Is it PotG?
Thrifty non-licker
It tends to be Labour with the 'save the world' sound bites on the whole, the Tory mantra tends be, erm well more conservative.
I'm sure that will be their future intention, who knows?!
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Politics] The Labour Government
- Thread starter Super Steve Earle
- Start date
I'm sure that will be their future intention, who knows?!
Were these left wing ideals? If so what changed you?
Is it PotG?
Thrifty non-licker
Was a Young Socialist, meetings and rallies and music and stuff.
Then work and real life.
They all promise the world and deliver nowt...the world just keeps on turning.
They're all the same.
I want the other way, voted for Thatcher at 18. Then education, work and real life (as you say) turned me the other way.
Is it PotG?
Thrifty non-licker
I think life experience does have a significant effect upon your later views.
Red Wedge with Sir Paul and Billy was so invigorating. Mortgages and pensions as you head out to work makes you slightly more realistic and aware of fiscal policy.
When you see the old school tie shenanigans it reminds you of songs you raised your fist at in your teens which makes you disillusioned once more.
All a load of tosh.
rogersix
Well-known member
- Jan 18, 2014
- 8,348
so it's a good idea then?
stewart12
Well-known member
- Jan 16, 2019
- 2,166
So I'm struggling with the idea that having more people voting is a bad idea
When I did a level politics there was a broader variety of ideas than you'd imagine. The teacher was a Lib Dem councillor (sadly, quite well known to Brighton fans at the time). A fair few Tory kids in a relatively small class. It wasn't all Che Guevara t shirts and berets. Then those of us who probably would be inclined to vote labour got f***ed over by the tuition fees stuff and many of us voted elsewhere in the 2005 election as a result
If you appeal to young voters they'll probably vote for you, if you don't then they probably won't. The Tories didn't exactly spend the last 15 years endearing themselves to young people so they can't be shocked when 16 years olds aren't chomping at the bit to vote for them
When I did a level politics there was a broader variety of ideas than you'd imagine. The teacher was a Lib Dem councillor (sadly, quite well known to Brighton fans at the time). A fair few Tory kids in a relatively small class. It wasn't all Che Guevara t shirts and berets. Then those of us who probably would be inclined to vote labour got f***ed over by the tuition fees stuff and many of us voted elsewhere in the 2005 election as a result
If you appeal to young voters they'll probably vote for you, if you don't then they probably won't. The Tories didn't exactly spend the last 15 years endearing themselves to young people so they can't be shocked when 16 years olds aren't chomping at the bit to vote for them
Curious Orange
Punxsatawney Phil
I wonder if Ed Milliband has ever had a chat with the chap being interviewed here?
RandyWanger
Je suis rôti de boeuf
Machiavelli
Well-known member
The combination of Spiked and Bjorn Lomborg. You're quite the contrarian.
Curious Orange
Punxsatawney Phil
Just because an opinion is popular it doesn't mean it is right. I assume you listened to the interview?
I'm not quite sure what the current popular opinion is with regard to Net Zero policy. It has certainly been popular among politicians and idealists, perhaps less so amongst anybody that has to deal with the practical outcomes of the current policy - mainly due to the high energy costs.
I think it's popular with realists too.
Net Zero is inevitable. If we stop burning fossil fuels it will happen sooner, if we don't, we'll run out of them if we survive as a species.
Lomborg is a political scientist not a 'science' scientist so it's no wonder that his use of data and facts is profoundly misleading. If it looks and speaks like a right wing populist, it probably is one:
More misinformation and nonsense on climate from Lomborg and Tol - Grantham Research Institute on climate change and the environment
Bob Ward scrutinises the latest misleading article from Bjorn Lomborg, which as well as misrepresenting scientific data, draws on error-strewn work by Richard Tol.
www.lse.ac.uk
His thing is playing down the seriousness of climate change. He openly admits that wealth is what can insulate you from it's affects and argues, somewhat bizarrely, we can all be wealthy.
However, it's the bit about 'less people will die from the cold' if we have climate change that should ring the 'he is a complete moron' bell in your head.
Most people will agree that net zero will happen with a number of measures. The first being to set and example to countries like India a China not object that we should not be part of the solution because we are only responsible for 1% of admissions. In the future, clean energy needs to be delivered from a number of sources. Be that nuclear fusion, solar, wind, hydro, biomass, geothermal or tidal.
A populist commentator such as Lomborg will first convince you that 'the green lobby' (or whatever he calls realists advocating net zero that week) want to cut all fossil fuels now. Not a gradual change. That reels most idiots in. He then looks at each method of clean energy production and tries to debunk it (his absurd battery idea is batshit, we will never need them). At no moment will he point to the reality that is every state needs a range of renewables and to employ a gradual reduction of fossil fuel usage rather than an immediate ban which is what he wants he followers to believe those he preaches propaganda against want.
He will also never state this fact:
"The People's Republic of China is the world's top electricity producer from renewable energy sources."
He is all politics (probably payed for by oil/gas companies) and no science.
Machiavelli
Well-known member
Lomborg is legendary at speaking nonsense. I did listen and read him about 15 years ago but the only type of platform where he's now given air time is the likes of Spiked or the Institute for Economic Affairs (see if you can find out who funds them).
This is from the Executive Summary of another IEA, this time the International Energy Agency. I've italicised the relevant section for you:
Clean energy is entering the energy system at an unprecedented rate, including more than 560 gigawatts (GW) of new renewables capacity added in 2023, but deployment is far from uniform across technologies and countries. Investment flows to clean energy projects are approaching USD 2 trillion each year, almost double the combined amount spent on new oil, gas and coal supply – and costs for most clean technologies are resuming a downward trend after rising in the aftermath of the Covid-19 pandemic. This helps renewable power generation capacity rise from 4 250 GW today to nearly 10 000 GW in 2030 in the STEPS, short of the tripling target set at COP28 but more than enough, in aggregate, to cover the growth in global electricity demand, and to push coal-fired generation into decline. Together with nuclear power, which is the subject of renewed interest in many countries, low-emissions sources are set to generate more than half of the world’s electricity before 2030.
Or, if you want to find out about energy costs in the UK, try pp.33-35 of this which reports that renewables are three times cheaper than CCGT (that's coal and gas):
Electricity generation costs 2023
Report on levelised cost estimates for electricity generation technologies, detailing methodology, data and assumptions.
And as the technology rolls out, it gets cheaper
Curious Orange
Punxsatawney Phil
I understand all that @Hugo Rune but that doesn't mean that you can dismiss every point he makes out of hand. I agree that transition away from fossil fuels as a major source of energy is something that needs to be managed, rather than mandated.
He isn't wrong that reducing the UK's local contribution to emissions will have no discernable effect on world emissions, and that the consequent high price of energy that the policy brings is bad for the UK economy.
We have already seen the Government roll back it's EV targets due to the geo-political situation meaning we were about to take an economic hit, how long before they realise that the structure of UK wholesale electricity market needs serious reform too?
He isn't wrong that reducing the UK's local contribution to emissions will have no discernable effect on world emissions, and that the consequent high price of energy that the policy brings is bad for the UK economy.
We have already seen the Government roll back it's EV targets due to the geo-political situation meaning we were about to take an economic hit, how long before they realise that the structure of UK wholesale electricity market needs serious reform too?
beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 36,434
the popular opinion is to go along with it, as we haven't had the downside explained, or policies to achieve it fleshed out.
dsr-burnley
Well-known member
- Aug 15, 2014
- 2,900
Out of interest, why will we never need batteries? Assuming that we continue to use wind and solar as the main sources of renewable energy, there will certainly be periods (we had one this year) when for a week or more there is little wind and little sun. Where will the power come from if there are no batteries (which I doubt will ever be practical anyway)?
Because a net zero plan is gradual and should include nuclear.
Rampion wind farm generates electricity for around 85% of the time. Solar cells lose between 25% and 50% during the summer.
You can then have geothermal, hydro, tidal, and biomass energy operating to some extent too.
The right wing media would have you believe that Just Stop Oil want fossil fuels stopped now. But their core message is that we shouldn't open up new oil fields etc. Even they believe that the route to fossil fuel free energy generation should be gradual.
The game changer will be nuclear fusion. I suspect that we are only a decade or so away from seeing it become efficient and commercial. Obviously, British companies are at the cutting edge of this technology.
First Light Fusion | Enabling Inertial Fusion Energy | Home
First Light Fusion is the UK’s leading inertial fusion company, advancing fusion technology to unlock clean, limitless energy for the future.
firstlightfusion.com
The battery thing is scaremongering from bad actors, paid for by the oil and gas companies, to influence those who lack the ability for critical thinking.
Net Zero has been added to the culture wars by the exact same people who want you to believe that the biggest threat to women is a trans women going into their changing room or toilets.
Curious Orange
Punxsatawney Phil
The battery thing is a bit more complex than presented.
If you wanted to run the grid just on chemical batteries like those in home systems, then yes, you'd need far more of them than we already have and they wouldn't last long.
But of course, they aren't the only sort of battery that is in the equation. Pump storage power stations are also batteries for instance.
If you wanted to run the grid just on chemical batteries like those in home systems, then yes, you'd need far more of them than we already have and they wouldn't last long.
But of course, they aren't the only sort of battery that is in the equation. Pump storage power stations are also batteries for instance.
It’s not but a far greater priority is surely to re engage those who can already vote, to vote. This means PR, something Starmer conveniently ignores because it will threaten the two party closed shop that has let the Tories and Labour be in power for a century and would mean that Labour would not even be close to a majority now.