Yes, it's very Tory (surprised Liz Truss isn't a co-author) but I would say that the article is interesting by some of it's omissions and disingenuous correlations, and I lays out some interesting facts albeit with some dodgy conclusions. I absolutely agree with it that we're too short termist and to get anywhere we need to make long term investments in ourselves.
There's a massive failure to recognise that the UK has a different geography to the countries they're comparing us to - we value our nature much more because we have less of it left. Removing rules to protect the environment would be wildly unpopular, and morally indefensible. I work on large infrastructure projects and one of the primary reasons that environmental protection is so expensive is because it's not sufficiently incorporated into the initial designs, and regulators are too underfunded to employ experts to make pragmatic decisions. This applies for value for money across the board, private companies can run rings around civil servants essentially because the civil service can no longer afford to employ the best people.
In terms of nuclear, I agree it has a place in the energy mix but so do all sorts of renewables. The essay didn't touch on the fact that pumped storage hydro is an effective energy storage method.
No. 3 - Wow! That’s really interesting.
That Jeremy Klein episode is so good 👌 undeniably one of the most creative, legit and influential characters in slate history!
Well, number 4 is... interesting.
An interesting surprise to see an article from a Tory think tank in LS 10 things. Is it a case of 'know your enemy?'
PS What's with the right's obsession with nuclear, and why isn't their solution ever political reform?
Always good to understand the way the other side thinks, especially given how far away it is from the discourse in our little echo chamber
Yes, it's very Tory (surprised Liz Truss isn't a co-author) but I would say that the article is interesting by some of it's omissions and disingenuous correlations, and I lays out some interesting facts albeit with some dodgy conclusions. I absolutely agree with it that we're too short termist and to get anywhere we need to make long term investments in ourselves.
There's a massive failure to recognise that the UK has a different geography to the countries they're comparing us to - we value our nature much more because we have less of it left. Removing rules to protect the environment would be wildly unpopular, and morally indefensible. I work on large infrastructure projects and one of the primary reasons that environmental protection is so expensive is because it's not sufficiently incorporated into the initial designs, and regulators are too underfunded to employ experts to make pragmatic decisions. This applies for value for money across the board, private companies can run rings around civil servants essentially because the civil service can no longer afford to employ the best people.
In terms of nuclear, I agree it has a place in the energy mix but so do all sorts of renewables. The essay didn't touch on the fact that pumped storage hydro is an effective energy storage method.
Thought provoking anyway
Hence why I posted it….