Join the Labour Party and save your country!
Comments
-
I don't know, but that's not the point. It's about Labour being able to deliver what they promise - and without screwing us over. And this is just one policy.
Besides, we can spend as much as we want but it doesn't stop all this carbon in the atmosphere from places like US, China and india from warming us up.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
If it stopped CO2 from the rest of the world from drifting over here and warming things up it might be.
Also the point that that it's not feasible seems to be relevant to whether it is money well spent.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
-
Noting this is reported in the Telegraph and I can't be bother to read the Aurora report, it is £116bn extra on top of of the £110bn required to achieve it by 2035.
In any case, I don't think it is possible. For example, there is a two year lead time on high voltage transformers. The transmission network has not been upgraded as required. The government is also meddling with the system.
I really think covid has had a huge impact on climate change.
0 -
I though labour had already rolled back proposed 'green' spending a few months back, is this not included?
0 -
Labour has said it would keep Trident, so not relevant.
And it doesn't bother you that the cost of 'decarbonising' is way more than what Labour said it would cost?
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
And a massively better use of money than scrapping National Insurance too.
FWIW never mind the environmental aspects, it's less than two years since Putin held most of Europe hostage over gas, and we are still feeling the effects of that in our energy prices. Decarbonising means reducing reliance on some pretty unstable countries, which seems a great idea all round.
0 -
Like I said, what's the cost of not doing anything. It's the basic premise of opportunity cost.
It's a bit like having a leak upstairs. You can see the watermarks in the ceiling, but, if you call the emergency plumber, it's a £200 call out minimum - and you thought it only cost £100.
Do you call the plumber?
0 -
Did you read what I wrote above about other countries? Carbon in the atmosphere doesn't stay put over China or the USA...
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
And the fact that the plan is judged not to be feasible doesn't bother you either?
That's before we get to your assumption that spending all this money while much of the rest of the world doesn't will some how stop the problems that you foresee?
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Mate, have you seen the American "inflation Reduction Act".
America is throwing $780bn into the energy transition as well as up to $680bn available in tax breaks for green investment.
That's almost half of Britain's entire GDP.
0 -
Do you think carbon only affects the country it is currently over?
- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0 -
Did you read the bit about not wanting to be held hostage by Putin or any other tinpot dictator?
Anyway, decarbonising is going to happen in the medium term whatever because economics will dictate it. The question is whether we're leading or playing catch up.
0 -
Yep. He's already tried and failed, quite recently. So what's your concern?
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
The opposite.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
So nobody has any concerns about this Labour policy being unfeasible and much more costly than Labour have said? People don't seem keen to address these particular points.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
According to this it will reduce US CO2 emissions by a whopping 1% next year - that'll save us all.
And what about China, India etc?
You still haven't answered my question above though, which was my original point - "So nobody has any concerns about this Labour policy being unfeasible and much more costly than Labour have said?" Any thoughts?
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
I mean, money pouring into sustainable stuff is personally advantageous to me 👍🏻
You're looking at this too transactionally. The energy transition has to happen one way or an other. Might as well be a world leader in it and educate the rest of the world on how to.
0 -
I don't think it is achievable, but I prefer that rhetoric to the anti-green stuff coming out of parts of the Tory party.
0 -
No, this is £111bn over 11 years instead of £104bn over 11 years for the net zero 2035 of the Conservative party. Front loads the investment, and makes it less achievable.
It's a policy exchange report, so make of that what you will. Here's the report - like I say, it's Truss' champions in Tufton Street, but without the Telegraph's usual nonsense on top of that. https://policyexchange.org.uk/publication/decarbonising-the-grid/
0 -
for context spending on pensions over the same period is 1 trillion so forgive me if I don’t think it’s that much.
0 -
My summary is that any arguments that it or any other policy will be costly will be drowned out Vs the general consensus of "Let's get rid of the Tories" that exists in the country. So we're going to get a Labour government in six months time.
The policy won't achieve all it sets out to. It won't be as bad as the Telegraph makes out. It will reduce our reliance on fossil fuels by some degree. Which is moving in the right direction, and the way economics will force us to move fairly soon anyway.
0 -
It being less achievable is not only down to the increase in annual spending required (£15bn per year for the six years to 2030 as opposed to £8bn), but the physical need to build things.
I admire the ambition, the desire to actually get something done.
0 -
So an increase of £5bn over 11 years or slightly less than £500m a year. Doesn't sound like the numbers are a problem so much as our world-leading ability to f*** up big infrastructure projects.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
True. My response is pretty much meh to any government promises of infrastructure. Or long term planning of any sort.
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'm a little unclear as to what the argument (or maybe arguments) within the article are tbh.
Is it that 116 billion extra is required to decarbonize by 2030 over 110 billion to decarbonize by 2035. But in both cases that money is still being spread out in the period upto 2035?
But there is also discussion around whether it's possible. Well if something isn't possible then surely it doesn't matter how much extra you spend?
0 -
Given the accuracy with which even medium sized projects can be costed, the report is essentially saying that Labour's plan will cost roughly the same as the current Conservative plan. Obviously that's not the angle the Telegraph is going for.
As the plague of nimbys are at least as vociferous about pylons as they are about housing, we can expect a rerun of HS2 with cables run through hundreds of miles of tunnels to avoid spoiling the views of... East Anglia. I look forward to the project being cancelled after we've built all but the last two miles of underground cabling to maximise the cost for the minimum gain.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
I'll take from your lack of response to my question that you're not bothered about the lack of feasibility or the underestimation of the cost.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
I think some of it is quite rightly a recognition that a lot of this is going to cost people a lot of money at a time when a fair proportion of the population have had some not inconsiderable cost pressures in other areas.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Happy to let some other country lead and take the cost. Not sure what we can teach that others don't already know.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0
