Computer help to connect to internet

[Mark]

You do know, or you should. Take a look at the news (and not just the Sun or the Daily Express).

No. Project lies ensured that a massive amount of misinformation was spread. Many fell for it including yourself apparently.

If only they could trust the campaign material.

That's completely different, particularly since there have been several general elections since then. In case you haven't noticed Tony Blair is no longer Prime Minister. I wonder why the Brexiters are so against a new referendum. The only reason is that they know they would 'lose' it.

Rubbish. All the expert reports, including those commisioned by the government, are confirming that Brexit is bad for Britain. Name one 'benefit' to 16-17 year olds that could come from Brexit (and I mean a real benefit and not Brexit fantasy).

They were prevented -- that's the point!

[The Natural Philosopher]

Scrapping the EU renewable obligation would save £16bn a year.

[Martin]

As Tony Blair has pointed out frequently he won an election after the invasion of Iraq.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

We imagined that banner on the side of the leave campaign bus, did we?

[Dave Plowman (News)]

And likely cost us several times that in lost trade. But then you never were any good at business, were you?

[Dave Plowman (News)]

And hindsight after an event is a wonderful thing. Lots who were in favour of the Iraq war then have changed their tune since.

I can just see the likes of Turnip swearing in a few years time he was against Brexit. ;-)

[tim...]

what's the EU renewable obligation?

why is it a bad thing?

and who would make the saving (I.e. would it actually accrue to the MITS or just end up in the pockets of the elite?)

tim

[tim...]

Why would it lose us trade?

I have to admit, that as per the other post, I don't know what obligation Turnip is referring to.

But on any reasonable idea that I can come up with, I can see no reason why scrapping it would stop other people buying our potatoes (etc).

E.g. China has absolutely appalling standards on pollution. Yet we (and rEU) still buys loads of their stuff each year. No-one stops buying your products on the world market because you don't conform to their preferred production process, if that doesn't affect the actual quality of the end product. (though there is some attempts at doing so for child workers, but that's as far as it goes)

Not that I am in agreement with him that we should scrap it, you understand (whatever it is)

tim

[Dave Plowman (News)]

Bound to. Like everything Turnip says. ;-)

[The Natural Philosopher]

Iyt is an obligation to use reneable ebergy

Because it transfers money from everybody who uses energy to crony green companies instead of people who make something useful. It is in teh end pure 'jobs for the boys'.

But 'jobs for the boys' do not make wealth. Merely redistribute it from those who do make it, to those who do not.

The poorest would benefit the most and the elites would lose the most.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

Far far better to pay a foreign consortium to build and operate a nuclear power station here with a guaranteed unit price way above market rate.

They are doing it purely out of altruism.

[tim...]

You don't help yourself sometimes Dave.

Admitting that you posted crap because you thought you'd get away with it

There are genuine reason why we might need to continue to comply with this directive, that aren't made up ones

tim

[tim...]

surely that obligation has come about because we signed up to Kyoto.

Not because of our membership of the EU.

All the EU membership has done is provided for the EU to formulate the legislation for conformance to Kyoto, rather than HMG doing it for itself.

Leaving the EU isn't going to allow us to stop meeting reusable energy requirements.

We agreed to that because of our membership of a Worldwide body, which we wont be leaving.

there may be scope for some implementation changes at the margins [1], but for the core issue, nothing will change

Now I know what it is, we don't need the 5 minute argument on the issue, that will just turn into the 1 hour argument.

(I asked because I thought perhaps it might be a recyclable "waste" issue)

tim

[1] personally I think that shipping in bio fuels to meet this target is a daft thing to do.

[T i m]

I saw a thing on TV that I believe suggested that there was no Co2 'tax' to burning wood chips, even though burning such produces (releases?) loads?

And we get them to cut down forests elsewhere and ship them here to burn. It's supposed to be low grade wood but often isn't.

Cheers, T i m

[Dave Plowman (News)]

No need. The number of times Turnip gives a balanced view of anything is so small...

Are you stating quite categorically there is no money to be made from renewable technology? The sort of thing the UK should be doing? Hi tech, rather than paper clips which others can make more cheaply than us?

All sorts of things that simply don't matter to some in their black and white world.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

The theory is that growing trees for fuel absorbs CO2. Thus reducing the CO2 penalty of burning them.

[Chris B]

But I thought the theory was that the trees planted to replace the ones that have been cut down and burnt suck all of that CO2 back up again - hence neutral - except for the boat that moves the chips from a to b.

[Hankat]

Just as true of renewable energy too.

[T i m]

Ignoring any other pollutants produced when it's burnt presumably (recent issues with domestic log burners)?

And isn't it the same thing with coal, just that the whole cycle takes a bit longer? ;-)

"... burning trees for energy produces 1.5 times as much carbon as coal and three to four times more than natural gas."

I think there was some other reason why it (burning imported wood chips) wasn't a 'good' as it seemed at face value (levels of subsidies etc)?

Cheers, T i m

[T i m]

I think that's the idea but thought there was something else that suggested it was being given an unfair advantage for bogus reasons (ignoring all the ancient woodlands that are being replaced with monocultures restricting biodiversity or clearing of hardwoods forests that have taken 100's of years to grow, just to chip and ship to us to burn to be replaced with cr*pwood, only any use to burn (in x years)).

As I mentioned to Dave, I think there may *also* have been something else covered by the TV documentry, that it was supposed to be 'waste wood' or re the subsidies that it was getting and better solutions weren't?

Cheers, T i m