[stu]

UK economic growth still sluggish $this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he UK's sharp economic slowdown this year has been confirmed by figures from the Office for National Statistics.
The economy - measured by gross domestic product (GDP) - grew 0.4% between July and September, down from 0.5% in the previous three months.

[jimmydean]

Only good thing is the pound has been dropping which may make their exports cheaper ... that's if they export anything now?

I remember my last trip to the UK and remember being floored by the cost of certain goods. Gas was about 2x what it was in Canada at the time and a typical VW Golf cost in the order of $20k pounds which was almost 2x what the cost of the same vehicle in Canada.

Most food was on-par luckily including a pint of lager

[PWALPOCO]

Yes , I too am looking forward to old Gordon to make his next moves on the budget.

Captain "Prudence" will have explain why his growth forecasts were wrong , why he ignored countless independant organisations warnings that the forecasts were wrong , and he will have to explain how he intends on bridging the multi-billion pound hole in his finances.

Im also wating to hear him come up with the reason how hes going to just fudge "the economic cycle" so the mystical "golden rule" isnt broken.

He has choices (Pres Bush take note !) , he can either cut spending (someone resucitate George please) , OR , he can raise taxes (quickly now , George is flatlining).

Ol Gordon and his pal "Tone" , having promised much , have now either got to break promises on spending programs or somehow get the taxes rolling in. Taxes is the exact reason Gordon is in trouble.

Basically hes gambled that the money hes been spending will have been recovered via taxing all n sundry thinking the economy would be growing much more quickly than what everyone told him it would. The gamble has failed and now we have a big bill to pay. Thanks Gordon.

But what to Tax !? The government is on a "promise" not to raise income taxes. Alcohol , maybe , cigarettes , well everyones giving those up , oh Petrol !? Petrol would be a bad place to put up taxes , remember the revolts ? Oh well . VAT then ?

Value added tax , the ultimate evil ! It affects everyone and has no link to ability to pay just like Council Tax , but worse ......... its the clear choice !!

Paul

[jaws]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jimmydean', 'O')nly good thing is the pound has been dropping which may make their exports cheaper ... that's if they export anything now?

[rogerhb]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jaws', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jimmydean', 'O')nly good thing is the pound has been dropping which may make their exports cheaper ... that's if they export anything now?

[backstop]

A cross-party Commission on Climate Change is being established within the UK Parliament to steer national policy on ending the destabilization of the climate.

http://news.independent.co.uk/environme ... 354055.ece

Its founders, led by Labour MP Colin Chalen, have publicly stated the already genocidal impacts of that destabilization,
and are calling for the global climate policy framework of "Contraction & Convergence" (C&C) as the necessary means to halt that genocide.

C&C can be described as a framework of Cap, Share & Trade, entailing

CONTRACTION

[of global GHG emissions to respect the Earth's capacity]

& CONVERGENCE

[of all nations' emission-rights to per capita parity].

Those nations with surplus emissions-rights will be free to trade them with those in need,
in exchange for investing the income in sustainable energy supplies & development.

This allows the maximum rate of change in our reduction of global dependence on fossil fuels while ensuring global participation.

It can fairly be said that without Convergence the IIIW will not participate, and that without emissions rights being tradeable EU & US will not participate.

Chalen observes that this necessary approach will require the end of conventional accounting of economic growth.

http://comment.independent.co.uk/commen ... 354051.ece

He recommends a system within nations, lead by the UK, of Tradeable Carbon Rations issued to individuals,
that will be reduced year on year to reflect the declining national carbon emission-rights.

This plainly cannot function within the usual party-politics, (i.e. which bunch will give the voter most ration ???)
which is why the cross party commission is being established to set the requisite long term goals.

This is the start of the acknowledgement that global survival requires collective action founded on raising global equity.

For those who haven't yet made the connection, I would observe that C & C is the means whereby we reduce FF demand collectively,
rather than suffering catastrophic demand destuction as liquid & gas FFs' supply inexorably declines.


regards,

Backstop

[Fishman]

Interesting Backstop,

global survival requires collective action founded on raising global equity.

That means dramatic reduction in what the developed coutries utilize per person since its a no gain situation. Do you see you neighbors voluntarily cutting their calorie intake by say 50 %, double their taxs and cut their carbon footprint by say 50% also? Human nature will never vote this in, do you see a liberal dictatorship developing (leadership by the "enlightened")?

[rogerhb]

The nice thing about climate change is it's so unconcerned with economics, politics, religion or race.

[backstop]

Fishman -

I don't see this as a no-gain situation for industrialized nations - far from it.

To what extent we conserve energy and to what extent we utilize sustainable energy resources is an open question,
but both of these have some highly positive benefits.

These include the massive reduction of the casualties of air-pollution (officially 22,000/yr dead in the UK alone),
as well as developing new export markets worldwide for sustainable energy technologies.
The end of the impacts of acid rain on our farms & forests' yields will also be very helpful.

I find your question of "neighbours cutting their calorific intake by 50%" to be non-sensical,
while your proposal of a need for a 50% rise in taxes seems equally without foundation.

Where you understate the requisite scale of change is in proposing a cut of 50% of CO2 emissions.
In reality we need to cut global emissions by over 67% just to stop adding to excess atmospheric CO2,
to allow the planet to start to cleanse that excess.

Being the most extreme producers, the cut for industialized nations will be a greater percentage to achieve eventual per capita parity of emissions.

Yet the risk of the feedback loops accelerating to the point of becoming self-fuelling imposes an extreme urgency to the necessary changes:
thus the present cogent proposal for industrialized nations is of a 90% cut of emissions by around 2030 to avoid that risk.

Please note that this is the requisite cut of emissions, not of energy usage.

WRT your asertion that "Human nature will never vote this in" I have news for you - not only are the American Christian Right shifting over this issue,
a recent Gallup poll found that 75% of Americans overall are discontent with US inaction on GW.

Perhaps the nearest analogy is the election of FDR before WWII.

He was not elected to go to war, but when the US pacific colony at Pearl Harbour was attacked and a couple of thousand sailors killed,
the electorate woke up overnight to the folly of ignoring critical threats.
In the next few years, scarcely a car was built so massive was the transformation of society.

Thus far, your electorate has yet to elect a seriously competent leader, and, further,
it has thus far only lost one city and from 1,300 to 7,900 (mostly poor & black) inhabitants.

The next city to be lost may or may not be destroyed this year (personally I doubt it will be this year) but the next such loss is coming.
As are the full spectrum of other intensifying impacts. And the American public are waking up.

So no, I'm not looking for the oxymoron you suggest of a "liberal dictatorship" just for serious and responsible leadership
that will gain the necessary mandate for fundamental change
by properly informing the public of the threats to human life and livelyhood among America's neighbours worldwide,
- as well as at home within the US borders.


regards,

Backstop

PS: Edited for clarity - B

[gg3]

England could lead the Western world on this. Tony Blair has been far ahead of Bush on it. Prince Charles, possibly the future King of England, has been far ahead of just about every elected political leader in the world.

England stands to lose as much from climate change (if the Atlantic conveyor shuts down) as it could have lost in WW2, which is to say, everything. In moral terms, such high risks confer legitimacy and therefore authority.

This is not to duck our own (US) obligation to take responsibility for our contribution to the mess. There is a sign the voters may be moving on this issue. We have two chances to get it right: this year's elections, and 2008. Whatever encouragement, scolding, and constructive competition we can get, will certainly help.

[Zardoz]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('backstop', '.')..In reality we need to cut global emissions by over 67% just to stop adding to excess atmospheric CO2, to allow the planet to start to cleanse that excess.

...the risk of the feedback loops accelerating to the point of becoming self-fuelling imposes an extreme urgency to the necessary changes: thus the present cogent proposal for industrialized nations is of a 90% cut of emissions by around 2030 to avoid that risk.

So...I'm...looking just for serious and responsible leadership...

[Battle_Scarred_Galactico]

As others have correctly stated, people will never put up with it. It would lead to some sort of revolution or far-right uprising. We all know the classic example.

[Doly]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Battle_Scarred_Galactico', 'A')s others have correctly stated, people will never put up with it.

[untothislast]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('gg3', 'E')ngland could lead the Western world on this. Tony Blair has been far ahead of Bush on it. Prince Charles, possibly the future King of England, has been far ahead of just about every elected political leader in the world.

[Graeme]

Backstop, The future of our global environment will not be determined in Britain. Rather it will be determined by whether America, India and China choose to use clean coal and other renewable techologies.

http://www.peakoil.com/article13458.html

[Battle_Scarred_Galactico]

It's amazing what people will put up with when they HAVE to.

Oh I agree with that, as long as theres' no resources for a new regime to rise up.

[SoothSayer]

Over at TOD UK - link - they discuss the UK's coming energy problems.

One thing that I had totally forgotten about was the British workers' tendency to go on strike ... it's been a long time since those days.

However Britain - and maybe other countries - should maybe factor the possibility of widespread strikes into the equation.

They could occur as soon as the public sector jobs or salaries are under threat due to economic problems.

Last time we had power cuts, bodies being unburied for months, no refuse collections being made ... generally horrible.

Perhaps any UK survivalist types should be prepared for these strikes as well as for Peak Oil etc

[Wildwell]

Well striking is nothing new, obviously, and reached its zenith just before and after the war. The 1920s general strike was of course very disruptive, led by the coal miners since UK coal couldn't compete with stuff from abroad. It did get quite nasty at one point and the army was brought out and people shot dead.

The way around striking is to make it illegal for essential workers and diversity of supply. Police state I know, but as technology improves I think that’s the way we are heading anyway.

[parsifal]

KING ARTHUR...WHERE ARE YOU?

[Jack]

This is the sort of thing that makes one wonder what they know - and whether it might be the same thing some of us know.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The City regulator issued a warning to the high street banks yesterday that the "clouds were already darkening" and urged them to prepare for the impact of rising unemployment and the knock-on effect on bad debts.
The Financial Services Authority highlighted mortgages based on high multiples to income - as much as five times in some instances - and questioned whether sales of these products would be monitored properly.

Clive Briault, managing director of retail markets at the FSA, said: "While retail banks appear to have adequate financial resources today, the good times will not last forever - indeed, there is evidence that the clouds are already darkening and that banks need to prepare now for the potential storms ahead."

In a speech to the British Bankers' Association, he also urged them to conduct stress tests - essentially worse case planning scenarios - to assess the impact of a downturn in the housing market on the business. The regulator believes banks should consider the impact of a 40% fall in property prices and a 35% increase in the repossession rate on their business but stressed that it does not mean it expects such sharp movements to take place.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Entire article - LINK

Those silly bankers. They're beginning to sound like doomers. Come on, cornucopians - let us turn up the music. Don't let the sounds of a crashing housing market divert you from the exponential growth festivities!