Greta Thunberg / Climate Change Summit (14 Viewers)

theferret

Well-Known Member
How can you not politicise climate change?

It needs a global response and agreement - that's politics.
It needs policies and legislation to make it happen - that's politics
It needs to win the hearts and minds of people and businesses to buy in to make the changes outlined in those policies with the urgency required - that's politics.

I neither worship nor hate Greta, whatever you think of her, at least shes doing something and is passionate about it. Fair play to her.

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

Much of this is right. There do need to be political solutions.

However, the issue is increasingly being politicised along left and right lines (but not traditional left/right), that is not healthy and there is so much dishonesty in the debate. Greta and that whole movement, through no fault of her own because I think she is sincere but naive and ill-advised, have set the cause back years. The rhetoric is both divisive and borderline hysterical.

People were coming around. Habits were changing, people were starting to consider electric cars, eating less meat, had woke up to the issue of plastic pollution etc. Now, all they see are people closing roads, digging up lawns, going on marches with questionable political undercurrents and being lectured and hectored almost always by wealthy middle-class elites.

Net zero by 2050. Fine, but let's be honest about what that means. It means higher taxes, higher energy bills, fewer flights and much else. This will impact on the poor far more, in which case let's lay that out and have that discussion honestly. Electric car? Fine if you live in a detached in the suburbs, but what if you live on a row of Victorian terraces, with cars double-parked on both sides and mounting the kerbs. No solution has been put forward that will enable the infrastructure to be put in place to allow for all current car owners to switch over in time. It will be the less well off who make the sacrifice and give up their car, only to be forced onto a rail network where expansion of capacity is always opposed by, you guessed it, the wealthy middle-class nimbys.

Renewable energy - again, only the wealthy can afford it. The FIT scheme was only taken up by those who pay £10,000+ for a system, all to gain access to a subsidy which over time will make them a lot of money. All paid for by a surcharge on bills paid by the rest of us. A few had solar for free, but behind that are people making a lot of money out of it.

I think of pensioners. People who have worked hard all their life. Often people with the smallest carbon footprints - no car, travel by bus, holiday in the UK, wear the sames clothes for years, don't waste food, don't spend their whole day glued to devices - I think of them watching Greta and with her 'how dare you' rants, this around the same time they were being labelled 'gammon' and the likes of Terry Christian were urging them to hurry up and die. Is it any wonder people are kicking back? A lot of this is driven by the liberal left, and they wonder why they don't win elections anymore.

Actually, we probably agree on a lot of what needs to be done. But, while I have nothing against her and accept there are some loonies on the fringes of the climate denial movement who are utterly batshit, she - and the adults who fawn over her - aren't helping. We may have passed the point of no return too - not in terms of the climate, but in terms of ever been able to build a consensus where we're all (aside from a few crazies) on the same page.
 

clint van damme

Well-Known Member
Much of this is right. There do need to be political solutions.

However, the issue is increasingly being politicised along left and right lines (but not traditional left/right), that is not healthy and there is so much dishonesty in the debate. Greta and that whole movement, through no fault of her own because I think she is sincere but naive and ill-advised, have set the cause back years. The rhetoric is both divisive and borderline hysterical.

People were coming around. Habits were changing, people were starting to consider electric cars, eating less meat, had woke up to the issue of plastic pollution etc. Now, all they see are people closing roads, digging up lawns, going on marches with questionable political undercurrents and being lectured and hectored almost always by wealthy middle-class elites.

Net zero by 2050. Fine, but let's be honest about what that means. It means higher taxes, higher energy bills, fewer flights and much else. This will impact on the poor far more, in which case let's lay that out and have that discussion honestly. Electric car? Fine if you live in a detached in the suburbs, but what if you live on a row of Victorian terraces, with cars double-parked on both sides and mounting the kerbs. No solution has been put forward that will enable the infrastructure to be put in place to allow for all current car owners to switch over in time. It will be the less well off who make the sacrifice and give up their car, only to be forced onto a rail network where expansion of capacity is always opposed by, you guessed it, the wealthy middle-class nimbys.

Renewable energy - again, only the wealthy can afford it. The FIT scheme was only taken up by those who pay £10,000+ for a system, all to gain access to a subsidy which over time will make them a lot of money. All paid for by a surcharge on bills paid by the rest of us. A few had solar for free, but behind that are people making a lot of money out of it.

I think of pensioners. People who have worked hard all their life. Often people with the smallest carbon footprints - no car, travel by bus, holiday in the UK, wear the sames clothes for years, don't waste food, don't spend their whole day glued to devices - I think of them watching Greta and with her 'how dare you' rants, this around the same time they were being labelled 'gammon' and the likes of Terry Christian were urging them to hurry up and die. Is it any wonder people are kicking back? A lot of this is driven by the liberal left, and they wonder why they don't win elections anymore.

Actually, we probably agree on a lot of what needs to be done. But, while I have nothing against her and accept there are some loonies on the fringes of the climate denial movement who are utterly batshit, she - and the adults who fawn over her - aren't helping. We may have passed the point of no return too - not in terms of the climate, but in terms of ever been able to build a consensus where we're all (aside from a few crazies) on the same page.

One of those Bashit loonies on the fringe of climate denial is POTUS
 
D

Deleted member 5849

Guest
Net zero by 2050. Fine, but let's be honest about what that means. It means higher taxes, higher energy bills, fewer flights and much else. This will impact on the poor far more, in which case let's lay that out and have that discussion honestly. Electric car? Fine if you live in a detached in the suburbs, but what if you live on a row of Victorian terraces, with cars double-parked on both sides and mounting the kerbs. No solution has been put forward that will enable the infrastructure to be put in place to allow for all current car owners to switch over in time. It will be the less well off who make the sacrifice and give up their car, only to be forced onto a rail network where expansion of capacity is always opposed
This I fully agree with. There are many solutions that might work at present levels, too, but won't work if scaled up. We need to ask how that scaling can happen. I'm still not convinced electric is ultimately helpful as a solution, anyway (again, scaling seems... challenging, and do we now need to consider nuclear as 'clean'?!?) so it needs to be discussed.

That being said, I do disagree with you about perceptions and change. It seems the agenda is far more at the forefront at the moment, and that can arguably be because people have brought it there. Leave it to trump, and it wouldn't be.
 

wingy

Well-Known Member
This I fully agree with. There are many solutions that might work at present levels, too, but won't work if scaled up. We need to ask how that scaling can happen. I'm still not convinced electric is ultimately helpful as a solution, anyway (again, scaling seems... challenging, and do we now need to consider nuclear as 'clean'?!?) so it needs to be discussed.

That being said, I do disagree with you about perceptions and change. It seems the agenda is far more at the forefront at the moment, and that can arguably be because people have brought it there. Leave it to trump, and it wouldn't be.
Why does it all revolve around taxes?
Why not allocations/rationing?
Anyone under their limit free to trade with those who wish to exceed their own .
 

Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Well-Known Member
Why does it all revolve around taxes?
Why not allocations/rationing?
Anyone under their limit free to trade with those who wish to exceed their own .

And how would you keep track of every single person's CO2 output? Everyone would have to declare every single trip, how they took it, what they ate/drank etc. It'd have to be a police state.
 

Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Well-Known Member
It's all recorded now, somewhere.
Pull that together?

My doctor and the hospital can't get the right data on me despite using the same system. We can't get a system that brings together all the different departments for us. We spent billions on a computer system that didn't work. You think we could get a system that sorted out every single aspect of a persons carbon footprint? And even if you did, do you think it's something worth spending billions of pounds on when there a much cheaper alternatives for taxation and/or incentivising?
 

Marty

Well-Known Member
I truly believe that we need change, even if you don't believe that climate change is happening, wouldn't you rather live in a place with less pollution. We need to live cleaner lives, even if it's just to save the planets finite resources.
 

djr8369

Well-Known Member
I think of pensioners. People who have worked hard all their life. Often people with the smallest carbon footprints - no car, travel by bus, holiday in the UK, wear the sames clothes for years, don't waste food, don't spend their whole day glued to devices - I think of them watching Greta and with her 'how dare you' rants, this around the same time they were being labelled 'gammon' and the likes of Terry Christian were urging them to hurry up and die. Is it any wonder people are kicking back? A lot of this is driven by the liberal left, and they wonder why they don't win elections anymore.
.

Some of this generation have spent years droning on about “millennials” and “snowflakes” and putting every ill of the world on the young so they, and you, have got some cheek to suddenly claim they’re being divisive.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Brighton Sky Blue

Well-Known Member
Much of this is right. There do need to be political solutions.

However, the issue is increasingly being politicised along left and right lines (but not traditional left/right), that is not healthy and there is so much dishonesty in the debate. Greta and that whole movement, through no fault of her own because I think she is sincere but naive and ill-advised, have set the cause back years. The rhetoric is both divisive and borderline hysterical.

People were coming around. Habits were changing, people were starting to consider electric cars, eating less meat, had woke up to the issue of plastic pollution etc. Now, all they see are people closing roads, digging up lawns, going on marches with questionable political undercurrents and being lectured and hectored almost always by wealthy middle-class elites.

Net zero by 2050. Fine, but let's be honest about what that means. It means higher taxes, higher energy bills, fewer flights and much else. This will impact on the poor far more, in which case let's lay that out and have that discussion honestly. Electric car? Fine if you live in a detached in the suburbs, but what if you live on a row of Victorian terraces, with cars double-parked on both sides and mounting the kerbs. No solution has been put forward that will enable the infrastructure to be put in place to allow for all current car owners to switch over in time. It will be the less well off who make the sacrifice and give up their car, only to be forced onto a rail network where expansion of capacity is always opposed by, you guessed it, the wealthy middle-class nimbys.

Renewable energy - again, only the wealthy can afford it. The FIT scheme was only taken up by those who pay £10,000+ for a system, all to gain access to a subsidy which over time will make them a lot of money. All paid for by a surcharge on bills paid by the rest of us. A few had solar for free, but behind that are people making a lot of money out of it.

I think of pensioners. People who have worked hard all their life. Often people with the smallest carbon footprints - no car, travel by bus, holiday in the UK, wear the sames clothes for years, don't waste food, don't spend their whole day glued to devices - I think of them watching Greta and with her 'how dare you' rants, this around the same time they were being labelled 'gammon' and the likes of Terry Christian were urging them to hurry up and die. Is it any wonder people are kicking back? A lot of this is driven by the liberal left, and they wonder why they don't win elections anymore.

Actually, we probably agree on a lot of what needs to be done. But, while I have nothing against her and accept there are some loonies on the fringes of the climate denial movement who are utterly batshit, she - and the adults who fawn over her - aren't helping. We may have passed the point of no return too - not in terms of the climate, but in terms of ever been able to build a consensus where we're all (aside from a few crazies) on the same page.

If the working class stopped voting against their own self interest at each election perhaps some of these practical issues would have been solved.
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
If the working class stopped voting against their own self interest at each election perhaps some of these practical issues would have been solved.

Says the privately educated middle class spokesman on behalf of people he thinks can’t speak for themselves
 

Brighton Sky Blue

Well-Known Member
Says the privately educated middle class spokesman on behalf of people he thinks can’t speak for themselves

The Tories have been given a bumper majority thanks to constituencies they have shat on for decades. Truth hurts dude
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
The Tories have been given a bumper majority thanks to constituencies they have shat on for decades. Truth hurts dude

Oh it really does and those people have seen the light - when will you?
 

Houchens Head

Fairly well known member from Malvern
Greta Thunberg spoke about the world being on fire.
From Bristol. While wearing a raincoat, during storm Jorge. :emoji_grin:
 

Paxman II

Well-Known Member
bsb I'm mnot going to get into this whole debate as its just too time consuming for me but yes co2 absorbs heat but the earth is lacking in co2.
We all have opinions and there are scare tactics and you could say follow the money.
But if you have 15 minutes check out this video, it certainly questions the crazy agenda of Greta and her supporters with some actual factual science.
 

CCFCSteve

Well-Known Member
Fair play for Greta/ER to have focussed people’s minds more (although I do think a lot of people and even the government were already taking certain steps), however, I’m not quite sure what their aims are from future protests ? Surely they could/should try to focus on a clear message(s) for each march/protest to try to get the public to change their habits ie stop buying bottled water (use reuseable water bottles) and other single use plastic packaging, reducing car use and walk shorter journeys, encourage using energy suppliers renewable energy tariffs (if possible/affordable), only boiling kettle with water needed, having a couple of family meat free days etc etc. All simple and relatively easy things that everyone could be doing (at least more of) but many may not even consider some of them.

As has been said earlier in the thread governments have a role to play but most steps they take will lead to higher taxes or increased prices of certain goods, so I can’t see ours doing more than has already been promised because of more protests. Therefore surely to maximise future marches/protest effectiveness they need to try to change the public’s habits with clear messages and provide details of the positive impact that each of these steps could have.
 

Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Well-Known Member
Fair play for Greta/ER to have focussed people’s minds more (although I do think a lot of people and even the government were already taking certain steps), however, I’m not quite sure what their aims are from future protests ? Surely they could/should try to focus on a clear message(s) for each march/protest to try to get the public to change their habits ie stop buying bottled water (use reuseable water bottles) and other single use plastic packaging, reducing car use and walk shorter journeys, encourage using energy suppliers renewable energy tariffs (if possible/affordable), only boiling kettle with water needed, having a couple of family meat free days etc etc. All simple and relatively easy things that everyone could be doing (at least more of) but many may not even consider some of them.

As has been said earlier in the thread governments have a role to play but most steps they take will lead to higher taxes or increased prices of certain goods, so I can’t see ours doing more than has already been promised because of more protests. Therefore surely to maximise future marches/protest effectiveness they need to try to change the public’s habits with clear messages and provide details of the positive impact that each of these steps could have.

I agree that they need to spend more time focusing on solutions that just protests.

Of course when you start telling people what to do they don't tend to like it. It's not like we've not heard these things from others before (inc. the governments they criticise so much). Whether they'd have enough goodwill to do it more effectively I don't know but I expect not - a lot of it just seems to " get angry" and just be a pain in the arse - some of the stuff they've done hasn't had any coherent environmental thinking behind it.
 

Brighton Sky Blue

Well-Known Member
bsb I'm mnot going to get into this whole debate as its just too time consuming for me but yes co2 absorbs heat but the earth is lacking in co2.
We all have opinions and there are scare tactics and you could say follow the money.
But if you have 15 minutes check out this video, it certainly questions the crazy agenda of Greta and her supporters with some actual factual science.


I have a Masters in factual science to be fair
 

Houchens Head

Fairly well known member from Malvern
bsb I'm mnot going to get into this whole debate as its just too time consuming for me but yes co2 absorbs heat but the earth is lacking in co2.
We all have opinions and there are scare tactics and you could say follow the money.
But if you have 15 minutes check out this video, it certainly questions the crazy agenda of Greta and her supporters with some actual factual science.

Brilliant! Seriously thinking about getting his book!
 

djr8369

Well-Known Member
bsb I'm mnot going to get into this whole debate as its just too time consuming for me but yes co2 absorbs heat but the earth is lacking in co2.
We all have opinions and there are scare tactics and you could say follow the money.
But if you have 15 minutes check out this video, it certainly questions the crazy agenda of Greta and her supporters with some actual factual science.


This guy has been outed as a paid propagandist loads of times. I would look at some of the actual science. I skimmed through the video anyway but didn’t hear anything of merit. Was there actually anything in it to back up your claim that “the earth is lacking CO2”?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Paxman II

Well-Known Member
This guy has been outed as a paid propagandist loads of times. I would look at some of the actual science. I skimmed through the video anyway but didn’t hear anything of merit. Was there actually anything in it to back up your claim that “the earth is lacking CO2”?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Thats just an overview. He has many videos if you care to find out where he demonstrates the factual science which has never been disputed. He has not been outed and is not a paid propagandist as you claim.
 

jimmyhillsfanclub

Well-Known Member
Thats just an overview. He has many videos if you care to find out where he demonstrates the factual science which has never been disputed. He has not been outed and is not a paid propagandist as you claim.

According to Greenpeace, he has massively exploited his early involvement with them to now become a mouthpiece for many polluting industries & a key lobbyist for climate change denial.

According to DeSmog the bloke has even lied about his qualifications.

...Just cos he calls himself doctor & wears tie on youtube, don't mean its true dude...
 

Brighton Sky Blue

Well-Known Member
Thats just an overview. He has many videos if you care to find out where he demonstrates the factual science which has never been disputed. He has not been outed and is not a paid propagandist as you claim.

Do direct me to the videos and papers he’s authored on the subject. Frankly at this stage in the game for this to be even debatable is a joke
 

Paxman II

Well-Known Member
Do direct me to the videos and papers he’s authored on the subject. Frankly at this stage in the game for this to be even debatable is a joke
Oh boy there are many you can find easily. I'm not hear to debate it with anyone, only to say where I stand.
But here's one such video to get you started.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top