It’s a good argument. It has always struck me as odd that the influential right wing of the Conservative Party seem to be so against renewables and nuclear, and all for oil and gas.
Surely the emphasis should be on self sufficiency and independence from others?
I would have thought that pride in generating our own power would have been the natural Conservative Party way - part of Conservative ideology, so to speak.
There could even be bonus points for maintaining our air and water quality.
Bizarre.
I’ve always found this sort of stuff interesting, the stark contrast between what Tory voters preach and what the party has often stood for. The party’s emphasis seems swayed by whoever has the biggest wallet rather than actually promoting traditionally conservative values.
If anything, the UK has become more dependent on other countries in recent years. Our public transport is pretty much entirely owned by foreign companies that charge extortionate amounts here because their own countries have better regulations.
They could’ve made Brexit into a huge push to eat more seasonally and support local farmers, which would both help local economy and be more environmentally friendly, but instead they focussed on drawing attention towards immigration
You hit the nail on the head there.
I expect all you have to do is follow the money to find out why their ideology is so flexible!
This the same Starmer that’s just come out and backtracked on his green policy platform??
He hasn’t backtracked. Labour are still going to invest billions in green tech, green research and green jobs.
They’re still going to create a new state-owned green energy company.
They’re still going to phase out diesel cars.
They’re still going to change planning laws so that we can build more onshore wind, more quickly (as well as other green infrastructure, like trams and rail).
They’re still going to ban new licences for North Sea Oil extraction.
And Ulez in London is going ahead as planned without delay.
He’s fighting the backlash following his criticism of ULEZ a couple of weeks ago
They have said consistently that they cannot undo the amount of damage done to our country in a short time. This will take many parliaments to fix. As such you have to prioritise your biggest gains.
Labour doesn’t want to get into power. If they do, then they will have to fix all the shit. But if they continue back-benching, they can still get comfy wages, invites to conferences, etc.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Keir Starmer has condemned the prime minister’s climate policies, declaring the failure to invest in renewables such as wind turbines a “gift to Putin”.
Starmer’s comments followed a wave of criticism of green policies from Rishi Sunak, following the Tories’ narrow byelection win in Uxbridge and South Ruislip, which some have attributed to a protest vote against Sadiq Khan’s expansion of the ultra-low emission zone (Ulez) in London.
Last week, Kemi Badenoch, the business secretary, suggested electric vehicle mandates could hamper investment in Britain and lead to job losses, in a sign that another of the government’s green pledges is in doubt.
Badenoch was discussing the automotive industry’s concerns about a rule to be introduced in January that will require manufacturers to ensure at least 22% of new sales in the UK are of emissions-free models, rising each year to reach 80% by 2030.
Starmer wrote: “Last week we had cabinet members arguing against all new cars being electric or hybrid by 2030, undermining the investor certainty we need to ensure a wide a range of affordable vehicles with the charging infrastructure to support them.
“That’s why Labour’s plan will give these manufacturers clarity, turbocharge the rollout of electric vehicles, increase the availability of charging points and lower costs for households in the process.
I’m a bot and I’m open source!
I wish this bot was available for YouTube videos
What is he talking about… We only get 4% of gas from Russia. The majority comes from Norway.
Can we not just kick all these morons out?
Global gas prices are influenced by what happens in Russia, so if we’re dependent on any gas, we’re somewhat influenced by Putin. Also, I think it’s fair to argue that even 4% is 4% too much!
dependent on any gas
Wind’s variable nature kind of means that one needs to use it in conjunction with natural gas or something similar that can fill in the gaps.
Maybe one could just use geothermal or nuclear, but if one goes with wind, unless one has a lot of hydropower capacity, there’s probably also going to be some level of natural gas in the mix.
Wind, nuclear, tidal, solar, geothermal and even biogas if deployed correctly — the combination can get us off fossil gas. I’m pro-nuclear myself, which I think is where Labour is leaning, too.
The key lies in energy storage. Create more than you need during the peak times and store it by other means.
Indeed, but more research and development is needed to scale up storage to that level, and that R&D will itself take time and money.
