hellothere

I'm not sure what country you're in - in the UK there is a charity called "Citizens Advice" which, as the name suggests, can help you with legal, financial, and housing issues. They aren't a type of benefit, but they know the law and your rights and will give correct advice and provide advocacy and support if required, is there anything equivalent to this where you live?

The lack of JJ in this is unforgivable.

Excellent, so you are in the market for premium oil jacks, where should we start the bidding?

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.

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?

Zoom!

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).

Absolutely agree.

I am no fan of CCS, but the £22bn is across 25 years.

I don't think that spending less than 1bn a year to research better methods of carbon sequestration is a bad idea, and it definitely won't meaningfully change the need to drastically reduce the amount of carbon being emitted in every one of those 25 years.

How can I confident in that statement? Because if it would be a meaningful reduction, you'd see a shit load more being spent given just how inexpensive that would be in comparison to the cost of transition and abandoned O&G assets.

Edit: typos

Dammit Chuck.

If you get a good one