Labour sets out priorities on energy and climate - but how achievable are they?
Keir Starmer's new government talked a lot about energy in the election campaign, and has already made a slew of announcements this week. Sky News breaks down the top commitments, and why they will be harder than they sound.
Labour says it can get the UK off foreign fossil fuels, cut energy bills and tackle the climate crisis in one fell swoop: by making electricity 100% clean by 2030. (Last year was 51%).
It's not drastically different to the Tories' 2035 target. But the earlier date will require an "Apollo moon mission-like effort", said Adam Bell, director of policy at Stonehaven.
Starmer's cabinet has been described recently as a ‘minefield of imbeciles’ and a ‘combination of misfits’. Too kind in my view. This farce is closer to unprincipled charlatans jumping on a bandwagon where only the bandwagon and its opportunities count, nothing else and certainly not voters.
Watching it fall apart could be fun though. Let us hope Labour voters are watching too. They may learn something.
9 comments:
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that the competence of Labour's Ministers doesn't matter. They will only be allowed to do what the Blob or Tony Blair approve.
What they say may lack discipline, or provide low humour at best. Emily Thornberry is upset that she didn't get the Attorney General job she expected and I predict that many others will be upset in the future as their aspirations are thwarted.
Starmer has done a good job of rehabilitating Labour's image, but I doubt that it will be enough to keep the conflicting 'wings' of Labour under control when there's a sniff of power in the air. I wonder if in a year's time we may be speaking of Prime Minister Rayner?
DJ - I'll join you on that limb, it seems fairly safe. Although if Starmer and Labour ministers were competent and principled they wouldn't dance to Blair or the Blob's incompetent tune. They would at least ask competent questions about the return on money 'invested' and what it achieves for voters.
I once asked a sage old friend whether HMG has ever made a competent major science/engineering decision in a timely way.
He stroked his chin. "Yes, moving the Navy from coal-fired to oil-fired boilers." ...
Perhaps some of the early nuclear decisions. Backing radar before WWII. The Spitfire and Hurricane. He soon ran out of instances.
I suspect WWII saw other good policies e.g. the "blockbuster" bombs for Lancasters. Construction of the Mosquito. Equipping Typhoons with anti-tank rockets. Putting a decent gun in Sherman tanks. But perhaps those weren't really "major".
Pluto and the Mulberry harbours. The swimming tanks. Perhaps those were major: defeat in Normandy would have been a catastrophe.
Lord, it was all so long ago. Now a government of fools will prove itself incapable of any timely, competent decision at all.
dearieme - that's my impression, the competent decisions were a long time ago. I'm not sure why, but it's as if HMG doesn't have enough people who recognise science/engineering competence. As if those who did recognise it were the anomaly, they came and then they went.
"It's not drastically different to the Tories' 2035 target. But the earlier date will require an "Apollo moon mission-like effort", said Adam Bell, director of policy at Stonehaven."
Yes, it's just like the Apollo missions, but with rockets that don't work in the dark, or when there is no wind. And no means of storing the fuel.
If you read the history of most of the equipment used in the war,a lot if not all, was the result of private ( and sometimes wealthy) individuals having the ideas and pushing to get them accepted, See the Schneider Trophy aircraft,the ancestors of the Spitfire and Barnes Wallis with the bouncing bombs.
It still bemuses me that adults can still believe in the equivalent of the Tooth Fairy and expect to get something for nothing .It does not matter how many wind turbines or solar panels you have, you still require back up to keep the lights on and the lifts running.
"but how achievable are they?"
I would say that's the wrong question. How much is it going to cost us and how many rights will we loose? Even if it ends in abject failiure and things just continue on as they currently are doing, just trying it will still waste an absolute fortune and see all of us a lot poorer
...will require an Apollo like effort. But the point eludes them that the USA is no longer capable of an 'Apollo like effort', let alone Britain.
Tell you what! I'll support Labour plans to remove fossil fuels from electricity generation in Britain, if they undertake not to use ANY oil in wind turbine generators. How about that.
Sam - ha ha, and nutters throwing paint at them because they aren't green enough.
John - Barnes Wallis was born in Derbyshire - thought I'd mention that. Yes, private individuals fired with an idea and the ability and tenacity to make it work. As you say, there are many examples in the past. John Harrison the carpenter turned clock maker was one too. Or Samuel Johnson compiling his dictionary.
Bucko - yes that's where the most likely disaster lurks. Lost opportunities which will never be regained. Generations of people who were lied to about the natural world, what can be done and what can't.
Tammly - they ought to see that as a good deal but somehow I suspect they won't. Grifters who only care about maintaining the grift.
Post a Comment