Nah, they just want to get votes from gullible people. They really don't give a shit about anything other than that, and maybe getting more money from their donors in the Oil and Gas industry and the Russian oligarchy If they really cared they'd... actually have a manifesto!
Personally I like it. Our footprint is so small on this planet where China's building multiple of coal mines a year will. If we can become close to energy independent we won't have to import it and can bring prices a lot lower to help the working class. The plan to slowly go nuclear is the way forward in my opinion. Its not like we stop with green energy, we just can have multiple
@@teelo523So sick of this argument. It’s asinine. EVERY country emits a minority of the world’s emissions. So by that logic every country and just go “sod it, leave it to the other countries to sort out.” Do you also just throw all your rubbish out the window because “I’m only one person and the amount is insignificant compared to the total amount of litter in the world”? Not to mention using current CO2 emissions ignores the decades where Britain had one of the largest (if not the largest) CO2 emit of any country. As for China, they have more wind power than any other country. And more solar than other country. And are adding new solar power faster than any other country. And adding wind power faster than another country. They’re also planning to go from peak CO2 emissions to net zero faster than any other country. They have quite ambitious targets, and are in some cases overachieving those targets. Literally every major economy is already taking significant steps to fight climate change.
@@teelo523Our footprint is so small 😂 Buddy Your country definitely comes in the top 10 carbon polluters and historically in the top 3 carbon polluters Stop blaming others everyone has to adopt instead of the blame game.
Yes i can understand that it is baffling, because it is 0 carbon. I’m from the Netherlands and our green party says that investing in nuclear is not a good idea because it is kinda like greenwashing. It takes ages (10-20 years if im correct) for nuclear to be build and costs a fortune, which is all time and money not spent on climate action right now “because nuclear will be built and it will be all good, in the meantime we can just continue the way we’re used to”. But we need climate action right now. Also, other options like wind, solar, hydro, you name it, are much faster and cheaper, making nuclear less and less needed.
Nuclear takes a long time to build? Fair enough. But why do the Greens want to phase out nuclear? Why not let the powerplants that are currently working keep doing their job? They did the same thing in Germany; ended up burning coal to make the difference 🤷🏻♂️
The other annoying part of it is that their reasoning in their manifesto is it's expensive, it takes too long to build, its dangerous, and it contributes to nuclear weapons. But they've been saying the "it takes too long to build" for a couple decades now, if we started building lots when they started saying that they'd all be built by now and we'd have one of the cleanest grids on the entire planet. They say it's too dangerous but can anyone think of nuclear plant disaters in the UK? It takes going back 60 years to find anything very bad. More people have died installing solar panels on house roofs than from Nuclear but apparently it's too dangerous. It helps build nuclear weapons or something? what? lol. Finally is the "it's expensive" point which is too long to talk about, but to keep it simple they also pushed mass solar and wind building back when it was several times more expensive than now and more expensive than current nuclear, so they've shown to be okay with the current cost of nuclear and are going back on themselves when it doesn't suit them. And if something is too expensive then see how it can be done cheaper first instead of saying nope. Greens are morons, suprised Simon seem to point out "phase out nuclear" as a positive in this video, especially when he used external sources to disprove other parties claims but im sure most scientific sources would be against the "nuclear bad" claim.
@@walker1054 i agree that we should have started building nuclear power plants 20 years ago, but we didn’t so yeah.. starting now doesn’t make much climate sense anymore.
As a UK voter, this is the kind of video I really wanted to see so I could make a more informed decision on July 4th. Even if it doesn't do as well as videos intended for a wider audience, I really appreciate you taking the time to put this out there
Our choices are great, we get "drill baby drill" or "we can plant some trees, I guess, while we drill of course" paired with the "don't come, we don't want you here" cop
@@QuietlyHere666To be fair, the Inflation Reduction Act passed by Biden includes tax credits for energy efficient home improvements and investments into clean energy such as nuclear. $369 billion in total is being spent to combat climate change. It's significant progress.
you would think this is true based on the political parties, but the conservatives have been in power since something like 2012. even if their position is a fringe one, they have consistently won elections; the only serious contender for them is labor and it has been viewed not unreasonably that tories keep fucking up their own advantages. parties like SNP and Plaid are only really voted for in their respective provinces (scotland and wales); libdems are at the moment a spoiler candidate but are not likely to be elected for a while since their primary audience are young middle class folks who still remember how they went back on their primary campaign promise of "no increase in student loans".
The Reform one used to be even worse a few months ago. They cut out "An Honest Debate on Climate Change" which included: "Reform UK fully accepts that climate change is real, after all it has happened for millions of years based on multiple factors completely outside human control or influence. Warming has of course taken place over the last approximately 150 years, with signs over recent years that it is now leveling off. Humans have had an impact on this global warming, though scientists disagree as to how much. Those who think that getting to Net Zero will stop climate change are in fact just denying reality. Even the IPCC’s latest assessment report admits that if we get to Net Zero, it would take another 200-1,000 years before sea levels stopped rising (hardly definitive in timing but clearly a long way off!). So we would be better to adapt, by spending far less money more wisely, for example on sea level defences where needed. This is more sensible than wasting trillions of pounds trying to stop climate change, when it has always changed and always will change." Especially love "with signs over recent years that it is now leveling off.", which clearly comes from the classic "no warming since !"
Yep, it reads like the Denialists playbook. I am happy to say reform is not a major political party in the UK and sad to say that they still poll around 16% of the vote. That means seven million voters think like this...
If anyone is following conservative or reform for their migration policy then you should really bear in mind the long term impact of climate change. Due to changes in climate there will be millions more climate refugees, enough to make the movements from some local wars look minimal. Climate change needs to be tackled, if the idea of a huge influx of migrants is what that takes to get you on board with that, so be it. Reform are not your party if you're thinking beyond the next few years.
I wonder why a [still, effectively] single issue party might have policies that are likely to increase net migration… …maybe they cynically know they need there to be a problem they can increase their support base. - They currently have practically no chance of gaining enough seats to form a government. - they’re taking some vote share and likely seats from the 2 [currently] largest parties - those parties can’t be sure which policies are attracting the votes, so Reform aim to pull the parties losing votes to them closer to their position across the board - this includes climate. If climate policies move closer to their position, immigration will likely increase, potentially increasing reform’s voter base and chances of gaining an outright majority in Parliament - it also likely won’t hurt their funding sources, since fossil fuel lobbies are not short of cash
Your happy with the current uniparty system ? Labour and Conservatives really doing well at controlling the CO2 China and India emit. Where are our nuclear power stations we could really do with some to cope with the influx of new citizens and to power all these EV's.
@@PolygonSwan"luckily, pointing to the bad acts of others absolves me from the need to change my ways" "After all, in an environment where I alone change, I alone will change nothing, so it is worth nothing" And then everyone says that about everyone else, and no one does anything to change. Collective action problems. No. If something is to change, everyone must, and this argument must be ignored. Be angry at those who don't come along, instead.
China is producing c02 making stuff for us to buy. If China wasn’t making that stuff we would be, and those would be our carbon emissions. Insisting we shouldn’t act before china does is like taking taxis everywhere and then insisting you shouldn’t have to reduce your petrol consumption before your taxi driver does
I'm similarly turned off by the green party for their stance on nuclear power. Wave power however does have legs, but not without massive scale habitat destruction. The Severn has I think 11% of the worlds tidal power waiting to be harnessed.
40 years ago solar was a fancy tech for power generation on space stations, now its an abundant energy source. Wave power may or may not get there, but the tech is in its infancy and certainly cant be relied on as you implied. But its not nonsense at its core
@@moartems5076 40 years ago the PV cell was a new technology, maybe it was dismissed by some, but yes it has improved its efficency by a lot. Wave power is steel, concrete and turbines, like we have had for 200 years. I don't see how it's efficiency is suddenly going to go 10x or how steel and concrete is suddenly going to withstand the sea water.
As an organiser with UKYCC (and a huge fan of the channel!) - thanks so much for shouting out our How Green is Your MP site!! It was a lot of long hours of data entry, so hopefully people find it handy!
Some creators shy away from endorsing political candidates, so it's refreshing to hear someone clued into a subject inform you on what your best options are
@@abody499 ? they inform you because this is an expert on the topic of climate change going manifesto by manifesto giving specifically climate change policies and his assessment of true or false claims are, based on him being an expert with phd in it. He is informing us. "power to decide yourself" is useless if you don't have any information or incorrect information on which decision to make.
@@IdunRedstone u completely miss the point. everyone is capable of deciding what their own "best options" are. knowledge isn't just out there waiting to be transmitted from experts to empty vessels. it is actively created by the knower.
I know it probably wouldn't have as much impact, but if you could I think a video on France's Législatives climate policy would be very interesting. Merci pour une autre excellente vidéo Simon, de la part d'un canadien.
Would have been nice to include a bit more about nuclear... from what I can tell, Labour are pro, Lib dems didnt say and Greens are anti. This feels like a pretty important part of the equation which was barely discussed?
And if you can't bring yourself to vote for any of the candidates (which is understandable in a lot of constituencies) then at least go and spoil your ballot. It's not really going to make any difference but I still feel it's better than not turning up at all.
@@adrianthoroughgood1191 I agree, but some people can't look past the Greens' policy on nuclear power, or think they're too far to the left, or too far to the right, or whatever...
As a mainland European, I am pleasantly surprised by the positive mark for Labor. I would actually love to see a similar breakdown for the other major European countries' parties, especially Germany, to see how they compare to their UK counterparts.
These election videos are some of the most important on UA-cam. It is incredible that traditional media don’t make similar analysis of the manifestos. And TLDR should bring you on as a resource.
This is very helpful! Another excellent video Simon, I will be sharing this with friends. I already decided way back that I was voting Green, our MP at the moment is Steve Baker!
You're pretty lucky, this is only the second time I'll be seeing a Green on my ballot - and last time I had hope that voting Labour would get rid of our incumbent idiot. Still not confident if I'm a conscious or tactical voter this time round.
What's your area like in regards to voting history, if it's a race between Tories and labour for example then all voting green does is help the one party you definitely don't want in power. It's just the sad reality with the first past the post system, you are forced to play the game and pick a shinier turd cos it will be better than the putrid disgusting turd.
Wasted vote that could have actively allowed the worst candidate in. Being in denial about living in a first past the post system doesn't stop that fact. Don't waste your vote, and campaign for proportional representation so that you can make a vote for the greens worthwhile
Simon i have to point out as an east anglian, we have the largest offshore wind systems in the uk, not Scotland. But some of the offshore wind is operated by Scottish Power and SSE.
I really wish Green Parties would stop taking up the unscientific position of opposing nuclear power. I mean sure it's expensive, but it's also very safe and mostly green.
I mean, yes. Nuclear is a lot more green than fossil fuels, especially after it's built. But all I hear about people complaining about Green is their stance on nuclear. It will take 20 years to build new nuclear, besides there are cheaper and greener options now that will be available much sooner. So why keep harking on the nuclear part, since it can be replaced, the Greens policy will be a net positive.
@@Simqer There are a few problems. 1. The Greens will (I assume) advocate for shutting down existing nuclear power plants, as in Germany, and they'll be replaced in the short term by coal or by power outages. 2. While nuclear power is unaffordable for making up the bulk of power production, having it make up 10-20% would be good. Having diverse power sources makes the grid more resilient and presents fewer challenges for distribution. 3. Under my autistic black-and-white thinking, adopting any unscientific position makes me want to tend towards a more mainstream party like Labor or the Lib Dems.
@@Simqer Wind? Nobody likes to live near noisy turbines Tidal? I assume the fish won't like it either Solar? We're in the UK, we only get it for half the year Unless you're going to put a policy where everyone has to have solar panels on their roofs and are willing to help people pay for it then nothing will happen. (Forgetting about the lobbying of oil companies)
@@Simqer And I say why not both, in 20 years energy demands are goinna be far higher than they are now, in 20 years people are gonna look back and say why the people in power and the voting population of their respective country didnt build nuclear the same way we look back to those 20 years ago and those 20 years ago look back. Its never to late to get the ball rolling, and if certain enviromental groups cooperated on developing nuclear instead of helping build its roadblocks, it could be completed in a far shorter timeframe. If we took a small portion of that decarbonizing budget and worked with other countries to produce a modern standardized design with all the safety features that have popped up over time, we can get that time down even further. Nuclears biggest obstacle isnt cost or time, its hesitation. Here in Canada we led nuclear engineering for quite a long time and created one of the best standardized reactors, we exported CANDU reactors and they still operate to this day. if we had pursued repeating that effort to create an exportable stanardized reactor for the 2000s, imagine how many coal plants could be shut down right now or in 5-10 years time with another round of investment. If we hesitate today tomorrow we will regret it and hesitate again.
Thanks for making explicit mention of Northern Ireland, and linking to more detaila! :) I was thinking to myself "this is more British than UK, but sure" from a quick glance, but then spotted DUP in your early graphs, and appreciate the explicit disclaimer. NI in Westminster is...... a complicated thing, to say the least 😅
Fantastic video Simon! Re They Work For You, I think it'd be wise to note the whip - Rory Stewart's take on this is quite interesting. Often all a voting record tells you is what party someone belongs to, it doesn't really inform on an MP's individual values.
Thank you for your efforts to make an informed decision. I particularly like the (statistical) visualization (error-bars) and the analysis of the outsiders.
As someone who works in marine habitat restoration the lib dem manifesto is very exciting to me too! I never would've thought it would get a mention in a party manifesto! Unfortunately I live in a seat where there is a real chance the tories will keep the seat from labour and the lib dems have absolutely no chance so I will be voting labour as the lesser of two evils
@@catmonarchist8920 sadly, better. The US answer to getting to net zero is by omitting emission heavy sectors and acting like they don't exist. The military for example, our largest expenditure annually, is not included in emissions reports
Havent paid attention to UK politics in a while (not from there). But i really do hope that the people see through the lies of the conservatives about climate
richi better not have made my boy simon too stressed with his surprise election. Short notice to make this vid, hope your keep a good mental health going!
Great breakdown of the different approaches each party has on climate, enjoyed how you outlined each then gave your opinion to give a balanced account of each while making it clear where your biases lie
No you see decommissioning green power plants and inevitably replacing the lost output with coal and LNG is the solution to climate change, we should all follow in Germany's footsteps
I think the overall nuclear-negative political attitude is probably just a reflection of the general population's overall attitude. It scares people, so they probably wouldn't like to vote for a party that promotes it. I'd like to imagine the Greens would have the integrity to be pro-nuclear if it categorically was the only way to grow renewable power, but they've been clear on why they don't think it is the right way forward.
Because it's more expensive than renewables, takes longer to build than renewables, and is more dangerous than renewables, plus it produces radioactive waste that needs to be stored underground for thousands of years. Despite nuclear being a much better alternative to fossil fuels and coal (looking at you Germany), when you look at the points above - why not just invest in renewables instead?
I'm not very politically minded, but could it be because the set-up time doesn't mesh well with 4-year election cycles? For one, a party who initiates nuclear power now would be unlikely to still be in power when any benefits were realised, and would have to absorb the costs of set-up. But also, setting up nuclear power now may mean that they need to hope that successive governments don't overturn their efforts when they lose power. I can imagine it in the House of Commons: "This party wasted (however many billions) on nuclear power and we have seen no benefit from it; we will turn off the tap before any more money is lost, and invest your money in (alternative energy source) instead." This isn't my wheelhouse so I may be missing a lot of important info about how initiatives like this are safeguarded, but they're the reasons that first spring to mind. I agree that investing in nuclear seems to be extremely sensible going forwards, politics aside.
Thanks Simon; 'troglodytic' is one of the best descriptions of reform I've heard so far. Summary: vote Lib Dem or Labour, then demand a change to PR so the greens get a fair showing!
Just like Starmer of the Labour party. Labour (imho) would be almost as much of a disaster as the Tories. They seem to have adopted a lot of the same talking points as the Tories in order to appeal to more right-wing voters, but of course that also means that they will be making right-wing policies with weak targets for the climate, hatred of minorities and so on, and Labour also does not want to rejoin the EU, despite the economic disaster it has been.
@@_yonas Labour’s climate policies are a fair bit better than the Tory ones. The two parties being the same is a line the right wing media push very very regularly more so than it actually being true. Corbyn’s Labour was a lot more leftwing and they lost very badly and were stuck in opposition and let the current Tory government have a massive majority to do what they want. I’d prefer a more leftwing government in an ideal world but I’d 1,000 times rather a centrist Starmer government able to win power instead and able to do some better policies. Don’t let perfect be the enemy of the good. Starmer’s Labour are wanting to have a big push on renewables and they dropped the headline 28 billion figure as Tory’s were attacking them massively on taxes and spending but the environmental policies behind it are still there even if they’ve stopped giving a headline figure to it. Labour is also clearly adopting a minimalist manifesto to make very sure they can achieve everything and increase trust in a following term but they plan to under promise and over deliver. I’m a lifelong Green voter incidentally but I think Starmer’s Labour will be a fair bit better than most people expect (though constrained by the looted gutted wreck the Tories will leave of the economy and finances).
Cracking summary, and definitely makes me think a bit more seriously about Lib Dems, as they actually stand a chance against labour in my constituency unlike the greens. Never really voted anything other than Green though (I always seem to find myself in labour strongholds whilst they're the opposition), so it’ll be a change for me to consider voting more tactically
Nice to hear from someone who also is a persistent Green voter 👋 In Germany Green votes are never wasted as the Green party is regularly part of national or regional government coalitions. In our last national elections the Greens won 15% of all votes.
@@P-qk2tz I’m a lifelong Green voter but I’d happily tactically vote Labour or Lib Dems to keep a Tory out. There is some chance uniquely this election - with a lot of tactical voting - that Tories could lose so badly Lib Dems come second and we’d have them as the official opposition. Would help the debate to have a pro EU, pro electoral reform, pro environment party given much more media attention. Tories as opposition is the more likely outcome of the two but there are hundreds of seats very close and it could credibly go either way.
@@glyngreen538 I think it makes more sense in an (ex)-tory constituency. My constituency has voted labour for the past 10 years, and is looking like it'll be another year of labour unless we vote for either lib dem or greens
16:15 realistically people will actually call this the year of immigration elections, especially for the EU. I'm not aware of a single EU election per country where climate agenda was a deciding factor, it was basically all supplanted by immigration
If we don't achieve net zero and keep making the climate worse, it will increase the number of climate refugees; climate change is a systemic issue that affects every policy today, including "immigration" policies - which are not about immigrants, really, but about climate and to a lesser extent economic refugees. Folks aren't trying to get to the UK because the UK is amazing, they're trying to get to the UK because the risk of going to the UK outweighs the risk of staying where they live.
@@danhonks6264 i agree with you, but the problem is the vast majority of the electorate don't view things this way, they would rather stop the migrants from setting foot on their shores via force or terror. It's a bit like how there are 2 ways of solving a leaking pipe: you can either patch it or you can identify and stop the source of the fluid. While the latter is the longer term and wiser approach, most people would intuitively go for the former. This is why your argument for climate action to lessen migration will almost never resonate with the wider electorate. IMO the only way through this political mess would be a 2-pronged approach: make superficial but impressive sounding efforts to stop migrants coming in to please the masses, while simultaneously trying to use climate action to solve the longer term problem. While this might sound ethically abhorrent to most left-wingers, it is unfortunately the only way to buy yourself enough time to make a long term difference in the current political landscape: you can either remain true to your principles and shout from the side-lines while the world burns, or you can read the mood and get yourself elected into a position of power so that you can actually put your plans into motion.
Not an election directly, but the breakdown of the power-sharing agreement between the SNP and Scotland Greens was over climate policy, and this breakdown resulted pretty directly in a change of Scottish First Minister and contributed significantly to the subsequent evisceration of the SNP in the UK general election discussed in this video. There were of course other factors (there always are), but there's a strong climate link in the fact that the SNP won 46 Westminster seats in 2019 and in 2024 look like they'll only have around 10.
12:50 TBH, I'm surprised he likes Plaid Cymru's 'twinning of biodiversity and climate crisis' pledge. In practice, that's the kind of thing that kills ambitious green projects. What will happen is somebody with propose a new wind farm, solar farm, grid-infrastructure...etc. then people who wouldn't have wanted that built anyway (for whatever reason, but generally just NIMBYism) will say 'Oh but what about [insert species here]'. Meaning that the entire thing gets bogged how in years planning permission wrangling while warring hired ecologists try to figure out how many frogs the solar farm will cruelly displace. Biodiversity isn't the _only_ red tape roadblock, but it is a near universal one. I'm not saying broader green policies aren't important - I 100% support genuine policies that aim to restore British forests and peatland, and protection of specific areas that are _actually_ critical areas for vulnerable species, but the term 'biodiversity' has been completely soured for me because of how that concept gets weaponised.
I would also twin this with their tactical opposition to the Sustainable Farming Scheme, in which they have allied with Farmers and the Conservatives to sabotage tangible green efforts, and their NIMBY opposition to a lot of green infrastructure in West Wales when it doesn't look nice.
Its where to be built. Wales has a lot of coast and any beach you go to, there is wind farms in the distance. Theyre not a big fan of on land of natural beauty, but i know a few farmers that rent their land to wind farm companies and make a pretty penny from it. The main reason it often gets shot down is the birds. Welsh government is very protective of birds.
@@sirati9770 vote tactically to make it happen! In a Labour - Tory marginal you help Lib Dems more by voting Labour to help the Tory lose to increase the chance of Lib Dems coming second nationally, more so than you help by protest voting Lib Dem there anyway, but maybe that just lets the Tory win.
Thanks for the video Simon - that was really interesting! Out of interest, please would you be able to share any further reading/videos on Small Modular Nuclear Reactors and tidal energy? I’m intrigued as to why you’re slightly more sceptical on these forms of energy. I lived in Swansea when there was the proposal to build the tidal lagoon there - at the time it looked like quite a positive proposal that was cancelled for being too expensive Also, as I understand it, the civil engineering sector in the UK is really driving research into small modular nuclear reactors at the moment so would be keen to see more on this too! Thanks in advance!
Hi Simon, would love to see another video on other countries with elections coming up. For me personally Rep of Ireland will likely have an election coming up before Christmas, and I’d love to see a video on the parties here. Cheers
I tend to dislike "green" website analyses because they usually consider nuclear policies anti environmental, when it's one of the best weapons we have against CC
I'd guess the SNP weirdness with oil/gas is that they're quite a big industry in North East Scotland which is increasingly becoming a big base for the party as Labour is predicted to wipe them out in the Central Belt. Also I'd guess Labour not mentioning a net zero date is just a "we're keeping the 2050 date already enshrined in law" thing.
Thanks - a very fair summary, I think. But Labour's capacity to meet these aims will depend, very much, on Ed Miliband having a position of power in the new administration. Fingers crossed!
I’d like a video exploring the economical and geopolitical implications of the proposals that favour the environment. As an example: electric cars, they imply a reduction in co2 emissions but: - is it feasible to swap every combustion engine car for an electrical one? - Since china is world leader in the sector and much of the world lithium is exported from there and remembering that the Chinese aren’t exactly our allies is it a good idea to depend on them. -how would the transition impact the economy sector that produces cars? - if Europe arrives at net zero but other countries don’t do the same will it have been worth it? -what will be the social cost of such changes? I’d like to see some experts even with different opinions on the matters discuss about this things with each others moderated by you
Glad to see you mention the Greens in North Herefordshire, where I live, and have been volunteering for them with leaflets and so on. It was especially nice to meet our Green Candidate, Ellie Chowns knocking on doors yesterday ... Twice! They sure are trying, unlike Labour. The seat has been Tory for decades, so we shall see by this time next week. Obviously you can tell that I shall be voting Green. Best wishes from George
@ypp0p Though it will actually not really change the result of the GE in a big way, having a Green voice in the Commons is utterly vital to raising the debate in public and making people more aware of the need to change our habits of over-consumption and environmental damage. Ellie Chowns is a straight forward and easily understood speaker, and her down to earth style is bound to make an impression. I really hope that she dislodges Bill Wiggin in this rather Tory part of Britain. Thank you for your reply. Best wishes from George
Gilian Keegan has a positive track record with the environment??? I live in her constituency, and she's been allowing the dumping of sewage into local harbours and rivers for YEARS now!
I would personally have graded Plaid a tiny bit higher (by that I mean a B); in my opinion a lot of the areas they're lacking in are also the areas they have virtually no power or money to do anything, but all your points definitely stand. As a (small) voice in Westminster they can still push for policies they don't have the devolved powers for, so it wouldn't have hurt them to be more ambitious in that regard.
I watched on Nebula and shared on Twitter. I've done the same here knowing that not everyone has access to Nebula. I'll reply to my Twitter post with the YT link
09:21 How can a party whose Manifesto wants to phase-out Nuclear Power in the UK - a country with barely any hydropower or any other clean baseload - receive a A*? As someone that worked in Energy Systems, this is a receipt for disaster, and I highly suggest being more informed before offering such ratings. The fear-mongering of nuclear is only delaying and hurting countries' Energy Security and Net-Zero goals. Particularly in Europe, we are amidst a climate, but also energy crisis. We need everything we can. Renewables and hydrogen will be the main stars, but ditching nuclear will make everything much worse, and one doesn't have to look very far - just take a look at Germany's energy situation, and what phasing-out nuclear + higher dependency on natural gas lead them.
To loosly quote climate scientists; "nuclear power in a world with increased extreme weather events, rapid warming, and rising sea levels is a foolish prospect" Likewise, the people pushing nuclear power (often fossil fuel companies) are solely interested in the establishment of a power source that maintains the capitalist status quo, where they are the sole provider of said energy, as opposed to infinite and decentralized renewable energy that would lead to obsolescence of private capital
Nuclear power is very expensive. Solar is cheap and highly modular. That is the reason green parties across europe oppose an expansion of nuclear energy. But it is true, nuclear is overall of course infinitely better than any fossil fuel energy generation.
@@QuietlyHere666 Also, what you often find are fossil fuel companies pushing for solar+wind, but not any other green energy - neither hydro, nuclear, geothermal, tidal, .... Why? Very simple: at the moment, the variability of solar + wind needs to be coupled with something easily variable, which - at present moment - is only natural gas. The more variable an energy system is, the more opportunity it has for gas to grow there. That's why you'll see a big share of natural gas in countries like Portugal, Denmark, Germany, which are "leading" in variable renewable energy. But if you focus on truly clean, diverse energy systems, which have a proper mix of all clean technologies, you'll see gas plays a very minute role on it. See Sweden, Finland, France. Countries with a good part of clean baseload (hydro+nuclear) and a good part of solar+wind.
@@miguelsousa9802 new nuclear is pointless - vastly too expensive compared to generating the same from renewables, plus in takes decades to build. A sensible approach would be no new nuclear but keep running existing nuclear plants till the end of their natural lifetimes.
Nuclear power would be helpful with getting the last 5-10%. However in terms of reducing emissions as quickly as possible renewables are the best and essentially only choice. Their policy is reasonable and far *far* better than any alternative in the UK. Say what you want about Germany. But they are among the developed nations that have reduced emissions by the largest percentage. And most of that is down to investing in wind and solar.
The green's opposition to nuclear is a wtf moment that always turns me off of them. Add to that my local green councillors opposition to HS2 and it's just not an option for me. The greens will need to seriously shed their NIMBY influences if they want me to vote for them. Perhaps the single greatest help labour can do this term is strong planning reform, and getting more onshore wind and solar in the process. The same broken system that strangles housing strangles renewables as well.
100% agree. The main blockers to rolling out clean energy wider to the country are nimbyism, planning laws, and serious funding for avenues like nuclear for reliable baseload. Greens have a shite track record blocking many solar projects etc..., and anything they build would have it's benefits wiped out by turning off the nuclear we do have. Disappointing to see Simon rate their manifesto higher than Labour
I really think Simon should not just be looking at the manifestos of the parties, but also how they act when actual climate policy comes up for vote or debate. As we've seen the last couple days, the greens talk a big game in their manifesto but constantly complain about climate infrastructure such as wind turbines, electrical transmission networks, and rail infrastructure actually getting built.
Thanks for making this video, it's helpful. Personally I'm torn between supporting greens and making the tactical vote (labour in my area) against the Tories. The growing support for Reform genuinely makes me despair though.
@@davec6095 if there’s even a small chance of the Tories winning in your seat I’d suggest pragmatically tactical voting Labour. I’m a lifelong Green voter but I’d happily tactically vote Labour or Lib Dem to keep a Tory out this election (luckily I live in Bristol Central so I can vote Green as I prefer as the Tories have no chance in my seat). Labour are going to win a large majority and it doesn’t practically really matter by how much after a decent majority that they’re virtually certain to get over. The real chance / goal of tactical voting is to maybe this once reduce the Tories down to so few seats the Lib Dems come second and form the official opposition instead - we’d then have a pro EU, pro electoral reform, pro environment/climate party given much more media attention over the far right culture wars Tories.
3:24 - The Conservative Party (D) 5:02 - The Liberal Democrats (A) 6:55 - Reform (U) 8:29 - The Greens (A*) 10:02 - Scottish National Party (C) 11:50 - Plaid Cymru (C) 12:57 - Labour (B) 16:05 - Conclusion
Particularly when you compare the words that the Greens and the Lib Dems write with their actual track records of reactionary NIMBYism, opposing the practical delivery of nuclear power and HS2. I would also point out that the same accounting analysis of how the Reform document didn't add up was similarly applied to the Greens for their unfunded commitments, which contain a gap worth multiple Liz Trusses.
I think that an A* for the greens is generous, becuase nuclear power is extremely important and they suggest phasing it out, all other renewables are too inconsistent to fully provide a baseline load, except hydroelectric, but we don't have enough large rivers for that to be a widely used solution outside of scotland, this means nuclear is necessary, also there are currently unexplored, potentially incredible solutions using thorium, which is 3x more available than uranium, doesn't need to be refined and is potentially much safer. This is has gone incredibly well in france, which is now roughly 60% powered by nuclear, french people have low average carbon dioxide putput, low energy bills and much higher energy security than most of the rest of europe.
To loosly quote climate scientists; "nuclear power in a world with increased extreme weather events, rapid warming, and rising sea levels is a foolish prospect" Likewise, the people pushing nuclear power (often fossil fuel companies) are solely interested in the establishment of a power source that maintains the capitalist status quo, where they are the sole provider of said energy, as opposed to infinite and decentralized renewable energy that would lead to obsolescence of private capital
@@QuietlyHere666 That quote doesn't make sense. Rising sea levels are relatively predictable and slow-acting problem. I doubt many people would site nuclear plants in areas acutely threatened by sea level rise, and even if they did, the plants could just be shut down or protected. Likewise, nuclear power plants can be made to withstand the worse hydrological disasters, and I don't think are particularly effective by heat waves. Fukushima was an outlier the industry has learnt from, and was caused by a geological event (earthquake + tsunami), not anything to do with climate change or relevant in this context. It is really weird to suggest we shouldn't build nuclear power plants in the UK because nowhere would be safe from hurricanes and sea level rise?
I have heard those arguments. I've also heard people say thorium isn't feasible to make commercially viable in right now. I have also heard that with improving battery technology we can make wind and solar work more consistently. Who knows. I say try everything, more resources for things that seem easy to make work and still some resources for things that seem difficult to pursue. Diversification of risk etc.
@@merrymachiavelli2041 Fukushima was literally the said cases that was caused by mismanagement ignoring safety warnings, they knew it couldn't withstand a tsunami, was repetitively warned, asked to fortify and didn't. And "I don't think plants would be effected by warming" cool, I don't really care what you "think" They're sensitive water cooling based systems that A. Unnecessarily use fresh water and contaminate it, and B. Are very sensitive to extreme heat events. "We can just decommission and build a new one" So, waste even more time, effort and resources trying to shoehorn a power source that can be achieved elsewhere
I'm not happy about the Greens' dogmatic opposition to nuclear power, but I really don't think it should be a dealbreaker. Aside from the fact that they won't get a majority anyway, the lead time for planning and building nuclear plants is too long, we need to move faster than that. The cost shouldn't be an issue, but in any realistic political climate, it is, and even renewables plus enough storage to make it work is looking cheaper now. And as for Thorium, it does sound promising and I'm all for R&D on new technologies, but it's unproven. We don't have the time to invent anything substantially new, we need to roll out existing technology as fast as we can (while still researching new ideas as well, of course).
I'm just going to copy paste my previous comment on the subject: To loosly quote climate scientists; "nuclear power in a world with increased extreme weather events, rapid warming, and rising sea levels is a foolish prospect" Likewise, the people pushing nuclear power (often fossil fuel companies) are solely interested in the establishment of a power source that maintains the capitalist status quo, where they are the sole provider of said energy, as opposed to infinite and decentralized renewable energy that would lead to obsolescence of private capital
@@_yonas I know, there are still a lot of gripes i have with even the most left leaning parties it's just weird that so many choose to die on the anti-nuclear hill
Better yet, I've got a question for you; seeing as just about all the previous nuclear disasters have been caused by mismanagement, cost and corner cutting, and disregard for safety warnings, do you really trust your government to handle reactors responsibly? (If so, how about the next one? The one after that?)
Who do you think develops the offshore wind, or hydropower. You're just blatantly spreading dissinformation. In a capitalist world all energy sources are driven by capitalism.@@QuietlyHere666
I feel like this video gave proposals for "build more nuclear" positive points for most parties but then gave "get rid of nuclear" positive points for others.
Ive been a massive fan of Ed Davey and the Lib Dems overall Manifesto. Then seeing how important climate change is one of the pillars of their manifesto swooned me away from the Labour party. Never thought I would but Im voting Lib Dem. Maybe, when PR is in place we can finally see the Greens too get the representation they deserve
Seeing this video after the EU elections really leaves me in awe. I mean, many absurd claims, but I saw concrete proposals from almost every party. Nuclear power is a public topic, with exact figures of costs, deadlines, and roadmaps. Oh wait maybe it's me being from Italy
Hi Simon. I'd really like to see a video on nuclear. Specifically many people say it's absolutely necessary for energy transition, is it true? Or is it possible to make the energy transition without it?
Renewables are better, but nuclear's still better than nothing. What's bad is (typically the right wing) acting like the entire solution can be nuclear, which just delays progress
@@codenamepyro2350 I agree saying "nuclear is the only solution" only delays the installation of renewables. Regarding the rest I don't know enough to say
I think that one major thing to note about the Green Party is their opposition to nuclear power. Sure, their other ideas are good, but their espoused desire to phase out nuclear is a massive sticking point for me.
I mean, yes. Nuclear is a lot more green than fossil fuels, especially after it's built. But all I hear about people complaining about Green is their stance on nuclear. It will take 20 years to build new nuclear, besides there are cheaper and greener options now that will be available much sooner. So why keep harking on the nuclear part, since it can be replaced, the Greens policy will be a net positive. On that note, would you be willing to live close to a nuclear station with the current weather climate. I can assure you, many people would be too afraid and move away. To quote someone else in this comment section: "nuclear power in a world with increased extreme weather events, rapid warming, and rising sea levels is a foolish prospect"
Can you explain why you believe in a hard-line against fossil fuels? I am well aware they mostly go towards energy which can be decarbonised. However, it does also go to "ingredients" (as I've decided to call them here) in toothpaste, plastics and, as you've made a video about it before, much more than the average person is aware of. Should we not allow them so we can maintain domestic production (plus marginally lower global costs) of these ingredients?
Something that doesn't come up in (almost any) analysis on climate policy is the impact of our foreign policy on world environment and ecology. Parties supporting large scale arms sales without oversight are a big let down for me on this
We really need a smart adaptive approach to land use in the UK. We need more and better homes and infrastructure that doesn't take forever, cost double or triple what it should and turn out shoddy, as well as restoration of nature and farm land because degraded soils are not productive and overuse of chemical fertilizer, pesticide and herbicide is destroying soil and ecosystem health. Solar and wind needs to be rationally located and urban solar considered where feasible. Hoping we'll get something coherent but not at all confident that corporate, wealth and city interests won't stuff it up. Best hope seems to be Labour but with a strong non-tory opposition to pull them greener and leftwards...
Funded Labour, will vote Labour. Lib Dems don't have the budget. I'd vote Lib Dem if I was in a constituency where they were more likely to win. I'd only vote Green if they as James Hansen recommends go for Nuclear Energy with a Carbon Tax to be paid to the General Public. Vote tactical.
Simon whilst you considered the lack of credibility of Reform, you failed to do this with the Green Party - IFS looked at the Manifestos and whilst they were not impressed by Labour or Conservative, were happy with LibDems considered Greens (well you can’t spend what you don’t have)
Pragmatically under our problematic first past the post voting system it’s more important to vote tactically for whoever has the most chance of beating the Tories (with their awful climate policies) in your seat. Labour are likely to win a large majority from all polls but the point of tactical voting is more to beat the Tories so badly they come in third place and the more centrist Lib Dems form the official opposition instead and have more media attention and shift the political debate back to more sensible policies. Lib Dems are pro EU, pro electoral reform and much more pro environment and climate change action than the Tories. Uniquely this election they have a chance of coming second with a lot of tactical voting but hundreds of seats are polling very close. I’m a lifelong Green voter and climate change is my most important voting issue but I’d pragmatically happily vote for Labour or Lib Dem instead if needed to keep a Tory out (if Tories had even a slight chance in my seat). See the Stop the Tories site for tactical voting recommendations.
Why are they against C-Sections? There is a lot to like about the greens but unfortunately the large 'woo-woo' contingent of the party seeks to discredit their pro-science credentials.
Because uranium mining is a heavy burden for the environment, uranium supplies are clearly restricted and often come from politically unstable and anti democratic states, it’s extremely expensive, produces radioactive garbage that requires high tech containment for ten thousands of years, it produces plutonium that can be used to produce nuclear weapons. Please remove your nuclear rose tinted glasses….
To loosly quote climate scientists; "nuclear power in a world with increased extreme weather events, rapid warming, and rising sea levels is a foolish prospect" Likewise, the people pushing nuclear power (often fossil fuel companies) are solely interested in the establishment of a power source that maintains the capitalist status quo, where they are the sole provider of said energy, as opposed to infinite and decentralized renewable energy that would lead to obsolescence of private capital
Honestly reform's contract sounds like they want to fight climate change on the side of climate change.
Nah, they just want to get votes from gullible people. They really don't give a shit about anything other than that, and maybe getting more money from their donors in the Oil and Gas industry and the Russian oligarchy
If they really cared they'd... actually have a manifesto!
+
Personally I like it. Our footprint is so small on this planet where China's building multiple of coal mines a year will. If we can become close to energy independent we won't have to import it and can bring prices a lot lower to help the working class. The plan to slowly go nuclear is the way forward in my opinion. Its not like we stop with green energy, we just can have multiple
@@teelo523So sick of this argument. It’s asinine.
EVERY country emits a minority of the world’s emissions. So by that logic every country and just go “sod it, leave it to the other countries to sort out.” Do you also just throw all your rubbish out the window because “I’m only one person and the amount is insignificant compared to the total amount of litter in the world”?
Not to mention using current CO2 emissions ignores the decades where Britain had one of the largest (if not the largest) CO2 emit of any country.
As for China, they have more wind power than any other country. And more solar than other country. And are adding new solar power faster than any other country. And adding wind power faster than another country. They’re also planning to go from peak CO2 emissions to net zero faster than any other country. They have quite ambitious targets, and are in some cases overachieving those targets.
Literally every major economy is already taking significant steps to fight climate change.
@@teelo523Our footprint is so small 😂 Buddy Your country definitely comes in the top 10 carbon polluters and historically in the top 3 carbon polluters Stop blaming others everyone has to adopt instead of the blame game.
The anti nuclear stance of the greens always baffles
Yes i can understand that it is baffling, because it is 0 carbon.
I’m from the Netherlands and our green party says that investing in nuclear is not a good idea because it is kinda like greenwashing. It takes ages (10-20 years if im correct) for nuclear to be build and costs a fortune, which is all time and money not spent on climate action right now “because nuclear will be built and it will be all good, in the meantime we can just continue the way we’re used to”. But we need climate action right now.
Also, other options like wind, solar, hydro, you name it, are much faster and cheaper, making nuclear less and less needed.
Nuclear takes a long time to build? Fair enough. But why do the Greens want to phase out nuclear? Why not let the powerplants that are currently working keep doing their job?
They did the same thing in Germany; ended up burning coal to make the difference 🤷🏻♂️
The other annoying part of it is that their reasoning in their manifesto is it's expensive, it takes too long to build, its dangerous, and it contributes to nuclear weapons. But they've been saying the "it takes too long to build" for a couple decades now, if we started building lots when they started saying that they'd all be built by now and we'd have one of the cleanest grids on the entire planet. They say it's too dangerous but can anyone think of nuclear plant disaters in the UK? It takes going back 60 years to find anything very bad. More people have died installing solar panels on house roofs than from Nuclear but apparently it's too dangerous. It helps build nuclear weapons or something? what? lol. Finally is the "it's expensive" point which is too long to talk about, but to keep it simple they also pushed mass solar and wind building back when it was several times more expensive than now and more expensive than current nuclear, so they've shown to be okay with the current cost of nuclear and are going back on themselves when it doesn't suit them. And if something is too expensive then see how it can be done cheaper first instead of saying nope. Greens are morons, suprised Simon seem to point out "phase out nuclear" as a positive in this video, especially when he used external sources to disprove other parties claims but im sure most scientific sources would be against the "nuclear bad" claim.
@@walker1054 i agree that we should have started building nuclear power plants 20 years ago, but we didn’t so yeah.. starting now doesn’t make much climate sense anymore.
@@walker1054 Plutonium-239 is created as a by-product in nuclear reactors. This highly concentrated Pu-239 is used in nuclear weapons
As a UK voter, this is the kind of video I really wanted to see so I could make a more informed decision on July 4th. Even if it doesn't do as well as videos intended for a wider audience, I really appreciate you taking the time to put this out there
As an American, I’m envious of a system where “fuck the environment” is a fringe position
Our choices are great, we get "drill baby drill" or "we can plant some trees, I guess, while we drill of course" paired with the "don't come, we don't want you here" cop
Europe already hates them, why woudl the UK risk what little goodwill people around them have left :D
@@QuietlyHere666To be fair, the Inflation Reduction Act passed by Biden includes tax credits for energy efficient home improvements and investments into clean energy such as nuclear. $369 billion in total is being spent to combat climate change. It's significant progress.
you would think this is true based on the political parties, but the conservatives have been in power since something like 2012. even if their position is a fringe one, they have consistently won elections; the only serious contender for them is labor and it has been viewed not unreasonably that tories keep fucking up their own advantages.
parties like SNP and Plaid are only really voted for in their respective provinces (scotland and wales); libdems are at the moment a spoiler candidate but are not likely to be elected for a while since their primary audience are young middle class folks who still remember how they went back on their primary campaign promise of "no increase in student loans".
It is not a fringe position lmao
The Reform one used to be even worse a few months ago.
They cut out "An Honest Debate on Climate Change" which included:
"Reform UK fully accepts that climate
change is real, after all it has happened
for millions of years based on multiple
factors completely outside human control
or influence. Warming has of course
taken place over the last approximately
150 years, with signs over recent years
that it is now leveling off. Humans have
had an impact on this global warming,
though scientists disagree as to how
much. Those who think that getting to
Net Zero will stop climate change are
in fact just denying reality. Even the
IPCC’s latest assessment report admits
that if we get to Net Zero, it would take
another 200-1,000 years before sea
levels stopped rising (hardly definitive in
timing but clearly a long way off!). So we
would be better to adapt, by spending
far less money more wisely, for example
on sea level defences where needed. This
is more sensible than wasting trillions of
pounds trying to stop climate change,
when it has always changed and always
will change."
Especially love "with signs over recent years that it is now leveling off.", which clearly comes from the classic "no warming since !"
Yep, it reads like the Denialists playbook. I am happy to say reform is not a major political party in the UK and sad to say that they still poll around 16% of the vote. That means seven million voters think like this...
the fact they say "climate change is real and might be affected by human actions" somehow makes them more progressive than US Republicans lol
Any fan of deceit can find much to admire in that.
Love how the right wing lept straight from "this isnt happening" to "whoopsie, it is happening and its too late to do anything about it!"
@ypp0pyour obviously short of them. So don’t worry yourself with facts, spanning millions of years!
The "contract" from Reform UK should be named "How we scam you"
I don't think they will copy the other parties main goal
It's a "contract" rather than a manifesto as Reform UK are set up as private company owned by Farage. It's his ultimate grift.
So same as Labour and Conservatives ....pretty much any party. Yawn.
@PolygonSwan "They're all the same". Literally on a video highlighting the differences between the parties on a specific policy area. Yawn.
@@PolygonSwan Reform have definitely been completely bought out by the energy companies.
If anyone is following conservative or reform for their migration policy then you should really bear in mind the long term impact of climate change. Due to changes in climate there will be millions more climate refugees, enough to make the movements from some local wars look minimal.
Climate change needs to be tackled, if the idea of a huge influx of migrants is what that takes to get you on board with that, so be it. Reform are not your party if you're thinking beyond the next few years.
I wonder why a [still, effectively] single issue party might have policies that are likely to increase net migration… …maybe they cynically know they need there to be a problem they can increase their support base.
- They currently have practically no chance of gaining enough seats to form a government.
- they’re taking some vote share and likely seats from the 2 [currently] largest parties
- those parties can’t be sure which policies are attracting the votes, so Reform aim to pull the parties losing votes to them closer to their position across the board
- this includes climate. If climate policies move closer to their position, immigration will likely increase, potentially increasing reform’s voter base and chances of gaining an outright majority in Parliament
- it also likely won’t hurt their funding sources, since fossil fuel lobbies are not short of cash
Your happy with the current uniparty system ? Labour and Conservatives really doing well at controlling the CO2 China and India emit. Where are our nuclear power stations we could really do with some to cope with the influx of new citizens and to power all these EV's.
@@PolygonSwan Perhaps you'd like to elaborate on the uni party system comment? At the moment it doesn't seem to relate to what I've said
@@PolygonSwan"luckily, pointing to the bad acts of others absolves me from the need to change my ways"
"After all, in an environment where I alone change, I alone will change nothing, so it is worth nothing"
And then everyone says that about everyone else, and no one does anything to change.
Collective action problems.
No. If something is to change, everyone must, and this argument must be ignored. Be angry at those who don't come along, instead.
China is producing c02 making stuff for us to buy. If China wasn’t making that stuff we would be, and those would be our carbon emissions. Insisting we shouldn’t act before china does is like taking taxis everywhere and then insisting you shouldn’t have to reduce your petrol consumption before your taxi driver does
I'm still disappointed by the Greens opposition to nuclear power while embracing nonsense like wave power.
I'm similarly turned off by the green party for their stance on nuclear power. Wave power however does have legs, but not without massive scale habitat destruction. The Severn has I think 11% of the worlds tidal power waiting to be harnessed.
40 years ago solar was a fancy tech for power generation on space stations, now its an abundant energy source. Wave power may or may not get there, but the tech is in its infancy and certainly cant be relied on as you implied.
But its not nonsense at its core
@@moartems5076 40 years ago the PV cell was a new technology, maybe it was dismissed by some, but yes it has improved its efficency by a lot. Wave power is steel, concrete and turbines, like we have had for 200 years. I don't see how it's efficiency is suddenly going to go 10x or how steel and concrete is suddenly going to withstand the sea water.
Wave power is no nonsense, and nuclear is not enviormentally effective.
Dear UK residents, the nuclear fuel cycle is more carbon intensive than wind and solar With love, Australia.
As an organiser with UKYCC (and a huge fan of the channel!) - thanks so much for shouting out our How Green is Your MP site!! It was a lot of long hours of data entry, so hopefully people find it handy!
Some creators shy away from endorsing political candidates, so it's refreshing to hear someone clued into a subject inform you on what your best options are
they dont inform you. you have the power to decide yourself.
@@abody499 ? they inform you because this is an expert on the topic of climate change going manifesto by manifesto giving specifically climate change policies and his assessment of true or false claims are, based on him being an expert with phd in it. He is informing us. "power to decide yourself" is useless if you don't have any information or incorrect information on which decision to make.
@@IdunRedstone u completely miss the point. everyone is capable of deciding what their own "best options" are. knowledge isn't just out there waiting to be transmitted from experts to empty vessels. it is actively created by the knower.
what we've all been waiting for!! super informative, thanks man!
I know it probably wouldn't have as much impact, but if you could I think a video on France's Législatives climate policy would be very interesting. Merci pour une autre excellente vidéo Simon, de la part d'un canadien.
I cant wait for the calm and collected comments for this one
I brought some popcorn! Yes enough too share ... want some? :-) :-) :-)
Calm and collected, in a climate like this?
Would have been nice to include a bit more about nuclear... from what I can tell, Labour are pro, Lib dems didnt say and Greens are anti. This feels like a pretty important part of the equation which was barely discussed?
Voting is a signal to the party in charge. As long as the signal is there the vote was worthwhile.
And if you can't bring yourself to vote for any of the candidates (which is understandable in a lot of constituencies) then at least go and spoil your ballot. It's not really going to make any difference but I still feel it's better than not turning up at all.
@@juliusapweiler1465surely better to vote Green party than spoil your ballot?
@@adrianthoroughgood1191 I agree, but some people can't look past the Greens' policy on nuclear power, or think they're too far to the left, or too far to the right, or whatever...
Great video, probably one of the Simon's more important ones
As a mainland European, I am pleasantly surprised by the positive mark for Labor. I would actually love to see a similar breakdown for the other major European countries' parties, especially Germany, to see how they compare to their UK counterparts.
These election videos are some of the most important on UA-cam. It is incredible that traditional media don’t make similar analysis of the manifestos. And TLDR should bring you on as a resource.
This is very helpful! Another excellent video Simon, I will be sharing this with friends. I already decided way back that I was voting Green, our MP at the moment is Steve Baker!
I never voted anything else than Green over the last 40 y. So I wasn’t truly surprised by your analysis.
You're pretty lucky, this is only the second time I'll be seeing a Green on my ballot - and last time I had hope that voting Labour would get rid of our incumbent idiot. Still not confident if I'm a conscious or tactical voter this time round.
What's your area like in regards to voting history, if it's a race between Tories and labour for example then all voting green does is help the one party you definitely don't want in power. It's just the sad reality with the first past the post system, you are forced to play the game and pick a shinier turd cos it will be better than the putrid disgusting turd.
Wasted vote that could have actively allowed the worst candidate in. Being in denial about living in a first past the post system doesn't stop that fact. Don't waste your vote, and campaign for proportional representation so that you can make a vote for the greens worthwhile
Thank you for making this video, I think this will be a hugely useful aid in many people's (my own included) decision this election!
Very informative, thank you.
Simon i have to point out as an east anglian, we have the largest offshore wind systems in the uk, not Scotland. But some of the offshore wind is operated by Scottish Power and SSE.
Dogger Bank isn't finished yet, is it really the biggest already?
I really wish Green Parties would stop taking up the unscientific position of opposing nuclear power. I mean sure it's expensive, but it's also very safe and mostly green.
I mean, yes. Nuclear is a lot more green than fossil fuels, especially after it's built. But all I hear about people complaining about Green is their stance on nuclear. It will take 20 years to build new nuclear, besides there are cheaper and greener options now that will be available much sooner. So why keep harking on the nuclear part, since it can be replaced, the Greens policy will be a net positive.
@@Simqer There are a few problems.
1. The Greens will (I assume) advocate for shutting down existing nuclear power plants, as in Germany, and they'll be replaced in the short term by coal or by power outages.
2. While nuclear power is unaffordable for making up the bulk of power production, having it make up 10-20% would be good. Having diverse power sources makes the grid more resilient and presents fewer challenges for distribution.
3. Under my autistic black-and-white thinking, adopting any unscientific position makes me want to tend towards a more mainstream party like Labor or the Lib Dems.
@@Simqer Wind? Nobody likes to live near noisy turbines
Tidal? I assume the fish won't like it either
Solar? We're in the UK, we only get it for half the year
Unless you're going to put a policy where everyone has to have solar panels on their roofs and are willing to help people pay for it then nothing will happen. (Forgetting about the lobbying of oil companies)
@@olsenfernandes3634 that is such an harebrained reply, you are just grasping at straws.
@@Simqer And I say why not both, in 20 years energy demands are goinna be far higher than they are now, in 20 years people are gonna look back and say why the people in power and the voting population of their respective country didnt build nuclear the same way we look back to those 20 years ago and those 20 years ago look back. Its never to late to get the ball rolling, and if certain enviromental groups cooperated on developing nuclear instead of helping build its roadblocks, it could be completed in a far shorter timeframe. If we took a small portion of that decarbonizing budget and worked with other countries to produce a modern standardized design with all the safety features that have popped up over time, we can get that time down even further. Nuclears biggest obstacle isnt cost or time, its hesitation.
Here in Canada we led nuclear engineering for quite a long time and created one of the best standardized reactors, we exported CANDU reactors and they still operate to this day. if we had pursued repeating that effort to create an exportable stanardized reactor for the 2000s, imagine how many coal plants could be shut down right now or in 5-10 years time with another round of investment.
If we hesitate today tomorrow we will regret it and hesitate again.
Thanks for making explicit mention of Northern Ireland, and linking to more detaila! :)
I was thinking to myself "this is more British than UK, but sure" from a quick glance, but then spotted DUP in your early graphs, and appreciate the explicit disclaimer. NI in Westminster is...... a complicated thing, to say the least 😅
Fantastic video Simon! Re They Work For You, I think it'd be wise to note the whip - Rory Stewart's take on this is quite interesting. Often all a voting record tells you is what party someone belongs to, it doesn't really inform on an MP's individual values.
Thank you for your efforts to make an informed decision. I particularly like the (statistical) visualization (error-bars) and the analysis of the outsiders.
As someone who works in marine habitat restoration the lib dem manifesto is very exciting to me too! I never would've thought it would get a mention in a party manifesto! Unfortunately I live in a seat where there is a real chance the tories will keep the seat from labour and the lib dems have absolutely no chance so I will be voting labour as the lesser of two evils
I would love a follow up video post election to tell us how the balance all looks going forward after.
12:25 can confirm. North South Wales feels like taking the ring to Mordor. Painful, tragic and torturous, arguably easier to fly.
I wonder how many of us are watching this despite not living in the UK
Are they better or worse than the manifestos in your country?
@@catmonarchist8920
sadly, better. The US answer to getting to net zero is by omitting emission heavy sectors and acting like they don't exist.
The military for example, our largest expenditure annually, is not included in emissions reports
@@catmonarchist8920 Usually they don't even talk about climate change here.
Idk if that's better than actively denying it or if it's worse
Guilty as charged. I don't pretend to understand UK politics, or what it's like to be a voter there.
But air knows no borders.
Love Simon‘s channel and subscribed long ago. 🇩🇪
Havent paid attention to UK politics in a while (not from there). But i really do hope that the people see through the lies of the conservatives about climate
The Tories are projected so have fewer seats than fucking Reform.
@ypp0pPeople have short memories. They'll go back in a few years.
As a person who lives in the UK I really hope people here at least see through the lies of Reform.
richi better not have made my boy simon too stressed with his surprise election. Short notice to make this vid, hope your keep a good mental health going!
Amazing video. Well done and thank you. Great stuff.
Great breakdown of the different approaches each party has on climate, enjoyed how you outlined each then gave your opinion to give a balanced account of each while making it clear where your biases lie
I really don't understand why they are all so opposed to nuclear energy?
No you see decommissioning green power plants and inevitably replacing the lost output with coal and LNG is the solution to climate change, we should all follow in Germany's footsteps
I think the overall nuclear-negative political attitude is probably just a reflection of the general population's overall attitude. It scares people, so they probably wouldn't like to vote for a party that promotes it.
I'd like to imagine the Greens would have the integrity to be pro-nuclear if it categorically was the only way to grow renewable power, but they've been clear on why they don't think it is the right way forward.
Because it's more expensive than renewables, takes longer to build than renewables, and is more dangerous than renewables, plus it produces radioactive waste that needs to be stored underground for thousands of years. Despite nuclear being a much better alternative to fossil fuels and coal (looking at you Germany), when you look at the points above - why not just invest in renewables instead?
People are just scared of the waste so far as I can tell.
I'm not very politically minded, but could it be because the set-up time doesn't mesh well with 4-year election cycles? For one, a party who initiates nuclear power now would be unlikely to still be in power when any benefits were realised, and would have to absorb the costs of set-up. But also, setting up nuclear power now may mean that they need to hope that successive governments don't overturn their efforts when they lose power. I can imagine it in the House of Commons: "This party wasted (however many billions) on nuclear power and we have seen no benefit from it; we will turn off the tap before any more money is lost, and invest your money in (alternative energy source) instead."
This isn't my wheelhouse so I may be missing a lot of important info about how initiatives like this are safeguarded, but they're the reasons that first spring to mind. I agree that investing in nuclear seems to be extremely sensible going forwards, politics aside.
Thanks Simon; 'troglodytic' is one of the best descriptions of reform I've heard so far. Summary: vote Lib Dem or Labour, then demand a change to PR so the greens get a fair showing!
Thank you so much can you please make a short video on what you would improve upon from these policies.
Thank you Simon for your courage and honesty.
I have no idea who to vote for but this narrowed it down. Thanks Simon. I passed your book onto the local high school by the way. 👍
bang what we were looking for!
Aren't the Reform the ones who promoted Brexit? Do people still give them any credit?
Yes, Farage was the face of Brexit before the referendum. He quickly faded from the spotlight before the coming shitstorm.
Unfortunately yes. It’s ok, Greens have been exponentially growing since 2010.
Just like Starmer of the Labour party. Labour (imho) would be almost as much of a disaster as the Tories. They seem to have adopted a lot of the same talking points as the Tories in order to appeal to more right-wing voters, but of course that also means that they will be making right-wing policies with weak targets for the climate, hatred of minorities and so on, and Labour also does not want to rejoin the EU, despite the economic disaster it has been.
@@_yonas Labour’s climate policies are a fair bit better than the Tory ones. The two parties being the same is a line the right wing media push very very regularly more so than it actually being true. Corbyn’s Labour was a lot more leftwing and they lost very badly and were stuck in opposition and let the current Tory government have a massive majority to do what they want. I’d prefer a more leftwing government in an ideal world but I’d 1,000 times rather a centrist Starmer government able to win power instead and able to do some better policies. Don’t let perfect be the enemy of the good. Starmer’s Labour are wanting to have a big push on renewables and they dropped the headline 28 billion figure as Tory’s were attacking them massively on taxes and spending but the environmental policies behind it are still there even if they’ve stopped giving a headline figure to it. Labour is also clearly adopting a minimalist manifesto to make very sure they can achieve everything and increase trust in a following term but they plan to under promise and over deliver. I’m a lifelong Green voter incidentally but I think Starmer’s Labour will be a fair bit better than most people expect (though constrained by the looted gutted wreck the Tories will leave of the economy and finances).
@@_yonas I wouldn't say Labour are much like the Tories? How so?
Cracking summary, and definitely makes me think a bit more seriously about Lib Dems, as they actually stand a chance against labour in my constituency unlike the greens.
Never really voted anything other than Green though (I always seem to find myself in labour strongholds whilst they're the opposition), so it’ll be a change for me to consider voting more tactically
Nice to hear from someone who also is a persistent Green voter 👋
In Germany Green votes are never wasted as the Green party is regularly part of national or regional government coalitions.
In our last national elections the Greens won 15% of all votes.
@@P-qk2tz I’m a lifelong Green voter but I’d happily tactically vote Labour or Lib Dems to keep a Tory out. There is some chance uniquely this election - with a lot of tactical voting - that Tories could lose so badly Lib Dems come second and we’d have them as the official opposition. Would help the debate to have a pro EU, pro electoral reform, pro environment party given much more media attention. Tories as opposition is the more likely outcome of the two but there are hundreds of seats very close and it could credibly go either way.
@@glyngreen538 I think it makes more sense in an (ex)-tory constituency. My constituency has voted labour for the past 10 years, and is looking like it'll be another year of labour unless we vote for either lib dem or greens
Thanks for that Simon. I doubt if any party will live up to their manifesto but it gives us an idea on who might do best.
16:15 realistically people will actually call this the year of immigration elections, especially for the EU. I'm not aware of a single EU election per country where climate agenda was a deciding factor, it was basically all supplanted by immigration
"As capitalism dies it decays into fascism"
If we don't achieve net zero and keep making the climate worse, it will increase the number of climate refugees; climate change is a systemic issue that affects every policy today, including "immigration" policies - which are not about immigrants, really, but about climate and to a lesser extent economic refugees. Folks aren't trying to get to the UK because the UK is amazing, they're trying to get to the UK because the risk of going to the UK outweighs the risk of staying where they live.
@@danhonks6264 i agree with you, but the problem is the vast majority of the electorate don't view things this way, they would rather stop the migrants from setting foot on their shores via force or terror. It's a bit like how there are 2 ways of solving a leaking pipe: you can either patch it or you can identify and stop the source of the fluid. While the latter is the longer term and wiser approach, most people would intuitively go for the former. This is why your argument for climate action to lessen migration will almost never resonate with the wider electorate. IMO the only way through this political mess would be a 2-pronged approach: make superficial but impressive sounding efforts to stop migrants coming in to please the masses, while simultaneously trying to use climate action to solve the longer term problem. While this might sound ethically abhorrent to most left-wingers, it is unfortunately the only way to buy yourself enough time to make a long term difference in the current political landscape: you can either remain true to your principles and shout from the side-lines while the world burns, or you can read the mood and get yourself elected into a position of power so that you can actually put your plans into motion.
Not an election directly, but the breakdown of the power-sharing agreement between the SNP and Scotland Greens was over climate policy, and this breakdown resulted pretty directly in a change of Scottish First Minister and contributed significantly to the subsequent evisceration of the SNP in the UK general election discussed in this video. There were of course other factors (there always are), but there's a strong climate link in the fact that the SNP won 46 Westminster seats in 2019 and in 2024 look like they'll only have around 10.
Like Simon said, please go vote and share this with people who are probably not going to vote, it's very important!
12:50 TBH, I'm surprised he likes Plaid Cymru's 'twinning of biodiversity and climate crisis' pledge. In practice, that's the kind of thing that kills ambitious green projects. What will happen is somebody with propose a new wind farm, solar farm, grid-infrastructure...etc. then people who wouldn't have wanted that built anyway (for whatever reason, but generally just NIMBYism) will say 'Oh but what about [insert species here]'. Meaning that the entire thing gets bogged how in years planning permission wrangling while warring hired ecologists try to figure out how many frogs the solar farm will cruelly displace. Biodiversity isn't the _only_ red tape roadblock, but it is a near universal one.
I'm not saying broader green policies aren't important - I 100% support genuine policies that aim to restore British forests and peatland, and protection of specific areas that are _actually_ critical areas for vulnerable species, but the term 'biodiversity' has been completely soured for me because of how that concept gets weaponised.
I would also twin this with their tactical opposition to the Sustainable Farming Scheme, in which they have allied with Farmers and the Conservatives to sabotage tangible green efforts, and their NIMBY opposition to a lot of green infrastructure in West Wales when it doesn't look nice.
Its where to be built. Wales has a lot of coast and any beach you go to, there is wind farms in the distance. Theyre not a big fan of on land of natural beauty, but i know a few farmers that rent their land to wind farm companies and make a pretty penny from it. The main reason it often gets shot down is the birds. Welsh government is very protective of birds.
If you want to stop something being built all you have to do is find some newts.
@@adrianthoroughgood1191The positive scapegoating of newts is a proud British planning tradition.
This is so useful 😊
libdem her majesty's loyal opposition please!!!
His Majesty’s now
@@sirati9770 vote tactically to make it happen! In a Labour - Tory marginal you help Lib Dems more by voting Labour to help the Tory lose to increase the chance of Lib Dems coming second nationally, more so than you help by protest voting Lib Dem there anyway, but maybe that just lets the Tory win.
I'm posting a positive comment to water down all the political screaming :) doing gods work out there Simon
Thanks for the video Simon - that was really interesting! Out of interest, please would you be able to share any further reading/videos on Small Modular Nuclear Reactors and tidal energy? I’m intrigued as to why you’re slightly more sceptical on these forms of energy.
I lived in Swansea when there was the proposal to build the tidal lagoon there - at the time it looked like quite a positive proposal that was cancelled for being too expensive
Also, as I understand it, the civil engineering sector in the UK is really driving research into small modular nuclear reactors at the moment so would be keen to see more on this too!
Thanks in advance!
Love you Simon, you're a real one.
I'm not British but I think it's pretty cool that there's a party so dedicated to Single-Nucleotide Polymorphisms that they called themselves SNP
Hi Simon, would love to see another video on other countries with elections coming up. For me personally Rep of Ireland will likely have an election coming up before Christmas, and I’d love to see a video on the parties here. Cheers
I tend to dislike "green" website analyses because they usually consider nuclear policies anti environmental, when it's one of the best weapons we have against CC
Thank you for including Plaid Cymru! Da iawn! Diolch.
Brilliant. Well done Simon.
I'd guess the SNP weirdness with oil/gas is that they're quite a big industry in North East Scotland which is increasingly becoming a big base for the party as Labour is predicted to wipe them out in the Central Belt.
Also I'd guess Labour not mentioning a net zero date is just a "we're keeping the 2050 date already enshrined in law" thing.
Great video Simon. You seem to not be a fan of wave power, but it's not something I know a lot about. Would you consider making a video about it?
Thanks, helpful!
Thanks - a very fair summary, I think. But Labour's capacity to meet these aims will depend, very much, on Ed Miliband having a position of power in the new administration. Fingers crossed!
I’d like a video exploring the economical and geopolitical implications of the proposals that favour the environment.
As an example: electric cars, they imply a reduction in co2 emissions but:
- is it feasible to swap every combustion engine car for an electrical one? - Since china is world leader in the sector and much of the world lithium is exported from there and remembering that the Chinese aren’t exactly our allies is it a good idea to depend on them.
-how would the transition impact the economy sector that produces cars?
- if Europe arrives at net zero but other countries don’t do the same will it have been worth it?
-what will be the social cost of such changes?
I’d like to see some experts even with different opinions on the matters discuss about this things with each others moderated by you
Glad to see you mention the Greens in North Herefordshire, where I live, and have been volunteering for them with leaflets and so on.
It was especially nice to meet our Green Candidate, Ellie Chowns knocking on doors yesterday ... Twice!
They sure are trying, unlike Labour. The seat has been Tory for decades, so we shall see by this time next week. Obviously you can tell that I shall be voting Green.
Best wishes from George
@ypp0p Though it will actually not really change the result of the GE in a big way, having a Green voice in the Commons is utterly vital to raising the debate in public and making people more aware of the need to change our habits of over-consumption and environmental damage.
Ellie Chowns is a straight forward and easily understood speaker, and her down to earth style is bound to make an impression. I really hope that she dislodges Bill Wiggin in this rather Tory part of Britain.
Thank you for your reply. Best wishes from George
Gilian Keegan has a positive track record with the environment??? I live in her constituency, and she's been allowing the dumping of sewage into local harbours and rivers for YEARS now!
these are highly informative, even as an American
Great job, Simon! Good to know the best tactical vote for me is also one of the best votes for the environment.
Can you please please do this for Australia as well. Thanks!!
Oh please don't. It would be so embarrassing : S
I would personally have graded Plaid a tiny bit higher (by that I mean a B); in my opinion a lot of the areas they're lacking in are also the areas they have virtually no power or money to do anything, but all your points definitely stand. As a (small) voice in Westminster they can still push for policies they don't have the devolved powers for, so it wouldn't have hurt them to be more ambitious in that regard.
I watched on Nebula and shared on Twitter. I've done the same here knowing that not everyone has access to Nebula. I'll reply to my Twitter post with the YT link
Such a great video, thank you Simon! (I also loved the seagull at 19:58-20:09 😆)
09:21 How can a party whose Manifesto wants to phase-out Nuclear Power in the UK - a country with barely any hydropower or any other clean baseload - receive a A*?
As someone that worked in Energy Systems, this is a receipt for disaster, and I highly suggest being more informed before offering such ratings. The fear-mongering of nuclear is only delaying and hurting countries' Energy Security and Net-Zero goals.
Particularly in Europe, we are amidst a climate, but also energy crisis. We need everything we can. Renewables and hydrogen will be the main stars, but ditching nuclear will make everything much worse, and one doesn't have to look very far - just take a look at Germany's energy situation, and what phasing-out nuclear + higher dependency on natural gas lead them.
To loosly quote climate scientists; "nuclear power in a world with increased extreme weather events, rapid warming, and rising sea levels is a foolish prospect"
Likewise, the people pushing nuclear power (often fossil fuel companies) are solely interested in the establishment of a power source that maintains the capitalist status quo, where they are the sole provider of said energy, as opposed to infinite and decentralized renewable energy that would lead to obsolescence of private capital
Nuclear power is very expensive. Solar is cheap and highly modular. That is the reason green parties across europe oppose an expansion of nuclear energy. But it is true, nuclear is overall of course infinitely better than any fossil fuel energy generation.
@@QuietlyHere666 Also, what you often find are fossil fuel companies pushing for solar+wind, but not any other green energy - neither hydro, nuclear, geothermal, tidal, .... Why? Very simple: at the moment, the variability of solar + wind needs to be coupled with something easily variable, which - at present moment - is only natural gas.
The more variable an energy system is, the more opportunity it has for gas to grow there. That's why you'll see a big share of natural gas in countries like Portugal, Denmark, Germany, which are "leading" in variable renewable energy.
But if you focus on truly clean, diverse energy systems, which have a proper mix of all clean technologies, you'll see gas plays a very minute role on it. See Sweden, Finland, France. Countries with a good part of clean baseload (hydro+nuclear) and a good part of solar+wind.
@@miguelsousa9802 new nuclear is pointless - vastly too expensive compared to generating the same from renewables, plus in takes decades to build. A sensible approach would be no new nuclear but keep running existing nuclear plants till the end of their natural lifetimes.
Nuclear power would be helpful with getting the last 5-10%. However in terms of reducing emissions as quickly as possible renewables are the best and essentially only choice. Their policy is reasonable and far *far* better than any alternative in the UK.
Say what you want about Germany. But they are among the developed nations that have reduced emissions by the largest percentage. And most of that is down to investing in wind and solar.
The green's opposition to nuclear is a wtf moment that always turns me off of them. Add to that my local green councillors opposition to HS2 and it's just not an option for me. The greens will need to seriously shed their NIMBY influences if they want me to vote for them.
Perhaps the single greatest help labour can do this term is strong planning reform, and getting more onshore wind and solar in the process. The same broken system that strangles housing strangles renewables as well.
100% agree. The main blockers to rolling out clean energy wider to the country are nimbyism, planning laws, and serious funding for avenues like nuclear for reliable baseload. Greens have a shite track record blocking many solar projects etc..., and anything they build would have it's benefits wiped out by turning off the nuclear we do have. Disappointing to see Simon rate their manifesto higher than Labour
I really think Simon should not just be looking at the manifestos of the parties, but also how they act when actual climate policy comes up for vote or debate. As we've seen the last couple days, the greens talk a big game in their manifesto but constantly complain about climate infrastructure such as wind turbines, electrical transmission networks, and rail infrastructure actually getting built.
Thanks for making this video, it's helpful. Personally I'm torn between supporting greens and making the tactical vote (labour in my area) against the Tories. The growing support for Reform genuinely makes me despair though.
@@davec6095 if there’s even a small chance of the Tories winning in your seat I’d suggest pragmatically tactical voting Labour. I’m a lifelong Green voter but I’d happily tactically vote Labour or Lib Dem to keep a Tory out this election (luckily I live in Bristol Central so I can vote Green as I prefer as the Tories have no chance in my seat). Labour are going to win a large majority and it doesn’t practically really matter by how much after a decent majority that they’re virtually certain to get over. The real chance / goal of tactical voting is to maybe this once reduce the Tories down to so few seats the Lib Dems come second and form the official opposition instead - we’d then have a pro EU, pro electoral reform, pro environment/climate party given much more media attention over the far right culture wars Tories.
3:24 - The Conservative Party (D)
5:02 - The Liberal Democrats (A)
6:55 - Reform (U)
8:29 - The Greens (A*)
10:02 - Scottish National Party (C)
11:50 - Plaid Cymru (C)
12:57 - Labour (B)
16:05 - Conclusion
Algo comment. Good stuff king 😄
GO VOTE!
I went to the primary school my polling station is in but apparently I have to wait for the polling day.
Most of these manifestos are toiletpaper for all the authenticity they carry.
Particularly when you compare the words that the Greens and the Lib Dems write with their actual track records of reactionary NIMBYism, opposing the practical delivery of nuclear power and HS2. I would also point out that the same accounting analysis of how the Reform document didn't add up was similarly applied to the Greens for their unfunded commitments, which contain a gap worth multiple Liz Trusses.
I suspect the greens might mean it? No bet on the others.
@@tristanridley1601lmao, green councillors consistently vote against green projects in their constituency.
Which is why the data on past voting records is important and placed at the start of the videom
@@quintuscrinisironically not greens record
I think that an A* for the greens is generous, becuase nuclear power is extremely important and they suggest phasing it out, all other renewables are too inconsistent to fully provide a baseline load, except hydroelectric, but we don't have enough large rivers for that to be a widely used solution outside of scotland, this means nuclear is necessary, also there are currently unexplored, potentially incredible solutions using thorium, which is 3x more available than uranium, doesn't need to be refined and is potentially much safer. This is has gone incredibly well in france, which is now roughly 60% powered by nuclear, french people have low average carbon dioxide putput, low energy bills and much higher energy security than most of the rest of europe.
To loosly quote climate scientists; "nuclear power in a world with increased extreme weather events, rapid warming, and rising sea levels is a foolish prospect"
Likewise, the people pushing nuclear power (often fossil fuel companies) are solely interested in the establishment of a power source that maintains the capitalist status quo, where they are the sole provider of said energy, as opposed to infinite and decentralized renewable energy that would lead to obsolescence of private capital
@@QuietlyHere666 That quote doesn't make sense. Rising sea levels are relatively predictable and slow-acting problem. I doubt many people would site nuclear plants in areas acutely threatened by sea level rise, and even if they did, the plants could just be shut down or protected. Likewise, nuclear power plants can be made to withstand the worse hydrological disasters, and I don't think are particularly effective by heat waves. Fukushima was an outlier the industry has learnt from, and was caused by a geological event (earthquake + tsunami), not anything to do with climate change or relevant in this context.
It is really weird to suggest we shouldn't build nuclear power plants in the UK because nowhere would be safe from hurricanes and sea level rise?
I have heard those arguments. I've also heard people say thorium isn't feasible to make commercially viable in right now.
I have also heard that with improving battery technology we can make wind and solar work more consistently.
Who knows. I say try everything, more resources for things that seem easy to make work and still some resources for things that seem difficult to pursue. Diversification of risk etc.
@@merrymachiavelli2041 Fukushima was literally the said cases that was caused by mismanagement ignoring safety warnings, they knew it couldn't withstand a tsunami, was repetitively warned, asked to fortify and didn't.
And "I don't think plants would be effected by warming" cool, I don't really care what you "think"
They're sensitive water cooling based systems that A. Unnecessarily use fresh water and contaminate it, and B. Are very sensitive to extreme heat events.
"We can just decommission and build a new one"
So, waste even more time, effort and resources trying to shoehorn a power source that can be achieved elsewhere
I'm not happy about the Greens' dogmatic opposition to nuclear power, but I really don't think it should be a dealbreaker. Aside from the fact that they won't get a majority anyway, the lead time for planning and building nuclear plants is too long, we need to move faster than that. The cost shouldn't be an issue, but in any realistic political climate, it is, and even renewables plus enough storage to make it work is looking cheaper now.
And as for Thorium, it does sound promising and I'm all for R&D on new technologies, but it's unproven. We don't have the time to invent anything substantially new, we need to roll out existing technology as fast as we can (while still researching new ideas as well, of course).
green would be cool if they weren't dumb about nuclear power
There will never be a single party that reflects your views 100%.
I'm just going to copy paste my previous comment on the subject:
To loosly quote climate scientists; "nuclear power in a world with increased extreme weather events, rapid warming, and rising sea levels is a foolish prospect"
Likewise, the people pushing nuclear power (often fossil fuel companies) are solely interested in the establishment of a power source that maintains the capitalist status quo, where they are the sole provider of said energy, as opposed to infinite and decentralized renewable energy that would lead to obsolescence of private capital
@@_yonas I know, there are still a lot of gripes i have with even the most left leaning parties it's just weird that so many choose to die on the anti-nuclear hill
Better yet, I've got a question for you; seeing as just about all the previous nuclear disasters have been caused by mismanagement, cost and corner cutting, and disregard for safety warnings, do you really trust your government to handle reactors responsibly?
(If so, how about the next one? The one after that?)
Who do you think develops the offshore wind, or hydropower. You're just blatantly spreading dissinformation. In a capitalist world all energy sources are driven by capitalism.@@QuietlyHere666
I really admire your perseverance facing the ecological ignorance of average voters. 👍
Great video
Im so happy that Labour acctually seem to be taking climate action seriously.
With how well the SNP have been working on Offshore Wind already I'll be sticking with them
Thank you 🙏
I feel like this video gave proposals for "build more nuclear" positive points for most parties but then gave "get rid of nuclear" positive points for others.
Lets be real here, Climate policy more important than the next few issues put together
Not if you're one paycheck away from being homeless or starving
I think the cost of living is pretty damn important.
@@PicklesRTastypeople against climate policies are usually not in that position.
Ive been a massive fan of Ed Davey and the Lib Dems overall Manifesto. Then seeing how important climate change is one of the pillars of their manifesto swooned me away from the Labour party. Never thought I would but Im voting Lib Dem. Maybe, when PR is in place we can finally see the Greens too get the representation they deserve
Seeing this video after the EU elections really leaves me in awe. I mean, many absurd claims, but I saw concrete proposals from almost every party. Nuclear power is a public topic, with exact figures of costs, deadlines, and roadmaps.
Oh wait maybe it's me being from Italy
Hi Simon. I'd really like to see a video on nuclear. Specifically many people say it's absolutely necessary for energy transition, is it true? Or is it possible to make the energy transition without it?
There are several extensive scientific reports that regard nuclear as dispensable for future energy supply.
@@achenarmyst2156 that's good news ☺️
he already got video on nuclear - tldw is "building more nuclear is alright, phasing out is terrible"
Renewables are better, but nuclear's still better than nothing. What's bad is (typically the right wing) acting like the entire solution can be nuclear, which just delays progress
@@codenamepyro2350 I agree saying "nuclear is the only solution" only delays the installation of renewables. Regarding the rest I don't know enough to say
I think that one major thing to note about the Green Party is their opposition to nuclear power. Sure, their other ideas are good, but their espoused desire to phase out nuclear is a massive sticking point for me.
I mean, yes. Nuclear is a lot more green than fossil fuels, especially after it's built. But all I hear about people complaining about Green is their stance on nuclear. It will take 20 years to build new nuclear, besides there are cheaper and greener options now that will be available much sooner. So why keep harking on the nuclear part, since it can be replaced, the Greens policy will be a net positive.
On that note, would you be willing to live close to a nuclear station with the current weather climate. I can assure you, many people would be too afraid and move away.
To quote someone else in this comment section: "nuclear power in a world with increased extreme weather events, rapid warming, and rising sea levels is a foolish prospect"
Interesting topic here
Why are you framing phasing out nuclear plants as a plus for the climate??
Can you explain why you believe in a hard-line against fossil fuels? I am well aware they mostly go towards energy which can be decarbonised. However, it does also go to "ingredients" (as I've decided to call them here) in toothpaste, plastics and, as you've made a video about it before, much more than the average person is aware of. Should we not allow them so we can maintain domestic production (plus marginally lower global costs) of these ingredients?
Something that doesn't come up in (almost any) analysis on climate policy is the impact of our foreign policy on world environment and ecology. Parties supporting large scale arms sales without oversight are a big let down for me on this
We really need a smart adaptive approach to land use in the UK. We need more and better homes and infrastructure that doesn't take forever, cost double or triple what it should and turn out shoddy, as well as restoration of nature and farm land because degraded soils are not productive and overuse of chemical fertilizer, pesticide and herbicide is destroying soil and ecosystem health. Solar and wind needs to be rationally located and urban solar considered where feasible. Hoping we'll get something coherent but not at all confident that corporate, wealth and city interests won't stuff it up. Best hope seems to be Labour but with a strong non-tory opposition to pull them greener and leftwards...
Funded Labour, will vote Labour. Lib Dems don't have the budget. I'd vote Lib Dem if I was in a constituency where they were more likely to win. I'd only vote Green if they as James Hansen recommends go for Nuclear Energy with a Carbon Tax to be paid to the General Public. Vote tactical.
Simon whilst you considered the lack of credibility of Reform, you failed to do this with the Green Party - IFS looked at the Manifestos and whilst they were not impressed by Labour or Conservative, were happy with LibDems considered Greens (well you can’t spend what you don’t have)
Pragmatically under our problematic first past the post voting system it’s more important to vote tactically for whoever has the most chance of beating the Tories (with their awful climate policies) in your seat.
Labour are likely to win a large majority from all polls but the point of tactical voting is more to beat the Tories so badly they come in third place and the more centrist Lib Dems form the official opposition instead and have more media attention and shift the political debate back to more sensible policies. Lib Dems are pro EU, pro electoral reform and much more pro environment and climate change action than the Tories. Uniquely this election they have a chance of coming second with a lot of tactical voting but hundreds of seats are polling very close. I’m a lifelong Green voter and climate change is my most important voting issue but I’d pragmatically happily vote for Labour or Lib Dem instead if needed to keep a Tory out (if Tories had even a slight chance in my seat). See the Stop the Tories site for tactical voting recommendations.
💯 this, very well said
LD are even left of labour in some policy areas. Unfortunately this is hurting the Green vote.
Could someone explain to me why the Green Party is against nuclear power?
Why are they against C-Sections? There is a lot to like about the greens but unfortunately the large 'woo-woo' contingent of the party seeks to discredit their pro-science credentials.
Because uranium mining is a heavy burden for the environment, uranium supplies are clearly restricted and often come from politically unstable and anti democratic states, it’s extremely expensive, produces radioactive garbage that requires high tech containment for ten thousands of years, it produces plutonium that can be used to produce nuclear weapons.
Please remove your nuclear rose tinted glasses….
the Greens are not against nuclear power
the Green Party of England & Wales may be, though
To loosly quote climate scientists; "nuclear power in a world with increased extreme weather events, rapid warming, and rising sea levels is a foolish prospect"
Likewise, the people pushing nuclear power (often fossil fuel companies) are solely interested in the establishment of a power source that maintains the capitalist status quo, where they are the sole provider of said energy, as opposed to infinite and decentralized renewable energy that would lead to obsolescence of private capital
@@QuietlyHere666 peak redditor