Politics, politics, politics (so long and thanks for all the fish)

[glasgowspur]

You know what I love about Tony Blair, won three elections by considerable margins and yet now it's difficult to find someone that admits to voting for him.
He was a snake oil salesman, he still is a snake oil sales and he always will be a snake oil sales man.
Just a pity it so many so long to realise it.

 

[Rorschach]

You know what I love about Tony Blair, won three elections by considerable margins and yet now it's difficult to find someone that admits to voting for him.
He was a snake oil salesman, he still is a snake oil sales and he always will be a snake oil sales man.
Just a pity it so many so long to realise it.

Just an oil salesman now.

 

[Gutter Boy]

And a war criminal

 

[Silly McSilly Face]

Blair is just a paid shill for the FF industry. Carbon capture at scale is impossible for the quantities or carbon we are chucking out.
Net zero is another such distraction that has unfortunately taken root.

So if you agree that net zero is a distraction from the real issues you'll agree with the central point that the Paris agreement is driving us in the wrong direction. It's a "scratch the surface", "make it look like we are trying" treaty. But given net zero IS placing us under significant economic strain, including the significant subsidisation of green energy, including not only grid production, but subsidies for the production and taxation of EVs and the installation of insulation and heat pumps, it is absolutely right that we look at this policy framework with the lens of:
- it's based on environment, climate data and technology from about 10/15 years ago.
- Is it going to offer bang for buck, I.e. are we going to hit 2030 having met all of our objectives in the treaty and having invested trillions of £ and STILL have a significant climate/environmental problem. If the answer to this Q. Is "yes" then Trump and Blair and the INCREASING voices across the political spectrum MIGHT JUST HAVE A POINT.

 

[Rorschach]

So if you agree that net zero is a distraction from the real issues you'll agree with the central point that the Paris agreement is driving us in the wrong direction. It's a "scratch the surface", "make it look like we are trying" treaty. But given net zero IS placing us under significant economic strain, including the significant subsidisation of green energy, including not only grid production, but subsidies for the production and taxation of EVs and the installation of insulation and heat pumps, it is absolutely right that we look at this policy framework with the lens of:
- it's based on environment, climate data and technology from about 10/15 years ago.
- Is it going to offer bang for buck, I.e. are we going to hit 2030 having met all of our objectives in the treaty and having invested trillions of £ and STILL have a significant climate/environmental problem. If the answer to this Q. Is "yes" then Trump and Blair and the INCREASING voices across the political spectrum MIGHT JUST HAVE A POINT.

There is too much in this post to dissect, but just to be clear on my opinion on net zero. Is it a distraction in that it gives permission to the FF industry to push fantasies about offsetting greenhouse gases with some future magical solution like CCS. We have all the solutions we need now. Starmer et al. have bought into such nonsense wholesale, unfortunately. In 20 years' time we will need to be engaging in drawdown.

While Blair might have a point that net zero is gonads, his remedy is also gonads.

 

[Gutter Boy]

So if you agree that net zero is a distraction from the real issues you'll agree with the central point that the Paris agreement is driving us in the wrong direction. It's a "scratch the surface", "make it look like we are trying" treaty. But given net zero IS placing us under significant economic strain, including the significant subsidisation of green energy, including not only grid production, but subsidies for the production and taxation of EVs and the installation of insulation and heat pumps, it is absolutely right that we look at this policy framework with the lens of:
- it's based on environment, climate data and technology from about 10/15 years ago.
- Is it going to offer bang for buck, I.e. are we going to hit 2030 having met all of our objectives in the treaty and having invested trillions of £ and STILL have a significant climate/environmental problem. If the answer to this Q. Is "yes" then Trump and Blair and the INCREASING voices across the political spectrum MIGHT JUST HAVE A POINT.

I took it that net zero is a distraction because absolute zero needs to be the focus. Net zero still implies unnecessary offsetting.

 

[LutonSpurs]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1917672271772279031

The replies to this are insane. Tell me where the extreme hate resides and which "culture" is spouting it?

 

[Silly McSilly Face]

I took it that net zero is a distraction because absolute zero needs to be the focus. Net zero still implies unnecessary offsetting.

I agree. And I'd even go further. If your "absolute zero" figure is achieved via solar and wind farms built and maintained via Chinese components in factories using FF and contributing to significant pollutants you are contributing significantly to "above zero" emissions.

 

[parklane1]

And a war criminal

Indeed.

 

[Silly McSilly Face]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1917672271772279031

The replies to this are insane. Tell me where the extreme hate resides and which "culture" is spouting it?

Although clearly that post is designed to goad the great unwashed. We aren't in the EU anymore, so why put something out with the mayor of our capital city stood in fromt of an EU flag. And actually that flag has never represented "being European", given that there are generally 44 independent sovereign states recognised within what is classed as the continent of Europe, of which only just over half are in the EU. Probably more LBC's decision than Khan's although I'm sure he signed up for it, but to an extent you can't put something triggering/goading like that and not expect a load of unwanted to crawl out the swamp. It's what our politics is right now, decisive, and our politicians are as responsible for that as much as anyone.....

 

[P.D.]

I agree. And I'd even go further. If your "absolute zero" figure is achieved via solar and wind farms built and maintained via Chinese components in factories using FF and contributing to significant pollutants you are contributing significantly to "above zero" emissions.

No one ever answers this point or what we do when it's not windy or sunny, battery storage is mentioned but there's nothing in existence of the scale needed to power the UK.