Oh fuck off.
Does it feel dirty as fuck? Of course it does, but if you genuinely think there is no difference at all in climate outlook between the two then I have a billion oil jacks to sell you.
It might be the lesser of two evils, but every tonne less we emit is one less we need to remove.
Is it everything I wanted? No.
Is it a relief to have a budget that is at least economically literate? Fuck yes.
Do I want more next year? Absolutely.
OK, go on, how does reducing the NI cost for small businesses fuck them over?
Wait, do they actually think getting it to summarise the wiki page on the trolley problem is actually going to stop their people mowers mowing down people?
People who claim both parties are the shame are just showing their privilege.
It's the same in the UK, do Labour come anywhere close to having the policies I want? No. Are they closer to them than the Tories? Yes.
Vote on one day, organise on the other 1200+ days.
His llamas kicked.
Thank you for the correct link, much appreciated.
Completely agree the 2030 target is electricity, not the entire economy.
For me the key paragraph is in the middle of this section, emphasis mine:
I know some like Extinction Rebellion will lecture me on carbon capture investment. They’ll say it isn’t the right choice.
But it’s working people who come first. Without this tech, heavy industries such as cement, glass-making and chemicals will risk having to down tools.
The Budget in a few weeks’ time will be about fixing the foundations and continuing to show a decisive break from the past
The jobs of brickies, sparkies and engineers — the backbone of Britain — will be risked.
That means fewer new homes, fewer new roads and a slow decline to the dark ages.
These are not impossible industries to decarbonise, but they are very difficult especially with stuff like cement.
Back to your original reply, I don't think it's a fair reading of the manifesto to say they promised more than 2030 for electricity and ~2050 for the economy.
Yes I want this to be faster, I'm still pissed off that the £34bn/year for retrofitting, etc, has been watered down multiple times, but - so far - nothing from the manifesto has been scraped.
Come the budget at the end of the month, I may very well be wrong, and very angry.
Edit on budget day: I wasn't.
I'm sorry, but your additions are simply not a correct summary of the situation.
I live in the UK, and first and foremost, The Sun is an absolute shit rag and should never be considered trustworthy. That also isn't an opinion piece - check the byline - and Starmer's quote (in bold) is...
But in a direct rebuke, Sir Keir writes on this page: “I know some like Extinction Rebellion will lecture me on carbon capture . . . they’ll say it isn’t the right choice.”
And warning that industries employing tradesmen including sparkies and brickies would go to the wall without action, he insisted: “It’s working people who come first.”
And that's it.
Now, this is the relevant press release from the Dept of Energy: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-reignites-industrial-heartlands-10-days-out-from-the-international-investment-summit
And two days before, there was this statement about the approval of 2GW additional solar, and a restatement of the manifesto pledge of clean power (ie electricity) by 2030: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/solar-taskforce-meets-in-drive-for-clean-power
It's very clear that they are looking in all areas at once, and given the 2030 deadline it's not accurate to suggest that CCS is a central part of the plan, because it very much isn't. The plan is 2x solar generation, and 3x wind generation.
Again, I'm not a fan of CCS, but research is a good thing, especially for such a comparatively small price. And we ultimately need to get to carbon negative, and I would expect CCS to be part of that, because scrubbing already released CO2 is going to be a bitch of a challenge, but would logically include things like sequestration in nature (trees, soil, sea grasses, etc).
The comment I originally replied to was asking about removal of appetite. The point I was making was that appetite isn't the only reason people consume calories.
The jabs do not cause you to exercise, and losing weight without some level of exercise to build fitness is also not healthy.
The point Streeting is making is that you can't just eat to excess and expect, 20 years later, that the NHS can fix all your problems with an injection.
It's the same way that alcoholics are not given liver or kidney transplants, or smokers new lungs, because even if you did the transplants all the other problems (cancers, etc) would still exist.
Primary healthcare is really complicated because you're dealing with people who are generally speaking not at the worse bit, yet, and so patient's motivation to consider, let alone make, changes can be non-existent.
This in turn is what makes a preventative healthcare model so much harder to achieve. The best way to treat T2 diabetes is to not get there in the first place, but friends of mine routinely have conversations with patients where their likelihood of having T2D, or stroke, heart attack, etc, is very high within the next 5 years, and are met with blunt refusals to even consider something as trivial as a lower calorie butter/spread, and instead just demand a jab.
This is not everyone, but it is a significant proportion, and it's right the Health Secretary to remind people that while the NHS does exist, and will support you if you get there, that it's better for yourself to not end up there in the first place.
Excellent, so you are in the market for premium oil jacks, where should we start the bidding?