Forum menu
Come to think of it, why don’t Prime Ministers (and Ch. Ex.) pay BIK on the Downing
Benefits of writing the rulez 🙂
I doubt if anyone who actually holds down a job as an employee is allowed to accept gifts or tickets to things other than calendars or pens 🙂
I get that the PM getting invites to things or the Lord Mayor going to London things but other than them I don’t see why any MP should be allowed freebies unless it’s something they were involved with.
It’s not like the basic salary’s bad £91,346 and well expenses.
Mauritius should charge the "money printing machine" 100 times more with contract renewal every 3 years (adding another 50%)
Even with 100 times rental it is peanut to the money printing machine to have an air base there.
In the event of war, Mauritius will need whatever they can to sustain themselves and by being accommodating now they are they are selling their lives cheap.
With a population of 1.263 million (2022), they would be fool to not take this opportunity to charge as much as they wish. In fact, the entire population could just received salary every month without needing to work.
I'm a bit surprised no-one in the press has brought up Reeves once having her parliamentary credit card suspended for spaffing it up the wall. Seemingly fiscal rules are only for the plebs.
they would be fool to not take this opportunity to charge as much as they wish.
My very first reaction when I heard that Britain was handing back the Chagos Island to Mauritius was "the Chagossians are going to be pleased to be eventually going home. Then I hear that the Chagossians are furious with the deal because the United States airbase is staying, so my next thought was "Mauritius is going to make a fortune out of the Americans".
Then I discover that Britain isn't handing back Diego Gracia. I can't see how this complies with UN Resolutions on decolonisation when you are relinquishing sovereignty on uninhabited Islands, ie islands without any colonies, but keeping the one island which actually has a colony.
It's like some sort of comedy sketch. I bet they had a good laugh in the Foreign Office.......and then we told them, you can have these islands, we don't want them anymore"
I can’t see how this complies with UN Resolutions on decolonisation when you are relinquishing sovereignty on uninhabited Islands, ie islands without any colonies, but keeping the one island which actually has a colony.
AIUI all have been handed back but then Diego Garcia is leased back on a long lease, and with Mauritius's consent. It's quite complex - there's two risks; that a new Mauritian government may not honour that lease, and secondly that if the base doesn't remain then quickly China will move onto it - so the long lease is apparently a means to protect that (depends how well they adhere to international law - ironic coming from us, I know!!)
The deal to transfer the Indian Ocean archipelago to Mauritius includes the tropical atoll of Diego Garcia, home to a military base used by the UK and the US that plays a crucial role in the region's stability and international security.
Under the agreement, the base will remain under UK and US jurisdiction for at least the next 99 years.
According to the Guardian link Mauritius will not have sovereignty of the Diego Garcia. The Chagossians are apparently not happy at all, unsurprisingly - it's their home.
It would be interesting to hear what the United Nations Special Committee on Decolonization has to say on the "deal"
Justifying Americans staying there because otherwise the Chinese will quickly move in is nonsense. First of all it is for Mauritius to decide which, if any, foreign power should have a military base on their sovereign territory, not the US president.
And secondly if you use that as an excuse then the United States could expropriate any bit of land they fancy. There are loads of places throughout the world that China could have military bases on.
The solution is simply. The United States could build huge aircraft carriers, maybe another half a dozen on top of the 11 they already have. Very expensive I know but relying on the legacy of the British Empire and driving indigenous peoples off their lands is not acceptable post 19th Century.
and according to the BBC, it's - basically the same as the Sky article.
Guardian link doesn't say Mauritius won't have sovereignty of Diego Garcia, it says it "will remain under UK control"
Complicated, with different news outlets reporting differently. The actual Gov statement is definitive that
"Under the terms of this treaty the United Kingdom will agree that Mauritius is sovereign over the Chagos Archipelago, including Diego Garcia. At the same time, both our countries are committed to the need, and will agree in the treaty, to ensure the long-term, secure and effective operation of the existing base on Diego Garcia which plays a vital role in regional and global security. For an initial period of 99 years, the United Kingdom will be authorised to exercise with respect to Diego Garcia the sovereign rights and authorities of Mauritius required to ensure the continued operation of the base well into the next century"
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/joint-statement-between-uk-and-mauritius-3-october-2024
To other points:
One assumes the UN is OK with that; they are reporting the news without any complaint although they also note as you do that (not all) Chagossians are happy with the deal their government has agreed.
https://news.un.org/en/story/2024/10/1155326#:~:text=Under%20Thursda y's%20agreement%2C%20the%20UK,%2C%20a%20close%20Commonwealth%20partner%E2%80%9D.
Lastly - not sure if your comment is aimed at me or not - I'm just reporting what press is saying, but given the Mauritian Gov has signed to a deal (OK, not signed but agreed with treaty to follow) in which
"both our countries are committed to the need, and will agree in the treaty, to ensure the long-term, secure and effective operation of the existing base on Diego Garcia which plays a vital role in regional and global security
I don't think it's correct to say that US president is deciding where to put bases and expropriating the land, it's an agreement. The issue reported in the Sky article is that a future Gov may decide not to respect that agreement - and then what happens.
relying on the legacy of the British Empire and driving indigenous peoples off their lands is not acceptable post 19th Century.
agree - but caveat that the Mauritian Gov has decided to agree to it in spite of what the Chagossian Islanders wanted, and also that
Mauritius will now be free to implement a programme of resettlement on the islands of the Chagos Archipelago, other than Diego Garcia, and the UK will capitalise a new trust fund, as well as separately provide other support, for the benefit of Chagossians,
and separately there's a hope that even if D-G can't be resettled, Chagossians and their descendants will be prioritised for jobs there.
Guardian link doesn’t say Mauritius won’t have sovereignty of Diego Garcia, it says it “will remain under UK control”
Well the Guardian describes it as Britain retaining "delegated sovereignty", let's see what the United Nations Special Committee on Decolonization has to say about the deal. I guess they will have to accept it because the former complainant has accepted it.
The UN website link is just the UN news service, and that article is actually quite scathing of Britain's treatment of the Chagossians.
As I said, the Chagossians were shamefully screwed by a Labour government (which in many ways was an excellent government) and now 50 years later they are being screwed by another (not quite so excellent imo) Labour government.
and the UK will capitalise a new trust fund, as well as separately provide other support, for the benefit of Chagossians,
Save's me looking at the Daily Mail's headlines in a day or twos time. 😉
Id like to think the only reason that the UK just didn't walk away from the issue and say, "Come on everyone, this isn't really UK territory, the US are calling the shots here, not us" is to try and take a bit of responsibility for an historic wrong but I'm likely being naive.
I'm going to guess that a lot of the Chagos islands and those of Mauritius itself, are going to be mainly under water in a few decades which is bloody sad to think about. Also inconvenient for the US... though they can always "do a China" and build the island up to outpace a rise in sea levels. They have the luxury of having the money to do so, unlike these tiny islands states.
I'm wondering what India thinks of this? I know they are getting worried about China's increasing influence in the Indian Ocean. I suspect they are glad to see the US maintain a base there.
Just thinking aloud really.
bikesandboots
Full Member
Can’t help but think that the UK, US, and the west will regret this one day.
Very different in so many ways but it does make me think of the deal we had over HK, 99 years sounds like a long time. Till it isn't.
Yeah and by then China will totally dominate the world anyway so it will be a moot point.
This much fabled return to UK stability (which is a bit of a red herring ) as current world stability tends control where private wealth flows.
(See the recent dip in the pound as money moves away from risk-on assets towards the dollar again due to concern about the middle-east. Most likely temporarily as world events tend to be faded by the market.)
However the unnecessary doom and gloom from the Labour party has been cited the reason for UK investment funds to have had outflows of 666million in September.
https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1841759086355832934?t=2Ae3UavPhM0yJ823oZt3Ag&s=19
Ultimately I don't care so much about this stuff as it's pretty obvious everyone needs the UK government to invest a whole load of money themselves - and the markets will just behave how they want to. (Usually positive when there is a net flow from government.) But it's clear that the vagueness of what Labour call stability is not likely to be the leading factor of private investment.
Can you help me with that Rone - I have no idea if that £666m is either significant or 'normal' so clicked through the link to see if the article said how much is actually invested. In turn it goes through to a Times article
which then says "According to Calastone data, UK-focused equity funds have not registered a positive net inflow of capital since 2021"
and show a graph that has this as roughly an average outflow. The times article does say it shows a halt to a recovery and indeed the outflows in Jul/Aug were lower, but it doesn't really show enough for me to view it as a trend.
https://twitter.com/TallyCat8/status/1841763127706218754
I also note that if money is flowing out at that rate, and has been for three years, and the funds haven't crashed then the funds must be pretty big. IANAFE so don't know if this is the right number as context, but a google says the total value of UK equity funds is 2.6tn. If that's what the outflow is against, that's 0.02%
Have I got that right?
Come to think of it, why don’t Prime Ministers (and Ch. Ex.) pay BIK on the Downing Street flats?
They pay for the council tax, and the (10%) tax on services and utilities. Other than that (and the fact that they don't get an allowance to pay the costs) the flat comes with the job.
and now 50 years later they are being screwed by another (not quite so excellent imo) Labour government.
Nope, they've been screwed over by their own govt who made the 99 year lease deal.
Come to think of it, why don’t Prime Ministers (and Ch. Ex.) pay BIK on the Downing Street flats?
Law of unintended consequences - be a lot of agricultural workers rather pissed off if accommodation provided with work became a BIK.
However the unnecessary doom and gloom from the Labour party has been cited the reason for UK investment funds to have had outflows of 666million in September.
Like everyone here I am not an economist but I do know someone who has been trying to raise a £3-5b UK based fund over the last couple of years and it has been slower than on previous years to get to this target long before the GE.
Lolz at all the tub-thumpers who think the UK still has any influence in the world. In this case the only reason anyone really cares in a geopolitical sense is because of the US airbase.
Even the US is having a hard time now it is being shown up by Israel.
Biden: Please stop committing genocide. We do not approve.
Netanyahu: No. And what are you going to do about it anyway?
Biden: Disapprove more. But continue selling you weapons.
The solution is simply. The United States could build huge aircraft carriers, maybe another half a dozen on top of the 11 they already have. Very expensive I know but relying on the legacy of the British Empire and driving indigenous peoples off their lands is not acceptable post 19th Century.
When you say indigenous, you do know that Diego Garcia had none, the population were 'freed' slaves, or descendants of them who were there working on the plantation that were created by the french. Also noting Mauritius is over 1300 miles away from these islands, and hasn't really got the infrastructure to support them in any real way as well, it's basically just a bun fight over some small islands that only the US has any real use for.
What happened in the 70s was wrong, but i doubt many, or any, would want to move back to Diego Garcia even if it was demilitarised, those who lived there, or their children have been living in Mauritius or the UK for two generations, so not sure if anything other than the potential plan stated by the UK, US and Mauritius is viable, as for the UN, what are they going to do but do their usual principled speeches with absolutely no action behind them.
When you say indigenous, you do know that Diego Garcia had none
I am aware that the Chagossians didn't evolve in Diego Garcia, and that humans are not indigenous anywhere outside Africa.
However despite the fact that the subject is British imperialism I didn't think that the old much loved colonial term "the natives" was appropriate and I used the more modern and generally acceptable indigenous.
But whatever term you want to use it doesn't change point I was making - that the Chagossians have been screwed twice by Labour governments. Nick seems to think that only Mauritius is responsible this time but they are only one party in the deal.
But whatever term you want to use it doesn’t change point I was making – that the Chagossians have been screwed twice by Labour governments. Nick seems to think that only Mauritius is responsible this time but they are only one party in the deal.
You do know both times it's been at the bequest of the US, firstly so they could build their base, and now, with Mauritius sovereignty, the US are leasing it for 99 years and so on, the UK are able to back out of this whole fiasco now and leave it to those who actually want the Chagos Islands for something.
As for screwed, the Chagossians have had that their entire time, finally freed slaves, dumped in a French colony to work the plantations, then in the 70s they get dumped in the UK and Mauritius, but again, in 2024, i honestly don't see how you repopulate Diego Garcia anytime soon, Mauritius has no logistic ability to do this, or probably the will to spend the billions required to make it habitable again once the US leaves.
Nick seems to think that only Mauritius is responsible this time but they are only one party in the deal.
Ultimately, the Chaggosians don't have any political representation that supports their claim. The UK aren't going to (obviously) which leaves Mauritius, and as I linked to yesterday, all the political parties support the continuing presence of the US Air Base, so in the sense that after the UK was told to give back the islands, their hand could've been forced by Mauritius had any of their political representatives sought to do so, they didn't. While you'll lay the blame at the feet of the UK, I'd say the UK acted in it's own interests, (how else would it act) and the islanders have been let down by their own government in this instance.
As for screwed, the Chagossians have had that their entire time
I can see the thinking behind that.......why stop now, eh? A Labour government proper shafted them 50 years ago why stop now? Especially as all the Chagossians who lived in Diego Gracia will be dead in not too long.
On a side note/QI related fact did you know that New Zealand was the last "landmass" on which humans settled? About 400 years before Europeans arrived
FFS after all the we have no money bollocks Reeves and Starmer have now found 22bn (coincidence?) down the back of the sofa to spend on fantasy greenwash nonsense. Unless of course they're planning on spending all that money on planting trees - which is still the only proven CCS technology - but I doubt those are the skilled jobs they're prattling on about.
Who the hell is running the labour PR machine? It's like they're trying to be the most unpopular government in history. "Sorry we can't afford to help you heat your homes or help you get a doctor's appointment, but we've got loads of cash to spend on pie in the sky technologies which don't do anything". F***** clueless!
LOL.......how much are you willing to pay for breakfast?
It should be seen appallingly depressing that the current Labour leadership is on Tory level sleaze, but it's so sleazy it's actually funny.
What a way to start a new government.
FFS after all the we have no money bollocks Reeves and Starmer have now found 22bn (coincidence?) down the back of the sofa to spend on fantasy greenwash nonsense.
Erm - you do realise that's an investment of 22bn over 25 years. Comparing it to a 22bn deficit of Dept spending in year is incorrect. In fact spending on investment vs day to day spending is also incorrect.
Unless of course they’re planning on spending all that money on planting trees – which is still the only proven CCS technology
Fortunately the investment is in developing CC technology, so that planting trees isn't the only proven technology. If there aren't investments, then planting trees will be the only proven technology ever?
Sorry we can’t afford to help you heat your homes or help you get a doctor’s appointment, but we’ve got loads of cash to spend on pie in the sky technologies which don’t do anything
Targeted but speculative long term research isn't pie in the sky. It's essential. And as before - investment spending isn't the same as day to day departmental budgets. Indeed, didn't Rone just say earlier
it’s pretty obvious everyone needs the UK government to invest a whole load of money themselves
Anyone would think that anything they do will be criticised!
“Sorry we can’t afford to help you heat your homes "
A policy change that only a couple of days ago on this thread, you supported.
you do realise that’s an investment of 22bn over 25 years.
Yes of course I do. I'm not talking about whether it's a good thing or not*, I'm talking about the optics and the politics of it. The voting public won't make the distiction you have, they will do a simple sum in their heads of no 22bn for WFP and other stuff (along with higher taxes) versus a 22bn handout to fossil fuel companies and others to 'do research' into technology that doesn't exist yet that has no perceived benefit for them. Their conclusion will then be that the labour govt is on the side of big business and not the working man/woman struggling to make ends meet. I have no real problem with labour spending 22bn on research, but announcing it with a massive fanfare like it's going to save everyone is going to massively backfire. I wonder how many votes went to reform this morning?
*Although 22bn would be far better spent on proven tech like planting trees and restoring and extending peat bogs, something we are uniquely able to do given our geography. But that's not as shiny and impressive is it? Far better to pretend we're all going to be saved by fantasy technology of the future.
CCS has been talked up for decades now to little effect, and continues to draw public investment away from stuff that actually works.
CCS is the new nuclear fusion. By the time they figure out how to make it work we'll all be long gone and the world will be in a 4 degree of warming hellscape. Still though, it gives the PM an opportunity for a nice speech which makes him look like he's doing something useful. Won't be long before he's making speeches about mirrors in space. :-/
All this simply vindicates the idea that there's money when they want to spend it.
It's amazing how one minute there's a black hole in finances, the next they find the money. It's brazen.
(Same with Biden - billions for Ukraine but the victims of the recent Hurricane disaster have been more or less told there's no more money for whatever made up Federal v State reason.)
The final piece of the puzzle will be whether Reeves all of sudden rewrites the definition of government 'debt' and/or changes the fiscal rules. Absolute proof that they make up a budgeting restriction to suit the politics of the day or so they believe because the austerity argument will not wash this time.
Labour have got there work cut out to even begin to straighten this out.
Starmer appears to be just terrible at politics. That's reality.
Jonathan Ashworth still doing the rounds. This man knows no limit to his expertise on various subjects.
Well, I've just asked one of our experts on CCUS and he's going to send me a primer that I'll share.
Perhaps you can do the same for your assertions that it's no good, and then we can read both sides.
And good that @rone's here - I asked a couple of questions on your post about investment flow, maybe you'd have a look.
Well, I’ve just asked one of our experts on CCUS and he’s going to send me a primer that I’ll share.
I work for a leading sustainable development consultancy, and whilst its not my field I don't know of a single project we're working on which involves CCS. Given we're all over wind, solar, hydro, nuclear, habitat restoration and a multitude of other things in the sustainability space that tells me CCS isn't taken very seriously, because if it was I'd be reading all about it in our internal bulletins and other comms.
It's greenwash. A convenient way to funnel billions to fossil fuel companies who can use it as an excuse to carry on extracting oil and gas with the promise of a magical technology to be introduced at some uspecified time in the future that will undo all the damage they cause.
Perhaps you can do the same for your assertions that it’s no good, and then we can read both sides.
I'm not going to try and prove a negative. Some of the questions that need answering, in my view, are as follows:
1. Where does it work commercially, at scale?
2. What guarantees do we have that storage is secure in the very long term?
3. How do we square carbon capture with utilising that CO2 to extract more fossil fuel? How is this accounted for in a carbon balance?
4. What is the opportunity cost of public subsidy, were it to be allocated instead to proven renewable technology?
5. Who are the commercial entities pushing this technology and what is their motivation?
6. If it were deployed commercially at scale, what % contribution would it make to carbon reduction and what is its marginal abatement cost?
Like dazh, CCS is not my field but I've worked in environmental management, renewable energy and clean tech in the public and private sector, for 25 years. I know of no-one who thinks that it's anything other than an expensive distraction.
£30k for a breakfast? We have the best government money can buy.
OK, so this is around the measurement needs to support CCUS, but contains some info.
https://www.npl.co.uk/environment/carbon-capture-usage-and-storage-programme
He personally thinks it's a brave investment, and is surprised at the size of commitment. But there's only a few countries that can make it work and UK is one - alongside all the other environmental projects. The 'grail' if you like is decarbonisation, but that can only achieve so much at least for now and some difficult industries will need this even if only as a transitory technology.
£30k for a breakfast? We have the best government money can buy.
Should’ve went to Macdonalds for a egg McMuffin
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/mar/30/what-is-carbon-capture-usage-and-storage
Also, re Breakfast meetings:
Both Labour and the Conservatives hosted business days at their recent party conferences, where executives could pay about £3,000 to watch speeches by senior party figures. As part of the programme, both parties promised “networking opportunities” with ministers or shadow ministers to those who paid for tickets.
Surely a mistake - I'm not even sure I'd have breakfast with senior party figures if THEY paid ME £3000.
It isn't £3,000 for breakfast with the business secretary, that would be cheap - a greasy spoon caff presumably.
It's £30,000. Labour don't do breakfast on the cheap.
I think the big difference between Labour sleaze and Tory sleaze is that Labour are under no illusion that what they are doing is wrong**.
When they get caught they eventually say "sorry, honest, we won't do it again". Obviously they are only sorry that the truth become public knowledge.
Edit : ** to be clear I am of course referring to Labour under the current leadership. I don't think there is anything inherently sleazy about the Labour Party, unlike the Tories.
I guess that when you want to be a centrist you have to meet the Tories halfway......yes we are sleazy too but the difference is that we know sleaziness is wrong. So vote for us.
It's a direct quote from the article, to show that they all do it
It’s a direct quote from the article, to show that they all do it
I believe there's been discussion on this thread around how Labour differs from the Tories.
CCS in the UK isn't going to be used to extract more fuels, they do use the pumped CO2 for additional extraction where it is deployed on a commercial scale in North America. Demonstrator scale plants are fitted to facilities around Europe to support companies in finalising FID for full scale facilities. The 1st full scale operational facility is already operating in the UK in Northwich.
It's not necessarily the right thing to do and companies would probably be better to seek alternative solutions higher up the decarbonisation hierarchy both in terms of environmental and financial benefits but for things like cement kilns and energy from waste CO2 is an unavoidable byproduct so CCS is the only option. But more significantly if anyone is to pursue it then there needs to be carbon sinks developed and that does need government investment support to seed fund a nascent industry.
The funding support has mechanisms for government to recover money if/once the systems become self supporting under a CfD type arrangement.
CCS in the UK isn’t going to be used to extract more fuels
What will it be used for? I ask because it's now being referred to as CCUS so I assume there's an intention for some kind of utilisation.
First they came for the climate scientists…
This will be spun as a smart move on here.
Can you remember the experts?
If Starmer doesn't want to sacrifice British industry he could step up and invest a ton then.
Populism v Neolibralism avoiding anything remotely progressive is now the debate.
biofuels, chemical production, food and drink industry, fertilizer, building materials....etc. It's in the links I supplied yesterday - section 4 of the NPL report, etc.
Of course, the actual announcement was for CCUS and Hydrogen technology. I know CCUS for blue hydrogen in itself is not uncontroversial, but the solution requires bits from everywhere - and then potentially as technology evolves and matures fossil fuels and biofuels/blue hydrogen will reduce in favour of green hydrogen, etc.
But anyway, we should probably have a future green tech thread if we want to really get into this, there's a few I think with real knowledge that probably avoid the politics threads and so we're missing their expertise.
biofuels, chemical production, food and drink industry, fertilizer, building materials….etc. It’s in the links I supplied yesterday – section 4 of the NPL report, etc
Yes, that's the theory, but I couldn't find anything in the case studies put forward so far. Anyway, CCS for blue hydrogen really doesn't make much sense at all.
Others would disagree, and see it as a transition solution
Yes, the fossil fuels industry is very keen. In reality, it's crap, and may even have a bigger carbon footprint than burning gas.
Yes, that’s the theory, but I couldn’t find anything in the case studies put forward so far.
The existing plant captures carbon and uses it to produce chemicals.
The existing clusters are injecting into expired oil/gas fields for pure storage. All of this is on the home sites for Hynet, Northern Endurance Partnership, Viking and Acorn, it's not hidden or secretive.
Hydrogen funding of recent has generally been focussed on green hydrogen generation and the rules for that are strict in regards to what sources of power can be used, how it needs to be monitored, recorded and verified.
Yes, the fossil fuels industry is very keen. In reality, it’s crap, and may even have a bigger carbon footprint than burning gas.
Or it centralises CO2 emissions to a single point where implementing mitigation is feasible instead of having multiple sources where it isn't.
Or it centralises CO2 emissions to a single point where implementing mitigation is feasible instead of having multiple sources where it isn’t.
What mitigation? If you're talking about CCS then it doesn't fully offset additional CO2 and methane arising from the additional production, conversion and storage processes. In other words, it's worse than just burning gas.
Just reported on LBC, Sue Gray has resigned her position in the government and is moving to another position (envoy to the nations) within the government.
Yeah it turns out that Morgan McSweeney, the man who gets to decide what Starmer's policies are, has won the civil war raging in the Labour Party over personalities.
Although I don't think there was ever much doubt that he would:
one cabinet minister had foreshadowed Gray’s future weeks ago, telling the Guardian: “One or both of them will have to go. It’s not going to be Morgan.”
It did seem remarkable that the person who calls all the shots anyway should not be chief of staff.
It has been an eventful first 3 months for the new Labour government, what headline hitting sleaze and administrative turmoil, I guess things might all settle down now and everything might calm down for the next 5 years?
No I don't think so either.
The existing clusters are injecting into expired oil/gas fields for pure storage.
Utterly insignificant and usually rapidly abandoned projects. It really isn't the answer and is perhaps top of the greenwashing league. The oil and gas industry would make a much greater contribution to reducing green house gas emissions if it invested in properly capping the thousands of old wells that are leaking methane around the globe.
Ploughing energy, resources and money into carbon capture when there is so much lower hanging fruit is counter productive and only serves to appease the easily fooled who believe the bollocks. When energy is totally decarbonbised and there's a surplus start working on carbon capture. Till then concentrate on reducing emissions.
Utterly insignificant and usually rapidly abandoned projects. It really isn’t the answer and is perhaps top of the greenwashing league.
Yeah it’s utter bollox this CC bullshit but when you see the Labour Party sucking from the lobbyists teets then what can we expect?,
https://twitter.com/JamesMelville/status/1842279287228969361
Yeah it turns out that Morgan McSweeney, the man who gets to decide what Starmer’s policies are
Number of free football tickets, which benefits to cut, that sort of thing?
serves to appease the easily fooled who believe the bollocks.
And we wonder why debate on here gets into name calling and arguments.
Plenty of scientists seem to be in your easily fooled category. I know who I align more with and it's not armchair environmental activists on the internet.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Energy_Agency#Bias_against_renewable_energy
The IEA has been criticised for systematically underestimating the role of renewable energy sources in future energy systems such as photovoltaics and their cost reductions.[73][74][75]
In the past, the IEA has been criticized by environmental groups for underplaying the role of renewable energy technologies in favor of nuclear[76] and fossil fuels.[77] In 2009, Guy Pearse stated that the IEA has consistently underestimated the potential for renewable energy alternatives.[78]
The Energy Watch Group (EWG), a coalition of scientists and politicians which analyses official energy industry predictions, claims that the IEA has had an institutional bias towards traditional energy sources and has been using "misleading data" to undermine the case for renewable energy, such as wind and solar. A 2008 EWG report compares IEA projections about the growth of wind power capacity and finds that it has consistently underestimated the amount of energy the wind power industry can deliver.[79]
in 2015 ranked the IEA as one of the top three least transparent think tanks in the UK in relation to funding.[63][64] The IEA responded by saying "It is a matter for individual donors whether they wish their donation to be public or private – we leave that entirely to their discretion", and that it has not "earmarked money for commissioned research work from any company".[63]
I know who I align more with and it’s not armchair environmental activists on the internet.
Parroting Starmer's Sun article doesn't enhance your credibility.
Have you got any critique from less than 15 years ago?
The pragmatic know that we cannot turn off gas and coal and so while there is a transition to renewables, and indeed there must be investment in them as well, during the transition CCUS forms part of the solution. It's not either / or, it's both.
More personal attacks again then. Terrific.
And we wonder why debate on here gets into name calling and arguments.
I haven't read Starmer's article, I don't read the Sun. I work with people who are deeply involved in all parts of metrology for the energy mix and I just talk to them and listen. Ed's characterization as easily fooled who believe the bollocks is just laughable.
Why's Rone still not answered my reasonable question about investment flow. A bit of a pattern from the armchair activists I think, find a critical article, post it maybe with some additional (and sometimes false) embellishment, and when called out on it, nowhere to be seen. Hmmmm.....
More personal attacks again then. Terrific.
And we wonder why debate on here gets into name calling and arguments.
Where ? The only name calling I can see is coming from you. Twice now you have referred to those who have different opinions to yours as "armchair activists".
MSP’s link cites several sources less than 15 years old.
Fair enough - although I think that second quote section was edit-added after I'd responded (MSP?). The top ones criticising a supposed fossil fuel bias are all older, or are articles from more recent but which reference old IEA reports.
The UK has literally just turned off coal.
And gas? I said gas and coal, not or. Gas is about 1/3 of our electricity generation from knowledge, we can't just turn it off. And there are many other nations less advanced. It's going to reduce in favour of renewables but in the meantime making it cause less damage is a good thing, no?
Where ? The only name calling I can see is coming from you.
What a surprise, Ernie's here to join in!
Did you conveniently skip over the Edukator post then?
"the easily fooled who believe the bollocks"
Ransos - having a dig at 'credibility'
Play the ball not the man you say. As if.
And gas? I said gas and coal, not or.
You referred to an energy source which is no longer in use. It would be better to acknowledge your error rather than doubling down.
Anyway, what I see here is you parroting something someone told you at work, links without critique, insulting other posters (whilst complaining about the same) and not responding to measured criticism of CCS. Several posters here, including me, have significant professional experience in sustainability and renewable energy, your posts come across as being more about winning rather than learning anything.
You referred to an energy source which is no longer in use. It would be better to acknowledge your error rather than doubling down.
It's widely used. Yes, the UK has just turned off its last coal fired power plant, but in the context of global energy generation it's very much in use.
Anyway, what I see here is you parroting something someone told you at work,
that's an unfair representation of what I and they do, but if that's your opinion, OK
links without critique,
Go to the post at the top of this page (p60) - I think that's a fair commentary - "thinks it’s a brave investment, and is surprised at the size of commitment"
insulting other posters (whilst complaining about the same)
I tried not to but Edukator declaring those that believe CCUS will form part of a transition strategy are the "easily fooled who believe the bollocks" - start throwing verbal punches, expect some in return
and not responding to measured criticism of CCS.
There was a reasonable debate and I thought my responses were measured. eg:
I know CCUS for blue hydrogen in itself is not uncontroversial, but the solution requires bits from everywhere – and then potentially as technology evolves and matures fossil fuels and biofuels/blue hydrogen will reduce in favour of green hydrogen, etc.
Then Ed wades in with comment like that; Somafunk too - where's the measure in
"utter bollox this CC bullshit but when you see the Labour Party sucking from the lobbyists teets then what can we expect?"
And then
Several posters here, including me, have significant professional experience in sustainability and renewable energy
Yes, you keep saying. So as I said, we should probably have a green energy thread because there's plenty others with knowledge and expertise who'll be missing the fun because they avoid the politics threads.
What a surprise, Ernie’s here to join in!
Join in what? I am just following the thread and I was interested in who you thought was name calling, especially as you are definitely doing that.
I don't think Ed's comment nor ransos's can be categorised as name calling. Ed is dismissive of people who have a certain opinion and ransos is questioning how credible your comments are, where's the name calling?
So yeah, you are absolutely right, play the ball not the man, deal with the subject. And maybe stop the name calling
You referred to an energy source which is no longer in use. It would be better to acknowledge your error rather than doubling down.
Either he overlooked the fact that coal was turned off less than a week ago
Or he was talking more broadly than just the UK - accepting it's a UK thread, but climate action is broader.
Or you are all now just scrabbling to find a way to have a dig at each other regardless and another thread gets ruined by petty points scoring.
First Google result about the energy used in carbon capture, estimates vary but the amount of energy required is similar to the energy produced by burning the fossil fuels that produced the CO2 in the first place.
Even if you believe the oil-company financed hype the energy needs are colosal.
Then there's the water needed:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/oct/15/emissions-capture-carbon-cost-water-electricity
And al that when the vast majority of STWers still have gas central heating and drive an ICE car. Low hanging fruit first, stop burning oil where there's a viable alternative, which there is.
INSULATE with both carrot and stick incentives which won't include a Winter fuel payment. I think about four of us on STW have homes that are anywhere near passive house standards.
ALTERNATIVE ENERGY tax fossil fuels to fund investment in alternatives rather than subsidise and encourage fossil fuel use
SORT OUT TRANSPORT. mainly public transport but also good, maritime, tax on aviation fuel at the same level as petrol and at least five time renewable electricity etc.
Labour won't do this, they pander to the fossil fuel lobby.
Even if you believe the oil-company financed hype the energy needs are colosal
From the links you supplied
Recharge is the world’s leading business intelligence source for the renewable energy industries.
At least my links (IEA) are from a broad position body, even if they wrote some articles 15 years that underestimated the role of renewables!
I don't disagree with what you say about addressing the other aspects (and FWIW I'm in the process of moving to EV, my home is well insulated, I use sustainable transport where I can - cycle, bus, train, I haven't flown since Covid, and still know I need to do more)
We're on the path to fossil fuel free, in the meantime we have to address all parts including CCUS as part of the transition, and if me believing that measured position makes you classify me as "easily fooled who believe the bollocks" then there's probably no point continuing the debate; nothing I say will be of any credibility to you and others.
Or he was talking more broadly than just the UK – accepting it’s a UK thread, but climate action is broader.
Yes. As I've said several times, this isn't a UK Gov thread issue, we should have a green energy thread where I think others with relevant expertise are more likely to join.
It’s widely used. Yes, the UK has just turned off its last coal fired power plant, but in the context of global energy generation it’s very much in use.
You were talking about CCS in the UK. At least try to be consistent.
Go to the post at the top of this page (p60) – I think that’s a fair commentary – “thinks it’s a brave investment, and is surprised at the size of commitment”
Yes, you've already told us what someone told you at work.
I tried not to but Edukator declaring those that believe CCUS will form part of a transition strategy are the “easily fooled who believe the bollocks” – start throwing verbal punches, expect some in return
I'm not bothered either way, but moaning about behaviours you demonstrate is nothing more than hypocrisy.
There was a reasonable debate and I thought my responses were measured. eg:
I think your comment is fundamentally misguided, for the reasons I gave and Ed set out succinctly. To summarize, CCS for blue hydrogen obeys the second law of thermodynamics, and is a very expensive way of achieving very little, or, potentially, being counter productive.
Yes, you keep saying
Oh right. I thought we were armchair environmentalists? You seemed quite keen a while ago for me and others to state our credentials. Now you seem keen to disregard them. It'd be good if you could make your mind up.
I see this thread is still just negativity about everything and anything, sweet
I guess these threads provide an outlet for people for all sorts of things that are better in an Internet setting than real life.
Ganging up, collective sanctimony, aggressive cross-examination in the hope of tripping people up, willingly blinkered worship, dogma masquerading as idealism, convenient short-term memory loss...
It's all here!
Why’s Rone still not answered my reasonable question about investment flow.
Look at you all commando.
a) I haven't actually seen it.
b) I don't have a duty to respond to anyone. I have a life outside this forum and don't spend all my spare time fretting over every single challenge.
c) I might not be able to answer it.
d) Go on then for laugh.