M614 – Green Economic Recovery Motion 2020

Watch
This discussion is closed.
Andrew97
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 1 month ago
#1
M614 - Green Economic Recovery Motion 2020, TSR Labour Party
This House notes that the upcoming economic recovery presents a great opportunity to create a greener country and that this should be the focus of our recovery.

This house, therefore, calls on the government to:
  1. Provide a bailout package to the aerospace industry, similar to the French bailout1 - requiring recipients to invest more into electric, hydrogen or other suitable, lower-emission, aircraft.
  2. Reverse cuts to the electric vehicle subsidies, commit these subsidies for the long-term future and invest into vital infrastructure for increased electric vehicle usage - most notably, more car charging points.
  3. Fully restore the UK’s lost peatlands to offset negative externalities. This is a very cost effective way to reduce carbon emissions and is predicted by the ONS to save £109bn in terms of reduced carbon emissions.2
  4. Retrofit homes at a much faster rate and at great depth. It is estimated that this will be vital to reducing carbon emissions, with around 26m retrofits needed between now and 2050.3




Notes
[1] https://www.flightglobal.com/aerospa...138749.article
[2] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-49074872
[3] https://energypost.eu/retrofitting-e...y-in-uk-homes/


The UK is at a vital stage in our battle against the climate emergency. The government is not currently doing enough to shape a sustainable world for future generations. There is much work to be done and this motion focuses on speeding up the achievement of net-zero emissions. We must not fall behind the rest of Europe and the World on this matter.

Cleaning up the transport industry will be absolutely vital to achieving net-zero emissions and, for that reason, the government must encourage the switch to electric vehicles by reversing subsidy cuts and provide a conditional bailout to the aerospace industry. The French bailout came to a cost of €15 billion, we would expect a similar level of funding for our bailout.
0
Cici M
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#2
Report 1 month ago
#2
France has a notably bigger aerospace industry than the United Kingdom with over 10% more of global export1 and not far off double of the amount of jobs2. So why is the bailout figure similar?



1: http://www.worldstopexports.com/aero...ts-by-country/
2: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business...s-are-booming/
0
CatusStarbright
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#3
Report 1 month ago
#3
£13.5 billion pounds is a truly massive sum. With regards to point three, I'm not sure what is meant by a £109bn saving.
0
Cici M
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#4
Report 1 month ago
#4
And it's a bit sneaky not including the 8-22bn cost of restoring peatlands which makes the supposed savings not 109bn but between 87-101bn.
0
Moonbow
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#5
Report 1 month ago
#5
I am all for a motion to help the climate emergency, especially the loss in peat bogs due to the massive amount of carbon they are able to store, providing great help to reduce the impacts of carbon emissions. Would the aerospace industry be in a fit enough state for the bailout to be considered fair or should more time be provided for its recovery before forwarding this motion?
0
Keir Starmer
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#6
Report 1 month ago
#6
(Original post by Cici M)
France has a notably bigger aerospace industry than the United Kingdom with over 10% more of global export1 and not far off double of the amount of jobs2. So why is the bailout figure similar?



1: http://www.worldstopexports.com/aero...ts-by-country/
2: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business...s-are-booming/
Proportionally similar.
0
Miss Maddie
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#7
Report 1 month ago
#7
1. Provide a bailout package to the aerospace industry, similar to the French bailout1 - requiring recipients to invest more into electric, hydrogen or other suitable, lower-emission, aircraft.

Aye without the conditions attached. Attaching conditions makes the industry less competitive and the bailouts become counter-productive. There is an industry need for greater fuel efficiency. The government isn't going to improve things.

2. Reverse cuts to the electric vehicle subsidies, commit these subsidies for the long-term future and invest into vital infrastructure for increased electric vehicle usage - most notably, more car charging points.

Not the right time to do it. This doesn't aid a recovery.

3. Fully restore the UK’s lost peatlands to offset negative externalities. This is a very cost effective way to reduce carbon emissions and is predicted by the ONS to save £109bn in terms of reduced carbon emissions.

The wording of this motion is horrid. The £109bn saving is over 100 years. The annual figure is £130m.

4. Retrofit homes at a much faster rate and at great depth. It is estimated that this will be vital to reducing carbon emissions, with around 26m retrofits needed between now and 2050.

Retrofitting involves a major, whole-house retrofit to achieve a near net-zero energy home, typically including the fitting of an external “wall envelope” for insulation, as well as rooftop solar panels. It's a waste of money. The cost of retofitting houses isn't worth it for homeowners.
0
Keir Starmer
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#8
Report 1 month ago
#8
(Original post by Cici M)
And it's a bit sneaky not including the 8-22bn cost of restoring peatlands which makes the supposed savings not 109bn but between 87-101bn.
The real saving is £109bn. You're referring to net saving.
0
Keir Starmer
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#9
Report 1 month ago
#9
(Original post by CatusStarbright)
£13.5 billion pounds is a truly massive sum. With regards to point three, I'm not sure what is meant by a £109bn saving.
Negative externalities associated with CO2 emissions.
0
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#10
Report 1 month ago
#10
I support the aims of this motion.

This isn't my specialist area so I will observe the debate, some of the suggested actions seem sensible to me though.
0
Cici M
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#11
Report 1 month ago
#11
(Original post by Keir Starmer)
The real saving is £109bn. You're referring to net saving.
Thanks for that I wasn't aware of my own calculations!
0
Saracen's Fez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#12
Report 1 month ago
#12
Point 4 is of particular importance, I think. There's been a lot of thought into how fossil fuel dependency can be reduced in electricity generation and in transport, but the way homes and other buildings are heated has been comparatively overlooked.
1
Cici M
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#13
Report 1 month ago
#13
(Original post by Keir Starmer)
Proportionally similar.
That's not what it says.
0
Theloniouss
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#14
Report 1 month ago
#14
(Original post by Miss Maddie)
The £109bn saving is over 100 years. The annual figure is £130m.
Very confused about how this makes sense
0
Miss Maddie
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#15
Report 1 month ago
#15
The ONS report is more informative than the BBC article. Total cost of restoration could be £22bn and the savings could be as low as £90bn. £68bn net savings over 100 years. £680m a year is chickenfeed!

https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/envir...apitalaccounts
Last edited by Miss Maddie; 1 month ago
0
Theloniouss
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#16
Report 1 month ago
#16
I broadly support this motion
1
Cici M
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#17
Report 1 month ago
#17
(Original post by Miss Maddie)
3. Fully restore the UK’s lost peatlands to offset negative externalities. This is a very cost effective way to reduce carbon emissions and is predicted by the ONS to save £109bn in terms of reduced carbon emissions.

The wording of this motion is horrid. The £109bn saving is over 100 years. The annual figure is £130m.
If it is true that the £109bn savings is over 100 years that is very deceptive and dishonest.
0
Miss Maddie
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#18
Report 1 month ago
#18
(Original post by Theloniouss)
Very confused about how this makes sense
The annual saving was valued at £130m in 2017. The saving over 100 years rages from £90bn to £120bn assuming every bit of peat land was restored. How £130m in 2017 becomes £900m a year is unclear. The numbers should be taken with a pinch of salt.
0
BosslyGaming
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#19
Report 1 month ago
#19
(Original post by Miss Maddie)
The ONS report is more informative than the BBC article. Total cost of restoration could be £22bn and the savings could be as low as £90bn. £68bn net savings over 100 years. £680m a year is chickenfeed!

https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/envir...apitalaccounts
£680m a year (or, from the ONS number, £1.09bn a year) for the next 100 years is a considerable saving. The cost is minimal compared to the value so it is worth doing.

(Original post by Cici M)
If it is true that the £109bn savings is over 100 years that is very deceptive and dishonest.
Exactly what is deceptive? The ONS report reflects what the motion says in that there's a £109bn saving.
0
BosslyGaming
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#20
Report 1 month ago
#20
(Original post by Cici M)
France has a notably bigger aerospace industry than the United Kingdom with over 10% more of global export1 and not far off double of the amount of jobs2. So why is the bailout figure similar?



1: http://www.worldstopexports.com/aero...ts-by-country/
2: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business...s-are-booming/
(Original post by CatusStarbright)
£13.5 billion pounds is a truly massive sum.
It's a fair point. The motion obviously doesn't set a specific figure for a potential bailout but it should be, as my Hon. Friend says, proportionally similar to the French bailout. Obviously we wouldn't expect the bailout to have the same price tag for a smaller industry.
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Should the rest of the UK follow the Scottish Results changes announced?

Yes they should (212)
60.23%
No they should not (102)
28.98%
Abstain (38)
10.8%

Watched Threads

View All