LEAVE the Conservative Party and save your country!

morstar

surrey_commuter said:

So The Times reckons that the Govt is going to compensate consumers for higher fuel Bill s caused by Carrie’s dash for green.

With the extensive bungs to the car industry even Corbyn must be worried for the health of the money tree.

I wonder if they will go the full hog and collectivise the farms?

Whilst I find the policy decisions of the government whimsical at best…

I don’t think green policies are an indulgence, we really do have to tackle climate change. Much as I/we will likely be dead before the worst of what to come happens, there is a clear and established pattern of extreme events happening right under our noses.

rjsterry

morstar said:

surrey_commuter said:

So The Times reckons that the Govt is going to compensate consumers for higher fuel Bill s caused by Carrie’s dash for green.

With the extensive bungs to the car industry even Corbyn must be worried for the health of the money tree.

I wonder if they will go the full hog and collectivise the farms?

Whilst I find the policy decisions of the government whimsical at best…

I don’t think green policies are an indulgence, we really do have to tackle climate change. Much as I/we will likely be dead before the worst of what to come happens, there is a clear and established pattern of extreme events happening right under our noses.

I think SC is objecting to the compensation bit rather than the increased fuel costs.

surrey_commuter

rjsterry said:

morstar said:

surrey_commuter said:

So The Times reckons that the Govt is going to compensate consumers for higher fuel Bill s caused by Carrie’s dash for green.

With the extensive bungs to the car industry even Corbyn must be worried for the health of the money tree.

I wonder if they will go the full hog and collectivise the farms?

Whilst I find the policy decisions of the government whimsical at best…

I don’t think green policies are an indulgence, we really do have to tackle climate change. Much as I/we will likely be dead before the worst of what to come happens, there is a clear and established pattern of extreme events happening right under our noses.

I think SC is objecting to the compensation bit rather than the increased fuel costs.

More or less, my objection to the compensation is the dishonesty of the whole thing. If Carrie wants everybody to switch from gas at a cost of £12k per household and have higher bills then her current husband should put it in a manifesto and let the electorate decide. To do it at little extra cost with pretend money is wrong.

Jezyboy

I wonder what the alternative is to chucking money at it?

Just looking at how you sort out gas boilers, it looks expensive and pretty undesirable to bring a typical victorian house to the standard where a heat pump would be sensible.

skyblueamateur

Jezyboy said:

I wonder what the alternative is to chucking money at it?

Just looking at how you sort out gas boilers, it looks expensive and pretty undesirable to bring a typical victorian house to the standard where a heat pump would be sensible.

I thought they were looking at using hydrogen boilers? Similar cost to gas boilers.

TheBigBean

surrey_commuter said:

rjsterry said:

morstar said:

surrey_commuter said:

So The Times reckons that the Govt is going to compensate consumers for higher fuel Bill s caused by Carrie’s dash for green.

With the extensive bungs to the car industry even Corbyn must be worried for the health of the money tree.

I wonder if they will go the full hog and collectivise the farms?

Whilst I find the policy decisions of the government whimsical at best…

I don’t think green policies are an indulgence, we really do have to tackle climate change. Much as I/we will likely be dead before the worst of what to come happens, there is a clear and established pattern of extreme events happening right under our noses.

I think SC is objecting to the compensation bit rather than the increased fuel costs.

More or less, my objection to the compensation is the dishonesty of the whole thing. If Carrie wants everybody to switch from gas at a cost of £12k per household and have higher bills then her current husband should put it in a manifesto and let the electorate decide. To do it at little extra cost with pretend money is wrong.

They legislated for net zero by 2050 prior to the election, so it should have been clear there will be costs. Whether these are paid directly by the consumer or by general taxation is another discussion, but it sounds like that isn't your objection.

rick_chasey

Yeah I mean, the transition needs to happen and it costs money.

As everyone else says you can argue about who foots the bill and why, but it needs to happen.

Maybe SC just doesn't want to spend something that won't affect his future ;-)

rjsterry

surrey_commuter said:

rjsterry said:

morstar said:

surrey_commuter said:

So The Times reckons that the Govt is going to compensate consumers for higher fuel Bill s caused by Carrie’s dash for green.

With the extensive bungs to the car industry even Corbyn must be worried for the health of the money tree.

I wonder if they will go the full hog and collectivise the farms?

Whilst I find the policy decisions of the government whimsical at best…

I don’t think green policies are an indulgence, we really do have to tackle climate change. Much as I/we will likely be dead before the worst of what to come happens, there is a clear and established pattern of extreme events happening right under our noses.

I think SC is objecting to the compensation bit rather than the increased fuel costs.

More or less, my objection to the compensation is the dishonesty of the whole thing. If Carrie wants everybody to switch from gas at a cost of £12k per household and have higher bills then her current husband should put it in a manifesto and let the electorate decide. To do it at little extra cost with pretend money is wrong.

It's not really a question of what Carrie wants. It's an absolute necessity. Everyone does need to stop burning gas. Few pay attention to manifestos and clearly not this government so if the thing needs doing - and frankly, climate change impacts will make Covid look like a minor inconvenience - then get on and do it. It'll be the best use of public money since setting up the NHS. What's the point of having an 80 seat majority if you don't use it to push through contentious stuff. I'm not sure it matters whether property owners are required to contribute directly, or the whole thing is funded publicly and funded from some change in property taxes. It all comes out of the same GDP.

The worry is that so far they can't even make landlords replace dangerous cladding 4 years after Grenfell.

rick_chasey

The argument should be about what the best model is to get the required transition done as efficiently as possible.

Do you use the purchasing power (monopsony) and regulatory strength of the state, plus their access to cheaper borrowing to run it, or are you better off allowing competition in the private market to drive down the cost and incentivise innovation? Each has a risk - and if you opt for hybrid, how do you avoid the negative externalities and what hybrid do you go for?

TheBigBean

The CCC on heating

The research found that:

Decarbonisation of heating for the UK existing housing stock is possible, and can be achieved with average net investment of less than £10,000 per home. By 2035, the Balanced Pathway cuts direct emissions from existing homes to around half today’s levels.
The Balanced Pathway includes 10.8 million loft insulation measures, 3.4 million solid wall insulation measures and 3.1 million cavity wall insulation measures by 2050. Around 65% of energy efficiency deployment in existing homes in the Balanced Pathway has been installed by 2030 – urgent ramp-up is needed relative to deployment levels today to achieve this. The installation rates for insulation measures such as lofts and cavity walls are within the range previously achieved under the supplier obligations in the early 2010s. Solid wall installation rates are more ambitious but considered achievable with strong policy in our testing with stakeholders.
The scenarios include a low-carbon heating system for every home. The Balanced Pathway includes low-carbon district heat for 5.5m existing homes, heat pumps for 21m existing homes (including 5m in a hybrid configuration, with some using hydrogen as a back-up) and direct electric heating for around 2m existing homes. There remains a high level of optionality around the exact mix of heating systems deployed to abate emissions from homes, although all scenarios point to the importance of delivering significant increases in heat pump deployment over the 2020s, deploying heat networks in areas where they are suitable, and progressing hydrogen trials.

Despite advocating for hydrogen, I'm not convinced that it offers that many advantages for heating unless green hydrogen becomes cheap and abundant due to it being shipped like LNG. Or to put it another way Renewable Generation in UK -> Electrolyser -> Transport -> Gas grid -> Boiler isn't very efficient.

rjsterry

Jezyboy said:

I wonder what the alternative is to chucking money at it?

Just looking at how you sort out gas boilers, it looks expensive and pretty undesirable to bring a typical victorian house to the standard where a heat pump would be sensible.

The work needed to upgrade the housing stock is pretty well understood in terms of the technical requirements and the logistical scale of the task. There is a shortage of skilled labour to complete the work and it requires a lot of political will to push through something that will meet a fair bit of resistance. I still regularly see houses in central London that have had almost nothing spent on them in 40-50 years.

surrey_commuter

rick_chasey said:

Yeah I mean, the transition needs to happen and it costs money.

As everyone else says you can argue about who foots the bill and why, but it needs to happen.

Maybe SC just doesn't want to spend something that won't affect his future ;-)

If it was about saving the planet would we not do better taking our few hundred billion and spending it in another country where the impact on climate change will be greater?

rjsterry

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

Yeah I mean, the transition needs to happen and it costs money.

As everyone else says you can argue about who foots the bill and why, but it needs to happen.

Maybe SC just doesn't want to spend something that won't affect his future ;-)

If it was about saving the planet would we not do better taking our few hundred billion and spending it in another country where the impact on climate change will be greater?

You'll need to show your working on which country that might be. And how they would react. If the argument against doing it in this country is 'the electorate won't stand for it' how is the answer to try to unilaterally impose similar on another country?

rick_chasey

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

Yeah I mean, the transition needs to happen and it costs money.

As everyone else says you can argue about who foots the bill and why, but it needs to happen.

Maybe SC just doesn't want to spend something that won't affect his future ;-)

If it was about saving the planet would we not do better taking our few hundred billion and spending it in another country where the impact on climate change will be greater?

The empire is quite a way in the past now SC.

rjsterry

I sort of hoped we could do better than the "there's no point us doing anything because China" argument.

rick_chasey

Right. Get your own house in order first. It's a lot of money the world has to spend. Be a leader on the issue and show the rest of the world how to do it, surely.

Jezyboy

rjsterry said:

Jezyboy said:

I wonder what the alternative is to chucking money at it?

Just looking at how you sort out gas boilers, it looks expensive and pretty undesirable to bring a typical victorian house to the standard where a heat pump would be sensible.

The work needed to upgrade the housing stock is pretty well understood in terms of the technical requirements and the logistical scale of the task. There is a shortage of skilled labour to complete the work and it requires a lot of political will to push through something that will meet a fair bit of resistance. I still regularly see houses in central London that have had almost nothing spent on them in 40-50 years.

It may be well understood, but the bits of research I've done on what it would take for my house to get to a good standard do not look particularly appealing basically spoil the exterior look, or take up interior space, which I beleive would mean some fairly serious re jigging of where some interior doors are.

TheBigBean

Jezyboy said:

rjsterry said:

Jezyboy said:

I wonder what the alternative is to chucking money at it?

Just looking at how you sort out gas boilers, it looks expensive and pretty undesirable to bring a typical victorian house to the standard where a heat pump would be sensible.

The work needed to upgrade the housing stock is pretty well understood in terms of the technical requirements and the logistical scale of the task. There is a shortage of skilled labour to complete the work and it requires a lot of political will to push through something that will meet a fair bit of resistance. I still regularly see houses in central London that have had almost nothing spent on them in 40-50 years.

It may be well understood, but the bits of research I've done on what it would take for my house to get to a good standard do not look particularly appealing basically spoil the exterior look, or take up interior space, which I beleive would mean some fairly serious re jigging of where some interior doors are.

Heating is the hardest thing to decarbonise. I think CCC's view is that you should wear a jumper and only expect a temperature of 16C.

rjsterry

Jezyboy said:

rjsterry said:

Jezyboy said:

I wonder what the alternative is to chucking money at it?

Just looking at how you sort out gas boilers, it looks expensive and pretty undesirable to bring a typical victorian house to the standard where a heat pump would be sensible.

The work needed to upgrade the housing stock is pretty well understood in terms of the technical requirements and the logistical scale of the task. There is a shortage of skilled labour to complete the work and it requires a lot of political will to push through something that will meet a fair bit of resistance. I still regularly see houses in central London that have had almost nothing spent on them in 40-50 years.

It may be well understood, but the bits of research I've done on what it would take for my house to get to a good standard do not look particularly appealing basically spoil the exterior look, or take up interior space, which I beleive would mean some fairly serious re jigging of where some interior doors are.

It's not trivial work for sure; nor are the costs. But it needn't necessarily spoil the look of the building with a bit of thought. Two examples here.

https://www.enhabit.uk.com/case-study/islington-high-comfort-low-energy-victorian-townhouse/

https://www.enhabit.uk.com/case-study/aecb-silver-retrofit-manchester/

These are going way beyond what is needed to move away from GCH.

There's also something slightly perverse about prioritising aesthetics over the long term habitability of the planet.

surrey_commuter

rjsterry said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

Yeah I mean, the transition needs to happen and it costs money.

As everyone else says you can argue about who foots the bill and why, but it needs to happen.

Maybe SC just doesn't want to spend something that won't affect his future ;-)

If it was about saving the planet would we not do better taking our few hundred billion and spending it in another country where the impact on climate change will be greater?

You'll need to show your working on which country that might be. And how they would react. If the argument against doing it in this country is 'the electorate won't stand for it' how is the answer to try to unilaterally impose similar on another country?

I was thinking more of inviting people to bid for a share of the £200bn, winning criteria would be based upon the biggest carbon reduction.

Would that not have a bigger impact than spending it in the UK?

surrey_commuter

TheBigBean said:

Jezyboy said:

rjsterry said:

Jezyboy said:

I wonder what the alternative is to chucking money at it?

Just looking at how you sort out gas boilers, it looks expensive and pretty undesirable to bring a typical victorian house to the standard where a heat pump would be sensible.

The work needed to upgrade the housing stock is pretty well understood in terms of the technical requirements and the logistical scale of the task. There is a shortage of skilled labour to complete the work and it requires a lot of political will to push through something that will meet a fair bit of resistance. I still regularly see houses in central London that have had almost nothing spent on them in 40-50 years.

It may be well understood, but the bits of research I've done on what it would take for my house to get to a good standard do not look particularly appealing basically spoil the exterior look, or take up interior space, which I beleive would mean some fairly serious re jigging of where some interior doors are.

Heating is the hardest thing to decarbonise. I think CCC's view is that you should wear a jumper and only expect a temperature of 16C.

At least red wine would be served at a better temperature

rjsterry

surrey_commuter said:

rjsterry said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

Yeah I mean, the transition needs to happen and it costs money.

As everyone else says you can argue about who foots the bill and why, but it needs to happen.

Maybe SC just doesn't want to spend something that won't affect his future ;-)

If it was about saving the planet would we not do better taking our few hundred billion and spending it in another country where the impact on climate change will be greater?

You'll need to show your working on which country that might be. And how they would react. If the argument against doing it in this country is 'the electorate won't stand for it' how is the answer to try to unilaterally impose similar on another country?

I was thinking more of inviting people to bid for a share of the £200bn, winning criteria would be based upon the biggest carbon reduction.

Would that not have a bigger impact than spending it in the UK?

That just sounds like a a cop out. We know what we need to do. We're just trying to find excuses for why we shouldn't have to.

TheBigBean

surrey_commuter said:

rjsterry said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

Yeah I mean, the transition needs to happen and it costs money.

As everyone else says you can argue about who foots the bill and why, but it needs to happen.

Maybe SC just doesn't want to spend something that won't affect his future ;-)

If it was about saving the planet would we not do better taking our few hundred billion and spending it in another country where the impact on climate change will be greater?

You'll need to show your working on which country that might be. And how they would react. If the argument against doing it in this country is 'the electorate won't stand for it' how is the answer to try to unilaterally impose similar on another country?

I was thinking more of inviting people to bid for a share of the £200bn, winning criteria would be based upon the biggest carbon reduction.

Would that not have a bigger impact than spending it in the UK?

I'll try..

To decarbonise industries need to change and develop. For example, there needs to be an entire supply chain created to supply hydrogen and a separate supply chain created for things that use it as a fuel. If that happens, then the costs of these items will fall and, at that point, it will become much easier to decarbonise less well off countries.

An example of this is solar power. It is now the cheapest form of power in many countries. This is a result of the creation of supply chains to meet demands in the wealthy part of world.

Now, you can argue that the same supply chains could be created in other places, but I should imagine that there won't be a great take up in some places when offered a hydrogen powered car for £55k rather than £60k, and it is the rate of take up that is important.

surrey_commuter

TheBigBean said:

surrey_commuter said:

rjsterry said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

Yeah I mean, the transition needs to happen and it costs money.

As everyone else says you can argue about who foots the bill and why, but it needs to happen.

Maybe SC just doesn't want to spend something that won't affect his future ;-)

If it was about saving the planet would we not do better taking our few hundred billion and spending it in another country where the impact on climate change will be greater?

You'll need to show your working on which country that might be. And how they would react. If the argument against doing it in this country is 'the electorate won't stand for it' how is the answer to try to unilaterally impose similar on another country?

I was thinking more of inviting people to bid for a share of the £200bn, winning criteria would be based upon the biggest carbon reduction.

Would that not have a bigger impact than spending it in the UK?

I'll try..

To decarbonise industries need to change and develop. For example, there needs to be an entire supply chain created to supply hydrogen and a separate supply chain created for things that use it as a fuel. If that happens, then the costs of these items will fall and, at that point, it will become much easier to decarbonise less well off countries.

An example of this is solar power. It is now the cheapest form of power in many countries. This is a result of the creation of supply chains to meet demands in the wealthy part of world.

Now, you can argue that the same supply chains could be created in other places, but I should imagine that there won't be a great take up in some places when offered a hydrogen powered car for £55k rather than £60k, and it is the rate of take up that is important.

Suppose 10% of Mozambiques power comes from a dirty coal power station, we could pay for them to build a solar plant and so reduce carbon emissions by far more than we would achieve for a similar cost in the UK.

rjsterry

surrey_commuter said:

TheBigBean said:

surrey_commuter said:

rjsterry said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

Yeah I mean, the transition needs to happen and it costs money.

As everyone else says you can argue about who foots the bill and why, but it needs to happen.

Maybe SC just doesn't want to spend something that won't affect his future ;-)

If it was about saving the planet would we not do better taking our few hundred billion and spending it in another country where the impact on climate change will be greater?

You'll need to show your working on which country that might be. And how they would react. If the argument against doing it in this country is 'the electorate won't stand for it' how is the answer to try to unilaterally impose similar on another country?

I was thinking more of inviting people to bid for a share of the £200bn, winning criteria would be based upon the biggest carbon reduction.

Would that not have a bigger impact than spending it in the UK?

I'll try..

To decarbonise industries need to change and develop. For example, there needs to be an entire supply chain created to supply hydrogen and a separate supply chain created for things that use it as a fuel. If that happens, then the costs of these items will fall and, at that point, it will become much easier to decarbonise less well off countries.

An example of this is solar power. It is now the cheapest form of power in many countries. This is a result of the creation of supply chains to meet demands in the wealthy part of world.

Now, you can argue that the same supply chains could be created in other places, but I should imagine that there won't be a great take up in some places when offered a hydrogen powered car for £55k rather than £60k, and it is the rate of take up that is important.

Suppose 10% of Mozambiques power comes from a dirty coal power station, we could pay for them to build a solar plant and so reduce carbon emissions by far more than we would achieve for a similar cost in the UK.

Mozambique's emissions per capita are more than 25 times lower than the UK. Their gross emissions are less than a fifth of the UK, so good luck with your plan.

surrey_commuter

rjsterry said:

surrey_commuter said:

TheBigBean said:

surrey_commuter said:

rjsterry said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

Yeah I mean, the transition needs to happen and it costs money.

As everyone else says you can argue about who foots the bill and why, but it needs to happen.

Maybe SC just doesn't want to spend something that won't affect his future ;-)

If it was about saving the planet would we not do better taking our few hundred billion and spending it in another country where the impact on climate change will be greater?

You'll need to show your working on which country that might be. And how they would react. If the argument against doing it in this country is 'the electorate won't stand for it' how is the answer to try to unilaterally impose similar on another country?

I was thinking more of inviting people to bid for a share of the £200bn, winning criteria would be based upon the biggest carbon reduction.

Would that not have a bigger impact than spending it in the UK?

I'll try..

To decarbonise industries need to change and develop. For example, there needs to be an entire supply chain created to supply hydrogen and a separate supply chain created for things that use it as a fuel. If that happens, then the costs of these items will fall and, at that point, it will become much easier to decarbonise less well off countries.

An example of this is solar power. It is now the cheapest form of power in many countries. This is a result of the creation of supply chains to meet demands in the wealthy part of world.

Now, you can argue that the same supply chains could be created in other places, but I should imagine that there won't be a great take up in some places when offered a hydrogen powered car for £55k rather than £60k, and it is the rate of take up that is important.

Suppose 10% of Mozambiques power comes from a dirty coal power station, we could pay for them to build a solar plant and so reduce carbon emissions by far more than we would achieve for a similar cost in the UK.

Mozambique's emissions per capita are more than 25 times lower than the UK. Their gross emissions are less than a fifth of the UK, so good luck with your plan.

I can never work out if you are serious or we are to all intents and purposes talking different languages

TheBigBean

surrey_commuter said:

TheBigBean said:

surrey_commuter said:

rjsterry said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

Yeah I mean, the transition needs to happen and it costs money.

As everyone else says you can argue about who foots the bill and why, but it needs to happen.

Maybe SC just doesn't want to spend something that won't affect his future ;-)

If it was about saving the planet would we not do better taking our few hundred billion and spending it in another country where the impact on climate change will be greater?

You'll need to show your working on which country that might be. And how they would react. If the argument against doing it in this country is 'the electorate won't stand for it' how is the answer to try to unilaterally impose similar on another country?

I was thinking more of inviting people to bid for a share of the £200bn, winning criteria would be based upon the biggest carbon reduction.

Would that not have a bigger impact than spending it in the UK?

I'll try..

To decarbonise industries need to change and develop. For example, there needs to be an entire supply chain created to supply hydrogen and a separate supply chain created for things that use it as a fuel. If that happens, then the costs of these items will fall and, at that point, it will become much easier to decarbonise less well off countries.

An example of this is solar power. It is now the cheapest form of power in many countries. This is a result of the creation of supply chains to meet demands in the wealthy part of world.

Now, you can argue that the same supply chains could be created in other places, but I should imagine that there won't be a great take up in some places when offered a hydrogen powered car for £55k rather than £60k, and it is the rate of take up that is important.

Suppose 10% of Mozambiques power comes from a dirty coal power station, we could pay for them to build a solar plant and so reduce carbon emissions by far more than we would achieve for a similar cost in the UK.

Its energy currently mostly comes from hydro. It is an excellent an example of a country that will benefit hugely from the dramatic reduction in the cost of solar that was brought about by the creation of supply chains to meet the demands of wealthy countries.

If, 10 years ago, the UK had decided to spend a load of money on solar in Mozambique instead of the UK, I doubt prices would have come down so much due to lack of private money also involved.

rjsterry

surrey_commuter said:

rjsterry said:

surrey_commuter said:

TheBigBean said:

surrey_commuter said:

rjsterry said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

Yeah I mean, the transition needs to happen and it costs money.

As everyone else says you can argue about who foots the bill and why, but it needs to happen.

Maybe SC just doesn't want to spend something that won't affect his future ;-)

If it was about saving the planet would we not do better taking our few hundred billion and spending it in another country where the impact on climate change will be greater?

You'll need to show your working on which country that might be. And how they would react. If the argument against doing it in this country is 'the electorate won't stand for it' how is the answer to try to unilaterally impose similar on another country?

I was thinking more of inviting people to bid for a share of the £200bn, winning criteria would be based upon the biggest carbon reduction.

Would that not have a bigger impact than spending it in the UK?

I'll try..

To decarbonise industries need to change and develop. For example, there needs to be an entire supply chain created to supply hydrogen and a separate supply chain created for things that use it as a fuel. If that happens, then the costs of these items will fall and, at that point, it will become much easier to decarbonise less well off countries.

An example of this is solar power. It is now the cheapest form of power in many countries. This is a result of the creation of supply chains to meet demands in the wealthy part of world.

Now, you can argue that the same supply chains could be created in other places, but I should imagine that there won't be a great take up in some places when offered a hydrogen powered car for £55k rather than £60k, and it is the rate of take up that is important.

Suppose 10% of Mozambiques power comes from a dirty coal power station, we could pay for them to build a solar plant and so reduce carbon emissions by far more than we would achieve for a similar cost in the UK.

Mozambique's emissions per capita are more than 25 times lower than the UK. Their gross emissions are less than a fifth of the UK, so good luck with your plan.

I can never work out if you are serious or we are to all intents and purposes talking different languages

Ditto. Mozambique isn't even a rounding error in global emissions.

TheBigBean

surrey_commuter said:

rjsterry said:

surrey_commuter said:

TheBigBean said:

surrey_commuter said:

rjsterry said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

Yeah I mean, the transition needs to happen and it costs money.

As everyone else says you can argue about who foots the bill and why, but it needs to happen.

Maybe SC just doesn't want to spend something that won't affect his future ;-)

If it was about saving the planet would we not do better taking our few hundred billion and spending it in another country where the impact on climate change will be greater?

You'll need to show your working on which country that might be. And how they would react. If the argument against doing it in this country is 'the electorate won't stand for it' how is the answer to try to unilaterally impose similar on another country?

I was thinking more of inviting people to bid for a share of the £200bn, winning criteria would be based upon the biggest carbon reduction.

Would that not have a bigger impact than spending it in the UK?

I'll try..

To decarbonise industries need to change and develop. For example, there needs to be an entire supply chain created to supply hydrogen and a separate supply chain created for things that use it as a fuel. If that happens, then the costs of these items will fall and, at that point, it will become much easier to decarbonise less well off countries.

An example of this is solar power. It is now the cheapest form of power in many countries. This is a result of the creation of supply chains to meet demands in the wealthy part of world.

Now, you can argue that the same supply chains could be created in other places, but I should imagine that there won't be a great take up in some places when offered a hydrogen powered car for £55k rather than £60k, and it is the rate of take up that is important.

Suppose 10% of Mozambiques power comes from a dirty coal power station, we could pay for them to build a solar plant and so reduce carbon emissions by far more than we would achieve for a similar cost in the UK.

Mozambique's emissions per capita are more than 25 times lower than the UK. Their gross emissions are less than a fifth of the UK, so good luck with your plan.

I can never work out if you are serious or we are to all intents and purposes talking different languages

Your argument is that money should be used in the most cost effective way to reduce carbon emissions and that this means using it in poorer countries.

My argument is that money should be used in the most cost effective way to reduce carbon emissions and that this means using it in wealthier countries in order to improve the supply chains.

rjsterry's argument is that money should be used in the most cost effective way to reduce carbon emissions, and that this can't be in poorer countries, because their contribution is so small at the moment.

rick_chasey 's argument is that you may be a boomer who doesn't care about young people

rjsterry

Oops.