b4mbi

But what are those targets and how are they measured? 80% reduction in carbon emissions by 2050? By a certain percentage of our energy needs provided through renewable sources? What energy? Just electricity? What are the baseline measurements? How is carbon emission defined? He's absolutely right in one thing though. How are these renewable energy sources financed? If we accept that government must fund them are we prepared for significant tax increases? 5 x 6 MW windmills off Aberdeen cost £190m, and l'd guess we'd need roughly twice that many to power the Island by 80% renewables. MUA has £450m debts (only £260m of this to external bondholders though, rest is to Treasury) - The main input cost to MUA for power (electricity) generation is.... GAS, significantly cleaner energy source than coal or oil. If we have significant gas off the coast, exploitation of this resource is the ONLY viable pathway to a sustainable energy production in the medium term future. i.e. by 2050. It could have the potential to realise sufficient revenue for Government to fund these renewables and to facilitate the repayment of the MUA debt. Of course, the greens hearts are in the right place and I think most reasonable people would agree that sustainable renewable energy sources must be the future and that we must be seen to be "doing our bit" but they don't have a realistic plan about how to achieve their long term aims. Someone has to pay for it, as no-one will build these turbines for free. How has Norway got to where it is as a leader in renewables sector? By exploiting it's hydrocarbons, which has allowed it to build a massive sovereign wealth fund to fund investment in renewables. Like it or not, £££ (or lack thereof) is the main issue.

Taxpayers are NOT outlaying any money, so fail to see how the award of an exploration licence is a bad thing for the taxpayer??!! Nothing there, taxpayer loses..... nothing. Load of gas there, taxpayer wins.... and wins big through hydrocarbon tax, when they can pretty much set their own rate. Oh, and how is 95% of our electrical power currently generated? Through the Combined Cycle GAS Turbine at the power station - and where does that GAS come from? Russia? Middle East? Norway? Potentially this is a very, very, very good thing for the Island - of course provided the gas is there! And if it is, managed properly, this could be the medium term economic pathway to a fully renewable/sustainable energy economy. I.e. it provides the funding for Gov to be able to buy its own wind turbines. Got to be better to own the windmills/tidal energy generators ourselves than just lease our seabed to external operators who export all the power benefits back to UK. Full renewables owned by us, we'd control our own destiny as we wouldn't be reliant on ANY other nation state for our energy needs. A nationalists dream in fact. As if you're energy self sufficient... it's a pathway to true independence.

Yes, best we do nothing. That's how to progress. Especially by spending no taxpayers money at all.

Evidence?

dozen

They can be made of pork or beef. Even lamb sometimes. Another interesting fact is that Nasa once modified a sausage into a mini-booster stage for the space shuttle. Where do you think they get the name "banger" from? Also, sausages can be used as an extreme example of a oblate spheroid, similar to the shape of the earth. Anyone claiming the earth is burger shaped can stick it in a bun and eat it. Pin head.

Totally agree. But really is best to let sleeping dogs lie on this one. Don't understand what you'd hope to achieve with another enquiry, there's no possible upside and just more mudslinging after the events. The previous enquiry made lots of recommendations about internal checks and controls and hopefully at least some were implemented to reduce risk of something similar happening. It's easy to accuse people of wrongdoing with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight. It didn't work out, must be someone's fault. Lock people up for making bad investment decisions? Waste of time and more taxpayers money for what? It's an investment, may go well, may not. Should the island have been investing public money in films? Probably not. Should they have tried to facilitate the growth of a new industry? Probably.

Perhaps, but we still have a lot of fruit left in the bowl. Trying to illustrate the positive overall effect the film industry since 1995 has had to treasury. Clearly they weren't very good at investing in films directly, which is where the angst is. Should public money be used to invest in films? Should public money be used to try to encourage a new industry with the potential to provide jobs and new stream of economic activity? Got be better to draw a line under it and move on.

Because DoI shut the road for 26 weeks...

How odd to compare genocide with IOM Government revenue. sorry for bad link - but relevant extract from the Nov2012 FT article.. "According to a report by Oxford Economics, the consultancy commissioned by the government, the film industry brought £81m in benefits and created 2,140 full-time equivalent job years.The government has invested £170m (in 2011 prices), which has generated £85m from producers through the equity share of revenues and £375m from additional tax revenues.However, changes to value-added tax rules that put an end to the island keeping the VAT earned on cinema screenings in the UK have hit the industry hard."

Shh… £290-£26= £264

You really think the Island lost money over this?

FFS let it lie. We invested in films, lost money, but made a healthy profit from our Pinewood shares. Waste of public money & time to trawl over the same old shit again with yet another bloody report that "lessons will be learned" from. The main actor in all this film saga has passed on, and nothing can come out of it other than massive reputational and potentially financial damage. An exercise in shooting yourself in the foot, which is why understandably, no-one wants to touch another enquiry with a bargepole.

Chang? or maybe that new beer we're sponsored by "SportPesa"??

If Davidson's was still there!! It's now cafe villa. Which definitely doesn't sell Davidson's. As the new guys running it decided to source ice cream elsewhere, then Davidson's refused to supply them! At least that's what a nice A4 sheet said in there a couple of months ago!!