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.




Reply With Quote