|
Post by SeanBroseley on Oct 19, 2021 12:05:34 GMT 1
"Bungs" and "paid by taxpayers" framing from the Telegraph.
The bungs will be paid into the economy for useful work to be done. From there the money will either be i) saved, ii) spent iii) taxed. And so on etc.
|
|
|
Post by armchairfan on Oct 19, 2021 12:19:38 GMT 1
"Bungs" and "paid by taxpayers" framing from the Telegraph. The bungs will be paid into the economy for useful work to be done. From there the money will either be i) saved, ii) spent iii) taxed. And so on etc. Money is ALWAYS saved spent or taxed - except when it is stolen !
|
|
|
Post by SeanBroseley on Oct 19, 2021 12:22:47 GMT 1
"Bungs" and "paid by taxpayers" framing from the Telegraph. The bungs will be paid into the economy for useful work to be done. From there the money will either be i) saved, ii) spent iii) taxed. And so on etc. Money is ALWAYS saved spent or taxed - except when it is stolen ! Money is ALWAYS saved, spent or taxed. You'll make a chartalist yet armchair.
|
|
|
Post by SeanBroseley on Oct 19, 2021 12:44:06 GMT 1
Do you then have any politically unacceptable remedies to offer? That's too long a post. It includes anything that doesn't involve the degradation of society that was involved in the industrial revolution. Which is the likely course ahead - in the name of maintaining living standards of course - and one facilitated by the "net zero" framing of the climate crisis.
|
|
|
Post by armchairfan on Oct 19, 2021 12:47:03 GMT 1
Money is ALWAYS saved spent or taxed - except when it is stolen ! Money is ALWAYS saved, spent or taxed. You'll make a chartalist yet armchair. Don't forget the last bit - "except when it is stolen"! Not too sure what your point is though, Sean, but then again, you're far cleverer than me, by half...
|
|
|
Post by SeanBroseley on Oct 19, 2021 13:06:57 GMT 1
You're right. At least by half.
Stolen money will likely reenter the economy through transactions to hide its origins. It is subject to another category - hoarding. Hoarding is different from saving as the latter will involve purchase of existing assets that are expected to provide a return.
If money circulates in the economy then it is taxed at each circulation. How many circulations before the £5,000 is drawn out of the economy by the government?
And what is the problem?
|
|
|
Post by northwestman on Oct 19, 2021 13:15:10 GMT 1
So all those landlords who hide the origins of their money by purchasing properties, often on a 'buy to let' basis, will no doubt be at the front of the queue for claiming £5,000 grants for heat pumps.
However, they will of course leave replacement of any dangerous cladding to the tenants!
|
|
|
Post by armchairfan on Oct 19, 2021 13:20:04 GMT 1
Do you then have any politically unacceptable remedies to offer? That's too long a post. It includes anything that doesn't involve the degradation of society that was involved in the industrial revolution. Which is the likely course ahead - in the name of maintaining living standards of course - and one facilitated by the "net zero" framing of the climate crisis. You obviously have some deeper thesis in mind here - point me in the right direction please! However, in direct response, I would say that as we are all beneficiaries, to varying degrees, of the Industrial Revolution, I am uncertain as to how we can avoid the degradation to which you refer, and at the same time continue to enjoy those same benefits; without those fruits of the Industrial Revolution, society would not simply degrade....it would collapse into barter and feudalism, and, quite possibly, much much worse. I may be wrong and misunderstood your point, but I suspect that that isn't quite what some learned economist is advocating, but beware of unintended consequences!
|
|
|
Post by northwestman on Oct 19, 2021 14:19:52 GMT 1
Energy chiefs have criticised the way the grants scheme has been drawn up as they warned only wealthier families will be able to benefit.
They said that 'the only people who can afford to take advantage are those who can put the other £5,000 in' to meet the estimated £10,000 cost of installing a heat pump.
The idea of providing grants has been welcomed by some in the industry but there are fears the 'level of funding is too low' to prompt widespread adoption of the technology.
Meanwhile, the PM has ditched the idea of a total ban on gas boilers from 2035 after a furious backlash from Tory MPs and homeowners.
Instead, the Government has said it will set 'an ambition that by 2035, no new gas boilers will be sold'.
The policies are contained in the Government's new Heat and Buildings Strategy which was published today along with Mr Johnson's wider plan for hitting a target of net zero emissions by 2050.
Government sources have also confirmed ministers will press ahead later this year with a plan to pile new 'green' levies on to gas bills.
Levies on electricity will be cut in a bid to persuade consumers to switch to greener energy. Daily Mail.
|
|
|
Post by servernaside on Oct 19, 2021 15:27:45 GMT 1
I don't expect the media to be cheerleaders for anyone, but neither do I expect them to deliberately create anxiety and panic among certain sections of the population regarding alleged shortages of fuel, food, toys and turkey at Christmas etc. etc. etc. There never was a shortage of petrol or diesel during the past few months, the panic at the pumps was entirely generated by loose and irresponsible media talk. There wasn't a shortage at the refineries, but we don't buy petrol there, we buy it from the petrol stations, where there were shortages ... Exactly! Because people were told by the media that there were likely to be shortages and what did they do? Went out and filled their tanks whether they needed that amount of fuel or not. Brilliant.
|
|
|
Post by venceremos on Oct 19, 2021 16:01:57 GMT 1
There wasn't a shortage at the refineries, but we don't buy petrol there, we buy it from the petrol stations, where there were shortages ... Exactly! Because people were told by the media that there were likely to be shortages and what did they do? Went out and filled their tanks whether they needed that amount of fuel or not. Brilliant. There was a reason that stories of actual and potential shortages were reported, and that was because shortages at the pumps were beginning to be experienced. It's not the media's job to spike stories in case the public reacts irrationally, it's the government's job to remedy the underlying problem and prevent that coming to pass. Unless you're suggesting the government should be able to control what's reported and what isn't, which takes us into different territory .....
|
|
|
Post by venceremos on Oct 19, 2021 16:07:19 GMT 1
Energy chiefs have criticised the way the grants scheme has been drawn up as they warned only wealthier families will be able to benefit. They said that 'the only people who can afford to take advantage are those who can put the other £5,000 in' to meet the estimated £10,000 cost of installing a heat pump. The idea of providing grants has been welcomed by some in the industry but there are fears the 'level of funding is too low' to prompt widespread adoption of the technology. Meanwhile, the PM has ditched the idea of a total ban on gas boilers from 2035 after a furious backlash from Tory MPs and homeowners. Instead, the Government has said it will set 'an ambition that by 2035, no new gas boilers will be sold'. The policies are contained in the Government's new Heat and Buildings Strategy which was published today along with Mr Johnson's wider plan for hitting a target of net zero emissions by 2050. Government sources have also confirmed ministers will press ahead later this year with a plan to pile new 'green' levies on to gas bills. Levies on electricity will be cut in a bid to persuade consumers to switch to greener energy. Daily Mail. Why would any homeowner be "furious" at the prospect of no new gas boilers being installed from a date 14 years in the future? Or any sensible MP for that matter? Typically trashy Daily Mail reporting - we can't have uncertainty, we must have fury.
|
|
|
Post by stuttgartershrew on Oct 19, 2021 16:22:00 GMT 1
There wasn't a shortage at the refineries, but we don't buy petrol there, we buy it from the petrol stations, where there were shortages ... Exactly! Because people were told by the media that there were likely to be shortages and what did they do? Went out and filled their tanks whether they needed that amount of fuel or not. Brilliant. Seems so. According to that article in the Independent anyhow (I linked to it on here on the other thread). Within that they reported that if everyone would have continued with their normal routine (when it came to buying petrol, filling up) then no one would have gone short, there would have been no shortages. It was people buying more than they usually do (as in, panic buying) that caused shortages at the pumps (for some anyhow). They reported the amount of fuel delivered to the petrol stations hardly changed.
|
|
|
Post by servernaside on Oct 19, 2021 16:50:52 GMT 1
Exactly! Because people were told by the media that there were likely to be shortages and what did they do? Went out and filled their tanks whether they needed that amount of fuel or not. Brilliant. There was a reason that stories of actual and potential shortages were reported, and that was because shortages at the pumps were beginning to be experienced. It's not the media's job to spike stories in case the public reacts irrationally, it's the government's job to remedy the underlying problem and prevent that coming to pass. Unless you're suggesting the government should be able to control what's reported and what isn't, which takes us into different territory ..... Complete nonsense.
|
|
|
Post by northwestman on Oct 20, 2021 11:17:13 GMT 1
www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-10109299/ROGER-BISBY-Heat-pumps-one-biggest-cons-Ive-seen-building-trade.htmlHaving started my working life as an apprentice plumber aged 16, run my own building company for almost 30 years and then appeared as an expert on TV shows from the BBC’s Rogue Traders to House Of Horrors on ITV, I thought I’d seen it all when it came to the building trade. But even I have been unprepared by the scale of opposition to the heat pumps that the Government is so keen to make us all fit in our homes, having ripped out our gas boilers first. On the building advice website that I now run, I have been deluged by unhappy customers who were persuaded to install heat pumps (which are either ground source or air source, depending on design) but who bitterly regretted their decision. Far from enjoying cheaper, more efficient heat in their homes, UK families who fit them often find their electricity bills double or treble; the noisy heat pumps drive them to distraction; their house is colder; their shower lukewarm and in all too many cases they wish they could get their old gas boiler back. Few people seem to realise that it is pointless to install a heat pump unless your house is extremely well-insulated and draught-proofed to keep it airtight. Otherwise, the heat seeps out – and cannot be restored quickly enough by the heat pump. Gas boilers, in contrast, heat houses very fast – which means that they can replace heat quicker than it seeps out of a house. Modern new-builds in the UK are generally well -insulated, but they are still not designed for heat pumps. Most houses currently using gas boilers need to fit larger radiators and pipes, meaning major disruption and a hefty bill. For older houses, it would typically be better to replace radiators with underfloor heating, which is more efficient and gives a better spread of heat. But that means taking up floors to install it, meaning more expense, disruption and waste. As for the £5,000 Government grant, it will barely make a dent in the costs for most people: A new air source heat pump system can cost £10,000 on average including installation. And you can bet that companies approved to do this grant-aided work will put their prices up – by a remarkably consistent £5,000 or so. The Government recently ran a pilot scheme outside Newcastle, offering to take out gas boilers and replace them with air source heat pumps for free. But they couldn’t give the pumps away: People simply didn’t want the disruption. So rather than persuading householders to rip up their floorboards, swap out all their radiators with larger ones and commit themselves to a potentially ruinous – and environmentally useless – new heating system, it would be far better to ensure that people’s houses are properly insulated first. I'm sure that those characters disrupting the traffic flow on the M25 would agree with the point about insulation, but that of course would cost further billions.
|
|
|
Post by kenwood on Oct 20, 2021 12:16:48 GMT 1
I understand that another problem arising out of the heat pump installation proposal is the number of professional installers required to do the job. It takes approx 2 days to install the system and requires at least 2 operatives to do the job . Like hgv drivers etc there just aren’t enough people to do the job . As someone on here may already have said it is ridiculous to install heat pumps unless the property is fully insulated , walls, loft and windows . To achieve this so preventing heat loss will cost quite a few £K Not covered by the initial grant provided by the Government . Oh dear , yet another ill thought out initiative dreamt up by Boris , a knee jerk reaction prior to COP 26 which , like most of Boris’ s plans unravel under scrutiny . He is well known for being “ detail light “ is Boris , probably the worst MP this country has had the misfortune to experience .
|
|
|
Post by northwestman on Oct 20, 2021 12:18:48 GMT 1
Carbon dioxide (CO2), has only a volume share of our atmosphere of 0.04%. Furthermore, of that 0.04% , 95 percent comes from natural sources, such as volcanoes, decomposition processes etc. in nature. Therefore, the human generated C02 content in the air is only 0.0016 percent. The main polluters, China, USA, Russia, and India have all said they are not prepared to commit to any reductions in the near future. Listening to Boris and the hysterical media, you would think we were a major polluter as well. However, in 2020 the UK was ranked 17th with just 1.1% of global emissions (i.e. 1.1% of 0.0016 percent). And yet Boris is now about to wreck the economy in pursuit of this 'Green Agenda'.
|
|
|
Post by Dancin on Oct 20, 2021 12:50:56 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by SeanBroseley on Oct 20, 2021 13:46:21 GMT 1
Carbon dioxide is an important greenhouse gas because it lasts a long time before condensing and so can go high up in the atmosphere. Man-made global warming will increase what may be called naturally occurring carbon dioxide (because it doesn't come out of a chimney). Carbon sinks at warmer temperatures and in drier climates will release their carbon.
The economy is global. A proportion of China's carbon emissions will be because of the things we import from China. But buying less stuff is eroding living standards and wrecking the economy. Hmmm.
Johnson is as committed to this as he was the garden bridge - what happened there? If people start complaining about the damage to the economy he'll probably reduce taxes on banks and property developers.
|
|
|
Post by armchairfan on Oct 20, 2021 14:33:29 GMT 1
Carbon dioxide is an important greenhouse gas because it lasts a long time before condensing and so can go high up in the atmosphere. Man-made global warming will increase what may be called naturally occurring carbon dioxide (because it doesn't come out of a chimney). Carbon sinks at warmer temperatures and in drier climates will release their carbon. The economy is global. A proportion of China's carbon emissions will be because of the things we import from China. But buying less stuff is eroding living standards and wrecking the economy. Hmmm. Johnson is as committed to this as he was the garden bridge - what happened there? If people start complaining about the damage to the economy he'll probably reduce taxes on banks and property developers. Now look, Sean, I get it that you wish to lambast this Government in general, and Boris Johnson in particular, and sometimes you do make valid criticisms; this is all well and good, but their value is somewhat diminished by your failure to propose alternatives - what are those "politically unacceptable" remedies which you clearly had in mind, which I am still waiting to hear?
|
|
|
Post by davycrockett on Oct 20, 2021 14:43:01 GMT 1
Carbon dioxide is an important greenhouse gas because it lasts a long time before condensing and so can go high up in the atmosphere. Man-made global warming will increase what may be called naturally occurring carbon dioxide (because it doesn't come out of a chimney). Carbon sinks at warmer temperatures and in drier climates will release their carbon. The economy is global. A proportion of China's carbon emissions will be because of the things we import from China. But buying less stuff is eroding living standards and wrecking the economy. Hmmm. Johnson is as committed to this as he was the garden bridge - what happened there? If people start complaining about the damage to the economy he'll probably reduce taxes on banks and property developers. Now look, Sean, I get it that you wish to lambast this Government in general, and Boris Johnson in particular, and sometimes you do make valid criticisms; this is all well and good, but their value is somewhat diminished by your failure to propose alternatives - what are those "politically unacceptable" remedies which you clearly had in mind, which I am still waiting to hear? I’ll make a start with insulate all UK properties as in the Labour Party manifesto. Then labour.org.uk/press/labour-pledges-to-make-all-new-homes-zero-carbon-within-three-years/And now www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-home-insulation-policy-starmer-b1929178.html
|
|
|
Post by venceremos on Oct 20, 2021 15:11:53 GMT 1
Carbon dioxide (CO2), has only a volume share of our atmosphere of 0.04%. Furthermore, of that 0.04% , 95 percent comes from natural sources, such as volcanoes, decomposition processes etc. in nature. Therefore, the human generated C02 content in the air is only 0.0016 percent. The main polluters, China, USA, Russia, and India have all said they are not prepared to commit to any reductions in the near future. Listening to Boris and the hysterical media, you would think we were a major polluter as well. However, in 2020 the UK was ranked 17th with just 1.1% of global emissions (i.e. 1.1% of 0.0016 percent). And yet Boris is now about to wreck the economy in pursuit of this 'Green Agenda'. Context-free percentages are meaningless unless you're a climate scientist. The point is that the planet is heating and humans are responsible for altering the climate. Cornell University surveyed all peer reviewed science papers on the subject published between 2012 and November 2020. They found that more than 99.9% agreed with the scientific consensus that human activity is altering the climate. Of 88,125 studies, only 28, all published in minor journals, were on the side of climate sceptics. In other words there is as good as no doubt that burning fossil fuels is heating the planet and causing more extreme weather. The degree of scientific certainty is now similar to theI'll go with the scientists level of agreement on evolution and plate tectonics. Frighteningly, a survey in 2016 found that only 27% of US adults believed that almost all scientists agreed that the climate emergency was caused by human activity. Where does this unfounded scepticism come from? Social media platforms, no doubt encouraged by disinformation from those with a vested interest in doing nothing - fossil fuel businesses and the politicians and media they have in their pockets. Do I trust the consensus of scientists, or do I trust self-serving politicians, vested business interests and unqualified, self-appointed internet blaggers? I'll go with the scientists, every time. The costs of addressing the problem are only going to increase. We can say "but the economy" to excuse our vacillation but that's like pretending the roof doesn't need fixing because the room we're in is dry. It's a false economy and will cost an awful lot more to replace the whole roof. It's the biggest challenge we face. A few hundred migrants crossing the Channel will be nothing compared to the tens of millions who'll be displaced by flooding and desertification. Nobody will be immune. Burying our heads in the sand because we're worried about marginal, short-term economic advantages that other countries might obtain is a counsel of weakness and dishonesty. It'll catch up with all of us sooner or later - and much sooner if we don't do what's needed now.
|
|
|
Post by SeanBroseley on Oct 20, 2021 15:23:32 GMT 1
Carbon dioxide is an important greenhouse gas because it lasts a long time before condensing and so can go high up in the atmosphere. Man-made global warming will increase what may be called naturally occurring carbon dioxide (because it doesn't come out of a chimney). Carbon sinks at warmer temperatures and in drier climates will release their carbon. The economy is global. A proportion of China's carbon emissions will be because of the things we import from China. But buying less stuff is eroding living standards and wrecking the economy. Hmmm. Johnson is as committed to this as he was the garden bridge - what happened there? If people start complaining about the damage to the economy he'll probably reduce taxes on banks and property developers. Now look, Sean, I get it that you wish to lambast this Government in general, and Boris Johnson in particular, and sometimes you do make valid criticisms; this is all well and good, but their value is somewhat diminished by your failure to propose alternatives - what are those "politically unacceptable" remedies which you clearly had in mind, which I am still waiting to hear? The corrupt dilly-dallying over the last three decades means that the steepness with which carbon emissions need to be cut and the rapidity with which what is in the atmosphere needs to be removed means that there is no politically accceptable answer to this situation. Instead we have "net zero" as the focus to make it look like something substantial is being done. Global carbon emissions are now 60% higher than in 1990. Yes we can insulate homes and do all the rest of it. But we must also prepare for a world where its ecology, including the free labour of pollinators, soil-based microbes, for example, that underpin our society will be much diminished. This is only doom and gloom if you are inextricably attachedto the way we live now. Some people are. Many will commit suicide rather than facing the future that we are now embarked upon. The future will only be like today but with more stuff for a diminishing minority of us. On home insulation - there is a parliamentary scientific briefing document from 2013 regarding heat pumps that states homes using it needs to be insulated for it to be an effective. That is how serious the government's proposal is.
|
|
|
Post by servernaside on Oct 20, 2021 19:11:24 GMT 1
Carbon dioxide (CO2), has only a volume share of our atmosphere of 0.04%. Furthermore, of that 0.04% , 95 percent comes from natural sources, such as volcanoes, decomposition processes etc. in nature. Therefore, the human generated C02 content in the air is only 0.0016 percent. The main polluters, China, USA, Russia, and India have all said they are not prepared to commit to any reductions in the near future. Listening to Boris and the hysterical media, you would think we were a major polluter as well. However, in 2020 the UK was ranked 17th with just 1.1% of global emissions (i.e. 1.1% of 0.0016 percent). And yet Boris is now about to wreck the economy in pursuit of this 'Green Agenda'. You're quite right. This is total insanity. Most of the plans cannot even work - try installing a heat pump in a 15th floor tower block apartment for example - aside from any issues regarding efficiency. I understand that the UK is responsible for less than 1% of global CO2 emissions caused by human activity. To reduce this to net zero by whatever bat s**t crazy deadline people come up with next, will have the grand effect of reducing global emissions by.......you guessed it....less than 1%. Big deal.
|
|
|
Post by northwestman on Oct 21, 2021 10:47:02 GMT 1
www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-10113947/STEPHEN-GLOVER-eco-revolution-soaring-taxes-pine-Tory-government.htmlThe rapid transformation of Boris from a Tory sceptic with his feet firmly on the ground to a climate-change fanatic is one of the most amazing political phenomena of modern times. Not long ago, he was expressing sensible caution. In a newspaper column from January 2013 he wondered whether solar activity might not be a contributory factor to global warming. He confessed that he had an 'open mind'. In 2015, one of his columns was faithfully headlined: 'I can't stand this December heat, but it has nothing to do with global warming.' Over the years he has doubted the efficacy of wind power and advocated more nuclear power stations. He has also championed fracking for gas, which the Government under his leadership has comprehensively, and very unwisely, kiboshed. We are not talking here about juvenile scribblings that can be easily disowned. The mature and grown-up Boris of the very recent past did not believe that climate change presented such an immediate danger that the economy had to be turned upside down, and taxpayers required to fork out endless dollops of cash. The usual reason given for Mr Johnson's sudden conversion to being the Che Guevara of climate change and evangelist of higher taxes is the influence of his wife, Carrie, who is something of an eco-zealot. No doubt this is part of the explanation. But I think there is something else in play — Boris's unconquerable love of drama. He's not prepared to sit down with the Chancellor, Rishi Sunak, and go through the figures painstakingly, weighing up the pros and cons of reaching net zero in record time. He is not detained by the argument that the UK, which produces a mere 1 per cent of the world's carbon emissions, shouldn't hobble its economic future while other countries make hay, and China is building hundreds of new coal-fired power stations. Something in his mindset renders him predisposed to grand gestures and apocalyptic solutions.
|
|
|
Post by armchairfan on Oct 21, 2021 11:53:33 GMT 1
I just wonder to what extent Mr Johnson's almost messianic conversion to this "green agenda" may have been influenced by that insufferable wittering of Greta Thunberg, who has now set out to blame the UK for all things "Global Warming"; were it not for the Industrial Revolution, she and many more millions would still be barely our of cave-dwellings and animal-skins.
|
|
|
Post by northwestman on Oct 21, 2021 12:10:24 GMT 1
Voters hate it when, as with the EU, they were told by Labour, Tories and Lib Dems alike that ever-closer union was the best of all possible worlds, that the only acceptable debate was about the speed of integration, and that only a racist would disagree. Ordinary folks’ revenge, when it came, was devastating.
It beggars belief, therefore, that a government of Brexiteers, in power only because they led a populist rebellion against another cross-party consensus, have forgotten this crucial lesson when it comes to net zero, and are seeking to enshrine a revolution without consulting the public. Yes, the vast majority, at least in wealthy nations, wants to improve the environment, reduce pollution, bolster biodiversity, treat animals better and prevent man-made catastrophes.
But that is where the near-universal consensus ends: the details of how to proceed are explosively contentious, and require democratic assent to be legitimate. The parallel with Brexit is clear: the fact that voters all agreed that another European war must be avoided didn’t mean they all wanted to fuse their countries into a superstate.
Net zero involves long-term, hugely significant measures that could drastically modify lifestyles and give the state immense, permanent powers to socially engineer as it sees fit.
Do you agree that all new petrol and diesel cars should be banned in just nine years’ time? Or that gas boilers should be replaced, at great cost, with heat pumps, a technology that doesn’t quite work yet? Are you willing to eat less meat and pay higher taxes? Do you disagree entirely, or accept some of these ideas but not others? Or would you prefer to take it more slowly given China’s reluctance to act?
The shocking reality is that how you answer is irrelevant. The public isn’t being given a choice. The fact of, and speed, scale and method of decarbonisation have been decided: Tories, Labour and Lib Dems all agree on all the essentials. It doesn’t matter who wins the next election: a new orthodoxy rules supreme. There is no functioning democracy, no mechanism by which outcomes might change. This is a disgrace and extremely dangerous.
Why is the Government's nudge unit advocating a tax on meat and producers and retailers of “high-carbon” food? The inflammatory document, disowned by the Government but commissioned by the Department for Business, demonises business travel and seeks to reduce international tourism and restrict airport expansion – goodbye, capitalist freedom. Can the Government guarantee that it would never impose extreme restrictions, rationing on homes and business or even mini eco-lockdowns? Or use a punitive form of road pricing to drastically reduce mobility (as opposed to ensuring motorists pay appropriately for road usage)?
Johnson should preempt this war, and call a referendum on net zero today. His obligation, in doing so, would be to explain in exhaustive, costed detail how he proposes to achieve the changes he so fervently believes in. The No side would present its case, holding Johnson to account, proposing alternatives, with the public taken through the pros and cons and trade-offs. The results should be legally binding, with MPs compelled to implement the verdict, and the question tightly defined. The Government will have its work cut out: the Swiss have just rejected plans to slash their own emissions and to slap higher taxes on fossil fuels.
The green challenge is too important, its implications too dramatic, to be left to an establishment that has embraced net zero as if it were a new religion. The public must have the final say, and the only way this will happen is through another referendum.
Daily Telegraph.
|
|
|
Post by armchairfan on Oct 21, 2021 12:19:31 GMT 1
A further thought occurs to me: are we not conducting a political/economics version of catastrophism, where there are two opposing sorts of catastrophe being proffered; one is that the problem, insofar as it exists at all, will result in the end of human life as we know it; the other that the implementation of those "cures" proposed thus far proposed will result in the end of human life as we know it....
I get it that these matters are exercising some of our greatest minds, but I hope that my attempt at humour will not cause upset to too many....as Readers Digest famously said, "laughter is the best medicine"!
|
|
|
Post by SeanBroseley on Oct 21, 2021 12:36:44 GMT 1
The Daily Telegraph is doing Johnson'swork for him in these articles.
|
|
|
Post by northwestman on Oct 21, 2021 14:23:46 GMT 1
www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/oct/21/climate-leaders-cop26-uk-climate-crisis-glasgowThe thoughts of Greta Thunberg. 'Hope is all around us. Because all it would really take is one – one world leader or one high-income nation or one major TV station or leading newspaper who decides to be honest, to truly treat the climate crisis as the crisis that it is. One leader who counts all the numbers – and then takes brave action to reduce emissions at the pace and scale the science demands. Then everything could be set in motion towards action, hope, purpose and meaning'. Let's hope Boris doesn't read this! Though I've no doubt Carrie will bring it to his attention.
|
|