Post

Farrukh@implausibleblog.bsky.social

Krishnan Guru-Murthy asks about the receipts from oil and gas going into Labour's Energy Wealth Fund, Tessa Khan, "The OBR made a forecast before the price spikes caused by the Iran war that by 2030, the tax take from the North Sea oil and gas sector, will be £0.1 billion" Labour is gaslighting

Spot on. Not just bad for the planet, it's morally indefensible. Rosebank bankrolls Delek, UN-listed for settlements. Don't forget, only a few weeks ago Burnham and Milliband admitted they got Gaza wrong. Now they're approving profits for its enablers.

That’s when you know you’ve fucked up when you’re getting endorsements from Trumpstien. There should be a check built into new governmental policies Q. would Trumpstien support this? A. Yes Decision. BIN

PM: Here is Jackdaw! The UK people who have just faced the hottest summer on record: sure..um..who is this for? Trump: That would be me. Jackdaw, it's a very beautiful Jack I said, but it would have been better if Andy called it the Americadaw....(Yapping continues)

Donald Quixote over there *really* hates windmills. All because they "ruined" the view from one of his environmentally destructive Scottish golf courses, and the Scottish Government told him to fuck off when he tried to sue to have them removed.

Yes, on the other hand if the alternative is to buy from Trump, Russia, Middle East, Venezuela and maybe Canada, what is the best. UK will still need some time until fossil fuel operation has been replaced via electrification or whatever means.

Well let’s face it He is senile. I can forgive them for Jackdaw but never for Rosebank the very thought of exploiting it is insane

That “Labour [have] finally found someone who thinks Jackdaw is a good idea.”

Craig Stewart@craigstewart.bsky.social

Dale Vince, Greg Jackson, Michael Grubb and many more sustainability and pro-net zero voices are in favour of Jackdaw but not Rosebank. There are environmental and social costs in rejecting Jackdaw. Binary social media arguments are not helpful here

This is more like it. Facts are important when making an argument.

Rachel Millward@rachelmillward.bsky.social

Jackdaw offers just 27 jobs, 35 million tonnes of carbon, and no change to energy security or bills. Greens offer a different vision. Our own homegrown, renewable energy, creating thousands of British jobs and investing in our children's futures. join.greenparty.org.uk

But it isn't disingenuous it's consistent. They said they'd oppose Jackdaw and Rosebank under the Tories, under Labour, whoever. If they only oppose it when it's politically convenient, that would be disingenuous.

That’s not what I’m saying. The post itself is disingenuous, not the policy. Suggesting that one person alone supports the Jackdaw decision is disingenuous, and the Greens have better arguments than this poorly conceived social strategy displays

The buck stops with Burnham Full stop ​He is PM, Rosebank and Jackdaw don't get approved by a junior civil servant or by accident they get approved because his government chooses to approve them And it's a bad choice. ​You can dress it up all you want but the decision and the emissions sit with him