When making a post, please ensure it complies with this site's Main Rules at all times.
  • why don't you lefties on here, FOR ONCE, state who you support??

    Is it Starmer? Is it Sunak? Is it that Lib Dum moron?

    Go on... name your guy:!::!::!:

    Would it be so hard to believe that the answer might be "none of them?"

    As far as I'm concerned, anyone who blindly pledges allegiance to a single person/party is a sheep.

    A good idea is a good idea irrespective of who comes up with it.

    The whole "my team/man is better than yours" routine is a playground mentality and explains why politics is a broken joke

    If I bother to vote in this coming election (was toying with the idea of not bothering but think I'm going to have to) I'll vote Tory, not because "Sunak is my man and I fully support everything he says" but because I think the alternative is worse and/or lacks credibility

  • We can’t do nothing Steve because we have already cut emissions by 50%.

    That is a fact.

    Why do you persist with this do nothing?

    Are we going to revert to 1990 emissions under Reform?

    No of course not.

    Are our emissions going to increase?

    So you didn't notice Reform/Farage are promising to reverse those measures that led to a one off Covid affected year figure of 50% less than 1990.

    Specsavers are still open and await your call

  • So you didn't notice Reform/Farage are promising to reverse those measures that led to a one off Covid affected year figure of 50% less than 1990.

    Specsavers are still open and await your call

    I am happy with Reform's proposals Steve. Climate Change is a socialist trope.

    Whatever we do in the UK is pointless on a global scale whilst others are increasing their emissions by more than we are reducing ours.

    Celebrate it, Anticipate it, Yesterday's faded, Nothing can change it, Life's what you make it

  • or in short you are finally admitting I was right and Reform are actually saying we should do nothing about Climate Change

    Using your own words on the subject Steve, the science backing Climate Change is unproven.

    We have reduced our emissions by 50% in the UK over the last 30 years as a result of improved technologies, further reductions have been made as a result of political decisions to cause societal and economic harms to achieve that target.

    The result has been other nations emissions have continue to rise in excess of any savings we have made thus cancelling out anything we have done. In many cases our efforts to reduce emissions have been directly to the economic benefit of those countries that have continued to increase emissions. In effect we pay twice as we lose the economic benefits of the emissions we avoid and then pay somebody else for manufacturing the goods that we no longer produce in order to meet targets.

    It's all a game.

    Reform are saying we stop all activity that has been proposed by others to meet Net Zero. The UK isn't going to be turned into the environmental wild west. Allowing the continuation of what we already do is not making things worse we are still where we are. NetZero is something else.

    Celebrate it, Anticipate it, Yesterday's faded, Nothing can change it, Life's what you make it

  • Reform are saying we stop all activity that has been proposed by others to meet Net Zero. The UK isn't going to be turned into the environmental wild west. Allowing the continuation of what we already do is not making things worse we are still where we are. NetZero is something else.

    No surprize. Nige is simply following Trump's lead but at an arm's length.

    Simply stating that what we already do is better than what we once did doesn't alter the fact we still need to go further when it comes to cleaning up our act. Kicking the can down the road is in nobodies interest.

  • No surprize. Nige is simply following Trump's lead but at an arm's length.

    Simply stating that what we already do is better than what we once did doesn't alter the fact we still need to go further when it comes to cleaning up our act. Kicking the can down the road is in nobodies interest.

    You still believe the UK self harming is going to make a difference?

    This argument is almost pointless.

    Celebrate it, Anticipate it, Yesterday's faded, Nothing can change it, Life's what you make it

  • Nope. but doing fuck all and just shrugging your shoulders saying "shit happens" ain't the answer either.

    And who is saying that?

    Reform are just not going to progress further by making even more cuts - we won't be going back to 1990.

    We will continue to pump oil, the ICE ban will be cancelled (but it is still in the future so no change to current anyway), focus will be placed on Nuclear rather than renewables (so nothing current is going to be removed and Nuclear is carbon neutral after construction anyway).

    So why do you persist with the falsehood that Reform will do fuck all and have a que sera attitude.

    NetZero is an ideological movement based on unproven science.

    I thought you had a strong dislike of religious movements Rusty especially those embedded in Politics.

    Celebrate it, Anticipate it, Yesterday's faded, Nothing can change it, Life's what you make it

  • Nope. but doing fuck all and just shrugging your shoulders saying "shit happens" ain't the answer either.

    You've no empirical evidence that humans have any influence on temperature whatsoever . Not only has the human fingerprint on temperature never been empirically quantified its existence has never even been detected against the normal noise of natural background climate variation.

    All the rest is politically driven climate modelled junk science that can be subjectively inputted to provide the answer those most benefitting from this fear generated tax grab require.

    There is absolutely nothing wrong with our current temperatures nor in their rate of change both of which are well short of the median for the last 10K years yet despite all this evidence we are supposed to f*ck up our economies 'just in case' the globalists got it right

  • I didn't say they'd do F all - I said doing F all wasn't the answer and that kicking the can down the road was in nobodies interest.

    Why the obsession with 1990?

    Simply saying the focus will be on nuclear rather than renewables sweeps a number of things under the carpet.

    Where to build them

    The cost of building them

    The length of time it takes to build them

    Where the reactors come from (we don't make them)

    The unit price over the lifetime of the reactor (it's far from cheap)

    And that's without consideration for what you do with and where to store the waste.

    Saying that, I'm not anti-nuclear. I'm very much a member of the "mixed bag" fraternity when it comes to energy.

    As for NetZero. It's an admirable ambition. Only a moron would suggest otherwise. Totally agree with the notion that it's unachievable if the biggest players either dismiss/don't care about the long term (be that about climate change, pollution, the natural world or whatever).

    My philosophy (for what it's worth) is that if there's something we can do better strive to do it better today rather than tomorrow if it's reasonably achievable. I'd accept the notion we wouldn't to rush things if the global population wasn't only ever heading in one direction because as far as I'm concerned, every new mouth to feed brings an inevitable problem one step closer. It's just a matter of which of the long list of possible problems is likely to come first. it's a case of when not if as far as I'm concerned.

  • As for NetZero. It's an admirable ambition. Only a moron would suggest otherwise. Totally agree with the notion that it's unachievable if the biggest players either dismiss/don't care about the long term (be that about climate change, pollution, the natural world or whatever).

    What's 'admirable' about it ? Quantify what effect expensively reaching it will have on global temperature ? This is a futile exercise in Western globalist virtue signalling at cost of the poorest

    You do realize the biosphere is currently booming due to the increased CO2 levels with a 15% greening of the planet since 1982 according to CSIRO research. Why would we want to even attempt to reverse this highly beneficial trend were it even remotely possible ? :/

  • I didn't say they'd do F all - I said doing F all wasn't the answer and that kicking the can down the road was in nobodies interest.

    The UK cannot make any impact on the situation. Others are increasing their emissions whilst we reduce ours at huge economic and societal cost. We are not kicking anything down the road, it realisation that our contribution has been immense and it is for others to implement similar strategies to those we have already put in place to make the real difference, USA, China, Russia, India etc. If they did what we have already done i.e. reduced their emission by 50% over the last 30 years then we would be getting somewhere.

    You are aware that China has produced more CO2 in the last 10 years than Britain has since the start of the industrial revolution? You weren't? That's how futile the UK's efforts on Climate Change are. That's why we should pause on making further efforts.

    Why the obsession with 1990?

    Because that was when we started our journey in the UK for reducing CO2 emissions. You may recall that 1990 wasn't some fume ridden dystopia, it really wasn't any different to now. We still had unpredictable weather.

    Where to build them

    We have a number of Nuclear Generation site around the country that are in decommissioning which could be utilised for new build nuclear, all the old Magnox sites are available. Hinckley Point and Sizewell are already having new build but others could be added if there is a will.

    The cost of building them

    The length of time it takes to build them

    The cost of HPC was driven by George Osbornes decision to get Chinese money to fund the project. Osborne was full of crap ideas and he sells newspapers these days. We are nevertheless saddled with his crappy legacy.

    The cost is driven by what you want to build and the regulation that has to apply.

    The latest thinking has moved on since the start ofthe HPC project. Now thoughts are turning to Small Modular Reactors (SMR's) which have a much smaller footprint and lower output that would be more suited to replacing those smaller local coal fired power stations that we used to have that have now been switched off and are being demolished. SMR's are exactly what they say on the tin, they are essentially sealed units that can be installed onto a suitable site and when they need maintenance they can be swapped out and take away for maintenance at a specialist location or for disposal as appropriate. The key infrastructure to support the SMR can be permanently installed as the reactor is really just a means to heat water to make steam, that's all it does at the end of the day, its just a really big kettle. Clearly it still a nuclear reactor so regulation around it will be tight but a huge amount about reactor safety has been learned since the pioneering days of the 50's and 60's. Nuclear illicits a largely emotional response from those who oppose it rather than any technical objections.

    SMR's can be built much quicker than beasts like HPC and Sizewell C. The separation of the nuclear and non nuclear elements being key to reducing complexity and running costs.

    Where the reactors come from (we don't make them)

    Yes we do. We also do research into new designs and collaborate with French and US organisations to share knowledge. Designs can be manufactured under licence or we can do our own design. Rolls Royce are big in the SMR research in the UK, t looks very promising but doesn't get huge amounts of publicity in the media because it doesn't suit their agendas.

    The unit price over the lifetime of the reactor (it's far from cheap)

    It really depends who owns the power station and what the projected lifetime of the plant is. HPC got the Chinese funding because fuckwit Osborne agreed an insane unit price for the electricity generated. SMR's would be much cheaper to build and run and to life extend because the whole reactor can be removed and taken away and relaced rather than lengthy and costly annual outages.

    And that's without consideration for what you do with and where to store the waste.

    Consideration of decommissioning and waste management is a regulatory requirement and has been for years. The trouble has been that the reactors we are currently decommissioning were all designed and build before these requirements were put into Nuclear Licence Conditions. The subject of nuclear waste always creates an emotional response but we need more robust decision making like we hade in the 1950s and 60s. Waste Management and treatment is not the issue, it is the long term storage of the residual wastes post treatment. We still need the Nuclear Waste Repository decision to be made, that is a ball that has been kicked around for as long as I can remember.

    Saying that, I'm not anti-nuclear. I'm very much a member of the "mixed bag" fraternity when it comes to energy.

    A diverse portfolio of generation options is completely sensible. We should not be putting our all eggs in one basket. We need different ways to generate power including diverse renewables, I am not against them at all they play their part but they have their limitations, like EV's play their part but are not suitable for everything, they should be in the mix and used appropriately. At the moment we have the ideology driving decisions rather than sensible heads.

    Celebrate it, Anticipate it, Yesterday's faded, Nothing can change it, Life's what you make it

  • Farage on the other hand just wants us to carry on burning carbon.

    Not really, Steve. He is taking a more sensible approach, and pointing out that if instead of exporting our ‘dirty’ manufacturing, we do it ourselves and cut a great deal of carbon that way, it is beneficial in the short to medium term.

    By the way, Nigel wants us to move to clean nuclear power rather than constructing thousands of wind farms to blight the countryside.

  • How are you defining societal cost Shanks?

    Loss of industry and associated jobs and associated hardship.

    Forcing change on people without asking ie Net Zero, banning ICE cars, heat pumps at huge cost, green levies, airport taxes etc

    Celebrate it, Anticipate it, Yesterday's faded, Nothing can change it, Life's what you make it

  • Not really, Steve. He is taking a more sensible approach, and pointing out that if instead of exporting our ‘dirty’ manufacturing, we do it ourselves and cut a great deal of carbon that way, it is beneficial in the short to medium term.

    By the way, Nigel wants us to move to clean nuclear power rather than constructing thousands of wind farms to blight the countryside.

    So a turbine is an eyesore but a nuclear power station isn't?

    Got nothing against nuclear but that's one weird argument

  • So a turbine is an eyesore but a nuclear power station isn't?

    Got nothing against nuclear but that's one weird argument

    Wind farms take up far more land than nuclear power stations, which can be blended into the landscape to a large extent.

    Nuclear power stations don’t cut birds into pieces, either.

Participate now!

Don’t have an account yet? Register yourself now and be a part of our community!