier to hit with less heavy industry on our shores.
Nobody believes what we buy from overseas is meeting the same targets we have set do they?
0 -
I think a lot of those industries will just shift to using renewable energy as it is the cheapest form anyway, so I'm not sure that is the skullduggery here.morstar said:
Agreed. But easier to pay a tax (we have met our environmental obligations)TheBigBean said:
In the future, there may be a carbon border tax.morstar said:
Sorry, no.pblakeney said:
I am assuming that this was typed intentionally silly?morstar said:
The latter is 100% helping us hit our low carbon targets. Let other nations do the dirty work.
We are setting domestic carbon emissions targets that are easier to hit with less heavy industry on our shores.
Nobody believes what we buy from overseas is meeting the same targets we have set do they?
than to have carbon neutral heavy industry on a large scale.0 -
Offshoring your carbon emissions does not make the problem go away.morstar said:
Sorry, no.pblakeney said:
I am assuming that this was typed intentionally silly?morstar said:
The latter is 100% helping us hit our low carbon targets. Let other nations do the dirty work.
We are setting domestic carbon emissions targets that are easier to hit with less heavy industry on our shores.
Nobody believes what we buy from overseas is meeting the same targets we have set do they?
It's a small minded, short term thought process. I believe people bury their heads in the sand regarding this issue. By people I include governments.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
That’s kinda my point.pblakeney said:
Offshoring your carbon emissions does not make the problem go away.morstar said:
Sorry, no.pblakeney said:
I am assuming that this was typed intentionally silly?morstar said:
The latter is 100% helping us hit our low carbon targets. Let other nations do the dirty work.
We are setting domestic carbon emissions targets that are easier to hit with less heavy industry on our shores.
Nobody believes what we buy from overseas is meeting the same targets we have set do they?
It's a small minded, short term thought process. I believe people bury their heads in the sand regarding this issue. By people I include governments.
We are setting ourselves up as world leaders in this area but are significant beneficiaries of the fact the messy stuff is done elsewhere.
TBB’s point about renewables taken on board but again, if heavy industry is repatriated, could we still meet targets? If no, we have to do more to support regions where our heavy industry happens.
China are burning lots of coal on the west’s behalf.0 -
Agreed. That people can't see that is frustrating.morstar said:
China are burning lots of coal on the west’s behalf.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
The UK's net zero target is ahead of much of the rest of the world which takes into account it being harder for other countries. If the UK is able to decarbonise then it will be a lot easier, and cheaper, for other countries to follow. For example, the amount it now costs to install solar is much less than it did, so any country starting now will find it much easier.morstar said:
That’s kinda my point.pblakeney said:
Offshoring your carbon emissions does not make the problem go away.morstar said:
Sorry, no.pblakeney said:
I am assuming that this was typed intentionally silly?morstar said:
The latter is 100% helping us hit our low carbon targets. Let other nations do the dirty work.
We are setting domestic carbon emissions targets that are easier to hit with less heavy industry on our shores.
Nobody believes what we buy from overseas is meeting the same targets we have set do they?
It's a small minded, short term thought process. I believe people bury their heads in the sand regarding this issue. By people I include governments.
We are setting ourselves up as world leaders in this area but are significant beneficiaries of the fact the messy stuff is done elsewhere.
TBB’s point about renewables taken on board but again, if heavy industry is repatriated, could we still meet targets? If no, we have to do more to support regions where our heavy industry happens.
China are burning lots of coal on the west’s behalf.
China has a lot of renewable as well.
Also, if some particular industry requires large amounts on energy why not do it in a place where renewable energy production is incredibly cheap?
Essentially, I don't see the conspiracy.
0 -
Sorry, not going for full blown conspiracy.TheBigBean said:
The UK's net zero target is ahead of much of the rest of the world which takes into account it being harder for other countries. If the UK is able to decarbonise then it will be a lot easier, and cheaper, for other countries to follow. For example, the amount it now costs to install solar is much less than it did, so any country starting now will find it much easier.morstar said:
That’s kinda my point.pblakeney said:
Offshoring your carbon emissions does not make the problem go away.morstar said:
Sorry, no.pblakeney said:
I am assuming that this was typed intentionally silly?morstar said:
The latter is 100% helping us hit our low carbon targets. Let other nations do the dirty work.
We are setting domestic carbon emissions targets that are easier to hit with less heavy industry on our shores.
Nobody believes what we buy from overseas is meeting the same targets we have set do they?
It's a small minded, short term thought process. I believe people bury their heads in the sand regarding this issue. By people I include governments.
We are setting ourselves up as world leaders in this area but are significant beneficiaries of the fact the messy stuff is done elsewhere.
TBB’s point about renewables taken on board but again, if heavy industry is repatriated, could we still meet targets? If no, we have to do more to support regions where our heavy industry happens.
China are burning lots of coal on the west’s behalf.
China has a lot of renewable as well.
Also, if some particular industry requires large amounts on energy why not do it in a place where renewable energy production is incredibly cheap?
Essentially, I don't see the conspiracy.
Just linking behaviours that are negatively impacting manufacturing and how they fit with a broader policy direction.
Our government isn’t focussed on low value manufacturing industry and this aligns well to a low carbon economy.
I’m not suggesting a conspiracy but am looking at potential thought processes.
0
