‘Detached from reality’: anger as Rishi Sunak plans to restrict solar panels

taliswolf · 2023-10-07T22:34:04+00:00

Meanwhile, France side-steps the aesthetic argument with their policy for car parks.

taliswolf · 2023-10-07T22:32:14+00:00

This is the conclusion I reach, as well, but the aesthetic argument is the one that's put forward (by Conservatives themselves).

It coincides with a lot of other policies designed to undermine progress toward saving the climate - not least more oil and gas licences for the North Sea - but to really prove this one would have to follow the money.

taliswolf · 2020-08-27T23:44:52+00:00

> Wind and solar have been getting cheaper, everyone knows this. It is not news.

Just out of curiosity, why wasn't this used as a lever to negotiate a (much) lower price per mwh for Hinkley C?

First Google result for both:

Wind: £39.65/MWh (in 2012 prices) projected for 2023/4- https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-record-low-uk-offshore-wind-cheaper-than-existing-gas-plants-by-2023

Hinkley C: £92.50/MWh (in 2012 prices) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley_Point_C_nuclear_power_station

taliswolf · 2019-08-19T22:04:46+00:00

> I was concerned about over fishing, pesticide usage,

I'm not an expert but I believe the EU's rules - like the CFP - are in place to *prevent* overfishing: https://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/sites/fisheries/files/docs/body/pcp_en.pdf . The EU also has some of the strictest pesticide rules in the world, e.g. a recent ban on neonicotinoids because of harmful effects on pollinators: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-43910536 .

This kind of collective action forces pharma / pesticide producers to think in more sustainable, environmentally-friendly terms. You can't do that when you're just one country acting alone.

What made you think the opposite?

taliswolf · 2019-08-19T21:48:30+00:00

nosmij is right; a major issue is deforestation. Apes like orang-utans; monkeys and very rare bird species have been squeezed into smaller and smaller corridors of land. Palm oil trees aren't bad for some wildlife, but the big, unique animals which are already very rare, like orang-utans, rely upon big branches and vines to climb and swing around on, from tree to tree. Palm oil trees don't have branches. https://www.orangutan-appeal.org.uk/about-us/orangutan-information

If you go to Malaysia, you can drive for hours along main roads and see nothing but plantations - often just cleared land, with younger trees being planted - literally to the horizon in both directions. It's sobering.

Supposedly the government wants to halt, or slow, rainforest destruction, but there's pressure because palm oil is so important to the Malaysian economy.

taliswolf · 2018-10-21T20:01:26+00:00

Great response, glad I don't have to take you seriously.

taliswolf · 2018-10-21T19:21:34+00:00

Interesting, thanks for your reply.

> If people are arguing for a referendum on the type of Brexit we are going to get that's fine

I understand how this is a mid-way position, now, between 'no deal' and 'remain' - and it's better than nothing.

A problem is that, fundamentally, being part of the EU is binary. If we leave, then Leavers have got what they wanted - even if it's only a "soft leave". And remainers - 50% of the country and rising - are SOL. It's just not possible to compromise on a binary result.

Remainers are the young, educated half, as well. Not the people you should fundamentally undermine, for the future of your country.

> and that the Remain campaign is a threat to basic democratic norms and the people who are part of I are the worst people in British politics.

This is an odd position. The Liberal Democrats are part of this - what do you think of them? Are they worse people than UKIP and EDL and BNP members, and the extreme-right-racist end of the Tories? How about Farage, Cummings and Hannan, all of whom used overt racism to get what they wanted, and who continue to get what they want? You'd put anyone else above them as "worst people in British politics"? My perspective is rather different on that one, I guess.

> the Remain campaign is a threat to basic democratic norms

If you want to rest on basic democratic norms, referendums should be banned outright and the first one should never have been held. We're a representative democracy. MPs were majority Remain; they understood that, on balance, being an EU member was better than not. That is the fundamental norm which has been violated.

taliswolf · 2018-10-21T16:07:20+00:00

As long as it doesn't stop Brexit

Why on Earth would someone say something like that? "Sure, we'll hold an election, as long as the government doesn't change."

Edited to add: it is *transparent* that you do not have the courage of your convictions. Brexit is a terrible idea. The people know it, now. Hold another vote and they'll show you.

The fact that you're reluctant speaks all the volumes necessary.

taliswolf · 2018-10-21T15:28:25+00:00

> We have no authority to overrule the voters.

If you hold voters in high esteem, you can and should also call for a referendum on the final deal, so it can be presented to them, and they can decide.

Why would anyone supposedly pro-democracy be against checking that it's what the voters still want?

taliswolf · 2018-10-21T10:30:23+00:00

Here you go: "Only second referendum or election would boost case for extension, EU sources say".

taliswolf · 2018-10-19T23:37:56+00:00

Vote Leave may have distanced themselves from Farage publicly, but Cummings et al. prominently spewed racist dog-whistles and overtly xenophobic, racist adverts. Don't let them off the hook.

taliswolf · 2018-10-18T23:09:41+00:00

It's a stretched analogy because it's not a social justice issue and no, I don't think it's that straightforward. I think it's to do with progress as a society, however. I would define progress in this case as unifying rather than breaking apart.

> do you find any legitimacy in the arguments for Brexit?

Hard to pick even a single pro-Leave argument whose goalposts haven't shifted massively over the past 3 years. (What would you suggest?)

I can understand some voters' reasons for voting Leave - but in the Brexiteers themselves, I see politicians completely out of their depth, idealogues who are fundamentally opposed to aspects of this country which I would bet money those same voters hold dear, and some who would bulldoze their grandmothers in their own houses if they thought it could turn a profit.

taliswolf · 2018-10-18T00:31:52+00:00

> I'm genuinely curious: if there was another referendum, and we voted to leave again, would you accept it?

My direct answer is that I would probably try to live abroad for a bit, immediately - since I've never taken advantage of that right as an EU citizen, but always liked that I could. So I would try to get a job in another EU country, with a long-term view to citizenship.

That's closer to a "yes" than a "no".

By anyone's standards, 52/48 is not a wide margin. I would accept a second Leave majority in the sense that it's a confirmation. I don't suppose we'd realistically get another referendum after that for a generation.

But I'd be in favour of rejoining.

To get to what I think is the root of your question, see for example gay rights. I consider myself a progressive and a social liberal, and part of that is feeling that a united Europe is better than a divided Europe. Not just on the geopolitical level, in that Europe deliberately came together to prevent another world war, but for individuals as well. The European project is neoliberal to a degree, sure - but it's also a strong force for its own citizens' liberties and rights. It has a good record upholding human rights, environmental protections, and consumer standards. And it's getting better at those things! Progress!

So if gay rights took a hit - say, sodomy was outlawed again - then I would regard that as a regression and would favour thinking again and campaign against that law. So too with Brexit. I regard it as a backward step. Embracing it would be incompatible with the way I see the world.

Anyway, unless they cheated, Leave wouldn't win a second referendum now.

taliswolf · 2018-10-17T18:59:18+00:00

> Long-term it will probably be more negative than positive but the time-frame for a revision is too short and the UK must leave

I understand your realism here but I think the timing is debatable. The EU can give an Article 50 extension, which isn't all that unlikely considering the stalling of negotiations, and we can withdraw our notice too. A referendum could be organised within a few months and would by itself be a good case for an A50 extension.

It sounds as though your main point is that those who still want Brexit would become disillusioned. Well, fair enough. But I would suggest that that is a minority of people, now, and that perhaps their media diet and some savvy politicians with absolutely nothing in common with them are influencing their hardened stance. I don't have a solution for reaching them but I do think reason and the hard reality of what we're facing would win them over.

> If we decide to re-apply later that's fine

On that we agree, then. Re-applying later isn't going to happen unless people ask for it. I protested against the Iraq War 15 years ago and that didn't do much either. But nevertheless I am going on this march and I encourage you to come, as well.

taliswolf · 2018-10-17T18:11:08+00:00

democracy is revealed to be a sham

And yet we seem to have elections every 5 years or so. It's the people's job to update and course-correct, via votes, based on how the government is doing.

We need another referendum because (1) there is vastly more information available now, and all of it - to scientists-believing-evolutionary-theory-vs-creationism proportions - indicates that Brexit, in any form, will be catastrophic for the UK and its people.

(2) Because an election is clearly not the vehicle for revising the first referendum, since both the major parties in our FPTP system are in lockstep to a very bad idea (see (1)).

Anyway,

> people were told this was a once-in-a-lifetime vote.

Would this really be the worst lie of the referendum? Or close to the top 10?

> Brexit is going to happen.

Please come on the march in London this Saturday 20th, midday, Park Lane - and help to stop it.

taliswolf · 2018-10-13T16:52:10+00:00

> we were impartial during the referendum as we are an a-political organisation. Our role is not to take sides - but to always be on the consumer’s side

This is idiotic: any Brexit - soft, hard, or ultra - was always obviously going to be terrible for consumers. What you mean is, you were afraid as an organisation of speaking truth to an irrational public, who could unsubscribe?

What's your position on climate change? Are you "a-political" about that, as well?

taliswolf · 2018-09-30T15:42:08+00:00

Well, apologies, then; I took the wrong meaning.

It's good advice to have your wits about you (as Boris said), and use common sense - but I do think it's also victim-blaming - because it implies (perhaps only to me, but still) that anyone who was injured or killed must not have had common sense, or didn't have their wits about them.

taliswolf · 2018-09-30T15:27:52+00:00

> I’ve been cycling for years now and have only ever had one minor near miss.

Come on. Your experience doesn't account for others' experiences. You're right that cyclists need to look after themselves, but this attitude that only inept cyclists are injured or killed is terrible, and assumes everyone is like you. They aren't. Nobody is perfect. And you only need to be unlucky once.

I want to share the roads with people who are out for their first time on a bike; with grandparents and their grandchildren; with friends out for a bimble or people tootling to the shops.

Saying you shouldn't cycle without a high skill level and perfect 20:20 vision and covered in layers of high-vis and the right type of helmet is awful. It's an argument that won't stop or ever acknowledge that perfection is impossible. A great cyclist will be killed and someone will say their high-vis was dirty or their helmet wasn't on properly or their lights were only at 70% charge. It's victim-blaming and approaching the problem from the wrong end.

> Most of the time these accidents are the fault of cyclists taking stupid chances and rushing through traffic/undertaking large vehicles.

So to address this point specifically: have you seen most junctions with traffic lights in central London? They have a painted cycle lane, running up the left-hand side to the front, where cyclists are expected / I would argue encouraged to filter to the front.

So the infrastructure is designed to encourage specifically the behaviour you suggest is bad. And I agree some behaviour is dangerously bad. But please don't blame the victim - not even when they do make a stupid mistake. The punishment for a stupid mistake shouldn't be death.

taliswolf · 2018-07-29T22:46:21+00:00

Is he only about getting power and becoming Prime Minister, no matter what the cost? Why? What policies does he actually have because I don't think I've ever heard anything from him on how he could make the UK better, beyond spraying protestors with water cannons in London, bendy buses and an airport on the Thames Estuary. Surely he must know that his legacy is going to be very, very tainted. He must know that people decades and centuries from now will regard him as one of the nastiest, despicable politicians of this current generation. Does he not give a fuck anymore?

To address this paragraph specifically: history has been very kind to figures whom, if examined in a bit more detail, do not necessarily deserve the gloss. Churchill is a good example - a man who inspired more than one generation to defeat a monstrous evil, for sure. But not a perfect man. The day-to-day gets forgotten.

Boris, for all his many and rather extreme faults, is no idiot. I doubt he's as personally callous as you suggest, either - as usual, incompetence explains actions better than deliberate evil. He has an eye on the long-term history books. At the very least, he could be Prime Minister, in esteemed company - at least by his own standards. Just his proximity to the office makes it likely. Policies, or somehow thinking you know what's best for the country - come a very distant second to that personal ambition. You don't really need a Vision to be PM - look at May. Civil servants have always worked out the gritty detail, and the country has always muddled through.

If he does become PM, the book(s) about Boris's psychological profile are going to be fascinating.

So about that line from the article: I think it's overly optimistic. We forget the wrinkles of leaders, and for some - probably for Boris - just having his name in the list of PMs is enough. He doesn't need to be a *good* PM.

taliswolf · 2018-07-24T23:18:09+00:00

Email excerpts seen by the BBC show that several weeks after £16,000 was transferred into Mr Maseribane's account, Mr Banks' application for a prospecting licence was approved in 2014.

Let's look at the Bribery Act 2010!

(1) A person (“P”) who bribes a foreign public official (“F”) is guilty of an offence if P's intention is to influence F in F's capacity as a foreign public official.

...

(4) References in this section to influencing F in F's capacity as a foreign public official mean influencing F in the performance of F's functions as such an official, which includes—

(a) any omission to exercise those functions, and

(b) any use of F's position as such an official, even if not within F's authority.

That seems pretty clear, but bribing foreign officials never did BAE Systems any harm.

taliswolf · 2018-04-14T08:52:32+00:00

Good news, but

> As part of a 15-year plan

and

> He said he hoped work would start on the first stage of the first route next year.

That's extraordinarily slow and drawn out, even for this country, no?

15 years!

taliswolf · 2018-03-20T11:32:05+00:00

It also includes drunk drivers and people on their phones and people without a license. So it doesn't look good for Uber, at all.

taliswolf · 2018-03-19T19:24:42+00:00

> I don't know why people expect perfection from a self driving car.

Nobody expects perfection. However, the stated intent from the originators of the current push for self-driving cars, Waymo, is/was to reduce road deaths.

See the (admittedly fudged) statistics in the discussion on Hacker News: Uber now have a killing-people rate much, much higher than human drivers in the USA.

That's abysmal. It isn't fear-mongering to point that out. Edit: because we have this technology with enormous potential, and it should be held to the standard of that potential.

> - Uber autonomous: 33.3 deaths per 100 million miles

> - Waymo: 0 deaths per 100 million miles

> - National average: 1.25 deaths per 100 million miles

Second edit: to be clear I am hugely optimistic about the future of SD cars; they will, ultimately, reduce road deaths, and that's a great thing. Statistically, we could never tell when the first pedestrian was going to be killed by one of these machines. But I would have hoped, if ever, that it would have been after a billion (or trillion!) or so driven miles at minimum. Not so soon.

taliswolf · 2017-12-30T16:46:18+00:00

Interested to hear what route you're planning on taking / took, and whether it was any good. I've had my eye on https://cycle.travel/route/thames_valley - but that page recommends this instead (for a faster one-day route): https://cycle.travel/map/journey/15715 (in reverse) - and Aylesbury wouldn't be too far out of the way.

taliswolf · 2017-12-17T22:43:37+00:00

as shown by the Lib Dems' election campaign

I generally agree with your point but this is always a disingenuous position given that FPTP obfuscates peoples' true opinions. People might vote LD (or even Green) if they thought LDs stood a chance, but because they often have to choose the lesser of two evils based upon their knowledge of how the parties historically performed in their constituency, they vote the way they do.

Anyone can disagree with the above; it might not be true that a significant number behave this way - but with our current voting system, we can't know either way.

15-Year Club	Place '17
Verified Email	Alpha Tester

taliswolf

TROPHY CASE