FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Kemi Scraps Net Zero Targets
Kemi Scraps Net Zero Targets
Jump to: Newest in thread
Kemi Badenoch, who some of you will remember is leader of the Conservative Party has said the UK target of Net Zero by 2050 is impossible without bankrupting the UK.
Obviously she is correct but when do you think Sir Kier will acknowledge this ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Tbh she's a bit of a nonentity ..
I'm waiting to see what Nigel says.. 
I'd be more worried about Mad Millivolt. 
He's gone quiet..  "
I think Sir Kier's new henchman has sent him to research wind farms in the Outer Hebridies  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Tbh she's a bit of a nonentity ..
I'm waiting to see what Nigel says..
I'd be more worried about Mad Millivolt.
He's gone quiet..
I think Sir Kier's new henchman has sent him to research wind farms in the Outer Hebridies "
He's had a touch then, stunning part of the world..
Apart from the poor phone signal..  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
 |
By *appyPandaMan 19 weeks ago
Kilkenny, but Dublin is more fun |
At this point with how things in the natural world are deteriorating and how natural carbon sinks like forests and the oceans are becoming less effective at absorbing excess co2 from the atmosphere (and often becoming carbon sources), we need to be aware that the semi stable climate of the Holocene that allowed mankind to advance rapidly in large settlements is leaving us quickly.
Our "economy" will not fucking matter in a world that can not sustain complex civilisation dependent on agriculture in large regions of the world. The real world costs for our era of abundance and convenience that we've normalised are far fD greater than most people can realise.
By 2050, we'll be very lucky to even have anything resembling this around us. It's only going to get worse.
At this point, we need to be aware that there's dozens of civilisations that have collapsed before, and the very same thing may occur in our lifetimes, although leaving us with a much harsher and unpredictable world to try rebuild from. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"At this point with how things in the natural world are deteriorating and how natural carbon sinks like forests and the oceans are becoming less effective at absorbing excess co2 from the atmosphere (and often becoming carbon sources), we need to be aware that the semi stable climate of the Holocene that allowed mankind to advance rapidly in large settlements is leaving us quickly.
Our "economy" will not fucking matter in a world that can not sustain complex civilisation dependent on agriculture in large regions of the world. The real world costs for our era of abundance and convenience that we've normalised are far fD greater than most people can realise.
By 2050, we'll be very lucky to even have anything resembling this around us. It's only going to get worse.
At this point, we need to be aware that there's dozens of civilisations that have collapsed before, and the very same thing may occur in our lifetimes, although leaving us with a much harsher and unpredictable world to try rebuild from. "
2050 you say that's 25 years away I'll be 82 if I'm still on this planet so I'll take the risk of how the planet copes or dose not cope with more Co2. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Labour have just ended the sustainable farming initiative which pays farmers in England for managing their land sustainably to benefit the environment and support food production, offering a choice of actions and payments for sustainable practices |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 19 weeks ago
|
"Kemi Badenoch, who some of you will remember is leader of the Conservative Party has said the UK target of Net Zero by 2050 is impossible without bankrupting the UK.
Obviously she is correct but when do you think Sir Kier will acknowledge this ?"
It's an act. If she was ever PM she would resurrect the same bullshit policies. They're all net zero WEF sock puppets. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 18 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"I think she has likely got her sums wrong, which is a recurring theme for their leaders, a la Truss.
They might have had their Excel licenses expire or computers infected by Russia.
"
Oh please
Truss never enacted the budget, it was the city's knee jerk that created the chaos.
Now shall we talk about Ms Reeves and her sums? Rhetorical question of course knowing she is slowly walking us into a recession.... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Totally agree. The BoE acted outrageously against Truss and her Chancellor, which the press didn't call out.
Then they got pushed out because our dept. repayment went to 4% pa
Reeves has pushed up closer to 5% pa and nobody bats an eyelid. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Totally agree. The BoE acted outrageously against Truss and her Chancellor, which the press didn't call out.
Then they got pushed out because our dept. repayment went to 4% pa
Reeves has pushed up closer to 5% pa and nobody bats an eyelid. "
I think some of it may be the speed at what it happened. For Truss she did not run it past the normal channels first and spooked the markets. For Reeves she has taken longer and did run it through the normal channels. Your right though that the end result is an increase in debt repayment and even worse under Reeves |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"At this point with how things in the natural world are deteriorating and how natural carbon sinks like forests and the oceans are becoming less effective at absorbing excess co2 from the atmosphere (and often becoming carbon sources), we need to be aware that the semi stable climate of the Holocene that allowed mankind to advance rapidly in large settlements is leaving us quickly.
Our "economy" will not fucking matter in a world that can not sustain complex civilisation dependent on agriculture in large regions of the world. The real world costs for our era of abundance and convenience that we've normalised are far fD greater than most people can realise.
By 2050, we'll be very lucky to even have anything resembling this around us. It's only going to get worse.
At this point, we need to be aware that there's dozens of civilisations that have collapsed before, and the very same thing may occur in our lifetimes, although leaving us with a much harsher and unpredictable world to try rebuild from. "
You could be right, probably not that soon but there's always a chance.
My question has always been, how can a small lump of rock in the north Atlantic that contributes around 1% of carbon emissions make any difference to the final outcome while the rest of the planet carries on regardless?
If (as the scientists keep telling us) the apocalypse is coming why should we sacrifice ourselves on the altar of net zero when the rest of the world doesn't give a fuck?
Let's enjoy what we've got while we can.
Frack baby frack. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 18 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"At this point with how things in the natural world are deteriorating and how natural carbon sinks like forests and the oceans are becoming less effective at absorbing excess co2 from the atmosphere (and often becoming carbon sources), we need to be aware that the semi stable climate of the Holocene that allowed mankind to advance rapidly in large settlements is leaving us quickly.
Our "economy" will not fucking matter in a world that can not sustain complex civilisation dependent on agriculture in large regions of the world. The real world costs for our era of abundance and convenience that we've normalised are far fD greater than most people can realise.
By 2050, we'll be very lucky to even have anything resembling this around us. It's only going to get worse.
At this point, we need to be aware that there's dozens of civilisations that have collapsed before, and the very same thing may occur in our lifetimes, although leaving us with a much harsher and unpredictable world to try rebuild from.
You could be right, probably not that soon but there's always a chance.
My question has always been, how can a small lump of rock in the north Atlantic that contributes around 1% of carbon emissions make any difference to the final outcome while the rest of the planet carries on regardless?
If (as the scientists keep telling us) the apocalypse is coming why should we sacrifice ourselves on the altar of net zero when the rest of the world doesn't give a fuck?
Let's enjoy what we've got while we can.
Frack baby frack. "
Virtue wins every time, and it allows for the most terrible behaviour to be legitimised.
While I'm at it I do find it strange that we believe that everything is controllable as we are perched on a rock, hurtling through space we know little about. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"At this point with how things in the natural world are deteriorating and how natural carbon sinks like forests and the oceans are becoming less effective at absorbing excess co2 from the atmosphere (and often becoming carbon sources), we need to be aware that the semi stable climate of the Holocene that allowed mankind to advance rapidly in large settlements is leaving us quickly.
Our "economy" will not fucking matter in a world that can not sustain complex civilisation dependent on agriculture in large regions of the world. The real world costs for our era of abundance and convenience that we've normalised are far fD greater than most people can realise.
By 2050, we'll be very lucky to even have anything resembling this around us. It's only going to get worse.
At this point, we need to be aware that there's dozens of civilisations that have collapsed before, and the very same thing may occur in our lifetimes, although leaving us with a much harsher and unpredictable world to try rebuild from.
You could be right, probably not that soon but there's always a chance.
My question has always been, how can a small lump of rock in the north Atlantic that contributes around 1% of carbon emissions make any difference to the final outcome while the rest of the planet carries on regardless?
If (as the scientists keep telling us) the apocalypse is coming why should we sacrifice ourselves on the altar of net zero when the rest of the world doesn't give a fuck?
Let's enjoy what we've got while we can.
Frack baby frack. "
I think you've potentially overlooked the opportunity to become a little bit informed on this. The UK isn't, for example, the only country looking to gain advantages of being better prepared, reducing impacts and making greater economic success, from the changed environmental and economic future.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"At this point with how things in the natural world are deteriorating and how natural carbon sinks like forests and the oceans are becoming less effective at absorbing excess co2 from the atmosphere (and often becoming carbon sources), we need to be aware that the semi stable climate of the Holocene that allowed mankind to advance rapidly in large settlements is leaving us quickly.
Our "economy" will not fucking matter in a world that can not sustain complex civilisation dependent on agriculture in large regions of the world. The real world costs for our era of abundance and convenience that we've normalised are far fD greater than most people can realise.
By 2050, we'll be very lucky to even have anything resembling this around us. It's only going to get worse.
At this point, we need to be aware that there's dozens of civilisations that have collapsed before, and the very same thing may occur in our lifetimes, although leaving us with a much harsher and unpredictable world to try rebuild from.
You could be right, probably not that soon but there's always a chance.
My question has always been, how can a small lump of rock in the north Atlantic that contributes around 1% of carbon emissions make any difference to the final outcome while the rest of the planet carries on regardless?
If (as the scientists keep telling us) the apocalypse is coming why should we sacrifice ourselves on the altar of net zero when the rest of the world doesn't give a fuck?
Let's enjoy what we've got while we can.
Frack baby frack.
I think you've potentially overlooked the opportunity to become a little bit informed on this. The UK isn't, for example, the only country looking to gain advantages of being better prepared, reducing impacts and making greater economic success, from the changed environmental and economic future.
"
I see she wants to hold the leader of Argentina as the perfect role model for her party
Way to shoot themselves in their feet and lose more respect |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"At this point with how things in the natural world are deteriorating and how natural carbon sinks like forests and the oceans are becoming less effective at absorbing excess co2 from the atmosphere (and often becoming carbon sources), we need to be aware that the semi stable climate of the Holocene that allowed mankind to advance rapidly in large settlements is leaving us quickly.
Our "economy" will not fucking matter in a world that can not sustain complex civilisation dependent on agriculture in large regions of the world. The real world costs for our era of abundance and convenience that we've normalised are far fD greater than most people can realise.
By 2050, we'll be very lucky to even have anything resembling this around us. It's only going to get worse.
At this point, we need to be aware that there's dozens of civilisations that have collapsed before, and the very same thing may occur in our lifetimes, although leaving us with a much harsher and unpredictable world to try rebuild from.
You could be right, probably not that soon but there's always a chance.
My question has always been, how can a small lump of rock in the north Atlantic that contributes around 1% of carbon emissions make any difference to the final outcome while the rest of the planet carries on regardless?
If (as the scientists keep telling us) the apocalypse is coming why should we sacrifice ourselves on the altar of net zero when the rest of the world doesn't give a fuck?
Let's enjoy what we've got while we can.
Frack baby frack.
I think you've potentially overlooked the opportunity to become a little bit informed on this. The UK isn't, for example, the only country looking to gain advantages of being better prepared, reducing impacts and making greater economic success, from the changed environmental and economic future.
I see she wants to hold the leader of Argentina as the perfect role model for her party
Way to shoot themselves in their feet and lose more respect "
I wondered what the go fund me a stihl chainsaw was about. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I believe we have to accept the premise that even if we did spend a trillion or so quid, other countries are not going to follow suit. Some cannot afford it, and those that can simply might not want to.
.
Ultimately that means the world will hurtle in to an uncertain future.
.
We cannot spend our way out of averting disaster. All we can do is "damage limitation". If even that cannot be achieved, then the outlook is bleak. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"At this point with how things in the natural world are deteriorating and how natural carbon sinks like forests and the oceans are becoming less effective at absorbing excess co2 from the atmosphere (and often becoming carbon sources), we need to be aware that the semi stable climate of the Holocene that allowed mankind to advance rapidly in large settlements is leaving us quickly.
Our "economy" will not fucking matter in a world that can not sustain complex civilisation dependent on agriculture in large regions of the world. The real world costs for our era of abundance and convenience that we've normalised are far fD greater than most people can realise.
By 2050, we'll be very lucky to even have anything resembling this around us. It's only going to get worse.
At this point, we need to be aware that there's dozens of civilisations that have collapsed before, and the very same thing may occur in our lifetimes, although leaving us with a much harsher and unpredictable world to try rebuild from.
You could be right, probably not that soon but there's always a chance.
My question has always been, how can a small lump of rock in the north Atlantic that contributes around 1% of carbon emissions make any difference to the final outcome while the rest of the planet carries on regardless?
If (as the scientists keep telling us) the apocalypse is coming why should we sacrifice ourselves on the altar of net zero when the rest of the world doesn't give a fuck?
Let's enjoy what we've got while we can.
Frack baby frack.
I think you've potentially overlooked the opportunity to become a little bit informed on this. The UK isn't, for example, the only country looking to gain advantages of being better prepared, reducing impacts and making greater economic success, from the changed environmental and economic future.
"
How informed do I need to be?
"Better prepared" for what? Doomsday maybe.
Does "better prepared" mean having the most expensive industrial energy in the world?
Does "greater economic success" come from taxing firms into oblivion. That ain't going well. Just ask Rachel.
Both of those terms are straight from the Mr Ed songbook. In other words meaningless.
As for reduced impacts I refer to the 1% I mentioned earlier.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Net zero is a sensible target given the compelling evidence of climate change. A long term renewable energy policy also releases us from the clutches of despot petro states. The only question is how quickly can we achieve the target and not harm the economy. The Tories dumping the policy completely is just pandering to populism (again) and unworthy of a responsible political party. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
There are currently 2.5 million private rented homes that will not meet the proposed minimum standard C for energy performance. This has been the proposal since 2015.
Epc C was supposed to be effective from this year, increasing the requirement to band B in 2028. The former pushed back to 2030 and very few announcements how any of this will achieved. Living in a conservation area of around 300 four storey Victorian dwellings, about a fifth listed and all but a few converted to flats, wondering how this will be done or watered down. 13,000 conservation areas in England and Wales.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Net zero is a sensible target given the compelling evidence of climate change. A long term renewable energy policy also releases us from the clutches of despot petro states. The only question is how quickly can we achieve the target and not harm the economy. The Tories dumping the policy completely is just pandering to populism (again) and unworthy of a responsible political party."
Regards the question of how quickly, it's a political problem. Both Labour and the Tories, and especially Reform. Take large donations from the fossil fuels industry. It's all about money. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Net zero is a sensible target given the compelling evidence of climate change. A long term renewable energy policy also releases us from the clutches of despot petro states. The only question is how quickly can we achieve the target and not harm the economy. The Tories dumping the policy completely is just pandering to populism (again) and unworthy of a responsible political party.
Regards the question of how quickly, it's a political problem. Both Labour and the Tories, and especially Reform. Take large donations from the fossil fuels industry. It's all about money. "
Good to hear that we are all going to be provided with EV’s, solar panels, heat pumps, and wind power free of charge and it’s not all about money. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Net zero is a sensible target given the compelling evidence of climate change. A long term renewable energy policy also releases us from the clutches of despot petro states. The only question is how quickly can we achieve the target and not harm the economy. The Tories dumping the policy completely is just pandering to populism (again) and unworthy of a responsible political party."
Of course net zero is a sensible target but it has to be a global target. The whole world or at least the vast majority has to be on board.
All this virtue signalling in the (forlorn) hope that others will follow is a pipedream. They will pay lip service while cutting the ribbon on another coal fired power station. Then it's trebles all round while they count the profit from all the "green technology" they've flogged us.
One country or maybe a handful will make very little global difference and I see no gain in trashing the economy in the name of a negligible amount of net zero in one small corner of the world. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Net zero is a sensible target given the compelling evidence of climate change. A long term renewable energy policy also releases us from the clutches of despot petro states. The only question is how quickly can we achieve the target and not harm the economy. The Tories dumping the policy completely is just pandering to populism (again) and unworthy of a responsible political party.
Of course net zero is a sensible target but it has to be a global target. The whole world or at least the vast majority has to be on board.
All this virtue signalling in the (forlorn) hope that others will follow is a pipedream. They will pay lip service while cutting the ribbon on another coal fired power station. Then it's trebles all round while they count the profit from all the "green technology" they've flogged us.
One country or maybe a handful will make very little global difference and I see no gain in trashing the economy in the name of a negligible amount of net zero in one small corner of the world."
Couple of points. The global approach is correct, this is what we have the Paris climate accord for. The problem is, it's too weak, fossil fuels sponsored politicians made sure it was watered down.
And moving away from fossil fuels is good for the economy in the medium and long term. Just the same as putting solar on houses, costs more up front but then saves in the long term. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Net zero is a sensible target given the compelling evidence of climate change. A long term renewable energy policy also releases us from the clutches of despot petro states. The only question is how quickly can we achieve the target and not harm the economy. The Tories dumping the policy completely is just pandering to populism (again) and unworthy of a responsible political party.
Of course net zero is a sensible target but it has to be a global target. The whole world or at least the vast majority has to be on board.
All this virtue signalling in the (forlorn) hope that others will follow is a pipedream. They will pay lip service while cutting the ribbon on another coal fired power station. Then it's trebles all round while they count the profit from all the "green technology" they've flogged us.
One country or maybe a handful will make very little global difference and I see no gain in trashing the economy in the name of a negligible amount of net zero in one small corner of the world."
Agreed, we in UK are a tiny part of the global climate problem. But somebody has to move things forward - albeit at a sustainable pace. Also, aren't we tired of being held to ransom by energy-rich states? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 6 days ago
Terra Firma |
Net Zero is something to aim at, but doesn't provide a reduction in emissions being produced in the first place.
It is all very wishy washy, and even being so it is still not accepted. Net Zero reminds me of someone who has a bad habit but goes for a walk to balance it out...
Keeps people busy until the oil runs out. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Net zero is a sensible target given the compelling evidence of climate change. A long term renewable energy policy also releases us from the clutches of despot petro states. The only question is how quickly can we achieve the target and not harm the economy. The Tories dumping the policy completely is just pandering to populism (again) and unworthy of a responsible political party.
Of course net zero is a sensible target but it has to be a global target. The whole world or at least the vast majority has to be on board.
All this virtue signalling in the (forlorn) hope that others will follow is a pipedream. They will pay lip service while cutting the ribbon on another coal fired power station. Then it's trebles all round while they count the profit from all the "green technology" they've flogged us.
One country or maybe a handful will make very little global difference and I see no gain in trashing the economy in the name of a negligible amount of net zero in one small corner of the world.
Agreed, we in UK are a tiny part of the global climate problem. But somebody has to move things forward - albeit at a sustainable pace. Also, aren't we tired of being held to ransom by energy-rich states?"
Britain moving things forward is only based on the assumption that the rest of the world still takes any notice. That ship sailed long ago.
If the US or China (or both) was moving things forward then there could be a good argument but they're not.
The US is in full "drill baby drill" mode and China pays lip service to international agreements then carries on regardless. They may chuck up a few windmills here and there but the Chinese economy runs on coal, gas and oil.
Fully agree about being held to ransom by the energy rich but Britain could be almost self sufficient if the political will was there. But with Milliband in charge it never will be.
He's too busy giving wealthy landowners eye watering amounts of your money to allow more windmills on their land. It varies by location but can be up to £150 grand per turbine per year.
So much for knocking £300 off your bills.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Net zero is a sensible target given the compelling evidence of climate change. A long term renewable energy policy also releases us from the clutches of despot petro states. The only question is how quickly can we achieve the target and not harm the economy. The Tories dumping the policy completely is just pandering to populism (again) and unworthy of a responsible political party.
Of course net zero is a sensible target but it has to be a global target. The whole world or at least the vast majority has to be on board.
All this virtue signalling in the (forlorn) hope that others will follow is a pipedream. They will pay lip service while cutting the ribbon on another coal fired power station. Then it's trebles all round while they count the profit from all the "green technology" they've flogged us.
One country or maybe a handful will make very little global difference and I see no gain in trashing the economy in the name of a negligible amount of net zero in one small corner of the world.
Agreed, we in UK are a tiny part of the global climate problem. But somebody has to move things forward - albeit at a sustainable pace. Also, aren't we tired of being held to ransom by energy-rich states?
Britain moving things forward is only based on the assumption that the rest of the world still takes any notice. That ship sailed long ago.
If the US or China (or both) was moving things forward then there could be a good argument but they're not.
The US is in full "drill baby drill" mode and China pays lip service to international agreements then carries on regardless. They may chuck up a few windmills here and there but the Chinese economy runs on coal, gas and oil.
Fully agree about being held to ransom by the energy rich but Britain could be almost self sufficient if the political will was there. But with Milliband in charge it never will be.
He's too busy giving wealthy landowners eye watering amounts of your money to allow more windmills on their land. It varies by location but can be up to £150 grand per turbine per year.
So much for knocking £300 off your bills.
"
This is so nearly right. We could be energy independent, but not with fossil fuels.
The UK has slightly lower CO2 emissions per person than china. Who are putting vast efforts into renewable energy tech, and building infrastructure. Of course they are also increasing their CO2 emissions as well, as mentioned, the Paris Climate accord isn't strong enough. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't do what we can.
And the US, they are in full speed towards making their future economy struggle as they are way far behind and still stuck on ever increasingly expensive fossil fuels.
The single only reason to drag out heals on transitioning away from oil, gas and coal is for the profits of those industries.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Kemi Badenoch, who some of you will remember is leader of the Conservative Party has said the UK target of Net Zero by 2050 is impossible without bankrupting the UK.
Obviously she is correct but when do you think Sir Kier will acknowledge this ?"
Who gives a crap what she says, she's so useless she'll be gone in a year and frankly good riddance. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Kemi Badenoch, who some of you will remember is leader of the Conservative Party has said the UK target of Net Zero by 2050 is impossible without bankrupting the UK.
Obviously she is correct but when do you think Sir Kier will acknowledge this ?
Who gives a crap what she says, she's so useless she'll be gone in a year and frankly good riddance."
Fully agree; she is trying to out-Farage Farage & failing miserably.
I read that in November, her year long immunity for leadership contest is over, so I would expect a lot of Torys to submit letters of no confidence in her |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Kemi Badenoch, who some of you will remember is leader of the Conservative Party has said the UK target of Net Zero by 2050 is impossible without bankrupting the UK.
Obviously she is correct but when do you think Sir Kier will acknowledge this ?
Who gives a crap what she says, she's so useless she'll be gone in a year and frankly good riddance.
Fully agree; she is trying to out-Farage Farage & failing miserably.
I read that in November, her year long immunity for leadership contest is over, so I would expect a lot of Torys to submit letters of no confidence in her"
I'd love to be a fly on the wall watching as she's repeatedly stabbed in the back, by her 'friends'
I'd like to see her "et tu Brutus" face. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
