Often I have mused that if the coal mines had not closed in the late 20c, for which Mrs Thatcher gets all the blame, how later the industry would have confronted net zero. It would have been an interesting left-leaning skirmish. Should not the net zero advocates heap praise on Mrs T?
True to a degree - but as someone once said - our lives are manufactured . Manufacturing is essential for modern life and without manufacturing industry we rely too much on others for our goods - and eventually services. Deep seam coal mining might not be the way to go but modern manufacturing surely is.
The power situation in Australia is very similar to the situation in Britain, with coal being phased out in favour of intermittent wind and solar on the grid.
This is catastrophic and unsustainable but nuclear power is illegal and we have no alternative to burning more coal or all of our energy-intensive industries will be long gone before nuclear is an option.
The voters have to realise the threat of wind droughts, especially windless nights, and lean on the lawmakers to stop the subsidies and mandates for unreliable energy.
This is not what the manufacturing argument is all about. Very clever to cloak the opening in terms of its negative impact on climate change - something you have been sceptical about. This is not about reopening coal mines and steel works - but looking at where we still have expertise in industrial technologies and capabilities that could be grown faster....with a more supportive tax and regulatory environment ......the Blairite idea of a 'weightless' economy, or what Torsten Bell calls a 'financial superpower' is as much a fallacy as the straw man you have created
It’s not just that industries like coal mining were lost, it’s that they haven’t been replaced with anything. The towns and villages built around those industries are still there but opportunities are few and far between. New towns were built around industry in the 1950s and 1960s. They were vibrant then but not any more.
The market doesn't always work in our favour though - hence steel manufacturing is nil. China will always be cheaper due to its wage policy. They buy ore from Southern Africa and have brought in their own workers who work 24/7 on a lower than minimum wage set by the governments. So obviously they can price differently.
I live in a former pit village in Derbyshire. Even today mention of Mrs Thatcher fairly reliably generates apoplexy. Yet none of my neighbours, much less the local Labour politicians, ever suggest reopening the pits.
Equally, none of them have any serious ideas on economic reform. It's the 1970s all over again: only worse.
I agree with Panjang below - that the coal mining jobs were dangerous, and have been lost, seems good. But these "bad" jobs have not been replaced by anything but welfare payments, I believe. No jobs is worse than bad jobs.
Self sufficiency is an illusion and a very high risk strategy. Diversification of supply is the best means of mitigating the risk of local insufficiency of supply.
You make a good point Paul, however, in our case, we have stopped coal mining completely which is needed for solar panel manufacture, we have no production of steel so import from China, reduced gas production so we have to import from Norway. Doesn't seem a smart strategy to me.
By all means exploit local resources where it is economically advantageous to do so compared with importing.
The best way to test what should be domestically produced versus imported is to let the market decide, free from government intervention via taxes, subsidies or regulations.
I am sure you are right that exploiting the oil under our own feet or in our domestic waters would tick the box. Production of coal and steel is more doubtful. But the only way to find out is to let the market decide.
Often I have mused that if the coal mines had not closed in the late 20c, for which Mrs Thatcher gets all the blame, how later the industry would have confronted net zero. It would have been an interesting left-leaning skirmish. Should not the net zero advocates heap praise on Mrs T?
True to a degree - but as someone once said - our lives are manufactured . Manufacturing is essential for modern life and without manufacturing industry we rely too much on others for our goods - and eventually services. Deep seam coal mining might not be the way to go but modern manufacturing surely is.
The power situation in Australia is very similar to the situation in Britain, with coal being phased out in favour of intermittent wind and solar on the grid.
This is catastrophic and unsustainable but nuclear power is illegal and we have no alternative to burning more coal or all of our energy-intensive industries will be long gone before nuclear is an option.
https://rafechampion.substack.com/p/burn-coal-in-australia-or-die-in-f37
Surely coal can be mined in Britain with modern technology to eliminate health hazards.
The CO2 emissions will green the country and boost farm production.
What is the point of wind and solar on the grid anyway?
Wind and solar capacity is not real capacity because it’s not available during nocturnal wind droughts.
https://rafechampion.substack.com/p/wind-and-solar-aint-capacity
Batteries are not the answer. 2 MINUTES https://youtu.be/VjgDvG13Hgs
Wind and solar don’t generate enough energy to reproduce themselves. See Schernikau and Smith on the unpopular truth about electricity and the future of energy. https://rafechampion.substack.com/p/wind-and-solar-are-parasites-on-the
Trillions have been wasted for want of due diligence.
https://rafechampion.substack.com/p/criminal-failure-of-due-diligence
The voters have to realise the threat of wind droughts, especially windless nights, and lean on the lawmakers to stop the subsidies and mandates for unreliable energy.
https://rafechampion.substack.com/p/will-windpower-heat-your-breakfast
What is the cost-benefit ratio for net-zero?
What are the benefits?
This is not what the manufacturing argument is all about. Very clever to cloak the opening in terms of its negative impact on climate change - something you have been sceptical about. This is not about reopening coal mines and steel works - but looking at where we still have expertise in industrial technologies and capabilities that could be grown faster....with a more supportive tax and regulatory environment ......the Blairite idea of a 'weightless' economy, or what Torsten Bell calls a 'financial superpower' is as much a fallacy as the straw man you have created
It’s not just that industries like coal mining were lost, it’s that they haven’t been replaced with anything. The towns and villages built around those industries are still there but opportunities are few and far between. New towns were built around industry in the 1950s and 1960s. They were vibrant then but not any more.
The market doesn't always work in our favour though - hence steel manufacturing is nil. China will always be cheaper due to its wage policy. They buy ore from Southern Africa and have brought in their own workers who work 24/7 on a lower than minimum wage set by the governments. So obviously they can price differently.
I live in a former pit village in Derbyshire. Even today mention of Mrs Thatcher fairly reliably generates apoplexy. Yet none of my neighbours, much less the local Labour politicians, ever suggest reopening the pits.
Equally, none of them have any serious ideas on economic reform. It's the 1970s all over again: only worse.
Spread the news
https://substack.com/@danieldillon3/note/c-343081545?r=8t3afo
I agree with Panjang below - that the coal mining jobs were dangerous, and have been lost, seems good. But these "bad" jobs have not been replaced by anything but welfare payments, I believe. No jobs is worse than bad jobs.
In my opinion, how can you put a price on self-sufficiency? Producing our own coal, steel, energy, food and semiconductors is essential.
Self sufficiency is an illusion and a very high risk strategy. Diversification of supply is the best means of mitigating the risk of local insufficiency of supply.
You make a good point Paul, however, in our case, we have stopped coal mining completely which is needed for solar panel manufacture, we have no production of steel so import from China, reduced gas production so we have to import from Norway. Doesn't seem a smart strategy to me.
By all means exploit local resources where it is economically advantageous to do so compared with importing.
The best way to test what should be domestically produced versus imported is to let the market decide, free from government intervention via taxes, subsidies or regulations.
I am sure you are right that exploiting the oil under our own feet or in our domestic waters would tick the box. Production of coal and steel is more doubtful. But the only way to find out is to let the market decide.
https://timworstall.substack.com/p/now-theyvebought-it-theyve-no-clue?r=7ypwh&utm_medium=ios