Labour aren’t going far enough on the environment

[Siderite]

Said the Greens. Which is why, once again, they’re finding excuses to oppose green initiatives.

https://x.com/JasonGroves1/status/1813454336195702893

[Just Iron]

Good spot, Sidey. The Greens don’t appear to like energy of any kind.

[64]

Interesting ,there’s more ways to convey elctricity than pylons ?

[Siderite]

So the Greens would support burying cables, which is more expensive and destructive to natural habitat with the digging and emplacing operations? The latter would be a big issue for them. Pylons are probably the least destructive option, except for doing nothing and relying on fossil fuels.

[64]

Pylons will need tonnes of concrete , they involve huge amounts of foundations and digging ,cable ducts can be mole dug in most areas

[Siderite]

They will, but burying and emplacing cables costs more and will destroy habitat across the emplaced area (land disruption is higher for underground than overhead cables). There is no alternative without any cons. It’s either that or do nothing and rely on current apparatus with more fossil fuel usage or just have electricity as a rich man’s commodity.

Voting Green to not mitigate climate change would be an odd one for their party, given they have slammed Labour for it or voting Green to make life hard for the poor would again be odd.

[64]

In every situation? Pylons are destructive and mainly erected on a cost basis.It seems you have issues with anyone left of Thatcher

[Siderite]

So what is the perfect solution then? Dig more destructive underground cables? Do nothing, rely on fossil fuels and let climate change worsen? Or return to a pre-industrial existence?

Also, I do find it funny that investing in green infrastructure and opposing NIMBY conservativism is me ‘against anyone left of Thatcther’.

[Northumbiron]

Broadband cables and phone masts obviously don’t count otherwise you wouldn’t be able to have your discussion.

[Siderite]

I am not *against* cables. I am just saying that we need infrastructure for windfarms or any green energy production and opposing pylons on the grounds of habitat destruction leaves with fewer alternatives given underground cables are more destructive. So if the former is bad, the latter is, and the alternative is do nothing at all and rely on fossil fuels. Good for Bucks, but odd from the Greens.

[64]

he’s objecting to the ugly pylons that leave a permanent blot and are destructive to make .Cable ducts are far narrower and less deep than the foundation for a pylon.The pylon will either be fastened with huge foundations about a third of their height in depth and twice their width or piled I have worked on both types of scheme The only valid argument is financial, I have also worked on jobs for 5g masts ,Northumb same principle applies regarding foundations with them .You appear to condemn the Greens without knowing what his full objection is,to dismiss as Nimby without knowing the full facts suggests you have other issues .

[Siderite]

Well, that could have been said earlier. The Greens seem to like opposing that, like in Germany with nuclear. It has to be because I have ulterior motives, given this isn’t the only NIMBY behaviour from Greens. Just like with housing developments.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Just Iron

[Author]

Posts