hellothere

Thank you for the correct link, much appreciated.

Completely agree the 2030 target is electricity, not the entire economy.

For me the key paragraph is in the middle of this section, emphasis mine:

I know some like Extinction Rebellion will lecture me on carbon capture investment. They’ll say it isn’t the right choice.

But it’s working people who come first. Without this tech, heavy industries such as cement, glass-making and chemicals will risk having to down tools.

The Budget in a few weeks’ time will be about fixing the foundations and continuing to show a decisive break from the past

The jobs of brickies, sparkies and engineers — the backbone of Britain — will be risked.

That means fewer new homes, fewer new roads and a slow decline to the dark ages.

These are not impossible industries to decarbonise, but they are very difficult especially with stuff like cement.

Back to your original reply, I don't think it's a fair reading of the manifesto to say they promised more than 2030 for electricity and ~2050 for the economy.

Yes I want this to be faster, I'm still pissed off that the £34bn/year for retrofitting, etc, has been watered down multiple times, but - so far - nothing from the manifesto has been scraped.

Come the budget at the end of the month, I may very well be wrong, and very angry.

I'm sorry, but your additions are simply not a correct summary of the situation.

I live in the UK, and first and foremost, The Sun is an absolute shit rag and should never be considered trustworthy. That also isn't an opinion piece - check the byline - and Starmer's quote (in bold) is...

But in a direct rebuke, Sir Keir writes on this page: “I know some like Extinction Rebellion will lecture me on carbon capture . . . they’ll say it isn’t the right choice.”

And warning that ­industries employing tradesmen including sparkies and brickies would go to the wall without action, he insisted: “It’s working people who come first.”

And that's it.

Now, this is the relevant press release from the Dept of Energy: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-reignites-industrial-heartlands-10-days-out-from-the-international-investment-summit

And two days before, there was this statement about the approval of 2GW additional solar, and a restatement of the manifesto pledge of clean power (ie electricity) by 2030: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/solar-taskforce-meets-in-drive-for-clean-power

It's very clear that they are looking in all areas at once, and given the 2030 deadline it's not accurate to suggest that CCS is a central part of the plan, because it very much isn't. The plan is 2x solar generation, and 3x wind generation.

Again, I'm not a fan of CCS, but research is a good thing, especially for such a comparatively small price. And we ultimately need to get to carbon negative, and I would expect CCS to be part of that, because scrubbing already released CO2 is going to be a bitch of a challenge, but would logically include things like sequestration in nature (trees, soil, sea grasses, etc).

The comment I originally replied to was asking about removal of appetite. The point I was making was that appetite isn't the only reason people consume calories.

The jabs do not cause you to exercise, and losing weight without some level of exercise to build fitness is also not healthy.

The point Streeting is making is that you can't just eat to excess and expect, 20 years later, that the NHS can fix all your problems with an injection.

It's the same way that alcoholics are not given liver or kidney transplants, or smokers new lungs, because even if you did the transplants all the other problems (cancers, etc) would still exist.

Primary healthcare is really complicated because you're dealing with people who are generally speaking not at the worse bit, yet, and so patient's motivation to consider, let alone make, changes can be non-existent.

This in turn is what makes a preventative healthcare model so much harder to achieve. The best way to treat T2 diabetes is to not get there in the first place, but friends of mine routinely have conversations with patients where their likelihood of having T2D, or stroke, heart attack, etc, is very high within the next 5 years, and are met with blunt refusals to even consider something as trivial as a lower calorie butter/spread, and instead just demand a jab.

This is not everyone, but it is a significant proportion, and it's right the Health Secretary to remind people that while the NHS does exist, and will support you if you get there, that it's better for yourself to not end up there in the first place.

Absolutely agree.

I am no fan of CCS, but the £22bn is across 25 years.

I don't think that spending less than 1bn a year to research better methods of carbon sequestration is a bad idea, and it definitely won't meaningfully change the need to drastically reduce the amount of carbon being emitted in every one of those 25 years.

How can I confident in that statement? Because if it would be a meaningful reduction, you'd see a shit load more being spent given just how inexpensive that would be in comparison to the cost of transition and abandoned O&G assets.

Edit: typos

I'm glad it's working for you, I truly am.

But my point is that there are a variety of reasons, it will help some people with some of them, and won't help others. As you'll see in all the issued guidance, it's prescribed alongside diet and lifestyle changes. As in, move more and eat healthier foods, in lower quantities.

If that helps, awesome, I'm not going to bash people who need medication to function - as I literally am one of those people - but it's not a silver bullet.

The benefit of climbing meaning you maintain a level of physical fitness definitely outweighs the risk of you breaking a bone, or dying.

The issue with obesity is that it dramatically increases the risks of loads of other illnesses, many of which kill you very slowly.

You fundamentally should never trust a study commissioned by the company who sells the product.

It's far too great a conflict of interest.

There's a false premise here that people only eat when/because they are hungry, as in, they are in need of calories, and stop when they aren't.

They don't. People eat for loads of reasons, and many of us have really unhealthy relationships with food, e.g. we eat it we're sad, or bored, or to punish ourselves, etc.

Then there's calorie density, you may not even realise how much you're consuming. For example, a pint of beer has a similar amount of calories to a mars bar. You could quite comfortably drink 4 pints over an afternoon, consume 1000 calories, and then go out for a meal, in a way that you probably wouldn't eat 4 mars bars, and then have a meal.

But it’s not been peer reviewed, this study has not appeared in a scientific journal yet, and it was funded by the drug manufacturers. So are people getting a bit overexcited?

I mean, come on.

Having many friends who work in primary care, this is a common view among professionals.

On a fundamental basis, it's almost impossible to outrun a bad diet, even some people with gastric bands manage to put the weight back on after a few years.

There are many social cofactors in people's weight - shit job and irregular hours make it very difficult to cook, multiple jobs, an inability to cook, cheap food being pumped full of shite, very little money, etc etc etc - which also need to be fixed.

But oxempic, and the rest, are the equivalent to a very effective hangover cure. Just cos you can drink 15 pints and pop a pill in the morning to feel better, doesn't mean you should, or that's it's healthy to do so.

OK, byeeee 👋