IPCC sixth report.

[Mart]

I think Greta's point about the need for immediate, and one year targets is so, so correct and important. No point setting a 10yr goal, then admitting you won't reach it at the end of yr9. We need constant targets, that need to be met, building to ever more lofty goals.

We've already had "whoopsie, we missed that bus" moments, (you know the rest)

I'm not saying we have to hold politicians over an actual chopping block, but to my mind "Doing a Cromwell" may get us where need to go in terms of instigating action & buying some time (as well as prison)

Yep, so many whoopsies it's heart breaking. Even the best outcome, if the World finally takes this seriously and acts fast, is now 1.6C of warming, but of course in reality, with the current approach of countries like the UK doing as little as possible to tick boxes, and others doing even less, we've already lost this war, it's simply a matter of how much damage we are willing to accept before finally fighting back properly.

Just this year we've had the fuel price increase frozen again, BEV subsidies cut, and the climate spokesperson explaining that BEV's can't drive 200 miles, or recharge in 30mins.

Simply heart breaking.

[Mr Gus]

Perhaps all these rebellion spods ought scream fom their lungs that prevention is pricey but infinitely less costly! ..as "cost" is precisely why governments do not wish to act. ..that argument needs properly airing.

[Mart]

Yep, talking about the costs, especially the increased costs of inaction and delay is crucial, but beware this Gov, they use that tactic to 'fib' sometimes.

For instance, the House of Lords when reviewing the Gov's decision to support HPC, did suggest that the predictions for future RE costs may be pessimistic in order to make new nuclear look better. Spot anything wrong with these 2030 cost predictions:

Th̲i̲s̲ i̲s̲ t̲h̲e̲ ̲G̲o̲v̲'̲t pr̲e̲d̲i̲c̲t̲i̲o̲n̲ f̲o̲r̲ 2̲0̲3̲0̲.̲ ̲(2012 pricing)
Onshore wind to be in the range £45-72/MWh
Offshore wind will be in the range £85-109/MWh
Nuclear, at £69-99/MWh.
For solar they predict £59-73/MW

How about off-shore wind contracts issued in 2019, for 2024/25 delivery at £39.65/MWh?

How about the decision to remove 3p/kWh (20yr) support for demand side PV in 2016/17, when HPC will get ~8p/kWh for 35yrs at the end of this decade. Let's be honest, 3p/kWh for PV for just 10yrs, would get the industry going again today, and that's money paid to UK households, not the French and Chinese Governments (EDF is majority owned by the French state).

I've never been so disgusted with any Gov before. It's not just the fact that they could do so much more, but the lies and spin they use to pretend that it's all about the cost, when, as you point out, the cost of inaction is so, so much more. their job is to make the hard decisions for our longer term good, instead they make short term popular decisions to win votes. AAAAhhhhhhh!!!!!

[spread-tee]

Couldn't agree more Mart, it is almost as if the Tories want to preside over a failing economy, surely they can't be either lying or really do not understand how an economy works in the real world....can they??

Govt spending, provided it is spent well along with the multiplier effect has been shown time and time again to grow an economy and to effectively pay for itself and more. Money spent doesn't just disappear down a black hole it would surface as wages which are of course taxed, so HMRC recover some straight away, the remainder provided it is not saved gets spent which is more peoples wages, etc etc etc........ People when well off borrow money which is newly created money, hence the multiplier and onwards. And by the way there IS a magic money tree also known as.......The Bank Of England. The main downside to the above is that it is not great for inequality, leading me to believe that our own GOVT would like many of us to be poor.

F**Kwits all of 'em

Desp

[Mart]

Yep Desp, I find it quite baffling. Perhaps though they are not stupid and just focus on the short term to win elections, whereas financially, a focus on the medium and long term would push them towards dealing with AGW faster. I'd have hoped that the latest IPCC report categorically stating AGW is real, it's caused by CO2 (and other green house gases), and the additions to these gases is caused by humans, would allow Gov's to piggyback off it, and accelerate action.

Perhaps a reason for the Government hesitancy was revealed in yesterdays Carbon Commentary newsletter from Chris Goodall, which looked at the responses of different groups when faced with choosing this 'box' - "Very concerned about climate change"

It showed that age isn't a major factor, with young, middle aged and older scoring 48%, 42% & 56% respectively.
It showed social grouping was irrelevant with AB v's DE scoring 50% & 49% respectively.
It mentioned that females and well educated were slightly more concerned.
But the area with a distinct difference was political leaning, with Conservatives at 34% and Labour supporters at 66%.

That really shocked me. I'd have correctly guessed at the one being higher than the other, but not to that degree. It scares me a little I have to admit.

[Stinsy]

Yep Desp, I find it quite baffling. Perhaps though they are not stupid and just focus on the short term to win elections, whereas financially, a focus on the medium and long term would push them towards dealing with AGW faster. I'd have hoped that the latest IPCC report categorically stating AGW is real, it's caused by CO2 (and other green house gases), and the additions to these gases is caused by humans, would allow Gov's to piggyback off it, and accelerate action.

Perhaps a reason for the Government hesitancy was revealed in yesterdays Carbon Commentary newsletter from Chris Goodall, which looked at the responses of different groups when faced with choosing this 'box' - "Very concerned about climate change"

It showed that age isn't a major factor, with young, middle aged and older scoring 48%, 42% & 56% respectively.
It showed social grouping was irrelevant with AB v's DE scoring 50% & 49% respectively.
It mentioned that females and well educated were slightly more concerned.
But the area with a distinct difference was political leaning, with Conservatives at 34% and Labour supporters at 66%.

That really shocked me. I'd have correctly guessed at the one being higher than the other, but not to that degree. It scares me a little I have to admit.

That is interesting. I'd have thought age and social grouping would be a proxy for political leaning...

[spread-tee]

I agree Mart it is scary indeed that. of almost all demographic groups only about half are very concerned, even though realistically this is as a species by far the greatest threat we face, it's nuts.

Also what I don't understand is that as you say GOVT are seemingly interested only in votes, but time and again it has proved that a strong economy with people feeling secure in their employment and feeling more prosperous are much more likely to vote for the existing govt. It seems to me that with a bit of joined up thinking they could do a lot of good for the environment, secure their re-election and create a lasting legacy.

I see the Green party are probably going into a power sharing arrangement with the SNP, so maybe, just maybe there is a chink of light in the darkness.

Desp

[Stinsy]

The problem with the Greens is: they are communists. That makes them unpalatable to 80%+ of the population. We need Labour and the Tories to be competing on Green issues to win/hold key marginal seats.

If you live in a marginal constituency it is worth writing to your incumbent MP now to explain what will make you vote for them next time.

[spread-tee]

Green communists? what a bizarre idea. Their policy documents are all online, have a read sometime it is quite interesting.

[Stinsy]

Green communists? what a bizarre idea. Their policy documents are all online, have a read sometime it is quite interesting.