Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Bearing in mind the fate of Nicholas the II, why do politicians appoint troubleshooting " Tsars"?

tim

tim

EXPLODED TIM! (Help me!!!)
Tsars even before the Russian revolution, never got a good press, so why is the title used for dubiously qualified mates of politicians appointed to deal with difficult issues? The "Fracking Tsar", failed Labour politician Natasha Engel, is so fracked off that's she's just resigned. But she's not the first I remember Louise Casey being Tsar of all the Homeless and romanoffing the role up.

I can't think of any successful Tsars.

Fracking tsar quits after six months and blames eco activists
 
Indeed. Also a type of ruse: here, this person has "special" powers, by dint of which the rest of us are pretty harmless, no?
 
It is a sad loss - nothing shows government honestly and competently overseeing an area of industry more than that government paying someone a fortune from the public purse to parrot that industry's arguments and having to be criticised by that someone because government didn't do what the industry wanted.

I especially liked her claim that only a small minority of residents were opposed to fracking in their area, which is a remarkable thing to say given reality anyway but even more so when she was actually booted out of the Commons over this. Also she should be congratulated for revealing this in an exclusive interview with the Mail on Sunday.
 
Miss Engel said: "This amounts to a de facto ban. The paralysis we are seeing in Parliament (on fracking policy) is made worse by social media and a powerful environmental lobby making impossible demands on CO2 emissions."

The government said it wanted to support fracking because gas produces fewer carbon emissions than coal.
Click to expand...
Fracking tsar resigns after six months
Q4 2018 we used 4.8TWh of coal for our electricity generation, while wind and solar generated 20.7 TWh, nuclear 13.21TWh, gas generated 32.8TWh. Source.
We do not need "fracking" to reduce our coal use. We barely use any anymore.
More over what almost everyone get wrong about fracking (because its too much like hard to work to read) is that it has caused a significant reduction in US greenhouse gas emissions due to its displacement of coal with gas, but this has been to a large degree offset by its creating about 5 million barrels a day of oil. While you do get some wells that are mostly dry and produce mostly gas, large portions of the fields are mixed in that they produce both gas and liquid fractions while other parts of the fields produce mostly liquid fractions that are blended into oil and petroleum. Gas may be very useful in reducing CO2 emissions from a coal dominant power sector but given an estimated 312kg CO2 per barrel of oil (due to energy inputs its significantly higher for fracked oil so that is a minimum of about 1.56 million tonnes CO2 a day from US oil fracking.

If the whiney English reduce the heavy regulatory burden on onshore wind, the economic case for fracking for gs would be very dubious.

Still something something its called a Czar so psychopaths something something.
 
Tsars seem a failure, I reckon they should start appointing moguls or magnates instead, give them a try.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

chilango
Attacking politicians? Unpicking the ethical dimensions.
2 3 4
Replies
106
Views
3K
hitmouse
hitmouse
R
Oceangate's Titan. The Bayesian yacht. Why do the deaths of rich people matter more than poor people?
5 6 7 8 9
Replies
248
Views
9K
ghost boy
ghost boy
N
Why do right-wing populists succeed?
2
Replies
45
Views
2K
nightowl
N
ska invita
  • Poll
Do you support the UK increase in the military budget?
4 5 6 7 8
Replies
211
Views
7K
weltweit
weltweit
mojo pixy
Immigration to the UK - do you have concerns?
75 76 77 78 79
Replies
2K
Views
73K
danny la rouge
danny la rouge
Back
Top Bottom