news & politics:discussion

[steviewevie]

9 minutes ago, Skip997 said:

Fossil fuel companies got to him?

Tory attack about costs of doing this the other day probably.

They are totally sh*t scared. Depressing.

[Ozanne]

2 minutes ago, Skip997 said:

This isn't a game about who is best or who to support, it's a case of seriously trying to save the human race.

It's that crucial and we have got a lot less time than most people think.

Political point scoring or desperately trying to get reelected is only leading one way and it ain't going to be pretty.

Yet last night you were rubbishing Labour plans because doing clean energy by 2030 wasn’t possible. So your post is a bit rich. 

[Ozanne]

2 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

Tory attack about costs of doing this the other day probably.

They are totally sh*t scared. Depressing.

Those Tory attacks worked with you. 

[steviewevie]

1 minute ago, Ozanne said:

Those Tory attacks worked with you. 

They worked with Labour, they're ditching it.

[Skip997]

Just now, Ozanne said:

Yet last night you were rubbishing Labour plans because doing clean energy by 2030 wasn’t possible. So your post is a bit rich. 

Yet again you're twisting posts to suit your own agenda.

At no point did I rubbish anything.

I made the obvious (to anyone with any real knowledge) point that we haven't got a chance of reaching "clean" energy by 2030 regardless of who is in charge.

Unless we radically change our attitude across the board and stop worshiping the pound.

[steviewevie]

This:

Opposition Policy Costings 2024 - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

[steviewevie]

and now they can do this...

 

[Ozanne]

1 minute ago, steviewevie said:

They worked with Labour, they're ditching it.

They changing the funding for it, which was already confirmed months ago maybe if people weren’t so happy to parrot Tory attacks then it might not have happened. 

[steviewevie]

1 minute ago, Ozanne said:

They changing the funding for it, which was already confirmed months ago maybe if people weren’t so happy to parrot Tory attacks then it might not have happened. 

They're ditching the home insulation plan. 

[Ozanne]

3 minutes ago, Skip997 said:

Yet again you're twisting posts to suit your own agenda.

At no point did I rubbish anything.

I made the obvious (to anyone with any real knowledge) point that we haven't got a chance of reaching "clean" energy by 2030 regardless of who is in charge.

Unless we radically change our attitude across the board and stop worshiping the pound.

You said:

’100% clean energy?

They haven’t got a hope in hell…’

After weeks of saying how bad the crises is when a party puts a plan in place to tackle it you instantly just say nope, not doable. Sorry but with that type of attitude then of course we aren’t going to change things. As I said even if we get to 75% clean energy then it’ll be much better than nothing.

I genuinely thought an ambitious target would be welcomed by someone like you. 

[Ozanne]

3 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

They're ditching the home insulation plan. 

It probably isn’t being ditched, just amended I would imagine. 

[steviewevie]

1 minute ago, Ozanne said:

It probably isn’t being ditched, just amended I would imagine. 

scaled back, drastically reduced.

[lost]

8 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

and now they can do this...

 

Its not really copying the Tories its both parties following the OBR. Liz Truss went against them and look what happened to her so can we really blame Starmer?

Edited February 8 by lost

[Ozanne]

1 minute ago, steviewevie said:

scaled back, drastically reduced.

So it isn’t being ditched?

[Ozanne]

This is ultimately why the funding had to change because otherwise the media would harp on about how we can’t afford it, Labour would tarred with being irresponsible with the economy and people would lap it up. 

[steviewevie]

3 minutes ago, lost said:

Its not really copying the Tories its both parties following the OBR. Liz Truss went against them and look what happened to her so can we really blame Starmer?

the govt sets the fiscal rules, not the OBR.

[steviewevie]

Anyway, the nerds will save us again...

 

[steviewevie]

3 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

So it isn’t being ditched?

no, they're going to do a few houses in N London.

[lost]

1 minute ago, steviewevie said:

the govt sets the fiscal rules, not the OBR.

Yep but the bond market doesn't have to believe those rules are credible.

[fraybentos1]

4 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

So it isn’t being ditched?

Semantics.

Why can you just not admit that Labour are u-turning big time here? Would save a lot of back & forth here

[Skip997]

We can cut our in country emissions as much as we like, but will still be responsible for these

Quote

Figure 3 shows that in 2020, emissions associated with imports from China were 38 mt CO2e, which is 62 per cent higher than the 1996 level of 23 mt CO2e. They now account for 14 per cent of the emissions associated with imports, compared to 9 per cent in 1996.

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/uks-carbon-footprint/carbon-footprint-for-the-uk-and-england-to-2019

Lifestyle attitude consumerism and greed reset required as much as using technology

[steviewevie]

4 minutes ago, lost said:

Yep but the bond market doesn't have to believe those rules are credible.

doesn't have to...but just setting to 5 years debt thing is just some arbitrary number based on a term of a parliament.

Anyway, we have no idea how markets would respond...Green investment will probably seem like the way to go in terms of future growth and security...whereas just suddenly cutting taxes all over the place when public services actually require more money and then refusing to publish OBR and just saying trust us this will bring growth just didn't wash.

[stuie]

14 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

You said:

’100% clean energy?

They haven’t got a hope in hell…’

After weeks of saying how bad the crises is when a party puts a plan in place to tackle it you instantly just say nope, not doable. Sorry but with that type of attitude then of course we aren’t going to change things. As I said even if we get to 75% clean energy then it’ll be much better than nothing.

I genuinely thought an ambitious target would be welcomed by someone like you. 

Sadly it won't make any difference as we share a world with China and USA who will swallow up our net savings. 

So I'm still going to fly on holiday.

[steviewevie]

this isn't an economic decision, it is a political decision.

Maybe one day people will make decisions based on the environment.

[Skip997]

Just now, stuie said:

Sadly it won't make any difference as we share a world with China and USA who will swallow up our net savings. 

So I'm still going to fly on holiday.

Include India in that.

Anyway I don't blame you.

When we haven't even got the balls to ban the production of endless amounts of unnecessary disposable shite, almost certainly produced using coal, then why should individuals bother?