Sorry for late response, things are moving fast these days (or maybe I'm getting too slow to keep up with the high-octane nature of politics these days. Or maybe I need to reserve more time for posting walls of text, dunno where you keep finding the time for that
).
I don't think anyone was referring to environmental policy, and I'm sure this is purely a hypothetical as given the choice between following the USA or Germany, we'd all much rather pick none and be the UK. Germany is no example to follow either, we would be replacing lazy Americanism with vapid Merkelism. Look at the example Germany sets; instead of humanitarian aid, take selfies with migrants - all to show the world how virtuous and wise you are, without needing to put any of the effort and sacrifice needed to be virtuous and wise. So when things inevitably get cocked up by your ineptitude, you just hide the wounds and allow Europe to bleed - shutting down all Germany's nuclear plants because hurr duur nuclear science scary is as much a detriment to basic common sense as Trump, Germany now has more coal plants operational that it has in two decades. It really is impressive when a green candidate turns out to be blackest coal, suckling on Putin's gas for support. Oh and she's stopped now because her policies put too much strain on Germany's energy grid and raised costs too high. What a great success for the world to emulate!
More seriously though the UK cannot follow the USA's steps when it comes to energy policy. We do not have a vast store of coal, gas or oil to exploit, as the Americans do with their Texan friends. We are running along similar tracks in regards to the nation-state versus the Sweden >yes party that has commanded Europe for a few years. Fortunately we're going big with nuclear and I hope succeeding parties in the UK continue this policy. One thing to learn from failed projects in the UK in developing renewable sources of energy is that our failures often go unnoticed because unlike Germany, we did not rush headlong whilst ignoring the simple realities of power generation. There's also something fortunate in our failures in that they show that with time, development of power-storage and rising costs of gas and oil, renewable energy sources can one day become economical, reliable and environmentally responsible.
A lot of this post seemed like a non-sequitur. The post I responded to specifically said:
I'd certainly rather follow America's lead than Germany's (or, kek, Sweden's), particularly now that Trump's gotten in and begun improving things.
Though I'd prefer if they kept their guns to themselves.
Anyway, I look forward to seeing what Friday's meeting between May and Trump brings.
Aka a rather blanket endorsement of Trump's America and his policies, except for the guns. It's to that where I pointed out that this seems like a disastrous idea: even though I can acknowledge other people placing different importance to certain values or proposing different solutions to issues, I have trouble taking serious people like Trump who literally denounce the entire climate change problem as 'a Chinese hoax' (though admittedly he has
softened his stance a little recently. Not nearly enough given the urgency and scope of the problem, but it's -something-).
So, even if the UK right now was literally carbon neutral (it's not, but for the sake of argument), that still would mean following the US' example (what Covenant proposed) is a bad idea.
For the record, yes, it is sad how nuclear has been demonized as much as it has been, it can play an important role during the transition to a greener (energy) economy, but that does require government to at the very least
acknowledge the problem.
Also, I kind of find you sometimes play fast and loose with some of those sources, for example, this:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jun/01/angela-merkel-signs-deal-with-german-states-to-regulate-green-energy-rolloutGets solely reported by you as this:
Oh and she's stopped now because her policies put too much strain on Germany's energy grid and raised costs too high.
While the article also mentions things like:
"The latest reforms are aimed at slowing the growth in renewables, which accounted for around a third of Germany’s electricity last year, up from 28% in 2014. With the government sticking to its target for an increase in the share of renewable sources to 40-45% of total electricity production by 2025, it will have to put the brakes on growth to avoid overshooting."
aka the program, while certainly not perfect, is still is helping along its intended goal: promoting renewable energy. I'm sure this was not your intention, but to me it does come off as disingenuous.
Certain failures like biofuels showcase how green is not always green even when working as intended; you should not kowtow to concensus, it is rather dangerous to believe in whatever consensus is when all it takes is one correct person regardless of consensus to advance scientific research. Seems obvious but it is worth pointing out anyways that scientific breakthroughs often act in spite of scientific consensus, competely changing how we see everything ten times over
This as well seems to come out of left field. Are you trying to make an epistemological point here? Because at the end of the day, if an administration has to come up with policy, I'd rather they follow the current scientific consensus instead of just ignoring it or pining their hopes that one 'correct person' (correct by what metric?) will save them.
This is part of how science is supposed to go after all: if you can come up with a new hypothesis that better fits the available data, it'll get adopted. If there's a large body of evidence you'll have to come up with a very strong argument to overturn it. But until that happens, we go with the current explanation instead of just ignoring it because we don't like what it says.
On the topic of border walls, more BAOs and maritime patrols does the job better for immigration control. We only really have a need for walls in order to control flooding, erosion and land loss from rising sea levels. The French did build an immigration wall with England and they made the English pay for it which I'm sure the Americans would approve, and I think the UK would agree such funds spent helping the French is beneficial to both of our nations. That's nothing compared to the Japanese kaiju wall
Even if walls were completely useless, that is exactly what Trump is planning on building, and thus apparently the example to follow. Next to that, the border walls can also be taken in a more metaphorical sense, in that once climate refugees start coming we'll be forced between the options of either taking them in (with all the problems that entails) or refusing them and letting them suffer from a problem that we (the industrialized rich nations) carry the lions' share of the responsibility for.
So, if one is against taking in Middle Eastern immigrants and refugees (to whatever extend), he should endorse policies that prevent them from existing in the first place. That means drastic reduction in emissions and not, as Donald Trump's America is planning, propping up the coal industry (even though renewables are rapidly dropping in costs:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-06/wind-and-solar-are-crushing-fossil-fuels).
Welp, out of time for this. Would like to further go into some of the walls that have been posted since, but that'd take literal days. But to at least give another example of 'playing fast and loose with sources':
This is the source you gave:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/guy-verhofstadt-chief-brexit-theresa-may-eu-trade-deal-2019-impossible-a7550136.htmlThis is what you claimed:
Moreover, there is one additional thing. The EU placed Guy Verhofstadt on the EU-UK negotiating table. He has no respect for the UK and is determined to ensure we get the worse terms possible. Currently most national leaders of Europe are with us in that they want us to leave ASAP and leave amicably, the presence of hardliners like Guy force us to be cautious, and more importantly, remind people like Guy that we have MAD available - unleash the Trump.
This is what the source actually said:
EU's chief Brexit negotiator says Theresa May's promised trade deal by 2019 is 'impossible'
Guy Verhofstadt also suggests the British people voted to leave the EU because of a Little Englander mentality
The European Parliament’s chief Brexit negotiator has rubbished Theresa May’s pledge to deliver a new EU trade deal by 2019 as “impossible”.
Guy Verhofstadt also suggested the British people voted to leave the EU because of a Little Englander mentality. Yet he held out the prospect that Britain could choose to rejoin the bloc one day, saying, “That is always possible.”
In her Brexit speech earlier this month, the Prime Minister threatened to crash out of the EU with “no deal” if other leaders refused her demands.
However, a day later, she told MPs she would “deliver” an agreement by Brexit, to avoid inflicting punishing World Trade Organisation tariffs on businesses. “That’s what I’m committed to – and that’s what this Government is going to deliver,” she said, raising the stakes for the negotiations to come.
But Mr Verhofstadt, a senior MEP and former Belgian Prime Minister, dismissed the prospect, in an interview with Al Jazeera English. “That’s technically impossible,” he said, referring to the suggested two-year timeline.
EU leaders have insisted Britain must first agree to a suggested £50bn “divorce bill” – a payment for outstanding liabilities – under the terms of the Article 50 exit clause.
This year’s elections in both France and Germany are also expected to slow the Prime Minister’s hopes to start trade talks – which normally take many years to complete, regardless.
Although the European Commission will lead the talks from the Brussels side, the European Parliament must also ratify any agreement.
Ms May has threatened to make “other arrangements” if she fails to strike a fresh trade deal before Brexit – widely interpreted as a threat to slash taxes and regulations, to attract investment.
During the interview, Mr Verhofstadt also sought to emphasise that the rest of the EU would not be looking to punish the UK in the negotiations. However, “you can never have outside the European Union a better status than as member of the European Union”, he said.
On rejoining the EU, Mr Verhofstadt said: “They can always reintroduce a request for membership of the European Union. Certainly, we have enough experience to make it a little bit a faster process than what is normal.”
Asked about which issue drove 52 per cent of Britons to vote for Brexit last June, he replied: “Mainly the migration. It’s very clear.”
And, asked if xenophobia and a Little Englander mentality explained the Brexit vote, Mr Verhofstadt said: “That’s maybe a good explanation”.
I guess you could claim he sort of insulted the Brexit vote (note that he didn't even mention the Little Englander thing himself, it was already a loaded question), while of course keeping in mind that British politicians are on record of flinging way worse insults at EU politicians (eg. Farage, multiple times) but
nowhere in the article does it say he "is determined to ensure we get the worse terms possible". He literally said "During the interview, Mr Verhofstadt also sought to emphasise that the rest of the EU would not be looking to punish the UK in the negotiations. However, “you can never have outside the European Union a better status than as member of the European Union”, he said." which at least to me sounds like the opposite.
Author
Topic: Brexit! Conversation Continued (Read 193189 times)