this post was submitted on 21 Sep 2023

63 points (100.0% liked)

UK Politics

3096 readers

178 users here now

General Discussion for politics in the UK.
Please don't post to both !uk_politics@feddit.uk and !unitedkingdom@feddit.uk .
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.

Posts should be related to UK-centric politics, and should be either a link to a reputable news source for news, or a text post on this community.

Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.

If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread. (These things should be publicly discussed)

Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.

Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.

!ukpolitics@lemm.ee appears to have vanished! We can still see cached content from this link, but goodbye I guess! :'(

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

tom

GreatAlbatross

flamingos

Rishi Sunak delays petrol car ban in major shift on green policies (www.bbc.co.uk)

submitted 1 year ago by christophski to c/uk_politics

21 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 25 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] Gradually_Adjusting@lemmy.world 20 points 1 year ago (1 children)

How could Sunak "sell out" when he has no credibility to sell?

[–] Mojojojo1993@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Scum

[+] mannycalavera -6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I was out all of yesterday and haven't had time to listen to the announcement but as I understand it this is the same target as the EU.

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/headlines/economy/20221019STO44572/eu-ban-on-sale-of-new-petrol-and-diesel-cars-from-2035-explained

Is Sunak "scum" because he changed his mind or are the EU also "scum"?

Love the username BTW. Powerpuff Girls?

[–] Mojojojo1993@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Really anyone who's living the good life while they condemn the rest of humanity to suffer the coming climate catastrophe. He has some capacity to change things, yet here we are.

Edit.

Also yes. Mojojojo. Egggggggssssss

[+] mannycalavera -8 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Again, I have only seen a five minute news clip this morning but as far as I understand climate change is going to screw us all. There's no escape from it whether your rich or poor. He does however have the ability to swap his cars to electric right now whilst poorer people and businesses on limited cash flows don't. This might ease at least that burden for them? And obviously nothing is stopping you personally from swapping your car out if you can afford it, right? He's just saying of you can't afford it you have slightly longer. People should make their own personal goals of 2030 regardless of what the government says.

What I haven't seen is any concrete steps of how we go from here to 2035 and what infrastructure or funding will be put in place to actually reach the goal.

[–] SameOldJorts@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

I know others have answered, but just to bring up a few points that might sway you to seeing why it is incorrect to assume that climate change will affect everyone equally: Storm surges are likely to increase along coastlines. If you are wealthy enough you can move further inland or take additional precautions like installing infrastructure to protect your home/land. You likely also have better insurance with higher premiums, but which will help in the event that your home or property is damaged. The same is true for those in areas prone to things like tornadoes and wildfires. You also are more likely to have the resources to evacuate quickly in the event of an emergency and pay for lodging for extended periods of time until the area you live is safe to return to. Additionally, crop failures will affect everyone, but less so those who are able to pay extra for food. Right now many people struggle to afford the basics, and because of how we operate economically, there is incentive to raise prices when things are harder to obtain. This includes simple staples like cereals/fruits/vegetables/etc and like we recently saw… eggs. Infrastructure is another area where we will begin to see large disparities, as older communities struggle to keep up with changing climates. Floods can be mitigated somewhat by enlarging drainage, but only if the city/state/municipality can afford to do so. I’m not trying to harp on you for not knowing, but it’s important that these things are considered when we discuss the inequities between rich and poor going forward (we’ve already seen these, but they will be compounded going forward at an even more accelerated rate).

[–] Mojojojo1993@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

I would think being rich would protect you from the worst. His family will struggle but he'll be long gone. Yeah I get that. It'll hurt poorer people. All Tory policies negatively impact the poor.

Stopping new cars Doesn't hurt the poor's. Stops the rich from buying new ice cars. Moves all manufacturers to EV. It's a win for environment and will hopefully push prices down

[–] crapwittyname@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

as far as I understand climate change is going to screw us all. There's no escape from it whether your rich or poor.

That's extraordinarily naive. Of course having all the power will make a difference. Would you rather be a billionaire or a normal human being during a climate apocalypse?

[–] mannycalavera -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Thank you for selectively quoting me. Not sure you got past the first sentence. I've highlighted the rest for your approval.

as I understand climate change is going to screw us all. There's no escape from it whether your rich or poor. He does however have the ability to swap his cars to electric right now whilst poorer people and businesses on limited cash flows don't. This might ease at least that burden for them?

I've explained in another comment that I haven't seen any concrete detail on how the delay will help improve the situation but that I kinda understand the logic that if you're poorer you might need more time to take action and swap your car out.

So question for you: are you happy to force people / businesses that can't afford large jumps in expenditure to swap their cars? Or people that have no access to nearby charging stations?

What I'd like to see are concrete announcements that say between now and 2035 this is how we'll alleviate the situation for the majority of the population that might fall into that category and this is why we can't do it for 2030. I've not seen that so I remain sceptic about this new policy. I don't see that as controversial but apparently it is 🤷?

[–] crapwittyname@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

The point I made was only about the ability of the rich vs. poor to survive in a climate apocalypse. That's why I selected the part of your comment pertaining to that.
I'm not taking about a gradual, genteel descent into a mini ice age, I'm talking about a cataclysm which changes the aspect of humanity.
Forcing people to swap their cars is peanuts compared to the roiling climate we are producing. We can either force small business owners to go green and hurt their profits, or we can render the planet uninhabitable. Your perspective is parochial and unscientific.

[–] mannycalavera 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Nobody is denying the science. Tone down your rhetoric, buddy. I'm not in government. Climate change is real and will impact us all. Rich people will be able to pivot more easily. But you need to think about how other people less fortunate will be able to cope. What's the point of a greener future if you've bankrupted people in the process? The only people that benefits from that are rich people. Congratulations 🎉. It's better to take people with you as much as you can and if that means pushing back plans to align with the EU then that's pragmatic. Like I've said before I would love to see some concrete details of how the government are going to help in the five extra years they are allowing.

What climate apocalypse are you predicting in five years from 2030 to 2035? And be scientific about it.

[–] crapwittyname@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

"A greener future"? Are you sure you're not in government? The kinds of platitude you're spouting would suggest you are. Or why are you parroting their rhetoric for free?
"A greener future" is an utter nonsense. We either have an habitable planet or we do not. If we continue pushing back our already-too-weak pledges then we shall have the latter.
If you cannot or will not understand the impact that five years of retarded progress will have down the line, then I probably won't be able to explain much science to you.

[–] mannycalavera 1 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Mate, take a break. Stop being an antagonistic bellend. Take your trolling elsewhere.

[–] crapwittyname@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

Oh, no. I'm expressing a genuine viewpoint here. I'm not the one down voting my opponent. If you have nothing of substance to say then that would make you the troll, wouldn't it? That's ok. But I think you might have a bit more to think about than me after this exchange. Which is good!

[–] Hanabie@sh.itjust.works 11 points 1 year ago

This is how you find out how much integrity a politician has.

[–] leaskovski@kbin.social 10 points 1 year ago

A big "fuck the planet" sign would have been a better way to communicate it. Wankers.

[–] guriinii@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

Vile disgusting human. Things are going to ramp up now in terms of protest and direct action. People are going to become more extreme in their actions.

[–] cupcakezealot@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 1 year ago

Unpopular Tory prime minister directing policy for future unpopular Labour party because he knows unpopular Labour leader won't reverse course from unpopular Tory party decision.

[–] autotldr@lemmings.world 3 points 1 year ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:

Shadow environment secretary Steve Reed said without the ban the UK would miss its target to hit net zero - this is the point at which a country is no longer adding to the overall amount of harmful greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

Mr Reed said the prime minster had "sold out the biggest economic opportunity of the 21st Century" for Britain "to lead the world in transition to well-paid secured new jobs of the green economy".

"We risk condemning people to many more years of living in cold and draughty homes that are expensive to heat, in cities clogged with dirty air from fossil fuels, missing out on the economic regeneration this ambition brings," Mr Norbury said.

Jaguar Land Rover, which announced hundreds of new jobs in the West Midlands a few days ago, welcomed the change, calling it "pragmatic" and adding that it brings the UK in line with other nations.

Elsewhere, Mr Sunak also suggested he would be "scrapping" a range of proposals which had been "thrown up" by the debate, including hiking up air fares to discourage foreign holidays and taxes on meat consumption.

Speaking to Radio 4's Today programme on Thursday, Mr Stark added that the committee had already advised the government in June that it "didn't look like we were on track" to meet 2030 emissions targets, before these changes were announced.

The original article contains 1,079 words, the summary contains 228 words. Saved 79%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[–] Weslee@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Tbh you could see this coming, they haven't built nearly enough infrastructure to support EVs , their empty promises were very transparent

[–] skellener@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

WTF are you doing? 🤦‍♂️