OT Corrupt BBC at it again!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[ragingpup]

Well I'll let you listen to Sir Jim Ratcliffe , he knows a thing or two about the chemical industry , apologies it's 4.8 million jobs at risk in the chemical industry and the supply chain , what reskilling opportunities would you suggest for those who have built good careers in the chemical industry ?

I don't suppose you are in favour of Fracking raging ? , lower energy costs and all that .

https://youtu.be/doPvf995ris?si=X_XZQl-INT6I3SWx

The 4.8 million looks to have been in circulation for a while now and is false. There is no reliable source(certainly that I can find and I've done AI trawl that only says that this isn't a genuine figure). There are about 136k jobs in UK chemical industry and a further 500k of supply line position. Radcliffe has spoken of millions of jobs but he was talking about the whole of Europe.

But leaving that aside, as Radcliffe says himself there are a variety of reasons for the recent decline of the UK chemical industry of which carbon taxes are one. You clearly know the industry better than I but to single out carbon taxes as being the one and only reason seems only part of the story. I'd be open to solutions that include amendments to the taxes to help keep the industry competitive, it's a complex scenario and I'm sure there will be further developments. It's only my opinion, and I'm just one voter, but in light of our situation with the rising global temperature, I would certainly place the party that puts together the best balance of maintaining lower emissions whilst doing best not to keep industries competitive will be the one most likely to get my vote.

I think we've become so reliant on oil and gas and think we need to transform to cleaner energy both for trying to keep the earth a good place to live but also for mid to longer term prosperity. If jobs in the chemical or any other industries are sacrificed as part of that, at least evidence shows that more jobs created in green industries will offset that. That won't console the ageing person who might end up without a job, and I know from what happened with my dad that this can be extremely tragic. But I don't think we can hold off on the progress we've made on this and I'd vote primarily for the party most likely to continue it. But that's just my one miserable vote. The majority of the UK may side with you and others on here at the next election.

[ragingpup]

Not being funny but you keep having a pop at reform when you’re a Green Party member, latest from your leader is that he’s going to ask the Russian leader to give up his nuclear weapons maybe he will try hypnosis, all that will happen is that Putin will finish up will bigger tits. Wishful thinking that china give a **** bout climate change, how many fossil fuel power stations have they and how many are they still building. What ever this country does regarding climate change will not matter if India Russia china America don’t get on board.

It isn't wishful thinking what has happened in China. It's actual fact. Check it out yourself.

You are right in that none of our efforts are likely to matter of these 4 major powers continue to pump out carbon. But the USA have reduced their carbon emissions by 17% since 2025 although still fluctuating and signs of rising again under Trump. Russia actually declined a lot since the mid 90s until last few years but again has started to fluctuate. India has slowed but still too high. A long way to go, and overall it's an update slope to climb but world emissions are slowing, from 1.9% growth in 2005 to 2015 to 0.3% in the 10 years since. Surely a positive progress?

Being a rather lazy green member for 25 years doesn't mean I always agree with their policies. Polanski didn't in any way say that he expected to talk Putin into getting rid of nuclear weapons, I saw the interview. But in setting nuclear deescalation as key aim, he will of course attract the same attacks as Corbyn did and whilst I might agree with him on principle, if they persue with that, I don't that that's where the UK public are likely to be and will likely make them unelectable.

[howdydoo]

Simply out of touch. Just doesn't get it.

[animallittle3]

The 4.8 million looks to have been in circulation for a while now and is false. There is no reliable source(certainly that I can find and I've done AI trawl that only says that this isn't a genuine figure). There are about 136k jobs in UK chemical industry and a further 500k of supply line position. Radcliffe has spoken of millions of jobs but he was talking about the whole of Europe.

But leaving that aside, as Radcliffe says himself there are a variety of reasons for the recent decline of the UK chemical industry of which carbon taxes are one. You clearly know the industry better than I but to single out carbon taxes as being the one and only reason seems only part of the story. I'd be open to solutions that include amendments to the taxes to help keep the industry competitive, it's a complex scenario and I'm sure there will be further developments. It's only my opinion, and I'm just one voter, but in light of our situation with the rising global temperature, I would certainly place the party that puts together the best balance of maintaining lower emissions whilst doing best not to keep industries competitive will be the one most likely to get my vote.

I think we've become so reliant on oil and gas and think we need to transform to cleaner energy both for trying to keep the earth a good place to live but also for mid to longer term prosperity. If jobs in the chemical or any other industries are sacrificed as part of that, at least evidence shows that more jobs created in green industries will offset that. That won't console the ageing person who might end up without a job, and I know from what happened with my dad that this can be extremely tragic. But I don't think we can hold off on the progress we've made on this and I'd vote primarily for the party most likely to continue it. But that's just my one miserable vote. The majority of the UK may side with you and others on here at the next election.

I've quoted the 4.8 million jobs throughout this exchange because it refers to the whole of Europe , I've brought Europe in to the debate because of the impact of the EU's green taxes and inability to source cheaper energy as you've pointed out .

The UK chemical distributor is actually in a better position than our European counterparts due to Brexit , any European chemical distributor within the EU is hostage to the EU's " anti dumpit tax " on Chinese chemical imports , around 36% plus further import costs , the UK isn't , or isn't at the moment .

So the EU chemical manufacturing sector is getting squeezed by the EU if they manufacture product and getting squeezed if they import from China too .

The absurdity of this is of course obvious , the doing our bit with the Green agenda and getting our own house in order is actually producing no winners here , the " anti dumpit " tax would be a good idea if it wasn't hamstrung by the EU's own green taxes and higher energy costs which arent even remotely going to make any difference to climate change .

Don't get me wrong my company is doing a tremendous amount of business importing Chinese chemicals because we aren't subject to the " anti dumpit tax " as yet .

However we are contributing to the economy of the world's worst polluter , we are having to place more and more orders and impacting more and more on the planet by doing so .

Would it not make sense to dispense with at least a good proportion of the Green taxes within the EU and look to begin a programme of Fracking to reduce energy costs ?

This is the main point of my criticism towards supporters of the Green persuasion , whilst your support comes from a good place it doesn't chime with reality .

4.8 million jobs should not be sacrificed on the alter of green policies when they aren't going to make one scintilla of difference to the planet .

[Stovicmiller]

It isn't wishful thinking what has happened in China. It's actual fact. Check it out yourself.

You are right in that none of our efforts are likely to matter of these 4 major powers continue to pump out carbon. But the USA have reduced their carbon emissions by 17% since 2025 although still fluctuating and signs of rising again under Trump. Russia actually declined a lot since the mid 90s until last few years but again has started to fluctuate. India has slowed but still too high. A long way to go, and overall it's an update slope to climb but world emissions are slowing, from 1.9% growth in 2005 to 2015 to 0.3% in the 10 years since. Surely a positive progress?

Being a rather lazy green member for 25 years doesn't mean I always agree with their policies. Polanski didn't in any way say that he expected to talk Putin into getting rid of nuclear weapons, I saw the interview. But in setting nuclear deescalation as key aim, he will of course attract the same attacks as Corbyn did and whilst I might agree with him on principle, if they persue with that, I don't that that's where the UK public are likely to be and will likely make them unelectable.

Sounds a bit like a Chinese apologist, they are still building fossil fuel power stations, they’re not really serious bout climate change or they wouldn’t be still constructing new ones .

[howdydoo]

It isn't wishful thinking what has happened in China. It's actual fact. Check it out yourself.

You are right in that none of our efforts are likely to matter of these 4 major powers continue to pump out carbon. But the USA have reduced their carbon emissions by 17% since 2025 although still fluctuating and signs of rising again under Trump. Russia actually declined a lot since the mid 90s until last few years but again has started to fluctuate. India has slowed but still too high. A long way to go, and overall it's an update slope to climb but world emissions are slowing, from 1.9% growth in 2005 to 2015 to 0.3% in the 10 years since. Surely a positive progress?

Being a rather lazy green member for 25 years doesn't mean I always agree with their policies. Polanski didn't in any way say that he expected to talk Putin into getting rid of nuclear weapons, I saw the interview. But in setting nuclear deescalation as key aim, he will of course attract the same attacks as Corbyn did and whilst I might agree with him on principle, if they persue with that, I don't that that's where the UK public are likely to be and will likely make them unelectable.

Key Details on U.S. Emissions


Current Trends (2025): Preliminary data for 2025 suggests a reversal of the previous trend of declining emissions, with a notable increase observed in the first six months of the year.

Historical Context: The U.S. did reach a milestone where its greenhouse gas emissions in 2022 (after accounting for land sequestration) were 17% below 2005 levels. This historical figure is likely the source of the number in your query.


2025 Targets: The U.S. had a target under the 2015 Paris Agreement to reduce annual climate pollution by 26-28% below 2005 levels by 2025. However, recent analyses suggest the U.S. is not on track to meet this specific goal through current policies alone.


Global Picture (2025): The 2025 Global Carbon Budget report projects that global fossil fuel CO2 emissions are set to hit a new record high this year.


The 17% drop was 'below 2005 levels' as a result of moving from coal to natural gas.


I listened to the Donald Trump interview yesterday. Evidence enough the UK is heading down the wrong track. These major powers have no interest in going green. They don't want to go poor. So why is the UK?


Your comments about China suggest you're having a laugh, surely?

[ragingpup]

I've quoted the 4.8 million jobs throughout this exchange because it refers to the whole of Europe , I've brought Europe in to the debate because of the impact of the EU's green taxes and inability to source cheaper energy as you've pointed out .

The UK chemical distributor is actually in a better position than our European counterparts due to Brexit , any European chemical distributor within the EU is hostage to the EU's " anti dumpit tax " on Chinese chemical imports , around 36% plus further import costs , the UK isn't , or isn't at the moment .

So the EU chemical manufacturing sector is getting squeezed by the EU if they manufacture product and getting squeezed if they import from China too .

The absurdity of this is of course obvious , the doing our bit with the Green agenda and getting our own house in order is actually producing no winners here , the " anti dumpit " tax would be a good idea if it wasn't hamstrung by the EU's own green taxes and higher energy costs which arent even remotely going to make any difference to climate change .

Don't get me wrong my company is doing a tremendous amount of business importing Chinese chemicals because we aren't subject to the " anti dumpit tax " as yet .

However we are contributing to the economy of the world's worst polluter , we are having to place more and more orders and impacting more and more on the planet by doing so .

Would it not make sense to dispense with at least a good proportion of the Green taxes within the EU and look to begin a programme of Fracking to reduce energy costs ?

This is the main point of my criticism towards supporters of the Green persuasion , whilst your support comes from a good place it doesn't chime with reality .

4.8 million jobs should not be sacrificed on the alter of green policies when they aren't going to make one scintilla of difference to the planet .

I think it's a question of balance animal - about a balanced transition. The EU state that they are responding to the issues you raise:

https://commission.europa.eu/news-an...-2025-07-08_en

However, I personally don't know enough about the detail to know to what extent this is going to cut it and meet their hopes in order to protect the industry as well as lowering the EU carbon output. I'm happy to accept that you know more than me on the detail here but the bottom line here is that you seem to be indicating that we should scrap green policies and revert to fossil fuels? Is that what you're suggesting or do you have a balance in mind that would work for you?

Or do you simply deny the data on global warming? If so, we can never agree on anything on this and are probably both wasting our energy discussing it!

[ragingpup]

Key Details on U.S. Emissions


Current Trends (2025): Preliminary data for 2025 suggests a reversal of the previous trend of declining emissions, with a notable increase observed in the first six months of the year.

Historical Context: The U.S. did reach a milestone where its greenhouse gas emissions in 2022 (after accounting for land sequestration) were 17% below 2005 levels. This historical figure is likely the source of the number in your query.


2025 Targets: The U.S. had a target under the 2015 Paris Agreement to reduce annual climate pollution by 26-28% below 2005 levels by 2025. However, recent analyses suggest the U.S. is not on track to meet this specific goal through current policies alone.


Global Picture (2025): The 2025 Global Carbon Budget report projects that global fossil fuel CO2 emissions are set to hit a new record high this year.


The 17% drop was 'below 2005 levels' as a result of moving from coal to natural gas.


I listened to the Donald Trump interview yesterday. Evidence enough the UK is heading down the wrong track. These major powers have no interest in going green. They don't want to go poor. So why is the UK?


Your comments about China suggest you're having a laugh, surely?

For once howdy, you are using a lot of words and data to state what I summarised in half a sentence further up: "although still fluctuating and signs of rising again under Trump". In fact it was pretty much this data that led me to say that.

I think Trump is a climate change denier despite all the clear and indisputable evidence. No it is of course bad news for the environment that he is back in power, but that's the democratic view of the nation (which he of course happily accepts when he wins...).

Re: China - I shared my sources together with up to date Reuters article last week showing the climate changes on legislation and slowing of carbon emissions there. It's easily there for all to see, and I am happy to also accept that at the same time as aggressively developing green energy infrastructure, they are still aggressively mining for short term gain. But, importantly, carbon emissions have slowed in the last couple of years. That's the fact - if you or Stovic feel that is wrong, show me contrary evidence.

[ragingpup]

Sounds a bit like a Chinese apologist, they are still building fossil fuel power stations, they’re not really serious bout climate change or they wouldn’t be still constructing new ones .

See response to Howdy above.

China apologist??!! All ive done is pointed out the actual, undisputed evidence (unless you can find some to the contrary?) that they have, as well as continuing to mine fossil fuels also persued a substantial green energy development and for whatever reason, most likely the green policies implemented so far, stabilised and even showing some signs of reducing its carbon emissions. That's all I've said on China. If you want to hear my other views on their Government, start a thread arguing in favour of China's human rights direction in recent history, and you'll see a less favourable response from me on them. But at the moment, this one small aspect of China's behaviour is what I've commented on.

[animallittle3]

I think it's a question of balance animal - about a balanced transition. The EU state that they are responding to the issues you raise:

https://commission.europa.eu/news-an...-2025-07-08_en

However, I personally don't know enough about the detail to know to what extent this is going to cut it and meet their hopes in order to protect the industry as well as lowering the EU carbon output. I'm happy to accept that you know more than me on the detail here but the bottom line here is that you seem to be indicating that we should scrap green policies and revert to fossil fuels? Is that what you're suggesting or do you have a balance in mind that would work for you?

Or do you simply deny the data on global warming? If so, we can never agree on anything on this and are probably both wasting our energy discussing it!

No I don't deny the data and neither do I deny global warming , what I'm seeing and this goes for a number of other issues is that we have extremists on both sides of this .

On one side we have the super environmentalists who would crash every economy in every country with their crackpot policies and on the other we have many that would set the world on fire just as long as they made a few quid .

It's the same with immigration , the progressives would open the borders to anyone in a second whilst their opponents would sink every dinghy in the channel given half the chance .

In the middle of all of this are politicians who arent even remotely qualified to solve the major issues of the day , almost the entire front bench of the government haven't any experience of running a business what so ever .

Don't even get me started on the EU .

The only solution I have if you can call it that is that it will be the people with real brains and business acumen who will solve climate change by invention and that invention will be delivered to the market at a price we can all afford .

Failing that which isn't really an option but none the less , Europe will regulate itself in to economic armageddon whilst the US and Chinese laugh all the way to the bank .