This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
- Nature vs Nurture debate
- can anyone provide me resources to study
- Edexcel A Level Global Politics Paper 3 (9PL0 3B)
- MSc Economics vs MSc Health Economics?
- Will good unis accept retake grades
- behavioural economics
- Essex vs Brighton vs Nottingham (BSc Economics)
- LSE economics 2025 entry
- Geophysics degree, I don’t take maths for a level, as most unis are asking for maths
- Business Management vs Economics
- Master Economics: LSE vs Cambridge vs UCL vs CEMFI vs BGSE
- case studies for ocr gcse geography b
- Leeds vs Exeter
- Economics vs Computer science vs Math degree
- SQA Nat 5 Environmental Science - 26th April 2024 [Exam Chat]
- Psychology A-level AQA evaluations
- Exams in University vs Coursework, Lab work and Assignments
- We are not the right match but love each other
- Homepage is getting forums completely wrong, or just everything wrong lol.
- A Level combination ppe??
Enviromental issues vs Economic issues.
This poll is closed
What would be your ideal direction
Environment First (Ill take the hit to my bank account) 0%
25/75 (Green first avoiding only the most economically bad ideas) 0%
50/50 (focus on maintaining economy while being green) 0%
75/25 (green where we can but economy first) 50%
Economy First (lower living costs and economic growth are more important)50%
Total votes: 6
One of my big beefs with the current way things are handled with respect to environmental issues in the UK, Europe and the USA to some degree is the focus on good optics rather than anything likely to have practical benefits.
Speaking to the UK specifically given the size of the UK's emission output at the global level it seems foolish to damage our own economy chasing "greenness" when the economy is far more important.
I’m not opposed to the idea of being green either, my house has solar panels for example, which mean I use very little grid power most days, but the ways that our government/s go about dealing with the environmental issues seems to be entirely at odds with economic realities for example the unrealistic and frankly economically suicidal ideas of banning ICE vehicle sales by 2030.
For me, given the above, I’m economy first environment second. Given out politicians only think about one thing, which is to themselves and their jobs, it leads me to assume they think people prefer environment over economy. So, I am curious as to what people prefer when thinking about casting a vote.
Speaking to the UK specifically given the size of the UK's emission output at the global level it seems foolish to damage our own economy chasing "greenness" when the economy is far more important.
I’m not opposed to the idea of being green either, my house has solar panels for example, which mean I use very little grid power most days, but the ways that our government/s go about dealing with the environmental issues seems to be entirely at odds with economic realities for example the unrealistic and frankly economically suicidal ideas of banning ICE vehicle sales by 2030.
For me, given the above, I’m economy first environment second. Given out politicians only think about one thing, which is to themselves and their jobs, it leads me to assume they think people prefer environment over economy. So, I am curious as to what people prefer when thinking about casting a vote.
False dichotomy. Green tech could be a fantastic opportunity to modernise the British economy. But this country suffers from a chronic reluctance to invest in just about anything.
Original post by Captain Haddock
False dichotomy. Green tech could be a fantastic opportunity to modernise the British economy. But this country suffers from a chronic reluctance to invest in just about anything.
Such as?
Original post by Captain Haddock
False dichotomy. Green tech could be a fantastic opportunity to modernise the British economy. But this country suffers from a chronic reluctance to invest in just about anything.
I'm minded to agree – there's too much focus on short-term economics and not enough thought given to the long-term future of the economy, which will be much more entwined with embracing and enacting green policies.
I favour the 75/25 economic model.
Broadly I don't concern myself too much with climate change because while I believe in it, its primary negative impacts are in the third world.
I do generally support green measures as a means of improving efficiency and moving towards becoming a net exporter again and rebuilding industrial supremecy.
The likes of Greta and her fans are insane though.
Broadly I don't concern myself too much with climate change because while I believe in it, its primary negative impacts are in the third world.
I do generally support green measures as a means of improving efficiency and moving towards becoming a net exporter again and rebuilding industrial supremecy.
The likes of Greta and her fans are insane though.
Original post by Djtoodles
One of my big beefs with the current way things are handled with respect to environmental issues in the UK, Europe and the USA to some degree is the focus on good optics rather than anything likely to have practical benefits.
Speaking to the UK specifically given the size of the UK's emission output at the global level it seems foolish to damage our own economy chasing "greenness" when the economy is far more important.
I’m not opposed to the idea of being green either, my house has solar panels for example, which mean I use very little grid power most days, but the ways that our government/s go about dealing with the environmental issues seems to be entirely at odds with economic realities for example the unrealistic and frankly economically suicidal ideas of banning ICE vehicle sales by 2030.
For me, given the above, I’m economy first environment second. Given out politicians only think about one thing, which is to themselves and their jobs, it leads me to assume they think people prefer environment over economy. So, I am curious as to what people prefer when thinking about casting a vote.
Speaking to the UK specifically given the size of the UK's emission output at the global level it seems foolish to damage our own economy chasing "greenness" when the economy is far more important.
I’m not opposed to the idea of being green either, my house has solar panels for example, which mean I use very little grid power most days, but the ways that our government/s go about dealing with the environmental issues seems to be entirely at odds with economic realities for example the unrealistic and frankly economically suicidal ideas of banning ICE vehicle sales by 2030.
For me, given the above, I’m economy first environment second. Given out politicians only think about one thing, which is to themselves and their jobs, it leads me to assume they think people prefer environment over economy. So, I am curious as to what people prefer when thinking about casting a vote.
I agree with you.
Firstly, I think people overestimate our capacity to change the entire economy and wrest ourselves from carbon based industries and system with emissions to the extent of becoming carbon-zero. Just look at the recent headline about a simple train line. HS2 described as 'unachievable' by infrastructure watchdog.
Secondly, we've had 3 economic shocks = post-Brexit, covid-19 lockdowns and energy price hikes. Our economic future is going to get much worse. Our productivity is tragic. We have still not recovered from the 2008 financial crisis. See pic below. It's easy for people to say that the major infrastructure companies (like UK water companies etc..) should - instead of issuing dividends to shareholders - completely overhaul their maintenance etc. But that's dangerous. A lot of these companies are in our parents, grandparents and even our pensions. Those dividends are paying out peoples' pensions. Those enormous changes will have to be borne by shareholder pensions. Can the government subsidy such changes? If you read today's Sunday Telegraph, we are still - 9 months after the Kwarteng fiasco - paying 4.3% interest rates to borrow for 10 years (see pic below). Our national debt levels are so awful and dire that the bond markets were recently able to remove a PM. That's unprecedented. It's a national delusion that we are still in a position to affect such enormous changes. Pre-Covid, the difference between UK and German rates were barely half the current spread. I think last month our national debt mountain has now exceeded the size of our entire economy. We cannot afford to borrow to make the infrastructure changes without paying high interest rates - which obviously dampen the provision of public services (e.g. hospitals, dentistry and just about everything else) because of our shoddy public finances. There's just so much wrong impeding people's ability to work, transport in dire state - except Shiny Elizabeth line, spending on education falling per person, burdensome child care costs contributing to a declining younger population which is beginning to affect our nation's credit rating and which keeps parents out of the workplace. I also think a lot of the UK population is just plain bone idle. Anyhow, there's just so much wrong in our economy. Brexit is part of the analysis, but a small part of that long-term trend. Declines are usually complex and multicausal. The low productivity could be masked by cheap labour which was superimposed on underinvestment in education, housing, transport and most recently health. Also, factor in that our British economy has been so biased towards services that it makes us vulnerable. The most productive industries in the UK are the construction industries. That economic vulnerability makes our country a lot more exposed to shocks - financial, energy, or even just shifts in terms of trade.
Thirdly, also in today's Sunday Telegraph, there is a great article with in which Philip Hammond says parties and governments have never really owned up about the economic reality. I quote a bit below. Then, there were Tony Blair's comments a few days ago about our zero-carbon policies and their effects which are negligible compared to the major global pollutants - USA + China. It's just a total joke.
Lord Hammond said there was a “cross-party disease” of politicians not being straight with voters about the “significant” true cost of the project and the inevitable consequence of slower rising living standards. “In a democracy, you fail to take people with you at your peril,” he warned. Lord Hammond was chancellor in 2019 when Theresa May enshrined the 2050 target for net zero carbon emissions into law. He caused controversy at the time by telling Mrs May that the cost of the UK achieving the goal could exceed £1 trillion.
“Boris, basically through weaponising his economic ignorance, tried to pretend that this was not really a cost at all because it would be investment and it will create jobs,” he said. While it was “true” net zero would create jobs, it would be “in one part of the economy while failing to create them in another”, and although decarbonisation was “a necessary thing to do” it would cost “a significant amount of money… that we cannot invest in expanding consumption”.
The point here is that resources in our economy have to be diverted from creating goods and services - that people need and consume - and turned towards the nature of that consumption by decarbonising stuff. Living standards will decline (but as I point out, there's every reason to think they will decline anyway).
Original post by Captain Haddock
False dichotomy. Green tech could be a fantastic opportunity to modernise the British economy. But this country suffers from a chronic reluctance to invest in just about anything.
Out of interest, when you say 'green tech' whatre you referring to? Power generation itself or?
In fairness, investing has never been the issue. the government spunks money on all sorts it just happens theyre all useless for most, like over priced trains, foreign wars etc.
Original post by Iigdorins
Dr Greta Thunberg please.
You may wish to make a thread on the subject as she was recently awarded a honorary PhD in Theology. She has a doctorate now, you don't.
You may wish to make a thread on the subject as she was recently awarded a honorary PhD in Theology. She has a doctorate now, you don't.
Ms Thunberg, being given a honorary degree means precisely jack ****
Original post by Napp
Out of interest, when you say 'green tech' whatre you referring to? Power generation itself or?
In fairness, investing has never been the issue. the government spunks money on all sorts it just happens theyre all useless for most, like over priced trains, foreign wars etc.
Ms Thunberg, being given a honorary degree means precisely jack ****
In fairness, investing has never been the issue. the government spunks money on all sorts it just happens theyre all useless for most, like over priced trains, foreign wars etc.
Ms Thunberg, being given a honorary degree means precisely jack ****
An honory PhD in Theology.
How apt
I think the reason for the PM's new fossil fuel push is that he doesn't think he will be able to deal with the causes of inflation without more oil and gas. Besides the pollution, there is an obvious flaw in that hypothetical reasoning. It takes quite a lot of time to set up production after any find, and during that period he will have to rely on the inflation reducing methods he is currently using, will he not? So no matter what he does, replacements for fossil fuels must be found. Wouldn't it be better to try to find some storage for nuclear waste, and then go that way? But the storage problem they have is a conundrum.
(edited 1 year ago)
Original post by michaelhw
I think the reason for the PM's new fossil fuel push is that he doesn't think he will be able to deal with the causes of inflation without more oil and gas. Besides the pollution, there is an obvious flaw in that hypothetical reasoning. It takes quite a lot of time to set up production after any find, and during that period he will have to rely on the inflation reducing methods he is currently using, will he not? So no matter what he does, replacements for fossil fuels must be found. Wouldn't it be better to try to find some storage for nuclear waste, and then go that way? But the storage problem they have is a conundrum.
It's worth saying that the Tory government is still decarbonising. It's OTT to paint it as a fossil fuel push. There's a tonne of offsetting for example.
The simple answer to your question though is that nuclear is expensive and takes about a decade to come on stream. They have approved Sizewell C but they are as ever in court with the hippies and nimby's.
Generally the energy strategy is not significantly different to the one over the last 20 years. Renewable wind and solar with a nuclear plant approved here and there and a hypothetical aim of energy security around 2040.
The problem is that nothing is especially cheap. Wind and solar look great at low strike prices but can only be used as variable energy supply, when you add the cost of the battery storage to use them for baseload (we need about 40% baseload, 60% variable) then the strike price goes above EDF style nuclear.
We also have the misfortune of being part of the European wholesale market which has the same issues since they simply outsourced their emissions to Russia and now LNG. This means that suppliers have the option to sell the energy for a higher price, until we operate a significant energy surplus we can't leave that and if we are honest, that depends on retainers not having had their way by then.
Personally I do favour building another 5 EDF style nuclear plants on top of Hinkley to get us past the baseload required while pursuing variable solar and wind. I'd also keep about 10% gas and coal reserve for strategic purposes.
On a much smaller scale i'd try battery storage and geothermal to try get them below grid parity.
Original post by Rakas21
It's worth saying that the Tory government is still decarbonising. It's OTT to paint it as a fossil fuel push. There's a tonne of offsetting for example.
The simple answer to your question though is that nuclear is expensive and takes about a decade to come on stream. They have approved Sizewell C but they are as ever in court with the hippies and nimby's.
Generally the energy strategy is not significantly different to the one over the last 20 years. Renewable wind and solar with a nuclear plant approved here and there and a hypothetical aim of energy security around 2040.
The problem is that nothing is especially cheap. Wind and solar look great at low strike prices but can only be used as variable energy supply, when you add the cost of the battery storage to use them for baseload (we need about 40% baseload, 60% variable) then the strike price goes above EDF style nuclear.
We also have the misfortune of being part of the European wholesale market which has the same issues since they simply outsourced their emissions to Russia and now LNG. This means that suppliers have the option to sell the energy for a higher price, until we operate a significant energy surplus we can't leave that and if we are honest, that depends on retainers not having had their way by then.
Personally I do favour building another 5 EDF style nuclear plants on top of Hinkley to get us past the baseload required while pursuing variable solar and wind. I'd also keep about 10% gas and coal reserve for strategic purposes.
On a much smaller scale i'd try battery storage and geothermal to try get them below grid parity.
The simple answer to your question though is that nuclear is expensive and takes about a decade to come on stream. They have approved Sizewell C but they are as ever in court with the hippies and nimby's.
Generally the energy strategy is not significantly different to the one over the last 20 years. Renewable wind and solar with a nuclear plant approved here and there and a hypothetical aim of energy security around 2040.
The problem is that nothing is especially cheap. Wind and solar look great at low strike prices but can only be used as variable energy supply, when you add the cost of the battery storage to use them for baseload (we need about 40% baseload, 60% variable) then the strike price goes above EDF style nuclear.
We also have the misfortune of being part of the European wholesale market which has the same issues since they simply outsourced their emissions to Russia and now LNG. This means that suppliers have the option to sell the energy for a higher price, until we operate a significant energy surplus we can't leave that and if we are honest, that depends on retainers not having had their way by then.
Personally I do favour building another 5 EDF style nuclear plants on top of Hinkley to get us past the baseload required while pursuing variable solar and wind. I'd also keep about 10% gas and coal reserve for strategic purposes.
On a much smaller scale i'd try battery storage and geothermal to try get them below grid parity.
Is there no development in nuclear besides the fusion reactor on discovery channel? There is another option not mentioned, if you remove all tolls and tarrifs on solar panels (I actually dont know if there are any), then you make changes to the building codes, stating that public buildings in the most sunny parts of the UK (the most populous parts) should have solar panels on suitable roof spaces, if possible, to offeset the running cost of the building?
In summer you will have no problems using sunpower to run aircondition (they can start automatically when the sun becomes intense) or even a waterpump. It is the winter which then remains as a problem. Even if the cost of installation in these public buldings should be larger than if you just used the electricity now available it would make a small contribution to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.(The co2 print of the panels themselves will of course matter) Of course, hydropower dams are the best way of storing electricity. This resource will not be used as much during summer.
Then of course there is the winter cold. And that is when you subsidize passive heating, insulaton of windows, walls and doors. The elderly are given priority. And again building codes. And reduce the price of woolen products.
In addition to the things i mentioned, I would also see changes to global copyrights on green technologies developed by state agencies in the industrilized world making them public domain.
(edited 1 year ago)
Related discussions
- Nature vs Nurture debate
- can anyone provide me resources to study
- Edexcel A Level Global Politics Paper 3 (9PL0 3B)
- MSc Economics vs MSc Health Economics?
- Will good unis accept retake grades
- behavioural economics
- Essex vs Brighton vs Nottingham (BSc Economics)
- LSE economics 2025 entry
- Geophysics degree, I don’t take maths for a level, as most unis are asking for maths
- Business Management vs Economics
- Master Economics: LSE vs Cambridge vs UCL vs CEMFI vs BGSE
- case studies for ocr gcse geography b
- Leeds vs Exeter
- Economics vs Computer science vs Math degree
- SQA Nat 5 Environmental Science - 26th April 2024 [Exam Chat]
- Psychology A-level AQA evaluations
- Exams in University vs Coursework, Lab work and Assignments
- We are not the right match but love each other
- Homepage is getting forums completely wrong, or just everything wrong lol.
- A Level combination ppe??
Latest
Trending
Last reply 5 days ago
Labour in Power: “Things Can Only Get Better.†“Definitely Maybe†– or Maybe Not?Last reply 3 weeks ago
An academic has correctly called 9 out of the last 10 US Presidential electionsLast reply 3 weeks ago
Shouldn't Euthanasia be made freely available to all sick old people now? becauseLast reply 1 month ago
What has been the stand-out moment from the 2024 US election campaigns?Last reply 1 month ago
Should European /EU citizens require Visas to visit the UK?
