| Net Zero and Tony Blair. 12:03 - Apr 30 with 982 views | OldFart71 |
At last something I agree with that Tony Blair and many others are saying with Labour's push towards net zero. Labour are wrongly claiming net zero won't affect people. But you only have to look at the cost of our energy compared to virtually every other Country and see we are paying over the odds. Some of the costs I agree are due to the lack of storage facilities in the UK where for the Companies that run our energy have been more interested in their profits and the paying of executives and shareholder than worrying about consumers. But the fact remains that Millibands headlong plunge into net zero is madness and as has been proved by Spain and Portugal's outage that having no backup to green energy doesn't work. Again procrastination by consecutive Governments in doing nothing about Sizewell C whilst closing down coal powered power stations. China for instance are apparently still building 10 coal powered power stations per year. We on the other hand shut coal mines and then have to buy coke for our steel plant. |  | | |  |
| Net Zero and Tony Blair. on 12:08 - Apr 30 with 949 views | redrickstuhaart |
So much wrong in there. | | | |
| Net Zero and Tony Blair. on 12:21 - Apr 30 with 896 views | DanTheMan |
"Labour are wrongly claiming net zero won't affect people"
They might be right to say this, but I doubt it. Still doesn't mean it's the wrong thing to do. It's an upfront cost for long-term stability rather than a short-term pivot back to fossil fuels to delay the inevitable.
"But you only have to look at the cost of our energy compared to virtually every other Country and see we are paying over the odds"
Multiple people explained to you yesterday that our prices have very little to do with net zero and almost entirely to do with the price of gas.
"But the fact remains that Millibands headlong plunge into net zero is madness and as has been proved by Spain and Portugal's outage that having no backup to green energy doesn't work."
Impressive that you know what caused the power outage before their authorities. You should probably let them know. Power outages happen regardless of the fuel type because no systems are infallible.
" Again procrastination by consecutive Governments in doing nothing about Sizewell C whilst closing down coal powered power stations."
I agree having a nuclear baseline (much like France) would be better than our current situation.
"China for instance are apparently still building 10 coal powered power stations per year. We on the other hand shut coal mines and then have to buy coke for our steel plant."
China needs to do better, we shouldn't be following in their footsteps.
As for Tony Blair's report, it's just another "we should use carbon capture technology" statement despite that technology still not having been proven to work at anywhere near the scale we need. They say we need to deploy it at scale and speed but the technology does not exist. I was going to make a joke here about how they might as well say we need to deploy nuclear fusion reactors whilst we're at it but they also say we need to do that.
Then we've got stuff like "We must use artificial intelligence and other innovations to decarbonise smarter and faster.". There's no explanation as to how AI is going to help here, it reminds me of the tech-bros fascination with using the blockchain to fix everything.
Finally, there's a bunch of really vanilla points that anyone with 2 working brain cells could put together (invest in flood defences, plant more trees etc.). |  |
| |
| Net Zero and Tony Blair. on 12:22 - Apr 30 with 885 views | MattinLondon |
| Net Zero and Tony Blair. on 12:08 - Apr 30 by redrickstuhaart |
So much wrong in there. |
Chiefly, the lack of paragraphs |  | | |
| Net Zero and Tony Blair. on 12:23 - Apr 30 with 882 views | Blueschev |
| Net Zero and Tony Blair. on 12:21 - Apr 30 by DanTheMan |
"Labour are wrongly claiming net zero won't affect people"
They might be right to say this, but I doubt it. Still doesn't mean it's the wrong thing to do. It's an upfront cost for long-term stability rather than a short-term pivot back to fossil fuels to delay the inevitable.
"But you only have to look at the cost of our energy compared to virtually every other Country and see we are paying over the odds"
Multiple people explained to you yesterday that our prices have very little to do with net zero and almost entirely to do with the price of gas.
"But the fact remains that Millibands headlong plunge into net zero is madness and as has been proved by Spain and Portugal's outage that having no backup to green energy doesn't work."
Impressive that you know what caused the power outage before their authorities. You should probably let them know. Power outages happen regardless of the fuel type because no systems are infallible.
" Again procrastination by consecutive Governments in doing nothing about Sizewell C whilst closing down coal powered power stations."
I agree having a nuclear baseline (much like France) would be better than our current situation.
"China for instance are apparently still building 10 coal powered power stations per year. We on the other hand shut coal mines and then have to buy coke for our steel plant."
China needs to do better, we shouldn't be following in their footsteps.
As for Tony Blair's report, it's just another "we should use carbon capture technology" statement despite that technology still not having been proven to work at anywhere near the scale we need. They say we need to deploy it at scale and speed but the technology does not exist. I was going to make a joke here about how they might as well say we need to deploy nuclear fusion reactors whilst we're at it but they also say we need to do that.
Then we've got stuff like "We must use artificial intelligence and other innovations to decarbonise smarter and faster.". There's no explanation as to how AI is going to help here, it reminds me of the tech-bros fascination with using the blockchain to fix everything.
Finally, there's a bunch of really vanilla points that anyone with 2 working brain cells could put together (invest in flood defences, plant more trees etc.). |
Why would Blair be pushing carbon capture technology, I wonder? |  | | |
| Net Zero and Tony Blair. on 12:51 - Apr 30 with 768 views | lowhouseblue |
where blair is right in this is that the cost of achieving net zero, and the impact on living standards, is very large, and it's not at all clear that electorate is willing to accept that cost. |  |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| Net Zero and Tony Blair. on 13:05 - Apr 30 with 726 views | CoachRob |
| Net Zero and Tony Blair. on 12:21 - Apr 30 by DanTheMan |
"Labour are wrongly claiming net zero won't affect people"
They might be right to say this, but I doubt it. Still doesn't mean it's the wrong thing to do. It's an upfront cost for long-term stability rather than a short-term pivot back to fossil fuels to delay the inevitable.
"But you only have to look at the cost of our energy compared to virtually every other Country and see we are paying over the odds"
Multiple people explained to you yesterday that our prices have very little to do with net zero and almost entirely to do with the price of gas.
"But the fact remains that Millibands headlong plunge into net zero is madness and as has been proved by Spain and Portugal's outage that having no backup to green energy doesn't work."
Impressive that you know what caused the power outage before their authorities. You should probably let them know. Power outages happen regardless of the fuel type because no systems are infallible.
" Again procrastination by consecutive Governments in doing nothing about Sizewell C whilst closing down coal powered power stations."
I agree having a nuclear baseline (much like France) would be better than our current situation.
"China for instance are apparently still building 10 coal powered power stations per year. We on the other hand shut coal mines and then have to buy coke for our steel plant."
China needs to do better, we shouldn't be following in their footsteps.
As for Tony Blair's report, it's just another "we should use carbon capture technology" statement despite that technology still not having been proven to work at anywhere near the scale we need. They say we need to deploy it at scale and speed but the technology does not exist. I was going to make a joke here about how they might as well say we need to deploy nuclear fusion reactors whilst we're at it but they also say we need to do that.
Then we've got stuff like "We must use artificial intelligence and other innovations to decarbonise smarter and faster.". There's no explanation as to how AI is going to help here, it reminds me of the tech-bros fascination with using the blockchain to fix everything.
Finally, there's a bunch of really vanilla points that anyone with 2 working brain cells could put together (invest in flood defences, plant more trees etc.). |
The Blair Institute report was written by somebody with a music undergraduate degree and a PhD in sociology. It is amateurish and full of myths. It only tackles one of the nine planetary boundaries. It is yet another attack on STEM experts. Don't get me started on the standard of work by social scientists on climate change.
Carbon capture is predominantly used for enhanced oil recovery.
Very sad to see the tree planting work of conservationists loss in the recent wildfires in Scotland. As Kevin Anderson always says, "Plant trees for tree reasons, not for climate change." |  | | |
| Net Zero and Tony Blair. on 13:11 - Apr 30 with 690 views | thebooks |
| Net Zero and Tony Blair. on 12:23 - Apr 30 by Blueschev |
Why would Blair be pushing carbon capture technology, I wonder? |
Ooooh, I know the answer to this one 😀 |  | | |
| Net Zero and Tony Blair. on 13:16 - Apr 30 with 671 views | DanTheMan |
| Net Zero and Tony Blair. on 12:51 - Apr 30 by lowhouseblue |
where blair is right in this is that the cost of achieving net zero, and the impact on living standards, is very large, and it's not at all clear that electorate is willing to accept that cost. |
It's a shame we can't have some adults in the political parties who can put their popularity contests behind us to level with the electorate this needs to happen regardless of who we vote for or it's just going to get worse.
We're so short-termist. Most of the people of voting age won't see the worst of what we've done. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Net Zero and Tony Blair. on 13:32 - Apr 30 with 615 views | SuperKieranMcKenna |
| Net Zero and Tony Blair. on 12:51 - Apr 30 by lowhouseblue |
where blair is right in this is that the cost of achieving net zero, and the impact on living standards, is very large, and it's not at all clear that electorate is willing to accept that cost. |
Well, when you have leaders that profess to be environmentalists whilst turning up at food banks in a helicopter- it’s hardly surprising there is so much unwillingness to make sacrifices.
Whatever happened to leading by example… | | | |
| Net Zero and Tony Blair. on 13:34 - Apr 30 with 608 views | NthQldITFC |
| Net Zero and Tony Blair. on 13:16 - Apr 30 by DanTheMan |
It's a shame we can't have some adults in the political parties who can put their popularity contests behind us to level with the electorate this needs to happen regardless of who we vote for or it's just going to get worse.
We're so short-termist. Most of the people of voting age won't see the worst of what we've done. |
I suspect that the pace of consequential change we're already seeing and likely cascading events and some possible tipping points reached means that most people of voting age will see consequences on a scale which is unimaginable to the majority who refuse to think, act or educate themselves about exactly what it is we have done to ourselves.
Our kids will certainly see the worst.
Doom-mongering? I don't think so. Shock tactics. Maybe. An uncomfortable reality which most of us seem totally unwilling to face. Yes. |  |
| |
| Net Zero and Tony Blair. on 13:44 - Apr 30 with 563 views | SuperBlue1998 |
Again this reveals a total and complete lack of understanding of how the UK energy sector works and renewables, but if the thread the other day is anything to go by you have no intention of engaging with people on the substance of this | | | |
| Net Zero and Tony Blair. on 15:00 - Apr 30 with 464 views | itfcjoe |
| Net Zero and Tony Blair. on 13:32 - Apr 30 by SuperKieranMcKenna |
Well, when you have leaders that profess to be environmentalists whilst turning up at food banks in a helicopter- it’s hardly surprising there is so much unwillingness to make sacrifices.
Whatever happened to leading by example… |
Way too much doom-mongering about it too when no one with any hint of power is willing to change anything
Only solution is to innovate our way out of it |  |
| |
| Net Zero and Tony Blair. on 15:39 - Apr 30 with 381 views | Swansea_Blue |
Deary me. I suppose you should get credit for acknowledging that profits are placed ahead of consumers. You could have stopped there, as that’s the crux of it. Unfortunately, pretty much everything else is on dodgy ground. It’s perfect possible to have lower costs from renewables: other countries do it. Coal and gas receive far higher subsidies than renewables after all.
Blair is just shilling for a pay check. |  |
| |
| Net Zero and Tony Blair. on 15:57 - Apr 30 with 357 views | DJR |
| Net Zero and Tony Blair. on 15:00 - Apr 30 by itfcjoe |
Way too much doom-mongering about it too when no one with any hint of power is willing to change anything
Only solution is to innovate our way out of it |
I think the doom mongering is justified but Trump's election is certainly a big step back. This from yesterday's Amnesty International report.
DRILL, BABY, DRILL MEETS BURN, BABY, BURN
In 2024, no region was left unscathed by the climate crisis. An intense
heatwave in South Asia was followed by devastating floods affecting
millions and forcing the displacement of thousands. Record wildfires in
South America destroyed Amazon rainforests and imperilled
ecosystems stretching across entire countries. In Somalia, droughts
and woods destroyed communities, collapsed local economies, and
displaced families and communities.
2024 was the first calendar year in which the global average
temperature rose to more than 1.5°C above the 1850-1900 average.
Blazing temperatures demand trail-blazing climate action. Yet on top
of states' failures to phase out use of fossil fuels, COP29 negotiations
delivered a miserly financing agreement that risks trapping lower
income countries in a cycle of indebtedness.
President Trump's mantra of "drill, baby, drill" merely echoed what
was already underway, with his 2025 decision to withdraw the USA
from the Paris Climate Agreement welcomed by other fossil-fuel
dependent states.
And so, across the world, communities will keep burning, drowning,
dying. [Post edited 30 Apr 15:59]
|  | | |
| Net Zero and Tony Blair. on 16:10 - Apr 30 with 323 views | Benters |
It’s a uppie from me. |  |
| |
| Net Zero and Tony Blair. on 16:36 - Apr 30 with 291 views | DanTheMan |
| Net Zero and Tony Blair. on 15:00 - Apr 30 by itfcjoe |
Way too much doom-mongering about it too when no one with any hint of power is willing to change anything
Only solution is to innovate our way out of it |
Innovate what though?
CCS, the big thing they are pushing, is massively more expensive than just building solar or wind. It does have some use cases in manufacturing but it's mainly pushed as some alternative to changing our primary fuel sources which just won't happen.
Fusion is the other big thing but we're still a long way off that being ready to deploy across the world. China is pumping money into, U.S. sort of is but relying on the big tech companies for funding.
But all of this misses the reality of the situation that we already have the solution, we just need to fund it. It's in all of our long-term interests. | |
| |
| Net Zero and Tony Blair. on 16:43 - Apr 30 with 283 views | itfcjoe |
| Net Zero and Tony Blair. on 16:36 - Apr 30 by DanTheMan |
Innovate what though?
CCS, the big thing they are pushing, is massively more expensive than just building solar or wind. It does have some use cases in manufacturing but it's mainly pushed as some alternative to changing our primary fuel sources which just won't happen.
Fusion is the other big thing but we're still a long way off that being ready to deploy across the world. China is pumping money into, U.S. sort of is but relying on the big tech companies for funding.
But all of this misses the reality of the situation that we already have the solution, we just need to fund it. It's in all of our long-term interests. |
I dunno, I'm a builder not a tech entrepreneur.
But the main thing is, in the UK we are powerless one way or another on this - and we will need to rely on the big economies coming up with the full solutions in a way that are amenable to the populations.
People will do what they want to do, and we do lots of 'green works' in buildings we do - but bar solar panels and batteries they are all massively expensive to implenent/run and worse or no better to the end user for actual functionality.......until that changes it is going to remain a luxury that only do-gooders* will be doing
*I don't actually mean this perjoratively, but I mean people who are happy to spend £10k to get a rainwater harvester installed that will save them £50 a year, or similar
The councils are trying to ensure new buildings are to better standards, but when the price of doing so is extortionate it isn't going to happen | |
| |
| Net Zero and Tony Blair. on 16:57 - Apr 30 with 265 views | SuperBlue1998 |
The 'need to innovate' idea suggests that solutions have not been found yet - but they have, largely. Renewable technology - at the mass or utility level, at least - has advanced hugely and become far far cheaper than fossil fuels over the last 20 years. The reason they have not been applied at the scale needed is political choices and how energy markets are institutionalised and organised - things which reflect the interests of certain actors, of course.
That's not to say that a significant mobilisation of resources and infrastructure investment isn't needed - it does - but a shadow of what would be expended if we carry on on the trajectory we're on. | | | |
| Net Zero and Tony Blair. on 17:08 - Apr 30 with 240 views | BloomBlue |
Blair wrote the foreword, so surely the pertinent question is did he actually read the report before he wrote it?
Because let's face it, he doesnt have great history when it comes to reading reports |  | | |
| Net Zero and Tony Blair. on 17:38 - Apr 30 with 168 views | NthQldITFC |
| Net Zero and Tony Blair. on 16:43 - Apr 30 by itfcjoe |
I dunno, I'm a builder not a tech entrepreneur.
But the main thing is, in the UK we are powerless one way or another on this - and we will need to rely on the big economies coming up with the full solutions in a way that are amenable to the populations.
People will do what they want to do, and we do lots of 'green works' in buildings we do - but bar solar panels and batteries they are all massively expensive to implenent/run and worse or no better to the end user for actual functionality.......until that changes it is going to remain a luxury that only do-gooders* will be doing
*I don't actually mean this perjoratively, but I mean people who are happy to spend £10k to get a rainwater harvester installed that will save them £50 a year, or similar
The councils are trying to ensure new buildings are to better standards, but when the price of doing so is extortionate it isn't going to happen |
The time will come when the price of not having adapted / scaled back will suddenly jump to being far more extortionate than taking lots of different small actions now (and over the last, lost, forty years or so).
We tend to think of things in terms of costs within the current relatively stable financial environment and what, say, a 10% or 20% cost increase would feel like to us now, and naturally a lot of people don't like the idea of 'losing that sort of money', but the consequences of inaction blow that sort of short-term petty consideration out of the water.
In terms of building, cement production is the source of about 8% of COâ‚‚ emissions [1], so we need to consider building a hell of a lot less - sure we need houses, but we don't need massive vanity projects etc.
But it's a change of attitude by everybody across all of the ways we affect our poor fked up planet that we really need, and that challenge seems to make far too many people indignant when confronted with the need to scale back on personal activities such as buying junk, flying lots, building bigger houses. We also need to do a bit of carbon capture if we can, if it can be scaled up to be anything other than a bit of posturing.
If / when various tipping points [2] start being hit, it's going to be far too late to be banking on some sort of as yet unknown tech fix. We'll feel like sh!t at that point and wonder why we were too selfish to scale back when we had the chance.
[1] https://www.chathamhouse.org/2018/06/making-concrete-change-innovation-low-carbo
[2] https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-exploring-the-risks-of-cascading-tipping- | |
| |
| Net Zero and Tony Blair. on 17:38 - Apr 30 with 167 views | DJR |
| Net Zero and Tony Blair. on 17:08 - Apr 30 by BloomBlue |
Blair wrote the foreword, so surely the pertinent question is did he actually read the report before he wrote it?
Because let's face it, he doesnt have great history when it comes to reading reports |
He searched the document for the expression "45 minutes", couldn't find it, and so concluded that climate change wasn't a threat. | | | |
| Net Zero and Tony Blair. on 17:40 - Apr 30 with 161 views | DJR |
'Muddled and misleading' - Blair's net zero report criticised by his government's former climate guru Lord Stern
When Tony Blair was PM, he commissioned Nicholas Stern (now Lord Stern), a former chief economist at the World Bank, to write a report on the economics of climate change. It was published in 2006, it was vast and it was highly influential – seen as helping to persuade policy makers around the world not just that there was an environmental/humanitarian case for tackling climate change, but an unarguable economic case too.
So what does Stern think of the Blair report? Not much. Stern is now chair of the Grantham Research institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the LSE and he has issued this comment.
"This new report is muddled and misleading. There is far more progress being made around the world to decarbonise the global economy than it suggests. For instance, China is the world’s leading producer and domestic deployer of renewables and electric vehicles. Its power generating capacity from renewables has now exceeded that of fossil fuels and its emissions are likely to peak in the next two years.
The UK’s leadership on climate change, particularly the elimination of coal from its power sector, is providing an influential example to other countries. So, too, its climate change legislation and its Climate Change Committee. If the UK wobbles on its route to net zero, other countries may become less committed. The UK matters.
The transition to clean domestic energy offers British consumers the prospect of lower bills, and greater energy security by not being dependent on volatile international markets for fossil fuels.
And the report downplays the science in its absence of a sense of urgency and the lack of appreciation of the need for the world to achieve net zero as soon as possible, in order to manage the growth in climate change impacts that are already hurting households and businesses across the world and in the UK. Delay is dangerous." | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
