Climate change policy

[RobinBHM]

What is my opinion based on? Well for starters working for myself and being in business since the 1960s gives me a decent grasp of business economics and economics as a whole.

What is your opinion based on which says that you are correct and I am wrong?
How many successful business ventures have you undertaken in the past 50 years that would qualify you to criticise my opinions?

I don't need facts and figures to predict for instance that many part time jobs are going to disappear because of Starmer and his bunch of clown's latest taxation changes.
He's no friend to the part time worker and Starmer's taxes have just made the jobs of those in part time work right now more vulnerable simply because many employers will simply not be able to afford to employ them. You couldn't make it up with this lot, they get worse by the hour.

Tony, thank you for reply, but I was wondering on what basis you think net zero policies will massively increase costs

it will ultimately come at great cost to the ordinary people of this country

If I read your post correctly, it’s seems your belief is not based on “facts and figures”

You say your opinion is “based on working for yourself”, So I guess you mean you opinion is based…on your own opinion.

I appreciate your answer, personally I prefer to use data, evidence, research, scientific studies.

 

[Fergie 307]

What is my opinion based on? Well for starters working for myself and being in business since the 1960s gives me a decent grasp of business economics and economics as a whole.

What is your opinion based on which says that you are correct and I am wrong?
How many successful business ventures have you undertaken in the past 50 years that would qualify you to criticise my opinions?

I don't need facts and figures to predict for instance that many part time jobs are going to disappear because of Starmer and his bunch of clown's latest taxation changes.
He's no friend to the part time worker and Starmer's taxes have just made the jobs of those in part time work right now more vulnerable simply because many employers will simply not be able to afford to employ them. You couldn't make it up with this lot, they get worse by the hour.

Did you forget what the question was?
You certainly haven't answered it.

 

[Blackswanwood]

Did you forget what the question was?
You certainly haven't answered it.

I think Tony has confirmed it’s simply his gut feel but not being one to miss an opportunity to have a general moan about the government is now conflating climate change with NI changes.

 

[selectortone]

Did you forget what the question was?
You certainly haven't answered it.

Tony asks a lot of questions but never responds to any of the many reasoned answers people spend time writing, except with insults. Ladies and gentlemen, we are being trolled.

 

[Blackswanwood]

But once upon a time mummy did not have to go to work and spent her time bringing up the kid or kids and would sit down and watch childrens Tv with them and then the Tv went off and you went out and played with real friends or walked down the shops with mum as dad used the car for work and mum did not drive. Now seems like they are driven everywhere and get ignored to much.

Where will it all end …I even saw a woman driving a bus the other day

 

[Fitzroy]

You say your opinion is “based on working for yourself”, So I guess you mean you opinion is based…on your own opinion.

I appreciate your answer, personally I prefer to use data, evidence, research, scientific studies.

There are plenty of studies on the cost to reach net zero, and commentary on those studies, a couple of links below. The cost is not as abhorent as one may imagine, but there is still a cost. Most of the studies point out that the cost associated with catastrophic climate change would be orders of magnitude greater and support the spend based on avoiding this scenario, the challenge being if the world does not all act then we won't avoid the downside.

My personal view is that much of the world won't act sufficiently until things are really bad resulting in social unrest etc etc and then action will be taken. Energy prices always rise during times of global unrest and having control of our own energy security is as much a driver over the next 20years as climate change.

https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/article/explainer/paying-net-zero
https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminsti...hing-net-zero-emissions-by-2050-the-evidence/

 

[Noel]

Where will it all end …I even saw a woman driving a bus the other day

I can tell you worse than that. My doctor is a, a, a...not a man. A woman, a female. I'm shocked, shocked I tell you.

 

[RobinBHM]

There are plenty of studies on the cost to reach net zero, and commentary on those studies, a couple of links below. The cost is not as abhorent as one may imagine, but there is still a cost. Most of the studies point out that the cost associated with catastrophic climate change would be orders of magnitude greater and support the spend based on avoiding this scenario, the challenge being if the world does not all act then we won't avoid the downside.

My personal view is that much of the world won't act sufficiently until things are really bad resulting in social unrest etc etc and then action will be taken. Energy prices always rise during times of global unrest and having control of our own energy security is as much a driver over the next 20years as climate change.

https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/article/explainer/paying-net-zero
https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminsti...hing-net-zero-emissions-by-2050-the-evidence/

great, thank you, those links were very interesting.

I think I pretty much agree with you: the world wont act sufficiently fast until things are really bad.

I personally wonder whether the real pain will come from migration on a scale that dwarfs the current movement of displaced people.....just imagine the Daily Mail headlines then!

 

[Blackswanwood]

I can tell you worse than that. My doctor is a, a, a...not a man. A woman, a female. I'm shocked, shocked I tell you.

You’re confused … it must have been a nurse …

We’d best stop this as Chat GPT doesn’t do eye rolling

 

[Spectric]

Where will it all end …I even saw a woman driving a bus the other day

Blame the uk economy, it shows we must be worse off now than years ago because our money is not worth as much, remember it is not what you earn but what it can buy that matters.

 

[Blackswanwood]

Blame the uk economy, it shows we must be worse off now than years ago because our money is not worth as much, remember it is not what you earn but what it can buy that matters.

Or perhaps we’ve emerged from the dark ages and started to recognise that women can drive and go to work just as successfully as men.

 

[Hypnotic Chimera]

I really don't share your blinkered views...of course it will affect our industries if we end up as a nation unilaterally achieving net zero. Unless we achieve it at the same rate as do other nations then of course we'd lose out and to think otherwise is barmy!

I don't have blinkered views. Show me something that I've written that is indicative of "closed" or immovable views - that don't conform to good evidence and receipts.

In contrast - you ask leading questions based entirely upon false premises.
And what you've written is literally the definition of closed-mindedness.

Several times people have noted that renewable energy is becoming cheaper than fossil fuel energy... Yet you've ignored that with a closed mind.
It has been noted that renewables supplied more than fossil electricity to UK in the past year - we have just gone past the tipping point.
Investing in renewables would make the UK far more energy-secure. Domestic renewables are not tied to the global fossil fuel market prices.

Your claim that transitioning to renewables would negatively "hit the poorest most" is unsubstantiated fantasy - yet you are wedded to that fantasy notion in the most closed minded way I've ever witnessed.

I've suggested that if *anything* would hit the poorest most negatively, then perhaps a higher taxation of the wealthy would be appropriate. That was roundly rejected by you - which demonstrates that you are ideologically wedded to a fixed world view - which is the epitome of closed mindedness.

As for me - I am very much open to new information, and will alter my views to best conform to the new information. For instance - when I heard a while ago about an enterprise that aimed to plant millions of trees in high latitudes - this was initially welcomed by scientists and my view was that this is probably a great idea. However, recent research indicates that despite the carbon that could be removed from atmosphere and tied up in the trees, the change to the soil structure in the Tundra, and the changes to snow settle patterns and the alteration of the albedo patterns in the high latitudes - the enterprise has now been criticised as a potential accelerating effect for local warming - which itself would have a strong negative feedback loop due to release of carbon from thawing permafrost. My view has been roundly altered. Following the evidence. Not blindly wedded to a single ideology.

Maybe the difference is that I'm well read and seek different views and sources. Perhaps you do not? Which would explain your apparent wedded ness to false premises and disproven tropes?

 

[ey_tony]

I'm still, waiting to be proved wrong with regard my predictions that the net zero target is going to be costly for both individuals and industry. I liken it to those who believe in a god...with all the billions of people who have a belief in a god, surely just one of them can provide evidence that their god exists or has ever existed. The same applies to the thinking on here...logic tells you that the costs of infrastructure and changes are going to cost inordinate amounts and anyone who thinks otherwise is naive to say the least.

For example there are estimated to be 23 million gas boilers in use in the UK. If they are to be replaced by one of say two types of heat pumps who is going to fund that? How much is it going to cost and where is the money going to come from to pay for it?

23,000,000 x £9000 (average cost)...where is the government going to get that kind of money from? They found it necessary to remove the winter fuel payments for pensioners to get money in...what are they going to do to raise that amount of money....remove pensions completely?

After all someone has to pay but unfortunately the duck-eggs haven't quite figured that one but don't like anyone else asking such a leading question. as we can see here in this thread.

The same applies to changing personal transport to all electric. Its fine for those who can afford it but unless there are huge changes in costs associated with purchasing an EV then millions of ordinary people simply won't be able to afford to purchase an electric alternative to their aging ICE vehicle, which it turn will require huge investments in public transport to the order of many billions and/or extra housing in suburbs for those who will need to migrate from rural locations due to not being able to afford or have access to a decent form of public transport.
The cost of installing the infrastructure for charging vehicles alone will run into billions...where is that money going to come from?
There is insufficient housing available for those who are already living in the suburbs, the pressure is going to be increased on existing supplies if people can't afford personal transport.

Sorry but most of the pro-net zero virtue signaling green lovers talk a load of unadulterated tripe. I've spent my life anticipating and predicting trends and up to now I've got it right so I'll stick with and trust my own instincts over those who would fall for the nonsense peddled by politicians.
I think the people who are 'closed minded' on here are those who fail to recognise that every action has a consequence and the consequences of aiming for net zero will come at great cost to ordinary people.
In any case I am not wanting to influence anyone...I simply recognise that reaching net zero while a very worthy cause will ultimately cost far more than anticipated. If others disagree then fine it doesn't bother me in the slightest.

 

[Blackswanwood]

I'm still, waiting to be proved wrong with regard my predictions that the net zero target is going to be costly for both individuals and industry. I liken it to those who believe in a god...with all the billions of people who have a belief in a god, surely just one of them can provide evidence that their god exists or has ever existed. The same applies to the thinking on here...logic tells you that the costs of infrastructure and changes are going to cost inordinate amounts and anyone who thinks otherwise is naive to say the least.

For example there are estimated to be 23 million gas boilers in use in the UK. If they are to be replaced by one of say two types of heat pumps who is going to fund that? How much is it going to cost and where is the money going to come from to pay for it?

23,000,000 x £9000 (average cost)...where is the government going to get that kind of money from? They found it necessary to remove the winter fuel payments for pensioners to get money in...what are they going to do to raise that amount of money....remove pensions completely?

After all someone has to pay but unfortunately the duck-eggs haven't quite figured that one but don't like anyone else asking such a leading question. as we can see here in this thread.

The same applies to changing personal transport to all electric. Its fine for those who can afford it but unless there are huge changes in costs associated with purchasing an EV then millions of ordinary people simply won't be able to afford to purchase an electric alternative to their aging ICE vehicle, which it turn will require huge investments in public transport to the order of many billions and/or extra housing in suburbs for those who will need to migrate from rural locations due to not being able to afford or have access to a decent form of public transport.
The cost of installing the infrastructure for charging vehicles alone will run into billions...where is that money going to come from?
There is insufficient housing available for those who are already living in the suburbs, the pressure is going to be increased on existing supplies if people can't afford personal transport.

Sorry but most of the pro-net zero virtue signaling green lovers talk a load of unadulterated tripe. I've spent my life anticipating and predicting trends and up to now I've got it right so I'll stick with and trust my own instincts over those who would fall for the nonsense peddled by politicians.
I think the people who are 'closed minded' on here are those who fail to recognise that every action has a consequence and the consequences of aiming for net zero will come at great cost to ordinary people.
In any case I am not wanting to influence anyone...I simply recognise that reaching net zero while a very worthy cause will ultimately cost far more than anticipated. If others disagree then fine it doesn't bother me in the slightest.

Just wondered Tony if you’d actually read the requirements on boilers.

If a property currently has a gas boiler that boiler can be replaced with another gas one. That changes in 2035 when on replacement a gas boiler cannot be used.

Your narrative doesn’t seem to reflect the facts … yet you accuse others of “unadulterated tripe”?

 

[RobinBHM]

I'm still, waiting to be proved wrong with regard my predictions that the net zero target is going to be costly for both individuals and industry.

Tony, we dont need to prove you wrong


The burden is on you to prove you are correct, until such time your claim is dismissed

here is the logic which proves my point: “That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”

predictions that the net zero target is going to be costly for both individuals and industry.

Tony unfortunately youve forgotten to include the cost of not doing it -a rather larger oversight eh!




By the way Tony here is some research by the Institute of govt which has put some figures together

"In a July 2021 report on fiscal risks, the Office for Budget Responsibility estimated a net cost of the UK reaching net zero by 2050 to be £321bn, or just over £10bn per year.[7] This is made up of around £1.4trn in costs, offset by around £1.1trn in savings."

thats around £10b a year, which isnt that great given that the cost of brexit red tape is more than that.

 

[Vulcan]

Any car you might want to buy has a badge

As I said, you can do anything with stats. My brother has had 3 Japanese cars, all with a lot of problems and I never found one I especially wanted though nearly bought a Mazda RX-8 many years ago. My wife is on her 5th Mini with not a single issue from any while the Nissan Juke she had in 2014 was the biggest heap of rubbish I ever bought and was swapped after 12 months of ****. Strange that sells many thousands and shows as a reasonable reputation.
My last 6 cars have all been German and again have been completely reliable so I'm happy to make my decision based on personal experience along with that of family and friends. Just as you are based on your own experience and preferences.

I've just sold our motorhome so may well look at replacing my car though I'm not really inclined to do so however as I said it would most likely be a similar model but petrol. 5 years time with different choices could easily produce a different outcome.

BTW that list of brands only gives part of the story, you really need to research in far more detail if you're basing your decision on lists. If you google you can find market segments such as executive, family, small, luxury etc where you can find far different results. The BMW 3 series for example still rates highly as do some of the Mercs and Audis. German VWs and Skoda do well also. But I only give those polls a cursory glance and they form only a small part of my decision choice.

Then again there’s the servicing cost. A standard service at the main dealer cost me £115 last time plus £40 for the MOT (they give me a discount on the MOT) a level 2 where they change all the fluids is just over £200.
I recently noticed this on YouTube. It tallies with what a Mercedes owner I worked with used to pay for servicing his car.

 

[RobinBHM]

Your narrative doesn’t seem to reflect the facts

 

[Croolis]

I think I pretty much agree with you: the world wont act sufficiently fast until things are really bad.

Nope. The world won't act sufficiently fast even then. The rich by then will have walled up their mansions and they'll hide in there, until their bodyguards turn on them. Or maybe it won't be a mansion, maybe it will be bunkers like Fallout. Maybe sons of Musk and Bezos will be on a space station like Elysium or something, lmao.

Nobody will stop. Nobody will do enough to change it, because to do so will be to give up everything we know and want. Nobody's going to do it, they'll just play lip service but carry straight on. Folks like Tony and Phil will try and argue it away with drivel, but the simple truth is, we'll all just carry on, all of us, because we won't know what else to do.

 

[Hypnotic Chimera]

Can you provide some reputable source which supports the claim that achieving net zero by 2050 will NOT adversely affect industry and the people of the UK?

It will come at a huge cost and make out industries uncompetitive I've no doubt and if not properly managed will harm our economy and the living standards of the people of this country and for what?
It will make virtually no difference to the total world output whatever we do in relation to the harmful emissions unless it's in unison with the other heavy polluters but I suppose it will make the virtue signallers feel good about themselves.

If you're hoping for investment in future technologies by UK companies to lead the world that's a good start but then the first thing to do is get rid of this bunch of lying rabble that's in government as we speak.
This country is never going to lead anything while these buffoons are in charge unless it's to the bottom.

Am I to understand from this that "you have no doubt", yet you have no reputable source? Just your assumption with no real evidence or substance?

Your claim in bold is profoundly unsubstantiated. It is also profoundly unqualified within any timescale or lacks acknowledgement of whether investment might lead to future payback or profit - either in domestic terms, domestic market terms, or international market terms. There is not a single qualified determinant or metric in your claim. In other words, it appears to be a closed minded claim.

You make no acknowledgement of how the UK is currently moving to a renewables based electricity generation ecosystem - which is actually making our electricity cheaper, not more expensive. We have passed the tipping point and continue at a good pace. Adoption was slow to begin - because there was no existing expertise or industry and the resources were expensive. Now that we have large economies of scale we are moving much, much faster. From memory, I think it took us 10 years to get to a specific point in the electricity produced by renewables, but only one more year to double that capacity. This is not harming the economy at all - in fact as early adopters, we can perhaps take a global lead and profit from our expertise (business acumen required here, but we are at a good start point) - and this would be a net positive for the economy, not a harm as you claim. Individuals who have the strong opinion that it is not our place to aim for net zero are the ones who may actually be harming the future of our economy!

Did you know that over 90% of the electricity production that has been added to the Chinese network is renewables based, and that coal generation licences have been cut markedly (over 50%) by China?

It is specifically because and as a direct consequence of the UK having approx halved CO2 output in the last 20 years that we can take a leading role in persuading other nations to sign up to new commitments to reduce CO2 output, but ONLY if we also commit to doing more ourselves - this is called diplomacy and world leadership - and it is not being pursued at an unreasonable pace (ie. not one which could "harm or ruin the UK economy"). Only by being in the mix can we hope to be some kind of leader in the field - shouting to other countries that "you have to do your bit - but we aren't going to do anything ourselves" is a fools errand.

Another reason why the UK should adopt an ambitious target is because the UK has a history. First industrial nation - past leader amongst the "first world" nations in CO2 output (per capita), and one cannot, with any conscience, demand that nations that have yet to achieve developed status stop their development - that, too, is a fools errand and can only lead to the diminishment of the UK as a globally respected leader and the diminishment of the opportunity for developing a world leading renewable industry.

There is so much more interconnectedness than appears to be acknowledged in your claim that transition could harm the UK economy - there is so much more data and evidence that I doubt you have accessed or acknowledged. I dunno. Maybe you have - and maybe you just prefer the naysayers such as Tice and the Tufton Street lobbyists who are funded by fossil fuel concerns?

 

[Jacob]

......
In any case I am not wanting to influence anyone...

You've succeeded on that front!

I simply recognise that reaching net zero while a very worthy cause will ultimately cost far more than anticipated.

But will not cost as much as doing nothing and watching nature take its course.

If others disagree then fine it doesn't bother me in the slightest.

Then why do you bother to keep shrieking hysterical nonsense at everybody?