|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Jun 12, 2019 8:35:00 GMT 1
he Ultimate in Virtue Signalling?
The Chancellor states that reducing Carbon Emissions to zero within 30 years will cost £11T - that is £11000 Billion. - that is about £300 Billion pa.
Many of our politicians are now pushing for zero emission within 30 years
And WHAT will be the effect upon Global Warming of this heart-felt desire to be good and nice, even holy?
Well that is known precisely
F**k All!
Whatever the UK does will make not make the slightest difference. During that same period China will build 10 coal -fired Electricity Generating plants for each of those 30 years, India will continue its massive pollution
India, China, Africa, within 30 years their economies will double, so there is no possibility that their pollution will decrease; indeed we can expect it to increase.
During that period our uk politicians intend to cut public services, education and the NHS back to focus on expenditure that reduces emissions to zero, in the full knowledge that it will have ZERO effect upon Global Warming
Why are our politicians pursuing this outlandish chimera?
They are not fools - they know there are kudos in 'Greenery'
They also know it is futile and damaging
The only possible answer is that they are signalling their virtue on a massive, unprecedented damaging scale
If someone could point out to me where good sense comes into the equation I would be grateful
|
|
|
|
Post by alancalverd on Jun 12, 2019 15:01:29 GMT 1
The only reason a poltician does anything is to increase his chances of re-election. The cost is irrelevant as his salary is whatever his colleagues vote for, his pension is inflation-proof, adsn you will have to pay or go to prison (at the expense of all the other taxpayers).
Right now the Tory party is in serious electoral trouble, losing Remain voters to the Lib-dems and Leave votes to the Brexit party. However neither poses a real threat when the Brexit nonsense is over, but some of the children who came out on strike because the climate is changing will be of voting age at the next general election and the rest of them were very persuasive, so there will be a huge middle-class, middle-brow floating vote to grab. Problem for the Greens is that they don't have any consistent policies on anything else, but a sitting Tory government with a charismatic leader who has actually done something vaguely about the climate bogeyman in the last two years, with ambitious plans to spend huge amounts of the government's (never "your") money on it in future, will grab the imagination of everyone who would have voted Labour if that party had any decency left. Or indeed any left decency.
Climate change is an even better bogeyman than Europe, inflation, immigration or drugs, because it is inexorable, inexhaustible, unpredictable, and always bad. There were just as many potential votes in climate change when the cult scenario was a new ice age, but they weren't as well orchestrated in the 1970s and Labour was still a credible governing party.
Of course in order for the UK to reach zero local emissions we will have to import vehicles, batteries and windmills from those countries that still have the smokestack industries that make such things, but Thatcher's successors have ensured that the UK will be blameless, if bankrupt, because every last vestige of extraction and manufacturing will have been scrapped in 5 years' time.
|
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Jun 13, 2019 17:28:31 GMT 1
Heard a climate change 'expert' on R4 saying (in an attempt to downplay the cost), that the estimated cost (Treasury estimate so take that as you will) of Britain's zero-emission targets within 30 years (which we are all agreed will have, aptly, zero effect upon Global Warming) WILL ONLY AMOUNT to 2% of GDP.
The clear implication being that it would not have a SERIOUS effect upon our economy
Odd that
The Treasury worst case estimates for a no-deal brexit (without taking any account of new trade deals) amounts to 0.9% of GDP Why you may ask is a figure of 0.9% considered a cliff-edge, a crash-out, a catastrophe, yet a policy that will have twice the negative affect of a no-deal Brexit is calmly received as 'manageable' - no raised eyebrows, no car-crash!
Odd, ain't it
|
|
|
|
Post by alancalverd on Jun 13, 2019 18:11:18 GMT 1
There are 166 nation states that trade with the EU and each other on WTO terms or individual treaties. Adding one more to that list is either a matter of shuffling some paperwork or a major disaster, depending on which line is more likely to get you re-elected.
An annual trade deficit of £1000 per capita (and increasing) is either a pointless waste of money or the key to world peace and everlasting life, again depending on your reading of the electorate.
Having had 3 years to negotiate all customs and excise rates on the WTO basis, resolved the questions of citizenship, and reinstated the migrant worker visa, and indeed having actually done so without making the results public, it ill behoves any government to call the next step "no deal". The deal is done - or damn well should be.
|
|
|
|
Post by fascinating on Jun 14, 2019 22:33:49 GMT 1
he Ultimate in Virtue Signalling? The Chancellor states that reducing Carbon Emissions to zero within 30 years will cost £11T - that is £11000 Billion. - that is about £300 Billion pa. Many of our politicians are now pushing for zero emission within 30 years And WHAT will be the effect upon Global Warming of this heart-felt desire to be good and nice, even holy? Well that is known precisely F**k All! Whatever the UK does will make not make the slightest difference. During that same period China will build 10 coal -fired Electricity Generating plants for each of those 30 years, India will continue its massive pollution India, China, Africa, within 30 years their economies will double, so there is no possibility that their pollution will decrease; indeed we can expect it to increase. During that period our uk politicians intend to cut public services, education and the NHS back to focus on expenditure that reduces emissions to zero, in the full knowledge that it will have ZERO effect upon Global Warming Why are our politicians pursuing this outlandish chimera? They are not fools - they know there are kudos in 'Greenery' They also know it is futile and damaging The only possible answer is that they are signalling their virtue on a massive, unprecedented damaging scale If someone could point out to me where good sense comes into the equation I would be grateful Is it £11 Trillion? Hammond says it could cost more than £1 trillion. The CCC estimates the cost might be £50 billion a year. www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48540004If it's true, as they allege, that renewables are now cheaper than conventional, there might be an overall economic benefit, plus our environment will be cleaner. |
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Jun 15, 2019 7:35:21 GMT 1
You are right, it should be 1T not 11T
How can a cost of c£50Billion pa be an economic benefit?
Are the cost benefits of 'Green energy' real benefits that take account of subsidies to 'green' and penalties to 'fossil'?
Can modern manufactories run off 'green' energy?
How do we get continuity of supply of 'green' energy?
Can a 60-ton lorry travel for 9-hours on batteries?
|
|
|
|
Post by alancalverd on Jun 15, 2019 16:48:33 GMT 1
How can a cost of c£50Billion pa be an economic benefit? Ask any Remainer. It's one of their profound articles of faith. Not a problem - the UK won't manufacture anything in 30 years' time |
|
|
|
Post by fascinating on Jun 16, 2019 7:48:59 GMT 1
You are right, it should be 1T not 11T How can a cost of c£50Billion pa be an economic benefit? Are the cost benefits of 'Green energy' real benefits that take account of subsidies to 'green' and penalties to 'fossil'? Can modern manufactories run off 'green' energy? How do we get continuity of supply of 'green' energy? Can a 60-ton lorry travel for 9-hours on batteries? My short answer to your questions is "Durrr, I dunno". But here are some musings. Looking at the BBC link, the cost of all this is roughly estimated at "1% or 2% of GDP", which puts it at between £20-40 billion, at current levels of GDP, with a guesstimate of a rise to up to £50 billion as the economy grows over 30 years or, in summary, a helluvalorramunny. However, the energy industry routinely invests in new plant and equipment every year, as older technology becomes obsolete. This link www.thegwpf.com/capital-investment-in-the-uk-energy-and-electricity-sectors/ shows that around £20 billion a year is spent on this already. Perhaps the majority of the estimated cost of renewables will be simply be by switching from investment in fossil fuel. Perhaps. Fossil fuel generates pollution, and in Britain it is estimated that pollution from transport alone shortens average life expectancy by 1.5 years. What is the cost of that? I don't know, but you might say that each one of the half a million which die each year were robbed of (on average) 1.5 years of living, worth let's say arbitrarily £50,000, so the cost of transport pollution is £25 billion a year. Anyway, it will change the fiscal picture markedly if everyone is in an electric car and not paying fuel duty, taxes to that value must be raised somewhere else. Modern manufactories can run on green energy because there are some days where the electricity is generated solely by green means and the factories keep going. Note that nuclear is regarded as "green" (carbon free) and a major back-up. For the days in winter when the wind doesn't blow, the idea is to buy electricity from the nuclear-powered French. The maximum size of a lorry in the UK is 44 tons, and driving for longer than 6 hours without a break is illegal. Could a system be evolved of replacing dud batteries with fully charged ones, in about half an hour? I only ask. |
|
|
|
Post by alancalverd on Jun 16, 2019 9:30:28 GMT 1
This still ignores the problem that a lot of industry (particularly those concerned with manufacturing cars and batteries) runs directly on fossil fuel, not electricity. Roughly half of the fuel consumed in the UK goes into non-transport industries, and a lot more in manufacturing economies like China and India. And the electric aeroplane hasn't progressed very far in the last 100 years.
Interesting that pollution from transport shortens life expectancy by 1.5 years. Compared with what? The only people who live in an environment with no or very little motor transport are such as Inuit (life expectancy 12 years less than Canadian average) and Central Africans (life expectancy 20 years less than European average, and 10 less than North Africans). The increase of life expectancy in Europe over the last 70 years has correlated exactly with the increase in the number of road vehicles.
Fossil fuels do not necessarily pollute. They certainly add CO2 to the atmosphere, without which we would die from starvation or hypoxia, but everything else is optional: burning methane or propane in an entirely conventional vehicle engine produces only CO2 and H2O.
|
|
