Well, we haven't even let her go to the beach and she's rolled out a stonking package of long-overdue reviews of the burgeoning 'low-carbon' subsidy bill. Her rhetoric has been (broadly) encouraging (plus-or-minus Hinkley and the Swansea Lagoon) and her mate Osborne has whacked the subsidy-wallahs with two early hits - removal of the renewables exemption from Climate Change Levy, and of the requirement for all new-build houses to be 'carbon-neutral'.
We like this a lot!
Gratifying howls of anguish are issuing from the relevant quarters, coupled with a bit of rushing-around to see if they can get onside with the new regime. "If the government really are determined to cut emissions in the most cost effective way ... we hope to work with them on the recommendations." I'll bet you do, sunshine. It's amazing how a dose of reality and the smack of firm governmental resolve can have that effect. Just business, after all - they know the score really.
Incidentally, can I just say - oh, ye of little faith ! Because when I posted my desiderata in May, here's what some of you said in the comments (no names, no pack-drill)
- "Nobody in government will deviate from the status quo"
- "I fear that [the above comment] will be proved right"
- "Nothing will change. Ministers live in the bubble"
ND
10 comments:
Early days...
Gideon hur hur
Camoron hur hur
Cast-iron disface hug a husky hur hur
It's the ENd of BRITtiN.
Amber Rudd is sister to Roland Rudd who fronts the europhile Business for New Europe. He was, and remains, desperate for the UK to join the euro (!).
Roland is chairman of Finsbury the corporate lobbyist which, according to Private Eye, represents Kier which signed a £100k contract with EDF to work on Hinckley 'C'. Amber has apparently not declared this connection.
Amber does look like a vast improvement on Huhne and co, but I will believe it when I see results not waffling and not before. So far I see little reason for your triumphalism, ND. She seems from the video to be firmly enthralled by the CO2-is-dangerous meme. Not a good omen.
Thanks Budgie, I know all about Rudd frere as it happens, there May Be More down that particular avenue
on that and the other stuff, we shall have to wait and see, shan't we?
triumphalist? I am quietly confident for the most part, but there's no triumph to be had while (I am sorry to say) a 'commitment' to Hinkley is in the manifesto too, along with the ridiculous lagoon
but then you like Hinkley? don't let me put words in your mouth ...
Isn't the Amber Rudd a species of native fish, found in slow-moving rivers like the Ouse?
Isn't the Roland Rudd something cheap and verminous that used to be on the telly?
she just needs to remember...."keeping the lights on" then the rest flows from there. Something neither of her two predecessors even agreed with I fear.
Talking of Rudd and Hinkley, it looks like she is cooking up a deal for the Chinese National Nuclear Corporation (CNNC) to bail out EDF on financing Hinkley C, in return for CNNC being sold the Bradwell nuclear site to build three Chinese Hualong-1 reactors.
A recent letter from Rudd to the GMB union says:
"The UK Government welcomes overseas investment in the new nuclear programme. This includes investment ad participation from Chinese companies in the Hinkley Point C project and progressive involvement more generally. ... this could include leading the development of a site in the UK and the potential deployment of Chinese reactor technology in the UK."
In a sense this is just a restatement of the position a year or two back, but the noises off to journalists seem to suggest the negotiations are very serious now. Looks to me the Chinese will also buy a stake in, or some part of, Areva - to give the Chinese a western face to help sales, also bailing out the French govt. Before long the position will be "China rules nuclear" (with Russia as the main competitor, perhaps alongside a Japanese company or two)!
yes, China is always a refuge when desperate
it escapes me why we are desperate, though, for baseload power commencing a decade from now
Nukes are worse than 'baseload' because unlike coal and gas power stations, you cannot switch them off and mothball for a couple of years if demand drops.
The worse thing is, if demand picks up, it takes ~10-20 years to switch one on.
Let them wither - they cost too much to build, are potentially dangerous, and cost too much to decommission
and if the is so cheap to produce whilst running, why do they need subsidies?
Post a Comment