David Miliband, the new Secretary of State for the environment, interviewed in today's Observer: - argues for emissions trading to cover aviation, stating "'If we have more flights, we have got to have less of something else"; - says that the premiership after Blair will be "Gordon's job". He further remarks that the Labour party is 'completely unified' about its future and 'completely unified in who the next leader of the party's going to be'. Dear Margaret Beckett, you will be sadly missed. |
|||
 |
Campaign against Climate ChangeUK activists portal |
|
|
|
Miliband and Brown
Jim
Are you saying that Miliband and Brown are just miles apart and that Brown will block any moves that could affect economic growth.
John
Miliband and Brown
Miliband took a choice to endorse Brown like this. In contrast, Blair (most of the time at least) doesn't say he has one possible successor, and Margaret Beckett has displayed irritation concerning Gordon Brown.
Miliband's suggestion of emissions trading covering aviation is what the aviation industry themselves call for, though this is more forgiveable as he can't be seen to oppose government policy for more aviation.
Meacher cautions over Brown
Former environent secretary Michael Meacher quoted in Guardian Unlimited on Friday:
"Mr Meacher rejected a coronation of Mr Brown and called on the party rules to be changed to make leadership challenges easier.
"There should be a contest to publicly decide the "direction of the Labour party", he said.
""Whatever one thinks about Gordon Brown this is not about personalities, this is about the direction of the Labour party. There are many other alternatives to New Labour that does not include going back to the 1980s. No one I think, rationally and sensibly wants to do that. But there are other ways of modernising the party and New Labour is just one of them.""
Mr Meacher also said he would in no circumstances stand as a stalking horse against Blair and would not advise anyone else to.
muddle-headed and an obvious non-scientist
although david miliband seems like a young and energetic fellow, with his heart in the right place, unfortunately he is quite clearly a non-scientist and a non-engineer, as he has been quoted as saying this :-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4764933.stm
"Obviously the benefit of nuclear power is that it emits zero carbons but obviously there are costs associated with nuclear power and there are also waste issues, which are very important. If you believe that climate change is the number one issue facing the planet, which I do, it seems to me I cannot come and say 'by the way, I have taken off the table one way in which to generate power in a zero carbon way'."
with vapid factual inaccuracies such as these, how the hill can we get proper energy policy ?
he has obviously not been educated about the nuclear energy lifecycle :-
(a) design, build and commission your nuclear power plant : carbon dioxide emissions, use of energy and fuel and materials, personpower, and invest billions in cash.
(b) run your nuclear power plant : if you're lucky it will perform to design, otherwise it will run permanently low on output, or just stop working, perhaps nastily : minor carbon emissions for the transport of fuel and waste, for maintenance, electricity generation (hopefully) will earn you some cash back.
(c) de-commission your nuclear power plant : spend lots and lots of cash, use lots and lots of materials and emit shedloads of carbon in the process : not a profit-making stage.
(d) dispose of the nuclear waste in a safe and permanent manner : spend loads of money and use lots of energy, fuel and personpower and materials to do this, and emit carbon : and make no profit or power.
(e) send the plutonium and enriched uranium to someone who wants to make nuclear weapons : make some cash, and emit some greenhouse gases. oh, and kill people and ruin the ecology.