news & politics:discussion

[Skip997]

6 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

What powers the boats and barges on the canals?

It's a good question. Currently likely to be deisel, but I reckon you'd get a lot more moved per litre than using HGV's.

Of course there's the option to use horses.

[Skip997]

4 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

So what’s your point? Just seems like another excuse to moan about Labours plans even though it’d be something you support from anyone else. 

You  clearly haven't read what I've written.

My point is that we can't just stick up a few wind turbines and a load of EV charging point, insulate a few buildings etc

It's an extremely complicated problem with a huge number of factors.

If we really want to reach 100% "clean" energy, then how about the goods produced for us in India/China etc?

Are we going to do without them or make them here?

Or more likely just ignore and claim the associated emissions have nothing to do with us.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Skip997 said:

You  clearly haven't read what I've written.

My point is that we can't just stick up a few wind turbines and a load of EV charging point, insulate a few buildings etc

It's an extremely complicated problem with a huge number of factors.

If we really want to reach 100% "clean" energy, then how about the goods produced for us in India/China etc?

Are we going to do without them or make them here?

Or more likely just ignore and claim the associated emissions have nothing to do with us.

You go on and on about how the climate crises is the biggest issue facing us then when the opposition announce policies that go some way to addressing our part in that you just it’s not doable. I thought you’d at least welcome the ideas given how important you say the problem is. If this was another leader or party your tone would be different. 
 

Of course we need other countries to do their part in cutting emissions but when we as a country finally start taking it seriously then we (along with others) can put pressure on those countries to try to get them to change course. It’s not going to be easy but at least we have ambitious goals in place to hopefully get us there. 

[fred quimby]

40 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

Well yeah because we can’t just switch off fossil fuels and be done with it. It has to be gradual but by 2030 all things going well we use clean energy.

They mention fossil fuels will be decades in use. Now whether they are talking carbon capture doesn't really say and that is very ambitious in 5 years

[Guest]

1 minute ago, fred quimby said:

They mention fossil fuels will be decades in use. Now whether they are talking carbon capture doesn't really say and that is very ambitious in 5 years

It’ll be a zero carbon electricity system by 2030.

[fred quimby]

4 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

It’ll be a zero carbon electricity system by 2030.

I'll read some more, still wonder where the investment will come from. 

Edited February 7 by fred quimby

[Skip997]

7 minutes ago, fred quimby said:

They mention fossil fuels will be decades in use. Now whether they are talking carbon capture doesn't really say and that is very ambitious in 5 years

We really can't be using fossil fuels for decades, the science is clear, we haven't got that long to be messing about.

A radical change is required across the board and not just in our chosen use of fuel/power sources, but also in which technology we continue to use,  how we life our lifes, what's actually important and most impotantly we need a massive (for want of a better word) spiritual evolution.

[Skip997]

10 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

It’ll be a zero carbon electricity system by 2030.

Are we talking zero carbon emissions from generation or zero carbon for the full life cycle of the generator.

The first is possible, I really can't see how we can acheive the second without using fossil fuels or having the components made abroad.

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, fred quimby said:

I'll read some more, still wonder where the investment will come from. 

It’ll be part funded by borrowing and then from the private sector who will be more willing to invest when they have the security of a government that’s taking it seriously rather than the current one. Thats the plan anyway I think. 

[kaosmark2]

9 hours ago, steviewevie said:

it was a scripted joke...they like a good old transphobic joke in the tory party..hahaha...but the fact that he stuck to it when he knew Brianna Gheys' mum was there shows what an insensitive and out of touch little tory twat he is.

If transphobia is unacceptable because a hate crime victim's family is there, that implies that it's acceptable the rest of the time.

I'm not directly accusing you btw, but I really want to make that point.

The incitement of hate crime is constant. And Streeting and Starmer aren't much better than Sunak on this.

[Neil]

4 hours ago, fraybentos1 said:

 

 

How many times are we going to have to watch this bizarre, passive aggressive interaction on this thread? It’s very tiresome 

or the worse tiresome aggression from a hypocritical troll?

Edited February 8 by Neil

[Neil]

1 hour ago, steviewevie said:

What powers the boats and barges on the canals?

nearly always diesel, could be done with electric motors fairly easily.

[Neil]

1 hour ago, steviewevie said:

What powers the boats and barges on the canals?

what powers the oversized smoky old trucks that travellers drive?

[Neil]

govt happy to f**k the climate as bad weather stops the boats

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68216757

 

[fred quimby]

5 hours ago, Neil said:

or the worse tiresome aggression from a hypocritical troll?

It is early but I read that as threesome 

[steviewevie]

We have to get better at building and doing stuff in this country, maybe Labour can go somewhere to resolving that with planning/regulation changes, I don't know. So much needs to be done for this clean energy stuff, the grid, transport, homes. How many years were they building HS2 for and how delayed and over budget has it been? I know not same scale at all, but near where I live they have been building these groovy new cycle lanes, started last spring, was supposed to be finished last autumn, still being done and look a long way from completion, and has meant loads of disruption on the roads and the locals moan about it constantly on facebook. I guess probably have gone way over budget too. So, delays, spiraling costs, and an unhappy public...that is what we face on a massive scale.

It's not hard to imagine half a job done by end of next parliament, everyone fed up with it all, fed up that public services haven't improved, and vote in the Tories who are promising to bin the net zero thing and spend the money on hospitals instead.

[steviewevie]

7 hours ago, Skip997 said:

We really can't be using fossil fuels for decades, the science is clear, we haven't got that long to be messing about.

A radical change is required across the board and not just in our chosen use of fuel/power sources, but also in which technology we continue to use,  how we life our lifes, what's actually important and most impotantly we need a massive (for want of a better word) spiritual evolution.

we need a messiah.

[steviewevie]

7 hours ago, Skip997 said:

You  clearly haven't read what I've written.

My point is that we can't just stick up a few wind turbines and a load of EV charging point, insulate a few buildings etc

It's an extremely complicated problem with a huge number of factors.

If we really want to reach 100% "clean" energy, then how about the goods produced for us in India/China etc?

Are we going to do without them or make them here?

Or more likely just ignore and claim the associated emissions have nothing to do with us.

we're not going to reach 100% clean energy, that isn't the plan for anyone. It is net zero. In short/medium term it is cutting emissions, not zero emissions.  Maybe we'll get there in the long term, 100 years or something, but they need more tech breakthroughs.

[Guest]

50 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

We have to get better at building and doing stuff in this country, maybe Labour can go somewhere to resolving that with planning/regulation changes, I don't know. So much needs to be done for this clean energy stuff, the grid, transport, homes. How many years were they building HS2 for and how delayed and over budget has it been? I know not same scale at all, but near where I live they have been building these groovy new cycle lanes, started last spring, was supposed to be finished last autumn, still being done and look a long way from completion, and has meant loads of disruption on the roads and the locals moan about it constantly on facebook. I guess probably have gone way over budget too. So, delays, spiraling costs, and an unhappy public...that is what we face on a massive scale.

It's not hard to imagine half a job done by end of next parliament, everyone fed up with it all, fed up that public services haven't improved, and vote in the Tories who are promising to bin the net zero thing and spend the money on hospitals instead.

This is partly the problem, anything other than perfection will be viewed as a Labour failure and will allow the Tories back in. Even if Labour only get a partial amount done that will still be infinitely better than anything the Tories have done over the last 14 years. As I’ve said before the Tories play politics on easy mode and this sums it up. Nowhere does anyone ever say this type of thing about the Tories and their colossal failures. 

[Ryan1984]

7 hours ago, kaosmark2 said:

If transphobia is unacceptable because a hate crime victim's family is there, that implies that it's acceptable the rest of the time.

I'm not directly accusing you btw, but I really want to make that point.

The incitement of hate crime is constant. And Streeting and Starmer aren't much better than Sunak on this.

Sturgeon actually made a good point that it’s very unlikely Starmer would have asked for an apology if the mother wasn’t in there.

[steviewevie]

12 minutes ago, Ryan1984 said:

Sturgeon actually made a good point that it’s very unlikely Starmer would have asked for an apology if the mother wasn’t in there.

probably not...but hypothetical anyway.

[steviewevie]

That Blair guy again

 

[steviewevie]

That More In Common guy again..

 

[lost]

It was burried in that IMF statement recently that advised Hunt against cutting taxes further, that the Tories have had the easy wins during the drive to net zero so far and during the next stage (which will probably happen under labour) more costs will need to be passed onto the consumer.

[Neil]

1 hour ago, steviewevie said:

Are we going to do without them or make them here?

Or more likely just ignore and claim the associated emissions have nothing to do with us.

we've exported our emissions, and then claim great progress while pointing the finger at china for the worst problems.