‘I was frustrated’: The woman who told Labour it didn’t need to spend £28bn on green investment
‘I was frustrated’: The woman who told Labour it didn’t need to spend £28bn on green investment
Rhian-Mari Thomas, the head of the Green Finance Institute, suggested to Rachel Reeves the private sector could help offset state funding
You're viewing a single thread.
Saving this one for posterity.
The decision to cut the £28bn pledge was very unpopular among members, though seemingly immediately forgiven by an electorate that understood it was too costly given our financial situation.
In 2029 though I wonder how we'll look back at the decision. The National Wealth Fund certainly holds a lot of promise, but will it have had enough of an impact to alleviate the disappointment of those who'd have preferred much larger direct public funding instead?
It seems Rhian-Mari Thomas may be a name worth remembering whatever the outcome.
I don't see what would be wrong with "overspending" for something like this. The UK is in control of its own currency and everything that is spent on green energy now is money that won't be needed to buy fossil fuel abroad or climate mitigation measures in the future.
I think a case could have been made for it. Borrowing to invest is allowed by the fiscal rules, and it would've been popular with a large set of the electorate. Weighing it against the electoral impact to the presentation of the party as being fiscally responsible would've been a tough needle to thread though. Many folks point to Corbyn's WASPI payout policy and nationalisation of BT as being among the key things that killed his campaign back in the day for much the same reason.
The way the lady in the article speaks though, it sounds like there is maybe a case for pursuing private funding as a better option. I've read elsewhere that even a modest public investment over the long term can encourage tons of private investment due to the certainty it provides. If the planned ~£15bn public investment ends up attracting enough private money to get up to a similar amount to £28bn and comes with tons of consequent economic activity around the edges then this may end up having been the better approach.
On the other hand, if it attracts hardly any — perhaps due to the Tories pledging to scrap GB Energy and the NWF, thereby removing the long-term certainty around the whole thing — then it may turn out to be a massively consequential and disastrous route to have taken. I think we'll have an inkling long before 2029 if that's likely to be the case.
in 2029, when millions more are dying… climate refugees are overwhelming the shores… crops are failing… tropical insects are migrating north, 28 billion will seem like a great bargain… but then it’ll cost trillions
You think all that is going to happen in... five years?
already currently happening so yeah, it’ll all get much worse
It... already started?
28 billion will seem like a great bargain… but then it’ll cost trillions
Are you expecting an inflation rate of 111% in the next five years? 😂
They're expecting nonlinearities as climate systems are more destabilised.
They mean it would cost more because the problem has become bigger and more complicated because it wasn't addressed early
Yes, that part was obvious.
However hyperbolic misrepresentation doesn't help this argument. 😉
the price of prevention is more than the cost of a cure….
you’re awfully dense… maybe try a little harder to understand things that you don’t understand before responding with your ignorance.My friend... Do the maths. It's not exactly difficult. 😂😂😂
wow, what an idiot