Climate Emergency

MrWalker said:

cantersaddick said:

MrWalker said:

Well I'm impressed the growth in all 10 sectors has been achieved despite a decade of cuts to research.
It's almost unbelievable.

If you can't see how growth in use and takeup of existing tech is separate to funding research into new tech then I'm afraid I can't dumb it down any more for you. 

It's hard to carry on a discussion with you when you are being so condescending, but if you think the tech used in biomass for example, in 2018 was the same as 2012  then you are mistaken. 

It's hard to continue a discussion with you when you deliberately conflate different things.

That's true but the biomass tech is a tiny example and is imported tech which very much demonstrates my point. We have cut research into any new green tech over the last decade which has meant we are reliant on either old tech or imported tech. As a result the majority of the economic benefit falls to another country. Whereas in a world where we develop the tech and sell it ourselves we would benefit from the green effects at home as well as economic growth at home from its use pluse increased exports from being able to export the tech, increased tax revenue, employment and on and on and on with multiplier effects. 

Both Boris and Sunak were very proud to announce these cuts as it appeased certain elements of their party. It was economically negligent and also proof that its not green initiatives that are holding us back economically as the poster I was replying to had claimed but actually our failure to invest in our own tech and so becoming overly reliant on imported tech despite us being set up as a tech economy.

The Poseidon Adventure! Going to need so much more of this, and preferably soon.

https://www.gasworld.com/story/uk-launches-first-co2-injection-test-for-carbon-storage/2151266.article/

Friend Or Defoe said:

I can only assume Tice thinks we can cut down every tree and burn all the fossil fuels on the planet and it won't affect the climate as he's a self confessed 'man made climate change' denier. His argument is superceded by more than thirty years of scientific research though, much of which has been done by the oil companies own scientists, and not even they are spinning that line and living in denial anymore. 

Chippycafc said:

How anybody here is having a pop at reform iafter the utter shambles of a government you've put in is beyond me and most sensible people.

Deflection and guilt I guess.. is it 5 or maybe 10.

So, just for clarification, is Rupert right to invest in the installation of solar panels? Or is Richard right that they're a massive con? 

Chippycafc said:

Chizz said:

Chippycafc said:

How anybody here is having a pop at reform iafter the utter shambles of a government you've put in is beyond me and most sensible people.

Deflection and guilt I guess.. is it 5 or maybe 10.

So, just for clarification, is Rupert right to invest in the installation of solar panels? Or is Richard right that they're a massive con? 

Dunno ask em. I don't care either way. Clarified for you....if it doesn't your will have to think of some other strange question. 

Have you ever considered posting with subtitles? 

Chippycafc said:

How anybody here is having a pop at reform iafter the utter shambles of a government you've put in is beyond me and most sensible people.

Deflection and guilt I guess.. is it 5 or maybe 10.

If it was a Labour MP you would still be cleaning up your mess.

In the United Kingdom, solar and wind farms are subject to several taxes:

1. Corporation Tax: Renewable energy companies pay corporation tax on their profits, similar to other businesses.

2. Business Rates: Operators of solar and wind farms are liable for business rates, a tax on non-domestic properties. The rateable value is based on the property's annual rental value, considering factors like the installation's size and output.

3. Value Added Tax (VAT): The installation of energy-saving materials, including solar panels, in residential properties is subject to a reduced VAT rate. As of April 2022, a zero-rate VAT applies to such installations in Great Britain, while a 5% rate applies in Northern Ireland.

Reform UK has proposed a windfall tax on renewable energy firms, targeting wind and solar farms. Deputy Leader Richard Tice outlined plans to raise approximately £10 billion annually through this tax, aiming to reduce household energy bills by £350 per year.

Additionally, the party suggests denying inheritance tax relief to farmers who install solar panels on their land. 

The proposed windfall tax could have several effects:

• Investment Deterrence: Imposing additional taxes on renewable energy may discourage investment in the sector, potentially slowing the growth of renewable infrastructure.

• Energy Prices: While the tax aims to reduce household energy bills, critics argue it could lead to higher costs if energy companies pass the tax burden onto consumers.

• Policy Uncertainty: Frequent changes in taxation and policy can create uncertainty, making the UK less attractive to investors in renewable energy.

swordfish said:

Chizz said:

In the United Kingdom, solar and wind farms are subject to several taxes:

1. Corporation Tax: Renewable energy companies pay corporation tax on their profits, similar to other businesses.

2. Business Rates: Operators of solar and wind farms are liable for business rates, a tax on non-domestic properties. The rateable value is based on the property's annual rental value, considering factors like the installation's size and output.

3. Value Added Tax (VAT): The installation of energy-saving materials, including solar panels, in residential properties is subject to a reduced VAT rate. As of April 2022, a zero-rate VAT applies to such installations in Great Britain, while a 5% rate applies in Northern Ireland.

Reform UK has proposed a windfall tax on renewable energy firms, targeting wind and solar farms. Deputy Leader Richard Tice outlined plans to raise approximately £10 billion annually through this tax, aiming to reduce household energy bills by £350 per year.

Additionally, the party suggests denying inheritance tax relief to farmers who install solar panels on their land. 

The proposed windfall tax could have several effects:

• Investment Deterrence: Imposing additional taxes on renewable energy may discourage investment in the sector, potentially slowing the growth of renewable infrastructure.

• Energy Prices: While the tax aims to reduce household energy bills, critics argue it could lead to higher costs if energy companies pass the tax burden onto consumers.

• Policy Uncertainty: Frequent changes in taxation and policy can create uncertainty, making the UK less attractive to investors in renewable energy.

Instead of adding to the tax burden of risk-taking entrepreneurs, the government should look to reduce the tax implications of investing in renewables and consider lowering corporation tax on profits made through renewables investments, offering business rate relief on solar and wind farms and zero-rating VAT on solar and wind farms in Northern Ireland. 

Why would anyone with even a limited understanding of the implications of climate change ever vote for politicians whose declared aims will deter investment, cost jobs, increase energy prices, make the UK a less attractive place in which to invest and - most importantly - significantly worsen UK's greenhouse gas emissions?  

But how many voters prioritise green or anti green agendas in their decision? Like any other voter, a Reform one won't necessarily agree with every policy. They vote based on the ones that concern them the most.

I'm not suggesting that Reform UK voters have the mental agility to weigh up conflicting aspirations and contradictory policies.  What I am saying is that if a voter considers the climate crisis to be important to him or her (or to his or her families), then Reform UK should, of course, be the last place they should vote. (Sadly, for many within Reform UK's demographic, it will be).  

Chizz said:

Chippycafc said:

Chizz said:

Chippycafc said:

How anybody here is having a pop at reform iafter the utter shambles of a government you've put in is beyond me and most sensible people.

Deflection and guilt I guess.. is it 5 or maybe 10.

So, just for clarification, is Rupert right to invest in the installation of solar panels? Or is Richard right that they're a massive con? 

Dunno ask em. I don't care either way. Clarified for you....if it doesn't your will have to think of some other strange question. 

Have you ever considered posting with subtitles? 

Stay classy Jizz.

Friend Or Defoe said:

Chippycafc said:

How anybody here is having a pop at reform iafter the utter shambles of a government you've put in is beyond me and most sensible people.

Deflection and guilt I guess.. is it 5 or maybe 10.

If it was a Labour MP you would still be cleaning up your mess.

My mess ?

Dansk_Red said:

It will only take one really cold winter and power outages become a reality,  for people to turn on whoever is running the country, if everybody truly believed in  climate emergency we would all vote for the Greens.     

Surely you mean 'prioritised' rather than 'believed?' 

I think you're right that, whether power outages are likely or not, many fear them more than they do the climate emergency.  Energy security is where the argument for continued use of fossil fuels has shifted now, away from denial of its harmful side effects to the more urgent need to satisfy demand until renewables can cope with it. 

The transition should have started earlier and then there wouldn't be those concerns.

Chizz said:

swordfish said:

Dansk_Red said:

It will only take one really cold winter and power outages become a reality,  for people to turn on whoever is running the country, if everybody truly believed in  climate emergency we would all vote for the Greens.     

Surely you mean 'prioritised' rather than 'believed?' 

I think you're right that, whether power outages are likely or not, many fear them more than they do the climate emergency.  Energy security is where the argument for continued use of fossil fuels has shifted now, away from denial of its harmful side effects to the more urgent need to satisfy demand until renewables can cope with it. 

The transition should have started earlier and then there wouldn't be those concerns.

Concern about the continued supply of power should be an argument for renewables investments, not an argument for the longer reliance on fossil fuels. 

Agreed. I'm just pointing out the change of emphasis of spin from the fossil fuel lobby now, not that they're right or that I agree with it.