Cambridge Uni Report. My main observation on this report is its a very isolationist strategy, provides a simplistic numerical analysis without consideration of stakeholders, and shows little understanding of the impact of how this can be applied in non-urban, regional areas of the UK. I wonder how the PM will square the UK becoming a world trading nation again, post Brexit, with the requirement to shutdown shipping completely in 30 years? This is surely a fatal assumption in the report, which will effectively leave consumer choice to anything grown or manufactured locally, and leave the UK with no export trade, other than electronic services. It's not clear if the report allows for the additional energy consumption required to produce the goods that won't be imported, or if that it would further increase the rationing of power. 

The proposed transition pathway needs to be linked to the effects on the economy, impact on manufacturing and employment, cost of implementation on national debt and the individual, and the transition proposal clearly presented to the voters.. 

The report does highlight the implications of promoting zero carbon by 2050, through the isolation it will bring the UK, the impact on the economy, the lowering of living standards, impact on longevity, and burden it will put on the less well off in society. 


The report may have been produced to allow a conversation on the compromises that may be available/required, although there are statements which belie this interpretation.  At least with the UK out of the EU, future UK governments will be fully accountable to the electorate, and by democratic process may be required to revise or modify the legislation put in place by Mrs May in 2019, once the burden and sacrifice necessary to achieve of zero emissions becomes apparent, and the appetite for all other nations to follow a similar path is evident. 


How does security and the military fit into this analysis? Just give up air and land defense capability and rely on a nuclear Navy?

A good summary of the climate change debate. I have to say that I agree with his summary - the elephant in the room - if there really is a problem to begin with - is population size.

https://youtu.be/tCcZXBLu7GE

It is a 'He' - name is stuart fillingham .

Sorry but I am confused.

The idea that the Earth can support any population must be false. We already have energy intensive agricultural production in a way that the Victorians could never have imagined. The Greens want to reduce production giving the effect that someone has to go short of food. It is not the people here, much more likely the poorest people in the World who cannot afford what food can be bought as production surplus from the West at present. Electricity is the one thing which reduces disease and poverty. An amazing area of the world does not have a reliable supply. Carbon dioxide makes plants grow, and more is better, thus more production. It seems that the Green lobby understands none of this and intent on breaking the western system as much as possible, and the consequential damage elsewhere is no problem. Back in Victorian times Britain was managing to grow most of its own food for the smaller population, but there was not as much variety and there were very many very poor. There are very few starving people in Britain now, but we all have to work all the time to pay for living. Which do you prefer? Try this for a costing...

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/02/25/cost-of-net-zero-will-be-astronomical-new-reports-warn/

Carbon dioxide makes plants grow, and more is better, thus more production.

Some plants grow faster with more CO2.  Some don't.  It all depends on what is the limiting factor for that plant in that location.  It could instead be lack of water, or lack of nutrients in the soil.  There's no guarantee that the plants that benefit the most are the ones you actually want growing in your field.


Of course, it all becomes moot if your field is 6 feet underwater because there has been another massive flood.