Is climate change a fraud?

[Chinahand]

Thanks, Moghrey Mie, though I'm still very unsure what is being claimed by Stu Peters.

So Education and Health (plus subsidiary areas) in total get about £520 million a year.

Is that operational and capital budgets?

Per capita that's about £6,500 per person.

Now what is the spending proposed on Green initiatives?

My view a reasonable start would be the annual capital/depreciation budget of the electricity assets ... a decade or so ago I'd almost know these off by heart but I've no idea any more.

What is the annual cost (and cost per capita) spent/depreciated to ensure the power generation assets can be replaced in the accounts? I'd be amazed if it wsa anything like £500 million. That's about their total cost (ie the total loans to build them) and they have a life of 25 years plus, so about 1:25th of the Education and Health figure.

Don't understand what is being claimed at all.

[Non-Believer]

Cabinet Office £415M annually.

Before the Bell administration it didn't even exist. However did we survive?

[manxman1980]

2 hours ago, Happier diner said:

Burning wood is sustainable if the trees are replaced. 

Mature trees being used for firewood and replaced with saplings isn't straightforward. 

I think you have to plant many more trees than you cut down in order for it to be sustainable. 

[alpha-acid]

1 hour ago, Stu Peters said:

After the ‘summer’ we’ve just had I’m not suggesting climate change isn’t real, but the sheer number of people alive today compared to 100 years ago tells me it’s not gas boilers or diesel cars causing it. So the answer is to mitigate it rather than think we can control it.

I watched a US Senate Committee hearing a few weeks ago. The ‘expert’ wasn’t willing to put a figure on net zero but didn’t disagree that it would cost trillions. He (possibly wisely) then failed to answer how effective that spend would be in reducing global warming. It’s all smoke and mirrors designed to destabilise the West and enrich only those who support it.

That's rubbish ChinaHand has proven to you you don't know what you are talking about. Just do proper fact finding Stu not cherry picking

[Moghrey Mie]

6 hours ago, Chinahand said:

Thanks, Moghrey Mie, though I'm still very unsure what is being claimed by Stu Peters.

So Education and Health (plus subsidiary areas) in total get about £520 million a year.

Is that operational and capital budgets?

Per capita that's about £6,500 per person.

Now what is the spending proposed on Green initiatives?

My view a reasonable start would be the annual capital/depreciation budget of the electricity assets ... a decade or so ago I'd almost know these off by heart but I've no idea any more.

What is the annual cost (and cost per capita) spent/depreciated to ensure the power generation assets can be replaced in the accounts? I'd be amazed if it wsa anything like £500 million. That's about their total cost (ie the total loans to build them) and they have a life of 25 years plus, so about 1:25th of the Education and Health figure.

Don't understand what is being claimed at all.

Total Income Tax is £16,343 per person

£4,863 for Social Security payments

£4,311 for Health and Social Care

£282 for DEFA including the Office of Fair Trading and Road Transport Licensing Committee

Stuart probably doesn't know how much is spent on 'green initiatives' but is singing a tune that is popular with some people.

Why shouldn't we improve our housing stock and cut down on car use?

 

[Chinahand]

On 10/5/2024 at 10:10 AM, 2112 said:

Good old @Stu Petershas stuck his head over the parapet, and commented that climate change initiatives should receive less funding than education and health, and we should be more pragmatic in terms of net zero targets. 

So, given the figures presented by Moghrey Mie and me, the question for Stu Peters is what proposals has he seen which propose spending more on climate change initiatives than the 1000s of pounds per person we spend on health and education. 

Or is this just more empty posturing?

Health and education was and is always going to receive more funding than climate change initiatives but either Stu Peters doesn't know this, or he assumed his electorate doesn't know it and so will think he is saying something of value when in fact he is saying nothing of the sort. 

Ho hum. Not good. 

[code99]

1 hour ago, Chinahand said:

So, given the figures presented by Moghrey Mie and me, the question for Stu Peters is what proposals has he seen which propose spending more on climate change initiatives than the 1000s of pounds per person we spend on health and education. 

Or is this just more empty posturing?

Health and education was and is always going to receive more funding than climate change initiatives but either Stu Peters doesn't know this, or he assumed his electorate doesn't know it and so will think he is saying something of value when in fact he is saying nothing of the sort. 

Ho hum. Not good. 

I am a big fan of the likes of George Monbiot, Chris Packham and other similarly minded environmental political activists. I agree with their views that the next generation(s) will pay dearly for the collective failure of the current inhabitants of the planet to take effective action against global warming. Since the UK hosted the 26th United Nations Conference of the Parties (COP26) in Glasgow from 31 October to 13 November 2021, all governments have quietly backtracked on their targets. They have prioritised their short-term economies over the long-term ecological health of the planet.

That said, there is logic in the argument that places like the Isle of Man need to be 'pragmatic' about their green policies i.e., it won't make a jot of difference to the trajectory of global warming/ climate change whether the Isle of Man implements legally binding net-zero targets or not. However, we need to demonstrate that we are in line with the UK's overall commitment to net-zero.

If you analyse what the UK Labour Government is doing by investing relatively small amounts of money (around £20bn) in 'high tech' carbon capture projects, you will come to the conclusion that the UK is also taking a pragmatic approach that prioritises their economy over saving the planet. IMHO, the IOMG senses this cunning strategic shift, and Stu Peters is just riding this wave. But can he really come up with 'pragmatic' proposals? Let's wait and see.