22 Comments

1. 

   @danchang9976

   January 10, 2024 at 2:57 pm

   I would rather have radical thinking saying, we aim to be net zero by 2035-40, but we will guarantee that we will be net zero by 2050, ambitious, but remaining realistic. It provides a fall back if goals cant be met.

   Log in to Reply
2. 

   @roryoliver6743

   January 10, 2024 at 2:57 pm

   As an American this channel give me hope for humanity. Admittedly I'm far from an expert on British politics so there may be a bias here, but not one I can detect. Lately U.S. media seems allergic to bullet points, no facts just options and party talking points based on the political bent of a given network.
   Keep up the great work.

   Log in to Reply
3. 

   @gvlees

   January 10, 2024 at 2:57 pm

   Need greater ambition. Join EU to assemble ideas. Some villages in Germany are carbon neutral… Look at Denmark.. Etc.

   Log in to Reply
4. 

   @dushyantparkhi

   January 10, 2024 at 2:57 pm

   CLASSIC CNN/BBC ENDING. Let provide "facts" and let users decide (read lash out) in the comment section. Why not do some extra effort of interviewing an independent scientific cum political expert to analyse and present their objective choice.
   Instead you just gave us more garbage information and probably confused the voters even more by placing garbage proposals on equal footing with good proposals

   Log in to Reply
5. 

   @TangoTwoZero

   January 10, 2024 at 2:57 pm

   Quite frankly I think anyone who says that the targets proposed by the Green Party and Labour are too “ambitious” are selfish because they’re not willing to make sacrifices and give up certain modern conveniences to make way for radical change. These targets are more than possible if certain things are given up, and while I’m not saying that we should go back to the Stone Age, I do believe that we should put certain things into question.

   Log in to Reply
6. 

   @olgaraffa1

   January 10, 2024 at 2:57 pm

   Also if people think voting every 4 years or less! Is participating in a democracy, we are really disillusioned we are fed drivel and vote for singers and dancers when we should be voting on public policy, at least on a 6 month basis, it can be done, but the pedophile protecting BBC can’t quite think that one up. wake up people😉

   Log in to Reply
7. 

   @olgaraffa1

   January 10, 2024 at 2:57 pm

   When you realise carbon is only 3 % of greenhouse gasses and the climategate scandal refutes the claims about GLobal Warming also geoengineering and weather modification is a science being practiced all over the world and it guess what? By definition it Changes the climate, creates weather extremes dubbed ‘weather warfare’ by the military, you will understand the climate change Agenda 21 is a well funded 30 year old plan to take control of the world through carbon tax and blaming you for it and making you pay, when they prevented Nicola Tesla’s free wireless energy 100 years ago. Is it not dictatorship of the EU that this election is about? Well done Brexit, pollution is the problem, not life giving, gas of life, oxygen producing carbon dioxide. Get a grip, no one mentions 5G and the harm it will bring ( no safety tests actually prove it safe!!! But of course if I want to sell my home made soap a tbe farmers market, I have to pay £180 to get it tested for safety) because 5G is critical to the green agenda, therefore could be easier to stop with Brexit. The green agenda is a bit like a watermelon, the Green Party and Labour’s green new deal are green on the outside, red on the inside.

   Log in to Reply
8. 

   @serinadelmar6012

   January 10, 2024 at 2:57 pm

   “Even more important than Brexit.“ Ever enlightening insights from the Lib Dems.

   Log in to Reply
9. 

   @fishingfan5572

   January 10, 2024 at 2:57 pm

   Can I ask a question, you mentioned about China and other countries pumping carbon into the atmosphere and that is at their current rate of production, if we make 100,000 new houses that the green party want to do and the production of most of the components coming from China, with that added production and added carbon in the atmosphere how long will it take this new initiative to neutralise it because 100,000 new houses that are low emissions is still 100,000 houses pumping more emissions into the environment.

   Log in to Reply
10. 

    @notmyrealnameify

    January 10, 2024 at 2:57 pm

    These policies are jokes. They won't even make a dent in the current CO2 emissions. The Uk produces 800 million ton of CO2 each year. A tree can handle at best around 50 pounds of CO2 a year. You need to plant 35 billion trees to absorb all CO2.

    The only legit way is nuclear power, solar and wind simply wont produce enough to sustain the UK. You guys need around 35 gigawatts continuous power. If you build 25 big nuclear plants you can offset the rest with wind and solar. If you start building next year you could do this within 25 years.

    Log in to Reply
11. 

    @currentcomentor1026

    January 10, 2024 at 2:57 pm

    If any party is proposing borrowing over 175bn a year they are saying they want to borrow from foreign countries rather than rellying on the britiah people to purchase the binds.

    Log in to Reply
12. 

    @michaelobrien3166

    January 10, 2024 at 2:57 pm

    I think this election comes down to whether you're voting based on brexit or other social issues. My brexit standpoint says vote one way but for social policy I feel the other.

    I'd love a video that would help me understand whether I should base my vote on brexit (as is currently my plan) or on the wider social issues.

    Log in to Reply
13. 

    @Afroman764

    January 10, 2024 at 2:57 pm

    It’s a shame that no one knows about the value of hemp which I didn’t know until a few weeks ago. You can make hemp concrete which is much better than actual concrete in energy efficiency. Hemp is a better source for batteries as well instead of more copper mining. As well as for an alternative for graphene (ultra-lightweight material that we can use for wind turbines instead of steel. It doesn’t solve everything but it is such a useful and natural product

    Log in to Reply
14. 

    @that_pac123

    January 10, 2024 at 2:57 pm

    the graphic for net-zero carbon emissions gives me queef vibes

    Log in to Reply
15. 

    @leahkelly-vogel7863

    January 10, 2024 at 2:57 pm

    Surely the fact that the Brexit Party barely talk about climate change in their manifesto automatically makes them the least green party? It's not on their agenda and they're not interested in having those conversations. And I'm pretty sure UKIP's manifesto blamed global warming on immigration when Farage was in power.

    Log in to Reply
16. 

    @colinmunro3158

    January 10, 2024 at 2:57 pm

    Political parties don’t usually meet their election promises. At least not in terms of the scale and timeframe promised. However, campaign promises usually do a good job of telling the populace where a party’s priorities lie. A party usually devotes more resources to issues related to their campaign promises than they do to issues that are not. Thus, it’s unreasonable to expect any party to meet their initial targets. However, it is a reasonable assumption that the parties with more ambitious environmental targets will get the UK to net zero carbon emissions sooner than those with less ambitious targets.

    Log in to Reply
17. 

    @Welgeldiguniekalias

    January 10, 2024 at 2:57 pm

    Long-term goals are completely and utterly irrelevant in politics. By 2050, all the high level politicians who made promises today will have retired, and nobody will ever be held accountable. It is much more important politically what they are going to do over the next five years. That way at least voters can see if the government delivered on their promises and take that into account in the next elections.

    Log in to Reply
18. 

    @sebastiaanvandeursen3665

    January 10, 2024 at 2:57 pm

    I really like that you try to look at things from multiple perspectives, but calling the Lib dem's and Conservatives' approach more realistic is simply wrong.

    Log in to Reply
19. 

    @charliechallis113

    January 10, 2024 at 2:57 pm

    How is climate change going to destroy the planet and kill us all when 3000 years ago in ancient Egypt the world was much hotter then it is now 90% of greenhouse gasses are natural human contribution is 2% ???

    Log in to Reply
20. 

    @geraldmerkowitz4360

    January 10, 2024 at 2:57 pm

    It's nice to see how much the british seem to care about environmental issues. Meanwhile in France, we still kill each other over nutella during Black Friday sales.

    Log in to Reply
21. 

    @earthman6700

    January 10, 2024 at 2:57 pm

    To achieve anything like the IPCC'S 'Must do' requirements will require huge changes. There will not be the political will to make changes that will be distasteful to most people, or to dramatically reduce the revenue the Treasury gets from fuel taxation. This taxation issue will be a big problem for the government.

    Log in to Reply
22. 

    @williamfrancis5367

    January 10, 2024 at 2:57 pm

    For the more achievable targets it depends on what you plan on doing in the interim, prevent neglect. The lib dem policy of has two interim targets of a 75% reduction in Co2 emissions from 1990 levels and a 93% reduction by 2040 ( the current target put forth by the SNP, and was supposed to be the deadline proposed by the green lib dems group, but got narrowly voted down at conference). The end date is not as important as what can be done before deadline.

    Log in to Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment Login