Tweet

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

More from @James_BG

James Murray

@James_BG

Feb 4

Quick thread to go with this blog. One of the defining features of the recent attacks on net zero is the failure to provide much in the way of detail on what they'd do instead. businessgreen.com/blog/4044475/s…

In that regard it's very similar to the attacks on red tape, which once you dig into the detail ends up with PM's waffling on about newts (Johnson) or voles (Cameron) and Ministers failing to find any regs that can be axed without significant economic damage or political blowback

The idea we should 'go slow on net zero' has the same lack of detail. The only tangible proposals I've seen are: 1) get fracking
2) axe green levies
3) scrap 2030 new petrol and diesel car phase out date

Read 9 tweets

James Murray

@James_BG

Jan 16

What does he mean by a ‘more proportionate’ approach to net zero? What exact policies would he scrap? How much higher would he want emissions to be? Which clean tech sector would he like to slow the development of? How much more would have to be spent on climate resilience?

There’s an entire strain of modern Conservatism that is defined by nothing so much as whining about things it doesn’t like and denying objective reality. It has literally nothing constructive to offer beyond wishful thinking and the abdication of responsibility.

BTW there is an obvious policy agenda that could fit with Frost and co’s ‘proportionate’ response to net zero and I don’t doubt eventually they’ll land on it to give them some cover. It’ll be ‘let’s sit here and wait for technology to save us’.

Read 5 tweets

James Murray

@James_BG

Jan 3

https://twitter.com/samuelhall0/status/1478076931811819529

This exchange is really important. Sam’s argument is that if we’d gone faster on renewables and energy efficiency then we’d currently be having to buy less gas and bills would be lower. This is objectively and demonstrably true.

https://twitter.com/samuelhall0/status/1478076931811819529

Andy from the IEA’s response is that if we’d invested more in domestic gas supplies and been less ‘dogmatically’ focused on net zero we’d have to import less gas and bills would be lower. This is entirely hypothetical and based on at least three questionable assumptions:

1. That you could build a large shale gas industry in the UK in defiance of massive local opposition and planning constraints.

Read 8 tweets

James Murray

@James_BG

Jan 3

The Net Zero ‘Scrutiny’ Group’s proposals for dealing with the gas price crisis are so absurdly partial their inadequacy becomes clear within the first five paragraphs of a story they themselves have briefed. A hopefully shortish thread…

Let’s leave aside the question of whether pressure can be ‘piled on’ by ‘backbenchers’ when those backbenchers number just 19 of the usual suspects while a far larger number of backbenchers are thinking much more seriously about this challenge, and instead look at their proposal.

The main idea is to ‘scrap green taxes’ that make up a quarter of electricity - but not gas - bills and axe the 5% VAT rate on energy bills.

Read 23 tweets

James Murray

@James_BG

Nov 13, 2021

@Bankfieldbecky

Was #COP26 a success or a failure is an absurdly simplistic question. It's a both/and. As @Bankfieldbecky has noted it depends on whether you are looking to relative or absolute metrics.

But it is indisputable progress. It does increase the chances of getting the world to net zero and 'well below' 2C, even if 1.5C remains an enormous stretch, and it starts to at least engage with questions of historic injustice.

@AlokSharma_RDG

It is also a genuine diplomatic success for @AlokSharma_RDG @archieyounguk @camillaborn and the COP26 team. It is hard to see how a stronger deal could have been delivered with the mandates country delegations had.

Read 8 tweets

James Murray

@James_BG

Nov 13, 2021

I understand the impulse to condemn the proposed COP26 agreement as inadequate given the scale of the crisis, but it really is a lot better than its critics are claiming.

The Paris Agreement and the progress it unlocked has, in the space of six years, pulled temperature projections down from circa 3C+ to 2.4C. The Glasgow Climate Pact (assuming it is not torpedoed at the last) effectively validates and builds on the Paris Agreement.

It creates a moment every year when governments will face intense public and geopolitical pressure to strengthen their decarbonisation plans.

Read 11 tweets

Share this page!

James Murray

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

More from @James_BG

James Murray

James Murray

James Murray

James Murray

James Murray

James Murray

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Like this author's thread?