Bolitics The New Condem Government

[Kingfisher]

What I don't get is the idea that acting now to reduce carbon emissions is the expensive option. The price of fossil fuels is only going one way, and guess which way that is...completely the opposite way of renewables. Keeping the status quo is all about short term profit, and is sending us down down deeper and down.

[chrisp65]

Milne hit the nail on the head in today's Guardian

 

 

 

When it comes to the incompatibility of effective action of averting climate disaster with their own neoliberal ideology, the deniers are absolutely right. In the words of Nicholas Stern's 2006 report, climate change is "the greatest market failure the world has ever seen".

 

The intervention, regulation, taxation, social ownership, redistribution and global co-operation needed to slash carbon emissions and build a sustainable economy for the future is clearly incompatible with a broken economic model based on untrammelled self-interest and the corporate free-for-all that created the crisis in the first place.

 

 

There is room for debate in a democracy but one shouldn't mistake lazy contradiction for debate. Sitting on your arse and saying 'No, no that isn't true' and providing no evidence whatsoever to the contrary is highly suspicious behaviour and I can only attribute it to what Milne pointed out, an ideological stance rather than a genuine disagreement based on research and science.

 

 

who's the comment aimed at CED?

 

I don't think there are any deniers on here, I think there are pedants over the language used to portray individual events as linked in fact to man made global warming. But that doesn't make them non-believers in climate change.

 

The problem with the likes of the BBC lazily stating 'x' is a result of 'y' is that it allows the Lawsons of this world to get into the cracks in the argument and create doubt. That doubt allows people to keep on burning fuel, because lets face it, we're all still eating ready meals and sitting at the playstation until 1:00am even if we are worried about the polar bears and somebody else's kids in 20 years time. It's that selfish gene that tells you whilst there is still Formula 1 and intercontinental beach holidays, why the floss should I worry about the mpg of my car or spending £6,000 on a 7% more efiicient boiler with a payback longer time 4 years longer than its warranty.

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

Aimed at no one but the guvmint.

[MakemineVanilla]

Milne hit the nail on the head in today's Guardian

 

 

 

When it comes to the incompatibility of effective action of averting climate disaster with their own neoliberal ideology, the deniers are absolutely right. In the words of Nicholas Stern's 2006 report, climate change is "the greatest market failure the world has ever seen".

 

The intervention, regulation, taxation, social ownership, redistribution and global co-operation needed to slash carbon emissions and build a sustainable economy for the future is clearly incompatible with a broken economic model based on untrammelled self-interest and the corporate free-for-all that created the crisis in the first place.

 

 

There is room for debate in a democracy but one shouldn't mistake lazy contradiction for debate. Sitting on your arse and saying 'No, no that isn't true' and providing no evidence whatsoever to the contrary is highly suspicious behaviour and I can only attribute it to what Milne pointed out, an ideological stance rather than a genuine disagreement based on research and science.

 

It is a market failure because it is impossible to identify the gains for those who are expected to pay for it.

 

As Slingo says, nothing we do now will stop the effects of the CO2 which has already been put into the atmosphere - global warming is going to increase for the next thirty years and no one has reliable predictions of what the consequences are going to be.

 

Trying get people to spend money on stuff which will alter nothing in their own lifetime is a very difficult thing to do.

 

Add in the futility of a country with 0.88% of global population making sacrifices while big polluters (USA, India and China) go unregulated, and it looks impossible.

 

The Jehovah's Witnesses have enough trouble selling their idea which comes with the promise of a blissful eternity, this idea comes with no promises at all.

[Kingfisher]

The promise of a brighter economic future? Fossil prices fuel are going up, renewables coming down.

[mockingbird_franklin]

Looks like in his attempts to save a few bob, IDS may end up wasting up to £2billion of taxpayers cash on his universal credit fiasco

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/universal-credit-governments-welfare-reform-may-be-scrapped-after-next-election-9139458.html

[snowychap]

And more on the DWP (and the Minstry of 'Justice') from The Grauniad

People stripped of benefits could be charged for challenging decision

People who have been stripped of benefits could be charged by the government for trying to appeal against the decision to an independent judge.

Critics said the proposal, contained in an internal Department for Work and Pensions document leaked to the Guardian, would hit some of the poorest people in Britain, who have been left with little or no income.

In the document about the department's internal finances, officials say the "introduction of a charge for people making appeals against [DWP] decisions to social security tribunals" would raise money.

Other ideas include selling off child support debt to "the private sector to collect", though civil servants remark that the government would be unlikely to raise more than 5-7p in the pound from the £1.4bn currently owed to the DWP. The department currently collects arrears.

Earlier this week figures showed that in the past year nearly 900,000 people have had their benefits stopped, the highest figure for any 12-month period since jobseeker's allowance was introduced in 1996. In recent months, however, 58% of those who wanted to overturn DWP sanction decisions in independent tribunals have been successful. Before 2010, the success rate of appeals was 20% or less.

One welfare legal adviser said the number of appeals being lodged at independent tribunals would be decimated if the government introduced a charge.

Last year the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) which sets policy in the area, brought in charges for employment tribunals of up to £250 to lodge a claim, depending on the kind of case being brought. The union Unison asked judges to review the policy, saying the number of claims had dropped by more than half after fees were introduced. High court judges declared the policy lawful this month.

In the DWP Efficiency Review, which is marked "restricted", it says the proposal for charging for social security tribunals is already "under investigation" by the MoJ and officials "intend to revisit it" in the wake of the Unison court challenge decision.

However, the 80-page document points out, the policy will "entail no revenue generation nor efficiency for the [DWP] per se" but will however generate income for the justice department.

...more on link

[mockingbird_franklin]

 

And more on the DWP (and the Minstry of 'Justice') from The Grauniad

People stripped of benefits could be charged for challenging decision

People who have been stripped of benefits could be charged by the government for trying to appeal against the decision to an independent judge.

Critics said the proposal, contained in an internal Department for Work and Pensions document leaked to the Guardian, would hit some of the poorest people in Britain, who have been left with little or no income.

In the document about the department's internal finances, officials say the "introduction of a charge for people making appeals against [DWP] decisions to social security tribunals" would raise money.

Other ideas include selling off child support debt to "the private sector to collect", though civil servants remark that the government would be unlikely to raise more than 5-7p in the pound from the £1.4bn currently owed to the DWP. The department currently collects arrears.

Earlier this week figures showed that in the past year nearly 900,000 people have had their benefits stopped, the highest figure for any 12-month period since jobseeker's allowance was introduced in 1996. In recent months, however, 58% of those who wanted to overturn DWP sanction decisions in independent tribunals have been successful. Before 2010, the success rate of appeals was 20% or less.

One welfare legal adviser said the number of appeals being lodged at independent tribunals would be decimated if the government introduced a charge.

Last year the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) which sets policy in the area, brought in charges for employment tribunals of up to £250 to lodge a claim, depending on the kind of case being brought. The union Unison asked judges to review the policy, saying the number of claims had dropped by more than half after fees were introduced. High court judges declared the policy lawful this month.

In the DWP Efficiency Review, which is marked "restricted", it says the proposal for charging for social security tribunals is already "under investigation" by the MoJ and officials "intend to revisit it" in the wake of the Unison court challenge decision.

However, the 80-page document points out, the policy will "entail no revenue generation nor efficiency for the [DWP] per se" but will however generate income for the justice department.

...more on link

 

So they use sanctions (without official targets despite plenty of evidence they exist) to wrongfully remove peoples benefits, 1) because sanctioned people no longer appear as unemployed, 2) it saves a bit of dosh,

people rightfully appeal and the results prove that well over half of all those decisions (an effect of setting targets) are incorrect, so now the bastards are attempting to cut down on appeals (more than likely with a eye on saving a little bit more dosh and the embarrassment of losing so many appeals) they want to charge the innocent victims of their underhand tactics to appeal.

 

sounds just like the actions of a fair and just bunch of individuals, and some people think the Tory party are words removed.

[blandy]

 

The problem with the likes of the BBC lazily stating 'x' is a result of 'y' is that it allows the Lawsons of this world to get into the cracks in the argument and create doubt....

I don't think that's really the problem at all Chris. I think the problem is that through management dictat that "balance" should be sought, some utterly misguided programmers seem to interpret that as having "someone of the opposite view" in every discussion. Which is fine to a point, but the choice of (in this example) Nigel Lawson who is utterly unqualified in any way to comment on the subject at hand. He doesn't state an opinion, he just asserts a falsehood and slags off the actual expert. There are people on this board in this thread who have put more valid points relating to what the Met Office expert said. The BBC should not be giving air space to people who have no relevant expertise or background on scientific subjects. It seems to occur more with science and technology than with other areas - they don't have someone from the IFS on to talk about economics and then for the "counter argument" have childrens author JK Rowling do they?

There is a difference between discussing facts or theories knowledgeably and in an informative manner, and having someone on just going "No, and you smell" . By giving equal prominence to these blowhards they're party to misinforming and confusing people.

[peterms]

The climate debate moves on. It seems that now even an utter numbnuts like the loathsome Osborne understands it's serious.

But he'd like to take measures which don't cost any money, as defined in accountants' definitions of what spending falls in which year; oblivious to the real cost of the damage which drifts by him like the wind, above and beyond his simple calculus and the abacus of his tame beancounters.

[MakemineVanilla]

I am very cynical about climate change but not about the science.

 

The argument has been polarised into one about whether the data showing increasing global temperatures is either correct or not (the great hockey-stick squabble), or whether the conclusion that it has been caused by CO2 is the right one.

 

This split roughly follows the Left - Right division of politics. (I find it hilarious that people assume that I am right-wing, by both right and left, because I step outside this rigid polarisation). 

 

This argument, arranged and refereed by the media, has created a false dilemma which prevents people from considering solutions, or indeed, whether there are any given the realities of politics and human nature.

 

The problem is that faced with the difference between the pious cant and what is actually happening, conclusions can only be cynical.

 

There is no sign that voters want to ditch capitalism or consumerism: people just want bigger cars and bigger houses heated to tropical temperatures, filled with stuff they discard every few years, and want increasing numbers of cheap flights propelled by untaxed aviation fuel.

 

Most people I know think that the only real validation of their lives is what they consume.

 

So it looks like we are stuck with a system which requires everyone to consume 2.5% more goods and services every single year, as we vote in governments who promise to remove all inhibitions to increased growth. 

 

We just love capitalism and everything it creates.

 

But what we know about capitalism is that it just sees its potential customers' sensitivity to Green issues as an opportunity, or a re-branding exercise.

 

So, as seen on Top Gear, the Ford motor company has produced a three-cylinder, super efficient engine for the European market, where consumers have one set of values, while it also continue to produce their 6 litre SUVs and pick-ups (America's top-selling car) for the North American market, where consumers' values are different.

 

In Europe we claim to be Green and point out our achievements in decreasing CO2 emissions (or more exactly, slowing down the increase) but all we have really done is transferred the dirty manufacturing industries to China and India, which we allow to avoid regulation, so we can get our stuff as cheap as possible and with a clear conscience.

 

So you have to wonder whether so called Green industries (Turbines assembled by Germans, working for an Indian company) are just another example of capitalism exploiting a new market which comes with a subsidy (£100k subsidy for every job created in UK).  

 

We have governments who claim to be Green but never lose their passion for holding self-indulgent hugely wasteful events like the Olympic games, or planning white elephant prestige projects like HS2, which are about as Green as McClaren's new hybrid super-car. While they claim to want to decrease the country's carbon footprint they want to increase the population. If they believe their own public statements they surely would be doing something. At least Noah put his money where his mouth was and built the Ark.

 

Judging from the information that the Met Office provide it would seem that nothing we can do can reverse the damage already done and that anything we try to do, now or in the near future, will only delay the inevitable.

 

So judging by the requirements of capitalism (endless growth), the desires of consumers (voters) and the actions of governments, it is impossible not to be cynical.

[Kingfisher]

I don't think it's as hopeless as you make out. I agree, for the green movement to work business has to take a leading role, but fortunately there are some very sound reasons why going green makes business sense. But it's longer term, rather than short term - so government need to show leadership and encourage the economy to go the green route.

But first we have to elect a government, we're a rudderless ship at the moment. The current lot are just feathering their nests and handing as much of our assets to their pals as they can before next year. I honestly don't think winning another election is of much concern to these millionaires. With the media brainwash, I just don't think the public are quite aware of this.

[mockingbird_franklin]

experience unemployment under IDS

 

http://games.usvsth3m.com/iain-duncan-smiths-realistic-unemployment-simulator/

[mockingbird_franklin]

On Enviromental issues and Fracking

 

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/fracking-causes-lung-inflammation-scarring-cancer-workers-498503

 

meanwhile, while this story might be a little misleading and alarmist in it's headline, It could easily be a sign of how things will pan out regarding house insurance in Fracking approved areas.

 

http://www.wellsjournal.co.uk/Insurance-shock-Wells-home-owners/story-20659325-detail/story.html

 

Yet we still get the lies about cheaper energy from Cameron as he continues to push the vested interest of those who will make a fortune from it.

[Xann]

In the States it appears that fracking companies have been going bust before they can be held to their promises to clear up.

 

Clicky

 

Taxpayers will pay to clean up any pollution caused by fracking if the companies go bankrupt, after a proposal to make UK operators take out insurance against such damage was ruled out by the government.

 

Clicky

 

Atos isn't working... Atos staff join demonstration.

[MakemineVanilla]

In the States it appears that fracking companies have been going bust before they can be held to their promises to clear up.

 

Clicky

 

 

 

Taxpayers will pay to clean up any pollution caused by fracking if the companies go bankrupt, after a proposal to make UK operators take out insurance against such damage was ruled out by the government.

 

 

 

The issue of 'Externalised costs' is always the elephant in the room whenever the merits of capitalism are discussed.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externalised_costs

Edited February 23, 2014 by MakemineVanilla

[Xann]

All this after generous tax breaks for the frackers.

 

Of which Osbourne's father in law is one.

[mockingbird_franklin]

The continued attack in little steps on the social security net.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/consumertips/tax/10657014/Goodbye-National-Insurance.-Hello-Earnings-Tax.html

 

rename NI and break the link between paying into the system to recieve when in need

 

Anyone who thinks this is an innocent renaming and simplification process really do need to take a long hard look at themselves in the mirror to check if they are awake, the slow process of killing the welfare state rumbles on from this bunch of un-mandated tossers. One more step in the drip drip drip of the destruction of the safety net.

[mockingbird_franklin]

Oh and they put on hold plans to sell your medical records, denying the system would be misused for commercial gain, then they do this,

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/10656893/Hospital-records-of-all-NHS-patients-sold-to-insurers.html

[mockingbird_franklin]

The erosion continues

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/councils-anger-over-decision-to-scrap-hardship-fund-set-up-to-help-vulnerable-9147710.html