[Tubby Isaacs]

Ah, blue hyrogen is hydrogen where the carbon gets captured.

[Youngian]

Just doing what this swivel eyed lefty was urging governments to do nearly 40 year ago

[Tubby Isaacs]

Starmer wrote an article for The Sun about carbon capture which bashes green "zealots" who oppose carbon capture. I think he has a point on the substance- you'd think from some of the reaction that this was replacing building solar. And I think that the fear that green energy will put heavy industry out of business is certainly there, including among Sun readers. But there aren't that many of them nowadays. And the article will sit on the internet for a long time, for Greens to circulate.

You're only supposed to blow the bleeding doors off, as I keep saying.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Actually, I'm getting more sympathetic to the language of that article- that doesn't stop it being silly and counterproductive- but there is a big element of wilful stupidy because somebody told them that carbon capture is supported by fossil fuel supporters. (It is, but the proposal isn't to "carry on as we are", it's to capture carbon from a small number of industries that produce it). The one exception seems to be the gas power station in Teesside, but if the alternative would be to cancel that altogether, I can see why they're going for carbon capture.

Here, by the way, from last month is the solar energy trade body talking about last month's auction. It's 50 percent bigger than last years in terms of energy production. Yeah, Starmer! Why are you giving up on renewable energy?

https://solarenergyuk.org/news/solar-ac ... d-auction/

[Tubby Isaacs]

An article by a scientist against Carbon Capture here.

https://theconversation.com/the-uks-22- ... um=bluesky

He lost me at this bit.

This sounds great in theory. However, it seems Labour has been swayed by the fossil fuel lobby, which has pushed CCS for years. This announcement represents a massive bet on a still unproven technology, and will lock the UK into fossil fuel dependence for decades to come. The Climate Change Act mandates the UK should achieve net zero emissions by 2050, yet this will be impossible if carbon capture leads to the UK building new gas power stations instead of wind and solar farms.

I don't follow any of this, I'm afraid. The Teesside gas power station is already going ahead, none of the other projects are for new gas power stations. Why do they lock us into fossil fuel dependency for decades to come?

I take his points about the unproven technologies though.

[Youngian]

I think he's saying carbon capture can work so it will encourage governments to rest on their laurels when it comes to fading out fossil fuels. There's a section of the green movement that believes all technology apart wind turbines and solar panels is bad. Just tricks and gimmicks by the Man to divert our attention.

We do not deny that both carbon capture and “green” hydrogen (derived from water not methane) may be needed for specific uses in a zero-carbon economy. Carbon capture and storage should be used on existing fossil fuel infrastructure to reduce its emissions as it is phased out

[Tubby Isaacs]

That’s a huge leap though. It’s like opposing electric cars because they make us complacent about rail investment.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Former Labour Spad makes a fair point about the Sun article. But (sorry for using this expression again) he was only supposed to blow the bleeding doors off.

JWexTheSpa
‪@jwsidders.bsky.social‬
I disagree with this thread. If you want buy-in to a Net Zero policy, it is important to separate it from those who are associated with extreme, disruptive, sometimes destructive, immensely unpopular, direct action. Because without buy-in no Net Zero policy can actually work.

https://bsky.app/profile/jwsidders.bsky ... r4holtnz2u

[Tubby Isaacs]

What does this mean in practice?

https://www.housingtoday.co.uk/news/hou ... 94.article

The housing minister has written to Homes England telling it to focus the remainder of the Affordable Homes Programme on maximising social housing delivery.

In a letter to Peter Freeman, chair of the government agency, Matthew Pennycook re-iterated the new government’s ambition to deliver 1.5 million new homes in this parliament and set out his “expectations of how the Agency can best support our ambitions”.

[Tubby Isaacs]

What are people's thoughts on this?

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... cture-cuts

Ministers are being asked to draw up billions of pounds in cuts to infrastructure projects over the next 18 months despite Rachel Reeves pledging to invest more to grow the economy, the Guardian has learned.

Members of the cabinet have been asked to model cuts to their investment plans of up to 10% of their annual capital spending as part of this month’s spending review, government sources said.

The demands would mean big projects such as hospital improvements, road building and defence projects being slowed down or stopped altogether as the government looks for ways to repair what they say is a £22bn black hole in the public finances.

A view on what might be happening here. I think this is defensible, but it'll be difficult to get investment back up to where it should be very fast.

John Hannen
‪@jhannen.bsky.social‬
On this, I'm told the budget will look to divert resource to stop councils, etc from falling over as part of a one year settlement. Investment will be sacrificed in short term

The comprehensive spending review in the spring will look at investment and reform

[The Weeping Angel]

Sue Gray has quit.

[davidjay]

Sue Gray has quit.

Inevitable. She's done the right thing but it'll no doubt be totally twisted.

[NevTheSweeper]

Sue Gray has quit.

No doubt this will be on the news rounds. This, plus actual poor decisions made by the cabinet, will reinforce the (media) perception that the government is in a repeated perpetual crisis. On top of their genuine policy mistakes (net-zero, lebanon, chagos islands)

[The Weeping Angel]

I'd like you to explain how the Chagos Islands was a wrong decision.

[Crabcakes]

I'd like you to explain how the Chagos Islands was a wrong decision.

I’d go further - it wasn’t even effectively a decision so much as completing a process the Tories had put in motion. There really wasn’t much of a “choice” at all. So what could they have done?

[Abernathy]

Again, Sue Gray hasn't simply "quit". She has moved to a different job. Though her decision to end her time as Downing Street Chief of Staff was (as she freely admits) at least partly influenced by the intense media focus on her, she is moving to become the PM's envoy for the regions and the nations, bringing her closer to the Northern Ireland role she has long desired.

This brings with it an opportunity for 10 Downing Street to improve its comms operations, which is definitely required, and is welcome.

[Oboogie]

Sue Gray has quit.

No doubt this will be on the news rounds. This, plus actual poor decisions made by the cabinet, will reinforce the (media) perception that the government is in a repeated perpetual crisis. On top of their genuine policy mistakes (net-zero, lebanon, chagos islands)

Britain's possession of the Chagos Islands has been ruled a breach of international law, at a time when Britain (with others) is demanding that other countries respect international law, they were an own goal so obvious that even James Cleverly could spot it.

[Crabcakes]

Also, I’d argue this is a win win win. She’s closer to the role she wants (as Abers has said), she has effectively done her job and got Labour into office and underway, and she has taken herself off of the agenda as a talking point - so some short-term crowing but long term this story is done.

[NevTheSweeper]

I'd like you to explain how the Chagos Islands was a wrong decision.

Firstly, the government didn't announce it in the parliament, which they should have done. Secondly, the decision, although agreed by the Conservatives, didn't have the support of many of the descendants of the islanders. Thirdly, it exposes the government's failings on foreign policy at a time of geo-political crisis.

[Crabcakes]

To be fair though Nev, the government could have done the exact polar opposite of what they have done - or any permutation of any of the options open to them - and you’d still be arguing they’d failed. And you’d do that even if it required you to adopt an entirely different set of reasons to the ones you’ve just stated, because arguing they’ve failed is what you actually want to do.