|
|
Post by gibroon on Oct 5, 2024 0:06:02 GMT
Yes, that would make sense as it gives them time to feasibly come up with a plausible possibility of it working. There are O&G companies making a road map of getting to net zero by 2050. The main part of that is getting their workers to move to EV cars by 2035, which just so happens to be the UK mandate for ICE cars to be phased out. After that, they have no idea. It is very much kicking the can down the road and crossing lots of fingers and toes for the rest of it.
Looking at how Chinese EV cars are going to get taxed heavily by EU, it also appears to be trying to save the legacy motor companies who are a bit behind in tech and design, all the time making EV car ownership more expensive for people. Norway have done an amazing job of transitioning. It is a smaller country but they have managed it all extremely well.
My cynicism comes from thinking over half that £22 billion will be going to upper management, CEOs and shareholders.
This is the way.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wizzard_Ook on Oct 5, 2024 7:36:36 GMT
Did anyone see the 22.1 billion pound investment that Labour announced for carbon capture? It's a bit galling that there's a black hole in the budget of 22 billion but the tax payer is going to fund the oil and gas industry for this. Yes, the industry that pumps ludicrous amount of shit into the atmosphere are needing help to clean up there act. This is absolutely absurd. The whole idea is fundamentally flawed and very much a back of a fag packet idea that many scientists think is unobtainable for the proposed gain but makes it look like the oil and gas industry is giving a shit. Ridiculous. I don’t know the scope of it all, but by the sounds of it they’re putting in a lot of money across the board when it comes to green tech whether it be wind, solar, etc or into Lithium processing or energy storage. A lot of projects over the last couple of months have been given money from investment banks and given NCIS status (basically meaning they don’t have to go through local planning). I work for a Lithium exploration company and I know at this stage of a government tenure, there’s a lot of shoulder patting and making people feel good, but my sense is that they are trying to kick start a green technology drive and make that a fairly big part of their overall economic strategy. I think a big issue is that we’re massively behind on industrialisation when it comes to green tech and to make energy you have to use energy and if you want to reach those targets that offset of carbon has to go somewhere. So it isn’t a one or the other thing. I don’t really know much about carbon capture, but yeah it seems very expensive and 9/10 CC projects seem to fail. Seems a odd thing to have a glitzy policy announcement with big numbers, the PM and Chancellor attending, as it seems from what I heard is that they are attentive to other green areas. |
|
|
|
Post by Reviewer on Oct 5, 2024 7:55:17 GMT
Having seen the impact of the budget panic on some contracts that should’ve happened, I’m sure spending slightly less on this and pushing more into the renewable market to deal with would have been a better plan.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vandelay on Oct 5, 2024 10:03:21 GMT
Did anyone see the 22.1 billion pound investment that Labour announced for carbon capture? It's a bit galling that there's a black hole in the budget of 22 billion but the tax payer is going to fund the oil and gas industry for this. Yes, the industry that pumps ludicrous amount of shit into the atmosphere are needing help to clean up there act. This is absolutely absurd. The whole idea is fundamentally flawed and very much a back of a fag packet idea that many scientists think is unobtainable for the proposed gain but makes it look like the oil and gas industry is giving a shit. Ridiculous. I don’t know the scope of it all, but by the sounds of it they’re putting in a lot of money across the board when it comes to green tech whether it be wind, solar, etc or into Lithium processing or energy storage. A lot of projects over the last couple of months have been given money from investment banks and given NCIS status (basically meaning they don’t have to go through local planning). I work for a Lithium exploration company and I know at this stage of a government tenure, there’s a lot of shoulder patting and making people feel good, but my sense is that they are trying to kick start a green technology drive and make that a fairly big part of their overall economic strategy. I think a big issue is that we’re massively behind on industrialisation when it comes to green tech and to make energy you have to use energy and if you want to reach those targets that offset of carbon has to go somewhere. So it isn’t a one or the other thing. I don’t really know much about carbon capture, but yeah it seems very expensive and 9/10 CC projects seem to fail. Seems a odd thing to have a glitzy policy announcement with big numbers, the PM and Chancellor attending, as it seems from what I heard is that they are attentive to other green areas. That sounds more positive. There has been a lot of big talk around investment in green industry and really putting the UK at the front of the development of the technology. So, seeing Carbon Capture as the first really big announcement is deeply frustrating. £22 billion is a big number and even spread over 25 years I'm sure it is money that could have been better spent. The rhetoric is horrid as well, with them going on about not caving into the green extremists. I know they are doing it to placate the right wingers who have gone from climate deniers to climate fatalists, who think it is too late and too expensive to do anything, but fuck 'em. They will be silenced if the green tech gets off the ground is giving plenty of jobs and money into the economy. |
|
nazo
Junior Member
Posts: 1,304
|
Post by nazo on Oct 6, 2024 13:15:51 GMT
Sue Gray gone. It’s hard not to feel that they are making a bit of a mess of this.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jambowayoh on Oct 6, 2024 13:18:38 GMT
Sue Gray gone. It’s hard not to feel that they are making a bit of a mess of this. I can't really have a go at Labour over this as the press has had a field day over this stuff. I'm sure her replacement will definitely get the same amount of coverage. Definitely. |
|
apollo
Junior Member
Posts: 1,730
|
Post by apollo on Oct 7, 2024 7:29:17 GMT
2 OAP on GMB this morning saying they are going to sue the government over the winter fuel payment. If you can't afford it then you should get it, right?
these OAP have there blinkers on about tories (Kemi iirc) in 2022 said will means test as well. but OAP have selective memories if its not the tories
but Harman can fuck off with 'missteps' to be expected
its like turning up late on your first day of work or getting pissed at lunch and throw up on the manager's chair
|
|
zephro
Junior Member
Posts: 3,010
|
Post by zephro on Oct 7, 2024 9:56:02 GMT
They should have shortened the summer recess and brought the budget forward. Plus done something about conference season. The Sue Gray thing is 100% just filling the vacuum. Not all the missteps are but you'd be showing progress putting actual bills through parliament.
|
|
|
|
Post by Whizzo on Oct 7, 2024 10:02:56 GMT
The election and then almost straight into a Summer recess, back for five minutes and then conference season hasn't helped things.
Hopefully now Parliament is back things will start to get to some sort of level of normality. Probably not though.
|
|
|
|
Post by technoish on Oct 7, 2024 10:46:45 GMT
A key driver of the minimum timing is the commitment to do with an OBR forecast, which I think needs 10 weeks (although I imagine if during pre election period you told OBR you wanted one, they would have started it early). Previous gvts obviously didn't have this (and Liz Truss showed what happens when you now do a budget without one...)
Second moving part is need to set departmental budgets for at least next year, which requires a lot more time for depts to prep and then time to negotiate on top. The current time is at lower limit already... But yes technically you could have decoupled these. This is only because prev gvt didn't do this when they should have done last year (this is also how they hid all the pressies - see the £22bn).
|
|
|
|
Post by Vandelay on Oct 7, 2024 11:20:01 GMT
They should have shortened the summer recess and brought the budget forward. Plus done something about conference season. The Sue Gray thing is 100% just filling the vacuum. Not all the missteps are but you'd be showing progress putting actual bills through parliament. They actually did push back the start of the Summer recess. Probably not by much more than a couple of weeks though. It also got eaten up by the riots. But, yeah, the timing of the election has most definitely not helped matters. They will be hitting their first 100 days soon, but will have barely sat in Parliament for any of that time. If I thought Sunak and his team had any wits about them, I might even think it was intentional (the reality is probably more specific such as they knew they would have to release prisoners early, they knew they weren't going to be able give the tax cuts they kept going on about and they knew the economy was going to continue going nowhere). They certainly should have had the budget sooner as well. I know there would have been difficulties to do it quickly, but I'm sure they could have worked around those. Blair had one 8 weeks in, Thatcher had one 5 weeks, Cameron was 6. We are 16 weeks and still waiting another few weeks before we get to it. Considering they keep telling us that the economic situation is in such a dire state, you would think that they would be a bit snappier in telling us what they will do about it. The King's Speech, in theory, should give some direction, but once you get passed the pomp and ceremony most people lose interest. Budgets are where people really get a sense of how a government is going to directly effect them and the only narrative we have around that so far is them being for freezing old people and against large families (emphasize that being the narrative and not actually what I believe). |
|
|
|
Post by grizzly on Oct 7, 2024 12:02:53 GMT
Carbon Capture is the kind of 'technological fix' that seems really appealing because it means that you don't really have to change anything: You can just capture the carbon! It's fine! But as a concept it is fundamentally flawed: It's trying to clean up a spill whilst the faucet is still open ("Dweilen met de kraan open" is the Dutch idiom that springs to mind and I'll just awkwardly translate it here because I don't know any good English ones). You're using energy to clean up the waste product of energy production. In any given situation, the better choice is always going to be ensuring that you use less energy and/or produce less waste. Even if you wire up your carbon capture technology to a solar power plant, that's still a waste if you still have other things you could have wired up to said solar power plant instead. It's really frustrating because for all the salivating that politicians like to do over making "hard choices" and "compromises" - ones that invariably end up with them screwing over the poor - climate change mitigation represents some actual hard choices and compromises as we have to deal with our entire life basically revolving around burning fossil fuels and the quicker you try to change that, the more actively felt changes you have to make to everyone's lives. We also have to deal with the various economic and moral issues of where CO² being put out today is also the result of global economic imbalances. For instance: Right now most pollution is happening in China. But if you tally the entire CO² output since the industrial revolution, Europe and the US have been the biggest polluters. And burning fossil fuels has done a whole lot to kickstart economic production... So "we" have had all the benefits of burning fossil fuels already, and now "we're" pulling the ladder up behind us? And sure, the answer to that is "if we don't do this we'll all die" but try explaining that to the ruler of a nation which yours has historically screwed over several times already. And also whose country is used by companies based in your country to do all the outsourcing of polluted industry in the first place!
But no, we just have this easy fix, so we don't actually have to do anything and we have all the time to implement the 'hard choice' of continued austerity.
|
|
dam
New Member
Posts: 629
|
Post by dam on Oct 7, 2024 12:51:24 GMT
Have written to my new Labour MP about the CCS, just to register against it.
I can't think of one good reason for it. You could maybe see the point if it was going to stuck on to existing power plants, CO2 intensive industries, but no, it's to allow them to burn fossil fuels to make "blue" hydrogen, that no one needs.
As soon an anyone mentions hydrogen, you know it's bollocks.
|
|
|
|
Post by Whizzo on Oct 8, 2024 14:33:34 GMT
Tom Tugendhat is knocked out of the Tory leadership race.
39 | J. Cleverly (+18)
31 | R. Jenrick (-2)
30 | K. Badenoch (+2)
20 | T. Tugendhat (-1)
Looks like Cleverly's performance at conference gave him a bit of a boost.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jambowayoh on Oct 8, 2024 14:38:16 GMT
Hmmm...what? Oh...yes. Very sad. What's everyone having for dinner tonight.
|
|
X201
Full Member
Posts: 5,132
|
Post by X201 on Oct 8, 2024 14:49:56 GMT
Tory Leadership contest latest
|
|
|
|
Post by Vandelay on Oct 8, 2024 14:56:27 GMT
No surprise about the drop out.
Massive surge for Cleverly though. Guess that pretty much guarantees he will go to the membership. Just a matter of whether he will be up against Badenoch or Jenrick.
|
|
|
|
Post by simple on Oct 8, 2024 15:41:24 GMT
Cleverly does appear to give the best impression of being a relatable human person in his interviews. Especially when he’s talking about his family or 40k miniatures.
I’ve not paid close attention to any policy discussions but if I were a Tory member and wanted us to be a prospective alternative in the eyes of people who aren’t completely mental then he seems the obvious choice by some distance.
|
|
Bongo Heracles
Junior Member
Technically illegal to ride on public land
Posts: 4,643
|
Post by Bongo Heracles on Oct 8, 2024 15:49:48 GMT
Cleverley appears to have at the very least realised that if they want wider appeal its best not to look like an absolute freak at every possible opportunity.
|
|
X201
Full Member
Posts: 5,132
|
Post by X201 on Oct 8, 2024 15:56:12 GMT
The next stage will be interesting.
Do some supporters jump ship from one candidate to another in order to either stop a candidate they don't like, or to get a candidate they do like on to the members vote
|
|
|
|
Post by Reviewer on Oct 8, 2024 16:24:48 GMT
They just vote for the one that hates foreign people the most.
|
|
|
|
Post by Whizzo on Oct 8, 2024 16:34:03 GMT
I'd imagine Tugendhat's support will mostly switch to Cleverly leaving the membership to choose fuckwit Jenrick in a vote between the two.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jambowayoh on Oct 8, 2024 16:35:01 GMT
They just vote for the one that hates foreign people the most. Poor foreign people. |
|
|
|
Post by Reviewer on Oct 8, 2024 19:18:02 GMT
They’re not too fussy. Foreign and not a Tory donor is enough.
Plus poor people in general.
|
|
|
|
Post by Danno on Oct 8, 2024 20:25:02 GMT
Well they're clearly committing benefit fraud.
|
|
|
|
Post by anthonyuk on Oct 8, 2024 22:04:48 GMT
The whole carbon capture thing does feel like a whole lot of money on kicking a can down the road. Not changing how core industry operates and simply burying the negative aspect deep underground seems to be missing the point entirely.
I just wish they'd done something more ambitious or radical. Investing it all in windpower for example. 22 billion would be a drop in the ocean to what the overall cost would be, but a Labour government aiming for state controlled energy based entirely 100 % on wind power would at least be something. Sell it to the public on the promise of subsidised energy for electric cars and business to generate excitment and heaven forbid improve people's quality of life.
|
|
|
|
Post by technoish on Oct 8, 2024 23:20:18 GMT
I thought point of carbon capture wasn't to be a core part of energy generation, but to make sure we can meet our carbon budgets as we simply won't yet have an alternative yet to using some gas to stabilise energy provision.
Doing more wind still doesn't solve a period of low wind energy production.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chopsen on Oct 9, 2024 8:28:00 GMT
Burying carbon underground is not can kicking. That's where it came from in the first place.
But sure it's not a magic bullet to solve everything either. No one technology is.
|
|
|
|
Post by manfromdelmonte on Oct 9, 2024 8:40:50 GMT
Biomass fuelled power stations, with carbon capture at source, sure.
But environmental carbon capture is pure snake oil. It's more about making continued reliance on fossil fuels look viable, than actually tackling climate change.
|
|
|
|
Post by Reviewer on Oct 9, 2024 8:43:23 GMT
Investing it all in wind power isn’t a full solution though. Carbon is created from so many other things than just power and electricity generation. Renewable energy isn’t viable in all situations in any time soon at least.
There needs to be a mix, whether it’s the right balance or not should be assessed by people who do the detailed research.
Sticking windmills on airplanes is probably not going to happen.
|
|
